Archive | Mercury RSS feed for this section

WXYZ and bad "investigative" reporting

11 Jul

Wouldn’t you love to move on from the thimerosal debate? Yes, I mean that as part of the greater move away from the vaccine/autism debate. But we are closing in on the end of the thimerosal era and, let’s face it, the nebulous arguments about “toxins” will be around for a while. People have learned the lessons of not making clearly falsifiable claims or setting deadlines for the “autism rate to decline”, so they will be able to keep the general vaccine discussion alive for some time to come.

But, we aren’t there yet with thimerosal. And, to prove the point, Steve Wilson at station WXYZ in Detroit has managed to regurgitate the standard thimerosal arguments. That would be not surprising. I expect a these aftershocks. What I is really annoying is the methodology. Orac has referred to it as “yellow journalism”, and I quite agree.

I will note that Orac and the Denialism Blog have both covered this in greater detail than I can. AutismNewsBeat has a journalist’s viewpoint as well.

Why am I annoyed with Steve Wilson? First off, he starts out by claiming that the “prevailing strategy seems to be to downplay the possibility of any link so that parents will continue to vaccinate their children”. (rough quote, sorry, I just don’t want to listen to that over and over again).

Sounds like a page from the Bernadine Healy playbook. Let’s imply something sinister is going on. Let’s imply that the AAP is hiding evidence. Steve: how about acknowledging that the “prevailing strategy” is to tell people what the science actually says? Doesn’t that seem like the “prevailing strategy” that the AAP and others are using? It does to me.

Another big chunk of the Steve Wilson’s report is based on this statement:

“..the truth is, there is still as much as ever..in 11 vaccines”

At this point, it’s worth reading Orac who lists the actual pediatric vaccines and their thimerosal levels.

You see, Steve Wilson pulled a classic con. Sorry to call it so bluntly, but that’s what I see. He talks about vaccines that aren’t being given to children young enough to develop autism. I don’t even know if the 11 vaccines he is talking about really do have thimerosal. Because, it doesn’t matter in this discussion. What matters is the pediatric vaccine schedule.

The part that bugs me is that Steve Wilson knows it. He gives as an example the thimerosal in tetanus boosters given to 11 year olds. Yes, he actually talks about 11 year olds.

Yep, the goalposts have moved so far, we are building new stadiums. 11 year olds being given tetanus boosters might develop autism. Except for Jim Carrey, who has ever implicated Tetanus shots? Even Jim Carry didn’t indicate that it was the booster given at age 11.

It appears to me that Mr. Wilson isn’t even going to the actual sources for his information. His report is a nice smattering of the standard vaccines-cause-autism line. One bit that caught my attention is when he talks about statements in the congressional record.

A congressional committee that studied the matter has already concluded: “Thimerosal…is directly related to the Autism epidemic.”

I was pretty sure that was a Dan Burton quote, so I Googled it to find the source. I came up with Deadly Immunity, by Robert Kennedy Jr, but I didn’t find the part of the congressional record with it. I looked a bit harder and found that the congressional record shows the statement as:

“Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines in [sic] likely related to the autism epidemic.”

I don’t agree with the above either. But, compare “likely related” (Steve Wilson) and “directly related” (congressional record). Somewhat different meaning, don’t you think?

I can’t resist putting out some of the list of “what do we know about mercury”? As it turns out, a lot. A lot more than I ever wanted to know, I’ll tell you that. A lot more than actually helps my family. But, here are some examples of what we know:

1) the dose makes the poison. Absolutely. There has to be a dose small enough that it would not cause toxicity.

2) mercury is everywhere. It was in the organic cinnamon-applesauce cup I just ate. It was in the organic lemonade juicebox I just drank. (sounds like I am the one on the playground, eh?).

3) When used in vaccines, it doesn’t increase the risk of most neurological disorders. Most? Yes, they didn’t include autism (see (5) below). Also, there were disorders that were indicated as possibly associated. Then again, there were some positive outcomes that were indicated as possibly associated with thimerosal. It looks like random chance–association is determined by statistics, and if you test enough associations, some will appear to be statistically significant.

4) when injected into pregnant women in RhoGaM type shots, it does not increase the risk of autism.

5) indications are that the upcoming CDC report on thimerosal and autism will show no increased risk.

6) Autism symptoms are not the same as mercury intoxication…autism is not “a novel form of mercury poisoning.

We could go on for a long time with the evidence against the concept that autism is caused by mercury. But, this is just a small list of the many things that somehow didn’t get into Steve Wilson’s investigative report.

Chelation study to be 'released'?

9 Jul

AP print an even-handed account of the current state of a Chelation study. This study which was approved and then put on hold:

….for safety concerns after an animal study, published last year, linked DMSA to lasting brain problems in rats.

I’m really torn about this study. On one hand, it would put to rest once and for all the issue of whether chelation benefits autistic children (except it won’t. When it finds chelation does nothing it will simply be attacked as crap by the anti-vaccine/autism groups). On the other hand, it will mean putting a whole load of kids at risk for no purpose whatsoever.

“I don’t really know why we have to do this in helpless children,” said Ellen Silbergeld of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was invited to comment on the study to a review board of the national institute.

Quite.

Lets be clear. This study is being touted about for one reason and one reason only – to appease the anti-vaccine/autism groups. In the mainstream medical/scientific community (and notably in the toxicology community) it is well known that autistic kids aren’t toxic. Here is a few snippets from the testimony of Dr Jeffery Brent – a sub-specialty board certified medical toxicologist. He is an active member of the medical school teaching faculty and is an attending physician on the clinical pharmacology/toxicology consultation service at the University Hospital. Currently he holds the rank of Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Brent has a long list of publications, virtually all related to clinical toxicology. He is senior editor of Critical Care Toxicology: The Diagnosis and Management of the Critically Poisoned Patient and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Toxicological Reviews, a major international state-of-the-art review journal devoted to human toxicology.

Q: Dr Mumper discussed today some key aspects of chelation therapy….as a medical toxicologist do you see any reason for the chelation to remove mercury from either Jordan King or William Mead in these cases?

A: Absolutely not….there is no test in medicine that is more valid for for assessing mercury toxicity than an unprovoked urine mercury concentration.

[For Jordan King and William Mead]…their unprovoked urine concentration is exactly in the normal range.

On the other hand, they have been chelated. And the justification for that chelation with regard to mercury comes from what you see in the right hand column where in both cases, 4 out of 5 provoked examples have been…uh…increase urine mercury. Well, you’re supposed to have increased urine mercury with provoked examples! Therefore there is absolutely no indication based here or anywhere else I saw in the medical records that suggest that there is any mercury effect in these children and therefore that was absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury related reason.

The standard way of chelating autistic kids is to do a provoked challenge test. As Dr Brent says – you’re _supposed_ to have increased levels with provoked examples.

Q: There’s nothing here that would be out of the ordinary – from your experience – absent, even in the absence of a standard reference range.

A: Well, in truth we don’t (?) urine/leads because the ‘gold test’ is blood/lead so I haven’t looked at many urine/leads in children that I have chelated. So I can’t speak to that in my experience. But I have seen a number of patients now come to me because of these ‘doctor’s data’ type of laboratories which are based on urines – chelated urines – and they always have high leads in their chelated urines and I tell them ‘well, lets just do the gold standard test, lets get a blood/lead level and so far, 100% of the time they’ve been normal.

So basically, when you do the provoked, non-standard tests from labs that make a good living from charging for these tests, they come back positive. When experts like Dr Brent do the gold standard tests, 100% of the time they come back normal.

*There is no reason to chelate autistic children* .

And here in this report is part of the problem. There seems to be a type of scientist who wants to short-circuit the scientific process:

Insel said he has come to believe after listening to parents that traditional scientific research, building incrementally on animal studies and published papers, wasn’t answering questions fast enough.

Well, boo-hoo. Its slow for a reason. Its slow to be as accurate as possible and to be as safe for humans as possible. Insel needs to remember that his patients – his duty of care – is not to parents, but to the autistic people in his case load.

And one more thing….in this piece, Jenny McCarthy says:

Actress Jenny McCarthy, whose bestseller “Louder Than Words” details her search for treatments for her autistic son, Evan, told thousands of parents at a recent autism conference outside Chicago that she plans to try chelation on him this summer.

I thought Evan McCarthy was recovered? Surely Jenny McCarthy isn’t – can’t be – wrong?

Cancelation letter for Judicial Conference Panel

3 Jul

As noted previously, a panel discussion for the Court of Federal Claims judicial conference was canceled. The exact reasons were unknown.

This letter or email from the Court (from Chief Special Master Gary Golkiewicz to the participants) announcing the cancellation has been posted by David Kirby to the EOHarm group (with a statement that Mr. Kirby will shortly post this, presumably to one of his blogs).

I am very sorry to inform you that it was decided to cancel the panel program, on which you were scheduled to participate, as part of the Vaccine session of the Court’s Judicial Conference. By way of explanation, the Court’s planning process starts with defining a broad overarching theme, moves to identifying speakers, and subsequently focuses through meetings and discussions of the planning committee on actual content of the panels. This process moves very quickly as materials must be to the printers by mid-July. As the planning of the vaccine session developed, it became apparent that the discussion anticipated from this panel did not fit the goal of furthering the Bar’s understanding of litigation under the Vaccine Compensation Program before the Special Masters or the Court’s judges (in fact, another non-vaccine related panel was eliminated after discussions determined that it did not meet the Conference goals of focusing on litigation related issues.) While I have no doubt that your discussion of vaccines’ benefits and concerns is extremely important to the overall understanding of the immunization program, and would be enlightening to all, it is simply a discussion not consistent with the Court’s Conference but is better suited to another forum. Thank you for your support and my sincerest apologies, Gary

From my limited perspective, I agree with the above. I’m sure that the panel would have been interesting and given some additional understanding of the varied viewpoints of the immunization program. However, the line I see as the heart of the letter is:

“….it became apparent that the discussion anticipated from this panel did not fit the goal of furthering the Bar’s understanding of litigation under the Vaccine Compensation Program…”

I’m sure that Mr. Kirby could give a condensed version of his recent talk, but would that further the understanding of litigation issues? Dr. Healy could, well again I am not really sure what she could bring other than the opinions of a prominent doctor in another specialty. Mr. Allen could have presented a better researched view of vaccines than Kirby and Dr. Marcuse could have trumped them all with actual research from his specialty. But, again, does this promote an understanding of litigation?

OK, I am being disingenuous. Mr. Kirby definitely could have added to the understanding. He could have added to the understanding of how this subject will not go away, not matter how much science is thrown at it. He could demonstrate how bad science will continue and how people will cling to “Medical Hypotheses” and self-contradictory statements.

It has been said that if you want to study genetics, fruit flies are a great testbed. This is because you can watch many generations in a relatively short period of time. Mr. Kirby, and likely Dr. Healy, would have been able to demonstrate to the Court that if you want to watch the “genetics” of bad science, the “mercury hypothesis” is a great candidate. The more research that is thrown at it, the more in mutates into something new. Mr. Kirby could have taken them through the “novel form of mercury poisoning” to thimerosal in vaccines, to illegal immigrants keeping the CDDS numbers high, to toxic plumes from China. He could have explained how the Verstraeten study was flawed because it was ecological in nature, but how the “generation zero” data is somehow valid in his view. He could have done this without even a hint of irony at his own misuse of the CDDS data for his own simplistic ‘ecological’ based arguments.

I guess that would have been entertaining at least.

It isn’t RhoGaM either

30 Jun

If it’s a vaccine, or similar to a vaccine, especially if it contains thimerosal you gotta figure someone, somewhere has blamed it as a cause of autism. Such is the case of anti-D immune globulins, like RhoGaM. RH-negative mothers are given these shots while pregnant to protect their RH-positive babies.

If you are thinking like I was at first, “RhoGaM…where I have heard this recently?”, probably the most famous case involving RhoGaM is that of the Sykes family in what became Sykes v. Bayer. This was blogged extensively at neurodiversity.com, including the recent dismissal of the suit. On the way, the Plaintiffs subpoenaed Ms. Seidel (the more than a mere mother who runs neurodiversity.com). Said subpoena was quashed, and Mr. Shoemaker, the attorney who subpoenaed Ms. Seidel was sanctioned for what was deemed a misuse of his powers as an officer of the court.

But, I digress…Back to RhoGaM and similar products.

Earlier this month, a study by Lisa Croen (and other people familiar in the epidemiology of autism) was published:

Maternal Rh D status, anti-D immune globulin exposure during pregnancy, and risk of autism spectrum disorders.
Lisa A. Croen, PhD; Marilyn Matevia, MA; Cathleen K. Yoshida, MS; Judith K. Grether, PhD

It’s worth reading, and, I would bet money, is soon to be attacked. Why? Take a look at the last line of the abstract:

“These data support previous findings that prenatal exposure to thimerosal-containing anti-D immune globulins does not increase the risk of autism. that prenatal exposure to thimerosal-containing anti-D immune globulins does not increase the risk of autism.”

One could speculate whether the parties in Sykes v. Bayer were aware that this paper was in press, and whether that had anything to do with the dismissal. Without any more information, it would be just that: speculation.

Something that rises above speculation, but is below the level of a conclusion of the paper is this question: does this mean that this level of thimerosal exposure to pregnant women (at least at the times similar to that of RhoGaM injections) is off the hook in general? Or, to put it more simply, does this tell us that thimerosal containing flu shots given to pregnant woman are likely not a contributor to autism risk?

This is an interesting question in some circles. In the shifting sands of the desert that is the thimerosal-caused-autism science, the thimerosal containing flu shot is gaining prominence. Ignore the fact that a minority of pregnant women get the flu shot. Somehow, these flu shots are supposed to be taking up the slack left behind by the phase out of thimerosal from the pediatric schedule. (I can hear people now, “oooh, he’s perpetuating the myth that thimersosal is gone. There are trace amounts left. Trace amounts!” Another of the sand-dunes of the desert.)

OK, for the ultra involved, I bet some people fixated on the statement: “These data support previous findings…”. Some people will be angry with the thought that Croen et al. seem to be ignorant of “Neurodevelopmental disorders, maternal Rh-negativity, and Rho(D) immune globulins: a multi-center assessment.” By Geier, Mumper, Gladfelter, Coleman and Geier. Yep, our good friends the Geiers. I believe that is also our new friend, Dr. Mumper as well.

But, rest assured, Croen and company are aware of Dr. Geier’s team and included their work in their analysis.

Similarly, Geier and Geier found that the frequency of maternal Rh-negative status among 53 consecutive non-Jewish Caucasian patients with ASD referred to their genetic clinic was significantly higher than the frequency among 926 non-Jewish Caucasian pregnant women who presented at their clinic for prenatal genetic care (28.3% vs 14.4%, P ” .01), and all ASD patients with Rh-negative mothers received RhIg during pregnancy. Given the authors’ belief that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism, it is likely that the ASD patients who seek out their clinical services are skewed toward higher perceived mercury exposure. For that reason, these study findings may be biased and should be viewed with caution.

And, yes, they also note the Holmes “baby haircut“study as well. But that study has been through the wringer so many times, it’s best to move along.

As they indicate, Croen et al. are not the first to look for and fail to find evidence of a link between Rh status and immune globulins. Miles and Takahashi’s 2007 paper, Lack of association between Rh status, Rh immune globulin in pregnancy and autism found, well, a lack of association.

Of course this isn’t going to be the end of the discussion. The Miles and Takahashi study was met in short order by a comment by Bernard, Blaxill and Redwood. I’d bet the cash in my wallet that a response to the Croen et al. study is in the works.

And, unfortunately, that is the problem we as a community have to deal with. As noted (with some sadness, I am sure) in the Omnibus testimony of Dr. Mumper, the question of thimerosal and autism is a closed book to the scientific community. There are a few studies still ongoing, but indications are that they will also show no effect.

It will be hard enough to keep the interest level high amongst legislators as the science quashes the guilt factor of vaccine induce autism. It will be even more difficult if we are perceived to be clinging to the failed theories and ignoring good science.

Autism isn’t “a novel form of mercury poisoning“. Not from vaccines, not from immune globulins, not from plumes of mercury from China. Let’s stop moving goalposts and patting ourselves on the back for being flexible. Instead, let’s accept that falsifiable hypotheses have had their chance and been falsified. That’s learning.

And now we know…

22 Jun

I had a snarky version of this all planned out and then realized this is too important to risk burrying it in my own strange humor.

The CDC has had two big studies on thimerosal in vaccines ongoing as a part of their response to the 2001 IOM report. One of these came out last year, looking at neurological disorders except for autism. In the post on that study, by Thompson et al., Isles noted:

A CDC study released yesterday found no evidence to support “a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years

But what of the sister study? The one on autism? It is expected this year, but we have yet to hear about it…until now. A hat tip is in order to David Kirby, who unearthed this document. Mr. Kirby selectively quoted it, made a few mistakes and reposted a corrected version here.

OK, now it’s my turn to selectively quote. I’ll admit upfront, I make mistakes, maybe this is one…but I don’t think so. When I read Mr. Kirby’s original blog post Friday evening, I had to read the CDC document. And when I did, I noticed that it basically tips CDC’s hand as to the results of the thimerosal/autism study.

The document is a report by CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding entitled:

REPORT TO CONGRESS ON VACCINE SAFETY DATALINK

It mentions the followup study to the Thompson study:

Another VSD study that builds upon the 2003 thimerosal screening study and was recommended by the IOM in 2001 is the VSD thimerosal and autism study. This case-control study is being conducted at three MCOs in which children with autism are being evaluated by certified specialists using standardized diagnostic assessments. Medical records and interviews with the parents of both the cases and their matched controls will be used to verify vaccination histories and information on other potential confounding factors. This study is in progress and the expected date of publication is September 2008.

I am not a very patient person, I don’t want to wait until September. I really don’t want to wait until September and find out at the end of the month that the paper was delayed for some reason. Well, as far as the conclusions go, we don’t have to wait.

Based on what Dr. Gerberding write, we now know that the study is done and submitted to a journal. CDC, and likely other parts of the government, know the results. So, how is CDC responding? Dr. Gerberding tells us:

In 2004, the IOM performed a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism newly available since its initial review in 2001. In its 2004 report, the IOM concluded that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism,” and further stated

While the [IOM Immunization Safety Review] committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time.

Although CDC concurs with the 2004 IOM findings, CDC is committed to completing its research undertaken in this area. CDC is currently completing the vaccine safety studies it undertook in response to the 2001 IOM report.

OK, so, with the data from their new study in hand, the CDC still agree with the 2004 IOM report. Further, they will continue the ongoing studies, but no mention is made of new studies to look specifically at thimerosal and/or mercury and autism.

Now, I realize that there are people out there who think that the CDC might sit on data and not react. But, let’s face it, the only result of the thimerosal/autism study that makes any sense given the actions at CDC is this:

Thimerosal Didn’t Cause an Epidemic of Autism

Based on the reaction from the CDC, there is no evidence of any increased risk for autism from thimerosal.

Yep, I’ve gone out on a limb on this. But I contend it is a pretty sturdy limb. Not like the feeble limb of thimerosal causation that got us to this point in the first place. That concept (it should no longer be graced with the title ‘hypothesis’) was based on methods that would have to take a few steps up the quality ladder to reach the level of the Verstraeten study that Mr. Kirby’s blog post is attempting to bash.

Thimerosal Didn’t Cause an Epidemic of Autism

Sorry, it just looks so good I had do it again.

Dear Mercury and MMR Militia

21 Jun

I want to write you all an open letter to offer you my opinion as to where you are going wrong. Before I do, I fully realise that this is a massive generalisation and that some of you won’t hold all the opinions I’m about to go through. I think though, that many of you do.

Three things prompted this open letter. First of all was David Kirby’s trip to the UK. Second was a comment from Kelli Ann Davies where she expressed surprise that some of us might know/guess/whatever the intentions of the science and medical community. Third was Ginger Taylor’s recent sulk about the AAP. I’ll touch on these things as I go through this.

You have a truly massive credibility issue which grows with every passing year. Once upon a time it was an issue with the science/medical community but now it is an issue with the general public. There are a number of reasons why this is so.

1) You cannot keep your story straight. You have (as I said to Kelli Anne) some first class marketing and PR people. As I recall, Lynn Redwood, Mark Blaxill and Sallie Bernard all have marketing qualifications. You also have numerous leading lights who are very, very rich. This means you have ample opportunity to lever your message into the heart of the US media system.

But that means nothing without a coherent story to sell. You don’t have one. I understand that you have recently talked about how the ‘story of vaccines’ has _evolved_ . That is stretching things more than a little. Its mercury, no its MMR, no its both, no its Aluminium, no its all three, no its all ingredients, no its the very vaccines themselves, no its the schedule they’re given. No – its ALL the above. And don’t forget the mitochondria!

The more ingredients you add to the pot, the more you have to explain why they are causative of autism. You didn’t even manage to do this when you were concentrating on just _one_ thing (thiomersal). The above is not an example of an evolving hypothesis. Its an example of an ever widening hypothesis as one after another, your original ideas have been taken down.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than David Kirby’s stumbling backwards and backwards:

In 2005, David said in a FAIR Autism Media interview:

It’s now 2005…..[W]e should see fewer cases entering the system [cdds] this year than we did last year.

When that didn’t happen he then said:

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis…..total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

That didn’t happen either.

You started off by pointing an air pistol at a target 20 feet away and missing. You worked your way through Magnums, Shotguns and Miniguns and kept missing. You currently have a canon wheeled right up to within a foot of the target and you’re _still_ missing.

2) Your science is weak and getting weaker. Sadly for you, the onus was (and still is) on you to provide evidence that vaccines in any of the myriad of hypotheses cause autism. Lets hypothetically agree with you that vaccines are in fact, fashioned by Satan and are in fact, tools of population control. That is not the point. The point is: _do they cause autism?_

There is not one paper that passes muster as valid science that offers corroborating evidence that any vaccine, any ingredient of vaccines or any schedule they are administered in causes autism. This is after over 10 years of trying to find one. What you are increasingly left with is a double conspiracy theory. In one barrel of the conspiracy theory, brave maverick doctors are having their research suppressed. In the other barrel of the conspiracy theory, Big Pharma shills are publishing science to refute the various vaccine hypotheses.

Of course, neither barrel is true. The brave maverick docs are not having their science suppressed. It is simply not good enough to pass peer review.

A good example of this is the science experts being presented at the Omnibus Autism proceedings. No Geier’s. No Jim Adams. No Boyd Haley. No Andrew Wakefield. At least, not so far anyway. And this is in the Vaccine Court, where standards of evidence are way lower than in a civil court, where – by the way – not a few of these same researchers science was not good enough to even be entered as evidence.

And you have this nasty habit of shooting yourselves in the foot. Only today David Kirby posted on the Huffington Post about how rubbish the VSD database was. The very same database the Geier’s recently used to allege a link between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.

And the list goes on. The Hornig study? Refuted by Rick Rollens MIND Institute. The Nataf paper on Porphyrins? Liz Mumper, head of DAN! medical admits that even ‘normal’ children have raised Porphyrin levels. The Bernard et al paper? Refuted. Richard Deth’s work? Exposed and questioned.

3) Your choice of media people to represent you is doing you harm. I am not sure how the idea of latching onto Jenny McCarthy as a spokesperson for the anti-vaccine/autism connection came up. There are a few other celebs I can think of with more gravitas than McCarthy. In truth, you couldn’t have chosen worse. Already, she has made a public fool of herself (and you). As has her partner, Jim Carrey, with his ‘lazy ass’ FUBAR and calls to notice ‘warnings from the universe‘.

I understand that these events feel terribly cathartic to you but I would urge you to take off your rose tinted glasses and see how the real world perceives these kind of things. Its not good. Don’t take my word for it, go to a _mainstream_ news source, discount the people you know as friends/associates who are leaving comments and then see what people think.

You have also latched onto the words of Bernadine Healy. I can see why but she (is/was) a member of a paid lobby group that advances the ‘science’ of Philip Morris to put forward the idea passive smoking isn’t dangerous. How desperate do you have to be to turn to _this_ ‘authority’ for backup?

4) You cannot see that you are being humoured. I know that some of you have been very proud of your success in getting involved with things like the IACC and y’know, thats great – well done to you. And then there’s the ‘coup’ of getting the AAP to attend a DAN! conference and ‘work with’ them. But there’s one thing you seem to have forgotten. AAP members are medical scientists. They will go with the decent science.

I read a blog post from Ginger Taylor today which seemed to be telling the AAP their ‘window of opportunity’ to work with DAN! et al had closed due to the fact they endorsed a letter that a paediatrician had written on how to tackle parents who were nervous about vaccination.

Amusingly, Taylor also chided the AAP for not turning up to the ‘green our vaccines’ rally:

I warned that the window would only be open for a short time unless we saw real action, and would probably close around the time of the Green our Vaccines Rally if they didn’t show up for us in some respect.

Well the AAP didn’t show up for the rally and well… this certainly signals that the window is closed. They want it closed. And it looks like they may be locking it.

Can you not understand that to expect the AAP will turn up for a rally which touts such anti-science as Aluminium and Formaldehyde being at singularly dangerous levels in vaccines and Anti-Freeze being in them at all is the height of arrogant stupidity? Surely you cannot be that naive?

The truth is – and I get this from speaking to AAP, NIH, FDA and NHS members – that you had, and always will have, an opportunity to impress them with decent, peer reviewed science. That’s all you’ve ever needed. And that’s what you’ve never had.

5) The future. The person you’ve decided will be your public face is writing another book. <a href="http://stopthinkautism.blogspot.com/2008/06/today-autism-recovery-tomorrow-crystals.html"She says that:

It’s really an Indigo book…….We’re definitely the Indigos, you know, breaking down these walls so this, you know, New Earth behind us can happen.

And what’s your role in this?

…But people aren’t quite there yet and I kinda had to, not lower my vibration, change my vibration to focusing on the world hearing that message. Hearing that biomedical treatment does help these kids.

And then, slowly, you know I can put it in my speeches. and then in my last book I talked about the indigos and crystals. And I’m just like, I’m really following source, kind of I felt the need to do that, I’m just kind of dribbling it here and there until people, you know, have that spiritual awakening of spirituality.”

That’s where you’re going. You’re close to abandoning any kind of rational basis for your beliefs and just becoming Jenny’s followers in an Indigo Spiritual Awakening to herald in the New Earth..

Quag-Geier

14 Jun

I propose that any researcher or scientist who unwittingly gets into a quagmire with the Geier’s should be referred to as being ‘quag-geier-ed’. Its a handy way of referring to people who’ve (possibly accidently) stumbled into a great big pile of shit.

I therefore nominate Professor Heather Young as the inaugural QuagGeier. She has published a paper with the Geier’s which alleged to find:

associations between neurodevelopmental disorders (NDs) and exposure to mercury (Hg) from Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) by examining the automated Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)

One would imagine that any serious researcher who valued her career would be reluctant to associate with the Geier’s who have odd ideas about what is valid research but maybe Professor Young simply didn’t know.

Anyway, I forwarded the paper itself onto Epi Wonk, a blogger who:

…has a Ph.D. in epidemiology from an Ivy League university. Before that I got a bachelor’s degree from a different Ivy League college, a master’s degree in developmental psychology, and a master’s degree in medical sociology from another Ivy League University. I worked for more than 30 years as an epidemiology professor in medical academia and schools of public health, and in the senior biomedical research service at the Centers for Disease for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). During my career I have been the editor of two epidemiology journals and one more general biomedical journal. I am now retired.

So very, very bad was the quality of this paper that Epi Wonk took three (and possibly a couple more in the future) posts to tackle the numerous issues with it. I plan to recap them here but here is Epi’s take on the paper itself.

So in part I, Epi found the following:

dubious “imputing” or imputation lies at the bottom of the author’s little trick…..

Imputastion is simply – using known data to ‘guess’ at unknown data. Epi gives an example:

…let’s say a researcher has a file of data on children and 8% are missing data values on parent’s household income, 4% are missing data values on gestational age at birth, and 1% are missing data values on birth weight. She decides to use an imputation procedure to impute values for parental income, gestational age, and birthweight where they were missing. Perfectly fine, legitimate, and scientifically valid under most circumstances.

However, when we are dealing with something like autism….

She examines the data and sees that in certain cohorts in her study population the distribution of autism isn’t quite what she would like. So she “imputes” autism cases into the data set. Except that she’s not imputing a value on a variable for an existing study participant. She’s adding imaginary autism cases into the analysis. This isn’t imputation — it’s cooking the data.

Epi was very disturbed about this to the point that xe said:

This is just not done. It’s not valid. It’s not ethical. Adding imaginary cases into a data set borders on scientiific fraud.

Later on in the comment thread that developed, commenter Andrea asked:

Does this mean that Young, Geier and Geier added 45 and 80 cases that were not in the original data sets, that they MADE UP those 125 cases just to add imaginary data points to make the stats results look more like what they wanted?!

Thats exactly what happened.

In Part II of xes detailed look at this paper, Epi concluded that when it come to controls and particularly controlling for any confounding variables:

….there’s no attempt to control for, or adjust for, the confounding effect of birth cohort. Just one look at Figure 1 (or a basic knowledge about trends in autism) tells you the regression coefficients (slopes) are being driven by increases in autism risk over time. Given the increase in frequency of autism (and other neurodevelopmental disabilities) during time time period, you could do an ecological regression analysis of almost any factor that varied over time and you would find an an association with autism. I would bet that you could enter number of sushi bars per capita into an ecological regression and you’d find an association with autism rates.

This is not a good or valid paper. It seems, based on the expert analysis of a professor of epidemiology that this paper is fundementally flawed.

Green Our Vaccines – the reality

4 Jun

Green our vaccines at 09:15

Contrary to the press reports and the frenzied claims of Jenny McCarthy of rally participants numbering between 8 to 10,000 it seems according to police who accompanied the rally that there were between 500 – 1,000 participants. I cannot source that quote, for which I am sorry. I hope to be able to source it very soon but where I got it from is not available just yet.

The above photo was taken at 09:15. The below photo was taken at the end of the rally.

Green our vaccines crowd

It certainly doesn’t seem to be a very imposing crowd.

People who watched the start of the rally via webcams (my ISP decided to go down today of all days) say that a very loose straggly crowd walking very slowly took about 20 mins to pass a fixed point.

Someone else attending the rally said (again, in confidence):

There were about 500 people at the rally today, about half of whom were children. The press conference lasted for about an hour and a half. The speakers were, in order: Dr. Jay Gordon, Boyd Haley, Dr. Jerry Kartzinel, RFK Jr., Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy. RFK Jr. spoke at length about the science disproving a link between vaccines and autism. He said that all that science is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry and that top vaccine advocates such as Renee Jenkins and Paul Offit are in the pockets of these companies.

Other notables in the crowd included JB Handley, Scott and Laura Bono, the Hazlehursts and Jim Moody.

Update: seems the media are cottoning on to the low turnout. As noted by Catherina in the comments, News Channel 10 say:

Hundreds rally against child vaccinations

Seems like the saw through the pretence this wasn’t an anti-vaccine rally too. Well done them.

Apparently, the stupidest quote of the day comes from Jim Carrey:

If fire engines were running over people on the way to a fire, we wouldn’t say there shouldn’t be fire engines. We would ask the fire engines to slow down. That’s our message to the CDC – that we need to slow down the vaccination schedule.

There you have it, fire engines should slow down on their way to a fire. Jim Carrey’s other invaluable contribution was apparently taunting ‘big pharma’ for not finding a cure for autism whilst at the same time:

finding cures for “that great scourge restless legs syndrome, also known as lazy ass disease.”

Thats the same ‘lazy ass syndrome‘ that is associated with pregnancy, varicose vein or venous reflux, folate deficiency, sleep apnea, uremia, diabetes, thyroid disease, peripheral neuropathy, Parkinson’s disease and certain auto-immune disorders such as Sjögren’s syndrome, celiac disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

Oh and ADHD of course. The same ADHD that is included on the front page blurb of Groups Jenny McCarthy is on the board of.

Update II: If anyone would like to pass on Carrey’s kind words to the RLS community, you can do that at their website.

Later on Carrey apparently asked the rhetorical question ‘how stupid do you think we are‘. Heh.

Here is Jim Carrey’s quotes in the full context of his speech, courtesy of Autism News Beat – once again, venturing into the heart of woo-land.

Green Our Vaccines Coverage Elsewhere

Me
Kristina
PalMD
Kristina (again)
Ginny Hughes
Mike Stanton
Orac
Liz Ditz
Orac (again)
and again!
and again!!!
Kristina (once more)
Stifled Mind
Sharon
Seeing Beauty
S.L.
S.L. (again)
Mike Stanton (again)
Steve
Clotted Cognition

In honor of the “Green our Vaccines” rally: facts from the Omnibus Autism hearing

4 Jun

The lawyers for the parents in the Omnibus Autism hearing (thimerosal portion) have been claiming that one cause of “clearly regressive” autism is thimerosal at vaccine doses, even the dose of thimerosal in one vaccine. One of their supports for this odd claim is that whatever DAN! docs do to help their patients deal with “mercury toxicity” makes the kids less autistic or healthier or something. It’s all pretty vague. Dr. Mumper spoke confidently of what chelation had done for autistic kids and the boys under discussion in this portion of the trial were chelated multiple times in spite of never having shown any elevated mercury levels in their urine tests (even their chelated urine mercury levels were what would be expected for a typical person being chelated).

So what about this claim? If you do any old treatment and you think it makes the patient better in some perhaps very vague, undefined way, is this evidence of anything? Eric Fombonne, expert in autism epidemiology and clinician who works with autistic children and adults says, “Mais non.” Well, actually he said the following

Ms. Ricciardella (?): Are there standards that are used by the medical and scientific community before a treatment is recommended?

Dr. Fombonne: Yes, there are different kinds of standards to evaluate the efficacy of interventions the rule is to rely on the evidence that is the most robust that stems from a randomized clinical trial which are usually double blind placebo controlled for this method there is no study which has been relying on this method for the practices and treatment that have been discussed this morning [by Dr. Mumper]

Ms. Ricciardella: Do you have experience with randomized clinical trials?

Dr. Fombonne: Yes actually, I do. I started my research career and did my thesis my first two publications, I think, have to with randomized clinical trials.
And I am currently, we have tested the efficacy in a randomized clinical trial of a treatment which is not which is not biomedical which is a language based intervention to improve communication skills in young children with autism.
And we did a randomized clinical trial. It’s a 12 weeks treatment and we allocated at random parents and their children to a group where they were immediately treated with this intervention and there was a waiting list for the control group and 36 families in each group so it’s quite powerful in terms of it’s statistical power.
I just wanted to share with you my, my, our findings that it’s an intervention that everybody likes, eh and when we did the trial we had all the impression that it was actually achieving some positive results. The parents were happy and were convinced that the methods were showing some efficacy, and we did too.
But as we did the study well we didn’t analyze the data before the data were finally collected and when we broke the blind and looked at the results and there is no difference between the two groups–which is breaking my heart, in some ways–but this also shows that our experience as clinicians and as parents can be misleading.
And I think the field of autism has been replete over the last 30, 40 years of treatments and interventions that practitioners engage in when the parents apply to their children. And the story has been that when you take these practices and put them to rigorous empirical test, that of a randomized clinical trial, usually the story is much more disappointing. And a case in point is the secretin trial.

I don’t know if it was Ms. Ricciardella asking the questions, but that’s my guess. After this portion he explained about how many parents and clinicians from all over the world had been so excited about secretin when it became popular, and how for about 5 years clinicians used it and had some great stories to support it’s use. But when the double blind, placebo controlled studies were completed it turned out to be no more effective than placebo. And if someone tells you that there were “responders” you can tell them that there were “responders” to the sterile-saline injections, too, so why not just go with those, since they are cheaper than secretin? Besides which there’s no reason to expect that secretin (much like sterile saline) ever would do anything for the symptoms of autism. Further, the Mead boy got one or two injections of it but the family didn’t continue with them, apparently they weren’t so great for that child. Perhaps they decided to go with worm eggs, maternal fecal implantation enemas or even Eskimo oil (possibly purchased from Dr. Green’s office) instead.

http://static.boomp3.com/player.swf?song=bjsb2fd<a style=”font-size: 9px; color: #ccc; letter-spacing: -1px; text-decoration: none” target=”_blank” href=”http://boomp3.com/listen/bjsb2fd/fombonne-randomized-control-trial”>boomp3.com</a&gt;

Tags:

Green Our Vaccines Eve – Dr Jeffrey Brent

3 Jun

On the eve of the ‘green our vaccines‘ rally, I thought it might be interesting to share a ten minute or so segment from the Autism Omnibus.

Giving evidence is Dr Jeffrey Brent:

Jeffrey Brent, M.D., Ph.D. is a sub-specialty board certified medical toxicologist. He is an active member of the medical school teaching faculty and is an attending physician on the clinical pharmacology/toxicology consultation service at the University Hospital. Currently he holds the rank of Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Brent has a long list of publications, virtually all related to clinical toxicology. He is senior editor of Critical Care Toxicology: The Diagnosis and Management of the Critically Poisoned Patient and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Toxicological Reviews, a major international state-of-the-art review journal devoted to human toxicology.

Dr. Brent is the former President of the American Academy of clinical Toxicology, the largest organization in the world devoted to this discipline. Currently he serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the American College of Medical Toxicology.

We pick up testimony around five and half hours into day 15. I’ve transcribed directly from the audio, so please forgive minor errors. Emphasis is Brent’s, inserts are marked [].

Q: Dr Mumper discussed today some key aspects of chelation therapy….as a medical toxicologist do you see any reason for the chelation to remove mercury from either Jordan King or William Mead in these cases?

Absolutely not….there is no test in medicine that is more valid for for assessing mercury toxicity than an unprovoked urine mercury concentration.

[For Jordan King and William Mead]…their unprovoked urine concentration is exactly in the normal range.

On the other hand, they have been chelated. And the justification for that chelation with regard to mercury comes from what you see in the right hand column where in both cases, 4 out of 5 provoked examples have been…uh…increase urine mercury. Well, you’re supposed to have increased urine mercury with provoked examples! Therefore there is absolutely no indication based here or anywhere else I saw in the medical records that suggest that there is any mercury effect in these children and therefore that was absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury related reason.

Q: Dr Mumper also testified today to seeing an increase in lead levels in children and that chelation may help with the adverse effects from lead. Is there any scientific or medical basis for that statement?

It is true that chelation therapy is the appropriate therapy for lead toxicity. However, the records do not reflect any lead toxicity in the case of either of the two children at issue here, Mead or King. Neither of them have had an elevated blood lead level and a blood lead level is the ‘gold standard’ test for lead toxicity. Because, contrary to testimony that was given earlier today [Dr Mumpers – KL], blood lead remains elevated and it will be elevated for years in children that have lead toxicity. It equilibrates with tissues and if there’s high tissue burden there will be high blood burden.

Q: So you disagree with Dr Mumper that the blood levels would only test for acute toxicity?

Thats absolutely wrong. So there was no indication therefore for treating these two children with a chelator for any lead effects.

Q: Is there any other accepted tests for lead toxicity, other than blood?

Blood is the ‘gold standard’ and there are no other accepted tests in medicine now that we can routinely get blood/lead levels.

Q: Was there anything about the levels you observed in the medical records [of either King or Mead – KL] post chelation that would cause you to think that these were extraordinarily high levels of excretion upon chelation?

No. You always expect to see levels in the urine bump post-chelation. It would happen to any one of us. There are no validated reference ranges post chelation, thats why they’re not used in medical practice – there is no valid way of using them and in fact if you look at these two children they had mild increases in urine/lead excretion as I recall but they were nothing different than what you would normally expect to see if you gave a chelator to them.

Q: And you’ve given chelators to a lot of children?

I’ve chelated a number of children.

A: There’s nothing here that would be out of the ordinary – from your experience – absent, even in the absence of a standard reference range.

Well, in truth we don’t (?) urine/leads because the ‘gold test’ is blood/lead so I haven’t looked at many urine/leads in children that I have chelated. So I can’t speak to that in my experience. But I have seen a number of patients now come to me because of these ‘doctor’s data‘ type of laboratories which are based on urines – chelated urines – and they always have high leads in their chelated urines and I tell them ‘well, lets just do the gold standard test, lets get a blood/lead level and so far, 100% of the time they’ve been normal.

Q: Are the post chelation mercury levels in either of these two boys in excess of what you would see…or in excess – I take it there’s no standard reference range…?

No standard reference range. You do tend to see small increases, they’ve had minor increases in their mercury excretion over the reference ranges over the non-provoked. It was certainly not very dramatic and certainly well within the range of what you would expect to see. For example if you look at the studies that I cited where they were studying chelators and they were looking at the effect of the chelator on urine/mercury excretion.

Now thats a valid time to do a post chelation mercury – if you want to study the effect of the chelator. And if you look at the normal controls in those studies, when they give them a chelator you do see some increase in the urine/mercury excretion and its a moderate increase and its really not very different than what we saw in these children [King and Mead – KL]

Q: Have you chelated children for lead or mercury toxicity?

Actually, both.

Q: And under what circumstance did you chelate for mercury toxicity?

I’ve had a number, but probably the most common and the most dramatic relates to the fact that I live in Colorado and in the Rocky Mountain area there people who are still panning for Gold…..[they extract the gold from ore using liquid mercury]…and to get rid of the mercury [afterwards] they will heat it. In their house. In their kitchen. When you volatilise mercury like that [it gets into the air]….and I’ve had a number of families have become profoundly mercury poisoned.

Q: So when Dr. Mumper said that she saw ‘mobilisation’ of heavy metals by chelation and then assumed that the chelation was beneficial – do you agree with that statement?

No, I think what you see is – you give a chelator, you look in the urine and there’s more than in the non-chelated reference range is for the metals in the urine and its what you would normally expect. It tells you nothing about mobilising stores of heavy metals.

Q: Dr Mumper also talked about supplements. And those supplement were referred to increase Glutathione to treat mercury toxicity. Do you agree that that therapy is warranted in cases?

Glutathione? No. Supplemental glutathione to treat mercury toxicity has no validity at all.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →