Jon Poling writes a letter in the NEJM that says:
Offit’s remarks about Hannah’s case are not evidence-based. He has no access to my daughter’s personal medical records, legal documents, or affidavits. In contrast, physicians from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who studied this information recommended that the government concede Hannah’s case. The clinical history Offit presents contains significant inaccuracies, and the resulting conclusions are consequently flawed.
This paragraph lies at the very heart of the mystery surrounding Hannah Poling’s diagnosis, concession and the subsequent media-frenzy.
There are two documents regarding Hannah Poling from which all medical information has been forthcoming.
1) Concession Report (This document has been removed due to the possibility of it being illegally obtained). If people really wish to read the document for themselves it can be founf here, at the Huffington post
These two documents – and only these two documents – have informed *everyone’s* opinion. Aside from these two documents, there is nothing else (aside from Hannah Poling’s medical records). If anyone believes that not to be the case, I challenge them to either link to them or have the Poling’s release them. The Special Masters have made it very very clear that all that needs to happen for *all* records to be released is for the Poling’s solicitor to write and ask.
….in the case that is the subject of the media reports, if the parties who supplied documents and information in the case provide their written consent, we may then be able to appropriately disclose documents in the case.
Until the Polings elect to do this very simple action, they have to assume that people will write about what is available. They will also have to put up with the fact that people like me find it very, very suspicious that they repeatedly claim what they simply cannot back up and then refuse to release information that could clear these issues up straight away.
The Case Report contains _all_ the information necessary to make a judgement on whether:
a) Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism (she was)
b) Hannah Poling was injured by vaccines (she was)
c) Hannah Poling’s autism was caused by vaccines (it was not)
How do I claim point c) as true? Easily. One takes the symptoms listed in the Case Study as being those caused by vaccines and compares them to the DSM (IV) criteria for autism.
fever to 38.9°C
refused to walk
waking up multiple times in the night
having episodes of opisthotonus
no longer normally climb stairs
Low-grade intermittent fever
generalized erythematous macular rash
disrupted sleep/wake cycle
expressive language was lost
chronic yellow watery diarrhea
appetite remained poor for 6 months
body weight did not increase
decline on a standard growth chart
slow hair growth
generalized mild hypotonia
normal tendon reflexes.
I have emboldened the items which match the DSM (IV). I’ve italicised the items which are repeated.
Hannah Poling’s Case Study was authored by four people. One was, of course, Jon Poling. The other authors are:
John Shoffner. In an interview in Scientific American, Shoffer agreed that the scientific evidence presented in the case did not make enough of a case to warrant compensation. He went on to say:
Shoffner notes that parents and advocates looking to impugn vaccines as triggers for autism—or mitochondrial disease—need direct, not just circumstantial, evidence. “If you were sitting in a waiting room full of people and one person suddenly fell ill or died or something,” he says, “would you arrest the person sitting right next to them?”
Jon Poling, says Shoffner, has been “muddying the waters” with some of his comments. “There is no precedent for that type of thinking and no data for that type of thinking,” Shoffner says.
Its worth noting that John Shoffner – unlike Jon Poling – is a mitochondrial specialist.
Andrew Zimmerman: When I attempted to get Zimmerman’s comments about the case, I received the following reply:
Dr. Zimmerman…….is not able to publicly discuss this patient. As a participant in this case, the family provided consent for Dr. Zimmerman to share information with the court, but we do not have parental consent to discuss the patient publicly – as we are bound by HIPAA privacy regulations, as in any healthcare setting in the U.S.
Why? If the Poling’s are so very keen to make an _accurate_ case then surely, giving permission to the doctors involved is the first step? What is it they don’t want Zimmerman to say?
Richard E Frye, as far as I know has not made any public statements on this case.
The report from Dr Offit was not inaccurate. It was accurate to the information we have. If there is more information then I ask the Poling’s once more to _release_ it. They are legally able to and if they really believe in what they claim then they should be doing it right now. Why aren’t they?