Archive | Generation Rescue RSS feed for this section

Successful blogging by Steven Novella: the Desiree Jennings story

26 Feb

I stayed away from this story until now. It isn’t about autism at all, except that “Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Autism Organization–Generation Rescue” decided to take the story on. Why a supposedly autism organization took on the story of an adult who was supposedly injured by a flu vaccine is not clear to this reader. But, this story shows the power of quality blogging to affect the discussion of a national topic.

Short version of the story: Desiree Jennings was given a seasonal flu vaccine. Sometime after that she developed problems in movement and speech. She attributed these problems to the vaccine, citing dystonia as the condition. This was questioned by some bloggers, including a neurologist, Dr. Steven Novella. As a neurologist, Dr. Novella is experienced in conditions such as dystonia. Ms. Jennings was treated by a well known name in the autism-alternative-medicine community, Dr. Rashid Buttar. The story was given national attention, including a segment on the U.S. TV show Inside Edition.

The whole story of the alleged vaccine injury is long and strange. The current status, it gets even stranger. Ms. Jennings appears to have made a full recovery, walking and driving a car. She talks better, with the addition of a rather strange accent. This was found when Inside Edition decided to do a followup on Ms. Jennings, apparently after reading Dr. Novella’s take on the story. From Dr. Novella’s recent blog post:

Another angle to this case was the mainstream media coverage. The story was made national primarily by an Inside Edition segment in which they took her claims of being horribly injured by the flu vaccine at face value. They did throw in a caveat that doctors say the story should not dissuade the public from the vaccine (the “not” was incredibly and deceptively edited out in the YouTube version of the story). But generally it was among the worst science reporting of 2009.

So I was a bit surprised when I was contacted by a producer from Inside Edition about a possible follow up segment on the story. He had read my blog posts on Ms. Jennings and realized they got the story entirely wrong. To his credit he wanted to do follow up (unfortunately rare in mainstream journalism) and tell the real story. This resulted in the segment that aired last night

One reason to bring this story up now is highlighted by Dr. Novella: the effect of science bloggers on a major news story:

And finally (if you will forgive the self-serving observation) the story highlights the new power of the science-blogging community. The Inside Edition follow up segment was entirely due to the science bloggers who covered the story – and told the real story behind the media sensationalism. We are influencing the media cycle in a good way. At the very least we are making ourselves a valuable resource to the mainstream media, and hopefully raising the quality of science journalism in general.

Dr. Novella did well in blogging this story, and Inside Edition did well to reconsider the story in light of the well-reasoned discussion of Dr. Novella.

Video of the recent Inside Edition segment is here:

Andrew Wakefield’s Autism Organization?

22 Feb

There has been a major push to show support for Dr. Andrew Wakefield following the clear and decisive ruling against him in by the General Medical Council and the retraction of his flagship paper in The Lancet and his departure from Thoughtful House.

I have some advice for those who are supporting Dr. Wakefield. I realize advice from me is about as welcome to them as me seeing Dr. Wakefield in my pediatricians’ office, but here goes:

If you want to show real support, add him to your board of directors. Add him to your Science Advisory Boards. Call yourselves “Andrew Wakefield’s Autism Organization”. When big donors call, have them speak with Dr. Wakefield. When you lobby the legislature, bring Dr. Wakefield.

Don’t keep him at arm’s length while trying to rehabilitate his reputation.

The way I see it, right now Dr. Wakefield is a liability. It is one thing to write blog posts or letters to newspapers. It is quite another to spend your organizations reputation.

Between the time I started a draft of this post and it now, Dr. Wakefield has made his first public statement about his departure from Thoughtful House. He mentions that he has an “entirely new sort of opportunity that will allow me to continue my work on behalf of autism families”. Who knows, maybe one or more of the existing orgs will take him on.

Jim Carrey Jenny McCarthy Definitely not anti-vaccine

6 Feb

In the recent statement released by Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy regarding Andrew Wakefield, the twosome made a number of references that clear up once and for all how they feel about vaccines. Because as we all know they’re not anti-vaccine.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers…

Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers…

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers…

The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the
possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

No, definitely not anti-vaccine.

Is Wakefield being shut up, or are Jenny and Jim trying to get publicity for his research?

5 Feb

In a public statement, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey claim that “Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published”. Readers of LeftBrainRightBrain are already well aware that Dr. Andrew Wakefield was recently found to be “dishonest” and to have acted in a manner against the clinical interests of the children who were his research subjects. This recent statement is in support of the now discredited doctor.

Or, is it? A cynical mind might consider that this is a public relations ploy to get Dr. Wakefield’s current research in front of the media. His last paper was much hyped by Jenny McCarthy’s organization, but got little if any actual press coverage. But now, with the media focused on Dr. Wakefield, what better time to promote his research in hopes of getting some play in the media?

Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey are prominent members of Generation Rescue (“Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Autism Organization”) and have posted their statement on the Generation Rescue website with the full version on the blog sponsored by Generation Rescue, the Age of Autism.

This reader is somewhat amazed at the language used and the ignorance of the history of the General Medical Counsel proceeding that Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey have shown.

The language puts the team well into the world conspiracy-theory:

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues

We are to believe that the news reporting on the retraction of the paper in The Lancet is orchestrated by vaccine manufacturers. That’s worth considering a moment–two actors, people who depend on their public image for their livelihood–are claiming that the reporting on a major news event is “engineered by vaccine manufacturers”.

The fact is that Dr. Wakefield thrust himself into the limelight with a press conference to publicize the paper. This and the fact that he has kept himself in the public’s eye for 12 years appears to have been lost on the McCarthy/Carrey team. After over a decade of promoting his research well beyond its importance or scientific merit, of course the media would take to the story that Dr. Wakefield had been found guilty of misconduct and that his paper had been retracted.

If there is any doubt as the conspiracy-theory theme of the statement, phrases like “Kangaroo court” and “in the pocket of vaccine makers” should put that to rest:

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury.

The article goes on:

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield’s original paper regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet’s retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

This is a very strange statement to have made by representatives of Generation Rescue. Generation Rescue states on their own website, in reference to Dr. Wakefield’s paper in The Lancet, “”This study demonstrates that the MMR vaccine triggered autistic behaviors and inflammatory bowel disease in autistic children”.

Much more to the point, the press release for Dr. Wakefield’s press conference on the release of his study in The Lancet states that “Their [Wakefield et. al] paper, to be published in The Lancet 28 February, suggests that the onset of behavioural symptoms was associated with MMR vaccination”

If the defense now is that there is a difference between “proven” and “associated with” in the minds of the public, the importance of that is lost on me. Dr. Wakefield himself put the idea in the public’s mind that the MMR was causing autism.

In a video interview about his 1998 study, Dr. Wakefield stated that the link was not proven. However, he went on to claim that the “risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combine vaccine”:

Again, this was very contentious and you would not get consensus from all members of the group on this, but that is my feeling, that the, the risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.

If there is rampant misreporting of the notion that Dr. Wakefield’s study in The Lancet promoted the idea that vaccines cause autism, then it is the fault of Jenny and Jim’s own organization, together with Dr. Wakefield himself.

Much of the trouble resulting from Dr. Wakefield’s work (and by that I mean trouble caused to the world and the autism communities in particular, not trouble to Dr. Wakefield), stems from Dr. Wakefield overplaying the importance or the quality of his research. Even had the study been done as claimed in the publication, it was not a very strong study. It has been reported that four referees recommended rejecting the paper before publication. I don’t know the policy at The Lancet, but often 2 or 3 referees total are used to screen a paper for a journal.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, overplaying the importance of research well beyond its scientific merit. In their statement, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey promote Dr. Wakefield’s ongoing research as though it is so earth shattering that it must be stopped at all costs. They discuss a series of studies Dr. Wakefield’s new group is undertaking. This research has been discussed by Medical Researcher David Gorski in an article Monkey business in autism research.

We are to believe that there is a media campaign afoot to keep Dr. Wakefield from making his new research public. In the internet age, there is no way to keep information from the public. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues are even editors of a new pseudo-journal for autism research.

At no point to Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey address the ethical violations that Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of. No mention of whether it is appropriate for medical researchers to perform invasive procedures on disabled children when there is no clinical reason to do so.

In other words, Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey never actually defend Dr. Wakefield for his actions. They never address the serious ethical lapses found proved by the General Medical Counsel.

I am left thinking that this is in reality a pre-release promotional event to get press coverage for Dr. Wakefield’s upcoming paper. The study is “on the brink” of being published. In other words, it is likely already in-press. The faux outrage that his work is being suppressed in light of this is painful to read.

IACC calls for $175 million in autism and the environment research

5 Feb

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has posted the revised Strategic Plan. I blogged it recently here on LeftBrainRightBrain. I made a note of the large commitment to environmental causation research. I thought it worthwhile to highlight that section, since this is the cause of so much criticism of the IACC.

Strangely, the criticism doesn’t come from those who are supposedly “It’s all genetic” types. No, the “it’s all environmental” groups seem to be very loud in complaining that all the research funding is going into genetics.

The Plan is divided by a number of questions. Research into causation is listed in Question 3: “What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?”

Under that category, there are seven projects on environmental or gene-environment research. Seven out of 10 projects. The estimated budget for all these projects? $175,900,000.

In other words, 70% of the projects and, if I did my math right, nearly 70% of the funding for causation is estimated to be going to environment and gene-environment projects.

This would seem like a great victory for those who have lobbied for more environmental research. I have yet to see anyone from that group even mention the new Strategic Plan, much less the large commitment to environmental research. Where are the statements from SafeMinds (who have a very vocal member who sits on the IACC proper and another who is on a working group)? How about Generation Rescue? The National Autism Association?

In my opinion, these groups really don’t care much about environmental causation unless it is either mercury or vaccines. Hey, I could be wrong. Let’s see if they surprise me with some acknowledgment of this effort by the US Government.

Here are the objectives if you would like to read for yourself.

Short-Term Objectives

1. Coordinate and implement the inclusion of approximately 20,000 subjects for genome-wide association studies, as well as a sample of 1,200 for sequencing studies to examine more than 50 candidate genes by 2011. Studies should investigate factors contributing to phenotypic variation across individuals that share an identified genetic variant and stratify subjects according to behavioral, cognitive, and clinical features. IACC Recommended Budget: $43,700,000 over 4 years.
2. Within the highest priority categories of exposures for ASD, identify and standardize at least three measures for identifying markers of environmental exposure in biospecimens by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $3,500,000 over 3 years.
3. Initiate efforts to expand existing large case-control and other studies to enhance capabilities for targeted gene – environment research by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $27,800,000 over 5 years.
4. Enhance existing case-control studies to enroll racially and ethnically diverse populations affected by ASD by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $3,300,000 over 5 years.
5. New objective
Support at least two studies to determine if there are subpopulations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures (e.g., immune challenges related to infections, vaccinations, or underlying autoimmune problems) by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $8,000,000 over 2 years.
6. New objective
Initiate studies on at least 10 environmental factors identified in the recommendations from the 2007 IOM report “Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research” as potential causes of ASD by 2012. Estimated cost $56,000,000 over 2 years.

Long-Term Objectives

1. Conduct a multi-site study of the subsequent pregnancies of 1,000 women with a child with ASD to assess the impact of environmental factors in a period most relevant to the progression of ASD by 2014. IACC Recommended Budget: $11,100,000 over 5 years.
2. Identify genetic risk factors in at least 50% of people with ASD by 2014. IACC Recommended Budget: $33,900,000 over 6 years.
3. Determine the effect of at least five environmental factors on the risk for subtypes of ASD in the pre- and early postnatal period of development by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $25,100,000 over 7 years.
4. Support ancillary studies within one or more large-scale, population-based surveillance and epidemiological studies, including U.S. populations, to collect data on environmental factors during preconception, and during prenatal and early postnatal development, as well as genetic data, that could be pooled (as needed), to analyze targets for potential gene/environment interactions by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $44,400,000 over 5 years.

Read more: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/iacc-strategic-plan-is-up/#ixzz0edI3Pe8h

With the facts against them Dr. Wakefield’s supporters appeal to emotion

3 Feb

I should stop being shocked and amazed at how little groups like the Age of Autism blog think of their readership. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is pretty clear that they expect us all to just read what they have to say and never go to the original sources and think for ourselves.

Case in point, the GMC hearing on Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield was guilty of ethical violations in the treatment of his disabled patients. Not once, not twice but many many times. But you wouldn’t know that to read some of the reports on the blogs and even a couple in newspapers.

We have the NAA SafeMinds and TACA telling us all about how bad this ruling is. We have been told that there was “false testimony”.

OK, take a look at the actual charges. Just for a moment. Here are a few examples

1) Dr. Wakefield took money from the Legal Aid Board (LAB) for procedures paid by the NHS. He then diverted some of the LAB money to other projects.

2) Dr. Wakefield got ethical permission to do his study in December 1996, only on patients enrolled after that date. However, he had already started research on children. Here are two examples:

Child 2 had an MRI, colonoscopy and lumbar puncture in September of 1996.

Child 1 was also a research subject without ethical approval. Tests were performed which were not in the clinical interests of the child.

3) For people who promote the myth that “the only thing he did was start early”, note that Dr. Wakefield’s team did invasive tests that were not called for. For example:

Child 3 was also a research subject without ethical approval, having started before the approval. He underwent a lumbar puncture even though: “The Panel has taken into account the fact that there is no evidence in Child 3’s clinical notes to indicate that a lumbar puncture was required.”

Was this the result of some “false testimony? According to the GMC ruling, experts on both sides stated that the lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated.

Experts on both sides, Professor Rutter and Dr Thomas both considered that such a test was not clinically indicated.

Dr. Thomas is not accused by the defenders of Wakefield as “giving false testimony”.

The above are only a few of the examples of clear misconduct on the part of Dr. Wakefield.

How many times must a man be found guilty of not doing what was in his patients’ clinical interests before we are allowed to consider him as, well, someone who doesn’t always put his patient’s clinical interests first?

Kim Stagliano has taken to the Huffington Post with “The Censorship of Autism Treatment“. No mention of the actual charges. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield was guilty. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield’s research efforts for the past 12 years have centered on repairing his own damaged reputation, not on autism treatment.

Can you find a single mention of the word “ethics” in her post? How about any comment about the actual charges levied against Dr. Wakefield?

You know you are in trouble just with the title from this story: MMR doc’s just guilty of caring . At least that article makes one clear statement:

It [the GMC ruling] focused on the methods of research used, some of which were undoubtedly questionable, but which were performed in the name of finding solace for desperate parents convinced their children had changed for ever following their one-size-fits-all MMR injection.

Yes, you can be unethical if you are “finding solace for desperate parents”.

A blog post by the National Autism Association stated:

“Many parents of children with autism view the GMC investigation as little more than character assassination of a physician brave enough to investigate controversial issues”

Well, not this parent. Anyone who paints the GMC investigation as “character assassination” didn’t read the ruling. Seriously, trying to dismiss this fact-filled ruling as “character assassination” is just plain bizarre.

another post comments, discussing the work Dr. Wakefield’s team performed on his study subjects:

the procedures involved were routine

and

No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided.

Lumbar punctures are hardly “routine”. Further, there is no reason to do them if not clinically indicated. Colonoscopies are not routine, especially in patients whose symptoms don’t warrant them. Say, as in Child 1.

One child suffered a perforated bowel (in 12 places!). His family won a lawsuit against the Royal Free hospital.

High Court papers alleged that the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’. They also claimed the ‘principal reason’ for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack’s clinical needs.

How does that not count as not “harmed”? Is it because he wasn’t one of the original 12 from the study in The Lancet?

The behavior of the Wakefield supporters is totally predictable. They have no science. They have no first (or second) tier researchers. They rely heavily on Dr. Wakefield. Who else has the perceived stature of Dr. Wakefield for them? When Brian Deer broke the story that Dr. Wakefield may have “fixed” data in his study last year, there was an immediate reaction from the Wakefield supporters: give him faux awards! Make him the keynote speaker at their conventions!

For the past year the message has been “Dr. Wakefield has not been discredited”. They’ve lost that now.

We’ve been warned that they are bringing out their big guns. Yes, David Kirby will blog about this on the Huffington Post. With apologies to Mr. Kirby, but when he’s their “ace in the hole”, you know they don’t have much.

As I finished this, David Kirby came up with his post: “The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing”. Joining in the style of the times, Mr. Kirby also ignores the actual GMC ruling. Nothing that actually defends Dr. Wakefield against the real charges.

Seriously, go read for yourself. It’s David Kirby with his usual talking points and straw men.

I hope David Kirby is wrong. I hope that things have changed. I hope that the future is a world where the loudest voices in the autism communities fight for a better life for autistics, rather than for a political goal of recognition for bad science, badly done.

I hope.

Forbes on “Stars Vs. Science” once again the autism community looks bad

15 Jan

Forbes Magazine has an article, Stars Vs. Science, From Jenny McCarthy to Tom Cruise, some Hollywood hot shots are leading a war against modern science. The opening paragraph is pretty telling about the tone:

When the medical journal Pediatrics released a consensus report early this year concluding that autistic children do not benefit from special diets, ABC News’ Diane Sawyer knew just whom to call. Jenny McCarthy, former MTV game host, nude model and now mother of an autistic son Evan, enthusiastically denounced the study. “Until doctors start listening to our anecdotal evidence, which is it’s working, it’s going to take so many more years for these kids to get better,” she opined

Or, you can just take a look a the URL–science-jenny-mccarthy-business-healthcare-hollywood-autism.html

Once again, the Autism community takes it on the chin that our representative in the public eye is, well, in a league of her own when it comes to understanding science. Even though the story is about celebrities and science in general, autism plays a big part in the story as a whole. Take a look at the celebrities that were selected for the “slideshow”

Of course, there are Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey (click to enlarge and read the caption):

Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey have been trying to shake loose the anti-vaccine image for a while. It doesn’t appear to be working. From the article:

But some of the best-known celebrities use their soap boxes to spread scientifically dubious–and potentially harmful–messages. Jenny McCarthy believes vaccines cause autism, despite numerous studies to the contrary. She campaigns against child vaccines that have been shown to save lives. In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control reported that measles outbreaks had spiked because more parents were deciding to leave their children unvaccinated, thanks to the burgeoning anti-vaccine movement.

Others who made the cut? Arriana Hufffington, of the Huffington Post, (again. click to enlarge):

It is worth reading the caption to that one. Dr. Rahul Parikh is quoted from his Salon.com piece, The Huffington Post is crazy about your health, Why bogus treatments and crackpot medical theories dominate “The Internet Newspaper”.

The quote:

But Huffington has distorted science and facts…fairness and accuracy in health and medicine take a back seat to sensationalism and self-promotion

In his piece, Dr. Parikh had noted the Huffington Post blogs by “David Kirby, Jenny McCarthy’s pediatrician Jay Gordon and detox advocate Dierdre Imus” and also spends a considerable amount of time discussing a piece by Jim Carrey.

The Forbes piece also discusses Oprah Winfrey (click to enlarge):

Once again, autism is prominent in the description given by Forbes.

I’m sure some readers will assume I’m putting this up to embarrass these celbrities. Yeah, like being in Forbes is so low profile that LBRB is going to be the embarrassment for Oprah and company. No, this is just another vent of anger. Anger that the autism community is once again seen by the public as the home to people who are “leading a war against modern science.” Tell me how that helps us advocate.

One notable entry outside of autism is Bill Maher. (click to enlarge)

I bring this up because Forbes notes that Bill Maher has been discussed by “quack busting doctor-blogger David Gorski”. That’s the same guy you can find on Science Based Medicine,

The article does seem to be following a recent trend: they aren’t looking for “balance” by quoting groups from the anti-science side. Instead, qutoes are had by:

William Schaffner, chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt School of Medicine:

“These are folks who really don’t have the best information, but because they are vocal and well organized their message has gotten out” [as a result] “around the country pediatricians and their staffs are having to spend more and more time persuading parents to have their kids vaccinated in a timely fashion. It is an enormous problem.”

Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch.org

“Talk shows don’ t pay any attention to whether the advice on their program will kill people. … Producers consider it entertainment,” he says, adding: “Never take health advice from a talk show.”

and

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia:

Why do celebrities feel the need to spout off on medical or scientific matters? Because they’ve excelled in one field, stars “think they’re an expert in many things,” says the vaccine expert Offit. “That part doesn’t bother me. It’s the part that we listen that bothers me.”

I’m inclined to agree with Dr. Offit. It is the part that we listen to celebrities when they talk about things far outside their expertise that bothers me.

Age of Autism Abandon Pretence

9 Dec

To many of us who have been following the online ‘careers’ of the various people and factions behind Age of ‘Autism’ for many years (at least 7 in my case) this will be no surprise but it still needs pointing out once more:

The Age of ‘Autism’ blog is a repository of and a flag waver for anti-vaccine quackery.

Easy to say and growing easier and easier to demonstrate every day. As of the time of publishing of this post, the latest *six* posts from Age of ‘Autism’ have absolutely nothing to do with autism. These posts are (in reverse order):

1) Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy
2) Is One Man to Blame for the WorldWide H1N1 Panic?
3) $300K to Banyan Communications from Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines?
4) Harvard and CNN Report on Lower than Expected H1N1 Vaccine Uptake
5) Oops. Flu Pandemic May Be The Mildest since Modern Medicine Began Tracking.
6) Kickin’ the Tires of the Green Vaccine Initiative

*All* the above have no relationship to autism. *All* the above have a direct relationship to anti-vaccine beliefs.

One or two stories every now and then that don’t touch on your blog’s core subject is routine and only to be expected – but six in a row? Thats only routine if your core subject is drifting. Or if your *real* core subject is slowly being revealed.

Is Generation Rescue trying to get Airborne to fund junk science?

8 Dec

The latest Generation Rescue newsletter leads me to believe that Airborne may be considering funding Generation Rescue. Here is the latest Generation Rescue newsletter:

Generation Rescue is in the final stages of receiving grant funding for a vaccine research study on the long term effects of the current U.S. recommended schedule. The last thing we need are declarations of support from our community who purchased Airborne Health.

1.) Did you purchase Airborne during May 1, 2001 – November 29, 2007?
2.) Do you support a vaccine research study on the long term effects of the current U.S. schedule?
3.) Do you support a study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children?

If you answer yes to all three of these questions, then you are a supporter and can help Generation Rescue provide ground breaking research.

The first 40 respondents will receive a free bag of revitaPOPS for completing a declaration of support.

Airborne is a supplement company that produces a product that claimed to be able to help people fight the common cold. They were involved in a class action lawsuit, resulting in an agreed payment of $23 million to consumers who purchased the product and who could prove they purchased it.

Steve Novella at Science Based Medicine discussed this.

My speculation: there is a big pot of the $23M left over, and Generation Rescue is trying to get Airborne to donate it to fund a vaccinated/unvaccinated study.

Of all the groups to manage such a study, Generation Rescue is way (WAY) down on the bottom of the list.

Generation Rescue has a history of misrepresenting and misusing science to forward their agenda. A few cases: their “phone survey” and their pseudo study on vaccination, childhood mortality and autism around the world.

The deadline to submit claims was December 5, 2009 (4 days ago). It strikes this observer as likely that only a small percentage of Airborne’s customers saved their receipts and were able to be compensated, leaving a large amount of money unclaimed.

I really wonder if Airborne knows what sort of group they are working with in Generation Rescue. Soon Airborne will receive testimonials from people who claim to have purchased their products, who want a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated study done by Generation Rescue.

The very fact that Generation Rescue is paying people to submit testimonials should raise red flags at Airborne.

In my opinion, if, for whatever reason, Airborne wants such a study done, they should find a group other than Generation Rescue to manage it. Funding Generation Rescue in this effort is just throwing money away. Airborne would do much better to fund something that could make a real impact in the lives of autistics.

Edit to add

1) Note that Airborne made no admission of fault in this settlement.

2) Here is a section from the settlement document, noting that money left over could be donated to a non-profit group

If the aggregate value of Valid Claims by Settlement Class Members is less than the amount of the Net Settlement Fund, the balance of the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of all Valid Claims of Settlement Class Members, shall be distributed cy pres to non-profit organizations. Class Counsel shall nominate the non-profit organization(s) that will be recipients of any cy pres funds, which shall then be subject to the consent of Defendants (which Defendants shall not unreasonably withhold) and approval by the Court. For purposes of this paragraph, Defendants agree
that in order to validly withhold consent, Defendants must demonstrate that including a non-profit organization as a recipient would substantially
undermine Defendants’ legitimate business interest or is otherwise improper, and that Defendants’ refusal to consent is not philosophically or
politically motivated. Plaintiff agrees that the Center for Science in the Public Interest will not be a recipient of cy pres funds.

It appears to this reader that the class action lawyers (Center for Science in the Public Interest ) get to nominate the possible non-proffits, and that Airborne has the right to reject. In order to reject a non-profit, Airborne would have to claim that the donation “would substantially undermine Defendants’ legitimate business interest or is otherwise improper, and that Defendants’ refusal to consent is not philosophically or politically motivated”

I wonder if class counsel has to prove that the nominations are not philosophically or politically motivated?

A quicker guide to the ‘Green Vaccines’ Initiative

30 Nov

Some music to accompany this entry.

Over at AoA, Kent Heckenlively must be making the rest of the crew nervoous. Maybe you haven’t read his brand new idea for making the ‘green our vaccines’ initiative a political…um…’force’. To whit:

We’re not going to get anywhere with our current legal system because everything gets funneled into Vaccine Court. We’re not going to get far with the current media because they’re so heavily funded by pharmaceutical drug ads. We’re not going to get far with the medical community because they’re part of the machinery.

And don’t even get me started on the politicians. On one hand you have pharma handing out millions of dollars to politicians, and on the other you have parents of children with autism who are slowly bankrupted by this disease. Who do you think is going to have more money to ‘support’ the politician of their choice?

So Kent wants to tackle the legal system, the media, the medical community and politicians. And how?

In the months leading up to this announcement I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the necessary ingredients for a successful rebellion. Reading books on our own American Revolution has given me some guidance…

Cool. Nifty idea Kent. Tackle the legal system, the medical system, the political system and the media by reading a few books on the American Revolution. I think this is definitely a winner.

I’ve carefully scanned the article a few times (whilst wiping the tears of laughter away) but yep – that seems to be about it. And really, if we (god save us) look at this seriously for a moment what is it? Its a tacit admission that Kent doesn;t like the fact that these systems he wants to change don’t agree with him and his loon friends that vaccines cause autism. In fact, take a look at the comments and you’ll see its moved beyond autism to outright anti-vaxx. Is Kent proposing the very first anti-vaxx based political party? Some choice comments:

…thank you for the opportunity your statement gave us to refine the expression of our opposition to any form of vaccination.

I will never vaccinate again…

I no longer think any vaccine is safe…

There are no green vaccines. I am convinced.

I am in the camp that you can’t make vaccine safe ever

Finished listening to Pink Floyd yet? Good isn’t it?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →