Have a look for yourself:
http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf
Watch CBS News Videos Online
David Kirby, interviewed by Sharyl Attkisson. Talk about faux-news. For those luckily unfamiliar with Ms. Attkisson, here are some of the pieces done on this blog about her. Ms. Attkisson has a history of interviewing other members of the press and not being critical at all of their unsupported claims. She did this with Bernadine Healy, who made some unfounded claims about the IOM. When a study came out disproving a study by Maddy Hornig on mice and thimerosal that is, Ms. Attkisson blogged the Thoughtful House (Andrew Wakefield) press release on the subject. There’s more, but that gives you a taste of her history.
Today she interviewed David Kirby, author of “Evidence of Harm” and Huffington Post blogger.
To start, David Kirby apparantly has rewritten his book (yes, that is sarcasm). It is titled, “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy”.
But according to the interview, his book isn’t primarily about mercury in vaccines. Instead it is all about “increasing environmental exposures, toxins in children throughout the 1990’s and into the early 2000’s from both mercury background mercury environmental mercury which is on the increase and also mercury and other heavy metals and toxic metals that are included in vaccines that we give our children.”
Notice how thimersosal (mercury in vaccines) is downplayed compared to environmental mercury. That’s called revisionist history. Take a look at the back cover from the book (click to enlarge):
Back Cover from David Kirby's Evidence of Harm
A commenter on this blog called the recent National Children’s Health Survey to be the worst sort of prevalence study. It can get much worse. For example–according to David Kirby, when he went through the subway he didn’t see anyone obviously autistic. Yes, David Kirby, epidemiologist and diagnostician has found a dramatically low prevalence amongst the New York subway riders.
David Kirby reminds us all that Asperger’s syndrome is a disability. Mr. Kirby, go back and tell that to Lenny Schafer, the “commenter of the week” on your blog, the Age of Autism.
If someone made a comment on this blog like Mr. Shafer did he would be booed off the stage. Here’s an excerpt:
And let us hope that the upcoming DSM-V gets clearer about defining autism only as a disability — and kicks the high functioning ND autism squatters onto the personality disorder spectrum where they belong.
Your blog gave him a free T-shirt. Don’t lecture us about disability.
Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health and chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee declined to be interviewed by Ms. Attkisson.
A sincere “good job” goes out to Dr. Insel. After the way Ms. Attkisson showed a clear bias in doing her story on Dr. Offit, I can completely understand Dr. Insel declining the interview.
The second half of the interview discusses Mr. Kirby’s new book, the use of antibiotics on large farms.
No, seriously, they moved from Autism to animal farms.
Way to plug David Kirby’s new book, Sharyl!
Left Brain Right Brain 
I recall reading once that not all people labeled with a disability are unable to write, or post on blog sites. In fact if I’m not mistaken there have been a few people with autism that have even written books, gotten college degrees, have their own house or apartment.
“David Kirby reminds us all that Asperger’s syndrome is a disability. Mr. Kirby, go back and tell that to Lenny Schafer, the “commenter of the week” on your blog, the Age of Autism.
If someone made a comment on this blog like Mr. Shafer did he would be booed off the stage. Here’s an excerpt:
‘And let us hope that the upcoming DSM-V gets clearer about defining autism only as a disability—and kicks the high functioning ND autism squatters onto the personality disorder spectrum where they belong.’ ”
Apparently as it stands now, Asperger’s is currently a disability. I’m sure some sufferers of Asperger’s receive some sort of government assistance due to the “disability” of having Asperger’s.
BTW did you see the recent interview by CBS with Wakefield?
What a douchebag. He and Dan Olmsted.
Mr. Kirby must have missed the Subway for Special Children.
“BTW did you see the recent interview by CBS with Wakefield”? (bensmyson)
Wakefield said in the CBS interview …….
” the Goverment then decided for some reason , in the August of that year, the paper having been published in the February, to withdraw the importation licence for the single vaccines, in other words to make it virtually impossible for parents to chose the option of a single vaccine……….so if parents had genuine concerns about the safety of MMR it was either our way, ….MMR…. or no way, and so attrition for the fall in the uptake in the vaccine can be laid at the door of the British Government for withdrawing the option of a single vaccine”
The ban on the importation of older single vaccines (on safety grounds) took place in August 1999, some 18 months after the publication of the Lancet study on the 28th February 1998. Using the Wakefield logic, if attrition for the fall in the uptake in the vaccine can be laid at the door of the British Government following this ban, denying parents the choice of single vaccines, at whose door should we place attrition for the fall in vaccine uptake in the 18 month period following the the February 1998 paper, when single vaccines were still available?
1. We know, it has been discussed extensively on this blog at the hub. You would know this if you bothered to pay attention.
2. Rather confusingly written, doesn’t really say much about anywhere except Australia, and expresses suprise at things that should be no surprise at all (like flu increasing in the elderly despite vaccinations – it seems someone forgot about the aging population and increased flu awareness)
3. Mike Adams? Seriously, get real.
Learn to post like a grown up or don’t waste our time.
“What a douchebag. He and Dan Olmsted.”
-More evidence that Joe Doe is toxic.
@Jake: Your understanding of the word “evidence” is a little… flexible, isn’t it? Now, stop wasting comment space.
The comment you made earlier is a perfect example of wasting comment space, from a commenter exposed to toxic waste.
As long as the subject is the merits of Olmstead, here’s my final evaluation of his story on Offit’s Rotateq income: “It is probable that, at the very least, they knowingly omitted information on Clark’s and Plotkin’s employment history and knowingly lied in denying that they were eligible for the inventor’s share… Olmstead, with his background in investigative journalism, was the natural choice to “investigate” the inventor’s question, and he especially should have known that what was finally published was false or probably so. Whether he did know this really makes little difference to me. If anything, I would personally think even less of him as a person if he did believe in what he put his name to. That would only mean that, rather than intentionally misrepresenting facts, he was too lazy, inattentive, conceited, malicious, incompetent and generally unprofessional to study the facts at all.”
Who cares? Offit made $6 million! Yet he’s still quoted in the media and press on vaccine safety issues as if he has any credibility!
Relevance? That’s a ridiculous argument. Are you suggesting he should not have been paid for something he invented? Or are you suggesting that inventors of vaccines should never be considered credible about anything related to vaccines? Utter nonsense.
At the very least Dr. Offit has a financial stake in Merck that is never discussed when he is quoted in his opinions. I honestly have no problem with Offitt offering his opinions on anything, including vaccines. He has developed a vaccine, he is aware of the potential adverse reactions caused by his own vaccine, including death, and he is a published author on the subject of vaccines. Who better to get one side of the story. However everytime he opens his mouth there should be a disclaimer, same they do everytime with Wakefield. I feel it is fair and treats the public with a bit of respect to do so. I wonder though if he has ever had a practice of treating those diagnosed with autism.
@bensmyson: Do you wonder the same thing about, say, David Kirby, Dan Olmsted, Mark Blaxill, Jake Crosby, JB Handley, John Stone, Kim Stagliano, and others?
Wakefield never disclosed his “conflicts of interest” (i.e. getting paid specifically to produce something that could be used in litigation) when it mattered.
Joseph- I may be mistaken but all those you mentioned are not physicians and I’m quite sure that when they are introduced in the media they are introduced as journalists or advocates. If I’m not mistaken a couple of those you listed have children with autism, Kim I believe has three daughters with autism. Had any of them been introduced in the media as physicians I would hope that the media would perhaps address their association with autism and vaccines. That would allow the public unfamiliar with the debate some background on who is being used as an authority on the subject. Would you want to accept the opinion of a major stock holder in a weapons manufacturing company or who’s family is deeply indebted to the military if asked whether or not we should be engaged in war?
Perhaps Wakefield never disclosed a conflict of interest because there was no conflict of interest. At least that is the truth until proven otherwise. Unless you are talking about something he was working on to help prevent some kind of GI problem. If so how is that a conflict? Sorry I’m not as obsessed with him as you seem to be, perhaps I should read up on him more.
I thought Jake Crosby was going to come back and tell us what he has learnt about Andrew Wakefield’s patent for the prophylaxis of measles?
And Andrew Wakefield’s denial of same.
Has Jake worked out yet that his hero was lying, and, if so, what conclusion he draws from this?
Wakefield never denied that the patent was for a prophylaxis of measles, he denied that it was for a vaccine that protects people on a population-scale, and it wasn’t. Despite disclosing it, and the legal aid he received which never went into The Lancet paper anyway, which The Lancet never even found to be sufficient COIs, he stands trial before the GMC anyway.
Paul Offit’s earnings out-match Wakefield’s by at least $6 million, yet has kept secret about it for over a year, and did not say it was made through the same company as the one that invented the MMR, Merck, on Dateline. He should have his license revoked and disappear completely from the media spotlight. It’s only fair.
Besides, didn’t Kevin Leitch’s daughter regress after a DTP vaccine? If the DTP vaccine really hadn’t caused autism then this blog which says over and over that vaccines don’t cause autism wouldn’t exist, ironic.
I can’t even find the words to express how laughable it is to even think the two situations are even remotely comparable.
It’s literally idiotic to even attempt to compare the multiple charges against Wakefield with a single interview, during which the alledgedly ‘missing’ information was given its’ own segment.
It was explicitly mentioned and discussed in the interview.
Do better next time Jake, and pay more attention.
Let me get this straight. A lot of the arguments around autism and gut disorders suggest that diarrhoea is a big problem for autistic kids. Dr Offit invents a vaccine that protects against some of the causes of diarrhoea. And he is the bad guy?
Dr Offit was paid $6 million when his hospital sold the rights to his vaccine. Merck are not paying anything to Dr Offit. They are paying whoever bought the rights to the vaccine. Dr Offit is a millionaire, beholden to nobody. He chooses to continue to work as a doctor at CHOP and he chooses to continue to speak up on vaccines. He does this not for monetary gain but because he believes it is the right thing to do.
His critics would do better to challenge his statements if they think he is mistaken rather than try to avoid tackling the substance of what he has to say with unfounded slurs on his character.
Offit even responds to a question explicitly mentioning his alledged COI.
Offit is very well known as a vaccine inventor. It’s likely to be the reason why he was approached by the show. The show expressly mentions the vaccine, his earnings and give him a chance to respond.
The Offit wasn’t the one to bring it up is
a: unprovable as we don’t have access to the entire interview, much less the entire exchange.
b: irrelevant as it was mentioned anyway, with Offit openly and directly responding to the mention of the COI.
Exactly. To put it in perspective: Suppose a researcher had been approached by a pharma company and asked to fabricate evidence that could be used in court to show that vaccines do not cause autism. In return, they would pay him three quarters of a million dollars. That would be very bad, very incriminating, wouldn’t it?
If and when something like this happens (and I don’t mean in your imagination), you can claim there’s equivalence in the positions, Jake. Right now, you simply cannot. That kind of corruption only exists in the anti-vax side.
“and it wasn’t”
Sorry, but the patent expressly mentions that ‘a safer vaccine is needed’ (p.2 l.8-9) and that the ‘composition’ Wakefield was trying to patent can ‘also be used in the treatment of IBD’ (p.2 l.13-14). Not ‘treatment for IBD’ but ‘a vaccine against mmr and measles (p.1 l.3-5) that can aslo be used as a treatment for IBD (p.1 l.5-8)
Sorry, but it’s right there in the patent that it was intended as both a vaccine and a treatment for IBD (p.6 l.36-37).
“and the legal aid he received which never went into The Lancet paper anyway”
This is just silly. Being paid after the work makes you more beholden to getting the ‘right’ answer. not less.
“which The Lancet never even found to be sufficient COIs”
Sorry, but it has been established that the Lancet did not know about the COI’s until after. The one declaration that the ‘COI’ wasn’t ‘sufficient’ was in reference to another paper , a correction that has already been pointed out to you.
“he stands trial before the GMC anyway”
For a lot more than you seem to think he is.
You really are shit at this. I would advise you to give it up, but it’s clear you only pay attention to people that already agree with you.
It’s debatable, at best, whether someone has the same obligation for disclosure in a TV interview that they would have in a professional publication or hearing. It’s also doubtful whether producers would broadcast such statements.
As far as Wakefield’s COI issues, I think there’s a benign explanation for his failure to disclose working for Barr publicly: He may have been obliged to maintain confidentiality as long as the MMR legal proceedings were in progress. (Bustin and Chadwick complained that they were forced to withhold evidence against Wakefield because of litigation.)
Finally, it should be noted that MMR is one of the LEAST valuable of vaccines: Reported cost of administration of MMRII by the CDC is $18.50 per dose, which I suspect is very close to cost. Even Merck may have little financial stake in its continued use.
And if the legal aid wasn’t going into the Lancet paper, what was it going on? I was under the impression that was why it was awarded.
Scrooge,
The legal aid went to a viral-detection study that never even got published. Horton was told of the legal finances one year before publication, but did nothing with it. It was not a sufficient conflict of interest, nor was the vaccine for mmr and measles described in the application going to be a childhood vaccine, but to stimulate a cellular response to fight the infection brought on by MMR-mediated vaccine-strain measles virus infection. A main focal point for that infection was in the gut, which is why it could also be used for treatment of IBD.
You can read more about it here:
http://www.drbilllong.com/Autism/WakefieldIX.html
I have just given you a source outside your ND blogosphere, use it to inform yourself.
The issue of Wakefield’s proposed vaccine should be considered a distraction for all concerned. By all indications, Wakefield was recruited into the anti-MMR action in ca. 1996, through personal contact with Rosemary Kessick. The patent appears to have come later. In any case, I am certain that Offit has never attempted to represent monetary gain as Wakefield’s primary motive. In his June “Philadelphia” interview, he went on record explicitly affirming that he considers Wakefield sincere in his MMR-autism claims. Is it to much to ask that Wakefield’s defenders return the favor and stop trying to portray Offit as an insincere, amoral mercenary?
There is no user here called Scrooge, nor is it fair or accurate to suggest I am a lonely old miser just because I do not always agree that your sources support your arguements or that your arguements are logically sound. Especially not considering I’m in a health profession known for ‘tweeness’ and I’ve yet to see 35.
Childish names have no place here. You showed yourself up good and proper last time you tried to pull that stunt. Don’t embaress yourself by trying it on again. It backfires on you everytime and everyone knows it but you.
“nor was the vaccine for mmr and measles described in the application going to be a childhood vaccine, but to stimulate a cellular response to fight the infection brought on by MMR-mediated vaccine-strain measles virus infection”
False, I’ve even given you the page and lines of the patent application that indicate otherwise.
“Horton was told of the legal finances one year before publication, but did nothing with it”
False. That Wakefields former collegue Horton was informed of the Special Trustee funding is very weakly supported, but it’s also not part of Hortons’ allegations and is irrelevant, Horton’s main concern was that Wakefield did not disclose the LAB funding for the primary study, and that he did not disclose the nature of the sampling or overlap of children between the two studies.
To date, the defence of Wakefield has been to quote a letter where Wakefield wrongly states he was paid by the LAB to ‘help evaluate’ the children. He was not. Clinicians can often be paid by the LAB to independantly evaluate clients. Wakefield was paid to conduct a study. John Stone’s whale.to piece does not mention where Wakefield declared this anywhere. The Barr letters only appear to indicate that Wakefield was being approached as an ‘expert witness’ not a principal investigator. This would make sense given Wakefieldsarea of work, previous publications and his then upcoming Lancet article.
If you know of a letter where Wakefield openly declared his LAB funding to Horton, it would be great if you could directly reference it or at least indicate a location of a copy.
“I have just given you a source outside your ND blogosphere, use it to inform yourself.”
First, my intial reading of this saga was outside the ND blogosphere, and I often visit whale.to, AoA and the like. Second, the source doesn’t contain anything that hasn’t been dealt extensively here and in affliated sites.
“It was not a sufficient conflict of interest,”
You have been told that this statement by Horton was in reference to another paper. You have yet to show acknowledgement of this correction. Do so.
All Jake Crosby does is recycle another of Andrew Wakefield’s stories: this time put out through one Dr Bill Long who, like all the rest, merely writes down what he is told (and really makes it proudly clear that this is all he did).
The GMC’s charge 3 listed at Brian Deer’s site makes clear what the money was for:
Click to access gmc-charge-sheet.pdf
In charge 5, Wakefield admits that the project was a clinical and scientific study – not a “viral detection study” – which is a story he made up later when Deer disclosed the money:
“Attaching an explanation of the proposed scientific and clinical study, a timetable of investigations, a handout of information for parents and a sample consent form,
Admitted and found proved.”
So again, as with the prophylactic vaccine patent, Jake Crosby has a document he can look at and understand for himself.
(a) What do you say to that Jake? If, for any reason, you don’t know what clinical means, it’s easy to look up. Viral detection studies aren’t clinical.
(b) And do you say that, even if your hero’s story was true (which it plainly is not), researchers are entitled to take money, move it over to something else and then not declare it? If a drug company pays a researcher $750,000, can they spend it on a new house, and not declare it when they announce that the company’s new drug is a miracle?
Oh, re Dr Horton:
No evidence whatsoever has been produced that Horton was told anything one year in advance, or at all. Another fiction: simply made up to keep the money rolling in.
All that happened was that Barr told another Lancet staff member that he was working with Andrew Wakefield (which is so vague as to be meaningless) and asking copyright permission to reproduce something.
Horton was not told of this, no mention was made of any contract to perform tests for litigation, or money received, or that Wakefield was contracted two years before the paper to prove that MMR was dangerous.
More bullshit, pumped out by the lie machine.
Crosby says: “Wakefield never denied that the patent was for a prophylaxis of measles, he denied that it was for a vaccine that protects people on a population-scale, and it wasn’t”
Jake: that’s what “prophylaxis” means. A prophylactic vaccine is for disease prevention.
And Wakefield’s stories changed: first he denied there was a vaccine. Then when the patents were published, he denied that it was for the prophylaxis of measles, and made up a weird, convoluted story about how it was a treatment vaccine. Why would you need a treatment vaccine: the propylactic vaccine protects almost all children, and the ones who aren’t protected (either because the don’t raise a response, or they don’t receive it) are protected by herd immunity. That’s why measles disappeared from the UK.
Why can’t you understand, Jake, that autistic spectrum disorders, researching them, advancing the interests of people with them, and so forth, is not about Andrew Wakefield (much less Paul Offit). Why not explain (to yourself most of all) why you think it is essential to defend a scumbag?
Wow, I’m not even past item 17 and I’ve already spotted several things which would likely result in deregistration or suspension of rights in a AHP. A quick check of the HPC shows suspensions given out for things a comparatively minor like poor record keeping and not filling in diaries.
Just on the stuff that has already been admitted and found proved, a AHP would be looking at being struck off at best, struck off and disbarred at worst. Certainly any profession that operates in conjuction with any of the World confederations would not think of allowing them to register.
It’s not unknown for experts to advise interested parties on how to procede research wise. This is often what LAB funding is for (and part of the reason why some media sources decried the amounts given out in LAB funding over the years – not realising that the money wasn’t to hire lawyers, but to hire the experts that advise the lawyers). It’s also not unknown for that same expert to then carry out the research. It’s also not unknown for that expert to stand to lose or gain off the back of the research – it is after all, their area of work.
That Wakefield was paid is of no contention. That he hasn’t been straight with where the children came from and what his ‘other’ were activities at the time, is.
Jake Crosby wrote: “If the DTP vaccine really hadn’t caused autism then this blog which says over and over that vaccines don’t cause autism wouldn’t exist, ironic.”
Mr. Crosby–
Please try to keep up. A retrospective study published in the Lancet over three years ago strongly suggests that the “vaccine encephalopathy” associated with the DTP vaccine is in fact acute myoclonic epilepsy of infancy (ACMEI). All of the allegedly vaccine-injured individuals studied (all had seizures with onset within 72 hours of pertussis vaccination) turned out to have specific epilepsy syndromes; about 80% had de novo mutations in the gene for the neuronal sodium channel most commonly associated with ACMEI. Since about one in twenty-five children experience (generally benign) febrile seizures, it seems that these kids happened to have had the bad luck of both having a quite common (and typically benign, though alarming) febrile seizure in response to vaccination AND a mutation that leads to neural effects that manifest–with or without vaccination–about the age that kids normally receive the DTP vaccine.
That concidence lead us down a rabbit hole. If the PCR technique used in the Lancet study had been commonly available at the time of the DTP controversy, you might never have heard of Wakefield, and perhaps the vaccines-cause-autism meme wouldn’t exist.
Ironic, indeed.
Wakefield is an expert in muddying the waters and fluffing the edges until it is nigh on impossible (except with help of the material on Brian Deers website) to define where the truth lies.
At least one of the ten children in the Pilot Study set up by the lawyers acting on behalf of the children in the MMR litigation, and funded by the legal Aid Board in 1996, for the purposes of bringing litigation against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccines, was also one of the Lancet 12. Ms Rosemary Kessick identified herself over on the Age of Autism site recently as the mother of Child 2 in the Lancet study. So not only is there a cross over of cases from the legally aided study into the Lancet study, but Wakefield, identified by the lawyers to the parents as the person running the Pilot Study at the RFH (and funded by the LAB), is also one of the authors of the Lancet paper. It becomes increasingly difficult to view the Lancet study to be devoid of any association with the LAB funded study when both studies are reliant on work ups on the same individual, by the same researcher, in virtually the same time frame.
In Wakefield’s reply to the lancet retraction to be found on Brian Deer’s website
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/retraction-reply.htm
he says, ……”all of the first 12 children reported in the Lancet study were referred to the Royal Free Hospital exclusively for the investigation of their intestinal symptoms at a time when none was involved in Legal Aid Litigation”.
Ms Kessick’s son however, in the list of charges pending against Dr Wakefield at the GMC,(8 b-e), was originally seen at St Barts by Professor Walker-Smith and discharged with no arrangement for a further visit. Nine months later, in May 1996, Walker-Smith wrote to Ms Kessick “asking to see Child 2 again”. Child 2 can hardly be described as “referred” to the RFH, when Walker-Smith wrote “asking” to see the child when he was, contrary to what Wakefield has in his reply to the Lancet, already part of the solicitors Pilot Study (http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dawbarns-kessick.htm)
Are we meant to believe that Wakefield who acknowledged that the pilot study for the LAB was ongoing before the publication of the Lancet paper, was unaware that Ms Kessick’s son was not only one of the children in the LAB funded study, which he was running for the lawyers, but also one of the 12 included in the Lancet study?
Think not.
I have just given you a source outside your ND blogosphere, use it to inform yourself.
Mr. Crosby,
If you haven’t noticed yet, I use many sources outside of the blogosphere. I used Dr. Wakefield’s own words in his interview. I used the actual documents from his patents.
Wakefield never denied that the patent was for a prophylaxis of measles, he denied that it was for a vaccine that protects people on a population-scale, and it wasn’t.
The patent states (and I am quoting from a version from a non ND database)
“I have now discovered a combination vaccine/theraputic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to children and others by way of vaccination/immunisation, but which also can be used to treat IBD whether as a complete cure or to alleviate symptoms”
He stated, publicly and in a legal document, that his invention was a patent for vaccination/immunisation.
He can argue that it wouldn’t work on a population levl. This is true–since the vaccine wouldn’t work at all. That is completely beside the point–at the time of his patent application he obviously thought it would work. He put into a legal document (the patent application).
I don’t know how one can reconcile the fact that he claims his vaccine was safer than the MMR with the idea that he didn’t think it was a comparable vaccine.
For a start the patent was for a ‘composition’ that could be used in a vaccine or as a therapeutic agent to be used in treating IBD. It was not for a treatment as such things are on the exclusion list – that is, one cannot legally patent a medical treatment.
The patent expressly mentions that the composition can be used in a preventative (prophylatic) vaccine several times in the text, and has this list as claim 2.
The patent openly criticises the MMR vaccine and states “What is needed is a safer vaccine……. and a treatment for IBD”. Not ‘a treatment for iatrogenic IBD’, but a ‘vaccine agent which can also be used in IBD’.
The use of the ‘composistion’ in treating IBD is repeatedly mentioned second to its use in a immunisation vaccine. Terms like ‘can also be used to treat IBD’, ‘used in a immunisation or in treating IBD’, ‘but also’ are used to describe the use of the ‘composition’ in treating IBD.
Given that the patent shows knowledge of the different modes of injection, and of the difference between the two main types of vaccine, it is reasonable to treat the repeated primary mentions of the ‘composition’ in a ‘immunisation’ that can be ‘safely given to children’ as deliberate inclusions in the patent.
I fail to see how anyone, even a fellow person with aspergers, could read the patent and not come to the conclusion that Wakefield intended for his ‘composistion’ to be used in a rival vaccine is beyond me.
I would really like an explanation that indicates otherwise. Thus far we’ve had nothing but bold assertions that are contradicted directly by the text, in exactly the places a competant reader would look for them.
Good luck with your response Jake, luck is the only thing you have left going for you at this point.
A person with Asperger’s is supposed to be unskillful at trying to deceive. I don’t know how Jake keeps it up. He must either be making a huge effort, or his characteristics are anomalous in that area.
I was more talking about the tendancy some people with aspergers have to read information in a literal sense – i.e. that information has to be openly stated in order to be understood.
I was actually being over-fair to Jake, as the information IS openly stated in the patent in exactly the place that a reasonably skilled person would expect it to be.
I have no doubt that Jake honestly believes what he has been told to say (as he has clearly not read the actual patent), just as he does in his AoA pieces.
Calling Jake dishonest when incompetance and niavety could be to blame is just unfair to him.
How did this turn into a Jake bashing thread? I haven’t read the Deer blog either on this matter regarding Wakefield because I fail to see how it relates to the topic at hand, which I assume is David Kirby.
This seems to be why there isn’t a real debate, it gets into name calling.
“Calling Jake dishonest when incompetance and niavety could be to blame is just unfair to him.”
No, I think Jake has to come to a decision. Possibly he already has. He has seen the documents – including the document which he had been led to believe constituted Andrew Wakefield’s notification of his patent to the Lancet (which mentions neither vaccine nor treatment, but a measles virus diagnostic) – and has to decide whether he wants to continue to mislead. An intent to mislead is dishonesty.
If he was to say (perhaps only to himself): “Ah yes, so Andrew Wakefield DID have a patent for a prophylactic measles vaccine – meant to be safer than MMR – and he didn’t tell the Lancet about it, and what Brian Deer said is true,” then he would be on the path to a genuine contribution. Otherwise, he’s another part of the lie machine.
“This seems to be why there isn’t a real debate, it gets into name calling.”
Indeed, Jakes initial contributions to this thread were insulting, demeaning and accusatory.
Jake has, in this thread alone, stated or implied a belief that: at least one persons opinions are direct evidence of acquired brain damage, that Dr Offit is guilty of professional misconduct and scientific and/or acadamic fraud, that at least one member of this board deserves to be labelled as a miserly old loner.
Accusing others of corruption, stupidity, fraud, incompetance, lies and misconduct is not a rare thing over at some of the places Jake contributes to.
The majority of the discussion, including the only direct discussion of original sources, as been from Jakes opponents. The disproportionate majority of the unfounded insults and accusations have been from Jake.
You might want to think about Jakes behaviour before defending him again.
Since everyone here seems to latch onto “prophylaxis” as the smoking-gun word as evidence that Wakefield was patenting a vaccine to rival MMR, let’s see if a population vaccine is truly the only possible application that word can have:
Prophylaxis (Greek “??????????” to guard or prevent beforehand) is any medical or public health procedure whose purpose is to prevent, rather than treat or cure a disease. In general terms, prophylactic measures are divided between primary prophylaxis (to prevent the development of a disease) and secondary prophylaxis (whereby the disease has already developed and the patient is protected against worsening of this process).
[edit] Examples
Some specific examples of prophylaxis include:
* Influenza vaccines are prophylactic.[7]
* Antibiotics are sometimes used prophylactically: For example, during the 2001 anthrax attacks scare in the United States, patients believed to be exposed were given ciprofloxacin. In similar manner, the use of antibiotic ointments on burns and other wounds is prophylactic. Antibiotics are also given prophylactically just before some medical procedures such as pacemaker insertion.[8]
* Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) may, with caution, be an example of a chronic migraine preventative (see Amitriptyline and migraines’ prevention by medicine).
* Antimalarials such as chloroquine are used both in treatment and as prophylaxis by visitors to countries where malaria is endemic to prevent the development of the parasitic Plasmodium, which cause malaria.
* Condoms are sometimes referred to as “prophylactics” because of their use to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted infections.
* Low-molecular-weight heparin is used as a prophylaxis in hospital patients, as they are at risk for several forms of thrombosis due to their immobilisation.
* Professional cleaning of the teeth is dental prophylaxis.
* Daily and moderate physical exercise in various forms can be called prophylactic because it can maintain or improve one’s health. Cycling for transport appears to very significantly improve health by reducing risk of heart diseases, various cancers, muscular- and skeletal diseases, and overall mortality[9].
* Prophylaxis may be administered as vaccine. Prophylactic vaccines include: PEP, nPEP, PREP, or nPREP. PEP stands for post-exposure prophylaxis used in an occupational setting. nPEP is non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis. nPEP may be used in a recreational setting; for example, during intercourse, if the condom breaks and one partner is HIV-positive, nPEP will help to decrease the probability of spread of infection of HIV. PREP is often used in occupational settings, e.g., in hospital staff to prevent the spread of HIV or Hepatitis C from patient to staff. nPREP is a measure taken before exposure but in a non-occupational setting (non-occupational Pre-exposure prophylaxis); for example, injection drug users may seek nPREP vaccinations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophylaxis#Prophylaxis
Looks like “Prophylaxis” can be applied to a few more things than just the vaccine-for-the-population model.
bensmyson,
Every rival blog I’ve ever commented on, whether on the hub or on “Science”Blogs, has turned into a me-bashing thread. Name-calling is all they have, which would explain why they can’t handle having their meanness pointed out to them.
bensmyson,
If you ever get to read the many threads on the rival blogs that Jake has commented on, it will become clear that he is very much involved in bashing others and his behaviour is very much at the core of why he gets bashed. Everyone can see this but him.
Even his above response is a classic example of exactly the type of behaviour and language that earns him the ‘bashings’.
Rather than respond to direct discussion of the material with direct responses, he responds by making snide accusations.
Jake has said all I wanted to say. Let’s leave it at that.
This coming from someone whose first contribution to the thread was nothing more than this: “More evidence that Joe Doe is toxic.”
Also, it’s clear that name-calling is not “all they have.” They also have all the stuff you are trying very hard to avoid addressing.
This coming from someone whose first contribution to the thread was nothing more than this: “What a douchebag. He and Dan Olmsted.”
Just look at the title of this post of yours:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2009/03/aoas-token-aspie-reacts-to-brainhe.html
You don’t want to be called toxic? You don’t want to be considered toxic? Don’t say things that are toxic!
Btw, a comment I left earlier got moderated out, something to think about next time you brag of what a bastion of free speech the hub is.
Interesting, when I posted my previous comment, the comment I submitted that was awaiting moderation had been gone. Now it’s back up and awaiting moderation again. What a coincidence…
This is exactly what used to happen in the heyday of Aids denialism. Hard information was put forward on some vital aspect of the conclusive proof that HIV causes Aids, the denialists weasel around, simply refusing to deal with the facts, change the subject, spread false rumours, and make personal attacks.
The Aids denialists were resposible for an appalling toll of death and misery (particularly in South Africa).
Jake has to ask himself – again – whether he will deal with factual, documentary evidence, or whether he will go the way of the denialists and taint the rest of his life with the stain of human suffering.
Speaking of AIDS:
Btw, Maurice Hilleman is also the inventor of the MMR. The guy who invented that vaccine is also the same guy who admitted importing AIDS virus to the US. What a surprise…
“Sorry, but the patent expressly mentions that ‘a safer vaccine is needed’ (p.2 l.8-9) and that the ‘composition’ Wakefield was trying to patent can ‘also be used in the treatment of IBD’ (p.2 l.13-14). Not ‘treatment for IBD’ but ‘a vaccine against mmr and measles (p.1 l.3-5) that can aslo be used as a treatment for IBD (p.1 l.5-8)
Sorry, but it’s right there in the patent that it was intended as both a vaccine and a treatment for IBD (p.6 l.36-37) ”
Please provide a link to the above information. I was unable to locate it.
I am appreciative of Jake’s link, very informative.
http://www.drbilllong.com/Autism/WakefieldIX.html
Amazing non-sequitur. I’ll attribute it to youth. Either way, I couldn’t care less if you think I’m “toxic,” Jake.
Here? It’s called a spam filter. Get over yourself.