One family is asking (source) for the right to square off in court with the manufacturer of vaccines - in order to test the restrictive scope upon which the status quo has attempted to focus the vaccine safety argument. The family's request exposes the growing need to exhibit emerging understandings that might lend some validity to 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. In this family's case, they believe there was a safer vaccine alternative than the one that was administered to their daughter. So, it appears there is little question with regard to the fact that vaccination caused their daughter's developmental illness, it is more about pointing out negligence on the part of the vaccine manufacturer due to use of substandard product.
Immediately, popular media has tried to limit this current vaccination safety discussion to the subject of autism and how no scientific data exists - that connects development of autism to vaccination. So what about the popular media notion?
Popular VideoA judge looked this inmate straight in the eyes and said something that left the entire courtroom in tears:
Popular VideoA judge looked this inmate straight in the eyes and said something that left the entire courtroom in tears:
Since you all like to accentuate autism. There are both psychological and neurological implications in autism - research contends, in an ongoing fashion, with the connection between autism and neurological findings.
The ongoing nature of media reports about how mercury-based thimerosal has been discredited as a causative factor with regard to possible vaccination damage - in cases of autism - is a point that is accentuated by many. The problem is that point hardly addresses the vaccination safety discussion in a significant way. Especially when one considers all of the existing known risks of vaccinations and what those risks might imply. Many doctors and reporters now rally against parents who continue to have concerns about the safety of vaccinations simply because one ingredient in vaccinations is ruled out as the cause for autism.
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. 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 their peer reviewed stamp of approval. Because this is so, the vaccine manufactures 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.
With interest, I read a recent article from CBS:
...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?)
Many might come to grips with the understanding that autism features are understood to be an exhibition of evidence that neurological damage has transpired - and while typical diagnostics do not particularly tell us what we need to know about the damage - the features exhibited by those with autism tell us aspects of neurological function have been compromised. Recently a paper has been made available which points out the bias against those with autism, and 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 uncomfortable blur that sometimes exists between the disciplines of neurology and psychiatry - when it comes to 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.
Many times - testing, treatment and evaluation of damage are 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 serves to put those who are many times the weakest among us in a second class status - once they reach the doctor's office. What the heck? Many cannot defend their right to fair medical treatment anyway. Many of them cannot even communicate. The autism label seems on the verge of flim flam...Why is it that, even while so many are ingratiated to the autism term and enjoy various manipulations of the term via the growing autism industries - in order to suit their ends, families are simply left to grapple with the leftovers; once every experts' fifteen minutes of fame has either been deleted or thrown into the recycle bin.
A family that prevailed in court 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. The label 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. As always - drug makers and reporters emphasize the autism label even when it has no need for emphasis in a court proceeding. The drug makers might be hanging their hope upon applying confusion to the discussion of safety by throwing the autism label in the mix - because it is a 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 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?
Research with regard to neurological illness in general shows us that understandings are growing exponentially, and what many are coming up with shows us that various neurological illnesses might have a lot in common - even though the illnesses are given many differing names. We hardly know all there is to know about autism, and we don't know everything about the implications behind vaccinations. Especially when one considers the continuing alterations and manipulations of the cell lines being developed in order to produce vaccinations. Cell lines utilize fetal material from abortion and thus, residual DNA from that fetal material is in vaccination cell lines.
Designer Cells as Substrates for the Manufacture of Viral Vaccines, a report on designer cells utilized for development of vaccines (FDA initiated report), considers overall productive infection as a risk consideration - not just infection that results in cancer. ...residual DNA has the potential, upon inoculation into the vaccine recipient, to produce infectious virus from this DNA and thus establish a productive infection. Assessing risks of DNA residual presence in vaccines requires some absolute knowledge with regard to the amount of residual DNA being delivered via inoculation; that absolute number allows for understanding with regard to the probable amount of infectious agent. In the case of a finite amount of 10ng DNA residual presence, the presence of infectious agent within that 10ng DNA residual is between 0.00001 and 0.0001ng. While keeping DNA residuals at 10ng or below is constantly emphasized in the aforementioned briefing, there is no mechanism in place to enforce the standard - it is left to those who produce vaccines to practice diligence. What is not known, is if the manufacturers of vaccines have practiced due diligence by testing for amounts of residual DNA present in their products. I can only guess that even if they might be doing such now, they have not historically done so. Like I said, just a guess.
To complicate things a bit further. Researchers have established a link between HIV and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) and the onset of dementia; dementia is proposed to have a number of possible causes including infectious viruses, bacteria, disease-carrying parasites and fungi. The Center For Prions and Protein Folding Diseases in Alberta finds that... there may be common factors between prion diseases and other human diseases such as autism and Alzheimer’s. Why does this matter?
In Birth of Designer Cells, Human Residuals, Prion Disease & Autism there are highlights about some research and recent government concern with regard to theoretical risk of disease acquired from designer cells that are created for development of vaccination. The reason CJD is such a concern is because it has been transmitted in a variety of ways, changing the rules as it goes along.
From Birth of Designer Cells:...One source who lost a love one to CJD expresses a real life scenario from their neck of the woods, where...171 people have died of vCJD from infected meat, contaminated vaccines and blood donation. 18 blood donors have since died of vCJD and their blood was used to make 83,500 doses of polio vaccine for Ireland. It was also used to provide human albumin which is another blood product present in many vaccines. And, if this is true - we have a problem. The source points to the use of bovine serum in vaccinations and questions why it would not have been phased out in light of the BSE crisis. As of 2008, IPV vaccines, MMR 2, varicella, Rotateq oral rotavirus vaccine and Pediacel 5 in 1 vaccine all have bovine serum in them...(link)
The reality exists, that not enough is known to anchor anyone down to absolutes with regard to the safety of vaccinations. Life is not so easy as to insists on restrictive absolutes when it comes to the vaccination discussion. It is very fair to assume that there are children who have been labeled with autism, and also have a comorbid disorder that can be linked to vaccination damage. Autism, the label, tells us nothing but the psychology/psychiatry - even as researchers continue their quest to understand it. It is a matter of fact, that while researchers delve into autism, some indicate emerging data that supports possible similarities with other neurological illnesses.
Individuals who have the autism label, but also have one or more comorbid disorders that are identified via medical diagnostics, should focus on diagnostic evidence supplied by the comorbid disorders. In this way they might contend better in their attempts to engage in self advocacy, achievement, and in living life according to their own unique potential. Their caregivers might also better understand which are truly the best practices that need to be applied.
In many court rooms, in many doctors' offices, and in much of the media - if you got autism, the label, you ain't got nothing. Especially when it comes to evidence based scientific data that supports identification of overall need from a medical standpoint so that pursuit of what might really be in your overall interests can be actively engaged upon. It many times appears - that those in the field of medicine are more actively pursuing protection of the dated status quo, and not actively engaging with the implications that emerging research data present; data that might increasingly defy the mantra that insists - aggressive vaccination schedules are safe. How is it that doctors can continue to contend vaccines cause some brain damage, but not autism's brain damage?
The Washington Times most recently reports:
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Tuesday that could pave the way for numerous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, a particularly high-stakes issue in light of the thousands of claims, so far unproven scientifically, linking vaccines to autism.
Like I said before, as much as some would like to confuse or confine the vaccine safety argument by utilizing a psychiatric label that means nothing - the main thing is the brain damage. Don't fall for the ropa-dopa.
I am just a mom who likes to write. I have a daughter who gives me lots to write about. Her biography is available at no cost on scribd. It is called Hello Dr. Wells. It is a chronicle, not a conclusion. We still don't know how it will end!