Del Bigtree the bully doesn’t get informed consent

It came to my attention Sunday night that Del Bigtree decided to harass James Horne – the ex husband of anti vaxxer Rebecca Bredow who was sent to prison for seven days for contempt of court. Bigtree challenged James at Los Angeles airport for being there and not in Detroit with his son, and tried to expose him as a neglectful father. James ignored all Bigtree’s questions, and quite rightly as well. It’s none of your bloody business, Bigtree! James could well have been in LA on business and his son may have been in the care of family. That’s not neglect! All Bigtree was doing was to try and make the mother look like an angel when she’d already fallen foul of the system by disobeying a court order to vaccinate her son! An order – no doubt – that Bigtree didn’t like. Well screw you! Come to Australia and harass me, Bigtree! You’ll get more than you bargain for and I don’t mean physically either! I’ll out gaff you – with the truth while I make you look like the bully and inciter of child neglect you are!

It also came to my attention through the crackpot Adventures in Autism blog that Bigtree had written a letter to the acting Secretary of Health and Human Services in America, Eric Hargan (filling in while a replacement is found for Tom Price), claiming that Health and Human Services wasn’t fulfilling the requirements of vaccine safety. In this 19 page letter several questions were put. In this blog entry I intend to respond to those questions as appropriately as I can.

(1) Please explain how HHS justifies licensing any pediatric vaccine without first conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions is compared between the subject group and a control group receiving an inert placebo?

There’s no need for it. Testing over a long period of time has already been done and the differences in time are too small to be relevant. Provide proof that this testing is not adequate in full detail, and include in this verifiable proof of adverse reactions specifically to the Hepatitis vaccine. Anecdotes are not acceptable.

(2) Please list and provide the safety data relied upon when recommending babies receive the Hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life?

That is commercially confidential and none of your business.

(3) Please explain why HHS failed to cooperate with Harvard to automate VAERS reporting? And detail any steps that HHS has taken since toward automating VAERS reporting?

VAERS is broken because it is easily accessed by the general public and unverified information has been inserted. Automating the system will only exacerbate that issue.

(4) Please explain any specific steps taken by HHS to improve adverse reaction reporting to VAERS?

None. See the answer to question four for the explanation.

(5) For each of the 38 vaccine-injury pairs reviewed in the 1994 IOM Report which the IOM found lacked studies to determine causation, please identify the studies undertaken by the HHS to determine whether each injury is caused by vaccination?

There were none, because the subjects of the adverse events – and/or their parents – were not co-operative with the process.

(6) For each of the 135 vaccine-injury pairs reviewed in the 2011 IOM Report which the IOM found lacked studies to determine causation, please identify the studies undertaken by the HHS to determine whether each injury is caused by vaccination?

Again, there were none, because the subjects of the adverse events – and/or their parents – were not co-operative with the process.

(7) Please explain what HHS has done to assure that health care providers record the manufacturer and lot number for each vaccine they administer?

Nothing because that is additional bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that is not required.

(8) Please advise when HHS intends to begin conducting research to identify which children are susceptible to serious vaccine injury? If HHS believes it has commenced this research, please detail its activities regarding same?

We already know which children can not be vaccinated and it is up to the family physician to ensure this is taken into account.

(9) Please confirm that HHS shall forthwith remove the claim that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” from the CDC website, or alternatively, please identify the specific studies on which HHS bases its blanket claim that no vaccines cause autism?

That claim should not be removed – because it’s true. There are 121 studies to prove it.

(10) Please advise whether HHS intends to forthwith conduct adequately powered and controlled prospective as well as retrospective studies comparing total health outcomes of fully/partially vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children?

This is impossible so it will not be done. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

(11) Please advise if you will:
a. prohibit conflict waivers for members of HHS’s vaccine committees (ACIP, VRBPAC, NVAC & ACCV)?
b. prohibit HHS vaccine committee members or HHS employees with duties involving vaccines from accepting any compensation from a vaccine maker for five years?
c. require that vaccine safety advocates comprise half of HHS’s vaccine committees?
d. allocate toward vaccine safety an amount at least equal to 50% of HHS’s budget for promoting/purchasing vaccines?
e. support the creation of a vaccine safety department independent of HHS?
f. support the repeal of the 1986 Act to the extent it grants immunity to pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by their vaccine products?

a. There is no need for this.
b. The only way this can be done is to stop vaccine makers from payings taxes. That is not going to happen.
c. The sort of people that are being advocated will compromise the health of community through over protection from medicine leading to the return of preventable disease.
d. This will require higher taxes to pay for such a scheme.
e. There is no need for this either.
f. This defeats the purpose of the 1986 Act in that pharmaceutical companies contribute to the pool of money used for payouts. Such a limited repeal would be contradictory.

Having said that on the last one, I support the repeal of the whole thing lock stock and barrel. It’s a joke because it pays out of probability instead of the propoer rules of evidence in law. Or alternatively remove the protections of doctors and others who administer the vaccines – as I firmly believe that the vast majority of injuries are caused by system error (as was the case with Hannah Poling).

There’s your informed consent, Bigtree. Get it?

I know the answer. No, he doesn’t. We already have informed consent and he doesn’t want to know about it. He’s part of the Andrew Wakefield con job and it’s time it was stopped once and for all. With that in mind after I checked – guess what, Del?