...
...
4 years ago in Deep Dives by rok-sivante (77)
$8.16
- Past Payouts $8.16
- - Author $4.16
- - Curators $4.00
91 votes
- recursive: $4.77
- canadian-coconut: $1.93
- ausbitbank: $0.38
- ace108: $0.18
- jkramer: $0.17
- lynds: $0.10
- familyprotection: $0.09
- suonghuynh: $0.07
- smartvote: $0.05
- deepdives: $0.05
- steemchiller: $0.05
- tfame3865: $0.03
- steemflower: $0.03
- jamesbattler: $0.03
- flemingfarm: $0.02
- bozz: $0.02
- indextrader24: $0.02
- ixindamix: $0.02
- luca1777: $0.02
- gerdtrudroepke: $0.01
- and 71 more
Such an important step. It amazes me that it took so long to accomplish. There is so much more to chop away at, but this is critical. Resteemed.
🙏
I'd like to look into this, but none of the websites that report on this appear to be giving their source. Can you point me to the court case name / reference / plaintiff vs defendant?Edit 1:
Nevermind I found it :
Case # 19-cv-11947-LJL
"INSTITUTE FOR AUTISM SCIENCE and INFORMED CONSENT ACTION NETWORK vs CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION"
Edit 2:
Ok, checked the details, the interpretation is a little bit hyperbolic here.
CDC didn't "admit in Federal Court that they have no evidence 'vaccines don’t cause autism'". That's not what happened. What actually happened is that CDC submitted a list of studies in response to the plaintiff's FOIA that requested all evidence the CDC had that vaccines didn't cause autism, and in retrospect upon checking the studies submitted by the CDC, it appears that although some of the studies provided by the CDC did indeed support the idea of an absence of correlation between the use of certain vaccines / ingredients in isolation and the onset of autism, none of the studies the CDC provided in reply to the FOIA support the claim that
In other words, this court proceeding proves either of two things:
So no the CDC didn't "admit that they have no evidence that 'vaccines don't case autism'". They actually showed that they had some evidence that some vaccines used in isolation do not apparently cause autism in children 6 months and higher. But the failure to provide sufficient evidence to back the wilder and much more general claim that "vaccines (in general) don't cause autism (in any case whatsoever)" can be legally interpreted as either a failure to comply to the FOIA (and therefore an offense under the same act), or an implicit admission that the more general claim was unscientific and therefore unfounded.
@rok-sivante, I am not certain that this does or doesnot have any bearing on issues concerning the CDC, main point to show is that the CDC is the worlds largest holder of medicinal patents and is, of course, a privately held corporation. The following is concerning the arguably cleverest lie perpetrated by the CDC, the "Flu Shot"
https://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2016/cdc-admits-flu-shots-fail-half-the-time.aspx
Thanks for the great read!!
Mitch
Sorry, I can't comment much on this one. I fall on the other side of the fence, but I am not looking for a debate. I do support your right to post and believe what you want though, so I am going to upvote it.
Which side of the fence is that - one where mainstream “health” institutions need not be held accountable to making claims based on zero evidence that continues to endanger thousands of lives?
I'm not sold on the fact that vaccines cause autism. That's just me though. I understand many people have strong beliefs on both side.
It'd be interesting to see how your position shifted if your kids were one of the thousands affected...
Fair point, you are right, I don't have any kids. I have worked in a school district for close to twenty years with students who have any manner of issues including autism. Likewise my wife has worked directly with many autistic students through the years.
Belief is irrelevant.
Facts of what's actually happening are.
Why does everyone hate autistics so much that they'd rather feed their kids bleach and cause a resurgence of measles than have an autistic kid