Archive | Blogging RSS feed for this section

Dan Olmsted suffers by comparison

9 Sep

Ever since his unexplained sudden departure from UPI, Dan Olmsted has been working on his Magnificent Octopus entitled ‘Mercury Rising’.

He keeps his keen investigative journalism skills to the fore by writing the occasional blog piece for Age of Autism. These skills have included the scintillating exposé

“Where are the autistic Amish?” he asked. “I have come here to find them, but so far my mission has failed, and the very few I have identified raise some very interesting questions about some widely held views on autism.”

Except that Dan Olmsted never visited Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, where

Dr. Kevin Strauss, MD, a pediatrician at the CSC. “We run a weekly vaccination clinic and it’s very busy.” He says Amish vaccinations rates are lower than the general population’s, but younger Amish are more likely to be vaccinated than older generations.

Strauss also sees plenty of Amish children showing symptoms of autism. “Autism isn’t a diagnosis – it’s a description of behavior. We see autistic behaviors along with seizure disorders or mental retardation or a genetic disorder, where the autism is part of a more complicated clinical spectrum.” Fragile X syndrome and Retts is also common among the clinic’s patients.

This is backed up by the fact that in April of last year, a study was published that showed that the Amish vaccinate.

Responses were received by 225 (60%) of the 374 Amish households in the community with children aged <15 years. An additional 120 responses were received by households without children. A total of 189 (84%) households with children reported that all of their children had received vaccinations; 28 (12%) reported that some of their children had received vaccinations; and 8 (4%) reported that none of their children had received vaccinations.

Among all respondents who knew their own vaccination status, 281/313 (90%) reported that they had received vaccinations as children.

As we can see, Dan’s investigative journalism is of the highest order.

Today, he has decided to maintain his high standards by doing what he does best – speculating wildly. This time its an absolute doozy.

Determined to hang on to the thiomersal idea at all costs (despite the fact that thiomersal has been out of all paediatric vaccines since 2002 and autism rates are still climbing in the US, just like the UK and just like Japan), Dan takes every bit of evidence that someone once walked past the house of a man who’s first cousin worked at a paint factory as highly suggestive of metal poisoning. In order to justify his new tome (entitled ‘mercury rising’ – don’t bother looking for it anywhere) he _has_ to keep interest in mercury up. Despite the fact that its quite clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the thiomersal hypothesis’ time has come and gone, without it, he has no book, hence no book deal, hence no prestige.

So, back to Dan’s latest genius reportage. Dan has just finished reading Autism’s False Prophets and is quite clearly not pleased with the coverage given to Kathleen.

Kathleen, you see, is everything that Dan Olmsted is not. He is slapdash, she is thorough. She checks sources, he thinks they’re what you pour on your dinner. She uncovers _actual_ wrongdoing, he thinks wrongdoing is solely confined to anyone with the title ‘Dr’.

Offit describes Seidel moving to New York City “where she met her future husband, a guitar player. She worked for Project Orbis, a flying ophthalmalogic surgical teaching hospital. …”
Whoa. A flying ophthalmalogic surgical teaching hospital? I suppose it’s possible she just booked their flights and never set foot on the plane, but assuming she was part of the team, I strongly suspect Kathleen Seidel was exposed to thimerosal occupationally.

Ever the principled and thorough reporter, Dan utterly fails to do what any n00b reporter would know to do – check your facts. There was one easy way Dan could’ve saved himself a fair amount of embarrassment over this blog post: he could’ve (get ready for the novel idea Dan!) _asked Kathleen_ . And when he did, she would’ve told him that booking flights did indeed fall under her remit *as a Secretary*. So did dictation, typing and general filing. Knowing Kathleen’s pretty awesome taste in music, I suspect the closest she got to any kind of metal was attending a LedZep gig or two.

Olmsted goes on to say:

Laugh me off if you want, but I have spent a lot of time looking for plausible links between parents’ occupations and autism in their children, and I know them when I see them.

Please, join with me:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Really bad blogging by Sharyl Attkisson

9 Sep

As I noted before, My fax complaining that Ms. Attkisson missed the big story in the autism/vaccine discussion just about the same time she was posting on exactly that story (the Hornig MMR paper).

Ms Atkisson’s blog post is titled

New Study Disproves Vaccine/MMR/Autism Link

Wow. I didn’t expect to see that from Ms. Attkisson.

Below is the full extent of Ms. Attkisson’s contribution to the piece

There’s a new study in the Public Library of Science regarding vaccine measles and autism which purports to disprove a vaccine/MMR/autism link.

Also, researchers at ThoughtfulHouse wrote an opposing analysis:

She then posts the ThoughtfulHouse press release. No kidding, of the blog piece, 90% (an estimate on my part) of the words are written by someone else! And, not even the researchers involved.

Dang. Recently we have seen a lack of homework on the Dr. Offit conflict of interest story, and now this.

At least there was some effort put into the story on Dr. Offit.

What happened to the CBS I grew up with? I can’t see Walter Cronkite getting paid for “Richard Nixon has resigned in disgrace. Now, here is Mr. Nixon’s press release verbatim.”

Autism's False Prophets

5 Sep
Autism's False Prophets. Bad science, risky medicine and the search for a cure - Dr Paul Offit

Autism's False Prophets. Bad science, risky medicine and the search for a cure - Dr Paul Offit

Available now – Amazon UK, Amazon US, Amazon Canada.

NB – Dr Offit is donating all profits from this book to autism research.

So. Here’s the short review: holy shit, this is a good book, you need to buy it and pass it on. Make your local library stock a copy or three.

Here’s the longer review.

The book begins – after a dedication that made me grin from ear to ear – with a quote so acutely apposite that its like Professor Szasz said it to perfectly sum up the book and the last ten years:

When religion was strong and science weak,
men mistook magic for medicine.
Now, when science is strong and religion weak,
men mistake medicine for magic.

I knew Dr Offit got a lot of hate mail. What I didn’t know was the extent and the utter viciousness of it. From the books prologue:

Whilst sitting in my office, I got a phone call from a man who said that he and I shared the same concerns. We both wanted what was best for our children. He wanted what was best for his son, giving his name and age. And he presumed I wanted what was best for my children, giving their names and ages and where they went to school. His implication was clear. He knew where my children went to school. Then he hung up.

I can empathise. I’ve had cowards directly or indirectly threaten my kids too. We know who I’m referring to.

Offit refuses to feel sorry for himself and goes on to describe in painstaking detail the circumstances surrounding the rise and fall of the two main vaccine/autism ideas: MMR and thimerosal. He paints a vivid and (in my experience) completely accurate portrait of Andrew Wakefield as a vainglorious but weak king who simply doesn’t have the courage to admit his own wrongdoing. Offit recounts an anecdote from one time Wakefield supporter, John March. The setting is a meeting between March, lawyer Richard Barr and Andrew Wakefield, called to discuss their litigation strategy.

[March]…presented his data….he told them there was no difference between the children with autism and controls, he suddenly found that the meeting had moved on to a different subject. It was a Damascene conversion for him. He realised that Wakefield could not hear negative results.

Offit (rightly) does not spare Wakefield at all. This is the man who is literally, the architect of the whole idea that vaccines cause autism. Offit quotes Wakefield in an interview with US show ’60 minutes’ in 2001:

I would have enormous regrets if [my theories] were wrong and there were complications or fatalities from measles.

In Feb this year, the Gaurdian reported:

There were 971 cases of measles in England and Wales in 2007 in contrast to 740 the previous year — a rise of over 30% and the highest jump since records began in 1995, said the Health Protection Agency (HPA).

Two teenagers have died of measles in the UK. One in 2006. One in 2008. Are there any signs of Wakefield’s profound regrets?

Offit goes on to study the thiomersal hypothesis from the beginning of the noughties to 2007 and the Cedillo hearings.

It is a strange feeling reading an account of events that you have been so intimately involved in talking about for the last five years. From the bizarre Bernard et al paper and the outright insistence of certain writers and founders of autism/anti-vaccine groups that autism was just another name for mercury poisoning, through Kathleen’s demolition of the Geier’s credibility and science, all the way to Jenny McCarthy’s Oprah showboating.

The main feeling I got was how much a lot of this was now _history_ – as Offit clearly and devastatingly argues, the science has spoken. Vaccines don’t cause autism. And as I blogged about recently, it seems pretty clear that the US public are (rightly) more concerned about the possible resurgence of killer diseases such as measles than they are to keep flogging the dead horse of autism anti-vaccinationism.

But my all time favourite part of the book was the final section. My friends were interviewed at length and the clearest feeling I had from this section was – you threw everything at us. Your money, your influence, your political power. We’re still standing. You threatened us with legal action – we’re still standing. You called us and our children names and threatened their well being. We’re still standing.

Paul Offit has written a real page-turner of a book here. One that should matter to every single autistic person and every single parent of an autistic person. Ultimately, its a book written to support autistic people. Why? because it seeks to close the door on a debate with no scientific merit. Will it do that? Possibly not, we are not dealing with rational people by and large. But what it will do is once and for all dispel the notion that ‘the parents’ who believe vaccines cause autism must be listened to solely because they are parents. Amen to that.

Sharyl Attkisson – are you sure?

19 Aug

Searchingly diligent and totally impartial CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has managed to uncover a third case of autism/vaccine related activity via the the Vaccine Courts. Never mind that Kathleen found it 5 months ago eh?

This case originates from a person born in 1974 who had a DTP shot that very same year, exactly 4 months later…..and thats about all we know.

Comparing autism in 1974 with autism in 2008 is not comparing apples to oranges. Its more like comparing apples to trains. In 1974, the DSM, didn’t even contain the _word_ autism. This is the existing DSM in use at the time:

DSM II (1968)
295.8 Schizophrenia, childhood type

This category is for cases in which schizophrenic symptoms appear before puberty. The condition may be manifested by autistic, atypical and withdrawn behavior; failure to develop identity separate from the mother’s; and general unevenness, gross immaturity and inadequacy of development. These developmental defects may result in mental retardation, which should also be diagnosed.

So, in 1974 autism was not even a defined disorder. It was a behaviour. A symptom of Schizophrenia. That’s worth remembering as we go forward.

Atkinson says:

In excerpts from the case below, the government agreed the child suffered “a residual seizure disorder” after his second Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis (DPT) vaccine but attempted to argue that the child’s mental retardation and brain injury were unrelated to the seizure disorder and were, instead, caused by his autism. On the other hand, the court found that the autistic behavior, brain injury and mental retardation were all part of the vaccine injury.

Did they? Is this accurate? Did the court find that _the autistic behaviour_ was part of the vaccine injury?

Atkinson quotes at length from the transcript of the case.

CHILD was born on August 23, 1974, the 9 lb. 9 oz. product of an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. CHILD developed normally until the age of four months when he was administered his second DPT vaccination on December 23, 1974… That evening, he experienced a grand mal seizure. CHILD’s mother… took CHILD to the… emergency room where he was found to have a fever of 101.8 degrees at that time and a *bulging fontanelle* …CHILD had a *seizure* on March 25, 1975, with a temperature of 102 degrees. The next day, he had another *seizure* with a *fever* less than 102 degrees…On April 15, 1975, CHILD experienced a *petit mal seizure* without an associated fever… CHILD apparently did well until mid-July 1975, when he had four *seizures, with fever* around 100.7 degrees… CHILD had *additional seizure activity* in November 1975. Again in February 1976, CHILD had *seizures*. At that time, a repeat EEG was grossly abnormal…when CHILD was 21 months of age, (CHILD’s doctor) noted that CHILD had a vocabulary of only two to three words. At that time, (CHILD’s doctor) discussed… the *possibility that CHILD was mentally retarded and developmentally delayed*. CHILD currently is severely mentally retarded and has an intractable seizure disorder.

(The government) respondent has conceded that CHILD suffered a residual seizure disorder as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, but argues against a finding that CHILD also suffered an encephalopathy (brain injury). Moreover, (the government) contends that CHILD suffers from autism, which has produced his severe mental retardation and developmental delay. Consequently, (the government) urges that compensation in this case be limited to those expenses that reasonably might be incurred for CHILD’s residual seizure disorder, not for expenses he might accrue because of his mental retardation, developmental delay and autistic behaviors.

The question of encephalopathy.

*(Government physician) believes that CHILD currently suffers from autism and mental retardation that are the result of an independent underlying neurologic condition that pre-dated the vaccination*. However, all tests that were conducted to determine possible causes for CHILD’s condition have revealed none. Furthermore, (government physician) has posited no origin of any underlying neurologic condition. (Government physician) would have us believe that CHILD’s grand mal convulsion following his second DPT vaccination was simply a manifestation of benign febrile seizures and that CHILD had another concurrent underlying (but etiologically undetermined) neurological disorder which later produced his severe mental retardation and autism.

I reject this theory for several reasons. First, the Vaccine Act’s defines encephalopathy as “any significant acquired abnormality of, or injury to, or impairment of function of the brain.” Section 14(b)((3)(A). This definition is extremely broad. CHILD’s initial grand mal seizure indicated an impairment of function of the brain. The question becomes whether this was a benign event unrelated to any lasting neurological sequelae. In my view… (CHILD’s treating pediatric neurologist) is in a better position to accurately assess CHILD’s illness than (government physician). Beginning in 1980, when he first evaluated CHILD, (CHILD’s neurologist) diagnosed CHILD as having static encephalopathy probably related to the time of his first seizure at four months of age.

Based on the foregoing, *I find that there is a preponderance of the evidence that CHILD suffered an encephalopathy within 72 hours of the administration of a DPT vaccination on December 23, 1974, and that no alternative cause for such encephalopathy has been satisfactorily shown*.

Read all that carefully? Good. Now, where in that summation does the Special Master find ‘that the autistic behavior, brain injury and mental retardation were all part of the vaccine injury’

Brain injury – yes. mental retardation – yes. But where is ‘autistic behaviour’ mentioned by the court? In fact, the truth is that the only person who raised the issue of autism at all were the government. They tried to explain away CHILD’s injury by blaming it on autism (which bizarrely wasn’t an actual diagnosis in 1974).

Bottom line: the court did not, I repeat *did not* find that this child (a grown man now) had autism, autistic features or autistic behaviours as a result of vaccines. The closest we get is the phrase ‘static encephalopathy’ which basically means that a child doesn’t develop. This can _lead_ to autism (as well as a whole host of things such as cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, Schizophrenia) but it is not autism. When this diagnosis was given (1980) the child would’ve been 6 and thus well past the age at which autistic symptoms must appear.

An interesting sidenote. We can guesstimate the 1974 schedule. Well, maybe not the schedule but we can at least see which vaccines were in use.

In 1960, the US was using Smallpox, DTwP and Polio. By the mid-80’s, the schedule was made up of DTP, MMR and Polio.

Smallpox was dropped in 1971 and MMR stared in 1963. Therefore we can guesstimate that in 1974 the schedule was the same as the 1980 one. DTP, MMR and Polio. At some point however, the Polio switched from injection to Oral. I can’t find out when.

So – how is this ‘too many too soon’? How is a case from when there wasn’t even an autism category relevant? How is a case where the claim is that one single vaccine caused autism in any way similar to the idea of ‘too many too soon’?

Seeing the obvious

19 Aug

Two months ago I passed the half decade mark in running a blog about autism. I hoped when I started that I would be able to document my autistic child’s progress as xe developed and grew.

Somehow, through the efforts of others I got sidetracked. I no longer feel comfortable about blogging about xyr and that is nothing but a damn shame but it is still a reality. My wife is scared by the invective and hatred she reads in some people who disagree with me and we have an agreement now that I will not mention by gender or name any of my children.

This runs directly counter to my philosophy of trying to raise awareness of the good that can be available to parents and families of autistic people. Of the fun times – and there are many of them – as well as the heartbreaking times (and there are some of them too). I feel frustrated and angry that I have been forced by the irresponsible actions of others to not talk about the good thing I see in my life with autism. Maybe that was their reason for doing it. Who knows.

So, it was lovely this morning to see a story in my newsreader from someone who could see the good things. Who could see the obvious. Someone who chose to see the glass as half full.

The music was being performed live by two female artist of exceptional talent. Their music was sort of 70´s and 80s. They even took the risk of performing a Barry White Song, “My first , My Last, My everything” (I´m not sure that´s the real title), and they shocked me with how well they complemented his music. People were dancing. Old people and young people, but is was the “special” people who caught my eye; The down Syndrome people. They danced to the music and seemed so filled with the joy of the moment that it was contagious. I found myself dancing with them in my mind. They were laughing and moving, touching each other and their partners right at the moment when a spin or a turn was dictated by the music. As I watched I could not help but think of my own grandson, Anthony Adame, who is Autistic.

So maybe this writers choice of words wouldn’t be mine but there is no mistaking the vision of someone _who got it_ .

As I watched the crowd I noted many who looked upon these special people with sympathy and sorrow for them and their families. I know the look. I have often seen it while in the company of my own grandson Anthony. Only few ever intentionally mean to offend. Most simply do not understand the nature and condition of Down Syndrome, or Autistic people. They do not know the joy that many of these very special people have in their lives, or the wonder of living with, or being close to one of them.

Those words could’ve been lifted right out of my heart and mind. The joy is there. It exists. There is a choice that we can make as parents – do we fight a psuedo-war? A war which is simply psychological transference? Or do we see the fact that autistic (or Down Sydrome or Tourettes or Manic Depressive) people can see and experience happiness and bring joy to their families?

This isn’t a matter of religious style happiness. You don’t have to join hands with the world, hug a tree and sing Kumbya. Its really the simplest thing in the world. Its saying ‘my life is not like most peoples. I have hardship beyond what most do. My choices are limited. But look at the joy that my child/friend/grandchild/niece/nephew/cousin/child of a blogger from far away brings! Should I turn away from that? Or should I choose to participate in it?’

Its obvious isn’t it?

Things happen or do not happen….

8 Aug

Things happen for reasons.

For some reason there happened to be invisible kangaroos standing on either side of the street as I walked this morning at 6 a.m. They were waiting for me to pass by them so that they could wave their hats and cheer.

Although I could not see them I knew that they were waving their fore –arms (or legs) at me as high as their kangaroo limits could allow them.

There must be a reason for sure why they chose me out of the millions of people who inhabit the world!!!

So I tried to maintain my Titoistic pride by flapping my hands – sometimes my left hand, sometimes my right hand, sometimes both hands– depending on the thickness of the invisible kangaroo crowd in my most dignified manner. I tried my best to acknowledge their presence that remained invisible because of their transparent skin, muscles and bones. (You cannot just deny something because they are transparent).

And something told me that there was a transparent cross-eyed kangaroo stepping behind me, hopping with her charming kangaroo -gracefulness with a basket of delicately chosen flowers from her invisible garden.
I needed to slow down for her sake and that was something mother would not understand.

“Tito, stop turning back and hurry. I need to cook breakfast!” for some reason she would not believe that there was this invisible cross-eyed kangaroo trying to keep up with me with her basket of delicately chosen flowers, hopping with kangaroo-gracefulness.

“What if she showed up?” I think I had a good point there. But she did not happen to show up.

Things do not happen for reasons.

–

Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay

Sharyl Attkisson's long history of anti-vaccinationism

1 Aug

As blogged by Mike, Liz, Autism News Beat, Kristina and Orac, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson seems to the prime suspect in the matter of how a fax sent to CBS News by Voices for Vaccines turned up on the Age of Autism blog less than 1 day later.

This matters. Reporters are supposed to be independent. They are supposed to give a balanced view. The very act of forwarding this fax to Age of Autism simply confirms that someone at CBS News, mostly likely Ms Attkisson, is deeply affiliated with Age of Autism. This makes her conflicted and she is totally the wrong person to be investigating the autism/vaccine hypothesis.

I went looking to see what else I could find to support my opinion that Ms Attkisson is someone who is not a reporter, but someone presenting her opinion in the name of investigative news. I found plenty.

Take this ‘interview‘ with Rep. Dave Weldon about the Poling case. I put the word interview in single quotes because it really isn’t an interview, its more a series of questions to allow Weldon to trot out a series of inaccuracies supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism. This is the sort of journalist who would ask God ‘tell me God, do you believe in creationism?’ And then give God a five minute run to explain how he does.

She was also the CBS employee (it seems wrong to keep saying she is a reporter) who interviewed Bernadine Healy in which the former Philip Morris shill said we should re-examine the autism/vaccine idea.

Over on the ‘No Mercury’ website, there is a long list of videos of Ms Attkisson (35 in total, dating back to March 2002) of which all seem to be ‘investigations’ into vaccines and other pharma related activities.

This piece which relates some of the most common and mind-numbingly stupid antivax canards around is just about the clearest indication of her loyalties. Anyone who states the following is not impartial and should not be investigating this story:

Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

David Kirby, he's making a list, he's checking it twice…

29 Jul

As has become apparent in recent weeks, there seems to be a ‘backdoor’ movement underway from the mercury militia.

It all started when Kelli Ann Davis attempted to rewrite US legislative history by stating in a speech to the IACC Working Group that the Combatting Autism Act contained specific phraseology on vaccination. It of course did not. David Kirby repeated this error in a Huffington Post entry. This was, it seems, little more than an attempt to ‘set the scene’ for a coup d’état. The logic seems to be that, since, during the CAA process, vaccines were touted as causes, even though the CAA decided to reject them as being too specific and settled for ‘environmental’, Kelli Ann and David felt that this was sufficient cause for stating the CAA included vaccine language. This seems to me to be akin to saying that, as society once believed the world was flat, it still is.

Anyway, this statement seems to have cut little ice with the IACC and so, the mercury militia unveiled Plan B – getting Brad Miller House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight to write a letter to Secretary Leavitt (HHS) to strongly recommend the formation of an advisory ‘board’ that they (in the guise of SafeMinds and Generation rescue) would police and use to control access from the public to the IACC and vice versa.

Personally, the idea fills me with complete horror. I’ve already discussed why but just to recap, the idea of Generation Rescue and SafeMinds being even slightly even-handed or representative of autism parents is like a bad joke. I provided email addresses and names for people to express their displeasure also (and I hope many of you did. If you didn’t, I urge you to right now. Both US and non-US people).

Anyway, the latest chapter in this battle for the scientific soul of the IACC is now underway as we speak. I have it on good authority that David Kirby is in the process of contacting as many members from an IACC strategic planning workgroup as he can to ascertain which way their opinion swung. He is specifically interested in the question of whether anyone among the 20 or so workgroup members other than Mark Blaxill and Peter Bell recommended the IACC include in the strategic plan a separate initiative on vaccines. If you listened to the webinar, you know firsthand that no vote was taken. In fact, since the workgroup’s expressed purpose is just to provide feedback and it has no authority over the IACC, no votes whatsoever were taken. But David is going ahead and asking people anyway. To what end I wonder? I think there are a few possible reasons.

The email David sent around asked people their position on vaccines in the Strategic Plan and to explain how they got on the workgroup (the answer, which anyone at NIMH could tell him, is that each IACC member was allowed to nominate one person) I would hazard a guess that this number would be very low indeed. However, what he could also be doing is seeing how many people don’t seem to care either way. The IACC is made up of some scientists who are, shall we say, ambivalent about all things except their own institute or federal agency. By not really caring either way, they stand a good chance of letting this thing happen via the backdoor. David will of course (being the excellent author he is) know exactly how to phrase this to make it sound irresistible.

And then of course there is the third and more Machiavellian option. That a ‘hit list’ is being compiled to intimidate the members. We have seen time and time again on the Age of Autism blog how its authors post the names and contact numbers/addresses of those it doesn’t like or who feel have wronged it. Would David be so nasty as to post the names of people who may inform him they intend to voice their opposition? I hope not. I would like to think better of him than that.

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…

Happy Birthday Katie

22 Jul

Today, Katie McCarron should have been six. Just about three years older than my youngest and two years younger than my oldest pair of girls.

Its still difficult – impossible – to think of Katie without thinking that in a fair and just world, we would never have heard of Katie and she would be just another little girl, one amongst billions, anonymous and safe.

I know that Katie’s family will be going to her grave today and so I ask you that, if you are the kind of person who prays to pray hard for them. They must go through the pain soon of an appeal hearing as Katie’s killer seeks once more to escape her responsibilities. If you not the sort who prays, then send them good thoughts.

If you look on the home page of this site you will see a pink ribbon on the left hand side. This is my best graphical representation of the pink ribbon, chosen by Kassiane and worn by the McCarrons every day of the killers trial and by me too during those days as Mike and Paul brought some over to us when they visited us last year. Please click that ribbon for photographs of Katie. Remember her.

There is also a memorial grove where you can donate money for a grove of trees for Katie. Her dad and grandad visited the grove and saw the young living saplings that her life had inspired to be planted. They grow wild and free, as should a little girl from Illinois in whose memory they thrive.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →