Are Lyme Criminals Next? Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court !!!

Ahhh...the sweet smell of justice for 500,000 children damaged by
scientific selfishness, neglect, arrogance and INCOMPETENCE!

Next up? Lyme liars and criminals......


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

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

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.
.

Relevant Pages