Archive | Thimerosal RSS feed for this section

Elizabeth Mumper – Autism Omnibus, Dwyer vs HHS

25 Jul

Some highlights, courtesy of a Guest Blogger, er Transcriber 🙂

Beau Johnson DoJ lawyer: Neither the myelin basic protein nor the IGM neuro filament antibody test is diagnostic of any disease is that right?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: They are very nonspecific findings.

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: And isn’t it true that these antibodies have been reported as elevated in normal individuals with no disease?

Mumper: That is true in some cases. Exactly.

Johnson: And because these markers were measured in the serum rather than the CSF they provide no direct evidence of what is going on in Colin’s central nervous system is that right?

Mumper: I guess I would quibble with how you get direct evidence, in this case in order to get direct evidence of neuroinflammation I guess we’d would really needed to have done a brain biopsy on him in 2002. I can tell you from personal experience that even wanting to look at CSF in children with autism for the presence of inflammatory markers is widely perceived as an invasive procedure. So those of us who might want to be able to document it more directly are constrained from doing so by standards of care criticisms. So we have to rely on other markers, and it’s not a direct marker but I would argue that a clinician would not have the ability to do a direct assessment in a living child.

Johnson: For whatever reason that evidence is just not present in this case, is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true

Johnson: Do you know what protocol Immunosciences used to perform these two lab tests?

Mumper: You know I don’t. I have visited the immunosciences labs on two occasions and talked to the director and viewed their facilities. But I am not a lab scientist. I can tell you that when I visited and had it explained to me it made sense at the time, but I could not reproduce the protocol.

Johnson: Do you know how Immunosciences established it’s references ranges?

Mumper: I do not know the details of that, no.

Johnson: Do you know whether these reference ranges take the age factor into account?…

Mumper: I do not think they are normed for children, but for things like neurofiliment antibodies and myelin basic protein antibodies the values for children would be expected to be less than people as they aged…

Johnson: But you don’t believe that these reference ranges are normed for children?

Mumper: I do not think that they are. That’s correct.

Johnson: Do you know if immunosciences lab ever been accredited by the College of American Pathologists?

Mumper: I do not know if they have. I do know that their work, their lab reports come disclaimers about use for research and careful clinical applicability and those types of things.

Johnson: Do you know if immunosciences is currently performing any clinical testing?

Mumper: I believe they are not.

Johnson: I’m going to show you what we’ve marked as respondent’s trial exhibit 14 and it is a letter that I found on the Immunosciences website.

Mumper: OK.

Johson: Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: Yes I have.

Johnson: And does this letter reflect that Immunosciences has in fact stopped performing clinical testing as of July 21, 2007?

Mumper: Yes, as i just testified to.

Johson: Do you know why it stopped performing clinical testing?

My understanding from talking to Dr. Vodjani and some health department officials, is that his lab was investigated for their testing as related to mold. Looking for mold evidence of chronic mold exposure as a potential cause of chronic illness. My understanding from Dr. Vodjani that the investigation was perhaps precipitated by a court case in which mold testing had been used and the plaintiff who had claimed damage from mold had won a huge settlement and the health department was concerned about the possibility of on the basis of that mold test and wanted to investigate the lab with regard to that.

Johnson: So its your understanding that the problems with Immunosciences lab were limited to its mold testing?

Mumper: That is my understanding, but I have not investigated all the depth of the investigation, nor read any of the official documents, so I really do not have full knowledge of that.

Johnson: I’m now going to show you respondents trial exhibit 15 which is another letter that I found on Immunosciences website.

Mumper: OK. Thank you.

Johnson: Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: I believe I have. Yes.

Johnson: Did you receive this letter since it is addressed to “Our valued clients and associates”? Was this sent to you?

Mumper: Yes.

Johnson: This letter is signed by doctor Vodjani?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: I believe you testified in May that you have an article in press (which has) Dr. Vodjani as the lead author?

Mumper: That is correct.

Johnson: Do you know what CLIA stands for?

Mumper: … I can’t remember…

Johnson: OK and just for the record it’s Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 and we’ll just refer to it as CLIA for ease of reference.

Mumper: OK

Johnson: Do you know what CMS is?

Mumper: According to the letter it might be Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services?

Johnson: That’s correct. CMS regulates all laboratory testing on humans in the United States through CLIA in order to insure quality laboratory testing, is that right?

Mumper: Uhuh.

Johnson: Dr. Vodjani’s letter states in the third paragraph that “CMS had found deficiencies during a 2004 CLIA survey of Immunosciences that led it to conclude that the lab’s test results since 2002 may not be accurate and reliable.” Were you aware of those findings by CMS?

Mumper: Uhm, yes, since I got this letter.

Johnson: I’m not going to show you respondents trial exhibit 16. This is a letter from CMS. Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: Yes I have.

Johnson: Did you receive this letter?

Mumper: Yes I did.

Johnson: And this letter does in fact say at the beginning of the second paragraph on the first page that: We are writing both to inform you of the current sanction action and to alert you that test results that you received since June 2002 from Immunosciences lab might not be accurate or reliable. Is that what that says?

Mumper: I would like to add that… I did call Mary Jew as suggested in this last line. I can’t remember the details now, but I talked to three different people on the staff. I tried to get information about what particular concerns they had because I was trying to figure out for the labs that I had done on my patients if this were a global concern or if it was related to the mold or if there were tests that I was using that I may still be able to rely upon, and I was very frustrated in not being able to find out from those people who I think their hands were tied as far as talking about an ongoing investigation, what the problems were.

Johnson: We may be able to provide some of that information now. I’m going to show you now what is marked as respondents trial exhibit 17. And this is the CLIA annual laboratory registry from 2005. Have you seen this document before?

Mumper: No I have not.

Johnson: Look on page 5 of this document. Does this indicate that Immunosciences’ CLIA certification was being revoked due to condition level noncompliance?

Mumper: Uhm, cancellation of a approval to receive medicare payment due to noncompliance. Yes.

Johnson: Now I’m going to show you respondents trial exhibit 18. And these are actually excerpts from a much larger report. And this is the, a report from the survey that CMS did of this lab. … does that appear to be correct to you?

Mumper: Based on my thirty second review that does appear to be correct.

Johnson: If you’ll turn to the fifth page of the trial exhibit. This document lists a number of findings in connection with Immunosciences general immunology testing. Is that correct?

Mumper: It appears that that is correct.

Johnson: Were you aware that CMS noted problems at Immunosciences lab in connection with its failure to follow written policies and procedures for an ongoing mechanism to monitor, assess and correct problems in the pre-analytic systems?

Mumper: No I did not have access to that information.

Johnson: And were you aware that the CMS found that the laboratory
failed to determine calibration procedures and control procedures based upon established performance applications?

Mumper: No I was not aware of the specifics.

Johnson: And were you aware that the CMS found that Immunosciences laboratory failed to verify the continued accuracy of the test systems throughout the laboratory’s reportable range of test results? …

Mumper: … I was not aware of the specifics.

Johnson: And under sub paragraph I, the CMS found that the Immunosciences laboratory failed to establish the statistical parameters of the unassayed control materials used for it’s various in-house ELISA test systems?

Mumper: I was not aware of that.

Johnson: Ok and these findings all relate to Immunosciences general immune testing is that correct?

Mumper: It would appear that that is the case.

Johnson: And if you will look at the next to the last page of the trial exhibit. Were you aware that CMS found with respect to the anti MPB and neurofilament test in particular that Immunosciences failed to have written policies and procedures, for patient preparation, specimen collection, specimen storage and preservation, conditions for specimen transportation and specimen acceptability and rejection?

Mumper: And what was the date of that that it was not in place? Because it seemed to be on the website when you cited it earlier. And when we sent specimens in 2003 we were able to obtain written instructions about the specimens submitted, they came actually in the test kit.

Johnson: I believe this was from a survey from 2004 …

Mumper: What I was trying to explain to you that as a clinician the test kits came in a box, and there’re the tubes and a series of explanations about how the specimens need to be prepared. … So I can only testify as to what I know… we had procedures to follow when we submitted our blood samples in 2003.

Johnson: And all I’m asking you is that at the time that CMS performed this survey it found that those aspects of Immunosciences laboratory practice to be inadequate. Is that correct?
…

Johnson: Look at the last page of the trial exhibit…at the time it performed this survey with respect to the anti MPB and neurofilament test that Immunosciences failed to provide documentation the laboratory director’s review and approval for those procedures?

Mumper: It does suggest that there was no documentation to show his review and approval… so how much this was a matter of paperwork versus actual analysis, I can’t say.

Johnson: And Dr. Vodjani’s letter of January 16th, 2006 ,he indicates that Immunosciences had planned sue over the survey results.

Mumper: I believe he said he planned to vigorously fight or something to that effect …

(Special Master: And that was trial exhibit 15? …)

Johnson: We have a copy of the settlement agreement from that lawsuit it’s been marked as respondents trial exhibit… Focusing on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. …

Mumper: OK

Johnson: It appears that one of the conditions of the settlement that Immunosciences would obtain accreditation through the College of American Pathologists or else it would voluntarily withdraw from the CLIA program and cease testing on human specimens, is that correct?

Mumper: That does seem to be the case.

Johnson: Based on the fact that Immunosciences is no longer performing clinical testing, isn’t it reasonable to assume that they did not receive accreditation through the College of American Pathologists…

Mumper: (interrupting) or that they chose not to pursue it I would think would be the two possibilities.

Johnson: Doctor based on this information do you have any concerns about the reliability of the Immunosciences test results?

Mumper: I was not aware that the MBP or neurofilament testing was under contention, and if that were the only thing that I was relying upon to make my judgement I would be concerned that I had over-read the labs. I would give relatively less credence or perhaps even be forced to discount those particular lab tests given  the information in the settlement agreement that I wasn’t privy to knowing the details of.

Johnson: The next test results that you discuss in your report are results from Great Smokies lab that purport to show abnormal glutathione, lipid peroxide and cysteine levels.  Is that correct?

Johnson: … That would have been when Colin was about 3 1/2 years old… So to the extent that these results indicate anything about whether Colin was under oxidative stress at the time … they don’t tell us if he was in oxidative stress at the time of his immunizations. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: These tests were blood tests is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: Do you know if these tests were normed for children?

Mumper: I do not know the answer to that question.

Johnson: And as you note in your report a number of other factors can explain oxidative stress such as poor nutrition. Is that right?

Johnson: Would you agree that a mercury efflux disorder is still a hypothesis at this point

Mumper: Yes.

Johnson: So low cysteine and plasma sulfate levels can’t be diagnostic of that disorder..

and those levels can be explained by a number of other factors is that right?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson:… I’d like to go through all the mercury testing if you don’t mind.

…

Mumper: It would appear that 4-19-02 was the time of the very first visit to Dr. Bock. So there is not evidence that he would have been on a chelating agent at that time.

Johnson: And the result for this test of mercury was that it came back the non-detectable limit … Is that correct?

Mumper: Right.

Johnson: The next test that we found was the December 2002 test and that was a urine toxic metals test… although the report says that there was a chelating agent administered, you don’t believe there was, is that correct?

Mumper: Yes that’s correct.

Johnson: and the result shows no detectable mercury.

Mumper: Yes that’s correct.

Johnson: and the result shows no detectable mercury.

The next test was the December 22, 2002 …The next test was the December 22, 2002 test which is at petitioner’s exhibit page 90 and … this was post provocative test … and this test result showed that mercury was at 17 mcg per gram of creatinine. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: And the report indicates that DMSA was administered in connection with this test … and again the result from this test for mercury was nondetectable. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: There’s only test that showed mercury outside the reference range is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true.

The next test was the December 22, 2002 test which is at petitioner’s exhibit page 90 and … this was post provocative test … and this test result showed that mercury was at 17 mcg per gram of creatinine. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: And the report indicates that DMSA was administered in connection with this test … and again the result from this test for mercury was nondetectable. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: There’s only test that showed mercury outside the reference range is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true.

Johnson: And that was the provoked test from December 22, 2002. … Doesn’t Doctor’s Data say in bold right on the test report that reference ranges are representative of a healthy population under non-challenged or non-provoked conditions?

Mumper: That’s true.

Johnson: So we just don’t know what the normal range would be for a provoked test. Is that right?

Mumper: It is difficult to know…

David Kirby vs Accuracy

20 Jul

As I’ve said before, I like David Kirby personally. We exchange friendly emails. We even recently discussed the idea of having a private blog – readable by all but one that allowed only two posters (David and I) and no commenters. This would, I suggested, give us the opportunity to have a civil debate.

Unfortunately, David was too busy, which was a shame. However, the offers always open should he find a bit more time.

He did have time yesterday to blog a piece for the Huffington Post in which he discussed Amanda Peet and said she was ‘against the medical establishment’ for taking the stance she did. He cited a few things to support his point. I’d like to discuss these things but before I do I’d like you Dear Reader to take note: someone who was at the IACC meeting David talks about (he wasn’t there) will hopefully be posting their account of proceedings on LB/RB.

Anyway. Lets proceed. David’s first piece of rhetoric to support the idea Amanda Peet was against the medical establishment was:

A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says that some members want “specific objectives on vaccine research” included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

I’m sure that some members do want this. Lynn Redwood and Mark Baxhill to be precise. As the upcoming IACC account will show, I don’t think any other IACC workgroup members were interested. (Please see this correction of an ignorant Limey’s take on the US system.)

I would also like to correct David on his characterisation of the Combating Autism Act. The Act contains no mention of vaccines. It specifies environmental research but the words ‘vaccine’, ‘vaccination’ ‘immunize’, ‘immunization’, ‘mmr’ or ‘thimerosal’ appear nowhere in the CAA. I hope David will correct his HuffPo piece accordingly.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal researchers to consider “shortfalls” in epidemiological studies cited as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al); as well as a specific plan “for researching vaccines as a potential cause of autism.” The workgroup also says that the final research agenda should “state that the issue is open.”

Once again, David’s notes are coming from two people, Lynn Redwood and Mark Blaxill and indeed – they asked for all these things. The account of the meeting I have heard (from someone who was there) differed somewhat. As a flavour of how much the majority of the working group listened to Redwood and Blaxill, I enclose a teaser quote from chairperson Tom Insel:

“Lyn, your community is not the whole community and there are many people with well thought out concerns about ethics of the concept of prevention and if we want to be inclusive we will not do this.”

Back to David:

July 14, 2008 – Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that current federal autism research “shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies,” even though there is, “growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role” in autism.

I blogged that episode here. Suffice it to say that a _politician_ is not representative of the medical establishment. I would urge everyone reading this to read that piece as it suggests amongst other things that Generation Rescue and SafeMinds be responsible for a Board that would serve as a liaison between the IACC and parents of autistic people and autistic people themselves!. After reading that I would urge everyone to contact the following people to express your thoughts (politely!) to the decision makers:

HHS Sec Mike Leavitt (mike.leavittAThhs.gov)
NIMH director/IACC director Tom Insel (tinselATmail.nih.gov)
Everyone here: http://science.house.gov/about/members.htm

Once again, back to David:

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report tells CBS News that, “Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” and says they “don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”

I still can’t get over the fact that David is using this person to back up his points! He continues to trumpet the opinion of Bernadine Healy who actually did assert that cigarettes do not cause cancer and worked closely with Philip Morris to do so. She also totally reneged on her stance on fetal tissue research when she found herself in the same camp as President Bush. In AoA language she’s a shill.

David then goes on to cite al three Presidential Candidates – as if a politicians opinion in an election year means anything! I definitely fail to see what any of them have to do with being part of the medical establishment.

Onwards:

March 29, 2008 – Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: “If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

Er, so? I’m really not sure how this is a ‘point’ for David (or anyone else who thinks its supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism). If she’d said ‘yes, vaccines caused autism in Hannah Poling’s case’ (which no-one ever has by the way, despite statements to the contrary) than _that_ would be a bombshell. As it was Dr. Gerberding was simply speaking what is obvious.

David again:

The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24 months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Now, I can’t answer this as much as I’d like to. I have spoken to people involved in the preparation and writing of this report (as has David) and I was given two take home points from our email chat:

1) The science is _not yet complete_ . The paper is not published.
2) The authors feel ‘disappointed’ in the slant David has put on their work and are loth to discuss it with anyone else due to that. I was told that David might be rather surprised when everything comes out later in the year.

David once more:

Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a “test case” of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical decision. HHS doctors admit that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves,”

First of all, I beg to differ with David. The concession was a legal one. By definition the phrase “autistic encephalopathy” does not exist in mainstream science so if it was used (a fact which has yet to be determined – I invite David once more to link through to the document where this is stated). A simple test of its non-existence is to search for the phrase on PubMed. I got:

Quoted phrase not found.

So we have a multitude of uncertainties here:

1) Nowhere (except in David’s writings) can we find evidence of HHS apparently saying “autistic encephalopathy” caused Hannah Poling’s autism.

2) The phrase itself (“autistic encephalopathy”) does not appear in the entire PubMed database, thus causing me to doubt its use by the medical establishment.

3) Is the concession legal or medical? If a diagnosis does not exist but is used in a legal document then by definition it must be legal – thats my opinion anyway.

David also mentions a HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group meeting but I know next to nothing about that so can’t comment.

I have to say that based on the above, David seems to be attempting nothing more than an intellectual ‘land grab’ i.e. to attempt to paint those who claim vaccines cause autism as part of the medical establishment and those who stand against them as not. Its a good political idea but I don’t think its going to work. There are just too many holes in this particular boat for it to float for long.

Legal Bombshell in Autism Omnibus Proceeding!

17 Jul

This is a Guest Blogged piece, written by a beloved legal expert – Clem Heckenberry.

In what can only be described as a legal bombshell, the Petitioners in the Autism Omnibus hearings seemingly withdrew four of its highest profile experts to support the various claims that say that vaccines cause autism. The experts are James B Adams, Mark Robin Geier, Boyd E Haley and Andrew J Wakefield. The ‘New’ experts are those we recognise from the testimony offered thus far. Indeed, this reporter can find no further mention of Adams, Geier, Haley or Wakefield as expert witnesses for the petitioners.

If this case was in the civil arena, the withdrawal of four experts of such magnitude would in all likelihood result in sanctions, a directed verdict or the total failure of the case as in the time Jeff Bradstreet (another expert for the petitioners) left his clients high and dry. There’s no way to spin this as a positive development for the petitioners.

Drs. Adams, Geier, Haley and Wakefield were apparently unwilling or unable to testify about the substance of their beliefs and ‘science, leaving only the report and testimony of Dr. Asphosian, a scientist who has not devoted significant time to the question of mercury and autism. (At one point in his career it’s alleged that Dr. Asphosian claimed that the argument that ‘the dose makes the poison’ was wrong.)

I spoke with various people about this development and they also agreed that this was knocking out some of the petitioners strongest pillars that autism is related to thimerosal or MMR. All those I talked to considered it difficult to underestimate the near-hilarious reputation of these four experts in the field of autism. Their apparent unwillingness to testify on these matters suggests they cannot sustain their previous assertion that thimerosal or MMR has anything to do with autism.

Although the parties are continuing to submit motions and it appears unlikely that there will be a decision this summer, the withdrawal of these experts are likely to have profound consequences.

UPDATE: There’s a good chance this might be satire, although the facts are true..

Amanda Peet and the Streisand Effect

16 Jul

I had never heard of the “Streisand Effect” until a few months ago. That’s when Clifford Shoemaker subpoenaed.

The basic idea is simple: someone tries to censor or remove some piece of information from the internet, and, instead, the actions cause the information to be much more widely spread than it would have been otherwise.

In the case of the subpoena, many (MANY) people heard about the neurodiversity.com site and, especially, some of the actions of Mr. Shoemaker, than would have happened had the subpoena not been issued.

I was reminded of this phenomenon today when I found that the Amanda Peet story has started to catch on big. Amanda Peet was quoted in Cookie Magazine with a very pro-vaccine stance. She had been scared by…

….the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood

So, what did she do? She asked a medical professional for advice. Dang, what a concept! She was very fortunate that her brother in law is a doctor and, even more luckily, he works at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) where Paul Offit works.

Dr. Offit knows vaccines. Not in the, “I’ve read a ton in the internet” version of “knows” vaccines. No, He researches and develops vaccines. He is also a vocal spokesperson against the idea that vaccines cause autism. That, as you can imagine, makes him very unpopular with some segments of the autism community.

So, you can imagine what happened when Amanda Peet came out pro vaccine, against the vaccine-autism connection and stated that she got information from Dr. Offit. Yes, she got the usual hate-filled reception. And make no mistake, I am not downplaying that. I would not be surprised if she, like others before her, have had to forward emails or phone calls to the authorities because they seem threatening.

But, as time goes on, the message isn’t getting quashed. Salon.com picked up the story today and stated,

Now, Peet vs. McCarthy is the celebrity smackdown du jour. Sure, we’d all be better off taking our medical advice from doctors and nurses rather than celebrities. Yet, everyone from the American Academy of Pediatrics to Salon columnist Dr. Rahul Parikh has tried to reassure parents that vaccines don’t cause autism. Meanwhile, public health officials worry when public confidence in vaccinations continues to erode, in part because of high-profile celebrity advocacy, like McCarthy’s Green Our Vaccines march and rally held in Washington, D.C., in June.

And, what was that “smackdown du jour”? Looks like E! picked up the story as well.

All these web stories give the usual crowd an opportunity to add comments. The forums and comment sections for those stories are filled with people trashing Amanda Peet. I wish those people would catch a clue–have someone outside the autism community read what they write. The comments are strident, rude and, in general, really make the autism community as a whole look bad. It’s one thing to rant away in a closed yahoo group or in the comment section of the Age of Autism blog, but the public doesn’t know (and I wish they didn’t) just how mean and nasty these “advocacy” groups can be.

This story isn’t going away. Amanda Peet is now a spokesperson for Every Child By Two, a pro-vaccine organization founded by former first lady Rosalynn Carter. (as an aside–the Carters are one of the best ex-first-families the U.S. has seen).

Now that Amanda Peet has come down against the idea that vaccines cause autism, pretty much everything she says will be picked apart and analyzed. One comment that is giving a lot of ammunition to her detractors is this: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Read the comments and how many people try to make it sound like Amanda Peet is calling autism parents “parasites”. (Hint, she didn’t).

Let’s take a quick look at that term, parasite.

a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Now, let’s take a look at what Dr. Sears, one of the people often quoted by vaccine rejectionists, has to say about the MMR vaccine:

“I also warn them not to share their fears with other neighbors, because if too many people avoid the MMR, we’ll likely see the diseases increase significantly.”

So, he appears to this reader to be telling parents who don’t give the MMR vaccination to their children to keep mum, or the herd immunity will be compromised and the advantage to those parents will be lost.

Sweet. That doesn’t sound like “receiving advantage” without giving anything useful in return, does it?

Don’t get me wrong. For people with real reasons to avoid some or all vaccines (one regular commenter on this blog comes to mind). But, “I am scared of MMR causing autism so I am not going to vaccinate my kid, but I’ll hide in the herd immunity” doesn’t sit very well.

Also, where is the compassion for those who really need the protection of herd immunity? Where is the “Consider that your neighbor’s kids could use the advantage of your child’s immunity”?

But, to bring this back to where we started: Amanda Peet has hit the scene. She has jumped in with both feet, and appears to be staying for a while. A lot of voices appear to be trying to shout her down. Instead, they just seem to be giving Amada Peet’s message more coverage.

WXYZ and bad "investigative" reporting

11 Jul

Wouldn’t you love to move on from the thimerosal debate? Yes, I mean that as part of the greater move away from the vaccine/autism debate. But we are closing in on the end of the thimerosal era and, let’s face it, the nebulous arguments about “toxins” will be around for a while. People have learned the lessons of not making clearly falsifiable claims or setting deadlines for the “autism rate to decline”, so they will be able to keep the general vaccine discussion alive for some time to come.

But, we aren’t there yet with thimerosal. And, to prove the point, Steve Wilson at station WXYZ in Detroit has managed to regurgitate the standard thimerosal arguments. That would be not surprising. I expect a these aftershocks. What I is really annoying is the methodology. Orac has referred to it as “yellow journalism”, and I quite agree.

I will note that Orac and the Denialism Blog have both covered this in greater detail than I can. AutismNewsBeat has a journalist’s viewpoint as well.

Why am I annoyed with Steve Wilson? First off, he starts out by claiming that the “prevailing strategy seems to be to downplay the possibility of any link so that parents will continue to vaccinate their children”. (rough quote, sorry, I just don’t want to listen to that over and over again).

Sounds like a page from the Bernadine Healy playbook. Let’s imply something sinister is going on. Let’s imply that the AAP is hiding evidence. Steve: how about acknowledging that the “prevailing strategy” is to tell people what the science actually says? Doesn’t that seem like the “prevailing strategy” that the AAP and others are using? It does to me.

Another big chunk of the Steve Wilson’s report is based on this statement:

“..the truth is, there is still as much as ever..in 11 vaccines”

At this point, it’s worth reading Orac who lists the actual pediatric vaccines and their thimerosal levels.

You see, Steve Wilson pulled a classic con. Sorry to call it so bluntly, but that’s what I see. He talks about vaccines that aren’t being given to children young enough to develop autism. I don’t even know if the 11 vaccines he is talking about really do have thimerosal. Because, it doesn’t matter in this discussion. What matters is the pediatric vaccine schedule.

The part that bugs me is that Steve Wilson knows it. He gives as an example the thimerosal in tetanus boosters given to 11 year olds. Yes, he actually talks about 11 year olds.

Yep, the goalposts have moved so far, we are building new stadiums. 11 year olds being given tetanus boosters might develop autism. Except for Jim Carrey, who has ever implicated Tetanus shots? Even Jim Carry didn’t indicate that it was the booster given at age 11.

It appears to me that Mr. Wilson isn’t even going to the actual sources for his information. His report is a nice smattering of the standard vaccines-cause-autism line. One bit that caught my attention is when he talks about statements in the congressional record.

A congressional committee that studied the matter has already concluded: “Thimerosal…is directly related to the Autism epidemic.”

I was pretty sure that was a Dan Burton quote, so I Googled it to find the source. I came up with Deadly Immunity, by Robert Kennedy Jr, but I didn’t find the part of the congressional record with it. I looked a bit harder and found that the congressional record shows the statement as:

“Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines in [sic] likely related to the autism epidemic.”

I don’t agree with the above either. But, compare “likely related” (Steve Wilson) and “directly related” (congressional record). Somewhat different meaning, don’t you think?

I can’t resist putting out some of the list of “what do we know about mercury”? As it turns out, a lot. A lot more than I ever wanted to know, I’ll tell you that. A lot more than actually helps my family. But, here are some examples of what we know:

1) the dose makes the poison. Absolutely. There has to be a dose small enough that it would not cause toxicity.

2) mercury is everywhere. It was in the organic cinnamon-applesauce cup I just ate. It was in the organic lemonade juicebox I just drank. (sounds like I am the one on the playground, eh?).

3) When used in vaccines, it doesn’t increase the risk of most neurological disorders. Most? Yes, they didn’t include autism (see (5) below). Also, there were disorders that were indicated as possibly associated. Then again, there were some positive outcomes that were indicated as possibly associated with thimerosal. It looks like random chance–association is determined by statistics, and if you test enough associations, some will appear to be statistically significant.

4) when injected into pregnant women in RhoGaM type shots, it does not increase the risk of autism.

5) indications are that the upcoming CDC report on thimerosal and autism will show no increased risk.

6) Autism symptoms are not the same as mercury intoxication…autism is not “a novel form of mercury poisoning.

We could go on for a long time with the evidence against the concept that autism is caused by mercury. But, this is just a small list of the many things that somehow didn’t get into Steve Wilson’s investigative report.

Chelation study to be 'released'?

9 Jul

AP print an even-handed account of the current state of a Chelation study. This study which was approved and then put on hold:

….for safety concerns after an animal study, published last year, linked DMSA to lasting brain problems in rats.

I’m really torn about this study. On one hand, it would put to rest once and for all the issue of whether chelation benefits autistic children (except it won’t. When it finds chelation does nothing it will simply be attacked as crap by the anti-vaccine/autism groups). On the other hand, it will mean putting a whole load of kids at risk for no purpose whatsoever.

“I don’t really know why we have to do this in helpless children,” said Ellen Silbergeld of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was invited to comment on the study to a review board of the national institute.

Quite.

Lets be clear. This study is being touted about for one reason and one reason only – to appease the anti-vaccine/autism groups. In the mainstream medical/scientific community (and notably in the toxicology community) it is well known that autistic kids aren’t toxic. Here is a few snippets from the testimony of Dr Jeffery Brent – a sub-specialty board certified medical toxicologist. He is an active member of the medical school teaching faculty and is an attending physician on the clinical pharmacology/toxicology consultation service at the University Hospital. Currently he holds the rank of Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Brent has a long list of publications, virtually all related to clinical toxicology. He is senior editor of Critical Care Toxicology: The Diagnosis and Management of the Critically Poisoned Patient and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Toxicological Reviews, a major international state-of-the-art review journal devoted to human toxicology.

Q: Dr Mumper discussed today some key aspects of chelation therapy….as a medical toxicologist do you see any reason for the chelation to remove mercury from either Jordan King or William Mead in these cases?

A: Absolutely not….there is no test in medicine that is more valid for for assessing mercury toxicity than an unprovoked urine mercury concentration.

[For Jordan King and William Mead]…their unprovoked urine concentration is exactly in the normal range.

On the other hand, they have been chelated. And the justification for that chelation with regard to mercury comes from what you see in the right hand column where in both cases, 4 out of 5 provoked examples have been…uh…increase urine mercury. Well, you’re supposed to have increased urine mercury with provoked examples! Therefore there is absolutely no indication based here or anywhere else I saw in the medical records that suggest that there is any mercury effect in these children and therefore that was absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury related reason.

The standard way of chelating autistic kids is to do a provoked challenge test. As Dr Brent says – you’re _supposed_ to have increased levels with provoked examples.

Q: There’s nothing here that would be out of the ordinary – from your experience – absent, even in the absence of a standard reference range.

A: Well, in truth we don’t (?) urine/leads because the ‘gold test’ is blood/lead so I haven’t looked at many urine/leads in children that I have chelated. So I can’t speak to that in my experience. But I have seen a number of patients now come to me because of these ‘doctor’s data’ type of laboratories which are based on urines – chelated urines – and they always have high leads in their chelated urines and I tell them ‘well, lets just do the gold standard test, lets get a blood/lead level and so far, 100% of the time they’ve been normal.

So basically, when you do the provoked, non-standard tests from labs that make a good living from charging for these tests, they come back positive. When experts like Dr Brent do the gold standard tests, 100% of the time they come back normal.

*There is no reason to chelate autistic children* .

And here in this report is part of the problem. There seems to be a type of scientist who wants to short-circuit the scientific process:

Insel said he has come to believe after listening to parents that traditional scientific research, building incrementally on animal studies and published papers, wasn’t answering questions fast enough.

Well, boo-hoo. Its slow for a reason. Its slow to be as accurate as possible and to be as safe for humans as possible. Insel needs to remember that his patients – his duty of care – is not to parents, but to the autistic people in his case load.

And one more thing….in this piece, Jenny McCarthy says:

Actress Jenny McCarthy, whose bestseller “Louder Than Words” details her search for treatments for her autistic son, Evan, told thousands of parents at a recent autism conference outside Chicago that she plans to try chelation on him this summer.

I thought Evan McCarthy was recovered? Surely Jenny McCarthy isn’t – can’t be – wrong?

Cancelation letter for Judicial Conference Panel

3 Jul

As noted previously, a panel discussion for the Court of Federal Claims judicial conference was canceled. The exact reasons were unknown.

This letter or email from the Court (from Chief Special Master Gary Golkiewicz to the participants) announcing the cancellation has been posted by David Kirby to the EOHarm group (with a statement that Mr. Kirby will shortly post this, presumably to one of his blogs).

I am very sorry to inform you that it was decided to cancel the panel program, on which you were scheduled to participate, as part of the Vaccine session of the Court’s Judicial Conference. By way of explanation, the Court’s planning process starts with defining a broad overarching theme, moves to identifying speakers, and subsequently focuses through meetings and discussions of the planning committee on actual content of the panels. This process moves very quickly as materials must be to the printers by mid-July. As the planning of the vaccine session developed, it became apparent that the discussion anticipated from this panel did not fit the goal of furthering the Bar’s understanding of litigation under the Vaccine Compensation Program before the Special Masters or the Court’s judges (in fact, another non-vaccine related panel was eliminated after discussions determined that it did not meet the Conference goals of focusing on litigation related issues.) While I have no doubt that your discussion of vaccines’ benefits and concerns is extremely important to the overall understanding of the immunization program, and would be enlightening to all, it is simply a discussion not consistent with the Court’s Conference but is better suited to another forum. Thank you for your support and my sincerest apologies, Gary

From my limited perspective, I agree with the above. I’m sure that the panel would have been interesting and given some additional understanding of the varied viewpoints of the immunization program. However, the line I see as the heart of the letter is:

“….it became apparent that the discussion anticipated from this panel did not fit the goal of furthering the Bar’s understanding of litigation under the Vaccine Compensation Program…”

I’m sure that Mr. Kirby could give a condensed version of his recent talk, but would that further the understanding of litigation issues? Dr. Healy could, well again I am not really sure what she could bring other than the opinions of a prominent doctor in another specialty. Mr. Allen could have presented a better researched view of vaccines than Kirby and Dr. Marcuse could have trumped them all with actual research from his specialty. But, again, does this promote an understanding of litigation?

OK, I am being disingenuous. Mr. Kirby definitely could have added to the understanding. He could have added to the understanding of how this subject will not go away, not matter how much science is thrown at it. He could demonstrate how bad science will continue and how people will cling to “Medical Hypotheses” and self-contradictory statements.

It has been said that if you want to study genetics, fruit flies are a great testbed. This is because you can watch many generations in a relatively short period of time. Mr. Kirby, and likely Dr. Healy, would have been able to demonstrate to the Court that if you want to watch the “genetics” of bad science, the “mercury hypothesis” is a great candidate. The more research that is thrown at it, the more in mutates into something new. Mr. Kirby could have taken them through the “novel form of mercury poisoning” to thimerosal in vaccines, to illegal immigrants keeping the CDDS numbers high, to toxic plumes from China. He could have explained how the Verstraeten study was flawed because it was ecological in nature, but how the “generation zero” data is somehow valid in his view. He could have done this without even a hint of irony at his own misuse of the CDDS data for his own simplistic ‘ecological’ based arguments.

I guess that would have been entertaining at least.

It isn’t RhoGaM either

30 Jun

If it’s a vaccine, or similar to a vaccine, especially if it contains thimerosal you gotta figure someone, somewhere has blamed it as a cause of autism. Such is the case of anti-D immune globulins, like RhoGaM. RH-negative mothers are given these shots while pregnant to protect their RH-positive babies.

If you are thinking like I was at first, “RhoGaM…where I have heard this recently?”, probably the most famous case involving RhoGaM is that of the Sykes family in what became Sykes v. Bayer. This was blogged extensively at neurodiversity.com, including the recent dismissal of the suit. On the way, the Plaintiffs subpoenaed Ms. Seidel (the more than a mere mother who runs neurodiversity.com). Said subpoena was quashed, and Mr. Shoemaker, the attorney who subpoenaed Ms. Seidel was sanctioned for what was deemed a misuse of his powers as an officer of the court.

But, I digress…Back to RhoGaM and similar products.

Earlier this month, a study by Lisa Croen (and other people familiar in the epidemiology of autism) was published:

Maternal Rh D status, anti-D immune globulin exposure during pregnancy, and risk of autism spectrum disorders.
Lisa A. Croen, PhD; Marilyn Matevia, MA; Cathleen K. Yoshida, MS; Judith K. Grether, PhD

It’s worth reading, and, I would bet money, is soon to be attacked. Why? Take a look at the last line of the abstract:

“These data support previous findings that prenatal exposure to thimerosal-containing anti-D immune globulins does not increase the risk of autism. that prenatal exposure to thimerosal-containing anti-D immune globulins does not increase the risk of autism.”

One could speculate whether the parties in Sykes v. Bayer were aware that this paper was in press, and whether that had anything to do with the dismissal. Without any more information, it would be just that: speculation.

Something that rises above speculation, but is below the level of a conclusion of the paper is this question: does this mean that this level of thimerosal exposure to pregnant women (at least at the times similar to that of RhoGaM injections) is off the hook in general? Or, to put it more simply, does this tell us that thimerosal containing flu shots given to pregnant woman are likely not a contributor to autism risk?

This is an interesting question in some circles. In the shifting sands of the desert that is the thimerosal-caused-autism science, the thimerosal containing flu shot is gaining prominence. Ignore the fact that a minority of pregnant women get the flu shot. Somehow, these flu shots are supposed to be taking up the slack left behind by the phase out of thimerosal from the pediatric schedule. (I can hear people now, “oooh, he’s perpetuating the myth that thimersosal is gone. There are trace amounts left. Trace amounts!” Another of the sand-dunes of the desert.)

OK, for the ultra involved, I bet some people fixated on the statement: “These data support previous findings…”. Some people will be angry with the thought that Croen et al. seem to be ignorant of “Neurodevelopmental disorders, maternal Rh-negativity, and Rho(D) immune globulins: a multi-center assessment.” By Geier, Mumper, Gladfelter, Coleman and Geier. Yep, our good friends the Geiers. I believe that is also our new friend, Dr. Mumper as well.

But, rest assured, Croen and company are aware of Dr. Geier’s team and included their work in their analysis.

Similarly, Geier and Geier found that the frequency of maternal Rh-negative status among 53 consecutive non-Jewish Caucasian patients with ASD referred to their genetic clinic was significantly higher than the frequency among 926 non-Jewish Caucasian pregnant women who presented at their clinic for prenatal genetic care (28.3% vs 14.4%, P ” .01), and all ASD patients with Rh-negative mothers received RhIg during pregnancy. Given the authors’ belief that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism, it is likely that the ASD patients who seek out their clinical services are skewed toward higher perceived mercury exposure. For that reason, these study findings may be biased and should be viewed with caution.

And, yes, they also note the Holmes “baby haircut“study as well. But that study has been through the wringer so many times, it’s best to move along.

As they indicate, Croen et al. are not the first to look for and fail to find evidence of a link between Rh status and immune globulins. Miles and Takahashi’s 2007 paper, Lack of association between Rh status, Rh immune globulin in pregnancy and autism found, well, a lack of association.

Of course this isn’t going to be the end of the discussion. The Miles and Takahashi study was met in short order by a comment by Bernard, Blaxill and Redwood. I’d bet the cash in my wallet that a response to the Croen et al. study is in the works.

And, unfortunately, that is the problem we as a community have to deal with. As noted (with some sadness, I am sure) in the Omnibus testimony of Dr. Mumper, the question of thimerosal and autism is a closed book to the scientific community. There are a few studies still ongoing, but indications are that they will also show no effect.

It will be hard enough to keep the interest level high amongst legislators as the science quashes the guilt factor of vaccine induce autism. It will be even more difficult if we are perceived to be clinging to the failed theories and ignoring good science.

Autism isn’t “a novel form of mercury poisoning“. Not from vaccines, not from immune globulins, not from plumes of mercury from China. Let’s stop moving goalposts and patting ourselves on the back for being flexible. Instead, let’s accept that falsifiable hypotheses have had their chance and been falsified. That’s learning.

And now we know…

22 Jun

I had a snarky version of this all planned out and then realized this is too important to risk burrying it in my own strange humor.

The CDC has had two big studies on thimerosal in vaccines ongoing as a part of their response to the 2001 IOM report. One of these came out last year, looking at neurological disorders except for autism. In the post on that study, by Thompson et al., Isles noted:

A CDC study released yesterday found no evidence to support “a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years

But what of the sister study? The one on autism? It is expected this year, but we have yet to hear about it…until now. A hat tip is in order to David Kirby, who unearthed this document. Mr. Kirby selectively quoted it, made a few mistakes and reposted a corrected version here.

OK, now it’s my turn to selectively quote. I’ll admit upfront, I make mistakes, maybe this is one…but I don’t think so. When I read Mr. Kirby’s original blog post Friday evening, I had to read the CDC document. And when I did, I noticed that it basically tips CDC’s hand as to the results of the thimerosal/autism study.

The document is a report by CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding entitled:

REPORT TO CONGRESS ON VACCINE SAFETY DATALINK

It mentions the followup study to the Thompson study:

Another VSD study that builds upon the 2003 thimerosal screening study and was recommended by the IOM in 2001 is the VSD thimerosal and autism study. This case-control study is being conducted at three MCOs in which children with autism are being evaluated by certified specialists using standardized diagnostic assessments. Medical records and interviews with the parents of both the cases and their matched controls will be used to verify vaccination histories and information on other potential confounding factors. This study is in progress and the expected date of publication is September 2008.

I am not a very patient person, I don’t want to wait until September. I really don’t want to wait until September and find out at the end of the month that the paper was delayed for some reason. Well, as far as the conclusions go, we don’t have to wait.

Based on what Dr. Gerberding write, we now know that the study is done and submitted to a journal. CDC, and likely other parts of the government, know the results. So, how is CDC responding? Dr. Gerberding tells us:

In 2004, the IOM performed a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism newly available since its initial review in 2001. In its 2004 report, the IOM concluded that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism,” and further stated

While the [IOM Immunization Safety Review] committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time.

Although CDC concurs with the 2004 IOM findings, CDC is committed to completing its research undertaken in this area. CDC is currently completing the vaccine safety studies it undertook in response to the 2001 IOM report.

OK, so, with the data from their new study in hand, the CDC still agree with the 2004 IOM report. Further, they will continue the ongoing studies, but no mention is made of new studies to look specifically at thimerosal and/or mercury and autism.

Now, I realize that there are people out there who think that the CDC might sit on data and not react. But, let’s face it, the only result of the thimerosal/autism study that makes any sense given the actions at CDC is this:

Thimerosal Didn’t Cause an Epidemic of Autism

Based on the reaction from the CDC, there is no evidence of any increased risk for autism from thimerosal.

Yep, I’ve gone out on a limb on this. But I contend it is a pretty sturdy limb. Not like the feeble limb of thimerosal causation that got us to this point in the first place. That concept (it should no longer be graced with the title ‘hypothesis’) was based on methods that would have to take a few steps up the quality ladder to reach the level of the Verstraeten study that Mr. Kirby’s blog post is attempting to bash.

Thimerosal Didn’t Cause an Epidemic of Autism

Sorry, it just looks so good I had do it again.

Dear Mercury and MMR Militia

21 Jun

I want to write you all an open letter to offer you my opinion as to where you are going wrong. Before I do, I fully realise that this is a massive generalisation and that some of you won’t hold all the opinions I’m about to go through. I think though, that many of you do.

Three things prompted this open letter. First of all was David Kirby’s trip to the UK. Second was a comment from Kelli Ann Davies where she expressed surprise that some of us might know/guess/whatever the intentions of the science and medical community. Third was Ginger Taylor’s recent sulk about the AAP. I’ll touch on these things as I go through this.

You have a truly massive credibility issue which grows with every passing year. Once upon a time it was an issue with the science/medical community but now it is an issue with the general public. There are a number of reasons why this is so.

1) You cannot keep your story straight. You have (as I said to Kelli Anne) some first class marketing and PR people. As I recall, Lynn Redwood, Mark Blaxill and Sallie Bernard all have marketing qualifications. You also have numerous leading lights who are very, very rich. This means you have ample opportunity to lever your message into the heart of the US media system.

But that means nothing without a coherent story to sell. You don’t have one. I understand that you have recently talked about how the ‘story of vaccines’ has _evolved_ . That is stretching things more than a little. Its mercury, no its MMR, no its both, no its Aluminium, no its all three, no its all ingredients, no its the very vaccines themselves, no its the schedule they’re given. No – its ALL the above. And don’t forget the mitochondria!

The more ingredients you add to the pot, the more you have to explain why they are causative of autism. You didn’t even manage to do this when you were concentrating on just _one_ thing (thiomersal). The above is not an example of an evolving hypothesis. Its an example of an ever widening hypothesis as one after another, your original ideas have been taken down.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than David Kirby’s stumbling backwards and backwards:

In 2005, David said in a FAIR Autism Media interview:

It’s now 2005…..[W]e should see fewer cases entering the system [cdds] this year than we did last year.

When that didn’t happen he then said:

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…..total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

That didn’t happen either.

You started off by pointing an air pistol at a target 20 feet away and missing. You worked your way through Magnums, Shotguns and Miniguns and kept missing. You currently have a canon wheeled right up to within a foot of the target and you’re _still_ missing.

2) Your science is weak and getting weaker. Sadly for you, the onus was (and still is) on you to provide evidence that vaccines in any of the myriad of hypotheses cause autism. Lets hypothetically agree with you that vaccines are in fact, fashioned by Satan and are in fact, tools of population control. That is not the point. The point is: _do they cause autism?_

There is not one paper that passes muster as valid science that offers corroborating evidence that any vaccine, any ingredient of vaccines or any schedule they are administered in causes autism. This is after over 10 years of trying to find one. What you are increasingly left with is a double conspiracy theory. In one barrel of the conspiracy theory, brave maverick doctors are having their research suppressed. In the other barrel of the conspiracy theory, Big Pharma shills are publishing science to refute the various vaccine hypotheses.

Of course, neither barrel is true. The brave maverick docs are not having their science suppressed. It is simply not good enough to pass peer review.

A good example of this is the science experts being presented at the Omnibus Autism proceedings. No Geier’s. No Jim Adams. No Boyd Haley. No Andrew Wakefield. At least, not so far anyway. And this is in the Vaccine Court, where standards of evidence are way lower than in a civil court, where – by the way – not a few of these same researchers science was not good enough to even be entered as evidence.

And you have this nasty habit of shooting yourselves in the foot. Only today David Kirby posted on the Huffington Post about how rubbish the VSD database was. The very same database the Geier’s recently used to allege a link between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.

And the list goes on. The Hornig study? Refuted by Rick Rollens MIND Institute. The Nataf paper on Porphyrins? Liz Mumper, head of DAN! medical admits that even ‘normal’ children have raised Porphyrin levels. The Bernard et al paper? Refuted. Richard Deth’s work? Exposed and questioned.

3) Your choice of media people to represent you is doing you harm. I am not sure how the idea of latching onto Jenny McCarthy as a spokesperson for the anti-vaccine/autism connection came up. There are a few other celebs I can think of with more gravitas than McCarthy. In truth, you couldn’t have chosen worse. Already, she has made a public fool of herself (and you). As has her partner, Jim Carrey, with his ‘lazy ass’ FUBAR and calls to notice ‘warnings from the universe‘.

I understand that these events feel terribly cathartic to you but I would urge you to take off your rose tinted glasses and see how the real world perceives these kind of things. Its not good. Don’t take my word for it, go to a _mainstream_ news source, discount the people you know as friends/associates who are leaving comments and then see what people think.

You have also latched onto the words of Bernadine Healy. I can see why but she (is/was) a member of a paid lobby group that advances the ‘science’ of Philip Morris to put forward the idea passive smoking isn’t dangerous. How desperate do you have to be to turn to _this_ ‘authority’ for backup?

4) You cannot see that you are being humoured. I know that some of you have been very proud of your success in getting involved with things like the IACC and y’know, thats great – well done to you. And then there’s the ‘coup’ of getting the AAP to attend a DAN! conference and ‘work with’ them. But there’s one thing you seem to have forgotten. AAP members are medical scientists. They will go with the decent science.

I read a blog post from Ginger Taylor today which seemed to be telling the AAP their ‘window of opportunity’ to work with DAN! et al had closed due to the fact they endorsed a letter that a paediatrician had written on how to tackle parents who were nervous about vaccination.

Amusingly, Taylor also chided the AAP for not turning up to the ‘green our vaccines’ rally:

I warned that the window would only be open for a short time unless we saw real action, and would probably close around the time of the Green our Vaccines Rally if they didn’t show up for us in some respect.

Well the AAP didn’t show up for the rally and well… this certainly signals that the window is closed. They want it closed. And it looks like they may be locking it.

Can you not understand that to expect the AAP will turn up for a rally which touts such anti-science as Aluminium and Formaldehyde being at singularly dangerous levels in vaccines and Anti-Freeze being in them at all is the height of arrogant stupidity? Surely you cannot be that naive?

The truth is – and I get this from speaking to AAP, NIH, FDA and NHS members – that you had, and always will have, an opportunity to impress them with decent, peer reviewed science. That’s all you’ve ever needed. And that’s what you’ve never had.

5) The future. The person you’ve decided will be your public face is writing another book. <a href="http://stopthinkautism.blogspot.com/2008/06/today-autism-recovery-tomorrow-crystals.html"She says that:

It’s really an Indigo book…….We’re definitely the Indigos, you know, breaking down these walls so this, you know, New Earth behind us can happen.

And what’s your role in this?

…But people aren’t quite there yet and I kinda had to, not lower my vibration, change my vibration to focusing on the world hearing that message. Hearing that biomedical treatment does help these kids.

And then, slowly, you know I can put it in my speeches. and then in my last book I talked about the indigos and crystals. And I’m just like, I’m really following source, kind of I felt the need to do that, I’m just kind of dribbling it here and there until people, you know, have that spiritual awakening of spirituality.”

That’s where you’re going. You’re close to abandoning any kind of rational basis for your beliefs and just becoming Jenny’s followers in an Indigo Spiritual Awakening to herald in the New Earth..

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →