RIP Jeremy – Age 19, Vaccine Victim and Son of a Longtime Follower

Twitter, NeverGiveUp

Autism Investigated is deeply saddened to announce the passing of Jeremy, a vaccine-injured teenager who suffered from autism and epilepsy. Jeremy was also the son of a longtime Twitter follower of Autism Investigated. He tragically died from a seizure on Saturday. Here is the direct message from his parents.

Please go and tweet your condolences to NeverGiveUp. His parents need all the support you can give. His tragic death reminds Autism Investigated of a similar tragedy: Elias Tembenis, son of longtime reader Harry Tembenis. Elias’ death was actually an acknowledged result of vaccination by the infamous vaccine court. And last year, Autism Investigated mourned the death of Colton Berrett who was left permanently disabled by the HPV vaccine.

Jeremy’s death is a dire warning that just because vaccines won’t kill a person during the initial injury, doesn’t mean the damage done won’t kill down the road. 19 is far too young to pass away. Vaccination stole Jeremy’s life away from him, as it continues to do to countless other children no matter what the vaccine people like Meghan McCain tell you. By all means, keep talking about measles President Trump!

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

GARDINER’S REVENGE: Disgraced ex-NYT Reporter Erased HuffPo Vaccine Injury Stories

Lydia Polgreen likes Gardiner Harris’ tweet congratulating her on replacing Arianna Huffington.

After Autism Investigated’s future editor had New York Times’ vaccine propagandist Gardiner Harris kicked off health stories and dumped in India, he began working with future Huffington Post editor Lydia Polgreen. That’s the same editor who just deleted dozens of articles on vaccine injury on the site.

But at the time Harris was re-assigned, she was also a correspondent for The New York Times in New Delhi like Harris was. At the end of 2016, she left the rag to become editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post when its founder Arianna Huffington stepped down. Two years after that, the curtains came down on Gardiner Harris’ New York Times career when he couldn’t contain his anti-Trump bias while writing about the UN ambassador. He was then rehired, appropriately, as a pharmaceutical public relations agent. Before Autism Investigated reported on his new job in May, Autism Investigated sent the below email to his new employer Foresite Capital in April:

Hi,

I began the nine-year takedown of your communications director’s career at NYT.
https://www.autisminvestigated.com/jake-crosby-gardiner-harris/

I complained about him for his vaccine injury denial in 2010 and 2011, and he was taken off that beat. Specifically, I complained about his brother’s concurrent pharmaceutical connection while Harris was reporting on vaccines.
https://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/the-new-york-times-indefensible-defense-of-the-drug-industry.html
https://www.autisminvestigated.com/nyt-public-editor-pr-tool/

I’d like to know if Gardiner Harris has any comment on the fact that his employment with your firm further confirms my longtime contention of his pharma bias.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH

Not surprisingly, Harris’ new employer never wrote back. After the discovery of his brother’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry in 2010, Gardiner Harris abusively wrote an autism mother that she believes “wild conspiracy theories about the roots of autism.”

Even though Harris’ ex-colleague Polgreen has been Huffington Post editor for years, her decision to remove articles on vaccine injury only took a couple months. She only decided to do so after Harris lost his job, became a de jure pharma PR agent and was deservedly humiliated for it on Autism Investigated. Autism Investigated’s editor is far from the only person in the anti-vaccination and vaccine skeptic communities that Harris has had a problem with.

The night before Hannah Poling’s parents held a press conference about the government’s concession that vaccines caused her autism, JB Handley wrote Harris all the way back in 2008:

On an historic evening, before the world hears the tale of a beautiful little girl felled by 5 vaccines in one visit, I just want you to know that I will never forget what an injustice you did to our kids.

Gardiner Harris also denied, against documentary evidence, that the CDC director encouraged a comparison of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. “david kirby got his story entirely wrong,” Harris wrote in email about one of the journalists who reported the news. Kirby was also the journalist who broke Hannah Poling’s story. In contrast to Harris’ attack on Kirby, the CDC director did tell UPI’s Dan Olmsted in 2005 that such studies could be done and should be done.

Now David Kirby’s landmark story breaking the vaccine injury concession has been removed from The Huffington Post along with dozens of other articles. So too has Hannah Poling’s concession document from the government that Kirby reposted. David Kirby and Hannah Poling’s father have spoken out against the deletion in statements to Autism Investigated.

Gardiner Harris doesn’t like Autism Investigated, JB Handley or David Kirby. Fair enough, we hate him right back. But Harris has now taken out his anger over his own professional failures on a disabled girl who is a victim of the lies people like him still spread. It’s no wonder his son got asthma, which is also caused by vaccines.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Hannah Poling’s Father Breaks Silence to Promote Libertarian and Conservative Ethics

Hannah Poling is the first child known to have been compensated by the federal government for vaccine injuries resulting in her autism diagnosis. Journalist David Kirby broke her story in 2008 on The Huffington Post, which has now removed dozens of “anti-vaccine” articles including the piece on her landmark concession. Autism Investigated reached out to her father, neurologist Dr. Jon Poling, for comment. This is what he wrote back:

Dear Jake,

Thank you for your letter and update on what’s happening. I think the only way to combat censorship is joining alternative platforms and calling out leftist authoritarians for what they are. I remember that when everything went public in 2008, social media really didn’t exist, and the Time website was a popular media source. Hannah’s case was the most searched and commented article for weeks straight but the powers that be determined to not put the article in the print edition. Ten years later, and the print edition of anything is pretty much irrelevant!

Vaccine choice and medical freedoms are just the tip of the liberal spear. It is much deeper a concern than just a few articles shedding light on the “vaccine court” shenanigans. My opinion is that only libertarian and conservative ethics will get us out of the mess because–Yes, individual rights do trump community need in the United States! Yes, individuals and parents have an absolute right to determine what goes into their (children’s) bodies! If the new left wing Democrats get Medicare for all, particularly without private options, our basic human right to sanctity over ones person and body is over.

With regard to vaccine adverse events and autism, I don’t pretend to have the answer, but I do know the questions not being asked for concern of the populous abandoning vaccines. I also challenge any epidemiology scientist to explain to me that if we cannot determine the true prevalence of autism numbers rising or not, how can you possibly tell me what does and does not cause it? (We are just going to skip arithmetic and move directly to calculus today class!)

I hope you are doing well and navigating this mine field. I don’t hold any animosity toward Rolf [Hazlehurst] for past agitations and understand he is just seeking justice for his son. I wish him well.

Best,
Jon

The Huffington Post has removed the article, “Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?” In its place is the statement, “A previous blog post published on this site has been removed in the interest of public health.” What about the interest of Hannah Poling’s health?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

David Kirby Speaks Out About Huffington Post Vaccine Injury Censorship

The Huffington Post has removed its breaking story on the government’s landmark concession of a vaccine-autism case. In response, Autism Investigated re-posted the full piece and concession document. David Kirby, the journalist who broke the story, has denounced the deletion of his work in a statement to Autism Investigated.

Like other vaccine injury articles on Huffington Post, the original link to Kirby’s article now brings up the following statement:

A previous blog post published on this site has been removed in the interest of public health. The article expressed the sole opinion of its author, who retains the rights to publish it elsewhere. Multiple studies have demonstrated that vaccines are safe and effective. Our letter from the editor has more on this decision.

The “Letter From The Editor” elaborates:

After a monthslong review, HuffPost has decided to remove dozens of blogs that perpetuate the unfounded opinion that vaccines pose a health risk to the public. Allowing these blogs to remain on our platform does a disservice to our readers that outweighs any ostensible value as part of the public record.

In a statement to Autism Investigated, David Kirby remarked:

I am disappointed, as I am very proud of my reporting on Hannah Poling, a story that was covered worldwide, including live coverage of the parents’ press conferences, and those pieces are still online at other news venues. All my other vaccine reporting seems to be intact, for now at least

But maybe not for much longer, according to Huffington Post:

our editors will continue to review and remove content that fails to meet our standards when we find it.

Their “standards” is anything that shows children were poisoned by the vaccines their pharma masters at GlaxoSmithKline make.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read

Note: Autism Investigated is reposting Hannah Poling’s landmark concession document filed by the government in 2008. Huffington Post took it down along with dozens of other articles to help its client GlaxoSmithKline cover up vaccine injury.

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.

By David Kirby, Contributor

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

PS: On Friday, February 22, HHS conceded that this child’s complex partial seizure disorder was also caused by her vaccines. Now we the taxpayers will award this family compensation to finance her seizure medication. Surely ALL decent people can agree that is a good thing.

By the way, it”s worth noting that her seizures did not begin until six years after the date of vaccination, yet the government acknowledges they were, indeed, linked to the immunizations of July, 2000, – DK

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?

Note: Autism Investigated is running the breaking story on Hannah Poling’s landmark concession by the government in 2008. Huffington Post took it down along with dozens of other articles to help its client GlaxoSmithKline cover up vaccine injury.

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

By David Kirby, Contributor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) What are the implications for research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) What is the bottom line here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Kirby is the author of “Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy” (St. Martins Press 2005.)

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

WHITE-OUT: Huffington Post Erases Dozens of Articles on Vaccine Injury

Huffington Post has gone from deleting articles on vaccine injury as they appear to going back in time and erasing old ones that have been up for years. Click on a link to an article about vaccine injury on the site, and this is what you’ll get instead:

A previous blog post published on this site has been removed in the interest of public health. The article expressed the sole opinion of its author, who retains the rights to publish it elsewhere. Multiple studies have demonstrated that vaccines are safe and effective. Our letter from the editor has more on this decision.

The “Letter From The Editor” states:

After a monthslong review, HuffPost has decided to remove dozens of blogs that perpetuate the unfounded opinion that vaccines pose a health risk to the public. Allowing these blogs to remain on our platform does a disservice to our readers that outweighs any ostensible value as part of the public record.

And they’re not done:

The size of our archive is daunting, but our editors will continue to review and remove content that fails to meet our standards when we find it.

In response to Huffington Post’s white-out campaign, Autism Investigated will run its deleted articles here. And of course, no links to the Huffington Post website will be allowed in any comments.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Lynette Barron Thinks Autism Investigated’s Jake Crosby is A Fake Person

Lynette Barron is the gift that keeps on giving: praising Paul Offit, calling another autism parent a “token African American,” pocketing Offit’s blood money…the list goes on. Now Barron is accusing Autism Investigated’s editor of being someone else, asserting “I know who this really is.” She thinks Autism Investigated’s editor isn’t a real person. That’s a new one.

By the time she made the accusation, she had already blocked the personal Twitter account of Autism Investigated’s editor. Autism Investigated was only informed of her accusation indirectly by a regular follower.

So Autism Investigated asked Lynette Barron directly who she thinks Autism Investigated’s editor “really is.”

For now, the Twitter account of Autism Investigated has not been blocked by Lynette Barron. Autism Investigated will post a follow-up if and when she responds.

It’s very clear why Paul Offit chose her to be the spokesperson for the anti-vaccine movement. She’s a complete and total mess, and Paul Offit knows it.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Lynette Barron Pockets $2000 From Paul Offit to Pay for Her Legal Bills

Lynette Barron can be seen in the right photo on the far left, Facebook

In a GoFundMe campaign she started the week before her interview with Del Bigtree, Lynette Barron pocketed a $2000 donation from Paul Offit to cover her legal bills. The donation was just made yesterday following Barron’s glowing portrayal of Offit as someone who cares about children in her Thursday appearance on Bigtree’s show. The close timing of Barron’s GoFundMe campaign, followed by her interview with Bigtree and then Offit’s contribution raises serious questions about Barron’s motives.

She has already been caught calling a severely autistic man’s mother, who appeared with her son in the documentary Vaxxed, a “token African American.” Barron’s only response to the revelation has been that it is “false news,” even though there is a screenshot of her message to prove it.

GoFundMe itself is already in the pocket of GlaxoSmithKline. The crowd-funding site has already pledged to remove “anti-vaxxer” campaigns. Even before that, the site gave a $1000 donation to vaccine troll Craig Egan so he could follow and protest the Vaxxed tour bus.

Lynette Barron’s use of GoFundMe to receive thousands of dollars from Paul Offit should make everyone suspicious of Barron’s motivations. Allowing Offit to christen her the spokeswoman for anti-vaccinationists and vaccine skeptics would be terminally stupid.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Paul Offit’s Favorite Anti-Vaccinationist Called Vaxxed Mother of Vaccine-Injured Son a “Token African American”

Lynette Barron, who Paul Offit has worked to prop up as the representative of the anti-vaccine movement, called the mother of a vaccine-injured man a “token African American.” Sheila Lewis Ealey and her son Temple were featured in the documentary film Vaxxed: From Cover-up To Catastrophe. As an infant, he accidentally received two MMR vaccinations and is now severely autistic. Watch her talk about the horrific assault on her son below.

Now read Lynette Barron’s text about Sheila Ealey, calling her “your token African American.”

This is who Paul Offit is trying to christen the representative of the vaccine injury community. While Lynette Barron said he cares about children, she called the mother of one of the children he helped poison a “token” for speaking out about what was done to her son.

Also appalling is that Vaxxed producer Del Bigtree has helped Offit prop up Barron by favorably interviewing her and publicly agreeing with her that Offit is a good person. Bigtree has scored a six-figure salary and a platform with a seven-figure budget off the tragedies of children like Ealey’s son. Already, Autism Investigated has denounced him for misreading the 1986 vaccine compensation act and called for him to go away. Now that he’s propped someone up who viciously attacked a mother whose tragedy helped make him rich, his show should be cancelled.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon