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
2) Zimmerman Case Study
When David Kirby wrote his piece in the Huffington Post, I’ll admit I read it with my jaw on my chest. Here was evidence I was wrong. I emailed David Kirby to get the whole report from him and he was kind enough to provide not only a PDF version but a plain text version as well.
This enabled me to contact a few people that I know are medical people and/or scientists and/or closely connected to this case. For example I contacted Dr Zimmerman and learned that it was not possible for him to offer any sort of opinion on this case due to the fact that his patients parents had not allowed him to discuss his thoughts and opinions with anyone except the court. I was told however that ‘the comments on your site with questions raised and loopholes pointed out about the way others are interpreting the facts of the situation, are right on track.’
It is clear to me then that there is some wordsmithing going on – either deliberately or unintentionally. What we need to do is look closely at the wording of two documents. The concession report and the case study performed by Dr Zimmerman.
The claim by David Kirby et al is, in essence, that the US Government have conceded that vaccines cause autism in this one case. Lets look at the so-called concession report in relation to what it says about autism.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, evaluated CHILD……on February 8, 2001. Dr. Zimmerman reported that after CHILD’s immunizations of July 19, 2000, an “encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness.” He noted a disruption in CHILD’s sleep patterns, persistent screaming and arching, the development of pica to foreign objects, and loose stools. Id. Dr. Zimmerman observed that CHILD watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination and would not make eye contact. He diagnosed CHILD with “regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.”
Features consistent with. He did not diagnose her with autism. What were these features?
1) encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language,
2) eye contact,
3) relatedness
4) disruption in CHILD’s sleep patterns,
5) persistent screaming
6) arching,
7) the development of pica to foreign objects,
8) loose stools
9) CHILD watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination
10) would not make eye contact
Of these ten, one is repeated (eye contact issues) so I make nine clear separate symptoms there. Which of these appear in the DSM (IV)? Green equal matches, red equal misses.
1) Loss of previously acquired language
2) Eye Contact
3) Relatedness
4) disruption in CHILD’s sleep patterns,
5) Persistent screaming
6) Arching
7) the development of pica to foreign objects,
8) loose stools
9) CHILD watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination
To meet the DSM(IV) criteria a person must meet no less than 6 of the criteria. So, as described perfectly exactly by the Dr Zimmerman in the concession report, this child has features consistent with an ASD. But its clear she does not meet the criteria for autism.
Later on,
CHILD was evaluated by Alice Kau and Kelley Duff, on May 16, 2001, at CARDS. The clinicians concluded that CHILD was developmentally delayed and demonstrated features of autistic disorder.
Almost the exact same phrasing. Consistent with. But no one has said thus far that the child has been diagnosed with an ASD.
The concession report concludes with:
the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder….
This is the phrasing that caused the uproar. But when looked at in light of the previous, it is clear that far from suggesting that vaccines cause autism via a mitochondrial disorder, the vaccines worsened an occluded or underlying mitochondrial disorder which took on a few of the symptoms of autism _but was never actually diagnosed as autism at all_ . Because it wasn’t autism.
Before we switch to Dr Zimmerman’s Case Study, lets clear up a few things.
No one, I repeat, no one is saying this child wasn’t autistic. She may well have been. What we are doing is looking at the science reported in the concession report and Zimmerman’s paper and seeing if what the _science_ says in these two papers means that it was the vaccines that caused any autism. The concession report clearly says that no it wasn’t. Thats why this case was uncontested. She was affected by her vaccines but autism was not the result.
Zimmerman’s case study is entitled ‘Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism’ – this is further evidence against the case presented that it was the vaccines that caused the autism. This child is reported as being one with autism. Not one who develops autism as a result of vaccines.
However, it is clear that this child _does_ develop autism:
We describe a female patient in whom developmental regression and autism followed normal development…..Evaluation at 23 months showed …..[t]he Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) score was 33 (mild autism range), and she also met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental Disorders-IV criteria for autism
and yet this autism was so mild that at that exact same period (23 months):
the patient began speaking again at 23 months old
which means that expressive language was lost for a sum total of one month (it is reported being lost at 22 months). It should also be noted that CARS is _not_ designed for diagnosis but is an indicator only. Overall, we get a picture of a child who had an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction exposed by the illnesses following her vaccinations which caused developmental regression. This developmental regression presented with some features of autism.
Did the vaccinations cause her developmental regression? Seems likely. It is an undisputed fact that vaccines do cause injury, that is why after all there is a compensation program to claim from in the US and the UK.
Was her developmental regression autism? No. At no point in either the concession report is it claimed that the developmental regression the child went through _was_ autism. However, in the same way that Leukemia (weakness, paleness; fever and flu-like symptoms) can have the same symptoms as flu (weakness, paleness; fever and flu-like symptoms) but be totally different, this child’s developmental regression shared certain features of autism.
So was this child autistic. She might well have been. However, her autism was not caused by a vaccine.
Update
This column was forwarded to me by a friend. Thanks to him.
The practice of calling certain things near-autism, or even autism itself is not new. Here’s a quote from a Science article regarding HIV in 1989:
The signs of AIDS dementia in children are clear and, Pizzo says, “very painful to watch. Very young children lose words.” Words like “mommy” and “daddy” and “bear” are too hard to remember as the AIDS virus multiplies in the young child’s body and penetrates the central nervous
system.An 8-year-old boy, once normal, was rendered practically autistic by HIV, Pizzo said. He stopped speaking. Asked to trace a simple
outline of an elephant, the boy could not. Painfully, he knew what a simple task it was, and he knew he was failing it. But he could not cry even though his doctors could see tears welling up in his eyes.Pizzo has seen children lose IQ points one boy lost as many as 28-as AIDS ravages their brains. “Kids who used to do well in school really deteriorate,” says Pizzo who has “before and after” IQ data from school-age children.
But in a series of remarkable studies, Pizzo has seen AZT (azidothymidine) reverse these symptoms. The child who lost words like “mommy” and “daddy” “got them back,” Pizzo says. The boy who lost IQ points is restored to his former capacity.
The 8 year old cries. After just a couple of weeks of continuous AZT therapy, the boy who could not trace an elephant is successful at tracing a horse.
Now, we all know that ‘tracing an elephant’ and losing IQ points are not symptoms of autism but it is intriguing to see a doctor describe a regression as ‘practically autistic’. Note also, just like in this case, in Zimmermans case study, the child quickly loses, then very quickly regains aspects of their former regression. But HIV didn’t cause autism any more than vaccines did.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Well done, wonderful job of breaking it down! Hopefully everyone who is all aflutter over this will read how you’ve laid it all out.
Kev, step back into the real world. You say “… this child has features consistent with an ASD. But its clear she does not meet the criteria for autism.”
All you are saying is that if kids get the symptoms of ASD from vaccines, but on close clinical examination of each child there is some reason specific to the kid or a class of children for those children having those symptoms, then they are not really autistic even if those symptoms are caused by the vaccines.
Buddy, I don’t really care because most kids are not getting the minute clinical examination to find out. So if it happens they all have autistic symptoms as a result of the vaccines, but are not, under your definition, autistic, we have still found the reason for their problem – its the vaccines.
Well done buddy. That solves that one. All we do is say the kids are not really autistic but their autistic symptoms are caused by the vaccines.
End of problem, regardless of what you want to call it.
Lets call it “vaccine damaged” resulting in autism like symptoms – but it is “not really” autism.
I can live with that. We just save all the kids from getting these dangerous vaccines.
Kev, you are brilliant. Going by that argument, if the kids in reality have mercury poisoning, they are not really autistic at all and should get compensation.
_”All you are saying is that if kids get the symptoms of ASD from vaccines, but on close clinical examination of each child there is some reason specific to the kid or a class of children for those children having those symptoms, then they are not really autistic even if those symptoms are caused by the vaccines.”_
Uh, no.
What I’m saying is that this child does not meet enough of the criteria of autism to be considered autistic as the result of her vaccines. Its like saying that sitting by a breeze and getting a cold and then later developing leukaemia means that sitting by breezes causes leukaemia.
Kev,
The child has autistic symptoms as a result of the vaccines. You are arguing she is not autistic enough. That’s fine. She’s autistic enough for me and that the vaccines caused it is not in dispute.
Keep on denying buddy. Just keep right on.
This is about child health safety. If you think the vaccines are important, then instead you should be shouting really loud that we need all these kids closely clinically examined and to stop this happening and as fast as possible. But the odd thing is Kev, you aren’t doing that.
Your blog is about salving your conscience in public for your own kid’s condition and not about saving anyone else’s.
_”So if it happens they all have autistic symptoms as a result of the vaccines, but are not, under your definition, autistic, we have still found the reason for their problem – its the vaccines._
_Well done buddy. That solves that one. All we do is say the kids are not really autistic but their autistic symptoms are caused by the vaccines.”_
Well you could try I guess but you’re conceding (to coin a word) a few points there:
1) that autism is not caused by vaccines.
On that point by the way, we need to be clear – it is not _my_ definition. It is the definition made by the DSM and applied by Dr Zimmerman. If he, or any of his team, had thought that the underlying condition manifested itself in autism I am pretty sure he would’ve said so.
2) by conceding point one you are conceding the entire omnibus hearings which are set up solely to discern if thiomersal, MMR or a combination of both cause autism.
And at that point I lose interest. Whilst I am interested in good health and bad science, my primary focus is bad science associated with autism. If you want to remove that association then we move apart.
_”The child has autistic symptoms as a result of the vaccines. You are arguing she is not autistic enough. That’s fine. She’s autistic enough for me and that the vaccines caused it is not in dispute.”_
Once again you seem unable to appreciate the finer points of this. I am not saying she is not autistic enough, I am saying (as is both the concession report and Zimmerman’s case study) that the vaccines did not make her autistic.
Its really that simple. If you want to make it an issue beyond that, go to a public health blog.
Kev,
You are not the only perons who is losing interest.
I have not conceded anything. You can say whatever you want all you like but it changes nothing. The child got her autistic symptoms from the vaccines. The US government conceded that in the case.
Zimmerman’s paper concludes “Young children
who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.”
So how many of the other kids have that or something like it that gives them the same thing? When you have the details of independent objective and unbiased clinical investigations of each and every one of them, get back to me. Until then, time for Kev to go Byes Byes.
What you are doing instead is proving to anyone prepared to read this blog how deep is your denial.
_”You are not the only perons who is losing interest.”_
I am aware that the mainstream media have little to no interest in this. As are you it seems.
_”The child got her autistic symptoms from the vaccines. The US government conceded that in the case.”_
And where exactly did they say that?
_”So how many of the other kids have that or something like it that gives them the same thing?”_
You’re reading far too much into what Zimmerman said. You’re also missing the key word: ‘might’.
As in: there MIGHT be a “window” during which the brain is more sensitive to the effects of disrupting mitochondrial function. There are certainly reasons to suspect that this MIGHT be so, but it hasn’t been demonstrated.
In other words, its just a hypothesis. When you have the details of an independent objective and unbiased study get back to me. Until then, you have nothing of scientific interest regarding autism and vaccines.
_”What you are doing instead is proving to anyone prepared to read this blog how deep is your denial.”_
Thats certainly an opinion you’re entitled to. However, I’ll stick with what the concession report and the Zimmerman paper actually said, as oppose to what I’d like it to say.
Kev,
You say “I’ll stick with what the concession report and the Zimmerman paper actually said, as oppose to what I’d like it to say.”
But you stick with what you would like them to say.
If anyone wants to read for themselves they can read it here:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/every-american-should-rea_b_88558.html
and here:-
You would like them to say this child got no symptoms of autism from the vaccines. But it does not say that. The US government say she got her symptoms of autism from the vaccines. Zimmerman’s paper dealing with this one case was commenting for children in general that this is possible and not just for her – hence the use of “might” – some might and some might not – but those who do, do – no “might” about it.
For being in denial, this takes the biscuit. You can deny it all you like and continue to prove the depth of your denial to everyone.
You are doing a great job.
If I wanted to hide the report David I would hardly link to the entire document at the top of this post.
I am asking you, for the second time, where do the US Gvmt concede that this child ‘got symptoms of autism from the vaccines’ to use your phrase? In fact, can you point out where the word ‘concede’ or ‘concession’ appears anywhere in the report?
Try and parse this: the Gvmt said: ‘He (Zimmerman) diagnosed CHILD with “regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder’. Not ‘symptoms’, and certainly not ‘autism’. The regressive encephalopathy is the key thing here. This encephalopathy *had features* consistent with autism. So did the child with HIV I reference above. The encephalopathy was no more autism than the HIV was.
_”Zimmerman’s paper dealing with this one case was commenting for children in general that this is possible and not just for her – hence the use of “might” – some might and some might not – but those who do, do – no “might” about it.”_
I really strongly suggest you read the paper again. More carefully this time.
Kev,
A few thoughts/questions:
Question 1)
This isn’t clear to me. Was this a diagnosis of Autism or only one of PDD-NOS? If it’s PDD-NOS, then by some definitions here diagnosis was along the ASD.
Question 2)
If indeed there is a fine line between Autism diagnosis and what this child had, I think it likely that a large number of children diagnosed with Autism, could very well be mis-diagnosed in a similar way as this case. Do you agree with that?
Question 3)
It appears by your logic then, that we can now conclusively say that there is evidence that vaccines are directly related to developmental disorders in a subset of children?
Question 4)
I don’t think this supports your point. In the case report Zimmerman’s description of the study patient before vaccination is clearly not one of a child with Autism (she did not meet the criteria before the vaccinations). If he is using the term Autistic now (the title, and in the conclusion as well), then clearly the Autism diagnosis appeared after Vaccination and this child was/is Autistic by diagnosis. Reading the case report, the Autism diagnostic criteria all showed up after the vaccination period.
So from the case report we have:
1) A child who is not Autistic
2) The child receives vaccinations, and immediately has reactions, medical complications and a regression in development
3) The child is subsequently diagnosed with Autism
Since the chain of medical events (which leads to Autism) is clearly connected to the vaccination (as per the concession), how does this not show that a vaccine reaction resulted in Autism?
Kev,
Here is what the government said in conceding the case:-
“….. the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder”.
This vaccines at the July 19, 2000 examination were DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV.
So Kev, if you want to say she is not autistic or whatever you want to say, that is fine.
Many people believe all the vaccine damaged kids are not suffering from autism but from autism like disorders. You can believe what you like. Beliefs are free.
But the facts are the child got her autistic symptoms from the vaccines as conceded by the US government.
Keep on denying buddy. Just keep right on.
This is about child health safety. If you think the vaccines are important, then instead you should be shouting really loud that we need all these kids closely clinically examined and to stop this happening and as fast as possible. But the odd thing is Kev, you aren’t doing that.
When you have the details of independent objective and unbiased clinical investigations of each and every one of them, get back to me. Until then, time for Kev to go Bye Byes.
Mr. Wright, I would also ask you to read this:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/3/302
and then come back and tell us what study shows that DTaP vaccine is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis, or that the MMR is more dangerous than measles, mumps or rubella (mentioned in the paper above), or that Hib vaccine is more dangerous than the actual disease which (quoting the paper above): “With regard to natural history, Hib meningitis was once the leading cause of acquired MR in the United States. Slightly more than half of the Hib meningitis invasive cases presented as meningitis, and one third of children with Hib meningitis went on to have MR. Approximately 1 in 10 children died from Hib meningitis.12, 39”
If you are truly concerned with the neurological health of children, you would answer my queries honestly. Since my oldest son had seizures caused by a now vaccine preventable disease when he was a bit over a year old I am quite interested in the actual science behind your opinions.
_”This isn’t clear to me. Was this a diagnosis of Autism or only one of PDD-NOS? If it’s PDD-NOS, then by some definitions here diagnosis was along the ASD.”_
I would say ‘neither’. I don’t see a diagnosis anywhere at all.
_”I think it likely that a large number of children diagnosed with Autism, could very well be mis-diagnosed in a similar way as this case. Do you agree with that?”_
I think its way to early to say either way. If you’re asking if its _possible_ then I agree it is. If you’re asking is it _likely_ then I don’t agree.
_”It appears by your logic then, that we can now conclusively say that there is evidence that vaccines are directly related to developmental disorders in a subset of children?”_
Not at all. I think its obvious in this case that vaccines damaged this child. Or at least contributed to damaging this child. Is there a subset? Who can say? Its a hypothesis (as Zimmerman indicates) that needs testing.
_”Since the chain of medical events (which leads to Autism) is clearly connected to the vaccination (as per the concession), how does this not show that a vaccine reaction resulted in Autism?”_
I disagree that it does. My opinion is laid out above.
HCN,
What you are saying is what do we choose – causing new problems with the vaccines or the old problems from infectious diseases.
But that is not the point. The point is causing new problems for kids.
We now have higher rates of diabetes, autism, multiple sclerosis, asthma and allergies (including life threatening allergies) than ever before. These have all been linked to vaccinations, albeit the medical professions, drug companies and government agencies work hard at not admitting that and there is great pressure on anyone who steps out of line. So if you start asking for published papers proving vaccines cause these problems, some do exist, but they are the exception not the rule.
The paper you choose cites just under 200 cases per million of mental retardation in 1960 before measles vaccination in the US. That would be in varying degrees and equates to 1 in 5000.
I comment here without considering the reliability of the paper or the accuracy of the data used or its sources. It is a 2006 paper and the authors make no statement regarding conflicting interests. Some of the references and figures cited are in doubt. As also are estimated figures cited from the CDC, which are often exaggerated and are not reliable.
With those caveats, and taking those figures what would you have me choose? 1 in 150 kids on the autistic spectrum, whatever number are developing diabetes, multiple sclerosis or allergies or whatever against 1 in 5000 with some degree of mental retardation?
My sympathies to you for your child but you ask too much of me. It is not for me to decide these things for individuals but for the parents to decide.
What you also need to take into account is that figures from 1960 have no relevance to the present day. Mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases has been dropping dramatically regardless of the use of vaccines. If you look at the logarithmic plot of measles mortality in Figure 1 of this paper
“Measles Mortality in the United States 1971-1975
SISTER JEFFREY ENGELHARDT, NEAL A. HALSEY, MD
DONALD L. EDDINS, AND ALAN R. HINMAN, MD”
AJPH November 1980, Vol. 70, No. 11
The downward trend is marked and because the plot is logarthmic the trend tends to a straight line which validates forward extrapolation. By between 2005 to 2010 US measles mortality would have fallen on that trend to less around 1 in 25 million. And you would also expect adverse effects like MR to have fallen in line with that.
So basically, this data shows infectious disease like measles would not have serious consequences for the vast majority. This is to the extent that the harm from the vaccines has likely taken over and by a large margin.
So the choice you ask me to make – between complications of infectious diseases is not really a valid one to apply today on the data you cite.
_” with features of autism spectrum disorder”.”_
_”But the facts are the child got her autistic symptoms from the vaccines as conceded by the US government”_
Once more into the breach….in order to have _symptoms_ (A subjective indication of a disorder or disease) one has the disorder or disease. What Zimmerman and others talk about are _features_ i.e. presentations. For example Reactive Detachment Disorder and autism both have features of poor eye contact but we could never diagnose a person with either if that was _all_ they had. thats why there _is_ a diagnostic criteria at all David. One matches it or one doesn’t.
_”So Kev, if you want to say she is not autistic or whatever you want to say, that is fine.”_
You also need to get this. If there is no autism, there is no case. If you really believe it is ‘fine’ that this girl is not autistic (something I have not claimed) then you are, by definition, removing her from the Omnibus hearings with or without the concession.
_”Many people believe all the vaccine damaged kids are not suffering from autism but from autism like disorders.”_
Which is interesting. However, the omnibus hearings are about whether vaccines cause autism.
“The child got her autistic symptoms from the vaccines. The US government conceded that in the case.”
No, the govt did no such thing.
David, your argument is full of contradictions. You should take a step back, re-read everything you just wrote, maybe have a martini, and reformulate your position. I’d be happy to list them for you, if you like. Let me know.
Any primary care physician, nurse, psychiatrist, etc..will tell you that individuals often present with symptoms of ‘X’, only to obtain ‘Y’ diagnosis upon a complete evaluation.
And I’m really tired of this whole “govt, courts, and pharma” conspiracy shit. Where was this supposed brotherhood during phen-fen, breast implant, and Vioxx litigations (to name a few)?
The injury in this case was encephalopathy, which is a recognized compensable injury under the vaccine table if it occurs during a certain time period after certain vaccinations, regardless of whether there are developmental sequelae. In a case like this, causation is presumed. According to the respondent’s Rule 4(c) report, “The DVIC “concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations … significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder … and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy …”. Although the respondent can try to rebut the presumption of causation with evidence that something other than vaccines caused the encephalopathy, there was no apparent evidence in this case of a non-vaccine cause. So it makes sense that causation was conceded in this case. I don’t see it as a big deal with respect to autism causation.
Kev,
This appears to be an evaluation of developmental delay. Is it your opinion that the developmental delay didn’t occur as a result of the vaccination, or that she was already developmentally delayed, or she was never developmentally delayed?
Zimmerman refers to her as Autistic on several occasions. Is it not correct to say there was a diagnosis of Autism at some point?
David you did not answer my question, and did not address Hib. So be it. You obviously are cherry picking the information and have no reason to be here other than to parrot the “vaccines cause autism” mantra.
Schwartz, developmental delay could be anything or nothing at all – literally. You’re erroneously attempting to equate developmental delay with developmental disorder. The two are qualitatively different.
Furthermore, is it now your position that vaccines cause(d) developmental delay – whether in this child specifically, or in any child generally? I ask because that’s a much much much broader brush than the “vaccines cause autism” dogma, and really only serves to further weaken the “thimersoal causes autism” claim.
Not that it needs any more help….
Kev
You must try to read and take on board in your comments (Mar 1st 21:52:03) what is being said by others including the US government.
Your argument is that despite the US government agreeing the child should be compensated in damages for getting vaccine damage which presents as symptoms of autism, the child is not autistic. That is fine. You are welcome to your view, but it does not change the facts.
The child is vaccine damaged and it is agreed her symptoms, which present as symptoms of autism, were caused by the vaccines and is entitled to financial compensation as agreed by the US government. You are stuck in a semantic loop. This is because you cannot admit you are wrong.
The US government agrees this child’s autistic symptoms were caused by the vaccines. They did it in secret and they threw the towel in without fightng the case. No one cares what zillion and one intepretations Kev Leitch wants to put on it. The vaccines caused that damage as admitted by the US government. You can squirm all you like and you are squirming as anyone can see. You can quote as many manuals written by as many psychiatrists as you like. What goes in DSM is voted on every year – yes voted on. It is not science.
And the people who vote on it – psychiatrists – can’t even make their minds up about what causes psychiatric “illness” and have been poisoning people for years with drugs that are now being acknowledged to be useless. Psychistrists have not got two pieces of science to rub together to justify their existence.
But of course, if Kev Leitch wants to doggedly stick to his position – in his expert opinion – for a disorder that is acknowledged to be a spectrum disorder – ranging from one extreme to the other, that is fine. But it changes nothing.
bones,
The developmental regression in this case was quite specific and well documented so we’re not talking hypothesis here and I’m referring to how the data in this specific case might apply generally because that’s what everyone is arguing about.
It certainly appears that the patient is considered Autistic (both by Zimmerman and based on the therapy being applied), so I guess development disorder diagnosis eventually applies in this case. However, your point on the difference between disorder and delay is noted.
I’m not yet taking a position, I’m trying to reconcile Kev’s position with the admitedly sketchy data and wordsmithing.
Even if we can agree based on specific wording that the vaccines didn’t directly cause “Austism” in this case (despite a later diagnosis), Zimmerman is certainly concerned that this type of circumstance can lead to Autistic regression.
It is unclear whether mitochondrial dysfunction results from a primary genetic abnormality, atypical development of essential metabolic pathways, or secondary inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation by other factors. If such dysfunction is present at the time of infections and immunizations in young children, the added oxidative stresses from immune activation on cellular energy metabolism are likely to be especially critical for the central nervous system, which is highly dependent on mitochondrial function. Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time. Although patterns of regression can be genetically and prenatally determined, 9 it is possible that underlying mitochondrial dysfunction can either exacerbate or affect the severity of regression.
This is certainly a far cry from the position that vaccines don’t ever contribute to Autism or Autistic regression.
However, I do note, that it is impossible to determine whether it was a component, adjuvant, metal, or live virus in the vaccine that created the problem given the huge variety of vaccines given to this girl at one visit.
bones,
This should have been blocktext as it is extracted from the discussion of the case study:
Bones,
Like Kev, you are stuck in denial – your comments Mar 1st 22:29:12 are simply a denial.
We have the words in black and white that the US government agreed the child got her autistic symptoms from the vaccines. And you just deny it.
That is called “being in denial”.
I am sorry you are tired of “government, courts and conspiracy”. When people start to introduce “conspiracy”, that is when they are licked. Thanks for that buddy. There is plenty of evidence showing that drug companies push drugs knowing they don’t work and cause harm. There are zillions of examples and lots of court cases and loads of people complaining how the FDA is in the pocket of the drug companies.
Of course, you can call it conspiracy and pretend it does not exist. That is fine. Just like you pretend the US government did not agree this child’s autistic symptoms were caused by the vaccines.
HCN,
I did answer your question. You just don’t like the answer. So be it.
You want me to say which are more dangerous – the vaccines or the diseases.
But let me add something else to my answer. You do not acknowledge that on the one hand there have been systems for systematically collecting data on the diseases but that when it comes to vaccines, the adverse effects are notoriously under reported. That is aside from the point made that medics are not keen to report vaccine damage cases because of litigation and the pressure to keep the lid on vaccine damage.
So true extent of the severity of vaccine damage is not recorded and the data on severity of diseases is old and out of date.
Like it or not, the decision to vaccinate should be left to the parents – not the government – and should be taken on a case by case basis. This is an issue of child health safety. The diseases have never been milder and the vaccine damage issues never been more prevalent.
If you don’t like it, complain to the CDC and your elected representatives to government that they are using old data for the diseases and not taking notice of parents who see adverse reactions to vaccines and are ignored.
That’s why we have around 5000 cases before the omnibus autism proceedings and kids whose parents have difficulty getting the evidence together because it is not easy in this environment.
So if you want to be like Kev and Bones you can but it changes nothing.
HCN,
I notice it seems to be you who asked similar questions here
http://www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/02/incredible_shrinking_causation_claim.php
(ORAC’s blog) where I have also been contributing.
Just so that you know, I have not contributed further there because whoever controls that page has since invoked cookies to track privacy information – which of course includes mine. So unless I drop the security on my computer system, I cannot contribute further there.
It is interesting that has been done. Now why would anyone want to do that? Heh, Heh.
And it is interesting that out of all the several billion people in the world who could contribute, you seem to appear here after contributing there, what with it being ORAC’s blog and Kathleen Seidel popping up there too. So the wires have been burning a bit today.
But here is a note for Kathleen Seidel. She makes claims there for things I have not said. Like she talks about “big fat press releases” in the context of them being issued by the court. No court normally issues press releases.
She then goes on to claim that the concession filed by the US government admitting vaccines caused symptoms of autism will be published in full detail on the court’s website. Now why would they do that? They normally just publish the decisions and in this case the decision would be an award of damages stating the parties have agreed.
But if the full details are ever published, I would be interested to know. Can Kathleen Seidel produce an example of that happening in any other case where it is conceded the vaccines caused the autism? If not can she show that happening in any other case? It would be helpful because then we can all look forward to seeing all such concessions published.
Well, it sounds like there will be a press conference on Monday with the parents. Perhaps that will answer some questions (as well as raise a lot more).
A big question is whether “autistic features” equate to autism.
Take, for example, a child who is very late in social development. Say she smiles very late (four to six months of age). Say she is very slow in developing language. Doesn’t actually use language, but repeats a few words. What if this child had a “lack of relatedness” in that she doesn’t respond when her name is called? Doesn’t join in on joint excitement.
Add to that delays in motor develpment. Add other “autistic features”.
The above describes Michelle Cedillo before her MMR, as reported from the videos by Dr. Fombonne.
It is a complicated task drawing the line between “autism” and “autistic features”. One that the petitioners need to walk very carefully.
Boy, David Wright is giving Schwartz a run for his money in the competition over who can be the most logorrheic denialist infester of autism blogs! Way to go, guys!
Seems to me that people whose genes predestine them to become autistic can have encephalopathies, just like anybody else…and sometimes those encephalopathies manifest themselves in symptoms that also appear in autism.
Do we really have to re-teach the “correlation doesn’t equal causation” lesson one more time?
I have yet to see any parent from among the merry band of biomedders or the mercury phobes come forward and say, “why yes! this is just like all our kids!” or “why yes! I know dozens of kids who have this point mutation that can cause developmental problems!” or even, “My kid is just like this CHILD, mine, too had the same reaction because of a mitochondrial problem! Show me the money!!!”
Even the lawyers didn’t bother to bundle this CHILD in with one or two others that experienced the same regression following a vaccine.
So far the other cases (which apparently were really hard to find from among the nearly 5,000 cases) are totally unconvincing. There is not even a blurry line that one can draw between their vaccines and their autism.
In the case of this CHILD there is a blurry line that can be drawn, and there’s also another line that can be drawn from “no matter what they did, this particular kid would have ended up with the same regression because even otitis media can cause this kind of mitochondrial crisis, and the kid had had several ear infections prior to the vaccines that seemed to have prompted a fever and rash. The kid has an unusual problem. A rare problem. Even if you want to make the case that all mitochondrial disorder kids shouldn’t be vaccinated because they might regress… well, they still could get sick and even die from wild-type measles, so it’s better to vaccinate the kid that watch her die of measles. And if the kid didn’t die of measles the wild-type germ would have initiated the same regression.
She’s not an example of vaccine caused-autism and her lawyers knew it and her parents knew it apparently. So if you think she’s an example of vaccine caused autism, then maybe you should take it up with those lawyers. ‘Cuz, they let your team down big-time if she’s an example of vaccine-caused autism.
And where are all the DAN! dox now? Where are all their published papers of how they saved even one mito kid by not vaccinating them? Or how they saved a mito kid with chelation? Huh? Remember how mercury makes kids autistic and chelation (or gold salts) cures ’em, just like that (snap your fingers) or in two years at the latest.
The only doctor I have ever heard talk about mitochondrial kids and autism was Dr. Margaret Bauman (not a quack) and she said she thought about 1% of the autistic kids she sees (she didn’t have hard data at that time) had mito diseases. If she found one it was because the kid had low energy and was really sickly and didn’t progress at all with any lessons/training. She’d send this kind of kid to a specialist for a muscle biopsy. If the kid had mito problems she prescribed a mixture of supplements (which are known to help with mito problems) and she has never seen a kid cured of autism, she said. Not even one of these rare mitochondrial disorder kids. So… DAN! probably ain’t gonna be jumping on this bandwagon, because you can’t really have parents sending off tissue biopsies to DDI Inc. and they know the kid isn’t going to be one of those that becomes almost normalish in time (with or without intervention) just by developing. In other words, your basic mito kid isn’t going to be a “wow” kind of model patient, and what works for the “mito” kid isn’t going to work in the same fashion for a non-mito kid. And they have no business being the primary caregivers of kids who could die of mito disease when they are not specialists in mito disease (none are that I have ever heard of).
And if the kid is identified as having a mitochodrial disorder, can you still charge the parents a thousands of bucks for all the scoping, the saunas, and the faux “expertise” in treating “yeast”? And can you claim to cure a “mito” kid with the GFCF diet or some “young coconut kefir” or olive leaf extract? How about some oregano oil? Camel milk? Magic glutathione-making radio wave patches? And what if it turns out that they’ve been giving idiotic prescription meds like valtrex and naltrexone and pentasa to a mito patient and ignoring the fact that the kid needed to see a mitochondrial disease specialist and get a muscle biopsy?
But here is a note for Kathleen Seidel. She makes claims there for things I have not said. Like she talks about “big fat press releases” in the context of them being issued by the court. No court normally issues press releases.
Besides the strange crossover posts nature of this, it is just a bizarre statement on it’s own.
“Big fat press releases” is a quote used by Ms. Seidel. She is quoting you Mr. Wright.
If courts don’t normally issue press releases, and you know that, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Can Kathleen Seidel produce an example of that happening in any other case, where it is conceded the vaccines caused the autism?
Assuming facts not in evidence? The statement by the government is quite clear that they are not ‘conceding’ vaccine injury resulting in autism. There isn’t a single case, let alone any “other case”.
Unless this quote from the DVIC posted on Mr. Kirby’s blog is either incorrect or outdated:
“…and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”
there is very little to be gained from continuing any exchange that assumes that the government has ‘conceded’ that ‘vaccines cause autism’.
One can discuss whether the actions of the government make sense given the few facts before us, but to ignore one of the few hard facts we do have–that the government has not conceded vaccine injury causing autism–reduces this discussion to nonsense.
David, Schwarz – Sorry guys, I haven’t the time or inclination to keep going over the same thing. I say one thing, you disagree. Such is life.
However this:
_”Just so that you know, I have not contributed further there because whoever controls that page has since invoked cookies to track privacy information – which of course includes mine. So unless I drop the security on my computer system, I cannot contribute further there.”_
is quite possibly the most asinine thing I have read for quite awhile. *All* blogs use cookies, including this one. Did you not notice how you don’t have to keep entering your name and email address David? Take three guesses how that works and the first two don’t count.
And hey, guess what David? None of them are set up to track you specifically. I think I speak for most blog owners when I say we don’t give a monkeys who you are or what you do. They’re set up to make visitors lives a bit easier and for the blog owner to track spam.
If this is the depth of your web security related knowledge I have no trouble seeing why you struggle so much with health related information.
I’ll second that Kev.
Matt,
Thanks for showing just how Kathleen Seidel confuses people – including you, Matt – (or are you trying to assist her confuse everyone?).
Kathleen Seidel was not quoting me on “big fat press release” as you claim (Mar 2 07:15).
I never used that expression in relation to the courts. She did because she took what was said and used it for something I did not say – I did not say the courts issued press releases.
Well done Matt for pointing that one out.
Then, Matt decides to misrepresent what was said all by himself. I invited Kathleen Seidel to produce an example of any other case where the text of a concession filed by government has been part of a published decision of the vaccine court. She was trying to make it look like this concession made in secret would be published. So I asked her to produce any example of that happening for autism or any other case.
But then, Matt, you knew that all along, didn’t you.
Matt then insists that the government admitting vaccines caused symptoms of autism is not an admission that vaccines cause autism. Kirby says on that “If the government is claiming that vaccines did not “cause” autism, but instead aggravated a condition to “manifest” as autism, isn’t that a very fine distinction?”
It sure is. Thanks again Matt for helping to clear that up.
Kev seems to be in denial about more than autism. And some ignorance is showing.
He claims the most asinine thing he has ever heard is that unless I drop the security on my computer system, I cannot contribute further on a different blog – ORAC’s – because contributions have suddenly been blocked unless privacy is dropped.
Well, Kev, that just goes to show how much you know (and don’t).
Fortunately, not being blind or deaf or dumb or stupid I happened to notice that access was suddenly blocked unless privacy was dropped.
Why would anyone suddenly decide to block access to their blog unless privacy was dropped on the user’s firewall and do it in the middle of exchanges?
Now why would anyone want to do that? It is an interesting question.
Kev says he has no interest in doing that, so why would ORAC on his blog? Kev, don’t worry about that last question – its called a rhetorical question – which means you don’t need to answer it (but somehow I have a feeling you might).
Isn’t it obvious? Orac is part of The Big Pharma Shill Illuminati conspiracy. We all are, didn’t you know?
Let me go through it for you again. You are worried about cookies storing data about you on Orac’s site. I am telling you that all blogs do that. Why your home software decided to warn you about Orac’s and no-one elses I couldn’t say. Possibly because it is rubbish.
This does however, clearly demonstrate how willingly you are to waffle on about subjects you clearly know nothing about.
Also, you don’t need to refer to me in the third person. I’m right here.
Because I’m feeling generous I’ll show you how to manage cookies so you can visit whereever you want without the fear of the Black Helicopters swinging by your house.
I honestly don’t think it’s that important, in the grand scheme of things, if the child precisely meets the laundry list of DSM-IV criteria for ASD. What if the next time there’s regressive encephalopathy in Mito disorder, the child has additional symptoms and meets the criteria? Then does Kirby have a point?
Joseph – I don’t think so. I think the important point here is that, as I understand it, the regression was inevitable because of the mitochondrial disorder. The fact that it seems to have been a vaccine which precipitated it rather than one of the other factors which could have done so means that it is arguably correct to have compensated it under the VICP yet not grounds for claiming vaccines cause autism per se. Make sense?
Thats exactly how interpret it Isles. the fact that the Mito disorder presented with _some features_ (not symptoms David) of autism is also pretty irrelevant, save from the fact that its interesting.
Mercury is still used in the form of thimerosal both in the USA and in the form of vaccines made for other countries.
It is standard science that this chemical in one vaccine will be at the concentration when evenly diluted through the body that will destroy brain cells.
This will not cause specifically one illness but a range of illnesses dependent on many factors.
The admission by the US Government of harm from vaccines is a start on the road to recognition of truth as being truth.
No people on any side with right of wrong ideas or good or bad ways of saying what is happening will change one thing.
Thimerosal has no place in our childrens vaccines. So why dont we ban it today and see what happens?
The rise of autism spectrum illness to the present level of 1 500 000 in just one country alone does not begin to justify the use of mercury vaccines often for illnesses either going out of popularity by other health measures less hazardous or for illnesses which are minor and for which herd immunity would best come from a strong immune system instead of vaccine induced immunity which again standard science tells us comes at the price of destroying or weakening other immune responses.
Vaccination should be restricted for the few illnesses that are dangerous and not repeated ad nauseum just to make sure the child has got an appropriate response. Repeat vaccination increase anaphylaxis to the level of certainty eventually.
The removal of unsafe vaccines continues apace with another UNSAFE vaccine very recently.
Only unsafe when removed. Why did the regulators say it was safe for the past decades and only admit it was safe when they had a replacement? How many million bad doses to the scrap heap?
Any amateur who defends vaccines with this sort of back door political goings on is on very shaky ground.
Regulators sit and watch the adverse records head towards the million mark but I am not sure what the amateur sleuth gets out of this by advocating more to the autism mill of life?
Isles,
I was wondering when the bastion of critical thinking was going to show up.
I would like to understand what evidence (preferably from the case study) leads you to draw this conclusion. The quote from the case study does not indicate that Autism was a foregone conclusion at all. There is certainly wording that Autism might have also occured, but your position requires it to be a certainty, which it is not.
Please note the words in particular: “might be more prone to undergo”
This is clearly NOT stating that Autism is a foregone conclusion.
So what evidence are you using to support your position?
Thimerosal has no place in our childrens vaccines. So why dont we ban it today and see what happens?
Already done, and nothing (absolutely nothing AFAICT) happened. What you’re saying is “OK, nothing happened, but why don’t we really really ban it this time and see what happens?”
Kev on March 2nd 11:36 shows just what a truly nice person he is – apart from being wrong – again.
Unpleasant personal attacks and sarcasm and accusations and allegations which are false.
It is helpful to point this out – how pleasant Kev is because you have to be a certain kind of person to do what he is doing.
This is about child health safety. If Kev thinks the vaccines are important, then instead he should be shouting really loud that we need all these kids closely clinically examined and to stop what is happening and as fast as possible. But the odd thing is Kev, you aren’t doing that.
Looking at the “nice” Kev’s approach, no one would ever know that underlying all this is the fate of millions of children around the world who suffer as a result of toxic vaccines that few, if any of them, need.
I have already pointed out that Kev expresses little interested in saving anyone’s kids from the harm that is being caused.
So lets take a little look at his frame of mind.
This is in the context of my pointing out, as little more than an aside, that my access to post on ORAC’s site has been blocked. The mechanism for this was the privacy information. My system is set up not to compromise the privacy information. In the middle of exchanges of postings to that site, the access was changed so that only people who compromise the privacy information on their computers can post there.
But the “nice” Kev starts out with sarcasm and a patronising tone:-
“Isn’t it obvious? Orac is part of The Big Pharma Shill Illuminati conspiracy. We all are, didn’t you know?”
So the “nice” Kev wants to make out he is dealing with some conspiracy theorist nut. Thanks Kev. As I pointed out before, once people start the “conspiracy theory” accusations, we know they are licked.
Then we have from the “nice” Kev some sarcasm:-
“Let me go through it for you again.!
Then some more patronage – in the guise of telling me what I am supposed to be concerned about:-
“You are worried about cookies storing data about you on Orac’s site.”
This all again is to give the impression the “nice” Kev is dealing with an imbecile who needs to have explained to him what his concerns are really about. Thanks again Kev.
But really what the “nice” Kev is doing is reframing what I said to set up what the “nice” Kev wants to say instead. And of course, as with most of what Kev says, it is wrong too.
The “nice” Kev goes on to say:-
“I am telling you that all blogs do that.”
Sorry, “nice” Kev. They don’t. And ORAC’s blog changed in the middle of the exchanges of postings.
Then the “nice” Kev goes on to suggest, with more patronising that my systems are junk, which is also to plant the idea I must be a little bit of junk too.
Kev alleges (without any justification or evidence – as is his habit) that this is just my systems doing this – not the systems running ORAC’s blog (although that is clearly what it is):-
“Why your home software decided to warn you about Orac’s and no-one elses I couldn’t say. Possibly because it is rubbish.”
Thanks again “nice” Kev.
Now Kev wades further in to the personal attacks having set the scene (fallaciously as usual from the “nice” Kev) that he is dealing with an imbecile:-
“This does however, clearly demonstrate how willingly you are to waffle on about subjects you clearly know nothing about.”
Thanks buddy. It all goes to build up the picture of just how “nice” the “nice” Kev is.
And the “nice” Kev rounds it all off with more patronising and insulting personal attacks:-
“Also, you don’t need to refer to me in the third person. I’m right here.”
“Because I’m feeling generous I’ll show you how to manage cookies so you can visit whereever you want without the fear of the Black Helicopters swinging by your house.”
Great stuff Kev. Keep it up. Now you are on to this stuff, we know you are licked. You have run out of anything useful to say so you just attack people personally. That is because you are just so “nice”, Kev.
Ms. Clark said “She’s not an example of vaccine caused-autism …”
That is exactly WHY it was removed as a test case.
David, you’re really grasping at straws. At this point you’ve completely strayed from the original point of this post, and are now sounding like a paranoid man – or maybe I should say “exhibiting features of paranoid schizophrenia”.
All this talk about cookies has made me hungy.
Bones,
You never answered my ealier post. Dr. Zimmerman’s study does the following:
1) clearly describes the patient as autistic after the medical event
2) clearly describes a hypothesis for how the medical condition combined with vaccination resulted in the Autistic regression
3) shows through another study that there is a good possibility that a non-trivial portion of the autistic population that could suffer from similar problems
4) clearly warns about the scenario whereby vaccination could contribute or exacerbate Autistic regression in children with this dysfunction.
So how exactly do you reconcile the information in the case study with your and Ms. Clark’s position?
Or perhaps you’re content (like Isles) with just sniping instead of addresses logical points of discussion?
Schwartz, spare me. If you’ve read any of my posts re the decision at issue, you know full well that my points have been valid, and completely ignored by the likes of you and David. I choose to not go round-and-round perpetually restating my position because it gets tiring after awhile.
Every statement in this thread, made by yourself and David, has been speculative and ambiguous at best, if not downright disengenuous (see below).
Besides, if you seriously consider such statements as “…there is a good possibility that a non-trivial portion of the autistic population that could suffer from similar problems” a logical point of discussion, then we really have nothing further to discuss.
A good possibility? Non-trivial? I don’t even know what that means, nor would I know where to begin in responding to it.
So someone thinks that something like 7% of autistic kids could also have a mitochondrial disorder? The real world experience and descriptions of autism do not seem to bear this out.
Most autistic kids are not laying around and all sickly, or even heading toward death because of a mitochondrial disease. Quite the contrary, the “typical” autistic kid is healthy, so healthy that the parents worry about the kid outliving them and so healthy that they can figure out locks on doors and RUN away. So healthy that they stay up all night and have energy to burn during the day. Not that that describes ALL autistic kids but autism is certainly not mitochondrial disease in general.
So…. about 20% of autistic kids “regress” and over-all they have the same outcomes as those autistic from infancy. The 20% of regressive autistic kids aren’t more likely to die of some organ disease caused by an undiagnosed mito disorder.
And… if there were 7% of autistic kids who are like the CHILD in this case, then one would expect that they all would or nearly all would have regressed following a vaccine in the way this child did, right?
So Clifford Shoemaker and Sylvia Chin-Caplan and whatsizname the millionaire antivax lawyer- Thomas Powers(?), not to mention Bob Krakow and the rest of the mercury parents who are also lawyers… should have had no problem with bundling a thousand or more kids **just like the one in this case** who was removed from the Omnibus **by her lawyers** because she didn’t fit the vaccine autism model.
I really want to know why the parents didn’t settle long ago, why did they tag along with the Omnibus when they could have had a table injury payoff a long time ago?
Bones,
Since you seem to ignore the information in the case study:
bones,
Here is the full quote: