Vaccines, Autism and the Concession

1 Mar

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.

112 Responses to “Vaccines, Autism and the Concession”

  1. Schwartz March 3, 2008 at 01:36 #

    Ms. Clark,

    I’m certainly not saying this case even applies to the majority of autism cases, as there is no evidence to suggest this at all. However, I think that 7% is a number that merits attention.

    If you read the case study very, then you’ll see that it does not require mitochondrial disorder, but mitochondrial dysfunction. A dysfunction (vs disorder) does not imply that the condition is persistent.

    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?

    Not at all. From what I understand, mitochondrial dysfunction can be a spectrum of issues and severity, thus the outcome is not expected to be homogenous. Additionally, the case study implies that the timing of the insult on the system is also important.

    It also states that infections or vaccinations could have a similar effect, presumably because the immune response itself raises oxidative stress.

    However, in support of part of your statement, the paper notes that if the described conditions occur during the timeframe of 18-30 months, that one might expect to see Autistic Regression.

    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?

    I suspect that it had a lot more to do with the government than the plaintiffs. My understanding is that all of the Autism related cases have been grouped together and are pending the resolution of the Omnibus hearings. This one was probably stuck with the rest, until the plaintiffs pursued it as one of the test cases. At that point, I would guess the real investigation began.

    … the millionaire antivax lawyer- Thomas Powers(?)…

    Are you implying that Mr. Matanowski is not a millionaire?

  2. Ms. Clark March 3, 2008 at 05:02 #

    Back to the mito thing, Mr. “I’m not really an antivaxer” “Schwartz”. So they found some biochemical differences (of which I have very little understanding) in 7% of autistic kids, and in those kids this thing is transient, and they just happened to pick it up during the testing for this marker?

    But CHILD doesn’t have a transient mito thang. She has a genetic problem on her mitochondrial DNA, what she did get from her mama. That is if I understand mitochondrial DNA.

    So now kids with a transient mito thang can regress because of either a germ thang or a vaccine germ thang (the live virus vaccines being implicated as I understand it), but surely there are a bunch of these transiently sickly kids out there who got made autistic by vaccines,….. and no one has identified this group up until now?

    Hmmmmmm. I don’t think so. And why haven’t the scum bucket vaccine sharks found more clients like CHILD to push forward into the “pay me too,” line.

    And notice that the vaccine scum bucket sharks realized that CHILD doesn’t really have autism, which is why they took her out of the Omnibus! Heh.

  3. HCN March 3, 2008 at 06:05 #

    Ms. Clark said “So now kids with a transient mito thang can regress because of either a germ thang or a vaccine germ thang (the live virus vaccines being implicated as I understand it), but surely there are a bunch of these transiently sickly kids out there who got made autistic by vaccines,….. and no one has identified this group up until now?”

    So this means if herd immunity is reduced through the hard work of Wakefield, SafeMinds and Mr. “I’m not really an antivaxer” “Schwartz”, and measles starts to spread with a vengence (UK, San Diego, Switzerland, Japan, Pakistan, Israel and other places have regurrent measles outbreaks), then kids with mitochrondrial disorders would have a greater chance of getting the actual disease.

    Now tell me again (I must have missed the answer the last time I asked) what real evidence there is that the MMR vaccine (which has been in use in the USA since 1971 and has never contained thimerosal) is more dangerous than measles, mumps or rubella. What papers written by someone other than Wakefield have devinite evidence.

  4. HCN March 3, 2008 at 06:10 #

    Oops, let me continue this sentence: then kids with mitochondrial disorders would have a greater chance of getting the actual disease.
    …. and suffering even more neurological damage.

  5. David Wright March 3, 2008 at 13:45 #

    HCN asks loaded questions knowing that no one is compiling the evidence she demands.

    HCN asks “what real evidence there is that the MMR vaccine (which has been in use in the USA since 1971 and has never contained thimerosal) is more dangerous than measles, mumps or rubella”

    and “What papers written by someone other than Wakefield have devinite evidence.”

    Here is the proof you won’t get the evidence and it comes from a leading European Expert on vaccines who was one of the founders of the Brighton Collaboration (in which US CDC vaccine representatives et al participate in). [1]

    Dr. Thomas Jefferson (one of the authors of the Cochrane MMR review) said when head of the vaccine division of the Cochrane Collaboration and board member of EUSAFEVAC:

    “Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects …”

    “––[T]he issue was the ‘Cinderella’ of public health research and Government officials had failed to make it a high priority.”

    “There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.”

    “[T]here was a ‘dearth’ of sound studies on the risks and benefits.”

    “[I]nformation available on the safety of vaccines that are routinely given to babies and toddlers was ‘simply inadequate’.”

    ” … future vaccination programmes were likely to involve giving children five, six, even seven vaccines all at once.”

    “For people like me, it is becoming more and more difficult to tease out what problems may be due to an individual vaccine. It is almost becoming impossible to do this. We have to think very carefully about how we will monitor these vaccines. We have a responsibility to these children; they are our future. It is no use having a situation where someone suggests a possible harm and
    everyone runs around frantically trying to find bits of evidence. What is required is good-quality information that has been systematically collated and assessed.”

    So HCN is in difficulty claiming this is conspiracy theory or other such allegations. These people just ignore the adverse reactions. And if you want to see a classic example of dismissal of adverse reactions here it is from the British Medical Journal [2]:-

    These comments relate to deaths and adverse reactions to Gardasil and the whole piece is about what a calamity for drug company share prices it is that people die and get sick from getting vaccines:-

    “The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology’s Stephen Downes argued in the Australian online media service that the incident indicated “mass sociogenic illness”, the medical euphemism for mass hysteria, whereby contagion transmits by “line of sight,” rumour, and anxiety (Drug Safety 2003;26:599-604)”

    “Medical and government authorities who were interviewed consistently explained the incidents as commonplace anxiety reactions to vaccination.”

    Obviously, there is more that can be said on this but we can wait to see what HCN has to say in reply. And we can also ask, why is HCN not concerned to ensure adverse reactions to vaccines are fully explored so that the true risk/benefit ratio is better known.

    This is after all about child health safety and if you believe vaccines are important you will want to ensure everyone is satisfied they are safe and that the risks do not outweigh the benefits.

    [2] Fainting schoolgirls wipe $A1bn off market value of Gardasil producer
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7605/1195

  6. grenouille March 3, 2008 at 16:00 #

    On a dev. delay board that I used to belong to there were three kids who had a primary diagnosis plus additional characteristics:

    -Sotos syndrome with significant autistic features

    -22q deletion syndrome with significant autistic features

    -cerebral palsy with significant autistic features

    None of these parents would describe their child as autistic. The addendum to diagnosis described other symptoms the child displayed.

    I am a layman here, but doesn’t this child fall into the same type of category? Mito disorder with significant autistic features? It seems like Kirby and Schwartz are trying to make autism her primary diagnosis. To me, it seems very different, not just semantically.

    Can anyone here explain this better? I can see how it’s a fine line and I want to understand this a little better.

  7. Kev March 3, 2008 at 16:40 #

    Please don’t post JPANDS crap on here David. It will be removed immediately.

  8. Kev March 3, 2008 at 16:41 #

    grenouille, I think you’re definitely on the right lines. The fact that Zimmerman and others in the so-called concession report refer to ‘autistic features’ rather than a diagnosis of autism demonstrates that they do too.

  9. Tom March 3, 2008 at 17:16 #

    Kirby and Shwartz lack an understanding of medicine. They don’t let that get in the way though.

  10. HCN March 3, 2008 at 17:30 #

    Mr. Wright also lacks any understanding of medicine. I asked for evidence that the MMR was more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella and he went off on all sorts of stuff (Gardesil, conspiracy stuff) and did not even come close to attempting to answer the question. Even though I am perfectly fine with European research (like Dr. Bustin and Dr. Chadwick and their assessment of Wakefield’s results).

    He even says “This is after all about child health safety and if you believe vaccines are important you will want to ensure everyone is satisfied they are safe and that the risks do not outweigh the benefits.”

    So where is the evidence that the MMR is more dangerous than measles, mumps, or rubella?

  11. David Wright March 3, 2008 at 19:21 #

    See, HCN is doing exactly what I predicted (in addition to resorting to personal attacks instead of answering the points made).

    I provided clear evidence that adverse reactions to vaccines are ignored so you just don’t have the formally published data in the medical literature and she goes ahead and still demands it.

    What a nice person. It tells you so much about the kind of people you are dealing with here when the matter is an issue of child health safety. Instead of addressing these issues and being concerned for the children, this is the stuff people like HCN get up to.

    I quoted a leading European authority on vaccines who tells us no one is looking into the problem properly and s/he ignores that too.

    And if you cite all of the cases reported by patients and parents, s/he will say “anecdotal – I won’t accept it”. Large case series are not “anecdotal” but never mind, that is what HCN will say.

    And then if you point out that the medics, government and drug companies are not reporting adverse reactions, s/he will claim “conspiracy theorist”. And that is even though it is true and the problems are acknowledged to be vastly under reported.

    And even though she has been cited a paper showing that measles in the US has become a much milder disease, is now rarely life threatening, and that its severity diminishes inversely proportionately to the wealth of the parents, she ignores that too.

    So here is the position in summary. No one is properly recording the adverse reactions. This means formally published data is denied to the public in order to see clearly and openly the extent to which the vaccines are causing harm. But HCN demands it knowing it is not there.

    HCN’s problem is that if you do not have that evidence, that means s/he does not have any valid scientific or other evidence proving the vaccines are safe and do not cause the problems the parents and some doctors are brave enough to bear testimony too.

    So here is what I will do to help HCN. I will provide a link to a paper which shows that the claims the MMR is safe is bunk and here it is:-

    And that paper states: “The conclusions of the Cochrane review on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine violate the standards of evidence-based medicine and are not supported by the body of the review. There are material concerns that the conclusions were influenced by efforts of the British government to avoid liability in claims brought on behalf of allegedly vaccine-injured children.”

    The paper also concludes:-

    “The conclusions of the Cochrane MMR review are not supported by, and contradict, the evidence presented in the review. ”

    “Having found inadequate evidence of safety in the papers studied, the review’s conclusion that the millions of doses of MMR vaccine administered worldwide are safe is not science based.”

    “It is based on the circular assertion without cited evidence that the vaccine is safe because millions of doses are administered.”

    “The review also shows that studies into the extent of the adverse effects are too limited to say how extensive these adverse effects may be, and consequently to say whether the vaccine is “safe”.”

    “The review provides no comparative evaluation of MMR vaccine safety and effectiveness against other measures, such as single vaccines, placebo, no vaccine, or modern treatment options.”

    “It provides no evidence to refute the Wakefield hypothesis of an association between MMR vaccine, regressive autism following previously normal development, and a novel form of inflammatory bowel disease.”

    The Cochrane review duplicates an almost identical paper published in 2003 by members of the same team, yet contains no reference to the earlier paper. According to a separate publication by one of the authors, duplicated publication can be considered unethical or fraudulent when the authors attempt to conceal the existence of duplicated publication from editors and readers.”

    Now what people like HCN do is then claim the paper is not published by a reliable source or some such other nonsense. Isn’t that right HCN?

  12. bones March 3, 2008 at 19:56 #

    “Now what people like HCN do is then claim the paper is not published by a reliable source or some such other nonsense.”

    The understatement of the year, but count me in that category, please.

    Anyone claiming that piece of trash even falls within the realm of scientific journals – with trite articles such as “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder”, and ” American Physicians and Meiji-Era Samurais: Is History Repeating Itself?” – might as well stay out of the discussion altogether.

    It’s like a PhD astrophysicist telling you there are other planets in the universe and, as proof, cites to an article in the National Enquirer.

  13. Ms. Clark March 3, 2008 at 20:03 #

    The parents agreed that she doesn’t have autism, apparently, otherwise why did they allow their lawyers to take her out of the, note the name, Autism Omnibus? In fact as I remember the PSC stated officially in their briefs or statements or whatever that their cases were to prove that Autism and stuff like autism are all caused by vaccines. This girl didn’t even qualify to make it into the Omnibus group as having something like autism.

    It should be noted that non-autistic Deaf children occasionally get diagnosed with autism. Their deafness, going unnoticed, amazingly, leads people to think they are merely unresponsive to their names, etc. I can think of two studies that found Deaf kids misdiagnosed as autistic in a pool that was assumed to be entirely comprised of real autistic kids. I wonder if this girl had hearing loss from her repeated ear infections and this is what they were seeing as “autism”? Even if that’s not the case, it goes to show how kids can get a mistaken diagnosis of autism based on their fitting “criteria” from the ADOS or DSM or something else.

  14. Leila March 3, 2008 at 20:16 #

    IMHO those children were born with either the mito or autism genes, and the condition/regression was triggered by the high FEVER, and not a specific virus or toxin.

    I think in some cases the fevers are caused by vaccine reaction, but in others it may be some other virus or bacteria that the baby picked up at daycare or at home around that same time. The average baby/toddler gets sick A LOT, and I know my autistic kid wasn’t any more prone to being sick than all his NT peers.

  15. David Wright March 3, 2008 at 20:39 #

    Kev (March 3 16:40) and “Bones” *March 3 19:56) both attack the journal in which the paper I cited to HCN was published. All as predicted.

    Look at how angry Kev gets:-

    “Please don’t post JPANDS crap on here David. It will be removed immediately.”

    The reason for this is that they cannot answer the points made.

    Clearly, if the paper I cited was not itself reliable that would be immediately apparent. And people are not stupid and can make their own minds up. But Kev does not want them to read it because they might find out it is telling them sensible and reasonable information.

    Bones adopts the same approach as Kev. In fact when you look at whatever “Bones” says, it pretty much all attacks and nothing of substance – which speaks for itself.

    For these people it is clearly important to attack the journal. Citing a peer reviewed medical paper from a medical journal carries with it the imprimatur of the journal. To counter that Kev and Bones attack the journal instead rather dealing with anything the individual paper says.

    And the paper I cited seems to make a look of good points.

    And it is in a peer reviewed medical journal which sets out its stall to debunk. The journal is not there to be popular and it is not popular with Kev and Bones. But that is not because it is not a reliable source. That is because it is a reliable source, but Kev and Bones don’t like what it says.

  16. Tom March 3, 2008 at 22:02 #

    David,

    JPANDS is fish wrap. The journal is so bad it isn’t even indexed in Pub Med. That’s a an accomplishment. Seriously, you have no understanding of medicine. Just accept that you are unqualified to discern the difference between quality research and junk science.

  17. bones March 3, 2008 at 22:17 #

    David says, “Citing a peer reviewed medical paper from a medical journal carries with it the imprimatur of the journal”.

    Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. Now if you would only cite to one (a peer reviewed medical paper from a medical journal, that is), we could talk.

    That rag is not listed on PubMed, Ovid, has absolutely no impact factor rating per Thomson Scientific (formerly ISI).

    It IS the very definition of a non-scientific magazine.

  18. bones March 3, 2008 at 22:29 #

    BTW…just one more thing, David.

    The impact factor to which I refered above, that’s out of 1,500 science journals.

    That’s right, not even a mere mention – not so much as a breathless whisper – in 1,500 other science journals.

    But you go on reading…it suits you.

  19. Evil Spock March 3, 2008 at 23:30 #

    Kev,

    so many people are looking for Mr. Wright, and here he came looking for you.

    In all the discussion of “good Kev and bad Kev” (does the Kev in the evil universe have a little beard like Mr. Spock did?) I have to ask if you are being “Bad Kev” here?

    Are you allowing his comments to foster a discussion, or leaving them here to document the lack of good arguments that are so common to the those claiming vaccines cause autism.

    For example, here we have people depending on JPANDS. A journal that gives voice to people who deny HIV causes AIDS.

    Click to access bauer.pdf

  20. HCN March 4, 2008 at 00:47 #

    JPANDS is a journal of a political group, not a medical group. Their legal counsel is the same guy who runs Conservapedia, an internet joke of a “wiki”. Neither websites have much to do with any real science. Read about them more here:
    http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows

    Could you please try to use actual science in telling us how dangerous the MMR is? You could start here: http://www.pubmed.gov

  21. HCN March 4, 2008 at 03:40 #

    Mr. Wright, I did decide to click on your JPANDS link… Good Grief, man! I asked for science, that paper is written by a LAWYER!

    Behind the author’s name is “esq.”, that means he is a lawyer, not a scientific researcher.

    Here is a reading suggestion to help you figure out what to look for when researching science/medical papers:
    http://www.amazon.com/Snake-Oil-Science-Complementary-Alternative/dp/0195313682/

  22. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 06:25 #

    There, look, what did I tell you. You cannot deal with the facts in the paper so round on the journal.

    And let us note first that none the the facts from the paper concerned are contested by anyone here. And attacking the journal is not attacking the paper and what it says. So the paper stands.

    So let’s deal first with Tom (Mar 3 22:02) who says “The journal is so bad it isn’t even indexed in Pub Med. That’s a an accomplishment.”

    Around 80% of journals are not indexed on Pubmed:-
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/j_sel_faq.html#a7

    So not having a Pubmed listing does not make the journal “fishwrap”. It also does not make the content of papers in a journal rubbish.

    So Tom is wrong – just like the rest of you here – spouting the first thing that comes into your heads without any factual basis for it.

    And only 140 journals a year are considered for inclusion out of the thousands of journals that exist – so it could take fifty years or more at that rate for a journal to get a listing.

    And there is plenty of scope for politicking to prevent journals that debunk from being listed. And judging by the ferocity of the attacks, the journal being attacked looks like it is not shy when debunking.

    And as one professor of medicine says – always read the debunkers first.

    So Tom, if you cannot critique the critique, tough luck buddy. And this paper looks a good one.

    Then Tom says “Seriously, you have no understanding of medicine. Just accept that you are unqualified to discern the difference between quality research and junk science.”

    Well that is just fine and Dandy, Tom. You have no idea what I am qualified to discern or not. So there we go with more nonsense being published.

    And if you want to know about how reliable the journals are that are published and you want to know about how drug companies manipulate the journals, how about reading what the former editor of the British Medical Journal has to say about it:-

    “Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies”
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

    and

    “Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows”
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1202

    So who is relying on false and manipulated data? Yep, that is right – you people and those nice Pubmed indexed journals.

    It is so bad now you cannot rely on what is published on Pubmed and have to look real hard to see where they place the smoke and mirrors on those nice papers that hide the proper data and results and put in fake conclusions, just like someone did with the Cochrane MMR review to claim MMR was safe when there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that assertion.

    But then, that Richard Smith and all those other BMJ editors – they are all conspiracy theorists/nuts aren’t they.

  23. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 06:32 #

    “bones” (March 3 22:17) – I think my reply to Tom deals with you.

    You attack the journal but cannot critique what the paper says that I cited. Looks like I win as you cannot handle the fact.

    You say of the journal “It IS the very definition of a non-scientific magazine.”

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Get back into the real world.

    And why are you so excited about all of this anyway. Drug companies can stand up for themselves. What about all those kids who are being harmed. I don’t see you screaming as loud for them as you do here for the drug companies.

    So “bones”, why is that? This is about the health and safety of children. You seem more concerned about protecting the drug companies than the kids.

  24. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 06:42 #

    There, what did I tell you. Now onto HCN.

    HCN also cannot deal with the facts in the paper cited and also gets it badly wrong (Mar 4 03:40)

    S/he complains “Good Grief, man! I asked for science, that paper is written by a LAWYER!”

    Behind the author’s name is “esq.”, that means he is a lawyer, not a scientific researcher.”

    Lost your eye glasses have you HCN?

    I looked a little closer at this claim and guess what. “Behind his name” BSc, ARCS (Hons) (Physics).

    So it looks like the author is a physicist as well as being a lawyer.

    Well, HCN, how is that for cherry-picking by you? You look “behind his name” and only see “Esq” which is three letters. And you do not see “BSc, ARCS (Hons) (Physics)”

  25. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 06:53 #

    HCN says (Mar4 00:47) “JPANDS is a journal of a political group, not a medical group.”

    What? It is a medical association with 4000 members.

    And are you saying other medical associations are not political groups the American Medical Association is not a political group?

    Get real, babe.

    Then s/he says “Their legal counsel is the same guy who runs Conservapedia, an internet joke of a “wiki”.

    So I took a look at Conservapedia and I found “Conservapedia has about 23,300 educational, clean, and concise entries, with more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 51,500,000 page views and over 392,000 page edits.”
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

    So what else is new. HCN casting around to attack anything that does not agree with her/him? Nope – not new. Same old, old.

    And then HCN says “Could you please try to use actual science in telling us how dangerous the MMR is? You could start here: http://www.pubmed.gov

    But I have already shown HCN that the data on harm is not being collected and a leading authority in the vaccine business complains the area is not being looked at.

    So for at least the third time HCN claims I must find the evidence when it is admitted it is not being collected.

    And what that means of course is that when HCN claims the vaccine is safe, s/he is talking through the ground facing orifice because if you don’t collect the data on harm – it is totally illogical and unscientific to claim something is safe when you refuse to collect the data on the harm it causes.

  26. Genevieve March 4, 2008 at 07:13 #

    Please join me in Blogging For Autism Awareness this April. http://momologue.blogspot.com/2008/03/join-me-in-blogging-for-autism.html

  27. Matt March 4, 2008 at 08:43 #

    I guess if David Wright is impressed with JPANDS–the ‘journal’ arm of a group of 4,000 doctors, he must be in awe of Pediatrics, journal of the AAP. Not only does the AAP represent a large number of doctors, but it is indexed, has a high impact factor and is highly respected.

    But, then again, when people are reduced to “ground facing orafice” comments, one has to assume that the gentleman has reached his limit of valuable contributions.

  28. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 08:51 #

    Matt Mar 4 08:43 makes a non point. The point is a peer reviewed paper was cited and you all scream about how lousy the journal is instead because you cannot criticise what the paper says.

    So now you have all had your hissy fits, let us take a look at the kind of medical publications you people rely on.

    It cannot get more unscientific than this, as described in the paper I cited:-

    “The conclusions of the Cochrane MMR review are not supported by, and contradict, the evidence presented in the review. ”

    “Having found inadequate evidence of safety in the papers studied, the review’s conclusion that the millions of doses of MMR vaccine administered worldwide are safe is not science based.”

    “It is based on the circular assertion without cited evidence that the vaccine is safe because millions of doses are administered.”

    “The review also shows that studies into the extent of the adverse effects are too limited to say how extensive these adverse effects may be, and consequently to say whether the vaccine is “safe”.”

    Click to access millerc.pdf

    Looks like it is “groundward facing orifice” stuff from the PubMed type publications, then.

  29. Kev March 4, 2008 at 10:09 #

    David, for the reasons expressed above by others I will not tolerate mention of that non-scientific journal which borders on fascism in my opinion.

    If you don’t like that, please feel free to shove it 🙂

  30. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 13:07 #

    Kev says (Mar 4 10:09)

    “I will not tolerate mention of that non-scientific journal” … “If you don’t like that, please feel free to shove it :)”

    Aside from such an extraordinarily emotional outburst, I did not mention the journal. It was all you folks who did. I cited what is a reasonable paper with a reasonable analysis.

    Your response is to become emotional and angry.

    People can judge the quality of the paper from reading and making their own minds up. If what it says does not stand up then tell us what you disagree with.

    I find this extreme reaction counter logical and surprising. Why don’t you get emotional and angry about the children instead. It is an unusual reaction.

  31. Kev March 4, 2008 at 13:33 #

    Once more David, it is not a reasonable journal. It is a rag. Don’t cite it on here. And once again, if you don’t like that, you can shove it 🙂 – – you can consider that your last chance to cite science, not puerile rubbish.

    Surely it must be clear by now why I don’t get emotional about ‘the children’ – its because I’m a Big Pharma Shill of the Illuminati blah blah blah.

    Seriously, people like you have worn out my ability to get too emotional.

  32. David Wright March 4, 2008 at 16:11 #

    Kev,

    It does not make sense that on the one hand you give the impression of inviting debate and then cut if off when serious publications are cited from a serious journal which just happens to be willing to publish information not to your liking.

    The only sense it makes is that you want to exclude evidence being cited from journals willing to publish that which does not support your case.

    Your remarks (“puerile rubbish”, “it is a rag”) do not work. They do not justify your position and the refusal to consider serious publications in serious medical journals calls you and your approach into question.

    If the journal were a “rag” and it it published “unscientific” “puerile rubbish” that would very rapidly be apparent.

    But you give no examples to back up your claims. The only example anyone gives is the Bauer paper

    And that too is a thoughtful and interesting paper by Henry Bauer a professor emeritus in the departments of chemistry and science studies and dean emeritus of Arts & Sciences at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech).

  33. Kev March 4, 2008 at 16:14 #

    I warned you David. Sorry dude, you can consider yourself sin-binned for one week. When (if) you come back, refrain from linking to JPANDS or other poor science.

  34. Schwartz March 5, 2008 at 04:43 #

    test

  35. Schwartz March 5, 2008 at 04:47 #

    Ms Clark,

    You shouldnote the following from the case study:

    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.

    So your assertion that the conclusions of the study only apply to genetic abnormalities does not agree with the documented assessment of the medical doctor in this case.

    You also think that all of the Autism sub-groups have been found? Given that the etiology is completely unknown, how is this a logical position? We can’t even agree on prevalance, let alone document sub-groups appropriately.

  36. Schwartz March 5, 2008 at 04:53 #

    Ms. Clark,

    The case study (in addition to the title) clearly refers to the patient as Autistic. I don’t know why you keep stating that she was not?

  37. Kev March 5, 2008 at 08:07 #

    Schwarz – careful with your connection of words. Its not your fault but you’re tripping my spam filter heavily.

  38. Ms. Clark March 5, 2008 at 10:31 #

    I realize that the CHILD was called “Autistic” by someone, Zimmerman? My point is if she was even plausibly autistic in any sort of convincing sense, then why remove her from the Omnibus? As I said, the Omnibus sharks set out to prove that vaccines could cause autism or something that looks like autism.

    Here’s the quote which I have been too lazy to dig up previously…
    It’s the “Court” speaking at the beginning of the Hazlehurst case (day 1).

    “The OAP is an efficient method of proceeding on the nearly 5,000 individual vaccine claims filed by families on behalf of their children who have autism or a similar condition.”

    So, logically, the CHILD case didn’t consist of evidence that would prove that a vaccine “gave her” autism or a similar condition, otherwise she would have stayed in the the OAP.

    We don’t have all of CHILD’s records, we have a paper that her FATHER wrote or helped to write, (excuuuuuse me?), and we have the document that the court made and was leaked illegally or put out legally… I still don’t know what happened, but I sure would get a giggle out of knowing that a certain known liar was in jail for contempt of court (I don’t think that’s going to happen, but we all have our little entertaining thoughts…)

    I never said that all subtypes of autism are known, or anything of the sort. I’m saying that apparently the child’s slime bucket lawyers and her parents agreed that she’s not autistic and doesn’t have a similar condition, but that what she has might have been caused by a vaccine, or might not have been caused by a vaccine at all. We don’t know.

    I think some people absolutely salivate at the idea that vaccines could cause autism and that this beclouds their thinking, but that’s just my opinion having watched the absolutely vile behavior of the mercury malicia and the antivax activists. They scare me, and they have intended to intimidate me veiled threats and harassment in my home (and I don’t mean people making cranky responses to me on the Internet).

    I believe that such people lie through their teeth often and that they feel entirely justified in doing so. So when parents say, “my baby…. after the vaccines…. (sobbing) regressed… and he’s merely a husk now” I don’t believe it any more.

    I’m glad that CHILD’s mito problem was properly identified and that she’s getting custom help. I seriously doubt she could have gotten top quality help from any DAN! whacko. Amy Yasko would have had her sucking down expensive bottles of yeast soup. Bradstreet would have done a spinal tap looking for measles with a test the finds measles when they aren’t there, Buttar would have sold her parents a non-chelating chelating cream, Neubrander would have had her injected with B12 and have tried to sell or rent to her parents a toy HBOT balloon. Stan Kurtz would have told the parents that the girl was yeasty and needed a prescription for an anti-herpes drug. Jang would have had her on high vitamin A doses and magnetic clay baths. Andy Cutler would have had her on “ALA” and who knows what else. A dozen Zeolite distributors would have been after to parents to try Zeolite drops… but Andy Cutler would have told them to forget Zeolite… the TACA activist moms would have had the CHILD on the GFCFSF and maybe phenol free and specific carbohydrate diet…. I think that combination of diet restrictions allows only water, organic ostrich and Jerusalem artichoke as “legal” foods. Yum.

    Someone else would have sold the parents a water filter and a sauna. Someone else would have sold them a mother camel to keep in their back yard and milk daily. Someone else would have sold them chelating foot pads and magic radio wave glutathione boosting patches.

    So how many kids like this CHILD have been misdiagnosed with “yeast” and “metals” using fraudulent lab reports? How many kids have been made sicker by DAN! quacks not seeing a mito disease that was there?

    Who knows? I think I remember there being one mom who said her child had a mito disorder or some kind of metabolic disorder. She wanted Thoughtful House to “scope” her kid with a pill cam because she believed that anesthesia would kill him (because of his problem), and TH said, “no we don’t want to do the pill cam, we want to knock him out and scope him….” The mom was livid because they had told her that they would do the pill camera, and they seemed to be trying to get her to do the more expensive (and possibly deadly) scoping.

    You’d think with all of Kirby’s charm and connections (he’s got friends at the UN even!) that they’d come up with hundreds of kids like this CHILD. But… no. And the lawyers can’t come up with even one other, apparently. I mean… they added two of the causation categories at the last minute. I think originally it was the all thimerosal channel, then they wanted an MMR only channel and an MMR and thimerosal channel, too. Why didn’t they add a “chickenpox vaccine and mito disorder” channel? Like I said, they’ve had CHILD’s case for some time.

  39. Rob43 March 5, 2008 at 20:20 #

    Ms. Clark is incorrect in her assessment of the record. What was leaked was the government’s sysnopsis and quoting of the medical record, as the essential points they thought worth recording in making their decision to award. This case was not heard in court; it was decided out of the blue by HRSA of Health and Human Services. You need to ask DVIC/HRSA/HHS what they meant by their wording of their decision. If you look at it as a legal tactic, what they did is very smart. They took a case that was likely to be one of the three upcoming test cases to be heard, the one most likely to be the ‘slam-dunk’ case, awarded it on more narrow grounds, and got it out of the way. That’s my guess.

    The girl is diagnosed with autism/ASD. The government doesn’t recognize autism as a disease but calls it ASD. Dr. Zimmerman did not diagnoss her with ASD, but immediately referred her to the experts within the Johns Hopkins hospital who do make that firm diagnosis. The record shows they did that–they call it ASD, again not autism because it is not something you get proved by a blood test and there, voila, is proof. But they are among the best experts in the world on it.
    The girl has a mitochondrial disorder; she does not have mitochondrial disease, otherwise she would be regressing constantly. She is not; she is getting better; except for the later development of seizures; otherwise improving constantly.
    So all of you, rethink your positions on this case; and ask DVIC/HRSA/HHS what they think they mean by their (narrow)decision, and more importantly, why did they take it, decide it, and take it out of the Omnibus group without forwarning the attorney’s and family.

  40. Fiona Sacchetti March 5, 2008 at 20:35 #

    I am in total agreement with Rob43 and would be most interested in seeing the information that allows Ms Clark to come to the conclusions that she does. She presents her personal opinion as though is based on facts, but it appears that she is assuming and speculating only.

  41. Ms. Clark March 5, 2008 at 22:23 #

    So **please respond to this** that I wrote, Bob and Fiona: “My point is if she was even plausibly autistic in any sort of convincing sense, then why remove her from the Omnibus?”

    Rob’s fussing about the difference between ASD and autism is silly because the “Gov’t” in the person of the Special master said they were looking for the cause of “autism” and “similar disorders” in the Omnibus… which of course, would include the other “ASDs” aka “autism spectrum disorders.”

    Don’t put words in my mouth, Fiona dear. I am only pointing out that logically the child must not really have autism or anything “similar” to autism otherwise why did they take her out of the Omnibus?

    The **greedy antivax lawyers agreed to it**, in fact they **gloated** about it as a victory in that letter to the Special Masters… or that’s how I read it and that’s how antivax and mercury phobic parents spun it back in November (or ???) when that letter was posted to the docket.. They said that this CHILD’s case had been conceded, their words not the SM’s as I understand.

    The toxic sleaze-buckets-in-suits didn’t whine that the mean old Gov’t had kicked the kid out of the Omnibus… this idea is a new addition to the conspiracy theorizing, I guess.

    It’s a simple question guys. If she ever was really autistic, as opposed to developmentally delayed, why voluntarily remove her from the Omnibus? Why not put up a screaming fuss to leave her in and thus pave the way to that pot of gold at the end of the five years of stalling on the part of the PSC? Huh???

    Why haven’t the Lenny’s and the Kirby’s been sreaming about the gov’t conspiracy to cover up millions of mitochondrially disordered kids made autistic by vaccines???? Why all the wasted time on (fraudulent) MMR claims and fraudulent and patently ridiculous thimerosal claim about autism looking just like mercury poisoning… how come the GR spin hasn’t been, “Autism is just a misdiagnosis for the repercussions of mito problems that can be triggered by any old, garden variety virus with which all humans are coated, that we rub in our eyes and breath in and eat daily”?

    No really. I want to know.

    Why is it suddenly about mito and not about a childhood deficiency of valtrex or antifungals? Why is it suddenly about mito and not about allergies to milk and wheat that make the kids act stoned and that’s mistaken for autism?

    Why?

    And do you all really think that the rare cases of mito-whatever can be blamed for the hysterical false “epidemic”? Really? How does that work?

  42. Kev March 5, 2008 at 22:28 #

    Rob I’m sorry but you are incorrect. Please look at the wording of both the so-called concession statement and the Case Study. These describe _features_ of autism. They do not, at any point, refer to a diagnosis of autism (or ASD) being made as a result of a vaccine.

    Does this child have autism? Maybe. Does she have it as the result of a vaccine? No, not according to these two documents.

  43. Rob43 March 6, 2008 at 01:17 #

    Kev, She has autism or ASD, as CARDs concluded. The government did not “try” the case, or even hear the case, under the special master of the court. The attorneys headed by Peter Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, cited the DVIC as deciding the facts were sufficient for conpensation under the act, and he headed the signing group from HHS.
    I’m not advocating one theory or the other as the one causing this child’s problems, but the government’s theory, poorly as it is put forward in justifying its action, is untenable based on the skimpy evidence it cited, and ignores any problem with the first day of birth injection. It should be noted however, that very year, the vaccine schedule was hastily modified to recommend no Hep B injection with thimerosol until at least two months of age. I’ve always wondered why they did that?
    Nevertheless, they, the government, decided to remove this case from the Omnibus, not the parents or the lawyers for the parents and child in the case.

  44. Schwartz March 6, 2008 at 02:16 #

    Kev,

    Thanks for the info! I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what was going on.

  45. Schwartz March 6, 2008 at 02:34 #

    Ms. Clark,

    I have not seen anything to indicate that the parents removed the CHILD from the Omnibus. There is no court hearing required if the defending party conceeds the case.

    From my perspective, it is pretty simple. 1) The plaintiffs applied in vaccine court and were put in the Autism queue by the government because she was Autistic
    2) They were selected as a test case for the Omnibus hearing because they were originally 3) After evaluating the evidence, the government decided to conceed the case instead of contesting it (which is what they do in court)
    4) The settlement precluded their participation in the Omnibus hearing because the government wouldn’t contest the case.

    Two of your points are flawed here:

    1) She was diagnosed as Autistic

    a) Confirmed by the case study published in a peer-reviewed journal which should meet your standards and by her own doctor

    b) Confirmed by the fact she was originally grouped into the Omnibus hearings by the government

    2) The defendents didn’t choose to pull her from the Omnibus — the government stopped contesting the case, thus negating the need for a trial hearing.

    a) Only the defendant can conceed a case like this

    From the discussion of the test case, it looks like Dr. Zimmerman was really on the ball, and performed a lot of tests to determine if a Mito dysfunction was happening. Unless you’re looking for such a problem and did a battery of tests, you won’t likely find groups of children that match this scenario many years after the fact, especially if it’s not a genetic Mito dysfunction.

  46. Ms. Clark March 6, 2008 at 07:03 #

    Schwartz,

    These parents were deep deep in to DAN! quackery by 2001, from what I can tell from what the mom wrote to an autism board back then. Her husband had considered becoming a DAN! doc, hmmmmmmmm.

    Biased toward seeing what they want to see, maybe?

    Anyway, they would have been aware that people like Clifford Shoemaker were taking autism clients to try to prove that vaccines were a cause of autism. This was handy because it rid the parents of any implications that their own genes were inferior in some way.

    For some reason instead of just going after a table injury, way back like 5 years ago, which would not be that hard to prove in this kid’s case, I think… they threw their lot in with the rest of Clifford Shoemakers clients. I mean really, you think the gov’t told them to hire Shoemaker…. really? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

  47. Kev March 6, 2008 at 10:12 #

    Rob, she may well have autism. That is not the issue (as a general stance I would hope every child in the Autism Omnibus has at least a diagnosis of autism!). The issue is, was that autism caused by vaccines? No such wording appears. As I stated in a previous post, the following are the only references to autism (or ASD) in the so-called concession report:

    He diagnosed CHILD with “regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.

    ‘features consistent with’ is not the same as ‘diagnosed with’.

    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

    Once again, ‘features of’.

    These diagnosticians (of which Jon Poling by the way cannot possibly be impartial seeing as this is his child and he has already bought into the vaccine hypothesis by this point in time) did not diagnose this child with autism or ASD resulting from her vaccines and in point of fact did not diagnose her at all aside from regressive encephalopathy.

    You have previously stated Rob that the Poling family are being ‘silenced’ by the gvmt. How is it then that they are holding a press conference today? Why is it that they _still_ haven’t fired off a quick email to Dr Zimmerman – and the other doctors named – to give them permission to discuss this case publicly?

  48. century March 6, 2008 at 10:49 #

    “Why is it that they still haven’t fired off a quick email to Dr Zimmerman – and the other doctors named – to give them permission to discuss this case publicly?”

    Or you could say
    Why hasn’t Zimmerman – or the other Drs – asked for permission?

  49. Kev March 6, 2008 at 13:03 #

    Why do you assume they haven’t?

    I emailed Terry Poling yesterday to ask them to remove the gag from Zimmerman. No reply. Maybe they don’t want to for genuine reasons but its beginning to resemble a media stitch-up more and more.

  50. Fiona Sacchetti March 6, 2008 at 13:12 #

    Ms Clark said;
    “Don’t put words in my mouth, Fiona dear. I am only pointing out that logically the child must not really have autism or anything “similar” to autism otherwise why did they take her out of the Omnibus?”

    I don’t see the logic considering the current lack of information. I think it is more jumping to conclusions than coming to logical conclusions.

    I don’t know for sure why this case played out the way it did, and neither do you. I cannot answer your questions any more than you can. I prefer to refrain from wild speculation in such a serious and personal matter as child health.

    Why do you constantly use personal attack in describing the people involved in these serious matters?

    Minor point but why are you calling me ‘dear’? Are you trying to patronise me?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: