Sharyl Attkisson, CBS journalist best known here for her bias towards those promoting autism as a vaccine injury, was slated to accept an award Thursday from Accuracy In Media (AIM). This was discussed on Left Brain/Right Brain recently.

Media Matters is reporting CBS Pulls Attkisson From CPAC Award Event.

CBS still accepted the award, though:

CBS Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson did not appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference today to receive her journalism award from fringe group Accuracy In Media (AIM), despite previous reports that she would speak at the event. Instead, CBS Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief Christopher Isham accepted the award on her behalf.

As one commenter on MediaMatters wrote, this just looks like Ms. Attkisson had better things to do. It would have been good, in my opinion, for CBS to decline the award.

Write a quick comment

Sharyl Attkisson has been one of the less reliable members of the media when it comes to the autism/vaccine discussion. She promotes the purported link, defended Andrew Wakefield and gave David Kirby (of Evidence of Harm fame) a platform to promote his views.

For example. Recall a few years back when the Hornig study (Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study) came out definitively putting to rest the idea that MMR causes autistic regression/GI disease with persistent measles measles infection. Ms. Attkisson wrote a piece, New Study Disproves Vaccine/MMR/Autism Link.

But she didn’t write about the new study or how it disproves the MMR/autism link.

There’s a new study in the Public Library of Science regarding vaccine measles and autism which purports to disprove a vaccine/MMR/autism link.

Also, researchers at ThoughtfulHouse wrote an opposing analysis:

She didn’t discuss the study at all. Instead she linked to printed a press release by (then) Andrew Wakefield’s Thoughtful House.

Readers won’t be surprised that I was dismayed to read that she’s now getting an award. From “Accuracy in Media“, to be given out at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Dismayed that is until I saw what “Accuracy” in Media has as a track record.

Here’s a particularly egregious example of an article from an “Accuracy in Media” “report“:

Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions but the mainstream media are turning a blind eye.

The intro is bad enough. The discussion worse. Why? Well, the author of that hate piece is

Dr. Scott Lively, a Massachusetts attorney and pastor, is co-author, along with Kevin E. Abrams, of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party.

Yes. The Nazis were gay. How does the saying go, you can’t parody a farce? Read more examples of AIM’s “accuracy”in CBS To Receive Award From Fringe Group At CPAC. With links to AIM’s support of the Birthers and other outlandish claims against President Obama.

Well, this farcical organization is going to “honor” Sharyl Attkisson. I guess there is something worse than getting a “Gallileo” award from the Age of Autism.

Write a quick comment

I had forgotten Sharyl Attkisson. She is a reporter for CBS news who has covered vaccines in the past, but has been silent on the issue for the past year or more.

Her recent piece shows exactly the sort of reporting that frustrated me in the past: Family to Receive $1.5M in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award

In that piece she links to her piece from 2008 on the Hannah Poling case: Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent?

Here’s a quote from that earlier piece:

While the Poling case is the first of its kind to become public, a CBS News investigation uncovered at least nine other cases as far back as 1990, where records show the court ordered the government compensated families whose children developed autism or autistic-like symptoms in children including toddlers who had been called “very smart” and “impressed” doctors with their “intelligence and curiosity” … until their vaccinations.

They were children just like Hannah Poling.

What’s still being debated is whether the Poling case is an exception … or a precedent.

So, which is it? Were there children “just like Hannah Poling” or is this the “First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award”?

Actually, it is neither. This isn’t the first vaccine court award involving autism, and the other cases are not “just like Hannah Poling”.

For real information on the other nine cases, read Kathleen Seidel’s piece on Neurodiversity.com. Few, professional or amateur, can compare the the thoroughness of Kathleen Seidel. For example, one case (the first I read involving autism from the vaccine court) is Suel v. HHS. Young David Suel had tuberous sclerosis, a condition known to be associated with autism and epilepsy. Epilepsy occurs in about 60 to 90% of individuals with TS. Autism occurs in about 25-50%. David Suel’s case was declared to be a “table injury” wherein the seizures began within a set period after his DPT vaccination. What is notable about that is the table for DPT was later changed—when it was shown that DPT was not responsible for inducing seizure disorders. In other words, had David Suel been vaccinated, or just filed, after the change in the table, he likely would not have been awarded damages.

“They were children just like Hannah Poling”? Is tuberous sclerosis just like mitochondrial disease? (answer: not even close).

Shall we go on? In her recent piece, Ms. Attkisson states:

In 2002, Hannah’s parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed

Not accurate. The court did not “settle” the case in 2007. They conceded the case, and they were in the process of completing the settlement when someone leaked the information to the press. The government did not “seal” the case—it is standard procedure to keep this information confidential until the settlement is completed.

But that doesn’t make a good story, does it?

Ms. Attkisson goes on:

In acknowledging Hannah’s injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn’t “cause” her autism, but “resulted” in it. It’s unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism “test cases” have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.

Mito-autism was a big thing for a while there. David Kirby took the story and ran with it—making a lot of mistakes along the way and propagating a lot of misinformation. It is unknown how many other children have similar disorders—but the researchers who studied cases like Hannah Poling have stated that cases such as hers are “rare”.

“All other autism “test cases” have been defeated at trial”.

What is conspicuous about the other “test cases” is that in none of them was it argued that the children were like Hannah Poling—i.e. the attorneys did not argue that a mechanism of autism through mitochondrial dysfunction aggravated by vaccines existed. In fact, one child named as a test case was pulled from that slot in order to argue that mitochondrial based case. The expert report filed for that child (since pulled from the Omnibus website) did not argue mitochondrial disorder or dysfunction at that time. In other words, the idea of a mitochondrial disorder being linked to autism was so alien from the cases being made by the attorneys for the families in the Omnibus that this child had to argue the case separately.

It is often pointed out that many autistics may have mitochondrial dysfunction. This is based largely on studies out of Portugal. It is left implied, and it is often believed that mitochondrial dysfunction means vaccine injury in these cases. This was the impression that David Kirby put forth and it was clearly wrong. First, mitochondrial disorders are a very broad spectrum. The type that Hannah Poling has is not the same as those detected in most autistics. Second, most reports of mitochondrial disorders and autism, including the Portugal studies, do not involve regression. Third, even amongst those children reported by the groups that identified Hannah Poling, regression was often idiopathic or followed fever clearly independent of vaccination.

I do not expect Ms. Attkisson to present the following (quality) information, so I will repeat it here:

Here are the answers to some questions posted to mitochondrial medicine experts and their answers:

When asked, to respond to the position: ‘‘I view the risk of vaccination in known metabolic disease patients to generally be outweighed by the risk of the infectious diseases being vaccinated against”

63.2% strongly agreed
31.1% agreed
0.9% disagreed
and 0.9% strongly disagreed.

Asked about the opinion that the risk of vaccination in metabolic disease was ‘‘greater than the risk of the infectious diseases being vaccinated against”

52.9% strongly disagreed
40% disagreed
3.5% agreed
and none strongly agreed

Write a quick comment | View 91 more comment(s).

Have a look for yourself:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

David Kirby, interviewed by Sharyl Attkisson. Talk about faux-news. For those luckily unfamiliar with Ms. Attkisson, here are some of the pieces done on this blog about her. Ms. Attkisson has a history of interviewing other members of the press and not being critical at all of their unsupported claims. She did this with Bernadine Healy, who made some unfounded claims about the IOM. When a study came out disproving a study by Maddy Hornig on mice and thimerosal that is, Ms. Attkisson blogged the Thoughtful House (Andrew Wakefield) press release on the subject. There’s more, but that gives you a taste of her history.

Today she interviewed David Kirby, author of “Evidence of Harm” and Huffington Post blogger.

To start, David Kirby apparantly has rewritten his book (yes, that is sarcasm). It is titled, “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy”.

But according to the interview, his book isn’t primarily about mercury in vaccines. Instead it is all about “increasing environmental exposures, toxins in children throughout the 1990’s and into the early 2000’s from both mercury background mercury environmental mercury which is on the increase and also mercury and other heavy metals and toxic metals that are included in vaccines that we give our children.”

Notice how thimersosal (mercury in vaccines) is downplayed compared to environmental mercury. That’s called revisionist history. Take a look at the back cover from the book (click to enlarge):

A commenter on this blog called the recent National Children’s Health Survey to be the worst sort of prevalence study. It can get much worse. For example—according to David Kirby, when he went through the subway he didn’t see anyone obviously autistic. Yes, David Kirby, epidemiologist and diagnostician has found a dramatically low prevalence amongst the New York subway riders.

David Kirby reminds us all that Asperger’s syndrome is a disability. Mr. Kirby, go back and tell that to Lenny Schafer, the “commenter of the week” on your blog, the Age of Autism.

If someone made a comment on this blog like Mr. Shafer did he would be booed off the stage. Here’s an excerpt:

And let us hope that the upcoming DSM-V gets clearer about defining autism only as a disability—and kicks the high functioning ND autism squatters onto the personality disorder spectrum where they belong.

Your blog gave him a free T-shirt. Don’t lecture us about disability.

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health and chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee declined to be interviewed by Ms. Attkisson.

A sincere “good job” goes out to Dr. Insel. After the way Ms. Attkisson showed a clear bias in doing her story on Dr. Offit, I can completely understand Dr. Insel declining the interview.

The second half of the interview discusses Mr. Kirby’s new book, the use of antibiotics on large farms.

No, seriously, they moved from Autism to animal farms.

Way to plug David Kirby’s new book, Sharyl!

Write a quick comment | View 106 more comment(s).

If you’ve read my previous posts Dr. Bernadine Healy, you know I have some pretty serious concerns about how she represented the way the Institute of Medicine operated when they produced their report on Vaccines and Autism.  Those statements were made in interviews with Sharyl Attkisson.  Again, if you’ve been reading, you realize that Ms. Attkisson’s methods were a cause of concern for me as well.  I have voiced these concerns with CBS news via fax.

Dr. Healy made some pretty bold assertions, and Ms. Attkisson failed to even attempt to follow up on them.

The prime example is when Dr. Healy proposed that

...“There is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. “First of all,” Healy said, “I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

I’ve noted before, that a statement of that magnitude, calling into question the very methods and motives of the IOM deserved followup by Ms. Attkisson.  When someone makes a claim that an organization we all depend on to be independent and unbiased may have acted improperly, and unbiased reporter should make sure of the facts by checking with the real source before going ahead with the story.

Well, bloggers sometimes do the work that reporters fail to do.  In this case, AutismLibrary asked the IOM for comment on some of the way the IOM and its process in handling the 2004 Vaccines and Autism report have been portrayed.  Below (with permission) is the response that AutismLibrary received and blogged:

Thank you for your recent and very thoughtful message. As you know, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee most certainly did not suggest that scientific inquiry into the role of vaccines in autism should cease because the results could affect public perception of the value of childhood vaccinations. The public deserves better than that.

The committee’s 2004 report, Vaccines and Autism, states:

Determining causality with population-based methods such as epidemiological analyses requires either a well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general population. Absent biomarkers, well-defined risk factors, or large effect sizes, the committee cannot rule out, based on the epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances. However, there is currently no evidence to support this hypothesis either.

After a paragraph in which the report follows that sentence with a discussion of the sparse literature regarding subsets of autism and the theoretical possibility of a vaccine-susceptible subpopulation, the report states:

While the committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time. The nature of the debate about vaccine safety now includes a theory that genetic susceptibility makes vaccinations risky for some people, which calls into question the appropriateness of a public health, or universal, vaccination strategy. However the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative. Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidence of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

The committee urges that research on autism focus more broadly on the disorder’s causes and treatments for it. Thus, the committee recommends a public health response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities. In addition the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled to the most promising areas.

Some readers have apparently failed to appreciate the full meaning and intent of the committee’s carefully written text. The report, as supported by the above-quoted paragraphs, clearly acknowledges the possibility that new information in support of hypotheses about susceptible subpopulations could emerge, at which time significant new research efforts might be appropriate. Whether the recent information about mitochondrial dysfunction will be the foundation for a major new research direction remains to be seen. The committee’s comment on the untoward consequences of discouraging vaccination was offered as an elaboration of their concerns about the unsubstantiated vaccine-autism hypothesis and not as support for their recommendations about an appropriate research agenda for understanding autism.

The scientists and clinicians on this committee evaluated the then-available scientific data in an unbiased manner. They reached their conclusions based on where the evidence led them. This principle—making recommendations only if supported by the evidence—guides all studies that IOM undertakes. I reiterate that the committee most certainly did not urge caution about pursuing the vaccine-autism connection in order to avoid frightening the public away from immunizations. The IOM stands ready to re-examine this issue should sufficient and relevant evidence emerge.

I almost put the entire last paragraph in bold for emphasis. Instead I’ll pull two lines out:

I reiterate that the committee most certainly did not urge caution about pursuing the vaccine-autism connection in order to avoid frightening the public away from immunizations

and

The IOM stands ready to re-examine this issue should sufficient and relevant evidence emerge

I read this as: there were no “completely expressed concerns” that affected the IOM’s study and that although they recommended rejecting the vaccine/autism hypotheses (thimerosal and MMR), they haven’t “turned their backs” on the subject. Should good research come forward (as with any subject in science) they will look again.

I do have one simple question: Shouldn’t Sharyl Attkisson approached the IOM for comment before going forward with this story?

Write a quick comment | View 2 more comment(s).

As I noted before, My fax complaining that Ms. Attkisson missed the big story in the autism/vaccine discussion just about the same time she was posting on exactly that story (the Hornig MMR paper).

Ms Atkisson’s blog post is titled

New Study Disproves Vaccine/MMR/Autism Link

Wow. I didn’t expect to see that from Ms. Attkisson.

Below is the full extent of Ms. Attkisson’s contribution to the piece

There’s a new study in the Public Library of Science regarding vaccine measles and autism which purports to disprove a vaccine/MMR/autism link.

Also, researchers at ThoughtfulHouse wrote an opposing analysis:

She then posts the ThoughtfulHouse press release. No kidding, of the blog piece, 90% (an estimate on my part) of the words are written by someone else! And, not even the researchers involved.

Dang. Recently we have seen a lack of homework on the Dr. Offit conflict of interest story, and now this.

At least there was some effort put into the story on Dr. Offit.

What happened to the CBS I grew up with? I can’t see Walter Cronkite getting paid for “Richard Nixon has resigned in disgrace. Now, here is Mr. Nixon’s press release verbatim.”

Write a quick comment | View 6 more comment(s).

Note: I didn’t do my homework—Ms. Attkisson has discussed the Hornig paper. She manages to do exactly what we would expect: toe the ThoughtfulHouse line. The blog piece by Ms. Attkisson was posted while I was finishing my fax, given the time stamp.

As you will read below, I didn’t find Sharyl Attkisson’s recent blog post to be what I expected. OK, I wasn’t expecting her to be convinced by the recent study by Hornig et al., (paper here) but I at least expected her to comment on it. Instead, she dodged the issue completely. Worse yet, her post boils down to (a) assuming that the government doesn’t do vaccine safety research then (b) apparently implying that she and Dr. Bernadine Healy are somehow responsible for a “new” effort by the government to study vaccine safety.

So, CBS news has two new pages in their fax machine (to go along with a previous fax). In an effort to save their staffers the time of forwarding the fax, I quote it below.

September 8, 2008

Katie Couric, Managing Editor
CBS Television Network
524 West 57th Street
6th Floor
New York, NY 10019-2902

VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Ms. Couric,

I have faxed you recently about my concerns with the reporting of Ms. Attkisson. I would love to be writing you now with word that things have improved. But, sadly, they have not.

Ms. Attkisson appears to have avoided the key story of the week (if not month) in vaccines and autism: the study by Hornig et al. which shows (again) a lack of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Instead, Ms. Attkisson ran a blog piece that perpetuates the myth that vaccine safety is not a high priority for the nation’s health researchers.

Hornig et al. is precisely the sort of study that Dr. Bernadine Healy (in an interview by Ms. Attkisson) claimed the research establishment was “afraid” to perform: a study looking not at large populations, but specifically at children with autism. In this paper, the study group critera were very narrow: children with autism who regressed and have significant GI problems. The study sought to answer questions raised by Dr. Wakefield’s flawed study, which has caused much distress in the autism community for 10 years. The study found that MMR is not linked to autism: a conclusion accepted by autism advocate Rick Rollens, one of the most vocal spokespeople for the autism/vaccine link.

You can imagine that, yes, I expected Ms. Attkisson to address this study in her blog or reporting. Instead I read with dismay her blog piece on September 4th, “Vaccine Watch”. In her introduction, she references her interviews with Dr. Healy, but avoids the issue of the Hornig MMR study. Instead, she discusses recent NIH grant solicitations in the area of vaccine safety, and presents them as though vaccine safety research is something new. As noted above, this perpetuates the myth that vaccine safety is not being studied.

In addition to the Hornig et al. study, there is another study soon to be released on autism and thimerosal containing vaccines. Again, a targeted study looking at the exact population of interest. I would hope that this one doesn’t escape Ms. Attkisson’s attention. Also, one need look no further than clinicaltrials.gov to find ongoing studies on vaccine safety and adverse events. It is difficult to find a way that will not appear sarcastic to point out that the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Office is a very clear example of the government’s ongoing commitment to tracking vaccine safety.

If you have any question of how important the Hornig study is in the autism community, take a look at the comments on Ms. Attkisson’s own blog post. You will find that, even though Ms. Attkisson avoided the study, the autism community considered the Hornig study to be the news of the week, not the NIH grant solicitations.

Accusations of media bias are often applied too quickly by readers who disagree with the stances taken on certain stories. However, in the case of Ms. Attkisson, I find it difficult to understand how she could avoid a story which not only was so important to the community, but also answered the precise questions she has posed in her previous reporting.

I appreciate your time in this matter, and will gladly clarify any statements above that may not be clear.

Sullivan
Autism Parent
LeftBrainRightBrain.co.uk
SullivansJourney@gmail.com

Write a quick comment

There is a lot of talk about conflicts of interest in autism.  This is especially true with Dr. Paul Offit’s book, Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure out now.

Consider his letter to the New England Journal of Medicine in May, 2008.

Dr. Offit reports being a co-inventor and co-holder of a patent on the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq, from which he and his institution receive royalties, as well as serving on a scientific advisory board for Merck. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

In August Dr. Poling responded to that May Letter, and Dr. Offit was able to comment as well. Below is Dr. Offit’s conflict of interest statement.

...

Yep, that’s right. No statement. In a few short months, the royalties for the RotaTeq vaccine have been settled and Dr. Offit’s tenure as a consultant to Merck has ended. Basically, it’s as we’ve discussed before: Dr. Offit no longer has any financial conflicts of interest in discussing vaccines.

Note this statement about the book from the publisher’s site: He [Offit] will donate all royalties from sales of this book to autism research. I.e. he also doesn’t even have a conflict of interest in promoting his newest book.

I don’t expect all the people who dislike what Dr. Offit has to say to report these facts accurately. I will say that Sharyl Attkisson didn’t repeat the “Offit works for Merck” line, and good for her. I think it is a good assumption that the people who helped her with that story probably did push the “He’s a Merck consultant” idea.

Many people people (and Orac, and Kev, and AutismNewsBeat, to name a few) have gotten it right already, so I shouldn’t be too worried about it. But, as I await the book showing up in my mailbox, I keep thinking about the issue of conflicts of interest and Dr. Offit.

[note: I made a few minor edits after this post went live. They were for clarity and did not change the substance of the post]

Write a quick comment

Searchingly diligent and totally impartial CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has managed to uncover a third case of autism/vaccine related activity via the the Vaccine Courts. Never mind that Kathleen found it 5 months ago eh?

This case originates from a person born in 1974 who had a DTP shot that very same year, exactly 4 months later…..and thats about all we know.

Comparing autism in 1974 with autism in 2008 is not comparing apples to oranges. Its more like comparing apples to trains. In 1974, the DSM, didn’t even contain the word autism. This is the existing DSM in use at the time:

DSM II (1968)
295.8 Schizophrenia, childhood type

This category is for cases in which schizophrenic symptoms appear before puberty. The condition may be manifested by autistic, atypical and withdrawn behavior; failure to develop identity separate from the mother’s; and general unevenness, gross immaturity and inadequacy of development. These developmental defects may result in mental retardation, which should also be diagnosed.

So, in 1974 autism was not even a defined disorder. It was a behaviour. A symptom of Schizophrenia. That’s worth remembering as we go forward.

Atkinson says:

In excerpts from the case below, the government agreed the child suffered “a residual seizure disorder” after his second Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis (DPT) vaccine but attempted to argue that the child’s mental retardation and brain injury were unrelated to the seizure disorder and were, instead, caused by his autism. On the other hand, the court found that the autistic behavior, brain injury and mental retardation were all part of the vaccine injury.

Did they? Is this accurate? Did the court find that the autistic behaviour was part of the vaccine injury?

Atkinson quotes at length from the transcript of the case.

CHILD was born on August 23, 1974, the 9 lb. 9 oz. product of an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. CHILD developed normally until the age of four months when he was administered his second DPT vaccination on December 23, 1974… That evening, he experienced a grand mal seizure. CHILD’s mother… took CHILD to the… emergency room where he was found to have a fever of 101.8 degrees at that time and a bulging fontanelle ...CHILD had a seizure on March 25, 1975, with a temperature of 102 degrees. The next day, he had another seizure with a fever less than 102 degrees…On April 15, 1975, CHILD experienced a petit mal seizure without an associated fever… CHILD apparently did well until mid-July 1975, when he had four seizures, with fever around 100.7 degrees… CHILD had additional seizure activity in November 1975. Again in February 1976, CHILD had seizures. At that time, a repeat EEG was grossly abnormal…when CHILD was 21 months of age, (CHILD’s doctor) noted that CHILD had a vocabulary of only two to three words. At that time, (CHILD’s doctor) discussed… the possibility that CHILD was mentally retarded and developmentally delayed. CHILD currently is severely mentally retarded and has an intractable seizure disorder.

(The government) respondent has conceded that CHILD suffered a residual seizure disorder as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, but argues against a finding that CHILD also suffered an encephalopathy (brain injury). Moreover, (the government) contends that CHILD suffers from autism, which has produced his severe mental retardation and developmental delay. Consequently, (the government) urges that compensation in this case be limited to those expenses that reasonably might be incurred for CHILD’s residual seizure disorder, not for expenses he might accrue because of his mental retardation, developmental delay and autistic behaviors.

The question of encephalopathy.

*(Government physician) believes that CHILD currently suffers from autism and mental retardation that are the result of an independent underlying neurologic condition that pre-dated the vaccination*. However, all tests that were conducted to determine possible causes for CHILD’s condition have revealed none. Furthermore, (government physician) has posited no origin of any underlying neurologic condition. (Government physician) would have us believe that CHILD’s grand mal convulsion following his second DPT vaccination was simply a manifestation of benign febrile seizures and that CHILD had another concurrent underlying (but etiologically undetermined) neurological disorder which later produced his severe mental retardation and autism.

I reject this theory for several reasons. First, the Vaccine Act’s defines encephalopathy as “any significant acquired abnormality of, or injury to, or impairment of function of the brain.” Section 14(b)((3)(A). This definition is extremely broad. CHILD’s initial grand mal seizure indicated an impairment of function of the brain. The question becomes whether this was a benign event unrelated to any lasting neurological sequelae. In my view… (CHILD’s treating pediatric neurologist) is in a better position to accurately assess CHILD’s illness than (government physician). Beginning in 1980, when he first evaluated CHILD, (CHILD’s neurologist) diagnosed CHILD as having static encephalopathy probably related to the time of his first seizure at four months of age.

Based on the foregoing, I find that there is a preponderance of the evidence that CHILD suffered an encephalopathy within 72 hours of the administration of a DPT vaccination on December 23, 1974, and that no alternative cause for such encephalopathy has been satisfactorily shown.

Read all that carefully? Good. Now, where in that summation does the Special Master find ‘that the autistic behavior, brain injury and mental retardation were all part of the vaccine injury’

Brain injury – yes. mental retardation – yes. But where is ‘autistic behaviour’ mentioned by the court? In fact, the truth is that the only person who raised the issue of autism at all were the government. They tried to explain away CHILD’s injury by blaming it on autism (which bizarrely wasn’t an actual diagnosis in 1974).

Bottom line: the court did not, I repeat did not find that this child (a grown man now) had autism, autistic features or autistic behaviours as a result of vaccines. The closest we get is the phrase ‘static encephalopathy’ which basically means that a child doesn’t develop. This can lead to autism (as well as a whole host of things such as cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, Schizophrenia) but it is not autism. When this diagnosis was given (1980) the child would’ve been 6 and thus well past the age at which autistic symptoms must appear.

An interesting sidenote. We can guesstimate the 1974 schedule. Well, maybe not the schedule but we can at least see which vaccines were in use.

In 1960, the US was using Smallpox, DTwP and Polio. By the mid-80’s, the schedule was made up of DTP, MMR and Polio.

Smallpox was dropped in 1971 and MMR stared in 1963. Therefore we can guesstimate that in 1974 the schedule was the same as the 1980 one. DTP, MMR and Polio. At some point however, the Polio switched from injection to Oral. I can’t find out when.

So – how is this ‘too many too soon’? How is a case from when there wasn’t even an autism category relevant? How is a case where the claim is that one single vaccine caused autism in any way similar to the idea of ‘too many too soon’?

Write a quick comment | View 6 more comment(s).

As you may recall, I faxed Katie Couric a while back making some comments and asking for some information.  I find that the CBS coverage of autism is, well, a bit odd.  Sharyl Attkisson seems to be promoting an idea, not following a story where it leads.  The main example I give for that is the total lack of a followup to the assertion made by Bernadine Healy that “[t]here is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”  Who, precisely, aside from Dr. Healy expressing this concern?

The Voices For Vaccines fax which preceded mine was posted an autism/vaccine advocacy website within hours of being sent, begging the question of who within CBS news sent it, and why there is such a close tie between the two.

Anyway, I shouldn’t rewrite the entire previous blog post—the short version is: I had questions.  I still do.  That’s right, I still do.

I’m not complaining, just pointing out a simple fact: CBS didn’t take the time to respond to simple questions about their reporting.

Now, take a newer event in the autism world.  In preparation for the Every Child By Two press conference last week, some comments were made on the Yahoo group dedicated to the “Green our Vaccines” rally.  One comment in particular by Dr. Jay Gordon struck me as rather bothersome.   The comment was directed at a person named Avrielle Gallagher, who works for Larry King Live.

Being in the mode of wondering about how the media works, especially those apparantly sympathetic to the vaccine/autism causality question, I decided to contact Ms. Gallagher.  I sent the following email to the same address Dr. Gordon used.  For good measure, I used the Larry King Live website to send the same message:

Hello,

I saw an email from Dr. Jay Gordon to you.  It was posted on the JennDCRally autism list.  The email is listed below.

Could you explain what is meant by the term, “[redacted]?  I see that you work for Larry King Live.  Is he asking you to do a show on the conflicts of interest of these groups?

If so, perhaps you would like to read a few analyses of Dr. Offit’s conflicts of interest.  I looked into the public data and posted my views here:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1022

I rewrote this and faxed it to Katie Couric of CBS, as noted here:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1057

As you will see, I am not in agreement with Dr. Gordon.  You will also see that I am the parent of a young child with autism, one who does not subscribe to the autism/vaccine concept.

Rather than “[redacted comment]”, I would like you to consider going after a good, reasoned story.  I would especially like to see a good, reasoned story on the subject of Dr. Offit’s new book, “Autism’s False Prophets”.   This is causing quite a stir amongst the alt-med subset of the autism community.  They have publicly stated that they have targeted Dr. Offit and those are also promoting vaccination (like Amanda Peet).

As you will see from my posts, Dr. Offit appears to have no more financial conflicts of interest regarding vaccines.  He is actually in a position of high independence.  And, yet, he still promotes the same message as before.  That should tell us all something.  In addition, his book is going to be a big story.

So, I ask a simple question: will you go after the story or the person?

I look forward to a response.

I’m still looking forward to a response.  I’m an optimist that way, I guess. 

Oh, you are no doubt wondering why I redacted Dr. Jay’s exact words.  You see, after a bit I decided to email him.  I admit, I should have emailed him from the start, but I did wait a few days.

Dr. Gordron, I saw the below message from the JennyDCRally autism group.

If I may, could I ask what you mean by “[redacted].”?

Given that Avrielle Gallagher works for Larry King Live, this sounds like you are asking for Larry King to do a show about these people in a poor light.

I am the parent of a child with autism.  Surely you can see that the image of the autism community (or segments of the autism community) as a group that would use the media to “[redacted]” is something that I would like to avoid.  While we as a community may be divided on some issues, I would bet that the majority would agree that we rely heavily on the support of the majority of the public.

I look forward to your response.

Sullivan

Even though I misspelled his name, he responded within a couple of hours:

Thanks.

You’re correct, that was very poorly phrased.

What I meant was that there should be more light shined on the financial conflicts of interest which exist.

Jay

(emphasis his)

When I notified him that I intended to include his comments in this piece, he replied:

Dear Sullivan,

The first statement I made reflected my anger. I really do think there is far too much conflict of interest in the lives of many of the vaccine researchers, the CDC and the AAP.

The brief email answer I sent you reflects my true feelings about this.

Please feel free to quote me and, if you do, please also mention that I certainly don’t think that my being immoderate in my comments helps anybody.

Best,

Jay

Dr. Gordon did what Katie Couric, Sharyl Attkisson, Avrielle Gallagher, and the staffs for CBS News and Larry King Live failed to do: answer simple and (I hope) respectfully posed questions.

I could give a long list of the people who have answered simple, sometimes even complicated, questions, respectfully posed. I’ve been very fortunate in that regard. I would have loved to add CBS News and Larry King Live to the list.

It all just makes me wonder. CBS News and Larry King have spent decades reporting on how this person or that company or some group in the government ignored questions. Invariably, those reports cast a bad light on the groups investigated. And, yet, when presented the opportunity to clarify their own actions, they chose to be silent.

Maybe I’ll send a respectful question to Voices For Vaccines and ask if CBS News responded to their concerns. I know that CBS took the time to respond to the Orange County Register’s blog on Autism.

In their reply to the Inside Autism blog, CBS News noted:

...We believe our report was in no way defamatory of any institution or individual, and that no retraction is warranted…

As I’ve noted before, I like the irony of CBS News deciding for itself whether it was defamatory. Strikes me odd given the complaints alleged against, well, basically everyone the vaccine/autism groups have ever complained about.

But, I digress. I’d like to point out that I didn’t claim CBS was “defamatory”. I only bring this up to point out that even though CBS communicated with the Register blog, they haven’t addressed my questions.

A commenter on the Register’s blog said it best in her response to Lisa Randall of Voices For Vaccines. The Register’s blogger decided to highlight the comment, and I pull out the segment that caught my eye here:

...We expect the press to tell us the truth…

The first step is to tell us anything.

Write a quick comment