Anti-vaccination stronghold in North Carolina hit with state's worst chickenpox outbreak in 2 decade
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Well here is a new one for you then. This is a full copy of Dr Zimmerman's full sworn affidavit. It should help clear things up for you:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01...xy_bx-yX9yMfDradqMbXbWDyKcXBX9dbo2HMSAFyxCIkc
#5 is his opinion based on the Cedillo v HHS case only - which states (of course) that in his opinion there is no causal relationship between mmr and thimerosal and autism specifically.
#6 and 7 states that he met with DOJ attorneys and during that meeting he told them that his written expert opinion for the Cedillo case was case specific and to be used ONLY for the Cedillo case and was not intended to be a blanket statement for all children.
#8 "I explained that I was of the opinion that there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism."
#9 "More specifically, I explained that in a subset of children with an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction , vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic energy reserves could, and in at least one of my patients, did cause regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."
#10 "I explained that my opinion regarding exceptions in which vaccines could cause autism was based upon advances in science, medicine, and clinical research of one of my patients in particular."
#11 He then cited this study to clarify what he meant by that final point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...qEi490W0jF3bcVApIlbYeofjFhtYE9-BmVzIFPerjIYs8
#17 "....In my opinion, and to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Yates Hazerhurst suffered regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder as a result of a vaccine injury in the same manner as described in the DOJ concession in Poling v HHS...."
#18 This one describes how Dr Zimmerman was mis-represented. Not to mention them playing the mmr/thimerosal card like everyone else and their mother does when citing proof that vaccines as a whole don't cause autism.
#19 "In my opinion, the statement by Mr. Matonoski during his closing argument regarding my expert opinion was highly misleading and not an accurate reflection of my opinion for two reasons. First, Mr. Matonoski took portions of my opinion out of context. My opinion as to Michelle Cedilla was case specific. I was only referring to the medical evidence that I had reviewed regarding her. My opinion regarding Michelle Cedillo was not intended to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science. Second, as explained above, I specifically explained to Mr. Matonoski and the other DOJ attorneys who were present that there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism."
#20 "In my opinion, it was highly misleading for the DOJ to continue to use my original written expert opinion, as to Michelle Cedillo, as evidence against the remaining petitioners in the OAP in light of the above referenced information which I explained to the DOJ attorneys while omitting the caveat regarding exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism."
Again...an "affidavit" is not a scientific document or study.
If this "doctor" has information relating to ASD correlating with vaccinations, then he has a medical responsibility to conduct ACTUAL studies showing that correlation, NOT just making random testimony about anecdotal cases.
Why will he not do this?
Here's Dr. Zimmerman's sworn testimony:
There's no qualification there at all...of any kind. Later:
It's certainly remotely possible that, in a child with a mitochondrial disorder, a vaccine that produces a temp could lead to regressive autism. But so would chicken pox...or mumps....or measles...or...
Dr. Zimmerman's expert opinion on DTaP?
“We believe it is much better to immunize with DTaP than risk infection with highly inflammatory and potentially damaging community-acquired pertussis.”
So here we are moving the goalposts AGAIN as each moronic theory pushed by the anti-vaxxers gets sunk. Now they're hanging their dunce caps on a tiny subset of children with mitochondrial disorders who might...MIGHT...be susceptible to a fever-induced regressive autism and now THAT'S their claim for denying vaccines to everyone. Never mind that the very guy they claim bolsters their theory admits that ANY infection could cause the regression. It's as f'n stupid as claiming we have to do away with antibiotics because a small subset of people have allergic - sometimes fatal - reactions. The inherent stupidity is maddening so I'm done with the resident moronic one-trick pony - he's ignored.
Last edited:
Which means, when those diseases spread rampantly, you'll have ALL of those susceptible kids who could've been vaccinated becoming autistic AND all the ancillary infection costs AND the related morbidities and mortality associated with them.
With vaccines, we eliminate all or most of those side effects. AND lower overall societal costs that are associated with outbreaks.
That sure sounds like a winning solution to me....
Uh yeah, according to his sworn affidavit he changed his mind based on new information.
Wait, when was aluminum sunk? I'll answer for you so you don't have to post again. It wasn't. And you've proven nothing with your fraudulent epidemiological mmr/thimerosal studies.
Woah woah woah - We've gone from no way in hell vaccines can possibly cause autism to "might". I think we're making some progress as it looks like your needle's been bumped a bit. Now I wonder just how many children have this underlying "mitochondrial disorder"?
Wait you said you were going to do that in another thread and now look here. Please follow through with it this time.
So? Has he 'shared' this "new information" with the medical community? Is he willing to partner up with other medical professionals to investigate the "new risks" he perceives?
Or, is he just taking a nice wad of "consulting money" from special interests willing to pay him to support their cause?
Protip: autism's been around for centuries. If not longer.
Uh, I believe that's the conspiracy theorist's seat you're sitting so dangerously close to.
More than likely. But because we've both changed the definition AND there is more visibility on the condition, it's more widely recognized now.
And, yes, the studies looking for vaccine-related autism HAVE compared those rates in countries with different vaccination schedules, etc. But those studies STILL cannot find any signal in the data on a correlation.
No, it's not. It's one guy changing his testimony.
On the other side, we have thousands of scientists and doctors who would all need to be 'bought off'. THAT'S a conspiracy theory.
This theory that autism rates have always been the same as they are today is so ridiculously dumb. It goes against all common sense, and it's not what the science says. If anything is close to flat-earth it's this notion.
The next thing you'll be hearing from nbh is that mitochondrial disorders are caused by vaccines.
Any cogent response to this yet? Or is he just ignoring it because it is - as usual - inconvenient for his stupidity?
Any cogent response to this yet? Or is he just ignoring it because it is - as usual - inconvenient for his stupidity?
The strawman. It's a logical fallacy. You and Joe both turn to it because the face value of the debate isn't where you'd prefer it to be. Truth.
Yes I responded to this absurdity. Pay attention.
No, it's actually quite logical.
You, OTOH, appear to be completely illogical.
Been posted. Many times.
You've ignored it then, and there's simply no reason to waste our time on you here, again.
If you want to find autism rates over the years, and among various countries, Google it. Find sources that aren't online mishmash, but are produced by medical groups. You can even look on the AMA's own website and find plenty of info.
But you won't, because you'll simply fall back on the "conspiracy theory" nonsense when the information doesn't fit your preconceived notions.
This isn't just 'US doctors' saying vaccines are safe, and there are no ties to autism; it's virtually EVERY medical establishment in the Western world that has looked at the data and has come to the same conclusions. Every one.
I'll tell you what's illogical. To assume the body deals with IM injection of aluminum exactly the same way as oral dosing, despite the science that indicates that is not the case at all.
Illogical is injecting a newborn with Hep B on day one when the mother tests negative for it.
Illogical is saying no way in hell vaccines cause autism when all you can provide is fraudulent poorly designed epidemiological mmr/thimerosal studies to back it up.
I could go on but I don't have the time.
Post the science that YOU feel indicates autism rates have always been the same as today's rates or it doesn't exist.
Take a look...it's obvious. Vaccines protect against intellectual disability!!!
Orrrrrr...maybe those once diagnosed as intellectually disabled are now being diagnosed as autisitc?
Nahhh...couldn't possibly be that. So vaccines are preventing intellectual disability while increasing autism. Seems like a wash.
Actually, the science is quite clear on this. And it's not in your favor.
We did. The last 2x you ran anti-vaxxer threads here.
And you ignored the data back then, too.
Then post the link. I'm looking specifically for the science that you feel convinces you that autism rates have always been exactly the same as they are today. I do remember one study TH posted in the debate thread prior to this one that actually acknowledged autism rates were increasing. Canadian, but still.
Again, we presented this to you over the past 2 or more bullshit threads you start on this, and you ignored them.
Post the studies or the thread link and post # or it doesn't exist. It's really very simple.
Oh really. I'm simply asking for the studies that I don't think were ever posted. Yes, very embarrassing.
Injection vs Ingestion. Myths and Facts.
Aluminium
The aluminium in vaccines is not a heavy metal. It is not even in metallic form as portrayed by vaccine fearmongerers. It is in the form of a salt, usually aluminium hydroxide. The aluminium in aluminium hydroxide is not readily bioavailable and retention is extremely low from both ingestion and injection.
Aluminium salts that you ingest (eg. antacids, buffered aspirin, some processed foods) are mostly excreted before they get to enter the bloodstream. In healthy subjects, less than 0.3% of aluminium that you eat is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminium from the body. Intravenous infusion of products containing aluminium (ie injection directly into the bloodstream via a drip connected to a vein, as with intravenous nutrition pouches for patients in a hospital) or renal dysfunction are the only real scenarios where aluminium has the potential to accumulate.
Once aluminium is in the bloodstream, it is processed similarly regardless of the source. It just depends on the amount received and if the kidneys can keep up. Continuous infusion, we are talking litres here, of a nutrition product delivered directly into the bloodstream, is much more of a deal than a miniscule amount of aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 ml vaccine injected into muscle. Most of the injected aluminium from vaccines will eventually enter the bloodstream, but it’s not taken up readily by the cells, it is not bioavailable.
Only a very tiny percentage of it will be “dissolved” in the blood – it’s in the form of precipitate bound to carrier proteins. Approximately 89 percent of this aluminium is processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and the rest is bound to citrate. The majority of the bound aluminium will be processed and eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount through bile and feces, and a tiny amount is retained in tissues of the body.
About 50% of the aluminium in the bloodstream is eliminated in less than 24 hours, more than 75% is eliminated within two weeks and even more over time. A diminishingly small amount may be retained. But we’re talking about a fraction of two hundredths. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminium hydroxide accounts for its excellent record of safety as a vaccine adjuvant.
Aluminium
The aluminium in vaccines is not a heavy metal. It is not even in metallic form as portrayed by vaccine fearmongerers. It is in the form of a salt, usually aluminium hydroxide. The aluminium in aluminium hydroxide is not readily bioavailable and retention is extremely low from both ingestion and injection.
Aluminium salts that you ingest (eg. antacids, buffered aspirin, some processed foods) are mostly excreted before they get to enter the bloodstream. In healthy subjects, less than 0.3% of aluminium that you eat is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminium from the body. Intravenous infusion of products containing aluminium (ie injection directly into the bloodstream via a drip connected to a vein, as with intravenous nutrition pouches for patients in a hospital) or renal dysfunction are the only real scenarios where aluminium has the potential to accumulate.
Once aluminium is in the bloodstream, it is processed similarly regardless of the source. It just depends on the amount received and if the kidneys can keep up. Continuous infusion, we are talking litres here, of a nutrition product delivered directly into the bloodstream, is much more of a deal than a miniscule amount of aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 ml vaccine injected into muscle. Most of the injected aluminium from vaccines will eventually enter the bloodstream, but it’s not taken up readily by the cells, it is not bioavailable.
Only a very tiny percentage of it will be “dissolved” in the blood – it’s in the form of precipitate bound to carrier proteins. Approximately 89 percent of this aluminium is processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and the rest is bound to citrate. The majority of the bound aluminium will be processed and eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount through bile and feces, and a tiny amount is retained in tissues of the body.
About 50% of the aluminium in the bloodstream is eliminated in less than 24 hours, more than 75% is eliminated within two weeks and even more over time. A diminishingly small amount may be retained. But we’re talking about a fraction of two hundredths. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminium hydroxide accounts for its excellent record of safety as a vaccine adjuvant.
Science doesn't give a rats ass what your "common sense" says.
No. Are vaccines given intravenous? Where on here does it talk about IM injection? Hint: It doesn't.
Well the trouble is as so far evidenced in this thread the science doesn't say it either.
