The “study” was clearly intended to “reassure” the masses. The only children who would be involved in this study would have been children so obviously ill (such as failure to thrive), near birth that they were tested and found to have “inborn errors of metabolism.”

None of the children who claim to have been otherwise healthy and developing normally would have been included in such a study as there would have been no reason to have tested and found “inborn errors of metabolism.” This is particularly true for Hannah Poling. To wit, Hannah Poling would Not have been or even qualified to have been one of the children in this study had she been a Kaiser Patient. You are talking apples and oranges here and your are treading on territory that you clearly do not understand.

In addition, having been a Kaiser patient my entire childhood and young adult life, I can say with certainty that getting past the “gatekeepers” (pediatricians) to a specialist would be nearly impossible. Meaning, that most Kaiser children who later developed developmental problems (manifesting as behavioral problems) were likely being treated first in the public school system and not Kaiser. In fact, I think this is something that clearly needs some investigation. Question: Just how many Kaiser patients manifesting symptoms of developmental delay or regression are actually initially diagnosed in the Kaiser system?

1. The article assumes that Hannah Poling had an “inborn error of metabolism”. This is not at all clear. She may well have had a mitochondrial dysfunction as confirmed by enzyme deficit, as the article reports, but not necessarily a genetic defect or other “inborn error of metabolism.”

2.The concern about an association between vaccinations and children with mitochondrial disorders does not necessarily mean that the association is between vaccination and a “genetic” disorder, as reported.

3. Following from items 1 and 2, the study subject selection criteria may have looked at the wrong children, as the class of children with mitochondrial disorder who may be adversely affected by vaccines may not be the same as children who have “inborn errors of metabolism” as usually defined. Research has shown that a significant number of children with “autism” also have mitochondrial dysfunction, and no mitochondrial DNA mutation has been found in many such children. It is reported that regression in many of these children was temporally proximate to the administration of a vaccine. It should also be noted that the literature regarding mitochondrial disorders is clear that exposure to toxins can trigger mitochondrial regression.

4. Children with vaccine injury that affects development may not have “emergency room visits and inpatient stays” even if they have vaccine injuries, as it is very common that children with non-catastrophic injuries will not be taken to the emergency room or admitted to a hospital, based on the advice of their pediatrician. Thus, the major assumption contained in this study’s design may be false, rendering the study’s findings suspect and the study’s purported conclusions meaningless.

5. Even if a vaccine caused a problem, therefore, emergency room visits or hospital admissions may not be an accurate measure of a vaccine adverse event.

6. The foregoing is true even if symptoms became obvious as much, or even more than, one month after vaccination. It is well understood that exposure to certain toxins can manifest in symptoms long after the exposure. While temporal proximity is a factor that evidences vaccine injury, there exist vaccine injuries that might not appear until one month after vaccine administration, or will not rise to the level of serious concern until one month after or later. Earlier signs may be more subtle, especially if a metabolic process has been disrupted (due to some form of metabolic susceptibility that is unrelated to a genetic mutation) that, in turn, disrupts the developmental process.

7. The foregoing points, coupled with the small study size raise the issue of whether or not this study is at all helpful. That some medical personnel find it “reassuring” is itself troubling in light of other research that raises serious questions about susceptibility of children to vaccine injury who are also found to have mitochondrial dysfunction.

Disclosure: I am an attorney who handles vaccine injury cases. That is not the issue, but the answer to the substantive points raised above is the issue. I do not suggest I have the answers, but it would be helpful for those schooled in medicine to honestly and forthrightly answer the questions I have raised.