A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 29th 08, 03:59 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal
Ilena Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up

http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal applauds this ruling.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=57629


The federal government continues to deny a link between vaccines and
autism, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of a
child alleged to have regressed into autism as a result of
vaccinations.
(NOTE FROM ILENA; The Snake-oil (Vaccination) Propagandists spread
these same denials. www.breastimplantawareness.org/snake-oil.htm)

Several of the vaccinations included the controversial mercury-based
preservative thimerosal, points out the National Autism Association,
which sees the ruling as confirmation of the claims of many parents.

"This case echoes the stories of thousands of children across the
country," said NAA President Wendy Fournier. "With almost 5,000
similar cases pending in vaccine court, we are confident that this is
just the first of many that will confirm what we have believed for so
long – vaccines can and do cause children to regress into autism."

Fournier called on the Centers for Disease Control "to acknowledge
that the current vaccine schedule is not safe for every child and as
with the administration of any medicine, individual risks and
susceptibilities must be considered for each patient."

(Story continues below)

The government's unprecedented concession – filed Nov. 9 and sealed to
protect the plaintiff's identity – was obtained through individuals
unrelated to the case, said David Kirby, author of "Evidence of Harm:
Mercury in Vaccines and The Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy."

The concession was made by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Peter
Keisler and other Justice Department officials on behalf of the
Department of Health and Human Services, the defendant in all vaccine
court cases.

A CDC panel, meanwhile, voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend flu
shots for all school-age children. The move would compel private
insurers to cover the costs and require the CDC to make the vaccine
available to anyone who can't afford it.

The NAA criticized the CDC decision, noting thimerosal is still found
in flu shots recommended for children and pregnant women.

Thimerosal in vaccines is suspected of causing brain damage and
weakening the immune system, making some children susceptible later to
infection from measles, mumps and rubella shots.

Kirby, writing for the Huffington Post, reported the government's
written concession said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial
disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots and ultimately resulted in
a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or 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," Kirby
writes. "But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate,
and for public health policy in general, are not as certain."

The government's concession, he says, seems to raise more questions
than it answers.

The Department of Health and Human Services said its Division of
Vaccine Injury Compensation, or DVIC, "has reviewed the scientific
information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and
has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in
every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position
that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case
that autism was caused by vaccination."

Kirby said that for most affected families, the fine distinction
between claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism but instead
aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism is a fine distinction
that is not so important.

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

It also puts the federal government's vaccine court defense strategy
somewhat into jeopardy, he said.

"DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no
evidence to support an environmental component," he pointed out. "And,
they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events
linking immunizations to the disorder. Government officials may need
to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations
campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this
case."

The bottom line, he said, is that the public will demand to know what
is going on inside the U.S. federal health establishment.

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

The key words contained in the concession, he says, are "aggravated"
and "manifested."

"Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the
manifestation would have occurred at all," Kirby argues.

"When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say
'his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to
the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of
death,' he continues. "No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy.
Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us
today."

Whatever the government's further explanation, says Kirby, "they
cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case: The
United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine
injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism. And that is big news,
no matter how you want to say it."


  #2  
Old February 29th 08, 06:05 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 280
Default Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oilVigilantes continue the Cover Up

On Feb 29, 9:59*am, Ilena Rose wrote:
*http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal applauds this ruling. * *

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=57629

The federal government *continues to deny a link between vaccines and
autism, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of a
child alleged to have regressed into autism as a result of
vaccinations.


That, plus your subject line, "Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated'
autism ..." is incorrect.

The decision held that the child's *un-diagnosed* pre-existing
condition was aggravated by a vaccine and the child developed "autism-
like" symptoms. The decision did not find that the child developed
autism.

Kirby's spinning, and the peanutty story above, are merely feeble
efforts to make this decision more than it is. Kirby is desperate to
hold on to his original ideas since they have been disproven time and
again.

Kirby is an anti-vaccination Merchant of Disease, Disability and
Death.

  #3  
Old March 1st 08, 05:43 AM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 280
Default No Evidence of Harm

For an excellent analysis of the medical considerations regarding the
recent decision by the US Government see:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=203


Kirby is wrong. Period.


Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conclusion


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


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


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


  #4  
Old March 1st 08, 05:44 AM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 280
Default No Evidence of Harm

For an excellent analysis of the medical considerations regarding the
recent decision by the US Government see:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=203


Kirby is wrong. Period.


Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conclusion


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


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


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


  #5  
Old March 1st 08, 02:38 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal
Ilena Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up

Mark S Probert ... STOP HIGHJACKING THREADS TO POST THE VACCINATION
PROPAGANDA.

No wonder you were disbarred ...
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...istProbert.htm




Discussion subject changed to "No Evidence of Harm" by Mark Probert.
(Typical Barrett / Quackwatch / Snake-oil Tactics)

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...m#Mark-Probert

Here is more from David Kirby ... who you seen greener with envy of
than Shrek's toush!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...t_b_89318.html

Dear Senator McCain,



It was with some amazement that I read about your comments, made
tonight while campaigning in Texas, about a possible link between
mercury in vaccines and autism.

According to Jake Tapper at ABC News, a Texas mother of a child with
autism asked you about the Federal Court document, first reported on
Huffington Post last Monday, in which Justice Department officials
conceded that vaccines had aggravated one child's underlying medical
condition, resulting in a diagnosis of autism.

Your courage -- some would (and will) call it lunacy, or at best
political suicide -- to step into this quagmire, while running for
President, no less, is an inspiration and comfort to those of us who
continue to ask such discomfiting questions in the public realm.

It's not the nicest place to be, but welcome to our world anyway.
Given your war record, you are much better prepared than anyone I can
think of for the incoming missiles of vitriol that are about to come
your way.

"Why are you trying to scare parents away from vaccinating their
kids?" some will demand. "Don't you know that children will get sick
and die, because of your reckless questioning?" others will say. "Are
you really so stupid that you believe this issue hasn't been put to
rest by the best science money can buy? Who the hell do you think you
are, anyway?"

Oh that's right: War Hero. U.S. Senator. De Facto Presidential
Nominee.

Well, Senator, if you are unafraid to ask the tough, unpopular, and,
yes (gasp!) controversial questions about what you aptly call the
"indisputable" increase in autism cases - and to be so bold as to
suggest that "there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to
do with a preservative in vaccines" -- then no one in America, least
of all journalists, should fear asking the same questions.

In the meantime, get ready for a whole new type of infantile
sloganeering that will be heaped upon you with tedious repetition.

You, Senator, like it or not, are now a card-carrying member of the
"Mercury Militia." You are a tin-foil hatter, a "denialist
dead-ender," and an "anti-science" nut job grasping at emotional,
litigious straws.

You, Senator, in the raw vernacular of your newfound enemies, are one
of those awful, ragtag "anti-vaxers" who just want to see kids get
sick from preventable diseases and die.

Yet, when you raise questions in the US Senate about aviation safety,
no one angrily labels you "anti-airplane," do they?

Inquire about reducing highway accident rates? Nobody runs around
calling you "anti-car."

But raise a question about the Federal Government conceding a
vaccine-autism case; or ask why more and more studies from Harvard,
Johns Hopkins, the University of California and elsewhere continue to
show a potential link between mercury (from the environment and, yes,
from vaccines) and autism, or even call attention to the fact that
autism is epidemic (and thus not purely genetic), and suddenly it's
battle stations: Prepare to fend off the overheated wrath of indignant
health officials and their blogger allies, who, to be honest, aren't
always that adept at turning an original phrase against their foes.

Sir, I only hope that your Democratic opponent will be equally
unafraid to address these admittedly thorny issues up front and
honestly. (My sources tell me that one indeed will. The other one, not
so much).

Whoever wins the White House, let's pray that he or she gets to the
bottom of this national emergency while funding vital new treatment
research on a Manhattan Project scale. And let's hope their
Administration is remembered for presiding over the waning days of the
Great American Autism Epidemic.
  #6  
Old March 1st 08, 08:40 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal,alt.support.autism
Ilena Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up

This is a joyous day for the Snake-oil Vaccination Team ... with a
Presidential wannna-be being brave enough to make such a statement ...
the PR machine is cranking away like crazy!
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm

On this point alone, I agree with McCain:

McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that
(autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s
causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that
indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines."




http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ccain-ent.html

John McCain Enters the Autism Wars

February 29, 2008 7:11 PM

At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a
mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines,
is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a
position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.

McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with
autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued
a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed
regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by
thimerosal.

"We’ve been waiting for years for kind of a responsible answer to this
question, and are hoping that you can help us out there," the woman
said.

McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that
(autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s
causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that
indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

McCain said there’s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with
"many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying
that’s not the cause of it."

The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it
sound, however. Overwhelmingly the "credible scientists," at least as
the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side
against McCain's view.

Moreover, those scientists and organizations fear that powerful people
lending credence to the thimerosal theory could dissuade parents from
getting their children immunized -- which in their view would lead to
a very real health crisis.

The Centers for Disease Control says "There is no convincing
scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in
vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the
injection site."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says"No scientific data link
thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines with any pediatric
neurologic disorder, including autism."

The Food and Drug Administration conducted a review in 1999 -- the
year thimerosal was ordered to be removed from most vaccines -- and
said that it "found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as
a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions."

The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee
concluded "that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection
of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and
autism."

And a study of California Department of Developmental Services data
published last month indicated that there was "an increase in autism
in California despite the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines."

Yet there is a vocal, determined, passionate group -- including some
medical researchers and organizations -- who vehemently dispute what
the established medical community says about this wrenching issue. One
of the questions they ask is why would the thimerosal have been
removed from the vaccines if there was no real harm?

(The answer according to the Public Health Service, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers was "because any
potential risk is of concern.")

In any case, here we have a major political figure, the presumptive
Republican nominee, who stated that he at the very least isn’t as sure
about thimerosal as the medical establishment is.

Moreover, he made it sound as if the thimerosal is still in vaccines
-- though as I understand it, thimerosal is all but gone in almost
every childhood vaccine now, and has been for years.

This could be quite controversial.

- jpt

John McCain Enters the Autism Wars

February 29, 2008 7:11 PM

At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a
mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines,
is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a
position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.

McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with
autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued
a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed
regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by
thimerosal.

"We’ve been waiting for years for kind of a responsible answer to this
question, and are hoping that you can help us out there," the woman
said.

McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that
(autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s
causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that
indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

McCain said there’s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with
"many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying
that’s not the cause of it."

The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it
sound, however. Overwhelmingly the "credible scientists," at least as
the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side
against McCain's view.

Moreover, those scientists and organizations fear that powerful people
lending credence to the thimerosal theory could dissuade parents from
getting their children immunized -- which in their view would lead to
a very real health crisis.

The Centers for Disease Control says "There is no convincing
scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in
vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the
injection site."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says"No scientific data link
thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines with any pediatric
neurologic disorder, including autism."

The Food and Drug Administration conducted a review in 1999 -- the
year thimerosal was ordered to be removed from most vaccines -- and
said that it "found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as
a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions."

The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee
concluded "that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection
of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and
autism."

And a study of California Department of Developmental Services data
published last month indicated that there was "an increase in autism
in California despite the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines."

Yet there is a vocal, determined, passionate group -- including some
medical researchers and organizations -- who vehemently dispute what
the established medical community says about this wrenching issue. One
of the questions they ask is why would the thimerosal have been
removed from the vaccines if there was no real harm?

(The answer according to the Public Health Service, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers was "because any
potential risk is of concern.")

In any case, here we have a major political figure, the presumptive
Republican nominee, who stated that he at the very least isn’t as sure
about thimerosal as the medical establishment is.

Moreover, he made it sound as if the thimerosal is still in vaccines
-- though as I understand it, thimerosal is all but gone in almost
every childhood vaccine now, and has been for years.

This could be quite controversial.

- jpt
  #7  
Old March 2nd 08, 03:48 AM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant,misc.legal
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 280
Default No Evidence of Harm


Ilena Z. Rosentha: Stop posting propaganda from the Merchants of
Disease, Disability and Death.

For an excellent analysis of the medical considerations regarding the
recent decision by the US Government see:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=203


Kirby is wrong. Period.


Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conclusion


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


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


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vacciation Quote of the Day again! Ilena Rose Kids Health 0 January 25th 08 05:02 PM
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vacciation Quote of the Day Ilena Rose Kids Health 19 December 31st 07 02:33 PM
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day Ilena Rose Kids Health 4 December 29th 07 08:16 PM
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day Ilena Rose Kids Health 0 December 28th 07 11:46 PM
Vaccine / Autism Link Cover Up alleged Ilena Rose Kids Health 1 August 21st 04 12:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.