Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty In Death Of Their Toddler (billion, agent, document)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, if the boy really did have bacterial meningitis, antibiotics could have saved him but only if his parents took him to the Dr. in time and in their case the jury ruled that they did not. Vaccines weren't a part of the case.
You would not want a vaccination for your child but you are okay with high dose antibiotics as an alternative??
Are you aware of the side effects and long term untoward effects of antibiotics?
Not sure why this is so funny to you. If your child gets measles or mumps then they could pass it on to babies who can't get the vaccines until they are older. You may not care if your kids get these preventable diseases but I can assure you that most do.
Mr. Maryland's just another of a long list of free riders who will scream blue murder when it's his kid that gets meningitis from another anti-vaxxer's kid. His wife will then beat him around the ears for the rest of his life.
Liberty being equated with anything like this event ignores the benefits he and his ilk have enjoyed for eons through decisions made on his behalf by a more informed and common sense imbued populace.
I'm making a left turn regardless if it's illegal or not. That semi load of flat iron will just have to stop for me. I'm not a member of any herd. I've got my liberty. Hooorah! ........Moronic.
The FDA keeping poisonous mushrooms of the shelves on behalf of the herd has probably saved him more than once.
His kind would not have survived the first century had it not been for the herd making sensible choices on his behalf.
Again, since you may not have an understanding of medicine and human physiology, I want to remind you that some viruses target "the fittest." Such was the case with the flu of 1918 which selectively killed young, healthy adults. Viruses invade the cells of our body and, in effect, take over "mission control" of these cells. The flu virus of 1918 selected the immune cells and turned them against the host (person infected). The healthier one was, especially their immune system, the more "ammo" the viruses were able to muster against their host. The weakest actually survived that flu epidemic.
Every year our pharmaceutical companies race to insure that there is vaccine when needed. They are working closely with the CDC and some will jump the gun to try to be the first to market. The CDC and WHO are playing a guessing game; trying to figure out which strains will be prevalent in the next flu season. It is more scientific than just a guess; many teams of scientist put their best minds on the problem: WHO | Recommended composition of influenza virus vaccines for use in the 2016-2017 northern hemisphere influenza season or Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC. I quote from the CDC link "The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended vaccine viruses for the 2016-2017 influenza season Northern Hemisphere vaccine composition, and the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has made the vaccine composition recommendation to be used in the United States. Both agencies recommend that trivalent vaccines contain an A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like (B/Victoria lineage) virus. It is recommended that quadrivalent vaccines, which have two influenza B viruses, contain the viruses recommended for the trivalent vaccines, as well as a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like (B/Yamagata lineage) virus. This represents a change in the influenza A (H3) component and a change in the influenza B lineage included in the trivalent vaccine compared with the composition of the 2015-2016 influenza vaccine. The vaccine viruses recommended for inclusion in the 2016-2017 Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccines are the same vaccine viruses that were chosen for inclusion in 2016 Southern Hemisphere seasonal flu vaccines. These vaccine recommendations were based on several factors, including global influenza virologic and epidemiologic surveillance, genetic characterization, antigenic characterization, antiviral resistance, and the candidate vaccine viruses that are available for production."
Of course another 1918 could happen again; although not likely from the same strain. I work with all of the strains in that CDC article and have not had the flu in years. My protection could 'possibly' protect me from another 1918 pandemic? From my understanding the next pandemic will probably come from some subtype with no pre-existing immunity.
She is a top experts in her field in Canada. A pretty good choice. She wasn't willing to lie and go along with corruption in order to keep her job but you think she would commit perjury in a court case just because? That's crazy. Do you really know nothing at all about the case? Or are you just making things up? She did not accuse the EMT's of asphyxiating the child. Where do you come up with these things? Seriously.
"a) This child was suffering from both croup and meningitis.
b) The infectious agent in this case can’t be determined with certainty. An enterovirus is the most likely infectious agent, but a bacteria or other virus can’t be ruled out.
c) There is no scientific evidence to support Haemophilus influenzae as the infectious agent in this case.
d) The irreversible hypoxic and anoxic brain injury is most likely secondary to the medical misadventure during the paramedic intervention.
e) The lung empyema is most likely secondary to aspiration during the paramedic intervention.
f) In the absence of the medical misadventure during the paramedic intervention, it is most likely that the child would have survived.
g) There is no scientific evidence to support that a delay in the initiation of antibiotics would have increased the risk of death in this child, even if bacterial meningitis had been the infectious agent (but there is no
scientific evidence in this case that the infectious agent is a bacteria)"
She blamed the death on the EMTs - despite the fact that the mom had been doing CPR before they got there.
c) is false. The test for Hib found the organism. The manufacturer's disclaimer that the test is not yet being used clinically does not negate the fact that it was positive.
e) is false. See below.
g) is false. Prompt antibiotic treatment of bacterial meningitis reduces the risk of death.
Quote:
The expert witness stated that he likely had viral meningitis but died due to lack of oxygen which was at least in part due to the 8 minute ride in the ambulance that was not properly equipped with the tools to intubate the boy correctly. She did not blame the EMT's as you claim. Why you would make up that little tidbit is beyond me. She did not ignore anything in the evidence.
See the part in bold and red. She blamed the EMTs. "Lack of oxygen" is asphyxia. If the EMTs had not been able to get oxygen to him they would not have been able to restart his heart. She blamed the pneumonia and empyema on the difficult intubation also, despite the fact that he had symptoms of pneumonia for weeks before the EMTs got to him, and empyema takes more than two or three days to develop.
"The estimated time course of untreated or inappropriately treated parapneumonic effusions. In general, an empyema will develop 4–6 weeks after the onset of aspiration of bacteria into the lung."
That empyema had been developing since he first got sick. The article also notes that early antibiotic treatment will prevent empyema. Antibiotics were started as soon as he got to the hospital. If he did not develop pneumonia until after he was intubated, he would not have had time to develop an empyema, which would have been prevented by the antibiotics anyway.
Note that empyema is common with bacterial pneumonia and Hib is rare since the advent of the vaccine -which Ezekiel did not receive.
Quote:
The test was too sensitive to give an accurate and reliable result.
That is the defense assertion. There should have been no Hib in the brain at all.
Quote:
His symptoms were much more closely matched with viral meningitis. So again, you're not being truthful in your assertions.
Why do you feel it so necessary to accuse people of lying when they disagree with you?
Since Hib is about 99 times more likely to be fatal if untreated than viral meningitis, it is about 99 times more probable that what he had was bacterial, not viral. The Hib test supports that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
One of the EMT's who testified stated that they could not get him full oxygen due to improper equipment. Either way, no one accused them of asphyxiating the boy as Suzy claims.
His symptoms were not severe though until the end. He was running around playing one day and laying around in bed the next. He didn't get really sick until the last couple of days. He had enterovirus in his nose and throat as per autopsy. His symptoms were mild until the last couple of days.
They got him sufficient oxygen to restart his heart. The ex-ME testified that death was due to too little oxygen, not meningitis or empyema. She had to try to find a way to shift responsibility away from the parents. She did indeed blame the EMTs.
Viral respiratory infections can often lead to secondary bacterial infections:
"A number of studies have described the patterns of viral–bacterial co-infections in children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).[45-48] In this population, rates of viral–bacterial co-infections usually range from 15% to 30%, with higher rates in the younger age groups (under 5 years of age). The most common causes of CAP and acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in children are S. pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and respiratory viruses, although in a large part of the world, H. influenzae and S. aureus, remain important causes. Thus, the types of viral–bacteria co-infections tend to vary by age group and geography, but generally represent the pathogens most commonly isolated in the study population (e.g., RSV-S. pneumoniae, rhinovirus–Mycoplasma) although almost any combination of respiratory virus–bacterial pathogen has been observed. Although the widespread use of vaccination against H. influenzae type b has largely eliminated this as a cause of CAP in the United States and other high-income countries, this pathogen causes an estimated 4·1% of severe and 15·7% of fatal cases of childhood pneumonias worldwide."
The problem is that Ezekiel was not vaccinated against Hib. His symptoms were not "mild". They were giving him fluids with an eyedropper, for goodness sake. He was critically ill well before he was taken to the naturopath's office.
The only liar here is Anny Sauvageau. Anyone with a computer can find information that shows the holes in her analysis.
Again, since you may not have an understanding of medicine and human physiology, I want to remind you that some viruses target "the fittest." Such was the case with the flu of 1918 which selectively killed young, healthy adults. Viruses invade the cells of our body and, in effect, take over "mission control" of these cells. The flu virus of 1918 selected the immune cells and turned them against the host (person infected). The healthier one was, especially their immune system, the more "ammo" the viruses were able to muster against their host. The weakest actually survived that flu epidemic.
The 1918 virus did have an unusually high mortality in the young and healthy, but the usual high risk populations did not totally escape. In most flu seasons, there are two peak age groups with high mortality: the very young and the very old. The 1918 virus caused three peaks: the very young, young to middle age adults, and the very old, with about half the deaths in the middle group and almost all of them under age 65.
The experts are still trying to explain the third peak, and the mechanism you describe appears to be involved, resulting in a high rate of superimposed bacterial pneumonia, which is common with influenza in any season.
It's not so much funny as it is a return of the smug superiority doled out by the zealot vaccine proponents.
Frankly I'm tired of these people who think they know better than everyone else. None of them ever want to discuss the revolving door and corrupt Gov agencies tasked with actually looking out for the public welfare, the fact that vaccine manufacturers lobbied for and won immunity from lawsuits and scrutiny, and the fact that they (the zealots) seem to spend an outsized amount of time and effort "debunking" those who disagree. Much more effort seems to be spent by these people than those who disagree on other topics on forums.
We live under a hugely corrupt system, and to argue that pharma and the cdc are somehow pure and unadulterated is asinine. These people spend years trying to convince other forum members that the propaganda they support is gospel.
So yea. Not really funny as it is disgusting (on their part).
Ask yourself - since when is any science actually "done"? The very definition of science is looking for truth, not trying to fit an agenda into a narrative. The Narrative that "The Vaccine Science Is over with, it's done" should be enough to alert any rational person that there is a fatal flaw with the person spewing such drivel
As stated above, the zealots refuse to even acknowledge certain glaring facts.
Instead, they revert back to accusations of "free rider" which is a false argument (and they know it). Pathetic.
Your default may be that the system in place is trustworthy, but that does not make that a fact. The fact is our government agencies have long been hijacked by the industry's they are tasked with regulating. The fact is they won legislation back in the late 80s giving them immunity from lawsuits and scrutiny. At that same time, surprise, the vaccine load began to increase to the ridiculous amount we have today.
The only free riders are the pharma corporations who enjoy massive profit subsidized by our tax dollars and mandates to inject their unsafe products.
As stated above, the zealots refuse to even acknowledge certain glaring facts.
Instead, they revert back to accusations of "free rider" which is a false argument (and they know it). Pathetic.
Your default may be that the system in place is trustworthy, but that does not make that a fact. The fact is our government agencies have long been hijacked by the industry's they are tasked with regulating. The fact is they won legislation back in the late 80s giving them immunity from lawsuits and scrutiny. At that same time, surprise, the vaccine load began to increase to the ridiculous amount we have today.
The only free riders are the pharma corporations who enjoy massive profit subsidized by our tax dollars and mandates to inject their unsafe products.
I assume you are a conspiracy theorist who will die before taking any pharmaceuticals?
I assume you are a conspiracy theorist who will die before taking any pharmaceuticals?
Considering that it's a fact and not in dispute that the pharmaceutical corporations did indeed succeed in getting legislation passed 30 years ago that shields them from any liability or scrutiny, no.
Would you like to know more about government and it's revolving door to the industries it's tasked to regulate? I recommend google.
Considering that it's a fact and not in dispute that the pharmaceutical corporations did indeed succeed in getting legislation passed 30 years ago that shields them from any liability or scrutiny, no.
Would you like to know more about government and it's revolving door to the industries it's tasked to regulate? I recommend google.
Yes, if you can provide your source and this source is reputable, i.e. demonstrates ability and access to inside information.
Considering that it's a fact and not in dispute that the pharmaceutical corporations did indeed succeed in getting legislation passed 30 years ago that shields them from any liability or scrutiny, no.
Would you like to know more about government and it's revolving door to the industries it's tasked to regulate? I recommend google.
Drug companies are not shielded from liability. If you are referring to the vaccine injury compensation program, that provides compensation for those very small number of people who have true serious complications from vaccines. It is a no fault system that allows such people to be compensated for adverse effects that are not due to defects in the vaccine or negligence on the part of the company that makes it. Anyone who is not satisfied with resolution of the claim can appeal it - potentially all the way to SCOTUS.
The no fault system would not protect a company if a vaccine was found to actually be defective - and side effects or adverse events (which are due to a reaction by the individual) are not due to a defect in the product).
By the way, anti-vax activist Barbara Loe Fisher took part in getting the legislation passed that set up the compensation program.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
