Archive | Mercury RSS feed for this section

Sharyl Attkisson interviews David Kirby…and oh is it bad

8 Oct

Have a look for yourself:

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf
Watch CBS News Videos Online

David Kirby, interviewed by Sharyl Attkisson. Talk about faux-news. For those luckily unfamiliar with Ms. Attkisson, here are some of the pieces done on this blog about her. Ms. Attkisson has a history of interviewing other members of the press and not being critical at all of their unsupported claims. She did this with Bernadine Healy, who made some unfounded claims about the IOM. When a study came out disproving a study by Maddy Hornig on mice and thimerosal that is, Ms. Attkisson blogged the Thoughtful House (Andrew Wakefield) press release on the subject. There’s more, but that gives you a taste of her history.

Today she interviewed David Kirby, author of “Evidence of Harm” and Huffington Post blogger.

To start, David Kirby apparantly has rewritten his book (yes, that is sarcasm). It is titled, “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy”.

But according to the interview, his book isn’t primarily about mercury in vaccines. Instead it is all about “increasing environmental exposures, toxins in children throughout the 1990’s and into the early 2000’s from both mercury background mercury environmental mercury which is on the increase and also mercury and other heavy metals and toxic metals that are included in vaccines that we give our children.”

Notice how thimersosal (mercury in vaccines) is downplayed compared to environmental mercury. That’s called revisionist history. Take a look at the back cover from the book (click to enlarge):

Back Cover from David Kirby's Evidence of Harm

Back Cover from David Kirby's Evidence of Harm

A commenter on this blog called the recent National Children’s Health Survey to be the worst sort of prevalence study. It can get much worse. For example–according to David Kirby, when he went through the subway he didn’t see anyone obviously autistic. Yes, David Kirby, epidemiologist and diagnostician has found a dramatically low prevalence amongst the New York subway riders.

David Kirby reminds us all that Asperger’s syndrome is a disability. Mr. Kirby, go back and tell that to Lenny Schafer, the “commenter of the week” on your blog, the Age of Autism.

If someone made a comment on this blog like Mr. Shafer did he would be booed off the stage. Here’s an excerpt:

And let us hope that the upcoming DSM-V gets clearer about defining autism only as a disability — and kicks the high functioning ND autism squatters onto the personality disorder spectrum where they belong.

Your blog gave him a free T-shirt. Don’t lecture us about disability.

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health and chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee declined to be interviewed by Ms. Attkisson.

A sincere “good job” goes out to Dr. Insel. After the way Ms. Attkisson showed a clear bias in doing her story on Dr. Offit, I can completely understand Dr. Insel declining the interview.

The second half of the interview discusses Mr. Kirby’s new book, the use of antibiotics on large farms.

No, seriously, they moved from Autism to animal farms.

Way to plug David Kirby’s new book, Sharyl!

How Much Longer?

9 Sep

The National Autism Association has a campaign afoot to raise awareness with the catch-phrase “how much longer”.

As in these quotes from their campaign:

“FDA, HOW MUCH LONGER WILL YOU APPROVE VACCINES THAT AREN’T NEARLY AS SAFE AS THEY COULD BE?”

Or

“HOW MUCH LONGER, NIH, before you adequately fund environmental research?”

I have a question:

How much longer, NAA, before you act like a reasonable member of the autism communities? (substitute Generation Rescue or SafeMinds for NAA, they are all basically the same group).

The NAA quote about NIH shows a lot about the NAA’s intent. “Adequately fund environmental research”. A lot of money is going to environmental research for autism causation at NIH. A lot. But, until it includes vaccine-causation, no amount is going to be considered “adequate” to the NAA.

NIH and most of the medical community doesn’t think that there is a good reason to do vaccine-causation research. But that isn’t the reason why groups like NIH don’t fund research. Let’s face it, NIH have an entire center devoted to spending on money that most of the medical community considers a waste.

The NAA would like to place the blame on everyone. Everyone else, that is. It’s a vast conspiracy, funded by Pharma dollars, with everyone afraid to admit the truth about the damage they caused. Do I have that right, NAA?

The real problem, NAA/Safe-Minds/Generation Rescue, is that you are your own worst enemy.

Ask yourselves a very simple question: if NIH is willing to spend money on projects with little hope of success, if NIH is willing to spend money on questions where the general expectation is that the answer will be no (remember that chelation study?), if they are willing to do that, why not spend money on a vaccine-causation project?

To answer that, you have to ask, what is the cost of a vaccine-causation project?

The real cost isn’t calculated in dollars. The real cost in is the damage to public health that such a study would bring. Yes, funding a do-vaccines-cause-autism project would hurt public health.

How can I say that? Because you guys at NAA (and sister orgs) would use the fact that NIH has funded such a project to attack vaccines. The entire time from the approval of the funds to the time the study results were published, you would be claiming “See, the government thinks vaccines are causing the autism epidemic”. What happens when the project is done? If the research doesn’t agree with your position, you will reject it. That is your clear track record.

Besides, what quality independent researcher would take on such a project? Anyone able to do such a study is is likely smart enough to realize that he/she would be hounded for the rest of his/her life if he/she doesn’t publish results that agree with your preset expectations.

You guys are stuck in the past. A past where you could say “vaccines caused an autism epidemic” and people listened. It’s time to listen to the people who support you. Really listen. Listen and realize that just because someone is supporting you doesn’t mean that he/she supports everything you say. Case in point: Dr. Bernadine Healy. Does she say there has been an epidemic of vaccine-induced autism? Does she say the epidemiology is junk? No. She says there may be small groups. Groups too small to be detected in the epidemiology that’s been done. That’s really, really small, by the way.

Get it? Even your supporters say you haven’t proven anything and that at most you represent a small fraction of the autistic population. You’ve been able to “wag the dog” for a long time, but that time is over. It’s time to realize that at most you would be a small part of the autism communities. It’s time to realize that the autism communities are part of a larger disability community.

If this seems too complicated, here are a few simple steps you can take to rebuild your credibility:

1) admit that thimerosal did not cause an “autism epidemic”
2) admit that MMR did not cause an “autism epidemic”
3) stop discounting all science that disagrees with you.
4) stop smearing people who disagree with you.
5) stop creating misleading faux research.
6) stop trying to discredit fine American institutions.
7) stop denying the existence of a large number of adult autistics.

Oh there’s more. A lot more.

As I said above, NIH is willing to fund research that constituents want even when it is very likely to be fruitless. But you have made it expensive to perform from a public health perspective and won’t accept any answer except the one you want.

How much longer until you get vaccine-autism research? You tell us. You are the ones in the way. Your “how much longer” campaign probably just set you back at least a year.

You probably see this as harsh. In reality it is probably the best advice you have been given all day.

Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety

25 Aug

There is an amazing document to be found on the internet: the “Physicians Warranty of Vaccine Safety”.

My take on this? It isn’t a real method of communicating one’s possible concerns about vaccines with one’s doctor. Instead, it is appears to be intended to sway parents away from vaccinating their children. They read this and go “Oh No!” and probably never even show it to their pediatricians.

The document is long and asks doctors to provide huge amounts of information supporting the idea that vaccines are safe and effective. Again, my view is that the document is more about getting parents to question vaccines.

The “Warranty” includes a scary list of vaccine “fillers” including the ever not-present “antifreeze”. It brings up the SV40 scare, including the nonsensical statement, “I hereby warrant that the vaccines I employ in my practice do not contain SV 40 or any other live viruses.” I guess whoever wrote the “Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety” never heard of he MMR vaccine, with its live viruses and all. How can a physician warrant that MMR doesn’t include “live viruses”?

In the end the objective of this document appears to be: give this to your doctor and when he/she refuses to sign it, take that as proof that vaccines are not safe.

To insure that this happens, the Physicians Warranty of Vaccine Safety includes a killer clause:

Regardless of the legal entity under which I normally practice medicine, I am issuing this statement in both my business and individual capacities and hereby waive any statutory, Common Law, Constitutional, UCC, international treaty, and any other legal immunities from liability lawsuits in the instant case. I issue this document of my own free will after consultation with competent legal counsel whose name is __________________________________________, an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of ___________________________.
________________________(Name of Attending Physician)
________________________ L.S. (Signature of Attending Physician)

Yep. The doctor is supposed to waive all legal protection from liability. He/she is supposed to put his/her business and personal assets behind this.

Make a document that says, “I want a glass of water…oh, by the way, please waive all your legal rights before doing so”. See if your doctor will sign it.

I’ve toyed with creating a “Physicians Warranty of Autistic Child Safety”. It would require the physician to provide all the evidence that the alternative medical therapies have been tested and proven to be beneficial and safe.

Oh, yeah, the physician would have to waive his/her immunities from liability lawsuits.

I considered asking a number of the prominent alternative medical practitioners if they would consider taking my kid on as a patient, then asking them to sign the “Physicians Warranty of Autistic Child Safety”.

But why when I already know the answer will be no?

I guess it says something about the vaccine-rejectionists that they have to resort to such cheesy measures as the “Physicians Warranty of Vaccine Safety”.

Chelation challenge testing: not scientific, not beneficial, may be harmful

13 Aug

Who knows about the toxic effects of mercury? Toxicologists. The premier toxicology group in the U.S, the American College of Medical Toxicologists, represents the doctors who test and treat people suffering from real heavy metal poisoning.

By contrast, many doctors have added chelation to their treatment options due to the false theory that autism is caused by heavy metal poisoning (specifically, mercury). These alternative-medicine practitioners usually depend on non-standard test to “prove” heavy metal poisoning. The favorite seems to be the “challenge” chelation test. In this test, a chelator is given to a person before a urine test. Chelators are chemicals which bind to metals in the body and allow them to be excreted more easily. Thus, if you give a chelator to a person, you expect their urine to show higher levels of heavy metals.

This has been discussed on this blog and elsewhere for a long time.

And now the American College of Medical Toxicologists has come out with an official position statement.

The practice is not scientific. There are no reference values for post-challenge urine metal testing. There is no correlation between actual metal exposure and post-challenge test results.

It is, therefore, the position of the American College of Medical Toxicology that post-challenge urinary metal testing has not been scientifically validated, has no demonstrated benefit, and may be harmful when applied in the assessment and treatment of patients in whom there is concern for metal poisoning.

It’s time for post challenge urine testing to end. It is time for chelation as a “treatment” for autism to end. It is time for those who promoted the “autism is mercury poisoning” theory to step forward and admit their mistakes.

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.

Care Clinics and Doctors Data sued

17 Jul

An alternative medicine clinic specializing in autism, Care Clinics of Austin Texas was recently raided by the FBI and the IRS and appears to be shut down.

According to the Quackwatch website In another action, Care Clinics and Doctor’s Data are being sued:

CARE Clinics, of Austin Texas, its owner Kazuko Curtin, its subsidiaries, and Chicago-based Doctor’s Data have been sued for fraud, negligence, and conspiracy

The complaint is being brought by an adult, apparently not autistic, who claims to have been misdiagnosed for heavy metal poisoning. In a step that could have a big impact on the autism alternative-medicine community, the petitioner is charging that the method of testing for heavy metals, specifically that used by Doctors Data, is fraudulent.

It’s worth repeating: it is hard to underestimate the impact of a successful suit against challenge testing to “diagnose” mercury poisoning.

Circling the Wagons

29 May

The alternative medicine community is certainly loyal to their own. This seems especially true in the world of Autism where no idea is ever abandoned, no practitioner ever criticized.

After the Chicago Tribune published articles on the Geiers (and here), as well as Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, it was a forgone conclusion that the community would close ranks.

These articles were published right before the AutismOne conference–which chose to honor Andrew Wakefield after news was released that he may have altered his data. See what I mean? No quicker way to be a hero than to have really the skeletons in your closet made public.

The most basic response was from Kim Stagliano, who let this tweet on Twitter:

From Kim: Chicago Trib is close to dead. Suddenly launches full frontal attack on autism during Autism One. AAP in backyard. They hear us.

Yes, the Tribune is bad and in the pockets of the AAP and the AAP are evil. Please.

Dan Olmsted came out rather quickly with a piece in the Age of Autism blog in defense of the Geiers and Dr. Eisenstein. Later, Anne Dachel did another piece.

Both use a simple contrivance: avoid the real questions raised by the article. Instead, write about “what the Tribune story should have included”. This is especially true of Anne Dachel, who went on and on over pretty much all the media talking points of the vaccines-cause-autism movement.

For example, both Mr. Olmsted and Ms. Dachel thought the Tribune should have discussed Dr. Bernadine Healy. The connection to the story? None. But, Dr. Healy is vitally important to the story Olmsted and Dachel want to tell. See what I mean?

Dan Olmsted’s method sidestepping of the real questions was rather poorly done. In his piece, he writes:

The article lumps Lupron — about which I know nothing, and have no opinion — in with alternative approaches like diet, about which I do know something, and do have an opinion.

Frankly, I found this a ridiculous statement. Dan Olmsted was attending the AutismOne conference–a conference which for years has hosted talks by Mark Geier on Lupron and which Dan Olmsted has attended for years. I guess he missed the Geier talks?

It isn’t as though Mr. Olmsted isn’t able to form an opinion on scant data. Mr. Olmsted has shown a particular interest in Kathleen Seidel–to the point where Mr. Olmsted “diagnosed” her kid with mercury poisoning based on a paragraph in the book Autism’s False Prophets. From only a snippet (wrongly interpreted by Mr. Olmsted) about one of Ms. Seidel’s previous jobs, Mr. Olmsted claimed that she had high levels of mercury, and further stated:

Laugh me off if you want, but I have spent a lot of time looking for plausible links between parents’ occupations and autism in their children, and I know them when I see them.

So, he’s willing to go out on a limb based on a few words in a book, but, say, the page after page that Ms. Seidel wrote about the Geiers and Lupron (e.g. here, here and here) left no impression?

Sorry, Mr. Olmsted. I know ’em when I see ’em too. I see you dodging really tough questions about the Geiers in an effort to protect one of the big names in autism psuedoscience.

To further point out how silly the “about which I know nothing, and have no opinion”, one of the readers of that blog piece pointed out:

Dan, last year AoA published a post from Kent Heckenlively entitled “MERCURY, TESTOSTERONE AND AUTISM – A REALLY BIG IDEA!” In the comments, you said that you had gone to the Geiers’ house and witnessed a child receive a Lupron injection and improve immediately. You “just had to put this on the record,” you said.

I take the fact that Mr. Olmsted has gone from Lupron shill to even this weak distancing himself from Lupron (“I know nothing”) as a good sign. Even Dan Olmsted must be seeing the cracks in the Lupron Logic.

Ms. Dachel does her own “two step” around the question of her real opinion on Lupron.

Let me say that I’m not an expert on any of the medical aspects of this; I’m merely an observer. So here’s what I’m seeing.

Since when does not being an expert on the medical aspects stopped anyone at the Age of Autism blog from making very clear opinionated statements?

But, again, I take the clear signal that she is willing to distance herself from Lupron as a small, but positive sign.

So, let me use their contrivance–let me list what Mr. Olmsted and Ms. Dachel should have written about in their blog pieces. Let me list many of the real questions raised by the articles in the Tribune. As you read this list, it will become obvious why the Olmsted/Dachel tag-team avoided these questions: these are serious questions about people possibly harming children with autism and Dan Olmsted and Anne Dachel don’t have answers to these questions.

At least, they don’t have answers which would satisfy their readership.

Here is the list of questions I had after reading the Tribune articles:

1) Are parents still being sold the idea that Lupron will help remove mercury from their autistic children?

2) Are parents still being told that mercury causes autism? (OK, we all know the answer to that one. The answer is yes. No amount of data will convince Mr. Olmsted.)

3) Are the diagnoses of “precocious puberty” valid? Would a real pediatric endocrinologist agree with the Geier’s assessments? From the Tribune, quoting an actual expert in precocious puberty:

None of the data verify or even suggest that any of these patients have precocious puberty.

4) What is the purpose of all the extra lab tests the Geiers are performing? Are they for the Geiers’ research? If so, why should the parents (or their insurance) foot the bill?

5) Why do the Geiers use 10 times the normal dosage of Lupron?

5) Is Lupron being used as a chemical restraint?

6) Does Lupron even work well enough to warrant its use? Given that Dr. Eisenstein is reported to be close to dropping Lupron, it clearly isn’t a “miracle drug”.

7) what are the side effects of extended use of Lupron. Especially, what are the side effects of wrongly delaying puberty? According to the Tribune story:

Experts in childhood hormones warn that Lupron can disrupt normal development, interfering with natural puberty and potentially putting children’s hearts and bones at risk.

8) Why don’t the Geiers recommend patients to see board certified pediatric endocrinologists?

9) If precocious puberty is so prevalent amongst children with autism, why don’t pediatric endocrinologists see it? According to the Geiers:

Mark Geier responded that these are “opinions by people who don’t know what they are talking about,” saying the pediatric endocrinologists interviewed by the Tribune don’t treat autistic children and have not tried the Lupron treatment.

10) What about older kids the Geiers are treating? Are they being correctly diagnosed? From the Tribune story:

David Geier said his father diagnoses high-testosterone teens not with precocious puberty, but with another very rare condition: testicular hyperfunction.

How does “testicular hyperfunction” explain the older girls the Geiers have treated?

11) The effects of Lupron on sex hormones are temporary. Stop the shots, the hormones return. The loss of the beneficial effects of puberty are permanent. Does the trade off make sense?

And that is just the list of questions based on the article on the Geiers. Then there is the story about Dr. Eisenstein. This too raises a number of tricky questions.

1) Is Dr. Eisenstein a credible resource for information? After reading the article, one has to question that.

2) Would people like Anne Dachel, Kim Stagliano and Dan Olmsted recommend people see a physician whose malpractice insurance may be “phony”?

In court records dating back three decades, the families of dead and brain-damaged children repeatedly alleged that doctors who work for Eisenstein made harmful mistakes — sometimes the same error more than once. His practice also has been dogged by accusations in court records that its offshore malpractice policy was phony.

3) Would Is Dr. Eisenstein’s record of selling “illegal” health insurance troublesome?

He also dabbled in group health plan sales to Illinois families but tangled with state insurance regulators in the mid- to late 1990s. Regulators warned consumers in a newsletter that Eisenstein “continued to illegally market” the Homefirst Health Plan, based in the British Virgin Islands, even after they told him the plan was ineligible. Despite this, he continued selling the plan, records show, and they ordered him to “cease and desist.”

4) Dr. Eisenstein seems to be good at blameshifting. In this case he accuses the parents of making a mistake that appears to be clearly that of his colleague at HomeFirst. Is this the sort of doctor parents of autistic kids should be seeing?

A Homefirst doctor took a sample of blood from Na’eem’s umbilical cord that could have been used to diagnose the problem and could have led to prompt treatment, according to court testimony. But instead of dropping off the sample at the lab, the doctor said under oath, he was tired, went home and put the sample in his refrigerator, where it sat the whole weekend.

In an interview, Eisenstein blamed the parents for not taking the baby to the emergency room for a blood test. Na’eem’s parents testified that no one from Homefirst ever told them to go to the emergency room.

5) Dr. Eisenstein appears to make some rather questionable decisions about insuring his own practice. Also, it appears from this quote that perhaps he has gone without malpractice insurance. Again, is this the sort of doctor parents of autistic children should be using?

After Nathan Howey’s death, Weiss Hospital sued Homefirst, Rosi and Eisenstein for fraud, alleging they misrepresented their Caribbean-based malpractice policy. Eisenstein testified that he was in St. Kitts helping one of his daughters, a veterinary student there, buy a condo when the lawyer who helped arrange the sale told Eisenstein he also sold malpractice insurance.

“I was tickled pink to get insurance,” he said under oath.

A Cook County judge called it an “improperly underwritten insurance plan.” Eisenstein, who says the policy is legitimate, agreed to pay Weiss $50,000 after mediation.

6) Dr. Eisenstein appears to have inflated his credentials:

Eisenstein said under oath that he was a faculty member at the Hinsdale Hospital Family Practice Residency Program from 1992 to 2003. A hospital administrator testified that Eisenstein “never was” a faculty member. In a recent interview, Eisenstein said that while he wasn’t a faculty member there, he did teach students from that program and kept snapshots of them.

(anyone else reminded of Vera Byers, witness for the petitioners in the Omnibus, who claimed to be faculty at UCSF? In reality, she used the library and attended parties there.)

7) Lastly, is this the type of doctor we should be taking our kids to?

Reflecting on the $1.275 million malpractice settlement, he appeared unshaken.

“It’s the cost,” he said, “of doing business.”

I’m sure the parents were glad to hear that their kid’s life was “the cost of doing business”.

There are a lot of questions raised by these stories. Hard questions. Questions Mr. Olmsted, Ms. Dachel and Ms. Stagliano should answer if they want to really serve their readership.

Is lupron just a chemical restraint?

26 May

Since it was first proposed by Mark and David Geier, Lupron therapy for autism has been criticized heavily. Do a google search–if your results are like mine, the first hit is a blog post by Kathleen Seidel “Playing with Fire“. Ms. Seidel has done much to expose the questionable methods used by the Geiers to promote Lupron as a therapy for autism. Her list of Lupron links is quite valuable for anyone considering this therapy. Top amongst those is a blog post by Prometheus at the Photon in the Darkness blog, exposing the questionable science behind the supposed testosterone/mercury connection.

Lupron is a drug which shuts down sex hormone production in the body–temporarily. Because of the hormone reduction, lupron is used in the treatment of prostate cancer in men and fibroids in women. The only approved use for children is to treat “precocious puberty”–i.e. the onset of puberty too early. It is useful because it temporarily reduces hormone production.

But, that isn’t what the Geier’s proposed. They didn’t start out to treat precocious puberty. It is worth looking at the history to see how much the Geiers’ stories have changed. There appear to be three stories now.

Story one: mercury binds to testosterone making it difficult to chelate out of the brain. The science backing this up was ridiculous (unless you think your brain is a vat of boiling benzene). Seriously, I am embarrassed for the Geiers. Even in the world of alternative medicine, this was junk science.

Story two: autistic kids almost all have “precocious puberty”. Odd that no one else has ever seen this, but it gives a medical reason to prescribe Lupron (one that will pass insurance scrutiny).

But, both “story one” and “story two” seem to be in the past. Yes, there is mention of precocious puberty in the recent articles in the Chicago Tribune (‘Miracle drug’ called junk science). But, here is a paragraph worth reading:

By lowering testosterone, the Geiers said, the drug eliminates unwanted testosterone-related behaviors, such as aggression and masturbation. They recommend starting kids on Lupron as young as possible and say some may need the drug through the age of puberty and into adulthood.

Does that sound like (a) they are treating mercury poisoning or (b) they are treating precocious puberty?

Here is a quote from Anne Dachel’s rather weak defense of the Geiers:

One of the issues in the stories is the use of Lupron to treat aggression in autistic children who have high levels of testosterone. This is a huge controversy. The treatment is slammed as “unproven and potentially damaging” in the Tribune.

Does that sound like (a) they are treating mercury poisoning or (b) they are treating precocious puberty?

The Rev. Lisa Sykes, in the comments to the Tribune article wrote:

As the parent of the first child to be treated by Dr. Geier for high testosterone, a condition caused by cinically diagnosed mercury-poisoning from the theraputic use of vaccines and RhoD, I can only wait for the day the press gets it right.

Does that sound like (a) they are treating mercury poisoning or (b) they are treating precocious puberty?

Remember, this is the same Lisa Sykes whose video interview promoting Lupron talks about finding a way to get the mercury out. But, now it is “high testosterone”. Sure, she asserts (without any support) that this is caused by mercury poisoning. Anyone want to guess who “clinically diagnosed” the mercury poisoning, by the way? I know who my money is on.

Before I go too far off track, let’s bring this back to the big question–if the story is no longer “mercury poisoning” or “precocious puberty”, is Lupron being used for any other purpose than controling behavior through limiting testosterone levels? And, at 10 times the normal dosage used for precocious puberty, isn’t this a rather handed approach?

Lupron has been called a “chemical castration” drug due to the fact that it shuts down the body’s testostoerone production and has been used to control behavior in sexual predators. Lupron obviously will have profound effects on the behavior of people–children or adult, autistic or not.

If testosterone control is the real purpose for the “Lupron Protocol” (as the Geiers have named it) shouldn’t we then ask: isn’t this just a form of restraint?

Keep in mind, Lupron only works temporarily. Stop giving the Lupron shots and testosterone levels will rebound. Remember this quote from the Tribune story?

They [the Geiers] recommend starting kids on Lupron as young as possible and say some may need the drug through the age of puberty and into adulthood.

Anyone remember how the “mercury toxic” children idea was perpetuated? Since standard tests don’t show high levels of mercury, “challenge” chelation tests were used. When real toxicologists test children shown to be “mecury intoxicated” by alternative medical practitioners, the real answer is no mercury poisoning. Is the same pattern happening in the world of testosterone testing?

Let’s check the patent application the Geiers’ submitted. The first patient mentioned in the application is “child X”. Child X had serum testosterone levels of 25ng/dL. The reference range was 0-25ng/dL. In other words, the kid was within normal ranges.

How about the other patients? Child Y, for instance? Again, within normal ranges.

Child Y’s total serum testosterone was determined to be 20 ng/dL. The reference level of total serum testosterone for a male child of Child Y’s age at this laboratory was from 0-20 ng/dL.

“Child A” was slightly above normal ranges.

Laboratory analyses for androgen metabolites revealed an elevated serum total testosterone=23 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=0-20 ng/dL)

Child B was higher than the reference ranges.

Laboratory analyses for androgen metabolites revealed an elevated serum testosterone=18 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=0-10 ng/dL)

Now, here is one that amazes me:

Additionally, analyses of Child D’s blood androgen metabolites revealed a serum testosterone=153 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=0-350 ng/dL) and serum/plasma DHEA=291 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=183-383 ng/dL) within their respective reference ranges.

After extensive discussions with his parents concerning the risks, benefits, and alternative treatments available, a decision was made to place Child D on a course of LUPRON® therapy.

It doesn’t appear to matter. If a child is within the reference range, slightly above, or above, the answer is the same: treat with Lupron.

So, I again pose the question: is Lupron a chemical restraint? I will add a further question: is it being applied to children whose testosterone levels are not high?

Why lupron “franchises” for autism?

25 May

You know how it is when you read a story filled with red flags. A lot of them are obvious and hit you right away. Others sit in the back of your brain until enough pieces are put together and the idea springs forward, “that’s what’s wrong!” Such was the case with the Tribune stories on the Geiers and their “Lupron Protocol”. The high costs were an obvious red flag. I mean, $12,000 in tests and $6,000 a month in prescriptions? But, one red flag that took a while to process was the existence of the “franchises”. From the Tribune story:

…the Geiers have opened eight clinics in six states, including one in Springfield and their arrangement with Eisenstein, which he described as a “franchise” of sorts.

and

Some of the Geiers’ clinics are headed by doctors; a psychiatrist runs the Springfield clinic. But that is not always the case. The clinic in Indianapolis is run by an X-ray technologist who has an autistic child.

In Washington state, the head is a health advocate and documentary filmmaker.

OK, the existance of “franchises” run by x-ray technologists and documentary filmmakers is a pretty clear red flag.

But, take a moment and recall: what is the Geiers’ rationale for prescribing lupron? The answer: the Geiers claim that autistic children have a very high incidence of precocious puberty. They are not treating autism, they say. No, they are treating the precocious puberty, with Lupron, a drug which reduces testosterone production in the body. At least, this is what they tell the insurance companies in order to get reimbursements for the parents.

Recently it hit me. Why the franchises? Precocious puberty is diagnosed and treated by pediatric endocrinologists. Heck, pediatricians can do an initial diagnosis.

Is there a shortage of pediatric endocrinologists in, say, Chicago? (I counted 12 in that list in Chicago proper).

If this were really about autistic kids almost all having precocious puberty, Dr. Geier’s talks would have one simple tag line: Get your kid to a to the nearest pediatric endocrinologist for a full work up.

Instead, his message seems to be: call me (someone who doesn’t specialize in pediatric endocrinology) or wait until I establish a franchise in your home town.

That would be one giant red flag for me if I were considering using the Geiers.

The high financial cost of Lupron therapy for autism

24 May

Lupron therapy for autism has been controversial ever since it was first proposed by Mark and David Geier. Controversial–as in the rational for Lupron for autism was based on some of the worst junk science I have ever seen. Neurodiveristy.com has followed Lupron since the beginning (here is but one example of the excellent reporting from neurodiversity.com).

The Lupron story recently was covered by the Chicago Tribune. Page 1 of the Trib, by the way. The story was the number 1 emailed story from the Trib’s website when I checked at one point. Even with letting the Geiers give input for “balance” it was still a very scary story.

One thing that caught my eye was the very high cost of Lupron therapy. At least, the very high cost when Lupron is prescribed by the Geiers and used to “treat” autism (or, as the rationale goes, autistic kids with precocious puberty).

First, the cost for testing is very high. From the Tribune:

To treat an autistic child, the Geiers order $12,000 in lab tests, more than 50 in all. Some measure hormone levels. If at least one testosterone-related level falls outside the lab’s reference range, the Geiers consider beginning injections of Lupron. The daily dose is 10 times the amount American doctors use to treat precocious puberty.

Second, the cost of the drugs was even higher. Again from the Tribune article (quoting Mark Geier himself):

The cost of the Lupron therapy is $5,000 to $6,000 a month, which health plans cover, Mark Geier said. However, two families told the Tribune that they had trouble getting insurance to pay for the treatment.

These numbers seemed so high that I decided to ask someone who would know. Someone who treats children with precocious puberty.

How much does it cost to test for precocious puberty? $12,000 as when the Geiers are testing? Not even close. According to my source, precocious puberty can be diagnosed for less that $1,000 in tests.

It appears that the Geiers call for a lot of tests that are not involved with precocious puberty.

So, how about that $5,000 to $6,000 a month that Dr. Mark Geier says his patients (or their insurance) pay for the therapy? How does that compare to an actual treatment for precocious puberty? At doses typically used for precocious puberty, $1,500….a year.

Yes, $6,000 a month if you are with the Geiers vs. $1,500 a year for a real precocious puberty therapy.

Something seems really wrong here. It doesn’t appear as though the Geiers are dispensing the Lupron themselves. Parents seem to be getting Lupron from pharmacies. If so, the increase is not due to any markup by the Geiers.

Recall from the quote above from the Tribune:

The daily dose is 10 times the amount American doctors use to treat precocious puberty.

This might account for the cost going from $1,500 a year to $15,000 a year. How can the Geier protocol cost $60-72,000 a year?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →