S-a recunoscut in sfarsit ca autismul este generat de vaccinuri

[vasilie]

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/newsletters/vaccine-court-admits-vaccines-cause-autism.php

Newsletter - April 2009

The Bailey Banks case: US vaccine court admits vaccines cause autism;
$1 million award

Now here's a story most of us probably missed:
In a Feb 2009 award, a US vaccine court judge ruled that a child was
permanently injured by MMR vaccine and was awarded lifetime damages
totaling over $1 million.

The story was carried by very few news media, largely because of the
implications in the vaccine injury legal arena. But in two brilliant
articles authored by Robt F Kennedy Jr and David Kirby, the details of
the Bailey Banks case are clearly described. [1,2] The reader is
directed to those articles for the whole story. (Vaccine Court: Autism
Debate Continues - 24 Feb 09)

What was significant about the Banks case was the new approach the
injured child's lawyers used to win the case.

The successful tactic used by the plaintiff's lawyers in this case was
simply not to label the injured child as autistic.

That term tends to result in a case being lumped in with other similar
cases in big class actions, like the ponderous monster Omnibus Autism
Proceedings, and then to be summarily dismissed as a group. This
happened again just 2 weeks earlier in a well-publicized case carried
in the New York Times and all major media. [3] This high profile case
was precedent-setting and would have made the defendants (vaccine
makers) liable not only for millions in settlement, but would have
opened the floodgates for some 5000 vaccine-injured to obtain similar
recoveries. So of course it ended with the judges reciting their usual
mantra of 'no possible connection' between vaccines and autism, etc.
which we have heard every few months in some case or other, ever since
the organized barbecuing of Andrew Wakefield began some 10 years ago.
[4]

But in this recent Banks case, which was awarded in Feb 2009, the
lawyers went ahead and used expert witness testimony to describe the
minutiae of the specific neurological damage suffered by the child,
without ever using the word autism. It was proven in court beyond a
doubt that Banks, the injured child, had sustained a permanent
condition known as PPED or post encephalopathy disorder as a direct
result of the MMR vaccine.

The judge said:

"the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which
Bailey suffered and continues to suffer." [1]

They went on to prove that Banks also fit all the criteria for another
permanent brain injury known to doctors as acute disseminated
encephalomyelitis - ADEM. So even though both these conditions have
been recognized by CDC for years as part of the whole autism spectrum,
by not focusing on that term, the lawyers were able to thoroughly
characterize the nature of the damage to the brain cells and win the
case: over a million in damages.

The point that must not be missed is the focus on terminology,
semantics and word games that lawyers can use to change the nature of
physical reality and pretend like the actual physical events are being
addressed and ruled upon. That is to say, the term autism is just a
word that was chosen by media and by pediatricians in the mid 1990s to
attempt to describe the sudden epidemic in brain damaged children,
which outbreak happened to follow the introduction of several new
mercury vaccines all at once. What followed was the emergence of
several groups of parents of these children who were outraged at the
patronizing denials of government regulatory agencies like the FDA,
CDC, and NIH about any possible connection with vaccines. And worse,
these agencies' refusal to allocate research funds that would actually
rule out a vaccine connection.

These grassroots parents groups were unrelenting in their demand for
investigation into the cause of over 1 million children suddenly
having their brain development permanently reversed. Early on, some of
the groups didn't take on the media-assigned term autism, and instead
simply described the new demographic as vaccine damaged.

The Banks case is just the most recently publicized example of that
particular label - vaccine damaged - being successfully used in a
court situation in order to navigate the minefield of denial, word
games, and deliberate confusion that has been employed by rich
industry lawyers over the past decade to defend the vaccine makers.
Why this case is significant is that the defense usually prevails in
these cases - and most of the permanently brain damaged children have
lost all chance of recovering restitution either from government
agencies who coerce parents into vaccinating, or from the industry who
makes the vaccines.

Again, word games. The physical reality is simple, and
incontrovertible: specific ingredients in vaccines which are injected
into a little infant with no blood brain barrier, with an unformed
nervous system and an unformed immune system - these ingredients
prevent the child's brain cells from forming normally. Especially with
respect to myelination, and the microcirculation that is trying to
build the infant brain. The reaction to things like mercury and MMR
ingredients is the immature body's best attempts at inflammation,
which becomes chronic and prevents normal brain cells from forming.
And also destroys existing brain cells. These facts are uncontested in
mainstream neurology, as my text The Sanctity of Human Blood, 13th
ed., [4] and hundreds of other sources, including those cited by
Kennedy and Kirby, can easily show. These were the same sources used
to prevail in the Banks case. As long as they didn't use the word
autism.

The Banks win is not an isolated event. The Kennedy article states
that over 1300 vaccine injury cases have prevailed using the same
legal strategy in the past few years. Kennedy explains why few people
have ever heard about these cases.

The astounding reality underscored in this new situation is how well
an entire epidemic of vaccine injured children, now numbering
somewhere between 1 and 4 million children, how well it has been
covered up from general notice by a ridiculously simple word game
played by vaccine industry lawyers during the past decade.

Any case that wins in vaccine court is astounding in itself,
considering the absence of a level playing field. In the history of
vaccine litigation, the lawyers of the vaccine injured have always had
to deal with an enormously corrupt position by the courts that
government statistics on vaccine injuries is kept strictly classified.
The US government knows exactly how many children have been injured by
vaccines, and maintains these epidemiological figures in a secret file
called the VSD or Vaccine Data Link. Having successfully defended
against all subpoenaed demands by plaintiff's attorneys over the past
decade, the figures would obviously help not only the individual
vaccine injury case, but would expose the vaccine industry to a flood
of potential injury claims, many of them probably legitimate. The VSD
information has never been seen by the general public and is not
permitted to be even brought up in mainstream media. Such a position
by the government demonstrates too clearly that it is the vaccine
manufacturers and not the nation's children who are being protected.
[1]

The value of the Kennedy article is that it helps the reader realize
just how devious and clever government defense counsel has been in the
past ten years in getting claims of autism caused by vaccines thrown
out. Same with Kirby's article. In many cases it wasn't necessarily
that the children were any less injured from vaccines, but simply the
legal tack chosen by their attorneys was able to be derailed and
thwarted by a defense team who could bring in dozens of articles and
studies all proclaiming no possible connection between autism and
vaccines. Makes one think of how heartsick many of the parents of the
lost cases in past years must feel, knowing that their efforts failed
because of mere legal tactics and court terminology. Are their
children any less injured than Bailey Banks?

My prediction is that industry lawyers are already scrambling to
prevent hundreds of new vaccine injury cases from using this same
tactic - true and forthright description of the actual neurological
cell damage - in order to prevail in vaccine court. I really don't see
the tobacco phenomenon happening quite yet in the vaccine litigation
venue.

What was it Shakespeare said we should first do to all the lawyers? I
forget.

1. Kennedy, RF Another autism case wins in vaccine court 24 Feb 09
www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

2. Kirby, D A new theory of autism causation? 24 Feb 09

3. Editorial: Vaccines exonerated on autism New York Times 12 Feb
2009

4. O'Shea T The sanctity of human blood: vaccination is not
immunization, 13th ed. thedoctorwithin.com 2009.

[SW_man]

Incet, incet, vor pieri toate miturile astea profund
daunatoare. Ce pacat ca atatea milioane de copii sunt compromisi pe
viata prin vaccinare, pentru prostia si lasitatea unui sistem medical
care pune profiturile si conformismul, inaintea sanatatii copiilor.
Nu e nevoie ca sa devina autistic, pentru a fi compromis:
astma, alergii, diabet infantil, inteligenta scazuta, vedere slabita,
sunt toate consecinte ale vaccinarii:

http://nuvaccinurilor.blogspot.com/2009/04/celelalte-10000-de-teodore.html