Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Sharyl Attkisson – are you sure?

19 Aug

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

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

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

DSM II (1968)
295.8 Schizophrenia, childhood type

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 The condition may be manifested by autistic, atypical and withdrawn behavior; failure to develop identity separate from the mother’s; and general unevenness, gross immaturity and inadequacy of development.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

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

Atkinson says:

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

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

Atkinson quotes at length from the transcript of the case.

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

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

The question of encephalopathy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing the obvious

19 Aug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its obvious isn’t it?

Kirby, wrong on the radio

14 Aug

First there was the world tour (well, to London). Then there was the national tour (well, around a day’s drive from NYC, or thereabouts). Now, we had David Kirby, live by phone on the radio!

The talk is broken into two hours. Mr. Kirby starts at about 50 minutes into the first hour. And, he doesn’t waste time. He instantly moves into getting it wrong.

First he says that anyone who thinks that the science is on the side of saying there is no link isn’t keeping up with the science. This is because (un-supported assertion coming up) “new stuff comes up virtually daily” coming in from major universities around the world.

Well, yes, new stuff is coming in daily from major universities around the world. There’s all sorts of stuff coming in on a multitude of areas, so, I guess he’s right. But, there isn’t stuff coming in daily to support the vaccine/autism concept. Take the last 5 years. With stuff coming in virtually daily, there should be over 1,000 “stuffs” (nice that he didn’t say “research” or “papers” or “results”, but “stuff”). Did anyone else listen to the Autism Omnibus? Did you notice over 1,000 stuffs being presented, or did you, like me, hear a few studies that may or may not support the idea?

OK, that isn’t a biggie. He moves on quickly into…come on we all can all guess….that’s right! Mitochondria! And, right off the bat, he gets it wrong.

He brings up that just yesterday from the UMDF (good group from what I can see) about the research from the Newcastle and Virginia Polytechnic Institute that Kev and Kristina noted recently.

Mr. Kirby mentions that the study noted that 1 in 200 have a “DNA mutation that may confer mitochondrial dysfunction” and “..this is exactly what Hannah Poling had when she got 9 vaccines in one day.”

OK. Now the facts. The study indicates a number of specific, measurable mtDNA mutations that might lead to mitochondrial disorders. Only one mtDNA mutation has yet been found with Hannah Poling–and this is not one of those studied in the recent paper. A major piece of David Kirby’s arguments so far has been that the mtDNA mutation that Hannah Poling and her mother have is benign. The dysfunction results, according to David Kirby’s interpretation of his source, is in Hannah Poling’s nuclear DNA.

As an aside, Mr. Kirby’s stance has been that the Hannah Poling type of dysfunction is inherited from the father (an apparent misinterpretation of it’s own). I bring this up to point out even more–David Kirby knows that there are major differences between the recent study and the kids in the upcoming 30-kid study that describes children with conditions similar to Hannah Poling (with the exception of any vaccine trigger, but that gets glossed over by Mr. Kirby too).

It is worth reading this comment yesterday from Prometheus.

One thing he notes is that a number of the people identified in this study had mtDNA mutations linked to Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON). You don’t have to go farther than the name to realize that an “optic neuropathy” isn’t “exactly what Hannah Poling had…”

Do I dare listen to hour two?

Mitochondrial Disease in the news again

13 Aug

Before I start I want to thank Prometheus who explained this in as plain language as he could. If I’ve made any errors then they’re mine, not Prom’s.

OK, so, as Kristina has already blogged, Mitochondrial Disease has raised its head into the autism world again. A new study has reported that prior to previous thoughts of a prevalence of 1 in 5000, it may actually be as high as 1 in 200.

Of course, that has also prompted a HuffPo post from David who wants to bring our attention to the fact that there are no studies that say that vaccines don’t cause mitochondrial disorder and hence (with the right sort point mutation) autism. David states that prevalence estimates range between 7 and 20% for mito causing autism. That’s not actually correct. In terms of published science its between 4 and 7%. There are suspicions amongst some researchers that it may go as high as 20% but nothing is published yet.

But back to this new study. David _seems_ to be implying that 1 in 200 people with mito disorders means that between 7 and 20% of 0.5% (1 in 200) of people have mito induced autism (0.001% if we go with David’s unpublished 20%).

But that is not the case. This study is not claiming that 1 in 200 people have a mitochondrial induced _illness_ . It is saying that:

In conclusion, at least one in 200 healthy humans harbors a pathogenic mtDNA mutation that potentially causes disease in the offspring of female carriers.

Key phrase – ‘in the offspring’.

According to the UMDF (United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation) there is only a 1 in 4 chance that even two parents who share the same gene mutation (autism in our case) will produce a child affected with the disorder.

So are the study authors claiming that 1 in 200 could have a mito disease? No, they’ve shown that one in 200 people has _a_ mutation in a mitochondrial gene that (_if_ it were homozygous – could lead to a disease).

So, to establish prevalence for a single gene (which theoretically induces autism in our example) we are looking at:

0.005 * 0.005 * 0.25 = 0.00000625 (1 in 160,000)

(0.005 is 1 in 200. 0.25 is 1 in 4).

Thats quite a lot different than 1 in 200.

Reading the study, you’ll find that what the authors found was that 15 of 3168 (0.47%, 1 in 211) newborns they studied had one of ten types of mutation seen in mitochondrial diseases. Of these 15, the authors were able to find 8 maternal blood samples to determine if these were new (de novo) or inherited mutations. Of the eight, three of the mutations (37.5%) were not seen in the mother’s mitochondrial DNA, suggesting that they were new mutations.

Taken altogether, this suggests that – had maternal blood samples been available for all fifteen children with mitochondrial DNA mutations, that 5.6 of them (0.17%; 1 in 568) would have been new mutations.

Note that none of the newborns – even those with mutations in their mitochondrial DNA – and *none of the five mothers who were found to have mitochondrial mutations were reported to have mitochondrial disease*. What the authors mention as their concern is that couples considering having children be made aware of the risks of mitochondrial disease and that testing for the more common mutations leading to mitochondrial disease be available.

Bottom line: having the mutation does not equal having the disease.

This is an unbelievably complicated area. We’re talking as lay people about an area even the experts talk about as barely mapped out. I am not suggesting David intended to mislead people with the 1 in 200 figure I merely want to highlight the fact that it is not as cut and dried as that.

If you liked this post, thank Prometheus. I could not have written it without his generous help.

Katie Couric, Sharyl Attkisson, Larry King, and Dr. Jay Gordon

12 Aug

As you may recall, I faxed Katie Couric a while back making some comments and asking for some information.  I find that the CBS coverage of autism is, well, a bit odd.  Sharyl Attkisson seems to be promoting an idea, not following a story where it leads.  The main example I give for that is the total lack of a followup to the assertion made by Bernadine Healy that “[t]here 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.”  Who, precisely, aside from Dr. Healy expressing this concern?

The Voices For Vaccines fax which preceded mine was posted an autism/vaccine advocacy website within hours of being sent, begging the question of who within CBS news sent it, and why there is such a close tie between the two.

Anyway, I shouldn’t rewrite the entire previous blog post–the short version is: I had questions.  I still do.  That’s right, I still do.

I’m not complaining, just pointing out a simple fact: CBS didn’t take the time to respond to simple questions about their reporting.

Now, take a newer event in the autism world.  In preparation for the Every Child By Two press conference last week, some comments were made on the Yahoo group dedicated to the “Green our Vaccines” rally.  One comment in particular by Dr. Jay Gordon struck me as rather bothersome.   The comment was directed at a person named Avrielle Gallagher, who works for Larry King Live.

Being in the mode of wondering about how the media works, especially those apparantly sympathetic to the vaccine/autism causality question, I decided to contact Ms. Gallagher.  I sent the following email to the same address Dr. Gordon used.  For good measure, I used the Larry King Live website to send the same message:

Hello,

I saw an email from Dr. Jay Gordon to you.  It was posted on the JennDCRally autism list.  The email is listed below.

Could you explain what is meant by the term, “[redacted]?  I see that you work for Larry King Live.  Is he asking you to do a show on the conflicts of interest of these groups?

If so, perhaps you would like to read a few analyses of Dr. Offit’s conflicts of interest.  I looked into the public data and posted my views here:

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1022

I rewrote this and faxed it to Katie Couric of CBS, as noted here:

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1057

As you will see, I am not in agreement with Dr. Gordon.  You will also see that I am the parent of a young child with autism, one who does not subscribe to the autism/vaccine concept.

Rather than “[redacted comment]”, I would like you to consider going after a good, reasoned story.  I would especially like to see a good, reasoned story on the subject of Dr. Offit’s new book, “Autism’s False Prophets”.   This is causing quite a stir amongst the alt-med subset of the autism community.  They have publicly stated that they have targeted Dr. Offit and those are also promoting vaccination (like Amanda Peet).

As you will see from my posts, Dr. Offit appears to have no more financial conflicts of interest regarding vaccines.  He is actually in a position of high independence.  And, yet, he still promotes the same message as before.  That should tell us all something.  In addition, his book is going to be a big story.

So, I ask a simple question: will you go after the story or the person?

I look forward to a response.

I’m still looking forward to a response.  I’m an optimist that way, I guess. 

Oh, you are no doubt wondering why I redacted Dr. Jay’s exact words.  You see, after a bit I decided to email him.  I admit, I should have emailed him from the start, but I did wait a few days.

Dr. Gordron, I saw the below message from the JennyDCRally autism group.

If I may, could I ask what you mean by “[redacted].”?

Given that Avrielle Gallagher works for Larry King Live, this sounds like you are asking for Larry King to do a show about these people in a poor light.

I am the parent of a child with autism.  Surely you can see that the image of the autism community (or segments of the autism community) as a group that would use the media to “[redacted]” is something that I would like to avoid.  While we as a community may be divided on some issues, I would bet that the majority would agree that we rely heavily on the support of the majority of the public.

I look forward to your response.

Sullivan

Even though I misspelled his name, he responded within a couple of hours:

Thanks.

You’re correct, that was very poorly phrased.

What I meant was that there should be more light shined on the financial conflicts of interest which exist.

Jay

(emphasis his)

When I notified him that I intended to include his comments in this piece, he replied:

Dear Sullivan,

The first statement I made reflected my anger. I really do think there is far too much conflict of interest in the lives of many of the vaccine researchers, the CDC and the AAP.

The brief email answer I sent you reflects my true feelings about this.

Please feel free to quote me and, if you do, please also mention that I certainly don’t think that my being immoderate in my comments helps anybody.

Best,

Jay

Dr. Gordon did what Katie Couric, Sharyl Attkisson, Avrielle Gallagher, and the staffs for CBS News and Larry King Live failed to do: answer simple and (I hope) respectfully posed questions.

I could give a long list of the people who have answered simple, sometimes even complicated, questions, respectfully posed. I’ve been very fortunate in that regard. I would have loved to add CBS News and Larry King Live to the list.

It all just makes me wonder. CBS News and Larry King have spent decades reporting on how this person or that company or some group in the government ignored questions. Invariably, those reports cast a bad light on the groups investigated. And, yet, when presented the opportunity to clarify their own actions, they chose to be silent.

Maybe I’ll send a respectful question to Voices For Vaccines and ask if CBS News responded to their concerns. I know that CBS took the time to respond to the Orange County Register’s blog on Autism.

In their reply to the Inside Autism blog, CBS News noted:

…We believe our report was in no way defamatory of any institution or individual, and that no retraction is warranted…

As I’ve noted before, I like the irony of CBS News deciding for itself whether it was defamatory. Strikes me odd given the complaints alleged against, well, basically everyone the vaccine/autism groups have ever complained about.

But, I digress. I’d like to point out that I didn’t claim CBS was “defamatory”. I only bring this up to point out that even though CBS communicated with the Register blog, they haven’t addressed my questions.

A commenter on the Register’s blog said it best in her response to Lisa Randall of Voices For Vaccines. The Register’s blogger decided to highlight the comment, and I pull out the segment that caught my eye here:

…We expect the press to tell us the truth…

The first step is to tell us anything.

When jobsworth's attack

10 Aug

Jobsworth: UK Slang.

It’s been a rough old time to be autistic or the parent of an autistic child just lately. You could get voted out of your classroom, or you could get thrown out of a restaurant, or for the extra special prize you could be one of some jackass DJ’s 99% of autistic kids who are faking it.

Now, not wanting to be left out, Quantas are having a go at being as obstructive and generally stupid as they possibly can to autistic people.

Three Waikato families are facing a bill of $33,000 after three dogs being brought to New Zealand to help autistic patients were banned from a Qantas flight in Los Angeles.

The families had spent two years raising funds to bring the dogs to New Zealand.

Sonya Ewens, whose six-year-old son Sloan got one of the dogs to help with his autism, said they were “devastated”, the Waikato Times reported today.

She said they were still raising the last $6000 for the original fare and the thought of another two years fundraising “is really too much.”

$33k of NZ dollars is US$23,248, CAN$24,809, UK£12,105 or €15,478. Whatever way you cut it, its a lot of money.

What is it about autism that seems to bring out the worst in people? Time and again we hear stories of people being downright cruel pretty much for no good reason. And then when the story breaks they all start a tasteless game of pass the buck. Quantas blame American Airlines blah blah blah….none of which is going to help these kids get their service dogs.

Quantas – be decent. Its money. Waive it.

Britney Spears thinks son might be autistic

8 Aug

I can’t believe I’ve linked to stories about so many Hollywood stars (and Jenny McCarthy) lately but here we go again. Apparently, Britney Spears thinks her son Jayden might be autistic.

Compared to his big brother, Sean Preston, little Jayden “often seems to be in his own world,” family friends say.

“He plays alone a lot,” an In Touch Weekly snitch says. “Jayden often starts crying for no apparent reason,” a friend of K-Fed’s adds.

Um, well, apart from the first statement, I don’t see any red flags for autism. No ones mentioned a lack of eye contact or slow development (or none) of communication skills. On the other hand, it may well explain why Britney turned up at a Gen Rescue gig recently.

I’m not going to get into a Britney-bash. She’s been touted as a manic depressive and us loons have to stick together. I will mention however, that from what I’ve seen on TV, the Spears/Federline children have not had an easy ride of it lately and maybe these ‘symptoms’ might go away if mum and dad grew up a bit and stopped attacking each other publicly. Might also help if every tabloid in the entire Western hemisphere backed off and gave Spears some room to sort both herself and her kids out.

So, if Jayden does get diagnosed (who by? Lets hope its not Jay ‘Polio can be cured by not eating cheese’ Gordon) will she go down the anti-vaccine route? Has the lad even _been_ vaccinated?

I expect she will as she’s already been co-opted by McCarthy and GR. That means we have lots more celeb induced silliness to put up with and even less emphasis on science. Woo-hoo.

Things happen or do not happen….

8 Aug

Things happen for reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things do not happen for reasons.

–

Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay

Jon Poling and Bernadine Healy

7 Aug

As Kev has noted, Dr. Jon Poling has a Letter in the most recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

As I read Kev’s piece I knew I wanted to make a comment. But as I saw that comment would be really long I saw that it would end up looking more like a mini-blog post. Since I have the keys to the car, as it were, I figured I’d go straight to the blog post.

Dr. Poling makes mention of Dr. Bernadine Healy’s interview at CBS. He states that he agrees with her statement:

“I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show. . . . If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion there is a susceptible group . . . what can I say?”

All those dotted lines just begged for someone to look at the parts cut out.  The parts in red below are what Dr. Poling used for his quote. [edit: sorry, the red shows up in the editor, but not the post]

Healy said: “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.”

and

“What we’re seeing in the bulk of the population: vaccines are safe,” said Healy. “But there may be this susceptible group. The fact that there is concern, that you don’t want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion that there is a susceptible group… what can I say?“

Dr. Poling says he agrees with her. A HUGE question in this community involves the parts Dr. Poling left out: that “[t]here 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.

Dr. Healy threw the conspiracy theorists a huge bone with that statement. It was a big statement to make and one that is left completely unsupported.

As an aside–this is my biggest complaint about Sharyl Attkisson. Given the nature of the statement and the ramifications of it, she should have asked Dr. Healy for sources or some way to back that statement up. The fact that Ms. Attkisson didn’t and, in fact, helped lead Dr. Healy through her (unsupported) claims gives a lot of credence to the idea that Ms. Attkisson is promoting her own agenda rather than trying to report a story.

But, back to the post at hand: Does Dr. Poling agree with all the statements? Because, he should realize that people will assume he does and blog posts and internet discussions will appear with people generalizing to “Dr. Poling agrees with Bernadine Healy”.

Consider this, Dr. Healy stated that there “…is a completely expressed concern…”. Note the present tense.

Dr. Poling states in his Letter “Also commendable is the new 5-year research plan of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which will entail the study of minority subpopulations, including patients with mitochondrial disorders”. He cites this document: “Draft ISO Scientific Agenda for NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group, April 4, 2008”

Let’s not quibble on the fact that Dr. Poling’s statement implies that the idea of a study is already accepted, when it is a draft. I think we can all agree that the study is very likely going to happen.

Notice the date: April 4, 2008. The Vaccine Safety Working Group recommended looking at people with mitochondrial disorders. (another aside, Dr. Poling makes a big case, joined by Mr. Kirby, that Hannah Poling has a dysfunction, not a disorder. Is the CDC going to look at the wrong subgroup, those with disorders?)

OK, back to the date: April 4, 2008. The date of Dr. Healy’s interview: May 12, 2008.

Dr. Healy’s statement that there (present tense) “…is an expressed concern….”

Not only is the statement completely unsupported….I’m at a loss for the words here. Should I use, “erroneous”, “creates a false impression”, “ignorant of the recent history in the very subject she was discussing”?

So, I, for one, would like to hear Dr. Poling’s opinion on all of Dr. Healy’s statements. I fear that I will not like the result, but at least we’d have all the facts.

(note: I made some edits after posting–just changing a few words to make it read better)

Inside Autism: Dr. Paul Offit responds

5 Aug

I figured I was pretty well done with the Paul Offit/CBS story.  But, I think anyone who has been following these posts would like to read Dr. Paul Offit responds, on the Inside Autism blog.

I’m glad someone else approached him for a discussion of this.

I’ll pull just a couple of points out:

Dr. Offit explains that he did supply CBS news with information including

* The sources and amounts of every grant he has received since 1980;

* The details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck. Offit co-invented a Rotavirus vaccine that is manufactured by Merck. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Offit said, holds the patent.

* The details of every talk he has given for the past three years. CBS asked for the past 28 years, but Offit said he hasn’t saved that information.

He notes that a followup email from Sharyl Attkisson stated:

You’re clearly hiding something and you need to be straightforward, the public has a right to know who its advisers are

Nope. No bias there.

I can fully understand why Dr. Offit declined the interview.

The story closes with a statement about why he keeps talking about vaccines:

“You’re asking me the question I spend the most time thinking about: Should I still be doing this? I’m just going to do it until people stop listening. It’s the thing I struggle with the most, and I think it’s unfair.

Well, if he looks at the last week of blogging here, he will see that at least this person is listening.

I hope people are listening in September.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →