Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Against Vaccine-Autism Claims Again
barnyjr writes "According to a story from Reuters, 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children's illness. The special US Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family's quest for reimbursement. ... While the state court determined the autism was vaccine-related, [Special Master George] Hastings said overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise. The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'"
This won't stop the paranoid from preventing their children from being immunized because some of these same people have interesting theories about how the vaccines are deliberately nefarious in other ways (going as far on out there as mind control, etc). These people and their little theory have done more to damage public health in a short amount of time than a lot of other things...
The use of vaccines is a public health necessity; vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.
There have always been controversies about vaccines: there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment, and significant benefit to the population as a whole. As a single individual, you remove the (very small) risk by not having the vaccine, and you gain most all of the benefits if most everyone else around you has been vaccinated.
Spreading fear and misinformation about the safety of vaccines can cause direct, measurable and irreversible harm. Measuring the connection between a medical treatment and possible harmful effects is something drug companies can do very well, and the FDA approvals process (when it works) keeps the companies honest. We have solid, irrefutable and repeatable scientific evidence that shows vaccines do not cause these diseases, like autism.
The best article covering this was in the Bad Astronomy blog from Discover, aptly titled Antivax Kills.
...because Jenny McCarthy can't read.
The parents shouldn't be given enough money to become rich but, in the case that the vaccines did cause the child to be autistic, they should be given money to assist with treating their child's autism.
Sent from my iPhone 5
If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.
In the US there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to handle precisely this sort of thing. Some people genuinely are harmed by those well-intended vaccines. They do help out everybody (herd immunity), and everybody pays into the compensation fund, to the tune of 75 cents per shot.
Clearly, that's a tempting pile of money, and desperate parents of autistic children are willing to ignore the data that says quite clearly that there's no connection in order to get to it.
Let me be crystal clear about this, vaccines do not cause autism nor is there any decent study that is statistically and/or scientifically valid which shows such a provable correlation.
And we're running studies of autism here, led by one of my colleagues who has an autistic child herself.
You really need to move on.
The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism. It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.
Please, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks.
Yes, let's look at them.
Odds of dying of cervical cancer: 500 to 1.
Odds of dying from the HPV vaccine: 145,000 to 1.
Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades,
People are just as corrupt as they ever have been. If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid. Go pick up a history book. The methods (sort of) change but people don't.
It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays. That would likely flush out 80% of the crap clogging the system today.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Because it sounds vaguely logical? Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others. It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt. Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is. I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it isn't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.
Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system, stop the ridiculous "war on drugs" - at least the portion related to user and possession charges. The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations. The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts.
You are required in all US states to provide your child with an education that meets state guidelines. This is usually done via public and private schools, but some choose to home-school their children. In some states, home schooling is allowed only by persons with teaching credentials, meaning that parents must get such credentials if they wish to be their child's teacher, or hire a tutor.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
That is for everybody's safety. Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out (at least in countries that do immunizations) by immunizing? Sorry, but it is not a right for your child to go to a certain school. If you want to go to a specific school, you must adhere by their rules. I am sure there has to be some alternative schools out there that don't have immunization requirements. You can always home school your child if you really don't want to give them immunization shots as well. But acting like your rights have been violated because you have a medically unproven opinion about immunization, and pretending that public schooling is required by law (it isn't), is dishonest. What about the rights of the other hundreds or thousands of children at the school - the ones that have parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing, and who do adhere to the rules? What if you applied the same logic to another scenario? What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Have you ever stopped to wonder why polio is so uncommon in the US? Yep, vaccines.
We are currently seeing a resurgent of measles cases in kids BECAUSE parents are not vaccinating their children due to concerns for vaccines causing autism. This will happen with polio as well. You assume a steady state of population in the US (or other country) without influx of unvaccinated, exposed people.
You fail to realize that not every vaccine works as a post-exposure prophylaxis. There are some that do and some that don't. I don't recall if polio is one of them, but a quick pubmed search could probably find out.
Modern medicine is a field of balanced risks. Every medication I prescribe for a patient has a potential to cause harm. I and the patient have to balance this risk versus the risk of not treating the disease. Absolutely no treatment in medicine is "safe". For most, the benefit outweighs the risk. Even supplemental oxygen can be disastrous in a patient with lung disease.