The AMA has rejected a proposal by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law that asked the AMA Council on Science and Public Health to review the most recent research on vaccines and autism.
In rejecting any further review the AMA is essentially telling people like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Jon Poling that their critiques of the epidemiological study limitations or the desirability of conducting comparative studies of vaccinated and un-vaccinated groups are invalid or unworthy of consideration. In citing the three recent vaccine court decisions rejecting any vaccine-autism link the AMA makes no mention of cases like Banks and Poling where the government settled vaccine autism injury claims in favor of the plaintiffs. In rejecting any further review of a possible vaccine autism link the AMA has shown that it does not have a clue about how to restore public trust in vaccine programs.
In rejecting any further review the AMA is essentially telling people like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Jon Poling that their critiques of the epidemiological study limitations or the desirability of conducting comparative studies of vaccinated and un-vaccinated groups are invalid or unworthy of consideration. In citing the three recent vaccine court decisions rejecting any vaccine-autism link the AMA makes no mention of cases like Banks and Poling where the government settled vaccine autism injury claims in favor of the plaintiffs. In rejecting any further review of a possible vaccine autism link the AMA has shown that it does not have a clue about how to restore public trust in vaccine programs.
The full resolution considered by the AMA proposed that:
- the AMA reaffirm its support for universal vaccination,
- asked the AMA Council on Science and Public Health to review the most recent research on vaccines and autism, and
- urged the association to continue to support research into the etiology and treatment of autism.
The AMA rejected only the second element of the three part resolution. How it would continue support for research into the etiology and treatment of autism while preordaining that the etiology can not include consideration of the possible role of vaccines is beyond me. The AMA is apparently saying that "we don't know the causes of autism but we do know that the causes do not include any of the biological or chemical ingredients injected into your child's bloodstream." Not a very convincing position. Of course I am just a dumb, ignorant parent of a child with autism.
In addition to dismissing the concerns raised by some health care professionals and researchers the AMA is essentially telling the many parents concerned about possible vaccine autism connections that they should sit down, shut up and do as they are told by "the doctors".
The AMA is apparently unaware that the sit down and shut up approach to restoring public confidence in vaccine safety has not worked.
In continuing this approach the AMA has shown it lacks understanding of how to restore public confidence in vaccine safety.
In continuing this approach the AMA is ensuring the continuation of the vaccine-autism war.
In addition to dismissing the concerns raised by some health care professionals and researchers the AMA is essentially telling the many parents concerned about possible vaccine autism connections that they should sit down, shut up and do as they are told by "the doctors".
The AMA is apparently unaware that the sit down and shut up approach to restoring public confidence in vaccine safety has not worked.
In continuing this approach the AMA has shown it lacks understanding of how to restore public confidence in vaccine safety.
In continuing this approach the AMA is ensuring the continuation of the vaccine-autism war.
autism
6 comments:
Don't trust those in charge of the vaccine programs?
Check out this petition and see if you agree and want to sign it. It is against mandatory vaccinations.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-universal-declaration-of-resistance-to-mandatory-vaccinations
Thank you for being so honest and holding those that have our safety in the palms of their hand to a much higher standard. Just revealing the fact that the Doctors changed the Hippocratic oath from "First Do No Harm" Which was good for more than a thousand years. To "To the good of the community" Tells me we are just a part of the herd that they do not want to deal with. Great Post. I have linked to it on my blogs and twitter.
Harold I just put up a response to your post today.
http://www.sandracruxblog.com/2009/06/28/ama-rejects-more-research-on-vaccineautism-issues/
And, I wrote this the other day which you might be interested in. It was very personal and from the heart.
http://www.sandracruxblog.com/2009/06/25/autism-end-of-life-decisions-for-parents/
I'm afraid that another unseen factor in this AMA stance is the pharmaceutical companies' vested interest in vaccine sales.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=link-between-autism-and-vinyl
OT for your post but it was forwarded to me and I thought you'd be interested.
Are positions becoming more polarized? The AMA one way, and the Autism Speaks Organization in the other?
I just read (Jul 1/09) that Autism Speaks has received the resignation of one of the Doctors on the executive who has always been vehemently against investigating the vaccine/autism connection, citing the new direction of the organization as counter to his beliefs. http://autismspeaksnetwork.ning.com/forum/topics/autism-speaks-rocked-by?page=4&commentId=2172273%3AComment%3A258540&x=1#2172273Comment258540
Looks like all are digging into their respective positions and ready to go head-to-head. I'm rooting for the good guys who want real pure science to answer the questions, and who want to protect us from anything less than fully informed consent to vaccinations.
Way to go Autism Speaks! I think we need to continue the grassroots groundswell of pressure to mount an honest check and balance to the powerful and coercive "public health" agendists, pockets overflowing with pharmacuetical dollars.
What do you think?
Post a Comment