• Author: Kev
• Comments: 128

• Age of Autism
• Autism
• Autism Omnibus
• DAN!
• Dan Hollenbeck
• Laura Hewitson
• MMR
• Mercury
• Wakefield

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2008/05/laura-hewistons-stinker/">Laura Hewitson’s Stinker</a>

Comments

128 Responses to “Laura Hewitson’s Stinker”

1. 
   Ms. Clark
   May 18th, 2008
   10:05:12

   This reminds of another mercury mom, Karin Hepner, a researcher who testified in Cedillo about PCR if I recall. She has a son who was a patient of Dr. Krigsman’s. Krigsman is the gut specialist at Thoughtful House with the glossy haired Dr. Wakefield. Karin Hepner worked with Dr. Walker, of Wake Forest U. who was attempting to validate Waker’s findings of measles in the guts of autistic kids (he failed.) Walker is also a co-author with Dr. Hewiston of the poster about micro-array analysis on monkey gut tissue or whatever it was.

   Hepner testified in Cedillo without mentioning that her son had been a patient of Dr. Krigsman’s or commenting on whether or not she thought measles made her own son autistic. I don’t know if Hepner is a litigant. I suppose she is not.

   But Dr. Hewiston is a litigant, and her husband is and her husband also works for Andy Wakefield and is also associated with SAFE MINDS, besides writing for the clown blog.

   “Nepotistic” doesn’t seem to quite cover what we are seeing here. Maybe something like some kind of inbreeding.

   Did Safe Minds, DAN! and NAA fund these studies?

2. 
   Brian
   May 18th, 2008
   10:23:05

   Your piece so far is little more than fluff. Conflicts of interest can be found on both sides of this debate. Unless you want to disallow all info from anyone, regardless of their arguments, whose COIs are un- or under- stated, your whip is falling on a dead horse.

   If you want to make a case that the science employed by these studies is flawed, why not tell us what was wrong with the methodology or conclusions instead of making unsupported insinuations about impartiality? Did it really take you more than 10 minutes to write this?

3. 
   John Fryer
   May 18th, 2008
   16:38:27

   Hi Previewing before publishing online?

   Who previewed the title putting “stinker” next to the name of the person in the article?

   Who is ORAC? You claim he shredded this ladies work but how can we shred or extol ORAC when we don’t know who he is? He sounds like an anagram of a famous French Supermarket to me?

   Blaming a known brain destroying chemical for illnesses involving partly destroyed brains seems a red hot choice for a culprit.

   But then I am only a chemist who has worked as a chemist for more than 40 years talking about chemicals.

   Most people who studied this topic seriously will have found the known facts of mercury are in fact correct. It does have adverse effects on humans.

   There is no autism epidemic in France where I live and the figures given are 90 per cent less than in the USA using similar criteria.

   So why is the autism epidemic supposed to be fictional when the same doctors find more than ten times the numbers of cases per 10 000 in the USA for example than in France.

   Coincidentally 3 people in France representing three different vaccine companies are being charged with manslaughter after deaths and injuries from mercury vaccines used decades ago before the French found them UNSAFE.

   This case of course does not take in autism possibly because it is genuinely rare in France and if we believe this site and the autism rates are exagerated then the incidence will be so rare as to overriden by the other illnesses also caused by the worlds most toxic non radioactive element deliberately put into French vaccines a decade ago and now BANNED totally and not continued in use and exported around the world as is the case in the USA.

4. 
   Joseph
   May 18th, 2008
   16:58:36

   That’s quite a remarkable conflict of interest. In fact, Dr. Hewiston might have invented a novel type of conflict of interest with this, I don’t know.

   There’s something called litigation-generated science. But that usually seems to involve a company hiring an outside investigator to conduct research related to a lawsuit. In this particular case, the plaintiffs themselves are the lead investigators of the research.

   For example, Wakefield (1998) could be considered litigation-generated research, although that wasn’t known until much later. But Wakefield was not a plaintiff.

   In my view, there’s a fine line between what has happened here and planting evidence.

   Unfortunately, I think we’re getting to a point where the body of autism science is becoming seriously compromised by all this litigation-generated research.

5. 
   Edgar Brandt
   May 18th, 2008
   18:41:23

   But Dr. Hewiston is a litigant, and her husband is and her husband also works for Andy Wakefield and is also associated with SAFE MINDS, besides writing for the clown blog.

   Although previously filed (and potentially indicative of strong beliefs/bias), it’s possible that the Hewitson/Hollenbeck petition has since been withdrawn.

6. 
   Kev
   May 18th, 2008
   20:14:54

   I’d love to answer your questions John, but as usual you’re talking gibberish. I think however most of your questions can be easily answered by clicking on the link in question.

7. 
   Ms. Clark
   May 18th, 2008
   20:15:51

   Lyndelle H. Redwood withdrew her omnibus complaint, but I wonder if there is a way that persons like herself can renew it later and/or go on to sue vaccine manufacturers or coal-fired power plants directly?

   http://onibasu.com/archives/am/43151.html

   Lyndelle had an earlier suit against a power company that was dropped in favor of attacking vaccines, I suppose. She’s on a Dept. of Defense committee that plans how autism research money is spent, besides being on the IACC.

   I can’t see these people totally giving away their chance at a vaccine injury pay-off. The don’t dress, write or act like humanitarians, to me.

8. 
   Ms. Clark
   May 18th, 2008
   20:23:56

   France has a crushing burden of strange, flapping children with refrigerator mothers. The children are identical to autistic children, but the doctors who diagnose them are Freudians, so they see anal retentiveness, oral fixations, mothers with a subconscious desire to kill their children besides wishing that they theselves were men, fathers who have their own issues with their mothers.

   They are doing a therapy called ‘packing’ in France where you wrap the autistic kid (victim of ice cold mothers) in a cold wet sheet. Ummmh, until all the mercury comes out of them… no, until they are not longer afraid of being killed by their mothers or until their mothers stop wanting to kill them, or something.
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313499
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....d_RVDocSum

9. 
   Hilary Butler
   May 18th, 2008
   20:27:34

   Amazing isn’t it.

   If Paul Offit, or Peter Fleming come up with research saying that vaccines don’t cause autism, (even though it could be argued they have as many “vested interests” as anyone mentioned here) they are considered reliable and independant.

   Seems to me that LeftbrainRightbrain actually only uses one myopic side of the brain.

   Planting information? Are you suggesting that provaccine doctors up to their armpits in conflict of interest as well, don’t “plant” information? Ever heard of “retrospective” “epidemiological” trials? That’s the favourit resort of provaccine doctors with backs to the wall, to “plant” information if ever there was.

   Frankly, both sides have vested interests. One side has a vested interest in their reputations, vaccine patent, books which spin much money etc (i.e. Offit) and the other side has a vested interest in what they say is “recovering” children the ‘normal’ medical profession says ‘can’t’ be recovered.

   To me, the answer is simple.

   Answer these questions:

   1) How many parents have come forward to tell us that Paul Offit put their autistic child on the road to recovery?

   2) How many parents have come forward to tell us that Wakefield et al, have put their kids on the road to recovery?

   It constantly amazes me, that when faced with a study, which technically you would assume would be “reproducible”, blogs like this only want to shoot messengers.

   the attitude appears to be to swipe anyone or anything, rather than consider the real issues, or the children involved.

10. 
    Kev
    May 18th, 2008
    20:46:07

    Hilary, thanks for yet again demonstrating the inherent weakness in the position you espouse.

    If Paul Offit came up with research that was published in a decent peer reviewed journal, I’d happily discuss it. As I would AJ Wakefield or L Hewitson.

    This, however, isn’t published research. Its a poster presentation.

    I’m not sure what your two questions are meant to establish. I don’t believe that Andrew Wakefield has put one single child on the road to recovery. He certainly hasn’t published any credible research that shows that.

    Frankly, both sides have vested interests.

    Or, to put it from my point of view, one set of people are intent on carving out a nice cash cow based on quasi science that has been established to be rubbish.

    The other side prefer peer reviewed science that continues to show that no vaccine, no mix of vaccines and no element of vaccines have ever cause autism in anybody. They stand alongside scientists who are keenly aware of the consequences of not vaccinating and would prefer that the middle class soccer-mommies and daddies get a grip and engage their sense of perspective.

    Here are some ‘real issues’ for you Hilary.

    1) Autism research money being diverted down this vaccine ridiculousness for over 10 years, money that could’ve actually helped autistic people.

    2) A child over here dying from a vaccine preventable illness

    3) Wave after wave of vaccine preventable epidemics hospitalising American children.

11. 
    Joseph
    May 18th, 2008
    21:37:02

    Again, I would point out that this particular conflict of interest stands out. This is not research that is simply funded by litigants. It’s actually carried out by litigants as principal investigators, years after they filed their complaint.

    If Dr. Offit had published autism research, which I’m not aware he has, then yes, his conflicts of interest would be relevant in relation to bias. In a recent opinion piece by him we see that he has fully declared his conflicts of interest. So at least we know the issue of non-disclosure doesn’t apply to him.

    You see, the ideal that science should be bias-free is an impossible ideal. That’s where methodology comes in. And it’s not like we’ve only discussed personalities and ignored methodology.

    When you have one group with N=13 and the other group with N=3, it’s clear there’s no randomization. So is it possible that bias can influence results in this study? Of course. With such strong bias at play, we can be virtually guaranteed of that.

12. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 18th, 2008
    22:11:17

    Joseph, why do you have problems with 13/3, when the medical profession often uses exactly the same bias with 1/3rd the controls to 2/3rds the cases in vaccine trials? In fact the study with monkeys is probably better, in that the controls didn’t receive ‘equivalent vaccines” as a quasi-placebo.

    If Paul Offit has published no research on autism, why is he so keen to comment on the Poling case, or the vaccine/autism issue?

    Even worse, he’s not learned from his error in NYTimes. The “result” of the Poling case has nothing to do with any Vaccine court, which he again hammers on about in NEJM.

    The Poling case never got to court. On the basis of the medical files alone, doctors at DHHS conceded the case. Obviously Paul Offit disagrees with those doctors, without ever seeing the file or doing any autism/mitochondrial research himself. Amazing, don’t you think?

    If Paul Offit can’t take the time to get basic facts right, in either the NYTimes or in the NEMJ, (in spite of the fact that NYTimes published another article later, pointing out Offit’s fundamental factual errors, which he THEN repeated in NEMJ!) why would anyone take Offit’s word on matters substantially more complex, such as how many vaccines a child’s body could cope with?

13. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 18th, 2008
    22:12:54

    Kev,

    I never described the monkey study as peer reviewed research. I called it a “study” and most poster presentations I see at medical conferences come from a “study”, usually as-yet unpublished, and are kite-flyers to provoke discussion of “issues”.

    If you were able to “repeat” this study with monkeys, using the vaccines your child got, and if the vaccinated monkeys did have autistic traits, and the unvaccinated monkeys did not, would you then be reconsider whether or not your child has autism as a result of vaccines received?

    Or would you not be prepared to repeat the ‘study’ because you’d not want the possibility of being faced with “evidence”?

    In answer to your superfluous “issues” directed at me:

    1) If the medical profession had been REALLY concerned about autism, they would have proactively, plunged far more money into the issue long before Wakefield woke up.

    They would also have long since come up with answers.

    Don’t blame parents of autistic children who since 2000 have stated that vaccines caused their children’s regression, for the inability of the medical profession to even be willing to look at individuals, and try to determine the reasons for that child’s autism. The reason they won’t do that now, is precisely because they are more interested in protecting an ideology rather than treating a child.

    2)I presume you are talking about the recent unconfirmed case of diphtheria? Was that your child? Did the parents of that child “chose” to vaccinate, or not? Why are you so concerned about their choices? After all, your child is vaccinated. Where did that child get unconfirmed diphtheria from? Unvaccinated, or vaccinated children?

    If you think vaccines work, and you want them, you will use them. [FTR, diphtheria vaccines do not prevent the carriage of and transmission to others of the diphtheria bacteria. They can, for most, provide some protection against the worst effects of the toxin produced by a co-existing toxigenic bacteriophage which might invade that diphtheria bacteria]

    3) Wave after wave of vaccine preventable disease epidemics hospitalizing American children? Where is that Kev? Are these children vaccinated? are all these sick children being hospitalized? If not why not, and if so, why so? If these children are vaccinated (aka most of the pertussis cases) [FTR, ask James Cherry. Current pertussis booster vaccines don’t prevent the carriage or transmission of pertussis amongst vaccinated people either], who are their parents blaming? the vaccine manufacturers? Are these children unvaccinated? (aka measles) If not, did any of these children get serious complications and die?

    The real issue for me Kev, is that parents should be provided with all the information and left to make decisions for themselves.

    Whatever choice the parents make, shouldn’t be subject to a whinge from someone like you, either.

14. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 18th, 2008
    22:18:40

    Kev, you say Andrew Wakefield hasn’t put any child on the road to recover, and that there is no published research to prove that.

    When I was 19, I had a serious, reaction to a vaccine which resulted in serious damage, later proven by blood tests. I was told it was incurable, and to get on and live with it.

    17 years later, a heretical doctor at a medical conference told me that I didn’t have to live with it, and gave me details as to what to do. I was aghast. A solution, which had no patent because the substance is unpatentable. I was sceptical.

    But you know Kev, when you’ve only got searing constant PAIN to lose, even lead paint (which this was not) could look attractive.

    Three months later, all pain was gone, something that no other doctor had achieved.

    I can tell you two things about my experiences Kev.

    1) My vaccine reaction, though proven, never got into the literature, or even the official vaccine reaction data base. No doctor would report it, even after the blood tests proved it.

    2) My cure, never got into the literature either. All the doctors laughed, even though the evidence was right there before their eyes.

    Lack of PUBLISHED evidence, does not mean that evidence is LACKING.

    It just might mean that the people who pull the strings of the published evidence, only pull the string they want to pull.

    Having gone through hell and back again myself, I’m more likely to listen to parents of children who say their children are retrieved, than people who say studies proving the ability to retrieve children, don’t exist.

    I have nothing to gain by telling my story.

    And parents of “retrieved” children, have everything to lose by lying.

15. 
    Joseph
    May 18th, 2008
    23:27:52

    Joseph, why do you have problems with 13/3, when the medical profession often uses exactly the same bias with 1/3rd the controls to 2/3rds the cases in vaccine trials?

    If those studies are also not randomized, that is obviously a methodological weakness those studies also have. Am I saying otherwise? I don’t think the weaknesses of previous studies erase the weaknesses of this study.

    What I am saying is that you have to look at the methodology in conjunction with the conflict of interest. Do study limitations allow for bias to be introduced? I think the answer is a clear ‘yes’.

    So I’m not sure what we can make of these results, especially since they would seem to indicate that most of the 13 monkeys suffered from some learning disability following vaccination. Are we to assume that most children vaccinated these days are learning disabled to an extent? I find this quite nonsensical.

    If Paul Offit has published no research on autism, why is he so keen to comment on the Poling case, or the vaccine/autism issue?

    That would be for Paul Offit to answer, but he would not be the only one who speaks out against anti-vaccination, alt-med or litigation-generated science.

    I believe there are hundreds of people who comment on the Poling case and who have also not published any autism research. For example, have you published any autism research, Hilary?

16. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 18th, 2008
    23:49:43

    Joseph:...

    ***I believe there are hundreds of people who comment on the Poling case and who have also not published any autism research. For example, have you published any autism research, Hilary?***

    No I haven’t published any autism research. But neither do I make any claim to reputational fame, nor am I trying to tear down a possible lead, by crying out that it’s biased because of vested interests or who the people are.

    My point is, that that finger can be pointed at both sides, so forget the finger pointing, and lets look at what might actually be facts.

17. 
    Joseph
    May 19th, 2008
    00:36:01

    My point is, that that finger can be pointed at both sides, so forget the finger pointing, and lets look at what might actually be facts.

    Are you saying that the anti-vax side does not do finger pointing or is going to restrain its finger-pointing in the future? Right, sure, I buy it.

    Maybe you can refer me to where you’ve asked your anti-vax friends to retrain their finger pointing.

    Perhaps what you’re saying is that only one side of the debate should not do any finger pointing. I have no doubt you’d like that lack of balance.

    I’m more than happy to look at the merits of data and arguments that are advanced. I’m actually kind of notorious for doing that even when others dismiss it as ‘not worth it’.

18. 
    blog-thing : Conspiracies, conflicts of interest and the bigger picture.
    May 19th, 2008
    01:26:01

    [...] there is more. Over on LeftBrain/RightBrain Kev has revealed that Dr Hewitson has her own potential conflicts of [...]

19. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    01:36:11

    The abuse of these monkeys was just awful.

    And where is the complaint coming from animal rights activist cum DAN! doc, Kenneth Stoller? He’s totally silent on this on the EoHam board. Totally bizarre.

20. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 19th, 2008
    01:59:46

    Joseph,

    That was incredibly lame of you. did you read my first post properly? Right there, I pointed out that both sides have vested intersts. Do you think I didn’t mean it?

    Please point me to my anti-vaccine friends ???? Please tell me, where do I whip these mythical friends up into a “get the provaccine twerps” frenzy???!

    The finger pointing here started all one way, from the pro-vaxxers until the other side pointed out that there is conflict of interest on both sides.

    So why not forget conflict on interest on either side, and look at the merits of the potential study?

    What I’m saying is really clear, and it’s also clear you don’t like it.

    Simply this. Stop the epithet, and start sane discussion.

    For instance,do you think this sort of study should have been done long ago, by the NIH?

    I don’t care whether such a study was done by litigants as principal researchers, or NIH. Presumably the monkeys are also still available for NIH to study? do you think a follow up study should be done? Though it might distress Ms Clark mucho, to randomise a larger group of monkeys.

    Ms Clark, the last thing discussion needs is you saying that giving childhood vaccines to monkeys is abuse, but to children it’s a good thing. We know you are provaccine, so how is it that hadn’t before realised that toxicity tests for vaccines are carried out in monkeys, as well as a whole range of other animals?

    Why suddenly, do you now have a bleeding heart for monkeys? What about the rats, the hamsters, the mice etc… these hundreds of thuosands of animals the FDA/NIH sanctioned and has used for over 50 years now?

    Poor Monkeys.

    But not, if these results might have relevance, poor babies, or poor families????

    Wow. Amazing disconnect there.

21. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    02:28:54

    Hilary your disconnect is stunning.

    Giving macaques human vaccines is not an abuse. Cutting into their brains while they are still alive, taking out pieces and sewing them up again is abuse. Knocking them out and putting them in MRI machines is abuse. Putting scopes up their rectums and taking chunks out of their intestines is abuse.

    They killed some or all of the monkeys at the end of experiement.

    There may be research where such treatment of macaques would be justified, but this is not justified.

    These people are in the habit of abusing children with similar purposeless examinations, so no doubt they were calloused to what they were doing to the monkeys.

    Nice to see where you stand on such. Have a conversation with Kenneth Stoller about how he has sued a medical center for something similar. I’m sure he could give you some perspective on animal experimentation and vivisection.

22. 
    Joseph
    May 19th, 2008
    02:31:41

    Right there, I pointed out that both sides have vested intersts. Do you think I didn’t mean it?

    I personally believe that’s not exactly accurate as far as financial interests are concerned as I recently argued.

    Please point me to my anti-vaccine friends ???? Please tell me, where do I whip these mythical friends up into a “get the provaccine twerps” frenzy???!

    It’s very simple. You come here saying, “please stop the finger pointing.” I want to know if you’ve ever said that to people on the other side.

    The finger pointing here started all one way, from the pro-vaxxers until the other side pointed out that there is conflict of interest on both sides.

    That is categorically not true. From the very beginning the anti-vax side has talked about an imaginary conspiracy of sorts.

    So why not forget conflict on interest on either side, and look at the merits of the potential study?

    I’m not sure why you think the merits of the potential study have not been looked at. Orac, for example, wrote a long post about it. Plus I don’t think you can seriously expect people to pretend some glaring conflicts of interest don’t exist, and be restrained from reporting them, especially when said conflicts of interest apparently have not been declared. You don’t think it matters, for example, that Wakefield was payed to do his 1998 study and he forgot to report it? What is the equivalent of this, btw, in the “pro-vaccine” side, which according to you has the same types of conflicts of interest?

23. 
    MinorityView
    May 19th, 2008
    02:32:59

    Here is are some examples of pro-vaccine research: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?page_id=97

    For starters: **All studies listed excluded children who weren’t healthy–roughly 60% of the general population of infants and children would not be accepted into a vaccine study.

    ***Vaccines are tested in animals first, but were not tested for toxicity as they were presumed safe. Here is a link to the FDA/CDC discussion in 2003 regarding this topic (1).

    ****See note at bottom of page regarding why the “placebos” in these safety trials aren’t usually placebos like saline or sugar water but other vaccines.

    And an example of one study:
    In summary, Group A recieved Hib and DTP (whole-cell pertussis vaccine, a highly reactive vaccine-no longer on the market in the US). Group B recieved Hepatitis B vaccine and DTP. Vaccine reactions were then compared between the two groups. Both groups reported SIDS deaths and seizures, but these seem to be attributed to the DTP as this had been previously reported for DTP vaccines. Additionally, none of the other adverse reactions that “coincidentally” surfaced in these previously healthy infants during this trial could be causally related to the vaccines. Based on this information, ActHib was judged safe.

    Why would a vaccine manufacturer voluntarily give their vaccine at the SAME time as one of the most highly reactive? What would they have to gain from this? What would they have to lose?

24. 
    HCN
    May 19th, 2008
    03:48:29

    I’m sorry, Minority View, but your website is not a good resource. Please link to the original research which is indexed at PubMed. That is where you will find many, many, many papers on vaccine safety and efficacy from several countries.

    Especially after this review of your website:
    http://forums.randi.org/showth.....ost3502442 (about the time you bravely ran away! ... though in your credit you did try, the folks at JABS have been told to avoid the BadScience forum)

25. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 19th, 2008
    04:12:54

    Joseph, You might not consider that the provaccine side has a conflict of interest. Very few provaccine people would ever admit that they even have a conflict of interest. The only conflict of interest you can point to is Wakefield. And your statment is spurious.

    Both sides, Offit et al, and Wakefield et al, have conflicts of interest, even if that COI primarily boils down to protecting their own propaganda turf.

    Why is it that THAT is all you want to talk about?

    You say: ***You come here saying, “please stop the finger pointing.” I want to know if you’ve ever said that to people on the other side***

    Are you saying that if I say that I’ve ticked off Andy Wakefield about vested interests that would make it “okay” for you? Sort of like the Adam and Eve syndrome? Two wrongs, would make it right? I think there is a disconnect there.

    I’ve never talked about a “conspiracy” of any sort. I’ve talked about vested interests and conflict of interests relating to both sides, though.

    But you aren’t talking about anything other than what appears to you… to be… wait for it… a conspiracy of vested interests.

    It doesn’t matter to you that the money for most vaccine trials comes from the company that hopes to profit from that trial. It only matters to you that some funding to Royal Free came from some lawyers who hoped to gain some answers to profit their clients.

    To you, it seems, the two things aren’t equal.

    Talking about conspiracies though…, without even using that word, isn’t that what kev is insinuating in his first post?

    That Hewitson, her husband and Wakefield are all tied up in a totally unholy huddle?

    Poland, Offit, Orenstein, Katz, et all… they all do exactly the same thing. Have you looked up their funding? Where does that come from Joseph? But that’s okay? Touche… What a shame we can’t talk about the science though!

    You say: ***You don’t think it matters, for example, that Wakefield was payed to do his 1998 study and he forgot to report it? What is the equivalent of this, btw, in the “pro-vaccine” side, which according to you has the same types of conflicts of interest?***

    Are you going to watch the re-examination of Richard Horton at the GMC shortly, where he will probably be cross examined about his amnesia concerning documents produced to the GMC which show that:

    1) The money you refer to wasn’t paid to Wakefield at all, but to Royal Free Hopsital, was handled through their accountants, and was allocated it to a named technician as two year’s salary.

    2) That Richard Horton received several documents relating to this study and the funding and what it was used for, on more than one occasion, prior to the study being published.

    How was it then, that the documents slipped Horton’s mind?

    In Horon’s first appearance at the GMC, he stated he had not been told beforehand. maybe he hadn’t been told, but can he read? He will now be recalled for cross examination relating to those documents tabled after his comments. That amnesia is astonishing, don’t you think? Or do you think the documents were made afterwards as part of some conspiracy? Or that Horton just “forgot” to read them? They missed his eeye somehow?

    Are you suggesting that the funding for this new monkey study might have been done with anti-vaccine smut money???

    If such a study was done by the NIH and funded by pro-vaccine pharmaceutical companies, in an attempt to prove the opposite, would that also be smut money?

    You say: ***I’m not sure why you think the merits of the potential study have not been looked at. Orac, for example, wrote a long post about it.***

    Who’s Orac, Joseph? Has he published peer review research on autism such that his “shredding” elsewhere, would carry any professional credibility?

    If he has a real name, can we please know it?

    (not that I know that Joseph is your name. For all I know, you could be orac wandering around in male drag!)

26. 
    MinorityView
    May 19th, 2008
    04:42:02

    HCN,
    I’m delighted that you think my web-site is not a good resource. And that you think Randi took care of debunking it. Of course the thousands of people who look at insidevaccines every week don’t realize that we’ve been debunked by Randi, do see that we directly reference the research you mention above (if you’d taken a look you would have seen that everything in the article I linked has citations or links) and seem to see us as a helpful resource. Only one dude has made a serious attempt to poke holes in our science and he seems to have given up the fight. This also adds to our credibility.

    I’ve looked at a lot of vaccine safety research. They really do compare one vaccine to another vaccine. They really do follow infants for very short periods of time. They do not evaluate the combination of the vaccines in the schedule as they are actually delivered, just a sub-set (it may be a bit safer to have your infant in a study at this point, they won’t get as many vaccines at one time). They do not test vaccines on the general population, but on a carefully selected sub-group. And then they give the vaccines to just about everybody. Please, show me where I’m wrong about this stuff…it is so depressing that this parody of science is put up on a pedestal…and worshipped.

27. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 19th, 2008
    04:48:39

    HCN, how astonishing!

    Are you saying that a website which links to an FDA document, and quotes from the vaccine manufacturers inserts is a poor resource?

    And are you saying that the final word on that website is to be found at Randi’s?

    By people who it seems don’t have the guts or knowledge to go to that website and deconstruct any arguments and who them up for fools on their own ground?

    Wow.

    Every parent should start with the vaccine manufacturers inserts, and the FDA website. It’s amazing just what you will find from the horses mouth. Even the pink book in CDC is a very good place for parents to read, and looking sideways I see this site also quotes from the CDC pink book.

    Of course, if you don’t believe FDA/CDC or the manufacturers IPC’s, the other way you could tackle how scientifically accurately vaccines are studied prior to use in all children, is to do what I do.

    Go to clinicaltrials.gov and look at the inclusion/exclusion to see just how trial protocols are formulated, then follow up in the medical journals.

    Here’s one for you:

    http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.....38;rank=17

    So if this study finds that, in this small subset (selectively cherry picked from all possible preterm children) who receive this vaccine, it is deemed “safe”, ... and if every following study using the same cherry-pickable exclusion criteria finds them a;sp “safe”, what would a hypothetical doctor say to a hypothetical mother of a preterm baby, who who would have been excluded from the three trials. Just say this hypothetical mother asks:

    “But Doctor, was this vaccine tested in babies who had the same problems as mine did?”

    Will this hypothetical doctor say, “Because your baby was so much sicker, it’s more important for you to have this vaccine, because your baby might get a lot sicker from meningitis than healthy preterm babies.”?

    That doctor might never even know that the vaccine was never studied in any children who had any problems whatsoever.

    Every vaccine given to babies is first tested in three phase trials ***all of which have exactly these sort of extensive exclusions***.

    Yet all the parents of babies with conditions which excluded them from any trials, will then be told the vaccine is safe for their children.

    And that’s called science?

    Having read bits of the blog put up above, I can’t see much wrong with it.

    That post points out stuff that doctors should already know anyway, because they handle the international physicians vaccine circulars every day.

    Except chances are, they won’t have bothered to read them.

    Or the FDA documents for that matter.

28. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    04:57:17

    Kev,

    I concur completely that abstracts should contain conflict of interest statements. However, the reality is that they don’t. I have yet to find one, and I know many studies that do contain statements of COI while the abstracts are silent on the issue, so this author is doing nothing out of the ordinary on that count.

    Something we can both campaign for.

    This information makes perfect sense though. It is almost akin to a private investigation to gather evidence for a case you’re fighting. The study design appears to be directly applicable to gather insight on the effect of the vaccination schedule from the late 1990’s. I look forward to the statements of COI if it actually gets published.

29. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    05:03:22

    Joseph,

    I’m curious why you feel that controls of 3 make it impossible to blind since they still get injected with saline.

    I think the key members of the team that require blinding are those evaluating the behaviour of the monkeys over the study period.

    And really, we can’t draw very many conclusions on things like this until we read the details.

30. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    05:05:38

    Ms. Clark

    Animal studies are done all the time when testing drugs and pharmaceuticals. I think that they should test every major vaccine schedule change on monkeys first, instead of initiating a mass experiment on the infant population.

31. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 19th, 2008
    05:33:19

    Swartz, your post above, to “Ms Clark” I can totally agree with.

    Ms Clark… sorry. Let’s start again. Autism Diva, ...In the process of vaccine testing, researchers do similar things, if not worse.

    Why do you suddenly think that doing this in 16 extra monkeys, is worth your sudden outrage?

    Do you protest about this everywhere to protect your butt? perhaps so, for were this study proven true by a subsequent one, you mightn’t have a limb to sit on while relentlessly berating parents who consider their children’s regressive autism was triggered by vaccines.

    Ever stood there and watched what happens to mice tested with the pertussis vaccine? Pretty, isn’t it.

    You say:

    *** Cutting into their brains while they are still alive, taking out pieces and sewing them up again is abuse. Knocking them out and putting them in MRI machines is abuse. Putting scopes up their rectums and taking chunks out of their intestines is abuse.***

    Really? I’m sure they were anaesthestized, and this happens every day to humans in hospitals around the world. Is that abuse as well?

    A friend of mine, reading this column, is about to have a chunk hewn out of her instestines in a week. Do they know what’s wrong with her? No. But they are going in, doing exploratory surgery to find out. she has been warned she might have to have a “bag” for a while, no matter what they do or don’t find… Is that all “abuse”, too?

    ***They killed some or all of the monkeys at the end of experiement.***

    Sigh. As you know, Autism Diva, killing some or all of the animals happens every single vaccine toxicity test. That is normal practice. Do you approve of normal practice?

    If you are to be consistent, then you would have to admit that you think no vaccines should be tested on monkeys or any other animals. Are you going to be consistent on this?

    After all, as Schwartz says, we do really need to know what happens in appropriately vaccinated monkeys before we inflict these “appropriate” vaccines on babies, don’t we?

    The problem is, that in the case of the combination of many vaccines, vaccine researchers never did what Schwartz says they should have done. They never tested each combination schedule all in one go in the monkeys.

    They should have.

    What Hewitson did, was what NIH (or whoever)should have done in the first place.

    They just tested them individually, and assumed that the combination would be okay.

    If you are still aggrieved about 16 monkey, Diva, look at it this way. If they had done them all together as a schedule, instead of separately, then not only would fewer monkeys have died, but Hewitson might not have needed to do a trial, which should have already been done in the first place.

    ***There may be research where such treatment of macaques would be justified, but this is not justified.***

    What is the headcount of dead, and dismembered animals (many species of monkey, chimpanzees, dogs, chickens, rabbits, hamsters, mice etc…from 60 years of toxicity trials of vaccines subsequently used on millions of people?

    You say: ***These people are in the habit of abusing children with similar purposeless examinations, so no doubt they were calloused to what they were doing to the monkeys.***

    Have you watched what a child treated for cancer goes through? To do that to a monkey would also be “callous”.

    ***Nice to see where you stand on such.***

    You don’t know where I stand on the issue Diva.

    If I want a perspective on animal vivisection,not only are there plenty of books to read on the issue, there are some labs about an hour from where I live.

    Strangely enough, many of the doctors who do animal testing on monkeys really love the monkeys and don’t much like having to do it.

32. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    05:57:26

    Hillary baby, sweetie,

    The reason it is abuse of these monkeys is that there never was a reason to do this study as there never was a reason for Dr. Hewiston to blame vaccines for her own child’s autism.

    She and hubby seem to be victims of the antivax hysteria started by Wakers. Uhuh. Hence her husband’s close ties to him and to other antivax extremists.

    I don’t have a problem with reasonable use of animals in science. I have a problem with abusing them to fight a scientist’s personal demons and fears that a scientist’s own genes or own behavior or some non-actionable environmental agent might be to blame for their child’s autism. Vaccines are a handy whipping post. And they can be a cash cow. It doesn’t make it right to abuse monkeys simply because one can.

33. 
    HCN
    May 19th, 2008
    06:01:40

    Minority View, it was not me who critiqued your blog… it was the more learned folks on JREF, none of whom were named “Randi” (click on the link, that is the stuff that is in blue font).

    Plus, why are the JABS folks so afraid of the Bad Science forum? Plus they seem to be afraid of the Bad Science folks because they keep banning them from the JABS forums. Do they have something against balanced debates?

    Also, Ms. Butler, I did not refer to the FDA, I referred to the international research (that is what the “many countries” bit means). The journals indexed at PubMed are from all over the world. The FDA only operates in the United States of America. Through that resource you will find papers and research from Japan, China, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, France, Italy, Denmark and other countries. Do try to keep up. (though Schwartzy has it in his pointy little head that he knows more than WHO and all the other public health agencies in the world, I can assume you are also under the same delusion.)

    Also, if you wish to figure out the “Orac” bit, click on the link in the third (3rd) paragraph of the blog posting. It is the blue colored font that says “by Orac” (the blue font means that it is a URL link, if you point your mouse over it, the little arrow will turn into a little hand… when you click your mouse button then, you will get to read the listed website. Do you understand?). For an earlier rendition of Respectful Insolence I would suggest you try:
    http://oracknows.blogspot.com/search?q=vaccine

34. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    06:02:25

    Ms. Clark,

    I wasn’t aware of any studies done to determine the possible side effects of the vaccine schedule from the 1990’s on infants?

    Could you point them out? I’m only aware of some very narrow and flawed epidemiology studies looking at Thimerosal in a country that had a completely different vaccine schedule.

35. 
    HCN
    May 19th, 2008
    06:04:33

    Hilary… I could not post this link, but I will now. This is a cool source of INTERNATIONAL research:
    http://www.pubmed.gov

    (by the way, “international” means that it is from lots of different countries on this planet… which is not flat by the way)

36. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    06:04:52

    Swartz,

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t referred to any schedule of anything.

37. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    06:05:15

    Ms. Clark,

    The recent removal of the MMRV vaccine from the recommended list following discoveries of increased reactions makes me think they should test the combined application of MMR and Varicella more carefully.

    I certainly think a monkey experiment is in order assuming that monkeys react to Meales and varicella in similar ways to humans. Otherwise, you’re right that it would be a waste.

38. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    06:07:10

    Ms. Clark,

    “The reason it is abuse of these monkeys is that there never was a reason to do this study as there never was a reason for Dr. Hewiston to blame vaccines for her own child’s autism.”

    You are inferring that the total vaccine schedule/load has been tested for a correlation to Autism. I wasn’t aware of such a test. Otherwise, you’re not speaking from evidence, but opinion.

39. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    06:09:01

    Swartz,

    Whatever. If the vaccinologists think it’s reasonable then let them test it out on monkeys.

    What do you want some kind of hissy fit that they shouldn’t do that?

    As I said, I didn’t mention any schedule and any schedule of vaccines has ZERO to do with autism. Period.

40. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    06:11:01

    HCN,

    “Do try to keep up. (though Schwartzy has it in his pointy little head that he knows more than WHO and all the other public health agencies in the world, I can assume you are also under the same delusion.)”

    LOL, classic HCN, ad-hom attack while referencing the general nebulus of studies “out there” in the international forum. Avoiding all specifics as usual while proclaiming from a place of superiority.

41. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    06:17:31

    Ms. Clark,

    No, instead you challenged Ms. Hewitson’s assertion that her child was damaged by vaccines. She obviously feels strongly enough to run her own experiment. You assert it’s a waste of time, since you somehow know it was her own genetics at the root of the matter. That sure sounds like a rejection of her hypothesis, and I assumed you would have evidence to back it up.

    If you wouldn’t have whined about the monkeys, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I’ll drop it now.

42. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    06:25:55

    Swartz,

    Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say I knew it was her or hubby’s genes that made the boy autistic. There’s about a 40% chance that they did, however. :-)

    I didn’t whine about the monkeys. They were real little beings that sensed real pain and they were abused for no reason. Period. There is NO connection between any vaccines and autism. What is so hard to get about that?

    There was NO autism epidemic. Hollenbeck surely must know that from his own website that conveniently leaves out the data for MR and SLD for each state which would cancel out the hysteria inducing artifactual autism stats he shows.
    http://epiwonk.com/?p=38

    Are you going to say that Hewiston’s little experiment proves that 77% of kids who got the 1990s vaccines are now autistic?????

    Gimme a break. Who is whining? You are whining what looks like hours a day on autism related websites about vaccines and you have no connection to autism. Is whining a hobby of yours or sumpin?

43. 
    HCN
    May 19th, 2008
    07:00:33

    Schwarzy, I have not even started to “ad hom” you.

    Here is the scoop (reduced to a form you might understand):

    1) The monkey paper is just a poster. By definition, posters are all accepted if they meet a minimum criteria. It is a bare minimum (they just check to see that the testing has been done—- not if it is good or bad, or even ethical).

    2) Posters are not sent out to other folks to evaluate for accuracy, method and general good science stuff. That is a process known as peer review. And, no, the poster has NOT been peer reviewed.

    3) The authors of the poster have been found to have connections with a company that does questionable treatment of autistic children AND (brace yourself) are active litigants against the US government (that is the country that is to the south of you, in case you forgot… NOT the one you are living in!). This is known as a “Conflict of Interest”.

    Now what of this is about the monkeys?

    For a review of the science (since some of you cannot figure out what the blue font in a website means) click on the blue words below the colon (that is the thing that looks like two dots over each other):
    http://scienceblogs.com/insole.....search.php

    And now for Miss Hilary Butler: Girl! What kind of super duper loon do you have to be perhaps the only anti-vax type to be banned from the sMothering forum? What in the the “I am better mom than you” world did you do to get banned? I got banned by just asking annoying science questions… but you… who was so revered for your inanely named self-published “Just a Little Prick” tome… got BANNED! That must have taken some serious loony toons to manage that. How did you manage that cute trick?

44. 
    Kev
    May 19th, 2008
    07:02:30

    Oh God, Look at the kooks come out to play :/

    I’ve come to the conclusion that one easy way to identify an anti-vaccinationist is to measure the length and weirdness of their replies. On that score Hilary, consider yourself a winner. MinorityView is very much what their username suggests.

    Anyway, enough poking fun…

    This, Hilary, is how you referred to your hypothetical Offit study:

    If Paul Offit, or Peter Fleming come up with research saying that vaccines don’t cause autism….they are considered reliable and independant.

    Now, if you want to talk about replication, here’s the difference between Offit science and Wakefield science. Offit science is peer reviewed and published in high quality journals. It is capable of being replicated. These facts alone, speak to its independence from the man himself.

    Wakefield science on the other hand is only ever ‘replicated’ by his mates. Mates who use the exact same poor quality science. I suppose this makes it replication of a sort, but it certainly doesn’t speak to his independence to have his employee’s and his employee’s wives perform science to try and support him.

    if the vaccinated monkeys did have autistic traits, and the unvaccinated monkeys did not…

    If the science was of high quality then yes, I would.

    However, lets look at what this team are reporting as outcomes and ask you Hilary to tell us how they tie in to autism. Here’s what’s reported as affected in the sacrificed animals:

    survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets

    And here’s the DSM (IV) entry for autism. Please share with us how these two correlate.

    1) If the medical profession had been REALLY concerned about autism, they would have proactively, plunged far more money into the issue long before Wakefield woke up.

    You jackass Hilary. Some of the people you implicate in this statement (researchers like Paul Shattuck, savaged and lied about by parent group the NAA) are – like me – parents of autistic kids themselves. Indeed, some of the most dedicated medial and scientific researchers on the planet are parents. Drop your silly little conspiracy theory talk and act your age.

    2)I presume you are talking about the recent unconfirmed case of diphtheria?

    No, I said ‘over here’. I’m talking about the boy who died of measles in 2006.

    3) Wave after wave of vaccine preventable disease epidemics hospitalizing American children? Where is that Kev? Are these children vaccinated? are all these sick children being hospitalized?

    Read for yourself. It comes as no surprise that you are ignorant of the issue.

    Whatever choice the parents make, shouldn’t be subject to a whinge from someone like you, either.

    Right back at you toots.

    And hey – if these parents elect not to vaccinate, then they have to bear the cost of not only the possibility of their own child falling ill but the societal cost (as being demonstrated throughout the US right now) of their environment being contaminated as a result of their inaction.

    Kev, you say Andrew Wakefield hasn’t put any child on the road to recover, and that there is no published research to prove that.

    Read more carefully Hilary. I said I didn’t believe Andrew Wakefield had put any child on the road to recovery. I then said that he had certainly not documented that. You would think that if he had he’d be falling all over himself to publish a vindicating case study.

    As for the rest of your me-me rant, sorry, I fell asleep half way through.

    Talking about conspiracies though…, without even using that word, isn’t that what kev is insinuating in his first post? That Hewitson, her husband and Wakefield are all tied up in a totally unholy huddle?

    Uh, no. I spell it out quite clearly. I say I think there is a clear conflict of interest (Schwartz side note: INSAR make their position on COI quite clear), I stopped believing in grand conspiracies when I was about five. How about you?

45. 
    HCN
    May 19th, 2008
    07:14:14

    Good morning, Kev!

    I’m going to bed. I’ll work on my homework tomorrow (I was differentiating an equation used in light diffraction that needed the chain rule, the quotient rule and the product rule, lots of fun!).

    Hey, guys… since I get called a “pharma shill” so much, how do I actually get paid for that? I had to become a stay at home mom because my first born had lots of medical issues (see http://www.pkids.org for other parents like that, you know, the kids that actually NEED herd immunity!), and now I am back in college. Books are expensive! How does one actually get paid the cash one is accused of getting?

46. 
    Kev
    May 19th, 2008
    07:30:19

    I’d love to know that too HCN!

    I’m so tempted sometimes to get a tshirt printed up with ‘I shill for Big Pharma and all I got was this lousy tshirt’.

    Sadly, those who need to get the joke most of all wouldn’t.

47. 
    Kev
    May 19th, 2008
    07:44:38

    Your piece so far is little more than fluff.

    Uh-huh. I disagree. I think its important to know how these studies seem (on the face of it) to be flaunting INSAR regulations. I also think its important to detail exactly what the conflict of interest is if one is claiming there is one.

    Conflicts of interest can be found on both sides of this debate. Unless you want to disallow all info from anyone, regardless of their arguments, whose COIs are un- or under- stated, your whip is falling on a dead horse.

    LOL…I tell you what Brian, I’ve been making that argument solidly for the last five years. I keep getting told that the sainted researchers who believe vaccines cause autism are not conflicted. I thought ‘sod it, I’ll start playing by their rules’.

    If you want to make a case that the science employed by these studies is flawed, why not tell us what was wrong with the methodology or conclusions instead of making unsupported insinuations about impartiality?

    I’d love to Brian but unfortunately, I’d need to read the actual study itself. Not just the abstract. I don’t have the level of skill or knowledge Orac has so I need more info. Lets just hope they do better than last time and actually find a reputable publisher eh?

    Did it really take you more than 10 minutes to write this?

    About 12? Is that OK?

48. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 19th, 2008
    09:33:43

    HCN. …BTDT.

    I’ve been using pubmed for about 27 years now. Remember, … in the days when you had to go to the medical library, and each year was a two volume tome which could break all ten toes in one drop?

    Remember, later, when a pubmed search required a down payment, and you would receive your paper print-out two weeks later in the mail?

    I know how to suck eggs.

    I also know that Pubmed is NOT where you are going to find detailed protocols of phase trials for vaccines.

    If my book is inanely named, I have the medical profession to thank for it. In a documentary on TV about a meningitis vaccine, the nurse said to a girl “just a little prick” and the kiddo absolutely exploded out of her blocks and threw emotional toys. Fortunately I have it on DVD to remind me, every now and again. I play it to people, when they ask me why the title. I ask them, “What do doctors and nurses say, every time they go to give you an injection of any sort, or even have a blood test? “Just a Little Prick.”

    So you think the title is inane. I couldn’t care less. But I suppose you’d think it cute or funny when a Professor uses the title. Or perhaps he’s inane as well.

    http://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/news/.....ber-02.pdf

49. 
    Hilary Butler
    May 19th, 2008
    10:05:22

    Kev.
    Ah, so brevity = provaccine, and length and weirdness equals antivaccine. So scientific of you.

    1) Are you honestly going to tell me that Offit’s “study” in Pediatrics in which he intones that 11,000 vaccines at one go is kosher, is peer reviewed, and worthy of spouting as fact?

    2)Are you also suggesting that the DSM criteria can be adequately applied to both monkeys and humans?

    How would you define, for instance a monkey version of glossalalia or hand flapping?

    What would you chose to assess whether a monkey had developed autistic traits or not? Or a mouse perhaps? Do you have a patent for a diagnostic autistic mouse maze?

    As usual, so you too revert to epithet. I’m a jackass now am I?

    If people like Paul Shattuck and the others honestly believed that there was nothing in the vaccine/autism connection, then why didn’t they just get on with finding out what autism was all about?

    Oh, but wait a minute. I forgot. Autism Diva , the expert, tells us that there was no autism epidemic at all!

    Today’s numbers are totally normal for the past as well.

    I don’t know what we’ve all been worrying about then.

    She says that this is all normal.

    That your kid and Pauls kids and all the other autistic kids in the UK are alive in the same proportion to normal kids as in the past?

    Well, that’s okay. According to Table 1 of the Economically inactive who look after the family or home, here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/a.....ov2002.pdf
    ...In 2001 in UK, there were 326,000 dependant adults or relative in full-time care for any reason whether that be for multiple sclerosis, autoimmune, paralysis, aged reasons, autism or not, etc etc….

    So if Diva’s right, Kev, that means there can’t be too many children around today, with autism spectrum disorders who will require full time care in future.

    So how is that the UK’s National autistic society claims UK is going to need at carers for at least 500,000 autistic adults in the not too distant future?

    If there has been not change in the autism proportional rate in the UK Kev, where are all the autistic adults being kept now?

    Obviously then, if Diva is right, and the Uk autistic society is wrong, there is no need any expanded studies for additional services for adults with autism and aspergers. http://www.news-medical.net/pr.....p?id=38184

    It makes perfect sense to me that if the medical profession really wanted to, and had the drive to find out why the autism rate has (NOT) risen then they would have already done so.

    But since MsClark/Diva knows best, and there is no autism increase, then I must admit, there is no need to dedicate any further research, or discussion to it, is there?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Ah, you were talking about the 14 year old, itinerant with chronic lung disease and an immunodeficiency who died of measles. Right. And on that basis you think anyone can die of measles. Very scientific of you. I’ve met that red herring before.

    And how many of Mike Fitz’s patients who got measles recently, had complications and died, Kev?

    How many of the other cases over the years, had complications and died?

    Are there huge numbers of complications and deaths in Switzerland? Germany?

    Do we hear of mountains of bodies and hundreds of children maimed for life in the UK papers Kev?

    You mean amongst all the unvaccinated kids in UK you can only find one death?

    I know all about the measles outbreak in USA Kev. I tracked it from day one of the media baying. As of the URL you put up, of the known 64 cases “at least” 14 were hopsitalized.

    You said above, to me ***Wave after wave of vaccine preventable epidemics hospitalising American children.***

    Wave after wave? more like trickle after dribble.

    Oh Kev, look.. here is a little lie in that article you posted: ***But the development of a highly effective vaccine in 1963 caused cases to plummet***

    The 1963 killed vaccine was quickly discontinued because not only was it totally ineffective, but it also caused the recipient to get a far more serious atypical measles when they came in contact with the measles virus.

    Funny how the Washington times can’t get basics right either.

    So what else have they got wrong Kev? what else have you got wrong?

    The real measles vaccine campaign only got started in 1967 with a pre-dribble in 66 http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....-1,00.html

    And how funny is that end comment from the CDC expert Dr Dull. “when two-thirds or more of children in any community are immune, through having had either the disease or the vaccine, the measles virus simply dies out.” CDC experts would laugh outright if you parroted that rubbish back to them today.

    And look at CDC’s 1966 prediction. To eradicate measles in one year. Wow.

    “We’ll have no measles after 1967”. Sounds remarkably like “There is no increase in autism”.

    Today, we can look back and see that the CDC’s predictions of measles eradication in 1967, were rubbish.

    I wonder what we will see, when we look back to today’s discussion about autism, in 2038 Kev?

    What will future history say about the comments here in 2008?

    In terms of believing in medical conspiracies Kev, I only believe in conspiracies (by innuendo) when I take a rare detours to read blogs like yours.

    I’ve not posted on your blog before, but I’m glad I took this one opportunity Kev. I appreciate your hospitality, but I’ll not waste your breath again. You will be pleased to know that you fulfilled everyone’s predictions and expectations.

50. 
    Albert
    May 19th, 2008
    10:49:59

    I am sure if one contacts the organizers of the IMFAR and asks them if Hewitson reported her conflicts of interest that they will say that she did report them all. After all, this is her professional life, her career. I cannot imagine Hewitson would risk her professional reputation by not listing her conflicts of interest.

51. 
    Joseph
    May 19th, 2008
    15:49:37

    I’m curious why you feel that controls of 3 make it impossible to blind since they still get injected with saline.

    Swartz, I didn’t say it made it impossible to blind. We have yet to see what type of blinding, if any, was used in this study. What I said is that it clearly indicates there was no randomization.

    Randomization is key a lot of times. Take, for example, an ABA study, Lovaas (1987). It found 47% of children in the experimental group became mainstreamed. Then came a randomized replication attempt, Smith et al. (2000). It found only 13% became mainstreamed.

52. 
    Joseph
    May 19th, 2008
    15:55:44

    That your kid and Pauls kids and all the other autistic kids in the UK are alive in the same proportion to normal kids as in the past?

    Hilary, I’m not sure why find this hard to believe. See my summary of indications. Rebuttals are welcome.

53. 
    bones
    May 19th, 2008
    16:21:20

    OMFG, Hillary and Schwartz, it’s just the same incessant drivel over and over and over and over…

    For God’s sake get some new material will ya. Like…ohhh…I dunno…clinical evidence validly demonstrating a link between thimerosal and autism. Start there and then we’ll talk.

    Until then you’re hypocritical rants only serve to deflect attention from the lack of evidnece demonstrating such a link.

54. 
    Catherina
    May 19th, 2008
    16:28:17

    Hilary,

    I am sure that was a rhetorical question, but just to please you: yes, actually, there have been 6 encephalites amongst the 2000 reported measles cases in Switzerland in the past 18 months and the reason that no one died is probably their brilliant health system (so much better than what the US had as death rate in their last outbreak) and yes, Germany gets its measles deaths, two deaths and one permanent disability to show for the 1700 registered cases in NRW in 2006, and on top of that, Germany netted about 8 cases of SSPE per year from 1988 to 2006, as a legacy from when even more measles cases occured in Germany AND of course there is the unfortunate case of the unvaccinated preteen (per parental choice) who walked into a doctor´s office in Bad Salzuflen in 2000, infected 9 (nine) babies in the waiting room with measles, two of whom are now slowly dying of SSPE. So why don´t you crawl back under your stone, Hilary, instead of adding to the measles misery…

55. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    17:34:10

    Hillary, baby,

    There is no evidence for an increase in the number of autistic people. No one can tell if there is a greater rate of autistic people being born than there ever was. The numbers of autistic people being counted today include a majority of kids who would be called “learning disabled” or just quirky in the past. People like this can frequently take care of themselves when they grow up without state interference or help. I’m one of them. I’m not getting any autism-specific help now and I never have.

    I can explain how that works if you like. There are lots of LD/ mildly autistic people who take jobs that are not high pressure. There used to be more of these jobs around, some of them are being done overseas now…

    at any rate, there’s zero evidence for a big increase in autism. Deal. With. It.

    You want to believe in an epidemic. Go ahead. It doesn’t change the fact that there’s zero evidence for it. Zero.

    If there’s been no epidemic, then there are a lot of undiagnosed and misdiagnosed adults, if you had been reading the science in autism then you’d know that is what the evidence shows.

    I am thrilled that the UK is willing to spend a lot of money to find autistic adults. They will find them, and they will find that they currently have no diagnosis, or a misdiagnosis or they aren’t getting any help. Many of them are suffering in silence and can use some help, or even be saved by some help, and some they will find are doing OK because they have a family or neighbor support system or they have a job that fits them well and isn’t too stressful.

    Deary, you just need to realize that there never was any evidence for an “epidemic”. There never was any evidence for an epidemic.

    One more time. There never was any evidence for an epidemic.

    If you think you can show some data that shows a real increase in autism. Share it, deary. I’ve seen it all. I know what the numbers say. They say give zero evidence for a large increase in real autism rate. They give zero evidence for an epidemic.

    No epidemic. No reason to implicate vaccines.

    Sorry. I know you hate vaccines, but they do not cause autism. They save lives.

    Diphtheria is not our friend. Measles is not our friend. Rubella is not our friend. Pertussis is not our friend….

    Vaccines are our friends. They save lives. Antivaxers and their toxic rhetoric are deadly to lives and health. You need to be ashamed of yourselves.

    Oh, and the way that the UK and US used to treat disabled children and adults led to the deaths of many of them in institutions. So some of the “missing” adults are “missing” because they are dead.

56. 
    Kev
    May 19th, 2008
    17:44:26

    Ah, so brevity = provaccine, and length and weirdness equals antivaccine. So scientific of you.

    Nothing scientific about it toots. Just my experience – like I said.

    1) Are you honestly going to tell me that Offit’s “study” in Pediatrics in which he intones that 11,000 vaccines at one go is kosher, is peer reviewed, and worthy of spouting as fact?

    Do you have any peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts it? No? Didn’t think so. Your basic objection is that you don’t like vaccines. Boo-hoo, get over it.

    2)Are you also suggesting that the DSM criteria can be adequately applied to both monkeys and humans?

    LOL…shouldn’t this be a question for Laura Hewitson toots? Unless of course, you’re referring to that ‘special’ autism that only anti-vaxxers know about which isn’t documented in any medical text book?

    What would you chose to assess whether a monkey had developed autistic traits or not? Or a mouse perhaps? Do you have a patent for a diagnostic autistic mouse maze?

    No – guess what – neither did Mady Hornig.

    As usual, so you too revert to epithet. I’m a jackass now am I?

    No Hilary, not now but I suspect always .

    If people like Paul Shattuck and the others honestly believed that there was nothing in the vaccine/autism connection, then why didn’t they just get on with finding out what autism was all about?

    I suggest you direct that question to them.

    Oh, but wait a minute. I forgot. Autism Diva , the expert, tells us that there was no autism epidemic at all!

    Well, she’s in excellent company. Most decent epidemiologists seem top agree – including Autism Omnibus witness for the families Sander Greelnand.

    If there has been not change in the autism proportional rate in the UK Kev, where are all the autistic adults being kept now?

    My God, you are new to this whole thing aren’t you toots? NAS only last week announced the first ever study into finding autistic adults in the UK. No one’s found them before now as no one has looked.

    However, when asked about adult prevalence, 45% local health authorities in Scotland (for example) stated things like:

    There is low diagnosis for longstanding clients, whom workers are aware have autism as well as a learning disability…...day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis.

    And how about these figures – also from Scotland:

    The population of Scotland is 5,062,011. The latest prevalence estimates for the UK are 1 in 100. This means that 50,620 people are autistic. If 35,000 adults in Scotland are autistic (NAS data) then 69% of autistic people in Scotland are adults.

    It makes perfect sense to me that if the medical profession really wanted to, and had the drive to find out why the autism rate has (NOT) risen then they would have already done so.

    Yeah, its that simple. Dang, why didn’t we just ask you first thing eh?

    But since MsClark/Diva knows best, and there is no autism increase, then I must admit, there is no need to dedicate any further research, or discussion to it, is there?

    Not being a parent to an autistic person, and further being a jackass, I’ll forgive the idiocy of that statement, but I will correct it. Research goes beyond ‘cure’ toots. It touches on education, therapy, housing, social care. Hopefully, when we’ve finally got past the vaccine idiocy and its apologists we can get back to researching those things as they actually do help autistic people.

    Ah, you were talking about the 14 year old, itinerant with chronic lung disease and an immunodeficiency who died of measles. Right. And on that basis you think anyone can die of measles. Very scientific of you. I’ve met that red herring before.

    WTF are you talking about? Lets break it down into pieces your brain can manage:

    1) High vaccine rate =
    2) Herd immunity =
    3) Very, very low to no measles =
    4) No one can catch measles =
    5) No one can die of it.

    And how many of Mike Fitz’s patients who got measles recently, had complications and died, Kev?

    Uh, again, that’s a question for someone else.

    Do we hear of mountains of bodies and hundreds of children maimed for life in the UK papers Kev? You mean amongst all the unvaccinated kids in UK you can only find one death?

    You’re genuinely scary.

    I happen to think that one is one too many. You obviously only notice when we get to ‘mountains of bodies’. If you want ‘mountains of bodies’ then look elsewhere.

    I know all about the measles outbreak in USA Kev. I tracked it from day one of the media baying. As of the URL you put up, of the known 64 cases “at least” 14 were hopsitalized.

    Course you do Hilary, that’s why you knew what I was referring to straight away toots.

    Wave after wave? more like trickle after dribble.

    You do know its still going on right? If you want to take the moral position of belittling hospitalisation of children then you be my guest.

    [snipped meaningless mumbo-jumbo]

    In terms of believing in medical conspiracies Kev, I only believe in conspiracies (by innuendo) when I take a rare detours to read blogs like yours.

    Of course you do Hilary. You keep telling yourself that toots ;o) .

    I’ve not posted on your blog before, but I’m glad I took this one opportunity Kev. I appreciate your hospitality, but I’ll not waste your breath again. You will be pleased to know that you fulfilled everyone’s predictions and expectations.

    ‘Everyone’s’? You mean ‘you’ – one person? LOL…interesting little messiah complex you got developing there toots ;) Tell you what, you bend over and I’ll kiss your ring – how’s that?

57. 
    Ringside seat
    May 19th, 2008
    18:19:09

    I love these people. The thing is, if they weren’t so greedy, they’d stand a better chance of getting away with it. I mean, if there was a shred of credibility in these posters, then there would be a gross, manifest epidemic of vaccine-induced autism and inflammatory bowel disease that you could spot by opening your window.

    It was the same with Wakefield’s original stuff, with 8 of 12 children supposedly vaccine-injured. And then the same with O’Leary’s garbage. I forget the figures, but it was like more than 80% of kids, recruited through lawyers and media stories, with measles in their guts.

    Aren’t these the same people who, in another breath, say that epidemiology fails to detect the cases because they are such a small subset?

    Preposterous. Talk about monkey business.

58. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    18:54:23

    Ms. Clark,

    Oh, I forgot, lack of studies means there must be no correlation. Riiight.

    If you haven’t tested for safety, you don’t know how safe it is. And since you brought up the 40% which is actually less than 15% backed by credible evidence, I don’t see how you can make assumptions of genetic causes since such a small percentage of cases can be proven to fall into that category.

    That leaves your assumption to faith then, certainly not evidence.

    I’m also curious where you got the impression I said Hewitsons experiment says anything? In fact I said quite the opposite—we can’t really draw any conclusions until the details are published.

    Who’s the one putting words in others’ mouth?

59. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    19:04:01

    HCN,

    Great work paraphrasing what was already said. You seem to have a need to lecture to everyone about obvious topics?

    Those first three points of your unnecessary post were already agreed upon so unless you’re giving your approval, you missed something along the discussion.

    OH, I almost missed your whine about the monkeys. And you linked Orac again. I guess his writing style is about as logical and professional as yours. Not worth discussing with you.

    That leaves the discussion of Ad-hom which is completely illogical. Not much to your post then.

    Good luck with the diffy q’s.

60. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    19:06:34

    Kev, HCN,

    OK, I laughed at the Pharma shill and funding part. I don’t think either of you are pharma shills.

61. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    19:13:09

    bones,

    Your predictable contribution was exactly on schedule.

    I find it amazing you fail to see the hypocracy of your post. Accusing me of repetitive drivel (especially when the evidence hasn’t changed) is interesting given that I’m actually discussing the topic at hand in detail.

    Given your post, which probably contains the exact same words as the last time you posted to me—despite that being a completely different topic pretty much illustrates who is guilty of illogical drivel.

    Raise the same argument, you will get the same logical response, unless the evidence has changed.

62. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    19:15:29

    Joseph,

    On the randomization topic: I see what you mean especially wrt to the subjective aspects of this study. However, do you think the same problem would apply to the biological aspects? I’m assuming they will autopsy the monkeys and take measurements from organs etc…

63. 
    Schwartz
    May 19th, 2008
    19:19:44

    Ringsideseat,

    Monkey business aside, the Wakefield study group targeted a very specific subset of children suffering from Austism—those that also suffered from severe GI issues, so of course one would expect to find a high percentage of problems.

    You seem to imply that it was a random sampling of the population and that the results can be applied. That is not at all the case.

    As for the monkeys, that should be a random sample, but I’m skeptical that they can actually scale the doses appropriately, so if there was a huge percentage of damage, I would concur that some methodological flaw was likely.

    However, until we get the details, it will be impossible to tell.

64. 
    HCN
    May 19th, 2008
    19:27:49

    Schwartzy said “Good luck with the diffy q’s.”

    There is a difference between differentiating and differential equations (diffy q). I guess we will add college level mathematics to the list of things you know very little about.

65. 
    Joseph
    May 19th, 2008
    20:00:31

    However, do you think the same problem would apply to the biological aspects? I’m assuming they will autopsy the monkeys and take measurements from organs etc…

    Of course, why wouldn’t it?

66. 
    bones
    May 19th, 2008
    21:01:41

    Schwartz, you haven’t stated a case to be debated- you never do. You merely attact, in your usual passive-aggressive manner, any post that decries the vaccine-autism hypothesis without presenting any evidence of your own that substantiates such a link or a novel opinion of your own (in fact, I think your completely incapable of doing so).

    All scientific studies have their limitations, and pointing them out does not invalidate the conclusions. That’s why multiple studies are necessary in an attempt to disprove the null hypothesis. However, and here’s the thing you continuously fail to grasp, there is a qualitative difference between a study that has limted findings and one that is so methodologically flawed (see Geier, Wakefield, Holmes, Bradstreet, etc…) that it renders any conclusions utterly useless and inconsequential.

    My posts directed at you are the same – albeit alot more infrequent becuase I tire of repeating myself – becuase you deserve nothing else.

67. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 19th, 2008
    21:45:59

    Swartzy,

    Autism is the most hightly heritable mental/developmental condition known to science. You want to rewrite autism science when you know next to nothing about autism?

    If you add up the known causes of autism as shown by research they can account for about 40% of it with Rett, Frag X, Tuberous Sclerosis, Angelman/Prader Willi, Cornelia de Lange, agenesis of the corpus collosum, various copy number variants, MECP2 mutations, not considered Rett (even in some boys), IDIC 15 and some variations on IDIC 15, and a few others. There’s a girl whose mom blogs on the hub, (the girl looks quite normal to me. She has an extra partial chromosome (see Marla Baltes’ blog). They never would have known that her ASD was genetic if they hadn’t tested her in a way that would show this problem up.

    On top of the known genetic contributions to autism there are things like mother’s antibodies that the UCD group are saying could account for 20% of all regressive autism, if I recall. And fetal alcohol syndrome (we have no evidence one way or the other about Dr. Hewiston, it would be stupid to say that her child was a FAS child and just as it would be stupid to say that it’s impossible that he is one, and yes, you can say the same about my child, but I can tell you that my kid is not), there are various drug exposures that could lead to autism. The PSC is making a BIG deal about terbutaline causing autism. Prenatal flu exposure might be a cause. And lets not forget the rare cases of fetal rubella syndrome, that will become more common, no doubt if the antivaxers have their way.

    If you want to pretend that the number considered to be solid for genes is still 15% you mark yourself as ignorant. And genes aren’t the whole story. We don’t know if little Laura got terbuataline or if she was on valproate for seizures when she got pregnant. We don’t know if her baby was a very low birth weight baby (correlates to autism dx).

    Dr. Randi Hagerman who is a leading expert in Frag X said at the IACC town hall meeting that the figure that was accounted for by genes was 40%. You can call her up and tell her she’s wrong if you like, maybe she can explain it to you in really simple words.

68. 
    HCN
    May 20th, 2008
    00:31:16

    bones said “You merely attact, in your usual passive-aggressive manner, any post that decries the vaccine-autism hypothesis without presenting any evidence of your own that substantiates such a link or a novel opinion of your own (in fact, I think your completely incapable of doing so).”

    His answer to why he could not answer my direct questions was there was “not enough data.” Yet there has been a pertussis vaccine in one form or another for almost 70 years. There have been studies on the effectiveness and safety of the versions that have been available in recent history done in multiple countries, by researchers from universities, medical centers, and various public health agencies… and yet he claims there is “not enough data” (he tries to get away by diverting it to influenza or other vaccines, changing the subject to something else to avoid answering any direct questions).

    He is also not quite clear on this concept:
    Put up or shut up.

69. 
    Schwartz
    May 20th, 2008
    01:38:45

    Joseph,

    You’ll have to help me out here. From what I can gather, the Lovaas study separated the control groups based on a subjective measure of input IQ. Of course since it is a subjective measure and can change with time, you can get changes in the selection criteria.

    In this study, the randomization happens at the beginning and the group separation is deterministic. None of the control or study group can change because their inclusion in the group is determined by the randomized series of injections.

    I don’t understand how randomization can be a problem. Unless you think that Autistic symptoms have such a huge prevalance in the monkey population that they would show up in the 13 monkeys from the study group.

70. 
    Joseph
    May 20th, 2008
    01:54:56

    From what I can gather, the Lovaas study separated the control groups based on a subjective measure of input IQ.

    That was simply an example used to illustrate how a simple thing like lack of randomization can result in what is apparently a hugely biased result.

    Lovaas did not separate groups based on IQ (although that might have been the end result, and Michelle Dawson’s analysis on intake IQ is interesting in that regard). The groups were separated based on availability of therapists. In fact, Lovaas basically argued there was near randomization using this method, and claimed there was matching of variables. Subsequent analyses had to show this wasn’t true.

    I doubt these kinds of biases are only applicable to behavioral measures. Wakefield could, say, pick the strongest looking monkeys for the unexposed group. I’m not saying he would do that intentionally necessarily. Bias can be subtle and unnoticed. (Although I’m sure some people reading this don’t think there’s anything subtle about either Lovaas’ or Wakefield’s bias).

71. 
    Schwartz
    May 20th, 2008
    02:11:12

    bones,

    I didn’t hear your case on the topic being debated. In case you missed it, I made several points here:

    1) I strongly agree with Kev that COI’s should be declared, but pointed out that they almost never show up in abstracts.

    2) I pointed out that presenter instructions don’t invalidate the statement “form of peer-review” because qualifying for a poster presentation probably had qualification rules that were separate—this was supported by subsequent posters. Note I never stated that it did undergo a form of peer review.

    3) I did not agree with Ms. Clark’s opinion about the wasted monkeys, certainly not before seeing the details of the study. I have expressed that further study on the vaccine schedule is justified since no safety studies have been done on them. I haven’t seen you or anyone else bring any evidence to the table to contradict that.

    Where exactly are your specific points of discussion? Where your general complaints about study flaws comes from I don’t know since we’re only talking about this study here and the lack of safety trials on the vaccine schedule (brought to that topic by Ms. Clark)—which as admitted by the authorities, never tested.

    If you read the Cochrane reviews on vaccines (MMR and Flu are great examples), you’ll find they describe many if not most of the mainstream vaccine safety studies as methodologically flawed and inadequate. You don’t have to take my word for it.

72. 
    Schwartz
    May 20th, 2008
    02:15:44

    Joseph,

    “Wakefield could, say, pick the strongest looking monkeys for the unexposed group.”

    Absolutely. However, that would be a risk that has nothing to do with randomization or low numbers, but has everything to do with actually using randomization during study and control group selection, and blinding those involved.

    Selection bias should be eliminated by selecting the groups at random, and observer bias should be eliminated by blinding the observers. Where they may run into difficulties with observer blinding is if they sacrifice the monkeys at different times depending on the group they fall into.

73. 
    Schwartz
    May 20th, 2008
    02:31:20

    Ms. Clark,

    Clearly genetics is involved but I’m not debating that. It’s the 40% number that is as of yet unsubstantiated by any studies I’ve seen. I know where that number comes from and even the authors don’t use it as a firm number, only a hypothesis that requires further testing—because their study was limited and thus the conclusions were as well. So sticking with actual known prevalence of purely genetic causes today, the number is much lower than 40%.

    I also don’t know where you got the impression that I think that genes are the only story because I don’t. Just one of many probable causes as you pointed out.

74. 
    Schwartz
    May 20th, 2008
    02:42:07

    HCN,

    I guess you still don’t really understand the science of risk assessment. It requires credible safety data and quality adverse event reporting first. Without credible safety data or reliable adverse event reporting, no risk assessment is possible.

    What are the estimates of the VAERS real converage? How about the consistency of reporting? How about real followups on actual serious adverse reactions? Since you can’t answer any of these questions, you should realize that the risk assessment is not possible to determine at this time.

    I suppose you prefer people like Dr. Offit who speak general statements about safety without actually having credible data. Each to their own. You continue to hold on to your faith in the system, I’ll stick to hard data from credible analysis.

75. 
    HCN
    May 20th, 2008
    05:39:20

    Schwartzy said ” guess you still don’t really understand the science of risk assessment. ...
    What are the estimates of the VAERS real converage? ”

    The fact you even mention VAERS in the science of risk assessment means that you do not have a clue. VAERS is never used in the large scale safety and efficacy studies.

    Also, I’ve never seen a large scale efficacy and safety report by Offit (a review yes, but not a specific report on a vaccine). I’ve seen plenty of others, written by lots of other people and in other countries:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18474125?

    Stop explaining away the fact that the data does not go the way you want it to. If you have a problem with the pertussis vaccine, bring up the papers that show there is an issue. Don’t claim that in the almost 70 years of there being a vaccine for pertussis that there is no data.

76. 
    HCN
    May 20th, 2008
    05:42:42

    And this historical review:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889991?
    “An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.”

    If you have documentation to counter the experience that Japan had, please present it.

77. 
    bones
    May 20th, 2008
    13:29:52

    Brian, Schwartz, Hillary,

    This term “conflict of interest” is being thrown about willy-nilly, and I think some clarification is in order.

    The Hewitson example above, any study by Geier, Bradstreet, Holmes, Redwood, Sykes…did I mention Geier…oh yeah…are the most blatantly egregious examples of COI, and the very reason why transparency, in the clinical setting, is so very necessary. I am not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by explaining why the aforementioned examples cross…nay, leap over the line of ethical decency. If you don’t get it, then there’s nothing I’m going to be able to say to convince you otherwise.

    COI is NOT a researcher/author who received past funding from industry, or happened to work for at some point in his/her career for industry – any more than a sitting judge is conflicted because he used to be a defense attorney, or because he/she currently is paid by the govt (fed, state or otherwise). To say any of these people are conflicted and, therefore, necessarily render biased conclusions is ridiculously ignorant.

    Comparing Geier’s or Hewitson’s blatant COIs to the perceived COIs of Hviid or Fombonne is trite, at best.

78. 
    Erwin Alber
    May 20th, 2008
    13:52:58

    The vaccine-autism issue seems to be hopelessly confused and divided because vaccines may indeed NOT be the cause of autism, and because the so-called autism epidemic may be a case of misdiagnosis.

    What if vaccines are the leading cause of the epidemic of neurological disorders including developmental regression and sypmtoms RESEMBLING autism, but not linked to TRUE AUTISM, which may be a different type of condition altogether, not at all linked to vaccines?

    The so-called “autism epidemic” may possibly need to be renamed “vaccine-induced epidemic of neurological disorders”. This would clear the way for some real research, and – as far as I am concerend – hopefully the abolition of all vaccination programmes.

79. 
    Joseph
    May 20th, 2008
    15:30:55

    The so-called “autism epidemic” may possibly need to be renamed “vaccine-induced epidemic of neurological disorders”.

    If this were the case, we’d expect to actually see evidence of, say, an increase of an aggregate of all special education categories. No such thing is observed, especially if you look at cohorts where earlier diagnosis is less likely to be a factor.

    What does this tell us? Neurological vaccine injury is apparently undetectable at the population level, so it does not make sense to call it an “epidemic.” Either that, or some types of neurological outcomes are dropping simultaneously with the increase of other other outcomes; which would be a big coincidence.

80. 
    Ms. Clark
    May 20th, 2008
    16:46:30

    Actually, neither of us knows why Dr. Hagerman used the number 40% to say how much of autism is of know-able etiology. She might have been referring to the Schaefer paper, she might have done her own math based on a variety of papers. See you don’t have to just use the schaefer paper to arrive at a number. You can tally the percentages of known causes of autism from a variety of well respected sources… or you can go with any old number that makes you feel better, I guess.

    As time goes on we should expect that the ease with which science can pinpoint a set of causes for a particular kid will get easier.

    We have flea shampoo exposure now as a hypothetical cause of autism. Are you disappointed that the CHARGE study isn’t implicating vaccines? Will you accuse Dr. Hertz-Picciotto of being blind to the dangers of flu vaccine?

    Why don’t you go find a board where they will debate flu and gardasil and whatever and leave autism alone? Seriously. You are not helping MY child to have a better life by constantly trying to link autism with vaccines, vaccines, vaccines.

    There has been no autism epidemic or big increase in autism numbers so no reason to implicate anything. I don’t appreciate your efforts to undermine confidence in vaccines in the States because you won’t be here if one of my friend’s babies dies of pertussis because you convinced neighbors of hers not to vaccinate.

    It’s all fun and games isn’t it, Schwartz? And if someone dies becuase of antivaxers’ idle speculation, antivaxers won’t be around to face any consequences for their promulgating their amateur vaccine expertise.

81. 
    Tom
    May 20th, 2008
    20:29:23

    I have grown so weary of people like Schwartz coopting the discussion of autism to suit their uninformed anti-vax rants. To assert that Paul Offit claims safety w/o supporting data is the height of ignorance. Shwartz, do you even know what safety is?

    Please consider for one moment that you are an armchair quarterback who has never played the game professionally and that you really haven’t the first clue. Read the latest blog post by Prometheus; he’s talking about you.

82. 
    Schwartz
    May 21st, 2008
    01:34:37

    bones,

    I wasn’t aware there was a scale of Conflict of Interest nor was I aware that I was using the term incorrectly. There are certainly different types but the most common ones are financial and professional. However, most places only require financial COI disclosure.

    In this case we clearly have a financial COI. But what does ethics have to do with this? COI needs to be declared so people understand a risk of bias. As long as it is declared to all parties, the ethics of the situation are satisfied. After that, it is up to those evaluating the evidence to consider the level of bias present.

    Financial conflict of interest qualifies for anyone who has the appearance of financial benefit from a particular outcome in the topic they are investigating. Past work for an industry on the side of a trial with the possibility of future work for pay certainly qualifies as a conflict of interest in any definition I’ve ever seen. Staking one’s reputation on a particular position in science is also a strong conflict of interest, especially when one’s credibility can affect future financing.

    If you don’t understand these basics of COI, then there’s not much hope of convincing you otherwise.

    Under this standard definition, people like Fombonne have financial conflicts of interest, as do clear cut people like Dr. Offit. They have every right to publish research just like Hewitson and they should clearly declare and publish their conflicts of interest.

    From an ethical perspective, Hewitson performing scientific experiments for her own court case is not too far from someone hiring a private investigator to gather evidence for a trial. In both cases, the evidence gathered must be carefully examined as the gatherer has a clear financial conflict of interest.

83. 
    Schwartz
    May 21st, 2008
    01:47:45

    HCN,

    “The fact you even mention VAERS in the science of risk assessment means that you do not have a clue. VAERS is never used in the large scale safety and efficacy studies.”

    Thank you for pointing out the obvious and restating my case! VAERS can’t be used because it has such poor data, yet it is the method of tracking vaccine reactions nationwide.

    “Also, I’ve never seen a large scale efficacy and safety report by Offit (a review yes, but not a specific report on a vaccine). I’ve seen plenty of others, written by lots of other people and in other countries:”

    Thank you again for making my point. Dr. Offit often makes generalized (non-specific) safety comments on vaccines. As usual you link studies that don’t make your point. That study abstract you linked only looked at efficacy—this illustrates exactly how you forget the second part of the risk assessment—we’re talking about safety first remember?

    “Stop explaining away the fact that the data does not go the way you want it to. If you have a problem with the pertussis vaccine, bring up the papers that show there is an issue. Don’t claim that in the almost 70 years of there being a vaccine for pertussis that there is no data.”

    So you give me a link about efficacy when we’re talking about safety, and then you go right back to your generalized statement that the data must exist because it’s been used for 70 years—I don’t think I need to point out the flawed logic in that statement! Credible safety data does not exist. Numerous systematic reviews have stated the same about several vaccines. The CDC and Health Canada both admit the schedules and vaccine combinations don’t undergo safety trials. So exactly what data in the 70 years of history are you talking about—especially since the current recommended vaccine hasn’t been around that long?

84. 
    Schwartz
    May 21st, 2008
    01:55:13

    Tom,

    I love the people who use terms like “armchair quarterback” and have nothing concrete or specific to say.

    Dr. Offit has made many generalized, misleading and sometimes incorrect statements to the press (his latest NYT piece was a prime example). None of these are backed by reference, and several have been shown to be quite incorrect. I personally call that marketing, not science, and he is fully entitled to play the politics and marketing. But don’t ask me to take it seriously. And please don’t suggest he doesn’t have a conflict of interest.

85. 
    HCN
    May 21st, 2008
    03:28:02

    http://pediatrics.aappublicati.....111/5/1042

86. 
    HCN
    May 21st, 2008
    04:16:24

    In several attempts, I cannot seem to post anything with a link except once:
    Epidemiol Infect. 2006 Aug;134(4):850-62. Epub 2005 Nov 29.

    Pediatrics. 2006 Sep;118(3):978-84

    Vaccine. 2003 May 16;21(17-18):2015-21.

    Vaccine. 2005 Nov 16;23(46-47):5299-305. Epub 2005 Aug 8

    J Adolesc Health. 2005 Dec;37(6):517.

    J Pediatr. 2006 Nov;149(5):603-610.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 Dec;24(12):1059-66
    “We conducted a randomized, controlled, evaluator-blinded comparison of local reactions”

    Vaccine. 2006 Jul 7;24(27-28):5627-36. Epub 2006 May 2.

    Acta Paediatr. 2003 May;92(5):541-5.

    Hum Vaccin. 2007 Jul-Aug;3(4):121-6. Epub 2007 Feb 28.

    Pediatr Int. 2004 Dec;46(6):650-5.

    Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2002 Oct;12(4):247-57

    BMC Pediatr. 2006 Jun 19;6:20.

    J Pediatr. 2004 Jul;145(1):58-66

    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007 Dec 8;151(49):2732-7.

    BioDrugs. 1999 Sep;12(3):175-91.

    Curr Opin Neurol. 2007 Apr;20(2):181-7

    Epilepsia. 2008 Feb;49(2):219-25. Epub 2007 Dec 18.

    Still waiting for evidence that the DTaP or Tdap or other versions of pertussis vaccines that have been in use for almost 70 years are more dangerous than pertussis.

87. 
    Auntie Vaccine
    May 21st, 2008
    05:09:08

    Kev,

    so far you have 130 replies to your two posts on these posters.

    Orac gathered 92, science based medicine another 15. Another 10 for Mike Stanton.

    Total 247?

    AoA got 95 replies.

    Not that I’m counting or anything…

88. 
    HCN
    May 21st, 2008
    05:36:04

    Auntie Vaccine said: “AoA got 95 replies.”

    Now that is just unfair! AoA severely moderates their comments. I’m sure they would have triple the comments if they allowed free debate on their site.

    (I’ve left lots of comments on AoA, and only a couple got approved)

89. 
    Erwin Alber
    May 21st, 2008
    11:50:37

    In response to HCN’s request “If you have documentation to counter the experience that Japan had (with pertussis), please present it”:

    Germany suspended its “official recommendation” for the pertussis vaccine in 1975, after Prof. Ehrengut had published numerous scientific papers in which he drew attention to the dangers of pertussis vaccination

    As a result, few if any pertussis vaccinations were carried out in the 16 years which followed, until 1991, when the vaccine was again added to the list of “recommended” vaccines.

    Despite many warnings by some that whooping cough epidemics and resulting deaths would eventuate if children were not vaccinated, this did not happen. Deaths in fact dropped, from 10 in 1975 to 6 in 1991, and were at an all-time low of 2 in 1989 (in a population of around 84 million).

    From Dr med G Buchwald’s book “Vaccination – a business based on fear”

90. 
    Erwin Alber
    May 21st, 2008
    12:03:13

    In reply to Kev’s response to Hilary:

    “If these parents elect not to vaccinate, then they have to bear the cost of not only the possibility of their own child falling ill but the societal cost (as being demonstrated throughout the US right now) of their environment being contaminated as a result of their inaction”.

    Would you please explain what you mean by “the societal cost of their environment being contaminated as a result of their (non-vaccinating parents’) inaction” ?

91. 
    bones
    May 21st, 2008
    13:02:25

    “I wasn’t aware there was a scale of Conflict of Interest nor was I aware that I was using the term incorrectly.”

    -I know Schwartz, that’s why I felt a need to point it out to you.

    “There are certainly different types…”

    -Contradicting yourself again. Well, nothing new there…

92. 
    Tom
    May 21st, 2008
    16:12:21

    How simple can I make it for you Schwartz?

    You are incapable of understanding that your uninformed anti-vax rants have nothing to do with autism. Go away.

93. 
    HCN
    May 21st, 2008
    16:14:14

    Erwin Alber:

    Yes, they did suspend pertussis vaccination. I did find some papers by the fellow:
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1985 Jun 14;110(24):974-5.
    [Adverse effects of pertussis vaccination in West Germany (1970-1978)][Article in German]

    and Eur J Pediatr. 1995 Mar;154(3):209-14.Links
    Immunogenicity and safety of a monovalent, multicomponent acellular pertussis vaccine in 15 month-6-year-old German children. Monovalent Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Study Group. .... which says “Immunization against pertussis has been re-recommended for healthy children in Germany in 1991. In addition the former restriction of immunizing only in the first 2 years of life was abolished.”

    But, I think you should understand why the book is not a good source of evidence. It looks biased, and is skipping some of the results of suspending vaccination.

    Like this:
    MMW Fortschr Med. 2003 May 15;145(20):13.
    [Whooping cough has an at least 1% mortality rate in infants. Vaccinate parents for pertussis!][Article in German]

    and this:
    http://pediatrics.aappublicati.....l/114/1/e9

    Because it would have been very strange that Germany would have a very different experience than Japan:
    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
    Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future … which says:
    “After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.”

    And this one abstract from GDR (back in the days when Germany was two countries):
    Dev Biol Stand. 1979;43:101-6.
    Experiences with pertussis vaccination in GDR…. which says “Because of a high pertussis morbidity, compulsory vaccination with DPT-vaccine was started in GDR in 1964. The performing of vaccination for many years has led to a 60—100 fold decrease of morbidity. The well established system of medical care for mothers and babies and the high percent of children who spend their day in nurseries and kindergardens enables satisfying control of the vaccinees. The observed side reactions give no reason to abandon the DPT-Vaccination.”

    Unfortunately, while I can see what the papers were in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, I cannot even get an abstract. Though from the titles I see that there was a great deal of debate. I suspect your book only tells part of the story.

94. 
    Schwartz
    May 22nd, 2008
    01:28:37

    Bones,

    If you can’t see the difference between scale and types, then you need an english refresher.

    COI rules for journals are fully documented, and there are no scales or grades defined there. Your general reponse is again typical of someone who can’t support your case with specifics.

95. 
    Schwartz
    May 22nd, 2008
    04:08:01

    HCN,

    Posting links is very problematic:

    Link 1: Efficacy Study (anti body response)

    Link 2: A modelling analysis. Interesting research, short on evidence.

    Link 3: Efficacy Study (PCR meaurement)

    I didn’t want to get into issues of efficacy trials (read the outcome of the mumps outbreak analysis in the midwest for a great recent example of how the efficacy statments based on studies turned out to be quite wrong—let alone the fact that they noted the lack of natural immunity also caused issues—lack of vaccination was not cited as a major issue at all), but this one is interesting. They only used PCR tests to determine incidence. I find that method to be highly subject to selection bias. If a child was vaccinated for pertussis, what are the odds the doctor will send a sample to a lab for PCR testing? I would think the odds would be quite a bit lower.

    Link 4: Yet another efficacy study (from Sweden)

    Link 5: YAES (from Italy this time)

    Link 6: Efficacy of a booster shot

    Link 7: Discussion about booster shots

    Link 8: Study of LOCAL reactions of booster shots (note, not the shots given to infants…)

    Link 9: We’re getting warmer, but still no dice. ONly a study about various booster shot and LOCAL reactions. This only looked at children who were healthy. Not a study about the original shots, nor did it test the original vaccines, but candidates for boosters.

    Link 10: This study did measure a safety comparison of a whole cell Pertussis vaccine. This study is not free, so I can’t read any of the details—> I’ll count it as a candidate.

    Link 11: This was an expert opinion on whole cell vaccines.

    Link 12: This one is interesting in that they compare known reactions in pre-term infants between wP and aP vaccines (and it was free so I could read the whole thing). However, they only studied very specific reactions within 72 hours of vaccination. Additionally, pre-vaccinated children were used as controls, so this was not a general safety trial, but a very narrow one. The study group was only 124 pre-term infants. No longer term followup.

    Link 13: Another study of events for pre-term underweight infants. Very narrow study as above, noting numerous cardiorespiratory events some requiring intervention. Small study group of 78. No controls. No long term followup.

    Link 14: Another small study looking at exactly the same things as 12 and 13. Same problems as above.

    Link 15: A discussion paper about relative efficacy and reactions between aP and wP. Not an actual RCT. Not available to read.

    Link 16: Your second last link is a step in the right direction. However, it was a narrow review focussed only on seizures. This is good. It confirms my understanding that aP is less risky than wP, but the study itself is not free so I couldn’t read more. It is valuable, but again limited in scope, so can’t provide an overall risk factor.

    Last Link: This one was good. Although it only really talked about Epilepsy, the analysis here appears to be excellent. It does provide a reasonably credible risk of encepalopathy from DTP and appears to have been done by indepedent researchers. This is a very new paper (just 3 months old) and talks about potential genetic causes of some of the cases associated with the vaccines. This particular discussion was very interesting, although it is unclear if the reaction due to genetic mutation is exacerbated or triggered by the vaccine application. More study here was recommended.

    I’m curious if you found anything interesting in this last paper?

    So to sum up, there is still no evidence of any RCTs with a longer term followup (most are 72 hours) which has been my main issue from the start.

    There are 3 studies that looked at pre-term infants and a number that studied wP vaccines and a couple of local reactions to boosters (not the infant vaccines). All had very narrow focus and short followup periods. One had questionable controls (vaccinated children) although that might be OK in that case, because the scope of study was extermely narrow.

    One very new review (Feb 2008) looking at encephalopathy stands out among the crowd and satisifies me that the risk of encepalopathy from DTaP is measurably very low—probably lower than the risk of death from pertussis infection. However, it does raise the question of genetic succeptibility, and the lack of followup from the original study is disappointing. This reinforces my feeling that there is little attempt to investigate and mitigate damage in future vaccine recipients. Most tellingly is that the majority of these studies only look at 72 hours post vaccination (in your group, I don’t think any looked further than that). It is interesting that according to the IOM over 10,000 occurences of seizures were estimated per year. That is still a pretty big number and they don’t really know the effect of those seizures.

96. 
    Schwartz
    May 22nd, 2008
    04:13:32

    HCN,

    One interesting statistic about West Germany is that the infant mortality rate supposedly dropped significantly during the 1970’s and then surpassed the rate in East Germany in the 1980’s.

    Clearly the effect of the lack of pertussis vaccination had little relative measurable effect on the rate of infant mortality and that other things have a lot more effect on the infant mortality rate. To me, this speaks to the overemphasis of the relative effect of some of the vaccines on health and mortality. There appear to be a lot more important things that improve health and reduce risk.

97. 
    Schwartz
    May 22nd, 2008
    04:15:50

    Tom,

    You’re right it’s pretty simple. Yet another post from you with nothing concrete to discuss. Sigh.

    PS: You’ll note that I didn’t bring the discussion to the DTaP vaccine and in fact, I started my posts right on topic. Perhaps you should read more carefully?

98. 
    Erwin Alber
    May 22nd, 2008
    13:02:38

    To HCN: Thanks for your response in which you say: “But, I think you should understand why the book is not a good source of evidence. It looks biased, and is skipping some of the results of suspending vaccination”.

    Dr. Buchwald’s book is written for the general public. It features numerous graphs based on the official infectious diseases death rates collected by the Federal Office of Statistics in Wiesbaden, including a graph showing pertussis deaths during the 16 years when the pertussis vaccine was taken off the list of recommended vaccinations.

    Here are the numbers of pertussis deaths for each of these years – from 1975 until 1991 – when pertussis vaccination was suspended in Germany:

    1975 8
    1976 10
    1977 8
    1978 8
    1979 6
    1980 7
    1981 13
    1982 12
    1983 2
    1984 1
    1985 5
    1986 6
    1987 5
    1988 7
    1989 2
    1990 8
    1991 6

    These figures show that although there was a brief increase in deaths due to an epidemic in 1981 and 1982, there was nevertheless no overall increase, but rather a slight overall decrease in pertussis deaths over this time period, despite the absence of pertussis vaccinations.

    In New Zealand, the use of pertussis vaccines has failed to reduce the number of deaths or hospitalisations from the disease.

    The use of the pertussis vaccine is (like that of other vaccines) not justifiable on the grounds that the vaccine appears largely ineffective and that the vaccine poses as great a health risk (or even a greater health risk) than the disease itself.

    The fact that the annual deaths from pertussis in Germany (pop. 84 million) can now be counted on the fingers of one hand shows that the expenditure of vaccinating German children is both a waste of time and money, especially considering that there was no overall increase in pertussis deaths in the 16 years the vaccine was suspended.

    Meanwhile, nearly 10000 people are killed on Germany’s roads and around 12000 people die as a result of suicide in Germany every year. I think this should put this matter into its proper perspective.

99. 
    Catherina
    May 22nd, 2008
    15:32:10

    Buchwald is hardly a reliable source – he thinks there are live bacteria that can “spread immediately through the whole body” in the DTwP writing in 1989:

    Andererseits dürfte die Keuchhustenimpfung das gefährlichste der heute gebräuchlichen Impfverfahren sein, weil es sich um eine Spritzimpfung mit Erregern handelt, die sich sofort im Körper ausbreiten.

    And in an interview in 1989, he shows his true colours, suggesting that children in developing countries have “less developed nervous sytems” and would therefore not have so many adverse reactions to the DTP in “our” children:

    “Wahrscheinlich sind nicht nur die dortigen Länder in ihrer Gesamtheit unterentwickelt, möglicherweise sind dies auch die Nervensysteme der Neugeborenen und der Kleinkinder… Trotz zunächst noch bestehender kindlicher Unreife der Gehirne unserer Kinder, scheinen diese im Gegensatz zu den Gehirnen der Kinder der Dritten Welt doch “hoch entwickelt” zu sein, um auf Impfungen entsprechend zu reagieren…. Denn in unserem Vaterland sind Impfungen, die so furchtbare Schäden anrichten … ein Verbrechen”
    (“Naturheilpraxis” 1989; 42(5): 5-10).

    So we are looking at someone who does not understand the nature of the vaccine given and who has rather dated views on comparative nervous system development – why should we read his book again, except maybe for sociopathological studies?

    As for pertussis deaths, we know that about 5% of German children whose deaths were classified as “SIDS” were infected with pertussis (http://pediatrics.aappublicati.....l/114/1/e9)

100. 
     Schwartz
     May 23rd, 2008
     05:34:45

     Catherina,

     Ignoring Buchwald and focusing on that study, it raises a number of interesting questions:

     Do you how the rate of SIDS changed over the same time period? I’m guessing it dropped (when did they implement sleep position changes?), but I can’t find the data.

     How long does is Pertussis B detectable by PCR after infection?

     It is interesting to note that 5% of control subjects also had Pertussis B infection. They had a 1.4% false positive rate on the PCR samples. Since they only sent negative test samples 1/3 of the time, up to .9% of the total samples could be assumed to be false positive.

     Additionally, other URIs and low birth weight were more prevalent in the study.

     The study appears to be well done even if it was funded by Wyeth. I won’t disregard it because of the funding source. The conclusions are indeterminate though, a lot of questions are outstanding.

     I am hitting all pay sites trying to get the information and my Technische Deutsch is not good enough to read scientific studies in the vernacular.

101. 
     Catherina
     May 23rd, 2008
     11:02:14

     Actually, sudden infant deaths went up dramatically during this time – I clicked my way through http://www.gbe-bund.de (Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes – so death statistics) to get to the ICD 780 - 799 (deaths of unexplained causes) for under 1 year olds and the overall number in these categories went from (all infant deaths in brackets)

     1980 855 (10773)
     1981 996 (10177)
     1982 1024 (9522)(note that this peak coincides with a peak in notified pertussis deaths)
     1983 897 (8606)
     1984 934 (7925)
     1985 1055 (7419)
     1986 1147 (7396)
     1987 1171 (7284)
     1988 1250 (6822)
     1989 1263 (6579)
     1990 1425 (6385) and then sank again
     1991 1378 (5711) this is where pertussis was added to the recommended schedule again
     1992 1012 (4992)
     1993 955 (4665)
     1994 823 (4309)
     1995 833 (4053) (two papers on prone sleeping and SIDS published here in Kinderarzt 1995, 26: 1009; Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1995, 143: 811, which lead to a subsequent increase of children being put to sleep on their backs from 1995)
     1996 771 (3962)
     1997 747 (3951)

     last year, the number of sudden explained deaths fell under 300 (2000) :)

     These numbers would actually support a causal relationship between pertussis vaccination and unexplained infant deaths.

102. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 23rd, 2008
     12:43:39

     In reply to Tom, regarding his comment to Schwartz:

     “Schwartz, do you even know what safety is?”

     If you are referring to ‘vaccine safety’, this term is like “medical ethics” or “military intelligence” obviously a contradiction in terms.

     Something that can (and often does) sicken, maim or even kill some children is quite obviously far from “safe”. Parents who demand guarantees of vaccine safety don’t realise that vaccines are unsafe by their very nature and that they are therefore asking for the impossible.

     Because of the biological and chemical substances a vaccine contains, it is not possible to predict whether or not its injection is going to cause (potentially fatal) anaphylactic shock, or brain-damage and, or (in some instances)death.

     It was this unpredictability of vaccines which led Harris Coulter to call his first book “DPT – A Shot in the Dark”.

     Thanks to Coulter’s book and the publicity it created, many parents suddenly became aware (or had their suspicions confirmed) that their children’s brain injuries had been caused by vaccination.

     Fearing that they would be sued out of existence, vaccine manufacturers were quick to pressure the US government to shift the liability for vaccine-injuries from them to the US tax-payers. The US government complied by passing the US vaccine injury compensation act.

     Coulter followed up his first book with another, which he co-authored with B L Fisher: “Vaccination, Sociopathy and Criminality – The Medical Assault on the American Brain” In this book, he pointed out that the physical disabilities caused by vaccinations are only part of the picture and that “the mental, emotional and moral dimensions of vaccine damage are far more important”. He linked youths’ violent behaviour including youth suicide to vaccine-related post-encephalitic sequelae.

     It seems to me that far from making childhood safer for children, vaccinations have made the lives of many children and their parents a living hell.

103. 
     Catherina
     May 23rd, 2008
     14:22:46

     what I of course meant was:

     a causal relationship between cessation of pertussis immunisation and rise in unexplained infant deaths and conversely, the re-introduction of the vaccination and the subsequent fall in unexplained infant deaths.

104. 
     Schwartz
     May 24th, 2008
     03:28:26

     Catherina,

     Thanks for the information. I’m not sure what to think of the numbers because they don’t correlate that well with the removal of the vaccine—the rates were very low and constant for over 5 years, and there is a drop in the rate before the vaccine was re-introduced. Perhaps the other factors affecting SIDS clouded any effect the vaccine might have had—It would be interesting to test correlation against smoking rates etc. Although the more I read about SIDS rates in other countries (I wanted to compare the changes in rates elsewhere) I’m finding there is a lot of debate on the accuracy of those rates… as usual I suppose. Looking at the US numbers, the relative SIDS rate (per births) also drops around 1991. http://www.sids.org/nannualrates.htm. In Canada, SIDS is responsible for about 1/4 of all infant deaths since 1996, but in Germany the relative rates varied a lot more.

     There are a few other interesting results of the study I noticed:

     1) The rate of detection from NTS was much lower than TS in the study group (almost twice as many—1.7% vs 3.0%) and only one showed positive in both. I’m not sure if this means the location of Pertussis infection is different, but only 1 subject tested positive for both.

     2) The rate of positive PCR NTS for controls was far higher than for the study group 5.1% vs 1.7%. When comparing apples to apples that means despite double the vaccination rate of the study group (68% vs 33%), they had more than 3x the detection rate of Pertussis B in NTS samples. If you extrapolate that the NTS/TS sample ratio holds for controls that puts the likely PCR detection rate of ~15% for a population that had 68% vaccination. That doesn’t show that well for vaccine efficacy in preventing infection although we can’t determine from these numbers if the effects were more mild or not.

     3) I find it unbelievable that they did NOT publish the vaccine status of the subjects from controls or study group that actually tested positive for Pert B using PCR. I certainly think that if any conclusions were to be drawn about vaccines, that information would be very important, but it’s glaring ommission from the study results is notable.
     Given the funding source of the study, I would guess that the data did not support vaccine efficacy in this matter, but that’s based on an assumption of bias.

105. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 24th, 2008
     04:21:09

     In reply to Catherina’s comment “Buchwald is hardly a reliable source”

     Dr med G Buchwald is a (retired) specialist for pulmonary diseases, doctor for internal medicine and was medical advisor to the German “Society for the Support of Victims of Vaccine Damage” (Schutzverband fuer Impfgeschaedigte) for 38 years. In this capacity he prepared many expert testimonies for the social courts in which parents claimed compensation for their vaccine-injured children.

     He may indeed be biased, but for good reason: his son suffered severe brain damage caused by a smallpox vaccination he was given at the age of 18 months. Now over 50 years old, his son is still unable to say a single word, to shave, or brush his teeth.

     Even if Buchwald has made some mistakes in his book, it does not detract from the general message of the book: that the risk of vaccine damage is now generally greater than that of infectious diseases vaccines supposedly protect us from.

     Nor do any mistakes he may have made distract from the validity of the many graphs featured in the book, as they are based on the official government statistics of infectious disease mortality rates.

     The graphs clearly show that the vaccines against e.g. TB, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles contributed absolutely nothing to the remarkable decline in the number of deaths from these diseases over the past century.

     The book also features the case histories (including photos) of vaccine-injured children.

     His conclusion at the end of his book, that vaccines are useless, ineffective and cause harm (“Impfen nuetzt nicht! Impfen schuetzt nicht! Impfen schadet!”) is therefore based on verifiable evidence he has presented in his book.

     In his book, Dr Buchwald also presents evidence which shows that Jenner’s barbaric smallpox vaccine was not only useless but also very dangerous.

     The blurb on the back cover says:

     “A great coalition of health authorities, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry claims that vaccines protect against diseases and therefore promote health. In this book, Dr Buchwald shows that the opposite is the case: vaccines make many people ill!”

     Although Dr Buchwald may seem a lone voice in the wilderness, this is not the case. Many other doctors – though as yet definitely not a majority! – have independently from each other arrived at the same conclusion. To quote one of them: “The belief in vaccination is a form of delusional insanity.”

     Having been involved in the vaccination issue for about 15 years, I feel that it is a thought which is definitely worth considering.

106. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 24th, 2008
     05:11:21

     It is interesting to note that in 1977, the ethyl-mercury compound Thiomersal (or Thimerosal) killed 10 babies in a Toronto hospital when it was dabbed on their umbilical cords as a disinfectant.

     It was banned from topical use and injection into animals after that, but – incredibly -continued to be used in vaccines for humans, including babies!

     The 2000 CDC Simpsonwood conference was chaired by Dr. Dick Johnston, who mentioned early in the proceedings that, “There is very limited pharmacokinetic data concerning ethylmercury. There is very limited data on its blood levels. There is no data on its excretion. It is recognized to both cross placenta and the blood-brain barrier. The data on its toxicity is sparse. It is primarily recognized as a cause of hypersensitivity. Acutely, it can cause neurologic and renal toxicity, including death from overdose.”

     For a more detailed report on the Simsonwood conference, google “The vaccine cover-up” by neurosurgeon Dr R Blaylock MD on Dr Mercola MD’s website.

     I think Shakespeare’s words are quite apt here: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in it”.

107. 
     Ms. Clark
     May 24th, 2008
     05:34:45

     It is interesting that almost everyone in the US used to have a bottle of tincture of thimerosal (merthiolate) or it’s chemical cousin mercurochrome in their medicine cabinets. I have some real merthiolate with real thimerosal in it (and some real mercurochrome) and I have put it on scratches—and on my skin, just for fun, because it’s such a pretty red color. It’s not toxic. A man drank a whole bottle of pure thimerosal and survived quite well (after being sick for a bit).

     A baby had a huge amount of thimerosal injected into her leg, by accident, and survived and did not become autistic, or have any other big neurological problems, apparently, from the record. It came up in the Cedillo trial.

108. 
     Schwartz
     May 25th, 2008
     00:30:45

     Ms. Clark,

     I think that any man who drank a whole bottle of Thimerosal likely had some medical problems to start with. Judging any long term effect of the bottle on him might be a bit difficult.

     10 infants dying from the application of Thimerosal at a hospital counts as evidence of harm. You playing with Thimerosal for fun doesn’t count as evidence of safety. I’m glad you don’t have any issues excreting mercury.

     When I was in elementary school, a friend of mine had collected a vial of mercury from thermostats and it was rolled around in people’s hands. Fortunately, no one became noticeably ill, however, you’ll have a difficult time convincing me (or anyone) it wasn’t toxic. I’m curious how you define toxicity, especially since the toxicity of methyl mercury has not been determined.

109. 
     Joseph
     May 25th, 2008
     02:36:16

     Judging any long term effect of the bottle on him might be a bit difficult.

     The case report said the guy recovered completely in something like a month or a few months, as I recall. He ingested 5 grams of thimerosal. He actually became very sick, as you can imagine, even going into a temporary comma, but the clinical picture didn’t look anything like autism.

110. 
     Here we go again...
     May 25th, 2008
     03:25:43

     I’m glad you don’t have any issues excreting mercury

     According to the experts testifying in the Ombibus—no one has issues excreting mercury. There is nothing like Wilson’s disease for mercury.

     I’m curious how you define toxicity, especially since the toxicity of methyl mercury has not been determined.

     I believe you have the litany mixed up. The argument is that the toxicity data for methyl mercury have been used for ethyl mercury—since it is ethyl mercury that supposedly has no toxicity data. I.e. it has been determined for methyl mercury and not for ethyl mercury.

     However, you can find toxicology information on thimerosal and ethyl mercury chloride.

     For the purposes of the discussion on autism blogs and about the autism omnibus, “toxic” should really be limited to “causes autism”. Sort of a strange standard to apply to Ms. Clark. However, by that test, no form of mercury exposure is “toxic”. Perhaps you can listen to Dr. Rodier’s testimony? Very educational.

111. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 25th, 2008
     05:04:52

     Ms. Clark:

     “Dr. Hewiston is a litigant, and her husband is and her husband also works for Andy Wakefield and is also associated with SAFE MINDS, besides writing for the clown blog.

     “Nepotistic” doesn’t seem to quite cover what we are seeing here. Maybe something like some kind of inbreeding.

     Did Safe Minds, DAN! and NAA fund these studies?”

     Never mind that pharmaceutical companies including vaccine manufacturers fund their own studies and have been found to manipulate data, right?

     Or that people with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers sit on vaccine licensing and vaccination policy-making boards?

     Or that on their retirement, FDA officials are offered cushy jobs with the pharmaceutical companies and vaccine manufacturers whose drugs and vaccines they have licensed while working for the FDA?

     One can hardly blame people “on the other side” of the great divide for getting together to expose some of the medical-pharmaceutical rackets.

112. 
     Sullivan
     May 25th, 2008
     05:47:16

     One can hardly blame people “on the other side” of the great divide for getting together to expose some of the medical-pharmaceutical rackets.

     People should be on the watch for improper actions. However, when this is used primarily as a tool to create an atmosphere of distrust and is often exaggerated or worse, then yes, we can assign blame.

     Case in point—there is no great coverup in autism. Any other misdeeds, real or imagined, by the government and pharmaceutical industry are used as a smokescreen in place of real evidence of wrongdoing in the autism arena.

     Case in point: Did Dr. Healy disclose the great government coverup? No.

     The conspiracy theorists gloss over that point as they glom onto her interviews.

113. 
     Schwartz
     May 25th, 2008
     08:07:13

     Joseph,

     Just curious. Do you actually think that kind of occurence tells us anything about the toxic effects of Thimerosal on infants?

     Why did the guy ingest that amount?

114. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 25th, 2008
     08:20:16

     In response to Ms. Clark’s comment:

     “I used to have a bottle of tincture with real thimerosal in it (and some real mercurochrome) and I have put it on scratches—and on my skin, just for fun, because it’s such a pretty red color. It’s not toxic.”

     People who haven’t got a clue because they never question anything or who take pleasure in using toxic substances “just for fun” because “they are such a pretty colour”, or because they have been told that “they are good for us”, are the medical-pharmaceutical mafia’s dream come true, because it’s this kind of ignorance which keeps mindless consumerism and resulting corporate profits going.

     Today, our health is under threat from numerous sources which were non-existent until about 200 years ago:

     -toxic pharmaceutical drugs, including
     highly neurotoxic vaccines
     -toxic and addictive psychiatric or
     behaviour-modifying drugs
     -pesticides, fungicides and herbicides
     -carcinogenic and neurotoxic fluoride in
     water and toothpaste
     -mercury amalgam fillings
     -food preservatives,colourings and other
     food additives
     food grown on mineraldepleted soils by
     means of chemical fertilisers
     -denatured food including refined sugar and
     flour, hydrogenated oils and genetically
     modified food
     -artificial sweeteners such as NutraSweet
     and aspartame (e.g. in Diet Coke)
     -monosodium glutamate or MSG
     poisons released from tefloncoated cooking
     ware
     -microwaved food
     -irradiated food
     aluminiumcontaining roll-on
     deodorants/antiperspirants
     -radiation from mammograms and excessive use
     of X-rays
     -routine/unnecessary ultrasound scans during
     pregnancy
     -medicalised childbirth
     -unnecessary or ineffective
     medical “treatments” like chemo- and
     radiation “therapy”
     -electromagnetic frequencies from power
     lines and appliances including cell phones/
     wi-fi
     -radioactivity from military weaponry and
     nuclear power plants
     -toxins sprayed from aeroplanes evident
     as ‘chemtrails’
     -chemicals in household cleaners and in
     cosmetics and other body care products such
     as toothpastes and shampoos
     -general pollution of air, food and water

     These are just a few of the health hazards which immediately come to mind. While one of them by itself may or may not cause obvious health problems, their cumulative effect may be disastrous, especially in people whose organisms and immune systems have been weakened/undermined by vaccinations.

     Vaccinations are are usually the first immunological insult inflicted on babies after they are born, causing them enormous stress and throwing their immature immune systems into turmoil and disarray. Hence the asthma, allergies, ear infections and “cot deaths”.

     Everything considered, the current epidemic chronic and degenerative diseases including cancer is not really surprising, but if we keep informed and aware, we can avoid and thereby minimise much of the toxic load we would otherwise be exposed to.

     People who become aware of this also tend to avoid the orthodox medical system as much as possible and to turn to wholesome nutrition and natural healing methods instead. The medical-pharmaceutical establishment intensely dislikes a large chunk of dollars spent on health care disappearing into the competition’s pockets, for obvious reasons. It has therefore retaliated by getting governments in various countries to impose repressive legislation designed to deny us ready access to natural remedies, vitamins and supplements, all under the pretext of “protecting the public”.

     While ignorance may be bliss, it comes with a price. It definitely pays to check the ingredients of food items, body care products and vaccines by reading the labels or package inserts, and to keep up-to-date with information and developments by subscribing to (free) e-newsletters such as:

     Dr Mercola
     Natural News
     Zeus Information Service

     Probably the most important thing to remember in all of this is that – to paraphrase Alan Watt:

     “The world is run by psychopaths who impose a psychopathic culture on the rest of us”.

     It is up to us to be aware of this and to opt out of their sick schemes, vaccination programmes being just one of them.

115. 
     Kev
     May 25th, 2008
     10:30:31

     Why did the guy ingest that amount?

     Suicide attempt. I blogged about this awhile ago.

     In the normal course of events I’d agree that parents != kids but in this case, we’re talking about so much thiomersal I think that overrides that caveat.

     Erwin Alber: Are you interested in debating science or just ranting? If the former, please stay. If the latter, please leave.

116. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 25th, 2008
     10:56:20

     Kev:

     “Erwin Alber: Are you interested in debating science or just ranting? If the former, please stay. If the latter, please leave”.

     Sorry, I thought you previewed all comments and that you would delete any comments you considered inappropriate. I’ll try to stick to the point in future comments though.

117. 
     Kev
     May 25th, 2008
     10:58:27

     No, I don’t preview any except my own.

     I understand we differ in opinions but I don’t want to stop you commenting but really – long rants like the above don’t move the debate forward.

118. 
     Erwin Alber
     May 25th, 2008
     11:07:26

     “long rants like the above don’t move the debate forward”

     Thanks, I got the message!

119. 
     An Invasion of MMR/Vaccine Misinformation
     May 26th, 2008
     18:11:00

     [...] poster presentation is by Laura Hewitson, who (along with her husband, Dan Hollenbeck) is a petitioner in a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. [...]

120. 
     Alex
     May 28th, 2008
     00:58:48

     (This is my fourth attempt at posting this message….)

     HCN,

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889991?
     “An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.”

     Two infants may very well have died within 24 hours of pertussis vaccination from 1974 to 1975, but, according to Dr Raymond Obomsawin, the total number of children killed by this vaccine between 1970 and 1974 was 37, and 57 children were compensated for severe permanent damage. No wonder there was an anti-vaccine movement! The abstract continues, ” Furthermore, researchers and the Japanese government proceeded to develop safer pertussis vaccines”, and the schedule was changed. Immunization was delayed until children were 2 years of age. Safer DTaP vaccines were licensed in Japan in 1981. The question is why did it take the rest of the world fifteen years plus to switch to the safer DTaP vaccine? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

     What happened in Britain in the fifteen years from 1968 to 1983 when uptake of pertussis vaccine fell to 50% or less because of safety concerns? Hospital admissions DECREASED. There were NO deaths from pertussis. There were NO cases of encephalopathy. NO cases of permanent brain damage or lung damage. Compared with the frequency of encephalopathy, permanent brain damage and death after injections of pertussis vaccine, the authors concluded that: “in children living in non-deprived circumstances in Britain, the risk of pertussis vaccine during the period 1970-83 exceeded those of whooping cough.”
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3835080

     “(Dev Biol Stand. 1979;43:101-6.) Experiences with pertussis vaccination in GDR…. which says “Because of a high pertussis morbidity, compulsory vaccination with DPT-vaccine was started in GDR in 1964.”

     What is your purpose in quoting from an abstract from 1979 that discusses morbidity? Pertussis vaccine, with a 36% efficacy rate (for whole cell), was never successful at eradicating whooping cough. If it had been, why do you think over the last few years three more pertussis vaccines have been added to the immunization schedule, and with the introduction of the less reactive DaPT vaccine, regular booster shots are now recommended for teens and adults? Many children (and teens and adults) get whooping cough, but when they are vaccinated it is often called something else. Such is doctors’ faith in the pertussis vaccine.

121. 
     Alex
     May 28th, 2008
     06:21:39

     Kev on May 25th, 2008 10:58:27
     “No, I don’t preview any except my own.”

     Then someone else does.

     Why don’t you publish the message I have been trying to post? I guess that one of your team members doesn’t want people to read what Gordon Stewart Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow wrote about pertussis in Britain.

     Why do you find it necessary to gag the opposition?

122. 
     Kev
     May 28th, 2008
     06:58:21

     No, Alex, nobody does.

     Your message got spamtrapped thats all. You used a word or combination of words or too many links that triggered my anti-spam software.

     If I can find your comment then I’ll release it.

123. 
     Kev
     May 28th, 2008
     07:02:29

     Right. It got spamtrapped because you used an email address (sneakemail) well known to be the source of spam. Then you carried on trying to post the same thing four times.

124. 
     Alex
     May 28th, 2008
     11:57:10

     Yes, after changing my computer settings and then using a legitimate address twice. (Not that a disposable address to stop spamming is not legitimate.)

     Thanks for finally posting it, anyway.

125. 
     Kev
     May 28th, 2008
     11:59:50

     I’m not saying its not legitimate. I’m saying that my antispam software is set very high. I get approx 100 pieces of spam comments a day so I err on the side of caution. Sometimes, legitimate comments get trapped. Thats life.

126. 
     Science-Based Medicine » Monkey business in autism research
     May 30th, 2008
     13:34:25

     [...] it goes beyond even that. Kev has also figured out that not only is Dr. Hewitson married to Dan Hollenbeck, but that Dan [...]

127. 
     Who needs facts? These vaccine conspiracy pieces write themselves… « Dr Aust’s Spleen
     June 4th, 2008
     22:29:54

     [...] at the University of Pittsburgh. All of that is accurate. However, she is also, as revealed on the autism blogs, a litigant in a vaccine-injury suit. Her partner is the IT man for Andrew Wakefield’s Thoughtful [...]

128. 
     Autism Blog - Age of Autism still don’t get it | Left Brain/Right Brain
     July 15th, 2008
     10:24:09

     [...] support that statement belies their beliefs. They reference the recent IMFAR poster presentation of Laura Hewitson. A study that has not even been published. This is a science committee [...]

• CBS Pulls Attkisson From CPAC Award Event
• The Panic Virus: now in paperback
• Autism SA battles for funds
• Sharyl Attkisson to receive media award
• Redwood City teacher accused of slapping, kicking special needs students
• A Multisite Study of the Clinical Diagnosis of Different Autism Spectrum Disorders
• Yale Daily News: Redefinition of autism sparks concerns
• Transcripts from the GMC hearings
• Estimating the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Conditions in Adults: Extending the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey
• Mother Jones: Rep. Dan Burton’s Legacy: Lots of Sick Kids

Warning: /domains/leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/cache/12092219310c57784ef16f95e68e9fb4.spc is not writeable in /home/lbrb/domains/leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/plugins/simplepie-core/simplepie.inc on line 1769

• J.B. Handley Forsworn
• The blogger and the doctor
• Md. suspends autism doctor's license
• 10 deadly myths about childhood vaccines Pictures
• The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru
• Health experts stress importance of MMR
• Todd Drezner: Learning to Embrace Autism
• Vaccines, autism, and Andrew Wakefield's wake
• The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear -- Grinker 168 (3): 332 -- Am J Psychiatry
• Jenny McCarthy: Still Sticking with Debunked Autism Theory and Using ‘Mob Mind’ as Excuse