Archive | Autism RSS feed for this section

BMJ, Brian Deer file anti-SLAPP motion against Andrew Wakefield

11 Mar

About 2 months ago Andrew Wakefield filed a defamation lawsuit against the British Medical Journal, Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee for the series of three articles “The Secrets of the MMR Scare” and public comments made since. In particular, Mr. Wakefield took issue with statements about his research being fraudulent (and variations on that term like “fraudster”, “bullshit” etc.). Mr. Wakefield claimed that the facts presented by the BMJ articles were incorrect and based on information not available to him at the time he wrote his Lancet article.

Mr. Wakefield chose to file his defamation suit in Texas (his home state). This presented him immediately with two hurdles. First he has to show that the court has jurisdiction over primarily UK entities. Second he faced the possibility of an anti-SLAPP motion. SLAPP stands for “Strategic lawsuit against public participation“. Per Wikipedia:

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

Many states in the U.S. have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation. Texas enacted a law fairly recently and this motion could be the first major test of that law. I say “could” because of the first hurdle: jurisdiction. As Popehat has already noted, the plaintiffs in the anti-SLAPP motion “specially appear”. I.e. they keep the right to fight on jurisdictional grounds.

The motion and Mr. Deer’s supporting declaration can be found on Mr. Deer’s website. Mr. Deer’s declaration goes through the full history of his involvement with Mr. Wakefield’s research.

As Popehat notes, the motion appears quite strong. As is the case with legal motions, it covers multiple arguments. For example, they not only argue that the statements on their own are permissible speech, but they argue that the statements themselves are accurate.

Here is a section of the table-of-contents for the motion:

V. TEXAS’S NEW ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE APPLIES TO DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS.

VI. DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE HE CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ARE FALSE

A. Dr. Wakefield Must Prove that Defendants’ Statements Are Not Substantially True.
B. Dr. Wakefield Is Precluded from Re-litigating the GMC’s Findings, Which Establish the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements.
C. The Undisputed Evidence Also Establishes the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements.

1. Dr. Wakefield’s Misreporting and Falsification Permeated His Research.

2. Dr. Wakefield’s Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest.
3. Dr. Wakefield’s Review of the GP Records

VII DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS OF OPINION AND RHETORICAL HYPERBOLE ARE NOT ACTIONABLE.
A. Several of Defendants’ Statements, Including that Dr. Wakefield’s Research Must Have Been “Fraud,” Are Nonactionable Expressions of Opinion.
B. Defendants’ Expressions of Rhetorical Hyperbole and Colorful Language Are Not Actionable.

VIII DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS BASED ON BRIAN DEER’S WEBSITE PUBLICATIONS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
DR. WAKEFIELD IS A PUBLIC FIGURE, AND HE CANNOT SHOW ACTUAL MALICE.
A. Dr. Wakefield Is a Public Figure.
1. The “MMR Scare” Is a Public Controversy.
2. Dr. Wakefield Had More than a Trivial or Tangential Role in the
Scare.
3. Dr. Wakefield’s Claims Are Germane to His Participation in the
Controversy.
B. Defendants Did Not Act with Actual Malice.

1. Actual Malice Is an Exceedingly Difficult Standard to Satisfy.
2. The Evidence Here Precludes a Finding of Actual Malice.

Mr. Wakefield faces a number of burdens to overcome this motion. He must show that the statements made were more damaging that the truth. He must show that the statements are false–not just minor wording differences but that the “gist” of the truth is missing from the statements made. He must show that either he is not a public figure (very difficult for a doctor who has had a publicist for at least 10 years and has certainly put himself into the public sphere). He must show that Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ acted with actual malice.

He must present substantive evidence for each of these before he can go to trial. If he fails, he faces not only payment of reasonable legal fees and costs, but also the possibility of a penalty to deter future frivolous lawsuits. In that regard, the motion puts forth the history of Mr. Wakefield’s previous legal threats and lawsuits.

The most famous instance of Mr. Wakefield’s litigious history is his lawsuit against Brian Deer in 2004. Justice Eady made very clear statements on that:

[Dr. Wakefield] wished to use the existence of libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the ‘downside’ of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.

To put this in perspective–such a statement by the judge in Texas would almost certainly be followed by not only a dismissal of the case, but a financial judgement in favor of Mr. Deer, Ms. Godlee and the BMJ.

The motion makes it clear that Mr. Wakefield has faced negative commentary on his work and his character from many quarters in the past few years. From their introduction:

Two months ago, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named by Time magazine as one of the “Great Science Frauds” of modern history. Last April, the New York Times described him as “one of the most reviled doctors of his generation.” In 2009, a Special Master presiding over vaccine litigation in the United States Court of Federal Claims recognized that Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet medical journal, which suggested a possible link between the lifesaving Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine and the development of autism in children, was considered a “scientific fraud.”

The Lancet has now fully retracted Wakefield’s paper, and its editor has state publicly that the paper was “utterly false” and that Wakefield “deceived the journal.” Wakefield’s home country’s medical board, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council (“GMC”), convicted him in 2010 of multiple charges of “serious professional misconduct,” including “dishonesty” and “unethical conduct.” It further held that his misconduct had been so severe and extensive that the only punishment that would adequately protect the public from him was the permanent revocation of his medical license. As the New York Daily News put it, “Hippocrates would puke.”

As to specific instances of calling Mr. Wakefield’s work fraudulent, they quote multiple instances of the term being used. As noted above, one of the Special Masters in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (vaccine court) called the work “scientific fraud”. Probably the most damaging instance for Mr. Wakefield are quotes from his own attorney in the General Medical Council (GMC) hearings who stated that some of the charges, if found proved, would amount to charges of fraud. Those charges were found proved.

There is definitely a movement amongst Mr. Wakefield’s supporters to recast his defamation suit as a retrial of not only his Fitness to Practice hearing before the GMC, but as a legal test of the validity of his MMR/autism hypothesis. Even just within the past couple of days Jenny McCarthy re-emerged in her role as a vocal Wakefield supporter with this (and other) erroneous arguments.

Courts are well aware of attempts for people to use defamation cases as a proxy for fighting other arguments. For example, readers might recall a recent defamation case where Barbara Loe Fisher (of the self-named National Vaccine Information Center) sued Dr. Paul Offit, writer Amy Wallace and Conde Nast publications for two words in an article: “she lies”. In the decision dismissing the defamation suit the judge noted:

Not only does Plaintiff’s claim of the statement’s falsity invite an open ended inquiry into Plaintiff’s veracity, it also threatens to ensnare the Court in the thorny and extremely contentious debate over the perceived risks of certain vaccines….and, at the bottom, which side has the truth on its side. This is hardly the sort of issue which would be subject to verification based on a core of “objective evidence”

and

Courts have a justifiable reticence about venturing into a thicket of scientific debate, especially in the defamation context

However, one must note that Mr. Wakefield’s defamation suit does *not* involve the issues of his research conclusions/findings (or non-findings as they have been retracted from the public sphere). The question put forth by Mr. Wakefield was whether statements such as “fraud”, “fraudster”, “determined cheat” are actionable defamation and whether these are based on allegedly misrepresented details from the research–such as diagnoses of the children and when symptoms appeared. Mr. Deer shows in his declaration that the facts presented in the BMJ studies are accurate.

On the “weight of evidence” front, consider this: Mr. Wakefield submitted a 17 page defamation claim. The defendants have responded with a 53 page anti-SLAPP motion and 5 declarations. The declarations include one from Mr. Deer with 101 pages and 104 exhibits. Where Mr. Wakefield is using a neighbor as his attorney, one who is not a specialist in health, media or defamation cases, the BMJ team are using a top Texas law firm and a total of seven attorneys. The lead attorney is listed as having experience with healthcare and publishers:

Tom has a wide range of experience in state and federal appeals and trials. His experience includes commercial, intellectual property, and healthcare litigation, and class actions. He has represented publishers and broadcasters in all aspects of media litigation throughout his career.

the second attorney listed has direct experience on defamation:

Marc’s practice focuses on media and privacy law, class actions, and general commercial litigation. His media law experience includes representing publishers in litigation involving claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation, copyright, and related causes of action. In addition, he has defended companies in consumer class actions across the country relating to advertising and digital privacy. He regularly provides advice regarding website terms of service, arbitration agreements, and privacy law.

According to the BMJ’s motion, ” To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff [Mr. Wakefield] must submit “clear and specific evidence” to support each essential element of his claims.”

I suspect that Mr. Wakefield will have a meeting with his attorney very soon to discuss strategy. They are outclassed on the facts of the case, on the manpower and expertise of the attorneys and the credibility of the witnesses. They will discuss “each essential element of his claims” and how they stack up against the evidence presented. One might suspect that Mr. Wakefield’s attorney was unaware of how shaky their position was at the start, getting his facts from Mr. Wakefield. They now know, through hundreds of pages of arguments and evidence, how the defense can answer the “essential claims”.

If they can dismiss before the jurisdiction question is addressed and avoid the anti-SLAPP motion, they might be well advised to do so. The “reasonable costs” the BMJ are incurring are sure to be sizable. And the litigious history of Mr. Wakefield will surely play into a determination of whether to impose penalties on top of those.

From where I sit, Mr. Wakefield just doesn’t have the facts on his side. Nor does he have the law on his side. The jurisdiction question may be a blessing in disguise for Mr. Wakefield: giving him the opportunity to bow out before the anti-SLAPP motion goes into effect.

Sunnyvale police: Mother killed 22-year-old autistic son, then herself

8 Mar

The San Jose Mercury News reports today Sunnyvale police: Mother killed 22-year-old autistic son, then herself

A Sunnyvale woman who told neighbors she was “so tired” and could no longer handle caring for her 22-year-old autistic son shot him in his bedroom and then turned the gun on herself.

Elizabeth Hodgins’ husband came home at 7:45 p.m. Tuesday to find his wife and their son, George, dead, according to the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Police declined to point to a motive. She left no note.

The story details how the mother wanted to get her son into a more community-oriented program. For the record, I am well aware of the program he was in before and it is excellent, with caring, dedicated staff.

Walker-Smith wins appeal

7 Mar

Prof. John Walker-Smith was one of Andrew Wakefield’s colleagues at the Royal Free and participated in the research there. Prof. Walker-Smith was struck off the medical register along with Andrew Wakefield by the General Medical Council. Prof. Walker-Smith appealed and the GMC’s decision has been quashed.

Here is the conclusion of the appeal decision:

For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion. Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel’s critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC’s experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas. Even if it were permissible to perform such an exercise, which I doubt, it would not permit me to rescue the panel’s findings. As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide. The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC’s approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.

The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.

From The Telegraph’s MMR doctor wins battle against being struck off:

A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct over the MMR controversy has won his High Court appeal against being struck off.

And:

Chief executive Niall Dickson added: “Today’s ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism.

“As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgement, ‘There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield’s) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked’.

Autism recurrence in half siblings: strong support for genetic mechanisms of transmission in ASD

5 Mar

Autism recurrence in half siblings: strong support for genetic mechanisms of transmission in ASD comes out of Dan Geschwind’s group at UCLA. They used the Interactive Autism Network database. Here is the abstract:

Current estimates of the heritability of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) derived from existing clinical twin studies1, 2, 3, 4 are potentially confounded by a number of factors, including low sample size, inconsistency in case definition and the role of de novo mutation (currently estimated to contribute to some 20% of cases), and the possibility that heritable causes of ASD in a twin could result in environmentally engendered affectation of a non-identical co-twin in utero, especially if mediated by humoral or immune mechanisms. To minimize these confounds, we compared autism recurrence in half siblings versus that in full siblings, using data (6 June 2011) from over five thousand families enrolled in the Interactive Autism Network (IAN), a national volunteer register for ASD, detailed characteristics of which have been previously described by our group. Recurrence rate among full siblings was observed to be approximately twice that among half siblings, providing strong evidence of genetic transmission of ASD.

The recurrence risk is the chance that a sibling has autism if another sibling does. The authors found the recurrence risk to be twice as high for full siblings, which is consistent with a primarily genetic model of autism risk.

This follows on a number of recent twin studies (here, here and here) have shown a lower concordance than previously estimated and the baby siblings study which showed a 19% recurrence risk for autism.

I wonder at how many half-siblings there are in the cohort. A small subpopulation could mean large error bars.

Roberto Marty, San Francisco School Bus Driver, To Stand Trial For Molesting Multiple Special Needs Students

5 Mar

This from the Huffington Post: Roberto Marty, San Francisco School Bus Driver, To Stand Trial For Molesting Multiple Special Needs Students. Obviously this is not yet proved. The story, however, tells of the possibility of more than one instance of abuse:

Long-time San Francisco Unified School District bus driver Roberto Marty stands accused of two counts of felony molestation–the first stemming from an incident occurring nearly a decade ago with the second allegedly happening last year.

Marty was investigated for inappropriate contact with a student in 2004; however, the San Francisco Police Department’s investigation found the claim to be without merit and Marty was allowed to continue driving buses for the district, a job he held since 1994.

leaping science forward fundraiser for Autism Science Foundation

29 Feb

Today is a special fundraiser for the Autism Science Foundation. All the money will go towards the stakeholder travel grants they provide for people to attend IMFAR. Here are the details:

We need YOUR help to make the 2012 Leap Day a great day for autism science!

How often have you wished for an extra hour or extra day to get everything you need done? In 2012, we get a WHOLE DAY! At the Autism Science Foundation, we want to make the most of this special leap day by using it to help autism science leap forward.

All donations made on February 29, 2012 will go directly to our IMFAR Travel Grants program, helping us provide more scholarships for stakeholders – parents, siblings teachers, people with autism – to attend IMFAR 2012 in Toronto where they will share their real world autism experience with scientists. These stakeholders will then bring the latest autism science back into our communities helping the science take a giant leap forward.

We need YOUR help leaping science forward and sharing your love of autism research. We need YOUR help spreading the word about this 1-day fundraiser!

Please help us by writing a blog post, composing some tweets and/or posting an update to your Facebook page on Wednesday, February 29 after 8 am EST.

Do something special with this extra day of 2012 and help leap science forward.

Get all the details about the 1-day fundraiser here – http://leapscienceforward.causevox.com/

Call for Applicants: Leadership Training for Autistic College Students

28 Feb

This announcement from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN).

What is the Autism Campus Inclusion (ACI) Summer Institute? The ACI Summer Institute is a week-long training for Autistic college students. The training is meant to prepare students to engage in self-advocacy and pro-neurodiversity activism on their college campuses.

Who is eligible for the ACI Summer Institute? Any current Autistic college student in the United States is eligible to attend. Students should have at least one more year remaining in college. Because of the support we are receiving from our partners, we are offering this institute at no cost to the students chosen for the program, including travel accommodations, room and board. The institute will take place August 12th through August 17th in Baltimore, MD.

What will participants learn at the ACI Summer Institute? With curriculum based on our collaboration with the Daniel Jordan Fiddle Foundation in the Empowering Disabled Leaders handbook and materials produced and developed with the help of University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability, the participants will learn how to engage in activism and advocacy activities on their college campuses.

Applications are due by March 30, 2012 with accepted applicants being contacted in May 2012. If you feel you would like to participate, please fill out the application and submit it with your responses to the essay questions and your resume to Melody Latimer at mlatimer@autisticadvocacy.org . All questions should also be directed to Melody.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Melody Latimer
Director of Community Engagement
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network

APPLY NOW!

Normal concentrations of heavy metals in autistic spectrum disorders.

27 Feb

A recent study once again looks for metals in autistic children. Once again fails to find significant differences between lead, mercury, cadmium and aluminum levels in autistic and non-autistic children. The study is relatively small (17 autistic children, 20 non-autistic). This group tested hair, blood and urine.

Here is the abstract:

Normal concentrations of heavy metals in autistic spectrum disorders.
Albizzati A, Morè L, Di Candia D, Saccani M, Lenti C.
Source
Operative Unit Child Neuropsychiatry A.O. San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy – carlo.lenti@unimi.it.
Abstract
AIM:
Autism is a neurological-psychiatric disease. In the last 20 years we witnessed a strong increase of autism diagnoses. To explain this increase, some scientists put forward the hypothesis that heavy metal intoxication may be one of the causes of autism. The origin of such an intoxication was hypothesised to be vaccines containing thimerosal as antimicrobic preservative. This preservative is mainly made up of mercury. The aim of our research was to investigate the correlation between autism and high biological concentrations of heavy metals.
METHODS:
Seventeen autistic patients, between 6 and 16 years old (average: 11.52 DS: 3.20) (15 males and 2 females), were investigated, as well as 20 non autistic subjects from neuropsychiatric service between 6 and 16 years (average: 10.41 DS: 3.20) (15 males and 2 females). In both groups blood, urine and hair samples were analysed trough means of a semiquantitative analysis of heavy metal dosing. The metals analysed were Lead, mercury, cadmium and aluminium, since their build-up may give both neurological and psychiatric symptoms.
RESULTS:
The comparison of the mean values of the concentrations between the groups, performed with ANOVA test, has shown no statistically relevant differences.
CONCLUSION:
There wasn’t correlation between autism and heavy metal concentration.

This follows on the heels of a recent study published in the Public Library of Science, A Comparison of Urinary Mercury between Children with Autism., which found no differences in urine concentrations of mercury. This study was discussed here at Left Brain/Right Brain.

Looking back, what other studies have there been?

Heavy Metal in Children’s Tooth Enamel: Related to Autism and Disruptive Behaviors?

The current findings challenge the notion that perinatal heavy metal exposure is a major contributor to the development of ASDs and HDB [highly disruptive behaviors]

Lack of Correlation Between Metallic Elements Analyzed in Hair by ICP-MS and Autism.

A cross-sectional case-control study was carried out to evaluate the concentrations of metallic elements in the hair of 44 children with diagnosis of autism and 61 age-balanced controls. Unadjusted comparisons showed higher concentrations of molybdenum, lithium and selenium in autistic children. Logistic regression analysis confirmed the role of risk factor for male gender and showed a slight association with molybdenum concentrations. Unconventional chelation and vitamin-mineral supplementation were ineffective on elemental hair concentrations. A meta-analysis including the present and previous similar studies excluded any association of autism with hair concentrations of mercury, cadmium, selenium, lithium and copper. A slight association was found for lead only, but it was very weak, as strictly dependent on the worst data from one study.

Blood mercury concentrations in CHARGE Study children with and without autism.

After accounting for dietary and other differences in Hg exposures, total Hg in blood was neither elevated nor reduced in CHARGE Study preschoolers with AU/ASD compared with unaffected controls, and resembled those of nationally representative samples.

IMFAR (unpublished) abstracts:

Prenatal and Neonatal Peripheral Blood Mercury Levels and Autism Spectrum Disorders

Conclusions: Levels of total mercury in serum collected from mothers during mid-pregnancy and in blood collected from infants at birth were not associated with risk of ASD.

The Tooth Fairy Project: Heavy Metal Concentrations in the “Baby Teeth” of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

Results: Initial analyses do not indicate higher concentrations of lead, manganese, or mercury in either prenatal or postnatal regions of the teeth among children with ASD as compared to matched controls. The presentation will include final analyses and interpretations on the full sample and on other elements.
Conclusions: Based on preliminary results, concentrations of heavy metals do not seem to be higher in children with ASD. The type of biomarker used may be important, and it is also possible that prenatal and early postnatal exposure to heavy metals contributes to the development of ASD in some children, but not others.

PS1.65 MERCURY LEVELS IN CHILDREN WITH PDDS AND THEIR MOTHERS: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY

Conclusion: There is no evidence that children with PDD have elevated levels of mercury or that they have deficiencies in mercury excretion. The findings do not support the use of chelation therapies as a treatment of autism.

PS3.36 A STUDY OF MERCURY LEVELS IN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH AUTISM USING LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF HAIR SAMPLES

Analysis of hair sample data by t-tests for equality of means and equal variance yielded no significant difference in mercury levels for the two groups. Despite the small sample size, results raise questions about the usefulness of evaluation for mercury exposure using hair samples, and about claims of mercury toxicity in children with autism.

PS6.4 NO AUTISM AMONGST INUITS FROM NORTHERN QUEBEC?

Conclusion: Autism appears to not exist amongst Inuits from Northern Quebec. If confirmed, it would have significant implications for the genetic understanding of autism. In addition, as Inuits are exposed through their fish-eating practices to high pre- and post-natal levels of mercury, it would also suggest that high mercury exposure in itself does not increase the risk of autism.

24-hour provoked urine excretion test for heavy metals in children with autism and typically developing controls, a pilot study.

RESULTS:

Fifteen autistic children and four typically developing children completed the study. Three autistic subjects excreted one metal in greater quantity during the provoked excretion than baseline. Two of these were very close to the limit of detection. In the third case, the provoked excretion of mercury was between the upper limit of normal and lower limit of the potentially toxic reference range. Fish was removed from this child’s diet for greater than one month, and the provoked excretion test repeated. The repeat excretion of mercury was within the normal range.
CONCLUSION:

In the absence a proven novel mode of heavy metal toxicity, the proportion of autistic participants in this study whose DMSA provoked excretion results demonstrate an excess chelatable body burden of As, Cd, Pb, or Hg is zero. The confidence interval for this proportion is 0-22%.

Yes, you can find papers claiming there are differences in hair, blood or urine concentrations of mercury. Many by father-son team Mark and David Geier. I won’t take the time to go into the lengthy discussion of why I don’t trust anything they do without corroboration. There is the old Amy Holmes “baby haircut” study that was taken apart at the autism omnibus proceeding (amongst other places). Plus a couple papers by James Adams. Yes, and a poorly done reanalysis of an existing dataset. Just not a strong body of evidence to support the idea that “autism is a novel form of mercury poisoning”.

In the end all of this evidence comes in a far second to the fact that multiple studies have shown no increased risk for mercury exposure from vaccines. For example:

[Lack of association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism].

Our study revealed no evidence of an association between TCVs and autism.

So much time spent. So much money spent. And it is still going on. It’s long past time to move on. The vast majority of the research community already has. Most parents have.

Vote for The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism as best new special needs parenting book

26 Feb

Have you read The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism? If so, consider a vote for The Thinking Person’s Guide To Autism as best new special needs parenting book. This poll is being held at SpecialChildren.about.com.

From about.com:

Five new special-needs parenting books have been selected to vie for a 2012 About.com Readers’ Choice Award, based on your nominations

And you can vote every day (for real):

You can vote once a day every day between now and March 21. Winners will be announced on March 30

Mark Geier: Cease and Desist

26 Feb

From the Baltimore Sun: ‘Cease and desist’ order issued against autism doctor

Dr. Mark R. Geier, a Rockville doctor accused of improperly treating children with autism, has been ordered by the state Board of Physicians to stop practicing medicine while his license is suspended.

The doctor’s license was suspended in April after the board concluded his hormone and chelation therapy endangered the children in his care. But the board in a new “cease and desist” order this week accused the doctor of refilling prescriptions for at least three patients in violation of the suspension.

The doctor has appealed the suspension of his license. His lawyer declined to comment on the newest claims.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →