There seems to be a need to exhibit some validity behind the notion that vaccinations, in all their peer reviewed glory, contribute to neurological illness in children - and in some cases it is because of misfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. Recent reports have done a rather narrowed view job of reporting comprehensively on the subject, instead compulsively reverting to the subject of autism. I thought I was the only one that obsessed on autism!
The Supreme Court is involved in the vaccination safety debate due to the fact that one family believes there was a safer vaccine alternative than the one that was administered to their daughter - who is now eighteen years old and developmentally disabled. It appears there might be some emphasis with regard to proving that vaccination caused their daughter's developmental illness, but more attention might be given to the fact that negligence was practiced on the part of the vaccine manufacturer due to use of substandard product.
Many who have reported on this most recent vaccination safety debate like to accentuate autism. What is not generally emphasized is the fact that there are both psychological and neurological implications in autism - research contends, in an ongoing fashion, with the connection between autism and neurological findings. Given the neurological implications that researchers are becoming increasingly aware of, the most current vaccination safety discussion seems not to be a well intentioned one; when it becomes a discussion that is immediately and solely confined to the subject of a psychiatric label called autism.
When autism is emphasized that is predictably followed by a reporters knowledge of the fact that mercury-based thimerosal has been discredited as a causative factor with regard to possible vaccination damage - in cases of autism. The lone (mercury) point hardly addresses the vaccination safety discussion in a comprehensive manner. In almost every case those who discredit vaccination safety concerns due to the recent findings on mercury based thimersal have not attempted to elucidate with regard to all of the existing known risks of vaccinations - and what those risks might imply.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
The presence of vaccination courts accentuates the fact that known damage from vaccination exists. The need to evaluate damage that has transpired from administration of vaccination - according to medically accepted review, made the courts necessary. Vaccinations are comprised of many ingredients, not just thimerosal. Science and the field of medicine acknowledge that, at times, brain damage occurs from vaccination. However, both also acknowledge the lives cost - versus lives saved scenario as justifiable according to their disciplines.
Vaccines do harm and that is okay...It seems entirely acceptable that some might fall into profound illness, so that many will have a kind of perfection in health since, indeed, our doctors and scientist have given lives cost versus lives saved a peer reviewed stamp of approval. Because this is so, the vaccine manufacturers should have little trouble with acknowledging the fact that they are causing damage to a few - on purpose. Greater trouble might arise for vaccine manufacturers if they are withholding any documentation or data that shows they became aware of increased risk of illness from their vaccine products - maybe even due to negligent practices on their part - and they did not provide full disclosure.
Some in the popular media are getting it though. Instead of confining reporting concerns to autism - they looked beyond the psychiatric label to the real issue of vaccine related brain damage.
...In fact, CBS News has found nearly 1,300 cases in which vaccine-related brain damage has been compensated in court over the past 20 years. (From: Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage, What's in a Name?)
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true:
Why have I put the empahsis on autism as a psychiatric label in this writing? Autism features are understood to be an exhibition of evidence that neurological damage has transpired - and while typical diagnostics do not particularly tell us about the specific damage - the features exhibited by those with autism tell us aspects of neurological function have been compromised (damaged).
There is a bias against those with autism. Recently experts have pointed out how the classic features of autism mimic features of other movement disorders that are acknowledged to have definite neurological cause (for instance, Parkinson's or Tourette). There seems to be an ill defined gray area that sometimes exists between the disciplines of neurology and psychiatry - when it comes to consideration of those given the label autism. There exist both evaluation and treatment bias against children who receive the autism label - it appears that the known presence of symptoms that point to atypical neurological function are ignored in their case. For the autistic child, symptoms are attributed to being engaged upon by the child's own choice.
From Rethinking Autism...(Implications of Sensory and Movement Disorders)... Leary and Hill (1996) analyzed the literature on symptoms associated with established movement disorders and those associated with autism. The greatest difference among these disabilities was the interpretation of the symptoms. In Tourette syndrome, Parkinson's disorder and catatonia, there was a neurological interpretation of symptoms. A social rather than a neurological interpretation was applied if the person had a label of autism. That which is called a "tic" in a person with Tourette syndrome is most often assumed to be a 'behavior' (and often a conscious choice) in a person with autism.
Are testing, treatment and evaluation of damage put off, or even disqualified (in court as well as at the doctors' offices) due to a child's label of autism? The psychiatric moniker tells us absolutely nothing with regard to cause or possible medical treatment for the child's exhibited symptoms. In a sense, the autism label seems to put those who are many times the weakest among us in a second class status - once they reach the doctor's office or the court room.
One family that prevailed in court in recent history, was wise enough not to emphasize the autism label given to their daughter, and focused instead on her medical presentation (diagnostics proved mitochondrial disease). They were able to prove that vaccinations did medical harm to their daughter and resulted in neurological harm; that neurological harm led to the (psychiatric) features of autism that she exhibited. The label autism many times becomes a type of smokescreen that creates confusion and takes attention away from the real medical issues for individuals, but this particular family saw through the flim flam. They must have known that the label's emphasis causes enough disingenuity to result in denial of proper consideration in many arenas, including vaccination courts. (Autism a Smokescreen for Vaccination Court Denials)
One recent article about the family who wants to face the vaccination manufacturer in court - ends with... Drug makers said studies show no link between vaccines and autism, including with the preservative thimerosal. Drug makers and many reporters emphasize the autism label even when it has no need for emphasis in a court proceeding. The drug makers lawyers might actually be hanging their hope upon applying confusion to the discussion of safety by throwing the autism label in the mix - because it is a psychiatric label that indicates nothing with regard to how an affected individual might have been medically damaged. I am saying, don't fall for the ropa-dopa. Brain damage is the subject. The autism label simply intends to inform on classic features and behaviors that are exhibited outwardly - thought to result from as yet to be identified neurological damage.
How curious it is that so many experts perceive autism to be a neurological illness, but the vaccine manufacturers can simply say they did not cause autism because medical diagnostics do not yet perceive the exact neurological deficits that contribute to the presentation of autistic features. Medical diagnostics obviously existed for the 1300 cases of vaccine related brain damage that were compensated for in court over the past two decades. Wonder how many of those cases involved children who, in addition to having disorders with known medical cause, also had the label of autism?
For an extended version on this subject see Supreme Court Entertains Vaccination Liability Issue...