OK, I am watching this closely enough that I read the small updates.
This one discusses a number of small topics.
First, evidence and all arguments are now complete for the First Theory of Causation. This is the theory argued last year in the Cedillo, Hazelhurst and Snyder cases. The theory there was that thimerosal plus the MMR vaccine combine to cause autism.
There was some delay as the petitioner’s lawyers (PSC) attempted to get some documents from the UK. It appears that there was a low likelyhood of that ever happening, so the PSC dropped the request (ceased efforts in that regard).
What does this mean? It means the Special Masters (SM’s) have all the information that they are going to get. They have already spent a lot of time analyzing what they have, and they expect to make a “detailed written ruling as soon as possible”.
Second is an update on the Second Theory of Causation. That is the theory that thimerosal alone can cause autism. This was mostly a summary of the fact that two of the specific cases (King and Mead) have been heard this May and that the third specific case (Dwyer) will be heard later this month.
Third, is the, well, Third Theory of Causation. This is the theory that MMR alone causes autism. As near as I can see, this is in a bit of a limbo right now. The PSC was supposed to submit expert reports and prepare for specific cases in September. However, there have been motions stating that there is no new general causation evidence. The evidence would be the same as for the First Theory hearings held last year. The Special Masters appear to be still working on how to respond to those motions.
Another update was submitted recently. This is a strange one. There was discussion during the May hearings (on the thimerosal theory) that two more respondent (i.e. government side) expert witnesses would give general testimony (in person and/or by expert report) in the July hearing (Dwyer). Those were to be Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos. The PSC wanted to put Dr. Aposhian on to rebut their testimony. All well and good. Except that the Respondent’s decided to pull the expert reports by Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos. The PSC then said that they still wanted to put Dr. Aposhian on to rebut other testimony. Still following? Well, the SM’s said that since Dr. Aposhian was only on there to rebut the Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos, he couldn’t go on if they didn’t.
Now, I expect this to draw a lot of speculation. People will be claiming that for some reason the DoJ was afraid of what Aposhian had to say, to the point of scuttling their own witnesses. I expect this from the internet, because, well, that’s the sort of thing that happens here. But, there is this bit in the Omnibus update:
Mr. Powers then stated that the petitioners might wish to file a motion requesting that certain unspecified inferences be drawn from the respondent’s decision to withdraw the reports of Drs. Magos and Clarkson. As we noted during the conference, we will certainly consider any such motion
So, the PSC want to “draw inferences” from this action. As I said, I expect that from the internet. I was a little surprised to see it from the lawyers in this case. (I may surprise easily)
There is something of substance in this: general testimony for the Second Theory is over. No more expert witnesses talking about the general idea that thimerosal causes autism. There will be a few days of testimony about one more of the Petitioners (Dwyer), but it is supposed to center only on the details of his case.
(note: a few small edits were added about my surprise in the request for ‘inferences’)
Left Brain Right Brain 
Well, given that the drug companies were falling over themselves to put up their UK expert witnesses in the US, and have made specific applications in the UK to get O’Leary’s alleged evidence of persistent measles virus released to the US courts (opposed by O’Leary and by anti-vaccine litigant-campaigners), I think it’s pretty clear why the UK evidence is no longer expected.
okay, I’m confused….
how can the information from the first be used for the 2nd and third? one is thimerosal and mmr, one is thimerosal only, one is mmr only. Wouldn’t for the latter two, you need an either/or situation. someone that had a thimerosal vaccine but no mmr and vice versa for the next??? nevermind, this is the courts we’re talking about…
Navi,
I’ll take a stab at answering.
The idea in the first causation was that these folks had normal babies who had their immune systems suppressed by vaccines containing tiny beensy amounts of thimerosal (which gets cleared from babies quickly and doesn’t suppress anyone’s immune system). There was no evidence that any of the cases discussed actually had impaired immune systems, though the PSC bravely tried to give that impression.
So that these kids with the supposed bad immune systems (that were working just fine) got the MMR and the MMR did various and sundry poorly defined **bad things** to the kids and they then descended into the hell that is autism. Never mind that the records showed that the kids were showing signs of autism from long before the MMR. Never mind the fact that Yates Hazlehurst looks like he has a head larger than either of his parents (my obsevation from looking at photographs of the family). Never mind that Michelle Cedillo had her large head size documented from very early in her infancy.
The idea though is that they could take the evidence from the MMR + thimerosal portion and use it to support the MMR alone “theory”. So in that case, those kids who never got any thimerosal containing vaccines (I suppose) could still get autism from just the MMR because MMR is just plain the “autism shot” and that’s it.
Never mind that their ideas for how measles in the MMR could actually cause autism in a toddler had no (zero) scientific backing. Never mind that O’Leary has basically admitted that his lab was bogus. Never mind that his lab never found any measles virus in any kid’s biopsies, ever. Never mind that the lab was run in such a way that it was “finding” measles virus in samples that were specifically known to be virus free?
And never mind Rick Rollens and the MIND Institute’s involvement in the O’Leary lab fallout… and the subsequent non-disclosure of data, see the court transcripts where they talk about Rollens and the measles-in-the-mouse-model expert.
Navi,
they aren’t going to use the “First Theory” (MMR plus thimerosal) testimony on the “Second Theory” (thimerosal alone). They are considering using it towards the “Third Theory” (MMR alone).
The first theory was that thimerosal reduces the immune system giving the MMR a better chance to cause autism. The “third theory” would be that for some individuals, MMR alone can cause autism.
I don’t think they made the case for MMR being able to cause autism, so with or without thimerosal, I think the MMR theories are in trouble.
It still does not make sense to me why the respondents would pull Dr.s Clarkson’s and Magos’ testimonies. There is speculation abound and I would like to hear an objective accounting.