Lies My New York Times Told Me (Or, Why Trust a Doctor Who Says 10,000 Shots Are Safe?)

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

The following letter was delivered to Mr. David Shipley, Op-Ed Page Editor of the New York Times, in regards to the essay by Dr. Paul Offit In today's paper:

Dear Mr. Shipley,

There are many inaccuracies in the Op-Ed today by Dr. Paul Offit.

For example, this statement: "The answer is wrapped up in the nature of the unusual court where the Poling case was heard."

This case was never heard in any court at all. The Poling case was conceded by US Department of Health and Human Services medical personnel, well before it could become a publicly accessible and publicly heard "test" case. It was a medical concession, not a legal decision. Dr. Offit and the New York Times know this.

Next is this statement: "An expert who testified in court on the Polings' behalf claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah's already weakened cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible.

Again, no one "testified in court" in this case, as confusingly stated by Dr. Offit, who also writes that, "Without holding a hearing... the court conceded."

And again, the court did not concede anything. The concession was made by doctors at HHS, represented by attorneys at the Department of Justice.

This statement, too, is misleading: "Even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child's immune system."

To begin with, Hannah received five shots, but nine vaccines - two of the injections were three vaccines in one. She was vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertusis, polio, HiB, and chicken pox.

More importantly, Dr. Offit's statement contradicts the second HHS concession (for epilepsy) in the Poling case, to wit:

The cause for autistic encephalopathy in Hannah "was underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves."

In addition, Dr. Offit's contention that vaccines cannot cause autism is inconsistent with what Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC, said this weekend on CNN:

SANJAY GUPTA: Are we ready to say right now as things stand that childhood vaccines do not cause autism?

DR. GERBERDING: What we can say absolutely for sure is that we don't really understand the causes of autism. We've got a long way to go before we get to the bottom of this

It surprises me, and saddens me, that the OpEd page could allow so many false and misleading statements to appear in its ranks.

Finally, I think you should ask Dr. Offit if this quote of his is attributable to all children, including those with known mitochondrial dysfunction, such as Hannah Poling and the many other kids just like her:

"Our analysis shows that infants have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once." (Please see press release below).

We will soon learn that there are probably thousands of children just like Hannah Poling out there. Chances are, you know one of them personally.

Many thanks for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a reply, if at all possible.

Sincerely,

David Kirby

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Jan. 7, 2002
Contact: Rebecca Baumgold
P: 215-590-4172
Email: [e-mail]
INFANT IMMUNE SYSTEM IS STRONGER THAN MANY PARENTS THINK

New Report by National Vaccine Experts shows that multiple vaccines don't weaken or overwhelm the immune system

Philadelphia, Pa. -- From the moment of birth, infants are capable of responding to numerous challenges to the immune system, including multiple vaccines, according to a new report published in the January issue of Pediatrics. The report, authored by Paul A. Offit, M.D., chief of Infectious Diseases and director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues, reviews current research on the effects of vaccines on the immune system and the capacity of the infant immune system to respond safely to multiple simultaneous immunizations.

"The number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased substantially over the past several decades. Twenty years ago, children received 7 vaccines routinely and up to 5 shots by 2 years of age. Today, children receive 11 vaccines routinely and as many as 20 shots by age two," explains Dr. Offit. As a possible consequence of these trends, recent national surveys have found that an increasing number of parents are concerned that infants receive too many vaccines. Implicit in this concern is the idea that an infant's immune system is inadequately developed to handle vaccines safely or that multiple vaccines may weaken, overwhelm or deplete the immune system.

"The infant immune system has an enormous capacity to respond safely and effectively to immune system challenges from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "Our report offers reassurance to parents that far from weakening an infant's immune system, vaccines actually strengthen an infant's defenses against serious and potentially fatal infections."

The report, entitled "Addressing Parents' Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant Immune System?" highlights the following important findings:

Newborns commonly encounter a host of challenges to their immune system at the same time. Newborns are capable of generating protective immune responses to bacteria and viruses, as well as vaccines, from the moment of birth. This capability is necessary for them to meet the tremendous number of environmental challenges they will encounter in the first few hours and days of life.

"Babies emerge from the relatively sterile environment of the womb into a world teeming with bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms, and their immune systems are designed to stand up to these challenges from the start," explains Dr. Offit. "Newborns have billions of immunologic cells that are capable of responding to millions of different microorganisms. By quickly making an immune response to bacteria that live on the surface of their intestines, for example, babies are able to keep those bacteria from invading their bloodstream and causing serious disease."

Current research shows that young infants are fully capable of generating protective immune responses to multiple vaccines given simultaneously. "Our analysis shows that infants have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once. Currently, the most vaccines that children receive at one time is five," says Dr. Offit. "Using this estimate, we could predict that even if all 11 of the routinely recommended vaccinations were given to infants at one time, only about .01 percent of the immune system would be used."

Comments

[MNmommy]

Nice crowd.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/more_legal_thuggery_this_time_against_ne.php

[CraigWilloughby]

And that little post tells us all the world about how nice you are. Especially that link to that hate-mongering site.

[LindsE]

If that's how you feel, you can read the subpoena and motion to quash here:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/150/

[ARealConservative]

Dr. Offit's claim of safety with 10,000 vaccines simultaneously seems a tad questionable given that:
a) that is why congress indemnified the drug companies and
b) if you visit http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm you find out how many deaths and serious claims have been awarded each year.

[LaniersMom]

Paul Offits outrageous statement "Our analysis shows that infants have
the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once".
reflects just how radical and reckless the US immunization program has
become. Dr. Offits ridiculous statement reflects the mindset of those
who benefit from what was once a life saving program to a billion dollar
industry that has spun out of control. This lust for money and power in
the name of saving children is becoming more and more obvious to the
world.

As the mother of a vaccine injured daughter, I find Paul Offits
statement extremely arrogant and absurd. I would like to remind Dr.
Offit the Vaccine Compensation Program (to compensate children injured
by no fault of their own), was conceived in 1988 when there were barely
10 vaccines on the schedule. I would also like to point out that the
reason Congress created this program was because they recognized the
fact there were many "sacrificial lambs" that fell for the "greater
good". If there were no such thing as vaccine damage there would be no
reason to indemnify and protect vaccine manufacturers, and compensate
those damaged or who died from severe reactions.

I challenge Paul Offit to put his money where his mouth is and receive
his preposterous offer of 10,000 shots in one day.
Wonder if any underlying dormant conditions would be triggered in such
an experiment...

Leslie
Mother of a "sacrificial lamb" for the "greater good"...

[Heraldblog]

If you had read and understood Offit's article in Pediatrics, you would know the context for his comment. Offit is not recommending children be injected with 100,000 vaccines - that's just the way people with anti-vaccines agendas frame the issue.

We are colonized with billions of bacteria and make an immune response to many. It's not that hard to understand.

[Olerist]

Remember it is based on a theoretical claim that Ofitt supports, not a stated fact.

But just the very idea at a basic level isn't rational. Assuming most vaccines are given in .5 to 1cc amounts - 100,000 vaccines would be 13-26 gallons at one time! Even that much water, let alone all the toxins contained in vaccines, injected into a healthy person at one time would not be advisable.

And he's a doctor intrusted with public health going around making such statements?

[ARealConservative]

While you may have many bacteria in your intestines, there are biological mechanisms in place to protect you from them. Would Dr. Offit recommend injecting all of the bacteria in your gut directly into your bloodstream? That is essentially what happens with appendicitis. It is deadly. This rationale is plain silly.

[CircleofHealth]

There's something about the autism debate here that I just don't understand. Since there is now a much higher incidence of autism in children than ever before, why wouldn't the government policy be to either make the shots elective, give them later, or do something to protect or identify those who might be injured? If children are being injured, wouldn't that be the primary concern?

And also why is there such a hysteria against parents who report a problem? Why would other adults become angry at them rather than empathizing with their concern for their children? Or the terrible suffering and burden imposed upon families? What's wrong with this country that people who are already suffering this harm should be further subjected to the indignity of being ridiculed and characterized as crazy?

Why are people frightened into believing that children are somehow in danger if they are not vaccinated? For centuries people had these diseases and probably had stronger immune systems than most of us have today. I personally had measles, chicken pox, rubella; my husbands had chicken pox, measles, and mumps. I mean we're not talking about the bubonic plague here.

[CraigWilloughby]

You bring up many good questions; the same questions that many parents of vaccine injured children ask every day.

The first paragraph, I don't know. I have no idea why there are no screening. The only thing I can think of is that the doctors, in their hubris, think that there is no possibility that they could be doing wrong.

The second question you kind of answered with your 3rd question. The reason why there is such antagonism toward parents is because all of these people think that we are adding to the hysteria, that we are promoting distrust toward our medical industry. They think that we will try to push our horrible agenda of wanting to protect our children from possible danger. I mean, it is just so terrible that all of us parents just want safer vaccines so that future children can avoid what we are going through. The people who ridicule us think that, since we are "refusing" to vaccinate our children, we are somehow endangering their children (I still don't see the correlation there. Heraldblog or ANB or MidwestDad or whatever your name is, you speak of correlation not equalling causation; the same applies here. Since I'm so anti-vax and got my children vaccinated (!), how am I endangering your children? If your children are vaccinated, then why should you worry? Aren't they protected?)

[MNmommy]

Where is your scientific proof that there is a higher incidence of autism?

[S1m0n]

You'd be better off taking legal advice from lawyers and medical advice from doctors.

[ARealConservative]

Three questions for those that think the current situation is perfect:

1) Do you agree that the current schedule that the CDC recommends is perfect? Realizing it was NOT chosen for medical reasons but parental/doctor convenience.

2) Which medical study would you like to present as proving a vaccination as 100% safe to every single child and can definitively exclude that autism effects may be caused?

3) Which medical study would you like to present as the indicating the source of regressive autism not caused by known genetic defects?

Any takers?

[CraigWilloughby]

All 3 are very good questions.

1. No, I do not agree. Overloading a child's system in this way is obviously dangerous (as shown by the Poling case and the numerous others). A one-size-fits-all vaccination policy is not effective, and the CDC should take into consideration the number of new ASD cases showing up instead of ignoring them.

2. A vaccinated versus unvaccinated populace study would show whether or not autism (and various other childhood illnesses like Asthma, ADHD and SIDS) is more prevalent in vaccinated children as opposed to unvaccinated children. It would put this whole debate to rest. But for some reason, the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the APA et.al. don't want this to happen. I wonder why?

3. I think that the above study would answer a majority of the questions concerning regressive autism. Genetically, it becomes more difficult to perform studies of this nature particularly because we are so unfamiliar with the human genome and the way it works. The genetic triggers that are associated with MT disorder could be tested for at birth, before the child even receives their first vaccine, and the vaccination schedule could be changed accordingly.

[ARealConservative]

Is it because we have a sports culture that you must be identified as pro or anti just because you ask questions?

I had questions and concerns about the safety of vaccines. So, I read the safety and efficacy studies that were conducted for several of the vaccines. Then I read medical research studies from NIH. After that I concluded that much that was claimed about the safety of vaccinations was true - for the statistical majority of children. Several studies that identified the "safety" would involved 100 patients - which has sufficient confidence interval for statistical validity. However, it would not and does not identify small population variations. That is, if there was a 1-2% of the population that had contraindictions it would not necessarily be deemed significant to the overall safety.

Remember that current medical ethics require only that it serve the "greater good" and not the "individual good". And that may not be wrong. Of course, if you become part of the 1% then the risk for you is 100% for life. A grim result.

My view is not to do away with vaccines, but we should find a safer means to administer them and make sure there are few if any negative results. For example, several of the safety studies found that a vaccine should not be given if the child is already sick of some other contracted virus. Shouldn't we require having a test done first for levels of anti-bodies prior to administering a vaccine?

[foe2Hg]

Good points! Those 1% deserve that inquiry too.

Teresa

[MidwestDad]

Why do you assume the number is 1%? It seems to me like the number is much lower.

[CraigWilloughby]

Good post. This is what all of these hysterical "anti-vacciners" are asking, for better safety studies to be performed on these government mandated vaccines.

[nhokkanen]

Parents of vaccine-injured have big worries.
We have learned the hard way that health officials lie.
We've learned that the vaccine marketing bureaucracy is more important to public health administrators than the safety of the children they are paid to protect.
So we don't dare continue vaccinating yet, because our children have shown adverse reactions -- physical damage, emotional disruption, immunological dysfunction, and other symptoms.
Most parents uneasily hope that other families can safely vaccinate their children, to keep up herd immunity. Meanwhile we wonder why the CDC isn't finding ways to test for vaccine injury susceptibility.
Denial is the absolute opposite of intellectual curiosity. How these people sleep at night is beyond me.

[KevLeitch]

HuffPost's Pick

Hi David,

You say:

"The cause for autistic encephalopathy in Hannah "was underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.""

I haven't seen that anywhere. I'm not quite sure what 'autistic encephalopathy' is - is this phrase used at all in either of the reports? I notice it is phrase inserted by you, not quoted from HHS.

[TimKasemodel]

Kev,

The term 'autistic encephalopathy' was used during the Autism Omnibus Hearing in the case of Michelle Cedillo, as reported in the Age of Autism Blog article "The Numbers Game – Day Eleven of the Autism Omnibus Trial" by Kent Heckenlively, Esq.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/07/the-numbers-gam.html

The article states:

"In a moment of high drama, Ms. Chin-Caplan handed Dr. Griffin an editorial by Dr. Paul Dyken, the doctor who maintains the SSPE registry for the country in which he compares this virally-induced condition that Dr. Griffin had testified to about at length to the condition at the heart of Michelle Cedillio’s claim, namely that the measles virus from her vaccination caused her autism. He refers to this condition as measles-induced neuro-autistic encephalopathy or MINE.

This is a quote from Dr. Dyken’s editorial. “An opinion can be given that MINE develops in the same fashion as SSPE. Although the syndromes are different, the etiology and pathogenesis are similar. For both syndromes, two factors are required: an immature or defective immune system which is unable to inactivate the attacking measles virus, whether it is the wild or the live attenuated form. Those who develop MINE do not completely neutralize the live attenuated virus and an aborted form of the virus ensues.”

This information can be verified at the Omnibus Autism Hearing website:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-austim-proceeding

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.............

[ThoJ]

Well, I'm sure the other bloggers will have equal sport with the innacuracies here. Starting with the title.

That said, this is all a side show. The meat of that Op-Ed is in this paragraph:

"“There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies are worsened by vaccines,” Salvatore DiMauro, a professor of neurology at Columbia who is the nation’s leading expert on the disorder, told me. Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from vaccines. "

When one of the world experts on mitochondrial diseases makes a comment like that, it is worth discussing. Why is that not a part of this blog post?

Further, it is worth discussing if he or others who disagree with the concept of "mitochondrial PDD" and/or vaccine induced mitochondrial regression were at the CDC conference call blogged earlier here. It would be just as inaccurate (might we even say, a lie?) if Mr.Kriby left out any dissenting voices that were on that call. The way that call iis presented it sounds like all the experts have accepted the theory. We now know that isn't the case. Was Dr. DiMauro on the call?

Was that conference call a mini-Simpsonwood? Not in the way that Mr. Kirby would have us believe, but in the way that people who have a monopoly on information can spin it to their liking.

[foe2Hg]

ThoJ-
You are a bull in the china store with your prepared agenda. You have your loyalties and I have mine. I am a parent to a child, severely autistic. Who are you ? If all you have is what Paul Offit offers, then you have lies, my fellow blogger. Equal sport.....


Teresa Conrick

[ThoJ]

Dr. Offit is not a researcher in mitochondrial disorders. Dr. DiMauro is. What he has to offer is very much of concern in this discussion.
Dr. DiMauro is definitely highly regarded in the field. In the area of mitochondrial disorders and autism, he is a coauthor on one of the major papers, "Mitochondrial DNA Abnormalities and Autistic Spectrum Disorders". It is worth reading. It is interesting that they state:
"Offspring of mothers carrying the A3243G mtDNA mutation can also present with autistic features, even when the mutation is undetectable in easily accessible tissues."
So, even though the mutation was not detected in all the children, it appears to be a factor in the children's autism.
Also, there is no mention of how this mtDNA mutation affected the mothers. If the mothers have detectible mtDNA mutations, but no or less severe autistic symptoms, that would be very relevant to the Poling case (and future cases).
Two of the patients in that study had noted medical concerns with maternal relatives. For one, four maternal uncles were noted. Wouldn't that be an intersting line of inqiriy?

[Orac]

"When one of the world experts on mitochondrial diseases makes a comment like that, it is worth discussing. Why is that not a part of this blog post?"

Easy. It doesn't fit in with David Kirby's desperate desire to show that somewhere, somehow vaccines cause autism, despite all the evidence to the contrary. To have a world expert on mitochondrial disease tell him that his claim that the exacerbation of mitochondrial diseases by vaccines is a major cause of autism in this country goes against his message.

So he just ignores the statement and hopes you will too.

[CraigWilloughby]

"It doesn't fit in with David Kirby's desperate desire to show that somewhere, somehow vaccines cause autism, despite all the evidence to the contrary."

Except for the Poling case and the other cases conceded by the government in vaccine court

[derrick99]

Thanks for the food for thought. I am a new parent and just getting started on the vaccine/autism issue. I poked around the web a bit after reading this and there is certainly plenty of controversy. But I will say this to the folks who are leery of vaccines - you had better be right. Contrary to what some snarky posters have replied, we are talking about more than annoying Measles or Chicken Pox. Polio is (was) one of the world's great killers. Diptheria and Measels, not great killers, but pretty much non-events these days. Tetanus, Hep A and Bep B? No Picnic. And I don't know if it fits into the current debate, but the Flu? Pretty much the most deadly desease ever. Even a cursory look at the evidence suggests to me that the anti-vaccine crowd has a real issue and that industry and government is not doing enough to look into the vaccine/autism link, but this is not black and white and the stakes are high. So tread carefully.

[CraigWilloughby]

Very few of the anti-vaxxers are actually anti-vax. I have vaccinated all 3 of my children. What we are asking for is safer vaccines or a safer schedule. 36 vaccines before the age of 3 is dangerous, I don't care what Offit says. A child's immature immune system cannot deal with that type of stress, as shown by the Poling case.

[Heraldblog]

Of course you're anti-vaccine. Your criticism is based on junk science and conspiracy theories. You've already decided what you think is true, and no amount of evidence will change your mind. What makes you think the current vaccines schedule is less safe that the old one? Wait, I think I know - because the number of autism diagnoses has increased in the past 20 years, and that correlates to the increase in the vaccine schedule. And in your world, correlation nails causation 100% of the time. Sorry, but that doesn't come close to justifying your anti-vaccine position.

[bluevalentine]

derrick99
Coming from a mother of an injured child, I say to you,
tread carefully" when you make your decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate your children. Yes, some of what you mentioned are deadly, but most are not...plus­....things like Hep B are not contracted on the p[layground. A person has the dignity of being a child of God and allowed to make some decsions as an adult. Hep B vaccine falls in that category. Certainly some vaccines are good, bit too much of anything is not necessarily a good thing.
If people would stop reading the medical reports on thimerosal and research mercury....there is NOTHING good about it. Not ONE known bit of living tissue survives coming into contact with it. Isn't that enough reason to not allow anyone to be injected with it? Especially since it is NOT a good antbacterial or anti-fungal agent.
There isn't one good reason for ANYONE, young or old, to subject themselves to a neurotoxin that has NO advantage...no benefit outweighing a risk....

[kellianndavis]

Seeingtruth:

David is absolutely correct.

I spoke with an attorney who is involved with these cases and the Poling case was decided by the "administrative" side of the Court.

In other words, it never went over to the Special Masters and was never "heard" by them. The adminstrative personnel (in this case the HHS medical personnel) decided to concede on the merits of the paperwork that was filed.

Most of what you have written above is referring to the cases that actually make it to court and get heard by the Special Masters (judges).

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[ThoJ]

Concessions are read and approved by a Special Master. It may not have been "heard" in court, but the expert reports and the documents submitted by the respondents will be read by a special master.

Take, for example, this case that was conceded in the Vaccine Court.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/EDWARDS.HARO.pdf

"The special master has reviewed the record as a whole. The special master is satisfied that
the Haros have established by the preponderance of the evidence all statutory prerequisites to an
award of Program compensation."

Or this one. See especially reference (4)
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Vowell-Rodriguez-CisnerosNov%2030.pdf

"See § 300aa–13(a): “Compensation shall be awarded...if the special master or court finds
on the record as a whole...” See also, § 300aa–13(b)(1) (indicating that the court or special master
shall consider the entire record in determining if petitioner is entitled to compensation)."

In order for a compensation arrangement to be made, a special master will be (or already has been)
involved. This not only creates the compensation, but will "consider the *entire* record.

"Heard" or "read", in the end it will be a decision of the court.

[wutsername]

Thank you, David, for your consistent efforts to keep the facts straight in this issue. I hope your readers realize that the majority of the time you devote to researching and reporting on the vaccine/autism connection is on your dime. Those of us whose children suffer from vaccine induced autism owe you a great debt of gratitude. As for Paul Offit, if I didn't feel such contempt for the man, I would feel sorry for him for writing an essay that is so easy to discredit. It is possible that in addition to being a pharma whore, Mr. Offit may also be a pathological liar. But, I guess the two go hand in hand. Keep up the good work, David.

[CraigWilloughby]

Pharma-whore! I love it!!

You don't mind if I start using that for Get-Off-It-Offit instead of Number 2, do you?

[seeingtruth]

Again Kirby spins other’s words to suit his message. His statement “This case was never heard in any court at all.” is wrong

This case was heard in a legally binding court established by Congress. On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system actually makes it easier to win a case for those who believe that they were injured by a vaccine.

Administered by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Court), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) the Court makes the final decision as to whether claims are compensated and the amount of the award.

Once all of the information is presented by both sides to the court then a decision is made by a “special master” (a lawyer appointed by the judges of the Court) and presented to the petitioner who makes a decision to accept or reject the decision. The decision may be appealed to a judge of the Court by the petitioner or HHS, then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and finally, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sounds like a Federally recognized court to me! I’m unaware of any instance where the Supreme Court would agree to hear an appeal on a ruling if it didn’t accept as originating from a Federally Recognized Court System.

[mogrammy]

IT NEVER GOT THAT FAR. IT NEVER GOT TO COURT. What you are talking about is if a case isn't conceded before it goes to court. READ MY LIPS 'IT DID NOT GO TO COURT."

Maurine Meleck

[RimlandFanWA]

Respectfully Seeingtruth,

You are confused. For most vaccine injury cases, you have layed out the steps taken, however, the Poling case was a very special case indeed. When the medical reviewers took one look at the evidence linking Hannah's vaccines and her autism, they about fell over themselves to concede the case. There's lots of very good reasons why they would want to do this- and one can only speculate, but for anyone with an IQ over 80, the most likely reason was to keep it out of court- because then it would be public record. The Polings signed releases and have asked that the details of the case be opened to the public, but so far, the government's trying to keep the details locked up. Now why would they do that?

If you are a regular reader of David Kirby, perhaps you recall his recent column here, where he mentioned a simple exercise. Here's a repeat:

--> google search for the phrase "mercury mitochondrial" or "autism mitochondrial".

Seeingtruth,(??) you need to SeeTheLight. Honestly, you are beginning to sound like Paul Offit. To the time-out corner with BOTH of you!!

p.s. rumor has it the Carnitine's been flying off the pharmacy shelves !

[nhokkanen]

No judge, jury or Special Master heard the Hannah Poling case in a court of law.
DHHS scientists examined the evidence and came to their carefully worded conclusion.
The DHHS concession, with the DOJ's blessing, is akin to plea bargaining.
This looks like a case where "Seeingtruth" hastily cut and pasted text from a website without fully understanding its unrelation to the unique circumstances of the applicable case.

[Heraldblog]

You need to read the March 27 "Autism Update" from the Office of Special masters:

"In recent weeks, there have been a number of reports in the media concerning a certain Vaccine Act case, currently pending before the court. Some of those reports have erroneously stated that the Office of the Special Masters has recently issued a "decision," "opinion," or "ruling" concerning the issue of whether a Vaccine Act claimant's autism symptoms were caused by one or more vaccinations. The OSM has not issued any such decision, ruling or opinion. (All Vaccine Act decisions and opinions are posted on the Court's web site at www.uscourts.gov/vaccine-opinions-decisions) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa=12(d)(4)(A), officials of this court are generally prohibited from revealing any information concerning vaccine Act case, until a written decision concerning the case has been issued. Accordingly we cannot provide any details concerning this matter at this time."

Nancy, I know you want to believe that HHS has "conceded" to prevent the case going before the court, but the facts speak otherwise. The Special Masters still need to review evidence and write their decision. I don't blame you for not knowing this, seeing as how you rely on David Kirby for your information.

[TimKasemodel]

HuffPost's Pick

Seeingtruth

You have been reading - and repeating - lies - apparently who you got YOUR information from, like you, does not rely on TRUTH. You should consider using the internet for educaton sometime - it is really helpful.

ANALYSIS

Medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of

Health and Human Services (DVIC) have reviewed the facts of this case, as presented by the

petition, medical records, and affidavits. After a thorough review, DVIC has concluded that

compensation is appropriate in this case.



In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for

demonstrating that the vaccinations Hannah 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).

Isn't it interesting when someone can come out and prove you are full of bovine feces????

THE TRUTH SITE - CHECK IT OUT.......

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-austim-proceeding

You could leran a lot more here than where you learned the garbage you are spewing above.

Tim Kasemodel

[sandygottstein]

If infants are so strong, why do they even need vaccines?

[2kids]

Bravo for the simplicity and appropriateness of this question.

[Orac]

If you thought that question was "simple" or "appropriate," you're beyond hope.

[samtaylor1]

This is nonsense.. There is ZERO evidence that supports the notion that vaccines cause autisism. But there is tons of evidence that says thay if you don't get a mumps vaccine you could get mumps, and tons of other awful diseases. There is a anti vaccine industry that is using causation as evidence to make moeny hand over fist.

Vaccines are one of the major reasons we live longer as a human race. Furthermore, vaccines generally do not make large sums of money for pharmaceuticals. These companies make money on drugs and diseases that must be treated over and over again. (NOTE- this sad fact has led to very vew new vaccines being made)

[CraigWilloughby]

No evidence? Except for the thousands of parents who can pinpoint the onset of their child's condition to within a few hours after receiving a vaccination. But, we are all just hysterical and uneducated idiots according to you (Don't take into account the majority of us who have higher education degrees, and those like myself who are currently working on their doctorate).

Oh, and that one little tiny case that is not as unique as Gerberding and Offit want to play off....you know, it was a big media hit....the Poling case?

So, yeah, there's no evidence (dripping sarcasm)

[Orac]

"No evidence? Except for the thousands of parents who can pinpoint the onset of their child's condition to within a few hours after receiving a vaccination. "

Correlation does not equal causation. And, no, we're not saying that you're all just "hysterical uneducated idiots" (although the person who asked "If infants are so strong, why do we need vaccines?" earlier in this thread comes close to qualifying for asking such a dumb question).

You seem to have a touching faith that somehow an advanced degree keeps you from making the same mistakes and having the same quirks in observation that all humans do, be they uneducated or not. It doesn't. Humans are hard-wired to make correlations and to infer causation from them. This sort of thing served us well thousands of years ago struggling for survival, but it leads to lots of mistakes in confusing correlation with causation when it comes to addressing scientific problems. The very reason the scientific method was devised was to try to overcome the cognitive limitations that lead human beings (yes, even scientists) routinely demonstrate and to combat the tendency towards bias that we all have. That's the whole reason for controls, statistics, and epidemiological methods, etc.

Drip sarcasm all you like, when all of those things are controlled for, there really is no good evidence that thimerosal­-containin­g vaccines or vaccines in general are correlated with autism.

[mogrammy]

Tons of awful diseases. ? Give me the mumps(acutally I already had the mumps years ago and sat home and ate ice cream all day-not a bad deal), which you consider a terrible disease over autism any day of the week. I guess you don't consider autism as terrible.(my guess is you don't know anyone personally with it) In fact, I'll take the mumps on my cheeks, neck, even my knees over autism.
Vaccines are one of the biggest reasons so many of our children are so sick with permanant illnesses like juvinile diabetes, asthma. The US has the highest infant mortality rates in the Western world. Longevity for both men and woemn has increased due to improvements in santitation, better health standards all around-not because of vaccines.
Drug companies make huge amounts of money from vaccines. Check out how much they made on the HPV vaccine in 2007. It would make your head spin. The companies make money on drugs from diseases that vaccines cause. And about all those zero evidence studies--you are only reading the government studies-try some independent one-Boyd Haley, Mark Geier, Brubacher, to mention a few. You really should broaden your small world.
Thank you David. We appreciate all your posts. This one is terrific.
BTW-I also survived the measles, and chicken pox (two of those other awful diseases)
Maurine Meleck
South Carolina

[Orac]

"Vaccines are one of the biggest reasons so many of our children are so sick with permanant illnesses like juvinile diabetes, asthma. The US has the highest infant mortality rates in the Western world."

What a load of crap! You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, particularly that you cite pseudoscientists like Mark Geier, who is treating autistic children with powerful androgen-blocking agents on the basis of...zero science.

If you want to see a high infant mortality rate, try going to countries where vaccination is scattershot and hard to come by. If you'd like the U.S. to join that unfortunate club, cut back on vaccines.

[CraigWilloughby]

HuffPost's Pick

Oh my! Number 2 (aka St. Offit to the Pro-vaxxers) caught in a contradiction? What is this world coming to when a "respected" medical official who works for the government knowingly lies to the American public about how safe his vaccines are? Some of us just might lose faith in the Government and the CDC.

[CamJam]

I already have lost faith in the Government and CDC, FDA etc. in addition to loosing faith and trust in our pediatrician.