Archive | Mark Blaxill RSS feed for this section

Why don’t the so-called “vaccine safety” orgs talk about vaccine safety?

30 Oct

I really do plan to get back to real autism related subjects. I do. This subject just came up yesterday and it really bugs me so I decided to write something quick.

One of the most common statements from the groups (Generation Rescue, Think About Curing Autism (TACA), the National Autism Association, SafeMinds….) who promote the vaccines-caused-autism-epidemic idea is that they are “vaccine safety” groups, not “anti-vaccine”. The self-named “National Vaccine Information Center” is, I would think, supposed to have vaccine information.

One vaccine these groups love to hate is Rotateq, a vaccine against rotavirus infection. Why? Because it was invented by a team including Dr. Paul Offit, who just so happens to be one of the most vocal critics of the vaccine-caused-autism-epidemic.

Take, for example, this comment by SafeMinds member, and Age Of Autism blogger Mark Blaxill:

“Paul has saved hundreds of thousands of lives (granted mostly in underdeveloped countries, but rotovirus still kills a small few in the US).”

That’s quite an extravagant assertion, and almost certainly false. What evidence do you have that Rotateq (Offit’s invention) has been adminstered in sufficient quantities to prevent death in developing countries from complications of diarrhea? Rotateq is deployed in only one country besides the US. Here in the US we know Rotateq (and Rotashield before it) has CAUSED death and have little information that it has prevented any.

The consistent hyping of the benefits of marginally beneficial vaccines is one of the most disturbing features of a vaccine development industry run amok. Rotateq is perhaps the most egregious example of a vaccine product that provides next to zero benefit in the markets in which it has been deployed.

Let me be clear. In the markets in which it might have value, Rotateq is far too expensive to be widely deployed and is therefore rarely used. In the markets in which it is not needed, it is mandated at high prices and used widely with little benefit and documented (and almost certainly underestimated) serious risk. Those mandates and high prices are justified by a marketing non sequitor that Josh perpetuates here: pointing to deaths outside the geography in question as justification for a vaccine blockbuster that can have no impact whatever on those deaths.

Orwell never dreamed of doublespeak as bad as this.

What made this comment stick in my mind is the unsupported claim that Rotateq “CAUSED” death (nice use of all caps, there, by the way).

I am also drawn to the common belief (not directly expressed in the above quote) that there is no or only minimal safety research done.

This week, the CDC put out an MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) on the effects of Rotateq. The cliniical trial showed that Rotateq works. The surveillance shows Rotateq works–the number of submitted samples that tested postive went down after Rotateq was introduced.

The big point I’d like to bring to light was a recent talk given at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting. They are monitoring intussusception in children given Rotateq. Intussusception is an intestinal problem, potentially fatal, that was linked to the previous rotavirus vaccine. It is why that vaccine, Rotashield, was pulled from the market. As such, it is good an proper that they monitor intussusception with Rotateq.

The results?

Results provide no evidence that RotaTeq®receipt is associated with an increased risk for IS [intussusception] 1-30 days or 1-7 days following vaccination.

Typically those trying to claim that Rotateq is dangerous use the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Any event reported to VAERS is taken to be caused by the vaccine. VAERS is a “passive” system. People report into VAERS and no one checks that the diagnoses are accurate. Also, intussusception happens even without vaccines. So you really can’t take every VAERS report as a causal event–i.e. just because someone reports to VAERS that a child had intussusception sometime after Rotateq, that doesn’t mean Rotateq caused it.

Do I expect people like Mr. Blaxill to stop claiming that Rotateq is dangerous? No. But I put this out there to take away any last shred of “plausible deniability”. They, the self-styled “vaccine safety” groups, don’t report on actual vaccine safety studies. That doesn’t mean they don’t read them and know about them.

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

It’s time for David Kirby to disavow the autism epidemic

3 Aug

The idea that mercury caused an epidemic of autism is both wrong and very damaging to the autism communities. Many contributed to this damaging notion., but David Kirby without a doubt carries a good quantity of the blame for his book “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy” and efforts since.

Mr. Kirby often tries to hide behind the notion that he is just “trying to spark a national debate”. Sorry, but that is nonsense. He actively promotes the idea that vaccines cause autism. It is unclear to this reader whether Mr. Kirby is currently being paid for his efforts. In the past he cherry picked information and packaged it in seemingly self-consistent packages to convince people that an epidemic did occur.

He has now moved to a tag-team approach for presentations to the US congress. He presents information to support the idea that vaccines could cause autism. He then let’s Mr. Mark Blaxill take over to promote the epidemic with the old, tired arguments.

It’s like Mr. Kirby still wants to be able to say, “I never really said there was an epidemic. I was just sparking a discussion.” It’s Mark Blaxill that is actually calling it an epidemic.

Nonsense.

This has been bothering me for some time. It came up again strong when Mr. Kirby commented on a blog piece. David Kirby doesn’t generally participate in the online discussions-even to the point of not answering comments on his own blog pieces. He broke that tradition recently in a blog piece on the Mother Jones website: Breaking: Vaccines still don’t cause autism

My response to Mr. Kirby incorporated much of what I was considering for a future blog post. So, rather than paraphrase what I wrote, here it is in full:

Mr. Kirby,

I see your usual arguments above. I see, also, the usual gaps in your discussion. Over the years, you have gone from promoting the “vaccines caused an epidemic of autism” to dancing around the subject of the false “epidemic”, neither stating that there was an epidemic, nor admitting your mistake. Could you comment somewhere, on the record: was there an “epidemic” of autism caused by mercury? You seem to leave that to your colleague, Mr. Blaxill, giving yourself some form of plausible deniability. It is irresponsible.

You rely heavily now on the NVAC recommendations. Why do you leave out so many comments by NVAC?

The NVAC is assured by the many epidemiological studies of the effects of mercury exposure done in a variety of populations, which have demonstrated that thimerosal in vaccines is not associated with autism spectrum disorders in the general population.

Are you prepared to agree with NVAC that the data are in and that there has been no epidemic of mercury caused autism? It would be the honest thing to do.

You rely heavily on the idea that mitochondrial disorders are related to autism. You pushed heavily on your blog the idea that mitochondrial disorders are caused by mercury, without substantiation. In fact, this idea is strongly rejected by the very experts you rely upon.

Further, you leave it implied that children with mitochondrial disorders and autism indicate a link to autism as a vaccine injury. This is clearly not the case.

Why do you leave out the fact that most children with mitochondrial disorders and autism do not show regression. Without regression, it is clear that vaccine injury is not causing autism in these individuals?

Why do you leave out the fact that in the one study of children with mitochondrial disorders and autism, it is clear that vaccines are not causal in the vast majority of cases, and could be questionable in the one case cited so far?

You cite that there could be a sizable population of autistics who have a mitochondrial dysfunction. Yet you leave out the public statements by one of the very doctors who supported the Hannah Poling case in vaccine court that any such injuries are rare. This from the few doctors who support the idea of mitochondrial disorder as a vaccine injury. Other specialists have stated that it is far to early to draw a conclusion that mitochondrial disorders caused by vaccination is even “rare”.

Why have you not removed your blog piece that was so erroneous that you were forced to rewrite it within a day, with an admission that you seriously erred? Isn’t that a form of dishonesty?

Are you prepared to join Rick Rollens, one of the strongest proponents of the vaccines-cause-autism notion, in stating that the idea that MMR causes autism has been tested and MMR is no longer suspect?

I will ask again, if you are going to cite NVAC, are you willing to join them and state that mercury did not cause an “epidemic” of autism?

Would you at least be willing to include quotes from NVAC that are, shall we say inconvenient, to the notion of a vaccine induced “epidemic” of autism? Quotes such as:

Vaccination almost certainly does not account for the recent rise in ASD diagnoses; however, public concern regarding vaccines and autism coupled with the prevalence and severity of ASD warrant additional study in well defined subpopulations.

This quote makes it clear that
a) NVAC does not support the idea of an autism “epidemic” caused by vaccines
b) NVAC is not calling for studies of vaccines and autism due to evidence presented so far, but, instead, by public concern.

Mr. Kirby, your half truths and misleading arguments cause great harm to the autism communities, as well as to public health. You personally are responsible for much of the public’s misconception that mercury caused an “epidemic” of autism. Don’t you agree that you personally should publicly refute your previous stance?

Being wishy-washy on the epidemic question and letting your colleague Mark Blaxill push the idea in your tag-team briefings is just dishonest. Either you still believe in the mercury-caused-epidemic (and you are wrong) or you should be clear that it was a mistake.

It was a mistake. Earn some respect. Admit it.

Congress says no to misleading autism information

16 Jul

Last year Mr. Mark Blaxill and Mr. David Kirby were given the privilege to misinform members of the U.S. government and their aids. Besides the fact that Mr. Blaxill has yet to retract his position (and pseudo-papers) claiming that autism is mercury poisoning, and the mish-mash that Mr. Kirby makes of science, there is the curious incident of the misquoted quote. Mr. Kirby made a serious error in his talk, misquoting a statement by the NIH, and was caught by a congressional staffer (an M.D. who was obviously well prepared).

It isn’t like this sort of inaccuracy was something new. Mr. Kirby was having a lot of difficulty with accuracy about this subject around that time. Epiwonk discussed in great detail how serious Mr. Kirby’s misinterpretations are here and here.

I don’t really understand Mr. Kirby sometimes. Epiwonk’s first blog post caused Mr. Kirby to admit he made a mistake and “pull” his blog post. Mr. Kirby posted a second, with this statement:

NOTE: My original post on this topic mischaracterized the 2003 CDC vaccine investigation as an “Ecological Study,” which it was not. I am reposting this piece to reflect that information accurately, but also to point out that many of the weaknesses identified in the CDC’s data and methods apply to the published 2003 “retrospective cohort” study, as much as they do to any future “ecological” ones. I regret and apologize for the error.

He apologizes for the error. He removed the direct link to the post from his main webpage. But, did he pull the blog post which even he declares was “in error”? Nope. It is still on the Huffington Post for all to see. Hence my quotes in the phrase “pull” his blog post.

What about the misquote in Mr. Kirby’s lecture? Well, last I checked it was still in the power point presentation he has on his website. No comment, no correction.

I’m sure Mr. Kirby is planning on being more careful this year. This year? Yes, he and Mr. Blaxill are being hosted to give another briefing to congress.

Last year, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill packed a small room. This year, they seem to be struggling to get people to fill even that small space. How do I know? Well, the good people at the Age of Autism blog have supplied us with a list of the people in the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E) who will be attending, and who attended last year but not this year.

Want to run some stats? My unofficial and highly unscientific accounting based on the information on the Age of Autism blog:

C.A.R.E. has 11 offices attending who saw the briefing in 2008 returning in 2009.

However, C.A.R.E also has 26 offices declining the opportunity to observe Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill for a second time. (including, oddly enough, Dan Burton)

Yep, you read that right. 70% of the C.A.R.E. offices who heard the briefing last year have decided to give it a pass this year. I actually doubt it is because Mr. Kirby was caught in a fabricated quote last year. My guess is that it’s just because Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill basically had little accurate information of value to say last year, and little different to say this year.

Continuing with the stats:

C.A.R.E. has 8 offices attending for the first time in 2009.

C.A.R.E. also has 110 offices who did not attend in 2008 and are not attending now.

Summarizing these numbers, we see that, by far, most of C.A.R.E is not attending. ( I count 17 offices attending out of 153. Or, 89% are not attending).

Again, I don’t think it is because of Mr. Kirby’s lapse. The lack of a clear, scientifically sound message is much more likely the reason. Congress heard what Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill have to say and there is no point in hearing it again.

Last year’s congressional briefing was the subject of three blog posts here:

Vaccines on the Hill. Vaccines on the Hill II. Vaccines on the Hill III.

New autism prevalence 1.5% in UK

31 May

A new study published (officially) tomorrow discusses ‘Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study’.

Its an interesting study for quite a few reasons. Firstly, it offers a new autism prevalence of 1.5% (1 in 66). That’s the message that the press will no doubt focus on (and, as Kristina blogs, already have). And I’ve absolutely no doubt that our friends from JABS, Age of Autism and various other anti-vaccine fringe groups will be painting this as part of their ‘evidence’ that we’re in the throes of a massive autism ‘epidemic’.

However, the paper itself is very nuanced and is clear in its messages. However, to be absolutely sure I was correct in the conclusions I drew I had an email conversation with Professor Baron-Cohen before writing this entry.

Point 1: This study confirms the baseline rate of 1% as asserted by the Baird et al paper

Baird et al (2006) asserted that their findings would offer a baseline rate of autism prevalence, that prevalence being 1%. This figure was ascertained by looking at a SEN population of a South Thames cohort. Baron-Cohen et al (2009) confirmed that figure:

These authors took the decision to screen only the ‘at-risk’ population and assert that their estimate should be regarded as the minimum figure. Our results from screening the entire school-aged population support this assertion…

In other words Baron-Cohen et al also looked at the ‘at risk’ population and also found a prevalence of 1%.

Point 2: Baron-Cohen et al identify a further 0.5% to make a total prevalence of 1.5%

What is different about the Baron-Cohen paper is that as well as looking at the ‘at risk’ group they _also_ looked at mainstream schools. Using the CAST screening tool, this study identified a previously unknown prevalence of 0.5% within this mainstream environment.

Our results from screening the entire school-aged population…highlights the reality that there are children with autism- spectrum conditions, notably children with high-functioning autism, who remain undetected in primary schools. These children may use strategies to mask their social and communication difficulties such as going to the computer room at playtime. They may be quiet and cooperative at school and not difficult to manage and therefore teachers may not be aware that they have difficulties. Primary schools in the UK are typically small and foster a supportive and nurturing environment. It may not be until these children move to secondary school that their true differences are revealed.

Often I have heard people asking how it is possible that people with autism could possibly be missed. The Baron-Cohen et al paper gives a graphic answer to that question.

Point 3: Caution should be applied in assuming that results ascertained in Cambridgeshire could be applied across the rest of the country

The area is very affluent within the UK and has excellent autism resources for autistic children. It is a given that many families have moved into the area to try and exploit those services. This would have a positive effect on prevalence that is not consistent with the majority of the UK.

Our study does not report on migration of families but given the level of services for and awareness of autism-spectrum conditions in Cambridgeshire, this remains a distinct possibility. Caution should therefore be employed in assuming that the figures reported here can be applied nationwide.

Professor Baron-Cohen and I had the following exchange about the autism ‘epidemic’:

KL: What would you say to someone who says that your paper is strong evidence of an ‘autism epidemic’ (because you know they will)?

SBC: I think the term ‘epidemic’ of most value in relation to contagious diseases, which autism is not.

KL: Can I rephrase my question? Would you say your findings support the idea that there has been a true rise in prevalence? As oppose to the seven items you say have caused a seeming rise in autism earlier in your paper?

SBC: There has been a real rise in prevalence but what is at issue are the causes of this rise. In the paper we summarize the quite ordinary factors that might have driven the rise, such as better recognition, growth of services, and widening diagnostic criteria.

So next time someone who likes to bandy about the phrase ‘epidemic denier’ like he knows what he’s talking about when he claims that the ‘epidemic deniers’ say that autism is just better recognised these days, tell him there’s a lot more than just one reason:

Prevalence estimates for autism-spectrum conditions have shown a steady increase over the past four decades. In 1978, the consensus estimate for classic autism was 4 in 10 000; today autism-spectrum conditions (including classic autism) affect approximately 1% of the population. This massive increase is likely to reflect seven factors: improved recognition and detection; changes in study methodology; an increase in available diagnostic services; increased awareness among professionals and parents; growing acceptance that autism can coexist with a range of other conditions; and a widening of the diagnostic criteria.

Thrown under the bus…but for a good cause, right?

21 Apr

America is a wonderful place. Where else can someone publish absolute garbage, refuse to retract it, accuse the government of being involved in a massive conspiracy–and still end up on a government committee?

I am speaking of Lyn Redwood. She is one of the coauthors on ‘Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning’. This was ‘published’ in Medical Hypotheses. I put ‘published’ in quotes because Medical Hypotheses is a pay-to-publish pseudo-journal that has no review (peer or otherwise) at all. OK, the editor does check that the authors are talking about something medical, and makes sure that some sort of narrative is put together. But, scientifically? No review. Too many people, especially those parents with new autism diagnoses for their children, are unaware that “Medical Hypotheses” ‘papers’ have no place next to actual research papers.

If that piece of junk science wasn’t enough, Ms. Redwood was also a co-author on another less-than-worthless Medical Hypotheses ‘paper’, Thimerosal and autism? A plausible hypothesis that should not be dismissed. The first author on that “paper” was Mark Blaxill. Truly, one of the scary moments in the Omnibus proceeding came when the research head of ARI (Autism Research Institute) referred to Mark Blaxill as “brilliant”. No exaggeration–that was a frightening thought to this listener. Mr. Blaxill is probably rather bright and likely good at whatever he does professionally. But the idea that the information is traveling from him to the research head of the Autism Research Institute rather than the other way around is just scary.

The time to pay-to-publish retractions of these papers was years ago. Yet, both papers are still out there, and new parents usually won’t find out for a long time that those papers a junk.

Besides promoting bad science, what do Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill have in common? Well, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, for one thing.

Ms. Redwood sits on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. This group helps coordinate the US Government’s research efforts on autism. Rather that fight for better understanding and services for, say, adults, the poor, or minorities with autism, Ms. Redwood filled meeting after meeting (after meeting) with struggles to get the wording of the Strategic Plan as close as possible to a government admission that vaccines cause autism.

Mark Blaxill sits on one of the working groups for the IACC, probably placed there by Ms. Redwood. Mr. Blaxill, also a co-author on a number of papers that any reasonable person would have retracted by now, has wasted considerable meeting time with long, insulting ramblings. I know there are people who appreciated Mr. Blaxill’s speeches, but I consider likening the other people on the committee to holocaust denialists insulting. Maybe I misinterpreted his repeated use of the phrase “Epidemic Denialists”. If so, I bet I’m not the only one. Somehow, I don’t think I’m wrong. It appears to be an insulting and deliberate choice of phrases.

Unfortunately for the undercounted communities like adults with autism, the poor with autism, minorities with autism–a number of our own–they present an “inconvenient truth” to people like Mark Blaxill and Lyn Redwood. They demonstrate that the numbers groups like SafeMinds use to promote the faux autism epidemic are terribly flawed. If we are still under counting people with autism in the U.S., how can we use the counts from the California Regional Centers or from education data so far as “evidence” of an “epidemic”?

I know I wrote about this issue recently. But, reading the expert report by Dr. Rodier, and writing about it, I realized anew that a few individuals have caused this harm. And, those few individuals could (and should) work hard to correct that harm.

So, in place of calling on the IACC to fund research that could help the under counted, Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill got this paragraph:

Research on environmental risk factors is also underway. An Institute of Medicine workshop held in 2007 summarized what is known and what is needed in this field (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2007). Numerous epidemiological studies have found no relationship between ASD and vaccines containing the mercury based preservative, thimerosal (Immunization Safety Review Committee, 2004). These data, as well as subsequent research, indicate that the link between autism and vaccines is unsupported by the research literature. Some do not agree and remain concerned that ASD is linked or caused by vaccination through exposure to Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR), imposing challenges to a weakened immune system, or possibly due to mitochondrial disorder. Public comment to the Committee reflected opposing views on vaccines as a potential environmental cause. Those who are convinced by current data that vaccines do not play a causal role in autism argue against using a large proportion of limited autism research funding toward vaccine studies when many other scientific avenues remain to be explored. At the same time, those who believe that prior studies of the possible role of vaccines in ASD have been insufficient argue that investigation of a possible vaccine/ASD link should be a high priority for research (e.g., a large-scale study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups). A third view urges shifting focus away from vaccines and onto much-needed attention toward the development of effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD.

Let’s just pull that last sentence out for emphasis, shall we?

A third view urges shifting focus away from vaccines and onto much-needed attention toward the development of effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD.

It’s odd to me–I would have fought that language if I were Lyn Redwood. I would have pointed out that I have a broader perspective than just vaccines, and that I also care about development of effective treatments, services and supports. Isn’t it just a little sad that the people who are pushing the vaccine connection don’t have the view that effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD’s are a top priority?

But, it wasn’t their top priority. It still isn’t. In the end, Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill, people who are on the IACC to represent the interests of the entire stakeholder community, threw the underrepresented autistic communities under the bus.

I Object! (Part 2)

19 Nov

It’s amazing that a relatively short letter could be so objectionable as to take multiple blog posts to discuss.

And, yet, here I am, on my third post. You can read the other two, I Object (Part 1) and Why should the Strategic Plan include vaccines.

Continuing on with bullet points (b) and (c)…

Bullet point (b), or “you are leaving money on the table”

[Letter](b) The plan fails to allocate commensurate resources. The CAA authorized $645 million for NIH research over five years. The plan falls short by close to $200 million. Given the urgent situation, we consider the CAA allocation to be a minimum requirement for federal agencies and feel that even greater resources are needed.

Who is going to say no to “we should apply more resources to the situation”? Certainly not I. But I’m not an MBA. I count resources in terms of how many good research groups are doing quality research in relevant areas. Counting the money, that comes second.

This is similar to the method used by the IACC. People tend to think–and this letter helps perpetuate–the idea that the CAA appropriated money and that the IACC worked from that budget to create the Plan.

Both ideas are incorrect.

First, in admittedly confusing language, the CAA authorized the appropriations. The CAA states, “…there is authorized to be appropriated..”, not, “this amount is appropriated”. Another way to look at it is to see how often “subject to the availability of appropriations” is used in the text of the CAA. It isn’t as though there is a bank account with $645M waiting to be tapped into.

Second, the IACC did not work from a budget and then decide on a Plan. They didn’t say, “Well, we’ve got $645 million, how will we spend it?” What they did was say, “what needs to get done?”. Near the end of the process, they passed the Plan on to the implementation subcommittee to draft the budgets for the various projects.

This sounds like the much more defensible method. The IACC can go to congress and say, “this is what we need to get the job done.” Had they come up with a budget higher than the CAA allocated, they would have been in a good position to ask for more. They are (I hope) in a good position to get their budget fully funded–they can defend why they came to the total cost in their budget.

That said, of course I’d like to see more research funded. But, I’d like to stay on a friendly partnership with the NIH too. Presenting their actions inaccurately (as this letter appears to do) doesn’t accomplish that in my mind.

let’s look at what the CAA authorized to be “appropriated“:

[Combating Autism Act]`SEC. 399EE. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Developmental Disabilities Surveillance and Research Program- To carry out section 399AA, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $15,000,000.
`(2) For fiscal year 2008, $16,500,000.
`(3) For fiscal year 2009, $18,000,000.
`(4) For fiscal year 2010, $19,500,000.
`(5) For fiscal year 2011, $21,000,000.

`(b) Autism Education, Early Detection, and Intervention- To carry out section 399BB, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $32,000,000.
`(2) For fiscal year 2008, $37,000,000.
`(3) For fiscal year 2009, $42,000,000.
`(4) For fiscal year 2010, $47,000,000.
`(5) For fiscal year 2011, $52,000,000.

`(c) Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; Certain Other Programs- To carry out section 399CC, 409C, and section 404H, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $100,000,000.
`(2) For fiscal year 2008, $114,500,000.
`(3) For fiscal year 2009, $129,000,000.
`(4) For fiscal year 2010, $143,500,000.
`(5) For fiscal year 2011, $158,000,000.’.

So, the $645 million number comes from section c. Two things to notice. First, there are large sums in sections (a) and (b) as well. I hope they are getting appropriated. Second, notice that there is money budgeted for 2007 and 2008 in that number. Remember that the CAA hasn’t been funded yet? Has NIH been sitting on their hands, waiting for the budget before they do autism research? Hardly.

The NIH budget for autism in 2007 is estimated at $127 million ($27M more than the CAA called for all IACC sponsored research, which includes CDC and other agencies). Similarly, $128M is the estimated budget for 2008 ($14M above the IACC budget).

Perhaps I am missing something. It is quite possible. But it appears to me that the NIH is working in good faith here.

Again, given the urgent need–to identify and serve the underserved in this country–I would consider there to be a great reason to increase resources applied by the IACC. I just don’t think that is want the signators of that letter had in mind. Consider the next point they make:

Bullet point c, More environmental research, or, what happened to the “V” word?

[Letter]Research on the environment, gene-environment interaction, and treatment are underrepresented in the draft plan. The plan should apply additional resources to these areas.

As already discussed, I found this statement interesting for what it doesn’t say, far more than what it says. What it doesn’t say explicitly is “mercury” or “vaccines”. As noted in that previous blog post: if the signatories of that letter are OK with this wording, it should be OK in the Strategic Plan.

Sullivan’s take

The order of these two bullet points sends a clear message: The Plan doesn’t use all the money “appropriated” and, yet, the Plan should put additional resources into environment and treatment.

Or, “why don’t you take some of the $200 million and spend it on these areas?”

It would be a good question if that was the way the process worked. (A) the money wasn’t appropriated (so there isn’t $200M sitting unused) and (b) the Plan was built on a “what needs to be done” basis, not “how much do we have to spend” basis. The push for more environment/treatment really needs to be justified in terms of “what needs to be done”.

But, again, I’d agree that more resources would be welcome. And, again, I would suggest attempting to meet the great need of serving the underserved. Research into services like the Taft Transition to Independent Living program comes to mind.

more to follow…

Why should the strategic plan include vaccines…

14 Nov

…if all the vaccines-cause-autism advocacy organizations can’t ask for it?

I’ve been watching the process for the IACC fairly closely. You may have noticed my obsession. One issue that has come up is…you guessed it, vaccines. IACC meetings have been available to listen to by phone. (thank you NIH!) I’ve listened to long…long…long…speeches about the importance of research on vaccines and mercury. It’s had very broad support from…well…Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill. Pretty much silence from the rest of the IACC.

That said, I can’t say I am not surprised that an 11th hour attempt to change the process. Yes, according to a letter sent to members of the IACC, “we as a community community” are “united” expressing disapproval for for the Strategic Plan in the current form. This isn’t new. In person and in letters, members of these organization have co-opted my rights into an “autism community” that supports their vaccine/mercury agenda.

But, it’s worth taking a look at the letter. Alternatively, you could trust me to tell you what I found. Better yet, let me tell you what I didn’t find: vaccines. No mention of the word vaccines…or mercury…or thimerosal…or immunization…or epidemic. I seriously had to check that the search function was working as I read that document.

Why point this out? To jab a little fun at our good friends? No, there is a much more important message here:

Take a look at the organizations that signed this letter:

Autism New Jersey
Autism Research Institute
Autism Society of America
Autism Speaks
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Organization for Autism Research (OAR)
SafeMinds
Southwest Autism Research & Resource Center (SARRC)
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA)
Unlocking Autism

If they can’t agree on including “vaccine”, “mercury”, “epidemic” or any variation of those words—

WHY SHOULD THE IACC INCLUDE THOSE WORDS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN????

Seriously, there has been a big push to get the IACC to make a strong statement on the vaccine issue. And yet, these words are missing from their own letter.

So, I’ll say it again: if Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the rest can’t agree to put “vaccines” or “epidemic” in a letter, why should the IACC bow to their wishes and include these terms in the Strategic Plan?

Good Information being spread on Capital Hill

2 Oct

Last week, there was a briefing for U.S. legislators by Mr. David Kirby and Mr. Mark Blaxill. As you can imagine, the topic was vaccines and autism. As you can imagine, there were some inaccuracies and there was at least one outright misrepresentation.

I applauded an effort by Amy Pisani of Every Child By Two, who wrote the staffers ahead of the meeting. I was also appreciative of a letter by Voices For Vaccines.

Well, now I give a great big thank you to Congressman Waxman. Congressman Waxman is the chair of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Reform. To put that in perspective, “Oversight and Reform” is the committee that Congressman Dan Burton used to investigate autism and vaccines. (a very good discussion of what went wrong there is in Autism’s False Prophets).

Congressman Waxman’s office sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter. It is a good, succinct discussion of autism and vaccines, and, as such, I think it worth posting. And forwarding to people who may have questions about this issue.

It’s also worth thanking Congressman Waxman for taking the time to work on autism issues.

Resources Regarding Vaccines and Autism

October 1, 2008

Dear Colleague,

Since 1998 some people have been raising concerns that there may be an
association between childhood immunizations and autism spectrum
disorder. I am writing to let you and your staff know that there are a
number of resources available to understand what the science says
about whether vaccines could contribute to autism.

Institute of Medicine report on vaccines and autism

In 1999 the Department of Health and Human Services contracted with
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review a number of different
vaccine safety issues and to make recommendations about future
research needs. IOM convened a committee of experts that was carefully
vetted for conflicts of interest. The committee issued nine reports,
all of which are available on line at: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705.aspx.

In 2004, the committee issued its final report, which analyzed the
studies, published and unpublished, that looked at two theories:
whether the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine could cause autism;
and whether the mercury-containing vaccine preservative thimerosal
could cause autism. The committee concluded that the “evidence favors
rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing
vaccines and autism” and the committee also concluded that the
“evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR
vaccine and autism.” This report is available at:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx.

Other resources on vaccines and vaccine safety

Since the IOM report was published there have been additional studies
that looked at a possible link between vaccines and autism. Below are
several other links to government or private organizations with
helpful information about the latest research into vaccines, vaccine
safety, and autism and vaccines:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/vaccines.htm

National Network for Immunization Information
http://www.immunizationinfo.org

Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins University
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu

American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/Immunizations.cfm

Information regarding mitochondrial disorders and vaccines

Another concern that has received some attention is whether people
with mitochondrial disorders are more susceptible to vaccine injury.
This issue was in the media after it became public that in 2007, the
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), the no-fault compensation
program for people who have been injured by immunizations, compensated
nine-year-old Hannah Poling for injuries she sustained from her
immunizations. Hannah Poling suffered from a mitochondrial disorder,
which is a genetic or acquired defect in the part of each cell that
helps produce energy. People with these disorders are susceptible to a
number of stressors, including fever, illness, dehydration and certain
kinds of medication. In Hannah Poling’s case, after her immunizations
she developed a fever, lethargy, irritability, and other symptoms of
encephalopathy. These symptoms worsened over a period of months to
includ! e muscle weakness and features of autism. Instead of taking
this case to the vaccine court, the VICP conceded the case and agreed
to compensate Hannah Poling.

This case raised concerns that there may be an association between
mitochondrial disorders and autism. Mitochondrial disorders are poorly
understood and there is much research that needs to be done. However,
according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation: “There are
no scientific studies documenting that childhood vaccinations cause
mitochondrial diseases or worsen mitochondrial disease symptoms. In
the absence of scientific evidence, the UMDF cannot confirm any
association between mitochondrial diseases and vaccines.” This
statement is available at: http://www.umdf.org/site/c.dnJEKLNqFoG/b.3616911/apps/s/content.asp?ct=5087517.

Following this case, NIH, HHS, and CDC organized a workshop entitled
“Mitochondrial Encephalopathies: Potential Relationships to Autism.”
The workshop was held on June 29, 2008 in order to explore this
complicated topic and panelists included experts from around the
country. The proceedings from this workshop state that because
acquired infections and the associated inflammatory responses are a
known trigger for mitochondrial disease, “the workshop panelists
strongly encourage vaccinations in the hundreds of children they treat
for mitochondrial disease.” A summary of this workshop is available
at: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/proceedings/20090629_mitochondrial.htm

CDC has additional information on its website at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/mitochondrial.htm

I hope you find these links useful. If you are interested in other
resources, please do not hesitate to call Sarah Despres or Dr. Stephen
Cha on my staff at 5-5056.

Sincerely,

/s
HENRY A. WAXMAN
Member of Congress

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →