The other day, I pointed out that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was following in the footsteps of the former chair of the committee, likely the quackiest, most antivaccine Congressman who ever served in the House of Representatives. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). I guess that since Burton retired at the end of the last Congress, someone has to step up to the plate when it comes to pushing the antivaccine agenda. Issa is doing that by holding a hearing a year ago on “autism” that was in reality a thinly disguised excuse to castigate scientists from the CDC about the vaccine schedule and why the question of whether vaccines cause autism isn’t a priority for the government.
This year, he’s doing it again in a hearing that was bought and paid for by the antivaccine movement in the form of the Canary Party to the tune of $40,000. Only this time, the Canary Party wants Issa to go to go after the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault program instituted in 1986 to streamline the compensation of legitimate vaccine injuries through the creation of a special court, known as the Vaccine Court, presided over by judges known as Special Masters, that makes it easier for parents by automatically compensating certain specific “table injuries” and reimbursing parents for legal expenses and expert witnesses, win or lose. Overall it’s a good deal compared to regular court, with far fewer hoops to jump through and a greater ease of finding attorneys because they know that, win or lose, they’ll get paid. The reason it was necessary was because a flood of lawsuits in the 1980s was endangering the U.S. vaccination program, as more and more companies threatened to stop making vaccines because of liability concerns. Ironically, the woman who is now the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, Barbara Loe Fisher, was heavily involved in the drafting of the original legislation that created the Vaccine Court but turned against the system she lobbied for and helped create when it became clear that spurious, non-science-based claims, such as claims that vaccines cause autism, weren’t being compensated. Indeed, antivaccinationists were shocked that the Vaccine Court actually tries to base its compensation decisions on science.
In any case, this year, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will be holding another hearing, as I pointed out. However, in the leadup to the hearing on the Vaccine Court, there was a briefing yesterday by Mary Holland, antivaccine lawyer not-so-extraordinaire, and Rolf Hazlehurst, whose son was one of the test cases for the Autism Omnibus. Fortunately, my skeptical tendrils are long, and there were at least two people there who were not down with the antivaccine message being pushed. The first was Ed Beck, Senior Policy Analyst for the Center for Inquiry its Office of Public Policy in Washington, DC. The second, who provided me with notes, shall remain anonymous.
The first thing I’d like to point out is that Mary Holland was quoted by Ed as having said something that totally nails the attitude of the antivaccine movement, albeit unintentionally:
From antivax Congressional briefing, Mary Holland on autism: “To be clear, correlation is NOT causation…BUT this IS dramatic correlation!”
— Ed Beck (@DEdwardBeck) November 7, 2013
So is the correlation between organic food sales and autism. Indeed, it’s even more dramatic. We don’t claim that organic food causes autism, though. Of course, the antivaccine movement is all about confusing correlation and causation; so Holland just couldn’t help herself, I guess.
That little tidbit out of the way, let’s dig in, based on what I know. First, it was announced that the hearing itself will occur on December 4, 2013. So mark your calendars, people. Those of you who are in the DC area who are of a science-based attitude, try to make it if you can to counter the torrent of attacks on the NVICP that will no doubt flow fast and furious. At the very least, you can warn your Congressional Representative about it and try to educate him at the same time.
First up was Mary Holland, who, according to the notes, swore up and down a massive stack of Bibles (metaphorically speaking) that she is really, and truly not anti-vaccine. This is, of course, utter nonsense, as I have documented on multiple occasions right here on this very blog. Let’s just put it this way. If Mary Holland is not “anti-vaccine,” why is it that I can’t find anything she’s written that supports her claim that she “favors and strongly supports safe and effective vaccines”? Why is it that she co-wrote with Louise Kuo Habakus an antivaccine screed called Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children? (The very title is clearly antivaccine.) And then why does she launch into a mass of easily debunked antivaccine canards? For instance, she showed a video about Gardasil that repeated many of the tropes and lies that I’ve discussed about Gardasil on many occasions.
One wonders whether Holland could even define a “safe” vaccine. In fact, it would be very interesting to see her try. No medical intervention is absolutely 100% risk-free. So what level of risk is “safe enough” for a vaccine? By any measure, vaccines are incredibly safe, but Holland seems to think that they must be absolutely safe. I’ve often joked that being antivaccine is a bit like pornography. As Justice Potter Stewart once famously wrote of pornography, “…I know it when I see it,” and I know antivaccine tropes and views when I see them. However, unlike pornography, even though it’s quite true that what is anti-vaccine is in general easily identifiable to those of us who pay attention to such matters, it’s much more difficult to define in a way that those who don’t pay attention to the issue can recognize. This difficulty is complicated by the fact that there are a number of different flavors of anti-vaccine views ranging from the view that vaccines are a tool of Satan to depopulate the earth to views that blame them for autism and chronic disease, the latter of which Holland apparently stated in abundance. It’s also important to realize that most parents who buy into anti-vaccine views do so out of ignorance, because they have been misled, rather than due to stupidity, although I’m not so sure about Mary Holland. In any case, antivaccinationists can usually be identified by pressing them to identify vaccines whose use they support and that they consider “safe.” Mary Holland appears not to consider any vaccine adequately safe.
Next, Holland repeated a “classic” antivaccine trope, in which it is pointed out that mortality rates from various vaccine-preventable diseases were falling before the vaccines for these diseases were introduced. She then claims that vaccines affected incidence, not deaths. This is, of course, a trope so hoary that it has a name: the “vaccines didn’t save us” gambit. It’s intellectually dishonest in the extreme, because it ignores the fact that the reason that mortality from these diseases was decreasing was because of better medical care and that further decreasing mortality required decreasing the incidence of these diseases. That’s just what vaccines did. Of course, one wonders what on earth this has to do with the NVICP and whether it is a good system to compensate the vaccine injured. One might think that Holland is trying to denigrate the efficacy of vaccines in order to demonize them and make it easier for her to attack a system that doesn’t give her the desired result.
Add to that Holland’s parroting of more antivaccine misinformation and distortions, such as the claim that when it comes to vaccines children are getting “too many too soon.” Then, of course, there was the classic confusing of correlation with causation, in which Holland tried to link chronic conditions such as obesity learning disabilities, asthma, infant morality, and, of course, autism, with the increased number of vaccines and doses in the current vaccine schedule, calling it a “dramatic correlation,” as Ed described in his Tweet above.
But she’s not antivaccine. Oh, no. Not at all. She just thinks vaccines are dangerous, that they are responsible for autism and most chronic diseases in children. She just repeats the lie that Gardasil kills and that it causes premature ovarian failure and infertility. Oh, and she thinks that the U.S. has taken away informed consent for vaccines. One wonders when that happened. (It didn’t.) In reality, what Holland is unhappy about is that her version of misinformed consent isn’t what rules.
You know, just reading my mole’s notes, I’m really embarrassed for Holland. She is really clueless, so much so that she actually showed the Canary Party video, you know, the one narrated by Rob Schneider. It’s a video so chock full of pseudoscience, cherry picked information, and spin that it’s in danger of collapsing into a black whole of stupid. I mean, seriously, if you’re going to try to make a scientifically valid and persuasive case, that video is the last thing you want to do. Of course, making a scientifically valid case is not what this is about. Making an appeal to emotion is. That’s why Holland brought up even more of the antivaccine movement’s greatest hits, including:
- The Bailey Banks case, which I discussed here.
- The Hannah Poling case, which I discussed here, here, and here.
- Mary Holland’s Pace Environmental Law Review article which didn’t show what she claimed it to show. It also arguably violated human subject research regulations and the Common Rule, because Holland never got institutional review board approval to do human subjects research.
And Holland claims she’s not antivaccine.
I’m not going to say much about Rolf Hazlehurst’s part of the talk, because it was even more vacuous, consisting of his misinformed opinion interspersed with rants about how unfairly treated he thought he was by the Vaccine Court, He accused the Vaccine Court of “willfully and intentionally” concealing “critical and material evidence” on how vaccines cause autism and representing that this evidence did not exist. The claim, of course, is utter nonsense, as the evidence presented was pure pseudoscience. As I discussed so long ago, the Vaccine Court bent over backwards to be deferential to him and the parents of the children who were the other test cases. As much as I want to sympathize with him for his travails taking care of a special needs child, from the notes I read the amount of misinformation he spouted was nearly as epic as Holland. One also notes that Mr. Hazlehurst and his wife subjected their son to all sorts of “autism biomed” treatments, up to and including chemical castration with Lupron, a particularly vile form of nonsensical medical treatment that I’ve blogged about multiple times before.
So what are Holland’s complaints about the NVICP? Here are some of them, with my comments after:
- The NVICP forecloses access to other forums. No, it doesn’t. If a case fails in Vaccine Court, the parents can access the federal courts.
- Now adversarial, contrary to original intent. It’s only seen as adversarial if you try to bring a case based on pseudoscience.
- No judicial independence of special masters. Holland presents no evidence to support this contention.
- 80% of cases lose. One wonders how many cases Holland believes to be an appropriate number? I’m guessing that anything less than 100% of cases winning would be too few for her.
- Unequal playing field – HHS lawyers/families. I’m not sure how this is the case when the parents’ legal expenses are reimbursed.
- Three year statutes of limitations. This seems more than reasonable for a true vaccine injury, unless Holland can tell us of a vaccine injury shown by science to become apparent longer than three years after being vaccinated.
- Experts demeaned and reputations harmed. You mean like Mark Geier, the quack who used chemical castration to treat autism because he thought it would improve the efficacy of chelation therapy? Apparently to Holland “demean” means to dismiss quacks from being considered valid expert witnesses.
- Conflicts of interest. Ah, yes. The all-purpose antivaccine bugaboo: Allege conflicts of interest without actually demonstrating a real conflict of interest.
- Not transparent – people don’t know about it. That is not a reason to eliminate it.
- Judicial forum for 90% – not design, no rules of evidence, no discovery, no jury.
- Science lacking. Science is indeed lacking, but not in the Vaccine Court. The only science that is lacking is compelling science demonstrating a link between vaccines and autism and all the other chronic diseases that Holland blames on them.
Holland then lists policy options (again, my comments afterward):
- Do nothing. I would actually be fine with this. What’s not broken doesn’t need fixing.
- Tinker at edges. I would be OK with this; no system is perfect. However, it would depend on the specifics of the “tinkering.” If it’s “tinkering” that weakens the science used by the Vaccine Court, I would oppose that.
- Make the NVICP optional. It already is, essentially, optional. If a finding goes against the parents, they can still access federal courts.
- Give limited liability protection. Remove liability protection for vaccines since 1986. This would be an interesting development. If this were to happen, then there would be liability protection for the whole cell pertussis vaccine, but not the newer acellular pertussis vaccine. In any case, this is a dumb idea.
- Repeal act. Give access to courts. Make manufacturers liable. Revert to state informed consent laws. Remember why the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed? It was because of a flood of frivolous lawsuits threatening to drive manufacturers out of the business of manufacturing vaccines? Want to go back to those days? Want to risk losing the U.S. vaccine program? This is the way to go if that’s what you want.
- Create a federal right of vaccine exemption. Oh, hell no!
- Repeal act AND create federal vaccine exemption right. Double, oh, hell no!
As you can see, Mary Holland’s goal is nothing less than the dismantling of the NVICP and the Vaccine Court. She must not be allowed to succeed. If you want to know more about why, please read Dorit Reiss’ post on the issue, in which she explains from a legal perspective just how wrong (and wrong-headed) Mary Holland is and how, by every possible measure, for children with real vaccine injuries, the Vaccine Court is equivalent to or better than going through the civil courts. I’ll be keeping an eye on developments between now and December 4. I hope you will do the same and be sure to contact your legislators to educate them about Holland’s intent and to urge them to support the NVICP.
280 replies on “Antivaccinationists brief Congressional staffers, and the misinformation flows”
In the current “do-nothing” Congress – how exactly do they think they’ll push forward anything so controversial?
True story, Lawrence, I was thinking the same thing. They can’t even keep themselves open!
I’m still writing my rep. Thanks for a play by play, Orac, so I can be more specific.
Given how rife with errors the claims and how ludicrous Holland’s “solutions” were and remained completely unchallenged by the staffers, the hearing ought to be quite the clown show.
I’ve also heard that the briefing was filmed, and that the video will be posted on Facebook soon.
Orac, did the notes mention anything about Holland making the “autism-like symptoms are the same as autism” nonsense that stemmed from her Pace article? If so, then I just have to say again that if autism-like symptoms are the same as autism, then I have polio.
Oh, yeah. Lots of that. I just ran out of energy to cover everything.
You really have to wonder though about HHS and CDC. Why don’t they provide decent briefings themselves, to answer the canards? The last time Issa had a meeting, they sent a couple of people to talk about autism. Surely they must have known the thing was the usual farce. Why the hell didn’t they send people who knew about vaccine safety?
Well, then I have an awful case of tuberculosis. (I’ve been a little congested as the asthma flared up with the cold air coming in. Nothing albuterol and singulair can’t handle.)
Jeff @6: They may have been specifically not invited, or (especially with CDC, which is in Atlanta) may not have had the budget to send somebody (this is a feature, not a bug, of the sequester). Or they may have feared that Issa would turn his committee on them–he has been known to use his committee chairmanship for scoring political points against his enemies, real or perceived.
And as Orac notes in the original post, the purpose of this briefing was not scientific persuasion. The target audience was Congresscritters and staffers, most of whom have no scientific background (and several of the medical doctors in Congress have displayed a profound incomprehension of basic biology). Unfortunately, it is emotion rather than reason which tends to prevail in politics, which is why Issa et al. even have political careers in the first place.
@ Jeff
My understanding from reading Ed’s tweets yesterday was that no questions were allowed. I’m not sure how briefings work, but I think that is the cranks set it up/scheduled the agenda, true experts are SOL unless there’s room for questions. They may have been people there and they couldn’t say anything.
Also, the issue is pretty much dropped for the CDC, they system is sound, and they’ve provided the evidence for vaccine safety. If they preemptively held briefings to say “everything’s good guys, just want to remind you!,” it would 1) look weird, 2) be a waste of time, and 3) open up the floor for debate by an expert authority on a subject where debate isn’t appropriate. Unfortunately, they relegates them to responding to idiots, scrambling to get briefings in after the initial strike.
I guess I am just a tendril in Orac’s vast empire now.
Well, somebody has his knickers/ panties/ shorts in a twist/knot /bunch**-
Jake ( @ AutismInvestigated) perseverates about Mark’s apparent move away from the mercury hypothesis. He includes e-mails from 2007 and carries on because the Canary Party promised Hooker that the next meeting would be about CDC cover-ups not vaccine court.
Blaxill,it seems, doesn’t scoff at data from the Danish fraudster “principal investigator” or more recent Caliifornia data that fail to show a decline in autism rates after the removal of the deadly nerve poison- and worst of all, he thinks that the problem of causation may be more complex .
Jake’s rant contains an ironic quote from Hooker – that he perhaps agrees with whole-heartedly:
“Mark Blaxill is not a scientist and should not think that he can represent the science around the issue. I’m frankly sick and tired of him playing “cowboy” scientist acting as if anyone can do what a lot of us trained so long and hard to do”
I would guess that neither is as happy as a little girl today.
Will Jake’s next post be”How Mary and Mark Stole Something or Other”?
** need to cover variants.
We definitely appreciate your letting Ed know about this I hope Ed is still planning to write up his first-person account. He can also contact me and follow up regarding the actual hearing if he thinks it would be helpful. This was just the warm-up—unfortunately. Sadly, Darrell Issa is turning into this generation’s Dan Burton. We need CFI and JREF to help combat this.
Now report to Lord Draconis for your pharma shill reward, for we are all but sub-tendrils of an even larger being of which CFI and JREF are but tendrils. Or whatever. 🙂
@Tim Farley
Umm…Ia! Ia! Orac fhtagn!…?
I located Kent Heckenlively’s coverage of the Hazelhurst Vaccine Court’s proceeding. The science teacher/attorney Heckenlively actually compares the respondents’ attorney and the Special Master to pimps:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/11/its-hard-out-he.html
“A few years back there was a song called “It’s Hard out here for a Pimp” which was nominated for an Academy Award. As I read through the first of four days in the second test case for the Autism Omnibus Proceeding, Hazlehurst v. the Secretary of Health and Human Services, all I could think was that there must be some days when it’s equally hard to be a government attorney defending the current vaccination program.”
According to Kent Heckenlively, the Hazelhursts embarked on biomedical treatments which included the castrating drug Lupron, prescribed by Mark Geier (who only charged the parents a few hundred dollars per treatment)…because their autistic child “had high testosterone levels”.
Is Rolf Hazelhurst, who is also an attorney, going to be their expert witness, testifying at the December 4th Hearing? Will Mrs. Hazelhurst, who gave up her job as a “Big Pharma Shill” (drug rep), to care for her autistic son, also testify?
No, as stated the complaint is accurate. In particular he was almost certainly referring to Bruesewitz v Wyeth. Yes there’s an appeals process after the Special Master rules, but that’s limited in scope. There is no right to file a new suit outside the program after losing in the vaccine court.
In fact, that’s the whole POINT of the law – limiting the liability of the vaccine manufacturers by barring lawsuits outside the program.
So while he’s wrong to consider this a bad thing, that is a true statement of the law’s effects.
@Beamup
Well, yes and no. (And hopefully Narad’s lessons have finally sunk into my brain by this point.) Other fora for design defect claims are precluded (though appeals of the SM’s decision are available, and work up the Federal court system to the SCOTUS), but manufacturing defect claims and labeling defect claims are still able to be pursued in civil court.
While the “can’t sue in civil court” thing has a kernel of truth to it, it’s not the whole truth and is misleading. What’s interesting is that the whole “manufacturers know that their vaccines cause autism, but they just cover it up” argument could be pursued, I think, in civil court under the labeling defect claim. It’s not likely to win, but they could try. It’s kind of surprising that they haven’t tried that yet.
@Todd – civil litigation can be hideously expensive (and lawyers are reluctant to take cases on retainer without a good chance at winning or at least getting a large settlement), so I’m not surprised that there haven’t been more attempts….although, with the current rules of Civil Procedures, Discovery can be quite a potent weapon, if the anti-vax people think they Pharma companies are hiding documents or data that could back of their claims of a link between vaccines & autism…..
Again, it is much easier to make lies out of whole cloth, than take the chance at going for real evidence…since there is a chance they would be proven wrong in public (and the anti-vax folks can’t let that happen).
@Lawrence
Indeed, which makes it all the more mind-boggling that they’re trying to get rid of the NCVIA and NVICP. Some complain that NVICP can be slow and drag on, but they forget that in civil court, the defendant, if sufficiently well-resourced, can file various motions to draw out the process even longer, at great cost to the parties involved.
But yeah, wrt the labeling defect/”they know!” claim, if they are certain of their convictions, really surprised they haven’t tried that yet. But, as you point out, it would open them up to being found out to be the liars they are.
@ Todd:
As I understand it, mainly from reading the Bruesewitz opinion, claims for manufacturing defect or mislabeling essentially must represent “this is not as approved by the FDA.” If it’s labeled with the FDA-approved language, there is no mislabeling. If the product produced is the formulation the FDA approved, there’s no manufacturing defect.
Claims of the form “this was manufactured and labeled as approved by the FDA, but caused this side effect anyway” are necessarily design defects and barred.
You’re right that “this lot was contaminated, and the contaminant caused harm” or “this instruction which was in the FDA-approved text was omitted from the insert due to a printing error, resulting in incorrect administration, which caused harm” could be pursued outside the program – but those aren’t the interesting claims.
I think you’d need to be a brave attorney to take many vaccine litigation clients outside the system.
Firstly, a huge number of the clients would be poorly educated people who have been drawn in, and would expect a contingency or reduced fees arrangement for the noble cause they’ve been told they are fighting.
Then there’s a situation where the plaintiff’s evidence would mostly be litigation-driven “research”, which judges are required to give lesser weight to.
Then there would be the plaintiff’s experts, who mostly have records of scathing denigration by special masters as professional witnesses outside their expertise.
Then you’ve got the issue that plaintiffs in product liability suits are notorious liars, who commonly make up any story about tripping on the sidewalk or being in constant pain after a rear-ending. ‘He was a bubbly nine-month old who walked, ate with a knife and fork, and had a vocabulary of 60 words, until [insert vaccine]…”
A horrendous situation compared with the guaranteed fees of vaccine court.
I will specifically quote the Bruesewitz ruling:
So unless there was a deviation from the license, it’s barred.
I like to note that although no vaccine is 100% safe, neither is not getting vaccinated. Indeed, getting vaccinated is generally safer than not getting vaccinated. That’s kind of the point.
“… which makes it all the more mind-boggling that they’re trying to get rid of the NCVIA and NVICP”
Not mind boggling at all. The autism/vaccine team lost in vaccine court. It may be more expensive to go outside, but it would be a chance.
Go back and read Kent Heckenlively and Mary Holland’s reviews of the Omnibus. Holland tried to stick to what was actually happening. Heckenlively talked about how well things were going. At the time there wasn’t a feeling that these were contentious and rigged.
For example
He even had his “dark tower” article:
They thought they were going to win. They thought that the proceedings were fair (at that time). There wasn’t a discussion of how unfair the proceedings supposedly were or how contentious.
“I like to note that although no vaccine is 100% safe, neither is not getting vaccinated.”
Exactly. Not vaccinating is an “unavoidably unsafe” action.
@Beamup
Don’t get me wrong. They would have a hell of a time with trying to come up with some claim that’s not design defect that would have even a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, but they could try, which is why the whole “completely shielded from liability” or “can’t sue outside the VICP” arguments are dishonest.
@Matt Carey
I understand what their mindset is, but it still boggles my mind that they think that the civil court route would be easier or better. Their blinders keep them from seeing that their situation would be much more difficult outside NVICP.
Anyone want to make a scene? “Save our kids, protect vaccine access!” Sounds like fun to me.
If I recall correctly, this was part of the Sykes lawsuit. Lisa Sykes (the same one who partnered with the Geiers on some studies and whose kid was one of the first Lupron subjects) did bring a lawsuit. She used Cliff Shoemaker (who probably threw the vast majority of business at the Geiers from the court). As the case was closing down, Shoemaker misused his authority to subpoena Kathleen Siedel (Neurodiversity.com) claiming she was part of some grand conspiracy. The subpoena was quashed.
Consider this from the Sykes lawsuit
Sykes argued design defect and breach of warranties
Which sounds to this layman like a failure to warn argument.
@Todd – they’ve been sold a bill of goods by Trial Attorneys who think nothing more than the years (and decades) of fees they would be able to charge if they went to Civil Court…..
Knowing the Legal industry as I do, I can tell you, they don’t know how good they have it with the Vaccine Court…..
What surprises me is that there are not a lot more cases that win at vaccine court. I’m not offering stats, but I would think that the distribution of first symptoms of developmental disorders and the distribution of vaccine administrations would produce more coinicidences and hence table injury awards, even in the complete absence of any causal link, than we are seeing.
Putting up a case or two where table injury awards were made is a hopeless basis of convincing anyone of modest intellect and knowledge that vaccines cause autism.
It’s like saying an asshole struck by lightning proves there is a God.
The attorneys outspoken on this issue are parents of autistic kids–Holland, Hazelhurst, Krakow.
@ Matt Carey:
Thanks for your inclusion of Kent’s dream:
altho’ I don’t interpret dreams, I think it points out the degree of mythic significance they attribute to their righteous mission-
people who think of themselves primarily as heroes or as saviours make me extremely nervous.
At the end of the day, I don’t think this has anything to do with compensation, the court, ease, etc, or anything that their claiming this is for. The point of this is to reopen the “debate” on a public stage and ingnite fear. AGAIN. They’re running out of options and ways to do that.
My congressperson just got a two-page letter.
I wonder how much the earlier detection of autism might knock the wind out of the antivax sails?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24837462
Of course, it’s early days for that method so it might never come about. But if it did become a standard test, would the antivaxxers be forced to concentrate on vaccinations given in the first few months of life? How long before they’d be blaming all the vaccinations the mother had as a child?
How long before they’d be blaming all the vaccinations the mother had as a child?
They’ve already started. Read some of the comments sections on articles discussing it. The new goalpost will soon be Mommy’s childhood shots.
@Rich Woods
Oh, they already emphasize the earlier vaccines (e.g., HepB birth dose), and have used the mother’s vaccinations to explain autism in those children who are completely unvaccinated (e.g., Kim Stagliano’s youngest daughter). The earlier detection thing, if it pans out, would just be ignored or dismissed as unreliable. The true believers would still go right on blaming every vaccine under the sun. Just look at how they still clamor on about thimerosal or MMR.
In which case god’s name is obviously Zeus…
huge number of the clients would be poorly educated people
Unfortunately, an awful lot of these parents do appear to be well-educated. Just not very smart.
@ Todd:
I’m going to continue to disagree. The claims that they make are clearly design defect claims. A refusal to try and dress them up as something else to evade the law’s requirements, and instead trying to change the law to allow the claims they want to make, is IMO more honest.
Still misguided, of course.
@Todd (” I just have to say again that if autism-like symptoms are the same as autism, then I have polio.”)
Quite feasible. Do you live in Europe? (because it is coming your way)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962220-5/fulltext#aff1
Again, PGP, would you let Glenn Beck use your kind of argument on atheists?
Sorry, wrong thread. This one is more interesting, anyways.
@Todd W.
“I understand what their mindset is, but it still boggles my mind that they think that the civil court route would be easier or better. Their blinders keep them from seeing that their situation would be much more difficult outside NVICP.”
Maybe , maybe not. I suspect they believe they can win over the hearts and minds of a jury of their peers, science be damned.
@dingo199
Yeah, don’t get me started on polio eradication and how the combination of vaccine resistance and civil war are hampering that goal.
@ Rich Woods:
There have been other studies over the years that point to genetic, pre-natal and peri-natal causation as well as other very early indicators ( patterns of gaze, physiognomic indices- head size, intra-facial proportions, brain wave patterns, brain anatomy differences etc).
Still no dice.
In addtiion to what Todd W. mentions they also blame environmental factors like non-organic foods, meds, GMOs, toxins ad nauseum. It seems that anti-vaxxers like the Canary Party have expanded the model from * vaccines cause autism* to * vaccines plus other stuff cause autism plus other conditions*
I suspect they believe they can win over the hearts and minds of a jury of their peers, science be damned.
Indeed, that’s probably the thinking, and they might get lucky a few times. But what I think is more likely (IANAL) is that any plaintiffs’ lawyers in such cases (where the plaintiff does not have enough money to pay retainer fees, and few individual plaintiffs would) would have to be working on a contingency fee basis (because unlike the current Vaccine Court setup, regular civil court does not guarantee a payday for the plaintiff’s lawyer, particularly if the defendant prevails), and will therefore of necessity take only the cases they think are most likely to succeed. There is also a standard of scientific evidence admissible in court (I forget the name of the case which is attached to this rule), and I expect defense lawyers to challenge any alleged expert testimony presented by these plaintiffs. Finally, even when plaintiffs succeed at trial, defendants can appeal on errors of law, and will likely win a few of those appeals (since any adverse judgments would come out of their pockets rather than something that resembles a mutual insurance pool, defendants would have incentive to appeal).
TL;DR: The only people who are likely to benefit from replacing the Vaccine Court with regular civil trials are attorneys for vaccine manufacturers.
@ Eric Lund: “I forget the name of the case which is attached to this rule”
I think it’s called the “Daubert” standard.
@Eric Lund
It’s the Daubert Standard.
Here’s another example of the logic they are using.
Rolf Hazelhurst discussed the Court at AutismOne.
http://www.autismone.org/sites/default/files/hazelhurst.pdf
He notes what Dr. Zimmerman wrote about Hannah Poling (why Mr. Hazelhurst quotes the version as leaked by David Kirby with “CHILD” is beyond me since he also posted documents naming Hannah Poling directly)
He later in his presentation (2 slides later) states:
It’s only “word for word” if you neglect “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”
@ Matt, where does Hazlehurst’s claim that Yates was diagnosed by Dr. Zimmerman as having “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder,” appear in the OAP transcripts?
Science Mom,
it doesn’t. Corbier testified for the family, not Zimmerman. And Corbier never made that statement.
The statement comes from Hazelhurst’s AutismOne presentation.
@ Matt, thanks that’s what I thought based on my readings of the Hazlehurst case. So it’s argument by assertion and his child was never actually diagnosed with that. Of course you can have the exact same diagnosis as a child who was compensated by the NVICP when you just make stuff up. I sure hope Issa does his homework on this cast of characters lest he wind up looking rather foolish. Although it may be too late for that given how much money he’s blithely taken from them and tying up taxpayer time and money on this dog and pony show.
In his AutismOne presentation Mr. Hazelhurst includes an “initial evaluation” from Kenedy Kreiger and Dr. Zimmerman.
Given that it is an initial evaluation and the language above, it sounds like the diagnosis was made by someone else and the family came to Dr. Zimmerman for additional information.
ICD code 348.9 is “Unspecified condition of brain” or “Brain condition NOS”
“Create a federal right of vaccine exemption”
ADULTS already have the right to refuse. What she wants is the right to impose stupidity on children.
@ Matt, and no one questions him do they? Many of them had to be in attendance at the OAP hearing and certainly can read the transcripts/decisions. I guess their “scepticism” applies to select issues only.
Orac, thanks for the priceless link at the top of the fifth paragraph, the one between autism and organic food sales. Not only is the graph great, the comments are even better – hint to readers, do not have anything (especially liquid) in your mouth when you start reading.
Somebody should really plot graphs that illustrate the increase in ASD diagnoses alongside:
the growth of social media – and
the increase in anti-vaccination groups.
It might look similarly ironic.
Another:
autism diagnoses with/ without thimerisol.
No wait, that might actually show something.
Kent Heckenlively’s theory of autism and vaccines (from the link given by lilady @14):
“If your client didn’t do it, they want to know who might have committed the crime. If you can’t throw suspicion on somebody else, they’re probably going to convict your guy.”
Proof, anyone?
Orac, you become more laughable every day. No reports of children having a physical reaction to organic foods then regressing into autism the next day are there?
A University of California professor of law happened to be in the greater DC metropolitan area, and so was able to attend the
lunch bait for ill-paid staffers and internsCongressional staffers’ briefing. Professor Reiss has published her response to the presentation by Hazelhurst and Holland.DW covering the variants
Guess what Liz…my post (finally) got through on that blog.
Did anyone put out a call for a fire science expert who graduated from a fourth tier college, to post another of his inanities here?
No? You can go home now, Offal.
I guess there are no reports of children regressing the next day after organic foods because no journal has yet published fraudulent research claiming there were.
Hey, I’ve got an idea… Is there an organic food court?
[And don’t say at the mall]
[…] problem glossed over in the Canary Party video and her presentation, (as addressed in detail here, here and here) is that for the main injury they want to address, the claim that vaccines cause autism, […]
Hey Sid/Shecter/Offal/bikiniWaxingmachine/etc-
Puzzle this one in that reptilian cortex of yours–I have over 5,000 patients in my pediatric practice. I’ve not seen one of them “regress” into autism “the next day”. Hmmm, so let’s see…for something that’s 1 in 88 (autism) and I have 0 in 5000 regressing after vaccination (and often vaccines at multiple well visits), well Sid, that pretty much says it wasn’t the vaccines.
Dan weighs in on the meeting ( @ AoA) – and its actors-
and a Laura Hayes has some questions for”vaccine bullies” including our own Dr Chris**. Woo hoo!
As Mr Bowie wrote, “Fame, fame, fame, fame, fame…”
-btw- anyone not familiar with Sid/ Robert should peruse his Vaccine Machine facebook page. Go ahead it won’t bite you.
** and Dorit Reiss and Emily Willingham. They left Orac’s minions out.
Ms. Hayes’ questions were answered – in some detail – by our own Science Mom and myself where she first posted them, on Ms. Emily Willingham’s article on AB2109: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/11/04/could-california-law-to-boost-vaccine-uptake-end-up-reducing-it/
(last page of comments).
I guess she wanted a more congenial forum.
Two hilarious pieces on AoA this A.M.
The brave intrepid district attorney (Rolf Hazelhurst) who’s fighting for truth, justice and the American Way…and whose autistic child was not compensated for “vaccine injury”:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/standing-up-for-yates.html
And, yet another hit piece about Emily Willingham, Dorit Reiss and now, Christopher Hickie.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/dear-emily-willingham-dorit-reiss-christopher-hickie-and-other-vaccine-bullies.html
Congratulations Dr. Chris…You’ve “arrived”
Sadly, AoA almost never bothers to do hit pieces on me any more. They know such pieces don’t intimidate me any more. More importantly, they also know that I like them. They’re a badge of honor to me.
I also suppose it could have something to do with Jake Crosby’s self-immolation leading to his departure from AoA, too. 🙂
One minus of blogs like this is that you can’t “like” comments. I liked that last one even more than most comments here.
Jake is gathering his own little crew – it seems that the main focus of his invective is now the talented Mr Blaxill.
Gad, I’m starting to woder if perhaps MB, MBA isn’t all that bad…No wait. He’s awful. ANd he’s a leader of the awful.
HOWEVER Jake is really doing us minions service because he discusses the inner workings of the anti-vax movement and the clandestine rivalries and points of disagreement. They have to disagree- they don’t have any data to ground their egos to reality.
that’s WONDER…
‘woder’ sounds like ancient Jute.
Thanks for the links, Lilady. Don’t they realize their rants are nothing but a paper trail highlighting their actual motives? We all know they aren’t concerned with making the system better for those who might truly be injured, but then they go and put it in writing for everyone to see! You put your expert witness/representative/wronged parent up, then they run back to the conspiracy group and brag about how well they represented the conspiracy group they’ve been in for years? Even if people don’t understand the science, they will catch on that if this were real, they wouldn’t keep having to recycle their own over and over.
Oh, congrats Dr. Chris. Wear this honor proudly.
I’m sure Laura Hayes isn’t actually expecting an answer (and I don’t plan to post there), but here are my answers to her question:
1. Yes
2. Maybe
3. Probably not
4. Yes
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. Probably not, and this question effectively repeats question 3.
10 Probably not, and this question effectively repeats question 3.
11. No
12. No, and I would seriously suggest such a parent reexamine his/her/its religious convictions.
13. No.
14. No
15. Don’t plan to read the account, so we’ll leave that as undecided.
Age of Autism…a never-ending source of unintentionally humorous material for Orac to blog about. The gift that keeps on giving.
Our Laura, has been quite busy, in between her devotion to caring for two “vaccine-injured” children. She was involved in one of the groups that fought against the passage of California AB 2109 and found the time to post this rant directed at a judge in Minnesota. Can you imagine…she wants researchers, doctors, nurses, science bloggers…and anyone who is pro vaccine and pro science, to face criminal charges:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/immunize/immrule/comments/comment44.pdf
“7. Criminal charges need to be brought against those who knew that vaccines were causing autism and other childhood disorders and diseases, but who then chose to manipulate data, cover up evidence, lie about it, refuse to investigate it, continue to approve and recommend vaccines, etc. Rationale: Evidence exists that data manipulation, lying, and cover-ups have occurred. Crimes against humanity have been committed. They can not go unpunished. Justice must be served in its most severe form against those who perpetrated these crimes and
against those who perpetuated the autism epidemic, not to mention other vaccine injuries.”
lilady:
” and anyone who is pro-vaccine and pro-science, to face criminal charges”
That’s definitely on the agenda for many anti-vaxxers and their followers: I read comments like that all of the time.
They cherish the anxious hope that eventually the truth will out and then the malfeasants will go to jail and vaccines will be no more. Leaders of the movement nurture these fancies continuously. I wonder how long they can go on believing without any of these scenarios ever panning out in reality?
It’s already been a decade since they got going on this myth, isn’t it?
I wonder how many people would complete a form stating that they had religious views that precluded them from consulting a medical practitioner, and subsequently consulting a medical practitioner, perhaps for some other reason?
For anyone with any kind of job that relied on presumptions of integrity, you would have to think it would leave them exposed. To lie so as to evade the law is quite a serious issue, I’d think. Or maybe they would say that they lost their religious convictions when their child became ill.
Oh, SMH. So, in addition to SBM in the US and the CDC, she also wants the UN, WHO, UNICEF, the leaders of most world religions, just about every developed country’s health leadership, and just about every other international group in the world to face criminal charges. Or was she just referring to that one Shadow Agency that controls all the others? No matter how it’s sliced, you see nothing but crazy.
@Jeff
To lie so as to evade the law is quite a serious issue, I’d think. people lie on their flu declinations in my hospital all the time, required by a new NYS public health mandate. My hospital has HUGE incidence of history of Guillane-Barre, if one is to believe the forms. Someone should really study it. *eye roll* But it goes in their employment file.
Meleck just posted a comment on Dorit Reiss’ post on the Shot of Prevention blog. (She wants to do away with the “adversarial Vaccine Court”). Come and join me there. 🙂
http://shotofprevention.com/2013/11/08/congressional-briefing-attempts-to-discredit-vaccine-injury-compensation/#more-4921
I added a link to that post to the final paragraph of my post. it’s important to have a legal perspective on why Mary Holland is so wrong and wrong-headed. The reality is that dismantling the NVICP and Vaccine Court, as antivaccinationists want to do, would be a disaster for the children who suffer real vaccine injuries, as few as they are, because by every reasonable measure, going through the civil courts is harder, more expensive, and less likely to provide compensation than the Vaccine Court. http://shotofprevention.com/2013/11/08/congressional-briefing-attempts-to-discredit-vaccine-injury-compensation/
I’m certainly curious how she came to be “Co-Founder” of the MIND Institute, particularly that her name appears nowhere on their site.
“particularly given that”
@ Orac: I was busy posting on the SOP blog this A.M. My first comment made reference to the dismantling of the Vaccine Court. 🙂
November 9, 2013 at 2:49 am | #2
Quote
Thank you Dorit Reiss for this excellent post about the upcoming Congressional hearing, and the ramifications of destroying the structure in place for compensating children who have been harmed by a vaccine.
Reuben at The Poxes blog has a great post up about Laura’s AoA rant:
http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/no-no-no-and-no/
You could join me there.
Hmmmn. So the latest anti-vaccine tactic is to try to dismantle the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. I wonder who would benefit from that, eh? Maybe some attorneys?
Does anyone else think this is a deliberate strategy to destroy the US vaccination program?
@Kreb – they have stated as such….it isn’t a secret what their goal truly is.
After a rather cursory glance at that person’s diatribe on AoA, I think I’m pretty much in agreement with MOB (#74). But what is this Laura’s point? She sure doesn’t know and/or care what a bully is, but she hopes everyone who reads her screed is too dumb to know. Thankfully I think most people will recognize her mistake. I also strongly disagree with her assertion that I would be “hard-pressed to find any parent who is a citizen of the U.S.A. who does not fit into 1 of the first 14 categories.” I say bullhockey to that stupid unsubstantiated assertion. FYI all you AoA folk–I always obtain consent before vaccination and I would never give a child a vaccine if a parent didn’t consent (with signature) for it. Maybe this Laura is just miffed because my practice has joined the quietly growing group of pediatric practices who will not accept families who won’t vaccinate on the CDC schedule—which is basically our way as pediatricians to tell parents who think medicine should be based on what they read on a mommy blog that they are wrong. But that isn’t bullying by any definition of the word. It’s called delivering the standard of medical care in pediatrics. It also keeps the newborns in my practice safe from parents whose beliefs on vaccines endanger not only the health of newborns in my practice (witness the 2008 measles outbreak in southern California where an unvaccinated child with measles infected newborns in a physician’s waiting room), but also public health in general (witness the pertussis outbreak in my area of practice in Tucson, which is up to 16 cases now). This standard of care for vaccination is based on a whole lot of peer-reviewed research, both benchtop and clinical–which the AoA people always ignore. AoA would tell you the world is flat because one of their members fell off a cliff and drowned. That is how myopic their thinking is.
Thanks for mentioning this; I’m glad I’m not the only one who couldn’t find a darn thing about her “co-founding the MIND Institute”. It wouldn’t be the first time a person with anti-vaxx proclivities and something to gain by them would fabricate their credentials.
FWIW, I believe that the Hayes family was among the five families that contributed to the start of the MIND Institute. Although I’ve seen Rick Hayes lauded as one of the “founding fathers” of the Institute, I don’t think that it’s possible to discount the role that Laura Hayes may have played in the genesis of a center that was initially planned to investigate possible nongenetic causes of ASD.
Not that I know of, Sid, but what you’re doing by bringing that up is changing the subject.
See, there are quite a few of your fellow anti-vaxxers who would swear on a Bible that vaccines cause autism and the following is proof:
1) There is a correlation between increases in the vaccine schedule over the years and rising rates of autism diagnosis over the years.
2) There is no reasonable explanation for such a correlation, for two things both increasing over the same time period, except for one causing the other.
3) Therefore, there is a causal relationship between increases in the vaccine schedule and rising rates of autism diagnosis.
Of course, a syllogism has no deductive force if either of its premises is false, and premise 2 is false. If it were true, then there would have to be a causal relationship, not just between autism rates and vaccination rates, but between both of those things and organic food sales, Internet shopping, use of the phrase “baby daddy” in print, and everything else in the world that also increased during that time period.
What you are doing now, Sid, is presenting a different argument, and dishonestly suggesting that Orac is “laughable” for not responding to that argument before he knew you were going to show up and trot it out.
What’s more, your new argument pretty much sucks, almost as much as the “they both went up at the same time so they’re connected” argument. Your syllogism is:
1) There are numerous verifiable reports of children “having physical reactions to vaccines and then regressing into autism the next day”; these stories in the aggregate represent a close temporal correlation between vaccination and autism.
2) There is no reasonable explanation for such a close temporal correlation, except a causal relationship.
3) Therefore, there is a causal relationship.
But again, a syllogism has no force if either if its premises are false. This time, it’s premise 1 that poofs into vapor with just a little prodding: if there are so many children who got vaccines and then regressed into autism within 24 hours, why did Andrew Wakefield find it necessary to tamper with the records of the children in his Lancet study, just to make it look like all twelve regressed within two weeks of vaccination? If these one-day regressions were as numerous as you claim, Wakefield could easily have assembled twelve of them, wouldn’t you think? If you think those verifiable one-day regressions exist, in sufficient numbers that they prove something, then please go ahead and verify them; don’t expect us to be impressed just because you say they’re out there.
Lawrence,
I know that’s clear to those of us familiar with this area, but I think this should perhaps be somehow made clearer to those who are not. From where I’m sitting, in the UK where we don’t have anything comparable to the NVICP, an attack on the Vaccine Court like this makes no sense at all, especially when coming from people who are supposedly advocating on behalf of the parents of vaccine-damaged children. The only way this makes sense is that attacking the Vaccine Court is as an attempt to make drug companies once again reluctant to manufacture vaccines because it makes them a target for vexatious, frivolous or malicious litigation.
Antaeus,
I also wonder if Sid has any explanation for why the Madsen 2002 NEJM study found that of the 738 cases of autism and other ASDs recorded in the study, only 11 were diagnosed within 6 months of being vaccinated with MMR: 3 autism cases and 8 other ASD cases. Compare that to the 53 cases of autism and 77 cases of other ASDs diagnosed in children who had not been vaccinated with MMR.
Only 3 cases of autism diagnosed within 6 months of MMR out of over 400,000 vaccinated children doesn’t seem like much of a correlation to me, much less anything remotely suggesting causation.
There’s an op-ed in the 11/9 Wall St. Journal from Bill Gates, on his foundation’s multifaceted efforts to improve living conditions in India. He praises India’s successful efforts to eradicate polio through vaccination.
“When Melinda and I visited India in March 2011, two months after the last case of polio was identified, we traveled to a brick kiln whose workers labored long hours at low wages and lived in mud huts. We met a young mother and asked if her children had been vaccinated. She ducked into her hut, retrieved a bag that held all her possessions, and rummaged around the bottom of it until she proudly produced an immunization card listing the names of all her children and showing that each had received the polio vaccine—not just once, but several times. We were amazed.”
It’s a terrific story. And while we can be amazed (and gratified) at the outcome (and Gates’ determination to see his campaign through to finally eradicate polio worldwide), I couldn’t help thinking of the hardcore antivaxers grinding their teeth reading about it (Gates is one of their favorite targets). How sad and sick to be angry about the relief of suffering.
Congratulations to Dr. Hickie, by the way. Bully for you. 🙂
I’ll answer Laura Hayes’ first question, since for me it’s not hypothetical:
Both of my children continue to receive vaccines on time. We are not yet due for the booster of the vaccine which provoked the adverse reaction, but when the time comes, we will proceed with caution. Please note I used the word proceed.
And if it provokes a similar reaction as the first time around – well, that child will have to rely on herd immunity in the future. But the younger sibling won’t, because I already know that the younger one received that vaccine without incident, because I did not allow fear to color my risk benefit analysis.
Only a little off topic I think — There seems to be increasing use of the idea of mitochondrial disorders among the fringies. This is not to say that such disorders do not exist. Certainly they do, and mitochondrial dysfunction may be a significant part of the aging process. But the idea that a vaccination aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder seems ultimately weird to me. Connecting a disorder that has a known neurological effect with vaccination comes across as little more than magical thinking.
I’ve known two people who died of mitochondrial disorders. They definitely exist.
I… have never, ever heard that they are in any way connected to vaccines. In both cases the families were told “genetic disease of the mitochondria.”
Is there even a hypothetical mechanism by which that could even happen? Are there studies on it at all?
I can’t imagine there’d be a drop of a dribble of truth in that, but does anyone have any info on it?
Or is it something as farfetched as “I hit my knee on a doorway yesterday and it gave me cancer!”
(Anecdotal) Both of my children received the whole cell pertussis vaccine DTP. My daughter who never had a seizure disorder, had high fevers and cried for hours. I was very apprehensive about the DTP vaccines my son, who had a grand mal seizure disorder was scheduled to receive. He had very mild reactions (body warm to the touch and a bit of fussiness). BTW, during the 1970s, parents were instructed to give their babies aspirin to prevent fevers following immunizations.
@ Bob G and Khani: I had a discussion with Maurine Meleck on a science blog several weeks ago, about “mito” disorders.
Maurine has one (or two) grandchildren who have autism. She brags how she raised them and “recovered” one of them using (unknown) biomedical treatments.
According to Maurine, a claim for “vaccine injury-autism” was instituted in the Vaccine Court. When the Omnibus cases were heard, that child’s claim for autism injury was discontinued and the Vaccine Court permitted a claim to be filed for mitochondrial-associated vaccine injury.
I then questioned Maurine about what types of tests were ordered to rule in or rule out a mitochondrial disorder and asked her if a fresh muscle biopsy was done. She claimed she “didn’t have the money to pay for the fresh muscle biopsy”…and no, she didn’t reply to my questions about screening tests performed. Sadly, that lawsuit was discontinued as well//sarcasm.
Here’s an article about Dravet Syndrome and Mitochondrial Disorders and that lack of association with vaccines “triggering” autism when children have DS or mitochondrial disorders are immunized.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603512/?report=classic
The problem the anti-vaxxers have with the MIND Institute is that it was set up with something in common with vaccine court.
They assumed that this new institution would discover that they were right. The trouble was, the MIND Institute is part of a university, and hence junk scientists, fraudsters and cranks were not well-regarded, and the research by a generally credible faculty did not confirm the anti-vaxxers’ expectations.
The leading figure back in the day was a guy called Rick Rollens. But he simply vanished from the scene. As far as I know, he makes no appearances in the anti-vax constellation.
It’s entirely possible that, with the benefit of knowledge, his thinking evolved. But I don’t know.
The idea behind vaccines as a trigger for precipitating Mito dysfunction links directly into the Hannah Poling case.
It is plausible that febrile induced oxidative stress could provoke Mito dysfunction and this is something that can occur with childhood infections, which is why the authorities who manage Mito cases specifically emphasise the importance of vaccination (to avoid the more “stressful” nature of infection with any occurrence of natural infection.
Of course, this leaves some wiggle room to argue that a febrile vax reaction might do the same.
@dingo 199: Cathy Jameson has her regular Sunday blog up at AoA. She provides us with the letter she wrote to her Congressional Representative, where she claims her lawsuit on behalf of her child’s “vaccine injury” was unfairly dismissed after seven years.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/mr-congressman-we-need-to-talk.html#more
She failed to mention in her letter that she and her husband first filed for vaccine injury associated with the administration of the MMR vaccine. The Vaccine Court permitted the Jamesons to amend their petitition to allege that her child’s vaccine injury was caused by the MMR vaccine and several other vaccines caused significant injuries due to the child’s “underlying mitochondrial disorder”.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/VOWELL.JAMESON071513.pdf
“….On January 13, 2012, petitioners filed an amended petition
in which they claim that the multiple vaccines, including the pneumococcal conjugate, diphtheria, tetanus, and acelluar pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and polio vaccines, significantly aggravated Ronan’s underlying mitochondrial condition, resulting in a seizure disorder and a brain disorder with features of an ASD. The information in the record, however,
does not show entitlement to an award under the Program….”
And…
“….To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either 1) that Ronan suffered a “Table Injury”–i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table-corresponding to one of Ronan’s vaccinations, or 2) that Ronan suffered an injury that was actually caused or significantly aggravated by a vaccine. See §§13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Ronan suffered a “Table injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive
evidence indicating that Ronan’s alleged injury was caused
or significantly aggravated by a vaccine.
.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on the petitioners’ claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioners’ claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioners, however, have offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement
.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioners have failed to demonstrate either that Ronan suffered a “Table Injury” or that Ronan’s injuries were “actually caused” or
significantly aggravated by a vaccination. Thus, this case is
dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
I’m willing to bet that every one of the “journalists” and posters on AoA originally filed claims in Vaccine Court for “MMR Vaccine associated injuries” and then amended the claims to allege other vaccines “aggravated an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction”. Talk about trying to game the system!
We may peer into the mindset of anti-vaxxers since they constantly express their innermost feelings to the world –
for example, today Cat Jameson @ AoA:
writes to her congressman imploring him to attend the meeting. She discusses her son’s “vaccine injury’ which “correlated” with his vaccines: she SAW it happen!
“It’s clear that vaccines did something to him”. He now struggles with his disabilities and has “lost his voice”.
She filed with the VICP and waited for 7 years before the case was dismissed.”On paper, the VICP made it incredibly difficult to prove that the vaccine injury occured”.
She concludes with a critique of the system by another anti-vaccine advocate.
Obviously, to me at least, she seeks to throw the VICP away because it didn’t give her the results she wanted- probably an acknowledgment that vaccines DID cause her son’s disabilities and lots of money.
Jameson spends a great of time and ink in advocacy : she appears at AoA and TMR regularly- like other vociferous activists, she appears to centre her identity on her warrior mother status. Freud wrote about “secondary gain”, i.e. when a person takes advantage of adversity ( “advantage through illness”) turning it into opportunity. She, like several of her sisters @ AoA and TMR, have made a career of it. They write at blogs, contribute to books (or write their own)and magazines, lecture, and appear at events like AutismOne or on television. She and a few others who most loudly complain ( Stagliano and MacNeil esp) about their child’s deficits also write about the “perfect” child who is now lost to them. I sometimes think that they parade the child’s difficulties( e.g. with long recitatives about what the child CAN’T do, including videos of their efforts) in order to prove how they’ve been betrayed- this uses the child as a prop to display the mother’s talents which would have been totally wasted because of “vaccine injury” had it not been for her martyrdom.
All in all, I find them quite disagreeable and self-serving- but what do I know- I’m not a mother.
Obviously, to me at least, she seeks to throw the VICP away because it didn’t give her the results she wanted- probably an acknowledgment that vaccines DID cause her son’s disabilities and lots of money.
This is the underlying attitude of all anti-vaxxers…they aren’t interested in fact or truth or true research, they will throw away and scream conspiracy for anything that does not come to the same conclusion they have, even if it started out as a benefit for them. Anything and everything. If Wakefield himself came out, admitted his wrong, and pledged to give all his money to Autism Speaks or the ASF to truly research into autism causes, treatment options, and services for ASD children and adults, he’d be condemned. No one and nothing can change their minds.
And I do truly hold that while a few of them honestly have been swindled and taken in, there are just as many who wage this war for themselves. Their mindset is clear in their language: stolen from ME, I’M taking care of this child, I need to get him back, etc., etc. It’s all very self-serving.
It’s hard to see how Cathy Jameson could have fared any better outside vaccine court given the lack of causation evidence. There are a number of cases that languished in vaccine court as part of the OAP because the petitioners wanted the cases to stay in abeyance for several years while the science developed, hopefully, in their favor. That didn’t happen and they ultimately lost. A number of petitioners filed in the hopes that the omnibus proceeding would result in a finding that “vaccines cause autism” and they wouldn’t have to put up proof of causation in their individual cases, as they didn’t have any. Jameson seems to be one of these. Again, these petitioners wouldn’t be better off in any other court.
@Anne – they would have been considerably worse off, given the adversarial nature of the Civil Litigation system….
The video of the “Vaccine Hearing briefing” is up on AoA. Here, Rolf Hazelhurst blathers on about the Poling case, and gives his expert medical opinion that Hannah’s previously undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder and fevers which led to seizures and encephalopathy with autistic-like behaviors=autism.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/rolf-hazlehurst-on-vicp-at-congressional-briefing.html
Time for lilady’s Media Review of Anne Dachel’s Media Review.
http://www.reformer.com/opinion/ci_24486978/now-rsquo-s-time
She’s posted 9 off-topic Spamming comments and is bragging about her activities on AoA.
brian @ 90, thanks for the information. I looked around for any information on the founding members but didn’t come up with Hayes. I wonder why she invokes it considering the MIND Institute isn’t living up to their expectations.
The odd thing about Hazlehurst’s story in the video is that when you go to the evidence and transcripts of his case in vaccine court, there’s nothing (at least that I could find) about his son experiencing an encephalopathy.
All I could find was the old Wakefield story about how there was measles virus found and how the boy had a regression a few months after his MMR.
But in the video, Hazlehurst says Zimmerman reported exactly the same thing as in Poling. In which case, why was this not in evidence?
Personally, I don’t believe what he is saying. Also, I notice that he says that Zimmerman gave two different opinions on the same facts, but while he quotes one opinion, he doesn’t quote the other. He just summarises it in his own words.
Good speaker, but he is talking junk.
@Jeff1971: Krebiozen has mentioned that paper where the researchers found that after Wakefield’s “research” came out parents of autistic children edited their memories to fit the MMR-Autism hypothesis.
I’m going to be charitable to Rolf Hazelhurst/Hazlehurst and assume he genuinely believes that the MMR caused his son’s autism. I think he’s doing the same thing as the parents in the study: editing his memories. Nevertheless, as you said, he is talking junk.
Hazllehurst’s video received a response from Terry Poling, who was not exactly thrilled with his exposure of her daughter’s condition.
Later in the thread, others turn up in support of RH or against Ms Poling, including Theresa Cedillo, ‘Child Health Safety’ and RI fave, Greg.
In other anti-vacciniana:
Jake & Co beat a dead horse ( Autism Investigated).
@ TMR: Alison MacNeil and LKH of Nuture Parenting blog team up with a new (internet) radio show – called ‘Angry Birds’ or suchlike.
I can hardly wait. Right.
OH, I nearly forget … with such a wealth of (crap) material..
Mikey yesterday creates a vaccine myth about vaccines contaiing viruses that cause the illness called ‘ Vaccine Fraud….”-
Any bets to how long it’ll take for that article or quotes from it appear here from scoffers?
Yah, me too. I wasn’t familiar with how they got started.
Wait, he uploaded a 1.8 gigabyte video? How long is it? You could get 4 hours of video that is perfectly acceptable for full-screen viewing on a 17-inch monitor into that footprint.
It’s particularly special that he effectively describes her as a discredit to the human race.
@ Narad:
Sure, he was so very much in support of parents’ suffering concerning their children’s ‘vaccine injuries’. Right.
In other AoA mind numbing fol de rol:
see photo @ Stagliano’s and GR’s new Whine… I mean Wine meme.
@ Narad:
Ooops! re your #114;
RH talks about Hannah in his ( c.) 10 minute video @ AoA.
Ms P responds in a comment.
@Denise – I like how Ms. Poling asks that people stop representing her child’s case & using for it an agenda that she does not support…..and instead, AoA’ers pretty much tell her to “sit down, shut up & let us do our thing….” nice people over there.
ouch – I mean, misrepresenting her case….
I notice that the video is now down.
The video is down now…it was up a few hours ago. Hazlehurst accused staff at the Vaccine Court and Dr. Zimmerman of deliberate holding back vital information during the Omnibus hearings…something that he, as a member of The Bar and an officer of the court would never do.
Here, Lisa J. Goes post on TMR with 3 pdf documents from Rolf Hazelhurst (Someone please take screen shots before they disappear).
Scroll down to see the dialogue/comments from Terry Poling and LJ Goes:
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/how-the-zimmerman-report-affects-us-all/#sthash.bHnPgVpZ.dpbs
It seems to me that *someone* has been telling porkies.
Jeff1971 @109, go back to comment #49 and I asked the same question; Matt Carey was kind enough to clarify. What it boils down to (in my meagre estimation) is that since the Polings were awarded compensation for their daughter’s presumed vaccine injury, Dr. Zimmerman provided expert testimony which was given considerable weight by the Special Master presiding, Mr. Hazlehurst brought his son to see Dr. Zimmerman with a pre-conceived diagnosis ergo his son should also receive compensation even though Dr. Zimmerman did not provide that diagnosis nor testify on behalf of the Hazlehursts. What a weird little world they live in.
It’s particularly special that he effectively describes her as a discredit to the human race.
A truly committed troll will provoke both sides for entertainment.
@HDB – I also like AoA’s latest play that everyone that disagrees with them is a “bully.”
@ Science Mom:
“What a weird little world they live in”.
Agreed.
1 To make matters even worse (better?)-it appears that the aforementioned internet radio show hosted by Habakus and MacNeil (“FearlessParent”- not”Angry Birds” -that was a joke) will be on…… wait for it…….
Progressive Radio Network.
LKH appeared on Null’s show (tape) today-it’ll be on Wednesdays and archived for our …pleasure/ schadenfreude.
2. Jake’s site is becoming a gathering place for………………….
(fill in the blanks). The Gathering of the Loons?
Time for lilady’s Media Review of Anne Dachel’s Media Review. (Surprise, surprise. She’s only posted one comment)
http://www.thedp.com/article/2013/11/penn-behavioral-health-adult-autism-spectrum-program-penn-psychiatry
The Hazelhurst video appears to be back up.
Mr Hazlehurst would do well to withdraw his comments. IANAL but isn’t withholding information from a hearing a criminal offence? He could be sued for slander.
Methinks that Hazlehurst is so busy changing his story that he’s forgotten that we can find his case in vaccine court, download it and read it for ourselves.
IANAL, but Hazelhurst, IMO, would do well to retract his written and oral statements.
I’m wondering exactly what Brian Hooker and his brother-in-law, who have made a huge number of requests for information under the FOIA, are looking for.
Have you all checked out the comments posted on AoA? Many of the parents are angry with the Polings because they are unwilling to release their child’s medical records. Then too, are the comments that the Polings, who are relatively wealthy, should be willing to assist parents who do not have their resources. Has anyone informed them that you need proof of a vaccine injury and that awards are not handed out based on financial need?
@lilady – all it shows is that they have no idea of the actual facts of the Poling case & continue to try to shoe-horn it into their own anti-vaccine agenda….
[…] what’s up with all the “pharma shill” this and “CDC liars” that? Why waste time with Congress if you’re not seeking to blame someone? This point is patently false. Anti-vaccine people, […]
Oh, my, it looks like AoA wants the whole thing to go down the Memory Hole. They have deleted the entire post.
Check out what Jake has to say at
http://www.autisminvestigated.com/
@ Johnny:
That’s incredible:
Jake continues to reveal the much-vaunted camaraderie amongst his fellows / sisters.
Altho’ in the long run, none of this will amount to a hill of beans-because
it’s basically an argument amongst those who believe that the moon is made of cheese debating whether it’s Stilton or Gruyere.
debating whether it’s Stilton or Gruyere.
It’s Wensleydale, Grommet!
In fact there is no cheese at all on the moon, they’ve been deliberately wasting your time. Except for the Camembert, which is a trifle runny. And the cat’s eaten it.
is adding his voice to the calls for a “like” button after reading herr doktor bimler’s comment.
I should know better than to incorporate a metaphor involving food around here.
@ Johnny: IANAL…but I questioned whether Hazelhurst, would offer sworn testimony at the December 4th Congressional hearing about the Poling case and Dr. Zimmerman. I guess Hazelhurst is concerned that he will lose his livelihood (his license to practice law), for telling porkies, while under oath, at a Congressional hearing.
I should know better than to incorporate a metaphor involving food
Allusions to “hill of beans” are just asking for trouble.
@ herr doktor:
I was only trying to direct readers towards the meat of the matter- that little biscuit, Jake and the other tarts.
Oooops!
@Denice Walter – let’s not chop logic and make a word salad out of this one. We steak our reputations to the truth, anything else is gravy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Orac continues lying while more kids who shouldn’t be vaccinated are injured and killed by a bloated & unsafe vaccination schedule
His lies deceptions and deflections continue the entire length of his post.
He says – Issa is trying to surreptitiously force the CDC to explain “why the question of whether vaccines cause autism isn’t a priority for the government”
Of course that is the question that needs to be answered. Vaccines are proved to cause neurological damage to kids & adults who should not have been vaccinated. Vaccine manufacturers enjoy no-liability free market profits along with lucrative govt contracts while the system for compensating children is socialized & centralized, with vaccine makers shielded from even contributing to the compensation fund.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
NVIP’s Vaccine Injury Table is made more resrictive annually and injuries that should be affecting table timeframes are ignored. Bitnun et al demonstrated that a toddler died of MMR strain measles infection in his brain 8.5 months after he received his MMR. Yet the Vaccine Injury Table guidance for MMR caused encephalitis requires symptoms to be diagnosed 5-15 days after vaccination. While this would have precluded the child in Bitnun et al from receiving compensation if you look further the VIT allows compensation to anyone with primary immune problems to be compensated for disease for which they become symptomatic up to 6 months after the MMR. Even this clause does not extend compensation to the Bitnun victim, who ended up being diagnosed with a primary immune deficiency after weeks of hospitalization.
What logic is there to requiring encephalitis symptoms to appear in healthy children 5-15 days after immunization while a primary immune compromised child may be affected up to 6 months down the road? There is something very wrong with the logic behind these timeframes..
The health & immune function of children is variable affected by diet, stress, toxic exposures, recent illnesses & drugs. If immune challenges, deterioration or malfunction can lead to longer timeframes for symptoms of encephalitis to appear then healthy children should also be included in the longer timeframe for appearance of symptoms. No matter the timeframe in the VIT proof of MMR measles strain infection causing any disease is justification for compensation no matter if the individual received the MMR or not. If a child or a pregnant woman is infected by an immunized person then compensation should also be paid.
Vaccine manufacturers should also be contributing to the claims fund a set percentage of their profits from any particular vaccine to pay for some or all of the vaccine injuries for that particular vaccine. The surcharge fund should be used as a back up once the set profit percentage is reached. This would keep vaccine manufacturers motivated to produce a safe product to maximize their return rather than the liability-free ride that the NVIP was designed to give them. That free ride is part of the reason our vaccine schedule became so bloated, tripling since the incorporation of the NVIP compensation system..
Clearly the VIT is designed to reduce the number of kids compensatied, which helps to hide the size of the problem we actually face… the millions of correlated vaccine injuries that the HHS roughly estimates happen every year!
We could dramatically reduce the number of vaccine-caused injuries every year if we could find a way to get health care professionals & parents to read understand and implement all of the warnings. precautons & contraindications in vaccine package inserts.
Parents must be involved because many package inserts require knowledge of family & child’s health history. Some people authorized to give vaccinations don’t have access to such history, which even parents may be unaware of.
As an example the MMR package insert has a broad contraindication- “Individuals with a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency, until the immune competence of the potential vaccine recipient is demonstrated.”
MMR package insert also warns about corticosteroid use. I called Merck about Nasonex & Flonase being a possible contraindication for MMR.
They were unsure and opened a case on that question. THEY WERE UNSURE!!!
HOW CAN THAT BE?!?
How can MMR be called a “safe vaccine” if Merck doesn’t know if two of their own products that have been out for decades may cause “MIBE, pneumonitis or death” if used together?
Could MIBE lead to symptoms of autism? Of course.
Why does Gorski persist in using his talents to help injure and kill children and adults who should not be vaccinated, merely dismissing them as collateral damage? “Nothing is free from risk”… with the justification for creating the NVIP based on the phrase that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe”. That’s a science-based answer to the millions of injuries and deaths vaccines are correlated to every year?
Why doesn’t Gorski get behind a “safe vaccine” movement or use his influence to promote parental & health care professional awareness of the package insert warnings and require both parents & health care professionals to sign papers with a complete consolidated list of warnings, contraindications & precautions well befoe the day of vaccination… which sometimes involves 9 vaccines, as in the case of Hannah Poling?
A consolidated list of warnings precautions & contraindications with at least two people (parent & professional) signing off on them declaring they do not apply to this particular child for each particular vaccine the child is receiving, along with a list of medications the child is taking… This could eliminate most of the hundreds of thousands to millions of serious injuries that the HHS admits are correlated to vaccine use EVERY YEAR, based on the under-reporting of our vaccine surveilance systems in the USA-
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
http://medalerts.org/
Could any of what I have just posted stopped the Bitnun child from being killed by MMR? Maybe. That would depend on what was known about the family history of genetic or hereditary immune problems.
A national health database could be a solution to that particular live vaccine contraindication.
And there is more that should be investigated on the Bitnun child’s health history. Such as simultaneous vaccinations, proximal illness, any indicators of improper immune function, familial source of the primary immune deficiency (I hope the rest of the family members have been notified)… I’m sure I haven’t thought of everything that should have been investigated..
“Could any of what I have just posted stopped the Bitnun child from being killed by MMR?”
Mr. Polidori, you have not posted anything. Your random rambling on comment #143 is the only thing from you on this page.
For those who wonder, this is the 1999 paper: Measles inclusion-body encephalitis caused by the vaccine strain of measles virus.
A couple of quotes:
and:
That was one tragic case history of a very rare event. How would that child have fared by actually getting measles? If the depressed CD8 population was known before hand, then the child would have needed protection through community immunity.
The paper was published in 1999, a year according to the CDC Pink Book Appendix G that two people died from measles in the USA.
you have not posted anything. Your random rambling on comment #143 is the only thing from you on this page.
Perhaps still in moderation due to the two-link limit.
Mr. Polidori is back. Oh, goody. I’ve missed him since he first assaulted the comments in a post about GMOs back in July…
Not really.
Or to people in Canada, for that matter. Did you not figure that part out?
Actually, allow me to elaborate.
So what? This rant, aside from being off target, is predicated entirely on the false notion that only Table Injuries are compensable.
From Appendix A CDC Pink Book Vaccination of Persons with Primary and Secondary Immune Deficiencies
http://www.cdc.gov/Vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/A/immuno-table.pdf
Hundreds of Thousands or Millions, really?
Got any actual proof of that?
hdb: “Perhaps still in moderation due to the two-link limit.”
And so it was. Perhaps he could have waited until it was approved. What is interesting is that he did not post the actual paper, which I did. I am pretty convinced he did not read the paper, nor does he understand about the CD8 population.
Somehow Polidori is projecting the case of one child to the whole of the population.
Of course, he seems to have trouble with some basic math facts when he says: “This could eliminate most of the hundreds of thousands to millions of serious injuries that the HHS admits are correlated to vaccine use EVERY YEAR, based on the under-reporting of our vaccine surveilance systems in the USA-”
Uh huh. There are four million children born in the USA each year. If the deaths and injuries were in multiple millions, it would have been noticed.
As I’m approaching the giant bowl of word salad at a leisurely pace, I just noticed this one:
That’s a keeper.
@Chris – anti-vaccine individuals seem to have huge problems with basic mathematics (typically enlarging “adverse” event numbers by several orders of magnitude or increasing the US total number of births by several tens of millions)…..certainly number concepts are completely beyond them & don’t even get me started on statistics…..
For example, there was a recent article highlighted in one of AoA’s media reports talking about the State of Maine – when you read the article, you find that there are about 2000 individuals between the age of newborn – 20 that have been diagnosed with autism (in the whole state).
That averages out to about 100 people per age group that would be considered autistic….I just find it interesting that AoA’s sense of scale seems to be incredibly warped.
Bitnun et al 21 month old child killed by MIBE caused by MMR (given 8.5 months before his death) –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589903
MMR package insert Issue Date 2010 –
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
Contains the following contraindications
1. “Primary and acquired immunodeficiency states, including patients who are immunosuppressed in association with AIDS or other clinical manifestations of infection with human immunodeficiency viruses; cellular immune deficiencies; and hypogammaglobulinemic and dysgammaglobulinemic states. Measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), pneumonitis and death as a direct consequence of disseminated measles vaccine virus infection have been reported in immunocompromised individuals inadvertently vaccinated with measles-containing vaccine.”
– Primary and AQUIRED immunodeficiency states –
2. “Patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy. This contraindication does not apply to patients who are receiving corticosteroids as replacement therapy, e.g., for Addison’s disease”. Nasonex is not replacement therapy.
3. “The ACIP has stated that topical steroid therapy (e.g. nasal, skin),corticosteroids are not immunosuppressive in their usual doses and do not contraindicate the administration of [measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine].” The supporting documents for this statement are dated June and December 1989 and November 1990.
Nasonex package insert Copyright 1997, 2010 – http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/n/nasonex/nasonex_pi.pdf
“Persons who are on drugs which suppress the immune system are more susceptible to infections than healthy individuals. Chickenpox and measles, for example, can have a more serious or even fatal course in children or adults on corticosteroids. In such children or adults who have not had these diseases, particular care should be taken to avoid exposure. How the dose, route, and duration of corticosteroid administration affect the risk of developing a disseminated infection IS NOT KNOWN.”
Merck states Nasonex has systemic effects of immunosuppression, contradicting ACIP’s statement that nasal use is not systemically immunosuppressive.
What business is it of ACIP to contradict a vaccine manufacturer’s warnings about their products?
Why does Merck quote ACIP from 1989/1990 then contradict them in the Nasonex (copyright 1997, 2010) and MMR (Issue date December 2010) package inserts?
Merck Case # 1-9516916970 regarding my question about Nasonex/Flonase being an MMR contraindication.
It is a simple idea to ensure package insert directions, warnings, precautions and contraindications should be consistent, complete, consolidated & completely disseminated/understood to/by responsible parties, including the parents. Getting those mechanisms in place is essential to a properly run vaccination program to reduce the millions of serious vaccine-correlated injuries/deaths alluded to in that vague but telling statement by the HHS about our Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – “Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.”. In most statistical reference books “small fraction” means 1-5%. So the total number of adverse events that should be correlated to vaccines is 20 to 100 times higher than what VAERS reports.
We should have a better idea than this crude wide-ranging estimate from a vague statement by Health and Human Services, parent organization of the CDC and FDA.
CDC, which encompasses ACIP, should not be so obviously corrupted by the drug industry… the last head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, who promoted vaccines relentlessly (including the useless Gardasil), resigned her position in 2009, becoming Merck Vaccine Division President in 2010.
Running a safer vaccination program is easy to justify… tripling vaccines since 1989 (first full year of NVIP protection of vaccine manufacturers) and a rise in autism rates from 3-4 per 10,000 kids to 100+ per 10,000 kids today. This obvious link must be dealt with by truly science-based evidence, not epidemiological studies claiming the link doesn’t exist.
Genes can predispose a child to a greater or less susceptibility to being injured by environmental influences. Genes cannot cause an increase in prevalence of autistic disorders or any disorder… but environmental changes can.
I do not believe that a tripling of our vaccine schedule is solely responsible for rising autism, but a combination of factors leading to more acquired immune and/or mitochondrial disorders in conjunction with rising vaccinations is responsible for most of the increase. Vaccine antigen manufacturing practices & the corrupting influence of the drug industry on our regulatory authorities and politicians also must be taken into account and dealt with.
Mr. Polidori, could you define “correlated” in your own words please?
@ AdamG – 1st I made a mistake in that quoted sentence. The numbers are correct for ALL injuries & deaths reported to VAERS each year, not the “serious injuries”.
Serious injuries correlated to vaccines for 2011 (a below average year) totalled 3500, which translates to 70,000 to 350,000 according to the crude guesstimate of VAERS underreporting by HHS, not the hundreds of thousands to millions that I stated.
On to your question. First I have no words that belong to only me. But I do have definitions from the FDA & CDC that I use, since those are the mainstream organizations that I rely on for most of my information. Much like everyone who exists that relies on the accumualted knowledge of others, even you and Mr. Gorski. I can’t help myself but to use that information honestly, and here it is.
Adverse events are injuries or deaths that MAY be caused by a vaccine or it may be coincidence, correaltion or association. Adverse events are temporal, but could be causal… we do not know.
Adverse reaction is an adverse event for which causal evidence exists, but proof is lacking. Merck lists diabetes as an adverse reaction in the MMR package insert.
I have spoken to the FDA about that, but the spokesperson said in order to get that information from the FDA (the evidence supporting MMR causing diabetes) I would have to submit a “carefully worded” FOIA request. Even then she told me there was no guarantee the request would apply to that information or that the FDA wouldn’t fight it’s release… whose FDA is this anyway?
The VAERS system follows up on all adverse events that are reported as serious. Imagine the extra work involved if reporting went up near projected numbers!!
The majority of VAERS reports are filed by healthcare professionals, generally giving VAERS reports more credence than granted by regular posters on these pages.
It is heinous that HHS admits that serious correlated reactions to vaccines are underreported by a factor of 20 to 100, but does nothing to correct that underreporting or find the other serious injuries and deaths.
VAERS reports in 2011- 25,000 w/ 3500 serious, 200 deaths – CDC/HHS say it’s only a “small fraction”. At 1-5%, that translates to 500,000 – 2,5 million adverse events cirrekated ti vaccine administration. 70,000 – 350,000 serious injuries. 4,000 – 20,000 deaths… just in 2011, just in the USA.
Now before you go accusing me of wild extrapolations think about two things –
1. HHS said VAERS dramatically underreports actual correlated vaccine injuries, not me
2. The CDC uses the same extrapolation techniques to come up with flu related hospitalizations and deaths.
I always emphasize the words correlated & associated when talking about those VAERS injuries and deaths. Butthe FDA, CDC Merck and many other fear mongerers don’t follow my lead when talking about flu correlated hospitalizations and deaths… that begin leaving out the words “correlated” and “associated” and the phrase “rough estimate” and state30,000 to 36,000 flu deaths every year… that’s bad.
In 2009 in the state of Virginia school superintendents instructed teachers and administrators to report all absences as flu related, regardless of what was known about the absence
Back to the HHS rough estimate of CORRELATED vaccine injuries. If just one in ten of those adverse events are caused by vaccines that translates to 50,000 – 250,000 total with 7,000 to 35,000 serious and 400 to 2,000 dead… from a safe vaccine program… every year!… just in the USA.
Did I answer your question about what “correlated” means Adam? Did you learn anything new about how we are ignoring serious vaccine injuries and deaths and playing up the numbers for flu hospitalizations and deaths? Our regulatory and health agancies also play numbers games with other diseases, not just the flu.
Oh… I forgot one ironic note. The kids and adults who are seriously injured and killed every year by vaccines are the ones who should have been protected by herd immunity instead of being vaccinated
Properly utilizing the package insert warnings etc. and coming up with some screening criteria to identify kids at risk for immune problems and ensuring, as Merck states in their MMR package insert, “the immune competence of the potential vaccine recipient is demonstrated”.
Why can’t we do these things?
The alternative is to continue the collateral damage… to the ones who actually need the protection of a properly run vaccination program… the kids and adults who cannot be vaccinated.
Question about this whole “tripling the vaccine schedule” thing that I hear a lot from a variety of anti-vax sources. I’ve noticed that most of the increase is due to added boosters rather than new vaccines. I was under the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that most of the adverse reactions caused by vaccines are related to the initial inflammatory response rather than the adaptive immunity that develops later. So assuming that boosters activate that adaptive response rather than the inflammatory response, wouldn’t you expect boosters to have reduced rates of adverse reactions compared to the initial vaccination? If true, this would be a(nother) big flaw in the “too many, too soon” argument, but I can’t seem to find much info beyond a few references here and there to individual vaccines being less likely to cause reactions the second time around. Anyone aware of any research in this area?
So this is it? Polidori is on the crank warpath over OTC nasal sprays and MMR?
@Michael – If I have a sore arm for a few hours after receiving a vaccination, why would I report that to VAERS?
The vast (I mean vast) majority of vaccine reactions are extremely mild and minor, hence not reported….so we would expect that under-reporting is related to the mildest of symptoms….use your head and some logic.
Has Mr. Polidori defined what he would consider a safe vaccine?
In other words, what rate of side effects would be acceptable to him? Anything short of zero?
And has he considered the collateral damage that would be caused if his fond dreams of curtailing vaccination come true and we are faced with a tripling (or more) of the infectious disease schedule?
Thank G-d you’re not relying upon “epidemiological studies” to tell you that it does exist. Oh, wait.
Most adverse events or reactions to vaccines are not serious, as I have clearly noted in my posts. But to try to say I am anti-vaccine because I referred to the fact that vaccinations have tripled while autism became epidemic ignores my posts and the facts completely.
I support a properly run vaccination program, which includes honest regulation, truthful research, proper screening, useful vaccinations & mandates. That’s a pro-vaccine stance. I also know we must eliminate the corruption of FDA and CDC personnel and let honest research guide the health care decisions we make for our children.
Vaccines are less likely to cause reactions “the second time around” because the first time around identified those susceptible to injury and eliminated many, if not most, of them from subsequent vaccinations. Sometimes a physician will reduce the amount of vaccine, right or wrong, to avoid a repeat of the child’s first reaction.
This happened to my oldest when I returned home and saw the family physician again. When I told him of the bad reaction to the first dose (of what vaccine I can’t remember) he gave her a miniscule dose (compared to what she had received previously, which seemed like an extraordinary amount of vaccine for a one year old.)
If kids are injured the “second time around” it could be that something has changed with the vaccine, manufacturer or the child’s immune system… those cases would highlight the importance of re-screening every time a child is vaccinated… never make assumptions where your child’s health is concerned.
Mr. Polidori:
Please post the PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researcher that the risk of encephalitis from the MMR is greater than it is for measles.
By the way, the MMR vaccine has been used in the USA since 1971. That is before 1989.
@Michael Polidori,
while autism became epidemic
The fact that autism became epidemic is because of the increasing diagnostic criteria found in DSM-I to DSM-V. If you have epidemiological evidence suggesting vaccines injuries, please post it.
Alain
No, there’s no way anybody could come up with something ridiculous like that when you repeatedly necromance a Wakefield item.
Dangerous bacon – another baseless accusation that I am anti-vaccine. There are no safe vaccines that I know of… could you list a few?
I have clearly emphasized that proper screening can protect kids who are susceptible to being injured or killed by vaccines (the collateral damage we both spoke of) and mandatory vaccinations can partially protect those unvaccinatable kids through herd immunity.
Useless vaccines, like Pertussis and Rotateq, are used to line the coffers of liability-immune vaccine makers while kids susceptible to permanent damage from these vaccines are forever scarred by not only the direct damage they have suffered, but the burdens their families must endure and the wretched NVIP system they must spend years in if their injuries to not meet tampered-with & deficient VIT guidelines and timetables (also all explained above).
Narad – Nasonex is not OTC, I’m not on a “warpath” and Nasonex wasn’t my only concern in the post. Try reading it and understanding it.
Nasonex is contraindicated in both the Nasonex and MMR package inserts (copyrighted 1997, 2010 & Issued 2010) for systemic immune suppression, but Merck has a side note in the MMR insert from an ACIP remark to “contra” the contraindication based on information from studies before 1991… a bit nonsensical.
Narad – I guess you also missed my post that Merck has a case pending from my question to them about Nasonex and the MMR… try re-reading it again. The Merck adverse reactions professional was unable to answer my question about Nasonex being contraindicated… I brought up all of the information in my post including the ACIP statement.
The obvious link of vaccines to autism is a fact… but it is a temporal correlation, not an epidemiological study. Piles of fraudulent epidemiology has been done to “prove” the temporal link of vaccines to autism can be ignored, but that’s a misuse of epidemiology… which you already know.
@Michael Polidori,
As a researcher, I support the usage of the ADI-R and ADOS as diagnostic tools to diagnose autism, not any of the DSM but while these tools has been based on the DSM-IV and got out in 1998, the diagnostic criteria are different in these tools as compared to any DSM that has been out there so if I were to rely on an epidemiological study, it would have to use these tools to diagnose children. As for adult, there are no diagnostic tools that can be used to diagnose adults and the ADI-R and ADOS are very limited in that regard so I would exercise caution with regard to the epidemiology of autism as it is done currently; most of the studies have been done using the DSM-IV and to be correct, should be done with the ADI-R and ADOS or a validated subset thereof.
Alain
Finally Narad – Epidemiology is used to find correlations that may need clinical study or further research… not to disprove temporal correlations. When you show me a more likely candidate than vaccines I will thank you for the information. Vaccines are proved to cause dozens of different types of neurological damage. There can be lead times of over 6 months for the symptoms to show, as is evidenced in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Bitnun study… all referenced and quoted nicely above… again I admonish you to read, and stop ignoring the truth.
Are you going to get around to the part, also explained above, where the main thing “deficient” is the entirety of your inferential chain with respect to the Bitnun et al. case?
@Michael Polidori,
Do you have citation to support your assession that autism is brain damage?
Alain
No, I’m pretty sure I pointed directly at it as an indication that your colander is incorrectly tightened.
The point, children, is that I know without vaccinations kids will be permenently injured or die from ordinary childhood diseases… but the kids who would have been so affected by disease are likely the same kids who are being injured or killed by live vaccines today.
The only purpose a properly run vaccination program has is to induce herd immunity in a population so that kids who cannot be vaccinated are partially protected.
This also partially protects kids who acquire immune or mitochondrial problems after they have been vaccinated.
Without honest reserch and regulation we are going to increase the injuries and deaths we are currently experiencing… the true numbers of which we have no idea, because our regulatory and health agencies are ignoring the true numbers of those susceptible kids and adults at the behest of the drug industry.
These are facts that no one can argue against… and most of you know this is true… yet you persist with the drivel
These are facts that no one can argue against… and most of you know this is true… yet you persist with the drivel
I’m not arguing with that, I want you to post the evidence that autism is brain damage. So far, no researchers in the world have been able to tell that autism is brain damage and not even Chris Shaw who dissected brains, he was not able to propose any hypothesis that autism is brain damage.
Can you?
Alain
Why do I always shut down comment thread with my question?!?! 😛
Alain
@Michael polidori
Oh, need I say that there’s plenty of evidence that autism is not brain damage in the neuroimaging literature? of course, there’s plenty of researchers, myself included, who want a bright future for our autistic child who have been learning the ins and outs of autism to help support autistic child and adult who have found that autism != brain damage. I hope that provide a clue in your quest that autism equals brain damage.
Good luck 😛
Alain
alain… let’s see. What would regressive autism be? Would that be obvious brain damage from a triggering event?
In 2008 regressive autism was a highlight of the DSM-V conference on Pervasive Developmental Disorders with some form of the word “regress’ used 25 times in the conference summary and the fourth panel was completely devoted to regression in autism and other PDDs, stating, “Regression is currently only included in the diagnostic criteria in Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (CDD), where it is required. Clinically it is commonly seen in Rett Syndrome but not included in the criteria, and is not even mentioned in Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, or PDD-NOS, although it is known to occur fairly frequently.”
In the DSM-V the word regress or regression is not part of the diagnostic criteria for autism and is not mentioned anywhere in the chapters on the autism spectrum. No explanation can be had at the APA (I have tried) and SafeMinds claims regression is in the “back text” of the DSM-V… but no one at the APA acknowledges the existence of any back text.
Based on the current diagnostic criteria that autism is of unknown etiology and regression is no longer part of the diagnostic criteria, no Alain, it doesn’t matter what I cite… the APA has erased regression from the DSM strongly implying that autism is a genetic disorder and therefore, since regression doesn’t take place in autism, vaccines cannot trigger it… by definition.
Does that answer your question Alain? There is more to come, but I thought this little gem would distract you a bit… isn’t it shiny?
@Michael Polidori,
Regression is not brain damage, furthermore, I experienced regression and do not have any brain damage diagnosed by either a psychiatrist or a neurologist who examined my scans. BTW, where did I speak of regression in my comments?
Alain
look like I forgot to answer your question:
regression occur when the cerebral cortex of autistic baby (or child) take over the function of the reptilian brain and the amygdala in the autistic brain.
Alain
Given your own plain fixation issues, Polidori, you probably don’t want to directly invite the sort of attention that this remark so richly deserves.
@Narad,
I want more from him 😀
Alain
Now alain… don’;t get all puffed up about that gem that I threw to you.
Bailey Banks, Hannah Poling and Ryan Mojabi were all diagnosed with PDD caused directly or sequentially by vaccines.
Mary Holland and her team researched 1000 kids who were compensated for brain damage caused by vaccines. 83 were diagnosed with autism AFTER their brains were damaged by vaccines.
However, the memory of regressive autism will haunt the DSM-V for quite a while as well as psychiatrists who must not diagnose any child with autism who regresses and displays symptoms of what is still considered autism… because regression is not part of the psychiatric diagnosis of the disorder of unknown etiology.
This reminds me of Bailey Banks’ case where his doctor (Lopez) argued that MMR had caused ADEM which in turn caused Bailey to regress and have further developmental delays.
The govt’s witness Dr Macdonald, argued that Bailey had autism, but it wasn’t caused by the vaccine or his ADEM.
Lopez was put in the position of arguing that Bailey did not have autism because autism is of unknown etiology and Dr Lopez could demonstrate that Bailey’s condition was from vaccination… therefore since he knew how Bailey was injured he couldn’t be diagnosed with autism. What a twist.
The judge had to convince MacDonald to drop his claim that Bailey had autism before he would find for him… Judges lawyers and doctors all conniving to get around the laws to compensate a child and his family for vaccine injuries Bailey suffered.
The judge had to rewrite medicine and declare Bailey had non-autistic developmental delay… a non-existent diagnosis
@Michael Polidori,
Look like it’s taking you a tons of time to answer us regarding my question so I’ll take the rest of the night on my development question which involve calculus and will be back at 6 O’Clock to see if you have any answers to my questions.
Drunkass in….somewhere…
@Michael Polidori,
Where they diagnosed using ADI-R or ADOS or both? diagnostics labels of autism are the most reliable when diagnosed with these tools and when a diagnostics is secondary to a vaccine injury, it can’t be diagnosed using the ADI-R or the ADOS because there is a cause to their diagnostic of autism. Most autism diagnose done by medical scientist has to be done using the ADI-R and the ADOS and clinical doctors who made the diagnostic of autism in the case you mention did not use the ADI-R or the ADOS which question all the developments issues with the child.
Alain
Do quit changing the subject Polidori, and get back to your original Bindle of Whine, which is that the first and only documented case of vaccine-strain MIBE, in Canada, has not been incorporated into the VICP Table Injuries as a presumptive basis for compensation and therefore is entirely excluded because something something.
I think I’ll detail the history of diagnostic label.
Back when the DSM-III was in use, the ADI-R was being conceived and was updated when the DSM-IV was out and the ADI-R was a superset of questions destined to address the variability given in diagnoses of autism by the DSM-IV. It probed into question the numerous ways of diagnosing autism and it became a tool that, at least, neuroimaging researchers relied on to enrol subjects in neuroimaging experiment.
The ADOS and ADI-R include the development question done by the DSM-IV (and I suppose it will be updated for the DSM-V), the intellectual quotient using the WISC for children and the WAIS for adult and also, all the other cognitive test that can be applicable to the autistic subject. The main problem is that the diagnostic label can take a lot of time to come because all these tools take a minimum of 3 days to be done and it cannot be done for an epidemiological studies unless there’s a 10 millions budget running around. This is also why clinical psychiatrist don’t use i; it takes too much time.
The ADI-R can discriminate between cause of autism wrt regressive autism with brain damage and no brain damage.
the group where I worked used the ADI-R and the ADOS in the clinical setting and there where no case of brain damage in our population.
Alain
Regressive autism is the result of brain damage. Unless you are trying to argue that there are genetic disorders that wait for two to 6 years before attacking a child’s ability to socialize, to speak and affect motor functions as well. If you have evidence that such a disorder exists to explain the increases in autism diagnoses, then produce it.
In spite of the definition changes in the DSM-V brain damage can lead to symptoms which lead to autism diagnoses.
This has already been shown in the Banks Poling and Mojabi cases and in Mary Holland’s research.
That you continue to ignore those facts is a reflection on your honesty and integrity.
Just the fact that autism is still without an admitted etiology leaves the door open to brain damage causing symptoms of autism, even though this would conflict with the current diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V.
All of that is irrelevant to the majority of my posts above which are about vaccinations and how we can improve the vaccination program and protect kids susceptible to vaccine damage, and correct the vast underreporting of vaccine injuries in the USA
These are the issues which need to be addressed in the hope that we can reduce the numbers of vaccination correlated injuries and deaths.
Of course if we implemented an improved and safer vacciantion program after recognizing the injuries our current program causes and the numbers of autistic children dramatically drop… well there could be problems for the FDA, CDC, and the vaccine makers… maybe that is why our regulatory and health agencies have been ignoring the problems for so long.
@Michael Polidori,
Schizophrenia, entirely genetics and not diagnosed until adulthood. Furthermore, you haven’t asked for my citations regarding the neuroimaging of autism to see if there where any damage assessed by 1) neurologist 2) Manuel Casanova, who dissect post-mortem autistic brain and 3) psychiatrist. Do ask, please 😀
Alain
“Unless you are trying to argue that there are genetic disorders that wait for two to 6 years before…”
Rett syndrome.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/rett/detail_rett.htm
It was until recently part of the autism spectrum. But you know that, right? You aren’t just posing as an expert when you are profoundly ignorant are you?
As is your sustained failure to defend the premise of your foray.
Mr. Polidori:
Citation needed.
Also how are they protected from the actual diseases? My kid suffered seizures from an actual disease. He has never been diagnosed with autism, but has “static encephalopathy.”
Since your “cite” was on one case study of encephalitis that may have been caused by an MMR from 8.5 months before I asked you a question in comment #135. To repeat the request: please post the PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researcher that there is a greater risk of encephalitis from the MMR vaccine than from actually getting measles.
I guess that one of the key point of the DSM is that it represent an entity that clinical psychiatrist can use to diagnose autism in their population but in research, we use the best tools there is to diagnose case of autism and regarding epidemiologists, some of them may use the DSM-IV but there are also other epidemiologists who may use other, research based diagnostic tools which fully assess the autistic child such as a validated subset of the ADI-R, the ADOS and other diagnostic tools (DISCO spring to mind) to validate their sample of autistic subject.
The sad thing is that, vaccine injured subject are not assessed using the aforementioned tools to assess if they are really autistic and using the DSM-IV, they are. Or are they? I seem to remember that if a likely cause of their autism is caused by a neurological event, they may not be autistic.
Alain
I’m not on a “warpath”
It seems to be more of a slipway.
This is correct; I erred. I trust that you will be as forthcoming about the yawning lacunae in your premise while I catch some rest.
I’m looking through your screeds, Mr. Polidori, and I don’t think you even know what a fact is. You seem to think that anything which you assert thereafter counts as a “fact”. It doesn’t, especially not when your research is so clearly sloppy.
@ Mr Polidori, just to pick on one of the many errors in your overlong posts…
You keep claiming this.
Can we see a citation or source please?
FYI, “serious” reactions to vaccines are NOT significantly under-reported. The more serious the reaction, the likelier it is to be reported, in fact.
Michael Polidori,
Your comments are full of minsunderstandings and misinterpretations. You cannot rely on vaccine manufacturers’ packet inserts for useful information. They are designed with the help of lawyers to protect them from litigation. For example, I don’t believe that corticosteroids in a nasal spray cause enough systemic immunosuppression to make MMR dangerous. I don’t believe there is any evidence that this is true, and I suspect the reason Merck had no immediate answer to your question is because most people recognize it as a foolish one.
One thing I would like to address in more detail:
Where does HHS admit that serious reactions to vaccines are underreported to this degree? Mild reactions are underreported, of course, but serious reactions? Most of the epidemiological literature assumes that serious reactions are overreported e.g. if someone dies a few days after vaccination it is likely to be reported as a possible vaccine reaction, but it is much more likely that something else was the cause. Taking the factor that all vaccine reactions are underreported by and then applying that to serious vaccine reactions is guaranteed to give you the wrong answer, a huge, gross overestimation. You are indeed indulging in “wild extrapolations”, to use your own words.
I
f the HHS does say that VAERS dramatically underreports serious vaccine injuries and deaths please give a reference to this.
Also it is simply not true that “the CDC uses the same extrapolation techniques to come up with flu related hospitalizations and deaths”. If the CDC included ever death from pneumonia in its figures estimating deaths from flu, that would be very suimilar to what you have done, but of course they don’t.
Getting yourself all worked up about this blindingly obviously wrong answer is just silly. Do you seriously think that the Vaccine Safety Database would miss up to 20,000 deaths each year? That deaths and serious reactions on this scale would somehow remain unnoticed all over the world?
Also:
On the contrary, if there are anecdotal reports of a temporal association, that is precisely when epidemiology is used, to see if there is anything to the perceived association. In the case of vaccines and autism, there is very clearly no link.
Among other hopefully obvious typos, I meant ‘Vaccine Safety Datalink’ not ‘Database’.
@Kreb – as for “over-reporting” this was discussed in some detail a while back over at Shot of Prevention. When the “deaths reported to VAERS” for Gardisil, we found that at least two instances were listed as “person saw a report on the Internet that someone died of Gardisil,” so obviously those were null reports….followed by at least a few other instances of persons who died of drowning, car accident & other non-vaccine related instances…again, null-reports…
So back to Michael, if you look at what is reported in a number of these “severe” reactions, there isn’t even biologic plausibility (and in a number of cases, the reports aren’t even from the effected individuals or their families).
Plus, I would very much like to know what a temporal correlation that does not show up as an epidemiological correlation would look like, and how in the world its existence could be explained.
For benefit of lurkers (rather than to hear myself talk, like Mr. Polidori apparently) I’ll elaborate on that. If you study the rate of event Y in a subpopulation X, and find that that rate is the same as the rate of event Y in the general population, that means there’s no epidemiological correlation.
If trait X caused event Y, the rate of event Y in subpopulation would be higher than in the general population, and there would be an epidemiological correlation. So for instance, if X is “exposure to vaccines” and Y is “development of an ASD”, then epidemiological studies should show an epidemiological correlation, should show the rate of ASDs being higher in subpopulation X. If that rate is not higher, it pretty much rules out causation.
When Mr. Polidori says there is clear evidence of a “temporal correlation” (not that I think he understands the difference between “clear evidence” and “an impression you’ll form if you hang around too much at AoA and don’t think critically”) I can only interpret that as him saying that he has in mind a certain time frame, and trait X, exposure to vaccines, causes one kind of autism, which is characterized by developing within this time frame.
But in order for that to be reconciled with what even Polidori concedes the epidemiological evidence to be, there has to be a second, separate kind of autism, which is the kind gotten by all those children with trait ~X (i.e., no exposure to vaccines) – and somehow, despite these two kinds of autism having entirely different causative paths, they magically always work out to affect completely disjoint populations in equal numbers.
Oh, and don’t forget that one kind of autism must actually protect against the other kind; that’s the only way that you could have each kind of autism so solidly restricted to its subset of the population.
The other alternative to this amazingly unlikely scenario is that everything Polidori is claiming about a temporal correlation is BS. That’s where my money is.
Mr. Polidori: “in Mary Holland’s research.”
Ms. Holland is a lawyer, and has no qualifications to do research in medical or autism issues. When I ask for a PubMed indexed study by a qualified reputable researcher that shows the MMR vaccine causes more encephalitis than measles, that excludes all “research” by lawyers, business majors, computer scientists, geologist, etc.
.
No.
The sort of cases that Holland touts as evidence that the Vaccine Court has been quietly compensating cases of of autism have been repeatedly shown to be due to pre-existing mutations, most commonly in SCN1A. Such cases produce seizure disorders and intellectual decline following months of normal development. Over 800 mutations in that SCN1A are associated with various seizure disorders, from benign febrile seizures to severe myoclonic epilepsy, seizures accompanied by intellectual impairment, seizures without intellectual impairment, and intellectual impairment without seizures–and that’s just for one gene whose product forms part of a complex with other gene products, and which is just one of a family of related genes for different ion channels–so there are lots of genetic pathways to produce similar results.
BTW, most cases of autism thus far examined have abnormally low levels of an important regulatory protein that controls the expression of numerous other genes and which, when abnormally low, produced intellectual impairment following a period of apparently normal development.
Rett syndrome (1) is caused by mutations in the MECP2 gene, which is expressed at high levels in neurons and regulates numerous other genes; (2) abnormal levels of functional mecp2 alter gene expression in neurons, alter splicing of mRNA to produce proteins with critical roles in communication between neurons; (3) reduced levels of MECP2 produce intellectual impairment after a period of apparently normal development in Rett syndrome; (4) the levels of MECP2 were abnormal in most (79%) of the postmortem brain samples from autistic individuals thus far examined. [Epigenetics. 2006 Oct-Dec;1(4):e1-11.
Serious injuries correlated to vaccines for 2011 (a below average year) totalled 3500, which translates to 70,000 to 350,000 according to the crude guesstimate of VAERS underreporting by HHS, not the hundreds of thousands to millions that I stated.
This claim deserves lingering attention and admiration. Even after the correction of the initial multiple-orders-of-magnitude problem, of the ~4 million children born per year in the US, 1 in 12 suffer serious vaccine-related injury. You’d think someone would notice.
Epidemiology is used to find correlations that may need clinical study or further research…
So, on the one side we have Professor Doll and the Doctors Study and his epidemiological proof that smoking causes lung cancer; and on the other side, some loon on the internet claiming to have his own facts and his own medical science. Which to believe?
HDB,
Since no one notices that as many as 20,000 children, that is 1 in 200, are apparently killed by adverse reactions to vaccines, almost a third of deaths from all causes in 0-14-year-olds (61,227,213), perhaps that’s not surprising.
Looking more closely at the figures, if you exclude deaths that even Mr. Polidori must surely agree could not possibly be due to vaccines e.g. accidents, drowning, homicide, fires, falls and congenital conditions, there were about 17,000 deaths from medical causes in 0-14-year-olds in the US last year*. If Mr. Polidori is correct, all those deaths and a considerable number of deaths attributed to accidents etc. may have been due to adverse reactions to vaccines. That seems more than a little unlikely to me.
* Not all figures are listed in the table I link to, but I calculate that 28% of the total listed deaths were due to medical causes; extrapolating that to the full 61,000 gives 17,080 deaths.
Here’s the report from the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass murders committed by Adam Lanza, December, 2012.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf
You’ll never see this report on Age of Autism or a retraction of Andy Wakefield’s AoA blog with accusations that Adam Lanza, who was originally classified as having Asperger Syndrome, was taking prescribed anti-psychotic medication. The report details how Lanza was displaying symptoms of co-morbid mental disorders and was obviously a psychopath. The toxicology report from Adam Lanza’s autopsy was negative for prescribed medication and for street drugs.
Shall we? (PDF)
“The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality, within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella”
Of course,
This must be quite a predicament overall. Anyway,
Mr. Polidari seems to have foundered on the small item that regulatory language is not geared to the layman. Anyway, let’s check with the FDA (PDF):
“On January 24, 2006, FDA published a final rule that amended the requirements for the content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products…
“Although the content of labeling in the old format will not substantially change when converted to PLR format, the applicant should systematically evaluate information in labeling to identify unsubstantiated claims or outdated information and revise it accordingly.
“Revisions to the content requirements in certain sections may result in the need to review and revise those sections. For example, consider the ADVERSE REACTIONS section. For the purposes of prescription drug labeling, the definition of adverse reaction in § 201.57(c)(7) was revised to clarify that it does not include all adverse events observed during use of a drug, only those adverse events for which there is some basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event. When updating labeling, the applicant should review the ADVERSE REACTIONS section to ensure all events appropriately fall under that section and delete those events unlikely to have been caused by the drug (i.e., usually a lengthy listing commonly referred to as the laundry list). Because such a list is not essential to the safe and effective use of the drug, it should simply be omitted.”
Now, there’s a metric assload of this stuff, and I’m out of links, but let’s also quickly visit the 2006 “Guidance for Industry” on the matter:
“The use of the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.”
OK. The question to hand is whether the current (2009/2010) MMR package insert has been fully revised to accord with the Physician’s Labeling Rule. If one looks at the supporting documents under the list of approved products at fda.gov, the one MMR item does not list a PLR emendation, although others, such as RotaTeq, do.
Whatever, big deal. What else is there? Well, one could always compare with MMRV. And one finds no mention of diabetes, despite the purported causal suspicion. There’s one more thing: The MMR-II insert does not have a “Nonclinical Toxicology” section. “Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility” is under “Precaution.” This is the 1979 format.
All of this leads me to question whether that insert has in fact been de–laundry listed.
I’m wondering if the Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil vaccine got that Laundry List memo, because these are the “Adverse Events” that were reported during clinical trials, in the current (September, 2013) Package Insert:
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf
Deaths Across The Entire Study Group
Across the clinical studies, 40 deaths (GARDASIL N =21 or 0.1%; placebo N =19 or 0.1%) were reported in 29,323 (GARDASIL N = 15,706; AAHS control N = 13,023, saline placebo N = 594) individuals (9-through 45-year-old girls and women; and 9-through 26-year-old boys and men). The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (5 individuals who received GARDASIL and 4 individuals who received AAHS control), followed by drug overdose/suicide (2 individuals who received GARDASIL and 6 individuals who received AAHS control), gunshot wound (1 individual who received GARDASIL and 3
individuals who received AAHS control), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 individual who received GARDASIL and 1 individual who received AAHS control). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, 1 case of arrhythmia, 1 case of pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 case of hyperthyroidism, 1 case of post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure, 1 case of traumatic brain injury/cardiac arrest, 1 case of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 case of cerebrovascular accident, 1 case of breast cancer, and 1 case of nasopharyngeal cancer in the group that received GARDASIL; 1 case of asphyxia, 1 case of acute lymphocytic leukemia, 1 case of chemical poisoning, and 1 case of myocardial ischemia in the AAHS control group; and 1 case of medulloblastoma in the saline placebo group.
Right, but they are described as events even though they’re in the “Adverse Reactions” heading. You’d have to hit up the general area of the Code of Federal Regulations, something I’m not up to at the moment, that was mentioned above to be sure, but I suspect it may be necessary to break out the clinical trial data in a fashion similar to that.
P.S.: No, I’m not “posting comments too quickly.” Bite me, incompetent WordPress “IT” monkeys.
@lilady:
So Lanza stopped taking his medicine and had a psychotic episode?
@ Julian Frost: There was no evidence that Lanza was prescribed anti-psychotic medication…contrary to Wakefield’s statement and the comments we read on AoA that “it must have been teh ebil medication”. Perhaps Lanza was prescribed medicine years before, but no indication that he was under a psychiatrist’s care.
My opinion of his mother has not changed. She saw the profound mental deterioration of her son over an extended period of time, purchased guns, assault rifles and 30-shot magazines for the assault rifle, took him to rifle ranges, left him alone for extended periods of time…and did not take steps to get him help. (She enjoyed shooting and thought it was just fine to share that “enjoyment” with her son).
*.*
O.O
If somebody I knew had a fondness for weaponry (even just knives) and was clearly showing signs of mental illness, I’d do everything I could to ensure that person got help. That is shocking.
Michael P.: “Dangerous bacon – another baseless accusation that I am anti-vaccine. There are no safe vaccines that I know of… could you list a few?”
Is that a really poor attempt at answering my question, or just another classic example of lack of self-awareness and denial?
I’ll try again: what level of safety in a vaccine would you deem acceptable? Here are multiple choices:
1) A current vaccine would only be acceptable to me if there is a 50% reduction in the existing low rate of side effects.
2) a vaccine would only be acceptable if there was a zero chance of any serious side effect.
3) I’d only accept a vaccine if there was zero chance of any side effects whatsoever.
4) I’d find some way to oppose vaccination even if there was zero chance of side effects, while bitterly protesting that I’m not antivaccine.
Pick any of those answers, or substitute one that does not constitute evasion, and a genuine dialogue might be possible. Right now it’s obvious you’re just ducking the question.
@ Julian Frost:
She probably wasn’t competant to ascertain the danger herself.
With regard to the onset of autism:
There are three primary modes of onset,
1) early-onset
2) regressive autism (15%-60%)
3) childhood disintegrative disorder (small percentage)
Only in the 3rd scenario is there a rapid loss of acquired skills, over the time frame of weeks to a few months and this is usually in children older than 2 years.
Regressive autism is more of a slow loss of acquired skills and the evidence points to there being underlying issues fairly early in development. One of the primary correlations is increase in head/brain size that mainly comes about between 6-14 months.
Is there any actual formal study into the alleged rapid “regression” after vaccines?
I usually give people the benefit of the doubt and wouldn’t say that somebody is straight up lying when they say their child deteriorated rapidly after a series of vaccinations.
In fact, it has been these anecdotes with the emerging evidence that autism has a strong immune component (whether immune abnormalities are causal or not is, of course, still to be determined, but definitely worthy of further research) that has made me most interested and curious about the debate and autism in general.
I have read the stories of various parents stating that their child regressed, but in reality, it seems like this would be more of an example of disintegrative disorder than regression and if vaccines had anything to do with a regression scenario, it would be the vaccines given from birth to -6 months and they would act more in the “small nudge” category.
Any epi studies of confirmed cases of childhood disintegrative disorder and vaccines?
skeptiquette,
Since MMR was the first vaccine to be accused of causing regression, you might find this Madsen study of half a million children in Denmark of interest. Of the 738 cases of autism and other ASDs recorded in the study, only 11 were diagnosed within 6 months of being vaccinated with MMR: 3 autism cases and 8 other ASD cases. Compare that to the 53 cases of autism and 77 cases of other ASDs diagnosed in children who had not been vaccinated with MMR.
skeptiquette: Is there any actual formal study into the alleged rapid “regression” after vaccines?”
Kreb: Since MMR was the first vaccine to be accused of causing regression, you might find this Madsen study of half a million children in Denmark of interest. Of the 738 cases of autism and other ASDs recorded in the study, only 11 were diagnosed within 6 months of being vaccinated with MMR: 3 autism cases and 8 other ASD cases. Compare that to the 53 cases of autism and 77 cases of other ASDs diagnosed in children who had not been vaccinated with MMR.
——————————————————————————
@Kerb
Kreb, I couldn’t resist; I must enter the fray again. You keep harping on about how the the Danish study did not obtain any significant result for rapid regression after MMR.
You mentioned how this pretty much dispels parents’ claims that MMR changed their kids overnight.
Yet, let’s think about this for a second. Even if parents suspect that their children were affected by MMR, how many of them would obtain a formal diagnosis for them within 6 months? Kreb, we both know that obtaining a diagnosis is often a lengthy, delayed process. Parents may suspect right away that something is wrong with their child, but a formal diagnosis may likely not come in 6 months, and could take upwards of year or two.
So there again Kreb we find another blunder with the Danish study!
Hey Kreb,
Here is a study that looked precisely into the time lag between first evaluation for autism by a professional, and subsequent formal diagnosis. Keep in mind that parents suspecting autism in their kids would have likely come long before the first evaluation. This was the finding of the study:
“The mean age of first documented evaluation recorded by
a qualified professional was 48 months (range, 160Y103 mo)(Table 2). The mean age at first documented ASD diagnosis was 61 months (range, 17Y105 mo) (Table 2). The average delay between mean age at first documented evaluation and mean age at first ASD diagnosis was 13 months.”
So there we have it Kreb. It took 13 months for first evaluation by a professional, to eventual diagnosis for autism. And, the researchers did not even take into account when parents’ first detected autism in their children.
Does measuring for autism within 6 months after MMR, as was done in the Danish study, not sound all the more ridiculous?
http://nwautism.org/documentsage_of_evaluation_versus_diagnosis1.pdf
Kreb,
My bad: I provided the wrong link to the study.
http://nwautism.org/documents/age_of_evaluation_versus_diagnosis1.pdf
Kreb, also taken from the study….
“Although the concept of early identification is encouraged
by health care professionals, a significant time lag between
age at first parental concern and age at first ASD diagnosis is
consistently reported in the literature. Frith and Soares19
found that a majority of parents of children diagnosed with
autism first became concerned about their child’s development
between 12 and 23 months of age. Yet these children
were not professionally diagnosed until 36 to 70 months of
age. Howlin and Asgharian20 replicated these findings and
found that parents of children diagnosed with autism noted
concerns by a mean of 18 months of age, although an actual
diagnosis was not confirmed until a mean of 66 months of
age. In a more recent population-based study, Sivberg21
found a delay of 20 to 60 months between parental
suspicion and diagnosis by a medical professional depending
on severity of the disorder and autism classification.”
Perhaps you could key in the data on your seemingly endless flounce failures.
correct link:
http://nwautism.org/documents/age_of_evaluation_versus_diagnosis1.pdf
Greg,
This paper is from the US.
I am in Canada and the time from observation to diagnostic has been less than 3 month. My doc’s efficient but not that much.
Madsen et al. are in Denmark and medicine is efficient there.
your point is?
Alain
And so…the AoA denizens discuss the reasons for the “indefinite postponement” of that December 4th sham Congressional hearing:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/postponing-vicp-hearing-who-is-afraid-and-of-what.html
It’s an international plot to depopulate the world!
@lilady,
That and personal attacks on Dr. Hickie.
Alain
‘Does measuring for autism within 6 months after MMR, as was done in the Danish study, not sound all the more ridiculous?’
Wakefield was measuring for autism 2 weeks after MMR.
@ Alain: The personal attacks on Dr. Hickie…Emily Willingham and Dorit Reiss, as well…during the past few weeks.
Curiosity led me to disengage the killfile, and I see Greg has embarrassed himself by commenting on that Madsen study again, despite having conclusively proven that he is unable to understand it. In this case he fails to understand that it didn’t only look at autism diagnosis after 6 months, it also looked at autism diagnosis at 6-11 months, 12-17 months, 18-23 months, 24-29 months, 30-35 months, 36-59 months and greater than 60 months after MMR (see Table 2 in the study linked to in my last comment).
In none of those groups is the incidence of autism diagnosis statistically significantly higher than in unvaccinated children. Even a delay in diagnosis of regressive autism would show up in this. How anyone can cling to the belief that MMR causes autism in the face of this data I simply do not understand.
I do find it funny that Greg thinks that the fact that I picked out an interesting piece of data from Madsen’s study means that Madsen only collected that single piece of data and therefore somehow blundered.
Kreb: In this case he fails to understand that it didn’t only look at autism diagnosis after 6 months, it also looked at autism diagnosis at 6-11 months, 12-17 months, 18-23 months, 24-29 months, 30-35 months, 36-59 months and greater than 60 months after MMR (see Table 2 in the study linked to in my last comment).
Study: Frith and Soares19
found that a majority of parents of children diagnosed with
autism first became concerned about their child’s development
between 12 and 23 months of age. Yet these children
were not professionally diagnosed until 36 to 70 months of
age.
So there you have it again, Kerb. Even taking into account all the times that Madsen examined autism after MMR, most times fell well short of the 36 to 70 months age for peak autism detection. And, even though Madsen looked into a 36 -59 months period, we still would have to wonder whether the autism cases were large enough to give a significant result for that specific lag period.
Also, nice backtracking from your 6 months blunder!
Over at AoA, Agenda 21 is getting an airing as the reason for the ‘postponed’ VICP hearing.
Crank magnetism at its best.
Yeah Narad — indeed I did not stick the flounce.
While I am here, perhaps you can address another point. You mentioned that even if the NVICP was abolished, pharma would still fare well in civil court. Yet, wasn’t it the case that pharma was being successful sued initially in civil court and that led to the formation of NVICP, after they threatened to abandon the vaccine market? So Narad, why are you so confident that things would be so dramatically different the second time around?
HHHMMM?? Inquiring minds want to know!
Ok drug-dealers,
Before I flounce off again, I would like to offer this encouragement:
Lately I am detecting a slight improvement in your VCADOD (vaccine causing autism denialism obssessive disorder) condition. At one point, it was all about autism being entirely genetic and occurring when sperm meets egg. Now we here talk of autism occurring due to prenatal environmental exposure. Heck — we even have Kreb admitting that vaccines may cause autism in extraordinarily rare circumstances.
Guys, I am exceedingly encouraged by these small steps. Rest assured that you have my full support, and I realize how difficult these concessions must be for you. Bravo drug-dealers!
Greg, don’t you ever feel just a little bit ashamed of your behavior here? You made it clear that you have no interest in the truth, and that you lack any integrity in your summary of our previous discussion of this study. You failed to point out the errors in the AoA article about this study, repeated its criticism of a term that doesn’t even appear in the study, and repeated several errors that had been explained to you at length. That’s just dishonest, and I would be ashamed to show my face somewhere I had behaved like this.
This time you have confused time after MMR with age, and you have given data for diagnosis of all autism, not just regressive autism. Do you really believe that regressive autism takes over 5 years to diagnose in Denmark which has a very efficient system, as Alain has pointed out? The mental contortions you go through to deny the obvious facts right in front of you astonish me.
Also, I didn’t make any “6 months blunder” and I am not backtracking. I reported the facts, and pointed out that even if it did take more than 6 months to diagnose we would still see this in the study results, but we don’t, even following the children for 5 years after MMR. You are, as usual, spouting nonsense.
Okay, so feel free to error-check me on this – I’m doing it ’cause I’m bored, not because I think there’s any value in Gerg’s gerglings.
Gerg claims that there is so, or at least could be, a huge population of Danish children who were given ASDs by MMR in the Madsen study; what kept that massive excess of ASD cases from being detected was that the age at which they were diagnosed was outside the range of the study – that the study did not follow any children past their 7th birthday, and that no significant number of children who received ASDs from MMRs were diagnosed with said ASDs before the age of 70 months.
Of course, if Gerg actually read the study, specifically the Results section, he’d have read the following sentence:
This can only mean one thing: that if MMR were to cause autistic spectrum disorders, it would have to do so in a profoundly delayed fashion. There’s otherwise just no explanation for how naturally occurring ASDs would be consistently diagnosed several years earlier, in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
And yet Gerg has previously insisted that we “know” that vaccinations do indeed cause ASDs because supposedly development takes place in such a short time frame! Even if we hypothesized (against all reason) parents so horribly irresponsible that their children develop ASDs immediately after the shot and the parents don’t take them for diagnosis until years later, that still can’t explain the data – because, again, all children with ASDs that are not due to MMR are getting diagnosed years earlier, whether they’re vaccinated or unvaccinated!
(It’s like eating peanuts: No matter how hard you try, you can’t stop yourself from having more.)
Kreb:
This time you have confused time after MMR with age, and you have given data for diagnosis of all autism, not just regressive autism. Do you really believe that regressive autism takes over 5 years to diagnose in Denmark which has a very efficient system, as Alain has pointed out? The mental contortions you go through to deny the obvious facts right in front of you astonish me.
Danish study:
The mean age at diagnosis was four years and three months for autistic disorder and five years and three months for other autistic-spectrum disorders.’
So Kreb, even with the ‘efficient’ Danish system, it took a median of four years and three months (51 months) for autism to be diagnosed. If we subtract the Danish MMR uptake age of 15 mths, that’s a 36 months lag. This is consistent with the findings of the other studies that I provided.
Kreb, why are you forcing me to belabor the point? Health care professionals are not lining up, and raring to diagnose every child that a parent suspect of having autism. After the parent becomes concern, its a long wait and seemingly never ending ‘kafafa’ of….calling the developmental service office….waiting for the intake appointment…having the case assigned to a social worker…waiting for the social worker to refer you to Mr or Mrs Autism Specialist….waiting for the appoinmentt with Mr or Mrs. Autism Specialist…. following up with other health care professionals, educators, and so on, as per Mr or Mrs Autism Specialist requests….and after likely repeating steps along the way, finally getting a formal diagnosis.
Needless to say Kreb, expecting results in 6 months is exceedingly naive, if not downright stupid.
Gerg’s so blindered, he doesn’t even see that the most reasonable explanation for a years-long gap between the administration of MMR and diagnosis of an ASD is the two having nothing to do with each other.
@Antaeus
“Gerg’s so blindered, he doesn’t even see that the most reasonable explanation for a years-long gap between the administration of MMR and diagnosis of an ASD is the two having nothing to do with each other.”
In fairness Freddo —ahhemm Antaeus!– indeed my comment was a little prejudicial. Still, we can drop talk of MMR and consider, “Howlin and Asgharian20 replicated these findings and found that parents of children diagnosed with autism noted concerns by a mean of 18 months of age”……..
Clearly the literature is consistently pointing to parents catching on long before scientists, and health care professionals do.
OT- but are alt media honchos scraping the bottom of the barrel by wankering on and on about conspiracies EVER truly OT @ RI?
Plus, Anateus is bored.
Mikey wrote yesterday that his upcoming ( January 2014) announcement “will transcend politics and current events”
and “reshape how you think about food, society, sustainable living, mental health and even issues like politics, crime and war”.
” We have found the common thread that connects much of human history and which explains our world in a way that psychology and sociology cannot”.
A recent video ( also @ NaturalNews) speaks about his mind-shattering “food science breakthroughs’ You’ve been “fed a lie” by food processors: food labels don’t reveal anything but instead, they conceal information
“The “people will be enlightened. The corporations will be exposed”
“The truth can’t be kept secret any longer”.
Other recent nonsense I’ve gleaned from Mike:
-he bought up used equipment from universities’ labs
– he supports ADEM- an altie medical association
– he hates governmental agencies that monitor food and meds and related laws
– his corporate offices are in Taiwan
– he writes about bad vitamins available @ Amazon which mimic his own fab products’ labels( from the other China)
– he writes about governments allowing food products originating from the Other China
– he sells pure supplements and organic, GMO-free foods.
@ PRN, the other idiot * cum laude* read his new rant aloud Wednesday and talked about reading it Thursday- ” The Hidden Hand: Who Really Holds Power?” ( available @ PRN & his other websites)
We’re informed that it’s not ‘really a conspiracy’ but that wealthy corporations and private individuals possess armies of legal representatives and lobbyists who influence and actually write the laws that governments enact.
Indeed, if you speak about conspiracies mainstream media will marginalise you by denying you input in discussions. They might even call you ” a nut”.
HOWEVER ( my note) he doesn’t talk about woo-centric international organisations like the ANH and smaller poliical pressure groups that keep woo afloat worldwide despite its lack of supportive data.
Nor does he discuss that $6 million estate he has up for sale ( see paradisegardensnaplesfl.com – includes aerial views)
How does my food processor tell me a lie? I only use it for chopping stuff, and occasionally blitzing herbs. Oh, and pastry. It does good pastry.
@ Rebecca FIsher:
Right. I should have said ‘food processing corporations/ food producers and their government lackeys” rather han ‘food processors’ which are after all, only machines and thus incapable of mendacity.
Oh, you actually use one of those things? I don’t- I send out most of the times.. Pastry? That means pie and tarts.OOOOh..
Greg,
But, as Antaeus pointed out, that assumes a connection between MMR and autism, and that regression happens immediately after MMR. This is not in any way evidence of the time it takes regressive autism to be diagnosed in Denmark, it could take weeks for all you know.
Even if it were the case that diagnosis was delayed by 36 months, if MMR was causing regressive autism as you claim “thousands of parents” say it does, we would expect to see more autism diagnoses 36 months after MMR as compared with unvaccinated children. Instead we see almost exactly the same incidence of autism and other ASD diagnoses. See Table 2, again, the relative risk of autism being diagnosed 36-59 months after MMR as compared to unvaccinated children was 0.9 and for other ASDs 1.05.
You do not have a point; what you are claiming is flatly contradicted by the evidence, as usual.
Just out of interest, this study found:
So in this study first contact with the health care system, which in cases of regressive autism must surely be soon after regression, instead of date of diagnosis. During the later years that Madsen’s study was carried out the average age at diagnosis (i.e. first contact with the health care system) was 5.3-5.9 years of age, as compared with 4.25-5.25 years of age in Madsen’s study. There’s no evidence here of the delay in diagnosis that Greg claims has masked the regressive autism caused by MMR.
You never do, yet you repeat the operation over and over. It speaks to your character.
If you think I give command performances, you’re even wronger than usual.
I could make this argument, but I don’t recall having done so. Feel free to show me where.
Not really, no. That’s not the calculus.
I don’t recall any “threatening” being involved.
See above.
This is the equivalent of dumping a pail of rotting garbage over your head. Not that it doesn’t suit you.
Gerg, tell me what the incorrect letter is.
HHHMMM??
I am always impressed when people bolster their argument by performing bee impersonations.
Well, just checking in and looks like Kreb still hasn’t admitted how foolish and embarrassing it was to consider the Danish study not obtaining significant results for regressive autism up to 6 months after MMR uptake. What ya gonna do with that guy? No doubt he will wait until I am not around, and, again, spurt off such nonsense to his next unsuspecting victim.
Kreb also adds:
“Even if it were the case that diagnosis was delayed by 36 months, if MMR was causing regressive autism as you claim “thousands of parents” say it does, we would expect to see more autism diagnoses 36 months after MMR as compared with unvaccinated children. Instead we see almost exactly the same incidence of autism and other ASD diagnoses.”
Kreb, regarding this last assertion, let me offer the following clarification: I believe parents when they say that they witnessed their children dramatic regression after MMR, but I do not believe MMR in itself causes autism. What I have contended on numerous occasions is that it’s not one vaccine ingredient, or one particular vaccine that is causing autism; it’s the cumulative toxic load of vaccines that causes autism.
This toxic buildup will likely reach it’s tipping point, manifesting itself as noticeable regressive autism, during the latter rounds of vaccination. MMR is often given during these rounds, and hence it’s no wonder parents blame MMR. But again, it’s not MMR in itself that’s contributing to regressive autism, but the gradual cumulative buildup of vaccines.
Kreb, this is an important point because if we are thinking that it’s MMR alone that is causing autism then indeed we would expect that the Danish cases should be sufficient to show a correlation within the 36 – 59 months after MMR uptake. Yet, since it’s the cumulative load of vaccines that is causing the regression, obtaining a correlation for regressive autism in respect to one particular vaccine will not be such an open and shut case. This is not to say that we should not expect a correlation.
To the extent, that the Danish study amounts to the examination of one extra vaccine, MMR, and it being an important one that is likely to come when things reach the tipping point then, yes, we should expect a correlation. But now that we are contemplating the confounding factor of other vaccines contributing to the regression, the issue is whether the numbers, or autism cases, are significant enough where the MMR effect can be tweaked out. Again, It would be a rather easy matter if only MMR was causing regressive autism.
And there again, Kreb, we see the value of a vax/unvax study.
So Greg, you think all the children in Denmark were given only the MMR vaccine, not the rest of the schedule, for all those years, just to test if MMR alone causes autism? That’s what you’re implying.
Also, there’s no such thing as “regression”. There is only just now noticing that a child is not developing normally.
And—my humble apologies, everybody. I meant to put scare-quotes around “normally”.
And here again, Gerg, we see that you have already been asked for the confidence interval, power, and requisite signal so as to promptly arrive at the sample size and just run away.
Time for lilady’s Media Update of Anne Dachel’s Media Update:
Here….
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/28/autism-research-gets-federal-aid-not-once-but-twic/?page=all
And here…
http://columbiametro.com/Columbia-Metro/December-2013/One-in-88/
Despite his troubling lack of honesty and integrity I do still find Greg interesting as an example of someone totally fixated on the idea that vaccines cause autism, and utterly closed-minded to the possibility that they might be wrong. I find it particularly fascinating to see him going through all these contortions, desperately trying to torture a scenario into fitting both his idée fixe and the evidence, but never really succeeding.
What gives me a little hope is that he doesn’t simply dismiss all evidence that contradicts his position as having been fabricated by Big Pharma, as his AoA buddies so often do. This is what keeps tempting me back into the fray: the remote chance that Greg may be brought back into the light of reason.
Earlier Greg was expressing satisfaction that we have been persuaded by his arguments to shift from a position of strict genetic determinism to admitting that autism might have prenatal environmental causes. He appears to be oblivious to the fact that this was the science-based position long before he started posting here. It would require an ability to deny the evidence rivaling AoA’s to believe anything else; for example, the effects of congenital rubella syndrome and of valproate taken during pregnancy are some of the strongest evidence that autism starts in the womb, and the results of twin studies make it clear that autism is not 100% genetically determined.
I suspect, not for the first time, that Greg is projecting, and his certainty about vaccines and autism is weakening. He has even mentioned the voices in the back of his mind whispering to him that he is wrong. This, I suspect, is what keeps him from sticking the flounce.
I see he simply ignores the evidence I have presented that shows no difference between the date of first contact with the health care system, and date of diagnosis in Denmark. This evidence strongly suggests that the greater-than-5-year gap between MMR-induced regression and diagnosis that he suggests as an explanation for a lack of correlation between MMR and autism is sheer fantasy.
I also find his latest hypothesis interesting, as a psychological study. He is now suggesting, if I understand him correctly, that parental claims of regression after MMR are mistaken, because “it’s not MMR in itself that’s contributing to regressive autism”, it is “the gradual cumulative buildup of vaccines” that finally have their devastating effects around the time that MMR is given. In other words he accepts the implications of Madsen’s study; that there is no link between MMR and autism. Despite his shift to blaming other vaccines this is an extraordinary concession from Greg, since he has previously stated that these parental accounts of regression are what convince him that vaccines cause autism. One wonders what will happen now he had abandoned this major support for his beliefs.
It is interesting to digress at this point and to observe that just a few years ago antivaxxers were convinced that MMR caused rapid regression into autism, and/or that thimerosal was contributing to mercury-induced neurological damage that resulted in autism. Some of the antivaccine organizations were founded with these beliefs fundamental to their existence. Now that both the MMR/autism link and the thimerosal/link have been comprehensively undermined by strong epidemiological evidence, we see this goalpost-shifting, this procrustean manipulation of hypotheses to somehow fit the evidence and accommodate the vaccines/autism obsession. I find it fascinating to see it in action in Greg like this.
Anyway, if we assume for the sake of argument that Greg is right, and that the cumulative effects of vaccines finally result in regressive autism at around the same time that MMR is given, what might we expect to see in Madsen’s study? Greg suggests that, “now that we are contemplating the confounding factor of other vaccines contributing to the regression, the issue is whether the numbers, or autism cases, are significant enough where the MMR effect can be tweaked out”. In other words the effects of MMR on autism must be so tiny that 738 cases of ASD are not enough to detect it. I would suggest that evidence is entirely consistent with MMR and other vaccines having nothing whatsoever to do with autism, apart from the protective effects we know they have, of course. Following Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the data we see is the conventional consensus view i.e. that vaccines do not cause autism.
I’m wondering why Greg continues to believe that vaccines have anything to do with autism. He has sensibly abandoned the idea that MMR triggers regressive autism, since the evidence argues so strongly against this. If the parental evidence is unreliable, merely a spurious relationship due to cognitive biases around a temporal association, what is left that remotely suggests that vaccines in any way cause autism? Why, even if it were possible to design a study that would not break internationally agreed rules on medical ethics, do we need a “vax/unvax study”? There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that suggests vaccines cause autism, and a great deal of strong evidence that suggests they do not. Indeed it seems to be this conspicuous lack of evidence that Greg thinks means we need such a study at all, that a “vax/unvax” study would merely be a fishing expedition, looking for evidence that cannot be found elsewhere.
Looks like Kreb is at it again! Instead of ‘maning-up’ and admitting to the buffoonery of bragging that the Danish study did not obtain any significant result for regressive autism with 6 month after MMR uptake, he, nevertheless, goes on the attack. Again — what ya gonna do with that guy?
Kreb, a softening of my position? Kreb, I challenge anyone to search the history of my comments and they will see from day-1 I have been arguing that it’s not one vaccine ingredient, or a particular vaccine that is causing autism. I have always maintained that it’s the cumulative build-up of vaccines as administered in the recommended CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule that is causing autism.
As for struggling to deal with cognitive dissonance when having to concede one’s position, I think this applies more to you, Kreb. How do you go from suggesting someone is completely delusional for believing vaccines cause autism, to now conceding that vaccines can cause autism — albeit in ‘extraordinarily rare circumstances’? Further Kreb, perhaps you may also enlighten the readers of the science establishing the rarity of these ‘extraordinarily rare circumstances’.
And Kreb, indeed you drug-dealears are softening your stance on genetics causing autism. In the past it was all about let’s find those autistic genes. And, with over a billion dollars of essentially useless work, leads you guys to now start entertaining whimsical talk of environmental prenatal exposure contributing to autism. Anything but addressing the elephant in the room of those countless parents claiming how vaccines changed their normally developing children. When pushed even further Kreb — what next? Will you guys start saying, ‘ok –ok–autism may not occur prenatally after all, but occurring at the precise moment when baby leaves mom’s body’. Perhaps you may also add that some perplexing factor within the hospital climate of late is affecting the delivery environment and contributing to exploding autism rates.
‘within 6 months after…’
Gerg, of course, has previously admitted lying when he said he had a study design in mind for a vax/unvax study which could be ethically done, which would convince antivaxxers even if they didn’t like its results.
The only purpose a properly run vaccination program has is to induce herd immunity in a population so that kids who cannot be vaccinated are partially protected. This also partially protects kids who acquire immune or mitochondrial problems after they have been vaccinated.
Without vaccinations kids will be permanently injured or die from ordinary childhood diseases… but the kids who would be injured/killed are likely the same kids injured/killed by live vaccines today.
There is the additional problem of live vaccines administered by a route that is different from natural infection. Any child’s general health and the status of the various parts of their immunity will affect their chances of being injured. This raises the possibility that kids who would have survived natural infection w/o injury could be a victim of the unnatural route by which many vaccines are administered.
These are facts that no one can argue against… Gorski & his minions know this is true… yet they persist with the dishonest fraudulent and evidence-free drivel
Without honest research and regulation we are going to increase the injuries and deaths we are currently experiencing… the true numbers of which we have no idea. Our regulatory and health agencies are ignoring the true numbers of those susceptible kids and adults. The corrupting effects corporate personnel have on govt officials & regulators protect and increase profits over the health of the American people.
Just a few of 1000s of examples –
1. FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes and every commissioner after him who did not withdraw Hayes’ fraudulent approval of aspartame. Hayes was paid off by being hired after 2 years as commissioner by Burston Marstellar, PR firm promoting Aspartame. Over a ten year period he was paid over $3.5 million dollars.
2. Justice dept attorneys Skinner & Conlon both dragged their feet over prosecuting Searle Pharmaceutical for tampering with safety data in Aspartame studies. Both left their govt jobs and were immediately hired by Searle’s law firm Sidley & Austin.
3. CDC head Julie Gerberding (2003-2009) rabidly promoted vaccinations including the blockbuster Gardasil, her ACIP recommending it for use. That same ACIP held up their recommended use of Glaxo’s competitive Cervarix. One year after she resigned her position she became president of Merck’s vaccine division at 5 times her CDC salary, selling out cheaply for the billions Merck will make. If just 10% of the world’s target population is vaccinated the cost of Gardasil alone will be over $60 billion. This doesn’t take into account the costs of administering the vaccine or the health care of kids who will be/ have been injured.
As I have said before, the shills on this blog defending all things pharma-related know that everything I have posted is true. They know our improperly run vaccination program is injuring and killing kids who shouldn’t be vaccinated, they know the numbers from the passive surveillance system VAERS are VASTLY under-reported & they do not care for any of the children or their families who have been so horribly impacted by our unsafe vaccination program… most of those kids are the same ones who would be injured of killed by ordinary childhood disease.
Those are the very kids who should have been partially protected by the herd immunity a safely run vaccine program could have afforded them, but who are denied that protection by the actions of a relatively few greedy people manipulating science & government with money and/or jobs.
Who would waste their time on these blogs to lie, deflect, deceive, baselessly attack and insult when the health & life of children, susceptible to being injured by vaccines, is at stake? A paid sociopath would… is that name-calling or insulting? Only if it isn’t true. Only if those lies, deflections & deceptions can’t be exposed… and they have been repeatedly.
The only weapon these shills use effectively here is to bury the truth with drivel.
Greg still hasn’t explained why, if a sizeable percentage of the population responds to repeated immunological insults in infancy by developing autism, we supposedly did not see equal rates of autism in the Good Old Days when there were no vaccines and little sanitation so that infants suffered many more, and more life-threatening, immunological insults.
@ Krebiozen:
As much as i admire your peristence and erudition, I don’t think that you will ever convince him ( or any other true believer) in the error of his ways because this is about *more* than scientific concepts, research and data.
Whether you survey more generic alt media gurus( @ NN or PRN) or niche topic advocates (@ AoA or TMR) you’ll find that their denialism is linked to some personal characteristics – and I don’t thiink that it is entirely random :
-usually, the theoretician/ supporter doesn’t have the appropriate background to even adequately understand the issues she or he criticises-
– they express emnity, envy and a desire to visit comeuppance upon experts with whom they disagree.
-they feel personally insulted because they are not acceptable in scientific debates as equals.
So this is an emotionally-charged area which is intimately tied to self-esteem issues as well as personal image.
Kalichman goes even further and has named personality disorders. But I won’t.
Thus those who feel shortcharged for whatever reason – non-acceptance by authorities, not getting into ‘elite’ universities, not have advanced degrees, having less clout, being the parent of an “imperfect” child, being called wrong-headed or a loon- want revenge. They seek out ways to engage experts as equals in debates on television and in comment sections. Their secret wish is to PROVE those smart-@sses wrong and be applauded by the masses.To inaugerate the much vaunted Paradign Shift is also a dream for some as are ideas about jailing opponents.
As if.
So you are a person with obvious intellectual gifts and educational/ vocational achievements who ( the creature believes) is on equal footing with him. He’s got you engaged and cornered – he’ll have the last word, just like anti-vaxxers sure showed that DR Wiznitzer or Gary Null absolutely obliterated Brian Deer or Jake swept the floor with Drs Offit, Godlee AND Orac.
Being involved as equals ( even if only in fantasy) allows them a brief respite from self-doubt and feelings of unworthiness. In reality, everyone has value but seeking your own in areas which do not match up your skills is an exercise in guaranteeing eventual defeat and humiliation.
There are other ways to increase self-esteem that are not linked to hopeless, unrealistic causes built upon a scaffolding of unlikely conspiracies as a substitute for data. There are places called ‘universities” that can augment skills and teach new ones.
I always say that woo theories and conspiracy fit together hand-in-glove: if the data and the experts show you wrong you have to either admit defeat ( not so great for you emotionally in the short run) or construct a Rube Goldbergian edifice to SHOW how data and experts don’t count- they’ll all corrupt and icky or really awful, vain, despicable, criminals anyway. I would also guess that there might be some difficulties in the person perception/ social cogniition area for some of our critics based on their charaterisations of the minions.
But I won’t go into detail.
Anyway, those are minor, fixable problems whilst believing in idiosyncratic, self-defeating unrealities is not such an enviable position.
At any rate, your comments provide enlightenment and entertainment for the SB crowd and on-the-fencers who want to learn.
Denice,
I know, it’s a faint and vanishingly hope, but it is there. I must admit I do find Greg’s antics perversely entertaining; the machinations he has to go through to explain away great swathes of evidence are extraordinary. He has repeatedly revealed that he is knowingly and willfully dishonest, and clearly has no real interest in finding the truth, so even if he was convinced by the science, I wouldn’t expect him to admit it, probably not even to himself.
@ Kreb:
Yes, it is perversely entertaining but then most of us here @ RI are f@cking evil anyway.
The shill drivel and backslapping continue… along with a complete lack of evidence.
Anyone interested in the truth can read through the muck and sift out the facts.
@Michael Polidori,
And your point is? of course we can read through the comments here and sift out the facts…we didn’t need your permission to do so 🙂
Alain
This blog was dead on the 17th of November until I disturbed the drivel train minions with the truth from the FDA and CDC and Merck’s package inerts … to which some of the shills responded that info from those sources can’t be trusted…
They wiil say anything and stoop to any depth to pretend to make a point.
Start reading from comment 143…
@ Irony Meter
Rett’s syndrome was part of the grouping of Pervasive Developmental Disorders, not the autism spectrum, in the DSM-IV
Rett’s has been dropped from the newly created autism spectrum in the DSM-V.
You folks just keep repeating lies hoping they won’t be countered… of course in the end you will win with the last comments as Gorski closes these comments when he chooses
Ok, how about in exchange, you get familiar with the autism neuroimaging litterature?
Here’s your query:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((%22Positron-Emission+Tomography+and+Computed+Tomography%22%5BMesh%5D+OR++%22Positron-Emission+Tomography%22%5BMesh%5D)+OR+%22Magnetic+Resonance+Imaging%22%5BMesh%5D)+AND+%22Child+Development+Disorders%2C+Pervasive%22%5BMesh%5D
it result in 897 publications of which I have read probably 600 and there’s also a meta-analysis which is of mention here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21465627
To help you in your reading quest, try to ask yourself the question: how does a vaccine injury result in better performance in some test result as well as more oxygen consumption (that’s what is measured by these scanners) in the autistic brain.
Alain
Mr. Polidori:
Citation needed. So you are okay with the FluMist vaccine? And you are cool with the tetanus vaccine being injected since that infection usually happens after puncture wounds. Plus the rotavirus and oral polio vaccine are good? Even the OPV is known to cause polio itself in about one out of a million doses.
Then after some conspiracy mongering he continues with:
Which is a lazy boring resort to the Pharma Shill Gambit. Take note he does not do something interesting and original like post actual scientific citations.
He continues with a common trope:
So, Mr. Polidori, what must you read and understand before using the VAERS database from its official portal? Do you think vehicular accidents are caused by vaccines, especially after several months?
Mr. Polidori:
Oh, the lies and deceptions have been exposed repeatedly. It is just that you can’t see them with your anti-science blinders. Both Mark Geier and Andrew Wakefield have been stripped of the legal right to practice medicine. Many of the papers touted to connect vaccines with autism have been shown to be not actually do that, or are very flawed.
If you have a point Mr. Polidori, try to tell us with actual scientific data and not conspiratorial ranting. You can start by actually answering some questions. For one thing, the MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971 and the preferred vaccine for the 1971 Measles Elimination Program. Please provide the verifiable evidence dated before 1990 that there was a sharp increase in autism due to the MMR vaccine in the USA during the 1970s and 1980s.
Also, here is another little scientific fact for you to digest: a large data project from the University of Pittsburgh has determined that an estimated hundred million cases of contagious diseases have been prevented in the USA since 1924. Check out Project Tycho, that is real science and statistics.
Oh, rats, I accidentally used three links, so I went into moderation. But I did notice that Mr. Polidori failed to answer the question I posted in comments #165 and #194:
Though I will repeat a bit:
So, Mr. Polidori, what must you read and understand before using the VAERS database from its official portal? Do you think vehicular accidents are caused by vaccines, especially after several months?
Plus this because Mr. Polidori said: “Only if those lies, deflections & deceptions can’t be exposed… and they have been repeatedly.”
Oh, the lies and deceptions have been exposed repeatedly. It is just that you can’t see them with your anti-science blinders. Both Mark Geier and Andrew Wakefield have been stripped of the legal right to practice medicine. Many of the papers touted to connect vaccines with autism have been shown to be not actually do that, or are very flawed:
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/08/-those-lists-of-papers-that-claim-vaccines-cause-autism-part-1.html
“This blog was dead on the 17th of November until I disturbed the drivel train minions with the truth from the FDA and CDC and Merck’s package inerts … to which some of the shills responded that info from those sources can’t be trusted…”
Bullsh!t:
Haven’t you noticed that other posters continue to post comments by ignoring your brain droppings?
You remind me of “Thingy” who used to post her deranged comments here and who used to declare victory with her pronouncements that Orac and his blog were toast…because she posted her brain droppings.
I hereby declare that the blog is alive and well…and thriving.
O RLY? If they’re facts no one can argue against, why don’t you cite a reliable source (i.e., not Age of Autism or whale.to or Mercola or any similar crank site) supporting your claims?
Polidori, you seem to think that the weakest parts of your argument can be magically transformed into the strongest by simply asserting that they are strong, that they are “facts”. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, you are sabotaging your own quest to be taken seriously, by highlighting the very assumptions your argument falls apart without, and bluffing that these are “facts that no one can argue against.”
Congratulations, Polidori: You’re crazier than Greg.
Honestly, when anybody says that “the numbers from the passive surveillance system VAERS are VASTLY under-reported”, when it’s full of people who were in car wrecks or turned into the Incredible Hulk after vaccinations, you know you’re dealing with a lunatic.
And Orac has never closed a thread that I know of, except one that was way too long and taking forever to load, and he started another for the same discussion. The site will close a thread after…six months, I think. Might be 90 days now. So your paranoia is showing; you might want to get that looked at.
Michael Polidori said,
I thought it was the other way around. Variolation, for example, introduced smallpox through the skin instead of the “natural route”, through the lungs. Since the smallpox virus evolved mechanisms to attack through the lungs but not through the skin, it was less able to launch its attack through the “unnatural route” and the immune system was better able to fight it off.
Could someone who knows what they’re talking about (i.e., not Michael Polidori or Greg) comment on that?
Just a few of 1000s of examples –
Sadly, Mr Polidori has previously revealed his difficulties with orders of magnitude, so I imagine this translates into “about 10”.
I was not sure what ranting about aspartame had to do with Big Pharma, but there you go.
#270 Battleaxe: “Congratulations, Polidori: You’re crazier than Greg.”
Woah, woah, woah, let’s not be hasty here, Battle. You’re diluting DJT’s honors.
Well, one kind of “vaccine injury” probably *is* underreported on VAERS, to be fair–who would bother reporting an achy arm or the reddening of the skin around the shot?
If they meant *that* kind of underreporting, I could believe it, but they obviously don’t.
“defending all things pharma-related” — patently false, as Orac’s post on “Low-T” easily demonstrates.
Speaking of “maning up” and “buffoonery,” Gerg, perhaps you could find some time out from your busy schedule of sniveling and chickenshıtting to cough up those numbers that have been requested.
The only thing inert in this context is the contents of your skull, Polidari. You explicitly applied a 2006 rule to an insert that plainly is constructed according to the 1979 standard. Given that you seem to have Merck and the FDA on speed-dial, perhaps you should get them on the blower and figure out some way to embroider a less pathetic response to a fairly simple observation.
Did you guys get a load of that Polidori guy? He comes around here spurting off about how you’re all vile, despicable shills — advancing a vaccination agenda that involves maiming and killing kids. Just who the hell does he think he is speaking the truth?? Those anti-vaxxers can be just so cruel and nasty, always bringing up reality. (Hee hee hee.)
I am outta here!!
I am outta here!!
Bye Greg! See ya 🙂
_______________________________________________
Guys and Gals, the Grinch is gone!!!
Party on!
Alain
Greg: Like you’d recognize reality if it bit you.
Your cowardice and inability to answer direct questions are once again duly noted.