Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

Brian Deer responds to David Lewis’ complaint

10 Jan

Much attention has been focused on Andrew Wakefield again recently. This follows Mr. Wakefield’s lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Also, a lengthy complaint authored by David Lewis was made public, detailing his views about the allegations of fraud levied against Mr. Wakefield by the BMJ.

The two are not directly related as Mr. Lewis’ complaint fails to address many of the issues raised by the BMJ in their articles alleging fraud. That said, If one pokes around Mr. Deer’s website, one will eventually stumble upon this page: David L Lewis: indignant abuse as complaints turn to nothing. There is an introduction to the subject including Mr. Deer’s interactions with Mr. Lewis followed by a point by point response to Mr. Lewis’ complaint. For anyone who may be thinking that Mr. Deer is intimidated by the complaint I encourage you to read the response. It is very much in the style of Brian Deer. For example

DAVID L LEWIS: “My report, which I have submitted to UCL, UKRIO and HEFCE, includes 72 emails exchanged between me and the BMJ’s editors.”

DEER: I offer the recipients at UCL, UKRIO and HEFCE my sympathy.

Aside from such dismissive statements, Mr. Deer takes on the many (often repetitive) claims by Mr. Lewis directly. Mr. Lewis’ complaint and main thesis in his rapid response to the BMJ focus on non-specific colitis as used in the Lancet paper: the histology grading sheets of Dr. Dillhon somehow prove that there was no fraud. It is a confusing argument because it doesn’t address the many issues raised by Mr. Deer and the BMJ.

Per Mr. Deer in his introduction:

These biopsy assessments, however, weren’t the basis upon which, in January 2011, the BMJ concluded that Wakefield’s MMR work was “an elaborate fraud”. The evidence we presented rested firmly on the GMC panel’s findings of research dishonesty, and was overwhelmingly related to Wakefield’s activities with regard to the admission of patients to the study, as well as the purported clinical histories and findings which lay behind a claim by Wakefield of a 14-day temporal link between the administration of MMR and the first “behavioural symptoms” of autism. We say this purported link was fraudulent.

Later, in response to Mr. Lewis’ claim:

DAVID L LEWIS: “… alleged that Andrew Wakefield fabricated the diagnosis of colitis in a 1998 Lancet study involving 12 children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).”

Mr. Deer responds:

DEER: At the core of our problems in dealing with Lewis is that nowhere was such an allegation made in the BMJ. He repeatedly identifies my feature “Autistic enterocolitis under the microscope”, published in April 2010, but this simply doesn’t make such an allegation. Plain reading would make this clear.

Not only can I find no foundation for this fundamental of Lewis’s complaint (and I think I’d remember forming any view at that time that the histopathology reporting in the Lancet was fraudulent, as distinct from, say, wrong, misleading or incompetent), we consulted legal counsel, before and after publication, and expert peer-reviewers. We remain unable to identify any text inferring Wakefield’s intent with regard to histology reporting. I’ve similarly asked Nature to identify any such text, and they too have failed

Mr. Lewis has taken issue with the fact that the BMJ did not print his rapid response exactly as submitted:

DAVID L LEWIS: “To support their new fraud theory, Godlee rewrote my Rapid Response, removing any evidence that undermined their allegations against Wakefield and others.”

DEER: Lewis’s rapid response was extensively re-written because it was false and defamatory. Legal advice was taken. Two peer reviewers rejected the submitted text. No changes had any effect in supporting any “fraud theory”, whether new or otherwise. Lewis approved the published text.

In hosting the words of Mr. Lewis, the BMJ would itself be responsible in part for any defamatory language included. This is the way of the law in the U.K..

In my opinion, the Mr. Lewis’ arguments are a side show of the the Wakefield saga (Yes, in my view Mr. Wakefield is a major side show in itself). They don’t address the substance of the claims of fraud put forth by the BMJ.

The Autism Vaccine Controversy and the Need for Responsible Science Journalism

7 Jan

The Huffington Post has a new section on science. One of the first articles discusses the “Autism Vaccine Controversy”. In The Autism Vaccine Controversy and the Need for Responsible Science Journalism, Seth Mnookin starts out:

Earlier this week, The Panic Virus, my book on the controversy over vaccines and autism, was released in paperback. While there haven’t been many scientific advances in this particular issue since the hardcover edition was published — the evidence supporting vaccines’ paramount place in public health efforts and the total lack of corroboration supporting a causal connection between vaccines and autism remain as strong today as they were a year ago — there have been new developments in the story. Their coverage highlights an enduring passion of mine: The need for reliable, responsible science journalism.

Yes, Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus, is writing for the Huffington Post, a site which has contributed greatly to misinformation about vaccines and autism. The Huffington Post has been home to David Kirby (who was a major promoter of the mercury/autism concept) as well as welcoming input from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, to name but a few of the poor choices for writers the Post engaged.

On PLoS blogs, Mr. Mnookin announced this new gig with Has the Huffington Post embraced science & closed the door on anti-vaccine quackery? We can hope. I wouldn’t place any bets on it though.

No Evidence of Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Viruses in Live Attenuated Human Vaccines

6 Jan

There has been much discussion of XMRV, Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, here at Left Brain/Right Brain and elsewhere in the past few months. The reason for the discussion here is the (now shown to be false) idea that XMRV is implicated in autism causation. Two papers have addressed this question and found no evidence of a link. XMRV came to prominence as a possible candidate in causing chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Multiple papers have found no evidence of a link between XMRV and CFS (fan example is discussed here) and the original paper on the topic was withdrawn by editors of the journal Science after it became clear that those results were suspect.

The idea that autism and XMRV was promoted by David Kirby, whose efforts also strongly promoted the debunked autism-epidemic-caused-by-mercury idea. Mr. Kirby’s article at the Huffington Post was Is Autism Associated with A Viral Infection?. In this he quoted CFS/XMRV researcher Judy Mikovits:

And then Dr. Mikovits dropped a bombshell that is sure to spark controversy.

“On that note, if I might speculate a little bit,” she said, “This might even explain why vaccines would lead to autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and grow in lymphocytes — the immune response cells, the B and the T cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your immune system into overdrive. That’s its job. Well, if you are harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you’ve now broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system could no longer control other infections, and created an immune deficiency.”

Mr. Kirby went on to write:

So there you have it – a possible explanation of regressive autism in a significant number of cases associated with immune system deregulation triggered by vaccination.

Of course, much more work is needed to nail down the exact significance of such an association. For example, is the virus implicated in the cause of autism, or do children harbor the virus as a result of autism?

Yes, Ms. Mikovits and David Kirby were proposing a possible link between autism, XMRV and (of course) vaccines.

That was October 2009. Fast forward to today, two years later and we see

A) Neither Ms. Mikovits nor anyone else has published the data supposedly linking XMRV and autism

B) Two studies have looked for evidence (and failed to find any) of a link between XMRV and autism,

Lack of infection with XMRV or other MLV-related viruses in blood, post-mortem brains and paternal gametes of autistic individuals.

PCR and serology find no association between xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and autism.

C) Evidence has arisen that much of the data linking XMRV to CFS is faulty.

Studies on XMRV are still ongoing. If experience from the vaccine-autism-epidemic idea tell us anything, the idea that XMRV causes CFS and/or autism will die slowly and even more data are needed.

To that end, a recent study explored whether XMRV is a contaminant in live virus vaccines. (note that in other vaccines, the XMRV is likely as dead as the other constituents of the vaccine). You can tell the result from the title: No Evidence of Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Viruses in Live Attenuated Human Vaccines.

Background

The association of xenotropic murine leukemia virus (MLV)-related virus (XMRV) in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome reported in previous studies remains controversial as these results have been questioned by recent data. Nonetheless, concerns have been raised regarding contamination of human vaccines as a possible source of introduction of XMRV and MLV into human populations. To address this possibility, we tested eight live attenuated human vaccines using generic PCR for XMRV and MLV sequences. Viral metagenomics using deep sequencing was also done to identify the possibility of other adventitious agents.

Results

All eight live attenuated vaccines, including Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) (SA-14-14-2), varicella (Varivax), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR-II), measles (Attenuvax), rubella (Meruvax-II), rotavirus (Rotateq and Rotarix), and yellow fever virus were negative for XMRV and highly related MLV sequences. However, residual hamster DNA, but not RNA, containing novel endogenous gammaretrovirus sequences was detected in the JEV vaccine using PCR. Metagenomics analysis did not detect any adventitious viral sequences of public health concern. Intracisternal A particle sequences closest to those present in Syrian hamsters and not mice were also detected in the JEV SA-14-14-2 vaccine. Combined, these results are consistent with the production of the JEV vaccine in Syrian hamster cells.

Conclusions

We found no evidence of XMRV and MLV in eight live attenuated human vaccines further supporting the safety of these vaccines. Our findings suggest that vaccines are an unlikely source of XMRV and MLV exposure in humans and are consistent with the mounting evidence on the absence of these viruses in humans.

Yes, there is no evidence of XMRV in vaccines. This is rather anticlimactic given the evidence already in place that XMRV is not linked to autism, and the fact that the XMRV/CFS link is already tenuous at best.

The blogger erv has done the most thorough job following the XMRV study out there, including discussing the paper above. Others have taken up where David Kirby left off and promoted the idea that XMRV and autism are linked, and that vaccines are a possible part of that link. I would hope that those people would see the value in letting their readers know about this paper (and others, and the retractions).

BMJ instructs lawyers to “defend the claim vigorously” against Andrew Wakefield’s lawsuit

6 Jan

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has issued a press release (below) about the lawsuit initiated by Andrew Wakefield claiming defamation arising from a series of articles published last year. The BMJ and Mr. Deer stand by their articles and statements and have instructed their attorneys to “defend the claim vigorously”.

Although not formally served with the legal papers, the BMJ is on notice that Andrew Wakefield has issued defamation proceedings, not in London as might be ordinarily expected as concerns a predominately English publication, but in Texas, USA, where he now lives. The proceedings primarily relate to an article written by Brian Deer and published a year ago on 5 January 2011, entitled Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine was Fixed, and an accompanying editorial which related to Mr Wakefield’s now infamous Lancet Paper on MMR.

Of course, following the findings of the British General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice Panel and Mr Wakefield’s history of pursuing unfounded litigation, any action brought against the BMJ and Mr Deer in London would have been immediately vulnerable to being struck out as an abuse of process.

Despite the findings of the GMC’s Fitness to Practice Panel and his co-authors having publicly retracted the causation interpretation put forward by the Lancet Paper, it would appear from the Claim filed at court that Mr Wakefield still stands by the accuracy of the Lancet paper and his conclusion therein, thereby compounding his previously found misconduct. While we await formal service, unsurprisingly the BMJ and Mr Deer standby the material published in the BMJ and their other statements and confirm that they have instructed lawyers to defend the claim vigorously.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Lancet Paper was published on 23 February 1998 entitled “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. Its claims of a temporal association between MMR vaccine and autism were retracted by the authors (excluding Mr Wakefield) on 6 March 2004, following the first findings from Brian Deer’s investigation for The Sunday Times. The paper was retracted in its entirety by the Lancet on 2 February 2010, with the Lancet noting that elements of the paper “have been proven to be false” during hearings of a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel.

2. Following a 217-day investigation by the GMC’s panel, on 24 May 2010, the panel found Mr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct. It found that Mr Wakefield “had a clear and compelling duty to ensure that the factual information contained in the [Lancet] paper was true and accurate and he failed in this duty”. The Panel also found that Mr Wakefield was intentionally dishonest and misleading in describing the patient population, and that he had been dishonest when questioned about it later. Similarly, the panel stated that “the description of the referral process was irresponsible, misleading, and in breach of [Mr] Wakefield s duty as a senior author”. The Determination also set out how Mr Wakefield compounded his misconduct by failing to correct the content of the paper.

3. As a result of Mr Wakefield’s “persistent lack of insight” into his behaviour, the GMC determined that his name should be erased from the medical register.

4. Mr Wakefield adduced no evidence in mitigation and made no arguments or pleas in mitigation in front of the Fitness to Practice panel. He did not appeal its decision and has not attempted to replicate the Lancet paper’s findings in order to attempt to vindicate his position.

5. At various times in the past, Mr Wakefield has brought claims and made complaints against Mr Deer, The Sunday Times, Channel Four and Twenty Twenty Productions in respect of allegations of dishonesty relating to his Lancet paper. In no case has he been successful. Indeed, in each instance the case has been dropped by Mr Wakefield. In Wakefield v Channel Four Television Corporation, Twenty Twenty Productions Ltd and Brian Deer [2005] EWHC 2410 (QB) Mr Justice Eady refused to grant a stay sought by Mr Wakefield, stating that the case would turn on fundamentally serious issues going to the heart of the Claimant s honesty and professional integrity.

In refusing the stay, Eady J considered Mr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to the various proceedings he had brought. He noted that Mr Wakefield had written to a number of other organisations including: the Cambridge Evening News; Evan Harris (an MP who criticised Mr Wakefield on a radio programme); and the Department of Health (which provided a link on its website to the Channel Four Dispatches website).

Mr Wakefield informed these entities in correspondence that he had issued proceedings against The Sunday Times, Mr Deer and/ or Channel Four, indicating that proceedings were ongoing. He made no mention of the stays which he had obtained, or was seeking. Eady J considered this misleading, and concluded that Mr Wakefield wished to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the downside of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification. The Judge believed that there was a pattern of using the existence of libel proceedings, albeit stayed, as a tool for stifling further criticism or debate.

6. On 2O December 2011, the BMJ’s solicitors, Farrer & Co, wrote to Mr Wakefield’s Texan lawyers setting out the matters referred to above, as well as other points. No response has been received.

7. Mr Wakefield’s allegations, that the MMR vaccines causes or contributes to autism, were investigated in three test cases in the United States Court of Federal Claims, heard from July 2007 and with judgments handed down on 12 February 2009. Although listed as a witness, Mr Wakefield was not called to give evidence, and his allegations were rejected. The judgments were upheld on appeal. In the lead case, Cedillo v Secretary for Health and Human Services, Special Master George Hastings said in his judgment with regard to evidence in the case: “Therefore, it is a noteworthy point that not only has that autistic enterocolitis theory not been accepted into gastroenterology textbooks, but that theory, and [Mr] Wakefield s role in its development, have been strongly criticized as constituting defective or fraudulent science.”

Andrew Wakefield takes to the courts again

5 Jan

Andrew Wakefield, one of the doctors who was stricken from the register by the U.K.’s General Medical Council, has filed a complaint in Texas claiming that Brian Deer (Journalist) and Fiona Godlee (Editor of the British Medical Journal). The complaint alleges that the articles, editorials and statements made later about those include “false and defamatory allegations” about Mr. Wakefield.

From the complaint filed:

This defamation lawsuit arises, in part, out of the publication on or about January 5, 2011 and thereafter, in the British Medical Journal, of an article authored for the BMJ by Brian Deer, titled Secrets of the MMR Scare (Exhibit A) and accompanying editorials by the BMJ’s editor, Fiona Godlee (Exhibit B 1-2). Defendants’ article and editorials, distributed to subscribers in Texas and which fonn the basis of Plaintiffs claims, contained unfair, incorrect, inaccurate and unjust criticisms of findings previously reported by Dr. Wakefield and 12 other co-authors. More significantly, Defendants accused Dr. Wakefield of fraud and of fraudulently and intentionally manipulating and falsifying data and diagnoses in connection with a clinical paper he co-authored called Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, originally published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1998 (the “Lance,t Paper”). Defendants’ false and defamatory allegations have been widely disseminated by Defendants through the BMJ and other sources since their original publication.

Mr. Wakefield sued Mr. Deer in the past, but dropped that suit.

Mr. Wakefield’s legal team consists of William M. Parrish, J.D. Ellwanger, John D. Saba Jr of DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP, a firm which primarily focused on intellectual property and commercial litigation.

Mr. Wakefield does not specify an amount for damages:

Dr. Wakefield hereby prays for a trial by jury as to all disputed issues of fact, and upon findings appropriate, further prays for judgment from this Court against the Defendants for: nominal damages, actual and compensatory damages, special damages, including injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, exemplary damages pursuant to TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE §41.001, et. seq., declaratory relief, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, and for such other and further relief to which he may be justly entitled.

Should this go to court, Mr. Wakefield, In arguing a “injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, will have to quantify the state of his reputation and character, feelings, humiliation and loss of earning capacity at the time. This will have to take into account the fact that he had already been struck off the medical register in the UK after being found to have committed “serious professional misconduct” and had lost his job at Thoughtful House. Were the donors to the “Strategic Autism Initiative” less likely to contribute after the BMJ articles?

Honestly, I thought the Andrew Wakefield saga was over and I was glad of it.

Michele Bachman drops out of race for U.S. President

4 Jan

Yesterday was the first contest in the primary race for president here in the U.S: the Iowa Caucuses Michele Bachmann placed 6th in her bid for the republican party nomination with 5% of the vote. Today she announced that she is pulling out of the race.

Ms. Bachmann came into the discussion here on Left Brain/Right Brain after her claim that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Even though she had no real evidence to back up her claims, she stood by them. Her comments received even more publicity when a bioethicist put up a $10,000 prize should she produce the evidence she claimed she had. After all this she did finally try to distance herself from that mistake three months later. As one might imagine, she became a favorite of groups who promote the idea that vaccines caused an autism epidemic.

While I doubt her vaccine comment was the prime reason she failed in her bid, it is being cited as one of her major mistakes. On Politico, it even rises to being #3 on top 10 misstatements of the GOP primary.

On an encouraging side note. In some discussions in the press, Ms. Bachmann is noted as having received criticism from the “autism community”. From Politico:

Leaving aside the fact that the terminology has long been outdated to describe people with developmental disabilities, Bachmann’s claim immediately drew fire from vaccination advocates, medical groups and the autism community.

With luck we can leave behind the legacy of the “autism community” being the promoters of bad information about vaccines.

Is Mark Geier finished as an expert witness in the vaccine court?

10 Dec

Dr. Mark Geier is a name which has come up frequently in the autism/vaccine discussion, and in alternative medical therapies (such as Lupron) of autism. Dr. Geier has been an expert witness for petitioners in the vaccine court for about two decades. He has been criticized by the court for almost as long. Dr. Geier has recently had his medical license suspended.

Mark Geier and his son David have worked for the Petitioners Steering Committee (the lawyers handling the plaintiffs’ cases in the Autism Omnibus). But their relationship seems a bit strained. They filed suit asking for $600,000 in payment. The Geiers have had previous requests for fees drastically reduced or denied, including one where they expected the Court to cover $20,000 as their costs (and hourly rate, including while sitting on planes) to attend conferences in Italy and France. The court called this “a complete abdication of billing judgment.”

In a recent court decision, Dr. Geier has been criticized again. Thoroughly. But this very strong statement from the special master makes it clear that Dr. Geier’s future as an expert witness or consultant will be very restricted:

I will not likely be inclined to compensate attorneys in any future opinions for consultant work performed by Mark Geier after the publication date of this opinion.

The decision focused on expenses the Petitioner’s Steering Committee (PSC) charged in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding for Mark Geier, his son David Geier and their colleagues. Much of these charges resulted from a study they published, Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Epiwonk (a former professional epidemiologist for the CDC) discussed the paper in New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: I. Scientific Fraud or Just Playing with Data?

The study noted in the acknowledgements that the study was funded by the PSC:

This study received funding from the Autism Petitioners’ Steering Committee of the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

The Geier/Young team billed the PSC, and the PSC billed the vaccine injury trust fund vaccine court. As you can read, they just weren’t successful.

The Geiers tried some fancy footwork to get the Young-Geier study paid for by our tax dollars.  Including an apparent attempt to get the non-doctor David Geier compensated by charging work at their company, “medcon”, rather than naming David Geier as the recipient.

Bottom line–the PSC asked for $440k to compensate the people who worked on the Young-Geier study.  They got $33k, and a strong statement that Geier will be unlikely to be compensated by the program in the future.

If you are curious about the value of the study itself, there is a whole section of the decision titled “The Young-Geier article itself did not add any value to the petitioners’ causation case.”

In their application, the PSC sought a total of $7,202,653 for interim fees and costs. with $1.35M for costs, primarily expert witness costs (note that the Geiers did not actually serve as witnesses, so they are part of the “costs”)

Out of $1,350,000 in costs one might ask how much of this was for the Young-Geier study?

As noted above, this Decision on Remand concerns the PSC’s claim for compensation for amounts paid, or to be paid, to four experts/consultants: Dr. Mark Geier, David Geier, Dr. Heather Young and Dr. Robert Hirsch. Conceptually, this claim can be broken into two parts. First, petitioners seek $447,004.02 to compensate all four of those individuals for work on an original medical article that was published in 2008. Second, petitioners seek $197,823.94 more for miscellaneous additional services provided by Mark Geier and David Geier between 2003 and 2008.

$447K. One third of the total. A large number of expert witnesses actually produced reports and testified, but the Geier team was to receive 1/3 of the total. If you take a high rate of $500/hour, this works out to 22 full time man weeks. For a study where they didn’t have to collect data, just analyze it. I find it difficult to believe this study took 22 weeks (or more, as the $500/hour is a very high estimate).

The Geiers were not slated to get the majority of the money. Heather Young, an associate professor at George Washington University, was to get the lion’s share. About a quarter of a million dollars:

Petitioners would receive $248,636.91 to compensate Dr. Young, $157,407.11 for the two Geiers, and $41,000 for Dr. Hirsch

Unless GWU pays their associate professors much more than is common, this represents well over one year’s pay for Prof. Young.

Thankfully HHS (respondent) argued against this request:

Respondent argues strenuously, in response, that it would be wholly unreasonable for the Program to provide compensation to these individuals for their efforts concerning the article.

Is it reasonable to charge for studies created for litigation? Are they of high value to the case?

I note that the Supreme Court has expressed the view that medical studies produced expressly for litigation purposes should be viewed with skepticism.

and

The views of these courts, then, reinforce the concern that if a lawyer involved in a Vaccine Act case chooses specific experts and pays them to carry out a study, the potential is great for bias in the study, toward the outcome that would assist the clients of the lawyer paying for the study. Thus, it is arguable that, as the respondent contends, it would be poor public policy, in general, for special masters to award public funds for such original studies.

and

Rather, I conclude that under all the specific circumstances of this case, it would not be reasonable for me to compensate the named individuals for the production of this particular article.

The PSC argued that the paper was not “litigation driven”.  The SM didn’t accept the argument:

As to the former point, I am simply not persuaded by the suggestion that the article was not litigation-driven….The mere fact that the PSC lawyers contributed or promised monetary support for another article co-authored by the Geiers, concerning the topic of whether thimerosal-containing vaccines can cause autism, is itself strong evidence that the article was litigation-driven.

Further, the very fact that the petitioners are now seeking Vaccine Act funds for the cost of producing the article is a very strong indication that the article was litigation-driven.

If that wasn’t enough, the PSC argument backfired in another way:

If the article was produced “completely apart from [Dr. Geier’s] involvement in this [Vaccine Act] litigation,” and would have been produced even absent that litigation, that would seem to contradict the petitioners’ claim that paying the cost of producing the article was a necessary and reasonable cost of the Vaccine Act litigation.

How was the Young-Geier study used in the Omnibus? Was it persuasive? Answer: it wasn’t really used and it wasn’t persuasive.

The HHS/DOJ’s experts were critical of the Young-Geier study:

Perhaps the strongest factor leading to my result here is my conclusion that the Young-Geier article itself did not add any value to the petitioners’ causation presentation in this case. Two epidemiologic experts, both of them testifying for respondent, testified at the trial in this case concerning the merits of the Young-Geier article, and both testified that the article was deeply flawed.

Even the PSC’s own experts were not impressed by the Geiers in general:

And, very significantly, none of the petitioners’ five medical experts who testified at the trial offered any testimony in support of the validity of the Young-Geier article. It is especially striking that among petitioners’ experts was an expert who has excellent credentials in epidemiology, Dr. Sander Greenland. Dr. Greenland in fact testified negatively about the Geiers’ prior epidemiologic articles concerning the vaccine-autism controversy, describing those studies as“deficient in methodology.”

Prof. Greenland didn’t speak to the Young-Geier article directly, just their methods in other studies.  But the special master points out that this appears to be a trick on the part of the PSC to avoid having to defend the Young-Geier study on cross examination:

Yet they [the PSC] put Dr. Greenland on the witness stand in this King case on May 12, 2008 (Tr. 69-135), did not ask him about the article, and did not reveal the existence of the article to the special masters and respondent until May 16 (see fn. 6 above), thus ensuring that no one could ask Dr. Greenland about the Young-Geier article. From these circumstances, the most reasonable inference is that petitioners’ counsel deliberately intended to avoid any questioning of Dr. Greenland, their epidemiologic expert, about the Young-Geier article.

The special master concludes that the study did not add any value to the PSC’s case and “no rational hypothetical paying client” would have agreed to pay for the production of such a “flawed study”:

In short, the Young-Geier study itself was severely criticized by respondent’s experts, who articulated persuasive reasons for that criticism. In my own analysis, the Young-Geier study also appears flawed. And the other special masters who reviewed that article reached the same conclusion. Clearly, no rational “hypothetical paying client” of the PSC would have agreed to pay for the production of such a flawed study. Thus, the fact that the Young-Geier article did not add any value to the petitioners’ causation presentation in this case is a very strong reason why I should decline to compensate the PSC for the cost of producing the article.

The Special Master notes that given the long history of the Geiers in the vaccine program, it would be unreasonable to expect the program to pay for the cost of the study:

A review of prior legal opinions discussing the Geiers casts strong doubt on the reasonableness of compensating the cost of an article co-authored by them.

The Special Master then goes into detail of those decisions , with an entire section  of the decision dedicated to “Vaccine Act opinions concerning the general credibility of Dr. Geier as an expert witness” including subsections “Criticisms of Dr. Geier for offering testimony outside his area of medical specialty” and “Opinions questioning Dr. Geier’s honesty, candor, or veracity” and “Opinions declining compensation or substantially reducing compensation for Dr. Geier’s services”

If you get the time, read through those. They are highly critical. A condensed version of 20 years of highly critical comments about the actions of the Geiers in the vaccine program (mostly Mark Geier):

Criticism of the Geiers is not limited to their activities in the Vaccine Court. In “Judicial opinions outside of the Vaccine Act” they quote decisions stating “federal appellate court concluded that Dr. Geier gave erroneous testimony” and “state court found Dr. Geier’s testimony to be “unsubstantiated” and unpersuasive” and “federal court was “unimpressed with the qualifications, veracity, and bonafides” and, lastly, “federal judge stated that he was “unconvinced” that Dr. Geier was qualified to offer testimony concerning certain vaccine safety issues.”

The Special Master went into detail about previous flawed studies by the Geiers on vaccines and autism.  He also notes that the assertion that Dr. Geier is qualified as an epidemiologist is not supported:

Thus, Dr. Geier does not appear to have had any formal academic training or degrees or medical faculty experience in epidemiology, and his medical experience has been chiefly in genetics rather than epidemiology. Thus, it is unclear why he was named a “Fellow” of the American College of Epidemiology, and it is doubtful whether he should be considered an expert in epidemiology. I conclude that the petitioners have failed to shoulder their burden of demonstrating that Dr. Geier should be considered an expert in epidemiology.

and

Further, a number of judges and special masters have also examined Dr. Geier’s credentials, and have specifically concluded that Dr. Geier should not be considered an expert in epidemiology.

He awards fees, as a consultant not expert, for Mark Geier’s other efforts on the Omnibus:

Accordingly, I awarded $33,130.35 (147.246 hours times $225 per hour) for the services of Dr. Geier.

No mention of payment for David Geier or Heather Young.

The Special Master makes it clear that even this amount was grudgingly awarded. Given that *in the past* it was reasonable to hire Mark Geier as a consultant:

I note that it is not an easy judgment whether to award any funds for the services of Dr. Mark Geier in this case. On balance, I conclude that, in light of the cases awarding funds to Dr. Geier as a consultant (see p. 33 above), it was not unreasonable in this instance (several years ago) for the PSC to employ Dr. Geier for consultant services.

But, after 20 years, the vaccine program may have had enough of Mark Geier:

I will not likely be inclined to compensate attorneys in any future opinions for consultant work performed by Mark Geier after the publication date of this opinion.

(emphasis added)

If the court won’t pay his fees, the career of Mark Geier as an expert for vaccine injury cases is over. His son David is not likely to be taking his place, as he has not been considered even viable as a consultant by the special masters. As noted above, Mark Geier’s license to practice medicine has been suspended (in multiple states). David Geier was charged with practicing medicine without a license. One has to wonder if or how the Geiers will re-emerge on the autism/vaccine scene.

Michele Bachmann Loves Vaccines After All

8 Dec

Remember Michele Bachmann? Republican presidential candidate in the US? The one who raised a stir with her comments that the gardasil vaccine causes mental retardation?

Well, according to Benjy Sarlin at Talking Points Memo, she actually loves vaccines.

He writes:

Michele Bachman, who was condemned as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist after suggesting that Gardasil causes “mental retardation,” said Wednesday that she was in fact a big supporter of vaccines. Not only that, she thinks there are too many regulations on them.

She sees vaccines as “cures” which are a miracle and have changed the course of victory:

Bachmann told a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington that cures for polio and other diseases “literally changed the course of history and this was good.” Until the government got in the way, that is: “[T]he problem is that bureaucracy has risen up to such an extent that today because of the FDA and other measures we’re no longer seeing the miracle of cures that were coming forward,” she said.

Thank you, Ms. Bachmann. I don’t know if this will undo the damage you caused, but it is a good step forward.

Another example of a “leading scientist” on the supposed “vaccine safety” side

30 Nov

Earlier this year a meeting was held in Jamaica as the self-named “Vaccine Safety Conference”.

Part of the “mission” of the meeting was “The conference will bring together leading scientists whose research has raised concerns about aspects of vaccine safety”.

Aside from Andrew Wakefield, who were among the “leading scientists”? Lawrence Palevsky, MD, FAAP. Dr. Palevsky is a holistic practitioner. I.e., alternative medical practitioner. His talk? “Rethinking the germ theory”. Yes, germs are a theory. The idea that viruses and bacteria are the causes of diseases is something which, after a bachelor’s degree and an MD, deserves more than a moment’s question.

Why?

Acute symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, cough, runny nose, mucus production and wheezing, are all important ways in which children discharge stored accumulations of wastes or toxins from their bodies. These toxins enter and are stored in their bodies from repeated exposures to in utero, air, food, water, skin, nervous system stress, and injected materials, that for whatever reason, don’t easily exit their bodies through the normal means of detoxification. These toxins are too irritating to children’s bodies and must be removed. Eventually, a critical level of the toxins is reached, and children get sick with symptoms to purge them. Children, therefore, must be allowed to be sick, in order for them to get well.

Emphasis added.

You see, it isn’t the germs that cause disease. It is the build up of toxins. Children develop symptoms in order to purge the toxins.

How does one treat illness? In specific, how does one deal with fevers? Well, since “Dr. Palevsky does not recommend the use of over-the-counter medicine for fever reduction. He does not believe these medicines are safe for human consumption…” one should embrace fevers as an opportunity to purge toxins. So, instead of using these over-the-counter drugs to alleviate discomfort (or to ward off a really high fever, or protect your seizure prone kid from going into status epliepticus…) one can

To help your child feel better with the symptoms of fever, use one drop of lavender or German chamomile essential oil rubbed undiluted on the tops of both ears, and in the space between the largest vertebrae in the base of their neck and the vertebrae below it.

If there’s evidence and a good theory for that, it isn’t cited by the good doctor.

But wait, there’s more. Put your kid to bed with wet socks on. No, I am not making this up:

Use the wet sock treatment after the warm bath: put a pair of wet, cool, cotton socks on your child’s feet, followed by a pair of dry, wool socks, and put your child to bed. Dr. Palevsky thanks his naturopathic physician colleagues for this smart therapeutic intervention. Many parents report how much it helps to improve their children’s symptoms of fever and upper respiratory issues.

Once again, if there is a hypothesis (much less evidence) for why sleeping with wet socks is therapeutic, it isn’t discussed on his website.

I’ll leave with this paragraph talking about his speaking engagements:

Attendees will also learn that the expression of these symptoms is not necessarily caused by bacteria and viruses. Instead, these symptoms and illnesses occur as a sign our children are healthy; that their bodies are working to bring to the surface, and cleanse, any accumulation of wastes from deep inside, perhaps even with the aid of bacteria and viruses. You will come to understand that we are harming children with the constant use of over-the-counter medications, antibiotics, drugs and vaccines that treat and suppress common and necessary childhood symptoms and illnesses.

Yes, we should welcome these helping viruses and bacteria in our quest to cleanse ourselves of toxins.

Boggles the mind.

Mum’s plea: ‘Don’t miss MMR’ jab

17 Nov

The past couple of weeks has seen a lot of stories on vaccines again here at Left Brain/Right Brain. We’d all like to move along, but stories like “Mum’s plea: ‘Don’t miss MMR’ jab” just point out some of the real dangers involved, the real risks taken, when people don’t vaccinate.

Yes, there are people who can not vaccinate. Those of us who can vaccinate owe those people whatever protection we can offer.

She said confusion over the research by Dr Andrew Wakefield in the 1990s, which suggested the jabs could cause autism and bowel cancer, had convinced her not to allow her child to be inoculated.

However the 15-year-old was left in intensive care after being struck down with mumps.

His mother, who asked not to be named, said : “The doctor said to me it that if he didn’t have the MMR he would probably be okay because there would never be an epidemic.

There are a number of themes that come up repeatedly in discussions of vaccination online. Yes, Andrew Wakefield’s research has frightened (and continues to frighten) parents away from vaccination. Yes, there are doctors and parents counting on herd immunity to protect children (think Dr. Sears). Yes, these diseases are still dangerous, even in the developed world (for another example, read the story And another SSPE case: Angelina is dying and So predictable – so sad, Natalie dies of SSPE)

read the rest (it is relatively short) here.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →