January 31, 2012

Admitting That Vaccine Injured Children Are Acceptable Losses

by Ginger Taylor

I have actually found something new on the internet.  In seven years of blogging, I have never seen someone actually be honest about their belief that vaccine injured children are "acceptable losses."  I am a little bit stunned.

Now we all know this is true.  Every parent of a vaccine injured child clues in pretty fast that their child is one of the discarded.  As soon as their doc stops actually trying to heal them after their vaccine injury, stops being interested in medical symptoms you report, stops treating the family like a valued customer... you start to get it.  But everyone keeps up the pretense that your kid is still worth something, if only in lip service, while they are given the shaft.

Then along comes Rick Jones at CFO magazine to say what we all know to be fact, in an article entitled, "The Value of Life: Why an ethically complicated calculation can help determine the value of your company’s risk reduction programs."  That vaccine injured children are acceptable losses.
"The lives saved and dollar benefits from vaccines are hard to calculate, but it’s safe to say that these and other immunizations have greatly improved the quantity and quality of life for millions of people -- at the tragic, yet accepted cost of a few. "
Leave it to a heartless financial rag to have the balls to say what Offit and Mnookin and Gorski are to cowardly to say.
"I don't give a shit about your child, I only care about the bottom line, my agenda and 'The Program'."  (what ever their particular program is)
I can't remember the last time I read something that felt so freeing!  You don't care about my children!  Thank you Mr. Jones!  Thank you for admitting that you don't give a damn about my children!

I know you expect me to rail on the morally bankrupt Mr. Jones, but I am not going to do that.  In fact, I sincerely praise the man for speaking the truth.

Because I would rather deal with Voldemort than Delores Umbridge.  You know that Tom Riddle's alter ego is all about his own program and is happy to step over your dead children on the way to his vision of the perfect society, you reject him outright, and are not manipulated one bit into signing onto his value system.  But Umbridge, smiling so pleasantly in her pretty pink dress, pretending to care about your child... she is the true monster in the story, is she not?  She does what He Who Shall Not Be Named could never do... get a naive and trusting public to sign on to the mutilation and death of the innocent in the name of 'order' and 'the greater good'.

So I say this with out an ounce of irony to Mr. Jones:

Thank you Rick for admitting that you don't care that my son was given severe brain damage from the DTaP vaccine.  You might be a bastard, but you are an honest bastard, which makes you a better man than most of the people defending and working in the vaccine program in my book.

Of course, this is with the caveat that I whole heatedly reject your value system and hope you will take a hard look at yourself and see if you still have a soul left to salvage... happy to talk with you any time about how destructive this world view is if you are looking to rebuild your humanity.


If the bottom line continues to be how you judge what is good and what is bad, you might take a second look at the vaccine program again and really check and see if your cost benefit analysis is actually based on fact.  'Cause if you do your own survey of your own vaccinated v. unvaccinated workers/family members, you might find that the vaccinated are costing you way more due to life long, chronic conditions than even the occasional hospital stay for a child who has the complications from the measles would.  You do know that NO ONE keeps track of vaccine adverse reaction rates or costs, right?  That they are not factored into any risk analysis or cost/benefit ratio in existence anywhere?  That HRSA that runs the vaccine program has released a statement saying that vaccines cause:
"encephalopathy [that] may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.  Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis."
And that there is absolutely no data to back up the claim that the current vaccine program is doing more good than harm?  Your wrote that, "There is no doubt that vaccines have the potential to do harm to a very small portion of the population."  Pediatrics reports that 54% of American kids are chronically ill, developmentally disabled and obese, with no research on how such an aggressive program might be exacerbating this horrid epidemic of sick children... so how do you know that only a "very small" portion of the population is harmed by vaccines?  Did you ask for proof of that claim by those who make it before you wrote this article?  That is what a good CFO does, right?  Checks the facts so risk analysis is accurate as possible?

Either way... feel free to call me and I will be at your disposal.

My comment on his post for CFO.com:
I am the mother of a vaccine injured child (not compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is largely corrupt and uses every excuse, valid and invalid, to actually prevent from recognizing and compensating vaccine injury), and as shocking as this might be to hear, I am happy to see this article published. 
To actually see in black and white, what parents of vaccine injured children know is true, that our children are not valued by society and are considered "acceptable losses" for the gain you have gotten from the vaccine program, is a refreshing change from the lies usually told surrounding vaccine injury... either that vaccine injury does not exist, or that those who are vaccine injured are valued, while only given feigned compassion and lip service rather than the help they need and deserve. 
To know that you don't care what happens to the minority (including my precious son)  as long as it works out for the fortunate is of course, absolutely morally repugnant... but the fact that you will admit, out loud, that killing children and giving them brain damage is acceptable to you, actually gives people fair warning that this is what they are getting involved in when they choose to participate in the current vaccine program.  It is a huge wake up call that their child is merely a commodity to the world, and the vaccine program, and when they suffer adverse reactions, they will be simply thrown away.
Please take this statement at face value, because I don't mean this sarcastically at all.  Thank you for being honest in your devaluation of my son and of those vulnerable to vaccine injury.  It is going to save the lives and health of a lot of children whose parents will see what the world really thinks of their kids, and prevent them from becoming used for cannon fodder by being drafted into public health's "war on communicable disease".
I wish more people were as honest, so that parents could truly have informed consent before their kids get hurt.
 And just because WAY too many things are disappearing from the internet, a copy of the full article here:
| January 31, 2012 | CFO.com | US
The Value of Life, Statistically Speaking
Why an ethically complicated calculation can help determine the value of your company’s risk reduction programs.
Rick Jones
How much are you worth? I’m not asking about your money or property but your ultimate physical asset -- you. At the individual level, life is valued as priceless. But at a societal or business level, our lives and safety do have price tags. This is the reality associated with having finite resources to reduce risk. So the real cost-benefit question is how much can a society or a company afford to do to save lives and reduce injuries? The statistical value of life is a term developed from answering this question.  
Here’s an example how the value of a statistical life can be computed. Suppose a state government decides to reduce the speed limit on its roads. The general correlation between highway speed limits and auto deaths is well known; highway safety statisticians estimate that if the maximum speed limit is reduced to 50 miles per hour, 20 lives would be saved each year. However, in order to enforce the new law, additional resources will be required, costing the state $120 million per year. So it costs the state $120 million each year to save 20 lives or $6 million per life. This is the value of a statistical life related to this highway risk reduction program.  
Statistical life values can be useful tools to help measure the value of your risk reduction programs either through direct calculations or by comparing your calculations with other industry estimates. The comparison can provide a valuable benchmark with various situations that you can use to judge and perhaps justify programs to others in senior management and the board.  
The methodologies used to compute these cost-benefit statistics vary, but they all stem from two basic components: the estimated lives saved and the costs associated with the programs. The calculations are a blend of science and statistics that often require detailed research and analysis, and they can also be interpreted and applied differently depending on the activities involved. For example, in a 2010 report relating to engine emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency applied a mean value of a statistical life at $9.1 million. The Food and Drug Administration works with a figure around $8 million, and other government agencies use numbers around $6 million.
The fact that these numbers differ makes sense. Not all risk reduction programs are equally efficient at reducing risk and, of course, the calculations contain statistical uncertainty. Yet in addition to these sources of variation there can be ethical issues that have the potential to transform the technical analyses into philosophical debates.  
Are all lives saved worth the same amount? Is saving the lives of children equivalent to saving senior citizens? Is it worth saving or extending the life of a person for a period of years if that person requires ongoing and intensive medical care? In dealing with saving lives, the “type” of life being saved and the quality of remaining life may be variables in the analysis. The point is, depending on the situation, ethical judgments can be included in the analyses that in effect, answer these questions.  
While making these decisions on the surface may sound unfair or elitist, they are made one way or another when only finite resources are available to reduce risk. And since this is always the case, virtually every health, safety, or other risk management program contains decisions related to these ethical issues.  
For example, either as a parent or a child, most likely you have been exposed to programs that contain some of these issues. Inoculating children to prevent infectious disease transmission is good for society from both health and financial perspectives, but some initially healthy children may suffer adverse reactions, injury, or even death. For vaccines, the enormous societal benefits trump the tragedies of the few. And in order to keep the vaccine costs affordable, the U.S. government administrates and pays all vaccine compensation claims through its Vaccine Lawsuit Injury Compensation program. Inoculation requirements and the accepted reasons to opt out vary by state. In 2011, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program received over 1,000 new claims and awarded 250 plaintiffs more than $228 million for injuries and deaths from the vaccines administered to both adults and children.  
There is no doubt that vaccines have the potential to do harm to a very small portion of the population. But just look at what vaccines have done for us. Polio is no longer a threat in most of the world. Measles, chicken pox, pertussis (whooping cough), and of course smallpox, the former serial killer, have been virtually eliminated. The lives saved and dollar benefits from vaccines are hard to calculate, but it’s safe to say that these and other immunizations have greatly improved the quantity and quality of life for millions of people -- at the tragic, yet accepted cost of a few. 
Value of statistical life and also statistical injury calculations provide metrics you can compare with other industry or government produced calculations. Together these results can help you answer the question “Are we doing ‘enough’ to reduce risk with our available resources?” And perhaps more importantly answer the question: “Should we do more?”
Rick Jones has spent the past 30 years applying risk analysis and management techniques to industrial and business problems. He has presented at several conferences and is the author of numerous articles and technical research papers. His third book, 20% Chance of Rain: Exploring the Concept of Risk, was recently published.


Heather Fraser said...

Almost 100 years ago the doctor who coined the term anaphylaxis had the same hideously cold observations as Jones. In observing that injection could and did result in anaphylaxis (life threatening allergy) a concern that might have ended the mass vaccination program right there, Richt preferred to work out the 'kinks' at the expense of those who might succumb to the condition. Thousands of children were falling ill with 'allergy' then simply called serum sickness following the first mass injections of antitoxin sera/vaccines around 1900. Richet observed in his acceptance lecture for the Nobel Prize (1913) that anaphylaxis weeded out the weak:

"Anaphylaxis, perhaps a sorry matter for the individual, is necessary to the species, often to the detriment of the individual. The individual may perish, it does not matter. The species must at any time keep its organic integrity intact. Anaphylaxis defends the species against the peril of adulteration."

A different time to be sure 1913 -- many people/doctors may have adhered to a prejudicial concept of biological superiority and evolutionary socialism. Motivations today -- pure economics? Regardless, I would like them to attend A1 or curl up with my book. Heather

John Best said...

How are Jones' words worse than your silence when you refuse to take this battle to the general public? When you don't gang up corrupt politicians in public to force this issue down their throats, you're worse than Jones. At least Jones' words are seen by the public.

Ginger Taylor said...

You are misinformed, John. The Canary Party has two mailing lists that send out calls to members on such actions, but as you are not a member of the Canary Party, you do not receive these action alerts.

Beginning in February, we will actually be sending out daily action alerts for activists, because there are so many opportunities to fight corruption in medicine, food and water quality on so many fronts.

Mary Holland said...

The photos of Umbridge and Gerberding are priceless. Thank you.

John Best said...

How nice Ginger, Since I'm in those public places by myself a lot breaking the balls of the politicians, maybe I'll see someone else joining in for a change. It's about time your lousy Canary Party actually DID something.

Ginger Taylor said...

Foresam/John Best,

I have just addressed your concerns in the previous post comment thread.

Unknown said...

Thank you for your tirelessness in recovering your boy, and in helping the rest of us recover ours, while always watching out. Eternal vigilance - very important, and VERY HARD WORK. Thank you again.


Anonymous said...

Oh man Ginger I was just getting ready for bed and read your blog. I've stayed up too late, but had to go and post a comment. Can't wait for all the autism moms and dads to wake up to this tomorrow morning. I said my piece and told him I am waiting for his public apology since he had to tell us how much he don't care about our kids. He really, really should have thought twice about posting this article. See everyone in the morning... it's going to be a drama filled day for sure!

nhokkanen said...

Ugh... Mr. CFO sure wrote one coldly revolting column. Among his fibs is saying that the NVICP compensates. That's a total load of fairytale crap.

Thanks, Ginger, for telling it like it is. Agreed -- at least someone had the guts to finally say what our mealy-mouthed tax-funded public health workers don't dare to admit.

Government's stubborn failure to recognize vaccine injury merely ensures and perpetuates its own utter mediocrity. Mandated products get no improvement like free market products do. The vaccine juggernaut lurches forward, never looking back to see what's ground up under the wheels.

nhokkanen said...

With friends like John Best/Foresam, who needs Ken Reibel? The net effect is the same...

John Best said...

Nancy, I'm trying to help you. Please put your thinking cap on, suspect that Pharma would infiltrate us to lead us astray and then read all of the stuff I've written over the last four years or so to see exactly how they did just that. You'll thank me when you understand what they did.

John Best said...

This nonsense of worrying about what some jackass said is like Romney and Gingrich attacking each other, or any Democrat and Republican at each other's throat. It's all a distraction while the crime persists merrily on its way.

As the public takes great concern for what one scumbag politician said to another, the owner of both parties keeps smiling while he steals money from all of us. None of the fleabag politicians ever even mention that chief banker's name while they play their acting roles to keep the public misdirected.

You're all misdirected because you aren't directly attacking the politicians who allow the drug companies to fulfill the order they were given by that same chief banker to use mercury to dumb down the population. The colateral damage known as autism is just a matter that's handled with a little "spin control" and the under the radar wars that we engage in with the other side are exactly what the chief banker wants.

The thing the chief banker does not want is for us to beat his stooges in elections. If we won enough elections, we would have the power to shoot the chief banker in the head.

Ginger Taylor said...

Mr. Best,

While I not only agree with you that it would make little sense for Pharma NOT to try to infiltrate our movement (since trillions of dollars are at stake for them, and certainly if their products killing innocent children are not a problem for them, sending in a few posers or tapping couple of phones certainly would not be either) and I believe I have actually encountered such people (and investigated them and removed them from our group), I have to draw the line at the comments you have posted this morning.

I have asked you repeatedly now to stop posting inappropriate comments on this blog.

Your reference to, "shooting the chief banker in the head" has now gone so far beyond what is acceptable commentary on this blog that I feel I need to give little justification for such judgement.

You are now advocating assassination of those responsible for our children's sickness and disability, and as much as I believe that these people should be brought to justice, I cannot allow the suggestion that they should be murdered.

Please do not comment on this blog any further.

John Best said...

Well Ginger, it would legal to shoot the chief banker in the head after we tried him for thousands of crimes against humanity, or he could be given a lethal injection, or whatever. But, none of that excuses you from answering legitimate concerns. It's a weak excuse to avoid the subject.

You did not ever ask me to stop posting comments to your blog. In fact, you encouraged it with your stance that you would not delete comments. So, now it's only a matter of what is an inappropriate comment.

Your disingenuous assumption that I was going to hunt down and murder someone without giving them a fair trial makes you appear dishonest when you use that as an excuse to tell me not to comment here.

Do you have any comment on David Kirby's deception that I described for you in the other thread?

Ginger Taylor said...

Mr. Best,

As this is my blog, I am the arbiter of what is appropriate commentary here. If I have stated that diagnosing people as "psychopaths" is not considered appropriate, surely you can understand that calling for their deaths is vastly more inappropriate. And you have crossed a line that no one else has crossed in the entire time I have been writing here.

You are the first person that I have ever asked to stop commenting here in seven years.

I have asked you to stop posting inappropriate commentary, and you have not respected my request. I have now asked you to stop posting commentary at all, and you have not respected my request.

You have now posted incredibly off topic commentary on several posts (which, as always, I have left standing), and clearly we agree on some points and not on others. You have had your say to express your opinions and I have had mine. I will leave it up to the readers to make decisions on which arguments they accept or reject.

I am now going to reiterate my request for you to cease commenting here.

texaswoz said...

Mr. Best - why in the world are you trying to pick a fight with Ginger Taylor? She might not be fighting this battle in the way you deem appropriate - but she is devoting her life to fighting the battle - she is courageous, selfless and is doing a hell of a lot more than most to affect change. If you care so much, go exert this energy you've spent attacking Ginger and make change happen however you see fit. PS - my post is not an invitation for a response given Ginger has politely asked you to take your negative energy elsewhere.

John Best said...

Hi Ginger, Aside from taking sides with the drug companies by deleting the picture of my car from your FB page and nullifying a great idea which could be used to counter their propaganda, you defamed me by stating that I was abusive to disabled people. That's the same sort of crap I took from the Neuronitwits when they claimed I hated my son and all autistic people because I had named my blog "Hating Autism".

I explained to you quite clearly that the person you claimed I was abusive to is not the least bit autistic but you persist in smearing my character. You've given me the basis for a lawsuit against you for defamation. I don't really want to pursue that. I'd prefer you were honest enough to admit your error and I don't even expect an apology.

ALL I expect is that you'll have the good sense to support the message on my car which says "FLU SHOTS CAUSE AUTISM" and help all of us beat the drug companies' brains in by suggesting that every parent of an autistic child who has an old car like mine do the same thing.

(I'm sorry if the expression "beat their brains in" is offensive to those opposed to violence against criminals. The expression is used figuratively.)

Oh, and I just hit a 51 to 1 shot and a 100 to a shot at the track so you're disingenuous deception can't spoil my day. Have a nice day!!!

Gluten Free Mama said...

Thanks for posting a longer story about this article. it really does move our suspicions about their motives from conspiracy theory to fact, doesn't it. I have been equally disturbed and relieved by this article. We can now move on now that someone has admitted it.

However, it shows a disturbing trend in public discourse, that it is okay to not care about other people. Mitt Romney's comment that he didn't care about poor people. It seems rampant.

Ginger Taylor said...

As a reminder Mr. Best, can email any questions he has to me, and I will be happy to answer. Thank you.

John Best said...

Hey Ginger, How many babies did you cause to become autistic or dead by keeping your dishonest mouth shut today? Did your queer friend Kirby tell anyone the truth today?

Anonymous said...

One of the most important decisions you will make One of the most important decisions you will make that will affect the health of your children is whether or not to vaccinate them. Since many medical authorities say vaccination is safe, most parents go ahead with vaccination, completely unaware of the potential dangers and unable to recognize serious reactions when they occur. I am a huge believer in parenting without regrets and I am writing this article to spur you to do some research on your own, especially since the information that you will be presented with (if any) by your pediatrician is not sufficient for you to make a truly informed choice. Regardless of whether you decide to vaccinate your children or not, you should at least be making a conscious and fully informed choice. The following is critical for you to consider before vaccinating.
Balance D

John Best said...

Proverbs 12:22
The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful.

Unknown said...

The network of nerves that conducts signals from the spine to the shoulder, arm, and hand is called the brachial plexus. An inflammation of this network of nerves is called
brachial neuritis and this is raised

Unknown said...

Why is there an almost desperate belief in vaccines? The public's view of disease seems to be similar to their view on terrorism- Random, attacking, potentially deadly. The media hawks this view, pharma sells it, doctors push it and educational institutions reinforce it. Everyone sells it, and everyone buys it. Fear sells.
read more

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this. Even on the delayed/selective schedule a child, like my son, can be injured. One of my daughters is injured, though not as severely and it occurred over time and took a while to diagnose, as well. I am routinely frustrated with the lack of ethics in the U.S. and other places as well.

Are you overweight? said...

The turtle had nasty bite wounds in her two shoulders which left the bones and joints exposed. Pretty much all of the connective tissue was removed. Go Here