Archive | Generation Rescue RSS feed for this section

Are the Minnesota Somalis political pawns?

5 May

Let me start out by saying I hope a good answer is found for the high number of Somali children getting special education services in MN under the autism label. The only way to do that properly will take time, money and cooperation from the Somali community.

That said, I will admit that I have avoided this subject up until now. It was very obvious to me that without accurate numbers, this is likely going to just be a game of politics. And, let’s face it, educational numbers are not an accurate way to measure autism. The fact that David Kirby chimed in very early didn’t help either. If I’ve learned anything reading blogs, it is that Mr. Kirby is quite willing to misuse data.

As background, there are more young Somali kids in the Minneapolis schools getting services in autism preschools. Groups such as Generation Rescue have been using this to support the idea that vaccines cause autism. Others have been claiming that vitamin D deficiency is to blame.

It is worth noting that the fraction of Somalis in the autism preschools is about 1%. While this is high compared to the non-Somali’s in preschool, it is about the same fraction for older children in the Minneapolis schools.

As I said, I was planning on leaving this subject alone. That is until I read the Simons Foundation blog on the topic, reporting on this report. The SFARI blog (as it is known) uses precise language to describe the situation (something that would be good for us all to learn).

Public health clusters are usually suspect, but in a report released last week, the Minnesota Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that, among 3- and 4-year-old children, those of Somali origin are two to seven times more likely to be placed in preschool programs for autism.

That’s right. They didn’t find that more Somali kids have autism, they found that they were placed in autism programs. You don’t need a medical diagnosis to be placed in an autism school program.

But that wasn’t what got me to write this post. What prompted me to blog was the next sentence:

The report also found other ethnic trends in these classes: just two Asians and one Native American between 2005 and 2007.

Wow. There were even years with zero Asians in those classes. If one is to take the data from the Minneapolis schools as indicating that Somalis have more autism, one has to then explain why Asians and Native Americans have almost no autism!

Why does this bug me? Because it exposed the exact sort of hypocrisy that typifies the efforts of Generation Rescue, Dan Olmsted, Mark Blaxill, and David Kirby (to name a few): “Look until you find something that supports your preconceived notion, then stop!!!!” They have to stop before they find something that would be difficult to explain–like the low prevalence amongst Asians and Native Americans.

Generation Rescue’s motto is “Autism is preventable and reversible”. If so, why aren’t they looking into the low administrative prevalence amongst Asians and Native Americans in Minneapolis.

Jenny McCarthy has often complained that no one wants to study her son to see why he was cured of autism (which begs the question: why hasn’t the alternative medical community studied him?). Why isn’t Jenny McCarthy and her partner Jim Carrey in Minneapolis calling for a study of the Asians and Native Americans in Minneapolis?

I could keep going on and on, but you get the point. Generation Rescue cherry picks the data that supports their notion of vaccines causing autism. They ignore the inconvenient information. One group, the Somalis, are used as political pawns because they help GR with the idea that vaccines cause autism. As to the idea that autism is “preventable and reversible”? I guess if GR really cared they would be looking at the Asians and Native Americans in Minneapolis.

Generation Rescue: an autism research organization?

1 May

Generation Rescue has been trying to rebrand itself as a “research” based organization over the past year. This is a tough sell given their track record of promiting junk as science. Even if they didn’t keep touting their phone survey it would be difficult to forget it. Rather than write the effort off as bad, they cherry picked the “results” which support their political and public relations agenda.

I was reminded of this while I was writing a review of the Science Advisory Board for the newly minted Autism Science Foundation. Why not do the same for Generation Rescue?

it is worth noting that it would have been impossible to review GR’s science advisory board a year ago. It didn’t exist from what I recall. I recall checking fairly recently, and the advisory board consisted of one person.

But, that was the past. GR is ramping up their Advisory Board. Below is the current Advisory Board for GR. I use the ISI Web of Knowledge database to check for papers with the Science Adviser as “author” and the topic as “autism”, just as I did for the Autism Science Foundation. I also did a few other checks, as you will see.

S. Jill James

I get 11 autism papers for Dr. James papers in the search. One of which was cited 84 times (which is very respectable), but most of which have been cited 1 or 0 times.

I found something interesting on her website. Under “Research Support” she lists, “CDC: Mechanisms of Oxidative Stress in Children.”

I find it amusing that the top science adviser to Generation Rescue is accepting funding from the CDC. Were she on the “other side” of the fence on the vaccine question, GR would certainly have claimed that accepting money from the CDC is a clear indication of bias and would call for “independent” research.

I guess you can be independent and still accept money from the CDC.

Dr. Richard Deth

Dr. Deth was recently discussed by Kev, by the way. He has two autism papers in the ISI database. One of which was cited 31 times.

Woody R. McGinnis, M.D.

I only get 3 papers from the ISI Web of Knowledge database for McGinnis WR and topic=autism. Apparently they aren’t listing his papers in the Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology which came out last year.

Jerry Kartzinel, M.D.

I get no hits for an ISI search on papers for Kartzinel as author and subject=autism. He is, of course, the co-author with Jenny McCarthy on her recent book. Not exactly research, though.

This is not a group of heavy hitters in autism research. As noted, Dr. James has a few papers which have been cited a number of times. But, given the nature of this group (and of Generation Rescue) the question has to be asked–is this a real advisory board or is it for show? In general, this is a pretty lightweight group in the autism world. When Jill James is your “heavy hitter” you aren’t going to impress many people who actively watch autism research.

Besides, when has GR ever really acted like they want “scientific advice”? Seriously–they seem to be an organization which thinks scientists exist to confirm the observations of parents.

Compare this Science Advisory Board to that of the Autism Science Foundation, which we recently discussed. GR, an organization that has been around for years, is just putting together their Advisory Board and, well, the effort is slow to get moving. ASF had a reasonable Advisory Board at their launch.

But, Generation Rescue isn’t an organization to let their glass house stop them from throwing stones. You can imagine that when an organization like the Autism Science Foundation comes out with a stance against the vaccine/autism hypothesis it would see some “heat”. True to form, but I admit later than I expected, Kim Stagliano put forth a mild attack. As attacks go, it’s actually sort of amusing. Ms. Stagliano uses as her theme an idea that the ASF is stuck in the past in their approach to research. I find this attack by Ms. Stagliano amusing given Generation Rescue’s approach to research. GR’s concepts of research are like a neaderthal man found in a glacier: they represent ideas frozen in time, and ideas whose evolutionary path led to nowhere. You know the ideas: MMR and thimerosal caused an autism epidemic.

I am left wondering why Generation Rescue doesn’t have Dr. Andrew Wakefield as a science adviser. Certainly if anyone typifies the antiquated stance on science that Generation Rescue holds, it is Andrew Wakefield. GR certainly shows great admiration for the man who fueled the MMR/autism scare in 1998. But, it is one thing to admire the man, it is another thing to add someone to your advisory board whose research is considered an embarrassment by the vast majority of the research community. Who knows, Perhaps Dr. Wakefield turned GR down?

If I may take another minute on Ms. Stagliano’s blog post. She calls in the spectre of the Tobacco companies. It seems to be a favorite contrivance for her and the entire Generation Rescue/Age of Autism crowd. Favorite and patently ridiculous. Here’s what she had to say.

If the American Lung Association had spun off a new group headed up by those with a strong allegiance to Philip Morris and called themselves, INCS (“It’s Not Cigs Stupid!”) would anyone take them seriously outside of those with a financial interest in cigarettes?

The tobacco gambit is a bad comparison to autism from the outset. Epidemiology showed clearly that tobacco causes cancer. The epidemiology on MMR and thimerosal has shown they didn’t cause an “epidemic” of autism.

What takes the tobacco gambit from bad to ridiculous is when, only a few paragraphs later, Ms. Stagilano cites Bernadine Healy. Dr. Healy accepted tobacco company money as part of an organization which denied the dangers of second hand tobacco smoke. One sure sign that Ms. Stagliano’s post is basically propaganda–she refers to Bernadine Healy as “one of the most trusted doctors in America”. Er. Yeah. I would love to poll the “man on the street” and see how many have even heard of Bernadine Healy. Plus, I guess someone can be accept tobacco company money and still be “trusted”? Wll, at least as long as they support the “vaccines might cause autism” concept, eh Ms. Stagliano?

I actually wish Generation Rescue well with their effort to build a Science Advisory Board. I would hope that they would (a) find real scientists and (b) take their advice.

It would be a new direction for Generation Rescue.

The problem with the IACC is…

27 Apr

…that Tom Insel is too nice.

OK, that is as oversimplification, but bear with me. Dr. Insel is the director of the NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) and the chair of the IACC (Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee). As chair, he gets to run the meetings. Lucky him!

I say that with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Dr. Insel has a tough job trying to manage the IACC.

Let’s back up a little bit. The IACC committee meets regularly to work on producing a plan for the government’s research effort in autism. The idea is simple–gather together a lot of people who can bring their expertise to the table and work together to build a good plan.

Unfortunately, Lyn Redwood apparently didn’t get that memo. Ms. Redwood represents her organization (Safe Minds) as well as the views of a number of other autism organizations who promote the idea that vaccines caused an epidemic of autism.

Lyn Redwood spends each meeting as though it is held for everyone to listen to her talk about vaccines. I know that sounds like an exaggeration–it isn’t. Here is a quote from another member of the IACC committee from a recent meeting, speaking about an effort by Lyn Redwood to insert a large amount of new language into the Strategic Plan.

I’m just a little perplexed as to why we are actually looking at this. Because we worked so hard over many months as a committee and..you know..and as one person in the field who is constantly seeing more and more children with autism this sense of urgency seems to sabotaged by this constant barrage of another opportunity for one person of this committee to constantly try to rewrite the Plan. It doesn’t seem to be the correct process.

Dr. Insel then commented “There are heads shaking here.” “Heads Shaking” is what Dr. Insel says when people are nodding in agreement during a meeting. In other words–a large portion of the IACC agreed with the idea that Lyn Redwood was hijacking the process again!

The problem is, to say it again, Tom Insel is too nice. He gives Lyn Redwood a LOT of leeway to talk about…well, whatever she wants to talk about. Unfortunately, she spends a lot of time talking vaccines. Lots of time. The IACC doesn’t have lot’s of time to spend on any one subject. Especially a subject like vaccines that the rest of the committee clearly isn’t interested in discussing. To make matters worse, many of the discussions are nearly meaningless. “Should we phrase this noncommittal statement this way or that way?”

Another person draining a lot of valuable time from the IACC is Mark Blaxill. Mr. Blaxill is not on the main IACC committee. He is in one of the working groups (think advisory group to the main committee). While, luckily, he doesn’t get to vote in the main committee, in his own way he is worse than Ms. Redwood. He makes long speeches, filled with insults to the other committee members, calling those who don’t agree with him “Epidemic Denialists”.

It strikes this listener that Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill are trying desperately to engage the other IACC people in a debate on the autism vaccine question. Ms. Redwood has offered to bring in papers supporting her position. Thankfully, Dr. Insel avoided that mess. I can easily imagine many of the researchers on the IACC thinking, “Gad! I already wasted part of my life on that junk science when I read it the first time. Can’t we just get something accomplished for people with autism here?” I mean, seriously, does Ms. Redwood think that people haven’t read the papers she leans on? The implications sounds like, “You don’t agree with me. That means you haven’t read these studies.” What she doesn’t understand is that pretty much everyone has read the studies she uses as support for the “mercury and vaccines caused an autism epimic” idea. Everyone has read them, and most who have read them find them to be really bad science. The academics could use them as examples of bad science for their students. Those studies are that bad.

Here’s some much needed background. The IACC committee is made up of a number of professionals and stakeholders. People fly in from all over the US to attend meetings–most of which are only a day long. The agendas are packed; there isn’t much time to waste.

Rather than accept that IACC meeting time is limited and precious, with many topics to cover, both Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill act as though they are in one of Senator Dan Burton’s hearings, where the goal was to get as much of the idea that vaccines cause autism into the public record as possible–whether the science was good or not.

So, what’s happening while Ms. Redwood or Mr. Blaxill are talking? This is where the “Tom Insel is too nice” bit comes into play. Dr. Insel, chair of the IACC, allows them all the time they want to take (and they want a lot of time) to talk about vaccines. I don’t know how much of it is Dr. Insel being polite or how much is an effort to stave off future complaints that the vaccine lobby was excluded from the process. There are likely multiple reasons. Net result–lots of time taken up talking about vaccines.

Well, that’s not really accurate. There is a lot of time lecturing about the supposed vaccine/autism link. You see, there is almost no discussion amongst the commitee. Just the one-sided presentations by Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill. The rest of the IACC members often (almost always) remain silent. My guess is that they are just too smart to get dragged into the discussions. Yes, too smart. What purpose would it serve?

From what I can see, the rest of the IACC “gets it”. They “get it” in the fact that they already understand the vaccine debate. I don’t see the point in taking up committee and working group time with Lyn Redwood or Mark Blaxill pretending to be trying to educate the other members. The rest of the IACC also “gets it” in the fact that they understand to avoid getting sucked into the debate. Mark Blaxill would likely enjoy some blog fodder. The likes of David Kirby and Robert Kennedy Jr. would love to take everything out of context and misinterpret it for their own blog readers. All this would come at the cost of people with autism.

Dr. Insel could, I guess, limit the time that Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill use. To be honest, he does manage their time somewhat, but much more would help keep the meetings productive. Dr. Insel is in a hard spot–even a reasonable level of limiting the discussion would obviously be used to fuel complaints that the vaccine debate is being quashed or the process is corrupt.

So, in the end, Dr. Insel plays the nice guy. What else can he do? Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill take advantage of it and, in the end, it is people with autism who pay the price when the IACC meetings are hijacked and the sense of urgency is lost as one person tries to rewrite the strategic plan.

Liar Liar

24 Apr

Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy are very critical of vaccines. They assert that vaccines cause autism.

Criticising vaccines is a dangerous business. Vaccines are arguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, medical advances in history. Anyone whose causes people to stop vaccinating their children runs the risk of being blamed for illness, permanent injury and death if/when the diseases return.

Mr. Carrey seems aware of this. In his recent blog piece he made a point of noting:

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio

This statement bothered me enough that I discussed it in two pieces (here and here) about measles outbreaks in Wales and the US.

I wanted to highlight the fact that the website for Mr. Carrey’s organization (Generation Rescue) includes language specifically telling people to avoid the measles vaccine.

Even after blogging that, somehow Mr. Carrey’s statement statement still bothered me. Then I remembered why.

A year ago, Mr. Carrey’s movie, “Horton Hears a Who”, was in theaters. One group in New Mexico decided to offer a screening of Horton with an added benefit: free vaccinations for children who came.

This didn’t sit well with Mr. Carrey, who decided to put a stop to the free vaccination program. According to Lisa Akerman of TACA (Talk About Curing Autism, another group that has had Jenny McCarthy as a spokes-person):

Once word from the autism community (Who-ville in this case) got to the Carrey & McCarthy super team about this story of a New Mexico vaccination plot things got a brewing. After his morning coffee, Jim made a few calls this morning on behalf of the autism community.

Following a long discussion with his representatives at Fox Entertainment – Who-ville – once again through Horton – was heard. The New Mexico test market of drive thru vaccines while at the movies with your children was stopped. Halted by Horton himself…

So, Mr. Carrey doesn’t “argue” that people shouldn’t be immunized. He just stops them from being immunized.

Fallout of the vaccine-autism scare: Measles in Wales

24 Apr

Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield…what do these people have in common? They have all helped promote fear of vaccines–especially the Measles/MumpsRubella (MMR) vaccine–by claiming there is evidence vaccines cause autism.

To be fair, Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy relatively new to the scene, unlike Dr. Wakefield, whose flawed research really fueled the fear. Perhaps the actors could learn from the doctor’s lesson: you claim MMR causes autism, that reduces the number of people getting immunized and people get sick. Pretty simple logic.

Measles was considered basically wiped out in the UK until a few years ago when it returned, sickening thousands and killing a few. Last year, measles returned to the US, and it’s back this year. Now we see that the UK isn’t being spared int he 2008-09 season: Wales has approximately 60 cases of measles suspected or confirmed.

Nineteen cases are in Llanelli–that’s in the lower left corner of this map:

Map showing location of recent measles outbreak in Wales

Map showing location of recent measles outbreak in Wales

That’s a short ride from Swansea, Cardiff, Bristol…lots of high density population centers. Any reasonable person would find that scary.

We in the autism communities need to stand up against misinformation that leads to people being sickened and, in some cases, killed. The MMR-Autism link never had good evidence, and now there is good evidence that MMR does not cause autism Even people like the autism-is-vaccine-injury proponent Rick Rollens admitted it’s time to look beyond MMR (and here).

Jim Carrey seems to understand at least on some level that it is wrong to dissuade people from vaccination. He claimed (incorrectly):

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio…

Maybe there is some Clintonian logic about the words “We” and “argued”. But, on Larry King Live, Jenny McCarthy stated:

You need to find a doctor that can find an alternate schedule. Generationrescue.org has three of them on there.

Generation Rescue, aka “Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Autism Organization” has alternate schedules on their website. The “favorite” of the three alternate vaccine schedules states, very clearly,

One should avoid vaccines that contain live viruses. This includes the combined measles mumps and rubella vaccines…

You’ve talked the talk, time to walk the walk, Jim. Pull that schedule off your website. Get your organization to make a clear statement about the value of vaccinating against measles.

I realize that I have concentrated a lot on Jim Carrey in this piece. But, there is a man who can make a difference in the future. That future will see people in the US and the UK sickened by measles. The question is how many. What Jim Carrey says could make that number larger or smaller, it all depends on whether he makes good on his sentiment that measles is a serious disease worth immunizing against.

Dr Jay Gordon, HIPAA violation? Really?

23 Apr

We’re back to the Huffington Post again and this time rather than Jenny McCarthy’s boyfriend, we’re talking about Jenny McCarthy’s son’s doctor Dr Jay Gordon.

He recently blogged about an LA Times piece by fellow medical man Dr Rahul Parikh. In his piece Parikh said:

One night, we admitted a 9-month-old girl who was having trouble breathing. She arrived with her parents — Mom in tears and Dad tense with worry. Her parents were movie stars from a Hollywood borough who…needed nothing. In a way, they had chosen “nothing” for their daughter from the time she was born — refusing all vaccines for her.

From this information alone Dr Gordon decided that Dr Parikh:

…commits ethics and HIPAA violations so egregious that the Medical Board must take him to task

Interesting, I thought as I read on…

Dr. Parikh is a well-published medical author and blogger and he speaks of a patient he saw as an intern in the year 2000 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. (His bio on many sites lets you know that year.) He identifies the parents, their unique profession and their child’s age and illness. This family can be identified by anyone who can use Google.

I was confused by now – Parikh hadn’t mentioned the year (in fact *Gordon himself* did!), he hadn’t identified the parents and as for their ‘unique profession’…how is being a movie star from Hollywood in any way unique? Surely Hollywood is full of movie stars? I mean, I’m a Brit so maybe I’m just buying into a cliché – are there really not many movie stars in Hollywood? And as for identifying the child’s age and illness – a 9 month old with a repository infection? Is that massively uncommon? I don’t think it is.

I stopped reading at that point as I have never been Dr Gordon’s biggest fan. He lacks the balls to tell Jenny McCarthy she’s wrong about there being anti-freeze in vaccines (silliness repeated by Jim Carrey yesterday) amongst other things. I was now more interested in this ‘ethics and HIPAA violation’.

False modesty aside I’m pretty good at digging at information on search engines and try as I could (and I really did try), based on the info in Parikh’s piece, I could not for the life of me identify who the movie stars were whos daughter was ill. I still can’t.

However, finding out what constitutes a HIPAA violation in terms of identifiable data was very much easier. I hit gold on my first search. According to the site ‘Lawyers and HIPAA‘ a violation occurs when health information is made public – here’s the paragraph on health information and its public release:

Individually identifiable health information is information that is a subset of health information, including demographic information collected from an individual, and:

(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and

(2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and

(i) That identifies the individual; or

(ii) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual.

I simply cannot see how Jay Gordon realistically believes that the information in Rahul Parikh’s LA Times piece meets that criteria.

Update: I see Autism News Beat has covered this also. In the comments Dr Gordon appears and says:

Good points. I’ve removed the nastier comments in the HuffPo piece. The Internet lends itself to false bravado and unpleasant ad hominem attacks [please see above 🙂 ] and I have to work on not being part of that problem.

I stand by my original unhappiness at the inaccurate proclamation of whooping cough

Yet when I return to Dr Gordon’s Huffington Post entry, I still see the references to HIPAA violations. Does Dr Gordon really believe that Dr Parikh’s article is full of HIPAA violations? Yes, I’m a Brit and no, I’m not a lawyer but my common sense tells me that Dr Gordon is playing with fire here. Lets hope for Dr Gordon’s sake that Dr Parikh is not going to sue for defamation. According to Autism News Beat that would be distinctly on the cards.

Fallout of the vaccine-autism scare: Measles in the US

23 Apr

I thought we dodged the bullet this year in the US–no measles outbreaks like in 2008.

Then I read the Baby411 blog. Today’s post:

Several states are reporting measles outbreaks across the country this week, but particularly on the East Coast.

The following states are reporting confirmed cases of measles:
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Washington DC
Maryland
Virginia

So far, six cases in the Washington DC area, for example.

A very valid question is, “why bring this up on an autism blog?” Unfortunately, the autism community is tied to the measles vaccine scare. So, yes, I hang some of the responsibility for this outbreak on Dr. Wakefield for his terribly flawed research.

I also hang responsibility on Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Jenny McCarthy has been promoting her organization’s “alternative” vaccine schedule that gives no coverage for measles.

Here’s a quote from their “alternative”schedule:

One should avoid vaccines that contain live viruses. This includes the combined measles.mups and rubella vaccines…

Just today, her partner, Jim Carrey in a blog post denied this:

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio

Sorry, Jim, you can’t have it both ways.

Let’s hope this outbreak stays small.

An open letter to Jim Carrey

22 Apr

Today on The Huffngton Post, actor Jim Carrey posted his thoughts about autism and vaccines. With his very first paragraph it became apparent how little Carrey understood the issues involved:

Recently, I was amazed to hear a commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown on the controversial vaccine issue. After a ruling by the ‘special vaccine court’ saying the Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot wasn’t found to be responsible for the plaintiffs’ autism, she and others in the media began making assertions that the judgment was in, and vaccines had been proven safe. No one would be more relieved than Jenny and I if that were true. But with all due respect to Ms. Brown, a ruling against causation in three cases out of more than 5000 hardly proves that other children won’t be adversely affected by the MMR…

Point one Mr Carrey. The vaccine issue is only controversial to adherents of your belief system. Within scientific, medical, legal, autistic and parental circles its not even slightly controversial.

Point two, the three cases chosen were chosen – by the plaintiffs legal team – to represent their absolute best chance of winning. If they had won, there was an excellent chance all the cases that were suggesting MMR as causation would have just ‘won’ automatically. Thats why its called an Omnibus.

Point three, regarding the MMR, it has been firmly established that:

a) The data supporting the MMR hypothesis was fixed.

b) The science supporting the MMR theory was badly wrong – both badly done and exposed to contaminants.

You might also note that the court was not attempting to see if the children were ‘adversely affected by the MMR’, it was looking to see – using the three cases the legal team representing the families thought were the absolute best – if MMR caused autism. It didn’t. Thats probably why your Campbell Brown found it easy to say the MMR hypothesis was dead and buried.

You go to say Mr Carrey that:

Not everyone gets cancer from smoking, but cigarettes do cause cancer. After 100 years and many rulings in favor of the tobacco companies, we finally figured that out.

Yes, we did – and do you know how? With _good science_ – just like the science that established in the three MMR test cases that the MMR didn’t cause autism. And its fascinating that you bring up this parallel to the smoking issue and then later in your blog post invoke the name of Bernadine Healy. Healy – who’s ‘more sensible voice’ you say you’d rather listen to. Did you know Healy used to be a member of TASSC:

TASSC was created in 1993 by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm, and was funded by tobacco company Philip Morris (now Altria)….

According to Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in their article How Big Tobacco Helped Create “the Junkman”, one of the forerunners of TASSC at Philip Morris was a 1988 “Proposal for the Whitecoat Project,” named after the white laboratory coats that scientists sometimes wear. The project had four goals: “Resist and roll back smoking restrictions. Restore smoker confidence. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS (passive smoking) is harmful. Restore social acceptability of smoking.”

[own inserts]

Is that what you consider a sensible voice Mr Carrey? Someone who supported the tobacco agenda?

Moving on, you say:

If we are to believe that the ruling of the ‘vaccine court’ in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.

First and foremost, the vaccine court did not rule at all in the Hannah Poling case. HHS conceded. And what they conceded was that Hannah Poling was damaged by vaccines resulting in ‘autism like features’. In fact, when we look at the the one piece of medical science carried out on Hannah Poling (co-authored by her own father), we see that only three of the symptoms described as being the result of vaccine injury appear on the DSM (IV) diagnostic criteria for autism.

As for Bailey Banks, this is a perfect illustration of both how the vaccine court in the USA was designed to work and also how terrible the evidence was in the three MMR test cases.

The Banks ruling (subtitled ‘Non-autistic developmental delay’ by the way) drew a line of causation from vaccine to PDD-NOS. It is able to do this as the burden of proof for any science presented to the vaccine court is ‘50% plus a feather’. In other words, it just has to be plausible, no causation needs to be shown.

What doesn’t seem in doubt is that Bailey was injured by a vaccine which resulted in a condition called ADEM. The judge in the case then went on to accept the plaintiffs position that the ADEM in turn caused PDD-NOS. He did this seemingly because there was no evidence to the contrary – e.g. no evidence that ADEM *doesn’t* cause PDD-NOS.

In any scientific situation – including civil court in the US – this would never have been accepted. The plaintiff would have had to have demonstrated that ADEM *did* cause PDD-NOS. And a search of PubMed reveals nothing for ‘ADEM autism’ or ‘ADEM PDD’.

So, in the Banks case, because there was no evidence that ADEM does not cause PDD-NOS, they won. In every situation bar the vaccine court, the Banks’ would not have won their case. There is no science to support the idea ADEM causes autism.

Bearing this ‘50% plus a feather’ concept in mind it is clear just how utterly dreadful the evidence was to support the idea MMR caused autism. Not only could plaintiffs not provide any evidence that MMR causes autism, respondents produced reams of evidence to show it clearly doesn’t.

You carry on Mr Carrey to say:

I’ve also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who’ve been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony. There’s no evidence of the Lincoln Memorial if you look the other way and refuse to turn around. But if you care to look, it’s really quite impressive. For a sample of vaccine injury evidence go to http://www.generationrescue.org/lincolnmemorial.html.

Your analogy is ridiculous. I could go to any library and find evidence for the Lincoln Memorial without ever seeing it. In fact, what your analogy does is demonstrate exactly how blinkered and able to only face one direction at one time you and your colleagues are.

The evidence you present as that being supportive of evidence between a link between vaccines and autism is equally ridiculous and blinkered. I simply don;t have the time to tackle the mountain of misinformation presented on the page you link to suffice to say there’s not a single section that doesn’t have a major error. Most of them have been tackled on this and other blogs over the years.

Next you say:

In all likelihood the truth about vaccines is that they are both good and bad. While ingredients like aluminum, mercury, ether, formaldehyde and anti-freeze may help preserve and enhance vaccines, they can be toxic as well. The assortment of viruses delivered by multiple immunizations may also be a hazard. I agree with the growing number of voices within the medical and scientific community who believe that vaccines, like every other drug, have risks as well as benefits and that for the sake of profit, American children are being given too many, too soon. One thing is certain. We don’t know enough to announce that all vaccines are safe!

Mr Carrey, *vaccines do not contain anti-freeze* – for goodness sake, even Jay Gordon, Evan’s Paediatrician knows that! Did you also know that (to quote myself):

There’s also Aluminium in breast milk so lets compare the two.

According to this paper (which is from 1990 – any more up to date papers welcomed) the amount of Aluminium in breast milk is 49 ?g/L. The average amount of breast milk expressed per day is 0.85 liters.

This means that 41.65?g Aluminium per day is in breast milk.

Now, according to this paper, there is between 125 – 850?g of Aluminium per dose in a vaccine.

So, for a 6 year old, total Aluminium is between 2,125 – 14,450?g.

In real terms this means that after between 51 and 346 days breast feeding, a 6 year old will have taken onboard the same amount of Aluminium as from the total US vaccine schedule.

Now I couldn’t find out what vaccines contained the lower amount or which contained the higher amount. Even so, this means that if every vaccine a 6 year old has that contains Aluminium contains the highest possible amount, within a year of breast feeding they will have matched that.

Or to put it another way, an anti-vax tree-hugger soccer mom who doesn’t vaccinate her baby will have given him the same amount of Aluminium he would’ve had in six years after one year of breast feeding.

And thats of course, not even touched on the fact that:

In the Earth’s crust, aluminium is the most abundant (8.13%) metallic element, and the third most abundant of all elements (after oxygen and silicon)

And is found naturally occurring in sea water, fresh water, the human body etc etc.

[Regarding Formaldehyde]…There’s also Formaldehyde in Apples, Apricots, Banana’s and….ah, I lost interest. Lots of stuff. Including the human body.

So – how much is in vaccines?

According to this and using it in combination with the US vaccine schedule referenced above, we can see that the total amount of Formaldehyde in vaccines from the vaccine schedule for a 6 year old child is 1.2016mg (again, do your own maths, correct me if I’m wrong).

For comparison to that 1.2mg in all vaccines for a 6 year old, 1 (one) banana contains 16.3mg Formaldehyde.

Mr Carrey, you’ve got to stop throwing these scaremongering nonfacts around. Its damned irresponsible for a start.

Lastly Mr Carrey, you say:

If the CDC, the AAP and Ms. Brown insist that our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world, we need more independent vaccine research not done by the drug companies selling the vaccines or by organizations under their influence. Studies that cannot be internally suppressed.

In terms of autism, if you want to make a big deal out of the fact that ‘our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world’ then please consider this – the UK has less shots than you. We also have a higher prevalence than you. 1 in 100 vs 1 in 150.

And please also don’t invoke silly conspiracy theories. Think about how science works. A study is done, funded by Eli Lily for example. It is peer reviewed and found to be good quality and it is published in, lets say NEJM. Now, *every single reader of that study* can see exactly what methods and means were used to reach the studies conclusions. I ask you Mr Carrey, how much more independent can you get? How much more transparent? Basically anyone, anywhere can try and replicate that same studies results. If they can and a few others can – the results are good. If nobody can (think Andrew Wakefield) then the results must be bad.

And for goodness sake man, grow up, who is ‘suppressing’ what study exactly? Have you _any_ evidence at all that any study ever has been internally suppressed? Or are you just throwing this stuff out to scare people?

Mr Carrey, I loved the Truman Show but this isn’t it. There’s no god like figure overseeing every aspect of your life and wanting to control it. I ask you – get in contact with an actual scientist and go through your concerns with them. At the very least they’ll be able to stop you saying silly things like there’s anti-freeze in vaccines.

Why Generation Rescue doesn’t need a seat on the IACC

22 Apr

Generation Rescue has been lobbying hard for a seat on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee
 (IACC).

The IACC, as you might guess, coordinates research efforts amongst various government agencies. They do this by creating a “strategic plan” which puts forth initiatives that should be funded. For example, they f

For example, one “short term goal” listed on the Strategic Plan is

Launch at least two studies to assess and characterize variation in adults living with ASD (e.g., social and daily functioning, demographic, medical and legal status) by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 3 years.

Groups like Generation Rescue, Safe Minds, the National Autism Association and TACA would like to see the Strategic Plan state that autism is caused by vaccines and call for research on the topic. Well, that’s one opinion. One that is already well represented on the IACC. That is only one reason why adding an IACC seat for Generation Rescue would be a bad idea. Here are the ones that come to mind readily:

1) Generation Rescue’s position is already represented on the IACC.

I have never heard any complaints from the Generation Rescue team about Lyn Redwood. Lyn Redwood represents, quite vocally, the “autism is caused by vaccines” segment of the community. She pretty much dominates much of the discussion, steering it towards vaccines as much as possible.

So, if the Generation Rescue position is already represented, why give them an official position?

2) Just because there are multiple organizations, doesn’t mean that the IACC has to include them all.

Besides their position on vaccines, what do Generation Rescue, Safe Minds, TACA and the National Autism Association have in common?

You can’t join them and vote for their leadership.

Sorry, I just see these as different faces to the same overall autism group. Actually, I see them as mostly vaccine oriented advocacy groups, not autism advocacy groups, but the point is the same: why give each of these groups their own seat on the IACC.

Think for a moment–why should a few people be allowed to create an “organization” and ask for separate representation? If each subgroup wants to have control over their own budgets and give each member big titles, that’s just fine. But, when it comes to the IACC, why should every faction of what is, really, one big group be given a seat at the table?

Yes, this is much like item (1)–all of these groups already have their opinions represented by Lyn Redwood. There is no need or value in giving them more seats on the IACC.

3) This would lead to even more wasted time.

The IACC is a group that has very limited time to work on a research plan. Work being the operative word. Already, a LOT of time is taken up carefully crafting each and every phrase that might give credence to the vaccines-cause-autism story.

Imagine now if even more time were taken up in these discussions. Sorry, no. There is a great deal of expertise represented by the scientists on the IACC. We as taxpayers and as members of the greater autism community deserve to benefit from their expertise.

4) Generation Rescue has clearly demonstrated itself to be anti-science.

Generation Rescue’s recent “study” on vaccines and health outcomes around the world was, in a word, dishonest. The fact that they would promote such a manipulation of facts should disqualify them from sitting on a research based committee.

They either don’t understand research, or they are willing to misuse “research” to promote a political agenda. Either way, I don’t see why good researchers in the field should have to share a committee with Generation Rescue.

5) They don’t want their voice heard, they want to be able to outvote the scientists.

As noted above, Generation Rescue’s positions are very clearly communicated on the IACC already by Ms. Redwood. What Generation Rescue wants is a large enough voting block to outvote the scientists on the committee.

Read that again–they want to outvote scientists on a committee designed to coordinate research.

Sorry, you don’t vote down science.

6) They are rude.

The culture of Generation Rescue is not one of working as a team with others. You either agree with their position, or people shout “BullShit” loudly at you.

Yes, there is already rude behavior on the IACC. Mark Blaxill, for one, has spent considerable amounts of time calling anyone who disagrees with his untenable position on mercury “Epidemic Denialists”. We don’t need more of that, and Generation Rescue goes well past that level on the impoliteness scale.

Sorry, I just can’t find any advantage to having Generation Rescue represented on the IACC. I can see a LOT of disadvantages, though.

Let’s go back to 1983!

22 Apr

One of the recurring themes in the vaccines-cause-autism discussion is the concept that if we were to go back to the vaccine schedule of 1983, the autism rate would drop to 1 in 10,000.

This, of course, is pushed hard by Generation Rescue and Jenny McCarthy. GR even took out ads in USA Today to promote this idea.

Before taking a look at the 1983 vaccine schedule, I have to offer Generation Rescue a few corrections to their advertisement.

1) There is no “mandatory” CDC schedule. Sorry, the CDC has a “recommended” schedule. States work from that to create their own schedules. Since in almost every state one can opt-out with a simple form, even the state schedules aren’t really “mandatory”.

2) Rotavirus isn’t “mandatory” even on the state level. Perhaps GR could show me which state has the Rotavirus vaccine as part of their schedule, but I haven’t been able to find one.

That said, GR would like us all to go back to the 1983 schedule. Really? Did they think this trough? I don’t think so.

Take a look at the 1983 schedule that GR list in their ad. Two vaccines pop up to me right away–DTP and OPV.

Consider first the DTP. I thought there were good safety reasons to move from DTP (with the whole-cell pertussis vaccine) to the DTaP (acellular pertussis) vaccine. Is it OK to have more vaccine injuries in their flawed experiment to try to reduce the autism rate? That would appear to follow from GR’s suggestion to “turn back the clock”. Do they really want to go back to DTP?

In the 1983 schedule, kids got the OPV–oral polio vaccine (live/attenuated virus). Today, kids get the IPV–inactivated polio vaccine. OPV is used in places where people are trying to eradicate polio, since the OPV viruses can be shed in the stool. This leads to non-immunized people being protected as well, but may have a small risk of infecting others with paralytical polio. We could spend more time discussing this, but let’s just say that there are really good reasons to move from OPV to IPV.

For those two reasons alone, the idea of “turning back the clock” appears to be the result of very simplistic logic by people who didn’t spend 5 minutes considering their own proposal.

In addition to changing some vaccines (e.g. DTP–>DTaP), the schedule added vaccines. What are the “new” vaccines that Generation Rescue seems to be objecting to? Let’s go through them one by one. Let’s ask the question Arthur Allen posed to Jim Carrey at the Green Our Vaccines rally: which one(s) would they leave out?

Hepatitis B. This is such a common target that Dr. Bernadine Healy singled it out recently.

From Wikipedia:

However, only 5% of newborns that acquire the infection from their mother at birth will clear the infection. This population has a 40% lifetime risk of death from cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. Of those infected between the age of one to six, 70% will clear the infection.

Wow. 40% lifetime risk of death if a newborn catches HepB. How about the fact that 30% of children in the age 1 to 6 age range will not clear the HepB infection? Yep, they get a life-long, chronic condition that will kill a large fraction of them. Oh, you did notice that kids age 1-6 do catch HepB, right? So much for the “They aren’t at risk, why vaccinate them” nonsense.

Hib–Haemophilus influenzae type b. Otherwise known as Bacterial Meningitis. What’s that like?

Hib meningitis is fatal in about 5% of patients and causes brain damage in 10-30% of survivors.

And, for those who claim vaccines don’t work, EpiWonk (in his real life) showed clearly that Hib does work.

PCV–pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevents infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae. It causes 200 deaths a year amongst children under 5, it causes brain damage, deafness, and pneumonia. But, according to GR, we can do without preventing that.

Rotavirus. The Rotavirus vaccine is a constant target for groups like Generation Rescue. This is due in no small part to the fact that Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of the vaccines-cause-autism hypothesis, is a co-inventor of the vaccine in current use.

Again, from Wikipedia:

In the United States, rotavirus causes about 2.7 million cases of severe gastroenteritis in children, almost 60,000 hospitalisations, and around 37 deaths each year

My guess is that this would be particularly nasty for a child with a mitochondrial dysfunction. Just something to consider.

Hepatitis A. I find it odd that the Hep-B vaccine gets so much attention and Hep-A is all but ignored by vaccine critics. Hepatitis A appears to be a much less serious disease, where death or chronic infection are uncommon.

Influenza. This is a favorite vaccine for Generation Rescue to complain about. One big reason: flu vaccines often still contain thimerosal. Groups like Generation Rescue tend to ignore the fact that flu shot uptake is low. Otherwise, they would have to admit that the thimerosal exposure from vaccines is way lower than a few years ago–with no change in the “epidemic”. Note that of the 36 vaccines that Generation Rescue claims the CDC “mandates”, seven of them are influenza. Other than New Jersey, does any state require flu shots? More to the point, at the time that Generation Rescue put out their print ad, did any state require Flu shots?

As an aside, from NJ state law:

A student shall be exempted from mandatory immunization if the student objects thereto in a written statement submitted to the institution, signed by the student, explaining how the administration of immunizing agents conflicts with the student’s religious beliefs.

Yeah, that’s for older kids, but you get the idea. “Mandated” vaccines are “mandated” unless you don’t want them.

Varicella. This is “chicken pox”. This is often scoffed at by vaccine rejectionists because, after all, we all know it is basically harmless. Right? Well, while generally mild, some people do suffer severe effects or die from Chickenpox.

Generation Rescue would like to “turn back the clock”. Take us back to the simpler times of 1983. A simple time when people died from diseases we can now prevent. But, this is all to prevent autism, so it’s a good idea, right? Well, we saw how “turning back the clock” on thimerosal exposure worked in reducing autism…it didn’t. That doesn’t prove that changing the vaccine schedule won’t have an effect. It does prove that Generation Rescue uses faulty logic and, worse, doesn’t own their mistakes.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →