Archive | Matt Carey RSS feed for this section

Emily Willingham: winner of the 2014 John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science

28 Oct

Emily Willingham is one of the best writers on the science and social aspects of autism. She also writes on other topics and is an accomplished researcher. Her journalism can be found at her site,, The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism (the Site and the Book), DoubleXScience, Forbes, and elsewhere.

With all that in mind, it’s great to see that she’s been recognized for her work. has announced that she will share the 2014 John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science:

Dr Emily Willingham and Dr David Robert Grimes are the two winners of the 2014 John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science.

The announcement notes:

The judges awarded the prize to freelance journalist Dr Emily Willingham and early career scientist Dr David Robert Grimes for courage in promoting science and evidence on a matter of public interest, despite facing difficulty and hostility in doing so. The winners equally embody the spirit of the prize and, at this relatively early stage in their lives, have yet to receive recognition for their work bringing science and evidence to the public. Both Emily Willingham and David Grimes reflect Sir John Maddox’s passion for investigative journalism and for social engagement by young scientists.

On Emily Willingham in specific:

Emily Willingham, a US writer, has brought discussion about evidence, from school shootings to home birth, to large audiences through her writing. She has continued to reach across conflict and disputes about evidence to the people trying to make sense of them. She is facing a lawsuit for an article about the purported link between vaccines and autism.

The Prize is a joint initiative of the science journal Nature, the Kohn Foundation, and the charity Sense About Science. The late Sir John Maddox, FRS, was editor of Nature for 22 years and a founding trustee of Sense About Science.

And a statement by Michael Fitzpatrick, doctor, autism parent, writer and contributer to Left Brain/Right Brain:

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, author MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know and trustee of Sense About Science, responded to the news about Emily Willingham: “She has provided a particularly valuable service in confronting specious theories attributing autism to diverse environmental agents, from milk and vaccines to endocrine disrupters and maternal antibodies. She has also exposed quack treatments for autism and challenged ill-informed reports suggesting a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome as an explanation of the behaviour of serial killers (pointing out that people with autism are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime). As co-editor of the excellent Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism, she has helped to equip parents and people with autism with a critical approach to the evaluation of claims made by researchers and therapists alike.”

The full article is at

by Matt Carey

Nick Walker on Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions

25 Oct

Nick Walker starts his introduction with “I’m an Autistic educator, author, speaker, transdisciplinary scholar, activist, parent, and martial arts master.” His writing is excellent and I’d highly recommend adding Neurocosmopolatinism to your list of blogs to track, if it isn’t there already.

A recent article by Mr. Walker covers the topic of neurodiversity clearly and accurately. It’s a great resource: Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions.

It is one of those articles I’d like to copy in it’s entirety. But instead I’ll send you to: Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions.

By Matt Carey

Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker complain. Not honestly, but they complain

23 Oct

Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker have lately been trying to manage a “cdc whistleblower” story. The idea has been covered a lot recently, here and elsewhere. So, rather than go into more introduction, let’s take a look at the complaint they recently filed with the CDC office of research integrity. It’s long, so I’ll bring up a few glaring problems with the complaint letter. These problems have for the most part already been discussed here at Left Brain/Right Brain.

The basis of their arguments has been that allegedly the CDC found a statistically significant result suggesting that the MMR was associated with a higher odds ratio for autism in African American boys. They argue that the CDC then changed their protocol (analysis plan) to avoid reporting on this result. Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker have since added a similar argument for “isolated autism”–autism without comorbid conditions like intellectual disability. They claim the CDC hid those results as well.

So, what does the complaint say in specific? It’s long, but here’s an interesting and key part and a good place to start. Under the section titled “The Georgia Birth Certificate Cohort (GBCC): what was its stated purpose?“, Hooker and Wakefield quote the

[Exhibit 2, page 7, emphasis added] The Analysis Plan, “Statistical Analyses” states that “race” data were available for the entire sample:

The only variable that will be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample will be the child’s race.

[Exhibit 2, page 8, emphasis added]. Thus, “race” data came explicitly from the “school record” and not from the Georgia birth certificate/Georgia birth
records and was available for the “entire sample”.

The funny thing is that quote, “The only variable that will be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample will be the child’s race” doesn’t match what’s in the screenshot of the analysis plan that Wakefield included in his recent YouTube video (click to enlarge).

Draft Plan 2

The plan actually states:

The only variable available to be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample is child’s race.

emphasis added.

See how “available to be assessed” in the actual plan has been changed into “that will be assessed” by Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield would like us to believe that the analysis plan called for a study to be reported broken down by race using all the kids in the study. He’s been arguing that since his first ugly “It’s like the Tuskegee experiment!” video. The thing is that the plan didn’t call for that. As I recently discussed, the sentence Mr. Wakefield misquotes was a statement of the limitations of the dataset they had (MADDSP) and explains why the CDC needed to get the birth certificate data to do a more thorough analysis.

As I also noted, the full paragraph references table included in the analysis plan made it clear that race was to be analyzed for the birth certificate sample, not the total sample as Mr. Wakefield is leading us to believe.  The title of the table shows us that they were planning to report detailed data on the birth certificate group, not the entire sample.

What I find interesting is that Wakefield and Hooker are not just misinterpreting the statement as I originally thought. In the complaint they clearly changed what the statement said. Besides being wrong all on it’s own, this change tells me they know that phrase they latched on to ( “The only variable that will be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample will be the child’s race”) doesn’t come close to fitting in with his story. I don’t see this as an honest mistake.

The complaint also includes the “isolated autism” argument Mr. Wakefield recently put into another YouTube video. In this, Mr. Wakefield claims that all sorts of methods were used to hide an association observed for MMR and autism without other conditions like intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, etc.. In his complaint and video, Mr. Wakefield claims one of the methods used to hide this association was by limiting “other conditions” to only “MR” (mental retardation/intellectual disability). In the video Mr Wakefield gives us a fragment of an audio attributed to Mr. Thompson of the CDC saying, “the effect is where you would think it would happen. It is with the kids without other conditions, without the comorbid conditions.”

Mr. Wakefield even went on to say

But that didn’t seem to happen. They deviated further from the analysis plan by limiting the isolated group to only those with no mental retardation. Even changing the age categories and composition of the isolated subgroup may not have achieved the desired effect. Since, in the end, they simply omitted the relevant findings from the paper altogether

Emphasis added.

As I said before, I found this odd in that the CDC did report an apparent association in the raw data. The total sample/unadjusted data. To repeat a quote by Mr. Thompson, “It’s all there!”

Destefano_table_4 highlighted

It’s numerically almost the exact same result as Mr. Wakefield says was concealed. So, if it’s the same, how is it concealed? How is it omitted? Answer: it isn’t.

Remember that quote attributed to William Thompson from the video? Here’s a more full quote that’s from the complaint:

You see that the strongest association is with those [autistic cases] without mental retardation. The non-isolated [sic], the non-MR [mental retardation]…the effect is where you would think it would happen. It is with the kids without other conditions, without the comorbid conditions.

Mr. Wakefield wanted us to believe that by switching to autism without MR instead of autism without MR and/or other disabilities, the CDC were covering up the result.  Not only did the CDC report on the result, this isn’t what Mr. Thompson was saying.  Thompson is not saying, “hey look, we only used MR as a way to conceal the result.” He’s saying, in effect: when we looked at autism without MR, we saw this effect. It looks to me like Thompson is drawing Mr. Hooker’s attention to a result in the paper. Not describing an omitted result hidden from the public.

So, what is it? Did the CDC “simply omit the relevant findings altogether” as Mr. Wakefield stated in his video? No, they didn’t. Don’t take my word for it, take the word of Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker. In their complaint they state

2.7. The Group further deviated from the Analysis Plan by limiting the “isolated” group to only those without mental retardation, as published in The Paper.

Emphasis added.

So, we in the autism communities get one story in the video (the result was omitted), but in a legal document he puts the truth (the result was published in the paper).

And, how did the CDC accomplish all this alleged cover up in the story told by Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker? Well, in part the CDC supposedly did this by creating a “revised analysis plan”. From the complaint:

Over the ensuing months and in contravention of the CDC’s own policies,10 they deviated from the Analysis Plan and introduced a “revised analysis plan”11

Wakefield and Hooker can’t provide us with that revised analysis plan. Here is reference 11 noted in the quote above:

11 See original notes of Dr. William Thompson of 9.6.2001: “Get revised analysis plan from Tanya.” Tanya Bashin – a relatively junior member of The Group – was the second author named on the DeStefano 2004 paper. [Exhibit 8] The revised analysis plan itself is not available

I discussed this recently as well. It’s not after “ensuing months” that Mr. Thompson wrote about the “revised” plan. It’s not after the data were analyzed (which the earliest dates given by the complaint are in November).  The comment attributed to Mr. Thompson is dated September 6, 2001, the day after the plan was finalized.

Or, to put it another way: Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker–the revised analysis plan is indeed available. It’s the one you are working from, dated Sept. 5, 2001.

In their complaint, Mr. Hooker and Mr. Wakefield disclose private details about Mr. Thompson which frankly have no real bearing on the complaint and should not have been disclosed.

The complaint is long, but it all hinges on the three major claims: (1) The CDC was supposed to do an analysis of the total group (not just the birth certificate group) by race, (2) that the CDC hid results on “isolated” autism and (3) that they deviated from their analysis plan, introducing a revised plan, to do this.

All three claims are false. And not false as in “I interpret them differently” but false as in “the very data Wakefield and Hooker depend on show them to be fabricated claims”.

By Matt Carey

note– I made significant changes for clarity after this was first put online. reports:Health Canada seizes dangerous health product

20 Oct

The article is very short but the news is good–Health Canada has gone beyond issuing warnings about MMS (also known as CD protocol, CDS, Chlorine Dioxide Solution, Magic Mineral Solution). They have seized the product from one supplier:

According to Health Canada, MMS contains sodium chlorite, which is used as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant. An alternate form of MMS, which is called CDS, is also being sold on the same web site. It would have the same risks associated with it as MMS.

Health Canada has now seized the product since sodium chlorite is not approved for human consumption.

If you have been using the product, it is recommended you stop immediately and go see your doctor.

MMS is a scam, plain and simple. And a dangerous scam. More discussion of it can be found at the Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism in: Dangerous Interventions: MMS and Autism by Emily Willingham, Ph.D..

By Matt Carey

A new Autism Media Channel video. A chance to watch some sleight of hand

17 Oct

Andrew Wakefield has a new video with stunning new revelations of malfeasance by the CDC. Well, that’s what he wants you to think. Let’s take a look and see how well his story stands up to scrutiny, shall we? To do this I’ll highlight two of the problems with the video.  The first I’ve already discussed some: Mr. Wakefield claims the CDC hid a result but the CDC actually published it. For the second problem, let’s follow Mr. Wakefield as he creates a timeline showing us how the CDC’s research plan was supposedly revised in response to some analysis results.  Then let’s piece together the real timeline.

We will start with problem one. The basic idea of Mr. Wakefields argument in his new video is that the CDC hid an association in a group of kids allegedly susceptible to becoming autistic due to the MMR. This group are those with “isolated autism”: autism without intellectual disability, birth defects or other possible cause.

There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in the video, but here’s the main result.  An increased odd ratio for “isolated autism” for kids vaccinated before 36 months.  Calculated odds ratio is 2.48.  With a confidence interval that doesn’t span 1 (1.16 to 5.31).

Wakefield smoke and mirrors

There’s much drama in the video about this.  For example, here’s what Brian Hooker had to say (about 3:25 into the video).

What CDC employees do, when they see an effect, then they will get in a room together and they will work until that association goes away

Followed by Mr Wakefield:

But that didn’t seem to happen. They deviated further from the analysis plan by limiting the isolated group to only those with no mental retardation. Even changing the age categories and composition of the isolated subgroup may not have achieved the desired effect. Since, in the end, the simply omitted the relevant findings from the paper altogether.

That’s an amazing claim, isn’t it? The CDC allegedly just buried the result.  “Omitted the findings altogether.”

Except that the CDC didn’t hide the result. They reported on autism without MR. Here’s table 4 from the paper in Pediatrics.

Destefano_table_4 highlighted

If you want to say, “well autism without MR isn’t the same thing as ‘isolated autism’, consider this: the answer is basically unchanged from what Mr. Wakefield claims was “omitted”.   Take a look at the table: in the total sample, the group without MR has basically the same result as was supposedly hidden.   Odds ratio 2.45 (compared to 2.48), with confidence interval from 1.20 to 5.00 (compared to 1.16 to 5.31).  Which is to say: the CDC published the result that Mr. Wakefield claims was hidden.

Smoke.  Mirrors.  Wakefield.  Hooker.

This result is 10 years old.  And no one, not Wakefield, Not Hooker, not anyone in the real advocacy community has made a big deal out of it until now. I do not profess to understand how Mr. Wakefield nor Mr. Hooker think, but here’s one reason why most people haven’t considered this “autism without MR” result a big deal:  this is a raw data result.  A result unadjusted for any possible confounders.  The adjusted result, also highlighted in the figure above, shows a confidence interval that spans 1.  In other words, there’s no suggestion of a real effect when one does a full analysis.

Which of course shows us why people do full analyses.  Sometimes associations change when one controls for other factors.  Sometimes associations get stronger.  Sometimes they go away.  Sometimes things that appear to not be associations are shown to be associations.

Now that we’ve seen that the conclusion from Mr. Wakefield’s video is wrong, let’s consider a second problem with this new video: the way in which Mr. Wakefield manipulates his audience.  He creates a timeline for the CDC’s actions that allows Mr. Wakefield to use his new favorite “f” word.  Fraud.  Let’s go through the timeline.

At about 2:20 in the video, Mr. Wakefield shows us a fraction of a page of the analysis plan. The protocol. Dated September 5, 2001.

draft analysis plan screenshot

We then get this ominous voiceover. Complete with the analysis plan page going up in flames. Very dramatic:

“Over the ensuing months, after the data after the data had been collected and analyzed, and strictly forbidden in the proper conduct of science, the group abandoned the approved analysis plan, introducing a revised analysis plan to help them deal with their problem.”

And to “prove” that months later the CDC introduced a new analysis plan we are shown notes supposedly documenting that the CDC team were creating that revised plan:

Scary Revised Analysis Plan Screenshot

You are supposed to say, “they revised the analysis plan!  That’s bad!” But do you see what I see? That these are notes from September 6, 2001 2011?  Not after the “ensuing months” but one day later after the plan was finalized. I guess we weren’t supposed to look at the date, just the scary words “revised analysis plan”.

From these notes it appears to say that there will be a records review on September 12th and that in advance of that, whoever wrote these notes needs to get the revised analysis plan. Not, “hey, let’s fabricate a new analysis plan” but, “Hey, the plan was revised yesterday and I should get a copy”. Or, to put it another way: how sinister does the note read sound when the plan was just finalized the day before?

So, when did the CDC do the analysis that Mr. Wakefield shows in his video?  You know, the analysis that the “revised” plan was supposed to avoid?  November, 2001.  Two months later after the plan was finalized and, importantly, two months after those notes were taken. Here’s a screenshot from a talk Mr. Hooker recently gave about his work and the DeStefano paper.  He showed one of the same tables that Mr. Wakefield uses in his video (29:11 into the video).  Notice the date? November 7. In the audio he says “they did see a statistically significant result as early as November 7th, 2001″.  Mr. Wakefield’s first video (the ugly, race-baiting one) also references the November 7th meeting.  So it looks like this is the earliest evidence Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker have  of the CDC obtaining results for this study.


Now, let’s compare how Mr. Wakefield presented a chain of events and what actually happened.

The impression Mr. Wakefield gives in his video is that:

(a) first the plan for the research was finalized by the CDC team,

(b) then they found data which showed an effect they didn’t like and

(c) after “ensuing months” the CDC team then held a meeting in which notes were taken that they had to revise the plan.

Here’s what the actual events appear to be

(a) the research plan was finalized on Sept. 5,

(b) on Sept. 6, someone (likely Mr. Thompson) took notes that he had to get the revised plan and

(c) on November 7, what appears to be the first pass at data analysis were presented presented in an internal CDC meeting.

No evidence of revising the plan after the analysis.  The image of the meeting notes are being used as props to craft a story. Andrew Wakefield apparently doesn’t understand the first rule of documentaries.  And apparently whatever ability he had for reporting factually has long since faded since he left grad school.

And, Brian Hooker?  He’s not just a prop in these videos.  He’s an active participant.  His organization has paid Mr. Wakefield for at least the first video.  The race-baiting video.

The autism communities deserve better. Better than Andrew Wakefield.  Better than Brian Hooker.

By Matt Carey

A look at the analysis plan for DeStefano’s MMR study: no evidence of fraud

16 Oct

Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker have been making claims that the CDC are involved in misconduct in autism research. In case you haven’t followed the story, it basically goes like this:

1) the CDC planned on a study of MMR and autism using the MADDSP data.

2) That the CDC created a research plan.

3) That the CDC found results they didn’t want to report: an calculated odds ratio for African American boys. So the CDC team allegedly deviated from that plan and didn’t report that result.

4) That the CDC introduced a new analysis after the plan: that they would include birth certificate data.  While the CDC rationale for this new analysis was to provide more data (confounding variables) for the analysis, the allegedly real reason was to dilute the sample set and make statistically significant results disappear.

Here’s a paragraph from one of the press releases about the Hooker study:

According to Dr. Thompson’s statement, “Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data was collected.” Thompson’s conversations with Hooker confirmed that it was only after the CDC study coauthors observed results indicating a statistical association between MMR timing and autism among African-Americans boys, that they introduced the Georgia birth certificate criterion as a requirement for participation in the study. This had the effect of reducing the sample size by 41% and eliminating the statistical significance of the finding, which Hooker calls “a direct deviation from the agreed upon final study protocol – a serious violation.”

Or so goes the story. But as is often the case with Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker, the facts don’t match the claims.

In a recent video, Mr. Wakefield shows us the research plan the CDC had drafted.  One red flag with Mr. Wakefield’s approach so far has been how he tries to tightly manage the flow of information.  He has not shared the analysis plan in total and only now has he provided us with a couple screenshots.  Begs the question: what are they hiding?

Here’s one screenshot from that video. This one is where he gets the idea that the plan was to report race for the entire sample.

draft analysis plan screenshot 2

Here’s the full text, in case that’s difficult to read:

Statistical Analysis

We will use conditional logistic regression stratified by matched sets to estimate the odds ratios for association between age at MMR vaccination and autism. In the main analyses, we will include all autism cases.

Potential confounding variables will be evaluated individually for their association with the autism case definition. Those with an odds ratio p-value < 0.20 will be included as covariates in a conditional logistic regression model to estimate adjusted odds ratios for the association between age at vaccination and autism. The only variable available to be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample is child’s race. For the children born in Georgia for whom we have birth certificate data, several sub-analyses will be carried out similar to the main analyses to assess the effect of several other potential confounding variables. A recent case control study (CDC, 2001) carried out with a subset of the autism cases from this study found that age matched cases and controls differed on several important background factors including maternal age, maternal education, birth type, and parity. The variables that will be assessed as potential confounders in this study will be birth weight, APGAR scores, gestational age, birth type, parity, maternal age, maternal race/ethnicity, and maternal education. (See Table 2 for how variables will be categorized.)

There are two interesting points in the above.  First, the sentence Mr. Wakefield highlights doesn’t say what he claims.  The only variable available to be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample is child’s race. The plan doesn’t say that they will test and report race.  Consider the context: this is a section of the plan called “statistical analysis”. Put in context with the entire paragraph, this sentence is clear: the full dataset is limited because it only has one variable available.

The CDC didn’t deviate from the plan when they didn’t report on race for the total sample because that was never in the plan.  If you want more evidence of this, the end of the paragraph says “See Table 2 for how variables will be categorized”.  Table 2 is titled “Descriptive Statistics for Children Born in Georgia with Birth Certificate Records”.  The variables will be categorized in the birth certificate sample.

The second interesting point from the paragraph Mr. Wakefield has shown us is this: the CDC plan included a birth certificate sample.

Here’s a screenshot of the analysis plan from that new video, showing the front page of the analysis plan:

draft analysis plan screenshot

Shown with this voice over by Mr. Wakefield (while the screenshot above is shown going up in flames…very dramatic)

“Over the ensuing months, after the data after the data had been collected and analyzed, and strictly forbidden in the proper conduct of science, the group abandoned the approved analysis plan, introducing a revised analysis plan to help them deal with their problem.”

So, in case you were thinking, “that’s an analysis plan, how do we know it’s the analysis plan”, well, you have Mr. Wakefield’s word on it.  This is the “approved analysis plan” that the CDC allegedly had to revise.

What interests me about this as that’s the same plan that I have and was preparing to write about.  It’s nice now to be able to be able to say that this is, indeed, the same document that Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker are working with.

We’ve already seen two big mistakes by the Wakefield/Hooker team: first that the analysis plan doesn’t include a call to report on race separately in the total sample (the group without the birth certificates), second that the CDC “approved analysis plan” included analysis of a subset with birth certificate data.

So, what were the objectives of the study as in the plan?

We did not have information regarding onset of symptoms for most cases in this study and this limited our ability to do certain types of analyses such as case series analyses. In addition, a totally unexposed group (i.e., never received the MMR vaccine or other measles containing vaccine) was not available since measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination are required for school attendance in Georgia. The following objectives are considered the primary objectives for this study.
1) To determine if case children were more likely than their matched controls to have been vaccinated with MMR before 36 months of age. DSM-IV criteria for autism require that onset of symptoms occur before 36 months of age. Therefore, the 36-month cut-off is one that by definition can be used to classify a definitely “unexposed” group.
2) To determine whether there was a difference between cases and controls in the proportion of children exposed to their first dose of MMR vaccine before 18 months of age. This objective is based on the research that suggests the timing of first parental concern for the development of autism appears around 18 months of age (Taylor et al, 1999). In addition, Cathy Lord has reported that the range of first parental concern for regression was between 12 and 23 months of age with a mode of 19-21 months.
3) To determine whether the age distribution for receipt of the MMR vaccine differs between cases and controls.

They showed the data for the 36 and 18 month cutoffs.  Age distribution was covered in Table 2.

Analysis of Autism subgroups

The IOM (2001) specifically recommended additional research regarding autism subgroups and MMR. We will examine several subtypes of autism in this study. Data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program will be included in the sub-analyses to identify particular sub-groups. The following sub-group analyses will be conducted:

1) Analyses excluding cases with an established cause for autism or a co-occurring condition suggesting an early prenatal etiology (e.g., tuberous sclerosis, fragile X, or other congenital/chromosomal anomalies.)

We propose to conduct a case-control sub-analysis looking at cases without an established or presumptive cause for autism, such as tuberous sclerosis, fragile X, and other congenital/chromosomal anomalies. The purpose of doing this analysis is to create a more homogeneous case group that may be more likely to be impacted by the timing of the MMR vaccine. The objectives from the primary analyses will be replicated in this sub-analysis.

2) Analyses of Isolated versus Non-isolated Autism.

Isolated autism cases are cases with no other co-morbid developmental disability while non-isolated cases do have a co-morbid developmental disability. Previous research suggests that the majority of non-isolated cases have a co-existing developmental disability of mental retardation (CDC, 2001). Both isolated and non-isolated cases will be compared separately to controls. The objectives from the primary analyses will be replicated in this sub-analysis.

3) Analyses examining Gender Effects

Males are at substantially higher risk for autism and may be more vulnerable to the exposure associated with the MMR vaccine. We will analyze males and females separately and replicate the main objectives of the primary analyses as well as examine the potential confounders available from Georgia birth certificates.

4) Analyses excluding autism cases with known onset prior to 1 year of age.

For a subset of autism cases, we were able to identify the timing of parental concern. This sub-analysis will exclude all cases excluded with an established or presumptive cause for autism (e.g., tuberous sclerosis, fragile X, and other congenital/chromosomal anomalies.) and children for whom we have been able to identify first parental concern prior to 12 months of age.

Just in case anyone reading this is one of the few that has been following Mr. Wakefield’s video releases: in a new video Mr. Wakefield is trying to claim that the isolated autism subanalysis was not done.  Except that it was.  They made a minor change to autism without MR, which gave essentially the same result that Mr. Wakefield claims was hidden.

Destefano_table_4 highlighted

Autism without MR has an odds ratio of 2.45 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.20 to 5.00.  I’ll write about this new video soon as there’s much sleight of hand going on, but Mr. Wakefield is claiming that a result of odd ratio = 2.48 with confidence interval of 1.16 to 5.31 was not reported.  Besides ignoring the fact that the data were reported by the CDC, Mr. Wakefield ignores the fact that these are raw-data results.  Total sample, unadjusted analysis.  In the adjusted analysis the result does not suggest an association.

But, getting back to the main point: the claims of fraud are just not founded on fact.  The two main claims of “fraud” are just wrong.  The analysis plan did not state that they would do a subanalysis by race for the total sample.  The addition of the birth certificate data is in the plan, not in some sort of revision.  And Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker knew this.

I am reminded of a quote from an ABC News article recently

“There are always going to be those people at the edges of science who want to shout because they don’t want to believe what the data are showing,” said Dr. Margaret Moon, a pediatrician and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. She said she thought the study author “manipulated the data and manipulated the media in a very savvy and sophisticated way.”

“It’s not good. It’s not fair. It’s not honest. But it’s savvy,” Moon said.

By Matt Carey

Brian Deer: Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story

12 Oct

Brian Deer, the reporter who broke the story on Andrew Wakefield’s conflicts of interests, has a new story on his website:

Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story
In a newly-released judgment from England’s Court of Protection, a prominent anti-vaccine campaigner is branded a manipulative liar. Brian Deer reports

The story is quite sad. And while it presents an extreme case, there are themes here which have been seen elsewhere.

A British “mother warrior”, who claimed that the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is responsible for autism, fabricated accounts of injury to her son and persistently lied about his health, a London court has ruled.

The mother, “E”, who cannot be named so as to protect her son’s identity, concocted a story about how he reacted to an MMR shot in January 1991. She said that he became distressed with fever and then lost speech, eye contact and play immediately following his three-in-one at the age of 18 months.

She claimed that he screamed after immunization, and that this was followed by six hours of convulsions and vomiting, and then six months in a “persistent vegetative state”.

But in a landmark 45,000-word judgment, which entered the public domain last week from the Court of Protection, the mother was dismissed as a manipulative liar. It was found that she had made up the story so as to bring attention to herself and had plied her developmentally delayed son with a mass of sometimes bizarre “biomedical” interventions so as to gain “total control” over his life.

Mr. Deer’s story goes on (Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story) with more details. Many more details are in the court’s judgment which is linked to at the end of Mr. Deer’s article. I won’t copy it all here, I encourage you to read it there.

Here’s a paragraph from the judgment that goes to the evolution of the story surrounding the day in which the child received the MMR vaccine. The fact that the allegation of a vaccine reaction was not made until is important as this was 10 years after the event. Also worth noting is that this individual showed developmental issues well before the MMR vaccine.

After the allegation of an adverse reaction to MMR was eventually recorded in 2001, it became more dramatic in subsequent accounts. Thus, in 2001 the description was: “Distressed after injection. Had fever. Eyes glazed, dilated and fixed.” E’s account became more florid over time, with references to screaming, jolting, spasming and a persistent vegetative state. In her final statement she said that: “M died within six hours of the MMR.” In the witness box she gave a full account of the events on the day on which the MMR was administered and M’s reaction to it. E acknowledges in her final statement that she uses certain words and phrases in her own particular way. For example, for her the phrase “vegetative state” means “slipping in and out of consciousness, not responding and appearing lifeless.” And her use of the word “died” to describe what happened to M means “stopped breathing and lost consciousness”

I’d be very interested when “died” became part of the story. Reading the above I was very much reminded of Jenny McCarthy’s statement that her son died from vaccine injury. Ms. McCarthy was referring to her son’s very serious seizures. The timeline has never been made clear, but those seizures appear to have began a year or more after her son’s vaccinations. But her vague choice of words led many to claim that her son “died” shortly after vaccination.

As to “E”‘s experience taking her son to the Royal Free Hospital:

Throughout the hearing, E insisted that M had been given the diagnosis of autistic enterocolitis or leaky gut syndrome and alleged that some of the Royal Free medical records must be missing. I reject that assertion. I find that not even the Royal Free team, who at that time were leading the way and postulating the link between autism and a form of colitis, found any evidence in 2001 of significant gut disorder in M. In his case no diagnosis of autistic enterocolitis or leaky gut syndrome was ever made.

There’s a great deal more, in both Mr. Deer’s story and the 92 page judgment.

By Matt Carey


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,131 other followers