An Autism Hub Update

6 Jul

Last month, it became even more apparent to me that academia appreciates the Autism Hub.  I’ve always enjoyed a large proportion of visitors from .edu domains at Autism Street, and I’m sure the same goes for much more than a few hub bloggers. I mention last month, because that’s when a group of several Autism Hub bloggers were invited to present at the USD Summer Autism Conference (a second invitation). I would be remiss if I didn’t extend a “thank you” to Steve D of One Dad’s Opinion for his tireless effort in organizing our participation there. I would be even more remiss if I didn’t note that some outstanding people (like Drs. Anne Donnellan and Julie Robledo of the USD Autism Institute) in academic circles seem to have an eye on the future – they both seem to have a keen interest in adults with autism, and what’s coming from the real autism community in general. Of course, having an autistic child, it’s difficult not to appreciate those whose conference was titled, “Work With Me, Not On Me“.

At any rate, thinking a little more about an eye on the future, I proposed a minor facelift for the Autism Hub. As many of you are probably aware, the Autism Hub is no longer run by Kevin Leitch, so I sent the proposal to the current Autism Hub administrators. I was happy to learn that the proposed changes were accepted and implemented.

Have a look for yourself.

I’d like to take a moment and acknowledge the efforts of Kevin Leitch. His orignal Autism Hub designs paved the way for a true community tool that has enormous value. I also appreciate the fact that he does not oppose such changes (as communicated in an e-mail) to his original designs. The whole situation kind of reminds me of that moment when a parent lets go of something with respect to teaching their children. I would assume he’s proud that the Autism Hub stands on it’s own, but I would also assume he’ll view some things as potential mistakes (mistakes that are the Hub’s to make and learn from).

A minor visual redesign and a few potential mistakes aside, the long-term importance of The Hub is clear in my opinion. It remains one of a few unique places on the internet where one can find some of the best blogging from autistic adults (and family members and students/professionals) who focus on the important issues surrounding autistic people and the autism community.

Many thanks to Kev Leitch and everyone who contributes with their writing (or other skills) to The Autism Hub.

Poling Transparancy: correction

6 Jul

In a previous post, I commented (erroneously) that the HHS conceded the Hannah Poling case based on the expert reports and didn’t have the medical records. This was noted to be incorrect in a comment, and I appreciate the accurate information.

I apologize for taking so long to make the acknowledgment of the mistake more obvious (I had noted it in the comments).

The Docket shows that the expert reports were filed in December of 2007, 12/11/2007 and 12/13/2007. This is more than a month after the “Respondent’s Report” on 11/9/2007 (which I assume to be the concession).

In searching for those entries, I found a strange entry in the docket. Item 25, dated 12/14/2007 states

STATUS REPORT re deferring filing expert reports unless needed for attorney’s fees, filed by TERRY POLING. (Shoemaker, Clifford) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

I can see two meanings for this, and both are confusing to me (so are likely incorrect):

1) This is a status report requesting that the expert reports not be filed unless needed for the fee determination. But, they were already added to the docket. Would that mean that they would be pulled from the docket?

2) This is a status report on a previously entered request to defer filing the expert reports. In other words, a request was made previously and this is basically a statement noting that the previous request is no longer valid.

There are probably other explanations. The above are just speculations. Well, the comment that this entry seems strange to this reader isn’t a speculation, but you get the point, I hope.

Blog housekeeping

5 Jul

First off, my thanks to Sullivan for keeping the wheels on the blog turning for the last couple of weeks. I’ve been unwell and not felt capable of writing more than fairly basic posts. I’m starting to feel better now so hopefully I’ll be back and fighting fit soon.

Secondly, if you cast your eyes to the right you’ll see a ‘Zazzle Gallery’. This is a gallery of products I’ve done (Zazzle is a better version of Cafepress). The reason I’ve done them is two-fold. First off, its quite fun to poke a bit of satire in the direction of certain people (the t-shirts have print on the back as well). Secondly, its getting towards that time of year again – the time of year when I need to start thinking about paying for the site and I thought this would give another option rather than simply asking people to donate to site costs.

Thirdly, if you cast your eyes downwards, you’ll see the video section. I’ve had it on place for a few weeks now and (duh) only just realised that I make money from it. So far, I’ve apparently made the princely sum of $3. However thats not the point, I want to apologise to anyone who clicked a video without realising that they sent me a few pence every time they did. I should’ve noticed this earlier.

Fourthly, I want to thank everyone who participates in the weekly polls. I have to say that they are fascinating (seems like Autism Speaks need a good PR person!).

LB/RB has changed beyond all recognition in the five years since it started. The subject matter has changed from the personal portfolio page of a jobbing web developer to a two-fold website comprised of a web development/autism blog and a tutorial site for standards based web development to a blog about my autistic child to a multi-author blog about autism news, science and opinion. When it shut last year and then re-opened again I envisaged a long period of quiet as all the people who used to comment would’ve moved on but that turns out not to be the case. My daily visitor stats are a little down (I now have about 3,500 unique visitors a day as oppose to nearly a thousand more than that this time last year) but the comment section of each post is now a haven of discussion and debate rather than endless ranting and flame wars. The commenting absence of certain people (but they still read, I can see their IP in my logs 🙂 ) has created a much easier to manage site.

So, thank you loyal readers, thank you new readers – here’s to another 5 years!

I hope to hear from Tito soon…

4 Jul

I got a bit spoiled with the grey matter/white matter blog (gmwm.autistics.org). Not because it gave me a forum to explore my own ideas, but because it gave me a place to read more by Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay.

Tito guest blogged a piece here on LeftBrain/RightBrain.

I miss reading Titoisms. I could use some crosseyed invisible kangaroos. I could use his uplifting statements.

I hope all is well with Tito. Tito, if you read this, know that I’d love to see something from you. I bet there are others who feel the same as well.

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.

Vaccine Court Judicial Conference: Panel Discussion Cancelled

3 Jul

Every year the Court of Federal Claims holds a “Judicial Conference”. The point seems to be a good one: get the Special Masters (Judges) and the lawyers together to discuss the system. The Vaccine court is essentially non-adversarial and it is a pretty small community.

As noted in a letter from the Chief Special Master discussing this year’s Judicial Conference:

I believe wholeheartedly that the Bench and Bar must communicate periodically to improve the system of justice. I believe this Conference program – the panel discussions of general vaccine policy issues and of the information underpinning vaccine compensation decisions – can provide that important dialogue.

Sounds great. Let’s face it, the community of professionals involved is fairly small: a few Special Masters, a few law firms. The purpose of the Vaccine Act was to make a non-adversarial program. They should take advantage of that to make the system work as well as possible for the people.

This year’s Conference was going to be different: amongst other events, they were going to hold a couple of panel discussions.

The first panel is tentatively titled “Vaccines: Balancing Benefits with Parental Concerns (the autism issue?).” It will be moderated by Sharyl Attkisson, a reporter with CBS Evening News. The panelists will be Arthur Allen, author of “Vaccines”; David Kirby, author of “Evidence of Harm”; Dr. Ed Marcuse, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington, who has served as a member and Chair of HHS’ National Vaccine Advisory Committee, and as a member of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; and, Dr. Bernadine Healy, Health Editor, TJS News and World Report and former Director of the National Institutes of Health. There is no doubt that this discussion will be lively and informative.

Yep, that’s what David Kirby has been talking about, to the point of adding it to his bio for his recent speaking engagements.

Well, the word on the street is that this first panel has been can canceled. There are no public details of why. I would not expect to hear the details of “why”. That leaves the field open for people to interpret as they will. We see way too much of that in the autism community, so I’ll try to stick to my own predictions and my own view of the panelists.

I can already imagine the posts to the yahoo EOHarm group and other places. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I suspect to hear talk about how the subject was “too controversial” and how “controversial reporters” are being kept from talking.

I don’t know why this panel was canceled. I do know that I would not have wanted to participate. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that there would be people, perhaps a majority, on the panel whose opinions I disagree with. I agree that discussion is important, and I think getting the right message out is vital. But I wouldn’t want to share the panel with people it has to do with the methods used by some of the people on the panel.

So far, I have found Dr. Healy’s comments to be without substance. Notice that I didn’t say without merit, but without substance. I’ve heard vague statements about how people were “scared” to look for susceptibility groups. I’ve heard about how the vaccine question was put to rest “too soon”. Nothing that really backs those statements up; they stand as opinions. Nothing about the actual science that exists–especially about the lack of quality of the science that purports to support the vaccine-causality question. I’ve heard opinions, but not facts. I see someone who has made a minor media splash, but not someone with autism credibility.

I honestly don’t know why she was on the panel.

My major issue with the panel would have been the fact that it included Mr. Kirby. While someone like Dr. Marcuse could be said to be lending their credibility to the panel, Mr. Kirby would be using the panel to enhance his own credibility.

Why should David Kirby be be allowed to represent himself as an expert (on similar footing as, say, Dr. Marcuse?) and add to his credibility by being on this panel at all? David Kirby is certainly no expert. He has a book riddled with errors. He has blog post after blog post demonstrating his lack of scientific acumen. The one thing he would bring to the table would be his information about Hannah Poling. In that he is an expert, but only because he is the only one given the information. I don’t see how his, well, interesting interpretations would be of benefit to the members of the Court.

But, being wrong is the smaller issue. If you aren’t wrong sometimes, you aren’t pushing the envelope. I am certainly wrong at times, as has been demonstrated on this blog quite recently.

But when I am wrong, I am wrong in my quest to figure things out. If I am correct, it is in the quest to figure things out. It isn’t about me. but asking and, hopefully sometimes, answering questions about autism. (OK, and sometimes venting a little). One thing you will never hear from me: “This isn’t my crusade“. If I am wrong about vaccines, I can’t walk away. If I am demonstrably wrong about vaccines and autism, you’ll see me fighting hard on the other side. Autism isn’t something I can leave behind if a new book deal comes through. If someone leaks a Court document to me, it won’t be a boost to my career. And this doesn’t even touch on blog post after blog post misusing the CDDS data to create the image of an epidemic or little hints of “bombshells” which may or may not materialize. Again, being wrong isn’t the point. Being wrong in search of self promotion, that I have issues with.

If I could, I would give a gold star to Arthur Allen for agreeing to be on this panel. Not because I agree with him, but because it was obviously going to be a painful experience based on the makeup of the panel. Maybe I haven’t been watching closely, but the only times I’ve seen his name mentioned as a panelist for this Judicial Conference has been in David Kirby’s announcements.

I would give a great big gold (heck, platinum-iridium) star to Dr. Marcuse for even considering being on the panel. Of the entire panel, he’s the one person with real credentials in the field of vaccines.

If I were Dr. Marcuse or Arthur Allen, I would have considered seriously pulling out of this panel discussion once the details became known.

This panel discussion was only a fraction of the Judicial Conference. The rest is, as far as I can tell, still going to happen. For example, the second vaccine panel discussion appears to be still “on”:

The second panel will utilize some of the information from the first discussion and apply it when discussing the effects of decisions under the Vaccine Compensation Program. The title for the second panel is “Vaccine Compensation Under the Act: A Mix of Science and Policy?” This panel will be moderated by Senior Judge Loren A. Smith, who was the Chief Judge when the Vaccine Program first began at the court in 1988. The panelists will be Kevin Conway, a petitioners’ counsel since the Program’s inception; Randolph Moss, a partner at WilmerHale and co-chair of the firms’ Government and Regulatory Litigation Group, who represents vaccine manufacturers; Dr. Paul Offit, the Chief of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq; Marguerite Wilner, former Vice-Chair of the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; and Ruth J. Katz, Dean of the School of Public Health at The George Washington University. Previously, Dean Katz served as counsel to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in the U.S. House of Representative (then chaired by Congressman Henry A. Waxman), where she helped develop the National Vaccine Act. With these different perspectives, this promises to be an interesting discussion! ! ! !

That does sound like an interesting discussion. How does the Court does mix science and policy? How should they balance the two? Those seem likekey questions.

And there is another panel on ethics involving expert witnesses:

In addition to these two “must see” vaccine discussions, this year’s Conference offers an Ethics panel that vaccine practitioners will find quite meaningful. Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams will moderate a discussion regarding ethical issues involving expert witnesses. The panel will include Special Master Denise Vowel1 and a law professor, Joseph Sanders from the University of Houston. With the extensive involvement of experts in vaccine litigation, this panel discussion should provide important information and considerations to all vaccine practitioners.

I hope it is a very productive Conference for the Court. It already seems to likely to be one of the more memorable Conferences, and it hasn’t even happened yet.

Plaatsvervangende schaamte

2 Jul

<blockquote>McCarthy gave a popular voice to a viewpoint that had largely been rejected by mainstream institutions – that the sharp increase in autism in recent years has an environmental cause, such as toxins in childhood vaccines.</blockquote>

<blockquote>”Jenny McCarthy is the biggest thing to happen since the word autism was coined,” says Dan Olmsted, editor of the blog Age of Autism, which attracts thousands of readers a day</blockquote>

<blockquote>Because Ackerman got McCarthy involved, Olmsted says, that view is “not out on the loony fringes any longer.”</blockquote>

Source

“Plaatsvervangende schaamte” is a Dutch phrase. In his 2003 novel ‘Helloland’, Nick Walker defines it as:

<blockquote>This means a shame in humanity. A shame in being human. You see someone acting  foolishly or stupidly and you do not laugh at him, you do not feel Schadenfreude, instead you feel a sense of humiliation  that this is how your species can behave.</blockquote>

There’s nothing else I can really add to this post, sorry.

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.

A call to the the Special Masters: No Splinch, No Splunge

29 Jun

When a person in the Harry Potter world apparates but leaves some piece of him/herself behind, it is called “splinching“. In the world of Monty Python, “Splunge” means “I’m not saying yes and I’m not saying no and I’m not indecisive”.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, we should see a decision in the first part of the Autism Omnibus Proceeding, with the decision in the second part following a some time later.

What do these two things have in common? We need a clear, definitive decision from the Special Masters. No splinch. No splunge.

It will come as no surprise that I am expecting a the decision to go against the petitioners. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great if every person with a disability got the support–either as a lump sum, public services, or some combination of the two–that they needed for their lives. But, the problem is, I just don’t think that the petitioner’s science even comes close to proving this case.

No matter what happens, I expect that the losing side will appeal to the Federal Circuit. Should the decision go against the petitioners, and they lose the appeal, expect this to spill over to civil court.

For that reason, we need a clear, decisive well… decision. We need the Special Masters to write the sort of decision that tells the Federal Circuit, “this idea has no merit”. We need a decision that tells the civil courts, “don’t even let this one through the door” (think Blackwell).

I’m not saying I am right. I am not saying that this would be news to the Special Masters. I’m certainly not saying that this could influence them in any way.

What I am saying is that we are a very factionalized community. We need to move forward, and the vaccine issue is keeping that from happening. Progress will likely mean leaving some people behind with their old ideas. But the sooner we can move forward, the better. The sooner we can talk about issues that matter, the better. The sooner we can fight as a group for respect, rights, appropriate services, rather than fighting amongst ourselves, the better.

The Special Masters would likely see a strong decision as the best way to support the vaccine program (good idea, too). But, it would be one of best things they could do for the autism community.

Experts with an agenda and newcomers with an agenda

28 Jun

Everyone knows that a good meeting needs to have an agenda. Most people also knows that science being forced to fit a pre-conceived agenda is usually useless.

With that in mind, Gardiner Harris of the New York Times delivers an excellent report that discusses a meeting being held today that will…:

<blockquote>….call together some of the world’s leading experts on an obscure disease to discuss the controversial case of a 9-year-old girl from Athens, Ga. [Hannah Poling]…. [and]…a 6-year-old girl from Colorado [who] received FluMist, a flu vaccine, and about a week later “became weak with multiple episodes of falling to ground” and “difficulty walking,”….She was hospitalized and underwent surgery and was finally withdrawn from life support. She died on April 5, according to the report</blockquote>

(inserts mine)

You can expect the usual suspects to come out with horror show after horror show about this poor little girl who died and how The Evil Vaccines ™ are to blame. However, the truth is that – as with all previous convolutions of the autism/vaccine hypotheses, correlation does not equal causation.

<blockquote>”After caring for hundreds of children with mitochondrial disease, I can’t recall a single one that had a complication from vaccination,” said Dr. Darryl De Vivo, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Columbia University who will present at the meeting on Sunday and is one of the premier experts in the field.</blockquote>

De Vivo also said:

<blockquote>as many as 700,000 people in the United States had flawed mitochondria, and in roughly 30,000 of them the genetic flaws were expansive enough to cause disease</blockquote>

In an email conversation with Sullivan (a regular commenter and author at this blog), Sullivan pointed out how this 700,000 – an opinion offered by an expert in the field – differed wildly from the <a href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html&#8221; rel=”nofollow”>1 in 50</a> estimation offered by David Kirby which would result in 6,000,000 cases. Thats a fairly wild discrepancy.

Harris also quoted a great aunt of Hannah Poling who simply parroted the ‘green our vaccines’ nothingness:

<blockquote>What’s the schedule and number of vaccines?” Ms. Dunkle asked. “What’s the content of those vaccines?</blockquote>

In the case of the little girl who died, she had already received one set of vaccines with no incident. In the case of Hannah Poling, it is far from clear that the vaccines administered resulted in her autism diagnosis.

The bottom line for me is:

<blockquote>Many experts said infections could be so devastating to those with mitochondrial disorders that the risks associated with vaccines were far outweighed by the benefits. Still, none dismissed the notion that a vaccine could cause a decline in such children.</blockquote>

Which is, of course, true. Nobody disputes that people sometimes have adverse reactions to vaccinations. This is true of kids with mitochondrial issues as well as autistic people as well as people with no other issues at all. Its sad to me that people want to castigate vaccines for being imperfect. Nothing in life is absolutely assured and it is quite obviously far better for children to be as healthy as possible with a very small chance that a side effect may occur. This is even more true for kids with mitochondrial issues. Consier this statement:

<blockquote>Most of these kids [with mitochondrial issues] get a common cold, and either during the cold or soon after, the parents notice a drastic deterioration,” said Dr. Bruce H. Cohen, a neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic.</blockquote>

(inserts mine)

Now, if you said to these parents – we have a vaccine for the common cold. The chances of it working are very, very good but not 100%. The chances of it causing an adverse reaction are very, very low but not 0%. The chances of it causing a _fatal_ adverse reaction is even lower but still not 0% (I’ve got a figure of 1.3%<sup>1</sup>). The chances of your child becoming seriously ill following the common cold is very high. Do you want your child to have this vaccine?

I would imagine most of these parents would break your arm in the rush of trying to sign the acceptance papers.

Now, lets lengthen that scenario. The common cold vaccine is announced to the rest of the world and adopted into vaccine schedules. The usual suspects say how silly it is and how the common cold is ‘nothing’. They refuse to vaccine against the common cold. Herd immunity drops. A child catches a cold and sits next to a child with a mitochondrial issue at a GP’s surgery (for example). The vaccine the mito child has received doesn’t work – because we all know vaccines don’t work 100% of the time.

What will this ‘nothing’ common cold do to this mito child?

Society has an obligation to protect the weaker members of its society.

On that same theme, I noticed a new paper in my Inbox today. It discussed death rates of autistic people compared to the general population:

<strong> Mortality and causes of death in autism spectrum disorders: An update.</strong>

<blockquote> This study compared mortality among Danish citizens with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) with that of the general population……In all, 26 persons with ASD had died, whereas the expected number of deaths was 13.5. Thus the mortality risk among those with ASD was nearly twice that of the general population</blockquote>

Nearly half of the 26 deaths of autistic people were due to Epilepsy rather than autism itself.

I would like to ask the kind permission of those who continue to try and make a story from nothing about autism and vaccines that we be allowed to move the debate onto areas that really, really need a big light shining on them. The heavy death rate of autistic people from comorbidities such as Epilepsy would be a great place to start.

[1] I got this using the <a href=”http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.html”>VAERS DB</a> (yes, I know the limitations but I wanted to use a DB given credence by the autism/vaccine believers). Out of a total amount of entries of 227,795 there were 3009 reported deaths.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →