Archive | Legal RSS feed for this section

Elizabeth Mumper – Autism Omnibus, Dwyer vs HHS

25 Jul

Some highlights, courtesy of a Guest Blogger, er Transcriber 🙂

Beau Johnson DoJ lawyer: Neither the myelin basic protein nor the IGM neuro filament antibody test is diagnostic of any disease is that right?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: They are very nonspecific findings.

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: And isn’t it true that these antibodies have been reported as elevated in normal individuals with no disease?

Mumper: That is true in some cases. Exactly.

Johnson: And because these markers were measured in the serum rather than the CSF they provide no direct evidence of what is going on in Colin’s central nervous system is that right?

Mumper: I guess I would quibble with how you get direct evidence, in this case in order to get direct evidence of neuroinflammation I guess we’d would really needed to have done a brain biopsy on him in 2002. I can tell you from personal experience that even wanting to look at CSF in children with autism for the presence of inflammatory markers is widely perceived as an invasive procedure. So those of us who might want to be able to document it more directly are constrained from doing so by standards of care criticisms. So we have to rely on other markers, and it’s not a direct marker but I would argue that a clinician would not have the ability to do a direct assessment in a living child.

Johnson: For whatever reason that evidence is just not present in this case, is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true

Johnson: Do you know what protocol Immunosciences used to perform these two lab tests?

Mumper: You know I don’t. I have visited the immunosciences labs on two occasions and talked to the director and viewed their facilities. But I am not a lab scientist. I can tell you that when I visited and had it explained to me it made sense at the time, but I could not reproduce the protocol.

Johnson: Do you know how Immunosciences established it’s references ranges?

Mumper: I do not know the details of that, no.

Johnson: Do you know whether these reference ranges take the age factor into account?…

Mumper: I do not think they are normed for children, but for things like neurofiliment antibodies and myelin basic protein antibodies the values for children would be expected to be less than people as they aged…

Johnson: But you don’t believe that these reference ranges are normed for children?

Mumper: I do not think that they are. That’s correct.

Johnson: Do you know if immunosciences lab ever been accredited by the College of American Pathologists?

Mumper: I do not know if they have. I do know that their work, their lab reports come disclaimers about use for research and careful clinical applicability and those types of things.

Johnson: Do you know if immunosciences is currently performing any clinical testing?

Mumper: I believe they are not.

Johnson: I’m going to show you what we’ve marked as respondent’s trial exhibit 14 and it is a letter that I found on the Immunosciences website.

Mumper: OK.

Johson: Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: Yes I have.

Johnson: And does this letter reflect that Immunosciences has in fact stopped performing clinical testing as of July 21, 2007?

Mumper: Yes, as i just testified to.

Johson: Do you know why it stopped performing clinical testing?

My understanding from talking to Dr. Vodjani and some health department officials, is that his lab was investigated for their testing as related to mold. Looking for mold evidence of chronic mold exposure as a potential cause of chronic illness. My understanding from Dr. Vodjani that the investigation was perhaps precipitated by a court case in which mold testing had been used and the plaintiff who had claimed damage from mold had won a huge settlement and the health department was concerned about the possibility of on the basis of that mold test and wanted to investigate the lab with regard to that.

Johnson: So its your understanding that the problems with Immunosciences lab were limited to its mold testing?

Mumper: That is my understanding, but I have not investigated all the depth of the investigation, nor read any of the official documents, so I really do not have full knowledge of that.

Johnson: I’m now going to show you respondents trial exhibit 15 which is another letter that I found on Immunosciences website.

Mumper: OK. Thank you.

Johnson: Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: I believe I have. Yes.

Johnson: Did you receive this letter since it is addressed to “Our valued clients and associates”? Was this sent to you?

Mumper: Yes.

Johnson: This letter is signed by doctor Vodjani?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: I believe you testified in May that you have an article in press (which has) Dr. Vodjani as the lead author?

Mumper: That is correct.

Johnson: Do you know what CLIA stands for?

Mumper: … I can’t remember…

Johnson: OK and just for the record it’s Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 and we’ll just refer to it as CLIA for ease of reference.

Mumper: OK

Johnson: Do you know what CMS is?

Mumper: According to the letter it might be Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services?

Johnson: That’s correct. CMS regulates all laboratory testing on humans in the United States through CLIA in order to insure quality laboratory testing, is that right?

Mumper: Uhuh.

Johnson: Dr. Vodjani’s letter states in the third paragraph that “CMS had found deficiencies during a 2004 CLIA survey of Immunosciences that led it to conclude that the lab’s test results since 2002 may not be accurate and reliable.” Were you aware of those findings by CMS?

Mumper: Uhm, yes, since I got this letter.

Johnson: I’m not going to show you respondents trial exhibit 16. This is a letter from CMS. Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: Yes I have.

Johnson: Did you receive this letter?

Mumper: Yes I did.

Johnson: And this letter does in fact say at the beginning of the second paragraph on the first page that: We are writing both to inform you of the current sanction action and to alert you that test results that you received since June 2002 from Immunosciences lab might not be accurate or reliable. Is that what that says?

Mumper: I would like to add that… I did call Mary Jew as suggested in this last line. I can’t remember the details now, but I talked to three different people on the staff. I tried to get information about what particular concerns they had because I was trying to figure out for the labs that I had done on my patients if this were a global concern or if it was related to the mold or if there were tests that I was using that I may still be able to rely upon, and I was very frustrated in not being able to find out from those people who I think their hands were tied as far as talking about an ongoing investigation, what the problems were.

Johnson: We may be able to provide some of that information now. I’m going to show you now what is marked as respondents trial exhibit 17. And this is the CLIA annual laboratory registry from 2005. Have you seen this document before?

Mumper: No I have not.

Johnson: Look on page 5 of this document. Does this indicate that Immunosciences’ CLIA certification was being revoked due to condition level noncompliance?

Mumper: Uhm, cancellation of a approval to receive medicare payment due to noncompliance. Yes.

Johnson: Now I’m going to show you respondents trial exhibit 18. And these are actually excerpts from a much larger report. And this is the, a report from the survey that CMS did of this lab. … does that appear to be correct to you?

Mumper: Based on my thirty second review that does appear to be correct.

Johnson: If you’ll turn to the fifth page of the trial exhibit. This document lists a number of findings in connection with Immunosciences general immunology testing. Is that correct?

Mumper: It appears that that is correct.

Johnson: Were you aware that CMS noted problems at Immunosciences lab in connection with its failure to follow written policies and procedures for an ongoing mechanism to monitor, assess and correct problems in the pre-analytic systems?

Mumper: No I did not have access to that information.

Johnson: And were you aware that the CMS found that the laboratory
failed to determine calibration procedures and control procedures based upon established performance applications?

Mumper: No I was not aware of the specifics.

Johnson: And were you aware that the CMS found that Immunosciences laboratory failed to verify the continued accuracy of the test systems throughout the laboratory’s reportable range of test results? …

Mumper: … I was not aware of the specifics.

Johnson: And under sub paragraph I, the CMS found that the Immunosciences laboratory failed to establish the statistical parameters of the unassayed control materials used for it’s various in-house ELISA test systems?

Mumper: I was not aware of that.

Johnson: Ok and these findings all relate to Immunosciences general immune testing is that correct?

Mumper: It would appear that that is the case.

Johnson: And if you will look at the next to the last page of the trial exhibit. Were you aware that CMS found with respect to the anti MPB and neurofilament test in particular that Immunosciences failed to have written policies and procedures, for patient preparation, specimen collection, specimen storage and preservation, conditions for specimen transportation and specimen acceptability and rejection?

Mumper: And what was the date of that that it was not in place? Because it seemed to be on the website when you cited it earlier. And when we sent specimens in 2003 we were able to obtain written instructions about the specimens submitted, they came actually in the test kit.

Johnson: I believe this was from a survey from 2004 …

Mumper: What I was trying to explain to you that as a clinician the test kits came in a box, and there’re the tubes and a series of explanations about how the specimens need to be prepared. … So I can only testify as to what I know… we had procedures to follow when we submitted our blood samples in 2003.

Johnson: And all I’m asking you is that at the time that CMS performed this survey it found that those aspects of Immunosciences laboratory practice to be inadequate. Is that correct?
…

Johnson: Look at the last page of the trial exhibit…at the time it performed this survey with respect to the anti MPB and neurofilament test that Immunosciences failed to provide documentation the laboratory director’s review and approval for those procedures?

Mumper: It does suggest that there was no documentation to show his review and approval… so how much this was a matter of paperwork versus actual analysis, I can’t say.

Johnson: And Dr. Vodjani’s letter of January 16th, 2006 ,he indicates that Immunosciences had planned sue over the survey results.

Mumper: I believe he said he planned to vigorously fight or something to that effect …

(Special Master: And that was trial exhibit 15? …)

Johnson: We have a copy of the settlement agreement from that lawsuit it’s been marked as respondents trial exhibit… Focusing on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. …

Mumper: OK

Johnson: It appears that one of the conditions of the settlement that Immunosciences would obtain accreditation through the College of American Pathologists or else it would voluntarily withdraw from the CLIA program and cease testing on human specimens, is that correct?

Mumper: That does seem to be the case.

Johnson: Based on the fact that Immunosciences is no longer performing clinical testing, isn’t it reasonable to assume that they did not receive accreditation through the College of American Pathologists…

Mumper: (interrupting) or that they chose not to pursue it I would think would be the two possibilities.

Johnson: Doctor based on this information do you have any concerns about the reliability of the Immunosciences test results?

Mumper: I was not aware that the MBP or neurofilament testing was under contention, and if that were the only thing that I was relying upon to make my judgement I would be concerned that I had over-read the labs. I would give relatively less credence or perhaps even be forced to discount those particular lab tests given  the information in the settlement agreement that I wasn’t privy to knowing the details of.

Johnson: The next test results that you discuss in your report are results from Great Smokies lab that purport to show abnormal glutathione, lipid peroxide and cysteine levels.  Is that correct?

Johnson: … That would have been when Colin was about 3 1/2 years old… So to the extent that these results indicate anything about whether Colin was under oxidative stress at the time … they don’t tell us if he was in oxidative stress at the time of his immunizations. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: These tests were blood tests is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: Do you know if these tests were normed for children?

Mumper: I do not know the answer to that question.

Johnson: And as you note in your report a number of other factors can explain oxidative stress such as poor nutrition. Is that right?

Johnson: Would you agree that a mercury efflux disorder is still a hypothesis at this point

Mumper: Yes.

Johnson: So low cysteine and plasma sulfate levels can’t be diagnostic of that disorder..

and those levels can be explained by a number of other factors is that right?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson:… I’d like to go through all the mercury testing if you don’t mind.

…

Mumper: It would appear that 4-19-02 was the time of the very first visit to Dr. Bock. So there is not evidence that he would have been on a chelating agent at that time.

Johnson: And the result for this test of mercury was that it came back the non-detectable limit … Is that correct?

Mumper: Right.

Johnson: The next test that we found was the December 2002 test and that was a urine toxic metals test… although the report says that there was a chelating agent administered, you don’t believe there was, is that correct?

Mumper: Yes that’s correct.

Johnson: and the result shows no detectable mercury.

Mumper: Yes that’s correct.

Johnson: and the result shows no detectable mercury.

The next test was the December 22, 2002 …The next test was the December 22, 2002 test which is at petitioner’s exhibit page 90 and … this was post provocative test … and this test result showed that mercury was at 17 mcg per gram of creatinine. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: And the report indicates that DMSA was administered in connection with this test … and again the result from this test for mercury was nondetectable. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: There’s only test that showed mercury outside the reference range is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true.

The next test was the December 22, 2002 test which is at petitioner’s exhibit page 90 and … this was post provocative test … and this test result showed that mercury was at 17 mcg per gram of creatinine. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: And the report indicates that DMSA was administered in connection with this test … and again the result from this test for mercury was nondetectable. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: There’s only test that showed mercury outside the reference range is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true.

Johnson: And that was the provoked test from December 22, 2002. … Doesn’t Doctor’s Data say in bold right on the test report that reference ranges are representative of a healthy population under non-challenged or non-provoked conditions?

Mumper: That’s true.

Johnson: So we just don’t know what the normal range would be for a provoked test. Is that right?

Mumper: It is difficult to know…

David Kirby vs Accuracy

20 Jul

As I’ve said before, I like David Kirby personally. We exchange friendly emails. We even recently discussed the idea of having a private blog – readable by all but one that allowed only two posters (David and I) and no commenters. This would, I suggested, give us the opportunity to have a civil debate.

Unfortunately, David was too busy, which was a shame. However, the offers always open should he find a bit more time.

He did have time yesterday to blog a piece for the Huffington Post in which he discussed Amanda Peet and said she was ‘against the medical establishment’ for taking the stance she did. He cited a few things to support his point. I’d like to discuss these things but before I do I’d like you Dear Reader to take note: someone who was at the IACC meeting David talks about (he wasn’t there) will hopefully be posting their account of proceedings on LB/RB.

Anyway. Lets proceed. David’s first piece of rhetoric to support the idea Amanda Peet was against the medical establishment was:

A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says that some members want “specific objectives on vaccine research” included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

I’m sure that some members do want this. Lynn Redwood and Mark Baxhill to be precise. As the upcoming IACC account will show, I don’t think any other IACC workgroup members were interested. (Please see this correction of an ignorant Limey’s take on the US system.)

I would also like to correct David on his characterisation of the Combating Autism Act. The Act contains no mention of vaccines. It specifies environmental research but the words ‘vaccine’, ‘vaccination’ ‘immunize’, ‘immunization’, ‘mmr’ or ‘thimerosal’ appear nowhere in the CAA. I hope David will correct his HuffPo piece accordingly.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal researchers to consider “shortfalls” in epidemiological studies cited as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al); as well as a specific plan “for researching vaccines as a potential cause of autism.” The workgroup also says that the final research agenda should “state that the issue is open.”

Once again, David’s notes are coming from two people, Lynn Redwood and Mark Blaxill and indeed – they asked for all these things. The account of the meeting I have heard (from someone who was there) differed somewhat. As a flavour of how much the majority of the working group listened to Redwood and Blaxill, I enclose a teaser quote from chairperson Tom Insel:

“Lyn, your community is not the whole community and there are many people with well thought out concerns about ethics of the concept of prevention and if we want to be inclusive we will not do this.”

Back to David:

July 14, 2008 – Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that current federal autism research “shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies,” even though there is, “growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role” in autism.

I blogged that episode here. Suffice it to say that a _politician_ is not representative of the medical establishment. I would urge everyone reading this to read that piece as it suggests amongst other things that Generation Rescue and SafeMinds be responsible for a Board that would serve as a liaison between the IACC and parents of autistic people and autistic people themselves!. After reading that I would urge everyone to contact the following people to express your thoughts (politely!) to the decision makers:

HHS Sec Mike Leavitt (mike.leavittAThhs.gov)
NIMH director/IACC director Tom Insel (tinselATmail.nih.gov)
Everyone here: http://science.house.gov/about/members.htm

Once again, back to David:

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report tells CBS News that, “Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” and says they “don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”

I still can’t get over the fact that David is using this person to back up his points! He continues to trumpet the opinion of Bernadine Healy who actually did assert that cigarettes do not cause cancer and worked closely with Philip Morris to do so. She also totally reneged on her stance on fetal tissue research when she found herself in the same camp as President Bush. In AoA language she’s a shill.

David then goes on to cite al three Presidential Candidates – as if a politicians opinion in an election year means anything! I definitely fail to see what any of them have to do with being part of the medical establishment.

Onwards:

March 29, 2008 – Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: “If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

Er, so? I’m really not sure how this is a ‘point’ for David (or anyone else who thinks its supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism). If she’d said ‘yes, vaccines caused autism in Hannah Poling’s case’ (which no-one ever has by the way, despite statements to the contrary) than _that_ would be a bombshell. As it was Dr. Gerberding was simply speaking what is obvious.

David again:

The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24 months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Now, I can’t answer this as much as I’d like to. I have spoken to people involved in the preparation and writing of this report (as has David) and I was given two take home points from our email chat:

1) The science is _not yet complete_ . The paper is not published.
2) The authors feel ‘disappointed’ in the slant David has put on their work and are loth to discuss it with anyone else due to that. I was told that David might be rather surprised when everything comes out later in the year.

David once more:

Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a “test case” of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical decision. HHS doctors admit that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves,”

First of all, I beg to differ with David. The concession was a legal one. By definition the phrase “autistic encephalopathy” does not exist in mainstream science so if it was used (a fact which has yet to be determined – I invite David once more to link through to the document where this is stated). A simple test of its non-existence is to search for the phrase on PubMed. I got:

Quoted phrase not found.

So we have a multitude of uncertainties here:

1) Nowhere (except in David’s writings) can we find evidence of HHS apparently saying “autistic encephalopathy” caused Hannah Poling’s autism.

2) The phrase itself (“autistic encephalopathy”) does not appear in the entire PubMed database, thus causing me to doubt its use by the medical establishment.

3) Is the concession legal or medical? If a diagnosis does not exist but is used in a legal document then by definition it must be legal – thats my opinion anyway.

David also mentions a HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group meeting but I know next to nothing about that so can’t comment.

I have to say that based on the above, David seems to be attempting nothing more than an intellectual ‘land grab’ i.e. to attempt to paint those who claim vaccines cause autism as part of the medical establishment and those who stand against them as not. Its a good political idea but I don’t think its going to work. There are just too many holes in this particular boat for it to float for long.

Legal Bombshell in Autism Omnibus Proceeding!

17 Jul

This is a Guest Blogged piece, written by a beloved legal expert – Clem Heckenberry.

In what can only be described as a legal bombshell, the Petitioners in the Autism Omnibus hearings seemingly withdrew four of its highest profile experts to support the various claims that say that vaccines cause autism. The experts are James B Adams, Mark Robin Geier, Boyd E Haley and Andrew J Wakefield. The ‘New’ experts are those we recognise from the testimony offered thus far. Indeed, this reporter can find no further mention of Adams, Geier, Haley or Wakefield as expert witnesses for the petitioners.

If this case was in the civil arena, the withdrawal of four experts of such magnitude would in all likelihood result in sanctions, a directed verdict or the total failure of the case as in the time Jeff Bradstreet (another expert for the petitioners) left his clients high and dry. There’s no way to spin this as a positive development for the petitioners.

Drs. Adams, Geier, Haley and Wakefield were apparently unwilling or unable to testify about the substance of their beliefs and ‘science, leaving only the report and testimony of Dr. Asphosian, a scientist who has not devoted significant time to the question of mercury and autism. (At one point in his career it’s alleged that Dr. Asphosian claimed that the argument that ‘the dose makes the poison’ was wrong.)

I spoke with various people about this development and they also agreed that this was knocking out some of the petitioners strongest pillars that autism is related to thimerosal or MMR. All those I talked to considered it difficult to underestimate the near-hilarious reputation of these four experts in the field of autism. Their apparent unwillingness to testify on these matters suggests they cannot sustain their previous assertion that thimerosal or MMR has anything to do with autism.

Although the parties are continuing to submit motions and it appears unlikely that there will be a decision this summer, the withdrawal of these experts are likely to have profound consequences.

UPDATE: There’s a good chance this might be satire, although the facts are true..

Amanda Peet and the Streisand Effect

16 Jul

I had never heard of the “Streisand Effect” until a few months ago. That’s when Clifford Shoemaker subpoenaed.

The basic idea is simple: someone tries to censor or remove some piece of information from the internet, and, instead, the actions cause the information to be much more widely spread than it would have been otherwise.

In the case of the subpoena, many (MANY) people heard about the neurodiversity.com site and, especially, some of the actions of Mr. Shoemaker, than would have happened had the subpoena not been issued.

I was reminded of this phenomenon today when I found that the Amanda Peet story has started to catch on big. Amanda Peet was quoted in Cookie Magazine with a very pro-vaccine stance. She had been scared by…

….the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood

So, what did she do? She asked a medical professional for advice. Dang, what a concept! She was very fortunate that her brother in law is a doctor and, even more luckily, he works at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) where Paul Offit works.

Dr. Offit knows vaccines. Not in the, “I’ve read a ton in the internet” version of “knows” vaccines. No, He researches and develops vaccines. He is also a vocal spokesperson against the idea that vaccines cause autism. That, as you can imagine, makes him very unpopular with some segments of the autism community.

So, you can imagine what happened when Amanda Peet came out pro vaccine, against the vaccine-autism connection and stated that she got information from Dr. Offit. Yes, she got the usual hate-filled reception. And make no mistake, I am not downplaying that. I would not be surprised if she, like others before her, have had to forward emails or phone calls to the authorities because they seem threatening.

But, as time goes on, the message isn’t getting quashed. Salon.com picked up the story today and stated,

Now, Peet vs. McCarthy is the celebrity smackdown du jour. Sure, we’d all be better off taking our medical advice from doctors and nurses rather than celebrities. Yet, everyone from the American Academy of Pediatrics to Salon columnist Dr. Rahul Parikh has tried to reassure parents that vaccines don’t cause autism. Meanwhile, public health officials worry when public confidence in vaccinations continues to erode, in part because of high-profile celebrity advocacy, like McCarthy’s Green Our Vaccines march and rally held in Washington, D.C., in June.

And, what was that “smackdown du jour”? Looks like E! picked up the story as well.

All these web stories give the usual crowd an opportunity to add comments. The forums and comment sections for those stories are filled with people trashing Amanda Peet. I wish those people would catch a clue–have someone outside the autism community read what they write. The comments are strident, rude and, in general, really make the autism community as a whole look bad. It’s one thing to rant away in a closed yahoo group or in the comment section of the Age of Autism blog, but the public doesn’t know (and I wish they didn’t) just how mean and nasty these “advocacy” groups can be.

This story isn’t going away. Amanda Peet is now a spokesperson for Every Child By Two, a pro-vaccine organization founded by former first lady Rosalynn Carter. (as an aside–the Carters are one of the best ex-first-families the U.S. has seen).

Now that Amanda Peet has come down against the idea that vaccines cause autism, pretty much everything she says will be picked apart and analyzed. One comment that is giving a lot of ammunition to her detractors is this: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Read the comments and how many people try to make it sound like Amanda Peet is calling autism parents “parasites”. (Hint, she didn’t).

Let’s take a quick look at that term, parasite.

a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Now, let’s take a look at what Dr. Sears, one of the people often quoted by vaccine rejectionists, has to say about the MMR vaccine:

“I also warn them not to share their fears with other neighbors, because if too many people avoid the MMR, we’ll likely see the diseases increase significantly.”

So, he appears to this reader to be telling parents who don’t give the MMR vaccination to their children to keep mum, or the herd immunity will be compromised and the advantage to those parents will be lost.

Sweet. That doesn’t sound like “receiving advantage” without giving anything useful in return, does it?

Don’t get me wrong. For people with real reasons to avoid some or all vaccines (one regular commenter on this blog comes to mind). But, “I am scared of MMR causing autism so I am not going to vaccinate my kid, but I’ll hide in the herd immunity” doesn’t sit very well.

Also, where is the compassion for those who really need the protection of herd immunity? Where is the “Consider that your neighbor’s kids could use the advantage of your child’s immunity”?

But, to bring this back to where we started: Amanda Peet has hit the scene. She has jumped in with both feet, and appears to be staying for a while. A lot of voices appear to be trying to shout her down. Instead, they just seem to be giving Amada Peet’s message more coverage.

Age of Autism still don't get it

15 Jul

Over on our favourite pompous blog, the authors and readers still seem to have trouble processing their collective importance to autism related science (none at all) as well as how successful politicians are at directing science (not at all).

They flourish a letter from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee (long enough name fellers?) which is itself breathtaking in its dumbness.

In the Combating Autism Act, Congress directed DHHS to conduct research into screening, diagnosis, treatment and medical care for individuals with autism. These areas of research are essential to a balanced approach. In addition to these areas, I strongly encourage the IACC to promote a balanced research portfolio when examining the underlying causes of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An examination of the FY07 ASD Research Portfolio shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies related to autism. There is growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role in the emergence of ASD.

So, they firstly admit the role of CAA did not ask DHHS to examine the causes of autism but then ask the IACC (a committee appointed as a result of the CAA) to do it anyway. They then tick the IACC off for having a preference for genetic based studies and say there’s growing evidence that a ‘wide range’ of things cause autism. Possibly thats true, but the reference they provide to support that statement belies their beliefs. They reference the recent IMFAR poster presentation of Laura Hewitson. A study that has not even been published. This _is_ a science committee right?

They then go on to repeat a number of anti-vaccinationist talking points (Hannah Poling, biomedical treatment etc etc) and then make their recommendation:

I urge you to consider forming a Secretarial-level Autism Advisory Board (AAB). While the IACC is the primary mechanism for the coordination of research, surveillance, and early detection activities within the Department of Health and Human Services, an AAB could provide additional public feedback and serve as a liaison between parents, individuals with ASD, advocacy groups and the Department of Health and Human Services, and would assist in reestablishing public confidence

and whom might be on such a board I wonder?

Groups such as SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks, the Simons Institute, the National Autism Alliance, and the Autism Research Institute all have or are currently supporting research. Such groups have experience evaluating research, an in-depth knowledge of the current body of ASD research, and an appreciation of the new questions that may need to be examined in order to move our understanding of ASD forward.

This is a bad joke, surely. What is driving this is the fact that some IACC members are annoyed that the IACC didn’t immediately capitulate to their demands to study vaccines and vaccines only. There was a good reason why they didn’t. Its already been done. No association. Move on.

I have to say the idea of SafeMinds and Generation Rescue being on a board that is to restore public confidence to “parents [and] individuals with ASD” amuses and scares me in equal part. Maybe Mr Miller hasn’t seen founding members of Generation Rescue calling autistic people ‘trailor dwelling coo-coos’ or founder members of SafeMinds referring to blogs authored by autistic people and parents of autistic people as part of a ‘Wackosphere’? I think once he has (and he will, as will Secretary Leavitt and Dr Insel) he might stop and think futher.

Anyway, I digress, back to AoA. They employ a clever bit of deviousness to try and lever vaccines into the CAA:

The CAA listed 13 scientific fields but the only specific research topic mentioned in the legislative history was vaccines and their preservations as a possible cause of autism.

Hey, why would they need to? The Omnibus Autism hearings are doing that right?

But read carefully. It looks on a quick pass like vaccines are mentioned in the CAA. But they aren’t. They are mentioned in the ‘legislative history’. What that means is that there is no mention of vaccines in the CAA (and there isn’t. Read for yourself.)

Another word that would equate with ‘legislative history’ is ‘rubbish’ meaning ‘that which has been thrown away’. AoA – or in this instance Kelli Anne Davis (apparently the DC Political Liaison for Generation Rescue) – will be using the phrase ‘legislative history’ to try and afford some weight to the idea of vaccines being in drafts of the CAA. I really doubt anyone is going to fall for that little sleight of hand Kelli Ann.

And here’s the kicker:

This letter is the result of a year-long, collaborative effort between Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee.

I’ll bet it is.

Just this week, yet more genetic evidence was uncovered into the aetiology of autism. Y’know, the kind of evidence AoA et al are saying is useless and there’s too much of.

Let this be a marking point. Let us all remember that this is the week that the political process was co-opted in order to achieve a useless goal. The results of that, if successful, will be even less research into what could be vital therapies, educational strategies, residential innovations and means of garnering respect for autistic people.

Small Omnibus updates

12 Jul

OK, I am watching this closely enough that I read the small updates.

This one discusses a number of small topics.

First, evidence and all arguments are now complete for the First Theory of Causation. This is the theory argued last year in the Cedillo, Hazelhurst and Snyder cases. The theory there was that thimerosal plus the MMR vaccine combine to cause autism.

There was some delay as the petitioner’s lawyers (PSC) attempted to get some documents from the UK. It appears that there was a low likelyhood of that ever happening, so the PSC dropped the request (ceased efforts in that regard).

What does this mean? It means the Special Masters (SM’s) have all the information that they are going to get. They have already spent a lot of time analyzing what they have, and they expect to make a “detailed written ruling as soon as possible”.

Second is an update on the Second Theory of Causation. That is the theory that thimerosal alone can cause autism. This was mostly a summary of the fact that two of the specific cases (King and Mead) have been heard this May and that the third specific case (Dwyer) will be heard later this month.

Third, is the, well, Third Theory of Causation. This is the theory that MMR alone causes autism. As near as I can see, this is in a bit of a limbo right now. The PSC was supposed to submit expert reports and prepare for specific cases in September. However, there have been motions stating that there is no new general causation evidence. The evidence would be the same as for the First Theory hearings held last year. The Special Masters appear to be still working on how to respond to those motions.


Another update was submitted recently. This is a strange one. There was discussion during the May hearings (on the thimerosal theory) that two more respondent (i.e. government side) expert witnesses would give general testimony (in person and/or by expert report) in the July hearing (Dwyer). Those were to be Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos. The PSC wanted to put Dr. Aposhian on to rebut their testimony. All well and good. Except that the Respondent’s decided to pull the expert reports by Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos. The PSC then said that they still wanted to put Dr. Aposhian on to rebut other testimony. Still following? Well, the SM’s said that since Dr. Aposhian was only on there to rebut the Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos, he couldn’t go on if they didn’t.

Now, I expect this to draw a lot of speculation. People will be claiming that for some reason the DoJ was afraid of what Aposhian had to say, to the point of scuttling their own witnesses. I expect this from the internet, because, well, that’s the sort of thing that happens here. But, there is this bit in the Omnibus update:

Mr. Powers then stated that the petitioners might wish to file a motion requesting that certain unspecified inferences be drawn from the respondent’s decision to withdraw the reports of Drs. Magos and Clarkson. As we noted during the conference, we will certainly consider any such motion

So, the PSC want to “draw inferences” from this action. As I said, I expect that from the internet. I was a little surprised to see it from the lawyers in this case. (I may surprise easily)

There is something of substance in this: general testimony for the Second Theory is over. No more expert witnesses talking about the general idea that thimerosal causes autism. There will be a few days of testimony about one more of the Petitioners (Dwyer), but it is supposed to center only on the details of his case.

(note: a few small edits were added about my surprise in the request for ‘inferences’)

AAP and Paul Offit under attack (again)

7 Jul

Over on the Age of Autism, a new post has appeared which goes after the AAP (I thought everyone over there was big friends with the AAP these days?), its representative Dr Renee Jenkins and the AAP in general.

They (AoA) appear concerned about the newly formed Immunization Alliance which is an alliance of groups interested in children’s health and threaten that the formation of this group will put the AAP

<blockquote>…..in the middle of the line of fire for parent activism.</blockquote>

We have to question, first and foremost, what this has to do with autism. The answer is of course nothing. But that fast becoming the way with AoA. They posted over 100 posts throughout June and about a third of them were explicitly about autism or touched on autism. There were a lot about the speaking engagements of David Kirby, a lot of posts about the green our vaccines rally, a lot of posts about Gardasil and a lot of anti-AAP etc posts.

You have taken your eyes off the ball guys. You’ve forgotten what this is supposed to be about.

Anyway, the post goes on to say that the AAP announcement is;

<blockquote>Breathtaking in its dismissiveness of parent concerns…</blockquote>

Here’s the article in full:

<blockquote>

Immunization Alliance to develop compelling messages for parents
Anne Hegland
Editor in Chief

With pediatricians facing an increasing number of parents who question the safety of vaccines, representatives from organizations with a shared interest in advancing children’s health met May 30 to compare notes and develop strategies to help recapture public trust in childhood immunizations.

The newly formed Immunization Alliance, representing 15 groups, agreed that together they must work on short-and long-term solutions before falling immunization rates lead to further outbreaks of once-common and sometimes deadly vaccine-preventable childhood diseases.

Fresh in everyone’s mind were the measles outbreaks in nine states earlier this year.

Framing the challenges

Paul Offit, M.D., FAAP, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, identified some of the factors contributing to the increase in vaccine refusal and the need for quick action:

• parents who have never experienced or seen vaccine-preventable diseases;
• media and Internet reports that are unbalanced;
• decreased trust in the government and health care providers;
• an increasing number of states allowing philosophical exemptions; and
• parent-to-parent spread of misinformation.

Dr. Offit pointed out that the majority of vaccine refusals stem from parents’ fears, with only 10% of refusals associated with parents who strongly oppose vaccines.

“We need to work on public messaging around vaccines — the benefit of vaccines — and to have the right messenger delivering those messages,” said AAP President and meeting co-facilitator RenĂ©e R. Jenkins, M.D., FAAP.

Underscoring the need for compelling vaccine messages is the No. 1 ranked resolution from the 2008 Annual Leadership Forum, calling for the Academy to lead a coalition that will develop a media campaign on the value of immunizations that can be marketed to parents, added Dr. Jenkins.

The group agreed that communication strategies must appeal to parents who are Internet and media savvy, and go beyond presentation of the science by engaging consumers on an emotional level. There was acknowledgement among attendees that messages from anti-vaccine groups’ helped erode public confidence in immunizations through their use of celebrities to deliver heartrending first-hand accounts.

“The greatest challenge is getting these messages out in a timely fashion. We’ve got August coming up, which is a big month for kids going to the pediatrician for back-to-school visits and for immunizations,” said Dr. Jenkins.

At press time, Alliance members were prioritizing strategies to be shared with communication experts who will help craft messages promoting the value of immunizations.

Messages for pediatricians

Meeting co-facilitator Margaret Fisher, M.D., FAAP, chair of the AAP Section on Infectious Diseases, said the Alliance’s efforts also are an effort to help pediatricians in practice, whose messages have not always been understood by parents.

“We’re all about what’s best for children, and what we’re trying to do is find a way to re-establish our trust with the public. We want to help provide our members with the messages and the method that can regain that trust and make it easier for them on a day-to-day basis.

“The public has lost trust in medicine in general — not in their individual pediatricians,” Dr. Fisher added.

The Immunization Alliance meeting was supported by the Tomorrows Children Endowment of the AAP.

Immunization Alliance

The following groups are represented on the Immunization Alliance:
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American Medical Association
• American Public Health Association
• Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
• Easter Seals
• Every Child By Two
• Immunization Action Coalition
• March of Dimes Foundation
• National Foundation for Infectious Diseases
• National Vaccine Program
• Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (PKIDS)
• Rotary International
• Voices for Vaccines

</blockquote>

Now maybe its just me but I didn’t see anything there that could be described as ‘breathtaking in its dismissiveness of parent concerns’. In fact, I think the AoA need a little lesson on numbers. You are not the majority, you are not even close. You are however extremely effective at marketing needless fear. But _this_ parents concerns revolve more around the effects of _not_ vaccinating rather than actually vaccinating.

The post goes on to describe how:

<blockquote>The AAP believes the decline in immunization rates is due to “anti-vaccine groups” and “celebrities” as if Jenny and a few websites are the only problem. What they fail to realize is that the message of groups like Generation Rescue would fall flat if there weren’t tens of thousands of parents who agreed with it. 8,000 people don’t march on Washington because of Jenny McCarthy and a few websites, they march on Washington because they know what happened to their child. If parents weren’t hearing our message corroborated in their own communities, there wouldn’t be an impact.</blockquote>

The decline in immunization rates _is_ partly down to ‘anti vaccine groups’ and ‘celebrities’. You pretty much _are_ the only problem. As I said, you are extremely effective at spreading your message. You have the marketing know-how and you have the money to do it. The _way_ parents are hearing your message corroborated is down to your adverts in NYT, down to appearances on Oprah, down to your blogging etc. But what you are doing is winching autism on top of hardcore anti-vaccinationism. People believe you because you have a patina of respectability. They don’t look past the first line appearance and see the multitude of times <a href=”https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=428″>your predictions have been wrong</a>, that your <a href=”https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=820″>hypotheses have failed</a> and the <a href=”https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=602″>threats of violence</a> that you make to those who oppose you.

And lets be honest, even if there were 8,000 people at the ‘green our vaccines’ rally (a figure that is <a href=”https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=856″>very doubtful</a>) then you don’t even come close to representing teh autism community.

According to the latest figures, autism is at a rate of about 1 in 150 (0.6%) of the population. For the US that’s about 1,827,219 autistic people. That’s 3,645,438 parents. As you are believers in autism epidemic (and thus don’t believe autism exists in adults in significant numbers) lets be kind and half that number to take us back down to 1,827,219 parents.

That means that your 8,000 parents totals about 0.4% of the US autism parent community. But lets double the attendees (and oh hell, lets add on 100,000 of people we’ll think of as followers but non-attenders) to make 116,000. That means you now account for 6.4% of autism parent community.

To put it another way, 93.6% of US parents of autistic people either don’t know about you (doubtful in this internet and celeb obsessed age) or simply don’t offer you any credence. And that’s being very, very kind to your numerical position indeed.

AoA go on to claim that:

<blockquote>…there are five major problems with the AAP’s new approach:

1. You can’t defend the assertions

The “fewer antigens” argument has been a Paul Offit special for years. Not only is this argument confusing for parents to understand, it also means nothing. Offit’s claim is based exclusively on the removal of an older Pertussis vaccine (which was causing many problems) decades ago.

What parents see clearly is how many more vaccines they are getting.</blockquote>

This reveals the anti-science beating heart of AoA. A vaccine is just a vehicle for its contents. The antigens argument _is_ the point:

<blockquote>”Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be “used up.””</blockquote>

<a href=”http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124”>Pediatrics</a&gt;

<blockquote>

2. The news is making them look very stupid

With the Hannah Poling case, Dr. Bernadine Healy’s recent comments, the potential for an Omnibus decision going our way, Julie Gerberding retreating, the IOM revisiting the “environment’s” role in autism, and the case reports of children falling into autism after vaccines continuing to roll in</blockquote>

The Hannah Poling case? Please demonstrate where that showed that vaccines cause or contribute to autism. Bernadine Healy was at one time (and maybe still is, I don’t know) <a href=”https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=846″>a tobacco company shill</a>. Gerderding and the IOM are indeed revisiting the ‘environmental’ roles in autism. What’s that got to do with vaccines? And what case reports of children falling into autism are we talking about?

This is what I meant about a patina of respectability. On the surface, it sounds, _great_ – plausible – to the untrained eye. However, a quick peek beneath the surface and it starts to shake apart.

<blockquote>

4. They are not dealing honestly with parent concerns

If you have no safety studies verifying the issue of combination risk of so many vaccines, defending the schedule in its current form will backfire on you. If your best defense is to cite the 600 deaths a year from HIB now being prevented, parents will compare this to the 1 in 150 risk or higher of autism and make their own conclusions. By not acknowledging that the risk-reward of vaccines is potentially wildly out of balance, parents will not listen to you.</blockquote>

Are you seriously suggesting that people will be more worried about autism than _death_ ???

And, as I’ve demonstrated, I don’t think that organisations that speak to less than one percent of autism parents can really claim to have their pulse on what autism parents really care about.

The last one is ‘Offit is a time bomb’. I’m not really sure what the point there is.

Poling Transparancy: correction

6 Jul

In a previous post, I commented (erroneously) that the HHS conceded the Hannah Poling case based on the expert reports and didn’t have the medical records. This was noted to be incorrect in a comment, and I appreciate the accurate information.

I apologize for taking so long to make the acknowledgment of the mistake more obvious (I had noted it in the comments).

The Docket shows that the expert reports were filed in December of 2007, 12/11/2007 and 12/13/2007. This is more than a month after the “Respondent’s Report” on 11/9/2007 (which I assume to be the concession).

In searching for those entries, I found a strange entry in the docket. Item 25, dated 12/14/2007 states

STATUS REPORT re deferring filing expert reports unless needed for attorney’s fees, filed by TERRY POLING. (Shoemaker, Clifford) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

I can see two meanings for this, and both are confusing to me (so are likely incorrect):

1) This is a status report requesting that the expert reports not be filed unless needed for the fee determination. But, they were already added to the docket. Would that mean that they would be pulled from the docket?

2) This is a status report on a previously entered request to defer filing the expert reports. In other words, a request was made previously and this is basically a statement noting that the previous request is no longer valid.

There are probably other explanations. The above are just speculations. Well, the comment that this entry seems strange to this reader isn’t a speculation, but you get the point, I hope.

A call to the the Special Masters: No Splinch, No Splunge

29 Jun

When a person in the Harry Potter world apparates but leaves some piece of him/herself behind, it is called “splinching“. In the world of Monty Python, “Splunge” means “I’m not saying yes and I’m not saying no and I’m not indecisive”.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, we should see a decision in the first part of the Autism Omnibus Proceeding, with the decision in the second part following a some time later.

What do these two things have in common? We need a clear, definitive decision from the Special Masters. No splinch. No splunge.

It will come as no surprise that I am expecting a the decision to go against the petitioners. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great if every person with a disability got the support–either as a lump sum, public services, or some combination of the two–that they needed for their lives. But, the problem is, I just don’t think that the petitioner’s science even comes close to proving this case.

No matter what happens, I expect that the losing side will appeal to the Federal Circuit. Should the decision go against the petitioners, and they lose the appeal, expect this to spill over to civil court.

For that reason, we need a clear, decisive well… decision. We need the Special Masters to write the sort of decision that tells the Federal Circuit, “this idea has no merit”. We need a decision that tells the civil courts, “don’t even let this one through the door” (think Blackwell).

I’m not saying I am right. I am not saying that this would be news to the Special Masters. I’m certainly not saying that this could influence them in any way.

What I am saying is that we are a very factionalized community. We need to move forward, and the vaccine issue is keeping that from happening. Progress will likely mean leaving some people behind with their old ideas. But the sooner we can move forward, the better. The sooner we can talk about issues that matter, the better. The sooner we can fight as a group for respect, rights, appropriate services, rather than fighting amongst ourselves, the better.

The Special Masters would likely see a strong decision as the best way to support the vaccine program (good idea, too). But, it would be one of best things they could do for the autism community.

Experts with an agenda and newcomers with an agenda

28 Jun

Everyone knows that a good meeting needs to have an agenda. Most people also knows that science being forced to fit a pre-conceived agenda is usually useless.

With that in mind, Gardiner Harris of the New York Times delivers an excellent report that discusses a meeting being held today that will…:

<blockquote>….call together some of the world’s leading experts on an obscure disease to discuss the controversial case of a 9-year-old girl from Athens, Ga. [Hannah Poling]…. [and]…a 6-year-old girl from Colorado [who] received FluMist, a flu vaccine, and about a week later “became weak with multiple episodes of falling to ground” and “difficulty walking,”….She was hospitalized and underwent surgery and was finally withdrawn from life support. She died on April 5, according to the report</blockquote>

(inserts mine)

You can expect the usual suspects to come out with horror show after horror show about this poor little girl who died and how The Evil Vaccines ™ are to blame. However, the truth is that – as with all previous convolutions of the autism/vaccine hypotheses, correlation does not equal causation.

<blockquote>”After caring for hundreds of children with mitochondrial disease, I can’t recall a single one that had a complication from vaccination,” said Dr. Darryl De Vivo, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Columbia University who will present at the meeting on Sunday and is one of the premier experts in the field.</blockquote>

De Vivo also said:

<blockquote>as many as 700,000 people in the United States had flawed mitochondria, and in roughly 30,000 of them the genetic flaws were expansive enough to cause disease</blockquote>

In an email conversation with Sullivan (a regular commenter and author at this blog), Sullivan pointed out how this 700,000 – an opinion offered by an expert in the field – differed wildly from the <a href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html&#8221; rel=”nofollow”>1 in 50</a> estimation offered by David Kirby which would result in 6,000,000 cases. Thats a fairly wild discrepancy.

Harris also quoted a great aunt of Hannah Poling who simply parroted the ‘green our vaccines’ nothingness:

<blockquote>What’s the schedule and number of vaccines?” Ms. Dunkle asked. “What’s the content of those vaccines?</blockquote>

In the case of the little girl who died, she had already received one set of vaccines with no incident. In the case of Hannah Poling, it is far from clear that the vaccines administered resulted in her autism diagnosis.

The bottom line for me is:

<blockquote>Many experts said infections could be so devastating to those with mitochondrial disorders that the risks associated with vaccines were far outweighed by the benefits. Still, none dismissed the notion that a vaccine could cause a decline in such children.</blockquote>

Which is, of course, true. Nobody disputes that people sometimes have adverse reactions to vaccinations. This is true of kids with mitochondrial issues as well as autistic people as well as people with no other issues at all. Its sad to me that people want to castigate vaccines for being imperfect. Nothing in life is absolutely assured and it is quite obviously far better for children to be as healthy as possible with a very small chance that a side effect may occur. This is even more true for kids with mitochondrial issues. Consier this statement:

<blockquote>Most of these kids [with mitochondrial issues] get a common cold, and either during the cold or soon after, the parents notice a drastic deterioration,” said Dr. Bruce H. Cohen, a neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic.</blockquote>

(inserts mine)

Now, if you said to these parents – we have a vaccine for the common cold. The chances of it working are very, very good but not 100%. The chances of it causing an adverse reaction are very, very low but not 0%. The chances of it causing a _fatal_ adverse reaction is even lower but still not 0% (I’ve got a figure of 1.3%<sup>1</sup>). The chances of your child becoming seriously ill following the common cold is very high. Do you want your child to have this vaccine?

I would imagine most of these parents would break your arm in the rush of trying to sign the acceptance papers.

Now, lets lengthen that scenario. The common cold vaccine is announced to the rest of the world and adopted into vaccine schedules. The usual suspects say how silly it is and how the common cold is ‘nothing’. They refuse to vaccine against the common cold. Herd immunity drops. A child catches a cold and sits next to a child with a mitochondrial issue at a GP’s surgery (for example). The vaccine the mito child has received doesn’t work – because we all know vaccines don’t work 100% of the time.

What will this ‘nothing’ common cold do to this mito child?

Society has an obligation to protect the weaker members of its society.

On that same theme, I noticed a new paper in my Inbox today. It discussed death rates of autistic people compared to the general population:

<strong> Mortality and causes of death in autism spectrum disorders: An update.</strong>

<blockquote> This study compared mortality among Danish citizens with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) with that of the general population……In all, 26 persons with ASD had died, whereas the expected number of deaths was 13.5. Thus the mortality risk among those with ASD was nearly twice that of the general population</blockquote>

Nearly half of the 26 deaths of autistic people were due to Epilepsy rather than autism itself.

I would like to ask the kind permission of those who continue to try and make a story from nothing about autism and vaccines that we be allowed to move the debate onto areas that really, really need a big light shining on them. The heavy death rate of autistic people from comorbidities such as Epilepsy would be a great place to start.

[1] I got this using the <a href=”http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.html”>VAERS DB</a> (yes, I know the limitations but I wanted to use a DB given credence by the autism/vaccine believers). Out of a total amount of entries of 227,795 there were 3009 reported deaths.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →