Current Vaccine Court Decision "...both tragic and misleading"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

I can think of some other cases where judges made a huge mistake, like crowning George Bush our King in 2000.

"The link of vaccines to autism is real. Not in all cases, but in a significant amount."

A Biomedical Autism Specialist Physicians Viewpoint about the Current Vaccine Courts Decision Regarding Autism and Vaccines

Dr. Kurt Woeller Saturday, February 14, 2009

The recent ruling by a vaccine court involved in vaccine damage litigation regarding causation between vaccinations such the MMR, and the vaccine ingredient thimerosal (mercury) and autism as being without merit or not showing enough scientific evidence is both tragic and misleading. It is tragic because for years families have sought restitution for their families emotional and financial suffering in caring for what they know is a vaccine damaged child. It is misleading because the traditional medical community will use this decision to put forth their mantra that vaccinations for ALL children at the current schedule (approximately 24 vaccines before the age of 2) – regardless of a child’s hereditary or genetic variances is completely safe, and any indication of toxicity or link to childhood neurological problems is unwarranted.

This commentary is not an attack against vaccines in general. The argument is always brought up that vaccines have saved thousands of lives – not only here in the United States, but across the world, and to go without vaccines would endanger thousands of other children. Both of these statements can be viewed as accurate. Most of us who speak out about the vaccine and autism connection have never advocated the elimination of childhood vaccines, or indicated that vaccines are the only cause of autism. We all know that vaccines in the history of medicine have contributed to preventing and reducing infectious disease. Enough said. Vaccines are not going away, nor should they.

The deeper issue is that certain vaccines are associated with a risk of adverse reactions that can impair certain individuals neurologically – seizures, motor dysfunction, paralysis, and even death. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) would not exist – and record data on adverse vaccine reactions on a yearly basis - if vaccines did not have the potential to cause problems. Someone can debate all they want about the risks, percentages, actual cases, etc., but the fact remains vaccines carry a risk for adverse side effects.

...The medical authorities, vaccine courts, or other naysayers regarding adverse vaccine reactions and autism can argue all they want about there being no link. The reality is these decisions are being determined in the courtroom, and we all know that a court ruling is not always indicative of absolute guilt or innocence – reference the case of O.J. Simpson’s murder trial. I think we can all agree the legal decision didn’t match what we all suspected was the truth.

"Tragically, I have also seen children who became autistic within days of their 15 to 18 months vaccines – usually after a combination of the MMR and others."

[BrklynLiberal]

1. One should always err on the side of caution. Until it is proven absolutely not to be

true, I would be wary...very wary. 24 vaccines before the age of 2!!!! That is unbelievable.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. World Health Org goal to inject 100 million with thimerosal

Thimerosal-preserved vaccines are currently being injected into millions of children in developing countries around the world. "My mandate ... is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized ... this year, next year and for many years to come ... and that will have to be with thimerosal-containing vaccines," said John Clements of the World Health Organization at a June 2000 meeting called by the CDC.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/autism_none_for_unvaccinated_amish.htm

[SidDithers]

29. Links to Alex Jones go in the 9/11 dungeon...

with all the other conspiracist nonsense.

Sid

[LeftishBrit]

31. Do you really trust stuff from Infowars?

[varkam]

52. I'm not sure if WYVBC has any concept of "credibility"

So long as the source says what she wants to hear, they are credible as far as she is concerned. If they disagree with her, then they are all shills or republicans or whatever her new meme-de-jour is.

[stopbush]

13. Except "erring on the side of caution" would mean getting kids those 24 vaccinations

that have PROVEN to be effective, rather than denying them vaccines because some crackpot theory that was launched through falsified data - and that all subsequent and HONEST scientific studies have shown to be BS - still pulls the chain of those who regard faith and belief more highly than the evidence.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. I wonder why the hepatitus B for 1 day old infants

That seems a bit early. Maybe at least wait until the child has had a few days to
get used to new world?

[stopbush]

59. Maybe because of this:

"Hepatitis B is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The incubation period from the time of exposure to onset of symptoms is 6 weeks to 6 months. HBV is found in highest concentrations in blood and in lower concentrations in other body fluids (e.g., semen, vaginal secretions, and wound exudates). HBV infection can be self-limited or chronic."

Hmm? What do babies come in contact with while being born? See above.

"In adults, only approximately half of newly acquired HBV infections are symptomatic, and approximately 1% of reported cases result in acute liver failure and death. Risk for chronic infection is inversely related to age at infection: approximately 90% of infected infants and 30% of infected children aged <5 years become chronically infected, compared with 2%–6% of adults."

Source: CDC http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HBV.htm

Of course, those who would "err on the side of caution" when it comes to administering vaccines may wish to forego the Hep B vaccine altogether, right?

[tabatha]

2. I hope you don't get flamed for this.

Thank you for the link.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. California-Oregon Unvaccinated Children Survey

From Generation Rescue
http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/califoregonunvaccinatedchildrensurvey03nov07.shtml
November 3, 2007

California-Oregon Unvaccinated Children Survey Links Vaccines & Autism (Nov. 3, 2007)

http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html

In 1983, the Centers for Disease Control recommended a total of 10 vaccines for our children. In 2007, the CDC recommends 36, an increase of 260%. Yet, no studies have ever been done to compare neurological disorder ("ND") rates of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. We commissioned a national market research firm to survey more than 13,000 children in California and Oregon. Read the results here.

......

http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/califoregonunvaccinatedchildrensurvey03nov07.shtml

[stopbush]

5. "caring for what they know is a vaccine damaged child."

What they know? Know?

Absolute BULLSHIT.

They "know" their child is damaged by vaccines the same way people "know" there is a god.

The science doesn't back up the claims that vaccines are linked to autism. The doctor who produced the original research that started the whole vaccines-cause-autism belief FALSIFIED HIS RESEARCH.

Jesus. Why not say drinking bottled water causes autism, or evil spirits? There's just as much proof for those "theories" causing autism as there is for vaccines.

The leaps of logic in the cited piece are embarrassing, written from a position of authority - as in, "trust me". "I have seen" is still anecdotal evidence that has NOT been supported by the scientific studies.

Yes, vaccines can have bad side effects, but the science doesn't support the belief that vaccines cause autism.

The time, energy and resources that have been wasted on this theory - again, a theory hatched through falsified data - could have been spent looking into other areas that might be producing results. It's time to give up the emotional investment people have in this theory and to move on to new lines of research.

And yes, this article should be flamed and flamed roundly.

[flyingobject]

7. you are right. Next people will be blaming cigarettes for cancer

just because people smoke 2 packs a day doesn't mean there's a correlation.

[varkam]

9. Oh except that there's scientific evidence to support that notion.

Unlike, of course, the current nonsense.

[stopbush]

10. You don't respect science, do you?

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you also believe JFK was shot by multiple gunmen and that the WTC towers were brought down through a controlled demolition.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. So your best answer is to make a character attack, and take side of Bush's bitch, the FDA

The FDA has been Bush's and Big Pharma's bitch for the past 8 years.

The FDA has been recommending and approving medicines for the past 8 years.

Anything that happens as a result of the FDA's recommendations can mean huge
liability for the govt and Big Pharma (and just govt in case of vaccines).

[varkam]

50. Go democrats!

:rofl: You really are too much.

[stopbush]

61. "The FDA has been recommending and approving medicines for the past 8 years."

Er, what have they been doing for most of their history?

BTW - do you believe that JFK was shot by Oswald and Oswald alone - as the evidence confirms - or do you believe one of the varous CTs?

[Liberal Veteran]

63. Prior to that, they just got together for a weekly office party.

[stopbush]

64. Don't forget that those parties were all sponsored by Big Pharma and

the UFO cover-up experts at Area 51.

You do know that the first vaccines came from extra terrestrials who experimented on dinosaurs, don't you?

[LeftishBrit]

67. The FDA is not responsible for recommending and approving medicines outside America

Yet other countries use pretty similar medicines and vaccines.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. It's a giant conspiracy.

And nearly every physician in the world is part of the conspiracy, as well as every pharmaceutical company in the world and every government regulatory agency that oversees medications.

They are the same people sitting on the cure for cancer and AIDS and diabetes and the heartbreak of psoriasis because there is no money in curing a disease.

And they all meet up once a week at Area 51 to discuss their new evil scheme.

[varkam]

75. Aha! I knew it!

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

76. The best part about the meetings at Area 51...

are the bus trips to Vegas after the meetings are done.

Sid

[varkam]

6. Unmitigated bullshit.

The recent ruling by a vaccine court involved in vaccine damage litigation regarding causation between vaccinations such the MMR, and the vaccine ingredient thimerosal (mercury) and autism as being without merit or not showing enough scientific evidence is both tragic and misleading. It is tragic because for years families have sought restitution for their families emotional and financial suffering in caring for what they know is a vaccine damaged child. It is misleading because the traditional medical community will use this decision to put forth their mantra that vaccinations for ALL children at the current schedule (approximately 24 vaccines before the age of 2) – regardless of a child’s hereditary or genetic variances is completely safe, and any indication of toxicity or link to childhood neurological problems is unwarranted.

Bunch of histrionics and speculation.

This commentary is not an attack against vaccines in general. The argument is always brought up that vaccines have saved thousands of lives – not only here in the United States, but across the world, and to go without vaccines would endanger thousands of other children. Both of these statements can be viewed as accurate. Most of us who speak out about the vaccine and autism connection have never advocated the elimination of childhood vaccines, or indicated that vaccines are the only cause of autism. We all know that vaccines in the history of medicine have contributed to preventing and reducing infectious disease. Enough said. Vaccines are not going away, nor should they.

More of the same.

The deeper issue is that certain vaccines are associated with a risk of adverse reactions that can impair certain individuals neurologically – seizures, motor dysfunction, paralysis, and even death. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) would not exist – and record data on adverse vaccine reactions on a yearly basis - if vaccines did not have the potential to cause problems. Someone can debate all they want about the risks, percentages, actual cases, etc., but the fact remains vaccines carry a risk for adverse side effects.

A claim!! Too bad that it's a strawman. No one is saying that there are not adverse reactions to vaccines - what is at issue is whether or not vaccines cause autism - a claim which remain unsupported in the medical literature. Also note that you can report being turned into the Hulk by a vaccine and it gets into VAERS (which one researcher has done).

...The medical authorities, vaccine courts, or other naysayers regarding adverse vaccine reactions and autism can argue all they want about there being no link. The reality is these decisions are being determined in the courtroom, and we all know that a court ruling is not always indicative of absolute guilt or innocence – reference the case of O.J. Simpson’s murder trial. I think we can all agree the legal decision didn’t match what we all suspected was the truth.

:rofl: Actually - no. The reality is that these decisions are being made in the scientific community - the court ruling just happened to line up with that. Courts are not making a determination of scientific causation or lack thereof - in a civil case, the standard is a preponderance of the evidence (not a scientific standard).

What the hell is this guy a 'Dr.' of? eta - Oh, never mind, apparently he's an osteopathic physician who's selling his autism crap all over the interwebs. Hey - WYVBC - does that count as bias?

I love how the merc-militia went nuts over the Polling case, but then when another court decision comes down all of a sudden they poo-poo the process. Hope they didn't get any whiplash from that 180 they pulled.

[flyingobject]

11. so in your world, Autism isn't an adverse event - maybe its even fun

Just nasty little old adverse events, nothing to see here, move right along.

[varkam]

12. In my world? You mean the reality-based community?

:rofl:

Okay - so your contention is that autism is an adverse reaction to vaccines. Maybe you don't read so good, so I'll try to spell it out for you again:

AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER VACCINES CAUSE ADVERSE REACTIONS. STOP.

WHAT IS AT ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. STOP.

There's one teensy-weensy problem with that idea - it's make-believe. Dozens of studies performed all over the world by different researchers have pretty convincingly found that there is no connection between the two.

Moreover, there's no scientific study that reliably shows there is any such connection.

So...erm...if you want to show me the science that overcomes all the studies that show there is no such connection, by all means. Until then, I look forward to your barely coherent response involving world-wide conspiracies and anecdotes.

[pnwmom]

19. Here is a peer reviewed article from a reputable medical journal

showing a decrease in autism-like cases following the withdrawal of mercury-containing vaccines.

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf

"There is a median lag time of 3 to 4 years between the time of
birth and the diagnosis of an ND. As a result, the first children
evaluated, whose reports were entered into the VAERS and CDDS
databases in early 1994, were probably born in the late 1980s or
early 1990s. As was summarized in Table 1, these children received
approximately 100 mercury from four doses of thimerosal-
containing DTP vaccine, starting at 2 months of age. Subsequently,
the children who were entered into the VAERS and CDDS
databases from early 1994 through mid-to-late 2002 were probably
born from the late 1980s to early 1990s through the late 1990s.
These children, as shown in Table 1, received increasing doses of
mercury from additional TCVs (Hib, Hep b, and in some cases
influenza) as they were added to the recommended immunization
schedule. Peak exposure from TCVs during the first 18 months of
life was 275 mercury. Lastly, children entered into the VAERS
and CDDS databases in the last period, beginning in mid-2002,
were probably born from the late 1990s through the early 2000s.
Table 1 shows that after July 7, 1999, as thimerosal was removed
from vaccines, the total mercury dose children received from TCVs
was gradually reduced, and what mercury remained in childhood
vaccines was administered in a significantly less rigorous schedule
than in previous time periods. Overall, it appears that the increasing
and subsequent decreasing trends in the rates of NDs, observed in
both the VAERS and CDDS databases, correlate with temporal
periods when the cumulative amount of mercury in the childhood
immunization schedule expanded and later contracted.
The consistency of the effects observed for the spectrum of
NDs, including autism and speech disorders, and the agreement
between the observations from two separate databases, support the
conclusion that the effect is real and not a chance observation. The
magnitude of the change in the trend lines is substantial. Moreover,
other data are confirmatory: provisional data from the U.S.
Department of Education show a recent decrease of 529 in the
number of new autism diagnoses recorded among children 3 to 5
years old, after years of annual increases. There were 1,451 new
cases in 2001-2002; 1,981 in 2002-2003; 3,707 in 2003-2004; and
3,178 in 2004-2005.
The biological plausibility of the present findings is further
support ed by recently emerging extensive toxicokinetic,
molecular, and animal studies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. The 'reputation' of that journal is anti-government

AAPS opposes any form of government involvement in the provision or regulation of health care.

AAPS oppose continued and increasing government interference, supervision, and control in the practice of medicine; promote the immediate repeal of all laws, regulations, and policies that allow direct or de facto supervision or control over the practice of medicine by federal officers or employees; and call for a moratorium on any further laws, regulations, or policies that authorize government control over the practice of medicine. (AAPS Resolution, 2001)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Care Financing Administration are both derided as unconstitutional. Medicare is roundly condemned. Members are encouraged to refuse to participate in Medicare, and are offered practical advice towards achieving that goal:

AAPS recommends a policy of Non-Participation to all physicians as the only legal, moral, and ethical means of concretely expressing their complete disapproval of the spirit and philosophy behind these amendments. (i.e., the Social Security Amendments of 1965, a.k.a. Medicare law (Public Law 89-97, 1965)) (AAPS Principles of Medical Ethics)

AAPS condemns the concept of universal health care and rejects the argument that health care should be deemed a fundamental human right. Those who promote such goals are presumed ignorant or participants in a multigenerational conspiracy to oppress the populace over generations.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons declares that medical care is a not a right that can be bestowed by the state and that any laws, regulations, or policies that attempt to establish a government-mandated entitlement to medical care are not only unconstitutional and therefore illegal, but immoral and inimical to the physician’s ethical principles. (AAPS Resolution, 2001)

Lenin once said that “medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism,” and I believe those who are promoting “universal coverage” via government-run and government-controlled medicine know this. What they hope is that the public won’t find out the truth. (Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, AAPS Board member and former President; Editor-in-Chief, JPandS)

Though unsuccessful in their earlier years, true to Schlesinger’s promise by pursuing both permeation and incrementalism, the socialists have made great progress and today have willing disciples in both Houses of Congress and both political parties, though their greatest power and numbers still dominate in the Democratic Party. (Edward Annis, MD)

Public health programs are described as agents of tyranny.

…there is no end to the interventions that could be justified in the name of public health, as that concept is currently understood… Public health, in other words, is inconsistent with the right to be left alone. Of all the risk factors for disease or injury, it seems, freedom is the most pernicious. (Jacob Sullum)

AAPS opposes the concept of evidence-based medicine, warning its members that:

Physicians must beware of accepting the concept of a standard of care that is itself evidence-based, threatening the autonomy of physicians and subjugating the patient’s interest to that of the collective. (AAPS Newsletter)

(Evidence-based guidelines) are a divisive force, creating uncertainty and mistrust, and undermining confidence in physicians and our medical system. EBGs can be used either to accuse physicians of withholding therapy, or of prescribing unnecessary or unproven treatments. Behind the façade of EBGs, (managed care organizations) can determine medical policy with impunity. (Norman Latov MD)

Practice guidelines and treatment protocols are regarded as impediments to the unfettered practice of medicine.

There is a lot of pressure to restrict physicians’ treatments to practice guidelines and to methods that have been shown to be both safe and effective in double-blind controlled trials. If we were to insist on this across the board, a huge number of medical treatments that physicians rely on would be ruled out… If everything can be done with treatment protocols, then perhaps we should do without physicians altogether. Of course, we recognize that there are varying abilities, but I think it is a mistake to say that one small group, politically appointed, can sit in infallible judgment on just who the real physicians might be…. (Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director, AAPS)

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows

Take a look at this Wikipedia list - complete with references - about its positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

The reputation of the Geiers is even worse.

Experts find new study by Geier & Geier on MMR and autism to be seriously flawed

Mark Geier does research with his son, David Geier, who is president of MedCon, a medical-legal consulting firm that helps vaccine injury claimants get compensation. Dr Geier (Mark) was a recipient in the multimillion pound MMR expert witness payout.

In more than 10 of his legal cases, particularly the more recent ones, Dr Geier’s testimony was either excluded, or accorded little or no weight, after it was found he was testifying beyond his expertise. He had “largely irrelevant” qualifications, and acted as a “professional witness” in areas for which he had “no training, expertise, and experience”. His “speculation” was directly contrary to the conclusions reached in well-respected and numerous epidemiologic and medical studies ranging over two decades”. He was “neither board certified nor (had) training in paediatrics and paediatric neurology”.

He was further criticised (PDF) by judges for his work not being “based on scientific validity, valid methodology, peer review or testing, and more than minimal support within the scientific community”.

My favourite of all was the finding that his testimony was “intellectually dishonest” and his affidavit was “nothing more than an egregious example of blatant, result-oriented testimony”.

A recent academic paper of the Geiers has been retracted by the journal without explanation - so far - and some of their published “scientific” work is so laughable you can explain the flaws in a jokey national newspaper column.

http://www.badscience.net/2007/02/the-transgressive-medical-genius-that-is-mark-geier/

[varkam]

26. Ohhh, here's the money shot about the journal:

"AAPS opposes the concept of evidence-based medicine"

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?

[cosmik debris]

24. That's absurd.

When you find a correlation that agrees with your theory, you tout that correlation as indicative of a cause.

But when a larger examination shows no correlation, you ignore the evidence,

When Thimerasol was removed from vaccines, ASD continued to rise. If Thimerasol had been the cause, ASD would have fallen precipitously.

You can't have it both ways. If you intend to use correlation as evidence, you have to accept that correlation shows NO LINK between thimerasol and ASD.

It is over, let it go and move on to finding the real cause of Autism. Chasing wild geese is not helping anyone.

[pnwmom]

32. The article shows the opposite. When Thimerasol was actually finally out

of the market (two or three years after it was ordered removed from the vaccines), the rates began to drop.

If Thimerasol was ONE of the causes of autism, if it precipitates or is a contributing factor in SOME children, then why must the ASD rate have fallen "precipitiously." It would be expected to fall only to the degree it was ONE of the causes.

When doctors began urging parents to put their babies to sleep on their backs, the rate of SIDS dropped significantly. But there were still remaining cases of SIDS that didn't respond to back-sleeping because there must be more than one cause. The same thing could be the case with mercury in vaccines. It could be the cause of autism symptoms in some undermined fraction of susceptible children.

[cosmik debris]

37. You're making it up as you go along.

The real evidence is strongly against you.

All you have is the theory that correlation equals causation, and the post hoc argument.

That's all.

You had your day in court and the best personal injury lawyers that could be found were unable to demonstrate a link.

You lost. It is over. Let it go. Move on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Except that rates haven't dropped

See here - eg the "crude prevalence" chart: http://www.fightingautism.org/idea/autism.php

That's the problem with the report from the Griers: they're trying to sell their own therapy, publishing in a unreliable journal (as the Vaccine Court report says, 'it is thought to be “insufficiently rigorous” to be reliable'). They've massaged the figures for their own profit.

[varkam]

54. Not the Geiers! They're just noble persuers of the truth, muriel!

How dare you impugn their character by insinuating that they have a financial stake in all of this!

:rofl:

[varkam]

25. All I had to do was look at the file name.

Geier - 'nuff said.

I think it's pretty funny of the two researchers who assert there is a connection, you picked the one who wasn't busted in the media for faking his results. Nevermind the fact that the Geiers have their own host of conflicts of interest (such pulling down some serious cash acting as expert witnesses for Clifford Shoemaker and trying to patent their own chelation treatment for autism).

[pnwmom]

33. You're criticizing me for not quoting the work done by the discredited researcher?

You're not making much sense.

[varkam]

42. You misunderstand.

Merely saying that, if you had two choices, you at least didn't pick they guy that's a demonstrated fraud.

You picked his associate who has his own bag of ethical quandries.

[stopbush]

14. What a ridiculous response. A total non-sequitor.

Sort of fits in with the lack of causation that underlies this discussion.

[pnwmom]

18. You have left out the core of his argument, and it is perfectly reasonable.

"The argument isn’t whether vaccines cause, contribute to, potentiate, etc. ALL cases of autism, but is it possible that for some children who may carry unique biochemical imbalances, along with genetic variances as was the case with Hannah Poling – are more susceptible to adverse vaccine reactions. Logic tends to dictate - Yes! It is plausible because nothing in medicine is 100% effective or 100% without risk – including vaccines."

[trotsky]

22. Hannah Poling was never diagnosed with autism, however.

Otherwise you'd have a tiny speck of a point. Too bad.

[pnwmom]

34. She has autism-like symptoms. There isn't a clear cut dividing line between

children with autism and children with autism-like symptoms.

Autism is a syndrome, which means it IS a collection of symptoms.

[trotsky]

66. Thank you for admitting she was not diagnosed with autism.

At least I think you sorta did. You'd think that as important as the Poling case supposedly was, they would have gotten a genuine diagnosis of autism. That they didn't, speaks volumes to this particular case. She has a mitochondrial disorder, not autism.

[varkam]

27. Well, except that there's not really any scientific evidence to support that one, either.

It sounds reasonable enough, until you realize that it's a bunch of speculation. It probably sounds more reasonable if you're making money hawking your wares to parents of autistic children.

[pnwmom]

35. That vaccine court disagreed with you. But on your terms, it would probably

also be difficult if not impossible to prove that cigarettes cause cancer -- if we had a cigarette court, to dole out cigarette-injury compensation.

Because they don't cause cancer in all smokers and other things cause cancer as well. And you could never tell in an individual case whether that person's cancer was caused by his smoking, or 2nd hand smoking, or by some other cause.

[varkam]

41. Uh - SM Hastings actually specifically rejected the hypersuceptibility hypothesis

[pnwmom]

43. Link, please? n/t

[varkam]

46. Did you not read the decision? Page 26.

Right under the heading of "Assertion of 'genetic hypersuceptibility'"

Even after the testimony of the petitioner's experts, SM Hastings referred to the theory as "speculation"

[pnwmom]

47. So this one court, in this one case, rejected that theory.

There are many more cases left to go. We'll see what happens.

[varkam]

49. I'm not so sure about that.

The final decision about the case as a whole may have been with respect to this one case, but SM Hastings' reasoning as to the hypothesis was not restricted to the case at bar. Hastings did not, for example, hold that the theory had weight but that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that it was active in this one case. Rather, Hastings held that the theory, in weighing both the petitioners and respondents witnesses, was speculative in nature - not that the petitioners failed to meet the burden in convincing the court that the theory was applicable in this case.

[pnwmom]

53. Then what about the Hannah Poling case? Wasn't her case a case of

genetic hyper-susceptibility?

[varkam]

55. As I understand it, no.

And maybe I'm wrong on the facts, so by all means correct me if I am mistaken.

But as I understand that case, Poling had a mitochondrial disorder that caused her symptoms. MDs can be set off by anything that puts a stress on the system, be it vaccines or viral infection. In her case, it happened to be the vaccines that aggravated the underlying MD which, in turn, caused the symptoms. It wasn't anything special or particular to the vaccines that caused it, but they did happen to be the catalyst in her case. If it weren't for the vaccines, then it is likely that something else (such as an illness) would have cooked it off. In other words, the vaccine was a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for causation.

It may be true that there are other cases like Poling's, but since the comorbidity of MDs and autism is <10%, and that the vaccine was not necessary to set off the symptoms (and I just do not know if the normal progression is into the ASD) it seems that such a theory would, at best, explain a vast minority of cases.

Note how that differs from the genetic hypersuceptibility hypothesis (or at least a variant of it). That hypothesis posits that some children are more sensitive to mercury by virtue of their DNA. It wasn't that Poling was hypersensitive to mercury, per se, but that she was "hypersensitive" to just about anything and everything.

[pnwmom]

57. Just because there are other stressors that could have set off a mitochondrial

disorder doesn't mean that the vaccine didn't set if off in her case. Unfortunately, you can't prove a direct link anymore than you can prove that cigarette smoking caused a particular person's case of lung cancer.

I would like to see more research done on a possible connection between gluten intolerance and Celiac disease -- which increases permeability of the intestine and causes malabsorption syndrome -- and the development of autism symptoms. Since Celiac disease is often triggered by a "stressor," (an illness, an operation, etc.) this would be similar to the way Hannah's mitochondrial disorder is triggered. In both cases, a vaccine -- or the stress of multiple vaccines at once -- or the stress of more thimerasol than a child's system can metabolize -- might be the stressor for some children.

Many researchers have noted the high rates of gluten and lactose intolerance among people on the autism spectrum. And gluten intolerance has also been linked to other neurological diseases, including ataxia and certain types of epilepsy.

[varkam]

58. I think you misread me.

I'm conceding that the vaccines set off the MD in Poling's case - as that was ruling of the court. My point, though, was that it didn't have much to do with the vaccine and that the particulars of the case make it pretty unique.

And, I'm not sure, but wasn't the "leaky gut" theory originally advanced by Wakefield? Has there been research on that from other researchers?

[pnwmom]

60. The "leaky gut" theory, as I understood it, was that the MMR vaccine caused

leaky gut. That's not what I'm saying.

What I think deserves more research is why children who already have leaky guts -- children with malabsorption diseases, such as Celiac -- have higher rates of autism, and whether the vaccines they are exposed to play a part in this.

[enlightenment]

8. Well, I don't have a dog in the race, since my child

is grown - but I have to say that this doctor's opinion is a trifle on the weak side.

I'm not saying he's wrong; just that his conclusions are shaky. He states what has always been known - that vaccines (or any sort of medicine) have the potential for adverse reactions. Okay. Then he says:

The argument isn’t whether vaccines cause, contribute to, potentiate, etc. ALL cases of autism, but is it possible that for some children who may carry unique biochemical imbalances, along with genetic variances as was the case with Hannah Poling – are more susceptible to adverse vaccine reactions. Logic tends to dictate - Yes! It is plausible because nothing in medicine is 100% effective or 100% without risk – including vaccines. (emphasis is mine)

So, really, according to his statement, it's not the vaccine that's the problem. It's the 'unique biochemical imbalances, along with genetic variances' that set the conditions for a possible reversal into regressive autism. Since not ALL cases of autism are triggered by vaccines - and that must include some cases of regressive autism, since he never indicates that ALL cases of regressive autism are linked to vaccination - then it stands to reason that SOME cases of regressive autism are triggered by something other than vaccines.

The problem is the 'unique biochemical imbalances, along with genetic variances' - not the vaccines. Yes, they might serve as a trigger, but there's nothing in his argument to suggest that should a child that might be identified with those imbalances and variances NOT receive vaccination that they would be safe from some other trigger.

I'm not arguing that vaccines don't play any role; I agree with Dr. Woeller that nothing in medicine is 100% effective or 100% without risk. I'm just not convinced by his argument as he seems to undermine it with his own words.

[pnwmom]

20. The fact that there may well be multiple triggers for autism doesn't mean

that we shouldn't eliminate or reduce any trigger that is within our control.

If a small fraction of children end up with autism because of a preservative that could be eliminated by using single dose vials, then IMO the cost would be well worth it. Or if there is something about the current schedule of 24 vaccinations before the age of 2 that is putting babies at unnecessary risk, then we should change it.

To take another example, sudden infant death syndrome. A ground-breaking study by a doctor in Seattle led to the discovery that the number of SIDS cases were significantly reduced -- not eliminated -- simply by putting babies to sleep on their backs instead of their stomachs. All parents were then encouraged to put their babies to sleep on their backs, even though only a few babies would have died of SIDS, and even though not all cases of SIDS would be eliminated -- and even though this led to a number of babies with (usually temporarily) misshapen heads because of too much time spent on their backs. Just because there are other causes of SIDS doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to eliminate one risk that we DO know about.

[enlightenment]

28. I wasn't drawing that conclusion, pnwmom

I only said that I felt that the argument the man was making was logically weak.

As I said, I don't have a dog in the race, as my child is grown (i.e., I don't have to worry about the potential impact of vaccines), so I'm not going to enter into the argument about whether or not children should be vaccinated, and what methodology should be used if they are. I will say that if the doctor wants to make more of an impact, using his expertise, that he should close the gaping holes in his argument, which he could have done simply by addressing the obvious response and presenting the logical argument to it, as you did.

What bothers me about this issue is that it appears to have become very binary. Your suggestions are logical and reasonable, but that's not what I usually see. What I see is "vaccines are safe because . . ." and the counter "vaccines are not safe because . . .". The thoughtful voices seem to get drowned out by the diatribes of the extremists. And that is very unfortunate.

[madrchsod]

15. our friends grandson is autistic

they have spent tens of thousands of dollars (remember no insurance) on this therapy the good doctor sells.another the doctor they went to in new york charged 5000 for one visit and 500 for a monthly phone call.

the net result of the tens of thousands of dollars on "treatments" and travel expenses..there is no way to measure his progress because the therapy has not been submitted to scientific review.

[stopbush]

16. Speaking of anecdotal evidence, last year, both of our cars suddenly

developed the same problem on the same day. They were sputtering and knocking like crazy.

I assumed that something had happened to both cars, the same something, in fact, to cause the identical problem.

The only thing I could come up with was that I had filled both cars that day at the same Shell station. It musta been bad gasoline. I called the station and asked if people had been complaining. They said no.

Later that day, my mechanic friend came over to take a look. Turned out the one car had a loose wire up by the firewall that was failing to stay connected, while the other car had a bad spark plug.

My mechanic friend identified and fixed both problems within 10 minutes...and he pointed out to me that what I assumed to be "identical" problems were actually quite different if one KNEW how to look, listen and smell what's going wrong under the hood.

Turned out both cars acting up in similar - not identical - ways within an hour of each other on the same day was pure coincidence.

Funny, because I just "knew" that they were acting up because I had bought two tanks of bad gas from the same station.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. then you won't object to studies done by parties who do not profit from vaccines?

right?

[trotsky]

23. You mean like public health officials in the UK, Denmark, and Japan?

Or do they somehow profit from vaccines or are they bought off by the American pharmaceuticals?

[stopbush]

30. Any study that is the result of strict adherence to the scientific method,

the protocols typically involved and the standard of proof required - ie: peer review that includes falsification efforts of any theory - to ascertain a high level of statistical probability that the theory can be accepted as scientific fact are fine by me.

What have you got?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. then you won't object to study being done by those who don't benefit financially

The FDA recommends and approves vaccines, in fact requires them.

If they or the courts admit that due to their recommendations, alot of children
were harmed, there would be massive liability.

So, an objective study by scientists who have no bone in the fight either way
would be fine, right?

Would you object to that, or do you prefer the FDA who has a huge conflict of interest -
be in control of the studies?

[Orrex]

40. By that logic, a counter-study can't be done by families with autistic children or their advocates

Because this would cetainly entail a study performed with the goal of overturning established science for the sake of financial compensation.

In essence, you're saying that a study can only be done by parties with no vested interest in the outcome. Such studies have been performed already, of course, and they've found no causal link between Thimerosal and autism, but anti-vaxers dismiss these researchers as shills of Big Pharma or the government's status quo.

You've proposed an impossible standard in the grand tradition of Kent Hovind. I can't imagine what would satisfy you, unless RFK and Jenny McCarthy did the study themselves and still found no link. But then you'd probably claim that Big Pharma had gotten hold of them, too.


It's clear that you and others who share your view have concluded--in the absolute absence of evidence--that vaccines have a real causative link with autism. It's also clear that you and others who share your view will insist that you have no such prejudice, and that you're only looking for real, objective science.

Well, what would meet your criteria? What would it take to prove to you that vaccines DO NOT cause autism? Extensive scientific research fails to convince you. High-profile court decisions fail to satisfy you. The revelation that Andrew Wakefield is a fraud seems likewise not to sway you.


What would it take, even in principle?

[stopbush]

48. Having a "goal" of overturning established science would make such a study

unscientific by definition.

Science doesn't start with a CONCLUSION and work backwards. It starts with a hypothesis and moves forward. Where the research takes one should be an open question, even if a theory is launched with strong beliefs that it might/could/should end up at Point X. The scientific method and REAL scientific research always allows that even the best hypothesis could be quite wrong.

Science encourages, nay, DEMANDS that all efforts be made to falsify conclusions, because science is interested in discovering FACTS, not in furthering BELIEFS (which may be held in the absence of - and in the case of religion, contradiction to - the facts).

I agree with your post, just not the way you phrased your opening comment.

[Orrex]

56. You and I are on the same page

The point of my opening comment was to demonstrate to WYVBC that he can't discredit research simply because it's performed by some group that he thinks will benefit from one particular outcome. Advocates for the vaccine/autism link certainly stand to benefit from the belief that such a link exists, so if WYVBC rejects a study by one group with a perceived vested interest, then he must reject a contrary study by a group with a clearly vested interest.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

65. Established science said hormone therapy was best for menopausal women

and after 20 years of "established science", we found out that this was a
prescription for cancer.

The FDA has a conflict of interest. The corporations have been running the show
and the country for 8 years.

[Orrex]

70. That's two fallacies in one brief post. Nicely done!

[stopbush]

71. Still waiting for you to post your scientific evidence that proves

that vaccines cause autism.

No, check that. I'm done waiting because you won't be able to produce any such evidence.

It's obvious that you're not about having a dialogue or providing an answer. You're about diversions and going off on tangents. You're about the appearance of having a discussion while avoiding EVER having to put facts forward in support of what can best be described as your fantasies.

Your new "hormone therapy" sidebar is just the latest case in point. First off, who did that 2002 study you mentioned on hormone therapy? Why, the Women's Health Initiative which was instituted by the NIH - an agency of the US government - in 1991. "Established science" issued the warnings about hormone therapy in 2002 that you mention, because THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE DOES. Science is not static. It is a credit to science that it constantly reevaluates results of earlier research.

BTW - isn't the NIH part of your big government/big pharma conspiracy?

You are also quite wrong in saying that hormone therapy in menopausal women is "a prescription for cancer." That is NOT what the study found. Here's what the study actually found:

"What are the risks of hormone therapy?
The Women's Health Initiative found that women taking the combination estrogen-progestin (Prempro) used in the study had an increased risk of developing certain serious conditions. According to the study, over one year, 10,000 women taking estrogen plus progestin compared with a placebo might experience:

Seven more cases of heart disease
Eight more cases of breast cancer
Eight more cases of stroke
18 more cases of blood clots
Based on these numbers, the increased risk of disease to an individual woman is small. However, the overall risk to menopausal women as a group became a substantial public health concern. In addition, researchers found that women taking combination estrogen-progestin had an increase in abnormal mammograms. The higher number of false-positives — signs of possible breast cancer that ultimately prove inaccurate — was probably due to estrogen, which increases breast tissue density."

Source: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hormone-therapy/WO00046

In other words, ongoing scientific research of this PARTICULAR hormone therapy found increased risks for cancer to the tune of .008% of the population of women. If you want to call that "a prescription for cancer," be my guest, but I'll strongly disagree with your characterization of the same. BTW - there are some hormone therapies whose primary purpose is to combat cancer by inhibiting its ability to spread, but I'm sure you know that.

What I find truly astounding is that you seem ready to condemn or entirely ignore scientific research IN GENERAL as being unreliable and, therefore, not worthy of trust, when said research identifies a previously unknown risk to an 8 thousandths of one percent portion of the population, while at the same time embracing and championing QUACK theories that have done no good for 100% of the people afflicted with the condition of autism. You propose that established science - a methodology that provides a self-corrective discipline to itself on a 24/7 basis - is actually LESS trustworthy than belief in the disproved scams of the charlatans who are still pushing the vaccines-cause-autism BS. You ridicule science, not for a case where it has totally reversed an established stance, but for providing nuance to that stance.

Established science holds that a risk to even .008% of the population is a risk that the public needs be made aware of, while the anti-vaccinator crowd peddles a discredited theory, thereby putting at risk 100% of the population who treats their quackery as science and avoids getting vaccines for their children, and YOU champion the discredited theory crowd.

Go figure.

Let me ask you one question, and I would appreciate a direct answer to this direct question: what effect does it have on your belief in the vaccine-causes-autism debate to know that the doctor who first advanced this theory (Wakefield) falsified his research?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

BTW - I invite you to point out a case where science has REVERSED itself on anything previously considered scientific fact.

[stopbush]

45. I was quite clear and specific in my first reply to you.

Instead of asking more questions and trying to further limit the parameters or to move the goal posts, why not produce your scientific evidence?

BTW - the scientific method is in no way dependent upon government agencies, the courts or biased parties to be utilized to provide proof of a theory. What it is dependent upon is a methodology that is unbiased. transparent, subject to falsification and meticulous in its application. Even scientists with a bone to pick can do credible research as long as that bone to pick doesn't present itself as a pre-ordained conclusion with the science gerrymandered to match the conclusion.

That's not the way that legitimate scientists operate, but it IS the preferred way of operation for charlatans with a fortune to be made who start with a theory, and when the science doesn't support their theory, ask the gullible to believe that science isn't up to the task of putting meat on the blanched-bones of their purely speculative theory. The charlatans quickly move on to include government, corporations, funding foundations and the rest of the imagined infrastructure (know in shorthand as "them") of nameless, faceless and anonymous baddies who exist simply to torment the rest of us and to steal our hard-earned cash, all in an effort to get the gullible to move the goal posts on what constitutes actual proof from science's hard-based evidence to the charlatan's evidence-denying speculation.

Produce your scientific studies now - or drop it.

[question everything]

44. What is tragic and misleading is that so many are willing to follow

questionable "evidence" instead of scientific evidence. And this, as we celebrated Darwin's 200 birthday.

The years of Reagan and the two Bushes, with the help of Congressional Democrats like Dingel, have been pushing science backwards, since the glorious days of the 60s and the 70s, when Federal funding were available for basic research. How sad that some DUers, who are supposed to be intelligent and knowledgeable, are part of this backward retreat.

Meanwhile, the rate of Measles is increasing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. Measles cases almost nil by time vaccination introduced:

This isn't an argument against the measles vaccine, but an argument that alot of factors contributed
to eliminating or reducing measles deaths.

[SidDithers]

72. Once again, you're lying to promote an agenda....

Your graph has nothing to do with measles cases. It only shows measles deaths. Even into the late 1950's, there were ~ 500,000 cases of measles annually in the US. Measles cases did not decline until the vaccine was introduced in 1963.

You're no better than Wakefield.

Now, I know you're not going to read this 'cause you've got everyone who disagrees with you on ignore. But I post this so that other posters can see you for the dishonest poster that you are.

Sid

Edit: cleaned up wording

[varkam]

73. To be fair to Wakefield...

I'm pretty sure he's smarter.

[SidDithers]

74. Yes, you're probably right...

I may have been unfair in that comparison :)

Sid

[stopbush]

77. What does a graph showing measles deaths from 1850-1970 have to do with

the rise of measles CASES in 2009?

Another diversionary tactic.

[Liberal Veteran]

62. Tragically, I have also seen children who became autistic within days of eating cream of wheat.

[Orrex]

78. I know of one whose autism manifested subsequent to breast feeding, and his mother was vegan