The same evidence was there when he made his first comment—Dr. Poling discussed exactly the same logic on day 1.

So I guess you give him full marks for ignoring the evidence the first time, and speaking definitively about things he wasn’t familiar with? Yeah, that’s quality science all right.

The only change was his “expert” opinion, not surprisingly after his first opinion was exposed as flawed.

So, let me see if I understand you.

You’re saying that when someone holds an opinion based on the data they’ve read that that opinion is immutable and unchangeable from point on? Regardless of any new evidence that comes along?

That’s not science my friend. That’s dogma.

I give the guy full marks for altering his opinion based on the available evidence. That’s what a scientist should do.

Yes, and I also realize he can’t dicuss patient details without permission.

Like I said, DiMauro was quite clear in both articles what his reasoning was based on. In both cases all of the information contained in his reasoning was available from day 1. The only change was his “expert” opinion, not surprisingly after his first opinion was exposed as flawed.

It seems pretty clear that scientific credentials aside, DiMauro is acting in the capacity of both politics and science, and clearly the former is affecting his quoted opinions.

Sullivan pointed out the conference likely discussed a preview of his study (given the timing that makes a lot of sense), not Hannah Poling’s unpublished genetic details.

Dr. Shoffner may have talked about his study, but that had nothing to do with the genetic details of Hannah Poling’s case…

Schwartz, you do realise that the Poling case study was co-authored by Shoffner, right?

Please provide a link the the amended rule 4 c report then.

Please see Sullivan’s answer above.

If there were only to provide a limited portion of the records, ones that dealt only with the exact incident you would still accuse them of withhold information.

Hey, look at that – you can read minds too!

Actually, no I wouldn’t.

I would assume that if your daughter were in the center of an internationally important event then you would do your best to avoid the inaccuracies in the first place. I think your predisposition to assuming that the reports are inaccurate is in fact a straw man.

I think that first of all you need to look up the meaning of a strawman. Secondly, no, it isn’t. The issue of accuracy is what led HHS to make this motion in the first place.

respondent who first approached and asked for petitioners’ consent to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to disclose medical information regarding this case* in order for the Secretary to address inaccurate statements that were being made publicly concerning respondent’s position in this case.

However, you are very, very correct when you say I would do my best to avoid inaccuracies in the first place. That would involve ensuring that any representation avoided lies and y’know, inaccuracies in the media.

Which, as the current ruling shows is clearly not the case.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the Poling’s are currently not talking about the case? Are you suggesting that Jon Poling et al has not confirmed that the case Study is about his daughter? This motion is about HHS trying to get permission from the Poling’s to talk about their daughter in order to correct inaccuracies.

But again, I said something that isn’t posted on your blog.

Then, again, I suggest you email KKI direct.

Now, I am not a expert in the English language but I assume the phrase “from the documents presented in the vaccine court” is meant to 1) refer to the documents in the vaccine court and 2) imply that is those documents that are being used to support the statement.

?????

Schwartz, I cannot for the life of me understand what you find so very difficult about this.

Based on the issue you raised and the sources you quoted, everything that DiMaurio said in the New Scientist piece is not only explainable but entirely logical.

What he read between then and the SciAm piece is anybody’s guess but I’m pretty sure it included the Case Report.

You seem to to be desperately trying to obfuscate a whole series of events – take your bewilderment that DiMaurio knew about the 16S ribosomal RNA gene info when it was discussed openly before the end of Feb.

“What’s crystal clear is that at one point in time DiMaurio clearly had the information contained in the HHS report and passed an opinion based on that information.”

He had a lot more information than that. He had information on the specifics of the gene containing the defect, and he also knew both the mother and the daughter had exactly the same defect. Both of these two facts are what he used in his reversal of reasoning on April 22. Dr. Poling pointed out EXACTLY the same things in the first press conference on CNN (March 6 as we all know—two days before DiMauro’s first commentary). Dr. Poling made the same logical argument that Dr. DiMauro used on April 22 to rule out the mtDNA defect as likely cause or contributer.

(Even more ironic is that many people argued that Dr. Poling’s logic on this topic was flawed and biased—just because the mother wasn’t sick doesn’t mean the daughter didn’t suffer from the defect. Yet, DiMauro makes the same argument a month later, and everyone remains silent.)

Trying to argue that DiMauro didn’t have the information (since the genetic details were not even discussed in the case study) it looks much more likely that DiMauro shot off an answer trying to implicate the genetics and then changed his story after Dr. Poling wrote his rebuttal down on the web for everyone to see how DiMauro and Novella were spinning the story. After that embarrassment, Novella responds that the information is interesting, and DiMauro changes his story, agrees with Dr. Poling, and then proceeds to pontificate that there must be another genetic problem, despite any actual evidence to support this.

You do realize the DiMauro’s opinion on April 22, has basically nullified any mtDNA genetic association with her disorder. That means there is no remaining evidence that she had any genetic disorder at all.

Sullivan,

Dr. Shoffner may have talked about his study, but that had nothing to do with the genetic details of Hannah Poling’s case which is what DiMauro was specifically talking about. The information he was using to justify his logic on April 22, was all known from the date of the first press conference.

I fully agree that the likelihood of future claims being contested is highly probable.

You can read heavily edited excerpts at the Atlanta Constitution Journal website. Mr Kirby has it, and he is a part of the public. He certainly is not a party to this action, and, as such, giving him the information was a violation of the rules of the court. The confidentiality of the report has been breached.

Which, as the current ruling shows is clearly not the case. But again, I said something that isn’t posted on your blog.

I guess we are talking about different cases. First, the current document is not a ruling on whether the Poling’s can discuss their information. Much the contrary, the current ruling states that the Polings have the say as to whether they discuss their child’s history and make public the expert reports submitted.

The case clearly is that the Polings can discuss the information about their child. They can not discuss the HHS response to their case…oops, except that they have.

The HHS can not discuss the specifics of Ms. Poling’s case.

Perhaps the HHS can submit a document where they explain everything that went into their decision. Clearly quoting from the expert reports (in total) and Ms. Poling’s medical history as it relates to the case (in total). Then, that being information that HHS submitted to the Court, HHS would be free to release it to the public?!?

Please provide a link the the amended rule 4 c report then.

“Thats a strawman MJ. Nobody’s asking for details of Hannah Polings hypothetical tonsil removal.”

How the privacy of your health records a strawman? If there were only to provide a limited portion of the records, ones that dealt only with the exact incident you would still accuse them of withhold information.

“And thats another strawman MJ. When my daughter is at the centre of an internationally important medical/legal issue – placed there by me, my legal counsel and a reporter of my choosing – and I have in my possession records that can clear up inaccuracies I may well do so.”

I would assume that if your daughter were in the center of an internationally important event then you would do your best to avoid the inaccuracies in the first place. I think your predisposition to assuming that the reports are inaccurate is in fact a straw man.

“I have an email from KK which I blogged about here. It said:”

Actually, quoting from your blog post you said :

“The fact of the matter is that the Gvmt has no rights to stop the family talking about the case.”

Which, as the current ruling shows is clearly not the case. But again, I said something that isn’t posted on your blog.

“It implies no such thing. DiMaurio is simply doing what I did, but with mito disorder.”

Lets examine the exact quote, shall we?

“This means that, scientifically, from the documents presented in the vaccine court, the Polings did not make a case that deserved compensation”

Now, I am not a expert in the English language but I assume the phrase “from the documents presented in the vaccine court” is meant to 1) refer to the documents in the vaccine court and 2) imply that is those documents that are being used to support the statement.