Archive | Orgs RSS feed for this section

Autism Omnibus – Vas Aposhian

16 May

Vas Aposhian is – like Sander Greenland – an expert witness for petitioners (the families) and a professor of molecular and cellular biology as well as a professor of pharmacology.

On Day 2 and 3 he testified as to what seemed to be the main hypothesis behind the whole thiomersal/autism idea.

The basic idea is that some people are genetically predisposed to something called _mercury efflux disorder_ (plain english, they can’t get rid of mercury as well as most people can, it crosses the blood brain barrier and triggers autism). Mercury Efflux Disorder is itself an unproven hypothesis but Aposhian passionately believes in it.

He came under heavy cross exam (I won’t go through his performance whilst testifying to his own ‘side’ – we all know the basic hypothesis), that compromised a lot of day two and most of the morning of day three (the audio is released slowly so I’m a couple of days behind). The part I’m writing about today starts about an hour and a half into day three (NB: I’ve downloaded all the MP3’s and stitched them into one file).

Aposhian says that the mercury efflux hypothesis is supported by six papers:

…each piece of evidence alone leaves some doubt but taken all together the evidence implicates thimerosal/ethylmercury as the likely precipitating agent in the etiology of some of the autism spectral disorders.

Respondent counsel referred to these six papers as ‘pillars’ supporting the hypothesis. Aposhians’s pillars are:

First, Adams et al. (2007) demonstrated that teeth from autistic children contain more mercury than those from non-autistic children.

Respondent counsel asked Asphosian what he thought he could criticize about these papers he says ‘implicate thiomersal’. Regarding Adams et al, Asphosian said (and I’m paraphrasing slightly after scribbling notes furiously):

1) The number of controls should’ve been increased.
2) There were too few test subjects
3) When asked if raised mercury level was an indicator of toxicity, Asphosian answered “I don’t know”.
4) When asked if he would’ve expected mercury concentrations to vary depending on gender, Asphosian answered “Yes”.
5) When asked if Adams controlled for gender Asphosian answered, “No, he doesn’t control for gender”.
6) When asked if lead concentration of a tooth affected mercury concentration of a tooth, Asphosian answered, “I don’t know”.
7) Asphosian was asked, given the fact that the thiomersal hypothesis depended on the role of _ethyl_ mercury, what type of mercury did Adams et al measure in the teeth? Asphosian’s answer was “…did not do speciation” – in other words, he didn’t separate the types of mercury out. He recorded it all.
8) When asked if mercury levels in teeth tell you anything about amounts of mercury in the brain Asphosian replied that he didn’t know as no one had ever done that study.

These are fairly damning failings in what Asphosian’s assumptions were regarding the quality of that study. Of course, there is more wrong with the Adams paper than just the above, but these points are pretty damning. The failure to control for gender, the paucity of subjects and the fact Adams et al didn’t concentrate on ethyl-mercury raise serious questions over what exactly this study can add to the so-called Mercury Efflux Disorder.

I’ll keep appending to this post as I work through the rest of the audio.

Autism Omnibus – Petitioners suggest new prevalence

14 May

As noted by Ms Clark yesterday, petitioners in the current Autism Omnibus hearing are redefining the terms of the so called ‘epidemic’ to proportions that would’ve been unthinkable to any card-carrying mercury militia member at the start of this year.

And as I noted yesterday, not only is the ‘epidemic’ (so long a standard of the vaccine hypotheses) being seriously watered down, so is the very definition of who can claim status as a member of the vaccine-induced-autism club.

And this is not as a result of any utterance by anybody on respondents (HHS) side – this is all direct from the mouths of the Petitioners legal team and their experts. Truly amazing.

The audio files were posted yesterday (please note that despite everything being linked, as of right now, only Day 1 audio files are actually present for download) so I could finally hear some of what was being said for myself. I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet but I wanted to hear more about what I posted yesterday – the fact that Petitioners are now claiming that thiomersal induced autism (assuming it exists at all) accounts for such a small proportion of autism that it is not detectable using epidemiology.

Dr Greenland says (and this is all on Day 1 File 1 – I ain’t going to transcribe it exactly!) that the figures Petitioners are talking about represent a sub-group of regressive autism he terms ‘clearly regressive autism’ (this is also mentioned in his report which I linked to in the post I made yesterday). And of course regressive autism itself is a sub group of autism. According to Greenland, the figures are:

Regressive autism: 28% of autism1.
Clearly regressive autism: 20% of regressive autism
Therefore, clearly regressive autism: (approx) 6% of autism

Now, when we translate this to what the vaccine hypothesis believers like to call ‘proper’ autism (by which I assume they mean classic/low functioning) we get this:

Classical/LF autism: 33% of ASD (based on Fombonne data again).
So, ‘clearly regressive autism’ is 6% of 33% of ASD.

Or in other words, Petitioners ‘clearly regressive autism’ accounts for approx 2% of all ASD.

I can’t say it often enough. This is the expert report of an expert testifying for petitioners. Amazing.

And lets also bear in mind that Greenland is not claiming that *all* ‘clearly regressive autism’ cases are caused by thiomersal. He’s saying that this is the numerical size of the group Petitioners claim *contain* those injured by vaccines, resulting in autism.

So, when we translate that to actual numbers what do we get?

According to CDC, we can estimate that 560,000 children (0 – 21) have an ASD. Using Greenland’s data we can see that:

2% of 560000 = 11,200 people aged between 0 and 21 have ‘clearly regressive autism’.

Based on the data on the front page of census.gov, there are 304,079,911 American citizens as of right now. The child population of which is 25% or 76,019,961.5.

Therefore, according to Petitioners expert witness, the ‘clearly regressive autism’ (aka autism-caused-by-thiomersal) population percentage of the US is *0.015%*.

Tsunami? Hardly.

1] interesting point to note – this is based on Fombonne’s work. Who would’ve thought we’d ever see Fombonne’s data being used to support Petitioners?

PS – maths is not my strong point. Feel free to double check and point out errors/fixes.

Thimerosal on trial- the incredible shrinking epidemic

13 May

The audio recordings of the first day of the thimerosal-only portion of the Autism Omnibus Proceedings hearings are now available here: ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/thimerosal.html. They are mp3 files.

Here’s some of what I heard yesterday via telephone and comments on what I think the parents’ lawyers seem to be implying now, maybe you will listen to the same discussion and take away different key points:

A lawyer for the petitioners (Mr. Williams, I think) said, as if a fact: there has been an autism epidemic, and he added that there is no such thing as a “genetic epidemic”.

They know this because no one could “miss” regressive autism in the past. I guess they might have missed other non-regressive autism and other ASDs.

The only kind of regressive autism they are interested in is the “clearly regressive” subtype, which they seem to be saying is about 2% or less of all ASD children born during the 1990s.

Apparently, they are only interested in the children of the “epidemic” era when kids got more thimerosal exposure.

There are so few of their target group that when these kids started to be “added” to the “epidemic” no one could see it happening, and likewise when the exposure to thimerosal dropped of precipitously, even though the numbers of these target group kids must have dropped off precipitously, no one could see that change in the larger epidemiological data.

So the epidemic might continue but it has nothing to do with thimerosal exposure now.

The numbers of “clearly regressive” autistics, however should be obviously diminishing. Because it’s a small group and not all of them “clearly regressed” following a vaccine containing thimerosal. These supposedly thimerosal-damaged clearly regressive kids must be disappearing by now, but maybe they’ve been replaced by kids who “clearly regress” due to another actionable agent. If they regress because of an non-actionable agent, like, say, oxygen or exposure prenatally to mom’s immune system, no one cares. Then logically, if all of the “clear regressing” autistics were caused to regress only by thimerosal, then there should be very few, or none, younger “clearly regressed” autistics in areas where thimerosal is not used for toddler age vaccines now and hasn’t been used in the past few years.

Apparently, they are claiming that thimeosal in vaccines only causes a subset of regressive autism, not including early-onset autism. So apparently there’s no way for a baby who got the birth dose of Hep B to be made autistic, since it can’t “clearly regress” shortly after birth. And if the baby only got the Hep B dose (if preserved by thimerosal), that alone couldn’t cause a regression months later. I think they are only interested in vaccines given right before a toddler regresses, at say age 12 months to 36 months.

Also, it seems that the PSC believes Eric Fombonne’s research is reliable when they want to make a point with it. They used his research to support the numbers of autistics who regress if I recall.

The transcripts will be available eventually (maybe soon), but we don’t know when. I think it would be interesting to compare get them to explain how many of this tiny group of ASD kids also have mitochondrial diseases or disorders. I wonder if they are trying to imply that the rest of the “epidemic” is caused by tuna mercury, chicken mercury or MMR, aluminum, assortative mating or what?

Presto Chango

12 May

Now, there’s nothing wrong with making a mistake. Nothing at all. People make mistakes all the time – as I saw on the back of a window cleaners van the other day – ‘guano happens’.

For a trivial mistake (spelling etc) its easy to change things on a blog. I can simply edit and re-save the post. I don’t need to tell anyone my Bluto sized fingers have typed ‘teh’ instead of ‘the’ again. I can just change it and republish.

However, sometimes, you make a mistake that is rather more important. A mistake that changes the factual interpretation _and_ the tone of a post. These should be altered _and_ a little note be made close to the alteration to point out the error and the fact its fixed. Trying to get away with making such large scale errors and hoping no one notices is bad form.

If one is a journalist – a professional writer – you would expect the notification as a matter of course. Don’t journalists pride themselves on their accuracy and attention to detail?

So it was something of a surprise to see that the article Sullivan discussed written by David Kirby had undergone a mysterious and totally unremarked upon alteration.

This (click for larger image and then use your browsers ‘back’ button to return here after viewing) is the original post David made on the Huffington Post. The page was recovered from Google Cache. As you can see, this contains the erroneous ‘34,000’ figure and all that flows from it. The maths error that Sullivan noted.

However, visiting the Huffington Post post today reveals the following:

.

(Again, click for bigger).

As we can see, the post has undergone very significant change of a key part of important factual information. With no (that I can see) notification that the data has been altered. I took a screen shot of the entire page as of 09:43 on Mon 12th May 2008 and couldn’t see such a notification. Maybe someone else can see one?

Tut tut.

However, even more curiously, the same article David posted at the Age of Autism blog still contains the error.

(Again, click for bigger).

Why? Are AoA readers less interested in facts? Is David too busy packing for his trip over here in June (which I am _very_ much looking forward to by the way)?

Adults, Autism and Scotland

10 May

I have been thinking recently how nice it is that the online autism community has moved on from the quarterly analyses of the CDDS data. For those who are blissfully unaware–the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) publishes statistics on the people it serves. They do this every three months.

These data are a favorite of people who would like to promote the idea of an autism ‘epidemic’. Mr. David Kirby has a book and enough power point slides for three debates which are filled with (mis)interpretations of these data.

For the past year or so, every three months the CDDS publishes the data followed by people stating, “The CDDS autism count has gone up, this proves there is an epidemic” and “the CDDS autism count has gone down, this proves the epidemic”. Both seemingly contradictory statements being made on the same dataset. These were quickly followed by multiple bloggers pointing out that the interpretations made were incorrect.

Three things happened that made for a break. (1) Mr. Kirby declared that he was moving on from autism, (2) the CDDS is on a break while they rework the way they compile the data and (3) A case was conceded in the Autism Omnibus which shifted the debate (and ended item (1)).

I was very happy to see the CDDS phase of the autism discussion end.

Then, much to my dismay, the same arguments started up again. This time it is data from Scotland, not the CDDS being misused. Otherwise, it is the same old arguments and the same bad analyses. Well…almost. Some new bad analyses have been added.

Mr. Kirby has a discussion of the Scottish data on another blog. Let’s avoid the conceptual mistakes (such as assuming that somehow everyone is properly identified and receiving services). Before we get to the real implications of this, let’s take a break and look at the math errors, shall we?

Mr Kirby takes this graph of data from the Scottish report:

And states:

Let’s look at the numbers. There are approximately 34,000 young people with autism in Scotland, born during the 16 years from 1987-2002. That is an average of 2,125 cases per birth cohort. But among older people, born during the 31 years between 1955 and 1986, there are only about 600 reported cases, or just over 19 cases a year.

Based on this, he has determined that if the true incidence of autism is constant, about 1 in 110 of the adults are missing from the count.

OK, go back and click on that image for me. I know you skipped over it, but, go take a look at the bigger version.

Did you see it? Yep, the number is not 34,000, but 3,400 adults with autism in the Scottish survey. A factor of 10. Don’t worry if you missed it. Mr Kirby (who spent some time ‘analyzing’ the data) and at least 20 people who responded to his post missed it too.

At this point, I can hear the screams of “So what, that’s just a small mistake. You are trying to distract us all from the big picture.” Because, in the end, even though Mr. Kirby is off by a factor of 10 and there aren’t 100 times more kids than adults receiving services with an autism label in Scotland, there is a roughly factor of 10 difference in the administrative prevalence of autism.

A factor of 10 is still big. I’d argue it’s huge. In fact, I’d scream right back at the people who are trying to use this for political gain.We can argue back and forth whether it’s real. But, consider some of the possibilities for the Scottish survey:

  1. the numbers are correct, all autistics are correctly counted.
  2. People are getting appropriate services, but some are under the wrong label (e.g. intellectual disability).
  3. Some people are getting the wrong services because of an incorrect label (e.g. schizophrenia).
  4. People who really should be getting services and supports are not getting any.

Let’s face it, if there’s a chance that people are getting the wrong services, we should be looking. And, yes, it is a very real possibility. Remember the big stink some people made when it was implied that some adults with the label of Schizophrenia might actually be autistic? Well, David Mandell is scheduled to talk about this at IMFAR this year in his paper: Evidence of autism in a psychiatrically hospitalized sample.

A £500,000 project to look for adults with Autism in the UK has been recently announced. To quote one of the researchers on this project:

“Adults with autism and Asperger’s syndrome are too often abandoned by services with their families left to struggle alone. Equally, people are frequently missaprorpriately referred to either mental health or learning disability services

“This study will inform the development of a national strategy designed to ensure that adults with autism and Asperger’s syndrome are supported to have full lives.”

“We still don’t know enough about autism, but we do know that left unsupported, it can have a devastating impact on those who have the condition and their families. One of the key gaps in our knowledge is simple – we don’t know how many people have the condition in any given area. That is why I am ordering a study to address this. “

It sounds like a really tough project. I don’t know if this study can really be accomplished. But, I have hopes that it could help improve the lives of adult autistics.

Now, as long as we brought up the Scottish survey, why not look at some of the details that were missed by others?

One question was how many of the individuals had “other behavioural or biomedical conditions?”. For the adults, this was 30% of the total. For the children, this was 3% of the total. Is this an indication that the kids being identified today actually have less severe symptoms than the adults? Even without that, only 1% have “other…biomedical conditions”?!? Where are all the kids with all the conditions like bowel problems that some groups claim define autism?

Another interesting fact from the survey is that over 50% of the children are in mainstream schools.

Yet another factoid: about 32% of the children in the survey have Asperger syndrome. Of those, half are listed as having ‘no learning disabilities’. For adults, only 14% are listed as having Asperger syndrome.

Surveys of those getting services are prone to a lot of errors–as has been discussed in the past for the CDDS data many times. So, these data should not be taken as hard epidemiological counts of the actual number of people in Scotland with autism. However, these data do not support the idea that the younger generation of autistics have greater challenges than the adults had to overcome.

I am actually glad that the subject came up of autism in Scotland. Why? Because in looking for some of these data, I found the website for the National Autistic Society Scotland. I particularly liked this page: I Exist: the message from adults with autism in Scotland.

For me, I have just finished a box of McVitie’s HobNobs while writing this. I don’t know if they are Scottish, but I love them. Perhaps I’ll open the other box to celebrate a study of adults with autism.

Additional

Sullivan’s catch of David’s maths error is good but I thought to myself as soon as I heard about this Scottish report that I’d heard about it before. I had. I blogged on this audit three years ago. One of the most fascinating aspects of the paper was when local authorities were asked for their opinions on the following question:

Research tells us that prevalence rates of autistic spectrum disorder represent an underestimate. To what extent do you consider the numbers above to be an accurate reflection of all those who live in your area?

The answers were very interesting. About 45% of the areas questioned said that the prevalence for adults was grossly underestimated, badly reported and that a lot of these adults exist without diagnosis. For example:

Argyll & Bute Council
It is believed that the figures represent a significant under-representation of those with ASD in Argyll and Bute. This was thought to be due to a historical under-diagnosis and the absence of clearly defined referral pathways and multi-agency assessment processes for adults.

East Renfrewshire Council, NHS A&C and Greater Glasgow NHS

…as a result of changing patterns of diagnosis over recent years there are likely to be substantial numbers of adults with ASD who are not known to services and are not diagnosed as having ASDs.

AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN
It is apparent that information collection and collation for adults is almost non existent.

DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
There is little doubt that this number is far short of the actual number of adults in Dumfries & Galloway with ASD.

GRAMPIAN
There is low diagnosis for longstanding clients, whom workers are aware have autism as well as a learning disability.

HIGHLAND
It is believed that these figures comprise a significant underestimate due to the lack of a diagnostic process particularly for adults. It is believed that the figures for younger children are accurate due to the development of diagnostic tools for children are accurate due to the development of diagnostic tools for children and the establishment of multi-disciplinary partnerships which include education.

LANARKSHIRE
The estimated numbers provided for the pre-school and primary school ages are thought to be a reasonably accurate reflection of the true picture. However the estimated number of secondary school children is less accurate and the estimated number of adults with ASD is likely to be a considerable underestimate of the true prevalence.

ORKNEY
Figures for children are an accurate representation of needs. One or two children may yet be diagnosed. Figures for adults are under estimated as diagnosis has not been made and access to specialists is variable.

Perth & Kinross Council
Figures for adults reflect the national findings that the numbers known to services/diagnosed represent a significant underestimate of those individuals likely to be affected. For example day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis.

Pretty interesting stuff I think you’ll agree. This means that about 45% of the areas questioned said that the prevalence for adults was grossly underestimated, badly reported and that a lot of these adults exist without diagnosis. The two really stand out quotes for me were:

There is low diagnosis for longstanding clients, whom workers are aware have autism as well as a learning disability……day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis.

So as well as the excellent points Sullivan raised, I’d also like to ask how it is possible to place any kind of interpretation of the data when the fact that adult prevalence is grossly under-reported is so well established?

Age of Autism Excels Itself

4 May

It’s my opinion that the blog Age of Autism has not ever once published a post that has contributed anything to the sum of human knowledge in a general sense, nor has it ever published a post that is designed to actually help autistic people live their lives.

However, every once in awhile, it publishes a post that is so monumentally stupid that I literally think the worse of myself for wasting time reading it. And here I am actually blogging about one. Sigh.

Such a post appeared today. It is entitled ‘CDC triggers measles outbreak’. The author of this post, ex-UPI journo Dan Olmsted says:

I’m starting to think we should rename the CDC the Centers for Disease Contagion. You’ve all seen the news that there are suddenly more measles cases in the United States and the CDC is blaming it in part on the increasing reluctance of parents to vaccinate their kids.

But it’s the CDC’s fault, and no other. Getting the “measles shot” means getting the MMR, and the MMR is “the autism shot” in the minds of many, many parents.

So, let me get this straight. It is the CDC’s fault that measles is making a return across the US? I see.

Its not, for example, the fault of the non-vaccinating upper-middle class soccer-mommies and daddies, for example:

Of the 64 people infected by the measles virus, only 1 had documentation of prior vaccination. Among the other 63 case-patients were 14 infants who were too young to be vaccinated. Many of the cases among US children occurred in children whose parents claimed exemption from vaccination due to religious or personal beliefs, or in children too young to be vaccinated.

Hell, no. _That_ couldn’t be the issue, right? Its obviously the CDC’s fault. Damn them for providing the vaccines and a schedule that has led to serious measles epidemics being held at bay in the US and the UK prior to the last 10 years of utter complacency and idiocy.

And why is Dan Olmsted happy to blame the CDC?

Let me tell you one reason why I’m not shy or circumspect about squarely blaming the CDC for this — because Jon Poling, Hannah’s dad, predicted something like this, or much worse, just a few week ago

And as we all know:

Dr, Poling is the real deal, educated at Johns Hopkins, devoted both to his daughter and his patients, tempered by reality. He’s mild-mannered. He’s mainstream. He’s credible.

Riiiiight. This is the same Jon Poling who was recently described by his co-authors as ‘muddying the waters’. The same Jon Poling who’s wife has been a subscriber to the vaccine hypothesis since at least 2001. The same Jon Poling who knowingly uses incorrect epidemiology.

I’m afraid that Jon Poling is right now in the process of extricating himself from the mainstream. And also from any concept of credibility. His refusal to approve access to information that would provide more accuracy to public statements members of his clique have made about the situation is testament to a man who is not governed by any reality other than a desire to push a pre-conceived agenda.

But really, the attempt to point the finger elsewhere by Dan Olmsted is nothing more than a childish ‘It wasn’t me! Its not my fault!’ when both logic and morality show quite clearly that if people decide to eschew something that might not only save their kids lives but the lives and/or well-being of the society in which they live then the finger of responsibility can only point in one direction.

US Reports Biggest Measles Outbreak Since 2001

2 May

The biggest U.S. outbreak of measles since 2001 is unfolding in 10 states, with at least 72 people ranging from infants to the elderly becoming ill — most of them unvaccinated, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said none of those who caught the highly contagious viral illness has died, but at least 14 people have been hospitalized, most with pneumonia triggered by measles.

Lets hope that none of these 14 actually get any worse or (god forbid) die. Lets hope that no one else gets sick. The last time people dies of measles in the US was 1991, the year before that pesky vaccine schedule was strengthened – not that that has any bearing on the matter I’m sure.

1989 to 1991, when 55,000 people got measles and 123 died.

On this recent outbreak, the CDC said:

Of the 64 people infected by the measles virus, only 1 had documentation of prior vaccination. Among the other 63 case-patients were 14 infants who were too young to be vaccinated. Many of the cases among US children occurred in children whose parents claimed exemption from vaccination due to religious or personal beliefs, or in children too young to be vaccinated.

Anti-vaccinationists inflict the coolest things on their kids. Illness, hospitalisation, death….

I wonder if any of these things will make it onto the no doubt completely rational signs the parents attending the ‘Green our vaccines’ rally will be waving around. After all, when the organiser of the event says:

I am surely not going to tell anyone to vaccinate. But if I had another child, there’s no way in hell…….for my next kid—which I’m never going to have—there’s no way.

Then you can rest assured that this will in no way be an anti-vaccine event.

Right?

Green our vaccines?

21 Apr

Jenny McCarthy:

I am surely not going to tell anyone to vaccinate. But if I had another child, there’s no way in hell…….for my next kid — which I’m never going to have — there’s no way.

Thus speaks the woman who claims she is not anti-vaccine and not intending to spread an anti-vaccine agenda.

In June this year she will be spearheading a rally to carry the message of ‘green our vaccines’. Said message is apparently all about making vaccines ‘cleaner’ (???) reducing the number of them and spacing them out. No scientific reason for this of course.

When asked, the ‘green our vaccines’ leadership claim that they are not _anti_ vaccine – just pro _safe_ vaccine. Uh-huh. And which vaccines are ‘safe’ according to the ‘green our vaccines’ committee? Well, it seems that Jenny McCarthy thinks that answer to that is ‘none’. She will never vaccinate again. No way in hell.

Some people think that the ‘green our vaccines’ message is a trojan horse.

I’m against vaccines, but I feel that “greening our vaccines” is a step in the right direction. Because I realized that more people will be open to hearing the message “green our vaccines” rather than “no more vaccines”. In the beginning I couldn’t imagine scrapping vaccines altogether, but in time I transformed. I think the public
needs to digest this one bite at a time.

Greening of the vaccines is only half of the issue, people need to wake up and see that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine…

I agree with you that there will never likely be a “safe” vaccine, but the only good thing I see about talking about “safer” vaccines, is that this makes it more “palatable” for some and more likely that this news gets out into the mainstream. People are more comfortable dealing with “too much, too soon”, rather than with “none at all”. It gets the vaccine issue a foot in the door, so to speak, into the mainstream media

………..

Hopefully, the “Green Our Vaccines” campaign will get the ball rolling and get this info to more people, to get them thinking and talking about vaccine safety issues. Whether there is such a thing as “safe vaccines” will need to follow after that initial discussion.

….parents do need to come to the conclusion that vaccines are useless and harmful, on their own, through their own thinking and research

I agree that “Green the vacines” is more palatable to the general populace and that is the ‘message’ Jenny and TACA have chosen. I think the approach is ingenious and fits right into the times of global warming and greening everything.

……………

I think green the vaccines ultimately leads to NO vaccines but agreed it must be done in steps.

…………..

We could hopefully all agree that the goal is to STOP damaging children whether that will take greening or incinerating vaccines, that is still the ultimate goal.

These messages are from an active discussion on the EoH Yahoo Group. And after all, why wouldn’t this be the message? Jenny McCarthy quite obviously does _not_ believe in vaccination.

In my opinion the whole ‘green our vaccines’ campaign is very much a trojan horse. We all know how groups associated with this campaign really feel about vaccines. We know how Jenny McCarthy feels about vaccines and we can see what the ‘rank and file’ really think about both vaccines and what the ‘green our vaccines’ campaign is really all about.

Thankfully, the opinion of McCarthy as a less than stellar representative for science is a widely held mainstream one. On Gawker for example, her recent embarrassing performance on Larry King was described as:

Larry King had noted medical expert/softcore video star Jenny McCarthy on the program last night to talk about AUTISM. Specifically, how it’s caused by VACCINATING YOUR CHILDREN. This is patent conspiratorial nonsense, but it’s very popular conspiratorial nonsense. Of course, in a battle between concerned, credulous parents and medical experts, the media will generally frame it as, say, Debate Rages Anew on Vaccine-Autism Link. Faced with a panel of three trained pediatricians, Ms. McCarthy shouted “BULLSHIT” twice.

and Jossip said:

Jenny McCarthy believes common medical vaccinations cause autism in children. And you know what she thinks of your opinions if you disagree? Bullshit! At least that’s what she yelled last night while berating three doctors trying to reason with her on Larry King Live.

Ouch.

Now, whilst it might be mildly amusing to see how real people in the real world (those unconnected with either the vaccine, autism or vaccine/autism debates) consider the opinions of McCarthy it shouldn’t be forgotten or swept aside that its not just about the mercury. Its not even just about the autism. Its about the vaccines. When Jenny McCarthy tells you she wants to ‘green our vaccines’ then ask her exactly what that means and why she won’t ever vaccinate another child of hers.

David Kirby is right (and wrong)

6 Apr

David Kirby has an excellent title for his blog post: ‘CDC Has Lost Control of the Autism Argument’.

I happen to to think he is 100% gold-plated correct. In fact I would go even further than that – the CDC, the FDA and the AAP have become, on this issue, little short of a laughing stock. They have bungled, mismanaged, failed to address and not known how to retort at just above every step of the process.

Controversially perhaps I think a lot of it has to do with the bureaucratic nature of these monoliths – they need to reform their way of working. They’re slow and outdated in their PR and media handling. That is not to say that the people working within these systems are terrible useless people – clearly they are not – but they operate within a system that cannot seem to effectively communicate the scientific truth behind the various vaccine hypotheses.

And now we truly _do_ have various vaccine hypotheses. Once it was ‘….nothing more than mercury poisoning.’. Then it was the MMR too. Then it was a combination of both. Then it wasn’t _just_ mercury in vaccines it was all the other ingredients too.

Now we have another twist: the mito/autism/vaccine hypothesis which I have no doubt has sent scores of parents all over the Western world forking out for yet another set of tests and will no doubt prompt yet another set of questionable treatments repackaged and rebranded for autism.

I think its worth while remembering at this point that, despite the furore over the last few weeks, one thing has not changed: *the science* .

All the talk shows and Larry King appearances and cloak and dagger leaked reports are all very exciting and good blogger fodder for people like me and David but the bottom line is this: no new science has been added to the equation regarding any vaccine/autism hypothesis. So, when I read the Larry King transcript and saw David snapping ‘the debate is over!’ I raised an eyebrow as I couldn’t recall any new science being brought along that night (or any other night) that had caused the debate to be over.

Anyway, back to David’s HuffPo entry. Now, I’ve swapped very courteous emails with David Kirby and whilst I have also posted quite angrily about him too I think he cares about people. Which is why when I read a paragraph such as the following I get perplexed. Here’s David:

A recent government decision to award nine-year-old Hannah Poling taxpayer dollars for her multiple vaccine-induced autism, has left parents anxious and alarmed….

A recent government decision. Hmm. Lets see what the Special Masters who are overseeing the Autism Omnibus (of whom Hannah Polings case was until recently a part of) said:

….reports have erroneously stated that the Office of the Special Masters has recently issued a “decision,” “opinion,” or “ruling” concerning the issue of whether a Vaccine Act claimant’s autism symptoms were caused by one or more vaccinations. The OSM has not issued any such decision, ruling or opinion.

No decision.

And David Kirby also refers to Hannah Poling’s ‘multiple vaccine-induced autism’. Lets see what the OSM says:

this court has issued no decision on the issue of vaccine causation of autism

But maybe by ‘government’ David means the HHS? Not the courts? If thats so, can David – or anyone else – point out to me where in any HHS statement they note that have decided to award Hannah Poling money for ‘vaccine-induced autism’?

Or maybe David means someone else when he refers to ‘government’?

And lets also be clear. Not only has the OSM _nor_ the HHS referred to ‘vaccine-induced autism’, neither has any aspect of the medical literature written about Hannah Poling (or any other claimant).

So yes, I find David’s over-exuberance perplexing on occasion. I am also concerned that paragraphs such as the above are muddying waters that need to be crystal clear right now. We serve no one by misleading them either intentionally or not.

Jenny McCarthy on Larry King Live

3 Apr

Well, she’s just an actress…and unfortunately, we place too much value on the opinions of actors in this country.

~ Erik Nanstiel, Feb 2006

Now Erik was discussing Sigourney Weaver (the future Mrs Leitch if she ever stops stalking me) and her role in Snowcake but I thought it might serve as an interesting comparison for how another actress, Jenny McCarthy, is currently viewed.

In point of fact, I entirely agree with Erik, we _do_ place far too much importance on what acctresses and actors say. For example, on Larry King Live last night jenny McCarthy spoke quite a lot but didn’t actually _say_ much at all.

For example:

It’s a global epidemic…

Really? Where is the science that supports that position? Because there is an _awful_ lot of evidence that entirely refutes it.

I went online and I found a community called Defeat Autism Now……I believed enough — even though my pediatrician at the time said it’s all bull — and followed this treatment and my son got better

Yeah, that and all the ABA, and the Indigo/Crystal beliefs:

The day I found out I was an adult Indigo will stay with me forever. I was walking hand in hand with my son down a Los Angeles street when this women approached me and said, “You’re an Indigo and your son is a Crystal.” I immediately replied, “Yes!” and the woman smiled at me and walked away. I stood there for a moment, because I had no idea what the heck an Indigo and Crystal was, but I seemed so sure of it when I had blurted out “Yes!” After doing some of my own research on the word Indigo, I realized not only was I an early Indigo but my son was in fact a Crystal child.

A what?

The Indigo child concept was first publicized in 1999 by the book The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived, written by the husband-and-wife team of Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. Carroll insists that the concept was obtained via conversations with a spiritual entity known as Kryon.

Wikipedia

Except, the website that carries all her beliefs has been quietly vanished. If you want to find this info now, you have to look in Google Cache.

Onwards,

I’m not, nor is the autism community, anti-vaccine. We’re anti-toxin and we’re anti-schedule.

The autism community? Who _is_ this woman with the ego to think she speaks for the entire autism community? Good grief. And as for the section of the community she speaks for not being anti-vaccine? Try these on Jenny:

!http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/images/eoh/PowerOfTruthRallySign.jpg!
!http://www.autismrally.com/IMG_5365.jpg!
!http://www.autismrally.com/IMG_5426.jpg!

All taken from the sort of rally you’re promoting later on in the show.


JM:

And isn’t it ironic, in 1983 there was 10 shots and now there’s 36 and the rise of autism happened at the same time?

Ironic like this?

No, its not ironic. Its another example of correlation not implying causation – you can see another graphic example on the ‘canards’ page of this very website.

JM:

I believe that parents’ anecdotal information is science-based information

Yeah. Its not.

JM:

environmental toxins play a role. Viruses play a role. Those are all triggers. But vaccines play the largest role right now

No evidence of any kind was presented to back this up. Later on McCarthy sneered at the AAP for talking about studies that weren’t ‘independent’ (what she meant by that is anyone’s guess) but in short succession she said that parental anecdote was good science and that vaccines play ‘the largest’ role in causing autism.

David Kirby was sitting right next to McCarthy and yet neither of them mentioned his HuffPo entry in which said:

And, if 20% of autism cases are mito related, and 6% of those cases regressed because of vaccines, that would mean that at least 1% of all autism cases were vaccine related.

1%.

Lets compare that to the approximately 40% already genetically accounted for. I don’t think its difficult to process which is the larger number.

And after that Dear Reader I simply can’t carry on ploughing through the rest of McCarthy’s contributions. They range from the offensive to the inane.

But here’s an offer for Ms McCarthy – and David, I know you’re a reader so feel free to pass this on:

Come and pay my family and me a visit Ms McCarthy. Just you and maybe your son – no media, no journos, no cameras, no Hollywood bullshit. You and I can have a proper well mannered debate whilst our kids play and see if we still feel the same afterwards. What about it? Got the balls?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →