Archive by Author

Cookie Mag talks to the expert (not plural)

18 Jul

Cookie Magazine has found itself getting a lot more traffic than normal as of late. Amanda Peet was featured and spoke out for vaccines.

Lock the doors! How could someone say vaccines are good!

Well, we all know how people can jump on that subject. All too well. Amanda Peet got her information by talking to an expert of vaccines, Dr. Paul Offit. She was pretty darned lucky to have a connection like that, in my view.

Long story short, after statements, an apology (but not backpedaling!), lots of internet discussion, a threat here and there, Cookie Magazine now has posted some interviews with Dr. Offit (vaccine expert) and, huh?, Dr. Jay Gordon.

Oh, Kay. Dr. Jay, on the same level as Dr. Offit?

Actually, I think I’ll print out the Dr. Offit interview for people with questions. As for Dr. Jay, well, here’s the final quote:

How do you reconcile the notion of not vaccinating with the public health benefit that you mentioned earlier?
I think that the public health benefits to vaccinating are grossly overstated. I think that if we spent as much time telling people to breastfeed or to quit eating cheese and ice cream, we’d save more lives than we save with the polio vaccine.

People seem to think there are two sides to this discussion. Yep, there’s preventing disease and stopping people from eating cheese.

Amanda Peet Aplogizes…

17 Jul

…about the word parasite but at the same time, she holds her ground on the issues surrounding vaccines.

She notes that the term “parasites” was “mean and divisive”.

I wanted to address my comment in Cookie magazine that “parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.” I believe in my heart that my use of the word “parasites” was mean and divisive; I completely understand why it offended some parents, and in particular, parents of children with autism who feel that vaccines caused their illness. For this I am truly sorry. Since my mom has Parkinson’s Disease, I know what it feels like to want a concrete cause, and a concrete cure, as soon as possible.

Cookie Magazine deserves the click-through, so go ahead and read the entire statement. Here’s another taste, though:

However, I still believe that the decision not to vaccinate our children bodes for a dangerous future. Vast reductions in immunization will lead to a resurgence of deadly viruses. This is as indisputable as global warming. I know a lot of parents who secretly use as a justification, “Well, enough other people are vaccinating, so therefore, we don’t have to.”

Unfortunately, the apology is not being met well in some circles. I’ve already read people comment that she couldn’t have written that herself. Just a thought here: she graduated from Columbia, not Google U.

I’ve been told recently that it’s really neat how both sides of a story can be told. So, in that spirit, here’s a link to Jenny McCarthy’s apology to Dr. David Tayloe of the AAP and Dr. Harvey Karp, for shouting “bull****” at them on TV. I promise to put it up when I get it. Maybe I missed it.

In searching for a possible Jenny McCarthy apology, I tried a search for jenny mccarthy apology. What I got was a lot of hits to the Amanda Peet apology. Including AutismVox.

Is this guy for real?

17 Jul

From Media Matters:

On the July 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage claimed that autism is “[a] fraud, a racket.” Savage went on to say, “I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, ‘Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.’ ” Savage concluded, “[I]f I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, ‘Don’t behave like a fool.’ The worst thing he said — ‘Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.’ That’s what I was raised with. That’s what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.”

SAVAGE: Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I’m not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. For a long while, we were hearing that every minority child had asthma. Why did they sudden — why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I’ll tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket. Everyone went in and was told [fake cough], “When the nurse looks at you, you go [fake cough], ‘I don’t know, the dust got me.’ ” See, everyone had asthma from the minority community. That was number one.

Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.

What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”

Autism — everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, “Don’t behave like a fool.” The worst thing he said — “Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.” That’s what I was raised with. That’s what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.

So this mans dad said: “Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot” eh?

Doesn’t sound like the advice sunk in.

Oh and next time someone tells you we don’t need more autism awareness, play them this.

Comparison of EvidenceOfHarm traffic and VAERS autism reporting

17 Jul

This will be a quick post. The following is a graph (obtained from compete.com last month) of the EvidenceOfHarm.com traffic pattern from May, 2007 to May, 2008. Click for a bigger version.

The effect of a couple of well known events over the last year is clear in the graph. Traffic spikes up on the same month or a month after the event; then it returns to baseline after a relatively short period of time. Note also that the Hannah Poling event was apparently more important that the McCarthy event.

I also collected the number of VAERS reports that have “autism” listed in the Symptoms field submitted every month from May, 2007 to May, 2008. You can see a time series of this data in the following figure.

My interpretation of this? The majority of VAERS reports related to autism are driven by publicity rather than unequivocal occurrences of vaccine injury. Of course, other interpretations are possible.

Legal Bombshell in Autism Omnibus Proceeding!

17 Jul

This is a Guest Blogged piece, written by a beloved legal expert – Clem Heckenberry.

In what can only be described as a legal bombshell, the Petitioners in the Autism Omnibus hearings seemingly withdrew four of its highest profile experts to support the various claims that say that vaccines cause autism. The experts are James B Adams, Mark Robin Geier, Boyd E Haley and Andrew J Wakefield. The ‘New’ experts are those we recognise from the testimony offered thus far. Indeed, this reporter can find no further mention of Adams, Geier, Haley or Wakefield as expert witnesses for the petitioners.

If this case was in the civil arena, the withdrawal of four experts of such magnitude would in all likelihood result in sanctions, a directed verdict or the total failure of the case as in the time Jeff Bradstreet (another expert for the petitioners) left his clients high and dry. There’s no way to spin this as a positive development for the petitioners.

Drs. Adams, Geier, Haley and Wakefield were apparently unwilling or unable to testify about the substance of their beliefs and ‘science, leaving only the report and testimony of Dr. Asphosian, a scientist who has not devoted significant time to the question of mercury and autism. (At one point in his career it’s alleged that Dr. Asphosian claimed that the argument that ‘the dose makes the poison’ was wrong.)

I spoke with various people about this development and they also agreed that this was knocking out some of the petitioners strongest pillars that autism is related to thimerosal or MMR. All those I talked to considered it difficult to underestimate the near-hilarious reputation of these four experts in the field of autism. Their apparent unwillingness to testify on these matters suggests they cannot sustain their previous assertion that thimerosal or MMR has anything to do with autism.

Although the parties are continuing to submit motions and it appears unlikely that there will be a decision this summer, the withdrawal of these experts are likely to have profound consequences.

UPDATE: There’s a good chance this might be satire, although the facts are true..

Amanda Peet and the Streisand Effect

16 Jul

I had never heard of the “Streisand Effect” until a few months ago. That’s when Clifford Shoemaker subpoenaed.

The basic idea is simple: someone tries to censor or remove some piece of information from the internet, and, instead, the actions cause the information to be much more widely spread than it would have been otherwise.

In the case of the subpoena, many (MANY) people heard about the neurodiversity.com site and, especially, some of the actions of Mr. Shoemaker, than would have happened had the subpoena not been issued.

I was reminded of this phenomenon today when I found that the Amanda Peet story has started to catch on big. Amanda Peet was quoted in Cookie Magazine with a very pro-vaccine stance. She had been scared by…

….the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood

So, what did she do? She asked a medical professional for advice. Dang, what a concept! She was very fortunate that her brother in law is a doctor and, even more luckily, he works at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) where Paul Offit works.

Dr. Offit knows vaccines. Not in the, “I’ve read a ton in the internet” version of “knows” vaccines. No, He researches and develops vaccines. He is also a vocal spokesperson against the idea that vaccines cause autism. That, as you can imagine, makes him very unpopular with some segments of the autism community.

So, you can imagine what happened when Amanda Peet came out pro vaccine, against the vaccine-autism connection and stated that she got information from Dr. Offit. Yes, she got the usual hate-filled reception. And make no mistake, I am not downplaying that. I would not be surprised if she, like others before her, have had to forward emails or phone calls to the authorities because they seem threatening.

But, as time goes on, the message isn’t getting quashed. Salon.com picked up the story today and stated,

Now, Peet vs. McCarthy is the celebrity smackdown du jour. Sure, we’d all be better off taking our medical advice from doctors and nurses rather than celebrities. Yet, everyone from the American Academy of Pediatrics to Salon columnist Dr. Rahul Parikh has tried to reassure parents that vaccines don’t cause autism. Meanwhile, public health officials worry when public confidence in vaccinations continues to erode, in part because of high-profile celebrity advocacy, like McCarthy’s Green Our Vaccines march and rally held in Washington, D.C., in June.

And, what was that “smackdown du jour”? Looks like E! picked up the story as well.

All these web stories give the usual crowd an opportunity to add comments. The forums and comment sections for those stories are filled with people trashing Amanda Peet. I wish those people would catch a clue–have someone outside the autism community read what they write. The comments are strident, rude and, in general, really make the autism community as a whole look bad. It’s one thing to rant away in a closed yahoo group or in the comment section of the Age of Autism blog, but the public doesn’t know (and I wish they didn’t) just how mean and nasty these “advocacy” groups can be.

This story isn’t going away. Amanda Peet is now a spokesperson for Every Child By Two, a pro-vaccine organization founded by former first lady Rosalynn Carter. (as an aside–the Carters are one of the best ex-first-families the U.S. has seen).

Now that Amanda Peet has come down against the idea that vaccines cause autism, pretty much everything she says will be picked apart and analyzed. One comment that is giving a lot of ammunition to her detractors is this: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Read the comments and how many people try to make it sound like Amanda Peet is calling autism parents “parasites”. (Hint, she didn’t).

Let’s take a quick look at that term, parasite.

a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Now, let’s take a look at what Dr. Sears, one of the people often quoted by vaccine rejectionists, has to say about the MMR vaccine:

“I also warn them not to share their fears with other neighbors, because if too many people avoid the MMR, we’ll likely see the diseases increase significantly.”

So, he appears to this reader to be telling parents who don’t give the MMR vaccination to their children to keep mum, or the herd immunity will be compromised and the advantage to those parents will be lost.

Sweet. That doesn’t sound like “receiving advantage” without giving anything useful in return, does it?

Don’t get me wrong. For people with real reasons to avoid some or all vaccines (one regular commenter on this blog comes to mind). But, “I am scared of MMR causing autism so I am not going to vaccinate my kid, but I’ll hide in the herd immunity” doesn’t sit very well.

Also, where is the compassion for those who really need the protection of herd immunity? Where is the “Consider that your neighbor’s kids could use the advantage of your child’s immunity”?

But, to bring this back to where we started: Amanda Peet has hit the scene. She has jumped in with both feet, and appears to be staying for a while. A lot of voices appear to be trying to shout her down. Instead, they just seem to be giving Amada Peet’s message more coverage.

Age of Autism get annoyed at Amanda Peet

15 Jul

Remember last week when actress Amanda Peet gave a few people some home truths?

Once we had spoken, I was shocked at the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood,” says Peet, who quickly boned up on the hot-button controversies surrounding the topic, including the unproven link between certain vaccines and autism; the safety of preservatives like mercury-based thimerosal; and the fear that the relatively high number of shots kids receive today can overwhelm young immune systems. Her conclusion? Well, not only is Frankie up-to-date on her vaccines (with no staggering), but her mom will soon appear in public-service announcements for Every Child by Two. “I buy 99 percent organic food for Frankie, and I don’t like to give her medicine or put sunscreen on her,” says Peet. “But now that I’ve done my research, vaccines do not concern me.” What does concern her is the growing number of unvaccinated children who are benefiting from the “shield” created by the inoculated—we are protected from viruses only if everyone, or most everyone, is immunized: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Well, today, Age of Autism posted a blog entry that gave full vent to their response:

…you have no idea who you are messing with. You have never seen the power of our numbers, our anger, our commitment, and our conviction. At present, you really have no dog in this fight.

Quite apart from the overtly threatening tone, I would like to remind these people that of _course_ Ms Peet has a ‘dog in this fight’. Everyone does. The collective health of us all clearly affects everyone. Parents who blog on Age of Autism and who blog about Gardasil have ‘no dog in that fight’ according to AoA logic.

The blog post contains one amusing little faux pas:

Ms. Peet’s decision to work with them [CDC] is analogous to the scientists in the 1950s who chose to assert that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer and work closely with Philip Morris to do so…

This is the same blog that continues to trumpet the opinion of Bernadine Healy who actually _did_ assert that cigarettes do not cause cancer and worked closely with Philip Morris to do so. Its either stupidity or a purposeful attempt to obfuscate the truth, I couldn’t possibly say.

The blog post closes with the contact details of Ms Peets advisors, along with the further threat:

…your client has chosen to align herself with him [Paul Offit]. In doing so, Ms. Peet puts herself directly in the line of fire.

If you wish to support Ms Peet’s stance, which I believe is a good one for both public health _and_ which will have a positive impact on autism in terms of moving on from this increasingly desperate and nasty campaign to convince the world vaccines cause autism, then please leave a comment in the comments section of this post, or email me (kevleitchATgmailDOTcom).

I can assure you that unlike the emails that will be sent using the details provided by the AoA blog, your comments will definitely be seen by Ms Peet.

Additional: There’s a nice piece on Amanda Peet and vaccines in Salon.com today.

Age of Autism still don't get it

15 Jul

Over on our favourite pompous blog, the authors and readers still seem to have trouble processing their collective importance to autism related science (none at all) as well as how successful politicians are at directing science (not at all).

They flourish a letter from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee (long enough name fellers?) which is itself breathtaking in its dumbness.

In the Combating Autism Act, Congress directed DHHS to conduct research into screening, diagnosis, treatment and medical care for individuals with autism. These areas of research are essential to a balanced approach. In addition to these areas, I strongly encourage the IACC to promote a balanced research portfolio when examining the underlying causes of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An examination of the FY07 ASD Research Portfolio shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies related to autism. There is growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role in the emergence of ASD.

So, they firstly admit the role of CAA did not ask DHHS to examine the causes of autism but then ask the IACC (a committee appointed as a result of the CAA) to do it anyway. They then tick the IACC off for having a preference for genetic based studies and say there’s growing evidence that a ‘wide range’ of things cause autism. Possibly thats true, but the reference they provide to support that statement belies their beliefs. They reference the recent IMFAR poster presentation of Laura Hewitson. A study that has not even been published. This _is_ a science committee right?

They then go on to repeat a number of anti-vaccinationist talking points (Hannah Poling, biomedical treatment etc etc) and then make their recommendation:

I urge you to consider forming a Secretarial-level Autism Advisory Board (AAB). While the IACC is the primary mechanism for the coordination of research, surveillance, and early detection activities within the Department of Health and Human Services, an AAB could provide additional public feedback and serve as a liaison between parents, individuals with ASD, advocacy groups and the Department of Health and Human Services, and would assist in reestablishing public confidence

and whom might be on such a board I wonder?

Groups such as SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks, the Simons Institute, the National Autism Alliance, and the Autism Research Institute all have or are currently supporting research. Such groups have experience evaluating research, an in-depth knowledge of the current body of ASD research, and an appreciation of the new questions that may need to be examined in order to move our understanding of ASD forward.

This is a bad joke, surely. What is driving this is the fact that some IACC members are annoyed that the IACC didn’t immediately capitulate to their demands to study vaccines and vaccines only. There was a good reason why they didn’t. Its already been done. No association. Move on.

I have to say the idea of SafeMinds and Generation Rescue being on a board that is to restore public confidence to “parents [and] individuals with ASD” amuses and scares me in equal part. Maybe Mr Miller hasn’t seen founding members of Generation Rescue calling autistic people ‘trailor dwelling coo-coos’ or founder members of SafeMinds referring to blogs authored by autistic people and parents of autistic people as part of a ‘Wackosphere’? I think once he has (and he will, as will Secretary Leavitt and Dr Insel) he might stop and think futher.

Anyway, I digress, back to AoA. They employ a clever bit of deviousness to try and lever vaccines into the CAA:

The CAA listed 13 scientific fields but the only specific research topic mentioned in the legislative history was vaccines and their preservations as a possible cause of autism.

Hey, why would they need to? The Omnibus Autism hearings are doing that right?

But read carefully. It looks on a quick pass like vaccines are mentioned in the CAA. But they aren’t. They are mentioned in the ‘legislative history’. What that means is that there is no mention of vaccines in the CAA (and there isn’t. Read for yourself.)

Another word that would equate with ‘legislative history’ is ‘rubbish’ meaning ‘that which has been thrown away’. AoA – or in this instance Kelli Anne Davis (apparently the DC Political Liaison for Generation Rescue) – will be using the phrase ‘legislative history’ to try and afford some weight to the idea of vaccines being in drafts of the CAA. I really doubt anyone is going to fall for that little sleight of hand Kelli Ann.

And here’s the kicker:

This letter is the result of a year-long, collaborative effort between Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee.

I’ll bet it is.

Just this week, yet more genetic evidence was uncovered into the aetiology of autism. Y’know, the kind of evidence AoA et al are saying is useless and there’s too much of.

Let this be a marking point. Let us all remember that this is the week that the political process was co-opted in order to achieve a useless goal. The results of that, if successful, will be even less research into what could be vital therapies, educational strategies, residential innovations and means of garnering respect for autistic people.

Facist Britian?

14 Jul

Watch Channel 4 news tonight at 7pm (for non UK-ers you may be able to watch here. There is apparently a horrific (if true) autism related story on tonight.

According to an email circulating:

…a special report regarding a disabled child taken into care through the back door by Bedfordshire, following the parents successful appeal to SENDIST and a High Court decision, which is irrational but dangerous. It is important piece especially for parents whose children are in boarding schools as it is enabling LEAs to place children in local provision and care, if the cost is cheaper than the child’s current provision.

Basically, what this report is claiming is that a couple tried to get their child into a particular school. The LEA protested their choice (far from uncommon). SENDIST supported the parents decision which meant the child would go to the school of the parents choosing. At this point, the LEA had the child taken into care. This would mean they would have control of where the child was schooled.

If this is true this is beyond appalling. The only reason I can possibly think of for the LEA to initiate such a despicable action is to save money. It sounds like the parents wanted a school that the LEA felt was too pricey. Thing is, for LEA’s (and I speak from experience) ‘too pricey’ is comparable to a bag of chips.

Worryingly, IPSEA (Independent Panel for Special Education Advice) seem to have experience of this very thing:

We have received some reports of parents being threatened with the removal of their child (or actual removal taking place) because the approach those parents have taken towards their child’s education is alleged by their LA to constitute “child abuse”. An example of such “abuse” has been a parental request for special school placement rather than mainstream placement.

Amazing. I can’t imagine anything more terrifying then some jumped up suit wearing bureaucrat telling you to agree with them or they’ll remove your child. How do the people who do this sleep at night?

UPDATE. Below is the Channel 4 report.

http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1184614595

Ad Council increasing autism awareness

13 Jul

This is one of the questions that comes up a lot in many discussions. Many people (myself included) believe that an increased awareness of autism, both amongst parents and professionals, has led to much of the increase in the number of people identified with autism.

So, can awareness be increased? Apparently, the Ad Council. and their partner in a recent ad campagin, Autism Speaks, think so. They recently ran an ad campaign to raise awareness about autism.

The campaign was effective enough that the Ad Council is including it as one of their recent success stories by posting a ‘case report‘ on it.

After only three months in the marketplace, the campaign reached No. 2 among 50 active Ad Council television campaigns. In the nine-month period from April to December 2006, the “Odds” campaign earned almost $47 million in donated media.

That’s a lot of exposure, and a lot of money. That would have purchased a lot of, say, full page ads in USA Today. But, it wasn’t the amount of exposure alone, it was the tone of the campaign. The Ad Council did some background research before they started spending a lot of donated ad money. What did they find?

It became apparent that there was a disabling fear among parents regarding autism, a fear that led them to tune out information.

I am sure we could have a nice lively debate about how much fear was used in the ad council campaign which focused on the “odds” of a child being diagnosed with autism. But, their background research was indicating that the fear mongering campaigns (think print ads with giant vaccine syringes for one example) were actually driving people away, making them “tune out”.

Hmmm, the previous ad campaigns, run by organizations populated with public relations people, were making people “tune out”.

But, did the campaign work? Yep, they increased awareness of autism. The ad council claimed a 35% increase in awareness. More importantly, “Parents are also increasingly likely to take action as a result of the campaign.” Parents are talking more about autism, seeking out autism websites and, most importantly, they are talking to their doctors about autism more. That last bit has to impact the number of kids identified with autism.

The campaign also benefited their partner in this: Autism Speaks. Traffic to their website spiked to nearly 450,000 visitors a month. That would be about 15,000 visitors a day. For reference, Kev has noted that this blog gets about 3,000 unique visitors a day. Not bad for someone who built the traffic to this website on words, not money.

Perhaps no other childhood disorder has come into the public eye as quickly and widely as autism. The “Odds” campaign has successfully made autism a more common subject for family concern and discussion. By doing so, the campaign has laid the groundwork for an effective follow-up phase, in which parents can be educated about the early signs of autism and empowered to take action that will significantly enhance their children’s development. Considering the widespread nature of the disorder, such action could potentially benefit nearly 2 million children in the U.S., significantly improving the health and welfare of future generations.

First off: whoa! 2 million children?!? I can only imagine that they are including children with other, non-autism, conditions who might be helped by parents seeking out information. Or, are they considering future generations? Or, the American children who are now grown up into adults? That aside, the ad council (and their partner Autism Speaks) appears to be agreeing that raising awareness about autism can lead to parents taking action. In other words, parents will be more likely to get their kids properly identified…increasing the “epidemic” of autism by counting the uncounted.

The Ad-Council/Autism Speaks alliance has been continued for another three years.

The campaign has thus far generated more than $125 million in donated print, broadcast and online media and is credited with raising awareness of autism by more than 43%.

Raising awareness. More people will be identified. Is the Ad-Council adding to the epidemic?

In closing I have to add: where is the campaign about adults with autism?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →