Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 It warms my heart to see Mr.Offit is maintaining his consistency. I read his book on vaccines, and his wonderful mystery novel, "The Cutter Incident". In each one he blames the problems with vaccines on the lawyers. The trial lawyers are the reason for autism, for high costs, and for the few companies willing to participate in the vaccine industry, in spite of the billions in mandated sales and projected double digit growth for decades to come.. He's also been consistent in calling educated parents a major threat to the National Vaccine Program and calling for a repeal of the bill of rights. Other than that, he sounds so sincere. Harry H. Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Remember what Kirby wrote about this: Doctors from HHS decided to compensate, THIS WAS MEDICAL DECISION - NOT A LEGAL DECISION. Offit is WRONG. > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > From today's NY Times > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > What happened? > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically. > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. Subsequent > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder — her cells are > unable to adequately process nutrients — and this contributed to her > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > children, vaccines are not known to. > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading expert > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from > vaccines. > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > overcompensation — a relief valve that is needed in a society that > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed claims > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can spill > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more personal- > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, a > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > vaccine injury claims. > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 -Off his rocker is right. He is a screw ball.- - In EOHarm , " chapdoggy " <chris@...> wrote: > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > From today's NY Times > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > What happened? > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically. > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. Subsequent > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder — her cells are > unable to adequately process nutrients — and this contributed to her > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > children, vaccines are not known to. > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading expert > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from > vaccines. > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > overcompensation — a relief valve that is needed in a society that > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed claims > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can spill > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more personal- > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, a > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > vaccine injury claims. > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I'm confused... are you actually expecting Offit to write something that makes sense? soon his career will TANK and he'll be on the streets with a little sign: " Will poison kids for food " Ugh. > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > From today's NY Times > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > What happened? > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically. > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. Subsequent > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder — her cells are > unable to adequately process nutrients — and this contributed to her > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > children, vaccines are not known to. > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading expert > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from > vaccines. > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > overcompensation — a relief valve that is needed in a society that > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed claims > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can spill > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more personal- > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, a > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > vaccine injury claims. > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Funny how he never correctly cites DR.Poling’s credentials. He just leads the reader to believe the Polings are just another set of ignorant, foolish parents putting the nation’s children at risk by pointing the finger at vaccines. Becky Off(it) his rocker I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. From today's NY Times ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. What happened? The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically. The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. Subsequent tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder — her cells are unable to adequately process nutrients — and this contributed to her autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in children, vaccines are not known to. " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading expert on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from vaccines. Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue reasonably that the program should err on the side of overcompensation — a relief valve that is needed in a society that mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed claims to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can spill into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more personal- injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, a Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with vaccine injury claims. The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the Poling decision has only hurt them. A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 No mention of his monetary involvement with vaccines in his bio either. Or that his Rotovirus vaccine had so many problems. > > Funny how he never correctly cites DR.Poling's credentials. He just > leads the reader to believe the Polings are just another set of > ignorant, foolish parents putting the nation's children at risk by > pointing the finger at vaccines. > > > > Becky > > > > > > > > Off(it) his rocker > > > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > From today's NY Times > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > What happened? > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically. > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm - > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. Subsequent > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder - her cells are > unable to adequately process nutrients - and this contributed to her > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > children, vaccines are not known to. > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading expert > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from > vaccines. > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > overcompensation - a relief valve that is needed in a society that > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed claims > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can spill > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more personal- > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, a > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > vaccine injury claims. > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 " On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do not overwhelm or weaken the immune system " . Hello... it's Dr. PrOffit's opinion which makes no sense. This is a guy who claims that babies could safely receive 10,000 vaccines at one time. Please... What a moron! > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > From today's NY Times > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and announced > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials at > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims court, > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > What happened? > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. The > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for example, > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell drastically. > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause harm — > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her brain > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate multiple > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, elevating > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. Subsequent > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder — her cells are > unable to adequately process nutrients — and this contributed to her > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible. > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > children, vaccines are not known to. > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading expert > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from > vaccines. > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > overcompensation — a relief valve that is needed in a society that > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed claims > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can spill > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more personal- > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, a > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > vaccine injury claims. > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Hey, if you're in the club (vaccine industry) you can say and DO anything you want... introduce any kind of legislation to help you line your pockets... make up your own " science " and never have to cite any credible references... It's a sweet business to be in, really. There's nobody watchdogging what they put into vaccines... and there's no oversight that isn't financially tied to the industry. Fortunately, since they screwed the pooch so BADLY and so COMPLETELY... hurting so many people... their world is crashing down around them and we should be able to see a complete overhaul of the entire system in the next ten years. > > > > Funny how he never correctly cites DR.Poling's credentials. He just > > leads the reader to believe the Polings are just another set of > > ignorant, foolish parents putting the nation's children at risk by > > pointing the finger at vaccines. > > > > > > > > Becky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Off(it) his rocker > > > > > > > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > > > From today's NY Times > > > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and > announced > > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials > at > > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims > court, > > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > > What happened? > > > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where > the > > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. > The > > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for > example, > > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause > intestinal > > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor > and > > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell > drastically. > > > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause > harm - > > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her > brain > > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate > multiple > > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, > elevating > > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 > months > > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. > Subsequent > > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder - her cells > are > > unable to adequately process nutrients - and this contributed to > her > > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already > weakened > > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically > plausible. > > > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five > vaccines > > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's > immune > > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines > do > > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > > children, vaccines are not known to. > > > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading > expert > > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who > are > > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit > from > > vaccines. > > > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > > overcompensation - a relief valve that is needed in a society that > > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed > claims > > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can > spill > > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more > personal- > > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, > a > > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > > vaccine injury claims. > > > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of-evidence > > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 " ...we should be able to see a complete overhaul of the entire system in the next ten years. " We should make that 2 years, at the most. I liken the fate of the vaccine program to the impact of global warming on Antarctica. The last I heard, there was this huge ice shelf that was breaking off, hanging in there I believe by a very thin thread. Gayatri > > > > > > Funny how he never correctly cites DR.Poling's credentials. He just > > > leads the reader to believe the Polings are just another set of > > > ignorant, foolish parents putting the nation's children at risk by > > > pointing the finger at vaccines. > > > > > > > > > > > > Becky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Off(it) his rocker > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't even see how this makes sense - the judges didn't get to > > > decide on this case due to concession if I remember correctly. > > > > > > From today's NY Times > > > > > > ON March 6, Terry and Jon Poling stood outside a federal courthouse > > > in Atlanta, Ga., with their 9-year-old daughter Hannah and > > announced > > > that the federal government had admitted that vaccines had > > > contributed to her autism. The news was shocking. Health officials > > at > > > the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the American > > > Academy of Pediatrics have steadfastly assured the public that > > > vaccines do not cause autism. Now, in a special vaccine claims > > court, > > > the federal government appeared to have said exactly the opposite. > > > What happened? > > > > > > The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where > > the > > > Poling case was heard. In 1986, after a flood of lawsuits against > > > vaccine makers threatened the manufacture of vaccines for children, > > > Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, > > > financed by a tax on every dose of vaccine. > > > > > > As part of the program, a group of scientists, doctors and lawyers > > > listed all the health problems that might be linked to vaccines. > > The > > > oral polio vaccine could in rare cases cause paralysis, for > > example, > > > and an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause > > intestinal > > > blockage. (In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co- inventor > > and > > > co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.) > > > > > > If, at a trial in a special court, a preponderance of scientific > > > evidence suggested that a vaccine caused one of these problems, a > > > family would be compensated quickly, generously and fairly. Because > > > no one could sue vaccine makers without going through this special > > > court, the number of lawsuits against vaccine makers fell > > drastically. > > > > > > The system worked fine until a few years ago, when vaccine court > > > judges turned their back on science by dropping preponderance of > > > evidence as a standard. Now, petitioners need merely propose a > > > biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine might cause > > harm - > > > even if their explanation contradicts published studies. In 2006, > > > for example, Dorothy Werderitsh claimed in the vaccine court that a > > > hepatitis B vaccine had triggered an autoimmune response in her > > brain > > > that led to multiple sclerosis. Two large studies had clearly shown > > > that hepatitis B vaccine could neither cause nor exacerbate > > multiple > > > sclerosis, but the court ruled in favor of Ms. Werderitsh, > > elevating > > > a hypothesis above epidemiological evidence. > > > > > > The Hannah Poling case is similar. In 2000, when Hannah was 19 > > months > > > old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. Over > > > the next several months, she developed symptoms of autism. > > Subsequent > > > tests showed that Hannah has a mitochondrial disorder - her cells > > are > > > unable to adequately process nutrients - and this contributed to > > her > > > autism. An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf > > > claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already > > weakened > > > cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the > > > matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically > > plausible. > > > > > > On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five > > vaccines > > > at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's > > immune > > > system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines > > do > > > not overwhelm or weaken the immune system. And although natural > > > infections can worsen symptoms of chronic neurological illnesses in > > > children, vaccines are not known to. > > > > > > " There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme > > > deficiencies are worsened by vaccines, " Salvatore DiMauro, a > > > professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation's leading > > expert > > > on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who > > are > > > especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit > > from > > > vaccines. > > > > > > Supporters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argue > > > reasonably that the program should err on the side of > > > overcompensation - a relief valve that is needed in a society that > > > mandates vaccines. But there is a price for this largesse. In the > > > past few years, parents of 4,800 autistic children have filed > > claims > > > to the vaccine court which have yet to be heard. And average awards > > > in other recent vaccine cases have been more than $800,000. > > > Furthermore, because uncompensated claims in vaccine court can > > spill > > > into state courts, the Poling decision will likely draw more > > personal- > > > injury lawyers to the fray. " It's a beginning, " said Conway, > > a > > > Boston-based lawyer who represents more than 1,200 families with > > > vaccine injury claims. > > > > > > The vaccine court should return to the preponderance-of- evidence > > > standard. But much damage has already been done by the Poling > > > decision. Parents may now worry about vaccinating their children, > > > more autism research money may be steered toward vaccines and away > > > from more promising leads and, if similar awards are made in state > > > courts, pharmaceutical companies may abandon vaccines for American > > > children. In the name of trying to help children with autism, the > > > Poling decision has only hurt them. > > > > > > A. Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of the > > > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is the author of " Vaccinated: > > > One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases. " > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I think I would take sick pleasure out of administering 10,000 vaccine jabs to Dr. prOffit. Then again... It would get freaky after about 10 or 20 vaccines when he would start going into convulsions from adverse reactions... and suffering severe brain damage and lesions in his intestines... I can't imagine a human being wanting to subject that on another human being on ANY level. But if anyone DESERVES it.... it's him and his girlfriend, Gerberding. They're so smug and they callously disregard what has happened... and still happens. Like I said before... they'd both look great in prison-orange jumpsuits... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I always quote 10,000 vaccines because that is what I read from this article: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=VACINE.CHP " Current research shows that young infants are fully capable of generating protective immune responses to multiple vaccines given simultaneously. " Our analysis shows that infants have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once. Currently, the most vaccines that children receive at one time is five, " says Dr. Offit. " Using this estimate, we could predict that even if all 11 of the routinely recommended vaccinations were given to infants at one time, only about .01 percent of the immune system would be used. " The guy is so crazy that perhaps he used 100,000 vaccines at another time... Afterall, I'm sure that an added 90,000 vaccines couldn't hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Re: Off(it) his rocker Posted by: " celiacdaughter " suemisiaszek@... celiacdaughter Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:09 am (PDT) " On its face, the expert's opinion makes no sense. Even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune system. The Institute of Medicine has found that multiple vaccines do not overwhelm or weaken the immune system " . Ah yes, but it was just determined that adding just one more antigen to three already existing in a shot more than doubled the number of children who had seizures as a result, some of whom go on to develop lifetime epilepsy. In fact, the ACIP just changed its recommendation against using the MMRV in favor of the MMR and V as a stand along. Funny how the people who are employed as talking heads to push vaccinology never get called on their falsehoods. Let's see, the Gerbil deliberately misleads the reporters about vaccine danger to infants, no one pushes the issue, thousands of children potentially harmed by her misleading statements. Billary deliberately misleads the reporters about danger she didn't face visiting Bosnia, reporters rush to the internet, glean 1300 news accounts from the time, find she mispoke, immediately gats called on her falsehood, causing her to admit she told a fib, no infants were ever at risk because of her misleading statements. Moral of the story, either get Billary appointed head of the CDC so the press will actually think about what is being said, or else simply set up a lottery system for infants and sacrifice a few openly to the gods to ensure the survival of the herd. ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost. http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text4.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.