Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

Parents in lawsuit over Thoughtful House treatement

14 Nov

Father takes ex-wife to court over son’s autism treatment is the title of a recent story on Statesman.com. The subtitle: Mother says intravenous treatment at Thoughtful House is unproven and too dangerous..

Yes, it’s about chelation. The kid has been undergoing chelation (suppository), but the father wants to do IV chelation. From the Statesman:

Mario Martinez wants his wife’s consent to let their 7-year-old son, William, undergo intravenous chelation — the use of chemicals to remove metals, such as lead and mercury, from the body. Martinez, 39, said he thinks his son is making steady progress at the Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin by undergoing a less invasive form of chelation and wants the boy to start IV chelation.

The parents are divorced, with the father having primary care of the child. However, Thoughtful House requires both parents to consent to IV chelation.

The mother states that the suppository chelation has been ongoing for two years (yes, years) without progress, but with adverse side effects:

Juli Martinez said in an interview that her son has been receiving chelation in suppository form for two years, which she claims has made him ill. She said chelation hasn’t helped his autism but being in a regular classroom has.

The father has taken the mother to court to get the approval for the IV chelation.

Chelation is the process of removing metals from the body through drugs. Alternative medical practitioners (such as Thoughftul House) use chelation on the assumption that “heavy metal toxicity” is a factor in autism.

It isn’t. This is based on an incredibly bad hyptohesis (Autism is a “novel” form of mercury poisoning), and idea that actual medical toxicologists reject.

Chelation therapy for real heavy metal toxicity is not a prolonged process. Two years is very long. Chelation by suppository is a relatively inexpensive therapy. By contrast, IV chelation at thoughtful house involves $400 every two weeks in testing:

While there may not be scientific proof that chelation helps autism, anecdotal evidence exists, Mario Martinez said. He is willing to spend an extra $400 every two weeks on tests to make sure the twice-monthly IVs are safe, he said.

The father says that the IV chelation is great:

Mario Martinez, who has had primary custody of the couple’s two children since their 2007 divorce, disputes that chelation has made William ill and said that the boy had an IV chelation test that showed he easily tolerated it. He said it brought “immediate, dramatic results,” in which his learning and behavior improved.

I wonder what an “IV Chelation test” is? Did they do a round of IV chelation, without the mother’s consent? What about their rules that the mother has to approve?

Frankly, the mother should be the one taking the father to court.

The court proceeding has been put off until Dr. Jepson of Thoughful House can appear or give a deposition.

The mother is representing herself. Frankly, a medical toxicologist should step in to offer her some support to end this travesty.

Another example of irresponsible blogging by David Kirby

14 Nov

Autism Speaks recently put out what I consider to be a rather irresponsible press release. The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) added a new objective, and Autism Speaks chose to frame it as “IACC includes vaccine research objective in strategic plan for autism research“. I’ve discussed that already, so I won’t go into more details here.

Instead, I want to take a look at how David Kirby treated this story. He blogged this as Top Federal Panel Endorses Autism Research That Includes Vaccines – Dueling Press Releases Ensue. Mr. Kirby takes on the role of (misinformed) cheerleader for the vaccine-epidemic groups that sponsor the Age of Autism blog, where the piece was posted. As you will see, he probably should have checked with his community before posting.

On Tuesday, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), Washington’s leading arbiter for directing federal funds to autism research, unanimously voted to recommend studies that include investigations into possible links between autism and environmental triggers – including vaccines – in certain subsets of children.

Mr. Kirby is invited to check the actual process of federal funding of autism research and the role of the IACC. He could watch the latest video of an IACC meeting, where Dr. Insel (director of NIMH and chair of the IACC) makes it clear that the IACC is an advisory and planning committee only. They are far from the “final arbiter for directing federal funds”. That is a minor point compared to the fact that the IACC did not recommend studies into the possible links between autism and vaccines.

This fact that the IACC was not committing to vaccine-autism research was not missed by some of his readers, who are quoted in the conclusion of his recent blog post. A conclusion which is rather confused in tone:

So, just to recap: The Federal Government’s top autism panel has voted unanimously to support studies into autism and its possible environmental triggers – including vaccination. In turn, Autism Speaks has cheered “including vaccine research objectives in the IACC plan” while its supposed rival, ASF, has equally cheered that “vaccine research (is) out of the IACC autism plan.”

Some parents I spoke with grudglingly accepted ASF’s view of events, however. “IACC took out ALL proposed vaccine research studies; They specifically elimated A) a vax unvax study, B) an unvaxed or partially vaxed sibs study and C) an adjuvant study – all gone,” one mother wrote. “They only left the word “vaccine” in a along laundry list of POTENTIAL future possible (translation never) study topics.”

Whether the IACC has recommended specific vaccine-autism research, or environment-autism research, vaccines remain on the list of possible contributors to autistic regression as far as the US Government is concerned.

And that is just how Congressional leaders intended it to be.

If parents are telling Mr. Kirby that the IACC is not really committing to fund vaccine research, how can this “just how Congressional leaders intended it to be”, since Mr. Kirby is asserting that the congressional intent is to include vaccine-autism research? It reads a bit confusing to me.

Well, it’s confusing because David Kirby has once again edited his post after the fact. Take a look at this screenshot of the original post:

kirby_backpedal

Yep, it’s different. Sometime after he posted his piece, he added the entire paragraph :

Some parents I spoke with grudglingly accepted ASF’s view of events, however. “IACC took out ALL proposed vaccine research studies; They specifically elimated A) a vax unvax study, B) an unvaxed or partially vaxed sibs study and C) an adjuvant study – all gone,” one mother wrote. “They only left the word “vaccine” in a along laundry list of POTENTIAL future possible (translation never) study topics.”

Yes, David Kirby wrote a post praising the IACC’s actions as funding vaccine research and then backpedaled when autism parents emailed him with the reality of the situation: the IACC did not commit to funding vaccine research.

He also edited out a comment where he refers to a statment by Alison Singer of the Autism Science Foundation as “And there was this, almost Orwellian statement: ”

I guess it was Orwellian until his own readers agreed with it?

Can you find where Mr. Kirby notes his change in that piece? Neither can I. A major change like this should be noted in the piece.

I’ll take a side-trip here into discussing Mr. Kirby’s mistakes and the way he handles them. Unfortunately, Mr. Kirby has a history of changing blog posts after the fact, even to the point of leaving clearly erroneous posts online without a comment.

A few examples:

He wrote a post, “CDC: Vaccine Study Design “Uninformative and Potentially Misleading“”. After Blogger (and epidemiologist) epiwonk showed the mistakes in that post, Mr Kirby rewrote the post, complete with a note about the error. In an odd move, he left first the erroneous post online. As epiwonk showed, even the second post was seriously flawed, but Mr. Kirby chose to leave it online.

Mr. Kirby made a serious misquote in his presentation to congressional staffers. No mention of the error was made in the power point slides he posted online.

He made a factor of 10 error in reading a graph for a blog post. He copied the blog post from the Age of Autism blog to the Huffington Post, and corrected the error in his Huffington Post piece without correcting the Age of Autism piece.

He made the rather simple error of mistaking the Obama transition teams Change.gov website for the change.gov website. Again, he posted to both the Age of Autism blog and to the Huffington Post. Mr. Kirby added a comment to the Huffington Post piece, but just deleted the erroneous post on the Age of Autism blog.

I make mistakes. Sometimes pretty spectacular mistakes. But I think it shows a certain level of disrespect from Mr. Kirby in how he handles his mistakes.

But, I’ve digressed from the main topic here: how Mr. Kirby handled the press releases from Autism Speaks and the Autism Science Foundation about the IACC’s new objective. Even without the confusing conclusion and the changes made after the fact, Mr. Kirby’s post is irresponsible.

It is one thing to take on the role of cheerleader/journalist as Mr. Kirby has done. But he gets to walk away from this community. He’s tried to walk away once, and he is now about to embark on a new career path taking on factory farming. In a few years when parents are complaining that the government hasn’t funded vaccine-autism research like David Kirby told us the government would…in a few years when the bitterness comes to the surface…where will David Kirby be? Will he be here to take responsibility for the mess he has created?

I admit, this is minor compared to the mess he made with convincing parents that autism was caused by thimerosal. How many children have been “treated” with chelation who wouldn’t have if Mr. Kirby hadn’t taken on this cause? How many of them regressed or were otherwise harmed? We will never know.

And he will never accept his role in this and his responsibility.

Autism Speaks misleads the public on the IACC’s stance on vaccine research

12 Nov

Autism Speaks recently announced that the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) included vaccine research studies into the objectives of the Strategic Plan. I’m sure many people who read their press release are thinking that the vaccine-autism research will definitely be funded. But, is this accurate? The answer is no.

According to the press release and the Autism Speaks website:

Autism Speaks is encouraged by yesterday’s decision of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) to include vaccine research studies in the objectives of the updated Strategic Plan for Autism Research. The new language, approved unanimously, calls for studies to determine if there are sub-populations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures such as immune challenges related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying immune problems. “This revised plan is an important step toward a more comprehensive approach to exploring the wide range of risk factors that may be contributing to autism,” said Geraldine Dawson, Ph.D., Autism Speaks chief science officer.

I’ve already noted that the statement Autism Speaks gave before the IACC was incorrect. Vaccine research was not a “clear directive” of the Combating Autism Act. You can check for yourself.

Alison Singer of the Autism Science Foundation, and member of the IACC, has a statement on the ASF blog, Autism Science Foundation Agrees with Decision to Keep Vaccine Research Out of the IACC Autism Plan.

The ASF blog notes:

Autism Science Foundation President and Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee member Alison Singer joined her colleagues on the IACC in voting to eliminate references in the autism strategic plan that could imply that vaccines cause autism or that call for additional vaccine research. “Draft materials submitted to the IACC suggesting vaccines and/or vaccine components were implicated in autism were rejected by the committee because the IACC determined that they were not based on good science,” said Singer. In addition, the two research objectives proposed that specifically called for additional vaccine research were not approved.

Also:

Singer added that some groups seem to be misinterpreting the inclusion of the word “vaccines” in the list of examples of immune challenges as a mandate for vaccine research, and have issued misleading statements. “Based on the votes taken yesterday, the IACC was clear in its position about autism and vaccines. But if there is public confusion about this new research objective then I will try to make sure we clarify it at our next meeting,” Singer said. The IACC will continue its work on the plan at a meeting on December 11, 2009 with the goal of finalizing the revised plan by January, 2010.

The entire statement can be read on the Autism Science Foundation’s blog.

It appears that Autism Speaks is placing a fairly major spin on a single action taken by the IACC. Again from the ASF blog:

The IACC also voted unanimously to add a new objective to study whether or not there are certain subpopulations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures such as immune challenges (including naturally occurring infection, vaccines, and/or immune disorders).

Compare that to the Autism Speaks announcement:

IACC Includes Vaccine Research Objective In Strategic Plan For Autism Research
Autism Speaks is Encouraged by New Language Recommending Funding of Vaccine Research

Or, worse yet, the first line of their press release: “Autism Speaks is encouraged by yesterday’s decision of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) to include vaccine research studies in the objectives of the updated Strategic Plan for Autism Research”

As I noted above, I am very confident that many people reading the announcement are expecting autism-vaccine research to be funded.

But this isn’t a “vaccine research objective”. This isn’t calling for “vaccine research studies”.

What it is, is an objective that mentions vaccines. It is a very important distinction. Take a close look, the objective does not call specifically for a vaccine project to be funded. It doesn’t even call for immune challenges to be funded. These are just listed as possible examples.

This is a small example of why the IACC needs to be very careful in how and if they discuss vaccines. Groups such as Autism Speaks can act incredibly irresponsibly in spinning any statement including the word vaccines.

Autism Speaks pushes the “legislative history” myth about the Combating Autism Act

11 Nov

Autism Speaks has announced (possibly incorrectly) that the IACC (Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee) has included vaccine language in the Strategic Plan.

Autism Speaks has posted their statement on their website.

Here is the statement (from their press release):

In enacting the Combating Autism Act (CAA), Congress intended that the federal government examine potential links between vaccines and autism. During the Senate debate over the CAA, Mike Enzi, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, instructed that “no research avenue should be eliminated, including biomedical research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components, and autism spectrum disorder.” 152 Cong. Rec. S8772 (Aug. 3, 2006). In the House, Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was equally clear: “[T]he legislation rightfully calls for renewed efforts to study all possible causes of autism – including vaccines and other environmental causes… The important thing to understand is that there are no preconceived notions contained in this bill; the bill language is clear that we should follow every avenue that science opens to us in searching for a cure.” 152 Cong. Rec. H8787 (Dec. 6, 2006)

Beyond this clear directive of the CAA, Autism Speaks supports rigorous, evidence-based scientific research onto all aspects of autism from potential causes, including both genetic and environmental factors, to diagnosis and treatments. As such, we strongly urge that further vaccine safety research be included in the Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research. Comprehensive “good” science should be the standard in all areas studied and there are aspects of vaccine safety research that have not yet been, and should be, considered.

It is also essential that all scientific research recommended by IACC and funded by the NIH be rigorous and evidence-based to engender the trust of the scientific, medical and entire autism community. Without a solid foundation that supports confidence in scientific conclusion, the entire portfolio of scientific research is at risk of losing community trust. Further, vaccine safety research will increase both the level of confidence in the safety of our nation’s vaccine program and the rate of participation, which is absolutely crucial for the prevention of serious infectious diseases.

Autism Speaks calls on the IACC to consider the importance of evidence-based science, trust, and to remain true to the critical legislative purpose of the Combating Autism Act and asks the IACC to include vaccine safety research in the strategic plan.

The statement that vaccine research is a “clear directive of the CAA” is, simply, false.

The CAA (Combating Autism Act) does not include the statements by congressman Barton and Senator Enzi are part of the congressional record. They are statements made by the individual legislators.

They are not a part of the Combating Autism Act, much less a clear directive of the Act.

IACC includes vaccine language in strategic plan?

11 Nov

I was unable to listen to yesterday’s meeting. But according to a press release from Autism Speaks:

Autism Speaks is encouraged by yesterday’s decision of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) to include vaccine research studies in the objectives of the updated Strategic Plan for Autism Research. The new language, approved unanimously, calls for studies to determine if there are sub-populations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures such as immune challenges related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying immune problems. “This revised plan is an important step toward a more comprehensive approach to exploring the wide range of risk factors that may be contributing to autism,” said Geraldine Dawson, Ph.D., Autism Speaks chief science officer.

AoA Circulates H1N1 Hoax

6 Nov

On October 27, AoA posted an article titled “Without Vaccine, Australia Shrugs Off Swine Flu”, By David Burd. This article consists of a string of claims clearly at odds with reality:

“(Australia has) no vaccine available for H1N1 flu…”

The University of Queensland claimed to have manufactured the first litre of an H1N1 vaccine made in Australia on June 29, 2009. Large-scale immunization began on September 28.

“Australia recently ended its 2009 `Flu Season’ (their Winter in our Summer), with 186 flu-associated fatalities of 36,991 Aussies confirmed having H1N1.”

Australian authorities openly acknowledge that their “official” numbers are very incomplete. Many possible cases have gone unconfirmed, due to limited resources and the rapid accumulation of reports. It is possible that a significant number of deaths went intentionally unreported, to circumvent government rationing of antiviral drugs. In any event, H1N1 is presumably still spreading, as the number of officially acknowledged cases has continued to grow. On October 26, the day before Burd’s article was posted, a new report acknowledged 37,039 cases, 48 more than the Oct. 21 report which provided Burd’s figure.

“Canadian front page news on flu vaccinations has transfixed Canada health authorities, prompting official suspension of regular flu vaccination programs until further notice.”

What actually happened is that authorities in one province of Canada decided not to give the H1N1 vaccine to those over 65 H1N1 vaccine production and distribution has not stopped and may accelerate. A Canadian commenting on an earlier essay of mine has said, “The only temporary suspension that occurs is when we run out of vaccines…”

“This comes from a sweeping study of Canada by research Doctors Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre of Disease Control and Gaston De Serres of Laval University in Quebec concluding Canadians receiving flu vaccinations have twice the risk of coming down with the flu, compared to those who do not take the shot.”

The study in question did not claim that receiving an H1N1 vaccine increased the risk of H1N1 infection, which is almost certainly what Burd wishes to imply. Rather, it claimed that those who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 were at higher risk of catching H1N1 during the following year. Skowronski openly admitted that an actual causal relationship is open to debate.

“(On Oct. 4) U.S. doctors offered the opinion that the Canadian doctors’ flu vaccination study was certainly wrong and must have used flawed study parameters, though (they) admittedly could not identify anything specific.”

No later than September 26, CDC spokesman Joe Quimby stated, “(S)cientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not seen this effect in systems we have reviewed in the U.S.”

The most benign interpretation of this article is that Burd has credulously accepted a number of possible “urban legends”. I think there can be little doubt that modern “legends” are involved. I find the claim that H1N1 vaccination has been suspended in Canada, in particular, plausible as a “real” Canadian rumor. Bogus reports of current or impending changes in US government policies are a common type of “urban legend” in the US itself, and it is only to be expected that other nations would be subject to similar lore. But, such bogus reports often merge into hoaxes and scams. (A commonly aired suspicion is that individuals or groups create or promote legends about their enemies.) I am inclined to interpret Burd’s article (and AoA’s publication of it) as more in the vein of a hoax. Even if they more or less believe the story, it is hard to regard its posting as anything but cynical posturing.

Urban legends about H1N1 and its vaccines are already being noted, as in a chain email about a hospital supposedly warning staff not to be vaccinated. Such rumors can be recognized questioned promptly by looking for the following “clues”:

1. The report is more like a personal narrative than “news”, particularly in giving very specific details about people and events without specific dates, locations, etc.
2. The narrative, or a part thereof, is attributed to someone other than the immediate source or an acquaintance thereof (the infamous “friend of a friend” tale!)
3. The narrative features what I call a “phantom quote”: a sensational statement by a supposedly authoritative but unnamed or unfamiliar source.
4. Statements by named and familiar sources are not easily found or verified, for example being without a given broadcast or publication date, or especially being allegedly censored before wide distribution.
5. You have already heard a similar story with differences in key details.

By recognizing such clues, one can recognize a fundamentally suspicious story even before trying to verify it independently. Being on guard at first hearing may well be a better defense against the spread of disinformation than any amount of subsequent investigation.

David N. Brown is an AS adult living in Mesa, Arizona. He is author of the ebook The Urban legend of Vaccine-Caused Autism and several works of fiction, and creator of the autism website evilpossum.weebly.com.

Evaluation of Immunization Rates and Safety Among Children with Inborn Errors of Metabolism

2 Nov

Ever since the Hannah Poling case became public, and especially give the way in which David Kirby has presented the case, there has been a question of whether vaccines can cause regressions in children with inborn errors of metabolism (mitochondrial disorders are a subset of these).

I discussed one very recent paper Fever Plus Mitochondrial Disease Could Be Risk Factors for Autistic Regression. Commenter and LBRB blogger Joseph made the very correct observation then:

I’d say it’s potentially interesting, but limited. In order to tell that something is a risk factor, you need a case-control study.

More specifically, can self-selection bias be discounted in this study?

It is encouraging to see that such studies into this question are being staged. Here is the abstract from a study presented 2009 Infectious Diseases Society of America titled, Evaluation of Immunization Rates and Safety Among Children with Inborn Errors of Metabolism.

Abstract

Background: Children with metabolic disorders are a potential high-risk group for vaccine-preventable diseases. Despite recommendations that they receive all routine immunizations, information regarding both immunization rates and safety data within this population is lacking.
Methods: Using Northern California Kaiser Permanente’s (NCKP) integrated electronic medical record, we identified children up to age 18 years who had an inborn error of metabolism (IEM) from 1990 to 2007. We assessed immunization rates among a subset of infants with IEM born at NCKP who were members until age 3 years matched to healthy infants (1:20), comparing both immunizations received by age 2 years and timing for receipt of vaccines. We next separately assessed for adverse events after immunization by using self-controlled analyses among all children up to age 18 years with an IEM who received at least 1 vaccine at any time, comparing emergency room visits and hospitalizations during post-vaccine days 0-30 to post-vaccine days 31-60.
Results: We identified 79 infants with IEM who were born and remained a member of NCKP at age 3 years. Compared to 1580 matched controls, there was no difference in the proportion of children with IEM up to date for vaccines at 2 years, nor was there any delayed receipt of recommended vaccines during the first year. We also preliminarily identified 322 children with IEM who received any vaccine. Preliminary analysis in this group did not detect an increase in emergency room visits [rate ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60, 1.14] or hospitalizations (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.4) during the 30 days after vaccination compared to post-vaccine days 31-60.
Conclusion: Children with metabolic diseases in this cohort were vaccinated at rates comparable to healthy children. Although sample size is a limitation, preliminary evidence does not suggest an association between vaccination and an increased risk for serious adverse events.

Emphasis added.

A news story on the subject quoted the session chair where the study was presented:

“These findings are very reassuring,” said Larry Pickering, MD, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, who moderated the session at which the study was presented.

“Most of us who take care of kids with inborn errors of metabolism think vaccination is one of the best interventions we can offer them,” he said. “They are at increased risk for devastating complications, even death, from the diseases that the vaccines prevent.”

This is reassuring. Preliminary, yes. I can already see the criticisms, both legitimate and otherwise, that will be levied against this study. but potentially very reassuring. Vaccines are one of the front line interventions in protecting people with mitochondrial disorders.

Let’s see if I can predict the criticisms:

1) not peer reviewed
2) many authors received grant money from vaccine manufacturers.
3) the sample size is small (79 infants)
4) the number of infants with mitochondrial disorders is even smaller (7)
5) it would be good to see a comparison of hospitalizations in the months previous to immunizations (if possible)
6) the time spanned by the study covers a large change in the immunization schedule. The sample size of infants immunized in the current schedule is likely to be rather small.

The sample size is small, but it would be interesting to see if the prevalence of metabolic disorders has increased over this time span. But, as autism has shown us, the correlation=causation arguments can be shaky at best.

Why don’t the so-called “vaccine safety” orgs talk about vaccine safety?

30 Oct

I really do plan to get back to real autism related subjects. I do. This subject just came up yesterday and it really bugs me so I decided to write something quick.

One of the most common statements from the groups (Generation Rescue, Think About Curing Autism (TACA), the National Autism Association, SafeMinds….) who promote the vaccines-caused-autism-epidemic idea is that they are “vaccine safety” groups, not “anti-vaccine”. The self-named “National Vaccine Information Center” is, I would think, supposed to have vaccine information.

One vaccine these groups love to hate is Rotateq, a vaccine against rotavirus infection. Why? Because it was invented by a team including Dr. Paul Offit, who just so happens to be one of the most vocal critics of the vaccine-caused-autism-epidemic.

Take, for example, this comment by SafeMinds member, and Age Of Autism blogger Mark Blaxill:

“Paul has saved hundreds of thousands of lives (granted mostly in underdeveloped countries, but rotovirus still kills a small few in the US).”

That’s quite an extravagant assertion, and almost certainly false. What evidence do you have that Rotateq (Offit’s invention) has been adminstered in sufficient quantities to prevent death in developing countries from complications of diarrhea? Rotateq is deployed in only one country besides the US. Here in the US we know Rotateq (and Rotashield before it) has CAUSED death and have little information that it has prevented any.

The consistent hyping of the benefits of marginally beneficial vaccines is one of the most disturbing features of a vaccine development industry run amok. Rotateq is perhaps the most egregious example of a vaccine product that provides next to zero benefit in the markets in which it has been deployed.

Let me be clear. In the markets in which it might have value, Rotateq is far too expensive to be widely deployed and is therefore rarely used. In the markets in which it is not needed, it is mandated at high prices and used widely with little benefit and documented (and almost certainly underestimated) serious risk. Those mandates and high prices are justified by a marketing non sequitor that Josh perpetuates here: pointing to deaths outside the geography in question as justification for a vaccine blockbuster that can have no impact whatever on those deaths.

Orwell never dreamed of doublespeak as bad as this.

What made this comment stick in my mind is the unsupported claim that Rotateq “CAUSED” death (nice use of all caps, there, by the way).

I am also drawn to the common belief (not directly expressed in the above quote) that there is no or only minimal safety research done.

This week, the CDC put out an MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) on the effects of Rotateq. The cliniical trial showed that Rotateq works. The surveillance shows Rotateq works–the number of submitted samples that tested postive went down after Rotateq was introduced.

The big point I’d like to bring to light was a recent talk given at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting. They are monitoring intussusception in children given Rotateq. Intussusception is an intestinal problem, potentially fatal, that was linked to the previous rotavirus vaccine. It is why that vaccine, Rotashield, was pulled from the market. As such, it is good an proper that they monitor intussusception with Rotateq.

The results?

Results provide no evidence that RotaTeq®receipt is associated with an increased risk for IS [intussusception] 1-30 days or 1-7 days following vaccination.

Typically those trying to claim that Rotateq is dangerous use the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Any event reported to VAERS is taken to be caused by the vaccine. VAERS is a “passive” system. People report into VAERS and no one checks that the diagnoses are accurate. Also, intussusception happens even without vaccines. So you really can’t take every VAERS report as a causal event–i.e. just because someone reports to VAERS that a child had intussusception sometime after Rotateq, that doesn’t mean Rotateq caused it.

Do I expect people like Mr. Blaxill to stop claiming that Rotateq is dangerous? No. But I put this out there to take away any last shred of “plausible deniability”. They, the self-styled “vaccine safety” groups, don’t report on actual vaccine safety studies. That doesn’t mean they don’t read them and know about them.

Amy Wallace discusses the responses she got to the WIRED article

28 Oct

A recent article in WIRED magazine took a close look at the vaccine/autism discussion. I discussed it briefly in a previous post. The article took a very science-oriented stance which, you can imagine, did not please the vaccines-cause-autism organizations.

For example, the “vaccines-cause-autism” organizations are listed by WIRED as “anti-vaccine” organizations.

The WIRED piece has caused a stir, even outside of the autism communities. Ms. Wallace’s piece has been noticed by Time Magazine, MinnPost.com, and The Atlantic. Oh, and some of the “anti-vaccine” orgs blogged about it too.

Not surprisingly the author of that piece, Ms. Amy Wallace, received a lot of responses to her article. In an interesting move, she has discussed many of the responses on Twitter. These have been compiled on the “bastard sheep” blog.

In addition to the WIRED article getting noticed, the responses are getting noticed. The Terra Sigillata blog has a piece up. The LA Times LA Observed has a piece on their blog.

Let’s take a closer look at the responses. She got about 250 so far, with about 3:1 in favor of the article. Some of the responses from her twitter feed: Some responses, like the one noted in Terra Sigillata, were quite harsh. Here are a couple:

I’ve been told I’ll think differently “if you live to grow up.” I’ve been warned that “this article will haunt you for a long time.”

“If she lives to grow up”? Pretty clear threat there.

She has every right to complain. Instead Ms. Wallace has reported on these comments, but for the most part she hasn’t added commentary. This hasn’t stopped her detractors from calling her a “cry baby”.

I’ve been called stupid, greedy, a whore, a prostitute, and a “fking lib.” I’ve been called the author of “heinous tripe.”

This is one view the outside world is getting of the autism communities. Does anyone think this is helping? OK, there are the small minority. So, to be more precise, does anyone reasonable disagree with the idea that this hurts the autism communities?

Here are some more comments she received that focus more on the autism communites:

In his book, Autism’s False Prophets, Dr. Offit writes about scientists who have been intimidated into staying silent about autism/vaccines. If scientists – who are armed with facts and trained to interpret them – are afraid, can it be any surprise that a lot of parents are, too?

No, it isn’t a surprise. Sad, yes. Surprise, no.

One persistent theme in their emails is the idea that vaccination policies abridge our civil rights. As one reader put it, “Me and mine are not a herd. Human beings are capable and entitled to decide for themselves what to put in our bodies.” Another mom wrote, “The PARENT knows their child more than anyone in the world. The PARENTS, Ms. Wallace, NOT Mr. Offit.” Another said, “I have a Son that needs Me – not another needle.”

To which Ms. Wallace responded rather well:

This idea – which we discuss in the Wired story – is powerful: that parents, not medical experts, should be the ultimate authority on their children’s health. To which I say, with all due respect, and as a parent myself: loving your child doesn’t make you an expert. It makes you a devoted parent.

Ms. Wallace goes on to state:

The dominant emotion in even the angriest emails to me is despair. Forget the vitriol, the slurs, the insults. The despair is what I find truly painful to read.

Which she follows with this comment from a parent:

“Those of us with autistic children are really sick of you know-it-alls,” one mom wrote me. Then she delivered the best description of what a loving parent wishes for their child that I have received so far. “I want my daughter to feel like a ‘typical’ child,” she wrote. “I want her to experience ONE day of no GI pain or headaches. I want my daughter to be able to gain weight and be able to have enough energy to play on the playground with her friends. So, in between therapies, doctors’ appointments, crying, diarrhea, no friends, trouble with school, countless vitamins to keep her tiny body going and being near bankrupt, you think I want to be in this fight?”

Ms. Wallace responds:

No, I don’t think she wants to be in that fight. Who would? Autism can be truly devastating to families. There is no debate about that. Which is why – as so many parents have said — every available research dollar should be aimed at finding the causes of the disorder

Leaving aside the discussion of whether autism is a medical condition for the moment (although I expect and welcome comments on this):

With all due respect, here Ms. Wallace made a common mistake in equating understanding causation with progress towards therapies. Ms. Wallace seems to have bought into the assumption that if we know the causes, we will automatically know treatments. Well, yes and no. Yes, understanding causation may help in many cases. At the same time, in many cases it likely will not.

Take, for example, the idea that autism is vaccine injury. The alternative medical community already assumes autism is a vaccine injury. They already claim to be treating autism as vaccine injury. Do they have a “cure”? No. Do they even have any proven therapies? No. For that matter, are any of their therapies really based on treating vaccine injury, as they claim? No. As a simple example: can anyone point to a truly innovative therapy that Andrew Wakefield (father of the MMR-causes-autism theory) has developed?

Consider HBOT (Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy). Can anyone give a clear explanation how that ties into vaccine injury? The closest “therapy” based on vaccine injury proposed so far is chelation. The removal of mercury from a body supposedly mercury poisoned from vaccines. The latest study, from their own researchers mind you, shows it is as effective as a placebo. Which is a nice way of saying: chelation doesn’t work.

I am not saying that causation research is useless. Far from it. However, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce the medical therapies many parents are searching for to treat their children.

I’ve gone off track from reporting the responses Ms. Wallace received to her piece. I’ve probably also sidetracked the discussion that will happen here.

Today Ms. Wallace added some comments she has received from autistics.

n the past week or so, I’ve heard from several people who said they were on the autism spectrum. They all said they enjoyed the article. What they don’t enjoy, however, is hearing themselves described as people that no one wants to be.

I’ll end with one comment out of those tweets:

“I have Autism. But: I am a person, not a problem. I am an asset, not a subject. I’m not a lab mouse, I am human.

Number of cases before the vaccine court drop off dramatically

28 Oct

We often hear about how there are about 5000 cases before the vaccine court claiming autism as a vaccine injury. What we don’t hear is that almost all of those cases were filed years ago.

Take a look at the data on the number of cases filed per year. Or, take a look at this graph I made of the data (click to enlarge):

Cases submitted to the vaccine court by year

Cases submitted to the vaccine court by year

Red shows autism cases filed. Black shows non-autism cases.

Not much needed in the way of discussion. Autism cases peaked in 2003, six years ago. Autism cases are now at about the same level or less than non-autism cases. It has been low and flat since about 2006.

I know I’ve done a lot of vaccine-oriented posts lately. This is a good indication that I need to spend time on other subjects.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →