[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Most people that ask for my advice do so because they have confidence in my research abilities and judgement. And, I don't give unsolicited advice.

It is great that people trust your advice, but what I have learned is that people aren't always looking for advice; they are looking for support. And that begs the question: What would you do if you advised someone to get his child vaccinated according to the new schedule, but instead of being helped, the baby got a violent reaction immediately following the shot? How would you feel? Would you say that your recommendation, although well-meaning, was not appropriate? Would you try to justify the advice you gave by convincing yourself that it was accurate and that the shot had nothing to do with the child's sudden onset of debilitating symptoms? Or would the thought that there could be a connection continue to bother you, even though you wouldn't admit it to anyone, because you were the one that gave the advice?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You told me you had sent articles to your sons about vaccine dangers. Were you asked to participate in a discussion or to offer your thoughts, or did you volunteer the information in an effort to persuade?

I did not try to persuade him; I just wanted him to see both sides of this issue. But it's his decision to make, not mine. Just like you, he refused to go to any of the websites I told him about because he felt they had an agenda. He wants to look at the objective studies. He, like you, depends on these double-blind studies that can be flawed, but he is softening a bit and he told me that he will listen to both sides before making any decisions. I just want what is the best for his new baby. I'll actually show you the email. I don't think I am betraying any confidence.

My son sent me this link and I sent him this documented case:

Autism-Vaccine Link: Evidence Doesn't Dispel Doubts

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that “the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer.”

Bailey’s diagnosis is Pervasive Developmental Disorder — Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) which has been recognized as an autism spectrum disorder by CDC, HRSA and the other federal health agencies since at least the 1990s.

In his conclusion, Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

The Bailey decision is not an isolated ruling. We now know of at least two other successful ADEM cases argued in Vaccine Court. More significantly, an explosive investigation by CBS News has found that since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. In many of these cases, the government paid out awards following a judicial finding that vaccine injury lead to the child’s autism spectrum disorder. In each of these cases, the plaintiffs’ attorneys made the same tactical decision made by Bailey Bank’s lawyer, electing to opt out of the highly charged Omnibus Autism Proceedings and argue their autism cases in the regular vaccine court. In many other successful cases, attorneys elected to steer clear of the hot button autism issue altogether and seek recovery instead for the underlying brain damage that caused their client’s autism.

Autism News | Exploring Vaccines

I wrote: Just wondering why this is a much better report than the reports that I sent you? You just happen to put more trust in a webmd website, although these are not empirical studies. They are opinions that are clearly protecting their own interests. Where is the evidence that there is absolutely no connection between vaccines (the MMR) and children who decline shortly thereafter? Your bias is blinding you.

He wrote back: I just said that the webmd article was a good summary of the issue. I am not putting trust in any particular site or opinion. I am putting trust in conclusions that are based on scientific evidence, whether that's for or against immunization. My point is that you can find arguments on both sides of the debate, but why'd really matters is the truth and not which side is right.


--