Slashdot Mirror


Family To Receive $1.5M+ In Vaccine-Autism Award

An anonymous reader, quoting from CBS News, writes "'The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million for her life care, lost earnings, and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime. ... In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't 'cause' her autism, but 'resulted' in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorders. All other autism 'test cases' have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.' How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?"

594 comments

  1. What? by Ssherby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it April Fools day already?

    --
    You keep using that word.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.
    1. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent was modded troll, but sadly he has a point. The only research linking MMR vaccines to Autism (or Autistic-like symptoms) was proven a fake, while countless studies have shown that there is no link (correction: no link was shown. I know the difference). Yet, now we have the government admiting that the vaccine resulted in what happened to the girl.
      The girl had a mithochondrial disease. Although unspecified, many of them cause encephalopathy that can be aggrevated due to many causes. If she had not been given the vaccine, the same would have happened a week/month/a few month later due to the common cold/gatroenteritis/ear infection/ whatever. To say that without the vaccine she would have been fine to this day is naive at best and deceptive at worst.

      So yes, it sounds like a bad April Fools story. Sadly enough, it ain't.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    2. Re:What? by Ssherby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thanks for the vindication.

      But unfortunately a few anti-vaccine Nazi types with mod points burning holes in their pockets came tearing through this comment thread not long after I posted that.

      When I first read this and I thought almost immediately about April Fools stories on /. primarily because an estimated 20 million award seems punitive and excessively so. And who is being punished here? You and I and everyone else who had nothing to do with this.

      While I feel sorry for this girl and her family, it is not my fault this happened. And I cannot see how providing care for this girl could possibly cost this kind of money. It would have made more sense to have a reasonable pain and suffering award up front, plus some reasonable standard of living allowance annually, plus the government picking up the tab on all related medical costs. Somehow I doubt the total of which would come anywhere near 20 million

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
    3. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sorry to be unsupportive, but only you are punished for this. I'm from Israel, we have our own different fuckups :)

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    4. Re:What? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hare dare you question Jenny McCarthy! She has been a playboy model **AND** squirted out a child, so she is clearly far more qualified in the field of science, research, and analysis than any of us!

    5. Re:What? by selven · · Score: 1

      And $20 million is more than courts normally award even in the event of a death.

    6. Re:What? by oliverthered · · Score: 0

      The don't mention her symptoms fully enough or how they applied the diagnosis criteria to say if it is 'autism' or something that is currently indistinguishable from it at this time given current symptomatic diagnosis processes for autism (if it ain't noting else it's autism seems to be the current UK way.)

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    7. Re:What? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lawyers have to be paid...it's all part of "medical expenses".

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Death is far cheaper than ongoing survival, and illness is horribly expensive.

    9. Re:What? by aurispector · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The current "jackpot jury" system is sot irrevocably broken it's not even remotely funny. As a "health care provider" constantly staring at the business end of lawsuits it's clear to me that serious reform is necessary. Monetary awards merely increase costs without addressing quality of care issues.

      As it stands, medical experts duel in front of a layman's jury. The jury isn't qualified to evaluate the data presented and inevitably comes to ridiculous conclusions. All malpractice/medical injury claims should be decided by a committee of practicing doctors to decide if there was actually malpractice. Decision could include requirements for additional training, suspension or revocation of license. After all, the goal ought to be to improve the quality of care given to the public.

      The only ones winning now are the lawyers who make a business of malpractice cases.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods, there is a difference between sarcasm and trolling.

    11. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, there is. Troll gets modded -1 Troll for a good reason, while sarcasm gets modded -1 Troll without one.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    12. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My nephew is autistic and I can assure you the award here is FAR more than care will/would cost. Providing the family with 20% or less of that award and forcing $16M into additional research would be much more beneficial to the public good, would it not?

      But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    13. Re:What? by m.ducharme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the problem, I don't think your solution - to have doctors police themselves in malpractice claims - is a very just one. Doctors on a committee have a lot of self-interest in seeing that fewer malpractice awards get handed out, whether deserved or not. Besides, don't the professional colleges already regulate doctors, and mete out penalties including training, suspension or revocation of licenses? None of these things provide any remedy to the person who's been injured by a doctor's negligence.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    14. Re:What? by Dan541 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That Girls family are despicable human beings. Not only do they exploit their daughter to obtain a fraudulent income but that money is no longer available for research.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    15. Re:What? by Invicta{HOG} · · Score: 3, Informative

      This money will actually come from a pool of money donated by the vaccine companies in order to pay for known or proven complications of vaccination that was set up so that they are immune from direct litigation. This is not taxpayer money. It doesn't mean it's not a bad decision, however. Or that lawyers aren't trying their hardest to break the current system of vaccination litigation awards so they can make more money in regular courts.

    16. Re:What? by Invicta{HOG} · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not how vaccination rewards are decided. They are a part of the special VAERS program which is decided by a "vaccine" court NVICP (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/). There are actually experts who decide compensation. This is all a part of an agreement that recognizes that vaccine makers would not make them if they were liable for litigation in the traditional sense. As a result, the US has set up a special system that pays patients out of a pool of money given by the vaccine makers so that they are protected from the litigation.

      The trial lawyers would love to break this system - this is why you see so much misinformation on the internet. It is a potential bonanza for lawyers and patients and as a result there is a lot of pressure to allow open litigation. This would obviously drive up vaccination costs and possibly lead to shortages or incomplete coverage due to the higher costs of providing care.

    17. Re:What? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Illness is horribly expensive due to all the anti-lawsuit insurance doctors have to pay.

      (Plus they're a cartel that likes luxury offices/cars...)

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have a health system that doesn't work. That is society doesn't cover the costs for these cases but expects the parents to pay whether or not they can afford it then people are going to get desperate and file these crazy lawsuits.

    19. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know i'm probably in the minority here.. but my daughter was well on her way to full development.. (actually, an early talker, and motor functions, etc).. and then the MMR.. and now she is severely autistic. so... where did it come from? a mercury test can only be done via a hair sample (as far as i can remember), and as there is no known cause... and no cure(?)...
      we seek out lots of avenues.. most are quacks.. but at least the "pig shots" she had got rid of the gastric stuff.. and that was under the table from her doc (who also had an autistic kid)..
      man oh, man... it's fun ;)

      oregon would be great except for all the autism..

      (blarg.).

    20. Re:What? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yep. The correct thing to do would be to pay for real, ongoing medical expenses for the duration.

      Awarding some huge sum, then doubling it in the hope that it will be enough, is stupidity incarnate. It *won't* be enough because they'll just go out and start buying specially adapted Hummers and filling the house with hideously expensive pseudo-medical crap, then going out for luxury weekends at fancy health spas because they feel they 'deserve' it after all the hardship they've suffered.

      Nope, they should have to live the same life as any other parent whose kid was born that way or suffered some kind of incapacitating accident (because that's what this was - AN ACCIDENT), except they're ahead because they don't have to pay the medical bills themselves.

      --
      No sig today...
    21. Re:What? by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it's those fucking unconstitutional required vaccinations the morons have been experimenting with us for years

      *facepalm*

      I am sorry that you've managed to breed.

    22. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I'm a Doctor (Chiropractor) and always tell my patients to not trust their MDs or the toxins they get kickbacks to inject.

      Vaccines cause autism! The proof it out! The veil covering the conspiracy has been lifted!

      All you need for proper health are:

      Nutrition

      Vitamins

      Exercise

      Regular Chiropractic adjustments to keep your nervous system healthy

    23. Re:What? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're not a parent because you don't understand. I suggest you listen to wise sages like Jenny McCarthy.

    24. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move to Texas, tort reform pretty much eliminated malpractice for anything less than "doctor was high on cocaine and skullfucked my 6 year old daughter while amputating the wrong leg" and even then you'll probably have to hunt for a lawyer willing to take your case out of pity.

      And we still have some of the most expensive medical costs in the country. Know why? It's because we let doctors own their own hospitals and admit patients to them, and suddenly every common cold requires 10 blood tests, 2 surgeries, a mammogram, and 3 months in ICU to cure. Ka-ching!

    25. Re:What? by shentino · · Score: 1

      The jury isn't qualified because all the wise guys get stricken during voir dire.

    26. Re:What? by DurendalMac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hol-ee SHIT, are you really this fucking THICK? The entire vaccine scare was kicked off by an utter fraud who manipulated the hell out of his study and almost lost his license as a result. There is diddly squat to show a link between autism and vaccines. There is a crapload of research to show that it's all a load of crap. I remember the vaccine nutters going on about thimerasol...when it has been almost entirely absent from childhood vaccines for a decade! About the only place you'll find it is flu shots.

      That and there is an utterly undeniable genetic component to autism.

    27. Re:What? by jeremy_fsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

      I completely agree with you that the award exceeds what the care would cost. My wife is a college prof, researcher, and works with autistic children. I have family and close friends with autistic children, and you are spot on, that's way more than it would really cost. I also agree that the excess should go to research too. I'm a conservative, yet despite your perception I know that plenty of excellent research comes from state universities like the one my wife is employed by. This is putting the research in the hands of the gov't, and I'm fine with that. However, I would not trust congress with spending that money on research. Ideally I'd like to see it go directly to a good medical research school somewhere. So don't categorize all conservatives under one issue, it's foolish. You can believe in smaller government yet believe in the importance of the government's role in education (and thus research). Not all conservatives are the same, just like not all liberals are the same.

      --
      "I fly, I sail, I throw caution to the wind" -Jimmy Buffet
    28. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My son is autistic and damned if I could tell you how that occurs.

      Well, using your posting history as evidence, I'd say it was genetic.

    29. Re:What? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      I agree with your first three criteria for proper health but claims that regular chiropractic adjustments benefit the patient are as scientifically verifiable as vaccines causing autism.

      Most chiropractors are simply snake oil salesmen with nicer offices.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    30. Re:What? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      There is a known cause for autism. It's called genetics, and right now, it's the only known factor in the causation of autism.

    31. Re:What? by daveime · · Score: 1

      The words Doctor and Chiropractor should never be seen in the same sentence, lest the universe die of laughter.

      So tell me "Doctor" ... in your opinion, exactly which vertebrae should be twisted, pummeled or otherwise manipulated to cure Autism.

      It would be funny if not for the fact there are many gullible morons who would actually pay you thousands of dollars for your opinion.

    32. Re:What? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      This has to be a troll. An utter troll. Either that or it's a chiropractor who thinks his profession is somehow more than glorified massage therapy.

    33. Re:What? by Count+Fenring · · Score: 2, Informative

      I understand this is delicate, and honestly hesitate to ask, but what degree of care does your nephew require?

      I've worked in special needs classrooms with autistic kids, and there's a world of difference between the kids who are mostly functional, but will randomly run off or make noises, and the kids who'll fly into a rage-like state and smash things and people.

      I'm not saying that you're wrong, per se (the award might well be inflated), but depending on the child's actual condition, the cost of care could vary substantially.

    34. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

      Like liberals who aren't in favor of government research and would prefer to just continue to give money to their special interest lobbyist groups so they can keep their ivory tower jobs and give themselves pay raises during a recession, and fly around on private jets burning holes in the environment just so they can feel powerful and important.

    35. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it's those fucking unconstitutional required vaccinations the morons have been experimenting with us for years

      *facepalm*

      I am sorry that you've managed to breed.

      Clearly he was affected badly as a child by one those vaccinations. People just don't get it: yes, sometimes people have bad reactions to specific vaccines (can't help it, in any large population somebody will have an issue.) The problem comes down to what the term public health means: these people are trying to prevent epidemics, which invariably result in far more deaths than those lost to the vaccines themselves. Anyone who doesn't think that the flu can kill ought to research that subject a little more thoroughly before condemning vaccines: the last flu pandemic killed a lot of people. We're actually overdue for another big one.

      That's why I get pissed when I hear about parents who refuse vaccinations for their children: those walking disease factories then proceed to infect other people's kids.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    36. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you should argue at jury selection process that it is not a 'jury of your peers'. You want a jury of other doctors and normal people...

      'do you understand the difference between RNA and DNA?' would weed out many.

      A jury of your peers means JUST THAT. Do not let the judge and the lawyers bully you into a jury selection process of 'the local group of people we have on hand'.

      I dont understand car repair, but if I were bringing charges against a car repair mechanic I would expect a jury to contain some car mechanics. They will understand what is going on.

      Now you dont want 100% one way or the other. You want the other half in there too as they will represent the layman interests. Yes the doctors in the jury will need to 'lower themselves' and explain what is going on. But so be it.

      But the person bringing the charges also wants a jury of THEIR peers...

    37. Re:What? by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seeing as how mercury was almost entirely removed from childhood vaccines 10 years ago (about the only place you'll find it is a flu shot) and there was no accompanying drop in autism rates, I don't think you'd need to bother with that mercury test.

    38. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because we are talking about a large population, does not mean that anythingcan happen. This is not the improbability drive.
      Yes, many children get vaccines, and as such, rare reactions may occur. But Autism is not a rare reaction to vaccines that with a big enough sample size you might find some that are affected. Autism is not caused by vaccines. Your line of thinking in the first two sentences is what caused this stupid decision: "Oh, well, there's always the chance that this poor little girl is the 1 in gazillion to have autism due to vaccines".
      Well, then, I'm sorry but there is not one shred of (credible) evidence linking vaccines to autism. And until there is, I will continue saying that the chance that a vaccine will cause autism is like the chance that a vaccine will make the child grow a third arm (almost said "third leg", but it would have proved fertile ground for many a pun).

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    39. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not saying that you're wrong, per se (the award might well be inflated), but depending on the child's actual condition, the cost of care could vary substantially.

      Absolutely. Without going into the specifics of his case, he is certainly better off than other children his mother (my sister) has worked with in the autism community. The point was, rather, that $1.5M plus over $500k per year is excessive.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    40. Re:What? by wbackner · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Intensive ABA therapy which is one of the most costly treatments (and best empirically supported, there are lots of meta-analyses) costs around $40,000 a year. The cost is basically just paying a full time aid to do the treatment. And that isn't even a lifetime cost since it is an early intervention. Even if you were to say that you needed a full time aid for the entire life that is only about $40,000 a year with adjustments for inflation.

    41. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      I try to listen to her, but everytime she starts talking I recall her photo shoots and my mind just wanders. Maybe it also happens to her, but on a more chronic basis.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    42. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Has anyone noticed the summary repeats itself?

      WOW. I had no idea such a system existed. Thanks for the information. A special "vaccine damage" court is a good idea, because it prevents the 1 billion awards we might otherwise see in the normal courts. Also 20 million doesn't sound high to me. If the kid lives another 80 years, that's only 250,000 a year - which is probably how much it would cost to keep the girl alive. I had no idea such a system existed. Thanks for the information. A special "vaccine damage" court is a good idea, because it prevents the 1 billion awards we might otherwise see in the normal courts. Also 20 million doesn't sound high to me. If the kid lives another 80 years, that's only 250,000 a year -

      PENN & TELLER ripped a giant hole in the "vaccines are dangerous" theory using balls and bowling pins. Basically they said, even if we assume the vaccine causes autism, that's still just 1 autistic death per approximately one million children versus ~10,000 dead from communicable disease if they were Not vaccinated. Like gambling you play the odds and take the vaccine because it's less dangerous than going without.

      Long Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aky-sRri-NQ
      Short Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    43. Re:What? by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Informative

      If she had not been given the vaccine, the same would have happened a week/month/a few month later due to the common cold/gatroenteritis/ear infection/ whatever. To say that without the vaccine she would have been fine to this day is naive at best and deceptive at worst.

      Yep. It's like dying in an at-fault auto accident and blaming the car. Or having a heart attack while playing basketball and blaming the ball. You'd have to be fairly insane to propose outlawing cars and basketballs for those reasons.

      This seems more in line with having an allergy to an antibiotic - there is no doubt that it's a life-saving drug, but unfortunately there are always rare cases where it makes things worse. Medicine is not an exact science, and if we keep blaming doctors and drugs that harm an occasional person despite saving thousands, progress and costs will suffer (and are already, clearly).

    44. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should the government pick up the healthcare tab, that simply translates to the people of the country picking up the tab. The companies producing these vaccines went to great lengths to suppress and overthrow the findings of results against their favor - and yet their leaders back government healthcare plans in every modernized country they do business in. When they back such efforts anywhere they can be put out of business in a similar manner to buying points in the political system it really leaves the question unanswered: how many cases are real that they know to exist and are sitting on until it won't bankrupt them to continue doing business, knowing it becomes a tax by the government instead a responsibility of theirs?

    45. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a conservative, yet despite your perception I know that plenty of excellent research comes from state universities like the one my wife is employed by. This is putting the research in the hands of the gov't, and I'm fine with that. However, I would not trust congress with spending that money on research. Ideally I'd like to see it go directly to a good medical research school somewhere.

      And how would you decide which "good medical research school somewhere" or, more specifically, which researcher/project? You need some entity to evaluate what research is being done and to decide where the money can have the most impact. Hello HHS/NIH!

      From an article on the difference in administrations:

      President Bill Clinton pledged to double the NIH budget in 1998 from 13.6 billion. Then Texas Gov. George W. Bush, on the campaign trail, pledged to complete Clinton’s pledge.

      It was a promise he kept when Bush first came to the White House. But after that, the NIH budget precipitously dropped, Propst said. “The increases have either been below inflation or been flat-out cuts.”

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    46. Re:What? by siride · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only for some of the specialist. Primary care doctors are not living in luxury. The insurance companies and the hospitals are making bank, though.

    47. Re:What? by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that *yes*, of course there are large numbers of parents around the world who will see their child's first signs of autism in the first few days after a vaccine, and many of those parents will be completely convinced that the vaccine did it. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is how most people think.

      And those poor parents will try all kinds of quackery, and develop a drastic distrust of actual scientifically-based medicine, and simply not understand that autism generally shows up in early childhood, and vaccines are during early childhood... so simply by normal chance, we're guaranteed a percentage of austistic kids who will have their first clear signs immediately after a vaccine.

      Listen people, thinking that X was caused by Y simply because it happened soon after, and treating your child's autism via "trying things" until something seems to work... you are doing *shitty*, flawed science, and you are probably going to do serious harm to your child. Please take the time to learn from people doing actual, valid science.

    48. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not an anti-vaccine nazi but our son had a severe reaction to a vaccination when he was small.. and he is also autistic. I don't believe that the vaccination caused his autism but there are a lot of associated issues that resulted from the vaccine reaction that I do not believe would have happened eventually.

      Every vaccination has some risk attached to it but the benefits of mass vaccination (herd immunity, wiping out terrible diseases) are considered to be overwhelming. Problem is that there is so much weight and force behind the vaccination campaigns and industry that parents are seldom, if ever, informed of the risks and any dissent is suppressed in no uncertain terms. My wife is a public health medicine professional and a researcher; she has some obvious concerns about vaccinations given our experience and was interested in developing a study to find and correlate some of the negative responses. She was quietly told that this was not a fruitful area to look in and that they expected a different direction for her studies. No real threat but definitely suppression.

      I am not a conspiracy theory guy but I am suspicious of three things:

      1. Informed consent is not being obtained because of fear of the effect on vaccination compliance.
      2. Real issues are being ignored or not looked at because they are considered anomalies (like the ozone data from the Antarctic) or because the massive pro-vaccination belief suppresses research.
      3. There is under reporting of issues at the public health front because of data suppression (probably unintended). That is, something happens related to the vaccination but is not reported as such because there is no belief that there is a relationship.

      I doubt that true informed consent was obtained from the parents in Hanah Poling's case.

    49. Re:What? by IICV · · Score: 2, Informative

      there's nothing that surprising or terrible about this case, actually.

      Hannah Poling has a very very very rare mitochondrial disorder - so rare, in fact, that the usual anti-vax suspects have actually given up on claiming that maybe it's more common than we thought and thus causing this fake "autism epidemic". Winning this judgement is actually less likely than winning the lottery, if you compare the incidence of her condition to the chances of buyimg a winning lottery ticket.

      Furthermore, proof means a different thing in this context. This trial's level of evidence was "more likely than not" - or in other words, if her lawyer could make the case that there was a 50+epsilon% chance that vaccines caused her autism, he won. What scientist accepts such low confidence levels?

      So basically, it's not that bad in terms of the anti-vax wars.

    50. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I've often thought we should have a two-tier system like we have in technology:

      - Engineers do the high-level design - technicians do the actual work (soldering boards, building prototypes, etc)
      - Likewise doctors would do diagnosing - while medtechs would do the trivial surgeries like removing appendixes, tonsils, and so on.

      Since technicians get paid about half as much as engineers or doctors, that would cut labor costs significantly. Plus you wouldn't need a 8 year-long education just to get one doctor. A medtech could learn surgical skills at a 2 or 4 year trade school and quickly fill-in the current Heathcare labor shortage.

      To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    51. Re:What? by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Not "almost." I believe that physician did indeed lose his license for making that claim. Science and other sources reported on it some time ago, IIRC.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    52. Re:What? by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't have to be a practicing physician. In the same way that we have judges who are not practicing lawyers, perhaps there's room for medically trained jurors who are not physicians.

      Bankruptcy court is an excellent example. We don't have average joes deciding on the extremely arcane law governing seniority of debt.

      I wish I could point to a link, but I've read articles here and there that examined the results of jury-tried cases versus a blind analysis by panels of physicians. There's almost no correlation between who gets awards and who does not. It indicates that the legal system case is providing no service other than providing lottery tickets to people who got sick. Some win, some lose, and there's no real "fairness" in distribution.

    53. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing happened wayyy back to Dow Corning's Silicone Division (Breast Implants).

      It seems that even though there was NO evidence showing positive proof that the silicone used caused ANY of the plantiff's symptoms (collectively known as "siliconitis"), Dow paid out big time for it, and has since discontinued production of said implants.

      (It's been my opinion that it was the surgery itself, not the fscking implants - saline or silicone - that caused the problems...)

      While I prefer that women keep things natural, I think it's a crying shame that a select few have taken away that option for many women who do want (or need) it.

      Note: Check out the Mythbuster's test of "Implant Explosions", and how incredibly UNlikely it is to get these things to rupture. THAT was Dow's innovation - it wasn't the silicone gel, it was the bag they put it in!

    54. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

      Attention mods, injecting nonsensical political rhetorical into that which was previously not a political debate is called "flamebait" not "insightful". This is a classic trolling tactic. Make the first part of your post perfectly logical and reasonable, then inject some insane, nonsensical political slant for the 2nd part.

      The people behind the $20 million award are lawyers, not politicians. They don't care about politics, they only care about winning as large an award as possible for their client regardless of the repercussions. Trying to blame either liberals or conservatives for this is asinine and childish.

    55. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you are a provider always staring at lawsuits, then perhaps they should take your license away because apparently you suck at your job.

    56. Re:What? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The current "jackpot jury" system is sot irrevocably broken it's not even remotely funny.

      The jury isn't qualified to evaluate the data presented and inevitably comes to ridiculous conclusions. All malpractice/medical injury claims should be decided by a committee of practicing doctors to decide if there was actually malpractice.

      But fault and compensation in vaccine cases isn't decided by a jury. It's decided by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It's a no-fault program.
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

      Taking the decision away from the jury and giving it to an expert panel isn't necessarily going to give better decisions, and it may give worse decisions.

      It may be that the Poling case is unusual, and subsequent cases like this will be rejected. The courts threw out the autism cases.

    57. Re:What? by Khyber · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well."

      Neurosurgery.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    58. Re:What? by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well.

      If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

    59. Re:What? by d3matt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well.

      what are you smoking? there's a damn good reason you don't have people with a bachelor's degree doing surgery! (nurses make $25-$30/hour) there are so many things that can go wrong, so many complications, so many drug interactions and allergies...

      your example only holds if the technician is working on a live circuit where people DIE if he messes up!

      --
      I am d3matt
    60. Re:What? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is not how vaccination rewards are decided. They are a part of the special VAERS program which is decided by a "vaccine" court NVICP (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/). There are actually experts who decide compensation.

      Yeah, that I understand, but what I don't understand is why the NVICP makes irrational decisions that favor the people who claim that their injury was caused by a "plausable" mechanism.

      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

      Unfortunately, in recent years the VICP seems to have turned its back on science. In 2005, Margaret Althen successfully claimed that a tetanus vaccine had caused her optic neuritis. Although there was no evidence to support her claim, the VICP ruled that if a petitioner proposed a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine could cause harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, an award should be granted. The door opened by this and other rulings...

      No case, however, represented a greater deviation from the VICP's original standards than that of Dorothy Werderitsh, who in 2006 successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine had caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis...."

      What is this NVICP and why do they accept these unscientific claims of "biologically plausible mechanism"? Are they ignorant of science? Or are they required by the words of the legislation to accept claims like this?

    61. Re:What? by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it was your wallet, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

      FTFY. ;)

    62. Re:What? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No surgery is trivial. If you're opening someone up, that requires a great deal of skill and traiing. Do you really want someone that hasn't had years of anatomy training digging around in your organs? "Hey, that looks like it might be it, let's cut it out and see!"

      Even something as routine as prescribing medication can have a huge backlash if the person isn't up to date on all the latest research (that's not tto say that all doctors do keep up to date, but that's supposed to be part of their job, and what we pay them for). You often need a LOT of education for that, and is why pharmacists are nearly as well educated as doctors.

      That's not to say that I don't agree with you at some level. I see no reason why a doctor should be prescribing medication. I think they should diagnose the problem, then the doctor should work with a pharmacist to develop a treatment plan. That way the specialist (the pharmacist) can be the one that specializes in medication and the doctor can specialize in the diagnosis.

    63. Re:What? by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      What they fuck are you talking about you idiot? Do you just take any slam dunk issue and just attach it in a negative way to conservatives?

      Since when are conservatives not in favor of reasonable research into diseases?

      And if you are going to knee-jerk out something about fetal stem cells, perhaps you should point out how unpromising such research has turned out to be.

      If it did not involve the justification of abortion to "save lives" by ensuring a steady stream of Christopher Reeve-saving magic beans then maybe there would be less opposition to it.

      And if there is a preference by conservatives favoring "private sector" research over governmental (and often politically driven) research,then maybe it is because the private sector is where the results are.

    64. Re:What? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it's comparable at all. You're talking about financial professionals reviewing cases of normal people. We're talkinga bout medical professionals reviewing the actions of other medical people. There will always be a conflict of interest there because the medical professionals, even if not practicing, may remember a time when they did something like that and be biased because of it.

      This is why even appeals courts concentrate on re-reviewing the details of the case, rather than (in most cases) analyzing the behavior or actions of the previous court. Unless there was gross misconduct, the appeals process will typically say something like "The previous court erred in determining this or that" and that's about it.

      I think a better system would one in which the "jury" was made up of equal parts professional and non-professional "peers".

    65. Re:What? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      A $35/hour technician.

    66. Re:What? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      Coddled-brat-syndrome will never be solved medically.

    67. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      While your tone and language hardly merit any response... Maybe you could read my follow-on response to a more eloquent person?

      No, I had no intention of discussing stem cells nor did I mention it. Why did you? Are you trying to trivialize the discussion to some extreme issue?

      It is well established that recent conservative governments have reduced funding for scientific basic and medical research.

      Private Sector research has one "aim" -- profit. Not public welfare. That is why the government usually has to fund "basic research". Once publicly funded, the results end up in the public domain and private sector entities are then free to profiteer off it by expanding on its application.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    68. Re:What? by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't buy your life back after a low-paid "surgery-tech" with a little formal training and with poor judgment fucks up and you bleed to death.

      If it's a choice between a $100/hr doctor and a $200/hr doctor, I'll choose the cheaper one. If it's a choice between a $100/hr doctor and a $25/hr tech, I'm going with the doctor who's been through years of medical school, residency, has done the rounds and chosen his specialty, thank you.

    69. Re:What? by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      >> free to profiteer off it

      Weasel word much?

    70. Re:What? by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

      It's supposed to be a jury of your peers, and in a way, should be along the same lines of the peer review process for scientific papers. If I want my paper on astro physics to be peer reviewed, I don't get bob the plumber and tom the gardener to look at it. If the people doing the reviewing and making the judgment aren't qualified to understand the information, then how can you trust their judgment.

    71. Re:What? by thrawn_aj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There will always be a conflict of interest there because the medical professionals, even if not practicing, may remember a time when they did something like that and be biased because of it.

      As opposed to laypeople who'll go "what the fuck does that mean?" and "Screw it. I'll just find for the plaintiff, coz' lookit at the cute little kid who suffered cuzza the big bad doctor"? If you allow for the possibility of medical professionals being biased, I don't see how the solution is getting ignorant people to decide cases where a deep knowledge of medicine is needed to even understand the issue at hand. No thank you, better to be biased by medical facts than some obscure ideology.

      Justice should be blind, not stupid. Of course, my opinion is worth crap here, because any shyster who succeeded in extorting 20mil in a case like this would have had to start out by systematically eradicating any vestiges of medial knowledge from the jury. I can just see the pretrial questions: "How is babby formed?"

    72. Re:What? by thrawn_aj · · Score: 1

      Self-reply: should have RTFA :p. Apparently there was no jury o.O. I take it all back. Apparently, if even well-off people would rather roll over and play dead rather than stand up and fight, they don't deserve much sympathy.

    73. Re:What? by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Informative

      The keeping up on research is a large part of the reason for pharmacists. Pharmacists are experts in drugs. They are expected to be more familiar with drugs than even doctors. The doctor's job is primarily to make a diagnosis, and find possible courses of treatment, including medication. Ideally they should be consulting with a pharmacist in determining the best medication to try, but practically that does not happen, mostly because many conditions have one drug that generally works best, so that is the first one tried, and then a second one. If anfter several tries none have work, but the doctor is confident in his diagnosis, would a pharmacist likely be consulted by the doctor.

      Do remember that the job of the pharmacist has evolved over time from previous jobs. It started out as a medicine maker, combining ingredients right there to produce the medication. These days most medications are pre-manufactured, although there are some remnants, like some particularly short-lived medications that the pharmacist creates on the spot by combining two or more substances purchased from a pharmaceutical manufacturer. These days though the pharmacist mostly dispenses medications prescribed by the doctor, and provides advice on OTC medication selection, and the taking of any medication.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    74. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      Profiteer: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency

      It's my opinion, but yes, I'd use this to describe much of the pharma industry. I've had personal experience with executives of those companies who had no interest in greater efficiency because they were "already making so much money anyway"...

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    75. Re:What? by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't lump all of us conservatives together. I am in favor of government spending on research - the more money spent the better even on research that seems stupid. Science spending is one of the most worthwhile investments the government makes. I also know many liberals who are opposed to a lot of research spending because it takes money away from social programs.

    76. Re:What? by sjames · · Score: 1

      None of these things provide any remedy to the person who's been injured by a doctor's negligence.

      That's because any slight sign of culpability is like blood in the water, the sharks would eat them alive in court. Next, any time the professionals didn't mandate compensation to the patient, but the lawyer was able to talk a jury in to it, they might go after the other doctors as well alleging some sort of conspiracy.

      You do have a point though, the committee would need to also include knowledgeable lay-persons.

    77. Re:What? by Trax · · Score: 1

      I think that aurispector is suggesting the institution of health courts. The idea is that you have judges specially trained in health care issues who then retain objective outside experts to provide feedback and allow the judge to make a decision based on their findings. It's a lot more fair in getting money to more people injured from medical mistakes than the current system where the "jackpot" helps the lawyers than the patients.

    78. Re:What? by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 1

      Doctors only make $50/hr? Shit, glad I write software for a living. Poor bastards.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    79. Re:What? by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as it seems to me that since you have an ingrained bias, I think that excluding your "personal experience" when navigating these issues is warranted.

      I don't think that people who distrust capitalism when it applies to certain companies and not others should be involved in the decision of what is "unreasonable profit". There is no such thing as "unreasonable profit" in a long-term sense. Unrestrained capitalism trends toward eventual balance - arbitrary rules being placed on businesses that are based on populism/class-warfare are what causes the problems that "need to be solved". Usually with even more stupid regulations that cause the same problems.

      If you ever read the Foundation novels, you would know that the best way to fix most every "crisis" that comes up is to do nothing - trust the system to be self-balancing until proven wrong over the long run.

    80. Re:What? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a closed committee composed entirely of medical doctors, but a standard trial with a jury composed entirely of learned men with at least a graduate degree in a medical or scientific discipline would suffice IMO. As it is, I think the current system is failing to provide a standard up to the level guaranteed by the constitution in malpractice cases as physicians ARE NOT being judged by a jury of their peers but by a gaggle of near illiterate rubes easily swayed by a slick talking lawyer.

    81. Re:What? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Actually, a sum of $20m will buy you an annuity-certain of over a million a year at a constant interest rate of 5% and an 80 year term (theoretically; not allowing for costs, fees, and risks).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    82. Re:What? by afidel · · Score: 1

      I hope my doctor is making a hell of a lot more than $50/hr, I pay my masseuse $90/hr (though she has about as much schooling as a non-specialist doctor). Heck for something as uncommon as a surgical procedure I would have no problem paying $1,000+ per hour (and will later this year for a minor elective surgery). If an IT specialist can charge over $200/hr it makes sense that someone who can save or prolong your life should be able to make more.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    83. Re:What? by afidel · · Score: 1

      You know what you call the guy who finished last in med school, right? Doctor.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    84. Re:What? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "Yes, many children get vaccines, and as such, rare reactions may occur. But Autism is not a rare reaction to vaccines that with a big enough sample size you might find some that are affected. Autism is not caused by vaccines. Your line of thinking in the first two sentences is what caused this stupid decision: "Oh, well, there's always the chance that this poor little girl is the 1 in gazillion to have autism due to vaccines"."

      I think GP is talking about other adverse reactions to vaccines (which do happen).

    85. Re:What? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Which is fine, but that's not what aurispector said. I think your idea does have some merit, and may be a good possible solution. But I don't get that at all from aurispector's post.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    86. Re:What? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Whoever has done the most.

    87. Re:What? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      This idea might work, but it might also have some unintended and unforseen consequences. I myself wonder at the wisdom of having a jury at all, if the jurors are going to be selected on the basis of education and social class. Better to have multi-party tribunals (one judge, one doctor, one layperson).

      Just to go on a tangent, I'm having a conceptual difficulty with this whole discussion. In Canada, winning malpractice suits against doctors is damn hard, because the duty of care owed by a doctor is defined more leniently than it would be for just anybody, and because doctors' insurers (unlike, say, auto insurers) fight those claims to the bitter end. Winners do tend to get big awards, but there just aren't that many winners, and losers risk having to pay the good Doctor's costs in the action.

      Now note that we don't have specially chosen juries, or specially trained judges presiding over these cases. They're just harder to win, and they get defended more often, because of a strictly legal difference in the kind of negligence at issue. A slight change in the legal definitions, and a loser-pays system of costs, are pretty much all it takes to cut down on malpractice suits.

      In general, the legal system is so complex now that subtle changes in the right places can have large effects. The trick is to find the right place to make the change.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    88. Re:What? by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      You know what you call the guy who finished last in med school, right? Doctor.

      Ha ha, but I'd still rather have the guy who finished last at med school than the guy who finished first at DeVry.

    89. Re:What? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      I know there was a hearing and he faced the possibility, but I'd heard that he got to keep it. Perhaps I'd heard wrong. It was an ugly fiasco, in any case.

    90. Re:What? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Simple: The one who's had the most practice poking around inside people, ie. the low-paid tech.

      --
      No sig today...
    91. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      After reading the whole thread again, which started with someone blaming government experimentation for his son's autism and ending with the post I replied to, I think they were talking about autism.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    92. Re:What? by yotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

      The person who has done more.

    93. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, then, I'm sorry but there is not one shred of (credible) evidence linking vaccines to autism.

      Didn't say there was, and you took me completely out of context. Not the way to make friends. But it is true that people can have bad reactions to some vaccines: my cousin gets sick for a couple of days every time she gets a flu shot. Hardly the same thing as becoming autistic, but its still unpleasant. I was trying to point out that the (vanishingly small) risks of mass vaccination are far outweighed by the benefits. Sorry if I tweaked your pedantism gene.

      Your line of thinking in the first two sentences is what caused this stupid decision: "Oh, well, there's always the chance that this poor little girl is the 1 in gazillion to have autism due to vaccines".

      Yes, and if you'd grasped the rather simple point I was making (which, by the way is the same as yours), you'd have realized that I don't consider that possibility sufficient to warrant that we stop vaccinating our children. I understand what a pandemic is, I know how common they have been in the past, and I know that there are only a few things that stand in the way of their return. Vaccines are one of them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    94. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      After reading the whole thread again, which started with someone blaming government experimentation for his son's autism and ending with the post I replied to, I think they were talking about autism.

      Nope, I wasn't. That's why I said "reaction" rather than "autism".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    95. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      In that case I apologize and extend my hand in friendship (no sarcasm). I understood that most of your post was of the same opinion as mine, but I guess I misunderstood the first part. Again, apologies.
      Well... At least it got me +3 Insightful :)

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    96. Re:What? by asackett · · Score: 1

      Like gambling you play the odds and take the vaccine because it's less dangerous than going without.

      However, unlike gambling, you are forced to play. The state requires you to enroll your child in school and ensure attendance, and requires that your child be vaccinated in order to attend. So it's only fitting that the state step up when children are harmed by vaccines, just as the airline whose jet falls on my house is liable for the damage done even if the jet was carrying donor organs intended to save lives.

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    97. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      In that case I apologize and extend my hand in friendship (no sarcasm). I understood that most of your post was of the same opinion as mine, but I guess I misunderstood the first part. Again, apologies. Well... At least it got me +3 Insightful :)

      No problemo, and I was unnecessarily brusque in my reply.

      I look at the anti-vaccination crowd as being of the same stripe as the anti-flouridation / anti-chlorination people. I think they're all idiots who don't have the slightest grasp of probabilities, and feel that life should be free of all risk. Of course, that's just not the way it works.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    98. Re:What? by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't buy your life back after a low-grade "doctor" with poor judgment fucks up and you bleed to death.

      Again, FTFY.

      I guess my point is that people falsely equate wage with skill, particularly when the profession is poorly understood and held in high regard by society. I suppose it's soothing to the ego to think that there's a breed of ubermensch running around tackling the "really difficult" things in life, like medicine. We have so many "voodoo professions" in society where their mystery makes them appear difficult: Doctors, Mechanics, Computer techs, Engineers, etc. I know a guy who, in junior high cooking class, was asked to soften some butter, and subsequently put the tinfoil wrapper in the microwave too. He lit the microwave on fire and panicked because he didn't know what to do. Teacher put it out with a handful of baking soda. You know what this young man does now? He's a high-pressure pneumatics engineer. Builds big devices that run on thousands of psi of air pressure. "Ohmigawd that's dangerous and difficult, surely he is a genius!" Back in high school, this guy impressed everyone by putting his pants on the right way in the morning and not tripping down the stairs. Suddenly he's a valuable asset to society because he has a certificate in 'X'? Likewise, the best mechanic I ever knew (I used to work as one) had only two years of official training. But that didn't stop our 4 year "expert" journeyman (who made twice as much) from frequently deferring to his judgment because, quite frankly, the man knew his shit better than anyone in the shop. So just because wage is supposed to represent skill, I can assure you that in the real world it does not.

      As a side note, i'm hopeing to get modded "-1 troll" for this post too. I love how that option is always used as a "I disagree but i'm a mod so fuck you" option. Probably too many words to fit in a drop menu. Ah well.

    99. Re:What? by winwar · · Score: 1

      "What is this NVICP and why do they accept these unscientific claims of "biologically plausible mechanism"? Are they ignorant of science? Or are they required by the words of the legislation to accept claims like this?"

      The court is not ignorant of the science. The court is designed that way. It has a lower burden of proof than regular civil court. There are certain injuries that are considered to be vaccine related. Other advantages include: attorney fees are paid, cases are resolved quicker and cases can still be taken to the regular court system. But if you don't win in the NVICP you probably have no chance to win in civil court. And going to civil court means giving up any award (if any) you received in the NVICP.

      http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/vaccine_injury_and_compensation.php

      And "biologically plausible mechanism" is not an unscientific claim. You might want to brush up on science yourself.

    100. Re:What? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      She qualifies for Medicaid service for the rest of her life. An autistic person isn't going to need $250K for their personal expenses.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    101. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      This wasn't decided by a trial. Please read the article. In fact, it was decided by something much like what you think would be ideal.

      As for the reason that malpractice awards are getting worse, that's because the medical industry isn't getting any better. About 100,000 people each year are killed by medical mistakes. (At least, that's one estimate. Another doubles it.)

      If we assume that only 1 out of 3 people each year are even in a situation where a medical mistake could kill them, (The other 2/3rd being people who are healthy that year, who have very minor problems that can't result in death, or are sick but who do not see a doctor because they can't afford it), then that means that the medical establishment is killing one out of every thousand people it sees.

      Imagine if Walmart was killing one out of every thousand people who walked in the doors, by dropping boxes on them, or maybe by killer automatic doors. You think they'd get sued? A lot? A giant fuckload of lawsuits? Yeah.

      And, please note I'm talking about death by medical mistake, not medical failure. And just deaths, not other things that don't result in death.

      A lot of people seem to be operating on the assumption that malpractice lawsuits are for medical failures, that people are running around suing because a hospital did one thing and the person died, and an argument is made that something else would have been better. While I'm sure there such malpractice suits, most of them are for the medical establishment fucks up they themselves seriously injures someone, not simply failed to fix an existing problem.

      And, while we're at it, these fuckups aren't 'scalpel slipped half and inch during delicate surgery and cut a nerve'. While I'm sure people sue over that also, most of the 'killing people' mistakes are stuff like 'forgot to sterilize something' or 'gave patient wrong medication'.

      Doctors are actually pretty well protected, malpracticewise, from 'skilled fuckups' as long as they explained the possibilities to the patients. No one's going to win an payout when it was explained something was risky, and they rolled the dice and lost. They win payouts when the hospital forgets to change dressings and they get an infection and die from it.

      There's an entire industry out there dedicated to pushing the idea that malpractice suits are somehow illegitimate. No...if you prescribe someone the wrong medication, and it doesn't get caught and it kills them, guess what? You're fucking liable for their death. You don't like it, either get out of the medical profession or, you know, actually have personal who can check those things.

      This shit happens because the medical establishment has no money, and is constantly cutting back on resources that would actually catch those mistakes, like educated nurses. The industry trying to slice doctor's time thinner and thinner, where people with almost no medical training at all (Not even RNs, LPNs) get everything ready, the doctor swoops in, does doctor things for two minutes, and swoops out. Hey, it works 999/1000 times!

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    102. Re:What? by flyneye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That I agree with, put the bulk of the award to research.

                I am not in favor of letting the government have anything but big crayons to write with, let alone handle much outside their constitutional duties. They still barely run a post office and their record for protecting borders is pretty tell tale of the accomplishments of a bureaucracy driven by a million different agendas. Private sector research is a best bet.

      N' of course all the pro vaccination chickenheads with mod points descended on my parent because I have a meta view that they don't. Typical...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    103. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you on the 'voodoo operations'' bit.

      I know a PA who works in a large, well-known hospital in Seattle, WA. (He and the hospital will remain anonymous so his career isn't ruined.) His serious recommendation to all his friends is never, never let a surgeon cut on you if there is any way around it, and then do a ton of research into who is going to do the cutting. He said that he, personally, would never let any of the surgeons at the hospital he works at cut on him unless it was an emergency surgery and a live-or-die situation in which there was no time to get a surgeon he trusts.

    104. Re:What? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Aw dammit C6, not your pedantic ass today. However I do congratulate you on the interesting thread you spawned from your reply to mine. Screwmaster seems to have found himself and the vaccine discussion heated nicely. Still no one weighed the advantages of removing vaccinations and letting disease resistant humans emerge and repopulate the earth, thus ending ecology, economy and population worries, no to mention most religious differences and football team preferences.

      Hehheh I got something for your face besides your palm...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    105. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be. I drank some water the other day, and didn't feel good, I must have had an unrelated and undocumented deficiency that whilst drinking water was triggered... Who could I sue... Hmmm..

    106. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private Sector research has one "aim" -- profit. Not public welfare.

      This is pure and utter horseshit.

      Many of the people involved in private sector research into medical issues, and actually own some of most successful labs, do it because they have family members affected by the issues they research. They are driven by a passion to help, and to help all those affected by the same problems they have been affected by because they themselves understand the pain and heartache involved. They make a profit because they provide services worth paying for, and because that is the only way they can continue to do the research as their profits are plowed back into equipment and more R+D.. To blast them because they have figured out a way to help, and support themselves and their employees, without government money is ridiculous.

    107. Re:What? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Obvious troll is obvious.

    108. Re:What? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      No surgery is trivial. If you're opening someone up, that requires a great deal of skill and traiing. Do you really want someone that hasn't had years of anatomy training digging around in your organs?

      If you need surgery, the surgeon you want is the guy who does that particular operation, day in and day out, and nothing else. Experience with the specific surgery is the strongest predictor of a favorable outcome. In our culture, the people who do that have general medical degrees, as well as a surgical residency with training in many surgical procedures--and most of that expertise they hardly ever use. We could probably get outcomes just as good, if not better, by training technicians to specialize in specific surgical procedures, with a doctor versed in general surgery available to take over if the surgical technician encounters anything unexpected.

    109. Re:What? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?"

      Do I get to review their records or just go by salary?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    110. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. That is some kind of screwed up logic. Are you sure you understand what logic is?

      You are saying that people who will risk their child getting smallpox, pneumonia, a serious flu, etc... and other medical issues that are known to possibly end with the death of their child rather than face the perceived risk of a vaccination are people who think all life should be free of risk? Nothing in your argument leads to your conclusion.

    111. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Wow. That is some kind of screwed up logic. Are you sure you understand what logic is?

      Yes, I do, and either you didn't understand me or you have issues with your logical processes.

      You are saying that people who will risk their child getting smallpox, pneumonia, a serious flu, etc... and other medical issues that are known to possibly end with the death of their child rather than face the perceived risk of a vaccination are people who think all life should be free of risk? Nothing in your argument leads to your conclusion.

      What? I said, "I look at the anti-vaccination crowd as being of the same stripe as the anti-flouridation / anti-chlorination people." I think I'm pretty clearly not on the side of people who won't vaccinate their kids.

      I must not be making myself very clear today. Sheesh. And I haven't even been drinking.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    112. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The current "jackpot jury" system is sot irrevocably broken it's not even remotely funny. As a "health care provider" constantly staring at the business end of lawsuits it's clear to me that serious reform is necessary. Monetary awards merely increase costs without addressing quality of care issues.

      As it stands, medical experts duel in front of a layman's jury. The jury isn't qualified to evaluate the data presented and inevitably comes to ridiculous conclusions. All malpractice/medical injury claims should be decided by a committee of practicing doctors to decide if there was actually malpractice. Decision could include requirements for additional training, suspension or revocation of license. After all, the goal ought to be to improve the quality of care given to the public.

      The only ones winning now are the lawyers who make a business of malpractice cases.

      I think that the real concern here is that most parents don't know or don't think they can learn about the vaccines that the State Health broads say your child MUST have.... Do we really as parents know what are child is getting? Or do many of us just say "well the Doctor knows best! It's our job as parents to know everything that is going in to or child. I understand that this can be a huge task just look at the list of "required" vaccines for my state TX, You want to put your child in to school or daycare... just give them

      Hepatitis A,
      Varicella (the chickenpox vaccine),
      Hepatitis B,
      Mumps (MMR),
      Rubella (MMR)
      Measles (MMR)
      Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DPT, DTaP),
      Poliomyelitis (Polio)

      That just for School and daycare! What are even in these? Who makes them? What are the risks? Most people just say OK if that's what's best for them! But do we really ask the questions? If that Vaccine was going in to an Adult I bet the Adult would be asking a few Questions! There is a list this long for a new born and one more for children 18 month and older. I'm not saying that these are bad or that you should not take them! But when I, as a parent am backed in to a corner because my child can't be Born, Go to daycare, or go to school without these State Required Vaccines.... you bet I would be looking for a lawsuit if something I was "forced" in to giving to my child gave them something that would impair them for life. I love how aurispector (530273) puts it

        "As it stands, medical experts duel in front of a layman's jury. The jury isn't qualified to evaluate the data presented and inevitably comes to ridiculous conclusions."

        Ridiculous conclusions..... A Child's life has been derailed! Do you have a child with autism! Put everything else aside and let that fact sink in, There is a baby that because of Mandatory Vaccine has developed autism. Now that is Ridiculous!

    113. Re:What? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      What part of appendectomy did you not understand?

      Or do you like arguing by non-sequitur?

      The GP clearly stated that there are some tasks you need the fully trained doctor for. Your post contributed nothing.

    114. Re:What? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's ship the surgery off to india!

      Oh... wait...

      Seriously, this is the same thinking that says people can read scripts to do tech support, and while it works to a point.. it fails badly at another point.

    115. Re:What? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Uh, you do understand the difference between what the customer pays, and what the laborer gets, right? You may pay your masseuse $90/hr, but she does not make $90/hr. Likewise, you may pay $1,000.hr, but the doctor doesn't make that.

    116. Re:What? by LovingFatherOfTwo · · Score: 1

      I think that the real concern here is that most parents don't know or don't think they can learn about the vaccines that the State Health broads say your child MUST have.... Do we really as parents know what are child is getting? Or do many of us just say "well the Doctor knows best! It's our job as parents to know everything that is going in to or child. I understand that this can be a huge task just look at the list of "required" vaccines for my state TX, You want to put your child in to school or daycare... just give them Hepatitis A, Varicella (the chickenpox vaccine), Hepatitis B, Mumps (MMR), Rubella (MMR) Measles (MMR) Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DPT, DTaP), Poliomyelitis (Polio) That just for School and daycare! What are even in these? Who makes them? What are the risks? Most people just say OK if that's what's best for them! But do we really ask the questions? If that Vaccine was going in to an Adult I bet the Adult would be asking a few Questions! There is a list this long for a new born and one more for children 18 month and older. I'm not saying that these are bad or that you should not take them! But when I, as a parent am backed in to a corner because my child can't be Born, Go to daycare, or go to school without these State Required Vaccines.... you bet I would be looking for a lawsuit if something I was "forced" in to giving to my child gave them something that would impair them for life. I love how aurispector (530273) puts it "As it stands, medical experts duel in front of a layman's jury. The jury isn't qualified to evaluate the data presented and inevitably comes to ridiculous conclusions." Ridiculous conclusions..... A Child's life has been derailed! Do you have a child with autism! Put everything else aside and let that fact sink in, There is a baby that because of Mandatory Vaccine has developed autism. Now that is Ridiculous!

    117. Re:What? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      And "biologically plausible mechanism" is not an unscientific claim. You might want to brush up on science yourself.

      Thank you, socially awkward Slashdot reader, for your gratuitous insult. I brush up on my science by reading NEJM, among other journals.

      A "biologically plausible mechanism" is not 50% plus a feather. It's just a feather.

      Scientists come up with a plausible hypothesis, and see whether there are any data to support it. (They wouldn't waste time investigating a hypothesis that *wasn't* plausible.) When the data don't support the hypothesis, then science doesn't support the hypothesis. It is unscientific to say that the hypothesis is true.

      It's *plausible* that all diseases could be caused by subluxions of the spinal cord. But the data shows otherwise.

      As the NEJM article I cited argued, the NVICP upheld some awards with *no* scientific evidence. I was wondering why the NVICP did that.

    118. Re:What? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      myself wonder at the wisdom of having a jury at all, if the jurors are going to be selected on the basis of education and social class.

      Do you even know what the word 'peer' meant in the late 1700s? Haven't you ever heard of a 'peerage'?

      It means same social class. Nobles could only be tried by a jury of nobles, commoners by a jury of commoners. The concept is inherited from English common law.

    119. Re:What? by jabelli · · Score: 1

      There is a baby that because of Mandatory Vaccine has developed autism. Now that is Ridiculous!

      No, there isn't. No link has ever been shown in any study that wasn't completely fabricated.

    120. Re:What? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      The one with the greater experience in successfully removing appendices without complications.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    121. Re:What? by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Ah, in the same way you take your car to the same certified master mechanic you would have work on your transmission every time it needs an oil change.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    122. Re:What? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician_assistant
       
      Here in Texas a PA can first assist in surgeries, prescribe medicine, diagnose and most other things a regular doctor can, except it's only a 4 year degree, with (I think) one of those years being a residency. Their main restrictions are that they can't work independently of physicians, and a doctor has to review their casework weekly/monthly, also here in Texas PAs can't deliver babies, some weird legal restriction since it steps on the toes of midwives. Your pay salary is capped around $100,000 a year, but you get to do most things a doctor would do, but without the additional half million dollars of tuition you're on the hook for, and you get to keep those 4 years of your life rather than waste them as a resident.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    123. Re:What? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Don't lump yourself together. Your position (which I don't fully agree with, I must say) is that of a thinking intelligent person. By labelling yourself as either a "Conserveral" or a "Libertive" you put us into a black and white world which makes us all stupider.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    124. Re:What? by nido · · Score: 1

      I am confused as well. My son is autistic and damned if I could tell you how that occurs.

      Usually it starts around 6months, correlated with the transition to solid food. This is because autism is most likely caused by abnormalities in the intestines. Sometimes these "short circuits" happen when a baby has a significant temperature, as when they fight an infection.

      The injection of a vaccine can trigger the body's "fight or flight" response (mercury/formaldehyde/aluminum directly into body tissue is a factor). Temperature increase can lead to the the problems in the bowel.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    125. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, we let the police police themselves, why not let the doctors in on that too? I mean, law enforcement has had this responsibility for a long time and has never abused it!

    126. Re:What? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be a practicing physician. In the same way that we have judges who are not practicing lawyers, perhaps there's room for medically trained jurors who are not physicians.

      We tried that with cops. It doesn't work. There's almost never when they find a cop at-fault for rules violations, even when everyone seeing the tapes (yes, even the whole ones with everything leading up) seems to agree that the conduct was not appropriate. There's a desire to vindicate your "brothers" whether they all be cops, doctors, or factory workers.

      Bankruptcy court is an excellent example. We don't have average joes deciding on the extremely arcane law governing seniority of debt.

      That's administrative law. And those submitting to that are doing so voluntarily, so they give up the right to a jury trial (not that it is a trial).

      I wish I could point to a link, but I've read articles here and there that examined the results of jury-tried cases versus a blind analysis by panels of physicians. There's almost no correlation between who gets awards and who does not. It indicates that the legal system case is providing no service other than providing lottery tickets to people who got sick. Some win, some lose, and there's no real "fairness" in distribution.

      The law isn't about fair. I don't know the instructions they give physician panels, but the question of what "probably" happened when physicians are looking at it will always be different than what can be proven in court. The physician will fill in the "probable" that they can reasonably guess. The jury can't (and is instructed not to) do the same. So when you have two sets of people judging things on different standards, you should run into different verdicts.

      Are you implying that the physicians are more correct, or just different? Because I'd expect that there wouldn't be "no correlation" but that there's be a pro-physician bias, and that if you had other groups of non-juries examining the same things the physicians did and with the instructions the physicians were given, what did they say? If that wasn't done with the cases in question, then I'd assert the study was invalid in an obvious manner, probably because of a specific targeted agenda, such that I'd discard everything the study found.

    127. Re:What? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Step 1 : Get pregnant

      Step 2 : Give birth

      Step 3 : Get your child vaccinated

      Step 4 : ?

      Step 5 : Sue the shit out of those who vaccinated your child with an argument based on pseudo-science and PROFIT

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    128. Re:What? by cetialphav · · Score: 1

      The person who has done more.

      That is all you really care about? You don't care about the quality of the outcomes? If a significant portion of the tech's patients suffer a prolonged recovery due to infections, then you don't want the tech. Volume is no indicator of quality because the tech might be doing the procedure incorrectly. In fact, a cheaper tech may depend so much on volume for profitability that they may cut corners to squeeze in a few extra procedures per day.

      When it comes to medical procedures, I want the highest probability of a successful outcome that I can afford. Cost is a secondary consideration.

    129. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was listening to an evening radio program here in Australia only a few weeks ago on Vaccinations.

      The only calls the guy got on the subject where people who were anti-vaccinations. They had all the standard lines about how unsafe they are and what a conspiracy to keep us from the truth. The guy hosting the show had to cut in on almost every caller and explain that what they were saying was either patently wrong, from suspect research or cannot be supported with the latest research.

      When faced with the hard facts, these callers almost unanimously said, "well that's the point isn't it...we just don't know and we shouldn't be putting this poison into our children ...".

      To be honest, I got so angry I probably should've pulled the car over and calmed down.

      I had to laugh though. The next night, the subject of discussion on this program was peoples lack of understanding of scientific principles.

      And that's the real point isn't it. These people who hold to this type of crap have a pre-conceived idea and then scoop up all the internet information on it to support the idea they have, and reject any information that doesn't support it.

      I hold to one simple fact demonstrated by recorded statistics.

      I don't know ANYONE with Polio. My parents knew lots of kids with it.
      I don't know ANYONE who died from small pox. - One of the truly great moments in our history - Totally eradicated apart from 2 samples on ice.
      I don't need to worry my kids will go deaf or blind from measles.

      Look at the numbers, the people saved dwarf the numbers of cases of suspected injury.

    130. Re:What? by cetialphav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, unlike gambling, you are forced to play.

      This is life; you are forced to gamble either way. You are taking on risks whether you take the vaccine or not. Scientific evidence suggests that the risk is greater if you do not vaccinate. The state is forcing you take take the gamble with the lowest risk. It must do this because vaccines are ineffective if a significant portion of people do not get them.

      People have gotten so used to children not regularly dying of these diseases that they have taken it for granted. They have forgotten that this is not natural and that we have created this situation with our vaccination programs.

    131. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really a question of doctors policing themselves. It's more that there is a requirement for some actual experts in the field discussing the merits of the case internally and providing a single conclusion to the jury.

      When one experts lays out 10 years of work detailing that there is no evidence for even the slightest correlation between using toothpaste and getting cancer, and another experts simply looks at the jury an says: "She used toothpaste, and then got cancer. It's clear to see that there is a connection and that the toothpaste caused cancer". Then the jury can and sometimes do end up voting for the "logical" explanation rather then the weight of the research that they can't understand.

      Simple fact is that juries aren't made up of scientists and they are fully capable of making completely idiotic judgement.

    132. Re:What? by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      I know that pharmaceutical companies will do lab experiments and intentionally shape the results to their liking, but I really think that doing groundbreaking scientific research in a lab is far superior to attempting it in a courtroom.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    133. Re:What? by sharky611aol.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is incorrect. The money is not "donated". There is a VAERS tax assessed on every single vaccine administered in the country. You can argue the definition of "tax" on this one, but it is a fee required by the government, so that's a tax to me. This cost is passed on to the patient/insurance company/Medicaid. I can assure you the pharma companies aren't taking it out of their bottom line. (IAAPediatrician, btw, if that adds any validity to my post).

    134. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      If you ever read the Foundation novels, you would know that the best way to fix most every "crisis" that comes up is to do nothing - trust the system to be self-balancing until proven wrong over the long run.

      Balance might not always be the objective. and the path to it might not always be tolerable.

      Since we are on slashdot, how about a Star Wars example? Young Skywalker was prophesied to bring "balance" to the force. Yes, he did. After all, there were only a few Sith, and thanks to him we got rid of all those excess Jedi out ensuring peace and prosperity in the world.

      I suppose Rwanda was "self-balancing", as is AIDS in Africa and as the decline of Christian world dominance will be.

      One problem is when you use the phrase "over the long run"... What are you willing to tolerate between here and there? The other problem is the assumption that "balance" is even the end being sought -- generally I prefer good over evil, not a "balance" of the two.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    135. Re:What? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Huh? Of course my masseuse makes that, I pay her directly in cash and she is her own business so it's all hers. My doctor has overhead but since he's also the owner he also makes 100% of what I pay, he just has more overhead than my masseuse. A large percentage of that overhead is in insurance premiums due to stupid verdicts like this one, and in his billing department due to the retarded insurance system in the US. My biggest concern in reforming the area of malpractice is that there are legitimate examples of real harm being done that get limited the same as a nuisance suit.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    136. Re:What? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      That's great for the doctor, but what about the patient? Don't you think they have a right to have their claim heard in front of a jury of their peers?

      I didn't miss the definition of peers and how it relates to juries, it was covered in my first year law classes, thanks. My point is that the original definition is exactly the problem with the idea of setting up a jury filled with doctors and "medical men." In a situation like that, where the vast majority of suits would be Joe Blow suing his doctor, Joe Blow doesn't have a chance in hell if the jury is full of doctors. They'll much more often than not side with the doctor, just because they're in the same social class, leaving Joe Blow out in the cold.

      If you have to fuck around with the composition of the jury to get your system to work right, at least you should split the jury evenly between members of each side's social classes, to balance it out. Better still would be not fuck around with the jury, and instead either have professional juries, i.e. twelve ordinary people who do the jury duty as their job for a set term and on the same type of cases, so that they could learn something about the cases they do;* or skip the jury all together and have three- person tribunals as I suggested above.

      *The professional jury is not a new idea at all, and in fact grand juries as we know them are descended from quasi-professional juries. The major difference being that grand juries used to sit for longer periods of time; the juries heard the trials instead of just issuing indictments; and jurors would actively question witnesses, argue points, and were generally much more ornery than juries are now. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to this practice, myself, but it's pretty expensive.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    137. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anti-vaccine Nazi types: as a new parent, I myself am starting to question vaccines, though not for the first time. The first time was 2 years ago when my wife caught Whooping Cough, which she'd been vaccinated against as a child; the case was reported to the CDC, and this is why you now see all of these commercials for pertussis vaccinations. When first given, parents were told this would now be a dead disease; that it was 1 vaccination for life. Now, we were basically told, "uhh... oh, I guess it wears off". The solution? Get another one! Wait.... what?

      As someone who was taught the scientific method in grade school, as I'm sure you all were, I started looking into this. What I found is that a lot of the vaccines given even 20 years ago started changing formulations from the same vaccines given a generation before that. And they've changed again. They're bigger and better, and have all sorts of nasty preservatives in them. "They're perfectly harmless, and give the vaccines a longer shelf life." Oh, okay. Lets see the studies / controls then on the newly reformulated vaccines.

      Therein lies a problem. For most, there have not been any. Since the base formula has stayed the same, they haven't been subject to further study. The result? Wolf if sheep's clothing. Parents are unknowingly subjecting their children to new, unstudied vaccinations, that go under the guise of the same name as their ancestors. That should be cause for worry for everyone.

    138. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the compensation, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. It seems that you're thinking of how much it will cost the parents in how much of their life they need to give up to take care of their daughter.

      I look at it from both of their perspectives. What has this done to their daughter's life? She might have become CEO of a major corporation easily making $20 million _per year_. Combine that with what chance this girl has to have a family of her own, and $20 million seems a drop in the bucket for the lives it has destroyed; that of the parents, the girl, and what would have been her posterity.

    139. Re:What? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Well it isn't Constitutional for the federal government to force vaccination.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    140. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientific evidence suggests that the risk is greater if you do not vaccinate.

      Simple logic suggests that the risk is zero if everyone else vaccinates, but I do not.

    141. Re:What? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      what are you smoking? there's a damn good reason you don't have people with a bachelor's degree doing surgery! (nurses make $25-$30/hour) there are so many things that can go wrong, so many complications, so many drug interactions and allergies...

      Uh, what are you smoking? Do you actually know people who work in the healthcare industry? Because from what my friends tell me, it's the nurses and techs that catch the careless mistakes made by the doctors!

    142. Re:What? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      A federal mandatory-vaccination law might or might not be unconstitutional - no such law has ever existed, so it's never been tested in the courts. Vaccination programs in the US are controlled by individual states, and their ability to enforce mandatory programs has been upheld by the supreme court. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts for details. However, even though they have the right to institute such programs, the vast majority of states (all of them, maybe?) do not. Every state whose laws I've seen provide for exemptions to the usual vaccinations schedule, which means that the programs are not mandatory.

      So, basically, his argument fails at every possible level.

    143. Re:What? by Reaperducer · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is so much weight and force behind the vaccination campaigns and industry that parents are seldom, if ever, informed of the risks

      This is false. I have never seen a vaccine administered that didn't come with a form listing risks and side-effects that had to be signed by an adult. If you're getting shots without this form, then it's time to find another doctor. Just because you're too lazy to read the form doesn't mean you haven't been warned.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    144. Re:What? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      It must be blissful to live in such a simple black-and-white world. How do I sign up? Is it enough to slap everyone with labels, or do I have to stop thinking as well?

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    145. Re:What? by swjenner · · Score: 1

      The only research linking MMR vaccines to Autism (or Autistic-like symptoms) was proven a fake, while countless studies have shown that there is no link (correction: no link was shown. I know the difference).

      Wakefield seems to have been guilty of jumping the gun with his research, rather than acting inappropriately. He certainly noticed an apparent link between the multiple vaccine and autism, but instead of proving beyond any shadow of doubt, he went ahead and published... He got himself struck off as a result.

      I can remember listening to a man talking about his son, who had reacted very similarly to this little girl after receiving the MMR. However, he had subsequently read the packaging, and noted that the vaccine should only be administered to subjects that were in excellent health. It would seem that the manufacturer had reservations about hitting a child with such powerful substances whilst they had influenza or a cold etc.. The question in his mind was... "How does a doctor/nurse know (if there are no symptoms) that a child has a bug of some sort? His advice was to go ahead with vaccination, but to take the "single" route, to avoid what happened to his son.

      I am not sure that I would look favourably on a doctor or nurse that provided the stimulus that triggered autism in my child, this has to be one of the worst things that can happen to a child. The drug companies and the practitioners will make all sorts of excuses including blaming the child for having some pre-existing condition, but there is no way that without the multi-shot that they can be guilty of causing autism, but with it, they seem to be taking a risk.

      If I were a practitioner, I would be avoiding this vaccine like the plague.

      I don't know what the situation is in the USA (I understand that all children must be vaccinated), but in the UK there is no such requirement, but most people do, they can pay cash and get the singles, or they can use the NHS and get the multiple shot, or they can opt out.

      I do not think that the agreed compensation figure is at all unreasonable, caring for someone with this sort of condition is very expensive. Certainly if there are enough of these claims that reach a successful conclusion, there is eventually going to be a change of policy, and that can only be good.

    146. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hare dare you question Jenny McCarthy! She has been a playboy model **AND** squirted out a child, so she is clearly far more qualified in the field of science, research, and analysis than any of us!

      Don't forget ... She was on Oprah after all.

    147. Re:What? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Ok, you are retarded, not just absent-minded. Thanks for clarifying.

      Owning the business makes no difference, they still aren't depositing 100% of what you pay them into their personal accounts (unless they are REALLY stupid and have mixed personal and business accounts).

    148. Re:What? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      You would think that with all the video, all the TV, channels all the visual stuff flooding your eyes for your whole GD life you might have actually looked at what you see on the medical shows! It is not just hard to tell what something is, they change shape, color and texture with illness. A sick kidney don't look the same as a healthy one. Learning to judge that stuff is not just technical knowledge but experience, oversight by more skilled professionals who have seen much more that the beginning doctor. And still there are skills that are just individual.

      I saw a discussion on an internet show yesterday where R Dawkins was watching an anatomist show the vagus nerve of a giraffe and how it connects to the laryngeal nerve ( which was really cool BTW) but I could never have been able to differentiate the nerve from the surrounding fascia. It takes skill and training and practical experience.

      In Holland, (another place I sometimes live) the doctors are treated more like technicians. Their medical system is cheaper, but frankly it sucks. My father-in-law died from what could be defined as benign neglect. Yes he was elderly, but it was just too much work to care about him and really try to keep him alive through the illness that killed him. Yes, in the US we could have spent the money to give him a little more time with his grandkid, who was barely 2 when he passed. In Holland we couldn't do it, they just let him go.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    149. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      I think what he meant is that because disease such as pneumonia, flu, etc. seem so benign nowadays (because of effective treatment), the anti-vaccination people perceive the relative risk from vaccination to be much larger than it really is and as such are more afraid of it than from the diseases they are trying to prevent. In the end, because they want a risk-free world, they avoid the thing that they believe is much riskier - vaccines.
      It is much easier to be afraid of adverse reaction to vaccines you get than to appreciate the diseases you don't get due to the same vaccines. This is always the problem with medications given as preventative medicine. A person who bleeds because of Aspirin will be angry at the doctor for causing him harm. He does not know whether the same Aspirin also prevented a heart attack.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    150. Re:What? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      I recommend you read this post. It has a link to a NEJM article about the case. It specifically talks about the antigenic load in current vaccines relative to the first vaccines made (smallpox) and to a regular childhood infection.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    151. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But oh, so very lucrative a profession that treats illness is !

    152. Re:What? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yes, you go ahead and slice out someone's appendix while ignoring the critical diaphragm nerves.

      You've obviously never had the surgery. I have. Before any surgery, a good hospital gives you a full packet detailing the surgery, plus the actual surgeon tells you again, in more layman's terms.

      Those modding me offtopic are complete fools and can't understand things I was explicitly told while in a hospital, TWICE FUCKING DEAD AFTER THE FACT.

      Want the full report? I can scan it and send it to you.

      Right down to the surgical procedure, airlift recusitation, and more. Already did this on Fox, I'll be more than happy to prove the rest of you wrong.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    153. Re:What? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      But unfortunately a few anti-vaccine Nazi types with mod points burning holes in their pockets came tearing through this comment thread not long after I posted that.

      Speaking of anti-vaccine Nazi types: just what is it with Americans and vaccine hysteria? I know it's a land of witch hunts, but this is simply idiotic, even by American standards. Where the heck did this thing originate, and what's keeping it going?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    154. Re:What? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      However, unlike gambling, you are forced to play.

      Why yes, you are: either take the vaccine or not. These are the logical alternatives; you can't avoid taking one of them. To refuse to gamble is refusing to allow time to pass.

      The state requires you to enroll your child in school and ensure attendance, and requires that your child be vaccinated in order to attend.

      And a good thing too. This very story shows once again that people are dumb as bricks. Why should we allow them the freedom to hurt other people through their stupidity and irrationality?

      So it's only fitting that the state step up when children are harmed by vaccines, just as the airline whose jet falls on my house is liable for the damage done even if the jet was carrying donor organs intended to save lives.

      State should step up when children are harmed because the very purpose of the state is to help its citizens. And you'd better hope you don't get the same court as decided this case; they might order you to pay the airline for damages caused to their jet by your house ;(.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    155. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's almost no correlation between who gets awards and who does not.

      There's a perfect negative correlation. None of the people who get awards are people who also don't get awards.

    156. Re:What? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I think you've got some things mixed up. There is no need to fluoridate water if people actually do brush their teeth. There is more than enough fluoride in tooth paste. For those who don't, fluoridated table salt isn't a bad method. As to chlorinated drinking water, I've got my share of it living in the USSR. In Germany, where I live for the last 17 years, chlorination is only seldom used, the water is usually purified by UV and ozone (with the exception of swimming pool water, of course). The water tastes much better this way.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    157. Re:What? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, whom exactly have I slapped with a label? I've provided what I believe to be a description of people that subscribe to a certain political philosophy. Others here who claim that label for themselves have disagreed with me. I have not labeled anyone in this discussion.

      I suppose you could consider "private sector" and "public sector" to be labels, but those are defined, not opinion. I have not accused any participant in this discussion of belonging to any group or holding any particular belief.

      And no, I don't see the world as "black and white", but discussing examples that are opposite in nature makes for a clearer discussion than debating the nuances of the middle ground.

      Re: your sig -- did you have a job when Bill Clinton was president?

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    158. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I think you've got some things mixed up. There is no need to fluoridate water if people actually do brush their teeth. There is more than enough fluoride in tooth paste. For those who don't, fluoridated table salt isn't a bad method. As to chlorinated drinking water, I've got my share of it living in the USSR. In Germany, where I live for the last 17 years, chlorination is only seldom used, the water is usually purified by UV and ozone (with the exception of swimming pool water, of course). The water tastes much better this way.

      No, I don't. You're just being pedantic. My point is that people who complain about fluoridation (whether it be in your water supply, your toothpaste or your table salt is irrelevant to the discussion) are just as irrational and incapable of making reasonable tradeoffs as those who are against vaccination.

      Pedants. Cripes.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    159. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>

      To me it just doesn't make logical sense to have a $50/hour doctor doing appendectomies when a $25/hour tech could do the job just as well.

      If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

      The tech. After all, I have the equivalent of technicians (mechanics) fix my car not a high-paid engineer flown-in from Chrysler. Also it's worth noting that Doctor Jonas Salk, the guy famous for curing blue baby syndrome and first to perform open heart surgery, didn't actually do the work himself. He let his black assistant/technician do it. Why? Because the tech was lower paid, but also more skilled.

      In fact I think in most cases the techs are more skilled than the engineers (or doctors), at least when it comes to hands-on work. That's all they do day-after-day, and they become experts with their hands.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    160. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Messed up my last post. Here it is again:

      >>>If it was your appendix, and you had a choice, which one would you choose?

      The tech. After all, I have the equivalent of technicians (mechanics) fix my car not a high-paid engineer flown-in from Chrysler. They do a good job, and for half the cost. ALSO it's worth noting that Doctor Jonas Salk, the guy famous for curing blue baby syndrome and first to perform open heart surgery, didn't actually do the work himself. He let his black assistant/technician do it. Why? Because the tech was lower paid, but also more skilled.

      In fact I think in most cases the techs are more skilled than the engineers (or doctors), at least when it comes to hands-on work. That's all they do day-after-day, and they become experts with their hands.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    161. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>there's a damn good reason you don't have people with a bachelor's degree doing surgery! (nurses make $25-$30/hour) there are so many things that can go wrong, so many complications, so many drug interactions and allergies...
      >>>

      On those rare instances, THEN you call in a doctor for advice. But in most cases surgery is cookie-cutter. It's the same procedure again and again and again. Heck, we could probably have robots do it, if robots ever reached sufficient precision for that level of work.

      It just doesn't seem logical to me to have a high paid person when you could have a cheaper one. You don't need an engineer to work an assembly line, or solder a part on board-after-board in the lab. You use techs. Likewise neither do you need a doctor in most of these "assembly line" style clinics that just keep doing the same surgery person-after-person.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    162. Re:What? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not really. My point was that while there are some nuts, you broadly dismiss even people with perfectly valid concerns.
      You hear that people are against - for example - chlorinated drinking water and rant that those people are irrational, while in fact don't have to be, maybe they just are aware of better (or at least tastier) ways of disinfecting water.

      In case of vaccination there is no better way yet, though.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    163. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I pay my masseuse $90/hr

      Yeah and she gets to keep about $40 of it. The rest goes towards paying assistants if she has any, paying the lease on the building, paying business tax, paying for electricity and office supplies. This is similar to how when I worked at Lockheed they listed my "rate" as $100 for the US Navy, but I only got to see $45 of it. The other $60 went toward office costs, health benefits, and general expenses.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    164. Re:What? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Conservative vs. (implied) Liberal is the label and black-and-white world in which you've demonstrated you live.

      As for the sig, no. I lost my job because of one of Clinton's policies. Now with the failure of the banking system, everyone else can see how well his policies worked, too. That's what happens when your campaign mantra is "Character doesn't matter" and you re-define "millionaire" to mean people who make $200k. Much like Obama has redefined "high-earners" to include people making $40-$50k.

      And since I've brought up Obama, no I don't have any particular axe to grind against him. Though I didn't drink the Hope(tm) and Change(tm) Kool-Aide, I did believe he was the person best positioned to do something different. Now that he's president, I just wish he would do something. Anything. He's been a complete disappointment. All I've seen out of him is press conferences where to scolds the American people like we're all ignorant little children and he's the only person in the world who knows anything. He seems to spend most of his time campaigning like he's still running for election. I'd like to see him do some actual work.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    165. Re:What? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Simple: The one who's had the most practice poking around inside people, ie. the low-paid tech.

      QFT.

      >>>the best mechanic I ever knew (I used to work as one) had only two years of official training. But that didn't stop our 4 year "expert" journeyman (who made twice as much) from frequently deferring to his judgment because, quite frankly, the man knew his shit better than anyone in the shop.
      >>>

      QFT. I do the same thing. I may be an engineer but I'm smart enough to know, when it comes to actually building and prototyping boards, the technicians know more than I do. They do that job day after day. My expertise is design and documentation. Theirs is hands on work.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    166. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No link has ever been shown" isn't the same as "there is no link". The fact that Wakefield had conflicts of interest and poor controls is still the conflicts of interest, poor controls, lack of _proper_ regulation, and the revolving door between the drug companies and regulatory positions in the government.

      In short, the fact that the study was flawed doesn't mean that purported results aren't true. It just means that the study should be repeated. Hopefully more than once, by many independant "non-interested" parties. If there really is no link, I'd like to _actually_ prove it once and for all.

    167. Re:What? by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I believe every state allows for home schooling. And of course you can leave the state (or the States) if you're not OK with vaccines. That seems like plenty of options apart from "forced to play".

      And that's ignoring the fact that children aren't being harmed by vaccines. But if they hypothetically were, you'd still have a choice in the matter if you were really bad at math and wanted your child to die from an easily-prevented disease instead of taking a very small (even in the most insane of estimates) chance of vaccination harm.

      It's quite reasonable for the state to prevent unvaccinated children from bringing communicable diseases to public schools.

    168. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took out my less-than sign. "The fact that Wakefield had conflicts of interest and poor controls is still (less than) the conflicts of interest, poor controls, lack of _proper_ regulation, and the revolving door between the drug companies and regulatory positions in the government.

      For that matter, the fact that these tests haven't been repeated just looks suspicious. Makes it look like there is a link that they're trying to bury for the "overall good" of the population. That some sacrifice is somehow acceptable. Whether they meant it or not, that is the message that's being sent.

    169. Re:What? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      First off states / governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.

      Secondly whether the SCOTUS declares something Constitutional or not doesn't necessarily make it so. The document has a fixed meaning and any power not specifically delegated to the federal government by way of the Constitution is reserved to either the People or the State governments. Since I don't see anything about healthcare or vaccination or control of plagues etc in the Constitution then those powers must be reserved to the States (or to the People).

      On a more fundamental level which would be applied to the States, the government cannot force you to be vaccinated if you should choose not to. In a free society the individual is free to make their own decisions, even if they are poor decisions, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. If one owns one's body, then no else can tell them what they can and cannot put into their own body. If the community or government can make decisions about your body, then you don't own your body, and thus are not only not free, but have no rights at all. It's just that simple.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    170. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1
      r

      maybe they just are aware of better (or at least tastier) ways of disinfecting water.

      Well, certainly there are, and nobody says they shouldn't use them if that is their wish. That is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. What is germane are ways in which an entire population can be served with water that won't make them sick. That's not so simple.

      I object to such people because they feel that their unscientific and dangerous ideas about health should supersede decades of research and the generally excellent track record of the American water supply. They are nuts, and they fit right in with the people who don't feel that children should be vaccinated against disease. I just don't see any reason to defend willful ignorance, especially when it can affect the health and well-being of so many people.

      Besides, this discussion is about public health, not individual preference. That is, ways in which the well-being of hundreds of millions of people can be reasonably assured without each household being required to maintain a water filter because our cities failed to treat our drinking water properly, or our society risking multiple pandemics because of irrational fear of vaccines.

      The fact that tap water may not be as "tasty" as some people would like is completely outside the purview of public health. Government's legitimate concern is that said water be adequately free of contaminants and pathogens. Besides, if these wingnuts want a product that is at the same time tastier and less safe than their tap water, let them buy it in bottles. Problem solved, although according to Penn & Teller's Bullshit! program on this subject, most people prefer New York tap water to any of several bottled brands.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    171. Re:What? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      First off states / governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.

      Rights are meaningless without the power to enforce them, so I'd say the two are interchangeable. If being pedantic makes you happy, though, fill your boots - I see no reason to quibble over minor details.

      Secondly whether the SCOTUS declares something Constitutional or not doesn't necessarily make it so. The document has a fixed meaning

      Hardly. If that were so, slavery would never have been legal in the US, and women would always have had the right to vote. Whether or not you want to admit it, no document in existence has a "fixed meaning".

      Since I don't see anything about healthcare or vaccination or control of plagues etc in the Constitution ...

      In that case, the Public Health Service Act is unconstitutional. I suggest you either get to work challenging it in court, or accept the fact that there are many laws in effect for which you will find no direct link to the constitution. Most of them are justified by the "general welfare" part of the constitution.

      On a more fundamental level which would be applied to the States, the government cannot force you to be vaccinated if you should choose not to.

      I disagree, as do the courts.

      In a free society the individual is free to make their own decisions, even if they are poor decisions, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others

      Sure; except that your decision not to vaccinate yourself does infringe on the rights of others. Namely on their right to life, which, judging by the fact that it's named first in the constitution, is probably an important one.

      In the case which I already mentioned, the Supreme Court made the following comment:

      "The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State."

      Using your earlier reasoning, you could argue that it's unconstitutional to make drunk-driving illegal. Both arguments would be equally "valid".

    172. Re:What? by I_M_Noman · · Score: 1

      it's worth noting that Doctor Jonas Salk, the guy famous for curing blue baby syndrome and first to perform open heart surgery, didn't actually do the work himself.

      Probably because Dr. Salk wasn't involved with the first open-heart surgery. He was the guy who invented the polio vaccine. (See for yourself.)

    173. Re:What? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      No, rights and powers are NOT interchangeable. Rights are natural, inherent, and part of each individual's humanity. Rights cannot be delegated or taken or infringed justly (without due process in a court of law). Powers are delegated, specific, arbitrary, and often fluid. Those with rights delegate power to others.

      And rights do not originate with the government, the community, or even the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Rights exist because each individual exists. Government doesn't give us rights. Our rights are simply there.

      The Constitution does indeed have a fixed meaning. It means the same thing now that it did at the time it was written down. It's called original meaning (as opposed to original intent which is fairly impossible to know in many cases and a bit more subjective). The Constitution sets up basic rules of the federal government and some limited action between the states. It's a very narrow and constraining document. Would you get into a poker game where the rules are in flux and constantly subject to fickle "interpretation"? I would hope not.

      The SCOTUS has said that some specific items are "Constitutional" and also then later said those same items are also "unconstitutional". Without the document being amended both cannot be true. Therefore the SCOTUS is (often) wrong about what qualifies as Constitutional action and what doesn't.

      You're right, MOST of what the federal government does is indeed unconstitutional because it's not a power delegated to the federal government by the states in that document. Even members of Congress have admitted this very openly and publicly. Rep James Clyburn is a recent example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiThqLLPp1c

      However forced vaccinations infringe upon the individual's right to decide for their own body and does not infringe upon the rights of others. Refusing a vaccine does not infringe on anyone's rights. If others don't want to run the risk of getting infected then they can choose to accept the vaccine. Freedom means the freedom to make one's own choices, even if they are poor choices.

      I would suggest you search for and read some of the following scholars: Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Tom Woods, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Mises, Badnarik, Lysander Spooner, Hayek, Rothbard, and Thomas Jefferson.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    174. Re:What? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how your entire comment can be summed up as:

      "Nuh-uh!"

      I'm gonna guess that we're done here. Ignoring my points while repeating your own is not a discussion - it's a waste of both our time.

    175. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAL. Legal fees are clearly medical expenses since we are such a pain in everyone's asses.

      Oh, don't worry. I won't be quitting my day job.

    176. Re:What? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I hold to one simple fact demonstrated by recorded statistics.

      I don't know ANYONE with Polio. My parents knew lots of kids with it.
      I don't know ANYONE who died from small pox. - One of the truly great moments in our history - Totally eradicated apart from 2 samples on ice.
      I don't need to worry my kids will go deaf or blind from measles.

      Look at the numbers, the people saved dwarf the numbers of cases of suspected injury.

      I think that this is the vaccine's greatest triumph and also it's vulnerability. We *don't* know anyone who had Polio. Thus, we never witnessed first-hand the horrors that Polio brought to society. Were we more ignorant of the science involved, we might be taken in by claims of potential harms that vaccines might cause. Then, in our own mentals risk assessment, we'd downplay the benefits of Polio vaccination (after all, it wasn't *that bad*, right?) and up-play the "risks" (Dr. Quackenstein says vaccines cause spontaneous zombie-ism).

      Like Penn said, even if vaccines caused autism, which they *DON'T*, but even if they did, which they *DON'T*, the number of people whose lives have been saved (and will be saved in the future) by continuing to vaccinate dwarfs any harm that they might cause.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    177. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US FDA found a few legitimate studies which suggested a possible link.

      Assume for the minute, that vaccines were an aggravating factor causing autism.
      Removing mercury from vaccines would then make autism drop. However,
      this may be entirely offset by more diagnoses coming from better awareness.

      This chart by the FDA shows some vaccines had high levels of mercury until 2007 and a few still do.

      http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm#t1

      The primary concern with vaccines has been mercury content.
      "A weak association was found with thimerosal [mercury] intake and certain neurodevelopmental disorders (such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) in one study, but was not found in a subsequent study. Additional studies are planned in these areas."

    178. Re:What? by antdah · · Score: 1

      TYet, now we have the government admiting that the vaccine resulted in what happened to the girl.

      So typical the american government/courts to admit shit they have no understanding what so ever about. This is what happens when you bring in morons to make decisions above their competence after some agenda-driven jerk has spewed bullshit over them for hours.

      So yes, it sounds like a bad April Fools story. Sadly enough, it ain't.

      So true.

  2. Now you know by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you ever wondered why drug companies would rather work on yet another allergy medication instead of vaccines with a much bigger potential to help people, well, look no further.

    1. Re:Now you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because there is money to earn in allergy medication; and barely anything (except to recover production costs) in government regulated vaccines?

    2. Re:Now you know by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Manufactures of vaccines are granted immunity from lawsuit. The money for this will come out of tax payers pockets. Incidentally it means that nobody involved had any benefit to fight paying these people.

    3. Re:Now you know by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. It's because you need allergy medication every day of your life. Vaccines are (mostly) single-use.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Now you know by strikethree · · Score: 0, Troll

      That girl now has a $20 million bounty on her head for her death. All taxpayers have an incentive to kill the child now.

      Everything about this case is wrong. Negligence should be proven and whomever was negligent, should have to pay. She had an underlying disorder that was aggravated by a normal, required procedure? Life sucks and shit happens. No, it is not fair. Perhaps the doctors should have realized she had a mitochondrial issue although I fail to see how they would notice this unless there were grossly obvious symptoms beforehand.

      Ultimately, I do not understand why this girl deserves better medical care than I do.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    5. Re:Now you know by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Wow. I thought my own thoughts were pretty extreme at times, but you've got me beat hands down. Kill the child? Seriously? If there is incentive for anything, it would be to appeal the case.

    6. Re:Now you know by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      He wasn't recommending it, he was just describing the results of the outcome. Of course, nobody will do that, because most people seem to forget that "government money" is actually their money. They think that "getting the government to do it" means the resources required just pop into being.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Now you know by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'll take the allergy medicine over a vaccine any day.

      There are far more sufferers of allergies than specific diseases. the last two big vaccines werewere for flu and hpv. I can't speak to hpv from a personal perspective, but wouldn't gladly take flu every few years then a slightly earlier death once I am already frail, if it meant I could do away with my allergies.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:Now you know by erroneus · · Score: 1

      It stopped being our money when we gave it, voluntarily, to the government. (Compulsory information cannot be used against you in court and yet tax records are routinely used against you in court... so either the use of tax records are illegal in court or paying taxes is voluntary.) Furthermore, where the money goes, is quite the mystery most of the time and in reality, much of it is actually paid for through debt financing through the privately owned bank called the Federal Reserve (which is about as "federal" as Federal Express is).

      Yes, let's talk about what people don't know... the rabbit hole goes much deeper than not knowing where tax payer money goes.

    9. Re:Now you know by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      That girl now has a $20 million bounty on her head for her death. All taxpayers have an incentive to kill the child now.

      Kill the child? Seriously? If there is incentive for anything, it would be to appeal the case.

      He wasn't recommending it, he was just describing the results of the outcome.

      Yeah, sure he was.

      As the GP pointed out, the probable response to the outcome is that people would (and probably should) complain about the legal process that handed down a flawed decision.

      If a rich guy in an expensive car accidentally drives into a dangerous poor area, and someone pointed out that if the guy was to be killed and his car stolen the perpetrator would probably get away with it... hey, they're just "describing" the situation, right?

      The OP is either being exceptionally disingenuous or he's indulging in the sort of detached, pseudo-logical wankery that too often passes for argument on Slashdot.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    10. Re:Now you know by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I can see how you could easily misinterpret my intent. There is no way I would consider killing a child.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    11. Re:Now you know by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't.

    12. Re:Now you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many allergy medications, but zero vaccines for some diseases. Everyone ought to get vaccinated for some diseases, but only so many people have allergies. And there are new strains every year.

    13. Re:Now you know by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Compulsory information cannot be used against you in court

      They subpoena emails, DNA and other things all the time with the intention of using them against you in court. You may have an argument where they "shouldn't" but they certainly "can" and do, so your argument is obviously false.

    14. Re:Now you know by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Unless you fix your immune system with exercise and proper nutrition.

    15. Re:Now you know by Klinky · · Score: 1

      No, nobody will do it because it's morally and ethically reprehensible. Why would you even try to equate that the reason people aren't murdering this child is because they're blind to government waste? That's completely stupid.

    16. Re:Now you know by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Not only are they single use, but they were always low profit to begin with so the GP is still right. The reason that we have such chronic shortages of flu vaccines each year in the United States, for example, is that very few pharmaceutical companies want to to go to the trouble and expense of making them in exchange for such modest rewards. They believe (correctly) that their production, research and development capital can be more profitably spent elsewhere. Large legal judgments, such as this one, will only provide further disincentive and discouragement to vaccine work. The irony of this whole affair is that these parents are going to make many other children worse off in years to come as vaccines become harder to get and more expensive. Indeed, this is yet another example of Internet enabled and organized crackpots doing their part to roll back the hard-won progress of science in American society.

    17. Re:Now you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking moron. There are less sufferers of "specific diseases" NOW because people get vaccinated.
      See this post for an example of your ideal world where there are no vaccines for example polio.

    18. Re:Now you know by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      Which is why i don't want focus on vaccines, we got the big ones.

      I specifically mentioned two recent vaccines, and elaborated on my feelings on one relevant to my life.

      At no point did I mean to compare to past research, only present and future.

      I guess truly what I would like is a vaccine, but for my allergies. Let the old, the sick, the frail, and the super young die of the flu (myself included), and get my damned allergies fixed.

      Of course, at this point take the flu vaccine, that is different then saying this is where to research.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Say it again...

    more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

    --
    You keep using that word.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.
    1. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Seems like copy and paste can sometimes do more harm than good. Seems like copy and paste can sometimes do more harm than good.

    2. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a simple re-read of your post before submitting it should alleviate this kind of error from appearing in the main post. It seems some /. contributors are too lazy for that step though.

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
    3. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 2, Informative

      On the other hand this is the first dupe in the summary I've seen in over a decade...

    4. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      But I assure you that you will see it again soon. again.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    5. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh the irony!

      I got moderated as redundant. By the Department of Redundancy Department no doubt.

      I got moderated as redundant. By the Department of Redundancy Department no doubt.

      How ironic is that?

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
    6. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      You know what is ironic? That you use "ironic" when something is not ironic and your sig is:

      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Pointing out a redundency and being singled out as redundant yourself is either unfitting (if your view is in fact insightful) or deserving (if someone thinks that it was so obvious, that your post was not needed).

      P.S. I know a case can be made to this being in fact irony. In that case, my post is ironic, but I will go with the conservative view of irony for the purpose of this comment.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    7. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was going for funny.

      But I guess my sense of humor is a bit too dry and laced with sarcasm today. Or perhaps it is not appreciated all that much by the crowd that gets drawn to this "serious" topic.

      An interesting thing to note though is that although, as you say...

      Pointing out a redundency and being singled out as redundant yourself is either unfitting (if your view is in fact insightful) or deserving (if someone thinks that it was so obvious, that your post was not needed).

      ...the redundancy is so obvious. And yet here we are more than two hours later and it still exists in the main post. Obviously, it isn't obvious enough to have gotten corrected yet, despite numerous people pointing it out in the comments.

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
    8. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Well, you got my +1 funny mod. I enjoyed your post (again and again).
      Actually, it might be that our /. overlords have seen this thread and do not want to change the main post so as to not make this thread irrelevant to future generations.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    9. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Crock23A · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was written by someone with autism.

    10. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. That must be it. Redundant, but at least not irrelevant.

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
    11. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 1

      In order to preserve the relevance of the redundancy threads, the original /. post is quoted below...

      Science: Family To Receive $1.5M+ In Vaccine-Autism Award

      Posted by timothy on Saturday September 11, @03:54AM
      from the welcome-to-a-jury-of-your-peers dept.

      An anonymous reader, quoting from CBS News, writes

      "'The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime. more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime. ... In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't 'cause' her autism, but 'resulted' in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism 'test cases' have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.' How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?"

      This way things are even more redundant....heheheh!

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
    12. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should also copy paste all the comments into my post, including my own, thus earning a +1 Recursive, which is way more honorable than +1 Redundant.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    13. Re:One more time... ...with feeling... by Ssherby · · Score: 1

      Wow!

      I wish I had moderation points and I wish I could dump them all on this post to make it +5 funny.

      --
      You keep using that word.
      I do not think it means what you think it means.
  4. Dear Federal Government, by mdenham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My doctorb has proof that I have a previously unknown mitochondrial disorder that does not cause, but results in, a deep-seated need to receive large quantities of money.

    $2.2 billion dollars would be appreciated as compensation.

    1. Re:Dear Federal Government, by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Funny

      the B is for Bargain!

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    2. Re:Dear Federal Government, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it Dr. Nick Riviera from the Hollywood Upstairs medical school?

  5. Really? by ohiovr · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the mystery about the cause of autism is solved?

    1. Re:Really? by Kristopeit,+Michael · · Score: 1, Interesting

      given autism is defined only by symptoms, the mystery CAN'T be solved.

    2. Re:Really? by EmporerD · · Score: 1

      Not until everyone has received their just due of $20 million dollars.

    3. Re:Really? by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the mystery about the cause of autism is solved?

      Legally? Yes. Scientifically? No.

    4. Re:Really? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it's a shame.

      Reminds me of former Senator John Edwards and how he made his millions.

    5. Re:Really? by ohiovr · · Score: 1

      lets say a kid never had a vaccination in his entire life (find on in Africa maybe?) that has autism. Doesn't that blow away the theory?

    6. Re:Really? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No. A kid who's never had an injection might have AIDS, but that doesn't mean I can't stick a needle in you and give you AIDS. Of course, the vaccine / autism link HAS been "blown away", but not by your reasoning :) There was never any data to support a link in the first place. The conclusive proof came when we started taking mercury out of vaccines and didn't see any corresponding drop in autism rates. Of course, the lunatics just started moving the goalposts, but any semi-rational objection became impossible at that point.

    7. Re:Really? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the mystery about the cause of autism is solved?

      Legally? Yes. Scientifically? No.

      More like:
      Legally? Yes, but only for one specific case. Scientifically? Yes, but only for one, possibly rare, cause.

    8. Re:Really? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Um...autism existed before vaccines, so there you go.

  6. who decided to make the award? by dltaylor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't see any identification of the fecal encephalitis case(s) that made the award.

    Did the plaintiff's lawyers search for the dimwittedest court in the USofA?

  7. Previous condition by Epeeist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As was noted in the article, the girl had an underlying condition which the vaccine aggravated. It was a very specific case.

    This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

    1. Re:Previous condition by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be so sure. Think about it. Without a test your child too may have a rare mitochondrial disorder. Without a study no one knows how prevalent the disorder might be. When it comes to parents even vaccines that have a higher chance of saving a life than causing autism become something to worry about.

    2. Re:Previous condition by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 0, Troll

      This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

      I wonder how often and loudly you'll need to repeat that in order for it to maintain its buffering effect against reality...

      -FL

    3. Re:Previous condition by Psychotria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

      I wonder how often and loudly you'll need to repeat that in order for it to maintain its buffering effect against reality...

      -FL

      I have no idea what your comment means, but it's modded insightful so I have to respond. The reality is that the diseases that vaccinations prevent are far more horrible than you can imagine, probably because you've grown up in a world without them. Parents who do not vaccinate their children are irresponsible. They are blind to what these diseases do because when they grew up the diseases barely existed in countries with vaccination (if at all). By not vaccinating your children you not only risk their lives but you risk the lives of countless others. The reasoning behind the choices of not to vaccinate are largely based on pseudoscience and absurd.

    4. Re:Previous condition by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's not doubting that this doesn't vindicate the vaccine conspiracy theorists ideas. He's saying that no matter how correct you are, these nuts will still point to this as a reason why they should be given money as well.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:Previous condition by Psychotria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that is the case, then I apologise to the OP. I still maintain that those against immunisation/vaccination are irresponsible, though.

    6. Re:Previous condition by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Since the anti-vaccination groups have managed to maintain their belief in the face of scientific evidence, I am pretty sure they would look at this case as something that does validate their views, while continuing to ignore the evidence all around them.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    7. Re:Previous condition by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FTFA,

      "The vaccine didn't cause the disorder, it resulted in it. "

      I want to ask these parents, this judge, how many horrible deaths of young children from preventable deseases they are then liable for? The parents, lawyers and judge will not cause the deaths of these children, but thier actions certainly will result in the horrible deaths of children from preventable deseases.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    8. Re:Previous condition by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no problem with this family getting money to help thier child, my problem is the way it was done, it willnot be clear to many parents that this doesn't mean that vacconations cause autism.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    9. Re:Previous condition by Psychotria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, your statement is couched in terms of the absolute, so I'll reply in the same way. [...] My children aren't vaccinated (12 and 8 respectively), and they're slender, highly active kids - the older was swim club champion last year. Actually, I can't fatten them up - I cook nearly all their food, and they don't often leave much on the plate.

      It's got more to do with healthy lives and healthy immune systems than vaccines.

      Well, I'll reply in the same way also. You're wrong. You're irresponsible. And it's parents like you who endanger the lives of others. Healthy lifestyle and healthy immune systems are more important than vaccines? Yes, they're important but they don't stop the disease, although they might help you recover from the disease (if the disease is actually recoverable from). You talk about healthy immune systems -- what do you actually think that immunisation does?

    10. Re:Previous condition by Zironic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Healthy lives and Vaccination doesn't have much to do with eachother, the thing is that there is a very high mortality rate among unvaccinated children because there exists a lot of easily vaccinated diseases that are dangerous, I'll let Pen and Teller illustrate.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

    11. Re:Previous condition by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say you are enjoying the benefits of herd-immunity. You might not find life to be so rosy if everyone were to act in the same way.

    12. Re:Previous condition by TheLink · · Score: 2

      The big difference between the mass-vaccines and normal medication is:

      Mass vaccine:
      1) You are not sick when you get it
      2) "Everyone" gets it, very high percentages of the population in some cases.
      3) So some "corner case" might get affected.

      Other medication/treatment:
      1) You are sick when you get it
      2) Only those who are sick with the appropriate disease are supposed to get it.
      3) Many of the "corner cases" might have died of something else before they got to this stage, or their mutant immune system is such that they rarely get sick except from pesky vaccines ;).

      So there is actually a higher chance that the vaccine could make you worse off than you were before you got it. In contrast normal medication is more likely to make you better than worse (at least that's what those trials and studies are supposed to prove first ;) ).

      As a result the safety considerations of the two are not the same.

      For example: say in a study or a trial of a few thousand people, only 1% had problems and treatment had to be withdrawn for them, and it worked for 25%. This would be extremely good results for a drug for liver cancer. But terrible for a mass vaccine.

      Another example: peanuts are generally recognized as safe, but if you forced all children to consume peanuts as part of a mass health program, even just once, there would certainly be problems and even fatalities.

      So while I do think much of the noise about vaccines is much like that "WiFi is giving me/my children" problems, it's ridiculous to say it's so safe.

      It certainly can't be 100% safe, and using the safety standards of "normal medicine/treatment" may not be good enough. You'd have to apply the percentage of potential adverse reactions and fatalities, to millions of people who weren't sick in the first place, then ask, is it worth it?

      And it's not just the active ingredient of the vaccine. How about the preservatives and other components of the "productized" vaccine? People can claim thimerosal is safe, but I'm not personally confident that giving it to millions wouldn't cause problems with a few hundreds - there are all sorts of people out there. Many metabolize/"flush" things differently.

      --
    13. Re:Previous condition by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

      No, but they'll take it as such. They take discredited research, the fact that the research on their side is even being questioned at all (because you know that proves there's a conspiracy), and a former playboy model's testimony, and validate their beliefs with it. Naturally a court case somewhat in their favor is going to be even more "proofy" for them. Had it been against them, they merely would have used it as further proof there's a conspiracy.

    14. Re:Previous condition by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      and if your child gets polio? how would you feel?

    15. Re:Previous condition by bertok · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's called Herd Immunity. While you and your children aren't well protected against the infections that moderns societies vaccinate against, everyone else is, providing indirect protection. The people around you aren't sick, so they can't pass on infection to you, even though you are vulnerable. You live in a country where the negative impact of you foregoing vaccination is minimised because everyone else did get vaccinated. Hardly a solid argument against vaccination.

      Most vaccines don't provide total protection to any one individual anyway, so many people that think they are protected aren't, and get by, just like you, because of the immunity of the population as a whole. As long as enough people are immune, diseases won't spread. The problem is that some vaccines are only just barely effective enough to establish herd immunity. If enough people decide to forego vaccination, there could be a real problem. Diseases that have been nearly wiped out could make a comeback, imported by tourists or immigrants from the third world. Even people who been vaccinated might die or become paralysed by their thousands, because of a small, foolish minority of people like yourself.

    16. Re:Previous condition by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, the number of people who get sick from a vaccine even closely to the degree they would have with the disease it is so unbelievably small it's not even worth considering.

      Second of all, you are completely ignoring the social side of this. If nobody gets vaccinated, some people will get sick. Without vaccines the disease spreads quickly and eventually (it doesn't take long) a large majority of the population starts getting sick. With vaccines however, the disease is not able to survive further than a few victims and eventually (5 years or so) if nearly everyone is vaccinated, the disease DIES.

      This is exactly what they did to smallpox in North America. They vaccinated so many people (pretty much everyone over 30-40 has the scar from it) that the disease is almost unheard of in North America. In fact, if it's so much as suspected at a hospital, the entire place is put into lockdown.

      1 person out of 5000 getting sick from a vaccine (generously bad number) is nothing compared to what happens when people don't get vaccinated and the disease hits everyone. Remember, if you don't get vaccinated for something, the main reason is probably that most people around you DID. So stop being selfish and help SOLVE the problem!

    17. Re:Previous condition by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anecdotes are useless. The diseases you mention are all killers, over half a million kids die every year from measles alone. Your infectious spawn should be kept out of public schools.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but calling what she had "Autism" instad of "some autism-like symptoms" distorts the argument even more. Hannah Polling's mitochondrial disorder caused her to meet a few of the autism spectrum symptoms, but that doesn't mean she has an actual ASD. This is truly grasping at straws by the Mercury Militia, as the science is definitely not on their side.

      Still, what gauls me the most about this sort of rampant trumpeting by the anti-vaccination folks is the incredible hubris it demonstrates. These are people who think an undergrad degree from Wikipedia and a PhD from Google University earned over a year or two trumps the hundreds of thousands of man-years of collective medical knowledge held by people who have devoted their lives to the issue.

    19. Re:Previous condition by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

      You said something fascinating that caught my eye:

      > So there is actually a higher chance that the vaccine could make you worse off than you were before you got it.

      This doesn't seem to be correct. Applying any medication to someone who is already ill is riskier than applying it to a healthy person: between allergies, mistakes in dosage, infections from visiting a hospital or mishandling needles, and allergic reactions that are far more dangerous in an ill person, the risk seems higher.

      The problem is in the "benefit" side. The risk of getting polio or German measles today is small, so for an individual to refuse the vaccine significantly reduces their risk of such negative consequences, and creates only a miniscule risk for them of infection. The problem is when enough personally cautious people refuse the vaccine that a threshold of vulnerability is crossed and the disease becomes far more common, and the risk is increased, and especially if the disease mutates slightly and becomes drug-resistant or requires new vaccines. We do not want to see polio or German measles become rampant again.

      And we had the opportunity, several times now, to entirely eliminate polio. The vaccine was ready, the last active strains of it could have been wiped off the planet (with digital storage of the DNA, just in case a sample was hidden somewhere). The remaining nations with transmitted cases are Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to WHO. Why does the disease still exist there? Because of war and fear of poison, especially of sterilizing poisons administered by foreign governments to control native population. By the time natives who understood enough biochemistry to attest to the vaccine's effectiveness and safety could be gathered, the stockpiles of vaccine for Nigeria, for example, had expired and were a complete waste of UN money.

      Parents in the US refusing vaccines are doing the same thing. They're actually extending the lifespan of the particular diseases by leaving infectable children as a significant part of the population, enough to keep the diseases active.

    20. Re:Previous condition by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      $20 million buys a lot of reality.

      --
      No sig today...
    21. Re:Previous condition by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      He's not doubting that this doesn't vindicate the vaccine conspiracy theorists ideas.

      It seems to me that's exactly what the commenter in question meant. Let's break it down:
      "I wonder how often and loudly you'll need to repeat that in order for it to maintain its buffering effect against reality..."

      In this sentence, the thing that needs repeating is the claim that this case doesn't validate the anti-vaccination standpoint, and that is also what is claimed to have a "buffering effect" against reality. I don't see how you can interpret that the way you did.

    22. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, and you don't know what you're talking about.

    23. Re:Previous condition by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      You got lucky. Try saying what you've said to the parents of a child who died of measles encephalitis and see what response you get.

    24. Re:Previous condition by TheLink · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      First of all, the number of people who get sick from a vaccine even closely to the degree they would have with the disease it is so unbelievably small it's not even worth considering.

      Citation please? What's your level of "unbelievably small" and "not worth even considering"?

      Second of all, you are completely ignoring the social side of this.

      Yes I am, because I was talking about a different issue. Maybe your reply should be to a different post?

      I was assuming most readers on slashdot (nerd land) already know the social benefits of vaccines.

      I'm talking about the costs. To me it seems a lot of people still don't understand the costs and safety issues. They aren't like normal medication/treatment.

      1 person out of 5000 getting sick from a vaccine (generously bad number) is nothing compared to what happens when people don't get vaccinated and the disease hits everyone.

      Bullshit.

      1/5000 getting sick from normal medication is a pretty good statistic. Because as I said in my post, not everyone will be getting it, and only the few who are sick.
      1/5000 getting sick from a mass vaccine is pretty bad when you're dealing with millions or even billions of people.

      The 2009 flu pandemic only killed 18000 people, and the WHO made a big fuss about it. Whereas if you gave a flu vaccine to 6 billion people that killed 1 in 5000, there would be 1.2 million dead because of the crappy vaccine.

      A mass administered flu vaccine must not kill more than 1 in 333333 people to be not as bad as this flu.

      And the low H1N1 fatalities weren't mainly because of the vaccine (since most people didn't take it). I didn't get the H1N1 flu (or if I did, it wasn't really bad to me), I didn't get the vaccine either, but my colleague sitting next to me got the flu (I suspect her hamsters died of it too :( ). So a mass flu vaccine better be really safe, or the flu strain better be really dangerous. Otherwise we'd just resort to quarantines.

      These mass vaccines are basically self inflicted pandemics, so the fatalities and adverse effects must be MUCH lower than the expected real world fatalities in their absence. Not just slightly lower, MUCH lower. Because they cost resources.

      Also, typically in order to get the vaccine, people need to go to places with lots of infectious people, or be in contact with someone who has recently been in contact with thousands of potentially infectious people. Slashdot dweller in basement is pretty safe till he goes out to get the vaccine.

      Despite your claims, a lot of these diseases won't hit everyone just because some people don't get vaccinated.

      So to me this "vaccines are really safe" thinking that you share is just as dangerous as the hysterical cries that "vaccines made my kid a retard".

      For example the HPV vaccine. Requiring mass HPV vaccination would just benefit the corporations making the vaccines (and yes there are calls for it to be mass administered). But not everyone will get HPV, and not everyone will have problems resulting from it.

      So stop being selfish and help SOLVE the problem!

      Yes I am selfish. But from what I see, I think I even have a better idea of what the problems are than you, and am doing a better job of helping.

      --
    25. Re:Previous condition by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Huh? Are you stupid? Do you have ANY idea how immunizations work? They typically give you a dead or almost dead version of the virus, your body munches on it, rips it apart, and learns how to fight it from then on very easily. Which is great for viruses that don't mutate much like Polio. IF you catch a fully functional version of the virus before this however, theres not a damn thing any doctor can do for you. Immunization is already occurring. If you survive? Great, your now immune to the virus (like the yearly cold of flu for the layman). If not, or you end up with detrimental side effects? Well, then you piss & moan how the government should have gotten you the immunization, and how your going to sue damnit!!!

      The thing I find hilarious about all of these people is that they themselves have had the immunizations. I think you should only be able to sue if you never had the immunization your suing over, and your kid did. There would be almost zero because people would be living the life as someone who had the full blown virus, usually worse off for it, and APPRECIATE that their kid could get it, these morons would have never had kids because they'd already be dead. Hell, if you want to debate immunizations just look at Roosevelt & how he hid how badly Polio hurt his body. Problem is none of these nutters have any experience with how terrible & debilitating these viruses are. People in 3rd world countries would jump for joy for the small chance it might cause autism instead of the virus just killing them or their children.

    26. Re:Previous condition by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Umm, and why are you telling me this, considering I said the same thing with (almost) less emotion?

    27. Re:Previous condition by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Oh, and just for the record the "cold" and the "flu" (influenza) are not the same thing. One is dangerous and the other not really. People who say they're the same are probably the same same people who think immunisation is not important. Well, maybe not, but they're ignorant all the same.

    28. Re:Previous condition by shipofgold · · Score: 1

      Are you hoping your children get these childhood diseases in their childhood? What happens if they don't? Many diseases strike adults with greater impact. Your children are growing up in a society where these diseases are infrequent and the chances of making it through childhood with out them are pretty good. They should at least consider getting themselves vaccinated when they reach adulthood. Rubella during pregnancy, Mumps as an adult, and the increased morbidity of Chicken Pox in adults are all reasons your children should consider vaccination when they reach adulthood.

    29. Re:Previous condition by makomk · · Score: 3, Informative

      1/5000 getting sick from a mass vaccine is pretty bad when you're dealing with millions or even billions of people.

      It's still generally better than the alternative. For example, before smallpox was eradicated by vaccination, it was highly infectious, had a 30% mortality rate, killed more people in the 20th century alone than both world wars (and possibly more than every single war in the 20th century), and left most of the survivors permanently scarred. Or take whooping cough - sounds amusing, but it actually causes infants to cough so hard that they can't keep down food, and has lovely complications such as seizures and death.

    30. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't vaccinated as a child and had measles and rubella (2 out of the 3 MMR diseases). Sure, it was unpleasant, but I was a kid and kids deal with these things. I have a little trouble with your statement that these diseases are "far more horrible than you can imagine".

      I think both the rabid pro and anti vaccination groups need to think a little more about this. This is not like the evolution "debate". There is compelling evidence in history on both sides.

    31. Re:Previous condition by znerk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Still, what gauls me the most about this sort of rampant trumpeting by the anti-vaccination folks is the incredible hubris it demonstrates.

      Gaul (Latin: Gallia) is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium, most of Switzerland, the western part of Northern Italy, as well as the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the left bank of the Rhine.

      gall:
      1
              a : bile; especially bile obtained from an animal and used in the arts or medicine
              b : something bitter to endure
              c : bitterness of spirit, rancor

      2: brazen boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence

      I believe definition 1,b of gall is the word you were actually looking for.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    32. Re:Previous condition by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I wasn't vaccinated as a child and had measles and rubella (2 out of the 3 MMR diseases). Sure, it was unpleasant, but I was a kid and kids deal with these things. I have a little trouble with your statement that these diseases are "far more horrible than you can imagine".

      I think you are not aware of the potential seriousness of measles. You were lucky (not extraordinarily lucky - the odds were in your favour - but lucky non-the-less). According to our friend Wikipedia

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#Prognosis

      "Statistically out of 1000 measles cases, 2-3 patients die"

      A 0.2 percent death rate isn't something we should expect kids to "deal with" - it would mean that of the kids in an elementary school of 500, about one would succumb to the disease. Considering the anguish when any child in a school dies for any reason, I doubt that would be socially acceptable. Even if childhood infections are less dangerous than ones in adults, we still have to "think of the adults" and make sure these diseases are not spread through the population.

      I wonder if anyone would be successful in suing any of the anti-vaccine people if their child died or got serious complications by not being vaccinated? Maybe I could start a class-action suit against one of them due to their efforts to reduce the "herd immunity" of the community and thereby endangering us all? Maybe I should look for a lawyer to start the ball rolling? Does Jenny have much money?

    33. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, informally "flu" is used for a range of illnesses which medical scientists called 'Influenza Like Illness' or ILI. It varies between populations and over the course of the year, but of the people who have ILI a fraction are actually infected with Influenza and some fraction of those wouldn't get it if they were immunised against the correct strain. We can actually see this in the effect of flu vaccines on ILI. If most of the ILI was caused by influenza (e.g. typical European country in winter) then the vaccine makes a huge difference. If most of the people actually had something else, it makes only a small dent.

      From a public health point of view, ILI is generally a self-limiting ailment which can be dealt with using OTC medicines at home. The common symptoms involved mean a "cold and flu" remedy containing e.g. paracetamol, caffeine, and a decongestant will work just as well regardless of whether you have the influenza virus. So please, don't waste a physicians time finding out whether you actually have influenza unless you've been told you're particularly vulnerable for some reason. Go to a pharmacy, pick up a cheap flu remedy and lay in bed playing video games until you feel better.

    34. Re:Previous condition by Invicta{HOG} · · Score: 1

      The parents in the US are actually just being selfish. They rightfully understand that in order to keep a disease at bay, you really only need to have a certain percentage of the population immune. They are therefore able to reap the rewards of herd immunity (their child does not get the disease) while avoiding the small risk posed by the vaccine. If there are enough free riders, the system falls apart.

    35. Re:Previous condition by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      We all know they are different, but they both are a virus. Both of which most people fight off without too much issue. All the medications in the world won't help you fight either though. All they do is mask they symptoms, and let people get on with things easier till your body does it's thing.

    36. Re:Previous condition by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      "So a mass flu vaccine better be really safe, or the flu strain better be really dangerous."

      or

      (3) The people in charge of the scare-mongering (ie. government-sponsored TV images of Asians in face masks) better have a lot of shares in Tamiflu.

      --
      No sig today...
    37. Re:Previous condition by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      They still don't know what exactly is the cause of autism and they sure don't know what triggers it so it is good to see that courts are now scientific labs. We can close down biomed research now, just file lawsuits and let the lawyers do the science.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    38. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not very well informed. Smallpox is not "almost" unheard over - it has been complete wiped off the face of the planet since 1979.

    39. Re:Previous condition by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or take whooping cough

      Funny you should mention that... the vaccine for whooping cough does not prevent the spread of whooping cough, it simply allows the immune system to destroy the toxin it produces that attacks the lungs, so you don't whoop. Everyone skipping the vaccine for this one in hopes of the "herd" protecting them is in for a nasty surprise.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    40. Re:Previous condition by shentino · · Score: 1

      Why cure a disease when you can simply treat it indefinitely?

      If you cure a disease, you're out of business.

    41. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has already been proven that smallpox was almost dead at least 5-10 years before the vaccine was ever produced. And the vaccine never did anything to kill smallpox, but it did make people even sicker than when they had smallpox.

    42. Re:Previous condition by TheLink · · Score: 1

      OK I phrased that incorrectly. I meant that in the vaccine case you are already healthy[1], so the vaccine can't make you better. It can only make you worse.

      But my other points still stand. Mass vaccinations are self inflicted pandemics. Thus they must be much safer compared to the disease, assuming countermeasures such as quarantine.

      [1] For most of the mass vaccines I know of, it's recommended to wait till you are healthy before you take the vaccine.

      --
    43. Re:Previous condition by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parents in the US are actually just being selfish. They rightfully understand that in order to keep a disease at bay, you really only need to have a certain percentage of the population immune. They are therefore able to reap the rewards of herd immunity (their child does not get the disease) while avoiding the small risk posed by the vaccine. If there are enough free riders, the system falls apart.

      Yes, I agree, and that's an excellent way to describe the situation. When I was a kid back in the sixties, I was vaccinated for everything. My father was physicist, and understood the probabilities here more clearly than most, and still had me vaccinated because it was the right thing to do. I think America has lost something in the past few decades. Call it social consciousness, whatever ... we're far more of a "me first" culture than we used to be.

      And when the system falls apart, as you say, and those parents are either dying themselves from a flu pandemic, or lose their kids anyway to a real bona-fide infection, I hope they realize what they've done. Probably they won't: selfish people usually have a good reason to justify their selfishness.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    44. Re:Previous condition by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does mean that vaccines cause autism, at least in certain rare circumstances:
      Vaccines often cause high fevers,
      people with this rare mitochondrial disorder often suffer brain damage from high fevers,
      and brain damage sometimes results in autism.

      It is well known that vaccinations can have complications damaging to the individual. But there is very good data showing vaccination programs improve the overall health of the general population. And there is almost always no way to prove that a specific individual medical problem associated with a specific individual vaccination was actually caused by that vaccination and not a coincident. That's what makes this case newsworthy: the evidence for cause and effect was there, regardless what you think about the size of the monetary award or the share of liability the vaccination should bear in light of the preexisting condition.

      Now, if we could get good data on conditions that might contribute to vaccines causing problems, it should be possible to get a better handle on cause and frequency of side-effects and tailor vaccination protocols to individuals.

    45. Re:Previous condition by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm, and why are you telling me this, considering I said the same thing with (almost) less emotion?

      It would have been a reasonably informative and less offensive comment if he hadn't preceeded it with "Huh? Are you stupid?".

      Still, he's right. Parents who believe the human immune system (especially that of a child, which is still being "trained") can withstand the onslaught of every single infectious disease in existence simply because they feed their kids well are dangerously complacent. Well, you know what they say about those who forget history. The problem is, when they repeat that history they're likely to take the rest of us with them. Pandemics are no joke, and any parent considering withholding vaccination for their children should thoroughly research the subject first. Frankly, if I found out that my neighbors weren't vaccinating their kids I'd have a few words with them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    46. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smallpox is unheard of in the North America, and everywhere else in the world. It exists only in military research labs in the US and Russia now. The last human case was in the 1970's, I believe. Perhaps you meant polio, which is almost extinct in the wild.

    47. Re:Previous condition by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      My children aren't vaccinated (12 and 8 respectively)

      And if they become patients zero and one in the next influenza pandemic, I hope you live to see it.

      Actually, I can't fatten them up - I cook nearly all their food, and they don't often leave much on the plate.

      Which means ... what? That you're a good cook? Look, you're talking about children, whose immune systems are still in training. They will be the first hit when one of your neighbor's unvaccinated kids infects them. Really, please investigate the situation before blindly reacting to that which I don't think you fully understand. You're on Slashdot, so I assume you have a mind that's more open than most, so do some Googling on this subject. Otherwise you're not being a good parent, nor are you being remotely socially conscious. I wouldn't want you as a neighbor, especially if I had kids.

      Children, by definition, do not have fully functional immune systems. Now, that's fine when it comes to many infections that children encounter: they get sick for a while, fight it off, and from that point forward their body knows that particular pathogen. That's a good thing. However, there are many diseases, diseases known to have killed millions in the past, for which a child's (or an adult's, for that matter) system has no defense against whatsoever. Hence the development of vaccines, to help teach your body to fight that which it otherwise could not, because you would be dead first.

      Drop the false pride and get them vaccinated. I know we'll all sleep better.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    48. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, the number of people who get sick from a vaccine even closely to the degree they would have with the disease it is so unbelievably small it's not even worth considering.

      Strong words for a childless bachelor. When contemplating having your own child poked with the needle, you're thinking about the 1, not the n.

    49. Re:Previous condition by JavaRob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another factor is that diseases evolve.

      Every infected person -- even if they're a healthy child who will probably be fine after a bit of misery -- is a little disease factory and laboratory. Some of the virus they produce will be the same as what they caught. Some of it will be slightly different. Some of the different strains will be the same, or less potent/communicable/etc.. Some of them will be worse, or even much much worse.

      And another hint for the grandparent poster: not every child is in good health when they get a given disease. Did you have any classmates who were out all the time due to health problems? Did you pass on your measles or rubella to any of them? Or hell, just pass on your germs to a newborn infant, or a pregnant woman, etc..

    50. Re:Previous condition by TheStatsMan · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with the above comment. However the people that develop a condition because of a vaccine are certainly worthy of consideration even if they consist of a small group.

    51. Re:Previous condition by Ifni · · Score: 1

      Actually, this means that fevers cause autism, in certain rare circumstances. Fevers, however, are fairly common and are practically guaranteed to happen sooner or later to a child (and certainly sooner when parents refuse vaccines and reduce herd immunity). As such, the vaccine simply had the misfortune to have caused it first (assuming that it was indeed a fever - or even a vaccine caused symptom - that triggered it). It's kind of like the parable of the man who was shot as he fell past a 10th story window. You could claim that it was the bullet that killed him and be technically correct, but the simple fact was that the sudden stop 10 stories below would have killed him in short order anyway. Either way, his death (or severe injury) was a certainty IN THE VERY NEAR TERM (for all those "everybody dies eventually" folks). Blaming the accidental shooter and holding them wholly responsible is ludicrous. This is in the same category as people suing McDonald's for making them fat.

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    52. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try exposing your kids to small pox or polio and let us know how well being slender, active, swim club champions works out versus vaccination.

    53. Re:Previous condition by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      You are not very well informed. Smallpox is not "almost" unheard over - it has been complete wiped off the face of the planet since 1979.

      Then why are we seeing new outbreaks of Smallpox, if, as you said, it's been wiped out?

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    54. Re:Previous condition by psin+psycle · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few things about whooping cough:
      1) Some of my friends have recently had it.
      2) Some of them were not vaccinated against it.
      3) It's only dangerous for infants.
      4) It is treatable with antibiotics and as soon as you start taking them you are no longer contagious.
      5) My children have not been vaccinated against it, it's present in our small community and we have yet to become infected.
      6) The cough sounds pretty nasty and goes on for months.

      --
      Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
    55. Re:Previous condition by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what your comment means, but it's modded insightful so I have to respond.

      You don't understand but you cannot resist filling the air with your redundant opinions anyway? Jeezuz. There are several names for people like you.

      The reality is that the diseases that vaccinations prevent are far more horrible than you can imagine, probably because you've grown up in a world without them. Parents who do not vaccinate their children are irresponsible. They are blind to what these diseases do because when they grew up the diseases barely existed in countries with vaccination (if at all). By not vaccinating your children you not only risk their lives but you risk the lives of countless others. The reasoning behind the choices of not to vaccinate are largely based on pseudoscience and absurd.

      Uh huh. Thank-you for repeating the standard argument which has been uttered a million times before. Do you imagine that I've never heard it or that a simple re-application is going to convince anybody who has taken the time to look beyond its simplicity? Is that really how your world works? Repeating something until it blots out any awkward and uncomfortable realities?

      Now, please read SLOWLY and try to understand the following. . .

      Vaccines are a GOOD idea. Full stop.

      The people today who produce, promote, sell and administer them are NOT trust-worthy. They are by degrees non-critical true-believers who render themselves incapable of preventing or solving the problems created by those who are deceptive or even merely incompetent.

      Those two concepts are not the same, and repeating the first loudly doesn't make the other go away, nor will it. And it was this constant repeating that I was pointing out with my initial statement, (the statement you failed to understand). The irony here is as thick as peanut butter.

      -FL

    56. Re:Previous condition by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      Anecdotes are useless. The diseases you mention are all killers, over half a million kids die every year from measles alone. Your infectious spawn should be kept out of public schools.

      They will probably be home schooled, and be graced with all the ignorances and prejudices of their parents without any dissenting viewpoints.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    57. Re:Previous condition by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Polio probably would have aggravated her condition too.

    58. Re:Previous condition by gingertaylor · · Score: 0, Troll

      The reality is that the diseases that vaccinations prevent are far more horrible than you can imagine...

      Like chicken pox, rotavirus and the flu? I can imagine them. My kids have had them all and lived to tell the tale.

      And almost no one was dying of measles by the time the vaccine was on the market in 1967.

      But today we have had the idea foisted on us that chicken pox is as bad as small pox and measles = polio.

      Children now have 70 doses of childhood vaccines recommended. 45 before the age of 18 months. I was born in 1969 and I only had 29 up until age 18 (and I was a Navy brat who had the hell vaccinated out of me, six polio shots) Most people my age got around 15 doses of vaccines.

      So what was the mass plague that called us to triple the schedule in less than thirty years? Oh... vaccine makers got immunity from being sued if their products killed or maimed children!

      So how many is too many? 70? 100? 150? And how many at once? Nine doses like Hanna Poling had? And for whom? She had zero symptoms of any mito dysfunction. So which kids can we OD on vaccines and which ones are at risk?

      If it is completely immoral to give all children antibiotics, knowing it will kill some, is it moral to do the same with vaccines? And who decides?

      Now, please read SLOWLY and try to understand the following. . .

      Vaccines are a GOOD idea. Full stop.

      The people today who produce, promote, sell and administer them are NOT trust-worthy. They are by degrees non-critical true-believers who render themselves incapable of preventing or solving the problems created by those who are deceptive or even merely incompetent.

      Those two concepts are not the same, and repeating the first loudly doesn't make the other go away, nor will it. And it was this constant repeating that I was pointing out with my initial statement, (the statement you failed to understand). The irony here is as thick as peanut butter.

      -FL

      Everyone knows Pharma is corrupt. WE saw the hit list that Merck had in the Vioxx case to ruin the careers of doctors who were pointing out that the drug was killing people. But suddenly Merck is above reproach with MMR?

      And you do know that FDA does not test vaccines right? They just rely on the safety testing that Pharma does. Super ethical Pharma.

      But if I question the safety of giving MMR to every child (again, knowing it will kill and maim some and we are not even trying to find out who those kids are before hand to prevent this), at the same time as half a dozen other vaccines, I am suddenly anti-vaccine and worth of the ugliest slurs one can come up with?

      How about we start thinking with some reason.

      My father and his little brother contracted Polio in the late 1940s. Both made full recoveries and became naval aviators. Their father got it and died. They were 5 and 7 years old.

      My son reacted to the very first shot he got, but they kept giving him a full load, and drove him into medical and neurological oblivion at 18 months old when they gave him seven doses of vaccine at once, that we have spent six years trying to recover him from. And after years of looking, I can find not one study that looks at what giving a child vaccines for Polio, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, HIB, Hepatitis B and Pnumococcal Meningitis all at the same time can do to him. There aren't any.

      How about we try to find a happy medium between the two?

      How 'bout we not demonize anyone who asked good questions about what the hell the vaccine program has become since Pharma was given a free ride?

      How many is too many? 200? Because there are 100 more vaccines in the pipeline.

    59. Re:Previous condition by sjames · · Score: 1

      It doesn't help that the risk/benefit for vaccines is so spotty though. Polio measles, and smallpox look like a sure win for vaccine. The individual risk from the disease is much worse than the individual risk from the vaccine.

      Mumps and chickenpox are seriously questionable. In those, you trade an obnoxious childhood illness (who likes being sick) followed by lifelong immunity for a short immunity followed by an elevated risk of getting a much more severe form of the disease in adulthood. Even without the possibility of a bad vaccine reaction it might be better not to vaccinate unless you reach adulthood without contracting the disease.

      Rubella is an odd one. The vast majority of the time, the disease is quite mild and harmless, but it has devastating effects if a woman gets it while pregnant. It may be that on the balance there is a social benefit to the herd immunity, but from a legal standpoint, the individual risk is born by the recipients but the individual benefit is to pregnant women and their unborn children (that is, not the recipients of the vaccine). This is why there must be a social program to compensate those harmed by the vaccine. They took one for the team so to speak and it is unconscionable for the team to then abandon them.

    60. Re:Previous condition by offsides · · Score: 1

      I think Penn & Teller illustrated this best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

    61. Re:Previous condition by Locutus · · Score: 1

      yes but it is also known that adjuvants boost the immune system and in some cases it triggers the persons immune system to attack the host. Because this isn't new it is probably why/how they won the case. I think Gulf War Syndrome has been linked to generally untested adjuvants triggering immune systems to attack parts of the soldiers nervous system.

      It is this, Russian roulette method of vaccinating people that's a concern for many, including myself. At the very least, people should be given more data on the vaccine and any costs associated with possible tests for any known issues which could be aggravated by the adjuvants. From what I remember, the N1H1 adjuvants were generally untested here in the US and people were concerned.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    62. Re:Previous condition by u38cg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure what you are thinking of. The smallpox eradication effort was global and was so successful that, not counting two samples held by the US and Russian governments, it is the first and only species humans have chosen to deliberately make extinct. If a suspected case arose, it would be presumed to be monkeypox or another related disease (which are on the increase since smallpox vaccination stopped).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    63. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a rule -

      1) You decide if you want an approved vaccine.
      2) If you want the vaccine, you agree that you will not even think of taking any action against any group / gov / company irregardless of what happens.
      3) If you decide not to take the vaccine and get infected with whatever it was supposed to prevent, you are on your own / die / life miserably.

      It will wipe out all the idiots within a generation or so.

    64. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: Do you suffer from severe brain damage as a result of being skullfucked by your dad at a young age? Because you show all the signs!

    65. Re:Previous condition by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Only dangerous for infants" minimizes the nastiness of this.

      Imagine coughing so bad, for months at a time, that you:
      1) Can't sleep
      2) Throw up regularly from coughing fits
      3) Break your own ribs from coughing
      4) Burst the blood vessels in the whites of your eyes, giving you a solid-red-eyes demon look
      5) Can't work

      Despite having had a childhood vaccination to whooping cough, I had 1) 2) 4) and 5).

      Lucky for me I had more than a month of vacation + sick leave at my job, or I might have had some nasty economic side effects from having had the whooping cough.

      Get your shots people, even though you probably won't die of whopping cough, YOU DO NOT WANT IT.

      --PM

    66. Re:Previous condition by kenh · · Score: 1

      This does not validate the views of the anti-vaccination brigade.

      Just wait - it will be used by the government to "compensate" those who suffer with autisim but don't have the underlying condition - just to a slightly lesser extent.

      BTW, did you notice that it is the Gov't writing these checks?

      --
      Ken
    67. Re:Previous condition by kenh · · Score: 1

      So now every child will have to be tested for this underlying condition?

      --
      Ken
    68. Re:Previous condition by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      While I'm not exactly a fan of home schooling, there's more to it than the caricatures.

      Well before I joined the family, my wife had home-schooled her first son, and although he went on to classroom schooling, he still keeps in touch with his friends from that time. Home schoolers form networks, share educational resources, organize joint activities for their kids, and otherwise make sure their children are well educated and well socialized. The group my wife was connected to includes research scientists and professionals, and most of the members were politically progressive. They were definitely not the stereotypical science-hating backwoods Christian fundamentalists.

      I do prefer the idea of professional teaching, and professional teachers with good resources can do marvelous things. Home-schooling, to be done right, requires a lot of resources on the part of parents that most parents don't have. Finally, I think the idea of a collective commitment to quality public education is important, for reasons similar to the reasons to support vaccination. But, I do think the bad reputation that home-schooling has gotten is mistaken and undeserved.

    69. Re:Previous condition by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      (with digital storage of the DNA, just in case a sample was hidden somewhere)

      No, usually they just store samples of the actual pathogen. Much more useful that way: there are samples of everything from polio to leprosy to bacillus bubonicus stored away in government labs. Private sector facilities as well, since they do a lot of the research for treatments. Unless you could use that digital copy to reproduce the bacterium for testing, it's not all that useful.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    70. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      less coughing = less contagious

      Of course, anyone who skips the vaccine without a medically valid reason does deserve that surprise.

    71. Re:Previous condition by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, it DOESN'T because the child in question did not get autism. She has a form of encephalopathy that has some (not all) symptoms of autism. Of course the mainstream media has focused on the accusations of autism, but this was NOT the finding of the court.

    72. Re:Previous condition by xero314 · · Score: 1

      They will probably be home schooled, and be graced with all the ignorances and prejudices of their parents without any dissenting viewpoints.

      I'm not disagreeing with your intention here, but are you implying that being exposed to more ignorance and prejudice necessarily leads to a positive outcome?

    73. Re:Previous condition by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Like hell we are seeing outbreaks of smallpox. That is a ludicrous statement.

      The last natural case was 26 October 1977. The last public outbreak in Europe was in Yugoslavia, killed 135 people and caused a declaration of martial law and enforced quarantine of parts of that country.

      In 1979 two people in England were exposed to a lab sample of the vaccine; one died. The director of the laboratory committed suicide immediately thereafter. The laboratory was decommissioned immediately thereafter.

      If we had another outbreak the response to it would massive beyond any mistake. Think martial law, closed borders and grounding of all aircraft.

      Donald Ainslie Henderson led the WHO program that finally achieved eradication.

      Here is a picture of him holding his Presidential Medal of Freedom award.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/DAHenderson.jpg/461px-DAHenderson.jpg

      There is a god chance now that polio might be eradicated. If the anti-vaccine morons don't screw it up.

    74. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think parents refusing vaccines are actually doing something far worse- causing other people's kids to run a higher risk of death. Immunocompromised children can't be administered vaccines- they have to rely on herd immunity to protect themselves from, you know, hospitalization, blindness, brain damage, death, things like that. Every time I hear some explanation of why a precious snowflake won't be vaccinated or won't be vaccinated on schedule, I get pretty angry about how little their parents apparently care so little for their playmates, schoolmates, or others who don't have the option of accepting life-saving vaccinations.
       
      I mean, don't I have the right as a parent to send my kid to school with a gun? I'm sure there's some data out there saying kids with guns are less likely to be kidnapped, and I don't believe your data that says kids with guns in school kill other kids.

    75. Re:Previous condition by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'm not against mass vaccines.

      I'm against vaccines where:
        Mortality rate of vaccine * number of vaccinated > mortality rate of disease * number of infected.
      or:
        Adverse effect rate * number of a vaccinated > adverse effect rate of disease * number of infected.

      Vaccines do cause fatalities: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3336455/Secret-report-reveals-18-child-deaths-following-vaccinations.html
      (probably not all those deaths were from the vaccine)

      And it is possible to have a scenario where mass vaccination could do more harm than the disease even if the disease has a high mortality rate.

      For example, say you had an Ebola vaccine that killed 1/5000 of those vaccinated. And that Ebola killed 90% of those infected.

      You should still not mass vaccinate _everyone_ with that Ebola vaccine, because Ebola doesn't spread that well.

      (FWIW, I don't think the real Ebola vaccine currently in trials is that dangerous)

      Basically mass vaccinations are self-inflicted "pandemics". If these resulting vaccine "pandemics" are worse than the disease (assuming the usual nonvaccine countermeasures like quarantine, restrictions on travel, and limited vaccination to just groups at risk), then mass vaccinations are not justified.

      I'm not saying all of these mass vaccinations are unjustified.

      It just annoys me when people say stuff like "the number of people who get sick from a vaccine even closely to the degree they would have with the disease it is so unbelievably small it's not even worth considering."

      --
    76. Re:Previous condition by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Because you're thinking of Polio?

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    77. Re:Previous condition by dwywit · · Score: 1

      "Infectious spawn"? My, what a vehement response. We're all infectious to one degree or another, hmmm? And no, they're not home-schooled, they go to a private school whose values reflect our own - freedom of choice. I've had opinions from a number of doctors, some GPs and a couple of specialists, and you know what? The things they say to you in the privacy of a consultation can be (not always, of course) quite different to the official positions and media releases of their professional organisations. So yes, we did quite a bit investigation before making the decision to delay or decline vaccinations, and I'm not so blind as to ignore the potential dangers. The kids have had tetanus shots when we deemed it necessary, and I'll have Mr. 12-year-old tested soonish for the presence of antibodies to those common diseases, and make another informed decision about whether to vaccinate for anything he might be in need of. Fortunately our constitution guarantees no forced medical treatments, and our schools usually only require exclusion for the duration of the disease.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    78. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know this is really not a black or white either or situation where there are only two choices on the table. Everything has NOT been (and never will) done to minimize the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines. There is no point in or justification for complacency even if *only* 1 in a million people get fucked up as a result.

      Many of the historic issues being raised regarding vaccination are issues surrounding production and storage with ingrediants that don't even constitute the active component of the shots.

      The US is undermining its own position in the world with its insane litigation regime. I'm thankful that my appliances don't normally result in a firey inferno but this level of rank nonsense is going off the deep end.

      At the same time too many doctors are not taking adverse reaction reports seriously minimizing their effectiveness by either being lazy or making assumptions WRT fundementally unknowable causal relationships that undermine the reasons the reporting exists in the first place.

    79. Re:Previous condition by AusIV · · Score: 1

      It ultimately boils down to the Prisoner's Dilemma, just at a larger scale. For any individual, the best outcome happens when other parties cooperate but the individual defects. The best outcome overall is for all parties to cooperate, and the worst outcome overall is for all (or even most) parties to defect.

    80. Re:Previous condition by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I disagree. A fever, any fever, causes the autism (for this fragile person with a specific pre-existing disease). The vaccine did give them their first fever, and thus triggered the conditions that cause the autism. But, without vaccination, the child would certainly have gotten a fever. Strange as it sounds, the vaccine caused autism, but also the child is still better off having had the vaccine than not, because it would have manifested later anyway and at least now they are vaccinated.

      As you say, we need to get a list of pre-existing conditions and test for those we can. At that point, the parents should have the choice, and they should not be allowed to sue anyone, regardless of their choice and the outcomes (provided they were fully and correctly informed). Those without known conditions should still be compelled to get vaccinations and be compensated for complications.

    81. Re:Previous condition by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with your intention here, but are you implying that being exposed to more ignorance and prejudice necessarily leads to a positive outcome?

      I would assert that, given enough ignorance and prejudice in the initial baseline. At least with multiple conflicting prejudice, one would realize that not everyone is right. Then they can start to make up their own minds. Closed learning with one prejudice being presented as right without question for long enough and it can never be changed. The variety of incorrect views will necessarily be better because it will lead to a greater mental flexibility, even if at that point in time, they only know incorrect ideas. When they do run across the right ones, they'll have the ability to learn them.

    82. Re:Previous condition by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      OK I phrased that incorrectly. I meant that in the vaccine case you are already healthy[1], so the vaccine can't make you better. It can only make you worse.

      The whole point is that the vaccine will make you better than you would be if you contracted the infectious disease because you didn't get vaccinated.

    83. Re:Previous condition by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Is there a vaccine against grammar nazis?

    84. Re:Previous condition by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      What "1"? What "n"?

    85. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point is that the vaccine will make you better than you would be if you contracted the infectious disease because you didn't get vaccinated.

      But that's understood already.

      The whole point being stated is:

      The 2009 flu pandemic only killed 18000 people. If say you gave a crappy flu vaccine to 6 billion people that killed 1 in 500000, there would be 12K dead because of the crappy vaccine. Which wouldn't be such a great benefit.

    86. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'SOLVE the problem'. An interesting point. Which problem, exactly? With Monsanto producing Genetically Modified food (that is toxic) to combat world hunger, the root cause is that something has shifted the balance of population control so that there are more people living on Earth than Earth can feed. Put simply, something is keeping Natural Selection from doing its job. If a disease is going to wipe out a significant portion of the population, as emotionally tragic as it is, there's probably a reason. In 'solving' some problems, we create others, and those have unknown, and potentially serious consequences.

      Example: thanks to pumping our meat with antibiotics, we're breeding superbugs that are immune to them. See the evolution of E. coli. I also _suspect_ that the reason 60% of small children now have allergies (when in the 60s the number was insignificant) has something to do with stronger and stronger weed killer, since the weeds are becoming immune to _them_.

    87. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, I'd like that every vaccine would work that way. Somehow, sorry, this whole Scheinkampf makes me sick and cynical.

    88. Re:Previous condition by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not saying that they currently do digital storage. I'm saying that they should switch to digital storage, to make sample theft that much more difficult. I'm looking for references on replication of viruses from digital storage: they're small enough objects, with very little else, that I think digital restoration is feasible. I'm having difficulty sorting out the theory from the substance of the numerous claims on the issue. Is there a skilled genetic biologist here who can comment on the feasibility of this?

    89. Re:Previous condition by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      First of all, please give an example of a disease/vaccine that matches your math formula. Second of all, herd immunication will scew those numbers significantly unless you are able to take readings of un-vaccinated deaths in very large populations with zero immunization.

    90. Re:Previous condition by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'm actually pretty sure it has to do with this whole "we must dissenfect EVERYTHING" bull that lysol and others have been pushing on the everyone. That explains immune systems though. Strangely enough, allergies are actually and OVERreactive immune system that takes extreme unwarranted measures against common chemicals.

    91. Re:Previous condition by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 1

      Without a study no one knows how prevalent the disorder might be.

      We do know something about how prevalent the disorder is, or more accurately, how prevalent it isn't. Besides Hannah Poling, there have only been four other known cases.

      If you think that's a risk which comes even close to approximating the risks from vaccine-preventable diseases, I think you don't know what you're talking about.

      --
      If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
    92. Re:Previous condition by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's the plan - test for what's missing around 13-14, and consider vaccination then.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    93. Re:Previous condition by Swampash · · Score: 1

      I live in Australia right now, and my children ARE vaccinated against all those lethal diseases.

      Please don't come back. Stay and be retarded where you are.

    94. Re:Previous condition by dwywit · · Score: 1
      Jesus wept, ALL diseases are potentially lethal, given the right circumstances. You've chosen to vaccinate your kids? Great, I respect your choice and I support your right as a parent to make that choice. Please keep your freshly-vaccinated kids away from mine for a few weeks, mmkay? Hang on, don't do that - feel free to let your freshly-vaccinated kids associate with mine, or not - it's your choice.

      Sorry, did I give the impression I'd left? Still here, wouldn't live anywhere else.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    95. Re:Previous condition by ignavus · · Score: 1

      I had a friend and he relied on anecdotal evidence and he got really sick. So I wouldn't rely on it if I were you.

      See? That is how you deal with anecdotal evidence: you tell an anecdote that "disproves" anecdotes. And what if the anti-anecdotal anecdote is made up? All the better. How many anecdotes do you think are true in the first place?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    96. Re:Previous condition by znerk · · Score: 1

      Is there a vaccine against grammar nazis?

      Yes, as a matter of fact, there is. It's called education.

      You see, if you cease to misspell words and use language incorrectly, you are no longer bothered by "grammar nazis". Amazing, I know, but there it is.

      Please don't be offended at my efforts to enlighten my fellow English-speaking humans.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    97. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, precicely. As an allergy sufferer all my life (had the whole round of shots twice in my life, which did nothing), tried every medication offered until I found one that worked, I believed exactly that. I am starting to wonder about 'unwarranted' though. When allergies were less common, this was certainly true. But environmental factors have changed, and we haven't taken a hard enough look at them. A big factor is that people plant non-native (from out of state, or even out of country) species of plants / trees / flowers in their yards, introducing new pollens. Another, as you mention, is over-disinfecting, which doesn't give the immune system the chance to do its job. And, like I said, I'm starting to wonder about our activities breeding stronger and stronger allergens.

      And, getting back to the point, I wonder if the drug recertification process actually is hurting people with new formulations of vaccines. I have a close relative that works for a drug company, running lab tests on new drugs. If a new formulation isn't 'significantly different', it doesn't have to undergo new trials...

    98. Re:Previous condition by jrumney · · Score: 1

      When I was a child (before MMR), girls received Rubella vaccination at age 12 to cover the risk during pregnancy. The vaccination may have been new, as I remember ads on TV to raise awareness. Noone got measles, mumps or chickenpox vaccines.

    99. Re:Previous condition by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the remaining smallpox samples were not destroyed along with the naturally occurring disease. The Soviets had extensive weaponization programs involving smallpox precisely because they anticipated low immunities among target populations. The elimination of this disease in the wild has made it a very attractive weapon for unscrupulous governments and terrorists. If we are going to eliminate diseases like this in the future then we should continue vaccinating against them, even if they no longer occur naturally, so as to diminish their attractiveness as candidates for biological weaponization.

    100. Re:Previous condition by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination brigade will read:

      "The girl was awarded a settlement due to the vaccine aggrevating a previously existing condition which would have caused her to develop autism anyway."

      as:

      "The girl was awarded a settlement.... vaccine.... caused.... autism...."

      Then, they'll move their goal posts from mercury or multiple vaccines at once or toxins or the number of vaccines (or wherever they are now) to "vaccines can trigger undetected conditions which cause autism so until we can detect these undetected conditions, all vaccines should be stopped."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    101. Re:Previous condition by McKing · · Score: 1

      But they *do* see it as validation and *will* use this as precedent in the future. Just as they don't understand or care about the science refuting their claims, they don't understand or care about the distinction between aggravating an incredibly rare genetic condition and directly causing that condition in the first place.

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
    102. Re:Previous condition by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      "Infectious spawn"? My, what a vehement response.

      In our little school our space-cadet next-door neighbour did not have her children vaccinated. Her daughter caught whooping cough (in the C21st!) and infected another child who had been vaccinated. Not only do people like you free-ride on the fact that most children are vaccinated, you simultaneously provide infection corridors to attack other people's children. Since vaccination cannot always confer absolute immunity, its success has been dependent on community cooperation.

      .. freedom of choice

      Would that we had freedom from the consequences of your choice. In making your ill-informed (despite whichever doctors you consulted) and irresponsible choices, you are making choices not only about your own kids, but about the health outcomes of children and indeed the community in general.

      OP's idea, that up-to-date vaccination papers should be a pre-condition for attendance at a public school has much to recommend it, providing always that allowance is made for particular cases where a medical danger from immunisation can be demonstrated (eg. adverse family history). I do note, however, that you are only directly endangering children from families "whose values reflect [your] own."

      Fortunately our constitution guarantees no forced medical treatments

      Are you are no longer in Australia? Because the Australian Constitution contains no such guarantee that I am aware of. Moreover the states have plenary power, and can, as explained by Kirby P (as he then was) in the BLF De-registration case, pass a Act requiring "all blue-eyed babies to be put to death" (the classical Diceyan example), and providing there is no conflict with a valid law of the C'wealth, such an Act would be "good" law. There would seem to be no legal impediment to a regime of compulsory vaccination.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    103. Re:Previous condition by sjames · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the Rubella vaccination just for girls turned out not to be sufficient without the herd immunity. I got the MMR, but feel fortunate that I acquired chickenpox immunity the old-fashioned way.

    104. Re:Previous condition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA,

      "The vaccine didn't cause the disorder, it resulted in it. "
       

      "The multiple gunshot wounds didn't cause his death, they resulted in it."

  8. Legal outcomes include luck by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > How did this happen .... ?

    Every time you go to court, there will be a certain amount of randomness in the outcome, because the legal system isn't run by mathematical logic, it is run by humans (lawyers, judges, juries) and they are notoriously unpredictable.

    1. Re:Legal outcomes include luck by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They didn't sue the drug company. They sued in a special court where the payout comes from the tax payers.

      They won because nobody had any incentive at all to fight them.

    2. Re:Legal outcomes include luck by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      it is run by humans, lawyers, and judges.

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Legal outcomes include luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's run by money, the lawyers aren't doing this out of a sense of justice, or some other misguided reason, they're doing it for money. If 500K USD is what it takes to take care of a child with that disease, any disease, then the government would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. They're in it for the money! Money! Money!

    4. Re:Legal outcomes include luck by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a taxpayer, I feel like I should've been notified of my right to face my accuser. Who can I sue over this?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Legal outcomes include luck by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The court system is designed to, above all, maintain neutrality. This works very nicely in cases where the only knowledge required is common sense and some legal understanding - but in cases requiring highly specialised knowledge of science or technology, neutrality often means ignorant. A trained climatologist cannot be seen as a neutral judge of climate change. A trained immunologist cannot be a neutral judge in a trial of vaccinations. A professional computer security engineer cannot be a neutral judge in the trial of a hacker. Thus is is that in these cases, the judge and jury are both completly ignorant of the field they are supposed to render an informed decision in. The eventual winner isn't decided by the merit of the arguments, but by the skill of the lawyers and the eloquence of their presentation. No layperson can understand such complex fields - and no judge can also be highly knowledgeable in science anyway, because they spend all their career time studying the minute details of law.

    6. Re:Legal outcomes include luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America these "settlement" courts are still strongly adversarial. Funny how courts that were supposed to operate quickly and take the fight out of the system wind up being slow and still contentious and only paying out to only perfectly defined victims while hosing all others.

      This family had science, the means to get real testing and diagnosis, a real legal team and argument, and perhaps higher expectations for their daughter's care.

      The other five thousand families may never have as perfect a case, they may have the expert testimony of quacks, they may have terrible crusading lawyers, they may not have the means to ever to figure out what happened to their children. Most of the other cases may never be resolved.

      It is very sad, they do have sick children. Even if it was not the result of vaccination those children need care. We don't have a system to assure that is in place.

  9. All scientific data?!? by Joshua.Niland · · Score: 1

    You are versed in all Scientific studies on the subject of Vaccination and Autisim?

    1. Re:All scientific data?!? by Dahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes--all of the ones that are published in peer-reviewed journals, at least.

    2. Re:All scientific data?!? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not how you properly challenge that claim. This is a subject that a lot of people care about, and have spent a lot of time (failing) trying to find studies that support a connection between Autism and Vaccination. If you want to do it correctly, you find a peer reviewed study that 1) shows a connection, and 2) hasn't been already shown to be a crock of shit. The ball is in your court.

      Go ahead, we're waiting...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:All scientific data?!? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's how you challenge a claim in the field of science. But this isn't science, this is law. The approach is different. the correct approach to challengeing a claim in this field is to pay lots of lawyers, make really good powerpoint slides, and accuse your opponent of destroying childrens' minds for profit. Then just play up the concerned parent angle, and make sure you say 'What if it was your child?' as often as possible.

    4. Re:All scientific data?!? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      All the ones that don't capitalize "scientific," "vaccination," and "autism." I.e., the reputable ones.

  10. Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I truly feel for people who have complications as the result of taking any medicine, but if you consider the vast numbers of people who receive vaccinations with no issues at all, the side-effect cases are extremely minute. Like everything else the American health care system ails from these days, all these successful lawsuits will do is push researchers and pharmaceutical companies to cease development and production of vaccinations as their insurance rates etc go up. Only when people have to see their child die from what would have been an easily prevented disease, or watch his/her body broken by something like polio, will they realize how much vaccines are needed and how f'ed up our lawsuit happy country has gotten.

    1. Re:Another great step backwards... by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      [...] all these successful lawsuits will do is push researchers and pharmaceutical companies to cease development and production of vaccinations as their insurance rates etc go up..

      I doubt it. The financial reward far outweighs any increase in insurance costs or payouts. A few hundred million for these companies is a drop in the ocean.

    2. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>but if you consider the vast numbers of people who receive vaccinations with no issues at all, the side-effect cases are extremely minute

      Are they? A friend of mine had her baby immunized, took it home, and then it went into seizures a few hours later. Nearly died.

      The asked the doctor in the ER if it could have been caused by the vaccines. He said, "Not a chance, there's no evidence they cause seizures." And then promptly didn't file it as a possible complication from the vaccine.

      Chicken. Egg.

    3. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is that people don't have a choice in getting the vaccine for their child usually. Public schools force them to go get them; when you're telling someone they have to get the vaccination to a disease that is both extremely rare and/or easily treatable (measles, mumps, chicken pox) at the perceived risk of getting autism...I would honestly prefer my kid go through the measles or mumps.

    4. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I truly feel for people who have complications as the result of taking any medicine, but if you consider the vast numbers of people who receive vaccinations with no issues at all, the side-effect cases are extremely minute.

      That's what makes it viable to keep using the vaccines. Of course, if we are know a small proportion will have adverse reactions and we accept that as an unfortunate consequence of the greater benefit to us all of vaccination, we have a responsibility to compensate those adversely affected. If the adverse reactions are so numerous and costly as to make vaccination unprofitable we should consider withdrawing approval for it's use.

    5. Re:Another great step backwards... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Because as we all know, mere one-time correlation is the strongest form of evidence.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    6. Re:Another great step backwards... by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      Febrile seizures are caused by high temperatures in young children (under 5). Some immunizations can give children high temperatures afterwards. So there could be a chain of cause and effect there, but the vaccine didn't directly cause the seizure. Of course I don't know anything, just musing a possible. On another note, if it was a febrile seizure it wouldn't have caused the baby to nearly die, they're very scary for parents but not dangerous (my son has had a couple and I actually thought he had died).

    7. Re:Another great step backwards... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Of course the GP might be trolling us but a one time account of something that did not get logged and reported is way more interesting than a one time correlation. Even if previous studies find no connection between vaccines and autism, new cases should be investigated or at least logged, since tech advancement means every year we are exposed to new chemicals and waves on new frequencies. Corner cases can still give insights and a life has too high a price to be overlooked.

      In the war between vaccination campaigns and people who don't want 'em the victims seem to be Safer vaccines.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    8. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Because as we all know, mere one-time correlation is the strongest form of evidence.

      Because, as we all know, ignoring data is a great way to confirm presuppositions.

    9. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting, but the kid's EEG was all over the place, which means that it wasn't a typical febrile seizure. It also lasted too long.

      The pediatrician actually didn't know what was going on, only that it absolutely, positively, couldn't have been caused by the vaccine administered a few hours earlier.

    10. Re:Another great step backwards... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well apperently those sums can lump up to quite a fortune:

      The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988 to compensate individuals and families of individuals injured by covered childhood vaccines. The VICP was adopted in response to a scare over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine. These claims were later generally discredited, but some U.S. lawsuits against vaccine makers won substantial awards; most makers ceased production, and the last remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.

      From: Vaccine court.
      It seems, that if you open up the flood gate, you can get to the point where it is not financially possible to continue producing the vaccine. And then we have problems.

      And another point, according to the above article, The VICP will compensate every case in which a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table is proven to have happened after a vaccine was given (by showing a casual connection). The table does not list autism, so my question is: how did they get the claim to be accepted? I guess maybe it was by being regarded as encephalitis/encephalopathy and not autism, and it is only tauted as autism to draw headlines. So we may have another case of bad reporting? If any one has a link to the original ruling, it may be interesting to find out what is being compensated - encephalopathy or autism.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    11. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Of course the GP might be trolling us but a one time account of something that did not get logged and reported is way more interesting than a one time correlation.

      Trolling? Her name is Amy, lives in San Diego, went to high school with me. She's not some mythical friend of a friend of a second cousin that someone's heard a story about.

      But yeah, that's precisely my point. The pediatrician absolutely refused to entertain the notion that the vaccine could have caused the seizure, citing the lack of evidence as proof.

      As I said: chicken and egg.

    12. Re:Another great step backwards... by Fumus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Call me a bastard, but it would save the family $20 million if that child just died. Sure, helping a child without a leg, or allergic to glucose even, is much more reasonable, because they will eventually get to be adults who have some kind of job and generally can 'have a life' that they can support. But if you spend $500 thousand per year on someone, how do you justify it? For that much money you could keep a lot more children in perfect health and give them an 'ideal' upbringing so that they will have an enjoyable and full life on their own.
      Life ain't fair. Shame we don't have natural predators to kill such people like me and her.

    13. Re:Another great step backwards... by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Data is not the plural of anecdote. Go back to your cave troll...

    14. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I truly feel for people who have complications as the result of taking any medicine, but if you consider the vast numbers of people who receive vaccinations with no issues at all, the side-effect cases are extremely minute.

      If it were really the case that complications are extremely remote then the costs to those who have complications can be easily covered by those without complications.

      Only when people have to see their child die from what would have been an easily prevented disease, or watch his/her body broken by something like polio, will they realize how much vaccines are needed and how f'ed up our lawsuit happy country has gotten.

      If the parents choose not to pay a one-time cost to cover the amortized damage to those the vaccine will harm, then that is their choice. If a vaccine is not made for a new disease then that is the collective choice of the market, that the disease does not pose a high enough cost to justify creating it. What you are really saying here is that as a matter of principle we should disregard cost when it comes to health care, which is one of the actual problems in our healthcare system.

    15. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Data is not the plural of anecdote. Go back to your cave troll...

      Idiot.

      My point was not that vaccines caused seizures, as should be obvious. The point was: if doctors a priori know that vaccines can't cause seizures, and refuse to collect data counter to their stance, then it's a self-fulfilling belief, and not scientific at all.

    16. Re:Another great step backwards... by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      While I don't believe frivolous claims about vaccines and autism, I think this case is different. Vaccines can cause fever, it is pretty much excepted, and our doctor told us to the baby something against it to have it under control. Furthermore, high fever can (will) cause seizures. So the mechanism here should be clear.

    17. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our natural predators get thrown in prisons, mental facilities or are executed. We're too efficient at weeding out the overt predators.

    18. Re:Another great step backwards... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I once ate a biscuit. A crumb nearly went down my throat and I choked. I nearly died. For the love of god stop eating biscuits!!!!!!!!!!! Or better yet take the 7:30 report stance. Did you know there are 100 things in your home right now that could kill you and you family? Tune in tonight to find out what they are

      Thanks I'll take my luck fighting the Polio vaccine rather than the virus itself. But then that's the usual deal isn't it. People will complain about frigging everything. If your friend's baby wasn't immunised and caught a near fatal disease what would your response be now? No think about that before blindly replying. Here is some second hand sob story about one of 1000000 things that could kill your baby, it just happens to be that in this case it reacted to the immunisation. What if it actually contracted a disease, would you still be against immunisation?

      What about cough medicine, after all that could be dangerous too and I've seen someone react very bloody negatively too it, but a week later she was out of the hospital. So say no to medicine. Oh but wait I also know a parent who watched their baby turn dark purple as a result of Whooping cough and a healthy dose of antibiotics brought the baby around again. So say yes to .... *#$^%$#%$# *head explodes*

    19. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling? Her name is Amy, lives in San Diego, went to high school with me. She's not some mythical friend of a friend of a second cousin that someone's heard a story about.

      How does mentioning a generic first name and city make your story less fake? There are thousands of people named Amy in San Diego.

      What about Johnny, who lives in New York and gained super powers from his vaccination? I named a generic first name and city. How can it possibly be not true???

    20. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccines can cause fever, it is pretty much excepted...

      You either meant accepted, or expected. Either way, you fail at English. Based on the sentence structure in your post, I assume you are an American, therefore a supposedly native speaker of that language, who will not be expected to have knowledge of more than one language (and thus only has one language's grammatical structure and spelling to confuse themselves with). If this holds true, then you have the dubious honor of being "double-fail", as most of the rest of the world can speak at least 2 languages.

      That's ok, go back to your air-conditioned, wall-to-wall carpeted poverty-level apartment, watch TV, and text your friends about that mean guy on slashdot who called you stupid, over-indulged, and ridiculous.

    21. Re:Another great step backwards... by moortak · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the NEJM it is encephalopathy. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904#ref2 The catch is that the ruling mentions autism in the heading as that was the allegation. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf The government settled with calling it encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    22. Re:Another great step backwards... by daveime · · Score: 1

      She probably also endured a bumpy ride in either a speeding car or ambulance to get to the hospital.

      Does that mean we should be looking at correlations between speeding over bumpy roads and seizures ?

    23. Re:Another great step backwards... by Bhrian · · Score: 1

      Let's see. You inject a vaccine containing mercury or aluminum directory into a child's blood stream and wonder why a neurotoxin like that can cause seizures?

      Okay, let's ignore that. Ignore that by injecting the child with the vaccines recommended by the CDC will end up injecting them with 144 times the toxic level of mercury according to the EPA.

      Oh, let's also ignore the pediatrician who's child was changed from normal to severely autistic by vaccines. He refused to listen to the 'it can't be vaccines' claims and did his own research. He cured his own child with by a process with chelation he developed that removed the mercury from their system.

      Let's also ignore the gene discovered that makes 15% of the population unable to remove heavy metals such as mercury. Do you think that portion of the population have higher instances of autism? Try reading the research and studies.

      It's amazing to see all the claims here that there are few or no studies proving dangers of vaccines when in reality they do exist. Does everyone just join the herd with their opinion blindly without checking the studies?

      “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” -- Adolf Hitler

    24. Re:Another great step backwards... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      mod +5 informative.
      Everyone in this thread is encouraged to read the first link as it clearly states what happened in the case and why we are actually not talking about autism, but encephalitis. Although the writer is related to the vaccine industry, since it is appearing on NEJM, you can be sure it is not just a collection of some random thoughts
      As a bonus, they have a good example for the use of "irony". :)

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    25. Re:Another great step backwards... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      That does not seem at all uncommon. I and others I know have had similar experiences (though not usually as serious as the one you cited) with children's illness obviously being correlated with vaccinations but pediatricians refusing to consider any possible vaccine-related cause and effect because they "know" that it has been proven there is no relation. It's not that I think vaccines are bad overall, but consideration needs to be given to the probability that they cause complications so that complications can be avoided, even if they are relatively rare.

    26. Re:Another great step backwards... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So the ER doctor is lazy, won't change things in the long run.

      If a vaccine does cause problems then there will be multiple cases and at some point the connection will be made. One isolated incident really doesn't matter in the scheme of things - sure it matters to the people involved very much, but that's not the issue at hand.

      See Australia earlier this year when a they did have issues with flu vaccine for an example of how the system works in that case.

    27. Re:Another great step backwards... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      This will not result in pharmaceutical companies ceasing development and production of vaccinations. Or rather, they had already started to get out of the vaccine business, so Uncle Sam has stepped in to indemnify them and they are safe from lawsuits.

    28. Re:Another great step backwards... by IICV · · Score: 1

      ... only that it absolutely, positively, couldn't have been caused by the vaccine administered a few hours earlier.

      Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - it never fails!

      Did you consider that, perhaps, there is simply no reason to believe that the siezure was caused by the vaccine besides their temporal proximity? A hundred million babies being vaccinated a year means that statistically some of them will (for instance) have siezures soon after being vaccinated due to pure chance.

    29. Re:Another great step backwards... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      GP's point is this: if the prevailing attitude is vaccines can't cause that reaction; we can't possibly know if it's a one-time correlation or not.

      That being said, I would also think that any doctor who observed multiple such cases would put the pieces together and follow up -- as I find it highly unlikely that there's an international cover-up conspiracy that every doctor is participating in.

    30. Re:Another great step backwards... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      You inject a vaccine containing mercury or aluminum directory into a child's blood stream and wonder why a neurotoxin like that can cause seizures?

      So because it contains dangerous-sounding materials (or things that may be dangerous under certain circumstances), it's automatically dangerous? Wow.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    31. Re:Another great step backwards... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's just the thing, if you throw out each data point one at a time as a one-off, you end up with no data at all.

    32. Re:Another great step backwards... by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      I'm german, english is not my first language and I meant expected. Sorry for the mistake.

    33. Re:Another great step backwards... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      What you describe is rather surprising. The FDA has regulations that require reporting of unexpected adverse effects.

      Here's a news story related to the topic.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6586PE20100610

    34. Re:Another great step backwards... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The plural of anecdote is not data. Learn it.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    35. Re:Another great step backwards... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And you're again missing the point. Merely collecting random events is not data. Jotting down that kid A had a seizure after administration of a vaccine is not data, because it completely disregards everything else that also happened in that time span.

      That's why the doctor is right in not collecting that "data", and why you're a thickheaded idiot who refuses to learn what it means to collect data.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    36. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The FDA has regulations that require reporting of unexpected adverse effects.

      I know - my wife is a pharmacist. I'm not some anti-medicine nutjob. My point is that if doctors are actively ignoring evidence to the contrary of what they think they know, then that's a problem, pure and simple.

    37. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>And you're again missing the point. Merely collecting random events is not data.

      Actually, that's exactly how data is collected. The FDA has a system for reporting cases like this. If it is not used, then it will bias the data in favor of vaccine safety, pure and simple.

    38. Re:Another great step backwards... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You don't have a frickin clue. You're correlating random events. Why not report that the seizure happened after she ate bread? Watched the teletubbies? Rode in a car? Got a hug? Ate some nuts? Because you don't know that they're related.

      Thank god the FDA has better sense than you.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    39. Re:Another great step backwards... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>You're correlating random events.

      Guess how science works, dipshit? Let's assume for a second that vaccines can cause seizures in a small population of babies. If most of the doctors out there fail to report their case studies, as they're supposed to do, then we'll continue incorrectly having "proof" that vaccines don't cause seizures.

      If your method can be used to draw incorrect results, your method is wrong.

    40. Re:Another great step backwards... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      No more and no less than we have a responsibility to the unvaccinated who get sick with diseases that could have been vaccinated against.

      Which, I actually think we as a society do have some responsibility either way to try to help the sick, but I know that's not a particularly universal view around here.

      If the adverse reactions are so numerous and costly as to make vaccination unprofitable we should consider withdrawing approval for it's use

      We need to weigh the suffering of one choice against the suffering of another. Attaching monetary fees to one and not to the other, which is not inherent in the cost, is arbitrarily shifting the balance. Either you'll get "lucky" and it won't matter, or you are creating greater suffering.

    41. Re:Another great step backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more and no less than we have a responsibility to the unvaccinated who get sick with diseases that could have been vaccinated against.

      Well I'm an Australian and we have socialised health care so we do that. I don't personally know anyone that doesn't immunise their kids but I know there are people who don't. Usually it would be kids bearing the cost of their parents decisions though so I don't think such a child should have diminished rights compared to someone else. However a disease is something that can happen to you without anybody being responsible. When we as a society take a deliberate and specific action for the benefit of society that we know will harm some people I do think we have a higher level of responsibility to them.

      As for my use of the word profitable, perhaps I should have used beneficial. Nevertheless, vaccination would never have come about if it were not for the cost of those illnesses, though that cost is not only measured in dollars. Illness does have a dollar cost though even if you pay for no treatment. If a quarter of your population dies of some preventable disease it would generally devastate the wealth of a country. Illness and poverty go hand in hand, both for individuals and nations.

  11. does not contradict previous studies by mayberry42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All other autism 'test cases' have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.' How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?"

    I'm certainly not a doctor and may be misunderstanding this, but the way i think of it is this: when you execute someone, you provide with them a "lethal dose" of poison. In reality, there is no such thing as a "lethal dose", but rather it's defined as something that is 99.9999% (or whatever) percent likely that you'll kill someone given his/her physical conditions. Yet naturally, some survive - but that doesn't make it any good for you. Same with vaccination: yes, some rare people may have developed some condition that counteracts the benefits of the vaccines, but that doesn't mean it's bad for you.

    So, ultimately, this in itself doesnt contradict previous studies - in this case we're dealing with an isolated case (the so-called statistical "outlier"), whereas before you were (presumably) dealing with a random selection of individuals, representative of the general population

    what really concerns me more, however, are the possible repercussions of this asinine decision. They get so obsessed over isolated cases that they completely neglect the larger picture. To quote another poster:

    If you ever wondered why drug companies would rather work on yet another allergy medication instead of vaccines with a much bigger potential to help people, well, look no further.

  12. Did I read it correctly by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The initial payment covers life care, and then there's a yearly sum on top?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Deja Vu All Over Again by Demize · · Score: 0

    I've seen duped articles summaries, but usually in different posts. I guess Slashdot is streamlining the process.

  14. Terrible... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed.

    In just about every way imaginable, this is the wrong thing to do. We're now going to have more fear-mongering about vaccines with everyone pointing at this case, and because it's sealed, no-one will know why.

    It sounds terrible that vaccine + undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder can result in autism, but what happened should be open so that we can learn from it.

  15. Re:vaccines by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Troll

    chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor.

    Can't be difficult, just look at their handwriting. A five year old can do better.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Re:bitter batter by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Way to find a way to stretch this into an attempt to start yet another healthcare flamewar on slashdot.

    Personally, I think I'll abstain, and not take your very obvious bate. I'll continue finding this settlement flat out absurd, but for none of the strawman reasons you suggest. I do not deserve that kind of money for a bullshit 'medical accident', and neither do they.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  17. The force be with you... by Ssherby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This maybe explains how those Jedi can afford to be flying all over the galaxy in their personal space crafts.

    --
    You keep using that word.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.
  18. Re:bitter batter by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    Cue 100 bitter /. readers complaining because someone who is severely mentally disabled for life might have the benefit of some money to help support her.

    No-one's complaining about that. There's a difference between looking after those in need and backing down in a case about vaccines. I have no problem with a government supporting her. I have a problem with a government settling a lawsuit over the vaccines being the problem, and sealing it, rather than winning the vaccine case and then paying separately.

    You know that Mad Mel in the Daily Mail will jump all over this case and the whole MMR bullshit will kick off again and children will suffer from diseases that the population used to have hive immunity from.

  19. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But a rational examination and sifting through all the mountains of history and empirical evidence tells us that we simply cannot trust the people who make, promote, sell and administer these drugs.

    Right. All that documented history of vaccines wiping out smallpox, and nearly wiping out polio, and all those mountains of empirical evidence showing no correlation between vaccines and autism really suggests that we can't trust vaccines. Gotcha.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  20. Re:vaccines by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who knows what shit's in there?

    Anyone who can be irked to actually research it. These things are highly scrutinized by countless people during their development process. You might not understand it, but that doesn't mean you should try to burn it for being a witch.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  21. Results are the duplication of text by Quick+Reply · · Score: 1

    more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.
    more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetimee

    Do the affects of this vaccine also include repeating the same text on Slashdot, or is that the 'result'?

  22. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Ssherby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But there is no greed in Star Trek, and no psychopaths in power and no survival of the sneakiest doctrine in effect at all times.

    -FL

    I beg to differ. Q was definitely a psychopath if I ever saw one

    --
    You keep using that word.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.
  23. Who pays? by DMiax · · Score: 1

    Sorry for asking dumb questions, but who will pay?

    And let me add, whatever weasel words you may want to use, that the decision can only be considered reasonable if you believe that without the vaccine the girl would be better. So they are effectively saying that the vaccene is the cause or probable cause of the current situation. When whoever has to pay fights this decision back it should be easy to have it overturned.

    Moreover this just makes everyone angry. It would be undestandable if they made the guilty party pay whatever future expenses may occur. Fixing a price, any price, on the condition is crazy. What if expenses become higher? lower? What if she is cured?

    And, of course, it is open to abuse.

    1. Re:Who pays? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Sorry for asking dumb questions, but who will pay?

      Short version: You (the taxpayer).

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  24. here's a prediction ...... by thephydes · · Score: 1

    (which I hope does not come true). This will lead to further scaremongering and the vaccination rate will drop to a new low, leading to a another surge in some of the awful childhood diseases that have until recently been all but eradicated in western societies.

    1. Re:here's a prediction ...... by KarolisP · · Score: 1

      yeah and darwin will be happy, becouse stupid (i.e. unfit to survive) people will be mangled by 100% preventable diseases, YEY stupid people 0 , Evolution 1 bring on the cheer leaders (vaccinated plz )

    2. Re:here's a prediction ...... by gringer · · Score: 1

      because stupid (i.e. unfit to survive) people will be mangled by 100% preventable diseases

      I hate to tell you this, but vaccination helps the people who get vaccinated as well, just to a lesser degree. Vaccines are not 100% effective in 100% of the population, and they don't have 0% side effects (however, on the plus side, diseases do not have a 100% transmission rate, even for unvaccinated people).

      Vaccines (in a situation where most people are vaccinated) reduce the transmission rate for most of the population, reducing the likelihood that anyone will be exposed to a disease (even vaccinated people).

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
  25. Obligatory Penn&Teller by photonic · · Score: 1

    If causing autism for some children were a side effect of vaccination (for which no evidence exists), the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the damage by a lot. Let my friends Penn and Teller explain it in a bit more graphic way ...

    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    1. Re:Obligatory Penn&Teller by Ifni · · Score: 1

      How old does a child need to be before they can get all of their vaccinations? Because to me, all of this anti-vax nonsense seems like a boon in disguise. Since only the stupid will be un-vaccinated, then when the epidemic caused by their failure to vaccinate comes about, they will be the only ones affected. It's like an epidemic that only affects stupid people - a win for society if you ask me. Except for that small window when newborns are too young to be properly vaccinated.

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    2. Re:Obligatory Penn&Teller by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      First off, it isn't the stupid parents that die, it is their children of yet indeterminate intelligence.

      Secondly, by risking herd immunity (yeah, go look it up) once a sufficiently large pool of people aren't vaccinated we are back in the 1600's as far as risk of infectious disease is concerned. A goodly number of the people on the Mayflower died after landing because of things like flu and other infectious diseases. A quick way back there is to lose herd immunity - it basically puts everyone at risk.

    3. Re:Obligatory Penn&Teller by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Vaccines provide individuals with variable levels of protection. What is important is the average level of immunity. By reducing the level of immunity by not vaccinating all the likelihood increases that any individual will be exposed. Even if that individual has been vaccinated there is a real chance that person will get the disease.

      IMHO not vaccinating a child or advocating that children should not be vaccinated without a very sound medical reason should be a Class A Felony.

  26. Re:vaccines by Kilrah_il · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, there are stuff in there with many letters and more than 3 syllables. Many of them contain Duhydrogen monooxide, which is a known "bad stuff". Anything with that many letters must be bad.

    Oh, and on a more serious note:

    chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor...

    You might be smarter than your doctor, but I assure you that even after an hour of intensive googling, he is better informed than you are in medicine. Yes, you should not blindly do whatever the doctor says - you should ask questions, ask for a second/third/... opinion, research for yourself, etc. But to think that after a few minutes' research you would be more knowledgeable than him is a bit insulting.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  27. Why was the case sealed after settlement? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    Is it normal for the-government-as-defendant to seal a case after settling? If this action is not standard procedure, then it suggests the presence of findings the government didn't want revealed publicly.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Why was the case sealed after settlement? by moortak · · Score: 1

      Perfectly standard for cases involving the edical status of a minor.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  28. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

    But a rational examination and sifting through all the mountains of history and empirical evidence tells us that we simply cannot trust the people who make, promote, sell and administer these drugs.

    No. The history and empirical evidence is that vaccines work very well, with very few side effects.

  29. I wonder if fear can be inherited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if whatever causes people to irrationally fear vaccines can be inherited? If so, that seems like exactly the sort of thing that will get selected against...

  30. Re:bitter batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bate? please look that word up in the dictionary.

  31. Every parent wants some explanation by mykos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are book authors, researchers, and television commentators who build their entire careers on the fears of parents.

    When someone, anyone, comes along and offers a cut-and-dried explanation to a common problem ("Tour child is autistic? It was vaccines!"), they cling to the idea. The author/commentator/researcher has given them a target for their fears and misunderstandings. Like and angry lynch mob, they will accept the first target they can, regardless of the facts. They are blinded by their desperation to know what went wrong with their child's health, and their threshold for truth is set very, very low.

    1. Re:Every parent wants some explanation by mykos · · Score: 1

      Oops...meant to say "Your", not "Tour".

  32. Re:bitter batter by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    I think you meant herd immunity in the last sentence, but other then that I agree with you completely.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  33. Re:bitter batter by gringer · · Score: 1

    I think you meant herd immunity [wikipedia.org] in the last sentence, but other than that I agree with you completely.

    FTFY

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  34. Re:vaccines by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor...

    A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

  35. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by marcello_dl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    > All that documented history of vaccines wiping out smallpox, and nearly wiping out polio... ... tells us those vaccines were effective (some deniers might say effective as a rock that keeps tigers away but the burden of proof is theirs).

    The point is that todays vaccines are different, past performance is irrelevant.
    People are not different, past performance is relevant.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  36. Meanwhile in Finland.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are currently studies being conducted regarding connection between swine flu vaccination (Pandermix) containing specific adjuvant and increase in cases of narcolepsy on children. Increase has been from 3-7 diagnosis on typical year to ~20 this year.

    I'm not anti vaccination at all, and got that vaccination myself, but that kind of increase in rare neurological condition certainly warrants an study.

  37. Re:bitter batter by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

    No, I meant hive immunity. Measles affects Borg cubes as well ;)

  38. Re:bitter batter by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    If you don't like it, get yourself a nationalised health service.

    Gee, thanks for that helpful advice!

  39. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And slashdot hits another all time low, the summary have the exact same text several times, great "job" editors.

    more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

    In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care.

    Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

    more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

    In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care.

    Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

  40. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q was definitely a psychopath if I ever saw one

    Well I could see why one would say that, it seems somewhat arguable.

    Q often maintained he was acting on orders from the continuum, and even when he wasn't, the actions which he engaged in might well have had an overall net positive benefit. Well he did seem to enjoy putting the crew into danger, that danger was often no greater then the danger they put themselves in, and might well have made them take Q's "concerns" more seriously. Also as Q has the ability to give life as well as take it, it's possible he might have a different perspective on the whole life/death thing.

  41. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as he liked wearing star fleet uniforms, Q was not a member of the federation.

  42. Re:bitter batter by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    Correct, Thanks. And I thought I got the handle on all the "than vs. then" issue.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  43. Where are those mountains of empirical evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telling you didn't point to any references.

    I have seen what polio can do to people for example, to know that it has been almost erradicated tells me all what I need to know about trusting or not trusting health experts and the govenrments they work for.

    It is baffling how some folks play the sceptic card by ignoring all the evidence, there for all to see, of what they purport top be sceptical about.

    And implying that people trusting health authorities are fantasists, akin to mentally ill trekkies, is all what one needs to know about the credibility of your statement.

    Truly pathetic.

  44. Background on the case by jaffray · · Score: 5, Informative

    The following article from the New England Journal of Medicine has a good summary of why the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists, and why some of its recent decisions, including the award in the Poling case, have been problematic. Basically, since 2005 the policy has been to concede cases where petitioners establish a plausible theory by which their injury could have been caused by the vaccine, rather than requiring proof or even scientific evidence that the vaccine caused said injury.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

    See also the Wikipedia article on the program, which also discusses the Poling case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

  45. You are wrong. Here is the "mystery." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I myself had serious side-effects of vaccinations traced to my school performance throughout grade-school. Other friends and family of mine immediately noticed their slightly "detached" or whimsical inability to concentrate without linking it to the vaccines. In the case of myself and some relatives, when the nurse or doctor says you are "behind" in your vaccinations then they just start injecting you with it all at once expecting your body's immune system to just adapt all at once with little close-contact study. All the vaccination complications and death have been linked to the host having a low Vitamin D3 content in their body. The main complication is auto-immune response to your own bodyily organs and nerve channels that it causes your brain to simply disable, immune system to degrade the myolin sheaths insulating nerves, unusual food allergies, random organ failure, metabolic changes, mutations, and a number of combinations of these complications in the right order is just like that final bricke a game of tetris that can knock-off all your blocks. In my case, I have amnesia in certain circumstances, over the course of a 2-year period my heart detectable stopped 3 times to my immediate knowledge and I thank the Unknown for it starting again in each instance, and an entire slew of others just from doctors thinking our body is like a Windows Operating System that can accept any patch they give without reading the lengthy disclaimer and anomalies. My nearest of kin was always having seizures and such throughout his childhood and nothing scared the shit out of us as witnessing it after concluding until 3am on a halloween night drive to another state for festivities.

    Some friends and family allowed tests to be performed similar to an MRI, while induced into the sleep-levels where these seizures arrived from, and the scans show all kind of unsual nervous system activity that should otherwise be the "rest" and "re-calibrating" cycles associated with the sleeping cycles. In terms of remedy against vaccines, we make the mistake in calling them just that when they are in-fact nothing more than Innoculations regardless of what someone's propoganda asserts as being a "weakened strain" of a deadly parasitic organism. It boils down to this: is your diet so poor that your bodily PH-level is at a low number that makes every cell on your body receptive to a virus penetrating it's wall, are you not wearing a static-charge device to electrify your blood, are you not giving your body immediate immunte system feedback and anti-gen reclaimation in avoiding small amounts of your urine with your daily water ration? If you want to catch the diseases in a controlled environment, then get Innoculated, otherwise don't eat the junk food and keep your PH level of your body high with plenty of propery oxygen therapies and urine therapies and lymph-channel massage therapies.

    The Innoculations are just to divert the complication of an immediate unregulated infection from diverting your time from crucial work, and as the case with children we see that it's the compelled association to fellow classmates of otherwise "squallid" origin that are a vector, and that itself to disuade from compelled association and coerced contract is a divine providence that Home Schooling resolves to keep the many micro-cultures of neighboring populations from just being a relay of Medical Service workers becoming carriers.

    1. Re:You are wrong. Here is the "mystery." by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      hahahahaha that's hilarious

    2. Re:You are wrong. Here is the "mystery." by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      OP is brought to you by two hundred and fifty million monkeys using one keyboard simultaneously.
      They were gunning for the bible, and I think they came pretty close...

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    3. Re:You are wrong. Here is the "mystery." by Kristopeit,+Michael · · Score: 0

      ur mum's face is wrong

  46. Re:bitter batter by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    But since they have some problems with social skills from the get go, I do not think that autism is such a problem for them.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  47. This by iamthetru7h · · Score: 1

    is why we will never get a cure for cancer or anything else. 10 people out of 1000 died because they had an allergic reaction to the 'the cure'. But millions of lives are saved. BUT GOD FORBID THOSE 10 PEOPLE DIED. I hate being a part of the human race sometimes. The things that prevent thousands of dying from polio, or mumps, or measles. Those 3 idiots sue everyone and make medical costs go through the roof. Their snowflake died. OH NOES. Let's dial back time to the cave man days. Squirt out your puppy without anything. In this day and age, without all these shots they'll sue. Give them the shots that prevent premature death, they'll sue. Squirt out your snowflake and it dies in a car accident because you didn't properly secure it in a car seat in a car accident. It's not YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. It's the car, or car seat manufacturer, or McDonald's or AT&T because the coffee was too hot, or you HAD to txt back your BFF. Welcome to Idiocracy. The future is now. Nothing is your fault. The gene pool needs a lot more bleach. I'm personally going to recommend Napalm. Hell I'd even godwin this one. It's time.

    1. Re:This by u38cg · · Score: 1
      With a name like "I am the truth", we might expect a little more research than your ill-informed rant contains. Had you read the comments, never mind the article or indeed any independent research, you would know that this case is not being paid for by the manufacturer; it is paid by a government fund set up to compensate the small number of people who do have adverse reactions to vaccines - reactions that are nothing to do with the autism scare, but are simply overblown immune responses that happen in a very small number of cases. Also, please learn to numerate. 10 out of 1000 is 1%. If 1% of people undergoing a routine medical procedure die, something is seriously wrong.

      Now, shut the hell up, would you?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  48. Re:vaccines by ferd_farkle · · Score: 1

    Anyone who can be irked to actually research it.

    Tiresome of me to point it out, I know, but I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    Really.

  49. Bullshit by RenHoek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Recently on Penn & Teller's Bullshit, how the anti-vaccination movement is bullshit.

    Part 1/2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aky-sRri-NQ
    Part 2/2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnxci5tezZY

    I strongly suggest you have a look at it.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 0

      Penn & Teller's show is entertaining and all -- but the name "Bullshit" fits the show. They just find the most ridiculous people on any issue, show one side of it, and prove what they already believed to be true one way or the other.

      It's convincing stuff if you are not appreciative of the Scientific Method.

      Here's an idea that MIGHT have merit; maybe SOME vaccines are good --- and maybe some, like flu vaccines, don't work at all and have no proof of merit. You don't stick something in an egg and then in the human body and proclaim "this always works" -- that's what the Pro-Vaccine, all good all the time crowd is suggesting. Maybe there are economic incentives to selling Tamiflu, and that people THINK it might help because they are halfway through with their cold when they take it.

      There is another side-effect of IMMUNIZATION that doesn't seem to be considered; when the body REACTS to the vaccine -- how do we know it doesn't add more benign things on the "immune response" list? Along with the antibodies in a vaccine, there are things called "adjutants" -- monkey blood, semi-toxic stew, and whatever might get a response from your body. Once the alarm is triggered, the anti-bodies to Flu or whatever is in the vaccine, get on the "naughty list."

      Is there any way the body knows the difference between what is in the syringe and what might be a NEW FOOD ITEM? Especially with young children -- their first experience with many harmless things might also be when they get a vaccine. When the age goes down and the vaccines go up, the chance of Collateral Damage goes up. Add in the huge financial incentive for profits and reducing liability, and the FDA working for their consulting job and paycheck by being so helpful to the industry they are supposed to regulate, and you've got a very complicated problem that doesn't show a distinct pattern coupled with a corrupt system that would never bring up a problem if it can possibly be avoided.

      We have a broken system of checks and balances, and the issue is too complicated for bumper-sticker slogans.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    2. Re:Bullshit by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Nice catalog of strawmen but none of it reads to ANY extent as to the actual benefits of vaccination vs. the dangers, or the epidemiological facts.

  50. Re:vaccines by Paltin · · Score: 1

    shit I mean there could be motherfucking MAGNETS in there gotta watch out

  51. Millions of parents are having their kids tested by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    ...in the hope that they, too, have this disorder.

    --
    No sig today...
  52. So you are of the bias that it's all about money. by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    I don't see any peer-related journals of people enduring the matter without tracing the cause to vaccines. They just start noticing these strange symptoms of disease, go to a hospital and are said they have no illness. What could possibly cause disease without having a traceable illness, and it's not a placebo? I hear stress is the same way, but obviously you don't have the stress of someone refuting your strawman arguments while balancing the verry symptoms that devoid one of most capacity to do so. You know, in that regard, I don't hear anyone renting parcels in cemetaries to be filing complaints against the grounds-keepers for failing upkeep of their land on the pre-scheduled times payed-for.

    You are working for someone, and that's great that your health allows you to, but don't say everyone's motivation
    is money if not remedy from the courts for unnecessary EXPENSES endured and incurred from some savages buzzily compelling everyone to accept the hypodermic needle.

    --
    without prejudice
  53. Oh for crying out loud by BlueParrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm taking estradiol valerate for hormone replacement therapy. Now it's quite possible that I might have some undiagnosed predisposition to breast cancer or some other disease that is dependent on estrogen or even just the compounds used in its delivery, but if this turns out to be the case I'd be a bloody fool to start suing people for it, because it's not as if I would have gone without the medication if I knew there was a 1 in 10.000 chance it could kill me. No, seriously, between people smoking, driving without a seatbelt and eating garbage, I just don't believe that any rational person would abstain from important medical treatment due to a very minor chance of complications, unless of course they've been pressured to do so by the kind of fear mongering nonsense you've seen against the MMR vaccine.

    1. Re:Oh for crying out loud by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The key word is "rational".

      Unfortunately a number of people get paid very well for being fear wielders. Of course, any time fear rears it's ugly head, especially when kids are involved, rationality gets cruelly dashed upon the rocks of ignorance and idiocy.

      --
      ~X~
    2. Re:Oh for crying out loud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only takes one time for you to get a serious complication from a normally benign medication (antibiotic in my case) before you start to question everything you know about doctors and the health care industry. One near death experience is enough.

  54. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by kothmac · · Score: 1
  55. Re:vaccines by zrobotics · · Score: 1

    But hey, have you seen those motherfucking MAGNET BRACELETS they sell at the mall/flea markets? They're supposed to cure anything. So therefore, if I have magnets flowing through my blood, the effects should be even stronger!

    Sign me up!

  56. Re:vaccines by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

    That's right, doctors never read the warnings before injecting someone with a substance. Good job you thought about doing that! Say, who do you think writes those warnings?

  57. Re:Millions of parents are having their kids teste by zrobotics · · Score: 1

    So quick, does anybody know the secret recipe to having an autistic kid? Cause I could use a few extra bucks courtesy of the american taxpayer right about now.

  58. subject goes here... DUP by nwmann · · Score: 1

    is slashdot getting so bad that we're skipping duping an article in another article and just duping them within the same article?

  59. I had a hard time reading that by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I had a hard time reading that article because of the I had a hard time reading that article because of the repetition.

  60. Re:How did this happen when all the scientific dat by j0nb0y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that they know is dangerous

    BZZZT Wrong. Please keep your fiction off /.

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
  61. You Sound like 4chan. Laugh at Gore threads too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Sound like 4chan. Laugh at Gore threads too?

  62. Re:vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My doctor reads slashdot.
    Now what.

  63. Re:vaccines by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

    Fuckin MAGNETS!!! How do they work??? Miracles!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

  64. Motives by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    I find it odd that the decision was based on the fact that Hannah had an "unknown mitochondrial disorder". Is it known that she has *some* mitochondrial disorder, but not specifically what? TFA doesn't say.

    But anyway. There is another dynamic at play here. And that is that parents of disabled children have such a hard time getting help. Autism is horrible that way. So, while it's easy to vilify the parents for appearing to abuse the system, they probably feel, with justification, that the system has abused them. Most people in their position just roll over and don't fight; they cope as best they can.

    If a society places any particular value on people that chose to have children (and there are reasons to do so), then there has to be some assurance that society, which benefits from children, will commit to meaningful help when things take a turn for the bad. As things stand now, parents can see their entire future slip away if something goes wrong with their kids. If we collectively decide that the risk is completely on parents who chose to have kids then I have to recommend that nobody have kids. You can lose everything.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Motives by moortak · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was a point mutation in the gene for the 16S ribosomal RNA (T2387C) according to http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=66 . Unknown in this case means unknown at the time of vaccination, not unknown currently.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  65. Re:Put Penn & Teller next to Cleo & Robin by ChienAndalu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hope Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette kicks your stupid ass one day.

  66. Re:vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think they write them?

  67. Re:Millions of parents are having their kids teste by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Get them vaccinated! Duh!

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  68. Penn & Teller on autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly is Penn & Tellers expertise in this field?

    1. Re:Penn & Teller on autism by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What exactly is the anti-vaccinationists' expertise in this field?

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  69. Case settled before trial - no crazy jury involved by sartin · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the fine article the case was settled. There was no trial. There was no jury. This is what the government agreed to in order to avoid a trial.

  70. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're not fecking stocks, ruled by brownian motion and the machinations of a shadowy, powerful group of elite monkeys.

    The diseases they prevent aren't gone, merely suppressed. If you stop suppressing them, they'll come right back to the levels they had before.

    And the only way in which the vaccines are different is that about 30 years ago, they removed the junk in them that the hysterical antivaccinites were claiming causes autism, with no effect on the actual autism rates...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  71. That girl needs a financial guardian by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Minors and mentally incapacitated adults who are awarded large damage awards for health care should be assigned a neutral financial guardian to make sure the award goes to its intended purpose and that no third party benefits unless that benefit is an inherent side effect of the treatment for the beneficiary. For example, if the beneficiary gets a wheelchair-accessible van, it's okay for the rest of the family and other third parties to benefit from having a van.

    Anyone family member, anyone who would have been financially impacted by person's care absent the award, and anyone living in the same household should not be eligible due to an obvious conflict of interest.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  72. Re:bitter batter by Atryn · · Score: 1

    Yes, but they have a much more "effective" solution to individual choices to abstain from vaccination affecting the hive.

    --
    Come play Moral Decay!
  73. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vaccines are good, but most of the diseases they treat (especially those targetted in infant vaccines) were already in sharp decline before vaccination against them became popular.

  74. Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

    Which basically shows that a trial probably would have been even more expensive.

  75. Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol by WillDraven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our tax dollars at work, paying off nutcases $20,000,000 to avoid a $10,000 trial. Brilliant.

    (Yes I pulled that trial cost right out of my ass, but I doubt it would be anywhere near the 20 mil they settled for)

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  76. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by j-beda · · Score: 1

    But today's vaccines are not "different", so what is the issue?

  77. This is crap by naasking · · Score: 1

    Assuming companies properly follow all safety procedures when developing and testing drugs, and assuming they disclose known problems within an appropriate window, companies should not be held liable for their products. While I hate arguments by analogy, this is truly akin to holding a construction company liable for a bridge collapsing after it was struck by a missile, or an earthquake rated 9.9 on the Richter scale. The company had no control over these unforeseeable events, and to make them liable makes all new product development a much riskier and costlier endeavor, to the detriment of society as a whole.

    1. Re:This is crap by u38cg · · Score: 1

      RTFA. Company not carrying liability.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  78. Re:Millions of parents are having their kids teste by Convector · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, that's it! Everyone wants the big payout, so they'll get their kids vaccinated. Ha! That'll show the medical industry! Soon our kids will be immune to all kinds of diseases and live longer and healthier lives! Oh, wait...

  79. Re:vaccines by Invicta{HOG} · · Score: 1

    Not only that, but most of us pediatricians who have to deal with these vaccination fear-mongers every day have actually spent a great deal of time reading about vaccination issues simply because it comes up all the time and it's nice to be able to quote the relevant studies.

  80. Re:vaccines by Spatial · · Score: 1

    Funnily enough it's a synonym of the correct word. So it does mean exactly what he thinks, yet is still wrong.

    Ah, English. :)

  81. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

    source wikipedia: In 1988, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) went into effect ... [victims] were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.

    Everyone is told they are safe, but like it or not, millions and millions are paid out to children that were injured by vaccines. I've actually done some research into this and it is pretty hard to win a vaccine injury claim, contrary to what some say in some later posts. Everyone in the vaccine chain is pretty defense and tend to blame a problem on everything but the vaccine.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by daveime · · Score: 1

      [victims] were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.

      At $20 million a pop, what's that ? About 45 cases in the span of 22 years ?

      Everyone is told they are safe, but like it or not, millions and millions are paid out to children that were injured by vaccines

      Yes, but that's not the same as saying millions and millions of children are injured by vaccines. See above if you still don't get it.

      Even IF there are some outliers, how many millions of people have been SAVED by these vaccines. When was the last time you saw someone in United Kingdom with Polio. NEVER right ? Now come out to the Philippines where I emigrated to, and you can see the victims of Polio every day, dragging their mangled limbs through rows of traffic at stop lights trying to beg a few pesos for their next meal.

      Fuck off with your paranoia and your litigation filled life, and come and see how the rest of the world lives.

    2. Re:National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah yes, this old chestnut ...

      The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients.

      So to save the 1 person who had a bad reaction to a vaccine, you would put another 750,000 at risk of infection with the WILD version of the virus because they DIDN'T get the vaccination ?

      So hey buddy, screw you too. Knee-jerk reactionary morons like you should be sterilized to avoid further contamination of the gene pool.

  82. Re:vaccines by Klinky · · Score: 1

    I would have to strongly state that researching your illnesses on your own is extremely important, especially if you are dealing with a chronic condition. While there are some hypochondriacs out there, there are also a huge number of mediocre doctors who either have ego problems where they cannot admit they don't know what the issue is or disaffected, disconnected doctors who don't feel like dealing with anyone who has anything more complex than a cold or the flu. Usually the result is that the doctor tells you it's all in your head and to see a shrink. That gets you out the door and hopefully never returning to their office as you'd be a drain on their time, energy & the clinics profits. This can be repeated over and over again, the more esoteric or complex your condition is the higher the noise to signal ratio is going to be as you find out that most docs are akin to India based technical support. I.e: Follow the flowchart, if flowchart doesn't cover it, either disconnect outright or annoy customer so much they disconnect themselves.

  83. Re:vaccines by Klinky · · Score: 1

    Blind faith can be a dangerous thing...

  84. Re:vaccines by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    I would have to agree that you should be pro-active in the management of your health, and that sadly there are mediocre doctors out there (well, random distribution insists that we have below average doctors). However, my post was in response to a general comment that said that with a few minutes of research you can be "smarter than your doctor" - which I take it as meaning "knowing more than your doctor". As a doctor, I was offended at making my whole education and experience summed up into "a few minutes of research".

    On the other hand, when you have a rare disease, it is recommended that you research about it as much as possible, since you have a greater chance of encountering a doctor who does not know/remember that illness, and in that case you might know more than him.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  85. Re:vaccines by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    who knows what shit's in there?

    Anyone who can be irked to actually research it. These things are highly scrutinized by countless people during their development process. You might not understand it, but that doesn't mean you should try to burn it for being a witch.

    The fucked-up thing is that it's even scarier when you research and do understand what actually gets puts in vaccines.

    Contrary to the exaggerated claims of the pro-vaccine movement, not everyone who're against their use are uneducated, ill-informed Fundamentalists...

  86. Re:vaccines by Skater · · Score: 2, Funny

    People don't care about relevant studies. They care about what their friend Nancy's brother's ex-wife's uncle said.

  87. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by SpeZek · · Score: 1

    Vaccines are good, but most of the diseases they treat (especially those targetted in infant vaccines) were already in sharp decline before vaccination against them became popular.

    Polio was in decline, yes, in the same way that the flu is in decline every year around spring. Polio epidemics were seasonal.

    It kills in cycles. We stopped the cycle after it hit its low point.

  88. Re:vaccines by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    Apparently they are. Your kid will be exposed to more crap by crawling around on the carpet than by getting injected with a vaccine.

  89. Re:vaccines by DurendalMac · · Score: 1, Troll

    Trusting the word of someone in a profession where he/she inarguably knows more than you is not blind faith. It's called listening to your doctor. You're far more likely to be wrong or make a mistake than he/she is.

  90. Re:vaccines by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    People don't care about relevant studies. They care about what their friend Nancy's brother's ex-wife's uncle said.

    In other words, we have this wonderful thing called the World Wide Web, and most people will get their relevant medical knowledge from gossip.

    Well, that explains a lot.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  91. Re:vaccines by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing

    blind faith can be a dangerous thing

    So the answer lies in the middle somewhere. You can't match a physician's years of training, but you can make an effort to understand what's going on. At a minimum, that means finding out if the proposed treatment for your condition is appropriate (and there may be more than one, and your doctor may have good reasons for selecting a particular one.) Make sure that your doctor has the requisite experience to treat you properly: not all physicians are one hundred percent up-front about that. Don't be afraid to find another one, if you aren't comfortable with what you're hearing. Seek out a second opinion if necessary.

    In the end though, once you've decided upon a course of action, you are largely taking matters on faith, but that's why we have experts. We take it on faith that the engineers, architects, regulators and other people who built our civilization do, by and large, know what they're doing. That applies to the medical profession as well: health is always something of a risk, but there's no question that making a decision that's as informed as you can make it is worth the effort.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  92. Re:vaccines by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    My doctor reads slashdot. Now what.

    Whoa, dude. Find another doctor, fast.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  93. Re:Now you know "involved in what" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nobody involved had any benefit to fight paying this people"

    I would expect the "government run" vaccine court to have provided a much smaller amount of compensation than $500,000 per year because

    the care for an autistic child is much less than that.
    the vaccine may have tripped the genetic condition that lead to Hannah's having autism, but this genetic condition would have been tripped by any illness resulting in a slightly high fever.
    the government is spending tax dollars on this nonsense.

  94. Re:vaccines by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Apparently they are. Your kid will be exposed to more crap by crawling around on the carpet than by getting injected with a vaccine.

    You have a completely convoluted 50's-era mentality of what is and isn't good for the human body that definitely does not jibe with the observations and discoveries we've made in recent decades.

    It's actually extremely important that infants and toddlers be exposed to the wide variety of pathogens and microbes that are an essential part of our surroundings (your "crap on the carpet"), otherwise their immune systems fail to develop properly.

    Research has clearly demonstrated that the more we sterilize our bodies and ourselves, the more it screws up our immune systems.

  95. Why healthcare costs so much by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Settlement awards like this! You want to know why when you go to the doctor for "chest pains", and it ends up being nothing more than a bad case of heart burn, that they wanted to do MRI, Cat scans, dye marker tests, stress tests etc etc, THIS is why. Doctors are scared to death of being sued for something they might miss. Too many ambulance chasing slip & fall lawyers will sue on the drop of a hat. Drug makers have to charge a hefty fee for their drugs, because they have to have a built in profit margin, to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit, if their drug causes a severe reaction or death. Even if it is 1 in a million, you've seen the ads on TV. "If you or a loved one took drug x, you may be "entitled" to compensation". Crap like that drives the costs of everything up. Slip & fall on a wet spot in a business, and the ambulance chasers come out of the woodwork. I think it was Shakespeare who once said "kill all the lawyers". THAT would be a good start!

  96. And.. in counterpoint by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    (while I actually do agree with you)

    perhaps SOME of it is necessary for the doctors to cover their lawsuit asses just in case it actually turns out to be a zebra

    Honest self assessment, if the 'cold' turned out to be 'lung cancer' and the doctor treated a cold only.. what's your take on it then....

    why didn't he run tests?

    can't win with the current system.. it is what we have...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  97. A doctor's perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    An interesting blog on this topic - http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/cbs_news_resident_anti-vaccine_propagand.php

  98. Re:vaccines by Type44Q · · Score: 1
    Furthermore, vaccines are known to introduce a wide foreign cellular material directly past our natural defenses in a way that seldom happens in nature. Are you even remotely aware of how fucked-up the cultivation process can be?

    Of course, the corporations that sell these vaccines (and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee them) have done a fairly efficient and successful job of making sure the information remains out of the mainstream. They've also made sure that you're branded a retard or lunatic if you attempt to point out the failures of the system.

    There's an overwhelming amount of research showing that we have a huge problem with consistency and quality control. All kinds of bizarre, dangerous substances have been found in vaccines, including monkey and chicken DNA, viruses... nevermind the Thimerosal!

    Many of the arguments against vaccinating don't necessarily have anything to do with it as a matter of principle but rather address the practical aspects of its implementation.

  99. Personal attacks have no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, a Slashdot reader believes that a personal attack will pass muster with this community. We are too smart for that. When doctors talk of obesity they often state, our genetics didn't change, so environmental factors must be contributing to the rise in obesity. The same must be said for Autism. Our genetics did not change, so there must be an environmental factor (or factors). The thing that bothers me is that people become polarized over the issue.

    The parents of Autistic children (I am one) tend to focus too much on one environmental factor (Vaccines) when there are plenty of other factors. They also discount the benefits that vaccines have provided to our society in general. The "informed" community ignores research that does not concur with their point of view while making character attacks by associating those parents with Playboy.

    Both groups have some valid points, but will never make progress while pointing the finger at each other. My hope is that a group will come together with open minds to research Autism no matter where the evidence leads them. For instance:

    The industry that I work in (computers & electronics) seems to be the worst at contaminating the environment. According to National Geographic, electronics account for less than 2% of landfill waste while contributing 70% of landfill toxicity.

    http://s.ngm.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/computer-interactive

    Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?

    There is also a factor of chemical contamination, which is largely undocumented in public records. Companies can register various chemicals as perfumes, apply for trademark protection, and withhold the chemical composition based on trade secrets.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/by_scott_hensley_debates_rage.html

    When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot). Although I am not a health professional, I understand that many diseases have been mitigated through vaccination, and that vaccines have been very effective. Personally, I would hope that vaccine sterilization is best achieved through gamma radiation of single dose vials. Then again, some people go crazy with the word "radiation".

    I have followed Dr. Wakefield's ethical case, and understand that his methods were at question, and his results have not been duplicated in humans. Although there is a new study which calls the vaccine regimen of the 1990s into question.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628439

    I also understand that it is not in the interest of vaccine manufacturers to find a link with Autism.

    http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/labels/Vaccines%20and%20Autism.asp

    I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view. For my son, treatment for Candida and the use of probiotics has helped enormously.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14691

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-1862v1

    When he stops taking probiotics, however, his symptoms reappear. Stool samples have been used to verify the issues. A gluten free / casein free diet helps both Stephen, and the family member with MS.

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/07/21/toxic.trio.identified.basis.celiac.disease

    http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/182/7/4158#TI

    I seem to recall a recent Slashdot article about Gluten, but cant find it anymore.

    So what this really comes down to for me is, "You are what you eat, drink, breathe, etc." Autism appears to have both a genetic and environmental component. We have to stop bickering over this crap and start working to resolve the issue. Anybody interested?

    1. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      hen doctors talk of obesity they often state, our genetics didn't change, so environmental factors must be contributing to the rise in obesity. The same must be said for Autism. Our genetics did not change, so there must be an environmental factor (or factors).

      You're forgetting a third possibility, that it's being diagnosed more frequently (whether correctly or incorrectly is an issue that I'll leave to biological and medical experts). A hundred years ago, we didn't know that Pluto existed, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist before then.

    2. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because Jenny McCarthy is the parent of an autistic child we can't mention that she was also a Playboy model? What kind of dipshit retarded argument is that? The GP was making sarcastic claims about JM's credentials, not anyone else. Learn to read dumbfuck.

      Vaccines DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM. The "evidence" supporting that was FAKED. And has been admitted as such by the AUTHOR of said "evidence". No study since has demonstrated ANY causal relationship between autism and vaccines. Everyone who forgoes vaccines due to "My precious little cuntshit might get autism!!!" puts everyone else at risk for absolutely no reason. They should be put to death to spare the rest of us that much more misery.

    3. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?

      There is also a factor of chemical contamination, which is largely undocumented in public records. Companies can register various chemicals as perfumes, apply for trademark protection, and withhold the chemical composition based on trade secrets.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/by_scott_hensley_debates_rage.html

      When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot). Although I am not a health professional, I understand that many diseases have been mitigated through vaccination, and that vaccines have been very effective. Personally, I would hope that vaccine sterilization is best achieved through gamma radiation of single dose vials. Then again, some people go crazy with the word "radiation".

      The claim that autism rates have increased is distinct from the claim that vaccinations are the single or most likely cause. With out proof of a link any similar causal claim is equally valid. Here the claim is something like; X went into my child, my child has autism, X therefore autism. X in this case can be anyone of a thousand things that has become common during the increase in autism. Formula milk, aspirin, biological run off in breast milk, juice, any sort of newer manufacturing process, and so on. Even if a link between vaccinations and autism was less tenuous that explanation would still have to overcome the usual hurdles for any explanation.

    4. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have followed Dr. Wakefield's ethical case, and understand that his methods were at question, and his results have not been duplicated in humans. Although there is a new study which calls the vaccine regimen of the 1990s into question.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628439

      That's putting it mildly. Not only did Wakefield conceal conflicts of interest, but it has been shown that the description of the work and how it was done was false. Your statement that it has not been duplicated "in humans" is technically correct--others have tried to reproduce Wakefield's claimed results and have gotten contrary results--but it could be misunderstood as indicating that it has been duplicated in nonhumans. This is not true.

      And the study you cite was originally co- authored by Wakefield (although they demoted him to an acknowledgment when the extent of his scientific malfeasance and unethical behavior became widespread public knowledge), and also has major scientific problems.

    5. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by winwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Autism appears to have both a genetic and environmental component. We have to stop bickering over this crap and start working to resolve the issue. Anybody interested?"

      The scientists doing actual science are working to resolve the issue. People who are anti vaccine are not. People who think that Jenny McCarthy or Wakefield have credibility are part of the problem.

      "Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?"

      This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much. We might as well look at the correlation to population, CO2, girl scouts, HFCS, etc. Correlation does not equal causation (oops). Then there has to be a biologically plausible mechanism for exposure (oops). And there has been research (oops). And what you are suggesting is heavy metal poisoning, not autism (oops).

      The rise in autism has everything to do with diagnostics. The definition has expanded, so more people are diagnosed. More services are available for people with autism, so it is beneficial have the diagnosis. There is less stigma for autism, so it is not hidden. Autism was separated from other mental disorders. Etc.

      "When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot)."

      This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much.
      Formaldehyde is present in the human body at greater levels than present in any vaccine (oops). Aluminum is perfectly safe (oops). The mercury in the shot is not dangerous (oops). Note that a can of tuna has more mercury of a dangerous variety than does any flu shot (oops).

      "I also understand that it is not in the interest of vaccine manufacturers to find a link with Autism."

      I also understand that you are ignorant and lazy. And creating a strawman.

      "I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view."

      And your point is what? That you think the plural of anecdote is data? That fixing a bowel problem will magically fix a brain problem? That you are clueless and ignorant?

    6. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by gingertaylor · · Score: 0

      http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/index.html

      This study last year showed that while better recognition was part of the increase, it did not even come close to accounting for the skyrocketing rate. So everyone who a part of the serious discussion on autism recognizes the increase is not an artifact, but it is real.

      Plus if you talk to educators who have been in the field for thirty years, they can tell you that they never saw kids that were anything like the children with autism we have today. School systems were not going broke from their special ed budgets like they are now.

    7. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When doctors talk of obesity they often state, our genetics didn't change, so environmental factors must be contributing to the rise in obesity. The same must be said for Autism.

      No. The criteria for diagnosing obesity has remained relatively static during the rise of obesity; the criteria for diagnosing autism has changed drastically during the rise of autism/autism spectrum disorders. Similarly, the increase in society's awareness of autism and the increase in the availability of programs to benefit autistic children have both contributed to an increase in the probability that someone with an autism spectrum disorder will actually be so diagnosed.

    8. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to find the citation right now, however I remember reading about the fact that in Denmark (or the Netherlands) they have public health records going back generations. The records track (among other things) vaccinations and things such as autism rates. The information includes whether the vaccine included mercury or if it didn't (they stopped at some point).

      It is basically the motherload of epidemiological information covering 10's of millions of people over a very long time. The result? zero correlation between vaccinations and autism.

      That's the end of the story for me. So unless there was some special circumstances in this case (contaminated vaccine?) this settlement is wrong and will only provide inappropriate ammunition for the vaccine=autism faithful.

    9. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      and the fourth; the definition has changed! Asperger wasn't classified as autism previously - it is now!

      --
      This is blinging
    10. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is less stigma for autism, so it is not hidden. Autism was separated from other mental disorders. Etc.

      Exactly. In the old days, there was no fancy names - they were just nutters.

      Like nobody is thick these days, they're all dyslexic.

    11. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I dunno, there's a clear correlation between the decline of pirates and the increase in autism and obesity. We need to stop bickering over this crap and start working to bring back pirates. I've got a box of eye patches and I know where we can get some parrots. Anybody interested?

    12. Re:Personal attacks have no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hundred years ago, we didn't know that Pluto existed, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist before then.

      But... er... does it still exist now?

  100. Re:vaccines by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, vaccines are known to introduce a wide...

    That should have read "...a wide variety." Sorry for the sloppy typo.

  101. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    I beg to differ. Q was definitely a psychopath if I ever saw one

    Q's was the, "Other". And would you let Q inject you with anything?

    -FL

  102. Re:How did this happen when all the scientific dat by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    I am NOT one of the anti vaccine people. I think all kids need to be vaccinated. Those that trust to herd immunity are leaches, and taking a great risk.

    I also think it is pure cold blooded greed to use the preservatives could very well cause this because the safer ones are more expensive.

    So there!

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  103. let me get this straight.... by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

    Our society is so litigious that we can't get a vaccine for one set the VERY common MMR because there is might be a link to an unknown mitochondrial disorder?

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    1. Re:let me get this straight.... by gingertaylor · · Score: 0, Troll

      The risk is actually not slight or rare. CDC actually estimates that up to 2 percent of the population may have the same biochemical markers as Hannah Poling has. 1 in 50.

  104. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    No. The history and empirical evidence is that vaccines work very well, with very few side effects.

    As I said, vaccines are a great idea. But did you not pay attention during the debacle of the last flu season? Billions of dollars changed hands and the vaccine caused much of the reported damage.

    Sure, Polio is a great thing to wave goodbye to. But many decades have passed, the people have changed and the product and the marketing and the intentions behind them are no longer singular.

    History and empirical evidence doesn't just point to the things you want them to point to. That's a variation of confirmation bias. You have to observe the big picture, because like it or not, greed is in effect and population-wide jabs, which so many people literally become enraged at the slightest suggestion that they should be re-considered, are an excellent way to subdue and control a population.

    -FL

  105. 20m? 6c. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    20 million dollars divided by 310 million people equals 6 cents. You'd kill a child to save yourself 6 cents? Here you can have all the change in my wallet, you promise not to kill any kids now okay?

    If you want to be a libertarian outlaw vigilante, destroy F35 (or ideally, B2 Spirit, if they're still in production) production lines. Those will save you 32c and $6.45 for unit not produced respectively.

    (All figures calculated with rough estimates and assuming a flat tax)

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:20m? 6c. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I would never willingly kill a child. I would not kill an adult either except to save the life of someone they were about to kill. I can see how you and other posters could interpret what I said as wanting to kill the child, however, if I had meant that, I would have said it directly.

      Ultimately, there are people crazy enough to do it. They bomb abortion clinics, set fire to Hummer dealerships, blow up federal buildings, etc. As I said, there is now a 20 million dollar bounty on the girls head. I in no way stated that I personally had any desire to be a bounty hunter.

      I apologize for the feathers that I ruffled.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  106. Er... by afabbro · · Score: 1

    Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.

    What is "federal vaccine court"?

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Er... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      They set up a special court to deal with vaccine-related cases. I believe in part because a special court could try to address the rather technical issues involved.

      Another reason for a special court was because a lot of judges wouldn't touch cases like this with a ten foot pole and they would simply be decided on the basis of bias and who got more articles in the Huffington Post.

      The problem with cases like this is that they are extremely difficult to work with because the case itself doesn't deal with questions of law at all. It deals with the interpretation of very technical branches of science by laypeople. It isn't the science that is on trial, it is the interpretation of the science. And that means it is going to be a mess.

  107. Re:vaccines by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

    All kinds of bizarre, dangerous substances have been found in vaccines, including monkey and chicken DNA, viruses... nevermind the Thimerosal!

    You had me until 'Thimerosal'. I thought we'd had enough studies that demonstrate Thimerosal isn't the problem. Now you just sound like another anti-vaxxer and I'll need to ask to see citations for the rest of your assertions. :/

  108. Please start questioning! by gingertaylor · · Score: 0, Troll

    "How did this happen when all the scientific data points otherwise?" Because all the scientific data does not point otherwise. You have to understand that you are under a huge misconception that there is no research that supports the vaccine autism connection, because you are listening to industry mouthpieces that say, "No evidence of any link" and then you guys spend all day parroting that line back and forth to one another, and you really believe that it is true. So of course this ruling sounds absurd to you. Paul Offit has admitted in the press that he is a "vaccine salesman". He flat out lies in the press, and you guys are just swallowing it with out asking any critical questions. That is not science. I have put together a page where I just started listing the research that supports the vaccine, autism theory. There are more than forty listed, and it is by no means a complete list. You can find it here: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html And you need to pay attention to the completely absurd statements the government is making in regards to this case. An elementary school teacher would not accept such bad excuses from her students as they are offering to the public. Get this email from HRSA's communication office: "From: Bowman, David (HRSA) [mailto:DBowman@hrsa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:22 PM To: 'dkirby@nyc.rr.com' Subject: HRSA Statement David, In response to your most recent inquiry, HRSA has the following statement: The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures. Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis. Regards, David Bowman Office of Communications Health Resources and Services Administration 301-443-3376" Read that again. Then let me translate this for you: The Office of Communications is saying that, 'We don't compensate for vaccine induced autism, we compensate for vaccine induced encephalopathy (which is just a term that means a change in brain functioning) that turns into autism. And also we don't track if encephalopathy turns into autism, even though most of the symptoms are seen in autism'. So according to this reasoning, guns cannot kill people, they just cause a perforation that "may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including , sepsis, serious blood loss, organ damage, symptoms of extreme pain or death. Also we just track gun related perforations, not whether or not they bleed or get infected or result in death". And if you have not seen the Head of CDC embarassing appearance on CNN, please take a few moments to watch this woman behave like an idiot trying to explain this case away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg&feature=player_embedded You all are very bright people who have been fed a line of garbage, and you are swallowing it. Please, start thinking critically about the messages that you are being fed by people with very vested interests in there NOT being an association between vaccines and autism. Hannah Poling, who had a Johns Hopkins neurologist for a father and a nurse/lawyer for a mother proved their case. HRSA conceded this case because her parents had closed every single way for them to wiggle out of it. Now there are more than 5,600 cases in that court. If HRSA admits that vaccines cause autism, that is more than 100 BILLION DOLLARS in pay outs. And there are 300,00

    1. Re:Please start questioning! by gingertaylor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And I don't know why slash dot turned my post into a big blob of words. Sorry.

    2. Re:Please start questioning! by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      When posting, there's a popup at the bottom next to submit. Set it to "plain old text" so that your carriage returns aren't stripped out.

      I'm unclear why "plain old text" isn't the default because it's how most people expect it to work.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    3. Re:Please start questioning! by gingertaylor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Thanks!

    4. Re:Please start questioning! by u38cg · · Score: 1
      Because this site is aimed at people familiar with

      .

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  109. The child is not autistic by ishobo · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/cbs_news_resident_anti-vaccine_propagand.php#comments

    This sums it up

    I can't believe that any sentient being would take the Hannah Poling case as an indication that vaccines cuase autism.

    To begin with, Ms. Poling has a mitochondrial abnormality - which preceded any vaccination, not to mention her birth - which makes her inordinately sensitive to - among other things - fever. In this case, the government has conceded that the vaccine(s) she received caused a fever (which is a common side effect of vaccines) which more likely than not (50% plus a feather) was the proximal cause of a neurological injury.

    Secondly, Ms. Poling - while she may have many aspects of autism - is not similar to the vast majority of autistic children (and adults). She is acknowledged to have an atypical case of autism. Also, technically, it can't be "autism" if there is a known neurological injury.

    Finally, vaccines are not unique in their ability to cause Ms. Poling's neurological injury. Any febrile illness (including, I must add, all vaccine-preventable illnesses) could have done the same. This is analogous to a person struck while crossing a busy freeway - there are numerous vehicles which could have done the injury, but the unlucky chap who hits the pedestrian gets the blame.

    If Ms. Poling had come down with influenza or even a nasty adenovirus prior to getting her vaccinations, she would be just as "autistic" as she is now, but she wouldn't be exploited by the anti-vaccination movement. I suppose I can't blame her parents for using the established legal process to get money for her care, but I do find opportunists like Mr. Doherty highly offensive./blockquote>

    --
    Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
  110. Re:vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't worry, I suspect he'll also say this:

    chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than the guy who wrote the piece of software you're using...

  111. Largest malpractice award in Canada by QA · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have nothing to add regarding the vaccination debate as I am not qualified, however our daughters case was also settled out of court, a few days prior to trial. It took almost 5 years. It was the largest settlement in Canadian history at the time. Let me explain a few things to people who may not understand.

    Therapy is very, very expensive. Good therapists are close to $100.00 per hour and have a multitude of letters behind thier name on the business card. They deserve it. Now, I would venture a guess that there would be speech therapists, motor skills therapists, education therapists, PT, and probably Autism specialists in this case. Our expenses exceeded 250k one year, and have stabilized at around 100k.

    A full time minder will be required. People who do this for a living are usually in great demand, and are expensive. The good ones anyway. Another 60k per year. Mom or Dad be the full time minder? Forget it. You couldnt handle it. Unless you have no other kids, no job, etc, even then you wouldnt have the qualifications.

    Money....The money is not the parents money...it is HER money. Yes, the parents may disburse it, but if the child is a minor (as our daughter is), or unable to make rational decisions, then the goverment appoints an advocate to perform an annual review on expenditures, in Canada anyway. YMMV. We were advised to purchase an annuity tied to the cost of living index in our country, less 1 million for initial expenses such as a purpose designed house and lawyers fee's of 550k.

    The parents will die. Who takes care of the child then? The money must be used to care for the child as long as she lives, which will be shorter than average by the way. Look up disabled people in the actuarial tables. We have made arrangements for this. We have no itention of fobbing the this off on her older brother. That would mean another life destroyed. Naturally he will oversee things though.

    Lifestyle....If a speially designed Hummer is what they need, so what? A specially designed home? Again, so what? Its about the child, not the parents, but keep in mind that the parents lives are effectively over, or at least a "normal" lifestyle that is. Whats your one shot at life worth to you if I may ask?

    I drive a 2005 Escape and live in a 1 bedroom condo after the divorce (80% of marriages dont survive shit like this). I work 60-70 hours a week. My portion of the award was less than 200k, as was my ex wifes. My other children received 50k each.

    My ex lives in the custom house which was less than 500k. She works full time and drives a 2008 Santa Fe....pretty extravagant eh? yes, there is a special van. Quite expensive but she got it used.

    Im sure I've left out quite a bit, but the point was dont just look at the big numbers and after all its only money. Sure, we need it it, but its just pieces of paper. Who gives a fuck about it. Awards like these are rarely given out except in catastrophic circumstances (Canada anyway) and I for one would give eveything I had, including my life, to be able to turn back time, but I cant. So you just soldier on.

    Our goverment got in on the lawsuit as well. OHIP extrapoloated the extra costs that will be incurred over her expected lifetime (low 50's) such as tests, scans, etc, and sued for them. That came off the top as well, but was only a few hundred thousand.

  112. Where did these quotes come from? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't 'cause' her autism, but 'resulted' in it

    I read the actual decision and I think the "resulting" part is a misinterpretation . What the decision said was:

    "Respondent has conceded that petitioners are entitled to compensation due to significant aggravation of Child Doe/77's pre-existing mitochondrial disorder based on MMR vaccine Table presumptive injury of encephalopathy which eventually manifested as a chronic encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder and a complex partial seizure disorder as a sequela

    My reading of that is the vaccine aggravated a mithochondrial disorder that the child had and that the child now has chronic encephalopathy with symptoms like autism. The keyword is "like". It is similar to someone I know who was in a motorcycle accident. If a doctor were describe his injuries it would be something along the lines of "brain injury with loss of some motor and speech functions with features of a stroke." He didn't have a stroke but that's the best way to describe it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  113. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Ha ha!

    Oh dear. Life IS confusing, isn't it?

    Let me try to break it down for anybody confused by that video. . .

    Yes, on the most fundamental level, we live in self-service society. Every time we feed ourselves, we must take life, be it plant or animal. There is simply no getting around the nature of our reality in this regard.

    Greed, however, as I define the term, is not the same as what one might call, functional self-interest. Those afflicted with Greed like to rationalize their disease by claiming it is natural and good. But it is not. It's like saying eating all the food at the table and leaving none for the rest of your family is good because we need to eat to survive. Greed destroys communities, whole societies. Witness the economic melt-down of our current society. Self-interest allowed to go cancerous without any of the rational self-limiting behavior a responsible adult ought to show has resulted in wars, catastrophic oil spills, economic collapse. -And, I would point out, an un-trustworthy medical establishment.

    The problem is that psychopaths are basically humans which never grew emotional capacities beyond those of a toddler. They cannot differentiate between themselves and the rest of the world. They WANT and they NEED, self-interest on over-drive, and all they did upon maturing is learn how to manipulate the world into delivering a constant, endless and beyond-reason stream of resources down their gullet.

    In that way, Greed destroys and is, in fact, a disease, not to be mistaken for common self-interest.

    And finally. . , the comparative comments made by that Friedman guy regarding Soviet Russia must be recognized as irrelevant. There's a big difference between mandating control measures to weed out psychopaths and corrupt behavior known to cause systematic failure (like the housing market melt-down), and a social experiment which tried to control all aspects of a population's self expression via centralized government. Those two animals are not the same, but it's easy to fool people with the comparison.

    Friedman asks, "Where are you going to find the angels?"

    Those ascending to positions of power need to be tested for sociopathy. That would be a BIG step.

    -FL

  114. Three Word Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fully. Informed. Jury.

  115. Re:vaccines by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    "don't blindly follow the doctors orders, chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor."

    Absolutely. You should definitely do a few minutes of research and then treat yourself. Repeatedly. Keep doing it until, well, you'll see. The world will be a better place.

  116. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    How is that? We still use vaccines against pertussis, polio and a whole bunch of other diseases. Except for polio these aren't usually brought out as the poster children of vaccination success stories but they're still there, still preventing diseases most of us probably have barely heard of that previously killed or crippled a large percentage of children.

    Sure, the actual formulations have been changed a bit. And those changes have been very carefully validated and found to make the vaccines even safer and more effective.

    The only really different one is the flu vaccine, and again, flu vaccines are very carefully monitored and validated.

  117. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, right. Here are the numbers for Polio. It went into sharp decline all right. Twice in fact. Once after the first vaccine was introduced, and again after it was refined.

    http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

  118. Re:vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Furthermore, vaccines are known to introduce a wide foreign cellular material directly past our natural defenses in a way that seldom happens in nature.

    Right, because kids never catch viruses, and they certainly never get cuts that might get some nasties in them. The cellular material kids get is essentially dead or chewed up virus.

    Are you even remotely aware of how fucked-up the cultivation process can be? Of course, the corporations that sell these vaccines (and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee them) have done a fairly efficient and successful job of making sure the information remains out of the mainstream.

    Do tell. Source?

    They've also made sure that you're branded a retard or lunatic if you attempt to point out the failures of the system.

    Yes, "THEY" are the reason people call you a retard or a lunatic, because after all, you're smart! You're right! People must be manipulated and deceived into calling you a retard and a lunatic!

    Or it could just be that you're a retard and/or a lunatic.

    There's an overwhelming amount of research showing that we have a huge problem with consistency and quality control. All kinds of bizarre, dangerous substances have been found in vaccines, including monkey and chicken DNA, viruses... nevermind the Thimerosal!

    Thimerosal was pulled from childhood vaccines a decade ago and there was no drop in autism rates. You might want to try getting your facts straight before shooting off a conspiracy rant. You can often get your facts straight by reading something other than alarmist bullshit.

  119. Re:vaccines by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    Aaaand nothing you've said in that post has anything to do with vaccines, which are for diseases that can be fatal. Sure, crawling around is necessary. I'm not a big fan of clean freaks who sterilize the hell out of everything. We can agree on that. But I fail to see how vaccines fit into that. Not slathering Purell on your hands every time you touch something isn't going to kill you. Pertussis could.

    I fail to see what you're trying to say here.

  120. just a note by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    Many parents who believe there is a connection between the Vaccines and Autism claim there is way far less autism in children that don't get all of these shots at one time. My daughters pediatrician will not give them to his patient's all at once. They are given one at a time. Yes this means more trips to the doctors office. It would be interesting to note how many here on /. have a family member that is autistic? In my family we have one. This disease is everywhere and has affected many family's. I had visited a few years back many forums on this subject. I could not find any families at the time, that their child did not get the vaccine cocktail.

  121. Re:How did this happen when all the scientific dat by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    I also think it is pure cold blooded greed to use the preservatives could very well cause this because the safer ones are more expensive.

    I don't. It's part of the reason why we were able to eradicate smallpox(except outside of the lab). It became cheap enough to give it to everyone, the same has more or less been happening with polio. Except where large numbers of religious nutjobs in the middle east think it's a jewish plot to kill them, or make them infertile.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  122. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Plus the GP forgets the entire Ferengi race who are all depicted as 100% greed-driven. Yeah they were in TNG too, not just DS9, if you skipped that (can't blame you).

    And +1 for Q being a massive psychopath.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  123. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh jeez why can't you just link to goatse like a normal person?

  124. NOT autism by sjames · · Score: 1

    Read the second link in TFA (or here).

    This case is about a direct causal relationship. Child gets immunization, child develops high fever, child shows signs of brain injury. It just happens to have an autism-LIKE appearance but is not believed to actually be autism. Unlike autism, this is a recognized (but certainly not publicized) rare adverse reaction.

    This is in sharp contrast to the typical autism claim of child gets immunized, child cries (as young children do for any shot), child seems fine, months later child shows signs of autism.

  125. Re:Please question. by u38cg · · Score: 1

    I don't have to think critically. I just have to refer to the courts who have repeatedly ruled that vaccines did indeed cause autism and the other defects they are claimed to. Oh, wait. None of them have. This girl's case is tragic, but it has nothing to do with vaccine-induced autism. If your claims were correct - and I accept that you have a personal interest in them being correct - the courts would be overflowing with such cases. There are plenty lawyers that would take on such a fight pro bono if they thought they could win it. Where are they?

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  126. Why the VICP tilts toward the plaintiff by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that I understand, but what I don't understand is why the NVICP makes irrational decisions that favor the people who claim that their injury was caused by a "plausable" mechanism.

    Indeed, the Vaccine Court tilts toward the plaintiff in multiple ways. The government pays the plaintiff's lawyers, win or lose, so there is a big incentive for lawyers to take such cases, even if the chance of winning is slim. And the standard of evidence is lower in the Vaccine Court--basically, compensation is awarded if it is at all plausible that a person's injury could have been caused by the vaccination. And if the plaintiff loses, they still have the option of suing in regular court.

    However, I think that this is reasonable. Vaccination does not just benefit the person being vaccinated, it benefits society, because the main way in which vaccination prevents disease is not by protecting the individual from infection, but rather by making it impossible for an epidemic to get started in the first place. Immunity to disease (whether from vaccination or previous exposure to the disease) is not absolute--the risk of contracting the disease is reduced, but not to zero. The reason most people do not contract diseases like measles, whooping cough, or polio is that an infection is unable to spread through the population, because on the average an infected person ends up infecting less than one other person. When that is the case, the disease cannot spread, and simply peters out.

    But when immunization is successful, the disease is virtually eradicated from the entire population. Vaccines are some of the safest effective medical treatments known to man, but they do have risks, albeit very small. But when a disease is nearly eradicated, the risk of the disease to each individual is less than the risk of the vaccine--so long as all of his neighbors are properly vaccinated. So the situation is tailor-made for a "tragedy of the commons," in which each individual pursues his own selfish self interest, and as a result, everybody suffers far more than would have been the case if everybody had cooperated to share a small risk in order to avert a much greater one.

    So it makes sense to provide a public safety net to compensate everybody who suffers a genuine vaccine injury--because people who get vaccinated are performing a public service. Yes, this will means some people will be compensated who would have gotten sick anyway, and Hannah Poling is very likely one of these. Mitochondrial diseases can be triggered by many stressors, including very minor illnesses, so there is a good chance that something or other would have triggered Hannah's illness even if she hadn't been vaccinated. Indeed, children like Hannah may well be at greater risk if they are not vaccinated, but that is obviously of little comfort to anybody after the fact.

    So just as our criminal justice system occasionally lets real criminals go free to protect the innocent, the Vaccine Court sometimes rewards unscrupulous lawyers who exploit parents of autistic children, and sometimes provides compensation to people who probably aren't really entitled to it. But that is a small price to pay for providing just compensation for those who actually do suffer genuine harm from vaccination

  127. Re:You Sound like 4chan. Laugh at Gore threads too by Harinezumi · · Score: 1

    What can I say? Al's a funny-looking guy.

  128. False and false by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Funny you should mention that... the vaccine for whooping cough does not prevent the spread of whooping cough, it simply allows the immune system to destroy the toxin it produces that attacks the lungs, so you don't whoop.

    False in two respects. First, it is not true that the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine only immunizes against the toxin. Second it is not true that immunizing only against the toxin does not reduce the spread of the disease. (hardly surprising that preventing a symptom--coughing--that spreads disease would reduce the spread of that disease)

  129. Keep drug interactions in the database by Technomancer · · Score: 1

    That also holds your prescriptions etc.
    It is very easy for the computer to check all the interaction possibilities. Not so much for a human, no matter how well trained.

    1. Re:Keep drug interactions in the database by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      That only works to a point. A database is only as good as the human using it. And databases are notoriously wrong, either with the patients data or the drugs themselves.

    2. Re:Keep drug interactions in the database by ultranova · · Score: 1

      A database is only as good as the human using it.

      A database is only as good as whoever wrote it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  130. Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol by zeropointburn · · Score: 1

    That one case, sure. But what if all the other pending trials used that one case as their anchor and weathered the full storm in court? At $10k per case that could easily rise above $20m.

    --
    -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  131. Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not tax dollars that fund the damage awards. A useful link in the slashdot article post would have been Wikipedia's entry on the Vaccine Court which would show that it's not tax dollars, it's the feds on the other side instead of vaccine manufacturers, it's a no-fault system, and the burdens of proof are nothing like usual civil suits.
     
    In fact, to the extent that tax dollars are implicated, your post should read "paying off nutcases $0 to avoid a $500K trial." Sounds like a good deal to me.

  132. Mitochondrial hypermetabolism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was vaccinated about 70 years ago and suffer from a mitochondrial disease (threonine mutation in UCP1) that makes the world 10C (18F) warmer for me than for others. I'm writing this wearing only shorts and singlet in a room at 15C (59F). Whom do I sue for a lifetime of sweating misery when conforming to dress codes? I could use $1.5M.

  133. autism from the bowels, NOT the brain? by nido · · Score: 1, Troll

    I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view. For my son, treatment for Candida and the use of probiotics has helped enormously.

    I have a friend from high school whose kid has seizures/autism/etc. They've found that a low-carb ("ketogenic") diet helps significantly.

    Cayce gave a few readings about people with autism-like symptoms... One factor in the case were "adhesions" and scar tissue in the lacteals, the lymphatic channels which are attached to the small intestines. The scar tissue serves to short-circuit parts of the abdominal nervous system.

    The treatment advised included castor oil packs and other therapies, which slowly dissolve the scar tissue and help stimulate normal lymph flow.

    See my website, or send me an email for more information (james @ teslabox.com - I don't check ye olde yahoo acct too frequently).

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:autism from the bowels, NOT the brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are seizures often linked with autism? If so, I've never heard it before. It sounds like the kid you're referring to may have numerous health problems. Drawing a causal link between diet and autism seems like a bit of a stretch, especially without any studies having demonstrated even correlation, let alone causation, between diet and autistic behaviors.

      Still, I'm all for studies being done to test these theories. I'm a typical half-asperger nerd, and got sick last week. It started with diarrhea, followed by congestion and a sore throat. For some reason I became noticeably more social. I even had the urge to to pat a coworker on the back like a car salesman when I talked to him - extremely out of character for me.

      But the unintentional "fasting" of diarrhea was just one of many things going on. I was also sick, tired, congested (hard to breath = less oxygen to the brain?), and short on sleep. All of those have been demonstrated to cause lowering of inhibitions, whereas diet has never been. I'm much more likely to conclude it was non-dietary factors.

    2. Re:autism from the bowels, NOT the brain? by nido · · Score: 1

      If so, I've never heard it before. It sounds like the kid you're referring to may have numerous health problems.

      Yes, this kid has a multitude of problems.

      Drawing a causal link between diet and autism seems like a bit of a stretch, especially without any studies having demonstrated even correlation, let alone causation, between diet and autistic behaviors.

      I drew no such correlation - I just mentioned that my friend's kid does better with a certain kind of diet. My post was about "short circuits" in the lymphatic system of kids with autism being a consideration. My suggested therapy was castor oil packs, not dietary modifications. This was an appropriate suggestion based on what the AC I responded to said:

      I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view.

      Here's some longer quotes and a link with more information about this approach to health:

      • INTERNAL CLEANSING: Because autistic symptoms were sometimes linked to problems with the alimentary canal resulting in poor eliminations, hydrotherapy is recommended to improve eliminations through the colon. Hydrotherapy includes drinking six to eight glasses of pure water daily and obtaining colonic irrigations to cleanse the bowel. Following the diet should also assist with internal cleansing. Hot castor oil packs applied over the abdomen are recommended to improve circulation (especially lymphatic) and eliminations through the alimentary canal.
      • DIET: The Basic Cayce Diet is intended to improve assimilation and elimination. The diet focuses heavily on keeping a proper alkaline/acid balance while avoiding foods which produce toxicity and drain the system. Essentially, the diet consists mainly of fruits and vegetables while avoiding fried foods and refined carbohydrates ("junk food"). Certain food combinations are emphasized.

      -Cayce on autism

      (hard to breath = less oxygen to the brain?)

      The abdominal brain is just as important in our daily experience as the sack of nerves on top of the shoulders.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
  134. Re:vaccines by izomiac · · Score: 1

    I'm a medical student and spend a good part of my day referencing textbooks and Google on random diseases that come up while I'm rotating through the hospital. I can assure you that, unless it's something very rare or clinically trivial, a few minutes with Google will not teach you more than what an experienced doctor knows unless it's outside of their specialty. It'd be nice if it were that easy, but sadly it isn't.

    OTOH, do research first so you don't have to blindly follow doctor's orders. That way you have the background knowledge to facilitate a more meaningful discussion.

  135. Lymph Masssage can be done by Chiropractors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That list is my regiment, yet I do more additional things in the day without a certain pro-fessing Chiropractor.

    For one, the Lymph channels flow just their immune-system material just like parallely to the veins. Then there is Urine Therapy, of which I diffuse a teaspoon of Urine (start with 1/4 over a the first week) into a 8oz bottle of water to reclaim anti-gens of prior infections so that I stay immune in the 4-Month cycle that might lose immunity.

  136. /. is Entertainment For Nerds, Doesn't Matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you wrote is what I've responded in like to a bunch of entertainers that obviously have the Camera pointed at them rather than experienced individuals who make a living without the jokes of those injurred by vaccines. If vaccines don't causes damages in certain circumstances, then that could explain why those companies making the vaccines have sucessfully lobied all legislatures and courts to GIVE THEM EXEMPTION FROM DAMAGES.

    All that you see on Slashdot today is the wave of the next generation after the AOL'ers grew-up and left, and Slashdot ended around 2003 because most of everyone went to KURO5HIN due the same abusive moderation. Just look at the moderation system: it's a ADD/ADHD World-of-Warcraft addicts dream to achieve POINTS that let them talk more. Look at what all these people put on their profiles: they consider theirselves NERDS for watching certain fictional Television programs, while others consider theirselves GEEKS because they buy Chinese-made computers that they modify in trivial ways.

    There is verry little Homebrew scene here anymore, and it is dead just like the the Warmth of an Incandescent Lightbulb killed by the Cold of a mercury-rich Fluorescent Lightbulb. None here have any useful technology jobs other than Information Technology and working in Foreign companies making and designing the next generation of foreign-manufactured electronics that will be fabricated in Slave countries that will continually undermine the United States of America from ever competing yet increase the standard of living and the technical ability of the governments to supress the people here until it becomes worse than the outright Slave countries. Where is the Homebrew scene that I knew about when I was 15'years old back in 1995, a group of 60YO unemployed DEC and IBM'ers that teach how to tool-up to make semiconductors and logic gates with available materials and equipment you can build yourself? Are College accredited-Degrees in various sciences used as moderation points in society so people listen when you talk rather than watch as you do nothing that warrant those Degrees?

    It's as though most days 4Chan users are of higher quality that Slashdotters. Just look at this place swarm around certain "celebrities" posting comments here under the ID John Carmack or Eric Raymond and Alan Cox, and you'll figure out that those WERE regular people posting daily here but now don't because of the influx of the absent-minded crowd taking-up all their time with unnecessary discussion and trolling.

    There was a time when things were better, now it looks bleak and irrelevant for /. to stay around. The only reason it didn't die alltogether is because Slashdot didn't remove the Stops that would've made this place like MySpace, yet the moderation system proves it's more of a game anyway.

  137. That's not Funny. MODS ON CRACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why the 1st and 2nd generation of Slashdot left to KURO5HIN back in 2001 to 2005.

    I remember back in 1999 when actual people with a face would visit here and discuss matters, and now it's just pissing contest of inexperienced people MODDING-DOWN someone else just so they can post under another Slashdot ID to MOD-UP their comments in the entire Point scheme that use for moderation. Congratualations Slashdot, you've become like another Blizzard Vivendi videogame that attracts all this Ritalin children point-collectors.

    I'm leaving, and come to think of it So has VA Linux Systems.

  138. Re:bitter batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they were _forced_ by law to have the child vaccinated, the government absolutely bears full accountability for any consequence, no matter how tenuous the link.

  139. Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol by WillDraven · · Score: 1

    From the link you provided: "Since 1988, the program has been funded by an excise tax of 75 cents on every purchased dose of covered vaccine."

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  140. Re:bitter batter by gringer · · Score: 1

    Correct, Thanks. And I thought I got the handle on all the "than vs. then" issue.

    Blame it on my programmer's eyes. When I see a 'then', I have a hunt around for an 'if' (or at least a preceding event), and get confused when one does not exist.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  141. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of those things you just mentioned happened _before_ the formulations of the vaccines were updated, without any new impact study. While I think they _could_ have been trustworthy before, those formulations are no longer used.

  142. Wrong by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    Manufactures of vaccines are granted immunity from lawsuit. The money for this will come out of tax payers pockets.

    False. Vaccine manufacturers may be sued directly if a plaintiff does not prevail in the vaccine court.

    However, there is not much incentive for plaintiffs to do so, as the rules of evidence are more favorable to the plaintiff in vaccine court, and the plaintiff's legal costs are covered, win or lose. So if somebody can't win in the vaccine court, the chances that they will prevail in the civil courts are pretty dismal.

    Of course, the costs would come out of the public's pockets even if the Vaccine Court did not exist, because vaccine manufacturers must charge enough to cover their costs, including the costs of litigation and potential awards. In the worst case, fear of liability might become so great that no commercial firm is willing to manufacture the vaccine, in which case the public would also be saddled with the costs of the inevitable disease outbreaks, and probably eventually with the cost of the federal government itself producing the vaccine.

  143. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    Antivaxxers believe that all of these serious disease--smallpox, polio, measles, pertussis, rubella--just by coincidence, decided on their own to go away just about the time the vaccine became available. Of course, most of these infectious diseases exhibit a "boom and bust" pattern, because after an epidemic, the must susceptible individuals are dead or immune, so the incidence declines until immunity wanes. So the disease rates rise and fall. But virtual elimination of an infectious disease of this nature requires a vaccine.

  144. Re:Please question. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    And also we don't track if encephalopathy turns into autism, even though most of the symptoms are seen in autism'....You guys are smart.... don't be fooled

    You don't have to be all that smart to look up the symptoms of autism and encephalopathy and discover that while encephalopathy may occasionally have symptoms that resemble autism, encephalopathy typically includes a whole bunch of other symptoms that are rarely seen in autism. Indeed, most forms of encephalopathy are associated with evidence of gross brain damage, whereas typical autistic brain differs from normal brain only in very subtle ways, in the levels of certain neurotransmitter receptors and slight changes in cell distribution--all of which fit with a host of other evidence that indicates that autism is a developmental disorder, almost certainly of genetic origin, that begins well before symptoms become obvious, rather than a form of acute brain damage such as encephalopathy.

  145. from the tobacco companies by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    our cigarettes didn't 'cause' your cancer, the smoking of them just 'resulted' in it.

    --
    ...
  146. Vaccines improve health. Better uses of research $ by mrhodin · · Score: 1

    My heart goes out to all of the families with children with Autism or Aspergers. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to come to terms with the fact that your child has one of these conditions, and then to fight to ensure that your child gets the education and care needed for them to live a rich, fulfilling life.

    Blaming vaccinations is not the answer, however. There have been a wealth of impartial studies performed, and the results overwhelmingly show that autism is NOT caused by vaccinations. For example, there was an extensive review performed in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine, an organization chartered by the National Academy of Sciences in 1970 to serve as an adviser to the federal government on issues affecting the public's health, as well as to act *independently* in identifying important issues of medical care, research, and education. (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669467)

    By falsely linking autism and vaccines, parents have been hesitant to vaccinate their children. The lack of vaccinations has resulted in unnecessary illnesses, complications, and deaths due to diseases that are 100% avoidable. (For over a hundred real-life accounts of people who have suffered or died from vaccine-preventable diseases, you can visit http://www.immunize.org/reports/. The main body of the site is pretty interesting, too.) I cannot imagine how a parent must feel, knowing that their child is disabled or dead because they weren't immunized. I'm betting it's 1,000x worse than the parent of an autistic child who was immunized, since there is absolutely no question that the (in)action of the parent is to blame.

    Calling for more studies to prove what has already been established - that vaccines do not cause autism - diverts funds away from research that can try to establish what *does* cause the disease and develop more effective treatment methods. I think that we all would be better served by putting funds towards this kind of research.

  147. Re:bitter batter by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    Well, if that is the case then I am relieved.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  148. Why vaccinate? by garry_g · · Score: 1

    At such a high risk, wouldn't it be better not to vaccinate childern? After all, what bit of risk is paralyzation, small pocks, and all the bunch of other sicknesses compared to this?

    US courts suck. Big time. At least more often than not ...

  149. Re:Vaccines are a great idea. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    And the only way in which the vaccines are different is that about 30 years ago, they removed the junk in them that the hysterical antivaccinites were claiming causes autism, with no effect on the actual autism rates...

    Well you'll have to debunk stuff like this then.

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49094

    Also, trying to reply to all the followups, which contradict one another:

    - does the fact that they are suppressed and not gone change one bit of what I said? the point is not being effective on the disease BUT being effective and not cause bad collateral effects.
    Else, a lethal dose of poison cures diseases too, more effectively than anything else. The focus must be on the well being of people, not anything else.

    Since 0% collateral effects is impossible in practice, those who get vaccination should have a honest estimate of their chances to get the disease vs their chances to get collateral effects. Could be that a polio vaccination is a good idea while a flu one isn't.
    Could be that blanket vaccination campaigns might be statistically more harmful than focused ones following outbursts of disease.

    Could be that nobody has the incentive to cure a disease if vaccinations as they are performed now yield more profit, so there ought to be a way to put research for cures above the one for treatments and vaccinations.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  150. Explain this..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All last week an ad was on TV saying that autism has risen 150%. Now 1 in a 100 kids have it. This was an ad for some organization raising money for autism research. If Vaccines aren't the reason for such a rise then what is causing this. I have a nephew who was fine as a baby until he got his shots. After getting vaccinated he got to acting strange and was then diagnosed with autism. That was around 15 years ago. Sad thing is his family didn't get a dime.

  151. Re:vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly can't believe that anywone with basic knowledge in biology can say the vaccines are a hazard. If full grown/educated doctors are preaching it, 'nuff said.

  152. Re:That's not Funny. MODS ON CRACK by Kristopeit,+M.+D. · · Score: 1
    who said anything was funny? my post was modded interesting because it was interesting to someone...

    autism is defined only by symptoms, so there could always be another way to reach those symptoms... thus "THE cause" of autism CAN NEVER EXIST.

    it's basically the same as looking for "the cause" of the sniffles... it's ignorant.

  153. Re:vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes you are.

  154. Go visit CHILDHOODSHOTS.COM from Mary Tocco. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll get your answers plainly from Mary Tocco, as she has been on the war-path against Vaccinations for well over 25 years in consulting about the matter. Her MaryTocco.Com domain is offline because of some issue with GoDaddy at the moment.

    Preponderance of evidence is all that prevents me from taking any side in a dispute, and that preponderance is from two flawed points of view meeting in courts to fight over money when I just want to keep doctors and their needles away from me as I don't associate with anyone.

    1. Re:Go visit CHILDHOODSHOTS.COM from Mary Tocco. by Kristopeit,+M.+D. · · Score: 1
      i don't need to go anywhere to know that i'm right.

      you're an idiot.

  155. Proof that the vaccine is not to blame by vmaldia · · Score: 1

    I know a pediatrician who had an autistic child. Unfortunately the trauma of the event and the internet conspiracy theorists convinced her to withold that vaccine for her next child. Unfortunately, the next child also became autistic. So now she firmly does not believe in the conspiracy theory. Of course this is merely anecdotal evidence with a very small sample size and many other statistical no-no's.

  156. Re:Case settled before trial - no crazy jury invol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10,000 for a trial? Pulled out of your ass indeed. $20 mil is easily in the ballpark for something like this.

    Something else I don't see anybody talking about: you settle out of court instead of going to trial when you know you're going to LOSE, and in a case like this, there is the added consideration of what precedent a court decision would set.

    Let's also not forget that $20 mil is chump change for big pharma. CHUMP CHANGE. This family should actually consider itself lucky that their house didn't "accidentally" burn down with them inside it (it wouldn't be the first time.)