Archive | MMR RSS feed for this section

Canada Speaks: No, It’s Not Vaccines

6 Jul

Pediatrics have published a new paper, *Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations* authored by Fombonne et al.

Pre-empting an NAA style ad hominem attack, the authors declare their conflicts early.

In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation. None of his research has ever been funded by the industry.

As they don’t agree with the paper this has caused the usual suspects, notably Safe Minds and FAIR Autism Media to highlight these aspects of the paper in an attempt to claim these invalidate the papers findings. Mark Blaxill of Safe Minds says that:

According to an analysis by SafeMinds, however, the study […] should be treated with skepticism, for a number of reasons.

Whilst David Ayoub states that:

“This is just another heavily biased study by an author with a long track record of financial ties to the drug industry, and whose previous views on the epidemiology of autism have been discredited,” wrote Ayoub

So, as far as the mercury militia are concerned, the following points are an issue.

1) Fombonne’s alleged financial ties to the drug industry. One assumes he is referring to Fombonne’s pre-stated offering of advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism and the fact that he’s an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers.

Let’s cut the shit here shall we? Richard Deth is a petitioners’ expert witness in major vaccine litigation. So are the Geier’s. So are various others. They have an equal ‘special interest’. Should we dismiss their papers out of hand? Either we allow *all* or allow *none*.

2) Fombonne’s previous views on the epidemiology of autism have been discredited.

Really? They have? By who? In what journal was this ‘discrediting’ published? Lets be clear here. Ayoub uses the word ‘discredited’. He didn’t say, ‘challenged’. He didn’t say ‘contraversial’ he said ‘discredited’.

David Ayoub by contrast, thinks that Rashid Buttar – a man who’s own patients think he’s a money grabbing quack – is an industry expert:

The 2 top chelation people in the world are Gary Gordon, MD, and Rashid Buttar, MD, he adds.

It’s my opinion that anyone who thinks Rashid Buttar is ‘top’ of anything autism related needs get his head back to reality pretty quickly.

3) Mark Blaxill at least takes a stab at something substantive. He questions the study methodology on two points. Firstly, he tries to insinuate that what might be true for Canada might not be for the US. Secondly he states that some of the study subjects may have received thiomersal from other vaccine sources than those noted in the study.

Fombonne et al write that:

The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations.

So the word ‘comparable’ is used. Fombonne et al never attempt to state that it is a fact that what’s true for Canada is true for the US. However, its also true that there wouldn’t seem to be any good reason for _not_ thinking that. Why would the US and Canada be different? Surely thiomersal is thiomersal?

After that weak stab at something relevant, Blaxill retreats to Ayoub’s tactics of smear and spin.

Dr. Fombonne wrongfully claims that large-population studies in the United States, England and Denmark also disprove a link between mercury and autism, and he states that “there is no autism epidemic.”

The one mention of the word ‘Denmark’ in the entire paper is this one:

Our results are entirely consistent with cohort, case-control, and other ecological studies performed in Denmark and Sweden.

Fombonne et al never claim that these studies disprove anything. They merely note that consistency between those studies and their own. I can’t locate the use of the word ‘England’, ‘UK’, ‘united kingdom’ or ‘Britian’ anywhere in this paper so I fail to see why Blaxill mentions them.

Blaxill is guilty of intellectual dishonesty many times in his ‘rebuttal’. None more so than when he states that:

He conveniently ignores the vast body of scientific evidence that has shown that environmental factors such as mercury may have caused the increased number of autism diagnoses in the US and other countries.

Fombonne et al do not at any point discuss generalised ‘environmental factors such as mercury’. They discuss the key question regarding thiomersal and MMR. It raises questions about Blaxill’s integrity that he would try and switch the focus onto something he and his group explicitly have targeted to something much more general and which Fombonne et al does not address. This is a pattern becoming more and more apparent from key members of the mercury militia. As science continues to fail to support any causative link between thiomersal, MMR and autism, these groups are becoming much more generalised in their terminology. Expect to see more of this as 2006 draws to a close.

Blaxill also claims there is an increased number of autism diagnoses yet he fails to point to evidence for this. Fombonne’s own research on this point indicates a high but stable prevalence.

Blaxill continues:

Dr. Fombonne’s actions have not historically been in the best interest of families with autism—he has declared himself an expert witness on behalf of various pharmaceutical companies in thimerosal-related litigation.

By contrast, the Geier’s actions have not been in the interests of autistic peoples. And in fact this whole point about ‘best interests’ is childish in the extreme. The _only_ interest that science should adhere to is that of honest science. To suggest otherwise leaves a question mark over the objectives of Blaxill’s actions.

Several independent federal agencies and respected scientists and researchers have received federal funds to investigate the autism epidemic and the biological
plausibility of a link between mercury and ASDs.

Why is this even mentioned? Why not wait for them to be completed? Like this one already is.

Multiple studies have indicated that there is a connection between childhood vaccines containing thimerosal and the incidence of autism.

Blaxill (maybe purposefully) doesn’t mention _who_ might’ve conducted those studies, or where they were published. I’m guessing that he means the Geier’s but that recent revalations regarding their integrity and the quality of their work, made him think twice about saying their names for the record. Can’t say I blame him.

Skeptico, Orac and Autism Diva also comment on this study.

MMR And The Daily Mail – Archetypal Strawmen

23 Jun

In their continuing quest to establish MMR as evil in a syringe, the Daily Mail are turning increasingly to more and more blatant strawman fallacies.

In a recent article entitled *’We won’t allow MMR cover-up say parents of tragic toddlers’* , the Daily Mail reach new lows of journalism.

The parents of two healthy toddlers who died ten days after being given the controversial MMR jabs have warned the Government that they will not allow the cause of their deaths to be ‘covered up’.

Firstly, lets note that nowhere in any article I’ve read has the UK government attempted to ‘cover up’ the deaths of these two toddlers. The Daily Mail are inventing a conspiracy where none appears to exist. This will of course allow them to turn round when MMR is established _not_ to be the cause of death and scream ‘cover up!’ and ‘conspiracy!’ and ‘we told you so!’.

Lets further note that the MMR jab is only controversial to Daily Mail and Private Eye readers. I read a *lot* of non autism related, non vaccine related message boards/forums/newsgroups and whenever the issue comes up virtually nobody really believes the MMR causes autism, or is in any way ‘controversial’.

Doctors say they cannot explain why George Fisher and Anna Duncan, both aged 17 months, died in their sleep. But the children’s parents believe that the controversial triple jab – against measles, mumps and rubella – is to blame.

If this is a cover up then those Doc’s are really bad it it. Note that they’re being entirely honest and claiming that they cannot explain why these two kids died. Hell, they’re not even claiming the MMR _didn’t_ cause their deaths. I also note however, that no actual Doctors – and certainly not the Doctors who said they ‘couldn’t explain’ the deaths – are interviewed or quoted anywhere in this piece.

George’s mother, Sarah, said last week that despite repeated Government assurances the vaccine is safe,she and her husband were ‘100 per cent sure George was killed by MMR’.

Based on what?

The only indications of ill-health before the children died were that both showed signs of apparently minor reactions to their MMR jabs.

Minor reactions. My daughter had a reaction to her DTP – vomiting, fever – we panicked and took her to A&E where her fever settled almost immediately. At the time we were ‘100% sure’ that the DTP jab caused/triggered her autism but we’re not any more. Her reaction was, relatively speaking, fairly innocuous and it sounds liek these two kids reactions were too. Minor reactions don’t lead to death.

And Anna’s father, John, said he and his wife would ‘never forgive themselves’ for not paying privately for single jabs and for believing Government assurances that MMR was safe. _They now believe that the doctors should have spotted and warned of the dangers_. Mr Duncan said that, having conducted extensive research since Anna’s death, he and his wife, who is a nurse, considered it possible that their daughter had died ‘as a result of a catastrophic reaction to the vaccine’. He said: ‘Six days after her jab, Anna developed purple spots on her body and bouts of high temperature. ‘_We read only later that these were side-effects of MMR to watch out for. ‘If we had been properly warned we would have taken her for medical help sooner. But the risks of vaccines are just never mentioned. ‘Anna had been exposed to an outbreak of chickenpox in our village just before her jab, which we mentioned, and had a runny nose, which means she really shouldn’t have been injected with MMR at that point._ ‘Parents should be better informed about the risks and the choice of single jabs should be available to all parents through the NHS.’

So now we get to the meat of the matter. Despite the Mail doing their best to muddy the time line it now seems that this child was ill prior to receiving her MMR, which they didn’t know was something to look out for despite this information being freely available on the NHS Direct website, they then let her have the MMR which she had a minor reaction to nearly a week after the injection (which is also noted and discussed at NHSDirect) and she then tragically died. Her parents then decided that this previously categorised ‘minor reaction’ was in actual fact a ‘catastrophic reaction’ and that it was the Governments fault for engendering a conspiracy of silence over the MMR.

The idea of a government conspiracy to keep the potential dangers of the MMR vaccine quiet is fallacious in the extreme given that the information exists on the leading healthcare website in the UK. Its not even hard to find – simply go to the home page and type ‘MMR’ into the search engine.

Its also fallacious, given the time line established to claim that the MMR is at fault here. Medical wisdom is clear that vaccines should not be given to kids who have been ill. If her parents didn’t tell the person administering the vaccine this fact then they bear part of the responsibility. If they _did_ tell the administering nurse she’d been ill then the Practice concerned should be held accountable and punished.

The MMR is not at fault here. The issue is that an illness that could trigger a bad reaction was not identified prior to administering the MMR.

This is not the first time (and I’m sure it won’t be the last) that the Daily Mail attempt to seriously mislead people over the MMR vaccine. They have lost all sense of responsibility over the issue, mainly because they have invested so much time and ink into the matter. With breathtaking arrogance and irresponsibility, the end of this article, states that:

The failure of the Government’s campaign was demonstrated last week when figures showed that because so many parents are spurning MMR, Britain is now in the grip of the biggest measles outbreak since the vaccine’s introduction in 1988.

Has the government campaign failed? Probably. They did a poor job at getting the truth out but lets not pretend that rags like the Mail didn’t play a significant part in causing this measles outbreak. They share the responsibility. Its time for them to grow up and stop jumping at shadows.

The National Autism Association: You’re Not Helping

21 Jun

Its no secret that there are big questions over the legitimacy of the science behind the spurious claims that thiomersal causes autism. What’s not often discussed in the mainstream media is the extent to which blatant fallacy and misrepresenting occurs within so called advocacy groups.

The self-styled ‘autism community’ especially in the West are blatant hypocrites when it comes to promotong their own agenda. I aim to start highlighting some of the hypcricy and outright lies perpetuated by some.

The National Autism Association

The NAA first came to my attention when I discovered that Wendy Fournier, their President, was the web designer who designed (and I use that word in its loosest possible sense) David Kirby’s Evidence of Harm website. On this website there are claims from reviewers that Kirby:

explores both sides of this controversy

and that his book:

Walk[s] the middle line

It’s quite difficult how any book that has a supporting website designed by the President of an organisation that believes thiomersal cuases autism can be thought of as exploring both sides or walks the middle line. Its also difficult to see how the NAA gets so irate about what they percieve as non-impartiality.

On April 3rd of this year, Wendy Fournier and Rita Shreffler of the NAA put their names to an NAA press release regarding researcher Paul Shattuck’s study that said it was impossible to confirm or disprove the idea of an autism epidemic based on current knowledge. As this didn’t fit with the NAA’s agenda, they decided to play nasty:

In addition to the study’s weak methods and erroneous conclusions, questions have now arisen over possible failure to disclose conflicts of interest

So its interesting that the NAA are concerned about conflicts of interest only when they’re not their conflicts of interest.

So what about Shattuck’s conflict of interest? What was it exactly?

Although the article states that Dr. Shattuck has indicated he has no financial relationships relevant to the article, NAA has learned that he was a Merck Scholar Pre-doctoral Trainee from 1999-2003, and in 2003-2004 he successfully applied for $530,000 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Neither of things are true. As Orac commented at the time:

Oooh, Shattuck received money from the evil Merck to support his training! Except that the Merck we’re talking about seems to be not the evil drug company but rather a nonprofit organization, the John Merck Fund, which supports research into a variety of areas, particularly developmental disabilities

and as regards the half a million plus dollars, Paul Shattuck himself had this to say:

As for the $540,000 from the CDC…it’s not entirely clear what they are talking about. I certainly don’t have a grant that big from anyone. They are probably talking about the autism surveillance grant that our center received from the CDC…a proposal which I helped prepare but am not listed as a co-investigator and am not funded from. Our University is one of several sites around the country funded to do prospective monitoring of the prevalence of autism and other disorders…am not sure why that is so horrible in the eyes of some advocates. I do have a small grant for about $12,000 from the CDC to investigate racial and socioeconomic disparities in the timing of autism diagnosis and service utilization. Prior research has indicated that the timing of identification and the level of service receipt can vary as a function of race and class. This is not a good thing in my opinion. So, I’m trying to find ways to do something constructive about it. I cannot imagine why some people would think that’s such an awful thing.

So, not only are the NAA hypocrites that only abhor conflicts of interests that don’t suit them, they’re also at best, wrong and at worst, knowingly lying.

Just as a follow up to this, I had a brief email exchange with Lenny Schafer where he said he was going to ask the NAA about this:

*Schafer to Leitch (Apr 27th 2006):*
I have forwarded Shattuck’s response to NAA and await their response. Thank you for making me aware of it.

*Leitch to Schafer (Apr 28th 2006)*
The NAA are already aware of these issues. I know of at least one person who has mailed them directly. They elected to ignore it and not to issue a correction or apology.

*Schafer to Leitch (Apr 28th 2006)*
I communicated today with the person who did the research for NAA. I am told a response is being prepared.

That was almost two months ago. The press release is still in place on the NAA website, along with the following quote from Claire Bothwell who it should be noted, given the NAA’s distate for conflicts of interest is either employed or at one time was employed by Waters and Krauss who are thiomersal litigant lawyers.:

Given the rocky history of the CDC and the autism community, failing to mention the author’s ties to this agency is a glaring omission that requires an explanation

I would suggest that given the obvious propensity of the NAA to be economical with the facts, their inability to research a subject properly and their failure to put the record straight is both irresponsible in its implications for autism research and its implications for people like Paul Shattuck who now finds himself grossly unfairly painted in a very negative light.

In a more recent Press Release, the NAA quote Wendy Fournier as saying:

In understanding that the court of public opinion sits in the driver’s seat, entities such as the General Medical Council discredit sound research in the name of a supposedly well-perceived vaccination program. Yet, this is a compromise. Compromise has no place in science, even science surrounding vaccinations.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the few that conducted research in truth, and yet the leaders in medical authority continue to compromise the health of subsets of the population that have negative reactions to shots like the MMR. Are we supposed to view these children as acceptable losses?” asks Fournier. “Dr. Wakefield’s willingness to find answers for these subsets is a testament to his scientific integrity.

Yet again, the NAA seems more than willing to bend the known truth and be incredibly hypocritical into the bargain. Certainly compromise has no place in science, which is why we should never compromise knowledge with bad science such as the original Lancet study or seek to bolster bad science with unpublished and unverifiable science such as that performed by Krigsman – a partner of Wakefields at Thoughtful House and thus someone who one would assume that the NAA, given their dislike of conflcits of interest, would be highlighting in as equally negative a light as they did Paul Shattuck. They also state unequivocally the Wakefield condicted research ‘in truth’ – which is an eyebrow raising statement given the fact that he gained his studies participants via vaccine litigants.

Good science does not require ‘assists’ such as skewing the population. And advocates like the NAA have no place in placing themselves at the center of a debate they obviously have little understanding of and which they are patently prepared to misrepresent.

This post has been sent as an email to Wendy Fournier, Claire Bothwell and Rita Shreffler. I’ll be asking them for a response either via email or via this blog.

Dan Olmsted and Andrew Wakefield. Rumour Mongering Ahoy!

14 Jun

UPI journalist Dan Olmsted has released another in his series of autism related pieces. This one is entitled: *The Age of Autism: But is Wakefield Right?*

The piece then goes on to discuss Olmsted’s belief that he may well be. Lets take a critical look at Olmsted and also Wakefield’s beliefs and contrast them with what we know and strongly suspect about Wakefield and the whole MMR debacle. Olmsted begins with:

Let’s put aside the issues surrounding the Lancet paper and concerns about a measles epidemic and go straight to the heart of the matter: Does the MMR cause autism? In other words, is Wakefield right? After looking into the topic for more than a year, I’m very concerned that he may be — that, especially in children whose immune systems have been rendered susceptible by any number of possible exposures, the combined live-virus vaccine has its fingerprints all over numerous cases of regressive autism.

I can well understand Olmsted wishing to slide the inconvenient retraction by the Lancet aside. Unfortunately they cannot be so readily shunted away. This (does MMR cause autism) is at heart, a scientific question. Only well designed, thorough, replicable science can support or refute it. The Lancet paper was _not_ good science. The study group was tiny. It seems that not only were the group of subjects sourced via anti-vaccine lawyers but I have heard rumours that there were not twelve subjects in Wakefield’s original group but actually sixteen and that the ‘extra’ subjects were ignored when their outcomes didn’t support Wakefield’s hypothesis. I hasten to add that that is total rumour but if its true, it raises more questions about this study.

I can also well understand Olmsted’s wish to put aside concerns about a measles epidemic. After all, already this year one life has been claimed by measles and hospitalisation rates are exactly in line with those predicted by experts in 2004. These cannot be comfortable truths for a journalist as one-sided as Mr Olmsted to face.

However, Mr Olmsted wishes us to ignore these things – pretend they don’t matter – so lets humour him and discuss only his narrow view.

Mr Olmsted states that he’s been looking into the matter for over a year. I’ve been looking into the matter nearly three times as long as that. Does that mean I ‘trump’ Olmsted? He says that childrens immune systems have been compromised and that the MMR live virus has ‘its fingerprints’ all over numerous cases of regressive autism. However, as is usual in these reports, Olmsted fails to back up these unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, these are part of the same belief system that has led to the point where Wakefield is being investigated by the GMC.

Does MMR cause autism – its a matter of science, not propaganda. If Olmsted wishes to convince people capable of rational thought then he needs to provide the science.

Has any science so far managed to substantiate Wakefield’s claims? Here’s Ben Goldacre:

But let’s not forget, the Daily Mail was promoting Krigsman’s research back in 2002 as well: at that time, he was putting endoscopes into the bowels of young children with autism, and said he had found evidence of inflammation. 4 years later, looking on PubMed, the standard database for all medical papers, it seems this research still has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal. Forgive my bluntness, but it seems a shame to go poking around up there if you’re not going to write up your findings properly. Meanwhile the Telegraph says that Krigsman’s most recent unpublished claim is replicating similar work from 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield, and 2002 by Professor John O’Leary. But there is no such work from 1998 by Wakefield, at least not in PubMed (in that year he publishes his infamous, very different, and partially retracted Lancet paper on MMR, of course). Meanwhile it is well documented that other labs have tried to reproduce the 2002 O’Leary study and come out with different results, and that the protocol was likely to have problems with false positives because of the tests used: two perfect examples of the importance of research being fully written up and published, so it can be replicated and assessed. Oh, and the newspapers didn’t mention that Andrew Wakefield was also an author on the 2002 study along with O’Leary, nor that Wakefield is also very closely associated with Krigsman (they are doctors together at Thoughtful House, a private autism clinic in the USA).

Bad Science.

So despite the claims of scientific verification from Krigsman’s work lets be clear: this work has not so far met the most basic standard of scientific credibility. Olmsted fails to mention this. It bears repeating: *Does MMR cause autism* is a scientific question. It can only be answered with good science. Krigsman’s work is not good science.

After talking about all the families he’s talked to, Olmsted adds:

You get the picture. “Anecdotal evidence.” But you have to wonder how many of these stories — one is tempted to say, bodies — must pile up before the medical authorities go back and take a fresh look at the issue. This blithe disregard for case histories — for what parents, the supposed bedrock of our “family-friendly” society, say — is one of the most appalling features of the current climate surrounding autism research.

Firstly, I have to say I am _not_ tempted to use the word ‘bodies’ in connection with autistic kids. Given recent events Mr Olmsted would do extremely well to choose his words with a little more care.

Lets also note that the ‘medical authorities’ _have_ taken repeated looks at this issue. The truth is that they can look until the cows come home. If there’s nothing there to find, nothing will be found. Ben Goldacre again:

in the May issue of the Journal of Medical Virology, there was a very similar study, only this one has actually been published. It looked for measles RNA in children with regressive autism after MMR vaccination, much like the Krigsman story. It used tools so powerful they could detect measles RNA down to single figure copy numbers. But they found no evidence of the magic vaccine-strain measles RNA to implicate MMR, and perhaps because of that unfrightening result, the study was loudly ignored by the press.

Readers may recall that as recently as last month, the usual tabloid suspects were screaming about MMR again, this time due to another unpublished poster presentation from Krigsman. Strangely, they failed to mention another IMFAR presentation which failed to replicate Wakefield’s work. No scope for shrieking headlines I guess and no scope for propaganda from Olmsted.

Olmsted also refers to Dr Peter Fletcher:

The official, Dr. Peter Fletcher, became an expert witness for parents’ lawyers, which of course creates a competing interest that needs to be factored in. But Fletcher said his new role gave him access to documents that deeply concerned him.

However, as readers may recall in an earlier piece I wrote at the time, Fletcher brings _nothing_ to the table except vague insinuation and conspiracy mongering. No new science is mentioned or discussed whatsoever.

Lets go through it once again: *Does MMR cause autism?* – this is a question of science. It can only be answered using the scientific method. So far, this science question has been answered in the negative. At some point Olmsted, if he wishes to continue thinking of himself as a journalist, will need to start looking a little more deeply at the issues he writes about. At the moment, he’s not a journalist. He’s a propagandist.

Creatinine, Chelation and Lupron…Oh my!

6 Jun

A recent news segment on NBC in America covered Chelation therapy as a treatment for autism. The response was as predicted. The pro-cure/biomed side went into raptures. Everyone else winced. As a UK resident I have to say that (sorry America) this seems to be a furtherance of the dumbing down of science in the US that has led to both this sort of report appearing on a serious news show and the joke of creationism being taught in science classes.

Anyway, thankfully, these types of things are still viewed by most people (over there and over here) as marginal and not representative of the truth. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that there is a lot of experimentation going on by so called ‘scientists’ and by some parents. My favourite quote so far from some retorting to the Dateline segment is:

A treatment used prior to proof is called an experiment.

ACSH.

So what can be said to be poorly understood and yet still be used?

Lupron for Autism

I recently had an interaction with a number of people on an Autism Biomed board after they stated that Lupron was ‘working miracles in recovering my child’. At least one of these people was someone who had assured me about a year ago that chelation was ‘working miracles in recovering my child’. A part of me fully expects to hear that car battery acid is ‘working miracles in recovering my child’ from the same person a year from now. After that? Tongue of Toad? Eye of Newt?

It was clear that the ‘scientists’ advising these people had not informed them of basic facts about the condition that was allegedly affecting their kids autism. Neither of them had had their childrens hand and wrist radiographed which is the standard way of determining if a child is undergoing Precocious Puberty or not. Basically, If bone age is within 1 year of chronological age, puberty has not started. If bone age is advanced by 2 or more years, puberty likely has been present for a year or more or is progressing more rapidly.

The single most basic fact about Precocious Puberty is that it is immediately subdivided into Central Precocious Puberty (CPP) or Pseudo Precocious Puberty (PPP). It is vital to make this difference as the treatment is different in each division. The division can only be made by testing for premature activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. When I asked one of these people if the Geiers (yes, it was they) had subcategorised into CPP or PPP they did not know what I was talking about. They were entirely ignorant of these terms. It was clear neither of the two people I had spoken to had undergone this sub-categorisation.

They claimed it was ‘enough’ to ‘know’ that their children had excess testosterone. One of these children is female. This child’s parent was utterly ignorant of the fact that excess testosterone in females was not called ‘precocious puberty’ but indicative of ‘Androgen excess’. Lupron is not mentioned as a treatment for Androgen Excess.

One other interesting fact about increased testosterone is that in patients diagnosed with PPP, this can result from an excess of vitamins and other dietary supplements. Its common knowledge that this is a common part of DAN! and DAN! style treatment regimes. Yet again, the Geier’s patients parents were entirely unaware of this fact.

Sources

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1882.htm
http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1881.htm
http://www.androgenexcesssociety.org/signs.html
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/sex_hormones_tests.jsp

The Role of Creatinine in Relation to Porphyrins and Chelation to Creatinine

I’m not going to go over this subject as well as Not Mercury recently did but I want to highlight a few key concepts from that paper that it seems the authors either missed or didn’t account for.

The paper’s essence is that it is significant the their are elevated levels of Porphyrins in autistic kids. However, they fail to account for the likelihood that this is a false elevation. The study attempts to measure the amount of porphyrins in the urine of their subjects. However, because collecting urine of a standard volume, content and dilution is next to impossible, its necessary to use a stable compound to express the porphyrins as a ratio of – which is where creatinine comes in. So, the paper claims that, relative to creatinine, porphyrins are high in autistic kids.

However, as Not Mercury also highlights, its fairly accepted amongst DAN! practitioners:

Creatinine is often found to be marginal in the urine of autistics, and low creatinine can skew urine analyte results to high levels. So, also take note of creatinine levels if the laboratory results include ratioing to creatinine.

PDF translated to HTML from ARI

And Andrew Wakefield’s colleague, Paul Shattock, also reports low creatinine in autistic kids (see source on Not Mercury blog entry). So why does that matter? Now, I’m no scientist so I was struggling to find a way to visualise this in my head and I came up with the bar chart below. The thin black line is an arbitrary ‘baseline’ (where the creatinine stops and the Porphs start) below which in purple is creatinine levels and above which is Porph levels. Now, in the autistic representation note how the decrease in creatinine has led the baseline measurement for Porph to falsely raise the amount of Porphs. In other words, relative to the baseline, there are not more Porphs as such, but less creatinine. I’m open to interpretation on this by the way – I don’t want it to be misleading.

There are also anecdotal reports of various chelators reducing creatinine further:

my son’s creatinine has come down to 11 by round 3. why is it going down?how can i bring it back to normal? i have been giving glycine to him also during rounds – every 3hrs dmsa+ala

Onibasu.

And:

Importantly, recent data suggest that oral NAC administration > transiently lowers creatinine levels.

PubMed

So here we seem to have a situation wherein autistic children are already noted to have low creatinine levels and that these levels could be even further reduced by the chelators used either in the study itself or by parents externally to the study and still the study authors claim it is significant to epxress Porphs _as a ratio_ of creatinine.

Autism One

Meanwhile, over in Chicago, Autism One has been in full force (or should that be farce?). I’m reliably informed that one of the big draws was David ‘crowd pleaser’ Kirby so I downloaded his slides to have a looksee.

Incredibly, it seems that David Kirby has magically ‘forgotten’ everything he conceded to blogger Citizen cain regarding the use of CDDS data. Lets remind ourselves of what Kirby told Citizen Cain:

…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. He [kirby] also conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure….

And yet, here we have slides showing Kirby demonstrating the change in the rate of increase, something he has conceded is inaccurate as a measure. He also refers to the increase in cases as ‘new’ cases when its been demonstrated time and time again that these are _not new cases_ . All in all, this is simply more dishonesty from David Kirby.

Autism and autistic people deserve better than this hodge-podge of sloppiness and dishonesty.

MMR and Metal Studies – Empty Discussions

28 May

Two new (not sure what to call them) papers? Abstracts? Press releases? Came out this week concerning autism and vaccines. Also, one _actual_ study was released.

Study number one is entitled…well, actually, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t have a name yet. The first draft (which I saw in October last year) was called *Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder*. The authors are Robert Nataf, MD Corinne Skorupka, MD, Alain Lam, BSc , Anthea Springbett, PhD, Lorene Amet, DPhil and Richard Lathe, DSc.

Richard Lathe is the heavy hitter in this bunch. He’s quoted in New Scientist as saying:

It’s highly likely that heavy metals are responsible for childhood autistic disorder in a majority of cases

New Scientist.

Strong words. However, as I said at the top of this piece, this study has not yet even been published yet. The only scientists who’ve read it are the scientists that performed the study. As far as I know, its not even been accepted for publication by Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. I _do_ know it was submitted to The Lancet and I’m guessing as the authors moved on to Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology that it was rejected by The Lancet.

I can’t discuss the science as it may have changed since the first draft I have a copy of. In the absence of the science, we can’t really discuss much of any importance.

However, we can take a look ‘behind the curtain’ at some of those names can’t we?

_Lorène Amet_ is an Editor of Medical Veritas – a journal that PubMed does not, as far as I know, index. MV’s ‘mission statement’ includes:

MV…recognizes that medical modalities promoted by public health departments and authorities are often compromised by conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and other political and personal agendas. These areas of detrimental influence include, but are not limited to, the following: vaccinations, pharmaceutical drugs, pregnancy, childbirth and child care practices, treatments for cancer, AIDS and other diseases, food additives, pesticides and herbicides, water fluoridation,d ental procedures, including amalgams, medical procedures and surgeries

Nothing like going in with a preconceived agenda eh? That’ll help with scientific objectivity.

Ms Amet’s colleagues from Medical Veritas include Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, who doesn’t believe HIV leads to AIDS, as well as someone called Kenneth P. Soller, MD who I’m guessing is Kenneth P. S *t* oller, MD – our new friend who likes HBOT for autism and who tried to smear Paul Shattuck and Andrew ‘Wakers’ Wakefield.

Source – NB: there is at least one person who is now deceased listed on that page.

Here’s some snippets from Ms Amet’s CV:

In the process of setting up an Autism Treatment clinic with the charity Autism Treatment Trust (former Action Against Autism). Principal Scientist.

(UK version of Generation Rescue led by Bill Welsh)

Received DAN! (Defeat Autism Now) doctor accreditation, Dec., 2005. Initiated and organised with Action Against Autism a conference called Treating Autism, Edinburgh UK, October 14-15, 2005. Participated to two clinic days with Dr. McCandless and Dr. Usman (16 children with autism). October 16-17, 2005.

Well, I guess we should all be reassured at how impartial any study featuring a DAN! practitioner and Editor of Medical Veritas will be. I sincerely hope their study has moved on since the first draft.

The second study/paper/abstract/thingy does at least have an actual title. It’s title is: *PERSISTENT ILEAL MEASLES VIRUS IN A
LARGE COHORT OF REGRESSIVE AUTISTIC CHILDREN WITH ILEOCOLITIS AND LYMPHONODULAR HYPERPLASIA: REVISITATION OF AN EARLIER STUDY* which is a bit of a mouthful. It basically claims to substantiate Andrew Wakefields earlier findings with the MMR vaccine.

Yet again, however, despite this being reported in at least two mainstream newspapers, it should be noted that the actual study has not been published. It will be discussed at the upcoming IMFAR conference in Canada but no-one has seen the paper yet. The presentation could not even legitimately be referred to as an abstract yet.

The authors are: Steve Walker, Karin Hepner, Jeffrey Segal and Arthur Krigsman.

There appears to be a fund raiser for this study on the website of the NAA where Andrew Wakefield and Jeff Bradstreet (who apparently used to recommend exorcism for autistic kids) are listed as ‘consultants’.

Lets not forget that the NAA have made a big deal of ‘outing’ Paul Shattuck’s non-existent connection to Merck so I wonder if we’ll be seeing them play the ‘conflict of interest’ card in the case of this study? Doubtful I’d guess.

However, the big connection here is Thoughtful House, Andrew Wakefield’s project. Steve Walker, one of the authors listed above, is on the board alongside such scientific luminaries as, uh, Martie Maguire of the Dixie Chicks.

A keen eyed observer might also note that one of the other authors is a partner of Andrew Wakefield’s. This hardly instils a great deal of hope in the objectivity of this paper.

So there’s our two non-papers which we can’t really discuss the science of as none has been made available. However, that hasn’t stopped people from going ahead and reporting on them as if it were.

The third bit of news from the autism/vaccine issue is (gasp!) an _actual_ paper, which has been peer reviewed, submitted and accepted for publication in a decent journal. Its title is: *Is There a ‘Regressive Phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder Associated with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine? A CPEA Study.*

And what does it say?

There was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

Of course, that story doesn’t get mentioned – its not as interesting as wild speculation.

Pediatrics Letter – More Misrepresentation

10 May

On the 5th May a Letter from Kenneth P Stoller appeared in Pediatrics.

UW-Madison researcher Paul Shattuck concludes that special education figures being used are “faulty and do not substantiate such a claim” (that there is an autism epidemic). Paul Shattuck seems to be saying that all the reported autistic children have always been here, they were just called something else.

Shattuck makes no such conclusion. In a clarifying comment on Scienceblogs, Paul Shattuck stated:

Unfortunately, the media and some advocacy groups have distorted what my article was all about. I was quite explicit in the article that A) my work does not prove or disprove the existence of an epidemic and I think that is still an open issue….My number one goal was to raise awareness about the limitations of the special ed. data.

As a pediatrician, who has been in practice for over two decades, I find it more than a little insulting as well as disturbing to have someone say that these children were always there.

Several pediatricians do not find it insulting. Suniti Chakrabarti for example – who diagnosed my own daughter – co-authored a paper with Eric Fombonne which confirned a high but stable prevalence for autism. There are also several interesting studies that indicate that ASD has historically been very underdiagnosed.

In 2004, an ‘autism audit‘ was performed in Scotland. One of the questions the audit asked was how accurate they thought the prevalence rate estimates were for their area. 45% of authorities who responded made a point of noting that they felt diagnosis for adults was very underrepresented. For example, Perth and Kinross council stated

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

Also, in a New Scientist piece last year, the findings of the University of Nottingham were reported. The team reexamined data from the 1970’s which resulted in five diagnosis. Using modern diagnostic criteria, the team found 56 cases, a ten-fold increase.

Lastly, earlier this year, Health Minister Liam Byrne reported figures that demonstrated autism diagnoses for children have nearly doubled in 8 years from 3100 to 6170. Meanwhile adult diagnoses have nearly tripled in the same period from 1120 to 3000.

The idea of ‘insult’ is irrelevant to the substantiation of a case. And yet again, Shattuck made no claim that ‘these children were always there’. Such purposefully misleading statements entirely invalidate Stoller’s case.

As a scientist, I find the current approach to the autism epidemic – “The Emperor’s New Clothes” approach – to be deeply disturbing.

Appeals to authority do not make one automatically correct. I’m sure there are several people who could say that ‘as scientists’ they question the idea of there being an epidemic of autism at all. That wouldn’t automatically make them right either. What does lend their viewpoint some weight as the fact that the science supports their opinions.

For years the vaccine division at the CDC and others have said the reason for the dramatic increase in autism is due to “better diagnosing” and “greater awareness.””They have encouraged those like Paul Shattuck to manufacture uncertainty.

This is quite simply yet more purposefully misleading rubbish. This study was funded largely by the Autistic Society of America. Paul Shattuck has also stated his affiliations with the CDC quite clearly:

As for the $540,000 from the CDC…it’s not entirely clear what they are talking about. I certainly don’t have a grant that big from anyone. They are probably talking about the autism surveillance grant that our center received from the CDC…a proposal which I helped prepare but am not listed as a co-investigator and am not funded from….I do have a small grant for about $12,000 from the CDC to investigate racial and socioeconomic disparities in the timing of autism diagnosis and service utilization.

Why Stoller indulges in such flagrant misrepresentation is not apparent. I am forced to conclude in the absence of a good reason, that Stoller has nothing to fall back on other than annoyance that Shattuck’s conclusions did not meet his beliefs and thus he felt it necessary to resort to distortion and spin.

There are no studies that have found the previously undiagnosed or misdiagnosed autistic individuals among older Americans. They simply aren’t there.

Mr Stoller is once again making assumptions. I have found no studies in PubMed that even attempt to pose this question, let alone answer it. How Stoller concludes there are none when no studies have sought an answer to this question is bewildering. I would like to suggest Mr Stoller examines the evidence from the three UK sources I quote from above. The US and the UK have a near identical autism prevalence. It seems reasonable that older patterns of prevalence might follow suit.

Now, the increase of autism has been linked to the increase in mercury exposure through fish and industrial sources, amalgam and additionally, through increased parenteral exposure to ethylmercurithiosalicate.

Its also been linked to alien invasion and plastic cups. Surely a scientist understand the concept of correlation not equaling causation?

A recent study, using infant Macaca fascicularis primates exposed to injected ethylmercury or those exposed to equal amounts of ingested methylmercury, showed that ethylmercuy was retained twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains in comparison to the methylmercury exposed primates.(Burbacher T, et al. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005 Aug:113(8):1015-21.)These primates were exposed to mercury levels at a rate equal to what children in the United States received via standard childhood vaccines from 1991- 2003.

What’s not often discussed about the Burbacher study is the interesting point that the group did not use thiomersal containing vaccines. They used non-thiomersal containing vaccines and then added thiomersal to them. It is difficult to know how this fresh preparation compares with vaccine formulas when thimerosal is part of the manufacturing process and may have suffered some degradation to inorganic Hg in the vials before administration.

Cysteine and glutathione synthesis are crucial for mercury detoxification, and are reduced in autistic children, possibly due to epigenetic polymorphisms.

The Deth paper made no such claim. The basic gist of the Deth paper is that various toxins, including thimerosal, affect methionine synthase activity (a process that helps in building proteins) and that this can adversely affect children. In short, the Deth paper alleges that thimerosal causes methionine synthase dysfunction (MSD). However, autism and MSD are entirely dissimilar.

Therefore, autistic children have 20% lower levels of cysteine and 54% lower levels of glutathione, which adversely affect their ability to detoxify and excrete metals like mercury. (James, S.J. et al.: Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 80, 1611-1617 2004).This leads to a higher concentration of free mercury in blood, which then transfers into tissues and increases the half-life of mercury in the body, as compared to children with normal levels of cysteine and glutathione. As was shown by Bradstreet et al (Bradstreet, J et al.: A case control study of mercury burden in children with autistic spectrum disorders. J. Am. Phys. Surg. 8, 76-79 2003) in a study involving 221 autistic children, vaccinated autistic children showed about 6 fold elevation of urinary mercury than normal controls after appropriate mobilization with the chelating agent DMSA.

And so we get down to it – Bradstreet and JAPANDS. A man who recommends exorcism and a journal who don’t publish errata or retractions. Great. Next!

Stoller then goes on to describe a whole host of things thiomersal apparently does without ever stating the fact that none of these things appear in the diagnostic criteria for autism.

This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, at worse it is an example that we have left consensus reality to be created by the liars, thieves, cheats, killers, and the PR junk scientists they employ.

Quite a statement from someone who has actively misled people regarding Paul Shattucks connections with the CDC. I would put forward the idea that a PR junk scientist is one who isn’t even able to research the simplest of facts and instead concentrates solely on misrepresentation and spin. As for killers, its my opinion that Dr Roy Kerry is a great example of a DAN! protocol follower.

We are living in a time where an incredible overplay and lies and self-aggrandizing behavior and non-science is the norm.

Stoller has no argument from me there. He would seem to me to be living embodiment of that statement. He cites studies from people like Burbacher who’s ‘science’is funded by SafeMinds – a group whos mission statement is to establish a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. He cites people like Deth who are listed as expert witnesses for the prosecution in the omnibus proceedings against vaccine manufacturers.

Is it stretch to realize that by putting our heads in the sand about the autism epidemic we have made it possible for the groundwork to be put in place for Marshal Law?

Er, yes. Yes it is.

No something easy to contemplate? Then ask why haven’t pediatricians come forward to demand the end of the use of ethylmercurithiosalicate once and for all, and to advocate for the treatment of these children before it is too late?

Simple: they realise that the science doesn’t support your beliefs Mr Stoller. They understand the massive societal benefits of vaccination – a benefit being well demonstrated now that vaccine uptake is falling thanks to your scare mongering as Mumps epidemics sweep your country and measles epidemics resulting in 12% hospitalisation and at least one death so far sweep mine.

Stoller declares no conflicts of interest and yet in his signature he describes himself as a member of the International Hyperbaric Medical Association. This treament is a favourite of DAN! practitioners – people who profit by ‘treating’ autism – and yet there have been no published randomized controlled trials for low-pressure hyperbaric oxygen therapy as an autism treatment yet. Only one paper exists in Pub Med relating to HBOT and autism which blogger Dad of Cameron found at least one significant error in.

Mr Stoller establishes once more his propensity to bend or totally shatter facts by claiming no conflict of interest when it is clear he supports a therapy being widely utilised for profit on autistic children. Throughout this whole letter he willfully and (one must assume) knowingly misrepresents people like Paul Shattuck, relationships between people and institutions. He quite clearly has little knowledge of the limitations of the science he quotes as backing up his beliefs and then goes on to rage about ‘PR junk scientists’ whilst he promotes the use of a very expensive treatment with no established – or even reliably investigated- appreciable effect on autistic children.

Autism Becomes A Political/Legal Football

17 Apr

In the most recent edition of the Schafer Mercury Report, editor Lenny Schafer has a fascinating response to a letter writer. Its not really necessary to reproduce the letter, but Schafer’s response is a gem:

Myself and other autism activists believe there is enough evidence to support a causative relationship between mercury and autism in a court of law, in front of a jury, where standards of evidence are different than that of the narrow focus of scientific findings. And if you can convince a jury, you can convince the public. Since public health by definition is political, legal standards are even more so appropriate. The profound conflicts of interest amongst those who order, perform and draw conclusions from most of the no-connection evidence as alibis for vaccines, renders such evidence as tampered and thus, less than useless. The defenders of mercurated vaccines are in trouble and attempt to hide their malfeasance behind lab standards.

I mean _wow!_

This is a de facto admission that the scientific evidence to support an autism/mercury connection is very weak:

…. where standards of evidence are different than that of the narrow focus of scientific findings.

By ‘different’ Schafer really means ‘lesser’. I mean call me naive here but I was under the impression that the debate with the mercury militia on one side and the AAP, CDC, UK Gvmt, NHS, and ourselves – autistic advocates – were having was a _scientific_ debate. How silly was I? According to Schafer:

Since public health by definition is political, legal standards are even more so appropriate

Public health is by definition political? Really? Only if you can only see one thing at a time maybe. Widen the lens a little bit and I think every medical research scientist, patient and doctor/nurse might see public health as something a little bit more than a simply political process.

This is a debate at its core about what it means to be autistic. What causes people to be autistic. How in God’s name can that be political beyond the kind of infantile number crunching the Generation ‘6000% increase’ Rescue go in for? The people who have politicised this debate are the ones who employ media manipulation specialists such as Fenton Communications.

But hey – lets not worry about that – lets not worry about the *fact* that learning more about autism is a core scientific responsibility. Turning it into a manipulated football to kick about at the whim of a lawyer is much more realistic.

Schafer is absolutely right that scientific standards are greater than legal ones. Stronger, more stringent, demanding of _actual_ evidence. Maybe Schafer could remind me: was it science or a jury that discovered electricity? Was it science or a jury that discovered penicillin? Science or a jury that took men to the moon? Science or a jury that discovered our place in the stars? Our place in nature? Our place in the future?

But then again:

…if you can convince a jury, you can convince the public…

Because y’know, science is _hard_ . Stick instead to trial lawyers so we can let the sort of people who got OJ Simpson cleared, or the Birmingham Six banged up to sort out the tricky concept of autism. Great idea.

_”The profound conflicts of interest amongst those who order, perform and draw conclusions from most of the no-connection evidence as alibis for vaccines, renders such evidence as tampered and thus, less than useless.”_

Yeah, its all a big conspiracy. Like the one that saw SafeMinds purchase the domain evidenceofharm.com or the one that saw Wendy Fournier of the NAA build Kirby a website, like the one that had Richard Deth listed as an expert witness without his knowledge, or the one that tried to smear Paul Shattuck, or the one that had the Chair of the NAA working for thiomersal lawyers Waters and Kraus, or the one that saw Andrew Wakefield allegedly filing a patent for a rival vaccine to MMR *before* he published his paper, or the one that had Kirby add on two years to his statement regarding when the thiomersal connection would be in trouble, or the one that saw RFK Jr talking about the results of a study from the Geiers several months before it was published, or the one where the Geiers started patenting Lupron therapy, or the one where Generation Rescue placed words in the mouths of scientists.

Its true that your scientific case is very weak Mr Schafer. Without that science, so is your legal one.

CDDS Data, Flu Vaccines And Likely Predictions

12 Apr

So, now that the cases of autism are _still_ not falling (see Joseph and Interverbal) and we long passed David Kirby’s self imposed deadline of 2005 for rates to fall and are fast approaching his new goalpost shifted deadline of 2007 what can we expect from the mercury militia?

Well, excuses as to why that might be of course. Re-alignments of data and misleading impressions. For example, Rick ‘Train Wrecks’ Rollens gave the Schafer Mercury Report an exclusive. Well – there was a whole lot of guff before the actual figures. These were quoted as:

Between April 2002 and April 2003 there were 3,595 persons added to the system. Between April 2003 and April 2004 there were 3,088 persons added to the system. Between April 2004 and April 2005 there were 3,015 persons added to the system. Between April 2005 and April 2006 there were 2,869 persons added to the system.

But, as ever, we can disregard Rollens as he hasn’t isolated the 3 – 5 year old cohort. He counted everyone.

In case you couldn’t tell, I rolled my eyes then.

For a slightly more honest approach (key word: slightly) we turn to David Kirby who posted the following on EoH:

2004 545 -4.72%, 2005 524 -3.85%

Which is the percentage change year on year. However, Kirby tucked his bombshell in the previous paragraph:

It is too early to read a whole lot into these numbers, especially quarter to quarter, and obviously, *a drop in the net gain this quarter (instead of an increase of 6) would have been more supportive of the thimerosal theory*.

EoH

Which is quite a statement. No wonder Rollens is fighting to distance himself from it. I also notice Lenny Schafer didn’t quote Kirby in the SAR.

However Kirby then goes on to tell everyone:

But yearly trends for 3-5 year olds are down…

Which is not true. Yearly trends are still rising. To put it plainly there is a continuing increase in the amount of autistic 3 – 5 year olds entering the CDDS reporting system. What these figures show (except this new quarter) is a less than 1% decrease in the rate of increase year on year. And David Kirby _knows_ this is misleading. In an email exchange with blogger Citizen Cain, Kirby:

…conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, *not changes in the rate of increase* is the right measure.

Citizen Cain

More misleading dishonesty Mr Kirby?

So, what can we expect from the mercury militia clinging desperately to the CDDS figures?

So, there’s the misleading conclusions and re-alignments of data. What about the excuses?

Well the biggie will be one that’s touched on by Kirby in his EoH post:

keep in mind that most of these kids are 4 and 5 years old, born between 2000 and the first quarter of 2002 (someone correct me if I got that wrong) and it is impossible to know exactly what thimerosal exposure rates were during that period in California, except to assume that they started to come down, perhaps gradually

Aha – the first emergence of what I shall take honour in calling the Great Backpedal Argument of 2006. In the GBA, mercury militia members will start to claim that rates are not falling because all the thiomersal still sitting on shelves to be used up. Its a _great_ argument as it can’t be proven or disproven – you just have to believe. Sounds familiar eh? Then of course, there’s the compounding factor of the flu vaccine. Except that the flu vaccine is not mandatory, not enforceable and as vaccine uptake is falling generally thanks to the mercury militia I would imagine flu vaccine uptake (and thus thiomersal exposure from this source) is at an all time low.

So back to all the thiomersal containing mainstream vaccines sitting on shelves up and down the country.

According to studies, the shelf life of thiomersal containing vaccines such as DTaP is between 5 – 9 months. Somebody remind me again – how long ago was it that thiomersal containing vaccines were halted for mainstream use? I forget.

And if you do come across some thiomersal containing vaccines, maybe you could send some to Safe Minds Executive Director Sallie Bernard. It seems that they were in very short supply as far back ago as June 2001:

A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately. Thank you. Sallie Bernard, Executive Director, Safe Minds.

Onibasu.

Makes you wonder why Ms Bernard didn’t simply wander into any GP’s office and buy some thiomersal containing vaccine off the shelves almost collapsing under the weight of the stuff.

If it was in short enough supply for Ms Bernard to require the help of people finding some back in 2001, how plentiful is the supply going to be either than or now? I’ll wager ‘not very’.

Open Letter To Andrew Wakefield

4 Apr

Dear Mr Wakefield,

Following your announcement of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, uptake rates of this vaccine in the UK have fallen to amongst the lowest in Europe:

Take-up rates of the jab dropped throughout the UK, down to less than 70% in some areas, after a small-scale study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggested a link to autism.

Source.

In 2004, mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004, nearly a four-fold increase.

And in the first month of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases. Most were among young adults born before 1988 and who would, therefore, not have been offered MMR as a child. In the second paper, Dr Ravindra Gupta, from London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’, working with colleagues from King’s College London, found cases have also occurring in very young children who would have been eligible for the MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – vaccine…..Dr Gupta (…) said uptake of MMR among two-year-olds in the UK fell from around 92% in early 1995 to around 80% in 2003/4.

Source.

In October 2004, experts predicted that due to falling vaccination uptake, the UK would start to suffer from ‘small outbreaks’:

The medical newspaper Pulse has warned that there could be a measles epidemic this winter on a scale last seen in the 1960s. It said that lowering levels of immunity meant as many as 12% of children and 20% of adults could be hospitalised if infected by measles.

Source.

And now, this year, 18 months after this warning, we have the UK’s first measles induced fatality in 14 years.

The 13-year-old who died last month lived in a travellers’ community. It is thought that he had a weakened immune system; he was being treated for a lung condition. The boy died of an infection of the central nervous system caused by a reaction to the measles virus. The Health Protection Agency described his death as shocking.

Source

The Times also says that of the 72 reported measles cases last month, 9 required hospitalisation – this tallies almost exactly with the 2004 prediction of a hospitalisation rate of 12%.

I have a few questions for you Mr Wakefield.

Do you accept that there is a strong causative correlation between the falling MMR vaccine uptake and the rise in both mumps and measles? If you do not, could you please explain why not. If you do could you please explain what you feel is your role in these matters.

Is it true that, as reported by Brian Deer in the Times and in the Channel 4 current affairs programme ‘Dispatches’, that you received up to £55,000 to find scientific evidence of a link between MMR and autism and that you did not disclose you were being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers?

Is it true that the vast majority of your subjects from the Lancet study were not, as you claimed, captured through the normal referral process, but actually supplied to you by lawyers representing these people and their families in vaccine litigation?

Is it true that up to nine months prior to the publication of your paper showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism that you and the Royal Free (where you conducted your research) filed numerous patent applications which were alternatives to the MMR vaccine? If you did, would you consider it a lucky guess that led you to do this seeing as your MMR paper had yet to be published?

Do you believe, like your collaborator Hugh Fudenberg, that:

Some parents would rather see their kid die than live as a severely autistic.

Source.

These are serious matters Mr Wakefield. I’m aware that you are pursuing three court cases related to these matters (although at least one is currently stayed) and you are also due to be investigated by the GMC sometime this year but as the parent of an autistic child – in short exactly the sort of person you claim to want to help – I need answers now. What I read of you indicates wrong doing on a grand scale. If these things are established to be true you are guilty of not only extreme medical negligence but also of betraying thousands of parents and forcing thousands of autistic children to undergo totally unnecessary and highly invasive medical procedures.

You need to account for yourself Mr Wakefield. Please don’t wait for more children to be hospitalised or die.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →