Olmsted on Autism: Steel Thyself
By Dan Olmsted:
Here's a not-so-cheerful scenario to start your day: The plaintiff families lose in Vaccine Court. Andy Wakefield gets disbarred, or whatever those nutty British call it when they pull your medical license. And Gardiner Harris wins the Pulitzer Prize for his pharmaceutical reporting.
No, this is not a fever dream or an attempt to pull us down further into the slough of despond. All three of those things might actually happen soon.
The vaccine court cases are of course central to the hope of thousands of families for justice, and compensation, for their vaccine-injured children. As the Oscar forecasters often put it, though, there are two questions. Who SHOULD win? And who WILL win? Sometimes they are the same. But sometimes justice just does not prevail in the short run. While we keep our fingers crossed, we should also keep our bets hedged. It will be a sad, sad day if the cases go against the families -- or, just as likely -- land in some murky in-between that allows the CDC to twist the English language into knots that tie up progress for another few years. (See Poling, Hannah.)
Andy Wakefield? Who knows. I'm not too optimistic. Smear someone steadily enough and The Big Lie prevails. He was on the take. He made stuff up (see elsewhere on this page). No one could duplicate the results. He must be destroyed (that's the only true statement in this litany).
It matters, of course, but it has gone on so long and become so transparently political that it almost doesn't matter, either. We gave Andy our first Galileo Award late last year. Who remembers who "won" that argument with Galileo? I guess the Catholic Church, but who won in the long run?
And Gardiner Harris? That was not just thrown in for effect. He's done good work on prescription medicine and in particular conflicts of interest and pschiatric medications. So prepare to hear The Times honking about its fearless coverage.
Ah yes, but people can get some things right and some things badly wrong, and a "Pulitzer-Prize winning Harris" will be just as wrong about vaccines and autism as is the currently Pulitzer-less Harris. (Check out the story of the Times' Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer for The Times in 1932 for writing about Stalin's economic miracle and how there was no famine in the Ukraine. He's now widely regarded as an utter embarrassment to the paper, and The Pulitzers, and journalism. Times change.) (HERE)
So, as they say, hope for the best but prepare for the worst. I'm not putting this bleak scenario forward because I think it will happen, although I'm a bit concerned to see Tom Insel -- who once told me to my face that vaccines might well be behind the autism epidemic -- swaggering in exactly the opposite direction these days. What does he know? And the longer we wait for the verdicts, the more chance there is not just for delay but for political calculations to be worked out.
No, I just want to say that as lousy as things might be in the short or medium term, and as unfortunate as that may be for real people with real children who are really suffering, the truth is slowly emerging, and no individual event, no series of seeming setbacks, can change that one bit. We'll be here to report on and critique it all and not let the bastards get us down.
By the way, I hope this is the most misguided idea for a column I've ever had.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism
Gloom and doom. Gloom and doom. No thank you. I did not come this far to lose.
The thought of losing does not figure into my thought process. Everyday for over six years I have repeated to myself, "I will not be defeated", "Losing is not an option".
If we win, we keep going.
If we lose, we keep going.
If we win, the going will be easier.
If we lose, the going will be more difficult.
However, the Court rules, we will keep going.
Tomorrow is Yates 9th birthday! It will be a happy day.
I refuse to be depressed again waiting for the verdit. I have done all that I can do for now. I will not read AOA or OAP until the phone call comes.
My point is enjoy the moment. You will never get this time back.
Posted by: Rolf Hazlehurst | February 10, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Maybe Steve D doesn't realize that many of us have read transcripts/daily reports of the Omnibus proceedings as they were going on. One can certainly derive from those reports and transcripts a reasonable confidence in the cases presented as plausible evidence of vaccine injury. At the same time, ones who have seen time and again the suppression of evidence of vaccine damage, and aware of the desperately strong need for those in power never to admit the vaccine/autism connection, we can easily surmise that these cases will unfortunately be no different. Only time will tell.
Posted by: Garbo | February 10, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Steve D -
You said:
"....seems to indicate an unwillingness to consider a valid source of information/authority simply because it disagrees with the writer's personal opinions."
I think Dan's summary of the "what if's" was not quite an opinion but possibly more of a historical deja vu of what has happened before--like for example, the IOM decision of 2004. So his advice to "hope for the best but prepare for the worst" is completely with merit.
I though take it a step further and would say that trust has been eroded for many of us - first in the vaccines themselves and the harm caused and - the improper handling of the research and treatments,ie-research that ended up biased from the start with pharm affiliations from the companies involved in vaccines or their components. We have tasted the bitter actions of people like Bill Frist and so many other political shenanigans that have stopped the process of truth and transparency and so much more.
I am not sure if there is "a valid source of information/authority" involved in these cases that is to be trusted. I guess you could call me cynical but I have been reading, researching, hoping, and praying since 1995 and have seen more hate and ill will towards our vaccine concerns than compassion and good will.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | February 10, 2009 at 08:25 PM
For Steve D -
"...seems to indicate an unwillingness to consider a valid source of information/authority simply because it disagrees with the writer's personal opinions. Mr. Olmsted implicitly avers that he/AoA readers know(s) "the truth", regardless of what any source of information may assert to the contrary."
Do you have information to the contrary that you want to share? Are you trying to say something here? Unsure where you are coming from.
Posted by: For Steve D | February 10, 2009 at 06:34 PM
Mr. Stone -
I read the article you linked. Setting aside JPandS philosophical mission for a moment and simply taking the article at face value, I see your point about evidentiary standards. However, these are not the standards applied in VICP. From the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/rule-8-taking-evidence-and-argument-decision :
"In receiving evidence, the
special master will not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence. The special master will consider all relevant and reliable evidence, governed by principles of fundamental fairness to
both parties."
and
"The special master may decide a case on the basis of written filings without an evidentiary hearing. In addition, the special master may decide a case on summary judgment, adopting procedures set forth in RCFC 56 modified to the needs of the
case."
Mr. Stone - the evidentiary standards in VICP are intentionally set very low, but the petitioner must still establish biological plausibility (unless summary judgment occurs prior to it being necessary, seemingly). Surely you can't recommend a VICP that simply takes petitioners at their word?
So again, aside from accusations of political machinations, or outright corruption, would a decision that does not favor the AOP petitioners really not change your assessment of causation at all?
Posted by: Steve D | February 10, 2009 at 06:26 PM
for Steve D,
I'm hoping the vaccine court does the right thing and the GMC too, but maybe not. On the GMC, the entire process has been bizarre from beginning to end. Hard to take seriously. On the vaccine court, the original idea of this court was to provide rapid relief to children who were sacrificed for the good of the herd. However, the government has made the process extremely adversarial and a lot of deserving cases do not make it over the hoops, leaving the parents with dead or disabled children and no recourse after years of hassle and struggle. With this history in place, there is already a sense that the process is not fair and not interested in the good of the children. The autism omnibus process also has some dark spots. There was one attempt to lock up all the documents in these cases so that parents who wanted to move on to suing the drug companies would have to start from scratch collecting info. This was defeated, but it was a close call.
Finally, for those families whose children clearly became ill and regressed after vaccination, all they would get from a defeat in court would be a feeling of same old, same old. First the doctor told them that the vaccines were safe. Turned out not to be. Second the doctor told them that the physical/behavioral problems following on the vaccination were not connected to said vaccination. Turned out there were thousands and thousands of other families with the same or similar experiences being told the same thing by their doctors. Then they were told that it was all coincidence. No idea what went wrong, but we know for sure it isn't (whatever it is) due to vaccination. Following all this has come many years of abuse in the news media calling these parents who vaccinated their children and then regretted it anti-vaccine. Put yourself in the position of one of these parents. You are caring for chronically ill child. Insurance doesn't help. All you get from regular doctors and drug companies is denial that there is a problem and prescriptions for some rather nasty drugs at high prices. You are regularly attacked for not doing your bit to support herd immunity. At what point do you lose trust in the system?
Posted by: MinorityView | February 10, 2009 at 05:07 PM
Steve wrote:
"Even though the OJ question is off-topic, I will answer by saying I felt he was guilty at the time of the verdict".
and "...all stakeholders/interested parties would necessarily need to incorporate the VICP's decision into their worldview...Stating the intent to not do so... seems to indicate an unwillingness to consider a valid source of information/authority simply because it disagrees with the writer's personal opinions."
What source of information/authority was "valid" to, say, OJ's Akita? Many of us were at the scene of the crime.
Posted by: Gatogorra | February 10, 2009 at 05:06 PM
I think Steve does not understand how fundamentally families are disadvantaged even in the vaccine court. The point is that with other pharmaceutical products if you have a reaction you stop taking the drug (if you survive) and you may report the side effect, particularly if it is not previously known. This is a relatively safe and humane way of approaching the problem. There isn't a belief problem.
With vaccines it is different, if anything does go wrong you are own, and if you want to do anything about the onus is on the family to prove it - this is not a safe or cautious way to conduct medicine, and it turns most ethical principles on their head.
And in fact the way the vaccine court is conducted is vastly over elaborate. Instead of simply witnessing the very high level of plausibility with administering a product and making connections with subsequent events the onus is put on the complainant - as things are - to account for every part of the bio-chemical mechanism by which they became ill. It is a level of evidence - very hard to attain - which is already quite from the principle of "balance of probabilities".
You might like to have look at this article by Clifford Miller and Donald Miller which offers a different - much less complex and fairer view - of how to assess evidence.
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/miller.pdf
Posted by: John Stone | February 10, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Steve D, although the VICP process is transparent, that doesn't mean that it's fair. For example, many observers would object to a decision the special masters made, allowing Merck not to share a huge chunk of information during the discovery process. This is the type of thing that would incline an observer not to "incorporate the VICP's decision into their worldview."
See here: http://theresma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!80EE15D075B65A13!197.entry and here: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/OSM/Autism/Ruling%20Concerning%20Motion%20For%20Discovery%20From%20Merck%20Re%20MMR%20Vaccine.pdf
Posted by: Theresa | February 10, 2009 at 04:14 PM
My child, 11 days after his DPT shot, almost died with convulsions, fevers, high pitch screaming. We did not fit the "criteria" to sue. Today, my lovely beautiful son who is 27, has seizures, mito dysfunction and autism, leg tetany and even tick borne disease. Where is my justice? So as a BELIEVING parent in the SYSTEM, I still continued to vaccinate my subsequent three children (no internet back then, how was I to know), and the last one, reacted to MMR, because I felt the only bad boy was P in DPT. I could be accused now, of being too trusting back then. Of course, by recommendation I gave tylenol (not, www.rollingdigital.com/autism ) Now, they can't say that. I mistrust our court system, our government, our intent for harm on the American People, and the idea, that yes, there are some people out there who would prefer children of this generation to not procreate, to hamper parents ability to fight back because of the overwhelming tasks of autism, and to control your little material worlds that we work so hard for.
This kind of disguating thing has happened even beyond the vaccine realm. The fluoride waters are ways to control and sicken people, they placed ticks in furs on a shipment from Russia/WW2 experiments in Japan to induce a new tick borne disease in our population disguising over two hundred diseases, and for the most part, most of this manipulation is intended, on purpose, and the like. They treat cancers with toxins, they put toxins in our foods
(GMO, MSG, ARTIFICIAL EVERYTHING, TRANSFATS, CORN SYRUP WITH MERCURY). They pollute our skies, and waters for no good reason, and the combination of all combined is causing a holocaust on our children. No more mercury? The replacement is a yeast product called 2-pe (highly neurotoxic), they up the aluminum and vaccines continue to be toxic, the viruses are mutating our DNA, the vials often have contaminations of mycoplasma and "pathogenic bacteria" (language of MIND institute), etc.
So, for me, vaccine represent a "Who turned out the lights " type of campaign. A program in which, it is very hard to pinpoints origins of diseases in a fashion intended as an almost a disgusting bioweapon against citizens so that they don't knock at the castle gates and ask for their audience and reason. It is in this killing culture that they pronounce a miracle and not the mayhem that exist right before our very eyes. White is black, black is white..
The whole plain fact is unvaccinated children are healthier, smarter, able to cope with stimuli, change, and can sit in their chairs at school and actually LEARN, and the vaccinated, just can't..think how marvelous a way to dumb down our population in total? Most of the polio vaccines, were contaminated with oncogenic viruses, so now we complain about breast cancers/leukemia in children on the rise?
Don't trust the line, well trusted and harmless and typical reaction. My once very meek toddler, became a raging psychopath after the vaccine series. The lights went out.
So it is with our population...so it is with our freedom, our ability to sue in an unbiased court, and so it is with our world...I cannot hold the assumption that most of these cases will be in favor of the plaintiff, I have no illusions of our present situation. And like the mother said above...does that bring our children back? Still, I only wish I could sue the bastards and get my due.
What they will say ad nauseum is correlation/coincidental in time doesn't necessarily say, it's directly caused by vaccines, YUCK, throw up, spit it out...
So all who think they can clean up a vaccine by removing certain adjuvants...which provokes the immune system to act upon the virus injected, think again. There is not winning this...repeatedly I ask, why trust the bastards now? So, this allows the manufacturer to increase certain adjuncts taken out by "us" and now this allows the manufacturer to use much less antigen in the vaccines, ie, less antigen equals more profit, more adverse events and more drugs sales to treat vaccinal disorders which equals more profit. The cost equals chilcdren lives totally destroyed which equals more profit.
I say, the campaign should totally change from green a vaccine, slow the schedule down, split apart, to how about NO. How about saying, our kids are not experiments? How about saying, my medical freedoms are at stake here? How about an unvaccinated study to see how ill they are and the vaccinated, how REALLY ill they are? How about dropping the workable parent routine? And, how about droping pediatricians as consumers should because they are not experts in this, and going to people who have explored what true health is? How about not eating from Grocery chains that supply neurotoxic foods to our kids? Then, and only the, will THEY listen, will our justice come. And the final justice, is the special place in Hell for those who made this situation come to pass, and a special place in Heaven for those who have endured this HELL.
Posted by: Kathy Blanco | February 10, 2009 at 02:40 PM
You're welcome, Steve. KIM
Posted by: Stagmom | February 10, 2009 at 02:23 PM
At some point in my understanding of the whole vaccination mythology, I realized the enormity of what's at stake. Vaccination is the greatest of all religions. There is nothing on earth which will be allowed to derail this belief. Not autism or the myriad of illnesses, or the death of our children will be allowed to interfere with this most sacred of all beliefs. For the doctors and high priests of this religion it would be far better for the earth to stop spinning on its axis than to ever admit that vaccines cause the illnesses we see in our children. Better to do what ever it takes to deny the problem, than to ever deal with the shame.
Yet, I still have some hope.
Posted by: michael framson | February 10, 2009 at 02:19 PM
To Steve D: GMC is run by the people who have massive vested interests. Its chair is on the payroll of a vaccine company. They did allow the allowed the trial to go ahead on the basis of a smear campaign - the case was put forward by a journalist, not a patient or anyone hurt by unethical procedures.
Posted by: Natasa | February 10, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Sometimes the graphic is so good it deserves it's own comment.This one is that good.Thanks Kim
Posted by: Alison MacNeil | February 10, 2009 at 02:03 PM
It is going to be very difficult for the government to side against Pharma in this downward spiralling economy. The US has few real exports and besides cars and trucks, drugs are the big export item and moneymaker. If te govt. could write off a few thousand kids when the economy was "good", they can easily write off hundreds of thousands to keep the US Pharm-economy propped up.
Posted by: Doodle | February 10, 2009 at 01:58 PM
Dear Fed Up, This chart is extemely interesting. I am convinced that the day we really and truly discard Thimerosal, there will be dozens of changes in childrens health statistics. But please tell me one thing: As I understand it, VAERS requires reporting within 6 weeks, and I imagine that most parents would not really get a diagnosis of asthma so quickly. Please correct me- if Im wrong- I need to know because there is a young boy who has suddenly developed 3 odd nervous tics three months after receiving 2 rabies vaccines. Is it too late for the parents to make a VAERS report?
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | February 10, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Thanks for allowing the question through, Kim, because I think it is an important point.
Even though the OJ question is off-topic, I will answer by saying I felt he was guilty at the time of the verdict. I'm not taking the position that either our legal system or the VICP (decidedly different from criminal courts) are infallible.
But ... in the case of the AOP, a very transparent process has occurred that featured mutually agreed-upon experts in numerous scientific fields, exploring in great detail the claims put forth by 2 families whose children were selected as the best examples that could be established of the 1000's that make up the Omnibus.
I guess the point is that it seems to me that all stakeholders/interested parties would necessarily need to incorporate the VICP's decision into their worldview. I say this not knowing - as no one does - what the decision will be.
Stating the intent to not do so - as this post is doing - even before a decision is announced or justified, seems to indicate an unwillingness to consider a valid source of information/authority simply because it disagrees with the writer's personal opinions. Mr. Olmsted implicitly avers that he/AoA readers know(s) "the truth", regardless of what any source of information may assert to the contrary.
Posted by: Steve D | February 10, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Dan,
I read on JABS forum that the Cedillo case was settled in November 2008. No confirmation was linked to so I don't know if this was just someone's opinion or rumor.
The more I learn about vaccines and how they are made and what goes in them I am frightened for this whole generation. I don't believe for a minute that my son had a genetic predisposition for autism. I believe that their is something really nasty in those vaccines. What I would like to see is a study of the sick kids and their vaccine lot numbers and see if they match up. We all know that lot numbers are spread around the country to throw off any intevestigation into bad lots. Maybe my son's vaccines had extra mercury and extra mycoplasma.
Posted by: Maggie | February 10, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Sadly, I believe the truth will come out only after more children are damaged and killed. Most people are now aware of the connection that has been made between vaccines and autism, so they will know what they are seeing when their child changes after a vaccine. It will be harder for pediatricians to deny it. Same with Gardasil, it will be pulled from the market when too many girls are dead. It's disgusting and I hope I'm wrong.
In the meantime, we all just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other till we get there.
Posted by: julie | February 10, 2009 at 01:21 PM
"It seems that Mr. Olmsted is offering a proxy opinion of the general AoA reader that if the VICP special masters rule against the petitioners in the AOP, then this will *not* actually change your understanding of vaccine/autism causation?"
The Autism parent *knows* what happened to their child. However the special masters rule, I *know* that my son got a very high fever 2 weeks and 4 weeks after his MMR shot. After that he was tantrumming and he had bouts of diarrhea. And I remember thinking, goodness he's only 1.5 years old, are the terrible twos already here?
The only mistake I made was in not understanding the association between my son's condition and the MMR vaccine when it occurred. Nobody can take that particular truth away.
Posted by: Seizures mom | February 10, 2009 at 01:15 PM
and it will be one of my favorite quotes officially - you don't have to post this comment, I just wanted to add that.
Posted by: Gabriella True | February 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Dan,
Even if you are wrong and everything comes out rosy I would never think this was a misguided idea for an article. This is because everyone needs to think about these topics and what happens when things don't "go our way". Plus the paragraph you wrote - see below - was really inspiring and honest. Thank you.
"No, I just want to say that as lousy as things might be in the short or medium term, and as unfortunate as that may be for real people with real children who are really suffering, the truth is slowly emerging, and no individual event, no series of seeming setbacks, can change that one bit. We'll be here to report on and critique it all and not let the bastards get us down."
Posted by: Gabriella True | February 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Steve D., may I ask, how did you feel when OJ walked out of the courtroom a free man? Did you then say, "Oh! He is innocent." or did you say,"Oh! He was found not guilty."?
Thanks for commenting. KIM
Posted by: Stagmom | February 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I prepare for the worst by realizing that regardless of the verdict, the work is still there -- our job simply becomes a little harder.
People will continue to lobby their legislators with information on vaccine-induced autism and its biomedical treatments. We are not going away.
PS: Great cartoon!
Posted by: nhokkanen | February 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I may be mistaking the intent of this post, and hopefully you will correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems that Mr. Olmsted is offering a proxy opinion of the general AoA reader that if the VICP special masters rule against the petitioners in the AOP, then this will *not* actually change your understanding of vaccine/autism causation?
And further, that if the GMC rules against Wakefield that it would be due to a successful smear campaign, and not due to the actual facts of the case?
Posted by: Steve D | February 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM
What we fail to understand here is that they are doing it for our own good. You see, if they don't act quickly to control the situation, further doubts about vaccine safety and questions about lack of federal oversight could bring about the collapse of the whole medical system. I propose we write a petition to Congress for approval of a speedy stimulus package for the pharmaceutical companies, so they can keep creating jobs and improving the health of the population. Seriously.
I'm off to lunch. Peanut butter sandwich, bagged spinach and serrano peppers today. Life is good.
Posted by: WE SHALL OVERCOME | February 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM
It's scary that this appeared today. I always tell myself that good will win and the truth will prevail but I just was thinking what the world would be like if it was not true. It scares me when the doctors manage to convince perfectly healthy women that breast cancer is genetic and 1 in 3 of them will get it. Then they have to do a pre-emptive mastectomy, followed by plastic surgery.
I imagine in a world where the lies prevail,every second child will be considered autistic because the numbers will only increase.
In one more generation, people will forget what normal healthy children were like as all children will be inflicted with numerous ailments and it will be considered totally normal. The fringe crazies (ie people like me) with the unvaccinated children will be forced to lie and hide their childrens abilities (normal development) and probably lie about their vaccination status.
If the truth does'nt come out soon, the cdc's 2009 schedule with 18 or is it 19 flu shots throughout a child's life will damage so many innocent children- it hardly bears thinking about.
We are being turned into profit centres from the cradle to the grave and there are people that vehemently support this insanity. The same people who believe that chicken pox is a killer and refuse to let their vaccinated (pure?) children fraternise with the unvaccinated children of socially irresponsible parents who should be sued by society and their own healthy undamaged children.
Posted by: supriya | February 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Words of wisdom, Dan.
I have been under "Steel Thyself" mode since 1995, when Megan was diagnosed.
It is a hell of a way to live but hope is always there, too.
No matter what happens - we will never give up.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | February 10, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Thanks for an eye opening article Dan.
So many parents still believe that truth will prevail. But a quick look at the history books show that money and power prevail most often, with truth only getting its way once in a while.
We can't rely only on hope. We have to act. We need to contact the people fighting the good fight and ask "How can I help the cause?" Then do it.
Posted by: Sylvia | February 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I wonder if the delay has to do with the current Wakefield case as it could possibly relate (in the minds of Vaccine Court or in public opinion) to the Cedillo case. The Cedillo case was the first one tried and rumor has it that they want to reveal the first 3 "test-case" verdicts at the same time. In any case, its been an excruciately long wait.
Posted by: whythewait | February 10, 2009 at 10:39 AM
With regard to the testimony given before a Florida committee on vaccines, I loved what toxicologist Boyd Haley said: what happened in all 50 states, including Alaska, Hawaii, California and Florida, that would cause an increase? duh!
Thanks.
Posted by: A. F. | February 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I hope you're right that you could be wrong, though we stand justly warned. We as a community do have so much hope stacked up on these outcomes. More than hope; there are thousands of pragmatic ways in which the lives of effected children could improve because of public concession of vaccine cause.
The intrepid Gardiner Harris-- feh. If his exposes on drug side effects and marketing fraud gave him an ounce of credibility with which to defend vaccines the psychopharmaceutical complex will still thank him because sustaining the epidemic is the foremost way to keep the drug market afloat. The profits of one drug company alone from antipsychotics were over $40 billion by just a few years after the start of the epidemic.
Posted by: Gatogorra | February 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Dan, I have a child who has waited 5 years for a VICP hearing.
If we never produced any metabolic testing, heavy metal results, or indicators of mitochodrial dysfunction, his pediatric records would clearly show vaccines were responsible for his decline.
Yet we often say around here "We have a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing in VICP."
In fact, even if we do, it will be bittersweet.
It won't buy back a childhood spent in pain.
Siblings who lived in a van 4 days a week and home schooled in waiting rooms while my son got therapy.
It won't pay back the life savings and sweat equity we spent to recover my son.
My chief reason for filing is so that this doesn't happen again to someone else's child.
Do we deserve compensation, all of us, for this medical travesty? Yes, most certainly as VICP was designed to be a superfund for the vaccine damaged.
Will we get it? I don't know. And even if we win will the injury table be so tight that no one qualifies for help.
But I know this.
Whether justice is served or not, with every breath in us, we will spare other families from ever going through this nightmare.
We will tell our story over and over again.
Vaccines injured our kid.
Vaccinate wisely at your own risk.
Posted by: karenatlanta | February 10, 2009 at 09:46 AM
Dan, on my worse days, I see the same scenarios---but we all only need to remember that we have a generation of disabled children that never existed before. It will be a tsunami hitting the taxpayers with a deafening blow. THE REALLY BIG LIE has always been that all these kids are nothing new--just "better diagnosing/expanded spectrum." Offit lies about it in his book, Autism's False Prophets: "Today, as the number of children with severe autism has increased, the number with mental retardation has decreased." (p. 3-4 AFP)
Really? If these children were always here, although labeled as something else, what did we do with them?
Why are we seeing classrooms and even whole schools for autistic children? Why are school districts facing bankrupting costs because of autism? Why are our kids on waiting lists for years for services?
All the lies about no real increase will be exposed as these kids age out into the welfare system. Young adults who never paid into Social Security, will be living off of it for the rest of their long lives. They'll be there right along side of their grandparents from the post WWII generation claiming their share of government money.
And when it's clear that officials and experts lied about the increase, the lies about the cause will also be exposed. There'll be thousands of parents around to tell about what vaccines did to their children. The federal government has a lot at stake in covering all this up, denying any increase or a link to their vaccine program. Personally, I think it's the state governments who will investigate this. Municipal and county agencies will have to deal with the physical reality of so many disabled adults to be provided for when elderly parents no longer can.
For example, in March, 2008, FL governor Charlie Crist commissioned the FL Autism Task force to investigate the alarming increase in autism in that state. They met in Sept. 2008 at the U. of FL. http://www.jdeclanflynn.com/uploads/autismweb/index.html They know the numbers are real and they want answers.
In the short run, we'll see the lies and the false science continue, but they can't make our children go away and they are the real proof of the autism scandal.
Anne Dachel
Media editor
Posted by: Anne Dachel | February 10, 2009 at 09:40 AM
I am glad you wrote this because it is something we could face.
Even if the vaccine court rules unfavorable I think some may still decide to pursue civil action. I do not think that these companies want to go before a jury.
I find it interesting though that I see so many things being put forward in the press as if to control the message before juries start.
Got a message today from a Dow Jones reporter who wants feel good stories about families of those with autism who were able to incorporate them into a family business (see they are fine). He doesn't want to hear about how it made us sell off things in our business because insurance dumped our child.
Posted by: KD | February 10, 2009 at 09:31 AM
Dan
This is a wise article. As you say, none of these things may come to pass, but if we are not prepared for shocks we may be less able to withstand them.
The most important is to learn from experience, because that way we always win.
John
Posted by: John Stone | February 10, 2009 at 09:29 AM
You are not wrong but the (understandably) strident tone of some advocates encourages opposition from many public policy makers. Unfortunately, giant leaps, as well as sea and game changers, are very difficult for risk averse and uneducated elected and appointed officials to get behind. Personally, I don't know the answers but work very, very hard to keep an open mind about a great may things. It's sad that, in the face of medical ignorance, "certainty" is easily adopted by so many. Our kids deserve much better.
Posted by: Dadvocate | February 10, 2009 at 08:44 AM
How depressing! Do you think the Polings won so that the parents' testimony as medical professionals would not become part of the record?
Also - won't those with mitro disfunction now have a precedent to win?
Plus - weren't they supposed to have ruled by now?
Thank you.
Posted by: A. F. | February 10, 2009 at 08:06 AM
Fed Up, we aren't Fox news. We present all sides. And reality is, we don't know what the future holds for these crucial decisions. And didn't you like my cartoon??
Kim
Posted by: Stagmom | February 10, 2009 at 07:55 AM
It's gotta be tough to come up with new column ideas day after day, so let's hope that this was just filler. Here is a new idea to pursue: Thimerosal causes asthma.
see chart here:
http://i334.photobucket.com/albums/m411/trophyfish2/asthma-vaers.gif
Posted by: Fed Up | February 10, 2009 at 06:51 AM