Hannah Poling was found to have a mitochondrial enzyme deficit that resulted in encephalopathy.
How exactly did her condition "result" in encephalopathy? Perhaps it was the vaccination which reportedly preceded her deterioration?
"Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.
Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/
[
The family made a claim and was subsequently compensated, but only because the government couldn't prove a negative.
Can you please elaborate on this point, I don't quite understand? Are you saying they couldn't prove it WASNT the vaccinations that Hannah received prior to her deterioration? This could be said of nearly all cases of injury post vaccination, as this is the line of reasoning I hear regularly from provaxxers to dismiss even close temporal associations. To me, this sounds like a slimy /legalise way of admitting guilt without actually taking on liability for the 1000's of cases that were in the pipeline at the vaccine court.
[
It has to be heartbreaking for a parent to see developmental regression in their child (very sorry to hear about your child in particular), but the entire notion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine is predicated on Wakefield's now well-documented lie. Correlation does not automatically equal causation.
It is heartbreaking and usually this is what it takes to shake someone from their conditioning around vaccination being "scientific" and "safe." But this realization is only the beginning and simply leads parents to actually research vaccination in detail, which almost inevitably leads to them turning "antivax," either in part or wholly. Ever wonder why almost everyone who actually researches the topic becomes a skeptic? How could you not? The vaccination program as implemented in the US is profoundly unscientific, largely because nobody wants to actually look at adverse outcomes.
Regarding Autism/MMR, I agree that there is not strong evidence currently to support causation, or even correlation. That being said, it's not too hard to miss something you're not looking for, particulalry when it pertains to something as complicated as Autism, which is really just a certain number of symptoms when in sufficient numbers magically becomes a formal diagnosis. So a person can have 4 of 5 diagnostic criteria and found to NOT have autism and viola! Vaccines don't cause autism! They do, however, increase odds of seizure and tics, both of which are experienced by autistic individuals at higher rates than the general population. Also, you must realize that very few researchers are actually looking for vaccine adverse events (it seems to be the quickest way to be labels a "crank"). According to independent researchers (the Cochrane Collabration) research into adverse events and MMR is "Largely inadequate." I'm assuming you understand what that means... What is even more concerning is that Cochrane came to this conclusion AFTER the MMR Autism scare which led to a sharp increase in the research, unfortunately that research (along with prior research) was lacking scientific strength and is largely useless if one actually wants to determine risk vs benefit.
