A step closer to ‘transparancy’ in Hannah Poling v. HHS?

24 Jun

For right or wrong, better or worse, the Hannah Poling case is being closely watched by the autism community. Recently, much of the discussion has centered on the fact that we don’t have a lot of the details.

Back in April, the court released a document detailing some of the discussions involving the release of information. You can read about it in the document and in Kev’s blog post about it. But, it seems to boil down to

1) the Polings would like the government’s expert reports made public. If that happened, the Poling’s would release their daughter’s medial records, but only for the HHS to discuss. The medical records would not in themselves be made public.

2) The HHS would like ” to disclose medical information regarding this case* in order for the Secretary to address inaccurate statements that were being made publicly concerning respondent’s position in this case.”

3) The Special Master (judge) notes that since the government’s expert reports have already been released to the public (in one case, posted in full on the internet), the question of making them public is moot.

The Special Master deferred ruling on the question (“styled as a motion for complete transparancy” by the Polings) until June 9. That date has come and gone. Nothing has been made public from either side as far as I can tell. However, on June 12, the following entry was made in the Hannah Poling Docket:

MEDICAL RECORDS [Exhibit(s) #73?78] filed by TERRY POLING. (Attachments: # 1 Index, # 2 Exhibit EXH73, # 3 Exhibit EXH74, # 4 Exhibit EXH75, # 5 Exhibit EXH76?1, # 6 Exhibit EXH76?2, # 7 Exhibit EXH77, # 8 Exhibit EXH78)(Shoemaker, Clifford) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

Hannah Poling’s medical records have been turned over, apparantly for the HHS to review. Based on the docket, it appears that HHS up until now has only had the expert reports as reference [edit: note comments below and another post–the previous statement was incorrect]

I hope that if not “complete transparancy”, at least “some transparency” will be forthcoming in this case.

21 Responses to “A step closer to ‘transparancy’ in Hannah Poling v. HHS?”

  1. lacshmiybarra June 25, 2008 at 01:43 #

    Sullivan,

    In order for the government to even look at any vaccine case records, let alone concede the case, the medical records had to be “complete.” That means the government had all the medical records and reviewed them prior to any concession.

    The case is not over. It is in damages. The exhibits titled medical records are likely submission of ongoing medical treatment which will continue until the case is resolved.

    The chance of the release of Hannah’s medical records to the public is slim. Had there been a court hearing, the documents that were relevant to the case would have been introduced with all personal or incidental information redacted (blocked). Even still, this information while being discussed during the trial and possibly read (minus any redactions), would not have been available (as a document) to the public. Many people on both sides of the fence have their minds made up. It would not matter what facts or information they were given, their minds would not change. That is easily demonstrated by reviewing all the talk and analysis about this case with little to no facts.

  2. Sullivan June 25, 2008 at 02:46 #

    In order for the government to even look at any vaccine case records, let alone concede the case, the medical records had to be “complete.” That means the government had all the medical records and reviewed them prior to any concession.

    Thank you. That’s very good information to know.

    The case is not over. It is in damages. The exhibits titled medical records are likely submission of ongoing medical treatment which will continue until the case is resolved.

    Sorry if the post made it seem any different. The docket is pretty clear that it is still in damages phase.

    The chance of the release of Hannah’s medical records to the public is slim. Had there been a court hearing, the documents that were relevant to the case would have been introduced with all personal or incidental information redacted (blocked). Even still, this information while being discussed during the trial and possibly read (minus any redactions), would not have been available (as a document) to the public. Many people on both sides of the fence have their minds made up.

    I believe that had this gone to court outisde the omnibus, only the decision would have been public. Had it gone through the Omnibus, the expert report from the petitioner (from Dr. Zimmerman, if the information from the rule 4(c) report on Mr. Kirby’s website is correct) would have been made public–or, possibly a secondary expert report made specifically for the Omnibus would have been prepared. Either way, the medical records themselves would not have been made public.

    Many people on both sides of the fence have their minds made up. It would not matter what facts or information they were given, their minds would not change. That is easily demonstrated by reviewing all the talk and analysis about this case with little to no facts.

    This is an unfortunate consequence of the high profile this case was given before the actual information could be made public.

    It is also an unfortunate consequence of the nature of the autism community right now. To use only one side as one example, not matter what the details of the case are, some people would slap a quick “mercury” label on it and move on.

    It is a very unfortunate consequence of this that Mr. Kirby sent everyone off on the “google mitochondria and mercury” goose chase. It is very unfortunate that Mr. Kirby, with his extremely limited science background, was chosen as the sole conduit for this information. In fact, it is very unfortunate that any ‘sole conduit’ was chosen.

    But, back to the subject at hand: mitochondrial medicine is such a specialty field that true “public” release of the information is likely not going to educate many.

    On the other hand, there are doctors reaching out for better information on this. Worse, there are doctors making decisions on the scant information available, doctors who under the best of conditions don’t have the specialty training to approach this properly.

    To bring back the last line:

    That is easily demonstrated by reviewing all the talk and analysis about this case with little to no facts.

    What was supposed to happen? A big splash was made in the press for a few weeks on this case. Of course there was going to be a lot of talk and analysis. Some people were going to dig deeper than others, some much deeper, but many were going to go on what was in the few press reports and the interpretation of a blogger favored by the petitioner. The fact that people are working with so little information isn’t the fault of the public.

  3. Sullivan June 26, 2008 at 00:06 #

    There is a lot of speculation on the internet that this case was conceded by HHS in order to pull the mitochondrial quesiton out of the Omnibus. The argument goes that the mitochondrial angle was going to be critical to the case.

    However in an interview with PSC attorney Tom Powers soon after the concession, this statement was made:

    When I questioned Mr. Powers about whether this was a possible break in the case, he replied that the particular case dealt with a claimant who had a diagnosed mitochondrial disorder. As a result, it probably won’t have much of an effect on the other cases.

    Also, as has been noted on the gmwm.autistics.org blog, the expert reports for the other children in this case did not emphasize mitochondrial dysfunction at all. Now that those segments of the trial have passed, we know that this wasn’t a part of the cases for those children.

    One must ask, what was Hannah Poling doing as a part of the PSC’s case?

  4. lacshmiybarra June 27, 2008 at 00:42 #

    “One must ask, what was Hannah Poling doing as a part of the PSC’s case?”

    That is a very good question. While this is merely a guess, one reason may be quite simple; she had been diagnosed with autism. There were probably a significant number of cases by then all claiming to have regressive autism after receiving a vaccine and they all went into the Omnibus, sitting for quietly for years.

    Perhaps after reviewing her records, the facts made it a difficult prospect to dispute a connection (with or without the mitochondrial disorder) and so she was put in as a test case.

    If only we could be flies on the wall!

  5. Ms. Clark June 27, 2008 at 02:09 #

    Yeah, but Hannah’s parents knew that she had a mito condition. It seems like if her lawyers were doing their jobs they’d have pulled her case out and presented it alone years before. As it was as soon as they got close to the time for the omnibus, and the HHS looked at the case, it looked practically slam dunk. So the parents, though perhaps they have no need for any extra money at all, went a few years waiting when they could have been being compensated.

    I’d like to know what they were thinking. I wonder if they thought that their daughter’s case was going to somehow support all the other cases?

    If they did, that was just silly.

    They don’t even make a good case for the antivax extremists since Hannah’s mom has said that she knew that a wild-type case of measles would have done the exact same thing to her daughter (create a mitochondrial crisis that would induce an encephalopathy).

    I wonder what the parents think about their using chelators on a mito kid.

    I mean that really could not have been a good idea. Especially if they were chelating her based on misleading lab results.

    I personally wonder if the “biomed” that Hannah got was responsible for her seizures. If so then the HHS should never have considered compensating Hannah and her parents for the seizures (that developed quite a bit later on, after the biomeddling had been done, as I understand it).

    Hannah Poling was supposed to usher in a new era or something wasn’t she?

    I’m not seeing it. Are you?

  6. lacshmiybarra June 27, 2008 at 16:32 #

    One thought I have is that mitochondrial disease/disorder has not been well understood by the majority of the medical community. Accordingly, it would be unlikely that physicians typically used as experts in medical cases would be able to speak to that issue. Finding the appropriate expert to testify in a general causation (versus individual cases) as to that issue may not be an easy task.

    The same would be true of a pediatrician examining a child. The chances of the pediatrician recognizing a potential mitochondrial problem are not great. For this reason, many or most children with unexplained regression in development or unusual medical symptoms may not get the appropriate referrals.

    Perhaps if the Hannah Poling case does anything for others, it opened the door to a biological explanation for the regression of some children later diagnosed as autistic.

    For example, if a number of children do, in fact, have a genetic propensity for mitochondrial dysfunction, they would theoretically be prone to increased energy requirements beyond their ability at times of increased stress. This stress, theorectically could be during any acute illness or disease at any time in their life. Fever, in and of itself causes in increase in energy demands.
    With respect to the vaccine issue: I think this case may point out an important point when vaccinating children with Mito disorders. First, the rapid brain development during the first two years of life requires an inordinate amount of energy. Next, most children are exposed to the usual stomach flu’s, colds, and other viruses just living in a community. This further increases energy demands. Finally, during this same two years, if a mito kid or a kid with a genetic susceptibility to mito dysfunction, has a large number of vaccinations which causes a major increase in energy demands by revving up the immune system (and potentially causing a fever which further increases energy demands) it is easy to see that energy demands can exceed energy capabilities. These factors in a susceptible individual, can lead to an encephalopathy.
    We cannot eliminate the developing brain’s massive energy requirements during the first two years of life (one of the reasons for all that sleeping). We can try to control but probably cannot completely eliminate an infant and toddler’s exposure to the various community viruses, including of course, infectious diseases. The only thing that we can control is the timing of the vaccination of these susceptible children so that their systems are not bombarded with increased energy demands.
    Children with mitochondrial dysfunction may not be able to handle all of the above in the first two years of life. Perhaps they only have enough energy to sustain appropriate brain development. I do not think anyone knows what the threshold is for any one individual.
    The question remains however, how do you know who has mito or susceptibility ahead of time? It seems that the government entities are looking at that question and are going to make attempts to answer it. That can only be a positive step forward.

    With respect to the mito child being exposed to a disease causing the same regression or deteriorating in health, medical opinion seems to be that it certainly can. We can assume that a live attenuated vaccine would be less potent (or harmful) than the actual disease. However, it may be more prudent to expose such a child to only one infectious disease (especially a live disease such as measles or chicken pox) at a time, with plenty of time to recover in between.

  7. Ms. Clark June 27, 2008 at 21:19 #

    The real-world fact is that public health must be cared for on the basis of n=thousands or n=hundreds-of-thousands not n=1.

    The best bet for **all** children, including all mito-problem or mito-disordered children is to keep the herd immunity up as high as possible.

    We can’t do this by being terrified of giving multiple vaccines to a child who appears normal.

    The other thing is that “sudden regressions” are very rare. They are extremely rare.

    The typical “regression” takes place over months and was preceded by obviously not-normal development.

    Most regressions are not precipitous and so can not and do not suddenly follow anything.

    Therefore, they can not and do not suddenly follow a vaccination.

    I think if there ever was a case of a child suddenly regressing following a vaccine one might investigate to see if the child had a mitochondrial disorder.

    Odds are the kid wouldn’t, but it’s possible.

    The mitochondria experts, to my knowledge are not indicating that multiple vaccines ramp up a child’s immune system to a degree that it can cause a mitochondrial crisis.

    I believe this is a scenario cooked up by Hannah Poling’s lawyer, but I’ll stand corrected if you can show me that the mito disease/disorder organizations are now recommending that their kids get a different set of vaccines.

    Every vaccine that is delayed leaves a child open to infection from the more virulent wild-type version of that disease. It makes no sense to leave these kids vulnerable a day longer than is necessary.

    Right? And the Polings ought to be begging parents to keep up the herd immunity for all the kids who have mito problems and are as yet unvaxed… as well as asking people to be careful and wash their hands after using the bathroom, cover their mouths and noses when they sneeze if they have colds… don’t feed their kids food with salmonella in it…

    There is a myth out there that the kids in the omnibus **all** were ultra normal, uber-normal, perfectly developing kids who got a vaccine or vaccines some time near 18 months and the next day were drooling/head banging/feces smearing/non-verbal/rocking/pacing autistic monsters.

    This is not true. It wasn’t true in the case of even one of the kids that were used for test cases in the omnibus. It wasn’t true for Hannah Poling, whose father says it was like a “dimmer” was being turned down on his daughter over a period of months. I think he said that on Larry King, but I don’t remember where.

    If the “dimmer” was being turned down over a period of months then there is no reason to think that it must be the vaccines that precipitated this prolonged dimming. We have no idea what else happened in Hannah’s life before or after the vaccines that might have been the real cause of this “dimming”.

    And Hannah’s records do not show that she was all perfectly healthy before the vaccines. Far from it. She was a sickly child.

    My kids never ever had ear infections and had colds etc the same as other kids but they bounced back quickly. I’m not sure my kids ever had diarrhea, I don’t remember it if they did.

    Hannah on the other hand had lots of diarrhea before the vaccines. She had some kind of food intolerance. They say diarrhea can trigger a mito-crisis. So maybe it was all that diarrhea that really caused Hannah’s regression.

    Of course, there’s no one to sue if Hannah’s regression was caused by something other than vaccines.

    And if it’s other than vaccines then the antivaxers can no longer use the Polings situation to terrify people away from all vaccines. And then the Polings would no longer be used as the saints and heroes that they are now by the antivax brigade.

  8. Sullivan June 27, 2008 at 22:11 #

    I think the statement about the lack of experts in this field is well taken. It does make one wonder why Dr. Geier was called upon to submit an expert report.

    One question in the back of my mind is this: Most of the children in the Oliveira study did not undergo regression. Similarly for the children in the other existing studies on mitochondria/autism.

    Which leads to the actual question: are they a different subset of kids than the 30 kids in the as-yet published paper that includes Hannah Poling or, similar but missed the regression?

    The energy needs of sustaining a fever are substantial. I will admit I do not have a good feeling for the energy needs required to mount the other parts of an immune response. However, given the nature of the institute involved with the 30 kid subset, I would expect at least some discussion of inflamation.

    The only thing that we can control is the timing of the vaccination of these susceptible children so that their systems are not bombarded with increased energy demands.

    You keep talking about the “first two years of life”. I realize that this is a single comment pulled out of what must be a large expert report, but Dr. Kelley is quoted as writing:

    He 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.

    It does appear that the timeing is important. That the regressions for this subset of kids occur not during the first year, but the second year.

    Another question has to do with all the other individuals with mitochondrial disease/disorders/dysfunction that have been studied so far. Mitochondria specialists seem very intent on vaccinating to protect energy challenged individuals from potentially deadly infections.

    Is this based on experience? Or, more precisely, a lack of experience of seeing reactions to immunizations in their patients? That is an even larger body of existing patients to learn from.

    It appears that even in cases where the energy challenged individual is considered at risk for vaccination, healthy siblings are strongly encouraged to vaccinate.

  9. brian June 27, 2008 at 23:03 #

    It’s important to consider whether mitochondrial disease is typically independent of autism or is sometimes another aspect of the overall condition. Rett’s syndrome demonstrates that, at least sometimes, it might be the latter case.

    Rett’s syndrome involves aberrant regulation of various genes that are affected by changes in the methyl CpG binding protein 2 (MECP2). MECP2 is a transcriptional repressor, affects gene splicing, and interacts with at least one other regulatory protein to affect expression of genes in the developing brain; among these is a mitochodrial gene. This may explain why, in addition to significant neurological deterioration after months of apparently normal development, children with Rett’s syndrome have also been reported to have mitochonrial defects.

    Significantly reduced MECP2 expression is apparently frequent in the frontal cortex of brains from autistic individuals: this was found in 11 of 14 brains compared to age-matched controls. (Epigenetics. 2006; 1(4):172-182) It is worth considering if autism, which may often involve aberrant MECP2 distribution, may also sometimes involve aberrant mitochondrial function as part of the overall syndrome. In such cases, the child would not “become” autistic because of the mitochondrial defect, the child would have a miochondrial defect because of the genetic change that caused autism.

  10. Sullivan June 27, 2008 at 23:24 #

    In such cases, the child would not “become” autistic because of the mitochondrial defect, the child would have a miochondrial defect because of the genetic change that caused autism.

    it is an interesting question, I think especially given that many of the people identified with “markers” in Oliveria’s study didn’t have confirmed disorders.

    As to one of the questions I made above, it was just answered in a NYT article that I expect to splash around the internet shortly:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/health/28vaccine.html

    The statement:

    “After caring for hundreds of children with mitochondrial disease, I can’t recall a single one that had a complication from vaccination,” said Dr. Darryl De Vivo, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Columbia University who will present at Sunday’s meeting and is one of the field’s premier experts.

  11. lacshmiybarra June 28, 2008 at 03:23 #

    After the age of 18 months, until recently, there were next to no vaccines given to the child (except a booster between the age 4 or 6). So, saying they never saw a regression due to a vaccine is probably true. If there ever was a regression from a vaccine, it was likely prior to the diagnosis of MD.

    The case now has raised some interesting questions and the UMDF would like some solid answers. For example, it is largely agreed (although I do not believe it has been studied) that infection and fever can cause regression in MD. From this fact it was theorized (again not tested), that vaccination would be preferable to a potentially devastating disease. It was likely (but not obviously) considered that vaccination itself may pose a problem for such children (by inducing fever or revving up the immune system beyond the persons energy capacity). What was not considered was the number of vaccines that are in the schedule and continue to increase in number… five to nine infectious diseases at one time and what that might do to child with diminished energy producing capabilities. That is a question that must be answered in this population of children.

    With respect to the comment that vaccination for all children is best for all children, that is merely a public health statement not a true statement. For this reason and in light of what I said above, I will not engage in discussion over that.

    As far as regression being rare, I cannot speak to that. I can say that mitochondrial dysfunction and autism was said to be rare and there are some who claim it is not. That remains to be seen as only a few have bothered to look. The point being, we need further study.

    With respect to Dr. Poling’s “light switch” analogy, it made perfect sense. The diagnosis of autism is merely an observation of certain behavioral symptoms, still not currently considered an actual “medical diagnosis.” So, for example, if a child had an acute encephalopathy, (immediate evidence of brain injury such as decreased level of responsiveness, irritability, high-pitched screaming, fever, hypotonia, etc), this would be the “light switch” analogy. At that point, it would not be “autism” by DSM-IV R definition as the child would likely be deemed to ill to warrant any kind of mental diagnosis under such circumstances.

    An acute encephalopathy however, becomes a chronic encephalopathy if the brain injury continues beyond six months. This would be analgous to the “dimmer switch” period. In other words, the acute event is over but the brain inflammation/injury continues and has become chronic. During this period of time, one sees further deterioration (regression) in brain functioning including, language processing and communication, motor skills and tone, failure to thrive (in some cases). These symptoms can now manifest in behaviors that fit the diagnosis of autism.

    Many or most pediatricians are not experts in observing either regression and/or deviations from normal infant toddler development. What makes it more problematic is, that regression is easy to see in an adult or a child who has developed speech and language and motor skills. It is much harder to observe with certainty in an infant or toddler.

  12. Ms. Clark June 28, 2008 at 04:25 #

    Lachmiybarra wrote:
    “five to nine infectious diseases at one time and what that might do to child with diminished energy producing capabilities. That is a question that must be answered in this population of children.

    With respect to the comment that vaccination for all children is best for all children, that is merely a public health statement not a true statement.”

    Your statement regarding “5 to 10 infectious diseases at one time” makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like the kind of thing that antivaxers say. It’s scary. They want to scare people away from vaccines. I think making statements like this is like pointing a gun into the air above a crowd and shooting it, myself. Or like driving a car drunk. I think it’s dangerous and irresponsible, not to mention heartless.

    Of course, vaccines are mainly for “infectious diseases” they aren’t for non-infectious diseases are they? Like they aren’t for cancer caused by radiation, they aren’t for Parkinson’s disease are they? Not unless someone finds that a virus causes Parkinson’s.

    And if the implication of your statement that the vaccines are about “…infectious diseases” is that they all contain live viruses, well that’s just ridiculous.

    I don’t see any evidence that getting multiple vaccines “ramps up the immune system” any more than all the bacteria and viruses, of unpredictable virulence, a kid is exposed to every day at totally unmeasured doses “ramps up” the immune system.

    Public health is MY health, and public health is MY children’s health, and my elderly mother’s health, and my friends’ health, and their kids’ health, Mr. or Mrs. Lachsmiybarra. Public health statements are not lies just because you don’t like them and they don’t favor tin-foil hat conspiracy type views and they don’t favor antivax leaning thinkers.

  13. lacshmiybarra June 28, 2008 at 06:04 #

    I am sorry Ms. Clark but your comments do not make any sense- whatsoever. What are you talking about? What, pray tell, is an antivax leaner?

    Do you actually even know the purpose of vaccination?

    Do you have the foggiest idea what the theoretical mechanism of action is?

    I have read some of your posts and unlike other posters who seem to be trying to understand what is going on, I have to say you spend more time ranting and raving than you do making sense.

    Rant and rave if you must but at least sound coherent when you do it. Why don’t you take a deep breath, get a grip and go do some basic research before you spout off that nonsense of yours.

  14. Ms. Clark June 28, 2008 at 07:14 #

    Lachshmiybarra,

    Insulting me is one way to dodge my points, but I have pretty thick skin… so insulting me only wastes space here in the comment section.

    I would guess that you know full well what an “antivax leaner” is. Feigning ignorance doesn’t give your argument more weight, it does the opposite. Here I’ll reword it in third-grade level English- **a person with antivaccine leanings**. Is that better?

    There is no reason to change the vaccine schedule. There is no reason to think that multiple vaccines in one day are any more a threat to the “energy challenged” child than all those nasty wild-type germs out there.

    One could make the argument that children should be vaccinated earlier so that all the mito kids will be well covered as they enter their apparently critical period of susceptibility to infection.

    Once again, I find the Polings behavior to be hideous and illogical. They should be encouraging, no, begging, parents to vaccinate their kids on the CDC schedule, unless their pediatricians know of a reason that they should not be vaccinated on that schedule, because the fewer circulating “bugs” the safer the vulnerable people in the population will be, including other “Hannah Polings” out there.

    Instead the Polings are bashing vaccines at every opportunity while maintaining a veil of respectability (you know that Doc Poling had intended to be a DAN! doctor, don’t you?) and giving lip service to their support for vaccines, in theory, but not in practice.

    When I hear virologists and public health experts say that the vaccine schedule we have is actually making more children sick than it is saving and helping, then I’ll think that it’s time to remove a vaccine or vaccines.

    As it is they just added a rotavirus vaccine and it has helped many babies to avoid ending up in the hospital. So adding another vaccine to the schedule made babies healthier.

    I realize that some people might prefer to see babies die or be hospitalized and further spread rotavirus, all natural like, but I for one would not like to see that. I’d prefer to see more children get vaccinated and prevent the disease.

  15. lacshmiybarra June 28, 2008 at 15:33 #

    Ms. Clark,
    I will finish this because instead of intelligent discussion with the others, I am wasting my time with someone who can only have temper tantrums when things do not go her way or someone does not agree with her. Perhaps you should ask yourself what exactly you are looking for when you make the comments you do. It seems to me you get satisfaction only when you are cruel. Hopefully I am wrong but it is suspiciously similar to a person with NPD.

    I recommend getting some help controlling yourself. Your viscious hatred toward a family I suspect you don’t even know is appalling. I do hope you practice some degree of restraint in your opinions of others outside of cyberspace. Otherwise, I have the strong feeling you might be a very lonely person without the internet. For this, I am sorry for you.

    As to the others I was interacting with, your discussions are provocative and interesting. I am sorry that I will not be able to read them. Good luck in your quest to figure out this maze of the last year.

  16. Sullivan June 28, 2008 at 17:19 #

    lacshmiybarra-

    Sorry to see you go. I appreciated your corrections. Should you by chance pop in and see something that you feel is in error, you can contact me directly at:

    sullivansjourney@gmail.com

    I would have been interested in you view on one question–can fever and immune response be truly separate? At the basic level, fever is an immune response. On a second level, a fever will change the body chemistry. A person’s body, especially the brain, works in a very narrow temperature range. Less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit separates ‘healthy’ from damage. Can one talk about the “immune response” without including he environment, which includes the temperature?

  17. daedalus2u June 28, 2008 at 20:18 #

    I have finally posted my blog about how acute immune stimulation can cause mitochondria dysfunction.

    http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2008/06/mechanism-for-mitochondria-failure.html

    There is nothing special about vaccines, any sufficiently severe immune system activation will do it. The multiple organ failure and death during sepsis is due to mitochondrial failure.

    It has nothing to do with toxins, it is a completely natural consequence of a normal immune system acting on normal mitochondria.

  18. alyric June 28, 2008 at 21:59 #

    Is there an epidemic of broadcasting nasty statements when disagreed with going on here?

    This Lachsmi person sure has some nerve spouting ‘intelligent discussion’ followed immediately by accusations of temper tantrums, visciousness and finishing up with NPD. My, how intelligent!.

    Ms Clarke, she is not an anti-vaxxer I don’t think (well she could be I suppose), merely ignorant of antigen dosages in vaccines.

    So glad you have a thick skin. I appear to be moulting:) And thanks for the fantastic job you folks did in San Diego. Did us all proud.

  19. Ms. Clark June 29, 2008 at 03:27 #

    I guess it’s OK for Lachsmiyberra to equate “public health statements” with “lies” as if there is no such thing as truth when it comes to public health. So long as Lachshmiyberra couches insults and attacks in “polite” language, then no one is supposed to get upset?

    I notice that she/he never did address my points, there was just lots of “harumph” “you’re too stupid” and “how dare you” statements.

    I suppose mentioning the success of the new rotavirus vaccine was enough to push her/him over the edge into passive agressive, go for the jugular mode. Followed by the dramatic sulk out the door.

    I think that’s called blowing smoke.

    I still would like to know about the Polings chelating a 2 year old and what other extreme or questionable “biomed” that little girl was exposed to while her parents were messing about with DAN! protocols or whatever they were doing.

    I’d love to see if her seizures followed immediately on the heals of being chelated or given high doses of some vitamin.

    But I guess wondering about those things that Ms. Poling has said are true (the chelation, the diarrhea, etc.) is equivalent of “hating” the Polings.

  20. alyric June 29, 2008 at 20:33 #

    Yes, well. I wonder what the mito experts would have to say about chelating a child with mitochondrial disorder. How much stress does that put on the body? I’m a bit stunned actually that such a metabolically compromised small person would be subjected to anything physiologically stressful. And noting that other mito kids have not reacted to vaccines at all, perhaps chelation is a much more stressful procedure than vaccines, certainly much more painful. Would definitely like to put that question to an expert.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autism Blog - Poling Transparancy: correction | Left Brain/Right Brain - July 6, 2008

    […] a previous post, I commented (erroneously) that the HHS conceded the Hannah Poling case based on the expert reports […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: