Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

PACE study confirms autism prevalence

11 May

The legal study published by anti-vaxxers and law students yesterday claims that 80 cases show definite autism. If we accept that as true (which I don’t, but there we go) this is an autism prevalence amongst the population of claimants of just over 3%. As we all know, a recent study puts the Korean prevalence as just under 3%. Close enough on behalf of the legal claims, when we allow for their dodgy definitions to be a match.

Or maybe we can be a little more exact. As Kim Wombles noted yesterday, 39 cases confirmed beyond parental anecdote equals a prevalence of 1.5%. Half a percentage over the UK official prevalence.

So what does this mean? It basically means that all things being equal, whichever prevalence figures you like to use (Korean or UK), this law study shows that amongst the population of claimants, there are no more autistic people than one would expect.

But surely, what we should be looking at is if vaccines caused autism in these cases?

OK, lets do that (thanks to Sullivan for spotting these):

From the paper:

[R]espondent’s report. . .suggests vaguely. . .that Kenny’s problems ‘can be attributed in part to other causes such as a family history of epilepsy, autism and tonsillar hypotrophy. . .Dr. Spiro did not even purport to know what did cause Kenny’s seizure disorder;? his basic point was that in his view the DTP did not cause it.”

From the case notes:

In this regard, respondent’s report (filed September 7, 1990) suggests vaguely (p. 5) that Kenny’s problems “can be attributed in part to other causes such as a family history [*18] of epilepsy, autism and tonsillar hypotrophy.” But in the attached expert report, upon which respondent based that assertion, Dr. Spiro candidly admitted (p. 2) that he can only “speculate” as to such possibilities. And certainly at the hearing, Dr. Spiro did not even purport to know what did cause Kenny’s seizure disorder; his basic point was that in his view the DTP did not cause it.

While Dr. Kaufhold notes Dr. Schmidt’s initial impression of infantile autism, she does not list autism among her impressions, but rather says Travis is significantly developmentally delayed to a degree not yet ascertained. Other medical personnel appear to use the term “autism” or “autistic” synonymously with “aphasia” or the absence of the ability
to speak. See, e.g., Pet. Ex. 7 at 148; Pet. Ex. 7 at 208; Pet. Ex. 7 at 393.

Here is an interesting statement:

While Dr. Schultz believes that Travis suffers from some autistic-like features, he does not now nor has he ever believed that Travis suffers from true autism.

In this case, Dr. Schultz is the doctor of the petitioner: Travis Underwood. Travis is child 7 in the PACE table. Here is how Holland et al. quoted that decision:

“In addition, respondent noted that Travis’ medical records indicate that he suffered from mental retardation and autism. These conditions, according to respondent, are not related to the residual seizure disorder.”

Dr. Schultz also said:

Moreover, Dr. Schultz testified that Travis is distinguishable from children with true autism because he (1) seeks affection; (2) makes eye contact; (3) doesn’t require sameness in routine as usually found with autistic children; and (4) doesn’t engage in twirling, flinging and other self-stimulatory behaviors to the same degree as autistic children.

So, next time someone tells you ‘autistic-like’ features or ‘features of autism’ are the same things as autism, tell them to look at the cases in question.

When the science fails you, turn to the legal option

10 May

A news conference today will confirm that autism/anti-vaccine groups have lost the scientific battle for the idea that vaccines cause autism as they turn to the legal battle instead.

…a new report in a New York law school journal, the Pace Environmental Law Review, could reignite the often-inflammatory debate over the issue. Based on a sampling of cases in which plaintiffs won settlements or awards in vaccine court, the authors found that many of the victims demonstrated evidence of autism – even though, perhaps as a legal tactic, their lawsuits emphasized other injuries.

Readers of this site might be forgiven for looking and yawning – here we go again. This is nothing but re-hash of already discussed material. But lets look at the main claim of this issue:

Of the 170 cases the report’s authors examined, 32, or 19 percent, provided documented evidence of autism or autism-like symptoms. The evidence in some cases included findings by the court that the children had autism, “autism-like symptoms” or “symptoms and behavior consistent with autism.” In other situations, third-party medical, educational or other court records confirmed an autistic disorder.

The report – at least in this news story – doesn’t seem to mention how many children were compensated for having autism. As we all kow ‘autism like symptoms’ or ‘symptoms and behavior consistent with autism.’ might be just that – but they are not autism. If they were I’m sure the court would’ve reported it.

And thats not all. Nobody seems to be giving an estimate for how many of these kids actual autism (not autism-like symptoms etc) was actually caused by an actual vaccine.

And thats *still* not all. One of the most problematic issues for this new ‘line of attack’ is this.

Daubert. This is the standard of science that should be used in legal cases. When Daubert is applied, the bottom line is that the best science must be applied. In _none_ of these cases was Daubert applied. In fact, in only one instance was Daubert applied – the Autism Omnibus hearings. And as we all know, they failed.

So here we have a fairly desperate roll of the dice. Eschewing science completely, the autism/anti-vaxxers have decided to turn their attention to the law. By muddying the legal waters, they are attempting to make it appear as if autism by any other name has been compensated in at least 19% of the cases they looked at.

The truth is, it hasn’t. The truth is that in no cases I can see has a case been established scientifically to show vaccines cause autism.

Ageing in autism

6 May

A new paper highlights the issue with geriatric populations in autism.

At present, one of the major challenges is that the majority of the currently older individuals with ASD has not received a formal diagnosis of ASD, and this would be dif?cult to establish using the currently recommended diagnostic assessments, because for many of them, neurodevelopmental history would be hard to obtain. The diagnosis of ASD in children involves both the parents and the child contributing…

You see, nobody working the field of geriatric psychology has any doubt that there is a large population of autistic people within the geriatric population:

Many adult and older subjects with ASD remain undiagnosed and thus are largely unknown to specialist services. [M]any have survived childhood and adulthood by either being fully supported by their family or holding jobs in
protected environment, enabling them to function ‘normally’, and thus escaping the ASD diagnosis. In support for this are the three recent case reports on diagnosing older people with ASD indicating that the standard clinical screenings used in childhood had to be modi?ed and adapted for ?rst?time diagnosis of ASD in older individuals.

As also published recently, it is becoming clearer that there is in fact, no ‘autism epidemic’ and that, in point of fact, research shows:

…nearly one percent of Britons older than 16 years have autism, a rate that is similar to that seen in children. Younger people were no more likely to be affected than older ones, however, which would have been expected if the condition were truly on the increase.

So what can we take from this? Being who I am and having the interests I have I take two main things:

1) Vaccines haven’t caused an epidemic of autism because an epidemic of autism does not in fact exist.

2) There is a large amount of undiagnosed adults with autism who need our help now. They are in community homes (group homes I believe they are referred to as in the US) or living with very elderly relatives. The majority are in situations where their autism is not recognised and not diagnosed. How do we help them?

The University of Newcastle held a Workshop Meeting ‘to reach a consensus on he need for new initiatives in this area.’ and came away with the following points:

1 Prevalence rates of older people with ASD (a prerequisite for planning service needs and placements)
2 Determine life expectancy, behavioural changes and cognitive changes with ageing in ASD
3 Data regarding health problems common in ASD, clinical assessments and treatment of seriously medically ill and frail older individuals with ASD
4 Information whether and how the characteristic clinical symptomatology of ASD change with age
5 Problems diagnosing older individuals with ASD not known to services and development of diagnostic tools for this purpose
6 Diagnosing cognitive impairment and dealing with challenging behaviour in nursing homes
7 Increasing need for advocacy and mental capacity assessments
8 Need to identify services, support and resources for older people with ASD
9 Design of adequate environment for older individuals with ASD
10 Neuroimaging studies in older individuals with ASD
11 Biobanking facilities (cerebrospinal fluid, blood/blood derivates and brain donations) and facilitating research

We should all be aware of the needs of elderly autistic people and try and find a way to help I think. How we should do this is vital. The first step must be the recognition that the idea of an autism epidemic marginalises them.

Four Somali children die of measles

5 May

Dr. Abdirahman D. Mohamed, the chief of staff at Axis Medical Center in Minneapolis, said last month he knew of four unvaccinated Somali children who had died from measles.

Source

This appalling news comes hot on the heels of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Andrew Wakefield’s visit to the Somali community in the US to promote his fraudulent anti-MMR ‘studies’. Generation Rescue has also attended to the Somali community in Minneapolis.

Antivaccine groups have noticed. In November, J. B. Handley…wrote an open letter to “Courageous Somali Parents.”

He warned them not to trust the state health department and suggested they slow down their children’s shots and get exemptions to school vaccination requirements. He also offered to pay for some to attend an antivaccine conference.

All these people and groups should now reap the harvest of what they have sown. Death. Preventable death.

Do we have to wait for someone to be injured to call a practice unsafe?

5 May

Mark Geier has had his license to practice medicine suspended in his home state of Maryland. The Chicago Tribune (which has discussed Mark Geier and his “lupron protocol”) has a story discussing this: Trib Update: Md. suspends autism doctor’s license.

These paragraphs stood out when I read them:

In some cases, the board found that Geier diagnosed the children with precocious puberty and prescribed Lupron and other hormone-disrupting drugs without examining them or conducting proper tests. Some of these children were within the normal age range for puberty, so they couldn’t have qualified for such a diagnosis, the board found.

Geier, who is not allowed to practice in Maryland while the case is pending, declined comment, instead referring questions to an attorney. The attorney, Joseph A. Schwartz III, said that at the root of the complaint was a “bona fide dispute over therapy” rather than a case of a doctor who is an immediate threat to patients.

“If you read the (complaint), you say, ‘Holy God, this is awful.’ But if it were so awful they should have an injured child, and they don’t. I would hope that the board would step back and say, ‘Maybe there’s a lot of controversy and he’s not in the mainstream.’ But let’s test these allegations in a fair hearing. It’s just like shadow-boxing with allegations that sound awful but when you delve into the facts of them you say, ‘What’s the big deal here?’” Schwartz said.

“But if it were so awful they should have an injured child”

Do we really have to wait for someone to be injured? Clearly, the answer is no. “An immediate threat” is different from “has already caused harm”.

Let’s address this question: “What’s the big deal here?” Let’s address it in short, easily digested statements, centering around the fact that this is a breach of ethics, not a question of treatment modalities.

Here are a few “big deals” which come to mind readily:

1) diagnosing children with a condition they do not have (precocious puberty)
2) not performing the follow through to see if children have brain tumors, which would be possible if the diagnosis were real.
3) doing (1) to justify a very serious medication for the disabled children
4) allowing an untrained/unlicensed person to perform examinations

Mr. Geier is very lucky that no one was injured. His original methodology included giving

Here is the paragraph on “use” for Lupron:

LUPRON DEPOT?PED® (leuprolide acetate for depot suspension) 7.5 mg, 11.25 mg and 15 mg are prescribed for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty (CPP). Doctors may diagnose children with CPP when signs of sexual maturity begin to develop in girls under the age of 8 or boys under the age of 9. Doctors will also perform tests to rule out possible causes of CPP that would require different treatment (e.g., tumors).

One issue that came up was Mr. Geier’s lack of followup testing. Having diagnosed precocious puberty, he should have ordered tests to rule out brain tumors. These were not performed. This makes one question: did he actually believe the diagnoses himself or was he just negligent in calling for the brain scans?

Something caught my eye that I hadn’t seen before. Notice the pediatric dosage: 7.5, 11.25 and 15 mg. This is the same dosage that the Geiers note in their patent application: US20070254314A1: Methods of treating autism and autism spectrum disorders.

Check the dosages given to some children:

On Nov. 24, 2004, Child X was given a single shot of LUPRON DEPOT® (leuprolide acetate, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Osaka, Japan) in the amount of 22.5 mg.

On Apr. 2, 2005, Child Y was given a single shot of LUPRON DEPOT® (leuprolide acetate, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Osaka, Japan) in the amount of 22.5 mg.

Perhaps the pediatric doses were larger back then. I’d be very interested to know, as these children were given dosages above the maximum listed values.

In an interesting side note in this story. Mark Geier’s son, David, was appointed to a position on the Maryland state’s autism commission as a “diagnostician”. Apparently his position is being reviewed and he has been asked to resign:

Gov. Martin O’Malley appointed David Geier in 2009 to the state’s Commission on Autism as a “diagnostician,” a decision state officials are now reviewing. David Paulson, a spokesman for the state health department, said David Geier declined Wednesday to resign from the position.

Maryland Board of Phyicians: Mark Geier “endangers autistic children and exploits their parents”

4 May

Dr. Mark Geier is well known in the world of alternative medicine and autism. He, together with his son David, work a medical practice and publish papers. They are long-standing proponents of the vaccine-causation hypothesis, presenting pseudo-epidemiological studies as support. Dr. Geier has worked as a witness in the vaccine court, has has a long history of criticism for his work there.

One of the stranger notions Dr. Geier has put forth involves testosterone. In their model of autism, testosterone binds with mercury in the brain and makes it difficult to remove through chelation. For many, many reasons, this was just plain wrong. Based on their mistaken hypothesis, the Geiers have promoted a treatment for autism based on reducing testosterone in autistic children. In short, they put children on an injected drug: Lupron.

This idea has met with much criticism. Probably no one has studied the Geier’s and their actions more closely than Kathleen Seidel on her blog at Neurodiversity.com. Five years ago and more she exposed the “Lupron Protocol” in a sixteen partseries called

Significant Misrepresentations: Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol.

Well, it isn’t just one of the best bloggers saying it anymore. The Maryland Board of Physicians has investigated Dr. Geier and Dr. Geier has now had his license suspended.

Here is part of the Order for Summary Suspension:

The Respondent misdiagnosed autistic children with precocious puberty and other genetic abnormalities and treated them with potent hormonal therapy (“Lupron Therapy” or “Lupron Protocol”), and in some instances, chelation therapy, both of which have a substantial risk of both short-term and long-term adverse side effects. The Respondent’s treatment exposed the children to needless risk of harm.

The introduction goes on.

The Respondent, in addition to being a physician, is certified as a genetic counselor. His assessment and treatment of autistic children, as described herein, however, far exceeds his qualifications and expertise. The extensive and expensive batteries of laboratory studies the Respondent initially orders, many of which he orders to be repeated on a monthly basis, are outside the standard of quality care for a work-up for an autistic patient or to determine the underlying cause of autism. The Respondent failed to conduct adequate physical examinations of any of the patients and in several instances, began his Lupron Protocol based merely on a telephone consultation with the child’s parent and the results of selected laboratory tests he ordered. The Respondent’s omission of a comprehensive physical examination constitutes a danger because his treatment is based on a diagnosis that requires documentation of sexual development beyond that expected for the age of the child. Moreover, his treatment may constitute more of a risk to a child with an underlying medical condition.
The Respondent failed to provide adequate informed consent to the parents of the autistic children he treated. In one (1) instance, he misrepresented that his treatment protocol had been approved by a federally approved IRB.
There are no evidence-based studies to support either the Respondent’s Lupron Protocol or his administration of chelation therapy to autistic children; he relies in large part on his own studies which have been wholly discredited by the Institute of Medicine and denounced by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Respondent’s treatment of autistic children with his Lupron Protocol and chelation therapy is not limited to Maryland. Indeed, in a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, the Respondent stated his intent to open clinics all over the United States, H[w]e plan to open everywhere. I am going to treat as many as I can.

The introduction ends with this paragraph:

The Respondent endangers autistic children and exploits their parents by administering to the children a treatment protocol that has a known substantial risk of serious harm and which is neither consistent with evidence-based medicine nor generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

Pretty much sums it up. There are numerous counts and details listed in the full document. Below I’ll highlight some specific statements.

Patient A, a child whose mother stated aggression was not a problem, was reported as having aggression and self-injurious behaviors:

Notwithstanding Patient A’s mother’s report that aggression was not a problem with Patient A, the Respondent noted in the “Precious (sic) Puberty Evaluation” section of the form that Patient A, “bites and punches others; hits head with hands.”

As with many (if not all of the children) listed in the order, the diagnosis of precocious puberty was not considered valid:

45. The Respondent misdiagnosed Patient A with premature puberty. Significantly, Patient A did not meet the age criteria for premature puberty.
46. In addition, the results of Patient A’s laboratory studies do not support the Respondent’s diagnosis. The Respondent reported that Patient A’s testosterone metabolites were “significantly increased;” however, the results of Patient A’s luteinizing hormone (“LH”) were only marginally elevated, and his free testosterone and DHEA were within range for a ten (10) year old male.

One question that is often raised with alternative medical practitioners is the validity of their diagnoses. Quite often this involves diagnoses of “heavy metal toxicity” using non-standard tests. In the case of the Geier’s, there is also the validity of diagnoses of “precocious puberty”. There are standards for age, and for tests which should be performed. Reading the order, it is clear that age requirements were often ignored. Bone density tests were often not performed:

The Respondent failed to assess Patient B’s bone age, assess the child’s growth velocity or order a GnRH test to confirm the presumptive diagnosis of precocious puberty.

Also, the signs of precocious puberty could be due to a brain tumor. Yet brain scans were not performed. This from Patient E:

In addition, the Respondent failed to assess Patient E’s skeletal maturation by ordering an x-ray of her left wrist and he failed to order a scan of her brain in order to rule out a tumor.

Another question that often comes up with the Geier practice is what role David Geier plays. David Geier holds only a bachelor’s degree. He is not a physician. Patient C appears to have been examined by David Geier, with Dr. Mark Geier absent:

Patient C’s mother returned to the Respondent’s office on May 19, 2008 because of the worsening of Patient C’s aggressive behaviors. According to her complaint, the Respondent was not present during this office visit, She saw only his unlicensed son.

And, yet, the child was given “comprehensive” abdominal and thyroid ultrasounds at the visit:

The note of the visit indicates that “comprehensive” abdominal and thyroid ultrasounds were performed. Patient C’s physical appearance is described as suggesting “advancement from his chronological age” and that he appeared to be “potentially significantly physically aggressive to himself and/or others.”

and something akin to a diagnosis was rendered:

A portion of the “Psychological Examination” section of the note states, “It is apparent based upon examination of the DSM-IV criteria that [Patient Crs present symptoms are compatible with a diagnosis of pervasive developmental delay – not otherwise specific (sic).”

One problem with research performed by the Geier’s is the lack of an appropriate IRB–institutional review board. Dr. Geier placed himself, his wife and his son on the IRB. Not noted in the Order is the timing of the IRB. If memory serves correctly, there is evidence that the IRB was put into place after research began.

An IRB must consist of at least five (5) members. The ICI IRB’s members include the Respondent, his son and the Respondent’s wife. The ICI IRB is inconsistent with the requirement that a member should not have a conflict of interest in the research project.

The Order includes discussion that “The Respondent [Mark Geier] Misrepresented His Credentials”. When the investigative board interviewed him, here is how Dr. Geier described himself:

On November 6, 2007, in furtherance of the Board’s investigation, Board staff interviewed the Respondent. During the interview, the Respondent stated that he was a board-certified geneticist and a board-certified epidemiologist. The Respondent stated that he had been board-certified in epidemiology in 2007.

However, “board certified” and “geneticist” seem to be incorrect:

As to being a board-certified epidemiologist, this appears to be inaccurate:

166. By letter dated March 29, 2011, the Respondent, through counsel, submitted to the Board a “Fellowship Certificate” from the American College of Epidemiology (“ACE”). The ACE is a professional association whose policy on admission is “inclusiveness.” An ACE fellow is not required to have a degree in epidemiology, a degree in a “related field” is sufficient.
167. The Respondent knew, or reasonably should have known, that he was not board-certified in epidemiology.

As to being a “geneticist”, Dr. Geier is a “genetic counselor”, a different creature:

168. By letter dated March 29, 2011, the Respondent, through counsel, also submitted to the Board a certificate issued by the American Board of Medical Genetics on September 15, 1987 certifying the Respondent as a Genetic Counselor.
169. The term “genetic counselor” is not synonymous with “geneticist.” A geneticist, or medical geneticist, is a physician who evaluates a patient for genetic conditions, which may include performing a physical examination and ordering tests. A genetic counselor is an individual with a masters degree who helps to educate the patient and provides an assessment of the risk of the condition recur in the family.
170. The Respondent knew, or reasonably should have known, that he was not a board-certified geneticist.

Geneticist/genetic counselor and whether he is board certified in epidemiology or not are interesting but minor questions compared to the board findings of misconduct in treating disabled children. So it comes as no surprise that it is ordered:

Based on the foregoing, it is this 27th day of April , 2011, by a majority of the quorum of the Board:
ORDERED that pursuant to the authority vested by Md. State Gov’t Code Ann., § 1 0-226( c)(2), the Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Maryland be and is hereby SUMMARILY SUSPENDED;

Mr. Mark Geier is at present unable to practice medicine in his home state of Maryland.

kathleen Seidel has already blogged this: Maryland Medical Board Suspends Dr. Mark Geier’s License

Discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield in the NYT

21 Apr

NYT

The more he must defend his research, the more important he seems to consider it — so important that powerful forces have conspired and aligned against him. He said he believes that “they” — public-health officials, pharmaceutical companies — pay bloggers to plant vicious comments about him on the Web. “Because it’s always the same,” he says. “Discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield, discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield.” He also “wouldn’t be surprised” if public-health officials were inflating the number of measles mortalities…

D’OH!!!!

Lack of Correlation Between Metallic Elements Analyzed in Hair by ICP-MS and Autism

21 Apr

One of the theories behind the mecury-causes-autism hypothesis was that autistics are “poor excreters”. In other words, they can’t rid their bodies of mercury in the same way as other people. The idea has never had much scientific backing. One idea has been to measure hair for metals. I have read arguments that if there is more mercury in the hair than for an average person, that means that the individual is a poor excreter. I have also read that if their is less mercury in the hair, that means that the individual is a poor excreter. I have read that if the individual has the same amount of mercury, but that other metals meet some “counting rules” that means the individual is a poor excreter. In other words, no matter what data you get, someone will tell you that your kid has a problem excreting mercury.

The question has been studied. Hair has been analyzed. Fingernails have been analyzed. Toenails have been analyzed. In the recent study, hair has been analyzed, and the researchers did a meta-analysis of past studies. Result: there is no correlation between metal content in the hair and autism.

Lack of Correlation Between Metallic Elements Analyzed in Hair by ICP-MS and Autism.
De Palma G, Catalani S, Franco A, Brighenti M, Apostoli P.

Department of Experimental and Applied Medicine, Section of Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene, University of Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili 1, 25123, Brescia, Italy, depalma@med.unibs.it.
Abstract

A cross-sectional case-control study was carried out to evaluate the concentrations of metallic elements in the hair of 44 children with diagnosis of autism and 61 age-balanced controls. Unadjusted comparisons showed higher concentrations of molybdenum, lithium and selenium in autistic children. Logistic regression analysis confirmed the role of risk factor for male gender and showed a slight association with molybdenum concentrations. Unconventional chelation and vitamin-mineral supplementation were ineffective on elemental hair concentrations. A meta-analysis including the present and previous similar studies excluded any association of autism with hair concentrations of mercury, cadmium, selenium, lithium and copper. A slight association was found for lead only, but it was very weak, as strictly dependent on the worst data from one study.

Autism is not mercury poisoning. It just isn’t. And here we have more money and more researcher time spent on a project that tells us what we already know. I’m glad to have researchers look at autism and I thank this team. But we’ve spent enough on that question, it is really time to move on.

Questions in advance of study analyzing vaccine court cases for autism

20 Apr

A study is in review looking at the records of the vaccine court and, purportedly, showing that a large number of the cases compensated involve autistics. Robert Kennedy Jr. was prepared to give a press conference on the paper, but this got called off. There has been chatter about a study like this for a few years now and I’ve been curious about what the results would be. I was then curious why the chatter basically died down.

The big question I would have for the author of this study and for Mr. Kennedy should he get his press conference is: how many of these children were compensated for a residual seizure disorder following DPT vaccination?

Why ask that question? The “table” is a list of reactions which the Court will assume are vaccine-caused if they happen within the prescribed time after vaccination. The table is created with the best knowledge available at the time. What happens when the best knowledge available changes? After much deliberation, the table changes. That’s what happened to residual seizure disorders as an injury for DPT vaccines. It was part of the original table, but as new research came out showing that residual seizure disorders were not a risk from DPT vaccines, it was removed from the table.

This isn’t a small issue. The idea that residual seizure disorders could be caused following DPT vaccination are basically what created the Vaccine Act, the special Court and the rest of the program as we know it today.

As of today, there have been 2,699 cases compensated within the program. Of those, by far the largest share is due to the DPT vaccine, with 1,267 compensated claims. That’s 47%. Pretty high percentage especially when you consider the DPT (the whole cell vaccine) was discontinued 15 years ago.

Let’s say that there are a lot of cases in the court where autistics have been compensated for injury. How many of these people were compensate for what was an incorrect assumption of fault? Epilepsy is common in autistics. It is certainly reasonable to think that a number of autistics were compensated for residual seizure disorders.

It will be interesting to see how they address this question in the paper, if they address it at all. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Kennedy addresses this problem, if he addresses it at all.

If you want more details on the history, here is some of it, with some links.

Take a look at the original vaccine injury table (from the mid-late 1980’s) for the DPT vaccine:

DTP; P; DTP/Polio Combination; or Any Other Vaccine Containing Whole Cell Pertussis Bacteria, Extracted or Partial Cell Bacteria, or Specific Pertussis Antigen(s).
Illness, disability, injury, or condition covered: Time period for first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration:
A. Anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock 24 hours
B. Encephalopathy (or encephalitis) 3 days
C. Shock-collapse or hypotonic-hyporesponsive collapse 3 days
D. Residual seizure disorder in accordance with subsection (b)(2) 3 days
E. Any acute complication or sequela (including death) of an illness, disability, injury, or condition referred to above which illness, disability, injury, or condition arose within the time period prescribed

Take a look at the table now for pertussis containing vaccines:

I. Tetanus toxoid-containing vaccines (e.g., DTaP, Tdap, DTP-Hib, DT, Td, TT)
A. Anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock 1 0-4 hours
B. Brachial neuritis 6 2-28 days
C. Any acute complication or sequela (including death) of above events 4 Not applicable

It’s a lot shorter. Note specifically that “Residual seizure disorder” is now gone. Here is how residual seizure disorderwas defined:

(B) in the case of any other vaccine, the first seizure or convulsion occurred within 3 days after administration of the vaccine and 2 or more seizures or convulsions occurred within 1 year after the administration of the vaccine which were unaccompanied by fever or accompanied by a fever of less than 102 degrees Fahrenheit.

The change came in 1995. The reasons were not arbitrary, as noted here in the announcement in the Federal Register. They were working from recently published and studies:

During the process of analyzing the comments received in response to the NPRM, the Agency became aware of the imminent publication of a 10-year follow-up study to the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) (Madge N., Diamond J., Miller D., Ross E., McManus C., Wadsworth J., Yule W. The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A 10-year follow-up. A report of the medical, social, behavioural and educational outcomes after serious, acute, neurologic illness in early childhood. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1993; Supplement No. 68;35(7):1–118; Miller D.L., Madge N., Diamond J., Wadsworth J., Ross E. Pertussis immunization and serious acute neurological illness in children. British Medical Journal 1993; 307:1171– 1176, hereinafter ‘‘Miller study.’’).

Because the Miller study looked specifically at the relationship between vaccine administration and subsequent neurological damage, the Department determined that it should not proceed with publication of the final rule until there had been a sufficient opportunity to consider the conclusions of the new Miller study. Accordingly, the Department asked the IOM to convene a Committee for purposes of evaluating the Miller study in light of the conclusions of its initial report. On March 2, 1994, the Institute of Medicine issued a report entitled ‘‘DPT Vaccine and Chronic Nervous System Dysfunction: A New Analysis.’’

The pubmed link to the NCES study (Madge et al) is here. The Miller study is available in full here. The IOM report is here.

To pull one short quote out as to why the table changed:

The consensus of the Commission was that the original table in the statute requires modification to make it consistent with current medical and scientific knowledge regarding adverse events associated with certain vaccines.

Basically, they found that the research which had been used for the first Vaccine Injury Table was wrong to assume cause for residual seizure disorders following DPT vaccines. Again, I await the chance to see if the upcoming paper addresses this important issue. If a large number of the autistics were compensated for an injury which modern science says isn’t really an injury, the readers of the study need to know this.

93% of US parents trust vaccinations

19 Apr

“Celebrities have no expertise in childhood immunizations or infectious disease,” Freed said. “There is a danger in the media of putting up celebrities as experts on any topic for which they have an opinion, and giving them a platform to share their opinions that is presented as equal to true experts.”

In the first survey, published in the May issue of Pediatrics, researchers used data from a 2009 nationally representative sample of about 1,550 parents of children aged 17 and younger.

About 76 percent of parents said they trusted their child’s doctor “a lot,” 22 percent said they had “some” trust, while only 2 percent said they didn’t trust the doctor.

Parents also trusted other health-care providers and government vaccine experts, but not as much as doctors.

Two percent of parents said they trusted celebrities “a lot,” 24 percent said they trusted celebrities somewhat for vaccine information, and 74 percent said they trusted celebrities “not at all.” Women and Hispanics were more likely to trust celebrities.

A second survey by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in the same journal used 2009 survey data from parents of children under the age of 6.

Nearly 75 percent of parents reported their youngest child had received all of the recommended vaccines; another 19 percent said their child would receive the vaccines.

About 79 percent of parents were either confident or very confident in vaccine safety, and about 80 percent said they thought vaccines were important for a child’s health.

But parents still have their concerns. About 22 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that they were concerned about “too many vaccines potentially damaging a child’s immune system,” according to the study.

When asked how many shots parents were comfortable with their child receiving in a single doctor’s visit, 42 percent said one to two; 34 percent said three to four; and 23 percent said “whatever the doctor recommends.”

The authors suggest that pediatricians listen to parents’ concerns and direct them to appropriate resources for information.

“It’s encouraging that in this survey the overwhelming majority said they will get all of their immunizations. That’s a wonderful thing,” said Dr. David Kimberlin, a professor of pediatrics at University of Alabama at Birmingham and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The noise out there that seems to question vaccine safety is increasingly being discounted and being discounted in a very public way.”

Source.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →