It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Autism case wins in Vaccine Court

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
This is a federal "Vaccine Court" ruling from June 2007 and yet we heard nothing about this ruling from the MSM or the US Department of Health and Human services.

And they still tell us it's safe.

On February 12th, when the court ruled against the families who claimed their children's autism was caused by vaccination ...

The New York Times joined the government Health Agency (HRSA) and its big pharma allies hailing the decisions as proof that the scientific doubts about vaccine safety had finally been "demolished." The US Department of Health and Human services said the rulings should "help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism." The Times, which has made itself a blind mouthpiece for HRSA and a leading defender of vaccine safety, joined crowing government and vaccine industry flacks applauding the decisions like giddy cheerleaders, rooting for the same court that many of these same voices viscously derided just one year ago, after Hannah Poling won compensation for her vaccine induced autism.


Here is the source article.

There are so many interesting points in these articles that it is well worth the read.

The most shocking statistic for me is:

since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines


That's 620 affected kids every year.

Only about 1 - 10% of cases of adverse effects from vaccines are reported every year - source

So the actual number of effected children is probably a much much higher figure than 620. 6,000 anyone? 60,000??

And they still tell us it's safe.

Check this out:

Massive amounts of money being given out in compensation (over a billion dollars), the kangaroo courts where plaintiffs are denied access to vital information, the obvious conflict of interest of the Big Pharma funded studies that show nothing is wrong, the ineptitude and inability of the CDC in organising double blind, placebo controlled studies on the long term effects of vaccination, etc etc etc

Ring a bell??

Big tobacco uses the same tactic of manufacturing research that seems to dispute the connection to exploit the burdens on plaintiffs to prove causation. Big tobacco prevailed for six decades even without the help of supportive government agencies deliberately suppressing real science and research.


And they still tell us it's safe.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I found this to be such a "go about your business" ruling. Gee thanks vaccine industry backers for playing god- shoot me up a double.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Moonsouljah
 


Exactly right ... The more I research, the more I see this issue as being about the dollars.

I was very open minded about vaccination when my child was born.

All my friends had their kids dosed up and we were at the point where my wife and I agreed that we will get our boy done as well.

But, always, I did little extra research and, well, it's amazing what you find when you did below the surface.

In my opinion, the comparisons between Big Pharma and Big Tobacco are the most effective in trying to relay the full implications of the issue of child vaccination to the general public.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
UPDATE:

Here is a link to the full text the courts decision.

The Court's Decision

It is quite a read but very interesting if you are up to it.

Basically:


Based upon that finding of fact, it follows as a natural conclusion that Petitioner has carried his burden of proving to a preponderance that the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the condition(s) from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer. Inasmuch as the other elements of § 300aa–11 (b) and (c) have already been satisfied, the Court holds that Petitioner has met his burden on his case in chief.


"the MMR vaccine actually caused the condition from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer"

Doesn't really get any clearer than that.



new topics

 
3

log in

join