Isabella Thomas Gets Her Day In Court

10 Mar

Isabella Thomas of the anti-vaccination group JABS has got her day in court.

She claims that the MMR jab,

led to her sons developing autism

in the careful phrasing of the BBC.

The proceedings will begin in June. It should be a very interesting case for all of us involved from whatever perspective we look at the MMR angle from. She also told the BBC that:

…she noticed he was experiencing difficulty shortly after he had the vaccine…..The infant’s condition gradually deteriorated from that moment onwards and he was eventually diagnosed with autism,” she said

A bit short on facts as an article, I decided to see if I could find out a bit more regarding this ‘gradual deterioration’ in terms of what form it took.

In November 2003, the then (and current) Lib Dem MP for Lewes (Ms. Thomas’ constituency) Norman Baker, presented a speech concerning Ms Thomas to the Health Minister (then Dr Reid if memory serves) in which he outlined her various issues with how her sons had been treated by the medical establishment. Her MP sums up:

My constituent believes, rightly or wrongly, that the reactions that have been caused in her children and which have led to these, it seems, permanent conditions are a result of MMR. She holds that view very strongly and communicates it to those in the health service. She feels that because she holds that view, her children are effectively being denied effective treatment to deal with their conditions until such time as she is prepared to deny that MMR is the cause. That may be a misconception on her part, but that is what she believes.

Mr Baker is obviously being as tactful to Ms Thomas’s belief system as he possibly can be which is commendable behaviour in an MP but I agree with his inference that its only because she holds the view that MMR ‘led to’ her sons autism that she feels she’s having treatment withheld for _that_ condition (not autism, but MMR induced autism).

More interestingly, he also details her sons ‘gradual deterioration’. This is a description of Michael, her eldest.:

…he was like a wild animal; he screamed when anyone touched him and cried day and night. He has been diagnosed with regressive autism and has an obsessive-compulsive disorder. He suffers from auditory hallucinations, increased clumsiness, chronic bowel disease, temperature control problems, severe headaches, loss of memory, breathing problems and rashes.

And Terry, Michael’s younger brother:

During the night after the vaccination, Terry suffered a fit and within a week he developed excessive temperature swings and loss of skills. Before the vaccination, he was potty trained, but he regressed the very next day. Within two weeks he began to suffer from constipation and chronic diarrhoea. Within a month he appeared clumsy and walked into doors. He stopped talking and would become completely silent. He no longer indulged in pretend play. He now suffers from fits, jaundice when ill, chronic bowel disease, very high fevers, rashes, regressive autism and excessive thirst.

Both boys are said to have:

the measles virus, consistent with the vaccine strain

found in their bowels and blood in Michaels case.

As far as I read it, *none* of Michaels symptoms match those of any known diagnostic criteria of autism. Two, maybe three out of the eight listed above match comorbidities sometimes associated with autism.

Terry’s symptom list is more intriguing and contains the hotly debated ‘regressive autism’. It also lists it _as_ a symptom, indicating that the other symptoms haven’t _caused_ it but exist alongside it. If we take the other as possible indicators of autism then only one ‘he no longer indulged in pretend play’ speaks openly of autism to me. Again, two, possibly three of his listed symptoms out of the thirteen or so listed speak of sometime comorbidities.

Its an established fact that vaccines can cause injury. Could they have caused these injuries? Of course they _could_ . But did they? I don’t know. I would imagine that Ms Thomas filled out a form for the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit and I would imagine that, as in all cases, they performed an investigation and found her claim unsubstantiated. I could be wrong though, maybe she didn’t but seeing as JABS link to the VDPU and encourage people to make such a claim it would seem logical to assume she has. if they rejected her claim that means they don’t agree that the MMR jab caused either of kids problems.

But lets say they did, just to play devils advocate. As the listed symptoms seem utterly dissimilar to those used to diagnose autism I’m unsure how Ms Thomas hopes to establish a causative link at all. Should be an interesting case to watch all the same.

41 Responses to “Isabella Thomas Gets Her Day In Court”

  1. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 15:09 #

    Kev wrote:

    “As far as I read it, none of Michaels symptoms match those of any known diagnostic criteria of autism. Two, maybe three out of the eight listed above match comorbidities sometimes associated with autism”.

    – This begs the question, Kev. Are children being diagnosed with “autism” when they are instead being poisoned by their childhood vaccinations? Answer: Most likely, yes.

    – Sue M.

  2. Kev March 10, 2006 at 16:04 #

    _”This begs the question, Kev. Are children being diagnosed with “autism” when they are instead being poisoned by their childhood vaccinations? Answer: Most likely, yes.”_

    Its certainly a possibility as I mentioned above. Whether its _likely_? Thats much more debatable. Does vaccine damage regularly result in these kind of symptoms?

  3. Kev March 10, 2006 at 16:34 #

    A few mild and severe symptoms listed here. A few sound like young Michaels reaction but its certainly nothing conclusive.

  4. Rose Walker March 10, 2006 at 17:11 #

    Well, I really should look into this website more than I am before shooting off my keys, BUT that would be too novel for me. I have been a curebie in the past, and even now we are trying a trial with guanfacine, which WAKES UP the frontal lobes. Quit the damn ritalin after 7 years within days of seeing a news clip where the gentle parents whose child died said that “Getting A’s was never worth this…” . So I’m on my way to being considered for sainthood, right??

    Anyhow– if science is a “show me” mentality…I’ll believe it when I see it, why do they ignore half of what comes their way? Moments after coming home from the Health Office (yes, I’m poor…) , my son goes into a HHE (Hypotonic Hyporesponsive Episode). I hate it when doctors say it was a coincidence…that is just bullshyt. So seven years later I figure out we could have tried suing the government because of his reaction. Only, we had to do it within 3 years. So we were 4 years too late, and Ben wasn’t on any “list” at the CDC or whoever for a severe reaction. Coincidence, my arse. It was not a good day for a brain-swelling.

    Did it cause Ben’s autism? I don’t know. It’s pretty damn suspicious. And Medicine/Science is not a religion…they are people who have to cover their mistakes just like the rest of us.

  5. needto2anon March 10, 2006 at 18:43 #

    I have an intenal birth “defect” caused by a pharmaceutical while I was in utero. There was no cover-up when the isses this med caused was discovered and this was during a time when there were other kinds of gov’t “cover-ups”. Ususally, in terms of finding medical problems, the med/pharma world is more willing to admit issues (due to their foundation in science), but also because many in those fields then feel compelled to to work on medical solutions. I know, as that is what happened in my case.

  6. Ms Clark March 10, 2006 at 20:23 #

    I wonder who “found” the measles virus in Isabella Thomas’ sons and how.

    Apparently the labs can give false results, by error.

    Does anyone say how the MMR could act that quickly? Wakefiled is talking opiates from diet, opiates that leak through the walls of the gut, one would think it would take a day or so for the measles to punch holes in the gut and that the kid would also have to be eating wheat and dairy. Then the kid should act stoned, right?

    The problem with going on memory of how things happened is that memories are notoriously bad. There’s no such thing as the “snapshot” memory that people are supposed to have around trauma. That’ is, yes, peope DO remember where they were when Kennedy was shot and when the Challenger blew-up but they don’t remember accurately. They “remember” vividly but the memory is really not accurate.

    The more a person rehearses for a trial the more sure they will become or seem to become because it’s practical and means cash if they do “remember it just so.”

    If she’s right, of course, she should get justice, some kind of compensation.

    Odds are that she’s totally wrong because Wakefield is totally wrong. His latest paper doesn’t mention measles. I’ve read it all. No reference to measles.

    He also points out that of the kids that were in his original group, referred to in the paper, NONE of them have lost their diagnoses. None of them are cured. Of the original kids that Wakefield worked with, you’d think that they would have access to the best of the best of Wakefield’s ideas for treatment. They should all be cured by the GFCF diet and immune globulin or whatever he has suggested, shouldn’t they?

    People should fear measles outbreaks more than they should fear “losing” a child to autism because of measles… and now Sue the antivaccinationist will say that measles is a harmless disease, won’t you, Sue?

    Back to the earlier discussion…

    Sue, does testosterone form sheets with mercury inside? Does Lupron allow kids to be chelated effectively so they can be cured of autism/mercury poisoning??

    Yes, or no?
    Can testosterone form sheets,

    or are the Geiers lying (or hysterically badly mistaken, so much so, that they are worthless scientists)??

    Should people like Erik, just “have faith” in the Geiers that they aren’t vultures and liars? Should they because the Geiers tell you what you want to hear? Because you think they are sincere? Should Erik allow his daughter to be injected with Lupron by these people under any circumstances?

    Yes, or no?

    I say, no, testosterone can never form “sheets” in the human body, not ever, no way, no how.
    I say “no”, no one should have faith in the Geiers.
    I say “no” that Erik and others should not allow their children to be injected with Lupron so that they can be chelated more effectively. Regular chelation isn’t working on Erik’s daughter, I guess, so it’s time to take massive risks with her health…?

    Erik Nanstiel, can testosterone form sheets the way the Geiers say it can?
    JB Handley, can testosterone form sheets?
    Kevin Champagne, can testosterone form sheets?

    It’s the litmus test of scientific and rational thinking. Can testosterone from sheets in the human body?

    Can measles cause “leaky gut”? If so how?

  7. Joseph March 10, 2006 at 21:25 #

    – This begs the question, Kev. Are children being diagnosed with “autism” when they are instead being poisoned by their childhood vaccinations? Answer: Most likely, yes.

    The answer is most likely NO. That is, there doesn’t appear any noticeably significant correlation from this or any other environmental factor.

  8. Joseph March 10, 2006 at 21:32 #

    I wonder if the lawyers are competent enough to argue a case like this. Do they understand all the issues involved and all the logical and methdological flaws in the thimerosal camp’s arguments? I would even start by questioning the premise that autism is horrible thing that has happened to this child – but that probably won’t fly with the jury.

  9. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 21:37 #

    Ms. Clark wrote:

    “The problem with going on memory of how things happened is that memories are notoriously bad”.

    – So are medical records, pictures and videotapes also “notoriously bad”. I think that the worst thing pediatricians can do is to ignore parental accounts of their children.

    Ms. Clark wrote:

    “and now Sue the antivaccinationist will say that measles is a harmless disease, won’t you, Sue”?

    – Well, no I won’t. I will say that you are ignorant if you believe that the risks are being accurately portrayed to you by the CDC. It’s about looking honestly at the risk/reward, Camille. I can’t imagine why you are so afraid of looking into the issue further.

    Ms. Clark wrote:

    “Sue, does testosterone form sheets with mercury inside”?

    – I don’t know, Camille. Earlier you accused me along with others of dodging the question in regards to this. So (speaking only for myself), let me say this again. I don’t know if testosterone forms sheets with mercury inside… that is far from dodging any questions. I will say this, however, if my options are believing what the Geiers say in regards to mercury as opposed to what Ms. Clark has to say… my bet is that the Geiers are probably correct. I would of course be interested in seeing more research done in this area.

    – Sue M.

  10. clone3g March 10, 2006 at 21:48 #

    Hey Sue,
    Pop quiz:
    Scientists develop a new vaccine that induces tolerance to gluten and essentially cures celiac disease. The FDA fastracks it without adequate safety trials because it so effective patients demand it be brought to market immediately. Production is limited so there won’t be enough to go around for a few years. Do you get on line to get yours or do you get on line to protest the evil pharmaceutical companies who developed the new vaccine?

    What will you do?

  11. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 21:53 #

    Clone wrote:

    “What will you do”?

    – List each and every ingredient which will be in this new vaccine.

    – Sue M.

  12. clone3g March 10, 2006 at 22:07 #

    So if thimerosal is on the list you would refuse the cure?

  13. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 22:20 #

    Clone wrote:

    “So if thimerosal is on the list you would refuse the cure”?

    – Yes, I would refuse “the cure”. Too risky. If my kid had cancer or something deadly and a vaccine for a “cure” came out that I would think differently… not for celiac though…

    – Sue M.

  14. clone3g March 10, 2006 at 23:00 #

    Ok, let’s assume it is thimerosal free and whatever the other ingredients they are all necessary for it to work, but absolutely no mercury. Then what?

  15. anonimouse March 10, 2006 at 23:11 #

    Sue,

    Do you have any proof that the vaccine information sheets provided by the CDC (and made available to parents who vaccinate their children in the U.S.) are false?

    Moreover, do you have any proof that there are deliberate attempts by the CDC to hide risks of vaccines, as you have intimated on more than one occasion?

  16. Dad Of Cameron March 10, 2006 at 23:14 #

    Sue said: “I will say this, however, if my options are believing what the Geiers say in regards to mercury as opposed to what Ms. Clark has to say… my bet is that the Geiers are probably correct.”

    Sue, you have the option casting off your apparent way of determining reality by assigning “belief” one way or the other. Don’t assign “belief” to any of it. Make decisions based on understanding the underlying science of what’s being presented, regardless of who’s presenting it. If given an option to “believe” the Geiers or Ms. Clark, I don’t “believe” either of them. I don’t know if testosterone forms sheets, and I haven’t seen any credible proof that a) mercury causes autism, and b) people with autism have more mercury. Why do you need to “believe” someone? Think, Learn, and Know, or don’t know (which is certainly honest and acceptable) as we’ve both stated about the testosterone sheets.
    Reality is not a matter of belief. Believing one or the other is another way of expressing “I don’t know, but I have an agenda, regardless of fact or understanding”.

    If you’re making a bet it should be based on the facts (mathematical probability). Are you betting on your understanding of the underlying science and facts, or are you betting based on a belief that you understand the underlying science?

  17. anonimouse March 10, 2006 at 23:27 #

    I agree with DOC. This issue shouldn’t be about appeals to authority, it should be about what makes the most sense and where the bulk of the evidence points to.

    The problem with the Geiers’ research, whether it be with Lupron or with epidemiology, is that it not only doesn’t make much sense, it also contradicts most of what is known and accepted about mercury toxicity, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism incidence.

    It’s implausible to think you can chemically castrate a 9 or 10-year-old, give them chelation drugs, and have their autism improve. Heck, it’s implausible to think chelation can reverse damage that’s already been done.

    It’s also implausible to think that using education-oriented databases and uncontrolled repositories of vaccine adverse reactions can give you a picture of autism incidence and trends. And when statisticians can easily pick apart the Geiers’ work (and remember, the Geiers’ are NOT epidemiologists or statisticians by trade) the lack of sophistication and depth of their work becomes obvious.

    So that’s why *I* don’t believe the Geiers, Sue. I don’t believe them because they haven’t provided anything that passes scientific muster, and it has nothing to do with conspiracies or stubborness or lack of knowledge. The Geiers are not very good at what they do, plain and simple. They’re bad scientists, they’re bad statisticians, they’re bad expert witnesses and from what I saw of their “presentations” they’re not exactly scintillating public speakers either.

  18. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 23:35 #

    Dad of Cameron wrote:

    “If you’re making a bet it should be based on the facts (mathematical probability). Are you betting on your understanding of the underlying science and facts, or are you betting based on a belief that you understand the underlying science”?

    – I obviously made it VERY clear that I don’t know if testosterone forms sheets with mercury inside. I also indicated that more research should be done. Anything that I wrote in terms of betting on someone/something should not be taken so literally.

    – Sue M.

  19. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 23:44 #

    Clone wrote:

    “Ok, let’s assume it is thimerosal free and whatever the other ingredients they are all necessary for it to work, but absolutely no mercury. Then what”?

    – Unanswerable for me, Clone. What does it have in it. Aluminum? Formeldahyde? No safety trials? Too far out for me to address…

    Sue M.

  20. clone3g March 10, 2006 at 23:48 #

    Sue M. I obviously made it VERY clear that I don’t know if testosterone forms sheets with mercury inside. I also indicated that more research should be done.

    The Geiers don’t know either Sue. They made it up and if you think more research should be done then it’s the Vultures who need to do it. They should have done it long before they made such a ridiculous statement, otherwise it’s a lie and that makes the Geiers liars. Get it? They’ve lied about the testosterone sheets, they’ve lied about Lupron assisting chelation, and they’ve lied about the decline in autism rates.

    If we start from the beginning of their careers and chart the number of lies they’ve told, my guess is that we’ll see a clear trend line.

  21. Sue M. March 10, 2006 at 23:59 #

    Mouse:

    Again… say what you will about the Geiers. They were asked by Congress to look at the VSD data. They did so and saw a link between thimerosal/neurodevelopmental disorders. Don’t like it… neither do I. Get someone else in there to look at the data (or is it all destroyed)?

    Sue M.

  22. Sue M. March 11, 2006 at 00:05 #

    Clone wrote:

    “The Geiers don’t know either Sue”.

    – I wrote about what I know (or don’t know) in regards to the testosterone/Lupron issue… I haven’t been keeping up to date on that front. I can’t speak for the Geiers… obviously. If you have an issue with what they say. Go to them directly.

    Sue M.

  23. Dad Of Cameron March 11, 2006 at 00:59 #

    Sue wrote: “– I obviously made it VERY clear that I don’t know if testosterone forms sheets with mercury inside. I also indicated that more research should be done. Anything that I wrote in terms of betting on someone/something should not be taken so literally.
    – Sue M.”

    Sue, you were very clear about that part, and I acknowledged that and communcated that I don’t know either.

    I was making a general observation about your potential reliance on “belief” in general. You communicated support for the Geiers claims versus Ms. Clark’s. Is there a reason outside of the realm of “you believe them”?

  24. Sue M. March 11, 2006 at 01:26 #

    Dad of Cameron wrote:

    “I was making a general observation about your potential reliance on “belief” in general. You communicated support for the Geiers claims versus Ms. Clark’s. Is there a reason outside of the realm of “you believe them”?

    – It is similar to how I would believe a DAN! doctor vs. a regular pediatrician when it came to treating certain GI issues that my son may have. It’s based on experiences, belief in prior statements, etc. So, yes, I guess it is based on a belief as opposed to the science- considering the fact that I already stated that I didn’t know enough about the testosterone/Lupron issue. Of course, how many people here automatically believe or agree with Ms. Clark vs. the Geiers… no different.

    Sue M.

  25. Dad Of Cameron March 11, 2006 at 02:45 #

    Sue, I think you’d be surprised (or not able to understand due to a different way of viewing things) how many people here do not automatically believe anything, regardless of the source. You’re right there may be some, and comparing yourself to those some would not be different. In the DAN! doctor example, your belief based on your experience is a perception based only on your experiences and people who develop perceptions of reality in the same way you do. You are a believer, not in and of itself bad, but I’d argue that in the world of science and medicine, belief is totally meaningless – except to the believers.

  26. clone3g March 11, 2006 at 02:53 #

    Unanswerable for me, Clone. What does it have in it. Aluminum? Formeldahyde? No safety trials? Too far out for me to address…

    Good for you Sue. You refuse to subject your child to a hypothetical and unproven treatment without knowing the ingredients, biological effects, or results of saftey trials.

    A few more like you and the DAN! doctors will run out of customers.

  27. Chemo March 11, 2006 at 06:27 #

    Sue,

    You can’t discover a way that the sun can “rise in the West and set in the East.” You can’t do research to collect data on how that is happens sometimes because it never happens.

    There are laws that govern the way molecules can stick together and how strongly they stick together. You can sometimes make two molecules stick together that wouldn’t otherwise by applying a lot of heat or a different element as a catalyst, but there are things that CAN NOT happen with elements. The universe runs on the predictability of the elements and the elements are made of the predictability of phyiscs, if you will.

    It will always be impossible to make a chain of neon.

    It will always be impossible to make a sheet of argon.

    It will always be impossible to make a ring of xenon.

    It will always be impossible to make a with of krypton.

    (Someone correct me if there is some super unusal way to make the noble gases link up with something else)

    It will always be relatively easy to make a chain of hydrogen and carbon. It will always be easy to find rings of hydrogen and carbon. It will always be relatively easy to put hydrgen and oxygen together and take them apart again (with electricity).

    But there’s no way within a biological system to make sheets of testosterone.

    The Geiers claim that they saw an xray crystalography photo of testosterone sheets. This is big news, it will earn them the Nobel prize in chemistry IF they can prove it, this is HUGE.

    Lets see that photo.

    This is like saying you have an undeniable photo of bigfoot. They’ve discovered water that usually runs upstream and they have pictures.

    Or they are liars.

    There’s no way I’d take your word, Sue, or the word of literally psychotic antivaxers (fear of contamination?) over the CDC’s. It’s your unreasoning paranoia or your head full of quotes from paranoid psychotics who are on the internet ranting about the black robed conspiracies to destroy mankind with vaccines that makes you distrust the CDC, not reality. Heard of Dr. Carley? Seen the picture of her boyfriend with the big gun? Gonna subject your kid to her protocol? Did you know that she’s sure that the Jews are trying to take over the world? Did you know she used to be on the scientific advisory board of TAAP? Ray Gallup sent out something by e-mail from her just a month or two ago.

  28. Sue M. March 11, 2006 at 14:00 #

    Clone wrote:

    “Good for you Sue. You refuse to subject your child to a hypothetical and unproven treatment without knowing the ingredients, biological effects, or results of saftey trials”.

    – You are forgetting, Clone. I am lucky. There are many who have more difficult roads then I do. I respect their decisions.

    – Sue M.

  29. Sue M. March 11, 2006 at 14:01 #

    Chemo sounds a bit like Ms. Clark… either way, too much of a wacko for me to address.

    – Sue M.

  30. clone3g March 11, 2006 at 14:26 #

    Chemo: (Someone correct me if there is some super unusal way to make the noble gases link up with something else)

    Not to actually correct anyone but it is possible to make chemical compounds with noble gas elements. Some pretty extreme conditions are required though and the compounds are tangible evidence that it is possible.

  31. Sue M. March 11, 2006 at 14:33 #

    Dad of Cameron wrote:

    “how many people here do not automatically believe anything”.

    – Many here have been very vocal about their “automatic” disbelief in anything that the Geiers have to say. Same thing.

    Dad of Cameron wrote:

    “You are a believer, not in and of itself bad, but I’d argue that in the world of science and medicine, belief is totally meaningless – except to the believers”.

    – Is this “world of science and medicine”, the same world which states that thimerosal in vaccines is safe and harmless? I disagree with that science. I base that on anecdotal evidence, my own experiences and differing “science” from a growing body of evidence and scientists who agree with “my side”. The fact that very intelligent and powerful people disagree with me does not change that fact for me. Is it a belief… I guess, if you want to call it that but it is based upon solid ground. We have had discussions here that science today can be disproven tomorrow. Agree? So, maybe we can leave it at that for now. I BELIEVE that the science is changing, you apparently aren’t sure yet… or don’t BELIEVE that it is. We have differing views.

    Sue M.

  32. clone3g March 11, 2006 at 15:37 #

    Sue M. said: – You are forgetting, Clone. I am lucky. There are many who have more difficult roads then I do. I respect their decisions

    What the hell is that supposed to mean Sue? Am I supposed to read some deep meaning in those words somewhere? Did Chauncy Gardner write that for you?

    How much respect do you have for autistics in general? We’ve already established you to be an irrational, emotional, anti-vaccine activist. Obviously a your main purpose in life is to see every last molecule of thimerosal removed from vaccines, and that’s fine, just use autism as a tool to accomplish your goals. No problem. Why should anyone care? It’s not like autistics are real people or anything. Your kids are ‘perfect’ so why should you care about anyone else?

  33. Dad Of Cameron March 11, 2006 at 16:42 #

    Sue said: “We have had discussions here that science today can be disproven tomorrow. Agree?”

    Absolutely agree. This is the very nature of scientific thought and the scientific method. (By the way the scientific method in the end, includes real peer review, a process welcomed and thought essential to ensuring objectivity and quality of methods – By publishing often in JAP&S, its contributing authors are skipping this part. I’d suggest it possible, although you’ll likely argue a conspiracy theory, that the reason has more to do with methods that won’t cut it, or a avoidance of potentially being shown to be liars, which isn’t good for business with customers who are “believers” in the long run).

    “So, maybe we can leave it at that for now. I BELIEVE that the science is changing, you apparently aren’t sure yet… or don’t BELIEVE that it is. We have differing views.”

    We can leave it at that. We speak different languages. All the belief in the world has no impact on the fundamental nature of constant change in science. We have differing views based on differing ways of determining what reality is.

    Thanks for being polite.

  34. Sue M. March 11, 2006 at 17:48 #

    Clone wrote:

    “What the hell is that supposed to mean Sue”?

    – That is supposed to mean that there are some children who are more physically ill than mine are at this point. So a treatment that I wouldn’t consider for my kids, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be an option for someone else. Was that derogatory? If so, I apologize, it wasn’t meant to be.

    Clone wrote:

    “We’ve already established you to be an irrational, emotional, anti-vaccine activist”.

    – I’m glad that you’ve been able to establish that (or not). Now, move away from the red herring and back to the fact that children have been and continue to be injected with thimerosal.

    – Sue M.

  35. Joseph March 11, 2006 at 20:09 #

    They did so and saw a link between thimerosal/neurodevelopmental disorders. Don’t like it… neither do I.

    They saw it because they don’t know how to interpret data. Shall I explain again why even their terminology is unsound?

  36. Joseph March 11, 2006 at 20:15 #

    Sue wrote:

    The fact that very intelligent and powerful people disagree with me does not change that fact for me.

    What about the fact that the facts disagree with you? For example, explain the group inequivalency (2/3rds into it) in each year’s autism numbers from the CDDS.

    Also, you haven’t taken a shot at the Mercury FABNAQ. María Luján provided some reasonable answers, and I’ve asked if I can incorporate and address them. JB Jr. tried to answer some of the questions, but his responses basically help illustrate the point of the FABNAQ.

  37. Sue M. March 12, 2006 at 16:14 #

    Joseph wrote:

    “Shall I explain again why even their terminology is unsound”?

    – Ah, no.

    – Sue M.

  38. Joseph March 12, 2006 at 20:11 #


    “As far as I read it, none of Michaels symptoms match those of any known diagnostic criteria of autism. Two, maybe three out of the eight listed above match comorbidities sometimes associated with autism”.

    – This begs the question, Kev. Are children being diagnosed with “autism” when they are instead being poisoned by their childhood vaccinations? Answer: Most likely, yes.

    BTW, what this says to me is that the ‘autism’ label is applied to a increasingly wider variety of children, and this is clear from the data as well. Some have complained that ‘autism’ will become meaningless if it continues to broaden in this manner. Categorization might be useful in this sense, but it creates ‘classes’ within the spectrum.

  39. Joseph March 12, 2006 at 23:01 #

    Kev,
    You’ve been impersonated in my latest blog entry. And it’s not hard to guess who it was.

  40. Jenny Taylor March 12, 2006 at 23:46 #

    There are no proceedings beginning in June concerning Mrs Thomas. She started suing in 1996. One of her children isn’t autistic (but has Asperger’s). She discontinued her claim when the Legal Aid money was stopped after Dr Wakefield’s research was exposed as bogus. Now she has conned some witless local BBC journalist. That’s all. Pure bullshit.

  41. Jill March 13, 2006 at 03:10 #

    If you can’t prove it, it did not happen……or did it?

    “….When vaccine damage in very young children is involved, it is harder to prove the links. ”
    –Dr. Fletcher(former Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health)

    In the past, there were medical procedures that could not be proved to be the cause of a symptom at the time….but now…we know.( I’m sure you can think of a few examples.) Sometime in the future, we WILL know for sure what causes autism, and I am certain that the cause will be mutifactoral.

    ___________________________________________________
    British government accused of ‘inexplicable complacency’ over MMR vaccine

    LONDON, UK: A former British government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children………………..

    http://www.awares.org/pkgs/news/news.asp?showItemID=601&board=&bbcode=&profileCode=&section=

    Source: Daily Mail, February 6, 2006

    ___________________________________________________

    Meanwhile, there is another measles outbreak. Natural measles can cause brain complications, too, btw. Would these same measles complications lead a child to be later diagnosed with ASD? After all, there is a known l association with certain viral illnesses and autistic symptoms.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: