Medication time.

[Sounder]

I see no easy solution given that, what is propaganda to one person is often the central argument of the other person.

Personally, I remind myself that the person that I tend to disagree with at a most fundamental level is often the person that motivates my best thinking.

Life is messy.

[stickdog99]

Why can't we have just do an experiment in which we compare the health problem rates of 5,000+ children of crazy, vaccination phobic parents with the health problem rates of 5,000+ well-matched children of parents wise and sane enough to get all 30+ shots the CDC recommends on schedule?

[Canadian_watcher]

Why can't we have just do an experiment in which we compare the health problem rates of 5,000+ children of crazy, vaccination phobic parents with the health problem rates of 5,000+ well-matched children of parents wise and sane enough to get all 30+ shots the CDC recommends on schedule?

Because if it turned out that the results favored one side's argument the other side would simply declare the study to have been flawed. And 'round we would go.
The baseline problem, IMO, is basically that we can't trust scientists to be ethical and courageous, we can only count on them being paid for. We can't trust politicians to demand transparency, we can only count on their public speeches. We can't trust the press to hound and dig up, we can only trust them to parrot.

When the odd person breaks through that pay wall so to speak, and comes out with info that ought to be taken seriously based in part on the fact that they *did* have both the courage and the willingness to bite the hand that had fed them, we vilify them as often as we praise them. Actually scratch that - we mostly vilify them.

We have created a culture of distrust that runs so deep that really all of us are throwing darts at a dartboard when it comes to what we accept as 'truth.'

That is why I joined this site. Rigorous. Intuition. It's pretty much all we've got.

[slimmouse]

Why can't we have just do an experiment in which we compare the health problem rates of 5,000+ children of crazy, vaccination phobic parents with the health problem rates of 5,000+ well-matched children of parents wise and sane enough to get all 30+ shots the CDC recommends on schedule?

I personally find it hard to believe that you would ever get funding for such a project.

This issue is one giblet of the major turkeys that make the rules around here, who as we probably know by now wont be voting for a humanitarian christmas.

[compared2what?]

By the way, neither of those scientists are anti-vaccine. Or at least that's what they say. I guess that if we're playing by the rules of 'you can't take what these people SAY seriously' (as above in your response to bks) then it's all up for grabs and we can ascribe any motive to anyone. (like say, Bart Farkas, but I digress)

I'm mostly posting off-topic to say:

Canadian_watcher. I love you. But if you don't drop this innuendo campaign of guilt-by-association with something I'm not associated with, I'm going to have to tell the mods that I'm about to tell you to go fuck yourself, I'm warning you.

You know PERFECTLY WELL that I posted that piece because it struck me as weirdly non-scathing and that I didn't admire it. So quit trying to smear me with it.

Thanks.
____________


Also, just in case someone cares about the topic:

And they also took thimerosal out of the vaccines on a precautionary basis as soon as a semi-reasonable hypothetical fear of it took hold.

why don't they stop using the aluminum adjuvants then, given this:

While Tomljenovic and Shaw believe their paper is the first academic research to persuasively demonstrate a correlation between aluminum exposure and autism, the literature on aluminum and neurological disorders is extensive. For example, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, (8.) Bishop, Morley, Day and Lucas found that “ ...in preterm infants, prolonged intravenous feeding with solutions containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurologic development,” and in 2002, Becaria, Campbell, and Bondy, writing in Toxicology and Industrial Health, (http://tih.sagepub.com/content/18/7/309.abstract ) observed accumulating evidence suggests that aluminum “… can potentiate oxidative and inflammatory events, eventually leading to tissue damage.”

(from here: http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html).

Well.

Maybe they think that the only thing that will happen if they do is that everything will remain exactly the same, except that the focus will shift to some other adjuvant, since that's exactly what happened when they took out the thimerosal.

That was my point.

Because when the only criteria are that it contain something that's potentially toxic in much larger amounts and/or another form and/or when introduced via a completely different mechanism with completely different metabolic implications, there's no reason why that couldn't go on pretty much infinitely.

I mean, the literature on water and neurological disorders is also extensive, if how it gets into and exits the body and what happens during all the steps in between don't count. (It can cause tissue damage, oxidative stress and inflammatory events too, come to think of it.)

NB:

I know very little about the safety or non- of aluminum adjuvants other than that they were widely used for sixty or seventy years before the quest to find a cause for Gulf War Syndrome and a substitute threat for thimerosal brought their potential dangers to the attention of the general public.

So they might indeed be potentially dangerous, for all I know. The hyping of their potential danger would still be agenda-driven, however. So caveat lector.

[compared2what?]

Why can't we have just do an experiment in which we compare the health problem rates of 5,000+ children of crazy, vaccination phobic parents with the health problem rates of 5,000+ well-matched children of parents wise and sane enough to get all 30+ shots the CDC recommends on schedule?

I'm not saying that, though straw-man away if you like.

I'm saying that the information put out by the anti- side is not any more reliable or less agenda-driven than the CDC's. Nor is its solicitous devotion to the health and welfare of children any better borne out by its actions. Proportionally speaking. They do have a smaller pool of candidates to act upon and influence, obviously.

[compared2what?]

Also, wrt the question:

The "well-matched" part is a challenge:

The question

What are the characteristics of children who have received no vaccinations compared with those who are undervaccinated and to those who are fully immunized?

The study

The National Immunization Survey (NIS) is an annual telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the immunizations that children 19-35 months of age have received. This study used data collected in the 2001 NIS to compare characteristics of the three groups of children, their mothers, and their race and family income.

The researchers also evaluated the relationship between parents’ concerns about vaccine safety and their children being unvaccinated.

Finally, using the same data collected in previous years, they examined trends in the numbers of unimmunized children over time.

The findings

In 2001, 62.8% of US children 19 to 35 months of age were fully immunized with all the vaccines that were recommended at that time. It was estimated that 3 children per thousand had never received any vaccines (unvaccinated). The study found marked differences in the characteristics between children who were completely unvaccinated, those that either received some vaccines, and those who were fully vaccinated as recommended.

Children who had received some but not all recommended doses (undervaccinated) tended to be black and had a younger, often-unmarried mother who had less education than fully immunized children. These underimmunized children were more likely to live in a household below the poverty level, with more children, and had moved across state lines.

Compared to undervaccinated children, unvaccinated children were more likely to be non-Hispanic white, have a mother who was older, married and who had a college degree. These children were more likely to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000.

Compared to fully immunized children, unvaccinated children were more likely to be non-Hispanic white and live in larger households. Educational levels, family income and other factors did not differ.

Almost half (48%) of the parents of unvaccinated children expressed a concern about vaccine safety compared to only 5% of parents of undervaccinated children. In addition, 71% of parents of unvaccinated children indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children compared to 23% of parents of undervaccinated children.

Many children with no vaccinations lived in counties in California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, and Michigan.

States that allowed philosophical exemptions to immunization laws in schools had many more unvaccinated children than states that do not have philosophical exemptions.

Between 1995 and 2000 the number of children 19-35 months who were unimmunized increased.

(More, plus links here.)
______________

The reason I mention it is that it's basically why/how all the epidemiology studies that presently exist end up getting rejected furiously by whoever doesn't like the results. It would be unethical (human experimentation, in fact) to do a controlled study without knowing what the impact on health would be. So there are always plenty of confounders and uncertainties.

There probably would be even if there were a study such as the one you're suggesting....(Hey. Is there? BTW? Just asking.) I mean, it would probably be kind of hard to keep a researcher's eye on all the variables ten thousand children bring to the party.
________________

ON EDIT: I see that such a study is presently underway; that there was an online fundraising drive to get it up and running on the anti- side not long ago; that its focus is on the same evil you mentioned (how many shots -- 30-plus! -- are on the schedule); and that all the points I just made have been raised elsewhere and rejected already.

That might have been a coincidence, since the 30-plus-ness of it all is just what's currently in vogue.

But if it isn't, sorry. I had no idea. I was just...you know: Thinking independently about under what conditions a study of that size would be more valid than the ones that are already out there.

[compared2what?]

Proponents of vaccination -- mainstream medicine, the government, pharma, etc. -- concede and long have conceded that vaccination-related injuries do occur and have been proven to, voluntarily and regularly.

They also maintain an enormous database of adverse-reaction reports that has absolutely no barriers or constraints that prevent some kinds of events from being reported, to which any researcher who is one has access.

no, they don't - not effectively and openly and they certainly pick and choose when to reveal info and when not to. That's precisely what the academic and peer reviewed papers linked to at the bottom of the first post I made in this thread are all about. The study provides hard evidence to the contrary in fact.

here they are again for you:
(1)http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

* I was talking about the United States.

* The writer of it got all the info in it via FOIA. Thus, it was available to a researcher who is one.

* Not that it matters, since he (or she) doesn't pass on enough of it for a reader always to have any f'ing idea exactly what risk is being discussed or if there is one. Most of the time, all you really learn is that they met and discussed adverse reaction reports. (Not who reported them, or what happened, or how reliable they are, or whether the problem (if any) is occurring elsewhere, etc.)

(2)http://www.ecomed.org.uk/publications/the-health-hazards-of-disease-prevention

That one lost me at:

In my 43 years of medical practice I have never given much credence to conspiracy theories, but my curiosity was piqued when I read about the tribulations of Dr Andrew Wakefield at the hands of the GMC and his further public humiliation by the British Medical Journal. I had never met the man or concerned myself much with his work, but this was unique in my experience - transparently a character-assassination, imposed from on high by someone with overwhelming coercive power.

Indeed. What kind of overwhelming coercive power would be heartless enough to assassinate his character just because he took almost a million dollars to have invasive procedures performed on special-needs children -- which perforated the guts of one of them in 12 places, almost killing him -- and then (having been unable to come up with what he was being paid for that way) lied about the results in print, thus provoking an international panic during which vaccination rates in the UK plummeted and measles outbreaks (including, IIRC, at least one death) soared?


______________

QUIZ FORMAT.

Fill in the blank by checking one of the four answers offered below:

I am an advocate for child safety. Therefore, when __________________ performs unnecessary surgery on children purely for experimental purposes/personal gain, injuring them for life, or champions the benefits of giving them industrial-strength bleach enemas until they vomit, cry and run fevers, I denounce it and them.

(a) The government.
(b) A person with whom I have common cause, whose work I promote, and with whom I appear at fundraisers, conferences and assorted other professional affairs.
(c) Both.
(d) Neither

_________________

So I guess we can put that website down for (a).

[compared2what?]

Just for the data value of it all, remember how I said I was just naming one or two examples of the non-child-safety-lovingness of the antis?

That website reminded me of another, via the paper here...

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... ngland.pdf

...titled: "Labels of Convenience: Are Labels of Child Abuse Being Used To Cover Up Vaccine Damage?" that mentions one of the anti-vaxxer's more FSMF-like initiatives for child safety, towit:

Providing people who have been charged with beating their babies to death with a defense by offering expert testimony saying it was vaccine-induced encephalitis, and also by doing and publishing a body of literature to that effect. The best-known case (there aren't that many yet) so far is probably Elwood Sadowsky.



That's him ^^ there.

Long story short:

Per his first account of things, he was at home with his four-month-old daughter, Amanda when he dropped her, causing massive trauma to her brain, so he called 911. She died a short time later.

Then (per the Ohio Supreme Court ruling here)...

Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted defendant-appellant, Elwood Sadowsky, in a multiple count indictment. The first count charged Sadowsky with the murder of his four-month-old daughter, Amanda, on June 29, 2007.

Count two charged Sadowsky with felonious assault of Amanda on the same day, and counts three, four, five, and six charged Elwood with endangering children, specifically Amanda, that day. Count seven charged Sadowsky with felonious assault, and counts eight, nine and ten charged Sadowsky with endangering children (Amanda), in the several weeks prior to her death.

(She had a number of other injuries in different stages of healing at the time of her death, including four broken ribs from the week before.)

Sadowsky subsequently pled guilty to murder, as charged in count one; endangering children, as charged in count three; and felonious assault, as charged in count seven. The trial court sentenced Sadowsky to the agreed-upon sentence of 18 years to life imprisonment for the three offenses. It subsequently denied Sadowsky's post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea.

...after being convicted and sentenced to life, he tried to change his plea (on various grounds -- that he had a rare cerebral vascular neurologic disorder called moyamoya, didn't understand that pleading guilty was an admission of guilt; etc.).

Now he (and his wife, Amanda's mother) say it was a vaccine injury. And they have no greater pal and booster than the woman who wrote that thing I linked to up there, Christina England, proud participant in the Health Hazards of Disease Control conference of the British Society for Ecological Medicine.

And she's evidently not worried about the guilty pleas or story changes. Because, as she says:

Fact 1: Amanda had reacted adversely to each and every one of her vaccinations:

(LINK)

Anyway. There's a whole website dedicated to defending Elwood Sadowsky from the under-reported vaccine-related adverse event of life imprisonment for killing his four-month-old daughter. here. The Amanda Truth Project. So please check out their version of events, too.

I just don't feel like summarizing it. Because it looks to me like he killed her.

Even if you guys don't, though. Do you maybe see any problems with the movement going the it-wasn't-child-abuse-it-was-vaccines route? Possibly?

[compared2what?]

.

[

And why on earth are newborns being injected with fucking mercury, chicken foetuses and whatever else shite that goes in there into NEWBORNS ?

And we're talking about children who can't speak for themselves all that well. Very, very dependent children. Whose parents are doubtless well-intentioned and desperate and being played by people who have something to gain, etc, etc.

Yes they cant, cos theyre newborns, and many of their parents are increasingly becoming powerless to speak for them too.

Uh-huh.

And those people would be: The ones who run the anti-vaccine movement.

Well you can call me anti vaccine, but I wouldnt be dealing in too many poisonous antidotes either.

So I'm extra-opposed.

youre extra opposed to mandatory vaccinations for kids, because, despite increasing evidence that these things don't do anything like what they should, the alternatives ( such as not vaccinating unless VITAL) are worse?

Really.

Yes. Really. I've actually only skimmed the surface so far.

I get passionate about this too.

Apparently.

Alleopathic BS is what most of it is.

Sure you've got a good source for that?

[Sounder]

Still working the 'scary flipped representative of the anti faction discredits all activities of the folk that question the assumptions of the normative model', angle eh C2W??

If it works, more power to ya.

Doctors have an emotional commitment to the idea that vaccines cause no harm, because to do otherwise would require them to do some actual thinking and admitting to responsibility for harm they may or do cause. This results in observed health impacts being seen as produced by anything other than the vaccines.

http://vactruth.com/2013/06/22/shaken-baby-syndrome/

Dangerous Vaccines Found to Cause Symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome
Jun 22nd, 2013 | By Christina England | Category: Christina England, Top Stories

Parents are falsely accused of shaking their baby.

Over the years, parents have more and more commonly been blamed of child abuse if their child is diagnosed with the “triad” of injuries associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) after receiving a vaccine. The “triad” includes bleeding inside the brain, bleeding behind the eyes and swelling or inflammation of the brain.
When a medical professional suspects that a baby has been violently shaken, they will examine the baby for the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS. These are subdural haematoma (bleeds inside the brain), retinal haemorrhages (bleeds behind the eyes) and cerebral edema (swelling or inflammation inside the brain).

The Triad of Injuries

Bleeding Inside the Brain

Norma Guthkelch, a retired neurosurgeon, wrote the first description of Shaken Baby Syndrome in 1971 in his paper Infantile Subdural Haematoma and its Relationship to Whiplash Injuries, in which he discussed 23 cases of strongly suspected parental assault on children under the age of three. He concluded that:

“It has been shown that there is a discrepancy between the frequency of subdural hematoma occurring in battered children and of the same condition complicating head injuries of other origin, the incidence in the former being unexpectedly high, though in most of those in whom there was no actual skull fracture there was not even clear evidence of the application of direct violence to the head. This suggests that when the head is not the main target of attack the likely mechanism of production of the hematoma is one in which repeated sheering strains of one sort or another are applied to the cranial contents.

It follows that since all cases of infantile subdural hematoma are best assumed to be traumatic unless proved otherwise it would be unwise to disregard the possibility that one of these has been caused by serious violence, repetition of which may prove fatal, simply on the basis that there are no gross fractures or other radiological bone changes in the limbs, nor any fractures of the skull.” [1]

However, the violent shaking of a young child is not the only cause of the triad of injuries. These injuries can also occur after short falls, illnesses such as encephalitis and meningitis, birth trauma, vitamin deficiencies and genetic illnesses such as brittle bone syndrome. These causes are identified on the British Medical Journal’s online guide Best Practice: Abusive Head Trauma in Infants. [2]

Bleeding Behind the Eyes

The paper written by attorney Dermot Garrett entitled Overcoming Defense Expert Testimony in Abusive Head Trauma Cases indicates this fact very strongly when the author discusses retinal bleeding on page 35. [3] Garrett writes that a presentation at the 2010 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Annual Meeting analyzed the results of 62 studies of pediatric retinal hemorrhages published since 1965.

Garrett says that all of the children studied were younger than 11 years of age, had undergone a detailed examination by an ophthalmologist and had been diagnosed with retinal hemorrhages due to confirmed accidental head trauma or non-accidental head trauma. The results of the analysis showed that seventy-eight percent of patients with confirmed accidental head trauma had retinal hemorrhages, in comparison to just 5.3 percent of the non-accidental head trauma patients, proving that not all cases of retinal bleeds are necessarily caused by child abuse.

Swelling Inside the Brain

Another cause of the triad of injuries associated with SBS is vaccine-induced meningitis/encephalitis, a severe reaction to vaccinations.

In 2012, Marahendra K. Patel et al. published a paper in the Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, which discusses the case of a five month-old baby boy diagnosed with suspected post-vaccination encephalopathy following the DPT vaccination. Tests concluded that a reaction to the DPT vaccination was probable and in their discussion, the authors discussed several other worrying cases of similar reactions from India. [4]

In 2010, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic wrote an extensive paper exposing evidence that she uncovered surrounding many cases in which children developed encephalitis or meningitis after they received vaccinations from as early as 1983, which she says were deliberately covered up by the UK government’s JCVI (Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunization). [5]

Dr. Viera Scheibner mentions vaccine-induced encephalomyelitis, characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging, in 1998 when she wrote a paper published in Nexus titled Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link. She had become so worried that parents were being falsely accused after their children had suffered a vaccine injury that she opened her paper by stating:

“Some time ago I started getting requests from lawyers or the accused parents themselves for expert reports. A close study of the history of these cases revealed something distinctly sinister: in every single case, the symptoms appeared shortly after the baby’s vaccinations.

While investigating the personal medical history of these babies based on the care-givers’ diaries and medical records, I quickly established that these babies were given one or more of the series of so-called routine shots-hepatitis B, DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus), polio and HiB (Haemophilus influenza type B) – shortly before they developed symptoms of illness resulting in serious brain damage or death.” [6]

Finally, Dr. Harold Buttram and F. Edward Yazbak wrote on the subject of false accusations of SBS and vaccine-induced encephalitis in their paper titled Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis: The Story of Baby Alan. [7]

Dr. Buttram opens his paper by stating:

“In the following report Dr. Yazbak and myself have reviewed the case of an infant death which we believe to have been mistakenly diagnosed as shaken baby syndrome, the true cause of death in our opinions having been a vaccine-induced encephalitis. Having carefully followed the case and its developments for nearly a year, the report represents untold numbers of hours of study and investigation into the many technical parameters of the case. From this study we have come to realize that this case is representative of an emerging pattern of increasingly frequent vaccine reactions on the modern scene, which are being overlooked or misdiagnosed by our present health-care system.

The Story of Baby Alan is a poignant one, all the more so because it is something that could happen to any young couple or parent. Although the story is necessarily technical, nevertheless we urge that you read it. If you are a young person contemplating having a family, it is something that could happen to you.”

Despite all of this evidence, however, parents continue to be blamed of shaking their babies before all other possible diagnoses have been fully explored.

The Reid Technique

When SBS or non-accidental head injury is suspected, the police will interview the parents or caregiver who was caring for the child at the time the child became ill. According to parents who have undergone this interview, the interview process is extremely intimidating, and many succumb to the bullying tactics used, either by admitting that they injured their child or by accepting a plea bargain.

This may be due to the use of the ‘Reid Technique,’ a technique which is often used when interviewing a person suspected of shaking their child. [8, 9]
The Reid Technique is used in police departments around the world. It is basically made up of nine steps, and in my opinion, it is put in place to intimidate and force a confession out of innocent people. The nine steps are:

1. The police officer will present the suspect with evidence that they committed the crime. (This evidence can be real or fake.)
2. The officer comes up with a story as to why they believe the suspect committed the crime.
3. If the suspect tries to deny that they committed the crime, the detective will immediately interrupt the suspect.
4. If the suspect tries to give a logical explanation as to why it is not possible for them to have committed the crime, this explanation will be refuted.
5. At this stage, the detective will pretend to be the suspect’s ally.
6. The suspect, at this point, is studied for body language to see if they are about to surrender.
7. The interrogator provides the suspect with contrasting possible motives for the crime.
8. The detective will urge the suspect to talk about the crime.
9. The confession: At this stage the suspect usually feels intimidated and anxious and a confession is taken.

The evidence that Sergeant Christopher Savage, a former police officer, gave to me in an interview last year discussing SBS demonstrates that this procedure is commonly used. [10]

Researchers Uncover The Truth

Early this year, Dr. Michael Innis published his latest peer-reviewed study in Clinical Medicine Research. His paper titled Autoimmunity and Non-Accidental Injury in Children discusses the cases of five children suffering from brain injuries and fractures after vaccinations. After studying each case in depth, he concluded that vaccination could be responsible for the triad of injuries commonly associated with SBS. [11]

In his paper, Dr. Innis outlines that the response to antigenic stimulation damaged the beta cells in the pancreas causing hypoinsulinaemia (unusually low levels of insulin in the blood), which inhibited the cellular uptake of vitamin C, resulting in liver dysfunction, failure of carboxylation of the vitamin K dependent proteins, resulting in hemorrhages and fractures associated with the triad. He concluded that fractures, retinal and subdural hemorrhages and encephalopathy in children are autoimmune responses to antigenic stimulation in a genetically susceptible individual.

He explains that common antigens are mandated vaccines, viral, bacterial and parasitic infections.

To understand exactly how cases of vaccine damage are frequently misdiagnosed as SBS, please read Dr. Innis’s paper in full.

I found his paper easy to read, interesting and revealing and I was particularly enlightened to see him open his paper by quoting the work of psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown, who in 1995-1996 became the first professional to identify that parents were being falsely accused of child abuse after their child had suffered a vaccine injury.

- See more at: http://vactruth.com/2013/06/22/shaken-b ... eGiFO.dpuf

• •
ANTIVACCINEGRANDMOTHER • 12 days ago
•
•
Christina, great article but you may want to make “Norma”
into Norman Guthkelch. I wish everybody (all doctors) would think things
through and realize just how flawed this SBS triad diagnosis is. In essence, if
you could shake a baby this hard to create a subdural hematoma (without an
impact), the child would be dead or quadriplegic from a severe spinal cord
injury. That is essentially it – in a nutshell.
Reaction time varies since every child is an individual.
However, the manufacturer and the CDC make special mention of the 7th
day which was exactly the day our little Phoebe fell unconscious. Obviously
they know something they are not telling parents. Only due to the vigilance of
Phoebe’s dad (who is still incarcerated after 1.5 years for supposedly having
shaken her) is she still alive. Otherwise her death would have been diagnosed
as SIDS.
We are so happy to still have our little one (my
grand-daughter). She is thriving and does have some developmental delays
but we are confident she will overcome these completely. She is so beautiful and has such a strong and wonderful spirit.
The doctors are ill equipped to properly diagnose vaccine
injury because most medical personnel are in denial about what this toxic
witches brew does to an infant’s brain (for some reason, I as a lay person have
no problem imagining what toxic mercury and aluminum can do to an infant’s
brain). Doctors are supposed to diagnose child abuse in “good faith” and that’s
what we all want, however if they have a one-track mind and see child abuse in
every situation, then they are creating a huge amount of problems for parents
and caregivers. The already overburdened legal system simply does not have the
time nor the money to get to the truth. They simply accept what the doctors
tell them even if it is a lie like in our case. They made up stuff and we have
proof from two physicians that they lied. But the doctors/hospitals know it’s
difficult to sue them so they don't hesitate to lie. After all, doing the right thing and admitting that they misjudged is simply not an option, right? Juvenile court is the only court where a doctor can
claim something without any proof whatsoever. Scary.
Despite having no retinal hemorrhaging, no bruising, no
broken bones, etc. they still accused us of having harmed her. This was the
scariest thing I have ever been through. We are currently trying to bring this
to the attention of a judge or someone who will listen. We are also still
waiting for Phoebe’s dad’s case to go to trial so that he can be vindicated.
Somebody needs to clue these doctors in and prevent parents
and caregivers from being thrown into jail for years.
For Emphasis: DOCTORS NEED TO LEARN TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE
BOX AND REALIZE NOT EVERY HEMATOMA IS A CASE OF CHILD ABUSE. VACCINES ARE
DANGEROUS WITCHES BREW AND DO IN FACT CAUSE THESE HEMATOMAS.
How many more babies have to die, become handicapped, become
Autistic etc. before this MADNESS ends?

[compared2what?]

Still working the 'scary flipped representative of the anti faction discredits all activities of the folk that question the assumptions of the normative model', angle eh C2W??

Still getting your information about whether or not child abuse occurred from places that sanction, support, sponsor and endorse such things as giving children bleach enemas and performing unnecessary surgery on children purely for experimental purposes/personal gain, injuring them for life, eh Sounder?

If it works, more power to ya.

I can't say the same, sorry.

Doctors have an emotional commitment to the idea that vaccines cause no harm, because to do otherwise would require them to do some actual thinking and admitting to responsibility for harm they may or do cause. This results in observed health impacts being seen as produced by anything other than the vaccines.

As in just blaming whatever's convenient at the time, maybe? Like, for example, first saying there's a vaccine-induced epidemic, then -- when that turns out to be not demonstrable on the numbers -- saying it's the provable on the science that it's caused by mercury aluminum live unattenuated virus a combination of virus and mercury ditto, plus environmental toxins the number of shots on the vaccination schedule, even though that leaves several decades of your epidemic unaccounted for?

That kind of thing? Because I agree. That shows a personal investment in something other than the truth.

http://vactruth.com/2013/06/22/shaken-baby-syndrome/

Seriously. You're going to take Christina England's word for this. The woman who just turned up two posts ago cheek-by-jowl with an eminence grise of the movement who was categorically assuring his readers that although he knew very little about the matter, Wakefield was a victim of character assassination by a coercive power because he just had to be. On the same website. Taking part in the same conference.

I'd like to ask you something.

When someone has a history of lying about or concealing or tolerating extreme harm to children, does that influence your opinion of how likely they are to recognize or admit that something's child abuse in the future when it's:

(a) The government.
(b) Any potential child abuser or enabler thereof.
(c) Both.
(d) Neither.

[compared2what?]

'scary flipped representative of the anti faction discredits all activities of the folk that question the assumptions of the normative model

PS --

First of all, I'm not just talking about Wakefield. Or just Wakefield plus bleach enemas, ftm. If you want more examples, I can keep going for quite some time. But even if I were, I might say to you with more justice that you were ignoring him than you can to me that I'm focusing on him. He fucking almost killed a child in exchange for a large sum of money. (As I understand it, since it's documented and he's never offered any explanation or defense beyond an unelaborated denial.)

So please don't say that to me as if it reflected poorly on me that I care about it. It doesn't.

Second of all, I'm not objecting to the fact that those folks question the assumptions of the normative model. FFS. That's not what I have a problem with. So don't lay that straw-man off on me.

Thanks.

[Sounder]

C2W?
So I just scanned your link here. Does ms. England advocate for bleach enemas in this paper? Did I miss that part or could could point me to that in her other writing?


http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... ngland.pdf


I do wonder though if you consider that the scientists that do see negative impacts of vaccine usage should be supported?

That is a somewhat rhetorical question, in that while you may answer yes, you sure seem to care more about overwrought advocate reactions than actual work done by scientists.

[slimmouse]

c2w, do you have more info, or links to the MMS thing. The claims and protocols of the Manufacturers, etc ?