The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read

Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal, applauds David Kirby and thanks him
for helping expose this covered-up document and bringing it to life.

The breast implant / vaccinations industires have long forced "gag"
orders on losing cases such as this. This stayed covered up only
around 4 months ... despite their best efforts.

May God protect him and all the rest of us exposing the real
Snake-oil ... Vaccinations.
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm
Partial List of Vaccination Propagandists seen thoughout the net ...

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


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...-_b_88558.html

Below is a verbatim copy of the US Government concession filed last
November in a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims, with
the names of the family redacted. It is the subject of my post
yesterday.


Every American should read this document, and interpret for themselves
what they think their government is trying to say about the
relationship, if any, between immunizations and a diagnosis of autism
spectrum disorder.

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.


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


CHILD, a minor,

by her Parents and Natural Guardians,

Petitioners,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S RULE 4(c) REPORT

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

FACTS

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

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

Vaccine Dates Administered

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

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

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

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

Id. at 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General

TIMOTHY P. GARREN
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

MARK W. ROGERS
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

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


DATE: November 9, 2007

On Feb 28, 9:25*pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal, *applauds David Kirby

David Kirby is one of the Merchants olf Disease, Disability and Death.


EXCERPT: *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.

Th eoperative words are "features of autism spectrum disorder" which
is NOT the same thing as autism.

http://ilenarose.blogspt.com
Health Lover

Regarding one of the Vaccination Lies being spread wide and far that
all mercury was removed from vaccinations in 2001 ... David Kirby
addresses that myth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...s_b_89775.html
DAVID: They stopped making mercury containing vaccines right around
the end of 2001 Now, this stuff goes and gets shipped into warehouses.
Then it gets into the pipeline, that's when the expiration date is
placed on it, the day it leaves the warehouse. They stocked up on
mercury containing vaccines as they were transitioning into the
mercury free formula. For those years, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and I'm
quite certain into 2004, a lot of this stuff was still sitting on
shelves.

In the meantime, we started giving the flu shot to pregnant women and
infant children, which still contains the full amount of mercury. We
never hit zero, and now we're back up.

On Mar 4, 2:08*pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
http://ilenarose.blogspt.com
Health Lover

Regarding one of the Vaccination Lies being spread wide and far that
all mercury was removed from vaccinations in 2001 ... David Kirby
addresses that myth.


Mr. Kirby hs been consistently wrong on every point he has made. There
is no rational reason whyhe should be believed now.

On Mar 4, 7:36*pm, Mark Probert wrote:

Mr. Kirby hs been consistently wrong on every point he has made. There
is no rational reason whyhe should be believed now.

Give me one good reason we should believe you.

On Mar 5, 12:10*am, Bee wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:36*pm, Mark Probert wrote:

Mr. Kirby hs been consistently wrong on every point he has made. There
is no rational reason whyhe should be believed now.

Give me one good reason we should believe you.

I document my statements with referencess. Kirby...wlll...

"Mark Probert" wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:08 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
http://ilenarose.blogspt.com
Health Lover

Regarding one of the Vaccination Lies being spread wide and far that
all mercury was removed from vaccinations in 2001 ... David Kirby
addresses that myth.



MP Mr. Kirby hs been consistently wrong on every point he has made. There
is no rational reason whyhe should be believed now.

That would include YOU, Mark S Probert, David
Wright and other *gang members*..



Jan Drew View profile
More options Mar 6, 12:43 am

Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative, misc.legal,
misc.kids.health
From: "Jan Drew"
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:43:10 -0500
Local: Thurs, Mar 6 2008 12:43 am
Subject: U.S. Federal Claims Court: Vaccines Caused Autism (Mark changed
subject line] HUGE NEWS: Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Link in Federal
Court!
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Mark Probert" wrote in message


...

[gmail is 96.224.239.236


OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc.
OrgID: VRIS
Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr
City: Reston
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20191
Country: US


Mark S. Probert exposed again]


http://talk.sheknows.com/f732/though...d-article-inte...


9:21 PM - Govt. Concedes Vaccine-Autism/Mito Case


Thank you, Mom (aka "Mama Mia") for posting this very important landmark
case. It shows that there is a connection between vaccines and the onset of
some forms of autism and/or mitochondrial disorders.


Mercury and other preservatives should be removed immediately from all
vaccines -- including flu vaccines. All vaccines for children and adults
should be safe and free of all mercury, preservatives, and other harmful
ingredients.


(MITOCHONDRIAL DISEASE AND AUTISM)


GOVERNMENT CONCEDES VACCINE-AUTISM CASE IN FEDERAL COURT -- NOW WHAT?


Posted February 25, 2008 | 12:42 PM (EST)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------***-----


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 as filed on November 9, and sealed to protect
the plaintiff's identity. 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 mitochondrial disease, which
was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial disease in autism is that, with ASD,
the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of
mitochondrial disorder. In fact, classic mitochondrial disease is almost
always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial
DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.


In autism-related mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial disease are so mild that the person
is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had
mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that
dysfunction to the point of "autistic features?"


While some mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial
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 mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial
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
mitochondrial 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 mitochondrial
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 mitochondrial 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
mitochondrial 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
February 28th, 2008
U.S. Federal Claims Court: Vaccines Caused Autism
After years of denying any link between vaccinations in children and the
onset of Autism, the U.S. Government quietly ruled in favor of a plaintiff
today - a child who regressed into autism as a result of vaccinations. While
I have never trusted shots, vaccines, or Rx pills in general, I knew
something was wrong with the disproportionate number of Autistic children in
this country compared to many other developed nations. Same for staggering
numbers of Alzheimer's, cancer, obesity, and other diseases.but that's all
information for a future post about how control of our health & wellness
(which includes food supply) has directly affected so many of these
epidemics.


A Victory for the Victim


Here is the story that came in today about the ruling, it is a great victory
for all of those who were once victimized by the Department of Health's
childhood vaccination schedule.


Case documents state that the vaccines administered to the claimant
significantly aggravated an underlying condition that ultimately led to
regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism.


According to official court documents, the child was developing normally
until given the vaccines, and shortly after the shots, regressed into full
autism. The child was diagnosed by nationally recognized autism medical
specialists.


For more than a decade, thousands of parents have come forward with reports
of sharp regression in their children following immunizations. The cases of
autism have dramatically spiked in the past 20 years to as many as 1 in 150
children, making it the leading childhood developmental disorder today.


The National Autism Association (NAA) sees the ruling as confirmation of
what so many parents have been saying for years. "This case echoes the
stories of thousands of children across the country. 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," says Wendy
Fournier, parent and president of NAA. "We call on the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) 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."


While thimerosal has been phased out of many pediatric vaccines, it is still
used in flu shots recommended for pregnant women and children. At a meeting
of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices held yesterday at the
CDC, the committee voted to recommend annual flu shots for all children up
to the age of 18, and to date has refused to state a preference for
mercury-free vaccines.


Skip the Mercury


I don't know about you, but I think I'll pass on the flu shot, which is now
being reported to not help anyways. I also don't think my future children
need to be injected with mercury, especially at such a young age, when their
bodies are so vulnerable. It's tragic that we have allowed the Government
and the Department of Health to get by with injecting young children with
poison for so long, but this victory is huge for the family who won, and
hopefully will be instrumental in fostering change in our health policies.


http://www.hearbydesign.com/2008/02/...s-court-vaccin...


February 29, 2008
Feds Admit Vaccine "Aggravated" Autism
["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."]


(World Net Daily)


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.


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."


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."


http://shankradioworldwide.typepad.c..._wide/2008/02/...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 12:10 am, Bee wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:36 pm, Mark Probert wrote:

Mr. Kirby hs been consistently wrong on every point he has made. There
is no rational reason whyhe should be believed now.

Give me one good reason we should believe you.

I document my statements with referencess. Kirby...wlll...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nota, Mark S Probert.

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Mark Probert
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:44:01 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 28 2006 4:44 pm
Subject: OT: For What it is Worth
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report
this message | Find messages by this author

pmoran wrote:
Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery
.
It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that
the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not
laid if these accusations were true?

I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a
point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated
how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet.


Can you withdraw it?



Yes, but for a price. Nothing for free any more.

I want peace. I have asked for it, I have lived it. I want peace.


I will do whatever is necessary for peace, except give in to Ilena's and
Jan extortion.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....29634d738f410b


pmoran wrote:
Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery
.
It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that
the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not
laid if these accusations were true?

I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a
point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated
how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet.


Can you withdraw it?


PM



You just scored some credibility points in my book, Peter. This is the
worst form of a hear-say attack I've ever seen. I applaud you for
calling a spade a spade.

Mark, at the very LEAST you should require evidence of this person's
accusations before considering such a story. If she ran a daycare that
was shut down, it should be public record. I'm not saying that it
would be online, since it's possible that it happened long before such
records were made available on the internet, but it would at least be
on file in the Indiana Child Protective Services office or other such
agency. And even THEN I would have personally steered clear of posting
it to usenet. I know you think you two are in a "gloves are off" kind
of battle, but posting stuff like this does nothing for you
credibility.


Max.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c6cd24744cf16f

"pmoran" wrote in news:1164743505.300973.222040
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery
.
It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that
the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not
laid if these accusations were true?

I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a
point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated
how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet.


Can you withdraw it?



I have to agree. In particular, the lack of a specific time-frame when the
abuses were supposed to have occurred is pretty suspicious; it gratuitously
increases the difficulty in verifying the allegations. Someone who had
really experienced an injustice, rather than someone with a potentially
malicious axe to grind, would want to do everything possible to make his
allegations verifiable.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....704e19d7850278


Gloves off is not the half of it. Jan has no idea what she is in for.


I have already requested that Google remove this message. I posted it to
make a point.


You are the only "ALT" who has demonstrated the slightest bit of ethics,
with regard to asking Jan to stop the abusive posts. Of course, you
failed. I rarely guarantee anything when it comes to human behavior,
but, I could have guaranteed that.


BTW, I did receive other emails which made this one look mild.


Those I deleted.



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....76941dfe867991

BTW, I have never received anything from my ISP, like you said.


*You have now acknowledged receipt of a proper warning, as required by
your ISP.*



You misunderstood. My post was the proper warning. You acknowledged
receiving it.


Leave me alone. Do not post to or about me.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....2cd9a67bc34ad0

OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
f12si25098590qba.2006.11.28.08.08.52;
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
designates 65.39.178.135 as permitted sender)


Net Range


OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1])


OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID: IANA
Address: 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City: Marina del Rey
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country: US


by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4229BA327A
for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:39 -0800
(PST)
Received: from mailserver8.hushmail.com (mailserver8.hushmail.com
[65.39.178.61])


OrgName: Web-Business-Services.com Inc.
OrgID: WEBBU-1
Address: 102-4369 Main Street
Address: Suite 908
City: Whistler
StateProv: BC
PostalCode: V0N-1B4
Country: CA


Net Range


OrgName: Icommand.Com
OrgID: ICOMMA
Address: 230 Richmond St W, Suite 800
City: Toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: M5V 1V6
Country: CA


Parent


OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


Hush Communications USA PEER1-HUSHMAIL-01 (NET-65-39-178-0-1


OrgName: Hush Communications USA
OrgID: HCU-9
Address: c/o Hansa Bank Landsome Road
City: The Valley
StateProv: AN
PostalCode: T10O2P
Country: GB


Parent


OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE


RTechHandle: ZP55-ARIN
RTechName: Peer1 Network Inc.
RTechPhone: +1-604-683-7747
RTechEmail:


Vancouver, Canada


by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailserver8.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 65534)


http://www.hackinglinuxexposed.com/a.../20021113.html


http://www.hackinglinuxexposed.com/a.../20020716.html


id 3E378DA84A; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:08:37 -0500
To: "Mark Probert"
Cc:
Subject: Jan Drew
From:
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id:


https://mailserver5.hushmail.com/hushmail/index.php


This email account does not exist:


On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0500 Mark Probert



wrote:


Wow. Mark is so stupid.


Look at the time when he posted it.




Notice how Mark changed it more than several times.


*I have the absolute right to post in peace.*


Was you fake email peaceful?


You are so full of it.


Your choice.



No, it is yours.


For the entire thread.



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....native&lnk=ol&