Sorry about the title, I couldn’t find a word to rhyme with her last name to infer wrong-doing a la Age of Autism’s ‘Grinker’s Stinker. Anyway….
Meet Laura Hewitson. Laura is the lead and joint author of a trio of papers presented at this years IMFAR as posters.
These papers (also shredded by Orac) purport to show how it is possible to mimic the 1999 US vaccine schedule and give monkeys autism as a reult. Never mind the fact that the results reported don’t sound or present anything like autism (<em>”survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets”</em> huh??), lets look at Laura Hewitson a bit more closely then I managed to in a quick 10 min post last time.
As I mentioned at the time, Laura Hewitson claims affiliation with DAN! Thats enough in my book to place a rather large red flag against her impartiality.
Now I’ve learnt that her entanglement with the vaccine/autism hypotheses goes very much further than that.
It turns out that Hewitson’s partner is Dan Hollenbeck, an Age of Autism contributor. Hollenbeck owns the website FightingAutism.org and in the top right hand corner of the FightingAutism website are the words:
FightingAutism is now part of Thoughtful House Center for Children.
And we all know who is the big cheese at THoughtful House don’t we? That’s right – one Andrew Wakefield. He’s also the co-author to the three studies poster presented at IMFAR.
Hollenbeck’s asociation with Thoughtful House goes beyond just having a website affiliated with them however. He’s also an employee of Thoughtful House.
Director of Information Technology for Thoughtful House, Dan Hollenbeck received his Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1992
….
When their son was diagnosed with autism in 2001, the Hollenbecks relocated from Oregon to Pittsburgh in order to accept employment as an Information Technology Manager for a large NIH (National Institutes of Health)-funded medical research organization
….
He is also on the Board of Directors, as well as the Research Committee, for SafeMinds…
So, here we are with three poster presentations from a woman who has an autistic son, affiliated with DAN!, is married to the Thoughtful House IT guy (who also happens to be on the Board of Directors of SafeMinds) and these afore-mentioned poster presentations are also co-authored by Andrew Wakefield.
I wonder just how impartial this science can be?
How about when we throw one more fact into the equation?
437. Laura Hewiston (sic) and Dan Hollenbeck on behalf of Joshua Hollenbeck, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 03-1166V
That’s right. Hewitson and Hollenbeck are suing HHS for vaccine injury visited upon their son Joshua.
Now, lets turn our attention to IMFAR where Hewitson made her three poster presentations. INSAR have regulations governing the papers and abstracts submitted.
INSAR requires authors to disclose their sources of contributed support (commercial, public, or private foundation grants, and off-label use of drugs, if any). INSAR also requires authors to signify whether there may be a real or perceived conflict of interest. Any potential for financial gain that may be derived from reported work may constitute a potential conflict of interest.”
Now, maybe Hewitson did note the fact that:
a) Her husband is an employee of an organisation that makes money from treating what they allege is vaccine caused autism.
b) She has an autistic child.
c) Said child has been registered for compensation for alleged vaccine damage resulting in autism (I assume they’re part of the Omnibus proceedings then?)
But if she did, then it isn’t recorded in the abstracts posted on the Age of Autism website.
Left Brain Right Brain 
This reminds of another mercury mom, Karin Hepner, a researcher who testified in Cedillo about PCR if I recall. She has a son who was a patient of Dr. Krigsman’s. Krigsman is the gut specialist at Thoughtful House with the glossy haired Dr. Wakefield. Karin Hepner worked with Dr. Walker, of Wake Forest U. who was attempting to validate Waker’s findings of measles in the guts of autistic kids (he failed.) Walker is also a co-author with Dr. Hewiston of the poster about micro-array analysis on monkey gut tissue or whatever it was.
Hepner testified in Cedillo without mentioning that her son had been a patient of Dr. Krigsman’s or commenting on whether or not she thought measles made her own son autistic. I don’t know if Hepner is a litigant. I suppose she is not.
But Dr. Hewiston is a litigant, and her husband is and her husband also works for Andy Wakefield and is also associated with SAFE MINDS, besides writing for the clown blog.
“Nepotistic” doesn’t seem to quite cover what we are seeing here. Maybe something like some kind of inbreeding.
Did Safe Minds, DAN! and NAA fund these studies?
Your piece so far is little more than fluff. Conflicts of interest can be found on both sides of this debate. Unless you want to disallow all info from anyone, regardless of their arguments, whose COIs are un- or under- stated, your whip is falling on a dead horse.
If you want to make a case that the science employed by these studies is flawed, why not tell us what was wrong with the methodology or conclusions instead of making unsupported insinuations about impartiality? Did it really take you more than 10 minutes to write this?
Hi Previewing before publishing online?
Who previewed the title putting “stinker” next to the name of the person in the article?
Who is ORAC? You claim he shredded this ladies work but how can we shred or extol ORAC when we don’t know who he is? He sounds like an anagram of a famous French Supermarket to me?
Blaming a known brain destroying chemical for illnesses involving partly destroyed brains seems a red hot choice for a culprit.
But then I am only a chemist who has worked as a chemist for more than 40 years talking about chemicals.
Most people who studied this topic seriously will have found the known facts of mercury are in fact correct. It does have adverse effects on humans.
There is no autism epidemic in France where I live and the figures given are 90 per cent less than in the USA using similar criteria.
So why is the autism epidemic supposed to be fictional when the same doctors find more than ten times the numbers of cases per 10 000 in the USA for example than in France.
Coincidentally 3 people in France representing three different vaccine companies are being charged with manslaughter after deaths and injuries from mercury vaccines used decades ago before the French found them UNSAFE.
This case of course does not take in autism possibly because it is genuinely rare in France and if we believe this site and the autism rates are exagerated then the incidence will be so rare as to overriden by the other illnesses also caused by the worlds most toxic non radioactive element deliberately put into French vaccines a decade ago and now BANNED totally and not continued in use and exported around the world as is the case in the USA.
That’s quite a remarkable conflict of interest. In fact, Dr. Hewiston might have invented a novel type of conflict of interest with this, I don’t know.
There’s something called litigation-generated science. But that usually seems to involve a company hiring an outside investigator to conduct research related to a lawsuit. In this particular case, the plaintiffs themselves are the lead investigators of the research.
For example, Wakefield (1998) could be considered litigation-generated research, although that wasn’t known until much later. But Wakefield was not a plaintiff.
In my view, there’s a fine line between what has happened here and planting evidence.
Unfortunately, I think we’re getting to a point where the body of autism science is becoming seriously compromised by all this litigation-generated research.
But Dr. Hewiston is a litigant, and her husband is and her husband also works for Andy Wakefield and is also associated with SAFE MINDS, besides writing for the clown blog.
Although previously filed (and potentially indicative of strong beliefs/bias), it’s possible that the Hewitson/Hollenbeck petition has since been withdrawn.
I’d love to answer your questions John, but as usual you’re talking gibberish. I think however most of your questions can be easily answered by clicking on the link in question.
Lyndelle H. Redwood withdrew her omnibus complaint, but I wonder if there is a way that persons like herself can renew it later and/or go on to sue vaccine manufacturers or coal-fired power plants directly?
http://onibasu.com/archives/am/43151.html
Lyndelle had an earlier suit against a power company that was dropped in favor of attacking vaccines, I suppose. She’s on a Dept. of Defense committee that plans how autism research money is spent, besides being on the IACC.
I can’t see these people totally giving away their chance at a vaccine injury pay-off. The don’t dress, write or act like humanitarians, to me.
France has a crushing burden of strange, flapping children with refrigerator mothers. The children are identical to autistic children, but the doctors who diagnose them are Freudians, so they see anal retentiveness, oral fixations, mothers with a subconscious desire to kill their children besides wishing that they theselves were men, fathers who have their own issues with their mothers.
They are doing a therapy called ‘packing’ in France where you wrap the autistic kid (victim of ice cold mothers) in a cold wet sheet. Ummmh, until all the mercury comes out of them… no, until they are not longer afraid of being killed by their mothers or until their mothers stop wanting to kill them, or something.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313499
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10095762?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Amazing isn’t it.
If Paul Offit, or Peter Fleming come up with research saying that vaccines don’t cause autism, (even though it could be argued they have as many “vested interests” as anyone mentioned here) they are considered reliable and independant.
Seems to me that LeftbrainRightbrain actually only uses one myopic side of the brain.
Planting information? Are you suggesting that provaccine doctors up to their armpits in conflict of interest as well, don’t “plant” information? Ever heard of “retrospective” “epidemiological” trials? That’s the favourit resort of provaccine doctors with backs to the wall, to “plant” information if ever there was.
Frankly, both sides have vested interests. One side has a vested interest in their reputations, vaccine patent, books which spin much money etc (i.e. Offit) and the other side has a vested interest in what they say is “recovering” children the ‘normal’ medical profession says ‘can’t’ be recovered.
To me, the answer is simple.
Answer these questions:
1) How many parents have come forward to tell us that Paul Offit put their autistic child on the road to recovery?
2) How many parents have come forward to tell us that Wakefield et al, have put their kids on the road to recovery?
It constantly amazes me, that when faced with a study, which technically you would assume would be “reproducible”, blogs like this only want to shoot messengers.
the attitude appears to be to swipe anyone or anything, rather than consider the real issues, or the children involved.
Hilary, thanks for yet again demonstrating the inherent weakness in the position you espouse.
If Paul Offit came up with _research_ that was published in a decent peer reviewed journal, I’d happily discuss it. As I would AJ Wakefield or L Hewitson.
This, however, isn’t published research. Its a poster presentation.
I’m not sure what your two questions are meant to establish. I don’t believe that Andrew Wakefield has put one single child on the road to recovery. He certainly hasn’t published any credible _research_ that shows that.
_Frankly, both sides have vested interests._
Or, to put it from my point of view, one set of people are intent on carving out a nice cash cow based on quasi science that has been established to be rubbish.
The other side prefer peer reviewed science that continues to show that no vaccine, no mix of vaccines and no element of vaccines have ever cause autism in anybody. They stand alongside scientists who are keenly aware of the consequences of not vaccinating and would prefer that the middle class soccer-mommies and daddies get a grip and engage their sense of perspective.
Here are some ‘real issues’ for you Hilary.
1) Autism research money being diverted down this vaccine ridiculousness for over 10 years, money that could’ve actually helped autistic people.
2) A child over here dying from a vaccine preventable illness
3) Wave after wave of vaccine preventable epidemics hospitalising American children.
Again, I would point out that this particular conflict of interest stands out. This is not research that is simply funded by litigants. It’s actually carried out by litigants as principal investigators, years after they filed their complaint.
If Dr. Offit had published autism research, which I’m not aware he has, then yes, his conflicts of interest would be relevant in relation to bias. In a recent opinion piece by him we see that he has fully declared his conflicts of interest. So at least we know the issue of non-disclosure doesn’t apply to him.
You see, the ideal that science should be bias-free is an impossible ideal. That’s where methodology comes in. And it’s not like we’ve only discussed personalities and ignored methodology.
When you have one group with N=13 and the other group with N=3, it’s clear there’s no randomization. So is it possible that bias can influence results in this study? Of course. With such strong bias at play, we can be virtually guaranteed of that.
Joseph, why do you have problems with 13/3, when the medical profession often uses exactly the same bias with 1/3rd the controls to 2/3rds the cases in vaccine trials? In fact the study with monkeys is probably better, in that the controls didn’t receive ‘equivalent vaccines” as a quasi-placebo.
If Paul Offit has published no research on autism, why is he so keen to comment on the Poling case, or the vaccine/autism issue?
Even worse, he’s not learned from his error in NYTimes. The “result” of the Poling case has nothing to do with any Vaccine court, which he again hammers on about in NEJM.
The Poling case never got to court. On the basis of the medical files alone, doctors at DHHS conceded the case. Obviously Paul Offit disagrees with those doctors, without ever seeing the file or doing any autism/mitochondrial research himself. Amazing, don’t you think?
If Paul Offit can’t take the time to get basic facts right, in either the NYTimes or in the NEMJ, (in spite of the fact that NYTimes published another article later, pointing out Offit’s fundamental factual errors, which he THEN repeated in NEMJ!) why would anyone take Offit’s word on matters substantially more complex, such as how many vaccines a child’s body could cope with?
Kev,
I never described the monkey study as peer reviewed research. I called it a “study” and most poster presentations I see at medical conferences come from a “study”, usually as-yet unpublished, and are kite-flyers to provoke discussion of “issues”.
If you were able to “repeat” this study with monkeys, using the vaccines your child got, and if the vaccinated monkeys did have autistic traits, and the unvaccinated monkeys did not, would you then be reconsider whether or not your child has autism as a result of vaccines received?
Or would you not be prepared to repeat the ‘study’ because you’d not want the possibility of being faced with “evidence”?
In answer to your superfluous “issues” directed at me:
1) If the medical profession had been REALLY concerned about autism, they would have proactively, plunged far more money into the issue long before Wakefield woke up.
They would also have long since come up with answers.
Don’t blame parents of autistic children who since 2000 have stated that vaccines caused their children’s regression, for the inability of the medical profession to even be willing to look at individuals, and try to determine the reasons for that child’s autism. The reason they won’t do that now, is precisely because they are more interested in protecting an ideology rather than treating a child.
2)I presume you are talking about the recent unconfirmed case of diphtheria? Was that your child? Did the parents of that child “chose” to vaccinate, or not? Why are you so concerned about their choices? After all, your child is vaccinated. Where did that child get unconfirmed diphtheria from? Unvaccinated, or vaccinated children?
If you think vaccines work, and you want them, you will use them. [FTR, diphtheria vaccines do not prevent the carriage of and transmission to others of the diphtheria bacteria. They can, for most, provide some protection against the worst effects of the toxin produced by a co-existing toxigenic bacteriophage which might invade that diphtheria bacteria]
3) Wave after wave of vaccine preventable disease epidemics hospitalizing American children? Where is that Kev? Are these children vaccinated? are all these sick children being hospitalized? If not why not, and if so, why so? If these children are vaccinated (aka most of the pertussis cases) [FTR, ask James Cherry. Current pertussis booster vaccines don’t prevent the carriage or transmission of pertussis amongst vaccinated people either], who are their parents blaming? the vaccine manufacturers? Are these children unvaccinated? (aka measles) If not, did any of these children get serious complications and die?
The real issue for me Kev, is that parents should be provided with all the information and left to make decisions for themselves.
Whatever choice the parents make, shouldn’t be subject to a whinge from someone like you, either.
Kev, you say Andrew Wakefield hasn’t put any child on the road to recover, and that there is no published research to prove that.
When I was 19, I had a serious, reaction to a vaccine which resulted in serious damage, later proven by blood tests. I was told it was incurable, and to get on and live with it.
17 years later, a heretical doctor at a medical conference told me that I didn’t have to live with it, and gave me details as to what to do. I was aghast. A solution, which had no patent because the substance is unpatentable. I was sceptical.
But you know Kev, when you’ve only got searing constant PAIN to lose, even lead paint (which this was not) could look attractive.
Three months later, all pain was gone, something that no other doctor had achieved.
I can tell you two things about my experiences Kev.
1) My vaccine reaction, though proven, never got into the literature, or even the official vaccine reaction data base. No doctor would report it, even after the blood tests proved it.
2) My cure, never got into the literature either. All the doctors laughed, even though the evidence was right there before their eyes.
Lack of PUBLISHED evidence, does not mean that evidence is LACKING.
It just might mean that the people who pull the strings of the published evidence, only pull the string they want to pull.
Having gone through hell and back again myself, I’m more likely to listen to parents of children who say their children are retrieved, than people who say studies proving the ability to retrieve children, don’t exist.
I have nothing to gain by telling my story.
And parents of “retrieved” children, have everything to lose by lying.
Joseph, why do you have problems with 13/3, when the medical profession often uses exactly the same bias with 1/3rd the controls to 2/3rds the cases in vaccine trials?
If those studies are also not randomized, that is obviously a methodological weakness those studies also have. Am I saying otherwise? I don’t think the weaknesses of previous studies erase the weaknesses of this study.
What I am saying is that you have to look at the methodology in conjunction with the conflict of interest. Do study limitations allow for bias to be introduced? I think the answer is a clear ‘yes’.
So I’m not sure what we can make of these results, especially since they would seem to indicate that most of the 13 monkeys suffered from some learning disability following vaccination. Are we to assume that most children vaccinated these days are learning disabled to an extent? I find this quite nonsensical.
If Paul Offit has published no research on autism, why is he so keen to comment on the Poling case, or the vaccine/autism issue?
That would be for Paul Offit to answer, but he would not be the only one who speaks out against anti-vaccination, alt-med or litigation-generated science.
I believe there are hundreds of people who comment on the Poling case and who have also not published any autism research. For example, have you published any autism research, Hilary?
Joseph:…
***I believe there are hundreds of people who comment on the Poling case and who have also not published any autism research. For example, have you published any autism research, Hilary?***
No I haven’t published any autism research. But neither do I make any claim to reputational fame, nor am I trying to tear down a possible lead, by crying out that it’s biased because of vested interests or who the people are.
My point is, that that finger can be pointed at both sides, so forget the finger pointing, and lets look at what might actually be facts.
My point is, that that finger can be pointed at both sides, so forget the finger pointing, and lets look at what might actually be facts.
Are you saying that the anti-vax side does not do finger pointing or is going to restrain its finger-pointing in the future? Right, sure, I buy it.
Maybe you can refer me to where you’ve asked your anti-vax friends to retrain their finger pointing.
Perhaps what you’re saying is that only one side of the debate should not do any finger pointing. I have no doubt you’d like that lack of balance.
I’m more than happy to look at the merits of data and arguments that are advanced. I’m actually kind of notorious for doing that even when others dismiss it as ‘not worth it’.
The abuse of these monkeys was just awful.
And where is the complaint coming from animal rights activist cum DAN! doc, Kenneth Stoller? He’s totally silent on this on the EoHam board. Totally bizarre.
Joseph,
That was incredibly lame of you. did you read my first post properly? Right there, I pointed out that both sides have vested intersts. Do you think I didn’t mean it?
Please point me to my anti-vaccine friends ???? Please tell me, where do I whip these mythical friends up into a “get the provaccine twerps” frenzy???!
The finger pointing here started all one way, from the pro-vaxxers until the other side pointed out that there is conflict of interest on both sides.
So why not forget conflict on interest on either side, and look at the merits of the potential study?
What I’m saying is really clear, and it’s also clear you don’t like it.
Simply this. Stop the epithet, and start sane discussion.
For instance,do you think this sort of study should have been done long ago, by the NIH?
I don’t care whether such a study was done by litigants as principal researchers, or NIH. Presumably the monkeys are also still available for NIH to study? do you think a follow up study should be done? Though it might distress Ms Clark mucho, to randomise a larger group of monkeys.
Ms Clark, the last thing discussion needs is you saying that giving childhood vaccines to monkeys is abuse, but to children it’s a good thing. We know you are provaccine, so how is it that hadn’t before realised that toxicity tests for vaccines are carried out in monkeys, as well as a whole range of other animals?
Why suddenly, do you now have a bleeding heart for monkeys? What about the rats, the hamsters, the mice etc… these hundreds of thuosands of animals the FDA/NIH sanctioned and has used for over 50 years now?
Poor Monkeys.
But not, if these results might have relevance, poor babies, or poor families????
Wow. Amazing disconnect there.
Hilary your disconnect is stunning.
Giving macaques human vaccines is not an abuse. Cutting into their brains while they are still alive, taking out pieces and sewing them up again is abuse. Knocking them out and putting them in MRI machines is abuse. Putting scopes up their rectums and taking chunks out of their intestines is abuse.
They killed some or all of the monkeys at the end of experiement.
There may be research where such treatment of macaques would be justified, but this is not justified.
These people are in the habit of abusing children with similar purposeless examinations, so no doubt they were calloused to what they were doing to the monkeys.
Nice to see where you stand on such. Have a conversation with Kenneth Stoller about how he has sued a medical center for something similar. I’m sure he could give you some perspective on animal experimentation and vivisection.
Right there, I pointed out that both sides have vested intersts. Do you think I didn’t mean it?
I personally believe that’s not exactly accurate as far as financial interests are concerned as I recently argued.
Please point me to my anti-vaccine friends ???? Please tell me, where do I whip these mythical friends up into a “get the provaccine twerps” frenzy???!
It’s very simple. You come here saying, “please stop the finger pointing.” I want to know if you’ve ever said that to people on the other side.
The finger pointing here started all one way, from the pro-vaxxers until the other side pointed out that there is conflict of interest on both sides.
That is categorically not true. From the very beginning the anti-vax side has talked about an imaginary conspiracy of sorts.
So why not forget conflict on interest on either side, and look at the merits of the potential study?
I’m not sure why you think the merits of the potential study have not been looked at. Orac, for example, wrote a long post about it. Plus I don’t think you can seriously expect people to pretend some glaring conflicts of interest don’t exist, and be restrained from reporting them, especially when said conflicts of interest apparently have not been declared. You don’t think it matters, for example, that Wakefield was payed to do his 1998 study and he forgot to report it? What is the equivalent of this, btw, in the “pro-vaccine” side, which according to you has the same types of conflicts of interest?
Here is are some examples of pro-vaccine research: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?page_id=97
For starters: **All studies listed excluded children who weren’t healthy–roughly 60% of the general population of infants and children would not be accepted into a vaccine study.
***Vaccines are tested in animals first, but were not tested for toxicity as they were presumed safe. Here is a link to the FDA/CDC discussion in 2003 regarding this topic (1).
****See note at bottom of page regarding why the “placebos” in these safety trials aren’t usually placebos like saline or sugar water but other vaccines.
And an example of one study:
In summary, Group A recieved Hib and DTP (whole-cell pertussis vaccine, a highly reactive vaccine-no longer on the market in the US). Group B recieved Hepatitis B vaccine and DTP. Vaccine reactions were then compared between the two groups. Both groups reported SIDS deaths and seizures, but these seem to be attributed to the DTP as this had been previously reported for DTP vaccines. Additionally, none of the other adverse reactions that “coincidentally” surfaced in these previously healthy infants during this trial could be causally related to the vaccines. Based on this information, ActHib was judged safe.
Why would a vaccine manufacturer voluntarily give their vaccine at the SAME time as one of the most highly reactive? What would they have to gain from this? What would they have to lose?
I’m sorry, Minority View, but your website is not a good resource. Please link to the original research which is indexed at PubMed. That is where you will find many, many, many papers on vaccine safety and efficacy from several countries.
Especially after this review of your website:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3502442#post3502442 (about the time you bravely ran away! … though in your credit you did try, the folks at JABS have been told to avoid the BadScience forum)
Joseph, You might not consider that the provaccine side has a conflict of interest. Very few provaccine people would ever admit that they even have a conflict of interest. The only conflict of interest you can point to is Wakefield. And your statment is spurious.
Both sides, Offit et al, and Wakefield et al, have conflicts of interest, even if that COI primarily boils down to protecting their own propaganda turf.
Why is it that **THAT** is all you want to talk about?
You say: ***You come here saying, “please stop the finger pointing.” I want to know if you’ve ever said that to people on the other side***
Are you saying that if I say that I’ve ticked off Andy Wakefield about vested interests that would make it “okay” for you? Sort of like the Adam and Eve syndrome? Two wrongs, would make it right? I think there is a disconnect there.
I’ve never talked about a “conspiracy” of any sort. I’ve talked about vested interests and conflict of interests relating to both sides, though.
But you aren’t talking about anything other than what appears to you… to be… wait for it… a conspiracy of vested interests.
It doesn’t matter to you that the money for most vaccine trials comes from the company that hopes to profit from that trial. It only matters to you that some funding to Royal Free came from some lawyers who hoped to gain some answers to profit their clients.
To you, it seems, the two things aren’t equal.
Talking about conspiracies though…, without even using that word, isn’t that what kev is insinuating in his first post?
That Hewitson, her husband and Wakefield are all tied up in a totally unholy huddle?
Poland, Offit, Orenstein, Katz, et all… they all do exactly the same thing. Have you looked up their funding? Where does that come from Joseph? But that’s okay? Touche… What a shame we can’t talk about the science though!
You say: ***You don’t think it matters, for example, that Wakefield was payed to do his 1998 study and he forgot to report it? What is the equivalent of this, btw, in the “pro-vaccine” side, which according to you has the same types of conflicts of interest?***
Are you going to watch the re-examination of Richard Horton at the GMC shortly, where he will probably be cross examined about his amnesia concerning documents produced to the GMC which show that:
1) The money you refer to wasn’t paid to Wakefield at all, but to Royal Free Hopsital, was handled through their accountants, and was allocated it to a named technician as two year’s salary.
2) That Richard Horton received several documents relating to this study and the funding and what it was used for, on more than one occasion, prior to the study being published.
How was it then, that the documents slipped Horton’s mind?
In Horon’s first appearance at the GMC, he stated he had not been told beforehand. maybe he hadn’t been told, but can he read? He will now be recalled for cross examination relating to those documents tabled after his comments. That amnesia is astonishing, don’t you think? Or do you think the documents were made afterwards as part of some conspiracy? Or that Horton just “forgot” to read them? They missed his eeye somehow?
Are you suggesting that the funding for this new monkey study might have been done with anti-vaccine smut money???
If such a study was done by the NIH and funded by pro-vaccine pharmaceutical companies, in an attempt to prove the opposite, would that also be smut money?
You say: ***I’m not sure why you think the merits of the potential study have not been looked at. Orac, for example, wrote a long post about it.***
Who’s Orac, Joseph? Has he published peer review research on autism such that his “shredding” elsewhere, would carry any professional credibility?
If he has a real name, can we please know it?
(not that I know that Joseph is your name. For all I know, you could be orac wandering around in male drag!)
HCN,
I’m delighted that you think my web-site is not a good resource. And that you think Randi took care of debunking it. Of course the thousands of people who look at insidevaccines every week don’t realize that we’ve been debunked by Randi, do see that we directly reference the research you mention above (if you’d taken a look you would have seen that everything in the article I linked has citations or links) and seem to see us as a helpful resource. Only one dude has made a serious attempt to poke holes in our science and he seems to have given up the fight. This also adds to our credibility.
I’ve looked at a lot of vaccine safety research. They really do compare one vaccine to another vaccine. They really do follow infants for very short periods of time. They do not evaluate the combination of the vaccines in the schedule as they are actually delivered, just a sub-set (it may be a bit safer to have your infant in a study at this point, they won’t get as many vaccines at one time). They do not test vaccines on the general population, but on a carefully selected sub-group. And then they give the vaccines to just about everybody. Please, show me where I’m wrong about this stuff…it is so depressing that this parody of science is put up on a pedestal…and worshipped.
HCN, how astonishing!
Are you saying that a website which links to an FDA document, and quotes from the vaccine manufacturers inserts is a poor resource?
And are you saying that the final word on that website is to be found at Randi’s?
By people who it seems don’t have the guts or knowledge to go to that website and deconstruct any arguments and who them up for fools on their own ground?
Wow.
Every parent should start with the vaccine manufacturers inserts, and the FDA website. It’s amazing just what you will find from the horses mouth. Even the pink book in CDC is a very good place for parents to read, and looking sideways I see this site also quotes from the CDC pink book.
Of course, if you don’t believe FDA/CDC or the manufacturers IPC’s, the other way you could tackle how scientifically accurately vaccines are studied prior to use in all children, is to do what I do.
Go to clinicaltrials.gov and look at the inclusion/exclusion to see just how trial protocols are formulated, then follow up in the medical journals.
Here’s one for you:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00586612?term=Menactra&recr=Open&rank=17
So if this study finds that, in this small subset (selectively cherry picked from all possible preterm children) who receive this vaccine, it is deemed “safe”, … and if every following study using the same cherry-pickable exclusion criteria finds them a;sp “safe”, what would a hypothetical doctor say to a hypothetical mother of a preterm baby, who who would have been excluded from the three trials. Just say this hypothetical mother asks:
“But Doctor, was this vaccine tested in babies who had the same problems as mine did?”
Will this hypothetical doctor say, “Because your baby was so much sicker, it’s more important for you to have this vaccine, because your baby might get a lot sicker from meningitis than healthy preterm babies.”?
That doctor might never even know that the vaccine was never studied in any children who had any problems whatsoever.
Every vaccine given to babies is first tested in three phase trials ***all of which have exactly these sort of extensive exclusions***.
Yet all the parents of babies with conditions which excluded them from any trials, will then be told the vaccine is safe for their children.
And that’s called science?
Having read bits of the blog put up above, I can’t see much wrong with it.
That post points out stuff that doctors should already know anyway, because they handle the international physicians vaccine circulars every day.
Except chances are, they won’t have bothered to read them.
Or the FDA documents for that matter.
Kev,
I concur completely that abstracts should contain conflict of interest statements. However, the reality is that they don’t. I have yet to find one, and I know many studies that do contain statements of COI while the abstracts are silent on the issue, so this author is doing nothing out of the ordinary on that count.
Something we can both campaign for.
This information makes perfect sense though. It is almost akin to a private investigation to gather evidence for a case you’re fighting. The study design appears to be directly applicable to gather insight on the effect of the vaccination schedule from the late 1990’s. I look forward to the statements of COI if it actually gets published.
Joseph,
I’m curious why you feel that controls of 3 make it impossible to blind since they still get injected with saline.
I think the key members of the team that require blinding are those evaluating the behaviour of the monkeys over the study period.
And really, we can’t draw very many conclusions on things like this until we read the details.
Ms. Clark
Animal studies are done all the time when testing drugs and pharmaceuticals. I think that they should test every major vaccine schedule change on monkeys first, instead of initiating a mass experiment on the infant population.
Swartz, your post above, to “Ms Clark” I can totally agree with.
Ms Clark… sorry. Let’s start again. Autism Diva, …In the process of vaccine testing, researchers do similar things, if not worse.
Why do you suddenly think that doing this in 16 extra monkeys, is worth your sudden outrage?
Do you protest about this everywhere to protect your butt? perhaps so, for were this study proven true by a subsequent one, you mightn’t have a limb to sit on while relentlessly berating parents who consider their children’s regressive autism was triggered by vaccines.
Ever stood there and watched what happens to mice tested with the pertussis vaccine? Pretty, isn’t it.
You say:
*** Cutting into their brains while they are still alive, taking out pieces and sewing them up again is abuse. Knocking them out and putting them in MRI machines is abuse. Putting scopes up their rectums and taking chunks out of their intestines is abuse.***
Really? I’m sure they were anaesthestized, and this happens every day to humans in hospitals around the world. Is that abuse as well?
A friend of mine, reading this column, is about to have a chunk hewn out of her instestines in a week. Do they know what’s wrong with her? No. But they are going in, doing exploratory surgery to find out. she has been warned she might have to have a “bag” for a while, no matter what they do or don’t find… Is that all “abuse”, too?
***They killed some or all of the monkeys at the end of experiement.***
Sigh. As you know, Autism Diva, killing some or all of the animals happens every single vaccine toxicity test. That is normal practice. Do you approve of normal practice?
If you are to be consistent, then you would have to admit that you think no vaccines should be tested on monkeys or any other animals. Are you going to be consistent on this?
After all, as Schwartz says, we do really need to know what happens in appropriately vaccinated monkeys before we inflict these “appropriate” vaccines on babies, don’t we?
The problem is, that in the case of the combination of many vaccines, vaccine researchers never did what Schwartz says they should have done. They never tested each combination schedule all in one go in the monkeys.
They should have.
What Hewitson did, was what NIH (or whoever)should have done in the first place.
They just tested them individually, and assumed that the combination would be okay.
If you are still aggrieved about 16 monkey, Diva, look at it this way. If they had done them all together as a schedule, instead of separately, then not only would fewer monkeys have died, but Hewitson might not have needed to do a trial, which should have already been done in the first place.
***There may be research where such treatment of macaques would be justified, but this is not justified.***
What is the headcount of dead, and dismembered animals (many species of monkey, chimpanzees, dogs, chickens, rabbits, hamsters, mice etc…from 60 years of toxicity trials of vaccines subsequently used on millions of people?
You say: ***These people are in the habit of abusing children with similar purposeless examinations, so no doubt they were calloused to what they were doing to the monkeys.***
Have you watched what a child treated for cancer goes through? To do that to a monkey would also be “callous”.
***Nice to see where you stand on such.***
You don’t know where I stand on the issue Diva.
If I want a perspective on animal vivisection,not only are there plenty of books to read on the issue, there are some labs about an hour from where I live.
Strangely enough, many of the doctors who do animal testing on monkeys really love the monkeys and don’t much like having to do it.
Hillary baby, sweetie,
The reason it is abuse of these monkeys is that there never was a reason to do this study as there never was a reason for Dr. Hewiston to blame vaccines for her own child’s autism.
She and hubby seem to be victims of the antivax hysteria started by Wakers. Uhuh. Hence her husband’s close ties to him and to other antivax extremists.
I don’t have a problem with reasonable use of animals in science. I have a problem with abusing them to fight a scientist’s personal demons and fears that a scientist’s own genes or own behavior or some non-actionable environmental agent might be to blame for their child’s autism. Vaccines are a handy whipping post. And they can be a cash cow. It doesn’t make it right to abuse monkeys simply because one can.
Minority View, it was not me who critiqued your blog… it was the more learned folks on JREF, none of whom were named “Randi” (click on the link, that is the stuff that is in blue font).
Plus, why are the JABS folks so afraid of the Bad Science forum? Plus they seem to be afraid of the Bad Science folks because they keep banning them from the JABS forums. Do they have something against balanced debates?
Also, Ms. Butler, I did not refer to the FDA, I referred to the international research (that is what the “many countries” bit means). The journals indexed at PubMed are from all over the world. The FDA only operates in the United States of America. Through that resource you will find papers and research from Japan, China, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, France, Italy, Denmark and other countries. Do try to keep up. (though Schwartzy has it in his pointy little head that he knows more than WHO and all the other public health agencies in the world, I can assume you are also under the same delusion.)
Also, if you wish to figure out the “Orac” bit, click on the link in the third (3rd) paragraph of the blog posting. It is the blue colored font that says “by Orac” (the blue font means that it is a URL link, if you point your mouse over it, the little arrow will turn into a little hand… when you click your mouse button then, you will get to read the listed website. Do you understand?). For an earlier rendition of Respectful Insolence I would suggest you try:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/search?q=vaccine
Ms. Clark,
I wasn’t aware of any studies done to determine the possible side effects of the vaccine schedule from the 1990’s on infants?
Could you point them out? I’m only aware of some very narrow and flawed epidemiology studies looking at Thimerosal in a country that had a completely different vaccine schedule.
Hilary… I could not post this link, but I will now. This is a cool source of INTERNATIONAL research:
http://www.pubmed.gov
(by the way, “international” means that it is from lots of different countries on this planet… which is not flat by the way)
Swartz,
I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t referred to any schedule of anything.
Ms. Clark,
The recent removal of the MMRV vaccine from the recommended list following discoveries of increased reactions makes me think they should test the combined application of MMR and Varicella more carefully.
I certainly think a monkey experiment is in order assuming that monkeys react to Meales and varicella in similar ways to humans. Otherwise, you’re right that it would be a waste.
Ms. Clark,
“The reason it is abuse of these monkeys is that there never was a reason to do this study as there never was a reason for Dr. Hewiston to blame vaccines for her own child’s autism.”
You are inferring that the total vaccine schedule/load has been tested for a correlation to Autism. I wasn’t aware of such a test. Otherwise, you’re not speaking from evidence, but opinion.
Swartz,
Whatever. If the vaccinologists think it’s reasonable then let them test it out on monkeys.
What do you want some kind of hissy fit that they shouldn’t do that?
As I said, I didn’t mention any schedule and any schedule of vaccines has ZERO to do with autism. Period.
HCN,
“Do try to keep up. (though Schwartzy has it in his pointy little head that he knows more than WHO and all the other public health agencies in the world, I can assume you are also under the same delusion.)”
LOL, classic HCN, ad-hom attack while referencing the general nebulus of studies “out there” in the international forum. Avoiding all specifics as usual while proclaiming from a place of superiority.
Ms. Clark,
No, instead you challenged Ms. Hewitson’s assertion that her child was damaged by vaccines. She obviously feels strongly enough to run her own experiment. You assert it’s a waste of time, since you somehow know it was her own genetics at the root of the matter. That sure sounds like a rejection of her hypothesis, and I assumed you would have evidence to back it up.
If you wouldn’t have whined about the monkeys, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I’ll drop it now.
Swartz,
Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say I knew it was her or hubby’s genes that made the boy autistic. There’s about a 40% chance that they did, however. 🙂
I didn’t whine about the monkeys. They were real little beings that sensed real pain and they were abused for no reason. Period. There is NO connection between any vaccines and autism. What is so hard to get about that?
There was NO autism epidemic. Hollenbeck surely must know that from his own website that conveniently leaves out the data for MR and SLD for each state which would cancel out the hysteria inducing artifactual autism stats he shows.
http://epiwonk.com/?p=38
Are you going to say that Hewiston’s little experiment proves that 77% of kids who got the 1990s vaccines are now autistic?????
Gimme a break. Who is whining? You are whining what looks like hours a day on autism related websites about vaccines and you have no connection to autism. Is whining a hobby of yours or sumpin?
Schwarzy, I have not even started to “ad hom” you.
Here is the scoop (reduced to a form you might understand):
1) The monkey paper is just a poster. By definition, posters are all accepted if they meet a minimum criteria. It is a bare minimum (they just check to see that the testing has been done — not if it is good or bad, or even ethical).
2) Posters are not sent out to other folks to evaluate for accuracy, method and general good science stuff. That is a process known as peer review. And, no, the poster has NOT been peer reviewed.
3) The authors of the poster have been found to have connections with a company that does questionable treatment of autistic children AND (brace yourself) are active litigants against the US government (that is the country that is to the south of you, in case you forgot… NOT the one you are living in!). This is known as a “Conflict of Interest”.
Now what of this is about the monkeys?
For a review of the science (since some of you cannot figure out what the blue font in a website means) click on the blue words below the colon (that is the thing that looks like two dots over each other):
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research.php
And now for Miss Hilary Butler: Girl! What kind of super duper loon do you have to be perhaps the only anti-vax type to be banned from the sMothering forum? What in the the “I am better mom than you” world did you do to get banned? I got banned by just asking annoying science questions… but you… who was so revered for your inanely named self-published “Just a Little Prick” tome… got BANNED! That must have taken some serious loony toons to manage that. How did you manage that cute trick?
Oh God, Look at the kooks come out to play
I’ve come to the conclusion that one easy way to identify an anti-vaccinationist is to measure the length and weirdness of their replies. On that score Hilary, consider yourself a winner. MinorityView is very much what their username suggests.
Anyway, enough poking fun…
This, Hilary, is how you referred to your hypothetical Offit study:
Now, if you want to talk about replication, here’s the difference between Offit science and Wakefield science. Offit science is peer reviewed and published in high quality journals. It is capable of being replicated. These facts alone, speak to its independence from the man himself.
Wakefield science on the other hand is only ever ‘replicated’ by his mates. Mates who use the exact same poor quality science. I suppose this makes it replication of a sort, but it certainly doesn’t speak to his independence to have his employee’s and his employee’s wives perform science to try and support him.
If the science was of high quality then yes, I would.
However, lets look at what this team are reporting as outcomes and ask you Hilary to tell us how they tie in to autism. Here’s what’s reported as affected in the sacrificed animals:
And here’s the DSM (IV) entry for autism. Please share with us how these two correlate.
You jackass Hilary. Some of the people you implicate in this statement (researchers like Paul Shattuck, savaged and lied about by parent group the NAA) are – like me – parents of autistic kids themselves. Indeed, some of the most dedicated medial and scientific researchers on the planet are parents. Drop your silly little conspiracy theory talk and act your age.
No, I said ‘over here’. I’m talking about the boy who died of measles in 2006.
Read for yourself. It comes as no surprise that you are ignorant of the issue.
Right back at you toots.
And hey – if these parents elect not to vaccinate, then they have to bear the cost of not only the possibility of their own child falling ill but the societal cost (as being demonstrated throughout the US right now) of their environment being contaminated as a result of their inaction.
Read more carefully Hilary. I said I didn’t believe Andrew Wakefield had put any child on the road to recovery. I then said that _he_ had certainly not documented that. You would think that if he had he’d be falling all over himself to publish a vindicating case study.
As for the rest of your me-me rant, sorry, I fell asleep half way through.
Uh, no. I spell it out quite clearly. I say I think there is a clear conflict of interest (Schwartz side note: INSAR make their position on COI quite clear), I stopped believing in grand conspiracies when I was about five. How about you?
Good morning, Kev!
I’m going to bed. I’ll work on my homework tomorrow (I was differentiating an equation used in light diffraction that needed the chain rule, the quotient rule and the product rule, lots of fun!).
Hey, guys… since I get called a “pharma shill” so much, how do I actually get paid for that? I had to become a stay at home mom because my first born had lots of medical issues (see http://www.pkids.org for other parents like that, you know, the kids that actually NEED herd immunity!), and now I am back in college. Books are expensive! How does one actually get paid the cash one is accused of getting?
I’d love to know that too HCN!
I’m so tempted sometimes to get a tshirt printed up with ‘I shill for Big Pharma and all I got was this lousy tshirt’.
Sadly, those who need to get the joke most of all wouldn’t.
Uh-huh. I disagree. I think its important to know how these studies seem (on the face of it) to be flaunting INSAR regulations. I also think its important to detail exactly what the conflict of interest is if one is claiming there is one.
LOL…I tell you what Brian, I’ve been making that argument solidly for the last five years. I keep getting told that the sainted researchers who believe vaccines cause autism are not conflicted. I thought ‘sod it, I’ll start playing by their rules’.
I’d love to Brian but unfortunately, I’d need to read the actual study itself. Not just the abstract. I don’t have the level of skill or knowledge Orac has so I need more info. Lets just hope they do better than last time and actually find a reputable publisher eh?
About 12? Is that OK?
HCN. …BTDT.
I’ve been using pubmed for about 27 years now. Remember, … in the days when you had to go to the medical library, and each year was a two volume tome which could break all ten toes in one drop?
Remember, later, when a pubmed search required a down payment, and you would receive your paper print-out two weeks later in the mail?
I know how to suck eggs.
I also know that Pubmed is NOT where you are going to find detailed protocols of phase trials for vaccines.
If my book is inanely named, I have the medical profession to thank for it. In a documentary on TV about a meningitis vaccine, the nurse said to a girl “just a little prick” and the kiddo absolutely exploded out of her blocks and threw emotional toys. Fortunately I have it on DVD to remind me, every now and again. I play it to people, when they ask me why the title. I ask them, “What do doctors and nurses say, every time they go to give you an injection of any sort, or even have a blood test? “Just a Little Prick.”
So you think the title is inane. I couldn’t care less. But I suppose you’d think it cute or funny when a Professor uses the title. Or perhaps he’s inane as well.
Click to access Murdoch(2)-December-02.pdf
Kev.
Ah, so brevity = provaccine, and length and weirdness equals antivaccine. So scientific of you.
1) Are you honestly going to tell me that Offit’s “study” in Pediatrics in which he intones that 11,000 vaccines at one go is kosher, is peer reviewed, and worthy of spouting as fact?
2)Are you also suggesting that the DSM criteria can be adequately applied to both monkeys and humans?
How would you define, for instance a monkey version of glossalalia or hand flapping?
What would you chose to assess whether a monkey had developed autistic traits or not? Or a mouse perhaps? Do you have a patent for a diagnostic autistic mouse maze?
As usual, so you too revert to epithet. I’m a jackass now am I?
If people like Paul Shattuck and the others honestly believed that there was nothing in the vaccine/autism connection, then why didn’t they just get on with finding out what autism was all about?
Oh, but wait a minute. I forgot. Autism Diva , the expert, tells us that there was no autism epidemic at all!
Today’s numbers are totally normal for the past as well.
I don’t know what we’ve all been worrying about then.
She says that this is all normal.
That your kid and Pauls kids and all the other autistic kids in the UK are alive in the same proportion to normal kids as in the past?
Well, that’s okay. According to Table 1 of the Economically inactive who look after the family or home, here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/Economically_inactive_nov2002.pdf
…In 2001 in UK, there were 326,000 dependant adults or relative in full-time care for any reason whether that be for multiple sclerosis, autoimmune, paralysis, aged reasons, autism or not, etc etc….
So if Diva’s right, Kev, that means there can’t be too many children around today, with autism spectrum disorders who will require full time care in future.
So how is that the UK’s National autistic society claims UK is going to need at carers for at least 500,000 autistic adults in the not too distant future?
If there has been not change in the autism proportional rate in the UK Kev, where are all the autistic adults being kept now?
Obviously then, if Diva is right, and the Uk autistic society is wrong, there is no need any expanded studies for additional services for adults with autism and aspergers. http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=38184
It makes perfect sense to me that if the medical profession really wanted to, and had the drive to find out why the autism rate has (NOT) risen then they would have already done so.
But since MsClark/Diva knows best, and there is no autism increase, then I must admit, there is no need to dedicate any further research, or discussion to it, is there?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, you were talking about the 14 year old, itinerant with chronic lung disease and an immunodeficiency who died of measles. Right. And on that basis you think anyone can die of measles. Very scientific of you. I’ve met that red herring before.
And how many of Mike Fitz’s patients who got measles recently, had complications and died, Kev?
How many of the other cases over the years, had complications and died?
Are there huge numbers of complications and deaths in Switzerland? Germany?
Do we hear of mountains of bodies and hundreds of children maimed for life in the UK papers Kev?
You mean amongst all the unvaccinated kids in UK you can only find one death?
I know all about the measles outbreak in USA Kev. I tracked it from day one of the media baying. As of the URL you put up, of the known 64 cases “at least” 14 were hopsitalized.
You said above, to me ***Wave after wave of vaccine preventable epidemics hospitalising American children.***
Wave after wave? more like trickle after dribble.
Oh Kev, look.. here is a little lie in that article you posted: ***But the development of a highly effective vaccine in 1963 caused cases to plummet***
The 1963 killed vaccine was quickly discontinued because not only was it totally ineffective, but it also caused the recipient to get a far more serious atypical measles when they came in contact with the measles virus.
Funny how the Washington times can’t get basics right either.
So what else have they got wrong Kev? what else have you got wrong?
The real measles vaccine campaign only got started in 1967 with a pre-dribble in 66 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836830-1,00.html
And how funny is that end comment from the CDC expert Dr Dull. “when two-thirds or more of children in any community are immune, through having had either the disease or the vaccine, the measles virus simply dies out.” CDC experts would laugh outright if you parroted that rubbish back to them today.
And look at CDC’s 1966 prediction. To eradicate measles in one year. Wow.
“We’ll have no measles after 1967”. Sounds remarkably like “There is no increase in autism”.
Today, we can look back and see that the CDC’s predictions of measles eradication in 1967, were rubbish.
I wonder what we will see, when we look back to today’s discussion about autism, in 2038 Kev?
What will future history say about the comments here in 2008?
In terms of believing in medical conspiracies Kev, I only believe in conspiracies (by innuendo) when I take a rare detours to read blogs like yours.
I’ve not posted on your blog before, but I’m glad I took this one opportunity Kev. I appreciate your hospitality, but I’ll not waste your breath again. You will be pleased to know that you fulfilled everyone’s predictions and expectations.
I am sure if one contacts the organizers of the IMFAR and asks them if Hewitson reported her conflicts of interest that they will say that she did report them all. After all, this is her professional life, her career. I cannot imagine Hewitson would risk her professional reputation by not listing her conflicts of interest.