Court rules in favor of family in MMR vaccine case
Sun Sentinel - South Florida (Broward, Fort Dade, Miami)Thanks to the MMR vaccine, this little boy is brain damaged for life.
Wow, all the provaxers are speechless.
LOL! Did you expect them to concede? It's not like this is the first case to prove that vaccines aren't the fantastic things they claim to be.
Provaxers make their decisions and try to persuade others by quoting cdc and public officials. For a govt agency to concede that a vaccine was to blame is proof enough for me that they know there are things they are withholding from the public. If the court finding was in favor of the vaccine I guarantee that provaxers would be waving it and shouting from the rooftops but because it's not in your favor, it's not relevant because it's not a study.
Speaking of things being not objective...let's examine the cdc's "studies".
The CDC is not the only "group" doing studies .. I take none of my quotes from "public officials" .. I read articles published in high impact, peer-reviewed journals. DH spent several years doing vaccine research in an academic setting and attending vaccine conferences with the top vaccine experts in the world .. that is where my information comes from .. not blogs with their radical conspiracy theories about how the country is out to get our children .. nor do I give a speck of attention to anything published on CNN or any other news source .. they often misinterpret the studies just as people who have not studied statistics or done the (as in .. sit at the lab bench, do the experiments and study the results) research do. But .. we all have our ways of obtaining information and interpreting it to best fit our choices of lifestyle. I think that the biggest thing I take away from the arguments in favor of not vaccinating is that much of the information is taken out of context .. (mercury levels in vaccine vs. environmental pollution / aluminum in vaccines vs what children ingest in breast milk / formula, etc.)
BTW .. what would you consider to be objective? .. if the CDC or any other gov't agency is out .. and pharmaceuticals are out (although pharm companies don't make their millions from vaccines, but that's another topic).. I guess that leaves academic research institutions .. but it seems people don't even trust that .. so what would you trust?
Why are your doctors to be believed but any doctor who speaks against a vaccine isn't trustworthy?
What would I trust? Hmmm, at the moment I don't trust anyone or anything that says that vaccines are safe and effective. Show me the study that focuses on a group who is vaccinated and a group who is unvaccinated. Show me the long term effects of both groups as it follows them through their entire lives.
No, I believe the term provaxers use is "safe and effective". The term I use is "unnecessary".
**Why are your doctors to be believed but any doctor who speaks against a vaccine isn't trustworthy?
Its not that they aren't trustworthy -- its that they clearly haven't produced significant data to support their opinions/theories.. otherwise vaccine schedules / vaccines would be altered accordingly.
**What would I trust? Hmmm, at the moment I don't trust anyone or anything that says that vaccines are safe and effective. Show me the study that focuses on a group who is vaccinated and a group who is unvaccinated. Show me the long term effects of both groups as it follows them through their entire lives.
That study can never be done because it would be unethical. :) ... and even if one such study were started today -- we wouldn't be alive to see the result .. AND there are so many variables in life that one could not attribute an illness 40,50, 60 or more years down the line as being the result of a vaccine at 2 months of age (ie -- alzheimer's). Clinical trials are the closest we come to seeing such studies where safety and effectiveness are examined before approval and marketing of a new vaccine can take place.
Yes, Karin and Melissa, thanks.