Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

Paul Shattock: What The…?

14 Mar

I recently had occasion to quote some of Mr Shattocks work. Namely, the case studies he diagnosed autism from in Victorian Britain. These were the papers that John Best Jr felt were lies. What I didn’t tell John until after he had a good rant and (if I recall) called the author ‘some nut’ was that Mr Shattock is a staunch believer in the MMR/Thiomersal/autism connection.

Some nut indeed.

Paul Shattock has extensive ties to Andrew Wakefield. Both feel that the MMR has some role to play in autism and Mr Shattock is a promoter of what he terms:

…some of the unorthodox forms of biomedical intervention currently being applied to autism.

Sunderland.

Dr Micheal Fitzpatrick comments:

Metabolic theories continued to attract a following in the shadowy area of alternative and fringe therapies, particularly in the USA. The cult of ‘orthomolecular psychiatry’ emerged out of these theories and popularised the treatment of a range of psychiatric problems with a high dose of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and other diets and dietary supplements. It is out of this tradition, which has little concern for the rigours of scientific research, that Mr Shattock’s studies have emerged.

Like the Geier’s, Paul Shattock publishes his research in some strange places (source as above):

It is impossible to evaluate Mr Shattock’s findings because they have not been published in any form. Indeed, virtually all his work has been published in the ‘grey literature’, in journals which have no formal process of evaluation or peer review.

It seems the paper he published and I quoted to John is a rare exception in a sea of vanity publishing. Indeed, Paul Shattocks Sunderland team website carries links to places like nomercury.org – hardly an informed or non-partisan choice.

Paul Shattock himself is an interesting figure. Father of an autistic child himself, he refuses to publish his work until he has studied 1,000 children. However that didn’t stop details of his work and preliminary findings mysteriously appearing (source as above):

Mr Shattock’s research entered the public realm, via journalists sympathetic to the anti-MMR campaign

But perhaps the greatest mystery about Paul Shattock is what the letters after his name mean. Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches journalist Brian Deer asks the same question:

(I)….ran a Google search for DipAgVet, the latest qualification sported by Mr Paul Shattock, who specialises in urine tests.

For details of what came back and how you can help Mr Deer, go visit his site and take a guess.

Isabella Thomas Gets Her Day In Court

10 Mar

Isabella Thomas of the anti-vaccination group JABS has got her day in court.

She claims that the MMR jab,

led to her sons developing autism

in the careful phrasing of the BBC.

The proceedings will begin in June. It should be a very interesting case for all of us involved from whatever perspective we look at the MMR angle from. She also told the BBC that:

…she noticed he was experiencing difficulty shortly after he had the vaccine…..The infant’s condition gradually deteriorated from that moment onwards and he was eventually diagnosed with autism,” she said

A bit short on facts as an article, I decided to see if I could find out a bit more regarding this ‘gradual deterioration’ in terms of what form it took.

In November 2003, the then (and current) Lib Dem MP for Lewes (Ms. Thomas’ constituency) Norman Baker, presented a speech concerning Ms Thomas to the Health Minister (then Dr Reid if memory serves) in which he outlined her various issues with how her sons had been treated by the medical establishment. Her MP sums up:

My constituent believes, rightly or wrongly, that the reactions that have been caused in her children and which have led to these, it seems, permanent conditions are a result of MMR. She holds that view very strongly and communicates it to those in the health service. She feels that because she holds that view, her children are effectively being denied effective treatment to deal with their conditions until such time as she is prepared to deny that MMR is the cause. That may be a misconception on her part, but that is what she believes.

Mr Baker is obviously being as tactful to Ms Thomas’s belief system as he possibly can be which is commendable behaviour in an MP but I agree with his inference that its only because she holds the view that MMR ‘led to’ her sons autism that she feels she’s having treatment withheld for _that_ condition (not autism, but MMR induced autism).

More interestingly, he also details her sons ‘gradual deterioration’. This is a description of Michael, her eldest.:

…he was like a wild animal; he screamed when anyone touched him and cried day and night. He has been diagnosed with regressive autism and has an obsessive-compulsive disorder. He suffers from auditory hallucinations, increased clumsiness, chronic bowel disease, temperature control problems, severe headaches, loss of memory, breathing problems and rashes.

And Terry, Michael’s younger brother:

During the night after the vaccination, Terry suffered a fit and within a week he developed excessive temperature swings and loss of skills. Before the vaccination, he was potty trained, but he regressed the very next day. Within two weeks he began to suffer from constipation and chronic diarrhoea. Within a month he appeared clumsy and walked into doors. He stopped talking and would become completely silent. He no longer indulged in pretend play. He now suffers from fits, jaundice when ill, chronic bowel disease, very high fevers, rashes, regressive autism and excessive thirst.

Both boys are said to have:

the measles virus, consistent with the vaccine strain

found in their bowels and blood in Michaels case.

As far as I read it, *none* of Michaels symptoms match those of any known diagnostic criteria of autism. Two, maybe three out of the eight listed above match comorbidities sometimes associated with autism.

Terry’s symptom list is more intriguing and contains the hotly debated ‘regressive autism’. It also lists it _as_ a symptom, indicating that the other symptoms haven’t _caused_ it but exist alongside it. If we take the other as possible indicators of autism then only one ‘he no longer indulged in pretend play’ speaks openly of autism to me. Again, two, possibly three of his listed symptoms out of the thirteen or so listed speak of sometime comorbidities.

Its an established fact that vaccines can cause injury. Could they have caused these injuries? Of course they _could_ . But did they? I don’t know. I would imagine that Ms Thomas filled out a form for the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit and I would imagine that, as in all cases, they performed an investigation and found her claim unsubstantiated. I could be wrong though, maybe she didn’t but seeing as JABS link to the VDPU and encourage people to make such a claim it would seem logical to assume she has. if they rejected her claim that means they don’t agree that the MMR jab caused either of kids problems.

But lets say they did, just to play devils advocate. As the listed symptoms seem utterly dissimilar to those used to diagnose autism I’m unsure how Ms Thomas hopes to establish a causative link at all. Should be an interesting case to watch all the same.

Burden Of Proof

8 Mar

As one dives ever deeper into the science (or lack thereof) between the two camps of the autism/thimerosal debate, the questions become more and more interesting.

It occurred to me awhile ago to wonder how, if we agree that thiomersal in vaccines causes autism, the UK and the US have such very similar rates of autism but very dissimilar rates of thiomersal. The main stance I’m challenging (as ever) is that of Generation Rescue who make it clear they believe thiomersal to be the main culprit (60% of the ‘mercury facts’ page is devoted to thiomersal related questions and thiomersal has its own dedicated section on the GR site). Lets have a look at mercury intake at the height of both countries thiiomersal use:

UK
..a substantial proportion of children in the GPRD cohort will have had a cumulative Hg exposure of *75 µg* of Hg.

US
the maximum cumulative exposure in some US children was *187.5 µg* Hg.

Source

Thats quite some disparity. It raises a few questions almost immediately.

Firstly, are US children more ‘severely’ autistic than UK children? If not, why not? Surely if they’ve received more than twice what UK kids have via vaccines we should see vastly more severely (or low functioning, pick your pejorative) affected autistic people. Is there any evidence this is the case? Well, if IQ is anything to go by (which I fully accept is questionable and I’m only using because thats how the diagnostic criteria work) then the latest stats as quoted by Joseph indicate it is not the case:

Why is the prevalence of CDDS clients without mental retardation (presumably based on IQ testing) going up quickly?

Joseph.

Are there any other indicators that ‘full’ or ‘classic’ or ‘kanners’ or ‘full spectrum’ or ‘low functioning’ (again pick your pejorative) autism is increasing in the US compared to the UK at a ratio of 2:1 whilst ‘high functioning’ or ‘Aspergers Syndrome’ cases are not? I can’t think of any.

Secondly, where are all the dead autistic US children compared to still living UK children?

We hear all the time that autistic people are poor excretors of mercury and yet I find it incredible that given this supposed poor excretion, American autistic kids aren’t dying much earlier than their UK counterparts. Isn’t mercury ingestion eventually fatal? At what level is it necessary for someone to excrete mercury in order to maintain life? There seems to be no evidence to suggest more autistic people die from illnesses close in appearance to fatal mercury exposure than non-autistics and yet not only do they have this inability to excrete mercury, they have a huge mercury burden to start life with and exactly the same exposure to other forms of environmental mercury as non-autistics.

And the inverse is also true. If we accept by virtue of the fact that autistic people are not dying of mercury poisoning that they *must* be excreting it then why do their symptoms not improve? According to proponents of chelation, chelation not only removes the mercury it actually recovers/cures the patient. Is there some aspect to chelation that there isn’t to normal excretion paths? How does chelation reverse the alleged neuro damage when ordinary excretion apparently cannot?

No answers here, only questions.

McScience

3 Mar

Yesterday, my fellow countryman Mike Stanton left the following comment in response to a previous commenter about his belief regarding how his child had become autistic:

There may not be a single answer. But that does not mean we can pick any answer we like. There has to be some scientific validity to any hypothesis.

This is such a good comment. It reflects something I’ve felt increasingly over the last year or so – the increase in pseudo-scientific theories posed as a ‘menu’ for parents to choose from. It reminds me of sauntering up to the counter at McDonalds and saying – “I’ll have one of those, one of those and one of those.”

I recently came across a post made on the Onibasu list which illustrates my point. This is the signature of the poster in question. Its a list of treatments she’s trying on her child:

My son is using M-B12 (Hopewell) since Dec 2003, Wellness Essential GSH (had been using TD-Glut but levels were always low), TD-DMSA (3 on and 4 off – 8 hr schedule) (Lee Silsby) since Oct 2005, (Used TD-DMPS Jan 2005 ?Oct 2005) TD-ALA (Lee Silsby) since Oct 2005, TD-LDN (Wellness) Since Oct 2005, (High Tech Health) FIR sauna, Magnetico bed, High Tech Health’s water machine, and a lot of supplements.) GFGFSF diet.

The post in question is also asking about Lupron. Thats a total of 12 separate treatments, ‘a lot of’ supplements and she probably is in the process of adding Lupron to that list as we speak.

And can you Supersize me please?

What worries me is even a bog-standard bottle of Asprin has a warning on it about responsible use. Is it really sensible to risk giving one’s child such a massive cocktail of drugs on the word of someone who quite obviously is more interested in money than science?

Medicine shouldn’t be such a pick and mix affair. Its quite worrying about what this reveals about how the West’s perception of doctors has changed. Doctors who have undergone 7 years plus of training are viewed with suspicion and sued at the drop of an opinion whilst ‘doctors’ who have shops rather than practices are lauded as heroes.

How did it come to this? When did McScience start to replace science? How did it come to pass that the process of peer review (designed to give a good _starting point_ to a paper) meant nothing and the process of buying an entry in a pseudoscience rag or buying a misleading advertmeant everything?

I’m nobodies scientist. It takes me longer to understand the science because I need to go through it time after time so I understand all the words and understand the implications. I ask questions of actual scientists and get them to translate for me so it stands to reason to me that for an article to be peer reviewed in a decent journal assures that the standard of science in that article will be fairly high. It might not make the paper _right_ , but at least we can be sure its been thought through properly.

Surely that needs to be the absolute baseline of quality we should come to expect for papers that discuss such important questions. Otherwise we really do end up at the counter of McScience – like kids in a sweet shop, taking what we think we’ll like rather than what we need.

The Geier’s Go Dumpster Diving Again

28 Feb

In their increasingly forlorn looking attempt to get some kind (any kind!) of connection between thiomersal and autism, the Geiers launched a new paper. Announced in the Schafer Mercury Report as follows:

The study, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a peer reviewed journal, by Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier examined two independent databases maintained by the government – one national and one state.

Oh-ho…..the infamous Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Described as:

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons seems to be little more than a conservative publication gussied up with a medical spin. A look at the references in the illegal-alien report, written by Madeleine Pelner Cosman — a “medical lawyer” whose previous claim to fame appears to be a book on medieval cooking but who has also written an article for a group called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership — is chock full of hardline conservative cites, including books by Michelle Malkin and former WND writer (and Slantie winner) Jon Dougherty and articles by Phyllis Schlafly and Tom DeWeese.

Source.

And the peer review process is commented on thusly (source as above):

The latest book by Ann Coulter is also reviewed, which claims that _”Liberalism (socialism), one of the most disastrous sets of ideas ever conceived, is at war with civilization.”_ Makes one wonder about the peer review the journal claims to have.

Not a very encouraging start.

But what about the meat of the Geiers report? Is it any good? Here’s where the Geiers get their data from:

A two-phase study was undertaken to evaluate trends in diagnosis of new NDs entered into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) databases

Oh dear. Looks like the Geiers Have gone dumpster diving again.

These sources are terrible. The VAERS is not intended for this purpose, a fact spelled out in big bold type on its page:

…..Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Source.

Dr James Laidler has this to say about VAERS:

The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database. Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.

Source

He goes on to say (source as above):

Since at least 1998 (and possibly earlier), a number of autism advocacy groups have, with all the best intentions, encouraged people to report their autistic children—or autistic children of relatives and friends—to VAERS as injuries from thimerosal-containing vaccines. This has irrevocably tainted the VAERS database with duplicate and spurious reports..

As for the California data, the Geiers are simply reproducing the same mistake that Rick Rollens made before them. A simple question to David Kirby would’ve revealed that the California data can only be reflected accurately in cases of 3-5 year olds, whereas the Geiers state they studied:

The *total* new number of autism reports received by the CDDS

Geiers.

This material was covered at the start of this very year.

And these people are apparently scientists. To paraphrase a friend – ‘if they walk like ducks, sound like ducks…’

Quick Quiz

24 Feb

I came across an interesting post on EoH today. Its interesting for lots of reasons, notably its misrepresentation. A few of the responses (from Erik and Wade notably) referred to me so I thought I should at least grace them (and the op) with a reply.

_QUICK QUIZ:_
_Which physical symptoms should be ignored in children with mercury- induced autism, so that their parents can “celebrate their neurodiversity”?_
_1. Chronic burning diarrhea_
_2. Constipation with grapefruit-sized blockage_
_3. Intestinal diverticuli_
_4. Seizures (petit mal, grand mal, tonic, clonic)_
_5. 75% under normal body weight_
_6. Lesions lining intestinal mucosa_
_7. Esophineal esophagitis_
_8. Food texture sensivitiy and swallowing difficulty_
_9. Asthma and reactive airway disorder_
_10. Allergies to foods, fabrics, toys_
_11. Immune dysfunction_
_12. Chronic sinus infections_
_13. Chronic upper respiratory infections_
_14. Cycling viruses_
_15. PANDAS (strep)_
_16. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies_
_17. Yeast overgrowth_
_18. Kryptopyrrole overload_
_19. Phenol sensitivity_
_20. Liver and kidney stress_
_21. Precocious puberty_
_22. Thyroid malfunction_
_23. Brain lesions with demyelination_

_If I missing anything, please find more from the Autism Research Institute, Thoughtful House, Autism Treatment Network, HRI+Pfeiffer Treatment Center, or the hundreds of doctors treating these children’s physical disorders._

_Inevitably some people reading the above list will still deny the existence of our children’s physical pain despite medical tests and observational data from tens of thousands more. As the adage goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see… when their personal filter of communication becomes a cataract._

_Perhaps at no other time in history has it been so common that when truth is not expedient, people create convenient fictions. Rather than actually witness or try to help, it’s quicker to indulge inlurid oppositional imaginings from the comfort of one’s home. This denial perpetuates the suffering of children, and that is morally indefensible._

_Nancy Hokkanen_
_Minneapolis_

OK, so first lets answers Nancy’s question _”Which physical symptoms should be ignored in children with mercury- induced autism, so that their parents can “celebrate their neurodiversity”?”_

The answer to that would of course be ‘none’. Where on Earth did anyone get the idea that ignoring things like chronic diarrhea or Asthma is part of neurodiversity? My own daughter is Asmathic, as is my son, I can assure you I don’t ignore their asthma. Such a belief indicates either a lack of reading or comprehension ability – or more likely, a propensity to not have actually ever read up about the subject one’s discussing. From the Neurodiversity Wikipedia entry:

Most supporters of neurodiversity are anti-cure autistics, who are engaged in advocacy. In addition, some parents of autistic children also support neurodiversity and the view that autism is a unique way of being, rather than a disease to be cured. Such parents say they value their children’s individuality and want to allow their children to develop naturally. According to proponents, autistics may need therapies only to cure comorbid conditions, or to develop useful skills.

And thus we come around once again to the issue of comorbidities. In a response to the above post, Erik said:

As one of our favorite folks in the “ND” crowd likes to say… all those things are just “co-morbidities.”….Please…

And Wade said:

As I have asked our friend about his use of that term, if comorbidities are the cause of the dysfunctions by which our children are being diagnosed, can we really call them comorbidities?

Truncated source.

So yet again – misrepresentation.I have never claimed *all* those things are comorbidities. Its quite clear that some of those listed have no relationship to autism at all and (for example, precocious puberty) are only in there to justify the use of quacky therapies.

However, its easy to tell if a person is autistic because they’ll have met the diagnostic criteria for autism – if they meet the diagnostic criteria for having Asthma then guess what – they’re asthmatic! If they meet the diagnosis for precocious puberty then guess what? Thats what they have!

What about Wade’s point that these comorbidities are causing the problems leading to diagnosis? Well there are several issues with that. If someone is getting a diagnosis of autism if they exhibit some or all of the above list then the diagnosing Doctor is clearly off his or her trolley. If the Doctor is saying – ‘your child is on the spectrum and they also have several comorbidities’ then thats something else entirely. What Wade is essentially postulating is another, seperate form of autism that Nancy calls ‘mercury induced autism’. Of course, this is just circular reasoning – these symptoms are attributable to mercury, my child is on the spectrum therefore mercury caused my child to be on the spectrum.

If we want to ascribe a whole new type of autism to these kids then we have to do the science. The first step is ‘can mercury cause autism’? Without that step, the whole thing comes crashing down. And so far, there is no evidence it does. the symptoms of traditional mercury poisoning and its variants such as Pinks Disease bear no relation to the symptoms of autism – *and neither do they bear much relation to the list Nancy made* that I quoted above.

So on what basis, other than a belief that it did amongst a minority of parents, can we accept the possibility that mercury causes autism? Thats not to say it definitely doesn’t of course but its certainly not looking good at all as a theory.

Then, sadly, Nancy ruins the fun and gets all moralistic:

Perhaps at no other time in history has it been so common that when truth is not expedient, people create convenient fictions. Rather than actually witness or try to help, it’s quicker to indulge in lurid oppositional imaginings from the comfort of one’s home. This denial perpetuates the suffering of children, and that is morally indefensible.

Well, I certainly have no problem with that first sentence – I think the targets Nancy and I have are oppositional however. And where exactly is anyone denying the suffering of children? This accusation gets leveled time and time again and I’ve yet to see anyone who postulates it actually back it up. If your child is Asthmatic, like two of mine, I know exactly how nasty and scary it can be. All I’m saying is that saying asthma _is_ autism – that the former can be used to diagnose the latter is wrong.

So to recap – if your child has a diagnosis for all of the above (and I mean a diagnosis from an actual Doctor, not a quack who’ll wheel out a diagnosis because they’re ‘excited’ about trying their brand new pet theory out) then go right ahead and treat them – to do otherwise would be insane. However, don’t make the mistake of thinking that a diagnosis of these things is equitable to a diagnosis of autism.

Lupron Rears Its Head

22 Feb

The issue of Lupron finally raises its head above the parapet of autism. I’m going to attempt to ‘bring together’ the various discussions that have sprung up and then have my say on the subject. But before I do, lets just clarify what we’re talking about.

There is an unsubstantiated theory put about by Boyd Haley and the Geiers that testosterone levels are raised in autistic people. There is a further unsubstantiated theory that high testosterone counteracts the bodies ability to be chelated of its mercury efficiently. That the excess mercury got there is also due to an unsubstantiated theory that thiomersal in vaccines is responsible.

The use of chelating agents (which alter the body’s chemistry) have never been tested for safety or efficacy for autistic people (who have chemically different brains than non-autistic people).

So, in my opinion, we have a potentially dangerous and thus far non demonstrably necessary treatment being administered to autistic people. It was put about awhile ago that a typical course of chelation should last 18 months to two years. Now we seem to be approaching that time scale for a lot of children and there seems to be little to no response (unless you believe the unverified claims of Generation Rescue), there’s now a casting about for a reason why the chelation isn’t working as was first thought.

Yes, I have my own opinion as to why it isn’t working. I’m sure you can guess what that opinion is.

But whats _their_ opinion? The chelationistas? Why, that all that pesky testosterone is impeding the chelating of all that pesky mercury. And what reasons are given for that idea? Why, that there are four times as many male autistics as female autistics.

Now that the testosterone theory is out in the wild, suddenly the chelationistas are ‘remembering’ that their kids seem to be developing quickly, that they have a lot of body hair, that they become violent during chelation.

Yes, I have my own theory why they become violent during chelation. I’m sure you can guess that opinion is.

And thats it. Thats why there’s a sudden mad dash for Lupron. So lets now look at how its used.

Quite simply, its being used because the Geier’s are ‘excited’ about using it.

Try going to the NAA website and ordering the DVD or CD from the Geier’s lecture this past weekend. You’ll learn about their work with testosterone and Autism. This research is in its’ infancy, but the Geiers are SO excited about this topic.

Onibasu.

Dr. Geier now has a testosterone study going on, I think it’s Lupron injections every 45 days? until age 12, while chelating with DMPS-TD. there’s some other stuff, too, he’s got I think 8 kids in the study, we’re working on getting all the stuff out of the way for allie Kat to participate, last I knew he had no girls.

EoH.

My daughter will be seeing the Geiers this winter/spring and we’re about to have her tested to see if their protocol is appropriate for her. I’ll report the results when we have them…but in the MEANTIME, you can watch the Reverend Lisa Sykes discuss her son Wesley’s progress after receiving Lupron treatments!

EoH.

Kathleen at Neurodiversity has a very thorough round up of this side of things which I strongly suggest you read. But lets not pretend – children are already being treated with Lupron.

So, just to recap – an unsubstantiated treatment is now being used to treat an unsubstantiated condition which allegedly aids an unsubstantiated process.

But what _is_ Lupron? Whats it used for?

Its used to chemically castrate sex offenders in the US and also to treat Prostrate cancer. Basically it inhibits testosterone. In females it can cause a drug induced menopause. Its only legitimate sue for children is to treat precocious puberty.

There’s been at least one lawsuit associated with Lupron.

Many women with endometriosis who have been given Lupron injections have had severe side-effects, including cardiac arrhythmias, dizziness, swelling, chest pain, depression and confusion, bone pain, extreme fatigue, vision loss, high blood pressure, and nausea. Some of the women claim their side- effects last long after treatment is completed. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Tap claim, for example, to have experienced serious injury after Lupron injections, “resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of the capacity for enjoyment of life, expense of medical care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of the ability to earn money.”

This is a serious drug. Nothing to make assumptions about – nothing to treat _children_ with unless they have a diagnosis of Precocioous Puberty which can be tested for without needing to inject Lupron.

The science that underpins the Geiers is practically non-existent and based pretty much on either their assumptions regarding mercury or their assumptions regarding testosterone – neither of which are authenticated. You can view an overview of the bad science behind the Geiers suppositions at Bartholomew Cubbins site and at an ongoing discussion at the Not Mercury site.

What happens when Lupron is deemed ‘inefficient’? What will be the next inhibitor? What will be the next unnecessary chemical pumped into autistic kids to ‘uninhibit’ the chelation process? And lets not even start on the bizarre cognitive dissonance necessary to refuse to trust Big Pharma regarding thiomersal and yet rush to embrace it regarding Lupron.

Peter Fletcher, Melanie Phillips and the Daily Mail – A Cracked Facade

9 Feb

The Daily Mail published another MMR piece earlier this week. As usual it had the predicted results in that it stirred up the usual frenzy of illogic and fallacy.

Why do I say that?

In order to explain we need to fast-forward a couple of days to where Melanie Phillips, Andrew Wakefield’s staunchest media supporter in the UK, published her own follow up to the Mail story. I urge you to go read both pieces now before you read the rest of this.

OK, done? Good.

So lets talk about what was said. Basically, the gist of both articles is now the medical community in the UK _have_ to take the MMR link seriously because Dr Peter Fletcher, ex-Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health has said a few things about it.

On the face of it thats pretty impressive – this isn’t some no-nothing from nowhere – this is an *ex CSO*. But once you get past the fact of who he _is_ and start to isolate what he’s actually _saying_ then, to borrow a phrase, the facade starts to crack.

First is the fact that this sort of argument – based on his good standing in the past – is a sort of reverse Argumentum Ad Hominem in that it is argued that it is equally or of more importance regarding who Dr Gordon _is_ as oppose to what he _says_. This is, of course, a fallacious position from which to start.

So what does he (and the original article) actually say?

[Dr Gordon]….has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.

Thats simply an assumption based on his circular reasoning that the MMR has routine or above average negative effects: as an argument it relies on the reader agreeing that there is a case for the Gvmnt being complacent in the first place. Since the establishment of this case _is whats actually being debated_ its safe to ignore this as pre-conceived bias.

[Dr Fletcher]…..said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, _”the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”_.

Well, d’uh. How is that news? Its obviously true and equally obvious entirely irrelevant to establishing a case for believing MMR has a role in causing autism. Its a tactical appeal to emotion – nothing more.

He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

This is at the heart of the two articles. Dr Fletcher however simply invokes the spirit of these ‘thousands of documents’ and doesn’t discuss them or what they contain at all. It may well be that he’s hampered by the legal constraints of the case(s) in question but thats really besides the point. What we need to know is – what can Dr Fletcher _add_ to the debate? Both the epidemiology and the hard science have refuted the MMR link on more than one occasion. If Dr Fletcher has peer reviewed journal based evidence that contradicts or invalidates the science done so far then he should state it. At the moment he is simply repeating a fallacy of intuition, magical thinking and an argument to the future. None of these lend any scientific credence to making a case that supports the idea that the MMR jab caused or contributed to anyones autism. If there’s evidence lets get it peer reviewed and published in a respected journal – anything else is simply hearsay.

But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

This is a combination of Galileo gambit and a fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth. In other words its the invocation of a conspiracy theory. Its an easy thing to say because one doesn’t have to prove or even allege who these ‘powerful people’ actually are and thus there is no one available to defend the given proposition. I always think of this as the last refuge of the truly desperate. If someones case is strong enough then why resort to such a transparent and desperate tactic?

Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,” he said.

It is? Where? In fact the vast weight of scientific evidence has very recently concluded that there is no link.

There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world. They also highlight that the policy of encouraging mass use of MMR has eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps and rubella from many countries. _”In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,”_ says lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy.

By contrast, Dr Fletcher yet again fails to say _what_ this ‘vast weight’ of scientific evidence was, where it could be found and who produced it. He just says its there. And we should just trust him because he’s cleverer than us.

Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR’s introduction

Really? Obviously Dr Fletcher (and the Daily Mail) don’t examine the actual science which states:

The new study, which involved 10,903 preschool children in the United Kingdom, confirmed the elevated autism rate, but clearly demonstrated that autism prevalence is not increasing.

Fletcher also makes the mistake of matching correlation with causation – a schoolboy error for any scientist.

He said there was “no way” the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities.

Another totally specious statement with nothing to back it up. Fletcher might well believe it but as he provides no evidence then its just an opinion. In fact, scientific studies in the US indicate the rise in rate _is_ down to better recognition and diagnosis.

“It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccine related problem.” he said.

Again, this may be Fletcher’s opinion but he provides nothing in the way of support for it. This isn’t science, this is just gossip.

And thats just about all of Dr Fletcher’s contribution to the debate. Fallacy, lazy reasoning, assertion and unverified claims. It comes as no surprise that other lazy thinkers hype such garbage when they have so little science to support their position.

Into The Unknown With The Unknowing

31 Jan

The unknown is exciting. As a species we seem innately curious about seeing whats over the next hill, beyond the next valley, what happens if we heat this liquid to its boiling point, etc etc. But fairly obviously, we quickly realised that if we didn’t exert some level of control over the things we were curious enough about to examine closely then the results were arbitrary and meaningless.

“Hey, look at that!” we exclaimed to ourselves, “we’ve just invented the scientific method. How cool are we?”.

Unfortunately, as well as being logical, nuanced creatures capable of appreciating such things as the pathos in satire we’re also reactionary and blinkered. As someone recently remarked:

Too many people on all sides of the debate(s) seem to wear blinders that prevent them from acknowledging how little we all know.

Wade Rankin.

A statement I fully support. However, there are certain things that we need to be certain about when we treat autistic children.

Is chelation safe? Here’s Wade again, quoting a commenter called Random John:

At any rate, it’s still pretty unclear why chelation therapy seems to be successful for some children, but not for others. The polarity of the thimerosal and chelation debates does not seem to cover the ground necessary to understand what’s really going on.

Which is very true. Unfortunately, its yet another example of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. To worry about these things after you’re already treating an autistic child with something like chelation is quite simply stupid. If there are people who are concerned about what effects chelation may or may not have on autistic children then basic medical principles need to be applied: first, do no harm.

That means you need to conduct safety trials before using something that has the following warning on it:

The use of this drug [EDTA] in any particular patient is recommended only when the severity of the clinical condition justifies the aggressive measure associated with this type of therapy.

Recently such people as Dr. Mary Jean Brown, Chief of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for Disease Control claimed that if chelators were used properly then they’d be safe. I take extreme issue with this viewpoint.

Chelation is essentially a chemical process – it alters the chemical composition of the body. Bearing that in mind, consider the following:

This review focuses on recent advances in the in vivo study of the whole brain in idiopathic autism…..Diffuse abnormalities of brain chemical concentrations, are…found. Abnormalities of ….brain chemistry…are evident by early childhood….

Source

So, the brains of autistic people are chemically different then the brains of non-autistics. Given that fact, is it a) stupid or b) clever to use a process that alters the chemical composition of the person and which has never undergone any safety trials in regards to autism?

There’s a whole bunch of people here who need to take a drastic step backwards and do some basic safety trials on what is, irrespective of their beliefs, a poorly understood and potentially dangerous/fatal process.

Drug Error, Not Chelation Therapy, Killed Boy, Expert Says

18 Jan

A report in the Post Gazette includes an interview with Dr. Mary Jean Brown, chief of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She says that:

“without a doubt” that it was medical error, and not the therapy itself, that led to the death of a 5-year-old boy who was receiving it as a treatment for autism.

Which is very interesting on numerous levels.

First (for me) is the statement that clarifies exactly why Tariq was receiving chelation: *”who was receiving it as a treatment for autism”*. That nicely clears up any remaining doubts that Tariq was there for lead poisoning removal. He was there for treatment for autism.

Secondly (and unsurprisingly I take issue with a lot of what Dr Brown claims) is this claim that it was not chelation that killed Tariq. That, to me, is frankly bizarre. Its quite obvious that it is _exactly_ what killed him. If he hadn’t been chelated, he would still be alive. Thats just simple logic. Further, the fact that he was being treated with something that has no proven (or even evidenced) positive effect on ‘recovering’ or ‘curing’ kids from their autism speaks quite clearly to me that it was indeed the chelation that killed him: No autism = no belief in thiomersal poisoning = no chelation = no death. Again, this seems entirely logical to me. EDTA, which is a chelating agent, killed Tariq. QED.

Now, where the ambiguity creeps in is the fact that Dr Brown is claiming that chelation, as a course of action, does not intrinsically harm kids. In fact she said:

She said there have been no reputable medical trials demonstrating the effectiveness of chelation as a therapy for anything but lead poisoning. But if it were administered accurately, the procedure would be harmless.

This is quite a statement. The way I look at it is this: nobody knows the cause of autism. It is likely there are numerous potential triggers. Given that we don’t know what even the chemical composition of the average autistic brain is how can _anyone_ possibly claim that a procedure that removes chemicals is harmless?

And again, I make the point that since chelation has no proven or evidenced positive effect on autism in terms of its removal/curing/recovery/whatever that its use in this case is _directly_ responsible for Tariq’s death.

And there’s more:

“It’s a case of look-alike/sound-alike medications,” she said yesterday. “The child was given Disodium EDTA instead of Calcium Disodium EDTA. The generic names are Versinate and Endrate. They sound alike. They’re clear and colorless and odorless. They were mixed up.”

Mixed up? How can a trained Doctor who ostensibly was a chelationist mix up medications? I guess it could happen but it doesn’t seem likely.

At the end of the day, Dr Brown is offering conjecture. She may have read the autopsy report but her opinion on what Roy Kerry did and why he did it is a matter for an inquiry. At the end of the day a little boy is still dead because he was autistic. Chelation is still responsible for that death.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →