On 31st March, Dr Paul Offit wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled Inoculated Against Facts in which he discussed the recent Poling situation.
In response to this, David Kirby wrote a blistering response entitled Lies My New York Times Told Me (Or, Why Trust a Doctor Who Says 10,000 Shots Are Safe?).
Offit says:
An expert who testified in court on the Polings’ behalf claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah’s already weakened cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible.
To which Kirby responded:
no one “testified in court” in this case, as confusingly stated by Dr. Offit, who also writes that, “Without holding a hearing… the court conceded.”
My take on what Offit said was that any document submitted as part of a legal process must, by definition, form part of a courts records and thus be considered testimony. I think there’s a difference between ‘heard in court’ (heard as part of a legal proceeding) and ‘a hearing’ (discussed in open court)
Kirby also says:
It was a medical concession, not a legal decision. Dr. Offit and the New York Times know this.
Its also (as I understand it) part of the process that the Special Master could’ve refused to accept the so-called concession. This makes the fact they did a legal decision. The Poling’s could’ve elected to have their daughters case heard in a civil court (I think) in which case they really would’ve been held to a medical/scientific standard of proof. They chose not to do so.
Kirby goes on:
This statement, too, is misleading: “Even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child’s immune system.”……Hannah received five shots, but nine vaccines.
Which, to be fair to Dr Offit is exactly what he said:
In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases.
I think this is merely a semantic misunderstanding as to what constitutes ‘one’ vaccine.
Kirby goes on:
More importantly, Dr. Offit’s statement contradicts the second HHS concession (for epilepsy) in the Poling case, to wit:
The cause for autistic encephalopathy in Hannah “was underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.”
Now, lets be honest – nobody aside from David Kirby has actually _seen_ this second HHS ‘concession’. I can’t help but note that the part that Mr Kirby quotes from this second report does not contain the phrase ‘autistic encephalopathy’ (and what exactly _is_ ‘autistic encephalopathy’?). I also think its a little unfair to expect Dr Offit to be a mind reader and know what an unreleased report says.
I further think that in a piece that asks why we should just trust, Mr Kirby (with all due respect to him) asking us to do the exact same thing is a little incongruous.
We really need this issue sorted out by either releasing this document that directly ties a diagnosis of autism _directly_ to vaccines, or by applying the same rules to everyone.
Mr Kirby then goes on to challenge Dr Offits most (in)famous statement:
“Our analysis shows that infants have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once”
This is slightly disingenuous as this really has no bearing whatsoever on the Poling case. Its also – as stated by Dr Offit – a _theoretical_ scenario. No one is seriously suggesting any infant has 10,000 shots. The paper from Dr Offit used this calculation to respond to the idea that vaccines can overwhelm the immune system.
And lets be clear. This is science. Good science. To the best of my knowledge no-one has refuted it in any reputable journal. If anyone has an issue with the overall idea (vaccines not overwhelming the immune system) or the maths involved, then they should submit it to a reputable journal for peer review.
However, one of the most disturbing aspects of this turn of events is the response to Dr Offit’s piece on the EoH Yahoo Group. I should note that David Kirby has _no control or ownership of this group_ before I continue.
Within a few hours of Dr Offit’s piece being published, Ginger Taylor took it upon herself to send Dr Offit’s phone number to the EoH group at large, as part of an email conversation she had had with Dr Offit. Thus drew a number of responses from her list mates such as:
Oh no….. His phone number on EOH? Lord help him!
Quite. Although the group moderator was quick to ask people not to harass Dr Offit, he stopped short of deleting this very ill-considered post.
Lets not forget that Dr Offit (and his children) have been the subject of severe harassment from those who believe in an autism/vaccine hypothesis:
….as Paul Offit, a vaccine expert who served on the committee, tried to make his way through the crowd, one of the protestors screamed at him through a megaphone: “The devil—it’s the devil!” One protester held a sign that read “TERRORIST” with a photo of Offit’s face. Just before Offit reached the door, a man dressed in a prison uniform grabbed Offit’s jacket. “It was harrowing,” Offit recalls.
….
He has since received hundreds of malicious and threatening emails, letters and phone calls accusing him of poisoning children and “selling out” to pharmaceutical companies. One phone caller listed the names of Offit’s two young children and the name of their school. One email contained a death threat—”I will hang you by your neck until you’re dead”—that Offit reported to federal investigators.
Knowing this, why Taylor saw fit to do this at all is puzzling. However, when she was asked how she felt about communicating with Dr Offit, she also saw fit to comment:
The whole thing actually creeped me out and I just dropped it.
My personal opinion is that a considered reply from Dr Offit to Taylor which included a friendly invitation to contact him again is not creepy at all. What _is_ creepy (to me) is publishing the phone number of a man who has been subject to vicious abuse – as have his children. To me, it is irresponsible in the extreme.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Recent Comments