Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

Sharyl Attkisson blogs the Hannah Poling settlement

10 Sep

I had forgotten Sharyl Attkisson. She is a reporter for CBS news who has covered vaccines in the past, but has been silent on the issue for the past year or more.

Her recent piece shows exactly the sort of reporting that frustrated me in the past: Family to Receive $1.5M in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award

In that piece she links to her piece from 2008 on the Hannah Poling case: Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent?

Here’s a quote from that earlier piece:

While the Poling case is the first of its kind to become public, a CBS News investigation uncovered at least nine other cases as far back as 1990, where records show the court ordered the government compensated families whose children developed autism or autistic-like symptoms in children including toddlers who had been called “very smart” and “impressed” doctors with their “intelligence and curiosity” … until their vaccinations.

They were children just like Hannah Poling.

What’s still being debated is whether the Poling case is an exception … or a precedent.

So, which is it? Were there children “just like Hannah Poling” or is this the “First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award”?

Actually, it is neither. This isn’t the first vaccine court award involving autism, and the other cases are not “just like Hannah Poling”.

For real information on the other nine cases, read Kathleen Seidel’s piece on Neurodiversity.com. Few, professional or amateur, can compare the the thoroughness of Kathleen Seidel. For example, one case (the first I read involving autism from the vaccine court) is Suel v. HHS. Young David Suel had tuberous sclerosis, a condition known to be associated with autism and epilepsy. Epilepsy occurs in about 60 to 90% of individuals with TS. Autism occurs in about 25-50%. David Suel’s case was declared to be a “table injury” wherein the seizures began within a set period after his DPT vaccination. What is notable about that is the table for DPT was later changed–when it was shown that DPT was not responsible for inducing seizure disorders. In other words, had David Suel been vaccinated, or just filed, after the change in the table, he likely would not have been awarded damages.

“They were children just like Hannah Poling”? Is tuberous sclerosis just like mitochondrial disease? (answer: not even close).

Shall we go on? In her recent piece, Ms. Attkisson states:

In 2002, Hannah’s parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed

Not accurate. The court did not “settle” the case in 2007. They conceded the case, and they were in the process of completing the settlement when someone leaked the information to the press. The government did not “seal” the case–it is standard procedure to keep this information confidential until the settlement is completed.

But that doesn’t make a good story, does it?

Ms. Attkisson goes on:

In acknowledging Hannah’s injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn’t “cause” her autism, but “resulted” in it. It’s unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism “test cases” have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.

Mito-autism was a big thing for a while there. David Kirby took the story and ran with it–making a lot of mistakes along the way and propagating a lot of misinformation. It is unknown how many other children have similar disorders–but the researchers who studied cases like Hannah Poling have stated that cases such as hers are “rare”.

“All other autism “test cases” have been defeated at trial”.

What is conspicuous about the other “test cases” is that in none of them was it argued that the children were like Hannah Poling–i.e. the attorneys did not argue that a mechanism of autism through mitochondrial dysfunction aggravated by vaccines existed. In fact, one child named as a test case was pulled from that slot in order to argue that mitochondrial based case. The expert report filed for that child (since pulled from the Omnibus website) did not argue mitochondrial disorder or dysfunction at that time. In other words, the idea of a mitochondrial disorder being linked to autism was so alien from the cases being made by the attorneys for the families in the Omnibus that this child had to argue the case separately.

It is often pointed out that many autistics may have mitochondrial dysfunction. This is based largely on studies out of Portugal. It is left implied, and it is often believed that mitochondrial dysfunction means vaccine injury in these cases. This was the impression that David Kirby put forth and it was clearly wrong. First, mitochondrial disorders are a very broad spectrum. The type that Hannah Poling has is not the same as those detected in most autistics. Second, most reports of mitochondrial disorders and autism, including the Portugal studies, do not involve regression. Third, even amongst those children reported by the groups that identified Hannah Poling, regression was often idiopathic or followed fever clearly independent of vaccination.

I do not expect Ms. Attkisson to present the following (quality) information, so I will repeat it here:

Here are the answers to some questions posted to mitochondrial medicine experts and their answers:

When asked, to respond to the position: ‘‘I view the risk of vaccination in known metabolic disease patients to generally be outweighed by the risk of the infectious diseases being vaccinated against”

63.2% strongly agreed
31.1% agreed
0.9% disagreed
and 0.9% strongly disagreed.

Asked about the opinion that the risk of vaccination in metabolic disease was ‘‘greater than the risk of the infectious diseases being vaccinated against”

52.9% strongly disagreed
40% disagreed
3.5% agreed
and none strongly agreed

Amy Wallace gives “lessons from the field” to health journalists

7 Sep

In a recent article on the University of Southern California’s site Reporting on Health, Amy Wallace gives lessons learned in her activities covering the vaccine/autism discussion. The site, part of the Annenberg School for Communication, hosts her piece, Covering Vaccines.

Amy Wallace wrote a piece for Wired Magazine last year, An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All. As you might imagine, this piece was not well accepted by parts of the autism, nor the self-styled “vaccine safety” communities. Ms. Wallace first had to endure the negative responses of those communities online, with emails such as an essay Paul Offit Rapes (intellectually) Amy Wallace and Wired Magazine as well as blog posts depicting her sitting down to a thanksgiving feast consisting of roast human baby.

She, her publisher and Dr. Paul Offit were also subjected to a lawsuit by Barbara Fisher of the self-named “National Vaccine Informational Center” over a statement by Dr. Offit quoted in the piece:

Paul Offit has a slightly nasal voice and a forceful delivery that conspire to make him sound remarkably like Hawkeye Pierce, the cantankerous doctor played by Alan Alda on the TV series M*A*S*H. As a young man, Offit was a big fan of the show (though he felt then, and does now, that Hawkeye was “much cooler than me”). Offit is quick-witted, funny, and — despite a generally mild-mannered mien — sometimes so assertive as to seem brash. “Scientists, bound only by reason, are society’s true anarchists,” he has written — and he clearly sees himself as one. “Kaflooey theories” make him crazy, especially if they catch on. Fisher, who has long been the media’s go-to interview for what some in the autism arena call “parents’ rights,” makes him particularly nuts, as in “You just want to scream.” The reason? “She lies,” he says flatly.

“Barbara Loe Fisher inflames people against me. And wrongly. I’m in this for the same reason she is. I care about kids. Does she think Merck is paying me to speak about vaccines? Is that the logic?” he asks, exasperated. (Merck is doing no such thing). But when it comes to mandating vaccinations, Offit says, Fisher is right about him: He is an adamant supporter.

The phrase “she lies” was singled out in the lawsuit, which was dismissed on its merits.

The article brings the story to health journalists, who are being educated in the manner in which some groups use in response to articles with which they disagree. Such responses as those levied against Ms. Wallace do not further the needs of disabled children or adults, in this readers opinion.

A busy week in vaccine-injury news: the Cedillo appeal

4 Sep

The past week has had three somewhat major news events in the world of vaccine injury: the denial of the Cedillo appeal, the award of damages in the UK for an MMR case and the damages award in the Hannah Poling case. I thought I would write about them all, but the Cedillo appeal part is already long so I will leave the other subjects for another time.

The Cedillo Appeal

Kev blogged the denial as Cedillo appeal denied. I had blogged the hearing in June as Another appeal heard in the Autism Omnibus, then blogged the actual audio from the hearing as Audio of the Cedillo appeal part 1 and Audio of the Cedillo appeal part 2.

The arugument used in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding for MMR causing autism is basically the model that grew out of the work of Andrew Wakefield: that measles virus (MV) from vaccines persisted in the body, particularly in the digestive tract. Wakefield’s theory involved the MV infection causing intestinal permeability which allowed substances to “leak” out into the system (the “leaky gut” hypothesis). The Cedllio’s attorneys argued that the measles virus itself traveled to the brain, causing inflammation and autism.

This is not the first appeal for the Cedillo family, or for the test cases in the Omnibus. It is likely the last, however. The next step would be the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would be unlikely to hear an appeal. The Supreme Court does not hear all the cases submitted, instead choosing to hear mostly cases which clarify points of law. The Cedillo appeal so far has not been about the laws for the most part but about the procedure of the case. One exception is the question of whether the correct standard was applied to reviewing the admissibility of the evidence. The Court used the Daubert standard, which the Cedillo’s attorneys argued was incorrect. This is not the first time the Court used Daubert, and it is not the first time the appeals court upheld it.

The other arguments made include whether the testimony and reports of Dr. Stephen Bustin should have been allowed. Dr. Bustin’s reports were obtained very shortly before the hearing and were based on closed documents from a U.K. proceeding on MMR and autism. The Cedillo’s attorneys argued that they were unable to prepare a counter argument to Dr. Bustin on short notice and that since they did not have access to the underlying data and documents. In a civil court, these arguments would have carried much weight. However, in the vaccine court, much flexibility is allowed. In this case, the Special Master allowed the evidence to be heard, and gave the Cedillo’s attorneys over a year to obtain the background data from the UK and mount a counter argument.

The Cedillo’s attorneys did not attempt to obtain the background data for the Bustin testimony in year that followed the hearing. Yes, it isn’t that they were unsuccessful, they didn’t try to obtain it. They stated that their consultants in the UK advised them that it was unlikely that they would be able to obtain the documents without the permission of the experts. However, Dr. Bustin gave his permission.

From the appeals court decision:

Petitioners considered making such a re-quest from the UK court, but never did so. They contend that British counsel informed them that it was unlikely that the UK court would permit disclosure of the expert reports without the consent of the experts, which peti-tioners stated that they could not obtain. But Dr. Bustin did consent to the release of his reports. Once his consent for the release of his reports had been obtained by the government, there is no reason why the data underlying his reports could not also have been requested

Dr. Bustin’s testimony focused on a critical part of the argument used to claim that MMR causes autism: the claimed presence of measles virus in the bodies of autistics like Miss Cedillo. Dr. Bustin is arguably the worlds top expert on PCR, the method used by the Unigenetics Laboratory to test tissue samples for measles virus. Dr. Bustin discussed at length multiple reasons why the Unigenetics Laboratory results were not reliable.

A few points to be made here.

(1) The Cedillo’s attorneys presented an expert (Dr. Kennedy) to claim that the Unigenetics laboratory was reliable. Dr. Kennedy also had worked on the UK litigation and Dr. Kennedy’s underlying data were also under seal in that litigation. In other words, the Cedillo’s attorney’s were asking that the Special Master apply one standard to the government’s witness (rejecting his report without the underlying data) while applying the exact opposite standard to their own witness (Dr. Kennedy, who also didn’t have the underlying data).

(2) Michelle Cedillo was one of three “test cases” used to test the question of “general causation”. The other two children used as test cases did not have evidence of persistent measles virus in their bodies.

There is only one paper with reliable data showing the presence of measles virus in the tissues of an autistic child. This paper came out after the Cedillo hearing. The paper: Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study. In that study they found measles virus in one autistic child, and in one non-autistic “control”. The Cedillo’s attorney’s argued that this was “significant new evidence” that showed the reliability of the Unigenetics laboratory.

I found it very odd that a paper titled “Lack of association between Mealses Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy” would be used as evidence for an association between measles virus vaccine and autism. But the argument is that this paper validates the Unigenetics laboratory as being able to produce reliable results. The argument is not valid, and the court did not agree with it. The work done by Unigenetics on Miss Cedillo was performed in 2002. The research on the paper was performed much later, after significant criticism was already levied against Unigenetics. Quite simply put, it is possible that Unigenetics “cleaned up its act” by the time of the recent paper.

(3) It was noted that the arguments about Dr. Bustin’s testimony were essentially moot, as the Special Master would have come to the same decision without his testimony.

(4) It was also noted that the appeals court had already decided on Dr. Bustin’s testimony in an appeal mounted by the attorneys for the Hazelhurst family (another of the Omnibus test cases).

The Cedillo’s attorneys further argued that it was unfair that evidence was brought in from the other “test case” hearings (Hazelhurst and Snyder). The appeals ruling noted that the Cedillo hearing was not a stand-alone proceeding. As a test case in an Omnibus Proceeding, evidence from all the test cases would be used to answer the question of general causation. I was surprised at the time of the appeal that the Cedillo’s attorneys were arguing that they were not actively monitoring the other test case hearings. What, in the end, is the point of an Omnibus Proceeding or a “petitioners steering committee” of the petitioners are not acting in some way as a group?

The Cedillo’s attorneys argued that the Special Master did not give enough weight to Miss Cedillo’s doctor, Dr. Krigsman, who stated that her condition was caused by MMR. The fact is that the Special Master rejected Dr. Krigsman’s argument with good cause:

He [the special master] also concluded that Dr. Krigsman’s opinion should be rejected because 1) he relied on the discredited Unigenetics testing in forming his opinion, 2) he misunderstood Michelle’s medical history and his testimony was inconsistent with her medical records, and 3) his conclusion that Michelle suffered from chronic gastrointestinal inflammation was substantially out-weighed by Michelle’s medical records and the testimony of the government’s experts.

The Cedillo’s attorneys argued that sufficient weight was not given to Miss Cedillo’s other physicians whom, they assert, associated her condition with the MMR vaccine:

Petitioners cited nine notations in Michelle’s records from eight individuals, including four physicians who treated Michelle and four non-physicians who exam-ined Michelle, in which the treating physicians mentioned her vaccinations, as support for the proposition that these individuals concluded that her autism was caused by her MMR vaccine.

The appeals court disagreed:

The Special Master did not err in failing to afford sig-nificant weight to the opinions of Michelle’s treating physicians. As the Special Master observed in his deci-sion, in seven of the nine notations, the physician was simply indicating an awareness of a temporal, not causal, relationship between the fever Michelle experienced after her MMR vaccine and the emergence of her autistic symptoms sometime thereafter. Initial Decision, slip op. at 100. In one of the other notations, the physician sim-ply noted that an exemption for Michelle from vaccination requirements could be arranged. In the other notation, the physician speculated that Michelle’s fevers might have caused her neurological abnormalities. However, he expressly stated that it would be “difficult to say” whether this was “a post-immunization phenomenon, or a separate occurrence.” Id. at 100. Thus, “none of the treating physicians concluded that the MMR vaccine caused Michelle’s autism.” Final Decision, 89 Fed. Cl. at 176. The Special Master

In the end, the appeals court decision takes on the arguments by the Cedillo’s attorneys point by point and refutes them. The closest the Cedillo’s attorneys got to making a point stick was in the case of Dr. Bustin’s testimony, which the appeals court stated:

We agree with petitioners that the government’s fail-ure to produce or even to request the documentation underlying Dr. Bustin’s reports is troubling, but we think that in the circumstances of this case, that failure does not justify reversal.

The fact of the matter is, the petitioners in general, and the Cedillo’s in specific, did not have a good case for MMR causing autism. The mechanism they proposed was not sound, the data they had was poor and incomplete and the experts speaking for the government were excellent and refuted the petitioner’s arguments. The Omnibus cases were, as the Special Masters noted, not close.

Damages awarded in the Poling case?

3 Sep

A document has recently been posted the Court of Federal Claims website, describing an award in a vaccine injury case. The document is redacted, but the following paragraph indicates to me that this involves the case of Hannah Poling:

Respondent has conceded that petitioners are entitled to compensation due to the significant aggravation of Child’s pre-existing mitochondrial disorder based on an MMR vaccine Table presumptive injury of encephalopathy, which eventually manifested as a chronic encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder and a complex partial seizure disorder as a sequela.

The amount involves 4 parts: (1) a payment of about US$1.5M for life care, future earnings and pain-and-suffering, (2) a lump sum payment of about US$140,000 for past unreimbursable expenses, (3) a lump sum payment of about $7,800 to cover a medicaid lien and (4) an undisclosed amount to purchase an annuity to cover items in the life care plan.

The award amount seems larger than typical to me. I don’t put this out as a criticism. Rather the opposite. If we as a people are going to compensate those injured by vaccines, as we should, we should compensate highly. We can not fully compensate a person or a family for injury. For example, the cap on pain and suffering damages has not been increased in the roughly 25 years that the vaccine program has been in place.

It is not easy to write this piece, and I hesitate to publish it. Assuming this document refers to the Poling family, they chose to redact information.

I will end with this statement from the Special Master who wrote the decision:

Based on the persuasive factors supporting petitioner’s vaccine claim and respondent’s election not to challenge petitioner’s claim, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Program. Accordingly, a determination of damages is appropriate.

MMR vaccine damaged man

30 Aug

Jackie Fletcher is well known to many – she routinely insists the MMR jab is dangerous despite reams of evidence to the contrary. However, a panel in the UK has found that her son, Robert, was damaged by the MMR vaccine he was administered.

I nearly didn’t blog about this. Why? Well, this blogs predominant focus is autism and Robert did not and does not have autism. The panel in this case found that the MMR caused seizures and mental retardation. Its difficult therefore to get a ‘hook’ into this story. As Mike Fitzpatrick is quoted as saying in the Daily Mail:

It is a very important principle that parents should be compensated in cases of this kind…

and he’s absolutely right. Thats why the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit exists in the UK.

Like any other form of medical procedure, vaccines are not 100% safe. I can’t recall anyone anywhere ever making that claim. What they _are_ however, is very safe indeed. Robert Fletcher was injured and has been compensated. I might even agree with his mum that the amount is ‘derisory’. Robert will need full time care all of his life and £90,000 ($140,000) is nowhere near enough. However, campaigners uninterested in Robert’s day to day needs say that:

Campaigner Polly Tommey, who edits the magazine The Autism File and believes her son Billy is autistic because of MMR, says: ‘This is fantastic news. Now doctors can’t tell me that the MMR is safe.

‘This payout is evidence that it is not safe. It’s interesting that they will look at epilepsy and not autism, and you have to ask why.

‘Is it because the compensation would be billions?’

I very much doubt that any doctor, anywhere has ever told any recipient anywhere that any vaccine is 100% safe. If they did, they were liars.

However, this payment, far from being ‘evidence that it is not safe’ (a bizarre claim) is more like a recognition that the Vaccine Damage Payment system is working as it should. A man was vaccine damaged and was compensated as a result.

As for the claim that ‘they’ will not look at autism, this is simply incorrect. Robert, does not have autism and therefore it would be impossible in this case to look at autism. I would imagine if someone with autism was adjudged to be damaged by their MMR vaccine, Ms Tommey might have a point. As that has not happened, she does not. This kind of fear-mongering by the likes of Tommey is no doubt why the panel made the clear point:

We would stress that this decision is fact-specific and it should not be seen as a precedent for any other case.

In particular, it has no relevance to the issue… as to whether there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

And Fletcher goes on to claim:

Claims for autism are not considered. There are 120 MMR cases waiting to be heard, but none is for autism…

So why should that be? Why is autism apparently ‘excluded’?

Its because the science – both epidemiological and clinical clearly shows that MMR does not cause autism. And that is not the odd paper here and there. We are talking about overwhelming science that shows that the whole autism/MMR connection is simply false and was built up by one man too stupid to admit his clear errors and a mass media keen to build sensation out of this same man’s ego.

Tommey, Fletcher and all others who believe that there’s some kind of conspiracy afoot to block autism from MMR causation cases need to understand the science involved and that unless some new science is forthcoming that establishes MMR as a causative agent in regards to autism then the simple fact of applying for compensation listing the MMR as a cause of their child’s autism is _always_ going to be an immediate strikeout.

Campaigners need to start seeing this event for what it _really_ is – compensation for a vaccine damaged man – and not as what it isn’t – evidence that MMR is inherently unsafe or that theres some mysterious conspiracy to prevent autism from being linked to MMR.

Quick Q&A with APC study lead author

26 Aug

I recently blogged about a study that linked APC dysfunction with autism and learning disability. Two questions interested me so I wrote to lead author Michele Jacob to ask them.

Hi Dr Jacob,

My name is Kevin Leitch, I own and edit a popular blog on autism and am also father to an autistic daughter.

I found your recent study very interesting and had questions that I’d like to ask you and hopefully you’d give me permission to discuss your answer on the blog?

My questions are –

1) is there any set of circumstance in which APC dysfunction can occur ‘in the wild’ e.g. could a child be given something that then ‘turned’ them into an autistic person by negatively affecting APC function?

2) If there *is* , is there a way that this dysfunction might be reversed or at least modified somewhat?

My own take on this is that the answer to both questions would be ‘no’ but I have no understanding of APC function and a laymans understanding of genes in general.

Many thanks in advance for both your fascinating study and any time you can offer me in answering my questions.

She responded:

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for discussing our work in your blog. I am delighted our work interests you.

I think the short answer to both questions is no. The only way to cause APC dysfunction is via gene mutations. It’s function can be modified, enhanced or reduced, by signaling events in cells, but these changes are not large enough to have effects on behavior.

Loss of function mutations in the APC gene are inherited or occur sporadically. The symptoms associated with the sporadic mutations will depend on the cell type. APC is present in all cells of the body and it has several functions that are critical at different stages of development.

My lab is continuing to define the role of APC in the nervous system. Our goal is to define changes caused by APC dysfunction that lead to learning deficits and autistic-like behaviors.

Hope this information clears up your questions.

My best regards to you and your daughter.

So why did I ask these questions? Well, its been my experience that the antivax crowd leap on any science that seems to have an outcome that is linked to autism, to either trash it or link vaccines to it. I’m hoping Dr Jacob’s answers lead away from the possibility of linking autism to vaccines via APC dysfunction.

Review of the Introduction of Age of Autism – the book.

23 Aug

So begins the Olmsted/Blaxill upcoming book ‘Age of Autism’.

…instead of taking Kanner’s word for it, [we decided] to learn about these previously anonymous families ourselves. We took clues from his extensive case descriptions and started uncovering the identities of the original families. Time and again, we connected the occupations of the parents to plausible toxic exposures and especially to a new mercury compound first used in the 1930s as a disinfectant for seeds, a treatment for lumber, and a preservative in vaccines. Yes, the parents’ professions were clues— but not to their obsessions or their marriages or their parenting or their genetic oddities; instead, they pointed to a strikingly consistent pattern of familial exposures to the same toxic substance.

(emphasis authors, inserts mine)

This is the paragraph that sets the authors hypothesis out. When we look at it carefully, we can see exactly what its purpose is – its purpose is to fit a set of preconceived ideas that revolve around one central disproven hypothesis – that mercury in vaccines (thiomersal/thimerosal) causes autism.

I haven’t yet read the rest of the book but I’m pretty sure what I’m going to find. To talk about that now would just be conjecture however, so lets stick to what we have here.

According to Olmsted and Blaxill, syphilis treatment, hysteria, mental illness and a variety of modern illnesses are all caused by mercury. I’m very much looking forward to reading this section too. Olmsted & Blaxill use Pink disease (a definite form of mercury poisoning which looks nothing like autism to ‘justify’ the inclusion of these illnesses in the Introduction.

Blaxill and Omsted detail how they went on to meet “Donald T.” one of Kanner’s original cases:

By any mea sure, he has fared astonishingly well. President of his college fraternity and later the Forest Kiwanis Club, a pillar of his Presbyterian church, he had a long career at the local bank, plays a competitive game of golf, and regularly travels the world. We learned how “Donald T.” went from being the first unmistakable case of autism to the first unmistakable case of recovery.

So on one hand we have the doom and gloom of Pink disease (a foreshadow of autism according to Blaxill & Olmsted) which killed hundreds and then actual autism which doesn’t seem that bad. I’ll be very interested to see how Blaxill & Olmsted narrate Donald T.’s ‘recovery’…or could it have been that Donald T. was in fact one of the first cases of autism who also either moved ‘off the spectrum’ (as a certain percentage of autistic people do) or…y’know…he simply progressed as he got older. My guess is that Blaxill & Olmsted will reveal that Donald T. had some kind of miraculous exposure to a chelating agent or multi vitamins or some form of extreme biomed. Lets see.

The whole Introduction is about 6,000 words long. I can’t possibly attempt to review the whole thing and I won’t attempt to review the whole book either. These are the sections of the Intro that caught my eye particularly. Maybe others who have access to the Intro will tackle more. One thing you can be sure of, LBRB will be here to catch and expose the errors.

Eli Lilly halts two clinical trials of an experimental Alzheimer’s treatment

19 Aug

This has been reported in a number of places, including the New York Times in their article Lilly Stops Alzheimer’s Drug Trials.

From the NY Times:

Eli Lilly halted two late-stage clinical trials of an experimental Alzheimer’s treatment on Tuesday, representing a setback to one leading theory on treating the degenerative disease and a new blow to Lilly’s business prospects.

One defining feature of Alzheimers disease is the presence of amyloid plaque in the brain. The now-halted clinical trial was for a drug which reduces this plaque.

The basic idea is fairly straightforward: if plaque is present in the brains of those with Alzheimer’s, removing the plaque may help reduce or reverse the symptoms. Instead, researchers were finding that the drug was making symptoms worse. Again from the times:

The company said patients who had taken the drug, intended to reduce plaque in the brain, actually showed worse cognitive functioning and less ability to perform daily living tasks than patients who had taken a placebo.

Why bring this up on an autism blog? Because this trial gives a good example of why I am very concerned about the use of untested therapies on autistics. It isn’t because of some objection to a “cure”. There is no existing autism cure. There is no autism cure proposed or in any stage of a clinical trial. While there is some very good and important discussions about any potential cure, it is for the present a hypothetical discussion. No, it isn’t the cure debate which drives me. It is safety. Plain and simple.

Consider autism therapies (both alternative and off-label) from a viewpoint of safety for the moment with the lessons learned from the Alzheimer’s trial.

Clinical trials are all about safety and efficacy. Is the therapy (drug) safe? Does it work? Before a clinical trial is even started, there has to be some reason to believe that the therapy would be safe and effective. Researchers have to ask the question, “what will this do?” In the Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s trial, they had reason to believe that the drug would reduce amyloid plaque. They had (I assume) some earlier trials to prove the drug reached some level of safety. With that in hand, Eli Lilly went forward to large-scale testing with people and they found that, at least for their test group (people with somewhat advanced Alzheimer’s disease), the drug was harmful.

From the NY Times story:

Lilly’s drug was intended to reduce production of so-called amyloid beta plaques in the brain by inhibiting the activity of an enzyme called gamma secretase.

Dr. Siemers of Lilly said the failed trials might indicate that too much reduction in amyloid beta unexpectedly harms cognitive functions, or it may be that the problems arose from the drug’s effect on some 20 other proteins.

Unintended and unforeseen consequences.

Consider alternative therapies being applied to autistics. For example, consider anti-inflammatory drugs. These are existing drugs used off-label, so some safety data are available. There is evidence of inflammation in the brains for some autistics, so why not treat it?

Because we don’t understand why there is inflammation in the brains of autistics. Because of that, we don’t know if there are any unintended consequences of anti-inflammatory therapies. From a story last year in the Chicago Tribune, this section discussing the team from Johns Hopkins/Kennedy Krieger which first published on neuroinflammation in autistics:

“THERE IS NO indication for using anti-inflammatory medications in patients with autism,” the [Johns Hopkins] team wrote.

Meddling with neuroinflammation could actually be a terrible mistake, said co-author Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, director of medical research at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore.

“It may actually be an attempt of the brain to repair itself,” said Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist. Suppressing the immune response “could be doing harm.”

There are other classes of alternative therapies used in autism. Therapies which most likely are doing nothing beyond the placebo effect are in one class. For example, homeopathy. I don’t spend a lot of time writing about homeopathy. In fact, I don’t know if I have blogged about it at all. Even though it is bad science, it isn’t really dangerous. Another class of alternative therapies are those based in really bad science and which carry the potential of harm. Lupron comes readily to mind. Lupron therapy is based on two levels of very bad science. First, that autism is caused by mercury poisoning. Second, that reducing testosterone in the body will aid it in eliminating mercury. Lupron has been through clinical trials (not for autism) demostrating some level of safety, there are serious known side effects. Worse, the manner in which it is used in autistic children is very problematic–delaying puberty.

Back to the Alzheimer’s trial–I actually welcome the trial itself. I consider those who undertake clinical trials to be very brave individuals. I for one hope there are effective therapies for Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia soon. It is a great fear for most, if not all, of us that we spend the last years of our lives with dementia. For the parent of a disabled child, this fear is only compounded. The thought of spending my last years draining resources I would rather leave to my child is one of the worst futures I can imagine.

Another example of the workings of the vaccine court

4 Aug

This doesn’t involve the autism cases. Instead it is about the Hepatitis B omnibus proceeding which is also ongoing. It does involve some familiar names: Clifford Shoemaker (attorney), Dr. Mark Geier and his son David Geier. It does give us some insight into the billing practices of these gentlemen.

As background I’ll note that Clifford Shoemaker subpoenaed blogger Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity.com. He ended up being sanctioned for that action.

Dr. Mark Geier has been a frequent consultant to Mr. Shoemaker’s cases in the vaccine court. Ms. Seidel has covered some of the cases before where Dr. Geier has participated.

David Geier has so far not been compensated as a consultant to the Court.

In a recent case, Quinton O. Riggins, Jr. v. Secretary of HHS, we can see some of the decision processes involved in awarding fees to attorneys and consultants in the Court.

The application was for a total of $221,211.34:

On April 1, 2008, petitioner’s counsel, Clifford Shoemaker, filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (hereinafter referenced to as Petitioner’s Application), requesting a total of $221,211.34 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Counsel requests $16,592.16 in fees and costs related to the above-captioned matter, and $204,619.18 in fees and costs related to the “general hepatitis B proceedings.”

Of this, about $96k was paid:

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the following award for fees and costs for efforts in the Riggins case and for efforts on the hepatitis B cases in general: $95,801.72 for attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by check payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel; and $528.25 in petitioner’s costs to be paid by check payable to petitioner. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

The analysis of the application is lengthy. I will quote some sections below.

In regards to Mark and David Geier:

“Petitioner’s counsel requests $110,386.73 in costs related to S&A’s general hepatitis B work, of which counsel has earmarked $97,443.43 as costs (for fees and expenses) owed to Dr. Mark Geier and his son, David Geier.”

In the end, Dr. Mark Geier was paid $10,000 and David Geier was not compensated.

In denying payment to David Geier, who holds a bachelors degree, the Special Master noted:

“In summary, the undersigned finds the costs for David Geier’s efforts to be obviously unreasonable as Mr. Geier is not qualified to address the medical issues involved in the Program and his work was duplicative of the efforts by Dr. Geier. Thus, the undersigned denies the request for costs for David Geier in its entirety.”

In regards to Dr. Mark Geier:

However, Dr. Geier’s qualifications as an expert, testimony in the Program, and credentials, have been subject of considerable criticism over the years by the court. The undersigned questioned his expertise as far back as 1991. Daly v.Sec’y of HHS, No. 90-590V, 1991 WL 154573, at *7 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 1991) (“[T]his court is inclined to not allow Dr. Geier to testify before it on issues of Table injuries. Dr. Geier clearly lacks the expertise to evaluate the symptomatology of the Table injuries and render an opinion thereon.”). More recently, in a published Order, my colleague, Special Master Vowell, addressed this criticism, as well as her concerns regarding petitioners utilizing medical articles authored by Dr. Geier, as follows:

I found that the articles authored by Dr. Geier unpersuasive and not scientifically sound, based on my prior reading of the articles and critiques of them. I am also aware that Dr. Geier is trained as a geneticist and obstetrician, not an immunologist, epidemiologist, or rheumatologist, and that my fellow special masters and several other judges have opined unfavorably on his qualifications and testimony as an expert.

It appears that since the Court has found that Dr. Geier is not qualified as an “expert”, he was retained as a “consultant”. However, he appears to have acted in ways overstepping the bounds of “counsultant”.

In the instant matter, the undersigned finds it was reasonable (and appropriate) for counsel to consult with Dr. Geier in a limited manner regarding the hepatitis B claims. Those efforts would entail Dr. Geier performing an initial review of the counsel’s hepatitis B claims and some initial research regarding vaccine injuries resulting from hepatitis B vaccine. Dr. Geier would then educate counsel as to the nature of the issues and the types of experts required. However, once Dr. Geier performed an initial review of these claims for counsel, and once counsel began reaching out to doctors who would ultimately serve as experts in S&A’s hepatitis B claims, it was no longer reasonable for Dr. Geier to be billing hours and incurring costs in S&A’s general hepatitis B efforts. Dr. Geier at this point was moving well beyond the role of a consultant.14 Thus by the beginning of 2002, when Mr. Shoemaker began to meet with experts15 to assist in the prosecution of the hepatitis B claims, Dr. Geier’s work on behalf of S&A’s general hepatitis B efforts was no longer needed and should have concluded.

Because of this, Dr. Geier was compensated at a reasonable amount for his consulting activities.

The undersigned notes an award of $10,000.00 represents an almost 90% reduction of the invoice submitted by the Geiers in this matter. The award of $10,000.00 is reasonable for Dr. Geier’s consultant efforts, and thus should not be viewed as a “reduction,” but viewed as reasonable compensation for Dr. Geier’s role as a consultant. The time not compensated is time largely spent by Dr. Geier duplicating the efforts of the experts, duplicating his own work, or performing work as an expert (work he is not qualified to perform). Stated another way, once experts were identified and became involved, Dr. Geier’s role as a consultant ended.

Mr. Shoemaker requested $221,211.34 in fees and costs:

On April 1, 2008, petitioner’s counsel, Clifford Shoemaker, filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (hereinafter referenced to as Petitioner’s Application), requesting a total of $221,211.34 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Counsel requests $16,592.16 in fees and costs related to the above-captioned matter, and $204,619.18 in fees and costs related to the “general hepatitis B proceedings.”

The court found that $64,254.45 was reasonable.

Here is an example of a charge that was denied:

The 5/30/2006 entry bills 0.5 hours to “[r]eview excel chart and update information; transfer information needed for SC to laptop,” P. App at 18. The “transfer information needed for SC to laptop” entry was explained by counsel asconstituting mere seconds and thus not administrative overhead. P Resp at 2, fn 1. However, counsel failed to address the remainder of the entry and identify what excel chart he was updating and how that activity was relevant to Mr. Riggins’ case. However, far more egregiously, counsel has billed for this exact same activity on precisely the same date twice before in two separate hepatitis B cases.

Trips to France and Italy were also excluded:

Another extreme example of counsel’s error in billing judgment is the request by counsel for fees and costs billed by Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier for trips to France and Italy in the summer of 2005 and winter of 2006 respectively, and for Mr. Shoemaker to travel to France with the Geiers in the summer of 2005. These requests represent a complete abdication of billing judgment.

Dr. Geier and Mr. Geier together billed a total of over $20,000.00, P App at 62-63, to travel along with Mr. Shoemaker to France and meet with various doctors and lawyers to discuss adverse events following the hepatitis B vaccination. Dr. Geier, in his affidavit, and counsel in Petitioner’s Sur-Reply, allege it was necessary to travel to France to discuss the doctors’ and lawyers’ experiences and research relating to adverse reactions stemming from the hepatitis B vaccination, and that this information could only be obtained in “face-to-face” discussions. In addition, Dr. Geier and Mr. Geier together billed $23,690.00 to travel to Italy to attend the 5th International Conference of Autoimmunity. Petitioner argues in Petitioner’s Response that the Geiers were invited to present their research at the conference by Dr. Shoenfeld, a leading expert in autoimmunity, and that at the conference they were able to secure Dr. Shoenfeld’s services as an expert in counsel’s cases. Petitioner further alleges the Geiers were able to discuss autoimmune disorders with experts at the conference and further “expedite the prosecution of various hepatitis b cases.” P Resp at 12.

and

Additionally, the Geiers provided absolutely no supporting documentation, such as receipts, to evidence the $9,399.68, see P App at 60, they allege they incurred in costs for airline tickets, other transportation costs, parking, hotel, “daily expenses,” food, and conference fees during these trips. P App at 61-62. By itself, this failure justifies not awarding these costs.

Many expenses for Mr. Shoemaker were questioned by the Special Master. Some based on the lack of adequate justification for the costs:

Petitioner’s counsel has failed to provide adequate information for the undersigned to determined exactly what the costs represent and whether or not the costs were reasonably incurred. No receipts are provided for any of these expenses. For example, for what did counsel pay costs to Federal Express? Who traveled to Boston and stayed at the Ritz Carlton? What expert was met with in Boston? Who traveled to Florida? And what attorney was met with in Florida?

Other expenses were considered to be “overhead”

Respondent objects to five hours of time billed by counsel for “‘meeting with consultants about scanning issues’” on April 19, 2000; one hour of time billed by counsel for “‘review[ing] computer breakdowns and update computer field’” on October 8, 2002; and three hours of time billed by counsel for a “consultation with Legal Nurses Association to discuss reviewing cases and preparing chronologies” on September 19 and 21, 2001. R Opp at 17; see also R Reply at 7. Respondent objects to these billings on the basis that the billings are administrative in nature, “more properly categorized as overhead” and would benefit “all petitioners represented by [counsel’s] firm.” Id. The undersigned agrees.

The entire decision is 37 pages long, detailing the requests for reimbursments, fees and costs.

Prof. DeSoto discusses mercury and autism

3 Aug

A recent issue of the journal Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis (ANE) focused upon autism. Not just autism, but autism causation with papers on vaccines, acetaminophen and, of course, mercury. The idea for this focus edition came from Professor Dorota Majewska who holds the EU Marie Curie Chair at the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw, Poland. The authors for this focus issue are largely the same as those from a conference Prof. Majewska organized in 2008, Autism and Vaccinations.

One of the papers in the focus edition of ANE was the paper by Hewitson et al., that we have discussed at length here at LeftBrainRightBrain.

Another paper in this focus edition is Sorting out the spinning of autism: heavy metals and the question of incidence by M.C. DeSoto and R.T. Hitlan. DeSoto and Hitlan gathered some attention for a paper a few years back where they analyzed an existing data-set, that by Ip et al.. D’oC and Interverbal discussed this paper at the blog Autism Street, starting with A Tale Of Two Tails. In that piece, D’oC and Interverbal discuss the statistical analysis used by DeSoto and Hitlan. Prometheus at the Photon in the Darkness blog also discussed the DeSoto and Hitlan paper in Winter Potpourri. Pure Pedantry blog at ScienceBlogs also discussed this study in Mercury, Autism, and a Note on Scientific Honesty. Perhaps the best analysis of the original DeSoto and Hitlan paper was performed by EpiWonk, an epidemiologist.

The recent paper by DeSoto and Hitlan, Sorting out the spinning of autism: heavy metals and the question of incidence, is basically a review article. It has been touted as support for the mercury hypothesis with a commonly quoted phrase,

Fifteen were offered as evidence against a link between exposure to these metals and autism. In contrast, a sum of 43 papers were supporting a link between autism and exposure to those metals

I somehow doubt the authors intended the debate to boil down to counting papers. It would be a weak support, and rather ironic at that as this paper is placed in exactly the sort of journal that leads to large numbers of papers supporting the heavy-metal/autism link. The current DeSoto and Hitlan paper is in a focus issue on autism in ANE which selected papers which support autism as vaccine injury. Many papers on the mercury appear in lower impact journals and by authors such as the father-son team of Geier and Geier (which if I counted correctly account for 19 of the 43 articles on DeSoto and Hitlan’s list). If you are unfamiliar with that team, the neurodiveristy.com blog has many articles on the team such as Significant Misrepresentations: Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol (Contents).

That said, I was planning to avoid the recent DeSoto and Hitlan paper. It isn’t really new (adding to the number of articles on toxins and autism without adding to the knowledge base). I was going to avoid the paper, that is, until Prof. DeSoto gave an interview for the Age of Auitsm blog. I don’t understand why the Age of Autism considers Prof. DeSoto to be an expert on so many areas of autism and the environment. The breadth of her work is not great. Below is an exchange which shows what I mean. Prof. DeSoto was asked to comment on the recent study by Hewitson et al., comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys.

Q: There is a study published in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis alongside yours that deals with vaccinated and unvaccinated primates. Do you have a reaction to the study or its conclusions?

Dr. DeSoto: All the primates were vaccinated, the difference was whether there was a heavy metal additive. This is a potentially important study. There are a few weaknesses that prevent strong conclusions. The size of the control group is small (apparently n=2). Given that rhesus neural development within the brain region of interest is not all that well documented, a larger control group would have been desirable. This weakness is acknowledged by the authors.

Isolating the infant monkeys shortly after birth is a significant change from normal environment. The severing of the maternal bond and being raised essentially alone (only visual contact was maintained with the peer infants) affects every aspect of development – including neural development. There is evidence that brain volume is specifically affected by isolation. The rearing situation in the study, in my mind, is not very comparable to normal development, especially if the outcome of interest includes brain volume.

That said, this is the only study that has compared the net effect of multiple vaccination additives on brain development. Above all, I have to editorialize and say this seems difficult to understand (that is – why is this the only study?). If some scientists and some parents question the safety of the vaccine schedule, such studies as this one are the way to investigate the concerns.

Now, the one study that exists (even if there are caveats that go with pilot research) suggests there are differences. Whether one is of the opinion that individually testing vaccines is as good as testing the combined effect or not – at this point it is imperative that additional studies be conducted on the additive effect of the full vaccine schedules.

To be clear and to repeat, if one thinks that the vaccines with additives given in close succession have no effect on neural development– this ought to be established empirically. One thing that I noticed in the study is the main effect for difference in brain volume (no time effect). It should be noted that this suggests the early administration of additive-containing vaccine (first four rounds) was a culprit of interest.

Prof. DeSoto did not take a careful look at the Hewitson et al. study. How do I know this? In the above interview, DeSoto states:

“All the primates were vaccinated, the difference was whether there was a heavy metal additive”

The paper states, “”Four infants were assigned to the unexposed study group and received saline injections according to the schedule in Table I””. The differences included the heavy metal additive, as well as all the ingredients that make a vaccine differ from saline.

What amazes me is that the interviewer at the Age of Autism missed that as well. Even though AoA has touted the Hewitson study greatly, they don’t appear to have read it closely.

This is not a minor detail. It is key to the study design and conclusions.

Another comment:

Given that rhesus neural development within the brain region of interest is not all that well documented

I think that Prof. DeSoto can be excused for not realizing that there is a study tracking the development of precisely the amygdala in macaques. This is because Hewitson et al. did not include that reference (which was easily found in a pubmed search).

“The size of the control group is small (apparently n=2)”

The control group was 4. One was excluded for “scheduling reasons” and the other for unknown reasons. This was a major problem with the study. Fatal, one might say, as the brain sizes of the control group didn’t grow between the two time periods tested (about 4 months and about 6 months of age) for the monkeys. At the same time, their amygdalas shrank. This was a big warning sign that something was amiss with the control subjects, but this was ingored by Hewitson, et al.. Based on this faulty premise, Hewitson et al. claimed that the brains and amygdalas of the vaccinated monkeys were on an abnormal growth path. It is amazing that Prof. DeSoto missed that.

A fact that I am not surprised that Prof. DeSoto missed is that in a previous IMFAR abstract on this group, Hewitson et al. came to the exact opposite conclusion: that the brains of the vaccinated monkeys did not grow as fast as the unvaccinated monkeys.

Back to the recent DeSoto and Hitlan paper. They make the following statement:

It is worth noting that there have been only three empirical articles directly comparing those with and without an ASD on mercury levels in the body to a control group of normally developing matched controls that report that report no link (Ip et al. 2004, Soden et al. 2007, Hertz-Piciotto et al. 2010). While, the most recent article appears to be the strongest, lacking any obvious errors or flaws (we think that this recent article does provide at least some legitimate evidence contradicting the hypothesis that autism and heavy metals are linked), the other two are seriously flawed.

In the end, this mention of the Hertz-Picciotto study is why I decided to write about the DeSoto piece, and in the process bring in the interview.

Part of what made the Hertz-Picciotto study strong was the fact that they controlled for fish consumption. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is something that Ip did not do, nor did DeSoto and Hitlan in their re-analysis. I don’t see mention of fish consumption in the recent DeSoto and Hitlan paper.

Again, I’ll point out that the analysis by EpiWonk was thorough and clear. I wish he had published it. I don’t think consider fish consumption to state that the DeSoto/Hitlan re-analysis of the Ip data is likely not thorough enough to make the conclusions they draw.

The fact of the matter is, the Ip data just aren’t that profound. It was worthwhile to do a re-analysis given the errors in the Ip dataset and paper. But it was three years ago that DeSoto and Hitlan did their re-analysis. In the meantime, Hertz-Picciotto et al. have a better dataset and a more thorough analysis.

DeSoto and Hitlan editorialize a bit in their paper:

If a person has publicly staked his/her career on a certain position being right, it may become harder to keep a truly open mind, even when new data become available and even when the original intent was to be objective. A way this bias might manifest itself is an overstatement or slight misstatement of results. We feel that both sides have been guilty of this, and this happens when a person becomes so confident in the correctness of his/her own view that he/she no longer reviews evidence to the contrary. Unconscious bias may exist even in the best scientists.

This begs the question of whether DeSoto and Hitlan are as guilty of those they chide. Re-analyzing the Ip data is not staking their career on a certain position. Repeatedly publishing on such a limited dataset does make this reader start to question whether some piece of their reputation is now tied to this position. With apologies to Prof. DeSoto, but the fact that her misimpressions of the Hewitson et al. paper are skewed towards the mercury hypothesis makes me wonder even more.

The autism research community needs to have fresh eyes looking at questions and data. DeSoto and Hitlan did well to reanalyze the Ip data once the mistakes were shown. They just appear to this observer to have (a) overstated the interpretation of their analysis and (b) gotten very quickly in to exactly the sort of rut they accuse others of being in.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →