Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

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.

Interverbal On California, Bart On Deth

16 Jan

I’m privileged to be visited on this blog by a number of people far, far cleverer than me who can take very careful examinations of provided materials and highlight the problems with them.

Bartholomew Cubbins has taken the time to provide video reviews of (so far) two of the key papers underpinning the autism/thiomersal hypothesis – Burbacher et al and Waly et al. They are very accessible, even to non-scientists, and because they’re video, you can pause to look up new words as you need to.

Interverbal is a blog run by Jonathan Semetko. Jonathan conducts reviews of statements and theories that apply to autism. His latest post touches on the use of California DDS numbers as used by several people to justify the existence of an autism epidemic.

As I’ve discussed previously, whats important in these numbers is intakes of 3 – 5 yo. This is because these are/will be cases post-thiomersal e,g after the vast majority of thiomersal has been removed from vaccines. This point was conceded by David Kirby in an email to blogger Citizen Cain when he admitted:

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis. He also conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

NB: The date of 2007 is contentious, there seems to be some validity to the claim that Kirby stated that 2005 was the year to watch, not 2007. I hope to clarify this once and for all fairly soon. Rick Rollens has definitely claimed 2005 was the year to watch.

Last week, California DDS published their quarterly figures and as usual people strove to extract meaning from them. Ginger at Adventures In Autism produced a graph showing that the rate of increase was decreasing.

Unfortunately, the data Ginger used to plot her graphs included _all_ age groups, not just 3 – 5 year olds. As we’ve seen, this cohort is the only one that can indicate whether the post-thiomersal generation numbers are decreasing or not. Thiomersal has been very substantially reduced for this age group so a change should be clear.

However, just as Citizen Cain blogged last year in July, Jonathan shows that the rate for this cohort is still increasing.

So now advocates of the thiomersal/autism hypothesis are in a quandary. Their source data is plainly inaccurate, a point admitted by Kirby. If we are therefore to conclude that (as many in the autism/thiomersal camp claim) that the reduction in thiomersal is causing a drop in numbers then they have to abandon the ‘safety net’ position of the remaining thiomersal in flu vaccines being responsible for a maintenance or even increase in autism cases. The reverse, of course, is also true – those who claim that flu in thiomersal means more autistics will be ‘created’ cannot claim that these figures indicate a drop.

Of course, the probability that neither of these cases are true is the ‘best fit’ – autism cases are still rising and these figures only show a reflection on cases that are known to California DSS and cannot reflect one way or the other the state of prevalence in that state.

Chelation Death: The Coroner Speaks (subtitled: Look Before You Leap)

6 Jan

A few months ago, Abubakar Tariq Nadama, a 5 year old autistic boy died at the office of Dr Roy Kerry after undergoing IV EDTA chelation therapy. I wrote about it extensively at the time, as did Autism Diva and Orac.

Today, the coroners report has come in:

In layman’s terms, the administration of ethylene diamine tetra-acetate, commonly known as chelation, resulted in a lack of oxygen to the brain as well as irreversible heart damage, said Allegheny County Deputy Coroner Ed Strimlan.

We determined there’s a direct correlation between the EDTA and the lack of oxygen to the brain and the heart muscle damage. It’s a total package, based on the autopsy, the histology [tissue sampling] and the toxicology [blood sampling],” Mr. Strimlan said.

Source.

At the time, anti-vaxxers, anti-thiomersalers and pro-chelators said we should wait for the results of the report before issuing judgment. However, they failed to extend that same criteria to Dr Rashid Buttar who decided to include EDTA in his new treatment protocol. Dr Buttar is frequently described as a hero amongst the anti-vac’s, anti-thiomersal and pro-chelators and yet they seem strangely reluctant to comment on the efficacy and/or safety of his new protocol. I have repeatedly asked commenter’s to this site the following question:

Given that we don’t know the exact role that IV EDTA played in young Tariq’s death, on what level is it a good idea for Rashid Buttar to start using it in a new protocol?

I have never received an answer to this question. The question has been shirked by at least four separate comments on approximately 6 separate occasions.

Now, of course, we _do_ know that EDTA has ‘a direct correlation’ to the lack of oxygen and heart muscle damage that poor Tariq sustained and which killed him. And still no one is prepared to stand up from the pro-chelationist side and state they think Buttar is being (once again) dangerously irresponsible. He (Buttar) has a reputation as a forceful man – a bit like a bull in a china shop. As we know from recent experience from another man with a similar reputation – such people seldom stop to look before they leap. So convinced they are in their own ‘rightness’ they they plough ahead without pause or consideration.

Now we know for sure that Chelation did play a role in a young boys death – a boy who’s dead _solely because he was autistic_ – I invite commenter’s from an anti-vax, anti-thiomersal, pro-chelation perspective to call for investigations into Dr Roy Kerry under who’s treatment Tariq died and to call for Rashid Buttar to exercise more care.

Speaking of ‘more care’ and ‘looking before one leaps’, yet another anti-thiomersal activist, Dan Olmsted, recently wrote a column lauding Gold salts as a potential chelator of mercury. It seemed he was inundated with emails from scientists expressing grave concern. So much so that he wrote an obviously unplanned and somewhat panicky reaction piece which included the line:

Clearly, given the serious risks, figuring this out is a job best left to the experts.

What a stunning piece of ‘shutting the barn door after horse has bolted’ syndrome. You’re absolutely right Mr Olmsted, this _is_ a case best left to experts. And yet you didn’t let that stop you in any of your previous pieces. Lets hope that no one read your first piece without reading your second one. Lets hope they didn’t go out and pump their kids full of Gold salts and lets hope that no one gets hurt.

Roy Kerry, Rashid Buttar, Dan Olmsted – next time , look before you leap.

A Fertile Breeding Ground

11 Dec

I’ve said a few times on here and a few times on other blogs that it is dangerous and irresponsible to maintain an absolutist position on just about anything to do with autism. I can’t remember who said it but whenever I see someone claiming to know for sure what causes autism or what the best course of treatment for autism is I recall a quote that goes something like this:

Follow the man seeking answers, flee from the man who says he knows them all.

However, on occasions I have been known to break this self-imposed belief. This is such an occasion.

Skeptico is a blogger that has commented a few times on various aspects of the thiomersal/mmr/autism ‘connection – notably a thorough debunking of the RFK Salon.com piece earlier this year.

Skeptico mailed me today to draw my attention to a comment made on his site to the effect that the wearing of a tinfoil hat designed to prevent alien abduction can successfully treat autism.

As of Dec. 2005 a hat with velostat worn by autistic children has improved their performance markedly. Michael Menkin is seeking more autistic children in the Seattle, Washington area to try the hat. Some of the autistic children who improved after wearing the hat with velostat for over three months are not related to UFOs or any alien phenomenon.

The researhc of Michael Menkin into alien abductions, with interview of several people with encounter experiences, was featured on KINGTV Evening News Program on November 16, 2005.

This is the sort of shit that one has to wade through to find decent research about autism. Is it on a par with the whole thiomersal/mercury thing? Well yes and no.

No because I can at least see a theoretical connection even if I don’t believe that theory and yes because its another example of a theory driven by anecdotal, unverified, untested belief.

Up until Skeptico mailed me this story, my favourite other crackpot theory was the idea that plastic cups cause autism. Again, this is the sort of mindless crap that detracts from valid science, strips autistic people of the dignity they deserve and only extends ignorance.

Notable in the plastic cup story is the role of one Dr. Stephanie Cave, one of the darlings of the thiomersal/autism connection and listed on page one of the Generation Rescue Hall of Fame. She lent support to a theory that claimed:

…that a toddler became seriously ill and, eventually, “began to exhibit autistic behavior,” after drinking from a plastic spill-proof cup made by Playtex. [Dallas-lawyer Brian R. Arnold ] claims the spill-proof cup was designed in a defective manner that allowed bacteria and mold to build in the cup. Alleging the bacteria caused the child’s condition, Arnold accused Playtex of negligence in distributing a defective cup and demanded $11 million in damages.

Cave claimed that the bacteria and mold caused Dysbiosis, a medical term used pretty much exclusively by the alternative health movement.

She was abetted by William Shaw who owns a laboratory famed amongst thiomersal = autism believers as providing accurate tests for elevated mercury. Shaw said that:

…the child had elevated levels of yeast by-products, indicating a “yeast/fungal overgrowth of the gastrointestinal tract.” Dr. Shaw says such yeast infections cause autism.

Unfortunately for Shaw, it seems that the bacteria found on the plastic cup was not the same sort found on the child in question. Good to know that these labs that so many people claim are accurate obviously double check their work.

Autism is a fertile breeding ground for such hocus-pocus and rubbish because it defies current understanding. That we let this sort of thing grow unchecked is dangerous for the health of children (one wonders if this child went on to be chelated based on such a pack of ineptitude and assumption), dangerous for those of us who wish to find a bit of respect for the state of being autistic and ultimately dangerous to us as a society that we are so willing to let such people treat our children.

This is why we need proper, peer reviewed science performed by those who are proponents of theories and treatments that currently have no efficacy or safety studies. If we continue down this road then treatments like the wearing of a tin foil hat used to prevent autism and alien abduction and causes like a plastic cup will become the norm and our children will truly become lost – not in autism but in the real hell of a frenzied knee-jerk search to treat the increasingly bizarre and to forget about what our _children_ who happen to be autistic need more than anything else. I hope you already know the answer to that. If you don’t then I suggest you step away from the quasi-science.

Everything Must Change

5 Dec

It must be true – Quincy Jones never lies after all.

Change comes to us all – for some of us it means radically rethinking what we once believed to be true and for some of us it might mean rethinking something that has brought us fame and adulation.

For those that don’t know him Citizen Cain is a blogger who challenged David Kirby’s interpretation of the numbers as they related to a rise/fall in the rate of autism. Kirby claimed that the rate was falling. Citizen Cain showed him why and where he was wrong.

And for the first time, Kirby responded.

Understandably, Kirby doesn’t seem interested in mucking around in the data with me too extensively, or in answering my detailed questions. But in an e-mail, he did address the key point, and concede that “if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis.” He also conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

I suggest at this point you go and read the rest of Citizen Cain’s post from which I quote above. The links to the associated posts where he discusses his email correspondence with David Kirby are on that page too.

But lets reiterate. Kirby is not only admitting that if the _total cases_ of autism doesn’t fall then the jig is up, he’s also admitting that up until now his interpretation (and the source for that interpretation – one Rick Rollens) is wrong. Why? Because as he admits after Citizen Cain showed him his errors, whats important is the _total cases_ *not* changes in the rate.

After I read Citizen Cains latest post, I had a little niggle at the back of my head – something Kirby had said this year. So I checked my references and there it was. In an interview with the New York Times, Kirby said:

Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year.

*This* year. Not 2007. Why has Kirby added on 2 years to his interview? This interview with the NYT was conducted before Kirby’s admittance that it was the total case amount that was important not the rate change but thats the only real difference in the two statements. Now maybe I’m missing something but what are the extra two years for?

As far as I can see, when one takes the admittance Kirby issued to Citizen Cain and applies the same criteria to it then it should be the end of *this year* that we should see changes. Big changes.

Everything must change. We have 26 days before we know whether that change is something that I and a lot of others have to address or whether its something David Kirby and his followers have to address.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →