Kirby's letter, posted at Salon re Poling Case & Autism & Vaccines

[Guest guest]

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/13/poling/view/?show=all

letters related to the article

From: " Kirby " <dkirby@...>

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:25:52 -0500

· I also asked them to run two corrections:

· 1) This case was not decided by a court

· 2) Hannah

Poling does not have an “autism-like” disorder

·

· The Poling Case

- Let's get the facts right first

It is disheartening to see a medical doctor,

writing in a prestigious outlet such as Salon,

commit so many blatant errors while also offering

speculation and opinion as fact.

In one subhead, Dr Parikh relies on two often

repeated but fictional premises favored by those

who don’t fully understand the basic fundamentals of the Poling claim:

“So if it's not autism and nobody knows whether

vaccines cause mitochondrial disorders, why did

the court come to this conclusion?”

This IS autism, and the court did NOT come to

this conclusion. (And the question here is not

whether vaccines cause mitochondrial disorders, but whether they cause autism).

If one has the right set of “features” of autism,

one has autism. Hannah Poling was diagnosed by

Dr. Zimmerman, one of the country’s

leading autism physicians, who determined that

the girl met the DSM-IV criteria for so-called “full blown” autism.

Hannah Poling has autism -- as defined in every

book, in every library, in every university in

the world. Dr. Parikh’s insistence otherwise is perplexing.

In fact, for the doctor to second-guess this

diagnosis, at a distance, retroactively, and

without ever having met Hannah Poling, is vaguely

reminiscent of the Teri Schiavo case.

Secondly, this “decision” to concede that

Hannah’s autism manifested as a result of her

vaccine injuries, was not made by any court, or

judge, or Special Master. There was no trial,

hearing, transcript nor public deliberation.

This decision was made by senior medical

personnel at HHS, based on Hannah’s actual

medical records, and on the best science to which

these top government physicians have access.

And yet, Dr. Parikh writes:

“In this case, the court ‘concluded that the

facts of this case meet the statutory criteria …’”

But HHS doctors reached this conclusion, not “the

court”: an important distinction. This action was

based more on the rules of science and medicine than law and litigation.

Later, Dr. Parikh writes:

“It's clear from the transcript of the court's decision that this was not …”

I assume he is referring to Respondent’s Rule 4

Report, in which HHS conceded that Hannah’s

vaccines aggravated her underlying condition and

resulted in autism. But no transcripts came from this case, (unfortunately).

Despite that, the doctor adds:

“The details of the case and its deliberation remain sealed.”

Again, if there were deliberations, they were not

recorded. Other written details of the case could

be released, but the government has refused,

despite the family’s waiving of its privacy rights.

Moving on to the “Hannah doesn’t have autism” charade, the doctor writes:

“Hannah's doctors and lab results support the

diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder.”

And:

“It appears that experts initially felt she was

autistic, but once further testing was done, they

ably and accurately determined she has a mitochondrial disorder.”

Perhaps he is unaware that many ASD children,

perhaps 20-40%, present with both autism AND

mitochondrial dysfunction. Yes, Hannah had a

diagnosis of Mt disorder, but this came on top of

the autism diagnosis, it didn’t supplant it.

Next, he writes of the people who confirmed Dr.

Zimmerman’s initial autism diagnosis:

“We do not know what evidence Kau and Duff relied

upon to reach their conclusion.”

Such condescending insults heaped upon two

trained specialists in the field of ASD diagnosis

is not even worthy of a response. Dr. Parikh

should apologize to his colleagues at once.

Instead, he propagates his own peculiar

misunderstanding, again, that Hannah doesn’t

“really” have autism, when he writes:

“Some of the symptoms Hannah showed were similar to autism.”

They were similar to autism because they were

autism. A Cadillac has “features” of a Cadillac, but it is still a Cadillac.

Further down in the text, there is this confusing declaration:

“A series of illnesses Hannah developed between

her diagnosis of mitochondrial disease and after her vaccines.”

Hannah was vaccinated in July 2000, but was not

officially diagnosed with mitochondrial disease

until 2003. Perhaps the “series of illnesses” are

the severe physical ailments Hannah suffered

within hours of her shots, and lasting for months

afterward, but well before her diagnosis of

mitochondrial disease. But then we see where the

doctor is going with this fascinating question:

“Could these subsequent illnesses have been the

culprit, the aggravating factor, that tipped her

into her disorder, instead of vaccines?”

If there is evidence to support this contention,

then why would HHS (and its Justice Department

lawyers, with millions at their disposal to fight

each case), concede to the Polings without so

much as a deposition, or a whisper of a defense,

and in a venue like Vaccine Court? It makes little sense.

Without her vaccine injury, Hannah would most likely not have autism today.

And of course, Dr. Parikh does the entire debate

a disservice by smugly dismissing as

“anti-vaccine” those who call for safer

immunization practices in the United States. If I

am pro-aviation safety, does that make me

“anti-airplane?” I am sure that the doctor is

deeply concerned about toy safety. Does that make him “anti-doll?”

Dr. Parikh does make two very worthy statements. First:

“If parents are nervous about one or more shots, spread them out. That's fine.”

In coming months, we will learn more about how

some children with mitochondrial dysfunction,

marked by impaired oxidative phosphorylation and

poor cellular energy metabolism, may be pushed

beyond their own rare, but fragile

predispositions by the sheer number of vaccine

ingredients (including, perhaps, thimerosal) they receive at a time.

And finally:

“I also have some advice for government, whose

efforts to reassure the public about vaccine

safety need vast improvement. Unseal the

documents of the Poling case so the public can

hold officials accountable for the decision”.

How could anyone in their right mind argue with that?

Kirby

Author, “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic”

www.evidenceofharm.com

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines -

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm Vaccine

Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start in March