Comments on: The National Autism Association’s embarrassing spitefulness

By: The National Autism Association’s Lies & Distortions About Paul Offit « Confutata

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:44:05 +0000

[...] As Sullivan reminds me, the fact that Offit made millions from his rotavirus vaccine was clearly stated by Lauer [...]

By: Press not likely to fall for latest anti-vaccine ruse | MNH Kids Camp.com – Ideas & Advice on Child Autism

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:17:35 +0000

[...] a far more competent investigation by Sullivan at LeftBrainRightBrain found that Offit’s compensation is about $6 million, which is easily determined by following [...]

By: David Rs Greer Who Has Aspergers

David Rs Greer Who Has Aspergers — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:22:13 +0000

Yes Ok good comments.
Rember I have an IQ of 184 I’m smarter than this man.
The ratio is way out dated .
And becoues girs are smarter than boys in teen age hood its hard to see the ratio between B/G sings of autism. Is that ratio worked out on a sesional baces or is it extraplated or interlaped infomation ?.culture or etnick I think there is mind blind ness with the how these peopel in white coats to act or behave in a discipline thus means to instruct a person to follow specified way of science. olny implementing moral values to there work contract this is veary sad.Goverment control.

By: Age of Projectionism « Skepacabra

Age of Projectionism « Skepacabra — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:24:38 +0000

[...] it’s another Big Pharma Shill/Vaccines Are Just For Profit Gambits launched at Dr. Paul Offit even though Age of Autism has been correctly many, many times on this lie. The information just seems to repeatedly go into one ear and out the [...]

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:03:21 +0000

Autism News Beat is discussing this press release as well.

“Press not likely to fall for latest anti-vaccine ruse”

I find it interesting that the NAA refused to comment on their own press release. Isn’t that the point of a press release—to get people to call in and ask for more information?

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:51:07 +0000

Something I’ve noticed is two contradictory assuptions Offit’s critics seem to make about him: 1) That he will betray the public interest and medical ethics for money and 2) that he WOULDN’T betray those who had already paid him.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:08:39 +0000

David N. Brown,

I would say that without the public statement of Dr. Offit, there would be some doubt about the correct policy. However, he confirmed that the amount is about $6M and the payout was basically at 10%, consistent with the information shown.

This is speculation on my part, but the fact that only the select few “inventors” get the big bonuses while the rest of the team will get substantially less (down to a mere handshake), is likely part of the reason why Dr. Offit was hesitant to discuss the payouts. He has to work with these people, as well as all the other people at CHOP.

But, what defines an “inventor” is a big question. A patent can be invalidated if the inventor list is incorrect. Either too many or too few. Each person must contribute substantially to the invention. One must ask, “would this invention have occurred without this person”. A lab tech may have been extremely helpful, but if his/her contribution could have been done by someone else, that person is not an inventor. It could be uncomfortable to work with valued team members, knowing that you got a much higher reward for the team effort.

Also, contributions to the development are separate. There is a BIG effort to take an invention like theirs and develop it into a product. Many people contributed. It is even possible that without the efforts of some specific people the invention would not have been developed into a product. Unfortunately, even those people are not included in the invention royalty payments.

One point that comes up from this discussion—the fact that Dr. Offit still works in the same place. The argument that he was after the money and this payout “bought” him just don’t fit the facts. I’ve called him a few times with questions. On one occasion, he spoke answered my question but had to get back to work quickly. He was doing his hospital rounds.

How many people can say that if they got $6M, they would continue to do their job?

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:47:27 +0000

In my judgement, what policy was applied to the Rotateq payments were a matter of reasonable doubt. But whether Clark and Plotkin were paid should never have been seriously questioned. (In hindsight, I made a mistake by taking Blaxill’s “correction” at face value, at first.) Even if some technicality would have allowed CHOP to cut out the other inventors (and why would CHOP care how many people were paid if the total amount was the same?), it would easily have led to a lawsuit against them and/or Offit. Hence, the practical choices were to pay the inventors or pay the lawyers. Even as it is, I find it quite amazing that nobody sued. Which begs the question, if ALL vaccine researchers were as greedy as AoA asserts Offit to be, why haven’t they sued?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:57:44 +0000

It is uncomfortably ironic that some autism groups are entirely self centered and unable to see things from anyone else’s point of view.

By: Ringside Seat

Ringside Seat — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:54:16 +0000

The irony regarding James Moore, of course, is that for a journalist to write about a person (Wakefield), or a business or issue without declaring that he is doing consultancy work for the people or issue he is writing about is misconduct, and were that journalist employed by any media organization, it would lead to his instant dismissal.

The sickening ethics of these people is the reason why they need Dr Offit. “We may be lying, concealing our interests, faking our claims, but it’s not us that’s corrupt. It’s them over there, and we’ll fabricate the evidence to prove it…”

Respected journalist? For how much longer?