From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 3, 5:56 pm, s...(a)aday.com wrote:
> When all this hand waving is finished, the reason he lost credibility
> and the co-authors withdrew their names and the journal retracted it is
> quite simple.
>
> He was in the pay of a lawyer in the business of sueing on the basis of
> what the paper was to come to conclude.  He did not disclose this as is
> now accepted ethics in journal publishing.
>
> This disorder is increasing suggesting an environmental link.  With this
> study withdrawn and several others showing no such link with vaccines we
> need to look elsewhere.  

However, there is ample evidence that the "increase" is due to
diagnostic substitution, increased awareness and a very heavy
broadening of the diagnostic criteria.

> The social movement to make the vaccinee link came from this paper.  It
> is now gone and the social momentum should support efforts to now find
> the real link.  The motivation to do the several other studies came from
> this paper.  It is proper that research turn to other possible links in
> light of the scientific findings.

If you substitute "cause" for link, we agree.

From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 3, 5:47�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:39�am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing
>
> > by David Kirby
>
> > Feb 2, 2010

You snipped to chang the meaning, hypocrite.

Rest of your drivel deleted.

The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing

by David Kirby


Feb 2, 2010


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-emlancetem-retraction_b...


Dr. Andrew Wakefield is one of the most vilified medical practitioners
of
recent times, and now he carries the extremely rare dishonor of a
retraction
in The Lancet, on the paper he coauthored in 1998 suggesting a
potential
link between autism, bowel disease and Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR)
vaccine.


I believe that the public lynching and shaming of Dr. Wakefield is
unwarranted and overwrought, and that history will ultimately judge
who was
right and who was wrong about proposing a possible association
between
vaccination and regressive autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).


Wakefield's critics can condemn, retract, decry and de-license all
they
want, but that does nothing to stop or alter the march of science,
which has
come a long way over the past 12 years, and especially in the last
year or
two. The evidence that autism is increasing at alarming rates, and
that some
thing (or things) in our environment is wreaking havoc on a
vulnerable
one-percent of all US children is now so irrefutable that, finally,
the
federal government is climbing aboard the environmental research
bandwagon -
way late, but better than never.


This long-overdue paradigm shift will leave many in the scientific
community
with some proverbial but nonetheless uncomfortable egg on their
increasingly
irrelevant faces: Those who have protested with shrill certainty that
autism
is almost purely genetic, and not environmental in nature, and
therefore not
really increasing at all, will hopefully recede from the debate.


And that begs a nagging question: If those people were dead wrong
about
environmental factors in autism, could they also be mistaken in their
equally heated denials about a possible vaccine-autism link? More
bluntly,
why should we heed them any longer?


We need to examine a host of environmental factors (air, water, food,
medicine, household products and social factors) and how they might
interact
with vulnerable genes to create the varying collection of symptoms we
call
"autism." But these triggers almost have to be found in every town of
every
county of every state in the land - from Maine to Maui.


Are vaccines the only contributing factors to autism? Of course not.
Other
pharmaceutical products like thalidomide and valporic acid, as well as
live
mumps virus, have been associated with increased autism risk in
prenatal
exposures, so we already know that a variety of drugs and bugs can
likely
make a child autistic.


But, there are now at least six published legal or scientific cases
of
children regressing into ASD following vaccination - and many more
will be
revealed in due time.


There was the case of Hannah Poling, in federal vaccine court, in
which the
government conceded that Hannah's autism was caused by vaccine-induced
fever
and overstimulation of the immune system that aggravated an
asymptomatic and
previously undetected dysfunction of her mitochondria. Hannah received
nine
vaccines in one day, including MMR.


Then there was the Bailey Banks case, in which the court ruled that
Petitioners had proven that MMR had directly caused a brain
inflammation
illness called "acute disseminated encephalomyelitis" (ADEM) which, in
turn,
had caused PDD-NOS, an autism spectrum disorder, in Bailey.


And last September, a chart review of children with autism and
mitochondrial
disease, published in the Journal of Child Neurology, looked at 28
children
with ASD and mitochondrial disease and found that 17 of them (60.7%)
had
gone through autistic regression, and 12 of the regressive cases had
followed a fever. Among the 12 children who regressed after fever, a
third
(4) had fever associated with vaccination, just like Hannah Poling.


The authors reported that "recommended vaccination schedules are
appropriate
in mitochondrial disease," although "fever management appears
important for
decreasing regression risk."


That conclusion, however, is not supported by some of the world's
leading
experts on mitochondrial disease, including Dr. Douglas Wallace, a
professor
of pediatrics and biological chemistry at UC Irvine, and director of
its
Center for Molecular & Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics. "We have
always
advocated spreading the immunizations out as much as possible because
every
time you vaccinate, you are creating a challenge for the system" in
people
with mito disorders, Dr. Wallace, who was recently named to the
National
Academies of Science, testified at a federal vaccine safety meeting.


The possibility that vaccines and mitochondrial disease might be
related to
autism was also supported in another chart review published in PLoS
Online.
The authors wrote that mitochondrial autism is not at all rare, and
said
that, "there might be no difference between the inflammatory or
catabolic
stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases, which
are
known precipitants of mitochondrial regression."


In fact, they added, "Large population-based studies will be needed
to
identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic
regression in
persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."


Another fact that gets little attention in this never-ending debate is
that
more than 1,300 cases of vaccine injuries have been paid out in
vaccine
court, in which the court ruled that childhood immunizations caused
encephalopathy (brain disease), encephalitis (brain swelling) and/or
seizure
disorders. Encephalopathy/encephalitis is found in most if not all
ASD
cases, and seizure disorders in about a third of them.


If we know that vaccines can cause these injuries, is it not
reasonable to
ask if they can cause similar injuries that lead to autism? (Stay
tuned as
those 1,300 cases come under closer scrutiny).


Fortunately, the federal government seems to be getting serious about
identifying ALL potnetial environmental factors that could contribute
to
autism, including a few studies that take in vaccines and the
mercury-containing preservative thimerosal. And President Obama's
brand-new
budget includes increased spending for autism research at NIH,
including
money to help identify environmental factors that contribute to ASD.


Meanwhile, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has unanimously
endorsed
a CDC proposal to study autism as a possible "clinical outcome" of
vaccination, and has recommended several more studies pertaining to
vaccines
and autism, including a feasability study on analyzing vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated populations.


And over at the government's leading autism research panel, the Inter-
Agency
Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), the Chairman, National Institute
of
Mental Health Director Dr. Thomas Insel, recently told me that that
better
diagnosis and reporting could not "explain away this huge increase" in
ASD
cases.


"There is no question that there has got to be an environmental
component
here," Insel said.
I asked him if the IACC would ever support direct research into
vaccines and
autism, now that CDC has rasied the estimated ASD rate from 1-in-150
to
1-in-110, in just two years. "I think what you are going to see with
this
update is that there is a recognition that we need to look at
subgroups who
might be particularly responsive to environmental factors," he
answered.


So what might those factors include? Well, it turns out that the IACC
has
unanimously recommend research to determine if certain sub-populations
are
more susceptible to environmental exposures such as "immune
challenges
related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying
immune
problems."


Nobody seriously thinks that the retraction of The Lancet article, and
the
international flogging of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, will do anything to
make
this debate go away. And they are right.


David Kirby's new book, "Animal Factory - The Looming Threat of
Industrial
Pork, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment," will be
released on March 2, 2010 by St. Martin's Press. It is currently
available
for pre-order at several online outlets, including here.


From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 3, 6:04�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:56�pm, s...(a)aday.com wrote:
>
> > When all this hand waving is finished, the reason he lost credibility
> > and the co-authors withdrew their names and the journal retracted it is
> > quite simple.

<snip>

Speaking of credibilty.

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731


SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT


183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747


November 9, 1992, Decided


PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]


Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for
the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.


DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose
discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,


HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings


Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.


COUNSEL:


Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.


JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.


Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,


Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law � 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,


Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this
Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,


Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law � 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as
to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.


OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.


OPINION: [*282]


[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special
Referee.


[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served
upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.


The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to
cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.


The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent
has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately


Source:


NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT


Currency Status:


ARCHIVE RECORD


NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION


Name:


MARK PROBERT


Date Of Birth:


11/XX/1946


Gender:


MALE


Address:


1698 WEBSTER AVE


MERRICK, NY 11566


County:


NASSAU


Phone:


516-968-5572


EMPLOYER INFORMATION


Employer:


MARK S PROBERT ESQ


Organization:


PERSON


LICENSING INFORMATION


Licensing Agency:


NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION


License/Certification Type:


ATTORNEY


License Number:


1253889


Issue Date:


00/00/1978


License Status:


DISBARRED


License State:


NY


From: Mark Probert - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm
Email: Mark Probert <markpr...(a)my-deja.com>
Groups: k12.chat.teacher


Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday).

From: dr_jeff on
Jan Drew wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:47�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 7:39�am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing
>>> by David Kirby
>>> Feb 2, 2010
>
> You snipped to chang the meaning, hypocrite.
>
> Rest of your drivel deleted.
>
> The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing

Correct. Wakefield had a conflict of interest before the retration. He
had bad science. And, the evidence indicates that MMR has nothing to do
with autism.

It was bad science before the retratction. It is bad science now.

Jeff

<copyrighted material deleted>
From: Mark Thorson on
shot(a)aday.com wrote:
>
> This disorder is increasing suggesting an environmental link.

No, it doesn't. If it were an environmental risk,
it would remain constant. If it were due to increasing
awareness (for example, due to media coverage) and resulting
increasing diagnosis rates, then it would be increasing.

You don't seem to be able to interpret the facts reliably.