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. Autismville March 4, 2008 at 12:57 #

    Good point.

  2. Club 166 March 4, 2008 at 13:12 #

    One clarification. Dr. Zimmerman may be honorable, but if he discusses the case at all, he can go to jail under HIPAA.

    Similarly, if someone other than the family gave the medical record to Kirby, then that person is criminally liable.

    Joe

  3. Kev March 4, 2008 at 13:29 #

    _”but if he discusses the case at all, he can go to jail under HIPAA.”_

    Sure, I’d like to see the family free him from that constraint 🙂

  4. century March 4, 2008 at 14:51 #

    “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…”

    Did Dr Zimmerman actually respond to your approach, or was it the PR department (or similar) who responded?

  5. Kev March 4, 2008 at 15:00 #

    Media guys.

  6. Diane March 4, 2008 at 15:24 #

    Kev – Have you considered that there are people with a personal interest in this case (as a precendent setter) that may have sat in the courtroom and heard the evidence presented? And those people, one of whom may or may not have been David Kirby, passed the information along to others? If you’re sitting in the courtroom, you hear it all.

  7. century March 4, 2008 at 15:46 #

    Kevin said “Media guys”

    I presume that was in answer to my question.

    I emailed Dr Zimmerman but as yet have not had a reply (also email didn’t bounce back so I probably had a current address) – Kevin, did he respond to you at all or was all through the media guys?

  8. Kev March 4, 2008 at 16:11 #

    Century, sorry, yeah was in a bit of a rush. Yes, thats right – their media/PR people.

    Diane – I think not. We’re not talking about notes taken during the case, we’re talking about the full decision written down and recorded as a document of the court. He’s emailed me a copy of it.

  9. Chuck March 4, 2008 at 17:18 #

    Court documents are usually available by FOIA. The release of the documents does not negate the legal responsibility of the doctor.

  10. Kev March 4, 2008 at 17:22 #

    David Kirby did not mention a FOIA request at all. He said the documents were passed to him by a person who was not a member of the family.

    Your point is besides the point Chuck. All that needs to happen for the legal responsibility of Zimmerman to remain silent to be lifted is for the family concerned to give him permission to talk.

    It continues to strike me as very peculiar that this family seem to have no issues with David Kirby talking about the case and no issues with their private documents being made public and yet they continue to effectively ‘gag’ Dr Zimmerman from commenting at all.

  11. Chuck March 4, 2008 at 17:42 #

    Any US citizen can obtain information by FOIA and every doctor is legally restricted by HIPAA regulations.

    http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

  12. bones March 4, 2008 at 17:54 #

    “Court documents are usually available by FOIA”

    Not Vaccine Court docs. the only docs available to the public are the final decision re compensation. Posted at

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions-decisions-0

    The OAP made an exception for the first 3 test cases, however, even among those there were still condfidential docs – any that contained specific info re petitioners child.

  13. isles March 4, 2008 at 17:55 #

    Chuck, a document under court seal would not be available via FOIA.

  14. Chuck March 4, 2008 at 18:03 #

    If the documents were illegally obtained, that would be easily proven and the responsible party would probably have charges pending, or be charged by now.

    Illegally obtaining documents does not lift the HIPAA requirements on the doctor.

  15. S.L. March 4, 2008 at 18:53 #

    All I can say is wow. And, not surprised that less than legal methods were used to get make that “bombshell.” We are barred from hearing all sides–I for one would love for the mito docs in this case speak out. People seemed to have dismissed what was said in court about mito disorders, regression, etc. by a physician (name escapes me now) and I’d love to pick Dr. Shoffner’s brain (mito expert, who we saw) on what he felt about all this. But, we can’t. And Kirby can keep talking and talking. It’s easy to make your case & wow everyone, when only one side is presented.

    I’m wondering also–didn’t I read Kirby or someone say that those other cases also involved mito?

  16. Kaiden March 4, 2008 at 19:15 #

    Are you questioning David Kirby’s probity?

  17. Chuck March 4, 2008 at 19:51 #

    There is currently no proof that less than legal methods have been used by Kirby.

  18. bones March 4, 2008 at 20:15 #

    Chuck,

    If the doc of which Kirby has come into possession was sealed by the court -which in all likelihood, it was – then not even the parents of the child to which the doc pertains are allowed to disseminate such material.

    The Vaccine Court’s policy orders doc(s) to be filed under seal, and only the Court has the power to unseal a doc(s). All parties are bound by the policy/order.

    No if’s, and’s, or but’s about it.

  19. John Fryer March 4, 2008 at 20:56 #

    There are something like 2 000 vaccine harm cases been allowed but it seems this one being the last has raised a lot of peoples hopes that at last the world will be told the TRUTH of vaccine harm for the unlucky few.
    Compare this to the Judge Berger case where all the witnesses who wanted to indicate proven vaccine harm were denied and then the judge gave a summary verdict.
    A summary verdict can only be given if one side does not say anything and cannot be given even if you know the witness is a liar.
    In this case the witnesses were gagged and they are not liars.
    Power wins and truth rests at the bottom of a deep well.

  20. John Gilmore March 4, 2008 at 21:04 #

    You guys are missing the forest for the trees. The US government has said for years that autism can’t cause autism. Now they have reversed themselves and are going to pay a substantial sum of money to a girl who they admit has autism caused by vaccines.

  21. Chuck March 4, 2008 at 21:06 #

    Bones,

    If you have proof of a crime, you should report it. You shouldn’t claim that a crime has happened unless you have the facts to back up your claim.

  22. Matt March 4, 2008 at 21:26 #

    John,

    the government statement as quoted on Mr. Kirby’s blog makes it very clear that their position is that they have never “conceded” that vaccines cause autism.

    Their statement makes it very clear that their position is that they have not “reversed themselves”.

    that is part of the problem with the nature of this leak. It is allowing a very skewed presentation.

  23. bones March 4, 2008 at 21:57 #

    Chuck, mine was a conditional statement – read more carefully. Besides, the Court’s policy speaks for itself. It is what it is.

    John says “A summary verdict can only be given if one side does not say anything and cannot be given even if you know the witness is a liar”

    That is simply not true.

  24. Kev March 4, 2008 at 21:58 #

    _”Illegally obtaining documents does not lift the HIPAA requirements on the doctor.”_

    Chuck you are again missing the point. The requirement to remain silent is made on the say-so of the parents of the child in this case.

    They have made _no_ public statement that I can find regarding their outrage that the so-called concession report has been made public. Why? And that lack of outrage contrasts sharply with what seems to be their apparent desire to silence Dr Zimmerman.

    John Fryer – their is a world of difference between the nature of a case where Judge Berger correctly applied the Daubert standard of evidence which uses a scientific standard of proof and excludes quacks and the omnibus cases where the standard of proof is very, very much less.

  25. Ms. Clark March 4, 2008 at 22:23 #

    John Gilmore said that the gov’t says that autism causes autism, but I think he meant to write that the gov’t has admitted that vaccines can cause autism.

    But Mr. Gilmore they took this case out of the Omnibus because the girl didn’t fit the criteria to stay in the Omnibus group.

    Her lawyers seem to be admitting in a very concrete way, along with the girl’s parents, that this case is not representative of even one other child in the Omnibus. She doesn’t have autism. She doesn’t even have something like autism or she would have belonged in the Omnibus which is suing because certain vaccines: MMR and thimerosal combined, or the MMR or thimerosal in a vaccine not combined; caused autism or **something like autism**.

    This girl wasn’t made autistic or anything like autistic, as far as I can tell, and what she had could have been caused by her ear infections alone or any non-vaccine related infection which she no doubt had or was likely to get apart from any vaccines. In other words, there’s no hard evidence that vaccines even aggravated her mitochondrial condition, but they might have so the family got compensated. And I expect that no other family in the Omnibus will. Not unless they find another example like this one. And why haven’t they found it by now, they’ve had 5 years to look at some of these cases and I would guess they’ve had months to look at the newer ones.

    They have to sift through the ones where the kid has no evidence of being autistic at all, and the ones where there’s no evidence that vaccines had any negative impact on the child at all, but the parents are jumping on the bandwagon to see if they can cash in on this thing.

    Seriously, how many of the Omnibus parents are like those fraudulent people who claim to have whiplash when they don’t? It would be silly to think that there aren’t any Omnibus parents who are outright lying about thinking that vaccines made their kid autistic.

  26. Chuck March 4, 2008 at 23:36 #

    Kev,

    HIPAA is keeping the doctor from speaking out and the parents may not be able to remove all of the HIPPA regulations and requirements from the doctor. Even if this isn’t the case, institutional policy in Kennedy Krieger would prevent the doctor from speaking. Asking why he isn’t speaking is moot after that point.

  27. Joseph March 5, 2008 at 00:59 #

    The position that vaccines can’t possibly cause a single case of autism under any circumstances is not a tenable position in my opinion, since it takes a single rare case to disprove it. So I think it should’ve been clear from the beginning that this is not what is debated. What is debated is whether vaccines are a significant enough cause of autism that it can register in a population study. And I think the latter is all but disproven (even by Generation Rescue itself).

    So again, it doesn’t really matter if the girl didn’t exactly meet criteria for autism. The next child might.

    What I’ve learned from all this is that regressive encephalopathy can result from a fever in a child with Mito disorder. It’s well known that a fever can result from vaccinations. And it’s entirely possible that regressive encephalopathy can present as ASD. Therefore, it’s possible for ASD to result from a vaccination event, though this would be very rare since Mito disorder is rare all by itself. Now, it’s also possible other metabolic disorders have a profile similar to Mito disorder.

    I think all that is scientifically plausible, and obvious in retrospect.

    It’s also possible that some anecdotal accounts of children who regress shortly after vaccination are cases of regressive encephalopathy resulting from a high fever resulting from a vaccine.

    That’s not to say that all such anecdotal accounts should be taken at face value. Parental surveys show that some parents changed their story after Wakefield published his MMR findings in the late 1990s. Clearly, for many, it’s about blame and/or money.

    Am I mistaken in this line of reasoning?

  28. Bad mommy March 5, 2008 at 01:04 #

    If the judge has required records to be filed under seal, then anyone — ANYONE — with access to those records must keep them secret under pain of contempt. Being in contempt of a Federal Judge is not something that you want to do. It is also absolutely standard practice for both sides of a lawsuit to sign confidentiality agreements that agree that no one, NO ONE, will leak information that is disclosed during the course of discovery and that the materials will be destroyed or returned to the owner following the litigation. We do this kind of thing all the time with sensitive competitive information disclosed during litigation.

    The problem with filing under seal is that it is cumbersome, and sometimes, people blow it. Because most all federal courts are taking electronic filings now, once something is filed mistakenly in the public system, it can be accessed and disseminated very widely before it is snapped back, removed from the record, and refiled under seal. Seen it happen more than once, to the gross embarrassment of the mistaken party. Sometimes there are sanctions, sometimes there are not for such mistakes.

    Therefore, there is a theoretical legal way to get documents that should have been filed under seal in active litigation – but it is the very, very unusual case in which such a document gets out legally. Most of the time, the information is leaked in violation of both personal confidentiality pledges and court order. If I were the judge, I’d be livid and I’d order the marshalls to start investigating how such a thing occurred. Kirby could be in pretty hot water. Would it be rude for me to hope so?

  29. Club 166 March 5, 2008 at 01:08 #

    Kev is right that all it would take for HIPAA to not apply would be a statement by the parents releasing the doctor from privacy.

    As to institutional policy, it would be HIGHLY unusual for an institution to muzzle a doctor talking about medical findings if the family released him. There are institution policies regarding unethical behavior, harassment, illegal behavior, and behavior that is deemed unprofessional. But I have never worked at or heard of an institution trying to muzzle someone speaking about factual findings.

    Joe

  30. Ms. Clark March 5, 2008 at 02:20 #

    Joseph I think you are correct.

    I think the bad thing is that parents whose kids would be autistic anyway no matter what will try to shoehorn their experience into the mold of what happened in this one case. “Oh, yeah, uh, my kid had a rash and then stopped talking…,” even if there’s no evidence that that actually happened and no evidence of any plausible biochemistry in their particular child to have caused it.

    But I think this family was awarded money under the vaccine program rightfully. No one can say what portion of the fever came from the vaccine or how far she had started into encephalopathy before she was vaccinated or what would have happened if she had not been vaccinated on that day…

    The thing is the lawyers knew she didn’t fit their Omnibus causality hypotheses, not at all or they would have kept her in. It looks like they had planned on making her a great example of a thimerosal caused autism-like disorder case. It looks like this family has been sitting around waiting for some time to have their turn in court. Did they know all along that she could have been compensated for encephalopathy? That just seems very odd to me.

  31. Kristina March 5, 2008 at 03:00 #

    What this latest example of Kirby’s “investigative journalism” skills shows is his continued devotion to find “evidence” that suits his theories and then, via often bullying rhetoric and writing, to show how this new “evidence” proves his theories and makes him—voila—right all along. With every new piece of writing, I see him moving further and further away from talking about “autism,” as in autistic _persons_, and his disregard here for the privacy of others further makes this point.

    He’s not going away till he gets his Erin Brockovich moment which is to say, we’ll be hearing more from him for a long, long time.

  32. century March 5, 2008 at 10:04 #

    Still no reply from Zimmerman to my email.

    Kevin – did he reply to yours?

  33. Kev March 5, 2008 at 10:44 #

    No century – he’s not going to be able to say a word until the family let him.

  34. Catherina March 5, 2008 at 13:40 #

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/03/david-kirby-o-1.html

    IMUS: Why haven’t we read about that in the NY Times or seen it on NBC nightly news?

    DAVID: Well, the NY Times is not particularly interested in this story. There are reporters
    out there this week trying to cover it, but, until the family gets permission from
    government to speak, I’m not sure how much coverage it actually is going to get. You
    know, I love being on your show, but, I wish instead of me being here this morning, you
    have somebody from the HHS. Because what we basically have over there is a wall of
    silence. Why is it not okay to talk about this? Why is this confidential? Exactly whose
    interests are being protected if the family says it’s perfectly okay to talk about
    this….and…the family wants to talk about it? Why is the government saying we can’t talk about it? Those rules are in place to protect the privacy of the family, which has already been waived.

    …..

  35. Joseph March 5, 2008 at 15:36 #

    One other thing to add is that if I were a parent in the Omnibus who has a child who clearly regressed immediately after a fever that resulted from vaccination, I’d probably be discussing this with a lawyer right about now. There’s a much better chance of winning under a “metabolic crisis” hypothesis.

    There’s no way the Omnibus will be won. The thimerosal and MMR autism-causation hypotheses are essentially disproven.

    I’d imagine that after parents lose the Omnibus it will be much harder to sue the government under a different hypothesis. In my opinion the smart money for cases with clear-cut regression immediately after vaccination (assuming there’s more than one) is in getting out of the Omnibus.

  36. Rob43 March 5, 2008 at 17:00 #

    I think Joseph has the right ideas. HRSA of the Dept. of Health and Human Resources put out a press release quietly on Mar 3 that they still maintain vaccines do not cause autism; so their decision to award in this particular case must be based on another theory of causation. There was no court hearing. HRSA needs to step up and explain what their decision without hearing means, and they are temporarily hiding behind the rule that the family hasn’t given them release to discuss the case. I expect that barrier preventing them from discussing the case to be removed asap because they do need to explain. All the other families waiting for a decision or a court hearing want and need to know what was conceded.

  37. Fiona Sacchetti March 5, 2008 at 20:27 #

    Can somebody point me in the direction of the evidence that David Kirby has obtained his information through illegal means, as is being implied here?

    Also Ms Clark can you link to the information that allows you to make the following assumptions with any degree of certainty?

    “But Mr. Gilmore they took this case out of the Omnibus because the girl didn’t fit the criteria to stay in the Omnibus group.

    Her lawyers seem to be admitting in a very concrete way, along with the girl’s parents, that this case is not representative of even one other child in the Omnibus. She doesn’t have autism. She doesn’t even have something like autism…………..This girl wasn’t made autistic or anything like autistic, as far as I can tell, and what she had could have been caused by her ear infections alone or any non-vaccine related infection which she no doubt had or was likely to get apart from any vaccines.”

    Did you find it in the same place that has allowed you to come to the conclusion that all the litigants are purely in this for the money?

  38. Rob43 March 5, 2008 at 20:54 #

    I’m sorry you think they are in it for money; they haven’t received any money. I’m sorry you believe they are holding back approval for Dr. Zimmerman and others to talk because it’s not true; it was the government that has been attempting to gag them. Remember that this case was not taken out of the Omnibus by the parents or their attorney’s, but by the government in this out-of-the-blue decision that was a surprise, probably an attempt at a clever legal decision that they needed to make because the case was so strong of the damage caused by the vaccines or their ingredients to this particular child.

  39. Fiona Sacchetti March 5, 2008 at 21:13 #

    Just in case Rob’s comment is directed at me, I categorically do not think that people are in this for the money.

    I agree with Rob that the government is using legal tactics to the end of damage limitation.

    I wish people would stop bleating on about how this child’s cae has been taken out of the Omnibus by the parents and lawyers. The same people then want to use this misinformation as some sort of proof that the Omnibus has only weak cases. It is such a load of bull.

  40. passionlessDrone March 5, 2008 at 21:26 #

    Hello friends –

    What I love so much about this is the notion that having ‘features of autism’ suddenly isn’t good enough.

    However, if I were to claim that autism is on the rise, I’d have it explained to me that people with autistic behaviors have always been around, and it is just an expansion of the criteria of autism that has caused this rise in autism.

    It would appear a double standard is being applied:

    – If the argument is that there is more autism now than in the past, the refutation is that people with autistic behaviors that previously were not categorized as autistic are now filling this gap.

    – If the arguemtn is that vaccines caused autism, the refutation is that this person doesn’t have autism, just ‘autistic features’.

    Yummy cake!

    Take care all!

    – pD

  41. Joseph March 5, 2008 at 21:40 #

    Just in case Rob’s comment is directed at me, I categorically do not think that people are in this for the money.

    It’s documentably true that either money or a need to blame government or Big Pharma would have to be largely behind vaccine-autism hype (and I’m not directing this claim at specific persons because I cannot read minds and determine motives that way). This is because surveys show that parents tended to attribute autistic/speech regression to other things more often than vaccination; e.g. birth of a sibling. Yet, there’s no hoopla at all about births of siblings in autism. Therefore, I can only conclude that various other interests must be behind the over-promotion of the claimed vaccine/autism link.

    There’s additional evidence in that direction too.

    BTW, pD, what in the world are you talking about?

  42. Kev March 5, 2008 at 22:36 #

    _”I’m sorry you believe they are holding back approval for Dr. Zimmerman and others to talk because it’s not true; it was the government that has been attempting to gag them.”_

    You are incorrect on both counts. I contacted Dr Zimmerman (or tried to) directly and was told he cannot comment until the _family_ agree to his discussing this publicly.

    The US Govmt have made no attempt to gag them and couldn’t possibly do so any way. What was filed – by the court, not the gvmt – was a bound copy of the document which was leaked to David Kirby. It has come to my attention that this document may have been gained illegally as it was a sealed court document. The reason it was sealed is that it discussed a minor by name.

  43. Steve D March 5, 2008 at 23:13 #

    Hi pD –
    You said:
    “– If the argument is that there is more autism now than in the past, the refutation is that people with autistic behaviors that previously were not categorized as autistic are now filling this gap.
    – If the arguemtn is that vaccines caused autism, the refutation is that this person doesn’t have autism, just ‘autistic features’.”

    Whether people are making the argument that previously unidientified autistics are filling the gap is irrelevant because the fact is, they are. No one really disputes how much broader the definiton of autism became when the DSM-IV defintion was introduced and the “Spectrum Disorder” concept came into effect, and that this has increased the num,ber of people who can be accurately diagnosed with autism.

    At the same time, the discussion of “features” vs. “diagnostic criteria” is valid. Kev listed several “features” of autism that are not part of the diagnostic criteria.

    Take care!
    -sD

  44. Rob43 March 6, 2008 at 00:55 #

    Kev, Sorry but you didn’t talk to Dr. Zimmerman, you talked to the public relations people at Johns Hopkins who put forward the view that Dr. Zimmerman couldn’t talk over the need for parental consent not being obtained. But this discussion of parental consent is a sideshow.
    The important thing is, unless the government can put the genie back in the bottle, and they will try hard, everyone will get their look at most of the records soon enough. But again Dr. Zimmerman’s credibility can hardly be an issue in his cited report, which was my point; his record is impeccable, so what additional questions, maybe a few examples, were you going to pose to him that might clarify your asessments?

  45. Ms. Clark March 6, 2008 at 01:37 #

    Fiona dear, Please I have asked you to stop putting words in my mouth.

    I think it would be grossly naïve to assume that a significant number of parents who heard about this gold-rush didn’t just decide to go for it because it’s cheap to get your name on the list and then all you have to do is wait to see if your small investment pays of in the hudreds of thousands of bucks (the slimey ambulance chasers were advertising for clients, like around 2001, by oozing their way around autism-antivax Yahoo! groups. No really. They instructed the parents to get lots of urine tests from quack labs to show how toxic their kids were. No really, they did.)

    So yeah, it would be really dumb to think there aren’t parents signed up with the Omnibus who are outright lying, either their kid doesn’t have autism, or their kid never had any kind of reaction to a vaccine that preceded any kind of developmental problem. I say this in part because it turned out the all the parents in the UK who had signed up to sue the pants off of whomever turned out to have no evidence at all that MMR had made their kids autistic, and in fact, if I’m not mistaken, they all came from a group that implicated allergies before they jumped on the MMR bandwagon with Wakers.

    And the PSC, when pushed to come up with their test cases for the actual hearings (that they kept asking to be put off and put off and put off) they stalled further until the SM’s started getting testy with them and said, “Now, chuckle heads! Now!” essentially.

    And no, I never said all or even implied that all the parents were greedy liars… I think ALL the lawyers are greedy liars, but that’s not the parents. See the difference? Some of the parents no doubt **really** believe that their kid regressed because of thimerosal, and/or MMR. It’s just that there’s no evidence that it ever happened even one time.

    And it’s obvious that the CHILD wasn’t really autistic because they lawyers agreed to having her taken out of the Omnibus. Seriously, how obvious can this be? Are you saying that you haven’t seen the letter with the goofy misspelling (desginate) where the lawyers claimed that the gov’t “conceded” the case? It used to be here

    Click to access modifying.pdf


    now is here

    Click to access modifying.pdf

    I don’t see any whining, something I believe Mr. Powers has been known to do, like “you can’t take this kid out of the Omnibus, she’s our ace in the hole!!!!”.

  46. Sarah's Mom March 6, 2008 at 02:38 #

    Very interesting article Kev. 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? I once knew a child with autism and regressive encephalopathy who was never vaccinated at all.

  47. century March 6, 2008 at 10:46 #

    Kevin said

    1.”Dr. Zimmerman…….is not able to publicly discuss this patient….we do not have parental consent to discuss the patient publicly” (Media guys)

    and

    2.”I contacted Dr Zimmerman…and was told he cannot comment until the family agree to his discussing this publicly.” (Kevin’s spin)

    The interpretation is only true if Zimmerman (or other) asked the family for their consent, and the request was refused.

    My child’s Dr would not discus him publicly without my consent – but I’ve never been asked! So would you assert that I have “gagged” and “barred” him?

  48. Fiona Sacchetti March 6, 2008 at 12:51 #

    Ms Clark, I don’t believe I am putting words in your mouth. You posts seem aimed at representing people you do not know, and lawyers you have never met, as money grabbing to the point of exploiting their own children’s illness.

    If these children have been vaccine damaged, they should be compensated. The compensation in the both the US and the UK is nothing like the actual costs of supporting an autistic person throughout their lifetime. However, such compensanion is better than nothing and is also recognition of the wrong done to the child. 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.

    You make a rather the following sweeping statement;

    “I say this in part because it turned out the all the parents in the UK who had signed up to sue the pants off of whomever turned out to have no evidence at all that MMR had made their kids autistic,”

    Is this evidence based, and if so can you provide such evidence?

    You seem to have a very cynical view of parents with sick children, are you equally cynical towards big business and government?

    You maintain that the child in question is not autistic, but you do so from a position of ignorance of most of the relevant facts. Why?

  49. Kev March 6, 2008 at 12:54 #

    Kevin’s spin?

    How are 1) and 2) any different?

    The interpretation is implicitly true as the HIPPA (Sp?) guidelines in the US dictate that no doctor can talk about their patient publicly if they are a minor without family consent?

    Funny you should mention about the Poling’s being asked. I emailed them yesterday to ask them why they haven’t free’d up Zimmerman – no reply.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Parents of Child in Vaccine Injury Case to Hold News Conference - March 6, 2008

    […] at Left Brain/Right Brain has more to say about the “concession report” and what is getting said about it, and by […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: