Why Was Hannah Poling Compensated?

Several people have written to us asking why Hannah Poling was compensated.

Hannah Poling received 5 shots to protect against 9 diseases on a single day. She developed fever following that series of vaccines. Because she had an existing encephalopathy (presumably on the basis of a mitochondrial enzyme defect) and because worsening of an existing encephalopathy following measles-containing vaccine is a compensible injury, Hannah Poling was compensated.

18 Replies to “Why Was Hannah Poling Compensated?”

  1. How do you know she had a pre-existing condition. Her father is a neurologist, she was only diagnosed with mitochondrial enzyme defect after the vaccines. We will never know if it was a cause or effect.

  2. Dear Autism Science Foundation:

    Where is the evidence to support your statement that Hannah Poling “had an existing encephalopathy (presumably on the basis of a mitochondrial enzyme defect) .” Prior to her receiving multiple vaccines in one office visit (not just MMR) she was a normally developing child. If you have scientific or medical evidence to support your assertion about an “existing encephalopathy” please produce it. Otherwise I suggest you are merely spinning facts without support. Your paranthetic statement that her “existing encephalopathy” was “presumably on the basis of a mitochondrial enzyme defect” is particularly troubling because it reveals an acknowledgment on your part that your response is presumptive, and not based fact. Your failure to be explicit that the source of your post is presumption and not fact is fundamentally misleading.

    Your response to the question about why this child was compensated is not, therefore, “scientific” or responsible. Where is your factual support as opposed to conjecture. Don’t those posing questions deserve better answers from an organization calling itself a “science” foundation?

    Sincerely,

    Robert J. Krakow
    Parent
    Attorney At Law

  3. Prior to her receiving multiple vaccines in one office visit (not just MMR) she was a normally developing child.

    I think you need to check your facts. It was because of her pre-existing disorder and the medical complications it had already caused that she was being given multiple vaccinations at one time, to catch up for those that had had to be delayed due to past illnesses.

    Counselor, your willingness to assert as facts things that are not so is disturbing. Is that ethical behavior for an officer of the court?

  4. Hello Antaeus:

    I am relying on the two sources of information that are publicly available in this matter: the case report in Child Neurology published in 2006 and the government report that was apparently leaked and published on line. (See references with quoted portions below). According to these two reports there were no developmental problems prior to the catchup vaccinations. There were ear infections. My point is to question the evidentiary support of the statement by ASF regarding a “preexisting encephalopathy” “presumably on the basis of a mitochondrial enzyme defect.” If ASF has support for this it would be interesting to see it. The public record that does exist clearly supports the fact that no developmental problem existed prior to the administration of the vaccines. Otitis media is not encephalopathy nor does it remotely suggest a preexisting mitochondrial enzyme defect.

    From the Child Neurology report:”A 19-month-old girl was born after a normal full-term pregnancy. There was no family history of autism or affective, neuromuscular, or hearing disor- ders. Her development was progressing well, with normal receptive and expressive language and use of prelinguistic gestures, such as pointing for joint attention. Imaginary play and social reciprocity were typical for age. She used at least 20 words and could point to five body parts on command. Several immunizations were delayed owing to frequent bouts of otitis media with fever.” (Zimmerman et al. Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism. Journal of Child Neurology (2006) http://jcn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2/170).

    From the government report: “According to the medical records, CHILD consistently met her developmental milestones during the first eighteen months of her life. The record of an October 5, 1999 visit to the Pediatric Center notes that CHILD was mimicking sounds, crawling, and sitting. Pet. Ex. 31 at 9. The record of her 12-month pediatric examination notes that she was using the words “Mom” and “Dad,” pulling herself up, and cruising. Id. at 10. At a July 19, 2000 pediatric visit, the pediatrician observed that CHILD “spoke well” and was “alert and active.” Pet. Ex. 31 at 11. CHILD’s mother reported that CHILD had regular bowel movements and slept through the night. Id. At the July 19,Page 2 of 7 at 11. CHILD’s mother reported that CHILD had regular bowel movements and slept through the night. Id. At the July 19, 2000 examination, CHILD received five vaccinations – DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV. Id. at 2, 11.” http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/02/full-text-autis.html (accessed 9/13/10).

    1. Dear Counselor Krakow,
      I would not presume to debate you on matters of the law. However, on matters of medicine and science, it appears that your opinions are less than authoritative. Hannah Poling has mitochondrial disease (MD). This is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that this condition doesn’t simply develop at 19 months of age. Therefore Hannah Poling did in fact already have mitochondrial disease prior to her vaccinations and prior to her presenting with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

      One very significant aspect of MD to medical researchers is the observed fact that MD is only found in one in 10,000 people in the general population, but is found in 1 in 20 people diagnosed with ASD. The connection has not been discovered, but mathematically this is simply too great a correlation to be ignored.

      What this adds up to is, Hannah was born with a condition that is very strongly statistically linked with ASD, got a vaccination, then developed ASD shortly thereafter. There is still no causal link found between these events , although possible mechanisms have been proposed. The important takeaway from the Hannah Poling Vaccine Compensation ruling is that judges in courts are not scientists. A judge could bang his gavel tomorrow and rule that “evolution is just a theory”, but that doesn’t make the existence of evolution any less of a demonstrable fact.

      1. Her Neurologist father, who specializes in mitochondrial disease, would disagree that this is a “rare” condition. He states it is much much more common than previously stated.

  5. Our private English clinics http://www.childrensimmunisation.com has 18,000 patient records where we have immunised children with single M-M-R vaccines (no longer available in the USA) and not a case of regression,autism,hospitalisation febrile convulsion -100% safety record.We were alarmed by Hannahs case and especially that autism in the UK in boys is 1 in 60 boys and ,1 in 88 in whole population.This autism rate is similar to you in the USA! Proud to say we are 0 in 18,000. When will someone listen to Mums and their regression stories.We are starting to video them.
    CEO

  6. My Little boy the most important thing in my life.. i payed private, total cost of three single injections £300…It was peace of mine that he would be safe… Its a shame the government don’t do a survey .. All they have to do is ask the question to every parent who gave there children single injections, have there children got autism….If the answers come back 100% no… well that then proves that the MMR Multiple injection causes it.But the government wont do it because they know the facts. …http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversia

    1. chis,
      let’s look at the converse of your assertion and see if it still makes sense: if one and only one child in all of history received his MMR shots and then within 24 hours his parents noticed the first signs of autism, would that one lone single case be enough to conclude that MMR vax causes autism?

      IF NO: then your assertion that the only way to DISPROVE the link is to find 0.00000000% cases of this happening is false.

      IF YES: if your answer is yes, then…well i’m not sure what to tell you in this case. because this would mean that you’d be willing to say that hundreds of millions of vaccine doses didn’t do anything, then one appears to, and you’re convinced of a connection without further investigation. to me, a person who believed this hypothetical wouldn’t appear to be thinking clearly.

  7. Dear god people’s logic on here is shocking! Do you have any idea of the intricacies in which scientific research is carried out? They have done those studies, and in infinitely more detail, and no proof has been found. Why would people want to cover anything up? What benefit does it give the medical world? And what a brilliantly successful conspiracy it would be if the entire medical community agreed to covered up ‘the facts’ and didn’t ‘speak out’. Why do you think every person medically trained or with an understanding of research says there’s no link?! The experts who have devoted their life to understanding vaccinology and immunology – why would they lie? Also don’t forget the reason for the vaccine is to prevent illnesses that can still kill. No it isn’t compulsory but one of the ways in which vaccines work is by herd immunity so by not having your child vaccinated you put others at risk. This is obvious by the increase in measles cases since the Wakefield report and lack of uptake of the vaccine. There are situations in which the MMR should not be given (along with other live vaccines) but this this is not one.

    1. There are reasons why this would be covered up – the pharmaceutical industry owns and dictates the scientific consensus, as in it is them and their scientists and/or endorsed doctors who fund, produce, and publish the evidence on which you rely. This has been going on for decades. For more detailed evidence to this regard read around some criminology material for instance Braithwaite.

      Unfortunately the scientific consensus is achieved via this route of funding certain studies, finding certain outcomes, and publishing certain reports. It is not shaped by the altruistic ideals of a collective. If you think the pharmaceutical industry is altruistic or even remotely ethical then why do you think they withhold drugs from the developing world? Wouldn’t these saintly beings just want to hand them out if they were only concerned about health?

      If you can’t accept or even research that notion then you cannot begin to engage in enlightened debate on the matter of how drugs are funded and how treatment of conditions within our society is politicised.

      As for the brilliantly successful conspiracy you mention, there are those who speak out, there are those who disagree with the consensus – they are labelled quacks. Every single doctor from Mercola to Coleman has been labelled a quack because they offer alternate views – and they are not funded by the mighty pharmaceutical industry, so let me reflect your question to you – what is their motive?

      Funny how that happens, someone offers you a medically trained source who does hold a different view to the consensus, and you retort – he is a quack. Someone offers you motive for the pharmaceutical industry profiting from health – you retort – that is a conspiracy theory.

      You have a convenient retort for any evidence you ask for – there is literally nothing to be gained from engaging in a conversation with you, which you will engineer as above to fit with your belief system.

      1. Lets just clear some stuff here shall we.

        First, lets say that the bogus claim that the “vast majority of doctors” believe there is a link between autism and vaccinations is true. Why would a pediatric doctor or family doctor, the ones who would be administering the vaccines, opinion be valuable if its not based on scientific research? And the research has concluded that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

        I didn’t want to read that article you linked because I knew it’d piss me off but I decided to and sure it enough it pissed me off.

        “Crucially, it came after Antonio Barboni, a doctor of forensic medicine and appointed by the judge to independently advise the court, wrote a report saying that ‘in the absence of any other pre-existing conditions’ it is a ‘reasonable scientific probability’ that Valentino’s autism can be ‘traced back to the administration of the MMR vaccine . . . by the health authority’.

        That is not reasonable in any way. It completely disregards that many children develop autism who have no known pre-existing conditions nor received the MMR vaccine.

        The falsified wakefield paper was cited as evidence in the case. The “expert witness” Massimo Montanari was hired by the family’s attorney. Massimo Montanari has never published any scientific literature related to autism, mmr, or vaccines. He did however publish a book entitled Autism: Vaccines Among the Causes of the Disease. He also sells a “cure” for autism. How does anyone come to the conclusion that big pharma is behind some cover up and has managed to either manipulate or force thousands of researchers all around the world to find no link between autism and mmr but not conclude that an expert witness with no expertise and a vested interest in a successful verdict not be a conspiracy? I mean for fuck’s sake he claims to sell a god damn cure for autism!!!!!! These same people cite websites like antivaxxers and vaccine truther as sources, do you, your kids, and our society and get your kid vaccinated. Looking at a tabloid for credible information is just stupid, especially when the author is an advocate against vaccinations.

        Now, lets talk about this conspiracy theory shit. Yes I understand pharmaceutical companies fund research, and yes I understand they obviously have an interest in seeing a particular outcome. What I don’t understand is how you think withholding funding would accomplish this goal. Are they going to call them up and demand results? Why haven’t researchers come forward and talked about this? Why would researchers risk their entire career over this? Why would prestigious universities (which are incredibly liberal) risk their reputation? Why wouldn’t they stand behind their researchers? Research is peer reviewed before its published, prestigious scientific journals did not get their prestige by publishing fabricated and manipulated data. Once it is published any scientist can find objective and verifiable flaws in the researchers methodology, why have these flaws not been found? Why are any claims that there is a link not reproducible? What about double blind studies? Have you ever actually read a grant proposal?

        The pharmaceutical industry is certainty not altruistic and they absolutely market their drugs to doctors by downplaying side effects and overselling benefits but to suggest that the scientific community is controlled by them is ludicrous. They probably spend a considerable amount of money to discredit scientists who’ conflict with their own interests but just because big pharma spends money and ends up finding flaws in someones methodology doesn’t make the flaws any less real. You are also forgetting that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in finding and revealing any fraud by competing companies.

        I doubt that you know any scientists who conduct research, are familiar with research or really know much about the philosophy of science in general. But let me just give you a few broad strokes about good scientists.

        They don’t try to prove their theory right they try to prove their theory wrong.
        Scientist with a phd will have spent 4 years in undergrad, possibly 1-3 years getting a masters, and between 5-8 years for their phd.
        Falsifying, manipulating, or publishing untestable or non-reproducible data is career ending.
        They are not uncaring, unethical, scheming people only out to make money.

        “As for the brilliantly successful conspiracy you mention, there are those who speak out, there are those who disagree with the consensus – they are labelled quacks. Every single doctor from Mercola to Coleman has been labelled a quack because they offer alternate views – and they are not funded by the mighty pharmaceutical industry, so let me reflect your question to you – what is their motive?”

        Please link some credible sources, Heres what I mean when I say credible
        Published peer reviewed scientific journal articles

        Heres what I don’t mean when I say credible
        Physicians who have not conducted and published research related to autism or vaccines
        Anyone with a vested interest
        Anyone who cites andrew wakefield as a source
        Anyone who uses non peer reviewed studies as a source

        P.S. not sure if anyone brought this up but it was later revealed that Tony Blair’s child was vaccinated with the MMR vaccine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: