Re: My letter, posted at Salon

[Guest guest]

Bravo!!!

>

> * 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

>

[Guest guest]

Why does pure and beautiful logic calm the mind so? I'm in heaven.

Thank you for this.

>

> * 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

>

[Guest guest]

Is there a link to this, or will this show up in the comments?

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of

Kirby

Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:26 PM

EOHarm

Subject: My letter, posted at Salon

·

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

·

[Guest guest]

Outstanding, , as always.

Somehow their " logic " never seems to make any sense.

Sophia

>

> * 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

>