Archive | Omnibus Experts RSS feed for this section

Stephen Bustin: Why There Is no Link Between Measles Virus and Autism

9 Apr

Andrew Wakefield promoted the idea that the MMR vaccine caused autism. While his now-retracted 1997 Lancet paper is most often discussed, the strongest evidence he had actually came in later work where his team reported that they found evidence of the vaccine strain of the measles virus in the intestinal tissues of autistic children. The team used a methodology called Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR amplifies a specific fragment of DNA, allowing one to identify if small amounts of that gene are present in larger samples. PCR tests were performed by John O’Leary in Dublin. As revealed later, Andrew Wakefield had a business stake in this laboratory.

As part of the MMR litigation in the UK, the vaccine manufacturers hired Stephen Bustin to review the methods and results of the O’Leary laboratory. Those results were not made public, but Prof. Bustin later was called in to testify in the U.S. Autism Omnibus Proceeding (the vaccine court). That testimony was discussed here at LeftBrain/RightBrain and elsewhere. Prof. Bustin is one of the world’s experts on PCR.

Prof. Bustin has now written his own account of the history of the measles-virus/autism work by Mr. Wakefield’s team in Why There Is no Link Between Measles Virus and Autism. The full report is free, open access. The report discusses what he already disclosed in his testimony: the multiple failures which resulted in the reporting of a false association of measles virus and autism.

Some of those failures include:

Absence of transparency: the key publication shows no data; hence an expert reader cannot evaluate the reliability of its conclusions

Unreliable techniques and protocols: analysis of the qPCR data was incorrect

Disregard for controls: obvious evidence of extensive contamination was disregarded

Lack of reproducibility: the data could not be duplicated by several independent investigators

One key failure involved skipping key steps in using PCR on measles virus. The measles virus is an RNA virus. PCR is very inefficient at detecting RNA, so a step called reverse transcriptase is used to convert the RNA to DNA before PCR (RT-PCR). The O’Leary lab did not perform this step. This result, and others, show that the samples used by Mr. Wakefield’s team were contaminated. Prof. Bustin goes into detail and covers more important topics, and as the paper is relatively short, it is worth a read for those interested in the science.

Prof. Bustin concludes:

As a result, the conclusions put forward by this [the Wakefield/O’Leary] paper are entirely incorrect and there is no evidence whatever for the presence either of MeV genomic RNA or mRNA in the GI tracts of any of the patients investigated during the course of the studies reported by O’Leary et al. Instead, it is clear that the data support the opposite conclusion: there is no evidence for any MeV being present in the majority of patients’ analysed. Unfortunately, the authors do not report whether any the patients had received the MMR vaccination. However, assuming that a significant proportion had done so, it is also clear that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and the presence of MeV in the intestine of autistic children.

The Wakefield MMR hypothesis is already failed, so this does not really change the conversation. What this report by Prof. Bustin does is document his own observations, measurements and analyses for the historical record so we can see just how bad the science was that promoted the Wakefield hypothesis.


By Matt Carey

Advertisements

The Next Vaccine-Autism Newsmaker…5 years later

6 Feb

Years back, much focus in online autism parent community discussions focused on the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP). This was the large “vaccine court” proceeding to explore if people could be compensated for autism as a vaccine injury. Those hearings were held in 2008, and the decisions went against the families.

A year ago I wrote (The Omnibus Autism Proceeding: effectively over), and while, yes, as an “Omnibus” it is effectively over, there is still activity for those who filed claims and were included in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. Statistics as of today show there were 5,635 claims included in the Omnibus, and 4,564 have been dismissed. 2 claimants have been compensated, with the caveat given that “**HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.” This leaves 1,069 cases still pending. A relatively small fraction of the original Omnibus, but a large number nonetheless.

Another way to look at this is the Omnibus proceedings are over, the docket hasn’t been updated for quite some time but there are still individual cases to be decided. Including one case that was rather prominent in the Omnibus: that of A. Krakow. He was intended to be one of the test cases for the thimerosal but was pulled out to pursue another argument: that metabolic dysfunction is involved. David Kirby referred to him as “The Next Vaccine-Autism Newsmaker”, following the supposed game-changer of Hannah Poling.

That was in 2008. As it’s been nearly 5 years, I checked the status of the case. It turns out the first hearing was held in December (a hearing on fact) and a second hearing is set for expert witnesses to testify in April of this year. One way to explore the arguments the family may be taking is to review the experts that are testifying. For example, the family has chosen Richard Deth as an expert. His work has not focused on mitochondria. On the other hand, Yuval Shafir is also listed as an expert and has listed many articles on mitochondria with his report. Richard Frye’s CV was submitted (he also has some work on mitochondria and autism), but I don’t see that an expert report from him has been submitted.

Other experts date from 2008 (from when he was going to be an Omnibus test case) include: Elizabeth A. Mumper, Robert S. Rust, Richard Deth and Sander Greenland.

(edit to add, I see a report in the docket from Marcel Kinsbourne in 2010).

So, is this going ahead as a “mitochondrial autism” case? The “Next Hannah Poling” as David Kirby claimed in Spectrum Magazine? Well, even Hannah Poling wasn’t the game-changer some people predicted. Probably the most we can say is that is 10 years old, with a docket 16 pages long, will finally be heard.

edit to add: For the curious, here is the docket.

By Matt Carey

A busy week in vaccine-injury news: the Cedillo appeal

4 Sep

The past week has had three somewhat major news events in the world of vaccine injury: the denial of the Cedillo appeal, the award of damages in the UK for an MMR case and the damages award in the Hannah Poling case. I thought I would write about them all, but the Cedillo appeal part is already long so I will leave the other subjects for another time.

The Cedillo Appeal

Kev blogged the denial as Cedillo appeal denied. I had blogged the hearing in June as Another appeal heard in the Autism Omnibus, then blogged the actual audio from the hearing as Audio of the Cedillo appeal part 1 and Audio of the Cedillo appeal part 2.

The arugument used in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding for MMR causing autism is basically the model that grew out of the work of Andrew Wakefield: that measles virus (MV) from vaccines persisted in the body, particularly in the digestive tract. Wakefield’s theory involved the MV infection causing intestinal permeability which allowed substances to “leak” out into the system (the “leaky gut” hypothesis). The Cedllio’s attorneys argued that the measles virus itself traveled to the brain, causing inflammation and autism.

This is not the first appeal for the Cedillo family, or for the test cases in the Omnibus. It is likely the last, however. The next step would be the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would be unlikely to hear an appeal. The Supreme Court does not hear all the cases submitted, instead choosing to hear mostly cases which clarify points of law. The Cedillo appeal so far has not been about the laws for the most part but about the procedure of the case. One exception is the question of whether the correct standard was applied to reviewing the admissibility of the evidence. The Court used the Daubert standard, which the Cedillo’s attorneys argued was incorrect. This is not the first time the Court used Daubert, and it is not the first time the appeals court upheld it.

The other arguments made include whether the testimony and reports of Dr. Stephen Bustin should have been allowed. Dr. Bustin’s reports were obtained very shortly before the hearing and were based on closed documents from a U.K. proceeding on MMR and autism. The Cedillo’s attorneys argued that they were unable to prepare a counter argument to Dr. Bustin on short notice and that since they did not have access to the underlying data and documents. In a civil court, these arguments would have carried much weight. However, in the vaccine court, much flexibility is allowed. In this case, the Special Master allowed the evidence to be heard, and gave the Cedillo’s attorneys over a year to obtain the background data from the UK and mount a counter argument.

The Cedillo’s attorneys did not attempt to obtain the background data for the Bustin testimony in year that followed the hearing. Yes, it isn’t that they were unsuccessful, they didn’t try to obtain it. They stated that their consultants in the UK advised them that it was unlikely that they would be able to obtain the documents without the permission of the experts. However, Dr. Bustin gave his permission.

From the appeals court decision:

Petitioners considered making such a re-quest from the UK court, but never did so. They contend that British counsel informed them that it was unlikely that the UK court would permit disclosure of the expert reports without the consent of the experts, which peti-tioners stated that they could not obtain. But Dr. Bustin did consent to the release of his reports. Once his consent for the release of his reports had been obtained by the government, there is no reason why the data underlying his reports could not also have been requested

Dr. Bustin’s testimony focused on a critical part of the argument used to claim that MMR causes autism: the claimed presence of measles virus in the bodies of autistics like Miss Cedillo. Dr. Bustin is arguably the worlds top expert on PCR, the method used by the Unigenetics Laboratory to test tissue samples for measles virus. Dr. Bustin discussed at length multiple reasons why the Unigenetics Laboratory results were not reliable.

A few points to be made here.

(1) The Cedillo’s attorneys presented an expert (Dr. Kennedy) to claim that the Unigenetics laboratory was reliable. Dr. Kennedy also had worked on the UK litigation and Dr. Kennedy’s underlying data were also under seal in that litigation. In other words, the Cedillo’s attorney’s were asking that the Special Master apply one standard to the government’s witness (rejecting his report without the underlying data) while applying the exact opposite standard to their own witness (Dr. Kennedy, who also didn’t have the underlying data).

(2) Michelle Cedillo was one of three “test cases” used to test the question of “general causation”. The other two children used as test cases did not have evidence of persistent measles virus in their bodies.

There is only one paper with reliable data showing the presence of measles virus in the tissues of an autistic child. This paper came out after the Cedillo hearing. The paper: Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study. In that study they found measles virus in one autistic child, and in one non-autistic “control”. The Cedillo’s attorney’s argued that this was “significant new evidence” that showed the reliability of the Unigenetics laboratory.

I found it very odd that a paper titled “Lack of association between Mealses Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy” would be used as evidence for an association between measles virus vaccine and autism. But the argument is that this paper validates the Unigenetics laboratory as being able to produce reliable results. The argument is not valid, and the court did not agree with it. The work done by Unigenetics on Miss Cedillo was performed in 2002. The research on the paper was performed much later, after significant criticism was already levied against Unigenetics. Quite simply put, it is possible that Unigenetics “cleaned up its act” by the time of the recent paper.

(3) It was noted that the arguments about Dr. Bustin’s testimony were essentially moot, as the Special Master would have come to the same decision without his testimony.

(4) It was also noted that the appeals court had already decided on Dr. Bustin’s testimony in an appeal mounted by the attorneys for the Hazelhurst family (another of the Omnibus test cases).

The Cedillo’s attorneys further argued that it was unfair that evidence was brought in from the other “test case” hearings (Hazelhurst and Snyder). The appeals ruling noted that the Cedillo hearing was not a stand-alone proceeding. As a test case in an Omnibus Proceeding, evidence from all the test cases would be used to answer the question of general causation. I was surprised at the time of the appeal that the Cedillo’s attorneys were arguing that they were not actively monitoring the other test case hearings. What, in the end, is the point of an Omnibus Proceeding or a “petitioners steering committee” of the petitioners are not acting in some way as a group?

The Cedillo’s attorneys argued that the Special Master did not give enough weight to Miss Cedillo’s doctor, Dr. Krigsman, who stated that her condition was caused by MMR. The fact is that the Special Master rejected Dr. Krigsman’s argument with good cause:

He [the special master] also concluded that Dr. Krigsman’s opinion should be rejected because 1) he relied on the discredited Unigenetics testing in forming his opinion, 2) he misunderstood Michelle’s medical history and his testimony was inconsistent with her medical records, and 3) his conclusion that Michelle suffered from chronic gastrointestinal inflammation was substantially out-weighed by Michelle’s medical records and the testimony of the government’s experts.

The Cedillo’s attorneys argued that sufficient weight was not given to Miss Cedillo’s other physicians whom, they assert, associated her condition with the MMR vaccine:

Petitioners cited nine notations in Michelle’s records from eight individuals, including four physicians who treated Michelle and four non-physicians who exam-ined Michelle, in which the treating physicians mentioned her vaccinations, as support for the proposition that these individuals concluded that her autism was caused by her MMR vaccine.

The appeals court disagreed:

The Special Master did not err in failing to afford sig-nificant weight to the opinions of Michelle’s treating physicians. As the Special Master observed in his deci-sion, in seven of the nine notations, the physician was simply indicating an awareness of a temporal, not causal, relationship between the fever Michelle experienced after her MMR vaccine and the emergence of her autistic symptoms sometime thereafter. Initial Decision, slip op. at 100. In one of the other notations, the physician sim-ply noted that an exemption for Michelle from vaccination requirements could be arranged. In the other notation, the physician speculated that Michelle’s fevers might have caused her neurological abnormalities. However, he expressly stated that it would be “difficult to say” whether this was “a post-immunization phenomenon, or a separate occurrence.” Id. at 100. Thus, “none of the treating physicians concluded that the MMR vaccine caused Michelle’s autism.” Final Decision, 89 Fed. Cl. at 176. The Special Master

In the end, the appeals court decision takes on the arguments by the Cedillo’s attorneys point by point and refutes them. The closest the Cedillo’s attorneys got to making a point stick was in the case of Dr. Bustin’s testimony, which the appeals court stated:

We agree with petitioners that the government’s fail-ure to produce or even to request the documentation underlying Dr. Bustin’s reports is troubling, but we think that in the circumstances of this case, that failure does not justify reversal.

The fact of the matter is, the petitioners in general, and the Cedillo’s in specific, did not have a good case for MMR causing autism. The mechanism they proposed was not sound, the data they had was poor and incomplete and the experts speaking for the government were excellent and refuted the petitioner’s arguments. The Omnibus cases were, as the Special Masters noted, not close.

Audio of the Cedillo appeal part 2

16 Jun

We’ve recently discussed the first part of the audio from the Cedillo appeal (the part where Miss Cedillo’s attorney was speaking) in Audio of the Cedillo appeal part 1. Here I share notes on the second half of the audio: where the government’s attorney is speaking.

I should have done this before, but a little nomenclature:
The U.S. Government is represented by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. She doesn’t actually take part, but is represented by attorneys from the Department of Justice (DoJ). The government is referred to as the “Respondent” in these proceedings.

The Cedillo family is represented by their attorney, Ms. Chin-Caplan. Michelle Cedillo is the “petitioner”. Her case is one of the “test cases” heard in the portion of the hearings to determine if MMR causes autism. Her case served two purposes. First, to argue that in her specific situation vaccines resulted in some or all of her conditions. This is referred to as “specific causation”. Second, her case presented evidence on the general question of whether the MMR (alone or with Thimerosal) could cause autism. This is referred to as “general causation”.

Ms. Chin-Caplan is working as both the attorney for Ms. Cedillo and as a member of the “Petitioner’s Steering Committee” or PSC, which is the association of attorneys working with the 5,000 plus families who filed petitions claiming autism as a vaccine injury. Those 5000 plus cases are grouped in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, or for short: OAP, or “Omnibus”.

Again, my observations are added in italics.

The DoJ attorney didn’t even finish her introduction before one of the judges jumped in to ask about the fact that in a regular civil court, the underlying documents would have to be produced or Prof. Bustin’s testimony would be excluded. The fact remains that in the vaccine court, that rule (rule 26) does not apply. As noted in the first half of the audio, the PSC attorneys could have asked for those rules to apply but they did not do so.

The judge goes on to say that it was the government’s responsibility under the federal rules to obtain the documents to support the testimony.

I will add here that I am somewhat unclear if these are the Federal rules for the vaccine court, or the Federal rules (e.g. Rule 26) for the civil court. It sounds to me like they are the rules for the civil court.

The DoJ attorney noted that they tried to get everything from the UK litigation. All the expert reports and information. However, the solicitors they were working with in the UK suggested that their petition was too broad and would be denied. So, on advice of those solicitors, the DoJ narrowed the request down to only the three expert reports.

It sounds to me as though the DoJ attorneys were possibly unaware that the evidence–in this case the actual lab notebooks from the Unigenetics laboratory–were not going to be produced in full with the expert report. Even if so, I don’t see this really as an excuse.

However, some of the pages which Prof. Bustin used in his testimony were reproduced. These include pages that showed that Unigenetics made corrections after the dates on the notebooks.

Another observation: the laboratory notebooks are not all of the information from which Stephen Bustin made his report and it is not all the information which he used to form his testimony in the Cedillo case. Not all of his testimony would be excluded without the full laboratory books, in my opinion. Prof. Bustin spent considerable time investigating Unigenetics

The DoJ attorney noted that they went to the UK to obtain the information only after they learned that the Unigenetics laboratory results constituted a key part of the petitioner’s case–four months before the case was heard. They had to “hussle” to get the information unsealed. The judge asked if the DoJ had a responsibility to inform the petitioners of their intent to obtain this information. The DoJ stated that she did not believe that was the case.

The full witness list for the government was not finalized and made public until shortly before the proceeding. One list of potential witnesses was made available to the petitioners in March 2007–four months before the hearing–but that list is not public. The final list for both sides was made public on June 12, 2007. To me, this may indicate that the DoJ attorneys were *not* required to give more lead time on their witnesses or strategy.

The petitioner’s attorneys were given a year after the hearing to request the lab notebooks from the UK. DoJ attorneys offered to join in the request and the Special Masters wrote a letter of support for the request. The petitioners never filed an application in an attempt to obtain the documentation.

The DoJ attorney stressed again that the Special Master stated that he didn’t need the testimony from Prof. Bustin or some of the other information to make his decision.

I keep thinking that in many ways the Special Master should have been present in this appeal. Both Ms. Chin-Caplan and the DoJ attorney spent a considerable amount of time discussing what the Special Master thought and did. I realize that is not how appeals work, but as the appeals judges keep saying, this is not supposed to be an adversarial procedure. The goal is to bring in all the information and weigh it

One of the judges made a short speech about how scientific opinion progresses and that new data, new techniques could emerge which might support the petitioners. The DoJ attorney noted that the Courts can not wait indefinitely for the science. The petitioners deserve to have cases settled.

First, this is precisely why the evidence standards in the vaccine court are low. The idea is to give the petitioners the chance to win cases before the evidence is in. This is what happened in the DTP cases in the early phases of the vaccine court. Many cases were decided–for the petitioners, mind you–which later evidence showed were not supported. Second, this is not the purview of the appellate court. They shouldn’t be deciding on the merits of the evidence but on procedural questions. Third, as time progresses, the MMR causation theory has only become more implausible. The Hornig study, for example, came out after the Cedillo trial and was a clear rebuke of the early papers by Wakefield’s team

At one point, the DoJ attorney suggested that the underlying data would have buttressed Prof. Bustin’s testimony and she wishes she did have it. One judge, quite rightly in my opinion, corrected her with “how do we know that?” The Judge asserts that Prof. Bustin relied upon the documents to determine that Unigenetics was “a bad laboratory”

I would disagree at this point. The lab notebooks were *part* of the data Prof. Bustin used to form his opinion. But, they were not *all*

Ms. Chin-Caplan claims that she would have joined the DoJ in their attempt to obtain the documents had she known they were attempting that. One judge pointed out that she was given a year after the hearing to obtain the documents and failed to even make the attempt.

I don’t see how Ms. Chin-Caplan aiding the DoJ in their attempt would have changed what she is claiming it would have changed. She demonstrated that she was unable to obtain the documents on her own, so her expertise would not have been helpful. What this would have done is signaled to her 4 months in advance that the DoJ planned to challenge the quality of the Unigenetics laboratory. Frankly, that should have come as no surprise. There was much criticism of the Unigentics laboratory and the resutls in the public arena. The petitioners were aware of the UK litigation as they had also attempted to get data from that proceeding–and some of the petitioner’s experts had worked on the UK litigation.

Ms. Chin-Caplan argues that the one year she was given to obtain the documents was not enough because it was “an impossible task”. One of the judges points out that she has no way of knowing it was impossible since she didn’t try.

Ms Chin-Caplan stated that she didn’t want to waste the taxpayer’s money on an attempt to get the documentation since she wasn’t sure it could be obtained. She argues that it would be difficult because it involved possibly two foreign jurisdictions.

This is a very weak argument. First, the question of whether she was sure or not really doesn’t apply. The only thing that would apply is if she was sure are request would be denied. Second, the idea that she was saving the taxpayer’s money doesn’t really work. The costs of the appeals far outweigh the savings involved. Third, the DoJ had already shown that it could obtain documents from the UK litigation in a matter of four months. The DoJ offered to assist the petitioners, but they apparently did not avail themselves of that opportunity.

Another observation: the petitioners relied upon the Unigenetics laboratory. This is a laboratory which refused to be allow standard inspections to be come an accredited laboratory. It strikes this observer that it was the responsibility of the petitioners to obtain the laboratory notebooks. Without them, the DoJ was unable to effectively cross examine their witness who was claiming that Unigenetics was a good laboratory. That expert, Dr. Kennedy, took part in the UK Litigation, so he too was relying at least in part on data which was not entered into evidence.

The Judge asked Ms. Chin-Caplan if she could have made her case if Dr. Bustin’s testimony were excluded. Ms. Chin-Caplan claimed that she could

this is counter to what the special master who heard the case and wrote the decision *clearly* wrote in that decision

I think it is safe to say that *neither* the DoJ *nor* the petitioner’s attorney came away without some very tough scrutiny by the judges.

More on this appeal can be found in a piece on the VaccinesWork blog, Appeals Won’t Succeed – Olmsted Isn’t Honest

Even though I give away the ending of his excellent post, I quote it here:

The Court of Appeal panel in Hazlehurst faced roughly the same arguments as the Cedillo panel. The Court of Appeal reviews the trial court decision ‘de novo’, or brand new. If they don’t like the trial court decision, they replace it with theirs. However, the appeals court and the trial court can’t merely replace their judgment for the Special Master. All quotes below are from the Court of Appeals decision in Hazlehurst.

By statute, the Court of Federal Claims may set aside the special master’s decision “only if the special master’s fact findings are arbitrary and capricious, its legal conclusions are not in accordance with law, or its discretionary rulings are an abuse of discretion.”

Appeals courts are very limited in what they can do when they disagree with the facts decided by a trial court (in a criminal matter) or the medical facts (before the Special Master). But normally the Court of Appeal can substitute its views on admissible evidence for that of the trial court (criminal court) or the Special Masters. That isn’t the case here, because following the statute that governs the Vaccine Court, Rule 8 states:

In receiving evidence, the special master will not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence but must consider all relevant and reliable evidence governed by principles of fundamental fairness to both parties.” Vaccine R. 8(b)(1) (2009).

Even if the Court of Appeals thinks that the Special Master was wrong when letting in Dr. Bustin’s testimony after giving the plaintiffs a year to apply to the British for access to the reports, that isn’t enough for them to substitute their opinion for that of the Special Master.
So there is near zero chance that the appeal would succeed. Dan Olmsted should have said so and explained why.

Another appeal heard in the Autism Omnibus

14 Jun

Part of the United States Court of Federal Claims includes the “vaccine court”, where claims against the government are heard regarding vaccine injuries. Probably the most well known activity of the vaccine court, especially to readers of LeftBrainRightBrain, is the “Omnibus Autism Proceeding“. The Omnibus comprises over 5,000 families claiming vaccine injury resulted in autism. Rather than hear all these cases individually, both sides agreed to first hear “test cases” where the stories of six children were heard to answer the question of whether vaccines induced autism in those children and to decide whether the general question of whether vaccines cause autism could be addressed. The first three test cases presented the argument that the MMR vaccine, either alone or with thimerosal from other vaccines, could cause autism. The next three cases presented the argument that thimerosal alone could cause autism.

The Omnibus is back in the news, in a small way, after another appeal for the Cedillo test case was heard last week. The attorneys and the bloggers are concentrating on whether the testimony and expert reports of Prof. Stephen Bustin should have been allowed. I’ll go into the detail about this argument below. It is worth saying at the outset that this argument is likely to accomplish nothing, whether they win or lose. The Special Master who decided the Cedillo case and the judge who heard the first appeal both stated, clearly, that the decision to deny the Cedillo claim would be the same without Prof. Bustin’s testimony and report.

That is worth repeating: win or lose on this point in the appeal, the Cedillo’s still do not have a compelling case that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Before going any further, it is worth stopping and recognizing the human side of this proceeding. The “test cases” are six children whose families agreed to let their stories be heard and analyzed in public. They went into this with faith in their positions, but without the knowledge of the legal outcome. When the decisions were handed down against them (yes, they lost), they didn’t have the opportunity to change their arguments. They were committed. So, in two big ways, these are brave families. Agree or disagree with the science they depend upon, they had some guts to step forward as they did.

It is also worth noting that no one gets wealthy from successful claims in the Court. Settlements are typically around US$1 million. While this sounds like a lot, the purpose is to pay for the needs of the injured and to set up an annuity which will supplement the government support already in existence for the disabled. Most readers to this blog will have an idea to how far that support goes.

The Omnibus hearing and the appeals

The first of the test cases heard was that of Michelle Cedillo. Miss Cedillo is a severely handicapped girl with multiple disabilities. Her case was heard in June 2007. The decision, by Special Master Hastings, was handed down in February 2009. The Cedillo family appealed and the case was heard by a Judge in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Judge Wheeler, whose decision in August 2009 went against the Cedillo family. The Cedillo family appealed again, this time to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Their appeal was heard on June 10 before judges Newman, Linn and Dyk.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is probably the last appeal for the Cedillo family. Should this go against them, they have the right to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is not required to hear their case. In fact, the Supreme Court usually chooses cases which decide points of law. The arguments by the Cedillo family are more questions of procedure and, as such, I would expect the Supreme Court would refuse to hear any appeal. But, that is getting ahead of ourselves. Right now, we still haven’t heard the decision from the Appeals Court.

Public Responses to the Recent Appeal

What we have heard is some minor publicity about the hearing in the Appeals Court. The Age of Autism blog has Olmsted on Autism: Day in Court and one of the Examiner blogs has Oral arguments made in Cedillo Omnibus Autism Proceeding mercury and MMR vaccine test case appeal.

I haven’t heard the arguments made in court. I wish I had because in my experience there is a fairly large gap between what I’ve heard in past proceedings and how they are portrayed on the net. A fairly egregious example was in the portrayal of an expert witness for the Cedillos, Dr. Vera Byers. When she testified in 2007, someone was portraying her as coming across with the gravity of Dame Judi Dench (who plays “M” in the James Bond movies, amongst other roles). During the hearing, Dr. Byers was found to have seriously padded her resume, claiming she worked at the prestigious University of California San Fransisco when, in fact, she only used their libraries and attended their parties. She also accused the Department of Justice lawyer of “making faces” at her. I did not think of Dame Judi Dench when I heard her testimony.

Following the original hearings for the Cedillo case, many bloggers in the vaccines-cause-autism groups were optimistic. They felt that they had made a strong case and they would prevail, complete with imagery of “Dark Towers” being brought down by bolts of lightening. From my perspective, such cheer-leading seemed to border on cruel given the very weak case made to support the general question of MMR causing autism.

Given this background you would probably not be surprised that I look at the optimistic reports coming out of last week’s appeal with a somewhat skeptical eye. Which begs the question, “what was said” by these bloggers? From Mr. Olmsted’s piece, here are two quotes.

The first is from one of the attorneys working with the Cedillo family:

“I have a very positive feeling about the federal judges,” said Sylvia Chin-Caplan, who argued the appeal.

The second quote comes from an attorney who blogs for the Age of Autism blog and who, I believe, has a child who is a claimant in the Omnibus:

“I leave with the sense that the judges were very troubled that the government had not acted in good faith,” said Mary Holland. “Those judges were very troubled by what the government’s done – very troubled.”

The argument for the appeal: Prof. Bustin’s testimony

So, what are the judges supposedly “troubled” by? Well, this has to do with part of the appeals argument by the attorneys for the Cedillo family: the testimony of Prof. Stephen Bustin.

Professor Bustin is a world expert on a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which he describes as

Real-Time PCR is a variation of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that allows simultaneous (i.e. in real-time) amplification and detection of DNA templates. Because it is used to quantitate DNA, it is often abbreviated to qPCR, although that abbreviation is not universally accepted.

PCR played an important rule in the Omnibus. PCR was used in attempts to identify measles in tissue samples taken from autistic children’s bowels. One of the key papers for the families in the Omnibus was written by Uhlman et al. Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease. The Uhlman paper concluded “The data confirm an association between the presence of measles virus and gut pathology in children with developmental disorder. ” One of the co-authors on that paper is Professor J J O’Leary, whose laboratory, Unigenetics, performed the tests on samples sent from the group headed by Andrew Wakefield in London. The same laboratory was used to test samples taken from Michelle Cedillo.

The presence of measles virus in the tissues is key to the theory argued in the Omnibus. This was made very clear when the expert reports were filed, in February of 2007. At that time, the Department of Justice attorneys sought information to rebut the “persistent measles in the gut” argument. One source they sought was information filed in the United Kingdom for the MMR litigation that was held there. In specific, they sought the report by Prof. Bustin, who had testified in that litigation. Those reports are sealed and require special permission to obtain. The DoJ attorneys received the first of those reports on May 31, 2007, 1 hour after receiving it, but only 12 days before the start of the Cedillo hearing. One week later, the DoJ filed two more reports by Prof. Bustin.

The attorney’s for the Cedillo family argued that they didn’t have time to assimilate such technical information and prepare a good response. Further, they argued that the reports were submitted after a deadline imposed by the Special Master. The Special Master allowed Prof. Bustin to testify and to submit his expert reports. The Special Master argued that the admissibility of the testimony and reports could be decided after the hearings.

This history and greater detail are summarized in the Wheeler decision denying the first Cedillo appeal.

Was Prof. Bustin’s Testimony Damning to the Case?

Professory Bustin is possibly the word’s number one expert on PCR. Not only that, he was given access to the Unigenetics laboratory and the notebooks they kept. He found that the Unigenetics laboratory was missing a key step in the process. PCR tests DNA. Measles is an RNA virus. So, there must be a step to turn the RNA into DNA or PCR won’t work.

At the time Unigenetics were testing samples for the Uhlmann paper and the sample from Michelle Cedillo, they weren’t using RNA–>DNA step. Whatever they were detecting, it wasn’t an RNA virus and, hence, it wasn’t measles.

Prof. Bustin also testified that at that time Unigenetics was not using “controls” correctly, making interpretation of their results problematic at best.

Prof. Bustin also testified that the laboratory notebooks had been altered after the fact.

Prof. Bustin also testified that Unigenetics found the same results from two different types of samples (fresh-frozen and formalyn fixed). That could only happen if they were detecting contaminants.

And the list of errors at Unigenetics goes on. (There is an extensive summary in the Hastings decision for the Cedillo case)

These are only parts of the testimony. But, yes, it is safe to say that Prof. Bustin’s testimony hurt the case the attorneys for the Cedillos were trying to make.

Would the case have been decided for the Cedillos had Prof. Bustin’s testimony been excluded?

As noted at the outset of this piece, Prof. Bustin’s testimony is not key to the decision to deny the claim of the Cedillo family. It also isn’t key to denying the question of general causation (does MMR, in general, cause autism).

Special Master Hastings has a section of his decision entitled, “Even if I were to disregard Dr. Bustin’s expert reports and hearing testimony, all my conclusions in this case would remain the same.” I quote that section in its entirety below:

Finally, even if I were to completely exclude and disregard all of Dr. Bustin’s reports and all of his hearing testimony, nevertheless all of my conclusions in this case would remain exactly the same.

First, the testimony and reports of Dr. Bustin were relevant chiefly in establishing my conclusion discussed at pp. 58-60 above, i.e., that there were severe problems with the facilities and procedures of the Unigenetics laboratory. But even concerning this narrow point, Dr. Bustin’s testimony was not the only evidence. Dr. Rima provided extensive, convincing evidence to the same effect, and Dr. MacDonald provided some corroboration as well. (See discussion at pp. 52-54, 58-59 above.) I would have reached the same conclusion, that there were severe problems with the Unigenetics facilities and procedures, based just on the evidence supplied by Dr. Rima and Dr. MacDonald, even without any information from Dr. Bustin.

Second, even if there had been no testimony from Dr. Bustin, Dr. Rima, Dr. MacDonald, or any other expert who participated in the British litigation, concerning the problems with the Unigenetics procedures and facilities, nevertheless I still would have concluded that the Unigenetics testing was not reliable. That is, as explained above (p. 77), the most important points in my rejection of the Unigenetics testing were (1) the fact that the laboratory failed to publish any sequencing data to confirm the validity of its testing, (2) the failure of other laboratories to replicate the Unigenetics testing, and (3) the demonstration by the D’Souza group that the Uhlmann primers were “nonspecific.” The testimony by Drs. Bustin, Rima, and MacDonald, about the many problems with the Unigenetics laboratory and procedures, was merely a secondary, additional reason to doubt the reliability of the Unigenetics testing. Accordingly, I would still have found the Unigenetics testing to be unreliable even if there had been no reports or testimony at all from Drs. Bustin, Rima, or MacDonald.

Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, I conclude (1) that there is no valid reason for me to disregard the evidence supplied by Dr. Bustin, and (2) that even if I did disregard that evidence, my conclusions concerning all of the issues in this case would remain the same.

Testimony of Nicholas Chadwick

One reason that the Special Master could be so decisive on the unreliability of the Unigenetics laboratory was the fact that other groups were unable to replicate those findings. One of those researchers was Nicholas Chadwick, a post doctoral researcher in Wakefield’s own group. Dr. Chadwick used PCR to test biopsy samples from autistic children–many of whom were a part of the now-retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield’s team–and found that they were negative for measles virus.

Dr. Chadwick’s Ph.D. thesis includes results from “Autistic enteropathy samples. Biopsies, PBMCs and Vero/PBMC cocultures were analysed from 22 patients with autistic enteropathy and 6 controls.”

He found

Results. Hybrid capture and RT-PCR could detect 104 molecules of a measles RNA transcript added to control tissue homogenates. The fidelity of NASBA, in terms of its nucleic acid error rates, was found to be comparable with that of RT-PCR. All samples were found to be positive for a housekeeping RNA species and internal modified positive control RNA. None of the samples tested positive for measles, mumps or rubella RNA, although viral RNA was successfully amplified in positive control samples.

Conclusion. The results do not support previous data implicating persistent measles virus infection with the aetiology of IBD or autistic enteropathy.

He studied gut biopsy samples, cerebral spinal fluid samples and blood samples.

This isn’t a separate group and different children. This is Mr. Wakefield’s own hospital, someone he was in contact with. It is likely that some of these children’s samples were also tested by Unigenetics and with false positive results.

Dr. Chadwick’s expert report and testimony are online.

Should Prof. Bustin’s Testimony have been Allowed?

Prof. Bustin’s report was submitted very close to the start of the Cedillo hearing. In fact, it was past a deadline imposed by the Special Master. The attorneys for the Cedillos have argued that they were unable to prepare a response to such a technical report and that they didn’t have access to the lab notebooks which Prof. Bustin relied upon.

Let’s take this in stages.

First, yes the report was submitted past the deadline. So were reports submitted by the attorneys for the Cedillos. The vaccine court is supposed to be flexible in allowing evidence in.

How about the idea that the attorneys for the Cedillos were unable to prepare a case in time? First, page back and recall how all this got started. The Cedillo’s attorneys submitted expert reports which relied upon the results of the Unigenetics laboratory results. Not only that, but the expert who submitted that report, Dr. Ronald Kennedy. Kent Heckenlively, blogger for the Age of Autism, wrote in a post following Prof. Kennedy’s testimony, “Dr. Kennedy is familiar with the Unigenetics Lab of Dr. John O’Leary and Dr. Laura Shields at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland where measles virus RNA was diagnosed in the cerebral spinal fluid of Colten Snyder.” (Colten Snyder was one of the other “Test Cases”)

So, the attorneys for the Cedillos not only had an expert on their team to discuss PCR, but their expert was familiar with the Unigenetics laboratory. Their report was filed four months before Stephen Bustin’s reports and, presumably, their team had access to information from well before that.

How about the idea that the attorneys for the Cedillos didn’t have access to the lab notebooks which Prof. Bustin reported upon? First, it is clear that Prof. Bustin’s analyses did not rely solely on the lab notebooks. Some of the problematic results were public (from the paper) and other information he obtained in his 1,500 hours spent analyzing the Uhlmann work. Yes, 1500 hours.

The whole argument begs the question: how are the Cedillo’s attorneys and their expert (Prof. Kennedy) so confident of the Uhlmann results if they haven’t seen the notebooks?

One of those attorney’s is quoted:

Chin-Caplan told Examiner.com, “Two reports that he submitted on behalf of the government were of such technical matter and so incomprehensible that at the very least a motion to continue the hearing should have been entertained and it wasn’t.”

I am again at a bit of a loss. Why were Ms. Chin-Caplan and her team unprepared to respond to Prof. Bustin’s reports? She and her team were the ones who were admitting PCR testing as evidence.

Ms. Chin-Caplan is also quoted:

“The fact that they went over there (to the U.K.) secretly four months before the hearing to try and get these documents without giving me notice that they were going to do this leads me to think that they wanted to examine those documents without me being present,” Chin-Caplan told Examiner.com. “And that violates the concept of fundamental due process as far as I’m concerned.”

The idea of obtaining information from the U.K. litigation was not a surprise to the Cedillo’s attorneys. They had attempted as early as 2004–three years before the hearing–to obtain reports from the U.K. The idea that the DoJ attorney’s “wanted to examine those documents wihout me being present” is totally at odds with the fact that the DoJ submitted the first report 1 hour after receiving it. One hour.

One might ask why Ms. Chin-Caplan didn’t call upon, say, Andrew Wakefield or others to write reports or to serve as an expert witness. Mr. Wakefield is on the list of potential experts. Mr. Wakefield is one of the authors of the Uhlmann paper. Of course, the answer is that Mr. Wakefield, father of the MMR causes autism hypothesis, is not a very credible witness.

Friend of the Court Brief

Much of the argument for the appeal is summarized in a “Friend of the Court” brief.

That brief concentrates much space to the reliability of the O’Leary lab results. It introduces new “data”

Michelle submitted further compelling evidence of the reliability of the O’Leary lab results in her motion for reconsideration. She submitted a new study on the recovery of measles RNA from the gut tissue of autistic children. The multi-center Hornig study,57 relying on laboratories at HHS’s own Centers for Disease Control, Columbia University and Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory at Trinity College were all concordant in finding measles RNA in one clinical subject and one control, again showing the O’Leary laboratory’s reliability.

The Hornig study was an attempt to recreate some of the Wakefield group’s studies. The study was much more careful than Wakefield’s team’s efforts. It was discussed on this blog at that time.

I am always amazed when people try to use the Hornig study to support the MMR-causes-autism hypothesis. The paper concluded:

This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure

As far as supporting the idea that the O’Leary laboratory was reliable, it is far from convincing. There is a vast difference between how a laboratory performs in, say, the late 1990’s and ten years later after facing much criticism and while under intense scrutiny for accuracy. In other words, it is very possible that the O’Leary laboratory’s methods were different for the Hornig study than used for the Wakefield/Uhlmann studies.

Summary

It seems unlikely to this observer that the Cedillos will win this appeal. They rely on discounting the testimony of Stephen Bustin. The arguments to throw out his testimony have not proven persuasive in a previous appeal. More importantly, the Court made it extremely clear that the decision would be the same whether or not Prof. Bustin’s testimony was allowed. The public statements being made about this appear to be coloring the facts somewhat to create an image of impropriety by the government. Also, those making public statements appear to ignore the fact that even without Prof. Bustin’s testimony, the case was not close.

At every step along the process of the Omnibus Proceedings, public statements have been heard suggesting the families had a strong case. In my opinion, this has been a disservice to those families. I worry that this is yet another instance of building up false hope for the families in the Omnibus.

US Court of Appeals denies vaccine court case

14 May

The first of the vaccine court autism cases has been denied by the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. The Vaccine court (or, more accurately, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) grouped the autism claims into an “Omnibus”, something like a class action case, where evidence to prove vaccines cause autism was presented in a few “test cases”, rather than hearing all the cases individually. The Omnibus Autism Proceeding heard six test cases, three on the theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism and three on the theory that thimerosal (a mercury containing perservative) causes autism.

The appeals decision is for the test case of Yates Hazelhurst, one of the MMR test cases. The case was summarized by the Special Master who decided the case:

[P]etitioners assert that the measles component of the MMR vaccine causes an immune dysfunction that impairs the vaccinee’s ability to clear the measles virus. Unable to properly clear the measles virus from the body, the vaccinee experiences measles virus persistence which leads to chronic inflammation in the gastrointestinal system and, in turn, chronic inflammation in the brain. Petitioners argue that the inflammation in the brain causes neurological damage that manifests as autism.

The Special Master (essentially the Judge in the vaccine court) denied the claim. The family appealed to the Court of Federal Claims, who upheld the decision. The recent decision is from the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, making this the second appeal affirming the original decision.

The family appealed on the basis, as the appeals judge put it:

On appeal to this court, the Hazlehursts argue that the special master improperly relied on certain evidence that should have been excluded and disregarded other evidence that should have been considered.

The MMR theory for autism causation relies on the notion that the measles virus from the vaccine persists in the guts of children. This, in turn relies on research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s team and in particular, the Unigenetics laboratory. The government brought in a witness, Dr. Stephen Bustin, to refute the validity of the results from the Unigenetics lab. Dr. Bustin’s testimony and level of expertise were very clear in showing that the Unigenetics results were faulty.

The special master found that Dr. Wakefield’s work had been largely discredited within the scientific community and that none of the studies indicating the presence of measles virus in autistic children had been successfully replicated by an accredited laboratory independent of Dr. Wakefield or Unigenetics. In particular, the special master found that Dr. Wakefield’s early 1990s research on persistent measles infections was reviewed by the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom and found to lack important controls and sufficiently specific reagents for detecting measles virus. She also found that Dr. Wakefield’s subsequent research was dismissed by the scientific community as methodologically unsound. In that regard, she noted that 10 of 12 co-authors on Dr. Wakefield’s controversial 1998 article in the medical journal The Lancet subsequently retracted their support for the article’s conclusion that there is a potential causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

The Special Masters allowed the petititioners (including the Hazelhursts) time to rebut Dr. Bustin’s testimony, through cross examination and through documentation from the UK MMR litigation. The petitioners did not avail themselves of this opportunity.

Over objection, the government sought to introduce Dr. Bustin’s reports and testimony regarding the Unigenetics laboratory, which, by that time, had gone out of business.[ 2 ] The special master in the Cedillo case provisionally admitted the evidence. The three special masters in the omnibus proceeding then deferred decision on whether to rely on that evidence and stated that they would “favorably consider joining in a request” by the petitioners “for the release of relevant reports” from the UK litigation. The record remained open for more than a year following the Cedillo hearing to afford the petitioners sufficient time to present rebuttal evidence, to conduct additional cross-examination of Dr. Bustin, and to obtain documents from the British court. However, none of the petitioners recalled Dr. Bustin for further questioning or applied for access to any of the materials from the UK litigation.

The Hazelhurst’s argued that evidence should have been allowed that was not. In particular, they argued that some unpublished results demonstrate the persistent measles theory.

The special master further concluded that the unpublished and preliminary findings of the Walker group should not be accorded significant weight. She observed that Dr. Hepner had declined to “draw any conclusions about the biological significance” of the investigators’ findings and had testified that negative controls were not included with each experimental run. The special master also noted that the petitioners’ experts based their opinions on the characteristics of the “wild-type” measles virus, as opposed to the vaccine-strain measles virus, which is far less virulent and replicates poorly in the human body.

In the end, the appeals judge ruled that there was no reason to overturn the original decision:

Because we find no error in the special master’s consideration of the evidence, we also find no error in her decision to discount Dr. Corbier’s opinion that the MMR vaccine caused Yates’s autism. By Dr. Corbier’s own admission, his opinion depended heavily on the reliability of the scientific studies purporting to show measles virus persistence in autistic children.

Compensation under the Vaccine Act is limited to those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of “causation-in-fact” evidence, to a listed vaccine. The special master concluded that the Hazlehursts’ evidence failed to demonstrate the necessary causal link, and the petitioners have not identified any reversible error in the special master’s decision reaching that conclusion.

The petitioners now have the choice of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. As noted above, the Supreme Court hears cases which help define laws and this does not appear to be such a case. It would seem unlikely, then, that the Court would agree to hear this case. If so, this is the end of the appeals for the Hazelhurst’s in their case against the U.S. government. The next step would, then, be to take their case to civil court against the vaccine manufacturers. Such cases have not been successful so far. Civil cases require a higher level of evidence and expertise than the vaccine court. Having failed in the Federal Court, where the rules are more favorable to the petitioners, it would seem a difficult battle to win the case in civil court.

Bogus Urine Metals Testing Fails In Vaccine Court

13 Mar

The Thimersoal “test cases” in the OAP relied on bogus urine mercury testing. Among many other common problems the petitioners had in providing any sound scientific support for the notion that mecury can cause autism, that, was at least in part, the apparent conclusion of all three of the special masters.

I just skimmed through the recent decisions by the US Court Of Federal Claims in the Thimerosal “test cases” that were part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, and the expert testimony provided by Dr. Brent (respondent) in this regard is pretty clear:

From the Mead Decision

When specifically asked about the urine mercury tests that were performed on William, Dr. Brent said that the tests “showed pretty much exactly what you’d expect for the normal population, that their unprovoked specimens are normal. Yet, when they give chelators, most of [mercury excretion results] are increased.” Id. at 1852-1853. Dr. Brent expressed a concern about the use of data in this way to suggest that a condition exists that, in fact, does not. See id. at 1853. He stated that “it’s data like this that has been used as an excuse to subject these children to chelation therapy where the data supports [a finding] that their urine mercury status is totally normal.” Id. at 1853.

From the King Decision

Moreover, Dr. Brent explained that when the results of mercury testing of Jordan, both provoked and non-provoked, are viewed in their entirety, they are exactly what one would expect from an individual without any mercury-related problem. That is, Jordan’s non-provoked test results were within the normal range for non-provoked testing. (Tr. 1852-53, 4340.) At the same time, while his provoked results were outside the normal range for non-provoked testing, that is not surprising since the provocation/chelation process is designed to specifically provoke an increased excretion of metals. (Tr. 1852-53, 4340-41, 4347.) As Drs. Brent and Fombonne explained, administration of a chelating agent to anyone, autistic or not, mercury-poisoned or not, will always be followed by increased excretion of mercury.118 (Ex. M, p. 74; Tr. 1852, 4340-41, 4343.)

Interestingly, the added scientific clarity of the special masters with regard to bogus urine metals testing is also present to some degree in all three test cases:

Here’s one example from the Mead Decision

Moreover, a subsequent study, as reported in the 2007 Soden article filed as RMRL 458,150 could not confirm the 2003 Bradstreet study results. See Mead Tr. at 1844. The investigators found that “DMSA provoked excretion testing did not produce evidence of an excess chelatable body burden among the autistic [study] participants.” RMRL 458 at 480. The investigators concluded that “[i]n the absence of a novel mechanism of heavy metal toxicity or an alternate therapeutic action of chelators, the data presented provide[d] no justification for chelation therapy for the [study] participants.”

Many will remember the conclusion of Soden et al.

“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.”

But perhaps the most interesting of all, is the common thread that the reliance upon the bogus mercury testing seems pretty much acknowledged for what it is by both the special masters and the petitioners’ expert:

From the Dwyer Decision

Doctor Mumper’s willingness to rely on Colin’s mercury test results as evidence of high levels of mercury in his body was particularly troubling. She admitted that his results were not typical of those she saw in other autistic children. She admitted that she knew of no research into normal mercury excretion levels after chelation against which Colin’s one positive mercury test could be measured.741 It appeared that regardless of the results for mercury levels, Dr. Mumper was willing to opine that they reflected mercury’s role in ASD.

From the King Decision

In short, a careful analysis of the record demonstrates that there is no valid basis for Dr. Mumper’s view that the results of mercury excretion testing on Jordan King offer support for a conclusion that thimerosal-containing vaccines played a role in causing Jordan’s autism. To the contrary, the evidence supports a conclusion that Dr. Mumper’s reliance on such mercury tests has no basis in science or logic. Indeed, upon cross-examination even Dr. Mumper acknowledged that there is no particular profile or pattern of post-provocation test results that points to a finding that a child has mercury-induced autism. (Tr. 1555-60, 1568-69.) When pressed, Dr. Mumper could not even suggest an example of any type of result on a post-provocation mercury urine test that would not, in her analysis, support a claim of mercury-induced autism. (Tr. 1558-60.) Dr. Mumper’s analysis in this regard was illogical, and completely unpersuasive.119

Yep, regardless of the results of a scientifically meaningless test, it’s the mercury. Right.

Remember, these were the three Thimerosal “test cases”, presumably chosen by the Petitioner’s Steering Committee (PSC) because they offered the best opportunity to introduce good, and representative scientific evidence for the hypothesized role of thimerosal in the etiology of autism. It looks like they failed miserably, and this doesn’t seem surprising when it’s clear the cases leaned on at least one form of laboratory testing that’s clearly scientifically meaningless.

It won’t be surprising when many of the die-hard anti-vaccine and “alternative” autism medicine brigade ignore the fact that bogus urine toxic metals testing just had a bright light shined on it by the vaccine court. They’ll be likely to claim some form of conspiracy or politics about the cases, despite the fact that the spotlight revealed an apparent decision-making tool of many a “DAN! doctor” to not only be worthless in medicine, but also worthless in court.

On a related note, there has been recent news that a couple of “DAN! doctors” are facing a lawsuit in which bogus urine toxic metals testing is called out directly. Aside from numerous other problems they face in the complaint, it should be interesting to see how the defendants (Dr. Dan Rossignol, Dr. Anjum Usman, and Doctors Data, Inc.) explain the potential role of comparing chelator-provoked urine metals levels to a non-provoked reference range. If the three test cases in the OAP are an indication of the state of actual scientific support for such testing, the defendants would seem to have plenty to worry about.

Additional reading:

Mead v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-215V
King v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-584V
Dwyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Case No. 03-1202V
Thimerosal-Autism Test Cases Dismissed
Doctors sued over ‘dangerous’ autism treatment
Suing DAN! practitioners for malpractice: It’s about time
How the “Urine Toxic Metals” Test Is Used to Defraud Patients
24-hour provoked urine excretion test for heavy metals in children with autism and typically developing controls, a pilot study