Prof. DeSoto discusses mercury and autism

3 Aug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeSoto and Hitlan editorialize a bit in their paper:

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

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

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

OSR pulled from the market….or is it?

3 Aug

Here on LeftBrainRightBrain we recently discussed a letter from Boyd Haley, Ph.D. announcing his decision to voluntarily remove his product, OSR #1 from the market. The letter from Mr. Haley stated (in part):

The product will not be available for sale after that date until new drug approval has been obtained. Please continue to access our website, http://www.ctiscience.com , for updates on OSR#1® in the future.

The CTI website is down, and has been for a few days. The message I get when try it is:

HTTP Status 404 –

type Status report

message

description The requested resource () is not available.

Two locations I checked are still selling OSR.

The Forrest Health site has the letter from Mr. Haley noting that he has pulled the product from the market. They not only let you buy it, but they require that you purchase 3 or more “Note: you must order at least 3 items”.

Living Well International has OSR on their site as well. In response to my email, they response to my email request, “Do you still have OSR#1 for sale?”, they responded “Yes we do. It is $60 for a box of 30”

I do wonder how long before someone decides to make his or her own batch of OSR. Mr. Haley has been quoted as stating it was not difficult. The published recipe for the chemical indicates a few potential concerns. First, the chemicals are themselves not without hazards.

Triethylamine

Liquid causes first degree burns on short exposure; [CHRIS] Corrosive to skin; [Quick CPC] Short-term exposure at high concentrations may cause pulmonary edema. [ICSC] A lachrymator; [CHEMINFO] Experimental animals exposed repeatedly to 100 ppm show evidence of liver, kidney, lung, and heart damage. [HSDB] A corrosive substance that can cause pulmonary edema; [ICSC]

Chloroform has relatively high LD50 values (the amount where 50% of exposed animals die). But the MSDS lists reproductive toxicity as:

Birth defects have been seen in rats and mice exposed by inhalation of chloroform at concentrations greater than 100 ppm in air. Ingestion of chloroform by pregnant laboratory animals has resulted in fetotoxicity but not birth defects, and only at levels causing severe maternal effects.

Isophthaloyl chloride is only listed as an eye/skin irritant. I won’t go down the list of all the chemicals. I think you get the idea. It is likely that a competent chemist with a reasonable laboratory (including a fume hood and access to nitrogen gas) could produce “bathtub OSR” reasonably safely. I frankly cringe at the thought of someone attempting this at home. I will add, the yield of the published process for producing this chemical is about 72% without optimization. This begs the question to me as to how clean the product is in this form.

Opportunity to help improve care services for adults with autism

30 Jul

A consultation to help improve care services and healthcare outcomes for adults with autism in England was launched today by Care Services Minister Paul Burstow.

This is the next step to help adults with autism live full and independent lives as equal and included citizens and follows the publication of the strategy for adults with autism: Fulfilling and rewarding lives.

The strategy sets a clear framework for all mainstream public sector services to support adults with autism and is backed up by the Autism Act 2009, the first ever condition specific legislation.

The 12-week consultation process seeks views from those with autism, their families, carers, representative organisations and all sectors of society on a number of important issues such as:

*diagnosis of autism

*increasing awareness of autism amongst frontline staff

*provision of training and specialist training for frontline staff

*appropriate assessment of needs for those with autism

*provision of relevant services for young people and adults with autism

*local leadership for NHS and social care in relation to the provision of services for adults with autism

Care Services Minister Paul Burstow said:

“I hope people will take part in this opportunity to influence the direction and progress of our autism programme.

“It is unacceptable when adults with autism do not get the right care and support they need from health and social care services.

“The Government wants the consultation to reach as many people as possible, in line with our goal of giving people more say in the decisions that affect their lives. These views will help shape our priorities as we seek to help adults with autism live fulfilling and rewarding lives.”

Mark Lever, Chief Executive of the National Autistic Society, said:

“This is the vital next step people with autism and their families have been waiting for. During the passage of the Autism Act, Parliament described this statutory guidance as the ‘teeth’ of the Act, so it is vital that it secures real and lasting change at ground level.

“Now, I’d like to urge as many adults with autism, their parents and carers to take part in the consultation to make sure it is robust and can be used to hold their local services to account. The right support at the right time can make an enormous difference to peoples’ lives.”

The statutory guidance for health and social care will be published by December 2010. The strategy will be reviewed in 2013.

Go to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_118058 for info packs.

Give the IACC your input on what autism research should focus upon

28 Jul

I’ve already blogged this a few times. The deadline is coming soon, July 30th. The IACC listens to public input. Whatever you think should be stressed or not stressed in autism research, let the IACC know now.

The link for the input form is here

They allow you to give very extensive responses. Don’t let this put you off. If you only have a couple comments, give them. Do it now.

Autistic adult left in van on hot day, dies of exposure

28 Jul

I have a real hard time discussing these events. The story Woods Services client dies in van appeared on a site called PhillyBurbs.com. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Middletown police are investigating the death of a 20-year-old Woods Services resident with severe autism who was left inside a van parked on the campus for more than five hours on the hottest day of the year.

Brian Nevins, originally from Queens, N.Y., died of hyperthermia Saturday after he returned with several others from a day trip to the Sesame Place theme park, said Bucks County Coroner Dr. Joseph Campbell.

An example of how alternate vaccine schedules endanger children

28 Jul

With apologies–this post has nothing to do with autism except in pointing out where groups like Generation Rescue give out bad advice.

There is an outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) in California right now. It looks to be a major outbreak, possibly the largest in fifty years–since vaccination was implemented.

Generation Rescue has a number of alternative vaccine schedules that they promote on their website. Their “favorite” schedule was created by a doctor named Donald Miller. Let’s look at it, shall we:

In summary, this is a vaccination schedule that I would recommend:

1. No vaccinations until a child is two years old.
2. No vaccines that contain thimerosal (mercury).
3. No live virus vaccines (except for smallpox, should it recur).
4. These vaccines, to be given one at a time, every six months, beginning at age 2:
1. Pertussis (acellular, not whole cell)
2. Diphtheria
3. Tetanus
4. Polio (the Salk vaccine, cultured in human cells)

*No vaccinations until a child is two years old.* That’s right, don’t vaccinate infants. The deaths in California so far are for children under the age of 6. Dr. Miller’s schedule, the one most recommended by Generation Rescue, would leave children vulnerable to pertussis until at least age 2.

This is just plain dangerous advice.

It isn’t even well thought out. Not in the least. The reason is found in the FDA list of vaccines licensed in the U.S.. You can take a look or you can take my word for it: there is no single pertussis vaccine available.

It is impossible to follow Generation Rescue’s favorite vaccine schedule, which calls for a single pertussis vaccine to be given after age 2.

Even Dr. Sears acknowledges that (a) pertussis is a vital vaccine to give to infants and (b) you can’t get pertussis as a single vaccine. (also, (c) he sees rotavirus as an “immediate danger” to babies and children, contrary to the position of Generation Rescue).

Diseases that don’t exist in the U.S. or that don’t occur during infancy in the U.S. (so even though they can be very severe, a child has almost no risk of catching it in the U.S.) that could be safely delayed are polio, Hep B, tetanus, and diphtheria (although to get a pertussis vaccine, tetanus and diphtheria have to come along with it).

Diseases that DO pose an immediate danger to babies and children are HIB and PC meningitis, Rotavitus, and Pertussis. So, I would rather children stay on time with those four vaccines and delay the flu shots (if you feel comfortable delaying flu shots).

The whooping cough epidemic is getting a lot of coverage in the press. Just today, Dr. Nancy Snyderman of the Today Show discussed this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dr. Snyderman has a lot of good points, including the fact that there are immune compromised people in the community are at risk from the spread of diseases like pertussis.

Dr. Snyderman also makes a mistake in the interview. She claims that children died of measles in the U.S. last year. Watch for groups like the Age of Autism to ignore all the facts and concentrate on that mistake.

ACT Now!

27 Jul

UK Autism campaigners are working together to ‘ACT NOW!’ about the proposed benefit cuts and assessments and have launched a petition which we intend to deliver personally to No 10 Downing Street. Please ACT NOW! and sign by accessing: http://actnow01.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

The proposed benefit cuts and the assessments will begin in 2013 for those on the Autistic Spectrum who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and other benefits. In addition the cuts across Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts could have a catastrophic effect on the Autistic community, a group whose vulnerability already creates high levels of stress and anxiety to those involved.

Those who live with autism 24/7, 365 days each year will be at the core of these cuts and will have to live with whatever ensues as a result of the cuts. We are not opposed to cuts as such and understand that cuts need to be made. However the magnitude of the changes that these cuts will bring about and how they will impact on a community that is already marginalised and discriminated against, must be taken into account.

In 2008 the National Audit Office estimated that autism costs the UK 28.2 billion pounds each year and yet only 18% of Local Authorities who responded to the National Audit Office survey were able to give precise numbers of adults with low functioning autism known to services, with only 12% being able to do so for adults with high functioning autism. Given that thousands of children and adults do not meet the criteria for the provision that is available in their Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts we would like to know how much of the money being spent is on crisis management.

The cuts to budgets in Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts are going to make it even harder for children and adults to meet the criteria to access the provision that is available within Authorities and Primary Care Trusts, and we fear that only the minimum that can be supplied to these children and adults will be what is given. We also have grave concerns that there will be no new services that would directly benefit autistic children and adults, commissioned by Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.

We are calling for urgent talks with Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that those who live with autism 24/7 are consulted fairly and effectively in every aspect of the decision making process that will ultimately affect our lives.

We would like HMS Government to address and respond to our concerns. We WANT HMS Government to address and respond to our concerns.

ASAN Update on IACC Public Comment Deadline

27 Jul

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) has the job of creating a strategy for the U.S. government’s research in autism. They are made up of government officials, professionals, parents and, most importantly, autistics. The IACC creates their Strategic Plan with input from the public.

One of the big opportunities to submit input is this week. The IACC has an “RFI“, request for information. This is your chance to tell the IACC what you think should (and should not) be stressed in autism research.

I was reminded of this deadline when I received an email from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), which I quote below:

This is another ASAN Update for bloggers in the Autistic and disability rights communities. The public comment period for the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research closes this Friday, July 30, 2010, as stated in the IACC’s reminder notice set forth below. The IACC is a Federal advisory committee that coordinates all efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services concerning autism. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network encourages public participation in the IACC’s proceedings.

As always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or feedback, and let us know if you would prefer to receive these announcements at a different address or to be removed from the list.

Best regards,

Meg Evans, Director of Community Liaison
Autistic Self Advocacy Network

The RFI announcement is below:

Reminder: IACC 2010 RFI to Inform the 2011 Update of the IACC Strategic Plan Closes This Friday, July 30, 2010

The IACC has issued a formal Request for Information (RFI) to solicit public input to inform the 2011 update of the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research. During the six-week public comment period (June 18 – July 30, 2010), members of the public are asked to provide input to the committee on what has been learned in the past year about the issues covered in each of the seven chapters of the IACC Strategic Plan, and on what are the remaining gaps in the subject area covered by each chapter. In addition, the committee is seeking input on the introductory chapter and other general comments about the Strategic Plan. Comments collected through this RFI will be posted to the IACC web site after the closing date.

If you would like to respond to the RFI, please go to: http://www.acclaroresearch.com/oarc/2010rfi/. Responses will be accepted until this Friday, July 30, 2010.

Take the time to comment. You don’t have to give them permission to use your name. You don’t have to respond to every section. You can give a short comment or two (or more) and be done.

Now is the time!

Desiree Jennings back in the news

26 Jul

Remember Desiree Jennings? She was a cheerleader ambassador for the Washington Redskins who claimed that a flu shot gave her dystonia. She was highlighted by the Age of Autism blog and by Generation Rescue, who connected her with alternative medical practitioner Rashid Buttar. Mention of Desiree Jennings has been removed from the Generation Rescue website. Neurologist and blogger Steve Novella discussed how her case more closely resembled a psychogetic disorder. Dr. Novella’s take on the case prompted the American TV show Inside Edition to take a second look. We discussed the Jennings case then here on LeftBrainRightBrain as Successful blogging by Steven Novella: the Desiree Jennings story
.

Now the TV Show 20/20 has taken a look a the Desiree Jennings story in Medical Mystery or Hoax: Did Cheerleader Fake a Muscle Disorder?

First, one must stress that many people following this case have not been calling out “hoax”. A psychogentic disorder is quite real, just not dystonia and not physical.

That said, here is the trailer for the 20/20 episode:

http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt.swf

I find the beginning to be really cheesy. The way they took the video to make it look like it was some film taken decades ago was, well, cheesy. Ms. Jennings is less than 30 years old. Somehow I doubt her wedding was recorded on film and, even if it was, it wouldn’t be so deteriorated in a few years. But, we get the idea–the wedding was in the past.

Ms. Jennings has been used as an example of how successful Rashid Buttar is. One article, copied to Dr. Buttar’s blog, states that shortly after beginning treatment with him:

The good doctor ran to his patient, fearing she had suffered another seizure but instead was elated to find that she was awake, coherent and carrying on a normal conversation with the nurses and her family. By the next day she was walking the corridors with limited affliction. (See the video at: http://www.desireejennings.com.) The AMA has remained silent.

(note–www.desireejennings.com is no longer active).

But just as she was leaving Dr. Buttar’s clinic on her last visit in December 2009 — with “20/20’s” cameras rolling — it all seemed to fall apart. Jennings was in distress again. She could no longer walk forward, and had to be taken out in a wheelchair.

In the early discussions of Ms. Jennings, much interest focused on the idea that she was diagnosed with Dystonia by doctors at Johns Hopkins. People complained that Dr. Novella shouldn’t make statements that contradicted doctors who actually saw Ms. Jennings. The 20/20 story states:

In search of a cure, Jennings and her husband Brendan visited countless doctors and four hospitals, among them Johns Hopkins Hospital. There, a rare movement disorder that causes the muscles to twitch or convulse involuntary. The symptoms resembled her own.

“a physical therapist told Jennings about dystonia”. That’s a bit different from a doctor diagnosed her with dystonia.

Yes, this isn’t about autism at all. But this story does shed some light onto groups like Generation Rescue who supported Desiree Jennings, sending her to Dr. Buttar. The story was compelling for them, even though it was not about autism. It was about alleged vaccine injury. Generation Rescue appears to have abandoned Ms. Jennings now. It sheds light on Dr. Buttar, whose claims of recovery for Ms. Jennings appear to be unsupported by the facts. Dr. Buttar is one of the more prominent names in the alternative medicine community marketing their services to the autism community.

Laura Hewitson has left the University of Pittsburgh

26 Jul

Laura Hewitson is the lead researcher on a series of studies on comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated macaque monkeys. This work became public first in the 2008 IMFAR conference. At that time and since, the work from these studies has been strongly criticized. Dr. David Gorski of Science Based Medicine discussed those abstracts. It is very likely that the new conflict of interest declaration policy for IMFAR resulted from Ms. Hewitson’s lack of declaration of her own COI at IMFAR (she has filed a claim with the vaccine court on behalf of her child). One paper resulting from that study was withdrawn before it was published (discussed by Countering Age of Autism and Respectful Insolence). More recently, a study from this series was published in which conclusions were drawn based on only 2 control animals. Those control animals underwent brain shrinkage during a critical period of infant growth. In other words, there was something seriously wrong with the control animals and, hence, the entire study. The study (and subsequent discussions by groups such as SafeMinds) spun the brain shrinkage around to claim that the “The vaccinated primates also showed altered maturation of their brains’s [sic] amygdalas.”

Ms. Hewitson has listed here professional affiliations as:

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;
2Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX, USA;

In 2008 she was listed as Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences on the University of Pittsburgh’s website. That is the last date for an internet archive version of that page. A google cache version of the page from June 2010 listed her as “adjunct” Associate Professor. Adjunct faculty are typically part time or people from other institutions who are working in some capacity with the University.

Ms. Hewitson’s webpage link at Pitt is no longer active. She is no longer listed on the faculty page for the Pittsburgh Development Center (PDC). The PDC confirmed that she is no longer on the faculty there.

Before people start speculating, the most likely explanation is that it simply became too difficult to balance a career at Thoughtful House in Texas with a faculty appointment in Pennsylvania.

This will mean that in the future Ms. Hewitson will be unable to use her University of Pittsburgh affiliation to bolster the credibility of her research. Studies begun while at Pitt will likely continue to show that affiliation (such as the recently published study on the amygdalas of macaques).

Whatever the reason for her departure, I welcome it. I don’t believe that a fine institution like Pitt should have its name attached to the level of research in the recent paper. It is difficult to simply put into simply how poor the quality of that study was.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →