Archive by Author

CDDS and full syndrome arseholes

14 Jul

Every god-damn quarter, without fail. Every single one. The CDDS data gets released – Rick Rollens releases his usual ‘full syndrome’ crapola and tells us how autism is still skyrocketing and does his best Chicken Little impression and David Kirby chews at the edges of the data to try and find something that will support the idea that thiomersal plays any kind of role in autism.

Its getting really, really old.

Please let me say it to you one more time.

CDDS is not good source data for epidemiology. They say so themselves.

When CDDS refer to ‘full syndrome autism’ they are not, repeat, not referring to classical autism. See this form here? CDDS use it to record autism. It was designed in the 1970’s. The version in use today was last updated in 1986. Don’t believe me? Ask them.

Item 23 is where the term ‘full syndrome’ is used. This term is today utterly without meaning. It is the only place to record autism at all.

If we trun to this document and go to page 71 we can see the section dealing with autism. In terms of _having_ autism, a person either can, can’t or have autistic-like symptoms associated with mental retardation. Its not until page 77 that we get to any kind of recording of degree of severity. *Note that this has no bearing on whether a person _has_ autism* . That is already indicated.

Here is what CDDS passed on to me. I promised not to attribute this quote so I won’t but if anyone wants to double check then an email to CDDS would back me up:

The current CDER was written in 1978 and updated in 1986, which is why the language is so out of date ( e.g., Residual Autism). California has clinicians in the field who are, of course, using modern criteria in their assessments but then they have to go backwards and try to fit those kids into the 1986 CDER. So you are going to have Aspergers kids, PDD-NOS kids in both categories 1 and 2. Categories 1 and 2 are called “Autism.” But because there are so many clinicians, using lots of different techniques for evaluation, there is a lot of inconsistency and enrollment figures should not be misused as epidemiological data.

You might also be interested in a quote from Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS) to Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004:

To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in the past, would never have been referred to the regional centers–for example, bright but anxious and slightly socially inept kids with average or better IQs and children who, in the past, had been or would have been diagnosed as ADHD, OCD, ODD, anxiety disorder, learning disabilities, psychotic, and so forth—are now being diagnosed wit high-functioning autism and/or Asperger syndrome and referred to the regional centers for services.

I really don’t know how much clearer this information can possibly be. And yet we still have full syndrome arseholes like Rick Rollens sending out emails that contain:

As stated many times before in these Reports, the numbers being reported by DDS only reflect those children that have received a professional diagnosis of full syndrome DSM IV autism, and do not include those with any other autism spectrum disorder such as PDD, NOS, Asperger’s, HFA, Retts, etc

So Rick:

a) Its impossible for a document/process written in 1978 and updated in 1986 to reflect the DSM IV.
b) The numbers quite clearly _do_ contain PDD-NOS, Aspergers Syndrome and Rett Syndrome.

And hey, if CDDS data is good then how would the following be explained?

It’s now 2005. Mercury started to be removed from vaccines roughly in 2001, we don’t know exactly when as the FDA won’t tell us, but kids entering the system now, four year olds for example in California entering the Dept of Developmental Services [CDDS] were born in 2001. So those kids theoretically get less mercury on average than kids born in 2000. So we should see fewer cases entering the system this year than we did last year.

– David Kirby

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis….total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

– David Kirby

Late 2006 should be the first time that rates go down,” said Handley. “If they don’t, our. hypothesis will need to be reexamined.

– JB Handley

Kassiane needs help

14 Jul

Please read.

The Observer – Liars

11 Jul

A story in the Times reveals the full extent of the utterly vacuous weekend report published by The Observer:

One of the two team members reported as resurrecting the discredited theory that MMR causes autism is Dr Carol Stott, a developmental psychologist who once worked at ARC. Baron-Cohen says she left ARC some time ago. She is now listed as a member of staff at Thoughtful House, a research centre in developmental disorders in Texas. Thoughtful House is run by Dr Andrew Wakefield, the gastroenterologist who first raised the possibility of a MMR-autism link in 1998. The other figure named as having revived the MMR-autism link was Dr Fiona Scott, who still works at ARC as an honorary research associate and runs training courses on how to diagnose autism. Scott has issued a statement denying that she privately believes in any link between MMR and autism.

Baron-Cohen says the news story is alarmist and wrong. He does not believe that MMR has anything to do with autism. “We are gobsmacked, really, at how this draft report has got out,” Baron-Cohen says. “It was only in the hands of the authors – about half a dozen people. There are three professors listed, including me, and none of us was contacted. It was also seen by two PhD students for whom I have the utmost respect because they are very careful scientists.

Be gob-smacked no more SBC. I’m betting it was Carol Stott, scaremongering on behalf of her employer Andrew Wakefield.

The draft report was leaked a week ahead of their GMC appearance. Baron-Cohen puts it like this: “We think it [the report] has been used. They’ve picked out the one figure that looks most alarmist.” Cambridge University is now trying to hunt down the source of the leak.

So, what are the facts on autism? Does the one-in-58 figure hold up? Baron-Cohen says their study of Cambridgeshire children, which has been running for five years, comes out with a range of figures from one in 58, to one in 200, depending on various factors. The draft report, he says, “is as accurate as jottings in a notebook”. He adds that the data is with public health officials, who are crunching the numbers.

About as accurate as jottings in a notebook. A phrase that could equally apply to the whole Observer piece.

And as I and others discussed at the weekend, the methodology utilised to reach the figures:

….does not provide a diagnosis and is known to result in a high number of false positives. Around half the children flagged up by CAST as possibly having autism turn out not to.

Simon Baron-Cohen closes with:

Research is sometimes slow but it is better to go slowly and get it right. Now things have been taken out of our hands and it’s very dismaying.

It certainly is.

Lets make no mistake about this. This was a calculated attempt by Andrew Wakefield’s supporters to utterly falsely bring the validity of MMR into question again just ahead of his GMC hearing. The figure of 1 in 58 has no basis in accuracy and is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot. The Observer contacted none of the three professors on the team and it seems that at least one of the people quoted as privately believing their is a link between autism and the MMR actually doesn’t and has issued a denial to that effect.

This leaves us with Carol Stott. A woman who is obviously about as familiar with truth, reliability and common decency as a frog is familiar with the works of Daphne du Maurier.

The Observer, in my opinion, got suckered by this woman who seems determined to do everything she can – including deliberately placing children in harms way by scaremongering false associations between MMR and autism – to save her bosses neck at the GMC.

DAN! Doctor Roy Kerry chelation charges

10 Jul

Thhe full set of charges against the people responsible for the death of Tariq Nadama have been posted online.

In particular, DAN! (defeat autism now) ‘doctor’ Roy Kerry has to face some very serious charges indeed.

At the time, various anti-vax apologists were saying it was a mix up of the chelating agent – that the wrong one was used. These charges kill that piece of silly rationalisation stone dead:

71. Respondent admitted to using Disodium EDTA to chelate Tariq.

72. Respondent stated to Investigator Reiser that Disodiun EDTA is the only formula of EDTA he stocks in his office.

Maybe someone could explain to me how it was a mix up when the guy only stocks one type of EDTA? Please, this I have to hear.

The list of charges against Kerry strike right at the heart of the whole quackery surrounding the use of chelation. Here’s a selection:

24. The aforesaid death of Tariq Nadama was caused by the negligence of Dr. Kerry in the following particulars:

a. In failing to make a diagnosis of the child which would justify the use of disodium EDTA;
b. In deciding to administer EDTA therapy to a child;
c. In deciding to administer disodium EDTA to “treat” autism when he knew, or should have known, that such therapy is not effective treatment for autism;
d. In administering disodium EDTA when he knew that such product was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in “treating” autism;
e. In administering the wrong type of EDTA, e.g. one that did not contain an appropriate calcium additive;
f. In ordering the administration of the EDTA in an excessive dosage and concentration;
g. In ordering the administration of the EDTA via IV push when he knew, or should have known, that said method of administration was too fast;
h. In failing to appropriately train, educate and instruct the employees of Advanced Integrative Medicine Center, Inc., who were involved in the administration of the EDTA;
i. In failing to advise the deceased’s mother, Marwa Nadama, of all of the risks of chelation therapy and all appropriate alternatives to such treatment;

This shows the autism/chelation cottage industry up for exactly what it is – dangerous psuedoscience with no regard for the children who are essentially experimented on by quacks with their parents approval.

I’m very seriously conflicted by the Nadama’s decision to sue these people. A large part of me is glad that Tariq will get justice and that RoY Kerry will join the ranks of his fellow DAN! Doctors who have injured people or who have court judgements against them. He deserves no less.

On the other hand, I think the Nadama’s bear some responsibility themselves – as do those who ‘advised’ her. The mother, Marwa, was a regular on various Yahoo/autism groups and had also posted to the (now defunct) guestbook of Autism Fair Media, Erik Nanstiel’s quack interview website. She was immersed in chelation quackery and yet her husband was a Doctor – a specialist registrar in respiratory medicine at an NHS hospital. It beggars belief that if they could find the quackery on this subject that they couldn’t find sites like mine which expose the quackery. A google.co.uk (the Nadama’s are British) for the phrase ‘autism chelation’ reveals Kathleen, Jim Laidler’s site, Stephen Barretts site and Diva’s site on page 1, this site on page 2. I simply cannot believe they did not know chelation for autism had a dubious reputation.

One thing that cannot be questioned is the dedication and skill of the investigators who have put long hours into putting this case together and (obviously) rescuing the Nadama’s from their beliefs in chelation/autism quackery. About the only positives to come out of this is the fact that the Nadama’s can now see autism/chelation for what it is. What a shame its two years and one life too late.

New ‘Canards’ page

10 Jul

Stock answers for stock questions….Read More

Andrew Wakefield, MMR and….The Observer??

8 Jul

I have a category tag on this blog especially for the loons at the Daily Mail (Melanie Phillips et al) which I usually select whenever I write about Andrew Wakefield or the MMR because its invariably one of them doing the writing.

This time I was amazed to see that it was that usual bastion of intelligence and propriety, The Observer, that had decided to play the role of media dumbass. Obviously the mail and Private Eye are having an off day.

First up was Andrew Wakefield himself – comparing himself to Vaclav Havel no less he pontificates:

Wakefield told The Observer that he has no regrets for saying what he did in 1998 nor for continuing to seek to prove his view of MMR as the likeliest explanation for the rise in cases of autism in Britain. Almost every child health expert, though, regards the jab as hugely beneficial to public health and rules out any connection between it and autism.

‘My concern is that it’s biologically plausible that the MMR vaccine causes or contributes to the disease in many children, and that nothing in the science so far dissuades me from the continued need to pursue that question’, Wakefield said.

Nothing in the science? Is he joking?

How about the sworn testimony of Stephen Bustin, the world expert in the technique Wakefield’s lab of choice screwed up:

What I immediately observed was that they had forgotten to do the RT step…….If you detect a target that is apparently measles virus in the absence of an RT step by definition it can’t be measles virus because it has to be DNA. It’s a very simple concept. At least it is to me. It’s not to everyone else……[b]ecause measles virus doesn’t exist as a DNA molecule in nature, they cannot be detecting measles virus….

What’s not to get here Andy? Your lab fucked up. And whats more, in your original study, you ignored the fact that you had been proven wrong:

Q Okay. Did you personally test the gut biopsy samples for measles RNA?
A Yes.

Q What tests did you perform?
A A PCR test, a polymerase chain reaction.

Q What results did you receive from the gut biopsy materials for measles RNA?
A They were all negative.

Q They were always negative?
A Yes. There were a few cases of false positive results, which I used a method to see whether they were real positive results or false positive, and in every case they turned out to be false positive results. Essentially all the samples tested were negative.

…….

Q So you personally tested while you were in Dr. Wakefield’s lab gut biopsy material, CSF and PBMCs?
A Yes, that’s right.

Q And all the results were either negative, or if they were positive it always turned out that they were false positives?
A Yes, that’s correct.

Q Did you inform Dr. Wakefield of the negative results?
A Yes. Yes.

Please, someone – anyone – I mean it, anyone. please explain to me _what science_ exists that supports Andrew Wakefield’s opinion that ‘it’s biologically plausible that the MMR vaccine causes or contributes to [autism]’.

Also in The Observer (where is the third to complete the Trifecta of Stupid?) is the story:

New health fears over big surge in autism

And how did The Observer know this?

A study, as yet unpublished, shows that as many as one in 58 children may have some form of the condition

An unpublished study…? So, in other words, hearsay? Is there any indication as to the methodology of this study?

Well, according to Public Address, the team used the CAST (Childhood Asperger Syndrome Test) tool for evaluation. CAST has the following conclusion applied to it by the team that developed it:

The CAST is useful as a screening test for autism spectrum conditions in epidemiological research. There is not currently enough evidence to recommend the use of the CAST as a screening test within a public health screening programme in the general population

Those sorts of questionnaires are preliminary, for children who *might* have an ASD, and who should be followed up. If you take the 1 in 58 having features that might make you suspicious of ASD, then it’s a much more realistic feature – go down the full diagnostic road and you’re going to find that not all of them have an ASD.

And yet this is trumpted as a new health fear? An alternate and much more accurate headline would be: _We think some kids may have autism but we haven’t really tested for it at all_ – not quite as snappy though I grant you.

And hey, how did this story get linked to the MMR?

Seven academics at Cambridge University, six of them from its renowned Autism Research Centre, undertook the research by studying children at local primary schools. Two of the academics, leaders in their field, privately believe that the surprisingly high figure may be linked to the use of the controversial MMR vaccine.

Well, well, I wonder how these two could be? Again, from Public Address (link as above):

Dr Fiona Scott and Dr Carol Stott. Stott is a psychologist and is about as qualified to comment on diseases of the gut, immunology and PCR testing (all of which are relevant to the MMR claims) as I am. But there’s more to it. Her name will be known to anyone who has looked at this saga. It was Stott who sent a string of abusive emails to Brian Deer, which led to a formal warning from the British Psychological Society. (Stott accused her colleagues of failing to support her in her battle with Deer because they were in thrall of drug companies.)

Campbell doesn’t tell his readers all that. He also forgets to note that Stott is no longer employed as a junior researcher at Cambridge. She now works with the California-based clinic Thoughtful House, which is run by – did you see this coming? – Andrew Wakefield. As you might expect, Deer takes a dim view of what goes on there.

Until Deer started writing about it, Stott and Dr Fiona Scott shared a website, on which they touted their “substantial experience in medico-legal and educational-legal expert witness work” to parents who might have been minded to pursue legal action in the belief that the MMR vaccine had caused their children’s autism.

It would appear that either or both of Stott and Scott are Campbell’s source, and that the timing of the story around Wakefield’s return to face the music before the GMC is no accident.

Suddenly, the story becomes clearer. Andrew Wakefield is on a PR campaign to paint himself as the beatific hero of the piece and his two glamorous assistants are happy to sell out their study partners in order to help him. of course, this will also entail rehashing all the unfounded and non-scientific fears about autism and MMR just to muddy the waters a bit.

I am not surprised at Wakefield or his two cronies. But The Observer? I’m surprised to say the least.

Update from Ben at Badscience

Ben has received email from Fiona Scott regarding this. Her email reads:

I can respond to your question in terms of the following which will be the
formal press release available from the National Autistic Society:

The Cambridge University Autism Research Centre have not yet released the
findings from their prevalence study, as the study is not yet complete. The
Cambridge researchers are surprised that an unpublished report of their work
was described out of context by the Observer. They are investigating how
this report was made available to the Observer. They are equally surprised
that the Observer fabricated comments attributed to their team. They do not
believe there is any link between rising prevalence and the MMR, or chemical
toxins. It is untrue that Prof Baron-Cohen “was so concerned by the 1 in 58
figure that he proposed informing public health officials in the county “.
Such journalism raises anxiety unnecessarily and is irresponsible.

So it really does seem as if The Observer has out-and-out fabricated comments. Incredible.

Elsewhere

Autism Diva
Autism Vox
BadScience
Black Triangle
Mike Stanton
Public Address
Shinga
Tim Worstall
Tony Hatfield

Wakefield Speaks

8 Jul

Diva’s take on Andrew Wakefield’s interview…..Read More

Do’C Do’s and Don’ts

7 Jul

The internet is filled with speculation and information about autism, and so-called autism ‘treatments’….. Read More

Nancy Snyderman and the NAA

7 Jul

Nancy Snyderman is a TV Doctor (for the Today Show apparently) who recently got the collective knickers of the mercury militia in a twist when she told her audience the truth about the vaccine/autism connection – that there isn’t one. What particularly galled them was being confronted with the truth of their own behaviour. When asked what she thought the motivating factor was for parents to be taking vaccine makers to court she replied with one word: ‘money’.

Several anti vaccine/autism groups published a group response, which you can find on the home page of our old friends and routine liars, the National Autism Association.

Let’s go through the main points of the letter.

Dr. Snyderman’s ties to Johnson & Johnson, defendants in vaccine injury litigation, are obviously dictating the agenda in her appearances on your network at the risk of the safety of our children.

Right. So is it OK to pay people or not? Or is it only OK if you’re the parent group of autistic kids? As I talked about recently, its clear that both the NAA and SafeMinds have financial interests of their own that need explaining. Either its bad for everyone to do it, or no one. Which is it?

NBC’s viewers were exposed to a blatant falsehood yesterday as Dr. Snyderman claimed that vaccines no longer contain mercury. This is not the case, and this misinformation has unfortunately given America’s parents a false sense of security that vaccines are now mercury-free. This false claim puts all of America’s children and the unborn at risk of great harm.

Before I start, I want to say I’m referencing the audio Bob Krakow of A-CHAMP helpfully provides.

In respect of the above quote, Snyderman says:

(thiomersal)…was taken out years ago and yet the rates of autism have increased….

So, NAA et al say this is a blatant falsehood and….

Mercury is still in most flu, tetanus, and diphtheria/tetanus vaccines–and an array of vaccines still contain “trace” amounts. (The term “trace” must be used loosely as this aspect of vaccine production is not being regulated and there is some variation on what constitutes a trace amount. As children often receive multiple “trace” amounts of mercury in one sitting, cumulative amounts and potential adverse effects are as yet unknown.)

This is a blatant falsehood. Thiomersal is _not_ in ‘most flu, tetanus and diptheria/tetanus vaccines’. It exists in one brand (out of three) of DTaP at a trace amount. The NAA and other alarmists may be interested in a blog post I made quite awhile ago about ‘trace’ amounts of ingredients. In it, I discuss how my bottled water has to list all ingredients including fat which exists at ‘trace’ levels.

In other words, the chances of you being overdosed on thiomersal from these vaccines are about the same as you getting fat from drinking spring water. Further, Snyderman is correct. There is no thiomersal _in_ these vaccines (which is what she was asked). These trace amounts occur from the use of thiomersal in the manufacturing process. Its extremely likely that there really is _no_ thiomersal in this one vaccine.

Now, Snyderman was asked about childhood vaccines in the context of the omnibus hearings. Here’s the anchor:

…as a result of getting vaccines when their children were babies….

So Snyderman’s answer of ‘none’ is absolutely correct. Flu vaccines, some of which still have thiomersal _in_ them are not specific to children and are not given to babies as part of the schedule.

As a physician representing NBC, Dr. Snyderman has failed to tell the truth about mercury-containing vaccines and the known dangers associated with them. There is simply no excuse for such careless and false reporting while this country is in the throes of a childhood epidemic of neurological disorders.

Woah…..neurological disorders again? Not autism? This is bullshit intended to allow one to say whatever they want. Hey – National *Autism* Association – how about sticking to autism. Is it because you are well aware that there is in fact no epidemic of autism? We all know what you think about that. You slandered the author of a study who performed science that disagreed with you and set your pack of parent harpies on him right? This was the result:

After Mr. Shattuck’s paper last year, he received “a half-dozen phone messages on my answering machine that were either vaguely or specifically physically threatening,” he said.

One person said, “Don’t be surprised if you get a knock on your door in the middle of the night and I’ll be there.” Another message said it was easy in the age of the Internet to find out where people live.

Anyway, back to the National Autism Association et al. the next part of their letter states:

During Monday’s NBC Nightly News Dr. Snyderman stated, “there really is no science” behind the autism/mercury link. Vaccines and the mercury-based preservative thimerosal have not been ruled out as a cause of autism. To the contrary, there are literally thousands of scientific, peer-reviewed studies supporting the extreme neurotoxicity of mercury and the relationship between mercury exposure and neurological injury

Hey look! There’s that ‘neurological injury’ thing again. What happened to _autism_ ? You are attacking Snyderman for answering a question that you don’t even tackle in your response. She was asked about _autism_ . Her answer was also totally correct. There _is_ no science behind the autism/vaccine belief system. Your response that there are thousands of peer reviewed articles about the toxicity of mercury and the link to neurological injury is utterly irrelevant and nothing more than a very transparent strawman.

In her most recent NBC appearance, Dr. Snyderman was asked why parents were filing claims on behalf of their vaccine-injured children, to which she answered matter-of-factly, “money.” This cavalier statement alone goes far beyond contempt and displays an appalling ignorance of the emotional and financial devastation faced by families of vaccine-injured children. This must be addressed by an immediate apology from NBC to all the parents of children suffering from vaccine-induced illnesses.

I urge Dr Snyderman _not_ to apologise or retract her statement as it 100% correct. It is the only possible outcome from these hearings. If they win, the petitioners get money. That’s why the court was set up. Its a ‘no fault’ system. Do you need it explaining again?

We urge you to speak with the growing number of scientists who have published research supporting a causal link between mercury in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, and can provide you contact information for these researchers.

No one needs to do that. The science should speak for itself. If thiomersal causes autism, the peer reviewed literature will show that. Guess what? It doesn’t. Peer review does not include quack journals like Medical Veritas or JPANDS.

Reporting false information is a disservice to the American people.

I find it absolutely unbelievable that this statement is on the NAA website, the source for the false information about Paul Shattuck that led to his being hounded and threatened.

There is a choice selection of the more extreme antivax groups and individuals who are cosigners of this letter (although no SafeMinds I note – wonder why…).

These groups need to start looking at their behaviour. It is appalling. They have already led one researcher to being threatened over his phone because his _science_ didn’t agree with their _beliefs_ – what will happen to Nancy Snyderman? Maybe here is a telling sign. I got this from (you guessed it) the Evidence of Harm Yahoo group:

From: andrea52521991
Date: Apr 5, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: [EOHarm] Re: Oprah, Autism Speaks, etc…
To: EOHarm@yahoogroups.com

……..

I’d like to meet Dr.Nancy Snyderman in a dark alley someday and shove a 100 HPV vaccines right up her smug ass!

………

The truth is that these groups have an ugly, ugly problem with violence and an unhealthy fixation on committing acts of violence towards people who don’t agree with them. They have recently introduced what seems to be a new policy of referring to ‘neurological disorders’ when responding to points about ‘autism’ and need to have a long, hard look at both the accuracy of their public statements and their methods of what seem to be little more than inciting violence towards people they don’t like.

Safe Minds and David Kirby

5 Jul

Suspicions have been circling for a long time that there was more than just coincidence to the timing of writing and publication of Kirby’s Evidence of Harm. Those suspicions were enhanced for me when it became clear that a lot of Kirby’s associations with certain autism/anti-vaccine groups such as the National Autism Association were on a financial footing.

The ‘official’ story regarding the writing of Evidence of Harm, as reported by Kirby himself, was that Kirby was casting about for something to write about of book length and had been approached by several autism parents who wanted to share their beliefs that vaccines had made their kids autistic. According to Kirby, he was skeptical and unsure about whether to proceed with it or not. What made up his mind apparently was seeing a news report that a politician had managed to attach a no fault rider to a bill passing through Congress, absolving vaccine makers of any legal responsibility.

However, I don’t believe him. Up until recently, that belief was simply a belief. Rumours circulated that Sallie Bernard of Safe Minds was listed as the domain controller (i.e. she’d bought and paid for) the domain evidenceofharm.com. I emailed her to ask her one way or the other. She refused to answer that question. Kathleen Seidel has asked David Kirby that question. He refused to answer.

Why does it matter? Because Kirby claims to be impartial in this debate. His reviewers claim he ‘walks the middle line’ in his book. that his account is ‘even handed’. I would like to know how someone who has an established financial relationship to one major autism/anti-vax group can possibly be impartial. Would the NAA continue to fund Kirby’s website if he said he didn’t think thiomersal caused autism? I doubt it.

Turning our attention to Safe Minds, we can look at their records – records they must supply be law as they’re a non-profit organisation – and see exactly what they have financed. You can access these records via the orgs IRS Form 990:

Form 990 is an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS. It provides information on the filing organization’s mission, programs, and finances.

Attached is Safe Minds 990 for 2005. It has some interesting details in it.

If we look at line 43, it has a listing amount of $99,196 for ‘Professional Fees’ expenses placed under the ‘Program Services’ Category.

This means that they paid people they considered professionals almost $100k to provide services to their programs. On page 15 of this same document they go into detail about what these services are.

…..THE BOOK “EVIDENCE OF HARM, MERCURY IN VACCINES AND THE AUSTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY” WAS RELEASED IN 2004 AND SAFEMINDS PRESIDENT, LYN REDWOOD, WAS FEATURED ON THE MONTEL WILLIAMS SHOW ALONG WITH AUTHOR, DAVID KIRBY. THIS IMPORTANT BOOK EXAMINES BOTH THE PERSONAL STORIES OF FAMILIES AND THE UNFOLDING DRAMA IN THE COURTS AND HALLS OF CONGRESS.

This is listed as a ‘Program Service Accomplishment’.

So what can we conclude? To me, this is pretty damning evidence that David Kirby was paid by Safe Minds to write Evidence of Harm. It certainly ties in with Kirby’s other financial benefits from the NAA. So much for impartiality.

I have some questions for Safe Minds and David Kirby.

1) Did David Kirby receive any kind of financial incentive from Safe Minds or NAA or any of their boards prior to writing Evidence of Harm?
2) If so, how much?
3) If not, please explain the 990 form from 2005 above and tell us exactly what the information in it means.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →