Archive | Orgs RSS feed for this section

Apply for Autism Research Grant

23 Sep

The Autism Science Foundation announce their first RFA:

The Autism Science Foundation invites applications for its Doctoral Training Award from graduate and medical students interested in pursuing careers in basic and clinical scientific research relevant to autism spectrum disorders.

The proposed training must be scientifically linked to autism and may be broadened to include training in a closely related area of scientific research. Autism Science Foundation 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, and studies employing model organisms and systems.

Truth and Consequences – The Anti-Vaccination Movement Exacts a Price

23 Sep

“I feel like getting in my car, driving away and never coming back. I can’t stand it anymore. If the screaming, howling, humming, and screeching doesn’t stop I will lose my mind. 14 hours a day. From the second he open his eyes until the second he closes them there is noise. Even if you tell him to be quiet he sits there and says “be quiet…be quiet” over and over. Not more than 10 seconds goes by where some ridiculous sound isn’t coming out of my son. He talks in a high pitched screechy voice that makes every nerve ending stand on end. He screeches and screams for no reason. The humming, the high pitched humming all day long. I can’t take it. My head hurts so bad and there are only so many things I can take for a headache. I wake up at 7 am, or rather I am awakened by screeching at 7am and get no peace until about 9pm. By then my head hurts so much it doesn’t matter. I can’t get anything done because I can’t focus with the noise in the background. I can’t have a phone call. I can’t have a conversation in person. I know this is going to upset some people but I swear, I miss the days when he didn’t make a peep. not a single peep. I remember when I used to cry and ask him to talk to me, to say anything. I should have been more specific and wished he’d speak and make meaningful sentances rather than walk around all day and say meaningless phrases over and over, and scream and screech when he didn’t. know what meaningless phrase to use at the moment. I have about 40 minutes before he goes to bed then I get to listen to him hum himself to sleep for an hour. By then I should be ready to jump off a roof.

Thanks for letting me vent. Not sure if it made me feel better but at least if I jump off the roof someone knows why”

Posted by “Mary”, mother of “Saul”, age 7.9 (7 years, 9 months), to an autism “biomedical treatment” yahoo group in August 2009.

The idea that vaccines might be a cause of autism has received a great deal of attention from the media. Scientifically, the question has been thoroughly investigated and thoroughly discredited.

Legally, the idea has also been rejected. The Autism Omnibus case bundled the claims of almost 5000 children against the Vaccine Injury Compensation program. In the hearings for the first of three theories of causation, the lawyers for the parents and their children chose the strongest three cases to illustrate their claim that MMR vaccines and thimerosal-containing vaccines can combine to cause autism. On February 12, 2009, all three cases were dismissed. The decisions were scathing, stating that “the overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories.” Moreover, parents were characterized as a “loving, caring, and courageous” family “misled by physicians who are guilty of gross medical misjudgment. In June and July of 2009, all test cases were appealed, and all three were dismissed.

The yahoo group “Environment of Harm” formerly “Evidence of Harm”, was established to discuss the book of the latter title, written by journalist David Kirby. The focus of the group is to discuss

“issues of government public health negligence and corruption and the various political efforts by parents to end the spectrum of epidemics that is being revealed as mercury poisoning, especially autism.”

From March 2005, the date of the book’s publication, until February 2009, when the Omnibus legal decisions were rendered, the group received an average of over 2000 posts per month. Since the rulings, the posting rate has dropped to only 800 per month, perhaps indicating that the issue is also losing momentum from a political point of view.

The mainstream media, the groups such as the AAP, and the blog sphere have also pushed back in an effort to educate the public on the harm done by the vaccines cause autism groups.

But behind the scientific and legal consensus that vaccines do not cause autism lies a hidden world, the autism “biomedical” yahoo- and chat-group world. There is no decline in the number of posts in this world. It’s a thriving, and growing community, one that has fueled the popularity of the anti-vaxers, and the certainty of those parents who consider their child “vaccine-injured”. It has spurred the spending of millions of dollars on supplements, hyperbaric treatments, off-label prescription medications, and myriad other autism “biomedical treatments”. These “treatments” are almost all of no proven benefit, some are ridiculous, some relatively benign, and many potentially dangerous. This article will explore the journey of one mother, “Mary” in her efforts to cure her son “Saul”. While the case of Mary and Saul, documented in her own words is shocking and appalling, Mary is not alone nor is she an extreme case. She is one of thousands of parents seeking autism “biomedical treatments” on the internet.

We first meet Mary in October 2003, when her son Saul (born November 2001) was only 22 months of age. She began posting on the group NLT (for a description of the yahoo groups discussed in this article see the section at the end). She stated that her son

“is basically non verbal. He said his first word, duck, at 7 months old. About a month later he said light, off , and on, but dropped duck. This set a pattern for him. Anytime he learned a new word he dropped any old words he had used at that point. Now, his only real words are Mama and Dada. He will on a rare occassion say car. He has had and lost about 20 words since 7 months of age.”

Shortly thereafter, he was evaluated by early intervention, and psychologist wrote PDD on his evaluations, along with the term Autistic-like. Mary was told that he was not autistic, but he’s autistic like. 10-20 hours a week of intensive in home therapy (ABA) was recommended.

So, Saul is a very young child, showing speech delay and signs of autism, evaluated very quickly, and almost immediately started on early intervention. Of course, Mary is understandably upset:

“I don’t know why I’m so upset. He (the psychologist) didn’t say anything I didn’t already know or suspect. I guess its just because my fears were realized. Rather than come in and say “oh no, he’s fine, he’s just a late talker” I heard what I was hoping not too. I’m sure that somehow to some degree this is my fault. Saul was such a quiet content infant, and he was content to play by himself as he got older I sort of went with it. I figured he was happy let me go do dishes, or laundry or whatever and let him entertain himself. Yeah that was great but now he is only happy by himself and turns in to himself and its my fault I know it is.”

Recent research (two links:here and here) has looked at the impact of parental acceptance of their child’s autism diagnosis. It was found that parents who do not come to a resolution (i.e. come to terms with and accept the diagnosis and its implications) find raising their child more difficult. In the case of Mary, we will see a real-life example of a mother failing to come to terms with her child’s PDD.

Here’s Mary again:

Thank you everyone for your support. I’m sorry I forgot to mention Saul’s age. He will be 2 at the end of the month.

I’m feeling a lot better but still overwhelmed. I want to read as much as possible so I can do the best to help him but I think I need a little time to come to terms.

A few questions though if anyone knows…Do kids diagnosed with PDD always end up as special ed or is their hope with therapy he main go mainstream. The reason I ask is that my cousin teaches 5th grade special d and the majority of her kids are PDD kids, and have been in special ed since kindergarten. What are the odds that my child will grow up, go to college and lead what is considered a normal life?

Also, I was reading about a special diet that gluten free that is supposedly helpful. Has anyone tried this?

Should I just go with the system for say 6 mos or so and see how he responds and progresses before trying anything different like diet changes or supplements.

Sorry if I’m asking a million questions. My brain is spinning and all the websites I go to just overwhelm me more. Everyone here seems to have such a wealth of knowledge, and more importantly personal experience and understanding.”

This message signals the start of a frightening journey into the realms of woo. The “treatments” inflicted on Saul are very painful to read. Mary joined numerous autism “biomedical treatment” yahoo groups. She is presently a member of all the groups in the box, see below (except EoH), and more besides. She has posted more than 3500 messages to these groups. Mary reveals her willingness to accept medical advice from strangers on the internet, and her trust in doctors employing “gross medical misjudgment”. Between the ages of 3.6 and 7.9, Saul has been “treated” with the following (in alphabetical order):

Acetyl L Carnitine –
acetylated form of L-carnitine
(quaternary ammonium compound biosynthesized from the amino acids lysine and methionine)
Actos (pioglitazone)
-prescription drug which carries a black box warning
Cal/Mag Butyrate – mineral supplement
Candex
– marketed as an enzymatic remedy to treat the yeast infection candida
Carnosine -amino acid
Chelation – process of removing heavy metals
Andrew Cutler protocol (at least 50 rounds)
DAN protocol for 2 1/2 years.
15 IVs of EDTA & Glutathione
5 IVs of DMPS and glutathione
5 combined IVs DMPS/EDTA/Glutathione
Chiropractic
Diflucan – prescription anti-fungal
Dimethyl glycine – modified amino acid
Enhansa – Enhanced absorption curcumin supplement
Epsom salt baths
Essential fatty acids
Flagyl (Metronidazole) – prescription anti-fungal
Folinic acid – modified folic acid
Folapro – highly absorbable folate
Galantamine
prescription drug used for the treatment of mild to moderate
Alzheimer’s disease and various memory impairments
GFCF diet – gluten-free-casein-free diet (3 years)
GFCF diet with digestive enzymes for infractions
HBOT
hyperbaric oxygen treatment
(Mary owns her own Mary owns a Vitaeris 320)
HLC MindLinx Powder by Pharmax – probiotic
IM Bicillin – prescription intramuscularly injected form of penicillin
Inositol – a nutrient
IVIG – Intravenous Immunoglobulin
prescription
used to treat immune dysfunction
contains the pooled immunoglobulin G (IgG)
immunoglobulins from the plasma of approximately a
thousand or more blood donors
Klaire Labs Detoxification Support and Factor 4 – probiotic
Liquid Bodybio PC – phosphatidylcholine with essential fatty acids
Liquid grapefruit seed extract
Low dose Naltrexone – an anti-opiod
L-theanine – amino acid
Magnesium supplements
MB12 – Methylcobalamin, vitamin B12 – shots
MB12 – Methylcobalamin, vitamin B12 – spray
Nicotine patch
Nizoral – antifungal
Nystatin – antifungal
OLE – olive leaf extract
OSR
(N,N’-bis (2-mercaptoethyl)isophthalamide,
also know as 1,3-benzenediamidoethanethiol)
an untested synthetic chemical
Oxytocin nasal spray
PCA-Rx – purports to remove toxins from the body
Phosphatidylcholine
Pro Bio – probiotic
Quercetin – antioxidant flavinoid
Reduced glutathione cream
Threelac -probiotic
Transdermal NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine)
Valtrex (valacyclovir)
used to treat infections caused by herpes viruses
Vitamin C
Vitamin E
Zithromax – antibiotic

Mary has been tireless in “treating” Saul. But what about Saul? One would think that he must be very impacted by autism in order for her to go to these extraordinary lengths to cure him. Actually, no. He’s an extraordinary kid, and a wonderful one. Saul could identify all of the letters in any order and count to 40 at age 2.2. He started sight reading words at about 2.3 and at age 2.8 could sight read about 30 words. He started kindergarten in a segregated setting at age 4.9, , talked to the teacher, “he sat nicely through circle time, sat at his desk during class, and even raised his hand and answered questions. He was pointing to shapes on the wall and quizzing the teachers!” Here is Mary’s description of Saul at age 4.7:

“I woke up this morning and he was in bed with me. I’m not sure what time he came in because I never heard or felt him get into bed which is unusual. I woke up and felt him there. I rolled over and his little face was right there. He looked so peaceful and really has the face of an angel. I just laid there and stared at him for about 20 minutes. He yawned and opened his eyes. He saw me and his face lit up with a HUGE ear to ear grin. “Good morning Mom. Love you. Gimme a hug.” He gave me such a big strong hug. “Gimme a kiss.” I gave him a kiss. A second later his gears kicked in and he was off and running on full speed. After a few minutes he came back in the room and said “GIMME BREAKFAST! ! !””

But the “biomedical treatments” have not always been kind to Saul. Here’s Mary describing him at age 5.11

My son is on a ton of supplements. We haven’t really changed anything. Starting August 30, for three weeks we had to stop all enzymes, antifungals and probiotics in preparation for a endoscopy/colonoscopy. He is back on everything since he was scoped on Sept 20. Also at the beginning of August he had a high fever and a nasty rash that was diagnosed as Fifth’s Disease. I’m not convinced it was Fifths. He didn’t have the bright red cheeks and the rash was gone in 3 days.

After being sick he became clingy and a little whiny. In the past month its become horrible. I can’t even stand up without his whining “mommy..moooommmmmy, mommy will come.” I hear this the entire time I’m out of the room. Even if I tell him what I’m going to do and that I’ll be right back he continues saying it over and over. He whines over every little thing. Usually just lets out a big “WWWAAAAHHH” and it goes on and on. He cries over everything. He’s driving me insane. We are also seeing a decrease in spontaneous expressive language, asking repetitive questions, and repeating back questions instead of answering them.”

Nor have the “biomedical treatments” been kind to the family budget. In one message, Mary admitted that each month she spent $2800 – $3500 for IVIG, plus about $500 in supplements including the cost of chelation.

In a rare moment of insight, in May 2008, Mary posted:

“Sometimes I feel like a mad scientist and my poor kid is my guinea pig.”

Finally, a year later, she posted the preamble to this article (see box at top). How’s that “biomedical treatment” working out for you, Mary?

Such are the real costs of the anti-vaccination movement, the “biomedical treatment” internet groups. And the real costs of a parent unable to accept their child’s diagnosis. In her last message to the NLT group, Mary is still in denial about her son’s diagnosis:

RE: Sowell Traits
My son is 5 and is diagnosed PDD-NOS fits 7 of these to a T! ! ! The only one that doesn’t fit is # 7

Makes me wonder what we are really dealing with.”

Thousands of parents are members of these yahoo groups. Once inside the cozy echo chamber of the group, there is general acceptance that vaccines cause autism. Members expressing opposing views are drummed out of the group. It is taken as an article of faith that there are children recovering from autism by the use of these biomedical interventions. The parents get poorer, the quacks get richer, and the innocent children are the victims of often dangerous and painful experimentation at the hands of the people who are supposed to care for them the most.

Some Yahoogroups

A-M – Autism-Mercury. Membership 8400, 2000 messages/month (archives public)

“To discuss current issues related to the increasing incidence of autism the potential link between excessive mercury exposure via thimerosal in infant vaccines. Topics include: mercury detoxification (“chelation”), mercury-related issues/news, and vaccination-related issues/news. Most members are parents of children with autism, aspergers, ADD, ADHD, PDD, PDD-NOS, SID, oppositional defiance disorder, apraxia, speech disorders, and/or other related symptoms. There are many labels: you are welcome regardless of particular label(s). In addition to mercury, we also discuss other heavy metals (for example: arsenic, antimony, lead). Many parents here are in the process of chelation, with a child. This process is discussed in detail. Also welcome: mercury poisoned adults; other disorders/issues related to mercury poisoning; other biomedical treatments for ASD.”

Comment: Primarily discusses Andrew Cutler heavy metal chelation protocol. This protocol relies on faux “counting rules” applied to hair testing to purportedly prove that people are “mercury toxic”. Andrew Cutler has a PhD in Chemical Engineering.

CK2 – Chelatingkids2. Membership 6600, 3000 messages/month

“This list is for parents and/or family members of children with autism who are seeking biomedical intervention, The main focus of treatment here follows the DAN! or Defeat Autism Now.”

Comment: Mercury chelation according to the DAN! protocol. This protocol relies on provoked urine tests to purportedly prove “mecury toxcicity”. This very active group has been recently closed to new postings for an unspecified period of time.

EoH – Environment of Harmformerly Evidence of Harm. Membership 2300, 600 messages/month (archives public)

“This is the Environment of Harm discussion list focusing on vaccine damage and mercury poisoning as it relates to autism. Of keen interest to participants are the issues of government public health negligence and corruption and the various political efforts by parents to end the spectrum of epidemics that is being revealed as mercury poisoning, especially autism.”

Comment: Politically active group originally supporting the autism is caused by mercury poisoning hypothesis, but now openly anti-vaccine.

GFCFKids– Membership 14000, 3500 posts/month

“The principle aim of this list is to provide a discussion forum for parents of children on the autism spectrum who are avoiding gluten and casein and other substances in their children’s diets. We hope that the discussions will include practical information and tips on following a GFCF(etc) diet; scientific research and opinion; the latest developments in understanding GFCF(etc) diet-related health problems; your personal stories and experiences with relation to GFCF(etc) problems; information on what food is GFCF(etc)and what is not; tips on how to eat out of the house; recipes and tips on how to cook and prepare GFCF(etc) food; what vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements may be appropriate for a child with autism, how to cope with difficult diet demands, plus support for parents.”

Comment: One of the largest “biomedical treatment” yahoo groups. While the GFCF diet has substantial anecdotal support, clinical trials have not shown any benefit. The GFCF diet appears relatively harmless, however, it can result in weakening of bones due to nutritional deficiencies. Moreover, it often acts as a first step on the path to more dangerous “biomedical treatments”.

NLT – NaturalLateTalkers. Membership 2900, 500 messages/month

“This list is a support for parents of latetalkers or speech delay with some or all traits of latetalker listed in the book Late Talking Children by Thomas Sowell. . . Here parents ARE and will be able to discuss their problems, concerns, and dissatisfaction with the over diagnosing done by various systems, such as speech therapists, doctors, schools, etc. Parent’s choice helping with speech through parent or another source is to be respected.” (sic)

Comment: This list supports those in deep denial about their child’s autism. While such support groups appear to be relatively benign, offering mutual support to parents of children with disabilities, they are often an entry point for parents to learn about the autism “biomedical treatment” and anti-vaccination movements. These groups are replete with examples of parents taking medical advice from strangers over the internet, many of whom are accorded more credibility than the medical professionals who have actually seen their children.

The Autism Speaks bait and switch with I am Autism

23 Sep

Autism Speaks’ recently debuted their new “I am Autism” video.

Here is Suzanne Wright’s appeal for parents to donate video footage for this event:

“We will all help shine a bright spotlight on autism.”

I find the final video to be far from “shining a bright light on autism”.

I am so glad I didn’t trust Autism Speaks with video of my child.

Autism Speaks media campaign…I am autism

23 Sep

Shades of the disasterous NYU Ransom notes campaign:

They make autism into a being with a voice who says:

“…and with every voice I take away, I acquire yet another language”

“…and if you are happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails”

“…your money will fall into my hands and I will bankrupt you for my own self gain”

“…I will make it virtually impossible for your family to attend a temple, birthday party, a public park without a struggle, without embarrassment, without pain”

Not convinced it is like the ransom notes campaign?

“…I will plot to rob you of your children and your dreams.”

The rest of video is scripted from the perspective of parents, family, friends….pretty much everyone except for autistics, with phrases like:

“When you came for my child you forgot. You came for me.”

I am totally speechless aside from one word for Autism Speaks: why?

edited to add: here is the Autism Speaks announcement.

What are the allegations against Dr. Wakefield?

16 Sep

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, not of Thoughtful House in the U.S., has recently been called before the General Medical Council for a “fitness to practice hearing”. The allegations stem from activities related to his research of about 10 years ago on children (many autistic).

I recently discussed two of incidents being investigated: a birthday party where blood was drawn from typically developing children (for controls) and activities related to his invention and the subsequent patent his hospital (the Royal Free) applied for. I found it interesting to see these layed out, so I decided to post them here for others to read as well.

These are allegations. The process has not concluded, nor has any decision been reached.

This is a short version. A detailed list (93 pages) can be found on Brian Deer’s website. Note that these 93 pages include allegations against Doctors Murch and Walker-Smith.

Dr Andrew WAKEFIELD GMC Reference number: 2733564

Professor John WALKER-SMITH GMC Reference number: 1700583

Professor Simon MURCH GMC Reference number: 2540201

The GMC’s statutory purpose is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

We investigate complaints about individual doctors in order to establish whether their fitness to practise is impaired and whether to remove or restrict a doctor’s registration.

The GMC does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research.

The following is a summary only of the allegations which will be made before the Panel at the forthcoming hearing.

The Panel will inquire into allegations of serious professional misconduct by Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, in relation to the conduct of a research study involving young children from 1996-98.

Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, were at the relevant times employed by the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine with Honorary Clinical contracts at the Royal Free Hospital.

It is alleged that the three practitioners were named as Responsible Consultants on an application made to the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust (“the ethics committee”) in 1996 to undertake a research study involving children who suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms and a rare behavioural condition called disintegrative disorder. The title of the study was “A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative disorder following measles/rubella vaccination”. The Panel will inquire into allegations that the three practitioners undertook research during the period 1996-98 without proper ethical approval, failed to conduct the research in accordance with the application submitted to the ethics committee, and failed to treat the children admitted into the study in accordance with the terms of the approval given by the ethics committee. For example, it will be alleged that some of the children did not qualify for the study on the basis of their behavioural symptoms.

It is further alleged that the three practitioners permitted a programme of investigations to be carried out on a number of children as part of the research study, some of which were not clinically indicated when the Ethics Committee had been assured that they were all clinically indicated. These investigations included colonoscopies and lumbar punctures. It is alleged that the performance of these investigations was contrary to the clinical interests of the children.

The research undertaken by the three practitioners was subsequently written up in a paper published in the Lancet in February 1998 entitled “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children” (“the Lancet paper”).

It is alleged that the three practitioners inaccurately stated in the Lancet paper that the investigations reported in it were approved by the ethics committee.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in failing to disclose in the Lancet paper the method by which they recruited patients for inclusion in the research which resulted in a misleading description of the patient population in the Lancet paper. It is further alleged that Dr Wakefield gave a dishonest description of the patient population to the Medical Research Council.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith administered a purportedly therapeutic substance to a child for experimental reasons prior to obtaining information about the safety of the substance. It is alleged that such actions were irresponsible and contrary to the clinical interests of the child.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield was involved in advising solicitors acting for persons alleged to have suffered harm by the administration of the MMR vaccine. It is alleged that Dr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to research funds obtained from the Legal Aid Board (“LAB”) was dishonest and misleading. It will be alleged that Dr Wakefield ought to have disclosed his funding from the LAB to the Ethics Committee but did not.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield ordered investigations on some children as part of the research carried out at the Royal Free Hospital from 1996-98 without the requisite paediatric qualifications to do so and in contravention of his Honorary Consultant appointment.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield failed to disclose his involvement in the MMR litigation, his receipt of funding from the LAB and his involvement in a Patent relating to a new vaccine to the Editor of the Lancet which was contrary to his duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield acted unethically and abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner by taking blood from children at a birthday party to use for research purposes without ethics committee approval, in an inappropriate social setting, and whilst offering financial inducement.

We cannot guarantee that all those wishing to attend the hearing will be able to do so, as seating is limited. If you plan to attend the hearing please email the GMC press office press@gmc-uk.org. In the event that we have to allocate seats those people who have notified the press office will be seated before others.
-Ends-

Greater detail can be found in this document, hosted on Brian Deer’s website. It is 93 pages of details of the allegations against Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch.

Dateline and Dr. Wakefield’s patent activities

16 Sep

In the recent Dateline NBC episode about Dr. Wakefield, Matt Lauer asked Dr. Wakefield about his patent activities.

As a bit of background: before Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet article was published, his hospital, the Royal Free, had submitted a patent application for an invention of Dr. Wakefield’s. The application was titled, “PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR TREATMENT OF IBD AND RBD”

IBD is “inflammatory bowel disease”
RBD is “regressive behavioural disease” “(also referred to as pervasive developmental disorder)”

(definitions taken from Dr. Wakefield’s Great Britain patent application 2,325,856)

As you might assume from the title, the patent has as a main thrust the idea that certain transfer factors could be used therapeutically. In other words, the main point appears to be to use this as a treatment. This does not exclude the fact that the patent also includes a claim for a classic, preventive vaccine.

The original patent application, filed June 6 1997 (before Dr. Wakefield’s first autism paper in The Lancet), is shown on Brian Deer’s website.

There are nine claims to the patent. Eight of which relate to the proposed treatment. Claim two, however, states:

The composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.

Prophylaxis, of course, meaning to prevent.

The existence of such a patent application raises the obvious question of conflict of interest. In other words, was there the possibility that Dr. Wakefield’s invention could result in royalty payments to Dr. Wakefield for a vaccine? Could he profit from what amounts to a single vaccine for measles (as opposed to the combination virus MMR vaccine)?

Dr. Wakefield in a previous statement (again hosted on Brian Deer’s website):

The reference to the possible use of TF [transfer factor] to protect children against measles infection – the thrust of the Sunday Times’ conspiracy theory – was put in as an afterthought in the patent. It was entirely speculative and never pursued in any shape, manner or form.

The provisional patent filing was entirely speculative and was for a possible therapy; as such, it had no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper.

Note that Dr. Wakefield acknowledges that his invention was claimed to be able to protect against measles infection. As we will see below, this is in direct contrast to his statements on Dateline.

Before we delve into that, I must strongly disagree with Dr. Wakefield as to whether this had bearing on the 1998 Lancet article. Part of the patent application clearly claims the use of the invention as a vaccine. Whether the invention was speculative or that the main use was as a therapy is immaterial. The appearance of a financial conflict of interest should have been reported to The Lancet, the referees, and to the press, in my opinion.

In his statement, Dr. Wakefield goes on to say:

It constituted no potential conflict until the patent was awarded.

Again, I strongly disagree. If the patent was a potential conflict of interest, so was the application. Both are a potential to profit.

Also, if the patent itself is a potential for profit, how can one justify the previous argument that the application was not a conflict since it was merely “for a possible therapy”? Again, if the language of the patent was a potential conflict due to the inclusion of the vaccine, the application was a potential conflict as well.

So, after that long introduction, what did Dr. Wakefield have to say to Matt Lauer?

Dr. Wakefield is back to denying that the invention was for a vaccine to prevent measles and is claiming it as merely a therapeutic agent.

But as we have already seen above, this is not what the patent states. This isn’t even consistent with Dr. Wakfield’s own previous comments.

Here is the section where Matt Lauer of Dateline interviewed Brian Deer on the topic:

First impression: Matt Lauer’s team messed up with the statement that the vaccine was “for the elimination of MMR”. I heard that statement as though the purpose of the Wakefield vaccine was to eliminate the MMR as a vaccine. The wording of the first sentence of the patent application is:

The present invention relates to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical composition…

I read this as the vaccine for the elimination of the MMR viruses from someone with a persistent infection of one or more of measles/mumps/rubella, not as for the elimination of the MMR vaccine itself.

It is not well worded.

The statement from the patent application that most clearly shows that it covers the invention as a vaccine is claim 2. It is short, clear and direct to the point.

The composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.

This is what Dateline should have used, in my opinion.

I think the segment below clearly shows that part of the intention of the invention was as a vaccine for the prevention of measles which is purported to be safer.

fragment of Dr. Wakefield's original patent application

fragment of Dr. Wakefield's original patent application

Back to the interview, I think that Mr. Deer makes a key point in stressing that the patent application discussed the invention as a “safer” vaccine. This makes it more clearly a possible contender to replace the MMR vaccine as a product.

Brian Deer notes on his website:

A letter from his lawyers dated Jan 31 2005 said: “Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine.”

It is very difficult to ascertain intentions. At a very real level, what Dr. Wakefield planned is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that there was a possibility (however remote) that Dr. Wakefield could profit if the combination MMR vaccine were removed. The appearance (at least) of a potential conflict of interest was there and should have been disclosed in the paper and press conference, in my opinion.

The information I would like to see on this would be Dr. Wakefield’s lab books (or notes, as the case may be). In particular, he is reported to have applied his “transfer factor” on at least one child. Were there any tests performed (say, measles titers?) that could have been used to justify development as a vaccine? For example, measles titers?

It is also worth noting that as far as I can see, all of the patents on this potential vaccine have been abandoned. In other words, Dr. Wakefield and/or the Royal Free Hospital do not appear to have continuing financial interests in the proposed measles vaccine, or the IBD/autism therapy.

As a final word–I find it interesting that in one of the patents Dr. Wakefield states that that the autism prevalence is about 1%. This from a document dated 1998, 10 years ago. So much for that epidemic, eh?

Section of GB patent 2,325,856

Section of GB patent 2,325,856

Paul Offit explains the money side of the rotavirus vaccine he worked on

14 Sep

Misinformationists love a vacuum. Unfortunately, Dr. Paul Offit left them a big opening by not disclosing how much his hospital, the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), paid him as his share of the royalties from the sale of the rights to his rotavirus vaccine invention.

Dr. Offit invented a rotavirus vaccine, together with CHOP faculty members Dr. Stanley Plotkin and Dr. Fred Clark. This vaccine was commercialized as RotaTeq. CHOP is reported to have been paid $182M, with a net income of $153M.

From that, Doctors Offit, Plotkin and Clark would have been paid an inventor’s share.

In my opinion, it was sufficient for Dr. Offit to acknowledge that it was a significant amount of money.

Mr. Mark Blaxill and Mr. Dan Olmsted of the Age of Autism blog felt differently. They felt it necessary to put an number to Dr. Offit’s royalty payment from CHOP.

Dr. Offit and CHOP declined to respond to their request for information on this subject.

As a point of interest: CHOP didn’t respond to my request, made at that time, either.

In this information vacuum, Misters Blaxill and Olmsted used public information from a scattering of sources to estimate that Dr. Offit was payed between $29M and $55M.

They were off by about a factor of 10.

As noted in a recent post, I showed how one could easily make an accurate estimate of the royalty payment from that sale, and it was about $6M. Misters Olmsted and Blaxill, who spent a considerable amount of time scouring information from the University of Arkansas to the University of California missed the easily obtainable public information on the CHOP website.

Before I wrote that piece, I contacted Misters Blaxill and Olmsted with the correct information, even including a statement that Dr. Offit had acknowledged that the estimate I came up with was accurate. I was informed that a public statement was necessary by Dr. Offit.

I found this odd because on Sept. 9, a statement by Dr. Offit was reported.

This was originally run on the blog “Countering the Age of Autism” as Paul Offit explains the money side of the rotavirus vaccine he worked on, by David N. Brown, frequent poster to this site and owner of the Evil Possum website.

In an email correspondence with David Brown August 18, 2009, Dr. Paul Offit writes:

David,

CHOP sold its patent for $182 million. This information was made publicly available and was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer at the time. The inventors, Fred Clark, Stan Plotkin, and me split 10 percent of that three ways. This means that we each received about $6 million. It was a ridiculous amont of money and certainly far more than any of us needs, but it is also a far cry from what has been claimed.

But the part that hurts the most is the continued claim that we did this for the money. I don’t know any scientist who does it for the money (you certainly don’t make much in salary). You do it because it’s fun and because you think you can contribute. And the reward for creating a vaccine was also never financial. The reward was watching this vaccine dramatically reduce the incidence of rotavirus hospitalizations in the US and now getting to watch the vaccine enter the developing world in countries like Mali, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ghana, and Nicaragua. That’s why we did it.

It hurts to watch people slander me the way they do. They just don’t know me. Or any of us that work so hard to get a technology like the rotavirus vaccine to the countries where it will save the most lives.

Paul

Reprinted with permission from David Brown and Dr. Paul Offit.

Paul Offit responds to the press release by NAA (and carried by AoA)

14 Sep

The National Autism Association put out a press release last week that was an amazing piece of work. Just not in a good way.

I was not the first to comment on it. Below is a post from the Countering Age of Autism blog that I asked to rerun here.

So, with permission:

On the 8th, NAA sent out a press release rehashing the same misinformation that AoA habitually runs (it’s almost like they got it right from them and Wakefield. They probably did). AoA picked it up and ran with it, and I spent a fair portion of my day trying to figure out who NAA was as well as mount an adequate rebuttal. I don’t know that it’s an adequate rebuttal, but it is what I can do.

I appreciate the researchers who work tirelessly in labs trying to figure out ways to save lives. I admire the diligence and commitment it takes to work for over two decades on one vaccine because you believe in it that strongly. Now, I don’t reach the level of adoring fan like Wakefield’s groupies apparently do (if you saw the Friday morning piece on the Today show before the Sunday Dateline, you know what I’m talking about), but I’m not a groupie kind of gal. Maybe those women are. My point is, this isn’t blind adoration speaking. I’ve read Dr. Offit’s books, all of them, because I wanted to know more about vaccines (read those first), and I read Autism’s False Prophets, as well, because I wanted to see what he’d found out.

For most of my son’s (who will be 20 this year) life, I have been focused on HIM. I homeschooled him for ten years, I spent the years before that often all day in the school system with him. He was the center of my world as I worked with him to help him. I didn’t join support groups; I didn’t talk to a lot of parents with autistic children. My husband and I labored alone for the most part. I wasn’t desperate; I was determined. I read everything I could on autism, mostly the science because I am so not into the woo. If it was woo, I stayed away from it. Until March of this year when I realized how much was out there.

Why did I start looking, now, after all these years? My daughters are on the spectrum as well. They are 12 and 14 years younger than their brother and it seemed like I needed to see what was out there. Especially since I have students who ask about vaccines and autism. I delved deep into the science of it, and then into the woo. Not all the woo, mostly the easy access free stuff at Huff and AoA and like autism organizations. Gods, but there is a frakload of woo out there. And really nasty behavior on the part of the woo-ites. Like the threats that Dr. Offit receives. Not acceptable behavior period.

So, when this stuff hit, I emailed Dr Offit to ask if he’d like to rebut this latest round of trash talk. And, thankfully, he did.

And here is the email that Countering Age of Autism posted:

Run with the permission of Dr. Offit:

Dear Kim,

Thanks for the support. At some point those who believe that vaccines cause autism will realize that I’m not their problem. The data are their problem. But I guess, absent supportive data, it’s easier and more satifying to attack me (I would also like to point out that I didn’t do any of these studies that exonerated vaccines as a cause of autism; I just explain them to the media).

Although it might sound crazy, I take some solace in the fact that those who oppose vaccines continue to get the facts wrong. It’s somewhat reassuring to know that they hate me for the wrong reasons. And the Huffington Post blog by James Moore, a well-respected journalist, is completely off the mark. I would have expected more.

1) I am not a paid consultant to Merck.

2) I never “voted myself rich” while I was on the ACIP. RotaTeq came up for a vote in 2006, three years after I was no longer a voting member. And even if I were a member, I wouldn’t have been allowed to vote. Further, I consistently declared my potential conflict. Although some people may find this hard to believe, I’m actually proud to be the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine and was more than happy to declare this at the beginning of every meeting.

3) What (the hell) does being the co-inventor of a vaccine have to do with standing up for the science of vaccine safety. It certainly doesn’t affect my financial position one way or the other. I do it because I think that children are getting hurt by all of this (the same reason I went into pediatrics and worked on vaccines). The logic of the anti-vaccine folks escapes me here. Let me see if I’ve got this right; I invent a vaccine that can save as many as 2,000 lives a day so that I can make money so that I can lie about vaccine safety so I can hurt children.

4) I do not receive salary support or laboratory support from the Hilleman endowed chair. Five percent of that endowment does go to support members of our division, but not me.

5) I never received one penny of the $350,000 claimed in the Burton report. All of that money went to Dr. Fred Clark. I was totally supported by grants to NIH.

I really do appreciate your support, Kim. Few seem to be willing to stand up for me. And it does occasionally get me down. But mostly it just makes me angrier and more determined to hang in there.

Best,

Paul

The National Autism Association’s embarrassing spitefulness

14 Sep

In a recent Dateline episode about Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Matt Lauer stated that to some groups Dr. Paul Offit is “public enemy number one”.

As if to prove Matt Lauer right, the National Autism Association launched an attack on Dr. Offit for his appearance on Dateline. They did this through a press release, Offit’s Failure to Disclose Jeopardizes Swine Flu Vaccine Program.

The press release has the header: “Doctor Who Made Millions Off MMR Manufacturer Does Not Tell Public of His Financial Relationship during NBC Dateline Broadcast”

The NAA state further,

Dr. Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), who was interviewed for a Dateline NBC television special, failed to tell millions of viewers that while he was promoting MMR as safe he had also made tens of millions of dollars from selling another vaccine patent to Merck, which is the manufacturer of MMR.

Let’s take a look at what was actually said, shall we?

Matt Lauer states (about 1:45 into the video clip), “Dr. Offit is a target. Not just for supporting vaccine safety, but because he himself made millions of dollars for inventing a vaccine.”

Quite frankly, the NAA is lying. Matt Lauer knew that Dr. Offit invented a vaccine and made money from his vaccine and Matt Lauer informed his audience of this. My guess if pressed the NAA will likely hide behind the Merck connection. Yeah. Like Matt Lauer and his producer didn’t know that RotaTeq is sold by Merck. (if so, that Merck logo on the RotaTeq box should have been a big clue, don’t you think?)

A minor point: Dr. Offit did not sell a vaccine patent to Merck. He assigned the rights to his invention the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), a standard arrangement for an academic or industry employee. CHOP then applied for and was granted patents. CHOP (not Dr. Offit) licensed the patent to Merck, and then sold the license rights to a third party for a lump sum. Out of that sum, CHOP payed Dr. Offit, Dr. Plotkin and Dr. Clark.

The NAA press release further states:

According to CHOP documents, Offit’s share of a royalty sale for the Rotateq vaccine to Merck is a minimum of $29 million and may approach $50 million.

This is wrong. This is wrong on two counts. First, there are no CHOP documents which state that Dr. Offit’s share of the sale of the patent rights for $29 to $50M. There can’t be documents that say this because Dr. Offit’s share was about 1/10 of this amount.

How did the NAA get such incorrect information? There is a blog post, written by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill which estimates this based on information they gleaned from the CHOP website. Their misinformation has been spread far since that post.

The only problem is, Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill were wrong. They made some big (and easily avoided) mistakes.

First mistake is that they used the incorrect Patent and Intellectual Property Policy in their calculation. That agreement wasn’t in effect when Dr. Offit and his co-inventors invented what became RotaTeq. Even Misters Blaxill and Olmsted acknowledged this in their post.

The old inventor agreement (easily found on the CHOP website) states:

payment to inventors was based on gross income, with 50 percent distribution on the first $250,000, 30 percent on the next $250,000, 15 percent on the next $4.5 million and 10 percent on the remainder.

The bulk of the payout was 10% of net income. Not 30% as Misters Blaxill and Olmsted assumed.

The second mistake is that Misters Olmsted and Blaxill neglected the fact that Dr. Offit shared the CHOP payment with his co-inventors, Dr. Stanley Plotkin and Dr. Fred Clark.

Mister Blaxill has stated in the comments to his post that Clark and Plotkin were not faculty of CHOP, but, instead were at Wistar. Again, one can easily confirm that they were faculty at CHOP with a simple google search. The CHOP research timeline states,

Drs. H. Fred Clark, Stanley Plotkin and Paul Offit develop a rotavirus vaccine for infantile gastroenteritis.

CHOP’s 2006 annual report (also easily found) states:

As part of its distinguished legacy of developing vaccines to improve the lives of children, Children’s Hospital investigators Paul Offit, M.D., chief, Division of Infectious Diseases; H Fred Clark, D.V.M., Ph.D.; Stanley Plotkin, M.D.; and The Wistar Institute developed RotaTeq®, the oral rotavirus vaccine that was licensed and further developed by Merck & Co. Inc.

Dr. Plotkin is the former chief of infectious diseases at CHOP, and Dr. Clark was a research professor of Pediatrics at CHOP. Both easily confirmed through the CHOP website.

It is unequivocal that CHOP considered Dr. Clark and Dr. Plotkin to be a part of the CHOP team. The Intellectual property policy (and all standard IP policies) divide the inventors’ share amongst all inventors.

Sorry to go into such detail, but I can not figure out why Misters Blaxill and Olmsted have not corrected their mistake. One commenter to their blog pointed out that Doctors Clark and Plotkin were CHOP faculty, only to have Mr. Blaxill respond that “…Offit would have received the entirety of the CHOP inventor’s share”. I’d be interested what Mr. Blaxill based that statement upon.

CHOP is reported to have sold their rights to RotaTeq for $182M. Using the correct information, this leads to an estimated payout of about $6M. (Note, Mr. Blaxill and Mr. Olmsted report that the net income to CHOP was $153M. This would lead to about $5M payment for each inventor).

Using the correct CHOP policy, one can calculate (based on $182M):

Inventor share
50% of first $250k is $125,000
30% of the next $250k is $75,000
15% of the next $4.5M is is $675,000
10% of the remainder ($176,750,000) is $17,675,000

Total inventor share $18,550,000
This is split amongst the three inventors, leading to:
each inventor getting $6,183,333

I have confirmed that this is is an accurate estimate with Dr. Offit.

I post this calculation not as an estimate, but as a demonstration that the accurate amount could have been calculated by Misters Olmsted and Blaxill with publicly available information at the time they did their blog post Misters Blaxill and Olmsted took great efforts to find information about the inventor policies at multiple other institutions–much more effort than was required to find the accurate information on CHOP’s own website.

$6M is a lot of money, don’t get me wrong. Dr. Offit has acknowledged this in his statements. But, it is much lower than the estimate that Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmsted have publicized. The honorable thing for these two gentlemen to do now is to correct their mistake.

The real honorable thing to do is to not only correct their error, but to correct the error wherever it has propagated.

What is more important than the amount of the sale is the fact that CHOP sold its interest in the patent. Why is that important? Because that means that the amount of money CHOP can make from this patent will be unaffected by just about anything Dr. Offit does or say.

But, I’ve strayed a bit on this post, away from the NAA. The source of the misinformation is the Age of Autism blog and Misters Blaxill and Olmsted. Perhaps the NAA could use the argument that they didn’t create the misinformation, they were just passing it along? Except that the NAA sponsors the Age of Autism blog.

Back to the rest of the press release. It is an amazing piece of work. I found it especially odd when the NAA interview themselves and make it sound like news. They don’t try to hide it, they give quotes from Wendy Founier and Jim Moody…and then list themselves as the contact people for the press release.

They also interview Dr. Wakefield, who calls Dr. Offit “disingenuous” at the beginning of the paragraph, and finishes the paragraph showing concern for how people like Dr. Offit might impact the integrity of the swine flu vaccine.

Anyone detect the irony there? Dr. Wakefield (and the NAA) are so concerned about the swine flu vaccine program that they worry about Dr. Offit impacting the integrity of the program?

Talk about disingenuous.

The press release repeats one of the stranger of the accusations against Dr. Offit–the claim that he does not treat patients with autism:

Beyond Offit’s financial conflicts, autism advocates are also dismayed about the physician’s credibility on speaking about autism in general, as he does not treat patients with autism.

Unless the NAA wants to state that autistics in Philadelphia do not get infectious diseases, it is pretty certain that Dr. Offit has treated a number of autistics in his long career.

To cap this all off, the Age of Autism blog, sponsored by the NAA, ran a post advertising the NAA press release. However, instead of calling it what it is, a press release, they framed it as being “reported by Reuters”.

Yeah. They tried to make it sound like news reporting by a major outlet rather than a press release.

Even their own readership balked at that and they had to change the title. No apology, though. Just an acknowledgment and a claim that it wasn’t “an intentional attempt to mislead“. If you go over to Age of Autism to check, you’ll have to do some searching as they didn’t correct the post but, rather, buried it in the comments.

The NAA press release was a cheap swipe at Dr. Offit and it is as transparent as it was childish. It is an embarrassment to the autism communities.

As an appendix, I add the following information:

The Countering Age of Autism blog posted a comment by Dr. Offit. Also on Countering, frequent commenter to this blog, David N. Brown, wrote an excellent deconstruction of the NAA press release.

David N. Brown also took on the task of informing Mr. Blaxill of his error in the comments to Mr. Blaxill’s Age of Autism blog post. Mr. Blaxill responded with:

David Brown, please read the article before making incorrect statements. The payment to CHOP was $182 million (Wistar received a separate and earlier $45 million dollar payment). From this, Offit would have received the entirety of the CHOP inventor’s share. Benchmarks show the inventor’s distribution can range from 15-35% of royalty income, with the current CHOP policy set at 30% (a share we didn’t feature in our calculations because it is a new standard and may not have been the relevant one for Offit’s distribution). In other words, our estimate is conservative and uses a percentage that is at the very low end of the relevant range.

I informed Mr. Blaxill and Mr. Olmsted ahead of publishing this post of this information, specifically that (a) Dr. Offit did not receive the entirety of the CHOP payout and that (b) their calculation of the CHOP inventors’ share was incorrect and not even a conservative estimate. I included links they could use to confirm the information. I encouraged them to make the correction. Mr. Blaxill and Mr. Olmsted have declined.

Andrew Wakefield gives NBC “talking points”

11 Sep

Dr. Wakefield “took issue” with a recent Dateline episode discussing him and his work. Thoughtful House (his clinic) has offered Dateline some talking points to, I gather, give “the full story” that Dateline supposedly missed.

Since there is next to zero chance that Dateline will act on them, I thought I would take a look at the talking points:

A. There has been extensive replication of the finding of bowel disease in children with autism (ASD) from five different countries. These findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at scientific meetings. It is therefore incorrect and misleading of Matt Lauer to have stated that every aspect of my original hypothesis has been disproved. On the contrary, the main findings of the original Lancet paper, that is, bowel disease in autistic children, has been repeatedly confirmed. This obvious inaccuracy requires clarification by NBC.

One of my many failings is that I am a sloppy writer and, yet, I key in on imprecise language in the work of others. Case in point:

“On the contrary, the main findings of the original Lancet paper, that is, bowel disease in autistic children, has been repeatedly confirmed. ”

“…the main point of the Lancet paper, bowel disease in autistic children…”

Very imprecise. What about bowel disease in autistic children is the finding of the Lancet article that Dr. Wakefield wants us to know? The statement is so vague that all we are left with is the fact that some autistic children have bowel disease.

This is misdirection on Dr. Wakefield’s part. It isn’t even good misdirection. The Dateline story wasn’t “the career of Andrew Wakefield, what he got right and wrong”. It was about the assertions that MMR cause autism.

Dr. Wakefield makes it appear that this statement was Matt Lauer’s. It is a fine point, but Matt Lauer didn’t state that “…every aspect of my original hypothesis has been disproved”. The statement was from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which Matt Lauer quoted with attribution.

It’s worth recalling what the Lancet paper stated. The concluding paragraph of the 1998 Lancet article was:

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

Had Dr. Wakefield himself distanced himself from the MMR-causation theory in the last 10 years, even a little, I’d think it reasonable for him to emphasize the the idea that he brought to light GI disturbances in autistic kids. But he hasn’t. It isn’t what the Dateline story was about.

The big question, if he thought this was important, why didn’t Dr. Wakefield himself emphasize that in the interview?

Dr. Wakefield’s second point:

B. The shortcomings and the flaws of the studies quoted by Dr. Offit, claiming to disprove an association between vaccines and autism, were not discussed in the program. In my interview with Mr. Lauer I took as an example a paper from Dr. DeStefano from the CDC claiming to exonerate MMR that actually showed that a younger age of vaccination with MMR is associated with a greater risk of autism. This study confirms the association and has been falsely portrayed as vindicating the vaccine. This should have been included in order to provide balance to the program.

Can someone tell me what DeStefano paper and what analysis he is talking about?

C. Reference was made to an autistic child in the vaccine court whose claim for MMR damage was overturned by the judge. No reference was made to the successful vaccine court case on behalf of the child Bailey Banks, coming just one week after the unsuccessful claim described by Mr. Lauer, in which the judge ruled that MMR vaccine can cause autism. Therefore, in the view of vaccine court, it is not a question of whether or not MMR can cause autism, but rather how many children are affected.

The case referred to in the Dateline episode was that of Michelle Cedillo. Her’s was the first “test case” to be heard by the Autism Omnibus Proceeding.

Her case was first heard by a “special master”, who denied compensation. The case then was appealed, and the judge didn’t “overturn” anything. The judge upheld the original decision.

The Bailey Banks case is one that gets debated a lot on the net. Rather than go into that again, let’s ask: how does this relate to Dr. Wakefield’s research? Perhaps I missed it as I did some very quick searches, but I didn’t find anything in the Bailey Banks decision that had anything to do with digestion/inflamation/enterocolitis/constipation/diarrhea… I think you get the idea–the case has nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield’s ideas about autism and the gut.

I.e. Wakefield’s point C is another diversionary tactic.

D. There was a complete absence of comment on the lack of any adequate safety studies of childhood vaccines and the vaccine schedule in particular. There was no mention of the admission by vaccine regulators that there is no data on the long-term safety of vaccines, the chronic disease burden caused by vaccines, and the likely potentially harmful interactions between various vaccines in the routine schedule.

Have you heard the phrase “diversionary tactic” too often yet? What does any of this have to do with whether Dr. Wakefield’s research? This is a favored diversion in online discussions of vaccines/autism. When people run out of real ammunition (and they do quickly), switch to trying to debate general safety of vaccines–and it almost worked. Instead of addressing some of your comments, I’ll move on to your fifth point:

E. Undue credibility was given to Brian Deer, a discredited freelancejournalist, whose false reporting has caused so much misunderstanding and damage to children through the misrepresentation of the doctors and parents who were seeking answers to the vaccine-autism question. Deer has repeatedly misled the public and the medical profession and has been unable to respond to clear evidence of his false reporting in the Sunday Times through the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.

Nice slam, there, Dr. Wakefield. Given the sloppy nature of your previous comments, I am impressed that you pulled this together so well.

You make it seem like it is accepted that Brian Deer is “discredited”. I guess if you don’t get out of Thoughtful House or autism-parent conventions, you might think that.

The “unable to respond…” bit is pretty classic. The Press Complaints Commission isn’t hearing the complaint until after your own GMC hearing, correct? So, I guess he has been unable to respond at the PCC. But, did that really stop him from responding? I seem to recall a pretty sharp worded response that Orac hosted on Respectful Insolence.

Didn’t you, Dr. Wakefield, bring that complaint to the PCC? If so, nice job leaving out the fact. It would come across quite differently had you stated: “…and has yet been unable to respond to clear my claims of his false reporting in the Sunday Times through the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.”

F. It was not disclosed that I have repeatedly invited Dr. Offit to take part in public debate on the safety of MMR vaccine and the false and misleading claims that he has made in the media and his book. He has refused to accept this invitation and has continued to hide from an open and honest debate.

Why would NBC waste time on this? Was it pertinent to the discussion? Answer: no.

I think they did you a favor by not mentioning it. No one looks good with the “So and So won’t debate me” argument. They just don’t. The “please debate me” argument is a staple of the crank. I doubt you wish to appear to be in that category, do you?

Academics “debate” in the literature, not on some stage. If you want to debate Dr. Offit, come up with some good research. Publish it.

Alternatively, if you want to see how a Wakefield/Offit debate comes out, read “autism’s false prophets”. If that is “hiding”, he hasn’t done a very good job of it.

G. NBC alluded briefly to the fact that Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, was informed of my participation as a medical expert in the MMR litigation almost one year before publication of the Lancet paper in 1998. NBC failed to clarify that when Horton was challenged to respond to the fact that when he so enthusiastically denounced me and the paper in 2004 the Lancet staff was already fully aware of the facts and at that time did not consider them to be relevant. Horton refused to be interviewed by NBC and the interview segment shown was from 2004. This refusal is in sharp contrast to his willingness to denounce me in the media in 2004. NBC also failed to mention that in the light of these facts Horton has been reported to UK’s General Medical Council on an allegation of perjury.

Even if true, this is just more diversions. If you thought it important enough to fax all this information to the Lancet, why didn’t you include a conflict of interest statement in the article itself? The referees would have appreciated that, I believe. Was there any mention of potential conflicts of interest in your cover letter to The Lancet when you submitted the paper? Or in the cover letter for your acceptance? All of those were places where you should have made such statements.

H. It was unfortunate that NBC, having stated their determination to resist external pressure to distort the balance of the program, yielded to such pressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics, allowing them the final word in the program while denying representation from the National Autism Association who put forward to NBC a rational and well reasoned call for further science to resolve this very real issue.

I’m sorry, but are you seriously putting he “National Autism Association” on equal footing with the American Academy of Pediatrics? How many members does the NAA have? (a lot less than the AAP) What is the name of their journal (they don’t have one) What is the impact factor of their journal? (Pediatrics is a very well respected journal).

Given the NAA’s recent childish antics with their attempted slime job against Dr. Offit (which you, Dr. Wakefield, participated in), I think that Dateline has been proven correct for not airing their comments.

I. Dr. Offit cited a large population study of autism and MMR from Denmark in support of his claim to ‘certainty that there is no link.’ This study was so flawed that it was rejected from consideration by the gold standard scientific review by the highly influential Cochrane Collaboration. Dr. Offitt, who is not an epidemiologist, was clearly at a loss to understand the study’s fatal flaws.

“Dr. Offitt, who is not an epidemiologist…” What’s up with that comment? I’m sorry, is Dr. Wakefield an epidemiologist? Answer: no. Do you have to be an epidemiologist to understand the study or it’s strengths or flaws? No.

What fatal flaws is Dr. Wakefield referring to? The big Danish study was by Madsen, et al.. The Cochrane Review lists this study as one of the “cohort studies included in the review”. Not “rejected from consideration”.

That aside, I have the Cochrane Review “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children (Review)” open. The version I have open is noted: “This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3”, so I think it is the most recent.

I guess if the Cochrane review is “highly influential” and the “gold standard” it would make sense to see what they think of the autism/MMR hypothesis, eh? The review states:

No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found.

Was this because they didn’t know about Dr. Wakefield’s work? Hardly. Four of Dr. Wakefield’s papers were listed. All were listed in the “excluded studies” section.

So where does this leave us? We have, what, nine talking points which are mostly diversions or misrepresentations. Anyone wonder why I don’t think Matt Lauer will be responding to these soon?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →