MMR and Metal Studies – Empty Discussions

28 May

Two new (not sure what to call them) papers? Abstracts? Press releases? Came out this week concerning autism and vaccines. Also, one _actual_ study was released.

Study number one is entitled…well, actually, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t have a name yet. The first draft (which I saw in October last year) was called *Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder*. The authors are Robert Nataf, MD Corinne Skorupka, MD, Alain Lam, BSc , Anthea Springbett, PhD, Lorene Amet, DPhil and Richard Lathe, DSc.

Richard Lathe is the heavy hitter in this bunch. He’s quoted in New Scientist as saying:

It’s highly likely that heavy metals are responsible for childhood autistic disorder in a majority of cases

New Scientist.

Strong words. However, as I said at the top of this piece, this study has not yet even been published yet. The only scientists who’ve read it are the scientists that performed the study. As far as I know, its not even been accepted for publication by Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. I _do_ know it was submitted to The Lancet and I’m guessing as the authors moved on to Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology that it was rejected by The Lancet.

I can’t discuss the science as it may have changed since the first draft I have a copy of. In the absence of the science, we can’t really discuss much of any importance.

However, we can take a look ‘behind the curtain’ at some of those names can’t we?

_Lorène Amet_ is an Editor of Medical Veritas – a journal that PubMed does not, as far as I know, index. MV’s ‘mission statement’ includes:

MV…recognizes that medical modalities promoted by public health departments and authorities are often compromised by conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and other political and personal agendas. These areas of detrimental influence include, but are not limited to, the following: vaccinations, pharmaceutical drugs, pregnancy, childbirth and child care practices, treatments for cancer, AIDS and other diseases, food additives, pesticides and herbicides, water fluoridation,d ental procedures, including amalgams, medical procedures and surgeries

Nothing like going in with a preconceived agenda eh? That’ll help with scientific objectivity.

Ms Amet’s colleagues from Medical Veritas include Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, who doesn’t believe HIV leads to AIDS, as well as someone called Kenneth P. Soller, MD who I’m guessing is Kenneth P. S *t* oller, MD – our new friend who likes HBOT for autism and who tried to smear Paul Shattuck and Andrew ‘Wakers’ Wakefield.

Source – NB: there is at least one person who is now deceased listed on that page.

Here’s some snippets from Ms Amet’s CV:

In the process of setting up an Autism Treatment clinic with the charity Autism Treatment Trust (former Action Against Autism). Principal Scientist.

(UK version of Generation Rescue led by Bill Welsh)

Received DAN! (Defeat Autism Now) doctor accreditation, Dec., 2005. Initiated and organised with Action Against Autism a conference called Treating Autism, Edinburgh UK, October 14-15, 2005. Participated to two clinic days with Dr. McCandless and Dr. Usman (16 children with autism). October 16-17, 2005.

Well, I guess we should all be reassured at how impartial any study featuring a DAN! practitioner and Editor of Medical Veritas will be. I sincerely hope their study has moved on since the first draft.

The second study/paper/abstract/thingy does at least have an actual title. It’s title is: *PERSISTENT ILEAL MEASLES VIRUS IN A
LARGE COHORT OF REGRESSIVE AUTISTIC CHILDREN WITH ILEOCOLITIS AND LYMPHONODULAR HYPERPLASIA: REVISITATION OF AN EARLIER STUDY* which is a bit of a mouthful. It basically claims to substantiate Andrew Wakefields earlier findings with the MMR vaccine.

Yet again, however, despite this being reported in at least two mainstream newspapers, it should be noted that the actual study has not been published. It will be discussed at the upcoming IMFAR conference in Canada but no-one has seen the paper yet. The presentation could not even legitimately be referred to as an abstract yet.

The authors are: Steve Walker, Karin Hepner, Jeffrey Segal and Arthur Krigsman.

There appears to be a fund raiser for this study on the website of the NAA where Andrew Wakefield and Jeff Bradstreet (who apparently used to recommend exorcism for autistic kids) are listed as ‘consultants’.

Lets not forget that the NAA have made a big deal of ‘outing’ Paul Shattuck’s non-existent connection to Merck so I wonder if we’ll be seeing them play the ‘conflict of interest’ card in the case of this study? Doubtful I’d guess.

However, the big connection here is Thoughtful House, Andrew Wakefield’s project. Steve Walker, one of the authors listed above, is on the board alongside such scientific luminaries as, uh, Martie Maguire of the Dixie Chicks.

A keen eyed observer might also note that one of the other authors is a partner of Andrew Wakefield’s. This hardly instils a great deal of hope in the objectivity of this paper.

So there’s our two non-papers which we can’t really discuss the science of as none has been made available. However, that hasn’t stopped people from going ahead and reporting on them as if it were.

The third bit of news from the autism/vaccine issue is (gasp!) an _actual_ paper, which has been peer reviewed, submitted and accepted for publication in a decent journal. Its title is: *Is There a ‘Regressive Phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder Associated with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine? A CPEA Study.*

And what does it say?

There was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

Of course, that story doesn’t get mentioned – its not as interesting as wild speculation.

87 Responses to “MMR and Metal Studies – Empty Discussions”

  1. Joseph June 2, 2006 at 17:37 #

    But we DID manage to improve her eyesight by 60% over a period of 2 years.

    Wow. Did you also manage to find the cure for cancer and how to stop aging while at it?

  2. Joseph June 2, 2006 at 17:41 #

    I think it is important to remeber that this study was Fombonne’s first venture into autism epi and that the criteria used have been descibed by Fombonne as “Clinical, ICD-10 like” as opposed to actually using thr ICD-10 or DSM-IV.

    I have a theory about why the numbers are low in France. I think it has to do with the popular etiology theory there, parent willingness to have a child labeled autistic, and psychiatrist willingness to give a child that label. I believe this also explains why the numbers have gone up as the Refrigerator Mom theory has been discredited everywhere else.

  3. Ms Clark June 2, 2006 at 17:51 #

    The French are just a different species, you know they have that dietary “French Paradox” so they can worry about too much mercury in the environment and produce a worthless paper about high porphyrins in autism while also have a very low rate of autism. It’s another French Paradox… or maybe just stinking greed on the part of Nataf who wants a part of the monied American mercury mom pie.

  4. Joseph June 2, 2006 at 17:57 #

    “So even if everyone in who’s considered to be authority in the medical world says mercury is not the cause – we must still let people who think out of the box to work in other direction – I want to give people like Dr. Boyd E. Haley the capability to continue their work with much bigger support then they have right now.”

    I think that’s fine actually. I haven’t looked into Haley much. But some of the other characters involved in the mercury etiology theory have a track record that is suspect. Unfortunately, given the explosion in autism diagnoses, and the way autism is constructed as a devasting occurrence, it appears that some guys see it as a potential cash cow.

  5. Ms Clark June 2, 2006 at 22:49 #

    Boyd Hayley can potentially personally profit through his business every time he convinces someone that mercury is horrifically toxic at “micromolar levels.” His business isn’t oriented to autistic kids but pushing mercury as a cause of autism still helps his business. There’s a vast conspiracy to keep people from understanding Boyd’s version of Alzheimers and mercury poisoning, don’t you know. never mind they know a lot of what causes Alzhheimers and can account for what they find without needing mercury as an explanation in any way shape or form. Boyd’s not just thining out of the box, he’s out of his tree, in my opinion. He’s the “mad child disease” guy, in case anyone has forgotten, he never knew there were autistic adults who could type messages and was surprised when they got mad at the “mad child disease” slur. One thing for him, though is he’s not against vaccines, he’s just for demonizing mercury at micromolar levels.. oooh, I’m so afraid. We are swimming in the stuff constantly, but we’re all gonna die of micro-molar mercury poisoning, get tested by Boyd Hayley, quick and get your amalgams filling drilled out ASAP!! These “thinking outside the box” people in autism are consistently stupid people.

    In contrast, Margaret Bauman and Tm Buie have made progress, somewhat, in getting to some “biomedical” treatments for a minority of autistic kids, but they are well WITHIN the box. They are doing classic–one step at a time–research.

  6. Otsego June 2, 2006 at 23:14 #

    Anybody who works for an organization called “Toxic Teeth” is automatically suspect. (That’s Haley. How can they say that with a straight face? I snickered just typing it.)

  7. Ms Clark June 3, 2006 at 02:42 #

    Oh, I think it’s “nanomolar” not “micromolar.”

    This is weird if you go to altcorp.com Haley’s company’s website and look for his dental related stuff you go here:http://www.altcorp.com/AffinityLaboratory/testfoundation.htm and under the attractive skull and crossbones there’s a button that is supposed to take you to testfoundation.org, but apparently testfoundation.org is up for grabs. There’s nothing there. There are 3 antivax/autism type websites that link to testfoundation.org.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040624014531/http://www.testfoundation.org/

    There isn’t much related to mercury on altcorp.com’s site now but you can see it in the old testfoundation.org site

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040606085152/http://testfoundation.org/thimerosal.htm

    Plenty of anti-thimerosal stuff there. It’s funny that Haley would back off from his strong anti-thimerosal vaccine stance and even give up the testfoundation.org website. He’s a witness in the autism omnibus vaccine case, so maybe it’s part of that, trying to look more neutral and scholarly or something.

  8. Ms Clark June 4, 2006 at 21:45 #

    Kevin, how about this, how about I hire a lawyer and have him leave a comment with a good definition of libel?

    Would that help you to understand that I have been employed, plus have been a full time student BOTH for the past 2 and half years, before that I was employed and a part time student. I work 24/7/365. If I wasn’t taking care of a disabled adult ASD person, the state would have to pay at least 5 people to do the same work I do. Some of the work I do is paid in course credits at the university, but I get real cash money for doing real work, and since I’m about to graduate, I’ll have to start paying back the thousands of dollars in loans I’ve been living off of for the past couple of years.

    Kevin Champagne, HIV denialist, that’s just perfect. What about Buttar? What about David Kirby, former AIDS activist (not the David Kirby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ad_1992_benetton_aids_david_kirby.jpg who was dying in the Bennetton ad, the one who wrote “Evidence of a having an axe to grind against public health officials”)? What does the living David Kirby think causes AIDS? Just curious.

  9. Kev June 6, 2006 at 06:18 #

    All – I’ve deleted a whole swathe of comments that centered around the foolishness of two commenters. I’m frankly fed up of the two of them disrupting every thread with irrelevancies and pleas for attention. I’m banning them both until the end of June whereupon I _may_ lift the ban if I feel they can act like adults.

  10. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) June 6, 2006 at 13:47 #

    Thanks, Kevin.

    You notice that it’s the same two every time…. I wonder who pays them to do that sort of thing.

    To spend *that* much time in from of a computer trying to waste space on blogs (not just this one but others, like orac’s and other ppl’s)…. they *have* to be in somebugger’s employ to be online *that* much ….

  11. Undercover Dancer June 6, 2006 at 14:08 #

    Dateline just broadcast a 12 min article on the subject. I think it’s the longest thing news coverage i saw on the subject ever.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13102473/

    and direct link to the video of the article.

    http://msnbc.wmod.llnwd.net/fc/a275/e1/video/100/dtl_prescriptiondrugs1_060604.asf

  12. David H June 7, 2006 at 04:32 #

    “True HBOT causes DNA damage, did you know that? the HBOT toys you guys play around with don’t deliver any more oxygen to the kids’ blood than they’d get from breathing O2 through a nasal canula at ambient air pressure.”

    There are studies to indicate otherwise:

    http://www.drneubrander.com/Files/Brain%20Study-clinicalstudyimpaired%20brain%20function.pdf

    “From what I could tell in the news stories, the measles virus story seemed like a bit of a stinker – no non-autistic control subjects!”

    I wouldn’t make that assumption at this point. I was told that there were controls (NT children with some type of bowel disease) but hopefully the study is published soon so we know for sure. I was also told that some of the controls (I have no idea what percentage or if it’s even true) also had the measles virus in the gut. So I think Walker is very accurate when he states that this study does not link the MMR to autism. At this point it can only link the MMR to bowel disease in some autistic children and possibly some NT children (assuming that my information is correct).

    But if my information is correct, I don’t see it as proving the MMR to not cause autism in some children. I would want to see much more testing as it’s completely realistic for a disease to act differently in different people. For example, the flu may cause minor discomfort to some while it could cause death in others.

  13. Jonathan Semetko June 7, 2006 at 17:06 #

    David,

    “For example, the flu may cause minor discomfort to some while it could cause death in others.”

    Based on this we could conclude that the flu caues autism; I mean, it affects different people in unique ways, right? At the very least we can not conclude that the flu did not somewhere at some time cause, autism. Of course, no science or logic can do that either.

  14. David H June 7, 2006 at 17:48 #

    “Based on this we could conclude that the flu caues autism; I mean, it affects different people in unique ways, right? At the very least we can not conclude that the flu did not somewhere at some time cause, autism. Of course, no science or logic can do that either.”

    I was thinking more along the lines of flu leading to pneumonia for this example since it’s fairly well established.

  15. Jonathan Semetko June 7, 2006 at 21:50 #

    David H,

    Sure, and that is rationale, but what this example shows very well are the problems inherent in logic based on an argument via the idnividual effects of a factor.

    Did you know that persons have actually implicitly argued in favor of this theory?

  16. David H June 7, 2006 at 23:38 #

    “but what this example shows very well are the problems inherent in logic based on an argument via the idnividual effects of a factor.”

    I apologize but I’m having trouble understanding this sentence. Can you expand on this thought?

  17. Jonathan Semetko June 8, 2006 at 06:03 #

    Hi David,

    Certainly and my apologies for not being more clear.

    I am going to break our examples into a three term syllogism:

    P. The flu effects certain people in unique ways
    P. Bobby, developed pneumonia after having the flu
    C. Therefore Bobby developed pneumonia because of the flu.

    The problem with such logic is that is moves from two statements of fact, to a conclusion that is not logically supported by the premises. This could be depending o n the specific wording a post hoc, irrelevant conclusion, or non-sequitur, fallacy. Compare the problems here to your reasoning with:

    P. Vaccines effects certain people in unique ways
    P. Bobby, developed autism after having the vaccine
    C. Therefore Bobby developed autism because of the vaccines.

    It could be noted that one can still support flu=pneumonia or autism=vaccines, but one can not use this logic to show this.

  18. David H June 9, 2006 at 05:07 #

    MMR update from SAR (apparently, I was wrong about the inclusion of controls in the Krigsman study although I am trying to get confirmation from Dr. Krigsman – but as this article points out, there were controls in an earlier study)

    Leak Stew Column: MMR

    Private Eye 9 June – 22 June 2006
    (Not available online).

    The MMR controversy has been rekindled by last week’s
    announcement
    in Canada that vaccine-strain measles virus has been found in the guts
    of a
    large group of children in New York suffering from regressive autism
    and
    bowel disease.
    This discovery in an entirely separate group of children across
    the
    Atlantic is significant in that it replicates the research findings of
    Professor John O’Leary in Dublin and Dr Andrew Wakefield in London.
    Before legal aid was suddenly withdrawn from families of
    autistic
    children mounting a group legal action against the drug companies, the
    judge
    in the case, Mr Justice Keith, said that Prof O’Leary’s discovery of
    measles
    virus lodged in the guts and spinal fluid of some autistic children was
    “pivotal to the claimants’ case”.
    As Eye readers will be well aware, health chiefs and the drug
    company defendants always responded to these findings by saying that
    the
    work could not or had not been replicated. Well now it has been by an
    American team of researchers, led by Dr Steve Walker of Wake Forest
    University School of Medicine in North Carolina.
    The US team is examining 275 autistic and bowel-diseased
    children.
    Of the 82 tested so far, 70 (or 85 percent) show evidence of
    vaccine-strain
    measles virus lodged in the inflamed tissue of their guts.
    Last week, when Dr Walker presented his interim findings to the
    International Meeting for Autism Research in Montreal, he made it quite
    clear that this does not in any way suggest that MMR causes autism.
    What it
    does show, however, is that a virus that one would expect to be
    ordinarily
    cleared by the body is persisting in the inflamed tissues of children
    with
    regressive autism and gut disease – and that the virus was introduced
    via
    vaccination. There is therefore an association between the measles
    vaccine
    and the combined diagnosis of gut disease and autism that demands
    further
    investigation. No one knows what it is doing there.
    The Walker study has already been attacked by critics because –
    at
    the moment – it lacks a “control” group of normally developed children
    and
    because it is not yet complete and properly published. But the Dublin
    researchers led by Prof O’Leary did have control subjects, the majority
    of
    whom did not appear to harbour the measles virus.
    The same Montreal conference heard details of a study looking
    at the
    blood of autistic children, which was published last month in the
    Journal of
    Medical Virology, which did not find any measles traces. However, two
    more
    gut replication studies are due to be published soon, including that by
    Ian
    Lipkin, professor of neurology at Columbia University and a world
    authority
    on the role of genetic, immune and infection factors in brain disease.
    He
    told the Eye that replication work should have been done the moment the
    alarm bells were rung by Dr Wakefield.
    But of course that is the real scandal in the MMR saga. Instead
    of
    investigating what was happening with this sub-group of around 3,000
    autistic children when the issue was first quietly raised with them
    back in
    1996, health chiefs responded by rubbishing Dr Wakefield and his work.
    Subsequently they also stopped giving parents the “choice” of single
    vaccines even though when MMR was first introduced, the department
    explicitly said that single measles vaccine would continue to be
    available.
    Two and half years ago, Dr Elizabeth Miller, head of the
    immunisation division of the Health Protection Agency, was shown in the
    docu-drama Hear the Silence saying: “There have been no studies which
    have
    shown evidence that the virus is present in these children. So really,
    there
    is no basis for now supporting a hypothesis that there is any link
    between
    MMR vaccine and autism.”
    Now there is evidence from two separate cohorts of children,
    and two
    separate teams of researchers, that the virus is present in these
    children;
    but health chiefs have no plans for a clinical study or to reintroduce
    single jabs.
    The Eye asked the department to respond to the Walker study. It
    said
    MMR remains the safest way to protect children.

  19. Kev June 9, 2006 at 05:28 #

    Private Eye….how surprising. I love how their unbiased journalistic edge leads them to state unequivocally what the outcomes of an unpublished study are.

    When was it exactly that journalism trumped science in matters of science? Why haven’t they mentioned the clinical studies that found no link? Maybe they’re not interested in accuracy and are more interested in selling panic-copies.

  20. David H June 9, 2006 at 15:14 #

    “I love how their unbiased journalistic edge leads them to state unequivocally what the outcomes of an unpublished study are.”

    If you’re referring to the Walker study, it was Walker who made the statement. Private Eye simply reported it.

    “When was it exactly that journalism trumped science in matters of science?”

    How is journalism trumping science?

    “Why haven’t they mentioned the clinical studies that found no link?”

    They at least mentioned the most recent one that found no link.

    The same Montreal conference heard details of a study looking
    at the blood of autistic children, which was published last month in the
    Journal of Medical Virology, which did not find any measles traces.

    “Maybe they’re not interested in accuracy and are more interested in selling panic-copies.”

    What’s inaccurate?

  21. mike stanton June 9, 2006 at 21:29 #

    What is inaccurate is that this is not an independent replication of Wakefield’s study. Krigsman works for Wakefield, Walker is an advisor to Wakefield’s Thoughtful House Clinic and Wakefield acted as consultant to this study.

  22. Not Liable June 10, 2006 at 03:43 #

    I told you you’re banned until the end of June Kevin.

  23. David H June 11, 2006 at 02:05 #

    “What is inaccurate is that this is not an independent replication of Wakefield’s study. Krigsman works for Wakefield, Walker is an advisor to Wakefield’s Thoughtful House Clinic and Wakefield acted as consultant to this study.”

    Are you kidding me? So it’s all a conspiracy with Wakefield pulling the strings and controlling “his employee” Krigsman and Walker to produce the results he wants to see? That’s great stuff.

    First of all, how do you figure Krigsman works for Wakefield? Are they collaborators in THoughtful House? Sure. But Krigsman has his own practice in NY that has absolutely nothing to do with Wakefield. Stating that Krigsman works for Wakefield is simply not true. What does Walker’s role as advisor to Thoughtful House have to do with anything?

    Dr. Karin Hepner “consulted on the technical design of the virus detection methods and conducted independent analysis of some samples.” What’s her connection to Wakefield? Does she satisfy your “ndependent replication” requirement?

  24. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) June 11, 2006 at 06:17 #

    David H: “Are you kidding me? So it’s all a conspiracy with Wakefield pulling the strings and controlling ‘his employee’ Krigsman and Walker to produce the results he wants to see? That’s great stuff.”

    That how science is supposed to happen… independent replication, in order to ensure validity of results.

    Thought you’d have known that!

    As for Krigsman and TH… http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/bio_akrigsman.htm
    http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/bio_awakefield.htm

    If Wakefield is the main man in TH, and Krigsman works there, that means that – technically – Krigsman works for Wakefield. TH was founded by Wakefield. Wakefield is the executive director, and that means that Krigsman works for Wakefield. That evidence is on their own site!

    David H: “Stating that Krigsman works for Wakefield is simply not true”

    Actually, as I just demonstrated… it *is*.

    Walker’s role as advisor to TH means that he cannot (because of his advisory role) be considered independent of the institution.

  25. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) June 11, 2006 at 06:43 #

    David H: “Dr. Karin Hepner ‘consulted on the technical design of the virus detection methods and conducted independent analysis of some samples.’ What’s her connection to Wakefield? Does she satisfy your ‘independent replication’ requirement?”

    Given that two of the authors of the paper have clear links with Wakefield, via TH, Hepner’s involvment is neither here nor there… the fact of Walker (advisor to TH) and Krigsman (clinical staff at TH) is enough to ensure that this cannot be seen as an independent replication.

    Accept it, David.

    That’s how it is. This is why a lot (if not all) of the Early Autism Projects cannot be seen as independent replication sites… the requirement stipulated by Lovaas is that the people doing the therapy were trained by him, or there was no guarantee that what was happening as what Lovaas had devised. Their links to him mean that the staff working the rep-sites are not conducting independent replications… and the independence of the replications is what guarantees the validity of the results by maintaining the integrity of the replication as being totally unconnected to the study being replicated.

    Siis niinku *Dah*!

  26. David H June 11, 2006 at 18:53 #

    “If Wakefield is the main man in TH, and Krigsman works there, that means that – technically – Krigsman works for Wakefield. TH was founded by Wakefield. Wakefield is the executive director, and that means that Krigsman works for Wakefield. That evidence is on their own site!”

    Krigsman’s study has nothing to do with Thoughtful House. The specimens were taken from patients of his NY practice and analyzed at Wake Forest. Krigsman’s private practice has NOTHING to do with Wakefield.

    “Given that two of the authors of the paper have clear links with Wakefield, via TH, Hepner’s involvment is neither here nor there”

    That’s ridiculous. She has no involvement with Wakefield and she confirmed the results. Whatever relationship Krigsman and Walker have with Wakefield has nothing to do with her. So although it’s convenient of you to dismiss her involvement she is exactly what you have been asking for.

    The key fact that you seem willing to ignore is the science. DNA evidence of the vaccine strain of measles virus in the guts of children. O’Leary found it and now Walker has found it. It’s truly remarkable that you’re bickering about Krigsman’s relationship as an “employee” of Wakefield (which is utterly ridiculous) or Walker’s role as an advisor to TH.

    Explain the motiviation for Walker, Krigsman & Hepner to risk their careers by lying about these results. Because if you don’t believe what they’re saying you must think they are lying.

  27. clone3g June 11, 2006 at 21:54 #

    Let’s look at it this way David H.

    Suppose a member of one inspection team claims to have found evidence of WMDs* and let’s suppose this thoughtful inspector holds a press conference announcing the presence of WMDs before they can be independently confirmed.

    Other teams are unable to independently confirm this inspector’s findings but the inspector stands by his convictions. “WMDs are there, you just have to look using the same instruments and methods or you won’t find them.”

    Sure enough, other members of the same inspection team (all from the same country by the way) are able to find the WMDs using the same instruments and methods, not the actual weapons mind you, but a fragment of something that looks very much like something that might be used in a WMD.

    Would we expect that team to share the fragment samples with other nations and scientists or just take their word for it?

    I know we are only talking about a few hundred thousand kids here and not a sovereign nation but before I accept that the majority of autistic kids harbor genuine vaccine strain measles in their guts, and apparently nowhere else, I’d like to see those preserved tissue samples sent to independent labs to see if other segments of the measles genome are present. If they are so confident that mealses is there they should welcome truly independent investigation.

    *Whispers of Measles Detection

  28. David H June 12, 2006 at 04:40 #

    “Sure enough, other members of the same inspection team (all from the same country by the way)”

    How is it at all relevant that Krigsman, Walker and the others are all from the US? And they are not all from the same “inspection team.” Krigsman does not work for Wakefield. Walker has a career at Wake Forest. Just because he is an advisor to Thoughtful House does not make him lose his “independence.” And Hepner has no relationship at all with the “inspection team.”

    “are able to find the WMDs using the same instruments and methods, not the actual weapons mind you, but a fragment of something that looks very much like something that might be used in a WMD.”

    You’ve said this before but I have no idea where you are getting this information from. The people who actually did the study say that they found the vaccine strain of measles virus. The only one saying they found a fragment of something that looks like the vaccine strain of measles virus is you.

    “Would we expect that team to share the fragment samples with other nations and scientists or just take their word for it?”

    How do you know they aren’t sharing it? And if they’re not, how do you know it’s the IRB not allowing it. That same lovely IRB that will not allow test results to be shared with the families of the test subjects.

    “but before I accept that the majority of autistic kids harbor genuine vaccine strain measles in their guts,”

    Who’s saying that? Certainly not Krigsman or Walker. The majority of children had the virus in their study group but these are autistic children who had severe enough stomach issues that their parents decided to get them scoped. Anyone attempting to generalize to “the majority of autistic kids” is wrong – at least given what we know at this point.

    “I’d like to see those preserved tissue samples sent to independent labs to see if other segments of the measles genome are present. If they are so confident that mealses is there they should welcome truly independent investigation.”

    So would I. I have no idea how easy that is to do. This study has taken a very long time and they have only analyzed about a 1/3 of their samples. But I disagree that Walker and Hepner do not represent independent confirmation.

  29. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) June 12, 2006 at 07:24 #

    David H: “It’s truly remarkable that you’re bickering about Krigsman’s relationship as an ’employee’ of Wakefield (which is utterly ridiculous) or Walker’s role as an advisor to TH.”

    You what?

    This isn’t bickering. It’s nothing of that at all.

    If anything, you are bickering because people here can see through something that you obviously fail to see through (either because you don’t want to, or because you haven’t the nouse to). You asked about:

    “First of all, how do you figure Krigsman works for Wakefield? Are they collaborators in THoughtful House? Sure. But Krigsman has his own practice in NY that has absolutely nothing to do with Wakefield. Stating that Krigsman works for Wakefield is simply not true. What does Walker’s role as advisor to Thoughtful House have to do with anything?”

    And I showed you, as would anyone else here, that The relationship of employer-employee does in fact exist between Wakefield and Krigsman. I also showed that even a role as advisor can skew things so much as to jeopardise independence.

    But because it is a truth you cannot stomach, David H, you have to bicker on and on and on about it yourself…

    Anybody else here want to try educating this man? Clearly he doesn’t want to listen to me.

    You see, David H, I’m only an associate editor for a journal which publishes research… I obviously don’t know what does or doesn’t constitute a threat to the independence of a replication. Want to tell my boss at the journal that????

  30. David H June 12, 2006 at 14:11 #

    “And I showed you, as would anyone else here, that The relationship of employer-employee does in fact exist between Wakefield and Krigsman.”

    And as I showed you, this particular study had NOTHING to do with Thoughtful House. The patients studied were from Krigsman’s NY practice. Krigsman’s NY practice (and his entire career with the exception of maybe the last couple) have NOTHING to do with Wakefield. What part of that don’t you understand?

    ” I also showed that even a role as advisor can skew things so much as to jeopardise independence.”

    Where were these comments when the CDC studies were being discussed? Surely you must have a BIG problem with the lead author of the VSD study being an employee of GSK. But somehow I don’t recall you ever raising a concern about it. But I digress…

    “Anybody else here want to try educating this man? Clearly he doesn’t want to listen to me.”

    Ah, here we go. You’re smart and I’m stupid. Yes, please. Someone. Anyone. Please educate me. Explain to me how we now have two sets of children, on different continents, who have been biopsied and DNA studied by different doctors, and the presence of vaccine strain of measles virus has been found. Explain to me why I still shouldn’t believe it. Explain to me why DNA sequencing, which I would think would leave little margin for error, should be disregarded because Steve Walker is an advisor to Thoughtful House.

  31. clone3g June 12, 2006 at 16:23 #

    David H: The people who actually did the study say that they found the vaccine strain of measles virus.

    Oh, well if they say so…

    The only one saying they found a fragment of something that looks like the vaccine strain of measles virus is you.

    Until you, or anyone for that matter, can show me otherwise I stand by this statement. Glad to see you are unwilling to take my word for it though. Never trust a single source in your quest for the truth.

    How do you know they aren’t sharing it? And if they’re not, how do you know it’s the IRB not allowing it. That same lovely IRB that will not allow test results to be shared with the families of the test subjects.

    I don’t. It’s hard to know anything when the claim is put forth in a poster and press release. Your doubts are valid as are mine. We don’t know because we can’t know but we are free to believe.

    I believe I picked up a signal from Alpha Centauri on my satellite receiver. Those folks at SETI deny it but hey, what the hell do they know. They don’t have access to my receiver and it may be the only one that can decode the signal. That big hole in the ground Arecibo is a joke!

  32. mcguffin June 12, 2006 at 18:31 #

    “So although it’s convenient of you to dismiss her involvement she is exactly what you have been asking for.”

    Um, this can’t be the same Karin Hepner whose child is/was being treated by Krigsman … right?

  33. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) June 14, 2006 at 17:03 #

    mcguffin: “Um, this can’t be the same Karin Hepner whose child is/was being treated by Krigsman … right?”

    Oh really???? Interesting…

    David H: “So although it’s convenient of you to dismiss her involvement she is exactly what you have been asking for.”

    Nope. Her involvement was neither here nor there because the other involvements I demonstrated were enough to damage the integrity of the study as a so-called independent replication. If there is a substantial connection between the authors of the original study and the authors of a replication, the replication is not an *independent* replication.

    David H: “Ah, here we go. You’re smart and I’m stupid.”

    Er, not what I said and not what I meant. I asked for someone else to try to educate you since you’re obviously not prepared to listen to me. Which is exactly what I said… look: *Clearly he doesn’t want to listen to me*

    Since when does that combination of letters say that I reckon I’m smart and you’re stupid?!

  34. David H June 14, 2006 at 21:59 #

    “Nope. Her involvement was neither here nor there because the other involvements I demonstrated were enough to damage the integrity of the study as a so-called independent replication. If there is a substantial connection between the authors of the original study and the authors of a replication, the replication is not an independent replication.”

    OK. I did a little more research into this. I think it’s fair to say that two individuals were responsible for analyzing the tissue samples. One is John O’Leary and the second is Steven Walker. Wakefield & Krigsman may have performed the biopsies in the two studies but there is no reason to believe they performed the analysis. Is there a connection between O’Leary & Walker? Maybe second cousins once removed?

    Look. I’ll concede the study is not yet complete and not yet published and it would be best to have all of the information available. But if you want to argue against the integrity of this study I’d like to know why you ignored my post regarding Verstraeten. I want to hear you say that the CDC VSD study lacks integrity. And I want to hear you discuss the integrity of having the CDC assume a dual role of making the vaccine schedule and checking for its safetly. I want to hear you say that EVERY single CDC study into vaccines should be considered as suspicious due to the ethical questions.

    And you also never responded to my question of motive. Walker is a mainstream scientist as far as I can tell with a nice career. What is his motivation for risking that by manipulating data solely to restore Wakefield’s credibility? I’m assuming you think he is manipulating data. If not, tell me exactly what you think he is doing to invalidate the study.

    “I asked for someone else to try to educate you since you’re obviously not prepared to listen to me.”

    Did you notice that hardly anyone took you up on your request to educate me? And those that did took a much different tone.

    “Since when does that combination of letters say that I reckon I’m smart and you’re stupid?!”

    It’s your arrogant tone David Andrews. You’ve been displaying it with me since your first reply to me. Saying things like “Accept it” or “That’s how it is” start to annoy me after awhile, particulary when the person saying those things fails to apply the same integrity requirements to different studies. But fear not. You can regain my good will as soon as you publicly state your disdain for the CDC studies which make the Krigsman/Walker/O’Leary studies look as pure as the first winter’s snow.

  35. clone3g June 16, 2006 at 03:36 #

    David H: Is there a connection between O’Leary & Walker? Maybe second cousins once removed?

    Not sure about the cousin thing but they’ve worked together.
    http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/taqman.pdf

  36. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) June 17, 2006 at 01:49 #

    David H: “It’s your arrogant tone David Andrews. You’ve been displaying it with me since your first reply to me. Saying things like “Accept it” or “That’s how it is” start to annoy me after awhile, particulary when the person saying those things fails to apply the same integrity requirements to different studies. But fear not. You can regain my good will as soon as you publicly state your disdain for the CDC studies which make the Krigsman/Walker/O’Leary studies look as pure as the first winter’s snow.”

    You what? And you haven’t been arrogant about things? Isn’t it arrogant, when someone tries to point out to you what threatens the independence of a study, to completely ignore what they say??? Try losing that yourself, you might find I’m more amenable to more civilised discussion. As for me stating my disdain for CDC studies… what the hell for? As for their integrity… still far better than the MMR/mercury=>autism studies any day.

    Like it or not, that’s how it is. The evidence has never cropped up in independent replications to support the MMR/mercury=>autism idea. I can’t be called on to care how hard it is to like that… that’s the science as we know it. If you don’t like science telling you you’re way of the mark, then that is your business… but don’t accuse me of arrogance when you arrogantly peddle way-off-the-mark “evidence” here. You can’t handle it… your issue. Don’t make it mine.

    David H: “Is there a connection between O’Leary & Walker? Maybe second cousins once removed?”

    Again, sterling example of your arrogance on the matter.

    Best you learn some humility yourself, before expecting *me* to shed my “arrogant” responses to your very arrogant irrelevances.

    I have tried to put things forward as simply and as clearly as I can. You have repeatedly put forward logical fallacies and expected to be taken seriously! Look at yourself, David H, before calling *me* arrogant.

    Oh, and you might want to see clone3g’s post…. there is a link.

  37. Linda June 22, 2006 at 13:33 #

    Quite a lot to read on this blog.

    It would seem that as this world gets smaller and smaller, by virtue of our age of technology and what not, that one would ‘get it’. That is to say, people who are interested in investigating the same thing will ultimately come across each other, share information, maybe work out strategies for finding facts and treatments. Its not as if these people are conspiring to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. They have something they have latched on to, and they are trying to further investigations. An individual who is looking into causes of autism will associate and study alongside others who are working in the same fields. They won’t be seeking out working with people who are in the area of studying podiatry, now will they? An individual who is involved in studying GI issues will most likely have met, attended conferences, and maybe even work with others in the same area of study (duh, slap on the head). Its not a conspiracy to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Get over it. However, on the flip side, I would not put anything past ‘big business’ of pharmaceutical companies (money is power) to be constantly fighting this thing by way of lobbying to keep money away from such research projects in hinder the progress.

    posted by a mom of a child with asperger syndrome who is constantly looking for information and answers.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: