In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that 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.
– HHS
If one has the right set of “features” of autism, one has autism……Hannah Poling has autism — as defined in every book, in every library, in every university in the world. Dr. Parikh’s insistence otherwise is perplexing.
– David Kirby, to EoH group in response to Dr. Parikh’s article in Salon.
Its a massively ambiguous point. Do ‘features of autism’ equate to a _diagnosis_ of autism? David Kirby and some commenter’s to this site say ‘yes’. I personally think ‘no’.
But I think we need to be clear here. In this particular case, Hannah Poling can still be autistic but the HHS are arguing (in my opinion) that the features listed as those being aggravated/caused by vaccines do not add up to enough by themselves to give a diagnosis of autism.
To illustrate this idea, I went through the symptoms given by Dr Zimmerman that he put forward as being vaccine aggravated in a previous post (green = hit with DSM (IV), red = miss):
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
So, three of the symptoms given by Dr Zimmerman as being vaccine aggravated can be matched with the DSM (IV). This is way below what is needed for a diagnosis of autism.
But, we cannot discount the idea that she _could be_ autistic. To me, it seems likely that here is an autistic child who has her vaccines and who presents with nine symptoms following those vaccines, three of which tally with DSM (IV) criteria.
This presents two questions. First, is there a difference made by autism diagnosticians about autistic features vs a diagnosis of autism?
The best way to answer this is to ask autism diagnosticians. I wrote to some autism diagnosticians. They asked to remain anonymous, which I have to respect. The email I sent in essence asked them if they thought that:
a) ‘with features of autism spectrum disorder’ is directly equivalent to a diagnosis of autism?
b) ‘with features of autism spectrum disorder’ means that some elements of the DSM (IV) are present but not enough to diagnose autism?
c) ‘with features of autism spectrum disorder’ means that some elements of the DSM (IV) are present but not enough to diagnose ASD?
d) ‘with features of autism spectrum disorder’ means something else entirely?
The responses I got back stated that b) was most likely, maybe c) .
So according to these autism diagnosticians, some elements of the DSM (IV) are present but not enough to diagnose autism, or possibly ASD. This tallies with my own personal opinion.
The second question is; did Hannah Poling present with any diagnosable symptoms of autism _before_ her vaccines? Sadly, it seems we will never accurately know the answer to this question. The Poling’s will say no of course. David Kirby et al will say no of course.
I will remember the Cedillo’s however, who testified that their daughter (who they claimed was made autistic by vaccines) showed no symptoms of autism before her vaccines were administered. However, when home movies of their daughter taken before her vaccines were shown to several diagnosticians, they testified that she was indeed exhibiting symptoms of autism prior to vaccine administration. The Cedillo’s didn’t lie. Its simply not possible to remain clinically objective about one’s own child. Even for an employee of Johns Hopkins, it is not possible to remain objective about one’s own child.
That doesn’t mean Hannah Poling _did_ exhibit symptoms of autism prior to vaccines of course. It simply means that we need to be skeptical of the claim that she didn’t.
Is Hannah Poling autistic? Could be. Seems likely.
Did the vaccines cause the nine symptoms Dr Zimmerman found? HHS ‘concede’ they did.
Do the fact that three of those nine symptoms tally with the DSM (IV) mean that the vaccines are the cause of her autism? No, thats not logical.
Left Brain Right Brain 
“I went through the symptoms given by Dr Zimmerman that he put forward as being vaccine aggravated..”
Where did you get that from – the HHS document. Quote
“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.”* Id. 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.”
The HSS have one sentence in quotation marks and then they say Zimmerman noted and observed. He may or may not have noted and observed a lot more than the HSS document says – after all they wrote it.
So it’s not quite how you said it.
When I was being taught diagnostics, it was clearly stated that one should diagnose when sufficient characteristics were found to tally with the category’s requirements, and that there is always a catch-many extra category; so one should either diagnose autism, Asperger syndrome or ‘atypical autism’. There is a proviso that the ‘atypical autism’ diagnosis must meet with a reasonable proportion of the diagnostic criteria listed in the category for autism.
It is therefore inappropriate to ‘diagnose’ something called ‘autistic tendencies/features’ if it is clear that the criteria for autism, Asperger sundrome or atypical autis are met. However, if there are too few characteristics present in the examinee’s developmental profile for any of these diagnoses, to the point that all one can say is that there are ‘autistic tendencies’ or that the examinee has ‘features of autism’ (without being clear as to the mapping onto the criteria), then this was not equal to a diagnosis of autism or anything else on the spectrum. It is merely a note to the effect that ‘autistic features’ were detected. This is, in fact, misnomer. And it is also a non-diagnosis.
For further information:
Jones, G., (2002) Educational provision for children with autism and Asperger syndrome: meeting their needs. David Fulton Publ., London.
Century,
Further to David’s point, and also further to the HHS report, we can turn our attention to the Zimmerman case study of Hannah Poling, during which the following symptoms were noted (extracted from):
I have emboldened the items which match the DSM (IV). I’ve italicised the items which are repeated.
These are all the physical/behavioural symptoms I could find in the HHS report and case study.
I’m sorry, I think my point remains. Unless you want to argue that Dr Zimmerman failed to report symptoms (which seems extremely unlikely) we still can’t match the symptoms reported as a consequence of vaccination to an autism diagnosis.
The DSM isn’t just a list of “symptoms”, it’s got a descriptive section as well. Which says, in part, “In a minority of cases, parents report regression in language development, generally manifest as the cessation of speech after a child has acquired from 5 to 10 words.”
True Amanda, I’ll edit my list to include ‘expressive language was lost’ even though I think its a generous ‘give’.
re: symptoms. Its not an attractive description and its not what I would choose to use but in this strict medical sense I think its appropriate.
I note that on Dr. Gupta’s blog (CNN) he notes:
I had a chance to meet the Poling family last night. Their 9-year-old daughter Hannah was diagnosed with “symptoms of autism spectrum disorder”
“So, three of the symptoms given by Dr Zimmerman as being vaccine aggravated can be matched with the DSM (IV). This is way below what is needed for a diagnosis of autism.”
You cannot seriously be attempting to render a diagnosis based on a summary from a court filing. I don’t think that even a professional would try to asset that someone did or did not meet the criteria for autism solely on a second hand written report from a court case. If you wanted to get a true picture of the child you would have to use the appropriate diagnostic tests.
Without that you are engaging in pure speculation, and in this case I would have to say it is rather unfounded speculation. The child in question was scheduled to be a test case for the autism omnibus. Don’t you think that the government would have moved to exclude the case from the omnibus action if the child didn’t have a diagnosis somewhere on the autism spectrum?
You’ve not read what I wrote MJ. Where did I say she didn’t have a diagnosis of autism? In fact I expressly said I thought she did.
What I’m doing is illustrating that the symptoms that have been recorded as those that manifested themselves following vaccination do not collectively or individually offer enough to diagnose autism. I would guess that’s why Dr Zimmerman never offered that as an answer too.
I’d further surmise that thats why the autism diagnosticians I spoke with also think that the symptoms recorded are not enough to offer a diagnosis of autism.
Why should we have to speculate? The Polings have talked about the case and their daughter. Can’t they confirm whether Hannah has an official diagnosis of DSM-IV autistic disorder?
Possibly so Joseph – but (as MJ notes) I’d think she has to have a diagnosis to be considered for the Omnibus at all.
To me the question is not ‘does Hannah Poling has an official diagnosis’? I think what we need to do is see the shades of grey here. Its possible for an autistic child (or a child destined to be autistic) become injured by vaccines in a way that shares the odd symptom or two with those listed in the DSM (IV) but that is the extent of the ‘relationship’.
I haven’t seen anything at all – and this is why I asked the diagnosticians – to indicate that ‘features of autism’ is the same as a diagnosis. It is what it says – features.
I would want to know who gave Hannah to dx, not just that she has it. They could have a DAN! doc diagnose her with anything that suits the DAN! worldview.
Making a good diagnosis of autism take practice, the research (done by the person who created the ADOS) shows that there is no substitute for clinical experience, lots of it… and very few kids get diagnosed with the ADOS because it’s time consuming and the kit is expensive and the clinician needs to get training (and then build up experience) and still clinicians will find that the diagnosis will flip flop from autistic disorder to PDD,nos and from PDD,nos to autistic disorder in individual kids, meaning that if you conceive of the category as being something that shouldn’t change that much, then maybe the kid is just acting a little different on the day of the test or the clinician is missing something that the kid is doing, or ???
So, how was Hannah evaluated and by whom and with what bias?
From the point of view of neurology the austism that kids are born with seems to start within weeks after conception, there are more and smaller minicolumns in the cortex, sometimes other problems with very early neuronal migration and possibly missing Perkinje cells that are missing from before birth. The construction of the brain of a child who becomes autistic at 12 months or later from seizures or something else can not be the same as the child who was born autistic.
Can their experiences (those born with autism and those who acquire it) be the same, more or less? Maybe. Can their outcomes be the same, more or less? Maybe. Can the things they need to thrive be the same, more or less? Maybe.
Does the child who becomes autistic after a bout with serious seizures, or encephalopathy have a “right” to be part of the autistic community? Absolutely.
If you grant that a child who developed autism after birth, like the Amish children with the rare disorder that causes severe seizures, is really autistic, does it mean that all autistic kids are the same, that they all develop autism from seizures? No, severe intractable seizures from toddlerhood are not common in autism.
The thing with this vaccine lawyer driven media frenzy is that the biomuddled parents want to say that since Hannah is “really autistic” and she “got that way from vaccines” which are both debatable, then that must mean that all their kids who presumably are really autistic also got that way from vaccines. I doubt that, considering how hard it was for the PSC to come up with likely cases for the Omnibus.
Which reminds me: http://gmwm.autistics.org/?p=180 Sullivan asks some good questions about the Poling case and the PSC strategizing.
One thing I noticed they said about Hannah (it might be in the Zimmerman paper) is that her head stopped growing at some point when she was little, maybe it was after the July 2000 vaccinations. That’s not typical of autism. She might be mentally retarded with some features of autism. Small head size tends to be found in MR and large head size seems to be more aligned with autism.
I watched a video clip at some presentation at the MIND, it was showing how a child might look autistic and not be autistic. The video was taken during a diagnostic session with clinicians using the ADOS instrument.
They showed a boy who was playing with toys and being asked, “do this, now do that” essentially. The kid kept flapping his forarms and he was kind of hyper acting. They contrasted him with a child who was given an autism diagnosis to show the difference. While this boy flapped and looked a lot like an autistic kid because of that, he wasn’t autistic because he was totally tuned in to the adults in the room in a normal way. They gave him a dx of “stereotypical movement disorder” or something like that.
That boy had a feature of autism. Some blind people sway back and forth and do stereotyped looking movements, it’s not because they are autistic necessarily (though they could be), the movements are also called “blindisms.”
http://www.tsbvi.edu/Outreach/seehear/spring02/blindisms.htm
Kev,
“Is Hannah Poling autistic? Could be. Seems likely.”
I fail to understand this. Her doctor, Dr. Zimmerman in a study he co-authored clearly refers to her as Autistic in multiple places. Dr. Poling also clearly refers to her as Autistic many times. She was grouped in the Autism omnibus hearings by the HHS also implying she is Autistic.
On what basis do you question her current state?
Now, one can certainly argue that HHS is only conceeding that the vaccines caused only a subset of ‘Autistic Symptoms’ based on their written explanation. We can all argue what contributed to the full diagnosis, but not the part about her being autistic.
“You’ve not read what I wrote MJ. Where did I say she didn’t have a diagnosis of autism? In fact I expressly said I thought she did.”
Then I must be confused about what your point is. Are you trying to suggest that the injury caused by the vaccines caused some of the symptoms but others where there before that?
I would agree in general that it is possible and/or likely but I don’t think that was the case in this specific case.
I seem to remember mention of doctors visits prior to the regression saying that she was developing normally and had no obvious signs. Also she was scheduled to be a peer role model for children with disabilities right before the regression.
However, even granting that only some of the problems of autism were aggravated by vaccines, that still establishes the relationship, even if it is a narrow one that is linked to some certain specific genetic condition.
Schwartz/MJ – I thought I was being pretty clear.
HHS agreed Hannah Poling had been injured by vaccines. They said that these injuries presented with three symptoms that match the DSM (IV). Six didn’t.
The Zimmerman case study identified two/three more out of 24.
These were the symptoms identified by HHS, Zimmerman and Poling as the ones Hannah presented following vaccination.
Putting these 5/6 symptoms together they are not enough to meet the criteria as laid out in the DSM (IV).
Therefore, the vaccines _cannot_ have caused her autism.
Is she, in fact, autistic? I’d say the fact she’s in the Omnibus suggests she is (although the Omnibus also alludes to being open to those with ASD or ‘similar neurological disorder’). However, I think this is somewhat unimportant. Her autism is not the issue. The issue is, did vaccines cause it?
Based on the presented list of symptoms (and I ask your indulgence to once more consider I have asked autism diagnosticians), the vaccines _cannot_ have caused her autism.
This makes this point MJ :
_”However, even granting that only some of the problems of autism were aggravated by vaccines, that still establishes the relationship”_
not true. It is not the case that ‘some of the problems of autism’ were caused/aggravated by vaccines. It means that she suffered aggravation which presented around 30 symptoms of which five or six shared a commonality with autism.
So you are saying that because the summary document provided by the court does not explicitly list every DSM IV criteria condition that appeared following the vaccinations this “proves” that there is no relation between the vaccines and this child’s autism?
This is ignoring the fact that prior to the vaccinations the child did not meet the DSM IV criteria and following she did meet the criteria?
And you asserting this as a fact based on the limited amount of medical information that is publicly available?
“This is ignoring the fact that prior to the vaccinations the child did not meet the DSM IV criteria and following she did meet the criteria?”
Well, first, your premise errs in that one cannot meet criteria if one is not first taken to a doctor to be diagnosed. Was Hannah taken to a doctor, pre-vaccination, for a diagnostic evaluation?
Second, your comment presumes that she was in fact eventially diagnosed with autism which she wasn’t, so far as I can tell.
Ooops…pardon my misspelling…”eventually”.
I hate when that happens…
bones,
Are you contending that she has not yet received a diagnosis of “autistic” and that the case study is in error?
Is that the same case study that her father, the petitioner authored??
Scwartz, besides, let’s say I give you the fact that Hannah was diagnosed w/ autism on [insert date here] (which I’m not, but let’s just say for the sake of argument I am).
That doesn’t mean she didn’t have autism before that date.
Sorry, again with the misspellings…sorry “Schwartz”
“So you are saying that because the summary document provided by the court does not explicitly list every DSM IV criteria condition that appeared following the vaccinations this “proves” that there is no relation between the vaccines and this child’s autism?”
Just to keep the i’s dotted and t’s crossed–
it isn’t a summary document. It is a report from the respondents stating their position after review of the case submitted. This is the ‘concession’ document–authored by the DOJ laywers representing the HHS. It is not a document of the “court’s” providing, since that would imply that it came from the Special Masters.
Secondly, this document was not “provided” by the court, but leaked.
This is ignoring the fact that prior to the vaccinations the child did not meet the DSM IV criteria and following she did meet the criteria?
Not to imply something about this case in specific, but the same can be said about pretty much any case of regressive autism. At some point, the child didn’t meet the criteria for an autism diagnosis. After some vaccinations, the child did.
If we are to learn anything from this new insight, it is that regression does not require an “environmental insult” to occur. Some children with mitochondrial problems regress. Note Dr. Kelley’s understanding (taken from an exhibit, not given verbally):
He [Dr. Kelley] continued to note that children with biochemical profiles similar to CHILD’s develop normally until sometime between the first and second year of life when their metabolic pattern becomes apparent, at which time they developmentally regress.
So, children much like Hannah Poling regress–without vaccination as the cause.
Regression does not imply that a child was completely “typical” before some point in life. “their metabolic pattern becomes apparent”–not that their metabolic pattern is “created”.
In many ways, this is very much a double edged sword–one that people are trying very hard to avoid admitting.
Again–here is a subset of children where regression does not mean vaccine damage.
In many ways, this is the worst nightmare of the same people who are greeting this concession with such glee: an explanation for regression without vaccines.
There is a difference between a feature of autism and a feature associated with autism, Most of the symptoms listed are not diagnostic of autism, but are associated with it.
How common are these associated features in people with autism vs, those who do not have the disorder, I don’t think for most symptoms has been determined. The use of them is speculative,
Even if turns out that some combination of associated features was extremely rare in the non-autistic population, a person with those features, who did not meet the DSM-IV test would be an example of such a rarity.
No, I am saying that because the HHS report *and* the case study do not list enough symptoms following vaccination to offer a diagnosis of autism.
Correlation does not equal causation. Or, to put it another way:
!http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/mmr.jpg!
I’d also reiterate my original point – that the Cedillo’s also genuinely believed their daughter showed no signs of autism prior to vaccination but subsequent questioning of autism diagnosticians established that she did. We therefore have to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims Hannah Poling displayed no symptoms of autism prior to her vaccinations.
I am offering what I think is the only logical conclusion based on *all* the medical evidence offered and also based on an email exchange with autism diagnosticians.
I find the talk on regression interesting. My daughter certainly regressed, most evident in her loss of language. But why does this have to be tied to some post natal event?
Genetic abnormalities are not always fully evident at birth. Her regression was how the autism progressed in her.
Sullivan you wrote:
“This is the ‘concession’ document—authored by the DOJ laywers representing the HHS. It is not a document of the “court’s” providing, since that would imply that it came from the Special Masters.”
You are correct, I was using a shorthand way of referring to the document. Although you also bring up a good point – the document in question was not a negotiated settlement document written by both parties or for all we know even accepted as-is by the special masters. It is written solely by the lawyers working for the government and says exactly what they wanted it to say.
“If we are to learn anything from this new insight, it is that regression does not require an “environmental insult” to occur.”
Actually I would say that if we are to learn anything from this case it is the causes of autism are not well understood and to assume that something does or does not causal relationship is premature at best.
Kev you said:
“Correlation does not equal causation.”
This is a true statement. However, where there is correlation there is a relationship. If this is a spurious correlation them it means nothing. However, if this correlation is present in a number of cases then it either means there is a causal relationship or, more likely, that there is another causal factor that is common to both. Either way it is worth investigating.
“that the Cedillo’s also genuinely believed their daughter showed no signs of autism prior to vaccination but subsequent questioning of autism diagnosticians established that she did.”
Huh? Where did you see information released by diagnosticians who examined the child?
“We therefore have to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims Hannah Poling displayed no symptoms of autism prior to her vaccinations.”
I think you meant to write that we therefore have to be denial that there is one case that demonstrates a genetic condition interacting with an environmental insult that leads to regressive autism?
Do you see a ‘familial’ relationship between cats and horses? Other than their leg count?
What you’re talking about is a coincidence – e.g. a young autistic child I know was diagnosed the day after they visited the zoo. Do zoo’s cause autism? Is it a worthy line of investigation?
I said ‘autism diagnosticians’. The Cedillo’s submitted videos showing Michelle before vaccination as evidence to support their case. Eric Fombonne (and I think one other but I can’t recall who) gave testimony that demonstrated that these same videos, coupled with medical records, demonstrated Michelle Cedillo was demonstrating *symptoms* of autism prior to her vaccinations. Autism Diva discusses the transcript (transcripts are here).
Assuming you meant *in* denial (?) No, of course not. We have to go where the logic takes us. The fact that there is vaccine damaged is uncontested by HHS. The fact that Hannah Poling is almost certainly autistic is uncontested. The idea that it was the vaccines that caused the damage that led to Hannah Poling being autistic is, based on the medical and behavioural symptoms discussed above, not logical.
Huh? Where did you see information released by diagnosticians who examined the child?
in addition to what Kev stated–there were notes in Miss Cedillo’s medical record–by her own doctors–indicating that autism was a possibility prior to the vaccines and ‘regression’
Matt
“Actually I would say that if we are to learn anything from this case it is the causes of autism are not well understood and to assume that something does or does not causal relationship is premature at best.”
You sound like a good attorney for the respondents.
Genetic abnormalities are not always fully evident at birth. Her regression was how the autism progressed in her.
That is a well-known aspect of the course of Rett’s, for example. But as you note, intuitively people seem to assume that developmental regression and genetic causes don’t go together.
“What you’re talking about is a coincidence”
Correlation != coincidence. A correlation over a sufficiently large data set indicates a relationship, just not necessarily a causal one.
“a young autistic child I know was diagnosed the day after they visited the zoo.”
Since the appointment for the diagnosis was most likely scheduled before the visit to the zoo and the parental concerns were there before as well this example is just a little silly.
However, assuming that there were no parental concerns prior to this day and that when the parents came home they saw something to be concerned about and somehow managed to get an appointment with an appropriate doctor the next day, and assuming that this happened for enough children in your sample to show a statistical correlation, then yes, it would be worth looking into.
“The Cedillo’s submitted videos showing Michelle before vaccination as evidence to support their case.”
This isn’t the Cedillo case. Therefore the “evidence” doesn’t apply to this case.
“Assuming you meant in denial”
Yes, I guess I need to proof read better. I was just finishing typing when one of my daughters decided that was the minute they needed something so I clicked the submit before I was ready.
“The idea that it was the vaccines that caused the damage that led to Hannah Poling being autistic is, based on the medical and behavioural symptoms discussed above, not logical”
It is a good thing that the court and the government had more evidence available to them to base their decision on, isn’t it?
Matt – you said :
“in addition to what Kev stated—there were notes in Miss Cedillo’s medical record—by her own doctors—indicating that autism was a possibility prior to the vaccines and ‘regression’”
I had not seen these notes, do you have a reference for them?
Joseph you said:
“That is a well-known aspect of the course of Rett’s, for example. But as you note, intuitively people seem to assume that developmental regression and genetic causes don’t go together.”
The difference being that the genetic cause of Rett’s syndrome is understood. Autism is not understood on a genetic level and so far there has been no luck to find the “smoking gun” gene even though there have been some fairly massive searches already done.
“I had not seen these notes, do you have a reference for them?”
This was discussed in the Cedillo hearing. I believe Day 6, when Dr. Fombonne was on the stand.
Except that this population is precisely 1. I think thats a good case for coincedence.
Whereas I don’t. I think its ludicrous.
Which I clearly stated in my blog entry MJ. However, I think that whilst the evidence doesn’t apply, the general idea that we need to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims Hannah Poling was not autistic prior to vaccination is valid based on the demonstrable experiences of the Cedillo’s. Even Johns Hopkins parents aren’t too good at being objective about their own kids.
More medial evidence relating to Hannah Polings symptoms? They did? Then I’ve not seen it referenced or discussed anywhere. Could you show me this? Also, neither the court, nor the gvmt made any decision in this situation.
“Except that this population is precisely 1. I think thats a good case for coincedence.”
Apparently since you keep dragging facts from the Cedillo case into the discussion the population has to be at least 2.
“think that whilst the evidence doesn’t apply, the general idea that we need to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims Hannah Poling”
How do you know that it is unsubstantiated?
“Then I’ve not seen it referenced or discussed anywhere. ”
I would assume there is more information that was filed in this case than the one document that was leaked. I believe that most of the case is still sealed by the court.
Don’t confuse a we don’t have it with it doesn’t exist.
“Also, neither the court, nor the gvmt made any decision in this situation.”
Then what was the concession if it wasn’t a decision?
That’s illogical MJ. I’m not ‘dragging facts’ at all. I’m simply saying we need to bear them in mind. However, if you want to go with a population of 2 then that’s fine by me.
Once again MJ, I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that based on all the available material, thats my conclusion. If you have anything to offer that contradicts that, then please present it.
It may be, it may not be. However, the case study discussed upthread did not form part of the court case and is an independent document. It discusses in fine detail the medical and behavioural symptoms Hannah Poling displayed. Unless you think Drs Zimmerman and Poling were lax in reporting issues I’m going to ahead and assume that in the absence of any other evidence, that thats pretty much it for medical and behavioural symptoms she displayed post-vaccination.
Don’t introduce hypothetical data and expect it to have a bearing on what has been factually reported.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a decision MJ. I said neither the court, nor the gvmt made it.
A correlation over a sufficiently large data set indicates a relationship, just not necessarily a causal one.
That’s not true. It doesn’t matter how large the data set is, a correlation is not necessarily indicative of a relationship.
“That is a well-known aspect of the course of Rett’s, for example. But as you note, intuitively people seem to assume that developmental regression and genetic causes don’t go together.”
The difference being that the genetic cause of Rett’s syndrome is understood. Autism is not understood on a genetic level and so far there has been no luck to find the “smoking gun” gene even though there have been some fairly massive searches already done.
So? Does that mean that genetic causes of autistic regression can be ruled out?
“That is a well-known aspect of the course of Rett’s, for example. But as you note, intuitively people seem to assume that developmental regression and genetic causes don’t go together.”
The difference being that the genetic cause of Rett’s syndrome is understood. Autism is not understood on a genetic level and so far there has been no luck to find the “smoking gun” gene even though there have been some fairly massive searches already done.
So? Does that mean that genetic causes of autistic regression can be ruled out?
Kev – you said :
“the general idea that we need to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims Hannah Poling”
I replied :
“How do you know that it is unsubstantiated?”
To which you replied :
“Once again MJ, I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that based on all the available material, thats my conclusion.”
You are not making sense. You that we need to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Then you say that isn’t what you are saying. Then you say that your conclusion is we need to be skeptical…
So which is it, your conclusion it is that unsubstantiated or isn’t?
You also said :
“Also, neither the court, nor the gvmt made any decision in this situation”
To which I replied :
“Then what was the concession if it wasn’t a decision?”
and you then said :
“I didn’t say it wasn’t a decision MJ. I said neither the court, nor the gvmt made it.”
Huh?
So my question is still, what is the concession and who made it? Apparently from what you are saying a concession isn’t a decision or it wasn’t made by the government?
So my question is still, what is the concession and who made it? Apparently from what you are saying a concession isn’t a decision or it wasn’t made by the government?
The concession is the document that is on David Kirby’s blog. It is a statement made through the lawyers in the DOJ that the HHS accepts liability for a vaccine injury.
The concession is not a ‘decision’. A decision is the final statement, made by the court, as to what happened and what (if any) damages are to be awarded. That hasn’t been made public yet–if it has been produced.
Matt,
“there were notes in Miss Cedillo’s medical record—by her own doctors—indicating that autism was a possibility prior to the vaccines and ‘regression’”
I think your wording implies the wrong thing. Dr. Fombonne found evidence in the medical records of signs of Autism, but I couldn’t find any note that her doctors made any notes about Autism, or voice any concerns prior to vaccination.
However, you are right about the signs in the records (starting page 1328):
1) “early social communicative abnormalities”
As a baby she was very content, very quiet, not demanding. Late in smiling (didn’t smile before 4 months). Language delay (he felt she was repeating words, not using them, and a smaller number than normal)
2) “evidence of Motor Delay”
Not sitting independently before 11 months (very late). Crawled at 9 months. Walking around 15 months (video helped here).
3) Abnormal Brain Growth as indexed by Macrocephaly
She had increasing head circumference which has been associated with Autism. Her’s was at the top of the scale or above.
Read carefully MJ. I’m saying that given all the evidence presented so far – of which I note you still cannot either respond to or contradict – *and* given the fact that nobody has actually offered any medical evidence for Hannah Poling not displaying symptoms of autism prior to vaccinations *and* given the fact that the Cedillo’s were also incorrect about their beleif their daughter had not displayed autistic symptoms prior to vaccinations we need to be skeptical of any claims which are unsubstantiated. The claim that Hannah Poling showed no signs of autism prior to vaccination is one such claim.
It is not a stone cold *fact* that their is no evidence to show Hannah Poling was or was not autistic prior to vaccination. As such we need to treat all claims that she wasn’t with skepticism.
Not quite sure what you’re finding confusing there.
See Matt’s explanation above. Hopefully you’ll find that clearer than mine.
I have to say MJ that I think you seem to be muddying the waters unnecessarily here.
Your main point of contention seem to be that:
There is more evidence that is locked up that shows more symptoms of Hannah Poling’s autism caused by vaccinations.
I would ask you to produce it or failing that, to give me an idea of why you feel the case study (an entirely separate document to any legal proceedings) performed by Zimmerman and Poling failed to document key medical evidence.
Or is there anything else that you feel is important to debate regarding how the medical evidence relating to vaccine damage relates to autism?
“I’m saying that given all the evidence presented so far”
which is known to be far from complete therefore rendering an verdict based on incomplete information is not a good idea.
“given the fact that nobody has actually offered any medical evidence for Hannah Poling not displaying symptoms of autism prior to vaccinations”
This is not true – I have seen mention of pediatricians notes saying that the child showed no signs.
Also how would you prove a lack of signs? If you have any evidence that there were any signs prior please mention them. Otherwise you cannot conclude that a lack of evidence means that one condition is true.
“given the fact that the Cedillo’s were also incorrect about their beleif their daughter had not displayed autistic symptoms prior to vaccinations”
What is the relationship between the Cedillo case and this one? Besides the simple fact of “it happened before so it could happen again” what links these two cases? This is not an sort of “evidence” that says that this is true in this case.
“of which I note you still cannot either respond to or contradict”
Which “evidence” did I miss?
“See Matt’s explanation above. Hopefully you’ll find that clearer than mine.”
That does make more sense, I was using the work decision to apply to the the government lawyer’s decision to concede the case – in this usage meaning (from answers.com) “The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one’s mind.”. I was not referring to any official decision of the court itself.
So the point still stands, the government had more information when they came to the conclusion that it was better to settle than to defend the case in court.
If they thought that there was no case or not enough evidence to prove the case they certainly would not have conceded.
“I would ask you to produce it or failing that, to give me an idea of why you feel the case study (an entirely separate document to any legal proceedings) performed by Zimmerman and Poling failed to document key medical evidence.”
Why would it? The study had a specific purpose and goal. The study was not a general dump all for the entire case history of the child.
“Or is there anything else that you feel is important to debate regarding how the medical evidence relating to vaccine damage relates to autism”
Meaning?
No, MJ, it is not _known_ to be incomplete. You _think_ it is incomplete. I see no reason to suppose it is. We are talking solely about Hannah Polings medical and behavioural symptoms here, nothing else.
Link please?
As I have been at great pains to repeatedly point out MJ, * am not saying it is* – I am saying that _taken together_ a lack of surety about Hannah Polings neurological state _prior_ to vaccination, coupled with the illustrative example of the Cedillo case showing how parents can be mistaken about their belief there were no signs of autism prior to vaccines we need to be careful.
Once more MJ, no one says it is. What it _is_ however, is a recording of the signs, symptoms that Hannah Poling underwent and/or displayed after her vaccination. That seems pretty conclusive (and inclusive) to me.
This whole thing is very simple. You and I either agree that the HHS statement coupled with the Zimmerman/Poling paper contains all of Hannah Poling’s medical symptoms following vaccination or we don’t.
If you don’t, you need to offer some reasons as to why you think that. Or move on.
This is not logical, as you pointed out here:
Then you have a diagram displaying an oversimplified table allegedly demonstrating the invalid correlation of the arguments. Yet in the very next sentence, you go ahead and make the very correlation-dependent statement that:
Why do you insist that other’s arguments be held to a higher level of analysis for logical consistency than you hold your own? The correlation you attempt is obvious–1)these children have autism (or autism-like symptoms) and have parents; 2)these parents were wrong about early signs of autism in their child; 3)parents with children that have autism (or autism-like symptoms) are wrong about early signs of autism in their children.
But you didn’t say they were wrong about Hanah’s pre-vaccination state, did you? You said that we must be skeptical of it, for the reasons stated above. Yet the argument you put forth for this skepticism relies on a correlation argument that you have just demonstrated is not logical.
I disagree. Her main point of contention in that matter seems to be that it is logically inconsistent that if this is the only evidence known and you are right that it is not sufficient to substantiate a diagnosis of autism, neither the lawyers nor the Special Masters would have come to the conclusions they came to; therefore, there must be more evidence that is not currently available.
For evidence of the fact that more information exists other than the single document leaked is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7751942875318250499
Note that their lawyer states there were two decisions handed down, the second after additional evidence was submitted showing that her seizures were also caused by her vaccinations. Therefore there is more evidence which is not covered in the original leaked document.
I do not know or have any contact with MJ, I just think you are intentionally redefining her query and that you are not rigorous in the analysis of your own arguments before stating them.
Respectfully,
Brian
_”Yet the argument you put forth for this skepticism relies on a correlation argument that you have just demonstrated is not logical.”_
Not at all. In the absence of firm evidence one should _always_ be skeptical. I am not suggesting that the Cedillo case has any correlation whatsoever to the Poling case. I am saying that in one case there is no firm evidence that a child was not autistic pre-vaccine administration and that in another there was no evidence but the parents were positive there child was not autistic pre-vaccine administration.
Therefore in the absence of any firm evidence we need to be skeptical. The experience of the Cedillo’s is merely an interesting aside which has a related point. It doesn’t illustrate the exact same point at all.
_”Her main point of contention in that matter seems to be that it is logically inconsistent that if this is the only evidence known and you are right that it is not sufficient to substantiate a diagnosis of autism, neither the lawyers nor the Special Masters would have come to the conclusions they came to; therefore, there must be more evidence that is not currently available.”_
The lawyers (by whom I assume you mean the HHS team?) effectively pled no contest to vaccine damage. The contention is – did the vaccine damage cause the autism? That has not been suggested by HHS. Special Masters have come to no conclusion whatsoever beyond accepting the report of the HHS.
If there is additional evidence that illustrates that her vaccines caused seizures then that is interesting but in terms of autism causation, meaningless. Beyond that, it is entirely speculative what _might_ be in this document. Lets wait and see.
You might further note that the case study by Zimmerman and Poling was not limited to either autism or seizures or any particular medical condition. It simply listed all medical symptoms that they felt were caused by her vaccines. As I stated, they cannot – either individually or together – be enough to offer a diagnosis of autism according to DSM (IV).
Well then, we must agree to disagree, as your skepticism is admittedly based on no more than a hunch, although you seem to go to great lengths to disguise that fact. If one says, as you do, that
it seems that you are saying although there’s no correlation the similarities between the two situations bear notice, as this is the only reason that you have painstakingly given each time the matter of Hanah Polings pre-vaccination condition is brought up.
“Which has a related point”…well then, what is correlation, anyway? From Merriam-Webster:
Fact: “coupled with” is a term of correlation.
Fact: your correlation argument is by your own statements not logical. As you are quick to admonish: “Don’t introduce hypothetical data and expect it to have a bearing on what has been factually reported.”
If there is no correlation then you must admit that there is no greater likelihood that Hanah’s parents are wrong about her pre-vaccination condition than that they are right about her pre-vaccination condition, because as you have stated several times, there is an “absence of firm evidence” showing Hanah’s pre-vaccination condition. If there is a correlation, then you must admit that the argument is false.
To suggest otherwise puts one on the steep side of a very slippery slope; from such a position one could argue that because there is no firm evidence that your blog is not underwritten by the pharmaceutical companies, one must be very skeptical should you try to make a statement denying that it is. Of course, such a statement is ridiculous, as is your admonition that we should or must be skeptical regarding Hanah’s pre-vaccination condition.
Respectfully,
Brian
_”f there is no correlation then you must admit that there is no greater likelihood that Hanah’s parents are wrong about her pre-vaccination condition than that they are right about her pre-vaccination condition,”_
*sigh*
That’s exactly what I am saying. Step away from the dictionary my friend 🙂
That’s exactly what you were saying? Then your admonition of caution on the basis of a lack of evidence is really nothing but speculation, and is on its face illogical. You seem to have little tolerance for these kinds of statements when they come from others, but you use them yourself. I’m curious. What is your purpose in recommending such an illogical and meaningless consideration?
Sigh all you like, my friend, but your condescension does not obscure the nature of your arguments.
Respectfully,
Brian