or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Government concludes vaccines caused autism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Government concludes vaccines caused autism - Page 2

post #21 of 36
Is there only one blog being referred to here? or did another link get removed?

I am not sure why someone would see Kirby's blog as being offensive. I found it eye-opening when reading here:

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum) and other analyses (http://osdir.com/ml/culture.autism/2.../msg00093.html) 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 (http://jcn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2/170) 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.

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.

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.


Doesn't this sound a like epigenetics: there is something 'switching on/off the gene' and the vaccine is the final straw?
If there is an underlying physical condition that can be linked to vaccine -- at least they have something to look at.
post #22 of 36
the link was pulled and the previous comments were about another blog, not david kirby's commentary.



the age of autism blog has a lot of great information and i respect the writers on there because most of them have first hand experience with autism.
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

I dont usually like using wiki as a source, but I'll put that out there.

See, their job is to decide if compensation is mertied. IN the omnibus cases, there were just so many coming under the heading of autism, they are doing them like this- with test cases. If those test cases succeed, then the door is open for autism claims.

This case, from what I have gathered in my research and from what I can remember from back in november when they talked about this one, was already settled out of court and did not fall under the same theories as the omnibus cases (they are arguing three distinct theories of causation, which you can read about on the omnibus website).

So, because it was decided they would receive compensation, there was no question of whether or not compensation was deserved- thus, the case was essentially "closed" in the eyes of vaccine court. (that doesnt mean they cant file civil suits or whatever)

In addition, because the link was not mercury/vaccines caused autism, it still wouldn't have worked for the omnibus. The underlying condition would have made it nonrepresentative of the other cases, which is what the test cases need to be. (but thats a moot point since it was already settled and compensation awarded)


Now, I know many here would argue that the existence of an underlying cause is very relevant. IMO, this is yet another example of the lawyers leading the test cases being woefully unprepared. They did not make arguments of this nature and are not intending to make arguments of this nature.

This is all onn top of their other horrible mistakes (such as the first cases having tapes demonstrating autistic tendencies before vaccination).
Thank you so much for this Carriebft. And Kidspiration, between your brain and mine, we might make a whole.

I am weeding ("slogging" might be more accurate) my way through "vaccine court" procedure and the omnibus in particular. The process is counter-intuitive both from a medical and a legal perspective. Also it is really important to remember that lawyers don't prove medical facts. It appears like the three Omnibus "theories of causation" may have more to do with legal "best chances to win" than medical evidence, though these are not entirely unrelated.

Carriebft, one thing I am having much trouble figuring out is why the grant of compensation in the one case is always referred to as a "concession" when the government decision does not have that title and I don't see "concession" anywhere as either a medical or legal term of art. Procedurally I understand what happened in this particular case - the court of claims decided compensation was appropriate and for a variety of reasons others decided the case should no longer be one of the test cases - but I can't figure out why the decision to award compensation is referred to outside of the court of claims as a "concession." What am I missing?
post #24 of 36
One case does not make a conclusion

read here for more info on why this is not an admission that vaccines cause autism

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=735

Quote:
Did the vaccinations cause her developmental regression? Seems likely. It is an undisputed fact that vaccines do cause injury, that is why after all there is a compensation program to claim from in the US and the UK.

Was her developmental regression autism? No. At no point in either the concession report is it claimed that the developmental regression the child went through was autism. However, in the same way that Leukemia (weakness, paleness; fever and flu-like symptoms) can have the same symptoms as flu (weakness, paleness; fever and flu-like symptoms) but be totally different, this child’s developmental regression shared certain features of autism.

So was this child autistic. She might well have been. However, her autism was not caused by a vaccine.
post #25 of 36
"This is all onn top of their other horrible mistakes (such as the first cases having tapes demonstrating autistic tendencies before vaccination)."

See, I think these law firms are planning on making huge money (tobacco settlement/silicon breast implant style money) off of this. These are bright, highly motivated people. So, I don't think they are making horrible mistakes - - I think what they've been showing in the OAP is the best they have, which just shows how weak the plaintiffs' cases are.

In addition, two courts just found in other litigation that mercury does not cause autism. I believe one decision was even reached on a motion for summary judgment, which meant the plaintiff hadn't even sustained a strong enough evidentiary case to proceed to trial.
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"This is all onn top of their other horrible mistakes (such as the first cases having tapes demonstrating autistic tendencies before vaccination)."

See, I think these law firms are planning on making huge money (tobacco settlement/silicon breast implant style money) off of this. These are bright, highly motivated people. So, I don't think they are making horrible mistakes - - I think what they've been showing in the OAP is the best they have, which just shows how weak the plaintiffs' cases are.

In addition, two courts just found in other litigation that mercury does not cause autism. I believe one decision was even reached on a motion for summary judgment, which meant the plaintiff hadn't even sustained a strong enough evidentiary case to proceed to trial.
The vaccine court is a no fault system with a set fund, but they could be looking to make money in the fall out since these cases have bypassed the vaccine court before (though they were all either settled for the vaccine company, decided for the vaccine company, or just let go for lack of evidence)

I agree with you in that I do not believe there is any merit to the arguments being put forth by the families (ie vaccines cause autism); however, even I, someone who doesn't believe in the link or think it has any standing, could have told you that putting a case on the stand with video evidence denying your claim is a bad idea. In addition, if I had to argue a case for the families, I would definitely be trying to tie in underlying conditions and the like rather than trying to push a debunked theory like Wakefield's.

It just seems to me, even as someone on the other side, that they are really messing up a lot, even if their case lacks evidence (why make it worse? yet they are)
post #27 of 36
I still think it's powerful evidence against the safety of vaccines. Even if the vaccines "simply" exacerbated an underlying condition (as eating a peanut "exacerbates" a peanut allergy) -- this is still evidence of a link.

It's already common knowledge that not "everyone" develops autism following vaccination (just as not "everyone" dies after eating peanuts). So, to me, the question has always been: Can vaccination trigger autism in some susceptible individuals?

Since it's impossible to know all the "underlying conditions" present in an individual -- even if you can afford to test for the ones that are known to make someone more susceptible to developing autism, what about all the ones that haven't been identified yet? -- each and every child potentially has "underlying conditions" that vaccines could turn into full-blown disease.

And if vaccines can be linked to autism (even if it's only in "susceptible" individuals), they can surely be linked to any number of other serious diseases. After all, we all carry a number of genetic mutations that can cause serious disorders under certain combinations of circumstances.

It seems to me that this case has proven that vaccines can be "the straw that broke the camel's back" in more ways than just causing, or nudging an already susceptible person into, autism.
post #28 of 36
There is also, however, the question of if this child had autism or just "manifested symptoms of autism" which were later cured when the mitochondrial disorder was treated.
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
There is also, however, the question of if this child had autism or just "manifested symptoms of autism" which were later cured when the mitochondrial disorder was treated.
You mean, she was totally cured? Then why is she needing lifelong support?
post #30 of 36
It is important to note that: "in Vaccine Court, a petitioner who brings a claim in good faith is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, regardless of whether the claim is successful."

For example, in the linked case, the petitoners attorneys were originally awarded (later overturned) over $300,000 in a case in which they never had a single hearing.

http://http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/135

This is the sort of teat at which attorneys can happily suckle for years.
post #31 of 36
I think maybe I can speak to this a bit. My son does have mitochondrial disorder and related to that he has autism symptoms. He did lose skills though around 18 months to age two as his metabolic condition worsened but didn't have vaccines then. Instead his case worsened in part during a series of (non-antibiotic, chiropractic care, etc.) ear infections. Probably the fever actually...which can be the trigger in vaccines too. A rare kid goes through life without fever. Diet had part in his decline too as a feature of mitochondrial disorder is he can't metabolize fat. But ear infections didn't cause his autism either!

He did gain back some skills when we started treating his mitochondrial disorder but brain damage is brain damage (and he's mildly affected compared to this child so far). His geneticist said no live vaccines as they can trigger metabolic crisis though he never had them anyway; I'm glad for that.

But the vaccine doesn't create or trigger mitochondrial disorder..it's a DNA mutation. It could trigger a metabolic crisis which probably happened in this case. A child affected to this degree would not go through life without having metabolic crisis. And in fact mitochondrial disorder is a progressive condition.

The thing is the title to this thread is govt. concludes vaccines caused autism; not really the conclusion.
post #32 of 36
Just wanted to comment that autism is actually defined as a collection of behaviors. It isn't a clear-cut diagnosis the way, say, diabetes is a diagnosis, or scurvy. So saying that this child doesn't have autism doesn't really help either way. A lot of the children who are currently defined as having autism may have something else, just like the child in this case, and that something else may very well have been exacerbated by vaccination.

The assumption that vaccination doesn't "cause" all sorts of things is not based on anything very solid.
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidspiration


anyone who knows anything about autism is that there is no such thing as the 'classic common variety' of autism.
So gets to decide who knows something and who doesn't? On its own, saying this doesn't mean anything.
post #34 of 36
"Just wanted to comment that autism is actually defined as a collection of behaviors. It isn't a clear-cut diagnosis the way, say, diabetes is a diagnosis, or scurvy. So saying that this child doesn't have autism doesn't really help either way. A lot of the children who are currently defined as having autism may have something else, just like the child in this case, and that something else may very well have been exacerbated by vaccination."

And yet haven't you said numerous times on this very board that the cases of autism are increasing exponentially? I agree with what you're saying about autism diagnosis as quoted above and adding that to the change in diagnostic parameters that makes the numbers extremely mushy.
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
So gets to decide who knows something and who doesn't? On its own, saying this doesn't mean anything.
i have a lot of professional experience with children on the autism spectrum and i haven't the slightest idea what this person was referring to when s/he stated the words "classic common type of autism".

there is no such thing.

some people do refer to "classical" autism interchangeably with moderate/severe autism, but it's a confusing term to use.
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"Just wanted to comment that autism is actually defined as a collection of behaviors. It isn't a clear-cut diagnosis the way, say, diabetes is a diagnosis, or scurvy. So saying that this child doesn't have autism doesn't really help either way. A lot of the children who are currently defined as having autism may have something else, just like the child in this case, and that something else may very well have been exacerbated by vaccination."

And yet haven't you said numerous times on this very board that the cases of autism are increasing exponentially? I agree with what you're saying about autism diagnosis as quoted above and adding that to the change in diagnostic parameters that makes the numbers extremely mushy.
Yep. On the other hand, it looks to me like there are a huge number of children who are having severe problems. A whole range of severe problems. Whether all of these problems are "autism" isn't the question. Some good questions to ask: are children healthier? Thriving? Developing normally?

To give just one example: Across the street from my daughter's house are some nice folks who happen to be grandparents. Their grandchildren were visiting one day. The younger child, a girl, seemed to be pretty well on track. Her older brother, roughly the same age as my granddaughter, had a severe speech problem, moved very clumsily (awkwardly), seemed to have some sort of developmental delay. My SIL, who is a speech language pathologist, confirmed my informal observation. This child had some major problems. The numbers of children who need a lot of help because of such problems are way up. So, maybe it turns out not to be autism. Does that mean all the children who have been misdiagnosed are really healthy and thriving? You can't mean that...

And no, I don't think I have said:
Quote:
And yet haven't you said numerous times on this very board that the cases of autism are increasing exponentially?
This doesn't actually sound like something I would say. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Government concludes vaccines caused autism