Archive | MMR RSS feed for this section

MMR Smoke and Mirrors

8 Feb

In the days following the latest in an increasingly long line of studies repudiating the MMR/autism hypothesis, adherents to this belief system have clung wildly to the flotsam and jetsam that is pretty much all that is left to hang on to.

On the ADC Online forum, John Stone encapsulates this position with a letter I’ll go through point by point:

Of the original 1770 Special Educational Needs (SEN)cases in this study 255 were Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Of the 1770 735 dropped out, then a further 780 were excluded for reasons which are not transparent. 255 were left (a different 255 from before): some ASD, some just SEN but we do not know in what proportion. Then, exactly 100 were excluded because of inadequate blood tests. Of the remainder 101 had ASD (less the 40 per cent of the original 255 autistic cases). None is reported to have bowel disease (the sub-group of Wakefield’s study) or adverse reaction to MMR.

This is numerical hoopla and means nothing. The key to Stone’s frustration is the last sentence of this paragraph and the first one of the next:

It is not clear what the scientific purpose of this study is…….None is reported to have bowel disease (the sub-group of Wakefield’s study) or adverse reaction to MMR. This, of course, makes this a distinct group from the children referred to Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues at the Paediatric Gastroenterology department of the Royal Free Hospital in the 1990s and slighlty beyond.

Stone is arguing that because none of the ASD subjects were found to have bowel issues that disqualifies them as being like Wakefield’s subjects.

Methinks someone has missed the point.

The issue is one of clinical science. Wakefield claims to have found a clinical link between the measles live virus component of the MMR which causes bowel issues with associated autism. However, the Cedillo hearings drove a rather large nail into that particular coffin.

Professor Stephen Bustin is the worlds foremost PCR expert. Bustin uses PCR every day in his work, he has 14 papers in the peer reviewed literature on PCR, over 8 book chapters and is personally the author of the ‘A to Z of Quantitative PCR’ which is considered ‘the bible’ of PCR. One of his papers has been cited over 1,000 times. Another has been cited over 500 times. He both organises and speaks at international PCR conferences. His testimony regarding the Unigentics lab used to find the measles virus in the guts of these autistic kids was invaluable.

Bustin examined the Unigentics lab findings and procedures in great detail (spending over 1,500 hours in the lab itself) and found that the lab (which has now gone bust as a business) made a fairly basic error of science when looking at Wakefield’s samples:

“…Now, these are from samples that should have been discarded according to the SOP from Unigenetics because there was no GAPDH present, i.e., the RNA is degraded. If you look at the Cts for the F-gene which they reported as positive you can see they’re the same. Now, if this is degraded RNA yet I’m getting the same Cts for my F-gene target this can’t be RNA because it would have been degraded.

That’s what the GAPDH showed me. Now, if it isn’t RNA it has to be DNA. If it is DNA it can’t be measles virus it has to be a contaminant.”

In other words, the samples Wakefield provided to Unigentics were useless because Unigenetics own documented lab procedure says they were. But they used them anyway. The results were a bombshell. If the RNA is useless (which the lab process defines it as being) it can’t actually be RNA. If its not RNA then it must be DNA and if its DNA then it can’t be measles virus because measles virus doesn’t exist as DNA.

What the Unigentics lab detected in Wakefield’s samples were contaminants. There’s no way that Unigentics could possibly have been detecting measles virus.

This was backed up by Chadwick who checked Wakefield’s work (at his request). He also did a PCR test.

Q. What results did you receive from the gut biopsy materials for measles RNA?
A. They were all negative.

Q. They were always negative?
A. Yes. There were a few cases of false positive results, which I used a method to see whether they were real positive results or false positive, and in every case they turned out to be false positive results. Essentially all the samples tested were negative.

Q. Did you inform Dr. Wakefield of the negative results?
A. Yes. Yes.

So not only are the samples Wakefield provided useless, the testing he asked Chadwick to perform showed they were useless. And yet he went ahead anyway.

Its also worth noting that every subsequent piece of MMR science (save one unpublished poster presentation) went through Unigenetics lab and went through the same process as Wakefield’s.

So lets be frank – the idea that Wakefield found measles virus in the gut of autistic kids is plain and simply wrong. He screwed up.

The issue then becomes one of probabilities: given that there is no scientific reason to believe MMR causes autism with bowel disorders, it is nonsensical to only look at autistic kids with bowel disorders. And in answer to Stone’s question ‘It is not clear what the scientific purpose of this study is…’ the answer is plain – it has scientifically illustrated that autistic kids had exactly the same measles antibody response as non-autistic kids. No difference. At all.

Stone continues to attempt to muddy the scientific waters:

There is presently not enough consensus about the etiology of ASD to assume there is any single origin, nor anything to rule out ASD subjects having gut symptoms which justify on occasion invasive procedures. The NAS apparently consider that there is a sub-group which is being denied sympathy, investigation or treatment, and this is in itself troubling. It also suggests that this study is not representative since no such cases are included, and it does not address their problems.

This is slipperiness taken to almost artistic levels. Stone is quite right there is no consensus about etiology of autism. That does not mean we cannot say what doesn’t cause it though. And based on the available science, MMR ain’t it.

The paper further does not attempt to claim that autistic kids don’t have gastric issues and Stone’s implication that it does and his attempt to gain the mainstream ground by invoking the name of the NAS is grasping and dishonestly representative of the NAS’s statement. They do _not_ claim, infer or consider that there is any such sub-group. What they suggest is that the MMR debacle has led to some doctors dismissing some parents fears about their kids bowel issues as hysteria. This is, of course, unacceptable but Stone is simply attempting to manipulate the NAS statement for his own ends.

“The NAS warning relates to the GMC hearing involving doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch which is set to resume on 25 March approaching. I do not think it is being unduly cynical to query the publication of this study at the present time as a media event, bearing in mind that it seems to have been carried out five or six years ago.”

This is either again deliberately misleading or an example of conspiracy hysteria. From what I can tell the study was commissioned five/six years ago. Not carried out.

Stone concludes:

Meanwhile, the plight of autistic children with gastro- intestinal symptoms is excluded both from the study and public attention, as if they did not exist. The NAS statement warned of “creating further confusion” and this is precisely what this study and its media exposure has done.

Children with gastro issues and autism were not ‘excluded’ they just weren’t found. Maybe they really don’t exist? Maybe Stone would’ve preferred that the study authors fabricate a few subjects?

The bottom line of this gastro/autism issue is that there is no science to back up the opinion Stone has. On the other hand there is plenty of science that indicates there is no link between MMR and autism. Far from this study creating confusion, it has simply shown up the shortcomings of Wakefield’s bad science and Stone and his ilk are in reality the people desperately attempting to create enough confusion for Wakefield to escape unscathed.

Brad Handley Offers Us A Chance To Evaluate

6 Feb

A couple of days ago, Brad Handley wrote a blog entry on Age of Autism called ‘DR. NANCY MINSHEW & ME: WHO’S CRAZY?’.

Let us instead examine Brad’s criteria for deciding on who is crazy and who is not between Dr Minshew and he.

I disagree with almost every single thing you have written or said about autism. Since we both can’t possibly be right, one of us has to be crazy. I’m scared to death it might be me. As a psychiatrist, I thought you could help.

Says Brad to Dr Minshew in an email. He then continues with:

It is maddening for parents like me that our “experts” can’t agree on the most fundamentally important and critical data point in the entire field of autism: is prevalence truly rising or not? This very binary notion impacts everything else. If it’s growing, it’s the environment. If it’s not, it’s genetics. From you perspective, “The increase in number of cases reflects the increase in recognition of verbal children.” I was confounded by this point, because I can’t find a single sentence in the scientific literature to support this. What I do look to is the following:

OK, lets pause. Brad says there’s no scientific literature to support the idea that there isn’t an epidemic. We’ll come back to that. Firstly, however, he cites a few bits and bobs to support his hypothesis that there is.

First off he cites:

[1]Report to the Legislature on the Principle Findings from The Epidemiology of Autism in California: A Comprehensive Pilot Study MIND Institute, UC Davis, Oct 2002.

This is not in the scientific literature. It is not peer reviewed. According to Brad’s own specified criteria of utilising the scientific literature, he cannot cite this document.

The second (and last) paper he cites is:

[2]National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data. Pediatrics, March 2005. Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD..

Using Special Education data has been debunked in a paper published four months after that Newschaffer paper. The author (James Laidler) says:

Many autism advocacy groups use the data collected by the US Department of Education (USDE) to show a rapidly increasing prevalence of autism. Closer examination of these data to follow each birth-year cohort reveals anomalies within the USDE data on autism……These anomalies point to internal problems in the USDE data that make them unsuitable for tracking autism prevalence.

and Shattuck says:

The mean administrative prevalence of autism in US special education among children ages 6 to 11 in 1994 was only 0.6 per 1000, less than one-fifth of the lowest CDC estimate from Atlanta (based on surveillance data from 1996). Therefore, special education counts of children with autism in the early 1990s were dramatic underestimates of population prevalence and really had nowhere to go but up. This finding highlights the inappropriateness of using special education trends to make declarations about an epidemic of autism, as has been common in recent media and advocacy reports.

So thats the sum total of Brad’s ‘science’ regarding the autism epidemic. A non-science report and a twice debunked study.

Is there actually anything in the scientific literature that suggests the ‘epidemic’ is not anything of the sort?

Variation in the administrative prevalence of ASD is associated with education-related spending, which may be associated with better-trained educational staff who can recognize the problem, and more and better trained in-school specialists who can provide screening. It is also associated with the availability of health care resources. Increased access to pediatricians and school-based health centers may lead to improved recognition of ASD. Interstate variability in the identification of ASD should be taken into account when interpreting the results of prevalence studies based on administrative data and the associated system characteristics taken into account by policy makers working to improve the recognition of ASD.

David S. Mandell, ScD; Raymond Palmer, PhD

The incidence of research-identified autism increased in Olmsted County from 1976 to 1997, with the increase occurring among young children after the introduction of broader, more precise diagnostic criteria, increased availability of services, and increased awareness of autism. Although it is possible that unidentified environmental factors have contributed to an increase in autism, the timing of the increase suggests that it may be due to improved awareness, changes in diagnostic criteria, and availability of services, leading to identification of previously unrecognized young children with autism.

William J. Barbaresi, MD; Slavica K. Katusic, MD; Robert C. Colligan, PhD; Amy L. Weaver, MS; Steven J. Jacobsen, MD, PhD

We observed dramatic increases in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder as a primary special educational disability starting in the 1991-1992 school year, and the trends show no sign of abatement. We found no corresponding decrease in any special educational disability category to suggest diagnostic substitution as an explanation for the autism trends in Minnesota. We could not assess changes in actual disease incidence with these data, but federal and state administrative changes in policy and law favoring better identification and reporting of autism are likely contributing factors to the prevalence increases and may imply that autism spectrum disorder has been underdiagnosed in the past.

James G. Gurney, PhD; Melissa S. Fritz, MPH; Kirsten K. Ness, MPH; Phillip Sievers, MA;Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD; Elsa G. Shapiro, PhD

Brad continues:

You say vaccines are proven to not cause autism and that parents should vaccinate their children.

Dr. Minshew, you are either being intellectually dishonest on this point or it is outside of your expertise as a psychiatrist to understand the vaccine-autism issue, Let me explain:

Brad _seems_ to be basing this belief on the news article he quotes:

Dr. Nancy Minshew, Director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Excellence in Autism Research, says it’s time to end the debate [about vaccines and autism] because research overwhelmingly proves there’s no connection and parents don’t need to worry about that anymore. Minshew says it’s time real experts dispel the rumors for concerned parents. “They deserve to hear the evidence, the real evidence. So I thought, ‘Enough is enough,'” she said. Minshew says people’s lives are at stake because some kids aren’t getting vaccinated for life-threatening diseases due to incorrect information. Since Thimerosal, an ethyl mercury preservative, was banned from most childhood vaccines in the U.S. seven years ago, autism rates have continued to increase – disproving the link. Minshew says it’s only a coincidence that toddlers are vaccinated around the same time autism is usually diagnosed.

Minshew did _not_ say ‘vaccines are proven to not cause autism’, that is what the article she was quoted in says. You can tell the bits she actually said as they will be surrounded with quote marks.

– Thimerosal was not banned from vaccines as you are quoted as saying, so this is a falsehood.

Minshew was not quoted as saying this. This is a falsehood.

– Thimerosal did not come out of vaccines seven years ago as you are quoted as saying, so this is a falsehood. In fact, it’s still in the overwhelming majority of the flu shot supply at full dose- the flu shot was recently added (2004) to the CDC’s recommended schedule.

Once more, Minshew was _not_ quoted as saying thiomersal came out of vaccines seven year ago. This is a falsehood. Your statement that it is still in the overwhelming majority of the flu shot is speculative and without foundation – unless you have something to back that up….?

And in *fact* – although Minshew never claims it, a CDC meeting reported on a study that said:

N.I.P. estimated the amount of thimerosal in provider vaccine inventories in a survey conducted September 20, 2001 to February 20, 2002. The targets were a convenience sample of providers getting site visits from public health officials across the country. Inventory counts were done of all refrigerators for D.T.a.P., Hib, and hep B pediatric vaccines. The thimerosal classification was based on the lot number information, which was verified by the manufacturers. In September 2001, 225 sites were canvassed, and 447 by February 2002…..During the visits, the providers were surveyed about thimerosal-containing vaccines in their inventories. Of the 447 interviews, 83.5 percent reported no thimerosal-containing vaccines in stock at any time since October 2001.

and

in September 2001, only 5.6%1 of all vaccines contained thiomersal. By Feb 2002, only 1.9% of all vaccines contained thiomersal.

(NB: The 5.6% figure seems to be a typo in the report. It should be 56%. From 33,500 doses out of 63,600; to 2,796 doses out of 149,147)

– If you believe that focusing on a single ingredient in vaccines (mercury) exonerates vaccines in totality, that’s an impossibility. We have grown our vaccine schedule from 10 vaccines in the early 1980s to 36 today. Yet, we never test the “combination risk” of so many vaccines. No one, except Generation Rescue, has ever studied unvaccinated children and looked at their autism rates. We never look at the aluminum that replaced thimerosal, the live viruses, or the many other toxic ingredients in vaccines at all.

So, Brad says that its not just mercury. Which is weird because in Feb 2005 (click the first video) he was saying:

What we immediately realised – and I think this is something that is a surprise to lots of people – um that autism is a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning. If you line up 100 symptoms of mercury poisoning and 100 symptoms of autism they are exactly the same

So, to borrow a phrase, both can’t be true….is it a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning or is it the combination of vaccines?

– The parent reports of children going upside-down and developing autism right after vaccination continues unabated. Will you ever listen to them?

People such as Minshew have done nothing _but_ listen. Generation Rescue keep promising something for them to listen to but keep failing to provide it.

Brad continues:

It strikes me, and perhaps I’m crazy for saying this, that now that you have publicly reassured parents that vaccines are safe, that you may well be the last person on earth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, to concede that vaccines are in fact playing a role in autism.

That, my friend, is called ‘projection’. Now you have publicly hemmed and hawed about what vaccines role is in autism and now all your projections and predictions have singularly failed to materialise (read the rest of that blog entry with the video for details), even with an overwhelming lack of any evidence whatsoever you will be the last person to ever admit you were plain old wrong time and time again.

And yet there’s more.

You never mention recovered children.

In all the writings and quotes of yours, Doctor, I didn’t read one thing about children who have recovered from autism. Have you ever met a recovered child? Would you like to? Would you care to scan their brains and see how they look? I heard a noted neurologist mention an idea that we should scan the brains of children newly diagnosed with autism, let their parents who want to treat the children biomedically, and then re-scan the brains of any children who have recovered. Does that strike you as an interesting idea?

Ah, the famous recovered children. I wrote about this awhile ago. The upshot of it is that when actually looks in detail at the kids Generation Rescue claims as recovered, kids who no longer have a diagnosis account for about 5-7% of the total he presents as recovered. Its a con trick. I even managed to get my own daughter listed as a recovery story on his website.

Brad continues:

As a courtesy, I forwarded the above piece to Dr. Minshew one day in advance of posting it on Age of Autism. What follows is a short email exchange between us:

———————

Dr. Minshew:

What’s written below, by me, will be posted at The Age of Autism blog tomorrow. As a courtesy, I’m sending it to you first.

I have no issues with you personally. In fact, reading that you lost a child makes me very, very empathetic.

That said, it is my heartfelt belief that you are actually part of the problem with autism, rather than part of the solution. I’m sure that’s a comment you disagree with profoundly, but I really believe history will be a harsh judge of scientists like you who continue to deny the existence of a rising prevalence of autism and mistakenly reassure parents that vaccines are safe – a topic you can’t possibly be an expert on, by the way.

I also thought your email to Mr. —- reeked of intellectual arrogance in a very close-minded sort of a way. There are many well-credentialed scientists who would take exception to almost everything you believe about autism, but you speak with sweeping generalizations like you are in the only camp that actually knows where truth lies. I also found your continual reference to a court case in Maryland, while 2 tests cases before the Vaccine Court remain WIDE OPEN, to demonstrate either ignorance on your part or a case of selective fact gathering. What if the test cases in D.C. rule in favor of the plaintiffs?

So, I don’t expect us to be pen pals anytime soon, but I’m including the open letter to you below.

Sincerely,

JB Handley

——————–

From: Nancy Minshew
To: J.B. Handley
Sent: Mon Feb 04 11:50:31 2008
Subject: RE: Nancy & Me: Who’s crazy

Mr. Handley none of you have permission to share emails that i have sent to you as individuals with anyone besides the intended receiver nor do you have permission to quote me publicly. Unlike the newspaper which was public, private emails to individuals sent confidentially are not for public quotation.

——————–

From: J.B. Handley
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 11:54 AM
To: Nancy Minshew
Subject: Re: Nancy & Me: Who’s crazy

Says who?

And, tough shit.

J.B. Handley

——————–

Nice guy huh?

And also further example of Brad’s hypocrisy. Our very first online set-to Brad commented (in the comment section) about me publishing part of an email he sent me:

Mr. Leitch sent me an email on my private email account, I responded, and he put my comments on his blog without asking me.

Which wasn’t strictly true but anyway – if I’d known how Brad would chop and change his mind I would’ve just said ‘tough shit’.

Anyway, Brad concludes:

This is my world, Dr. Minshew, it seems clear as day. It’s so different from yours, I really, really need to know: which one of us is crazy?

Lets recap. In Brad’s world science isn’t science unless he says it is. He can chop and change his mind without it invalidating his earlier, contradictory beliefs and its OK to be a massive hypocrite. Are these the actions of a crazy man?

MMR Still Doesn’t Cause Autism (and never did)

4 Feb

Yet another study will shortly be published that yet again shows no link between autism and MMR:

There is no evidence for a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) jab and autism, finds research published ahead of print in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

The authors took almost 250 kids born between ’90 and ’91. 98 were ASD. 52 had special needs with no ASD. 90 had no special needs and were developing within ‘normal’ parameters. All the children had been vaccinated against MMR, but not all of them had been given both doses.

The team took blood samples and found no persistent measles infection, no abnormal immune response.

Results of the blood sample analysis showed that there was no difference in circulating measles virus or antibody levels between the two groups of children.

Tellingly, it didn’t matter which of three groups the team looked at – none of them exhibited any ‘bad blood’ whether they’d had both MMR shots or not. Or if the autistic kids had experienced regression or not.

The team further found no evidence of any kind of so-called ‘autistic enterocolitis’ – in fact no evidence of any bowel disorders of any kind were found among the autistic kids.

The alst line of the news report is very pointed:

The authors point out that theirs is now the third, and largest, study that has failed to show a link between the MMR jab and autism.

Quite.

Repeat after me – MMR doesn’t cause autism. It never did.

Awhile ago I wrote a piece on the history of the MMR hypothesis. You can read it here.

Mark Blaxill Thinks Bloggers Are Mean

4 Feb

Mark Blaxill, the token man of the mercury moms at SafeMinds, has written a lip-trembling post over on Age of Autism about how mean bloggers can be. Lets have a bit of fun with it shall we?

The rapid evolution of the Internet has created a host of fascinating, exhilarating and occasionally despicable new things. The Age of Autism is a blog and we’re proud to be a part of a new phenomenon called the blogosphere……But as one might expect with any new form of cultural expression, there’s a bizarre variant of the blogosphere out there. It’s a strange hybrid: it looks like a regular low end blog, based almost entirely on opinion, a dressed up version of the typical online discussion groups and chat rooms….In a disturbing way, this new hybrid has found its way into the debates and controversies around autism science…..Often connected with the so-called “neurodiversity” movement, many of these game players seem to define themselves by their own “autism”

So if I’m understanding Marky Mark, the blogosphere is a ‘new phenomenon’ upon which the light of the countenance of the Age of Autism has charitably fallen.

This ‘new phenomenon’ actually was first realised nine years ago Marky Mark. I await with bated breath Marky’s breathless announcement come 2017 that Age of Autism has discovered a ‘new phenomenon’ called Facebook. Truly the interweb is a wondrous thing. A piece of advice though Mark – never, ever type ‘Google’ into Google.

And these ‘low ends blogs’….my, my whomever could he be referring to? Surely not Autism Diva’s blog with a Google PR of 5 on the home page and over 1,150 Google backlinks to it? Or maybe Orac’s with a PR of 7 for the home page and which has over 6,100 Google backlinks to it? or maybe my own which has a PR 6 on the home page of the blog and over 2,700 Google backlinks to it.

Or maybe ‘low end’ might refer to a blog which has a PR of 3 on its home page and Google link operator can find no back link data for. I wonder, can anyone suggest a blog with user stats that low end?

Anyway, Marky Mark has a point to make and by god he’s eventually going to get around to making it dammit! Even if he has to rhetoricise our asses into verbal comas!!

But unlike people that engage in the blogosphere using their real names and identities, these avatars all have one thing in common.

They’re cowards.

Hmmmm, really? Is that why some people choose to blog anonymously?

I really hate to break this piece of news to Marky Mark but passing opinions online predates the web. Why go back to the old BBS’s and you’d find a whole bunch of people chatting away with (gasp!) fake names. In fact, I hear tell that some CB radio enthusiasts use fake names too!! The dirty cowards!

There’s a damn good reason why some people blog anonymously Marky Mark as I have good reason to know about – people who espouse similar views to you Marky Mark, target their children. People like John Best for example are very good reasons for preserving anonymity. Here’s what happens when one of his friends annoys him. What do you suppose he has in store for my child?

But who Marky Mark is really pouting about is Do’C and Interverbal, two bloggers who took the time out to look at a recent paper that Marky Mark was counting on to support his kook hypotheses. So annoyed by these two ‘low end’ bloggers (PR 5 on each of their blogs) that he elected to censor out the name of the blog they wrote at!

“Unfortunately, the main bloggers of [censored wackosphere site name] have taken the time to respond to almost all of the other blogs about this article

‘wackosphere’ (tee-hee!!) is the name Marky Mark has bestowed upon autism related blogs more popular than his it seems. That’s a lot of blogs.

So shocked was I at this blatant censorship that I nearly contacted the Ever So Important Editor on Age of Autism to ask if they would write a piece about this – after all they penned 10 blog entries last week decrying censorship – they must really hate it!

In fact so grasping does Marky Mark become that he actually says:

In fact, at a deeper level, there’s a widespread pattern of scientific intimidation and censorship underway in autism science that relies on a wide range of attack dogs…

Hey yeah – I know what you mean Marky Mark like what happened to Dr Paul Offit at the hands of the mercury militia:

….as Paul Offit, a vaccine expert who served on the committee, tried to make his way through the crowd, one of the protestors screamed at him through a megaphone: “The devil—it’s the devil!” One protester held a sign that read “TERRORIST” with a photo of Offit’s face. Just before Offit reached the door, a man dressed in a prison uniform grabbed Offit’s jacket. “It was harrowing,” Offit recalls.

….
He has since received hundreds of malicious and threatening emails, letters and phone calls accusing him of poisoning children and “selling out” to pharmaceutical companies. One phone caller listed the names of Offit’s two young children and the name of their school. One email contained a death threat—”I will hang you by your neck until you’re dead”—that Offit reported to federal investigators.

Or Paul Shattuck, also from the mercury militia:

One person said, “Don’t be surprised if you get a knock on your door in the middle of the night and I’ll be there.” Another message said it was easy in the age of the Internet to find out where people live.

Shattuck also had various utterly untrue allegations made about him by the NAA.

Or how about Arthur Allen and Professor Roy Grinker who have also been on the receiving end of threats of violence:

these people need to be horse whipped…

Or how about Ray Gallup, Director and co-founder of the Vaccine Autoimmune Project? here’s what he had to say recently:

Dear ****:

Since you seem to follow what is going on with the Leitch list let me know if Leitch, Deer and the others get hit with a fast moving truck or bus that leaves their carcasses mangled and bloodly on the street.

I will be devotely praying night and day that something like this happens to them and their followers. Especially since these creeps say such hurtful things to parents. They deserve all the best in something terrible happening to every last one of them and I will pray daily.

I usually pray for good things for families that suffer but in their case I will make a big exception.

Ray Gallup

Or what about this Marky Mark?

A-YEAR-and-a-half ago, a vaccines expert in the eastern US received a phone call at home. The man on the line did not identify himself; he simply stated the names and ages of the researcher’s two children and the schools they attended, then hung up. The threat was shocking, but not a surprise. “I get hate mail every day,” says the researcher, who asked not to be named.

Many vaccine scientists in the US have received similar threats in recent years. They are thought to come from a hard core of parents who, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are convinced that small amounts of mercury in vaccines have made their children autistic. What’s more, they believe that researchers are complicit in the scandal.

How about what EoH member and mercury militia jackass Brian Hooker did to Dr Sarah Parker? He harasses her to the point her campus security services had to get involved and she sent this email to Hooker – which he proudly displayed online:

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:03:17 -0600
From: Sarah Parker
Subject: Re: Sarah Parker on the show “To The Point”
To:
Cc:

I have received your phone messages (yesterday evening and today) and emails. I would like to inform you that due to your previous threat to me in November and the tone and content of these current calls and emails I consider these as threats/harassment as well and am documenting them with the campus police department. I respect your right to disagree and wish you would respect that same right with me. Please do not contact me again in the future.

Sarah Parker

How about Brad Handley of Generation rescue saying to me:

If we were on a rugby pitch, Kev, I’d put my boot in your eye and twist…

Marky Mark is quite right that there are wacko’s in the online autism community. All he has to do to find them is look to his left and right. He closes his diatribe with:

We need to defend some minimum standards for how people are permitted to participate in a public debate. At the top of the list of these standards should be this: if anyone wants to participate in a debate about autism, put your real self on the line: your real name, your actual body of work (if you have any) and your professional accomplishments and reputation. Put the things that really matter — your family’s future and your personal career prospects — out in public for everyone to see if you want to exercise the privilege of participation in civil society. If you’re willing to do that, then you have a right to be heard. If you’re not, then you should go back to your game and keep playing with yourself. Let serious people do serious work.

And he’s serious. He means it. How he:

a) Expects to set himself up as the arbiter of whats acceptable online and;
b) Expects people to be comfortable using their real names when he stands alongside the people listed above

I really can’t imagine. Believe me, if I’d known that pond scum like John Best shared a planet with me I would never have used my real identity. Its also quote clear that Mark Blaxills friends and colleagues hold no compunctions about besmirching reputations with groundless attacks and or threats of violence upon them or their children.

Look around you Marky Mark. That rarefied air you’re sucking down? Its the polluted air of the real wackosphere. A land where threats against children is fair game and where killers and paedophiles are welcomed in with no checks and open arms and the leaders of the many antivaccine kook organisations encourage and salivate after violence against anyone who disagrees with them.

Jenny McCarthy Again

2 Oct

McCarthy was at the latest TACA bunfight recently and took to the stage to give the crowd some of her patented Sale Increasing Controversial Big Fat Mouth. Her victim was a long time favourite of American news, Barbara Walters (whos now deceased sister was born ‘developmentally disabled).

About 3:15 today at the picnic on main stage jenny mccarthy in the most lisa ackerman style of feisty adorable commented that barabara walters said our kids CANT EVER GET BETTER and called her a bitch and said something about naysayers can stick her microphone up their BUTTS!
PRICELESS. This is perfect way to get sensationalistic 6:00 news attention to get this aired NOW!!!!!!!

Isn’t that lovely? I hope all those who were puzzled by the series of posts on here decrying Mccarthy’s self-appointed role as autism advocate can begin to appreciate why I – and plenty of others – feel as we do. That McCarthy is doing no favours to the autism community with this sort of behaviour. of course, some people, even within TACA realize this probably isn’t the best course of action:

What Jenny said at the picnic was for the benefit for TACA families, not for the 6 o’clock news or Entertainment Tonight. Jenny is doing a beautiful job of being our spokesperson, so let’s let her publicist and TACA’s publicist handle the media for right now. I know it was exciting stuff but let’s let this issue rest for now.

Well, no, actually. I don’t want to let the issue rest. This person has appointed herself spokesperson not just for TACA but apparently for autism itself. She needs to back off, grow up and start thinking about her actions for those of us without a celebrity income. Calling someone ‘a bitch’ at en event that you _know_ will be covered by the media is a stupid thing to do and gives the general public the idea that we’re all as childish as Jenny McCarthy. I would like once again to distance myself from this person publicly.

In the meantime, please enjoy this blog entry I found today. I don’t know who it is but I liked it.

More Evidence for the Safety of Vaccines

29 Sep

This article was originally published at the NeuroLogica Blog and is re-published here with permission.

By Steven Novella, MD
NeuroLogica Blog

A new study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years, does not support a correlation between mercury in vaccines and neurological damage. It adds to the growing evidence that vaccines are safe and they do not cause neurological disorders. This study did not look at autism (a study that will be published next year looks, again, at vaccines and autism), but the mercury-causes-autism crowd are still unhappy with the results.

I have been following this issue closely for several years. Although my awareness of the issue goes back much farther, I started to seriously research the claim that the MMR vaccine, or that thimerosal in other vaccines, causes autism while researching an article on the topic for the New Haven Advocate. As a physician (a neurologist) and a skeptical activist I knew I had to get this issue right. I certainly did not want to falsely stoke the flames of public fear, nor did I want to cast myself in the role of denier.

Early on in my research I really did not know which way I was going to go with the issue. Should my bottom line be that there is real reason for concern here, that there is nothing to the claims, or that we really don’t know and will have to just wait for further research? But after reading through all the claims on both sides, and all the research, it was an easy call – vaccines, and specifically the MMR vaccine and thimerosal, do not cause autism, and the alleged autism “epidemic” is likely just an artifact. Those claiming there is a connection were drowning in conspiracy thinking, logical fallacies, and blatant pseudoscience. Meanwhile every piece of reliable clinical data was pointing in the same direction – no connection.

But still, while I was confident in my final conclusion, a small connection between mercury and autism that eluded the existing data could not be ruled out. Or perhaps there was an angle to the whole story that we were missing but would later come to light. I have had enough experience with scientific medicine to be humble in the face of the complexity of medicine and biology. The only rational position is to remain open to new data and new ideas. On this issue there was sure to be more studies in the future – and the ultimate test of the thimerosal-autism connection, the removal of thimerosal from the vaccine schedule, was yet to be seen. So I confidently plunked my nickel down and waited for the future to unfold.

Everyone likes being right, and sometimes this desire clouds our judgment. I have learned, therefore, how to cheat, which is to say how to always be right. All you have to do is say that your position is based upon the existing data, but is contingent upon the results of future studies. In other words, the “right” position is to change your final answer to accommodate new evidence as it comes in. Therefore the only “wrong” answer is to stick to your original position despite new evidence that contradicts it.

OK – so this is just restating how science is supposed to work, but it is amazing how many people forget to cover their behinds with this simple rule. Usually this is because they are not doing science – they are taking an ideological position, and ideology is inflexible. This is a huge advantage for science over ideology, and why, when science and ideology clash, science is almost always right.

In the case of vaccines and autism, since writing my first major article on the topic, the data has come in all consistent with my original position (so I get to be doubly right). Removing thimerosal from vaccines did not decrease the incidence of autism (or decrease the rate of increase in new diagnoses). And several new major studies came out all showing no association – not counting the utter crap being produced by the Geiers.

Enough had happened to warrant an update, so I jumped at the chance when Ken Frazier of the Skeptical Inquirer asked me to write an article on the topic. My article will be out in the next issue, along with a couple of smaller ones on the same topic, so take a look.

Alas, as is often the way in the world of science, my paper is outdated before it even goes to print. This new study, of course, will not be covered in the article. But that’s what blogs are for – instantaneous news and analysis.

Actually, several of my fellow science bloggers have already beat me to the punch. They cover the article, and the response to the article by the mercury crowd, in great detail, so I will not duplicate it here.

Orac at Respectful Insolence goes over the press release of A-CHAMP (one of the mercury militia) that attempts to dismiss the study. He shows that, while the study (like all studies) has its weaknesses, it does add significantly to the body of evidence showing that vaccines are safe. The complaints of A-CHAMP are either wrong, overblown, or inconsistent with their prior positions and shows that they are just trying to tear down the study at all costs.

For the record, I agree with Orac that the study is good enough that it’s conclusions add to the cumulative data on this topic, and that the weakest element of the study was the 30% compliance rate. In other words, only 30% of the subjects that they looked at for the study made it into the final analysis. This opens up the door for selection bias. Orac is probably correct that this bias would likely overestimate a correlation, not underestimate it, but you can never be sure with such things.

I will add that the 30% figure is not as bad as it first seems. The study reports:

Of 3648 children selected for recruitment, 1107 (30.3%) were tested. Among children who were not tested, 512 did not meet one or more of the eligibility criteria, 1026 could not be located, and 44 had scheduling difficulties; in addition, the mothers of 959 children declined to participate. Most of the mothers (68%) who declined to participate in the study and provided reasons for nonparticipation cited a lack of time; 13% reported distrust of or ambivalence toward research. Of the 1107 children who were tested, 60 were excluded from the final analysis for the following reasons: missing vaccination records, 1 child; missing prenatal records, 5; missing data regarding weight, 7; and discovery of an exclusionary medical condition during record abstraction, 47. Thus, 1047 children were included in the final analyses. The exposure distribution of the final sample was similar to the exposure distribution of the initial 3648 children selected for recruitment in the study.

So about 40% of those that did not make it into the final analysis simply could not be located – this is unlikely to represent a bias. But this is a small point.

Isles from Left Brain/Right Brain points out that Sallie Bernard (a believer in the mercury hypothesis) was consulted on the study design and execution and did not criticize its methods until after the results came back negative. That kind of behavior instantly sacrifices all your credibility in the science club.

Kristina Chew at AutismVox reiterates what I did above – that the mercury-causes-autism ideologues are always asking for more studies, but refuse to change their position when the studies they ask for come out. They are waiting for studies that show what they want them to show – we call that “cherry picking.”

The other side is busy too. David Kirby (a bad journalist who desperately wants to be a bad scientist), who wrote the book Evidence of Harm, published an article online in that absolute rag, The Huffington Post (to be fair, they also published this piece by Arthur Allen defending the paper’s conclusions). Kirby repeats all the same points in the A-CHAMP press release, but he emphasizes the fact that the study found some neurological symptoms that were higher in the subjects who received more thimerosal. Kirby proceeds to completely misinterpret the significance of this.

The study looked at 42 different outcomes, and set the p-value for significance at 0.05. A vague concept of basic math should be sufficient to see that some outcomes will reach significance by chance alone. The researchers arguably should have adjusted their statistics to account for the fact that they were looking at 42 variables – but instead they just looked at all the outcomes that were significant to see if there were any patterns or trends. What they found was that there were a few scores that were worse among those exposed to more thimerosal, but there were also a few scores that were better. There was a random distribution of positive and negative effects that essentially average out to no net effect. It’s all just noise. (Is there a small signal hiding in the noise? There could be – scientists have to be honest about that. But that doesn’t mean there is.)

What Kirby does is not just really dumb, it’s despicable. He cherry picks all the negative (meaning bad) neurological outcomes and pretends that the study shows a correlation (it doesn’t, when you look at ALL the data). He then tries to dismiss the positive (good) outcomes as absurd. He mockingly writes:

If they (the CDC) really mean that thimerosal increases IQ levels in males, then sign me up for a double-dose flu shot this year.

No, David, they don’t mean that. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It takes incompetent statistical analysis or the blindness of ideology to write something so ridiculous. What the CDC means is that the study does NOT show that thimerosal increases IQ, nor that it causes motor tics, or improve motor skills, or decrease language skills, or anything else. The study showed no correlations because it all averaged out as noise.

This is, by the way, the same mistake that astrologers make (remember that crusty pseudoscience?). They look at many variables then cherry pick the outliers. At best what this study might show is a possible correlation, but any such possible correlation would have to be corroborated by a later study (with fresh data) that looked specifically at that one variable.

So the pattern that I found when I first started looking at this issue – that all the reliable data was on the side of no correlation between vaccines or mercury and autism or neurological disorders – continues to hold up to new data. The other pattern I noticed – that those promoting a correlation were relying on bad science, logical fallacies, and ad hoc conspiracy claims – also continues to hold.

In the last few years every new study showed no correlation, and the mercury militia responded with abject nonsense and dismissal. This cycle seems to be repeating itself over and over, and this latest study is no exception.

Rumours that the Observer’s Editor will get the push because of the paper’s MMR idiocy

28 Sep

I’m sure readers of this blog will remember the jaw-dropping idiocy of the Observer and Denis Campbell’s recent front page MMR/autism coverage. I’ve been preparing a post looking at how the Observer’s inaccurate 1/58 figure for UK autism prevalence has spread through the Internet (encouragingly, it looks like a good proportion of bloggers and mainstream journalists have been bright enough not to swallow this nonsense) when a little birdy forwarded me this intriguing – but unverified – piece of gossip:

Keep an eye on the Observer over the next weeks. The rumour in the week that editor Roger Alton had got the push/resigned not entirely without foundation as there is now a huge wedge between the Guardian and The Observer…This is the result of news ed Kamal Ahmed getting to keep his job – the result of an investigation into the embarrassment over the MMR splash that wasn’t a story of two months ago…The Scott Trust got involved, editor Roger Alton had to go to before them and receive six of the best like a naughty schoolboy.

It’s interesting that it has had to come to this: when I discussed some of the problems with the Observer’s autism coverage with their Readers’ Editor, he was clear that the decision on whether to retract the Observer’s embarrassing autism coverage (or issue a proper apology) was for the Editor to make, and Alton had chosen not to issue a retraction. If this rumour is correct, it looks like Alton may be paying the price for failing to retract an embarrassingly poor-quality piece of ‘journalism’.

Hopefully the rumour is accurate, and Alton will face the consequences of his actions. I think it is entirely appropriate that – if a newspaper Editor publishes something both stupid and damaging on their front page, then refuses to retract the story – their career should suffer as a consequence of this. It is also encouraging if the Scott Trust has got involved in dealing with this mess, and has taken decisive (albeit slightly slow) action. The Quackometer’s Observer Apology Counter makes it 11 weeks without a proper apology for or retraction of the Observer’s MMR idiocacy – maybe a new Editor will be able to deal with this mess before the counter goes past unlucky 13?

UPDATE: now also blogged by Shinga, here.

After Jenny and Oprah

23 Sep

And so, this was the week that the anti-vaccine/autism hypothesis got its first real airing in a public arena. Jenny McCarthy went on US TV and told her audience that her son was her science (quite possibly _the_ silliest thing on the show since Tom Cruise’s couch/brain malfunction).

I’m going to level with you here. I don’t really care too much about Jenny McCarthy spouting on about the evils of vaccines. She’s not the first and she won’t be the last. Despite the raptures the anti-vaccination people are having over her appearance she wasn’t on Oprah because of her vaccine ideas.

This is what bothers me: she was on Oprah because she was famous. It scares the _shit_ out of me that we can only apparently have a conversation about something after a celeb has let the light of their countenance shine down upon it.

The UK is just as ridiculous about this whole thing as the US. Its got to a stage whereby the subject under discussion doesn’t even seem to really matter to Joe Public – what seems to matter is that there’s a famous face pontificating on a subject that, in all honesty, they’ve probably only recently begun to get a firm grasp on themselves.

To put it another way, the Oprah show wasn’t about autism. It was about Jenny McCarthy. It was to sell copies of her book. Her appearance on People magazine is to increase book sales. Her upcoming appearance on Larry King is to increase book sales. None of it is about _autism_ . None of this will help the autism community. Even that subsection of the autism community who are anti-vaccine are kidding themselves if they think that after the dust settles on Jenny McCarthy’s book she will be around to lead them in their fight. Until its time for the sequel of course.

Is the autism community really so shallow that we are going into raptures because a celeb is speaking about a subject that vast majority of us could speak much more accurately and eloquently about? It seems some of us are.

In the meantime, whilst Jenny McCarthy is being lucratively controversial on Oprah, the vast majority of autistic kids are still not getting the right kind of educational placement. Whilst Jenny McCarthy’s Media Clean Up Crew are attempting hoover away every mention of her Indigo Children beliefs from the web lest they affect book sales, autistic adults are still struggling to get into appropriate work and living accommodations.

I would urge autism parents to spend the ten quid they were going to spend on Jenny McCarthy’s book on something that might actually help autistic people instead of helping line the pockets of Jenny McCarthy.

Leave a message for Andrew Wakefield

9 Sep

DAN/ARI are asking people to leave messages for Andrew Wakefield. Below is mine:

Now that the scientific evidence as presented by Stephen Bustin at the OAP has finally displayed to the world how utterly wrong you are about measles in the guts of autistic kids, when do you plan to issue an apology to all the children you and your colleagues needlessly scoped?

When do you plan to issue an apology to all the parents who believed you and who subject their children to outlandish autism ‘treatments’ that have resulted in both death and hospitalisation?

When do you plan to offer an apology to all the people who are now living in a UK where herd immunity teeters on a knife edge and the numbers of people hospitalised by measles grows every year?

You have been proven scientifically wrong ‘Dr’ Wakefield. Are you also without morals too?

I urge you to go an leave yours too and pass on the link to people you know:

Go here and click the link at the top of the page.

The Myth of Recovery

1 Sep

Back in August of last year I wrote a blog entry about the Generation Rescue ‘recovery’ stories and how true recovery actually accounted for 5% of the stories on their website which I upgraded in May of this year when they redesigned their website. Their true recovery figure now stands at 7%. I even recounted how I sent my own daughters details to them under an assumed name using the exact truth about her state and condition which they duly published.

I was interested to come across some more fascinating dialogue between members of the Yahoo ABMD group – a group which believe mercury caused their kids autism and Biomed can help them. This is one of the oldest and most well regarded (amongst the mercury militia anyway) Yahoo groups.

The conversation began thusly:

From: Eva family
Reply-To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 6:29 AM

the other thing that troubles me about all the “autism doctors” is that
no one seems to do any studies based on their patients. Some doctors
must have dozens of patients but there seems to be no published work
correlating their levels of minerals, reactions to diets, success of
treatments

…………

But in general J McC, Yasko etc, Buttar, the zeolite-people earn lots of
money and publish nothing except opinions………..followed by
anecdotal acclaim from those for whom they work and silent despair from
those for whom they don’t.

Being an experienced reader of the material on these groups, I silently commiserated with this poster as I waited for the inevitable flame fest. But it never happened. Here are some of th responses this post received from other ABMD members:

From: Laura K. Fischer
Reply-To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Sally, this has always been a concern of mine also, I honestly don’t know whether some of these alternative doctors have any better of a percentage record in improvements then say some of the better mainstream neurologists prescribing meds or even in comparison to kids who only do therapy and educational intervention. Although I recognize that part of my skepticism probably stems from the fact that most of the kids I personally know who have done a lot of biomedical treatment (those in my local community) don’t seem to have improved any more rapidly than those who did not, there are a couple who are even worse off. There is no clear advantage that I have witnessed with my own eyes and it may be that it is because there is a tendency for many of these families to have used a couple of the same DAN doctors in this region, I recognize that this could be a contributor. But I do share your concern with this….Laura

From: Lawrence G. Leichtman, MD
Reply-To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 6:40 PM

I have followed about 100 children with autism doing biomed. I have never seen a single “recovered” child if by recovered you mean normal though 8 of
the children were claimed to be recovered by their DAN doctors. I have wseen about 10-15% improved kids, some slightly and 10% of kids who were
actually worse from biomed. Of my patients using Yasko prescribed treatment alone I have seen 0 improvment out of 12 patients. I still don’t know what
works or why and this is after 10 years of doing this.

The response from Leichtman is a bombshell. If you do not recall the name, he is the doctor who was quoted in Dan Olmsted’s Age of Autism pieces as treating Amish kids (who never have autism – heh). According to his (anecdotal) opinion he has never seen a recovered child out of the 100 he has seen who have been doing biomed, even amongst those whose DAN! claimed they were recovered. Fascinating.

From: Gina Mouser
Reply-To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 7:45 PM

We were seeing a very famous DAN dr. who told us that of all the 5000 plus
patients that the DAN doctor was treating, my son was the ONLY one that is
not improving.

Go figure..

Gina

This shed’s some light on the way DAN! quacks falsely inflate their patients parents with hope or a ‘convincing’ explanation. Except, judging by the tone of this email, this mum isn’t convinced.

One of the responders went on to question why Dr Leichtman was a member of the ABMD board if he didn’t believe in biomed. He reiterated his position and confirmed his belief that DAN! docs either lie or are mistaken:

I have seen positive results 10 to 15 percent is still better than 0. I just don’t believe in the total recovery claims as several of my patients were claimed to be recovered by their DAN doctors but they weren’t.

The original poster chimed back in later….

In the UK in education we have something called “value added” — this is the amount that a school has done for a child over and above what might have been expected by simple development. I would like to autistic children measured and placed at a point on a graph as they come into a
doctor (this is already done as I understand it) and then measured again after set periods. Over time that would set baselines and it would be
possible to see which doctors/treatments were giving “value added”.

I don’t understand why no one is doing this. Surely anyone genuinely “recovering” children would be all over us with data, analysis etc — so
that their achievements could be recognised, replicated and they (the doctor) could receive universal praise.

Quite. A point some of us have been making for quite some time.

Then of course, someone finally did play the PharmaShill card at Dr leichtman:

From: Marisha Taylor
Reply-To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 3:12 PM

I think the “confusion” is coming from you trying to turn the outcome of the study to what “you” want it to be. You & the pharmaceutical
guys would get along great -how much are they paying you on the side? Thank God you are having problems getting it published – there is no
more space for flawed studies.

The most fascinating thing about this post was the speed and weight of the responses telling her to shut up. Not what I would be expecting at all.

As part of the responses Dr Leichtman dropped his second bombshell:

I don’t even understand what you are asking. Neurotypical is average for a child their age not with sensory issues, not with hyperactivity, not with behavioral disorders. I do not include those that I really don’t believe nor does my neurodevelopmentalist believe has autism despite coming in with that diagnosis. *I see plenty of children who come in with the diagnosis who don’t have it in the first place* so improvement or not may not be valid for their issues.

This was unbelievable stuff. Straight ‘from the horses mouth’ was the seconding of the opinions that a lot of us had held for years. That some ‘recovered’ kids were never really truly autistic to begin with. I would love to know if Leichtman ever saw the Berle’s.

Anyway, as I mentioned, when Leichtman was accused of being a Big Pharma shill, the entire group sprang to his defense, including Holly Bortfield, a well known mercury mom.

From: Holly Bortfeld
Reply-To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
To: abmd@yahoogroups.com
Cc: *******@aol.com
Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Wow, time to back off Marisha. Dr. L is a valued member of this list and you are out of line.

Bortfeld is a fascinating case. Later on in this discussion she says:

I know people who did only a few things and their kid is recovered and I know people who did EVERYTHING and their kid is still severe. While I do know some, they are very few in comparison, kids that are recovered. That sucks.

…………

I am thrilled for them, but my kid isn’t one of them (recovered) despite having the best of the DAN docs, virtually unlimited therapies and the “best” of everything, regardless of money, he’s still screwed up at 12 years old.

‘Screwed up’? Nice. This post was in response to the owner of the ABMD group’s post when she said:

I believe (and I’ am very cynical at this point) that most stories of “recovery” are the result of a misdiagnosis, or a mispresentation of
the facts for some financial gain.

Wow. Just….wow. These are incredible things for a ‘mercury militia’ group to be saying. If you only heard Gen Rescue etc you’d believe Brad’s oft-repeated claim of thousands of recovered kids. Its amazing to know that people of the same essential belief differ so wildly.

But back to Bortfeld’s screwed up non-recovered son. Her stance is peculiar given that, back in 2001, she was part of a discussion on the ABMD list during which she said:

Each time we deal with one of his medical problems, the features that gave him the autism label reduce. So in my mind, if we heal enough of his body, the autism dx won’t apply anymore. He went from severe (62 on the CARS) to mild (29 on the CARS) with diet and secretin. The last CARS they ran on him was a 22 so that technically doesn’t even qualify him for the autism label anymore (CARS is from 30-60) but I keep the label for services.

So which is true? That her son is ‘still screwed up’ and isn’t recovered? Or, back in 2001, that he doesn’t qualify for the autism label anymore? Interesting confirmation that Rescue Angels falsely hang on to diagnosis just to receive services as well.

I talked recently about denial. Is this discussion evidence of the rift in the mercury militia between those who have moved past most of their denial and those who can’t? Is it evidence that DAN! doctors know exactly how to play on the hopes and fears of these parents? I think so.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →