|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > August 2006 > Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection Cases
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection Cases
|
|
| Jan Drew 2006-07-31, 9:25 pm |
| http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/med...d=47834&nfid=nl
Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection Cases
Doctors are increasingly unlikely to testify in child abuse cases because of
high-profile cases in recent years, according to an editorial in this week's
BMJ.
The reluctance of doctors to speak up in such cases has been caused by
adverse publicity and the consequences of the cases involving Professors Roy
Meadow and David Southall, according to an editorial in the journal.
Roy Meadow was struck off by the GMC in July 2005 for giving flawed
statistical evidence in a trial, but was reinstated in February by the High
Court. David Southall was found guilty of serious professional misconduct
and banned from child protection work for three years after reporting his
suspicions of abuse in the same case.
The editorial is written by David Chadwick, a retired child abuse
paediatrician from the USA, who has provided expert testimony in many cases.
Dr Chadwick says in his editorial: "In the United Kingdom, the risks of
testifying that a child has been abused have become formidable and many
doctors are reluctant to testify.
"Yet each case of suspected abuse is unique and the applicability of the
evidence base will always differ from case to case. This makes the testimony
of doctors who specialise in the study of child abuse particularly valuable
and important. Without such testimony from expert witnesses children may be
unprotected from abuse."
Dr Chadwick was writing an editorial to accompany an analysis piece in the
journal by freelance journalist Jonathan Gornall.
Mr Gornall's report raises concerns that a recent handbook called Child
Protection Companion produced by the Royal college of Paediatrics and Child
Health omits any direct references to original research done by Professors
Meadow and Southall, although the college denies references were
deliberately omitted.
"Paediatricians, already feeling beleaguered thanks to a concerted public
and media campaign against individual doctors, will be dismayed that Roy
Meadow and David Southall seem to have been written out of the medical
history book by their own college," writes Mr Gornall.
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2006-08-01, 8:29 am |
| "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/med...d=47834&nfid=nl
>
>Doctors Reluctant To Testify In Child Protection Cases
>
>Doctors are increasingly unlikely to testify in child abuse cases because of
>high-profile cases in recent years, according to an editorial in this week's
>BMJ.
>
>The reluctance of doctors to speak up in such cases has been caused by
>adverse publicity and the consequences of the cases involving Professors Roy
>Meadow and David Southall, according to an editorial in the journal.
If a doctor speaks the truth and is pilloried for it because of, eg,
someone's agenda which denies any possibility of child abuse and
instead blames the damage on vaccines, I can see why other doctors
might back off in the future. It's called "chilling effect" in the
legal world.
>Roy Meadow was struck off by the GMC in July 2005 for giving flawed
>statistical evidence in a trial,
A piece of news which was trumpeted from the rooftops by the
anti-vaccination liars, because Dr Meadow had given evidence against
people who had tried to blame vaccines for the damage the parents had
done to their children.
> but was reinstated in February by the High
>Court.
A piece of news which has been totally ignored by the anti-vaccination
liars, who even to this day will tell you that Dr Meadow was struck
off.
>David Southall was found guilty of serious professional misconduct
>and banned from child protection work for three years after reporting his
>suspicions of abuse in the same case.
>
>The editorial is written by David Chadwick, a retired child abuse
>paediatrician from the USA, who has provided expert testimony in many cases.
>
>Dr Chadwick says in his editorial: "In the United Kingdom, the risks of
>testifying that a child has been abused have become formidable and many
>doctors are reluctant to testify.
>
>"Yet each case of suspected abuse is unique and the applicability of the
>evidence base will always differ from case to case. This makes the testimony
>of doctors who specialise in the study of child abuse particularly valuable
>and important. Without such testimony from expert witnesses children may be
>unprotected from abuse."
>
>Dr Chadwick was writing an editorial to accompany an analysis piece in the
>journal by freelance journalist Jonathan Gornall.
>
>Mr Gornall's report raises concerns that a recent handbook called Child
>Protection Companion produced by the Royal college of Paediatrics and Child
>Health omits any direct references to original research done by Professors
>Meadow and Southall, although the college denies references were
>deliberately omitted.
>
>"Paediatricians, already feeling beleaguered thanks to a concerted public
>and media campaign against individual doctors, will be dismayed that Roy
>Meadow and David Southall seem to have been written out of the medical
>history book by their own college," writes Mr Gornall.
>
>
Thanks for posting this Jan. It reveals one of the unintended
consequences of anti-vaccination lying. If doctors can be scared away
from reporting abuse then abuse can flourish and someone or something
other than the abuser can be blamed.
Did I say "unintended consequences"? I'm sorry, I was speaking as a
rational person. I see no need to really assume that the
anti-vaccination liars were not very well aware of the possible
consequences of their attacks on doctors.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
| Jan Drew 2006-08-01, 4:40 pm |
|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
vaccines anti-vaccination liars, anti-vaccination liars, anti-vaccination
lying
anti-vaccination liars
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Greegor 2006-08-01, 9:26 pm |
| Peter Bowditch wrote:
> Thanks for posting this Jan. It reveals one of the unintended
> consequences of anti-vaccination lying. If doctors can be scared away
> from reporting abuse then abuse can flourish and someone or
> something other than the abuser can be blamed.
Meadows was caught TELLING LIES IN COURT
by the Royal Statistical Society after he presented
fictional ""statistics"" about CRIB DEATH as evidence in court.
Why are you blaming what happenned to MEADOWS onto
the anti-vaccination people? Clearly the anti-vaccination
people didn't make the doctor TELL LIES in court.
Did the anti-vaccination people have any connection to
the Royal Statistical Society catching those lies or reporting them?
> Did I say "unintended consequences"? I'm sorry, I was speaking as a
> rational person. I see no need to really assume that the
> anti-vaccination liars were not very well aware of the possible
> consequences of their attacks on doctors.
If catching one QUACK doctor giving PERJUROUS
false testimony in court has scared other doctors
away from court, that doesn't say much about the
scientific basis of the OTHER doctors now, does it?
When people TELL LIES in court testimony that
destroys families or sends somebody to prison,
that person should be punished SEVERELY.
Currently in the US there is an ongoing practice that when people
working IN THE SYSTEM are caught at PERJURY, the prosecutor
will NOT criminally charge them because they are ALLIES.
Call it "professional courtesy" or "prosecutorial descretion" but
the effect on citizens is a gross violation of citizens rights.
WHY should a doctor, bureaucrat or ANYBODY be allowed to
present sloppy or deliberately false information in court
TESTIMONY without facing SEVERE consequences?
| |
|
| Greegor wrote:
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
> Meadows was caught TELLING LIES IN COURT
> by the Royal Statistical Society after he presented
> fictional ""statistics"" about CRIB DEATH as evidence in court.
>
> Why are you blaming what happenned to MEADOWS onto
> the anti-vaccination people? Clearly the anti-vaccination
> people didn't make the doctor TELL LIES in court.
It's called argument by comparison, Greg. Analogy, is another name for
it. And oddly, these newsgroups are overrun with people that as soon as
it's offered, jump on it as the central argument instead of the scenario
offered for comparison to show the effects of the central argument in
higher relief.
> Did the anti-vaccination people have any connection to
> the Royal Statistical Society catching those lies or reporting them?
Nope. Separate issue, but related to the squelching of expert testimony
when it's badly needed.
>
> If catching one QUACK doctor giving PERJUROUS
> false testimony in court has scared other doctors
> away from court, that doesn't say much about the
> scientific basis of the OTHER doctors now, does it?
Bingo!
And because it's not about scientific basis, but about fear of being
pilloried. Right or wrong.
Much of testimony is opinion. Or the best knowledge the witness if able
to collect and remember on the stand. Mistakes are always possible.
No, Greg it isn't about the quality of their science but others lack of
understanding of it. And fear.
> When people TELL LIES in court testimony that
> destroys families or sends somebody to prison,
> that person should be punished SEVERELY.
If they told intentional lies you'd have an argument. That's not what
makes doctors afraid to testify. They aren't worried they are going to
tell a lie and get caught.
> Currently in the US there is an ongoing practice that when people
> working IN THE SYSTEM are caught at PERJURY, the prosecutor
> will NOT criminally charge them because they are ALLIES.
You and the anti government, anti CPS crowd made this up. Not such
condition is commonly found.
> Call it "professional courtesy" or "prosecutorial descretion" but
> the effect on citizens is a gross violation of citizens rights.
>
> WHY should a doctor, bureaucrat or ANYBODY be allowed to
> present sloppy or deliberately false information in court
> TESTIMONY without facing SEVERE consequences?
They aren't. The concern is that even a simple mistake, and a climate of
"kill the messenger" and "down with government" tends to put them in the
sights of others who will pull the trigger.
You and so many more like you pounce on mistakes both by second hand
knowledge being incorrect, or by simply human error as deliberate lies.
Yet you, when caught in deliberate LIES pretend you don't see them, and
go into your weasel dance.
Goose, gander, Greg.
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| Jan Drew 2006-08-01, 9:26 pm |
| FACT: Peter is obsessed.
FACT: diverting is his expertise.
Along with the other *gang* members.
vaccines anti-vaccination liars, anti-vaccination liars, anti-vaccination
lying
anti-vaccination liars
"Greegor" <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154469028.961648.201590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
> Meadows was caught TELLING LIES IN COURT
> by the Royal Statistical Society after he presented
> fictional ""statistics"" about CRIB DEATH as evidence in court.
>
> Why are you blaming what happenned to MEADOWS onto
> the anti-vaccination people? Clearly the anti-vaccination
> people didn't make the doctor TELL LIES in court.
> Did the anti-vaccination people have any connection to
> the Royal Statistical Society catching those lies or reporting them?
>
>
> If catching one QUACK doctor giving PERJUROUS
> false testimony in court has scared other doctors
> away from court, that doesn't say much about the
> scientific basis of the OTHER doctors now, does it?
>
> When people TELL LIES in court testimony that
> destroys families or sends somebody to prison,
> that person should be punished SEVERELY.
>
> Currently in the US there is an ongoing practice that when people
> working IN THE SYSTEM are caught at PERJURY, the prosecutor
> will NOT criminally charge them because they are ALLIES.
> Call it "professional courtesy" or "prosecutorial descretion" but
> the effect on citizens is a gross violation of citizens rights.
>
> WHY should a doctor, bureaucrat or ANYBODY be allowed to
> present sloppy or deliberately false information in court
> TESTIMONY without facing SEVERE consequences?
>
| |
| Greegor 2006-08-02, 9:27 pm |
| What confuses me is that this ratbag stuff
was supposedly to stop quacks but more
and more they seem to be defending quacks.
I am not anti-vaccine, although I do have some
concerns with the "steam roller" like mechanism
where they are forced onto parents/children backed
up by the threat of Child Protection intervention.
Thimerisol, a Mercury compound used as a preservative
is being banned more and more, but nobody can
confirm that it has been eliminated from all vaccines.
I suspect the reason that vaccines become a focus
of great distrust and suspicion is because of the
deliberate lack of informed consent that was and is
allowed to citizens. Was anybody warned when they
decided to INCLUDE Thimerisol in the first place?
Why was it put INTO the vaccines serruptitiously?
Polio vaccines only a few years ago were
actually CAUSING more polio than preventing it.
This was forced on parents/children until the
type of vaccine for that had to be changed.
How do the QUACKBUSTERS handle it when
the accepted medical profession itself is
caught at some form of QUACKERY?
Do these ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types
have a means of deciding which side to attack
when there is equally contradictory information
on both sides of an issue? How do they handle
an issue when there is evidence of quackery on
BOTH sides?
Do they have a policy that prevents them
from becoming lobbyists for a commercial
medical interest?
| |
| Skeptic 2006-08-02, 9:27 pm |
| I don't think anyone here has ever said vaccines are completely free of any
risk. Their being mandated, however, is an issue of national concern and
therefore can not be left up to individual decisions. The risks of vaccines
are absurdly low, and as such, it would be a thorough waste of time to
discuss them in any great detail.
"Greegor" <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154563007.882385.295150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What confuses me is that this ratbag stuff
> was supposedly to stop quacks but more
> and more they seem to be defending quacks.
>
> I am not anti-vaccine, although I do have some
> concerns with the "steam roller" like mechanism
> where they are forced onto parents/children backed
> up by the threat of Child Protection intervention.
>
> Thimerisol, a Mercury compound used as a preservative
> is being banned more and more, but nobody can
> confirm that it has been eliminated from all vaccines.
>
> I suspect the reason that vaccines become a focus
> of great distrust and suspicion is because of the
> deliberate lack of informed consent that was and is
> allowed to citizens. Was anybody warned when they
> decided to INCLUDE Thimerisol in the first place?
> Why was it put INTO the vaccines serruptitiously?
>
> Polio vaccines only a few years ago were
> actually CAUSING more polio than preventing it.
> This was forced on parents/children until the
> type of vaccine for that had to be changed.
>
> How do the QUACKBUSTERS handle it when
> the accepted medical profession itself is
> caught at some form of QUACKERY?
>
> Do these ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types
> have a means of deciding which side to attack
> when there is equally contradictory information
> on both sides of an issue? How do they handle
> an issue when there is evidence of quackery on
> BOTH sides?
>
> Do they have a policy that prevents them
> from becoming lobbyists for a commercial
> medical interest?
>
| |
| David Wright 2006-08-02, 9:27 pm |
| In article <1154563007.882385.295150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Greegor <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What confuses me is that this ratbag stuff
>was supposedly to stop quacks but more
>and more they seem to be defending quacks.
>
>I am not anti-vaccine,
Sure. Obvious, based on your vast knowledge of the subject.
>although I do have some
>concerns with the "steam roller" like mechanism
>where they are forced onto parents/children backed
>up by the threat of Child Protection intervention.
>
>Thimerisol, a Mercury compound used as a preservative
>is being banned more and more, but nobody can
>confirm that it has been eliminated from all vaccines.
It hasn't been. But it has been eliminated from all of the common
childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. See:
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
>I suspect the reason that vaccines become a focus
>of great distrust and suspicion is because of the
>deliberate lack of informed consent that was and is
>allowed to citizens. Was anybody warned when they
>decided to INCLUDE Thimerisol in the first place?
>Why was it put INTO the vaccines serruptitiously?
The word is "surreptitiously" and it wasn't. It was put in
starting decades ago to prevent bacteria from growing in the
vaccines. It was never a secret. If you didn't know about
it, that's your fault.
>Polio vaccines only a few years ago were
>actually CAUSING more polio than preventing it.
No it wasn't -- because without the vaccine, there were tens of
thousands of cases every year. However, the oral polio vaccine *was*
causing a handful of cases every year, and so it has now been phased
out and replaced with the older injected vaccine.
>This was forced on parents/children until the
>type of vaccine for that had to be changed.
It was never "forced." The injectable vaccine was still around, but
the oral vaccine was preferred because it's a lot less hassle to get a
kid to eat a sugar cube than to get him/her to hold still for a
needle.
>How do the QUACKBUSTERS handle it when
>the accepted medical profession itself is
>caught at some form of QUACKERY?
You haven't provided any examples yet. If an existing procedure or
drug turns out to be harmful, then it's withdrawn. But it wasn't
quackery before that, because there was no intentional fraud.
>Do these ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types
>have a means of deciding which side to attack
>when there is equally contradictory information
>on both sides of an issue?
I've yet to see such an issue.
>How do they handle an issue when there is evidence of quackery on
>BOTH sides?
If you have an example, people here can tell you how the discussion
has gone down in the past.
>Do they have a policy that prevents them
>from becoming lobbyists for a commercial
>medical interest?
There's nothing to say that anyone (including you) isn't a paid shill
for someone out there. How could you possibly prove anything?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
| |
| Greegor 2006-08-03, 2:26 am |
| Skeptic wrote:
> I don't think anyone here has ever said vaccines are completely free of any
> risk. Their being mandated, however, is an issue of national concern and
> therefore can not be left up to individual decisions. The risks of vaccines
> are absurdly low, and as such, it would be a thorough waste of time to
> discuss them in any great detail.
Were the risks absurdly low and a waste of time to discuss
when the Polio rate became so tiny in the US that the
"sugar cube" vaccine was actually causing Polio
more than preventing it, and the medical establishment
had to switch back to the old injectable one?
Didn't FORCING them under threat of agency intervention
become particularly questionable JUST BEFORE that
changeover?
(It takes time for stats to be collected and acted upon,
which creates a window wherein the WRONG vaccine
was enforced.)
The US government used to have a huge FUND intended to
pay out to people who were injured by vaccines.
Didn't that fund get eliminated?
David Wright wrote:
> It hasn't been. But it has been eliminated from all of the common
> childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. See:
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
Thanks David!
>
> The word is "surreptitiously" and it wasn't. It was put in
> starting decades ago to prevent bacteria from growing in the
> vaccines. It was never a secret. If you didn't know about
> it, that's your fault.
OK, just like "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" even
though most lawyers can't possibly know everything
about every legal specialty and the code is HUGE.
I get it.
>
> No it wasn't -- because without the vaccine, there were tens of
> thousands of cases every year.
Granted, until it was wiped out in the US and several other countries.
> However, the oral polio vaccine *was* causing a
> handful of cases every year, and so it has now been
> phased out and replaced with the older injected vaccine.
WHEN the wheels of bureaucracy finally realized
what was happenning and reacted.
During that "window" of delay the government
was technically enforcing the wrong vaccine.
>
> It was never "forced." The injectable vaccine was still around, but
> the oral vaccine was preferred because it's a lot less hassle to get a
> kid to eat a sugar cube than to get him/her to hold still for a
> needle.
One or the other would have been forced, under
threat of child removal by Child Protective Services.
Refusal of a vaccine that at that time was almost
useless would not have been allowed.
Citizens are not allowed to second guess the
medical establishment and government even
in this "window of reaction" where the official
course of action was really wrong.
That "window of reaction" is frightening and intriguing.
>
> You haven't provided any examples yet. If an existing procedure or
> drug turns out to be harmful, then it's withdrawn. But it wasn't
> quackery before that, because there was no intentional fraud.
>
> I've yet to see such an issue.
There are ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types who
seem to be lobbying for renewed approval of
liquid silicone breast implants, for example.
The Medical establishment OK'd them until
things went drastically wrong, and NOW the
quackbusters seem to be in favor of their
reintroduction.
> evidence of quackery on BOTH sides?
>
> If you have an example, people here can tell
> you how the discussion has gone down in the past.
Yes, by all means, please DO explain
the lobbying IN FAVOR of Silicone breast
implants by the ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types.
>
> There's nothing to say that anyone (including you)
> isn't a paid shill for someone out there.
I agree, with some limitations.
> How could you possibly prove anything?
Lack of proof is often by design on the internet
and a tool for large amounts of abuse.
But shills also commonly give themselves
away by their very claims, assertions and
claims of ""expertise""!
My favorite is the anonymous person who
claims psychological expertise and then proceeds
to abuse psychology as a debate tool or personal
attack, which would of course be grounds for
any supposed credentials to BE REMOVED.
| |
|
| Greegor wrote:
> Skeptic wrote:
>
> Were the risks absurdly low and a waste of time to discuss
> when the Polio rate became so tiny in the US that the
> "sugar cube" vaccine was actually causing Polio
> more than preventing it,
Yet ANOTHER ranting on a yet another subject you jus revealed you know
shit about, Greg?
> and the medical establishment
> had to switch back to the old injectable one?
Look it up.
> Didn't FORCING them under threat of agency intervention
> become particularly questionable JUST BEFORE that
> changeover?
> (It takes time for stats to be collected and acted upon,
> which creates a window wherein the WRONG vaccine
> was enforced.)
>
> The US government used to have a huge FUND intended to
> pay out to people who were injured by vaccines.
> Didn't that fund get eliminated?
>
> David Wright wrote:
> http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
>
> Thanks David!
>
>
> OK, just like "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" even
> though most lawyers can't possibly know everything
> about every legal specialty and the code is HUGE.
> I get it.
>
>
> Granted, until it was wiped out in the US and several other countries.
>
>
> WHEN the wheels of bureaucracy finally realized
> what was happenning and reacted.
> During that "window" of delay the government
> was technically enforcing the wrong vaccine.
>
>
> One or the other would have been forced, under
> threat of child removal by Child Protective Services.
>
> Refusal of a vaccine that at that time was almost
> useless would not have been allowed.
>
> Citizens are not allowed to second guess the
> medical establishment and government even
> in this "window of reaction" where the official
> course of action was really wrong.
>
> That "window of reaction" is frightening and intriguing.
>
>
>
> There are ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types who
> seem to be lobbying for renewed approval of
> liquid silicone breast implants, for example.
>
> The Medical establishment OK'd them until
> things went drastically wrong, and NOW the
> quackbusters seem to be in favor of their
> reintroduction.
>
>
> Yes, by all means, please DO explain
> the lobbying IN FAVOR of Silicone breast
> implants by the ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types.
>
>
> I agree, with some limitations.
>
>
> Lack of proof is often by design on the internet
> and a tool for large amounts of abuse.
>
> But shills also commonly give themselves
> away by their very claims, assertions and
> claims of ""expertise""!
>
> My favorite is the anonymous person who
> claims psychological expertise and then proceeds
> to abuse psychology as a debate tool or personal
> attack, which would of course be grounds for
> any supposed credentials to BE REMOVED.
Bullshit. So a plumber will get his permits removed if he makes fun of
your cobbled together faulty and dangerous plumbing?
You, just like Fern did, are getting wackier with each passing day and
spiraling down into babbling absurdity.
0:->
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| David Wright 2006-08-05, 2:27 am |
| In article <1154589934.334045.251600@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Greegor <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Skeptic wrote:
>
>Were the risks absurdly low and a waste of time to discuss
>when the Polio rate became so tiny in the US that the
>"sugar cube" vaccine was actually causing Polio
>more than preventing it, and the medical establishment
>had to switch back to the old injectable one?
It wasn't "causing polio more than preventing it." You
are not thinking this through. It was still preventing
polio. But given that the population is mostly vaccinated
now, it wasn't worth even the tiny risk of polio, hence the
switch back to injectable. The oral vaccine's ability to
spread even to the unvaccinated is a real advantage in
populations that are significantly unvaccinated.
>Didn't FORCING them under threat of agency intervention
>become particularly questionable JUST BEFORE that
>changeover?
It's virtually always possible to get an exemption.
>(It takes time for stats to be collected and acted upon,
>which creates a window wherein the WRONG vaccine
>was enforced.)
Do you know of any facet of human existence that is 100%
risk-free and never makes a mistake?
>The US government used to have a huge FUND intended to
>pay out to people who were injured by vaccines.
>Didn't that fund get eliminated?
No. Where DO you get these ideas?
>David Wright wrote:
>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
>
>Thanks David!
You're welcome.
>
>OK, just like "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" even
>though most lawyers can't possibly know everything
>about every legal specialty and the code is HUGE.
>I get it.
No, you don't. In any event, the body clears thimerosal
extremely rapidly. It's not a significant hazard. Someone
once tried to commit suicide with thimerosal. Didn't work.
>
>Granted, until it was wiped out in the US and several other countries.
Again, you are not thinking this through. There is no wild
polio in the Western Hemisphere, but there *is* in other places,
notably south Asia and in Africa, and it's just a plane ride
away.
>
>WHEN the wheels of bureaucracy finally realized
>what was happenning and reacted.
>During that "window" of delay the government
>was technically enforcing the wrong vaccine.
These things happen.
>
>One or the other would have been forced, under
>threat of child removal by Child Protective Services.
Vastly overstated. I don't doubt that such threats have been
made, but they are not everyday occurrences.
>Refusal of a vaccine that at that time was almost
>useless would not have been allowed.
Polio vaccine is not "almost useless."
>
>
>There are ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types who
>seem to be lobbying for renewed approval of
>liquid silicone breast implants, for example.
Bullshit. Name a couple of people on m.h.a who have lobbied
for that.
>The Medical establishment OK'd them until
>things went drastically wrong, and NOW the
>quackbusters seem to be in favor of their
>reintroduction.
No, the *manufacturers* are in favor of that. I personally
am not. The failure rates of breast implants are a scandal
and until that changes, silicone implants should not be
allowed back on the market.
>
>Yes, by all means, please DO explain
>the lobbying IN FAVOR of Silicone breast
>implants by the ratbag/ragtag/quackbuster types.
I can't explain an event that never occurred.
>
>I agree, with some limitations.
>
>
>Lack of proof is often by design on the internet
>and a tool for large amounts of abuse.
>
>But shills also commonly give themselves
>away by their very claims, assertions and
>claims of ""expertise""!
>
>My favorite is the anonymous person who
>claims psychological expertise and then proceeds
>to abuse psychology as a debate tool or personal
>attack, which would of course be grounds for
>any supposed credentials to BE REMOVED.
You're contradicting yourself.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
| |
| Greegor 2006-08-13, 9:25 pm |
| David Wright wrote:
> It's virtually always possible to get an exemption.
Please explain the procedure for that!
Greg wrote
David Wright wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do you know of any facet of human existence that is 100%
> risk-free and never makes a mistake?
Nope. But many professions PRETEND at their own perfection.
Greg wrote
>The US government used to have a huge FUND intended to
>pay out to people who were injured by vaccines.
>Didn't that fund get eliminated?
David Wright wrote:
> No. Where DO you get these ideas?
>
> You're welcome.
>
>
> No, you don't. In any event, the body clears thimerosal
> extremely rapidly. It's not a significant hazard. Someone
> once tried to commit suicide with thimerosal. Didn't work.
>
>
> Again, you are not thinking this through. There is no wild
> polio in the Western Hemisphere, but there *is* in other places,
> notably south Asia and in Africa, and it's just a plane ride
> away.
Yep. Huum Hindi Bolnay Saktha!
Greg wrote
> WHEN the wheels of bureaucracy finally realized
> what was happenning and reacted.
> During that "window" of delay the government
> was technically enforcing the wrong vaccine.
David Wright wrote:
> These things happen.
Yep.
Greg wrote
David Wright wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Vastly overstated. I don't doubt that such threats have been
> made, but they are not everyday occurrences.
Perhaps you should ask the Home School Legal Defense Association?
Or just about any Parents Rights group fighting CPS..
When it happens TO YOU the accusation
of "medical neglect" certainly seems OVERSTATED!
>
> Polio vaccine is not "almost useless."
>
>
> Bullshit. Name a couple of people on m.h.a who have lobbied
> for that.
David Wright wrote:
> No, the *manufacturers* are in favor of that. I personally
> am not. The failure rates of breast implants are a scandal
> and until that changes, silicone implants should not be
> allowed back on the market.
Yep.
|
| |
|
|