Respectful opposition?

This excellent article from Dr Yazbak, describes the change in attitude over the last 10 years that is most clearly evidenced in Australia by the shameful and shockingly abusive behaviour of those who call themselves 'skeptics'. Dr Yazbak is a paediatrician with many decades of experience and a great deal of expertise in both the diagnosis and treatment of children. His faith in one aspect of medical science - the science of vaccination - was severely shaken when his own grandson was diagnosed as autistic - a diagnosis which he and his family believes was related to the vaccines this child received. He has also appeared as an expert witness in several cases before the vaccine court in the US. What he describes in this blog is the change in not only procedures but also the change in approach over the last 10 years. Initially, the courts were intended to be non-adversarial. They were virtually no-fault hearings where the Special Masters who make the final decision, would listen to both sides and make a judgement based on the balance of the evidence. Would the family get compensation or not? Was there enough evidence to state that the vaccine may have been implicated in the condition or the death of the child in question. As Dr Yazbak states, there were experts on both sides of these hearings and these experts and the attorneys involved treated everyone with the greatest of respect including the families whose lives had been shattered by vaccines. How times have changed! In much the same way that the pseudo-skeptics are abusive and vicious towards anyone who questions vaccination safety and effectiveness - the paid experts for the drug companies and in some cases, the courts themselves, treat those applicants and their experts as if they were criminals instead of as grieving parents and health professionals trying to get whatever justice can be achieved for those whose lives have been blighted - sometimes permanently - by a medical procedure they agreed to take in order to keep their children healthy. It is time to stop this way of dealing with those we disagree with. It is time to start seeing each other as human beings - flawed, sometimes wrong, but always caring first and foremost for our children and the truth. The truth is not as easy to find as some may think. Absolutism and dogma have no place in this search. But the only way we will ever discover whether vaccines are as safe and effective as we are being told they are is if both sides stop fighting and start working together to achieve the goal we all supposedly want - healthy and happy children. The best first step to achieve this goal would be for the governments of the world to independently fund a study comparing the overall health of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated - a study that is more than 200 years overdue. Intimidation in the Court | Vaccination News Writers never want to bore their readers.  After publishing my original three papers on the Cedillo case, Double Standards[1], Busting Rules[2] and Translation in the Court[3], I felt it was time to leave further discussion of the case to others.

I was flattered and certainly grateful when John Stone kindly mentioned the three publications in his widely read Age of Autism[4] column on November 8, 2010. The many comments that Stone’s column generated were very interesting; one on November 10 touched a sensitive cord:

“The question should be asked not why Fombomme was treated with such reverence but why the opposing views and the people are treated to disrespect.”

The following comments will focus on what happened to the very first expert witnesses who dared to testify for the petitioner in Theresa Cedillo and Michael Cedillo, as parents and natural guardians of Michelle Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services - No. 98-916V.

Before doing that, it may be worthwhile to review the original statement in the vaccine injury compensation law on how the hearings were to be conducted[5]:

“… (2) The special masters shall recommend rules to the Court of Federal Claims and, taking into account such recommended rules, the Court of Federal Claims shall promulgate rules pursuant to section2071 of title 28. Such rules shall –

(A) provide for a less-adversarial, expeditious, and informal proceeding for the resolution of petitions…” (p. 12)

“Less adversarial” and indeed often cordial was the way hearings used to be conducted. I clearly recall my personal experience in two vaccine injury compensation cases, not too long ago.