Kirby launches torpedo at Verstraeten, sinks Geier

8 Oct

The thimerosal/autism study by Thomas Verstraeten is one of the big targets for those with the vaccines/mercury cause autism agenda. For what it’s worth, Autism’s False Prophets goes into the history of the Verstraeten study and clearly explains the history of that study.  Not surprisingly, the answer is somewhat different than you might find in, say, Evidence of Harm.

In his recent briefing on Capital Hill,  David Kirby took another jab at the Verstraeten study. He tried to assert that (a) the NIEHS claimed that the Vaccine Safety Datalink was unusable for autism studies and that (b) the CDC agreed. He was incorrect, and, luckily, a staffer caught Kirby at it.

Mr. Kirby is trying to explain his actions in a blog post in which he posts an open letter to that congressional staffer.

Let’s consider something here: the congressional staffer, an M.D., knew enough about the subject to catch David Kirby misquoting the NIEHS. I wouldn’t have been quick enough on my feet to catch the misquote.  Now, David Kirby wants to educate this gentleman. Frankly, the information should be flowing the other way. If Mr. Kirby had shown himself open to such education, say when EpiWonk made it abundantly clear (twice) what Mr. Kirby’s mistakes were, perhaps it would be worth the staffer’s time to discuss this with Mr. Kirby. That said, let’s take a look at Mr. Kirby’s letter.

In regards to Mr. Kirby’s misquotes, he has recently “clarified” his position.  He is writing to the Doctor who corrected him in his briefing here:

As you rightly pointed out (and as I concurred that day) I omitted an important detail in regards to Dr. Gerberdings’s letter to the Committee. I regret that, and never meant to mislead people in the room.

It was a rather artless sin of omission.

I think the lesson for me here is that, when you try to cram a two hour presentation into 25 minutes, it is wise to not include very complicated and, as you put it, “somewhat arcane” details that are difficult to explain in such a short period of time. In retrospect, I probably should have focused solely on the NIEHS report itself, and left the Gerberding letter out of the presentation entirely.

Mr. Kiby iscorrect, it is a confusing situation.  There are two documents–an NIEHS report and Dr. Gerberding’s response for the CDC. But, does that excuse misquoting the head of the CDC in his legislative briefing?

Here’s what David Kirby in his capital hill briefing “quoted” the NIEHS report as saying:

NIH: “We identified several areas of weakness that were judged to reduce the usefulness of the VSD for addressing the potential association between exposure to thimerosal and risk of ASD.”

That isn’t in either the NIEHS report or Dr. Gerberding’s response.  Here’s what Dr. Gerberding actually agreed to:

The panel identified several serious problems that were judged to reduce the usefulness of an ecologic study design using the VSD to address the potential association between thimerosal and the risk of AD/ASD.

Emphasis is mine.  But, we’ve already discussed that: Dr. Gerberding didn’t claim that the VSD has reduced usefulness in addressing the thimerosal/autism question. It made a claim that the ecological studies using the VSD had limitations. But, the recipient of Mr. Kirby’s letter would know that.

Back to Mr. Kirby’s open letter: David Kirby is now presenting his own interpretation of the NIEHS report, in place of Dr. Gerberding’s.

As I interpret things, the panel concluded that the database itself suffered from several weaknesses and limitations, which in turn reduced its usefulness for studies of autism risks from thimerosal (ie, Verstraeten) AND ALSO reduced the feasibility of future studies (ie, ecological ones) that are based on data collected within the VSD.

As EpiWonk aptly pointed out, Mr Kirby’s assertion is not the case. The NIEHS panel suggested a number of possible studies on autism using the VSD.  From the NIEHS report:

An alternate future study design that was viewed positively among panel members was a study of a high risk population, defined, in this instance, as siblings of individuals diagnosed with AD/ASD. A sibling cohort from the VSD would allow comparison of AD/ASD risk in siblings as a function of their thimerosal exposure through vaccination and the sample size would lend itself to supplemental data collection. A related study design based on sib-pairs or sets could be used to address discordant ASD/AD status in relation to thimerosal exposures. Another possibility that generated support by the panel was an expansion of the VSD study published by Verstraten et al (2004). The availability of several additional years of VSD data was seen as an opportunity to provide a more powerful test of any potential association between thimerosal and AD/ASD and would enable reconsideration of some aspects of the original study design (e.g., exclusion criteria). A related idea was to conduct a VSD retrospective cohort study using California-based MCOs linked with the California DDS, which would improve the diagnostic data and provide more complete ascertainment. For each of these designs, the ability to link medical records from mothers with those of their children was deemed critical.

As this reader interprets things, NIEHS seems to find that there is quite a bit of value in the VSD for studying autism, including an expansion of the Verstraeten study.

EpiWonk made the point first, but how can the NIEHS say that Verstraeten study design is not a good and that future use of the VSD is not useful, while at the same time suggest expanding Verstraeten?

The bottom line is that there are limitations to using the VSD alone in ecological studies of autism. One can overcome these limitations by going to chart reviews and other methods–as used in Verstraeten et al. and, more importantly, by VSD studies ongoing at CDC (one of which looks at autism).  As noted by Dr. Gerberding:

The VSD currently has a number of priority studies underway to address a range of important immunization safety questions, none of which utilize an ecologic study design. Instead, these current studies, including one study evaluating associations between thimerosal-containing
vaccines and autism, all evaluate individual-level data. This typically involves the review of individual medical charts to confirm the vaccines each individual received as well as the outcomes being studied. Studies using individual rather than group data provide stronger scientific evidence.

Mr. Kirby seems to be neglecting the fact that the CDC’s ongoing study (and the Verstraeten study) is not soley dependent on the VSD for the data.  He seems to be arguing that since the VSD, as a single data source, has limitations, the CDC can’t use it for any study. It’s like saying,

But, let’s take a closer look at what this says….and what Mr. Kirby is saying: The VSD on it’s own is not a good source of data to look at the thimerosal/autism question.

Now, anyone remember all the consternation that has been created by the fact that the VSD is not open to just any outside researcher?  Why should the VSD be opened to, say, Mark and David Geier?  Could they do the individual level data collection needed to make a VSD study valuable?

Apparently not. Recall this study by the Heather Young and the Geiers: Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

This was a study paid for by the petitioners in the Omnibus proceding.   It, on it’s own, was bad enough that EpiWonk disassembled itTwice.

The recent Heather Young/Geier paper didn’t look at individual level data.  Any future study by the Geiers almost certainly wouldn’t as well.  Given the argument by the NIEHS, Dr. Gerberding…and David Kirby, the above study and any proposed study by the Geiers on the VSD would be useless.

Some how I doubt Mr. Kirby will make statements confirming that. But, I can’t see how he could hold any other opinion, given the arguments he, himself, has made.

About these ads

11 Responses to “Kirby launches torpedo at Verstraeten, sinks Geier”

  1. lacshmiybarra October 8, 2008 at 04:08 #

    Just curious because it seems really odd. Since when did MD’s become congressional staffers? Is that considered like a step up or is the person actually a lobbyist? Who’s congressional staffer was he?

  2. Epi Wonk October 8, 2008 at 04:23 #

    It’s not at all uncommon for congressional staffers to be MD’s, since congress deals with so many health-related issues. In this case, the MD is a staffer for Waxman.

  3. Tom October 8, 2008 at 13:36 #

    No, the person is not a lobbyist. Rather, he is an underpaid MD serving in government to make sure that lobbyists like David Kirby don’t mislead Congress on important medical issues.

  4. Joseph October 8, 2008 at 14:22 #

    It wouldn’t be so bad that the Young-Geier study is ecological if they hadn’t made up data, and had a minimum of control for confounding. Of course, then they wouldn’t find an effect with statistical significance.

    What’s odd is that you can do ecological studies of that nature without using VSD. The strength of VSD is that it has individual-level information. The only reason Young-Geier was done that way is so they could say, “Hey! We did a VSD study!”

  5. alyric October 8, 2008 at 15:22 #

    Joseph,

    I’m somewhat confused by your post and just when I thought I had it all straight:)

    From what I understood, the problems with VSD is that a significant proportion of the information is not reliable due to input error and the way around that is to verify through individual medical records, which is what they did with Versatraetan 2004 and lo and behold, no significant correlations between TCVs and autism. As I also understood it, the medical charts are not part of the VSD. Why would they be? Hence Young and Geier had no access to records at the individual level, making their study ecological, that is, group level only and therefore not a reliable study because of the aforementioned problems with the reliability of the data. Correct?

  6. Joseph October 8, 2008 at 16:18 #

    Hence Young and Geier had no access to records at the individual level, making their study ecological, that is, group level only and therefore not a reliable study because of the aforementioned problems with the reliability of the data. Correct?

    Well, according to the CDC, this is what the VSD contains: “The VSD project includes a large linked database that uses administrative data sources at each MCO. Each participating site gathers data on vaccination (vaccine type, date of vaccination, concurrent vaccinations), medical outcomes (outpatient visits, inpatient visits, urgent care visits), birth data, and census data.”

    What I understand happened is that the Geiers had data in multiple files, and they couldn’t link them at the individual level. It’s not clear to me if this is because they are not given the means to do this to protect patient confidentiality or what.

    In any case, I don’t see the point of using VSD for an ecological study, when you can probably obtain data on population-level health outcomes and vaccination rates by other means.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. We know what the false prophets think; now what? [The ScienceBlogs Book Club] - October 10, 2008

    […] But the problem is—-based on how the antivaccinationists have responded to the evidence so far—-they’re not going to respond to the science with science. Instead, expect full-page ads (like this one) in which there’s talk of not being “anti-vaccine” but “pro-vaccine-safety.” Expect a lot more moving of the goalposts as autism gets rebranded: So the link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism does not seem “so strong”—then it must be something else, like aluminum. In other words, don’t expect an actual discussion of the studies Dr. Offit cites but succinct slogans with just enough punch (”autism is treatable,” “green our vaccines”), criticisms of “conflicts of interest,” cries of the limitations of the data. […]

  2. We know what the false prophets think; now what? « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptic blogs of the day - October 10, 2008

    […] But the problem is—-based on how the antivaccinationists have responded to the evidence so far—-they’re not going to respond to the science with science. Instead, expect full-page ads (like this one) in which there’s talk of not being “anti-vaccine” but “pro-vaccine-safety.” Expect a lot more moving of the goalposts as autism gets rebranded: So the link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism does not seem “so strong”—then it must be something else, like aluminum. In other words, don’t expect an actual discussion of the studies Dr. Offit cites but succinct slogans with just enough punch (”autism is treatable,” “green our vaccines”), criticisms of “conflicts of interest,” cries of the limitations of the data. […]

  3. When statistically significant is insignificant | The Poxes Blog - March 22, 2013

    […] what about that study? Well, read all about it here, here, here, and here, and see how it has been misused to further the anti-vaccine agenda. Too […]

  4. When statistically significant is insignificant | The Poxes Blog - March 22, 2013

    […] what about that study? Well, read all about it here, here, here, and here, and see how it has been misused to further the anti-vaccine agenda. Too […]

  5. What war crimes? What state of war? | EpidemioLogical - June 1, 2013

    […] a causative one) between vaccines and autism. This keeps coming up in the anti-vaccine chats, and it keeps being debunked. But let’s continue with Doctor Hooker’s letter and show you why I’m kind of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: