Archive | Orgs RSS feed for this section

The National Autism Association tries and fails to defend Andrew Wakefield’s fraud

6 Jan

Of the groups pushing the vaccines-caused-an-epidemic-of-autism idea, the National Autism Association stands out. In a good way. They are the one group that actually has a non-vaccine segment to their agenda. They presented recently at the IACC on issues of safety. Unfortunately, they are stuck in the vaccine-causation debates of 10 years ago. Case in point: coincident with the lifting of the embargo on the BMJ’s pieces on Andrew Wakefield (e.g. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed) the NAA put out a statement defending Mr. Wakefield. (National Autism Association Says BMJ Article is Yet Another Attempt to Thwart Vaccine Safety Research)

As a part of this defense, they claim that Mr. Wakefield’s research has been replicated. The claim has been made before and upon scrutiny shown to be false. They use 5 references:

(1) Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms, Arthur Krigsman, MD, et al, New York University School of Medicine, Autism Insights, 27 Jan 2010

(2) Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms. Gonzalez L, et al. ArchVenez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

(3) Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsulenteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome? Balzola F, et al. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005. 100(4):979-981.

(4) Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis. Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W.. Digestion. 2010;81:127-9. Epub 2010 Jan 9].

(5) Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report, Timothy Buie, MD, et al, Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School Pediatrics, Vol. 125 Supplement January 2010

Taking a lead from Catherina at JustTheVax, who showed last year that the “replication” of Mr. Wakefield’s results was not independent nor a replication, I will take a look at the 4 papers which are purported to “confirm” and association between autism and bowel disease.

1) A paper by Arthur Krigsman in Autism Insights. Arthur Krigsman was one of Andrew Wakefield’s partners at Thoughtful House when he wrote this. Both have since left. Autism Insights is an online journal whose editors include Dr. Krigsman himself. At the time Dr. Krigsman’s paper was published, the editorial board also included Andrew Wakefield. (strangely, Mr. Wakefield is no longer listed on the editorial board). Hardly independent. Right now, Autism Insights has 18 editors. They also have 8 published papers. Yes, they have twice the number of editors as papers. One has to question if this is a real journal. The Krigsman paper was timed to come out to support Andrew Wakefield at a time when his press was quite poor. Not a replication.

2) Gonzalez, et al.. From JustTheVax:

Gonzales et al, number 2, has been published in “Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr” which stands for Archivos Venezolanos de Puericultura y Pediatría. It was a bit tricky to get my hands on the paper, especially since the citation was not quite right, but I did manage and was not surprised to find that indeed the authors cannot replicate Wakefield’s 1998 “findings” of a distinct autistic enterocolitis, although they do report a higher incidence of gastrointestinal problems in their autistic group.

3) Balzola, et al.. Again, from Catherina:

Balzola et al, number 3, is a case report of one adult autistic patient with inflammed bowel.

4) Chen, et al.. Here’s the abstract, which spells out a rare association in 2 children, with possible mechanisms that may connect the two.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The significance of the association between many gastrointestinal pathologies and autism is yet to be discovered. The aim of this report is to highlight an association between autism and microscopic eosinophilic colitis in 2 children. The possible mechanisms that may connect these two conditions are discussed.

METHODS AND RESULTS: A rare association between autism and microscopic eosinophilic colitis in 2 children is reported through retrospective chart review. Common causes of secondary eosinophilic colitis were excluded.

CONCLUSION: This report suggests the possibility of either impaired intestinal barrier function or an aberrant immune system that predisposes autistic children to sensitization to environmental antigens. Large controlled studies are needed to examine this hypothesis.

5) Bui, et al.. Here is the paragraph in that paper discussing Mr. Wakefield’s work:

In 1998, Wakefield et al. reported an association between ileocolitis and developmental regression in 12 children and coined the term “autistic enterocolitis.” From the same uncontrolled study they reported NLH of the ileum and colon as an abnormal finding in most children with ASDs. However, similar findings are known to be present in children with typical development, as well as children with food allergies and immunodeficiencies. The significance of these findings, therefore, is unclear. Wakefield et al. also proposed a causal relation between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism, a suggestion that was later retracted by many of the original authors.

None of these papers is a replication of Mr. Wakefield’s work. And this is the best that the NAA can do to support Mr. Wakefield’s work, given 12 years of research since his paper in the Lancet. It also avoids the very clear problem with trying to “replicate” or “confirm” work that was fraudulent to begin with.

What is even more strange is that the NAA goes on in their piece to discuss the hypothesized link between autism and vaccines. Strange because Mr. Wakefield has been strenuously distancing himself from the impression that his paper “proved” a link between autism and vaccines.

Mr. Wakefield’s work was fraudulent. The BMJ says so in clearly and conclusively. It is time for some autism parent organizations to distance themselves from this man and his work. They are doing themselves and the autism communities as a whole any good by further association with him.

Current Trends In Autism Conference – April 29-30, 2011

6 Jan

I’ve written before here at LeftBrainRightBrain about the upcoming Current Trends in Autism Conference. At the time I first heard about it, I was hopefully optimistic that a good conference might be in the works. Autism parents are in great need of a real science based conference. The conference is being organized by the Lurie Family Autism Center LADDERS (“Learning and Developmental Disabilities Evaluation & Rehabilitation Services”).

The speaker list is now available, and I copy it below (go to their site if you want live links for each speaker):

Current List of Speakers
Margaret L. Bauman, MD
Director, TARF and LFAC/LADDERS/MGH; Associate Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School

Timothy Buie, MD
Pediatric Gastroenterologist, LFAC/LADDERS/MGH

Katarzyna Chawarska, PhD
Director, Toddler Developmental Disabilities Clinic, Yale School of Medicine

Ann Densmore, EdD CCC SLP/A
Founder, Child Talk; Author

Marie Duggan
Founder/President, Technology For Autism Now; AAC/AT Consultant, Boston Higashi School for Autism

Peter Gerhardt, EdD
Founding Chair, Scientific Council, OAR; Director of Education, Upper School, The McCarton School

Charles Henry, MD
Child Psychiatrist, LFAC/LADDERS/MGH

Dorothea Iannuzzi, LICSW, BCBA
Individual and Family Clinician, Milestones, Inc.

Michael A. Mancusi, LICSW, BCD
Vice President, Health Center Operations, East Boston Neighborhood Health Center

Marvin Natowicz, MD, PhD
The Cleveland Clinic, Autism and Metabolic Disorders

Jerry Newport
Autism Activist; International Speaker; Subject of the Feature Film Mozart and the Whale; Author

Carlos Pardo, MD
Associate Professor of Neurology and Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital Department of Neurology

Mary Elizabeth Parker, PT, MSPT, PCS, NCS
Department of Physical Therapy, Texas State University, San Marcos

Stephen Shore, PhD
Assistant Professor of Education, Adelphi University; ASA Board of Directors; Author

Timothy Yu, MD
Department of Neurology, LFAC/LADDERS/MGH

Sheldon Wagner, PhD
Director, Behavioral Development and Educational Services, Inc.

Michael Weiss, PhD
Director of Applied Developmental Analysis (ADA) Therapy, LLC; Adjunct Faculty, Psychology, Fairfield University

Rosemary White, OTR/L
Director, Pediatric Physical & Occupational Therapy Services and Pacific Northwest Pediatric

Andy Zimmerman, MD
Pediatric Neurologist, LFAC/LADDERS/MGH

Additional speakers to be announced!

So far, one autistic adult is on the program, Jerry Newport. More autistic adults will be included as well.

2011 – The Last Year For ARI’s DAN! Doctors

2 Jan

As late as just a few months ago, The Autism Research Institute (ARI), promoted their upcoming Fall 2010 Defeat Autism Now! conference in a monthly newsletter. Note the name of the conference:

“Fall 2010 ARI/Defeat Autism Now! Conference”
http://www.ariconference.com/enews/enewsletter_201010.html

Now look at ARI’s promotion of their Spring 2011 conference.

“Spring 2011 ARI Conference
(formerly known as Defeat Autism Now!)”
http://www.ariconference.com/enews/enewsletter_201011.html

Do you see the difference? It’s pretty hard to miss. What about all those practitioners (physicians, nurses, chiropractors, nutritionists, naturopaths, and homeopaths, etc.) who want to participate in the “DAN! Physician Training”, you know, become “DAN! Practitioners”? How does one become a DAN! doctor, if Defeat Autism Now! is a former identity?

A quick look at the ARI Conference website answers that right away.

The Autism Research Institute Conference Formerly known as Defeat Autism Now!

The practitioner seminars are still part of the conference. But there’s something potentially newsworthy here too.

As of 12/31/11, ARI will no longer be maintaining a clinician registry (a.k.a “the DAN list”). No new names will be added to the registry in 2011.

Source

You read that correctly – no new names in 2011, and at the end of this year, it’s over. No more list of DAN! Doctors.

According to ARI’s website, one is best served in finding a “talented clinician” by way a support group – local, or you know, out there on the interwebs.

As recently as 10 years ago it was nearly impossible for parents to find clinicians who approached treating patients with autism from a medical point of view, so ARI started keeping a clinician registry (the “DAN list”). We tried a number of measures to ensure that every clinician on our list provided high-quality care, but we are a small non-profit with limited resources. We have determined that those seeking a talented clinician are best served by connecting with support groups—either locally or online—instead of choosing from a list that cannot be vetted.

Source

I’m not sure what they mean by having tried “a number of measures to ensure that every clinician on our list provided high-quality care”. I understand that there were special “clinician training” sessions at DAN! conferences in the past, but as far as I understood it in the past, becoming a listed DAN! practitioner might have required little more than attend a conference, sign a statement pledging to “conduct their practice in accordance with DAN! philosophy”, and ask to be listed. Although I could be wrong, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there were in fact any significant measures taken by ARI to ensure the provision of high quality care by clinicians on its list. I seem to recall that Roy Kerry was added to ARI’s list of DAN! practitioners in 2006 after the death of Tariq Nadma in 2005.

ARI’s notes and disclaimers for the remaining year of life for the list of DAN! doctors seem pretty careful:

If someone claims to be “DAN-certified,” they’re overstating; neither ARI nor Defeat Autism Now! has ever had a certification program.

The following are practitioners who have asked to be listed as providing Defeat Autism Now!®- based interventions for patients with autism. Most are physicians, others are licensed health-care professionals in related fields.

ARI has no means of certifying the competence nor quality of practice of any practitioner. The lists are provided as a community service. The Autism Research Institute disclaims and does not endorse or support any individual or entity listed; makes no representations, warranties, guarantees or promises on behalf of or for those listed, and assumes no liability nor responsibility for any service or product provided. ARI does not ‘certify’ practitioners or guarantee competence, skill, knowledge, or experience.

Source

So is that it? Is this really the end of DAN! doctors in less than a year? Isn’t there a D-List celebrity with apparent anti-vaccine leanings , who can save (or may have already saved) the day for all the poor physicians, nurses, chiropractors, nutritionists, naturopaths, and homeopaths who need be available to all those parents who are desperate to recover an “epidemic” of kids from autism, mercury poisoning, or “vaccine-induced” whatever?

Aha! Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue! Where, from the home page, a parent can click on “Find A Doctor” and learn about the NGMD’s.

JMGR

What’s an NGMD according to Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue?

Answer: According to Jenny McCarthy’s Generation Rescue website, an NGMD is a “New Generation Medical Doctor”, and “These clinicians share Generation Rescue’s ideologies, practices, and philosophies of treating the underlying medical issues of individuals with autism.”

Source

I think this is potentially an interesting development, because in the past, a parent brand-new to an autism diagnosis might have assumed scientific credibility from a movement’s (Defeat Autism Now!) list of practitioners associated with a name like “Autism Research Institute”. If nothing, ARI is a scientific sounding name. I don’t think that’s as likely to be the case for the “NGMD’s”, who could be seen by many as simply associated with a fringe anti-vaccine group promoted by Jenny McCarthy.

What do you think?

Professor Simon Baron Cohen endorses Neurodiversity

16 Dec

Neurodiversity, that much misunderstood, much maligned concept has been dragged through the mud for years by people determined to misunderstand it and misrepresent it. We all know who these people are.

However, it also has its supporters and people determined to understand it on either a social or personal level. One such person is Professor Simon Baron-Cohen.

In an interview with the Encyclopaedia Britannica blog Professor Baron-Cohen was asked:

Individuals with Asperger syndrome often use the term “neurotypical” to describe normal people, and in an effort to lessen the stigmatization associated with autism as a medical condition, the Asperger community has initiated the so-called neurodiversity movement. Can you briefly describe the neurodiversity movement and its implications on the diagnosis of autism spectrum conditions?

To which he replied:

The neurodiversity movement has been a very positive influence in reminding us that there is no single pathway in neurological development, but there are many ways to reach similar end-points.

…

Stigmatizing anyone, whether they have autism or any other characteristic, is wrong, since the point about these labels is not to pick out the person in order to make their lives worse, but to help others understand their special needs and qualities.

How nice to see a researcher who _gets_ it.

Book Sales: The Age of Autism and Callous Disregard

15 Dec

I tapped my source one last time for book sales figures for “The Age of Autism” and “Callous Disregard”. The Age of Autism was written by Mark Blaxill (board member of SafeMinds and one of the three principle editors of the blog, Age of Autism) and Dan Olmsted (former UPI editor, principle editor and, from what I can tell, owner of the Age of Autism blog). Callous Disregard is Andrew Wakefield’s account of the events which landed him before the General Medical Council and resulted in him being removed from the UK medical register.

Total book sales to date:

Age of Autism: 2301
Callous Disregard: 2925

Last week five copies of Callous Disregard were sold.

Last week The Age of Autism sold 130 copies–38 in Minneapolis St. Paul and 35 in Norfolk, Virginia. This appears to coincide with book signing events in those locations. The week before that, The Age of Autism sold 57 copies.

These figures must be disappointing. If not to the authors, to the publishers.

I may post an update with this week’s book sales. Either way, there isn’t much reason to continue the discussion of these books. When they are available in the remainder book outlets (with this few sales, there won’t be a lot of used copies and little chance for paperback editions) I will likely obtain copies of each. I’ve already read them, but they are interesting from a historical perspective. It will be a good exercise to see how these books read ten years from now. If history is kind to these authors, it will be by neglecting them.

Thank you, SafeMinds, for pulling the attack on Skepchick

10 Dec

First some background. Recently, a blogger (at Skepchick.org) started a campaign to inform movie theaters about the advertisements that SafeMinds was placing on their screens. The theaters decided to pull the advertisements. In response, SafeMinds, through their media outlet Age Of Autism and the AoA facebook page, launched a petty attack on Skepchick. The attack went beyond typical cyber bullying, with at least one comment that went beyond the pale. After many hours and much pressure, SafeMinds and Age of Autism edited many of the comments. They have now pulled the discussion entirely from their facebook page. An apology would certainly be in order, and I would appreciate it that if anyone knows of such an apology that they let us know here.

Even in absence of an apology, I would like to thank SafeMinds and Age of Autism for pulling the discussion. It only served to embarrass the autism communities.

Unfortunately, there is more fallout from the harsh response that SafeMinds and Age of Autism brought in response to the theaters’ decision to pull the advertisements. Liz Ditz at I Speak of Dreams reports that the theaters are now refusing actual public service announcements involving flu vaccines.

Autism Science Foundation’s Recipe4Hope campaign

9 Dec

The Autism Science Foundation is a charity which focuses on funding autism research. They have a very clear mission statement:

The Autism Science Foundation’s mission is to support autism research by providing funding and other assistance to scientists and organizations conducting, facilitating, publicizing, and disseminating autism research. The foundation also provides information about autism to the general public and serves to increase awareness of autism spectrum disorders and the needs of individuals and families affected by autism. Read about our achievements in 2010 on our Ingredients page.

Our organization adheres to rigorous scientific standards and values. We believe that outstanding research is the greatest gift we can offer our families. Every research dollar needs to count toward that goal, and we make sure that it does.

The Autism Science Foundation is a nonprofit corporation organized for charitable and educational purposes and exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. All donations are tax deductable to the full extent allowed by law.

Learn more about our foundation at http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org.

One focus of the ASF has been to fund graduate level researchers. I find this an especially good goal in that in addition to promoting research, this brings more people into the autism research community.

The Recipe4Hope campaign will raise money for autism research. According to the ASF: “Every dollar donated by December 31 through this special year-end campaign will go directly to autism research.”

</object

The 2011 Current Trends in Autism Conference

8 Dec

I just got my second announcement for this conference in my email. The 2011 Current Trends in Autism Conference will be held in April of 2011. The conference is being organized by LADDERS. LADDERS is an effort by the Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation. So far there aren’t many details on the conference, but given the scope of the Foundation and of Ladders, I have hope that this will be a good, quality conference.

The Nancy Lurie Marks Foundation established an effort at Massachusetts General Hospital to focus on the needs of autistic adults, with a $29M grant.

Here is the announcement:

The 2011 Current Trends in Autism Conference will take place April 29-30, 2011, at Crowne Plaza Boston – Natick Hotel.

We will present the most up to date, scientifically sound information in the field of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders to parents and professionals concerned about children, adolescences and adults whose diagnosis falls along the Autism Spectrum.

Neurobiological and clinical research, as well as strategies for interventions have advanced dramatically over the past several years and our distinguished faculty will report on what is now known, how what we know can be applied to the education and care of those with Autism, and what direction future research needs to take in order to advance our knowledge and understanding of this disorder.

All proceeds from the conference are used to finance new and ongoing neurobiologic research and to support ongoing evaluation and treatment services and the development of new interventional programs.

More details to come.

SafeMinds retaliates against skeptic blogger

7 Dec

SafeMinds is an organization with the stated purpose to “…to restore health and protect future generations by eradicating the devastation of autism and associated health disorders induced by mercury and other man made toxicants. ” SafeMinds has stayed with this purpose even as the years have gone by and the evidence has mounted that the SafeMinds hypothesis was incorrect (autism is not a form of mercury poisoning). Recently, SafeMinds produced an advertisement, framed as a public service announcement, focusing on mercury in the flu vaccine and tried to get these shown in movie theaters. As we discussed here recently, Elyse over at Skepchick started an effort to inform the movie theaters about SafeMinds. Her effort snowballed into a large petition and resulted in the movie theaters deciding to not show the SafeMinds advertisement.

Recently, SafeMinds has chosen to leave the discussion of ideas and take on Elyse in a personal attack, through their media effort at the Age of Autism. SafeMinds is not only a key sponsor of Age of Autism, but Mark Blaxill (SafeMinds board member) is one of the three principle editors of the Age of Autism blog.

Again, rather than discuss the issues, they pulled Elyse’s facebook photo


and posted this message

This is the woman who fought to pull the SafeMinds PSA’s from the theatres. It’s her FB profile page photo. She is anti-choice and wants to tell you that mercury is safe and that Thimeosal is good – according to her blog. She trolls AofA regularly. As do all the pro-vaccine-injury bloggers.

It was a call to mock and insult Elyse. A perfect example of cyber bullying. Amongst the comments to that FaceBook page was one extreme enough that one of the Age of Autism editors noted it and promised to remove it. “While I agree that the broken thermometer comment was out of order (the blog does not condone violent speech, so that comments is going.”

It took a while for them to make good on the promise. As in many hours later, after Elyse reported the abuse to the police. That comment does appear to be gone now. Many other abusive comments (but not all) also appear to be removed.

Rather than apologize for inciting the bullying effort, SafeMinds/AgeofAutism are defending themselves by claiming that Elyse was standing in the way of choice.

Stopping Americans unable to understand? What is she St. Skepchick? She interefered with medical choice and commerce. That’s her right to make the attempt. We dis not use her name. We pulled her public photo that she used here on FB. We ran it on FB, not the main site – our readers deserved to know who was behind (at the outer level anyway) the AMC campaign to stop the ads. We provide news. This was news.

No. It wasn’t news. And, no, Elyse was not interfering with medical choice or commerce. She was quite simply providing the theaters with information–allowing them to make informed consent about the SafeMinds advertisement.

The idea of SafeMinds being pro-choice on vaccines is rather ironic. Again a story from their outlet blog, the Age of Autism makes this clear. Two years ago, a theater in New Mexico was going to show the movie “Horton Hears a Who” combined with a free vaccination clinic. At that time, they had a connection to Horton star, Jim Carrey. Instead of allowing choice, providing information, they got Jim Carrey to force the cancellation of the event:

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 because he heard “we are here, we are here, we are here!” once again.

The bullying attack on Elyse wasn’t about choice, it was just a childish attempt at some sort of petty vengeance. Unfortunately it got out of control. I thank SafeMinds and the Age of Autism for editing the comments, but even what is left is unacceptable. It’s time for apologies, not excuses.

Don’t Take the Risk: Get the Facts on SafeMinds

1 Dec

No matter what your position is on SafeMinds, I bet you found that title somewhat overly sensational. You may have thought that there was a not-so-hidden message in it. I’d love to know what your initial reaction was. Think it over before going on.

Here is one of the banner icons from the SafeMinds website. “Don’t Take The Risk” (big letters) above “Get the Facts on the Flu Vaccine” (smaller letters, below). What message does this send?

So, once again I’ll ask you to think about your initial reaction to the title of this blog post. If you found it sensational, if you found it leading, what do you think about the SafeMinds banner?

That banner is from the site you go to if you follow their advice to get more information at “safemindsflu.org”. You may recall that SafeMinds was collecting donations to fund the placement of their advertisement about flu vaccines, an ad that asked you to go to safemindsflu.org. As it turns out that fundraising effort was at least partially for naught. You can read about it in Orac’s Something to be thankful for: No anti-vaccine propaganda with my Harry Potter, or at skepchick’s Let’s all go to the movies and save ourselves some lives.

As you might guess from Autism News Beat’s, AMC says no to shouting fire in a crowded theater, AMC movie theaters decided that they would pass on the opportunity to show the SafeMinds advertisements.

Why? Well, according to a comment left on the AMC community discussion forum by an AMC employee:

Ryan Noonan, Official Rep, replied 12 hours ago
Thank you for your feedback.

I understand there’s a lot of passion on both sides of this issue, however, as an entertainment company, AMC feels our movie screens are not the proper forum for this debate.

Quite right: public service announcements aren’t for the promotion of a debate. As if to prove AMC’s decision correct, the forum then devolved into the usual debate on mercury in vaccines, with much of the usual misinformation and, as Mr. Noonan notes, name-calling:

Thank you all for taking the time to post. As I have addressed, AMC Theatres have not and will not be airing any spot about this topic. While we appreciate the feedback received, we consider this matter closed.

Per Get Satisfaction’s community guidelines, discussion about topics unrelated to AMC Theatres, as well as name calling are against Get Satisfaction’s community guidelines. Despite numerous requests to refrain from debating issues not related to AMC Theatres, there continues to be discussion and debate about vaccination. Because this is not the proper forum for this debate, I am deleting this thread, as well as any subsequent discussion about this topic in this community.

The advertisement was to put both SafeMinds and their position in the public eye. Those who wanted to could then read more on the SafeMindsFlu.org website. Here is an example of what you will find there. Under the heading “If You Are Pregnant or Have Small Children . . .”

Look at the evidence and decide if you consider the influenza virus a true threat to your family. Also consider the evidence regarding, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in actually preventing influenza.

If you do decide to vaccinate, insist on mercury–free influenza vaccines for yourself and your children.

Do not combine the flu vaccine with other vaccines.

Do not let yourself be pressured into receiving a vaccine that you don’t want; insist that your doctor or pharmacist find you a mercury-free vaccine

Let’s look at those points.

1) “Look at the evidence and decide if you consider the influenza virus a true threat to your family.” Well, unless you are immune to influenza, then, yes, it is a threat to your family. The question is how much of a threat, not whether it is a threat. The second part is valid, consider the effectiveness of the vaccine. I would add, consider that any medical procedure, including vaccines, carries some risk.

2) “If you do decide to vaccinate, insist on mercury–free influenza vaccines for yourself and your children.” Sounds like they’ve made up your mind for you on the mercury discussion.

3) “Do not combine the flu vaccine with other vaccines.” Why would that be? Especially, why would that be from the position of mercury exposure? If, as SafeMinds claims, this discussion is about reducing the exposure to mercury, why avoid, say, a mercury free flu shot in combination with a mercury free measles/mumps/rubella shot?

4) “Do not let yourself be pressured into receiving a vaccine that you don’t want; insist that your doctor or pharmacist find you a mercury-free vaccine “. But do let yourself get pressured by SafeMinds, as they have already made up your mind that you must have mercury-free vaccines.

SafeMinds goes on:

All vaccines pose some risk, with or without mercury content. However, the influenza vaccine is of great concern, as many brands contain high levels of mercury. SafeMinds recommends that consumers read package inserts for any vaccine prior to immunization.

No idea given as to what constitutes a “high level” of mercury. Given that SafeMinds bills themselves as an autism organization, one would assume that flu vaccines have a low level of mercury. Why? Because the level of mercury in a flu vaccine doesn’t cause autism. (It is worth noting that no level of mercury exposure has been shown to cause autism).

There are valid questions that should be raised about any medical procedure, vaccines included. One reason why SafeMinds gathers so much criticism is that they do not act as a vaccine safety organization. Instead, they are an organization which uses vaccine safety information and questions.

SafeMinds cites studies in Pediatrics, some authored by employees of the CDC or vaccine manufacturors to support some of their claims that the influenza vaccine may not be effective in pregnant women and their infants. Those familiar with SafeMinds will find this ironic as any of those affiliations appear to be a basis to immediately disregard any paper that goes against the SafeMinds positions.

Another example of the methods used by SafeMinds which are deservedly criticized is their approach to the issue of the flu-mist vaccine. They give citations which conclude that the flumist vaccine (which is thimerosal free) is more effective than the injected vaccine. However, SafeMinds stops short of a clear statement such as, “Ask for the nasal spray version of the vaccine”. Why? They have no problem making a clear decision for their readers in regards to avoiding mercury. Why not recommend a vaccine that they claim is safer and more effective? Why not recommend a vaccine? Many critical readers would question whether SafeMinds is, as they would like to say, an organization promoting safer vaccines or if they are, instead, an organization which can not bring itself to recommend a vaccine because they will not support a vaccination.

Can you “get the facts” from SafeMinds? Well, you won’t get all the facts in any place as there is so much material. But, one paper I couldn’t find on the SafeMinds website was this very recent one:

Eick, A., et al, Maternal influenza vaccination and effect on influenza virus infection in young infants.

Here’s the abstract:

Objective To assess the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on laboratory-confirmed influenza in infants to 6 months of age.

Design Nonrandomized, prospective, observational cohort study.

Setting Navajo and White Mountain Apache Indian reservations, including 6 hospitals on the Navajo reservation and 1 on the White Mountain Apache reservation.

Participants A total of 1169 mother-infant pairs with mothers who delivered an infant during 1 of 3 influenza seasons.

Main Exposure Maternal seasonal influenza vaccination.

Main Outcome Measures In infants, laboratory-confirmed influenza, influenzalike illness (ILI), ILI hospitalization, and influenza hemagglutinin inhibition antibody titers.

Results A total of 1160 mother-infant pairs had serum collected and were included in the analysis. Among infants, 193 (17%) had an ILI hospitalization, 412 (36%) had only an ILI outpatient visit, and 555 (48%) had no ILI episodes. The ILI incidence rate was 7.2 and 6.7 per 1000 person-days for infants born to unvaccinated and vaccinated women, respectively. There was a 41% reduction in the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection (relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.93) and a 39% reduction in the risk of ILI hospitalization (relative risk, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.84) for infants born to influenza-vaccinated women compared with infants born to unvaccinated mothers. Infants born to influenza-vaccinated women had significantly higher hemagglutinin inhibition antibody titers at birth and at 2 to 3 months of age than infants of unvaccinated mothers for all 8 influenza virus strains investigated.

Conclusions Maternal influenza vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risk of influenza virus infection and hospitalization for an ILI up to 6 months of age and increased influenza antibody titers in infants through 2 to 3 months of age.

So, vaccinating a pregnant mother reduces the risk of the infant getting the flu (and getting hospitalized as a result). That is contrary to the message I see coming from SafeMinds. They do host another, older study that showed no statistically significant difference in children of vaccinated or unvaccinated mothers. Will they update their webpage to include this new study?

SafeMinds does bring up some valid questions on vaccine safety. And, contrary to how they like to present the discussion, vaccines (and all medical procedures) are not above challenge. However, they tend to use safety questions more as a tool rather than as honest discussion points. Perhaps I missed it, but can you find them bringing up these questions? How can we make influenza vaccines more effective? Isn’t that a laudable goal? Isn’t a universal influenza vaccine be a good goal, rather than the current method of trying to guess which specific strains will be in circulation for the upcoming season? Why haven’t simple safety improvements been made sooner. Changes such as the move to cell-based cultures over egg based cultures which run the risk of allergic reactions. Note that a new flu vaccine plant was being built in the US which would make the move to cell based cultured vaccines. Instead they concentrate on mercury and autism–mercury being the most thoroughly studied vaccine ingredient when it comes to autism (as in, multiple studies, large studies, good studies, have failed to find a link).

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →