Germ theory denialism explained

[HuckleB]

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/germ_theory_denialism_explained.php

A good video on the subject.

"The only thing I would disagree with is the conclusion at the end that germ theory denialists are not much of a threat. In fact, germ theory denialism, usually softer germ theory denialism, such as the kind that says a healthy body can can fight off any bacteria or virus (the implication being that germs can cause disease only if there is some problem in the body) is a major strain of "thought" (if you can call it that) in anti-vaccine circles. In fact, it's a major strain of "thought" driving many forms of pseudoscience, such as chiropractic and naturopathy, as is shown in the video itself."

------------------------------


It's an amazing world. The more education people get, the more entrenched some of them become in bizarre denialism.

:hi:

[Warpy]

1. There's a large element of whistling through a graveyard

and trying to convince oneself that it can't possibly happen to me.

It can and it does and eventually it will. That is the human condition.

Until then, the best we can do are the public health laws that force them to vaccinate the kiddies or home school them. They're allowed to choose stupidity for themselves. They're not allowed to threaten the rest of us.

[MBS]

2. the director of my son's daycare center once said

vaccines aren't necessary for their children have never seen these diseases"

[Odin2005]

8. Wow, just wow.

:crazy:

[RandomThoughts]

3. Denialism is a great topic.

Many times it is not accepting something that is said to be in denial.

But many times what many people think is right is not, and those that think some are in denial, are wrong.

To say someone is in denial, means you have to be able to know a situation. You have to know you are correct.

For instance, I could postulate a great many ideas on things, but all of them requires some axioms that are accepted as true, so each one is based on some base assumption that is just thought to probably be correct.

And if some component that is needed to figure an answer to something is still in the future, then no mater how much you think someone is in denial, or how much you think you know something, you can't be sure.

Although I can pretty much guarantee there are correlations that show manipulated information systems, and can then relax and know that I am only responsible for thinking on information that I have. And if any of that is incorrect then that responsibility is on those that would spread false information.



Here is a great way to solve denial, know that matter can be manipulated in real life around you. From that simple observation, most things become possible. After you have seen a few examples of mater manipulation, what is possible is far different then what most people think.

[MineralMan]

4. The trouble is that people are getting educated, but not in

the sciences. There is such a dearth of basic scientific knowledge out there that it is starting to get really, really frightening.

[Ricochet21]

5. I agree

I agree

[HuckleB]

6. I suspect you are correct.

[Odin2005]

7. This BS, the Positive Thinking cult, and various "psychic" BS are all part of the same delusion.

The "mind over matter" quasi-Schizophrenic psychotic insanity.

[snagglepuss]

9. I once got subjected to a torrent of hostility for posting somewhere that

according to someone I knew who was studying forensic pathology soil contains pathogens so its always good to wear gloves. From the response you'd think I had murdered Mr Greensjeans.

[xchrom]

10. recommend -- i remember the stupid flame wars with people claiming

measles or mumps weren't REALLY that serious.

oy -- unbelievable.

[unblock]

11. a little learning is a dang'rous thing

people love to learn a little bit about a subject and form a complete theory about their newfound but limited data and then turn it into a belief because, after all, they're not scientists, though this process lets them fancy themselves to be.

and so we have people who learn that some bacteria can cause illnesses, leading people to use hydrogen peroxide and dyclosan to kill beneficial and weak bacteria, leaving behind harmful and more resistant bacteria.

people love to pick and choose their data and ignore the rest. it's far more comforting when data fits your worldview, and so tempting to ignore whatever rattles your cage.

[formercia]

12. You need a healthy Immune System for a Vaccine to work.

otherwise, you might as well inject Saline Solution.

[HuckleB]

13. It helps, certainly. But vaccines can help many of the immunocompromised.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/07July/Pages/Swinefluandimmunosuppression.aspx

[mzmolly]

14. Orac and his straw men ... What about the denial of formaldehyde being carcinogenic?

Or, denying that mercury can cause brain damage?

Unfortunately, denial exists on all sides of the vaccine debate.

Thanks for the laugh though.

[HuckleB]

15. This is no straw man.

Unfortunately, your post if full of them.

And your ad hominem attack is ludicrous.

[mzmolly]

16. Ad hominem attack?

Pot, meet kettle. Do you deny that formaldehyde is a probable carcinogen?

[HuckleB]

17. Yes, ad hominem attack.

Pots and kettles have nothing to do with it. Neither does your diversionary question.

Grow up.

[mzmolly]

18. Fine. One good ad hominem attack

deserves another, I say. ;) The reason I pose my question is because Paul Offit claims "formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans." He quotes a http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3291203?dopt=Abstract">single study from unnamed scientists in 1988 to make his case. He ignores the science gathered by the EPA and the IARC as well as several studies that support a link between cancer and formaldehyde in ... HUMANS.

In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure (1). Since that time, some studies of humans have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with certain types of cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen (2).

More at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde

Why do people like Orac deny the "denialists" on his side of the debate?

*Free formaldehyde differs than the formaldehyde found naturally in the body, as naturally occurring formaldehyde is bound to enzymes.

An aside, 1 in 330 American children will be diagnosed with a form of cancer, by the age of 19.

[HuckleB]

19. So far you have made claims, but you have not shown proof of your claims.

Citing one study supposedly cited by Paul Offit doesn't mean much, unless you show everything about his claim. Further, you are now mixing up Offit with Orac. Not only that, you have chosen to spew with BS anti-vaccine site nonsense. I know you'll deny it, but the very partial nature of your attack shows otherwise.

Unless you are willing to show the actual stands of Orac and Offit and others, including all the sources they actually cite, I have no need to go down another ridiculous road with you, as you repeat anti-vaccine nonsense.

:mad: :puke:

And that ignores the reality that your attack is pure ad hominem BS. You have not addressed the actual content of the OP in any way.

[mzmolly]

21. I'm not mixing up Offit with Orac. I'm doing what Orac does and suggesting that everone

with a given position must fully support another person who partially agrees with them on a given subject. Also, when did PUBMED and the JAAP become anti-vaccine?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

"Concerns about the safety of formaldehyde have centered on the observation that high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA and cause cancerous changes in cells in vitro.71,72"

Ah no. Concerns about formaldehyde have centered on observations from several studies demonstrating that formaldehyde is linked to human cancers. And, the fact that small amounts of free formaldehyde can damage DNA. Additionally, no known safe amount, via injection, has been determined. In fact studies on injected forms of formaldehyde and it's carcinogenic potential don't appear to exist? Yet, people like Offit suggest pediatricians reassure parents that "formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans."???

More below: "Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (Table 5). Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans..." ~ Paul Offit

My personal decision not to vaccinate with every available vaccine, has to do with the addition of human carcinogens and neuro-toxins to vaccines, combined with current rates of disease. NOT the denial of germ theory.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

25. You're desperate.

And it's obvious. I am quoting Paul Offit and the JAAP. If that troubles you, or you consider that a "scam" I'm deeply sorry.

What troubles me is that people like you, Offit and Orac are apparently trying to reach someone. But, you're not because you lack credibility. I'll be the first to admit that many in the "anti-vaccine" arena also lack credibility. But certainly those who claim the high road, should travel on it.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

28. I quoted Offit and provided you a link to the exact quote. I'm sorry that you're

disillusioned, but that doesn't make me disingenuous, or a liar. I wish what Offit said wasn't so absurd, but it is IMO. He made the astounding claim that formaldehyde does not appear to cause cancer in humans. He has his own denial problems, and I'm not ashamed to have pointed this out.

Ah, unless you are a germ theory denialist. Are you?

No. I firmly believe that germs cause disease and that it's ridiculous to presume we can eat and drink perfectly and never get ill. I don't know who the people who claim this are trying to feed green things to, but it's not my child. ;) So, even if there was a bit of truth to the theory of eating well, and thereby staying well, I'd dismiss it as unrealistic in our case.

Regarding your personal insults. I don't dislike you, because you and I don't see eye to eye on this issue. In spite of your attack on MY character, I find you a good person. I can never figure out why you appear so threatened by discussion when you're the one who opens conversation, however.

I do find it ironic that you suggest that I'm the one who became unfriendly here. However, if I came across as such I apologize. I admit to seeing beyond the person at times and looking solely at an issue, not realizing that I may be hurtful in how I approach discussion.

I will say that I'm going to ignore threads by you in the future. I think we both realize the futility of our vaccine discussions by now.

Peace

[HuckleB]

30. You can repeat yourself all you want.

Clearly, you don't get the scam against Offit that you are perpetuating by pushing that anti-vaccine BS. You are ignoring what he actually says on the subject. If you haven't figure that out by now, you should not be discussing science in any way shape or form.

I don't care what games you want to play now that I am not buying your routine.

[mzmolly]

34. If you feel he said something different, please support your case.

I've given you the link to the entire JAAP piece attributed to Offit. Thus far, you've done nothing but repeat personal insults to defend Offit's indefensible assertion. Additionally, I didn't say anything you can construe as "anti-vaccine" in this discussion. I quoted Paul Offit's assurance that we as humans need not worry about formaldehyde. Isn't that good news? ;)

Here is the direct quote once again...

"Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans." ~ Paul Offit - Rita Jew

Source: Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives, or Residuals?
Paul A. Offit, MD*, Rita K. Jew, PharmD{ddagger}

* Division of Infectious Diseases, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
{ddagger} Department of Pharmacy, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

FYI - I discovered Offits claim when researching formaldehyde and vaccines. It was not garnered from what you call "anti-vaccine" propaganda. The quote was taken directly from the JAAP.

As I've said, if I've offended you in our conversation, you have my apologies.

[HuckleB]

80. You've offered nothing.

And you have not supported your lame "case" Nevermind that the only reason to bring up your "case" on this thread is to promote ignorance in relation to germ theory.

Wake up.

[mzmolly]

84. I'm not a germ theory denialist. I posted on the topic of denialism

in a thread where you opened the subject.

[HuckleB]

82. BTW, we both know you "found" this red herring at an anti-vaccine site.

WHy do you deny it? You've been caught before. Give it up.

[mzmolly]

83. Do you consider Offit's statement of reassurance anti-vaccine?

I don't do my research on the websites you consider anti-vaccine. I used google in this case - "formaldehyde and vaccines." Google it yourself, the JAAP article is the second link on my browser.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

[HuckleB]

95. I know this type of obsessive, out-of-context attack is pushed on those sites.

I don't know why you think you are fooling anyone.

[mzmolly]

97. Find me one of the website links you say provided this info.

Got one? AGAIN, I pulled this info from the JAAP when I stumbled upon Paul Offit's and Rita Jews article, "Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives, or Residuals?
Paul A. Offit, MD*, Rita K. Jew, PharmD".

I found the information googling "formaldehyde and vaccines." Try it yourself. Today it's the FIRST link that is provided in a search of this nature.

And I'm not here to 'fool' anyone. As I've indicated to you several times, I post information on vaccination that I feel is interesting, both pro and con. My journal will clue you in. I don't think in black and white terms on vaccination. You apparently do, and want people like me to join you or suffer your wrath.

Lastly, and again, I invite you to put the quote in the context you feel is missing. What is it? What part of the "Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans" statement did I leave out? The entire article is linked for you below. Find the information you say puts it into the proper context or quit praddling on about the so called missing context.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

Here's the entire section of the article, including the quote in question.

Residual quantities of reagents that are used to make vaccines are clearly defined and well regulated by the FDA. Inactivating agents (eg, formaldehyde), antibiotics, and cellular residuals (eg, egg and yeast proteins) may be contained in the final product.

Inactivating Agents
Inactivating agents separate a pathogen’s immunogenicity from its virulence by eliminating the harmful effects of bacterial toxins or ablating the capacity of infectious viruses to replicate. Examples of inactivating agents include formaldehyde, which is used to inactivate influenza virus, poliovirus, and diphtheria and tetanus toxins; ß-propiolactone, which is used to inactivate rabies virus; and glutaraldehyde, which is used to inactivate toxins contained in acellular pertussis vaccines. Formaldehyde deserves special consideration.

Concerns about the safety of formaldehyde have centered on the observation that high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA and cause cancerous changes in cells in vitro.71,72 Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (Table 5). Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3291203?dopt=Abstract">73 and animals that are exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure at doses of 80–100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6656818?dopt=Abstract">74,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2714719?dopt=Abstract">75

I've linked the study in question above which has No authors listed. Isn't that a bit curious as well? Anyone who spends five minutes at pubmed looking at various studies will see for themselves that Offit's and Jews statement lacks credibility. In fact, contrast the statement made in the JAAP article to the ATSDR Toxicological Profile of formaldehyde:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.pdf

Several studies of laboratory rats exposed for life to high amounts of formaldehyde in air found that the rats developed nose cancer. Some studies of humans exposed to lower amounts of formaldehyde in workplace air found more cases of cancer of the nose and throat (nasopharyngeal cancer) than expected, but other studies have not found nasopharyngeal cancer in other groups of workers exposed to formaldehyde in air. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that formaldehyde may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen (NTP). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that formaldehyde is probably carcinogenic to humans. This determination was based on specific judgements that there is limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in laboratory animals that formaldehyde can cause cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in laboratory animals.

What's also curious is not one PEER bothered to critique this blatant misinformation. Not ONE.

Wouldn't it simply be easier for you to say "I disagree with Offit's and Jews characterization of the science on formaldehyde" than to suggest I'm some kind of plant?

[HuckleB]

99. Again, you're not fooling anyone.

Cutting and pasting the same stuff, and repeating the same claim isn't going to change the fact that your game is up.

[mzmolly]

101. It is not I who is trying to "fool" anyone.

It is you with your attempt to avoid discussing a topic that you started, at all costs.

Cheers.

[HuckleB]

103. Actually, you haven't discussed the topic I started.

WOW!

:wow:

:rofl:

That's one of the funniest posts I've read in some time!

THANKS! ROTFLMAO!

[mzmolly]

105. You started a topic on denialism.

I commented on the same subject - denialism as it relates to vaccination. I also noted that Bill Maher isn't a germ theory denialist, in spite of the false information provided in the video you posted, which uses his likeness.

Admittedly I didn't stick to germ theory in my quote about cancer. Formaldehyde is obviously not a germ. ;)

[HuckleB]

107. The OP is on Germ Theory Denialism.

Your anti-vaccination BS does not even pretend to deal with it.

Now, please, move along.

[mzmolly]

109. Germs are not the only avenue to harm.

Saying formaldehyde doesn't appear to cause cancer in humans (in spite of the science to the contrary) is a form of denial. I pointed that out.

[HuckleB]

111. Of course, you must continue to ignore the OP and obsess on your distraction.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

115. I'm discussing the subject you say I'm not, with you

below, remember?

[HuckleB]

118. Actually, that's not true, either.

[mzmolly]

121. Ciao.

:hi:

[trotsky]

22. Denialists don't like their denialism being pointed out, I guess. n/t

[HuckleB]

24. Dang.

I thought they would appreciate it.

[laconicsax]

32. Of course, it reminds them that they have no idea what they're talking about. n/t

[Odin2005]

27. Or what about the BULLSHIT about vaccines causing Autism?

*poke poke poke*

[mzmolly]

29. Hannah Poling.

poke poke poke and poke. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Ru-Tp27AM

[laconicsax]

31. Encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial disorder is not autism.

Poke poke poke poke poke poke poke poke.

Really? The best you can ever do to show that vaccines cause autism is to cite a case where a mitochondrial disorder caused encephalopathy?

[mzmolly]

35. "Autism like disorder" was the term used to describle the effect of multiple vaccines on this child.

Which her father (a neurologist) clarifies in the video tape I posted above. Feel free to buy the spin, however.

[laconicsax]

37. Shifting goalposts.

"Vaccines cause autism! Look at Hannah Poling!"
She doesn't have autism and there was an underlying mitochondrial disorder.

"Well it's like autism! You're just buying the spin!"

Autism-like disorder could mean anything. Since the autism spectrum is especially broad, just about any neurological problem could be called "autism-like." This is classic goalpost shifting.

Which is it? Vaccines cause autism, or vaccines cause autism-like disorders?

I'm sorry you regard facts (ie she isn't autistic) as spin. Calling the truth "spin" doesn't make it so.

[mzmolly]

38. The child was diagnosed with Autism.

Feel free to believe that she's the only person who has ever had an autism diagnosis as a result of vaccination if you choose.

[laconicsax]

40. She was diagnosed with encephalopathy, not autism.

Her father said she had "autism like" symptoms, but that doesn't change the diagnosis.

You're still shifting the goalposts--you say she has autism. I point out that she doesn't, you say, 'well, she has autism like symptoms.' I point out that you're shifting goalposts and you're back to "she's got teh autism. Vaccines are evul!"

If you have proof of vaccines causing autism, why don't you post it? All you can ever seem to conjure is Hannah Poling, who isn't autistic.

[mzmolly]

41. No, she was diagnosed with AUTISM. The fact that so many claim othewise

is indicative of how effective the spin campaign has been. Also, I didn't move any goal posts, the vaccine court did.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20184625,00.html

One day Hannah Poling was a happy, babbling toddler who would wave to her father as he headed to work and say, "Bye-bye, Daddy." The next she was a screaming, wailing 18-month-old who would sit for hours, staring into space and refusing to be touched or fed. Within days of receiving nine vaccines during a visit to her doctor, including ones missed from previous appointments, her mother, Terry, says, "It was like Hannah became another person." Months later she was diagnosed with autism. "The Hannah we knew was gone."

Hannah Pollings parents have been clear about her diagnosis, as has her Dr. Again see the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Ru-Tp27AM

The video, (which I've posted twice) is a start toward moving beyond the pharma driven spin. The portion where Dr. Polling indicates what his child was diagnosed with starts about three minutes in.

"The bottom line is Hannah was born normal - when she was vaccinated she became ill and her illness led to a diagnoses of AUTISM." ~ Dr. Polling (Paraphrased)

[laconicsax]

42. So your sources are People Magazine and YouTube?

My, my, my. No wonder you can't stick to a single story.

Here's something I'm sure you're not going to like:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit

And here's what the vaccine court actually said:
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELL-SMITH.POLING041008.pdf

...the vaccination Hannah received on July 19, 2000 significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism which manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of an autism-spectrum disorder.

That's some spin campaign! It must be able to retroactively change a court decision to suit its goals!

I know that the New England Journal of Medicine isn't as prestigious a publication as People Magazine, and that YouTube is more trustworthy a source than actual vaccine court decisions, but it looks like Poling doesn't have autism, nor was she diagnosed with anything other than encephalopathy.

I eagerly await your response.

[mzmolly]

44. No my sources are her father - a neurologist, her mother - an RN and her Dr.

who made the diagnosis all of whom speak in the video you refuse to watch. :hi:

Yeah, it IS some spin campaign given people like you refuse to call autism, autism. They've done a bang up job, I say!

PS - The NEJM article was written by Paul Offit. :rofl: You can read about him in my conversation with Huck.

[laconicsax]

46. I'm sorry, I trust the NEJM and Vaccine Court more than YouTube and People.

Keep trying though, it's fun to watch. I bet you can find a MySpace profile or Facebook group that will back you up.

Maybe you should investigate whether Hannah is crystal and her mom is indigo. I'm sure that will prove once and for all that "not autism" is really "definitely autism."

[mzmolly]

49. The NEJM article is a spin promoted by a vaccine profiteer. I trust the neurologist

who lives with Hannah, and her Dr. vs a Frist like, newly created diagnosis from a complete stranger.

[laconicsax]

51. I notice you haven't responded to the vaccine court ruling.

Since Hannah's parents were petitioners in the case, I'd think that they would insist on the correct diagnosis of their daughter being entered into the record. Again, the judges decision says that the respondent (the opposing side) accepts that

...the vaccination Hannah received on July 19, 2000 significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism which manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of an autism-spectrum disorder.

Notice how it doesn't say that she was diagnosed with autism? You must have, because all you can seem to do is gripe about how you don't trust Dr. Offit's motive.

Now I ask you, why would a neurologist blithely accept the stated diagnosis if it wasn't true? Is Hannah's dad part of the spin too? That's the problem with conspiracy theories--they always get bigger and bigger.

[mzmolly]

52. If you watched the video you'd have seen the response.

The child was diagnosed with autism, period.

[laconicsax]

56. Which is why the Polings argued otherwise in vaccine court?

You've yet to reconcile your insistence that Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism with the fact that the Polings argued that she was diagnosed with encephalopathy. Either they lied in your holy YouTube video, or they perjured themselves in Vaccine Court.

[mzmolly]

57. What's to reconcile? Encephalopathy preceeded the autism.

It's not an either or. Also the case never entered court (as Offit has asserted and you and I have presumed based upon his assumptions.)

BTW, Dr. Polling responded to Offit's inaccuracies here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc086269

To the Editor:

In his Perspective article on a possible connection between vaccines and autism, Offit (May 15 issue)1 speculates about my daughter, Hannah, and repeats inaccuracies from a March New York Times opinion piece that was officially corrected by the Times and our April 5 letter.

By omitting critical information from my March 6, 2008, statement, Offit misrepresents my position. I said, “Many in the autism community and their champions believe that the result in this case may well signify a landmark decision as it pertains to children developing autism following vaccinations. This still remains to be seen, but currently there are almost 5,000 other cases pending.”

Offit's remarks about Hannah's case are not evidence-based. He has no access to my daughter's personal medical records, legal documents, or affidavits. In contrast, physicians from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who studied this information recommended that the government concede Hannah's case. The clinical history Offit presents contains significant inaccuracies, and the resulting conclusions are consequently flawed.

Offit confuses issues by comparing Hannah's case with unrelated decisions in “vaccine court.” The Office of the Secretary of DHHS, through the Department of Justice, conceded Hannah's case. There was no courtroom hearing and no decision from the “unusual vaccine court.”

Offit is frequently cited regarding the “biologically plausible” theory that simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines is safe. His opinion is unsupported by clinical trials, much less investigations in potentially susceptible subpopulations.

Despite the high frequency of mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic children,2 studies have not established primary or secondary roles. To explore this question, we need an immunization database for children with metabolic disorders to establish safety guidelines3 and improve vaccine safety for minority subgroups of children.

(More at the link above.)

[laconicsax]

61. The Polings argued that it was only encephalopathy in their case.

Now why would they do that if their daughter was really autistic? They're telling two contradictory stories and you're repeating them without realizing that one precludes the other.

[mzmolly]

63. No they didn't. They provided medical records which indicated ...

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 her ability to interpret sensory input and influence 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-vaccineautism-court-d_b_88558.html

Even you must realize how absurd the parse words crowd sounds as it pertains to this case? However if you prefer to claim that vaccines don't cause autism in the vulnerable, they merely cause lasting "features of autistic disorders" fine.

[laconicsax]

64. And what term are you ignoring in those? (Hint: it's spelled "encephalopathy")

You don't even bother to parse words--you just ignore them wholesale, just like every study that doesn't support your dogma. Hell, you even left in the "features of" parts that clearly show that it isn't autism, but something different that has the "features of" autism. At least creationists are clever enough to use ellipses to hide the words that undermine their position.

Would you like to name a case where vaccination unequivocally caused a non-autistic child to become autistic? You keep making the claim that there are other obvious cases, so pony up and prove it.

We've been over this other part before too: the uniqueness of the Poling case indicates that vaccination isn't a likely cause of ASDs. I know you don't care, because it hasn't stopped you from from shrieking "Hannah Poling! Hannah Poling!" and then dismissing everything about the case that doesn't support your agenda.

[mzmolly]

66. I said that encephalopathy preceeded the autism. It was involved in the "causation" in Poling.

Would you like to name a case where vaccination unequivocally caused a non-autistic child to become autistic? I'm not sure that your definition of unequivocal would mirror mine? Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks are two examples of cases where the court acknowledged vaccines were connected to injury that ultimately presented with symptoms of autism.

I acknowledge a few things you apparently don't.

1. Autism is a diagnosis with symptoms presenting in some from birth, others after an injury.
2. Human beings are like.
3. Vaccines are like.
4. The DNA issues like Poling has, are present in about 7% of the general public, and 37% autistic children.
5. Many parents have reported autism like regression (in previously normal/typical children) after a child was vaccinated - including fever, symptoms of encephalopathy etc.
6. Given I acknowledge 1-5, I draw the conclusion that Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks are not alone.

I will say that I don't believe the majority of cases of autism, PDD etc. are caused by vaccination. I think there are many avenues, most involving genetic pre-disposition and an environmental trigger. I will also say that I believe various illness, could also be a mechanism in the very children who are vulnerable to vaccination. It is my hope that we'll first acknowledge that there are children who are vulnerable to vaccination, and that we'll attempt to identify these children so that we can have the best of both worlds, so to speak.

[laconicsax]

69. Uh-oh! Numbers...

The prevalence of ASD is around 0.6%. Keep that number around--we'll come back to it later.

1. As expected, you omitted something. The symptoms of autism don't begin to manifest until a child is at least a year old, and in many cases, they aren't distinct symptoms until a child is at least two years old. Your point should have read, "Autism is a diagnosis with symptoms presenting in some from birth, others after an injury, but often around the age of two."

I wonder why you chose to omit this...it must have been a simple mistake.

2. What? Could you be any more vague? "Humans beings are like"? Did you start a simile and just forget to finish it? Are you trying to say that everyone is similar? That's only true in very general terms. If you're trying to relate it to medicine, it doesn't work too well, since there are a wide variety of genetic conditions that predispose people to different illnesses. Saying that we're all alike turns genetic cause into an unsolvable mystery.

3. Bravo! I was wondering when you would admit to being completely ignorant when it comes to vaccines. Vaccines are only alike in that they have a similar function. If they were really that similar, there'd be no need to test new vaccines for safety and efficacy--vaccine A works fine, new vaccine B must work just as well. Let's just slap a trade name on the syringe and start charging.

That's half of your points and they are all either omit important information, or are just plain wrong. Continuing on...

4. Remember that number I said to remember, here's where it comes into play. That 0.6% of the population is autistic/has an ASD is important. If Hannah's mitochondrial disorder (it isn't actually part of her DNA) was a significant causal factor in ASD, we should expect to see more that 10% of all those with it present signs of autism.

That it is common in a third of all ASD individuals indicates that it plays a role in ASDs, but isn't a sole cause by any stretch of the imagination. Now, if autism were genetically caused with multiple genetic factors at work (and research suggests there are), then we would expect to see a higher prevalence of certain factors, which we do. This indicates that Hannah's mitochondrial disorder would only be part of what causes autism. Vaccination isn't a likely cause because the vaccination rates combined with the rate of Hannah's mtDNA issue would result in a significantly higher number of diagnoses, which leads us to...

5. Numerous studies have attempted to show a link between vaccination and autism. They all failed to show a causal link. Remember the part you omitted from point 1? You know, the part that explains how autism doesn't typically manifest itself until around the age of most of these vaccinations? Yeah...I see why you omitted it. Correlation does not imply causation. It does if you're a superstitious loon, but in the real world, it is just as likely to be coincidence as causal. That's why studies are done to determine if something is a cause. What have those studies shown? That age of vaccination is coincidental, not causal.

Based these facts, which you fudged, altered, or just made up, you conclude something that isn't supported by evidence. When I first learned of the autism-vaccine controversy, I decided to educate myself. It didn't take too long to find that there was no actual evidence that vaccines cause autism. This came as a relief because I was concerned that when I had kids, I might have to make a choice between risking autism, and making the unsafe decision not to vaccinate.

Bailey Banks isn't autistic. The diagnosis was encephalomyelitis not autism. Not all developmental disorders are the same. You would do well to learn that. That your next example of vaccine-caused autism isn't a case of autism but another condition isn't surprising, but it is depressing. I had hoped for more.

[mzmolly]

72. Response to your response...

1. As expected, you omitted something. The symptoms of autism don't begin to manifest until a child is at least a year old, and in many cases, they aren't distinct symptoms until a child is at least two years old. Your point should have read, "Autism is a diagnosis with symptoms presenting in some from birth, others after an injury, but often around the age of two."

The reason for later diagnosis at times, is because it becomes clear over time that a child isn't meeting various developmental milestones.

I wonder why you chose to omit this...it must have been a simple mistake.

I didn't omit anything. You can't diagnose a child with autism until you can gather information. Children as young as 14 months of age have been diagnosed. And, some clinicians are now suggesting early signs (in pure, so called, vanilla autism) may be http://autism.about.com/od/causesofautism/a/placenta.htm">present from birth.

2.Saying that we're all alike turns genetic cause into an unsolvable mystery.

What nonsense. Do notify drug companies that studies conducted in human subjects are not credible because we're all too different. I didn't say humans don't have differences, I said we're like, meaning the same animal.

3. Bravo! I was wondering when you would admit to being completely ignorant when it comes to vaccines. Vaccines are only alike in that they have a similar function.

What should have been apparent to you is that I was referring to specific vaccines. The MMR vaccine made by X is like another MMR vaccine made by X. As you know only certain vaccines are thought to be a contributing factor leading to "features of autism" for some who are afflicted.

4. Remember that number I said to remember, here's where it comes into play. That 0.6% of the population is autistic/has an ASD is important. If Hannah's mitochondrial disorder (it isn't actually part of her DNA) was a significant causal factor in ASD, we should expect to see more that 10% of all those with it present signs of autism.

According to http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_whatis_factsstats">studies, 1 percent of the population of children in the U.S. ages 3-17 have an autism spectrum disorder. Also, you appear to be dismissing something you advocated as truth above? You no longer believe that genetics were a related factor in Pollings condition? What I pointed out earlier is that Hannah's non-autistic mother has the same mitochondrial DNA and she's not autistic. The Pollings argued that the number of vaccines given in one day (in Hannah's case) tipped her over the edge. The Dr.s they hired suggested that the Mitochondrial DNA abnormalities that were discovered after her condition became apparent, played a role. The government agreed.

That it is common in a third of all ASD individuals indicates that it plays a role in ASDs, but isn't a sole cause by any stretch of the imagination.

I've never suggested that it was.

This indicates that Hannah's mitochondrial disorder would only be part of what causes autism.

Agreed, but only in some cases...

Vaccination isn't a likely cause because the vaccination rates combined with the rate of Hannah's mtDNA issue would result in a significantly higher number of diagnoses, which leads us to...

Absurd. As I've indicated, Hannah Polling had several vaccines in one day. And, as you've pointed out, while we're alike as humans we also have differences. Not everyone exposed to cigarette smoke will get lung cancer, some however, will. The greater the amount of smoke, the greater the chance of lung cancer in those vulnerable.

5. Numerous studies have attempted to show a link between vaccination and autism. They all failed to show a causal link.

Which brings us back to Hannah Polling and the fact that she is evidence that the studies you reference, were seeking to find "the cause" vs. "a contributing factor."

Bailey Banks isn't autistic. The diagnosis was encephalomyelitis not autism. Not all developmental disorders are the same. You would do well to learn that. That your next example of vaccine-caused autism isn't a case of autism but another condition isn't surprising, but it is depressing. I had hoped for more.

You would do well to learn that encephalomyelitis is not a developmental disorder. You hoped for more? Your condescending statement is the epitome of irony. You really need to find better sources of information before you get your smug on. Banks has PDD, which is on the autism spectrum. Yale refers to PDD as "atypical autism.

From the court ruling - “The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine…a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to PDD (a form of autism.)"

[laconicsax]

76. It must be hard to parse words you don't understand.

You admit to omitting a significant fact, then deny omitting anything. "the reason for this fact I left out is..." "I didn't omit anything."

You're actually agreeing with what I said, but you don't realize it--"Human beings are like" is only true in a very general sense, which you acknowledge by clarifying that you only meant it in the most general sense possible. Have you ever wondered why clinical trials are done on as large a scale as feasible? It's because we're all different! They need a big enough sample to account for the differences among us. Something which can invalidate a study is the test population--too small and the results may be inconclusive; not random and the results can't be used as a reliable predictor of how a drug will interact with the general population. Don't give up though, your ignorance in this subject is starting to shine.

Of course assumed that by "vaccine" you meant one specific vaccine that's been shown time and again to not cause autism. :eyes: Even still, there are different types of MMR vaccine, each having slightly different results in patients. So I guess that when you said that "vaccines are like," you really meant "All MMR vaccines provide immunization against the same three diseases." You would do well to say what you mean rather than use anti-vax shorthand.

Allow me to explain the relationship of mtDNA to regular human DNA. Mitochondria are organelles living within our cells that have their own genetic code that is separate from human DNA. It is this fact that allows for mtDNA to be used to identify the era of the last common matrilineal ancestor of all humanity. By not being a part of our genetics and mutating at a regular rate, mtDNA samples from all over the world can be used to track the migration of various human populations over time. Since mitochondria are inherited directly from mother to child, repeating over and over again that Hannah's mother has the same mtDNA like it means something is only exposing the fact that you don't understand this. The only reason why Hannah's mother wouldn't have the same mitochondrial disorder would be if she wasn't Hannah's biological mother. I hope this also explains to you why a mitochondrial disorder isn't actually part of a persons DNA any more than a pet dog with dysplasia isn't a health condition of the owner.

If you could be troubled to learn this basic bit of biology, you would immediately see that what I argued in my previous comment does none of what you think it does. It instead shows that Hannah's mitochondrial disorder in itself is not enough to cause autism; that other genetic factors are required to explain the condition. You might also realize that autism isn't some simple condition that is magicked into existence in the presence of the MMR vaccine. (I notice that you seem to focus on the MMR vaccine even though it was one of several that she received. If you were truly being objective in your assessment, rather than parroting anti-vax talking points, you would have mentioned at least one of the other vaccines.)

One case is an outlier. I've pointed this out to you before, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge it. You'll agree that the Poling case is undoubtedly unique, but refuse to accept that its uniqueness rules it out as a valid demonstration of a concept. You said of her case in a past thread that "there is no other case like her's," or something to that effect, yet that doesn't stop you from insisting that there are necessarily similar cases. This is where your reasoning absolutely falls apart, but since nothing I say will help you understand why, I'll just have to respond to your flawed logic each time you use it.

Several studies have been conducted to determine if here is any causal link beteeen any vaccine and autism. So far, not a single study has found such a link and Hannah Poling remains an outlier, her diagnosis of encephalopathy instead of autism still undermining your other points.

I would love to verify what you claim about Bailey Banks, even though two isolated cases, each with diagnoses of separate brain diseases (encephalopathy and encephalomyelitis) occurring in very specific circumstances doesn't reveal any truths about a larger whole that has been repeatedly investigated, but since you prefer bold italics in red to citing your source (it isn't funnyordie.com, is it?), I have no way to verify the issue and given your very recent history of deliberately omitting important information when it suits you, you'll forgive me if I don't take you at your word.

[mzmolly]

78. I've never said there is no other case like Polling's.

If fact, I clearly stated that I don't believe she's alone. I also indicated that I don't believe vaccines are THE cause of autism, but are a contributing factor in SOME cases. I further stated that she was diagnosed with autism as a result of her reaction to vaccines, yet you continue to dance around this finding in spite of testimony by those close to her, who happen to be qualified to make such a diagnosis.

Regarding your confusion about the DNA issue.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vaccine-injurycase-offer

"Most of the DNA responsible for mitochondria is inherited from mothers, because mitochondrial genes are carried in the egg but not sperm. Salvatore DiMauro, a mitochondria expert at Columbia University, notes that the point mutation mentioned in Poling's case history would imply that both she and her mother carried the genetic variation in all their tissues. So, he says, "you would expect to see the same results" in both the mother and the daughter. But Poling's mother, Terry, who is an attorney and a registered nurse, is not autistic."

Regarding your denial of Bailey Banks condition - http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Abell.BANKS.02-0738V.pdf

In sum, the Court’s factual findings are fourfold:

1. Bailey did show evidence of ataxia in the period surrounding his seizure, following his
vaccination;

2. Such ataxia, when considered in conjunction with the radiological results and some other
“soft indicia”, together support the Court’s finding that Bailey did, in fact, suffer from ADEM.

3. Bailey’s ADEM was caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is wellunderstood
that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court finds, on the record filed
herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.

4. Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his
developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental
Delay, or PDD. Additionally, this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate
sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

You have issue taking ME at MY word? You weren't aware that PDD is on the autism spectrum. Again, your arrogance is curious under the circumstances. Not to mention, I only have one user ID here, unlike some.

I'll respond again tomorrow. Have a nice evening.

[laconicsax]

86. In a comment made June 10th of this year, you said of Hannah Poling, and I quote,

"Apparently there is only one [case of vaccine induced autism] and her name is Hannah Poling. No other like person in existence."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4420311&mesg_id=4421380

Of course, you denied ever making the claim to me in that thread too. Other people explained to you why you are wrong, but that never seems to stop you. Dogma is unassailable to reason.

(Considering how you defined "like" in this thread, did you accidentally define Hannah Poling out of the species?)

Thanks for the link RE: Bailey Banks. I was fairly unfamiliar with the case, and now I understand it as a case of vaccine injury causing ADEM, which led to ASD. You could have provided the link earlier and spared yourself the trouble of accusing me of posting under multiple usernames (I don't by the way.) in an ad hominem attack that further undermines your credibility.

I am curious though, why you didn't mention Bailey Banks in the above-referenced thread. The decision is three years old, so it isn't like the Banks case is a new development of the last two months. Could it be that your favorite anti-vax sites didn't include it until recently? Is it possible that you hadn't even been aware of the case until I pressed you for proof of similar cases, implying that you realized that you had none and had to act fast?

If not, why is it that you held off on citing it until now? Surely two references are better than one, especially when trying to show a frequent occurrence. Why did you refer to Hannah Poling as an only example in that thread but added Banks as a second example under duress in this thread?

One fact that seems to have been forgotten in all of this is that two isolated cases of vaccine injury resulting in brain disease that eventually was diagnosed/noted as similar to autism hardly proves a causal link between vaccination and autism. One case was a mitochondrial disorder causing encephalopathy similar to autism, the other was encephalomyelitis leading to an autism spectrum disorder. If these cases were anything resembling a normal occurrence, then any one of the numerous studies that set out to establish the causal link between vaccination and autism wouldn't have completely failed to show such a link. Maybe you'd care to explain? (I sure hope the explanation involves a large-scale conspiracy. Those are always fun.)

We can dance around the issue of what diagnosis was made and what it means for a long while if you like. I'd prefer if you simply backed up your claim that vaccination causes autism on a large scale (ie in more than a couple disparate cases). I'm completely willing to accept that vaccination (specifically the MMR vaccine, as it's a favorite of yours) is a direct cause of autism. You just need to prove it.

[mzmolly]

90. Apparently, sarcasm eludes you? Not surprised given you didn't know

PDD was on the autism spectrum. A quick read of the discussion should have made my (sarcastic) comment, in context, apparent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4420311&mesg_id=4420346

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4420311&mesg_id=4420789

"One fact that seems to have been forgotten in all of this is that two isolated cases of vaccine injury resulting in brain disease that eventually was diagnosed/noted as similar to autism hardly proves a causal link between vaccination and autism."

What it proves is a link between vaccination injury and a DIAGNOSIS of autism. In other words, parents with similar stories about how their children went from normal to "autistic" shortly after vaccination, should not be ignored. Are you actually suggesting these two children are entirely alone?

Regarding Bailey Banks, I wasn't as familiar with Banks as I was Poling. Also, Hannah Poling's case is more notable given the publicity that surrounded the settlement.

"I'd prefer if you simply backed up your claim that vaccination causes autism on a large scale..."

I never suggested vaccination causes autism on a large scale. I have said that I think it is a contributor in some cases. How many? Admittedly, I haven't a clue. Now back up your claim that these children are the only two in the universe to ever suffer from a like vaccine injury.

[Odin2005]

33. FAIL!

[mzmolly]

36. Not!

;)

[laconicsax]

43. But a tabloid magazine and video sharing website support that argument...

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

45. Afraid to watch the video? It's a video featuring her father, a neurologist who clearly indicates

that his child has AUTISM.

[laconicsax]

47. Here are a few videos that put your video in context/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMhdm6EpLZ4
What are indigo or crystal children?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
Conspiracy of Science: The Earth is Growing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAcxVaJCwfY
Proof that geocentrism is true. The earth does not rotate and does not move.

[mzmolly]

48. Completely absurd

and unrelated to the context of this conversation.

[laconicsax]

50. It's your source. If you don't like it, tough. n/t

[mzmolly]

53. It's not my source. It's your futile attempt at distraction.

:hi:

[laconicsax]

54. So you posted a YouTube video because it isn't your source?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

55. Oh good grief.

:eyes: The youtube video I posted was from an ABC News interview of the family and Dr. Apparently you've not had the courage to learn anything and watch it yet?

[laconicsax]

58. Ok, I watched the video. Dr. Poling can't make up his mind either.

They accepted the settlement of the vaccination aggravating an underlying mitochondrial disorder, leading to encephalopathy with autism-like symptoms but in the interview segment, he claims that Hannah had no underlying conditions--that the vaccination caused her mitochondrial disorder, then aggravated it, leading directly to autism.

See the problem? The Polings argued in court that:
Mitochondial disorder+vaccination=encephalopathy+autism-like symptoms

The Pa Poling says on the teevee that:
Perfectly healthy child+vaccination=mitochondrial disorder+autism.

I think you had a stronger case without the video of Hannah's dad changing his story.

[mzmolly]

59. The Pollings didn't make it to court. The story was never changed.

The case was settled, presumably to avoid a court ruling.

The Pollings believe that Hannah was genetically vulnerable to a severe reaction to vaccination, ultimately leading to her autism. They also believe that she's not alone. And they point out that Hannah's non-autistic Mother has the same mitochondria and no autism because she didn't undergo the same kind of assault. They further believe that testing should be done, prior to vaccination to help identify genetically vulnerable children. Bottom line, no vaccines, no autism. Simple, really.

[laconicsax]

60. Feel free to continually ignore the point.

The Polings were the petitioner in their case. The petitioner makes a claim and supports it with evidence. It's the respondent's job to show why the petitioner's claim isn't valid.

If the respondent can't show that the petitioner's case is without merit, they may suggest a settlement. In the Poling case, the respondent (DHS) said they agreed with the petitioner (The Polings) that vaccination aggravated an existing mitochondrial disorder, leading to encephalopathy with autism-like symptoms.

This means that the Polings never claimed, as part of their case, that Hannah was autistic. Had they done so, the judge's decision would have mentioned it. The progression of the case essentially went: Polings said Hannah got encephalopathy from vaccination, the government agreed, and the judge signed off on the legal merits of the settlement.

After the settlement, the Polings changed their story.

Now I ask you, why would they wait until after the settlement to start saying that Hannah wasn't afflicted with encephalopathy caused by vaccine induced aggravation of a mitochondrial disorder, but was in fact, autistic by way of vaccines causing the mitochondrial disorder.

I have an idea why, and it has to do with them being honest in their case.

[mzmolly]

62. The POINT is

the child was diagnosed with autism. I don't care about the chicken and egg argument you're clinging to. Again, the bottom line is Polling's genetic vulnerability + vaccines = autism, or if you prefer, "features of autism." And, she's certainly not alone.

[laconicsax]

65. So prove it.

"And, she's certainly not alone."

(I think it's obvious from your other response upthread that you aren't interested in what the diagnosis actually was, since one you posted said that she was diagnosed with encephalopathy and the other said it wasn't autism, but had autism-like features. Similar is not equivalent since different conditions can result in similar symptoms. If the root cause isn't addressed or acknowledged, the chances of effective treatment are significantly lessened. But of course, you're not interested in treatment or even uncovering the actual cause of ASDs--your mind's made up and no amount of evidence will ever change it.)

[mzmolly]

67. See my reply above and my question below.

Regarding your convoluted strain to prove that features of autistic disorder do not lead to a diagnosis of autism, do tell me how a clinician is able to discern between a child who is autistic and one who has "features of autism.". I'd also be interested in hearing how treatments differ in the two groups.

[laconicsax]

68. There is such a thing as diagnostic criteria.

I'm not a doctor, and I doubt you are either, but these little things called diagnostic criteria are what allow a clinician to diagnose a condition.

Of course, we could ignore the criteria and call it whatever feels best.
Patient 1 is running a fever and has a rash, therefore they must have influenza and a reaction to an unknown allergen. It's probably the new shirt they have on.
Patient 2 is running a fever and has a rash, therefore they must have influenza and a reaction to an unknown allergen. It's probably the new soap they use.

Send 'em both home with an antihistamine, they should be fine. Nevermind that patient 2 actually has MRSA, because mzmolly says that similar symptoms mean identical diagnosis.

[mzmolly]

70. You failed to address my question.

As I've noted, autism is a diagnosis based upon criteria which is comprised of a set of symptoms or features. How does one distinguish between the autism you suggest is legitimate and a non-diagnosis of what's deemed "features of autism?"

The fact that you liken MSRA to influenza is absurd.

[laconicsax]

71. Why don't you ask a doctor?

Are you worried that a health care professional wouldn't give you the answer you like? Terrified that they might make a distinction between encephalopathy and autism, or encephalomyelitis and autism?

If the criteria warranted a diagnosis of autism, then it makes no sense that it would instead be 'encephalopathy with features of autism.'

If the criteria warranted a diagnosis of encephalopathy, but with certain features typically associated with autism, then it would make sense to issue a diagnosis of 'encephalopathy with features of autism.'

Also, I wasn't comparing influenza to MRSA, I was using both as an example of how different diseases can result in similar symptoms. Since you seem to advocate diagnosis based on incomplete evidence, I could see you arguing that a case of MRSA was really just influenza with a benign rash (or the other way around) if it suited your anti-medicine agenda. If you're willing to intentionally mislabel a condition to bolster your argument, it doesn't take much to imagine you doing it again. (Especially when one such instance involved you posting a diagnosis that said, "regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development" to "prove" that the diagnosis wasn't regressive encephalopathy.)

"Condition X with features of autism" is not the same as autism. If it were, it wouldn't be "condition X with features of autism."
Similarly, "influenza with features of MRSA" wouldn't be MRSA. If it were, it wouldn't be "influenza with features of MRSA."

[mzmolly]

73. Given you've deemed that there is a difference,

I want to know what you base your assertion on. I doubt my Dr. has heard of a diagnosis described thusly "features of autism," before.

[laconicsax]

74. Argumentum ad ignorantium by proxy?

"I'm sure my doctor is just as ignorant as me, therefore you're wrong."

What an astounding show of support for the medical community--a flat denial that a medical professional could possibly be better informed than you on the subject of medicine.

I knew you had a low opinion of the medical community, but I had no idea it extended to a belief that no doctor could possibly know better than your Internet assembled opinion.

I've posted my reasoning already--a diagnosis of 'A with features of B,' is different than a diagnosis of 'B.' It if weren't, then they wouldn't bother to make a differentiation.

[mzmolly]

75. Given you've admitted your ignorance, you should

stop feigning expertise.

I needn't consult a clinician to reiterate the fact that autism is a diagnosis based upon having ... "FEATURES OF AUTISM." Polling's father is a neurologist. He alone is qualified to diagnose autism. He has said, as has Hannah's Dr. that she has AUTISM.

Edited to add, I do NOT have a low opinion of the medical community. I know two RN's and at least one Pediatrician who are vocal in their support for vaccine choice. All three believe they've witnessed vaccine injury, first hand. I also have a sister with her PHD/Masters of Art in nursing, who will be teaching soon, and another sister who is studying to be a nurse. And, I have a brother in law who is a surgeon. I like them all quite well, thanks. And, I have a great deal of respect for every single one.

[laconicsax]

77. I apologize for feigning expertise when I said I had none.

Hannah's father has what some would call a "vested interest" in the case which. You can't disqualify one doctor's opinion by saying that he has a vested interest in the outcome and then blithely accept another's opinion in spite of an obvious vested interest without being a massive hypocrite.

Either way, about half-way through that video you posted, Hannah's father flatly denies that Hannah had an underlying condition. That alone leads me to doubt his professional opinion on the matter. You ignored this once already, so I won't assume that it'll have any effect the second time.

"I needn't consult a clinician..."

Of course not, you said yourself that a clinician wouldn't be any more informed than you on how a diagnosis works, so of course you "needn't consult one." After all, you are the alpha and omega of medical knowledge. I'll bet your proxy credentials all agree--you are a consummate expert in the field of diagnostic medicine.

Did you know that I ate a fruit today with lunch? It was a lemon! Well, technically it was an orange with features of a lemon, but having features of a lemon is enough to convince me that it was really an lemon. Then later, I drove my Abrams tank to the movie studio to pick up some groceries. I guess technically it was a hatchback with features of an Abrams tank and a grocery store with features of a movie studio (so many cameras!), but features of a tank and features of a movie studio are enough to convince me that it was a tank and a movie studio.

[mzmolly]

79. Hanna's father is not alone in his diagnosis as has been mentioned here repeatedly.

Diagnostic criteria are referenced in order to make a diagnosis. Not exactly rocket science is it?

"Either way, about half-way through that video you posted, Hannah's father flatly denies that Hannah had an underlying condition. That alone leads me to doubt his professional opinion on the matter. You ignored this once already, so I won't assume that it'll have any effect the second time."

Hannah's father said she was a normal, functioning child. As did her pediatrician, whose testimony is on the record.

I'll allow your bizarre fruit story to speak for itself.

[laconicsax]

87. My story shouldn't strike you as bizarre, since it follows your logic on diagnoses.

Yes, that is how diagnostic criteria are used. Did you have a point? Either way, I have a question with ready-made followups:

Is encephalopathy the same as autism? Yes or No.
If yes, then why specify that the encephalopathy included autism-like symptoms?

If no, then what would make a doctor diagnose a patient with encephalopathy with features of autism if the diagnosis was actually autism? Could it have to do with a quantifiable difference between encephalopathy and autism leading the doctor to conclude that the proper diagnosis was not autism, but encephalopathy bearing a superficial resemblance to autism?

If "features of X" really means "X itself," then I should tell you that I am Hannah Poling. Technically, I am a different person with features similar to Hannah, but since "features of X" is equivalent to "X itself," then the unavoidable conclusion is that I am Hannah Poling.

With regard to Hannah's father, my prediction was confirmed. Thank you for participating.

[mzmolly]

88. I don't care what you choose to call Polling's condition. Coin your own phrase

for all I care. The greater point is that children who present with this kind of injury after vaccination, are likely to be diagnosed with autism. Get it?

[laconicsax]

89. You keep changing your story.

You've gone from "vaccines cause autism" to "children with a specific mitochondrial disorder are at a higher risk of developing brain disease exhibiting similar symptoms to autism under specific circumstances around the time of vaccination prior to the age of two."

It's certainly not as catchy, but it certainly is more plausible given the available evidence.

[mzmolly]

91. I've never said any such thing. You keep assigning straw man

positions to your opponents without taking into consideration their actual positions. Common tactic among the "no such thing as an adverse reaction to vaccines" denialists. ;)

Regarding your recap of your view on my opinion, you said.

"children with a specific mitochondrial disorder are at a higher risk of developing brain disease exhibiting similar symptoms to autism under specific circumstances around the time of vaccination prior to the age of two."

My actual position is - children who've been injured as Poling and Banks have, as a result of vaccination, are likely to have their vaccine injury denied and instead be diagnosed with a form of autism. I would reword your statement thusly - "Children with specific genetic vulnerability are at a higher risk of particular vaccine side effects, ultimately resulting in a diagnosis of autism. Parents of such children are likely to be dismissed by well meaning Dr.s who reassure them "there is no evidence vaccines CAUSE autism."

An aside, of the Dr.s who diagnosed Poling is involved in genetic research. Here is a bit more info.

http://www.kennedykrieger.org/kki_staff.jsp?pid=1068

Research Summary:

Autism is a disorder of the developing nervous system that remains one of medicine’s greatest mysteries and challenges. Its symptoms typically appear within the first three years of life and are lifelong, although early detection and treatment are improving the outcomes. Children with Autism have abnormal language and social skills, and unusual ways of relating to their environment. The condition is four times more common in boys than girls, and frequently occurs in association with other disorders. Dr. Zimmerman carries out medical evaluations of children and adults with symptoms of autism and other behavioral problems that are neurologically based. The objective is to understand each child with respect to known neurological and genetic disorders, and to outline other necessary referrals and a treatment plan.

Dr. Zimmerman has been interested in research into possible relationships between nervous system disorders and the immune system. A variety of studies have shown that from 30 to 70 percent of children with autism (in different studies) have distinct abnormalities in their immune systems, including decreased immunoglobulins and T cells, as well as altered lymphocyte and natural killer cell functions. However, there is no evidence, as yet, that children with autism have increased susceptibility to infections, or that specific therapies for the immune system can alter their symptoms.

Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues recently found that rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders are more common than expected in the families of children with autism. This leads to speculation that autoimmune disorders might be a sign of genetic susceptibility to Autism. Such a predisposition may act through genes associated with the human lymphocyte antigens, which commonly have specific associations with autoimmune disorders. These genetic effects most likely begin before birth and might be modified by the mother’s, as well as the father’s, genes. This may lead to disruption in normal development of the immune, as well as the nervous, systems in the fetus.

It is hoped that a better understanding of the links between the developing immune and nervous systems will eventually improve the treatment of persons with autism.

[laconicsax]

92. Speaking of straw men, who's denying vaccine injury? I'm certainly not.

Have I ever argued that vaccine injury doesn't happen? No. I have however argued (truthfully) that there is no evidence that vaccine injury is a clear cause of autism. In both cases you cited, vaccination was not the proximate cause, brain disease was. If I were to bake a cake, I would say that the heat in the oven caused it to bake, not putting the batter in a cake pan.

In Hannah Poling's case, encephalopathy preceded the symptoms of autism. (Even though she was only diagnosed with encephalopathy, not autism.)
In Bailey Banks' case, ADEM preceded PDD.

If you're going to insist that the cause was vaccination, you need to explain why it took completely different paths in each case. Since Hannah's mitochondrial disorder might come up, you would need to explain why that 34% of autistic individuals with the same disorder didn't first develop encephalopathy. If they did, you need to explain why that isn't documented, and if it is, why you never mentioned it because it would be an amazingly supportive piece of evidence in your favor.

It's too bad you regard my interpretation of your position as a straw man--it's a lot more reasonable than the one you gave in response. The position you gave in response starts out ok, but it jumps to an unsupported conclusion and then points out how the conclusion isn't supported.

Are you getting tired of two separate subthreads? I am. How about we call this one finished? I have a specific response to your last comment on the other on that I intend to type up later this evening--I'd do it now, but I have dinner to cook and things to do. I won't accuse you of changing the topic if you reply to this comment up there.

[mzmolly]

93. As I've indicated, I don't care what you call autism as a result of vaccination.

Also the children you claim were "diseased" were normal prior to vaccination according to testimony. So, I'm not personally convinced that any particular disorder was present in either child prior to vaccination. Thus your suggestion that I have to prove a theory put forth by various medical professionals is bogus. However, are you familiar with the multitude of symptoms of encephalopathy? How about common vaccine side effects? If you are familiar, (especially when taking into consideration the age at which most young children would be impacted) I'm amazed at your question.

Regarding being tired of sub-threads. I'm tired of the entire conversation. I don't think you know enough about the subject matter to engage with such fervor, frankly. That said, I respect your passion. ;)

[laconicsax]

94. With respect...

...I may not be as knowledgeable as I'd like on medical diagnostics, but you've demonstrated enough ignorance of basic biology, science, statistics, research practices, and logic that you're not in the best position to throw stones.

I'm fine with postponing this discussion until next time. See you then. Enjoy the Persids if you can.

[mzmolly]

96. I've addressed your supposed questions on

the statistics and the biology involved. However, just because you refuse to grasp an answer, doesn't mean it wasn't provided.

Yes, see you next time. :hi:

[HuckleB]

100. +1,000,000

[HuckleB]

20. A longer written follow-up on it: Germ theory denialism: A major strain in “alt-med” thought

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6444#more-6444

[mzmolly]

39. Given Bill Maher is being used as Orac's denialist bogey man, I'd like to post his actual position.

"While we're on the subject of bacteria, let me say clearly I understand germ theory also -- I believe they also covered that in Microbe Hunters -- nor have I ever said I was a "germ theory denier." What I've been saying is that Western medicine ignores too much the fact that the terrain in which bacteria can thrive is crucial and often controllable, which shouldn't even be controversial."

And it's precisely because I am a Darwinist that I fear the overuse of antibiotics, since that is what has allowed nasty killer bugs like MRSA to adapt so effectively that they are often resistant to any antibiotic we can throw at it. There are consequences to vaccines and antibiotics. Some people want to study that, and some, it seems, want to call off the debate.

Instead of setting up this straw man of me not understanding germs or viruses, let's have a real debate about how much we should use vaccines and antibiotics. Of course it's good that we have them in our arsenal, but isn't the real skeptic the one who asks if these powerful but toxic methods do harm to what actually is a a very good defensive system, the one you were born with? ~ Bill Maher

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/vaccination-a-conversatio_b_358578.html

With that, I'm out. :hi:

[HuckleB]

81. Nice try.

Maher said what he said, and the video showed where it came from. You can ignore that all you want. You are ignoring reality, and allowing a jackass to play games. Further, you are continuing to show your mindless, emotional hatred of Orac.

THE VIDEO IS NOT ORAC'S VIDEO!

HELLO!!!!!

[mzmolly]

85. I read the commentary in the video as best I could. I didn't see the

reported denial.

[HuckleB]

98. What?

[mzmolly]

102. In the video there is a page with Maher quotes that are supposedly

demonstrative of his germ denial position. Perhaps you can help Orac and company out and find a quote from Maher where he actually denies the validity of germ theory.

[HuckleB]

104. You are not being honest.

Watch the video. Stay calm. Pay attention.

[mzmolly]

106. I watched the entire video. The video purports to expose 'denialists of germ theory'

and uses Maher's face to do so. Why? Maher discusses mercury in his commentary, not germs.

I do agree that those who deny that germs can cause disease are kooks. But I also think denying that formaldehyde is a probable carcinogen is kooky.

[HuckleB]

108. Thank you proving that you haven't watched the video.

Again, WOW!

:wow:

AND...

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

112. Huh? Look at the website you link, and the picture of BILL MAHER

they use as an intro.

[HuckleB]

113. And again you prove that you didn't watch the video.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

116. Here's my original reply on the video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=90391&mesg_id=90538

You're becoming even more desperate.

[HuckleB]

119. I'm glad you could link to your original red herring.

Too bad it doesn't change what Maher said, or much of anything else.

Get help. Seriously.

Bye.

[mzmolly]

120. Bite

me. Seriously. Bye. :hi:

[HuckleB]

110. It's in the video, but since you won't watch the video... here is Maher's quote:

"(Germ theory) is another theory I think is flawed. And that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory even though Pasteur renounced it on his death bed and said Beauchamp is right. It’s not the invading germs. It’s the terrain. It’s not the mosquitoes. It’s the swamp that they’re breeding in."

Now, the video points out that Pasteur did not renounce anything on his death bed, and that the only online sources that claimed he did were Germ Theory Denialist sites. Thus, we know where Maher got this claim.

Game over.

[mzmolly]

114. "Game over?"

First you suggest I didn't watch the video and apparently when you finally decide to watch yourself, you find the comment I replied to below?

"to qualify as a germ theory denialist, you need to deny that infectious agents are responsible for diseases we currently attribute to transmissible pathogens."

As I and Maher pointed out, the entire argument is a straw man.

[HuckleB]

117. ROTFLMAO!

Hello! Is anyone home?

The only straw men around here are in your posts.

Bye.