So if you have antibodies to TBE after a vaccination, that means the vaccine has likely worked, and you should be protected from infection in the future. If you have antibodies to TBE without ever having been vaccinated, you have likely been exposed to the virus itself. Depending on the course of the infection – it may have been cleared, or it may be ongoing.

We don’t currently have a good vaccine for HIV, so antibodies to that virus are indicative that you have been exposed to the virus itself, are likely infected, and without treatment will develop AIDS. HIV establishes is a uniquely scary infection because it is capable of escaping antibody responses.

I hope that makes sense.

You are angry that *your* dogma isn’t being taught.

So let’s see: if someone has antibodies to HIV then they will get the disease and if they have antibodies to TBE this means that they are protected against the disease.

Perhaps somebody could explain why this is science and not hocus-pocus.

The only thing stopping scientific progress here is the fact that religious theology is being taught in our nation’s public schools over teaching science.

This youtube video link shows a person from Fox News reading a label from an H1N1 vaccine. It reads as follows – “safety and effectiveness of the H1N1 2009 vaccine have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or persons less than 18 years of age.

Then why would the US Govt. say its safe in a multi-million dollar ad campaign? Why would doctors be touring the country saying its safe on behalf of the govt and the drug companies? Why is the govt saying it is a must have for pregnant women and for children?

Why did the US Govt exempt vaccine companies from being sued?

Folks, do you really want to keep going down this road of being blind to the obvious and get your family hurt, keep blindly listening to these multi-billion dollar profit boondoggles and putting your fellow man at risk by speaking of stuff you havent even researched very well yourself?

Its this sort of heinous, for profit process that has created zero confidence in this govt..

Anyone willing to call this process science has got me completely at a loss. Lets see…we will say its safe and put on the label its not proven safe or effective yet we will say we know it definitively does not cause autism. Give me the H1N1 any day of the week over the risk of having a child get autism, or other condition like multiple sclerosis or a learning disability. Science? This country is 38th or worse in the health of its citizens and you think it understands health?

Sorry folks, but the science just isnt there to support efficacy of vaccines…even if you could prove them safe. Sure is profitable though, and sure is a great way to create a fear campaign and repeal some of the constitution and bill of rights when it suits.

Friend of mine went in last week to the gynecologist and there were posters everywhere saying how safe it was, how you had to have it, and so on. Are we that pathetically asleep as a society to put up with this outrage? Come on people, at least go down swinging.

Anyone want to take a stab at why the vaccine mfrs were exempted from being held liable for hurting people?

This is your wake up call to take responsibility for your own health, and inject, definite pun intended, some real ethics and morals back into your society.

Unbelievable. I think we have raised a whole society of zombies.

“There are at least two ways to relate to anything – a small-minded way and a large-minded way. Choose large mind. – - Confucius

Keep in mind that the Hannah Poling case was not argued in the sense that a hearing was not held, nor a trial. Testimony was given in the form of expert reports, but the experts did not present their discussions verbally.

We don’t know what was said in the expert reports. There has been much discussion on the internet as to the why, with many people pushing the idea that the government refuses to make them public, while others have noted that there are indications that they could be made public if the Polings would agree. The main point is that it seems highly unlikely that the actual reports will be made public.

With all due respect, I believe you misinterpreted my argument regarding your daughter’s case. My assertion was that the evidence presented at trial fell short of scientific evidence for a causative link – not that legal evidence was not presented. Certainly, experts argued on your daughter’s behalf, but to the best of my knowledge their testimony primarily relied on making plausible medical arguments. As far as I am aware, no data was presented that vaccines directly induced or exacerbated the encephalopathy suffered by your daughter.

I do not wish to rehash the details of the trial – in the article I linked to what I believe is a strong scientific interpretation of the events, and I encourage readers to seek out further information as they see fit.

As I mentioned, I strongly support further research into the etiology of autism, including into the arguments made during the trial. Ultimately, biologically plausible arguments are often wrong, and for that reason need to be investigated and generate unbiased data before major changes to public health are made. Currently no such data support these links.

I understand that you may take further issue with these statements, but I hope that, despite our disagreement, you can understand that my interests are not in manipulation or in making false claims.

Respectfully,
Mike Pazos

As Hannah Poling’s mother, I take major issue with your assertion that she was compensated even though, you say there was no evidence that the vaccinations injured or caused her regression? Not only is that a ridiculous statement, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Manipulating facts to serve your argument is not at all persuasive. I suggest that, in the future, if you want to discuss false claims, etc., you should start with your own.
Terry Poling