Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?

[Celebration]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

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 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."

.....................

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.

...........

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.

[jgraz]

1. Shit, this is huge.

[FirstLight]

2. This was quietly conceded?

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops! All those poor families and lives thrashed because of the irresponsibility and forced immunization of our kids.
I do not vaccinate, and will never submit my kids to flu shots or the like... My son had a accident that required stitches, and I debated the need for a tetnaus shot on the type of wound. The doc finally agreed that it was a low risk, and we escaped the shot, but I had to sign a release, of course.

If it means I have to sign form that it is against my religion, I will do so.
Lets hope that the universal healthcare system still allows us to have a say in this, and that these families get help that is needed.

[K8-EEE]

3. I def always thought the shots triggered something with my daughter

She got the thimerosal laced shots right before they were taken off the market (for kids, the adults still have some shots with that junk in it.) I always thought just from observing her reaction, something in the shots were the trigger for her autism. Then I was horrified to find out about the mercury-based preservative.

Wish I had a dime for every time I got yelled at for having that opinion!

[motocicleta]

4. You're likely going to deserve some more dimes on this thread,

but not from me. I fear the vaccines have an effect that is non-scientifically quantifiable, and our society is too fucking stupid to understand the nuances between what is and what is scientifically quantifiable. If one child that did not need the vaccine develops autism from the vaccine, then that vaccine should not be mandated in my view. Fuck the herd.

I come from a family with stellar immune systems, so injecting shit into our blood streams is only asking for an over-the-top immune response. Perhaps making all of us freak out from vaccines is worth saving the lives of some people who cannot stand chicken pox, but I personally extend my science faith towards Darwin, not Salk.

I feel for you and your child.
-moto

[truedelphi]

5. Do you wanna know the truth about the chicken pox vaccine??

Here's some info you can use next time some pro-vaccine nazi comes down on you -

Two generations ago, mothers thought that chicken pox was a good thing.

In fact, in 1976, my mom called me and asked me to bring my nine month old home to her house -the neighbor kids had chicken pox and she thought it best to have my son exposed to it. According to her old wives's tale version of thinking, the younger you are exposed, the less severe a case of it.

Sure enough, after a few days playing with his buddies, he got chicken pox. A very mild case - in fact he had only three eruptions.

Nowdays the Big Pharma forces have all this propaganda about how dangerous and awful the chicken pox disease can be. They even have statistics that would scare a normal parent into wanting their child to be vaccinated and thus avoid having chicken pox.

But where do the scary statistics come from? Well, Big Pharma traipsed off to some of the worst barrios in Central America, and there they found that the malnourished children often did die of complications of chicken pox combined with bad sanitation and inadequate diet. Then after assembling their data, they went into propaganda mode, spewing out the numbers about how YOUR child will die if not vaccinated.

I take all this vaccination propaganda with a huge bit of salt.

[dropkickpa]

42. I almost died from chicken pox as a kid

Sorry, the complications are real.

[TheMadMonk]

6. How many children has this concession just condemned to death?

Check out some old cemeteries. You will find graves which hold the bodies of several children from the same family, all of which died within days of each other from diseases we now routinely vaccinate against. And in neighbouring graves a like number of their playmates from the house next door.

IIRC 1 in 10 of those who contract polio, suffer varying degrees of permanent paralysis.

Whooping cough means weeks of months of unrelenting coughing. Coughing so severe that oxygen deficit can lead to permanent brain injury at worst and weeks or months of unrelievable discomfort regardless.

Measles WILL kill 1 in 1000 kids who contract it IIRC. And will leave a measurable percentage of the remainder brain damaged.

Mumps can also kill, or induce sterility.

Rubella in pregnant women means retardation for the child.

HPV, if you're lucky causes disfiguring, (and sometimes painful) benign tumours: warts (and papilomas). Unlucky and in the wrong place and it becomes full blown death dealing cancer.

Tetanus turns a flinch into agonising cramps that last for hours. That hard, painful lump some of us get surrounding the site of our booster shots: Imagine the same thing from head to toe, and lasting just as long if not longer.

THAT is what routine vaccination against common childhood diseases protects us from.

As for the addition of less common diseases to the schedule and the mandates from schools, kindergartens and childcare facilities. I blame litigation and/or the fear thereof.

Even if there was a 100% correlation between scheduled vaccines and ASDs in those susceptible to them, (1 in 1000 IIRC) then the trade off would be absolutely acceptable.

Between the various diseases vaccinated against, the mortality (ie. dead kid, dead kid, DEAD KID) rate runs to somewhere between 60 and 90 percent. Not to mention the maternal mortality rate that goes with having enough children to ensure that at least two of them (ie replacement) survive to breeding age. Not to mention that simple survival of the species means breeding from the earliest possible age.

Does that last get through your pointy little heads? If you want to guarantee your genetic legacy without widespread/universal vaccination, you have no choice but to offer up your thirteen to sixteen year old daughters up for breeding from almost the very moment they begin menstruating.

edited to add: Offer them up to breeding by the proven survivors. Much older males, who demonstrate both superior immunity/genes, and the ability to support a large family. Polygyny, might, to most of us, be in today's world a religiously motivated perversion. But in a world dominated by childhood diseases, it is a near mandatory survival mechanism for the species.

It might be hard to watch a child suffer the trial and tribulations of autism. But because of these vaccines you folk rail against, we have lost all understanding of how hard it must have been to have child after child die in our arms. An experience so traumatic, that in many societies, the coping mechanism is to avoid giving a child a name (and thus personhood) until they have reached an age from which they have a decent chance of surviving to adulthood.

I strongly suspect that it is the selfishness of parents who know/feel that they have been dealt a life sentence, which is the real motivation behind trying to blame ASDs on vaccines.

BTW at least one form of true Autism, can be attributed to an actual physical developmental defect. Autopsies have shown that there is a section of the brain stem which is completely missing. Something which can come about only in the womb.

motocicleta: I too am a strong Darwinist. However, I DO NOT subscribe to the philosophy of "Fuck you Charlie. I've got mine." as you so obviously do. ALL of your children are alive today, not because of some postulated "super duper immune system" but because the parents of the children surrounding them, did the responsible thing and had their children inoculated against diseases which CAN and DO kill. Thus reducing your children's chances of exposure to a level which raised their chances of survival to a level close to unity.



Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorder - 1:1000 IIRC.
Incidence of ASD in vaccinated children - 1:1000 +/- a few.
Incidence of ASD in unvaccinated children - also 1:1000 +/- a few.
We can even break the vaccinated population down into those who received vaccines with and without the Thiomerserol preservative and still get the same 1:1000 +/- incidence in both populations.

This is what is meant by "scientifically unquantifiable". There is no statistical difference between the various populations, no matter how one choses to measure. Some studies do find a slight correlation. However others find the exact opposite. And thus the results cancel out.

What causes some to link the vaccines and ASDs is the coincidental fact that ASD symptoms tend to present at roughly the same time that the the largest number of vaccine boosters are given. ie. approximately 2 years of age.

Also coincidentally this is the age at which the human brain undergoes the greatest amount of change, as it gets put through the developmental wringer, integrating motor, language, social, and several other skills. All in a very short period of time. If something is going to go wrong, then this is almost certainly the time it will happen.

One huge argument against mercury being the primary trigger of ASDs is that there is no huge spike in ASDs in Arctic populations where people are chronically exposed to higher than normal levels of mercury. Nor are there any spikes in the developing world where the lack of reliable refrigeration means that Thiomerserol continues to be used as a preservative in vaccines. If anything the incidence of ASDs is lower in both.

The "spikes" (such as they are) in the diagnoses of ASDs occur solely in the developed world. Yes, children there, are exposed to a greater number of vaccinations than elsewhere. They also have a far greater access to medical services where such diagnoses get made. Furthermore, they are also exposed to a much higher level of a great many other environmental pollutants: Particulates from vehicles and industry; Any number of solvents; hydrocarbons of all sorts; Ozone; NOx; and so on adinfinitum.

If I were going to look for "triggers", then if they exist at all, I would be looking to that that separates the developed from the developing world, and not to something that is simply administered at approximately the same time as when ASD symptoms are most likely to manifest.

It is all to easy to blame ASDs solely on vaccines, partly, because of the chronological coincidence and partly, because their administration is something over which it is possible to exercise some degree of control. Else we have to blame it on personal lifestyle choices and hence on a non-external agency.


It may even be possible that in certain specific instances, vaccines are a specific trigger. However, this is almost certainly ultimately meaningless, as it is a near certainty that if the child had not been vaccinated, they still would have suffered the same fate at a not much later date, due to some other triggering mechanism.


And finally: Putting on my tin foil hat. This irresponsible decision/concession has just effectively "immunised" polluting industries which might realistically be blamed for any actual environmental causes of ASDs. And it has done so without making the pharmaceutical manufacturers liable, since they cannot be held liable for something which they have been essentially legally mandated to provide.

Furthermore, acceptance of this concession by the court, could conceivably allow the government to withdraw from the financing of compulsory vaccination programs.

We could even take tin foil hattery to the extreme of suggesting that, the government, by giving itself this "out" on providing free vaccines, or even feeding the climate of fear/suspiscion already surrounding vaccines, creates a mechanism by which the next generation of now unneeded menial labourers can be culled. Those with the money can afford to pay for voluntary vaccination, or at worst, the sort of extensive health care necessary to nurse their sick through these diseases.

[trotsky]

7. Bravo.

This is why DU needs the ability to recommend individual posts, not threads.

Sadly this court decision WILL lead to more kids dying. We see the "reasoning" in this very thread - "I knew shots were harmful!"

What I want to know is, the anti-vax brigade wants desperately to believe there is a HUGE conspiracy between ALL of government and ALL of big pharma. If that is the case, how did this decision get allowed? Why wasn't the monster conspiracy able to cover it up?

I need to hear from both sides of this issue, not just from a known anti-vax profiteer.

[K8-EEE]

38. Shades of Michael Clayton, the same people post the same pro-Pharma stuff

every time this comes up.

Just sayin'

Nobody's saying never get any shot. Yes some vaccinations (polio for example) are fab.

I would prefer that they did not BOMB my newborn with unnecessary toxins such as mercury, and the way these "schedules" are decided, is not a very transparent process and one that makes a lot of money for certain industries. Of course I know a lot more about that now that the damage is done than I did as a gullable new mom signing off on every suggested vaccine and trusting the doctors implicitly.

I don't really recommend that. Do your research before getting your kids shot up. About half the stuff is ridiculous.

Even my Dr. says the chicken pox vaccine will do a lot of harm to these girls. It will wear off right when they're having children. They're better off getting it as young children, not when they're 25 and pregnant! And you can bet in our health care system half of young 20-somethings will NOT keep up with boosters.

All shots are not evil. All shots are not good. It's a bit more complicated than that.

[trotsky]

41. I *have* done my research.

And everything in a vaccine is there for a reason - either to increase its efficacy, help preserve it, or help deliver it. Whatever other contaminants might be there are on the order of parts per billion. And our immune systems are a LOT tougher than the anti-vaxers give them credit for.

I've gotten my children every shot they've been scheduled for, without any hesitation WHATSOEVER. The infinitesimal risks of vaccination versus the real chance of harm or death from disease make it an absolute no-brainer.

And I'm not going to pretend that using Google *I* have a better understanding of what's a reasonable vaccination schedule. So many arguments are like yours - you just don't "feel" like it's right. There are places where instinct can be followed, and places where it has absolutely no bearing. I defer to the people who have actually spent years of their adult lives doing nothing but research into these topics.

Even my Dr. says the chicken pox vaccine will do a lot of harm to these girls. It will wear off right when they're having children.

Sorry to hear your doctor is somewhat misinformed. The varicella vaccine is a live virus vaccine. In most people, it induces the full immune reaction and gives lifetime immunity. Of course like with all vaccines, it's not 100% effective. My son, for instance, was vaccinated as a toddler and ended up getting chicken pox in first grade. He had a total of 3 sores on his body and missed one day of school. Was the vaccine effective for him? Compared to my 2 weeks missed and permanent scarring, yeah, I'd say that's a resounding YES.

All shots are not good.

If you don't happen to think preventing diseases that used to claim children's lives is good, then I guess so. Could vaccines be made safer and more effective? No doubt. And I wholeheartedly support those efforts. But I'm not going to give search engines equal weight with medical establishment when it comes to my children's health.

[mzmolly]

71. Smart doctor. Concerns about the vaccine wearing off are becoming more abundant.

Chickenpox Vaccine May Wear Off ~ Web MD - Medical News

http://www.webmd.com/news/20070314/chickenpox-vaccine-may-wear-off

The chickenpox vaccine's effectiveness may fade with time, so children should get a second dose when they're 4-6 years old. ~ The New England Journal of Medicine.

...

It's not yet clear how long immunity from the vaccine's second dose lasts, note the researchers.

One great big experiment.

And, when the second jab "wears off" will a third will be recommended?

The DPT was supposed to be permanent protection against pertussis, but now a booster is recommended because that was not so. Imagine many of our children being exposed to this illness without our knowing because we were falsely comforted by being vaccinated for pertussis as children? Imagine the doctors who missed a proper diagnosis of parents, siblings because the person sitting in front of them had been vaccinated thus pertussis was ruled out?

The chicken pox and MMR are more examples of how "iffy" the science surrounding vaccination actually is. It would be interesting if docs pulled titers from volunteers every so often to see how long protection from a given vaccine actually lasts. The CDC really can't answer that to date. They assume, but that doesn't seem very "scientific" to me?

All shots are not evil. All shots are not good. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Absolutely right K8

[Jim__]

8. It may well save some children.

I have talked with people who have not vaccinated their children due to fear of autism. I know, we've all heard the assurances that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. But, if you've ever listened to a parent with an autistic child that believes the onset of autism was immediately after the vaccine (see, for instance, post #3 above), it is very hard to deny what they say. And, it's said by enough parents to raise legitimate questions.

This case identifies a link to a specific problem:

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.

So, at least in this case, there is an identifiable condition that parents can check for before getting their children vaccinated. Given this possibility of a test, some parents may vaccinate their children who otherwise wouldn't have.

Knowledge and information allow people to make rational decisions. Fear, a rational fear - credible stories, with no information, or seemingly bad information, forces people to make ill-informed decisions.

[Warpy]

27. For years they screamed about the "toxin" Thimerosol.

They screamed most loudly about the MMR vaccine, one they claimed "HAD" to be the culprit, most of them ignorant of the fact that MMR vaccine in the US never contained thimerosol. Now they're shrieking that it's the vaccines, themselves, meaning the child's own immune response has to be the culprit.

Well, folks, if that is the case, the child's immune system will also be triggered with every preventable illness s/he gets, and that means the kids who are "becoming autistic" will do so down the line with a severe but preventable illness to trigger it.

This is a terrible decision and one I sincerely hope will be reversed. If that child already had one of the markers for autism, it would have displayed the behavior sooner rather than later, vaccines or no vaccines. Without vaccines, that child might never have lived long enough to display ASD behaviors.

Sometimes the law is a ass.

[mzmolly]

68. That's not so. The issue with MMR was NEVER mercury.

That supposed argument is a CDC straw-man. An effective one apparently?

To suggest we can't make safer vaccines without endangering children and/or vaccinate selectively is the real "ass".

[Celebration]

11. benefits of vaccines

All of us know the benefits of vaccination, and it is helpful to be reminded of that. However, I will say that lately it seems like vaccination run wild, when they routinely vaccinate for things like Hepatitis A before the kid comes home from the hospital.

And, some of the factual statements in your post are wrong--


Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorder - 1:1000 IIRC.
Incidence of ASD in vaccinated children - 1:1000 +/- a few.
Incidence of ASD in unvaccinated children - also 1:1000 +/- a few

Where in the world did you get those figures? Autism is much, much, more common than that now. Where have you been? One problem people have with the government studies is that they refuse to undertake this simple epidemiological study, because the combination of vaccines is never studied. So, if you have such evidence please cough it up.

Why not do studies on autism in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids? We do have anecdotal evidence--

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/children/mercury_pollution.htm

On December 7, 2005, Age of Autism reported that thousands of children cared for by Homefirst Health Services in metropolitan Chicago have at least two things in common with Amish children, they have never been vaccinated and they don't have autism.
Homefirst has five offices in the Chicago area and a total of six doctors.
"We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines," said Dr Mayer Eisenstein, Homefirst's medical director who founded the practice in 1973.

Also, are you saying that the vaccine court should not have made this decision, even though they believed the vaccination caused this damage? Really, I think we all deserve the truth, even if the truth hurts.

And remember, this is an individual case, not a universal condemnation of vaccines.

[TheMadMonk]

15. I am simply using my best recolection of figures cited by others.

One in one thousand might or might not be wrong. But whatever the exact ratio, my argument otherwise remains unchanged.

There is no statistically discernible difference in the incidence of ASDs amongst the various populations: vaccinated vs. unvaccinated and Thiomerserol present and Thiomerserol absent.

The only instance where there is a discernible difference, is when comparing technological and non-technological populations.

And leaving that aside, I would suggest quite strongly that at least one reason for the higher incidence of ASDs entirely outside of the broadening of diagnostic criteria AND any chemical environmental factors (vaccines or pollutants), is THE FUCKING IDIOT BOX.

Not to mention (the possible appearance of) parental indifference, when the child is regularly left in the care of others. A child might easily turn away from parents who regularly leave them in the care of others as a form of punishment for the parent(s). I have some experience as a child carer AND (in the absence of any obvious overt abuse) I have had children declare their wish that I was their daddy. Now, in such a situation, I could easily envisage parents covering their own arses as it were, by neglecting to mention their child's attachment to a carer, whilst playing up their child's detachment from themselves, and thus causing a psychologist to erroneously come to the conclusion that the child is suffering a "detachment disorder" ie. an ASD.


This, low frequency electromagnetic exposure (ie. near powerlines) and mobile phone radiation are amongst the most intensively studied human health phenomena on this planet, and in all cases the conclusion has been the same: Whatever the wishful thinking on the part of (pr)opponents, no statistical link has been demonstrated between the supposed causative agent and the purported effect. (caveat: Extreme levels of exposure, far in excess of those met in the real world have shown some deleterious effect, and some have argued that extrapolation back to real world exposure levels, must have some effect even if it is not statistically measurable.)

The studies have been done. On the subject being debated here, the only study I am not aware of, is whether or not exposure to Thiomerserol or actual vaccinating agents, has any demonstrable effect on the timing of the manifestation of ASDs. I am willing to concede that it might be possible that such exposure might bring about an earlier manifestation. However, the figures still show, that by the time ASDs are conclusively demonstrated in the subjects, there is no discernible difference in the incidence of manifestation amongst the exposed and the unexposed. Which I again contend strongly suggests that any predisposition that might exist will be brought out by whichever "triggering" agent gets there first. Vaccines (or a component therein) simply being one amongst many possible such triggers.


Amish children are also not exposed to the "electronic babysitter", hydrocarbons, solvents, and any number of other potentially nasty things that a child might be exposed to (in quantity) in a technological society.


The court did not make this decision. The defendant (the government) conceded the argument without it being subjected to the strictures of adversarial or proper scientific inquiry.


And remember, in the adversarial environment of the legal system, the individual case sets the precedent against which all subsequent decisions are measured. The only way of overturning/reversing it is with the presentation of compelling new evidence not available at the time the original decision was entered into the record. The only potentially saving grace in this instance, is that it is a concession and not an actual "decision of the court". However, on the minus side, the concession has been made by the party which will almost certainly be the defendant in subsequent legal actions on this matter.

[Jim__]

16. I'd question your claim that, "in all cases the conclusion has been the same"

Specifically, this claim:

This, low frequency electromagnetic exposure (ie. near powerlines) and mobile phone radiation are amongst the most intensively studied human health phenomena on this planet, and in all cases the conclusion has been the same: Whatever the wishful thinking on the part of (pr)opponents, no statistical link has been demonstrated between the supposed causative agent and the purported effect. (caveat: Extreme levels of exposure, far in excess of those met in the real world have shown some deleterious effect, and some have argued that extrapolation back to real world exposure levels, must have some effect even if it is not statistically measurable.)

A news report was cited in this forum recently that disagrees with that claim (unfortunately, I'm having trouble linking to the thread).

A short excerpt from a news report on this study:

'Cancer link' to heavy mobile use

The majority of studies have not found an increased cancer risk
Heavy mobile phone use may be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland, a study suggests.
Researchers looked at 500 Israelis who had developed the condition and compared their mobile phone usage with 1,300 healthy controls.

Those who had used the phone against one side of the head for several hours a day were 50% more likely to have developed a salivary gland tumour.

The research appeared in The American Journal of Epidemiology.

Numerous studies have focused on the risk of tumours among those who use mobile phones, and overwhelmingly found no increased cancer risk.

But researchers at Tel Aviv University say these have tended to focus on brain tumours, and often did not include long-term users.

Cancer of the salivary gland is a very rare condition. Of the 230,000 cases of cancer diagnosed in the UK for instance annually, only 550 relate to this area.

Dr Siegal Sadetzki, who led the research, said while mobile phone use in Israel was much heavier than in many other parts of the world, this gave an insight into what the long-term, cumulative impact could be.

As far as I can tell, Dr Siegal Sadetzki, is an internationally recognized expert on this topic.

[Celebration]

18. CDC figures

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm

Results from CDC’s ADDM network showed the average ASD prevalence among states participating in the project was 6.7 per 1,000 children in 2000 (6 sites) and 6.6 per 1,000 in 2002 (14 sites), or approximately 1in 150 children.

[TheMadMonk]

24. Perhaps the figure I recall is for historical (or worldwide) averages.

Advancing parental age (see my #21 below) alone would account for a large chunk (1/3 to 1/2) of the difference between that figure and yours from the CDC. Changing diagnostic criteria likely also account for some of that difference. And then there are the wholesale changes in family structure.

Whatever the actual figures, the cite about the Amish someone raised earlier, demonstrates nothing whatsoever about vaccines. That they constitute a near perfect control sub-population within the US, very strongly suggests that there is something very wrong with America itself.

And if my figures and yours are both correct in their own context, then that suggestion, takes on the appearance of a damning indictment.

[motocicleta]

40. "Between the various diseases vaccinated against, the mortality (ie. dead kid, dead kid, DEAD KID)

rate runs to somewhere between 60 and 90 percent."

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? 60 to 90% mortality? Give me a fucking break. In all of your edits, you somehow missed the most egregious pile of shit I believe I have ever witnessed. Even the most fervent Vaxite has never claimed 60-90% mortality before vax. You're just sloppy, much like your raison d'etre.

You suggest that I enjoy the safety of the herd while not doing my civic duty. Bite me, moron. My family has no history, for the last 200 years, of falling victim to any, I repeat, ANY, of the diseases there are vaccinations for. I took the vax's, and I will give them to my kids when I am sure they are old enough to handle the immune system load without causing collateral damage such as eczema or asthma. I don't dislike vax's on their own.


I just don't like lowest common denominator culture, health policy, or, frankly, anything. And it is so obvious that you do adore LCD behavior, so live it up, TMM. I will always remember you as the apostle of LCD. Congratulations.

[trotsky]

44. BWAH HA HA HA

You suggest that I enjoy the safety of the herd while not doing my civic duty. Bite me, moron. My family has no history, for the last 200 years, of falling victim to any, I repeat, ANY, of the diseases there are vaccinations for.

You just proved that you (and your family) HAVE enjoyed herd immunity. So much for the liberal concept of shared risk / shared burden of society. You anti-vax libertarians disgust me.

[motocicleta]

46. That's odd.

You nanny-state, civil-rights-violating, LCD, rude, insulting boors don't disgust me. Pity? Yes. Disgust? No.

[trotsky]

47. Hilarious!

You're on the wrong site, if you embrace the "nanny state" silliness. Public health is not a "nanny state" concern.

[motocicleta]

53. You may not have gotten the memo.

Fiscal sanity is now part of the Democratic Party m/o.

Ergo, giving gobs of taxpayer dollars to Big Pharma to inject toxins which may or may not provide some protection to children for diseases which may or may not be more dangerous than the side effects of the injected toxins to some small percentage of living children is no longer considered sane.

In other words, your version of public health, while the dominant paradigm, will likely be viewed with scorn and quite rightly as very little related to a reasonable concept of public health by future generations.

[trotsky]

59. What a sad, paranoid life you must lead.

I'm sorry you don't understand how vaccines work, or how they're made, or why they're necessary.

[cosmik debris]

60. It makes you wonder what it is like

To tremble a mile in his shoes?

[TheMadMonk]

55. Mine mistake. I was thinking of third world/pre-industial mortality...

...rates in general. Though arguably sanitation is a form of vaccination of the communal organism.

Yes I do suggest that you are a freeloader enjoying the safety of the herd. Your children's safety until you get around to vaccinating them, relies upon the fact that a sufficiently large percentage of the herd (of which you speak so disparagingly) is vaccinated to prevent disease hot spots from forming. 200 years of no diseases in your family? I congratulate you on your genome.

A heavily urbanised culture either looks after ALL of its members, even at the expense of a few individuals, or it dies wallowing in its own filth.

So take your bloody libertarian "Fuck you Charlie! I've got mine." attitude over to Free Republic where it might be welcome.

[motocicleta]

56. Thanks! about the genome.

Unfortunately it comes with this rapier-like wit and coal black heart that are constantly goading me into toying with those of a lesser god.

And I congratulate you on the opposable thumbs. You seem to be doing a wonderful job typing away with that whole hand thing you have there. Nice work. Who cares if you're spending your free time arguing for a nearly worthless public health policy that serves primarily to fatten the pockets of some of the worst humans on earth? The kind who pay for the elections of such villains as George Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard? I am quite sure your creator will not look too harshly on your choice of pastimes.

So suggest I am a freeloader. You may be right, you may be wrong. One thing I know you're wrong about, though, is your "...third world/pre-industial mortality..." You would be wrong if you were talking about the Black Death, junior logician. 60 to 90% mortality is not a reasonable figure for any communicable disease, yet. At least not in the time frame you are suggesting. Although I am sure if you "public health" wizards keep messing with the natural order of things, you will find a way to push us there.

I just love how you drama queen "public health" advocates act like you can beat the system. It's almost like you think you can find a way to not die. It's so cute, trying to better natural selection. Don't you get it? You can monkey with the diseases for a while, but if you cheat Death long enough, the natural ingenuity of disease will bite you in the ass.

So suggest I am a freeloader. My opinion of you, as should now be clear, is much, much worse. And truly, you can take your ignorance, vitriol, arrogance, hatred of civil rights, and lack of imagination over to Free Republic, where it most certainly will be welcome.

[TheMadMonk]

57. Civil Rights come with Civic RESPONSIBILITIES.

Something which you obviously have absolutely no concept of.

Any ONE communicable disease no. A combination of several diseases, very easily. Learn some combinatorial mathematics. 22 instances of a 1 in 365 chance = a 50% chance. (Classic example of the likelyhood 2 players on a soccer field sharing a birthday)

Consider the fairly common tribal practice of not naming children (giving them personhood) until they are several years old. 60%+ of children born dying before they reach 5 years of age is pretty normal in tribal societies. And in the crowded urban conditions of yesteryear mortality rates amongst the poor were far more horrendous. Women giving birth to children year after year, often till they died giving birth, with only two or three out of ten children surviving to adulthood.

However, you have made your opinion of such people abundantly clear. If they can't "do for themselves" like you fuck 'em.

Are you familiar with http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=144">A Day in the Life of Joe Republican ?

Guess what? You're just as much a "social parasite" as all those "lesser people" you hate.

Oh and your half right about the wit thing.

[motocicleta]

61. You should re-read my posts - there is no 'hate',

no reason to think I don't understand permutations or civic responsibility, and the only lesser people to which I refer are sanctimonious, sophomoric pricks like you.

"60%+ of children born dying before they reach 5 years of age is pretty normal in tribal societies." Cite, please, or shut your lying gob. You're seriously full of crap. I am looking at the stats, and while nothing to laud, they are nowhere near your claims.

That, in other words, is quite enough from you. You have no answer for my questions regarding the long term safety of vaccinations for our species, and you act as if I have absolutely no basis for my concern, and you are insulting. You misrepresent my position, you put words in my mouth, and you ignore my intentions. You don't even have your facts straight, and you change your math to suit your own purposes. You are, in essence, a child arguing with an adult. You can keep arguing, but you are not adding anything to the argument, so don't be shocked when I do not respond.

[TheMadMonk]

63. O.K. my numbers are wrong. FOR POPULATIONS.

They remain correct (as upper boundaries at least) for individual families.

And I am finding population figures approaching 20% http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/6/965 without too much trouble.

What questions? You made a claim that Nature fights back. Yup. Against treatments for disease organisms that are actively attacking their host. Generally through a combination of human stupidity, laziness and greed: Misuse, underuse and overuse of antibiotics.

Vaccines prevent diseases getting a toehold in the first place. They have been instrumental in eliminating diseases entirely, or reducing their prevalence to the point where they cannot run rampant through a population. AFAIK there are no known instances of vaccines causing a disease causing organism to evolve "around" them. Yes, some diseases are highly mutable, influenza being a prime example, but that mutability is an inherent property of the organism, it is in no way a result of vaccination programs.

Exactly what is the basis for your concerns? As best as I can tell from your words, it's that Nature is not being permitted to cull the herd.

Since you're so big on meaningful numbers, it can't be the standard anti-vaccination argument. That hypothesis has absolutely no figures to support it, and there are plenty to suggest that the most likely cause of ASDs is random genetic damage.

And if you must be insulting, please keep it out of the gutter. After all you're the one with the "rapier like wit".

[trotsky]

65. You nailed it.

Exactly what is the basis for your concerns? As best as I can tell from your words, it's that Nature is not being permitted to cull the herd.

Check out his post #62 below. He'd rather let "god" kill children than try to save them.

[motocicleta]

76. I am big on meaningful numbers because

I do not believe the stats you attribute to anti-vax (huge infant mortality) nor the numbers you attribute to vax (low side effects, high disease numbers without vax) are correct.

A. Places where one finds high infant mortality, one finds many factors. I rate sanitation, nutrition, education, economy, and democracy all above vaccinations in determining mortality. Call me crazy. That does not mean there is no case to be made for vaccinations, but it is way down on the list considering the potential side effects and the corporate money to be made off enforcing public policy vaccinations. I am not a libertarian, these are just issues thinking humans should take into account.

B. Side effects, I am sure, are under-reported. My child very clearly had an outbreak of eczema related to her first three vaccinations. While this may seem trivial to some, she has since suffered from eczema for the last 4 1/2 years. This has included, among other things, many nights of waking up 20+ times, and years of never sleeping more than 1.5 hours on average. Did this occur because she initially developed eczema after vaccinations? No one will ever know. Given, however, that she was clear-skinned until that vaccination, and that eczema is often an immune-response disorder, and that vaccinations deal with the immune system, it seems sloppy to assume the two couldn't possibly be related.

C. 1 in 10 will be dead before the age of 5? You cannot possibly think this is ameliorated solely by vaccines, right? No one is that ignorant. I will assume you did not intend to imply that.

D. I have absolutely no theory on ASDs, although I am open to the possibility that we will find out later that vaccinations are actually the culprit, as I am open to never finding that out. I do not trust our corporate government/health structure to find the truth quickly. I just don't like being forced to vaccinate my kids when I know ther may be side effects. Now, I understand that my children's safety, minus vaccinations, has been purchased at the detriment of past generations being vaccinated. But I challenge anyone, ANYONE, who is a thinking parent, to educate themselves regarding the possible negative outcomes of both vaccination and vaccination-avoidance, and to tell me they are 100% in either camp. There are good arguments to be made either way.

On the one hand you have the preponderance of evidence which says you better vaccinate or we will all be doomed to suffer these diseases. On the other, you have real life children who have been fucked up beyond repair because they were vaccinated. Only an ignorant non-parent, or a non-human, could be unmoved by these examples. I am educated, parent and human, and I see both sides, and I try as best I can to do the best for my children.

I respectfully suggest that anyone who can stand 100% in either camp, pro- or anti-vax, is either a uneducated non-parent or a non-human, or both.



Now to explain why I got into this thread in the first place, when I am actually such an equivocator: I don't like blowhards who misuse facts. TMM, that is you in your first post on this thread. These days, I don't think anyone actually changes anyone else's mind on anonymous bulletin boards; rather, we just use them as heat sinks for our anger and aggression. So when I see some sanctimonious yahoo playing it fast and loose with their facts, sometimes I just cut loose on them, just because they pissed me off. So for several days I haven't even been trying to change your minds, since I think a rational adult cannot be 100% in one camp anyway. This post probably presents the high water mark for my ability to influence people on this topic, and as such I rate it extremely low. At any rate it should explain why I think so poorly of folks who shill, unknowingly or otherwise, for one of the steady streams of income for big pharma.

So if you want to have a positive effect arguing for vaccinations, I'd suggest trying to be a little more careful with your facts, and a lot more careful with your bedside manner. Not that you have any chance of changing my mind, but you could possibly change somebody's less-educated mind if you talk quite a bit more kindly.

PS Trotsky: I am an atheist. I was referring to your god, because I assumed all dogmatic blowhards were christians. My bad.

[TheMadMonk]

78. My stats may be wrong, but i believe they are within the ballpark.

Indeed one does find many factors including the ones that you mention. And since I am finding it difficult to find figures that address these factors individually, I am making some assumptions/guesses. Since mortality rates for conditions of reasonable sanitation and nutrition without vaccines and for conditions of intolerably overcrowded with very poor sanitation and nutrition, but with vaccination are roughly equal, I'm using as a first approximation somewhat less than either case for the impact of vaccines with a variation of one full order of magnitude. 1 in 3 is definitely too high, 1 in 30 is almost certainly too low. 1 in ten sits neatly in the middle on a log scale, thus it does for the purpose of argument.

A quick check of accepted demonstrable significant side effects of established standard schedule vaccines gives a frequency range of 1 in 300 to a little under 1 in 1800. So again I feel justified using 1 in 1000 as a working figure, but I can adjust it down to 1 in 750 if you wish.

So whilst the numbers might not be 100% accurate, they do suffice for comparative purposes.


I agree, side effects are almost certainly under reported. The minor ones. Major one that result in a doctors visit are very mush less so. Whatever the case, you are not justified in ssigning your daughter's eczema to the shots she received simply because the two are coincident. Eczema rears its ugly head when and where it will, from birth to late adulthood, and pinning it down to any given initial triggering event is not often possible to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it was the shots, perhaps it was the dog licking her. Whatever it was, one case does not an argument make, and eczema was not on the list of demonstrated vaccine side effects at any frequency. I won't dismiss the possibility out of hand, but I will file it in the unproven column and henceforth ignore it until the emergence of data which demonstrates a probable link.

About 1 in ten. See my first paragraph for why I used this number for a working figure.


You are open to the possibility that vaccines cause ASDs, you are open to never having that proved. Thus you appear to be saying that you are not open to the possibility that vaccines have no bearing on ASDs.

Despite the lack of statistically significant evidence to demonstrate a case, you and many others demand that vaccines be considered as possible causative agents in ASDs, in addition you (and I am sure others) would add eczema to the growing list of possible ill effects of vaccines. Sometimes coincident timing is not evidence, no matter what you care to believe.

No one likes to be forced to do anything, even when that thing is the right thing to do. As I have explained elsewhere, the reason that such forcing is necessary, is that far too many people will weigh their child's 1 in 1000 chance of side effects against the current chance, (less than 1 in 10,000) of them actually contracting one of the diseases vaccinated against. For any one child this is a reasonably rational decision to make, but if the same decision is made for any more than about 1 child in 15 then the risk of epidemic outbreaks becomes very real. Furthermore I just realised/remembered something. The more active a disease is within a population, the greater it's chances of mutation into a strain which is not protected against by an existing vaccine, thus putting even the vaccinate population at risk. Human nature being what it is, society simply cannot afford to bet that at least 19 out of 20 (to be safe) parents will chose to risk their own child's health to guarantee (as best as is possible) the health of ALL children.

For the safety of society as a whole, possible negative outcomes, cannot be permitted to colour our decisions regarding vaccination. Vaccines should be withheld only when the risk to a given child can be positively deemed significant.

"On the one hand you have the preponderance of evidence which says you better vaccinate or we will all be doomed to suffer these diseases. On the other, you have real life children who have been fucked up beyond repair because they were vaccinated. Only an ignorant non-parent, or a non-human, could be unmoved by these examples. I am educated, parent and human, and I see both sides, and I try as best I can to do the best for my children.

For someone who accuses others of misrepresenting facts, you sure do a lot of it yourself. No one is suggesting that we would ALL be doomed to suffer these diseases. Though indeed the evidence tells us unequivocally that society does suffer a great deal when these diseases are permitted to have their way and that a great many individuals will suffer fatal or permanent injury as a result.

Next you state as a bald fact that vaccines do cause irreparable harm, without putting that harm in its proper context, which is that the instances of proven (or even probable) irreparable harm are very few and far between, and for any randomly chosen child that such events are roughly 1000 times less likely than that child suffering an equal level of harm in an unvaccinated population.

I am not unmoved by the few children who do come to harm as a result of vaccination, I am simply rationally aware that to avoid great harm to a great many children, it is unfortunately necessary to put these few in harms way.


As best I can tell you are here to sow fear uncertainty and doubt, with a great many deliberate part truths and misrepresentations of fact. I was wrong in the specific numbers I quoted, and I admitted it and will admit it again. However, substituting more realistic figures (or exquisitely exact ones) for my invalid ones, does not materially alter the sense of my original argument, or of my arguments since then. Boiled down to the bare essentials that argument is:

It is an unfortunate necessity that in order to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, a very small number must be sacrificed.

There you go again with yet another misrepresentation, implying guilt by association (with Big Pharma) in order to taint my arguments and lessen their impact on others.


An atheist? Really? I quote. "Is it just numbers to people like you? If more children are saved from x disease than suffer from y side effect, the cause is justified? Even if x is less serious than y? I ask this because I seriously don't get this debate. In my mind, the x disease is like an act of god, and the y side effect is an act of man; we may wish x didn't happen, but we will be the cause of y. We will make some otherwise healthy children fucked. Because of this, I wish to not produce y at all, no matter how many kids will escape x.

Firstly you are misrepresenting the truth by comparing one specific worst case instance of y, against a population average outcome of x, and discounting the far greater likelihood of worst case x to boot. Secondly you relied on the will of a God you now claim not to believe in, to support your argument. Thirdly you use highly emotive and subjective terms to elevate unfortunate, but rare occurrences to a greater degree of harmfulness than the very real and factually greater harm of the alternative.

Whatever your status as a believer, you have demonstrated time and time again that you are the worst kind of hypocrite. My biggest besetting sins are that I sometimes misremember things and that I am to lazy to properly check my numerical "facts" until I am called on my mistakes.

[motocicleta]

80. Well, at least I have helped you refine your facts.

That is a good thing. This is probably your best effort. Not going to change anyone's mind, but a better formulation.

Thus you appear to be saying that you are not open to the possibility that vaccines have no bearing on ASDs. That was not my intention. I misspoke.

And since I am finding it difficult to find figures that address these factors individually, I am making some assumptions/guesses. You don't do epidemiology for a living, do you? Congratulations on priding yourself on your guesses. Get back to me when you have some facts to report. Eczema rears its ugly head when and where it will, from birth to late adulthood, and pinning it down to any given initial triggering event is not often possible to the best of my knowledge. Again, it sounds more and more like the best of your knowledge is no match for the best of my knowledge.

Do you know why there are no good studies that you can cite that address these factors individually? Because there is no CONTROL GROUP. Everybody here in the land of fish eating, mercury sniffing, smart parent having, Americans, has been vaccinated. Exactly how can we do a good study about the effects, and side effects, of vaccines without a control group? And in these "tribal areas" that you earlier claimed had under-5 mortalities of 60%, commonly, nobody is doing good studies that control for all of the other factors that I mentioned. Guess what? In your "tribal areas", they are still pumping out studies that purport that circumcising boys will cut down AIDS by a huge number, even though the study is so flawed a third grader could rip it to shreds.

You might know the term control group (and you might not). It is what is necessary for any study to be truly bullet-proof, along with a host of other factors like proper survey size, etc. I cannot tell whether you know these things, based on your arguments. Stop me if I'm being redundant.

It's funny. When we started this whole thing, I thought you probably knew what you were talking about, but were such a blowhard and didn't care a lick about the collateral damage that it just pissed me off. Now, though, the more I read about vaccinations, and the more you admit to having completely fudged data, the less I think you have any idea what you're talking about, and the more I think maybe I was right when I speciously said vaccinations were a nearly useless public health policy.

It is an unfortunate necessity that in order to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, a very small number must be sacrificed. That is precisely the philosophy with which I disagree. You hold to a valid (internally consistent, recognized, arguable) moral theory, it is just not the one to which I subscribe. I find your willingness to sacrifice otherwise healthy children for the good of the whole just the kind of mentality that allows for the rise of fascism. One must be willing to maim and to kill in the name of the "greatest good" in order to accomplish truly monstrous feats.

So, as far as you thinking me a hypocrite: I hold your kind, with your eagerness to use incorrect facts to hurt your fellow man, in such contempt that your assessment is not only laughable, but also of no consequence. And your notion that I am not an atheist is woefully incorrect. Not one person has ever existed who had less of a belief in god, or any other spirituality than I.

I just don't place the typical amount of faith in the state of contemporary western health science. In fact, I find the faith your kind places in vaccination science to be right up there with the evangelists and their brooding man in the sky.

Cheers!

[TheMadMonk]

83. That's generally the way it goes with me.

I read a great deal, on a great many subjects, to get as large an overview of all scientific fields as possible. An armchair natural philosopher if you will. Thus I often mis-remember or confuse specific facts, particularly numbers.

And for the purposes of illustrating a particular argument exact figures are not always necessary. Any numbers that preserve approximate relationships will do.

My knowledge of eczema is indeed very limited. So I just went and had a very brief look. It would appear that the underlying cause is genetic, with environmental triggers causing it to actually manifest. Smallpox vaccine is most definitely implicated, and occasionally DPT, along with twenty-'leven other non vaccine related triggers. Bit like sideshow alley really. If they don't fleece you with the ring toss, they'll get you with the blunt darts and under-filled balloons. If it's going to happen, then it almost certainly eventually will. Eliminating one cause, simply leaves the door open for another.

No there is no control group of the nature you speak of, because creating one would be unconscionably immoral. Sometimes we have no choice but to do the best we can with what's available to us. And we can establish approximate controls by using events such as Katrina and the Boxing day tsunami, taking the children who's vaccinations were delayed by a month or more and seeing if there is any change in the timing of presumed deleterious events amongst them. I have no knowledge of such being done in that specific instance, but I do know that researchers do take advantage of serendipitous events that result in happenstances that would be morally wrong to do deliberately to refine their data. They also use historical records and as best they can try to account for complicating factors.

I think we can reasonably safely assume that if unvaccinated tribal populations are used as controls, that the researchers do in fact do their level best to account for all other factors. Certainly they mention doing such in studies on other subjects, where they are forced by circumstance to use less than ideal controls and I have read in that much detail.

Some vaccination studies use huge samples, millions in some cases I believe. Certainly far larger than get used in virtually any other field of endeavor. Large enough in fact that they can isolate the very low percentage of unvaccinated individuals to serve as at least a first approximation control. Yes I am aware that best practice calls for like sized groups, but as I have already noted this is not always possible.

Kirby and others like him take the approach of gathering together all affected (by ASDs) children and pointing: "See they were all vaccinated. It happened when they were vaccinated. Therefore the vaccine did it."

This is tantamount to claiming that breathing causes death, because air contains an oxidant. Try removing the oxidant and see how far you get. :D

In science, it does not matter how many data points support a particular hypothesis or theory. One data point that knocks it on the head kills it, or at the very least demands that it be modified to account for the inconvenient data. Furthermore a competing theorem (in this case the influence of paternal age on the quality of genetic material) that more simply explains observed facts, stands a far greater chance of being right.

Please note that I am not saying that the cause of ASDs is advancing paternal age. The cause is genetic anomaly. One very strongly influencing factor is advancing paternal age. Another would almost certainly be the quantity of environmental pollutants in an increasingly industrialised society. This last would also explain why ASDs are more and more common in the same societies which routinely vaccinate. Pollutants and vaccines simply inhabit the same data space. Should we claim that one causes the other?


"...will cut down AIDS by a huge number" My emphasis. Excuse me, this is a misrepresentation. The research to which you refer, claimed to show that circumcision had a small, but significant (as in statistically detectable) effect on the rate of HIV transmission. It may well be true that the study was flawed, I have no knowledge one way or another. (It's one of those things I read and didn't follow up on.) However, your attacking it with misrepresentation rather than pointing out the actual flaws seriously harms your credibility in the matter.

Approximated please. :D Because there is such a huge variance between mortality rates for the diseases vaccinated against and the maximum presumed harm attributed to those vaccines, even very rough numbers do nothing to change the outcomes. As I specifically noted the real figures lie somewhere in the ranges of 1 in 3-30 and 1 in 300-2000 respectively. Any figures which fall into those ranges will do for basic illustration of principle, though of course they are useless when it comes to making useful predictions.


Right, we're knocking heads over a basic libertarian principle, it is your (apparent) belief that the individual always trumps the many.

What I find absolutely repugnant is your callous willingness to allow a large number of children to die, because you believe your superior genetic heritage will suffice to protect your children from harm in a dog eat dog world. You might well be right, but those other children would still die, to protect your children from a harm that is demonstrably more perceived than real. (I am referring to permanent, as opposed to transient (no matter how severe) side effects.)

I advocate acting, even knowing that some harm is inevitable, in order to minimise total harm.

You on the other hand advocated passively standing to one side, allowing great harm, letting all blame devolve to a God you claim not to believe in, whilst claiming the moral high ground because no direct act of yours led to specific harm.

Actually it is your "me and mine first" philosophy which is more likely to lead to fascism. I offer exhibit A)meurika as evidence.

[TheMadMonk]

58. Just love the "Children of a Lesser God" reference.

Tells us all exactly what sort of person you are.

[SidDithers]

43. Great freakin' post...

wish I could recommend it.

:applause:

Sid

[jberryhill]

9. Pretty amazing what some people will make of a paper they've never seen

So, in a motion, the DHS stipulated to the plaintiff having a pre-existing condition.

That's the bombshell here?

And then some guy with a definite agenda blows that into some major legal development, and folks here buy that as some major development.

Wow.

[arendt]

10. I cannot believe the vitriol on this topic. Folks, this is a decision by a Master Panel of experts..

can we please stop accusing everyone of being pro- or anti-vaccine "nazis".

The science is murky. So, anyone, on either side, who claims to have this figured out is simply not credible. The area clearly requires more research.

The problem, to my mind, is that the government has spent years demonizing the parents of these kids as whack jobs. And you know what? What goes around comes around.

So, instead of another GD-P flame war, could we POSSIBLY have an intelligent discussion?

Has anyone read the papers cited in the article? Is anyone familiar with the body of research on Mt disease? Can they educate us in an objective manner (i.e., without the name-calling, sneering, etc - which have no place in a scientific discussion).

arendt

P.S. not to say scientists don't sneer and name-call. They just do it in such a rarified manner that you have to be well-educated to understand you are being insulted.

[Celebration]

12. I'm with you!

The public health benefits of vaccination are very clear and cannot be denied. Furthermore most kids don't get autism or other disorders that some attribute to vaccination.

I am not at all convinced that the current vaccinations schedules are benign, and doctors may need to be much more cautious about vaccination with certain subsets of patients. It doesn't appear to me that the authorities want to undertake any such studies that could point out problems with the combination of vaccines that kids get, for instance. It seems that science has become political.

I just think we need the truth. That "accepted" studies to date show no link between a certain injection and autism may tell us more about the particular design of the study than anything else.

If nothing else, doctors need to be less cavalier about vaccines. Why was this child given both vaccinations at the same time? Children should be perfectly healthy when they are given vaccinations.

[arendt]

13. And, I'm with you. Its not black-and-white, either-or...

every point you made (vaccine schedules, suppressed studies) is a matter of when and how much and will industry tell the public.

"It seems that science has become political." - DING. DING. DING. We have a winner.

Another disgusting legacy of the Bush Administration. Truth? We don't need no steenken' truth!

arendt

[TheMadMonk]

14. Experts for the plaintif and for the defence are demonstrably biased.

Each in the direction of the case they are arguing. It almost invariably comes down to whichever side has the deeper pockets.

The science is not murky. The science demonstrates not demonstrable link between vaccines/Thiomerserol and ASDs.

Whether or not the government holds these parents up as whack jobs. The numbers speak for themselves. In communities where these parents form a significant sub-population, the incidence of preventable disease and hence the suffering of children, who cannot advocate for themselves, is significantly higher.

The (vain?) hope of intelligent discussion is exactly why I spend an hour or more writing arguments that I know will be dismissed as worthless by many.


Without even reading the papers cited in the original article I am perfectly happy to concede that an unfortunate concatenation of genetic circumstances might leave a given child susceptible. However, I would argue that since the goalposts erected by the anti-vaccination brigade specifically cited the mercury in Thiomerserol as the causative agent, then environmental exposure is almost guaranteed to bring about deleterious effects in such children regardless. Or discarding such, the cited mitochondrial disorder, might very well be why the diseases which these vaccination protect us against do in fact kill a small number of sufferers.

And having made that concession, I still have no problem with the unfortunate few suffering as they might, in order that the vast majority of us do not have to hold a dying child in our arms, and do so again, and again at intervals measured in just hours, if not minutes.

P.S. Not to say that the ignorant don't name call either. They just do it so transparently that they are dismissed out of hand.

[arendt]

19. Since no one knows what causes autism or what the mechanism is...

I find your opinion that the science is settled to be just as prejudiced as anyone else in this discussion.

How can you rule something out as a cause when no one has a clue what the disease mechanism is? How can you walk away from statistics that mitochondrial disorder is involved in something over 30% of all cases? And, finally, how can you walk away from the "coincidence" that seemingly healthy kids start this spiral right after a massive dose of vaccines.

I don't have an answer, but I don't see how declaring that a topic which is not understood cannot be investigated is going to solve the problem. It may be that you should give fewer vaccinations at one sitting, or wait until the child is older. I am not going near the mercury issue. But I do think there is cause to question giving ten vaccinations at a time to infants.

You are too black and white. Wanting to understand these seeming correlations is what scientists do. How do you know that investigating these cases will not result in a scientific insight. Your assumption is that any investigation will inevitably lead to giving everyone the right to refuse vaccinations. That is fear-mongering.

Why must you resort to terms like "the anti-vaccination brigade"? Why do you implicitly whitewash any possible corporate malfeasance or negligence? In case you hadn't noticed, they cook up junk science to order (global warming is a myth). I'm not taking a side and saying vaccines do cause autism. I am saying that just because the corporations say they've done the science is no reason for me to take it on faith.

arendt

[TheMadMonk]

21. Because some cases of autism can be attributed to a physical brain...

...defect. Unfortunately it can not be detected, except in autopsy conducted after the death of the sufferer, but it is there nonetheless. And the nature of that defect is such that it can only occur a result of improper development of the brain in the womb.

A leading cause of mitochondrial disorders is advanced maternal age. If this 30% link you cite is real, why don't we blame selfish mothers, who put their career ahead of mental wellbeing of their children, for Autism?

I just recalled upon waking up, that paternal age too plays a large part.

This from an article in http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html">The Washington Post

When fathers are in their thirties, children have about 1 1/2 times the risk of developing autism of children of fathers in their teens and twenties. Compared with the offspring of the youngest fathers, children of fathers in their forties have more than five times the risk of developing autism, and children of fathers in their fifties have more than nine times the risk.

Google autism + paternal age for more.

One absolutely measurable (if not usefully so) cause of some forms of autism. AND two concretely quantifiable risk factors, both of which land the blame squarely at the feet of the parents' and implicate their personal (oftimes selfish) lifestyle choices.

No matter how you slice the numbers, it remains impossible to establish a scientifically quantifiable link between vaccines and ASDs. Factor in modern desires for big screen TVs, McMansions, SUVs, brand new everythings and the numbers fairly leap off the page. If there ever was a case of "the beam in one's own eye" this is it.

"Black and White" this: Autism, whatever its causes affects less than one in a hundred children. Once vaccination rates fall below a certain level, tens out of every hundred of those non-vaccinated children are effectively condemned to death.

Why do I call objectors "the anti-vaccination brigade"? Because they fall into exactly the same catagory as those who believe: they can't get pregnant if they have sex standing up; that ice cream eaten with the eyes closed has no calories. Woolly minded wishful thinkers, determined to indulge their desires whilst fallaciously excusing themselves of any personal blame for the consequences of their selfish actions. Also because they are determined to externalise any possible blame for their child's misfortune. Natural as such a desire might be, indulging it can only hurt themselves and others.

I am not whitewashing any possible corporate malfeasance. I am stating that despite decades of efforts on the part of numerous entities, including those determined to demonstrate a link, no such link has been found.

Proof of corporate malfeasance in one sphere, does not demonstrate corporate malfeasance in all spheres.

[arendt]

22. Why are you so interested in "blame"? Blame is a value judgment; not a scientific one...

my only interest here is in the cause of the disease of autism. I have no axe to grind re vaccination.

And, I am sorry; but corporations are guilty until proven innocent. I work in the pharmacy business, and they would poison their own mother for a profit. And, I can cite regulatory judgments that show such behavior.

arendt

[TheMadMonk]

25. Excuse me! I am not the one BLAMING vaccines in the absence...

...of and demonstrable link.

And I did not in any way, shape or form make the claim that you are amongst those ascribing such blame.

The proximate cause of at least one disease/disorder amongst the many now lumped together as autism spectrum disorders is known. A missing 2 mm thick slice of the brain stem. It is a developmental defect. An entirely quantifiable risk factor, whatever the actual causative mechanism/agent, is parental/paternal age. Another apparently quantifiable risk factor is the degree of westernisation of the society into which the child is born.

Big pharma does play a role in the last, but it also plays a role in non-westernised nations where its only significant point of contact is the supply of vaccines. If it is to be implicated at all in ASDs then it can be very easily demonstrated that any such influence is not through inoculating agents or the preservative present therein.


How Dianetic of you. A good many of the inoculating agents that it was/is fashionable to blame were developed at a time BEFORE big pharma became the money hungry monster it is today. When despite huge efforts to find it, no smoking gun could be produced there, those most determined to play the blame game shifted the goalposts and tried to blame either newer vaccines, or some multiple whammy effect. And still that smoking gun could not be found.

Finally when someone thought to look elsewhere the stink of cordite was found. Not on the hands of some faceless corporate entity, but on the hands of those jumping up and down pointing the finger and screaming "they did it." And on the hands of those who wanted a better life for themselves or believed they were making a better life for their children.

We still don't have the actual gun, or the bullet it fires, but we do know at least some of those factors which make that bullet far more likely to strike home.

And with that knowledge we can deflect its aim simply by doing as nature intended and have our children young. And to avoid the worst excesses of a westernised society.

[arendt]

26. I have no intention of arguing with a fanatic like you. This is simply not my issue...

why the hell are you crucifying me? I just have a scientific curiosity. You seem to think anyone who doubts your interpretation is a mass murderer.

Get a life. And lighten the fuck up.

arendt

[TheMadMonk]

30. Fanatical? Yup. Fanatical about not killing children through ignorance...

...and wishful thinking. Am I calling these folk, mass murderers? I don't really think so. A good many are simply desperate people searching frantically for answers that simply do not exist. Those lines of inquiry that are beginning to emerge, unfortunately point in a very disturbing direction, suggesting that decisions made for personal, but presumed neutral reason, or indeed for good faith reasons thought to be in the best interests of anticipated children, might actually be increasing the chances of children coming to harm. Parents are very good at blaming themselves for the misfortunes of their children. Human beings as a whole are also quite good at laying blame at another's feet, given the opportunity to do so.

Others are (often well meaning) folk who, for very good reasons are suspicious of certain interested parties, but in their ignorance and suspiscion are guilty of assuming universal bad faith. Except for some clearly marked tinfoil hattery in my first post in this thread, I accuse none of deliberately and maliciously putting children at risk. Malicious intent, being a prime criteria that makes murder what it is.

I do however accuse some of willful ignorance (for whatever reasons) which has the effect of putting the lives of children potentially and needlessly at risk, to negate an entirely undemonstrated risk factor that even if absolutely proven would still be far far smaller than the known and absolutely quantifiable dangers of certain truly horrific diseases. Such proof, if it ever eventuates, would be no reason to abandon vaccination, because what might be good for one child would still remain terrifyingly bad for all children. Only if we could identify with near absolute certainty those children who would definitely be affected could we chance withholding vaccination, and only then in those specific instances.

We might not like being "forced" to inoculate our children, but forced we must be, because without the remembered example of our own and our neighbour's family members dying in job lots to goad us into doing the right thing, far too many succumb to the temptation of letting others shoulder the burden. And it is a scientifically demonstrable fact, that when too many voluntarily opt out of the program, these diseases reappear with a vengeance.


I specifically point out that I am not pointing the finger at you personally and you immediately take every word I write as a personal attack. Why must the fault therefore lie with my making statements and inferences with which you personally disagree?


I suffer from scientific curiosity like you wouldn't believe. I also understand that its proper application lies in demonstrating that which can be demonstrated with a certain minimum degree of rigour. Not in indulging unproven speculation.

Those who would have vaccines be the (or at least a) causative agent for ASDs, claim that in the absence of absolute proof that they are not a causative agent, that they must be considered as a probable (not possible, but probable) causative agent. Further, a good many, attribute any and all negative findings to corporate/governmental malfeasance and conspiracy. A practice which you come dangerously close to embracing yourself.

This is not indulging scientific curiosity. This is a witch hunt. You will have to examine your own motivations to determine whether or not this constitutes a personal attack against you.

I do not deny that mis/malfeasance exists in the pharmaceutical industry. There is any amount of evidence that it exists and I have so argued in other situations when the evidence so warranted. In this case however, there is no such evidence, even under the intensive scrutiny of independent investigators who had/have a vested interest in unearthing any such evidence.

I won't even deny that some vaccines have been proven to have unexpected and sometimes deleterious side effects, but that has more to do with the nature of the disease they are intended to fight than of the vaccines themselves. This cam easily be explained by the simple fact that all the easy to target diseases are long sorted. What is being aimed at now are tricky bastards that have the genetic mechanisms to fight back against our efforts to eradicate them.

[K8-EEE]

45. MadMonk is EXTREMELY pro-PHARMA!

This guy pops up every time this subject surfaces and always takes this hysterical YOU WANT DISEASED CHILDREN! tone on everything....

[arendt]

49. He's pro-pharma to the point of being anti-science, IMHO. n/t

[chicagomd]

50. Good old ad hominem

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

My personal favorite, carry on.

[TheMadMonk]

51. Want to read my last two paragraphs mate?

I am very pro vaccination. No more. No less. Why? Because it saves lives.

I am not at all pro-pharma. I do not like ADHD drugs at all. Nor a lot of other things that they do.

I am also very much in favour of evidence based arguments. "See it happens at the same time." Is not evidence. Particularly when it can be conclusively demonstrated that in some cases at least the alleged effect precedes the purported cause.

Show me concrete or at least decent inferential evidence and I will be interested.

From the real evidence emerging on ASDs is that one of the most major contributing factors is the age of the parents. And it doesn't matter how you slice or dice that. It can't be pinned on the pharmaceutical industry.

[cosmik debris]

52. evidence based arguments my ass!

This is the Health Scare Lounge. Emotion based arguments always win. Spare us your facts and research, we just want to know how you feel. That's the only way to judge your credibility!

:sarcasm:

[TheMadMonk]

54. Exactly. "I know what I know. I don't need no steenkin' facts."

It's amazing how many here act exactly like them "Over There".

Only the subject matter varies. (Or when it comes to guns, the spelling is just a little better.)

[K8-EEE]

39. Oh I believe it. It happens every time and IMO

Is orchestrated by some of the people. I truly believe that.

[mzmolly]

69. Some people here continually dismiss any concern with any vaccine and equate them

to lunacy and paranoid antics. This apparently does not stop with "the experts" as the cult has been conditioned to attack the messenger, regardless.

Thanks for your post arndt.

[newfie11]

17. Hell my dogs don't get that many

vaccines at one time. These babies systems are being pushed to much.



received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

[chicagomd]

20. Now what, indeed?

Now those with an agenda like David Kirby have more ammunition to whip up the masses, and those of us in the trenches advocating for the health of children will continue to have to decide how to balance out the latest anti-vaccine frenzy with known, established public health concerns like vaccine preventable illness.

I think most of us, even those who would like to take as fact everything writers like Mr. Kirby post on the internet, have the intelligence to remain skeptical until there is some independent confirmation of this case. The mitochondrial link is very interesting, however. Many of the neonatal state screening programs are starting to add mitochondiral diseases to the battery of inherited conditions tested for at birth.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if we would identify children like the alleged one mentioned in the article at birth?

[Jim__]

23. This may be an independent confirmation of the case.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this website, but it does have what it calls the: FULL TEXT: AUTISM VACCINE CASE.

The text ends with:

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.

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
[phone]
DATE: November 9, 2007

Again, I can't vouch for the accuracy to the claim, but it does contain more information.

[chicagomd]

28. Thanks!

That website and David Kirby are far from independent of each other, but that copy of the claim if very enlightening.

Kirby, as is typical, is all spin, spin, spin.

It sounds like the family in question should have received compensation from DVIC irrespective of the child's diagnosis of "features of an autism spectrum disorder" or any type of mitochonrial disorder. From the text the child became encephalopathic following to her 18 month shots, a very rare, but well known and described side effect of vaccination, and one of the primary reasons DVIC exists in the first place. Vaccination is not without risk, but those risks are small when compared to the risk of vaccine preventable illness.

This case has nothing to do with chronic exposure, number of vaccines given, thimersol, aluminum, or any thing else Kirby implies.

He is grasping at straws and trying to tie things together that support his agenda.

[trotsky]

29. You mention a very important phrase.

features of an autism spectrum disorder

From all accounts so far, this child was never diagnosed with autism, but only exhibited "features" associated with it. Features of ASD are exhibited by MANY people who do not have autism. It sounds like your summary is quite accurate, chicagomd. This child sadly experienced one of the exceedingly rare side-effects of vaccination, which caused encephalopathy, and resulted in brain damage.

But the vaccination did not cause autism, at least not according to anything stated to this point.

[Celebration]

31. what is autism?

The diagnosis is determined by a kind of checkoff system--

"The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism." That is according to the article. Once those criteria are met, by definition, that is an appropriate label.

[trotsky]

33. Those are Kirby's words.

Not found in the actual text. Is Kirby qualified to diagnose ASD?

[Celebration]

34. parsing words maybe

Either the criteria are met or they aren't. It should be quite straightforward--not subject to interpretation at all. Whatever-- if the diagnosis had been *only* autism, the doctor probably knew there would be no chance to recover. Again--you meet the criteria, and by definition, you got it.

Do you have reason to believe that the author is lying, and that, in fact, the kid did not meet those criteria? There must be something in the record on this. I don't think he made it up. However, if you can show that he is lying I am willing to look at any evidence that you have to that effect.

[trotsky]

35. I have reason to believe that the author is financially motivated

to try and link vaccines and autism. It's how he has made significant money to this point - exploiting kids and their parents. The reverse AUTOMATICALLY sends up the red flags when it's something you don't want to believe, so why are you swallowing this?

Kirby is not a doctor. His diagnosis of autism is even weaker than Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo.

[chicagomd]

37. Frist, of course,

actually was a doctor. I threw-up a little in my mouth when I typed that, that guy makes me ill.

EDIT: Dyslexia strikes again.

[chicagomd]

36. The full text is linked...

you can read it for yourself.

The neurologist (Zimmerman) is quoted as stating: "regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.”

There is no mention of the child meeting the DSM IV criteria for autism. That seems to be a fabrication, or assumption, by the author.

[motocicleta]

62. I will be as calm as possible about this question, and I pray you can do the same.

Why is it okay for some kids who may or may not have the opportunity to contract a certain disease to definitely come down with what is obviously "one of the exceedingly rare side-effects of vaccination" such as encephalopathy? In other words, how can you square the clear-headed assault on some very few children in exchange for the protection of some other kids, who may or may not have had the opportunity to contract the disease in question?

I ask this in no relation to ASD. I am simply curious how a person can condemn a few kids to certain disease in exchange for a bunch of kids maybe getting protection from disease. It does not add up, to my mind.

Is it just numbers to people like you? If more children are saved from x disease than suffer from y side effect, the cause is justified? Even if x is less serious than y? I ask this because I seriously don't get this debate. In my mind, the x disease is like an act of god, and the y side effect is an act of man; we may wish x didn't happen, but we will be the cause of y. We will make some otherwise healthy children fucked. Because of this, I wish to not produce y at all, no matter how many kids will escape x.

Comments?

[trotsky]

64. Pray all you want.

Be warned, though: the facts are on my side.

Why is it okay for some kids who may or may not have the opportunity to contract a certain disease to definitely come down with what is obviously "one of the exceedingly rare side-effects of vaccination" such as encephalopathy?

Think about this for a moment. Do you know WHY unvaccinated kids have such a miniscule opportunity to contract that disease?

Because most of us vaccinate.

You haven't displayed one hint of understanding the principle of herd immunity on this thread. You need to understand this concept, because it completely blows away pretty much everything you've said. Your ignorance of it destroys any foundation for argument you had.

In my mind, the x disease is like an act of god, and the y side effect is an act of man

That's so fucked up it's disturbing. "Sorry you got blind from measles, kid. I guess it was gawd's will." Basically what you're saying is that as long as there is ANY possible side effect from a vaccine, no matter how minor, it's preferable to let kids die the natural way, via an "act of god" than do anything about it.

That crap is like fucked up Nazi-style eugenics. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I'm sure you can find lots of friends in the anti-vax movement.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheMadMonk]

72. Because some children will definitely die or be permanently affected...

...if they contract a disease such as diptheria, measles, mumps, polio, etc. Diseases that can be prevented by vaccination.

If you wish to characterise the "causing" of side effects through vaccination as "clear-headed assault" then, you must equally allow that the "permitting" of preventable deaths through withholding vaccines is culpable negligence.

It is a crap shoot either way. What differs are the odds. And the simple fact is that the chances of any given child suffering permanent disability or death as a result of vaccination are far far lower than the chances of that same child being permanently affected or dying in a world where disease is permitted to affect whoever it will.

Indeed it is just numbers. Very roughly. (ie. orders of magnitude rather than exact figures) Amongst those vaccinated, 1 in 1000 have a temporary if alarming reaction to a vaccine and less than 1 in 10,000 are permanently affected. In an unvaccinated population, about 1 in 10 children will be dead before their fifth birthday.

On average a vaccinated child is better than a thousand times better off than an unvaccinated child.

"If more children are saved from x disease than suffer from y side effect, the cause is justified? Even if x is less serious than y? I ask this because I seriously don't get this debate."

and I quote: "...or shut your lying gob." Excuse me. I was mistaken. However, YOU, by comparing one specific worst case instance of y, against a population average outcome of x are deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the truth to further an agenda which has no basis in fact. Slice it, dice it, or put it through a Mouli: Worst case x is on the order of 1000 times more likely than worst cast y. Consider your words thrown back in your face.

I'll see your "act of God" and raise you a "God helps those who help themselves." AND a Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

According to the doctrine I presume you subscribe to, God gave us brains to use, and the free will to chose between right and wrong. From where I'm sitting, you're giving him the finger on multiple counts. I'm an atheist, so my lot is oblivion whether I'm right or wrong. Enjoy your post corporeal experience. I know I will.

[mzmolly]

70. Why does it matter what we call the damage?

When people have features of a disorder it's generally diagnosed as said disorder. There isn't an "autism test" at this point, so we rely on a diagnosis. Sure, it's possible that vaccine related "features of autism" are not vanilla autism, but that does not negate concern about vaccines contributing to this health issue.

This case has nothing to do with chronic exposure, number of vaccines given, thimersol, aluminum, or any thing else Kirby implies.

What ever the mechanism it has to do with this specific vaccine.

Further, the years of cover up and dismissal of legitimate problems are to blame for any confusion on this matter. Had those agencies charged with protecting the public health actually considered the brains of children part of the equation, we'd not be grasping at straws today.

All these parents know is that their children declined immediately after this vaccination and as such, their children were DIAGNOSED with Autism or "autistic features". I doubt they give a rip what we as a society wish to label their dilemma.

[TheMadMonk]

73. It matters not at all.

What ultimately matters, is how does the damage resulting from a given action compare to the damage resulting from failing to perform that action? And the answer to that question is that, any randomly chosen child is on the order of 1000 times better off vaccinated than unvaccinated when considering worst case outcomes.

Whatever the mechanism, it appears to have something to do with this specific vaccine, AND an interaction with an exceedingly rare and unknown/poorly known cofactor, or combination of cofactors.

The years of cover up and dismissal of perceived problems, are almost pure tinfoil hattery. Yes there are side effects in on the order of 1 in 1000 cases. Those side effects are temporary (albeit sometimes alarming) in the great majority of cases where they do manifest at all. Permanent side effects are rarer still. And in both cases, it requires some unknown cofactor(s) for those side effects to occur. And therein lies the real problem. When the experts admit "We don't know." a certain percentage of people respond with "Well why should we take the chance?" The answer of course is: "Because the alternatives are worse." but, because the average person has a very poor ability to compare risks, there is a very real chance of descending into reductio absurdium with arguments of "If you don't know, then how can you say that."


The real grasping at straws here, is attempting to find a concrete reason for a happenstance that cannot be adequately explained. ie, fixating on a unique action that is chronologically coincidental with the unfortunate event. Rigorous mathematical analysis being a poor substitute for what people "know" they saw.

Some of these parents failed to notice that their child was already in decline prior to the administration to the vaccine. The children of others declined a considerable period after excreting all of the biologically inert Thiomerserol that was purportedly (and in some minds still is) implicated in that decline. Cold, uncaring statistics tell us that all else being equal, there is no measurable difference in the incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders, between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, or between those who's vaccines incorporated Thiomerserol and those who's vaccines did not. However, cold uncaring statistics are no comfort whatsoever, when it happens to your child. Hence the entirely understandable "reaching" for an answer. Any answer.

Sadly an answer is beginning to emerge, from those same cold, uncaring statistics. The age of the parents (particularly father, since he can continue to make a genetic contribution well past the age at which the mother is able) DOES strongly influence the likelihood of ASDs. As a matter of pure biology, this in turn strongly suggests that ASDs are cause by genetic/developmental defect and that we need merely seek to have our children early in life to reverse this unfortunate trend. From a sociological point of view, it appears, that by attempting to make the best possible financial provision for our children, or even worse, by selfishly waiting until we've achieved certain personal goals, we've brought this harm upon our children ourselves.

I say "sadly", because apart from the apparent inference that we have inadvertently done this thing to our children, one thing we humans are very good at is denial. Can we accept that our actions, whatever our motivations, might be responsible and modify our behaviour accordingly? Or will we become even more militant in attempting to pin blame on some external agency, possibly with even further detrimental effects?

[mzmolly]

74. Thanks for the response.

What ultimately matters, is how does the damage resulting from a given action compare to the damage resulting from failing to perform that action? And the answer to that question is that, any randomly chosen child is on the order of 1000 times better off vaccinated than unvaccinated when considering worst case outcomes.

Where did I advocate we stop vaccinating? Stop buying into the straw-man please. I suggest the "action" be to eliminate the issue that causes certain persons to react in various ways, and/or we pursue a means to identify such people as is now in the works. The CDC claims that we are now in a position to pursue safer vaccines, in that we agree. I also suggest that vaccine information be accurate and that parents not take unnecessary risk vaccinating a vulnerable child against a disease that is currently rare/eliminated. I also support choice vs. mandates. And, I support vaccine decisions be made in the context of todays climate and individual family history.

Whatever the mechanism, it appears to have something to do with this specific vaccine, AND an interaction with an exceedingly rare and unknown/poorly known cofactor, or combination of cofactors.

Exceedlingly rare? That remark is up for debate. The issues with the vaccine are not limited to a singular concern. Also, would we not want to understand any such mechanisms vs. deny their existence, regardless? How many years have we heard "there is no connection" vs. the new "exceedingly rare" talking point, for example?

Speaking of rare, it IS/WAS exceedingly rare for an infant/child in the US to contract HEP B, (279 children < 14 - and declining) this BEFORE the vaccine was made available, why doesn't that register on the radar? Who's tinfoil hat was too tight before the national HepB mandate? Further, Independent analysis of data compiled by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicates that in 1996, there were 872 serious adverse events reported to VAERS in children under 14 years of age who had been injected with hepatitis B vaccine. The children were either taken to a hospital emergency room, had life threatening health problems, were hospitalized or were left disabled following vaccination. 214 of the children had received hepatitis B vaccine alone and the rest had received hepatitis B vaccine in combination with other vaccines. 48 children were reported to have died after they were injected with hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 and 13 of them had received hepatitis B vaccine only before their deaths.



The years of cover up and dismissal of perceived problems, are almost pure tinfoil hattery

Actually, the years of dismissal and cover-up are on the record. However this new court case is ALREADY changing the language from nada to "rare".

Yes there are side effects in on the order of 1 in 1000 cases. Those side effects are temporary (albeit sometimes alarming) in the great majority of cases where they do manifest at all. Permanent side effects are rarer still. And in both cases, it requires some unknown cofactor(s) for those side effects to occur.

Site your reference for the numbers please. You appear to be focused on short term agreed upon "side effects"? And, regarding the "unknown factor" you NOW acknowledge is an issue, again - do we not want to KNOW what that factor is?

And therein lies the real problem. When the experts admit "We don't know." a certain percentage of people respond with "Well why should we take the chance?"

No, the response is LET'S FIND OUT. vs. let's cover it up, bully those concerned and pretend they are lunatics wearing tin foil hats.

The answer of course is: "Because the alternatives are worse."

Alternatives to safer vaccines? Alternatives to finding out why some children should opt out of an MMR shot?

...because the average person has a very poor ability to compare risks, there is a very real chance of descending into reduction absurdium with arguments of "If you don't know, then how can you say that."

Sounds like Bush's rationale for lying. The average person decides who will be President of the US. I'd say they can make vaccination decisions.

The real grasping at straws here, is attempting to find a concrete reason for a happenstance that cannot be adequately explained. ie, fixating on a unique action that is chronologically coincidental with the unfortunate event. Rigorous mathematical analysis being a poor substitute for what people "know" they saw.

Indeed it is grasping at straws because we have people advocating against any necessary research.

Some of these parents failed to notice that their child was already in decline prior to the administration to the vaccine.

You've got the talking points down I see. Don't belittle parents with this hogwash please?

The children of others declined a considerable period after excreting all of the biologically inert Thiomerserol that was purportedly (and in some minds still is) implicated in that decline.

Excreeting it from the stool, perhaps? The http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html">BRAIN is another matter.

Cold, uncaring statistics tell us that all else being equal, there is no measurable difference in the incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders, between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, or between those who's vaccines incorporated Thiomerserol and those who's vaccines did not.

Actually, that depends upon who's statistics you wish to examine.

However, cold uncaring statistics are no comfort whatsoever, when it happens to your child. Hence the entirely understandable "reaching" for an answer. Any answer.

I'm glad you have some compassion for the parents of vaccine injured children.

Sadly an answer is beginning to emerge, from those same cold, uncaring statistics. The age of the parents (particularly father, since he can continue to make a genetic contribution well past the age at which the mother is able) DOES strongly influence the likelihood of ASDs. As a matter of pure biology, this in turn strongly suggests that ASDs are cause by genetic/developmental defect and that we need merely seek to have our children early in life to reverse this unfortunate trend.

That may be PART of the picture, but that is not the entire piece of the puzzle. There are many "pictures" emerging in this situation.

From a sociological point of view, it appears, that by attempting to make the best possible financial provision for our children, or even worse, by selfishly waiting until we've achieved certain personal goals, we've brought this harm upon our children ourselves.

There are many YOUNG parents of children with ASD, many who declined immediately after vaccination. I don't think that vaccines are THE cause of ASD, I think they play a role for "some".

I say "sadly", because apart from the apparent inference that we have inadvertently done this thing to our children, one thing we humans are very good at is denial. Can we accept that our actions, whatever our motivations, might be responsible and modify our behaviour accordingly? Or will we become even more militant in attempting to pin blame on some external agency, possibly with even further detrimental effects?

It is never detrimental to question. It is never detrimental to seek answers.

Thanks again for the reply MM.

[TheMadMonk]

75. I was not suggesting that YOU advocated the stopping of vaccination.

I was merely pointing out that the benefits of vaccination enormously outweigh any detrimental effects, known or even imagined. Please do not read that to suggest I am accusing you of making imagined assumptions.

It would indeed be good to find the cause of detrimental reactions to vaccines, but I strongly suspect that this is going to be a hard ask, as the apparent cause is not in the vaccine(s) per se but an anomaly in the genetic makeup of the child, which in turn are either down to lifestyle choices of the parents or simple blind chance, with a possibility that other environmental factors might be involved.

What is the context of the CDC's claim? If it's the elimination of Thiomerserol then the results if any are going to be negligible. If it's the complete re-engineering of vaccines, we're going to be running into costs vs. benefits and the potential for other possible pitfalls. I am not saying that such shouldn't be attempted, but given the rarity of reactions with vaccines that are long established on the schedule, monkeying with them should be a long way down the to do list. Other more recent vaccines, are as you yourself point out, considerably more worrying. Lets perfect those first.

Not that there is no connection. The argument has always been that there is no discernible connection. It has been sloppy/sensationalist reporting plus deliberate misrepresentation on the part of certain parties which has make the former out of the latter. The shift to exceedingly rare, if indeed such a characterisation is warranted, (I will concede that it may) it is solely due to the simple fact that we now have a long enough baseline and sufficient data to pick any such reactions (not individually, but as a statistically significant result) out of the noise in the data. You cannot fault people for failing to see something that quite simply was not there too see.

The resurgence of whooping cough epidemics, (not to mention polio hot spots) is reason enough not to withhold vaccination, even for individuals, unless it can be demonstrated with a great deal of certitude that that given individual is indeed vulnerable to an adverse event. Unfortunately the only real way to do that right now is to "suck it and see", by which time of course, whatever damage might eventuate is done. If a suitably accurate test can be devised then by all means don't vaccinate the vulnerable, but to make a decision bases solely on fear, is a disservice to both the child and the community.


I have no answer on the Hep-B vaccine, from the data you present it would indeed appear that withholding it is a no-brainer except in children where the potential for exposure is high. Let me put on my tinfoil hat. The Hep B vaccine is a relatively expensive one. It would indeed suit the worst elements of Big Pharma to have it placed upon the mandatory schedule. Is this the case? I have no idea, but I will allow that it is possible. My arguments in favour of the longer established vaccines is at least in part based upon the fact that their development and testing took place long before Big Pharma became what it is today, and that the majority of continued inquiry is performed independently of them.


Depreciation is not dismissal. A layman's comparison of a 1 in 1000 risk of side effects, vs a very very small chance of contracting the disease protected against seems like a complete no-brainer. Why take one relatively high risk when the other is so small. The answer is that the first risk remains constant whatever the circumstances, whilst the second climbs very rapidly with each refusal to accept the former risk. The confirmed risks are depreciated/not explicitly volunteered to the general public, because it serves the public interest.

IIRC the reference is somewhere in this thread. I know that the number is not exact, which is why I said "on the order of". Odds of 1 in 1000 for confirmed risks is close enough for the purpose of my argument whatever the exact figure.

Actually, I have always acknowledged unknown factors where appropriate, I simply argue that unless the presence of such a factor can be quantified and demonstrated to seriously affect the outcome, then it has no place in an argument. Further it is imperative that such a factor be properly identified, rather than indulging in anecdotal speculation. Particularly when such speculation is highly detrimental to the population as a whole, no matter how horrific the presumed affect on an individual might be.

Despite what you might believe there has been considerable effort to "FIND OUT", numerous rigourous studies were conducted to test the several hypotheses raised in argument against vaccines or components within them. The results were always the same, inconclusive or negative. Indeed the investigation of such concerns may well have caused some delay in identifying the one factor we are beginning to see that does appear to have a bearing on the incidence of ASDs, (the primary reasons why these concerns were originally raised). Parental/paternal age. It might not, because late childbirth is a relatively recent phenomenon, but even so, the incidence of one has increased with the increasing incidence of the other, and a study which simply asked: "What stands out in these figures" might well have reached this conclusion earlier, if we hadn't been so busy pursuing studies that asked: "Is this assumed cause, resulting in this outcome?"

"Alternatives to safer vaccines?" Nice misrepresentation. As you well know, what I was speaking of was the alternative of failure to vaccinate at all in a sufficiently large number of individual cases that the population as a whole is adversely affected. It may well be that pharmaceutical companies are dragging their heels, or being obstructionist for purely financial reasons, I will even concede that given the way they operate today, that this may well be likely. But it is also true that we are still not sure that there is a demonstrable need to improve the specific vaccines that lie at the core of this whole debate. Hep-B you betcha, and others, for which I personally have no date from which to form an opinion, also, if the numbers/severity of adverse outcomes warrant. MMR, no. We still need better data, and our efforts would be far better expended elsewhere, where there is a very real demonstrable need for improvement, and where any such improvements will benefit a great many more people.

No George Bush's rationale for lying is that he's King Dick. My rational for stating that people's capacity to make decisions based upon statistical evidence is seriously flawed is based upon factual science. The most basic example being that if a group of average people observe nine consecutive tosses of a fair coin, all resulting in heads, a significant majority will, if asked, reply that the outcome of a tenth toss, far more likely than not, will be a tail. For situations involving a combination of dependent and independent variables, their estimates of outcomes will almost invariably deviate even more wildly from reality, and even moreso when they have a personal involvement, such as a sick child or being half a house into debt with a casino. A good many will persist in their erroneous beliefs, even when shown the correct answer, and exactly how it is derived.


A parent faced with an intolerable situation affecting their child is anything but a dispassionate observer. I am not belittling them at all. I am merely noting that the vast majority are neither qualified to make an informed judgment nor in any fit state to make rational observations. How about you don't belittle childcare professionals who have written records to demonstrate the beginnings of such declines prior to the administration of vaccines.

Quantity excreted in the stool equals, within the limits of measurable error, the quantity injected into the arm. If none remains to lodge in the brain, by what mechanism does it affect the brain some months later? Whilst it is in the realms of possibility that it might do some damage en passant, that does not manifest until a later date. But for the vaccine argument to be valid, we have to entertain the notion that there is not one single mechanism, but that there are a number of apparently independent mechanisms: one that causes Thiomerserol to have an immediate impact, another that causes its impact to be delayed, yet another that operates independently of Thiomerserol but is dependent upon a vaccine or combination of vaccines, and finally one that operates entirely independently of both Thiomerserol and vaccines and in some cases at least manifests in a physical developmental brain defect that occurs prior to birth.

Given the plethora of choices, and the dearth of statistical evidence that demonstrates or even implies a vaccine related explanation, shouldn't we be looking elsewhere? For the mechanism which does operate independently.

And I repeat yet again. It appears that something has been found that is very strongly related to the age of the parents (particularly the father) at the time of conception. Towhit a father in his fifties is NINE times more likely to father an autistic child than one in his teens or twenties.

Yes there are young parents of autistic children, but statistics that indicate the role of parental age do not implicate that age as a direct cause of ASDs. What they to indicate is that genetic damage plays a very large role in ASDs and the modern world is filled with more plenty of mutagenic agents/poisons account for the observed increase in incidence of ASDs.

We can postulate multiple pathways and multiple causes, at least one of which must be natural. Or we can look at one very likely cause with a single mechanism, and two pathways both naturally leading to that cause and one of which exactly simulates the result of the other.

I believe I shall continue to shave with Occam's razor.

[mzmolly]

79. Darn, just lost a long thoughtful reply to you.

So my condensed version will have to do. ;)

I was merely pointing out that the benefits of vaccination enormously outweigh any detrimental effects, known or even imagined. Please do not read that to suggest I am accusing you of making imagined assumptions.

I'm not sure we can determine if benefits outweigh the risk without considering individuals and potential chronic - long term side effects?

It would indeed be good to find the cause of detrimental reactions to vaccines, but I strongly suspect that this is going to be a hard ask, as the apparent cause is not in the vaccine(s) per se but an anomaly in the genetic makeup of the child, which in turn are either down to lifestyle choices of the parents or simple blind chance, with a possibility that other environmental factors might be involved.

It's not a matter of blind chance. Vaccines can and do cause injury and permanent damage in some children. It's not simply a matter of lifestyle and genetic makeup either, as many vaccines have LIKE issues effecting wide groups of people, siblings are often excluded. Also, there are ways studies can be conducted, such as using singular ingredients in a double blind scenarios such as scientists did in http://www.springerlink.com/content/x457214811q62412/">THIS STUDY

What is the context of the CDC's claim? If it's the elimination of Thiomerserol then the results if any are going to be negligible. If it's the complete re-engineering of vaccines, we're going to be running into costs vs. benefits and the potential for other possible pitfalls. I am not saying that such shouldn't be attempted, but given the rarity of reactions with vaccines that are long established on the schedule, monkeying with them should be a long way down the to do list. Other more recent vaccines, are as you yourself point out, considerably more worrying. Lets perfect those first.

The context of the claim is that we are in a position to pursue safer vaccines given low rates of disease and modern technology. However, I've not seen much evidence of this pursuit with the exception of the dismissive removal of most mercury from some vaccinations. That said, I'm not in agreement that the effect of doing so completely would be negligible? Further, I feel that the vaccine reactions are "rare" statement is another area of contention. For example, with the issue of Measles. In the US serious complications are/were very rare.

From the Mayo Clinic: Measles usually lasts about 10 to 14 days. In some parts of the world, the disease is severe, even deadly. In Western countries, that's usually not the case. People with measles may become quite ill, but most people recover completely.

Prior to vaccination, nearly everyone in the US got measles and recovered without a second thought. Complications from Measles were "rare". In 1952 for example the US had nearly 700,000 "REPORTED" cases (I'm sure the actual number is much much higher) of Measles and 683 deaths. This, before many advances in health care and modern medicine. And, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr">the vaccine side effects include many of the very symptoms we are attempting to avoid by getting vaccinated. I simply don't buy into the caustic/oversold rhetoric is all. I'm not suggesting that the measles vaccine hasn't made a contribution on a global level, I'm saying we're not getting an honest/accurate picture of the cost vs. benefit (at it relates to US citizens) from our Government.

Not that there is no connection. The argument has always been that there is no discernible connection. It has been sloppy/sensationalist reporting plus deliberate misrepresentation on the part of certain parties which has make the former out of the latter. The shift to exceedingly rare, if indeed such a characterisation is warranted, (I will concede that it may) it is solely due to the simple fact that we now have a long enough baseline and sufficient data to pick any such reactions (not individually, but as a statistically significant result) out of the noise in the data. You cannot fault people for failing to see something that quite simply was not there too see.

Oh I disagree strongly. There was a refusal to look at evidence and a concerted effort to cover up the facts. The only reason anything has been/will be brought to light is because parents, impartial scientists and others like David Kirby who refused to swallow the official BS.

The resurgence of whooping cough epidemics, (not to mention polio hot spots) is reason enough not to withhold vaccination, even for individuals, unless it can be demonstrated with a great deal of certitude that that given individual is indeed vulnerable to an adverse event. Unfortunately the only real way to do that right now is to "suck it and see", by which time of course, whatever damage might eventuate is done. If a suitably accurate test can be devised then by all means don't vaccinate the vulnerable, but to make a decision bases solely on fear, is a disservice to both the child and the community.

Why is pertussis making a so called comeback in spite of record high vaccination rates? I know the answer, but I'm not sure many do.

I have no answer on the Hep-B vaccine, from the data you present it would indeed appear that withholding it is a no-brainer except in children where the potential for exposure is high. Let me put on my tinfoil hat. The Hep B vaccine is a relatively expensive one. It would indeed suit the worst elements of Big Pharma to have it placed upon the mandatory schedule. Is this the case?

Yes it is. Thanks for remaining open minded on this.

I have no idea, but I will allow that it is possible. My arguments in favour of the longer established vaccines is at least in part based upon the fact that their development and testing took place long before Big Pharma became what it is today, and that the majority of continued inquiry is performed independently of them.

This is an excellent point. I do feel that we know more today than we did when vaccines were developed and as such we can improve. But, I also feel that we were not in a position to be as choosy during a small pox epidemic as we are today, for example. FYI, did you know that early forms of vaccination were developed in China as early as 200 B.C.? Vaccination is derived from ancient eastern medicine. Many here disregard ancient medicine so I often find that worth sharing. ;)

Depreciation is not dismissal. A layman's comparison of a 1 in 1000 risk of side effects, vs a very very small chance of contracting the disease protected against seems like a complete no-brainer. Why take one relatively high risk when the other is so small.

Unfortunately that statistic is not an agreed upon, cut and dry figure. For example the risk of a fever after an MMR jab is 1 in 6. That is a side effect. One we hope to avoid by getting an MMR shot in the first place.

The answer is that the first risk remains constant whatever the circumstances, whilst the second climbs very rapidly with each refusal to accept the former risk. The confirmed risks are depreciated/not explicitly volunteered to the general public, because it serves the public interest.

Diseases had come and gone before vaccination due to natural immunity. Many disease rates were in decline before the introduction of vaccines to combat them. The risk did not remain constant.

Actually, I have always acknowledged unknown factors where appropriate, I simply argue that unless the presence of such a factor can be quantified and demonstrated to seriously affect the outcome, then it has no place in an argument. Further it is imperative that such a factor be properly identified, rather than indulging in anecdotal speculation. Particularly when such speculation is highly detrimental to the population as a whole, no matter how horrific the presumed affect on an individual might be.

First of all, who, with the means to do so, would wish to "quantify and demonstrate" such side effects? The manufacturer? The CDC, who feels as you do that so called "speculation is detrimental" and has the task of promoting vaccination? In order to move beyond speculation, we have to lose the straw-man that questioning vaccines will have a "detrimental impact on the population as a whole." BTW, I don't agree that questioning vaccination is merely based upon speculation, I do acknowledge that the resources and impartial bodies who should seek definitive answers are hard to come by, however.

Despite what you might believe there has been considerable effort to "FIND OUT", numerous rigourous studies were conducted to test the several hypotheses raised in argument against vaccines or components within them.

No, there has been considerable effort to "cover up" a link.

The results were always the same, inconclusive or negative.

Not so, various studies conducted that show any "connection" have been dismissed with counter studies or critique. And, those in the position to counter truly independent science, have much more in terms of resources.

Indeed the investigation of such concerns may well have caused some delay in identifying the one factor we are beginning to see that does appear to have a bearing on the incidence of ASDs, (the primary reasons why these concerns were originally raised). Parental/paternal age. It might not, because late childbirth is a relatively recent phenomenon, but even so, the incidence of one has increased with the increasing incidence of the other, and a study which simply asked: "What stands out in these figures" might well have reached this conclusion earlier, if we hadn't been so busy pursuing studies that asked: "Is this assumed cause, resulting in this outcome?"

I couldn't disagree more on this point. The answers were not being sought by those charged to protect the public health. An attempt to cover up the truth, was being pursued. The "issue coming to light" has been KNOWN in so called "anti-vaccine circles" for some time. Scientists who've been maligned and shat upon for various discoveries are slowly being vindicated.

It may well be that pharmaceutical companies are dragging their heels, or being obstructionist for purely financial reasons, I will even concede that given the way they operate today, that this may well be likely. But it is also true that we are still not sure that there is a demonstrable need to improve the specific vaccines that lie at the core of this whole debate. Hep-B you betcha, and others, for which I personally have no date from which to form an opinion, also, if the numbers/severity of adverse outcomes warrant. MMR, no. We still need better data, and our efforts would be far better expended elsewhere, where there is a very real demonstrable need for improvement, and where any such improvements will benefit a great many more people.

I disagree. Honestly an improvement to any vaccine, may help improve others. Many of the methods/ingredients are like. Also, Cuba recently developed a synthetic vaccine. I'd be encouraged to see more research in this direction, personally.

No George Bush's rationale for lying is that he's King Dick. My rational for stating that people's capacity to make decisions based upon statistical evidence is seriously flawed is based upon factual science.

This sounds like the "poor Floridians were too stupid to vote argument." It's elitist and I reject it.

The most basic example being that if a group of average people observe nine consecutive tosses of a fair coin, all resulting in heads, a significant majority will, if asked, reply that the outcome of a tenth toss, far more likely than not, will be a tail. For situations involving a combination of dependent and independent variables, their estimates of outcomes will almost invariably deviate even more wildly from reality, and even moreso when they have a personal involvement, such as a sick child or being half a house into debt with a casino. A good many will persist in their erroneous beliefs, even when shown the correct answer, and exactly how it is derived.

Then again, this phenom could explain our record high "vaccinate with everything no questions asked" compliance rates, thanks. :P

A parent faced with an intolerable situation affecting their child is anything but a dispassionate observer. I am not belittling them at all. I am merely noting that the vast majority are neither qualified to make an informed judgment nor in any fit state to make rational observations. How about you don't belittle childcare professionals who have written records to demonstrate the beginnings of such declines prior to the administration of vaccines.

I've not seen large numbers of child care providers testify in this regard. In fact, quite the contrary. Many have observed the same changes that parents noted immediately after vaccination.

Given the plethora of choices, and the dearth of statistical evidence that demonstrates or even implies a vaccine related explanation, shouldn't we be looking elsewhere? For the mechanism which does operate independently.

The "mechanism" in this case requires a trigger, thus I say we seek answers in the most obvious area. Vaccinations.

And I repeat yet again. It appears that something has been found that is very strongly related to the age of the parents (particularly the father) at the time of conception. Towhit a father in his fifties is NINE times more likely to father an autistic child than one in his teens or twenties.

There is no test for this disorder. There are some children who are born with "issues" and others who develop them. I suspect there is more than one avenue to this place we call autism? As such, we must pursue every available answer, including the mandated medical procedure known as vaccination.

We can postulate multiple pathways and multiple causes, at least one of which must be natural. Or we can look at one very likely cause with a single mechanism, and two pathways both naturally leading to that cause and one of which exactly simulates the result of the other.

I believe I shall continue to shave with Occam's razor.

The parents of autistic children have simplified this mystery a bit by sharing their stories.

FYI - This is the last day I am able to engage in this conversation as I've got other things to do this week. :hi:

Thanks for the respectful dialog, I hope to hear back soon. So much for a condensed version of a reply, huh?

Peace

[TheMadMonk]

81. I know the feeling.

Do as I do. Keep a notepad window open and regularly copy/paste into it and save. Particularly if you find you have to get up from the keyboard for a while.


We can determine the benefits by comparing raw numbers, and refusing to consider personal/emotive matters. Overall risk of outcomes pursuant to X vs. Overall risk of outcomes pursuant to not-X.

"If it can't be expressed as numbers, it's not science. It's opinion." From Heinlein, who probably pinched it off someone else.


For the specific group of events characterised as ASDs the emerging data very strongly suggests that blind chance is very much at play since accumulating damage to the genetic material supplied by the parents is demonstrably a contributing factor in incidence. Indeed the numbers that emerged from the study showing the link between paternal age and ASDs are virtually unheard of. Most of the "cancer/heart disease genes" elevate their associated risks by only a few to a few tens of percent. Five hundred percent increases are astronomical.

Now the following numbers are chosen for illustrative purposes only. They have no real world validity. I did have a quick look for the real ones, found nothing in easily usable form. I did however find something else that was very interesting which I'll get to in a moment.

Plucking numbers out of my bum, let's assume that the pre-vaccination the rate for ASDs was 1 in 2000 in young parents, and that 65% of children were born with fathers under thirty years of age, 20% to fathers between 30 and 40, 10% to fathers between 40 and 50 and 5% over 50.

So using the figures from the study, (1, 1.5, 5 and 9 for each of the age groups respectively) for every 200,000 (I'm trying to pick numbers that don't leave us with problematical half children, (Solomon having demonstrated how emotive these can be.)) children born there will be 65 + 20 x 1.5 + 10 x 5 + 5 x 9 = 175 total children born with ASDs. For a whole population incidence of 1 in 1143.

Now let us assume that the age distribution of fathers has shifted to 50%, 20% 15% and 5% respectively for the same age groupings.

Plugging in the numbers we get. 50 + 30 x 1.5 + 15 x 5 + 5 x 9 = 215. A 23% increase in individual cases. And a new whole population rate of 1 in 930.

That is a pretty bloody significant increase in ASD rates brought about simply by changing the age at which men tend to father children a little bit upwards. Whatever the actual figures for age of fatherhood, we do know for a fact that such a shift has occurred.

And thus we have an explanation for at least some of the observed increase in ASD rates which is utterly independent of all other factors. Changes in diagnostic criteria must also account for some. Less definitively implicated, but still likely are the effects of a whole host of unique to the era, mutagenic compounds that might mimic age related genetic damage. And we can't rule out changes in the way children are socialised between then and now. Families are so much smaller these days, and thus those who might today be diagnosed as borderline, in the past had the opportunity to collect enough observational data to at least simulate "normal" behaviour. In the rough and tumble world containing half a dozen siblings, such children will: bloody well learn, or else. I include this last, because modern day work with children diagnosed with ASDs is demonstrating that they can indeed learn/be programed to exhibit "normal" social behaviour, and properly respond to social cues.

Thus we have two definite and two possible explanations for the indisputably observed increase in ASD rates over the same time frame in which vaccines for common childhood illnesses have been introduced. Yet not one of them actually implicates those vaccines. And yet people like Kirby would have it that ALL of that observed increase is entirely due to the introduction of those vaccines. Whereas, if we properly consider all factors, the impact of vaccines must be considerably less than assumed. And in fact, the statistical comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations that are otherwise homogenised, produces the conclusion that the impact of vaccines on the incidence of ASDs is negligible to none.

Blame for ASDs has simply fallen upon vaccines because of the double coincidence, that the rise in rates happened over the same time frame, and that the symptoms manifest in individuals at approximately the same time as those individuals are vaccinated. It's understandable, but as best can be determined from available data, it is wrong. Science v. opinion.

I purposely excluded maternal age as a factor here, because whilst age is definitely implicated in rising rates of mitochondrial disorders, they are more likely to manifest as general retardation. However, with no figures to support it, I do believe that maternal age should have some small impact as well.

Now to what else I noticed when looking for the real numbers on age on paternal ages. Advancing paternal age is also implicated in schizophrenia and (while I didn't look) I suspect at least a few other brain disorders. One cause that is strongly implicated in at least two different but related outcomes makes for a better explanation than numerous causes leading to indistinguishable effects.

Random (as in exactly who gets hit is random, though we can assign probabilities to specific paternal age groupings) genetic damage is absolutely implicated. The impact of vaccines on the incidence of ASDs is minimal at best.

Hopefully that explains why something that appears to be X is actually Y.


Now I notice that you've changed the parameters of the argument somewhat, but you've done it politely so I shall respond in kind.


As regards those reactions to vaccines which are actually demonstrable, it still makes sense to speak of blind chance when considering a homogenised populations. But you are indeed right that it is possible to identify within that homogenised population, identifiable subgroups which show a greater or lesser likelihood of being adversely affected. And yet unless the chance of a specific individual being adversely affected is unity, blind chance remains at work. Probability has no favourites.

If the likelihood of a given individual being adversely affected rises above a threshold which I am not qualified to estimate then the likely risk most certainly outweighs the benefits, particularly in a well protected population. But it is criminally negligent to make decisions based upon worst cases if you are a parent of a child and there are no indications that they are in any at risk group.


On mercury in Thiomerserol I dismiss it because the numbers simply don't support including it. In Thiomerserol, the mercury is tightly enough bound in the molecule that it simply can't get free to do the damage for which other compounds containing the element, and the free metal are infamous.

Let me tell you a story of another mercury compound. One that was a mainstay of home medicine for decades. Mercurochrome was applied to skinned knees beyond counting with no greater ill effect than whimpers and tears. And yet one day, with no epidemiological evidence to back it up, Big Pharma declared Mercurochrome to be too dangerous to use, solely on the basis that it contains mercury. Does this argument sound at all familiar? Cheap Mercurochrome was replaced with more expensive anti-bacterial cremes. And yet if they'd had the slightest scrap of evidence to back that claim, they would have pulled Thiomerserol in a New York minute. Their legal exposure would have been too great not to.

And that is another fairly compelling bit of evidence that suggests to me that Thiomerserol is safe. The return on expensive drugs such as Vioxx might easily prompt unscrupulous manufacturers to cover up detrimental effects, betting that the return will be more than any penalty if/when they are caught out. But on a product worth at most only a few tens of million dollars a year across the entire industry, punitive penalties would cost them more than any possible return once prior knowledge of any harm became known. They are greedy bastards no doubt, but they are not stupid greedy bastards.


Perhaps measles in the US is a minor problem, (ignoring the financial/logistic considerations of nursing a sick child in a world where a stay at home parent is no longer the norm) but as you yourself note, it is very dangerous in the rest of the world. As I've noted elsewhere, a large population in which a disease runs unchecked gives disease causing organisms opportunity to evolve away from the strain(s) against which the vaccines are effective. An unvaccinated America puts the rest of the world at serious risk.

So while you may very well be correct in your figures for the US alone, there are other considerations that alter the equation on the world stage. And when international travel is so common, that can not be safely ignored. Why aren't they more honest, telling us this? Well could you imagine the average red stater's reaction?


You make claims that when people "finally looked" certain "facts" emerged? What are these facts?

And please note I was speaking specifically of ASD related adverse events, not adverse events as a whole when speaking of no evidence.


What is your answer re: whooping cough? My understanding is that the hot spots form around/in populations where vaccination rates fall below about 93%. Certainly that's the way it was reported when we had a couple of big flare ups a while back down here in Aust. And IIRC the communities where it occurred, had a higher than average number of natural therapy/vegan types, who when interviewed did express suspicion for vaccines and much to do with modern medicine.


Regarding risks of side effects, re-read what I wrote please. Serious side effects. Low grade fever is not serious.

1 in 1000 is a rough median figure for serious side effects. And except in the exceedingly rare cases such as the one in the OP the child makes a full recovery. How rare? Rare enough that it has apparently taken several decades to accumulate sufficient data to say with any reasonable degree of certainty that extreme events resulting in permanent brain injury (at least of this nature) are demonstrably associated with the vaccine.

Disease rates did indeed decline as a result of ceasing the practice of siblings sharing beds. But that was about as far as such decline could go, unless you wished to isolate children entirely. The resurgence of disease when and where vaccination rates fall below the 93% mark pretty much demonstrate that vaccines are doing their job.

Well if you insist on declaring everyone who doesn't find the results you KNOW are there as partial, as David Kirby does, we have a real problem. There is far far more to this world than the United States. Studies in other nations have returned the same results on the relative safety as vaccines.

Are you proposing that there is a hyper-conspiracy that crosses all national and ideological boundaries of the developed world?


Prove this cover up. With fact, not opinion please.

Dismissed because they were flawed.

Think about it for a moment: For you to be right, there has to be a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands, if not millions of people, that spans decades and multiple administrations and departments, that crosses virtually every national and ideological boundary. Whereas for me to be right you merely have to be wrong. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke, but lets make it a credible one. O.K.


Show me documentation that demonstrates that your camp was aware of the age related link for some time. Hell, I'll allow it. But note: One instance of "bad/dishonest" work on the part of a researcher pretty much destroys him and any good work he might do.


The fact that enough Americans voted for George Bush, to allow the elections to be stolen not once, but twice, suggests (in isolation) that a huge proportion are too stupid to pour piss from a boot with instructions printed on the heel. This is of course not true (even if sometimes we do wonder :D ) what is true there, is that it is very easy to convince a large proportion of people to make a selfish choice over an altruistic one.

Record high vaccination rates are explained by the fact that parents are given little choice in the matter. It can easily be shown that in a "safe environment", when parents are given the choice, a significant proportion will make the personally selfish one. This phenomenon manifests at all turns. Thus the difficulty in convincing voters to support single payer health care so long as the majority of workers had it provided for them by their employer. They saw no reason for them to pay, to give "freeloaders" something that they already had.


The providers records support the argument. The timing of vaccine administration is pretty well set. The timing of onset of ASD symptoms follows a bell curve. An event which occurs somewhere near the middle of that curve can not explain "effects" which preceded it, and since they do not alter the shape of the curve afterwards, they obviously could not have caused "effects" subsequently. This means that the observed/presumed "effects" are actually entirely unrelated events with approximately coincident timing.


Genetic damage which affects the development of the brain in all probability requires no trigger. It simply manifests. That it manifests at roughly two years of age can be easily explained by the fact that that is the age at which the brain really gets to work on integrating social, language and other higher brain functions. That at least some forms of ASDs can be directly attributed to a demonstrable physical defect (albeit only after death via autopsy) supports this hypothesis.


The problem with multiple (including physical) explanations for ASDs is that several of them remove a great many of the data points on which your arguments are based, and yet your/Kirby's arguments rely upon them all. From my side of the fence they add complexity to a situation which to all appearances can be adequately explained by a single root cause, that in turn can be arrived at through a minimal number of pathways. Genetic damage related to parental age and perhaps mutagenic environmental pollutants.

The simplest solutions are usually the correct ones.

Sorry I must disagree. The parents of autistic children, among others, have muddied the waters by insisting that opinion substitute for fact.

[trotsky]

82. Making an educated guess on who you're arguing with,

Are you proposing that there is a hyper-conspiracy that crosses all national and ideological boundaries of the developed world?

I can say that yes, that person believes such. Good luck.

[mzmolly]

84. Turns out, I do have some time to reply this evening.

Do as I do. Keep a notepad window open and regularly copy/paste into it and save. Particularly if you find you have to get up from the keyboard for a while.

I copied and pasted into word before beginning. Thanks for the tip. ;)

"If it can't be expressed as numbers, it's not science. It's opinion." From Heinlein, who probably pinched it off someone else.

One must acknowledge a "number" exists before one can examine any such numbers.

For the specific group of events characterised as ASDs the emerging data very strongly suggests that blind chance is very much at play since accumulating damage to the genetic material supplied by the parents is demonstrably a contributing factor in incidence.

Age of parents may be a genetic contributor, but we need more studies in this regard. However, and once again, this does not mean we ignore environmental factors such as vaccination. Also, I don't believe parents are, in fact getting older. In days gone by, there was not a handy pill we could take in order to prevent pregnancy. The Catholic Church was against birth control and many people had several children over the course of decades. However, I remain open to the possibility that age is a contributor.

And yet people like Kirby would have it that ALL of that observed increase is entirely due to the introduction of those vaccines.

This is totally false. Kirby has never claimed that ALL cases of ASD are due to vaccination.

Now to what else I noticed when looking for the real numbers on age on paternal ages. Advancing paternal age is also implicated in schizophrenia and (while I didn't look) I suspect at least a few other brain disorders.

And, it is implicated in the condition my child has as well, as such I'm familiar with the notion. However, even supposing this is fact vs. "speculation" it does not negate other contributing factors.

Hopefully that explains why something that appears to be X is actually Y.

I think you're trying to be helpful, but I feel your tone is very condescending? I have an accounting background, so I have an idea of what numbers are. I have also studied this issue for years and I'm aware of the "numbers" as I've looked at them to the best of our ability given what data is available. The "hard cold numbers" indicate a rise in autism, period. Some try to explain away that increase.

If the likelihood of a given individual being adversely affected rises above a threshold which I am not qualified to estimate then the likely risk most certainly outweighs the benefits, particularly in a well protected population. But it is criminally negligent to make decisions based upon worst cases if you are a parent of a child and there are no indications that they are in any at risk group.

Does the worst case scenario decision making "thing" come into play when we jab our kids with an MMR shot because we "fear the worst" case of measles? How about when we "fear" polio in spite of the fact that it's been essentially eliminated in the western hemisphere?

In this sense we may agree, but it appears we hold a different opinion as to what the "worst case scenario" actually is? Lastly, I feel it is criminally negligent to suggest that everyone partake in a form roulette when we don't acknowledge that there is a bullet in the gun. "First do no harm", comes to mind.

On mercury in Thiomerserol I dismiss it because the numbers simply don't support including it. In Thiomerserol, the mercury is tightly enough bound in the molecule that it simply can't get free to do the damage for which other compounds containing the element, and the free metal are infamous.

You may wish to examine this study?

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html and familiarize yourself with one http://depts.washington.edu/chdd/mrddrc/res_aff/burbacher.html">Thomas Burbacher, PHD

And yet if they'd had the slightest scrap of evidence to back that claim, they would have pulled Thiomerserol in a New York minute. Their legal exposure would have been too great not to.

The word “evidence” is subjective. Thimerosal was pulled from solutions used in contact lenses and in animal vaccines in the 1980's - presumably due to the "risk". Evidence is available if one looks beyond commercialized propaganda.

"The bottom line is that trying to assess the effects of a compound with very little or no data is not a good thing to do. ... Unfortunately, we started doing studies on this compound way too late. Basic information like this should've been available decades ago." ~ Thomas Burhacher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Burbacher">WIKI

... punitive penalties would cost them more than any possible return once prior knowledge of any harm became known. They are greedy bastards no doubt, but they are not stupid greedy bastards.

Au contraire! This substance is used internationally and for decades, money has been made and lots of it. Further, the US government picks up the tab for any damage in the US via the http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/">VICP

An unvaccinated America puts the rest of the world at serious risk.

Ahhh, the straw-man rears it's head once again. ;)

You make claims that when people "finally looked" certain "facts" emerged? What are these facts?

And please note I was speaking specifically of ASD related adverse events, not adverse events as a whole when speaking of no evidence.

One such study is noted above. I like to encourage people to do their own/independent research, however. I'm not here to make a case one way or another. I do suggest http://evidenceofharm.com/">Kirby's book if you'd like a good place to begin.

What is your answer re: whooping cough? My understanding is that the hot spots form around/in populations where vaccination rates fall below about 93%. Certainly that's the way it was reported when we had a couple of big flare ups a while back down here in Aust. And IIRC the communities where it occurred, had a higher than average number of natural therapy/vegan types, who when interviewed did express suspicion for vaccines and much to do with modern medicine.

The US vaccination compliance rate among children has never been higher, pertussis is no exception. However, what has been "learned" (just in time to promote a new adult booster shot) is that the vaccine induced immunity wanes after time. How much time? Who knows? Not the CDC. But, in spite of the lack of "science" regarding how long the vaccine lasts, we now have a an adult version of the shot. And, doctors have been encouraged as of late, to test previously vaccinated individuals for pertussis in spite of vaccination status (which skews the numbers in favor of "outbreak".) Again, just time time for that booster recommendation. Imagine that! We all walked around thinking we were protected because we had the DPT jab and it turns out we had a false sense of security and were at times, unknowingly exposing our babies to pertussis.

Regarding risks of side effects, re-read what I wrote please. Serious side effects. Low grade fever is not serious.

Regardless that number it’s hooey. And, "serious side effects" from Measles, were “rare” in the US, as I've noted.

Disease rates did indeed decline as a result of ceasing the practice of siblings sharing beds. But that was about as far as such decline could go, unless you wished to isolate children entirely. The resurgence of disease when and where vaccination rates fall below the 93% mark pretty much demonstrate that vaccines are doing their job.

Official disease rates declined for many reasons. Clean water, sanitation practices, natural immunity, vaccines and statistical reporting bias among them. Further, a herd immunity threshold depends on the disease and the vaccine, it’s not a cut/dry figure.

Hypothetical questions ahead > (What does 93% vaccination "rate" even mean according to government officials? Does it mean that 93% of the population is actually "protected" or does it mean that 93% of the complied with the current vaccine recommendation schedule?) It's the later, if you're curious. Given the fact that vaccines can and do wane in efficacy, that's a pretty iffy way to assume that "vaccines are doing their job". So, unless we are pulling vaccine-induced antibody titers from the population to determine who truly has immunity and for how long, there isn't solid "science" involved in that number.

Well if you insist on declaring everyone who doesn't find the results you KNOW are there as partial, as David Kirby does, we have a real problem. There is far far more to this world than the United States. Studies in other nations have returned the same results on the relative safety as vaccines.

International studies are mixed as well. In fact France is investigating major vaccine manufacturers -

French authorities have opened a formal investigation into two managers from drugs groups GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Sanofi Pasteur over a vaccination campaign in the 1990s, a judicial source said late on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSL0173467120080201">~(Reuters)

Are you proposing that there is a hyper-conspiracy that crosses all national and ideological boundaries of the developed world?

Are you proposing that that special interests have not poisoned the drug/vaccine approval process to the extent that the "truth" is hard to come by? Do you propose that corporations are not in the business of making money, at times at the expense of human life? Are you proposing that the makers of Vioxx, cared more about people than profit? Do you propose that drug makers don't have a history of "withholding" crucial information from the public and government agencies? Are you proposing that the international “question vaccines and we all die” movement is not too partial to take an honest look?

Prove this cover up. With fact, not opinion please.

I've given you food for thought above. It's not possible to "prove" anything in this regard as it's a complex issue. I don't think most people involved in promoting vaccination are malicious, I simply feel that the "system" is broken. You, yourself have noted that it is impossible to “prove” anything to anyone who is not open minded on a given subject. I always encourage individuals to do their own research. I'm not interested in trying to "prove" anything to anyone.

However if you are not familiar, RFK Jr. wrote a piece on this subject here:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html
Think about it for a moment: For you to be right, there has to be a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands, if not millions of people, that spans decades and multiple administrations and departments, that crosses virtually every national and ideological boundary. Whereas for me to be right you merely have to be wrong. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke, but lets make it a credible one. O.K.

Drug companies are the primary "provider" of information on their products. The "conspiracy" needn't be as large as you suggest. Also, I’m not sure how you define “right” in this case? For me to be “right” we need to have a broken, money driven system, we have that.

When it is "consensus" that thimerosal plays a role in some cases of autism, I'll remind you that according to you, "tens of thousands, if not millions" of people must have been involved in quelling that information?

Show me documentation that demonstrates that your camp was aware of the age related link for some time. Hell, I'll allow it.

My "camp" was aware of the DNA issues contributing for "sometime". You have a bit to learn about so called research. … one must also consider biological studies (animal, clinical, test tube) when assessing causation. And that's where the plaintiffs will come to court armed with reams of published evidence - produced at Harvard, Columbia, Davis, etc., and printed in prestigious journals - to suggest a highly plausible biological mechanism that would link a known neurotoxin with a neuro-developmental disorder, one that has become epidemic, (and expensive) in America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/bad-news-for-mercury-defe_b_36152.html"> ~ David Kirby

But note: One instance of "bad/dishonest" work on the part of a researcher pretty much destroys him and any good work he might do.

You are apparently unaware of who funds vaccine research and who owns that research and who can pull funding for said research when/if results are not favorable?

Record high vaccination rates are explained by the fact that parents are given little choice in the matter.

Most states have exemptions of some form.

The providers records support the argument. The timing of vaccine administration is pretty well set. The timing of onset of ASD symptoms follows a bell curve. An event which occurs somewhere near the middle of that curve can not explain "effects" which preceded it, and since they do not alter the shape of the curve afterwards, they obviously could not have caused "effects" subsequently. This means that the observed/presumed "effects" are actually entirely unrelated events with approximately coincident timing.

Do you feel that I've not heard this argument before?

From my side of the fence they add complexity to a situation which to all appearances can be adequately explained by a single root cause, that in turn can be arrived at through a minimal number of pathways. Genetic damage related to parental age and perhaps mutagenic environmental pollutants.

Well then, notify the presses! You've solved the problem for all humanity! ;)

Guess what, this is not unlike the assertion of Kirby, and others concerned. The problem lies in both genetics and the environment. Vaccinations being part of the environmental factor.

The simplest solutions are usually the correct ones.

Sorry I must disagree.

I wasn't the person who said this, thus you are disagreeing with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_RazorYOURSELF> here.

The parents of autistic children, among others, have muddied the waters by insisting that opinion substitute for fact.

No, they have led us to find the answers and the latest case acknowledged in "vaccine" court is only the beginning. So, hold onto your pants, as they say in Texas.

[mzmolly]

67. "Wouldn't it be fantastic..."

Wouldn't it be fantastic if we would identify children like the alleged one mentioned in the article at birth?

Indeed it would. But we would never have gotten to this point if those who wish to compare advocating for safer vaccines to advocating mass death had gotten their way. If we do find an agreed upon answer, it will only be because of the persistence of people who refused to shut up and ignore the truth in the name of so called "science" and "the greater good".

I found some more info here in the mitochondrial issue:

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/1600/1678.asp?index=6957

It seems those anti-vaccine nuts may have been onto something? ;)

Thanks for your reasoned post CMD

[varkam]

32. Oh, Kirby wrote it.

Does anyone have a link pointing to a news source for this item?

[rinsd]

48. Anti vaccine whackjob makes up court case

"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."

So he just happened to obtain a sealed court document....right.

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

66. It's amazing how many "free loading fear mongers" will fight AGAINST SAFER vaccines.

Thanks for this IJM. Sorry I just spotted it.

[Orrex]

85. This non-story is sure to be overplayed by the anti-vax crowd

Hell, with 24 recommendations, I'd say that it's been sorely overplayed already.

The Skeptic's Dictionary has a nice piece on the significance of this story, which you can read here. Here's the essential quote:

Notice that the ruling does not say the vaccines caused autism. In fact, the ruling doesn't even say that the child was ever diagnosed with autism. She shows "features of autism spectrum disorder."

In short, the subject line of the OP is misleading at best.

Here's another good bit:

The child has a disorder that affects every cell in her body and it is pure speculation at this point that the vaccines either caused the mitochondrial PPD or in any way caused her autistic-like symptoms or seizures.

In this context we might as readily characterize "pure speculation" as "wishful thinking," which is by coincidence the entirety of the anti-vax rhetoric in favor of a vaccine/autism link.

[Jim__]

86. I would expect a more honest report from a true skeptic.

The report in the skeptics dictionary is disappointing. People should make decisions based on the complete set of facts. This report presents only selected facts and misrepresents the context of those facts.

A few examples of selected facts:

From the skeptics report: --On July 19, 2000, she received five vaccinations - DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV. According to her mother's affidavit, the child developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. {Note: "Fever is ... a frequently reported adverse event following immunization."}

From the more complete report contained in the actual court document: 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. . Note that the skeptics report left out all reference to the child's healthy, alert, communicative activity at this visit.


From the skeptics report: Then, on February 8, 2001, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman reported that after the child's immunizations of July 19, 2000, an "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." It is not clear where he got this information, but apparently the first time he saw the child was six months after she was vaccinated..

Note that in the skeptics report, it explicitly states that it is not clear where Dr.Zimmerman got his information. Again, refer back to the part of the July 19 doctor visit that the skeptic omitted. Also, from the court report - and omitted from the skeptics report: 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. .

All the information about the child's normal development up to the time of the vaccination, information that is included in the court report, is omitted from the skeptics report; and then they make an explicit comment that it is not clear where Dr. Zimmerman got his information. I'm sorry, the skeptics report is being deliberately misleading here.

Again, from the skeptics report: The child has a disorder that affects every cell in her body and it is pure speculation at this point that the vaccines either caused the mitochondrial PPD or in any way caused her autistic-like symptoms or seizures. Nevertheless, the DVIC "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." Notice that the ruling does not say the vaccines caused autism. In fact, the ruling doesn't even say that the child was ever diagnosed with autism. She shows "features of autism spectrum disorder."

From the court report: 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.

Notice that the medical personnel who made the decision, did not make any claim that they were engaging in speculation. The decision is 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. No, it doesn't say that the vaccines caused autism. It states that they significantly aggravated a preexisting condition.

And, yet again, from the skeptics report: I don't know what the statutory criteria are but it is obvious that they are not identical to the criteria sound science would require to establish a causal connection. From a scientific point of view, what you have is the post hoc fallacy against a backdrop of overwhelming evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. It bears repeating: nobody diagnosed the child with autism. She manifests symptoms that are consistent with autism spectrum disorder.

Well, the statutory criteria are not that hard to find. The explicit criteria that were cited in the court case:
(c) Petition content
A petition for compensation under the Program for a
vaccine-related injury or death shall contain -
(1) except as provided in paragraph (3), an affidavit, and
supporting documentation, demonstrating that the person who
suffered such injury or who died -
...
C) ...
(ii)(I) sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any
illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by a vaccine referred
to in subparagraph (A), or ...

The criteria are clear and were explicitly stated in the decision: the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated a condition. Medical personnel decided that this criteria was met. Yet the skeptics report claims, without citing any evidence, that this is not sound science.

And, as to the claim from the lawyer: the legal standard of plausibility is "50 percent and a feather,". The lawyer was talking about the standard that would be used to allow the remaining cases to go forward. He was not talking about the criteria necessary to decide 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.

I don't claim to know what the full meaning of this decision is, or what its future implication are. But, I am confident that, in spite of this skeptic's interpreting this decision for us(e.g. it's pure speculation, it is not sound science), he does not know much about the true meaning of this decision either.