Archive | David Kirby RSS feed for this section

Dear CDC

26 Mar

I read with interest Dr Schuchat’s opinion piece in the AJC today.

Whilst it is gratifying to see someone of Dr Schuchat’s calibre responding to previous claims regarding vaccines in autism I would like to make a few points to Dr Schuchat and the CDC in general.

Firstly, this level of response is around eight years too late. What have you been doing on the media/PR front over the last eight years? I’ll tell you what your ‘opponents’ have been doing – they’ve been conducting protests outside your offices, outside the offices of the AAP etc. They’ve been setting up and organising vaccine/autism groups and heavily marketing them via the use of organic and paid for web based advertising.

The only people who have made any kind of attempt to counter these groups and the misinformation (deliberate or not) they publish is people like myself. I am not attempting to aggrandise myself at all. I am attempting to convey to you how one sided the ‘battle’ has been over the last few years.

Where were you? You were needed. You could’ve helped. Instead you sat back and hoped this would all go away. It didn’t. It won’t.

Secondly, the level of Dr Schuchat’s response is very close to condescending. Simply stating that:

Kirby’s column included many inaccuracies related to childhood vaccines. As such, it illustrates that when it comes to immunizations, child development and specific medical conditions, the best source of guidance is the child’s health care provider.

is patronising in the extreme. The level and quality of the debate has moved on in the last eight years. Bland assurances won’t cut it. You need to be specific and offer evidence. Autistic people, parents of autistic people and interested professionals are smart enough to know and understand a certain level of science these days.

Don’t be shy about providing people with science. You have some truly excellent science on ‘your side’ as I and others have attempted to blog about in the last five years to no small effect. For example, Googling mmr autism displays, amongst others, the blog of a friend of mine – also the parent of an autistic child and also convinced of the need to blog about the bad science surrounding the various vaccine/autism hypotheses. Googling thiomersal autism brings up _this_ blog. We’re doing your job for you!

You’re being left behind in this debate. Its time you caught up.

Kirby continues to get basic maths wrong

23 Mar

As I’ve pointed out, Kirby has messed up his maths on the Huffington post blog. He’s now done much the same in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article (clearly, their Editor does not check for mathematical errors, or general stupid). Kirby’s article is titled “Give us answers on vaccines”: I don’t expect any answers from Kirby, but correct sums would be a start.

Kirby argues that:

Most striking is how typical Hannah’s cellular dysfunction [mitochondrial disorder] may be among children with autism. While extremely rare in the general population, at two per 10,000 people, it seems unusually common in autism — with estimates up to 2,000 per 10,000.

To go over these figures again – a 2,000 per 10,000 incidence of mitochondrial disorder among people with ASDs is and incidence of 1/5. If 1/5 people with an ASD has mitochondrial disorder, and only 2/10,000 people have mitochondrial order, then if everyone with mitochondrial disorder has an ASD only 1/1,000 people would have an ASD. Clearly, not everyone with mitochondrial disorder has an ASD, so the actual incidence that Kirby is estimating would be considerably lower.

Age of Autism linked the blog post on Kirby’s article, and there are (at time of writing) over 170 comments. Oddly, though, it seems that no-one has picked up on Kirby’s basic error. Haven’t they noticed their hero’s issues with maths? Or don’t they care?

Autism vs features of autism

14 Mar

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.

Hannah Poling – Fine Points of the Law

11 Mar

The person answering the questions below is someone very familiar with the Vaccine Courts. I agreed to respect their privacy by not naming them but for ease of reference I’ll refer to them as Legal Larry.

David Kirby says:

In this case, HHS agreed to pay out compensation and there was no need to go to a hearing. The Polings could not reject the compensation agreement and insist on a hearing if they wanted to. This was supposed to be a test case. But the government did not want this to go to a hearing, not the Polings. But the family had no choice. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but when you apply for VICP compensation, and you receive it, it’s pretty much take-it-or-leave-it at that point, very much unlike a regular civil lawsuit that might get a settlement “offer.”

Legal Larry says:

….I have seen the misunderstanding circulating. It appears to flow from an unfamiliarity with litigation. Vaccine litigation under this program really is no different than traditional litigation. Simple example: you accuse me of breaking your fence; I contest. You sue me since I disagree with your charge. As plaintiff, you have the burden of providing sufficient evidence for your case to proceed. You provide pictures of my tractor after rolling into your fence. I review those pictures and say “you are right.” I CONCEDE my liability to you. No trial is necessary, there is nothing to try. You have to accept my concession, or drop your claim against me (logically you cannot contest my concession without contesting the very basis for your filing your claim). Now, we have to resolve the damages. You ask for $1000, but after reviewing the damages I offer you $200. If you accept my offer (or we negotiate a different amount,say $500) we have SETTLED the case and it ends. If you reject my offer and we can’t agree on another number, the case proceeds to trial and the court will determine the amount. Apply the above to the Polling matter. *People are using concession and settlement synonomously and thus incorrectly*. I hope this helps.

Legal Larry was asked:

when you state ” If you reject my offer and we can’t agree on another number, the case proceeds to trial and the court will determine the amount. ” does “proceeds to trial” mean that it goes through the full trial procedure or does it mean that the awards phase is determined at trial?”

To which Legal Larry answered:

….just the awards phase, the concession eliminates the issue of liability – I conceded that I damaged your fence.

So, from that exchange we can see that David Kirby is half right. Within the context of the Omnibus, the Polings could not reject the ‘concession’. However, they could have rejected the settlement offer and gone on to a trial procedure to determine the final award. We can also see that concession and settlement are not the same thing at all.

But now we get to some murkier ground (who knew the autism community would have to become lay-person briefs as well as lay-person scientists eh?) because the fact is that the Poling’s could easily have rejected the whole damn thing. Sullivan on GM/WM did some work on this:

Now, what happens if they decline? They can file in Civil court.

Why does that matter? Well, consider the fire and brimstone from David Kirby:

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but when you apply for VICP compensation, and you receive it, it’s pretty much take-it-or-leave-it at that point, very much unlike a regular civil lawsuit that might get a settlement “offer.”

I think you may be wrong Mr Kirby. They could’ve left it and gone for a Civil court action.

The Polings could not reject the compensation agreement and insist on a hearing if they wanted to.

Yes, they could have, See above.

And if anyone asks you why the family attorneys agreed to settle the Poling case, tell them they don’t know the first thing about Vaccine Court.

The issue is, I think that because people such as myself are suspiciously asking why the Poling’s agreed to the concession at all if they felt they had such a water-tight case. If they’re right then this case could’ve been the very first court case to ever establish vaccines are complicit in autism. The argument Kirby is putting forward is not correct. *The Poling’s could have rejected the claim and fought their case in trial* .

Why didn’t they?

Now let me be absolutely honest. If I was them, neither would I. Civil Courts require a scientific standard of proof. The Vaccine Court does not. In other words, the Poling claim in a Civil Court would’ve rested on _science_ .

I’ll be even more honest, I am happy to think of Hannah Poling have enough money to take care of her her whole life. This is one of the ethical conundrums of the Omnibus hearings for me. If it were up to me I’d like to see all 4,800 kids get enough money to assure their futures.

But is this the right way? The Poling’s could easily have rejected the ‘concession’ and gone to a Civil Court. They have elected not to. Over the last week there has been lots of breathless talk about fat ladies singing but by agreeing to the ‘concession’ that is absolutely the last thing the Poling’s have helped bring about. They have agreed to a statement that states that their daughter’s autism was not caused by vaccines. If they think it does, they should have gone to a Civil Court.

Again, I ask, why didn’t they?

Evidence of Misinformation

7 Mar

This entry is once again guest blogged by SL. I’d like to thank SL once again for providing clarity on a massively complex issue.

I’m going to try and break down some of Kirby’s most confusing points he makes with regard to autism and mitochondrial disease. He is misleading, irresponsibly selling falsehoods and half-truths as fact. As Jon has pointed out on LB/RB, his math is way off at times. I’ve spent hours reviewing scientific studies, and hopefully can further clear up any confusion Kirby may have created.

Evidence of Misinformation # 1

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD.

Well, it took some digging, but I found where Mr. Kirby came up with this one-liner. You will find a similar (yet, not really what he says) statement in here:

A minority of cases of autism has been associated with several different organic conditions, including bioenergetic metabolism deficiency. In a population-based study, we screened associated medical conditions in a group of 120 children with autism (current age range 11y 5mo to 14y 4mo, mean age 12y 11mo [SD 9.6mo], male:female ratio 2.9:1). Children were diagnosed using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria, the Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised, and the Childhood Autism Rating Scale; 76% were diagnosed with typical autism and 24% with atypical autism. Cognitive functional level was assessed with the Griffiths scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and was in the normal range in 17%. Epilepsy was present in 19 patients. Plasma lactate levels were measured in 69 patients, and in 14 we found hyperlactacidemia. Five of 11 patients studied were classified with definite mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder, suggesting that this might be one of the most common disorders associated with autism (5 of 69; 7.2%) and warranting further investigation.

That last line sounds vaguely familiar right? Except, Kirby sold it as truth. Whereas in the study, it is presented as a thesis to be proved later on. A suggestion, a possible link, warranting further investigations. That’s much different from Kirby’s statement of fact, that mito *IS* the most common disease associated with ASD. Also, this study presents us with a figure of 7.2%, we’ll need this number later on.

Now, perhaps I’m wrong here. Maybe Kirby is getting his information elsewhere. So, then, what are his sources? Does a study exist which compares children with autism or autistic features who also have mito vs. those who also have other genetic disorders? How do those numbers compare? With the myriad of genetic disorders, I’d be highly interested in this. There’s a reason why so little is known about mito: it is a RARE disease. Has Kirby seen additional studies? Can he offer us large numbers of autistic children, being shown to have mitochondrial disorder too? No, he has one court case that he is referencing. He is using made-up figures and for some reason, fantasizes about autistic children having a mitochondrial disease.

I did find a few actual studies that I can reference. And, none state that mitochondrial disease is the most common disease associated with autism. I wonder about the Autism Genome Project Consortium’s study study with the strong link to Chromosome 11. Or the review by the Autism Research Unit UK, pointing to gastrointestinal problems, viral illnesses, and genetic disorders as factors in autism.

This study shows that “several metabolic defects have been associated with autistic symptoms with a rate higher than that found in the general population.” This essentially argues the opposite of what Kirby states. There are more autistic symptoms seen in some people with metabolic disorders than compared to the rest of the population. If I have Group A (General Population) and Group B (persons with metabolic disorders), according to this study, Group B will have more more people with autistic symptoms. This does not say that within a group of autistic individuals, metabolic disorders are most prevalent. Also, the study says “autistic symptoms” which is not the same as autism. Children with gastrointestinal dysfunction, seizures, etc. associated with a metabolic disorder could very likely appear to have “autistic symptoms.”

Another factor to consider is proper diagnosis (ruling out autistic features being secondary to a disease, vs. being true autism), and that any child presenting with autism or autistic features, should be screened properly. It is reasonable to rule out certain genetic and psychological disorders, such as those mentioned here. Equally important, with regard to mitochondrial disorders, is how samples are taken and tested. If someone unfamiliar with mitochondrial diseases, or a lab is improperly equipped, you may get inaccurate results. Also, because someone has “markers” for a disorder, that does not mean they definitively have that disorder or disease. In the majority of cases, an autistic child does not have a primary disorder, such as mito.

Evidence of Misinformation #2:

Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Again, Kirby uses the same language to try and make his point. The words “some” and “other” should be the first red flags you see. What journal articles? What “other analyses” can be cited? It would be so very helpful if he would document where he gets the 10-20% figure from. This would be of great help, and would further this discussion. If he has real sources, scientific studies, any type of evidence of this, share it. I am not entirely against the idea that 10-20% of autistic individuals who have had a true regression, also have mitochondrial disease. I said it in a previous post – if a child has a well-documented, real regression, other things should be looked into (like mito, genetic disorders, etc.).

Remember that 7.2%? That is the only figure I was able to find in regards to the prevalence of mitochondrial disease in children diagnosed with autism. It is from the study I have posted above. 7.2% seems rather high, and certainly many more studies would need to be done to come to a more accurate figure. Another concern is the methods in which these children were diagnosed (i.e. tissue biopsy). Regardless, 20% is quite a jump from a documented 7.2%.

Here are some real numbers regarding mitochondrial disease, as well as autism. From the Cleveland Clinic:

About one in 4,000 children in the United States will develop mitochondrial disease by the age of 10 years. One thousand to 4,000 children per year in the United Sates are born with a type of mitochondrial disease.

According to The Mitochondrial and Metabolic Disease Center (at UCSD):

Four million children are born in the US each year. This means that 1000 to 4000 children will be born each year with mitochondrial disease. By comparison, about 8000 new cases of childhood cancer are reported each year. Both mitochondrial disease and childhood cancer range in mortality from 1O to 50 percent per year, depending on the specific disease.

Going with the CDC’s 1 in 150 figure and Cleveland Clinic’s 4 million births per year, we can pull some more numbers from Kirby’s 10-20% theory. Currently, there are 1000 – 4000 children born with mito each year, or 0.03-0.10% of all births. Compare that to 26,670 (or 0.67%) estimated number of autistic individuals born in a year. If 10% of autistic children have mito, that means 2,667 additional children would be born with mito. At 15%, you have an extra 4000, at 20% an total of 5,333 more children would be born with mito. The likelihood of mito then increases up to 0.23%. That’s a substantial increase in cases of mitochondrial disease. And they portray autism as an epidemic?

And, speaking of the so-called “Autism crisis,” Kirby’s idea that 10-20% of autistics really have mitochondrial disease changes the rate of autism quite a bit. Autism figures would start to look more like 1 in 187. If indeed, 10-20% of autistics (2,667 – 5,333) truly do end up having mito, what would be the advice to those families with regard to vaccines? Who will be held accountable when families who have mitochondrial disease are devastated to find out how vital those vaccines are to their children?

Is Kirby also aware that in some families with mitochondrial disease, children can be affected to varying degrees? The argument may be that this “autism-mito” group is “less-affected” by the disease. Well, their siblings, including those born in the future, could be born with more severe forms of the disease. People have led countless numbers of families to forgo their vaccinations. What would be suggested when a family who only vaccinated their eldest (autistic) child, has 2 more children, both of which have more severe forms of mitochondrial disease? What would be said if one of those children died after being infected by a disease that could of been prevented had the family been properly vaccinated?

Evidence of Misinformation #3:

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

Below is the actual report from the study. This is the study that Dr. Poling also co-authored, interestingly enough. I assume he prompted this study, following his findings with his own child. I assume the girl in the case is in fact, his own daughter [It is – KL](test results are the same).

To determine the frequency of routine laboratory abnormalities in similar patients, we performed a retrospective study including 159 patients with autism (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV and Childhood Autism Rating Scale) not previously diagnosed with metabolic disorders and 94 age-matched controls with other neurologic disorders. Aspartate aminotransferase was elevated in 38% of patients with autism compared with 15% of controls (P < .0001). The serum creatine kinase level also was abnormally elevated in 22 (47%) of 47 patients with autism. These data suggest that further metabolic evaluation is indicated in autistic patients and that defects of oxidative phosphorylation might be prevalent. (J Child Neuro 2006;21:170—172; DOI 10.2310/7010.2006.00032).

Kirby leads you to believe that both figures (38 & 47%) come from the same total of participants. It does not. The 38% is from the total of the group of 159. The 47% comes from a smaller group (subset, perhaps?), consisting of 47 patients. Kirby presents this information in such a way, that someone not willing to look at the numbers, would assume that nearly half of the autistic children in this study have mitochondrial disease. This is not the case.

Interesting to note:
Creatine Kinase (CPK) can also be a marker for for heart attack, hypothyroidism, and several other diseases.
Aspartate aminotransferase (AST, previously known as SGOT) is more commonly a marker for liver disease.

Also, these are two of several “markers” found to be abnormal for my daughter. My daughter does *NOT* have mito. It’s quite a leap for anyone to make that abnormal results for these two “markers” qualifies as mitochondrial disease. As in the study at the beginning, this one at the end makes its conclusion using careful words like “suggest,” and “might.”

Sorry, Mr. Kirby, but the dots you try to connect and the holes in many of your statements are potentially misleading. It’s unwise to make false claims, presenting them in a “scientific” or at the very least professional sounding manner. Parents who don’t know any better, have limited time or resources, they read what you have written. They take it as fact, and base very important decisions on what they read from you. I would never want to be responsible for causing pain and suffering via unwarranted, invasive medical testing to numbers of children. I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if my recommendations (to avoid vaccines) proved to be harmful to the very families who were so very “loyal” to me.

Kirby gets his maths wrong, and accidentally declares an end to the ‘autism epidemic’

6 Mar

Kirby’s crowing about a recent US government concession in a vaccine damage court case has got a fair bit of attention, and has been well-covered by several blogs – for a general appraisal, I’d start with posts on LBRB and Respectful Insolence, if you haven’t already. I was interested to see, though, that Kirby manages to get his basic maths wrong on the Huffington Post – meaning that his claims about autism, mitochondrial disorder and vaccine damage are left looking entirely ridiculous. Stephen Novella argues that “Among stiff competition, this is perhaps the most absurd and scientifically ignorant thing Kirby has every written.” It might be the most absurdly mathematically and statistically ignorant thing that Kirby has ever written, too.

For Kirby

mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%)

Actually, no – 2/1000 is 0.2%, 2/10,000 is 0.02%. As anyone with basic numeracy skills could tell you.

In itself, that doesn’t inspire much confidence in Kirby’s statistics . However, things get odder with Kirby’s numbers. He argues that

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population

I can’t get these numbers to make sense. I will be as charitable to Kirby as possible: let’s say that all mitochondrial disease occurs in people with ASDs (it doesn’t, as Kirby appears to acknowledge in his post, but we’ll be kind here). Let’s take the lower end of Kirby’s claim that 10%-20% of all those with ASDs have mitochondrial disease. This would mean that 0.02% of the population constitute 10% of those with ASDs. Therefore, even being unrealistically charitable, Kirby’s figures could only allow for 0.2% of the population – only 1 person in every 500 – to be on the autistic spectrum. This is a remarkably low estimate of the percentage of people with ASDs, and taking a more realistic approach (for example, there are people with mitochondrial disorder who aren’t on the autistic spectrum) would reduce this low estimate further.

Maybe Kirby is declaring an end to the ‘autism epidemic’?

Something is beginning to smell…

5 Mar

As noted by Catherina in a previous thread, David Kirby went on US morning show Imus to talk about autism, vaccines and the recent so called ‘concession report’.

Here’s the snippet Catherina highlighted:

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

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

This is eyebrow raising to say the least. The *fact* of the matter is that the Gvmt has *no* rights to stop the family talking about the case. The other *fact* of the matter is that it is the family who have ensured that the one person who can clear up most of the questions about this case – Dr Zimmerman – must remain silent on the issue. Once again, here is the KK statement:

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.

I don’t want to say David Kirby is deliberately lying here but his statement on the Imus show is plain old wrong. I’m left with the feeling that a conspiracy theory is being generated here right before our eyes.

Autism, vaccines, concession – and gagging of doctors?

4 Mar

David Kirby makes a juicy statement on EoH:

And next week, I just might drop another bombshell – A BIG one, from another case in VICP.

Turns out that people who settled with the government now want their cases to be known as well. They are seeking me out. You would be AMAZED at what the government has secretly admitted.

Now, granted, its apparent from Kirby’s wording that these extra cases are not part of the Omnibus and possibly not related to autism at all. But something is beginning to worry me quite a lot about this.

When I approached Dr Zimmerman about him answering some questions re: the recent so-called ‘concession report’, I was told:

Dr. Zimmerman…….is not able to publicly discuss this patient. As a participant in this case, the family provided consent for Dr. Zimmerman to share information with the court, but we do not have parental consent to discuss the patient publicly – as we are bound by HIPAA privacy regulations, as in any healthcare setting in the U.S.

And when I asked if anyone else at Kennedy could answer questions or if a hypothetical set of questions could be answered:

Everyone at Kennedy Krieger is bound by the same patient privacy regulations. I hope you can understand that our first priority has to be to respect the privacy of a family – so I think a hypothetical conversation when it is held with the person who saw the patient wouldn’t be appropriate since it really wouldn’t be hypothetical.

So here we have a situation whereby the Doctor who actually examined the child in question and made the medical decisions _cannot_ discuss the case and is honourable enough to not even countenance a hypothetical case. And yet _someone_ smuggled the case report to David Kirby. Are the family up in arms that the case report was smuggled out and given to Kirby? Has anyone asked them? I’m asking them now.

If you are not bothered that the case report and ‘concession’ was smuggled out to David Kirby, why do you continue to block Dr Zimmerman from speaking publicly?

I have a question for David Kirby also: do you think it is right that none of the actual doctors (Zimmerman in this case, god knows who in the other cases you claim to have) can tell their sides – share their medical expertise – and yet its OK for you to hypothesise about their findings?

Something is very wrong here. When we are barred from hearing all sides, we never get the whole truth.

Vaccines, Autism and the Concession

1 Mar

1) Concession Report (This document has been removed due to the possibility of it being illegally obtained). If people really wish to read the document for themselves it can be founf here, at the Huffington post
2) Zimmerman Case Study

When David Kirby wrote his piece in the Huffington Post, I’ll admit I read it with my jaw on my chest. Here was evidence I was wrong. I emailed David Kirby to get the whole report from him and he was kind enough to provide not only a PDF version but a plain text version as well.

This enabled me to contact a few people that I know are medical people and/or scientists and/or closely connected to this case. For example I contacted Dr Zimmerman and learned that it was not possible for him to offer any sort of opinion on this case due to the fact that his patients parents had not allowed him to discuss his thoughts and opinions with anyone except the court. I was told however that ‘the comments on your site with questions raised and loopholes pointed out about the way others are interpreting the facts of the situation, are right on track.’

It is clear to me then that there is some wordsmithing going on – either deliberately or unintentionally. What we need to do is look closely at the wording of two documents. The concession report and the case study performed by Dr Zimmerman.

The claim by David Kirby et al is, in essence, that the US Government have conceded that vaccines cause autism in this one case. Lets look at the so-called concession report in relation to what it says about autism.

Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, evaluated CHILD……on February 8, 2001. 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.” 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. He diagnosed CHILD with “regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.”

Features consistent with. He did not diagnose her with autism. What were these features?

1) encephalopathy progressed to persistent 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
10) would not make eye contact

Of these ten, one is repeated (eye contact issues) so I make nine clear separate symptoms there. Which of these appear in the DSM (IV)? Green equal matches, red equal misses.

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

To meet the DSM(IV) criteria a person must meet no less than 6 of the criteria. So, as described perfectly exactly by the Dr Zimmerman in the concession report, this child has features consistent with an ASD. But its clear she does not meet the criteria for autism.

Later on,

CHILD was evaluated by Alice Kau and Kelley Duff, on May 16, 2001, at CARDS. The clinicians concluded that CHILD was developmentally delayed and demonstrated features of autistic disorder.

Almost the exact same phrasing. Consistent with. But no one has said thus far that the child has been diagnosed with an ASD.

The concession report concludes with:

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….

This is the phrasing that caused the uproar. But when looked at in light of the previous, it is clear that far from suggesting that vaccines cause autism via a mitochondrial disorder, the vaccines worsened an occluded or underlying mitochondrial disorder which took on a few of the symptoms of autism _but was never actually diagnosed as autism at all_ . Because it wasn’t autism.

Before we switch to Dr Zimmerman’s Case Study, lets clear up a few things.

No one, I repeat, no one is saying this child wasn’t autistic. She may well have been. What we are doing is looking at the science reported in the concession report and Zimmerman’s paper and seeing if what the _science_ says in these two papers means that it was the vaccines that caused any autism. The concession report clearly says that no it wasn’t. Thats why this case was uncontested. She was affected by her vaccines but autism was not the result.

Zimmerman’s case study is entitled ‘Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism’ – this is further evidence against the case presented that it was the vaccines that caused the autism. This child is reported as being one with autism. Not one who develops autism as a result of vaccines.

However, it is clear that this child _does_ develop autism:

We describe a female patient in whom developmental regression and autism followed normal development…..Evaluation at 23 months showed …..[t]he Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) score was 33 (mild autism range), and she also met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental Disorders-IV criteria for autism

and yet this autism was so mild that at that exact same period (23 months):

the patient began speaking again at 23 months old

which means that expressive language was lost for a sum total of one month (it is reported being lost at 22 months). It should also be noted that CARS is _not_ designed for diagnosis but is an indicator only. Overall, we get a picture of a child who had an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction exposed by the illnesses following her vaccinations which caused developmental regression. This developmental regression presented with some features of autism.

Did the vaccinations cause her developmental regression? Seems likely. It is an undisputed fact that vaccines do cause injury, that is why after all there is a compensation program to claim from in the US and the UK.

Was her developmental regression autism? No. At no point in either the concession report is it claimed that the developmental regression the child went through _was_ autism. However, in the same way that Leukemia (weakness, paleness; fever and flu-like symptoms) can have the same symptoms as flu (weakness, paleness; fever and flu-like symptoms) but be totally different, this child’s developmental regression shared certain features of autism.

So was this child autistic. She might well have been. However, her autism was not caused by a vaccine.

Update

This column was forwarded to me by a friend. Thanks to him.

The practice of calling certain things near-autism, or even autism itself is not new. Here’s a quote from a Science article regarding HIV in 1989:

The signs of AIDS dementia in children are clear and, Pizzo says, “very painful to watch. Very young children lose words.” Words like “mommy” and “daddy” and “bear” are too hard to remember as the AIDS virus multiplies in the young child’s body and penetrates the central nervous
system.

An 8-year-old boy, once normal, was rendered practically autistic by HIV, Pizzo said. He stopped speaking. Asked to trace a simple
outline of an elephant, the boy could not. Painfully, he knew what a simple task it was, and he knew he was failing it. But he could not cry even though his doctors could see tears welling up in his eyes.

Pizzo has seen children lose IQ points one boy lost as many as 28-as AIDS ravages their brains. “Kids who used to do well in school really deteriorate,” says Pizzo who has “before and after” IQ data from school-age children.

But in a series of remarkable studies, Pizzo has seen AZT (azidothymidine) reverse these symptoms. The child who lost words like “mommy” and “daddy” “got them back,” Pizzo says. The boy who lost IQ points is restored to his former capacity.

The 8 year old cries. After just a couple of weeks of continuous AZT therapy, the boy who could not trace an elephant is successful at tracing a horse.

Now, we all know that ‘tracing an elephant’ and losing IQ points are not symptoms of autism but it is intriguing to see a doctor describe a regression as ‘practically autistic’. Note also, just like in this case, in Zimmermans case study, the child quickly loses, then very quickly regains aspects of their former regression. But HIV didn’t cause autism any more than vaccines did.

US government concededs vaccine/autism case

26 Feb

As per this story from David Kirby in the HuffPo.

I have some doubts about it but lets see. I’ve emailed David Kirby to ask him to provide me with a full copy of the concession. His willingness to provide this information as well as the information itself should tell us more about what this concession report contains.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →