Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Blogger Subpoenaed for Criticizing Trial Lawyers

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 02:19 PM
from the lookin-for-a-free-ride dept.
Cutie Pi writes "Katherine Seidel, mother of an autistic child and an avid blogger has been subpoenaed for her "family's bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which [she] has devoted [her] attention and energy in recent years." The lawyer in question is representing a mother who is suing Bayer for $20M with the claim that mercury in their vaccines caused her child's autism. In her blog Seidel has spoken out against lawyers trying to cash in on thimerosal lawsuits, noting that the thimerosal-autism link has been debunked in several studies. But Seidel herself has had no direct involvement in the lawsuit."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Science: Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism 298 comments
jamie found an article over at Washington Monthly discussing the recent finding that there is no link between thimerosal and autism. It seems that after the mercury-based vaccine preservative was withdrawn from use in 1999, no drop in autism rates has been observed in a large California study. Here's the Science Daily writeup on the study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
[+] Blogger Successfully Quashes Subpoena 172 comments
Ares writes "In a follow-up to Blogger Subpoenaed for Criticizing Trial Lawyers, Katherine Seidel's blog indicates that not only has she successfully quashed her subpoena, but the lawyer issuing said subpoena is now under orders to appear and explain why the courts shouldn't sanction him for it. This should be interesting, because in addition to Ms. Seidel's subpoena in New Hampshire, the lawyer issued a similar subpoena to a doctor and a Harvard professor under similar circumstances."
[+] News: Lawyer Who Subpoenaed Blogger Seidel Sanctioned 35 comments
Zathras26 writes "Slashdot has previously reported on a lawyer subpoenaing Kathleen Seidel for blogging about him in an unflattering light. Seidel successfully moved to quash the subpoena. In granting the motion to quash, the judge ordered the lawyer, Clifford Shoemaker, to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for his behavior. Whatever his response was, if any, it apparently wasn't good enough, because Shoemaker has been formally sanctioned for his actions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by dosius (230542) <lyricalnanoha@dosius.ath.cx> on Friday April 11 2008, @02:24PM (#23039874) Journal
    ...this lawyer sounds like a Scientologist.

    *HIDES*
  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:24PM (#23039878) Journal
    These people are angry and want something to take their frustrations out on. The fact that no studies provide any evidence of a link between the vaccines and autism is an minor inconvenience to be ignored!

    Scumbag lawyers, shoddy science, willfully ignorant and upset parents - it's a perfect combination.

    • by Naughty Bob (1004174) * on Friday April 11 2008, @02:32PM (#23039968)
      The guy who started all of this, Andrew Wakefield, now practices in the US, having been effectively kicked out of the UK medical scene.

      He is clearly addicted to the idea of being a superstar doctor, and doesn't mind how many hopes, dreams and desperate parents he abuses along the way.

      As science becomes debased in popular culture, by everything from homeopathy to astrology to religion, tragedies like this one will be the consequence.

      We geeks need to get out of the basement and put our collective intelligence to work.
    • by eln (21727) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:44PM (#23040116) Homepage
      It's even worse than that. The anti-vaccine movement operates much like a cult. It takes people who are in a situation where they feel isolated, helpless, and angry, and they give these people a strong support community that will not only alleviate their feelings of isolation and helplessness, but give them a boogeyman to lash out at. Once someone is in a community like this, they will continue to fight for the cause no matter how much evidence is stacked against them.

      It's really sad, because these people are risking allowing some truly horrible and often fatal diseases to come back decades after they were virtually wiped out. I'd much rather have a minuscule and totally unproven chance of a few kids getting autism, which is not fatal, than have a virtual certainty of thousands of kids getting fatal and/or permanently disfiguring diseases like pertussis or polio.
    • by FleaPlus (6935) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:28PM (#23040704) Homepage Journal
      Economics blogger Megan McArdle had a great post about this recently which elaborates on just how dangerous the anti-vaccination craze is:

      http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/correlation_causation_vaccinat.php [theatlantic.com]

      The anti-vaccination websites sustain their belief by systematically excluding anyone offering counterevidence from the domain of acceptable sources. Pharma studies can't be trusted because they have a profit motive. The CDC is in hock to big business. The "medical establishment" wants to make money giving your children unnecessary shots. In fact, the only person you can trust is the guy writing the website.

      This is the sure sign of a crank. It is possible that all these people are wrong--science has had much more spectacular failures in the face of clear evidence. But there is no such thing as a multi-million person conspiracy. ...

      Looking for those links is entirely natural. But fingering vaccines has real and terrible consequences. Millions of children die worldwide every year from childhood diseases that we've eliminated here through vaccination. Now, because these websites are frightening people about vaccination, we're seeing a resurgence of those diseases. People are dying from them again, and others are being left with permanent health impairment. Leaving children unvaccinated means going back to

              * Leg braces and iron lungs for people with polio (57,628 cases in 1952)
              * Encephalitis and sterility for people with mumps (200,000 cases a year in the 1960s)
              * Congenital rubella syndrome for children whose mothers contracted the illness during pregnancy.
              * Blindness, pneumonia, encephalitis, and death--one per thousand--for people with measles (nearly 1 million cases a year in the US before vaccines).
              * Encephalitis and pulmonary hypertension for people with whooping cough--thanks to people who don't vaccinate their kids, in 2001, 17 people, mostly infants, died of pertussis (200,000 cases in 1940).
              * Cardiac arrest and paralysis for people with diptheria (207,000 cases and about 15,000 deaths in 1920).

      The vaccines scare us because the diseases don't. And they don't because of the vaccines.
  • by R1Lawrence (1271570) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:26PM (#23039890)
    This is the worst of what our legal system allows. Now this woman is forced to hire an attorney just to defend her right to free speech. It makes me sick!
      • by cprael (215426) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:52PM (#23040214)
        She's been given three weeks, give or take, to review virtually every electronic communication or posting, or scrap of paper, that has passed through her life in the last 4 years, and package it _all_ to take the deposition. She isn't even being offered a witness fee.

        It is not "probably" an abuse of the legal system. It is one. It is also overly intrusive, and has a number of other "defects".

        The last time I saw a subpeona like this, the lawyer quickly backed down, because he realized we were going to ask for sanctions for abuse of process as soon as we walked into the courthouse.
      • by Bogtha (906264) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:58PM (#23040294)

        Don't get me wrong -- it's still a pain in the butt and it's wrong and probably an abuse of the legal system. But her freedom of speech isn't at risk. She could respond by just giving the documents requested. She shouldn't have to do so, but her speech is in no way at risk.

        It's called a chilling effect [wikipedia.org]. If this is upheld, it will send the message that if you criticise pseudo-science, you are in danger of being dragged before a court and having all your personal details examined for no good reason. It's an undue burden on speech that many people will not be willing to take just to speak out against some kooks.

      • by dubl-u (51156) * <2523987012.pota@to> on Friday April 11 2008, @03:05PM (#23040384)

        But her freedom of speech isn't at risk.
        I disagree totally. Yes, they are not asking for her web site to be closed down. But did you actually read the subpoena [neurodiversity.com]?

        They want her bank statements, her canceled checks, her tax returns, and any documents even vaguely related to any issue covered on her web site, including correspondence with her physicians, attorneys, and any member of the government. Imagine how you would feel about giving the last seven years of your correspondence and financial records over to a hostile party.

        And, of course, they want the right to grill her about anything related to any of that, while she pays a couple hundred bucks an hour in legal fees. And for why? Because she has blogged critically about them.

        That doesn't just have an effect on her right to free speech. It has an chilling effect [wikipedia.org] on every blogger who sees themselves as a citizen journalist. Anybody who wants to blog about something important -- or even read blogs like that -- should oppose legal harassment like this.
      • by joseph449008 (1121209) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:56PM (#23040274)
        Except that all the information Kathleen posts is supported by publicly available information, and Mr. Shoemaker no doubt knows this. The subpoena was issued 4 hours after Kathleen posted information about the money Shoemaker makes by losing vaccine injury cases. See her motion to quash [neurodiversity.com]. Make no mistake, some people would like to silence Kathleen and at the same time indulge their delusions that she's part of an government/pharma/illuminati conspiracy. What has happened is clearly a threat to freedom of speech. Imagine if lawyers could just issue subpoenas if they see an opinion on the web they don't like.
      • by Chas (5144) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:48PM (#23040986) Homepage Journal

        Her right to free speech is not being interfered with

        The hell it isn't. [wikipedia.org]

        • Blogger: Blah blah something inconventient blah
        • Lawyer: I don't want you to say that
        • Blogger: Sorry. It's protected speech.
        • Lawyer: I'll give you something else to do then. Bring out all records since the second you were born, package them up, and come all the way out to me so that I can verbally harass you. That should keep you so busy that you don't have time to say stuff I find inconvenient. It should also keep you so busy that you can't actually do anything else with your life (like work, take care of your kids, etc) either.


        It's not about denying someone their rights.

        It's about exerting social influence on them to distract/prevent them from exercising those rights.

        And, failing that, it's about creating pain points when one decides to exercise those rights. Like electroshock therapy. Sure, nothing's STOPPING you from doing "Activity A", but if you get a painful jolt every time you do "Activity A", you'll soon find that you either reduce or completely stop doing "Activity A".

  • by techpawn (969834) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:29PM (#23039930) Journal
    I thought it was Spring! What's that chilling effect in the air I feel?
  • Blinded by the light (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:33PM (#23039982)
    It's incredible the amount of unsubstantiated credence that some parents of autistic children will give to the thimerosal hypothesis. For example, Jenny McCarthy (who has an autistic child, and I have sympathy for her since it can't be easy) was on Larry King Live the other day, sititng next to someone who was there to debunk the supposed link between autism and thimerosal. His arguments were grounded in science, but she would not be moved, and she was extremely animated and emotional over any suggestion that thimerosal isn't to blame.

    I suppose, in some sense, that it's like telling her that her religion is wrong.
    • by Oxy the moron (770724) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:48PM (#23040162)

      As a father of an autistic child, I can totally understand an emotional and illogical response to the suggestion of a Thimerosal/autism link. Believe me, at first it had me somewhat enraged as well. In light of some other drugs that have come under fire in past years for either under-delivering on promises or outright harming people that take them, it only makes sense that some people are going to look at a statement like that and say "Oh, look, something *else* the FDA missed!"

      The problem is most people nowadays seem to either 1) lack the capacity to think for themselves (either mentally or as a result of time constraints, etc.) 2) lack the desire to think for themselves. After all, why bother doing that when someone else has already done it for me?

      I also think that both sides are sitting too much in the area of absolutes. It seems that most scientists insist that *every* vaccine is safe for *every* child, and the inverse is true for those who think Thimerosal causes autism. Obviously, just the mere presence of Thimerosal doesn't cause autism, because if it did we'd all be autistic. But at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the large number of vaccines that are administered at once nowadays, along with other possible factors, are at the source.

      Autism can be very difficult to work with as a parent, and I hope they find out the cause/cure soon. But flying off the handle, on either side, isn't going to get it done.

      • by tthomas48 (180798) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:59PM (#23040312) Homepage
        Scientists don't "insist that *every* vaccine is safe for *every* child". They insist that the small number of side effects in the small number of children is far better than the massive side effects (like death) of having to treat the diseases in large populations including children. They are fully aware that there are going to be a tiny number of kids that have negative reactions to vaccines. That doesn't outweigh the number of deaths that are prevented by getting rid of these diseases.

        And these are planetary efforts. Sure in the US most of these diseases are not going to kill your kid (unless they're born prematurely), but outside the US these childhood diseases are much more serious. Vaccines are for the good of mankind.
          • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:35PM (#23040808)
            No, it's not meant to be for your own good. Mass vaccination policy is in place for the good of the population. If 95% of people get vaccinated for Pluto's Spotted Canker Sores, then 5% of the population remains a nice breeding ground for it, allowing the disease to sustain itself and mutate into more dangerous varieties. This is somewhat similar to the avian flu threat we face today, which is largely caused by the lack of genetic diversity in chicken populations. The uniformity of chicken immune systems acts like the uniform lack of vaccine in humans, allowing new disease strains to come into being and multiply in a friendly environment before spreading to the rest of us.
          • by tthomas48 (180798) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:43PM (#23040924) Homepage
            "'cause we know how well those pan out. "
            According to wikipedia 300-500 million people died of smallpox in the 20th century. It was irradicated via vaccine in 1979.

            Ok, first of all Thermisol is a preservative. It doesn't have to be in vaccines. It did not do anything to help your body. And autism cases have increased since they removed it.

            "If it works, your kid had it and won't get Pluto's Spotted Canker Sores."
            If it works your kid gets antibodies and won't get paralyzed by Polio.

            "If it doesn't, why do I have to take it anyway?"
            This is a common argument. Social Darwanism would seem to say this would be desirable. If you're not intelligent enough to recognize the value of vaccines then your children should be free to die from early childhood diseases and no longer populate the gene pool with your particular brand of ignorance.

            Except that this doesn't happen in the US the fact that everyone else is vaccinated means that the chance of your child getting a horrible disease is pretty low. You can piggyback off the immunity of others.

            The problem is that your child becomes a host for disease. Those bugs are free to use your child to breed and spread. They're also able to use your child to mutate into new strains that can bypass the antibodies created by the vaccines in the healthy population. And your kid can wipe out 5% of the kids in the US. That's why vaccines are mandated.

            The main reason that this is an issue is because we really don't have any horrible childhood diseases anymore, so no one remembers why we started this vaccinating stuff in the first place.
      • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Friday April 11 2008, @03:00PM (#23040324) Homepage Journal
        "It seems that most scientists insist that *every* vaccine is safe for *every* child,"
        Unless a child has an allergy to something in the vaccine, they are.

        "I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the large number of vaccines that are administered at once nowadays, along with other possible factors, are at the source."

        Actually it is unreasonable.
        It wasn't unreasonable to look at that possibility, but it has been shown not to be the cause many times.

        "Autism can be very difficult to work with as a parent, "
        no doubt, but continuing to say 'maybe' to the vaccine issue doesn't help.

      • by jcr (53032) <jcr@mac. c o m> on Friday April 11 2008, @03:26PM (#23040666) Journal
        It seems that most scientists insist that *every* vaccine is safe for *every* child,

        Not even close. What they do say, is that the chances of side-effects from vaccines are less than the hazards of the disease that the vaccine prevents.

        -jcr
      • by mlwmohawk (801821) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:56PM (#23040260)
        There's also the issue that if she can't blame someone else the only obvious alternative is to blame herself. Something few people would willingly face the possibility of doing.

        I find it difficult to believe that the parent of an autistic child is to be "blamed." At this stage in the game, no one knows what causes autism so it is too early to asses blame.

        • by wattrlz (1162603) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:17PM (#23040540)

          There's also the issue that if she can't blame someone else the only obvious alternative is to blame herself. Something few people would willingly face the possibility of doing. I find it difficult to believe that the parent of an autistic child is to be "blamed." At this stage in the game, no one knows what causes autism so it is too early to asses blame.
          When something tragic happens it's a natural human response to try and assign blame. It doesn't have to make sense. It might not even be conscious, but people like to have reasons for things.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11 2008, @02:34PM (#23040006)
    They want to make sure she wasn't being paid to blog by the pharmacutical companies for their impending suit with them. Is it dirty? Yep. Is it wrong? No
  • by vinn01 (178295) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:39PM (#23040052)
    The lawyer may be a sick farker, but the judge who allows this, without sanction, is even sicker.

    Third party subpoenas should be looked at under a microscope for relevance. This lady didn't manufacture, sell, or administrate the vaccine in question. What does she have to do with the underlying lawsuit?
    • by russotto (537200) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:49PM (#23040170) Journal
      Subpoenas can be issued without any judge looking at them; they're filed with the court by the attorney and then served. It's up to the poor slob served to file a motion to quash (which she has). Punishment through subpoenas and the discovery process in general is nothing new, alas.

  • Subpoenas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrifterCC (673360) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:46PM (#23040144)
    I am not a lawyer, but you just wait about six months.

    The thing to understand about subpoenas is that in most states, once litigation commences, the lawyers (as officers of the court) for each side have the power to issue subpoenas to anyone who might have information relevant to the lawsuit.

    The major limitations on such subpoenas are ethical limitations (attorneys' behavior is governed by a complex but far-from-bright-line set of rules) and the rules against discovery abuse, which can be found at Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and elsewhere. The decision to grant sanctions is up to the discretion of the court, which basically means that an appellate court will go with what the judge decides, unless, for example, the discovery sanction is death.

    However, it looks like Ms. Seidel is in good hands lawyer-wise. Her motion to quash the subpoena (the way that one tries to avoid having to comply) hits a lot of different theories and defenses, including the most important one: that the subpoena won't lead to discoverable evidence.

    Postscript of Surprise: The plaintiff's attorney filed the suit in the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal court whose nickname is "The Rocket Docket." The consensus among attorneys is that once you file a case there, you should go ahead and say goodbye to your family for a few months. Rather than let litigation drag out for years, the Rocket Docket judges set -extremely- aggressive discovery schedules. Filing any complaint there is ballsy, no less a thimerosal one, since whether thimerosal causes autism is far from crystal-clear. Long discovery would mean more time for the plaintiff to gather evidence (and for new autism studies to come out).
  • Correct spelling (Score:4, Informative)

    by Skapare (16644) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:39PM (#23040858) Homepage

    Thiomersal is one of those words that is more misspelled (as "thimerosal") than spelled correctly (according to hit counts from a Google Search). Both the blogger and the lawyer in this case have it wrong. More info is at http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/questions/en/ [who.int] and http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/en/index.html [who.int]. Also see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=516680 [nih.gov].

  • by joseph449008 (1121209) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:59PM (#23041142)
    From Kathleen Seidel's Motion to Quash:

    17. The subpoena was not issued in good faith because its manifest purpose is not to elicit information relevant to determining Bayer's liability for Wesley Sykes' medical and developmental problems, but to indulge his parents' and their attorney's curiosity about my motivations and associations; to aggressively communicate their suspicion that I am not merely a fellow citizen who openly, intelligently and conscientiously disagrees with their public statements and actions, but a covert agent of the government, the pharmaceutical industry, or some other hidden force; to disrupt my relationships with my associates and news sources; and to intimidate, harass and retaliate against me for exercising my constitutional right to report and express opinions about matters of widespread public interest in which plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel are involved. These are not legitimate reasons to invoke the judicial subpoena power. Indeed, in so doing, Mr. Shoemaker has engaged in a sanctionable abuse of his authority as an officer of the court.

    WHEREFORE, Kathleen Seidel prays her motion to quash this unconstitutional, unreasonable, irrelevant, excessive, invasive, burdensome, frivolous, and clearly retaliatory subpoena be ALLOWED.
    • by rbphilip (530254) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:26PM (#23039892)
      Except, of course, that there is no evidence that vaccines harm children. Or adults.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11 2008, @02:39PM (#23040054)
          So it's exactly like "Silent Spring" then.
        • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:40PM (#23040072) Homepage
          Well, if Silent Spring was shown to be a crock, and people still bring it up as a bogeyman.... then yes, it's just like the vaccines (shown to be a crock, but with people still bringing it up as a bogeyman...) This just makes the comparison more valid! =)
          • DDT was completely awful and evil for saving millions of peoples lives in Africa.
            DDT is still perfectly legal to use for disease control, which is how it's used in Africa.

            It's not legal to use it how we WERE using it -- to get a slightly higher yield from wholly un-diseased agriculture.
              • DDT (Score:5, Interesting)

                by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_20 ... hoo.com minus pi> on Friday April 11 2008, @06:49PM (#23042654)

                DDT didn't cause the thinning. It's still banned though, because people fear global warming and other such nonsense.

                "In the 1950s [wilsoncenter.org], the World Health Organization (WTO) dropped DDT on the island of Borneo to control mosquitoes, resulting in two unexpected events. First, homes collapsed under the weight of hornets' nests that died and hardened from the DDT; and second, and more troubling, there was an outbreak of bubonic plague because the DDT affected the island's animal nutrient cycle. Small animals (lizards, insects, etc.) became sluggish, while larger animals such as cats ended up with toxic levels of DDT from consumption of smaller creatures. Eventually, all the cats died, leading to an increase in the rat population and an outbreak of bubonic plague. The WTO's solution--which worked--was to airdrop cats to deal with the rat problem, which, in turn, addressed the bubonic plague problem."

                Falcon
          • Silent Spring was a crock in the overreaction that followed the book.

            We went from spraying DDT on everything, to nothing.

            There are films from the 40s and 50s where trucks would just drive down neighborhoods spraying DDT. They'd do it at public pools. No one thought anything of it. We way over used DDT.

            In the wake of the book, people overreacted and moved to basically ban DDT outright. Instead of spraying in a controlled manner (such as, say, only where mosquitoes are a problem), we stopped spraying it altogether despite the fact that it was incredibly effective and cheap.

            The book it's self was fine. As I remember Rachel Carson didn't argue to ban DDT but to be much more responsible in it's use. That really isn't what happened. It's that legacy (overreaction causing serious other problems) that people generally mean when they talk about Silent Spring being a crock.

          • True. After studies where done that showed these effects.

            The studies trying to link Autism to Vaccines all clearly show no such link.
            On top of that, the rate of increase has stayed the same even after the removal of Themarisol.

            That not really a surprise considering it's a different type of mercury then that which causes developmental problems.

          • by blueswan1 (1269016) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:20PM (#23040582)

            Here is how Dixy Lee Ray (with Lou Guzzo) described events (Trashing the Planet, page 69) [note: Ray has the timing wrong, the spraying was stopped in 1964, not the late 60s]:

            Public health statistics from Sri Lanka testify to the effectiveness of the spraying program. In 1948, before the use of DDT, there were 2.8 million cases of malaria. By 1963, there were only 17. Low levels of infection continued until the late 1960s, when the attacks on DDT in the U.S. convinced officials to suspend spraying. In 1968, there were one million cases of malaria. In 1969, the number reached 2.5 million, back to the pre-DDT levels. Moreover, by 1972, the largely unsubstantiated charges against DDT in the United States had a worldwide effect. In 1970, of two billion people living in malaria regions, 79 percent were protected and the expectation was that malaria would be eradicated. Six years after the United States banned DDT, there were 800 million cases of malaria and 8.2 million deaths per year. Even worse, because eradication programs were halted at a critical time, resistant malaria is now widespread and travelers could take it home.

            From: http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm [info-pollution.com]
    • by brianf711 (873109) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:28PM (#23039924)
      What do you think the cost-benefit ratio is for reducing measles, mumps, polio, small pox, diptheria, strep pneumonia, N. meningitis HPV, etc? Between that and no known link between vaccination and autism, I think such a belief against vaccinations is one not based on evidence and one that is not reasonable.
      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday April 11 2008, @02:40PM (#23040070) Journal
        Unfortunately people are not rational, and when they're child is stricken by such a disorder, rather than simply accepting that in a world full of luck good, bad and indifferent, they want to strike out, to make someone pay. There are plenty of things in the world that cause damage to children, but other than the odd bad batch, vaccines are not among them, at least as far as autism goes.
        • I see that this is really the media's fault, to a large degree.

          We got really flimsy evidence of this link, which they trumpeted (because it was "sexy" and brought in eyeballs). When these studies were basically proven false, they got very little mention.

          So now what you see is every once in a while a story is done about these things. They show some doctor saying "that's nonsense, you should be more afraid of scarlet fever." Then you see 4 crying mothers talking about how doctors ruined her kid's life. They are given equal weight.

          So people don't get the right picture. They get a skewed one. They glamorize the "poor mothers" who get outpourings of grief. They play on people's fears. They don't deal with the elephant in the room.

          The people who do these kinds of suits are either really stupid, or not finished grieving. The people that take it this far (make sites devoted to it, sue everyone involved, etc) are quite probably just in the "anger" stage of grief. They are looking for anyone or anything to blame so that it's not their fault, it's not random, etc. People prefer concrete incorrect answers (it's the mercury) to abstract correct answers (some kids just develop that way).

          They don't talk about how these kind of things could be because of grief. They don't talk about how there is basically no evidence. They try to get viewers. The lawyers go for the long shot cash and the good publicity. Both are taking advantage of people operating out of grief.

          • Re:Flashback! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:58PM (#23041128) Journal
            I think it should go further, to the baseless lawsuits we see, that seem, at best, a legal strategy to humiliate or inconvenience someone or some organization or company into just paying to make it go away. The problem here is, of course, that vaccines have done an enormous amount of good, and I'd wager probably beat out antibiotics in the benefits to the general welfare of humanity.

            The long and the short is that a courtroom isn't the place to do scientific research, nor is it the place to review such research. The research is pretty clear that there is no link to autism. That should be the end of it. It shouldn't be about who can produce the most emotional appeal. It shouldn't be about who can send out the most threatening or largest quantities of subpoenas, it shouldn't be about who keep can keep discovery going forever, it should be about the facts. If the facts aren't there, the case should be tossed out. That's sort of how it works in criminal cases, where a grand jury convenes to determine whether there is, in fact, sufficient evidence to proceed. I think that should be mapped over to the civil system so cases like this (and even cases like SCO's IP claims) simply don't get into a courtroom until a preliminary jury can be convinced there's even a case there.

            There's never going to be a perfect legal system, but we can sure as hell reform the system sufficiently so that nuisance cases never go anywhere. And make no mistake, no matter how angry and distraught these parents are, that's exactly what it is, a baseless nuisance case, an abuse of the system, a waste of money, and I would support, despite the teary-eyed mothers who clearly have many problems to deal with, seeing them pay the defendants' fees, not because I like drug companies, but because I think the only way the system is going to be brought back down to earth is by making those who weight down the system with frivolous cases pay dearly for wasting the court's time.
        • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:27PM (#23040694)
          Personal anecdotal nonevidence beats reason and statistics every time. This is why humanity will fail.
        • by Toonol (1057698) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:43PM (#23040928)
          You're not going to convince ME there was no link. I was there. Show me all the studies showing red is really green you want and I'll be convinced that the researcher is color blind or dishonest.

          You're evidently (and self-admittedly) irrational about the subject. I understand your feelings, but feelings don't determine facts. You can rage, ignore, or refuse to let facts influence you, but they will remain facts.

          If Autism is ever to be cured or prevented, by the way, it will be by somebody who respects facts. This vaccine controversy is a huge distraction from what we should be doing.
        • by brianf711 (873109) on Friday April 11 2008, @03:49PM (#23041020)
          Sorry to hear about your daughter.

          I've since come to realise that she's autistic.
          You said she was diagnosed with mental retardation, but you realized she was autistic, which has confused me. Was diagnosed with autism or do you think she is autistic despite a diagnosis of mental retardation (these are not the same entities)? Autism is usually characterized by decreased communication skills and decreased socialization. You haven't described anything like that, so she may not actually be autistic, or you have just not described those. It should also be noted that for autism to be diagnosed, the symptoms have to start by three years of age, I believe. If childhood vaccines are given frequently during this time, it is not unlikely that a significant number of people will notice an association between a vaccine panel and the first onset of the symptoms of autism by mere chance alone. I'm sure this could even be quantified, but I don't have the time.

          You're not going to convince ME there was no link. ...Show me all the studies showing red is really green you want and I'll be convinced that the researcher is color blind or dishonest.
          So you are saying you will ignore any evidence and all reason?

          My friend Mike had polio (which has been completely eradicated in this country so there's no excuse for polio vaccinations here any more) as a child and he walks with a limp and one hand doesn't work well, but he has a productive job.
          Polio is still found in some of India, so I think the idea is to vaccinate until it is eradicated. Also, the morbidity is unacceptable for a preventable disease. You are saying, effectively, a little limp and loss of the use of a hand never hurt anyone.

          Small pox and diptheria are gone, no need to vaccinate against them either.
          Small pox vaccinations stopped in the 1970s, several years after it was eradicated. Diptheria isn't eradicated.

          AFAIK there is no vaccine for meningitis.
          There is for bacterial meningitis caused by Neisseria meningitidis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meningococcus [wikipedia.org], for bacterial meningitis caused by streptococcus pneumoniae strains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumovax [wikipedia.org] and for bacterial meningitis caused by haemophilus influenzae B: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilus_influenzae [wikipedia.org]. I am not saying that vaccines can never do any harm, but that it is rare and grossly outweighed by the benefits. I seriously doubt your daughters mental disorder was caused by MMR vaccine (which has been well studied and refuted, and the original paper showing the link has since been retracted, but given your own admission of not believing any published evidence to the contrary, I imagine this is just wasted time on my part. However, I would like you to consider what ill may have fallen on your other daughter had neither of them been vaccinated.
        • by The Great Pretender (975978) on Friday April 11 2008, @04:18PM (#23041324)
          Hold on. Do you really believe that in less than 24 hours, after one shot of thimerisol your daughter became autistic? I'm sorry, but I do think that you are forcing a reason into a vacuum of understanding.

          I'm a father of a 2 year old (who has had all the vaccinations), I also spent 7 years working in the area of mercury control, including thimerisol. Hg is nasty in most forms, but typically it takes a period of long exposure and bioaccumulation for someone to be affected. There are the cases where Hg containing substances have a lethal effect, but in these cases the effect is so potent that they would impact every person that came into contact with it, and we know from the statistics that this is not the case with thimerisol.

          Think about this statement, my grandmother was perfectly fine and then one day I bought her new alumnium pots, within a week (more than 24 hours) she was diagnosed with Altzhiemers...it must have been my fault!!

    • No, that is incorrect.
      "A medical review board just agreed that Thimerisol, and specific conditions in a young girl were responsible for causing her Autism."

      that is NOT what happened, stop it. You ahve completely misunderstood it.

      and

      "mercury "
      No it's the wrong kind of mercury. It is NOT the same stuff that comes in thermometers.

      "I find the whole "debunking" thing these days, to highly favor well paid corporations."

      really? I find it to be favoring the truth. as it turns out many corporation are actually telling the truth.

        • by aepervius (535155) on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:24AM (#23044570)
          It was not because of the thiomersal that the mother of with the autist daughter was awarded, but because the daughter had a rare form of mytochondrial disease, and the subsequent treatment and vaccine given to her worsened her condition. NOTHING to do with thiomersal per see. It pays to read the judgment before accusing other of not being informative.

          Furthermore after 2001 , NO REDUCTION in autism was observed despite lessened to null use of thiomersal. And study were made it has no autism impact. How many more evidence you need ? Finally you are omitting a very important fact from your "ethyl mercury is toxic" meme. 1) how long does it take to metabolise from thiomersal to ethyl mercury 2) how does it relate to ethyl mercury half life in the body 3) how does it relate to the minimal quantity of thiomersal in vaccine ? 4) how is the quantity of ethyl mercury due to vaccine at ANY time in comparison to the dosis at which it starts affecting the body (and yes there are quantity which are perfectly tolerable, and even quantity of Eth-Hg which can be totally ignored). and more importantly 5) how does it relate to parents saying that within 24 hours their kids got autism !!!!