Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Do you Tweet?

11 Sep

If you just asked yourself ‘Tweet? What the hell is he talking about’? then you may not. If you know exactly what I mean then this is for you 🙂

Left Brain/Right Brain now has a Twitter account which some of the authors that blog on LB/RB have access to and which will be used to post updates to the site, notify people of new LB/RB blog posts, notify people of interesting sites/stories we’ve found and want to share with you.

For those who aren’t familiar with Twitter, its what is known as micro-blogging. A user has 140 characters in which to make a post. I have my own personal Twitter account but I wanted to make a dedicated LB/RB account for the purposes described above.

You can track Twitter accounts by becoming a ‘follower’ (you can see the people I ‘follow’ at the bottom right column of my Twitter home page) and subscribing to the dedicated RSS feed or by checking the Home page every so often – or by using a desktop solution such as Twhirl, or via a Firefox extension like TwitKit. Obviously, you need to join Twitter in order to either follow others tweets (a message posted to Twitter is called a tweet) or post tweets yourself.

So, join up, or start following LB/RB!

Arthur Allen – vaccine skeptics vs your kids

11 Sep

Whilst, I’m not sure that the people Arthur is writing about are skeptics as I understand the term (having a scientifically valid basis for not accepting an argument or position), I know what he means. And he’s right that it is this group of people vs the health of people everywhere.

The sub-header is even more accurate ‘immune to reason’. One only has to take a look over at the recent rantings on a certain blog we all know about where the latest themes are:

1) Presidential candidate Barack Obama is now a big pharma shill because he told one of them: “I am not for selective vaccination, I believe that it will bring back deadly diseases, like polio.”.

2) The latest study in a long line of studies that show once more there is no link between MMR and autism is both flawed and exonerates one of their heroes.

3) Kathleen Seidel is wrong because….uh….well, no one knows why but she must be. Apparently.

Immune to reason indeed.

As Arthur points out, there is a great deal at stake:

…in the last trimester of her pregnancy, Helena Moran caught a cough that she couldn’t get rid of. She figured she’d picked up the germ—whatever it was—from one of her patients at a Boulder dentist’s office. But the real nightmare began after her daughter, Evelina, was born: The baby began to cough and cough, and then she’d curl up in a little ball and turn blue. At the emergency room, she was diagnosed with whooping cough. She spent the next five weeks in intensive care and suffered permanent lung damage.

Now, this isn’t *all* the fault of the so-called autism community, but as I’ve discussed before, I’m ashamed to say that a lot of it is.

….the movement got a huge boost from the controversy over the mercury-laden preservative thimerosal, which some theorized might be linked to autism. That link has been disproven—by, if nothing else, the fact that autism rates remained steady after pediatricians and public health authorities told manufacturers to stop making thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines in 1999. But the anti-vaccine movement has kept going, finding ever new reasons to distrust immunization.

The are a lot of zealots out there who have fed upon the autism community. A parent who might not believe vaccines case autism listens to horror stories and reads links sent to them from such places of quackery as whale.to who are nothing to do with the autism community but who market their own brand of ridiculousness (the owner of whale.to believes dolphins can manipulate gravity and has the pictures to prove it!) regarding vaccines and the autism parent greedily sucks it down.

Arthur discuss the practice of abusing ‘religious exemption’ by these people:

Right now, in many states, all it takes to get an exemption from vaccine requirements is signing a form. Some, including a group of doctors at Johns Hopkins University, have proposed making it harder—allowing a philosophical exemption only after parents demonstrate a good-faith effort to educate themselves.

But an article I read in yesterdays ‘Edmond Sun’ stated:

….a person “who has reached the age of majority and is mentally competent to do so may justifiably refuse immunizations for himself or herself, but may not impose this refusal on a child, who has no choice in the matter.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle.

That makes sense to me. Who would want to refuse such a simple thing that has no link of any kind to autism?

Arthur closes with the following:

But while questioning authority is healthy, facts are facts. If vaccines really were responsible for autism, it would be too much to ask parents to do the altruistic thing. But more than a dozen studies have failed to discover such a link—and not a single legitimate study has shown that one exists.

He’s spot on. All the celebs and all the money in the world cannot change that simple fact. We need to get past this. Those who believe autism is caused by vaccines need to put up or shut up. They are holding up progress on autism research and causing the health of our societies to suffer.

I urge readers to visit Arthur’s piece and read the comments. The first few demonstrate exactly the sort of mindset Arthur is talking about – the one’s who bring shame on the autism community. They truly are immune to reason.

The IOM and "completely expressed concerns"

11 Sep

If you’ve read my previous posts Dr. Bernadine Healy, you know I have some pretty serious concerns about how she represented the way the Institute of Medicine operated when they produced their report on Vaccines and Autism.  Those statements were made in interviews with Sharyl Attkisson.  Again, if you’ve been reading, you realize that Ms. Attkisson’s methods were a cause of concern for me as well.  I have voiced these concerns with CBS news via fax.

Dr. Healy made some pretty bold assertions, and Ms. Attkisson failed to even attempt to follow up on them.

The prime example is when Dr. Healy proposed that

…“There is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. “First of all,” Healy said, “I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

I’ve noted before, that a statement of that magnitude, calling into question the very methods and motives of the IOM deserved followup by Ms. Attkisson.  When someone makes a claim that an organization we all depend on to be independent and unbiased may have acted improperly, and unbiased reporter should make sure of the facts by checking with the real source before going ahead with the story.

Well, bloggers sometimes do the work that reporters fail to do.  In this case, AutismLibrary asked the IOM for comment on some of the way the IOM and its process in handling the 2004 Vaccines and Autism report have been portrayed.  Below (with permission) is the response that AutismLibrary received and blogged:

Thank you for your recent and very thoughtful message. As you know, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee most certainly did not suggest that scientific inquiry into the role of vaccines in autism should cease because the results could affect public perception of the value of childhood vaccinations. The public deserves better than that.

The committee’s 2004 report, Vaccines and Autism, states:

Determining causality with population-based methods such as epidemiological analyses requires either a well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general population. Absent biomarkers, well-defined risk factors, or large effect sizes, the committee cannot rule out, based on the epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances. However, there is currently no evidence to support this hypothesis either.

After a paragraph in which the report follows that sentence with a discussion of the sparse literature regarding subsets of autism and the theoretical possibility of a vaccine-susceptible subpopulation, the report states:

While the committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time. The nature of the debate about vaccine safety now includes a theory that genetic susceptibility makes vaccinations risky for some people, which calls into question the appropriateness of a public health, or universal, vaccination strategy. However the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative. Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidence of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

The committee urges that research on autism focus more broadly on the disorder’s causes and treatments for it. Thus, the committee recommends a public health response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities. In addition the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled to the most promising areas.

Some readers have apparently failed to appreciate the full meaning and intent of the committee’s carefully written text. The report, as supported by the above-quoted paragraphs, clearly acknowledges the possibility that new information in support of hypotheses about susceptible subpopulations could emerge, at which time significant new research efforts might be appropriate. Whether the recent information about mitochondrial dysfunction will be the foundation for a major new research direction remains to be seen. The committee’s comment on the untoward consequences of discouraging vaccination was offered as an elaboration of their concerns about the unsubstantiated vaccine-autism hypothesis and not as support for their recommendations about an appropriate research agenda for understanding autism.

The scientists and clinicians on this committee evaluated the then-available scientific data in an unbiased manner. They reached their conclusions based on where the evidence led them. This principle—making recommendations only if supported by the evidence—guides all studies that IOM undertakes. I reiterate that the committee most certainly did not urge caution about pursuing the vaccine-autism connection in order to avoid frightening the public away from immunizations. The IOM stands ready to re-examine this issue should sufficient and relevant evidence emerge.

I almost put the entire last paragraph in bold for emphasis. Instead I’ll pull two lines out:

I reiterate that the committee most certainly did not urge caution about pursuing the vaccine-autism connection in order to avoid frightening the public away from immunizations

and

The IOM stands ready to re-examine this issue should sufficient and relevant evidence emerge

I read this as: there were no “completely expressed concerns” that affected the IOM’s study and that although they recommended rejecting the vaccine/autism hypotheses (thimerosal and MMR), they haven’t “turned their backs” on the subject. Should good research come forward (as with any subject in science) they will look again.

I do have one simple question: Shouldn’t Sharyl Attkisson approached the IOM for comment before going forward with this story?

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.”

Another fax for Ms. Couric

9 Sep

Note: I didn’t do my homework–Ms. Attkisson has discussed the Hornig paper. She manages to do exactly what we would expect: toe the ThoughtfulHouse line. The blog piece by Ms. Attkisson was posted while I was finishing my fax, given the time stamp.

As you will read below, I didn’t find Sharyl Attkisson’s recent blog post to be what I expected. OK, I wasn’t expecting her to be convinced by the recent study by Hornig et al., (paper here) but I at least expected her to comment on it. Instead, she dodged the issue completely. Worse yet, her post boils down to (a) assuming that the government doesn’t do vaccine safety research then (b) apparently implying that she and Dr. Bernadine Healy are somehow responsible for a “new” effort by the government to study vaccine safety.

So, CBS news has two new pages in their fax machine (to go along with a previous fax). In an effort to save their staffers the time of forwarding the fax, I quote it below.

September 8, 2008

Katie Couric, Managing Editor
CBS Television Network
524 West 57th Street
6th Floor
New York, NY 10019-2902

VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Ms. Couric,

I have faxed you recently about my concerns with the reporting of Ms. Attkisson. I would love to be writing you now with word that things have improved. But, sadly, they have not.

Ms. Attkisson appears to have avoided the key story of the week (if not month) in vaccines and autism: the study by Hornig et al. which shows (again) a lack of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Instead, Ms. Attkisson ran a blog piece that perpetuates the myth that vaccine safety is not a high priority for the nation’s health researchers.

Hornig et al. is precisely the sort of study that Dr. Bernadine Healy (in an interview by Ms. Attkisson) claimed the research establishment was “afraid” to perform: a study looking not at large populations, but specifically at children with autism. In this paper, the study group critera were very narrow: children with autism who regressed and have significant GI problems. The study sought to answer questions raised by Dr. Wakefield’s flawed study, which has caused much distress in the autism community for 10 years. The study found that MMR is not linked to autism: a conclusion accepted by autism advocate Rick Rollens, one of the most vocal spokespeople for the autism/vaccine link.

You can imagine that, yes, I expected Ms. Attkisson to address this study in her blog or reporting. Instead I read with dismay her blog piece on September 4th, “Vaccine Watch”. In her introduction, she references her interviews with Dr. Healy, but avoids the issue of the Hornig MMR study. Instead, she discusses recent NIH grant solicitations in the area of vaccine safety, and presents them as though vaccine safety research is something new. As noted above, this perpetuates the myth that vaccine safety is not being studied.

In addition to the Hornig et al. study, there is another study soon to be released on autism and thimerosal containing vaccines. Again, a targeted study looking at the exact population of interest. I would hope that this one doesn’t escape Ms. Attkisson’s attention. Also, one need look no further than clinicaltrials.gov to find ongoing studies on vaccine safety and adverse events. It is difficult to find a way that will not appear sarcastic to point out that the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Office is a very clear example of the government’s ongoing commitment to tracking vaccine safety.

If you have any question of how important the Hornig study is in the autism community, take a look at the comments on Ms. Attkisson’s own blog post. You will find that, even though Ms. Attkisson avoided the study, the autism community considered the Hornig study to be the news of the week, not the NIH grant solicitations.

Accusations of media bias are often applied too quickly by readers who disagree with the stances taken on certain stories. However, in the case of Ms. Attkisson, I find it difficult to understand how she could avoid a story which not only was so important to the community, but also answered the precise questions she has posed in her previous reporting.

I appreciate your time in this matter, and will gladly clarify any statements above that may not be clear.

Sullivan
Autism Parent
LeftBrainRightBrain.co.uk
SullivansJourney@gmail.com

The exoneration of John O'Leary

5 Sep

Since the publication of the latest MMR study to refute any connection to autism, the principal believers in the idea that vaccines _simply must_ have some connection to autism have been floundering to spin some positives from the study. They have decided to concentrate on getting this study to exonerate Unigenetics (the lab of Professor John O’Leary). A little backstory is necessary here.

The idea that MMR leads to autism was first perpetuated by Andrew Wakefield. The idea goes that the MMR is injected, the measles component travels to the gut where it persists and causes severe gastric issues. It travels on to the brain and causes autism. Hence, it is – in the Wakefield scenario – the measles virus component of the MMR that causes autism.

In order to test this hypothesis, Wakefield tested for the presence of measles virus in the gut of autistic kids and lo and behold found loads. The way he found them was to send his biopsy samples off to the lab of John O’Leary, Unigenetics, in Dublin. Unigenetics ran the tests on the Wakefield samples and reported they had found measles RNA in significant percentages in Wakefield’s samples. They tested the samples using a technique called PCR.

So, later on, as study after study failed to replicate Wakefield’s – except, tellingly, for studies that went through Unigentics – investigators became suspicious of the results being generated at Unigenetics. As part of the UK litigation into MMR Professor Stephen Bustin – quite possibly _the_ world expert in PCR – went in and spent over 150 hours examining the methods used at Unigenetics to get their results. What he found was a bombshell.

Two things clearly arose from Bustin’s investigation. The first was a clear error of methodology. They forgot to perform an ‘RT Step’. What this was and what it meant is cleared up nicely here by commenter Brian:

The RT stands for “Reverse Transcriptase”, an enzyme that makes a DNA copy of an RNA molecule.

Measles virus exists as an RNA molecule. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay amplifies DNA. Thus to detect an RNA molecule in a PCR assay, the RNA must first be copied (by the reverse transcriptase enzyme) into DNA, which can then be amplified.

Bustin showed that the O’Leary lab reported positive results even when they could not possibly have detected an RNA molecule because they had left out the step to copy that RNA into DNA. Thus the positive results reported for such assays were undoubtedly false positives.

Its worth noting here that Bustin found this methodological error by following Unigenetics lab manual if I recall correctly.

Here is Bustin himself:

If you detect a target that is _apparently_ measles virus in the absence of an RT step by definition it can’t be measles virus because it has to be DNA [measles virus does not exist as a DNA molecule]. It’s a very simple concept. At least it is to me. It’s not to everyone else.

So what were they reporting as measles virus? Lab contamination. That was the second error.

OK, so now back to today and the new MMR paper and the drive to make it exonerate O’Leary.

The new study used three labs to perform its detection. All three performed excellently. One of the labs was (you guessed it) John O’Learys in Dublin.

So, two new press releases have hit since then. I’ll quote from them both.

This is from Thoughtful House (Andrew Wakefield’s Texan fiefdom):

This new study confirmed that results from the laboratory of Professor John O’Leary….were correct, and identical to the results obtained by the laboratories of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University.

In that this new study affirms the reliability of Professor O’Leary’s laboratory and therefore of his previous findings, a major impact upon the current hearings in vaccine court is likely, wherein the government’s defense relies largely on the claim that Professor O’Leary’s finding of measles in the intestinal biopsy of Michelle Cedillo (a child with severe autism and epilepsy) was unreliable. The historical reliability of the measles assay used in Professor O’Leary’s laboratory is now confirmed.

And SafeMinds:

One of the three labs involved in the Hornig study was led by John O’Leary who conducted the testing for the Wakefield study. The three Hornig study labs validated each other,
confirming the rigorousness of Dr. O’Leary’s work. Dr. O’Leary conducted the testing for one of the autism test cases now in the Federal Court for Vaccine Claims. The child, who regressed into autism
and bowel disease after receiving the MMR, tested positive for measles virus.

So, you can see that this is the spin – exonerating Unigenetics work that Stephen Bustin had demolished.

They take a rather simplistic viewpoint of things – that because the lab performed well now, it did then. I think that’s rather a large assumption.

I also think that they have forgotten the timeline of events surrounding the Cedillo case.

Michelle Cedillo’s positive measles virus finding was in 2002:

From the cross examination of Arthur Krigsman:

Q: OKay, now in support of your opinion that Michelle has persistent measles virus in the lymphoid tissue of her bowel, you cite to the positive finding in *2002* by the Unigenetics in Dublin, Ireland of measles RNA in the tissue sample tested in Michelle, correct?

A: By the published report, of their findings.

Q: But from Unigenetics, specific to Michelle?

A: Right.

(Page 531, line 9 – 18)

Stephen Bustin did not enter the lab until January 2004.

From the Direct examination of Stephen Bustin:

Q:…..Now, you were granted physical access to the Unigenetics laboratory?

A: I was, yes.

Q: When?

A: In January 2004 and then again in May 2004.

(Page 1964, line 12 – 16)

In other words, Michelle Cedillo’s test results were generated by Unigenetics, _before_ Stephen Bustin (or anyone else) had discovered the catastrophic errors that made it impossible they were detecting measles.

The question becomes – if you were John O’Leary and someone had made it perfectly clear that you had done bad work two years earlier would you then carry on missing out the RT step? Or would you not? By the time 2008 rolled around, would you hope that your lab staff could do their jobs properly? Or wouldn’t you really care?

The idea that this new MMR study somehow exonerates the work of Unigenetics prior to 2004 is a joke. Unfortunately, Michelle Cedillo’s testing was done prior to 2004. Two years prior, back to a time when Unigenetics weren’t so good at lab work.

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.

Before the MMR science, the press conference

4 Sep

As I’ve already posted not once but twice, yet one more study has been published showing yet one more time that the MMR doesn’t cause autism.

Prior to the lifting of the embargo on the study itself, there was a press conference featuring some of the study authors (Lipkin and Hornig were both in attendance) and several journalists as well as ‘freelance writer’ David Kirby.

Most of the questions concentrated on what this study showed, however someone there wanted to try and use this new study to (somewhat bizarrely) exonerate the O’Leary lab’s role in the poor science done by Wakefield and in the lab’s role in the Cedillo hearing (where it was trounced for poor science).

The whole press conference is here.

As an example, here is David’s first question.

http://webjay.org/flash/dark_player

Now thats more a set of questions than _a_ question, the initial question regarding Hannah Poling is both inaccurate and pointless. Inaccurate as, regardless of what David claims, no statement has been published by anyone that states Hannah Poling’s autism was caused by a vaccine. Pointless as this science has absolutely no bearing on her case. It has never been claimed she had measles virus in her gut.

David’s second point regarding O’Leary is fascinating. Because one of the labs used in this new paper was O’Leary’s and because the lab performed well, David seems to be claiming that that exonerates the O’Leary lab from past errors. I’m not sure how that can be true. As Stephen Bustin clearly showed during the Cedillo hearing, the errors of the O’Leary lab were twofold. The first was one of methodology. They forgot to do an RT step. Now I don’t know what that means but it was clear that it was a fairly serious (and basic) error. What it caused was the O’Leary lab to falsely identify contaminants as measles RNA. The second error was failing to pick this contamination up. So its not just a case of contamination, its a case of poor procedure.

I’m going to hazard a guess here and suggest that since the time of Bustin’s initial investigation (some years ago now) the O’Leary lab have figured out how to do an RT Step.

David’s second question followed:

http://webjay.org/flash/dark_player

So, we’re back to the very small sub-population argument. I really want to know – if the leading supporter of the vaccine hypotheses is now angling towards this ‘sub-sub’ group, what impact does that have on the autism epidemic idea? I mean, how can you have an autism epidemic generated by a very small sub-sub group?

Anyway, the answer to David’s question from the assembled scientists was ‘uh, who knows? That’s not what our study was about’. Or words to that effect.

David’s third (and fourth) questions followed. Please listen carefully to the answers which I’ve left on. You might also want to note the (somewhat amusing) deep sigh from the guy answering David as David keeps trying to make him say that MMR isn’t totally 100% safe.

http://webjay.org/flash/dark_player

And then by the time of David’s attempted fifth question, the answering team were obviously getting a bit fed up.

http://webjay.org/flash/dark_player

So that (to me) is a pretty fascinating insight into the denial that exists even at the very highest levels of the autism/vaccine hypotheses.

Just as a postscript, David asked them (totally randomly it seemed) if the best study would be one of vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids. Here is the reply. A reply grounded in real science.

http://webjay.org/flash/dark_player

Conflicts, then and now

3 Sep

There is a lot of talk about conflicts of interest in autism.  This is especially true with Dr. Paul Offit’s book, Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure out now.

Consider his letter to the New England Journal of Medicine in May, 2008.

Dr. Offit reports being a co-inventor and co-holder of a patent on the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq, from which he and his institution receive royalties, as well as serving on a scientific advisory board for Merck. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

In August Dr. Poling responded to that May Letter, and Dr. Offit was able to comment as well. Below is Dr. Offit’s conflict of interest statement.

…

Yep, that’s right. No statement. In a few short months, the royalties for the RotaTeq vaccine have been settled and Dr. Offit’s tenure as a consultant to Merck has ended. Basically, it’s as we’ve discussed before: Dr. Offit no longer has any financial conflicts of interest in discussing vaccines.

Note this statement about the book from the publisher’s site: He [Offit] will donate all royalties from sales of this book to autism research. I.e. he also doesn’t even have a conflict of interest in promoting his newest book.

I don’t expect all the people who dislike what Dr. Offit has to say to report these facts accurately. I will say that Sharyl Attkisson didn’t repeat the “Offit works for Merck” line, and good for her. I think it is a good assumption that the people who helped her with that story probably did push the “He’s a Merck consultant” idea.

Many people people (and Orac, and Kev, and AutismNewsBeat, to name a few) have gotten it right already, so I shouldn’t be too worried about it. But, as I await the book showing up in my mailbox, I keep thinking about the issue of conflicts of interest and Dr. Offit.

[note: I made a few minor edits after this post went live. They were for clarity and did not change the substance of the post]

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →