About 2 months ago Andrew Wakefield filed a defamation lawsuit against the British Medical Journal, Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee for the series of three articles “The Secrets of the MMR Scare” and public comments made since. In particular, Mr. Wakefield took issue with statements about his research being fraudulent (and variations on that term like “fraudster”, “bullshit” etc.). Mr. Wakefield claimed that the facts presented by the BMJ articles were incorrect and based on information not available to him at the time he wrote his Lancet article.

Mr. Wakefield chose to file his defamation suit in Texas (his home state). This presented him immediately with two hurdles. First he has to show that the court has jurisdiction over primarily UK entities. Second he faced the possibility of an anti-SLAPP motion. SLAPP stands for “Strategic lawsuit against public participation“. Per Wikipedia:

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

Many states in the U.S. have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation. Texas enacted a law fairly recently and this motion could be the first major test of that law. I say “could” because of the first hurdle: jurisdiction. As Popehat has already noted, the plaintiffs in the anti-SLAPP motion “specially appear”. I.e. they keep the right to fight on jurisdictional grounds.

The motion and Mr. Deer’s supporting declaration can be found on Mr. Deer’s website. Mr. Deer’s declaration goes through the full history of his involvement with Mr. Wakefield’s research.

As Popehat notes, the motion appears quite strong. As is the case with legal motions, it covers multiple arguments. For example, they not only argue that the statements on their own are permissible speech, but they argue that the statements themselves are accurate.

Here is a section of the table-of-contents for the motion:

V. TEXAS’S NEW ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE APPLIES TO DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS.

VI. DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE HE CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ARE FALSE

A.Dr. Wakefield Must Prove that Defendants’ Statements Are Not Substantially True.
B.Dr. Wakefield Is Precluded from Re-litigating the GMC’s Findings, Which Establish the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements.
C.The Undisputed Evidence Also Establishes the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements.

1.Dr. Wakefield’s Misreporting and Falsification Permeated His Research.

2.Dr. Wakefield’s Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest.
3.Dr. Wakefield’s Review of the GP Records

VII DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS OF OPINION AND RHETORICAL HYPERBOLE ARE NOT ACTIONABLE.
A.Several of Defendants’ Statements, Including that Dr. Wakefield’s Research Must Have Been “Fraud,” Are Nonactionable Expressions of Opinion.
B.Defendants’ Expressions of Rhetorical Hyperbole and Colorful Language Are Not Actionable.

VIII DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS BASED ON BRIAN DEER’S WEBSITE PUBLICATIONS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
DR. WAKEFIELD IS A PUBLIC FIGURE, AND HE CANNOT SHOW ACTUAL MALICE.
A.Dr. Wakefield Is a Public Figure.
1.The “MMR Scare” Is a Public Controversy.
2.Dr. Wakefield Had More than a Trivial or Tangential Role in the
Scare.
3.Dr. Wakefield’s Claims Are Germane to His Participation in the
Controversy.
B.Defendants Did Not Act with Actual Malice.

1.Actual Malice Is an Exceedingly Difficult Standard to Satisfy.
2.The Evidence Here Precludes a Finding of Actual Malice.

Mr. Wakefield faces a number of burdens to overcome this motion. He must show that the statements made were more damaging that the truth. He must show that the statements are false—not just minor wording differences but that the “gist” of the truth is missing from the statements made. He must show that either he is not a public figure (very difficult for a doctor who has had a publicist for at least 10 years and has certainly put himself into the public sphere). He must show that Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ acted with actual malice.

He must present substantive evidence for each of these before he can go to trial. If he fails, he faces not only payment of reasonable legal fees and costs, but also the possibility of a penalty to deter future frivolous lawsuits. In that regard, the motion puts forth the history of Mr. Wakefield’s previous legal threats and lawsuits.

The most famous instance of Mr. Wakefield’s litigious history is his lawsuit against Brian Deer in 2004. Justice Eady made very clear statements on that:

[Dr. Wakefield] wished to use the existence of libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the ‘downside’ of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.

To put this in perspective—such a statement by the judge in Texas would almost certainly be followed by not only a dismissal of the case, but a financial judgement in favor of Mr. Deer, Ms. Godlee and the BMJ.

The motion makes it clear that Mr. Wakefield has faced negative commentary on his work and his character from many quarters in the past few years. From their introduction:

Two months ago, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named by Time magazine as one of the “Great Science Frauds” of modern history. Last April, the New York Times described him as “one of the most reviled doctors of his generation.” In 2009, a Special Master presiding over vaccine litigation in the United States Court of Federal Claims recognized that Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet medical journal, which suggested a possible link between the lifesaving Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine and the development of autism in children, was considered a “scientific fraud.”

The Lancet has now fully retracted Wakefield’s paper, and its editor has state publicly that the paper was “utterly false” and that Wakefield “deceived the journal.” Wakefield’s home country’s medical board, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council (“GMC”), convicted him in 2010 of multiple charges of “serious professional misconduct,” including “dishonesty” and “unethical conduct.” It further held that his misconduct had been so severe and extensive that the only punishment that would adequately protect the public from him was the permanent revocation of his medical license. As the New York Daily News put it, “Hippocrates would puke.”

As to specific instances of calling Mr. Wakefield’s work fraudulent, they quote multiple instances of the term being used. As noted above, one of the Special Masters in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (vaccine court) called the work “scientific fraud”. Probably the most damaging instance for Mr. Wakefield are quotes from his own attorney in the General Medical Council (GMC) hearings who stated that some of the charges, if found proved, would amount to charges of fraud. Those charges were found proved.

There is definitely a movement amongst Mr. Wakefield’s supporters to recast his defamation suit as a retrial of not only his Fitness to Practice hearing before the GMC, but as a legal test of the validity of his MMR/autism hypothesis. Even just within the past couple of days Jenny McCarthy re-emerged in her role as a vocal Wakefield supporter with this (and other) erroneous arguments.

Courts are well aware of attempts for people to use defamation cases as a proxy for fighting other arguments. For example, readers might recall a recent defamation case where Barbara Loe Fisher (of the self-named National Vaccine Information Center) sued Dr. Paul Offit, writer Amy Wallace and Conde Nast publications for two words in an article: “she lies”. In the decision dismissing the defamation suit the judge noted:

Not only does Plaintiff’s claim of the statement’s falsity invite an open ended inquiry into Plaintiff’s veracity, it also threatens to ensnare the Court in the thorny and extremely contentious debate over the perceived risks of certain vaccines….and, at the bottom, which side has the truth on its side. This is hardly the sort of issue which would be subject to verification based on a core of “objective evidence”

and

Courts have a justifiable reticence about venturing into a thicket of scientific debate, especially in the defamation context

However, one must note that Mr. Wakefield’s defamation suit does not involve the issues of his research conclusions/findings (or non-findings as they have been retracted from the public sphere). The question put forth by Mr. Wakefield was whether statements such as “fraud”, “fraudster”, “determined cheat” are actionable defamation and whether these are based on allegedly misrepresented details from the research—such as diagnoses of the children and when symptoms appeared. Mr. Deer shows in his declaration that the facts presented in the BMJ studies are accurate.

On the “weight of evidence” front, consider this: Mr. Wakefield submitted a 17 page defamation claim. The defendants have responded with a 53 page anti-SLAPP motion and 5 declarations. The declarations include one from Mr. Deer with 101 pages and 104 exhibits. Where Mr. Wakefield is using a neighbor as his attorney, one who is not a specialist in health, media or defamation cases, the BMJ team are using a top Texas law firm and a total of seven attorneys. The lead attorney is listed as having experience with healthcare and publishers:

Tom has a wide range of experience in state and federal appeals and trials. His experience includes commercial, intellectual property, and healthcare litigation, and class actions. He has represented publishers and broadcasters in all aspects of media litigation throughout his career.

the second attorney listed has direct experience on defamation:

Marc’s practice focuses on media and privacy law, class actions, and general commercial litigation. His media law experience includes representing publishers in litigation involving claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation, copyright, and related causes of action. In addition, he has defended companies in consumer class actions across the country relating to advertising and digital privacy. He regularly provides advice regarding website terms of service, arbitration agreements, and privacy law.

According to the BMJ’s motion, ” To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff [Mr. Wakefield] must submit “clear and specific evidence” to support each essential element of his claims.”

I suspect that Mr. Wakefield will have a meeting with his attorney very soon to discuss strategy. They are outclassed on the facts of the case, on the manpower and expertise of the attorneys and the credibility of the witnesses. They will discuss “each essential element of his claims” and how they stack up against the evidence presented. One might suspect that Mr. Wakefield’s attorney was unaware of how shaky their position was at the start, getting his facts from Mr. Wakefield. They now know, through hundreds of pages of arguments and evidence, how the defense can answer the “essential claims”.

If they can dismiss before the jurisdiction question is addressed and avoid the anti-SLAPP motion, they might be well advised to do so. The “reasonable costs” the BMJ are incurring are sure to be sizable. And the litigious history of Mr. Wakefield will surely play into a determination of whether to impose penalties on top of those.

From where I sit, Mr. Wakefield just doesn’t have the facts on his side. Nor does he have the law on his side. The jurisdiction question may be a blessing in disguise for Mr. Wakefield: giving him the opportunity to bow out before the anti-SLAPP motion goes into effect.

Write a quick comment | View 169 more comment(s).

Generation Rescue’s tax forms (form 990) for 2010 have been made publicly available.

2010 was the second highest year financially for Generation Rescue. Here are their yearly totals:

2006: $318,695
2007: $425,317
2008: $1,185,255
2009: $623,597
2010: $1,078,471

GENERATION RESCUE IS DEDICATED TO RECOVERY FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS BY PROVIDING GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

The largest expense was for “research”: $307,439. The description is not very detailed:

GR CONTINUES ITS COMMITMENT TO DISCOVERING THE CAUSES OF AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS AS A MEANS OF IMPROVING TREATMENTS AND QUALITY OF LIFE, WHILE WORKING TOWARDS A PREVENTION AND A CURE. ANGELS DONATE THEIR TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, GIVE GUIDANCE AND PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR FAMIILIES STARTING OUT ON THEIR OWN.

More on this later.

Other expenses? Marketing and Awareness, for one: $135,128

MARKETING & AWARENESS
GR IS DEDICATED TO SPREADING AWARENESS AND INFORMATION ABOUT AUTISM TO THE POPULATION AT LARGE, TO ENSURE THE UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT FOR THE DISORDER. GR WORKS CLOSELY ON A GRASSROOTS AND NATIONAL LEVEL TO ENGAGE FAMILIES IN THE PROCESS.

Rescue Family Grant Program: $96, 431

GR’S RESCUE FAMILY GRANT PROGRAM PROVIDES AUTISM TREATMENT SUPPORT TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AFFECTED BY AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS. GR PROUDLY PROVIDES FAMILIES WITH THIS UNIQUE AUTISM TREATMENT PROGRAM, WHICH MAY NOT OTHERWISE BE COVERED BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COUNTY PROGRAMS, INSURANCE OR OTHER GRANT-GENERATING ENTITIES.

Other program services: $328,660.

You may recall that this year Generation Rescue teamed up with AutismOne to produce the AutismOne conference. They made the conference “free” to attendees (with a $25 fee). Generation Rescue put out $76,467 to support the conference. Someone is obviously paying (exhibitors? Speakers?), Generation Rescue made $38,883 on the conference. Compare this with their comedy event where they spent $98,422 to make $15,327. Autism One is a much better deal for them.

Remember those research expenses mentioned above? I assume that this charge is included there: “Strategic Autism Initiative” got $100,000 “for researching the causes of autism:”. What’s the Strategic Autism Initiative? Simply put: Andrew Wakefield. That’s the organization he created after leaving Thoughtful House. Been wondering how Andrew Wakefield is paying the bills since losing that job? Well this gives you a big clue.

(For comparison, their “Family Grant” program received less money: $93,122 for 111 recipients.)

Under compensated board members, officers, etc., they list:

Jenny McCarthy, President, Director (10 hours/week, no pay)
Jonathan B Handley, Director (10 hours/week, no pay)
Lisa Handley, Director (10 hours/week, no pay)
and
Candace MacDonald, Executive Director (40 hours/week, $128,613)

Total in salaries and other compensation $260,569. (in 2009, this was $364,686)

Generation Rescue’s mission statement for 2010?

GENERATION RESCUE (GR) IS DEDICATED TO RECOVERY FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS BY PROVIDING GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT TO DIRECTLY IMPROVE THE CHILD’S QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL FAMILIES IN NEED

This has been evolving.

2009:

GENERATION RESCUE,INC IS AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT 0F SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS RESEARCHING THE CAUSES AND TREATMENTS FOR AUTISM, ADHD, AND CHRONIC ILLNESS WHILE PARENT-VOLUNTEERS MENTOR THOUSAND OF FAMILIES IN RECOVERING THEIR CHILDREN

2008:

CONTINUING RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL RELATING TO MERCURY TOXICITY AND ITS EFFECT ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT

(Generation started out as a major proponent of the idea that autism was a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning)

One might notice that the “research” budget is significantly higher than that allocated to Mr. Wakefield’s organization. They allocate $307,439 for research. Compare this to 2009, when their support of research appears to be a single entry of $30,000 given to the HEAL Foundation.

$100,000 is going to Mr. Wakefield. Where is the other $208,439 going? Generation Rescue at one point felt they could do a vaccinated/unvaccinated study for $809,721. At that time it was proposed as a 2 year study. Is it in the works?

Write a quick comment | View 1 more comment(s).

In a commentary for the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Gregory A. Poland, MD writes about MMR and autism. In case you don’t get the idea of his stance from the title of the article, MMR Vaccine and Autism: Vaccine Nihilism and Postmodern Science, it starts out with a quote:

Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I’m sure people will counter that they are very “smart” and “well educated” and, therefore, not ignorant when they promote the MMR/autism notion. Is it ignorance, willful ignorance, bias, dishonesty, some mix or something else entirely that is behind the perpetuation of the idea? I don’t know. On a very real level, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact that the MMR hypothesis was wrong and that those who continue to promote it are causing a very real danger to society.

That said, here are Dr. Poland’s views in the introduction to his paper:

It is a truism that acting in one’s perceived self-interest is not always in one’s self-interest. Perhaps nowhere is this truer in contemporary public health than for the issue of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) immunization and persistent fears about a possible connection with autism. Although each of these 3 diseases had been controlled in the United States with the widespread use of the MMR vaccine, in the past decade those gains have been slipping. Even though the United States has had fewer than 50 measles cases per year during the past decade (mostly imported from other countries), 156 cases have already been identified in the first 6 months of 2011. 1 European countries such as England, Wales, Italy, France, Spain, and Germany are also experiencing substantial increases in measles outbreaks.

Why should we be concerned? Measles is the most transmissible human disease known. Even with modern medical care, approximately 1 of every 3000 infected persons die, and many more are hospitalized or otherwise harmed as a result. Population coverage (herd immunity) needs to be in excess of 96% to prevent outbreaks. In addition, measles is a disease for which eradication is both possible and planned, a goal that obviously cannot be met given current vaccine coverage levels.

This predictable sequence of falling coverage levels, followed by outbreaks of disease, has occurred because of decreased public confidence in the safety of the MMR vaccine. In large part, this has resulted from incorrect assertions that the vaccine plays a role in the development of autism, an idea promoted by Andrew Wakefield. No credible scientific evidence, however, supports the claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and indeed, national medical authorities and scientific professional societies have unanimously …

This article is commentary (i.e. not a research article), but there are some good points and questions made:

Why in the face of nearly 2 dozen studies and every scientific committee rejecting such an MMR-autism connection does this myth persist?

As expected, he notes the celebrity aspect of the vaccine-causation notion. He also discusses the recent paper in the PACE Law Review.

Under “Moving Forward”, Dr. Poland writes:

At some point, a point I believe we have well passed, the small group of people who claim such connections, who have no new or credible data, and for which their assumptions and hypotheses have been discredited must simply be ignored by scientists and the public and, most importantly, by the media, no matter how passionate their beliefs to the contrary. Such individuals are denialists at best, and dangerous at worst. Unfortunately, the media has given celebrities who comment on an autism-MMR link far more attention than they deserve, and the public, unfamiliar with the background science, has confused celebrity status with authority. Such a phenomenon has not been lost on those wishing to continue the discussion. As an example, J. Hanlon, cofounder of Generation Rescue (an organization that advocates for an autism-MMR vaccine link) commented, in regard to the finding that both Andrew Wakefield and his assertion of a connection between autism and MMR vaccine had been discredited, that to those who believe vaccines cause autism “Andrew Wakefield was Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ all wrapped in one.”

Prediction: we will hear all about how this commentary is obviously worthless because the author didn’t correctly cite J.B. Handley. If you are wondering what I mean, read again, Mr. Handley is referred to as J. Hanlon. I wish the author hadn’t made that mistake as such small errors are exploited in exactly this way. But, at the same time, this puts some perspective on the situation regarding Mr. Handley. He is a well known name in a very small community. He has become one of the go-to people for comments critical of vaccination (as in the Jesus Christ/Nelson Mandella article).

Prediction 2: Dr. Poland’s article will be called an attempt at censorship (see the conclusion below). Probably with no sense of irony by the same people who recently stated that Autism Speaks should “Shut up, shut down and go away.”

Prediction 3: People will still refuse to see how strange the “Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ” comment read to the majority of readers. OK, I am predicting the past here, but I expect this to go forward too. Dr. Poland didn’t pick this quote to place Andrew Wakefield in good light.

That all said, I agree with Dr. Poland. It is well past time for the MMR story to be set aside. Just because there are adherents to the idea doesn’t mean that news organizations need to give it false balance.

Dr. Poland concludes his article with a simple summary: the MMR/autism question has been investigated closely and no link is found. The decision to forgo immunization based on this fear is not without danger. Those who promote the MMR/autism link in the face of all the evidence are not working for the public good:

For anyone adhering to the scientific model of discovery, experimentation, and evidence, the trial is over and the jury back—there is no known scientific association between receipt of MMR vaccine and the subsequent development of autism. Making the decision to not immunize children with the MMR vaccine because of fear of such an association —rather than credible scientific evidence—places children and others at great risk as current measles outbreaks in the United States and Europe illustrate. Vaccine nihilists who continue to claim such associations are simply wrong, and they pedal an agenda other than for the public good. At this point, the antivaccine groups and conspiracy proponents promoting such an association should be ignored, much as thinking people simply ignore those who continue to insist that the earth is flat or that the US moon landing in 1969 did not really occur

He concludes simply but strongly:

There is no law against being foolish, nor any vaccine against ignorance; however, in the meantime the health of millions of children in the United States and worldwide is being placed at unnecessary and real risk through continued deliberate misinformation and discredited unscientific beliefs, and that should be a crime.

Write a quick comment | View 22 more comment(s).

Last week, the Combating Autism Reathorization Act was introduced into the U.S. legislature last week. Many organizations were ready with quick responses: the Autism Science Foundation, ASAN, and Autism Speaks to name a few.

How about the organizations which promote the idea that autism is a vaccine injury? Organizations like Generation Rescue, the National Autism Association and SafeMinds, and Talk About Curing Autism?

A quick survey of their websites shows nothing. Nothing on the front pages that I can see. Nothing on their news pages. If I’ve missed it, let me know.

Sure, you can find great information on their sites. Like “Vaccine Injury/Autism Study, A Federal Cover-Up?” or how to buy compounded drugs or sunglasses. Or “Jenny McCarthy” in big letters. But on a key piece of legislation comes through and there’s essentially silence.

Just an observation.

Write a quick comment | View 1 more comment(s).

A month or so back, I stepped forward to state that I, Matt Carey, have been posting as Sullivan here on Left Brain/Right Brain. Mr. J.B. Handley of the Age of Autism blog and Generation Rescue had made a commitment to transfer the domain pauloffit.com and to stop commenting on Dr. Offit should it be demonstrated that Sullivan was not Bonnie Offit, wife of Paul Offit.

The domain was not transferred until yesterday. In the time that has transpired, tempers have raised. The last comment in the string below should be taken as a sign of the frustration level and not as an opening for critique, in my opinion. I considered leaving it out for that reason.

I generally do not like to post emails. However, as Mr. Handley has already posted some of these exchanges, I feel that it is appropriate to post the full exchange at this time. Here are the emails which I have found in my inbox. If any are missing, I feel sure that will be brought to my attention and I will add them. I do not have access to the emails or other communications between Mr. Handley or his agent and the domain registration company register.com. I can’t tell if the request to email Dr. Offit was made or not. I can’t tell if register.com bungled the communication. I just don’t have that data.

At one place on the web (at least) I commented that Mr. Handley emailed me first. That he did not do. He made the offer to complete the deal on his blog.

April 29:

Matt:I’ll take care of it early next week, thanks for the guidance.

On a separate note, I wanted to ask you to submit to an interview via email for publication at AoA. I will generate the questions, you answer them, and I publish them in totality without editorializing. The topics will exclusively cover the science of autism, known and unknown, and include prevalence, vaccines, and medical issues.

My reason for asking is that you are really the first well-educated parent (although Harvey Mudd is no Stanford :) I have encountered on the other side of this topic who doesn’t seem to be a nut job (Kevin Leitch, Autism Diva, etc.).

I honestly do not understand how you have looked at the same published research I have looked at and concluded that vaccines have been exonerated from causing a majority of today’s autism. I really, truly do believe that the large-scale epidemiological studies that are constantly cited as “proof” are garbage, have yet to ask the right questions, and are typically managed to produce a previously determined outcome. I believe Allison ISnger and Paul Offit consistently and knowingly misrepresent what has been studied in public statements, and it really drives me nuts.

As a Ph.D. scientist, I think your answers will be thought-provoking. I’d like to ask you pointed questions and let you answer them. Your writing has shown me you aren’t a spin doctor and will answer things like a scientist, not a partisan. Despite my delight in provoking people I consider to be idiots (Orac), I actually do enjoy debating this issue, because my only genuine interest in all this is helping my son. If it really wasn’t the antibiotics and vaccines that got him, I’m wasting a hell of a lot of time and money treating the wrong things.

My request for the interview has nothing to do with Offit’s website, so no conditions here, I just hope you’ll consider the interview for its own sake. There are a lot of extremely smart parents on our side of the table, and I’d like to see the different reactions a thorough and measured interview with an “opposition figure” brings.

Ball is in your court,

JB Handley

On Apr 29, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Matt Carey wrote:Mr. Handley,

A few people have forwarded your piece to me today. I appreciate what you have said and I have offered a public apology on LeftBrainRightBrain for questioning your integrity in honoring your commitments.

As far as the domain pauloffit.com, you can transfer that directly to the Offits. I believe you have his contact information. If not, it can be found on his website: http://www.paul-offit.com/

Matt Carey

Are you going to take 5 months to respond again?JB Handley

Just an fyi that pauloffit.com was unlocked and an email sent to Dr. Offit making it available to him was sent Tuesday afternoon this week. Case closed. The offer stands for an interview to be posted at AoA, thanks, JBJB Handley

He replied that he would “take care of it early next week”That was April 29th. He never contacted Dr. Offit, and the site has been merely redesigned.

The apology was premature.

Matt:The site was offered to Paul Offit. It was also unlocked. After 3 days, apparently no one had claimed it, at which point anyone could. I can’t make Offit take it, maybe he didn’t so you guys could say I re-traded. Whatever, I did my part. Offit could confirm he received an email offering it to him. Don’t bother writing back, I have conceded I was wrong, and honored my end of the deal, JB

My email to owner of domain:

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:23 PM, JB Handley <[redacted]> wrote:

Hey

– Give the site back to Paul Offit, or at least give him the right to register the domain name. Can you do that?Please email the right to the domain to: offit@email.chop.edu

It’s a long story, but basically I lost a bet. JB

From: [redacted]
To: JB Handley <[redacted]>
Subject: Re: Do you have anytime in the next few days?
Date: May 3, 2011 9:32:08 AM PDT
Hi JB -Step 1 of 3 is done:

The www.pauloffit.com site has been updated.

The domain is unlocked and anyone can request a transfer. Once that request is submitted, you’ll get an email at “[redacted]” to confirm that transfer. Additionally, I used Register.com’s transfer process, using the “chop.edu” email address below that you gave me.

– [redacted]

JB Handley

Todd:Dr. Offit is lying, as usual. On may 3rd, Dr. Offit received an email from register.com offering the transfer of the site to him. After 72 hours, Dr. Offit had not claimed it and the site was available to anyone to register. The email where the register.com transfer was sent was provided to me by Matt Carey, who directed me here to find it:

I even sent Mr. Carey a note on May 6th advising him of that and offering to interview him for AoA, in the spirit of closing the gap between us, to which he has never responded, here’s the contents of that email:

Just an fyi that pauloffit.com was unlocked and an email sent to Dr. Offit making it available to him was sent Tuesday afternoon this week. Case closed. The offer stands for an interview to be posted at AoA, thanks, JB

Someone is lying to you, JB Handley

Matt:Below is completed transfer. I sent Offit first notice on May 3rd, 12 days ago – FUCK YOU for publicly saying I didn’t!!

“After Mr. Handley emailed me I replied that he could transfer the domain directly to the Offits. He never contacted them.”

When I say I am going to do something, I do it.

And, you don’t even have the courtesy to respond to my emails or interview request. Man up,

JB Handley

Begin forwarded message:From: “J.B. Handley” <[redacted]>
Date: May 15, 2011 6:02:29 PM PDT
To: “’[redacted]’” <[redacted]>
Subject: FW: Register.com – Transfer of Registrant is completed

J.B. Handley
——-Original Message——-
From: support@register.com [mailto:support@register.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 1:01 PM
To: J.B. Handley
Subject: Register.com – Transfer of Registrant is completed

Dear Valued Customer,

This email serves as a notification that the Transfer of Registrant for pauloffit.com from JB Handley to Paul Offit has been confirmed and processed successfully. Please note that the services associated with the domain are not transferable when a Transfer of Registrant takes place, any service previously in place for the domain must be repurchased if you wish for it to be reinstated.

If you have any further questions about this process and wish to consult with a Customer Service Representative you can contact us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by submitting a request online at http://help.register.com/cgi-bin/register_help.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php or by contacting one of the numbers below.

Thank you for choosing Register.com.

I can be pedantic and stand by my statement on May 13th: Did Mr. Handley contact Dr. Offit in early May? No. Are there other inconsistencies in the above set of exchanges? Yes. Is there value in stressing that point? No.

Mr. Handley chose a third person, who chose register.com to contact Dr. Offit. Is it possible that Mr. Handley and whoever was running pauloffit.com are not aware of that “unlocked” doesn’t have to mean “available for anyone to register”? There should be a key to effect the transfer. There’s a lot of chance there for the ball to be dropped. Neither Mr. Handley nor myself has access to Paul Offit’s email to confirm what did or did not get through. We can say that Dr. Offit has commented that he was not contacted. Given his interest in obtaining this domain, I don’t see the need to question that he would have acted on an email if it came.

I think many people, myself included, thought that a third person had grabbed the domain and that it was lost. At one point I did try to check on the registration status of the site, and I found that it was not available. If it did stay in Mr. Handley’s (or his agent’s) possession this whole time, it strikes me odd (to say the least) that the site was redesigned given the commitment that Mr. Handley made to stop commenting about Dr. Offit.

Earlier today I participated in a chat session with someone at register.com. I was still a bit confused about everything, so I would ask better questions if I had another opportunity. For one thing, I was under the impression that the site had been transferred to someone other than Mr. Handley (or his agent) and Dr. Offit. Here is that exchange:

Rob A.: Hi, my name is Rob A.. How may I help you?
Matt Carey: I’m looking for information about how register.com transfers domains
Matt Carey: I was involved in a recent transfer. The original owner of the domain set up the transfer by email with your team, who contacted the person to receive the domain. When no response was received by register, the domain was unlocked and someone else took the domain.
Matt Carey: Is this standard practice with Domain? It seems odd that the domain would be just unlocked
Rob A.: Could I get the dom,ain name in question pelase?
Matt Carey: Here is what I was told: the recipient “...received an email from register.com offering the transfer of the site to him. After 72 hours, [the recipient] had not claimed it and the site was available to anyone to register. ”
Matt Carey: pauloffit.com
Rob A.: Thank you
Matt Carey: The domain is now, finally, been transferred to the correct person. But originally, we were told that the domain had been unlocked and transferred to a third party.
Rob A.: I see that the transfer was successful from one account to the other
Rob A.: That may have been send in error as I do not see that in our system
Rob A.: Sorry
Matt Carey: Is it the policy of Register.com to simply unlock a domain after 72 hours?
Rob A.: no.
Matt Carey: Is it possible to tell me if a third party did posses the domain for a short period? Someone other than Mr. Handley (the original owner) and Dr. Offit, the current owner?
Rob A.: Not according to our system
Rob A.: It went from one account to the other
Matt Carey: Thank you very much for your time.
Rob A.: Thank you for visiting Register.com – Don’t just make a website – Make an Impact!
Rob A. has disconnected.

Mr Handley stated on his blog: “I kept a screen shot of the confirmation of emails sent from register.com.” He has not shared those with me.

Mr. Handley is correct that I should have responded to his request for an interview. For that, I do apologize. I could brush it off as being due to Mr. Handley’s demeanor which, frankly, I do not care for. However, that would be blameshifting. Crafting a response was not straightforward as it may seem. I try to keep the exchanges respectful, if sometimes critical. Given that this is overdue, let me post my response here:

Mr. Handley,I appreciate your offer of an interview with your blog. I believe that in my many posts I have made my positions quite clear. It is very difficult to craft a response that would not come across as a slam. Suffice it to say, I would not willingly add my name to the Age of Autism blog. If at some point in the future, the focus of the Age of Autism were to shift to one which actually advances the needs of children like mine, and the adults whom I see as allies, I would be happy to consent to an interview. Until that time, I consider this matter closed.

Matt Carey

This response by Mr. Handley puts a major damper on the optimism I felt coming from IMFAR. I spent a lot of time with people, a few of whom are on “the other side of the fence”. It was very refreshing to sit down with people, disagree and still feel kinship for those people. There was at least one person whom I wish I had approached and spoken to, if only to express the fact that I hold that person in high regard, even though we have disagreed. But, on the whole, I came away with something I didn’t expect: a sense of hope. It isn’t about people agreeing. It’s about people of differing opinions working as allies. It is also about accepting the science. Accepting the facts as they come in. It’s also about not causing harm to the autism communities and to public health.

Note: this article originally ran on May 17th. In our transition to a new hosting service, the post was lost. I’ve copied it over from the Google Cache version.

Write a quick comment

Dr. Abdirahman D. Mohamed, the chief of staff at Axis Medical Center in Minneapolis, said last month he knew of four unvaccinated Somali children who had died from measles.

Source

This appalling news comes hot on the heels of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Andrew Wakefield’s visit to the Somali community in the US to promote his fraudulent anti-MMR ‘studies’. Generation Rescue has also attended to the Somali community in Minneapolis.

Antivaccine groups have noticed. In November, J. B. Handley…wrote an open letter to “Courageous Somali Parents.”

He warned them not to trust the state health department and suggested they slow down their children’s shots and get exemptions to school vaccination requirements. He also offered to pay for some to attend an antivaccine conference.

All these people and groups should now reap the harvest of what they have sown. Death. Preventable death.

Write a quick comment | View 9 more comment(s).

As Kev points out I chose this week to out myself. The title for my talk at IMFAR has been posted online and it was time. As part of Kev’s post, he noted that Mr. Handley made some commitments on condition that I step forward. I doubted that Mr. Handley would make good on his commitments, even going so far as to write that I didn’t think he had the integrity to do so. For those comments I offer a sincere apology. I was wrong.

On important point to make here. It wasn’t JB Handley or a regular of the Age of Autism who outed me. It was former members of the autism hub blogs in the comments for the “Bonnie Offit” piece by Mr. Handley.

On the other hand, one person with whom I have disagreed over the years figured out my name long before any of this “Bonnie Offit” mess. Rather than out me, that person emailed me with the information of how I was exposing myself. It is that person’s integrity that is the biggest lesson I have learned from these events.

Note, 5-12-2011:

Mr. Handley had made two clear commitments. (1) that he would hand over control of the domain “pauloffit.com” and (2) that he would cease his discussions against Dr. Offit. I emailed Mr. Handley:

Mr. Handley,

A few people have forwarded your piece to me today. I appreciate what you have said and I have offered a public apology on LeftBrainRightBrain for questioning your integrity in honoring your commitments.

As far as the domain pauloffit.com, you can transfer that directly to the Offits. I believe you have his contact information. If not, it can be found on his website: http://www.paul-offit.com/

He replied that he would “take care of it early next week”

That was April 29th. He never contacted Dr. Offit, and the site has been merely redesigned.

The apology was premature.

Write a quick comment | View 14 more comment(s).

Back in 2010, Age of Autism’s Inspector Clouseau, summed up the following about Sullivan:

1) Female
2) American
3) A doctor or scientist
4) Not the parent of an autistic child.
5) Is actually Paul Offit’s wife Bonnie.

And followed up with this promise:

If you can produce a dad with a child with autism with a remarkable grasp of the medical and scientific literature who blogs under the name Sullivan, a man who has an inordinate grasp of the details of your husband’s patents, lawsuits, published studies, and web habits, I will make sure that the pauloffit.com website is given to you and your husband for good.

In fact, if you can produce this father, I promise to never, ever publicly write about or utter the name “Paul Offit” again.

As blogged by Sullivan, he will be attending IMFAR as a contributor:

I have written in the past that I will be attending IMFAR, the International Meeting For Autism Research. I will be supported by a stakeholder travel grant from the Autism Science Foundation, for which I am very grateful. What I haven’t mentioned before is that I was planning to attend IMFAR even before applying for the stakeholder grant. I’ve been planning on attending since I submitted an abstract: Parent Reported Status and Expectations for Their Autistic Student Children: An Analysis of the 2007 National Household Education Survey.

The abstract in question is:

Parent Reported Status and Expectations for Their Autistic Student Children: An Analysis of the 2007 National Household Education Survey. M. J. Carey

M.J. Carey, of course being LB/RB’s own Matt Carey.

So, now we turn back to JB Handley – are you ready to both hand over both the domain and your word to never mention in word or speech the name Paul Offit again JB?

Write a quick comment | View 20 more comment(s).

Today, JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue became the latest person at Age of Autism to abuse a man with a psychiatric disorder.

Shouldn’t we celebrate that Mr. Mnookin claims to be sober? Sure we should. Beating a heroin addiction is a laudable outcome. That being said, I sure wouldn’t hire Mr. Mnookin in one of my companies, let him watch my kids, or go to him for parenting advice. He was a garden-variety junkie who stole money from friends and family, sorry.

Give with one hand, take with the other.

I don;t ever seem to recall such vitriol for another former heroin addict. In fact, for this former heroin addict, JB Handley said:

I wept when I read RFK Jr’s piece yesterday on the Huffington Post…

As far as I can tell, the only difference between Mnookin and Kennedy is that Mnookin is man enough to discuss his addiction up front and personal.

JB Handley and his ilk idolise Kennedy because he’s on their side. If Seth Mnookin had written a very different book, you can bet that his former addiction wouldn’t count for a damn thing. I wonder if JB would hire Kennedy, let him watch his kids or go to him for parenting advice? Because according to JB’s standards, Kennedy is just another garden variety junkie.

I believe both Mnookin and Kennedy deserve credit for fighting a fight that JB Handley can neither envisage nor learn from. What neither of these two men deserve is to be judged on their past. I look forward to reading an AoA article on Seth that describes what is wrong with his writings rather than what he used to do as a young man.

Write a quick comment | View 43 more comment(s).

Todd Drezner has a new piece up on the Huffington Post: Reconsidering the Nature of Autism. He starts out by quoting the forward to one of Jenny McCarthy’s books. The forward is by alternative medical practitioner Jerry Kartzinel.

Here is what Mr. Drezner wrote in his introduction:

“Autism … steals the soul from a child; then, if allowed, relentlessly sucks life’s marrow out of the family members, one by one.” So wrote Dr. Jerry Kartzinel in the introduction to Jenny McCarthy’s bestselling “Louder Than Words.” No wonder, then, that the concept of neurodiversity—the idea that we should understand and accept autistic people as a group that thinks differently from the majority—has proven to be so controversial.

The quote takes me back. Back to when I was starting to look online for information about autism. I remember when Jenny McCarthy hit the scene. Kev responded here with his blogging. The blog might have been kevleitch.co.uk then, not LeftBrainRightBrain. I remember that Kev’s blog went down: the traffic was so high that he hit his bandwidth quota. I remember that he responded to the forward from Jerry Kartzinel. He responded with words and, a little later, with video:

I don’t bring this up just for some sort of nostalgia. But this reminds me of two major themes. First: words hurt. What Dr. Kartzinel wrote, and Jenny McCarthy published, hurt. It hurt a lot of people. It added to the stigma of autism and disability. Second: words can be powerful. Kev fought back, as did many others. How or if this was an influence on Todd Drezner, I can’t say. It influenced me as I still remember it.

We can’t sit back and let people stigmatize others, for whatever reason they may have. Kim Wombles shows that almost every day with her blog Countering. Bev did it with a humor and keen perspective on Asperger Square 8. Corina Becker is taking up the task with No Stereotypes Here. And this is just a few of the many voices, autistic and non, out there.

Having said this, I will bring up one message that I’ve felt needed to be countered for some time. Here is a screenshot of a page from the book “the Age of Autism” by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill. Both write for the Age of Autism Blog (Dan Olmsted appears to be the proprietor). Mark Blaxill is a member of the organization SafeMinds. Both promote the idea of autism as vaccine injury and, more specifically, the failed mercury hypothesis. (click to enlarge)

To pull but one disturbing quote: “As one of the first parents to observe an autistic child, Muncie learned how well autism targets ‘those functions distinctly human’ “. Yes, I have spent quite a lot of time fighting bad science like the first part in that sentence: the idea that autism is new/the kids in Kanner’s study were the first autistics ever. But what about the second part: that autistics are missing or have impaired “distinctly human” functions? Yes, I’ve also responded to that sentiment in the past and I plan to continue to do so. And that is much more important than the fight against bad science.

Words hurt. Jerry Kartzinel’s words hurt. Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill’s words hurt. They hurt and they are wrong. Plain and simple.

Another phrase from the above paragraph: “autism brutally restricts the interests of the affected”. So say the team that has one interest: pushing mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism. A little ironic?

Reading their writing, I am reminded of one of Bev’s amazing videos:

Back to the paragraph from “The Age of Autism”. Dan, Mark: You don’t think autistics made tools, explored the globe, invented new technologies? The sad thing is, it seems like you don’t.

Yeah, a lot of kids, kids like mine, aren’t in the world explorer/inventor categories. And even kids like mine are still as human as you or I. They are not missing anything “distinctly human”.

Write a quick comment | View 23 more comment(s).