image:7581:0::0

Records filed November 9th, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identity, indicate that the government's written concession said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots and ultimately resulted in a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD.

David Kirby, author of "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and The Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy" said "This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require, but its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain."

The Department of Health and Human Services said its Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, or DVIC, "has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim."

Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.

For most families affected by autism, the fine distinction between claiming that vaccines did not "cause" the autism but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism is a fine distinction that is not so important, according to Kirby.

While it's too early to tell, he said, "this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is 'absolutely no link' between vaccines and autism."

The key words contained in the concession, he says, are "aggravated" and "manifested."

"Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all," Kirby argues.

"When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say 'his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death,'" he continues. "No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today."

And on the heels of this ruling, the CDC voted unanimously this week to require flu shots for all school-aged children. The move would require all insurance providers to cover the cost of the shots, and the CDC would be required to make the flu shot available to anyone that could not afford the cost.

The National Autism Association criticized the CDC decision, noting thimerosal is still found in flu shots recommended for children and pregnant women.

Thimerosal in vaccines is suspected of causing brain damage and weakening the immune system, making some children susceptible later to infection from measles, mumps and rubella shots.

So, how do you feel about this? Do you believe, despite the governments vehement denials, that vaccinations have a direct link to the increase in autism in this country?

And how do you feel about the government forcing you to give flu shots to your children?

I am vehemently against the flu shot ruling and will do everything in my power to make certain that my grandchildren are not given the vaccine. My daughter is in agreement with me, and together we will fight this tooth and nail.

What happened to individual freedom in this country? My children are my children - not the governments. I should have the right to decide what, if any, chemicals or vaccines or medications will be administered to my kids, not the government.

Wouldn't you agree?