Archive by Author

Bloodletting 101 – an alternative history

29 Sep

Alt-med groupies tell us they are on the cutting edge of medical science, and that fringe providers are somehow protecting patients from the ravages of evidenced-based medicine. They even offer examples, as one austim list serve member did when he wrote “Mainstream medicine used to think bloodletting cured disease. So science doesn’t have all the answers!” I’ve read variations on this statement.

It’s true that doctors once prescribed bloodletting for a wide range of conditions. The ancient Greeks were big into bloodletting, based on a non-empirical view of the natural world which held that blood was composed of four “humours”, symbolizing earth, air, water and fire. Bloodletting was popular for 2,000 years because it seemed to work. Some patients improved after being bled. Doctors just knew it worked, and could point to centuries of precedent.

It’s difficult for the modern mind to grasp why anyone would consider deliberate bloodletting to be a cure for anything. But the answers are quite simple.

First of all, patients have always felt that it’s better to do something than nothing. Before the germ theory of disease, which is only 130 years old, there wasn’t much doctors could do for most diseases short of bed rest and chicken soup. Bloodletting may have been messy and painful, but at least someone was trying something. So, odd as it may seem, bloodletting actually had a placebo effect on some patients.

Since bloodletting wasn’t evidenced-based, it was assumed that those patients that improved after being bled must have benefited by the bleeding. If anybody had thought to do a controlled study 500 years ago, they would have found that the patients who weren’t bled recovered more quickly and in greater numbers than the ones that were. But alas, evidence-based medicine was still a ways off.

I suppose if there was an internet back then, one could have learned the benefits of bloodletting from scores of websites. Bleed Autism Now! practitioners would spread the BAN! protocol far and wide, telling story after story of the children who were rescued from the abyss of mind-blindness and senseless spinning. The more people who signed on to the BAN! protocol, the more self-evident its worth. Heart-shaped Autism Bandages would adorn every donkey cart, testament to the love that parents felt for the children they bled.

And evidence-based skeptics would have been called “hemophobes” and burned at the stake as child abusers.

History teaches: Quackery – hard to kill. People – not so much.

29 Sep

New Scientist had an article recently describing the history of the use of X-rays as a beauty treatment. Who knew that radiation’s ability to make a person’s hair fall out was once exploited as a hair remover?
Histories: The perils of X-ray hair removal

FOLLOWING Wilhelm Roentgen’s discovery of X-rays in 1895, doctors around the world turned their primitive X-ray machines on everything from their own hands to patients with cancer and tuberculosis. To Albert Geyser, a brash German immigrant who graduated from a New York medical school in that heady year of discovery, X-rays were clearly the future of medicine.

Researchers quickly noticed that exposure to X-rays had a remarkable side effect: it made hair fall out. In Austria, physician Leopold Freund recommended it as a treatment for excess body hair, or hypertrichosis. “Hair begins to fall out in thick tufts when lightly grasped, or it is seen on the towel after the patient’s toilet,” he observed in 1899. … Tests followed across Europe and North America with apparent success, … There were already hints that all was not well, however. In France, some doctors reported that their patients had fallen ill. Loath to admit that X-rays were responsible, Freund blamed “the hysterical character” of French patients.

Now working at Cornell Medical College in New York, Geyser embraced X-rays with enthusiasm. Like many others, he paid a high price for his zeal: radiologists were belatedly realising that frequent exposure to X-rays could be dangerous, and Geyser suffered burns that claimed the fingers of his left hand. Undeterred, he invented the Cornell tube – an X-ray vacuum tube of leaded glass with a small aperture of common glass, meant to direct lower-energy, or “ultrasoft”, X-rays directly onto a small area of skin. With the Cornell tube, “the X-ray is robbed of its terrors”, declared The New York Times. By 1908 Geyser had administered about 5000 X-ray exposures with his tube, for a variety of skin ailments. Others remained suspicious of X-rays, and the County Medical Society’s lawyer warned Geyser that “the time is coming soon when if a man is burned, the doctor will be held liable… Don’t use the X-ray unless you know what you are doing with it.”

The article goes on to explain how the use of the Cornell tube’s “ultrasoft” hair-removing rays became known as the “Roentgen therapy for hypertrichosis,.” In 1915, Geyser published an article in, The Journal for Cutaneous Diseases, he assured his readers that “no protection of any kind, either for patient or operator” was needed when using his Cornell tube. In 1924, Dr. Geyser and his son founded Tricho Sales Corporation. They advertised the glories of the Tricho System in hundreds of advertisements that went into newspapers throughout North America. Promises in these ads included: “no injury to skin will result.” Explanations of how it worked noted that it used a “hair starvation process” and that it worked by way of, “radio vibration.” Female relatives of physicians just swore by it, apparently.

Soon there were Tricho clinics in over 75 cities in the U.S.. The process was tidy and painless, the only thing that operators or clients might have noticed was a “faint hum and a whiff of ozone.” The women only need to be exposed to the X-rays for a few minutes, and voila, some time later their hair fell out.

You may be asking, “Approximately, how many women underwent this thoroughly modern beauty treatment?” The New Scientist article says the New York City clinic alone claimed 200,000 clients. These clients would have paid from a “few hundred to over a thousand dollars” for a course of treatments. That’s a huge chunk of change in 1920’s dollars.

OK… so are we all waiting for the other shoe to drop here?

Tricho’s triumph was short-lived.

In 1926, Ida Thomas of Brooklyn sued Frank Geyser (the son) for “a staggering $100,739 – the cost of her facial treatments plus $100,000 in damages.” Ms. Thomas sued because her skin had thickened and wrinkled following the treatments. Two years later Frank Geyser “was arrested following a similar complaint.” Then things got really ugly. Clients now were suffering from “wrinkling, mottling, lesions, ulcers and even skin cancer.” The Journal of the American Medical Association commented on this new health problem, “In their endeavor to remove a minor blemish, they have incurred a major injury.” In July 1929, the AMA condemned the treatment as dangerous.

What was Tricho’s tactical response to all these people–like the AMA–bunch of killjoys–trying to bum them out, bring them down? What action could rescue the Tricho Sales Corporation from losing revenue by the handful, not unlike a radiation poisoning victim losing hair?

Well, if you’ve been following the saga of Defeat Autism Now! and similar groups, and their history of promoting questionable and even plainly dangerous quack therapies, you may have at some point thought to yourself:

“What could rescue autism quackery and it’s adherents from the doldrums induced in part by the death of Abubakar, but also by the criminal charges being brought against the DAN! doctor who killed him, the lack of a promised drop in the numbers of children being diagnosed with autism following the reduction of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines, the ridiculous show put on by so-called “expert witnesses” chosen by the Petitioners Steering Committee in the Cedillo vaccine hearing, accumulating evidence tending to exonorate vaccines as not being a cause of autism, and even the exposing of Andrew Wakefield’s seeming ethical problems in his General Medical Counsel hearing in London?”

Or, “What does autism wingnuttery need, right now, to give it life again, you know, fluffliness and bounce and shine, like a good salon-quality shampoo can do for listless hair?” Maybe autism quackery could borrow a page from the Tricho corporation playbook…what DAN! and company needs NOW is and what Tricho Sales Corporation got in their hour of need …

A celebrity endorsement!

Ann Pennington

Ann Pennington, was played as Tricho’s “trump card,” according to the NS article. She was the star of 1929’s hit film, Gold Diggers of Broadway.” The article continues:

And if clients had any lingering doubts, the elder Geyser’s impeccable medical credentials probably reassured them. Yet closer inspection of Geyser’s record would have shown that although he carried out research at a prestigious medical college, some of his work was decidedly dubious: he had used electric shocks to treat all sorts of conditions, from gonorrhoea to asthma, and had made unsubstantiated claims to have found cures for tuberculosis and anaemia.

Inevitably, more Tricho victims appeared in JAMA, including a patient in Washington DC “so depressed as a result of the disfigurement of the X-ray burn that she attempted suicide”. Geyser, it seemed, had either been too greedy to heed any warnings, or had convinced himself that his Cornell tubes really were safe. Whatever his motivation, he had installed poorly regulated X-ray machines across the country, and tens of thousands of women – perhaps even more – were exposed to massive doses of radiation on their faces and arms. They had also received wildly varying doses: some women had as few as four treatments, others as many as 50. And because X-ray exposure rises as an inverse square of distance, even a slight shift in sitting position could double or treble a client’s dose.

With the prospect of being sued for millions of dollars, the Tricho Sales Corporation collapsed in 1930. …

If we all feel a sort of vicarious relief at this point, turns out, it’s premature. Other companies noticing the financial success of the Tricho clinics developed their own “copycat operations.” If the training was miniscule for the Tricho clinicians, it seems that it was even less among these newcomers to the game. Medical and business groups responded by trying to close down these outfits, too. But they just went underground. The article says that in 1940, San Francisco detectives were on the trail of what they thought was an illegal abortion clinic. To their surprise, no doubt, the place in question was instead one of these hair-removal-by-radiation shops. And such shops were still taking in customers “at least” into the 1950’s.

Since all radiation-poisoning “fallout” isn’t noticeable immediately, you can imagine how the story of the customers of the Tricho clinics kept coming up again and again in doctors offices into the 1960’s and 70’s.

One 80-year-old woman arrived with a grapefruit-sized tumour in her head; another refused treatment until she had “a huge and deep crater occupying practically the whole lower half of the breast and the chest wall immediately below it”. By 1970, US researchers were attributing over one-third of radiation-induced cancers in women to X-ray hair removal.

Given cancer’s long latency and the many years that Tricho parlours and their ilk persisted, the procedure may not yet have claimed its final victim. Tricho’s most famous customer, though, had reason long ago to regret her endorsement. After spending her final years as a recluse in a small hotel room off Broadway, Ann Pennington died in 1971. Her cause of death, it was reported, was a brain tumour.

Now, no one is wishing a grapefruit sized tumor on to Jenny McCarthy or anything. For one thing, in the updated case of quack driven nonsense, the gullible celebrity endorser is not the one who is being subjected to questionable therapies. It’s her son. And no one wishes any harm to come to Jenny’s son in the least. He looks like an adorable boy. It’s a shame his mother has been fooled into believing the whole “most of these kids are practically saturated with candida yeast, it’s the reason they go all stimmy … it makes them act crazy…put them on a prescription antifungal and a restrictive diet and you’ll get your kid back,” thing (not to mention the whole anti-vax and autism epidemic thing). If his mom and doc sent a blood sample off to Immunosciences lab before it was closed (this past July) then she likely got a bogus positive result. Then the fool doctor could write a prescription for a toxic antifungal (all drugs are toxic, don’t you know, depends on the dose) that the kid likely didn’t need–just to make mommy feel like she’s doing all she can to “pull her son through a rapidly closing window” and give her something to write about besides.

One really scary lesson from the Tricho debacle is that this deadly quackery hung around for so long. In this case, bad news, the news that these radiation machines could easily cause a client’s slow death, besides creating some really ugly skin, didn’t seem to travel quickly enough. Tricho shut down in 1930, but the technique and hype they developed was still be employed forty years later on new suckers, the ones born every minute. The Candida yeast (as cause of dozens of chronic disorders) business was a stupid health fad in the 1980’s. The fad died for the most part, but apparently Jenny didn’t know about it, or didn’t take a clue from it, and here she is in 2007 promoting it as the thing that stood between her autistic son and being a typical kid.

It was interesting that the Tricho company was founded by an apparently unethical doctor, Albert Geyser, who had a pretty respectible looking CV, and who claimed to have great insights into and treatments for many different diseases. Albert went into business with his son. Hmmm. Who does that remind one of? Someone else with a German name that sounds a bit like Geyser. There’s also a creepy and creepier brother duo in autism quackery with a similarly questionable looking, but less impressive-looking background.

When one compares the seeming safety profile of Mr. and Dr. Yasko’s (and Garry Gordon’s) ridiculous RNA yeast soup, or the homeopathic water drops said to be favored by Katie Wright, with something like Lupron and IV chelation, one can almost be grateful for such benign, if expensive and reprehensibly misrepresented, “cures.” But there are major question-marks hanging over the safety of things like long-term, high-dose methyl B12 injections given to kids who are not deficient in B12. There are questions about high doses of any vitamins for anyone. Some mineral supplements are contaminated with heavy metals, so are some chelators, apparently. Lots of biomedded kids take vitamin and mineral supplements. There are questions about the dangers of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, like what if the kid is susceptible to seizures and you put him in the HBOT tank and the extra oxygen kindles these seizures?

As for the recent Jenny McCarthy road show and it’s effect on the DAN! dox customer base, it’s hard to say who needed whom more–DAN! suffering from a series of bad PR breaks, or Jenny suffering from a sagging career and a failed attempt at making a go with the Indigomom Crystalkid schtick. It’s hard enough for a talented actress to keep getting work at age 35, they say, imagine what it’s like for short-on-talent Jenny with her now famed post-pregnancy stretch-marks “that glow in the dark … for some reason!”.

DAN! and Jenny McCarthy deserve each other. Let’s hope they both quickly skulk out of the limelight and into obscurity and may they take their quack therapies, benign or not, with them.

Paul Collins is the writer of the above mentioned New Scientist article. The writing style would seem to indicate that it’s the same Paul Collins who is the author of the fantastic book, “Not Even Wrong.” If so, this Mr. Collins is the father of a beloved autistic boy.

CDC Cleared

29 Sep

Close on the heels of the New England Journal of Medicine’s publication of a new CDC study finding no connection between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental deficits, Sen. Mike Enzi released a report detailing the findings of a lengthy investigation by his committee staff.

One’s first reaction to the prospect of Congress taking on a scientific issue is to brace oneself, but look! On the first page in bold type, the report reads,

“Congress is not in a position to substitute its judgment for that of scientists. Therefore, this report does not render an opinion on the safety of thimerosal in vaccines. Rather, the investigation assessed allegations of misconduct by government officials and private entities in connection with the thimerosal controversy.”

How refreshing! A legislator who does not believe himself to possess greater powers of discernment than experts in a technical field!

It gets better.

“Allegation #1a: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) interfered with the 2001 and 2004 Institute of Medicine (IoM) studies on vaccine safety.”

“Finding: The allegation is not substantiated.”

“Allegation #1b: There were conflicts of interest among the members of the Immunization Safety Review Committee (ISR Committee) and the studies they relied upon.”

“Finding: The allegation is partially substantiated. While we identified shortcomings in IoM procedures for screening potential committee members for possible conflicts of interest, there is no evidence to support the allegation that the work of the IoM’s ISR Committee was compromised by conflicts of interest.”

“Allegation 1c: The five studies that the Immunization Safety Review Committee (ISR Committee) based its findings upon have conflicts of interest with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and vaccine manufacturers.”

“The allegation is not substantiated.”

“Allegation #2: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) convened the Simpsonwood Conference to cover up the finding that thimerosal causes autism.”

“Findings: The allegation is not substantiated.”

(Somebody tell the Methodist women.)

“Allegation #3: Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, MD, MSc, was pressured into changing his research position regarding a causal link between thimerosal and autism.”

“Finding: The allegation is not substantiated.”

“Allegation #4: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) effectively made the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) non-public contrary to its statement that the link would be accessible to the public.”

“Finding: The allegation is not substantiated.”

“Allegation #5: International organizations were established to obscure knowledge about the safety of thimerosal in childhood vaccines.”

“Findings: The allegation is not substantiated.”

“Allegation #6: Thimerosal remains in childhood vaccines being supplied to third-world and developing countries.”

“Finding: The allegation is substantiated.”

Guilty! String up those pharma connivers for supplying poor children with lifesaving vaccines in formulations that make it possible for many doses to be administered without the truck space and refrigeration required for thousands of single-dose vials.

“Allegation #7: FDA inappropriately utilized Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines regarding the dangers of mercury in vaccines containing thimerosal.”

“Findings: The allegation is substantiated. … The use of inappropriate guidelines from EPA was a source of confusion and contention in determining the appropriate response to concern regarding thimerosal in vaccines. … This error has caused countless individuals to conclude that ethyl mercury can be linked causally to autism.”

Reuters mischaracterized this a bit in their wire story, but the report elides some of the history, so that’s not surprising. What happened was that when FDA started looking at whether kids were exposed to too much mercury, there were three different guidelines by different federal agencies for how much methylmercury was too much. FDA tried to be conservative by assuming the most stringent – the EPA’s – was the appropriate one. But we now know that methylmercury just isn’t comparable to ethylmercury, and here FDA had set vaccines up to clear the highest bar in a competition in which it shouldn’t have been entered in the first place. *This* is what the report means by “inappropriate guidelines.” It does not mean that FDA should have been stricter about defining a safe level of mercury exposure.

You know, I’m not even finding a need for (further) snark here. It sounds so ridiculous laid out in print, I can’t believe Enzi’s staff had to spend what the report describes as “thousands of hours” putting this conspiracy bunkum to rest. But hats off to them! They did so decisively and with a degree of elegance.

Sick of the Dehumanising

28 Sep

I am utterly sick of Jenny McCarthy and the TACA urges to autism Yahoo groups members to bombard radio/TV stations where she is appearing with pictures of kids, telling them to tell the TV stations there kids are ‘recovered’ whether they are or not:

More help is needed to show the cynical world children with autism ARE getting better. They ARE recovering!. If you have a recovered
child or a child that is near recovered, has benefited HUGELY from biomedical intervention please read and consider the following.

WE NEED RECOVERED KIDS – families need to send in their stories and pictures of their recovered child or children. What is needed – Before and After pictures for kids who recovered from autism. (IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY: I give permission for these photographs to be on air with Larry King 9/26/07 – include parents name & phone numbers with the childs first name only to appear.)

See? Doesn’t matter if your child actually _is_ recovered – or even recover _ing_ – just being a biomed user is enough to ‘prove’ recovery according to Julia Berle. The media spin is sickening. The attempt to utterly mislead people is sickening.

I am also utterly sick of hearing SafeMinds, the NAA, A-Champ and all those other soccer mom, white, upper-middle class me-me’s having the gall to say that a study that makes it clear in its abstract that it has nothing to do with autism is misleading the public about autism. This coming from groups who have incited violence against honest scientists and who have blatantly lied about these same scientists affiliations – with no apology or retraction – and who have paid journalists to write nonsensical, non-scientific propaganda on their behalf.

Further, I am sick of the Sally (I’m sorry, I can’t bring myself to carry on typing that ‘look at me’ version of her first name) Bernard’s of this world who – even when invited to help design a study and who are happy to do so, don’t possess the moral fibre to stick with the study they helped design because it didn’t produce the results they wanted. And not only that, have the temerity to complain about the design of the self same study – _which they helped design without a word of complaint until it produced results opposite to her beliefs_.

Lastly, I am utterly, totally sick of the casual dehumanising of my daughter and people like her – autistic people – who are now happily being described by Jenny McCarthy’s pet quack as soulless.

Well, screw this, I’ve utterly had it. What I want to do is give Kartzinel a big loud and clear blast. And I need your help to do it. I also need the help of your friends and your friends friends.

I want to produce a video to post to YouTube which will be an utter refutation of such unbelievable crassness. I want to collect a picture of every autistic child who’s parent rejects the description Kartzinel gave for autistic children. They do not need to be named if you don’t wish to do so. They will not be identified. They will just be present. Please send me your photos to kevleitch@gmail.com. Please pass this request on to your friends. Please make sure this arsehole understands that referring to our children in this way is not acceptable.

Jerry Kartzinel’s Attack on the Dignity of Autistic People and their Families

28 Sep

I have just learned from a blog named The Quirk Factor that some guy named Jerry Kartzinel, claiming to be a doctor, has stated the following in the introduction to Jenny McCarthy’s book.

 “Autism, as I see it, steals the soul from a child; then, if allowed, relentlessly sucks life’s marrow out of the family members, one by one. It relegates every other “normal” thing to utter insignificance.”

This is an irresponsible and reprehensible statement to make, obviously. It’s not hard to imagine how statements like this in a highly publicized book could lead to an autistic child being institutionalized or worse.

But it is even more reprehensible because it is a complete fabrication. Can Jerry Kartzinel demonstrate his claim is true? I highly doubt it. In fact, let me propose something. If Jerry Kartzinel can successfully demonstrate, by means of peer-reviewed evidence, that his statement is mostly true, autism-specific, and not dependent on parental beliefs, I will publicly apologize to him. If not, I would suggest that he needs to apologize to autistic people and their families.

While there is some evidence that families of autistic children, like families of children with other disabilities, tend to have higher than normal levels of stress, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that these families experience resilience and adaptation by developing positive views on disability.

For example, King et al. (2006) found the following.

“The themes indicated that raising a child with a disability can be a life-changing experience that spurs families to examine their belief systems. Parents can come to gain a sense of coherence and control through changes in their world views, values and priorities that involve different ways of thinking about their child, their parenting role, and the role of the family. Although parents may grapple with lost dreams, over time positive adaptations can occur in the form of changed world views concerning life and disability, and an appreciation of the positive contributions made by children to family members and society as a whole. Parents’ experiences indicate the importance of hope and of seeing possibilities that lie ahead.”

Bayat (2007)  identified “specific resilience processes, such as: making positive meaning of disability, mobilization of resources, and becoming united and closer as a family; finding greater appreciation of life in general, and other people in specific; and gaining spiritual strength. “  It then concluded that “a considerable number of families of children with autism display factors of resilience–reporting having become stronger as a result of disability in the family.”

Twoy et al. (2007) revealed “the resiliency and highly adaptive nature of these parents who are under severe strain and stress of caring for a child with ASD.”

Bristol (1987) had found that poor adaptation in families of autistic children “was predicted by other family stresses, unwarranted maternal self-blame for the handicap, and maternal definition of the handicap as a family catastrophe.”

It is clear from these studies that adaptation improves as parents change their views over time in the direction of a positive attitude toward disability. Self-blame for autism, and viewing autism as a horrible nightmare will tend to make adaptation difficult. From these findings, I would suggest that parents who believe in an “acceptance” or “neurodiversity” type of model are better able to adapt and cope. On the other hand, parents who accept the sort of claim Mr. Kartzinel promotes, ironically, could very well end up as he describes in his statement.

McFungi

28 Sep

From the transcript of Larry King’s interview of Jenny McCarthy last night on CNN:

KING: What is autism?

MCCARTHY: Wow! Well, it differs for a lot of people. But — or opinions. But I believe that’s — it’s an infection and/or toxins and/or funguses on top of vaccines that push children into this neurological downslide which we call autism.

Source

McInfection?
McToxins?
McFungi?

Vaccines?

Since she’s not talking about what autism “is”, rather, what might be speculated about with regard to etiology…maybe it can be the smoke. I’m not saying it is, just suggesting that it’s one possibility.

As all of you know, being a mother changes you in ways that you never thought you could imagine. I went from chain smoking and eating cheeseburgers to Hepa air filters and eating vegetarian after my son was born.

Source

Emphasis mine. Here’s a couple of mildly interesing abstracts (in the links) for Jenny.

“The risk of autism was associated with daily smoking in early pregnancy (OR = 1.4; CI = 1.1-1.8)”

Source

“Maternal smoking during pregnancy is linked to high fetal testosterone (FT), and an increased risk in offspring for autism…”

Source

Rumours that the Observer’s Editor will get the push because of the paper’s MMR idiocy

28 Sep

I’m sure readers of this blog will remember the jaw-dropping idiocy of the Observer and Denis Campbell’s recent front page MMR/autism coverage. I’ve been preparing a post looking at how the Observer’s inaccurate 1/58 figure for UK autism prevalence has spread through the Internet (encouragingly, it looks like a good proportion of bloggers and mainstream journalists have been bright enough not to swallow this nonsense) when a little birdy forwarded me this intriguing – but unverified – piece of gossip:

Keep an eye on the Observer over the next weeks. The rumour in the week that editor Roger Alton had got the push/resigned not entirely without foundation as there is now a huge wedge between the Guardian and The Observer…This is the result of news ed Kamal Ahmed getting to keep his job – the result of an investigation into the embarrassment over the MMR splash that wasn’t a story of two months ago…The Scott Trust got involved, editor Roger Alton had to go to before them and receive six of the best like a naughty schoolboy.

It’s interesting that it has had to come to this: when I discussed some of the problems with the Observer’s autism coverage with their Readers’ Editor, he was clear that the decision on whether to retract the Observer’s embarrassing autism coverage (or issue a proper apology) was for the Editor to make, and Alton had chosen not to issue a retraction. If this rumour is correct, it looks like Alton may be paying the price for failing to retract an embarrassingly poor-quality piece of ‘journalism’.

Hopefully the rumour is accurate, and Alton will face the consequences of his actions. I think it is entirely appropriate that – if a newspaper Editor publishes something both stupid and damaging on their front page, then refuses to retract the story – their career should suffer as a consequence of this. It is also encouraging if the Scott Trust has got involved in dealing with this mess, and has taken decisive (albeit slightly slow) action. The Quackometer’s Observer Apology Counter makes it 11 weeks without a proper apology for or retraction of the Observer’s MMR idiocacy – maybe a new Editor will be able to deal with this mess before the counter goes past unlucky 13?

UPDATE: now also blogged by Shinga, here.

Crowds.

28 Sep
 

  I would like to make this plain, I don’t want to make it rude

 But when talking of the small talk, well, I’m just not in the mood

 I have absolutely nothing against your personality

But I wish that just for once you would not sit by me.

 I am trying very hard to stop the sense of panic

As the noise it gets much louder and the scene becomes quite manic

 And I think I’ve got it sorted as I focus on a thread

 Examining the strands as they dance inside my head

 But you sit yourself beside me and though it’s not appealing

 I do not wish to hurt, do not wish to harm your feelings

 So I dig my fingers tightly and hope you aren’t aware

 That I now feel rather trapped and your words become a lair

 The sights and sounds that I had tried to block out and ignore

Are now returning tenfold since you do not know the score

 I don’t think I’ll ever tell you, since I know you mean no harm

 It is not your fault I crave for a gentle sea of calm

 But if you ever read this, I hope you will take note

 If you see me staring at the floor, leave me drifting in my boat. 

Housekeeping

27 Sep

Just a little bit of housekeeping news about this blog.

Firstly, as I said awhile ago, this blog is now a team blog authored by many people. Please note when thanking _me_ that there’s a good chance I didn’t author the post you like 🙂

Secondly, You may have noticed the (now removed) large yellow box at the top of each page informing of the change of domain name. I did this as I felt that the site was no longer accurately represented by the domain ‘kevinleitch.co.uk’ – its written by more people than just me now. So, to reflect this, I have changed the domain name to leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk. kevinleitch.co.uk will still get you to this site but you’d be better using the new domain.

Thirdly, I have changed hosts for this site. The decision to do this was not taken lightly. My previous host is a good friend and he runs an excellent service. However, my bandwidth requirements were simply getting too large. This was brought home to me forcibly awhile ago when the site went down for the last day or so of the month as I ran out of bandwidth.

After Jenny McCarthy went on the Oprah show my traffic went through the roof. I was confronted with the distinct possibility of this site going down in the middle of the month. Just as an example, this site usually gets approx 4,000 unique visitors per day. After McCarthy went on the Oprah show, this figure more than doubled and I was pulling in over 8,000 unique visitors per day. The increase was people using Google/Yahoo/MSN etc to search for details about McCarthy and of course, Generation Rescue etc. I rank very well for these phrases (first page).

So, I had to move to a host that had a larger bandwidth allowance, which I have now done. the move was fairly painless I’m glad to say.

I was able to do this due to the generosity of people contributing money to me which allowed me to buy a hosting account with much more space, bandwidth etc. To these people I say a heartfelt ‘thank you’. This blog has been on the web for over 4 years now and I really didn’t want to have to retire it due to the fact it was very popular. Thanks to these people I won’t have to.

However, hosting is not a static purchase. I’ll need to renew the account every year. If you feel so inclined you can donate to keep the site alive by using the PayPal donation button in the top right of the page.

So, my blog is dead. Long live the team blog!

CDC: “Thank you, Sallie, May We Have Another?”

27 Sep

A CDC study released yesterday found no evidence to support “a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years.” In other words, vaccines don’t scramble your brain.

The study didn’t examine autism as an outcome, although that is almost certainly what it was intended to get at. Instead, it looked for whether children’s exposure to thimerosal before birth or in infancy had any relationship to their later performance on 42 standardized tests which one would expect to be affected by autism. For each of the 1,047 children in the study, the researchers assessed speech and language; verbal memory; achievement (letter and word identification); fine motor coordination; visuospatial ability; attention and executive function; behavior regulation; tics; and general intellectual functioning.

CDC tried so hard. They invited one of the queen mercury moms, Sallie Bernard of “SAFEMINDs,” to participate in the planning of the study. They brought on a panel of outside advisors. The team spent at least two years administering forty-seven separate tests to each of the children and analyzing and writing up the results. They printed every piece of data generated in a companion volume to the published study.

They got kicked in the teeth, but don’t feel bad for them. They should have known better.

The autism-vaccine contingent has responded by spluttering about the study not having been large or random enough, and by accusing the researchers of being biased and of ignoring important associations in the data. It’s no news that these people don’t believe anything that comes from CDC – they’ve said as much, very clearly. But one would think that if you let the antivaxers in on the process from day one, if you were totally transparent, they couldn’t object, could they? They’d have to see the light when the results came back and say, “Well! I guess it’s not the vaccines after all!”

CDC, if you really thought that would happen, you were so, so wrong.

The appearance is that Sallie Bernard was going along with all this up until the day the results came in and – shockingly! – showed thimerosal didn’t do one bit of harm. If she’d thought from the outset, as a SAFEMINDs press release now claims, that there weren’t enough kids in the study or the sampling were biased, does anybody think this gadfly would have nodded and smiled and gone right along with it?

No, everything was fine and dandy as long as she was enjoying being fawned over as a “representative of the autism community” and a fellow-scientist instead of the commercial marketer she actually is. Here’s a clue, Sallie: If you’re going to play scientist, you have to follow the rules of science, and that means you stand by your results. You don’t get to say “heads I win, tails you lose” by waiting to see the outcome before deciding whether the study was any good.

And you really don’t get to have CDC at your beck and call, spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to do a study to your specifications, then turn around and call them liars when you don’t like how it comes out.

And you, CDC? You’re not just a victim here. Every time you say “let’s do more research” or “we are examining this issue” in order to appease the mercury moms, you increase the chances that kids will go unvaccinated because you failed to give their parents confidence in the safety of vaccines. When you say a study is reassuring and then highlight what is virtually certain to have been a chance finding (a statistical association between higher thimerosal exposure and transient tics in boys) without making it abundantly clear that some false associations were inevitable given the study design, you defeat the purpose of doing the study. People who understand statistics weren’t the ones who needed to be convinced thimerosal is safe; the antivax crowd will never be convinced no matter what. You needed to speak to the well-meaning parents who worry about the rumors they hear at playgroup, and not only did you give them something new to worry about and whiff the opportunity to show them that the likes of Sallie Bernard are all about the rhetoric – you managed to tee up for yet another round of Righteous Long-Suffering Parents vs. Heartless Government Scientists.

Haven’t you learned yet who wins that one? Or are you going to invite Sallie back for another round of research?

Postscript: More commentary on this study by Arthur Allen, Orac, Joseph, Interverbal, and Kristina Chew.