Archive by Author

Read Dierdre Imus…lost another irony meter

12 Feb

Dierdre Imus, autism hero? Vampire antivaccine activist sucking the life out of the autism community to further her agenda? Somewhere in between?

I don’t know. I don’t follow her that closely. I did see a really horrible panel discussion she “moderated” last year in New Jersey. “Moderated” in this case being a title, not a good description of her actions. Let’s just say that they gave me an idea of what would have happened if Sharryl Attkisson has been able to “moderate” a panel discussion for the Vaccine court last fall as originally planned. Eew.

Ms. Imus seems to be angry with Paul Offit. You see, Dr. Offit came on to her turf, the Huffington Post, and blogged about vaccines being a good thing. Given the nature of the Huffington Post, the only remarkable part of that exchange was Dr. Offit blogging there. So, it wouldn’t be worth discussing if Ms. Imus didn’t bring up a tired old standard of the anti-vaccine arsenal: comparing other people’s actions (Dr. Offit in this case) to the people who promoted tobacco safety.

In her piece, Ms. Imus states right after a lengthy discussion of the tobacco industry:

We can all learn a great deal by simply looking back on history and remembering how corporations, whose products are linked to serious diseases, employed scientists, physicians and public relation firms to disseminate misinformation and manage the business of “damage control.” By doing so, we realize that we have seen Offit’s act before.

The whole tobacco company thing is annoying. It has been annoying for some time and it will stay annoying for some time to come, I am sure. I recall this tactic being used last year by a blogger at the Age of Autism. He was angry that Dr. Offit was given publicity on the Today Show. The blogger claimed that Dr. Offit was acting like the scientists who backed tobacco safety.

Ah, right. Orac at Respectful Insolence has covered how the logic is just completely false in that sort of argument. So, I will just point out the annoying irony.

The same Today show episode had Dr. Bernadine Healy on it. Dr. Healy has made comments supportive of vaccine-autism research, so you can imagine that the Age of Autism loved her in that episode.

Here’s the irony. Dr. Offit or Dr. Healy, which one is named in documents in the tobacco company document database?

That’s right, Dr. Healy. She was medical advisor to TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. TASSC was funded by tobacco companies directly and through other groups to fight the idea that second hand tobacco smoke causes cancer.

There are a couple of databases on line. I looked through them a big–and, yes, I found documents from TASSC with Dr. Healy’s name on them Here’s a letter I found where TASSC is asking the tobacco company Brown and Williamson for $50,000 in funding. Dr. Healy’s name is right there on the letterhead. Now, she didn’t write that letter presumably, but she’s on the board, so it seems clear that she was paid tobacco money.

So, the vaccines-cause-autism groups have a former tobacco-company paid consultant as a hero. Yet, they claim people who disagree with them are bad people, similar to those who were…well, paid consultants to tobacco companies.

Bang! There goes the irony meter.

Now, I know people will complain about this piece. And, if I could find an apology from Dr. Healy for her actions with TASSC, I would agree. I’ve looked. If someone can point me to it, I’ll gladly post it with my apology.

Omnibus decisions in–acknowledging the test case families

12 Feb

The Omnibus decisions on MMR are in. Answer: no. Clearly no, they did not find that MMR with or without thimerosal cause autism. The court found that the cases were without merit.

This will obviously be a topic much discussed in the next few days. But, for right now, I’d like to acknowledge the bravery of the families who allowed their stories to be the “test cases” for the omnibus: the Cedillos, the Hazlehursts and the Snyders.

Yes, I agree with the decisions by the Court. Yes, I think the vaccine question has and will continue to sidetrack the greater autism community from more important efforts. But, the Court made a point in the decisions that the families stepped forward with good faith.

They put their lives in the public eye. They can appeal (and I expect it will happen). But they can’t do what the Krakow’s did, and what appears to be an option for the rest of the Omnibus families: change the story and resubmit to the court.

It was a good decision, and good for the autism community as a whole. For me, I’m taking at least a day to process before blogging the decision. In that time, I’d like to acknowledge that the Cedillos, the Hazlehursts and the Snyders put themselves on the line for what they believe in. They did it to try to help other families. I can disagree with them and still acknowledge the bravery of that action.

Kirby blows another irony meter

11 Feb

I need to find a source for militaryp-spec irony meters.

David Kirby has posted a piece on the Brian Deer investigation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Here’s the comment that blew the irony meter:

Imagine if a US journalist sued a doctor for libel or misconduct, and then went to the NY Times and asked to be hired as a freelancer to cover the trial that they themselves had instigated in the first place. It wouldn’t happen.

So, David, you wrote “Evidence of Harm”, massively fanning the flames of the mercury causation theory.

You are now blogging on the Age of Autism blog.

Are you paid for that effort?

I haven’t seen a lot of non-vaccine/autism bylines for you in the past few years. So, if AoA is paying you, it would be a sizable fraction of your “journalist” salary.

If so, couldn’t it be well argued that you created your own “journalist” job?

Ironic, eh?

Ah well…as long as we are discussing Mr. Kirby, here is another of his comments:

In his writing, Deer claimed that Wakefield had made up results about severe MMR reactions in the children just days after receiving the shots, had ignored signs of autism in some kids before they received their MMR vaccine, and changed lab reports on the gut biopsies – among other alleged infractions that have been covered in the two year trial in London of Wakefield et al.

The accusations printed in the Sunday Times are, frankly, outlandish. And they are false.

Hmmm, false? Do you have the facts to back that up? Have you seen the medical records that Mr. Deer has reported on? It seems highly unlikely to this observer.

Let’s look at some of Mr. Deer’s claims:

Supposedly, Dr. Wakefield found measles RNA in the guts of his subjects. From Mr. Deer’s report, the father of child 11 from the Lancet study has stated that he had no fewer than 3 separate tests for measles RNA from the same gut biopsies that Wakefield tested. Three negative results.

Dr. Wakefield claimed that the children were developing normally before the MMR. According to the Deer article, another child from the original 12’s story:

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

Dr. Wakefield claimed that the 12 study subjects were presented sequentially to his hospital, indicating that they were randomly selected. And, yet, none of them were in the Royal Free Hospital’s catchment area–or even the greater London area. That’s one fact that doesn’t take access to the GMC’s records. And it demonstrates a clear non-random nature to the subject choice.

How about the report by Dr. Wakefield that the subjects had regressions shortly after their MMR shot? Again, from Mr. Deer’s article:

This was Child Two, an eight-year-old boy from Peter-borough, Cambridgeshire, diagnosed with regressive autism, which, according to the Lancet paper, started “two weeks” after his jab.

However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later.

A pretty major disconnect between Dr. Wakefield’s story and the medical records.

How about the measles-in-the-gut theory? Dr. Chadwick, working in Dr. Wakefield’s own hospital, testified in the Omnibus proceeding that he told Dr. Wakefield pre-publication that the PCR data directly contradicted the results Dr. Wakefield was publishing. Dr. Wakefield knew when he published that there were good data that showed he was incorrect. How did you sweep that under the rug, Mr. Kirby?

Did Dr. Wakefield fabricate results or is there another reason why he got a lot of very important facts wrong? I don’t know, but I do agree with Dr. Fitzpatrick who asked why Dr. Wakefield’s papers have not been retracted. They should be.

(And I thought Dierdre Imus wrote the worst blog post of the day!)

post-publication note: Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick has written an excellent article on Dr. Wakefield’s studies, including the recent information from Mr. Deer.

Fitzpatrick on the recent Wakefield news

11 Feb

Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick has written the article I wish I could have done–

The MMR scare: from foolishness to fraud?

For anyone looking to understand the timeline and the important questions raised by the Brian Deer investigations, this is a must read.

Dr. Fitzpatrick asks a very important question one must consider–if there is such a big disconnect between what the Wakefield papers report and the actual histories of the children (and the disconnects seem to be very significant), shouldn’t the journals print retractions?

Following Brian Deer’s 2004 revelations about Dr Wakefield’s conflicts of interest arising from undisclosed legal aid funding, 10 of his Lancet co-authors retracted the suggestion of a link between MMR and autism (while upholding the paper’s claim to have identified a distinctive form of bowel inflammation in autistic children). It is now clear that, given the selection bias confirmed by Deer – quite apart from his other allegations – it is not possible to make such a claim on the basis of the Lancet cases. Surely it is now time for the authors to withdraw this paper in its entirety? Perhaps the editor of the Lancet – together with those of the other journals involved – could submit Deer’s allegations to some sort of tribunal, perhaps arranged by the Medical Research Council. For 10 years the world of science has witnessed Dr Wakefield’s foolishness; now it has to ask: has he crossed the line into fraud?

Another good source on the Wakefield studies is in Paul Offit’s book “Autism’s False Prophets“.

You may recall that someone has YouTube’d Autism’s False Prophets. Yes, Story Time with Darwin. If you have problems reading or just want to listen in to the sections on Dr. Wakefield, give “Story Time” a try.

There are a LOT of blogs discussing this. I Speak of Dreams is keeping a running list.

Picking a couple–Respectful Insolence has Why am I not surprised? It looks as though Andrew Wakefield probably falsified his data.

Bad Astronomy has Did the founder of the antivax movement fake autism-vaccine link?

It is worth noting that Dr. Wakefield published a statement of his own as In his desperation, Deer gets it wrong once again.

Dr. Wakefield is in a strange position, since the GMC hearings are still ongoing to determine whether his methods warrant disciplinary action. That said, Dr. Wakefield’s statement responds to a letter that Brian Deer sent prior to publication. It is unclear if this response was sent to Mr. Deer before publication, or if any response was made pre-publication. That said, I wonder why Dr. Wakefield didn’t respond to the specific information from the children’s records which contradicts the story presented in Dr. Wakefield’s papers. What Dr. Wakefield does do is offload responsibility to others–other authors and the parents.

The reporting of the children in the Lancet paper is an accurate account of the clinical histories as reported to Professor Walker-Smith and his clinical colleagues.

One comment that has been made to a blog is worth paraphrasing here. Dr. Wakefield comments in his response:

Finally, I did not “create” a scare but rather, I responded to a scare that parents brought to my attention.

Perhaps Dr. Wakefield didn’t “create” a scare. But, what he did was throw gasoline on a lit match. To stand back and claim no responsibility for burning down the house is quite disingenuous.

Wakefield

10 Feb

The name alone conjures up strong images for many in the autism communities. If you think vaccines cause autism, he is a hero. For many others, he has brought shame to the greater autism community.

In addition, I know many who think that Andrew Wakefield’s time has come and gone and we should just ignore him now. To those, I apologize, but the recent information is just too important to ignore.

Kev would be able to show the annoyance that Dr. Wakefield’s research has caused many of us in the autism community. It would be a better read than this–a post written by someone who finds the entire affair sad. Too much harm has been caused by what even before today was already pretty obviously bad science. It’s just a sad story that has just gotten sadder.

For those who may not know, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on the papers which attempted to link autism to the MMR vaccine. The story is so long and tortuous that it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. You know what, if you don’t already know the story–count yourself lucky and skip this post! How’s that for an introduction?

Brian Deer took a closer look than most (all?) journalists at Dr. Wakefield’s story. He exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s patients were litigants claiming MMR caused autism. He also exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield and some on his team were well paid for their efforts.

It is very likely that Mr. Deer’s investigation is what prompted the General Medical Council (GMC) to investigate Dr. Wakefield’s actions in this research. As part of that investigation, the GMC has collected medical histories of the subjects of Dr. Wakefield’s study. And, Brian Deer has had access to these data, and they don’t match what was presented by Dr. Wakefield’s team.

Before we look at what was said in the papers and what the medical histories actually indicated, let’s look at the introduction from the original Lancet paper:

We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance. We describe the clinical findings, and gastrointestinal features of these children.

Compare that to what’s here’s Brian Deer’s article, MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Ouch.

Here’s a more thorough article, again by Mr. Deer:

Hidden records show MMR truth
A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination

As a short sidetrack, Mr. Deer isn’t the only one suggesting that there were problems with the Wakefield studies.

Wakefield claimed (in a separate paper from the original Lancet article) that his team found evidence of persistent measles virus in gut biopsies from the autistic children he saw. In the Omnibus hearing, a member of Wakefield’s team told the story of how the data which clearly disagreed with Wakefield’s conclusions was ignored.

Or, to put it another way, Dr. Chadwick [note correction] told Dr. Wakefield that he (Bustin) had data which directly contradicted the results Wakefield was going to publish. This should have quashed the paper, and, yet, not mention is even made of it by Wakefield et al.

But, back to the Brian Deer report.

Let’s look at a few examples from Mr. Deer’s story. There were 12 children in the original study. Mr. Deer refers to them as child 1 through child 12. Mr. Deer looks at them individually..

Child 11 had a “positive” test for measles RNA by Wakefield’s team. The father had 3–yes 3!–other labs test the same biopsy samples. Result? No sign of measles.

Here’s a bit about child one from Mr. Deer’s story:

In the paper this claim would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said “behavioural symptoms” started “one week” after he received the MMR.

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

It’s very tempting to quote example after example, but I’ll just end up copying the entire story. I encourage you to read the story, there are numerous examples of how many of the 12 subjects of Wakefield’s study were not previously normal.

Rather than pick all the examples of discrepancies about development of Wakefield’s subjects, how about the second part of the question: did these kids all show GI problems? Again, there are numerous examples in Mr. Deer’s story. Here’s an excerpt.

The most striking change of opinion came in the case of Child Three, a six-year-old from Huyton, Merseyside. He was reported in the journal to be suffering from regressive autism and bowel disease: specifically “acute and chronic nonspecific colitis”. The boy’s hospital discharge summary, however, said there was nothing untoward in his biopsy.

A Royal Free consultant pathologist questioned a draft text of the paper. “I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word ‘colitis’,” Susan Davies, a co-author, told the ongoing GMC inquiry into the ethics of how the children were treated, in September 2007.

“I was concerned that what we had seen in these children was relatively minor.”

Not only are there problems in the reported information and the records, one of the co-authors is indicating that the paper overplayed the data they had.

Sorry, but this all just makes me more sad. Sometimes bad science can be, well a little funny. Sometimes just annoying. This is just really sad.

“A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”

What more can be said?

(note: I edited this shortly after publishing it. The substance was not changed)

Support a Disability-Friendly Stimulus

9 Feb

As noted recently on this blog, the U.S. economic stimulus package may have a big impact on the disability community.

I have concentrated on special education funding, but it goes deeper than that.

ASAN has an action alert on the change.org website. You can fill out a message and it will be sent to your legislators.

From the website:

Today, the Senate will likely pass stimulus legislation that includes substantial cuts in special education, vocational rehabilitation and other disability-related spending provisions as compared to the House version. Afterwards, the Senate and House will reconcile the bills and come up with a consensus version. This action alert enables you to tell your legislators how important it is to keep disability spending provisions fully funded as in the House version.

Please (PLEASE) take a minute and send the message.

Stimulus package update

7 Feb

I knew I was running the risk of having my last post become obsolete immediately. Had I checked the news before I hit publish, I’d have seen that reports were out that the U.S. Senate had already passed their version of the bill, making it obsolete even before it was public.

OK, remember your civics classes? Or, if you are not a U.S. citizen, remember all those times that the U.S. political system seemed utterly confusing?

This is one of those times. (But, bear with me…or skip to the bottom: we need your help!)

First the House of Representatives passed their stimulus bill: H.R. 1. After they finished, they sent the bill to the Senate. The Senate, being a bunch of opinionated people, get to muck around with H.R. 1 and rewrite it. What just happened today is that the Senate passed their version of the Stimulus package. This is S.A. 98. In the process of rewriting, they added, oh, about 400 amendments to the bill. I’d love to tell you what they are, but they’ve come in so fast and furious that the government’s website hasn’t been able to catch up yet.

Many of the amendments say:

AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

Here’s one that seemed good to me,

To provide an additional $6,500,000,000 to the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research.

Yep, $6.5B, with a B. That version got shot down…but this version (which appears the same in the short summary) got approved. Like I said, the U.S. Political system can be a little strange.

OK, it’s late. I don’t want to read through another 300 amendments. Especially when the amendment that has the cut to IDEA is buried in a quick summary like “to eliminate unnecessary spending”.

The word on the street (and probably somewhere on the Thomas.loc.gov website) is that the IDEA funding increase was cut down.

Does that mean the struggle is over? Hardly. It won’t be easy to get the funding level increased again, but keep in mind, the Senate and House versions of the bill are not the same. Before they send it to President Obama, they have to reconcile the two bills.

Or, as one news story puts it:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said negotiators from the House and Senate would begin crafting a compromise bill on Monday, with the goal of sending legislation to President Barack Obama by the end of next week.

So, there is a chance for the the House to assert its version of IDEA funding.

In other words, now would be a good time to call, email or fax your member of congress or senators.

IDEA funding

7 Feb

One of the reasons I was hopeful that Mr. Obama would be elected presidency was his promise to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This is the law which mandates special education in the United States. The original promise is that the federal government would pay for 40% of the costs of special education.

It never happened. I don’t think it ever got to 20%.

That a country like the United States could make a promise to some of those in greatest need and then not live up to the promise is painful for me to admit as an American.

If you’ve been keeping up on the news lately, even outside the US, you probably know that Mr. Obama has a huge (nearly $1 trillion) economic stimulus plan proposed.

What you may not know is that IDEA funding is included in the stimulus plan.

House Resolution 1 includes the following language

For an additional amount for `Special Education’ for carrying out section 611 and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (`IDEA’), $13,600,000,000: Provided, That $13,000,000,000 shall be available for section 611 of the IDEA, of which $6,000,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2009, and remain available through September 30, 2010, and $7,000,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2010, and remain available through September 30, 2011: Provided further, That $600,000,000 shall be available for part C of the IDEA, of which $300,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2009, and remain available through September 30, 2010, and $300,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2010, and remain available through September 30, 2011: Provided further, That by July 1, 2009, the Secretary of Education shall reserve the amount needed for grants under section 643(e) of the IDEA from funds available for obligation on July 1, 2009, with any remaining funds to be allocated in accordance with section 643(c) of the IDEA: Provided further, That by July 1, 2010, the Secretary shall reserve the amount needed for grants under section 643(e) of the IDEA from funds available for obligation on July 1, 2010, with any remaining funds to be allocated in accordance with section 643(c) of the IDEA: Provided further, That if every State, as defined by section 602(31) of the IDEA, reaches its maximum allocation under section 611(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the IDEA, and there are remaining funds, such funds shall be proportionally allocated to each State subject to the maximum amounts contained in section 611(a)(2) of the IDEA: Provided further, That the provisions of section 1106 of this Act shall not apply to this appropriation.

It’s not perfect, but it was a big step forward in funding special education.

But, as Kristina Chew (and others) have noted, there is a push to cut this proposed amount.

Now would be a good time to let your legislators–especially senators–know that fully funding IDEA is the right thing to do.

Take a look at this document–it’s actually a pain since I couldn’t search it. It lists the funding increases for school districts under the original stimulus plan. I picked California since the Los Angeles Unified school district is HUGE. Just to make this point–the stimulus plan would add $90,000,000 to their budget in 2009.

Look up your state and school district here.

This could make a huge difference.

Don’t let them cut this proposed funding. At least, let’s not go down without a fight.

Autistic

5 Feb

This is one of those posts where the idea has been rolling around in my head for a very long time. For whatever reason, I feel the need to finally put it into words.

There is a struggle going on as to whether the word “autistic” is a valid now. As in, “Autistics deserve better”. There is a big push for “person first” language such as “people with autism deserve better”.

I’ll admit, I use both.

I’ll also admit, I think that people with autism deserve to have the vote in how they can refer to themselves and how they want others to refer to them.

Arguments against “autistic” range from silly (“autistic isn’t in the dictionary”) to something I can at least understand, if not fully agree with (“person first language honors the person, not the condition”).

On example of the push for person-first language cam in the last year or so. New York State passed a law requiring person first language in official documents. One autistic I know pointed out to me that groups such as the Society for the Blind or the Society for the Deaf, for example, might not appreciate the idea. Think of changing the name to “Society for people with blindess”. Any reason to do that?

Much of the discussion of “person first” in regards to autism, I am fairly sure, based on the nature of the term “Mental Retardation”. Once we hear “mental retardation”, it is hard to not hear “Mentally Retarded”, “Retarded” or the word that was discussed a lot in 2008: “Retard”.

“Retard” is vile and pejorative. It is an ugly playground taunt that has no place on the playground and unfortunately many adults never left behind. It has tainted the term “Mental Retardation”. Journals now recommend avoiding the term “Mentally Retarded”. Here is an excerpt from the Information for Authors on the American Journal of Mental Retardation (AJMR) website:

When context makes it clear whether an author is referring to people with mental retardation or when it is otherwise unnecessary to refer to intellectual level or diagnostic category, authors should use the most descriptive generic terms, such as children, students, or persons, without using qualifiers such as “with mental retardation,” “with handicaps,” or “with developmental disabilities.” Under no circumstances should retarded be used as a noun. Prepositional constructions such as “students with mental retardation,” or “individuals who have mental retardation’ are preferred over adjectival constructions such as “mentally retarded people,” except when clear communication dictates occasional use of adjectival designations. Because normal has multiple meanings and may inappropriately imply abnormal where it is not applied, this word should not be used. Instead, more operationally descriptive terms such as “intellectually average pupils” should be used.

(emphasis mine)

There is a lot of interesting stuff there. I like, most of all, the suggestion that generic terms (children, students or persons) be used as much as possible.

An interesting thing to note is that if you look on the journal archive page, you will see that starting in 2009, AJMR changed its name to the American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AJIDD). This is in part to recognize the broader scope of the journal (which includes papers on autism, fragile-x and other conditions). When I first saw this change, I couldn’t help thinking part of the reason is to get away from the term “Mental Retardation” as well and this is confirmed by an editorial in the first AJIDD issue:

The Journal has also changed dramatically over the years, with the issues addressed reflecting advances in technology, the advent of new theories and methods in other fields, and changing societal concerns. These influences have also led to a name change for the Journal. In part, the change has been motivated by a desire to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation. I fully endorse this change in terminology because it reflects our field’s commitment not only to our science but to the people whose lives we hope to improve through our efforts. Quite simply, the change in terminology is a tangible sign of our respect for, and solidarity with, people who have disabilities and their families.

The phrase I focus in upon is “… to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation.” (emphasis mine)

You see, it wasn’t always that “mental retardation” held as negative a connotation as it does today. More to the point of this post–we don’t have to let “autistic” become negative.

From my vantage point it seems as though if we say, “Don’t call my kid autistic” or “Don’t call me autistic”, we are creating the negative connotation where one doesn’t exist today. What if “the blind” or “the deaf” had complained years ago? Would we now be cringing when we hear the names of societies for “the blind” or “the deaf”?

I am not so disingenuous as to ignore the major difference between deafness, blindness and autism. Of the three, autism is the one associated with intellectual disability and differences in personality. It is a harder battle to keep respect in the connotations of “autistic” than for “blind” or “Deaf”.

But, I for one am not willing to help make “autistic” a bad word.

Send feedback before tomorrow's IACC meeting

3 Feb

The next IACC meeting is tomorrow. One subject sure to come up is the proposed vaccine initiatives. These are projects that were added to the plan (outside of the normal procedure) and later removed. Instead of actual initiatives (planned research), vaccines are now discussed in the Plan as something the IACC needs to get further input on–from the vaccine experts.

If you think, as I do, that the Plan has been delayed long enough by the organizations promoting vaccine causation, let the IACC know. You can email the IACC at iacc@mail.nih.gov.

Alternatively, as discussed in a comment here a web based form has been set up here to allow you to give feedback easiliy.

You can go to that site, enter your information and message and send feedback to the IACC and Dr. Insel, director of the NIMH and chair of the IACC.

The form has a default message, which I have copied below.

Dear Dr. Insel,

As you are well aware, some initiatives were inserted into the IACC’s Strategic Plan in December which would budget for vaccine related research. As you yourself noted in the January meeting, those initiatives did not go through the standard procedure and were not cleared by the science subcommittees.

I approve of the move to submit those initiatives to a re-vote in the January IACC meeting, and agree with the majority of the IACC members that it is inappropriate to keep these initiatives in the Plan at this time.

In addition, I would like to express my concern that the Strategic Plan process has been significantly delayed already by attempts to incorporate vaccine language, and I would urge you to not allow these delays to continue. Now is the time for the first Strategic Plan to be submitted to congress and for the research called for in the Combating Autism Act to begin.

Respectfully submitted.

It appears that groups such as Generation Rescue are fine with research being delayed as long as it keeps hope alive for the vaccinated/non-vaccinated comparison study.

That’s who the IACC is hearing from right now. Do you want that to be the only opinion they hear?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →