Archive | Orgs RSS feed for this section

Mark Blaxill promotes bad science

8 Sep

[wags finger]…and don’t you ever forget it šŸ˜‰

Basically, the story is that The Blax wrote a blog post in which he said:

Despite the relentless drumbeat of propaganda from the CDC, public health authorities and the thuggish on-line goons of the medical industry, thereā€™s a funny thing going on. The evidence of a connection between mercury exposure and autism keeps growing.

It does? Really? Such as what science exactly?

Well The Blax has the answer to that in that he quotes from a study which according to The Blax:

They found that thimerosal at the same concentrations received in human infants had clearly measurable effects on opioid receptor development in the infant rats.

Huh. Well imagine my surprise when I read two blog posts, one from Emily in which she says:

Their starting dose is at least 3.2 times the relevant exposure of Hg. But they’re not finished. They don’t use that dose once. They use it four times, injecting the newborn rats on days 7, 9, 11, and 15 of life, each time with 3.2 times the actual relevant exposure of Hg, for a total of 48 mcg of Hg/kg in a little over a week. Indeed, even if 12 mcg were the relevant exposure, they’re dosing their animals with it four times within a week, give or take, giving us ~13 fold the relevant exposure.

and another from Orac in which _he_ says:

…the minimum dose received was 48 ?g Hg/kg, and the maximum dose received was a whopping 12,000 ?g Hg/kg, or 12 mg Hg/kg!

So when The Blax states that this paper is a like for like comparison between infant vaccines and their dosage, I think its clear to see that this is incorrect. What these researchers have in fact done, is massively overdose their test subjects.

And thats not the only problem with this paper that The Blax is so in love with. Geier, Haley, Bernard…recognise these names? Of course you do! They’re the names that this paper relies on to support its underlying ‘science’.

I think the only real question that needs answering here is – how in heck did this paper get past peer review??

Age of Autism – Amazon file wisely

8 Sep

We all know the new Age of Autism book is coming soon. Its stocked at Amazon for example where pre-orders for the book have placed the books ranking at the heady heights of the top 100,000.

However, whats most interesting is the cover art that Messers Blaxill and Olmsted have chosen for the Kindle edition of the book. In a refreshing turn of honesty, they selected the below (click for bigger) as the cover art.

You can also see it in situ at Amazon US store.

A brave and refreshingly intellectually honest move by Blaxill and Olmsted, I think you’ll agree.

Autism Science Foundation anounces pre and post doctoral training awards in autism research

7 Sep

The Autism Science Foundation has announced a new round of fellowships for grad students, medical students and post-doctoral fellows who will pursue autism research.

(September 7, 2010–New York, NY) The Autism Science Foundation invites applications for its Pre and Post Doctoral Training Awards from graduate students, medical students and post-doctoral fellows interested in pursuing careers in basic and clinical research relevant to autism spectrum disorders.

The proposed training must be scientifically linked to autism. ASF will consider for training purposes all areas of related basic and clinical research including but not limited to: human behavior across the lifespan (language, learning, communication, social function, epilepsy, sleep, repetitive disorders), neurobiology (anatomy, development, neuro-imaging), pharmacology, neuropathology, human genetics/genomics, immunology, molecular and cellular mechanisms, studies employing model organisms and systems, and studies of treatment and service delivery.

Applicants for the pre-doctoral awards must be students enrolled in a program in the United States leading to a research doctorate such as a Ph.D. or Sc.D., a combined degree such as an M.D./Ph.D., in an academic department at an accredited university or health/medical institution, or an M.D. at an accredited university medical school. Applicants for the post-doctoral awards must have completed their doctoral degree and have been accepted as a post doctoral fellow in good standing in a program in the United States. The selected awardee must spend 80% of his/her professional time engaged exclusively in autism research activities stipulated in the application for the duration of the award, and cannot simultaneously hold another named fellowship award during the support period.

Each applicant must apply with a mentor, who must hold a tenured or tenure-track faculty appointment (or equivalent) at an accredited institution of higher education or health/medical/research institution in the United States, and must be an established and active investigator in some aspect of autism research.
Each mentor may sponsor one pre-doctoral candidate and one post-doctoral candidate per year.

Learn more at www.autismsciencefoundation.org/ApplyForaGrant.html

MMR vaccine damaged man

30 Aug

Jackie Fletcher is well known to many – she routinely insists the MMR jab is dangerous despite reams of evidence to the contrary. However, a panel in the UK has found that her son, Robert, was damaged by the MMR vaccine he was administered.

I nearly didn’t blog about this. Why? Well, this blogs predominant focus is autism and Robert did not and does not have autism. The panel in this case found that the MMR caused seizures and mental retardation. Its difficult therefore to get a ‘hook’ into this story. As Mike Fitzpatrick is quoted as saying in the Daily Mail:

It is a very important principle that parents should be compensated in cases of this kind…

and he’s absolutely right. Thats why the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit exists in the UK.

Like any other form of medical procedure, vaccines are not 100% safe. I can’t recall anyone anywhere ever making that claim. What they _are_ however, is very safe indeed. Robert Fletcher was injured and has been compensated. I might even agree with his mum that the amount is ‘derisory’. Robert will need full time care all of his life and Ā£90,000 ($140,000) is nowhere near enough. However, campaigners uninterested in Robert’s day to day needs say that:

Campaigner Polly Tommey, who edits the magazine The Autism File and believes her son Billy is autistic because of MMR, says: ā€˜This is fantastic news. Now doctors canā€™t tell me that the MMR is safe.

‘This payout is evidence that it is not safe. Itā€™s interesting that they will look at epilepsy and not autism, and you have to ask why.

‘Is it because the compensation would be billions?ā€™

I very much doubt that any doctor, anywhere has ever told any recipient anywhere that any vaccine is 100% safe. If they did, they were liars.

However, this payment, far from being ‘evidence that it is not safe’ (a bizarre claim) is more like a recognition that the Vaccine Damage Payment system is working as it should. A man was vaccine damaged and was compensated as a result.

As for the claim that ‘they’ will not look at autism, this is simply incorrect. Robert, does not have autism and therefore it would be impossible in this case to look at autism. I would imagine if someone with autism was adjudged to be damaged by their MMR vaccine, Ms Tommey might have a point. As that has not happened, she does not. This kind of fear-mongering by the likes of Tommey is no doubt why the panel made the clear point:

We would stress that this decision is fact-specific and it should not be seen as a precedent for any other case.

In particular, it has no relevance to the issue… as to whether there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

And Fletcher goes on to claim:

Claims for autism are not considered. There are 120 MMR cases waiting to be heard, but none is for autism…

So why should that be? Why is autism apparently ‘excluded’?

Its because the science – both epidemiological and clinical clearly shows that MMR does not cause autism. And that is not the odd paper here and there. We are talking about overwhelming science that shows that the whole autism/MMR connection is simply false and was built up by one man too stupid to admit his clear errors and a mass media keen to build sensation out of this same man’s ego.

Tommey, Fletcher and all others who believe that there’s some kind of conspiracy afoot to block autism from MMR causation cases need to understand the science involved and that unless some new science is forthcoming that establishes MMR as a causative agent in regards to autism then the simple fact of applying for compensation listing the MMR as a cause of their child’s autism is _always_ going to be an immediate strikeout.

Campaigners need to start seeing this event for what it _really_ is – compensation for a vaccine damaged man – and not as what it isn’t – evidence that MMR is inherently unsafe or that theres some mysterious conspiracy to prevent autism from being linked to MMR.

Review of the Introduction of Age of Autism – the book.

23 Aug

So begins the Olmsted/Blaxill upcoming book ‘Age of Autism’.

…instead of taking Kannerā€™s word for it, [we decided] to learn about these previously anonymous families ourselves. We took clues from his extensive case descriptions and started uncovering the identities of the original families. Time and again, we connected the occupations of the parents to plausible toxic exposures and especially to a new mercury compound first used in the 1930s as a disinfectant for seeds, a treatment for lumber, and a preservative in vaccines. Yes, the parentsā€™ professions were cluesā€” but not to their obsessions or their marriages or their parenting or their genetic oddities; instead, they pointed to a strikingly consistent pattern of familial exposures to the same toxic substance.

(emphasis authors, inserts mine)

This is the paragraph that sets the authors hypothesis out. When we look at it carefully, we can see exactly what its purpose is – its purpose is to fit a set of preconceived ideas that revolve around one central disproven hypothesis – that mercury in vaccines (thiomersal/thimerosal) causes autism.

I haven’t yet read the rest of the book but I’m pretty sure what I’m going to find. To talk about that now would just be conjecture however, so lets stick to what we have here.

According to Olmsted and Blaxill, syphilis treatment, hysteria, mental illness and a variety of modern illnesses are all caused by mercury. I’m very much looking forward to reading this section too. Olmsted & Blaxill use Pink disease (a definite form of mercury poisoning which looks nothing like autism to ‘justify’ the inclusion of these illnesses in the Introduction.

Blaxill and Omsted detail how they went on to meet “Donald T.” one of Kanner’s original cases:

By any mea sure, he has fared astonishingly well. President of his college fraternity and later the Forest Kiwanis Club, a pillar of his Presbyterian church, he had a long career at the local bank, plays a competitive game of golf, and regularly travels the world. We learned how ā€œDonald T.ā€ went from being the first unmistakable case of autism to the first unmistakable case of recovery.

So on one hand we have the doom and gloom of Pink disease (a foreshadow of autism according to Blaxill & Olmsted) which killed hundreds and then actual autism which doesn’t seem that bad. I’ll be very interested to see how Blaxill & Olmsted narrate Donald T.’s ‘recovery’…or could it have been that Donald T. was in fact one of the first cases of autism who also either moved ‘off the spectrum’ (as a certain percentage of autistic people do) or…y’know…he simply progressed as he got older. My guess is that Blaxill & Olmsted will reveal that Donald T. had some kind of miraculous exposure to a chelating agent or multi vitamins or some form of extreme biomed. Lets see.

The whole Introduction is about 6,000 words long. I can’t possibly attempt to review the whole thing and I won’t attempt to review the whole book either. These are the sections of the Intro that caught my eye particularly. Maybe others who have access to the Intro will tackle more. One thing you can be sure of, LBRB will be here to catch and expose the errors.

We will support your foundations

23 Aug

I read a terrible, terrifying blog post post yesterday from Kim Stagliano on the Huffington Post. In it she describes how her daughter has suffered abuse at the hands of a support worker. The story is also coverered by the Connecticut Times.

Police said the girl’s parents were trying to figure out how their non-verbal daughter kept getting bruises and sprained fingers on her right hand when on May 19 they received a call from the nurse at Frenchtown Elementary School that their daughter had arrived at school that morning crying hysterically. The parents then demanded to see the video from their daughter’s school bus.

That video, which also had audio, showed Davila grabbing the girl’s hands and the girl then crying out in pain.

Police said they then obtained DVD copies of the bus videos for April 27, April 29 and May 19. On the 27th and the 19th the driver of the bus was Davila’s mother.

Police said the April 27 video shows Davila, during the bus ride from the school to the girl’s home, putting her hands in the area of the girl’s hands. With each movement the girl’s cries get louder, police said.

This is one of my darkest fears. That my non-verbal daughter or my step-daughter, both autistic, should suffer abuse and not have the language skills to communicate their ordeal. Or even if they did have language skills that they were too terrified to speak out.

On this issue we – the whole autism community can easily stand as one. Whats happened to Kim Stagliano’s daughter is beyond appalling. She writes on the HuffPo of shaking the foundations of those who have hurt, or allowed to hurt, her daughter. I fully agree with her statement and as the title of this blog post implies, I will support her foundations in whatever way I can.

ASAN Update on IACC Public Comment Deadline

27 Jul

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) has the job of creating a strategy for the U.S. government’s research in autism. They are made up of government officials, professionals, parents and, most importantly, autistics. The IACC creates their Strategic Plan with input from the public.

One of the big opportunities to submit input is this week. The IACC has an “RFI“, request for information. This is your chance to tell the IACC what you think should (and should not) be stressed in autism research.

I was reminded of this deadline when I received an email from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), which I quote below:

This is another ASAN Update for bloggers in the Autistic and disability rights communities. The public comment period for the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research closes this Friday, July 30, 2010, as stated in the IACC’s reminder notice set forth below. The IACC is a Federal advisory committee that coordinates all efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services concerning autism. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network encourages public participation in the IACC’s proceedings.

As always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or feedback, and let us know if you would prefer to receive these announcements at a different address or to be removed from the list.

Best regards,

Meg Evans, Director of Community Liaison
Autistic Self Advocacy Network

The RFI announcement is below:

Reminder: IACC 2010 RFI to Inform the 2011 Update of the IACC Strategic Plan Closes This Friday, July 30, 2010

The IACC has issued a formal Request for Information (RFI) to solicit public input to inform the 2011 update of the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research. During the six-week public comment period (June 18 – July 30, 2010), members of the public are asked to provide input to the committee on what has been learned in the past year about the issues covered in each of the seven chapters of the IACC Strategic Plan, and on what are the remaining gaps in the subject area covered by each chapter. In addition, the committee is seeking input on the introductory chapter and other general comments about the Strategic Plan. Comments collected through this RFI will be posted to the IACC web site after the closing date.

If you would like to respond to the RFI, please go to: http://www.acclaroresearch.com/oarc/2010rfi/. Responses will be accepted until this Friday, July 30, 2010.

Take the time to comment. You don’t have to give them permission to use your name. You don’t have to respond to every section. You can give a short comment or two (or more) and be done.

Now is the time!

Laura Hewitson has left the University of Pittsburgh

26 Jul

Laura Hewitson is the lead researcher on a series of studies on comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated macaque monkeys. This work became public first in the 2008 IMFAR conference. At that time and since, the work from these studies has been strongly criticized. Dr. David Gorski of Science Based Medicine discussed those abstracts. It is very likely that the new conflict of interest declaration policy for IMFAR resulted from Ms. Hewitson’s lack of declaration of her own COI at IMFAR (she has filed a claim with the vaccine court on behalf of her child). One paper resulting from that study was withdrawn before it was published (discussed by Countering Age of Autism and Respectful Insolence). More recently, a study from this series was published in which conclusions were drawn based on only 2 control animals. Those control animals underwent brain shrinkage during a critical period of infant growth. In other words, there was something seriously wrong with the control animals and, hence, the entire study. The study (and subsequent discussions by groups such as SafeMinds) spun the brain shrinkage around to claim that the “The vaccinated primates also showed altered maturation of their brains’s [sic] amygdalas.”

Ms. Hewitson has listed here professional affiliations as:

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;
2Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX, USA;

In 2008 she was listed as Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences on the University of Pittsburgh’s website. That is the last date for an internet archive version of that page. A google cache version of the page from June 2010 listed her as “adjunct” Associate Professor. Adjunct faculty are typically part time or people from other institutions who are working in some capacity with the University.

Ms. Hewitson’s webpage link at Pitt is no longer active. She is no longer listed on the faculty page for the Pittsburgh Development Center (PDC). The PDC confirmed that she is no longer on the faculty there.

Before people start speculating, the most likely explanation is that it simply became too difficult to balance a career at Thoughtful House in Texas with a faculty appointment in Pennsylvania.

This will mean that in the future Ms. Hewitson will be unable to use her University of Pittsburgh affiliation to bolster the credibility of her research. Studies begun while at Pitt will likely continue to show that affiliation (such as the recently published study on the amygdalas of macaques).

Whatever the reason for her departure, I welcome it. I don’t believe that a fine institution like Pitt should have its name attached to the level of research in the recent paper. It is difficult to simply put into simply how poor the quality of that study was.

The genie is out of the bottle. Part II – more genies, more bottles

16 Jul

Was it any surprise that the journal that published the recent Hewitson stinker did so? Not really. Straight from the opening lines of the Editorial the direction this journals ‘science’ would take was clear:

This issue of Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis is fully devoted to the issues of autism. The idea for this topic came from Professor Dorota Majewska…

Did it indeed? I wonder if this is the same Professor Dorota Majewska who has signed her name at We Support Andy Wakefield? I’m not sure how common this name is but it would be a monumental coincedence if they weren’t one and the same person.

Getting back to the Editorial, we see some familar names from the outliers of scientific credibility – Hitlan, DeSoto, Geier – that give pause to the peer review process this journal makes its papers undertake. Are they aware of how little regard these names and their associated ‘science’ is held in in more prestigious journals and law courts?

The Editor discusses the Hewitson paper thusly:

An alarming finding is reported by Hewitson and coworkers (Ref. 4), showing that, in infant monkeys that were immunized, the amygdala does not show the normal pattern of maturation but is hypertrophied. Although these are only preliminary data, given the well-known role of the amygdala in generation of fear and other negative emotions, they support the possibility that there is a link between early immunization and the etiology of autism

How is it that an Editor and his peer review team missed that which LB/RB’s own Sullivan caught immediately? That according to this ‘alarming’ paper, pieces of the control subjects brains apparently shrank during the course of the experiment. That would certainly be an alarming result – if it were in any way true. How could it be accounted for? Too few animals in the control group or maybe just bad maths. Either way, to describe this paper as alarming might be accurate – but not necessarily for the reason that the Editor obviously feels.

They also seemed to miss Sullivan’s other finding – that two of the subjects just disappeared from the paper. To quote Sullivan:

Werenā€™t there 4 monkeys in the control group and 12 monkeys in the vaccinated group? What happened to the other 2 of the control subjects?

Shoddy.

From IMFAR to Poland: how a monkey study can totally change

16 Jul

I just blogged about a new paper “proving” once again that vaccines cause autism. This is a paper from Mr. Wakefield’s team. Thanks to a link provided by KWombles of the Countering Age of Autism blog, we can compare the current paper to what the authors claimed two years ago.

Here is the new paper (published in a journal from Poland):
Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study

by Hewitson L. Lopresti B, Stott C, Mason N.S., Tomko.

Here is the abstract from IMFAR in 2008:

Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Amygdala Growth and Opioid Ligand Binding

L. Hewitson , Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
B. Lopresti , Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
C. Stott , Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX
J. Tomko , Pittsburgh Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
L. Houser , Pittsburgh Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
E. Klein , Division of Laboratory Animal Resources, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
C. Castro , Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
G. Sackett , Psychology, Washington National Primate Research Center, Seattle, WA
S. Gupta , Medicine, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of California – Irvine, Irvine, CA
D. Atwood , Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
L. Blue , Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
E. R. White , Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
A. Wakefield , Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX

Background: Macaques are commonly used in pre-clinical vaccine safety testing, but the combined childhood vaccine regimen, rather than individual vaccines, has not been studied. Childhood vaccines are a possible causal factor in autism, and abnormal behaviors and anomalous amygdala growth are potentially inter-related features of this condition.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare early infant cognition and behavior with amygdala size and opioid binding in rhesus macaques receiving the recommended childhood vaccines (1994-1999), the majority of which contained the bactericidal preservative ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid (thimerosal).

Methods: Macaques were administered the recommended infant vaccines, adjusted for age and thimerosal dose (exposed; N=13), or saline (unexposed; N=3). Primate development, cognition and social behavior were assessed for both vaccinated and unvaccinated infants using standardized tests developed at the Washington National Primate Research Center. Amygdala growth and binding were measured serially by MRI and by the binding of the non-selective opioid antagonist [11C]diprenorphine, measured by PET, respectively, before (T1) and after (T2) the administration of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR).

Results: Compared with unexposed animals, significant neurodevelopmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets. Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination. Compared with unexposed animals, exposed animals showed attenuation of amygdala growth and differences in the amygdala binding of [11C]diprenorphine. Interaction models identified significant associations between specific aberrant social and non-social behaviors, isotope binding, and vaccine exposure.

Conclusions: This animal model, which examines for the first time, behavioral, functional, and neuromorphometric consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen, mimics certain neurological abnormalities of autism. The findings raise important safety issues while providing a potential model for examining aspects of causation and disease pathogenesis in acquired disorders of behavior and development.

Emphasis added by me.

Why? First, to point out the change in the author list. Of 13 authors on the original abstract, only 4 remain. One can speculate as to why the others were dropped (or pulled their names) from the author list.

A new author was added, N.S. Mason.

How about other changes? Well, 2 years ago they had data on 13 vaccinated monkeys. Now it is only 9. Two years ago they had data on 3 controls. Now it is only 2.

What happened?

OK, while you are working that one out, here’s the big one. Two years ago the vaccinated monkeys “showed attenuation of amygdala growth”

Now, the amygdalas are larger in the vaccinated monkeys. What? Yep. Before they had “attenuated growth” and now they are growing faster than the unvaccinated animals?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →