Andrew Zimmerman Finally Speaks

24 Mar

A year ago I tried to talk to Andrew Zimmerman about the Hannah Poling case and 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 in the year that has followed the Polings have not allowed Zimmerman to publicly comment once. Now I’m beginning to understand why.

Sullivan told me that yesterday the Expert Witness reports for the Respondents were made public and that Zimmermans was eyebrow raising to say the least.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of an association between autism andthe alleged reaction to MMR a nd Hg, and it is more likely than not, that there is a genetic basis for autism in this child.”

“Michelle Cedillo’s developmental regression was likely to have been
preprogrammed before birth to emerge, as it does in Rett syndrome, long after birth.”

“Autism, in most cases, begins before birth, and the maternal
“environment” in the womb is likely to be important in the process.”

“there is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism.”

“Autism is primarily a genetically determined disorder.” There is a
hypothetical basis, but very limited evidence, for environmental factors
(such as stress or the drug terbutalinel l) that may act together with
an individual’s genetic susceptibility to increase the risk of autism.
There is strong evidence that the origins of autism begin before birth,
based on genetic and anatomical studies as well as chemical findings at birth in children who go on to develop autism. The usual time
period when autism appears and is diagnosed during the 2nd and 3′” years of life reflects the dynamic nature of the child’s developing brain and the appearance of pre-programmed disordered expression of genes and preexisting cellular abnormalities that result in the child’s regression with loss of language and social skills.”

Recall once more that this is the man – along with Jon Poling himself and along with John Shoffner (who also doesn’t think much of Polings beliefs) who co-authored the only piece of science performed on Hannah Poling.

No wonder the Poling’s were so keen to keep Zimmerman quiet.

Thanks to Sullivan for some of this.

83 Responses to “Andrew Zimmerman Finally Speaks”

  1. Sullivan March 24, 2009 at 21:26 #

    This is a really good document to read. A lot of people have pushed the results from Dr. Zimmerman’s lab as evidence of vaccine injury–well beyond Dr. Zimmerman’s own opinions.

  2. Kev March 24, 2009 at 22:58 #

    I’m just amazed that the Polings thought that simply not giving permission for Zimmerman to speak about Hannah would effectively keep him quiet. Surely they must’ve known he was testifying for petitioners?

  3. Jen March 25, 2009 at 11:01 #

    Did they actually think that his comments would never be made public, or were they just counting on the time lapse between their burst of publicity and the time when his comments would be made public?

  4. Joseph March 25, 2009 at 14:05 #

    So from Poling, Frye, Shoffner & Zimmerman (2006), two of the authors do not believe Hannah Poling’s developmental regression was vaccine-induced. John Poling, frankly, is biased because he stood to gain financially when that belief was found to be plausible. What about Frye?

  5. Kev March 25, 2009 at 22:03 #

    Good question. Lets see if I can find an email address.

  6. MJ March 26, 2009 at 01:23 #

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the expert report that was released from the Cedillo case, not the Poling case.

    So why are you quoting from the report in that case yet referring to the Poling case?

    Furthermore, the last public filing in the Poling case makes it completely clear that the party blocking the disclosure of the records from the Poling case is not the Polings but the government.

  7. Dedj March 26, 2009 at 02:11 #

    “Furthermore, the last public filing in the Poling case makes it completely clear that the party blocking the disclosure of the records from the Poling case is not the Polings but the government”

    Are you sure?

    I was under the impression that the government was willing to release the records, but not under the stipulation that the release be retroactive, as the Poling team was demanding.

    If true, this could be seen as an attempt to remove responsibility from whomever may have released the records to Kirby and others.

    If you place unreasonable demands upon another party, you can’t fairly blame them for not going ahead. In this case, the Poling team could reasonably be seen as acting as a barrier to the release of the records.

  8. Dedj March 26, 2009 at 02:19 #

    “So why are you quoting from the report in that case yet referring to the Poling case?”

    Yes, it does appear to be a very rare slip up from kev et al.

    Of course, one could still argue that – as the alledged course of injury is very similar in both cases – that the same expert giving two different scenarios for two purportedly similar cases should encourage us to revisit his opinions on both.

    Which does bring up the question of what his actual opinion on Poling is.

  9. MJ March 26, 2009 at 02:55 #

    “Are you sure?”

    Yes, I just reread the ruling to make sure that I remembered it correctly.

    “as the alledged course of injury is very similar in both cases”

    The alleged injuries are very different. Cedillo is a straight up the vaccines did it while Poling is a mito disorder to autism path. The only thing that is similar is the end result which is autism.

    “Which does bring up the question of what his actual opinion on Poling is”

    And as soon as the government stops blocking the release of the information we will know, won’t we?

  10. Sullivan March 26, 2009 at 04:11 #

    Ah, the ” the government is blocking the Poling documents” assertion.

    remember this?

    As an attachment to their motion, petitioners have submitted a written “Authorization” that “express[ly] waive[s] [their] § 12(d)[(4)](A) rights to confidentiality of the materials submitted in [Hannah’s] case (with the exception that the medical records can be discussed but not be made public).” Petitioners’ Motion, Authorization at 1. The authorization, however, “is contingent upon the respondent waiving its rights as well or upon the granting of [petitioners’] motion for complete transparency.”


    In their motion, petitioners assert that section 12(d)(4)(A) of the Vaccine Act “clear[ly] . . . prohibits Special Masters from disclosing evidence submitted in a case without the written permission of a party who submitted the evidence.”

    The Zimmerman report was submitted as evidence by the Polings. As the party who submitted the evidence, they are the ones who can give permission for it to be made public.

    let’s not forget–

    [i]n fact, it is respondent who first approached and asked for petitioners’ consent to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 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.”

  11. Sullivan March 26, 2009 at 04:20 #

    Yes, it does appear to be a very rare slip up from kev et al.

    I would disagree. Kev was quite aware that this report was for Cedillo. Even so, it is quite relevant to the Poling case that their top expert thinks:

    “there is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism.”

  12. Kev March 26, 2009 at 07:20 #

    As per Sullivan 🙂

  13. One Queer Fish March 26, 2009 at 16:12 #

    Simply, when the trial is so prejudiced what does it matter even if you come up with the holy grail its still not going to stand as the truth, is it.. .I see the appeal has been lodged

  14. Kev March 26, 2009 at 19:47 #

    Oh this should be good. Tell me Fishy, in what way(s) were the Omnibus hearings ‘so prejudiced’?

    And _of course_ an appeal has been lodged. I would’ve been amazed if it wasn’t.

  15. One Queer Fish March 26, 2009 at 20:47 #

    Kev Simply,I think the appeal states the whys pretty clearly of the prejudice starting with …

    Michelle respectfully asks this Court to review this

    First, because she has submitted
    preponderant evidence that her MMR vaccine harmed her.

    Does so because the special master purposely turned a blind eye on her evidence, especially the substantial concessions by the respondent’s expert witnesses.

    Does so because
    the special master abandoned his obligation to impartially weigh the evidence. She does so because, instead, the special master inappropriately assumed the respondent’s role as protector of the integrity of vaccines.

    Does so because
    the special master has defied congress and the Federal Circuit.

    Does so because
    she has been denied the fundamental fairness compelled
    by Rule 7 of the Vaccines of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

    Does so because
    the special master abused his discretion, was arbitrary, capricious, and has issued a decision that is not in accordance with law.

    And so it goes on umpteen pages of factual evidence backed. appeal …

  16. century March 27, 2009 at 08:17 #

    Very telling point below – from AoA – and makes Kevin’s headline “Zimmerman finally speaks” look like his usual spin.

    Who’s gagging who?

    “Don’t over look footnote 37 pages 13 and 14. What the HHS does not want to reveal is that Dr. Zimmerman filed two contradictory expert witness reports. The first states, “there is no scientific basis for a connection” between the MMR vaccination, mercury intoxication, and autism”.

    The second expert witness report is believed to state words to the effect that Hanah Poling is autistic as a result of a vaccine injury.

    This is why the Government conceded the Poling case. The affidavit and expert witness reports by Dr. Zimmerman in support of Hanah Poling is what the Government does not want the public to see.

    Dr. Zimmerman was an expert witness for the Government, but also a coworker of Dr. Poling.

    If the general public truly understood this double standard and procedural cover up they would be outraged.

    Rolf Hazlehurst, father of Yates Hazlehurst (the second test case)”

  17. Kev March 27, 2009 at 08:30 #

    Ah I _see_ so Fishy’s ‘evidence’ is basically a bunch of beliefs, not facts, that Petitioners have regarding the honour of the SM’s and pretty much states theres a big nasty conspiracy theory thats the SM’s are in the pocket of Big Pharma. How convincing.

    And Century’s ‘evidence’ is the same as David Kirbys. A document that cant be seen and cant be quoted and thus can contain whatever we like. Again, very convincing. You can’t even get the fact right about Poling (John Hopkins I believe) and Andrew Zimmerman (Kennedy Kreiger) being co-workers. They’re not.

    Sorry boys, lets try again with some actual evidence.

  18. David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) March 27, 2009 at 09:57 #

    “How convincing.”


  19. One Queer Fish March 27, 2009 at 16:49 #

    Simply,after all appeals are exhausted, they can then file a civil suit but before then the big guns shall be rolled in Dr Wakefield et-al will have a chance to speak as the science says..vaccines = autism,Quite simply,I dont see any clear thinking human saying diffrently excluding the pharma shills and journos …I think also they meant to lose the case so they can go to civil at speed..

  20. Joseph March 27, 2009 at 17:33 #

    I think also they meant to lose the case so they can go to civil at speed

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

  21. Kev March 27, 2009 at 18:00 #

    Fishy, lol, are you kidding? Check out a thing called ‘Daubert’. It basically means that the judge becomes the gatekeeper of good science. In civil cases theres usually a hearing to determine that each sides experts are actually experts and use good science. Boyd Haley, Mark Geier, Martha Herbert and Jeff Bradstreet have all been found wanting in pre trial Daubert hearings.

    With Haley and Geier, the science they presented was so appalling once the judge had applied Daubert there was literally no case left to answer.

    I really hope someone is telling the Cedillos all this.

  22. HCN March 27, 2009 at 19:32 #

    What is even just as funny about Fishy’s totally delusional comment is that somehow Wakefield’s lawyer bought and paid case study of just twelve non-randomly chosen litigants, um no, victims, oh wait, children is actually called “science” — and that the several large epidemiological studies done in several countries involving millions of children does not!

  23. Ringside Seat March 27, 2009 at 20:48 #

    ‘Go to civil at speed’ Ha ha. And who’s gonna pay the costs? The Cedillos, whose child was autistic before her MMR? Or Shoemaker and company, who wouldn’t risk a cent of their own dough?

    Yeah, let’s see em put some money on the table.

    Anybody notice that the name Wackfraud doesn’t appear once in the appeal? It’s like he never existed as far as the petitioners are concerned.

  24. One Queer Fish March 27, 2009 at 21:00 #

    Deer deer ,it does happen guys remember

    Drip Drip Drip – Paxil Info Leaks Out

    Any of you on here wrote this disingenous statement ,could have come from Kev yourselfany takers Mr Deer by chance??

    “However, the memo instructs Glaxo sales representatives to avoid using the term and says: “instead of ‘withdrawal syndrome,’ which implies addictive properties, try to refer to this phenomenon as

    ‘discontinuation symptoms.'”

  25. Prometheus March 28, 2009 at 03:05 #

    Quoth the Fish:

    “…I think also they meant to lose the case so they can go to civil at speed…”

    The results of the Autism Omnibus Proceedings will pretty much eliminate any hope the Cedillos have of winning in civil court. Although a jury might be more sympathetic to their cause, their “experts” will likely be thrown out because of the Daubert standards. After the thorough fisking the Special Masters gave them, even a freshman in law school could keep their “experts” off the stand.

    No, I think that this appeal is a last-ditch attempt by the lawyers to make it look like they didn’t string the Cedillos (and others) along for several years without a hope of winning. Since this appeal is done on the taxpayer’s account, the Cedillos have little to lose (and their lawyers – as usual – will collect whether they win or lose).

    No, the telling point will be when the Cedillos – and thousands of other families – have to choose whether or not to file in civil court. Will their lawyers take them on contingency or will they ask for cash up front? I’m betting the latter, since even a stupid lawyer would have to see that this is a sure-fire loss.

    Just wondering – is there any subject where “One Queer Fish” has some competence? So far, he/she has rated “epic fail” in science and law. Surely there must be something he/she does well?


  26. Kev March 28, 2009 at 10:11 #

    Trolling Prom, that seems to be the extent of his/her skillset so far.

  27. One Queer Fish March 28, 2009 at 16:42 #

    and thousands of other families –

    Simply the lawyers stopped taking cases on years and years ago The cases they represent just now will go the full hog, I believe to civil as well.That’s, why they limited the numbers to start with.. to limit the costs. “Daubert standards”(if there were any set?? your pulling my leg aren’t you??!) is a bygone era and the Pharma playing field is completely different under Obama and the Kennedy’s .Like another bygone era under Pharma puppies Bush and Blair times are changing guys but then it’s the same as the errors on HBOT you were all obfuscating about you still maintain on here that you know it all when you don’t know zilch apart from Mr Deer who could enlighten us all with the Judge Eady complaint letters but through fear he wont…..

  28. HCN March 28, 2009 at 17:54 #

    … and Fishy’s skill set seems to include posting an incomprehensible word salad that has no basis in reality…

  29. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 17:58 #

    ““Daubert standards”(if there were any set?? your pulling my leg aren’t you??!) is a bygone era…..”

    You really don’t know that Daubert is a set of standards? If you don’t know the basics, why do you think you’re qualified to talk about this?

    The Daubert standards are really a model of what standards judges typically use when assessing expert testimony. They cover relevance, reliability, repeatability and refutability.

    Basically, in order to be admitted as scientific evidence, the evidence actually has to be scientific.

    Of course ‘your side’ wants Daubert out, the people you support would gladly put a parents say-so above and beyond actual scientific data – oh, as long as supports their case of course, otherwise it becomes ‘conjuecture’ or ‘just opinions’.

    The Cedillo team didn’t just lose but got totally reamed. There wasn’t a peep about the systemic bias of the judges or the ‘illegality’ of the court until it became apparant to all that their case was crumbling around them.

    p.s. the judge Eady letters came out last week. They show that Deer offered to submit information two days after the announcement of the possibility of an investigation. Even if Deer was listed as the complainant, it would only be because someone’s name has to go on it.

    Time for you to rush off now OQF to what ever it is you keep claiming to be rushing off to.

  30. century March 28, 2009 at 19:07 #

    Dedj said

    “p.s. the judge Eady letters came out last week. They show that Deer offered to submit information two days after the announcement of the possibility of an investigation”

    I’ve missed this – can you supply a link?

  31. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 19:45 #

    To be fair it was only the first Eady letter, not all of them, but it still sets the context, and the context doesn’t hold out well for the Deer Hunters.

    Not only do we have Deer offering to submit information ‘with regards to’, two days after the public announcement, rather than being the instigator as many imply, but none of them have thus far came up with anything but opinion as to why Deer cannot report on the proceedings, especially as none are claiming that he has undue influence or is in line for non-standard benefit.

    AoA did a whole piece on it, as did childhealth, OneClick may have a article up and I doubt Melanie Phillips has passed up the opportunity.

  32. century March 28, 2009 at 20:41 #

    Dedj said

    “To be fair it was only the first Eady letter, not all of them, but it still sets the context, and the context doesn’t hold out well for the Deer Hunters”

    Please can you give me a link because I cannot find this Eady letter – probably because it’s saturday evening and I have had a few drinks watching the rugby and football!


  33. One Queer Fish March 28, 2009 at 20:48 #


    On appeal Wakefield will be found not guilty if he is found guilty just now . After the case has finished the letters will become public knowledge under FOI act. Sooner or later the truth will out, as it stands my money is on Wakefield simply, because, Mr Deer has an opportunity just now! to publish the Judge Eady letters of complaint and score a cataclysmic silencing of his doubters if in fact the wording on Mr Deers egoism ,sagacious and elite complaint letters adhere to what he professes.

    Quite simply, why not Dejd ? Sensible answers not Harold’s or whatever other writer’s frustrations you have…

  34. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 20:49 #

    Heh, saturday seems to be a good day for alchohol!

    Anyway, the documents have been known to, and read by, many of the major Deer Hunters for a month now but he’s a link to a scan of the letter.

    You’ll notice that the date is after the John Reid announcement, and that none of the Deer Hunters have yet to quote act, code or standard that would prohibit Deer from his current behaviour, even if he was the complainant.

    It seems to be a fairly standard – if excellently well constructed – request to offer information.

  35. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 20:54 #

    OQF – you will notice that exactly what I said would happen if the Eady letters became known has actually happened and has happened big time.

    If Deer refuses to release the letters because of fears that they will be mis-read then it appears those fears were totally accurate and very well founded.

    ‘Your side’ is far too invested in disparaging Deer by any means possible for a fair and just reading of the letters to be a sensible expectation.

    That’s about all I could make out from your post, the rest just appears to be gibberish.

  36. One Queer Fish March 28, 2009 at 20:59 #

    Simply,the truth has nothing to fear ..says it all Dejd wouldnt you say so yourself..the truth has nothing to fear…

  37. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 21:03 #

    Besides, this thread isn’t even about Deer. Your continued tangential references to Deer and the Eady letters – which add nothing to whatever arguement you were trying to make originally – are rather worrying early signs of mental illness, which may explain why you’re always in a rush to get off somewhere.

    I’d advise kev to lock this thread if you continue to hold it hostage to your selfish agenda much longer.

    I’m amazed you haven’t actually been banned.

  38. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 21:09 #

    “Simply,the truth has nothing to fear ..says it all Dejd wouldnt you say so yourself..the truth has nothing to fear…”

    Bwahahaha! How old are you? 12?

    You should know by now that truth doesn’t protect you from people who are willing to twist it to their own agenda. It doesn’t protect you from vendetta’s or from motivated idiots.

    Fcuk, this is exactly what is supposed to be happening to Wakefield , and you’d be amongst the first to claim his career and reputation have been harmed by “lies”.

    Stay consistent at least, or ask the nurses to read what you post before sending it.

  39. One Queer Fish March 28, 2009 at 21:21 #

    Well if you ban me there is no one else sad enough to post on here ,showing my mental state again as, you point out ..

    As for Cedillo on appeal they will win, and all the papers will be released .Counter claims will stem from them..its ironic ,always refer to the lawyers,Dr Wakefield, et-al as baddies which is fine, but you never hear any of the parents of the damaged children saying it,just the supposedly caring medial community ..curious isn’t it ,but then if it was a true enterpretation of events that’s not how it would come about ?The parents would complain first wouldn’t they Dejd ?wouldn’t you say so ?the parents would complain..then the professionals then the GMC no parents as witnesses no children as witnesses how strange when the cases in America and the Uk are about the children
    but they are not seen or heard

  40. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 21:37 #

    As Kev (or it may have been Sullivan) LB/RB actually gets more hits than many of the pro-wakefield or vaccine-skeptic websites. Some of them are too small to even register on tracking sites.

    I have no idea what you think you’re getting at in your post. The parents were already invested in the idea before they even met wakefield, there’s no reason for them to complain about someone who agrees with them, is there? Sometimes the client/patient isn’t even aware of the breaches of conduct. It’s part of why the GMC has a whole section on reporting other professionals. The HPC has a similar set-up too, as does the NMC.

    Use your damn brain for once.

  41. One Queer Fish March 28, 2009 at 21:40 #

    here honey…

  42. Dedj March 28, 2009 at 21:53 #


    I’m well aware that iatrogenic autism believers are more than willing to co-opt other peoples marches and demonstrations for their own agenda.

    You’ll notice that the march also included people from Sensory Access Now and other groups, it wasn’t just about vaccines.

  43. One Queer Fish March 28, 2009 at 21:59 #

    as the Churchill dog says “ooohhh yess”

    I never seen anyone saying go along or we will stop your child going to school as they are trying to do just now if you dont vaccinate.

    you see Dejd the truth fears no one ,those children and parents fear no one unlike Mr Deer

  44. Kev March 29, 2009 at 00:52 #

    I cannot believe that once again we’re back on those bloody Eady letters.

    Look Fishy, what you need to be worrying about is Daubert, something that won’t change just because Obama’s now in office – its a legal precedent, not a law. Here’s a bit of Wikipedia on the subject.

    Everyone high up in the autism/antivax camps knows that a civil case has absolutely no chance. Your best chance was the Omnibus hearings as they have such a low standard of proof. I remember reading something from Lenny Schafer along those very lines a couple of years ago.

    I’m sorry Fishy but the fact you guys have absolutely no quality science was always going to bite you hard on the arse one day. If you lot had any conscience at all you’d be pleading with the Cedillo’s not to waste any more time (and money if they do go to a civil hearing).

  45. Anon visitor March 29, 2009 at 02:00 #

    The Cedillos were laughing through most of their hearing. They knew they had nothing at stake.

  46. One Queer Fish March 29, 2009 at 11:55 #

    It was simply a run in the park for the Cedillos A to get to B .

    Kev there is no doubt as to the clothes Presisdent Obama is wearing..night shall follow day ..

    “Some people are suspisious that its connected to the vaccines, This person included” President Obama

  47. One Queer Fish March 29, 2009 at 12:01 #

    Now the presidents word dosent count ??does it Kev?/stange forum right enough!!

    “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” –Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

    “It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.” –John McCain, Texas town hall meeting, February 29, 2008.

  48. Dedj March 29, 2009 at 15:05 #

    ““Some people are suspisious that its connected to the vaccines, This person included” President Obama”



    ““Some people are suspisious that its connected to the vaccines, This person included” President Obama said, indicating the man who had just asked him about vaccines.

    Hell, he even pointed to the person at the time, so it’s not like it was a vague reference.

    Do better fishy.

  49. Kev March 29, 2009 at 15:55 #

    Fishy you’re getting painfully embarrassing. Do you understand what a legal precedent is?

  50. One Queer Fish March 29, 2009 at 16:05 #

    Yes Sir sorry sir

    The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can’t afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what’s happening. If we keep on seeing the increases in the rate we’re seeing, we’re never going to have enough money” to take care of these children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: