Also, given the rarity of vaccine damage, how does Healy think she’s going to screen for the tiny, tiny number who have conditions that look as if they’ve been vaccine damaged without bankrupting the country?

I did find it strange that she was recommending this probably catastrophic public health strategy without offering anything beyond conjecture. Her vague references to mouse studies and mercury weren’t particularly compelling. If she was referring to Horning’s mouse study, then the woman has some difficulties assessing the merits of scientific publications. According to the lone medico on the Huffington Post, she also managed to muddle incidence and prevalence and that is surely something out of the ordinary for a public health official. But then, from what I can work out, she’s also made an assumption that I don’t think she’s entitled to make about epidemiology. Now the anti-vaccine establishment and Healy along with them make the pronouncement that epidemiology is too crude a tool to pick up associations in small subsets of the population. Given the figures that the Omnibus crowd is talking about I doubt that that is true simply because of the huge numbers in the samples analysed thus far. Epidemiology managed to pick up some weird association with a vaccine where the incidence was 1 in 38,000. Can’t remember the paper but I could unearth it I think:) In these very large sample sizes, the small subset of ‘regressive autism’ (whatever that means) cases should appear, yes?

I was typing it while listening on the phone to Dr. Deth give his testimony today.