US Court of Appeals denies vaccine court case

14 May

The first of the vaccine court autism cases has been denied by the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. The Vaccine court (or, more accurately, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) grouped the autism claims into an “Omnibus”, something like a class action case, where evidence to prove vaccines cause autism was presented in a few “test cases”, rather than hearing all the cases individually. The Omnibus Autism Proceeding heard six test cases, three on the theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism and three on the theory that thimerosal (a mercury containing perservative) causes autism.

The appeals decision is for the test case of Yates Hazelhurst, one of the MMR test cases. The case was summarized by the Special Master who decided the case:

[P]etitioners assert that the measles component of the MMR vaccine causes an immune dysfunction that impairs the vaccinee’s ability to clear the measles virus. Unable to properly clear the measles virus from the body, the vaccinee experiences measles virus persistence which leads to chronic inflammation in the gastrointestinal system and, in turn, chronic inflammation in the brain. Petitioners argue that the inflammation in the brain causes neurological damage that manifests as autism.

The Special Master (essentially the Judge in the vaccine court) denied the claim. The family appealed to the Court of Federal Claims, who upheld the decision. The recent decision is from the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, making this the second appeal affirming the original decision.

The family appealed on the basis, as the appeals judge put it:

On appeal to this court, the Hazlehursts argue that the special master improperly relied on certain evidence that should have been excluded and disregarded other evidence that should have been considered.

The MMR theory for autism causation relies on the notion that the measles virus from the vaccine persists in the guts of children. This, in turn relies on research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s team and in particular, the Unigenetics laboratory. The government brought in a witness, Dr. Stephen Bustin, to refute the validity of the results from the Unigenetics lab. Dr. Bustin’s testimony and level of expertise were very clear in showing that the Unigenetics results were faulty.

The special master found that Dr. Wakefield’s work had been largely discredited within the scientific community and that none of the studies indicating the presence of measles virus in autistic children had been successfully replicated by an accredited laboratory independent of Dr. Wakefield or Unigenetics. In particular, the special master found that Dr. Wakefield’s early 1990s research on persistent measles infections was reviewed by the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom and found to lack important controls and sufficiently specific reagents for detecting measles virus. She also found that Dr. Wakefield’s subsequent research was dismissed by the scientific community as methodologically unsound. In that regard, she noted that 10 of 12 co-authors on Dr. Wakefield’s controversial 1998 article in the medical journal The Lancet subsequently retracted their support for the article’s conclusion that there is a potential causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

The Special Masters allowed the petititioners (including the Hazelhursts) time to rebut Dr. Bustin’s testimony, through cross examination and through documentation from the UK MMR litigation. The petitioners did not avail themselves of this opportunity.

Over objection, the government sought to introduce Dr. Bustin’s reports and testimony regarding the Unigenetics laboratory, which, by that time, had gone out of business.[ 2 ] The special master in the Cedillo case provisionally admitted the evidence. The three special masters in the omnibus proceeding then deferred decision on whether to rely on that evidence and stated that they would “favorably consider joining in a request” by the petitioners “for the release of relevant reports” from the UK litigation. The record remained open for more than a year following the Cedillo hearing to afford the petitioners sufficient time to present rebuttal evidence, to conduct additional cross-examination of Dr. Bustin, and to obtain documents from the British court. However, none of the petitioners recalled Dr. Bustin for further questioning or applied for access to any of the materials from the UK litigation.

The Hazelhurst’s argued that evidence should have been allowed that was not. In particular, they argued that some unpublished results demonstrate the persistent measles theory.

The special master further concluded that the unpublished and preliminary findings of the Walker group should not be accorded significant weight. She observed that Dr. Hepner had declined to “draw any conclusions about the biological significance” of the investigators’ findings and had testified that negative controls were not included with each experimental run. The special master also noted that the petitioners’ experts based their opinions on the characteristics of the “wild-type” measles virus, as opposed to the vaccine-strain measles virus, which is far less virulent and replicates poorly in the human body.

In the end, the appeals judge ruled that there was no reason to overturn the original decision:

Because we find no error in the special master’s consideration of the evidence, we also find no error in her decision to discount Dr. Corbier’s opinion that the MMR vaccine caused Yates’s autism. By Dr. Corbier’s own admission, his opinion depended heavily on the reliability of the scientific studies purporting to show measles virus persistence in autistic children.

Compensation under the Vaccine Act is limited to those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of “causation-in-fact” evidence, to a listed vaccine. The special master concluded that the Hazlehursts’ evidence failed to demonstrate the necessary causal link, and the petitioners have not identified any reversible error in the special master’s decision reaching that conclusion.

The petitioners now have the choice of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. As noted above, the Supreme Court hears cases which help define laws and this does not appear to be such a case. It would seem unlikely, then, that the Court would agree to hear this case. If so, this is the end of the appeals for the Hazelhurst’s in their case against the U.S. government. The next step would, then, be to take their case to civil court against the vaccine manufacturers. Such cases have not been successful so far. Civil cases require a higher level of evidence and expertise than the vaccine court. Having failed in the Federal Court, where the rules are more favorable to the petitioners, it would seem a difficult battle to win the case in civil court.

Byrd and Melanie Billings

13 May

Byrd and Melanie Billings were adoptive parents. They took care of disabled children, including autistic children. New stories vary on how many kids the Billings’ had, but one states that they had 16 kids, 12 of whom were adopted. Many of their children were disabled, including autism and Down syndrome.

I’m am in awe of these people.

Unfortunately the way I’ve heard about this family is through tragedy. Apparently a small group (seven men and a woman) entered their home and murdered them. Their children were present. This happened last year, but some of the people involved in this murder have decided to cooperate in return for lower sentences.

Byrd and Melanie Billings Murder: Teen Pleads in Fla. Slaying of Wealthy, Adoptive Parents

More here: Billings suspect enters plea of no contest

Here is video from last year, talking about the case. But it talks about the family as well.

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

An older sibling plans to care for the 13 children.

Mike Stanton Speaks

13 May

The following is taken from a piece from Secondary Education.

A leading expert on autism has said that mainstream schools should re-evaluate how they respond to children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

According to Mike Stanton, a teacher at the George Hastwell School in Cumbria, which caters for children with severe learning difficulties, many schools often treat autism as a behavioural problem rather than a communication problem.

Instead of viewing difficult students’ actions as “challenging behaviour”, he encourages teachers to take a different attitude and consider what lies behind the situation.

By trying to understand why the pupil is reacting in a certain way, Mr Stanton thinks that the problem of strained relationships between teachers and autistic children – sometimes caused when the child is asked to do something they do not want to – could be avoided.

“There’s a thin line between fight and flight in autistic children,” he said.

Mr Stanton told us this “fine balance” can be more sensitively addressed in the classroom by looking at two principal ASD issues: time and space.

Unstructured time and social interaction are difficult for autistic children, he says, but strategies can be implemented to make these easier. For example, providing respite from the hustle and bustle of the school in the form of a quiet room, or structured, quiet activities such as playing chess.

Beth Reid, policy manager for the National Autistic Society, agrees that there are basic things that can be done, such as changing the ways in which autistic children are spoken to.

For example, as people with ASD can often take things literally, teachers can avoid using complicated, metaphorical language. She told us: “We can be more aware of the environment that they are sensitive to.”

However, Mr Stanton feels that beyond the school gates, services and provisions should be put in place to more effectively tackle barriers such as a lack of teacher training, and the examination system.

He said: “Mainstream schools operate under the burden of Ofsted inspections and exams. To change this, schools should be able test competencies, instead of having to implement stressful exams.”

Mr Stanton believes that the government should do more to reward schools that take on less-able children. He continues: “It is wrong that a school which takes children no one wants can be classed as a ‘failing school’.”

Furthermore, Mr Stanton claims that much of the research done into teaching autistic children is not getting through to educational establishments because the researchers themselves are using the wrong tactics.

“Teachers are bombarded by new initiatives and people telling them to change their approach,” he told us. “If the people doing the research could go into schools and find out what they need help with and what they can change, then that might work.”

Despite this, Mr Stanton says that things are gradually changing for the better, referring specifically to the Restorative Practices programme. Although not autism-specific, the programme’s approach has been found to be highly effective. Instead of attributing blame, it focuses on repairing relationships. By asking children questions like “what happened?” and “how did you feel?” a more co-operative response is elicited than if they feel accused.

Training for the programme is currently taking place in special needs schools across the country, and in some mainstream schools. However, a significant lack of awareness still exists about ASD.

Ms Reid continued: “I know of schools that are doing excellent work but I still hear of establishments that don’t think autism exists and perceive it as naughtiness.”

Mr Stanton added: “There is still a huge amount of ignorance surrounding ASD and people often don’t take it seriously.

“There is not enough respite provided for autistic children, and not enough trained staff. Also, those who are trained are overworked.”

Nature Fubar

13 May

Nature, the usually reputable Science magazine have launched a Scitable Autism section and with it screwed up their usual impeccable attention to detail.

Who for example thought it necessary to put:

Determining the cause of — and the cure for — autism is crucial for our society

I wonder. And who thought it necessary to link to no less than three anti-vaccine links on the home page of this….blog? Wiki? Two links to Autism Speaks whose controllers recently attended a DAN! conference and one link to ARI itself.

Its a ridiculous and desperately sad state of affairs when even Nature, that bastion of good science resorts to scaremongering about autism and promoting an anti-vaccine viewpoint.

Dr. Tom Insel on Demystifying Autism

12 May

Dr. Tom Insel wears many hats, as they say. He is the director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), one of the National Institutes of Health run by the US Government. As part of his function there, he chairs the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). The IACC prepares the “Strategic Plan” for the government’s activities in autism research.

Dr. Insel has obviously taken autism research very seriously. He doesn’t just chair the IACC, he obviously spends a lot of time reviewing autism research. I doubt many people at the Director level at NIH would spend the amount of time Dr. Insel obviously spends on autism.

He has recently given a few talks on autism, the current state of knowledge and the directions for research. One such talk was at NIH and was titled Demystifying Autism . Another talk was given at MIT and was hosted by the Simons Foundation. (sorry, I can’t find embed code for those talks)

Dr. Insel talks about how there is a large diversity in the autism population. The “spectrum” is broad, as likely most readers to this blog will already know. In both talks, Dr. Insel uses video from Dov Shestak (son of Portia Iverson and Jon Shestak, founders of Cure Autism Now, which is now part of Autism Speaks). This is used to give an example of regression in autistics.

Of course one large section is devoted to the increasing autism prevalence. Dr. Insel mentions the epidemiological work of Peter Bearman, which shows that much of the increase in the California Department of Developmental Services autism caseload can be accounted for by diagnostic changes and social factors. But, not all of the increase has been accounted for. Dr. Insel uses the term that the burden of proof is on those who would say that the increase is not “real”. I would put it differently–that given the lack of definitive information on the causes of the rise, we should continue to look for possible environmental causes. Many use the term “environmental cause” to mean “vaccines”. That’s not what I, or it appears, Dr. Insel mean though.

Dr. Insel discusses one yet-unpublished study: the California Twin Study.

Here is his power point slide (which you can click to enlarge if you wish):

Slide showing results of yet unpublished twin study

Dr. Insel's slide on Twin Study

or–

Narrow criteria:
monozygotic (“identical”)–80% concordance
dizygotic (“fraternal”)– 26% concordance
.
broad criteria
monozygotic–87% concordance
dizygotic– 39% concordance

This is consistent with a recent study from the Kennedy Kreiger Institute at Johns Hopkins. While this wasn’t discussed by Dr. Insel, I include the abstract for that study below:

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) inheritance and other features in twin pairs by zygosity, sex, and specific ASD diagnosis. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Internet-based autism registry for US residents. PARTICIPANTS: Survey results from 277 twin pairs (210 dizygotic [DZ] and 67 monozygotic [MZ]) aged 18 years or younger with at least 1 affected twin. MAIN EXPOSURES: Zygosity and sex. OUTCOME MEASURES: Concordance within twin pairs of diagnosis, natural history, and results from standardized autism screening. RESULTS: Pairwise ASD concordance was 31% for DZ and 88% for MZ twins. Female and male MZ twins were 100% and 86% concordant, respectively, and DZ twin pairs with at least 1 female were less likely to be concordant (20%) than were male-male DZ twin pairs (40%). The hazard ratio for ASD diagnosis of the second twin after a first-twin diagnosis was 7.48 for MZ vs DZ twins (95% confidence interval, 3.8-14.7). Affected DZ individual twins had an earlier age at first parental concern and more frequent diagnoses of intellectual disability than did MZ twins; MZ twins had a higher prevalence of bipolar disorder and Asperger syndrome and higher concordance of the latter. Results of autism screening correlated with parent-reported ASD status in more than 90% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support greater ASD concordance in MZ vs DZ twins. Overall higher functioning, psychiatric comorbidity, and Asperger syndrome concordance among affected MZ vs DZ twins may also suggest differential heritability for different ASDs. For families in which one MZ twin is diagnosed with ASD, the second twin is unlikely to receive an ASD diagnosis after 12 months. In addition, Internet parent report of ASD status is valid.

Concordance is when one child has an ASD, does the other one? 100% concordance would mean that if one twin has an ASD, the other twin does as well. That would indicate that autism is purely genetic.

Most people will concentrate on the monozygotic concordance. Even with the broad criteria, there is 87% concordance. That would indicate that at least some fraction of the cause of autism is not genetic. This is a very complicated question, as Joseph at the Autism Natural Variation blog has discussed.

What is astounding to me is the dyzogotic concordance. Take the 39% for the broad criteria. My recollection is that the concordance for siblings is about 4% if one sibling is male, and about 10% if one sibling is female. I’m trying to find the study on this. But, is there a higher concordance for dizygotic twins than for siblings in general?

Dr. Insel spends a fair amount of time on the genetic studies involved in autism. He attributes about 15% of the current autistic population as being linked to known genetic conditions. This is a pretty common estimate in the community.

One interesting fact: the known genes associated with autism are neurodevelopmental and involved with synapses. He even titles the slide as “Autism as a synaptic disease” and proposes that synaptic function might be the unifying feature of autism.

Dr. Insel notes that there are many chemicals whose neurotoxicity have not been determined. He also notes that there are some known chemicals which increase the risk of autism–valproic acid, Thalidomide and misoprostal. For all of these there is a critical window of time–in the first or early second trimester of pregnancy–where the autism risk is increased. Thalidomide, for example, is considered to be causal in a short period of time–from 20 to 24 days gestation.

If you want to see the direction Dr. Insel may take autism research in the future, these talks are worth listening to. I think it safe to say that autism research will continue to look for causes, genetic and environmental. Environmental cause research will likely focus on prenatal exposures. Study will continue on the physical structure of the brain, the “circuitry” to help define what autism is and what the phenotypes may be. Study will continue on interventions, with a look towards earlier interventions (before age 1, possibly before symptoms are visible). Intervention research will look to be tailored to the individual, which will require some way to phenotype autism.

As I noted above, I think Dr. Insel is taking a close interest in autism. He doesn’t dictate the goals for autism research, but I think listening to what he has to say gives in interesting insight into the directions it may be going.

Trends in US autism research funding: more money going to clinical and translational research

11 May

Where money is being spent on autism research is changing. Basic science, which still gets most of the money, is decreasing and clinical and translational research is increasing.

If you are like me, you have to look up “translational research”. From the link above, “To improve human health, scientific discoveries must be translated into practical applications.” I.e. this is research to “translate” basic findings into practical applications.

This was analyzed in a paper published last year by a team at Stanford University in California:

Trends in US autism research funding.

Singh J, Illes J, Lazzeroni L, Hallmayer J.

Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and Ethics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Abstract

This study shows that the number of autism research grants funded in the US from 1997 to 2006 significantly increased 15% per year. Although the majority of projects were concentrated in basic science (65%) compared to clinical (15%) and translational research (20%), there is a significant decrease in the proportion of basic research grants per year and a significant increase in the proportion of translational projects per year. The number of translational projects funded by the National Alliance for Autism Research and Cure Autism Now increased significantly, whereas the number of clinical projects significantly increased for the National Institutes of Health. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the shifting landscape of autism research from basic science to clinical and translational research.

The study analyzed grants up to 2006. This is before the increase in funding through the Combating Autism Act. The current budget for IACC proposes projects is about $220,000,000 per year, with a total for all years of over one billion dollars. Over $230 million are dedicated to “Which treatments and interventions will help?”

As noted here on LeftBrainRightBrain, funding levels for areas such as environmental causation have increased, overtaking genetic only causation research in funding levels.

No Link Between Childhood Infections, Autism

10 May

One of the theories posited about autism causation is that childhood infections can result in autism. A recent study from the Arhus, Denmark, explores this by checking how often children are admitted to the hospital for infectious diseases. Given that maternal infections do appear to be associated with a greater risk of autism, the idea of childhood infections is worth considering. I would add that the attention to mitochondrial disorders and autism that was high in the past couple of years would also suggest this is a valuable area to consider.

Here is the abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between hospitalization for infection in the perinatal/neonatal period or childhood and the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). DESIGN: A population-based cohort study. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: All children born in Denmark from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 2002, comprising a total of 1 418 152 children. EXPOSURE: Infection requiring hospitalization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ASDs among children hospitalized for infection compared with other children. RESULTS: A total of 7379 children were diagnosed as having ASDs. Children admitted to the hospital for any infectious disease displayed an increased rate of ASD diagnoses (HR, 1.38 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.45]). This association was found to be similar for infectious diseases of bacterial and viral origin. Furthermore, children admitted to the hospital for noninfectious disease also displayed an increased rate of ASD diagnoses (HR, 1.76 [95% confidence interval, 1.68-1.86]), and admissions for infection increased the rate of mental retardation (2.18 [2.06-2.31]). CONCLUSIONS: The association between hospitalization for infection and ASDs observed in this study does not suggest causality because a general association is observed across different infection groups. Also, the association is not specific for infection or for ASDs. We discuss a number of noncausal explanatory models.

Autistic children *are* admitted to the hospital for infectious diseases more often than the rest of the population. But, in general autistic children are admitted to the hospital more often than the rest of the population.

Bloomberg Businessweek discussed this paper in No Link Between Childhood Infections, Autism. They interviewed Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of the Kennedy Krieger Institute. Dr. Zimmerman concurred with the conclusions of the paper:

“Yes, there is an increased rate of hospitalization preceding the diagnosis of autism, but it doesn’t support a causal relationship between autism and infections,” Zimmerman said.

This is significant, in my view. Dr. Zimmerman is one of the doctors who treated Hannah Poling (the young girl whose case was conceded by the Department of Health and Human Resources in the vaccine court, sparking the public interest in the subject).

It is also worth noting that the study considered specific infections. From the Bloomberg/Newsweek story:

And the researchers could point to no particular infection that upped the risk.

They therefore conclude that childhood infections cannot be considered a cause of autism.

“We find the same relationship between hospitalization due to many different infections and autism,” noted lead study author Dr. Hjordis Osk Atladottir, of the departments of epidemiology and biostatistics at the Institute of Public Health, University of Aarhus in Denmark. “If there were a causal relationship, it should be present for specific infections and not provide such an overall pattern of association.”

The Autism Hub

7 May

As many will know, the Autism Hub has been put on hiatus. Many will also know why but if you don’t the reason extends to cyberbullying between a minority of members and their misogynistic attitudes to others on the Hub. The Admin team of the Hub had no choice but to put the Hub on hiatus as I see it.

BUT. I hope this is a temporary hiatus. The world needs a place like the Autism Hub, a place which has transformed itself from its first incarnation when I built it of a blog aggregator of blogs that followed a neurodiversity creed into something much more than that. It became an ideal, a banner which stood in lots of peoples minds – both autistic, NT and other forms of ND – as a force for good if I might be so simplistic. In a web that was covered with material about how awful autism was, it was refreshing to read material that challenged that simplistic view. And whether the blog was written from a standpoint of pure autism advocacy or a standpoint of tackling the antivax arm of autism (and all the flavours in between), refreshing it was and for me refreshing it remained.

One highlight was seeing autistic people and their NT allies presenting material under the banner of the Hub at San Diego University. Thats when I realised how much the Hub had changed beyond my own simplistic view of what it was.

By that time of course I had given up ownership and control of the Hub so the credit for that achievement did not lie with me but with the two current admins. It was they who oversaw the transition of the Hub into a flagship of ideas and I was thrilled to see it happen.

However, more than the admins, the formation of the Hub is made up of its members and they more than anyone dictate what the Hub should be. Sadly this meant for the Hub that some members took advantage of this liberty and thought that meant that in an effort to carve out their own identity it gave them free reign to abuse other Hub members.

And so we’re in the situation we are now where the actions of a few have impacted on something that gave great benefit to many. That abuse has led to a situation where the Hub cannot be administrated effectively without the current Admins effectively becoming full time unpaid administrators. Something that it neither fair nor feasible.

I don’t have any firm and fast idea about what to change or how but I do know that for Hub members, this is – as it ever has been – YOUR hub, powered by you for no ones financial gain and for all of our intellectual and moral gain. To lose it because of the actions of a few people goes beyond a shame and verges on tragedy. Do you really want to leave something – or see this something die – because we cannot deal with rogue members? Now is the time for all of us who are members to have full, frank and open talks about the FUTURE of the Hub, not to lament its golden past. So please – fellow members – lets talk.

Extra clause added into UK Equality Bill

6 May

An extra clause has been added into the UK Equality Bill that will come into force in October of this year. The new clause was drafted specifically to cover cases where people (e.g. family members) are ‘associated’ with the person with a disability in question and reads;

Clarifies protection against discrimination by association, for example in relation to a mother who cares for her disabled child

This follows the case of Sharon Coleman who had to go to the European Court wo delivered the following verdict:

…discrimination law is there to combat all forms of discrimination, including those connected to protected groups of people.

The new Clause should prevent the necessity of taking the case to the European Court and will allow such cases to be settled at UK level.

Green Our Vaccines: science, slogan or smoke screen?

5 May

In June, 2008, Jenny McCarthy of Generation Rescue led the “Green Our Vaccines” rally in Washington. The stated reason for the rally was to “Demand Congress take action to Green Our Vaccine Supply while reassessing our current vaccine schedule.”

They weren’t anti-vaccine, they were anti-toxin.

How sincere was this movement?

Consider this question and answer from Jenny McCarthy’s interview for Frontline:

Tell me about “Green Our Vaccines” and what you want to happen.

I don’t think there is a green vaccine. The purpose in our statement of Green Our Vaccines really is: Let’s take a look at our environment. Let’s take a look at some of these toxic ingredients and pull them out. Let’s take a look at a safer schedule. I mean, our motto was “Too many, too soon” with the Green Our Vaccines march. And like I said, it’s not like I’m looking for a Whole Foods version of a shot. We’re looking for just a smarter and safer one in that title of Green Our Vaccines.

Repeated for emphasis–“I don’t think there is a green vaccine”. Sort of vague there. Is she saying there can be no green vaccine? That’s how I read it at first. Considering that Jenny McCarthy considers the active parts of vaccines (bacteria and viruses) to be “toxic” ingredients, I’m not sure if she can believe in a green vaccine.

So, was it really about “too many too soon”, the vaccine schedule? No. It’s still mercury. Consider Generation Rescue’s mission statement from their tax form (dated 2009-11-16). (click to enlarge)

Mission Statement for Generation Rescue

My own rough transcription:

Generation Rescue, inc. has a four point mission. Gather information that exists about mercury toxicity and publicize the truth so parents can make the best decision to help their children heal. 2. Organize doctors to treat the millions of affected children through education and conference sponsorship. Sponsor research to further the understanding between mercury and neurodevelopmental and other health disorders and to help organize the cure for mercury poisoning. 4. Support legislation to ban the use of thimerosal in medicine on a worldwide basis.

The mission statement has nothing about “green vaccines” or “too many too soon” or any of the talking points. Just mercury.

Why bring this up? Is anyone surprised that “Green Our Vaccines” and “Too Many Too Soon” are just slogans?

Well, it is worth bringing up from time to time. Generation Rescue would like you to believe that there has been a big fail by the public health establishment. They would like you to believe that the government has been avoiding looking at “the schedule” and has only looked at “one vaccine and one ingredient”.

Well, one ingredient is exactly what Generation Rescue’s mission is all about.

As long as the tax form is available, take a look. Jenny McCarthy seems to be good for generating new revenue. GR brought in $1,185,255 in 2008. Pretty respectable. That’s up from $424,698 the year before.

Generation Rescue’s expenses went up to. They spent $229,213 fund raising alone. This was part of total expenses totaling $745,238.

Let’s break that down a bit. Of the total expenses, $220,654 went to “MARKETING &AWARENESS COSTS”. Let’s consider that to be part of GR’s mission, spreading the word.

What does that leave? Expenses of $524,584. Or, about 44% of the donations.

Another way to look at it: if you donate a dollar to Generation Rescue, 44 cents goes to overhead.

Of course, one could compare Generation Rescue to Autism Speaks, who takes in $66,000,000 in order to put out $27,000,000 in grants–or about 41 cents on the dollar goes to the mission. Autism Speaks has about $14,000,000 in fund raising expenses and about $18,000,000 in salaries.

Ah, but I am getting off topic.

Generation Rescue has a single mission. The same mission they’ve always had. They appear to expanding to “too many too soon” but, in reality, it is just about mercury.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →