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).

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).

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).

On a Facebook page entitled ‘Fan photos from Age of Autism’ you will find this (click for bigger):

Lets not kid around here, this is a direct threat of violence towards people carrying ‘syringes’ i.e. people who might want to vaccinate children. I have no idea if Jenny McCarthy has any knowledge of this photo but its clear from the title ‘fan photos from the Age of Autism, that Age of Autism clearly do.

Lets also be clear about the utterly anti-vaccine message of this image. The editors continually describe themselves as ‘pro-vaccine safety’. Let me suggest to them that creating a picture of Jenny McCarthy threatening people carrying syringes in a medical setting isn’t pro-vaccine safety. Its anti-vaccine pure and simple.

Write a quick comment | View 29 more comment(s).

As I blogged recently, Paul Offit was a guest on a US show called The Colbert report. Whilst emailing him about his appearance he mentioned the following:

Of interest, one of the show’s staff said that xe had been called by Jenny McCarthy (which I assumed meant Jenny McCarthy’s handlers), who told xyr not to mention Jenny’s name because Jenny no longer speaks out against vaccines . [Jenny’s handler was told] that Colbert wouldn’t mention her name but I was welcome to. The opening came when Colbert said he hadn’t heard about the science. But I didn’t mention McCarthy.

My, my. I wonder if anyone has told the founder members of Generation Rescue this little factoid? And what use to them is a Jenny McCarthy that won;t spout off about vaccines at the drop of an opinion?

Write a quick comment | View 50 more comment(s).

One of the defenses of Andrew Wakefield is that his paper doesn’t actually claim to have proven that MMR and autism are linked. You can find it in the interviews, you can find it on the Generation Rescue (Jenny McCarthy’s autism organization) website:

The mainstream media is in a frenzy over a new “study” claiming that Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper was fraudulent. For years, the media has mischaracterized Wakefield’s work as implicating the MMR vaccine in the autism epidemic. This was never true, as Wakefield himself wrote in the conclusion to his paper:

“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

You can find it in Jenny McCarthy’s blog post on the Huffington Post:

Is that the whole story? Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study of 12 children with autism actually looked at bowel disease, not vaccines. The study’s conclusion stated, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described [autism].”

And, they are correct. The paper does state that. And it is correct, the study did not prove any link. Which leaves us with the question: how could the press have made such a mistake as to think that the paper supported a link?

For starters, from Andrew Wakefield himself.

From the video that his employer at the time, the Royal Free Hospital put out:

DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD: I think if you asked members of the team that have investigated this they would give you different answers. And I have to say that there is sufficient anxiety in my own mind of the safety, the long term safety of the polyvalent, that is the MMR vaccination in combination, that I think that it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines, that is continued use of the individual measles, mumps and rubella components.

He called for a suspension of the MMR vaccine at the time. Pretty strong message to send to parents.

In addition, as Jenny McCarthy tries to distance Andrew Wakefield from linking MMR and autism, let’s take a look at her own website, Generation Rescue dot com. They claim that the number one paper that supports the idea that a trigger of inflammation and the current resultant behaviors is the Wakefield 1998 study in The Lancet:

Children with neurological disorders are often suffering from severe gastrointestinal distress and inflammation. A trigger of this inflammation and the resultant behaviors is the MMR vaccine.

We cite four published studies that support this position:

Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
Lancet 1998 Feb 28 Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, [University Department of Medicine, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, London, UK]

Not surprisingly, the exact same text is included on the “14 studies” website, a site set up by Generation Rescue.

So, according to Generation Rescue, the Lancet article supports the position that the MMR is a trigger, even though the article itself says it doesn’t prove a link.

Generation Rescue and Jenny McCarthy have spent years putting the notion of a link between MMR and autism into the public’s mind. They have relied, heavily, upon the Lancet paper to make this assertion. And now they blame the media for propagating this idea?

Write a quick comment | View 38 more comment(s).

As late as just a few months ago, The Autism Research Institute (ARI), promoted their upcoming Fall 2010 Defeat Autism Now! conference in a monthly newsletter. Note the name of the conference:

“Fall 2010 ARI/Defeat Autism Now! Conference”
http://www.ariconference.com/enews/enewsletter_201010.html

Now look at ARI’s promotion of their Spring 2011 conference.

“Spring 2011 ARI Conference
(formerly known as Defeat Autism Now!)”
http://www.ariconference.com/enews/enewsletter_201011.html

Do you see the difference? It’s pretty hard to miss. What about all those practitioners (physicians, nurses, chiropractors, nutritionists, naturopaths, and homeopaths, etc.) who want to participate in the “DAN! Physician Training”, you know, become “DAN! Practitioners”? How does one become a DAN! doctor, if Defeat Autism Now! is a former identity?

A quick look at the ARI Conference website answers that right away.

The Autism Research Institute Conference Formerly known as Defeat Autism Now!

The practitioner seminars are still part of the conference. But there’s something potentially newsworthy here too.

As of 12/31/11, ARI will no longer be maintaining a clinician registry (a.k.a “the DAN list”). No new names will be added to the registry in 2011.

Source

You read that correctly – no new names in 2011, and at the end of this year, it’s over. No more list of DAN! Doctors.

According to ARI’s website, one is best served in finding a “talented clinician” by way a support group – local, or you know, out there on the interwebs.

As recently as 10 years ago it was nearly impossible for parents to find clinicians who approached treating patients with autism from a medical point of view, so ARI started keeping a clinician registry (the “DAN list”). We tried a number of measures to ensure that every clinician on our list provided high-quality care, but we are a small non-profit with limited resources. We have determined that those seeking a talented clinician are best served by connecting with support groups—either locally or online—instead of choosing from a list that cannot be vetted.

Source

I’m not sure what they mean by having tried “a number of measures to ensure that every clinician on our list provided high-quality care”. I understand that there were special “clinician training” sessions at DAN! conferences in the past, but as far as I understood it in the past, becoming a listed DAN! practitioner might have required little more than attend a conference, sign a statement pledging to “conduct their practice in accordance with DAN! philosophy”, and ask to be listed. Although I could be wrong, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there were in fact any significant measures taken by ARI to ensure the provision of high quality care by clinicians on its list. I seem to recall that Roy Kerry was added to ARI’s list of DAN! practitioners in 2006 after the death of Tariq Nadma in 2005.

ARI’s notes and disclaimers for the remaining year of life for the list of DAN! doctors seem pretty careful:

If someone claims to be “DAN-certified,” they’re overstating; neither ARI nor Defeat Autism Now! has ever had a certification program.

The following are practitioners who have asked to be listed as providing Defeat Autism Now!®- based interventions for patients with autism. Most are physicians, others are licensed health-care professionals in related fields.

ARI has no means of certifying the competence nor quality of practice of any practitioner. The lists are provided as a community service. The Autism Research Institute disclaims and does not endorse or support any individual or entity listed; makes no representations, warranties, guarantees or promises on behalf of or for those listed, and assumes no liability nor responsibility for any service or product provided. ARI does not ‘certify’ practitioners or guarantee competence, skill, knowledge, or experience.

Source

So is that it? Is this really the end of DAN! doctors in less than a year? Isn’t there a D-List celebrity with apparent anti-vaccine leanings , who can save (or may have already saved) the day for all the poor physicians, nurses, chiropractors, nutritionists, naturopaths, and homeopaths who need be available to all those parents who are desperate to recover an “epidemic” of kids from autism, mercury poisoning, or “vaccine-induced” whatever?

Aha! Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue! Where, from the home page, a parent can click on “Find A Doctor” and learn about the NGMD’s.

What’s an NGMD according to Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue?

Answer: According to Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue website, an NGMD is a “New Generation Medical Doctor”, and “These clinicians share Generation Rescue’s ideologies, practices, and philosophies of treating the underlying medical issues of individuals with autism.”

Source

I think this is potentially an interesting development, because in the past, a parent brand-new to an autism diagnosis might have assumed scientific credibility from a movement’s (Defeat Autism Now!) list of practitioners associated with a name like “Autism Research Institute”. If nothing, ARI is a scientific sounding name. I don’t think that’s as likely to be the case for the “NGMD’s”, who could be seen by many as simply associated with a fringe anti-vaccine group promoted by Jenny McCarthy.

What do you think?

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

A new study at IMFAR reports:

Brian Freedman, PhD, lead author of the study and clinical director of the Center for Autism and Related Disorders at Kennedy Krieger Institute, said the findings seem to debunk a lot of the general understanding about high divorce rates among parents of children with autism. Dr. Freedman and his research team found that 64 percent of children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) belong to a family with two married biological or adoptive parents, compared with 65 percent of children who do not have an ASD.

This is the first scientific study (I believe) that has actually addressed this question. We can of course all recall the utterly unfounded scare stories of 80% put about by know-nothings such as Jenny McCarthy who said on an episode of Oprah:

Soon after Evan’s diagnosis, Jenny says the stress of raising a child with autism began to take a toll on her marriage. An autism advocacy organization reports that the divorce rate within the autism community is staggering. According to its research, 80 percent of all marriages end.

“I believe it, because I lived it,” she says. “I felt very alone in my marriage.”

and which autism organisation was that? You might not be amazed to discover its the equally know-nothing bunch at the National Autism Association.

NAA is presently conducting a national divorce survey of autism families. Several organizations and news outlets have used the often-quoted autism divorce rate of 80%—NAA hopes to confirm or update that percentage before referencing it in its program materials.

Get a clue NAA - maybe you should’ve done the research before letting rent-a-gob loose on the Oprah show.

Write a quick comment

In June, 2008, Jenny McCarthy of Generation Rescue led the “Green Our Vaccines” rally in Washington. The stated reason for the rally was to “Demand Congress take action to Green Our Vaccine Supply while reassessing our current vaccine schedule.”

They weren’t anti-vaccine, they were anti-toxin.

How sincere was this movement?

Consider this question and answer from Jenny McCarthy’s interview for Frontline:

Tell me about “Green Our Vaccines” and what you want to happen.

I don’t think there is a green vaccine. The purpose in our statement of Green Our Vaccines really is: Let’s take a look at our environment. Let’s take a look at some of these toxic ingredients and pull them out. Let’s take a look at a safer schedule. I mean, our motto was “Too many, too soon” with the Green Our Vaccines march. And like I said, it’s not like I’m looking for a Whole Foods version of a shot. We’re looking for just a smarter and safer one in that title of Green Our Vaccines.

Repeated for emphasis—”I don’t think there is a green vaccine”. Sort of vague there. Is she saying there can be no green vaccine? That’s how I read it at first. Considering that Jenny McCarthy considers the active parts of vaccines (bacteria and viruses) to be “toxic” ingredients, I’m not sure if she can believe in a green vaccine.

So, was it really about “too many too soon”, the vaccine schedule? No. It’s still mercury. Consider Generation Rescue’s mission statement from their tax form (dated 2009-11-16). (click to enlarge)

My own rough transcription:

Generation Rescue, inc. has a four point mission. Gather information that exists about mercury toxicity and publicize the truth so parents can make the best decision to help their children heal. 2. Organize doctors to treat the millions of affected children through education and conference sponsorship. Sponsor research to further the understanding between mercury and neurodevelopmental and other health disorders and to help organize the cure for mercury poisoning. 4. Support legislation to ban the use of thimerosal in medicine on a worldwide basis.

The mission statement has nothing about “green vaccines” or “too many too soon” or any of the talking points. Just mercury.

Why bring this up? Is anyone surprised that “Green Our Vaccines” and “Too Many Too Soon” are just slogans?

Well, it is worth bringing up from time to time. Generation Rescue would like you to believe that there has been a big fail by the public health establishment. They would like you to believe that the government has been avoiding looking at “the schedule” and has only looked at “one vaccine and one ingredient”.

Well, one ingredient is exactly what Generation Rescue’s mission is all about.

As long as the tax form is available, take a look. Jenny McCarthy seems to be good for generating new revenue. GR brought in $1,185,255 in 2008. Pretty respectable. That’s up from $424,698 the year before.

Generation Rescue’s expenses went up to. They spent $229,213 fund raising alone. This was part of total expenses totaling $745,238.

Let’s break that down a bit. Of the total expenses, $220,654 went to “MARKETING &AWARENESS COSTS”. Let’s consider that to be part of GR’s mission, spreading the word.

What does that leave? Expenses of $524,584. Or, about 44% of the donations.

Another way to look at it: if you donate a dollar to Generation Rescue, 44 cents goes to overhead.

Of course, one could compare Generation Rescue to Autism Speaks, who takes in $66,000,000 in order to put out $27,000,000 in grants—or about 41 cents on the dollar goes to the mission. Autism Speaks has about $14,000,000 in fund raising expenses and about $18,000,000 in salaries.

Ah, but I am getting off topic.

Generation Rescue has a single mission. The same mission they’ve always had. They appear to expanding to “too many too soon” but, in reality, it is just about mercury.

Write a quick comment

I’ve only been able to watch the first few minutes so far, but I wanted to make this available.

(I’ve emailed asking if there is a captioned version)

If you want to read—written interviews:

Jenny McCarthy
She’s an actress, celebrity and activist. Her son was diagnosed with autism following a series of vaccinations, and she’s helped organize a movement of parents concerned about a vaccine-autism link.

Cynthia Cristofani, M.D.
A pediatric intensivist who takes care of children who need critical care, Cristofani decided to start documenting the rare cases of vaccine-preventable illness that turned up in her Portland, Oregon ICU.

Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
He is an immunologist and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID].

Alvaro and Myrian Fontan
They watched in anguish as their 40 day-old baby Vanessa—not yet old enough for the pertussis vaccination—fought for her life.

J.B. Handley
A businessman whose son was diagnosed with autism, Handley co-founded with his wife the autism advocacy site Generation Rescue.

Paul Offit, M.D.
Co-developer of a vaccine for rotavirus, the leading cause of severe diarrhea in children, Offit is chief of the infectious diseases division at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Robert W. Sears, M.D. A practicing pediatrician, he has developed an alternative vaccine schedule that differs from the CDC’s. Sears is the author of The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child.

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