4 ms·

So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case? ...the government’s Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that five shots Hanna

So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case? ...the government’s Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that five shots Hannah received in July 2000, when she was 19 months old, “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder” and resulted in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.” http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/autism_0306.html http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/... Records were sealed at the time. Don't know if they have since been released. EDIT: Summary of latest news, 2010-09-11: US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine vaccinations in 2000....However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine-autism link. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vaccine_payout_provokes_con.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vacci... The 27 August 2010 Decision Regarding Damages: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSM... EDIT 2: You can't make this stuff up: Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

mattmcknight 16y ago
It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.
- pradocchia 16y ago
  It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged. EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data? As best I can tell, nothing can be done with this data right now, since details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available. Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor epistemological form. This is not encouraging. Two questions, for now: * What symptoms of classical autism were not present? * More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?
  - mattmcknight 16y ago
    You do sort of get to the fundamental problem of autism not being an actual disease, just a group of symptoms. The mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies suffered by Poling have a distinct, but overlapping set of symptoms. So, the reason I mentioned classical autism is that the symptoms of mitochondrial encephalopathy[1] go well beyond those, never mind the milder symptoms of ASD. Apparently, the court's justification for giving the award is that the fever from the vaccine might have been one of the many fevers she suffered that led to the particular expression of this condition. Sadly, her parents had already given her the "autism" label, which only confuses the issue. Here's the other side of the story: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MELAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MELAS
jerf 16y ago
Just as I would not trust the court to decide that vaccines don't cause autism, I don't trust the court to decide that vaccines do. The science decides, and pretty much has decided. I'm not closed to the idea that vaccines could conceivably have some subtle detrimental effect, in fact I have some other non-mainstream beliefs about health issues, but the evidence just isn't there. When you're reduced to citing the fact that people are trying to discourage you from believing X as one of the primary reasons you believe X you are firmly in conspiracy nut territory.

mattmcknight 16y ago

It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.

pradocchia 16y ago
It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged. EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data? As best I can tell, nothing can be done with this data right now, since details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available. Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor epistemological form. This is not encouraging. Two questions, for now: * What symptoms of classical autism were not present? * More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?
- mattmcknight 16y ago
  You do sort of get to the fundamental problem of autism not being an actual disease, just a group of symptoms. The mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies suffered by Poling have a distinct, but overlapping set of symptoms. So, the reason I mentioned classical autism is that the symptoms of mitochondrial encephalopathy[1] go well beyond those, never mind the milder symptoms of ASD. Apparently, the court's justification for giving the award is that the fever from the vaccine might have been one of the many fevers she suffered that led to the particular expression of this condition. Sadly, her parents had already given her the "autism" label, which only confuses the issue. Here's the other side of the story: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MELAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MELAS

jerf 16y ago

Just as I would not trust the court to decide that vaccines don't cause autism, I don't trust the court to decide that vaccines do. The science decides, and pretty much has decided. I'm not closed to the idea that vaccines could conceivably have some subtle detrimental effect, in fact I have some other non-mainstream beliefs about health issues, but the evidence just isn't there. When you're reduced to citing the fact that people are trying to discourage you from believing X as one of the primary reasons you believe X you are firmly in conspiracy nut territory.