Archive | Orgs RSS feed for this section

Kelli Ann Davis doesn't get it

23 Aug

Over on Orac’s blog, a discussion is ongoing about (you guessed it) thiomersal.

One of the usual antivax canards is played beautifully by Kelli Ann Davis when she says:

So Phoenix Woman [another commenter], can you explain to me what the skull and crossbones is doing on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) if thimerosal is not a poison

This is top notch antivax stupidity. Not only does she entirely miss the point of ‘Phoenix Woman’s’ comment (which was not that thiomersal was not a poison) she also infers that the fact that thiomersal is a poison means that its automatically going to cause damage. She conveniently forgets – or doesn’t care – that the adage ‘the dose makes the poison‘ always applies.

And of course we have the scare tactic of mentioning the skull and crossbones.

Thing is, there are plenty of other Toxic substances used routinely in medicine. Lets have a look at Warafrin – which is at one level rat poison and at another level an anticoagulant. And hey – look at that – the MSDS sheet has a skull and crossbones on it.

Common clinical indications for warfarin use are atrial fibrillation, the presence of artificial heart valves, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, antiphospholipid syndrome and, occasionally, after myocardial infarction.

And also

To this day, coumarins are used as rodenticides for controlling rats and mice in residential, industrial, and agricultural areas. Warfarin is both odorless and tasteless, and is effective when mixed with food bait, because the rodents will return to the bait and continue to feed over a period of days until a lethal dose is accumulated.

So, lets spell it out nice and slow for Kelli Ann – the dose makes the poison.

And so, lets have a look at the current dose levels of thiomersal in vaccine shall we?

For an ‘average’ person of 154 pounds, there is 6mg (miligrams) – or 6000 micrograms(µg)) of mercury occurring naturally in the body. So, roughly, a person of 25 pounds has 1mg (1000µg) of mercury (or, to put it another way, 1 pound of body mass gives us 40µg). A healthy newborn weighs on average about 7.5 pounds which gives a mercury body burden of approximately 303µg of mercury.

When we look at the FDA thimerosal content of vaccines currently mandated and add them all up we see that we get 239.2µg of mercury – way under what occurs naturally in the body of a healthy 7.5 pound newborn.

Now, this is not even a fair comparison. I have added up all the vaccines for a child of 6. Including doubling up on doses of a vaccine made by different manufacturers. Quite obviously a child won’t get a Td jab from two different manufacturers at one time. I have also included all the flu jabs – again, no one will get all flu jabs in a single flu season.

The maths is quite clear. There is more mercury existing naturally in our bodies – even those of a 7.5 pound newborn – than the combined total of every single thiomersal containing vaccine on the market.

Sharyl Attkisson – are you sure?

19 Aug

Searchingly diligent and totally impartial CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has managed to uncover a third case of autism/vaccine related activity via the the Vaccine Courts. Never mind that Kathleen found it 5 months ago eh?

This case originates from a person born in 1974 who had a DTP shot that very same year, exactly 4 months later…..and thats about all we know.

Comparing autism in 1974 with autism in 2008 is not comparing apples to oranges. Its more like comparing apples to trains. In 1974, the DSM, didn’t even contain the _word_ autism. This is the existing DSM in use at the time:

DSM II (1968)
295.8 Schizophrenia, childhood type

This category is for cases in which schizophrenic symptoms appear before puberty. The condition may be manifested by autistic, atypical and withdrawn behavior; failure to develop identity separate from the mother’s; and general unevenness, gross immaturity and inadequacy of development. These developmental defects may result in mental retardation, which should also be diagnosed.

So, in 1974 autism was not even a defined disorder. It was a behaviour. A symptom of Schizophrenia. That’s worth remembering as we go forward.

Atkinson says:

In excerpts from the case below, the government agreed the child suffered “a residual seizure disorder” after his second Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis (DPT) vaccine but attempted to argue that the child’s mental retardation and brain injury were unrelated to the seizure disorder and were, instead, caused by his autism. On the other hand, the court found that the autistic behavior, brain injury and mental retardation were all part of the vaccine injury.

Did they? Is this accurate? Did the court find that _the autistic behaviour_ was part of the vaccine injury?

Atkinson quotes at length from the transcript of the case.

CHILD was born on August 23, 1974, the 9 lb. 9 oz. product of an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. CHILD developed normally until the age of four months when he was administered his second DPT vaccination on December 23, 1974… That evening, he experienced a grand mal seizure. CHILD’s mother… took CHILD to the… emergency room where he was found to have a fever of 101.8 degrees at that time and a *bulging fontanelle* …CHILD had a *seizure* on March 25, 1975, with a temperature of 102 degrees. The next day, he had another *seizure* with a *fever* less than 102 degrees…On April 15, 1975, CHILD experienced a *petit mal seizure* without an associated fever… CHILD apparently did well until mid-July 1975, when he had four *seizures, with fever* around 100.7 degrees… CHILD had *additional seizure activity* in November 1975. Again in February 1976, CHILD had *seizures*. At that time, a repeat EEG was grossly abnormal…when CHILD was 21 months of age, (CHILD’s doctor) noted that CHILD had a vocabulary of only two to three words. At that time, (CHILD’s doctor) discussed… the *possibility that CHILD was mentally retarded and developmentally delayed*. CHILD currently is severely mentally retarded and has an intractable seizure disorder.

(The government) respondent has conceded that CHILD suffered a residual seizure disorder as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, but argues against a finding that CHILD also suffered an encephalopathy (brain injury). Moreover, (the government) contends that CHILD suffers from autism, which has produced his severe mental retardation and developmental delay. Consequently, (the government) urges that compensation in this case be limited to those expenses that reasonably might be incurred for CHILD’s residual seizure disorder, not for expenses he might accrue because of his mental retardation, developmental delay and autistic behaviors.

The question of encephalopathy.

*(Government physician) believes that CHILD currently suffers from autism and mental retardation that are the result of an independent underlying neurologic condition that pre-dated the vaccination*. However, all tests that were conducted to determine possible causes for CHILD’s condition have revealed none. Furthermore, (government physician) has posited no origin of any underlying neurologic condition. (Government physician) would have us believe that CHILD’s grand mal convulsion following his second DPT vaccination was simply a manifestation of benign febrile seizures and that CHILD had another concurrent underlying (but etiologically undetermined) neurological disorder which later produced his severe mental retardation and autism.

I reject this theory for several reasons. First, the Vaccine Act’s defines encephalopathy as “any significant acquired abnormality of, or injury to, or impairment of function of the brain.” Section 14(b)((3)(A). This definition is extremely broad. CHILD’s initial grand mal seizure indicated an impairment of function of the brain. The question becomes whether this was a benign event unrelated to any lasting neurological sequelae. In my view… (CHILD’s treating pediatric neurologist) is in a better position to accurately assess CHILD’s illness than (government physician). Beginning in 1980, when he first evaluated CHILD, (CHILD’s neurologist) diagnosed CHILD as having static encephalopathy probably related to the time of his first seizure at four months of age.

Based on the foregoing, *I find that there is a preponderance of the evidence that CHILD suffered an encephalopathy within 72 hours of the administration of a DPT vaccination on December 23, 1974, and that no alternative cause for such encephalopathy has been satisfactorily shown*.

Read all that carefully? Good. Now, where in that summation does the Special Master find ‘that the autistic behavior, brain injury and mental retardation were all part of the vaccine injury’

Brain injury – yes. mental retardation – yes. But where is ‘autistic behaviour’ mentioned by the court? In fact, the truth is that the only person who raised the issue of autism at all were the government. They tried to explain away CHILD’s injury by blaming it on autism (which bizarrely wasn’t an actual diagnosis in 1974).

Bottom line: the court did not, I repeat *did not* find that this child (a grown man now) had autism, autistic features or autistic behaviours as a result of vaccines. The closest we get is the phrase ‘static encephalopathy’ which basically means that a child doesn’t develop. This can _lead_ to autism (as well as a whole host of things such as cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, Schizophrenia) but it is not autism. When this diagnosis was given (1980) the child would’ve been 6 and thus well past the age at which autistic symptoms must appear.

An interesting sidenote. We can guesstimate the 1974 schedule. Well, maybe not the schedule but we can at least see which vaccines were in use.

In 1960, the US was using Smallpox, DTwP and Polio. By the mid-80’s, the schedule was made up of DTP, MMR and Polio.

Smallpox was dropped in 1971 and MMR stared in 1963. Therefore we can guesstimate that in 1974 the schedule was the same as the 1980 one. DTP, MMR and Polio. At some point however, the Polio switched from injection to Oral. I can’t find out when.

So – how is this ‘too many too soon’? How is a case from when there wasn’t even an autism category relevant? How is a case where the claim is that one single vaccine caused autism in any way similar to the idea of ‘too many too soon’?

Politics of Mitochondrial-PDD

15 Aug

For most people reading this blog, the story of Hannah Poling is very familiar. She was diagnosed with a condition called “Mitochondrial-PDD” by Richard Kelley of the Kennedy Kreiger Institute (*according to the document David Kirby blogged)

That, of course, is not what makes her well known. A year ago, I doubt many if any readers here would have heard of Mitochondrial-PDD. What makes her well known is that her case before the Federal Court of Claims (the “vaccine court”) was conceded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

What did they say? According to David Kirby’s post:

In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations [Hannah Poling] received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).

The HHS conceded that vaccines caused an injury. In specific, the injury was an “aggravation of an underlying mitochondrial disorder”

It’s worth asking a series of questions at this point, I think

Q) Do all mitochondrial disorders result in autistic features or autism?
A) No.

Q) Do all the children in the 30-child study have vaccine injury?
A) No. It appears that Hannah Poling is unique in that group.

Q) Is mitochondrial medicine a highly specialized field?
A) Absolutely.

Q) Are autism doctors/researchers experienced with mitochondrial disorders?
A) Only a few, and not likely to the depth that the mitochondrial doctors/researchers are

Q) Is anyone going to look at the potential role of vaccines with mitochondrial disorders?
A) Yes.

And that is a key point that deserves some extra attention. Dr. Poling in his letter to the NEJM noted that

Also commendable is the new 5-year research plan of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which will entail the study of minority subpopulations, including patients with mitochondrial disorders.

In doing so, he cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office Scientific Agenda: Draft Recommendations.

Which states:

CISA has formed a working group to identify key research questions and consider study methods related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization, in collaboration with partners.

CISA being the “Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network”

The document further states as the first lines of the first two bullet points under this proposed study:

Mitochondrial disorders are a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by impaired energy production.

and

Children with mitochondrial disorders commonly present with a range central nervous system findings.

*Again, note that autism/autistic-features are not the only outcome of mitochondrial disorders.

*I think this proposed study is a good idea. The government has conceded a case, mitochondrial doctors state that the question is open as to whether vaccines could be a stressor that causes a metabolic crisis.

People are pushing for this to be a part of the IACC’s Strategic Plan.

Why?

A group of people, experts in vaccine safety studies, are already going to look at the whole question of the potential role vaccines and mitochondrial disorders. Why carve out the even smaller subset with autism? Or, to put it more directly, why call for a second study, and, at the same time, leave out people who don’t have autism?

The answer is simple: politics. People want the idea of vaccine induced autism in the Strategic Plan. To do so, they are willing to ignore the fact that the study is already being planned and, worse, they are willing to sacrifice a large segment of the potential target population.

It’s just not right. Let the correct groups do the correct study. It’s in the planning stage. If people really care about the question of vaccines potentially causing crises in people with metabolic disorders, support the CISA study.

Why do I have a feeling this isn’t going to happen?

* added on edit.

Go Danish!

15 Aug

If you search around the web, you can find people suggesting other vaccine schedules than that used in the “overly aggressive” United States.

One you will find, promoted by the autism/vaccine advocacy group Generation Rescue doesn’t include any coverage whatsoever for Measles Mumps or Rubella. That is scary. Just plain scary.

They have others, though. One is “Go Danish”, with this little blurb:

Comment: Denmark is a first world country based in Western Europe. Their schedule appears far more reasonable than ours. They have also been reported to have a much lower rate of autism than the U.S. Do they know something we don’t?

They give the vaccine schedule as of December 2006. Hmmm, makes you wonder what it looks like now, doesn’t it? We’ll get to that.

Well, let’s look at the “recommended” “alternate” schedule based on the 2006 Danish schedule:

DTaP at 3, 5 and 12 months
Hib at 3, 5 and 12 months
IPV at 3, 5 and 12 months, plus 5 years
MMR at 15 months and 12 years

And, this supposedly leads to a lower autism prevalence. Take a look again–that means that giving 5 vaccines at once, three times in the first year of life doesn’t cause a high autism rate. It also means that MMR at 15 months does not cause a high autism rate.

With this on their website as a something to “consider”, shouldn’t they consider what this tells us? Again, assuming that the autism prevalence in Denmark is low, doesn’t this tell us that vaccinations given in combination, early in life, don’t cause autism “epidemics”? Isn’t it pretty clear that the MMR doesn’t cause “autism epidemics”?

The current Danish schedule is now somewhat modified from the 2006 one noted at the Generation Rescue website. They’ve added the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) at 3, 5 and 12 months. That’s 6 vaccines at once 3 times in the first year of life.

That sounds like a lot of jabs for those little Danish kids…except that they use combination vaccines. Not just DTaP, but DTaPHibIPV. Wow, a five part combination vaccine. I don’t think this is what Generation Rescue had in mind when they suggested “Go Danish”.

They have also added the HPV (Gardasil) vaccine at age 12, but I really think the discussions of that vaccine have nothing to do with autism and just paint factions of the autism community as anti-vaccine, so I prefer to stay out of that discussion.

The combination vaccine (which I assume is fairly new) and the addition of the PCV vaccine will give groups like Generation Rescue a talking point if/when the autism counts in Denmark increase to something similar to the rest of the world.

But, let’s leave where we started, with the words of Generation Rescue, speaking about Denmark:

They have also been reported to have a much lower rate of autism than the U.S. Do they know something we don’t?

Apparently, the Danish know that multiple vaccines don’t cause autism. If we believe Generation Rescue, it looks like Denmark has the data to show it.

Katie Couric, Sharyl Attkisson, Larry King, and Dr. Jay Gordon

12 Aug

As you may recall, I faxed Katie Couric a while back making some comments and asking for some information.  I find that the CBS coverage of autism is, well, a bit odd.  Sharyl Attkisson seems to be promoting an idea, not following a story where it leads.  The main example I give for that is the total lack of a followup to the assertion made by Bernadine Healy that “[t]here is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”  Who, precisely, aside from Dr. Healy expressing this concern?

The Voices For Vaccines fax which preceded mine was posted an autism/vaccine advocacy website within hours of being sent, begging the question of who within CBS news sent it, and why there is such a close tie between the two.

Anyway, I shouldn’t rewrite the entire previous blog post–the short version is: I had questions.  I still do.  That’s right, I still do.

I’m not complaining, just pointing out a simple fact: CBS didn’t take the time to respond to simple questions about their reporting.

Now, take a newer event in the autism world.  In preparation for the Every Child By Two press conference last week, some comments were made on the Yahoo group dedicated to the “Green our Vaccines” rally.  One comment in particular by Dr. Jay Gordon struck me as rather bothersome.   The comment was directed at a person named Avrielle Gallagher, who works for Larry King Live.

Being in the mode of wondering about how the media works, especially those apparantly sympathetic to the vaccine/autism causality question, I decided to contact Ms. Gallagher.  I sent the following email to the same address Dr. Gordon used.  For good measure, I used the Larry King Live website to send the same message:

Hello,

I saw an email from Dr. Jay Gordon to you.  It was posted on the JennDCRally autism list.  The email is listed below.

Could you explain what is meant by the term, “[redacted]?  I see that you work for Larry King Live.  Is he asking you to do a show on the conflicts of interest of these groups?

If so, perhaps you would like to read a few analyses of Dr. Offit’s conflicts of interest.  I looked into the public data and posted my views here:

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1022

I rewrote this and faxed it to Katie Couric of CBS, as noted here:

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1057

As you will see, I am not in agreement with Dr. Gordon.  You will also see that I am the parent of a young child with autism, one who does not subscribe to the autism/vaccine concept.

Rather than “[redacted comment]”, I would like you to consider going after a good, reasoned story.  I would especially like to see a good, reasoned story on the subject of Dr. Offit’s new book, “Autism’s False Prophets”.   This is causing quite a stir amongst the alt-med subset of the autism community.  They have publicly stated that they have targeted Dr. Offit and those are also promoting vaccination (like Amanda Peet).

As you will see from my posts, Dr. Offit appears to have no more financial conflicts of interest regarding vaccines.  He is actually in a position of high independence.  And, yet, he still promotes the same message as before.  That should tell us all something.  In addition, his book is going to be a big story.

So, I ask a simple question: will you go after the story or the person?

I look forward to a response.

I’m still looking forward to a response.  I’m an optimist that way, I guess. 

Oh, you are no doubt wondering why I redacted Dr. Jay’s exact words.  You see, after a bit I decided to email him.  I admit, I should have emailed him from the start, but I did wait a few days.

Dr. Gordron, I saw the below message from the JennyDCRally autism group.

If I may, could I ask what you mean by “[redacted].”?

Given that Avrielle Gallagher works for Larry King Live, this sounds like you are asking for Larry King to do a show about these people in a poor light.

I am the parent of a child with autism.  Surely you can see that the image of the autism community (or segments of the autism community) as a group that would use the media to “[redacted]” is something that I would like to avoid.  While we as a community may be divided on some issues, I would bet that the majority would agree that we rely heavily on the support of the majority of the public.

I look forward to your response.

Sullivan

Even though I misspelled his name, he responded within a couple of hours:

Thanks.

You’re correct, that was very poorly phrased.

What I meant was that there should be more light shined on the financial conflicts of interest which exist.

Jay

(emphasis his)

When I notified him that I intended to include his comments in this piece, he replied:

Dear Sullivan,

The first statement I made reflected my anger. I really do think there is far too much conflict of interest in the lives of many of the vaccine researchers, the CDC and the AAP.

The brief email answer I sent you reflects my true feelings about this.

Please feel free to quote me and, if you do, please also mention that I certainly don’t think that my being immoderate in my comments helps anybody.

Best,

Jay

Dr. Gordon did what Katie Couric, Sharyl Attkisson, Avrielle Gallagher, and the staffs for CBS News and Larry King Live failed to do: answer simple and (I hope) respectfully posed questions.

I could give a long list of the people who have answered simple, sometimes even complicated, questions, respectfully posed. I’ve been very fortunate in that regard. I would have loved to add CBS News and Larry King Live to the list.

It all just makes me wonder. CBS News and Larry King have spent decades reporting on how this person or that company or some group in the government ignored questions. Invariably, those reports cast a bad light on the groups investigated. And, yet, when presented the opportunity to clarify their own actions, they chose to be silent.

Maybe I’ll send a respectful question to Voices For Vaccines and ask if CBS News responded to their concerns. I know that CBS took the time to respond to the Orange County Register’s blog on Autism.

In their reply to the Inside Autism blog, CBS News noted:

…We believe our report was in no way defamatory of any institution or individual, and that no retraction is warranted…

As I’ve noted before, I like the irony of CBS News deciding for itself whether it was defamatory. Strikes me odd given the complaints alleged against, well, basically everyone the vaccine/autism groups have ever complained about.

But, I digress. I’d like to point out that I didn’t claim CBS was “defamatory”. I only bring this up to point out that even though CBS communicated with the Register blog, they haven’t addressed my questions.

A commenter on the Register’s blog said it best in her response to Lisa Randall of Voices For Vaccines. The Register’s blogger decided to highlight the comment, and I pull out the segment that caught my eye here:

…We expect the press to tell us the truth…

The first step is to tell us anything.

Britney Spears thinks son might be autistic

8 Aug

I can’t believe I’ve linked to stories about so many Hollywood stars (and Jenny McCarthy) lately but here we go again. Apparently, Britney Spears thinks her son Jayden might be autistic.

Compared to his big brother, Sean Preston, little Jayden “often seems to be in his own world,” family friends say.

“He plays alone a lot,” an In Touch Weekly snitch says. “Jayden often starts crying for no apparent reason,” a friend of K-Fed’s adds.

Um, well, apart from the first statement, I don’t see any red flags for autism. No ones mentioned a lack of eye contact or slow development (or none) of communication skills. On the other hand, it may well explain why Britney turned up at a Gen Rescue gig recently.

I’m not going to get into a Britney-bash. She’s been touted as a manic depressive and us loons have to stick together. I will mention however, that from what I’ve seen on TV, the Spears/Federline children have not had an easy ride of it lately and maybe these ‘symptoms’ might go away if mum and dad grew up a bit and stopped attacking each other publicly. Might also help if every tabloid in the entire Western hemisphere backed off and gave Spears some room to sort both herself and her kids out.

So, if Jayden does get diagnosed (who by? Lets hope its not Jay ‘Polio can be cured by not eating cheese’ Gordon) will she go down the anti-vaccine route? Has the lad even _been_ vaccinated?

I expect she will as she’s already been co-opted by McCarthy and GR. That means we have lots more celeb induced silliness to put up with and even less emphasis on science. Woo-hoo.

Amanda Peet on Good Morning America

5 Aug

Prior to today’s Every Child By Two press conference (no news outlets to link to yet) Amanda Peet was on the American show Good Morning America. The interview is below:

The only quotes I can get online are from the more high end Celeb mags (not the Perez Hilton trashy ones) such as Celebrity Gossip:

And now that she’s landed in New York City, Amanda is doing her part to help out the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Every Child By Two organization by lending her celebrity voice to a campaign urging parents to get their babies vaccinated against preventable diseases.

With a press conference scheduled for later today, Amanda recently said of her decision to help out: “When I was pregnant with my daughter Frankie, I had all kinds of questions, including ones about immunization. There is a wealth of misinformation about vaccines out there, particularly in Hollywood.”

“My husband and I took the time to speak to several doctors about our concerns. What became clear to us was that delaying vaccines could jeopardize our baby’s life. I have teamed up with Every Child By Two to help parents get the facts straight on this very important issue.”

Peet concluded, “My main message to parents is that they should not be taking medical advice from me or any other celebrity. They should look to their pediatrician, the AAP and other experts.”

For those of you who want to see what McCarthy has been up to, there is some footage from her recent American Wrestling Entertainment experience.

Jenny needs my help!!

5 Aug

I just got this email. I never thought I’d have the chance to help Jenny McCarthy, but here it is:

subject:

URGENT! – From Jenny McCarthy

Big old banner:

We need your help right now!

Salutation:

Greetings! (Contact First Name)

I love how close we’ve become over time! Not everyone calls me “Contact First Name”.

You won’t believe this! AAP is kicking off a “Vaccinate Your Baby” campaign.

Uh, the American Academy of Pediatrics is kicking off a “Vaccinate Your Baby” campaign, this is unbelievable? Next week: nutritionists urge, “Eat Food”. Personal trainers say, “Exercise”.

I mean, seriously, the AAP recomending vaccinating babies.  This is a stunner to someone?  How far removed from the mainstream do you have to be to think that “you can’t believe this” can be tied to “AAP is kicking of a vaccinate your baby” campaign?

Speaking to the press tomorrow is Amanda Peet, Rosalynn Carter, Betty Bumpers, the President of AAP, Paul Offit (holder of several vaccine patents), and a mom of a child with autism!  They say, “This initiative will address misinformation about vaccines that causes confusion among parents and puts children at risk.”

So, we have

1) Amanda Peet. Uh, is it bad to have an actress talking about vaccines?

2) Rosalynn Carter. Don’t even take your nasty smear campaign there. I think even Generation Rescue is smarter than that. I think.

3) Betty Bumpers. She’s the “Former First Lady of Arkansas and Cofounder of Every Child by Two”. I guess GR haven’t created any smear on her either. Smart move GR, keep it up.

4) The president of AAP. Is there a reason why they edited Renee Jenkins’ name?

5) Paul Offit, holder of several vaccine patents. Uh, perhaps Jenny McCarthy would like to read up on the difference between an “inventor” and the “assignee”. Dr. Offit “holds” no patents. Ah well, that doesn’t make good smear copy, does it?

6) And a mom of a child with autism!

Again, with the editing out of the name. This could be a blessing, as the mother might not get harassed. But the name is public: Ann Hotez.

I don’t know for certain, but “Hotez” is not that common of a name. This sounds like no ordinary “autism mom”, but the wife of the noted vaccinologist Peter Hotez.

First–thanks Mrs. Hotez. Thanks for taking the heat. Thanks for stepping forward. Thanks for helping kids.

Second–assuming I have the right person, I’d say that Ann Hotez probably knows a bit more about vaccines than, say, Jenny McCarthy. I’ll take any bet anyone wants to make that her husband knows more about vaccines than Jenny McCarthy’s partner, Jim Carrey.

“This initiative will address misinformation about vaccines that causes confusion among parents and puts children at risk.”

Not if Jenny has anything to say about it. As we can see, she’s already working hard on keeping the misinformation alive.

The press conference is tomorrow (Tuesday, August 5th, 2008) at the Peninsula Hotel, 3rd Floor Gramercy Room from 10:30 to 11:30. We need every family we can to go and tell the press the truth about this idiocy.

I’d love to tell the press there about the idiocy. Why do I suspect Jenny doesn’t want me talking to the press about the idiocy?

Thanks Jenny. Thanks for making the autism community look like an anti-vaccine crowd.

On the reality side of this–there is a website that is launching on this subject

http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/

After the launch of Voices for Vaccines, Generation Rescue made some sort of claim that they (VFV) were copying GR by creating a website. Look, here’s another group with the gall to create a website and not give credit to GR. I am shocked and amazed!

Back to the real world– here is the press release for the actual event tomorrow.

Thank you everyone working on this “vaccinate your baby” campaign. Thank you Amanda Peet. Thank you Ann Hotez. I apologize in advance for the reception my fellow autism parents are about to give you.

edit–one note: my email client has flagged the Jenny McCarthy email as a possible “scam”. I haven’t been able to make myself click the “not a scam” button.

Sharyl Attkisson's long history of anti-vaccinationism

1 Aug

As blogged by Mike, Liz, Autism News Beat, Kristina and Orac, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson seems to the prime suspect in the matter of how a fax sent to CBS News by Voices for Vaccines turned up on the Age of Autism blog less than 1 day later.

This matters. Reporters are supposed to be independent. They are supposed to give a balanced view. The very act of forwarding this fax to Age of Autism simply confirms that someone at CBS News, mostly likely Ms Attkisson, is deeply affiliated with Age of Autism. This makes her conflicted and she is totally the wrong person to be investigating the autism/vaccine hypothesis.

I went looking to see what else I could find to support my opinion that Ms Attkisson is someone who is not a reporter, but someone presenting her opinion in the name of investigative news. I found plenty.

Take this ‘interview‘ with Rep. Dave Weldon about the Poling case. I put the word interview in single quotes because it really isn’t an interview, its more a series of questions to allow Weldon to trot out a series of inaccuracies supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism. This is the sort of journalist who would ask God ‘tell me God, do you believe in creationism?’ And then give God a five minute run to explain how he does.

She was also the CBS employee (it seems wrong to keep saying she is a reporter) who interviewed Bernadine Healy in which the former Philip Morris shill said we should re-examine the autism/vaccine idea.

Over on the ‘No Mercury’ website, there is a long list of videos of Ms Attkisson (35 in total, dating back to March 2002) of which all seem to be ‘investigations’ into vaccines and other pharma related activities.

This piece which relates some of the most common and mind-numbingly stupid antivax canards around is just about the clearest indication of her loyalties. Anyone who states the following is not impartial and should not be investigating this story:

Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

Thimerosal and Autism on Trial: Closing statement by Mr. Matanoski

31 Jul

This is a portion of the government’s closing argument given by Mr. Matanoski. It is found on the audio from Dwyer called Day02-PM3.

First I want to point out on the specific causation … lawyers are kind of slick they move things around, they kind of play a shell game. When I heard the comments about a specific causation case it made it sound like respondent has a burden here to show what actually caused it. Actually the burden is on the petitioners to show that the vaccine caused autism. And respondent doesn’t have to show that it’s genetic in origin.

And I think that the comments about Dr Leventhal’s testimony on that point are a little off the mark. What Dr. Leventhal was saying, essentially, that most practitioners, most folks who study autism as a profession believe that it’s largely genetic in nature at that’s where the research has been directed and in fact it’s been fruitful in that regard. There’s still much more to do. But everything that has come out has pointed to genetics as very strongly associated with autism and most of the research that has been done has shown that autism would have a prenatal course. That it can essentially be seen, that the preconditions, if you will, for autism are in place beginning before birth, in most instances.

I think there also is a little bit of a misconception about what the force of Dr. Leventhal’s testimony was. He basically was saying that Colin’s case really is sadly no different than many of the cases that he sees, where there is a gradually emerging picture of difference, perhaps delays, but at least difference in the quality of behavior in the child as the child develops. It’s not necessarily apparent right from the start. That’s very rare. Most of the cases it’s apparent later and it may seem that a child has reached certain milestones has subsequently had trouble keeping those milestones. As the condition progresses there often is an improvement. That’s the natural course of the condition. What Dr. Leventhal was saying is, as time has gone on, more and more of the researchers have realized that if you look back in cases, that apparently seemed to have a normal trajectory and then there seemed to be a loss, that you see earlier signs and symptoms that all was not on a normal trajectory from the beginning.
That was the force of his testimony, and that testimony was backed up by other testimony by other testimony that the court has heard before he took the stand.
Dr. Lord who has specifically studied regressive autism made that point quite clear, that as this has progressed the concept of regressive autism has become more encompassing, that autism itself seems to have a progression where it appears that there is a loss but when one goes back, one sees that there is unusual, or differences in development earlier on in almost every case. And what Dr. Leventhal was saying is that as they gotten better, folks who do this for a living, folks who make their lives studying about studying autism they’ve realized that more and more of those cases they can see earlier on. And in very few instances when they’ve studied quite closely do they see that there isn’t some sign that the trajectory or the course is not the same as other children’s.

Dr. Mumper’s testimony which really wasn’t really much of the focus in the closing argument here. She seems to be relying on isolated lab results to come up to a conclusion that vaccines are the cause here. She’s been asked in this case and in other cases what would that pattern be, what do we need to look at? And in fact there doesn’t seem to be a particular pattern. In the King case certain test results were relied upon to draw the conclusion that thimerosal in vaccines were associated with autism in that case, or caused autism in that case. In the Mead case other results were looked at and thought to be, by Dr. Mumper, indicative that vaccines were causing, or evidence that vaccines were causing autism. And now in Colin’s case, we see yet a different pattern of test results being relied upon to reach that conclusion.

In fact those test results, with really no pattern, how can one say that there is any kind of clinical evidence from these test results that one can rely on to make that .. to draw those kinds of conclusions that Dr. Mumper is relying on.

And as you’ll see when you go through the testimony, we believe that she largely moved away from relying on any specific test result when questioned about each specific one she said that essentially that the mercury test result, the positive provocation, was really the only test that she had that showed that the mercury was there, and she was relying on to implicate thimerosal as a cause in this case, but then she admitted that she really didn’t know what the normal range would be for that test.
How can one say that this is an abnormal result when one doesn’t know what normal is?
Her testimony seems to be formed largely by the Defeat Autism Now world view which is that toxins and heavy metals are implicated in autism. And to use the example that Mr. Powers used of Tycho Brahe I think that comes to bear with her testimony as well. It doesn’t matter which test results she’s looking at it always comes back to a heavy metal or a toxin, when it could be that the acidosis that the lactic acid build up could be because the child was crying when the blood was taken. (35 min 30 sec)

…

I’m going to touch now on the general causation because that was a matter of some discussion by Mr. Williams. I see that the glutathione theory which is where we started with this general causation case seems to have dropped out. It wasn’t in the opening statement, it wasn’t in the closing statement. It seems that the theory of causation now is neuroinflammation and largely seems to be neuroinflammation alone. That was a theory that Dr. Kinsbourne recently advaced in this case. It obviously wasn’t present until just a couple of weeks before the trial in May.
This is something after six years in the making, this seems to have come up kind of at the very end.

Mr. Powers and Mr Williams have focused on the causation burden, and say that the information they have given on neuroinflammation meets that burden, that would be the causation burden under Althen and Grant, the specific criteria that they need to meet under that test that the court has articulated, the federal circuit’s has articulated.

Respondent starts a little earlier than that if you will in the calculation and that is about what evidence feeds into Althen and Grant. We start out with the analysis under Daubert about whether there is good scientific evidence to even meet that burden. So obviously the evidence that you have or the evidence that is being offered does not meet the criteria of good scientific or reliable evidence then you have nothing at all to test about whether you’ve met your legal burden under Althen.

Our position has been throughout this that the petitioners’ evidence that they have offered, the testimony that they’ve offered, fails to meet that standard of reliability that is set out under Daubert and that this court applies. Daubert stands for the proposition that there are not multiple kinds of scientific evidence. A kind for scientists to use and a kind for judges to use. There is only one kind of scientific evidence. It is the kind that scientists use. That is the kind that judges are supposed to be looking for as well. …

Kathleen Seidel’s neurodiversity weblog has more from the Dwyer case, including audio excerpts.

Elizabeth Mumper – Autism Omnibus, Dwyer vs HHS

When I heard Mr. Matanoski say, “when one doesn’t know what normal is,” it occurred to me that it could be used as a slogan or strapline for the autism/biomed organization that is led in part by Dr. Mumper.

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →