Archive | David Kirby RSS feed for this section

More Evidence for the Safety of Vaccines

29 Sep

This article was originally published at the NeuroLogica Blog and is re-published here with permission.

By Steven Novella, MD
NeuroLogica Blog

A new study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years, does not support a correlation between mercury in vaccines and neurological damage. It adds to the growing evidence that vaccines are safe and they do not cause neurological disorders. This study did not look at autism (a study that will be published next year looks, again, at vaccines and autism), but the mercury-causes-autism crowd are still unhappy with the results.

I have been following this issue closely for several years. Although my awareness of the issue goes back much farther, I started to seriously research the claim that the MMR vaccine, or that thimerosal in other vaccines, causes autism while researching an article on the topic for the New Haven Advocate. As a physician (a neurologist) and a skeptical activist I knew I had to get this issue right. I certainly did not want to falsely stoke the flames of public fear, nor did I want to cast myself in the role of denier.

Early on in my research I really did not know which way I was going to go with the issue. Should my bottom line be that there is real reason for concern here, that there is nothing to the claims, or that we really don’t know and will have to just wait for further research? But after reading through all the claims on both sides, and all the research, it was an easy call – vaccines, and specifically the MMR vaccine and thimerosal, do not cause autism, and the alleged autism “epidemic” is likely just an artifact. Those claiming there is a connection were drowning in conspiracy thinking, logical fallacies, and blatant pseudoscience. Meanwhile every piece of reliable clinical data was pointing in the same direction – no connection.

But still, while I was confident in my final conclusion, a small connection between mercury and autism that eluded the existing data could not be ruled out. Or perhaps there was an angle to the whole story that we were missing but would later come to light. I have had enough experience with scientific medicine to be humble in the face of the complexity of medicine and biology. The only rational position is to remain open to new data and new ideas. On this issue there was sure to be more studies in the future – and the ultimate test of the thimerosal-autism connection, the removal of thimerosal from the vaccine schedule, was yet to be seen. So I confidently plunked my nickel down and waited for the future to unfold.

Everyone likes being right, and sometimes this desire clouds our judgment. I have learned, therefore, how to cheat, which is to say how to always be right. All you have to do is say that your position is based upon the existing data, but is contingent upon the results of future studies. In other words, the “right” position is to change your final answer to accommodate new evidence as it comes in. Therefore the only “wrong” answer is to stick to your original position despite new evidence that contradicts it.

OK – so this is just restating how science is supposed to work, but it is amazing how many people forget to cover their behinds with this simple rule. Usually this is because they are not doing science – they are taking an ideological position, and ideology is inflexible. This is a huge advantage for science over ideology, and why, when science and ideology clash, science is almost always right.

In the case of vaccines and autism, since writing my first major article on the topic, the data has come in all consistent with my original position (so I get to be doubly right). Removing thimerosal from vaccines did not decrease the incidence of autism (or decrease the rate of increase in new diagnoses). And several new major studies came out all showing no association – not counting the utter crap being produced by the Geiers.

Enough had happened to warrant an update, so I jumped at the chance when Ken Frazier of the Skeptical Inquirer asked me to write an article on the topic. My article will be out in the next issue, along with a couple of smaller ones on the same topic, so take a look.

Alas, as is often the way in the world of science, my paper is outdated before it even goes to print. This new study, of course, will not be covered in the article. But that’s what blogs are for – instantaneous news and analysis.

Actually, several of my fellow science bloggers have already beat me to the punch. They cover the article, and the response to the article by the mercury crowd, in great detail, so I will not duplicate it here.

Orac at Respectful Insolence goes over the press release of A-CHAMP (one of the mercury militia) that attempts to dismiss the study. He shows that, while the study (like all studies) has its weaknesses, it does add significantly to the body of evidence showing that vaccines are safe. The complaints of A-CHAMP are either wrong, overblown, or inconsistent with their prior positions and shows that they are just trying to tear down the study at all costs.

For the record, I agree with Orac that the study is good enough that it’s conclusions add to the cumulative data on this topic, and that the weakest element of the study was the 30% compliance rate. In other words, only 30% of the subjects that they looked at for the study made it into the final analysis. This opens up the door for selection bias. Orac is probably correct that this bias would likely overestimate a correlation, not underestimate it, but you can never be sure with such things.

I will add that the 30% figure is not as bad as it first seems. The study reports:

Of 3648 children selected for recruitment, 1107 (30.3%) were tested. Among children who were not tested, 512 did not meet one or more of the eligibility criteria, 1026 could not be located, and 44 had scheduling difficulties; in addition, the mothers of 959 children declined to participate. Most of the mothers (68%) who declined to participate in the study and provided reasons for nonparticipation cited a lack of time; 13% reported distrust of or ambivalence toward research. Of the 1107 children who were tested, 60 were excluded from the final analysis for the following reasons: missing vaccination records, 1 child; missing prenatal records, 5; missing data regarding weight, 7; and discovery of an exclusionary medical condition during record abstraction, 47. Thus, 1047 children were included in the final analyses. The exposure distribution of the final sample was similar to the exposure distribution of the initial 3648 children selected for recruitment in the study.

So about 40% of those that did not make it into the final analysis simply could not be located – this is unlikely to represent a bias. But this is a small point.

Isles from Left Brain/Right Brain points out that Sallie Bernard (a believer in the mercury hypothesis) was consulted on the study design and execution and did not criticize its methods until after the results came back negative. That kind of behavior instantly sacrifices all your credibility in the science club.

Kristina Chew at AutismVox reiterates what I did above – that the mercury-causes-autism ideologues are always asking for more studies, but refuse to change their position when the studies they ask for come out. They are waiting for studies that show what they want them to show – we call that “cherry picking.”

The other side is busy too. David Kirby (a bad journalist who desperately wants to be a bad scientist), who wrote the book Evidence of Harm, published an article online in that absolute rag, The Huffington Post (to be fair, they also published this piece by Arthur Allen defending the paper’s conclusions). Kirby repeats all the same points in the A-CHAMP press release, but he emphasizes the fact that the study found some neurological symptoms that were higher in the subjects who received more thimerosal. Kirby proceeds to completely misinterpret the significance of this.

The study looked at 42 different outcomes, and set the p-value for significance at 0.05. A vague concept of basic math should be sufficient to see that some outcomes will reach significance by chance alone. The researchers arguably should have adjusted their statistics to account for the fact that they were looking at 42 variables – but instead they just looked at all the outcomes that were significant to see if there were any patterns or trends. What they found was that there were a few scores that were worse among those exposed to more thimerosal, but there were also a few scores that were better. There was a random distribution of positive and negative effects that essentially average out to no net effect. It’s all just noise. (Is there a small signal hiding in the noise? There could be – scientists have to be honest about that. But that doesn’t mean there is.)

What Kirby does is not just really dumb, it’s despicable. He cherry picks all the negative (meaning bad) neurological outcomes and pretends that the study shows a correlation (it doesn’t, when you look at ALL the data). He then tries to dismiss the positive (good) outcomes as absurd. He mockingly writes:

If they (the CDC) really mean that thimerosal increases IQ levels in males, then sign me up for a double-dose flu shot this year.

No, David, they don’t mean that. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It takes incompetent statistical analysis or the blindness of ideology to write something so ridiculous. What the CDC means is that the study does NOT show that thimerosal increases IQ, nor that it causes motor tics, or improve motor skills, or decrease language skills, or anything else. The study showed no correlations because it all averaged out as noise.

This is, by the way, the same mistake that astrologers make (remember that crusty pseudoscience?). They look at many variables then cherry pick the outliers. At best what this study might show is a possible correlation, but any such possible correlation would have to be corroborated by a later study (with fresh data) that looked specifically at that one variable.

So the pattern that I found when I first started looking at this issue – that all the reliable data was on the side of no correlation between vaccines or mercury and autism or neurological disorders – continues to hold up to new data. The other pattern I noticed – that those promoting a correlation were relying on bad science, logical fallacies, and ad hoc conspiracy claims – also continues to hold.

In the last few years every new study showed no correlation, and the mercury militia responded with abject nonsense and dismissal. This cycle seems to be repeating itself over and over, and this latest study is no exception.

In 1931…

27 Sep

In 1931 Eli Lilly invented autism.  Or so the story goes.  Again, as the story goes, all autism is mercury poisoning or, more specifically, Thimerosal poisoning.  Thus, Autism didn’t  (and couldn’t) exist before the invention of Thimerosal in 1931.

Dan Olmsted has made a number of bloggish press releases on the “original” autism cases. You know, those kids that Dr. Kanner first reported on. According to that story, somehow all of the first cases (since there weren’t any before then) somehow found their way into Dr. Kanner’s practice.

Wouldn’t it be strange if there were autistic individuals born before 1931? Wouldn’t you expect Mr. Kirby or Mr. Olmsted to let us know if there were evidence of autism that didn’t fit this little model?

In a recent blog post, David Kirby noted that:

“But it turns out that a private citizen has paid the state each quarter to analyze the autism numbers according to year of birth, and not just by age group. State law requires that such privately funded analyses be made available to anyone else who asks for it

So I asked for it. What I got was rather interesting.”

Well, someone else asked for these data sets. Now I have them too.  Joseph has them as well.   And they are rather interesting.

The spreadsheets list the number of clients getting CDDS services by year of birth.  Open the most recent one and there, at the very top, are three of clients born before 1931.  Top of the list, someone born in 1920.   If you look through the past years, you will find as many as five in a single year.  There is evidence for more as some people come and go.

I can already write one of the responses to this post. “Thank you for pointing out that the number is so much less than 1:150 for the older generations”.

While you hope that we all go running after that particular red herring, reread the statement above: “..as people come and go from the system”.  Consider our now 87 year old client mentioned above.  He/she entered the system as autistic in late 1999.

Yessir, at 79 years old this person was added to the CDDS autism roll.   There are a lot of possible reasons.  He/She could have moved into the state, his/her family could have found that they no longer could handle the job alone or, and this is the big question, he/she was already in the system but was only identified as autistic at this late age.

That’s not the only example.  In 1992, a 70 year old was added to the list under autistism.  In 1992 a 64 year old was added, followed by another in early 1993. 

There are more, but you get the point.  These people, people born before the invention of Thimerosal are autistic and are being added to the CDDS lists as autistic late in life.

I do wonder why Mr. Kirby didn’t mention this.  I do wonder why he didn’t shoot a quick email to Mr. Olmsted to point this out.  One has to think that Dan Olmsted would be interested in getting the stories of the pre-Thimerosal, pre-Kanner autistics.  Then again, one has to imagine that Dan Olmsted probably has seen these data for himself already.  Why neither of them has seen fit to mention this or dig deeper into this is an open question.

For once I agree with David Kirby, “What I got was rather interesting”.

Is it Kirby Season Again?

21 Sep

Well, it’s September, nearly time for the California DDS to put out the latest quarterly reports.  That means it’s nearly Kirby “spin the numbers” season.  What spin, you may ask?  Last time, David Kirby announced that the numbers may be going down.  At the same time, Rick Rollens noted that they were going up.  Even though they were proposing  exactly opposite interpretations, both were claiming it as evidence of an epidemic.

Even though Kirby’s post was last July, some of his comments still stick in my mind.  Why?  In his reach for crutches to support the fake epidemic, he has started pointing fingers at immigrants.

Legal and illegal immigration continues to rise from countries that still use the full amount of mercury in childhood vaccines.

First consider the fact that people like Kirby and others ignored immigration when they spun the supposed increrase seen in the 1990’s it would have been inconvenient for the “epidemic”.  But, what bugs me more is the jingoistic tone. Well, it’s the tone plus the fact that he could have spent the five minutes he should have spent to realize that it isn’t supported by the facts.

Let’s face it, when you are talking about immigration in California, especially illegal immigration, you are talking about Hispanics.  Hispanics make up about 49% of the legal immigrants, and probably most of the illegal immigrants.  Another big chunk of legal immigrants are Asian (about 40%).

Mr. Kirby notes:

But it turns out that a private citizen has paid the state each quarter to analyze the autism numbers according to year of birth, and not just by age group. State law requires that such privately funded analyses be made available to anyone else who asks for it.

That does sound like some interesting data!  I will post on that shortly.  In the meantime,  let’s take a look at the data by age-group, shall we?  Let’s look at the total number of people with autism who are White as a function of time:

Kirby Season Figure 1

Wow, it just goes up and up and up.  Doesn’t stop, doesn’t flatten out.  Doesn’t go down.  Where’s the drop that Mr. Kirby sees?  If immigration is pumping up the overall numbers, I’d have expected to see a drop in the numbers for Whites.  Take a closer look: the curve isn’t precisely straight. Let’s draw a line in through the data before 2006 (data points in red) and another through the data points after 2006 (in blue).  Oh, my, the slope for the 2005 data is 848+7 and the post 2006 data is 1058+25 (in units of individuals with autism per year).

Closeup of Figure 1

The total number of Whites is not only increasing, but the rate of increase is going up too!  I don’t see how one can spin immigration to explain that.

Now, do put any significance in the change in slope?  Yes and no.  Yes, something is going on, it’s small but there is something causing changes in slope from time to time.  The real question is why?  To just say, “Well the numbers are going up, therefore my pet idea is true” is irresponsible.  One should look closer at the numbers and decide why.

That is my basic problem with the Kirby/Geier approach to “research”.  Dig deep enough to support your theory and no farther.

So, let’s look at the Hispanic population and see what is happening.  Well, there is big increase in the number of Hispanic people served by the CDDS under autism in the time period here (mid 2000 to mid 2007) the number went from 2533 to 9212.  Or, in epidemic speak, that’s a 364% increase.  By comparison, the numbers for Whites went up by 234%.

Kirby Season Figure 3

You can easily see how that could be spun into blaming the rising numbers on immigration.  If you didn’t already know about the trends amongst Whites especially.  Still, take the five minutes to look at the data closer.  Take a look at the percentage of Hispanic clients served under autism.

An increase from about 19% to 27% in just 7 years?  The increase must be those immigrants a Kirby would say.  Or, is it?  Consider that Hispanics make up 35% of the California population.  Even with this big increase, they only account for 27% of the total number of CDDS clients under autism?  The problem, Mr. Kirby, is not whether Hispanics are driving up the numbers.  The problem is that the great State of California is probably under-serving one of its largest ethnic groups!

Anyone remember Jurassic Park?  Remember the problem with their computer program that did the census on the dinosaurs?  It counted until it reached the number it expected and then stopped.  Guess what, that’s what people who rely on the CDDS numbers have been doing.  They look until they find the data that supports their theory and they stop.

The extra steps taken here go further than a Kirby or Geier analysis, but they only scratch the surface.  And, yet, I will be bold and say that it is a crime that we are undercounting and underserving our own people.  By ignoring the fact that the CDDS could be undercounting some groups, those promoting the “epidemic” helped the undercounting continue.  This despite the fact that the CDDS is actively reaching out to minority groups.

Mr Kirby ends his post with the statement:

Regardless of one’s position on the mercury-autism contretemps, I hope everyone can agree that an actual drop in the numbers, no matter what the cause, would provide a welcome respite from the endless chorus of grim news we all seem to face these days.

Well, if we had an accurate count of the individuals with autism, we could debate that.  We don’t have an accurate count.  That’s sort of the point, Mr. Kirby.  Your “gold standard” of epedimiology, the CDDS dataset, is woefully inadequate.  Once we have an accurate count of everyone and are providing the appropriate supports for those who need them, we can start talking about whether it would be good if the numbers should go down.  Until then, identifying the uncounted is a good thing.

I would add, there are causes for a drop in autism numbers that would make me very unhappy.

I would welcome an end to the “grim news”.  Any time you want to tone down the rhetoric and start working on the real problems at hand is fine by me, Mr. Kirby.

CDDS and full syndrome arseholes

14 Jul

Every god-damn quarter, without fail. Every single one. The CDDS data gets released – Rick Rollens releases his usual ‘full syndrome’ crapola and tells us how autism is still skyrocketing and does his best Chicken Little impression and David Kirby chews at the edges of the data to try and find something that will support the idea that thiomersal plays any kind of role in autism.

Its getting really, really old.

Please let me say it to you one more time.

CDDS is not good source data for epidemiology. They say so themselves.

When CDDS refer to ‘full syndrome autism’ they are not, repeat, not referring to classical autism. See this form here? CDDS use it to record autism. It was designed in the 1970’s. The version in use today was last updated in 1986. Don’t believe me? Ask them.

Item 23 is where the term ‘full syndrome’ is used. This term is today utterly without meaning. It is the only place to record autism at all.

If we trun to this document and go to page 71 we can see the section dealing with autism. In terms of _having_ autism, a person either can, can’t or have autistic-like symptoms associated with mental retardation. Its not until page 77 that we get to any kind of recording of degree of severity. *Note that this has no bearing on whether a person _has_ autism* . That is already indicated.

Here is what CDDS passed on to me. I promised not to attribute this quote so I won’t but if anyone wants to double check then an email to CDDS would back me up:

The current CDER was written in 1978 and updated in 1986, which is why the language is so out of date ( e.g., Residual Autism). California has clinicians in the field who are, of course, using modern criteria in their assessments but then they have to go backwards and try to fit those kids into the 1986 CDER. So you are going to have Aspergers kids, PDD-NOS kids in both categories 1 and 2. Categories 1 and 2 are called “Autism.” But because there are so many clinicians, using lots of different techniques for evaluation, there is a lot of inconsistency and enrollment figures should not be misused as epidemiological data.

You might also be interested in a quote from Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS) to Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004:

To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in the past, would never have been referred to the regional centers–for example, bright but anxious and slightly socially inept kids with average or better IQs and children who, in the past, had been or would have been diagnosed as ADHD, OCD, ODD, anxiety disorder, learning disabilities, psychotic, and so forth—are now being diagnosed wit high-functioning autism and/or Asperger syndrome and referred to the regional centers for services.

I really don’t know how much clearer this information can possibly be. And yet we still have full syndrome arseholes like Rick Rollens sending out emails that contain:

As stated many times before in these Reports, the numbers being reported by DDS only reflect those children that have received a professional diagnosis of full syndrome DSM IV autism, and do not include those with any other autism spectrum disorder such as PDD, NOS, Asperger’s, HFA, Retts, etc

So Rick:

a) Its impossible for a document/process written in 1978 and updated in 1986 to reflect the DSM IV.
b) The numbers quite clearly _do_ contain PDD-NOS, Aspergers Syndrome and Rett Syndrome.

And hey, if CDDS data is good then how would the following be explained?

It’s now 2005. Mercury started to be removed from vaccines roughly in 2001, we don’t know exactly when as the FDA won’t tell us, but kids entering the system now, four year olds for example in California entering the Dept of Developmental Services [CDDS] were born in 2001. So those kids theoretically get less mercury on average than kids born in 2000. So we should see fewer cases entering the system this year than we did last year.

– David Kirby

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis….total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

– David Kirby

Late 2006 should be the first time that rates go down,” said Handley. “If they don’t, our. hypothesis will need to be reexamined.

– JB Handley

Safe Minds and David Kirby

5 Jul

Suspicions have been circling for a long time that there was more than just coincidence to the timing of writing and publication of Kirby’s Evidence of Harm. Those suspicions were enhanced for me when it became clear that a lot of Kirby’s associations with certain autism/anti-vaccine groups such as the National Autism Association were on a financial footing.

The ‘official’ story regarding the writing of Evidence of Harm, as reported by Kirby himself, was that Kirby was casting about for something to write about of book length and had been approached by several autism parents who wanted to share their beliefs that vaccines had made their kids autistic. According to Kirby, he was skeptical and unsure about whether to proceed with it or not. What made up his mind apparently was seeing a news report that a politician had managed to attach a no fault rider to a bill passing through Congress, absolving vaccine makers of any legal responsibility.

However, I don’t believe him. Up until recently, that belief was simply a belief. Rumours circulated that Sallie Bernard of Safe Minds was listed as the domain controller (i.e. she’d bought and paid for) the domain evidenceofharm.com. I emailed her to ask her one way or the other. She refused to answer that question. Kathleen Seidel has asked David Kirby that question. He refused to answer.

Why does it matter? Because Kirby claims to be impartial in this debate. His reviewers claim he ‘walks the middle line’ in his book. that his account is ‘even handed’. I would like to know how someone who has an established financial relationship to one major autism/anti-vax group can possibly be impartial. Would the NAA continue to fund Kirby’s website if he said he didn’t think thiomersal caused autism? I doubt it.

Turning our attention to Safe Minds, we can look at their records – records they must supply be law as they’re a non-profit organisation – and see exactly what they have financed. You can access these records via the orgs IRS Form 990:

Form 990 is an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS. It provides information on the filing organization’s mission, programs, and finances.

Attached is Safe Minds 990 for 2005. It has some interesting details in it.

If we look at line 43, it has a listing amount of $99,196 for ‘Professional Fees’ expenses placed under the ‘Program Services’ Category.

This means that they paid people they considered professionals almost $100k to provide services to their programs. On page 15 of this same document they go into detail about what these services are.

…..THE BOOK “EVIDENCE OF HARM, MERCURY IN VACCINES AND THE AUSTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY” WAS RELEASED IN 2004 AND SAFEMINDS PRESIDENT, LYN REDWOOD, WAS FEATURED ON THE MONTEL WILLIAMS SHOW ALONG WITH AUTHOR, DAVID KIRBY. THIS IMPORTANT BOOK EXAMINES BOTH THE PERSONAL STORIES OF FAMILIES AND THE UNFOLDING DRAMA IN THE COURTS AND HALLS OF CONGRESS.

This is listed as a ‘Program Service Accomplishment’.

So what can we conclude? To me, this is pretty damning evidence that David Kirby was paid by Safe Minds to write Evidence of Harm. It certainly ties in with Kirby’s other financial benefits from the NAA. So much for impartiality.

I have some questions for Safe Minds and David Kirby.

1) Did David Kirby receive any kind of financial incentive from Safe Minds or NAA or any of their boards prior to writing Evidence of Harm?
2) If so, how much?
3) If not, please explain the 990 form from 2005 above and tell us exactly what the information in it means.

What will change?

30 Jun

The first of the nine ‘test’ Autism Omnibus cases has wrapped up. This was also the first of the designated three that will attempt to associate autism with MMR _and_ Thiomersal causation.

In todays’ Wall Street Journal, Professor Roy Richard Grinker, author of Unstrange Minds wraps up what we’ve seen over the last couple of weeks:

Over the last three weeks, I listened to testimony in the first of nine test cases in the U.S. Vaccine Court (Cedillo v. Health and Human Services) considering the question of whether a mercury-based vaccine preservative called thimerosal (which used to be in many vaccines), or the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine, or both together, caused autism in Michelle Cedillo, the plaintiffs’ daughter.

I heard some of the world’s leading experts on autism, immunology, and vaccines testify that there is no biological model to account for an autism-vaccine connection, no scientific evidence or credible studies linking the two. They argue, instead, that autism is largely genetic. And yet just last week, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., wrote in the Huffington Post that there are “hundreds of research studies” from a dozen countries providing “undeniable” proof that vaccines cause autism and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) wrote a letter to the president of NBC claiming that there is increasingly conclusive evidence that thimerosal caused an “epidemic” of autism. Scores of websites and autism advocacy groups are convinced of the connection, and the vast majority of scientists and physicians can’t understand why.

………….

The scientific testimony has been devastating to the plaintiffs because the recognized experts on autism, vaccines, and immunology do not support even one of these premises, let alone a linkage between any of them. The only thing the government and Cedillos agree on is that Michelle Cedillo has autism.

However, I can assure you that those who support the Cedillo’s – and the Cedillo’s themselves don’t see it like that.

I was able to attend the hearing on Friday.

As I sat in the court room and listen to the twisted bull generated by the defense, I wanted to scream out, “you have proof of what
thimerisol does in the human body-look at all these damaged kids.”

This was posted by Holly (I assume Bortfield) on the Yahoo EoH group. Her response typifies exactly why it won’t make one shred of difference to these people what the outcome of the Cedillo case is – or the other eight to come.

These are not people who are swayed by science. To them, decent, peer reviewed science is ‘twisted bull’. To them idiocy posted to JPANDS, Medical Veritas etc is gospel truth.

This court hearing revealed once and for all Andrew Wakefield’s deliberate falsification of science and the O’Leary labs accidental false reporting of negative samples. In the O’Leary lab it was sloppy science. In Wakefield’s hands it was knowingly ignoring evidence that showed his error plainly. Without Wakefield and without the O’Leary results there was no MMR association to autism whatsoever. That testimony alone is enough to sink the Cedillo case and all other MMR related cases that may come after.

But as Arthur Allen writes in Slate:

None of that moves Laura Wildman, 47, whose son’s case is before the court and who drove from her home near Pittsburgh to watch the hearing, which ended this week. “I know what happened to my son after he got his MMR shot,” she told me. “I have no doubt. There’s no way they’ll convince me that all these kids were not damaged by vaccines.”

At some point we may have to realise that what we are dealing with here is simply blind, deliberate ignorance.

Even the plaintiffs lawyers realise this. Here’s a telling quote from Michelle Cedillo’s lawyer:

The government position is backed by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, which has repeatedly found the vaccines safe. But what the Cedillos and other parents lack in hard data, they have made up for with a stubborn passion and sorrow that science cannot dispute. _”It is parents versus science,”_ said Kevin Conway, one of the attorneys for the Cedillos.

Parents vs science. Indeed it is.

The real sorrow here is that the Cedillo’s continue, in the face of all reason, logic and evidence, to passionately insist MMR caused Michelle’s autism.

On the Evidence of Harm yahoo group – and on various other Yahoo groups, the conspiracy theories are already being polished.

Theory one states that the media – bought off by Pharma – have reported nothing but science and dismissed the opinions of parents. This theory goes on to continue to suggest that the three Special Masters will be under the sway of the media.

Its true that the media have not been kind to the mercury militia. This is because there is nothing to write about in their beliefs except for the fact that they are beliefs. The science lies with Respondents.

Theory two suggests that the Special Masters are Pharma plants. Various members of the mercury militia are carefully combing through the backgrounds of these three Special Masters for Pharma connections they can wave about.

Will they ever let this go? Of course not. You cannot reason someone out of a belief they did not reason themselves into.

Autism Omnibus and David Kirby

14 Jun

And so, as we approach the end of week one of the vaccine trial, its been truly fascinating to read (albeit a day behind my US counterparts) the ongoing proceedings.

One of the things that fascinated me was the culling of the ‘expert witness’ list. Before Monday – the start of the trial – the expert list comprised:

Jim Adams PhD
Harland Austin D. Sc.
David S Baskin MD
Jeffrey Bradstreet M.D.
Richard Carlton Deth PhD
Mark Geier MD
M. Eric Gershwin MD
Phillippe Grandjean, Ph.D.
Sander Greenland, Dr. PH
Boyd E. Hayley, Ph D
Robert Hirsch PhD
Arthur Krigsman MD
Cathy A Lally, Master P.H.
Mary Megson, MD
Elizabeth Mumper MD
Andrew J. Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath

And on Monday, the people left from this list were:

Arthur Krigsman MD.

Amazing. I can only surmise that the others were considered as liabilities. Certainly when one considers the stupidity of Haley, Adams, Geier and Wakefield then this looks like a good move. They would’ve been crucified on cross examination. It comes to something when only one person from the original list is considered a safe bet and then he is also crucified on cross examination.

Q. Doctor, your C.V. states that you’re a clinical assistant professor at New York University.
Is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Are you currently on staff there?

A. Correct.

Q. When was the last time you taught a class at NYU?

A. I haven’t taught there.

Q. You’ve never taught a class at NYU?

A. I’m on staff there.

Q. Are you salaried?

A. From NYU?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been salaried at NYU?

A. No

I listened closely to the Petitioners opening statement and was bewildered. I’ll quote the ACHAMP blog:

Mr. Powers argued that over the last five years, since the Omnibus Autism Proceeding commenced, the Respondent in the Proceeding, with the Department of Justice acting as its counsel, had been standing “shoulder to shoulder” with industry and that it had placed many obstacles in Petitioners’ way. He noted obstacles of a short statute of limitations; very limited rights of discovery to gain necessary background information to build a case, particularly discovery from the Vaccine Safety Datalink; and selective use of materials from MMR litigation in the United Kingdom that was inaccessible to Petitioners; among other uncooperative tactics.

Not only are most of these things not _quite_ as painted, it seemed to me that Powers was presenting a long litany of excuses to be presented when the case fails. He’s simply fuelling the conspiracy theorist fire.

Also stoking the flames of that fire is one David Kirby. He made a recent HuffPo blog entry that berated critics for inflating the possibilities of what might happen if the parents win:

Critics of the autism claims also contend that a victory in court by any of the families would drive panicked parents away from immunizing their children at all, resulting in new epidemics of infectious disease and lots of sick and dying youngsters…..Nobody wants to see measles, or mumps, or polio sweep the country. But I don’t think that will happen.

Yeah? Its already happening you idiot.

In the course of 10 days, officials confirmed four pertussis cases, including the hospitalization of one child to treat respiratory symptoms. All of the cases afflicted children under 5 years old, and one in an infant just a couple of days old, according to Ravalli County Public Health Nurse Judy Griffin…..There have been more than 450 cases of pertussis in Montana so far this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The infection rate is much higher than average years, when about 30 cases are reported….”Parents should check immunization records and make sure they’re up to date,” Nurse Judy Griffin said.

Ravalli Republic.

(Columbia) The state health department said yesterday that an infant has died from whooping cough. It is the first death reported in South Carolina from the disease in nearly three years….The health agency said it’s important children receive pertussis vaccinations on schedule.

WLTX News.

A whooping cough epidemic has hit Deschutes County. Health officials say that in the past six weeks, 18 cases of pertussis have been identified in the county. In all of 2004, there were only two cases of pertussis in Deschutes County.

KATU 2.

An increase in cases of the highly contagious whooping cough is prompting state health officials to urge stricter compliance with childhood immunization schedules….Cases have increased annually from 22 statewide in 1996 to 120 last year…Oklahoma’s childhood immunization levels continue to lag behind those nationally, officials said.

RedNova News

Kids are dying again. And in some areas of the US the disease causing those deaths is at epidemic (real epidemic as oppose to autism epidemic) proportions. And thats just one disease that vaccination removed the sting from for many years. In my country (UK) we’ve recently had a Mumps epidemic due to Andrew Wakefield’s unfounded scaremongering regarding the MMR vaccine. And worse:

Take-up rates of the jab dropped throughout the UK, down to less than 70% in some areas, after a small-scale study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggested a link to autism.

Source.

In 2004, mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004, nearly a four-fold increase.

And in the first month of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases. Most were among young adults born before 1988 and who would, therefore, not have been offered MMR as a child. In the second paper, Dr Ravindra Gupta, from London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’, working with colleagues from King’s College London, found cases have also occurring in very young children who would have been eligible for the MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – vaccine…..Dr Gupta (…) said uptake of MMR among two-year-olds in the UK fell from around 92% in early 1995 to around 80% in 2003/4.

Source.

In October 2004, experts predicted that due to falling vaccination uptake, the UK would start to suffer from ‘small outbreaks’:

The medical newspaper Pulse has warned that there could be a measles epidemic this winter on a scale last seen in the 1960s. It said that lowering levels of immunity meant as many as 12% of children and 20% of adults could be hospitalised if infected by measles.

Source.

And now, this year, 18 months after this warning, we have the UK’s first measles induced fatality in 14 years.

The 13-year-old who died last month lived in a travellers’ community. It is thought that he had a weakened immune system; he was being treated for a lung condition. The boy died of an infection of the central nervous system caused by a reaction to the measles virus. The Health Protection Agency described his death as shocking.

Source

The Times also says that of the 72 reported measles cases last month, 9 required hospitalisation – this tallies almost exactly with the 2004 prediction of a hospitalisation rate of 12%.

Kirby has his own ‘dire warnings’ about what might happen if the parents lose:

And then there is the Middle East. Osama, for one, has a very extended family. We are exporting thimerosal containing vaccines to many Muslim nations. Some vaccines contain not only mercury, but products derived from pigs. I don’t need to tell you where I am going with this train of thought. You already know.

Actually, I do. You’re trying to instil fear of Muslims into people to support your meaningless rhetoric you nasty little racist.

On media, neurodiversity and science

29 May

Opinions vary as to why I, and many of my online friends believe what we do. The answers cannot be easily encapsulated but an indication is given by the source of the two links I’ve just linked to.

The first group believe autism is not just a disability, that it is both more and less than that and that whatever the aetiology of ‘it’ is, it is likely to not have a single cause and further, if it does or if it doesn’t, the fact that people are autistic is a state of being (a property of their personhood) that is deserving of respect and tolerance. After all, if we can tolerate difference between sexes enough to think of a toilet seat that raises or lowers as a natural aspect of functional life then we really should be able to make the minor adjustments necessary to accommodate the needs and requirements of autistic people.

The second group believe in the scientific method. They believe that in matters of science, that the rules of science should be applied.

There is some major overlap between the position of these two groups. There are a number of bloggers on the Autism Hub and an even larger number of readers of blogs on the Autism Hub who are bloggers on Science Blogs and/or readers of Science Blogs’. A number of bloggers who have autistic children are scientists of various disciplines.

It is worth noting however that these two groups are not synonymous. I know of a few people who believe in the basic essence of neurodiversity who also think vaccines damaged them or their children. This is because they know that even if vaccines did do damage, they or their kids are still deserving of respect. Conversely, I expect there are a few science bloggers who would not agree with the standpoint of neurodiversity and would ferociously chase a cure.

But these people are the exception. By and large these are two groups who share a mutual opinion that the only way to progress our knowledge of the science of autism is to use the scientific method. Science is now, thankfully, beginning to catch on to the idea that the best way to get knowledge that may help autistic people is to listen to autistic people.

At MIT Amanda Baggs has been working with the science team there in ways that will result in positive and scientifically valid ways of helping autistic (and other) people.

Estée also gave a presentation at MIT (the second talk was fuller than this one) and she also noted Michelle Dawson’s ongoing role at the University of Montreal.

This is all good progress. It’s exciting to watch these things develop and to see the possibilities that might spring forth from these alliances and how they might benefit my daughter and autistic people generally.

I believe in the scientific method. I believe science has done more than anything else to take us closer to understanding the universe within us and around us. I believe that the naturally occurring alliance that is being forged between autistic people, their allies and science is absolutely the correct way to go. Neither side is seeking to change or alter the other but to understand each other and benefit from the union.

If I want to see an example of how _not_ to do things, I need look no further than (you guessed it) the mercury militia/malicia. These are people who have taken the polar opposite view. They eye science with distrust. They refuse to accept that the results of studies that disagree with their stance can be correct to the extent that they threaten those scientists with violence, or they ignore science and instead disagree with the wording of press releases about science. In fact, this is Lenny Schafer’s view (from a past SAR):

Myself and other autism activists believe there is enough evidence to support a causative relationship between mercury and autism in a court of law, in front of a jury, where standards of evidence are different than that of the narrow focus of scientific findings. And if you can convince a jury, you can convince the public.

Make no mistake, by ‘different’ Schafer (correctly) means looser, way, way looser. He does not want scientific standards to come to play in determining the vaccine/autism connection. The reason why is absurdly obvious.

The scientist and author Michael Crichton once gave a speech about environmental issues that may as well have applied to the autism/vaccine issue:

…Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized—red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth.

On the EoH group where Lenny Schafer is kingpin, there is currently something of a growing schism between Lenny, John Best (e.g. the more hardcore loony element) who believe that Aspergers Syndrome is not a disability and is not part of the spectrum and hence is not autism and a lot of other people who quite obviously have AS kids and are disagreeing very strongly with Lenny’s extremeism. As part of that debate, Lenny made the following statement:

I would like to think of what we do here is public debate, not “fighting”.

This illustrates perfectly the kind of denialism that exists amongst Lenny and his members. The Yahoo EoH group is a closed access list. You can only access the group if you join up and are accepted as a member, which is what I did back in 2005. Yet Lenny really believes that this closed access list is public debate. He _has_ to believe this as he is a firm believer (as we have seen) of political and legal definitions of autism and autism aetiology. In his world view, you need to _manage_ the PR. You need to nudge it in the right direction, much as Lenny’s colleagues from the NAA did when they lied about Paul Shattuck as they disagreed with his results.

By contrast, the Autism Hub bloggers operate openly. Their opinions are challengeable directly on their blogs. Good science is challengeable. It can be challenged by using the scientific method. There is no ‘management’ of information going on here. No one flip-flops between crucial elements of their beliefs and hopes no one notices (such as Brad Handley has done).

The interviews I have done (and am doing now) have been to periodicals that concern science or touch on the science of autism from a parents perspective. I noted with no small amusement this morning that ‘the other side’ are resorting to interviewing each other – Erik Nansteils Autism Media site carries an interview of David Kirby interviewing Katie Wright. I bet that’s an in-depth and truth revealing interview.

I believe that promoting connections between autistic people and science is the absolute best way to get good science regarding autism. I hope to do my bit in making the web work _for_ the promotion of these connections. I hope that our growing community never gets sucked into the tarpit of closed access lists that crow about the achievement of ‘converting’ celebrities and media persons. This is why I set up the Autism Hub and the Autism Parents Forum. So that we can grow as a community and come closer together. I hope to do more of this in the future. I want my email contact list to be full of the names of autistic people, scientists, responsible authors such as Arthur Allen and Brian Deer and parents that, like me, want to benefit from this growing relationship. I couldn’t care less if I never get Lou Diamond Phillips or Don Imus’ email address.

Media and politics or science? When it comes to understanding the science of autism, which will yield better results? Bear this in mind as you consider your choice – science is amoral. You cannot hide, distort or disfigure scientific achievement forever. If something is scientifically accurate, its truth is self evident. No matter how many politicians you have in your pocket, no matter how many media contacts you have, gravity will always be a force of attraction. The power of repulsion belongs to those who would deny that.

Generation Rescue II – This Time It’s Vague

3 May

As already blogged by Steve and Orac, Generation Rescue have undergone a change in both website and message.

Up until this week and for the last two years, Brad Handley – GR Head Honcho has promoted a message quite unequivocal:

“Autism is treatable. It’s reversible. It’s nothing more than mercury poisoning,” said JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue.

In fact, giving a reason for the redesign of the site on Orac’s blog, Brad said:

From my perspective, our website and its message have always been broader than “its ONLY mercury”…

Huh. Weird. Maybe its just me but I detect a teensy-weensy inconsistency between those two statements. Lets switch to the video!!:

And for the non-video-blessed amongst us, what Brad said was:

We immediately realised…and I think this is something that is a big surprise to people….um, that autism is a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning.

Riiight. So let me see if I can summarise the position. When there is no science to have an informed debate about mercury, and when there’s lots of scary sounding stuff like ‘the Amish aren’t vaccinated and have no autism’ or ‘CDDS proves the epidemic’ floating around then the situation is:

“Autism is treatable. It’s reversible. It’s nothing more than mercury poisoning”.

Now that there’s no science to establish a causative link between mercury and autism, plenty of epidemiology to refute it and now that the first piece of science on the Amish has shown that actually they do vaccinate and that the penny has finally dropped, even for David Kirby, regarding CDDS’ inability to support the epidemic, what is the Generation Rescue position now? Lets see shall we?:

Our children are experiencing epidemics of ADD/ADHD, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and Autism. We believe these neurological disorders (“NDs”) are environmental illnesses caused by an overload of heavy metals, live viruses, and bacteria.

Wow. So we’re now no longer talking about just autism. We’re now talking about ‘neurological disorders’, including ADD/ADHD which is not even classed as being on the spectrum. That is quite some turnabout.

And look at this! Now, we’re talking about a _combination_ of causative agents: heavy metals (not just mercury any more), live viruses and bacteria.

Incredible. Makes you feel almost sorry for poor old mercury don’t it? Last week it was the Terror of the High Seas. Now it doesn’t even make it as a distinct causative agent.

The ‘live viruses’ is in there to placate the Wakefield Worshipers who think the MMR also (or in combination with mercury) caused autism. The ‘bacteria’ mention is I’m guessing a nod to the Martha Herbert theory of mold causing autism – a theory that was described thusly last time Martha took it to court:

Dr. Herbert’s publications indicate that she is an outspoken advocate of increased attention to the possibility of environmental influences. Even she, however, despite that acknowledged perspective, speaks in her published work of possibilities and potentialities, rather than of the ‘reasonable degree of medical certainty’ to which she offers to testify under oath in this case. Neither Dr. Herbert’s publications, nor any others cited, identify mold exposure as even a suspected, still less a known or proven, trigger of autism

Going back to MMR and taking a brief side journey for a minute, here’s the latest update from the Autism Omnibus proceedings. When last we left it, Petitioners had put forward one family as a ‘test case’ to see if the whole Omnibus proceeding had enough merit to proceed. There were supposed to be three. Awhile ago, the court told Petitioners to hurry up and identify the other two. They couldn’t. Respondents replied with:

The Court ordered the PSC to find two cases (similar enough to the first) to present the same basic theory of causation…..the essence of its (PSC’s) response is that it does not know of any case presenting the same causation issues as are implicated in Cedillo.

Ouch. How long has this been dragging on? Five years or something? And out of the 4,700 cases in the Omnibus no other case can be found to match the first one put forward. The only people who must be enjoying this are the lawyers.

Anyway, back to Generation Rescue.

Of particular note is the much vaunted, never seen ‘California-Oregon Unvaccinated Children Survey’ of described thusly by GR:

no studies have ever been done to compare neurological disorder (“ND”) rates of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. We commissioned a national market research firm to survey more than 17,000 children in California and Oregon.

National market research firm eh? How very scientific. Researching popular chewing gum, researching autism causation. Yep, they’re the same. Souds very much like a a ‘convenience sample’ where people are called up. Here’s a friend of Brad’s describing what a convenience sample is and is not:

So. Not data according to David Kirby. Bummer.

Generation Rescue have also revamped their ‘Testimonials’ section. This is the section I looked at I August of last year and reached a (very) rough figure of a 5% success rate for the kids talked about on the GR site where ‘success’ is losing the diagnosis:

Out of these 59 success stories, just 3 describe their child as having been reclassified as no longer meeting a diagnosis of ASD. That’s a ‘recovery’ rate of 5%. Interestingly, one of these cases states they did not use chelation at all. That puts the Generation Rescue chelation success rate at a little over 3%.

Now, Generation Rescue have 76 ‘success stories’ (except they’re not called that any more, now they’re ‘testimonials’). Of that number, 6 claim full recovery with total loss of diagnosis. That’s a percentage of 7.8%. A heady leap of over 2%. Woo-hoo.

I was drawn to some of the newer testimonials, particularly the 6 year old ones as Meg only recently turned 7. One of them, about a girl called Liz was fascinating.

Our daughter Liz was diagnosed with low functioning autism at age three. We blamed the DTP vaccine which she had a bad reaction to. She would have very long lasting meltdowns, she would smear faeces, she would exhibit self injurious behaviour, she did not talk at all, she avoided eye contact and her only activity was that involving toys that spun. She walked on her tip toes and the doctor said she had a low IQ (below 70). We were told by mainstream medicine that she was ‘unreachable’.

Today Liz is six and after following biomedical interventions (and some other things) Liz will talk – on Christmas morning this year I went to wake her up and she said ‘good morning’ to me. She no longer smears faeces and is 99% toilet trained, she can write notes to people and knows all the letters of the alphabet and can count up to 40 unprompted. She can use a computer mouse unaided and has numerous favourite websites. The self injurious behaviour is vastly lessened, as are the meltdowns. Her eye contact is now perfect and overall her sensory issues seem 99% under control. She can drink out of a normal cup and use a knife, fork and spoon to eat whilst sitting at the table.

In so many ways, this is a different child.

Why was I drawn to this little girl so much?

Because it’s Megan’s story. I assumed a false name – Mr Clarence House – and emailed it to the Generation Rescue site. ‘Clarence’ received an email saying it was going to be on the new site which I was very happy about.

All of it is true except the name. The biomedical treatments I was talking about were multi vitamins, fish oil and a steroid inhlaer for her asthma. The ‘other things’ were love, acceptance, patience and education.

Why do this? To prove a point. You can make anyone’s story fit your own beliefs if you twist it hard enough.

Don’t worry, if it disappears I took a loving screenshot.

Brad Handley has tried to shift his goalposts as his first guess wasn’t working out. As evidenced above, he has latched on to items that are equally silly. As evidenced above he is incapable of seeing autism. He only sees mercury. As evidenced above, improvement is not limited – or even related to – detoxification of heavy metals.

Autism amongst the Amish

22 Apr

Don’t Stand So Close To Me

I recently had an email conversation with someone who is married to a lapsed Mennonite and who’s secretary is a lapsed Amish. As this was too good an opportunity to miss I asked xyr about autism amongst the Amish and vaccinations.

I was interested in Dan Olmsted’s idea that he and his sources waltz around Amish communities, grabbing people and asking ‘got any autism in the family’? and calling this reporting. When we talked about this xyr answer was fascinating:

As for tracking autistics, forget about it. Families are not likely going to seek diagnosis unless there are seizures or some other acute issue. Imagine driving up to a bunch of Amish farms and asking, “Are any of your kids autistic?” I would guess they probably haven’t ever heard of the word.

As xe explains it, the Amish are deeply religious people. Xe has first hand experience of this and explained to me how it would be virtually impossible given these beliefs and on such a short aquaintance for Olmsted – or his sources -to get ‘close’ to the Amish as a population:

The entire Amish religion is based on shunning the outside, secular world, these are the biblical tenants they live by:

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. (II Corinthians 6:14)

Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. (II Corinthians 6:17)

And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

The Amish only make accommodations when necessary. So, they have a phone in the barn to call the vet and the dairy plant. They accept rides in automobiles and trucks but don’t drive. They may shop for essentials but they aren’t going to chat you up.

And as I said before, I doubt seriously that they would seek a diagnosis for autism unless there was some acute comorbidity like seizures. They would likely know that their child was different but that was god’s will.

and as for vaccination:

The Amish are not anti-vaccine. Some Amish kids go to public school and must be vaccinated. My brother-in-law was raised Amish until about age 10 and he’s got the small pox scar to prove the point.

The basic gist is that the Amish are leery of non-Amish/Mennonite (whom they refer to as ‘the English’ (!!) apparently) but if a matter is medical and may cause threats to health than they are not stupid and seek out Western medicine.

Based on this, I really have doubts that Olmsted ever did more than stablish himself as a ‘nosey English’. I really have trouble believing that such a reserved, separate people would open up to either him or his water cooler salesman source about their personal, private medical matters.

No Autism Amongst The Amish

Its a long standing (and oft repeated) belief amongst the autism/antivaccine believers that there is no autism, or vastly reduced incidence of autism, amongst the Amish. This belief is repeated by all and sundry:

…thousands of Amish, almost all of whom do not vaccinate their children and do not seem to suffer much autism.

Dan Olmsted.

This finding of no significant level of “autism”….has also been observed in the unvaccinated children of the Amish

Dr Paul King, CoMed, closed access Yahoo List.

….the Amish community who do not participate in Western medicine, including the practice of vaccinations, have demonstrated their rates of autism are substantially lower.

Lisa Ackerman, TACA (Talk about Curing Autism) Executive Director, closed access Yahoo List.

Why has there never been autism in the Amish community? They dont vaccinate!

Poster ‘Jan’ to closed access Yahoo List.

I challenge anyone to go into any Amish community in this country and find autistic children. You won’t find them. Yet, our schools are being over run with autistic children. Why? The Amish do not vaccinate.

Poster ‘Paul Troutt’ to closed access Yahoo List

HE [friend of the poster] HAS NEVER SEEN AN AUTISTIC AMISH CHILD OR ADULT…. Why? THE[y] DO NOT IMMUNIZE….EVER.

Poster ‘Amethyst Mueller’ to closed access Yahoo List.

And so it seems clear right? All these people are saying the same thing. We could go into any Amish community and find very, very low or zero autism. And to what do these people attribute the non-existent autism? Vaccines (or the lack thereof) of course!

What would happen if we removed one of these factors from the equation?

The Old-Order Amish have low rates of vaccination and are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. A written survey was mailed to all Amish households in the largest Amish community in Illinois inquiring about their vaccination status and
that of their children.

Source.

Well, well. How very interesting. Finally some _science_ , as oppose to journalism, that examines whether the oft-reported belief that the Amish don’t vaccinate is true. What did these guys find?

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.

84% of Amish households reported all their kids had received vaccinations. Only 4% reported that none of their kids had received vaccinations.

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

Wow. Amazing how the two to three ‘toxic train wrecks’ from amongst these adults could not only have been missed (vaccine induced autism being unmissable as we all know) but also managed to fill in a survey.

So – we can say that the assumption that the Amish do not vaccinate is in severe doubt. When 90% of Amish adults in a survey state they received vaccinations and when 84% state all their kids have been vaccinated to what do we attribute the fact that according to Dan Olmsted, Dr Paul King, Lisa Ackerman and various posters on Yahoo groups there is little to no autism amongst the Amish?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →