Doctors brace for a new wave of vaccine hysteria

It would seem that you have been discredited Timebandit.

Snert wrote:

Do you actually believe that John and Jane Q. Public are alarmed at the rate of autism?

If they're breeders, yes.

Quote:

Before "Rain Man" came out, if you told John and Jane that you knew an autistic child they would probably have replied "Our son is artistic too! He loves to paint!".

I don't know.  We certainly knew all about it:  my cousin was diagnosed in 1970 or so.  I don't recall ever running into anybody who hadn't heard of autism.

Quote:

But now you figure people are concerned with population health statistics concerning autism, and that THAT's the real reason McCarthy gets attention on the subject? In that case, I should think the average member of the public could name at least ONE other autism activist then, yes? I'd very much like to see that.

Oh, I certainly agree that McCarthy has made the public more aware of autism.  I just don't see that as a bad thing.  And there's lots of issues that have one name (in the public mind) associated with the cause.  Leonard Frank is the only anti-electroshock activist I can think of but that doesn't mean the public doesn't give a shit about the issue.

remind wrote:

Yet there have been law suits settled in favour of those who sought them claiming a vaccination link to their child's autism.

Your credibility is nil sineed when you work for the pharmaceuticals yourself.

 

?

I work for the Ontario government.

And lawsuits are not proof of anything; saying something is true in a legal sense is not the same thing as saying it's true in a real sense.  The weakness of science in a court of law is that you can't say anything is 100% true.

Like I say to the creationists, gravity is only a theory.

I don't know whether vaccines alone are responsible for autism, I suspect it may be the result of many variables and that the vaccines are simply part of that.  What I do know is that we have been lied to before about the safety of drugs, remember thalidomide, the U.S. did not endorse it because it was known to have caused problems and yet Canada did.  Why was that?

I see many children who do not have the vitality I remember as a child, they may not be autistic but something is wrong and we need to look at the environment we are bringing them into.  I think Fidel made a point about plastics and last night I heard a program about the use of formaldehyde in clothing and we know now there was lead in their toys, is it any wonder that they are having problems? Why so much medication?  What about the food additives?

I appreciated your comments about hysteria Martin. 

Eh, the MMR vax are a pretty good thing. I mean, if a kid is vaccinated it is pretty darned unlikely that they will develop the nasty complications that come with these ailments later in life. I mean, rubella isn't precisely a fun time and the complications that come along from measles aren't pleasent either. But I mean, it's only rubella - it's not like, say, it can cause any real harm. Why, I doubt there is hardly a single acronym relating to complications stemming from rubella! Why, from all the medical papers I've read (despite being an arts student I've my reasons for reading them) there be hardly a single acronym. I mean, they're just plain and easy to understand and any laymen without a single ounce of medical knowledge can make perfect sense of the information. Heck, I'm looking at one right now about HPV prevalence and the various sorts that there are - but without any medical knowledge I'm drawing conclusions by going to google and searching for opinions that support mine. Isn't science great!?

Hey, look at this! I just found a website here that says that the MMR vaccine is quoted in the Letters to the Romans: 'And lo, he said to the Roman - "disbelieve any study for they are all (withouteth a doubt) corporate in nature. For studies can always be questioned by the unlearned - for the unlearned are the foundation upon which the learned prey."

And so the Roman did respond, "but why should I believe you, for you offer no proof!"

And his response was "lol stfu!"'

What I'm getting at here is that there are multiple studies from many sources (not just Pfizer's Viagara Studies Division (a subdivision of Ecocide, inc.)) that don't show much evidence towards this. While it is up to every parent to make certain decisions regarding their children, they should base it off of careful reading on their part (of multiple sources) and always what is in the best interest of the child - not their own ideological biases. The unfortunate part here is that activists like Jenny McCarthy are clinging to sources that merely corroborate their own positions without going too far beyond that - and guess what - the folk like her at sitting pretty at the very top, where they can waste their money on nonsense magic crystal cures. They have access to the media in a way that the scientific community doesn't have - that community workers and other people with an investment in this simply don't have. The average John and Jane Doe, breeders or not, can't stand scientific conversation and often draw the wrong conclusions from medical reportage (which is always dumbed down, and still too much). I often struggle with medical information and, I mean, I live with a pretty serious medical professional in the house (and my sibling is currently working to go down that path, too). Lots of family friends are doctors and I often times can chime in the odd time, but you just have to sit back, listen, and then do your own damn research and hope that you have an inkling of what was just said (unless you're an actual medical professional and not just an internet loud mouth HAI GUYZ!)

A scientist was on the news last evening, CTV edmonton,  talking about proving indefinitely that a created substance is causing cancer or something else. He stated there was absolutely no way to do so, in most cases, and thats what corporations rely upon. He feels the system should be changed to our not having to prove anything causes harm, it should be up to those creating it, to prove it does no harm.

Unionist one of the court cases was cited above, as such I do not know how you missed it.

Papal Bull wrote:

....... The unfortunate part here is that activists like Jenny McCarthy are clinging to sources that merely corroborate their own positions without going too far beyond that - and guess what - the folk like her at sitting pretty at the very top, where they can waste their money on nonsense magic crystal cures. .....

Once again, it is parents who are speaking out about this based on their direct experience of the changes in their children following vaccinations, Jenny McCarthy and her child's autism would not be news at all if it didn't resonate with other parents of children with autism.

It doesn't surprise me that there is such hostility to questioning, after all things have changed and we are no longer a uniform herd of sheeple, some of us are no longer willing to be sheared. 

Oh yes, like they need the money! :rolleyes:

Seems like the purveyors of vaccines are all about personally trashing those questioning them.

See  the above quoted snippet by refuge, unionist it is hard to see how you could have missed it. Oh wait I will just repost it.

"After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

Full Article

And of course it seems some want to overlook the KNOWN damage heavy metals do to our brain, and what we know about mercury poisoning, and believe that it does no harm in vaccines, even though we are supposed to stay away from eating too much fish because of the mercury content. And we are also supposed to overlook the fact that thirmerosol was removed from contact lense solution because of the harm it does us, and accept that it is okay in vaccines and does us no harm either.

Meanwhile out of the 20 autistics that I worked with for 2 years, none had showed symptoms when toddlers until after a round of vaccinations was given to them, and indeed fully 3/4's of them had traceable First Nations heritage. One could look through their childhood pictures and see just when the damaged change occured from their appearances in the pictures.

So when there is indication that  mitochondrial differences increases the chance of getting Autism from vaccinations, one has to wonder why more are not looking at it seriously for implications, and indeed pushing for the production of safe vaccinations for all peoples.

The misogyny in this last post is palpable. "...how can they compare with the special, almost magical ability that Moms everywhere have to just look into their bay-bees eyes and immediately know exactly how the chemical cascade in their central nervous systems is reacting to a component of a vaccine?"

It says a lot about the challenge caring parents are up against.

Ya, I know, I clicked away in disgust!

As I stated, above, we know what heavy metals do to our brains and bodies,  and we know what thimerosol does to our body functions, but yet we are supposed to believe neither plays a bad role in the vaccine used on babies.

Quote:

Yes Snert, some Mothers do have a magic ability to know their children have changed.  LOL

And to know the underlying neurochemical cause of the change, evidently.

Quote:

The misogyny in this last post is palpable

Sorry, but these sorts of magicks are most often described in terms of "mothers" or in terms of "women's intuition". I'm not the one gendering it. I just don't trust people's hunches or gut feelings over science in cases like this. If you need to turn that into "misogyny", have at it. I'm not exactly shocked.

Quote:

but yet we are supposed to believe neither plays a bad role in the vaccine used on babies.

Ya! Screw all those studies! Put your money on Jenny McCarthy's intuition! Saying she's not a scientist is like saying that Dr. Laura isn't a doctor! If anything, Hollywood celebrities are [i]better[/i] than scientists or doctors!

remind wrote:

"After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

No they didn't.

Quote:

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Baloney.  The case in question was not one of the test cases because the child does not have autism or ASD.

Quote:

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

Appropriate yes.  However, the child does not have have autism or ASD/

Quote:

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."[/QUOTE]

No one disputes this.

Quote:

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

Interesting Zimmerman testified for the government saying that the girl should be compensated for her injury which may have been caused by the vaccinations, but also that she did not have autism/ASD.  She met three of the many criteria for ASD.  So do people suffering from many ASD conditions.

Quote:

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

No it did not result in an ASD diagnosis.  It resulted in a diagnosis of a regressive encephalopathy.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

Quote:

And of course it seems some want to overlook the KNOWN damage heavy metals do to our brain, and what we know about mercury poisoning, and believe that it does no harm in vaccines, even though we are supposed to stay away from eating too much fish because of the mercury content. And we are also supposed to overlook the fact that thirmerosol was removed from contact lense solution because of the harm it does us, and accept that it is okay in vaccines and does us no harm either.

Two different types of mercury.  One methyl and one ethyl.  If you don't think that there is a difference switch from drinking ethyl alcohol to methyl alcohol.  10 ml can leave you blind.  About 100 ml is generally fatal.

Even still many children used to get much higher doses of mercury 50 years ago when it was prominent in tons of products like baby powders - so if it was the cause of autism then the rate should have been way higher back then.  Plus, thimerosal has been removed from almost all childhood vaccinations and studies are still showing a increase in autism cases years later.  In fact the author of the article you posted - David Kirby - said a couple years ago that if autism rates in California didn't start to drop by '06 (I think that was the year he said) then his claims would proven false (but of course he changed his mind when the results showed that autism rates were still going up.  Why get off the gravy train that is making him a pretty penny when your claims are proven false, especially when your followers care just as little for evidence).

Quote:

Meanwhile out of the 20 autistics that I worked with for 2 years, none had showed symptoms when toddlers until after a round of vaccinations was given to them, and indeed fully 3/4's of them had traceable First Nations heritage. One could look through their childhood pictures and see just when the damaged change occured from their appearances in the pictures.

That is the age that autism presents in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Quote:

So when there is indication that  mitochondrial differences increases the chance of getting Autism from vaccinations, one has to wonder why more are not looking at it seriously for implications, and indeed pushing for the production of safe vaccinations for all peoples.

1.  Those who specialize in mitochondrial disorders do not appear to support Kirby's claims on this matter.  2.  Who says that these things have not been looked into by experts?  3.  Vaccines are safe. 

Quote:

Yep, snert, here you are again denying that we know what havoc heavy metals and thimerosol play on our adult bodies, and fostering a notion that babies would not be more imapcted than our adult selves.

I'm denying that your "hunch" somehow trumps repeatable, peer-reviewed scientific studies, yes. Absolutely yes.

ennir wrote:

Yes Snert, some Mothers do have a magic ability to know their children have changed.  LOL

No one denies that parents have the ability to recognize a behavioral change in their children.  The problem is one of memory.  In the Wakefield examples he had several parents who were saying that just after the MMR vaccination the behavor of their children drastically changed.  The problem is that in almost every case when investigators went back to the actual records they found that it was normally several months between the MMR vaccination and the date when the parents first brought up the behavorial changes to their doctor, and in several other cases the behavioral change was reported to doctors several months before the MMR vaccine.  Remember there were only 12 children in the study.  I believe that in the end there was a single child who had a behavioral change reported within a short time frame after the MMR vaccine.  It is highly unlikely that these parents witnessed a dramatic change shortly after the MMR vaccine and decided to wait it out for several months.  Those parents are not lying, but their memory of the timeline is different than the evidence shows (which is not unusual when it comes to memory).  They have been manipulated.

Quote:

Those same mothers are talking to other mothers and they are supporting eachother, they know they have been lied to and that the lies haven't stopped nor the bullying, contempt and other strategies to shut them up.  So rant on, your bullying only proves the point.

When one "knows" something without supporting evidence, no amount of evidence can change one's opinion.

Again this is irrelevant.  If there was even a correlation between thimerosol and autism then autism rates would be falling in areas where thimerosol was removed from all childhood vaccines several years ago.  The levels are not falling they are still increasing in every location where thimerosol was removed many years ago.  So this is not even a case of saying that correlation does not equal causation.  There is zero correlation.  Those who claim that thimerosol is the cause have nothing to go on.  That would matter to most people.

The fact that neurologists know that the neurological effects of mercury toxicity does not correspond with the neurological effects of autism should matter to most people too.  Lots of cases of mercury toxicity in the 19th century in children - remember the madhatter?  But even if there was a correlation between the the neurological presentation of mercury toxicity and the neurological presentation of autism, you would still have nothing to go on as the rate of autism has not dropped amoung those children who received thimerosol-free vaccines.

The Republican war on science is starting to look almost rational in comparison.  It was good to see Chris Mooney (the author of "The Republican War on Science") write an article on this issue in the current issue of Discover.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on

This conspiracy has far, far less legitimate support than the climate change deniers have.

remind wrote:

BS trevor read my links above, the truth is slowly coming out, though there are those who want to have the door remain shut for their own reasons, and they are the manipulators, not those trying to expose the destruction of children and their families.

Oh trust me I have read your links.  The Geier's are the bottom of the barrel on this issue.  Anti-vax sites like vaccination news rank about as low when it comes to actual evidence.  A site selling a dangerous therapy like chelation to unsuspecting and gulible people like mercurypoisoning news is about as trustworthy as Kevin Trudeau.  Then you have a site from the Health Canada on mercury poisioning which is good.  Say what is the opinion of Health Canada on thimerosol and vaccinations causing autism?  Then you link to a naturopathic site which has nothing on that page regarding autism and thimerosol. 

Let me know when you come up with some real evidence to support your position that thimerosol is causing autism.  And then let me know when you come up with some real evidence as to why if thimerosol is causing autism, the rates continue to rise after thimerosol is removed.  

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

I hesitated on the side of caution when to came to the Gardisil vaccination; my daughters did not receive it. Partly because of the mercury/thimerosal issue, and partly because of the limited efficacy of the vaccine.

If I were convinced that the vaccine was effective (against 100% of active HPV viruses, rather than 100% effective against 4, and 70% effective against another 4, and completely ineffective against another dozen), I would happily risk the minor addition to the mercury load. but at the rate they are going, they are likely to issue 4 or 5 vaccinations in total in order to eliminate all of the active strains of HPV. When they get it down to a single dose covering them all, I'll recommend it to anyone.

There is no mercury/thimerosal in Gardasil.  As for the second issue, it is effective against the HPV strains that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.  They went after the worst strains, I could be wrong, but I doubt they will be expanding the vaccine to cover all strains of HPV. 

It is being given to males elsewhere (at least in the UK, and possibly in the US) and undoubtably will be in Canada soon.  I exceed the age range, but if I could get the vaccination I personally would get it. 

Trevormkidd wrote:

There is no mercury/thimerosal in Gardasil.  As for the second issue, it is effective against the HPV strains that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.  They went after the worst strains, I could be wrong, but I doubt they will be expanding the vaccine to cover all strains of HPV. 

It is being given to males elsewhere (at least in the UK, and possibly in the US) and undoubtably will be in Canada soon.  I exceed the age range, but if I could get the vaccination I personally would get it. 

Once again I am somewhat frustrated that the babble archives were flushed down the memory hole. It would seem that you are correct about thimerosal not being in Gardasil currently - but I'm rather certain that's because, as with many vaccines aimed at the young, it has been removed.

However, you have greatly overestimated the efficacy of this vaccine. 

Quote:

GARDASIL reduced the number of abnormal Pap test results by 17 to 45 percent, depending on the abnormality, and reduced colposcopies by 20 percent, cervical biopsies by 22 percent and reduced surgery and other invasive treatments by 42 percent.

Merck's own studies, here.

When we're done with this, can we discuss the "link" between abortion and breast cancer?  It's also still in dispute, and it's the same corrupt, North American "science" arguing that there's really no link.  But I'm sure the ever-curious will want to leave no stone unturned in the quest for the "real" truth that "they" won't tell you.  Or perhaps, as suggested up-thread, instead of assuming abortion to be safe until proven otherwise, we can let pro-choice advocates prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's safe.

I'll start by rounding up page after page of links to sites, all of which happily prove the link, and none of which have their own hidden agendas or anything like that.  Takers? 

Snert wrote:

When we're done with this, can we discuss the "link" between abortion and breast cancer?  It's also still in dispute, and it's the same corrupt, North American "science" arguing that there's really no link.  But I'm sure the ever-curious will want to leave no stone unturned in the quest for the "real" truth that "they" won't tell you.  Or perhaps, as suggested up-thread, instead of assuming abortion to be safe until proven otherwise, we can let pro-choice advocates prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's safe.

I'll start by rounding up page after page of links to sites, all of which happily prove the link, and none of which have their own hidden agendas or anything like that.  Takers? 

Could not have said it better.

Maybe I could add some links to Ben Stein's views on evolution, Tim Ball on climate change, David Irving on the holocaust and George W Bush on stem cells and weapons of mass destruction.  

Actually, I just remembered - not mercury, but another neurotoxic metal, aluminum.

Trials included such adjuvants as aluminum hydroxide in the placebo

I apologize Snert, I should have said your bullying is irrelevent, you are not irrelevent.

I think people are missing the boat when they talk about the child who did not have autism is the one that won the case.  Autism is a set of behaviours which when displayed together can be diagnosed as Autism according to the DSM-IV.

What we are talking about is children who display autisic behaviours enought to be classified as autism irregardeless of if they really have "autism" or not.  If the shot can cause autism behaviour in children with a mitochondrial disorder shouldn't all children be required to be tested for it before given the vaccine?  Why aren't they?  And don't forget 10-20% of the 4900 cases that were put before the government in this court case turned out to have the mitochondrial disorder as compared to 0.2% of the rest of the population.

Quote:

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination......In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

The child had a mitochondrial disorder that does not have autism behaviours assossiated with it the symptoms of her disorder are:

Quote:

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

I often wonder of the children that I work with who have autism how many have autism - with no other condition - and how many have another condition which because of agrivating factors (such as the vaccine, or GMO foods, or increase in metals in cheap toys from china etc etc) develop autism behaviours and are then diagnosed Autistic.  It doesn't really matter to the families because they face the same challanges as parents when they have children who have possibly another (as the article puts it) "look alike syndrome" that is caused by the vaccine as parents who have "true" Autism.  They have the same behaviour to deal with, the same communication issues, the same therapy they have to do and the same prognosis and the same dialy struggle to live their lives in a way that is far from normal while they deal with all the issues and have to become superparents to set up vast structures within everyday life to be able to provide opportunities for their children to grow within a teaching framework that works for them.  You can't just show these guys how to wash their hands.  You have to have picture schedules, hours of backwards chaining, natural environment training, with very obvious specific reward systems built in because they don't respond to social rewards like other children.  No matter if it is "real" autism or a "look alike" syndrome it is the same daily struggles for the parents.

To me it doesn't matter to me if they all started out with autism, if some of them developed it in reaction to something in the environment with genetic predispositions or conditions or if it was all to do with environmental conditions.  I am on the treating end.  But I would like to see these areas explored for parents to lessen the impact of autism or avoid it all together.  Now parents can request that their child be tested for this mitochondrial disorder  and possibly avoid their child developing the autism behaviours in the first place.  What more can be found out to avoid or lessed the impact of the autism behaviours for children and parents and why is it so bad to question and look into it?

The decisions that the judge made was based on the panel of doctor's decision where they said that the vaccine cause the autisic behaviours in the child with the mitochondrial disorder.  So the doctor's are the ones that decided that the vaccine was the cause, doctors within the medical establishment.  And it wasn't Wakefield.

Quote:

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Right now parents can test for Mt disease before they get the vaccine, that could help so many children if there are other agrevators within the shot, what else can be discovered?  I would love to not have any more children with autism on my client load or at least see the numbers drop.  So what is so bad about exploring that?

Refuge wrote:

The decisions that the judge made was based on the panel of doctor's decision where they said that the vaccine cause the autisic behaviours in the child with the mitochondrial disorder.  So the doctor's are the ones that decided that the vaccine was the cause, doctors within the medical establishment.  And it wasn't Wakefield.

We can't say what the decision or concession said because none of us have seen it.  After the ruling Mr Poling and his lawyer said that the concession stated that the vaccine had caused the injury to his daughter.  The federal officials (the very same people who made the ruling and wrote the concession) replied that was not what they said.  They said that it they determined that it was possible that the vaccines might have exacerbated her condition.  Although they also knew that countless other things could have been responsible for that exacerbation, but a vaccine court is not set up to require that the vaccine did cause an injury, or even most likely caused an injury.  Simply the possibility is what is required. That is why statistically claimants receive compensation at the vaccine courts at about twice the percentage as claimants in the legal system.  And that is what should be so overwhelming about the 3 recent rulings (the strongest 3 cases out of 4900 claimants) they couldn't even convince anyone of there even being a possibility (a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, a relationship between vaccination and ASD, anything) of the vaccines causing autism - their "evidence" is that weak.  With the bar set as low as possible, the "vaccines cause autism" crowd still ran right under it and it didn't phase them at all.

But anyways, now the media had two different claims.  On the one side Mr Poling, on the other said the federal officials.  So various media would say to the Polings that the officials are saying that they did not say what you are saying they did.  The Polings said that they were making the concession public for all to see (As Hannah was a minor they were the only ones who could release such information).  Well game-set-and-match.  What more proof do you need that there is a government conspiracy.  They lied right in front of us.  (Or at least that is what the anti-vaxers screamed.  And why not - here was a major dispute as to what was ruled.  And the one side said not only am I telling you the truth but I will prove it to by making the concession public).

But Poling never did release the concession to the public.  He instead said that he was going to release the concession to the 4900 autism is caused by vaccines claimants.  If he did that, I don't know.  But if he did it didn't appear to help them.

Furthermore, as to the doctors telling the court that the vaccines caused her condition - well repeating that doesn't make it true.  Several of those doctors (perhaps all of them) have made their opinions known.  Not one of them has said that it was anymore than one possibility. Yes they did say that compensation was appropriate and that is because based on the mandate of the vaccine courts compensation is appropriate if the cause of the injury was possibly vaccine related. Fever could exacerbate Mitochondrial disorders. Vaccines can cause fever. Ergo.

Finally, associations that deal with mitochondrial disorders made up of experts who have spent their careers working on these issues have said that it was no more than one of several possible causes of the exacerbation. 

Charles Mohan, CEO of the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, says he finds the government's concession in the case reasonable.

"It could have been the vaccine that exacerbated that particular underlying mitochondrial disease," Mohan said, "or in a lot of cases it's the onset of a virus, an infection, a flu, that might have the same impact."

But at the same time, says Mohan, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that vaccines themselves can cause either mitochondrial disorders or autism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87974932

I have a tendency to put more weight behind those who have spent years or decades researching these issues than those who have spent 4 minutes. Those experts are not saying that vaccinations should be avoided in children who have mitochondrial disorders.

Trevormkidd wrote:

Refuge wrote:

The decisions that the judge made was based on the panel of doctor's decision where they said that the vaccine cause the autisic behaviours in the child with the mitochondrial disorder.  So the doctor's are the ones that decided that the vaccine was the cause, doctors within the medical establishment.  And it wasn't Wakefield.

We can't say what the decision or concession said because none of us have seen it.  After the ruling Mr Poling and his lawyer said that the concession stated that the vaccine had caused the injury to his daughter. 

  Read the article again, it clearly states that it is reporting based on a copy of the concession that it obtained.  The quotes and summeries in the article are taken directly from the concession.

Trevormkidd wrote:

The federal officials (the very same people who made the ruling and wrote the concession) replied that was not what they said.

And we know that federal officials always tell the truth.

Trevormkidd wrote:

They said that it they determined that it was possible that the vaccines might have exacerbated her condition.  Although they also knew that countless other things could have been responsible for that exacerbation, but a vaccine court is not set up to require that the vaccine did cause an injury, or even most likely caused an injury.  Simply the possibility is what is required.

And that is all that I am asking that they look at the possibility that the vaccine had to do with the development of autism so that they can try and reduce the harm or full impact of autism on families.

Trevormkidd wrote:

That is why statistically claimants receive compensation at the vaccine courts at about twice the percentage as claimants in the legal system.  And that is what should be so overwhelming about the 3 recent rulings (the strongest 3 cases out of 4900 claimants) they couldn't even convince anyone of there even being a possibility (a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, a relationship between vaccination and ASD, anything) of the vaccines causing autism - their "evidence" is that weak.  With the bar set as low as possible, the "vaccines cause autism" crowd still ran right under it and it didn't phase them at all.

I am not talking about the 3 "strongest" cases, these 3 cases may indeed have had what I will call "true" autism.  I want to look at all the cases that may not be as strong but may be cases where the vaccine (or some other agrivating factor) is what may have triggered autism behaviour in children who would not display this behaviour or wouldn't display as severe autisic behaviour without the trigger.  Children with autism essentially stop development at around the age of two.  Behaviour therapies generally try to raise functioning level to that of an average four year old because their development stops at around the age of 18 months to two years for mid functioning children and they have to be pushed to go anywhere beyond that.  If we could find the triggers that happen at around the age of two that causes children that do not have "true" autism to start displaying the symptoms of autism (that at this point become autism and result in a lifetime of struggle just like "true" autism) we could lessen the impact or avoid the impact of autism altogether.

Anyone involved in scientific studies knows that there is never a study which can say this causes this.  Ever.  It says this is corelated with this.  Period.  If the three (the mitochondrial disorder, the shot and the autism) are corelated it needs to be looked at.  The doctors did concede that there is a possibility that the vaccine caused this.  Why not explore this?

Trevormkidd wrote:

But Poling never did release the concession to the public.  He instead said that he was going to release the concession to the 4900 autism is caused by vaccines claimants.  If he did that, I don't know.  But if he did it didn't appear to help them.

Read the article again.  It clearly states that it is reporting on a copy of the concession that it optained.  According to that it was released.

Trevormkidd wrote:

Furthermore, as to the doctors telling the court that the vaccines caused her condition - well repeating that doesn't make it true.  Several of those doctors (perhaps all of them) have made their opinions known c.  Not one of them has said that it was anymore than one possibility. Yes they did say that compensation was appropriate and that is because based on the mandate of the vaccine courts compensation is appropriate if the cause of the injury was possibly vaccine related. Fever could exacerbate Mitochondrial disorders. Vaccines can cause fever. Ergo.

Exactly.  Is it the fever that causes the autisic behaviours?  Look at kids with mitochondrial disorders and see if it also happens with children who fevers but not at the same time as the shot.  If it does that is a piece of information that is extremely valuable, doctors will know that avoiding fevers in children with mitochondrial disorders is very important as many have physical problems but not brain issues (as with Mt disease in the case) so they know to watch the temperature of children to avoid them developing autisic symptoms and creating huge life long problems.  This could also include either forgoing the vaccine until a later date when the child has more cognitive development or special treatment of children such as hospital stays to monitor for possible fevers after the shot is given.

For clarity sake - the doctors said (the article gave a direct quote from the concession report) that the vaccine aggrevated her already existing mitocondrial condition which predisposded her to many issues including disease of the brain which show as autisic behaviours (enough to be classified as autism).  Any time I say or said cause it is just a shorter version of the preceding sentence that I don't want to have to repeat every time I am writing a sentence with the word cause in it.

Trevormkidd wrote:

Finally, associations that deal with mitochondrial disorders made up of experts who have spent their careers working on these issues have said that it was no more than one of several possible causes of the exacerbation. 

Agreed, all possible aggrivating factors should be looked at to try and avoid this very debilitating life long condition.

Trevormkidd wrote:

Yes, that is still higher than the general population, but it would be expected that mitochondrial disorders which can affect any part of the body including the brain, would be more common in a population with neurological condition, it doesn't doesn't provide any proof that children who have mitochondrial disorders are more likely to develop ASD because of vaccinations. Nor do experts or associations like the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation feel that there is a connection, or recommend against vaccinations (the opposite in fact). What would be required is a study looking at vaccinated vs unvaccinated children who have mitochondrial disorders and are diagnosed with ASD. Until such evidence is presented there is no basis for such a claim.

Yes I mispoke, thankyou I should have said that the rate of the 4900 could be as high as 10-20% based on the studies quoted in the article.

I agree.  There is more research that needs to be done to see why Mitochondrial disorders are so common amongst children with Autism.  Is some autism a form of mitochondrial disease - because right now the autism cause is unknown.  If it can be found to be mitochondrial disease, or mitochondrial disease in some cases there can be a huge advancement in screening, lessening the severity or onset of autism through therapies prior to onset, or reducing harmful triggers that again may lessen the harm or avoid the autisic behaviours altogether.  It may include delaying or not giving the vaccine, it may not but there are enough questions and they should be asked.