Post a Comment On: Adventures in Autism

[Image]
Two weeks ago, in my letter to the Johns Hopkins Journal, Narratives in Bioethics, I made public the fact that I had taken Chandler's pediatrician before the state medical board for failing to evaluate him for a vaccine injury.  It was a journey that started two years ago, and I am just now wrapping up.

Here is both the short version of the story, and the very long version for the true die hards.

This is the question I before the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine:

What is the duty of a physician to his patient when a parent reports a suspected vaccine injury?

Their answer...

The doctor has no duty to the patient. 

Well that is their implied answer.  What they really did was just make up an excuse to close the complaint and not answer the question at all.  But in their refusal to answer the complaint that a physician had failed in their duty to investigate a vaccine injury claim, they establish the standard of care.

The standard of care for reported vaccine injury is... medical negligence.  (also blame the mother, but that is just SOP with autism moms now isn't it.)

Thus again proving my assertion, Mainstream Medicine does not take vaccine safety seriously.

That is the short story.  Here is the long version:


The rundown from my letter to Hopkins:
I have two sons, born in 2000 and 2002, and vaccinated them roughly according the the recommended schedule. My second son suffered what we now recognize as an adverse vaccine reaction to his first dose of the Hep B vaccine, but it was not recognized as such by either myself or his pediatricians at the time, so he continued to be vaccinated according to the CDC recommended schedule. Following his 18 month appointment, he suffered a severe neurological regression, displayed symptoms of GI distress, showed signs of an autoimmune condition, and was diagnosed with autism six months later.His was a text book case of vaccine induced encephalopathy, per the Health and Human Services (HHS), Human Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Vaccine Injury Table established by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), displaying symptoms including:(1) A significant change in mental status that is not medication related; specifically a confusional state, or a delirium, or a psychosis;(2) A significantly decreased level of consciousness, which is independent of a seizure and cannot be attributed to the effects of medication; including:
Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all, only to loud voice or painful stimuli); Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family members or other individuals); or Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not recognize familiar people or things). Please see http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf for more info. Despite this, and despite my repeated attempts to have my son's pediatrician investigate his condition as a vaccine reaction, no such inquiry was undertaken, and these symptoms were used instead to give him a diagnosis of autism. I would not read the VICP Vaccine Injury Table to learn that his were the symptoms of a well established vaccine injury for several years, and until after the three year statute of limitations had expired for me to file for compensation for his disability.After being abandoned by the mainstream medical system, we sought expensive, out of pocket, alternative medical care, which proved very fruitful for our son. Although we lost our home over the choice, we still would make the same decision, as it dramatically increased his health and functioning. We are pleased to report that, while he still has full syndrome autism, he has gone from severe to a much higher functioning level. Most importantly, he is a very happy child.Despite our earnest attempts, 12 years and four pediatricians later, we still cannot simply get him evaluated for this HHS established vaccine injury. Last year I filed a complaint against my own pediatrician with the state medical board, reporting that after multiple requests to evaluate my son for the condition, he had simply ignored my appeals as my previous pediatricians had. I asked the board to rule on whether or not my son had the right to an evaluation per an established standard of care, noting that if I had taken him to the doctor and reported that I believed he had a broken leg, their failure to assess him would constitute medical neglect.The board investigated the matter, but their ruling did not address the question of what the duty of the doctor is to a patient reporting vaccine adverse reactions, and simply gave a non sequitur response to close the case. Their action was a de facto ruling that no doctor has an obligation to investigate suspected vaccine injuries, and evidence that the medical establishment's response to vaccine adverse reactions is systematized medical negligence.
What follows is the full story, including all of the copious amounts of paperwork filed by all parties, and the board's determination.  (long post, settle in.)

This chapter in our story goes back to December of 2014.  The Portland Press Herald, and their Pharma rep posing as a health reporter, had published another story priming the pump for the 2015 legislative push to remove vaccine exemptions in Maine, as the industry tried to do in more than half the states in the US that year.  I was really fed up reading the garbage that was being pushed and simply thought...

"Where is the consumer protection!"

We have laws and agencies and layers and layers of protection for consumers from everything to credit cards to cribs, but no one to protect those vulnerable to vaccine injury, or anyone to help us clean up the mess once it happens.

So I went to my desk and wrote a bill.  The Maine Vaccine Consumer Protection Act.  It was introduced in the Maine Legislature in 2015 and passed in a highly amended form.  The results of that effort was the creation of this page on the Maine.gov web site.

But the other thing I determined that day was that I wanted the system to work properly for my son.  I had reported to FOUR pediatricians that I believed that my son had suffered a pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy, and none of them had done any medical investigation into this possibility.

So now that, a decade later, I finally knew the right questions to ask, I made an appointment with my current mainstream pediatrician, took Chandler in, gave him a ton of information on the VICP defined pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy, and ask that he be evaluated for the condition.

He asked for more information.  So I talked and told him almost all I knew about it, even gave him the chapter on it that I wrote for the book Vaccine Epidemic and Holland et. al.'s Unanswered Questions paper.  He said he would look into it and get back to me.

Six weeks went by with no contact.  So I made another appointment in March and went into ask what the next steps were.  Curiously he said, that he actually wasn't really sure what I was asking for.

So I had him pull up the VICP table and walked him through it.  Again I had another lengthy discussion about it, gave him more information and he said he would look into it.

When December rolled around and I had not heard back, I decided to file a complaint with the state medical licensing board.

Here is the simple, one page complaint (docs names changed through out this post):
"Part D: Complaint Information Dates of Service: 1/26/15, 3/16/15   Narrative Information: In September of 2003, my son was vaccinated in another state, and began a neurological regression.  Inquiries with my pediatrician as to the relationship between the two events yielded no useful information. Many years later, after he had been given an autism diagnosis, and we had paid a great deal of money out of pocket to treat what were considered likely co morbid conditions of his "autism," via alternative interventions, I was given a copy of the HHS, HRSA, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's Vaccine Injury Table.  I saw that my son's neurological symptoms were listed under the condition called "Vaccine Enceophalopathy" which can be caused by the Pertussis vaccine.  Indeed Chandler had received the Pertussis vaccine just before his regression at 18 months. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html We continued to treat him via alternative means, as our pediatricians were not familiar with the diagnosis and offered little insight when we brought it up.  Even though we had reported to them that he fit the diagnostic criteria for the condition, none of them commented on it or seemed interested. In January of this year, as we had exhausted our funds for alternative treatment, I went back to our pediatrician, Dr. Smith,and asked him to do a formal evaluation of our son for pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy.  I discussed the condition with him and gave him several resources to draw from. He said he would look into it and get back to me.   When more than a month had passed, without hearing from him, I made a second appointment on March 16th, 2015.  I took Chandler back in and asked if he had made progress and plans for his evaluation.  He replied that he, "... didn't actually understand what I had asked him for." I then had him pull up the HHS web site on the computer in the office, read him the diagnostic criteria for pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy, and point out my son's symptoms that met the diagnosis.  I then discussed with him my understanding on how other cases had began being investigated, such as doing an evaluation of mitochondrial function.   He again told me that he would look into it. It is now December and he has yet to contact me to move forward with a formal evaluation for this brain injury, or to refer me elsewhere to have Chandler evaluated. Further, it is extremely disturbing that a pediatrician who is routinely recommending and delivering vaccines in the US is completely ignorant of the HHS guidelines for evaluating and diagnosing vaccine adverse events. It would be considered malpractice if I brought him to his doctor and reported that I thought he had a broken arm, or was having seizures, and my requests for him to be evaluated were ignored.  How can ignoring my request that he be evaluated for an HHS defined condition be standard of care?"
Simple, right?  The board should determine what the doctor's response should be to a reported vaccine injury, and give guidance to the doc on how to respond.

At least it started out that way.

The board contacted me and asked for Chandler's medical records that showed the regression.  No problem.  Got all the "on target" and "social" records pre 18 month shots, and all the regression and "autism" evals post vaccine and sent them in.  Timeline for vaccine regression established.  Symptom of diminished eye contact established.

Dr. Smith filed a four page response to my complaint.  A dishonest one.  Loaded with not so subtle insults.  Mostly blaming me.  Apparently he believes that he didn't have to do anything for my son, because:

1. He could not reach me at my home phone, and didn't feel he had to try my cell phone.
2. I cried during my initial request for my son to be evaluated, which was simply me manipulating him, because I could not actually possibly be sad that my son was brain injured and I have not been able to get pediatric care for him.
3. He called a hospital and asked a tangential question that was not the eval that I asked for, and apparently that discharged his duty.
4. I am the head of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice and believe the vaccine program is putting children at risk, and thus he felt he was being used by me.  I think.  He was not super clear on why this mattered.

So he went the Bettelheim route.  Blame the mother.  He could not order an eval or offer a referral for my son, because I am a crying, manipulative, vaccine resistant, activist and phone Luddite.  Logic.

Oh... also he both was and was not not clear that I was asking him for an evaluation for encephalopathy.  Which if true, after more than an hour total discussion of the condition, with me asking him repeatedly for an evaluation, would make him a total moron and unfit to practice medicine:
"March 18, 2015

Members of the Board:  This complaint has been filed by Jennifer ("Ginger") Taylor, the mother of my patient Chandler Taylor (DOB: REDACTED).

Chandler is a delightful 14-year-old boy with a problem list that includes autistic disorder, developmental delay, history of increased led levels on several occasions in his life, and incomplete vaccination. I last saw Chandler twice in early 2015 and at that time he seemed to be doing well, making the honor roll in 7th grade, was reportedly happy and well-liked at school and had even received a "nice guy award."

As set forth in the complaint, Chandler's history, as reported by his mother, is that in September 2003, at 18 months, he ws vaccinated simultaneously (in California) with DTaP, Hep B, polio and pneumovax, and shortly thereafter reportedly began a neurological regression. According to the complaint, some years later Chandler's mother was given a copy of the HHS HRSA (U.S. Health and Human Services Health Resources Services Administration) Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's Vaccine Injury Table. According to the government website for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, it was created in response to lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers, and allows an individual who meets the criteria to receive compensation for a vaccine injury. Individuals who believe they have been injured as a result of a vaccine may file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Ms. Taylor asserts that her son's neurological symptoms are listed under the condition called "Vaccine Encephalopathy" which can be caused by the Pertussis vaccine that Chandler apparently received just before his regression at 18 moths.

As a pediatrician, I am aware of possible reactions to vaccines which can run the gamut from common and mild to severe. I keep up to date with the latest information on potential vaccine injury through medical literature, continuing medical education, and discussions with colleagues. It is my understanding that vaccine related injuries are extremely rare; the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program website states that'[i]n very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem." In over twenty five years of practice I can only recall one patient who suffered a sever reaction to a vaccine (pertussis) in the form of a seizure. While I am familiar with the Vaccine Injury Table referred to by Ms. Taylor, I do not personally access it very often which is perhaps why Ms. Taylor suggested that I seem unfamiliar it. I know that we keep an updated binder with this, the VAERS form, and other vaccine information provided by the State of Maine, easily accessible in the clinical manager's office at [NAME OF PRACTICE REDACTED].

I became Chandler's primary care physician on January 22, 2014 when he was age 11. Chandler has been a patient of [NAME OF PRACTICE REDACTED] since July 2007 with other practitioners overseeing his primary care. Prior to becoming his PCP I saw Chandler one time, on 3/10/11, for a problem-centered visit for a tic disorder.

My understanding is that Chandler has seen many health care providers over the years. To date, I have not seen any documentation by any health care provider of Chandler having vaccine-caused autism or encephalopathy. Part of the challenge for this may be that Chandler's symptoms of autism became evident at the usual time when they appear in children diagnosed with autism. The hallmark symptoms for diagnosis of autism are related to the child's interaction with the social world and not necessarily his cognitive skills.

Chandler has not received any vaccines since has has be a patient at [NAME OF PRACTICE REDACTED] and I have not seen any evidence of acute or chronic encephalopathy during the time I have cared for him.

My understanding is that over the years, Chandler's family has tried alternative treatment that has been expensive and strained the family's resources (e.g., hyperbaric oxygen therapy, chelation therapy, Vit B 12, antifungal, homeotoxicology, audiovidual sensory learning center, OT, PT, ST and Magnetic Resonance Therapy ). As stated in the complaint, after exhausting their funds for alternative treatment, in January 2015, Ginger Taylor came into see me, Chandler's pediatrician, and asked for a formal evaluation for pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy.

In January of 2015, Ms. Taylor requested an office visit without her son to "educate me" on an anti-vaccine bill that she was involved in sponsoring before the Maine legislature. Ginger Taylor is a long-time activist with several blogs "on the politics of autism, health vaccination, informed consent and both corporate and government corruption" and also a contributor to a book: Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children" (Ms. Taylor was involved with Chapter 20 - The Role of Government and Media). One of her blogs indicates that in January 2015 she was focusing on her "unpaid position as the Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice to fight the bills introduced to restrict and remove vaccine choice rights in Maine." When she asked for an office visit to discuss her legislative efforts I had my nurse explain that it was not appropriate to use of appointment time but I would see her son if she had any concerns about him. She made an appointment for her son for 1/26/15.

At the 1/26/15 office visit which was scheduled by Ms. Taylor to discuss the possible correlation of the TDap vaccine to his autism, I spent at least 45 primarily listening to Ms. Taylor and reviewing Chandler's history pertaining to vaccinations, his developmental history and his response to various treatments they had tried. Ms. Taylor discussed her belief that he should have been tested for encephalopathy and was interested in linking his autism to vaccines. As I documented in my note, I understood her concern but did not see this as a straightforward case and was not sure how much further we could go in establishing etiology so far out on the timeline. I discussed my views with Ms. Taylor and she seemed to understand.

As I noted in my 1/26/15 office note, Ms. Taylor explained to me she was hoping to change legislation and educate providers regarding vaccine injury issues, and provided me with reading material during that office visit.  While I appreciated the information, I did not in the chart this needs to be done outside of her child's health care visits in the future.

When Ms. Taylor brought Chandler into the office on 3/16/15, her stated reason for the office visit was follow-up for his autism. As I indicated in my note for the 3/16/15 office visit, Chandler was reported to be doing well. Frankly, I was feeling manipulated by Ms. Taylor and it seemed like she just wanted to get me to agree to certain things. Nevertheless, she was requesting help for an unanswered questions and suspicions about mitochondrial disorder and my plan included referral to a mitochondrial specialist in Boston.

After the 3/16/15 appointment, I contacted a mitochondrial specialist, Dr. Williams [NAME CHANGED], at Boston Children's Neurogenetics program, and spoke with her about evaluating chandler. She told me that she would not do a mitochondrial work-up unless there was some medical problem other than autism indicating it. She suggested Chandler see and autism specialist at the Autism Spectrum Program at Children's as an alternative if his parents wanted further evaluation.

I attempted to call Ms. Taylor on 3/31/15 to advise her of my discussion with Dr. Williams at the Boston Children's Neurogenics Program but no one answered and the phone was not accepting voice mail.

Ms. Taylor said in the complaint she filed in December that I have yet to contact her to move forward with a formal evaluation for "brain injury" or to refer Chandler elsewhere for evaluation. However, as noted above, Ms. Taylor has not always been reachable by phone and at times her phone does not accept voice mail. For instance, on one occasion when she asked for a note for both sons to be exempt from vaccines, I called her to discuss but was told that the phone was not accepting voice mail. Nevertheless, on 4/9/15 I did write a letter for both children to be excused because of past uncertainty about vaccine injury and copied Ms. Taylor on the letter. In addition, on 5/12/15 Ms. Taylor Requested that I contact CMP and ask them to restore power based on medical grounds. I complied with this request because of Chandler's autism. These actions were not acknowledged by Ms. Taylor.

With regard to Ms. Taylor's claim that she felt I ignored her requests, I point out that I was responsive to her concerns. I spent much office time listening to her concerns and discussing them with her. Even a year earlier, at Chandler's last well-child check in 2014, in response to his mother's concerns about his autism etiology, I suggested referral to a geneticist for evaluation of his autistic disorder and made a referral to Dr. Johnson [NAMED CHANGED], a medical genetics physician in Portland. My rationale for this suggestion is that some cases of autism may have a genetic etiology. Ms. Taylor never followed though with this referral. In addition to the referral to the medical genetics physician, as noted above I have consulted with a mitochondrial specialist as she requested.

It appears to be a "mission" of Ms. Taylor to educate the medical community on the issue of vaccine injuries. As a pediatrician, I have interest in being aware of the various positions on vaccine issues and I make efforts to keep abreast of all important developments in this area through the literature, CMEs, medical group discussions, as well as information provided by the CDC. With regard to alternative medicine, I support such measures if they are evidence-based.

The policy of [NAME OF PRACTICE REDACTED] with regards to vaccinations is to follow standards of care, educate parents, and provide vaccines that are due on the recommended schedule. We do respect what parents decide with regard to vaccinations for their children. If they decline a vaccine, we ask them to sign a declination form stating that they have received information about the benefits and risks. [NAME OF PRACTICE REDACTED] provides information sheets on vaccines to parents that include information on symptoms to watch for after a vaccine has been given and information about the vaccine injury program. For our patients who do not receive all of the recommended vaccines, we discuss our recommendations at each visit.

Having served as Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, Ms. Taylor is a very active advocate in the anti-vaccine movement in Maine and across the country. She testified before the legislature in 2015 and expressed the view that the vaccine program in this country is "no longer about improved health outcomes for children, but [has] become the victim of 'agency capture by a rapacious industry' working toward the goal of turning their thirty plus billion dollar per year industry into a hundred billion dollar per year industry before the decade is out." I point this out not to refute what Ms. Taylor or the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice has to say but simply to point out to the Board the perspective from which she has filed this complaint against me.

I believe I have been attentive to the needs of my patient, which has included being respectful of and responsive to the needs of his parent.

If it is Ms. Taylor's intent to file a claim with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for a vaccine injury, it is not my role as a physician to be her representative by simply to provide appropriate care and evaluation for her child, which is what I believe I have been doing. I understand that Chandler's family has had to deal with challenges over the years and I have tried my very best to be supportive of his family and most importantly, Chandler, who I have found to be a delightful child.

Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to respond to this complaint. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosed herewith is a copy of my curriculum vitae.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Smith?
The Board sent me his response and asked me for further input.  Because I was out of town when the letter arrived, I had one day to write my response.  It took me ten pages to address his dishonestly, and the mud he had thrown in the waters, and get back to the point.


"April 5, 2016
State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine 137 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0137
Re: Complaint against John Smith, M.D.
Dear Sirs,
This letter is in response to your letter of March 26th of this year, informing me of Dr. Smith's response to my complaint, and informing me of my opportunity to provide you with additional information.
In December of last year I filed a very simple one page complaint which put to the board a very simple question. If I believe that my child has suffered a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine, and can demonstrate that he meets the diagnostic criteria for that HHS established vaccine injury, is my child entitled to a formal evaluation for vaccine injury by a qualified doctor based on an established medical standard of care?
I have read Dr. Smith's response to the complaint that he failed to provide an evaluation for my son, and thank him for his thoughtful response. I will address several of the points in his response, offer more foundational information to the board, and clarify both the central, ethical question being put before the board, and the smaller questions that I am asking to be addressed.
Dr. Smith correctly reports that I believe that my son's neurological symptoms are most likely the result of the administration of the DtaP vaccine at 18 months of age, and reports that it is his, “understanding that vaccine related injures are extremely rare; the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program website states that '[i]n very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem.” In over twenty five years of practice I can only recall one patient who suffered a very severe reaction to a vaccine (pertussis) in the form of a seizure.”
While this informs us on Dr. Smith's perspective and experience, this is not germane to this inquiry. I asked him for an evaluation to find out if my son is one of those “rare” cases.
It also suggests that Dr. Smith did not fully take in my discussion with him on why vaccine encephalopathy should be ruled out when autism is suspected or diagnosed. I discussed with him the concern that because of the lack of education and direction of pediatricians, that children with vaccine induced brain damage were being given an “autism” label with out proper medical assessment.

I described my experience which echos that of tens of thousands of parents in the US. They have a typically neurologically functioning child, they take the child to their doctor and vaccines are administered, the child begins to show signs of neurological regression including diminished eye contact and not responding to parents or loved ones (and more than a third of which include seizures), their doctors have been taught to look at those behavioral symptoms and give the child a mental health label of “autistic,” and when the parent says, “but this started with his last round of vaccines,” the doctor has been taught to respond to the parent that vaccines have no association with autism. The child is then never given the proper medical assessment due him for exhibiting the text book symptoms of vaccine induced encephalopathy, and suffers a life time of medical neglect, untreated medical problems like brain inflammation, and remain at risk for further decline and development of worsening symptoms like seizure disorders and aggression, which often develop in puberty in vaccine injured children.

The question that I and parents like me ask is, “is vaccine injury rare, or is it just rarely diagnosed?” The fact that it is so hard to get even a screening for the condition, suggests that it is likely the latter.
This applies personally to Dr. Smith, as my question to him would be, “Did you only see one serious vaccine reaction, or did you see many that you did not recognize or called something else because you admittedly rarely consult the VICP information?”

Information on the VICP:

In 1986, after four years of lobbying by pharmaceutical companies, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave liability protection to both vaccine makers, and medical providers for vaccine injury and death, removing the fifth amendment rights of Americans which states that, “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...” The law moved those claims into the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which was intended to quickly and compassionately compensate vaccine injury cases so that Americans would continue to have faith in the vaccine program.
In the very controversial decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC in 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the law, protecting Wyeth from a family who claimed that their pertussis vaccine was defectively designed, and caused their daughter's brain damage, with Justice Scalia concluding that, “The vaccine manufacturers fund an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoiding costly tort litigation and the occasional disproportionate jury verdict. Taxing their product to fund the compensation program, while leaving their liability for design defect virtually unaltered, would hardly coax them back into the market.“
Justice Sotomayor believed that the ruling took away vaccine interests motivation to create in implement safe and effective vaccines, and wrote in her dissenting opinion, “Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products.“
In fact there have been four independent reviews of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in recent years. The US Government Accounting Office, Stanford Law, American University/George Washington University School of Law and Associated Press/NYT investigations expose the vast flaws of the VICP and all agree that the program fails to properly compensate families of vaccine victims according to the intent of the 1986 National Childhood Injury Act, noting that few know the program even exists.
This was confirmed here in Maine when during the 2015 hearings on the vaccine bills in the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine Legislature, only one of the 21 individuals and organizations opposing a bill to mandate that physicians in Maine be trained in, and use in practice, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table from the VICP, could accurately identify the VICP.

The sum total of this legislation is that the vaccination schedule has bloated from 24 doses of vaccines recommended from the 60s to the 80s, to a minimum of 69 doses recommended in childhood today, that schedule is front loaded so a baby receives more doses of vaccines by the time they are six months old then I did as a fully vaccinated high school graduate, and safety testing is abysmal. Because no one in the vaccine industry from development to delivery is legally held responsible, even when children are killed by the improper formulation or administration of these products, the medical industry does not take vaccine safety seriously. Medical professionals whose duty it is to care for these children, and who have administered vaccines to these children, not only dismisses parents with legitimate vaccines safety concerns, but attack and disparage those who believe they have children harmed by the program, calling them anti-vaccine, anti-science, scientifically illiterate, desperate and “looking for someone to blame.”
When I brought my children to this practice, I wrote a letter to the physician I was interested in working with, Dr. Brown, to let him know that I believed my son was vaccine injured, would be perusing alternative medical treatments for him, and that I was looking for a mainstream pediatrician that would work with me and my other practitioners on the emerging model of biomedical intervention for “autism.” I also asked that the practice not recommend vaccination for my children, as it was upsetting to be offered a product line that may have damaged my son, when I could not get basic questions about the potential vaccine reaction or the products safety profiles answered. Despite my request, this practice has recommended continued vaccination for both of my sons at every visit until last year when I asked for a formal evaluation of Chandler for vaccine injury.
Within a year of arriving at the practice, and after four years of treating my son's “autism” via biomedical means, I was handed the VICP vaccine injury table by a parent whose daughter with a diagnosis of “autism” had been compensated by the program, and asked to read the information on encephalopathy. It was a devastating experience.

To say that it was painful to spend four years telling my son's doctors that I believe that he had been harmed by his 18 month vaccines, and realize that none of them had simply pulled out the HHS guidelines on vaccine injury to see if any of his symptoms matched any vaccine reactions listed on the table, would be an understatement. I believe it should have been the FIRST thing that was done as soon as I expressed a concern that my child had been harmed by his shots.
Below are the diagnostic criteria for Pertussis vaccine induce encephalopathy per HRSA. The symptoms my son exhibits are in bold:
(2) Encephalopathy. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered an encephalopathy only if such recipient manifests, within the applicable period, an injury meeting the description below of an acute encephalopathy, and then a chronic encephalopathy persists in such person for more than 6 months beyond the date of vaccination. (i) An acute encephalopathy is one that is sufficiently severe so as to require hospitalization (whether or not hospitalization occurred).

(A) For children less than 18 months of age who present without an associated seizure event, an acute encephalopathy is indicated by a significantly decreased level of consciousness lasting for at least 24 hours. Those children less than 18 months of age who present following a seizure shall be viewed as having an acute encephalopathy if their significantly decreased level of consciousness persists beyond 24 hours and cannot be attributed to a postictal state (seizure) or medication.

(B) For adults and children 18 months of age or older, an acute encephalopathy is one that persists for at least 24 hours and characterized by at least two of the following:

(1) A significant change in mental status that is not medication related; specifically a confusional state, or a delirium, or a psychosis;

(2) A significantly decreased level of consciousness, which is independent of a seizure and cannot be attributed to the effects of medication; and

(3) A seizure associated with loss of consciousness.

(C) Increased intracranial pressure may be a clinical feature of acute encephalopathy in any age group.

(D) A “significantly decreased level of consciousness” is indicated by the presence of at least one of the following clinical signs for at least 24 hours or greater (see paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section for applicable timeframes):

(1) Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all, only to loud voice or painful stimuli);

(2) Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family members or other individuals); or

(3) Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not recognize familiar people or things)

I have established for the Board that Chandler was a neurologically typical child who experienced a significant change in mental status via his infant medical records and subsequent assessments. A simple exchange with my son by any layman demonstrates that he has decreased eye contact, and those two facts alone qualify him.
It is my position that he should have been evaluated for this condition as soon as I expressed a concern for an adverse vaccine reaction to my pediatrician when Chandler was a toddler, by Dr. Brown the first time I mentioned a potential vaccine injury to him, and by Dr. Smith the first time I mentioned a potential vaccine injury to him.

The fact that I have reported a suspected a vaccine injury for more than a decade, and have not been offered even a screening for this table injury for my disabled son, even when directly asking for it and providing my child's physician with all the information I can find on the condition, should be enough to conclude that there is a very serious problem in play here.

This is made more concerning by the fact that Dr. Smith:

- Has reported that he is familiar with the vaccine injury table, but does not assess it very often.

- Responds to my complaint that I have never been able to get an assessment for this injury by reporting that he has, “not seen any documentation by any health care provider of Chandler having vaccine-caused autism or encephalopathy,” which seems to me as if he is making the case that no one before him has assessed the child for this injury upon mother's expression of concern, therefore he doesn't have to either.

- Delivers a “problem list” with includes “incomplete vaccination,” when his parents suspect him of having unassessed, undiagnosed vaccine induced bran damage. Because if he does have a vaccine induced brain injury, then he is clearly “over vaccinated.”

- Reports that, “I have not seen any evidence of acute or chronic encephalopathy during the time I have cared for him,” when all he has to do to begin to find that evidence is try to make normal eye contact with him to find his most obvious symptom of encephalopathy according to the HHS diagnosis.
- Reports that he believes that he has been responsive to my concerns, yet I still have not been contacted by Dr. Smith on next steps for getting my concerns addressed, nor are any recommendations on next steps made for me in his response.



Which leads me to a section of this letter that I would rather not have to address as they are all entirely tangential to the matter being examined, but must address as Dr. Smith has brought them into the conversation.

Dr. Smith has repeated made the libelous claim in his response that I, and my advocacy, are “anti-vaccine.” I am very, very clear in all my discussions on vaccines and vaccine policy that I am not opposed to vaccination, that I advocate for informed consent in vaccination, that I want sound, science based vaccine policy, that corruption issues in vaccination must be urgently addressed and that those injured by vaccines should be cared for and treated.

Despite that, individuals in the medical industry and the press misrepresent parents of vaccine injured children, or those advocating for improved safety measures and policy reform, as “anti-vaccine,” in an effort to minimize, disenfranchise, insult and dismiss them. It is an abusive epithet, analogous to calling mothers of children killed by drunk drivers who advocate for legal reform for stricter DWI penalties, “prohibitionists,” or mothers of soldiers injured during military service who advocate for VA reform to improve patient care, “anti-war activists.”
Further, the bill that I wrote that was introduced into the Maine Legislature is not remotely, “anti-vaccine.” It was a vaccine safety, patient support, physician education bill. I have attached the bill, all of its supports and the outcomes of the measure for your review, so that you can see that it has nothing to do with opposing vaccination, and everything to do with informed consent. It was a bill that was amended into a simple form, voted “ought to pass” unanimously by the Health Committee, was passed by both the Maine House and Senate, and even survived an veto by Governor LePage, to mandate the creation of this page on the Maine.gov web site.
I respectfully request a retraction of the “anti-vaccine” epithet, by Dr. Smith, and insist that the term or associated terms not be used in these proceedings or by anyone in these proceedings in reference to me or my work again.
The reason I discussed the bill with Dr. Smith, is that I was, first, offering him full disclosure about how involved I was in this issue, second, trying to figure out if the bill was even necessary in case there WAS a pathway for parents to receive diagnosis and care for their children since I had last made any such request of Dr. Brown, third, because I was pointing out to him that I thought the system was broken and that he may be completely uninformed on the need for children with neurological regression following vaccination to be assessed according to VICP guidelines, and fourth, because I wanted him to do the assessment.

He said he didn't want to discuss the bill, so I didn't bring it up again, and merely asked for MY SON to get the evaluation that he should have been given a decade earlier.
Dr. Smith reports that he discussed with me that he, “was not sure how much further we could go in establishing etiology,” which is an accurate representation of his response, but not a full representation of his response. He also indicated that he would read the materials I presented to him see if there was a path forward. He did not contact me to tell me what he had found or determined.

When I returned to his office on 3/16, and asked him what he had found after looking into my request and information, his response was to tell me that he didn't really understand what I was asking for, so I went through the whole matter again and in greater detail.

At no time did he close the matter with me in any way. He did not tell me that it was outside of his experience or competency, he did not respond to the matters I put before him, he didn't refer me anywhere else.

His reported conversation with Boston Children's is odd to me, as I was not asking for ANYTHING relating to Chandler's autism. I was asking for a vaccine injury assessment, independent of Chandler's autism. After reading his account of this discussion, I am still not sure that Dr. Smith understands what I am asking for.
Dr. Smith also seems to believe that he is not responsible to follow up with my inquiry by making the accusation that I, “have not always been reachable by phone,” and reports that he called my home phone and received no answer or answering machine. As is common in the modern era, I use my cell phone for everything. I keep it with me at all times. Dr. Smith has this number and should have used it to contact me if he did not get a response on my home phone. Failing that, the practice has my home address, and could have generated a letter asking me to contact the practice. Additionally, as Dr. Smith has accessed our vaccine safety advocacy web site, he had access to both a phone number and email there with which to contact me. Further, I am a public figure, and a simple Google search would have given him another half dozen ways to contact me, as I have made myself as accessible as I can so that I can respond to parents and media inquiries immediately. Lastly, I called the office to find out if he had left a message for me with any instructions on any matter before filing this complaint, and there was no message for me. It would seem to me to be a basic ethical standard that if a patient has an urgent medical concern for her child, that all means of contacting a patient should be exhausted before giving up on the process.
Although he does not directly make the accusation of medical neglect on my part, Dr. Smith reports that, “at Chandler's last well-child check in 2014, in response to his mother's concerns about his autism etiology, I suggested referral to a geneticist for evaluation of his autistic disorder and I made a referral to Dr. Johnson, a medical genetics physician in Portland. My rationale for this suggestion is that some autism cases may have a genetic etiology. Ms. Taylor never followed through with this referral.”

To clarify, Dr. Smith gave me this referral, because I asked him for a referral for genetic testing. I told him that it has been on the list to do, however it was a very low priority, because it is the reported common experience of families with children like Chandler that such testing rarely yields results that shed light on their child's disorder, and even when it does, the information almost never leads to new treatment options for the child. Genetic testing is considered expensive and useless by our population.

And Dr. Smith's report that I did not follow through with the referral is incorrect. I made an appointment with Dr. Smith, however Chandler was offered a three month therapy program at the Brain Treatment Center at USC, and we had to cancel the appointment with Dr. Smith because he was in California at the time.

I have not reset the appointment, but intend to do so in the future.
Dr. Smith ponders whether or not I will be filing a request for compensation with the VICP, however as I told him previously, the statute of limitations for the VICP is three years, and I didn't not even know my son had a table injury until the SOL had expired. Even if every medical practitioner examining our son comes to agree that he has suffered vaccine induced brain damage, we will never be compensated. I was clear with him that I am not looking for compensation, I am looking for diagnosis and treatment.
Finally, Dr. Smith has cherry picked several pieces of information about me from my bio and my public life in vaccine safety advocacy. I don't believe that that information has any bearing on the questions before this committee, except as a testament that I am well versed on the matters of vaccine injury and vaccine policy.

However since he has offered a partial and biased characterization of me and my work, I will offer you a more complete view of my CV so that you can have a more clear picture of me:

Ginger Taylor is an author, speaker, new media writer and activist. She writes on the politics of autism, health, vaccination, informed consent and both corporate and government corruption
A member of the Executive Leadership Team of HealthChoice.org and a Co-Founder of the Canary Party, Ginger is a former Marriage and Family Therapist specializing in adolescent and family therapy and holds a Masters degree in Clinical Counseling from Johns Hopkins University. Her son Chandler regressed into autism following his 18 month vaccinations. In 2009 she served on the steering committee of the first Maine CDC Autism Conference to educate medical professionals on the current state of research and treatment of autism. Ginger is the Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice and has authored legislation on vaccination adopted by the state of Maine. She is a co-author and contributing editor of the book Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights Our Health and Our Children. Ginger was honored with the Health Freedom Hero Award for 2014 from the National Health Federation for her work on health choice and parental rights.
I have a list of accomplishments in the area of vaccine safety and choice that I am proud of, including: Contributing research to the Pace Environmental Law Review paper on the autism cases in the VICP, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Inuced Brain Injury. Writing and producing an educational short on the VICP entitled, Do Vaccines Cause Autism, narrated by SNL Alum Rob Schneider. Curating the quickly growing public list of research that links vaccines and autism. 124 Research Papers Supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link. Participating in one of the only live vaccine debates ever aired in this country, Town Hall: Vaccinations, on Portland Maine CBS affiliate WGME, where Dr. Meryl Nass and I debated former Maine CDC Chief and Pediatrician Dora Anne Mills, and former MaineCare Medical Director and Pediatrician, Dr. Kevin Flanigan.
In fact I am late in getting this letter to you because I spent the weekend in Washington DC advocating on autism policy in Congress, including speaking at a Congressional Prayer Breakfast on the need for hearings in the admissions by CDC vaccine safety researcher William Thompson that he and his colleagues hid vaccine-autism links that they found from the public, and advocating for new appropriations language in the budget to develop medical protocols to assess and treat the co-morbid conditions of autism.

AND NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS MATTER BEFORE THE MAINE MEDICAL BOARD.
It should not matter if I am a Nobel Prize winning neuroscientist who discovered the cure for brain cancer, or a 17 year old high school drop out who bags groceries at Hannaford. I believe that if I, or any parent, walks into a their pediatricians office and says anything to the effect of, “When my child got those shots he stopped looking at me or paying attention to me, I think that they hurt him.” Then that child should be offered assessment and help according to an established standard of care.
So the very simple, central and precedent setting question I am putting before this board is:
(1) If the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has federally recommended a vaccine, and (2) if the State of Maine has in turn mandated that vaccine for daycare and school admission, then
(3) if a parent or guardian has vaccinated his or her child with this vaccine, and
(4) that parent or guardian suspects that the child has suffered an adverse vaccine reaction,
is that child entitled to a formal evaluation for vaccine injury by a qualified doctor based on an established medical standard of care?



The resulting questions then follow in this case are:
If not, why not?
If so, is there a standard of care for the assessment Vaccine-induced encephalopathy?
If not why not, as the condition defined by HHS more than 25 years ago, and the VICP has paid more than 1,000 cases of VE, thus presumably must have medical assessment criteria.
Did Dr. John Smith have access to that standard of care assessment?
If not, why not?
If so, why was that standard of care assessment not implemented?
If Dr. Smith didn't know of a standard of care, what measures did take to find one?
What agencies or organizations are responsible to Dr. Smith to provide him the information he needs to properly assess his patients, and how does he go about getting that information?
Was Dr. Smith obligated to do a cursory screening and document that my son does meet the minimum requirement laid out in the table for VE, a neurological change following pertussis vaccine accompanied by diminished eye contact?
If Dr. Smith exhausted all of his means of finding the standard of care for this vaccine injury, was he obligated to make contact with us to tell us, make further recommendations, or tell us that he would not be attempting to pursue this matter any further?
Has this system set Dr Smith up for failure to perform his ethical duty to provide medical assessment and treatment for my son, and my son up for a life time of medical medical neglect in the event he has sustained vaccine induced brain damage?
What are my rights as a parent and Chandler's as a patient?
What is my remedy to this very upsetting turn of events?



While the central question being posed here is a simple one, by no means is this topic a simple topic. I am sure that the Board may have many more questions here, and I stand ready to provide them all the answers they need.

Please contact me if you want me to further comment on any part of this inquiry, and I look forward to appearing before the Board to process these matters with them.



Thank you,  "
The board met, and the board member handling the complaint recommended to the board that the case be investigated and that they submit the following questions to the physician:
"Investigate further 1. When you have abnormal labs, tests, or consultant’s reports, how do you routinely notify patients. 2. Do you have a protocol if a 1st phone call is not answered, or you are not able to communicate with a patient in a timely fashion. 3. Should you have notified this patient about your phone call with Children’s Hospital. 4. You were clearly uncomfortable with the request that the complainant made of you, could this process have ended with you telling her that you could not do what she wanted. 5. Would a referral to a pediatric neurologist have been appropriate?" Question 5 is an important question, is it not?

There was an interesting discussion that followed.

One board member was angry at the complaint, and could not explain exactly why or what should be done with it, but that the doctor, "didn't deserve this."

The board member who was handing the complaint, let's call him Dr. Jones, actually defended the complaint, saying that, "it is clear that this doctor was uncomfortable with the situation, and I would be too, but doctors have to learn how to deal with uncomfortable situations."  Another board member even joined in with him to press the case.

He even pointed out that Dr. Smith had twice left things for me at the office, at the same time he was not contacting me about my evaluation request.

I was impressed.  Dr. Jones got it.  He understood.  He launched into a lengthy discussion of the case.  I was floored that he both understood its importance and was not afraid to discuss it.  I wish I could have recorded the conversation.

The board voted and the complainer was the only one not to vote for the investigation to be undertaken.

I was actually encouraged.

I had never had any one in the mainstream actually take Chandler's case this seriously, and do their duty for him.

The liaison walking me through the process told me that I would have another opportunity to send in comments after the Board issued their decision.  I sent her my reaction to Dr. Jones entreaties, and the board's responsible discussion, and asked that it be included in my package to them after the proceedings were concluded:
"Ms. West, I know that this will not be submitted to the board until after the case is complete, but I wanted to get my thoughts down today on the initial meeting today. First, I want to thank both you and the board for their handling of this complaint in the early stages.  It is customary for parents who believe that their child is vaccine injured to be treated very poorly by the medical establishment.  Typically, at best we are dismissed, and at worst attacked, for asking that their child's potential adverse reaction be recognized, assessed and treated, as any other medical condition would be.  It is extremely stressful to take such a step as bringing this claim before a medical board, and it means a great deal that the matter is being taken seriously and that you, Ms. West, have facilitated this matter with kindness toward us. While it is a bit disappointing that the board will not be considering the full list of questions that I submitted to them in my last letter, I do understand that the board's focus is the actions of the individual  physician.  I do think that the inquiry of the board moving forward will be helpful in illuminating the moving parts of why these systematic problems remain in place for vaccine injury families, and I hope that even though the problems in the implementation of federal vaccine injury policy in our state are not the focus of the investigation, I am hoping that the board will keep them in mind as they move through this case, as there are potentially thousands of cases in Maine like ours.  Our community believes that policy and physician education reform is badly needed, and we have not yet found the state agency that believes that it is their responsibility to review current policies and procedures an implement that reform.  Listening to Dr. Jones explain his perspective on the complaint, it was encouraging to hear that he had reviewed the materials so thoroughly, and considered them so carefully.  In the 12 years since my son's regression, I have never had a mainstream medical provider or public health professional take the case so seriously or take responsibility for any kind of inquiry into his case before.  It is nice not to be treated like the crazy person. I wanted to comment on the discussion surrounding the comfort level of the physician involved.  As I am sure you can imagine, in a matter where a child may have iatrogenic brain damage, the idea that the comfort level of the physician would be considered, much less, outweigh, the competent and immediate treatment of the child who may have had spent more than a decade living inside an untreated, severely disabling, medical emergency seems completely upside down to me.  It is upsetting to imagine that the feelings of a doctor are more important than my son's health and functioning.  But again I do understand that the focus of the board is the physician, and his comfort level is a major factor in her decision making on what actions to take and not take.  I am actually of two minds on his discomfort and unwillingness to follow what are considered typical best practices in communicating and referring in this case. On the one hand, I am of the opinion that if a physician (or any business person) does not feel comfortable or competent in servicing a client, then they should be able to decline servicing them.  In this case, I believe that medical ethics require him to perform a minimum task of communicating that to the family and refer to a competent physician... … however... On the other hand, in the case of vaccine injury, and the legal particulars involved, I don't believe that physicians should be allowed to factor their comfort level into their medical and process decisions, because, first off, it is an extremely uncomfortable topic for any doctor.  If “I am uncomfortable with dealing with vaccine injury,” is a valid excuse for not taking a case seriously, then no cases of vaccine injury need ever be assessed and treated ever.  (I again thank Dr. Jones and his associate to his left, for mentioning that uncomfortable cases still must be handled appropriately and that physicians must learn how to approach uncomfortable cases ethically.) In fact physicians are trained to be uncomfortable with vaccine injury.  They are kept ignorant on its existence, definition, assessment, treatment and compensation.  They are taught that parents who claim vaccine injury are simply, “desperate and looking for someone to blame.”  They are taught that the few high profile cases of vaccine injury are “rare,” and that they are the fault of the child and their defective genes, not the “safe vaccine” that the child was administered.  They are giving no training or tools to handle the topic in a medically ethical way.  They are taught to be over confident in vaccine safety when they may no little to nothing about it.  They are taught by a very powerful industry that anyone who questions vaccine safety is “anti-vaccine.”  They are outright told not to take vaccine injury seriously, so any interaction with a parent who does their job of assertively advocating for a proper medical assessment for their child will always be uncomfortable for medical professionals. Further, and most significantly, health providers have been given very special dispensation, and because of that, I believe that they should ALL have to address vaccine injury according to high standards (much higher than just referring out.) It seems that because the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has granted all medical professionals freedom from legal responsibility for injuring or killing their patients with a vaccine, the entire profession believes that they don't have to deal with vaccine injury at all, even to the point of denying its existence and ignoring the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). But it was 21 of their professional organizations, including the AMA and AAP, that lobbied that their liability be removed and be replace with the VICP.  It seems a grave injustice that physicians can lobby and receive protection from law suits for vaccine injury and death, and then simply choose not use the very system that they asked to be put in place in lieu of their liability.  What chance does a family have in such a system? On a personal note, it was very emotionally difficult to hear laughter from the board during the discussion on my child's untreated brain injury.  It was during a point where discussion was getting a bit tense, and in such meetings laughter to break tension is of course very normal.  It was just still hard to hear it.  But the hardest thing about this meeting, for me, the mom, was that my child was not the focus of the discussion.  As a medical board is meeting about the doctor and his choices, the discussion should be focused on the doctor and his choices, but I didn't hear any concern for actually getting my child assessed and treated for what he should have been sent to an emergency room for in 2003.  He is such an amazing little guy and he deserves so much, and it is really tough that I can spend ten years making as much noise as I can to get him help, and all the kids like him help, and there is still no help offered.  It is really painful. But I don't want that to blunt my gratitude to the board for taking this matter seriously.  It was incredibly encouraging that they voted 8 to 1 to continue this inquiry.  It gives me hope that they might be brave enough to follow this to what I see the logical conclusion of this case, that the system is broken, that children are being harmed and improperly diagnosed in large numbers, that no one is taking responsibility for the damage, that families are unjustly being left out in the cold to struggle with very seriously neurological and immune system damage on their own, and that this epidemic must be addressed humbly, with a zeal for reform. Thank you again for your help in walking through this case, Ms. West. --  Ginger Taylor, MS"
Silly me for getting my hopes up.

The board sent the questions to Dr. Smith. This was his response.  Contradicting his previous letter to the board:


"Received June 9th, 2016

Members of the Board:

The Following are my responses to the questions posed in the letter from the Board dated May 12, 2016

1. When you have abnormal labs, tests, or consultant's reports, how do you routinely notify patients?

[NAME OF PRACTICE REDACTED] has processes in place for communication with patients relative to conveying abnormal test results and any recommended follow-up. My group... routinely notifies patients of an abnormal lab or test by a phone call from the provider or from a designated clinical support person.

Sometimes at the time I order a lab, test, or referral, I also schedule a follow-up appointment with the patient to discuss the results. In that case I will notify the patient of any abnormal findings at the follow-up appointment. If there is something in the test results that warrants more immediate notification or action, then I will call the patient, or request a designated clinical support person to do so, before the schedule follow-up appointment.

With regard to a consultant's report in my experience consultants usually communicate directly with patients about their findings and recommendations but in situations where we need to follow up on something relative to a consultant's report, we would notify patients in the same way we notify them about abnormal labs or tests as stated above and in response to question 2.

2. Do you have a protocol if a 1st phone call is not answered, or you are not able to communicate with a patient in a timely fashion?

Once we determine a phone call to a patient is warranted (whether because of an abnormal lab, test, consultant's report, or for some other reason), a provider or designated support person creates, or if a relevant one exists, adds to, an "open case" in their in-box. Our protocol is to attempt to call the patient at least 3 times, using all available phone numbers. If we reach an identified voicemail box, and the patient has given us permission to leave a message, we leave a simple message, with instructions to call back if there are questions. If the voicemail box is identified only with a phone number, we leave a message to call the doctor's office back, with no other content.

If a clinical support person is unable to reach the patient to speak with them, s/he will ask the provider what to do next. The provider will determine the urgency of the information to be conveyed to the patient. If it is not urgent, we will send the patient a letter advising them of the abnormal lab, test or consultant's report, and our recommended follow-up, if any. If follow-up is needed, it will remain an "open case" in the in-box of the person conveying the message, either the clinical support person or the provider, until we have spoken with the patient, or the follow-up has been scheduled or transferred as an incomplete task to the scheduling portion of the medical record. Keeping the case "open" reminds us that the follow-up has not been completed.

Determining what patient communication and follow-up is appropriate is ultimately considered on a case-by-case basis. The health care providers in my practice and I make sure that in urgent situations, we get in contact with a patient or authorized patient representative. Though rare, in very urgent cases such as a PKU abnormality on a newborn screening test, we have even asked the police to go to the patient's address to provide them with the information and our recommendations. In some situations, communication can reasonably be deferred until the next office visit.

3. Should you have notified this patient about your phone call with Children's Hospital?

In hindsight, yes, I should have continued to try to notify this parent about my phone call with the specialist at Children's Hospital because I had told her I would get back to her. Around that same time I spoke with the specialist at Children's, I received a request from the parent asking me to write a letter for both of her children to be exempted from mandatory vaccines. As I told the Board in my initial response, I did try to call the parent on 3/31/15 but no one answered and the phone was not accepting voice mail. I had planned to discuss both my call with the specialist at Children's as well as her request to exempt her children from vaccinations. Accordingly, there were technically two "open cases" that I wanted to speak with the parent about, but due to the simultaneous timing, they got put together in one "case".

I did write the medical exemption letter for her children as the parent requested, even with out speaking to her, because of the child's past uncertainty about vaccine injury, and copied the parent on the letter. This closed one of the two "open cases", but not the phone case about my call to the specialist, which was now further up and off the current screen, which was an oversight. While I should have also closed the loop on that "open case", the information I planned to convey about my conversation with the specialist was not urgent. Evaluation of a 12-year-olds potential vaccine injury at 18 months was not an acute need, and it would have made sense to discuss and explore this further in person at a future office visit.

I also think communication between pediatric patients and their parents, and the healthcare team, is a shared responsibility. If the parent had wanted a more immediate response to her request for further evaluation, she could have called the office to follow-up and either myself or someone else in the office would have promptly gotten back to her.

4. You were clearly uncomfortable with the request that the complainant made of you. Could this process have ended with you telling her that you could not do what she wanted?

This question is difficult to answer because it presumes that a single straightforward request was put forth by the parent. In my interactions with the parent during the time period at issue, there was a lot of talking by the parent, some historical recap, some tears on the part of the parent ad critique of herself and past providers, along with talk about her advocacy work and the bills being introduced in Maine. There was also talk about her theories about whether and how her child had been injured by vaccines and whether there was a specialist that could provide her with the answers she had been seeking for more than a decade. It wasn't clear to me what directed she wanted to go in to explore further evaluation. These interactions did complicate the situation and at times caused me to feel uncomfortable when I sense attempted manipulation by the parent.

I was comfortable with wanting to provide optimal health care for the child and with my ability to do so. I attempted to keep my medical decision-making separate from my personal feelings toward the parent. I hoped we could establish a trusting relationship in order to move forward with optimizing services for the child, while I attempted to make it clear that I did not want to discuss the parent's political agenda or agree to state the child had symptoms that would establish an encephalopathy (as the parent seemed to be trying to get me to do). In retrospect, given I may have been better able to clarify what the parent was requesting by asking her to write down what she was looking for, perhaps on an index card (rather than unlimited pages) to narrow the focus of her request(s).

5. Would a referral to a pediatric neurologist have been appropriate?

Neurologist referral, Developmental Pediatrics referral and Genetics referral all went through my mind as potentially appropriate referrals. Generally speaking, the Pediatric Neurologists have not been the resource we seek in this region for children with autism, since we have a Developmental Pediatrics team in southern Maine. However, the parent had indicated to me that she was not interested in a referral to a Developmental Pediatrics, as she felt she was well aware of treatments for Autism. I did make a Genetics referral that the parent did not schedule or follow-up on. In addition, as the Board is aware, I contacted a mitochondrial specialist at Boston Children's Neurogenetics program who recommended an autism specialist.

At the time of the office visit in question, I did not understand that the parent had such a narrow suspicion of encephalopathy. If I had the benefit of then hearing her no narrowed down focus on encephalopathy, I might have considered a Neurology referral as higher on the list of potentially appropriate referrals.

Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to respond to your questions.

Sincerely yours, ..." Did you get that?  Dr. Smith wrote to the board in March saying that, "in January 2015, Ginger Taylor came into see me, Chandler's pediatrician, and asked for a formal evaluation for pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy."

But by June he had decided he didn't know why I came in to see him, "At the time of the office visit in question, I did not understand that the parent had such a narrow suspicion of encephalopathy. If I had the benefit of then hearing her no narrowed down focus on encephalopathy, I might have considered a Neurology referral as higher on the list of potentially appropriate referrals."

So from the response to the questions, Dr. Smith admitting that he should have called my cell and didn't, could have sent a letter and didn't, should have referred to a Neurologist and didn't (offering a false claim of "confusion" after previously making a clear statement on what I was asking for), should have had some sort of instruction on how to proceed to undo his bad practises, and offer his patient the path that he should have in the first place.  Right?

And what about the reason that the complaint was made in the first place... I reported a vaccine adverse reaction, a potential brain injury no less, I asked for an evaluation, and no evaluation was ever offered!  

No.  What happens next is the kind of thing where you just go... Oh.... someone made a phone call to the Board and shut this down.

I showed up for the final discussion on the case on July 12th.  I had sat through a few of these cases waiting for my own to be heard, and saw how they worked.  Doctor should have done that, but did this instead, let's give him guidance on this here, and that there and make sure the patient has this and that put in place and either, "that should be sufficient" or "we will follow up in 6 months to make sure ______ has happened."

I was eager to see where this would go, and what the would tell the doc to do for my son, and most importantly, what services Chandler was due.

But Dr. Jones, who had such a keen grasp of and interest in our case, suddenly could not be bothered with it.  He announced the case and dispensed with it in less time than it takes to read a paragraph.  I know that because he posted his findings, one simple paragraph, on the overhead projector, didn't bother to even read the whole paragraph, and I didn't have time to finish reading it before he was done, the vote was taken and the case was closed.

I had to have their office email me the paragraph just so I could process what it actually said.

His findings:


"The patient’s mother complains that the physician ignored her request for further workup of her son’s autism and its relationship to his immunizations as an infant. The mother has concerns that her son may have had a vaccine related encephalopathy as an infant. She is very active in the politics of vaccines and talked to her son’s pediatrician about vaccines, their possible side effects and the right of parents to refuse vaccines. She requested further medical evaluation of her son and specialty consultation. This complaint was reviewed by the Board, and questions were asked of the physician. In the response to our questions, the physician recognizes the mother’s concern, and, in hindsight, although the patient’s condition was not acute or urgent, she agrees she should have tried harder to notify the mother about a consultant’s recommendation. In discussing the need for her to have communicated more effectively, she does note that communication between pediatric patients and their parents, and the healthcare team, is a shared responsibility."
 I could not get out of that room fast enough to make sure that the tears were shed in the hallway and not in the hearing room.

Shame on me for thinking the system would work, right?

So over the last few months I have written five versions of my final response to the Board.  They have all been too angry to send.  But it has been months since their ruling, so I guess that this version will have to do.  It is probably still too angry.  But I am angry.
February 5, 2017
State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine 137 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0137
Re: Complaint against Dr. John Smith, M.D.
Dear Sirs,
This letter is in response to your ruling on my complaint against Dr. John Smith for failing to provide an evaluation for reported potential vaccine induced encephalopathy (VE).
I have read the answers that Dr. Smith provided to the medical board on this case, and I am informing you that he is misleading the board on what happened in his office, while contradicting his own claims at the same time.
Dr. Smith answered that he, “did not understand that the parent had such a focus on her suspicion of encephalopathy. If I had the benefit of then hearing her now narrowed down focus on encephalopathy, I might have considered a Neurology referral as her higher on the list of potentially appropriate referrals.”

In fact we had two lengthy discussions on the fact that I was seeking an assessment for vaccine encephalopathy, I had him pull up the HRSA, Vaccine Injury Compensation Table to read aloud the symptoms of pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy, discussed my son's development of those symptoms following the pertussis vaccine, and gave him multiple sources of information on this diagnosis.

On the two visits where I specifically requested this evaluation, I provided him with hard copies of all the information I had on the disorder, including the Pace Environmental Law Review article: Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, which discusses the fact that autism cases are paid by the program under an encephalopathy diagnosis, and that the two diagnosis may in fact be widely overlapping, and a chapter I wrote for the book, Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, which included a more in depth discussion on this matter (both attached).

The chapter specifically includes an examination of the case of Hannah Poling, the most well known case of autism and encephalopathy. We then discussed the information about the disorder that had come from the public examination of the Poling case, and I mentioned that in her case, it had been determined that an underlying, undiagnosed, asymptomatic, mitochondrial disorder had played a role in her vaccine reaction, and was also implicated in other cases. Dr. Smith seized on that, and told me that they sent kids to Boston for mitochondrial evaluations, and I replied something to the effect of that might be a good start at investigating the possibility that he had suffered a vaccine induced encephalopathy.
If he didn't know I was asking for an eval for VE, then why did he call Boston Children's asking for a mitochondrial evaluation? I didn't walk into the office and ask for a mito eval, it came up in our discussion of VE and how he might investigate my son's case.

Further, he reports to the board two paragraphs earlier that he believed I was trying to convince him to, “agree to state the child had symptoms that would establish encephalopathy.” So by his own assertion, I was there because I suspected vaccine encephalopathy.

To be clear to the board, I was not asking him to “state” he Chandler had an encephalopathy, I was asking him to evaluate Chandler for one. Thus the discussion that lead to mitochondrial questions.

In his March statement to the board, Dr. Smith wrote: "As stated in the complaint, after exhausting their funds for alternative treatment, in January 2015, Ginger Taylor came into see me, Chandler's pediatrician, and asked for a formal evaluation for pertussis vaccine induced encephalopathy."
The board has, in effect, just allowed Dr. Smith to play dumb in dismissing this case.
Additionally, Dr. Smith has still has not contacted me to tell me about this call to Boston Children's, why the trail of investigation should end with a phone call on a tangential issue to a hospital currently embroiled in a very public scandal over allegedly denying proper treatment to a child diagnosed with mitochondrial dysfunction, what the next option was, or his discomfort on moving forward with a referral to another physician. I still only know what the board has sent me.
In this case, the board reports that Dr. Smith, “recognizes the mother's concern, and, in hindsight, although the patient’s condition was not acute or urgent, he agrees he should have tried harder to notify the mother about a consultant’s recommendation.”

If that is the case, then why have I still not been notified by Dr. Smith?
The ruling on this inquiry by the Board is absurd on its face, and does not represent a good faith effort to discharge their duty to hold this doctor to any ethical standard applicable in my son's case.
This is a straight forward case. Parent suspects serious brain injury, does a multitude of research to confirm that child fits all known parameters for said disorder given her resources, asks doctor for an evaluation for the disorder, in good faith, on multiple occasions, then receives no contact from said physician. A duty of care was owed by this physician to my son. None was given.
The fact that blame shifting toward “mother” and away from Dr. Smith's ethical violation is being suggested by both Dr. Smith and the Board, in the concluding statement that, “In discussing the need for him to have communicated more effectively, he does note that communication between pediatric patients and their parents, and the healthcare team, is a shared responsibility,” adds insult to injury. THere has been no evidence offered that I did not communicate that I wanted a VE evaluation. On the contrary, Dr. Smith admits in writing that I did.
The attempt at playing the age old game of “blame the mother” begs the questions, if my son is still without an evaluation because I did it wrong, which seems to be the suggestion of the board, what is the right way to do it? I told him for many years, when declining him recommendation of further vaccines, that I believed my son had vaccine induced brain damage, and I finally asked him directly for an evaluation. I made two consecutive appointments to discuss the prospective diagnosis. Should I have made three?

I brought him more than a half dozen sources on the disorder. Should I have brought a full dozen? Or two dozen? Or none?

He complained that I cried when telling him about the decade long struggle I have had to get my son proper evaluation and treatment, describing it as “manipulative.” Does being transparent to a physician and experiencing grief over my son's injury, disability and abandonment by the medical system preclude me from getting an evaluation for him?

He complained about the fact that I also was working on this issue of misdiagnosis of vaccine injury at the state legislative level. Does public activism to help other families receive a proper standard of care evaluation for vaccine induced injuries preclude me from getting one for my own son? Do public advocates have the right to the same care for their children as those who never speak out when they see a problem in the medical system?
In my ten page response to Dr. Smith's initial response, I noted that the Board's determination in this case would set precedent for how suspected vaccine injuries are approached in Maine. I outlined the central question that you would be answering.

“So the very simple, central and precedent setting question I am putting before this board is:
(1) If the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has federally recommended a vaccine, and (2) if the State of Maine has in turn mandated that vaccine for daycare and school admission, then
(3) if a parent or guardian has vaccinated his or him child with this vaccine, and
(4) that parent or guardian suspects that the child has suffered an adverse vaccine reaction,
is that child entitled to a formal evaluation for vaccine injury by a qualified doctor based on an establihed medical standard of care?”
You have answered, “No.” Physicians in Maine are not required to respond at all to patients reporting serious adverse vaccine reactions, and Mainers are not entitled to an evaluation for a suspected vaccine injury.
This, of course, leads to a myriad of other questions, such as:
Why is this doctor simply taken at his word? Were his session notes submitted?
How can anyone claim that the Maine Immunization Program is a legitimate program, when parents have no resource, recourse or rights when their children are harmed or killed?
Why would any sane parent, knowing that they will be ignored, neglected, insulted and treated as an opponent if their child is hurt, participate in the vaccine program?
How deep is the denial in the medical system that their vaccination practices are harming some children that they are actively preventing these kids from being found, assessed, treated and compensated? Don't they care? Don't they want to know which kids are getting hurt so they can put appropriate screening measures in place and stop it?
As the impressions I have of the Board is that they are not made up of unintelligent people, and as their previous discussion on the matter included recognition that even when physicians are dealing with an uncomfortable situation, that they must approach them ethically, why did the Board issue such an absurd, nonsensical ruling? Were outside influences a factor in this case?
As parents have had their 7th amendment rights to sue for vaccine injury removed, shouldn't there be some recourse for families when physicians don't act in good faith on vaccine issues?
Is this Board OK with the fact that physicians can simply do whatever they feel like doing in regards to vaccines or vaccine injuries, or is there some line that a doctor could cross that would spur them to action? If so, where is that line?



I know these are written as rhetorical questions, but I want the answers to these questions. As a parent whose child fits all the diagnostic criteria for a vaccine injury that I can find, am I not due legitimate answers to my questions? I trusted my doctors that vaccines were safe, I handed my my son to them, they returned him harmed and will take no responsibility for his care. How am I not owed answers at the very least?

Who is actually responsible in Maine for the safety and proper administration of the vaccine program and physicians in that program? Who actually has to answer these questions, since the court system doors have been shut on parents?

The Board's ruling just shows, yet again, that the vaccine program in this country is a farce.

The current issue of the Johns Hopkins Journal, Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, Volume 6, Number 3, 2017, includes an article by me on why I no longer allow my family to participate in the US National Immunization Program, entitled Families are Under No Obligation to Put Their Children At Risk by Participating in the Corrupt Current US National Immunization Program. In it, I discuss the vast problems in the program, and include my experience of bringing my pediatrician before the State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine, only to have the board fail to take the matter seriously, and to formally establish for a certainty that the standard of care for vaccine injury is medical neglect.

I have included the piece with this response to the Board's ruling on our case.

Professor Mary Holland, JD, head of NYU Legal Studies, who filed the friend of the court brief on behalf of families seeking vaccine injury remedy in the SCOTUS case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth has stated that, “Once your child is vaccine injured, you are on your own.”

State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine just made Professor Holland's case for her.

Sincerely,
Ginger Taylor, MS




Journal letter:



Families are under no obligation to put their children at risk by participating in the corrupt current US National Immunization Program

Ginger Taylor

Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, vol. 6 no. 3, 2016, pp. 181-185. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/646617.

Copyright © 2016 The Johns Hopkins University Press. This article first appeared in Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, Volume 6, Issue 3, in the US, YEAR 2017, pages 181-185.

My name is Ginger Taylor, and I hold an MS in Clinical Counseling from Johns Hopkins University. I am the mother of a 14–year–old vaccine injured child with an autism diagnosis, and our family no longer participates in the vastly corrupt and broken US National Immunization Program. Because of my experiences, I have become a state and national leader on vaccine safety and vaccine choice issues, co–founding The Canary Party, and The Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice.

I have two sons, born in 2000 and 2002, and vaccinated them roughly according the the recommended schedule. My second son suffered what we now recognize as an adverse vaccine reaction to his first dose of the Hep B vaccine, but it was not recognized as such by either myself or his pediatricians at the time, so he continued to be vaccinated according to the CDC recommended schedule. Following his 18 month appointment, he suffered a severe neurological regression, displayed symptoms of GI distress, showed signs of an autoimmune condition, and was diagnosed with autism six months later.

His was a text book case of vaccine induced encephalopathy, per the Health and Human Services (HHS), Human Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Vaccine Injury Table established by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), displaying symptoms including:

(1) A significant change in mental status that is not medication related; specifically a confusional state, or a delirium, or a psychosis;

(2) A significantly decreased level of consciousness, which is independent of a seizure and cannot be attributed to the effects of medication; including:


Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all, only to loud voice or painful stimuli); Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family members or other individuals); or Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not recognize familiar people or things). Please see http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf for more info. Despite this, and despite my repeated attempts to have my son's pediatrician investigate his condition as a vaccine reaction, no such inquiry was undertaken, and these symptoms were used instead to give him a diagnosis of autism. I would not read the VICP Vaccine Injury Table to learn that his were the symptoms of a well established vaccine injury for several years, and until after the three year statute of limitations had expired for me to file for compensation for his disability.

After being abandoned by the mainstream medical system, we sought expensive, out of pocket, alternative medical care, which proved very fruitful for our son. Although we lost our home over the choice, we still would make the same decision, as it dramatically increased his health and functioning. We are pleased to report that, while he still has full syndrome autism, he has gone from severe to a much higher functioning level. Most importantly, he is a very happy child.

Despite our earnest attempts, 12 years and four pediatricians later, we still cannot simply get him evaluated for this HHS established vaccine injury. Last year I filed a complaint against my own pediatrician with the state medical board, reporting that after multiple requests to evaluate my son for the condition, he had simply ignored my appeals as my previous pediatricians had. I asked the board to rule on whether or not my son had the right to an evaluation per an established standard of care, noting that if I had taken him to the doctor and reported that I believed he had a broken leg, their failure to assess him would constitute medical neglect.

The board investigated the matter, but their ruling did not address the question of what the duty of the doctor is to a patient reporting vaccine adverse reactions, and simply gave a non sequitur response to close the case. Their action was a de facto ruling that no doctor has an obligation to investigate suspected vaccine injuries, and evidence that the medical establishment's response to vaccine adverse reactions is systematized medical negligence.

Our experience is identical to that of untold thousands of parents, who learn the hard way that once your child is injured by a vaccine, you are on your own. The system has chosen to respond to those families with neglect, insults, coercion and even Child Protective Service intervention, rather than to reform the program to put measures in place to protect children and families from harm and fraud, as is the case with every other medical product in this country.

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the Supreme Court ruling Bruesewitz v Wyeth that sided with the pharmaceutical industry, removed the 7th amendment rights of individuals to sue in cases of vaccine injury and death. Please see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf for more info. Vaccine injury claims were moved to the HHS Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. As a result of this freedom from legal accountability, systematic corruption has taken hold in the US vaccine program as we see that:


The CDC recommended Childhood Vaccine schedule ramped up from 24 to a minimum of 69 doses with no safety testing of the schedule as a whole. Please see http://maineinformedconsent.org/images/1983v2015.gif for more info. The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program rejects the majority of claims made by families regardless of merit. States and families pay for vaccine injury cases that are the responsibility of the federal government. HHS has become a vaccine patent holder, while approving, regulating and recommending vaccines, and while adjudicating vaccine injury cases, without disclosing its serious conflicts of interests to consumers. Please see http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/a-license-to-kill-part-1-how-a-publicprivate-partnership-made-the-government-mercks-gardasil-partner.html for more info. Corruption in safety, efficacy and injury response is proliferating as demonstrated by: The current Congressional investigation into the #CDCwhistleblower Scandal, triggered when senior CDC vaccine scientist William Thompson admitted publicly that he and his research team had actively hidden vaccine autism links from the public. Please see http://healthchoice.org/outline-of-significant-developments-in-the-recent-revelations-on-vaccine-safety-research-corruption/ for more info. The Department of Justice indictment of CDC vaccine autism researcher Poul Thorsen on 21 counts of fraud and money laundering for embezzling more than a million dollars from CDC and his university, whose research CDC is still using to support vaccine safety claims despite the fact that he is currently a fugitive Please see https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/gan/press/2011/04-13-11.html, https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp#thorsen and https://www.amazon.com/Master-Manipulator-Explosive-Embezzlement-Government/dp/151070843X for more info. The current mumps outbreak coupled with the US v. Merck Whistleblower Lawsuit underway in federal court in which Merck's own scientists are suing the company for turning in fraudulent mumps vaccine efficacy data to the FDA in 2000 to gain re–approval for the MMR II (the only measles, mumps or rubella vaccines licensed in the US.) Please see http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Merck-mumps-suit.pdf and http://www.reuters.com/article/health-vaccine-idUSL1N0YQ0W820150604 for more info. The current lawsuit by the Utah Whistleblower, Judith Zimmerman, Ph. D, states that she was wrongfully terminated for insisting that CDC follow ethic rules in, and publish accurate data on, the tracking of autism cases in the state of Utah. The accuracy of such data is vital in determining wither or not there is an autism epidemic temporally associated with vaccine policy and uptake changes. Please see http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2f23qa336/utah-district-court/zimmerman-v-university-of-utah/ and http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865657990/Wrongful-termination-lawsuit-puts-spotlight-on-Utah-autism-rates.html for more info. False vaccine safety claims made by CDC, who report to the public that, “Vaccines do not cause autism,” and that, “There is no link between vaccines and autism.” Please see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html for more info. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the applicable research finds multiple links between vaccines and autism, and demonstrates the mechanisms by which vaccines and their ingredients can and do cause autism. Mainstream research has found that vaccines and their ingredients can cause the underlying medical conditions that committed physicians and researchers are commonly finding in children who have been given an autism diagnosis. These conditions include gastrointestinal damage, immune system impairment, chronic infections, mitochondrial disorders, autoimmune conditions, neurological regression, glial cell activation, brain inflammation, seizures, synaptic dysfunction, dendritic cell dysfunction, mercury poisoning, aluminum toxicity, gene activation and alteration, glutathione depletion, impaired methylation, oxidative stress, impaired thioredoxin regulation, mineral deficiencies, impairment of the opioid system, endocrine dysfunction, cellular apoptosis, and other disorders. Please see https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/127-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link for more info.


False vaccine safety claims made by the medical industry, such as those offered in my home state by MaineHealth both on their web site and on Maine Public Radio. Please see http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2014/12/mainehealthmaine-vax-kids-makes-false.html for more info. Our unsuccessful attempts to have false claims that reference non-existent vaccinated vs. unvaccinated research removed and retracted, demonstrate that open fraud in vaccination is tolerated by every level of the medical and legal establishment. Please see http://mainevaxchoice.org/2015/11/24/mcvc-files-a-false-claims-complainst-against-mainehealth/ for more info. The US Government Accounting Office, Stanford Law, George Washington University Law School and The Associated Press investigations into the failures of the VICP to properly compensate families of vaccine victims according to the intent of the 1986 National Childhood Injury Act. Please see http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-142, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2623756, http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1860&context=faculty_publications and https://web.archive.org/web/20150227064246/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/22/us/politics/ap-us-vaccine-court.html for more info. Research showing that, although the federal government will not officially establish the vaccine/autism link, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has been quietly paying autism cases since 1991. Please see http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6/ for more info. Public health officials, as a matter of open and international policy, refuse to engage with vaccine injury families to respond to the needs, concerns, complaints and accusations of this population, instead classifying them as “vaccine deniers,” teaching others to do the same, while leading public campaigns to vilify them and rob them of their right to bodily integrity. Please see http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Best-practice-guidance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdf for more info. Parents report being routinely bullied in pediatricians' offices for refusing one or more vaccines by physicians and nurses who know vastly less about vaccination and its risks than the family being bullied does, and who cannot give accurate answers to parental questions. Often these families are coerced into signing statements saying that they are violating medical recommendations, putting their child and the public at risk, and are occasionally threatened with Child Protective Service intervention. In 2015, in response to the national push to remove the rights of parents of schoolchildren to opt out of one or more vaccines, the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice worked with legislators to put the focus on the true problem in child health, the unaddressed vaccine injury epidemic, by introducing the Maine Vaccine Consumer Protection Act. Please see http://mainevaxchoice.org/2015/01/02/maine-parents-introduce-the-maine-vaccine-consumer-protection-act/ for more info. The legislation was designed in part to force medical providers to know and use the VICP and the vaccine adverse events information on the package insert, and to investigate and treat vaccine injuries per a standard of care. Please see http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm for more info.

In response to the bill, 21 medical individuals and entities submitted opposing testimony, however only one demonstrated that they actually knew what the VICP was. Please see http://mainevaxchoice.org/2015/05/21/maine-doctors-submit-testimony-showing-that-they-are-not-qualified-to-advise-patients-on-vaccination/ for more info. Some did not reference the program at all, and some confused the VICP, which is meant to care for vaccine injury patients, with the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS), which was not referenced in the bill. Please see https://vaers.hhs.gov for more info.

The President of the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (Maine AAP) could not even correctly name or describe the program, submitting testimony that, “The Federal Vaccine Injury Program provides appropriate venue for reporting and tracking vaccine related side effects.”

The Maine Hospital Association testified on vaccine package inserts that “People don’t receive vaccines like they do other prescriptions… not sure there is a package here.”

The representative of the Maine Medical Association (MMA, the Maine Chapter of the American Medical Association) gave a long speech claiming that physicians are constantly trained in this area, but when asked about VICP rulings replied, “I don’t know. I’ve never been involved in that system.” Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYlguoqggSo&feature=youtu.be for more information.

The Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice sent a long list of questions to the Maine AAP, the MMA and the Maine Immunization Program in response the public hearings to follow up on their statements, including questions on the education of physicians on vaccine injury. Our submissions were acknowledged, but all organizations declined to answer. Please see, http://mainevaxchoice.org/2015/06/04/questions-for-the-maine-chapter-of-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/, http://mainevaxchoice.org/2015/06/04/questions-for-the-maine-medical-association/ and http://mainevaxchoice.org/2015/05/25/questions-for-the-maine-immunization-program for more info.

The great irony in this is that the AMA and the AAP were two of dozens of medical organizations that lobbied for, and submitted friend of the court briefs in support of, the 1986 law removing their liability for vaccine injury, and replacing it with the VICP. Then doctors collectively decided to ignore the VICP. For thirty years. Please see http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_152_RespondentAmCuAAPand21PhysandPubHealthOrgs.authcheckdam.pdf for more info.

Mainstream medicine is in a state of willful ignorance over vaccine injury. Their response to the vast vaccine injury problem is denialism; systematized medical negligence of a growing segment of the population; attacking those with injured loved ones as unscientific, dangerous, “vaccine deniers”; and advocating that they be coerced into continuing in the program, at the cost of a child's education (approximately $50,000 per child.)
Why would any sane, conscientious parent, knowing the depths of the corruption in the US National Immunization Program, simply take CDC safety and efficacy claims at face value, and unquestioningly follow the recommended schedule?

There is just no evidence that public health officials, mainstream medical providers or most researchers take vaccine safety seriously.

Finally, the editors of this journal have asked an important question, and I wish to answer it as frankly as I can:

"Is there anything that you think might help to resolve the controversy surrounding vaccinations?"

The controversy surrounding vaccinations will never be resolved until the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is repealed, and until families 7th amendment rights to have their complaints heard in civil court, under established legal procedure and ruled on by a jury, is restored.

Until there is a way to force public health officials, vaccine industry representatives and medical professionals to testify under oath, and under penalty of perjury, to either defend or retract their fraudulent claims, to pay for the damages done to children (including my child) for their institutionalized abuse and negligence, I will never consent to another member of my family participating in the vaccine program under any circumstances.