Archive | NIH RSS feed for this section

Age of Autism on chelation cancellation

18 Sep

I posted yesterday on the cancellation of the NIH study that was going to be examining chelation’s efficacy as an autism treatment.

What I said was that it was a good idea and it is. The simple facts are that autistic children are not toxic. The only labs that consistently find autistic children to be toxic are the labs Dr Jeffrey Brent identified as ‘these ‘doctor’s data’ type of laboratories’. In fact, its probably worth repeating his testimony about these labs:

Q: Dr Mumper discussed today some key aspects of chelation therapy….as a medical toxicologist do you see any reason for the chelation to remove mercury from either Jordan King or William Mead in these cases?

A: Absolutely not….there is no test in medicine that is more valid for for assessing mercury toxicity than an unprovoked urine mercury concentration. [For Jordan King and William Mead]…their unprovoked urine concentration is exactly in the normal range.

On the other hand, they have been chelated. And the justification for that chelation with regard to mercury comes from what you see in the right hand column where in both cases, 4 out of 5 provoked examples have been…uh…increase urine mercury. Well, you’re supposed to have increased urine mercury with provoked examples! Therefore there is absolutely no indication based here or anywhere else I saw in the medical records that suggest that there is any mercury effect in these children and therefore that was absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury related reason.

The standard way of chelating autistic kids is to do a provoked challenge test. As Dr Brent says – you’re supposed to have increased levels with provoked examples.

Q: There’s nothing here that would be out of the ordinary – from your experience – absent, even in the absence of a standard reference range.

A: Well, in truth we don’t (?) urine/leads because the ‘gold test’ is blood/lead so I haven’t looked at many urine/leads in children that I have chelated. So I can’t speak to that in my experience. But I have seen a number of patients now come to me because of these ‘doctor’s data’ type of laboratories which are based on urines – chelated urines – and they always have high leads in their chelated urines and I tell them ‘well, lets just do the gold standard test, lets get a blood/lead level and so far, 100% of the time they’ve been normal.

To sum up, the labs that consistently find a need to chelate autistic kids use the wrong sort of tests. When expert Toxicologists such as Brent do the proper ‘gold standard’ testing, the results are normal 100% of the time.

Its as simple as pie. You use the wrong test, you’re going to get the wrong results.

And yet, over on the Age of Autism website, they’re getting very angry about this cancellation. The angry opening paragraph to a recent post highlights the lack of logic in their stance:

So who canned the NIMH chelation study as “too dangerous?” Children are given huge doses of chemotherapy and radiation in a desperate effort to save them from cancer – fully knowing the side effects themselves can be deadly. It’s a fair risk most parents are willing to take to help a sick child.

Chemo is a standard treatment for cancer. It is medically indicated. Chelation is not a standard treatment for autism. It is not medically indicated. The reason it is not medically indicated is because there is no evidence metals are linked with autism.

There is a chain of logic that must be followed. If you want a type of treatment to be assessed for its efficacy, then your first step is surely to establish that there is a medical necessity for that treatment. If there isn’t then what you are doing is inflicting a completely unnecessary procedure on a child. In this case, a procedure that has been known to cause lasting brain injury in animals (rats).

The comments on AoA go from the bizarre:

So, why do I sense Pauly PrOffit’s grubby, greedy little fingers on this? This smells like something that he would do

To the paranoid:

THIS HAS BULLSH*T WRITTEN ALL OVER IT!!!

To the conspiracy-esque:

Notice the studies they WON’T do:
Studies on the effects of chelation.
Studies comparing unvaxed and vaxed children for autism.
Studies to find the misdiagnosed adults with autism to prove there’s been no increase.

When is everyone going to wake up to what’s happening?

NB – a study to find adults in Scotland is being planned if I recall correctly.

No-one considers the most likely reason for this cancellation:

a) There is no evidence metals cause autism
b) There is evidence chelation can cause injury
c) There is therefore what any rational person would see as an unacceptable amount of risk to children.

And of course we have the usual ‘my child recovered’ stories. Why do these stories never seem to get written up as case studies I wonder? We’re told there are thousands of them – where? Where in the medical literature are they? Apparently there are lots of rogue paediatricians who believe the antivaxxers so why aren’t they doing case studies on the multitudes of autistic children who are now totally recovered?

Personally I think that is what has bullshit written all over it.

Chelation study 'called off'

17 Sep

CHICAGO – A government agency has dropped plans to test a controversial treatment for autism that critics had called an unethical experiment on children.

The National Institute of Mental Health said in a statement Wednesday that the study of chelation (kee-LAY’-shun) has been discontinued. The statement says the agency decided the money would be better used testing other potential therapies for autism and related disorders.

The study had been on hold because of safety concerns . A study published last year linked a chemical used in the treatment to lasting brain problems in rats.

The treatment removes heavy metals from the body and is based on the fringe theory that mercury in vaccines triggers autism — a theory never proved and rejected by mainstream science.

Yahoo News

Back in June, I blogged about the possibility of the delayed chelation study being released. It had been delayed due to the same ethical concerns that now seem to have scuppered it. I can only view this development with relief. As I said at the time:

Lets be clear. This study is being touted about for one reason and one reason only – to appease the anti-vaccine/autism groups. In the mainstream medical/scientific community (and notably in the toxicology community) it is well known that autistic kids aren’t toxic.

Click on the link above to see some quoted testimony from Dr Jeffery Brent, world renowned Toxicologist. His opinion on the need for chelation of autisitic children is thoroughly discussed. Basically, when you do the provoked, non-standard tests from labs that make a good living from charging for these tests, they come back positive. When experts like Dr Brent do the gold standard tests, 100% of the time they come back normal.

There is no reason to chelate autistic children.

IACC Strategic Plan: How can I understand what is happening

10 Sep

We have discussed the IACC Strategic Plan before. They are looking for feedback. We’ve looked at the issues of vaccines, and the first section “When should I be concerned” already.

The second major section of the IACC draft Strategic Plan looks at the question of understanding what is autism.

Again, I am only pulling out the “Research Opportunities” and the “Goals” sections to keep this brief. Please, take a look at the entire document if you have the chance.

That said, I will take the first paragraph from the introduction to this section:

One of the greatest barriers to progress in determining the biological bases of ASD has been the heterogeneity of the spectrum. A clear need exists to advance understanding of the many phenotypes of ASD, including studies that link genotype to phenotype, investigations of natural and treated history, analyses of genetic interaction with environmental exposures, and studies of co-occurring medical conditions.

It’s a big (BIG) undertaking. Here is an outline of how they are going about this. Take a look and, please, send them comments. The IACC website has details, but, basically, it boils down to email them (use the link, the subject line is already filled in!).

Research Opportunities

• Multi-disciplinary, longitudinal, biobehavioral studies of children, youths, and adults beginning during infancy that characterize developmental trajectories and identify ASD risk factors, subgroups, and potential biological targets for intervention. Such studies could include:
o High-risk siblings of children, youths, and adults with ASD, children without a family history of ASD, and typically developing children
o Multi-disciplinary assessments of brain imaging, metabolic and immune markers, microbiomics, electrophysiology, and behavior

• Research on females with ASD to better characterize clinical, biological and protective features.

• Human and animal studies that examine immune, infectious and environmental factors in the occurrence of ASD.

• An international public-private collaboration to expand current postmortem brain and other tissue resources (e.g., skin fibroblasts) to increase the acquisition, quality, type and availability of biomaterials relevant to studying the pathology of ASD.

Short-Term Objectives

• Establish an international network of brain and other tissue (e.g., skin fibroblasts) acquisition sites with standardized protocols for phenotyping, collection and distribution of tissue by 2010.

• Support at least four research projects to identify mechanisms of metabolic and/or immune system interactions with the central nervous system that may underlie the development of ASD during prenatal-postnatal life by 2010.

• Launch three studies that specifically focus on the neurodevelopment of females with ASD by 2011.

Long-Term Objectives

• Complete a large-scale, multi-disciplinary, collaborative project that longitudinally and comprehensively examines how the biological, clinical, and developmental profiles of children, youths, and adults with ASD change over time as compared to typically developing individuals by 2020.
_______________________________________

In many ways, I could see this section getting the least attention from people responding. At the same time, it is the cornerstone for future research. Really, if we understand what is autism (in its many forms) won’t we have a better idea of how to treat it and how it originates?

Take a look and, if you have any thoughts, say “this looks good” or “you should include XXX in this section, email them.

Another fax for Ms. Couric

9 Sep

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

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

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

September 8, 2008

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

VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Ms. Couric,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Kirby, he's making a list, he's checking it twice…

29 Jul

As has become apparent in recent weeks, there seems to be a ‘backdoor’ movement underway from the mercury militia.

It all started when Kelli Ann Davis attempted to rewrite US legislative history by stating in a speech to the IACC Working Group that the Combatting Autism Act contained specific phraseology on vaccination. It of course did not. David Kirby repeated this error in a Huffington Post entry. This was, it seems, little more than an attempt to ‘set the scene’ for a coup d’état. The logic seems to be that, since, during the CAA process, vaccines were touted as causes, even though the CAA decided to reject them as being too specific and settled for ‘environmental’, Kelli Ann and David felt that this was sufficient cause for stating the CAA included vaccine language. This seems to me to be akin to saying that, as society once believed the world was flat, it still is.

Anyway, this statement seems to have cut little ice with the IACC and so, the mercury militia unveiled Plan B – getting Brad Miller House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight to write a letter to Secretary Leavitt (HHS) to strongly recommend the formation of an advisory ‘board’ that they (in the guise of SafeMinds and Generation rescue) would police and use to control access from the public to the IACC and vice versa.

Personally, the idea fills me with complete horror. I’ve already discussed why but just to recap, the idea of Generation Rescue and SafeMinds being even slightly even-handed or representative of autism parents is like a bad joke. I provided email addresses and names for people to express their displeasure also (and I hope many of you did. If you didn’t, I urge you to right now. Both US and non-US people).

Anyway, the latest chapter in this battle for the scientific soul of the IACC is now underway as we speak. I have it on good authority that David Kirby is in the process of contacting as many members from an IACC strategic planning workgroup as he can to ascertain which way their opinion swung. He is specifically interested in the question of whether anyone among the 20 or so workgroup members other than Mark Blaxill and Peter Bell recommended the IACC include in the strategic plan a separate initiative on vaccines. If you listened to the webinar, you know firsthand that no vote was taken. In fact, since the workgroup’s expressed purpose is just to provide feedback and it has no authority over the IACC, no votes whatsoever were taken. But David is going ahead and asking people anyway. To what end I wonder? I think there are a few possible reasons.

The email David sent around asked people their position on vaccines in the Strategic Plan and to explain how they got on the workgroup (the answer, which anyone at NIMH could tell him, is that each IACC member was allowed to nominate one person) I would hazard a guess that this number would be very low indeed. However, what he could also be doing is seeing how many people don’t seem to care either way. The IACC is made up of some scientists who are, shall we say, ambivalent about all things except their own institute or federal agency. By not really caring either way, they stand a good chance of letting this thing happen via the backdoor. David will of course (being the excellent author he is) know exactly how to phrase this to make it sound irresistible.

And then of course there is the third and more Machiavellian option. That a ‘hit list’ is being compiled to intimidate the members. We have seen time and time again on the Age of Autism blog how its authors post the names and contact numbers/addresses of those it doesn’t like or who feel have wronged it. Would David be so nasty as to post the names of people who may inform him they intend to voice their opposition? I hope not. I would like to think better of him than that.

David Kirby vs Accuracy

20 Jul

As I’ve said before, I like David Kirby personally. We exchange friendly emails. We even recently discussed the idea of having a private blog – readable by all but one that allowed only two posters (David and I) and no commenters. This would, I suggested, give us the opportunity to have a civil debate.

Unfortunately, David was too busy, which was a shame. However, the offers always open should he find a bit more time.

He did have time yesterday to blog a piece for the Huffington Post in which he discussed Amanda Peet and said she was ‘against the medical establishment’ for taking the stance she did. He cited a few things to support his point. I’d like to discuss these things but before I do I’d like you Dear Reader to take note: someone who was at the IACC meeting David talks about (he wasn’t there) will hopefully be posting their account of proceedings on LB/RB.

Anyway. Lets proceed. David’s first piece of rhetoric to support the idea Amanda Peet was against the medical establishment was:

A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says that some members want “specific objectives on vaccine research” included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

I’m sure that some members do want this. Lynn Redwood and Mark Baxhill to be precise. As the upcoming IACC account will show, I don’t think any other IACC workgroup members were interested. (Please see this correction of an ignorant Limey’s take on the US system.)

I would also like to correct David on his characterisation of the Combating Autism Act. The Act contains no mention of vaccines. It specifies environmental research but the words ‘vaccine’, ‘vaccination’ ‘immunize’, ‘immunization’, ‘mmr’ or ‘thimerosal’ appear nowhere in the CAA. I hope David will correct his HuffPo piece accordingly.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal researchers to consider “shortfalls” in epidemiological studies cited as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al); as well as a specific plan “for researching vaccines as a potential cause of autism.” The workgroup also says that the final research agenda should “state that the issue is open.”

Once again, David’s notes are coming from two people, Lynn Redwood and Mark Blaxill and indeed – they asked for all these things. The account of the meeting I have heard (from someone who was there) differed somewhat. As a flavour of how much the majority of the working group listened to Redwood and Blaxill, I enclose a teaser quote from chairperson Tom Insel:

“Lyn, your community is not the whole community and there are many people with well thought out concerns about ethics of the concept of prevention and if we want to be inclusive we will not do this.”

Back to David:

July 14, 2008 – Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that current federal autism research “shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies,” even though there is, “growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role” in autism.

I blogged that episode here. Suffice it to say that a _politician_ is not representative of the medical establishment. I would urge everyone reading this to read that piece as it suggests amongst other things that Generation Rescue and SafeMinds be responsible for a Board that would serve as a liaison between the IACC and parents of autistic people and autistic people themselves!. After reading that I would urge everyone to contact the following people to express your thoughts (politely!) to the decision makers:

HHS Sec Mike Leavitt (mike.leavittAThhs.gov)
NIMH director/IACC director Tom Insel (tinselATmail.nih.gov)
Everyone here: http://science.house.gov/about/members.htm

Once again, back to David:

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report tells CBS News that, “Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” and says they “don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”

I still can’t get over the fact that David is using this person to back up his points! He continues to trumpet the opinion of Bernadine Healy who actually did assert that cigarettes do not cause cancer and worked closely with Philip Morris to do so. She also totally reneged on her stance on fetal tissue research when she found herself in the same camp as President Bush. In AoA language she’s a shill.

David then goes on to cite al three Presidential Candidates – as if a politicians opinion in an election year means anything! I definitely fail to see what any of them have to do with being part of the medical establishment.

Onwards:

March 29, 2008 – Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: “If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

Er, so? I’m really not sure how this is a ‘point’ for David (or anyone else who thinks its supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism). If she’d said ‘yes, vaccines caused autism in Hannah Poling’s case’ (which no-one ever has by the way, despite statements to the contrary) than _that_ would be a bombshell. As it was Dr. Gerberding was simply speaking what is obvious.

David again:

The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24 months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Now, I can’t answer this as much as I’d like to. I have spoken to people involved in the preparation and writing of this report (as has David) and I was given two take home points from our email chat:

1) The science is _not yet complete_ . The paper is not published.
2) The authors feel ‘disappointed’ in the slant David has put on their work and are loth to discuss it with anyone else due to that. I was told that David might be rather surprised when everything comes out later in the year.

David once more:

Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a “test case” of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical decision. HHS doctors admit that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves,”

First of all, I beg to differ with David. The concession was a legal one. By definition the phrase “autistic encephalopathy” does not exist in mainstream science so if it was used (a fact which has yet to be determined – I invite David once more to link through to the document where this is stated). A simple test of its non-existence is to search for the phrase on PubMed. I got:

Quoted phrase not found.

So we have a multitude of uncertainties here:

1) Nowhere (except in David’s writings) can we find evidence of HHS apparently saying “autistic encephalopathy” caused Hannah Poling’s autism.

2) The phrase itself (“autistic encephalopathy”) does not appear in the entire PubMed database, thus causing me to doubt its use by the medical establishment.

3) Is the concession legal or medical? If a diagnosis does not exist but is used in a legal document then by definition it must be legal – thats my opinion anyway.

David also mentions a HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group meeting but I know next to nothing about that so can’t comment.

I have to say that based on the above, David seems to be attempting nothing more than an intellectual ‘land grab’ i.e. to attempt to paint those who claim vaccines cause autism as part of the medical establishment and those who stand against them as not. Its a good political idea but I don’t think its going to work. There are just too many holes in this particular boat for it to float for long.

The Bernadine Healy Card

31 May

Last month, ex NIH leader, Bernadine Healy came out of her semi-retirement to weigh in on the autism/vaccine hypothesis:

….the rise of this disorder, which shows up before age 3, happens to coincide with the increased number and type of vaccine shots in the first few years of life. So as a trigger, vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility.

It was a credulous article designed, I suspect, to have a bit of a snipe at HHS – currently embroiled in the Autism Omnibus. Why do I say that?

Well, being a UK citizen I’d never heard of Bernadine Healy so I did a bit of looking around to see if I could adequately explain to myself why such a luminary would say such plainly silly and unscientific things.

It seems that:

on 10 Feb [1993], Healy, who is known for her bluntness, went to her new boss, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Donna Shalala and asked about her future. Shalala apparently matched Healy for bluntness. “She let me know it wouldn’t work out in the long term.” Said Healy.

So possibly there is some lingering resentment towards HHS. Who knows. It seems doubtful that this would entirely (if at all) explain Healy’s decision to parrot pseudo-science but – people do silly things sometimes.

What I found fascinating was that this is not the first time Healy has taken an active role in direct opposition to science and the scientific process:

…..patients are forced into a one-size-fits-all straitjacket…..EBM [evidence based medicine] carries its own ideological and political agenda separate from its clinical purpose.

Dr. Bernadine Healy, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and former director of the National Institutes of Health, falsely claimed that “several” neurologists who “evaluated” Terri Schiavo determined that she had “a functional mind” and was “minimally conscious.”

Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institute of Health said, “Blenderizing these diverse trials into one giant 232,606-patient-strong study to come up with a seductively simple proclamation is just silly….”

That latter was Healy’s attack on a study that highlighted the dangers of vitamins.

So we can see that Healy has a history that is peppered with leanings toward a credulous approach.

It also seems that she is first and foremost a politician, willing to sacrifice her scientific credibility to support her party (she is a Republican):

Healy was appointed director of the National Institutes of Health in 1991….when Healy assumed control, the agency was beset with problems…..[s]cientists were leaving in record numbers because of…..politicization of scientific agendas (a prime example was the ban on fetal-tissue research because the Republican administration believed it encouraged abortion)

Healy had, at that time expressed support for fetal-tissue research:

….she had been a member of a panel that advised continuation of fetal-tissue research, her appointment was also seen as a move away from politicized science.

So, it must’ve come as something of a shock to NIH scientists when:

….she lobbied against overturning the Bush Administration’s ban on fetal tissue research, despite her previous support for such research.

She also had to defend herself against charges of mishandling a scientific misconduct case:

Healy demanded that OSI (like internal affairs for the NIH) rewrite a draft report that found misconduct on the part of Popovic. The OSI report also severely criticized Gallo.

“When her order for a rewrite was refused, Dr. Healy replaced the chief investigator [Suzanne Hadley] with one more malleable,” the subcommittee report said. The resulting OSI report was “watered down,” the subcommittee document said.

……….

In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences’ panel completed its investigation and produced a report critical of Gallo.

Healy chose to ignore the findings of the NAS panel and commissioned her own ad hoc committee of top NIH scientists, whom she called her “wise men,” the report said. Healy required the members to sign a secrecy agreement.

(Full story also here).

Maybe the biggest question mark against Healy’s scientific credibility and ability to be impartial as this. She was a member of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition:

The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group which promotes the idea that environmental science on issues including smoking, pesticides and global warming is “junk science”, which should be replaced by “sound science”.

Notably, TASSC promote the interests of tobacco companies:

Initially, the primary focus of TASSC was an attempt to discredit research on Environmental Tobacco Smoke [passive smoking] as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community — especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents. It subsequently advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr George Carlo. TASSC used the label of ‘junk science’ to criticise work that was unfavorable to the interests of its backers.

TASSC’s funders included:

3M
Amoco
Chevron
Dow Chemical
Exxon
General Motors
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lorillard Tobacco
Louisiana Chemical Association
National Pest Control Association
Occidental Petroleum
Philip Morris
Procter & Gamble
Santa Fe Pacific Gold
W.R. Grace

More can be found here.

So, all in all, I am disposed to not trust the words, or ‘beliefs’ of Bernadine Healy very much. Anyone who campaigns against the dangers of passive smoking to children or who is prepared to block science they allegedly once supported when it is politically expedient doesn’t seem that good a judge of what constitutes good science.

Newer Entries →