Kirby in AJC: Give Us Answers On Vaccines

New Poling Case documents are surfacing which inform us that, "Hannah's autism was caused by vaccine-induced fever and overstimulation of her immune system, according to court documents."

That is NOT what Julie Gerberding told us out side of the CDC two weeks ago.

Keep those calls to the White House up. 202-456-1414 Ask them when they are going to get HHS to release all the documents from the Poling case and all the other cases in Vaccine court.

Running tomorrow in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Give us answers on vaccines
By DAVID KIRBY
Published on: 03/20/08

By now, many parents in America have heard of the Hannah Poling court case. They know the government has acknowledged that vaccines contributed to autism in at least one little girl from Georgia. Understandably, they are worried, and they want answers.

But instead of frank talk from leading health officials, their concerns are being met with stonewalling, denial and misinformation.

By refusing to address what really happened to Hannah — by commanding parents to settle down and adhere to the nation's rigid immunization regime — officials will only drive people away from vaccines in anxiety-ridden droves.

But what if we could test children for underlying conditions that might increase their risk of vaccine injury and autism? And what if we allowed those at risk to slightly delay and spread out their shots?

It's a difficult, but not impossible, proposition. And I believe doing so would reduce the rate of autism, seizure disorders and even asthma in some children. And we would boost vaccination rates by restoring faith in the nation's teetering immunization program.

Why do I say this? New documents have surfaced in the Poling case that shine more light on how Hannah's vaccine injury led to autism.

A government document filed in the case last November conceded that Hannah's vaccines had aggravated an underlying disorder of the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the tiny powerhouses within each cell that convert food and oxygen into energy. Government officials acknowledged that Hannah's disorder led to a condition known as low cellular energy metabolism, which was aggravated by vaccines and ultimately led to an autism diagnosis.

It was a tantalizing admission but did little to explain just how the vaccines had aggravated the disorder or caused autism.

But on Feb. 21, the U.S. government made a second, unpublicized concession in the case. In addition to triggering autism, officials now admitted, Hannah's vaccines had also led to her "seizure disorder," or epilepsy.

And there was more. The November document claimed that Hannah had a mitochondrial "disorder." But by February, this was modulated to a mere mitochondrial "dysfunction."

That's because Hannah's underlying condition was asymptomatic and most likely environmentally acquired. It was not some rare, grave, inherited disease that would have progressed to autism anyway, as many officials contend.

The November report said Hannah's vaccine reaction had "manifested" as early-onset brain disease, with "features of autism spectrum disorder."

But the February report is more blunt. It says that Hannah's vaccines "caused" her "autistic" brain disease.

But the real bombshell was this: Hannah's autism was caused by vaccine-induced fever and overstimulation of her immune system, according to court documents. Her low cellular energy and reduced metabolic reserves, due to mitochondrial dysfunction, were overstressed by the contents of nine vaccines (including mercury) at once.

The Cleveland Clinic defines low cellular energy metabolism disorder this way: "The process of converting food and oxygen (fuel) into energy requires hundreds of chemical reactions, and each chemical reaction must run almost perfectly in order to have a continuous supply of energy. When one or more components of these chemical reactions does not run perfectly, there is an energy crisis, and the cells cannot function normally. As a result, the incompletely burned food might accumulate as poison inside the body."

The cause of Hannah's mitochondrial dysfunction is up for debate, though ample evidence exists to implicate heavy metals in air, water, food and vaccines as possible suspects. But the government has acknowledged that low cellular energy can increase the risk of immune system overdrive, and regression into autism.

Now, one would think that investigating — and preventing — such vaccine-induced overstimulation in susceptible children would be a top priority of health officials. But it is not.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has vowed to "adamantly" enforce the one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule, no matter what happened to Hannah and other kids like her.

Frantic parents, desperate for answers, were admonished by Gerberding to "set aside this very isolated, unusual situation" in so-called Vaccine Court, even though "the court apparently made the decision that it is fair to say that vaccinations may have been one of the precipitators."

Gerberding was either grossly misinformed, or lying.

To begin with, this "decision" was not made by the court at all, but by medical personnel working for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Gerberding's boss.

More important, the Poling case is neither isolated nor unusual. At least 12 other autism-related claims have been paid out in Vaccine Court to date, and perhaps hundreds more cases like Hannah's are pending.

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

Many opinion leaders are calling on the government to release all relevant documents leading to the Poling concessions. The family has waived all claims to privacy, and the public has a right to know.

For now, all we have is the CDC Web site, which says that "simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system."

But did Hannah have a "normal" immune system? Are other kids out there also metabolically primed for overstimulation from too many shots at once? Should their vaccines be spread out?

Instead of answers, we get adamant silence. This is not a matter of national security. It's a national emergency. Millions of parents are anxiously waiting for their government to tell them what the hell is going on.

• David Kirby, an investigative journalist, is author of "Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy"

The Beginning of the End of Vaccine/Autism Secrecy

If this does not signal the new direction that things are going... I don't know what does. The man overseeing the Vaccine Injury court is inviting David Kirby and possibly some of his detractors, to have a chat about autism and vaccines in front of lots and lots of judges.

The light shining on all this is getting brighter and brighter.

From David Kirby:

I have been contacted by Justice Gary Golkiewicz, the Chief Special Master of the US Court of Federal Claims, who personally called to invite me to speak at the Court’s Annual Judicial Conference, to be held on November 19 in Washington, DC.

I will be on a panel to discuss the Autism Omnibus Proceedings (I imagine by then there will be more Hannah Polings in the headlines by then) and its impact on the vaccine-autism debate in the country.

I think it’s safe to say that the court’s impact, so far, has been considerable.

Dr. Roy Grinker and Arthur Allen were mentioned as other possible panel members, and I welcome their participation at the conference. I imagine it will be a well-attended and interesting discussion.

I know it’s quite some time from now, but it just got confirmed and I thought you all might like to know.

PS: Stay tuned, there is another big news story coming out next week that should stir up the airwaves all over again.


Cheers

DK

Dr. Poling Responds To Autism/Vaccine Nay Sayers

Dr. Stephen Novella on his blog NeuroLogica has posted his evaluation of the Poling case and why he believes it does not support the vaccine autism connection.

Dr. Jon Poling has responded as seen on The Age of Autism countering the arguement and expanding on the information that has been available publicly on the case.

It is a discussion between two neurologists and I will need to read them each 5 times before I can even begin to comment on the conversation.

But I will note two things.

First, I am impressed that Dr. Poling lists his potential conflicts of interest at the end of his letter. I think that every medical professional should do that as a part of their signature (For example I would sign Ginger Taylor, B.S., M.S., Mother of regressive autistic child who suspects vaccines had a causal relationship to ASD, Has Google Ads on her autism blog).

Second, for all of his in depth analysis of the medical facts in this case, Dr. Novella failed to correctly discern the sex of the child in question. He refers to Hannah several times as "he" and "the child", never as a female. He criticizes David Kirby's articles about the case, but did not read them thoughtfully enough to see that Mr. Kirby was clearly talking about a girl.

I will reserve this space for further comment as I come to understand this case further.

I will post both pieces:

Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?
Published by Steven Novella

No. But David Kirby and other anti-vaccinationist ideologues and members of the so-called mercury militia would like you to think so. For background, the Autism Omnibus refers to a set of hearings before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program regarding claims by about 5000 parents that their childrens’ autism was caused by vaccines. These claims are primarily based upon the various hypotheses that the MMR vaccine, or thimerosal in some vaccines (but not MMR), or the combination of both, is a cause of autism.

So far there have been hearings, but only one final decision. In November the US government settled one case in favor of the petitioner. This is the case those who have supported the failed hypothesis that vaccines cause autism now point to as admission that they were right all along (or at least as a means of stoking the flames of fear about vaccines.) But the US government did not admit vaccines cause autism - they conceded one case that is highly complex and not necessarily representative of any other case and cannot be reasonably used to support the vaccine/autism connection.

David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, wrote a highly misleading article the other day in the Huffington Post on this issue. Orac has already done an excellent job of tearing down Kirby’s claims. He points out that legal cases are often decided for legal - not necessarily scientific - reasons. That the government only conceded that “compensation is appropriate.” That is all - they conceded nothing about the larger question of vaccines and autism. Orac also points out that if this case were a concession of a connection why would the petitioner’s lawyers settle and give away a case that could win them all their other cases?

David Kirby has also written a follow up article, where he publishes verbatim the US government’s decision. Kirby asks his readers:

If you feel this document suggests that some kind of link may be possible, you might consider forwarding it to your elected representatives for further investigation.

But, of course, if you feel that this document in no way implicates vaccines, then let’s just keep going about our business as usual and not pay any attention to all those sick kids behind the curtain.

I think Kirby is hoping that most people will not have the patience or medical background to read and understand the entire document, and that they will come away with a vague notion that there must be something to all this vaccine fear-mongering. What does the document really tell us?

To summarize the case history, the child in the case appeared normal and healthy, except for chronic otitis media, until about 20 months of age at which time he had a series of vaccines according to the routine vaccination schedule. Two days later the child had a fever to 102.3, was lethargic, irritable, and would arch his back when he cried. The child then developed a rash. It was later determined that the child had: “encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness.” The child regressed and developed symptoms similar to those of autism spectrum disorder. However, the child does not have autism - he has a regressive neurological disorder that includes blood and muscle abnormalities not seen in autism, and any clinical resemblance to autism is not a reflection of a common cause.

Six years after symptoms began the child also developed partial temporal lobe epilepsy that required treatment.

During this time the child also had an extensive workup, which discovered:

A CSF organic acids test, on January 8, 2002, displayed an increased lactate to pyruvate ratio of 28,1 which can be seen in disorders of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation.

A muscle biopsy test for oxidative phosphorylation disease revealed abnormal results for Type One and Three.

In February 2004, a mitochondrial DNA (”mtDNA”) point mutation analysis revealed a single nucleotide change in the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (T2387C)

It if often difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions from a single case, so I will lay out what I see as all the possible alternative hypotheses to explain this information.

1) One possibility is that the child was perfectly normal prior to the vaccines, which caused an encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) which caused brain damage, including the later seizures. The metabolic disorder and mutation may be a red herring and have no bearing on the child’s clinical condition.

2) The mitochondrial disorder predisposed the child to have a reaction from the vaccines, resulting in encephalitis. The subsequent neurological regression was due to some combination of the vaccine-induced encephalitis and the underlying mitochondrial disorder.

3) The child’s mitochondrial mutation is the primary cause of their neurological regression, but that this regression was exacerbated by the vaccine-induced encephalitis (this seems to be the US government’s conclusion).

4) The child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy which is the sole cause of all of the child’s neurological signs and symptoms. The reaction to the vaccines may have played no role at all in the subsequent regression, and the child’s current neurological condition is exactly what it would have been had they never been vaccinated. It is even possible that the encephalitis was merely the first manifestation of the mitochondrial disorder and the timing after the vaccines was merely coincidental.

That lays out the spectrum of possibilities in this case. At this point in time we do not have (or at least I am not privy to) sufficient scientific information to say definitively where along this spectrum the truth lies. The US government’s decision was based partly on this uncertainty - erring on the side of compensating the child and family.

But we can discuss the plausibility of each scenario. Kirby dismisses anything resembling option 4, but his dismissal is naive and unjustified. In fact the patient’s clinical syndrome resembles what is called a mitochondrial encephalopathy - with increased lactic acid, abnormal muscle biopsy, neurological regression, appropriate age of onset, even seizures. It is probably not a coincidence that the child has a point mutation in a gene that has been previously linked to these very mitochondrial disorders. Kirby incorrectly argues:

While it’s true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

This is misleading. Kirby refers to “this particular gene” which makes me think that he believes T2387C is a gene. It’s not - it describes a point mutation (at location 2387 a thymidine has replaced a cytosine). The gene is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Mutations in this gene have been identified to cause mitochondrial encephalopathy. So Kirby is just wrong. It is true that I could not find that this specific mutation has been identified before, but that is common in genetics - a disease is linked to point mutations in a specific gene (or perhaps specific regions of a gene) but most or all families identified have their own specific mutation.

This makes option 4 very plausible - it would be an incredible coincidence if this child just happened to have a mutation in a gene that was known to cause their exact constellation of neurological signs and symptoms and yet the mutation was not the sole or primary cause of those symptoms.

But it does not rule out option 3 - that the mitochondrial disorder was the primary cause of the child’s neurological disorder but that a reaction to the vaccines worsened the ultimate symptoms. Therefore the government’s decision was reasonable - but is absolutely not a concession about any claim made by the petitioners concerning a link between vaccines an autism.

It does, however, make any hypothesis resembling option 1 or 2 extremely unlikely. Further testing regarding the physiological effects of this child’s specific mutation would be helpful, and such testing may be under way but I could find nothing published to date. It is theoretically possible that the identified mutation does not cause a change in the gene product or mitochondrial function, and is therefore just a coincidence. But this is unlikely given the clinical features in this case are a good match to known mutations of that gene.

Kirby, however, apparently wants to wring as much fear and confusion out of these events as he possibly can. So now he speculates wildly that maybe children diagnosed with autism really have this mitochondrial disorder combined with vaccines (he has to keep vaccines in the loop). Given the rarity of such mutations, and the fact that there were specific features in this case that would likely be uncovered in the routine evaluation of a child with autism (like an elevated lactic acid), it is highly unlikely that there are many children with vaccine-triggered mitochondrial encephalopathy mimicking autism out there.

It has been found that some children with autism have mitochondrial dysfunction - one study found that 7.2% of subjects with autism had “definite mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder.” Poling et al, in response to this child’s case, did a retrospective study of children with autism and with other neurological disorders and found that “Aspartate aminotransferase was elevated in 38% of patients with autism compared with 15% of controls.” Such findings are preliminary - the only conclusions that can be drawn is that the association between autism and metabolic disorders requires further investigation. However, these studies did not look at the incidence of suspicious mitochondial mutations in autism, and these findings may not be relevant to this case.

Kirby also wildly speculates that perhaps the evil toxins in vaccines caused the mutation in the first place. He writes:

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among stiff competition, this is perhaps the most absurd and scientifically ignorant thing Kirby has every written. AZT does NOT cause a genetic disorder. AZT blocks DNA replication (it blocks the copying of DNA) - that is its mechanism as an anti-retroviral drug. In patients it can also block mitochondrial DNA replication, thereby causing mitochondrial depletion. This results in there being too few mitochondria (the energy factories of cells) in some cell populations and causes dysfunction in tissue that is especially susceptible to the effects of this dearth of mitochondria. This is a side effect of AZT and also other retrovirals because of sustained use at doses designed to inhibit DNA replication. This does result in some effects that are similar to mitochondrial genetic disorders - because both result in insufficient mitochondrial activity. But that is the only similarity. AZT does not cause a disseminated somatic mutation, which is the incredible analogy that Kirby is making.

What Kirby is suggesting is that in infants and toddlers toxins can cause the same point mutation in millions of different cells throughout the body. Toxin-induced mutations do not cause genetic diseases, unless they occur in a germ cell in which case a mother or father can pass the mutation onto their children. If it occurs in the womb then large cell populations may be affected (whatever cells derive from the cell that had the mutation). But in a child a point mutation would affect only one cell and any cells that derive from it. A toxic mutagen would cause different random point mutations in different cells. This could not cause the mitrochondrial encephalopathy in this child. It can increase the risk of cancer, because cancer can develop from a single mutation in a single cell that causes it to become neoplastic.

Conclusion

This is a unique and idiosyncratic case that raises more questions than it answers. In my opinion as a neurologist, with the information provided, the child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy. The role of the vaccines is unclear, but at worst a rare vaccine reaction exacerbated the underlying mitochondrial disorder. This case has no clear implication for the larger question concerning vaccines and autism, which is likely why both sides agreed to settle.

Yet those who insist, despite the evidence, on claiming that vaccines or mercury are linked to autism are likely to add this permanently to their litany of misinformation and fear-mongering.

Note: I am searching for any follow up information pertinent to this case and will post any addendum here.

DR. JON POLING TO DR. STEVEN NOVELLA ON AGE OF AUTISM

PolingsBy Dr. Jon Poling, father of Hannah Poling.

OPEN LETTER TO DR. STEVEN NOVELLA
IN RESPONSE TO "Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?"

Dr. Novella,

Thank you for generating interesting discussion regarding my little girl, Hannah Poling. I would like to give you additional information in order to generate further productive discussions on this matter amongst the neurology community. This information should assist you, Dr. DiMauro, and Dr. Trevethan, who have also commented publicly, to formulate better theories as to the significance of Hannah’s mitochondrial dysfunction in relation to her autism.

1. Mito Dysfunction or Mito Disease? Chicken or Egg?

To begin with, I would like to point out that the spectrum of mitochondrial dysfunction is probably considered more broad and complex than the spectrum of neurobehavioral abnormalities seen with autism. Dysfunction of the mitochondria, specifically dysfunction of the oxidative phosphorylation pathway, most likely contributes, but may not be the cause of many diseases—including Parkinson’s disease, Friedreich’s Ataxia, Alzheimer disease, etc. Thus, it is probably incorrect to refer to mitochondrial dysfunctional and mitochondrial disease interchangeably. Indeed, the role of the dysfunctional mitochondrial are yet to be clarified in these diseases. Thus, I will refer to Hannah’s metabolic condition as a mitochondrial dysfunction, not a mitochondrial disease.

2. Mito Genetic Finding? Mito mtDNA ‘red herring’ ?

ADDITIONAL GENETIC TESTING NOT AVAILABLE IN THE J CHILD NEUROL CASE REPORT: Dr. Shoffner performed genetic testing on both Hannah’s muscle and her mother’s leukocytes subsequent to our case report. Hannah (muscle mtDNA) and her mother (leukocyte mtDNA) were both found to be HOMOPLASMIC for the mtDNA T2387C transition mutation.
Our analysis of this genetic finding in the mtDNA was significantly different than those of other physicians that I’ve seen in scientific blogs or commentary. I suspect it would have been fatal to both Hannah and her mother if this homoplasmic mutation was pathogenic since (as I am sure you are aware) the mutation is on the 16S ribosomal subunit which is highly conserved. Thus, this mutation probably represents a benign polymorphism rather than pathogenic mutation. It is unlikely, but possible, that the mutation is significant to Hannah, but in such a case, it must work in concert with other nuclear genes to cause her mitochondrial dysfunction. To our knowledge, this point mutation has not been reported in cases similar to Hannah’s.

3. Encephalitis? Metabolic Encephalopathy? Or “Regressive Encephalopathy with Features of Autism Spectrum Disorder”

The other interesting term you used was encephalitis rather than encephalopathy. We are not sure that she had an “-itis” but we did clearly document a regressive encephalopathy based on not only our parental reporting, but also based on the pediatrician’s documents, affidavits from other family members, and the growth curve measurements (injury pattern). Early on in the regression we did note back arching (opisthotonus), fever, and disrupted sleep. Although fever occurred a lumbar puncture was not performed.

An interesting developing story in autism research is the immune/inflammatory connection. In her senior resident thesis, Dr. Anne Comi, a former JHU colleague, along with Dr. Andy Zimmerman, reported, the increased prevalence of autoimmune disease in families of autistic offspring. Interesting, Hannah also has a maternal family history of autoimmune disease. Dr. Carlos Pardo, another one of my former chief residents, along with Andy and Dr. Vargas, published a beautiful study in the Archives of Neurology, demonstrating neuroinflammation on autopsy of brain samples and inflammation cytokine markers in the CSF of individuals with Autism. The interesting thing was that inflammation was demonstrated in autopsy specimens from adults as old as 44 years of age. The conclusion was that further research would be required to determine if inflammation was a primary disorder in autism or; alternatively, if inflammation and microglial activation was secondary to neurodegeneration. Dr. Sudhir Gupta at UC Irvine has a nice model of how the two pathways of neuroinflammation and mito dysfunction may not be mutually exclusive. This remains to be seen; however, study of mitochondrial dysfunction and neuroinflammation hold the promise of treatment development. The two avenues of research deserve funding at the highest levels.

4. How many Hannah Polings are out there?

The short answer is that nobody knows. However, there is emerging data to suggest that she is not alone.

Dr. Shoffner will be presenting his experience with 37 patients with combined autism and mitochondrial dysfunction at the AAN meeting in Chicago this April. 65% of his referrals are positive for mitochondrial dysfunction. Of course, his yield is subject to referral bias as a mito expert, so the prevalence of mitochondrial dysfunction in Autism is surely less than 65%.

The best estimate to date of the prevalence of mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic patients comes from Oliviera et al. in a population of 120, 5 of 69 (or 7.2%) showed mitochondrial dysfunction. If this is generalized to the US estimate of 1 million patients with ASDs, then the number of kids like Hannah could be 72,000! Isn’t this worth further study?

Dr. Shoffner furthermore advocates, along with us, that vaccination is important even for kids with mitochondrial dysfunction. I would argue that you should not give nine at one time and that none of them should contain Thimerosal (mercury).

5. Thimerosal—On or Off the Table?

I don’t want to dwell on mercury, as this theory is not why HHS conceded Hannah’s case (imo). Dr. DiContanzo just wrote an interesting blog about how his opinion of mercury in vaccines has changed (http://drugs.about.com/b/2008/03/08/mercury-in-vaccines-and-autism-the-burden-of-proof-may-shift.htm).

My opinion is that mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Therefore, don’t inject it into kids! Interestingly, basic research studies have shown that Thimerosal toxicity occurs through mitochondrial pathways. Officials point to the large epidemiology studies as proof that there is no link between thimerosal and autism. However, these studies are not powered to disprove the null hypothesis when considering that the mitochondrial autistic population may be just a small percent of the case totals. Remember that while the CDC sponsored Verstraten study is hyped as a negative study, it DID find a statistically significant increase in childhood tics in those exposed to higher doses of thimerosal.

6. Hannah was destined to regress? Or was she?

Some experts have already stated that ‘mitochondrial disease’ is degenerative so the vaccine reaction was just the start of an inevitable decline. This was neither the opinion of Dr. Richard Kelley at KKI nor Dr. John Shoffner. In fact, the markers that led us down the mitochondrial trail (inc AST but not ALT, low serum bicarbonate, and slight increased CK, increase in the alanine to lysine ratio on PAA) are no longer present. Furthermore, in our pilot study (unpublished but mentioned in the J child neurol paper), Dr. Frye (the statistician for our study and also a child neurologist) found a non-significant trend that AST decreased toward normal with increasing age. With further studies we hoped to examine the hypothesis that this abnormality may be representative of a developing/immature biochemical pathway present in some children.

7. Triple Hit Hypothesis—#1Underlying genetic susceptibility #2Insult must occur during specific developmental period #3 A certain vaccination or combination thereof is the environmental trigger (?vaccine component like thimerosal ?direct immune stim/fever reaction ?live virus reaction?)

The implication is that Hannah’s type of autism requires a genetic susceptibility and properly timed insult to manifest disease. We have not subjected Hannah to another muscle biopsy or re-examined ox phos functional assays that were published in the paper. I can inform your readers though that the serum biochemical markers have resolved, growth resumed and continues along a normal trajectory, and there have been no other episodes of regression since 2000. We are however left with autism and later in 2006, epilepsy.
It is recommended that studies be initiated immediately to screen siblings of cases to identify biochemical markers so as to identify potential screening tests.

I agree with the mainstream that my daughter’s case has raised many intelligent discussions and questions. I’m very proud of her for starting this discussion. Our hope is that further research into this case and others like it, we will be also to find screening tests to prevent what happened to my daughter from happening to anybody else.

(Dr. Poling acknowledges the editorial comments and insightful suggestions of Dr. Richard E. Frye. He also would like to declare his conflicts of interest. First of all, he is the father of Hannah Poling. Dr. Poling has also accepted consultancy or speakers honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, Ortho-McNeil, Biogen, Teva, Immunex (now Amgen), and Allergan.)

PS While I thought it useful to clarify some of the neurological issues raised by the government's concession of my daughter's case, please understand that I will not be able to respond to individual comments posted. Thank-you. Jon

"A well placed source high up in the DC power elite writes ..."

Interesting tidbit from David Kirby.

So when will people start going on the record?

"Interesting analysis from an extremely well connected, high-powered official inside the Beltway. This was sent to me last night. .

I am now getting all kinds of fascinating messages from all over the world, ever since the Poling story aired.

Who knew the woodwork could hold so much stuff?

= DK"

I've thought about why the govt would concede. You know there were many many meetings between govt and pharma and all concerned before this concession. It was no oversight or accident. And I believe it's because they know they had lost this strong case (with the dad a neurologist no less) and felt like if they "Lost" one of the "landmark" group of autism cases it would make a bigger splash/precedent. But if they "admitted" it (rather than "lost" it) and get it out of the big group of autism test cases, they could spin it as a strange "exception" not a "precedent" etc.

Either way they were screwed, so they went for the path that they hoped would make the least splash (knowing it would make SOME splash either way). They're probably right. If a "decision" had come down in vaccine court that the govt "lost" a test case it might have been even bigger -- and more difficult to spin. But it looks like either way the genie is out of the bottle. They know this.

I wish I could get to all those emails flying now as to the plans on what to do. Of course that's assuming they haven't had a plan ready for a long long time. I believe they've known since 99 this was coming (if not earlier) and have been working on strategy and presentation for when it all came out.

Phil and Misty Hiatt: "We Were Compensated Too!"

I have calmed down from the appoplexia that overtook me when learning that Hanna was not the first autistic child to be paid from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, but at least the tenth, to write about this somewhat coherently.

Since then David Kirby, The Pensacola News Journal, The Schafer Autism Report and the Age of Autism's Dan Olmsted have joined CBS in reporting that there are more families out there who want to go public with their settlement stories.

As you may recall, in reporting on Hannah's story on March 6th, Sharyl Attkisson on The CBS Evening News reported that:

"While the Poling case is the first of its kind to become public, a CBS News investigation uncovered at least nine other cases as far back as 1990, where records show the court ordered the government compensated families whose children developed autism or autistic-like symptoms in children including toddlers who had been called "very smart" and "impressed" doctors with their "intelligence and curiosity" … until their vaccinations.

They were children just like Hannah Poling."

CBS News was apparently a few steps behind David Kirby, who on March 3rd posted on an autism list:

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

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

It contradicts many things that the Feds, AAP, and SWORN government witnesses have been saying publicly, under oath no less -- at least on this one particular vaccine injury related issue.

I love the smell of perjury charges in the morning.

Stay tuned

Cheers"

CBS was a day ahead of the Pensacola News Journal that wrote about the Hiatt family that got a judgment in 2002:

In 1999, Misty and Phil Hiatt of Pensacola, parents of 10-year-old triplets, were among the first to assert a link between childhood vaccines and autism-like symptoms.

Misty Hiatt said she and her husband, a professional baseball player for 16 years, saw their babies' lives change dramatically after they received routine immunizations at 14 months.

She said daughter Madison began suffering from severe autism-like symptoms. Daughters Morgan and Mackenzie also were affected, though less severely.

In 2002, the Hiatts received a settlement from the National Vaccine Injuries Compensation Program, a fund Congress set up to pay children injured by vaccines and to protect makers from damages as a way to help ensure an adequate vaccine supply. Since the fund started in 1988, it has paid about 950 claims — none for autism but some for autism-like symptoms.

"The government settled with our family and accepted responsibility for the injury the vaccines caused my daughter, Madison," Misty Hiatt said.

I have already discussed the difference between "autism" and "autism-like" symptoms. There is none.

And today the Schafer Autism Report ran a letter they got from the Hiatts saying that when they got their settlement, they had the impression that many other families like theirs had been compensated:

"We Were Compensated, too.

We were also compensated by the Federal Government in 2002. Our child suffered the same diagnosis after her routine immunizations. Encephalopathy with autistic like symptoms. I am not sure why people think this is the first case? Maybe they are just the first to go so public. I wonder how many other families have been compensated for the exact same symptoms? When we settled with the government I did not get the impression that we were that unique; quite the opposite as I spoke to the Special Master (the judge for the compensation program). - Misty Hiatt"

Finally, today Dan Olmsted brings to our attention a passage from an AP story in which Gary Golkiewicz, Chief Special Master for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims who oversees the vaccine court, tells us himself that Hannah's case is not the singular exception that we have been led to believe it is:

'Years ago, actually, I had a case, before we understood or knew the implications of autism, that the vaccine injured the child's brain caused an encephalopathy,' he said. And the symptoms that come with that 'all [fall?] within the broad rubric of autism.'

And there are other somewhat similar cases, Golkiewicz says, that were decided before autism and its symptoms were more clearly defined."

Two thoughts on that: We've known the symptoms of autism since exactly 1943. And since the vaccine court is known to be gruesomely stingy, it's quite some admission to say there were other, earlier cases. Maybe some of our befuddled colleagues in the mainstream media ought to find out more about those cases that, according to the top judge, resulted in brain injury and fall "within the broad rubric of autism."

And yet in the face of all this, Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC said this about the Hannah Poling case setting a precedent for other cases of vaccine induced autism:

"This is a complete mischaracterization of the findings of a very simple situation of one child with an unusual disorder, and it would be completely wrong to say that this has bearing to the vast majority of children with autism,"

Julie Gerberding is telling us that Hannah is a rare exception. We now know that she is not.

Autism parents are going to spend tomorrow calling the White House asking for her resignation.

Either Julie knew about these previous rulings, in which case she is lying to us and should be removed from her post, or she did not know about these previous rulings, in which case she is incompetent and should be removed from her post.

What this means is that for almost 20 years the government has had the evidence that vaccines cause autism and they have buried it and lied to the public. For two decades doctors have been denied the information they needed to make responsible health decisions for their patients. The parent of every child vaccinated since 1990 has been denied "informed consent" in their decision making process on if and how to vaccinate their children. How many hundreds of millions of children is that? Or billions?

What this means to my family is that a full year after paying the Hiatts for their daughter's vaccine induced autism, they were telling me that it was safe to vaccinate Chandler with out fear of having his shots trigger autism, resulting in my son's vaccine induced “Autism-like symptoms”.

In light of all this, I am calling for congressional hearings to find out what the government knew and when they knew it.

I am calling for full disclosure on the part of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to release every case of a child who was paid for their "Autism-like" vaccine injury so we can get to the bottom of the vaccine/autism connection. Because those cases hold vital clues to what has happened to my son, and what treatments might heal him.

If the families involved do not want their details released, the cases can be presented in such a way as to protect their privacy. But if what David Kirby is reporting, that families are coming to him to make their cases known, such privacy measures may not be needed.

I am looking forward to seeing what new information David Kirby and any other journalist that has begun to wake up to this miscarriage of justice can bring us about these other cases.

... and if this pans out the way it looks like it is going to... Kirby is right... some people need to go to jail.

Breaking News: Vaccine Injury Damages Winning Family To Hold Press Confrence Tomorrow!

The formal announcement:

LANDMARK FEDERAL COURT CONCESSION THAT LOCAL CHILD FROM ATLANTA DEVELOPED AUTISM FROM VACCINES

CHILD JOINS PARENTS IN PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT THIS HISTORIC RESULT AT ATLANTA FEDERAL COURT HOUSE TOMORROW

LOCAL COUPLE FROM ATLANTA WILL JOIN WITH THEIR 9 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, HANNAH, IN A PRESS CONFERENCE DISCUSSING THEIR DAUGHTER'S DEVELOPMENT OF AUTISM AS A RESULT OF VACCINES. THIS LANDMARK CASE ALLEGED THAT AUTISM WAS CAUSED BY CHILDHOOD VACCINES AND WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AS A TEST CASE BEFORE THE CONCESSION WAS MADE.

THE PRESS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD TOMORROW, THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008 AT 11:30 AM ON THE STEPS OF U.S. FEDERAL COURTHOUSE AT 75 SPRING STREET IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA.

THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL HAVE ESTIMATED THAT 1 IN 166 CHILDREN HAVE AUTISM, AND MANY HAVE LINKED THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC IN THIS COUNTRY TO THE MERCURY BASED PRESERVATIVE USED IN CHILDHOOD VACCINES.

So now we can call "Eve" by her real name.

Hanna.

Stay tuned folks....

David Kirby On Imus On The Government Vaccine/Autism Consession

This morning David Kirby was on Don Imus's show talking about 'the big case'.

For those of you who missed it, Bob (and autism dad) was good enough to type up a transcript:

IMUS: Good morning Mr. Kirby. How are you?

DAVID: I'm good. It's been exactly 3 years ago when you and Diedre really started bringing this to the people's attention. Boy, talk about "Ground Hog Day". It just seems like we're beating the same issues all over again, without getting anywhere.

IMUS. I thought it was kind of amusing to me, after Senator McCain said what he said in Texas, which I'll ask you about in a second....to see my name in a couple of columns blaming me for influencing him. When I've never said anything of the kind. I've got my own suspicions, but, any way, what exactly did Sen. McCain say now?

DAVID: Sen. McCain said, after being asked a question Texas by a woman referring to the big court case, which was just conceded, in which the government said that a girl's vaccine injury led to and resulted in an ultimate diagnosis of autism. She asked him about it and he, to just about everyone's surprise, said he believed there was strong evidence to implicate the vaccine ingredient called thimerosal, in the rise in the numbers of cases. He said the rise of cases is indisputable, meaning it's not just better diagnosis, we have more autism in America today then we had 10 or 15 years ago. He's trying to figure out what is going on. He recognizes there is a national emergency. It may not be the mercury in the vaccines, it may not be the vaccines at all, but, until we get to the bottom of this it's refreshing, to say the least, to hear a politician out their talking about what a lot of other people are talking about. At some point, if you want to get into some of the studies that are coming out, McCain, who's been blasted in the last 24 hours, taking more "incoming" that I've received in 5 years in just 24 hours. He is referring to actual studies that have been published by very top flight scientists, and, he has a very good medical and science staff. He would not have made this statement flippantly, and, it didn't come out of nowhere.

IMUS: The next question: There is scientific evidence out there suggesting that there is a definitive link?

DAVID: There's lots of science evidence, when taken together might suggest a link. Or might suggest a mechanism. My position has always been that this has not been proven one way or the other. Yes, there is evidence to refute, there is more evidence everyday to support this theory. People who oppose it, think this is over, and, I think it would serve them well to take a minute or two, go back to Pubmed, look at the studies that did not appear in the NY Times or on ABC news. We get filtered information in this country, and, I frankly don't blame people for thinking that this is bunk, baloney, proven over and done with. Anyone who brings it up is crazy....because they have not been given access to the studies. The American people have not been given all the information they need. They need to go out and find it. It's there, look at the brain studies that people from Harvard and Johns Hopkins. They are presenting with oxidative stress, heavy metals and mercury in the brain. Look at the study in Child Neurology that went back and looked at a previous study...lo and behold...they found that children with autism do have higher levels of mercury in their blood. A mistake was made in the original calculations and some mitrochrondrial studies have just come out....continue to come out....which are very germane to this court case. It all starts to fall into place, and it is hard science. It is peer reviewed. People are willfully ignoring it, some of them, they know its out there and they won't look at it. Most of the people online who are saying that John McCain is crazy, Don Imus is crazy, David Kirby is crazy....have not bothered to read these studies. It's frustrating because you want to have a scientific discussion but you are talking to people who only have half the picture.

IMUS: Talking with David Kirby here on the Imus program, in an effort to get the audience to kill themselves. The vaccine manufacturers claim they took thimerosal out of the vaccines when? Not the flu vaccines but most vaccines.

DAVID: The media reports that all mercury came out of all shots in 2001. Nothing could be further from the truth.

IMUS: What is the truth?

DAVID: Well, we don't know and the government won't tell us.

IMUS: Well, why don't the vaccine manufacturers tell us?

DAVID: They don't have to.

DAVID: They stopped making mercury containing vaccines right around the end of 2001. Now, this stuff goes and gets shipped into warehouses. Then it gets into the pipeline, that's when the expiration date is placed on it, the day it leaves the warehouse. They stocked up on mercury containing vaccines as they were transiting into the mercury free formula. For those years, 2000, 2001, 2002, 1003 and I'm quite certain into 2004, a lot of this stuff was still sitting on shelves. In the meantime, we started giving the flu shot to pregnant women and infant children, which still contains the full amount of mercury. We never hit zero, and now we're back up. If a women who gets the flu shot is pregnant, the fetus will be exposed to that. Then the child gets another flu shot at 6 months, 7 months and 18 months. With all the residual mercury in some of the other shots, the child is getting about 85 micrograms of mercury, total exposure. Which is, yes, much less than it used to be, but, we're not at zero. And again, the mitrochrondial disease, at least for a subset of these kids, given that they have that disease, they might be sensitive to any amount of mercury, or any toxin that could set them over the edge.

IMUS: Then, in these vaccines, whether the mercury is used as a preservative or not, a trace amount of mercury is used in all vaccines.

DAVID: That's correct. About 1/2 micrograms in most of the shots these kids are getting. That's very, very little, in and of itself. The point is, if you do have some type of allergic problem with this or you do have an inability to secret it, it will accumulate in your body. I think the evidence is pointing now, beyond just mercury, beyond just thimerosal. I believe there are several things in our environment that can trigger several different types of conditions and predisposition's that ultimately manifest in symptoms we diagnose as autism. Whether it truly is classic autism or not, you don't really care.

IMS: What are they?

DAVID: It may be genetics, because of mitrochrondial health, in other words, cellular energy, because of a pre-exisitng autoimmune condition, allergic condition. Given any set of those conditions, and then getting any set of triggers, mercury in vaccines, the number and type of vaccine we're giving now, pollution in the air, pesticides, flame retardants or even just if a kid is set up for regression.....whatever gets there first, I'm talking hypothetically, but, whatever gets there first may set off the regression. In most cases in this country, that insult came in the form of a vaccine.

IMUS: You know what I never understood? They warn people particularly pregnant women, not to eat fish because of the extraordinary high levels of mercury they found in fish. In fact, the NY Times did a study, went around to sushi joints and they found an insane level of mercury in these various fish. It's my understanding the form of mercury in fish is not as lethal as the form of mercury in vaccines. So, what has never made sense to me, if they don't want you to eat a less lethal form of mercury in fish, they think it's okay or fine to inject any amount of mercury into the bloodstream of an infant. Just on a common sense level, sounds to me INSANE!

DAVID: Some people think it is. It's certainly contradictory, that the NY Times reported the ultra high levels of mercury in Tuna, which means environmental levels in general are going up. They reported New Jersey is trying to implement mandatory flu vaccines for kids going to school. Everyone should go online right now and look up the flu vaccine. Look up the product insert. It will say, and don't quote me exactly, something like "this product has not been studied in pregnant women. The reproductive effects are unknown. The impact on the fetus is unknown. this product is not indicated for pregnant women unless medically necessary".

IMUS: Now you are not saying, I know I'm not saying, that there is a definitive, drop dead link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. What you're saying and what I'm saying is, at some point, we need to all reach a definitive scientific determination if, in fact that is the case. Is that what you're saying?

DAVID. Absolutely.

IMUS: Okay, so why do people characterize you and others, and me, though I'm less to the story than anyone else, my wife is a big part of the story and so are you....why are you all characterized as being crazy when you are not saying what they say you are saying?

DAVID: If you sat down and read only the studies the people seem to be reading...and you ignore the studies that people like me and Diedre read, you would come to the same conclusion....David Kirby is crazy, what is he talking about? People need to do their own homework. Listen, I think the biggest problem here is we're all operating in a vacuum. This court case that was just conceded is a confidential document. The government does not think we should be able to see it.

IMUS: Now, you're talking about the vaccine court?

DAVID: I'm talking about the vaccine court. Now the family that just won this settlement can go back to court and ask permission of the government to talk about what happened to their child.

IMUS; What did the vaccine court determine?

DAVID: They determined this child have an underlying microchrondrial disorder, which produces low cellular energy and was aggravated by her vaccines. She got 9 vaccines in 1 day. 5 shots....9 vaccines. Within months she regressed into autism. In fact, she was diagnosed with full-blown autism.

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

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

IMUS: We're out of time .....thank you Mr. Kirby;

David Kirby on Imus Tuesday

David Kirby will be a phone guest on the Imus show tomorrow morning on RFD-TV at at 6:29 AM EST. He will be discussing the Government concession in the recent vaccine injury compensation case.

For those who don't get it on TV and who would like to get up, here's a link to RFD http://www.imusonair.com/

Government Concedes Vaccine/Autism Link - The Court Papers

David Kirby has made the documents on Eve's case available, with her family's names redacted, of course.

He also notes additional information, that the court reversed it's last comment this month and recognized Eve's seizure disorder, that developed 6 years after her vaccine injury, was a product of the vaccine injury. I have noted it below.

PS: On Friday, February 22, HHS conceded that this child's complex partial seizure disorder was also caused by her vaccines. Now we the taxpayers will award this family compensation to finance her seizure medication. Surely ALL decent people can agree that is a good thing.

By the way, it''s worth noting that her seizures did not begin until six years after the date of vaccination, yet the government acknowledges they were, indeed, linked to the immunizations of July, 2000, - DK

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS


CHILD, a minor,

by her Parents and Natural Guardians,

Petitioners,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S RULE 4(c) REPORT

In accordance with RCFC, Appendix B, Vaccine Rule 4(c), the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits the following response to the petition for compensation filed in this case.

FACTS

CHILD ("CHILD") was born on December --, 1998, and weighed eight pounds, ten ounces. Petitioners' Exhibit ("Pet. Ex.") 54 at 13. The pregnancy was complicated by gestational diabetes. Id. at 13. CHILD received her first Hepatitis B immunization on December 27, 1998. Pet. Ex. 31 at 2.

From January 26, 1999 through June 28, 1999, CHILD visited the Pediatric Center, in Catonsville, Maryland, for well-child examinations and minor complaints, including fever and eczema. Pet. Ex. 31 at 5-10, 19. During this time period, she received the following pediatric vaccinations, without incident:

Vaccine Dates Administered

Hep B 12/27/98; 1/26/99

IPV 3/12/99; 4/27/99

Hib 3/12/99; 4/27/99; 6/28/99

DTaP 3/12/99; 4/27/99; 6/28/99

Id. at 2.

At seven months of age, CHILD was diagnosed with bilateral otitis media. Pet. Ex. 31 at 20. In the subsequent months between July 1999 and January 2000, she had frequent bouts of otitis media, which doctors treated with multiple antibiotics. Pet. Ex. 2 at 4. On December 3,1999, CHILD was seen by Karl Diehn, M.D., at Ear, Nose, and Throat Associates of the Greater Baltimore Medical Center ("ENT Associates"). Pet. Ex. 31 at 44. Dr. Diehn recommend that CHILD receive PE tubes for her "recurrent otitis media and serious otitis." Id. CHILD received PE tubes in January 2000. Pet. Ex. 24 at 7. Due to CHILD's otitis media, her mother did not allow CHILD to receive the standard 12 and 15 month childhood immunizations. Pet. Ex. 2 at 4.

According to the medical records, CHILD consistently met her developmental milestones during the first eighteen months of her life. The record of an October 5, 1999 visit to the Pediatric Center notes that CHILD was mimicking sounds, crawling, and sitting. Pet. Ex. 31 at 9. The record of her 12-month pediatric examination notes that she was using the words "Mom" and "Dad," pulling herself up, and cruising. Id. at 10.

At a July 19, 2000 pediatric visit, the pediatrician observed that CHILD "spoke well" and was "alert and active." Pet. Ex. 31 at 11. CHILD's mother reported that CHILD had regular bowel movements and slept through the night. Id. At the July 19, 2000 examination, CHILD received five vaccinations - DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV. Id. at 2, 11.

According to her mother's affidavit, CHILD developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. Pet. Ex. 2 at 6. She exhibited intermittent, high-pitched screaming and a decreased response to stimuli. Id. MOM spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that CHILD was having a normal reaction to her immunizations. Id. According to CHILD's mother, this behavior continued over the next ten days, and CHILD also began to arch her back when she cried. Id.

On July 31, 2000, CHILD presented to the Pediatric Center with a 101-102 degree temperature, a diminished appetite, and small red dots on her chest. Pet. Ex. 31 at 28. The nurse practitioner recorded that CHILD was extremely irritable and inconsolable. Id. She was diagnosed with a post-varicella vaccination rash. Id. at 29.

Two months later, on September 26, 2000, CHILD returned to the Pediatric Center with a temperature of 102 degrees, diarrhea, nasal discharge, a reduced appetite, and pulling at her left ear. Id. at 29. Two days later, on September 28, 2000, CHILD was again seen at the Pediatric Center because her diarrhea continued, she was congested, and her mother reported that CHILD was crying during urination. Id. at 32. On November 1, 2000, CHILD received bilateral PE tubes. Id. at 38. On November 13, 2000, a physician at ENT Associates noted that CHILD was "obviously hearing better" and her audiogram was normal. Id. at 38. On November 27, 2000, CHILD was seen at the Pediatric Center with complaints of diarrhea, vomiting, diminished energy, fever, and a rash on her cheek. Id. at 33. At a follow-up visit, on December 14, 2000, the doctor noted that CHILD had a possible speech delay. Id.

CHILD was evaluated at the Howard County Infants and Toddlers Program, on November 17, 2000, and November 28, 2000, due to concerns about her language development. Pet. Ex. 19 at 2, 7. The assessment team observed deficits in CHILD's communication and social development. Id. at 6. CHILD's mother reported that CHILD had become less responsive to verbal direction in the previous four months and had lost some language skills. Id. At 2.

On December 21, 2000, CHILD returned to ENT Associates because of an obstruction in her right ear and fussiness. Pet. Ex. 31 at 39. Dr. Grace Matesic identified a middle ear effusion and recorded that CHILD was having some balance issues and not progressing with her speech. Id. On December 27, 2000, CHILD visited ENT Associates, where Dr. Grace Matesic observed that CHILD's left PE tube was obstructed with crust. Pet. Ex. 14 at 6. The tube was replaced on January 17, 2001. Id.

Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, evaluated CHILD at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic ("Krieger Institute"), on February 8, 2001. Pet. Ex. 25 at 1. Dr. Zimmerman reported that after CHILD's immunizations of July 19, 2000, an "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." Id. He noted a disruption in CHILD's sleep patterns, persistent screaming and arching, the development of pica to foreign objects, and loose stools. Id. Dr. Zimmerman observed that CHILD watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination and

would not make eye contact. Id. He diagnosed CHILD with "regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." Id. At 2. Dr. Zimmerman ordered genetic testing, a magnetic resonance imaging test ("MRI"), and an electroencephalogram ("EEG"). Id.

Dr. Zimmerman referred CHILD to the Krieger Institute's Occupational Therapy Clinic and the Center for Autism and Related Disorders ("CARDS"). Pet. Ex. 25 at 40. She was evaluated at the Occupational Therapy Clinic by Stacey Merenstein, OTR/L, on February 23, 2001. Id. The evaluation report summarized that CHILD had deficits in "many areas of sensory processing which decrease[d] her ability to interpret sensory input and influence[d] her motor performance as a result." Id. at 45. CHILD was evaluated by Alice Kau and Kelley Duff, on May 16, 2001, at CARDS. Pet. Ex. 25 at 17. The clinicians concluded that CHILD was developmentally delayed and demonstrated features of autistic disorder. Id. at 22.

CHILD returned to Dr. Zimmerman, on May 17, 2001, for a follow-up consultation. Pet. Ex. 25 at 4. An overnight EEG, performed on April 6, 2001, showed no seizure discharges. Id. at 16. An MRI, performed on March 14, 2001, was normal. Pet. Ex. 24 at 16. A G-band test revealed a normal karyotype. Pet. Ex. 25 at 16. Laboratory studies, however, strongly indicated an underlying mitochondrial disorder. Id. at 4.

Dr. Zimmerman referred CHILD for a neurogenetics consultation to evaluate her abnormal metabolic test results. Pet. Ex. 25 at 8. CHILD met with Dr. Richard Kelley, a specialist in neurogenetics, on May 22, 2001, at the Krieger Institute. Id. In his assessment, Dr. Kelley affirmed that CHILD's history and lab results were consistent with "an etiologically unexplained metabolic disorder that appear[ed] to be a common cause of developmental regression." Id. at 7. He continued to note that children with biochemical profiles similar to CHILD's develop normally until sometime between the first and second year of life when their metabolic pattern becomes apparent, at which time they developmentally regress. Id. Dr. Kelley described this condition as "mitochondrial PPD." Id.

On October 4, 2001, Dr. John Schoffner, at Horizon Molecular Medicine in Norcross, Georgia, examined CHILD to assess whether her clinical manifestations were related to a defect in cellular energetics. Pet. Ex. 16 at 26. After reviewing her history, Dr. Schoffner agreed that the previous metabolic testing was "suggestive of a defect in cellular energetics." Id. Dr. Schoffner recommended a muscle biopsy, genetic testing, metabolic testing, and cell culture based testing. Id. at 36. A CSF organic acids test, on January 8, 2002, displayed an increased lactate to pyruvate ratio of 28,1 which can be seen in disorders of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Id. at 22. A muscle biopsy test for oxidative phosphorylation disease revealed abnormal results for Type One and Three. Id. at 3. The most prominent findings were scattered atrophic myofibers that were mostly type one oxidative phosphorylation dependent myofibers, mild increase in lipid in selected myofibers, and occasional myofiber with reduced cytochrome c oxidase activity. Id. at 7. After reviewing these laboratory results, Dr. Schoffner diagnosed CHILD with oxidative phosphorylation disease. Id. at 3. In February 2004, a mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") point mutation analysis revealed a single nucleotide change in the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (T2387C). Id. at 11.

CHILD returned to the Krieger Institute, on July 7, 2004, for a follow-up evaluation with Dr. Zimmerman. Pet. Ex. 57 at 9. He reported CHILD "had done very well" with treatment for a mitochondrial dysfunction. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that CHILD would continue to require services in speech, occupational, physical, and behavioral therapy. Id.

On April 14, 2006, CHILD was brought by ambulance to Athens Regional Hospital and developed a tonic seizure en route. Pet. Ex. 10 at 38. An EEG showed diffuse slowing. Id. At 40. She was diagnosed with having experienced a prolonged complex partial seizure and transferred to Scottish Rite Hospital. Id. at 39, 44. She experienced no more seizures while at Scottish Rite Hospital and was discharged on the medications Trileptal and Diastal. Id. at 44. A follow-up MRI of the brain, on June 16, 2006, was normal with evidence of a left mastoiditis manifested by distortion of the air cells. Id. at 36. An EEG, performed on August 15, 2006,

showed "rhythmic epileptiform discharges in the right temporal region and then focal slowing during a witnessed clinical seizure." Id. At 37. CHILD continues to suffer from a seizure disorder.

ANALYSIS

Medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC) have reviewed the facts of this case, as presented by the petition, medical records, and affidavits. After a thorough review, DVIC has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case.

In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).

DVIC has concluded that CHILD's complex partial seizure disorder, with an onset of almost six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, is not related to a vaccine-injury.

In February of 2008, the court reversed this decision and concluded that the seizure disorder WAS related to a vaccine injury

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General

TIMOTHY P. GARREN
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

MARK W. ROGERS
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

s/ Linda S. Renzi by s/ Lynn E. Ricciardella
LINDA S. RENZI
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 616-4133


DATE: November 9, 2007

More On The Vaccine/Autism Case That The Government Coneeded

Update to this huge developing story!

(Re reading this article is kind of blowing my mind, I think that this is as big a story as the revelations in Kirby's Book 4 years ago. Send this to everyone you know and get some reporters writing about it).

Last fall David Kirby reported that one of the three vaccine/autism test cases chosen for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund had been conceded by the government before even going to a hearing. The case was sealed, apparently to protect the child's identity, but now we are learning the details of the case.

Apparently the girl, now known in the autism community as "Eve", had a mitochondrial disorder. Which begs a whole lotta questions when taken with the study he references that found that in a group of people with autism more than a third had a mitochondrial disorder. And that these disorders were milder in people with autism, which makes me wanna know if my son has an undiagnosed mild mitochondrial disorder.

I knew that it was associated with autism, but thought it was rare. I remember reading the symptoms way back in the day and dismissing it from consideration from Chandler's medical picture. I am gonna check it again.

Kirby has a lot more good questions that come from this case.

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?
David Kirby
The Huffington Post

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

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

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

The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time."

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:


"DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics" autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as "autism," are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined "look-alike" syndrome that merely presents as "features" of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let's say the government does determine that these kids don't have actual "autism" (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn't the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see "autism" cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like "Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?"

And if this child was technically "misdiagnosed" with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren't Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child's Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn't that have manifested as "ASD features" anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a "single nucleotide change" in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested "features" of autism.

While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What's more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of "disorder" at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn't they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of "autistic features?"

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the "sporadic" form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? "Medicines or other toxins," says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal's introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn't HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl's vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for "aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?" Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn't these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn't children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It's too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is "absolutely no link" between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government's Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way -- and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are "aggravated" and "manifested." Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say "his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death."

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

Kirby on HuffPo: Vaccine Debate Rages On

David Kirby: The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Anything But Over

Exactly five years ago I began research for my book Evidence of Harm, which looked into the possible link between mercury, vaccines and the tsunami of autism that now overwhelms our education system.

Along the way I have encountered many people -- in the government, in medical circles, in the media, on the Internet - who are furious at my attempts to shed light on this controversy and utterly contemptuous of parents, doctors, and anyone else who supports research into the hypothesized link between autism and vaccines.

Many of these people, incredibly, still insist that autism is purely a genetic disorder with no known "cause" and probably no cure. They blithely claim that autism has always been with us in the same epidemic numbers we see today, (If you're the parent of a young boy in New Jersey, by the way, you now face 1-in-60 odds of a diagnosis), we just never noticed or else counted those kids as "quirky" or possibly retarded.

Even officials at the CDC, who traced an e-coli outbreak to a single patch of California spinach within months cannot say if autism is actually on the increase or not.

Some experts, however, are beginning to understand that autism is clearly on the rise and thus must have an environmental component coupled with a genetic underpinning. But they insist that vaccines or their ingredients (ie, mercury, live measles virus, aluminum) have nothing to do with the epidemic.

They really really want this vexing vaccine chatter to cease. But it won't.

Buried beneath the usual tumultuous headlines of recent days were three tidbits of news that clearly underscore why this raging, sometimes vitriolic debate is not ending any time soon. In fact, all three reveal significant cracks in the federal government's hitherto impenetrable fortress of denial of any vaccine-autism link whatsoever:

1) The CDC granted nearly $6 million for investigators at five major research centers to study 2700 children over the next five years in what the Contra Costa Times called "the largest-ever U.S. study aimed at solving one of the most perplexing mysteries of modern times: the cause of autism."

Lisa Croen, the study's principal investigator in California, told the paper that, "What's become very clear is that autism results from a combination of having a genetic predisposition or genetic susceptibility, plus the added extra exposures from environmental factors or other kinds of lifestyle factors."

Among the "factors" to be studied are family history, events during pregnancy, maternal medications, parental occupation, ambient pollution around the houseand "a child's vaccination history" the paper reported.

Oddly the study will not look at the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. According to the FDA and the Institute of Medicine the last batches of thimerosal containing vaccines for infants and immune-globulin given to pregnant women expired in late 2003 (except for the flu shot, which is still given to infants and pregnant women).

The new study will only study children born from September 2003 to August2005. But the question remains and I think it's legitimate: If an association between vaccines and autism has been completely "ruled out" then why are we spending taxpayer dollars to study autistic children's vaccination history?

2) The Department of Health and Human Services announced the formation of a new federal panel the "Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee" which will help set public and private research priorities into the cause and treatment of autismas mandated by the recently passed Combating Autism Act.

Among those named to the panel by HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt were Lyn Redwood, president of the Coalition for Safe Minds (and chief protagonist in my book), and a leading advocate of the mercury-vaccine-autism connection and Lee Grossman president and CEO of the Autism Society of America, another staunch supporter of the hypothesis.

Which again begs the question: If the debate over vaccines and autism is over then why did the Feds appoint two people to this important new panel who will relentlessly push for more taxpayer dollars going into research of vaccines and autism?

3) Lawyers for the US Justice Department and HHS are conceding an autism case that was to be tried in the so-called federal "Vaccine Court"according to papers filed on the court's on-line docket.

Nearly 5000 autism cases are pending in Vaccine Court though a small number of "test cases" are being tried in which attorneys for the families attempt to link the symptoms of autism to thimerosal and/or the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (or MMR, which never contained mercury). It was a pending test case that the government conceded.

According to my source, however, the government is NOT conceding that mercury or vaccines cause autism. "In this case the DOJ conceded that vaccines significantly aggravated a child's pre-existing autistic symptoms" my source said "but the autism itself was caused by a congenital mitochondrial disorder that is entirely genetic."

And the source noted"By conceding 'significant aggravation' I think DOJ is trying to avoid ever having this case go to hearing on the underlying causation issue.

"In other words this was likely going to be a slam-dunk and the Feds knew it. Rather than risk having the case become a "test" for thousands of other claims it looks like the DOJ opted to fold and pay out damages to the family without actually admitting that vaccines can cause autism.

This entirely unreported event raises several interesting questions I think. To begin with if the federal government has conceded that vaccines can cause "significant aggravation" to the autism symptoms of even just one child shouldn't the public be notified?

And if the government has conceded that this child would be better off today had he or she not been vaccinated -- in other words that vaccines made the symptoms of autism go from bad to worse - couldn't it be possible that vaccines might also say make symptoms go from mild to bad?

And if the government concedes that vaccines aggravated the symptoms of autism in at least one child shouldn't parents of children with the disorder be informed of this and shouldn't they be allowed to opt out of future vaccinations on medical grounds if they wish?

And if the government concedes that vaccines can aggravate the symptoms of autism then shouldn't that same government also earmark funds to research how and why that occurs?

And of course, why on earth would parents concede that there is "no evidence of an association between vaccines and autism" when the government has just conceded that there was an (albeit not causal) association?

Finally, to all those who are going to post comments about the autism rates in California not coming down, following the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines: You are right. The most likely explanation is that thimerosal was not responsible for the autism epidemic. But that does not mean that it never harmed a single child.

And keep in mind that, of the record 1000+ additional autism cases recorded in California last quarter, some 75% of them were children who were six years of age or older, and thus born well within the "thimerosal generation." There is evidence that many factors could conceivably be keeping the California numbers higher than the national average, including aggressive early intervention and outreach to low-income families, increased immigration from countries that still use thimerosal (and immigrant children who are routinely re-immunized upon arrival) and migration of families from less progressive U.S. states eager for California's relative public largesse.

And remember that the CDC, wisely, does not conduct autism prevalence studies on children until they reach the age of 8, to account for any late stragglers entering the database. If thimerosal did not come out of vaccines entirely until 2003, then it won't be until 2011 before kids in that birth cohort are studied by the CDC, so vindicating thimerosal entirely might still be a tad premature.

All that said, thimerosal may well not be a factor in a single case of autism. But what if one day, we discovered it had caused, say, one percent of all cases? With estimates of autism as high as 1.5 million in the country that would mean 15000 Americans who were ravaged by thimerosal
(not to mention everyone overseas).

But if thimerosal is vindicated,or shown to be a very minor player, then what about other vaccine ingredients? And what about the rather crowded vaccine schedule we now impose upon families of young children? And what about reports of unvaccinated children in Illinois, California and Oregon who appear to have significantly lower rates of autism? Shouldn't we throw some research dollars into studying them?

You can answer that, no, we shouldn't because the vaccine-autism debate is over.

But I am willing to wager that it has only just begun.

Full Disclosure in Correcting My Error In Writing About Other's Errors

Last week David Kirby posted this HuffPo piece. I posted it to my site.

A short time later, Mr. Kirby posted this to the EOH list, outing well known autism author, Roy Richard Grinker, Ph. D., as someone who was posting anonymously in the comments section.

RE: This comment on Huffpost:

“Unfortunately, Mr. Kirby continues to believe that California's DDS enrollment figures constitute epidemiological data. They do not. The author even makes a claim about statistical significance! He also introduces a new term into the discussion -- "full spectrum" -- (which he suggests is equivalent to Autistic Disorder) -- and states that the DDS counts only Autistic Disorder, not PDD-NOS, or Asperger's, or Down's Syndrome children with autism, or any other phenotype. This is absolutely wrong. Not even the best epidemiological studies are particularly good at distinguishing among the subtypes. It is truly disappointing to see the Huffington Post continue to publish phony epidemiology.”

Signed: Mfano

But “backstage” I see that his email is actually rgrink@gwu.edu

If Dr. Grinker would like to debate this subject out in the open, using his real name, I would be more than happy to take part. You would think that someone of his stature would have more pressing things to do with George Washington University’s time and bandwidth than send anonymous, erroneous comments to national political blogs.

I also posted this to my site.

A list member on the Evidence of Harm list noted that Dr. Grinker has a habit of posting anonymously to talk about his own work.

Update: From "celiacdaughter" on the EOH list:
...If you search some of his (Mfano) previous posts you will also note that he enjoys using the third person when discussing himself:

"So Foresam, tell us: how Grinker should look for autistic adults? The woman Grinker and Chew wrote about in the blog wasn't on record anywhere as autistic. Grinker doesn't say, but she probably bit herself and smeared feces too. No one missed her. She was called mentally retarded and given lots of treatment and care. She just wasn't called autistic"...

I also posted this to my site.

Then a little while later, Mr. Kirby announced that he had inadvertently broken the HuffPo privacy policy in making the information public and apologized for the breach.

Dear List members

I have been informed by the editors of the Huffington Post that it is against the rules to reveal the identity of people who post comments on the blog.

I was not aware of that rule.

I apologize to Huffpost and, particularly, to Dr. Grinker, for the violation. Please do not attempt to contact him directly. He made his comment in the full belief that his identity would not be revealed, and we all need to respect that decision.

Again, my apologies to everyone.

David

I did not see the post.

Kristina Chew Ph. D. wrote to me and asked that I remove the information on Dr. Grinker. Dr. Chew is a co-author of Dr. Grinker.

I checked the EOH list and found Mr. Kirby’s apology. And sent her this reply.

Hi Kristina,

I just read all this and am genuinely unsure of what to do here.

Let me think about this.

Ginger

As I was thinking about the ethics involved, an email arrived from Mr. Kirby arrived asking me to remove the information in deference to Dr. Grinker.

I then decided to remove the information in an attempt to “keep the peace”.

Dr. Chew noted that I had forgotten to remove Dr. Grinker's name from the labels, so I did.

I also removed four comments from the post that referred to the deleted information as they only served to pique one's interest in the deleted information.

kristina has left a new comment on your post "The California Numbers: Autism Declining Among Th...":

In your "update," you quote David Kirby's message on the EoH Yahoogroups List in which he revealed Roy Richard Grinker's identity, as well as some additional messages from the EoH Yahoogroups List on this matter. Mr. Kirby's revelation of Prof. Grinker's identity was a violation of the policy of the Huffington Post. It is therefore inappropriate for the EoH messages to still appear on your blog.

Thank you very much.
Kristina Chew
Auitm

Sincerely,
Kristina Chew
http://www.autismvox.com

kristina has left a new comment on your post "The California Numbers: Autism Declining Among Th...":

Thanks very much, Ginger. As you've removed the update, perhaps it might also be possible to remove the tag for Roy Grinker? Best wishes from Kristina Chew

autismvox.com

Posted by kristina to Adventures in Autism at 7:07 PM

Camille has left a new comment on your post "The California Numbers: Autism Declining Among Th...":

Any comment on the way David Kirby outed the commenter he didn't agree with to the EoHarm yahoo! group?

Do you think it's OK that he outed an anonymous commenter? I guess you did because you posted the details of the outing here, approvingly.

Do you think Kirby ought to apologize to Grinker in public? Do you think Arianna needs to apologize for bamboozling her commenters into thinking they were anonymous to the bloggers?

Posted by Camille to Adventures in Autism at 12:17 AM

Ginger has left a new comment on your post "The California Numbers: Autism Declining Among Th...":

Well Camille, commenting on all that would kinda defeat the point of taking it down, now wouldn't it?

Posted by Ginger to Adventures in Autism at 9:11 AM

After reading discussion of the incident today, I realized that I had fallen into the same trap that I accuse main stream media of doing, making editorial decisions based on politics. I have replaced all the information so everything is back on the record.

I should not have taken the information down.

I apologize for doing it.

Today I reposted the information and sent the following email to Kristina Chew, Roy Grinker and David Kirby:

At the request of Dr. Chew and Mr. Kirby (who related Dr. Grinker's wish), the information on Dr. Grinker's anonymous posting on HuffPo was removed from my site. I was very reluctant to do it, but did so to keep the peace and try to honor the requests of those involved.

After seeing the fall out from my decision, it is apparent to me that my choice was a poor one and I have corrected it by reposting the information. I will be following it up with a discussion of the matter in a separate post. All of this information is relevant to the autism debate, Dr. Grinker's deception, Mr. Kirby's breaking of HuffPo rules (unknowingly or not), Mr. Kirby's public apology, Dr. Grinker's lack of any kind of mea culpa (as far as I know), Mr. Kirby's and Dr. Chew's request to have the information taken down, and my poor choice to self-censor after the fact.

One of my central complaints in the autism debate is the strangle hold on information that prevents the public from making informed choices on who to trust and what advice to take. When I removed the information I violated my own policy and took part in something that I have been criticizing for three years.

If any of us are to be of help to those with autism and their families, openness, transparency and integrity are essential. To be as frank as I can be, everyone needs to stop worrying about their bull shit reputations and do the right thing. If you make a mistake, then apologize and clean up your mess as best you can and face the consequences.

Any of us with letters after our name or books on autism don't have the maturity to do that, then we should not be a part of this discussion. Too many people's lives depend on its outcome.

Sincerely,
Ginger Taylor, M.S.

I try to run an honest blog, I have tried to be as open and transparent as I have challenged others to be. I will work harder to maintain that standard in the future.

I am sorry for the lapse in judgment.