Autism Vaccine Decision

In message 1KdDj.3726$sw3.3529@trnddc06, Jeff wrote:

Who's Putz? Certainly not me. My name is Jeff. You're not going to the
kindergarten route of name-calling, are you?

Kindergarden? No, Jan never got that far.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

On Mar 16, 2:33*pm, Jeff wrote:


Well, Putz, that is a lie.

Who's Putz? Certainly not me. My name is Jeff. You're not going to the
kindergarten route of name-calling, are you?

Jeff, it is an attempt to marginialize you, and anyone who can think
for themselves.

Your claim that the court ruled that vaccines caused autism is incorrect
on two counts:

1) The court didn't rule anything. The Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Justice reached an agreement. While the
case was in court, there was not ruling by the court.

The only thing the court did was to ratify the settlement. They did
not rule on the merits.

2) The determination made was that the vaccine aggravated a
mitochondrial disorder causing an encephopathy.

Your repeating these false claims after it has been pointed out that
they were false constitutes a lie.

*I* made no claims.

You quoted John Gilmore in response to me. That, in my book, is a claim.

that the courts ruled that vaccines
caused autism. Instead the Department of Health and Human Services
ruled that in a case before the vaccine court that the case, under the
law, met the criteria for paying the claim and that a mitochondrial
problem was aggravated by vaccines causing an encephalopathy.

It has been pointed out several times that this the courts did not
rule that the child had autism caused by vaccines, but you continue to
spread this lie.

How sad that you have to lie.

Jeff

I did not lie, you did..AGAIN!

Posting a quote of someone else that is demonstrably false after it is
pointed out is lying, in my book.

For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The court did not concede a thing because it did make a ruling. Further,
it the determination that was agreed to by the family and the Department
of Health and Human Services was that vaccines causes an encephopathy,
not autism.

A fact that will never get through to the Merchants of Disease,
Disability and Death.

In message , wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:50*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:

The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative that was in
most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.

This is not an accurate fact. The thimerosal laden vaccines were
available and used until at least 2003. The thimerosal amount was
"reduced" in some vaccines but remains high in others. The actual
amount of thimerosal children are exposed to, from the fetus to the 3
year old, has actually increased.

I do so love it when the innumerate display their afflictions
so proudly. "Available and used until" -- as in, the last one
had an expiration date in early 2003. No mention of whether the
actual number lasting that long was significant.

As for the amount of thimerosol in the current vaccine schedule
being greater than five years ago, this is pure BS. Made up from
the whole pasture (complete with meadow muffins.) The schedule
hasn't increased markedly, and the additions never had thimerosol
in the first place. Those on the schedule have certainly had
their thimerosol content reduced [1]. You don't get to "greater"
by adding zero to "reduced."

Well, maybe in "alternative mathematics."

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

This is an accurate statement. It is also in the Rhogam shots during
pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that RhoGam contains no preservatives
(easily checked) there's the tiny little matter of dilution.
I so love it when someone pretends that maternal flu shots
somehow direct 100% of their thimerosol that the 60 kg mother
receives to the 2 kg fetus. Amazing, ain't it?

It's also amazing that somehow *all* mothers are getting
RhoGam. That's a shocker, considering what the stuff is.

Bottom line: Chuckles is really floundering around trying to
come up with something, however transparently bogus, to
avoid admitting that he was (and remains) wrong.

[1] Zero is a reduction, but there's no need to quibble
since any reduction proves Chuckles is either lying
or not playing with a full deck. Or, of course, both.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Skeptic" wrote:


"Jan Drew" wrote in message
y.net...
For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The courts let OJ walk free, too. Legal proceedings don't determine
things
such as whether or not vaccinations cause certain diseases or conditions.
Medical science determines that. All actual evidence to date points to
this
not being the case. We shall see if future studies yield different
results,
but as of now, that's what we have.

And, of course, despite Jan repeating Gilmore's lie several time. the
court did not concede that vaccines cause autism. How could it, when
the child in question is not autistic?

Agreed.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:1AGCj.370$i54.60@trnddc05...
Jan Drew wrote:

"Richard Shewmaker" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...f-ed1aebfc427c
Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases, but a
landmark federal case may shed some doubt about vaccines in the minds
of parents. A court has decided to compensate a family who claims
their daughter developed autism from her vaccine.

"For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates
that vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism
United.

The case is that of 9-year-old Hannah Poling of Atlanta, Georgia.
Before the concession, Hannah's case was to be heard in the federal
vaccine court.

The decision is fanning the flames of the controversial firestorm
dividing the medical and autism communities. Thousands of parents,
including Adams County mom Holly Bortfeld, claim their child's autism
was injected into them with the vaccine.

CBS 21 News interviewed Bortfeld last April about her son Max, who was
diagnosed with autism ten years ago.

"I believe he got autism from his vaccinations," says Bortfeld.

The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative that
was in most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.

But for max, Hannah and scores of others who got the shots before
then, this case out of Atlanta is helping their arguments. But will it
hurt vaccines?

"I think it's a little bit of a leap of faith to go from this case to
vaccines definitely cause autism," says Dr. Paul Williams, Houcks Road
Family Practice.

Dr. Williams says since the documents on Hannah's case are sealed, he
says he doesn't know what the judge's based their decision on. Was it
scientific fact or was it just political expediency?

As for vaccines today Dr. Williams says, "At this point I feel
comfortable and confident that the current vaccine supply is safe and
I wouldn't hesitate in vaccinating my family or my patients."

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

Hannah's family is asking for mercury to be removed from all vaccines,
and they just might have the political weight behind them now to get
their demands met.

Hannah Poling was also diagnosed with mitochondrial, a rare metabolic
disorder that shares symptoms with autism. The federal court concedes
vaccines may have caused that disorder and "autism-like" symptoms in
Hannah.

Since when is scientific truth determined by court decision? Even if
the Supreme Court decreed that the sun sets in the east, that would not
make it so.

--Rich

This thread is not about scientific truth determined by courts decision.
It IS about For the first time the court has conceded in a case that
indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

No. It is about your false claims

Well, Putz, that is a lie.

*I* made no claims.

that the courts ruled that vaccines
caused autism. Instead the Department of Health and Human Services ruled
that in a case before the vaccine court that the case, under the law, met
the criteria for paying the claim and that a mitochondrial problem was
aggravated by vaccines causing an encephalopathy.

It has been pointed out several times that this the courts did not rule
that the child had autism caused by vaccines, but you continue to spread
this lie.

How sad that you have to lie.

Jeff

I did not lie, you did..AGAIN!

For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.



For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:1KdDj.3726$sw3.3529@trnddc06...
Jan Drew wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:1AGCj.370$i54.60@trnddc05...
Jan Drew wrote:

"Richard Shewmaker" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/stor...f-ed1aebfc427c
Autism Vaccine Decision

They exist to protect our children from deadly diseases, but a
landmark federal case may shed some doubt about vaccines in the minds
of parents. A court has decided to compensate a family who claims
their daughter developed autism from her vaccine.

"For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates
that vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism
United.

The case is that of 9-year-old Hannah Poling of Atlanta, Georgia.
Before the concession, Hannah's case was to be heard in the federal
vaccine court.

The decision is fanning the flames of the controversial firestorm
dividing the medical and autism communities. Thousands of parents,
including Adams County mom Holly Bortfeld, claim their child's autism
was injected into them with the vaccine.

CBS 21 News interviewed Bortfeld last April about her son Max, who
was diagnosed with autism ten years ago.

"I believe he got autism from his vaccinations," says Bortfeld.

The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative that
was in most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.

But for max, Hannah and scores of others who got the shots before
then, this case out of Atlanta is helping their arguments. But will
it hurt vaccines?

"I think it's a little bit of a leap of faith to go from this case to
vaccines definitely cause autism," says Dr. Paul Williams, Houcks
Road Family Practice.

Dr. Williams says since the documents on Hannah's case are sealed, he
says he doesn't know what the judge's based their decision on. Was it
scientific fact or was it just political expediency?

As for vaccines today Dr. Williams says, "At this point I feel
comfortable and confident that the current vaccine supply is safe and
I wouldn't hesitate in vaccinating my family or my patients."

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

Hannah's family is asking for mercury to be removed from all
vaccines, and they just might have the political weight behind them
now to get their demands met.

Hannah Poling was also diagnosed with mitochondrial, a rare metabolic
disorder that shares symptoms with autism. The federal court concedes
vaccines may have caused that disorder and "autism-like" symptoms in
Hannah.

Since when is scientific truth determined by court decision? Even if
the Supreme Court decreed that the sun sets in the east, that would
not make it so.

--Rich

This thread is not about scientific truth determined by courts
decision.
It IS about For the first time the court has conceded in a case that
indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

No. It is about your false claims

Well, Putz, that is a lie.

Who's Putz? Certainly not me. My name is Jeff. You're not going to the
kindergarten route of name-calling, are you?

No need to repeatedly lie, Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz.

Real one on HealthFraud list: Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz, M.D.

[2007] "Robert Watson"
Jeff Utz
Jeff Utz, M.D.
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. Hence "Putz"
http://www.msu.edu/~utz/
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
Wyle E. Coyote
Jeff Utz (Jan 2003)
Jeff
Jeff (2007)

Your claim that the court ruled that vaccines caused autism is incorrect
on two counts:

My, my you did it again. *I* made no claim.

1) The court didn't rule anything. The Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Justice reached an agreement. While the
case was in court, there was not ruling by the court.

2) The determination made was that the vaccine aggravated a mitochondrial
disorder causing an encephopathy.

Your repeating these false claims after it has been pointed out that they
were false constitutes a lie.

*I* made no claims.

You quoted John Gilmore in response to me. That, in my book, is a claim.

Yes, that is a tactic of the *gang*. Their books are twisted lies.

that the courts ruled that vaccines
caused autism. Instead the Department of Health and Human Services ruled
that in a case before the vaccine court that the case, under the law,
met the criteria for paying the claim and that a mitochondrial problem
was aggravated by vaccines causing an encephalopathy.

It has been pointed out several times that this the courts did not rule
that the child had autism caused by vaccines, but you continue to spread
this lie.

How sad that you have to lie.

Jeff

I did not lie, you did..AGAIN!

Posting a quote of someone else that is demonstrably false after it is
pointed out is lying, in my book.

No, you have demonstated nothing other than your opinion.
As for *your book* see above.

For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The court did not concede a thing because it did make a ruling. Further,
it the determination that was agreed to by the family and the Department
of Health and Human Services was that vaccines causes an encephopathy, not
autism.

Jeff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...i_b_88323.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) What are the implications for research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) What is the bottom line here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: Full text of the government's statement is posted here.

David Kirby is the author of "Evidence of Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the
Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy"

http://www.pcc.com/lists/pedtalk.arc...909/00037.html

Antivaccine people
To: "Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D."
Subject: Antivaccine people
From: Dale Dutcher
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:39:31 -0400
We live in a country where the vocal few can and will make
their voice heard no matter how misinformed they may be.

They know that the news media will take their misinformation and
puff it up to sound almost believable to the layman.

Ultimately you end up with a big scandal that no one ever hears
the medical and scientific truths about vaccination
over the cries of the crowd.

"Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:

I have read the Recommendations and Report from the MMWR that recommended
the vaccine (vol 48, #2) as well as the MMWR that announced that vaccine
use
be temporaly suspended. I have observed the behavior of the antivaccine
groups on the internet carefully in some of the usenet groups. I have also
heard that the grassroot action of these groups on the internet is at
least
partially responsible the hearings in Congress (I think on National Public
Radio, although I am not sure).

The following is my long opinion of the antivaccine people:

The antivaccine people seem to fall into two camps: 1) Those who feel that
their family members have been injured by the vaccines (like Congressman
Burton, the chair of the committee which is investigating vaccine safety
and
held a hearing on the matter). Many of these people are very angry at the
medical establishment (and many of them rightly so). However, most of
these
people, I think are barking up the wrong tree. For example, people whose
kids have died of natural causes (in one case, the parents said SIDS, but
I
do not think their testomony supports this conclusion) and cancer, as well
as children who have autism came up in the hearing. 2) Those who are
against
the mandatory nature of the vaccines or the way vaccines are regulated.

These groups use whatever data seem to support their position without
understanding the data (in my opinion). For example, AAPS seems to use
Roger
Schafly, a Ph.D. in mathetmatics, as a statistician. However, this person
seems to have no idea about medicine or epidemiology or, in my opinion,
statistics. However, he says he is qualified to judge the models the CDC
uses. These groups also seem to used data without examine all the data
available or the ignore data that do not support their position.

One example of this is the 30 times higher than expected figure. However,
this is for the week following vaccination only. (Their analysis of this
one
week following the vaccination period seems to be correct.) They failed to
was no mention the rates for the entire study period. The AAPS said: "A
review of prelicensure trials shows that 3 cases of intussusception
occurred
within a week, in 10,054 doses administered, or 30 cases per 100,000
infant-weeks: thirty times the expected rate though reportedly not a
statistically significant increase compared with the control group used in
the trial." However, their statistician knew that this was not
statistically significant, because it involved only three cases. In
addition, they did not point out the intussecption was about 2.5 times
more
common in the vaccine group versus the control group in the prelicensure
studies. Another example, they call the events in the VAERS data either
"adverse effects" or "adverse reactions." However, these really adverse
events, because reporting an event that occurred after a vaccination does
not mean these events were causally related to the vaccine.

Other examples of the tactics of the antivaccine people are hinted at in
the
letter by Dr Orient, president of the AAPS, quoted by Graham Barbon. The
state that vaccines are given out with incomplete studies of safety and
efficacy. Later when, Dr. Orient adds: "Informed consent is a prerequisite
for ethical
medical treatment (or for research)." I think the "or research" is
significant. I think she is trying to imply that the CDC is experimenting
with the vaccines on unwitting volunteers. Other antivaccine people have
made the aquasation directly.

Both groups have been very vocal, especially about the ratovirus
inntusseception thing and the temperary change in the Hep B vaccine
recommendations. Both groups have testified in the Congressional hearings
(so have I, in writing only). If you read the statement of the AAP very
carefully, you will see that the AAP recommends returning to the original
schedule of using Hep B vaccine to all infants soon after birth as soon as
mercury-free vaccine is available. However, the antivaccine groups are
calling the Hep. B recommendation change a reversal in policy.

I think the AAPS and other vocal groups have some very good points,
including about the rights of parents to decline vaccinations, about the
proper informed consent for vaccinations, openness in the review of drugs
and vaccines as well as making whether or not there should be exemptions
for
the vaccines. However, I detest their misinformation when it comes to
proving their point. Does this not sound like the thing that they are
fighting against?

Anyway, this is just my opinion on the subject.

Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 16, 2:33 pm, Jeff wrote:

Jeff" wrote in message
news:1KdDj.3726$sw3.3529@trnddc06...
Jan Drew wrote:



Well, Putz, that is a lie.

Who's Putz? Certainly not me. My name is Jeff. You're not going to the
kindergarten route of name-calling, are you?

Jeff, it is an attempt to marginialize you, and anyone who can think
for themselves.

Your claim that the court ruled that vaccines caused autism is incorrect
on two counts:

1) The court didn't rule anything. The Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Justice reached an agreement. While the
case was in court, there was not ruling by the court.

The only thing the court did was to ratify the settlement. They did
not rule on the merits.

2) The determination made was that the vaccine aggravated a
mitochondrial disorder causing an encephopathy.

Your repeating these false claims after it has been pointed out that
they were false constitutes a lie.

*I* made no claims.

You quoted John Gilmore in response to me. That, in my book, is a claim.

that the courts ruled that vaccines
caused autism. Instead the Department of Health and Human Services
ruled that in a case before the vaccine court that the case, under the
law, met the criteria for paying the claim and that a mitochondrial
problem was aggravated by vaccines causing an encephalopathy.

It has been pointed out several times that this the courts did not
rule that the child had autism caused by vaccines, but you continue to
spread this lie.

How sad that you have to lie.

Jeff

I did not lie, you did..AGAIN!

Posting a quote of someone else that is demonstrably false after it is
pointed out is lying, in my book.

For the first time the court has conceded in a case that indicates that
vaccines can indeed cause autism," says John Gilmore, Autism United.

The court did not concede a thing because it did make a ruling. Further,
it the determination that was agreed to by the family and the Department
of Health and Human Services was that vaccines causes an encephopathy,
not autism.

A fact that will never get through to the Merchants of Disease,
Disability and Death.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 16, 3:27 pm, "D. C. Sessions" wrote:
In message
,
wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:50 pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
The specific culprit is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative that
was in
most vaccines. It was removed in 2001.
This is not an accurate fact. The thimerosal laden vaccines were
available and used until at least 2003. The thimerosal amount was
"reduced" in some vaccines but remains high in others. The actual
amount of thimerosal children are exposed to, from the fetus to the 3
year old, has actually increased.

There went the fake UDP again...
I do so love it when the innumerate display their afflictions
so proudly. "Available and used until" -- as in, the last one
had an expiration date in early 2003. No mention of whether the
actual number lasting that long was significant.

I posted alink to a report of a review where they found that most
doctor's offices were Thimerosal free by 2002. Unfortunately, the CDC
removed the origianl article. It is well preserved in the
blogosphere.

You posted it repeatedly, and *I* pointed out the page could not be found.
Why didn't you look it up the first time??


As for the amount of thimerosol in the current vaccine schedule
being greater than five years ago, this is pure BS. Made up from
the whole pasture (complete with meadow muffins.) The schedule
hasn't increased markedly, and the additions never had thimerosol
in the first place. Those on the schedule have certainly had
their thimerosol content reduced [1]. You don't get to "greater"
by adding zero to "reduced."


DC, you are being harsh on Chuckie. He never claimed to have a PhD in
math. Of course, he stopped claiming when he reached three, since he
can only count that high using his arms and legs.

Did you read your Torah today??
That reading it everyday was certainly was a lie.

Well, maybe in "alternative mathematics."

Thimerosal remains in some vaccines including the flu shot.

This is an accurate statement. It is also in the Rhogam shots during
pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that RhoGam contains no preservatives
(easily checked) there's the tiny little matter of dilution.
I so love it when someone pretends that maternal flu shots
somehow direct 100% of their thimerosol that the 60 kg mother
receives to the 2 kg fetus. Amazing, ain't it?

It's also amazing that somehow *all* mothers are getting
RhoGam. That's a shocker, considering what the stuff is.

Bottom line: Chuckles is really floundering around trying to
come up with something, however transparently bogus, to
avoid admitting that he was (and remains) wrong.

[1] Zero is a reduction, but there's no need to quibble
since any reduction proves Chuckles is either lying
or not playing with a full deck. Or, of course, both.

Chuckie won't understand it.;

Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 3,790 for Mark
Probert do not understand

Get a new line Mark S Probert (Merrick NY) proven liar, insulter, harasser
with NO morals.

Jan Drew wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Who's Putz? Certainly not me. My name is Jeff. You're not going to the
kindergarten route of name-calling, are you?

No need to repeatedly lie, Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz.

Sorry, but Putz is not my name. You're kindergarten tactics to attack
me. I wish I could say you're better than that, but I can't.

Your diversionary tactic noted, however.

...

You quoted John Gilmore in response to me. That, in my book, is a claim.

Yes, that is a tactic of the *gang*. Their books are twisted lies.

I have no idea who the "gang" is. I am not part of this "gang." Anything
I say, I say of my own accord and speak only for myself.

Perhaps, if you don't share the beliefs that John Gilmore wrote about,
you could explain why you quoted him without comment.

Another diversionary tactic noted.
...

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

Yeah, so what? The site is wrong. If read the court documents (there is
link on the huffingtonpost.com sitey above, you will clearly see that
the Department of Health and Human Services said that the child had a
mitochondrial disorder that was aggravated by the vaccine. This caused
an encephalopathy that caused autism-like symptoms. Please note that
encephalopathy is not the same as autism. And that autism-like symptoms
is a description of the problems the child is having, and not a diagnosis.

...

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

And clearly, the decision reached said that the child had
encephalopathy, not autism.

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

In addition, the court document said: "Dr. Kelley affirmed that CHILD's
history and lab results were consistent with 'an etiologically
unexplained metabolic disorder that appear[ed] to be a common cause of
developmental regression.'"

An encephalopathy with features of ASD is not a diagnosis of autism.

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

Particularly because the court did not say the child had autism: "In
sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory
criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July
19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,
which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and
manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism
spectrum disorder."

...

Jeff