I don't want stupid people breeding. If parents are too stupid to protect their kids from serious diseases such as measles and whooping cough and their children contract these diseases, we should just deny them access to any medicine. A

More authoritarian/communist/fascist politics.

Why don't we have literacy tests for voters to keep some out? Oh, wait we had those racist laws.

Thank you for your well informed scientific opinion.

youtube videos are not evidence. You want to show me a national enquirer article next?

I assume that you can't understand the term underlying mitochondrial abnormality. .

Like may assumptions, yours is incorrect. See below for a correction of your assumption

As in it was already present and after vaccinations, it cause encephalopathy and neurological damage

show me evidence

?????? In english please It is very likely that one would get vaccinated without the doctor knowing there was this underlying condition. They are not pre-screened for this condition. Comprende?

That was english, but I'll simplify the point for you, as it sailed way over your head. It is unlikely the presenting symptom of this disease would be a vaccine related complication as the vast majority of patients with this mitochrondrial disorder have a family history or have experienced symptoms prior to vaccination

Again, if you have proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it

Maybe you should listen to Jon Poling on the video. Neurologist and intelligent on this area of medicine. Or you can just assume you know more and throw out some more arbitrary figures as to rate of prevelance.

Thanks, but I don't get my scientific information from a internet site that also has 2 girls and a cup on it. I think maybe medical journals might be more reliable

as for your point about arbitrary numbers, thats a fair criticism. If you have concrete numbers for the conditions I laid out (asymptomatic, no family history) by all means, feel free to post them

http://www.mitoaction.org/mito-faq

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/6/1326.full

Notorious variability in the presentation of mitochondrial disease in the infant and young child complicates its clinical diagnosis. Mitochondrial disease is not a single entity but, rather, a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by impaired energy production due to genetically based oxidative phosphorylation dysfunction. Together, these disorders constitute the most common neurometabolic disease of childhood with an estimated minimal risk of developing mitochondrial disease of 1 in 5000. Diagnostic difficulty results from not only the variable and often nonspecific presentation of these disorders but also from the absence of a reliable biomarker specific for the screening or diagnosis of mitochondrial disease. A simplified and standardized approach to facilitate the clinical recognition of mitochondrial disease by primary physicians is needed.

So diagnosis appears to be challenging, Not as simple as you suggest.

So if an infant did have a mito disorder that was not detected, could vaccinations cause substantial harm?

Yes, it could cause irreversible damage or death.

If there currently isn't an accurate or reliable screening procedure in place to detect such an underlying condition, how can we assess the rate of prevalence? How do we determine whom may be at risk of a vaccination injury?

Eric, as you can see, you don't understand very much about this topic. That's fine. You appear to want to trivialize the importance of prescreening for an underlying metabolic condition that may leave a child disabled after a round of vaccinations. I simply disagree. That's because I understand that there are infants whom will be seriously harmed because doctors such as yourself refuse to accept this fact.

Worse off, when a doctor doesn't detect this hidden metabolic condition, and vaccinations result in serious injury, there is denial that there was any causal relation. If we are going to force vaccinations, every effort should be made to determine whom may be at risk of injury. You know....First do no harm.

Eric is taking the stance that vaccines are 100% safe. It's no use arguing with that type of arrogant ignorance. No amount of proof from a peasant or any of his stupid patients(all patients are not Eric and therefore are stupid and must be paternalized)will be sufficient. He is god you are not. He has the power to save and create life. You do not.

If he heard thunder and lightening, saw dark clouds, saw the ground was wet, went outside and you (not an MD therefore are ignorant in any subject against Dr. Eric) told him it rained. He would say "well I didn't actually see it rain. Prove it to me". If Eric chooses not to believe something then it doesn't exist.

Is there a god Eric?

"The question is 'do I have a god complex?'"

biff,

your links were general info about mitochondria and their diseases. Im not sure what the relevant portion is

he most common neurometabolic disease of childhood with an estimated minimal risk of developing mitochondrial disease of 1 in 5000.

disagreed

So diagnosis appears to be challenging, Not as simple as you suggest.

YOURE the one who suggested it was simple. In fact, your most recent post contradicts your earlier statements. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Oh, now you can't screen for a mito disorder? Wrong again Eric. Wow, your ignorance on this topic blows me away considering that you are a cardiologist.

s but also from the absence of a reliable biomarker specific for the screening or diagnosis of mitochondrial disease

Those two statements are in conflict. You need to figure out what you are talking about before you post again, because you are embarrassing yourself

So if an infant did have a mito disorder that was not detected, could vaccinations cause substantial harm?

You tell me....thats your whole point isn't it? I'll ask you for at least the 5th time, show me evidence

ric, as you can see, you don't understand very much about this topic.

as you can see from your contradictory statments, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You think that you know something about this disease? How??? From looking on the internet????

hahahahah!!! That makes you an expert on mitochondria??? Too funny!!! You are hysterical!

Listen, go to school, study biology, molecular biology, cellular physiology, then come back and talk to me.

Youre a poser

robby,

Eric is taking the stance that vaccines are 100% safe

Please quote where I said that. If you lie, youll win any argument

It's no use arguing with that type of arrogant ignorance

what am I doing thats so different than you? Look in a mirror.

He has the power to save and create life

Ha, that's actually true

Prove it to me"

Yeah, its too bad I let little things like evidence and proof get in my way. It must be nice for you not to be burdened with that

"The question is 'do I have a god complex?'"

haha, not very original, are we robert? Come on, can't you think of an insult that hasn't been said about doctors 8 million times?

Never said mitochondrial abnormalities were easy to detect. Post where I said anything of the kind. Liar.

Said there isn't proper screening techniques readily available to diagnose an underlying condition. That's why infant's are vaccinated when such a metabolic problem exists, and it results in harm. Extensive testing would need to be performed, assuming that suble biomarkers were not overlooked.

If need me to tell you why cell's depend on energy production for survival, and need evidence that shows how disease may result from abnormalities in oxidative phosphorylation, you are not a doctor.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

Oh, now you can't screen for a mito disorder? Wrong again Eric. Wow, your ignorance on this topic blows me away considering that you are a cardiologist.

from the absence of a reliable biomarker specific for the screening

Those two statements are in conflict. You need to figure out what you are talking about before you post again, because you are embarrassing yourself

If need me to tell you why cell's depend on energy production for survival, and need evidence that shows how disease may result from abnormalities in oxidative phosphorylation, you are not a doctor.

i definitely don't need you to tell me anything. Not only are you not correct, you are not even consistent.

At least be consistently incorrect. That would be a step up...

"i definitely don't need you to tell me anything. Not only are you not correct, you are not even consistent."

So my folllowing statement was incorrect and inconsistent?-

If need me to tell you why cell's depend on energy production for survival, and need evidence that shows how disease may result from abnormalities in oxidative phosphorylation, you are not a doctor.

What's incorrect Dr. Eric? Cells don't require energy for survival? Loss of a cell's energy production due to abnormalities in oxidative phosphorylation will not cause disease?

Again, you're not a doctor. If you are, God help your patients.

Hey, are you related to the penguin?

There currently is no simple screening procedures in place to detect a mitochondrial abnormality in infants. The symptoms may be subtle and overlooked by a pediatrician. If there is suspicion of a mito disorder, extensive and expensive testing such as DNA analysis and muscle biopsies would more than likely be required to accurately determine if the mitochondrial abnormality exist.

This is the road Dr. Jon Poling traveled when investigating his daughter's vaccination induced encephalopathy that caused her seizures and neurological decline exhibiting symptoms of severe autism. The CDC conceeded that vaccinations worsened a pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction which resulted in her vaccination injuries.

So, Dr. Eric, is this not proof? Or is it that cells that are enery deficient will not die and cause disease when they stressed by multiple vaccinations?

I think maybe you should contact the authors of hundreds of scientific publications and let them know that proper cell respiration and energy production has nothing to do with health and disease.

So my folllowing statement was incorrect and inconsistent?-

no, your opinion on screening for mitochondrial disease is

What's incorrect Dr. Eric? Cells don't require energy for survival? Loss of a cell's energy production due to abnormalities in oxidative phosphorylation will not cause disease?

no, your opinion on screening for mitochondrial disease is. As well as the fact that vaccines definitely cause problems in these patients

Again, you're not a doctor. If you are, God help your patients.

Don't worry...I will

There currently is no simple screening procedures in place to detect a mitochondrial abnormality in infants

then why did you say this?:

Oh, now you can't screen for a mito disorder? Wrong again Eric.

So, Dr. Eric, is this not proof?

no its an anecdote. Its like if I told you my neighbor's uncle's cousin's best friend's hairdresser's great nephew has a mitochondrial disease and had no problems with vaccination. Is that proof?

Or is it that cells that are enery deficient will not die and cause disease when they stressed by multiple vaccinations?

If you have basic science proof of this, again, for the tenth time, Id love to see it

I think maybe you should contact the authors of hundreds of scientific publications and let them know that proper cell respiration and energy production has nothing to do with health and disease.

please quote me where I said that. I cannot make it simpler for you, and Im sorry if you continue to fail to comprehend it

I have yet to see proof from you that vaccination causes problems when administered to patients with mitochondrial disease

You cannot generalize from that statement that I don't think mitochondria are important, or cellular metabolism doesn't matter

You can only infer exactly what I said. If you want to have an argument with yourself, then just cut out the middleman and continue talking for both sides

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0

I know Eric, it may not be the two girls one cup video you watch on youtube, but you should watch this video. Let me know how a neurologist whom has had extensive testing done on his daughter is wrong about the cause of his daughter's vaccination induced seizures and encephalopathy. Surely as a cardiologist, you are more qualified than a neurologist in determining the cause. Call the HHS and let them know that the Poling decision was inaccurate.

"I have yet to see proof from you that vaccination causes problems when administered to patients with mitochondrial disease"

I gave you proof. This was confirmed by Gerberding and the HHS. Here she is confirming it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxJE92R0ss

Don't believe the ex-head of the CDC?

Don't believe a neurologist whom has had extensive biomedical testing done?

You don't believe because it destroys your vaccinations are safe stance.

Gee wiz Dr. Eric, why would challenging a compromised immune system with multiple vaccinations ever cause serious harm? That's just ridiculous. How could multiple vaccinations cause energy deficient cells necrosis or apoptosis and disease. Just quackery.

You're not a doctor. The gig is up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0

Its opinion!!!! who cares what some neurologist thinks!!! I watched the video and its garbage. Its just some lady spouting off her opinion about vaccines with no proof to back it up

Can you not tell the difference between opinion and fact??

You're not a doctor. The gig is up.

Who cares what you think? Don't you realize how insignificant you are? How little you or your opinion matter?

I have no idea what it would take for me to care what you thought...

But if you want to know so bad...

give me your email address and i'll email you proof of my occupation

hahaha...from YOUR OWN LINK:

http://www.mitoaction.org/blog/statement-autism-vaccines-mitochondrial-disease

Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines. MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns.

Hey, are you related to the penguin?

Dr. Eric is yet another sockpuppet of the deranged Penguin.

you need to get a life

"By all means check for allergies and test for the possibility of adverse reactions, but in the absence of medical reasons to the contrary, failing to vaccinate children is child neglect, and should be punished with jail time."

John, what about an underlying metabolic condition that goes undetected before vaccinations? Should we jail the doctor for failing to detect this condition? Should we jail the manufacturers for not disclosing the potential for serious complications due to such an underlying condition?

I guess we should just vaccinate our children and hope that serious adverse reactions do not occur. Sounds reasonable. Hey, who deserves punishment when vaccination injury occurs?

Really, you deserve punishment, and if your child dies of a preventable disease I'm all for executing you for murder.

If it turns out that an outbreak was caused by pharmaceutical company lying about the efficacy of the vaccine would you be all for the severe punishment of the executives, everyone involved, and the shutting down of the entire corporation? What if they were repeat offenders?

What if they somehow managed to get propaganda messages into the media, and get everyday folks to believe in infallibility of their products, that the masses blamed the unvaccinated for the vaccine failure and epidemics?

I'm actually suprised,John irrationality, that people seriously hold authoritarian/nazi/fascist views like yourself in the light of such scientific ignorance.

Hi Robert, What if the unvaccinated ARE to blame for epidemics? Any person or company of persons who intentionally misrepresents medical products in a way that causes harm to others should be punished.

Actually it is in the best self-interest of pharmaceutical companies to keep people alive and thus still needing their medications. For example if they sold heart medication that didn't work, they would be killing customers for a host of other meds as well. They would also lose money on class action law suits which they do lose when they make mistakes. Pharmaceutical companies want to increase their customer base not reduce it. They want to make money not lose money.

I'm having a hard time believing a real medical doctor is this ignorant, unprofessional, and apathetic. I can see where one might have one of these qualities but not all three.

I've questioned his career claims multiple times. I think he must be Penguin's brother.

I am having doubts myself regarding his actual medical background. I am curious as to his response now. I would guess it will say how rare mito disorders really are and how it is of minimal concern. Same goes for injury that does occur to those with this "rare metabolic disease". May goes as far as stating that it never happens at all.

"I am not aware of any disease that is an absolute contraindication to vaccination that is not explicitly obvious which requires screening that is not done routinely in the postnatal period."

That about sums it up. He is uneducated in this area of medicine, therefore it does not exist.

Let's hear it Eric. Explain how an underlying mito disorder would be obvious to a pediatrician. How subtle markers of this disease would prompt additional and very specialized testing to determine whether vaccinations would be appropriate for this individual.

In reality, markers for this underlying disorder will be overlooked and shots will be administered. Then the induced fever or seizures resulting in serious injury. Then denial of any harm caused by the vaccinations.

And so the battle rages on. Uneducated parents desperate to learn what had happened. Arrogant doctors denying it happened at all.

Eric, you fall in the second category.

robert,

again, give me your email address. I will send you proof of my occupation. Ive told you that multiple times

biffy,

what in that pile of garbage do you want me to respond to?

All the personal attacks and insults? Im not going to deal with that

If you want to have a serious discussion about vaccines and mitochondrial disese, Im happy to. But I don't want to waste my time with childish insults. Its pointless

Were you picked on a lot in life? Do you like to hide behind the anonymity of the internet where you can lash out at people without them realizing how pitiful you really are?

Cause it shows

A serious discussion with a pretend doctor? A serious discussion with someone whom claims vaccination injury doesn't happen enough to be of concern?

Ok, Ill be serious.

Will vaccinations cause some individuals with underlying metabolic conditions serious injury?

Not a trick question. Yes or no?

A serious discussion with a pretend doctor?

Your ploy here is too obvious. If you can discredit me, you discredit my argument

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. I may be a doctor, I may be a garbageman, I may be the president.

It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is facts and evidence. And whether Im right or wrong. So attack me all you want--i don't care. Im more impressed with persuasive arguments, of which you have provided none

Will vaccinations cause some individuals with underlying metabolic conditions serious injury?

Not a trick question. Yes or no?

You still dont get it. Opinions don't matter. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what my answer to that question is. The only thing that matters is evidence.

Now, do you have any?

Posted it above. Head of CDC admitting it. Neurologist explaining it. You ignoring it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxJE92R0ss

Is a news broadcast with Gerberding on CNN proof? The ex-head of the CDC on national television has a little more credibility than your denial and lack of knowledge in this area of science. You should believe her, she now works for Merck.

"You still dont get it. Opinions don't matter. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what my answer to that question is. The only thing that matters is evidence."

You mean like the biomedical data submitted as evidence in the Poling case? Extensive medical data revealing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination induced encephalopathy and seizures resulting in brain damage and neurological decline.

I guess that people are now awarded compensation for vaccination injury based on unintelligent opinions. Is that how it works Eric? You no longer need scientific and medical experts to confirm vaccination injury to be awarded compensation?

Cmon Eric, go on record and state that vacciantions do not cause serious injuries to some individuals. State that an underlying mito disorder will not predispose an individual to vaccination injury.

opinion does not equal fact no matter how bad you want it to be true

for every video you show of someone spouting off some nonsense, I could show ten of people saying the exact opposite

Thats why dueling opinions are pointless, and the only thing that will settle things are facts

Some lady babbling is not fact

You mean like the biomedical data submitted as evidence in the Poling case? Extensive medical data revealing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination induced encephalopathy and seizures resulting in brain damage and neurological decline.

POST IT!!!

see...here's an opinion directly refuting yours. This could go on ad infinitem. Its pointless

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

First, whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations. Indeed, because children with such deficiencies are particularly susceptible to infections, it is recommended that they receive all vaccines.

and lack of knowledge in this area of science. You should believe her, she now works for Merck.

I know more than you will ever know about science, Thats a fact. Lets test you

1)what type of reaction is fe2+ to fe3+

2) in what fashion is mitochondrial dna passed to offspring?

3)Why are most vaccines protein based?

Lets see you answer those WIthOUT google...

Is a news broadcast with Gerberding on CNN proof? The ex-head of the CDC on national television has a little more credibility than your denial

After the Polings' press conference, Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, responded to their claims that vaccines had caused their daughter's autism. “Let me be very clear that the government has made absolutely no statement . . . indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism,” she said

"I am not aware of any disease that is an absolute contraindication to vaccination that is not explicitly obvious which requires screening that is not done routinely in the postnatal period."

Mitochondrial disease. There you go Eric. Here we are in 2012 and you don't understand why an infant with such an underlying metabolic condition may be seriously harmed by vaccinations. As you are a cardiologist, I would expect more from you.

WRONG!! Dead freaking wrong! In your freaking face! Next time try getting a degree and not relying on websites that you clearly didn't even READ!

hahaha...from YOUR OWN LINK:

http://www.mitoaction.org/blog/statement-autism-vaccines-mitochondrial-disease

Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines. MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns.

"All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations"

Even children with allergies and autoimmune diseases? Even children like Hannah Poling?

You're right Eric, there isn't a child out there that shouldn't receive vaccinations. That's because we know they never cause serious injury regardless of an individual's predisposition towards an adverse effect.

They shouldn't bother adding those side effects inserts anymore. They should get rid of the vaccination compensation fund. All children are safe, therefore all should receive shots.

Nobody wants to eliminate vaccinations altogether. The fact is that overall they may be safe for most children but not for a subset of the population. People like Eric feel that this is good enough. A subset of children must be harmed for the greater good. He feels serious harmed caused for a small subset of children is of negligible concern. I feel that if current science has shown that certain underlying conditions may contribute to harm, these metabolic conditions should be identified and every effort should be made to detect in those predisposed before routine vaccinations are given.

biff,

Even children like Hannah Poling?

According to YOUR OWN SOURCE, yes. All children with mitochondrial disease should be vaccinated

Are you illiterate?

this is from your own website. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Just sack up and say so. You have said countless times on here that patients with mitochondrial disease should not be vaccinated, and YOUR OWN SOURCE proves you wrong

Let me remind you:

Mitochondrial disease. There you go Eric. Here we are in 2012 and you don't understand why an infant with such an underlying metabolic condition may be seriously harmed by vaccinations. As you are a cardiologist, I would expect more from you.

As you are a man, I expect more from you

I think it's pretty obvious that there is a sock puppet at play here.

what the hell is a sock puppet?

"and I will tell YOU again that you need to go to med school before you start giving advice on how to practice medicine. Until then, STFU!"

If your employers saw how you behaved on here you would be fired!

"and if your mom saw you on here she would have wished you were aborted"

• !

#29.24 - Fri Aug 3, 2012 6:05 PM EDT

Not very professional Eric.

hippocritical

both you and robert have disrespected me many times on this forum. You called me a liar...is that respectful?

You had a post that was full of insults towards me

liar

Arrogant doctors denying it happened at all.

Eric, you fall in the second category.

it may not be the two girls one cup video you watch on youtube,

Stop being such a hippocrit

You are also in violation of the CoH

A liar is someone whom is dishonest. Stating that vaccination injury doesn't occur due to underlying metabolic issues is dishonest. So calling you a liar is very appropriate.

You can not control yout anger so you have to curse and use inappropriate language. We obviously disagree, but I can control my emotions. This is one reason where I question the validity of you as a cardiologist. Do you use foul language when a patient disagrees with you and wants a second opinion?

I think Newsvine will put you on a time out Eric. Talk to you soon.

A liar is someone whom is dishonest. Stating that vaccination injury doesn't occur due to underlying metabolic issues is dishonest. So calling you a liar is very appropriate.

Thats called rationalizing. Look it up

You can not control yout anger so you have to curse and use inappropriate language

What inappropriate language and cursing?

I can control my emotions

You called me a liar!! How do you not see that as wrong??

Do you use foul language when a patient disagrees with you and wants a second opinion?

Thankfully my patients are much more mature and curteous than you, and don't resort to name calling as you have. I expect better behavior biff

I think Newsvine will put you on a time out Eric. Talk to you soon.

We'll see. We can both report each other then

"What inappropriate language and cursing?"

"and I will tell YOU again that you need to go to med school before you start giving advice on how to practice medicine. Until then, STFU!"

"and if your mom saw you on here she would have wished you were aborted"

No, you're right Eric, that's not inappropriate language or cursing. You'll deny just about anything. I'm done talking to you.

good. Once I proved you wrong with your own post, you resorted to childish name calling. I guess thats all you were left with

If such dysfunction is present at the time of infections and immunizations in young children, the added oxidative stresses from immune activation on cellular energy metabolism are likely to be especially critical for the central nervous system, which is highly dependent on mitochondrial function. Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.

How do you know is such dysfunction is present at the time of immunizations?

You probably wouldn't know, neither would the pediatrician.

If your child has a mitochondrial dysfunction, specific cells are struggling to maintain energy production. Anything that requires more energy from these cells will push them to their limit. Exceed available energy and the cells will die.

So would a vaccination induced fever cause neuronal cell death. It is possible.

How do you know is such dysfunction is present at the time of immunizations?

If significant, it probably manifests with other symptoms. In fact, your own sources give the typical presentation. I suggest you read them

So would a vaccination induced fever cause neuronal cell death. It is possible.

Here's the thing; in medicine, anything is possible. Is it possible that a vaccination could cause oxidative stress to a patient with undiagnosed mitochondrial disease?

Maybe...

But you have to weigh that risk against the possible benefit

Is it possible that the vaccine will cause no harmful effects and save the patient's life?

Maybe...

Which risk is greater is then the key question, and the reason I have been asking for evidence, as that is the only thing which can answer this question

And there is none. I've looked--no trials whatsoever. And while the girls story you keep bringing up is tragic, its certainly not sufficient evidence

Firstly, we don't know for certain if the vaccine is truly the causative factor. Certainly the timing is suspicious, but thats usually not good enough. Youd really like to see some physical evidence--for example, if she had oxidative stress, that could show up in labwork--what was her lactic acid level? What was her blood gas? Those types of things

Secondly, even if we accept that the vaccine was definitely the cause of her problems, what does that mean for other patients with the disorder?

Clearly the recommendation from your own source is to be vaccinated...so what is a doctor supposed to do?

Is he liable if he does not vaccinate and the child suffers a complication or dies of a illness for which vaccines are highly or even moderately effective?

Thats obviously not fair. You can't have it both ways

And if the risk of infection is much, much greater than the risk of vaccine injury, as your source implies, then the choice is obvious

"If significant, it probably manifests with other symptoms. In fact, your own sources give the typical presentation. I suggest you read them"

Not in all cases, especially in the case of an infant. Symptoms may virtually go undetected until cells become stressed. I read them.

"Here's the thing; in medicine, anything is possible. Is it possible that a vaccination could cause oxidative stress to a patient with undiagnosed mitochondrial disease?

Maybe..."

Not maybe, the answer is yes it can and does happen.

"But you have to weigh that risk against the possible benefit"

Do you believe parents of vaccination injured children are glad they weighed the risk and now have to raise a disabled child?

"Is it possible that the vaccine will cause no harmful effects and save the patient's life?

Maybe..."

Not maybe, yes most individuals don't experience harmful effects. You don't vaccinate as a means to save someone's life. So, no, vaccinations aren't administered to save someone's life. Best case would be somewhat preventing a disease in the first place, but not guaranteed. If a person contracted the disease despite being vaccinated, there's a good chance that they will recover.

"Which risk is greater is then the key question, and the reason I have been asking for evidence, as that is the only thing which can answer this question"

Death or permanant injury from a childhood disease is rare. Vaccination injury is also rare. Would you rather be eaten by a shark or mauled to death by a bear. Both rare events that happen. Does it matter to a victim which event is more rare than other?

That's the issue here. The pro vax crowd wants to ignore when vax injury occurs because it is more rare than injury from a childhood disease. The anti vax crowd believes vaccinations are important, yet also believes the risks of injury are real as well. At least the anti vax crowd doesn't deny injury when it happens. That's all you hear from the opposing side. Coincidence but not evidence of harm.

"And there is none. I've looked--no trials whatsoever. And while the girls story you keep bringing up is tragic, its certainly not sufficient evidence"

I wonder why that is. Who funds the trials? Trials looking in to mito disorders and vaccination injury go against the vaccination agenda. The agenda that denies injuries for the greater good towards health.

"Firstly, we don't know for certain if the vaccine is truly the causative factor. Certainly the timing is suspicious, but thats usually not good enough."

It's never good enough. Deny first, don't ask questions later.

"Youd really like to see some physical evidence--for example, if she had oxidative stress, that could show up in labwork-"

There aren't a defined set of values to measure oxidative stress in an infant. I know this because I have had discussion with the late president of Kronos labs. One of two labs in the U.S. equipt to measure such markers. Four years ago this data wasn't available, so nice try.

"Secondly, even if we accept that the vaccine was definitely the cause of her problems, what does that mean for other patients with the disorder"

It means take your chances, roll the dice.

"Clearly the recommendation from your own source is to be vaccinated...so what is a doctor supposed to do?"

Start by admitting that vaccination injury can happen. Espescially in individuals with underlying metabolic issues. Don't assume vax are overall safe. Treat the patient, not the population.

"Is he liable if he does not vaccinate and the child suffers a complication or dies of a illness for which vaccines are highly or even moderately effective?"

No, because he had discussed the risks and left the decision up to the parents.

"Thats obviously not fair. You can't have it both ways"

That's what the pro vax crowd demands. Vaccinate everyone, no matter whom may be predisposed to injury. When it happens, it's only a rare event. You can't prove it anyway. Sound familiar?

"And if the risk of infection is much, much greater than the risk of vaccine injury, as your source implies, then the choice is obvious"

Is the risk of death or disability much greater with contracting a childhood disease, or vaccination injury? How many children died of whooping cough last year compared to vaccination injury? How can one measure vaccination death numbers if we deny they are to blame?

So the choice is far from obvious.

Not in all cases, especially in the case of an infant. Symptoms may virtually go undetected until cells become stressed. I read them.

Then answer this--does the severity of symptoms correlate with the severity of the mitochondrial dysfunction? If so, are asymptomatic kids really at risk?

Not maybe, the answer is yes it can and does happen.

1. If so, then where's your proof?

2. IF so, then why does YOUR OWN SOURCE recommend vaccination for these patients? This is a point you have dodged which Im not going to let you get away with

3. If mitochondrial disease is as common as you say, then why don't we see more harmful effects? Even if all reported serious adverse effects are taken to be true, then this small number of events is incompatible with causing injury in the "most common metabolic abnormality in children"

Do you believe parents of vaccination injured children are glad they weighed the risk and now have to raise a disabled child?

Thats not an answer to my question

You don't vaccinate as a means to save someone's life. So, no, vaccinations aren't administered to save someone's life. Best case would be somewhat preventing a disease in the first place, but not guaranteed. If a person contracted the disease despite being vaccinated, there's a good chance that they will recover.

IF the disease is known to be fatal, even in a small minority of cases, and the vaccine prevents illness (even <100% of the time), then vaccines are life saving. Maybe not in all cases, maybe not in more than very few, but it is

Death or permanant injury from a childhood disease is rare. Vaccination injury is also rare. Would you rather be eaten by a shark or mauled to death by a bear. Both rare events that happen. Does it matter to a victim which event is more rare than other?

Your point that the effective rate of complications to a victim of that complication is 100% is understood. Its a line I myself have told people. But it doesn't change the facts.

Death from vaccination is much, much, much less common than death from childhood illness in the unvaccinated population

True it doesn't matter to that patient. But as a society, we have to think about more than just one patient

Who funds the trials?

The NIH, independent scientists. I can provide you many if you like. Of course industry sponsers trials, and I wouldn't trust those alone, either

Trials looking in to mito disorders and vaccination injury go against the vaccination agenda. The agenda that denies injuries for the greater good towards health.

Not necessarily. If you are a researcher with an interest in mitochondrial disease, your only "agenda" is your research, and honestly, yourself. If someone could make the discovery that vaccines injure a signficant percentage of the population, it could make their career

Why do you think wakefield did it?

It's never good enough. Deny first, don't ask questions later.

Rhetoric is what people resort to when they have no facts

It means take your chances, roll the dice.

Dice imply a game of chance, with each "roll" being equally probable. This situation isn't. If vaccine injury is much rarer than lives or complications spared with a vaccine, then its like banking on nearly a sure thing. Most everyone will win. Yes some will lose, but very, very, very few and society will benefit as a whole

Espescially in individuals with underlying metabolic issues.

Not according to YOUR OWN SOURCE. They explicitly state that there is no evidence to support a link between autism and vaccination in these patients. Im not going to let you forget that

Is the risk of death or disability much greater with contracting a childhood disease, or vaccination injury?

Its much, much less with vaccines

How many children died of whooping cough last year compared to vaccination injury?

more. Many, many more

How can one measure vaccination death numbers if we deny they are to blame?

by reporting deaths that suspiciously occur with vaccination. This happens now--there's a whole registry. And the number of deaths are infintesimal

There aren't a defined set of values to measure oxidative stress in an infant.

He's incorrect. It was more than a "nice try", it was the right answer

http://www.clineu-journal.com/article/S0303-8467(08)00092-9/abstract

http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/9/1/4.short

http://childrennetwork.org/physicians/mito.html

Mitochondrial hepatopathies, such as mtDNA depletion syndrome, may present as neonatal liver failure with lactic acidosis

Again, while you fancy yourself an expert on this subject because of a few google searches, I have clearly shown you have a lot to learn

1. You have been proven 100% and absolutely incorrect about vaccinating children with mitochondrial disease. The proof was YOUR OWN SOURCE

2. You said there were no markers for oxidative stress in children; when, in fact, there are, as shown by the articles. In fact, one of the mitochondrial diseases has lactic acidosis as part of its name! (melas)

Mitochondria are the final step in aerobic ATP production in cells. If this process is inhibited, the cell must rely on anaerobic metabolism to meet metabolic demand. Anaerobic metabolism produces lactic acidosis in humans.

This is physiology 101. This is why when you try to tell me I need to learn more, presumably to become "an expert" like you, I chuckle. I really laugh out loud. I wish a few google searches is all it took

"He's incorrect. It was more than a "nice try", it was the right answer"

Wrong Dr. Penguin. I will take the word of a professional whom was president of Kronos labs. He wanted to run tests for oxidative stress in an autistic family member of mine. He was intrigued in how oxidative stress may have been ongoing and possible causative of the autism. He was genuine in stating how little research has been done and an absence of available data in infants and children were non existant. In other words, without any data, any new numbers from panel tests would be just that. Numbers.

Nice try Penguin.

scientific articles>>>>>>>>random, probably fictional, "professional"

He was genuine in stating how little research has been done and an absence of available data in infants and children were non existant. In other words, without any data, any new numbers from panel tests would be just that. Numbers.

this is all well and good but has nothing to do with our disagreement. You claimed that there were no markers of oxidative stress in infants

I have shown in black and white such markers

How can you continue to deny this? Its written right up there!

Mitochondria are the final step in aerobic ATP production in cells. If this process is inhibited, the cell must rely on anaerobic metabolism to meet metabolic demand. Anaerobic metabolism produces lactic acidosis in humans.

This is a physical fact of the natural world, same as the sky being blue or water being wet. Saying you know someone who says it isn't so just doesn't cut it.

If its wrong, and youre such "an expert" it mitochondrial physiology, then explain to me, in terms of cellular biology, where the above mechanism is incorrect

Don't be lazy/ignorant and just say someone told you so

Wrong Penguin.

Let me get this straight...... the president of Kronos labs told me definate numbers that determine if oxidative stress is ongoing in an infant or small child were unavailable. There wasn't a database assembled containing biomedical information that would allow for comparison between normal and abnormal levels of oxidative stress.

This lab is one of two in the U.S. If you, as a pretend cardiologist, needed such specialized testing conducted, you would have to use this lab or Great Plains.

Do you have your own testing lab in your basement? LOL. Cmon Penguin. The gig is up.

Mitochondria are the final step in aerobic ATP production in cells. If this process is inhibited, the cell must rely on anaerobic metabolism to meet metabolic demand. Anaerobic metabolism produces lactic acidosis in humans.

This is a physical fact of the natural world, same as the sky being blue or water being wet. Saying you know someone who says it isn't so just doesn't cut it.

If its wrong, and youre such "an expert" it mitochondrial physiology, then explain to me, in terms of cellular biology, where the above mechanism is incorrect

Don't be lazy/ignorant and just say someone told you so

"this is all well and good but has nothing to do with our disagreement. You claimed that there were no markers of oxidative stress in infants"

I said an underlying mito disorder in infants and children may have subtle markers that may go undetected. This condition may be worsened by a round of vaccination and result in injury. It is quite possible to have a mito disorder and appear to be healthy until these cells become stressed.

There are not simple screening techniques utilized to detect underlying mito disorders before vaccinations. They are not easy to diagnose in all cases.

As far as oxidative stress goes, how does a physician know when it had initiated, propagated and terminated? In which cells? What caused initiation? How did it terminate? What damage did it cause? Damage to DNA,proteins, cell death?. Why didn't antioxidant protection control this runaway oxidation? Problem with glutathione synthesis? Perhaps an issue with Nrf2/ARE pathway?

Not as simple as you suggest.

I said an underlying mito disorder in infants and children may have subtle markers that may go undetected

you said there were no defined tests for oxidative stress. So you are telling me lactic acid is of NO help in ANY cases?

Really? Doubtful

Perhaps an issue with Nrf2/ARE pathway?

repeating words you copied and pasted does not make you sound smart

As far as oxidative stress goes, how does a physician know when it had initiated, propagated and terminated? In which cells? What caused initiation? How did it terminate? What damage did it cause? Damage to DNA,proteins, cell death?. Why didn't antioxidant protection control this runaway oxidation? Problem with glutathione synthesis? Perhaps an issue with Nrf2/ARE pathway?

Not as simple as you suggest.

No, you just completely misunderstood. Im not saying a lactic acid level is a specific diagnostic marker for mitochondrial diseases. Im saying its an objective indicator of oxidative stress

As an analogy think of a fever. Its often an indicator we use in children to assess for bacterial infection. Does it always indicate infection and only infection? No--other conditions produce fever (inflammatory, allergic, viral infection). Does bacterial infection ever present without fever? Yes, but rarely--its the exception rather than the rule

I believe the same is true with mitochondrial disease. If what you claim is true, that vaccines cause oxidative stress when given to patients with mitochondrial disease, an OBJECTIVE measure, such as lactic acidosis, would help confirm your hypothesis

Otherwise its just wild guesses.

"No, you just completely misunderstood. Im not saying a lactic acid level is a specific diagnostic marker for mitochondrial diseases. Im saying its an objective indicator of oxidative stress"

Do pediatricians routinely check lactic acid levels before vaccinating?

Do pediatricians check for signs of oxidative stress?

Do they draw blood and check for markers of mito disorders before vaccinating?

No, they vaccinate first.

The reality is that infants and children with underlying metabolic conditions will be vaccinated. Their symptoms may be subtle and the individual may appear to be healthy. Then the vaccinations will stress cells and result in injury.

I never heard of a pediatrician whom had refused to vaccinate because the individual was diagnosed with GI inflammation due to oxidative stress. Maybe you know a few whom did, but I seriously doubt it.

I'm sure on the Planet where you come from, pediatricians check for mito disorders and oxidative stress before vaccinating. Don't infants get vaccinated on the first day of life?

Im still apparently not making myself clear. This may be my fault

Im not saying a lactic acid level should be used as a screening tool. Im saying it could be used as an objective measure of oxidative stress if someone has an adverse reaction to a vaccine

The point being that if this were elevated, and the patient was later discovered to have a mitochondrial disorder, then this would give credence to your theory that these patients should not get vaccinated. Its virtually impossible to suffer significant oxidative stress and have a normal lactate

Cause as it stands now, your own source thinks they should.

"Im not saying a lactic acid level should be used as a screening tool. Im saying it could be used as an objective measure of oxidative stress if someone has an adverse reaction to a vaccine"

Wasn't that the whole argument? Lack of screening for mito disorders and oxidative stress BEFORE vaccinations in an effort to determine whom may be at risk of injury?

"The point being that if this were elevated, and the patient was later discovered to have a mitochondrial disorder, then this would give credence to your theory that these patients should not get vaccinated"

A patient with a mito disorder may not have elevated levels of lactic acid before vaccinations or any other exogenous insult that causes stress and a required higher demand for energy production.

"Its virtually impossible to suffer significant oxidative stress and have a normal lactate"

Again, you're talking about measuring these levels after damage has been done, not before. That's comparable to measuring white blood cell counts before an infection rather than during.

"Cause as it stands now, your own source thinks they should."

They were very careful not to include vaccinations as an exogenous source of stress to cells with dysfunctional mitochondria. Although they did state that infection could cause stress to these cells.

Please show me where the authors stated that vaccinations could not stress these cells. Cause Julie Gerberding admitted that vaccinations could aggrevated an underlying mito disorder and result in injury, Jon Poling provided substantial biomedical data in support of this.

I stated that underlying mito disorders may be difficult to detect. Said there was a lack of proper screening techniques to determine whom may be at risk. Never said that there wasn't tests that could be performed to detect a mito disorder. Clearly stated that symptoms of this disease may be subtle and overlooked.That's why some cases of vaccination injury occur. Then, there is denial that it had been caused by the vaccinations.

"Im still apparently not making myself clear. This may be my fault"

First you're saying you can screen for oxidative stress using levels of lactic acid. Which would be fine if it was already initiated and in the propagation stage causing cell damge. Surely levels would be different if not. Then your saying lactic acid levels should not be used as a screening tool.

You're right, not very clear and it's your fault.

"Im not saying a lactic acid level should be used as a screening tool. Im saying it could be used as an objective measure of oxidative stress if someone has an adverse reaction to a vaccine"

Who is going to test these levels if they deny vaccinations were implicated with the resulting injury?

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The timing of the vaccinations in regards to the resulting injury is merely coincidental. You need proof that pediatricians are unable to provide. You're asking for a serious and unbiased re-evaluation of the safety of mass vaccinations. Do you honestly believe that a subpopulation of children at risk and lack of screening to determine whom is at risk, is enough to warrant compromizing the vaccination agenda? Cmon Eric, some children will be harmed, most will not. It's the cost of doing business. It's casualties of war. Some must die or become permanantly disabled to protect others.

At least soldiers are given respect and not ridiculed for their sacrifice. Not so much for the vaccination injured child.

Again, the point completely sails way, way over your head.

First you're saying you can screen for oxidative stress using levels of lactic acid. Which would be fine if it was already initiated and in the propagation stage causing cell damge. Surely levels would be different if not. Then your saying lactic acid levels should not be used as a screening tool.

Part of your problem is you don't understand what the word "screen" means in a medical context.

I never said you can "screen for oxidative stress using lactic acid". I said you can DIAGNOSE oxidative stress using lactic acid. Two very different concepts. Here's the definition of screening

Screening, in medicine, is a strategy used in a population to detect a disease in individuals without signs or symptoms of that disease. Unlike what generally happens in medicine, screening tests are performed on persons without any clinical sign of disease.

Now here is how I said lactate should be used:

Firstly, we don't know for certain if the vaccine is truly the causative factor. Certainly the timing is suspicious, but thats usually not good enough. Youd really like to see some physical evidence--for example, if she had oxidative stress, that could show up in labwork--what was her lactic acid level? What was her blood gas? Those types of things

In other words, referring to this patient AFTER she showed signs of the disease? Get the difference now?

Checking for a lactate AFTER someone shows signs of possible oxidative stress would help confirm your diagnosis

If you think this patient, or any patient, is suffering a vaccine reaction mediated by oxidative stress in response to an underlying mitochondrial disorder, a normal lactate makes that very unlikely

In the process, it destroys your theory that the vaccine caused the reaction in this patient by your above mechanism

Wasn't that the whole argument? Lack of screening for mito disorders and oxidative stress BEFORE vaccinations in an effort to determine whom may be at risk of injury?

No, its only part of the argument. Screening for mitochondrial disease becomes moot in terms of vaccination if oxidative stress is shown not to play a role

A patient with a mito disorder may not have elevated levels of lactic acid before vaccinations or any other exogenous insult that causes stress and a required higher demand for energy production.

Again, the above is reflective of your ignorance of the proper use of the term "screen". No one is trying to "screen" for mitochondrial disease using lactate. I am trying to show you it can help confirm or rule out oxidative stress as a causitive factor in alleged vaccine reactions

Again, you're talking about measuring these levels after damage has been done, not before. That's comparable to measuring white blood cell counts before an infection rather than during.

See above. I think my point is clear

They were very careful not to include vaccinations as an exogenous source of stress to cells with dysfunctional mitochondria. Although they did state that infection could cause stress to these cells.

They very clearly stated kids with mitochondrial disease should be vaccinated. It doesn't get any clearer. Cmon, just admit it.

Please show me where the authors stated that vaccinations could not stress these cells

I posted in 20 times on this site because I knew you would claim you didn't see it. It clearly says there is no evidence vaccination has a harmful effect on these children

Never said that there wasn't tests that could be performed to detect a mito disorder

You have stated multiple times on this thread that patients with mitochondrial disorders should not be vaccinated.

YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!!

First you're saying you can screen for oxidative stress using levels of lactic acid. Which would be fine if it was already initiated and in the propagation stage causing cell damge. Surely levels would be different if not. Then your saying lactic acid levels should not be used as a screening tool.

Clearly Ive shown how you misunderstood everything I have said.

If you disagree, please post where I used the word "lactic acid" and "screen" in the same sentence. Lactate cannot screen for mitochondrial disorder--it lacks specificity. But its presence in patients with known mitochondrial disorders could be useful in determining if vaccines cause the reactions you claim are seen in these patients

You're right, not very clear and it's your fault.

I was trying to be nice, and not make you feel stupid. Clearly this was a failure on your part to comprehend medical terminology and basic english

If you feel different, feel free to post anywhere where you think I contradicted myself. Id LOVE to see you try (and fail)

Who is going to test these levels if they deny vaccinations were implicated with the resulting injury?

If any kid gets sick enough, a lactate is drawn. Its a pretty standard lab test. If you or any other nutjob felt motivated enough, you could retrospectively search medical records and see if patients with mitochondrial disease had an elevated lactate--if the kids get as sick as you claim they do from vaccines, a lactate is in the record

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

This is a phrase that gets thrown around usually by people who don't understand it. You are a prime example

I have been trying to tell you this the entire time. Thats why I ask for evidence--all you have now is correlation. You say some kids with mito disease get sick with vaccination

So your claim is that vaccines are CORRELATED with vaccine injury. You fail to produce any evidence of causation

Instead you cite opinion, and a theory of oxidative stress. When I ask you to produce evidence of oxidative stress in these situations with evidence of causation, like a lactate, you squirm and say I somehow wasn't clear

the rest of your post is nonsense rhetoric

I stated that underlying mito disorders may be difficult to detect. Said there was a lack of proper screening techniques to determine whom may be at risk. Never said that there wasn't tests that could be performed to detect a mito disorder. Clearly stated that symptoms of this disease may be subtle and overlooked.That's why some cases of vaccination injury occur. Then, there is denial that it had been caused by the vaccinations.

here's what you said:

Like Hannah Poling's condition Eric. The underlying condition that caused autistic-like symptoms after her vaccinations.

here's what YOUR OWN SOURCE says

All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines.

Any causal relationship biff. ANY. They did not say some, or a few, or most. ANY

They did not say "except for mito kids". They were CAREFUL to include those patients specifically

Just sack up and admit youre wrong. Its not the worst thing in the world

For the final time, infants and children are not screened for mito disorders before they are vaccinated. Then some of these individuals will be injured.

"The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions."

This statement implies that children suspected or known to have mito disease are at risk to communicable disease AND vaccine-related reactions. The authors feel there is a greater risk without vaccinations.

If individuals with mito disorders were only at risk when not vaccinated, why the comparison between the two? Moron.

"The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions."

Read it again moron. They are giving an opinion on which risk is greater for individuals with mito disease. If these individuals DID NOT have vaccine-related reactions, there wouldn't be a risk of this to weigh. Notice the fluffy term vaccine-related reactions? How about the term vaccine-related encephalopathy and brain damage?

I get it Eric. Any thing that stresses cells with mitochondrial abnormalities could result in cell death and disease, But, vaccinations won't cause stress to these cells. You need proof of that. If it did happen, we should look at lactate levels. Is that before or after we deny that vaccinations were involved with the injury? What planet are you on?

Now hear this.....Dr.Eric has stated that vaccinations will not provoke an immune response that will cause those with compromised cellular energy production cell death and injury. Only childhood diseases will result in injury to these individuals.

We should contact all the mito-specialists out there and tell them to stop wasting time researching this area of science. We know enough already. Well, at least we know it is safe to overburden an individual's immune system whom has a mito disorder with vaccinations. I mean who would be crazy enough to suspect that a compromised immune system would cause injury if an immune response was provoked by multiple vaccinations?

Eric, you deserve the Nobel Prize for such an Earth shattering discovery. You managed to debunk every case of vaccination injury as fraudulent and abcent of biomedical evidence supporting mito disorders and a causal link to vaccination injury. I'm speachless.

For the final time, infants and children are not screened for mito disorders before they are vaccinated.

For the final time, im not talking about screening. I can't make it any simpler for you

Then some of these individuals will be injured.

That has yet to be proven. Opinion does not equal fact. A youtube video of someone's opinion is not fact--i don't care who she is

This statement implies that children suspected or known to have mito disease are at risk to communicable disease AND vaccine-related reactions. The authors feel there is a greater risk without vaccinations.

No one said vaccines are risk free. But they are clearly not talking about the risk of autism, of which they said there is NO proof, which you CLEARLY said was a direct result of vaccinations in these patients

Again, your OWN SOURCE flatly refuted your point. Way to go biff

If individuals with mito disorders were only at risk when not vaccinated, why the comparison between the two?

Only at risk for what? Prepositions require an object...You specifically said they were at risk for autism; YOUR OWN SOURCE specifically said they WEREN'T

Again, your OWN SOURCE flatly refuted your point. Way to go biff

Moron.

You can not control yout anger so you have to curse and use inappropriate language. We obviously disagree, but I can control my emotions.

Can you biff? Can you? Can you smell the hypocrisy??

They are giving an opinion on which risk is greater for individuals with mito disease.

And they say the risk is greater for NOT being vaccinated. Lets be clear on that

If these individuals DID NOT have vaccine-related reactions, there wouldn't be a risk of this to weigh.

Ha, yeah, but risk of what?

How about the term vaccine-related encephalopathy and brain damage?

Oh, I see. You'll just insert your own words to suit your opinion. Thats NOT what they said. For all you know, they could be talking about the risk of transient redness/swelling at the injection site

I get it Eric. Any thing that stresses cells with mitochondrial abnormalities could result in cell death and disease, But, vaccinations won't cause stress to these cells.

Actually, you clearly still don't get it. Im not saying vaccines don't stress these cells. Im saying physical evidence would be nice. Right now all you have is a theory. My point was that getting a lactic acid during a reaction suspected to be secondary to oxidative stress could either help prove or rule out this theory

If it did happen, we should look at lactate levels. Is that before or after we deny that vaccinations were involved with the injury?

Opinion on vaccination is irrelevant when looking at the patient. At that point, the main focus is on a very sick child for which lactate levels are almost always drawn as a matter of routine. Conclusions about the potential for vaccine related injury can be made on retrospective chart review after the fact

In fact, this is the way suspected vaccine reactions are being reported RIGHT NOW!

Now hear this

Um biff? I think its just us on here now. Even your comrade in arms robert is long gone

Dr.Eric has stated that vaccinations will not provoke an immune response that will cause those with compromised cellular energy production cell death and injury. Only childhood diseases will result in injury to these individuals.

No, YOUR OWN SOURCE SAID IT!!!

We should contact all the mito-specialists out there and tell them to stop wasting time researching this area of science

They already agreed ON YOUR OWN SOURCE!!!

I mean who would be crazy enough to suspect that a compromised immune system would cause injury if an immune response was provoked by multiple vaccinations?

DEFINITELY NOT YOUR OWN SOURCE!!!!

Eric, you deserve the Nobel Prize for such an Earth shattering discovery. You managed to debunk every case of vaccination injury as fraudulent and abcent of biomedical evidence supporting mito disorders and a causal link to vaccination injury. I'm speachless.

YOUR OWN SOURCE DID!!!!!

Seriously, im done posting on here if you don't admit that your source contradicts your stance on mito disease and autism. If you can't admit whats in black and white, then im done

"That has yet to be proven. Opinion does not equal fact. A youtube video of someone's opinion is not fact--i don't care who she is"

So the opinion of the vaccination court awarding for this type of injury, the head of the CDC admitting the vaccinations were the component that worsened the pre-existing condition and caused the injuries, and a neurologist whom had extensive biomedical testing conducted showing causation are all opinion and not fact? Gotcha Dr. Eric.

"i don't care who she is"

Julie Gerberding or Hannah Poling?

Why would the head of the CDC admit on National television that vaccinations injured Hannah because of her mito disorder? Did she just fabricate this info? She stated this fact based on opinion? Do tell Dr. Eric.

Did Jon Poling fudge a bunch of biomedical data and use it as evidence in vaccination court? Did he just make up a bunch of nonsense and fool the HHS experts? I know, Hannah isn't actually neurologically impaired. She is faking it. Her parents probably did this to make money.

"Only at risk for what? Prepositions require an object...You specifically said they were at risk for autism; YOUR OWN SOURCE specifically said they WEREN'T"

Risk of injury from vaccinations. Where did I say they were at risk for autism? I said risk of vaccination induced encephalopathy. Which does occur. If you need proof, look for this as a compensatable vaccination injury. There's a whole list of vaccinations injuries.

Show me where my source states that individuals with mito disorders WILL NOT become injured after vaccinations. Stop your lying.

So the opinion...

Stop right there. Yes, opinion doesn't count

Gotcha Dr. Eric.

REally? I told you opinion doesn't count and you counter that with...opinion. Hmmm...

Plus, id like to see in black and white where the head of the cdc allegedly said vaccines cause autism

"i don't care who she is"

Julie Gerberding

She stated this fact based on opinion? Do tell Dr. Eric.

Its opinion. I could show you hundreds of people's opinions that think the exact opposite. Now what?

Did Jon Poling...

YOUR OWN SOURCE stated this isn't true. But please, share some of this "biochemical evidence"

She is faking it. Her parents probably did this to make money.

Is that the only alternative explanation your pea sized brain could come up with? How about that it had nothing to do with the vaccine. Correlation does not equal causation, remember?

Risk of injury from vaccinations.

YOUR OWN SOURCE never mentioned injury. You are trying to alter what is in black and white. they only said "risk". Again, that could be the risk of an insignificant allergic reaction. We don't know. So don't assume

Where did I say they were at risk for autism

In your very first post to me. I already quoted it for you. Please don't try to deny it--id be ashamed for you

Show me where my source states that individuals with mito disorders WILL NOT become injured after vaccinations.

You claimed kids with mito disease should not get vaccinated as this can lead to autistic like symptoms. YOUR OWN SOURCE flatly contradicted that. It stated there was no such evidence for a connection, and clearly encouraged mito kids SPECIFICALLY to get vaccinated

Where did I say they were at risk for autism? I said risk of vaccination induced encephalopathy

From your very first post to me:

Like Hannah Poling's condition Eric. The underlying condition that caused autistic-like symptoms after her vaccinations.

there it is. In black and effing white.

You are the liar biff. You

Biff, you have quite the propensity for dragging dead horses around...

Your "gotcha" game may make you feel as if you have the unacknowledged upper hand, but it is just feeling. There is little feeling involved with thinking, and vice versa. All Eric has said all along is that you, in order to convince a "science person" of your stance's validity, would need to provide evidence; like documentation of clinical outcomes, etc. And he is right. Opinions don't count unless directly supported by said evidence.

There are mountains of contradictory evidence/information/studies regarding vaccines, and many other aspects of Western medicine. However, to focus solely on one case (Poling) and one issue (mitochondrial disease) is not going to get you anywhere with medical professionals, just as a single case will never prove a theory, in terms of clinical study, regarding... well... regarding anything. And not just in medicine. There is nothing empirical (results able to be reproduced under controlled circumstances) about a single documented case of anything.

Just as a side note, if you want to be concerned about something, why not pertussis toxin. It is one of the most dangerous toxins known to man and used for the purpose of causing encephalitic myelitis (sp?) in lab rats for the purpose of experimentation. Correct me if I am wrong, Eric, but that is septic meningitis? I would say that the combination of adjuvant aluminum (thins the blood-brain barrier) and a toxin used specifically to induce inflammation of the brain/meninges is far more disturbing than a rare genetic disorder's potential to cause neurological stress in a very few individuals.

All Eric has said all along is that you, in order to convince a "science person" of your stance's validity, would need to provide evidence; like documentation of clinical outcomes, etc. And he is right. Opinions don't count unless directly supported by said evidence.

yeah, thats exactly right. biff, im not saying you are wrong necessarily, but just you have no proof. I can tell you really want to believe it, and it sounds like you have a personal stake in this which may be affecting your judgement

But with science, and this is science, something doesn't really exist unless it has proof. sorry

Correct me if I am wrong, Eric, but that is septic meningitis?

To be honest, its way far from my specialty, but it sounds like it does not involve an infectious agent, and rather results from a direct toxic effect, thus classifying it as an aseptic meningitis

But again, now I am treading far from my comfort zone

"When the US Government conceded that vaccines had contributed to the development of autism in nine-year-old Hannah Poling, there was much speculation about what could trigger autistic regression in children with low cellular energy from mitochondrial dysfunction. "

"Many experts who oppose the idea that vaccines could be linked to autism – including those at the CDC - first suggested that a single-point mutation in Hannah’s mitochondrial DNA, inherited from her mother, was the actual underlying cause of her neurological problems."

"The vaccines, they said, only made a bad situation worse. Many went so far as to insist that Hannah’s precarious genetic situation would have deteriorated into “features of autism” anyway - with or without the vaccines."

"But that explanation fell apart: Hannah’s mother has the exact same mitochondrial mutation, and yet she never developed any neuro-psychological disorders. Moreover, Hannah does not have “classic” mitochondrial disease – a rare, inherited, and usually very serious disorder."

"Instead, Hannah had a moderate dysfunction of her mitochondria, one that was so mild and asymptomatic that it went undetected – and apparently undisturbed – until July 19, 2000, when she received nine vaccinations at once."

"The rest is medical history."

"The government stated in its second concession statement in February, (in which her epilepsy was also determined to be vaccine-related), that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was:

“Underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.”

Where is the bio-medical data submitted as evidence that confirmed this?

It is locked away. 5000 other families awaiting compensation for vaccination injury that resulted in neurological decline were watching the outcome of this case. Instead of revealing the bio-medical evidence that gave specific clues as to how this injury had occurred, it was locked away.

If the CDC had access to bio-medical data that revealed vaccinations did in fact cause Hannah's injury, but it was an extremely rare case, why not show the proof? It would help prove how rarely this injury occurs.

You don't lock away such evidence that supports the safety of vaccinations.

You don't conceal evidence that provides clues as to what caused autistic-like symptoms after vaccination injury.

You ask for proof. It's locked away. The best available proof is the fact that the Poling's were awarded @ 20 million$ for a vaccination injury resulting in autistic-like symptoms.

What are you going to deny now? Who's lying? The CDC? Jon Poling? Julie Gerberding?

Ah yes. Aseptic.

It's not about who is lying. The CDC defines vaccine injury as a new medical condition resulting from vaccination. There is currently a coroner's inquest (New Zealand) regarding rDNA binding to aluminum adjuvants in the Gardasil vaccine. Apparently, the vaccine has caused adverse reactions in the majority of individuals vaccinated, but there has been very little exposure in the media regarding the actual case numbers/incidence (adverse reactions ranging from allergic, development of warts, seizures and other neurological effects, and death) likely because of the dearth of clinical testing that SHOULD have preceded licensing by the FDA.

You are arguing, Biff, that a determination in a LEGAL case should set MEDICAL precedent. These are two very different realms. EVIDENCE, as it pertains to legal decisions is entirely different than evidence establishing medical precedent/"fact".

Biff, that a determination in a LEGAL case should set MEDICAL precedent. These are two very different realms. EVIDENCE, as it pertains to legal decisions is entirely different than evidence establishing medical precedent/"fact".

I could not agree more with this. Legal preponderance of the evidence is only 51% in civil cases. That's barely above a coin flip.

Not to mention that you and I both know cases are settled with more regard for potential court fees than any true determination of fault or truth

Thats why I abhor when people use courts as an example of proof--its just proof that its easier to settle than anything else

Yes, Eric, though you and I may disagree on whether vaccines are the way to go for me and my family, we agree on other things, such as the scientific method.

No need for name-calling and other shenannigans, in any case :)

"But with science, and this is science, something doesn't really exist unless it has proof. sorry"

We don't know when or how the universe was created, does it not exist?

So because we don't fully understand areas of science, such as mito disorders and vaccination injury, they don't exist?

We don't have a cure for cancer, or proof of anything yet that may cure it, so it doesn't exist?

"I could not agree more with this. Legal preponderance of the evidence is only 51% in civil cases. That's barely above a coin flip."

"Not to mention that you and I both know cases are settled with more regard for potential court fees than any true determination of fault or truth"

"Thats why I abhor when people use courts as an example of proof--its just proof that its easier to settle than anything else"

I see. Now you are an attorney. Which court cases are you talking about? Personal injury torts? Product liability? Federal Court? State Court?

You don't simply file a Complaint as a Plaintiff and the Defendant settles. There is a little more to it than that. Especially if the Compaint contains allegations of personal injury or death. You would have to support these allegations with evidence and facts. Defendants who know that they will lose based upon submitted evidence and testimony may chose to settle, but it is this evidence and proof that causes this outcome. So what are you talking about?

"Thats why I abhor when people use courts as an example of proof--its just proof that its easier to settle than anything else"

So it was just easier to settle with the Poling family and award 20 million dollars? The lack of evidence wasn't enough to have the case dismissed?

So I guess the other 5000 families awaiting compensation for vaccination injury have nothing to worry about. It's easier to settle with them than anything else. No evidence required. Just file a Complaint and choose a known vaccination injury.

All the big pharma companies that have settled class action lawsuits with billions of dollars were not guilty of the harm their products caused. There wasn't any evidence in support of this harm. They chose to settle because it was easier than anything else.

I didn't know that was how our legal system works. Thanks Eric.

"You are arguing, Biff, that a determination in a LEGAL case should set MEDICAL precedent. These are two very different realms. EVIDENCE, as it pertains to legal decisions is entirely different than evidence establishing medical precedent/"fact"."

Show me a personal injury torts case that survived dismissal with prejudice without submitted evidence of scientific facts and testimony from experts.

Are you suggesting that a Plaintiff may win such a case without real scientific proof?

First off, the Plaintiff would have to establish that the injury did occur and was a result of the product. You don't just sue and win without getting past this. Such cases are not won with psuedoscience as you suggest.

There's that whole Daubert and Frye thing that ensures real science is submitted as evidence. I guess you two missed that week of law school.

We don't know when or how the universe was created, does it not exist?

yknow, as soon as i hit submit on that post, I knew you would take that phrase to mean something I didn't intend. Im not speaking of the universe, or cancer. Im telling you that you have no proof regarding your claims of vaccine injury, so this injury cannot be attributed to vaccines unless or until such evidence is presented

That is all

I see. Now you are an attorney. Which court cases are you talking about? Personal injury torts? Product liability? Federal Court? State Court?

all torts, to my understanding. But the real question is do you disagree that this is not the standard applied to this case? Cause youre talking like you do...

You don't simply file a Complaint as a Plaintiff and the Defendant settles. There is a little more to it than that.

True or false: many cases are settled not on the merits of the action but based on the potential costs of arguing the suit

So it was just easier to settle with the Poling family and award 20 million dollars? The lack of evidence wasn't enough to have the case dismissed?

yes, now you get it. Because we can't take the risk of having people like you on the jury that would be more swayed by an innocent girl's injuries than facts about whether vaccines played any role in causing these injuries

My sister is an attorney who specializes in insurance defense. And she settles meritless claims constantly for this reason

I didn't know that was how our legal system works. Thanks Eric.

No problem. Im actually quite suprised someone in this day in age is so naive about the way the world works

Are you suggesting that a Plaintiff may win such a case without real scientific proof?

Yes. for enough money, you can pay an "expert" to say whatever you want. Are you really this naive?

Show me a personal injury torts case that survived dismissal with prejudice without submitted evidence of scientific facts and testimony from experts.

There's that whole Daubert and Frye thing that ensures real science is submitted as evidence. I guess you two missed that week of law school.

Irrelevant. Answer the question! Is the standard different, or isn't it?

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509

U.S. 579 (1993), consisted of two consolidated toxic

tort cases, both involving allegations of birth defects associated

with the drug Bendectin, which was commonly

prescribed in pregnancy. The plaintiffs had submitted

scientific evidence in several forms, including a reanalysis

of existing epidemiological evidence, an assortment

of laboratory studies on animal tissues, and chemical

structure analysis. The Supreme Court held that the

plaintiffs' scientific studies were inadmissible because

they lacked sufficient reliability and relevance under the

Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court rejected the

older

Frye

"general acceptance" standard employed by

the federal courts and replaced it with the now-familiar

list of "general observations" to determine scientific reliability:

whether the scientific technique has been tested;

whether the study has been published or was peer

reviewed; the rate of error associated with the methodology;

and whether the technique (not the conclusion)

is generally accepted in the specific scientific community.

Daubert,

509 U.S. at 593. Furthermore, the Court

emphasized that federal trial court judges are to be the

gatekeepers who assess expert evidence early in the litigation

and allow only that which has a sound scientific

basis to be introduced at trial.

A personal injury torts Complaint doesn't automatically force a Defendant to settle or spend untold sums of money. The Judge assigned to the case acts as a gatekeeper. They don't allow frivolous law suits to plague their docket system. The Plaintiff would need to initially spend lots of money in accumulating evidence and an expert to provide testimony in order to survive a dismissal with prejudice. This would happen well before the Defendant would need to do no more than show up at a pre-trial conference.

You obviously have no understanding of the civil rules of procedure. You have no real experience with filing a torts Complaint, or even what you would need to get started. You're embarrasing yourself.

No, you're right again Dr. Eric. Any crackpot can file a Complaint alleging disability or death as a result of exposure to a product. Then the Defendant answers the Complaint honestly and the Judge rules for discovery. At which point the Defendant has to choose whether to pay a settlement or pay for litigation.

The Judge has no power to determine if the Complaint allegations have sufficient merit or supportive facts. The Defendant can not motion to dismiss without prejudice based on lack of scientific evidence or an expert to provide testimony. All of which would be initially required in a torts case.

You're right Dr. Eric. The Court would simply by pass these rules of civil procedure and move forward with discovery. I'm so niave.

As usual, you simply understand everything.

"True or false: many cases are settled not on the merits of the action but based on the potential costs of arguing the suit"

Cases are not settled if they are not factually supported. They get dismissed. A Plaintiff doesn't have an argument in a torts case without evidence of harm and a causal relationship. The harm must be real and it's cause must be a result of the product. The facts supporting this must be alleged in a Complaint.

But I could be wrong. Show me a case law study where no factual and supportive evidence was submitted and a Defendant was forced to settle. What do you do these days? Call a company and threaten to sue?

I get it. I'll call Merck and threaten them. I'll tell them my daughter sustained permanant hearing loss from one of their prescription medications. Then they will send me a check because they won't want to spend money (although they already have a legal defense team employed) in litigation. Is that how it works? LOL

biff,

If you need good scientific data to win a case, then just post that data!!!

and if you don't think there's such thing as nuisance settlements, then you are naive. And uninformed. Sorry

Heres the definition from a LEGAL textbook

Legal Definition - A settlement in which the defendant pays the plaintiff
purely for economic reasons, as opposed to any notion of responsibility. Without
the settlement the defendant would spend more money in legal fees and expanses
by protracted litigation than in paying the settlement. The money paid in such
settlements is often termed nuisance money. Black's
Law Dictionary® Eighth Edition ©
2004 Dictionary® Eighth Edition ©
2004

But I could be wrong

You are

Show me a case law study where no factual and supportive evidence was submitted and a Defendant was forced to settle

read this:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=485242&http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%3Fabstractid%3D485242&ei=UQsoUKiSO4Lq0gH_34DYDA&usg=AFQjCNEEL1HeOb1qaN_JnGafazL2hgXNuA

Abstract:
The nuisance-value settlement problem arises whenever a litigant can profitably initiate a meritless claim or defense and offer to settle it for less than it would cost the opposing litigant to have a court dismiss the claim or defense on a standard motion for merits review like summary judgment. The opposing litigant confronted with such a nuisance-value claim or defense rationally would agree to settle for any amount up to the cost of litigating to have it dismissed. These settlement payoffs skew litigation outcomes away from socially appropriate levels, undermining the deterrence and compensation objectives of civil liability. Yet current procedural rules are inadequate to foreclose nuisance-value strategies.

509 U.S. at 593. Furthermore, the Court

emphasized that federal trial court judges are to be the

gatekeepers who assess expert evidence early in the litigation

and allow only that which has a sound scientific

basis to be introduced at trial.

whenever a litigant can profitably initiate a meritless claim

um...was that an answer?

Since you don't understand the laws of Civil Procedure, you don't understand that anyone can intiate a meritless claim. It's fairly simple. Draft a Complaint and have the Defendant served with it.

In tort cases, that Complaint is worthless unless you can support the allegations with factual evidence and testimony from an expert. If you can't because the Complaint is frivolous in nature, it will fail miserably in passing Daubert. I don't expect you to understand this because this is real World law.

Suppose an individual were to get past Daubert or Frye with frivolous junk science. The cost incurred by the Plaintiff via experts, scientific evidence and etc. would be huge. Along the discovery process, the Plaintiff would be required to constantly submit evidence in opposition to dismissal with prejudice. If the evidence in support of the opposition to dismissal was insufficient or absent altogether, the Complaint would be dismissed. In torts litigation, a Plaintiff doesn't get granted discovery without supportive evidence. They don't get a free pass to a trial by jury. A defendant facing punitive damages doesn't settle unless there is a strong chance the Complaint will see a trial.

If everyone could sue for frivolous tort cases and win with a meritless claims, why don't they. Because they can't. You have to show harm has occured as a direct result of a product. No harm, no factual evidence, no chance.

If you had enough factual evidence in your Complaint, as well as individuals to provide scientific data and testimony, yes, the Defendant would be more than willing to settle for less than anticipated litigation costs. No brainer. If your Complaint is frivolous and junk science, it will be dismissed.

Not opinion. Sorry. Just the facts.

Since its essentially impossible to prove either way (no party is going to admit to a frivilous lawsuit) we'll have to agree to disagree

but you are ignoring the most important point

If you need strong science to win a lawsuit, THEN SHOW ME THE STRONG SCIENCE THAT PROVES VACCINES CAUSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS!!!!!

apologies for the caps, but you have ignored this one too many times.

out of curiosity, are you a lawyer?

"Since its essentially impossible to prove either way (no party is going to admit to a frivilous lawsuit) we'll have to agree to disagree"

Frivolous tort lawsuits are quickly dismissed. It doesn't quite matter whom admits a case was frivolous or not. They are dealt with accordingly.

You can not sue a manufacturer of a vaccination for injury. Again, this should be understood already.

"If you need strong science to win a lawsuit, THEN SHOW ME THE STRONG SCIENCE THAT PROVES VACCINES CAUSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS!!!!!"

Can't sue the manufacturer for vaccination injury.

If you could sue a munfacturer of vaccinations for injury, there would thousands of cases available to view on the Pacer system. You could actually read all submitted evidence as well as the outcome of the case. But you can't.

Now why is that? Why are vaccination injury cases not allowed to be tried in Federal or State Courts?

Why can't a family sue for alleged injury due to vaccinations?

Think about it long and hard.

Any biomedical data submitted in vaccination Court is not shared with the public. We can't jeopardizethe vaccination agenda due to rare injuries that occur. This way we can do damage control. We can continue to state vaccinations are safe and only in extremely rare circumstances cause injury. We can continue to push them without the worry of parents reading evidence and court decisions.

So Eric, we can't sue manufacturers for vaccination injury. We can't file a torts case involving vaccination injury in Federal or state courts. We can not view any evidence submitted in vaccination court.

Where exactly should I get proof that vaccination injury is real?

I thought you said torts cases were upheld despite being frivolous in nature. You said you could pay any expert to say what you needed them to say. Then, the Defendants were liable to settle or pay for litigation.

How does that ridiculousness apply to vaccination Court? The Defendants are not the manufacturers.

Please explain Dr. Eric.

Any biomedical data submitted in vaccination Court is not shared with the public

bull effing sh!t. You are honestly sitting there with a straight face and telling me theres volumes of convincing scientific data PROVING vaccines are harmful that was presented in open court but is being somehow blocked from the public!!???

REallly? Really?

Take off your tin hat

In all your posts, you have yet to answer very simple questions that should be easy if what you are saying is true

1. Where is your evidence?

2. Why does YOUR OWN SOURCE directly contradict your post about autism?

3. Why is there no physical or lab data to support this theory of oxidative stress which should be easy to prove with lactate during times of stress, like after vaccination?

My patience is wearing thin. Either answer these questions, or Im done

Hey Dr. Eric/ attorney, if a manufacturer of a vaccination was not liable for injury due to its use, how are they (as defendants) liable to pay for frivolous lawsuits?

Um,Um,.....I guess they are not liable for anything. They are not the Defendants.

Moron.

Hey, can you show me biomedical data submitted as evidence in an actual vaccination injury case. Specific data that reveals that vaccinations caused alleged harm? You know....as in an actual case where an individual was awarded damages for vaccination injury.

Show me. Does it not exist? Has it never happened? Show me.

"bull effing sh!t. You are honestly sitting there with a straight face and telling me theres volumes of convincing scientific data PROVING vaccines are harmful that was presented in open court but is being somehow blocked from the public!!???

REallly? Really?"

Yup. Show me the biomedical data from the Poling case. Show me ANY data from a vaccination injury case.

Your ignorance in law is obvious. You're medical background is questionable.

What do you wish to debate now? The gig is up Penguin.

I understand why you are upset. Your argument was just blown to pieces. You claim to understand torts law. You don't. You claim vaccination injury can not be proved. It can.

You actually claim frivolous lawsuits are filed for torts injury that cause the Defendants (vaccination manufacturers) to settle out of court. They aren't even Defendants or liable for damages.

You ask for evidence that is not disclosed to the public that proves vaccination injury. Its tried in a special court to ensure this info remains unavailable.

Nice try Penguin, Dr, Eric/attorney wannabe, or who ever you else you decide to be. You just got your ass kicked by reality.

"bull effing sh!t. You are honestly sitting there with a straight face and telling me theres volumes of convincing scientific data PROVING vaccines are harmful that was presented in open court but is being somehow blocked from the public!!???"

There is a whole list of serious vaccination injuries compensatable by the vaccination Court. What, is this news to you?

In the Poling case alone, there was substantial scientific data submitted. Where is that data? I guess it is somehow being blocked from the public.

I understand why you are angry with me. It's not my fault. I didn't allow vaccination manufacturers to be protected from torts lawsuits. Don't shoot the messenger.

Dr, Eric is long gone now. I'm probably talking to myself at this point.

He's probably on another thread claiming to be a neurologist.

umm...no, i work all day...evidently you are do not

anyway, im not sure that my "argument was blown to bits"...I asked you to provide evidence, and you cannot

You claim it is "locked up". Where, in some government warehouse next to the ark of the covenant from indiana jones?

Why would the defendants have privelege over information that is potentially dangerous to the american people?? Any proof of this?? Any???

I didn't get my "ass kicked by reality" You wouldn't know reality if it hit you in the face. You live in la-la land

Unfortunately, I am burdened by both reality and evidence. I am not wildly paranoid like you. I don't believe in secret conspiracies between manufactures of vaccines and the US govt to profit and poison americans, when there is no proof of anything outside of your imagination

I told you if you couldn't answer my questions Id be done. Instead you chose to perseverate on this bogus legal issue that is meaningless when you can't provide the data you claim is instrumental to the case!

Im done. Now you are talking to yourself

Uh huh.

"You claim it is "locked up". Where, in some government warehouse next to the ark of the covenant from indiana jones?"

Obviously it is, I have asked you to post it. But you can't. This data is not available to the public. Maybe you can find it for me.

"Why would the defendants have privelege over information that is potentially dangerous to the american people?? Any proof of this?? Any???"

See, that's how stupid you are. Vaccination manufacturers are not Defendants. They are not liable for damages as a result of injury from their products. The vaccination Court decides on whom shall get compensated and what info will be made public. You don't publicize data confirming serious vaccination injury. Maybe they do and you can find it for me.

"I didn't get my "ass kicked by reality" You wouldn't know reality if it hit you in the face. You live in la-la land"

No, I live in reality. Where children are seriously injured by vaccinations. In your world, it very rarely happens and we don't have proof of it at all. So who lives in a bubble?

"Unfortunately, I am burdened by both reality and evidence. I am not wildly paranoid like you. I don't believe in secret conspiracies between manufactures of vaccines and the US govt to profit and poison americans, when there is no proof of anything outside of your imagination"

I'm not paranoid. I'm aware of serious risks that may result in serious injury due to vaccinations. I simply don't just deny that it happens.

"I told you if you couldn't answer my questions Id be done. Instead you chose to perseverate on this bogus legal issue that is meaningless when you can't provide the data you claim is instrumental to the case!"

I answered your question. Vaccination manufacturers are not Defendant or liable for injuries from their products.

Of course you're done. You lost the argument. Next time don't argue about things you don't understand.

Don't bother, Eric.

I got caught in the black hole of these conspiracy theorists like a year back arguing the same points. You can't argue against willful falsehoods.

I didn't know vaccination injury was a theory or conspiracy. I know that it happens. I know that there is denial that it happens. I think that's where the truth is...somewhere in a black hole.

NNT's for heart medications are very high.

1. Only for low risk patients, which by definition, makes sense. It is lower for riskier patients.

2. NNT, as I have proven mathmatically to you before, is not a measure of drug efficacy per se, but rather reflects cost effectiveness

3. NNT is time specific, a simple concept which you fail to grasp. If the NNT of a drug is 100, as statins are, then the NNT over a typical patient's adult life is 5 (even for primary prevention) which is pretty good.

robert,

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Now youre on my turf, so be careful

Heart disease generally is gradual.

STEMI (st elevation myocardial infarction) being a huge, huge exception. As is VT, VF, cardiogenic shock, acute papillary muscle rupture, flail mitral valve leaflet, acute VSD, aortic dissection, etc

What is treated is "risk factors" actually. The effects of the process.

wrong, wrong wrong. While risk factors are certainly treated, they are the cause, not the effect of the process. In other words, hypertension causes myocardial dysfunction, not the other way around

Not the process itself.

Again, there are many medications to actually treat heart disease. IN the long term ace inhibitors and beta blockers have shown a mortality benefit. As has aspirin in patients with coronary disease and diabetics

In the acute situation, thrombolytics are an alternative to stents when delievered within the first 3 hours. In addition, antiplatelets like plavix, effient, and brillenta as well as 2b/3a inhibitors have become the cornerstone of adjunctive therapy for MI

For arrythmias, amiodarone and lidocaine can be life saving for recurrent VT.

You are really giving out misinformation, and talking about things way over your head.

It's almost impossible to prove that a medication saves or doesn't save someone's life. You can't prove a negative.

Umm..thats not proving a negative. Proving a negative would be what you try to do with vaccines--"prove that vaccines never injure anyone", for example

Clearly that's impossible.

But proving that drugs save lives? Just compare it in a prospective fashion to two randomized and risk factor matched populations

Sure you can never know for absolute super duper sure if a medicine will save a particular patient's life, but you can tell them for "x% of patients just like you, this drug works" which is a stock phrase of mine that is accurate

You can't prove that any one single patient. Sorry but that's the way it works. Inferring that a population benefits from a study can be shown. Proving that an individual benefits by having his/her life saved cannot be proven.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Now youre on my turf, so be careful

You don't intimidate me.

wrong, wrong wrong. While risk factors are certainly treated, they are the cause, not the effect of the process. In other words, hypertension causes myocardial dysfunction, not the other way around

Wrong Dr. Penquin. If hypertension caused MI then all HBP would cause MI. Not true. Everyone with HBP do not experience MI's. All Mi's are not caused by BP. What you should say is that high blood pressure may in certain circumstances to MI or High blood pressure is associated with MI.

You are a scientifically sloppy medical doctor.

You can't prove that any one single patient. Sorry but that's the way it works. Inferring that a population benefits from a study can be shown. Proving that an individual benefits by having his/her life saved cannot be proven.

Same goes for vaccine injury, but that doesn't stop you. I guess that rule applies only when its convenient?

You don't intimidate me.

I would if I saw you in real life

Wrong Dr. Penquin. If hypertension caused MI then all HBP..

stop right there. First, I never used the word "all". Secondly, I said hypertension causes myocardial dysfunction, not MI. Again, I never said all--you inserted that word on your own

You are a scientifically sloppy medical doctor.

Clearly youre a sloppy reader. If you learned to read above an elementary school level, you wouldn't make such silly mistakes

You don't intimidate me.

"I would if I saw you in real life"

Watch out Robert, now the Penguin is threatening you.

Watch out Robert, now the Penguin is threatening you.

I get it now...youre accusing me and penguin of being the same person, with 2 different accounts

Ive seen him post on here...actually complimented him on his posts before.

Haha...I just went back and read his posts...Ive got to hand it to you, I can see why you think we're the same person. His tone is very similiar to mine, and he constantly asks for evidence just like me

Yknow, coming from your perspective, I'd probably think the same thing. I don't take offense--I quite like his posts

i guess the only thing I don't understand is why? Why would I post under two different names? Its not like there's a limit, or Ive been banned under one handle and was forced to create another?

But I guess making conclusions from limited evidence is your specialty

"i guess the only thing I don't understand is why? Why would I post under two different names?"

So the Penguin can pose as a cardiologist among many other careers. Who cares?

Who cares?

Youre right. Who cares about evidence, rationale, and logic? Overrated!

That seems to be a common line of thinking with you

So the Penguin can pose as a cardiologist

On a thread about vaccines? wouldn't a pediatrician or immunologist, or infectious disease doctor be better?

Again, it makes no sense. The real reason is you are trying to get a rise out of me.

I don't care if you lie about the reason to me, but why are you lying to yourself?