Age of Autism Deletes Canary Party Briefing Video

By Jake Crosby

On November 7th, Canary Party organized a congressional briefing in Washington, DC on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) and then posted video footage from the event on the organization’s sponsored blog, Age of Autism. Barely a week had passed before that footage as well as 40 reader comments were suddenly taken down without explanation from the editors.* The video can no longer be found on YouTube either.

The video footage from Canary Party’s briefing was of a speech given by Rolf Hazlehurst (center in below photo), an assistant district attorney from Tennessee whose son represented one of the test cases in the omnibus autism proceeding. Hazlehurst alleged that one expert witness gave two conflicting opinions – one for vaccines causing autism on behalf of Hannah Poling and one against vaccines causing autism in his own son’s case. The problem is – that expert, Johns Hopkins neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, did not give his opinion in favor of vaccines causing Hannah Poling’s autism until AFTER the government conceded her autism was caused by her vaccinations. In fact, Poling’s case was never even litigated. This was pointed out in the comments on Age of Autism by Hannah Poling’s mother.**

CanaryBriefing

Perhaps most disturbing of all however are the possible ramifications of incorrect statements about Hannah Poling’s case being made under oath in a hearing before Congress. Should Rolf Hazlehurst repeat these statements in congressional testimony, he could put himself in jeopardy of facing perjury charges. As an assistant DA from Tennessee, he could also face disbarment. This would undoubtedly hurt the congressional hearings as well as any chance of reviving the omnibus cases, both sabotaged already by Canary Party Chairman Mark Blaxill (far left).

Now, the video of Rolf Hazlehurst’s speech is gone from the internet, but what is not is Age of Autism editor Dan Olmsted’s article quoting excerpts from the briefing that erroneously describe Hannah Poling’s case albeit without naming her.

With the hearing only weeks away, Canary Party is left in an awkward position for which the choices are either to risk committing perjury or abandon its primary but false example of malfeasance within the NVICP.

When Hannah Poling’s mother Terry Poling pointed Rolf Hazlehurst’s error out in a lengthy and critical comment on the Canary Party-sponsored Age of Autism blog stating that release of the document in which Dr. Zimmerman gave his opinion would constitute a violation of her family’s privacy, she was attacked relentlessly in comments from anonymous readers and known supporters of Canary Party. Ironically, Canary Party opposes “infighting.” One of the most hostile comments*** came from a key organizer of the Canary Party briefing, Dawn Loughborough (pictured far right). Commenting as “MotherofPossibility,” Loughborough wrote:

 Terry Poling – Do you believe your daughter is the only one who had this experience? What about justice for all the other families? Vaccines cause autism. Why aren’t you making this public to help support Rolf. Why did Zimmerman only help a Hopkins physician’s  [Dr. Jon Poling's] family? Many families in the autism community feel you got a fair deal and no one else will, as a result of the records being sealed and Zimmerman changing his opinion. That is what stinks, not Rolf mentioning the name of your daughter. I wish you well but please stop getting on Rolf. It just makes you look bad to continue to be unsupportive of anyone else’s child who is in the same situation as your daughter. You are compensated.

What’s so remarkable is that perhaps no one has done more to help the autism omnibus by exposing the hypocrisy of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program than the Polings, who opened themselves up to considerable public scorn by doing so. Ken Reibel, a blogger whose wife formerly worked for the well-known pharma PR firm Edelman, was removed from AutismOne in 2008 for harassing the Polings about releasing their daughter’s private medical records. And yet, similar harassment of Terry Poling on Age of Autism is not only deemed acceptable, but appeared to be a coordinated effort. By harassing the Polings to release their daughter’s private medical information, Dawn Loughborough put herself in the same category as  Ken Reibel as well as Brian Deer – the conflicted reporter who obtained confidential records of children whose medical histories of regressing into autism after vaccination were reported in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s paper published in the Lancet. Deer has bragged about making the Polings concerned about the possibility that he obtained their daughter’s private medical information in the weeks leading up to his Johns Hopkins lecture.

Meanwhile, emails have recently surfaced showing that if anyone had a hand in undermining the omnibus it would be Dawn Loughborough’s superior Mark Blaxill. He advised the lead omnibus attorney despite his own admitted COI with vaccine manufacturers while trashing expert witnesses Dr. Mark and David Geier and saying Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s work is not supported by the epidemiological data. Now with Age of Autism readers turning against the Polings, including a key organizer of Canary Party’s briefing, Blaxill appears quite adept at exploiting the divide-and-conquer strategy to his advantage, despite claiming in a podcast interview last month in response to revelations about his ongoing role in hijacking the congressional hearings:

Friendly fire is a waste of time!

Added to the irony is that in his blog post about the interview, Age of Autism editor Dan Olmsted wrote of Canary Party Chairman Mark Blaxill:

Mark says fighting amongst ourselves is misguided, and makes the useful distinction between standing up for oneself against untrue allegations (which he does) and infighting (which he doesn’t, we don’t, and nobody should).

This is also used as a pretense for moderating out comments, including one I had left not long before I was banished from contributing to Age of Autism. Yet Age of Autism has no problem allowing a flood of comments bullying the parents of a vaccine-injured child into releasing confidential medical information after the child’s own mother said that doing so would be a violation of her family’s privacy while yielding no apparent benefit. The sudden influx of comments after hers mirrors a similar pattern that followed another critical comment in the thread of Olmsted’s post about Mark Blaxill’s podcast interview. That commenter – a reader of Autism Investigated who has complained of having comments censored by Age of Autism – said:

I too have listened to both the Lindemans [sic] radio shows.
Jake appears to me to have uncovered something solid. Mark appears compromised by those recordings and with this issue there is no compromise.

I cant in earnest support Mark any further I dont believe he is on message with me and many other parents.

Even though this comment was left three days after Olmsted’s post ran, comments from Age of Autism editors, Canary Party supporters and anonymous posters suddenly poured in lauding Mark Blaxill, including those from Dan Olmsted and managing editor Kim Stagliano. Apparently, and as I observed shortly after my banishment from Age of Autism, Blaxill and his followers systematically load down the threads underneath AoA posts with supportive comments to counter the rarely allowed dissenting comment. That combined with Mark Blaxill’s history of turning advocates against each other for his benefit strongly suggests this to be the case, especially since Dawn Loughborough is one of Poling’s anonymous attackers and was a key organizer of Canary Party’s briefing.

Though Blaxill deflects criticism by discouraging “infighting,” the comments on the Age of Autism video from the Canary Party’s recent briefing were dominated by infighting against Hannah Poling’s mother. The angry comments continued to pour in even four days after Terry Poling’s criticism. As recently as November 15th, someone commenting on Age of Autism as “Mama Grizzly” wrote:

Forgive me, I’m confused. Although Mrs. Poling says she has not allowed the release of Hannah’s records, an article in the Atlanta Constitution on 3/6/2008 states: “Cliff Shoemaker, the Polings’ attorney, said the family has filed a petition with the vaccine court to unseal all of Hannah’s records and allow both the family and the government to fully discuss the case.”(
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/03/meet-hanna-poling.html) Mr. Hazelhurst is only requesting something the Polings’ attorney said the family wanted.

The URL was a link to the blog of Canary Party VP Ginger Taylor, who had copied and pasted the article [UPDATE: The blog post has since been removed****]. Another quote in that article the commenter had neglected to post was this:

Shoemaker said the government’s November concession in the case is public, but the government’s reasons aren’t.

Dr. Zimmerman’s information about Hannah Poling wouldn’t count, as it was not produced until after the government conceded Poling’s case.

There is, however, still the issue of Mark Blaxill’s interference in the omnibus cases in which he trashed expert witnesses and doubted a key scientist’s research to the lead attorney while working for a firm with pharma clients. The problem, of course, is that Mark Blaxill runs Canary Party.

*Google listing for deleted post (click to enlarge):

hazlehurstpost

**Terry Poling comment, first half (click to enlarge):

polingcomment1

Terry Poling’s comment, second half (click to enlarge):

polingcomment2

 

***Dawn Loughborough’s comment to Terry Poling as “MotherofPossibility” (click to enlarge):

dawncommenttoterry

****The blog post has not been removed as previously reported here; the commenter posted the URL incorrectly, then correctly posted it in the following comment.

Addendum, November 18, 2013: The text of the post has now been restored along with all 40 (not 38 as Autism Investigated first reported) of the comments previously removed, but the video has not. Age of Autism claims to have trouble embedding the video, although it remains down from the entire internet. Additionally, Dawn Loughborough has since apologized in the comments for her harsh words to Terry Poling.

Addendum, November 19, 2013: Despite Age of Autism removing the video, it remains online after all. A commenter here has posted the link. It has not been posted on Age of Autism.

Addendum, November 19, 2013, 8:31pm CST: After Autism Investigated posted the link to the video and a reader requested Age of Autism do the same in the site’s comments, Age of Autism has now embedded the video again while deleting all their technical excuses for its removal (click below screenshot to enlarge).

aoatechnicalexcuses

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated and is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

 

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

27 Thoughts on “Age of Autism Deletes Canary Party Briefing Video

  1. When you fight hard and are granted the extreme privilege of testifying to Congress about some problem, you are agreeing to kiss the asses of your servants in the delusional hope that those servants will grant your wishes. While you testify, your servants pretend to listen to you politely, show you some phony concern with their body language and tone of voice and then laugh at you after the hearing is over for being stupid enough to believe that they will do anything to solve your problem.

    Thomas Jefferson told us what to do about this. If you’re too stupid to listen to Thomas Jefferson, nobody can help you.

    • I’m afraid I disagree with you, John. Were it not for Mark Blaxill’s undermining, I have no doubt the hearings would be going much better. He automatically wins if we give up on Congress, and we would have no one to blame but ourselves for giving up.

  2. This is all so unfortunate! When that Poling/Zimmerman document came to light last year I looked at the date which as you say came after the ruling. I have pointed this out many times and have said to those promoting it as a conflicting court ruling who encouraged the community to do the same to explain then how the date came after the closing date of the Poling case. I never get a reply… It will be interesting how these documents will be presented in December.

    Will you be there Jake?

    As for the bullying of the Polings that is no surprise at AoA. Even moderate comments are either censored or bullied over there, this is not just my opinion but the opinion of other parents in my circle who have had the same experience. I do not understand the psychology but know they are marginalizing themselves from a large body of affected parents and people on the autistic spectrum.

    • Your attempts to set the record straight are as admirable as the lack of response is disturbing, Heather. I don’t see how the issue of Andrew Zimmerman’s report can be discussed at the hearing as it was at Canary Party’s briefing without the risk of perjury charges, especially when the report is about a vaccine-injured child whose mother already publicly corrected the misstatements that were made about her daughter at the briefing.

      I’m afraid I won’t be at the upcoming hearing. If I’m going to travel all the way from Texas, I’d prefer to travel all that way for a hearing I have high hopes for. I don’t have high hopes for this hearing.

      Given the way Mark Blaxill and his supporters have treated others, I’m not surprised at the mistreatment of Terry Poling on Age of Autism. I can’t even post comments on Age of Autism to compliment someone for writing a good post, that’s how heavy-handed they are now. Your readership should be your checks-and-balances, but Age of Autism seems to think its readers should just support everything it says. That is not healthy dialogue; it’s one-way preaching.

  3. @Jake – it would be interesting to see a fully open & honest debate at AoA about the merits of their individual agenda items….they claim they aren’t anti-vaccine, yet I have not seen a single “pro-vaccine” article ever published….I recognize that people have their reasons for not liking vaccines (either specific ones or all in general), but anyone in their right mind can point to extremely good reasons for supporting certain vaccines (heck, like rabies) despite some concerns with others.

    I was also extremely distressed to see the Polings attacked with such vigor – just for pointing out that incorrect information was being publicly stated about their case…..I guess, unless you decide to toe the Party line (without dissent) you are an enemy & bully.

    Sad, very sad.

    • Well Larry, you probably won’t find posts lauding the merits of vaccines at Autism Investigated either. It’s not out of denial of those merits, it’s just that publicizing them is not the role of Autism Investigated as described in the mission statement.

      It is very sad indeed to see the Polings attacked for not wanting their daughter’s case misrepresented and for also not wanting her to be a pawn in Canary Party’s game of political chess at the expense of her privacy. In fact, Hannah Poling is a person with rights to patient confidentiality like everyone else, but Canary Party would not even respect that.

  4. Wow. The Canary Party/A of A members and supporters continue to show their true colors. Attacking Terry Poling? Really, Dawn?
    Amazing.
    So glad I no longer have anything to do with any of these people. They make me ill.

  5. Jake, If Congress wasn’t 100% corrupt, some honest members would stop the intentional maiming of babies’ brains by banning thimerosal completely. The fact that they won’t do this confirms that they are all corrupt since no sane person commits crimes like this.
    If you don’t understand how every member of Congress has helped the Federal Reserve rob all of us for 100 years, you need to learn. They all keep their mouths firmly shut about this crime too.
    I could walk into one of those hearings with a normal baby, shoot a bottle of thimerosal into the kid and kill it and Congress would deny that I was even there. They’d help me dispose of the body too.
    Until you accept the fact that Congress is 100% corrupt, you can’t win. The only way to beat these criminals is throw them all out of D.C..

    • There are some honest members of Congress who want to ban thimerosal, but they’re sadly in the minority. They could become the majority, however, if the fraud committed by Thorsen and colleagues to defend the stuff was allowed to be discussed in the congressional hearings. That stifling of discussion is not coming from anyone in Congress, however; it’s coming from Mark Blaxill who cited Thorsen’s fraudulent work to defend thimerosal.

      • People want to believe that an honest politician exists somewhere in America. That just isn’t the case though. These people are superb liars and nobody should ever believe anything that any of them say. If you think you know an honest politician, ask him, her or it to have a discussion with me in public. None will try. None can debate any issue in public because any honest and intelligent person will make all of them look foolish. They will only discuss things on their own turf where they make the rules and they can use any tricks they want to lie like hell and avoid legitimate questions.
        If some crazed maniac was going door to door shooting mercury into babies and the media reported it, Congress would support arresting said maniac. They won’t support arresting doctors or drug company execs though because they have all been bribed to lie to you and ignore it. When you accept that no member of Congress will ever tell the truth about anything, then you will understand Congress. Until then, you’re a victim of brainwashing and controlled opposition along with everyone else in the autism community who believes any of this bullshit.

        • John, Mark Blaxill wants us to believe that no good will ever come from Congress; that’s how he gets away with what he does. If we let him take over the show, then your prediction of Congress not being useful to us becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  6. Doug Troutman on November 17, 2013 at 8:13 pm said:

    I remember the Polings and Cliff Shoemaker appearing on the ABC morning show and Cliff said specifically stating that this was going to be a Thimerosal case. On Pub Med there are studies regarding Thimerosal use and Mitochondrial disorder. I am connecting the dots. I am sorry that I wasn’t that a neurologist and my wife wasn’t a nurse/lawyer to connect the dots at the time of my son’s injury. This whole thing stinks. I still find it hard to believe that Mr. Hazelhurst would not know the law or let alone the facts of this case. I am confused by the fact that Dr. Z gave his opinion after the case was decided by the government. What did they base their decision on? Why are these injury cases so top secret? Why did our so called defenders of truth sabotage the Sykes case? I was at the conferences where Dr. Poling presented information about Mitochondria disorders and after their case was compensated, no more conference appearances. The media went out and said that Hannah recieved $1,500,000 which totally incorrect. It was more like $500,000 a year for the rest of her life. This was way more than typical settlement of $2,500,000 in vaccine injury cases. I guess I would to have a more detailed breakdown of these events.

    • Well, apparently Rolf Hazlehurst didn’t know all the facts of Hannah Poling’s since her mother who is also a lawyer corrected him.

      Dr. Zimmerman’s opinion was specifically about Hannah Poling’s seizures, not her autism.

  7. So Jake – what do you think is going to come of this next hearing? Any guesses?

    • Rolf Hazlehurst won’t be in DC that day. Mary Holland will testify on different ways to reform the inherently-flawed NVICP. Mark Blaxill will testify again, but won’t discuss his role in sinking the omnibus. Those are my guesses.

  8. White Rose on November 19, 2013 at 9:33 am said:

    I was specifically told by a person at AoA , that Brian Hooker would get another chance to testify in Nov2013.
    This was clearly a piece of nonsense – an attempt to calm the situation – a diversion .
    AoA looks more and more suspect all the time .

    When will we get our chance ? When will Brian Hooker get his chance again ?
    How can we “take out” Blaxill ? How can we get him thrown out ?

    • It is a total charade of Mark Blaxill to pretend to support Brian Hooker’s work while systematically working to sabotage it. Blaxill said on the Fourth of July that he would try to get Brian to testify, but could not have been honest about that when in April Blaxill’s group called for Congress to hold a hearing on NVICP after promising Brian to ask for a hearing specifically on CDC malfeasance. Then Mark went on Linderman last month and lied that Canary Party asked for Congress to hold a hearing on NVICP because that’s what the Committee Chair Darrell Issa wanted. But then if Issa already wanted it, there would be no point in asking for it in the first place.

      I’ve been thinking those same questions myself – I doubt Brian will ever have a chance of testifying as long as Mark Blaxill continues to control the hearings thanks to wealthy chiropractor and political donor Dr. Gary Kompothecras. Canary Party President Jennifer Larson’s $40,000 contribution to Issa’s political campaign only solidifies Blaxill’s monopoly on the hearings. So despite how destructive he’s proven himself to be, he still manages to gain the support of people with considerable money and influence.

  9. The Hazelhurst video is here. So much for the technical difficulties at AoA.

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4wG6eNJ8qzJQ016Y2dBNmUyV3M/preview?pli=1

  10. Lawyers are all sworn to serve the Crown so having a lawyer speak for us is insane. Lawyers are barred from serving in Congress by the original 13th amendment because, back in 1812, people understood that lawyers were enemies of all of us. Now, they serve in Congress illegally and the rest of the criminals in Congress keep their mouths shut. This is why lawyers blew the Omnibus case. They always serve the crown, not the people they take money from while they misrepresent them.
    Does Hazlehurst prosecute anyone for shooting mercury into pregnant women? Does he prosecute TV stations under the first amendment for denying us the time to exercise our freedom of speech on their networks to tell everyone the truth about thimerosal? Any honest person would do that. There aren’t any honest lawyers. Lawyers are highly skilled at selling out their clients with their legalese. Their job is always to help the Crown rob us.
    Mary Holland knows that lawyers are breaking the 13th amendment by serving in Congress. This should be the first words out of her mouth, to ask them all to resign. If an honest lawyer existed, they would be telling everyone how to access the Cesta Que Trust that was created by the US bankruptcy of 1933. This would compensate all victims of mercury poisoning without any legal nonsense that protects the medical industry. Instead of playing a foolish game by asking a corrupt Congress to reform itself, Mary Holland should go after that Cesta Que Trust that we’re not supposed to know exists. She knows it exists. All lawyers know this.

  11. Doug Troutman on November 20, 2013 at 3:08 am said:

    I am interested in what Hannah’s report says about her injury but it is all sealed up forever. I am interested in the Verstatten data sets but they seem to be lost forever. None of these fascist studies data sets are available for independent review. I thought for a study to be valid the data sets would have to available for independent review. Maybe Mark Blaxill has a secret plan to get those data sets.

  12. Pingback: NVICP Congressional Hearing Cancelled - Autism Investigated

  13. Pingback: Tactics and Strategies of the Anti-Vaccination Movement | Great Plains Skeptic

  14. Pingback: Autism Investigated Announces Awards for 2013 - Autism Investigated

  15. I understand Ms Poling’s concerns and I understand why people advocating for vaccine safety feel so desperate to put an end to unsafe vaccines. I hope all will find a way to share what was learned from this family’s experience without violating their privacy and without any misunderstandings about the relevant facts.

    The information to me seems valuable to finding out what needs to be done to protect all children in the future, but this family’s privacy is also very important.

    Please let us work together as much as we can as we are able in a way that is respectful of each other.

  16. Pingback: Canary Party's False Promises Led To Congressional Hearing Collapse

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation