Sharyl Attkisson interviews David Kirby…and oh is it bad

8 Oct

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

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!

116 Responses to “Sharyl Attkisson interviews David Kirby…and oh is it bad”

  1. Visitor October 14, 2009 at 13:41 #

    Andrew Wakefield (interviewed on Dateline NBC): “There was a patent for a treatment, not a vaccine that protects people at the population level, but a vaccine that was a treatment for children or patients who are already infected with the virus.”

    A change of tune from Andrew Wakefield’s statement, November 2004, denying any vaccine at all:

    “The facts are that: no vaccine or anything resembling a vaccine was ever designed, developed or tested by me or by any of my colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital; it has never been my aim or intention to design, produce or promote a vaccine to compete with MMR;”

    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/mmr-questions.htm

    And a far cry from the patent itself:

    Page 1, line 1: “The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prophylaxis against measles virus infection and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease…”

    Page 2, line 26: “What is needed therefore is a safer vaccine which does not give rise to these problems…”

    Click to access 1998-vaccine-patent.pdf

  2. bensmyson October 14, 2009 at 14:12 #

    ““The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prophylaxis against measles…”

    A balloon “relates to” the sky, a bark “relates to” a dog. This treatment Wakefield requested a patent for “relates to” a series of vaccines that he believes causes viral infection and IBD.

    I’m quiet sure that if Wakefield intended to call his treatment a vaccine then he would have said so, instead he said it relates to one, much the same as how marijuana relates to chemotherapy.

    “What is needed therefore is a safer vaccine which does not give rise to these problems…”

    Sounds reasonable. Did he say he is making that safer vaccine, or any vaccine? Nope.

  3. Mildred October 14, 2009 at 14:22 #

    Visitor, there is very little chance of Mr Crosby accepting your invitation to walk the path to a genuine contribution by acknowledging the truth of what Mr Deer has said re the patent. To do so, would be to embark on the initial steps down a very slippery slope indeed.

    Mr Deer has placed a huge amount of valuable material on the Wakefield saga in the public domain and the existence of the lie machine, has always been dependent on no body ever whispering/questioning (even to themselves in the dark of the night)that it could be true.

    To acknowledge even one aspect of Mr Deer’s work as the truth, after years of repeated allegations to the contrary, might pave the way for an “awakening” in the ranks of the lie machinists and a nagging realisation that the remainder of the Wakefield material he uncovered, is also true, and that would never do.

    Nah, that slope is far too steep and far,far too slippery.

  4. bensmyson October 14, 2009 at 14:44 #

    Mildred- Has it been proven that 100% of Deer’s material found on his website is accurate? I thought the jury was still out in that regard.

  5. Visitor October 14, 2009 at 14:45 #

    Let’s just pray that one day Andrew Wakefield gets to tell it to a judge.

  6. bensmyson October 14, 2009 at 17:02 #

    Isn’t that what he is doing in those hearings Deer brought about with his petition?

    I suppose that one might suggest others should equally have their day in front of a judge, the proprietor of the two London newspapers, James Murdoch, serves the board of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline, and isn’t somehow Brian Deer associated with one of those newspapers?

  7. Visitor October 14, 2009 at 17:23 #

    Non-Declaration of Disclosable Interests to The Lancet
    ‘38. a. On or before 5 June 1997 you instructed agents to file with the UK Patent Office a patent application with the short title “Pharmaceutical Composition for Treatment of IBD and RBD”, naming the applicants as the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine and Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation (“the Patent”),
    Admitted and found proved
    b. The invention which was the subject of the patent, and of which you were one of the inventors, related to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease); particularly Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis and regressive behavioural disease (RBD);
    Admitted and found proved
    ‘39. a. Your,
    i. involvement in the MMR litigation,
    ii. receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board,
    iii. involvement in the Patent,
    constituted a disclosable interest which included matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to your role as a co-author of the Lancet paper which you did not disclose to the Editor of The Lancet,

    Click to access gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

  8. bensmyson October 14, 2009 at 17:44 #

    From the charge sheet?

    “related to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD…”

    Again “related” to a new vaccine. And isn’t MMR measles mumps and rubella? Why add another measles? “MMR and measles virus”

    Not sure I can tie this into the knot you seem to have twisted this into.

  9. Dedj October 14, 2009 at 19:05 #

    Wakefield is technically correct that he didn’t patent a vaccine.

    However, the patent was for a ‘composition’ that could be used in a vaccine/immunisation (the primary description given for the ‘composistion’ at repeated points in the text) or in a treatment for IBD (always the secondary description in the text).

    That Wakefield intended his ‘composition’ to be used in a rival vaccine is not under question. It is heavily indicated at several points in the text, and explicitly mentioned as claim 2 in the claims summary.

    To claim that Wakefield did not intend to benefit from a rival vaccine is not supported by his patent, which clearly lays out the function of the ‘composition’ as an ingredient in a ‘prophylatic against measles’ vaccine/immunisation several times over.

    No one has had to twist anything.

    We’re just going over old ground at the minute.

  10. Ringside Seat October 14, 2009 at 19:27 #

    My own take – and this does not apply to Jake, who I think is misinformed by others who want this to be so – is that aspects of this discussion have become quite creepy.

    There are people who creep around discussion threads as a form of manipulation. They want to get into other people’s heads, not with any aim to debate or exchange ideas, but just to get into other people’s heads. It’s pretty unhealthy, IMO.

  11. Dedj October 14, 2009 at 19:49 #

    “Mildred- Has it been proven that 100% of Deer’s material found on his website is accurate? I thought the jury was still out in that regard.”

    Technically correct. To say ‘the jury is still out’ implies that it is either/or in regards to the content of Deer’s website. However the last attempt to show that Deer was spreading falsehoods collapsed before making it to court. The only succesful attempt to stymie Deer was improperly trumpted by Wakefield and his collegues as vindication and evidence of flasehoods when the judgement clearly said nothing of the sort.

    Deer’s claims of being harrased and berated on court steps by a gang of people has been shown to be true thanks to video evidence provided and widely disseminated by those same people.

    “Isn’t that what he is doing in those hearings Deer brought about with his petition?”

    Deer’s submission to the GMC postdates the announcement of investigation by the Health Secretary by three days, was not submitted under the complaints process, was not submitted to the complaints panel and was not even submitted to the same building as any of the officials involved in the complaints process.

    “I suppose that one might suggest others should equally have their day in front of a judge, the proprietor of the two London newspapers, James Murdoch, serves the board of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline, and isn’t somehow Brian Deer associated with one of those newspapers?”

    The newspapers owned by New Corporation have a daily circulation of 600000+ for it’s upmarket newspapers, 1.3mill for its broadsheet papers, and in excess of 3mill for tabloids. Thats about 15-20% of the British newspaper market using conservative estimates, and includes the international second largest circulation for an english language paper.

    It would be a major surprise for Deer to NOT have a connection, given his award winning reputation and the reputation of some of the newspapers in the Murdoch group.

    Besides – relating to the Wakefield scandal – what should they be hauled up in court for?

  12. brian October 15, 2009 at 02:05 #

    Jake Crosby wrote: “Every rival blog I’ve ever commented on, whether on the hub or on “Science”Blogs, has turned into a me-bashing thread.” He also wrote: “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.”

    Mr. Crosby, are you unable to see a connection between receiving negative responses to your posts and your habit of posting absolute drivel about subjects that you plainly misunderstand?

    Look, when laughter follows a comment, as on the video that you linked, it’s a good indication that the comment was a joke.

    When Dr. Hilleman said, “I brought African Greens (monkeys for vaccine research) in. I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.” he was being facetious–that’s why his comment was followed by laughter. Hilleman, who discovered the presence of a contaminating virus in polio vaccines (Simian Virus 40, not HIV) was almost certainly responding to the repeated erroneous assertions that HIV arose from contaminated polio vaccine. (This nonsense was published at least twice in Medical Hypothesis; you may remember that as a journal in which, because it is not peer-reviewed, anyone can publish anything–for example, the fallacy that autism is a form of mercury poisoning was published there.)

    You sacrifice your credibility by posting comments that display your profound ignorance of the subject. If you stop that, perhaps people will respond to your posts with respect instead of ridicule.

  13. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 02:45 #

    Brian it’s amazing that you possess the paranormal ability to interpret the intent of a person in such a way that to those of us that are not frequent guests of the world in which you have so expertly mastered, are dumb founded. I hardly know what to say.

    Is it not possible that the man has his opinion and you have yours?

    And to me if the man said, “I brought African Greens (monkeys for vaccine research) in. I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.” he means it, laughter or not. I laughed the other day when I saw a car crash, nervous laughter I guess, but that was my immediate reaction. “oh my gosh, ha ha ha, jeez I hope no one was hurt, ha ha ha, what idiots!” But then I don’t know this man, never met him, haven’t spoken with the interviewers, have no idea what his intent was when he said what he did. I will have to leave that up to your skills of interpretive mind reading.

    And you said, “the fallacy that autism is a form of mercury poisoning was published there.” Do you know the cause of autism? Is it genetics, environmental toxins, vinyl flooring, cigarette smoke, mother’s stress levels during pregnancy, a virus, satan? It’s not mercury, anything else it’s not? Is it not 7 vaccines administered all at once to a child with an pre-existing weakened immune system? Is it not a brain injury caused by encephalitis which some vaccines are known to cause in some? I bet it’s not anything at all like the nerve stuff that that little Hanna Polling had, something about some nerve damage or something that wrecked her wiring in her brain. I’m serious, what do you think is causing so many kids to get autism? Bad parenting?

  14. Dedj October 15, 2009 at 04:59 #

    “Just look at the title of this post of yours:
    http://autismnaturalvariation……ainhe.html

    You don’t want to be called toxic? You don’t want to be considered toxic? Don’t say things that are toxic!”

    Seems quite an accurate title, with reasonable and well written concerns about the ‘rebuttals’ of the BRAINHE study. Certainly not toxic. You may be confusing how facing opposition makes you feel about youself with the intent of your opponents.

    Let’s review this. You have:

    no relevant qualifications relating to your appointment.
    no relevant experience relating to your appointment.
    no relevant publications relating to your appointment.
    no relevant training relating to your appointment.
    no relevant academic study relating to your appointment.

    Whereas you do have:

    a publically known conditional identity that is politically expedient for AoA to exploit, and a concordance of worldviews.

    It’s not very hard to see why people view you as a token appointee, especially given the generally poor opinion of your work.

    Now that the ‘Crosby Show’ has run its time, I think it would be best for the thread to get back to what it was talking about before you interupted by slagging off Joseph.

  15. Joseph October 15, 2009 at 13:50 #

    BTW, tokenism is defined by Wikipedia as:

    Tokenism refers to a policy or practice of limited inclusion of members of a minority group, usually creating a false appearance of inclusive practices, intentional or not. Typical examples in real life and fiction include purposely including a member of a minority race (such as a black character in a mainly white cast, a woman in a traditionally male universe) into a group. Classically, token characters have some reduced capacity compared to the other characters and may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Alternatively, their differences may be overemphasized or made “exotic” and glamorous.

    Later…

    A token character can also be used by writers to pay lip service to rules or standards, when they otherwise have no intention of doing so, such as by obeying anti-racism policies by including a token ethnic minority character who — despite being present often — has no function in the overall plot, does little or nothing, and is often a stereotyped character. South Park satireized this by having a black character named “Token Black”, who has anti-sterotypical characteristics.

    Wasn’t there recently an article at AoA about how Asperger’s is not really autism, how it’s not a disability and so on?

  16. Jake Crosby October 15, 2009 at 14:47 #

    “no relevant qualifications relating to your appointment.
    no relevant experience relating to your appointment.
    no relevant publications relating to your appointment.
    no relevant training relating to your appointment.
    no relevant academic study relating to your appointment.”

    You make no mention of possessing any of these relevant to your role as Grouchy Smurf, and you are pretty good at that.

  17. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 15:15 #

    Joseph I frequently visit AoA site and do not remember what you claim. I do remember there being a post that questioned whether or not high functioning Aspies should be included in the public’s perception of autism. Im not sure it even received a response.

    It does pose a good question though. One one hand you have someone perfectly capable of fixing some toast and jelly, pouring a glass of juice, sitting and reading the newspaper before driving to work and on the other end you have someone like this boy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/fashion/11love.html?_r=1

    For the sake of these children I suppose it best to exclude the independent adults from the public perception of what autism is all about, not let the 3-5% vocal minority speak for the majority when it comes to how best to serve those who actually are suffering and whose lives are in danger from autism.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411034_boyhit11.html

  18. brian October 15, 2009 at 16:54 #

    Still following Mr. Crosby’s egregious divergence off topic, for the record:

    HIV/AIDS resulted from at least eleven cross-species transmission events of specific simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) from non-human primates to humans. Three transmissions of SIVcpz from chimpanzees produced HIV-1, and eight transmissions of SIVsm from sooty mangabeys produced HIV-2. The viruses produced from all three HIV-1 events and from two of the eight HIV-2 events have established human-to-human transmission chains. Pandemic HIV/AIDS is caused by one of the three HIV-1 groups derived from the chimpanzee virus.

    HIV/AIDS was NOT derived from a virus in African Green Monkeys; the SIVagm virus of African Green Monkeys is phylogenetically distinct from the viruses that were transmitted to humans. Accordingly, it would have been impossible for Dr. Hilleman to introduce the “AIDS virus” to the US by importing African Green Monkeys because African Green Monkeys carry neither HIV nor a virus from which HIV evolved.

  19. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 17:22 #

    brian I will have to take your word on this since there is no link to a scientific paper on it. However what concerns me is the math, how does this chimp virus travel so rapidly into the population? And are there any dead chimps?

  20. Joseph October 15, 2009 at 17:37 #

    One one hand you have someone perfectly capable of fixing some toast and jelly, pouring a glass of juice, sitting and reading the newspaper before driving to work and on the other end you have someone like this boy.

    @bensmyson: My son is very obviously autistic, almost entirely non-verbal, “low functioning” if you will. Yet, he’s able to fix himself toast and jelly, glasses of juice; he can dress himself, brush his teeth, is toilet trained, he can swim quite well. He’s a very happy boy most of the time.

    Should my son be removed from the public perception of autism, as you suggest? Who decides where the line is drawn, and on what basis?

    You might say, well, it’s the verbal vs. non-verbal thing. But if so, why did you bring up toast and jelly? Additionally, aren’t there autistic children and adults who are completely verbal and yet have serious challenges?

    BTW, I was referring to a recent “comment of the week” picked by AoA editors. How Jake can associate with people who pick something like that as “comment of the week” is beyond the reach of reason.

  21. brian October 15, 2009 at 18:14 #

    bensmyson, you might be interested in this paper: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000377

    Several earlier papers suggest that the pandemic HIV-1 strain was transmitted from chimpanzees to humans by the early part of the last century. Since this apparently happened only once for this virus (and once each for each of the additional two HIV-1 lineages), it seems that transmission from chimpanzee to human was difficult, but that transmission from human to human became much easier. Non-human primates are generally well-adapted to SIV; however, it doesn’t seem clear whether SIV infection in nonhuman primates should be considered typically “nonpathogenic” or “nonprogressive.”

  22. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 18:24 #

    The comment of the week is something I can’t necessarily identify with on either side of the argument. I do find it somewhat descriptive though of those adults who have found a way to live independently, holding a job, toast and jelly etc. To me there is no classical symptoms of being disabled. However any child within the autism spectrum, be they non-verbal or Asperger’s is disabled in my book. What I speak of is those adults with Asperger’s who do function quite well do not represent the majority of those who do not function well. If I have heard it once, Ive heard it a hundred times, “I read where an autistic man wrote a book, (or got his masters degree or is a famous actress etc) that has found a way to overcome autism. People are OUTGROWING autism.” As if the older you get the less likely you are to suffer from autism.

    I have no idea where the line should be drawn, on one side you have “I am Autism” videos and the other you have people saying leave autism alone, it’s a higher form of consciousness.

    My son is a classic regression. Because of that I HATE autism. It took something from my son, something that only time will tell us how important it was to him. In the meantime services are cut, budgets slashed, the education system’s guardians told me to my face that they didn’t have the time or manpower to do the bare minimum needed to work on my son’s recovery. Which I do believe is possible, I’m not saying 100% because I have no idea what 100% normal is, but I believe he can be free of the diagnosis one day. Had 1 in 100 kids become deaf, or even had the hiccups headlines all around the world would have created a firestorm of controversy, yet hospital wards are being funded to rehabilitate drug addicts and alcoholics, suffering yes, but these are self inflicted injuries, schools continue to find funds to build football facilities and businesses taking substantial risks in a free market society and failing are bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars and yet when it comes to my son there isn’t a couple of hundred dollars a month to attempt to teach him how to ask for a cup of water when he is thirsty. (much less how to recognize that he is thirsty)

    “He will outgrow it.” is not autism.

    I truly mean no disrespect because I have no answers outside my own situation at home. But the autism I know and live with handicaps my son tremendously. He is disabled because of it and the odds are that he will continue to be disabled and this effects me and my entire family.

  23. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 18:29 #

    Thanks Brian, I wish I was smart enough to translate it 🙂

    I’ll try though, it seems important.

  24. Dedj October 15, 2009 at 18:33 #

    ““no relevant qualifications relating to your appointment.
    no relevant experience relating to your appointment.
    no relevant publications relating to your appointment.
    no relevant training relating to your appointment.
    no relevant academic study relating to your appointment.”

    You make no mention of possessing any of these relevant to your role as Grouchy Smurf, and you are pretty good at that”

    I’ve already mentioned my health professions training and experience working in two autism services several times on several different blogs, even to the point where David N Andrews worked out my profession through my use of terminology.

    I consider my experience to be brief and minimal, yet I still have significantly more relevant depth and breadth of experience than many of the people who are openly anti-ND.

    What any of this has to do with you is something you failed to explain. You have failed to explain why it is not reasonable to view you as a ‘token’ or political appointment to AoA, nor have you evidenced and validated any relevant experience, despite being given a pretty clear cut list.

    The more you fail to respond appropriately and relevantly the more you justify the low opinion of you. Bear that in mind before you start your amusing Scrooge/Grouchy/Oscar/Grumpy sideshow again.

    You have been told to get back on track. Respond to the posts appropriately.

  25. Joseph October 15, 2009 at 18:55 #

    I do find it somewhat descriptive though of those adults who have found a way to live independently, holding a job, toast and jelly etc. To me there is no classical symptoms of being disabled. However any child within the autism spectrum, be they non-verbal or Asperger’s is disabled in my book.

    Excuse me, what? So I take it that as soon as the disabled Asperger’s child grows up and gets a job, they stop being disabled? To remain disabled, they must remain unemployed.

    By extension, I guess all children are disabled. No children have jobs or are able to live independently. Also, there are no disabled people of any kind who live independently and hold jobs. Did I get that right?

  26. Jake Crosby October 15, 2009 at 19:36 #

    I thought I posted this comment earlier but it’s not here, so I will try again:

    brian(…deer?),

    1.) I was not the first to bring up AIDS.

    2.) AIDS coming from chimps actually implicates Hilleman even more. Chimp cells were directly involved in the manufacture of his experimental Hep B vaccine which was suspected of causing AIDS in the gay men it was given to. When he made that statement, it was thought AIDS virus came from African Greens instead of Chimps, but obviously Hilleman worked with both in his lab to develop vaccines which means there could have been a risk of contamination of the Greens’ tissue with the Hep B vaccine preparations he was working with. Had he been interviewed a few years later, he probably would have still said he imported AIDS virus only through Chimps instead.

    On a different but similarly disturbing note, one of Hilleman’s colleagues who also played a pivotal role in the development of Hepatitis vaccines, Dr. Saul Krugman, discovered the difference between Hep A and B viruses by infecting disabled internees with them both at the infamous Willowbrook State School and noting the difference in symptoms exhibited by the two diseases. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

  27. brian October 15, 2009 at 20:51 #

    Jake Crosby wrote: “Chimp cells were directly involved in the manufacture of [Hilleman’s] experimental Hep B vaccine which was suspected of causing AIDS in the gay men it was given to.”

    Mr. Crosby, you really don’t understand any of this, do you?

    The hepatitis B vaccine was prepared from hepatitis B surface antigen purified from the plasma of hepatitis B-infected human donors. I’ll supply a link to the full text of the Hilleman paper; note that the vaccine was TESTED in chimpanzees but PREPARED by centrifugation of human plasma because THE VIRUS COULD NOT BE GROWN IN CELL CULTURE. It was precisely because the vaccine was prepared from human plasma (and not from chimpanzee cells, as you stated) that in the early days of the HIV epidemic some expressed the reasonable concern that a vaccine prepared from the plasma of hepatitis-infected human donors (who might possibly also be infected with HIV) could potentially transmit HIV; however, the purification process (which involved ultrafiltration and viral-destructive treatment with acid, a protease, urea, and formalyn) ensured that there was no viable virus in the vaccine preparation.

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/235/26/2832?ijkey=cf65137fd13c13f64effb7e6cd66d2e9dbd9794c

    Now, after you read the full text of the paper, please reply indicating where it is indicated that “chimp cells were directly involved in the manufacture” of Dr. Hilleman’s hepatitis B vaccine.

  28. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 22:48 #

    Joseph, I don’t know why you even bother with me. I think what I stated is obvious. To me a disabled adult is someone who is incapable of functioning in an independent manner.

    If you are diagnosed with Asperger’s and can function you are not disabled. In fact you may not even meet the criteria required to be diagnosed with Asperger’s if you can obtain a college degree, hold a job, marry, raise kids effectively. The way I see it is that if you can function and receive 5 cents of government disability money that’s 5 cents that my son is not receiving. So yeah, I have a problem with it. The way I read the diagnosis criteria a person with Asperger’s isn’t going on speaking tours and raising kids. They are trapped, unable to function in a social environment with obvious limitations as to being able to hold a job or successfully enter a “love” relationship and maintain it. Those with Asperger’s can not function and deserve a label of disability, those claiming Asperger’s who are functioning are not truly meeting the diagnosis of Asperger’s and should not be labeled as disabled, and in my perhaps ignorant opinion, should not even be labeled as having Asperger’s.

    299.80 Asperger’s Disorder (or Asperger Syndrome)

    An Asperger/HFA screening tool must meet all six areas defined by the DSM-IV description of Asperger Syndrome (A-F below) to qualify for a positive rating from First Signs:

    A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

    (1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors, such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction

    (2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

    (3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)

    (4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

    B. Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

    (1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

    (2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals

    (3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

    (4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

    C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

    D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).

    E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

    F. Criteria are not met for another specific pervasive developmental disorder or schizophrenia.

  29. Joseph October 15, 2009 at 23:22 #

    To me a disabled adult is someone who is incapable of functioning in an independent manner.

    @bensmyson: I understood that part. But apparently a disabled child is a child who has a label, right?

    That’s just an inconsistency I noticed.

    Other than that, your definition of disability is simply mistaken. Being disabled means you can’t do something most people can; something that is generally considered worthwhile. For example, not being able to fly is not a disability, because people in general can’t fly. Not being able to whistle is not a disability because, even if most people can do it, it’s not a skill considered important.

    Not being able to hold friendships and not being able to carry conversations normally are evidently disabilities under this definition. Saying “you’re not disabled if you can work” is pure hogwash, obviously. Imagine someone who holds a job but is deaf or blind. (Incidentally, I’ve had deaf co-workers in the computing profession who lived independently.)

  30. bensmyson October 15, 2009 at 23:49 #

    So what is it Joseph? You tell me.

    “Being disabled means you can’t do something most people can; something that is generally considered worthwhile.”

    My best friend’s father was blinded in an explosion, he returned from the war, got his law degree and practiced law for 40 years. He could not drive, he could not play golf, he could not hunt quail, but he married, had a family and worked. He was not disabled by any definition.

    • Sullivan October 16, 2009 at 22:52 #

      My best friend’s father was blinded in an explosion, he returned from the war, got his law degree and practiced law for 40 years. He could not drive, he could not play golf, he could not hunt quail, but he married, had a family and worked. He was not disabled by any definition.

      Blindness is not a disability?

      Wow. So far wrong that it is just hard to know where to start.

  31. Joseph October 16, 2009 at 00:34 #

    He could not drive, he could not play golf, he could not hunt quail, but he married, had a family and worked. He was not disabled by any definition.

    If he couldn’t drive, in an first-world country, that’s evidently a disability. I guess you need to look up the more official definitions of the term.

    The UN definition:

    Any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.

    The ADA definition:

    1. has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; 2. has a record of such an impairment; or 3. is regarded as having such an impairment.

    The official definitions never say anything about living independently, being employed or being married. You know why? Because it would be absurd (not to mention it would make it impossible to prevent employment discrimination.)

  32. bensmyson October 16, 2009 at 01:29 #

    Perhaps Joseph we are all disabled then mate.

  33. Jake Crosby October 16, 2009 at 01:32 #

    @brian: First of all, you didn’t answer my question: Are you Brian Deer?

    Secondly, you might want to dig a little deeper back in history to get a clue where the blood used in Hep B vaccines came from:

    “The early HB vaccines were prepared in these contaminated chimpanzees. The viruses were grown in the chimps, and then extracted along with a variety of simian virus contaminants (including SV40, SIVs, and SFRs) during the vaccine manufacturing process. The viruses were then injected into the Willowbrook children, gay men, and Black Africans. Of course, many of these people died during this part of the investigation. The survivors, who had developed (HB) antibodies, then contributed their blood. The final vaccine was prepared from this blood by separating the whole cells from the serum. It was from this (pooled) serum that four different sub-types of the 1974-75 HB vaccine were prepared and administered. The 200,000 doses were reportedly tested on these same populations (this estimate is attributed to Maurice Hilleman).”

    http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/aids-coverups/Vaccine_Induced_Pandemic.html

  34. Joseph October 16, 2009 at 01:44 #

    Perhaps Joseph we are all disabled then mate.

    No, but 20% of the population or so report being disabled. It’s a prevalent characteristic of the human condition.

  35. bensmyson October 16, 2009 at 11:37 #

    “No, but 20% of the population or so report being disabled.”

    What about all the people that have no idea they are disabled, who counts them? Most crazy people have no idea they are crazy. Some old people have no idea they are disabled, too much pride to admit it. Alcoholics, drug addicts, what do you want to bet they are “disabled” too? I got a bum knee and it prevents me from wanting to climb stairs, maybe I’m disabled?

    I’m not buying it.

  36. Dedj October 16, 2009 at 12:35 #

    No-one is trying to sell you anything. Your compliance with the modern accepted definitions of disability is not needed, nor does it have any impact of any form on anyone for you to ‘not buy it’.

    People who lack the capacity to self-report as being disabled can be counted in anonymised audits of local health and social care authourity databases, or through random sampling – as happened in the recent NHS autism study. Many places use ICD or DSM coding for the condition, with Read code or similar propriatary codes used in addition.

    “I got a bum knee and it prevents me from wanting to climb stairs, maybe I’m disabled?”

    Depends. ‘bum knee’ could mean anything. Are you still able to climb stairs when you have to, without support or assistance, without non-typical adaptations, without requiring repeated rest, and with enough time and energy left over to complete what ever everyday activity you went up for?

    This is just a simplified and abbreviated list of what an OT/PT would look for during assessments.

    If your ‘bum knee’ significantly limits your mobility to the point where it has a significant impact on your daily living, then yes, you would be disabled regardless of what else you can do.

    Disabled does not mean unable.

  37. brian October 16, 2009 at 19:04 #

    Mr, Crosby, you might reconsider if quoting obvious and nonsensical misstatements from a man who has written “AIDS is undoubtedly ‘man-made’.” is a useful way to support your argument.

    I do not have the time to address the load of nonsense in the article you cited. However, you might consider at least the first paragraph, in which the author begins with this lie:
    “I will be reporting today from my current publication in the May 2001 issue of the peer reviewed scientific journal of Medical Hypotheses . . . .” (Did you miss that? It’s the third sentence.) Of course, Medical Hypothesis is definitely not peer reviewed, and the author’s blatant attempt to inflate the importance of his speculative article by falsely indicating that his article has been critically reviewed by established scientists makes an interesting beginning–but it only gets worse.

    You’ve repeatedly made it absolutely clear that you’re unable to understand the scientific evidence related to your ridiculous posts.

    To answer your question: No, I’m not Brian Deer. Like, him, however, I really don’t have any more time for your nonsense.

  38. Dedj October 16, 2009 at 20:28 #

    “Looks like “Prophylaxis” can be applied to a few more things than just the vaccine-for-the-population model.”

    Yup, this is pretty basic knowledge. So, why then, given how easy it is to find multiple concordant definitions, have you not assumed that others have this knowledge? Even leaving aside the point that the only relevant and applicable definition of prophylaxis that applies to the ‘vaccine’ patent is the one that is being used, that was a pretty weak attempt at hiding in a dictionary.

    Arguing against the idea that Wakefield was involved in a ‘composition’ with intent for it to go into a preventative vaccine, by arguing that the term ‘prophylactic vaccine’ should be read as ‘preventative vaccine’, is unspeakably dim. There are many definitions of prophylactic. The only relevant one agrees with the claims of Deer et al.

    Regardless of your cack-handed chicanary, Wakefield was developing a ‘composition’ with the intent that it would be used in a prophylatic vaccine. This is openly stated in the patent and cannot be denied.

    The patent:

    criticises the MMR population-level vaccine, but does say that ‘measles vaccination is called for as a public health measure’
    argues that a ‘safer’ vaccine is needed
    argues that the ‘now discovered’ ‘composition’ can be given in a ‘immunisation/vaccine’. This is immediately preceeding the call for a safer vaccine
    argues that the ‘composition’ is ‘safe to give to neonates’ in a ‘immunisation/vaccine’. This is straight after discussion of the effects of MMR in young children
    argues that the MMR causes IBD through a ‘insufficient immunological response’, then argues that the ‘composition’ can ‘raise a specific response to MMr and measles virus’ , ‘when used in a vaccine/immunisation’. This is mentioned primary to its use in IBD.

    There is no direct statement of intent to release a ‘vaccine’ (remember, medical treatments cannot legally be patented anyway), there is however, a chain of evidence clearly suggesting that the ‘composition’ was intended for use in a rival vaccine or as a replacement component in MMR, in addition to its secondary description as a treatment in IBD.

  39. Dedj October 16, 2009 at 20:46 #

    “I do not have the time to address the load of nonsense in the article you cited.”

    That Jake would use a unreferenced verbal report from a dentist rather than the original literature is of no suprise.
    That the quote doesn’t say anything supporting Jakes original claim (that he appears to have significantly revised without even realising) is also of no suprise.
    That Jake responds to direct references to the original literature with what amounts to calling you ignorant and then providing a piss-poor reference, is also of no suprise.
    That this entire sub-discussion arose from Jakes attempt to use the introduction of aids into the US to smear Hilleman, and by implication, the MMR (or whatever that boy was trying to do with his sarcastic “What a suprise….” remark), is also of no suprise.

    That Jakes defence will be as bad as his offence will not be a suprise.

  40. bensmyson October 16, 2009 at 20:55 #

    “a chain of evidence clearly suggesting …. ”

    I guess the key word is “suggesting” as in your new car suggests that I have a lot of money when fact is your new car is the cause of your financial ruin.

    I suggest everyone stick to the facts.

  41. Dedj October 16, 2009 at 21:42 #

    What an odd analogy, some things are more suggestive of certain conclusions than others.

    Not sure what ‘facts’ you want everyone to stick to, or why the patent application does not constitute a ‘fact’. Perhaps you’d be willing to ‘stick to the facts’ concerning the official definitions and applications of disabilty that Joseph raised with you above.

    No?

    Thought not.

    Sticking to ‘the facts’ is great, until we get into discussion of whether something is even a ‘fact’ (as with the patent application). Once that happens ‘stick to the facts’ is just another way of saying ‘I don’t like what you’re saying, so I’m not going to listen’.

    Toodles.

  42. bensmyson October 16, 2009 at 22:34 #

    I read the patent application. I did not read anything about Wakefield creating a vaccine, that’s a fact.

    Perhaps “disabled” is a political term. Perhaps Joseph perceives himself as being disabled. Is offended that anyone suggest taking that mantel of identity away from him. Perhaps, as I said, we are all disabled to some degree or another. I’m sure a few glasses of wine might make you temporarily disabled, the depression over lost income and mounting debt may make you disabled. I guess I see it in a primitive manner, if you can survive on your own, you are not disabled.

    And your comment, “Disabled does not mean unable.” is wrong. Disabled means exactly that, unable. Look it up.

    • Sullivan October 16, 2009 at 22:46 #

      I read the patent application. I did not read anything about Wakefield creating a vaccine, that’s a fact.

      It may be a fact that you didn’t read anything about a vaccine. It is certainly not a fact that the patent didn’t include anything about a vaccine.

      From the patent application:

      “”Such a composition may be used as a measles virus vaccine and for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and regressive behavioural disorder.”

      “I have now discovered a combined vaccine/theraputic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to neonates by way of vaccination, but which also can be used to treat IBD whether as a complete cure or to alleviate symptoms.”

      Either one is crystal clear as to the intent to use the invention as a vaccine in the classic sense.

  43. brian October 16, 2009 at 22:59 #

    Dedj, Mr. Crosby was identified last year as an undergraduate majoring in history at Brandeis, where the general education requirements, so far as I can tell, include a single one-semester course in a science. Perhaps that sort of rigorous introduction to the sciences provided him with the knowledge and experience necessary to critically evaluate extremely technical issues in medicine, genetics, molecular biology, virology, immunology, and epidemiology, but his posts do not suggest that expertise.

    • Sullivan October 16, 2009 at 23:43 #

      Mr. Crosby was identified last year as an undergraduate majoring in history at Brandeis,

      Just to be clear: Mr. Crosby himself has divulged this information.

  44. bensmyson October 16, 2009 at 23:26 #

    Where does Wakefield’s name appear on this June 6, 1997 patent application?
    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

    And best I can tell Wakefield is an inventor, not an applicant. An applicant of course would be the one who held the patent.

    • Sullivan October 16, 2009 at 23:37 #

      How ironic all this is, considering the heat that Dr. Offit gets for “holding” a patent.

      You are correct, Dr. Wakefield would not have “held” the patent. He would have expected to benefit from any royalties, however.

      Dr. Wakefield would have assigned his rights to the Royal Free Hospital. He would have been an inventor. Based on the agreement he had with the Royal Free, had the invention ever been commercialized Dr. Wakefield would have been given a percentage of the royalties.

      It is a conflict of interest. Based on the standards in the medical community, as I understand them, this need not be disclosed until the patent was made public.

  45. bensmyson October 16, 2009 at 23:28 #

    Maybe you believe the word “disability” means handicapped. My friend’s father was handicapped but had proven himself not to be disabled.

    • Sullivan October 16, 2009 at 23:52 #

      Maybe you believe the word “disability” means handicapped. My friend’s father was handicapped but had proven himself not to be disabled.

      You can believe what you want. You can redefine terms to your own purposes. Just don’t expect everyone to follow.

  46. Joseph October 17, 2009 at 00:23 #

    Perhaps Joseph perceives himself as being disabled. Is offended that anyone suggest taking that mantel of identity away from him.

    Arm-chair psycho-analysis has no bearing on the meaning of the terms we’re discussing, bensmyson. It’s entirely irrelevant, and presumptuous.

    I guess I see it in a primitive manner, if you can survive on your own, you are not disabled.

    You can see it any way you want, but you’re basically making up a definition of disability that is not even similar to the standard definition, either in the way it’s understood by most people in practice, or the way it’s officially defined.

  47. Dedj October 17, 2009 at 00:27 #

    “I read the patent application. I did not read anything about Wakefield creating a vaccine, that’s a fact.”

    Didn’t say you did. Didn’t say there was. In fact, I’ve said it’s true the Wakefield was not patenting a vaccine. I’m not even sure if such a thing would be legal, as medical treatments are on the exclusion lists.

    The patent is for a ‘composition’. The ‘composition’ is clearly identified as a potential prophylactic vaccine component in the patent. The MMR is clearly criticised in the patent. The patent mentions the need for a vaccine program for public health reasons. The patent mentions that a safe alternative is needed. The patent mentions that the ‘composition’ should be safe to give in a vaccine to the same age group.

    It’s really not as hard as you and Jake are finding it.

    Wakefields name appears where the letters w,a,k,e,f,i,e,l,d appear all in a row. He is listed as the inventor as, er, you pointed out. I’m not sure why you think this absolves Wakefield. It’s not unusual for inventors to use their employer to patent thier work and collect inventors fee, as did Dr Offit with CHOP.

  48. Dedj October 17, 2009 at 00:53 #

    “And your comment, “Disabled does not mean unable.” is wrong. Disabled means exactly that, unable. Look it up.”

    Actually, it only means to be significantly impaired in an area of functioning, where that function would normally be expected given age, culture and gender.

    It’s possible to have some level of function yet still qualify as disabled.

    Joseph has already given you the ADA and UN definition.

    The DDA definition is “The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001069

    The WHO and ICF definitions are similar.

    I don’t know who you’re getting your definition from, but it doesn’t appear to be any of the reputable sources.

    I’m also betting you have no recent clinical experience of assessing or treating disability.

  49. Dedj October 17, 2009 at 01:12 #

    “Dedj, Mr. Crosby was identified last year as an undergraduate majoring in history at Brandeis, where the general education requirements, so far as I can tell, include a single one-semester course in a science”

    I’m suprised a history course had any science requirement at all. Hell I’ve seen History degree courses that don’t even require a History A-Level (although I’d assume you’d be highly unlikely to get in).

    Not that my course was that tough on entry requirements. All that was required was the equivilant of B in A-level biology and two other subjects at CC. I got in with a HE Diploma (high school diploma?) so I can’t claim any sort of expertise from that. 3 years studying in a health profession and multiple clinical placements can help you be a bit more informed and experienced than the average Joe.

  50. bensmyson October 17, 2009 at 01:55 #

    Dedji I believe the problem lays in the fact that you are in the UK and I am in the US.

    “The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

    To me this means unable to function in a manner to maintain an independent life.

    You guys invented the language, I will let you have your definition and I will keep mine.

    In this Country the Social Security administration defines disability as the inability to perform substantial gainful activity that has exceeded 12 months, or is expected to exceed 12 months. Substantial gainful activity is generally considered that someone is incapable of earning more than $500 per month. $500 a month is hardly living independently. The legal definition is an injury or medical condition that interferes with an individual’s ability to perform one or more of the functions of daily life or of work. I guess I’m disabled and entitled to some money. I will start work on that first thing Monday morning and let you know how it goes. Please excuse my ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: