Letters to the Editor

Vaccine injuries

October 7, 2010


To the editor:

The Oct. 2 front page article, “U.S. admits it infected Guatemalans with syphilis in 1940s,” did not surprise me. The same “appalling violations” have been taking place in the U.S. for over a half of century through the untested vaccination program. Add the childhood vaccine program to the list of U.S. medical experiments on our most innocent and vulnerable population in the name of health.

We have traded our children’s health for pharmaceutical profits. They now suffer with vaccine injuries that cause chronic illness including diabetes, asthma, allergies, ADHD, bipolar, autism, cancer… instead of chicken pox, mumps and measles. Prevnar has been implicated in causing antibiotic resistant pneumonia, which it was meant to prevent. Studies have never been done testing the safety of vaccines when more than one vaccine is given at a visit, comparing health outcomes of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children or testing those who become ill after vaccines.

Thimerosal is toxic to human tissue at one nano molar. Check the Material Safety Data Sheet. The medical industry continues to poison innocent U.S. citizens with mercury-containing flu vaccines. These include pregnant women and children over the age of 6 months. The majority of flu vaccines contain 25 micrograms of neuro toxic thimerosal that crosses the blood brain and placental barriers. When will Ms. Clinton and Ms. Sebelius take responsibility of the atrocities that have been done to the children who suffer vaccine injuries?

Linda Weinmaster,



gr 7 years, 5 months ago

How about when science verifies that taking magical potions and witch's charms is beneficial? Besides, why is there a need to determine specifically which disorders a known toxin causes unless you think the MDS is incorrect. I bet you are against power plants for mercury, but yet you think injecting it into people is ok?

I have found no science to verify that vaccines have ever done any good for polio, smallpox, etc. But I have found plenty of tin-foil hat people who think coincidences mean something with no need to look at them. They are also ones who don't know want confounders are, nor crop refuge areas, nor have a working knowledge of disease resistance. They are a type of religious people so to say, being ones who believe anything the witch doctor tells them and blindly take potions with their head in the ground having complete faith that they are protected and everything will be ok.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 5 months ago

gr send me a real peer reviewed link. You sent me a link last year to someone's personal website.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 5 months ago

let me re-phrase that. Send me a link to a peer reviewed study and you might be taken more seriously.

impska 7 years, 5 months ago

Well... the fact that smallpox was eradicated after a widespread vaccine program and polio has been virtually eradicated after a widespread vaccine program is pretty good evidence that those programs did some "good" for those diseases. Or did you think that those two diseases, which have plagued human beings for thousands of years coincidentally disappeared right when everyone got vaccinated for them? Do you have some other reasonable explanation for their eradication?

I understand why parents might be concerned about loading up their kids with multiple vaccinations, especially considering how many more are given to kids today than even twenty years ago. That seems like a reasonable concern. Claiming there is no evidence that vaccines have done any good is totally unreasonable.

That said, I don't really understand the second paragraph of your post, so I suspect I might be trying to reason with a rambling crazy person.

AutismNewsBeat 7 years, 5 months ago

Tanzer is right. Study after study has looked for, and failed to find an association between vaccines and autism. Meanwhile the quack autism-cure industry uses "vaccine injury" to justify exposing children to unproven and potentially dangerous treatments, including chemical castration. I wonder what Mrs. Weinmaster has to say about the Geier's Lupron protocol?

Unreal 7 years, 5 months ago

Thank you Linda, for this important information. I cannot believe what sheep people in this country are when it comes to vaccinations! Indeed, it is all about the pharma industry making billions in profit off most of these completely unnecessary injections. I used to get the flu as a kid and guess what? I felt miserable for a couple of days and got over it. And I guarantee you, 99% of the people in this country that get the flu would experience the same thing and be JUST FINE afterwards. But people live in such fear of everything nowadays, that they're actually scared they will die of the flu, which is just ridiculous. Yes, do older people with compromised immune systems have a risk of dying from the flu if it gets out of hand? Sure. If those people want to be vaccinated, I can understand that. But for every Joe out there to get a flu shot is absolute insanity. I have not and will not ever put that flu vacination in my body. If I get the flu, I have no doubt I will feel crummy for a couple of days and then be fine. I would much rather that happen, and my immune system be able to fight it, than relying on injections with all kinds of toxic crap in it to do it. Besides, most of the people I know who get the flu injection, still end up getting the flu anyway, so what a waste. I can't remember the last time I got the flu -- probably when I was a kid, and guess what? I've never had a flu shot. Imagine that! Wake up people! Your body has an immune system for a reason. Let it work its magic and quit relying on all these injections.

FreeSpeaker 7 years, 5 months ago

I asume you want us to return to the "good old days" of iron lungs, death from meningitis, sterile teen age boys, Smallpox, and all those other good things. Read this:


Your immune system is not capable of dealing with many wild diseases. That is why vaccines are required and they do work.

As for the comment regarding the flu, I am in excellent health. However, several years ago I got the flu and felt crummy for a few days. Then, when the cough and fever persisted, I went to my internist who found that I had pneumonia. In just a few days, Iwas hospitalized with a recurrence of malaria that had hospitalized me in 1969 in Vietnam.

As for your idiotic comment about people with compromised immune systems getting vaccinated: most often they cannot. They rely on a responsible community who has taken the vaccines to provide the herd immunity effect. And, of course, babies too young to be immunized, LIKE THE NINE DEAD ONES IN CALIFORNIA, also count on you.

You do not recall the "good old days". You should thank your supreme being for that.

Unreal 7 years, 5 months ago

Free Speaker, that's the beauty of this country . . . you, along with millions of other sheep can line up and get your injections recommended by an industry making billions off your fear, and I can choose not to do that and let my immune system try to fight it first.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

Speaker, you mean the good old days like these?: http://www2.ljworld.com/discussions/stories/532888/ Think that might have something to do with your confounders?

You speak of some not being able to get vaccinated. Is that because it presents a danger? You speak of heard immunity. Do you have any, and I mean any scientific evidence there even is such a thing as herd immunity? I believe you'll find scientific evidence on herd mentality, though.

whats_going_on 7 years, 5 months ago

When you are a very small child, or elderly, or have another illness, no, your immune system can not handle these illnesses well.

I am assuming you were a fairly healthy child, which is why you probably got over it so quickly. Not too long ago, people were dying at today's middle age because of illness that are now prevented with vaccines.

Matt Schwartz 7 years, 5 months ago

unreal, way to be un-sheep-like. you're awesome. baaaaaaaa.

impska 7 years, 5 months ago

Hey, I'm with you - I never get the flu shot, and I think it's ridiculous that kids are required to get a chicken pox vaccine in order to go to school.

But I'm also glad I wasn't born with congenital rubella syndrome, that my husband isn't sterile due to mumps and that I wasn't rendered mentally retarded by measles. I'm not sure if those Hep B shots were really necessary, nor am I certain that I needed a tetanus shot after that dog bit me, but I am glad that I never had my face paralyzed by diphtheria and that I never passed whooping cough onto an infant.

Personally, I'm also glad that I never even had to get a smallpox or polio vaccine because the generation before me was so good about that.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

No evidence that vaccines prevent disease, either.

Plenty of evidence that mercury is hazardous. Why do you wish to support injecting a known toxic element into children?

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that vaccines prevent disease. There is, however, no evidence from reputable studies that the trace amounts of ethyl mercury used as a preservative in some vaccines is hazardous at the doses given. Furthermore, the level children are exposed to now is much lower than it was in the 1980's, yet the rate of autism diagnosis has increased.

Too much water is toxic. Children and adults have died of water intoxication. Do you support giving that known toxic substance to children? The dose is what makes the poison.

Yes, I know you've got your pet cause and no amount of evidence will persuade you to look at it rationally, but I'll put it out there anyway.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

geeky, no, I do not support giving too much water to children.

There is a safe amount (or dose as you prefer) of water. Generally, 8-12 glasses a day is considered safe.

What is the safe level of mercury?

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

The safe level of ethyl mercury (not methyl) is well below the dosage given in vaccines. It's been well studied. The half-life of ethyl mercury is 3.7 days vs 44 for methyl mercury, so that 25 micrograms or so of ethyl mercury is gone in half a week and less damaging than the methyl mercury you're exposed to from eating fish, for example.

We've been using ethyl mercury in vaccines since the 1930s, and children today are exposed to increasingly LOWER doses (potentially none at all), though the rate of autism diagnosis has continued to climb.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

geeky, my question was, what is the safe level of mercury? Odd that you didn't answer it. Is it because it's less than 25mcg?

And using your logic in the last paragraph, we've been burning coal for decades and are exposed to less hazardous particles from it today than ever before. Therefore, there should be no concern.

Another odd thing, seems like people key in that autism specifically has had no study done to link it or refute any that has been done. What about the other hazards of mercury? Or is autism the only one?

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

The standard dose for methyl mercury MeHg is 0.1 µg/kg/day, but that doesn't apply to ethyl mercury, C2H5Hg, because it doesn't bioaccumulate the same way. The argument is still moot, since they removed all but trace amounts from childhood vaccines, and it's entirely possible to be fully vaccinated without ever having had any vaccine ethyl mercury exposure.

Actually, using the logic from my last paragraph, you'd have to conclude that coal doesn't cause autism, either. There are different reasons to be concerned about coal use, not the least of which is because it's more of a mercury contamination hazard than vaccines.

Actually, we do know quite a bit about the other hazards of mercury, because there were two large mercury contamination cases. One in Japan, and one in Iraq. The symptoms do not match autism.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

geeky, my question was, what is the safe level of mercury? The current context is whatever type of mercury is being injected. You didn't answer that. Is it because you do not know?

Why do you keep talking about autism? Never once did I express concern that mercury causes autism. In fact, I express concern that you, and others, are concerned only with autism when mercury is hazardous in many ways. I think you are promoting a substance which you do not really know much about.

geekyhost 7 years, 2 months ago

I did answer your question, but let's take a stab at playing the game your way, shall we? What's the safe level of water? Did you know it's a dangerous substance that causes deaths every year? I can't believe you're promoting a substance which you do not really know much about.

inspire 7 years, 5 months ago

It might be interesting to look deeply into who is doing this research and where their funding comes from. You might find Big Pharm everywhere...

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

Generally you'll find that the funding for poorly conducted research that attempts to link vaccines and autism is funded either by litigants in vaccine court or snake oil salesmen trying to rip off desperate parents with a fake cure.

Oh wait, it only counts when we can play six degrees of separation with Big Pharma Shills and Kevin Bacon, doesn't it?

inspire 7 years, 5 months ago

It might be interesting to look deeply into who is doing this research and where their funding comes from. You might find Big Pharm everywhere...

amdachel 7 years, 5 months ago

Before anyone again reminds us that all our health officials say that studies show no link between vaccines and autism, I'd ask them to actually look at a study. Every single study used to disprove a connection is tied to the vaccine makers.

Our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention runs the vaccine program and they're in charge of vaccine safety. Hundreds and hundreds of their employees have waivers because direct financial ties to the vaccine companies. The most recent past director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, an ardent denier of a link between vaccines and autism, is now the head of the vaccine division at Merck Pharma.

In the last 25 years the CDC more than tripled the number of vaccines our children receive. During this time, autism went from one in 10,000 children to one in every 110 kids, one in every 68 boys. No official can tell us why this explosion occurred.

The one study that no official has ever called for is a simple one and it would settle the issue once and for all. No one has ever compared the autism rate for children who've been fully vaccinated with the rate for children who've never been vaccinated. One percent of U.S. children now have autism. If one percent of never vaccinated kids are also autistic, the proof would be there for all to see. We need to ask why no one wants to see such a study done.

Anne McElroy Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism

FreeSpeaker 7 years, 5 months ago

"No official can tell us why this explosion occurred."

But science has. You know that is true, but you repeat the lie. And, you know that any study that intentionally withholds vaccination is per se unethical. You have been told this many times, but, you seem to forget it.

amdachel 7 years, 5 months ago

With the growing numbers of families who refuse to vaccinate their children becaues of safety concerns, it wouldn't be hard to find a study group.

You're right, science has spoken. Medical experts at Health and Human Services recently awarded a GA girl lifetime compensation because the vaccines she received as a baby caused her to regress into autism.

Lots of stories in the national news are raising serious concerns over vaccine safety. Fox News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8wseI...

MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDQGAy3PMNo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

FOX NEWS: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4336206/proof-of-vaccine-autism-link-/?playlist_id=87937

CBS NEWS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

The Atlanta Journal Constitution: Settlement reached in autism-vaccine case http://www.ajc.com/health/settlement-reached-in-autism-611234.html

FOX NEWS: Vaccines: Bad Combination? VIDEO: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4357414/vaccines-bad-combination/0

FOX NEWS: Is There a Vaccine-Autism Link? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnThu9IxSis

Anne Dachel Media editor: Age of Autism

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

"Medical experts at Health and Human Services recently awarded a GA girl lifetime compensation because the vaccines she received as a baby caused her to regress into autism. " Where's the link to the news story on this one?

Also, you only link to secondary sources. Where are your peer-reviewed scientific studies upon which you base your assertions? I'm not afraid of a little journal reading - how about you provide some links to medical journals?

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"With the growing numbers of families who refuse to vaccinate their children becaues of safety concerns"

"autism went from one in 10,000 children to one in every 110 kids"

Um, see a problem with that?

If more families are not getting the injections, and the rate of autism is 'exploding', I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but that would imply there's a correlation between autism and NOT being vaccinated.

As to what caused the "explosion" - nothing. Especially as there may not have been one. Autism didn't grow from a rate of 1/10,000 to 1/110, the number of people diagnosed with autism did. That's not a matter of semantics, that's a significant difference. Not much more than 25 years ago we were still in the days of Willowbrook. Parents with children that had mental 'defects' were encouraged to drop their children off at a house of horrors like Willowbrook, tell their siblings they either never had a little brother or he died, and never come back. And most did. The diagnosis rate for virtually all mental illnesses increased dramatically after those people with 'defects' began to receive their treatment in community settings, especially the rather unheard-of practice of [gasp!] actually keeping them at home.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

Hey, nice to meet you! It's not every day I get to tell a quack directly that they are, in fact, a quack. I find myself in the reluctant position of defending big pharma on this issue - and on this issue alone.

Of course every MODERN study used to disprove the link is linked to vaccine makers. That's because the scientific community has better things to do than keep answering this non-question. It has already been researched. There is no link.

"The most recent past director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, an ardent denier of a link between vaccines and autism, is now the head of the vaccine division at Merck Pharma." Indeed, she is! However, what you fail to mention is that she is also an expert in infectious diseases. She is an expert in research, and therefore, knows A) the effectiveness of vaccines, and B) the non-link between them and 'injury'.

"In the last 25 years the CDC more than tripled the number of vaccines our children receive. During this time, autism went from one in 10,000 children to one in every 110 kids, one in every 68 boys. No official can tell us why this explosion occurred." During this time, there was also an increase in portable electronics, cell phones, high fructose corn syrup, diet soda, genetically modified food, pollution, reality TV, skateboards, CD players, and god knows what other non-linked correlation item you can find. You're taking a wild stab in the dark trying to make a causal connection from correlational data, picking your pet cause as the ony-and-only-possible-cause, the hallmark of a quack who either misunderstands or ignores the scientific method. Additionally, the science of diagnosing each of these diseases has improved, and then has even become something of a fad. Not only can doctors more readily understand and diagnose these disorders, but Big Pharma has pushed awareness of their drugs in a way that suggests many more people have the disease than actually do, increasing diagnoses. Yes, that is big pharma's fault - but it does not affect the scientific consensus on vaccines.

"The one study that no official has ever called for is a simple one and it would settle the issue once and for all." Again, an utter failure to understand basic science - this time, ethics. This is the same reason we cannot do a study to examine the effects of cigarettes or hard drugs. If you hypothesize that your treatment can cause long lasting detriment, no review board will ever approve you sticking kids with a substance you believe may cause autism. Additionally, the control group would be WITHOUT the positive benefits of vaccines - namely, resistance to deadly diseases. However, while many hard drugs and tobacco are incredibly linked in correlational studies, vaccines are not. Therefore, we have neither the ethical nor the empirical basis to move forward on testing your theory.

somedude20 7 years, 5 months ago

well said!!!! let the others hide in their dark rooms watching their X-Files eating a Tino's pizza while they die from a preventable disease

SnakeFist 7 years, 5 months ago

"In the last 25 years the CDC more than tripled the number of vaccines our children receive. During this time, autism went from one in 10,000 children to one in every 110 kids, one in every 68 boys."

That is, at best, a correlation, not a causation. In the past 25 years, we've also seen a huge increase in both parents working. Which is more likely, that children's behavioral problems are (1) connected to a lack of parental interaction and involvement or (2) vaccines? The vaccine connection is a lie to make self-centered parents feel better about dropping their children at daycare so someone else can raise them.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

Ah yes, the old refrigerator mother argument. This always goes well.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"During this time, there was also an increase in portable electronics, cell phones, high fructose corn syrup, diet soda, genetically modified food, pollution, reality TV, skateboards, CD players, and god knows what other non-linked correlation item you can find."

Not to mention parents having children at a later age, which, I believe, HAS actually been linked to Autism.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

I was just demonstrating a point with a good list of even more nonsensical things that correlate with the disorder's increasing diagnosis.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

I know, I wasn't criticizing your post, just adding to it. When I said "which, I believe, HAS actually been linked to Autism", I meant as opposed to vaccines, not any of the items you mentioned. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

Also, I tried to gather a little information on your scientific research background. When Googling your name, the first article that comes up is:


It's a shame that your esteemed scientific article played second flute on headlines to "WHAT DID ISRAEL KNOW IN ADVANCE OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS?" in the paid-subscription CounterPunch e-mail newsletter. I'm sure you will get better publicity in these esteemed peer-reviewed scientific journals as your star continues to rise.

SnakeFist 7 years, 5 months ago

Its inconsistent to question the validity of vaccine studies because of the real or imagined conflicts of interest of those who performed them, but not question the validity of autism as a disorder or, at least, the incredible over-diagnosis of autism based on completely ambiguous symptoms. The sellers of books and entirely unproven homeopathic remedies have their own financial conflicts of interest.

Fanciful disorders like autism, Asperger's, and ADHD are the real money-making scam.

mom_of_three 7 years, 5 months ago

except to the ones who have kids diagnosed with it.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

I'm so glad we have you here, good citizen. We'll alert the media that although it's taken eight years of work, they don't need to release the DSM-V, and the DSM-IV is already invalid. You'll just tell the APA which pervasive developmental disorders and learning disabilities exist and which are merely the result of bad parenting.

TeresaBinstock 7 years, 5 months ago

A recently published textbook provides citations for medical industry studies finding no evidence of harm from vaccinations and also provides citations for independent researchers' studies (a) finding evidence of harm from vaccinations and (b) elucidating mechanisms of that harm. Autism: The Diagnosis, Treatment, & Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic, by John W. Oller Jr., Ph.D., and Stephen D. Oller, Ph.D.

The medical industry implicated in the vaccine-damage coverup includes the FDA and CDC. See the citations in Oller and Oller's text.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 5 months ago

Jenny Mccarthy isn't a reliable source of health care information? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

somedude20 7 years, 5 months ago

no but her Playboy spread is a good tool for sex ed

Unreal 7 years, 5 months ago

Even if most of you feel there is no direct link between vaccines and autism, don't you think parents should at least take a moment and question whether or not our children really need ALL of these vaccinations the pharma industry recommends? It really is mindboggeling how many injections we give babies, not even questioning whether or not they are really necessary. Sometimes the sheep mentality isn't always best and it might be worthwhile for parents to start researching all these injections and make sure they are absolutely necessary. I personally think we give our children WAY too many shots. I think I had maybe 7 as a child.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

Don't you think parents should at least take a moment and question whether or not children really need whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, scarlet fever, or polio?

See: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cough/index.html

Indeed, the sheep mentality is not best. Listen to science instead.

Unreal 7 years, 5 months ago

mbulicz, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving the standard vaccinations for things like small pox & scarlet fever, which was probably among the few shots I received as a kid, and that science knows is safe due to the decades of use with no side effects. I don't think however, that we need to be giving babies shots for every little illness out there that is not normally deadly and can be successfully treated if they ever even do get it. In summary, what I'm saying is that the overkill of injections given to babies nowadays should be questioned by every parent out there instead of letting all the fear mongering make up their minds.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

Perhaps I responded too quickly and did not fully develop my thought. I support your conclusion, in that it isn't necessary to give young kids shots for every disease under the sun. I wouldn't give my kid a flu shot, unless they were immunocompromised or they were particularly sensitive to the flu.

However, the big ones - vaccines against deadly diseases - are a no-brainer.

Unreal 7 years, 5 months ago

Oh, and some doctors aren't in bed with the pharma industry at all, right? Um, think again. when you go to a doctor, what is the first thing most of them do right off the bat -- recommend a drug. And I have no doubt most doctors are nicely rewarded by the pharma industry for the amount of a certain drug they push.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

"Oh, and some doctors aren't in bed with the pharma industry at all, right? Um, think again. when you go to a doctor, what is the first thing most of them do right off the bat -- recommend a drug."

If the first thing my doctor did was to recommend a drug, my first response would be to find another doctor. Even when I am prescribed something, I research the drug and whether there are any alternatives before I fill the prescription.

gccs14r 7 years, 5 months ago

My doc generally gives me alternatives: scrip, OTC, and home remedy, if they're appropriate. Sometimes only a scrip will do, such as for an antibiotic. Sometimes the home remedy is best. Other times it's OTC. I like that she gathers evidence and presents her findings and together we decide how to proceed. Obviously she has much more training and experience in medicine than I do, but she doesn't use that training and experience as a bludgeon to coerce me into a course of treatment. She's a healthcare provider who is interested in the well-being of her patients, not one who is obviously interested in a big bonus from a pharmaceutical company. Of all the docs I've seen, she is my favorite. If I had kids, I would hope that she would see them. I don't know if she does pediatric medicine, though.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"Even if most of you feel there is no direct link between vaccines and autism, don't you think parents should at least take a moment and question whether or not our children really need ALL of these vaccinations the pharma industry recommends?"

Funny, I only have my children receive the vaccinations their pediatrician recommends. Does the pharma industry send someone to your house with their recommendations?

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

No, of course not.

But you are aware, I'm sure, that the pharmaceutical industry spends quite a bit of money offering doctors various gifts/perks in order to persuade them to prescribe their products.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Gee, is there anyone you think isn't being bought off?

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Watch the movie "Side Effects", written by someone previously in the pharmaceutical industry, if you think I'm mistaken.

There are certainly people with integrity in our society - our family doctor used to throw out the drug reps who came to his office peddling their products. But I think he would be in the distinct minority today (he's dead now).

aa469285 7 years, 5 months ago

This type of thing has been outlawed. Drug reps still come to the offices and drop off samples, and yes still buy lunch on occasion, but that's all they can do. There are no more "gifts/perks." Not to mention the idea that a physician can be wooed by a less-educated drug rep to use a particular drug just by some pens is ridiculous.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Please inform us of when and how this has been outlawed.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Not sure if there's a specific law against it per se, but in practice it is all but a thing of the past, since allowing drug reps into any patient-accessible area is kind of a major HIPAA violation. I know it hasn't been done in the hospital where I used to work in at least 7-8 years. Which was sorely missed by myself and most of the rest of the staff, to be sure, but I don't know a single physician that made his prescribing decisions based on which rep gave them the best stuff. The giveaways tended to cancel each other out - if I was riding in the elevator with a rep, and he was a little slow in coughing up some goodies with "Zyprexa" stamped on it, I'd usually say "Oh, I understand. I'll just keep using this old Risperdal mug the Janssen guy gave me." It was pretty funny watching a grown man in an expensive suit rummaging through his sample case on the floor of the elevator.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

That is funny.

But, of course, pharmaceutical reps don't have to go to patient accessible areas to provide perks to doctors.

They can simply send them on expensive vacations, etc.

Unless it really has been outlawed, but aa hasn't responded at all yet.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

For the most part, they can't get to see a physician during normal office hours without going into patient-accessible areas, especially in a hospital. And just sending them places doesn't have the same effect - the whole point of the exercise is to build that personal relationship. You don't gain a lot of influence with someone by sending them vacation tickets in the mail.

Anyway, since the advent of HIPAA and also as the result of bad publicity, most hospitals, agencies, and even a lot of large private practices have policies against that sort of thing nowadays.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

If I remember the movie, I think they sponsor "conferences", which are held in beautiful places like Hawaii, and offer doctors an essentially all-expense paid vacation in the guise of attending some sort of business related event. At which drug company representatives and employees mingle and interact with the doctors who attend.

I'd love to hear if that sort of thing has in fact been outlawed - if so, that would be a good thing, in my opinion.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

Yup. Took a moment. Examined the evidence. I'm more convinced than ever that my kids should be vaccinated.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 5 months ago

if ljworld had a like button I would use it! Good points autie!

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

I imagine the life of a parent of a special-needs child can be quite exhausting and frustrating. Especially because, as I mentioned above, the traditional way of dealing with such children in the not-too-distant past was to dump them in places euphemistically called 'training schools', where they were force-fed gruel-like meals (which was all the overwhelmed staff could force down their throats in the approximately 1-1/2 minutes they were given for feeding), washed with fire hoses, and left to sit naked in the hallways with a river of urine and excrement flowing down the center. The LTE writer mentioned the syphilis experiments; on the thread about that story, I mentioned that just one of the many atrocities at Willowbrook was the hepatitis studies conducted by injecting children with feces - with parental consent.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who choose to care for a child themselves rather than subject them to such horrors. I also understand the grief process fairly well, and know that it is natural for these parents to want to blame someone, to have a focus for their anger.

But let's say, for just a minute, that what the LTE writer says is true. Let's say the vaccines cause autism. The flu, and the other diseases we vaccinate against KILLS children. And maybe we should stop looking at autism as a fate worse than death.

Speaking only for myself, I'd rather have a special needs child in my life than be visiting the grave of one that died from an easily preventable disease.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

Yes. This. It's a false dichotomy, but I'd take a live child with a disability over a child dead from a preventable disease any day of the week.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

It is a false dichotomy, yes. I was also basing that false dichotomy on stipulating to the LTE writer's contention that autism is caused by vaccinations, which it isn't.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Or, I should say, for which there's no evidence.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Virtually every medication we use is, in a sense, poison. Read the product data sheet that comes with even OTC medications some time. Virtually every medication has the potential to cause 'side effects' in some segment of the population.

Sometimes it's something specific to a particular group, such as those whose body suffers from some particular medical condition. It can even be related to external factors; Southeast Asians eating a traditional diet, for example, shouldn't be prescribed one particular family of antidepressants (I can't remember off the top of my head whether it's benzodiazepines or tricyclics) because there's a chemical compound present in those traditional foods that combines with that medication in a fatal way. Sometimes it's because of improper use, such as people that don't take a full course of their antibiotics, giving rise to medication resistant strains of the infection. Sometimes it's just the nature of the beast - almost all medications have the potential for exacerbating, if not causing, liver problems, because we're flushing chemicals through our hepatic system that it was never intended to metabolize in the original design specs or the owner's manual.

There is absolutely no such thing as a medication that is 100% guaranteed safe for everyone. We use them anyway. We use them because the benefit outweighs the potential harm. Anyone that's ever undergone interferon therapy will tell you that it is a miserable time of their lives - lives which they have a much better chance of extending than if they had simply allowed their liver to continue to deteriorate. The most obvious example, though, is cancer meds, which are extremely toxic - but the alternative is a slow, lingering, painful death, which tends to make the risk from the drugs somewhat academic in perspective.

mbulicz 7 years, 5 months ago

The LJ-World Online Law: As the comments section goes on, the likelihood of a flamewar involving liberals, socialism, global warming, conservatives, taxes, or the Tea Party approaches 1.

Boston_Corbett 7 years, 5 months ago

Vaccines save lives.

Well intended, but misdirected, people including Linda Weinmaster instead increase the risk of death and disease to the very youth they ostensibly seek to protect.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

After reading the heated opinions, I wonder how much more effective this dialogue would be if the people contributing on both sides of the "aisle" would have stated their opinions after signing in without an anonymous name? How can anyone value an opinion if the person writing doesn't have enough courage to sign their own name? Remember our Declaration of Independence that gives us the freedoms we enjoy? No one signed it with a "password"!. Neither did Linda when she wrote the letter. Those of you who back what I call "tobacco science" (remember the days when 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Lucky Strikes?) need to pull your head out of the sand. Linda knows what she's talking about.

Sue Herynk

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

That's right. No evidence that vaccines prevent disease. None.

Danimal 7 years, 5 months ago

I agree with many of you on here, we don't really know what the cause(s) of the increased occurrence of autism, etc are. Our modern lifestyles are pretty toxic, so to look at something like vaccines which has unarguably saved tens of millions of lives and untold suffering and resolve that this must be the cause is irresponsible at best. Remember things like polio, and small pox? They're still out there and if we stop vaccinating you can be sure they'll be back. We're already seeing a resurgence in afflictions for which vaccines exist simply because people aren't getting vaccinated.
I'll agree that our pharmaceutical industry is probably a little out of control, but it's no mystery why there hasn't been a global flu pandemic since 1918 when Spanish flu killed tens of millions of people (some say more than 50 million). People should remember that as far as we can tell that pandemic started just down the road at Fort Riley. Get your shots!

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

Sue Herynk to PFC ......it's not IF she signed her name, she DID sign her name. You, on the other hand, have not. Who has credability here?
We need to be able to stand by what we write and say.

Sue Herynk

mom_of_three 7 years, 5 months ago

Just because I choose to remain anonymous does not mean my opinions and thoughts are any less valuable. And a name does not equal credibility. SO many other factors contribute to autism and spectrum disorders. How can one child get it and not the others in the family? I think it may be a combination of factors which decide what child gets autism or a spectrum disorder and does not. Whether vaccines are a factor, well, maybe with the right million of other things happening at the same time, maybe vaccine did factor into it. But to say vaccines are the sole reason for the increase of autism is ridiculous. I agree with the increased ability to diagnose autism and spectrum disorders.
But I would rather vaccinate my child against a deadly disease than not even with a chance of autism. There is a chance that my child could die, or someone else's, if they are not vaccinated.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

I disagree. Anyone can hide behind a nick name and spout off. Those who put their name where their mouth is has credibility. Why do you think the Journal World requires that of the people who write letters to the editor? If the person who wrote a letter put their name behind it, so should you when you post a comment.

Sue Herynk

Boston_Corbett 7 years, 5 months ago

Yea sure. Tom Shewmon and Marion Lynn have credibility.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

If you look at a post that appears below, while the LTE writer did sign her name, she also appears to have an anonymous account to post to these message boards, which she's been using for the past few days to post essentially the same stuff as what appears in the letter?

mom_of_three 7 years, 5 months ago

And anyone can sign with a name and spout off

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Then call or write the LJW and advocate for that policy.

Personally, I think their policy about requiring that letters to the editor include someone's name is wrong.

But of course, it's not up to you (or me) to set the LJW's policies now, is it?

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

So, if you are so certain of all that you state, why are you afraid to sign your name?

Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

There are numerous reasons for maintaining one's anonymity when speaking in public. Your contention that doing to is based on fear and eliminates all credibility is ridiculous. It would be just as valid for me to posit that all people that choose to become verified users and use their real name are pathetic little people with no life who don't have to worry about what they say because nobody cares.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

I'm trying to point out that on the local level to the national level, credibility comes with responsibility. Take responsibility for what you say, gain credibility, and make some positive change. Nothing ever improved, nothing ever moved forward, no one's awareness was ever changed by ideals and ideas until someone placed their integrity with their words. Did Martin Luther deliver his speech in Washington anonymously? Did the framers of our constitution sign anonymously? If they had, that document would have meant nothing. We need to begin here in Lawrence, in these discussions, willing to be real, willing to put our names on the line, in order for awareness to increase and progress to be made. Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

You are seriously, seriously comparing a LTE writer to a small-town Midwestern newspaper to Martin Luther King?

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

I'm trying to make you aware. Everything begins somewhere, often somewhere small. If on a little level we are all frightened of signing our names, what can happen on a larger level? Courage begins at home. Linda has the courage to write here, on a local level. If you knew her at all, you would know she has participated in this discussion in person in Washington and in several State Houses here in the midwest. Don't you think we could do as well by signing what we write about the letters she writes? Sue Herynk

LoveThsLife 7 years, 5 months ago

Putting your name on a local online forum if your address and phone are listed in the directory is just asking be scammed. There are good reasons why people remain anonymous.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

Excuses. Really weak excuses.

Sue Herynk

LoveThsLife 7 years, 5 months ago

No it isn't..it's a safety issue. How do I know who is looking at this thread?

It's also an identify theft issue. Say in conversation you accidentally let something slip more personal..now they have your name, address, phone number, and whatever information you have thoughtlessly posted.

So yes, I prefer to remain anonymous..I personally think it's safer that way.

You sign your name as much as you like to a local on line forum. I don't think it adds to what you are saying but if that's your perception that post your name as much as you want.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

I'm also willing to bet she's never had a death threat, had someone threaten her children, had someone attempt to get her fired from her job, or been named in a frivolous lawsuit. The same cannot be said of the pro-vaccine crowd, which have had all of those things happen to them.

Her "bravery" for signing her name on a LTE has absolutely no bearing on the validity of her claims, which are lacking, and your focus on it is a red herring argument.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

Nothing to do with bravery and everything to do with integrity. As I asked before - the letters submitted to the editor have to be signed by the authors. Does that mean that those whose letters are published are subject to "death threats? If they can sign their names, those posting opinions about the letters should sign their names too. Sue Herynk

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

Yes, they could be. Dr Paul Offit has had death threats for his Op Eds, though he plays in larger circles than some Kansas newspaper. Those on the anti-science side of this argument have not, as far as I know, been subjected to the same threats.

The interwebs has a grand tradition of anonymity, and your campaign to end it now is doomed for failure.

Signed, I. P. Freely.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"Who has credability here? "

The person with science on their side.

Signing her name only lets us know the identity of the person that's wrong. Your problem is that you put more stock in who's saying something than in what's said.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

I repeat, if you can stand by what you say, sign your name. Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

And I repeat: Your problem is that you put more stock in who says something than in what's being said.

Here's a little clue, Sue Herynk:

If JohnSmith (anonymous) posts that 2+2=4, and Herynkmom (Sue Herynk) posts that 2+2=1,674,903, it does not make the latter more credible because she puts "Sue Herynk" at the end.

If JohnSmith (anonymous) posts a comment that includes a link to document and support his contention, and Herynkmom (Sue Herynk) posts nothing but her opinion, it does not make the latter more credible because she puts "Sue Herynk" at the end.

Seriously - get over yourself.

lweinmaster 7 years, 5 months ago

We are talking about mercury, a poison that all agencies agree there is no safe level. We are directly injecting this poison into pregnant women, infants and small children. It does not belong in vaccines. The studies go back to the 40’s when Dr. Frank B. Engley studied thimerosal and found it to be toxic at one nano molar. Search for his paper form the AMA.

The Science is closed on the thimerosal issue by the manufacturers own words on the MSDS, we are now debating politics, who is responsible for the damage done. Guess who will pay for this, the taxpayers!

Everyone should support the 3 studies that have never been done, study multiple vaccines given at a single visit, study the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population and study the normally developing children who got sick after vaccines. All 3 of my children were fully vaccinated according to the CDC schedule!

Read 2010 research by Catherine Desoto called “Sorting out the Spinning of Autism: Heavy Metals and the question of incidence.” Shows that 75 % of the peer reviewed studies support a link between vaccines and autism. The other 25%, all funded by conflicted industry support no link.

My son was diagnosed with autism at the age of 5, we later learned, through laboratory testing, he has mercury poisoning at over 3 times the highest acceptable level. After 8 years of biomedical treatment including chelation therapy he no longer exhibits the symptoms of autism.

We all have different genetics. To some penicillin is a deadly poison to others it is a miracle cure. Just like not all smokers get cancer, not all who get vaccines get mercury poisoning. A simple blood test at birth for MTHFR would identify those who can not handle vaccines with heavy metals. Due to my entire families homozygous methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase condition my sons methylation pathway did not function well enough to excrete the amount of mercury in his childhood vaccines following the 300 % increase in mercury containing vaccines included in the CDC schedule in 1992. All other environmental factors have been ruled out.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

You've dived way too far down the DAN! mine on this post for me to even attempt to counter it, but it does make me sad. You've been so ripped off. I don't even want to think about the money you've spent and unnecessary blood draws and chemicals you've subjected your son to. I've heard stories like yours over and over, and they always make me sad and a little horrified for that poor child. Your talk of MTHFR makes me worry that you've fallen for the Geier's Lupron Protocol and are chemically castrating your poor child.

devobrun 7 years, 5 months ago

In 1953 my mother contracted polio. I was 9 months old. Over a period of 3 years she learned how to breath with her neck muscles and what little diaphragm she had left. She lived another 19 years and was a cub scout den mother, and sold car air conditioners by telephone, back when they weren't offered as OE. She managed to still be my mother, no thanks to polio.

When the polio vaccine first came out, my sisters and I were the first people in out town to have the vaccine. Nobody else in the town got polio ever again, including me.

I wish the vaccine was available earlier than it was.

KansasPerson 7 years, 5 months ago

Herynkmom (Sue Herynk) says… "How can anyone value an opinion if the person writing doesn't have enough courage to sign their own name? Remember our Declaration of Independence that gives us the freedoms we enjoy? No one signed it with a "password"!."

I'm not sure which logical fallacy this is -- I think PFC could help me out with that -- but many of the early founders of our country submitted anonymous screeds aplenty. The Federalist papers were published anonymously, as was Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" (originally), as were many letters and articles published in the colonial days. And I don't think these people were cowards.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

I think you get my drift and I've gotten under your skin. Parse history to pieces if you will. Here and going forward you and I, on a local level, need to dig in and be accountable on every possible level in order to effect positive change. Anyone can blow off steam hiding behind an alias. Who is willing to stand and state an opinion and put their name with it? Linda Weinmaster did. She had the courage to get a ball rolling. All the rest reply from a hiding place. Doesn't seem right. Remember, the law of the land has signatures behind it. It takes some spine to make change.

Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"Who is willing to stand and state an opinion and put their name with it? Linda Weinmaster did."

As I mentioned above (oddly enough, apparently the only challenge to your position that you failed to respond to), there is an anonymous LJW message board member that has been posting diatribes on the hazards of vaccines since November of 2005 (and nothing else), by the name of lweinmaster. Gee, I wonder what the odds are ...

mom_of_three 7 years, 5 months ago

I repeat, putting your name on a post does not make it more or less relevant than someone who likes to remain anonymous. And people who put their name on their postings are not any more or less obnoxious than those who do not.
Now, while some parents think the threat of autism worth not getting their kids vaccinated, I would rather my kids not catch some deadly disease. They all were vaccinated.
I had to get boosters to return to school. So I made the same choice for myself.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

In what possible way is the name lweinmaster anonymous? Why do you keep deflecting and dodging? Linda has the courage to write a letter to the editor and sign her name as other letter writers do. It is that simple. All these posts would be so much more effective and meaningful if they were made by people who had the courage to sign their names too.

Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

In light of today's LTE, there is obviously cause to suspect the identity of that person who, before today, has been posting to these message boards anonymously for five years. Then again, it could be Linda's brother Louis. It could be Luke Wilson Einmaster. It could be a sommelier named Linus with dyslexia. I don't know - and I don't CARE - because it's still just someone posting to a small-town newspaper's message board.

I'M the one 'deflecting'? Coming from the person throwing in Martin Luther King and how we all have to stand for something?

I notice you rather selectively respond to posts. The one you skipped this round was my 9:13 pm. I'll repeat: If an anonymous poster says 2+2=4 and someone that signs their name says 2+2=5, it does NOT make the the signed post any more credible.

Learn to think. Learn to analyze information, to verify things for yourself, to weigh the facts and the logic employed, and not just swallow something hook, line, and sinker because it came from someone that you think has more 'integrity' because they signed their frikkin' name.

Every advertisement put out by a political candidate includes some words to the effect of "My name is So-and-so, and I approve this message". For the love of god, Sue, does that make what was said more credible?

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

Calm down, whoever you are! The point that is hanging is simply this: Just because the LJW provides a platform for discussion that has very low requirements for participation, doesn't mean that the participants have to stoop down. Be upstanding, sign your name, have credibility, be real. Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Keep drinking the kool-aid, Susie-Q. Just keep being a sucker for every load of cr*pola that comes along with a signature attached. We wouldn't want you to strain yourself by actually having to think.

Herynkmom 7 years, 5 months ago

The hole you're digging is getting deeper!
Sue Herynk

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

And yet, dear Susie-Q, it would not appear many people on this thread find your posts credible - despite your noble efforts to identify yourself.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

And by the way, Sue - if that is really your name - the only thing it takes to become a 'verified' user of the LJW message boards is giving them a phone number that they can call (an unregistered cell phone or your roommate's phone will do) so you can say "Why, yes, my name really is Bartholomew Throckmorton". Real, real credibility established there.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

Why do you think that signing one's name would make the posts more "effective and meaningful".

Your posts seem no more so than many anonymous ones.

SnakeFist 7 years, 5 months ago

Tin foil hats cause autism. Sarah Palin said so.

I'd feel less vulnerable if you'd use your real name instead of an anonymous screenname.

Oh, and Cheetos cause OFS (Orange Finger Syndrome).

mom_of_three 7 years, 5 months ago

well, i guess we are talking about being anonymous as opposed to the subject, as if being anonymous keeps someone from having a meaningful opinion. so if anyone would like to discuss the subject

mr_right_wing 7 years, 5 months ago

Put this in the same file as abortion and same-sex marriage. It is not going to be resolved any time soon, if ever.

Very passionate points on each side. Plenty of flat-out lies and propaganda from both sides. (You read that right; from both sides.)

Please don't base your children's long-term health on a bunch of blow-hard bloggers, or even celebrities. Do some research and talk with doctors yourself.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 5 months ago

PBS did an excellent documentary on this subject called "The Vaccine War" and you can watch it online.

I just want to mention that much of this started with a study done by Andrew Wakefield that was published in 1998 in The Lancet.

As a result of that study, many researchers tried to reproduce his findings regarding a link between the MMR vaccine,autism and inflammatory bowl disease and were unable to do so.

Also, it was found later that some of the children he used in his reseach were recruited by a lawyer suing makers of the MMR vaccine, which is a conflict of interest and eventually determined an ethics violation.

Anyway, the study was retracted from The Lancet and Andrew Wakefield can no longer practice in the UK.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago


It's unfortunate that people have such a short attention span and inability to analyze that a discredited study still persuades them.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

They start with the conclusion and find evidence to support their preconceived notions, no matter how far flung, so they'll just move the goalposts. Not MMR? Must be mercury! Not mercury? Must be too many too soon. Meanwhile, babies are dying of whooping cough again.

Hoots 7 years, 5 months ago

The increase in autism is more likely due to women waiting much longer to have children today. Your risk factors for any number of birth defects increases dramatically as you age. Years ago we had many of the same vaccines but women were done bearing children in their 30's whereas now many are just starting to consider it after putting career first. The reality is that women’s eggs are repeatedly damaged by all kinds of natural and manmade background radiation over time. Stop trying to blame someone else and take credit for the fact that you rolled the dice by waiting 15 or 20 years too long to have a child and lost the healthy child craps game. This was taught in basic biology class in high school. It's no mystery people.

Hoots 7 years, 5 months ago

It's the difference between being unlucky and tempting fate in those two cases.

Hoots 7 years, 5 months ago

You miss the point completely. It's not to say it CAN'T happen at a young age but the longer you wait the greater chance statistics will catch up with you.. It's just a fact...that's all. Children get cancer but not at the rates seen in an aged population. There is always an exception to any rule but when it comes to young eggs vs. old eggs you are likely to have more than a few that have been damaged by environmental factors.

Caroline Bennett 7 years, 5 months ago

I strongly believe that many, many of the peer-reviewed articles in existence on the topic of autism have accounted for the mother's age at conception when examining the occurrence of autism in their children. To think that this has not been looked at with rigor is pretty silly.

BTW, there is a growing body of research that shows that the quality of men's sperm tends to decrease significantly with age as well.

It is inflammatory to suggest that women are bringing this upon their children by conceiving later in life.

snoozey 7 years, 5 months ago

There have been more than 20 years of international investigations looking for a correlation between autism and thimerosal containing vaccines. There are none. Sorry to intrude with facts but these flat world theories are tedious. It's small wonder we consistantly elect such idiots to congress if this is our common level of thought.

independant1 7 years, 5 months ago

This thread reminded me to get my (dual strain) flu shot.

lweinmaster 7 years, 5 months ago

Justice Roberts Sells Pfizer Shares Before Landmark Product Safety Case Many Americans are unaware that vaccinations, a medical product with known side effects that can include death, are exempt from the standard jury trial system of every other product sold in the country. Drugs that you swallow, rub onto your body, take via IV infustion or even suppository - if they injure you - you can sue the manufacturer. Not so with vaccines. You have to face a special court run by the same government that approves the vaccines, often profits from their patents, mandates their use for your children and perhaps your job and promotes them via the US Public Health System using your tax dollars. You don't get a jury of your peers, you get a judge who works for the government.

A landmark case, challenging the inability to sue a vaccine manufacturer directly, will be heard by the US Supreme Court this week.

Supreme Court Set to Hear Historic Vaccine Injury Compensation Case Chief Justice to Hear Case Sells Pfizer Shares

PRLog (Press Release) – Oct 09, 2010 – North Hollywood, CA — On Tuesday, October 12 the Supreme Court in an unprecedented move will be hearing Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc., now a unit of Pfizer. The hearing will determine whether Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 - which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers. The historic case appeals a lower court decision that upheld a manufacturer’s immunity for a defectively designed vaccine. The outcome of this case will render important implications as to whether persons harmed by vaccines can ever - under any circumstances, sue a pharmaceutical company. As the law stands now, a victim of vaccine injury must file in the Vaccine Court first, with a legal option to sue the manufacturer in some situations. It is this legal right that is in jeopardy and will be decided by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In a September 28, 2010, article The Wall Street Journal reported; Chief Justice Roberts Sells Pfizer Shares In another case, the court is preparing to hear oral arguments next month to decide whether a federal law on vaccine injuries shields vaccine makers from certain types of product-liability lawsuits. The case centers on a Pennsylvania lawsuit in which parents alleged that their 6-month-old daughter developed residual seizure disorder after receiving a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth, which is now a unit of Pfizer. When the court announced in March that it would hear the case, it indicated that Justice Roberts was not participating. However, a recent docket entry this month no longer indicates that Justice Roberts is sitting out. The Sept. 3 entry notes only that Justice Kagan is recused.


notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Gee, great. Thanks to nutjobs who don't care if their kids get sick or die, we'll all end up paying more to get ours vaccinated.

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

They're idiots if they think this will actually do them any monetary good. The burden of proof for vaccine injury court is much lower than it is in a regular civil trial, and they haven't had much luck there.

lweinmaster 7 years, 5 months ago

SANE Vax.org believes that any product marketing as life-saving should be just that. The manufacturers of products mandated for public health and well-being have responsibility to live up to the nature of their claim. Anything less is a crime against humanity. Either individually or collectively, it is important to write to urge the Supreme Court to uphold a citizen’s right as it currently exists to sue a pharmaceutical company for vaccine adverse reactions and to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible when they produce an unsafe vaccine product

According to a March 2010 Age of Autism article, The Supreme Court Takes Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: Is There Justice for Vaccine Injury Victims?, “…if the Supreme Court upholds Bruesewitz, it will basically achieve what the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association wanted in 1986 and since - that so-called vaccine court is the “exclusive remedy” for cases of vaccine injury. They seek this “exclusive remedy” although it is anything but - because vaccine court fails those whom vaccines injured. “The significance of the Bruesewitz case relates to all vaccine injury - it goes to the heart of whether Vaccine Court is fulfilling the role Congress set for it, and whether it is possible to challenge the design safety of a vaccine in any court in the United States. For the autism community, the case could not be more central - it will determine whether the 5,000 petitioners in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding can continue their claims in state and federal courts if Vaccine Court ultimately dismisses their claims.” According to the New England Journal of Medicine- Vaccine manufacturers have paid out $2B in damages from MMR & DPT vaccines. As of 2007, 7000 more claims were going through the pipeline. 2,000 families have received compensation payments averaging $850,000 each. Approximately 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To win an award, the claimant must prove a causal link to a vaccine. As the medical establishment has refused to recognize any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright. (Source: New England Journal of Medicine)Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9)

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"As the medical establishment has refused to recognize any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright."

That would be because there isn't one.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 5 months ago

I started school in the fall of 1962. Prior to starting school, i had to receive all vaccines that were required at the time. My mother had this done at the local health department. Due to time limitations, I received multiple vaccines, in both arms, on the same day, and more than once. I don't think this was particularly safe, as the last day I had multiple vaccines done, I was seriously ill, with a temp of 104. I was ill for several days, and then I recovered. The health department assured my mother that this was not because of the vaccines. How could they possibly have known that? I was perfectly healthy when I went in for the vaccines. .

I didn't have to be vaccinated for measles. I had them. Yes, very uncomfortable, and potentially dangerous. Didn't have to be vaccinated against mumps. I had them. They had no vaccine in those days for chicken pox, so I had them, too. I potentially have the risk of developing shingles, but nothing so far.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with vaccines, but I , too, wonder why so damned many of them are required now? Is it all really necessary? My daughter had the measles vaccine, also something that wasn't available when I was a child. guess what? She just turned out to be in the group of kids that had had the measles vaccine already and yet were still getting them. No, she didn't get them. They recommended a booster shot instead, which she got. No measles. But they never really explained why the kids that had already had the vaccine were getting measles anyway.

I had all those vaccines as a child, and now I find out that booster shots are recommended for a lot of them. Nobody ever said anything about booster shots at the time, and for years and years afterward. So, am I really vaccinated against smallpox or not? How truly protected from disease are the people from my generation? Or my daughter's? In a few years, are they suddenly going to decide that the initial measles vaccine and the booster still aren't enough, and she'll need a second booster?

I, too, would like to see a study done comparing people who have been vaccinated and those that have not. And while I believe that most vaccines are probably safe, I always wondered why they made me sign that paper at the health dept. when I took my daughter...you know, the one saying that they weren't responsible for any possible side effects of the vaccines, including death....because, of course, that is a possibility, even if for only a minute number of people...

I don't understand the use of mercury in vaccines though...this is a substance that you're supposed to have cleaned by hazmat if it spills...and I can't understand why they think it's safe to inject it into people...

geekyhost 7 years, 5 months ago

I washed my car. It rained. How could I be assured that my car washing did not cause the rain?

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"How could they possibly have known that? I was perfectly healthy when I went in for the vaccines."

How could YOU possibly know THAT? If you had picked up an infection that caused the fever, it had likely been days prior to getting the shots.

"I , too, wonder why so damned many of them are required now?"

So some day one of your children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren isn't posting a similar message detailing all the childhood diseases they didn't have to be vaccinated for because they'd already had it. And wondering when their own delayed shingles-like symptoms are going to surface.

"I, too, would like to see a study done comparing people who have been vaccinated and those that have not."

With the slight problem that, sadly, many of those who were not vaccinated can no longer participate in such a study.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 5 months ago

Oh, for heaven's sake...I was never vaccinated against measles...I had them as a child, and I'm still alive...was never vaccinated against mumps or chicken pox either...had them both as a child, and I'm still alive...I had a friend in school that had had polio...and she is still very much alive and able to walk, too...

And they vaccinate against all of those things now...

Pretty asinine to insinuate that just because someone wasn't vaccinated that they died...lol

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

"How could YOU possibly know THAT? "

If people cleaned up their lives and cleaned up their neighborhoods at the same time the witch's charms were introduced, how do YOU possibly know THAT vaccines resulted in less disease?

Where's your peer reviewed research supporting that vaccines prevent disease? Don't you think that's a little not how science works if you want me to present a peer reviewed study showing that there are no peer reviewed studies?

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"Where's your peer reviewed research supporting that vaccines prevent disease?"

Well, this took about three seconds:


I'm sure I could find about a billion more, but you wouldn't believe them anyway. Or you could go to a library and look at any of the peer-reviewed journals on immunology or infectious diseases. Or you can keep burning incense and tossing chicken bones or whatever it is witch doctors do. Just stop trying to get everyone else killed because of your conspiracy theory and superstitions.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

Thank you for linking to the article regarding vaccine effectiveness against Salmonella bacteria in the slums of a developing country.

You must be a special person as no one else has come close to presenting such a good research article on a vaccine study compared to others. If this is the best article out there, one should have some deep concerns. A critical thinker should bare some things in mind. First to consider is who has sponsored the research for any potential conflicts of interest. The International Vaccine Institute coordinated the study, and GlaxoSmithKline donated the vaccines. Some of the researchers were employees, received grants, or otherwise had financial interests. But who else would you expect to sponsor such a study? The letter writer nor I would be able to. Just like the walnut growers association sponsored research showing that walnuts are beneficial to health. That does not mean that almonds or pecans don't provide the same benefits, just that the walnut growers wanted to show that walnuts do and had no interest in other nuts.

Even if someone has vested interest, doesn't mean the facts don't stand. "Facts don't lie". However, one should expect to be on guard for such phrases such as, "probably", "possible", "unlikely", etc. Also, one should consider the experiment design such as in the walnut case, did they look at other nuts? It's the conclusions from the facts (or from adequate facts) one has to be careful of. Just something a critical thinker should keep in mind.

As I understand the paper, the study involve two treatments, Vi vaccine against typhoid and hepatitis A vaccine which they called as a control. Since what most people have concern about here is not the intent of the vaccine but what's in it, this paper would not answer their concerns. That is, does a mixture of toxic drugs "A" or a mixture of toxic drugs "B" result in less problems. I'm sure the researchers thought if we are going to be giving them an injection, we just as well give them something that is assumed to benefit them. But why not a real control? They show more typhoid fevers in the hepatitus A group and "conclude" protection. Or, did the hepatitus A vaccine cause them to be more susceptable? Too bad they didn't have a control group.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

They did make a comparison to the rest of the residents and blindly "conclude" herd protection. Couldn't another reasonable conclusion be that the vaccines did no good? Or is it they simply must do good, an assumed premise? With an assumed premise, they therefore can say their design limitations limited herd immunity and therefore their estimates were conservative. Herd immunity is herd mentality, not science. Without a control, assumptions can run wild.

What does a 95% confidence interval between 1 and 70 mean to you? It appears to me that the standard deviations vary largely.

They show that 7% of those vaccinated died - 18 within 30 days. What about those not vaccinated? Unfortunately, without a control it's hard to determine. They "conclude" it wasn't related.

It says that "Moreover, the Vi vaccine conferred no protection against paratyphoid fever" which is a Serotype that is resistant to treatment drugs. This brings up the refuge area to prevent resistance. Is it that it offers no protection because of over vaccination? Interesting that they show a NEGATIVE protection against paratyphoid but "conclude" their data provides "little" support for it.

The question I had, do vaccines work. 80%, 56%, and 46% does not give me much confidence. Maybe you can say they kind of work. But it sounds more like art than science. Wouldn't one expect somewhere near 98% if they really "worked"?

By the way, does anyone find it odd that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a supporter of the research also supports abortion not only here but in third world countries? Are saving kids and killing kids compatible? Maybe he's disillusioned. How would vaccines reduce population the growth rate if vaccines are supposed to save lives? Better health means lower birth rate - a "conclusion"? Or is it by pretending to do good on limited "popular" things, you cause a "brain drain", a distraction or diversion, from those who could be helped and therefore suffer and die?

Warren Buffett is donating part of his wealth to the foundation. Wikipedia attributed a quote from Buffett, "I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty." Isn't that nice, if true? Lot's of other "nice" quotes, too. Ok, let's say you have someone who thinks there's way too many people in the world, if not too many of the wrong color, supports aborting children, attracts donations from others of...well, reports of population control meetings with Rockefeller and Turner, and supports the vaccine industry with a $4.5 Billion "unprecedented" commitment. Hmmm..... Is this a case of "facts don't lie", or is it merely a conclusion?

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

Dentists tell us that mercury fillings are completely safe, that the mercury is "locked up" and won't release vapors in our mouths.

Could someone tell me why the EPA is would be worried if these fillings with their "locked up" mercury are flushed down the drain?



Yes, one place does say that microorganisms cause this "locked up" mercury to be released. Don't we have microorganisms besides many chemical processes going on in our mouths?

Here's a side article about Dentists and mercury: http://www.mercury-free.com/Mercury-Free/2.htm

I mean, aren't doctors experts?.... Ask any tribesman.

Or, ask why many doctors and nurses aren't choosing to go under the needle. Maybe they ARE experts and it's others promoting such things who are being dishonest. There was a news article about nurses being fired for not being vaccinated last year.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

"Could someone tell me why the EPA is would be worried if these fillings with their "locked up" mercury are flushed down the drain?"

Uh - 'cause it's not locked up any more? Duh.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

duh nota, the point I was making is it is not permanently locked up. It can be released. In your mouth.

notajayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

duh, gr, the point I was making is you have not presented any evidence that it actually has been. It's like saying spent nuclear fuel rods are harmful to the environment if they get out of their concrete containers, without showing that any such thing ever has or even could happen.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

nota, Dentists say it's locked up. EPA says it's no longer locked up. You say it's no longer locked up.

OK. You got me. I freely admit, that I have absolutely no evidence that mercury can be permanently locked up.

Happy? Does this mean we should be putting mercury, of which there is no evidence that it can be permanently locked up, into our mouths or injected into our bodies?

independant1 7 years, 5 months ago

Pfizer has received FDA approval for new cancer fighting drugs within the last 12 months.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.