Archive | Autism Omnibus RSS feed for this section

Oldstone letter in the Omnibus docket

25 Mar

When I found that the Autism Omnibus Proceeding expert reports were public, the first one that caught my eye was by Andrew Zimmerman. Obviously, it caught Kev’s attention too 🙂

But, I have only a brief time available today, so I will start with this letter by Dr. Michael Oldstone. It is brief enough that I have copied the body in its entirety below.

To summarize, Rick Rollens asked Dr. Oldstone to consider collaborating with Dr. O’Leary and Dr. Wakefield on the Autism/MMR question. It was a good move on Mr. Rollens’ part, as Dr. Odlstone is one of the preeminent researchers in viral pathogenesis. Has been for decades.

Before agreeing to collaborate, Dr. Oldstone wanted to check on the quality of the results coming out of the O’Leary laboratory. Dr. Oldstone sent tissue samples to Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory, some with measles virus, some without. Dr. O’Leary tested them–and got the wrong answer 20% of the time. Dr. Oldstone sent another batch of samples, some duplicates from the first batch. Not only did Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory get 20% wrong again but, in Dr. Oldstone’s words:

Most troublesome, some samples, when tested twice under different code numbers ‘switched’ from positive to negative or from negative to positive. On this basis of inaccuracies of their PCR test, I declined from further working with either Drs. Wakefield or O’Leary.

This goes directly towards the question of the quality of the data coming from Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory. This is a big question. The Hornig study came out last year, an attempt to replicate Dr. Wakefield’s research. In one of the strangest moves I have ever seen by a researcher, Dr. Wakefield claimed that this study actually supported his research by demonstrating that Dr. O’Leary’s lab is capable of making accurate PCR measurements. Dr. Wakefield neglected the obvious point–being accurate today doesn’t mean one was accurate yesterday. He also neglected the suggestion (made by Dr. O’Leary himself at the press conference for the Hornig study) that Dr. Wakefield’s samples could have been contaminated.

Well, here is a good example that Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory was not making accurate measurements. This was iin the “early 2000’s”. Note that the Uhlman paper (Dr. Wakefield’s team’s paper supposedly finding measles virus in gut tissue) came out in 2002–the same time period.

Below is the letter, dated Oct. 12, 2007, from Dr. Oldstone to Dr. Brian Ward.

Dear Dr. Ward:

I recently became aware that my work in the field of viral persistence is being quoted in support of the hypothesis that the measles virus component of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is supposedly associated with the development of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

Measles virus has been a focus of my laboratory for many years so this autismlmeasles link has been of interest to me. Further, I should state up front that I see at present no evidence whatsoever for such a link.

In the early 2000s I was asked by Rick Rollens to consider a collaborative grant between my laboratory and that of Drs. Wakefield and O’Leary. Prior to making a decision, I decided to assess the performance of Dr. O’Leary’s PCR-based assays targeting measles virus. My laboratory generated samples from tissue culture cells infected with MV as well as tissue samples from our transgenic mouse model of MV infection (including gut and brain tissues), which were coded and sent to the O’Leary laboratory. Samples had varying titers of measles virus as well as appropriate negative control and measles virus positive samples. The arrangement was informal in that the samples were only sent to Dr. O’Leary for testing. After receiving Dr. O’Leary’s results, the code was broken and I discovered that approximately 20% of the samples were incorrect as to the
presence or absence of measles virus. I reviewed the results with Dr. O’Leary as well as his protocols for preparing his assay, which I found to be sound and decided that perhaps there may have been some unknown error and a second set of samples should be sent. This second set was again coded anew and contained both new samples and several original samples. The results of the second round were no better with again approximately 20% of the samples misidentified by Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory. Most troublesome, some samples, when tested twice under different code numbers ‘switched’ from positive to negative or from negative to positive. On this basis of inaccuracies of their PCR test, I declined from further working with either Drs. Wakefield or O’Leary.

Sincerely,
Michael B.A. Oldstone, M.D.
Head, Viral-lmmunobiology Laboratory

Omnibus Expert Reports

24 Mar

As noted in Kev’s recent post, the expert reports from the respondent (government side) have been made public.

The above link is a pdf file. The boxes in the pdf file are live links. I.e. click in the boxes and you will get the expert report.

I am very glad they did this. The best autism experts were pulled in to the Omnibus, and it is great to have the chance to refer to what they wrote. Many of the experts didn’t testify, so this is where you and I can see what they had to say.

I’ve read through some. They are good references. They also support very well what the Special Masters stated in their decisions: this wasn’t a close call. The petitioners just didn’t have good evidence, and the evidence against them was very good.

I’ll definitely be blogging a number of these. They are well worth discussing.

Andrew Zimmerman Finally Speaks

24 Mar

A year ago I tried to talk to Andrew Zimmerman about the Hannah Poling case and was told:

Dr. Zimmerman…….is not able to publicly discuss this patient. As a participant in this case, the family provided consent for Dr. Zimmerman to share information with the court, but we do not have parental consent to discuss the patient publicly – as we are bound by HIPAA privacy regulations, as in any healthcare setting in the U.S.

And in the year that has followed the Polings have not allowed Zimmerman to publicly comment once. Now I’m beginning to understand why.

Sullivan told me that yesterday the Expert Witness reports for the Respondents were made public and that Zimmermans was eyebrow raising to say the least.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of an association between autism andthe alleged reaction to MMR a nd Hg, and it is more likely than not, that there is a genetic basis for autism in this child.”

“Michelle Cedillo’s developmental regression was likely to have been
preprogrammed before birth to emerge, as it does in Rett syndrome, long after birth.”

“Autism, in most cases, begins before birth, and the maternal
“environment” in the womb is likely to be important in the process.”

“there is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism.”

“Autism is primarily a genetically determined disorder.” There is a
hypothetical basis, but very limited evidence, for environmental factors
(such as stress or the drug terbutalinel l) that may act together with
an individual’s genetic susceptibility to increase the risk of autism.
There is strong evidence that the origins of autism begin before birth,
based on genetic and anatomical studies as well as chemical findings at birth in children who go on to develop autism. The usual time
period when autism appears and is diagnosed during the 2nd and 3′” years of life reflects the dynamic nature of the child’s developing brain and the appearance of pre-programmed disordered expression of genes and preexisting cellular abnormalities that result in the child’s regression with loss of language and social skills.”

Recall once more that this is the man – along with Jon Poling himself and along with John Shoffner (who also doesn’t think much of Polings beliefs) who co-authored the only piece of science performed on Hannah Poling.

No wonder the Poling’s were so keen to keep Zimmerman quiet.

Thanks to Sullivan for some of this.

Poling turns his back on genetics

13 Mar

It’s been a year since the concession in the Hannah Poling case was made public. I’ve been thinking that we would likely see some discussion on it again–especially since the Bailey Banks case didn’t turn into the media event that the autism-is-caused-by-vaccines groups would have liked.

OK, I’m not that good at predicting events, but I was thinking after a year it is time to write a couple of posts about some issues from the Hannah Poling case for a couple of weeks. So, I wasn’t totally surprised when Dr. Jon Poling came out with an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “Blinders won’t reduce autism”.

When I read this last night, I thought “why blog this?” But, one line in there bugged me–it’s a common misconception but one that a doctor, heck a neurologist, should never make: the idea that genetic conditions aren’t treatable.

Here’s the quote:

We should be investing our research dollars into discovering environmental factors that we can change, not more poorly targeted genetic studies that offer no hope of early intervention

Wow. I guess we should tell Dr. Randi Hagerman at the UC Davis MIND Institute and everyone else working on fragile-X (a genetic condition that is on the verge of demonstrating valuable interventions) to stop their work?

And, why is it that people who claim to support “gene-environment” interactions seem to have disdain for the “gene” part? How are we supposed to separate the various autism subgroups without identifying the genes? And, if we identify genes, won’t their function give us some idea of what environmental causes might be worth studying?

OK… I’ve got that out of my system….

As long as we are here, we might as well look at some other fallacies. A good place to start is the Autism Street blog, who covered the poling op-ed. It’s well worth the read, as he covers some things I won’t.

One thing we do both cover–this statement by Dr. Poling:

Public school systems are drowning in the red ink of educating increasing numbers of special-needs students.

Autism Street has a nice graph (again, I encourage you to take a look), but here I’ll just point out that this assertion by Dr. Poling about the increasing numbers of special education students is just plain false. The percentage of the student population in Special Education has remained remarkably constant over the past 10 years or so. The cost of some of the autism therapies (ABA in particular) has likely driven costs up, but that isn’t what Dr. Poling said.

The main reason I was going to avoid discussing Dr. Poling’s Op-Ed is the fact that is is rather poorly disguised attempt to air his ongoing battle with Dr. Paul Offit.

Dr. Poling writes discusses how Dr. Andrew Zimmerman is a hero to the cause because of a recent book he edited. He then makes Dr. Offit the villain for Autism’s False Prophets:

On the other hand, Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine inventor whose Rotateq royalty interests recently sold for a reported $182 million, has written a novel of perceived good and evil called “Autism’s False Prophets.”

Frankly, I think Dr. Poling should have listened to that little voice in his head (which I hope was there) saying, “Don’t take the cheap shots”. By which, I think that describing Dr. Offit’s book as a novel was rather silly and just points out that this is a personal attack by Dr. Poling. It doesn’t add, it just detracts.

If you think calling that a personal attack is a stretch, here’s a bit of telling imagery:

In the story, Offit takes no prisoners, smearing characters in the vaccine-autism controversy as effortlessly as a rich cream cheese.

Actually, I thought that Dr. Offit gave people like Andrew Wakefield a lot of respect, considering the low quality of their research and their public actions.

I was struck by the “cream cheese” allusion. Anyone recall this?

Paul Offit is the Philadelphia cream cheese of the autism debate — he smears so effortlessly

–Dan Olmsted, September 13, 2008

It stuck in my mind because it was so bad. Seriously, I had some people outside of the autism world read that bit by Dan Olmsted and asked them what they thought Dan Olmsted was trying to say. The readers didn’t come away with Mr. Olmsted’s message (that Dr. Offit smears others easily). Instead, they came away thinking Dan Olmsted was saying that it was easy to smear Paul Offit! S

My guess is that Mr. Olmsted wasn’t writing for anyone other than the Age of Autism regulars who would overlook his clumsy writing for a chance to poke fun at Dr. Offit, so he probably isn’t bothered.

I guess Dr. Poling thought it was a good analogy.

But, back to my own clumsy writing. Dr, Poling makes this statement:

As both parent and doctor, I cannot fathom turning my back on a child nor science, in order to avoid inconvenient questions about vaccine safety or any other reasonable environmental factor.

For my part, I wonder how a neurologist can turn his back on considering genetic conditions worthy of intervention. I wonder how a scientist who supports the idea of gene-environment interactions can turn his back on genetics.

Dr. Poling closes with this statement:

In the end, logic and reason will prevail over politics and profits.

God, I hope so. Unfortunately, Dr. Poling seems to have allied himself with groups who have abandoned logic. Generation Rescue and David Kirby come readily to mind.

Did you think that was it? More MMR bull arrives

25 Feb

The recent decision by the Special Masters in the Autism Omnibus case that MMR/thiomersal can’t cause autism according to evidence presented by HHS and lack of evidence presented by Master et al hit the mercury militia hard. They genuinely thought they were going to win.

But, of course, there was a ‘Plan B’ ready just in case. Today we see its co-ordinated unveiling. In part one, that scientific heavyweight Jenny McCarthy, together with her partner Jim Carrey released a press release:

Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Los Angeles-based non-profit autism organization, today announced that the United States Government has once again conceded that vaccines cause autism…

Both the inference and the statement of fact are in error here. The United States Government has _never_ conceded that vaccines cause autism. I challenge McCarthy and Carrey to show the statement that contradicts me. Team McCarrey’s announcement today also fails to establish that the US government have conceded vaccines cause autism.

Of course, the historical reference is to Hannah Poling. As has been discussed numerous times, Hannah Poling’s autism has not been shown to have been caused by vaccines. I have asked various people, including David Kirby numerous times to provide back up to their belief the government have said vaccines caused ehr autism. They cannot. They have not. In point of fact, only three of Hannah Poling’s symptoms that were described by both HHS and a scientific case study co-authored by her father as those being caused by vaccines, tally with the DSM (IV) criteria for ASD.

The case of Hannah Poling is a red herring.

As we shall see, so is this ‘new’ case.

Team McCarrey go on:

The announcement comes on the heels of the *recently unsealed* court case of Bailey Banks vs. HHS

If by ‘recent’ one means July 2007 then they may have a point. But I don’t think ‘recent’ can really apply to a case which has had open access to it (Kathleen blogged about it in May 2008) for about a year and a half. So why lie? To add to the drama, whip up mystery and confusion of course.

But now we get to the meat of it – the actual ruling. In Part II of today’s coordinated attack, RFK Jr and David Kirby blogged about this case.

Kennedy jumps straight in:

…last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

Whereas David is a tad more circumspect:

Is vaccine-induced ADEM (and similar disorders) a neurological gateway for a subset of children to go on and develop an ASD? That question will now become subject to debate…Special Master Abell had no trouble linking MMR to ADEM in Bailey Banks’ case. But linking his ADEM to PDD/ASD was more difficult.

So, lets rewind a little. Bailey was awarded a payment because he was found to have suffered vaccine induced damage. Cool. Thats the system working as it should – a child is damaged by a vaccine, they get compensated. What the MMR vaccine was established to have done in Bailey’s case was cause something called ADEM. What McCarthy, Carrey, Kennedy and David are now all claiming is that this ADEM resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

They rest their case on the conclusion of Special Master Abell:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

On the fact of it, it looks like they are right. But they aren’t.

Bailey has a diagnosis of PDD-NOS (Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified) which is indeed a subtype of ASD.

However, whilst PDD-NOS is a subtype of ASD (alongside autism etc). ASD is in turn a subtype of PDD. As the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities notes, the term PDD actually refers to a category of disorders and is not a diagnostic label. So when Abell refers to Bailey’s vaccine induced ADEM as leading to PDD he is not referring to ASD. He is referring to PDD. Not PDD-NOS, which _is_ a subtype of ASD but PDD, of which ASD itself is a subtype. Or, to quote Wikipedia:

PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs.

Abell made something of a worrying statement in his conclusion. I’ll quote from David Kirby:

Abell also chided MacDonald for his assertion that “all the medical literature is negative” in regards to an ADEM-PDD link. “However, soon thereafter, he corrected this statement by clarifying, ‘I can find no literature relating ADEM to autism or [PDD],'” Abell wrote. “It may be that Respondent’s research reveals a dearth of evidence linking ADEM to PDD, but that is not the same as positive proof that the two are unrelated, something Respondent was unable to produce. Therefore, the statement that ‘all the medical literature is negative’ is incorrect.”

Was any evidence that there _is_ a link between ADEM and PDD produced? I’ll have to read through more carefully. Its worrying that the SM is reduced to ‘chiding’ a witness for such a thing as a clarification of terms. Wasn’t he more worried that there was an extreme lack of evidence linking ADEM to PDD at all? Did Petitioners produce _any_ evidence that there was a link? A quick search of PubMed reveals nothing for ‘ADEM autism’ or ‘ADEM PDD’. I don’t want to second guess a Special Master but it does make me worried that maybe he simply didn’t get some of the science.

David also lists some of the symptoms of ADEM:

Symptoms usually appear within a few days to a couple of weeks. They include: headache, delirium, lethargy, seizures, stiff neck, fever, ataxia (incoordination), optic nerve damage, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, irritability and changes in mental status.

None of these say autism to me. I also did fine one ADEM paper in PubMed together with measles:

We report a seven year old male with measles associated acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) despite having received measles vaccination in infancy. The diagnosis was based on serum antimeasles antibodies and MRI brain. The patient was managed with high dose corticosteroids along with supportive measures. There was a complete neurologically and physica recovery.

There was a complete mental and physical recovery. This doesn’t seem to indicate causation or autism.

In my opinion based on what I’ve read so far here we have a little boy who either already had or was on the cusp of PDD-NOS. He was also vaccine damaged resulting in ADEM….and thats where the link breaks down. It might be enough for 50% and a feather but the fact that PDD is not PDD-NOS, together with the total lack of any evidence I can see to link ADEM to PDD, let alone PDD-NOS speaks volumes.

Bad Spin, bad interpretations, bad for the community

20 Feb

I was hoping to move on from the Omnibus decisions. Let’s face it, it’s hard on that fraction of our community that believes in vaccine causation. Also. let’s face it, the decision is so clear and decisive that it is hard to add anything to it or complain about any parts.

But then Barbara Fisher Fischkin chimed in. Her spin is just plain amazing. The comments she makes are exactly (and I do mean exactly) the sort of thing bloggers like David Kirby would tear apart if he were even close to impartial.

You know from the fist sentence that her piece, “Bad Justice, Bad Journalism, A Maligned Doctor And A Dead Mother” is going to be bad:

As an Autism Mom, I spent last week with my head spinning.

You left out some important descriptive words, Ms. Fisher. “As an Autism Mom who believes in vaccine causation…”

Just because you are an autism mom doesn’t mean your head is spinning. I know lots of autism moms whose heads aren’t spinning. In fact, I’ve been watching my local yahoo groups and, guess what, people aren’t talking about the Omnibus decisions.

In America last week, our Vaccine Court very curiously threw a hearty dose of cold water over the widely reported connection between autism and vaccines.

Very curiously? Nice way to diminish what they did. They very carefully and thoroughly splashed an entire swimming pool of cold water on the widely reported belief that there is a connection between autism and vaccines.

She then spends some time on the fact that it is “widely reported”. Sorry, just because you can pull people like David Kirby, Dan Olmsted and that journalism student Ashley Reynolds to tell your story doesn’t make the story true.

I also appreciate the vague nature of “reported”. Reported where? Local newspapers in Hawaii that will accept just about anything and get it on to the news wire? How about reported in the medical literature?

There’s more cold water that can be thrown, but let’s move on.

Now, here’s the comment that got me to blog this:

The Vaccine Court’s decision, like so many complicated matters can be obscured by too much information and, alternately, clarified with a dose of simplicity. So here goes: This year the Vaccine Court, in looking at three specific cases, ruled that, in effect, vaccines and/or their ancillary, toxic ingredients do not cause autism. But last year – with evidence produced by a neurologist father and a mother who is a nurse and an attorney – the court ruled that, in effect vaccines could cause autism. Thousands more cases are pending which it why I believe this matter is far from settled. Ask any bookie: Second guessing an outcome with as many variables as this one is risky business.

After the Hannah Poling story broke, David Kirby and I used to take turns pointing out the misstatements made about the court. Mr. Kirby made a LOT of misstatements. And now, here we have a big one from Ms. Fisher. Care to blog it Mr. Kirby? I know you see it.

The court did not rule on the Hannah Poling case. HHS conceded the case. BIG difference. The Court did not consider the evidence, the court did not make a decision based on the evidence, nothing like what Ms. Fisher is presenting.

Mr. Kirby, if Paul Offit said that, you’d already have a scathing blog post up.

Also, she is misrepresenting the whole point of the Omnibus. “Thousands more cases are pending….”.

Does she have no idea of what is going on with the Omnibus? Here’s a definition of “Omnibus”

pertaining to, including, or dealing with numerous objects or items at once

The whole point of using an Omnibus Proceeding and test cases was so that a few cases could be heard with very detailed evidence and general causation could be applied to the thousands of other cases waiting.

Or, to put it another way, any of the thousands of other cases waiting which are contending MMR caused autism are basically over.

And, guess what, the Petitioner’s lawyers only presented two “theories of causation”. It isn’t like there are that many “variables” as she would like to assert. Each of the thousands of cases is not an individual variable.

Ms. Fisher then moves into the Wakefield/Brian Deer story with

As this was happening in the United States, in England a journalist reported that a certain gastroenterologist who treats children with autism – and whose license over there is under intense judicial scrutiny — fabricated his data. There are, not surprisingly, counter allegations that the journalist strategically created some of the controversy himself so that his story would get more play. This does not surprise me.

It doesn’t surprise me either. Instead, it saddens me that a fraction of my community has acted so harshly towards Mr. Deer in what appears to this reader be an attempt at a smokescreen–an attempt to divert attention away from the possibly very damaging findings Mr. Deer has uncovered about Dr. Wakefield’s work.

Notice that Ms. Fisher avoids entirely the crux of the entire story by Mr. Deer: if the information Mr. Deer has presented is true, is there anything left of Dr. Wakefield’s study to support his idea that MMR causes autism?

Take away even the question of whether Dr. Wakefield knew or should have known the details Mr. Deer presented. If those details are true, even the very weak evidence that Dr. Wakefield presented on MMR causing autism is worthless.

The spin will continue. I believe strongly that fewer and fewer real journalists are going to listen and report it.

[note, I modified this post slightly shortly after publishing it. Substance was not changed]

Who carries the authority?

19 Feb

The recent Omnibus decisions are hoped by some to stem the tide of rabid anti-vaccine beliefs espoused by people who shame the name of autism advocacy. On Salon, Rahul K. Parikh says:

In the case of autism, science and reason have too often failed to reach people. And consequently they have turned to the courts. For those of us who believe in the scientific method, the autism trials have not been necessary. But judges, unlike doctors in their cold white coats, still command a great deal of respect, and so perhaps the court’s recent ruling will sink in and finally persuade parents to regain their confidence in vaccines.

Never happen Rahul, never happen. These same anti-vaxxers have already began spin campaigns not only against the legality of the verdicts but against the three Special Masters themselves. To this group, the Special Masters command no respect whatsoever and neither do their verdicts. Take this piece of rampant stupidity from Barbara Loe Fisher:

The U.S. Court of Claims special masters are hampered from considering evidence which has not yet been published in the medical literature regarding potential associations between vaccines and the development of regressive autism

I don’t see how it is possible to make a dumber statement. What she’s saying is she wanted the Special Masters to look at unpublished science. As is well known, unpublished science is not like an unpublished novel. Unpublished science means its science that has not been put through the rigour of peer review, not had its methods examined to ensure they are transparent and reproducable, not had its conclusions reviewd to see iof they are accurate and not had its data examined to see if it is usable. This unreviewed, unpublished ‘science’ is what got us to this stage in the first place. A ten year multi-million pound, dollar and euro effort to close down bad science.

So how does she and people like her get away with saying such things? *Just because they can* . Because people believe extremes and people believe celebrities. People believe bloggers and people believe those who have shared (or think they have) experiences. I’m not saying its right but its true. If anyone genuinely believes this ruling will shut the door on these people they’re wrong. For confirmation of that you need look no further than Rolf Hazlehurt, father of one of the kids who made up the three test cases from the Autism Omnibus.

If we win, we keep going.
If we lose, we keep going.
If we win, the going will be easier.
If we lose, the going will be more difficult.
However, the Court rules, we will keep going.

You have to understand. This is not about scientific truth – or even truth at all – to these people. Its about winning and its about pushing their antivaccine beliefs as fast and far as they can. Even as they claim to not be anti-vaccine they write emails to others clearly showing they are. One of these emails will come to light very soon I believe. Expect to see very familiar names on it.

To these people science has no authority. Doctors have no authority. The Special Masters have no authority. The only people who have authority – real authority – can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. David Kirby. Jenny McCarthy. Maybe Dan Olmsted. If one of these people were to bow to the obvious and say so publicly then we might have a very different scenario. But they won’t. They have too much invested in esposuing the anti-vaccine line.

Mainstream media have a lot to apologise for also. The red tops, the broadsheets and all those hundreds of little bitty TV channels all over the US that gave the anti-vaxxers airtime in the name of impartiality and allowed them to scare away facts and reason, they need to reverse that policy.

But more than that, scientists and doctors need to get online and blog, get on Twitter and use them. Talk to people in their own language. Screw decorum. Ask people who’ve been using their blogs to support vaccines for _years_ what to do and how to do it. People like Oracand Ben Goldacre are prime examples.

This needs to happen because we’ve already lost one generation of kids to their loony parents. The loony parents who only recognise the authority of celebs, authors and each other in nests of email lists and blogs. If we want to give up another generation to the reach of the internet then keep on keeping on and hope that Rahul K. Parikh is right. But he’s not.

Vaccines in court, what next?

14 Feb

Lisa Jo Rudy has a post on the “what next question”

On beyond the Vaccine Court: next steps in the vaccine-autism legal process

In it, she quotes from Law.com where they also looked into the question. One of the petitioner’s lawyers is indicating that they may appeal.

I seem to recall there being mention of a possible appeal in the Omnibus Docket, but I can’t find it right now. Basically, the next step would likely be to take the U.S. Court of Appeals. One of the petitioner’s attorneys is indicating that this may happen, with the argument

“I think the special masters were imposing a standard and imposing a burden on this evidence in these cases that was higher than what is called for under the statute.”

Seems a stretch to me. When a Special Master makes a point that it was “not even close”, it doesn’t seem as though it was a matter of changing the standard.

There are many more comments in the decisions making it exceedingly clear that the Special Masters didn’t think these cases had even close to the merit required, but I don’t expect that to stop people from appealing.

After that, or for some people even before the appeal, there is the chance that the cases could be taken to civil court. Similar cases have worked in civil court in the recent past–with cases dismissed before trial even begins based on the lack of evidence. Now, civil court judges will be able to refer to the Special Master’s decisions, which are quite detailed and quite clear.

But, in civil court, will they be able to assemble the “Dream Team” of expert witnesses that the DoJ put together for the Omnibus?

They may not have to.

One of the entries in the dockets for the Cedillo, Snyder and Hazlehurst cases was this:

NOTICE, filed by SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES RESPONDENTS CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE OF
EXPERT REPORTS. (Babcock, Alexis) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Yep, we may get to read the expert reports. It could help slow down any civil cases.

Much more, it could give new families to autism something to read besides the websites of the orgs promoting vaccine causation.

I can’t wait to read those reports.

What you talking about, Safe-Minds?

13 Feb

And the spin continues on the Omnibus decisions. Anyone surprised?

This time, Safe-Minds has chimed in on the Omnibus decisions with:

Federal Vaccine Court Rules Against Autism Families: Government’s Refusal to Fund Sound Science Stacks Deck Against Vaccine-Injured Children.
One more reason to distrust the government’s vaccine program, says SafeMinds

The main theme is a rather contradictory one:

The denial of reasonable compensation to families was based on inadequate vaccine safety science available to the court.

How many times have we all heard from groups like SafeMinds that the science is very conclusive?

If the science is inadequate, why are groups such as SafeMinds and Generation Rescue recommending chelation as a therapy for autism?

As a friend of mine used to say to other drivers while driving down the highway, “Pick a lane, buddy”. Either you got the science or you don’t. Seems like you don’t.

SafeMinds perseverates on the IACC. I do to, so I can’t blame them for that. I can blame them for misrepresenting what happens in IACC meetings:

Last month, the government-dominated Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee blocked critical vaccine-autism research studies from moving forward even though they had been requested by their own scientific advisors and autism advocates.

Uh, one of the BIG problems with the proposed vaccine research was precisely the fact that they were not recommended by the scientific advisory subcommittees. Nice spin, though.

and, again on the IACC, SafeMinds states:

The director of the NIH institute in charge of autism studies, Dr. Tom Insel, has admitted that HHS has a conflict of interest preventing NIH from allowing autism-vaccine science due to the court cases.

Uh, no. He raised the question of whether there is a conflict of interest. He didn’t “admit” to any conflict of interest.

I am actually getting very tired of this claim made about the vaccine court:

Many of these cases were quietly settled by the government so the public is not aware of them.

Sounds oh so conspiratorial.

Of course the government is quiet in the decisions. Quiet in they don’t advertise or call press conferences. What they do is put them on a public website. That is appropriate.

Is it the government’s fault that the vaccine-autism “advocates” never checked? Seriously, you are working on cases costing many millions of dollars and no no seems to have gone through the previous cases searching for the word “autism”?

Is it the government’s fault that the lawyers who worked on the previous cases involving autistics who were injured by vaccines weren’t savvy enough to think of communicating that fact to the Omnibus lawyers? C’mon, at least one of them is working on the Omnibus proceeding!

SafeMinds, you and your sister organizations found out about the other cases from Kathleen Seidel! That’s who is doing your homework.

Even leading vaccine proponents have accused the CDC of carrying out safety research “on the cheap,” and two major systematic reviews of vaccine research by the world renowned Cochrane Collaboration have found studies to be of “poor quality” and “inadequate.”

Who are these “leading vaccine proponents”? And, how many “leading vaccine proponents” think that a lot of time and money is spent on vaccine safety research?

That last sentence is why “..and the whole truth” is included in swearing in witnesses. How many studies did they find to be “poor quality”. The way it is phrased, SafeMinds is trying to make it seem like all the research is substandard. Ironic given that SafeMinds still has the Hornig mouse study on its website with no mention of the MIND study that refuted it.

That said, the Special Masters who wrote the decisions for the Omnibus hearings made it very clear that they had good evidence, good studies to work from.

Here’s a comment that goes to the heart of the future problems:

“The government must fund an extensive vaccine safety program, including studies of the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups,” stated Sallie Bernard, executive director of SafeMinds. “Trust in immunization will continue to deteriorate without the perception of a fair hearing. It is time for a neutral agency to oversee vaccine safety.”

Ms. Bernard: this was a fair hearing. The petitioners were given many years of extra time to get the research that they needed. Much research was done on vaccine safety in regards to autism in that time, and it only helped the defendents.

Also, trust in vaccinations may continue to deteriorate because of the publicity campaigns you and your sister organizations are putting on. Own the responsibility for your own actions.

What you talking about, TACA?

13 Feb

TACA have issued a statement on the Omnibus decisions. We’ve already discussed some of this, but there is something in the TACA statment that is sooo bad that it needs to be pointed out.

TACA states

The VICP was set up for individuals that suffered an “on the table” vaccine injury. That is, an injury that happened within minutes or hours after receiving a vaccine.

What?

But, more importantly…What?

An injury has to be suffered “on the table”? That’s what they think a “table injury” is?

Once again….What?!?

You’d expect TACA to understand that better than I, since I am not involved in the litigation. Sadly, this is not true.

A “Table Injury” is described thus:

The Vaccine Injury Table (Table) makes it easier for some people to get compensation. The Table lists and explains injuries/conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines. It also lists time periods in which the first symptom of these injuries/conditions must occur after receiving the vaccine. If the first symptom of these injuries/conditions occurs within the listed time periods, it is presumed that the vaccine was the cause of the injury or condition unless another cause is found. For example, if you received the tetanus vaccines and had a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) within 4 hours after receiving the vaccine, then it is presumed that the tetanus vaccine caused the injury if no other cause is found.

Granted, the definition of “table” in this case is not the most common. It is, in fact, #8 or #9 on the list:

an arrangement of words, numbers, or signs, or combinations of them, as in parallel columns, to exhibit a set of facts or relations in a definite, compact, and comprehensive form; a synopsis or scheme.

So, that was a bit of an “oops” from our good friends at TACA.

Just to be more precise, the VICP was not built just around “table” injuries. Instead, anyone who has read the decisions will be able to tell you that much time is spent deciding cases of possible non-table injuries.

There are more errors in the TACA statement. But, the main one we have already discussed–the fact that the court was very decisive in what they wrote.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →