Last year the case of Julia, a vaccine injured child, was another fantastic win in the vaccine courts. At that time, Julia was three years old residing in the USA. Her family had won substantial compensation in the US Federal Court for brain damage caused by an injection with the MMR vaccine. However, just like other winning cases before her, the ‘A-word’ was not mentioned. This is fast becoming the tactic to win court cases around the world.
The Child Health Safety website (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009…) (obviously the place to be for the truth this week) has the full story. They say:
“What is different about this case? They kept the “autism” word out of the case Many parents in other US cases have been advised to do this:-
CBS News has found that since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. In many … cases, the government paid out awards following a judicial finding that vaccine injury lead to the child’s autism spectrum disorder. In each of these cases, the plaintiffs’ attorneys made the same tactical decision made by Bailey Bank’s lawyer, electing to opt out of the highly charged Omnibus Autism Proceedings and argue their autism cases in the regular vaccine court. In many other successful cases, attorneys elected to steer clear of the hot button autism issue altogether and seek recovery instead for the underlying brain damage that caused their client’s autism.”: [Vaccine Court: Autism Debate Continues – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and David Kirby Huffington Post 24 Feb 2009]”
At the time, this is what Julia’s mother said about Julia’s case:
“After Julia’s last neuro appointment when her dr said she had signs of autism. I didn’t want that “word” in her records until Julia’s case was decided.
Julia’s diagnosis was “Encephalitis (inflammation of her brain) most likely attributed to the MMR-V (measles, mumps, reubella(sic), chicken pox) vaccine she had received nine days previously.
I do not want this to be misunderstood. She was never formally diagnosed. Do I think that there is a link between vaccines and Autism, absolutely. Is Julia Autistic? I’m not sure.”
Was Julia’s mother told that in order to win the word Autism had to be kept out of the court case? Why did she seem so desperate for the word Autism to be kept out of her records until her case was decided? These questions may never be answered.
A year later Julia’s mother says (http://juliagrimesjourney.blogspot.com/2010…) :
“Friday, August 27, 2010
So, Julia got the diagnosis, sort of – PDD-NOS (pervasive developmental disorder – not otherwise specified). So, she is “kind of” on the autism spectrum. This may help tremendously with some insurance issues and may open up more opportunities for her with different programs out there. So, I guess I should be happy, right? And it doesn’t change who she was yesterday, or who she will be tomorrow….its just a diagnosis. Anyway, I’m having mixed feelings about it. Glad for the extra opportunities for her, but more aggravated than ever with those who say vaccines don’t cause Autism. When I get her case report from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – anyone interested is welcome to read it. Vaccines do cause brain injuries which lead to autism – all I have to say. I have living proof.
The Child Health Safety (CHS) website shows data from peer refereed medical papers how vaccines have caused autism in Japanese children. Using graphs, the CHS website shows that the number of children developing autism rose and fell in direct proportion to the number of children vaccinated each year.
On September 15th a news release detailed how the vaccine courts are working. The PR Newswire (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases…) said in a report surrounding another vaccine induced Autism case, that of Hannah Polling:
“In what many parents are referring to as Orwellian doublespeak, the government determined that the vaccines Hannah received triggered an undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder that didn’t “cause” the onset of autism but “resulted” in it. “These word games fool no one,” according to NAA board chair and parent Lori McIlwain. “It’s time for the government to admit that vaccines can and do cause autism in some children. We need to learn from children like Hannah Poling and develop strategies for the prevention of further needless injuries.”
Despite win after win, year in and year out, using various ‘play on words strategies’, governments still will not accept the fact that vaccines do cause Autism in some children. Instead, they continue to ignore what is staring them in the face. They continue to put billions of pounds/dollars into carrying out study after study to try to prove the issue. Lets face it, if they were so sure that there was no link, then there would be no need to prove that no link existed, would there?
I looked in the News on Google today and I found news article after news article on the subject, here are just a few:
- Medical News (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles…)
- Fierce Vaccines (http://www.fiercevaccines.com/story…)
- Age of Autism reporting on Fox News (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010…)
Even when there is evidence presented to them, proving the link between vaccines and Autism, the Governments take absolutely no notice whatsoever. Instead they use smokescreens paid by big pharma, such as Paul Offit to say something outrageous like ‘babies can tolerate “10,000 vaccines at once.” as quoted by the Age of Autism (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com…).
Another great smokescreen is a guy called Simon Baron-Cohen who argued autism is genetic. He said in 2006 that there is an ‘Autism gene’ detailed in evidence below
BBC NEWS (http://news.bbc.co.uk…)
“Body of evidence
Professor Baron-Cohen argues that systemizers are often attracted to each other – and thus more likely to pass “autism” genes to their offspring.
He cited a survey of 1,000 members of the National Autistic Society which found fathers and grandfathers of children with autistic spectrum conditions are twice as likely to work in a systemizing profession.
In addition, students in the natural sciences have a higher number of relatives with autism than do students in the humanities, and mathematicians have a higher rate of autistic spectrum conditions compared with the general population.
Other research has found both mothers and fathers of children with autism score highly on a questionnaire measuring autistic traits.
Brain scan studies have also shown that mothers of autistic children often show patterns of brain activity more associated with men.
Professor Baron-Cohen said the rise in autism might be linked to the fact that it had become easier for systemizers to meet each other, with the advent of international conferences, greater job opportunities and more women working in these fields.”
However, since then he has decided to sit on the fence, when his evidence went a little awry, as Child Health Safety explains (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009…). Professor Baron-Cohen now says this:
“We know that autism is not 100% genetic in origin, since in the case of identical twins (who share 100% of their genes), there are instances of one twin having autism and the other not having it. In fact, the likelihood of the co-twin also having autism where one of them has it (in monozygotic (MZ) pairs) is about 60%. This means that there must be some non-genetic (i.e., environmental) factors that are part of the cause of autism.“ [SOURCE: Professor Baron Cohen’s reply to critics of a mooted abortion test for autism reported in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper: Professor Baron Cohen/Stone Correspondence (http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents…) Re: The Guardian New research brings autism screening closer to reality 12/Jan/09] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle…)
Smokescreen or reality? While the Baron-Cohen’s of the world waffle on and do not really have any idea what causes Autism, others on the other side of the fence, doctors and professionals from all walks of life prove time and time again that vaccines do cause Autism in some children.
David Kirby said this in 2008 in The Huffington Post in his article, CDC: Vaccine Study Design “Uninformative and Potentially Misleading” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby…)
“CDC officials conducted at least five separate analyses of the data over a four-year period from 1999-2003. The first analysis showed that children exposed to the most thimerosal by one month of age had extremely high relative risks for a number of outcomes, compared with children who got little or no mercury: The relative risk for ADHD was 8.29 times higher; for autism, it was 7.62 times higher; ADD, 6.38 times higher; tics, 5.65 times; and speech and language delays were 2.09 more likely among kids who got the most mercury. Over time, however, all of these risks declined into statistical insignificance, statistical inconsistency or else outright oblivion: The relative risk for autism plummeted from 7.62 in the first analysis, to 2.48 in the second version, to 1.69 in the third round, to 1.52 in the fourth, and down to nothing at all in the fifth, final, and published analysis printed in the Journal Pediatrics in November of 2003.
Someone finally did the math and sent the resulting information to Merck in 1991. They decided to sit on the information and not share it. It wasn’t until 1999, when Congress had ordered the FDA to look at mercury in medicines, that they finally shared their findings. One small group at the FDA finally converted the dosages to micrograms. They added it all up and found out that kids were being slammed with ten, 20, 30, 100 times more mercury than they were supposed to get, and that it was being injected directly into their little bodies. I did some of the math the other day and I couldn’t believe my eyes. I actually had to double-check my figures because I couldn’t believe it. If you figure that at two months, a reasonably average baby weighs about ten pounds. That child should not be exposed to more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per day. But on one day, in that second month, a child could get as much as three shots containing mercury totaling 62.5 micrograms. That’s 125 times over the EPA limit.….When all is said and done and everything comes out, if it’s proven conclusively that mercury in vaccines led to the autism epidemic in this country, and that Merck had that memo in 1991, then they are perhaps partly culpable. 1991 was even before Hepatitis B was added to the vaccination schedule, which obviously added to the mercury load with which we were injecting our children. It would appear that Merck kept its mouth shut and a decade of children were exposed to this stuff.
…Let me tell you a little bit about Simpsonwood. The Simpsonwood Conference Center meeting happened in June of 2000. When the CDC had looked at the data (right after they said the mercury should come out), they decided to look further and see if maybe mercury was harmful. How’s that for timing? They had a guy working for them from Belgium, who was just here for a couple of years, Thomas Verstraeten. They dumped the mercury issue in his lap and said, “Here, look at the numbers.” As it turns out, he was probably a pretty honorable guy. I think he just wanted to do good science, and he was so far removed from American politics and pharmaceutical company politics that he could try. He was honest. He ran the numbers and his first run of the numbers was just shocking. They showed an elevated rate of autism of 7.62 for kids who received more than 25 micrograms at one month of age compared to kids who received none. He sent his findings out, and, not liking the numbers, they had him re-run them. So he re-stratified the kids and broke them down to various categories and groups and he managed to get the autism rate down to 2.48. Anything over 2.0 in a court of law is considered causation. Remember, he started with 7.62. He wrote an e-mail to his colleagues, a very famous e-mail called, “It Just Won’t Go Away.” I almost titled the book that, because the phrase comes up repeatedly.
When you put the findings and the e-mails together, the situation comes into context, and it becomes very clear what they were saying, and that they were extremely concerned. An increased autism risk of 2.48 was clearly unacceptable, so they re-ran the numbers again, adding more kids in, and got the autism rate down to 1.69. Then they took the new figure and they had this meeting at Simpsonwood where they invited the FDA, the drug company people, the pediatrics people, and the government people, and they had a little powwow. They didn’t invite anybody from the public, including SafeMinds. There was talk of inviting SafeMinds but, in the end, that group didn’t get an invitation. At this meeting Verstraeten spent two days presenting his findings. There was a discussion and there was a transcriber there.
I sometimes wonder if these people knew that they were being recorded, because when you read the minutes you just can’t believe the atrocities: they’re shocking. I’m sure they didn’t think that the minutes would ever see the light of day. Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act; America is a great country. Thank God we have a media and thank God we have parents like the ones in SafeMinds who stayed on top of this. Otherwise we would never have gotten this information. I’m not even an investigative reporter. These people just dumped documents on me and I went through them. That was hard, but it wasn’t as hard as what they did, and I really admire them. Conference Presentations: David Kirby“ (http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kirby…)
Dr Mayer Eisenstein says: (http://www.whale.to/a/eisenstein…)
“We have a fairly large practice,”
“We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.”
“We do have enough of a sample,” Eisenstein said. “The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We’re all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication. It’s frightening. You can’t touch them. It’s not something that anyone would miss.”
Jaquelyn McCandless M.D. says: (http://www.whale.to/m/candless…)
“As a clinician, my current belief which guides my practice with these children is that any child given the HepB vaccination at birth and subsequent boosters along with DPT has received unacceptable levels of neurotoxin in the form of the ethyl mercury in the thimerosal preservative used in the vaccine. In any child with a genetic immune susceptibility (probably about one in six) this sets off a series of events that injure the brain-gut-immune system. By the time they are ready to receive the MMR vaccination, their immune system is so impaired in a great number of these children that the triple vaccine cannot be handled by the now dysfunctional immune system and they begin their obvious descent into the autistic spectrum disorder.”—Jaquelyn McCandless, M.D
In an extremely long and detailed paper by Dr Viera Scheibner and Bronwyn Hancock Bsc. they say: (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/…)
“There has been a fair degree of publicity recently, more in some parts of the world than others, in relation to the research that has linked the MMR vaccine to autism. What is the most publicised is that UK researcher Dr Andrew Wakefield and his group of researchers studied children who developed Crohn’s disease and autism and linked them to the MMR vaccine that they had been administered (Lancet 1998).
It is good that this is being brought to light, but since parents have been repeatedly reassured by many doctors that the vaccine is safe, which they now can see is not true, it is important for them to logically reason that they cannot trust ANYTHING they are told by doctors, particularly about vaccination, and see that they need to research the whole vaccination issue. Sadly, when this is done, it is realised that this MMR/autism link is only the tip of iceberg.
There are various relevant very important issues which are not addressed by this publicity, and which I will cover here. It will then be recognised that this is a much wider problem, and only after understanding this can parents make an informed decision about what to do. The issues are as follows:
1.Is the MMR triple vaccine the only cause of autism?
2. Are gastrointestinal problems the only mechanism causing brain dysfunction characterised by the diagnosis of autism?
3. Is the administration of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines individually a solution to the problem of autism?
4. What constitutes the evidence of causality?
5. What IS the solution to the problem?
The answer to the first three questions, which we will address first, is a resounding NO! The fourth and fifth questions are addressed subsequently.”
The paper is long, detailed, and answers each one of the above questions.
I feel that the problem parents have today is sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Do they trust studies such as the Japanese and British studies (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009…) showing data proving that vaccines do indeed cause Autism? Or do parents believe the government, who chose to play mind games in court and are lap dogs for big pharma, paid to say that vaccines do not cause Autism?
I am going to close with a quote from an independent professional psychologist, expert in Autism, and author Lisa Blakemore-Brown. She has been literally hounded for more than ten years for her beliefs:
“Over the last few years, given the frightening epidemic of autism and the appalling suffering of so many, I have been bewildered by the choice of research undertaken by those who have been able to get funding from the UK Government. It has become increasingly obvious that the elephant in the room – vaccines linked to autism, cot death and other conditions – is being ignored as are those who have suffered, unless of course they are blamed. Blame theories (such as Munchausen by Proxy) form another elephant that people have turned a blind eye to and if you read this article you will see that MSBP is intertwined with vaccines issues.
Meanwhile extraordinarily obscure theories are given funding, presumably because they will usefully distract attention from the real issues. However, the recent stories in the media about Simon Baron-Cohen’s research on prenatal bio-markers have led us up the dark path of eugenics.”