Autism, vaccines, concession – and gagging of doctors?

4 Mar

David Kirby makes a juicy statement on EoH:

And next week, I just might drop another bombshell – A BIG one, from another case in VICP.

Turns out that people who settled with the government now want their cases to be known as well. They are seeking me out. You would be AMAZED at what the government has secretly admitted.

Now, granted, its apparent from Kirby’s wording that these extra cases are not part of the Omnibus and possibly not related to autism at all. But something is beginning to worry me quite a lot about this.

When I approached Dr Zimmerman about him answering some questions re: the recent so-called ‘concession report’, I was told:

Dr. Zimmerman…….is not able to publicly discuss this patient. As a participant in this case, the family provided consent for Dr. Zimmerman to share information with the court, but we do not have parental consent to discuss the patient publicly – as we are bound by HIPAA privacy regulations, as in any healthcare setting in the U.S.

And when I asked if anyone else at Kennedy could answer questions or if a hypothetical set of questions could be answered:

Everyone at Kennedy Krieger is bound by the same patient privacy regulations. I hope you can understand that our first priority has to be to respect the privacy of a family – so I think a hypothetical conversation when it is held with the person who saw the patient wouldn’t be appropriate since it really wouldn’t be hypothetical.

So here we have a situation whereby the Doctor who actually examined the child in question and made the medical decisions _cannot_ discuss the case and is honourable enough to not even countenance a hypothetical case. And yet _someone_ smuggled the case report to David Kirby. Are the family up in arms that the case report was smuggled out and given to Kirby? Has anyone asked them? I’m asking them now.

If you are not bothered that the case report and ‘concession’ was smuggled out to David Kirby, why do you continue to block Dr Zimmerman from speaking publicly?

I have a question for David Kirby also: do you think it is right that none of the actual doctors (Zimmerman in this case, god knows who in the other cases you claim to have) can tell their sides – share their medical expertise – and yet its OK for you to hypothesise about their findings?

Something is very wrong here. When we are barred from hearing all sides, we never get the whole truth.

61 Responses to “Autism, vaccines, concession – and gagging of doctors?”

  1. Kev March 6, 2008 at 12:55 #

    Sarah’s Mom – you’re absolutely correct, the burden of proof is very, very low and is not required to be scientific. Its described as ‘50% plus a feather’.

  2. passionlessDrone March 6, 2008 at 18:51 #

    Hello friends –

    As a genuinely curious question, have mechanisms been described on the interactions between vaccinations and a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder would result in encephalopathy?

    I guess I’m not precisely clear as to how the determination was made that the vaccinations made this particular existing condition worse?

    I realize this may have been summarized previously in the 932939 comments floating around on this subject, but lunch hour is short. Any insight is appreciated.

    Take care!

    – pD

  3. Ms. Clark March 6, 2008 at 19:32 #

    Fiona wrote:

    “If these children have been vaccine damaged, they should be compensated.”

    No kidding. Never have I ever said anything that contradicted that statement.

    Seriously, would you quit it? You keep adding your interpretations to what I say and it’s getting old.

    …”You may not be able to see any reasons other than monetary ones for pursuing justice and acknowledgement of injury of this nature, but to me, they seem obvious.”

    Once more. Pay attention please. I realize that there are parents who are sincere in thinking their kids were harmed by a vaccine. So far there is no evidence that even one has ever been made autistic by vaccines, though there could conceivably be some.

    I keep saying that Hannah is not autistic because they (the HHS and with her attorneys’ agreement) took her out of the Onmibus which says that it is for vaccine caused autism and similar conditions. No one has told me, other than a conspiracy theory that this is the HHS way of derailing the Omnibus’ evidence for vaccine causation.

    Now it’s possible that in the mountain of evidence cooked up by the mercury parents and their pet scientists, as well in the real evidence that they mixed in with it (you can hear some of it in the transcripts of the Omnibus so far) that there is nothing that applies to kids like Hannah. So having her in there wouldn’t apply. I mean, what were her gutter level lawyers going to do, prove that thimerosal caused her fever? Uhuh.

    How? Do you really think her case fit in with the thimerosal causation bunch she was supposed to be a model for?

    Now gimme a break and stop assigning to me motives and thoughts that I do not have. And admit that Hannah might not be autistic at all, but merely developmentally delayed and with parents who got sucked into DAN! when she was very very young.

  4. Joseph March 6, 2008 at 20:54 #

    As a genuinely curious question, have mechanisms been described on the interactions between vaccinations and a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder would result in encephalopathy?

    This will probably be known sometime later. But here’s some of what the Kennedy Kriger Institute says:

    “Other adverse effects of metabolic diseases include seizures, movement disorders, poor growth, muscle weakness, fasting intolerance, and disproportionate illness with simple childhood infections or immunizations. Some metabolic diseases become manifest in the first few days of life, whereas others require a stress, such as a fever or fasting during an illness, to become manifest.”

    (Emphasis mine)

  5. Joseph March 6, 2008 at 21:10 #

    The evidence required to prove vaccine injury in this case must be low, because how can they absolutely prove that the vaccines and not some other event caused the autistic like symptoms?

    That’s understandable. If vaccine court required ironclad proof of injury, no one would ever get compensation, which seems unfair. Timely circumstantial evidence plus a scientifically established mechanism should be enough.

  6. Schwartz March 7, 2008 at 04:03 #


    My understanding is that Mito Disfunction results in oxidative stress. It is known that immune responses also raise oxidative stress. Strong immune responses can be evoked both by illness and vaccination. The combined oxidative stress is presumed to cause Autistic regression according to the case study.

  7. Schwartz March 7, 2008 at 04:07 #

    Sarah’s Mom,

    Your observations are correct. However, this child suffered severe reactions to the vaccines within 48 hours of vaccination. These reactions initiated what was a 3-6 month regression in both development (she lost all speech) and also resulted in a continuous chain of significant health issues.

    The complete chain of illness deriving from a strong set of adverse events consistent with reactions to the vaccines (starting within 48 hours of vaccination) led to the ultimate health outcome.

    In this case, it is a pretty clear that the vaccination triggered the chain of events leading to the adverse health outcomes.

  8. Kev March 7, 2008 at 10:11 #

    Schwartz, I disagree. Memory is subjective. We saw that during the Cedillo section of the Omnibus when the parents swore up and down that their daughter was definitely not exhibiting any signs or features of autism prior to autism and yet their own home movies show that she was.

  9. bones March 8, 2008 at 02:02 #

    “Sarah’s Mom – you’re absolutely correct, the burden of proof is very, very low and is not required to be scientific. Its described as ‘50% plus a feather’.”

    Kev, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that is not true. I believe the 50% + a feather, was a Geier-ism that he put forth as distinguishing between testifying as a physician (50% + a feather) and an expert (95% certainty that ‘A’ caused ‘B’).

    The Special Masters apply Daubert, though are under no obligation to do so, when considering expert testimony.


  10. Kev March 8, 2008 at 08:41 #

    I think you might be right bones. Its funny how these things stick in your head 😉

    re: Daubert, the normal ruling is that Daubert can be used to exclude people who claim to be experts from giving testimony. Hence, the Geier’s, Haley et al have regularly been excluded. As this is a Federal case, Daubert cannot apply in that manner although the Special Masters may _choose_ to apply Daubert standards to the evidence presented.

  11. HCN April 20, 2008 at 03:17 #

    Dr. Tyler Durton, did you bother to read this blog before you spammed a very stupid book?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: