http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5683671.ece
February 8, 2009
MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism
Brian Deer
THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.
Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.
The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.
However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.
Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.
Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.
With two professors, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, Wakefield is defending himself against allegations of serious professional misconduct brought by the GMC. The charges relate to ethical aspects of the project, not its findings. All three men deny any misconduct.
Through his lawyers, Wakefield this weekend denied the issues raised by our investigation, but declined to comment further.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/03/the-wakefield-i.html
MAJOR AUTISM GROUPS SUPPORT DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD
BY THE EDITORS
March 27, 2008
The British Medical Establishment's battle to discredit Andy Wakefield runs into its first major obstacle this week -- Andy Wakefield himself. He begins testimony in his own defense in the proceeding -- we think Inquisition is a much better word -- to pull his medical license after he published a study raising questions (questions, mind you!) about whether the MMR shot led to a GI disorder and regressive autism. He had the temerity to suggest that while we figure it out, it might make sense to separate the measles, mumps and rubella shots. For this outrage, he's already been driven out of England -- thankfully, to the USA. We'll bring you full coverage and news about how you can support him starting with the letter (below) from several major US autism groups. In addition, you can visit www.cryshame.com to learn more.
Wakefield and Colleagues Should Be Knighted, Not Persecuted
U.K. Medical Inquiry Threatens Scientific Inquiry & Progress in Autism
The National Autism Association (NAA), SafeMinds, Unlocking Autism, Generation Rescue, Autism One and Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) wish to express support for Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues who are unjustly facing a fitness to practice hearing by the General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom. Dr. Wakefield, a pioneer in autism research and treatment, begins his historic testimony today. The undersigned organizations, along with other U.S. families affected by autism, join in spirit with the U.K. families who are demonstrating today at the GMC offices in London.
The GMC prosecution is a frontal attack on the health and well-being of those around the world who have an autism spectrum disorder.
Scientific and medical progress in this field will only be made through open minded thinking on how best to treat and prevent the disabling conditions that accompany this complex diagnosis. The GMC’s actions have a chilling effect on the practice of medicine and suppress honest and open scientific inquiry.
Dr. Wakefield and his team of elite researchers at the Royal Free Hospital in London did exactly as they were called to do by their professional curiosity and ethics - find out why so many children have autism and whether gastrointestinal problems play a role in the disorder. Their seminal 1998 paper published in The Lancet reported a series of observations whose common features had coalesced as a new syndrome, autistic enterocolitis. The parents of many patients noted a link between the onset of symptoms and receipt of the measles-mumps-rubella combination vaccine (MMR), but out of an abundance of caution the Lancet paper claimed that the study did not prove an association between MMR and autism. Rather, it prudently called for further research.
The underlying goal of the GMC hearing is to take Dr. Wakefield and colleagues to task for daring to even hint at a vaccine-autism link. The “official” reason is to determine if the scientists profited from their research, but in fact the inquiry is a desperate tactic by vaccination proponents to quiet those who raise questions about the safety of current vaccination practices such as combining three live viruses into the single MMR injection. Recent developments in the U.S. have vindicated Dr. Wakefield’s hypotheses. Gastrointestinal problems are now known to be present in many autistic children and gastroenterology has become a standard discipline for autism medical care. The U.S. court for vaccine injury compensation has found that vaccination against multiple diseases on one day led to a case of regression into autism in a child who was developing normally.
Dr. Wakefield should be knighted for his cutting-edge creativity, not persecuted. He made his hypotheses a decade ago, and the rest of science is just now catching up. The public health bureaucrats and their agents – in the U.K. and the U.S. - are more interested in covering up their own misdeeds, poor judgment, or inaction. These include a refusal to make the single monovalent measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines broadly available in response to legitimate concerns over the safety of the triple MMR injection, a refusal to conduct a valid study comparing the rate of autism and other health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and a refusal to reexamine infant immunization schedules to increase safety. Autism spectrum disorder rates in the U.K. may be as high as 1 in 66 and in the U.S. they are said to be 1 in 150 children, but the public health establishment refuses to declare autism a health emergency, refuses to apply the resources to understanding the disorder, and refuses to conduct the type of unbiased research required.
The U.K. medical establishment has driven Dr. Wakefield from his home, but his loss is America’s gain. We are blessed to have Dr. Wakefield as Director of the Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas. In a few short years, this has become an international mecca for research, education, and treatment for children with autism. We look forward to a fair GMC hearing and to further ground-breaking research from Dr. Wakefield and his team.
For more information about autism and the undersigned organizations, visit www.autism.org. Details about today’s rally in London are available at http://www.cryshame.com/.
National Autism Association
SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
Generation Rescue
Autism One
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA)
MAJOR AUTISM GROUPS SUPPORT DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD
BY THE EDITORS
March 27, 2008
The British Medical Establishment's battle to discredit Andy Wakefield runs into its first major obstacle this week -- Andy Wakefield himself. He begins testimony in his own defense in the proceeding -- we think Inquisition is a much better word -- to pull his medical license after he published a study raising questions (questions, mind you!) about whether the MMR shot led to a GI disorder and regressive autism. He had the temerity to suggest that while we figure it out, it might make sense to separate the measles, mumps and rubella shots. For this outrage, he's already been driven out of England -- thankfully, to the USA. We'll bring you full coverage and news about how you can support him starting with the letter (below) from several major US autism groups. In addition, you can visit www.cryshame.com to learn more.
Wakefield and Colleagues Should Be Knighted, Not Persecuted
U.K. Medical Inquiry Threatens Scientific Inquiry & Progress in Autism
The National Autism Association (NAA), SafeMinds, Unlocking Autism, Generation Rescue, Autism One and Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) wish to express support for Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues who are unjustly facing a fitness to practice hearing by the General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom. Dr. Wakefield, a pioneer in autism research and treatment, begins his historic testimony today. The undersigned organizations, along with other U.S. families affected by autism, join in spirit with the U.K. families who are demonstrating today at the GMC offices in London.
The GMC prosecution is a frontal attack on the health and well-being of those around the world who have an autism spectrum disorder.
Scientific and medical progress in this field will only be made through open minded thinking on how best to treat and prevent the disabling conditions that accompany this complex diagnosis. The GMC’s actions have a chilling effect on the practice of medicine and suppress honest and open scientific inquiry.
Dr. Wakefield and his team of elite researchers at the Royal Free Hospital in London did exactly as they were called to do by their professional curiosity and ethics - find out why so many children have autism and whether gastrointestinal problems play a role in the disorder. Their seminal 1998 paper published in The Lancet reported a series of observations whose common features had coalesced as a new syndrome, autistic enterocolitis. The parents of many patients noted a link between the onset of symptoms and receipt of the measles-mumps-rubella combination vaccine (MMR), but out of an abundance of caution the Lancet paper claimed that the study did not prove an association between MMR and autism. Rather, it prudently called for further research.
The underlying goal of the GMC hearing is to take Dr. Wakefield and colleagues to task for daring to even hint at a vaccine-autism link. The “official” reason is to determine if the scientists profited from their research, but in fact the inquiry is a desperate tactic by vaccination proponents to quiet those who raise questions about the safety of current vaccination practices such as combining three live viruses into the single MMR injection. Recent developments in the U.S. have vindicated Dr. Wakefield’s hypotheses. Gastrointestinal problems are now known to be present in many autistic children and gastroenterology has become a standard discipline for autism medical care. The U.S. court for vaccine injury compensation has found that vaccination against multiple diseases on one day led to a case of regression into autism in a child who was developing normally.
Dr. Wakefield should be knighted for his cutting-edge creativity, not persecuted. He made his hypotheses a decade ago, and the rest of science is just now catching up. The public health bureaucrats and their agents – in the U.K. and the U.S. - are more interested in covering up their own misdeeds, poor judgment, or inaction. These include a refusal to make the single monovalent measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines broadly available in response to legitimate concerns over the safety of the triple MMR injection, a refusal to conduct a valid study comparing the rate of autism and other health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and a refusal to reexamine infant immunization schedules to increase safety. Autism spectrum disorder rates in the U.K. may be as high as 1 in 66 and in the U.S. they are said to be 1 in 150 children, but the public health establishment refuses to declare autism a health emergency, refuses to apply the resources to understanding the disorder, and refuses to conduct the type of unbiased research required.
The U.K. medical establishment has driven Dr. Wakefield from his home, but his loss is America’s gain. We are blessed to have Dr. Wakefield as Director of the Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas. In a few short years, this has become an international mecca for research, education, and treatment for children with autism. We look forward to a fair GMC hearing and to further ground-breaking research from Dr. Wakefield and his team.
For more information about autism and the undersigned organizations, visit www.autism.org. Details about today’s rally in London are available at http://www.cryshame.com/.
National Autism Association
SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
Generation Rescue
Autism One
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA)
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/age-of-...-wakefield.html
Age of Autism Awards 2008 Galileo Award: Dr. Andrew Wakefield
From the Roman to the Wakefield Inquisition
By Mark Blaxill
December 31, 2008
As the year draws to a close, all of us at the Age of Autism are very pleased to honor Dr. Andrew Wakefield. As we’ve reported here many times during the past year, Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of a remarkable and unprecedented campaign to discredit his work and character, most notably in a show trial that is still underway in London, in hearings of the General Medical Council. In the face of extraordinary attempts to silence him, Wakefield has stood up to these attacks with grace and determination and has continued his research and clinical work on behalf of children and families suffering from autism. That makes him our first Age of Autism Galileo Award recipient.
Like many of our awards this year, this wasn’t a difficult decision. In fact, this may be one of those unusual cases where the recipient of an award in some ways outshines its namesake. To understand why that might be so, you need to understand a bit more about why we chose to name the award after the Italian scientist Galileo, what he represents to the history of science and how his experience compares with Wakefield’s.
Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa, Italy in 1564. And while he was a physicist and mathematician of some note, Galileo was as much a practical mechanic as he was a grand theorist; indeed it was his tinkering with convex and concave lenses that gave him the tools to leave his lasting mark on the world. As a skilled inventor of early working telescopes, he did not design the world’s first telescope, but he was the first to make them powerful enough for scientific use. In fact, the word telescope (derived from the Greek roots skopein, “to see”, and tele for “far”) was coined in 1611 to describe one of Galileo’s first instruments. For the accomplishments that flowed from his pioneering work, he has been described by many as The Father of Modern Physics; Albert Einstein even went so far as to name him The Father of Modern Science.
But Galileo is celebrated today not as much for his engineering talent as for the suffering he endured in support of an unpopular scientific theory. Because it was Galileo’s work with telescopes in the early 17th century that lent critical support to the theory of heliocentrism, the idea that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. As with his telescope technology, Galileo was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory: that distinction belongs to Nicolai Copernicus. Yet Copernicus, a Polish mathematician, was well aware of the personal risk of disseminating his ideas and delayed their publication for many years. Copernicus’ major work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, was published only shortly before his death at age 70 in 1543.
Galileo, by contrast, was an aggressive advocate for the truth as he saw it. He used his telescope to provide clear visual evidence that the sun occupied the center of the solar system. He then published his evidence fearlessly in the prime of his life, starting while in his 40s. And although for a while he obtained the approval of the Vatican to publish some of his work, he was eventually forced to spend most his later life defending himself and his findings. For as the significance of his observations for the prevailing Catholic orthodoxy became increasingly clear, Galileo was derided as a heretic, denounced publicly and finally given an ultimatum: renounce your theory or else. In 1633, he was put on trial by the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition", known today as the Roman Inquisition, and convicted of heresy. Barely escaping prison, Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest, where he died nearly ten years later.
The many parallels between the Roman Inquisition and the Wakefield Inquisition are uncanny. Like Galileo, Wakefield came to autism both as a practical man and a scientist; his initial involvement in autism was simply in response to a group of parents who approached him as a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology. They told him, “Our children are not defective, they are sick” and Wakefield listened. Also like Galileo, Wakefield didn’t originate the idea that vaccines might play a role in autism, but has become the most prominent developer of the idea. As Galileo’s telescopes allowed him to discover the moons of Jupiter, so did Wakefield’s use of new ways of seeing, in this case an endoscope to see into a child’s intestines, allow him to discover a distinctive gut pathology in autism. He named what he saw autistic enterocolitis, and it was a finding that quite literally turned the brain-centric view of autism upside down. But this was no ordinary finding, for Wakefield’s specific challenge to the orthodox view of autism science made him a target for the medical establishment. He published his first major work in the prestigious journal The Lancet, where the editor Richard Horton had full awareness of its controversial potential. But when the controversy turned too hot to handle, Horton lost his nerve and in a perfidious betrayal that history should remember (see John Stone’s wonderful essay on Horton (HERE)), Horton turned on Wakefield.
Thanks to Horton’s perfidy, and again like Galileo, Wakefield now finds himself on trial for his license to practice medicine in front of the General Medical Council (GMC). And although the GMC might defend the validity of its allegations, it is plain to all who have followed the case closely that the trumped up charges hold little merit. Still, the outcome of the proceedings lies in considerable doubt, for Wakefield has not been subjected to these months of review on the basis of any actual medical misconduct (not surprisingly, no parent with whom he worked supports the GMC’s case). Quite clearly, and again like Galileo in the face of the Roman Inquisition, the offense for which Wakefield is really on trial is heresy. And whenever an Inquisition has begun to confront the conflicts between religious orthodoxy and inconvenient evidence, one can never predict how the High Inquisitors will render their judgment. The only thing we can predict is that a process like the Wakefield Inquisition is always more concerned with appearances than justice.
Wakefield’s heresy comes at a particularly difficult time for the medical profession that has placed him on trial. The twin pillars of its quest for the causes of human disease, germs and genes, have failed for years to explain the scourge of chronic disease: a scourge that has replaced infectious disease as the main public health problem of the developed world. In the face of a simmering disquiet over what has become an increasingly embarrassing scientific failure, it has become ever more important to the profession’s high priests to distract attention from the crumbling bulwarks of their belief system and take action to defend the tools and targets of those pillars: the germ theory of disease that was medicine’s greatest contribution to human civilization and provided its two principle tools, vaccines and antibiotics; and the genetic model of human disease that has been medicine’s great hope to succeed germ theory and the precious disease targets such as autism that it hopes to explain. Seen in this context, Wakefield’s heresies have been unusually threatening because they operate on both fronts: they compete with the genetic explanations of autism with a causal model that threatens to tarnish the heroic triumphs of germ theory.
So like Galileo’s compelling work in support of heliocentrism, Wakefield’s dual challenge to vaccine development and autism science has evoked a strong response from the highest levels of authority. In Wakefield’s case, his prosecutors have determined not only that he must be shown to be wrong, he must also be punished. That means his work on autism (as well as others doing supportive work) must be stopped while he must also be stripped of his credentials as a member of the medical profession. The modern punishment for heresy may not include death, but it can be exile and excommunication.
Casting the treatment of Wakefield as a religious response is the only way to make sense of the behavior of the medical establishment over the last several years. If it were not so serious, its escalating absurdity would begin to resemble farce. One example is the latest defense of the ever-expanding childhood immunization program. Instead of embracing the importance of improving vaccine safety, the program’s defenders have now declared that the temple of the sacred program must never be defiled, and certainly must not be subjected to conventional safety research. So the obvious research project of comparing the total health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals has been rejected not merely as too expensive, now it simply must not be done. In the Orwellian logic of the CDC, such studies in humans would be “prospectively unethical” and “retrospectively impossible.”
Let’s be frank here. This is an epistemological obscenity: It’s not just that we don’t know some very basic things about the safety of the sacred program, we also cannot know and should not seek to know. This stance should offend even the most skeptical scientists. Still, the farce continues.
In the meantime, there remains a body of published evidence that must be dealt with. And for this, since the retraction of every published study is well-nigh impossible (some of Wakefield’s less courageous co-authors famously “retracted the interpretation” of the Lancet paper, but they couldn’t retract the evidence) there is only one answer left. Nullify the source of the heresy itself. Practically speaking, when establishment voices can no longer claim the absence of causal evidence, the fallback position must be that there is “no credible evidence” linking vaccines and autism. Removing credibility from the evidence requires that the high priests get personal: they must mount a systematic attack on the personal reputations and integrity of scientists who pursue and publish heretical lines of investigation.
And this is why, decades after Stalin and Mao, we now have the travesty of a 21st century show trial in London, the Wakefield Inquisition. It’s also why the passionate call on a U.K. parents' web-site, Cry Shame, is so deeply correct.
I wouldn’t in any way diminish the importance of Galileo, but in an interesting way, Wakefield’s steadfastness in the face of adversity outshines the man in whose name we honor him. For, although Galileo finally agreed to recant his support for heliocentrism, Wakefield has never buckled under the pressure. Instead he has stuck to his guns and continued to fight for families with autism. Supported by private funding, his research work has continued (stay tuned for some more blockbuster results next year). And along with the terrific medical team at Thoughtful House, courageous doctors like Arthur Krigsman, Bryan Jepson and Doreen Granpeesheh, he also continues his clinical practice.
In the meantime, the heresy trial staggers onward towards its uncertain conclusion; the GMC’s verdict may well come shortly in the New Year. But our judgment at the Age of Autism is clear. Andy Wakefield represents the very best of the scientific tradition. He has persevered in the face of obstacles that would have stopped lesser men in their tracks. He has published continuously and fearlessly. He has pushed important research projects forward despite countless attempts to declare the work irrelevant, the issues “settled.” He has dealt with opposing evidence with the professional spirit of a scientist while also following the advice of Karl Popper that “he who gives up his theory too easily in the face of apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory.” Along the way, he has unfailingly represented the issues in autism and the best principles of the scientific method with dignity and restraint. Most important of all, he has refused to be intimidated.
For all this and more, we would like to honor Dr. Andrew Wakefield with our first Galileo Award. And like so many others in our community, I feel proud to call him my friend. Let’s be sure to stand behind him in the uncertain times ahead.
Mark Blaxill is Editor at Large for Age of Autism.
Age of Autism Awards 2008 Galileo Award: Dr. Andrew Wakefield
From the Roman to the Wakefield Inquisition
By Mark Blaxill
December 31, 2008
As the year draws to a close, all of us at the Age of Autism are very pleased to honor Dr. Andrew Wakefield. As we’ve reported here many times during the past year, Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of a remarkable and unprecedented campaign to discredit his work and character, most notably in a show trial that is still underway in London, in hearings of the General Medical Council. In the face of extraordinary attempts to silence him, Wakefield has stood up to these attacks with grace and determination and has continued his research and clinical work on behalf of children and families suffering from autism. That makes him our first Age of Autism Galileo Award recipient.
Like many of our awards this year, this wasn’t a difficult decision. In fact, this may be one of those unusual cases where the recipient of an award in some ways outshines its namesake. To understand why that might be so, you need to understand a bit more about why we chose to name the award after the Italian scientist Galileo, what he represents to the history of science and how his experience compares with Wakefield’s.
Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa, Italy in 1564. And while he was a physicist and mathematician of some note, Galileo was as much a practical mechanic as he was a grand theorist; indeed it was his tinkering with convex and concave lenses that gave him the tools to leave his lasting mark on the world. As a skilled inventor of early working telescopes, he did not design the world’s first telescope, but he was the first to make them powerful enough for scientific use. In fact, the word telescope (derived from the Greek roots skopein, “to see”, and tele for “far”) was coined in 1611 to describe one of Galileo’s first instruments. For the accomplishments that flowed from his pioneering work, he has been described by many as The Father of Modern Physics; Albert Einstein even went so far as to name him The Father of Modern Science.
But Galileo is celebrated today not as much for his engineering talent as for the suffering he endured in support of an unpopular scientific theory. Because it was Galileo’s work with telescopes in the early 17th century that lent critical support to the theory of heliocentrism, the idea that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. As with his telescope technology, Galileo was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory: that distinction belongs to Nicolai Copernicus. Yet Copernicus, a Polish mathematician, was well aware of the personal risk of disseminating his ideas and delayed their publication for many years. Copernicus’ major work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, was published only shortly before his death at age 70 in 1543.
Galileo, by contrast, was an aggressive advocate for the truth as he saw it. He used his telescope to provide clear visual evidence that the sun occupied the center of the solar system. He then published his evidence fearlessly in the prime of his life, starting while in his 40s. And although for a while he obtained the approval of the Vatican to publish some of his work, he was eventually forced to spend most his later life defending himself and his findings. For as the significance of his observations for the prevailing Catholic orthodoxy became increasingly clear, Galileo was derided as a heretic, denounced publicly and finally given an ultimatum: renounce your theory or else. In 1633, he was put on trial by the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition", known today as the Roman Inquisition, and convicted of heresy. Barely escaping prison, Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest, where he died nearly ten years later.
The many parallels between the Roman Inquisition and the Wakefield Inquisition are uncanny. Like Galileo, Wakefield came to autism both as a practical man and a scientist; his initial involvement in autism was simply in response to a group of parents who approached him as a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology. They told him, “Our children are not defective, they are sick” and Wakefield listened. Also like Galileo, Wakefield didn’t originate the idea that vaccines might play a role in autism, but has become the most prominent developer of the idea. As Galileo’s telescopes allowed him to discover the moons of Jupiter, so did Wakefield’s use of new ways of seeing, in this case an endoscope to see into a child’s intestines, allow him to discover a distinctive gut pathology in autism. He named what he saw autistic enterocolitis, and it was a finding that quite literally turned the brain-centric view of autism upside down. But this was no ordinary finding, for Wakefield’s specific challenge to the orthodox view of autism science made him a target for the medical establishment. He published his first major work in the prestigious journal The Lancet, where the editor Richard Horton had full awareness of its controversial potential. But when the controversy turned too hot to handle, Horton lost his nerve and in a perfidious betrayal that history should remember (see John Stone’s wonderful essay on Horton (HERE)), Horton turned on Wakefield.
Thanks to Horton’s perfidy, and again like Galileo, Wakefield now finds himself on trial for his license to practice medicine in front of the General Medical Council (GMC). And although the GMC might defend the validity of its allegations, it is plain to all who have followed the case closely that the trumped up charges hold little merit. Still, the outcome of the proceedings lies in considerable doubt, for Wakefield has not been subjected to these months of review on the basis of any actual medical misconduct (not surprisingly, no parent with whom he worked supports the GMC’s case). Quite clearly, and again like Galileo in the face of the Roman Inquisition, the offense for which Wakefield is really on trial is heresy. And whenever an Inquisition has begun to confront the conflicts between religious orthodoxy and inconvenient evidence, one can never predict how the High Inquisitors will render their judgment. The only thing we can predict is that a process like the Wakefield Inquisition is always more concerned with appearances than justice.
Wakefield’s heresy comes at a particularly difficult time for the medical profession that has placed him on trial. The twin pillars of its quest for the causes of human disease, germs and genes, have failed for years to explain the scourge of chronic disease: a scourge that has replaced infectious disease as the main public health problem of the developed world. In the face of a simmering disquiet over what has become an increasingly embarrassing scientific failure, it has become ever more important to the profession’s high priests to distract attention from the crumbling bulwarks of their belief system and take action to defend the tools and targets of those pillars: the germ theory of disease that was medicine’s greatest contribution to human civilization and provided its two principle tools, vaccines and antibiotics; and the genetic model of human disease that has been medicine’s great hope to succeed germ theory and the precious disease targets such as autism that it hopes to explain. Seen in this context, Wakefield’s heresies have been unusually threatening because they operate on both fronts: they compete with the genetic explanations of autism with a causal model that threatens to tarnish the heroic triumphs of germ theory.
So like Galileo’s compelling work in support of heliocentrism, Wakefield’s dual challenge to vaccine development and autism science has evoked a strong response from the highest levels of authority. In Wakefield’s case, his prosecutors have determined not only that he must be shown to be wrong, he must also be punished. That means his work on autism (as well as others doing supportive work) must be stopped while he must also be stripped of his credentials as a member of the medical profession. The modern punishment for heresy may not include death, but it can be exile and excommunication.
Casting the treatment of Wakefield as a religious response is the only way to make sense of the behavior of the medical establishment over the last several years. If it were not so serious, its escalating absurdity would begin to resemble farce. One example is the latest defense of the ever-expanding childhood immunization program. Instead of embracing the importance of improving vaccine safety, the program’s defenders have now declared that the temple of the sacred program must never be defiled, and certainly must not be subjected to conventional safety research. So the obvious research project of comparing the total health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals has been rejected not merely as too expensive, now it simply must not be done. In the Orwellian logic of the CDC, such studies in humans would be “prospectively unethical” and “retrospectively impossible.”
Let’s be frank here. This is an epistemological obscenity: It’s not just that we don’t know some very basic things about the safety of the sacred program, we also cannot know and should not seek to know. This stance should offend even the most skeptical scientists. Still, the farce continues.
In the meantime, there remains a body of published evidence that must be dealt with. And for this, since the retraction of every published study is well-nigh impossible (some of Wakefield’s less courageous co-authors famously “retracted the interpretation” of the Lancet paper, but they couldn’t retract the evidence) there is only one answer left. Nullify the source of the heresy itself. Practically speaking, when establishment voices can no longer claim the absence of causal evidence, the fallback position must be that there is “no credible evidence” linking vaccines and autism. Removing credibility from the evidence requires that the high priests get personal: they must mount a systematic attack on the personal reputations and integrity of scientists who pursue and publish heretical lines of investigation.
And this is why, decades after Stalin and Mao, we now have the travesty of a 21st century show trial in London, the Wakefield Inquisition. It’s also why the passionate call on a U.K. parents' web-site, Cry Shame, is so deeply correct.
I wouldn’t in any way diminish the importance of Galileo, but in an interesting way, Wakefield’s steadfastness in the face of adversity outshines the man in whose name we honor him. For, although Galileo finally agreed to recant his support for heliocentrism, Wakefield has never buckled under the pressure. Instead he has stuck to his guns and continued to fight for families with autism. Supported by private funding, his research work has continued (stay tuned for some more blockbuster results next year). And along with the terrific medical team at Thoughtful House, courageous doctors like Arthur Krigsman, Bryan Jepson and Doreen Granpeesheh, he also continues his clinical practice.
In the meantime, the heresy trial staggers onward towards its uncertain conclusion; the GMC’s verdict may well come shortly in the New Year. But our judgment at the Age of Autism is clear. Andy Wakefield represents the very best of the scientific tradition. He has persevered in the face of obstacles that would have stopped lesser men in their tracks. He has published continuously and fearlessly. He has pushed important research projects forward despite countless attempts to declare the work irrelevant, the issues “settled.” He has dealt with opposing evidence with the professional spirit of a scientist while also following the advice of Karl Popper that “he who gives up his theory too easily in the face of apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory.” Along the way, he has unfailingly represented the issues in autism and the best principles of the scientific method with dignity and restraint. Most important of all, he has refused to be intimidated.
For all this and more, we would like to honor Dr. Andrew Wakefield with our first Galileo Award. And like so many others in our community, I feel proud to call him my friend. Let’s be sure to stand behind him in the uncertain times ahead.
Mark Blaxill is Editor at Large for Age of Autism.
QUOTE
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...st&p=958788
Conference Presentations: Mark Blaxill, MBA
Mark Blaxill, MBA
Director, SafeMinds
Mark Blaxill is the parent of a daughter diagnosed with autism; senior partner of a major strategy consulting firm; Harvard MBA with distinction and Princeton A.B. summa cum laude; and the author of several publications on autism: including "What's Going on? The Question of Time trends in Autism"; "Reduced Mercury Levels in First Baby Haircuts of Autistic Children"; and "Thimerosal and Autism? A Plausible Hypothesis That Should Not Be Dismissed."
Conference Presentations: Mark Blaxill, MBA
Mark Blaxill, MBA
Director, SafeMinds
Mark Blaxill is the parent of a daughter diagnosed with autism; senior partner of a major strategy consulting firm; Harvard MBA with distinction and Princeton A.B. summa cum laude; and the author of several publications on autism: including "What's Going on? The Question of Time trends in Autism"; "Reduced Mercury Levels in First Baby Haircuts of Autistic Children"; and "Thimerosal and Autism? A Plausible Hypothesis That Should Not Be Dismissed."
Graham, it's the parents who've figured out who to trust, the British parents have debunked the Brian Deer charges, that is, the parents of children with autism who wouldn't waste one second defending anyone who wasn't helping their children. It's not my fight, so I don't have to master the details myself, but what I will do is support these parents strongly. Search AoA for John Stone and the groups he links to for devastating details on this political prosecution. And Wakefield isn't the only one, as you'll see by reading Stone's reports.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/smoke-a...eld-affair.html
Smoke and Mirrors: Dr Richard Horton and the Wakefield Affair
December 22, 2008
By John Stone
Managing Editor's Note: The Wakefield family crest bears the latin "Arudua vinco" which translates to "I conquer difficulties." We can't thank Dr. Wakefield enough for his dedication to our children. (Please see original link.)
"If we knew then what we know now we certainly would not have published the part of the paper which related to MMR, although I do believe there was and remains validity to the connection between bowel disease and autism.’
From the moment Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, spoke these words on the BBC evening news of Friday 20 February 2004 Andrew Wakefield’s career lay in tatters. For six years Horton and the Lancet had been under pressure over his decision to publish in February 1998 an ‘early report’ Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and autism in children of which Wakefield - a senior researcher at the Royal Free Hospital in London - was lead author. At publication time Wakefield was already an author of more than a hundred peer review publications, but none before or since attracted the attention of this one. The paper, a series study of 12 consecutively referred cases, related to a sub-group children who had suffered adverse reactions to MMR vaccine, and hypothesised but did not confirm a connection between their symptoms and the vaccination.
Nevertheless, by implication the study struck at the heart of public health policy: the Royal Free Medical School called a press conference, and there was instant controversy. The British government and medical establishment never forgave Wakefield. They weren’t that happy with Horton either, and he knew it.
Horton’s decision to go to the BBC in February 2004 had been precipitated by an extraordinary meeting at the Lancet offices two days previously. Wakefield’s 1998 paper had been investigated by a freelance journalist Brian Deer on behalf of the Sunday Times. According to Horton – giving evidence the UK General Medical Council in August 2007 – Deer had been dispatched with Liberal-Democrat member of parliament, Dr Evan Harris, in a last ditch attempt to rescue a failing story, held over from the previous week, and considered to weak to publish. Also present there with Wakefield, were Profs John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, the two doctors presently on trial with him at the GMC, and another Royal Free doctor, the neurologist Peter Harvey.
Deer presented a raft of allegations about the conduct of the study, and unethical procedures conducted against the children in the study. These were rebutted by the doctors, and were neither upheld by the Royal Free or in turn the Lancet. The sticking point, however, came over the fact that Wakefield, alone of the Royal Free doctors, had been hired by the Legal Aid Board to investigate the possibility of class litigation against the MMR manufacturers. Confronted by Deer, Horton denied that he had known of this, and Deer at last had a story. Horton’s decision to go public that Friday evening anticipated the publication of Deer’s article in the Sunday Times (and comically led to him being sued by Deer in the small claims court). But Horton’s declaration on its own ignited a media explosion and by the following morning he had also told the BBC that there was “a fatal conflict of interest” and the research was “fatally flawed”. By Saturday, tea time, the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, had requested that the General Medical Council investigate the case “as a matter of urgency”. And all before Deer’s story had gone to press for Sunday morning.
This episode smacks of gross media manipulation. Conflicts in medicine and science are commonplace – something that hitherto would not have raised an eye-brow was being foisted on the public at large as if it was grave misconduct – and that was even before considering the truth and validity of the allegation, which at the time would have been extremely hard to establish either way, and was certainly denied by Wakefield. Four years later when Wakefield finally produced powerful documentary evidence of his innocence at the General Medical Council no one in the media reported, although several journalists – including from the BBC and The Times - were present.
The outlandishness of what had happened was reflected in a remarkable passage the book which Horton was to publish within months of the episode, MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis, in which he recalled his dinner engagement on the Monday following these events, and result of the Health Secretary’s immediate request that the GMC investigate:
In truth, they (the GMC) had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February (2004), one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions (p7-8)
This could almost be a comic parody of the British establishment at work if it was not for real. But Horton’s decision to turn on Andrew Wakefield has been one of the long neglected (and tragic) turning points in the Wakefield affair.
I have long been curious about Horton’s role in this saga. When I wrote recently to the president of the GMC, Sir Graeme Catto, to ask him to explain Horton’s involvement (and potential misconduct), he declined to respond, but passed my open letter to their investigatory branch. I received this reply:
In short, I can assure you that the instigation of our investigations has absolutely nothing to do with any conversations which ‘medical regulators’ may have had with Dr Horton at the dinner described in his book. If such conversations took place, they were not reported back in to our investigations team who were looking at the case at the time. This being the case, the content of any such discussions had absolutely no impact at all on any of the decisions made about whether to proceed to investigate the case or, indeed, how such investigations should be carried forward.
How could they possibly know whether their investigations have been influenced by the conversations if they have not even asked about it, and are totally incurious even now that it has been pointed out? It does not matter by now what departures we have from ordinary process, or whether there is even prima facie evidence of misconduct. The trial must go on.
Although the “medical regulator” Horton met that Monday evening in February 2004 did not seem concerned about the ethics of exploring ways in which Andrew Wakefield might be prosecuted (and with the star witness!), he certainly did not seem convinced that Wakefield had done anything wrong. This may have been because undisclosed conflicts of interest are so common that you could not practicably start prosecuting them (where would it end?) but also (as he may already have considered) that acting as an expert witness for the courts did not by convention constitute a conflict at all. In fact, this argument was helpfully put by a legal counsel (in the British system ‘a barrister’) Robert Hantusch in a letter to The Times the following day (24 February 2004):
... the courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court.
And this defence was also taken up by a witness on the other side of the case, Elizabeth Miller, when it was pointed out in the satirical journal Private Eye that she had a like conflict (if it was such):
...there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the instruction or by whom they are paid. (19 March 2004)
As of the present, of course, Miller has yet to be summoned before the GMC.
But was Horton’s allegation that Wakefield had withheld information about his work with the Legal Aid Board really true? At the end of the week (27 February 2004) the Independent newspaper finally located striking evidence in Wakefield’s defence: a letter published on 2 May 1998 in the Lancet, nine weeks after the controversial study, in which Wakefield replied to a correspondent, Andrew Rouse, who raised the possibility of “litigation bias”:
A Rouse suggests that litigation bias might exist by virtue of information he has downloaded from the internet: from the Society for the Autistically Handicapped. Only one author (AJW) has agreed to help evaluate a small number of these children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board [emphasis added]. These children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through normal channels (eg, from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms. AJW has never heard of the Society for the Autistically Handicapped and no fact sheet has been provided by them to distribute to interested parties. The only fact sheet we have produced is for general practitioners, which describes the background and protocol for the investigation of children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Finally, all those children referred to us (including the 53 who have been investigated already and those on the waiting list that extends into 1999) have come through the formal channels described above. No conflict of interest exists.
The information that Wakefield (and Rouse) were referring to was a fact sheet compiled by the legal firm Dawbarns who were pursuing a class action against the MMR manufacturers at the time, downloaded from an independent website. So, while Wakefield denied that the matter constituted a conflict he had clearly stated his involvement in the litigation at that early stage. Unfortunately, the Independent story made little difference. The BBC, with its commitment to balance and impartiality long forgotten, refused to report this (though I for one personally bombarded the head of news Richard Sambrook with emails), and only the Telegraph doctor James Le Fanu took up the issue (2 March 2004). It is worth quoting the entire passage from his column, headed ‘The truth about MMR must be revealed’:
The Government finds itself in an invidious situation over the MMR/autism controversy, having painted itself into a corner by denying parents the option of the single measles vaccine. They, thus, have no alternative other than to insist the MMR is totally safe - irrespective of evidence that might emerge to suggest the contrary.
Their difficulty is that this position is now looking a lot shakier than it did even a year ago. Several further independent studies have confirmed the association of the syndrome of regressive autism with chronic bowel disorder that was originally described by Andrew Wakefield. More recently, research has confirmed the presence of the measles virus in the gut and spinal fluid of affected children.
This may not constitute "proof" and, indeed, a former colleague of Dr Wakefield challenged the significance of these findings in the Lancet a fortnight ago - and he may be right to do so. None the less, it is beginning to look as if, as neurologist Peter Harvey points out in the same issue, there is now "a step-by-step cascade of evidence" linking the MMR vaccine to some cases of autism.
This could explain the assault on Dr Wakefield’s integrity. The validity of his original findings, it is claimed, may have been compromised by a conflict of interest involving research funds that he failed to disclose. This might be relevant if it were true, but it is not, as anyone can check for themselves: Dr Wakefield acknowledged the source of his funding in the Lancet in 1998. It would seem to be that neither the Government nor the medical establishment can afford for Dr Wakefield to be vindicated - and they are getting pretty desperate.
But, remarkably, the role of the man at the centre of the non-disclosure allegation has largely escaped public scrutiny. In MMR Science and Fiction, Horton, while elaborating on the circumstances which led him to throw Wakefield to the wolves skirted delicately around the evidence that Wakefield did indeed disclose his work with the Legal Aid Board.
Critically Horton reproduces an apparently heated exchange from a parliamentary committee meeting of 1 March 2004 between Evan Harris, and the Lancet’s boss, Crispin Davis, Chief Executive of Reed Elsevier (p.50-1). Both men wave the letter of 2 May 1998 around, Davis citing the statement that there was no conflict of interest, but neither places on the parliamentary record that Wakefield had stated in that very letter that he was engaged in the litigation, and whether it was a conflict or not, it had certainly been in the public domain from that time. (But while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest, perhaps Davis needed to point out -and Horton certainly failed to do so – before becoming sanctimonious about Wakefield that he was appointed a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline in July 2003.)
When he gave evidence to the GMC in August 2007 Horton stated that he had not understood from the declaration that Wakefield’s involvement pre-dated the publication of the study two months earlier. The only trouble with this was that Rouse’s letter, forwarded by the Lancet to Wakefield on 2 April 1998, was according to Wakefield’s testimony actually dated 4 March, four days after the publication of the study – which would suggest that any such misunderstanding on Horton’s part was either disingenuous in the extreme, or simply incompetence.
The problem with Horton’s evasions was compounded by his transparently flawed account in his book of the session in the Lancet offices with Brian Deer on 18 February 2004:
There the consensus ended. Wakefield admitted that he had been commissioned by the Legal Aid Board to conduct a pilot study on behalf of parents of allegedly MMR-vaccine-damaged children. Some of his colleagues claimed that he had not disclosed this fact to them. Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith were visibly shocked by this revelation.
How anybody could have been shocked about a matter which had been in the public domain for six years is a mystery: in fact when presenting his evidence to the GMC in March 2008 Wakefield read a letter he had written in early 1997 to Walker-Smith and Murch explaining his decision to act as an expert in the MMR litigation – a line from it was subsequently quoted in a BMJ report (5 April):
If these diseases are found to be linked to the MMR vaccine, these children are the few unfortunate who have been sacrificed to protect the majority.
Thus, while there may not have been agreement between them on this, the claim that the matter was hidden from close colleagues would appear to be fanciful.
So what really happened at that meeting between the three doctors and Horton? At the GMC in August 2007 Horton described the pivotal moment of revelation as relating to the Dawbarns fact sheet which Deer had produced, which promoted the case against the MMR manufacturers and alluded to Wakefield’s involvement. It was Deer’s production of the fact sheet which purportedly caused discomfort to Walker-Smith and Murch, and left Horton denying to Deer and Harris that he had known of Wakefield’s enrolment by the Legal Aid Board.
Beyond the Wakefield-Rouse correspondence in May 1998, did Horton have any other occasion to learn of Wakefield’s Legal Aid work? Indeed, unlike Wakefield, Horton’s office itself was involved in a lengthy correspondence with Dawbarns, long before the publication of the Wakefield’s study in February 1998. In his testimony to the GMC in April 2008 rebutting Horton’s claim, Wakefield revealed stunning new information from a previously undisclosed 1997 correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns about the Dawbarns fact sheet to which Horton had been party. According to this exchange, at some point in March 1997, or just before, an employee of the UK Medicines Control Agency (later MHRA), Dr B D Edwards, writing in his private capacity, alerted Horton to the use of Lancet material (not the unpublished autism study) in the Dawbarns fact sheet – this included extracts from other articles by Wakefield and some tables. The Lancet then wrote to Dawbarns warning them they should apply to the journal if they wanted to continue to reproduce it. There then followed an extended letter from the lead lawyer for the case, Richard Barr, to Horton dated April 3, 1997, mentioning that Wakefield had given permission to refer to an article and citing a statement on the fact sheet:
There is convincing evidence of a link between vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn’s disease). It is a serious lifelong illness that has affected a large number of the children we are helping. We are working with Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital London. He is investigating this condition [emphasis added].
It was important for Barr to draw attention to Wakefield’s involvement, because it added moral weight to his case that the Lancet should allow publication. Horton wrote back denying permission and a lengthy correspondence ensued involving the Lancet ombudsman Prof Thomas Sherwood, in which a compromise was reached – this was concluded in the month of July 1997 just as the controversial study was being passed for publication, and presumably there would have been communications within the Lancet between Sherwood and Horton on the matter.
While it may have been a shock for John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch when Brian Deer produced the fact sheet in the Lancet offices because they had never seen it before, Horton claims that, in his role as guarantor of the ethics and reputation of The Lancet, it came as an even bigger shock to him because Wakefield had violated ethical guidelines by withholding disclosure of the Legal Aid connection. But when Wakefield finally produced this evidence to the GMC in April 2008 that Horton and The Lancet’s ombudsman had been engaged in extended discussions with the Legal Aid attorneys over their desire to cite work from their expert witness Wakefield in a fact sheet, it was barely reported: not, for instance, by the BBC or by The Times (although they had their journalists present), nor even by Brian Deer. Only in British Medical Journal was there a half-buried account by Owen Dyer (April 19):
Dr Wakefield’s defence challenged testimony given earlier by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, who said that he had not known before the article’s publication of Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of MMR litigants.
Dr Wakefield alleged that newly uncovered documents reveal an extensive correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns, the firm of solicitors representing MMR claimants. These letters, several months before publication of the 1998 article, described Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of the MMR litigants, he said. While he was "not impugning Dr Horton’s honesty," said Dr Wakefield, the documents proved "in my opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of all these factors."
Dr Horton, reached by email while travelling abroad, denied any foreknowledge of the conflict of interest, saying that the correspondence did not make clear Dr Wakefield’s role in litigation.
In most accounts of Wakefield’s Legal Aid connection, the media have generally accepted Horton’s description of his editorial judgement: if he had known of the connection before publication of the 1998 study he would not have approved it. But there is another possibility: that Horton only decided it was a significant matter long after the event. Indeed, two letters written by Wakefield to the Lancet on the MMR issue in (September 11, 1999 and August 26, 2000) after the disclosure of May 1998 that he was working for the Legal Aid Board were passed for publication without any such declaration.
Horton’s inconsistency was further exposed when in 2004 – after the Wakefield affair blew up - the Lancet held out for 5 months over publishing a letter from Mark Geier regarding Michael Pichichero’s non-disclosure of pharmaceutical company funding in another vaccine autism study ‘Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving thiomersal: a descriptive study’ (2002). Pichichero’s silence over his competing interests in this paper stood in contrast to information revealed in an earlier study, which had the following declaration:
The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck&Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roche Laboratories; Roussel-Uclaf; Schering Corporation; Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth-Lederle.
This lapse was only resolved after I had posted on it twice in British Medical Journal Rapid Responses. To all appearances this non-disclosure – which hid extensive commercial interests - was far more compromising: but to the Lancet it was barely worth mentioning, and not to be compared to the perfidy of Wakefield – indeed, they only agreed to publish a version of the Geier letter if Wakefield was not mentioned in it. Some conflicts in Horton’s world are evidently more fatal than others.
Many months after Wakefield’s evidence a new statement was finally obtained by the prosecution at GMC from Horton, presumably explaining as best he can the apparent discrepancies in his earlier evidence, but the hearing was having trouble pinning down a time for him to be questioned about it. Though Horton’s office is less than a mile up the road from the GMC hearing, he will apparently be engaged in an important peace mission to the Middle East when it next sits in January.
It was always the strategy of the British scientific establishment and government to isolate and destroy Andrew Wakefield – to make him look as if he was standing scientifically and intellectually on his own, and to make sure when they crushed him they discredited all further opposition or dissent on the vaccination issue. In the US context Horton’s book MMR Science and Fiction would be an almost incomprehensible oddity. There is, for instance, only a single mention of thimerosal, which apparently is just another eccentric concern of Wakefield’s. In essence the alleged “vaccine crisis” of the title is entirely about Wakefield and the supposed gullibility of people who doubt official science. Horton’s book is not ultimately about scientific truth, it is about who is credible – we are being told not only is Wakefield not credible, most importantly the parents of vaccine damaged children are not credible either. And cleverly nuanced as Horton’s argument is for a liberal readership, his decision to turn on Wakefield has behind it a highly illiberal and authoritarian basis, in which the interests and voices of the patients and their families are to be finally stamped out. It is ultimately just stage management, and a stab in the back for open debate.
John Stone has an autistic son, and lives in London.
Smoke and Mirrors: Dr Richard Horton and the Wakefield Affair
December 22, 2008
By John Stone
Managing Editor's Note: The Wakefield family crest bears the latin "Arudua vinco" which translates to "I conquer difficulties." We can't thank Dr. Wakefield enough for his dedication to our children. (Please see original link.)
"If we knew then what we know now we certainly would not have published the part of the paper which related to MMR, although I do believe there was and remains validity to the connection between bowel disease and autism.’
From the moment Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, spoke these words on the BBC evening news of Friday 20 February 2004 Andrew Wakefield’s career lay in tatters. For six years Horton and the Lancet had been under pressure over his decision to publish in February 1998 an ‘early report’ Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and autism in children of which Wakefield - a senior researcher at the Royal Free Hospital in London - was lead author. At publication time Wakefield was already an author of more than a hundred peer review publications, but none before or since attracted the attention of this one. The paper, a series study of 12 consecutively referred cases, related to a sub-group children who had suffered adverse reactions to MMR vaccine, and hypothesised but did not confirm a connection between their symptoms and the vaccination.
Nevertheless, by implication the study struck at the heart of public health policy: the Royal Free Medical School called a press conference, and there was instant controversy. The British government and medical establishment never forgave Wakefield. They weren’t that happy with Horton either, and he knew it.
Horton’s decision to go to the BBC in February 2004 had been precipitated by an extraordinary meeting at the Lancet offices two days previously. Wakefield’s 1998 paper had been investigated by a freelance journalist Brian Deer on behalf of the Sunday Times. According to Horton – giving evidence the UK General Medical Council in August 2007 – Deer had been dispatched with Liberal-Democrat member of parliament, Dr Evan Harris, in a last ditch attempt to rescue a failing story, held over from the previous week, and considered to weak to publish. Also present there with Wakefield, were Profs John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, the two doctors presently on trial with him at the GMC, and another Royal Free doctor, the neurologist Peter Harvey.
Deer presented a raft of allegations about the conduct of the study, and unethical procedures conducted against the children in the study. These were rebutted by the doctors, and were neither upheld by the Royal Free or in turn the Lancet. The sticking point, however, came over the fact that Wakefield, alone of the Royal Free doctors, had been hired by the Legal Aid Board to investigate the possibility of class litigation against the MMR manufacturers. Confronted by Deer, Horton denied that he had known of this, and Deer at last had a story. Horton’s decision to go public that Friday evening anticipated the publication of Deer’s article in the Sunday Times (and comically led to him being sued by Deer in the small claims court). But Horton’s declaration on its own ignited a media explosion and by the following morning he had also told the BBC that there was “a fatal conflict of interest” and the research was “fatally flawed”. By Saturday, tea time, the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, had requested that the General Medical Council investigate the case “as a matter of urgency”. And all before Deer’s story had gone to press for Sunday morning.
This episode smacks of gross media manipulation. Conflicts in medicine and science are commonplace – something that hitherto would not have raised an eye-brow was being foisted on the public at large as if it was grave misconduct – and that was even before considering the truth and validity of the allegation, which at the time would have been extremely hard to establish either way, and was certainly denied by Wakefield. Four years later when Wakefield finally produced powerful documentary evidence of his innocence at the General Medical Council no one in the media reported, although several journalists – including from the BBC and The Times - were present.
The outlandishness of what had happened was reflected in a remarkable passage the book which Horton was to publish within months of the episode, MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis, in which he recalled his dinner engagement on the Monday following these events, and result of the Health Secretary’s immediate request that the GMC investigate:
In truth, they (the GMC) had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February (2004), one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions (p7-8)
This could almost be a comic parody of the British establishment at work if it was not for real. But Horton’s decision to turn on Andrew Wakefield has been one of the long neglected (and tragic) turning points in the Wakefield affair.
I have long been curious about Horton’s role in this saga. When I wrote recently to the president of the GMC, Sir Graeme Catto, to ask him to explain Horton’s involvement (and potential misconduct), he declined to respond, but passed my open letter to their investigatory branch. I received this reply:
In short, I can assure you that the instigation of our investigations has absolutely nothing to do with any conversations which ‘medical regulators’ may have had with Dr Horton at the dinner described in his book. If such conversations took place, they were not reported back in to our investigations team who were looking at the case at the time. This being the case, the content of any such discussions had absolutely no impact at all on any of the decisions made about whether to proceed to investigate the case or, indeed, how such investigations should be carried forward.
How could they possibly know whether their investigations have been influenced by the conversations if they have not even asked about it, and are totally incurious even now that it has been pointed out? It does not matter by now what departures we have from ordinary process, or whether there is even prima facie evidence of misconduct. The trial must go on.
Although the “medical regulator” Horton met that Monday evening in February 2004 did not seem concerned about the ethics of exploring ways in which Andrew Wakefield might be prosecuted (and with the star witness!), he certainly did not seem convinced that Wakefield had done anything wrong. This may have been because undisclosed conflicts of interest are so common that you could not practicably start prosecuting them (where would it end?) but also (as he may already have considered) that acting as an expert witness for the courts did not by convention constitute a conflict at all. In fact, this argument was helpfully put by a legal counsel (in the British system ‘a barrister’) Robert Hantusch in a letter to The Times the following day (24 February 2004):
... the courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court.
And this defence was also taken up by a witness on the other side of the case, Elizabeth Miller, when it was pointed out in the satirical journal Private Eye that she had a like conflict (if it was such):
...there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the instruction or by whom they are paid. (19 March 2004)
As of the present, of course, Miller has yet to be summoned before the GMC.
But was Horton’s allegation that Wakefield had withheld information about his work with the Legal Aid Board really true? At the end of the week (27 February 2004) the Independent newspaper finally located striking evidence in Wakefield’s defence: a letter published on 2 May 1998 in the Lancet, nine weeks after the controversial study, in which Wakefield replied to a correspondent, Andrew Rouse, who raised the possibility of “litigation bias”:
A Rouse suggests that litigation bias might exist by virtue of information he has downloaded from the internet: from the Society for the Autistically Handicapped. Only one author (AJW) has agreed to help evaluate a small number of these children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board [emphasis added]. These children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through normal channels (eg, from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms. AJW has never heard of the Society for the Autistically Handicapped and no fact sheet has been provided by them to distribute to interested parties. The only fact sheet we have produced is for general practitioners, which describes the background and protocol for the investigation of children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Finally, all those children referred to us (including the 53 who have been investigated already and those on the waiting list that extends into 1999) have come through the formal channels described above. No conflict of interest exists.
The information that Wakefield (and Rouse) were referring to was a fact sheet compiled by the legal firm Dawbarns who were pursuing a class action against the MMR manufacturers at the time, downloaded from an independent website. So, while Wakefield denied that the matter constituted a conflict he had clearly stated his involvement in the litigation at that early stage. Unfortunately, the Independent story made little difference. The BBC, with its commitment to balance and impartiality long forgotten, refused to report this (though I for one personally bombarded the head of news Richard Sambrook with emails), and only the Telegraph doctor James Le Fanu took up the issue (2 March 2004). It is worth quoting the entire passage from his column, headed ‘The truth about MMR must be revealed’:
The Government finds itself in an invidious situation over the MMR/autism controversy, having painted itself into a corner by denying parents the option of the single measles vaccine. They, thus, have no alternative other than to insist the MMR is totally safe - irrespective of evidence that might emerge to suggest the contrary.
Their difficulty is that this position is now looking a lot shakier than it did even a year ago. Several further independent studies have confirmed the association of the syndrome of regressive autism with chronic bowel disorder that was originally described by Andrew Wakefield. More recently, research has confirmed the presence of the measles virus in the gut and spinal fluid of affected children.
This may not constitute "proof" and, indeed, a former colleague of Dr Wakefield challenged the significance of these findings in the Lancet a fortnight ago - and he may be right to do so. None the less, it is beginning to look as if, as neurologist Peter Harvey points out in the same issue, there is now "a step-by-step cascade of evidence" linking the MMR vaccine to some cases of autism.
This could explain the assault on Dr Wakefield’s integrity. The validity of his original findings, it is claimed, may have been compromised by a conflict of interest involving research funds that he failed to disclose. This might be relevant if it were true, but it is not, as anyone can check for themselves: Dr Wakefield acknowledged the source of his funding in the Lancet in 1998. It would seem to be that neither the Government nor the medical establishment can afford for Dr Wakefield to be vindicated - and they are getting pretty desperate.
But, remarkably, the role of the man at the centre of the non-disclosure allegation has largely escaped public scrutiny. In MMR Science and Fiction, Horton, while elaborating on the circumstances which led him to throw Wakefield to the wolves skirted delicately around the evidence that Wakefield did indeed disclose his work with the Legal Aid Board.
Critically Horton reproduces an apparently heated exchange from a parliamentary committee meeting of 1 March 2004 between Evan Harris, and the Lancet’s boss, Crispin Davis, Chief Executive of Reed Elsevier (p.50-1). Both men wave the letter of 2 May 1998 around, Davis citing the statement that there was no conflict of interest, but neither places on the parliamentary record that Wakefield had stated in that very letter that he was engaged in the litigation, and whether it was a conflict or not, it had certainly been in the public domain from that time. (But while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest, perhaps Davis needed to point out -and Horton certainly failed to do so – before becoming sanctimonious about Wakefield that he was appointed a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline in July 2003.)
When he gave evidence to the GMC in August 2007 Horton stated that he had not understood from the declaration that Wakefield’s involvement pre-dated the publication of the study two months earlier. The only trouble with this was that Rouse’s letter, forwarded by the Lancet to Wakefield on 2 April 1998, was according to Wakefield’s testimony actually dated 4 March, four days after the publication of the study – which would suggest that any such misunderstanding on Horton’s part was either disingenuous in the extreme, or simply incompetence.
The problem with Horton’s evasions was compounded by his transparently flawed account in his book of the session in the Lancet offices with Brian Deer on 18 February 2004:
There the consensus ended. Wakefield admitted that he had been commissioned by the Legal Aid Board to conduct a pilot study on behalf of parents of allegedly MMR-vaccine-damaged children. Some of his colleagues claimed that he had not disclosed this fact to them. Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith were visibly shocked by this revelation.
How anybody could have been shocked about a matter which had been in the public domain for six years is a mystery: in fact when presenting his evidence to the GMC in March 2008 Wakefield read a letter he had written in early 1997 to Walker-Smith and Murch explaining his decision to act as an expert in the MMR litigation – a line from it was subsequently quoted in a BMJ report (5 April):
If these diseases are found to be linked to the MMR vaccine, these children are the few unfortunate who have been sacrificed to protect the majority.
Thus, while there may not have been agreement between them on this, the claim that the matter was hidden from close colleagues would appear to be fanciful.
So what really happened at that meeting between the three doctors and Horton? At the GMC in August 2007 Horton described the pivotal moment of revelation as relating to the Dawbarns fact sheet which Deer had produced, which promoted the case against the MMR manufacturers and alluded to Wakefield’s involvement. It was Deer’s production of the fact sheet which purportedly caused discomfort to Walker-Smith and Murch, and left Horton denying to Deer and Harris that he had known of Wakefield’s enrolment by the Legal Aid Board.
Beyond the Wakefield-Rouse correspondence in May 1998, did Horton have any other occasion to learn of Wakefield’s Legal Aid work? Indeed, unlike Wakefield, Horton’s office itself was involved in a lengthy correspondence with Dawbarns, long before the publication of the Wakefield’s study in February 1998. In his testimony to the GMC in April 2008 rebutting Horton’s claim, Wakefield revealed stunning new information from a previously undisclosed 1997 correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns about the Dawbarns fact sheet to which Horton had been party. According to this exchange, at some point in March 1997, or just before, an employee of the UK Medicines Control Agency (later MHRA), Dr B D Edwards, writing in his private capacity, alerted Horton to the use of Lancet material (not the unpublished autism study) in the Dawbarns fact sheet – this included extracts from other articles by Wakefield and some tables. The Lancet then wrote to Dawbarns warning them they should apply to the journal if they wanted to continue to reproduce it. There then followed an extended letter from the lead lawyer for the case, Richard Barr, to Horton dated April 3, 1997, mentioning that Wakefield had given permission to refer to an article and citing a statement on the fact sheet:
There is convincing evidence of a link between vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn’s disease). It is a serious lifelong illness that has affected a large number of the children we are helping. We are working with Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital London. He is investigating this condition [emphasis added].
It was important for Barr to draw attention to Wakefield’s involvement, because it added moral weight to his case that the Lancet should allow publication. Horton wrote back denying permission and a lengthy correspondence ensued involving the Lancet ombudsman Prof Thomas Sherwood, in which a compromise was reached – this was concluded in the month of July 1997 just as the controversial study was being passed for publication, and presumably there would have been communications within the Lancet between Sherwood and Horton on the matter.
While it may have been a shock for John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch when Brian Deer produced the fact sheet in the Lancet offices because they had never seen it before, Horton claims that, in his role as guarantor of the ethics and reputation of The Lancet, it came as an even bigger shock to him because Wakefield had violated ethical guidelines by withholding disclosure of the Legal Aid connection. But when Wakefield finally produced this evidence to the GMC in April 2008 that Horton and The Lancet’s ombudsman had been engaged in extended discussions with the Legal Aid attorneys over their desire to cite work from their expert witness Wakefield in a fact sheet, it was barely reported: not, for instance, by the BBC or by The Times (although they had their journalists present), nor even by Brian Deer. Only in British Medical Journal was there a half-buried account by Owen Dyer (April 19):
Dr Wakefield’s defence challenged testimony given earlier by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, who said that he had not known before the article’s publication of Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of MMR litigants.
Dr Wakefield alleged that newly uncovered documents reveal an extensive correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns, the firm of solicitors representing MMR claimants. These letters, several months before publication of the 1998 article, described Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of the MMR litigants, he said. While he was "not impugning Dr Horton’s honesty," said Dr Wakefield, the documents proved "in my opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of all these factors."
Dr Horton, reached by email while travelling abroad, denied any foreknowledge of the conflict of interest, saying that the correspondence did not make clear Dr Wakefield’s role in litigation.
In most accounts of Wakefield’s Legal Aid connection, the media have generally accepted Horton’s description of his editorial judgement: if he had known of the connection before publication of the 1998 study he would not have approved it. But there is another possibility: that Horton only decided it was a significant matter long after the event. Indeed, two letters written by Wakefield to the Lancet on the MMR issue in (September 11, 1999 and August 26, 2000) after the disclosure of May 1998 that he was working for the Legal Aid Board were passed for publication without any such declaration.
Horton’s inconsistency was further exposed when in 2004 – after the Wakefield affair blew up - the Lancet held out for 5 months over publishing a letter from Mark Geier regarding Michael Pichichero’s non-disclosure of pharmaceutical company funding in another vaccine autism study ‘Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving thiomersal: a descriptive study’ (2002). Pichichero’s silence over his competing interests in this paper stood in contrast to information revealed in an earlier study, which had the following declaration:
The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck&Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roche Laboratories; Roussel-Uclaf; Schering Corporation; Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth-Lederle.
This lapse was only resolved after I had posted on it twice in British Medical Journal Rapid Responses. To all appearances this non-disclosure – which hid extensive commercial interests - was far more compromising: but to the Lancet it was barely worth mentioning, and not to be compared to the perfidy of Wakefield – indeed, they only agreed to publish a version of the Geier letter if Wakefield was not mentioned in it. Some conflicts in Horton’s world are evidently more fatal than others.
Many months after Wakefield’s evidence a new statement was finally obtained by the prosecution at GMC from Horton, presumably explaining as best he can the apparent discrepancies in his earlier evidence, but the hearing was having trouble pinning down a time for him to be questioned about it. Though Horton’s office is less than a mile up the road from the GMC hearing, he will apparently be engaged in an important peace mission to the Middle East when it next sits in January.
It was always the strategy of the British scientific establishment and government to isolate and destroy Andrew Wakefield – to make him look as if he was standing scientifically and intellectually on his own, and to make sure when they crushed him they discredited all further opposition or dissent on the vaccination issue. In the US context Horton’s book MMR Science and Fiction would be an almost incomprehensible oddity. There is, for instance, only a single mention of thimerosal, which apparently is just another eccentric concern of Wakefield’s. In essence the alleged “vaccine crisis” of the title is entirely about Wakefield and the supposed gullibility of people who doubt official science. Horton’s book is not ultimately about scientific truth, it is about who is credible – we are being told not only is Wakefield not credible, most importantly the parents of vaccine damaged children are not credible either. And cleverly nuanced as Horton’s argument is for a liberal readership, his decision to turn on Wakefield has behind it a highly illiberal and authoritarian basis, in which the interests and voices of the patients and their families are to be finally stamped out. It is ultimately just stage management, and a stab in the back for open debate.
John Stone has an autistic son, and lives in London.
Graham, it's the parents who've figured out who to trust, the British parents have debunked the Brian Deer charges, that is, the parents of children with autism who wouldn't waste one second defending anyone who wasn't helping their children. It's not my fight, so I don't have to master the details myself, but what I will do is support these parents strongly. Search AoA for John Stone and the groups he links to for devastating details on this political prosecution. And Wakefield isn't the only one, as you'll see by reading Stone's reports.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/smoke-a...eld-affair.html
Smoke and Mirrors: Dr Richard Horton and the Wakefield Affair
December 22, 2008
By John Stone
Managing Editor's Note: The Wakefield family crest bears the latin "Arudua vinco" which translates to "I conquer difficulties." We can't thank Dr. Wakefield enough for his dedication to our children. (Please see original link.)
"If we knew then what we know now we certainly would not have published the part of the paper which related to MMR, although I do believe there was and remains validity to the connection between bowel disease and autism.’
From the moment Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, spoke these words on the BBC evening news of Friday 20 February 2004 Andrew Wakefield’s career lay in tatters. For six years Horton and the Lancet had been under pressure over his decision to publish in February 1998 an ‘early report’ Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and autism in children of which Wakefield - a senior researcher at the Royal Free Hospital in London - was lead author. At publication time Wakefield was already an author of more than a hundred peer review publications, but none before or since attracted the attention of this one. The paper, a series study of 12 consecutively referred cases, related to a sub-group children who had suffered adverse reactions to MMR vaccine, and hypothesised but did not confirm a connection between their symptoms and the vaccination.
Nevertheless, by implication the study struck at the heart of public health policy: the Royal Free Medical School called a press conference, and there was instant controversy. The British government and medical establishment never forgave Wakefield. They weren’t that happy with Horton either, and he knew it.
Horton’s decision to go to the BBC in February 2004 had been precipitated by an extraordinary meeting at the Lancet offices two days previously. Wakefield’s 1998 paper had been investigated by a freelance journalist Brian Deer on behalf of the Sunday Times. According to Horton – giving evidence the UK General Medical Council in August 2007 – Deer had been dispatched with Liberal-Democrat member of parliament, Dr Evan Harris, in a last ditch attempt to rescue a failing story, held over from the previous week, and considered to weak to publish. Also present there with Wakefield, were Profs John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, the two doctors presently on trial with him at the GMC, and another Royal Free doctor, the neurologist Peter Harvey.
Deer presented a raft of allegations about the conduct of the study, and unethical procedures conducted against the children in the study. These were rebutted by the doctors, and were neither upheld by the Royal Free or in turn the Lancet. The sticking point, however, came over the fact that Wakefield, alone of the Royal Free doctors, had been hired by the Legal Aid Board to investigate the possibility of class litigation against the MMR manufacturers. Confronted by Deer, Horton denied that he had known of this, and Deer at last had a story. Horton’s decision to go public that Friday evening anticipated the publication of Deer’s article in the Sunday Times (and comically led to him being sued by Deer in the small claims court). But Horton’s declaration on its own ignited a media explosion and by the following morning he had also told the BBC that there was “a fatal conflict of interest” and the research was “fatally flawed”. By Saturday, tea time, the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, had requested that the General Medical Council investigate the case “as a matter of urgency”. And all before Deer’s story had gone to press for Sunday morning.
This episode smacks of gross media manipulation. Conflicts in medicine and science are commonplace – something that hitherto would not have raised an eye-brow was being foisted on the public at large as if it was grave misconduct – and that was even before considering the truth and validity of the allegation, which at the time would have been extremely hard to establish either way, and was certainly denied by Wakefield. Four years later when Wakefield finally produced powerful documentary evidence of his innocence at the General Medical Council no one in the media reported, although several journalists – including from the BBC and The Times - were present.
The outlandishness of what had happened was reflected in a remarkable passage the book which Horton was to publish within months of the episode, MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis, in which he recalled his dinner engagement on the Monday following these events, and result of the Health Secretary’s immediate request that the GMC investigate:
In truth, they (the GMC) had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February (2004), one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions (p7-8)
This could almost be a comic parody of the British establishment at work if it was not for real. But Horton’s decision to turn on Andrew Wakefield has been one of the long neglected (and tragic) turning points in the Wakefield affair.
I have long been curious about Horton’s role in this saga. When I wrote recently to the president of the GMC, Sir Graeme Catto, to ask him to explain Horton’s involvement (and potential misconduct), he declined to respond, but passed my open letter to their investigatory branch. I received this reply:
In short, I can assure you that the instigation of our investigations has absolutely nothing to do with any conversations which ‘medical regulators’ may have had with Dr Horton at the dinner described in his book. If such conversations took place, they were not reported back in to our investigations team who were looking at the case at the time. This being the case, the content of any such discussions had absolutely no impact at all on any of the decisions made about whether to proceed to investigate the case or, indeed, how such investigations should be carried forward.
How could they possibly know whether their investigations have been influenced by the conversations if they have not even asked about it, and are totally incurious even now that it has been pointed out? It does not matter by now what departures we have from ordinary process, or whether there is even prima facie evidence of misconduct. The trial must go on.
Although the “medical regulator” Horton met that Monday evening in February 2004 did not seem concerned about the ethics of exploring ways in which Andrew Wakefield might be prosecuted (and with the star witness!), he certainly did not seem convinced that Wakefield had done anything wrong. This may have been because undisclosed conflicts of interest are so common that you could not practicably start prosecuting them (where would it end?) but also (as he may already have considered) that acting as an expert witness for the courts did not by convention constitute a conflict at all. In fact, this argument was helpfully put by a legal counsel (in the British system ‘a barrister’) Robert Hantusch in a letter to The Times the following day (24 February 2004):
... the courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court.
And this defence was also taken up by a witness on the other side of the case, Elizabeth Miller, when it was pointed out in the satirical journal Private Eye that she had a like conflict (if it was such):
...there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the instruction or by whom they are paid. (19 March 2004)
As of the present, of course, Miller has yet to be summoned before the GMC.
But was Horton’s allegation that Wakefield had withheld information about his work with the Legal Aid Board really true? At the end of the week (27 February 2004) the Independent newspaper finally located striking evidence in Wakefield’s defence: a letter published on 2 May 1998 in the Lancet, nine weeks after the controversial study, in which Wakefield replied to a correspondent, Andrew Rouse, who raised the possibility of “litigation bias”:
A Rouse suggests that litigation bias might exist by virtue of information he has downloaded from the internet: from the Society for the Autistically Handicapped. Only one author (AJW) has agreed to help evaluate a small number of these children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board [emphasis added]. These children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through normal channels (eg, from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms. AJW has never heard of the Society for the Autistically Handicapped and no fact sheet has been provided by them to distribute to interested parties. The only fact sheet we have produced is for general practitioners, which describes the background and protocol for the investigation of children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Finally, all those children referred to us (including the 53 who have been investigated already and those on the waiting list that extends into 1999) have come through the formal channels described above. No conflict of interest exists.
The information that Wakefield (and Rouse) were referring to was a fact sheet compiled by the legal firm Dawbarns who were pursuing a class action against the MMR manufacturers at the time, downloaded from an independent website. So, while Wakefield denied that the matter constituted a conflict he had clearly stated his involvement in the litigation at that early stage. Unfortunately, the Independent story made little difference. The BBC, with its commitment to balance and impartiality long forgotten, refused to report this (though I for one personally bombarded the head of news Richard Sambrook with emails), and only the Telegraph doctor James Le Fanu took up the issue (2 March 2004). It is worth quoting the entire passage from his column, headed ‘The truth about MMR must be revealed’:
The Government finds itself in an invidious situation over the MMR/autism controversy, having painted itself into a corner by denying parents the option of the single measles vaccine. They, thus, have no alternative other than to insist the MMR is totally safe - irrespective of evidence that might emerge to suggest the contrary.
Their difficulty is that this position is now looking a lot shakier than it did even a year ago. Several further independent studies have confirmed the association of the syndrome of regressive autism with chronic bowel disorder that was originally described by Andrew Wakefield. More recently, research has confirmed the presence of the measles virus in the gut and spinal fluid of affected children.
This may not constitute "proof" and, indeed, a former colleague of Dr Wakefield challenged the significance of these findings in the Lancet a fortnight ago - and he may be right to do so. None the less, it is beginning to look as if, as neurologist Peter Harvey points out in the same issue, there is now "a step-by-step cascade of evidence" linking the MMR vaccine to some cases of autism.
This could explain the assault on Dr Wakefield’s integrity. The validity of his original findings, it is claimed, may have been compromised by a conflict of interest involving research funds that he failed to disclose. This might be relevant if it were true, but it is not, as anyone can check for themselves: Dr Wakefield acknowledged the source of his funding in the Lancet in 1998. It would seem to be that neither the Government nor the medical establishment can afford for Dr Wakefield to be vindicated - and they are getting pretty desperate.
But, remarkably, the role of the man at the centre of the non-disclosure allegation has largely escaped public scrutiny. In MMR Science and Fiction, Horton, while elaborating on the circumstances which led him to throw Wakefield to the wolves skirted delicately around the evidence that Wakefield did indeed disclose his work with the Legal Aid Board.
Critically Horton reproduces an apparently heated exchange from a parliamentary committee meeting of 1 March 2004 between Evan Harris, and the Lancet’s boss, Crispin Davis, Chief Executive of Reed Elsevier (p.50-1). Both men wave the letter of 2 May 1998 around, Davis citing the statement that there was no conflict of interest, but neither places on the parliamentary record that Wakefield had stated in that very letter that he was engaged in the litigation, and whether it was a conflict or not, it had certainly been in the public domain from that time. (But while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest, perhaps Davis needed to point out -and Horton certainly failed to do so – before becoming sanctimonious about Wakefield that he was appointed a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline in July 2003.)
When he gave evidence to the GMC in August 2007 Horton stated that he had not understood from the declaration that Wakefield’s involvement pre-dated the publication of the study two months earlier. The only trouble with this was that Rouse’s letter, forwarded by the Lancet to Wakefield on 2 April 1998, was according to Wakefield’s testimony actually dated 4 March, four days after the publication of the study – which would suggest that any such misunderstanding on Horton’s part was either disingenuous in the extreme, or simply incompetence.
The problem with Horton’s evasions was compounded by his transparently flawed account in his book of the session in the Lancet offices with Brian Deer on 18 February 2004:
There the consensus ended. Wakefield admitted that he had been commissioned by the Legal Aid Board to conduct a pilot study on behalf of parents of allegedly MMR-vaccine-damaged children. Some of his colleagues claimed that he had not disclosed this fact to them. Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith were visibly shocked by this revelation.
How anybody could have been shocked about a matter which had been in the public domain for six years is a mystery: in fact when presenting his evidence to the GMC in March 2008 Wakefield read a letter he had written in early 1997 to Walker-Smith and Murch explaining his decision to act as an expert in the MMR litigation – a line from it was subsequently quoted in a BMJ report (5 April):
If these diseases are found to be linked to the MMR vaccine, these children are the few unfortunate who have been sacrificed to protect the majority.
Thus, while there may not have been agreement between them on this, the claim that the matter was hidden from close colleagues would appear to be fanciful.
So what really happened at that meeting between the three doctors and Horton? At the GMC in August 2007 Horton described the pivotal moment of revelation as relating to the Dawbarns fact sheet which Deer had produced, which promoted the case against the MMR manufacturers and alluded to Wakefield’s involvement. It was Deer’s production of the fact sheet which purportedly caused discomfort to Walker-Smith and Murch, and left Horton denying to Deer and Harris that he had known of Wakefield’s enrolment by the Legal Aid Board.
Beyond the Wakefield-Rouse correspondence in May 1998, did Horton have any other occasion to learn of Wakefield’s Legal Aid work? Indeed, unlike Wakefield, Horton’s office itself was involved in a lengthy correspondence with Dawbarns, long before the publication of the Wakefield’s study in February 1998. In his testimony to the GMC in April 2008 rebutting Horton’s claim, Wakefield revealed stunning new information from a previously undisclosed 1997 correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns about the Dawbarns fact sheet to which Horton had been party. According to this exchange, at some point in March 1997, or just before, an employee of the UK Medicines Control Agency (later MHRA), Dr B D Edwards, writing in his private capacity, alerted Horton to the use of Lancet material (not the unpublished autism study) in the Dawbarns fact sheet – this included extracts from other articles by Wakefield and some tables. The Lancet then wrote to Dawbarns warning them they should apply to the journal if they wanted to continue to reproduce it. There then followed an extended letter from the lead lawyer for the case, Richard Barr, to Horton dated April 3, 1997, mentioning that Wakefield had given permission to refer to an article and citing a statement on the fact sheet:
There is convincing evidence of a link between vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn’s disease). It is a serious lifelong illness that has affected a large number of the children we are helping. We are working with Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital London. He is investigating this condition [emphasis added].
It was important for Barr to draw attention to Wakefield’s involvement, because it added moral weight to his case that the Lancet should allow publication. Horton wrote back denying permission and a lengthy correspondence ensued involving the Lancet ombudsman Prof Thomas Sherwood, in which a compromise was reached – this was concluded in the month of July 1997 just as the controversial study was being passed for publication, and presumably there would have been communications within the Lancet between Sherwood and Horton on the matter.
While it may have been a shock for John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch when Brian Deer produced the fact sheet in the Lancet offices because they had never seen it before, Horton claims that, in his role as guarantor of the ethics and reputation of The Lancet, it came as an even bigger shock to him because Wakefield had violated ethical guidelines by withholding disclosure of the Legal Aid connection. But when Wakefield finally produced this evidence to the GMC in April 2008 that Horton and The Lancet’s ombudsman had been engaged in extended discussions with the Legal Aid attorneys over their desire to cite work from their expert witness Wakefield in a fact sheet, it was barely reported: not, for instance, by the BBC or by The Times (although they had their journalists present), nor even by Brian Deer. Only in British Medical Journal was there a half-buried account by Owen Dyer (April 19):
Dr Wakefield’s defence challenged testimony given earlier by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, who said that he had not known before the article’s publication of Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of MMR litigants.
Dr Wakefield alleged that newly uncovered documents reveal an extensive correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns, the firm of solicitors representing MMR claimants. These letters, several months before publication of the 1998 article, described Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of the MMR litigants, he said. While he was "not impugning Dr Horton’s honesty," said Dr Wakefield, the documents proved "in my opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of all these factors."
Dr Horton, reached by email while travelling abroad, denied any foreknowledge of the conflict of interest, saying that the correspondence did not make clear Dr Wakefield’s role in litigation.
In most accounts of Wakefield’s Legal Aid connection, the media have generally accepted Horton’s description of his editorial judgement: if he had known of the connection before publication of the 1998 study he would not have approved it. But there is another possibility: that Horton only decided it was a significant matter long after the event. Indeed, two letters written by Wakefield to the Lancet on the MMR issue in (September 11, 1999 and August 26, 2000) after the disclosure of May 1998 that he was working for the Legal Aid Board were passed for publication without any such declaration.
Horton’s inconsistency was further exposed when in 2004 – after the Wakefield affair blew up - the Lancet held out for 5 months over publishing a letter from Mark Geier regarding Michael Pichichero’s non-disclosure of pharmaceutical company funding in another vaccine autism study ‘Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving thiomersal: a descriptive study’ (2002). Pichichero’s silence over his competing interests in this paper stood in contrast to information revealed in an earlier study, which had the following declaration:
The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck&Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roche Laboratories; Roussel-Uclaf; Schering Corporation; Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth-Lederle.
This lapse was only resolved after I had posted on it twice in British Medical Journal Rapid Responses. To all appearances this non-disclosure – which hid extensive commercial interests - was far more compromising: but to the Lancet it was barely worth mentioning, and not to be compared to the perfidy of Wakefield – indeed, they only agreed to publish a version of the Geier letter if Wakefield was not mentioned in it. Some conflicts in Horton’s world are evidently more fatal than others.
Many months after Wakefield’s evidence a new statement was finally obtained by the prosecution at GMC from Horton, presumably explaining as best he can the apparent discrepancies in his earlier evidence, but the hearing was having trouble pinning down a time for him to be questioned about it. Though Horton’s office is less than a mile up the road from the GMC hearing, he will apparently be engaged in an important peace mission to the Middle East when it next sits in January.
It was always the strategy of the British scientific establishment and government to isolate and destroy Andrew Wakefield – to make him look as if he was standing scientifically and intellectually on his own, and to make sure when they crushed him they discredited all further opposition or dissent on the vaccination issue. In the US context Horton’s book MMR Science and Fiction would be an almost incomprehensible oddity. There is, for instance, only a single mention of thimerosal, which apparently is just another eccentric concern of Wakefield’s. In essence the alleged “vaccine crisis” of the title is entirely about Wakefield and the supposed gullibility of people who doubt official science. Horton’s book is not ultimately about scientific truth, it is about who is credible – we are being told not only is Wakefield not credible, most importantly the parents of vaccine damaged children are not credible either. And cleverly nuanced as Horton’s argument is for a liberal readership, his decision to turn on Wakefield has behind it a highly illiberal and authoritarian basis, in which the interests and voices of the patients and their families are to be finally stamped out. It is ultimately just stage management, and a stab in the back for open debate.
John Stone has an autistic son, and lives in London.
Smoke and Mirrors: Dr Richard Horton and the Wakefield Affair
December 22, 2008
By John Stone
Managing Editor's Note: The Wakefield family crest bears the latin "Arudua vinco" which translates to "I conquer difficulties." We can't thank Dr. Wakefield enough for his dedication to our children. (Please see original link.)
"If we knew then what we know now we certainly would not have published the part of the paper which related to MMR, although I do believe there was and remains validity to the connection between bowel disease and autism.’
From the moment Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, spoke these words on the BBC evening news of Friday 20 February 2004 Andrew Wakefield’s career lay in tatters. For six years Horton and the Lancet had been under pressure over his decision to publish in February 1998 an ‘early report’ Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and autism in children of which Wakefield - a senior researcher at the Royal Free Hospital in London - was lead author. At publication time Wakefield was already an author of more than a hundred peer review publications, but none before or since attracted the attention of this one. The paper, a series study of 12 consecutively referred cases, related to a sub-group children who had suffered adverse reactions to MMR vaccine, and hypothesised but did not confirm a connection between their symptoms and the vaccination.
Nevertheless, by implication the study struck at the heart of public health policy: the Royal Free Medical School called a press conference, and there was instant controversy. The British government and medical establishment never forgave Wakefield. They weren’t that happy with Horton either, and he knew it.
Horton’s decision to go to the BBC in February 2004 had been precipitated by an extraordinary meeting at the Lancet offices two days previously. Wakefield’s 1998 paper had been investigated by a freelance journalist Brian Deer on behalf of the Sunday Times. According to Horton – giving evidence the UK General Medical Council in August 2007 – Deer had been dispatched with Liberal-Democrat member of parliament, Dr Evan Harris, in a last ditch attempt to rescue a failing story, held over from the previous week, and considered to weak to publish. Also present there with Wakefield, were Profs John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, the two doctors presently on trial with him at the GMC, and another Royal Free doctor, the neurologist Peter Harvey.
Deer presented a raft of allegations about the conduct of the study, and unethical procedures conducted against the children in the study. These were rebutted by the doctors, and were neither upheld by the Royal Free or in turn the Lancet. The sticking point, however, came over the fact that Wakefield, alone of the Royal Free doctors, had been hired by the Legal Aid Board to investigate the possibility of class litigation against the MMR manufacturers. Confronted by Deer, Horton denied that he had known of this, and Deer at last had a story. Horton’s decision to go public that Friday evening anticipated the publication of Deer’s article in the Sunday Times (and comically led to him being sued by Deer in the small claims court). But Horton’s declaration on its own ignited a media explosion and by the following morning he had also told the BBC that there was “a fatal conflict of interest” and the research was “fatally flawed”. By Saturday, tea time, the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, had requested that the General Medical Council investigate the case “as a matter of urgency”. And all before Deer’s story had gone to press for Sunday morning.
This episode smacks of gross media manipulation. Conflicts in medicine and science are commonplace – something that hitherto would not have raised an eye-brow was being foisted on the public at large as if it was grave misconduct – and that was even before considering the truth and validity of the allegation, which at the time would have been extremely hard to establish either way, and was certainly denied by Wakefield. Four years later when Wakefield finally produced powerful documentary evidence of his innocence at the General Medical Council no one in the media reported, although several journalists – including from the BBC and The Times - were present.
The outlandishness of what had happened was reflected in a remarkable passage the book which Horton was to publish within months of the episode, MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis, in which he recalled his dinner engagement on the Monday following these events, and result of the Health Secretary’s immediate request that the GMC investigate:
In truth, they (the GMC) had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February (2004), one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions (p7-8)
This could almost be a comic parody of the British establishment at work if it was not for real. But Horton’s decision to turn on Andrew Wakefield has been one of the long neglected (and tragic) turning points in the Wakefield affair.
I have long been curious about Horton’s role in this saga. When I wrote recently to the president of the GMC, Sir Graeme Catto, to ask him to explain Horton’s involvement (and potential misconduct), he declined to respond, but passed my open letter to their investigatory branch. I received this reply:
In short, I can assure you that the instigation of our investigations has absolutely nothing to do with any conversations which ‘medical regulators’ may have had with Dr Horton at the dinner described in his book. If such conversations took place, they were not reported back in to our investigations team who were looking at the case at the time. This being the case, the content of any such discussions had absolutely no impact at all on any of the decisions made about whether to proceed to investigate the case or, indeed, how such investigations should be carried forward.
How could they possibly know whether their investigations have been influenced by the conversations if they have not even asked about it, and are totally incurious even now that it has been pointed out? It does not matter by now what departures we have from ordinary process, or whether there is even prima facie evidence of misconduct. The trial must go on.
Although the “medical regulator” Horton met that Monday evening in February 2004 did not seem concerned about the ethics of exploring ways in which Andrew Wakefield might be prosecuted (and with the star witness!), he certainly did not seem convinced that Wakefield had done anything wrong. This may have been because undisclosed conflicts of interest are so common that you could not practicably start prosecuting them (where would it end?) but also (as he may already have considered) that acting as an expert witness for the courts did not by convention constitute a conflict at all. In fact, this argument was helpfully put by a legal counsel (in the British system ‘a barrister’) Robert Hantusch in a letter to The Times the following day (24 February 2004):
... the courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court.
And this defence was also taken up by a witness on the other side of the case, Elizabeth Miller, when it was pointed out in the satirical journal Private Eye that she had a like conflict (if it was such):
...there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the instruction or by whom they are paid. (19 March 2004)
As of the present, of course, Miller has yet to be summoned before the GMC.
But was Horton’s allegation that Wakefield had withheld information about his work with the Legal Aid Board really true? At the end of the week (27 February 2004) the Independent newspaper finally located striking evidence in Wakefield’s defence: a letter published on 2 May 1998 in the Lancet, nine weeks after the controversial study, in which Wakefield replied to a correspondent, Andrew Rouse, who raised the possibility of “litigation bias”:
A Rouse suggests that litigation bias might exist by virtue of information he has downloaded from the internet: from the Society for the Autistically Handicapped. Only one author (AJW) has agreed to help evaluate a small number of these children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board [emphasis added]. These children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through normal channels (eg, from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms. AJW has never heard of the Society for the Autistically Handicapped and no fact sheet has been provided by them to distribute to interested parties. The only fact sheet we have produced is for general practitioners, which describes the background and protocol for the investigation of children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Finally, all those children referred to us (including the 53 who have been investigated already and those on the waiting list that extends into 1999) have come through the formal channels described above. No conflict of interest exists.
The information that Wakefield (and Rouse) were referring to was a fact sheet compiled by the legal firm Dawbarns who were pursuing a class action against the MMR manufacturers at the time, downloaded from an independent website. So, while Wakefield denied that the matter constituted a conflict he had clearly stated his involvement in the litigation at that early stage. Unfortunately, the Independent story made little difference. The BBC, with its commitment to balance and impartiality long forgotten, refused to report this (though I for one personally bombarded the head of news Richard Sambrook with emails), and only the Telegraph doctor James Le Fanu took up the issue (2 March 2004). It is worth quoting the entire passage from his column, headed ‘The truth about MMR must be revealed’:
The Government finds itself in an invidious situation over the MMR/autism controversy, having painted itself into a corner by denying parents the option of the single measles vaccine. They, thus, have no alternative other than to insist the MMR is totally safe - irrespective of evidence that might emerge to suggest the contrary.
Their difficulty is that this position is now looking a lot shakier than it did even a year ago. Several further independent studies have confirmed the association of the syndrome of regressive autism with chronic bowel disorder that was originally described by Andrew Wakefield. More recently, research has confirmed the presence of the measles virus in the gut and spinal fluid of affected children.
This may not constitute "proof" and, indeed, a former colleague of Dr Wakefield challenged the significance of these findings in the Lancet a fortnight ago - and he may be right to do so. None the less, it is beginning to look as if, as neurologist Peter Harvey points out in the same issue, there is now "a step-by-step cascade of evidence" linking the MMR vaccine to some cases of autism.
This could explain the assault on Dr Wakefield’s integrity. The validity of his original findings, it is claimed, may have been compromised by a conflict of interest involving research funds that he failed to disclose. This might be relevant if it were true, but it is not, as anyone can check for themselves: Dr Wakefield acknowledged the source of his funding in the Lancet in 1998. It would seem to be that neither the Government nor the medical establishment can afford for Dr Wakefield to be vindicated - and they are getting pretty desperate.
But, remarkably, the role of the man at the centre of the non-disclosure allegation has largely escaped public scrutiny. In MMR Science and Fiction, Horton, while elaborating on the circumstances which led him to throw Wakefield to the wolves skirted delicately around the evidence that Wakefield did indeed disclose his work with the Legal Aid Board.
Critically Horton reproduces an apparently heated exchange from a parliamentary committee meeting of 1 March 2004 between Evan Harris, and the Lancet’s boss, Crispin Davis, Chief Executive of Reed Elsevier (p.50-1). Both men wave the letter of 2 May 1998 around, Davis citing the statement that there was no conflict of interest, but neither places on the parliamentary record that Wakefield had stated in that very letter that he was engaged in the litigation, and whether it was a conflict or not, it had certainly been in the public domain from that time. (But while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest, perhaps Davis needed to point out -and Horton certainly failed to do so – before becoming sanctimonious about Wakefield that he was appointed a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline in July 2003.)
When he gave evidence to the GMC in August 2007 Horton stated that he had not understood from the declaration that Wakefield’s involvement pre-dated the publication of the study two months earlier. The only trouble with this was that Rouse’s letter, forwarded by the Lancet to Wakefield on 2 April 1998, was according to Wakefield’s testimony actually dated 4 March, four days after the publication of the study – which would suggest that any such misunderstanding on Horton’s part was either disingenuous in the extreme, or simply incompetence.
The problem with Horton’s evasions was compounded by his transparently flawed account in his book of the session in the Lancet offices with Brian Deer on 18 February 2004:
There the consensus ended. Wakefield admitted that he had been commissioned by the Legal Aid Board to conduct a pilot study on behalf of parents of allegedly MMR-vaccine-damaged children. Some of his colleagues claimed that he had not disclosed this fact to them. Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith were visibly shocked by this revelation.
How anybody could have been shocked about a matter which had been in the public domain for six years is a mystery: in fact when presenting his evidence to the GMC in March 2008 Wakefield read a letter he had written in early 1997 to Walker-Smith and Murch explaining his decision to act as an expert in the MMR litigation – a line from it was subsequently quoted in a BMJ report (5 April):
If these diseases are found to be linked to the MMR vaccine, these children are the few unfortunate who have been sacrificed to protect the majority.
Thus, while there may not have been agreement between them on this, the claim that the matter was hidden from close colleagues would appear to be fanciful.
So what really happened at that meeting between the three doctors and Horton? At the GMC in August 2007 Horton described the pivotal moment of revelation as relating to the Dawbarns fact sheet which Deer had produced, which promoted the case against the MMR manufacturers and alluded to Wakefield’s involvement. It was Deer’s production of the fact sheet which purportedly caused discomfort to Walker-Smith and Murch, and left Horton denying to Deer and Harris that he had known of Wakefield’s enrolment by the Legal Aid Board.
Beyond the Wakefield-Rouse correspondence in May 1998, did Horton have any other occasion to learn of Wakefield’s Legal Aid work? Indeed, unlike Wakefield, Horton’s office itself was involved in a lengthy correspondence with Dawbarns, long before the publication of the Wakefield’s study in February 1998. In his testimony to the GMC in April 2008 rebutting Horton’s claim, Wakefield revealed stunning new information from a previously undisclosed 1997 correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns about the Dawbarns fact sheet to which Horton had been party. According to this exchange, at some point in March 1997, or just before, an employee of the UK Medicines Control Agency (later MHRA), Dr B D Edwards, writing in his private capacity, alerted Horton to the use of Lancet material (not the unpublished autism study) in the Dawbarns fact sheet – this included extracts from other articles by Wakefield and some tables. The Lancet then wrote to Dawbarns warning them they should apply to the journal if they wanted to continue to reproduce it. There then followed an extended letter from the lead lawyer for the case, Richard Barr, to Horton dated April 3, 1997, mentioning that Wakefield had given permission to refer to an article and citing a statement on the fact sheet:
There is convincing evidence of a link between vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease (including Crohn’s disease). It is a serious lifelong illness that has affected a large number of the children we are helping. We are working with Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital London. He is investigating this condition [emphasis added].
It was important for Barr to draw attention to Wakefield’s involvement, because it added moral weight to his case that the Lancet should allow publication. Horton wrote back denying permission and a lengthy correspondence ensued involving the Lancet ombudsman Prof Thomas Sherwood, in which a compromise was reached – this was concluded in the month of July 1997 just as the controversial study was being passed for publication, and presumably there would have been communications within the Lancet between Sherwood and Horton on the matter.
While it may have been a shock for John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch when Brian Deer produced the fact sheet in the Lancet offices because they had never seen it before, Horton claims that, in his role as guarantor of the ethics and reputation of The Lancet, it came as an even bigger shock to him because Wakefield had violated ethical guidelines by withholding disclosure of the Legal Aid connection. But when Wakefield finally produced this evidence to the GMC in April 2008 that Horton and The Lancet’s ombudsman had been engaged in extended discussions with the Legal Aid attorneys over their desire to cite work from their expert witness Wakefield in a fact sheet, it was barely reported: not, for instance, by the BBC or by The Times (although they had their journalists present), nor even by Brian Deer. Only in British Medical Journal was there a half-buried account by Owen Dyer (April 19):
Dr Wakefield’s defence challenged testimony given earlier by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, who said that he had not known before the article’s publication of Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of MMR litigants.
Dr Wakefield alleged that newly uncovered documents reveal an extensive correspondence between the Lancet and Dawbarns, the firm of solicitors representing MMR claimants. These letters, several months before publication of the 1998 article, described Dr Wakefield’s work on behalf of the MMR litigants, he said. While he was "not impugning Dr Horton’s honesty," said Dr Wakefield, the documents proved "in my opinion beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of all these factors."
Dr Horton, reached by email while travelling abroad, denied any foreknowledge of the conflict of interest, saying that the correspondence did not make clear Dr Wakefield’s role in litigation.
In most accounts of Wakefield’s Legal Aid connection, the media have generally accepted Horton’s description of his editorial judgement: if he had known of the connection before publication of the 1998 study he would not have approved it. But there is another possibility: that Horton only decided it was a significant matter long after the event. Indeed, two letters written by Wakefield to the Lancet on the MMR issue in (September 11, 1999 and August 26, 2000) after the disclosure of May 1998 that he was working for the Legal Aid Board were passed for publication without any such declaration.
Horton’s inconsistency was further exposed when in 2004 – after the Wakefield affair blew up - the Lancet held out for 5 months over publishing a letter from Mark Geier regarding Michael Pichichero’s non-disclosure of pharmaceutical company funding in another vaccine autism study ‘Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving thiomersal: a descriptive study’ (2002). Pichichero’s silence over his competing interests in this paper stood in contrast to information revealed in an earlier study, which had the following declaration:
The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck&Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roche Laboratories; Roussel-Uclaf; Schering Corporation; Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth-Lederle.
This lapse was only resolved after I had posted on it twice in British Medical Journal Rapid Responses. To all appearances this non-disclosure – which hid extensive commercial interests - was far more compromising: but to the Lancet it was barely worth mentioning, and not to be compared to the perfidy of Wakefield – indeed, they only agreed to publish a version of the Geier letter if Wakefield was not mentioned in it. Some conflicts in Horton’s world are evidently more fatal than others.
Many months after Wakefield’s evidence a new statement was finally obtained by the prosecution at GMC from Horton, presumably explaining as best he can the apparent discrepancies in his earlier evidence, but the hearing was having trouble pinning down a time for him to be questioned about it. Though Horton’s office is less than a mile up the road from the GMC hearing, he will apparently be engaged in an important peace mission to the Middle East when it next sits in January.
It was always the strategy of the British scientific establishment and government to isolate and destroy Andrew Wakefield – to make him look as if he was standing scientifically and intellectually on his own, and to make sure when they crushed him they discredited all further opposition or dissent on the vaccination issue. In the US context Horton’s book MMR Science and Fiction would be an almost incomprehensible oddity. There is, for instance, only a single mention of thimerosal, which apparently is just another eccentric concern of Wakefield’s. In essence the alleged “vaccine crisis” of the title is entirely about Wakefield and the supposed gullibility of people who doubt official science. Horton’s book is not ultimately about scientific truth, it is about who is credible – we are being told not only is Wakefield not credible, most importantly the parents of vaccine damaged children are not credible either. And cleverly nuanced as Horton’s argument is for a liberal readership, his decision to turn on Wakefield has behind it a highly illiberal and authoritarian basis, in which the interests and voices of the patients and their families are to be finally stamped out. It is ultimately just stage management, and a stab in the back for open debate.
John Stone has an autistic son, and lives in London.
And from the comments section of the Stone article above,
And, graham, whether you read these links or bury them tells a lot,
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/02/24...nd-our-science/
The Sleaze Behind Our Science
Posted February 24, 2004
The conflicts of interest revealed by the MMR story are everywhere.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 24th February 2004
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/05/14...ake-persuaders/
The Fake Persuaders
Posted May 14, 2002
Companies are creating false citizens to try to change the way we think
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 14th May 2002
http://www.monbiot.com/index.php?s=monbiot+monsanto
'Monsanto' search
QUOTE
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Or good individuals to attack each other, rather than a common foe.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/02/24...nd-our-science/
"...So, given that undisclosed conflicts of interest in science are everywhere, why is it only Dr Wakefield whose bloody remains are being dragged through the streets? The obvious answer is that his alleged co-option works against the interests of the drugs companies, while almost everyone else’s works in their favour. Why? Because in science, as in all fields of human endeavour, you get what you pay for. There is more corruption in our university faculties than there is in the building industry. But, though the mobs are baying for Wakefield’s blood, hardly anyone in Britain seems to give a damn."
Monbiot defends Dr. Wakefield here by asking why ONLY Dr. Wakefield is being 'dragged through the streets' and referring to his ALLEGED co-option. His harsh words decrying 'more corruption in our university faculties than there is in the building industry,' that is, against the source of the mobs attacking Dr. Wakefield, suggest the same and his repeated use of extremely violent imagery as metaphor unnervingly brings to mind 'The Constant Gardener' film based on the book by John le Carre (sorry).
I first heard of Monbiot in the context of his heroic expose of Monsanto's dishonest and vicious tactics to discredit scientists investigating the safety of GMO foods.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/05/14...ake-persuaders/
Judging from this list of articles he's written, Monbiot has waged a fierce and tireless effort to inform the public of hidden risks to public health of GM foods.
http://www.monbiot.com/index.php?s=monbiot+monsanto
Lots and lots of ordinary people have to step up, speak out, and, as he says 'give a damn.'
Or good individuals to attack each other, rather than a common foe.
QUOTE
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/02/24...nd-our-science/
"...So, given that undisclosed conflicts of interest in science are everywhere, why is it only Dr Wakefield whose bloody remains are being dragged through the streets? The obvious answer is that his alleged co-option works against the interests of the drugs companies, while almost everyone else’s works in their favour. Why? Because in science, as in all fields of human endeavour, you get what you pay for. There is more corruption in our university faculties than there is in the building industry. But, though the mobs are baying for Wakefield’s blood, hardly anyone in Britain seems to give a damn."
Monbiot defends Dr. Wakefield here by asking why ONLY Dr. Wakefield is being 'dragged through the streets' and referring to his ALLEGED co-option. His harsh words decrying 'more corruption in our university faculties than there is in the building industry,' that is, against the source of the mobs attacking Dr. Wakefield, suggest the same and his repeated use of extremely violent imagery as metaphor unnervingly brings to mind 'The Constant Gardener' film based on the book by John le Carre (sorry).
I first heard of Monbiot in the context of his heroic expose of Monsanto's dishonest and vicious tactics to discredit scientists investigating the safety of GMO foods.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/05/14...ake-persuaders/
Judging from this list of articles he's written, Monbiot has waged a fierce and tireless effort to inform the public of hidden risks to public health of GM foods.
http://www.monbiot.com/index.php?s=monbiot+monsanto
Lots and lots of ordinary people have to step up, speak out, and, as he says 'give a damn.'
And, graham, whether you read these links or bury them tells a lot,
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/02/24...nd-our-science/
The Sleaze Behind Our Science
Posted February 24, 2004
The conflicts of interest revealed by the MMR story are everywhere.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 24th February 2004
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/05/14...ake-persuaders/
The Fake Persuaders
Posted May 14, 2002
Companies are creating false citizens to try to change the way we think
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 14th May 2002
http://www.monbiot.com/index.php?s=monbiot+monsanto
'Monsanto' search
QUOTE
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...mp;#entry959018
New Worries About Gardasil Safety, CBS Exclusive]
Plus other critically important articles for parents from http://www.ageofautism.com
New Worries About Gardasil Safety, CBS Exclusive]
Plus other critically important articles for parents from http://www.ageofautism.com
QUOTE
http://www.cryshame.co.uk/
CryShame endorses the claim initially expressed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and subsequently voiced by doctors and scientists worldwide that some children may be at increased risk of adverse response to MMR vaccine. For many, this comprises regression into an autistic-like state often accompanied by onset or worsening of gastro-intestinal symptoms.
CryShame is NOT anti-vaccine. We do not claim that MMR is the sole cause of autism nor do we claim that the increased prevalence of autism diagnosis is fully accounted for by adverse reaction to vaccines. We do, however, favor the use of single Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccination until appropriate research on the effects of MMR on susceptible children has been carried out. We support the continuing withdrawal of thiomersol from all vaccines.
CryShame endorses the claim initially expressed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and subsequently voiced by doctors and scientists worldwide that some children may be at increased risk of adverse response to MMR vaccine. For many, this comprises regression into an autistic-like state often accompanied by onset or worsening of gastro-intestinal symptoms.
CryShame is NOT anti-vaccine. We do not claim that MMR is the sole cause of autism nor do we claim that the increased prevalence of autism diagnosis is fully accounted for by adverse reaction to vaccines. We do, however, favor the use of single Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccination until appropriate research on the effects of MMR on susceptible children has been carried out. We support the continuing withdrawal of thiomersol from all vaccines.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/brian-d...e.html#comments
Brian Deer – history repeating itself as farce.
By John Stone
February 09, 2009
Suddenly they do not know where to look. For five years some of us have been trying to warn about the style of reporting: now it looks to have come finally unstuck. Disgracefully, Brian Deer ambushed Andrew Wakefield with complex allegations on Friday, not allowing him time to make a proper reply (HERE) .
The story featured yesterday in the Sunday Times has not spread like wildfire across the media. Has a little wisdom finally set in? The article required readers to accept Brian Deer’s uncorroborated reading of documents which he should not have had and could not be published . Moreover, after five and half years of pouring over this material and the 1998 study ‘Ileal-lymphoid-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive development disorder in children’ (HERE) he patently did not understand any of it. He, himself, let on about his difficulties in an response to British Medical Journal in 2005 when he confessed his lack of scientific competence. He wrote: “My best qualification is a BA in philosophy, which is no use to anybody”. (HERE)
In the interim he would have had time to gain, with a little intellectual application, a plethora of qualifications. Unfortunately, he is still operating on gut instinct, and it is making fools of everyone. What was the Sunday Times doing? Only on Inspector Clouseau principles would you appoint a journalist to investigate scientific fraud who did not have a basic grasp of the data. But that is exactly what has happened.
He has not understood that the statement that the twelve children were normal before vaccination does not mean that they had no prior medical history, but that they did not have the symptoms that they subsequently acquired. Nor does he understand that you would not go to their basic medical records (which he should not have) to find out whether the children had had adverse reactions to vaccine, because routinely GPs do not write these things down. Or that Asperger Syndrome is an Autistic Spectrum disorder, and can be regressive. And, incidentally, it should be noted that according to the 1998 study in 11 out of 12 cases the medical histories were compiled not by Wakefield, but by John Walker-Smith.
And yet the medical and political establishment has been constructing its case against Wakefield on Deer’s reporting for the last five years. It was on the back of his first report that Wakefield was held to be “discredited” and the world was brow-beaten into believing it was so. UK National Health Service websites link up to Deer’s website, and the longest medical disciplinary hearing in British history was launched on the basis of his complaint. It is a game in which everybody hides behind everybody else, pretending they can’t be seen – but actually they are all standing there, and their trousers are down.
It is time, finally, to call a halt to this nonsense.
John Stone is a member of Cry Shame, has an autistic son and lives in London.
Brian Deer – history repeating itself as farce.
By John Stone
February 09, 2009
Suddenly they do not know where to look. For five years some of us have been trying to warn about the style of reporting: now it looks to have come finally unstuck. Disgracefully, Brian Deer ambushed Andrew Wakefield with complex allegations on Friday, not allowing him time to make a proper reply (HERE) .
The story featured yesterday in the Sunday Times has not spread like wildfire across the media. Has a little wisdom finally set in? The article required readers to accept Brian Deer’s uncorroborated reading of documents which he should not have had and could not be published . Moreover, after five and half years of pouring over this material and the 1998 study ‘Ileal-lymphoid-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive development disorder in children’ (HERE) he patently did not understand any of it. He, himself, let on about his difficulties in an response to British Medical Journal in 2005 when he confessed his lack of scientific competence. He wrote: “My best qualification is a BA in philosophy, which is no use to anybody”. (HERE)
In the interim he would have had time to gain, with a little intellectual application, a plethora of qualifications. Unfortunately, he is still operating on gut instinct, and it is making fools of everyone. What was the Sunday Times doing? Only on Inspector Clouseau principles would you appoint a journalist to investigate scientific fraud who did not have a basic grasp of the data. But that is exactly what has happened.
He has not understood that the statement that the twelve children were normal before vaccination does not mean that they had no prior medical history, but that they did not have the symptoms that they subsequently acquired. Nor does he understand that you would not go to their basic medical records (which he should not have) to find out whether the children had had adverse reactions to vaccine, because routinely GPs do not write these things down. Or that Asperger Syndrome is an Autistic Spectrum disorder, and can be regressive. And, incidentally, it should be noted that according to the 1998 study in 11 out of 12 cases the medical histories were compiled not by Wakefield, but by John Walker-Smith.
And yet the medical and political establishment has been constructing its case against Wakefield on Deer’s reporting for the last five years. It was on the back of his first report that Wakefield was held to be “discredited” and the world was brow-beaten into believing it was so. UK National Health Service websites link up to Deer’s website, and the longest medical disciplinary hearing in British history was launched on the basis of his complaint. It is a game in which everybody hides behind everybody else, pretending they can’t be seen – but actually they are all standing there, and their trousers are down.
It is time, finally, to call a halt to this nonsense.
John Stone is a member of Cry Shame, has an autistic son and lives in London.
Do YOU believe 9-11 official story was real or 100% bogus?
Are you 100% pro-choice, anytime, anywhere?
Are you for sex ed in schools from grade school on?
I find these anti-vaccine people tend to be anti-abortion, anti-sex ed in schools
Another case of Pelicanism. Not allowing birth control, or abortions, then not caring if a child grows up to die of cancer.
I am 100% FOR this protection from cancers for all kids age 10 and up, boys and girls.
Same as the flu shot.
And, as NO shot leads to a virus that could infect another human being, I for one would make it manditory without choice, like the other things that have
save millions of lives (like the flu shot, pnemonia shots, polio shots, etc.)
No shots/ No school
Are you 100% pro-choice, anytime, anywhere?
Are you for sex ed in schools from grade school on?
I find these anti-vaccine people tend to be anti-abortion, anti-sex ed in schools
Another case of Pelicanism. Not allowing birth control, or abortions, then not caring if a child grows up to die of cancer.
I am 100% FOR this protection from cancers for all kids age 10 and up, boys and girls.
Same as the flu shot.
And, as NO shot leads to a virus that could infect another human being, I for one would make it manditory without choice, like the other things that have
save millions of lives (like the flu shot, pnemonia shots, polio shots, etc.)
No shots/ No school
Geez, who the hell care what people who take positions on this vaccine think about other matters?
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
Various medical treatments have been squashed because of research. Remember how hormone treatments for women was stopped in a lot of cases when a study came out showing that there was a correlation between those treatments and breast cancer? No doubt there was a lot of money tied up in those treatments, yet medical research indicating a problem was not squashed. So while I would not place 100% faith in such research I certainly would be very careful in dismissing it because of a huge controversy.
Let us see how this inquiry goes. Certainly such inquiries are needed from time to time, without the possibility of peer review, and yes, policing, scientific research would provide less reliable results.
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
Various medical treatments have been squashed because of research. Remember how hormone treatments for women was stopped in a lot of cases when a study came out showing that there was a correlation between those treatments and breast cancer? No doubt there was a lot of money tied up in those treatments, yet medical research indicating a problem was not squashed. So while I would not place 100% faith in such research I certainly would be very careful in dismissing it because of a huge controversy.
Let us see how this inquiry goes. Certainly such inquiries are needed from time to time, without the possibility of peer review, and yes, policing, scientific research would provide less reliable results.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 11:53 AM) 
Geez, who the hell care what people who take positions on this vaccine think about other matters?
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
Various medical treatments have been squashed because of research. Remember how hormone treatments for women was stopped in a lot of cases when a study came out showing that there was a correlation between those treatments and breast cancer? No doubt there was a lot of money tied up in those treatments, yet medical research indicating a problem was not squashed. So while I would not place 100% faith in such research I certainly would be very careful in dismissing it because of a huge controversy.
Let us see how this inquiry goes. Certainly such inquiries are needed from time to time, without the possibility of peer review, and yes, policing, scientific research would provide less reliable results.
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
Various medical treatments have been squashed because of research. Remember how hormone treatments for women was stopped in a lot of cases when a study came out showing that there was a correlation between those treatments and breast cancer? No doubt there was a lot of money tied up in those treatments, yet medical research indicating a problem was not squashed. So while I would not place 100% faith in such research I certainly would be very careful in dismissing it because of a huge controversy.
Let us see how this inquiry goes. Certainly such inquiries are needed from time to time, without the possibility of peer review, and yes, policing, scientific research would provide less reliable results.
Is this meant at me?
As a parent, I find the connection dubious at best.
And 29 out of 100s of thousands is nothing. Statistical noise.
More people slip on a bar of soap, or die from drinking (so let's ban soap and drinking all alchohol, that would be fine by me).
And its hypocritical- if one is not for 100% ban on cigarettes, one should not want to ban vaccines that do a miracle cure for millions when they get older.
As for the first question, it is obvious if one opens their eyes.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 9 2009, 12:00 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 11:53 AM)
Geez, who the hell care what people who take positions on this vaccine think about other matters?
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
Various medical treatments have been squashed because of research. Remember how hormone treatments for women was stopped in a lot of cases when a study came out showing that there was a correlation between those treatments and breast cancer? No doubt there was a lot of money tied up in those treatments, yet medical research indicating a problem was not squashed. So while I would not place 100% faith in such research I certainly would be very careful in dismissing it because of a huge controversy.
Let us see how this inquiry goes. Certainly such inquiries are needed from time to time, without the possibility of peer review, and yes, policing, scientific research would provide less reliable results.
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
Various medical treatments have been squashed because of research. Remember how hormone treatments for women was stopped in a lot of cases when a study came out showing that there was a correlation between those treatments and breast cancer? No doubt there was a lot of money tied up in those treatments, yet medical research indicating a problem was not squashed. So while I would not place 100% faith in such research I certainly would be very careful in dismissing it because of a huge controversy.
Let us see how this inquiry goes. Certainly such inquiries are needed from time to time, without the possibility of peer review, and yes, policing, scientific research would provide less reliable results.
Is this meant at me?
As a parent, I find the connection dubious at best.
And 29 out of 100s of thousands is nothing. Statistical noise.
More people slip on a bar of soap, or die from drinking (so let's ban soap and drinking all alchohol, that would be fine by me).
And its hypocritical- if one is not for 100% ban on cigarettes, one should not want to ban vaccines that do a miracle cure for millions when they get older.
As for the first question, it is obvious if one opens their eyes.
The first sentence is, but look who I address with the rest of it.
I think that most accept that there is a tradeoff here, that there is a risk in taking these vaccines. But there is a greater risk in not taking them. As a father of young children I feel okay with them getting their recommended shots. Now research is done all of the time. If research shows this or that treatment entails risk greater than the benefits, at least in certain circumstances, then that is when you change what you do.
FYI:
Is thimerosal still in the vaccines that children receive?
Currently, all pediatric vaccines in the routine infant immunization schedule are manufactured without thimerosal as a preservative. As of January 14, 2003, the final lots of vaccines containing thimerosal as a preservative expired.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/thimerosal...detail.cfv?id=3
I believe the continued thimerosal debate is largely driven by ongoing, pre-2003 lawsuits. However, thimerosal is still in other vaccines.....flu, tetanus, etc. so the more we know about it, the better.
Is thimerosal still in the vaccines that children receive?
Currently, all pediatric vaccines in the routine infant immunization schedule are manufactured without thimerosal as a preservative. As of January 14, 2003, the final lots of vaccines containing thimerosal as a preservative expired.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/thimerosal...detail.cfv?id=3
I believe the continued thimerosal debate is largely driven by ongoing, pre-2003 lawsuits. However, thimerosal is still in other vaccines.....flu, tetanus, etc. so the more we know about it, the better.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 11:53 AM)
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
I thought it was clear that the parents are following the unbiased science and backing the many physicians and scientists worldwide referred to in the CryShame website header posted above, including those at Harvard (Dr. Martha Herbert, Dr. Philippe Grandjean) and Mt. Sinai (Dr. Philip J. Landrigan) - all prominent experts calling for urgent reforms in this interdisciplinary issue.
QUOTE
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/18567384/index.html
Martha Herbert MD PhD, "It frustrates me that we are not focusing a massive quantity of energy like a Manhattan Project type of energy on what is going on in an entire generation." Herbert, a child neurologist at Mass General Hospital, says nothing in her training prepared her for the number of kids coming in with autism, ADD, ADHD and other developmental disorders..." (part 1, minute 5:54)
Excerpt from ABC's Chronicle: Toxic Kids (4 parts)
What is making American children sick? Cancer rates are climbing. Cases of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma are through the roof. Is the answer all around us " in the food our kids eat, the air they breathe, and the clothes they wear?" Tonight, Chronicle investigates a provocative thesis about the American lifestyle and its effects on children's health.
Martha Herbert MD PhD, "It frustrates me that we are not focusing a massive quantity of energy like a Manhattan Project type of energy on what is going on in an entire generation." Herbert, a child neurologist at Mass General Hospital, says nothing in her training prepared her for the number of kids coming in with autism, ADD, ADHD and other developmental disorders..." (part 1, minute 5:54)
Excerpt from ABC's Chronicle: Toxic Kids (4 parts)
What is making American children sick? Cancer rates are climbing. Cases of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma are through the roof. Is the answer all around us " in the food our kids eat, the air they breathe, and the clothes they wear?" Tonight, Chronicle investigates a provocative thesis about the American lifestyle and its effects on children's health.
QUOTE
http://marthaherbert.com/
This site, a work in progress, houses my writings and my interests.
I am a pediatric neurologist and a brain development researcher. My main focus is autism. After much thought, I have come to the formulation that autism may be most inclusively understood and helped through an inclusive whole-body systems approach, where genes and environment are understood to interplay.
My approach to autism is rooted both in my own research findings and in several decades of work prominently featuring systems theory and other interdisciplinary approaches. The prominence of large brains in many young children with autism calls for fresh thought at many levels to how we think about what the problems and challenges are in autism, and what may cause them.
I also have great concerns about our planetary environment. We are at an evolutionarily novel and grave turning point. Given what is at stake, I propose that all of our challenges be viewed through this lens. The nature and frequency of autism merits being viewed in this light.
Please join me in reflecting upon these and related concerns, and in formulating strategic and leveraged interventions.
This site, a work in progress, houses my writings and my interests.
I am a pediatric neurologist and a brain development researcher. My main focus is autism. After much thought, I have come to the formulation that autism may be most inclusively understood and helped through an inclusive whole-body systems approach, where genes and environment are understood to interplay.
My approach to autism is rooted both in my own research findings and in several decades of work prominently featuring systems theory and other interdisciplinary approaches. The prominence of large brains in many young children with autism calls for fresh thought at many levels to how we think about what the problems and challenges are in autism, and what may cause them.
I also have great concerns about our planetary environment. We are at an evolutionarily novel and grave turning point. Given what is at stake, I propose that all of our challenges be viewed through this lens. The nature and frequency of autism merits being viewed in this light.
Please join me in reflecting upon these and related concerns, and in formulating strategic and leveraged interventions.
MUST READ PDF LINK FROM DR. HERBERT'S SITE (cannot cut and paste)
http://www.autism-society.org/site/DocServ....pdf?docID=4821
TIME TO GET A GRIP
by Martha R. Herbert M.D. Ph.D.
QUOTE
Counterpunch (subscription only)
Dec 1-31, 2008, vol 15, no. 21&22, p5,8-10)
The Environmental Factors: Tracking the Causes of Autism
by Steve Higgs
(opening paragraph) - "If he is interested in implementing significant environmental change in America, Barack Obama should pick up one pledge made by John McCain in the recent presidential campaign - namely, a commitment to identifying the cause of autism."
(skip)..."A page, titled "Combating Autism in America," on the McCain-Palin website said McCain "believes that federal research efforts should support broad approaches to understanding the factors that may play a role in the incidence of autism, including factors in our environment, for both prevention and treatment purposes.""
...(goes on to quote JAMA and 2 CDC published studies confirming increase in autism numbers; introduces research of Harvard trained pediatrician and professor and chair of Community and Preventive Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Dr. Philip J. Landrigan - 'pioneer in the study of industrial toxins and their impacts on human health, especially children's'; discusses Nov 2007 Lancet paper with Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health, on the role of toxic chemicals in neurodevelopmental disorders like autism; vaguely disses MMR concerns; returns to unknowns about thimerosol - ethylmercury v methylmercury; stresses need to implement Precautionary Principle; circles around to vaccines, environment)...
(final 2 paragraphs)
"Such critical debates over uncertain evidence require scientists to ask: "What could be known at this point, given the crude studies that have loked at mercury and a few other chemicals so far?" Grandjean wrote, "My answer is that we may well have overlooked even the most serious chemical exposures."
Those see(k)ing to identify the causes of autism and ASDs must be vigilant, Grandjean continued. And they should target suspected chemicals, even if the documentation is incomplete. "This approach is at the heart of the Precautionary Principle and ways to include it in current prevention strategies are urgently needed." "
The fact that powerful corporate interests may be affected by this is unfortunate, but necessary.
QUOTE
http://allergykids.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...cience-collide/
A Ripple of Hope: When Courage and Conscience Collide
June 10, 2008
I was raised on capitalism and the Wall Street Journal. As a child, my family celebrated the birth of Reaganomics the way one would have celebrated the birth of a child. There was prosperity to be had by all – if only we believed. My father, like so many of his era, fully supported deregulation and the notion of trickle down economics. If we loosen the regulatory purse strings that government tightly controls, we will all prosper. The system works.
In our house, the Reagans had an almost royal status – to watch them dance, with Nancy in her red dress, gave me the feeling, as a child, that I was watching some magnificent combination of Frank Sinatra and a foreign prince with his graceful companion on his arm.
I trusted my political values would serve me well – I was loyal, patriotic and supported the system.
And then one of my children got sick...
A Ripple of Hope: When Courage and Conscience Collide
June 10, 2008
I was raised on capitalism and the Wall Street Journal. As a child, my family celebrated the birth of Reaganomics the way one would have celebrated the birth of a child. There was prosperity to be had by all – if only we believed. My father, like so many of his era, fully supported deregulation and the notion of trickle down economics. If we loosen the regulatory purse strings that government tightly controls, we will all prosper. The system works.
In our house, the Reagans had an almost royal status – to watch them dance, with Nancy in her red dress, gave me the feeling, as a child, that I was watching some magnificent combination of Frank Sinatra and a foreign prince with his graceful companion on his arm.
I trusted my political values would serve me well – I was loyal, patriotic and supported the system.
And then one of my children got sick...
QUOTE(believe_it @ Feb 9 2009, 02:41 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 11:53 AM)
And Believe It, can these parents' groups be relied upon to be objective in this matter? Of course no can doubt their love for their kids, but that doesn't mean squat for their scientific judgment. Can we dismiss the possibility that they have found a demon to blame autism on?
I thought it was clear that the parents are following the unbiased science and backing the many physicians and scientists worldwide referred to in the CryShame website header posted above, including those at Harvard (Dr. Martha Herbert, Dr. Philippe Grandjean) and Mt. Sinai (Dr. Philip J. Landrigan) - all prominent experts calling for urgent reforms in this interdisciplinary issue.
So is it your contention that all unbiased scientists interpret the evidence to mean that these vaccines are a serious cause of autism?
sounds like one just wants to blame something
It reminds me of seeing Jennifer Hudson on the Grammy's last night, winning the first award-
first thing she did was Thank God...
and I wonder, did she thank God when her mother and other relatives were murdered?
It reminds me of seeing Jennifer Hudson on the Grammy's last night, winning the first award-
first thing she did was Thank God...
and I wonder, did she thank God when her mother and other relatives were murdered?
meaning-
nothing is 100% sure but dying or needing to pay taxes
Even if something is 99% safe, there is 1% not safe
conversely-
people are told that what Patrick Swayze has is fatal and 99% of the people die within a few years at best
But 1% don't die (like Steve Jobs?) They live longer than that
ask Mr. Beamis...he had time enough at last.
nothing is 100% sure but dying or needing to pay taxes
Even if something is 99% safe, there is 1% not safe
conversely-
people are told that what Patrick Swayze has is fatal and 99% of the people die within a few years at best
But 1% don't die (like Steve Jobs?) They live longer than that
ask Mr. Beamis...he had time enough at last.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 02:46 PM)
So is it your contention that all unbiased scientists interpret the evidence to mean that these vaccines are serious cause of autism?
No, no, of course not. But have a look at this and tell me whether the AAP conduct satisfies the criteria for 'unbiased.' Of course, the judgement for every parent to decide.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/il-merc...nd-the-aap.html
Il Mercurio and the AAP
By David Kirby
January 28, 2009
The new thimerosal study published in Pediatrics leaves a lot of open questions. So does the response to the study by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Dr. Lewis First.
In his blog introducing the study, Dr. First wrote that, "You'll be reassured that the results show essentially no differences between groups who did or did not get thimerosal in their vaccines-and you'll want to know this information when talking with parents of your patients about the safety and benefits of vaccines."
http://pediatricsblog.blogspot.com/
But that made no sense. The study clearly stated that all children received thimerosal in the first year of life - some got 62.5 micrograms and the rest got 137.5 mcg. But there were no children who "did not get thimerosal," as Dr. First urged America's pediatricians to tell parents.
I thought I would write to AAP and clear things up, and see if a correction would be run. Officials there were (and have been) courteous, respectful and professional. So I sent the following email to the press office of the Academy:
Dear Susan,
As you can see by the study, there were only two groups - lower thimerosal exposure and higher exposure. The lower exposure group had no Hg in their DTaP, but did have it in their HepB and DT. The higher exposure group had Hg in DTaP, HebB and DT. Therefore, the statement by Dr First in Pediatrics is wrong, and somewhat misleading for Pediatricians to now relay to their patients across the country. I would like to ask for official comment from the AAP on a few questions,
please:
1) Why did Dr. First urge pediatricians to tell parents that this study examined children "who did or did not get thimerosal in their vaccines?"
2) Will a statement of correction be sent out to members?
3) Does the AAP feel that this study had an under-ascertainment of ASD cases (1 in 1,700 vs. 1 in 150 in the US) or does the Academy believe that the rate in Italy is actually 1 in 1,700?
4) If there was an under-ascertainment of ASD, could it be due to the fact that study only looked at healthy children, and excluded premies and others? Also, if this study somehow excluded children with ASD (the US rate is 11 times that found in this Italian study) - isn't it possible that some children who developed other NDDs might have been equally excluded?
5) If the actual rate of ASD in Italy is only 1 in 1700 (about
6-per-10,000) - how can you explain the much higher rates in the US and UK? Is it just better reporting?
Many thanks,
David Kirby
Shortly after that, to his credit, Dr. First himself wrote back to me:
Dear Mr. Kirby,
Susan Martin referred your email below to me regarding your concern about how I have discussed the findings in the current article in the February issue on thimerosal in my blog. Please understand that the purpose of my blog is to encourage our readers to read the articles in the issue. The blog expresses an opinion and is not meant to be a formal review of the data that has already been peer-reviewed. Thus I have used the information that the authors have shared in their abstract and "what this study adds" section of their article to preview what I hope readers will read for themselves and then interpret as they see fit. I have used the word "essentially" in my blog to express my own opinion/interpretation and to note, by using that phrase "essentially" that the data may still note associations but not ones that I personally feel are meaningful as per the data they have presented. Others such as yourself can and will feel differently, and I would encourage you to share your concerns on the e-letters page of our website where (once it has been received and reviewed by our e-letters editor) your review of the data can be displayed and commented upon by others, including the authors of the study who are best positioned to answer your questions as asked below. Thanks for your ongoing interest and comments on this article. I hope you will consider sharing them on the e-pages for others to comment upon as well.
Sincerely,
Lewis R. First, MD
Editor-in-Chief, Pediatrics
As I said, courteous and professional. But not what I asked. So I wrote back again:
Dear Dr. First,
Many thanks for your reply, it is much appreciated. However, it leaves me a little confused as it did not address the central question I had, which is why did you interpret the study to mean that there was a zero-exposure arm in the data? More importantly, are you going to run a correction, or will you allow your members to relay this inaccurate information in your blog to millions of parents around the country?
Perhaps you could clear that up before I write my own blog?
Also, I was wondering if you or anyone at AAP could provide comment to the following limitations in the study:
1) The cumulative intake of thimerosal was relatively low.
2) The analysis included only healthy children. Some families might have declined to participate because their children had cognitive developmental problems. This might have reduced the prevalence of adverse neuropsychological conditions.
3) Only 1% of children in this study received hepatitis B virus vaccine at birth.
4) Participation by low birth weight children was limited.
5) The study was not powered to detect an association of thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological development in low birth weight infants.
6) There was no comparison group with no exposure to thimerosal, and an absence of any evidence suggesting a threshold dose for observation of an effect.
These statements were taken directly from the authors themselves.
Many thanks
David Kirby
I thought sure that this time the doctor would at least acknowledge his error, but he didn't seem to think he had made one - it was simply his personal opinion and interpretation of the study. Dr. First wrote back:
Dear Mr. Kirby,
Again, I can understand your having a different interpretation of the data and respect that. My blog is not meant to be a critique of the article's limitations but an encouragement for our readers to read the article and form their own opinions of the data that is being presented.
(My use of the word "essentially" was purposeful for just the reasons I have stated before--it allows me to express my own interpretation but also notes that the data is not necessarily perfect to absolutely prove that my opinion is the correct one). I would continue to encourage you to share your points about the limitations of this study that you have identified as an e-letter so that the authors of the article (with whom you should be corresponding with your questions) can be notified and respond to you and the rest of our readers via that area of our website.
Lewis First
Editor-in-Chief, Pediatrics
I will be sending my questions shortly to the authors. One thing I would really like to ask about is the exclusion of children of low birth weight, who are thought to be more prone to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders - (among preemies, the risk of autism may
be as high as one in four). If you eliminate all the unhealthy kids from your study, you may be inadvertently eliminating those who are most at risk for injury from vaccine mercury.
Finally, it is astounding how the media has portrayed this as a story about how "vaccines" do not cause "autism," when it showed no such thing. As the lead author said in reply to an email from Lisa Rudley, a New York State activist and mother, "We did not have the objective to specifically study children with autism and the number of subjects included in our study would have been insufficient to make any epidemiological assessment on this subject."
So some people in the media went ahead and made that assessment for him.
David Kirby is author of www.evidenceofharm.com and a contributor to Age of Autism.
Il Mercurio and the AAP
By David Kirby
January 28, 2009
The new thimerosal study published in Pediatrics leaves a lot of open questions. So does the response to the study by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Dr. Lewis First.
In his blog introducing the study, Dr. First wrote that, "You'll be reassured that the results show essentially no differences between groups who did or did not get thimerosal in their vaccines-and you'll want to know this information when talking with parents of your patients about the safety and benefits of vaccines."
http://pediatricsblog.blogspot.com/
But that made no sense. The study clearly stated that all children received thimerosal in the first year of life - some got 62.5 micrograms and the rest got 137.5 mcg. But there were no children who "did not get thimerosal," as Dr. First urged America's pediatricians to tell parents.
I thought I would write to AAP and clear things up, and see if a correction would be run. Officials there were (and have been) courteous, respectful and professional. So I sent the following email to the press office of the Academy:
Dear Susan,
As you can see by the study, there were only two groups - lower thimerosal exposure and higher exposure. The lower exposure group had no Hg in their DTaP, but did have it in their HepB and DT. The higher exposure group had Hg in DTaP, HebB and DT. Therefore, the statement by Dr First in Pediatrics is wrong, and somewhat misleading for Pediatricians to now relay to their patients across the country. I would like to ask for official comment from the AAP on a few questions,
please:
1) Why did Dr. First urge pediatricians to tell parents that this study examined children "who did or did not get thimerosal in their vaccines?"
2) Will a statement of correction be sent out to members?
3) Does the AAP feel that this study had an under-ascertainment of ASD cases (1 in 1,700 vs. 1 in 150 in the US) or does the Academy believe that the rate in Italy is actually 1 in 1,700?
4) If there was an under-ascertainment of ASD, could it be due to the fact that study only looked at healthy children, and excluded premies and others? Also, if this study somehow excluded children with ASD (the US rate is 11 times that found in this Italian study) - isn't it possible that some children who developed other NDDs might have been equally excluded?
5) If the actual rate of ASD in Italy is only 1 in 1700 (about
6-per-10,000) - how can you explain the much higher rates in the US and UK? Is it just better reporting?
Many thanks,
David Kirby
Shortly after that, to his credit, Dr. First himself wrote back to me:
Dear Mr. Kirby,
Susan Martin referred your email below to me regarding your concern about how I have discussed the findings in the current article in the February issue on thimerosal in my blog. Please understand that the purpose of my blog is to encourage our readers to read the articles in the issue. The blog expresses an opinion and is not meant to be a formal review of the data that has already been peer-reviewed. Thus I have used the information that the authors have shared in their abstract and "what this study adds" section of their article to preview what I hope readers will read for themselves and then interpret as they see fit. I have used the word "essentially" in my blog to express my own opinion/interpretation and to note, by using that phrase "essentially" that the data may still note associations but not ones that I personally feel are meaningful as per the data they have presented. Others such as yourself can and will feel differently, and I would encourage you to share your concerns on the e-letters page of our website where (once it has been received and reviewed by our e-letters editor) your review of the data can be displayed and commented upon by others, including the authors of the study who are best positioned to answer your questions as asked below. Thanks for your ongoing interest and comments on this article. I hope you will consider sharing them on the e-pages for others to comment upon as well.
Sincerely,
Lewis R. First, MD
Editor-in-Chief, Pediatrics
As I said, courteous and professional. But not what I asked. So I wrote back again:
Dear Dr. First,
Many thanks for your reply, it is much appreciated. However, it leaves me a little confused as it did not address the central question I had, which is why did you interpret the study to mean that there was a zero-exposure arm in the data? More importantly, are you going to run a correction, or will you allow your members to relay this inaccurate information in your blog to millions of parents around the country?
Perhaps you could clear that up before I write my own blog?
Also, I was wondering if you or anyone at AAP could provide comment to the following limitations in the study:
1) The cumulative intake of thimerosal was relatively low.
2) The analysis included only healthy children. Some families might have declined to participate because their children had cognitive developmental problems. This might have reduced the prevalence of adverse neuropsychological conditions.
3) Only 1% of children in this study received hepatitis B virus vaccine at birth.
4) Participation by low birth weight children was limited.
5) The study was not powered to detect an association of thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological development in low birth weight infants.
6) There was no comparison group with no exposure to thimerosal, and an absence of any evidence suggesting a threshold dose for observation of an effect.
These statements were taken directly from the authors themselves.
Many thanks
David Kirby
I thought sure that this time the doctor would at least acknowledge his error, but he didn't seem to think he had made one - it was simply his personal opinion and interpretation of the study. Dr. First wrote back:
Dear Mr. Kirby,
Again, I can understand your having a different interpretation of the data and respect that. My blog is not meant to be a critique of the article's limitations but an encouragement for our readers to read the article and form their own opinions of the data that is being presented.
(My use of the word "essentially" was purposeful for just the reasons I have stated before--it allows me to express my own interpretation but also notes that the data is not necessarily perfect to absolutely prove that my opinion is the correct one). I would continue to encourage you to share your points about the limitations of this study that you have identified as an e-letter so that the authors of the article (with whom you should be corresponding with your questions) can be notified and respond to you and the rest of our readers via that area of our website.
Lewis First
Editor-in-Chief, Pediatrics
I will be sending my questions shortly to the authors. One thing I would really like to ask about is the exclusion of children of low birth weight, who are thought to be more prone to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders - (among preemies, the risk of autism may
be as high as one in four). If you eliminate all the unhealthy kids from your study, you may be inadvertently eliminating those who are most at risk for injury from vaccine mercury.
Finally, it is astounding how the media has portrayed this as a story about how "vaccines" do not cause "autism," when it showed no such thing. As the lead author said in reply to an email from Lisa Rudley, a New York State activist and mother, "We did not have the objective to specifically study children with autism and the number of subjects included in our study would have been insufficient to make any epidemiological assessment on this subject."
So some people in the media went ahead and made that assessment for him.
David Kirby is author of www.evidenceofharm.com and a contributor to Age of Autism.
Graham, I don't need to read your ramblings about dying, alright. Go meance someone else. And, by the way, many, many, many people are well informed about these issues and reform is coming.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/an-adde...first-read.html
An Addendum to February's "First Read"
Managing Editor's Note: David Kirby's post Il Mercurio and the AAP on the Italian study has been duly noted by Dr. First of AAP. Dr. First has updated his site. Molto bene. Click HERE.
It has been brought to my attention that in the study on thimerosal briefly highlighted below, I noted that groups did or did not get thimerosal and had similar results in terms of neuropsychological developmental outcomes. Reading of this study will indicate that both groups studied actually did have thimerosal in their vaccines, one group having 62.5 micrograms cumulative intake and the other 137.5 micrograms cumulative intake. While the amount of thimerosal in the lower group studied in Italy is less (according to the author of this study Dr. Tozzi) than the small amounts used in this country, I do want to correctly indicate there was no group studied that received no thimerosal whatsoever in their vaccines. The results of this study suggesting essentially minimal (if any) differences in developmental outcomes remains as stated--although a limitation as noted by Dr. Tozzi is that there was no comparison group with zero exposure to thimerosal. I appreciate the readers who have brought this to my attention so that I could more accurately clarify my interpretation of this study. Please read this article for yourself to learn more.
An Addendum to February's "First Read"
Managing Editor's Note: David Kirby's post Il Mercurio and the AAP on the Italian study has been duly noted by Dr. First of AAP. Dr. First has updated his site. Molto bene. Click HERE.
It has been brought to my attention that in the study on thimerosal briefly highlighted below, I noted that groups did or did not get thimerosal and had similar results in terms of neuropsychological developmental outcomes. Reading of this study will indicate that both groups studied actually did have thimerosal in their vaccines, one group having 62.5 micrograms cumulative intake and the other 137.5 micrograms cumulative intake. While the amount of thimerosal in the lower group studied in Italy is less (according to the author of this study Dr. Tozzi) than the small amounts used in this country, I do want to correctly indicate there was no group studied that received no thimerosal whatsoever in their vaccines. The results of this study suggesting essentially minimal (if any) differences in developmental outcomes remains as stated--although a limitation as noted by Dr. Tozzi is that there was no comparison group with zero exposure to thimerosal. I appreciate the readers who have brought this to my attention so that I could more accurately clarify my interpretation of this study. Please read this article for yourself to learn more.
rude.
I guess you don't want debate at all, or anyone else's opinion
btw-you write as if you have been here a long, long time...where you here under a different name?
You don't write as if you are brand new.
If so, care to let us in on the secret?
I guess you don't want debate at all, or anyone else's opinion
btw-you write as if you have been here a long, long time...where you here under a different name?
You don't write as if you are brand new.
If so, care to let us in on the secret?
btw-
I have asked a mod to fix the typo in the title
It says
DOCTOR FIXED DATE ON AUTISM TO MAKE SHOT SEEM BAD- WHEN IT IS SAFE...NO LINK FOUND
it should say
DOCTOR FIXED DATA ON AUTISM TO MAKE SHOT SEEM BAD- WHEN IT IS SAFE...NO LINK FOUND
I have asked a mod to fix the typo in the title
It says
DOCTOR FIXED DATE ON AUTISM TO MAKE SHOT SEEM BAD- WHEN IT IS SAFE...NO LINK FOUND
it should say
DOCTOR FIXED DATA ON AUTISM TO MAKE SHOT SEEM BAD- WHEN IT IS SAFE...NO LINK FOUND
QUOTE(believe_it @ Feb 9 2009, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 02:46 PM)
So is it your contention that all unbiased scientists interpret the evidence to mean that these vaccines are serious cause of autism?
No, no, of course not. But have a look at this and tell me whether the AAP conduct satisfies the criteria for 'unbiased.' Of course, the judgement for every parent to decide.
If not then isn't it, at the very least, stacking things to say that these parents are merely following the unbiased science, as though only one theory of the evidence out there can be considered unbiased?
Anyway, what about Amy's pointing out that thimerosal is no longer used in pediatric vaccines? That doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing of potential worry here. But there always is some potential danger, in just about anything you do. And with further research these dangers come to light. We now know, for example, that a lot more care needs to be taken in giving hormone replacement therapy to women, to make sure that the particular therapy is more likely to do more good than harm.
Concerning children's vaccines I know what I think. Barring new revelations and new, safer versions of these vaccines, I am going to have my children get them. I have no desire to see them as victims and/or carriers of preventable, serious diseases.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 9 2009, 03:39 PM)
Anyway, what about Amy's pointing out that thimerosal is no longer used in pediatric vaccines?
Once again, the more anyone knows about a subject, the more complicated it becomes. You've observed that, haven't you, no matter what the subject is. There are (at least) two professional journalists at AoA who are experts on the intricacies of vaccine manufacture. Here's a parent researcher who's damn good, too.
QUOTE
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/200...-beginning.html
...In 1999, the CDC and the American Association of Pediatrics issue a joint statement saying that although they find no “evidence of harm” from the mercury exposure that children are getting in their vaccines, they are calling on vaccine manufacturers to remove it from vaccines on a voluntary basis as a precautionary measure because “some children may” get more than the EPA limit for mercury at their 6 month visits. Manufactures begin the process in 1999, but do not remove it from all vaccines.
No legal ban on thimerosal is issued.
No recall of the mercury laden vaccines is issued and companies continue to sell lots already manufactured. Some of these vaccines containing full doses of thimerosal have been found in doctors’ offices, by parents who request to read package inserts, with expiration dates as late as 2007.
No independent or government testing of vaccines is done to confirm that thimerosal has been removed. FDA denies parents request that they set up a system to verify manufacturers claims of low dose or thimerosal free vaccines.
No statement is issued to pediatricians to alert them to the symptoms of mercury poisoning.
No recommendation is made to pediatricians to screen children who suffered the onset neurological impairment after vaccination for mercury toxicity.
Vaccines with 25mcg of thimerosal are still shipped to developing countries Most flu shots still contain a full dose of thimerosal as of this writing in 2007. (The EPA estimates that a person must weigh 550 lbs. to safely tolerate this amount of mercury.)...
Chandler, who was born one month early, is injected with Hepatitis B vaccine containing a “trace amount” of thimerosal (currently still on the schedule), despite the fact that he has no risk factors for Hepatitis B, and he is still two weeks from reaching his due date. Within days he develops fevers and uncontrollable crying that lasts for three months and bowel problems that persist for two years until he is placed on the GFCF diet. He will go on to be diagnosed with both Autism and mercury poisoning at age 2. I later discover that the “trace amount” of thimerosal is still just over the EPA limit of mercury for his weight.
...In 1999, the CDC and the American Association of Pediatrics issue a joint statement saying that although they find no “evidence of harm” from the mercury exposure that children are getting in their vaccines, they are calling on vaccine manufacturers to remove it from vaccines on a voluntary basis as a precautionary measure because “some children may” get more than the EPA limit for mercury at their 6 month visits. Manufactures begin the process in 1999, but do not remove it from all vaccines.
No legal ban on thimerosal is issued.
No recall of the mercury laden vaccines is issued and companies continue to sell lots already manufactured. Some of these vaccines containing full doses of thimerosal have been found in doctors’ offices, by parents who request to read package inserts, with expiration dates as late as 2007.
No independent or government testing of vaccines is done to confirm that thimerosal has been removed. FDA denies parents request that they set up a system to verify manufacturers claims of low dose or thimerosal free vaccines.
No statement is issued to pediatricians to alert them to the symptoms of mercury poisoning.
No recommendation is made to pediatricians to screen children who suffered the onset neurological impairment after vaccination for mercury toxicity.
Vaccines with 25mcg of thimerosal are still shipped to developing countries Most flu shots still contain a full dose of thimerosal as of this writing in 2007. (The EPA estimates that a person must weigh 550 lbs. to safely tolerate this amount of mercury.)...
Chandler, who was born one month early, is injected with Hepatitis B vaccine containing a “trace amount” of thimerosal (currently still on the schedule), despite the fact that he has no risk factors for Hepatitis B, and he is still two weeks from reaching his due date. Within days he develops fevers and uncontrollable crying that lasts for three months and bowel problems that persist for two years until he is placed on the GFCF diet. He will go on to be diagnosed with both Autism and mercury poisoning at age 2. I later discover that the “trace amount” of thimerosal is still just over the EPA limit of mercury for his weight.
Sorry about the two incomplete posts, computer glitches, please remove from thread.
Something else I read recently was that vaccinations are still manufactured with thimerosol but that it was supposed to be filtered out at the end. Sorry, no link and no more time to devote to this today. Maybe somewhere in the comments thread about mercury in HFCS here http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/were-fructed.html
Something else I read recently was that vaccinations are still manufactured with thimerosol but that it was supposed to be filtered out at the end. Sorry, no link and no more time to devote to this today. Maybe somewhere in the comments thread about mercury in HFCS here http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/were-fructed.html
You know what I am thinking Believe it? I think you have given us evidence that Bush's FDA was toothless, out of his general approach of keeping government regulatory agencies too friendly to business.
Of course that does not mean that it is a good idea not to vaccinate your kids.
Of course that does not mean that it is a good idea not to vaccinate your kids.
Dr. Wakefield is a pediatric gastroenterologist, if that is unclear, and parents universally praise him. To me, that implies the children who are his patients adore him, too.
He remains a much beloved hero.
He remains a much beloved hero.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/gill-ho...-.html#comments
February 09, 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4571963...MMR-debate.html
Please click HERE to comment on Gill Hornby's piece at the Telegraph UK site. Here's an excerpt:
It is sad that Dr Andrew Wakefield's research on a gut condition linked to autism has been lost along with his reputation, says Gill Hornby.
My dear nephew, Danny, is autistic. He is at the more severe end of the autistic spectrum: he has only a few words and gets locked into repetitive behaviour. Now 15, he has been cheerfully watching the same episodes of Pingu since he was one. And yet, at the moment, autism is not Danny's biggest problem. He is a sunny, gentle soul, lovely to have around, benign. He goes, with great enthusiasm, to a brilliant school and he demonstrably loves his mum and dad.
The real blight on Danny's life is a disorder in his gut which is so severe it has him bellowing with the pain, harming himself, banging his head against the wall. He cannot describe it because he cannot speak. He can't warn of an attack, but if one strikes when he is in the park, or on a bus, it is a nightmare.
Nobody knows if this gut condition is linked to his autism. Nobody knows how many autistic children suffer from it. Anecdotally, it is common but there has been no systematic exploration of it, and there are no statistics. The only doctors who have shown any interest are those at the Royal Free Hospital. They had started to research it. Then Dr Andrew Wakefield published his paper linking the MMR jab, bowel disease and autism, and the world went mad...
Comments:
"Nobody knows if this gut condition is linked to his autism. Nobody knows how many autistic children suffer from it. Anecdotally, it is common but there has been no systematic exploration of it, and there are no statistics. The only doctors who have shown any interest are those at the Royal Free Hospital. They had started to research it. Then Dr Andrew Wakefield published his paper linking the MMR jab, bowel disease and autism, and the world went mad."
I just keep reading that paragraph and it gives me chills every time. Dr. Wakefield published and paper and the world went mad...indeed it did.
February 09, 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4571963...MMR-debate.html
Please click HERE to comment on Gill Hornby's piece at the Telegraph UK site. Here's an excerpt:
It is sad that Dr Andrew Wakefield's research on a gut condition linked to autism has been lost along with his reputation, says Gill Hornby.
My dear nephew, Danny, is autistic. He is at the more severe end of the autistic spectrum: he has only a few words and gets locked into repetitive behaviour. Now 15, he has been cheerfully watching the same episodes of Pingu since he was one. And yet, at the moment, autism is not Danny's biggest problem. He is a sunny, gentle soul, lovely to have around, benign. He goes, with great enthusiasm, to a brilliant school and he demonstrably loves his mum and dad.
The real blight on Danny's life is a disorder in his gut which is so severe it has him bellowing with the pain, harming himself, banging his head against the wall. He cannot describe it because he cannot speak. He can't warn of an attack, but if one strikes when he is in the park, or on a bus, it is a nightmare.
Nobody knows if this gut condition is linked to his autism. Nobody knows how many autistic children suffer from it. Anecdotally, it is common but there has been no systematic exploration of it, and there are no statistics. The only doctors who have shown any interest are those at the Royal Free Hospital. They had started to research it. Then Dr Andrew Wakefield published his paper linking the MMR jab, bowel disease and autism, and the world went mad...
Comments:
"Nobody knows if this gut condition is linked to his autism. Nobody knows how many autistic children suffer from it. Anecdotally, it is common but there has been no systematic exploration of it, and there are no statistics. The only doctors who have shown any interest are those at the Royal Free Hospital. They had started to research it. Then Dr Andrew Wakefield published his paper linking the MMR jab, bowel disease and autism, and the world went mad."
I just keep reading that paragraph and it gives me chills every time. Dr. Wakefield published and paper and the world went mad...indeed it did.
you do realize, though, you yourself are screwing(defaming) with the reputation of all the good doctors who disagree with you and Wakefield.
How many millions of doctors is that?
So in saying Wakefield is a good "doctor", all the others (more qualified than he is by the way) are not?
Alot of people said great things about the quack (Liederman) that treated George Harrison the last weeks of his life too was a hero, til he was disbarred after trying to sell an autographed guitar he coerced a dying George to sign...
I think also I would trust the great doctors at Sloan Kettering and Mt. Sinai in NYC alot more than this Wakefield dude.
And being that they have had their daughters get the vaccine, says they put their money where their mouth is.
To say those people are corrupt is beyond contempt.
I bet there are millions of people who have died of cancers in the past, or are dying today that would have never gotten the disease in the first place
if this miracle cure were around then.
I also don't understand something-
that autism usually occurs in a child say 3 years old.
What does this have to do with the gardasil vaccine which is for children much older than that, and which like crossing the street is almost never
life threatening at all.
Autism is NOT a side effect of this shot.
How many millions of doctors is that?
So in saying Wakefield is a good "doctor", all the others (more qualified than he is by the way) are not?
Alot of people said great things about the quack (Liederman) that treated George Harrison the last weeks of his life too was a hero, til he was disbarred after trying to sell an autographed guitar he coerced a dying George to sign...
I think also I would trust the great doctors at Sloan Kettering and Mt. Sinai in NYC alot more than this Wakefield dude.
And being that they have had their daughters get the vaccine, says they put their money where their mouth is.
To say those people are corrupt is beyond contempt.
I bet there are millions of people who have died of cancers in the past, or are dying today that would have never gotten the disease in the first place
if this miracle cure were around then.
I also don't understand something-
that autism usually occurs in a child say 3 years old.
What does this have to do with the gardasil vaccine which is for children much older than that, and which like crossing the street is almost never
life threatening at all.
Autism is NOT a side effect of this shot.
The facts speak for themselves, graham. Please watch the CBS investigative report on Gardasil again before you preposterously call for mandatory vaccination of all children as you did on the other thread. Aren't you a champion of CBS investigative reporting, like the Bush National Guard Story, Abu Ghraib, etc? And because you asked, here's another pair of devastating articles for you to draw your own conclusions from. Can you forgive the anger or at least understand it?
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/02/the-aap-knows-v.html
Opinion: "THE AAP KNOWS VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM"
By DR. DAVID AYOUB
February 23, 2008
Editor's note: Dr. David Ayoub, a radiologist from Springfield, Ill., gave this speech at the rally Wednesday in front of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Chicago. Age of Autism is pleased to help it reach the wide audience it deserves.
I thought I would share with you some of my personal experiences with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
My experience with lobbying for safer vaccine laws in Illinois and Massachusetts gave me some insight into the heart and soul of the AAP.
As most of you know, after joining the Public Health Service in a joint statement in 1999 supporting the immediate removal of Thimerosal from vaccines, the AAP has in effect, completely reversed its precautionary position by 1) endorsing and promoting the expansion of routine influenza vaccinations to pregnant women, infants and young children without a stated preference to Thimerosal-free formulas, 2) joined public health departments in strongly opposing state and federal legislation that would prohibit the use of Thimerosal, 3) oppose legislative requirements that would require informed consent before Thimerosal containing vaccines are administered, 4) failed to notify its own pediatrician members to preferentially deliver Thimerosal-free shots even after state bans such as the one in Illinois were signed into law and 6) has consistently mislead legislators, journalists, parents and professionals by adhering to the outright lie that all mercury in childhood vaccines, has been removed or reduced to trace amounts when in fact, children today adhering to the flu vaccine schedule will be receiving well over 50% of the total dose given before 2000, a dosage that is likely to continue to increase with further adjustments to the doses and target ages of flu vaccine recipients.
It is perplexing that the AAP has so strongly endorsed these new flu vaccine recommendations yet overlooked the glaring fact that the greatest threat to the supply of the influenza vaccine is not state Thimerosal bans, but ironically is the vaccine industry's ill advised reliance upon mercury as a preservative. Not only are there numerous scientific reports from decades ago that concluded thimerosal was an ineffective and toxic preservative, but as recently as 2004, Thimerosal again failed after the bacterial contamination of Chiron's 2004 flu vaccine stockpile--- the largest scale contamination of any pharmaceutical product in history. This failure resulted in the temporary loss of over half of the US flu vaccine supply. It has become painfully obvious that the silence of the AAP and public health officials to demand a better preservative or use of nonpreserved single dose preparations clearly and unequivocally indicated that these agencies are incapable and uninterested in making sound healthcare policies for Americans. Is it any wonder that the US infant morality rates rank a dismal 32nd of 33 industrial nations worldwide according to a recent Save the Children Survey. This statistic speaks volumes and no one in that building should be proud of this statistic or the utterly deplorable situation we have with escalating incidences of a multitude of chronic illness.
The AAP has played an important role in perpetuating the misconception that current research refutes the thimerosal-autism link. Three key papers have been published in the AAP trade journal Pediatrics: Madsen (Danish epidemiological study); The Verstraeten study, of Simpsonwood fame, and Fombonne (Quebec epidemiological study). The editor-in-chief Dr. Jerald Lucey received numerous, substantiated criticisms of each of these studies, but has created an effective roadblock in disallowing any criticisms to be published in the letter to the editor section of the journal. His response to thoughtful and reasonable criticisms has been unprofessional, illogical and insulting. My own letter to Lucey criticizing the Fombonne study was not even allowed to be published on the less publically visible online forum, even though we had obtained a copy of the Fombonne database and vaccine records from,several parents proving Fombonne's work fraudulent.
Why would the organization most influential in pediatric healthcare in America turn its back to our concerns and pleas? That is not a challenging question. The AAP reports annual revenues of about $70 million, but only 1/4th comes from membership dues. Their website lists extensive corporate donors, none more generous than the vaccine makers. Their journal Pediatrics generates about $10,000 per page for a drug ad, translating into $200,000 monthly. Even more money is generated for reprint orders, often 6 figures, that are distributed to pediatricians without of course the criticisms.
When I attended the AAP's National Convention in Washington, D.C., in 2005, I attended as many talks I could on 2 topics that interested me -- 1) diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities and
2) vaccine safety. From the meeting brochure I made the following observations:
First, 16 speakers contributed to 18 lectures in these categories.
According to the AAP's meeting brochure and my own knowledge of the presenters, 15 of 16 speakers had strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry, including the CDC. One Harvard physician claimed 42 different financial arrangements with 14 different pharmaceutical companies! My, when does he find the time to vaccinate anyone?
It is no wonder that the message delivered by AAP and industry influenced professionals to attending pediatricians was crystal clear: THERE IS NO VACCINE LINK!
Let me conclude by making the obvious conclusions about how I feel about the AAP. The politically correct statement would be to say that key individuals from within this organization have gone to great extents to obscure the vaccine-autism connection and by doing so are protecting profits and liability for one of the world's largest and most dangerous industries.
In reality, let me be blunt and politically incorrect. The AAP leadership knows very well that vaccines cause autism. We need not waste anymore efforts in trying to educate them, we need to indict them.
They may me morally bankrupt, but they are not stupid. They have lied to legislators, they have lied to journalists, they have lied to pediatricians, and worst of all, they have lied to you and your children.
The theme at the 2005 annual meeting was a celebration of "75 years of caring." It was not clear exactly what they cared most about, their corporate sponsors or protecting their leadership status over our nations' pediatricians. One thing is abundantly clear, the don't give a damn about scientific truth and they don't give a damn about you or your children.
I hope the autism community continues to move forward and expose all those involved who have put millions of children in harm's way.
Opinion: "THE AAP KNOWS VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM"
By DR. DAVID AYOUB
February 23, 2008
Editor's note: Dr. David Ayoub, a radiologist from Springfield, Ill., gave this speech at the rally Wednesday in front of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Chicago. Age of Autism is pleased to help it reach the wide audience it deserves.
I thought I would share with you some of my personal experiences with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
My experience with lobbying for safer vaccine laws in Illinois and Massachusetts gave me some insight into the heart and soul of the AAP.
As most of you know, after joining the Public Health Service in a joint statement in 1999 supporting the immediate removal of Thimerosal from vaccines, the AAP has in effect, completely reversed its precautionary position by 1) endorsing and promoting the expansion of routine influenza vaccinations to pregnant women, infants and young children without a stated preference to Thimerosal-free formulas, 2) joined public health departments in strongly opposing state and federal legislation that would prohibit the use of Thimerosal, 3) oppose legislative requirements that would require informed consent before Thimerosal containing vaccines are administered, 4) failed to notify its own pediatrician members to preferentially deliver Thimerosal-free shots even after state bans such as the one in Illinois were signed into law and 6) has consistently mislead legislators, journalists, parents and professionals by adhering to the outright lie that all mercury in childhood vaccines, has been removed or reduced to trace amounts when in fact, children today adhering to the flu vaccine schedule will be receiving well over 50% of the total dose given before 2000, a dosage that is likely to continue to increase with further adjustments to the doses and target ages of flu vaccine recipients.
It is perplexing that the AAP has so strongly endorsed these new flu vaccine recommendations yet overlooked the glaring fact that the greatest threat to the supply of the influenza vaccine is not state Thimerosal bans, but ironically is the vaccine industry's ill advised reliance upon mercury as a preservative. Not only are there numerous scientific reports from decades ago that concluded thimerosal was an ineffective and toxic preservative, but as recently as 2004, Thimerosal again failed after the bacterial contamination of Chiron's 2004 flu vaccine stockpile--- the largest scale contamination of any pharmaceutical product in history. This failure resulted in the temporary loss of over half of the US flu vaccine supply. It has become painfully obvious that the silence of the AAP and public health officials to demand a better preservative or use of nonpreserved single dose preparations clearly and unequivocally indicated that these agencies are incapable and uninterested in making sound healthcare policies for Americans. Is it any wonder that the US infant morality rates rank a dismal 32nd of 33 industrial nations worldwide according to a recent Save the Children Survey. This statistic speaks volumes and no one in that building should be proud of this statistic or the utterly deplorable situation we have with escalating incidences of a multitude of chronic illness.
The AAP has played an important role in perpetuating the misconception that current research refutes the thimerosal-autism link. Three key papers have been published in the AAP trade journal Pediatrics: Madsen (Danish epidemiological study); The Verstraeten study, of Simpsonwood fame, and Fombonne (Quebec epidemiological study). The editor-in-chief Dr. Jerald Lucey received numerous, substantiated criticisms of each of these studies, but has created an effective roadblock in disallowing any criticisms to be published in the letter to the editor section of the journal. His response to thoughtful and reasonable criticisms has been unprofessional, illogical and insulting. My own letter to Lucey criticizing the Fombonne study was not even allowed to be published on the less publically visible online forum, even though we had obtained a copy of the Fombonne database and vaccine records from,several parents proving Fombonne's work fraudulent.
Why would the organization most influential in pediatric healthcare in America turn its back to our concerns and pleas? That is not a challenging question. The AAP reports annual revenues of about $70 million, but only 1/4th comes from membership dues. Their website lists extensive corporate donors, none more generous than the vaccine makers. Their journal Pediatrics generates about $10,000 per page for a drug ad, translating into $200,000 monthly. Even more money is generated for reprint orders, often 6 figures, that are distributed to pediatricians without of course the criticisms.
When I attended the AAP's National Convention in Washington, D.C., in 2005, I attended as many talks I could on 2 topics that interested me -- 1) diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities and
2) vaccine safety. From the meeting brochure I made the following observations:
First, 16 speakers contributed to 18 lectures in these categories.
According to the AAP's meeting brochure and my own knowledge of the presenters, 15 of 16 speakers had strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry, including the CDC. One Harvard physician claimed 42 different financial arrangements with 14 different pharmaceutical companies! My, when does he find the time to vaccinate anyone?
It is no wonder that the message delivered by AAP and industry influenced professionals to attending pediatricians was crystal clear: THERE IS NO VACCINE LINK!
Let me conclude by making the obvious conclusions about how I feel about the AAP. The politically correct statement would be to say that key individuals from within this organization have gone to great extents to obscure the vaccine-autism connection and by doing so are protecting profits and liability for one of the world's largest and most dangerous industries.
In reality, let me be blunt and politically incorrect. The AAP leadership knows very well that vaccines cause autism. We need not waste anymore efforts in trying to educate them, we need to indict them.
They may me morally bankrupt, but they are not stupid. They have lied to legislators, they have lied to journalists, they have lied to pediatricians, and worst of all, they have lied to you and your children.
The theme at the 2005 annual meeting was a celebration of "75 years of caring." It was not clear exactly what they cared most about, their corporate sponsors or protecting their leadership status over our nations' pediatricians. One thing is abundantly clear, the don't give a damn about scientific truth and they don't give a damn about you or your children.
I hope the autism community continues to move forward and expose all those involved who have put millions of children in harm's way.
What state are you from?
Every doctor I know 100% fully advocates the shot. And they have their own kids taking it.
Including VERY prominent doctors in the NYC area, including some of the biggest cancer doctors you can think of. (And if I listed some of them, you would
have instantly heard of their names).
I think I will trust them.
After all, people out there trust Sanja Guhta or Sam Champion too, but I don't. People trusted Alex Rodriquez too, but I never did.
And CBS these days? Fuhgetaboutit. I no longer trust CBS, NBC, the NYTimes or anyone since around the time Dan Rather was asssassinated.
Which is now more than 5 years ago.
Again, do you believe the 9-11 story was bogus? Haven't seen you on those threads (far as I know).
Are you leading the cause to ban cigarettes (which kill millions of kids), or pot or any other drugs?
As said, I have already done my research on this issue, your strawman tactic of saying I didn't notwithstanding.
Can they make things better in the future? That could be said for anything, but that doesn't mean anything is wrong with what is here now.
Every doctor I know 100% fully advocates the shot. And they have their own kids taking it.
Including VERY prominent doctors in the NYC area, including some of the biggest cancer doctors you can think of. (And if I listed some of them, you would
have instantly heard of their names).
I think I will trust them.
After all, people out there trust Sanja Guhta or Sam Champion too, but I don't. People trusted Alex Rodriquez too, but I never did.
And CBS these days? Fuhgetaboutit. I no longer trust CBS, NBC, the NYTimes or anyone since around the time Dan Rather was asssassinated.
Which is now more than 5 years ago.
Again, do you believe the 9-11 story was bogus? Haven't seen you on those threads (far as I know).
Are you leading the cause to ban cigarettes (which kill millions of kids), or pot or any other drugs?
As said, I have already done my research on this issue, your strawman tactic of saying I didn't notwithstanding.
Can they make things better in the future? That could be said for anything, but that doesn't mean anything is wrong with what is here now.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/paul-offit-is-wrong-dr-he.html
Bernadine Healy: We Need Answers (CBS Video)
This CBS interview with Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health -- raises fundamental questions about the safety of vaccines in a vulnerable subset of children, and whether those vaccines might trigger autism. "The question has not been answered," she tells Sharyl Attkisson.
Bernadine Healy: We Need Answers (CBS Video)
This CBS interview with Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health -- raises fundamental questions about the safety of vaccines in a vulnerable subset of children, and whether those vaccines might trigger autism. "The question has not been answered," she tells Sharyl Attkisson.
This is extremely sad to read and is posted for its meticulously detailed analysis, which is actually a massive labor of love. Happy talk cannot blow this off, as discomfiting as that might be.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/cdc-aap...hungry-lie.html
Feeding a Hungry Lie
By J.B. Handley
January 09, 2009
There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food... The problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it has had enough to eat, and it always needs more food.
It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more frequency lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter and fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many people need this lie to be true.
Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just gone for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed me half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!
Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with people who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before, whether it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC blessing the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.
Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains this recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as due to "the tendency of humans to model their actions—especially when dealing with matters they don't fully understand—on the behavior of other humans."
So, some humans purportedly in the position to understand something say the lie, and repeat it over and over again and pretty soon a bunch of people who don't really understand it start saying the same thing.
What's the big lie? Trust me; I really want to tell you, I've just struggled with which lie-teller to quote first. These days, there are so many people telling the lie I hardly know where to start.
I thought long and hard about which lie-teller should get us going, and I've settled on Dr. David Tayloe. As the President-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics, he's supposed to have our kids' back. Of course, he doesn't. And he's certainly not above telling the lie.
I also picked David Tayloe because he said on Larry King Live that, in all his decades of being a pediatrician, he'd never reported an adverse event from a vaccine. Given how long he's practiced, and how many kids he's shot-up, it's a near impossibility that no child had an adverse event to a vaccine from his practice, so that makes Dr. David Tayloe somewhat or fully full of "expletive deleted". So, he gets the nod.
I've dragged this out so long, I almost don't want to drop it on you now, but here goes, here's Dr. David Tayloe, President-elect of the AAP, telling the big, big, very hungry lie:
"Vaccines do not cause autism and we're not afraid of the truth." Dr. Tayloe may not be afraid of the truth, but he's certainly afraid to speak it.
Lest you think I'm picking on Dr. Tayloe, which I certainly am, just know that he is well-supported by other humans who don't really understand the issue telling the same lie he's telling because they heard other people say it. Consider these luminaries of the hungry lie:
Dr. Paul Offit: "It's been asked and answered: Vaccines don't cause autism."
Amanda Peet, spokesperson for Sanofi Pasteur and Every Child By Two: "Fourteen studies have been conducted (both here in the US and abroad), and these tests are reproducible; no matter where they are administered, or who is funding them, the conclusion is the same: there is no association between autism and vaccines."
Dr. Nancy Minshew, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Excellence in Autism: "The weight of evidence is so great that I don't think that there is any room for debate. I think the issue is done. I'm doing this for all the families out there who don't have a child with autism, who have to deal with the issue of 'Do I get a vaccination or do I risk my child's life' because they don't understand what the science is saying."
Dr. Michael Katz, senior vice president for Research and Global Programs for the March of Dimes: "The implication that vaccinations cause autism is irresponsible and counter productive."
Dr. Renee Jenkins, current President of the AAP: "A television show that perpetuates the myth that vaccines cause autism is the height of reckless irresponsibility on the part of ABC."
Dr. Nancy Snyderman, medical correspondent for NBC: "Sixteen separate studies have shown no causal association [between vaccines and autism]."
The American Medical Association: "Scientific data overwhelmingly show that there is no connection between vaccines and autism."
Whew. I'm tired just typing all those quotes. If that's not a sign that there is "consensus" on an issue…I don't know what is.
What do we make of so many official people saying, and at times shouting, the same thing? The late Michael Crichton, himself an M.D., addressed this notion of a bunch of pedigreed people shouting the same lie, with a level of eloquence I could never summon:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
Birth of the Lie: 2004
We all know the year. We all know the organization. We all know the document. No document on earth has ever been more widely quoted, misquoted, represented, and misrepresented to prove, once and for all, that vaccines do not cause autism. Because this document is so damn important, and because we know exactly when the document was released, we can be very clear about exactly when this very hungry lie was born:
May 17, 2004.
Before I continue, I need to tell you something, and I really, really need you to listen. I'm going to quote a cliché, one that has been used many times, and is used so often that sometimes we may forget to reflect on its meaning, so please, take a moment and really think about this: The devil is in the details. Always.
With that cliché now bouncing around in your head, let's look at the birth date of this very hungry lie when the Institute of Medicine released a document with the very official sounding name Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. HERE: http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/6.1.pdf
There it is. There's the very first lie. And, oddly enough, it's the title of the entire document. Stick with me on this, and remember the cliché I just mentioned to you. The title of the document is "Vaccines and Autism." To the average person, this would presume that the document explores the concept of whether or not vaccines cause autism.
But, it doesn't. And, the study itself is far more honest than its own title. The study itself actually tells you what the IOM looked at and here it is, the IOM summary of what they actually looked at in the study they released on May 17, 2004:
"In this report, the committee examines the hypothesis of whether the MMR vaccine and the use of vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal can cause autism."
Wait a minute. The world thinks the IOM considered whether or not vaccines can cause autism. There are 11 separately licensed vaccines given to children (I'm counting DTaP and MMR as one each, even though they are triple shots), many given multiple times. The IOM looked at only one of these vaccines, the MMR, and an ingredient found in many others, Thimerosal.
But, the hungry lie started that day, two months before my own son was diagnosed with autism. It started with a very odd and very contradictory piece of journalism by a writer from Reuters who seems to be more confused by the issue than most. This writer, Maggie Fox, reported on the IOM's document soon after its release, and her headline is clear enough:
VACCINE DOES NOT CAUSE AUTISM, PANEL SAYS
That's as clear and concise a version of the lie as you will ever see, although the use of the word "vaccine" rather than "vaccines" is odd. Within her own story, Ms. Fox goes on to explain what the IOM study actually did do, which contradicts her own headline:
"Neither the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine nor a mercury-based preservative used in some childhood shots cause autism, a U.S. health panel has found."
Hmm, that's weird. Even weirder is the quote she pulled out of Marie McCormick, the chairperson of the very IOM committee that issued the report that started the lie:
"The weight of that evidence is pretty substantial," said Dr Marie McCormick, an expert in child and mother health at the Harvard School of Public Health who chaired the panel. "The overwhelming evidence from several well-designed studies indicates that childhood vaccines are not associated with autism," she added.
Childhood vaccines are not associated with autism? That's quite a statement; particularly given the panel only contemplated two things: the MMR vaccine and an ingredient (mercury) in some vaccines. It's not just quite a statement; it's an unbelievably bold misrepresentation, which is a nice word for a lie.
I have noticed this trend a lot lately, where health authorities in positions of influence seem to bounce back and forth between representing honestly what research has actually been done and making sweeping statement of false reassurance. Consider the curious case of Dr. Paul Offit, a henchman for Merck and vaccine patent-holder. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine several years ago, Dr. Offit spelled out the research fairly clearly:
"Fourteen epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of autism is the same whether children received the MMR vaccine or not, and five have shown that thimerosal-containing vaccines also do not cause autism."
Today, why bother with the details? It's much easier for Offit to say, "It's been asked and answered: Vaccines don't cause autism" and be done with it.
I wish I was done at this point, partly because all these details really wear me out, but the story actually gets a lot worse.
Devilish Details
I'm now going to make a point, and this is without a doubt the most important point I'm making today, so I hope you can once again take just a little bit closer of a listen. As we all know, the IOM looked at many different studies regarding both Thimerosal and the MMR vaccine.
But, there is a point, and it's a point many of us think we know, but it's a point rarely discussed and a point so important that I think someday when they are piecing together how in the world the autism epidemic ever happened and how in the world such a big hungry lie was ever told for so long, I think this is the point they will make, so I'm going to make it first:
There isn't a single study contemplated by the IOM, or cited by any medical authority whether CDC, AAP, WHO, IOM, or ECBT, that compares anything EXCEPT vaccinated children.
How can that be? How can the IOM's document that tells the world that vaccines do not cause autism be resting on a foundation of studies that only ever looked at vaccinated children?
We need some analogies here:
That would be like looking at people who smoke one pack a day versus two packs a day and seeing no difference in lung cancer rates and saying cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.
That would be like looking at people who eat chocolate chip cookies with chocolate chips and chocolate chip cookies without chocolate chips and seeing no difference in obesity rates and saying cookies don't contribute to obesity.
That would be like looking at people who smoke low-tar cigarettes and people who smoke normal cigarettes and seeing no difference in lung cancer rates and saying cigarettes don't cause lung cancer…
Do I need to continue? When I explained this trick to my 9 year-old, he got it, so I hope you do, too. If you can look at these studies and say that vaccines do not cause autism, well, I think you make Foghorn Leghorn look like Chickenhawk.
Let's go back to Reuters for a second, because the article is terribly important, being the media's first brush with the lie and all. Let's look at what else Ms. Fox said back in 2004:
"The panel, which included experts in paediatrics, family medicine, statistics and epidemiology, had reported in 2001 that there was no proven link between vaccines and autism but said there was not quite enough evidence to be definitive. Since then, they have reviewed five large epidemiological studies done in the U.S., the U.K., Denmark, and Sweden that found Children who were vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines were no more likely to have autism than children who received thimerosal-free vaccines."
Five large studies done? OK. And, these studies were the ones that turned the tide, right? That's certainly what this writer appears to have learned from the IOM. Just for fun, let's actually look at the "new" studies that were contemplated by the IOM. Not all five of them, but just for fun I'll pick two of the studies Ms. Fox is talking about, the one from the US and the one from the UK, published in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Before we look at these two studies, I need to make another point: the majority of studies that authorities point to as proof that vaccines do not cause autism have been published in a journal called Pediatrics. As Pediatrics will tell you, they are the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. As we know, the AAP is a trade union for pediatricians with two unfortunate truths:
- The AAP derives a majority of their outside contributions (estimated at more than $25 million per year) from pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines
- The very people the AAP represents, pediatricians, derive the majority of their annual revenues from the administration of vaccines to children
Do you think that's a coincidence?
CDC Study, the one that just won't go away
The first of the two studies I'll look at, the one that most people cite as the definitive work that vaccines do not cause autism, was published in Pediatrics in November 2003 and was written by the CDC by a lead researcher named Thomas Verstraeten. It's called Safety of Thimerosal Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases.
To say that much has been written about this study is like saying much has been written about Britney's love life – it's always an understatement. So, I'm just going to make two points about this study, two points that will show you how big this lie has really become:
1. The study's authors, after analyzing the only data ever run on American children (data that was later lost by the CDC), concluded that they couldn't prove anything either way. Their study was simply inconclusive. Not positive, not negative. Just neutral. After the press and vaccine talking heads tried to turn the study into the first evidence of the very big lie, the study's lead author, that same guy Verstraeten, wrote a desperate letter to Pediatrics because he was distraught at how his study--the one he was the lead author for--was being misused:
"Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative [where 'negative' implies no association was shown between Thimerosal and autism] by many...The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come...A neutral study carries a very distinct message: the investigators could neither confirm nor exclude an association, and therefore more study is required."
It's hard to imagine a second point actually worse than the point I just made, the point that one of the most famous studies routinely held up to support the position that "vaccines don't cause autism" actually reached no decision at all. 0./But, it does get worse.
2. Like every study the IOM considered in reaching their conclusion, and like every study ever cited by anyone defending the vaccine program, this study only looked at children who had been vaccinated. If that wasn't bad enough, the authors actually went a step further. Because there were so few children available who had received vaccines without Thimerosal, they actually compared children who had received MORE Thimerosal with children who received LESS Thimerosal to try and reach a conclusion. In point of fact, this "large-scale" study, as it's so often portrayed by the media, evaluated a total of exactly 223 children with autism, all of whom had been vaccinated, and over 80% of whom had received vaccines with 87 or more micrograms of mercury.
Man, I'm really tired of talking about these details. If you think it's hard reading this lengthy piece, try writing it. In fact, it's the painful nature of these pesky details that makes the lie so easy to feed and perpetuate. Who really reads this "expletive deleted"? No one, I think. In fact, I have a little secret to tell you: I have actually read every single study the IOM based their conclusions on and every study the other side claims supports their case. I have them all sitting right next to me here in a tidy little folder. I may be the only human being on earth (except perhaps Bernadine Healy) who has actually done this.
How am I so sure? I'm not, really. I just know it took me several hours and several hundred dollars to even get all the studies together in one place. You see, many of the actual studies are not freely available online for the average journalist to find, you have to buy them from the websites of the journals. Testing this hypothesis a step further, I asked a journalism friend of mine to ask Every Child By Two if they had copies of all the studies they cite on their website that prove vaccines don't cause autism. Surely they had copies and had read them all…surely?
Here's what he heard back:
Unfortunately we do not have copies of all of the studies available. I would suggest that if you check the main library at [your school]. They often get these journals even though your school doesn't have a medical or nursing program and you can copy what you need. Some may also be available online.
Rich Greenaway
Director of Operations and Special Projects
Every Child By Two
Nope, even ECBT doesn't have the studies; they just speak authoritatively about the conclusions of studies they've never actually read…
The "British" Study – Am I on Neptune?
Ok, I'll admit it -- up until a week ago, I'd never read the large-scale epidemiological study from the UK that clearly shows vaccines don't cause autism as was clearly stated in the Reuters article and clearly part of the IOM's very clear conclusion. I feel terrible, but I just never took the time to read it.
When I finally read it, cover to cover, all 7 pages of this published study, I only had one conclusion: Am I living on ... Neptune?
You see, if you think the CDC study I just told you about is a shaky foundation for building a hungry lie, then the British study is the foundation of a thousand year old clay shack in the Sichuan Province during a 9.0 earthquake.
Like all studies, the UK study has a very official sounding name, and one I will repeat so I can be as clear as possible:
Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
Wow, that's an earful. Oddly, like few other studies I have seen, the title includes the conclusion of the study, albeit a deceitful representation of the actual conclusion.
This UK study is such junk, it's really hard to write about. I imagine a journalist trying to read this study for the first time, and probably struggling with what the hell was actually done, sort of like a monthly statement from Bernie Madoff, and falling back to just reading the title again and hoping for the best. Yet, after reading the study enough times, I was able to actually figure out what had been done, and I'll start by quoting you from the authors' own summary of what they did, from the Methods section of the study on page 577 of Pediatrics in September 2004:
"The study has been monitoring >14 000 Children who are from the geographic area formerly known as Avon, United Kingdom, and were delivered in 1991–1992. The age at which doses of thimerosal-containing vaccines were administered was recorded, and measures of mercury exposure by 3, 4, and 6 months of age were calculated and compared with a number of measures of Childhood cognitive and behavioral development covering the period from 6 to 91 months of age."
OK, I know. You have no idea what that means, I certainly didn't. So, I will use the kind of English most of us can understand so you can see how amazingly unbelievable this study really is:
- 100% of the children in this study were vaccinated
- 100% of the children in this study were vaccinated with the thimerosal-containing DTP vaccine
- If you were a child who hadn't completed the full series of thimerosal-containing DTP shots, which in Britain is 3 doses, you weren't even in the study
- The only variable considered, and I'm going to put ONLY in all-caps so you really hear me, the ONLY variable considered was the TIMING of the 3 doses of thimerosal-containing DTP vaccines given to kids
- And, when I say timing, what I mean is they compared kids who had gotten these shots by 3 months, 4 months, and 6 months
That's it.
The timing of thimerosal-containing shots was explored. The authors are actually honest about this in their own conclusion to the study:
"This study, based on a large United Kingdom–based prospective cohort, shows no evidence of any harmful effect of an accelerated immunization schedule with thimerosal-containing vaccines."
There it is, clear as day: an accelerated schedule of TCVs. TIMING is the only variable this study considered.
One side point, for those of you who noticed. The IOM study came out in May 2004. This study was published in Pediatrics in September 2004, four months later. What gives? What gives is that the AAP did an excellent job of getting a crap study in front of their friends at the IOM to give them more ammunition to birth the hungry lie.
A "Dose" of Reality
It's hard to write this piece, because it makes me lose even greater faith in our health authorities. I think about a guy like Dr. David Tayloe and I just want to know what's actually true:
- Is he the gullible guy who just believes what others say and repeats it?
- Is he so stupid that he's read all the science and believes it proves that vaccines don't cause autism?
- Does he know the science doesn't remotely say that, but thinks it's better to say so anyway and protect the vaccine program?
I don't know, but any of those reasons pretty much suck.
I mention above about giving a dose of reality, so I'm going to. But first, a question:
What is the purpose of science, and more specifically, of medical research?
I think the purpose of science and medical research is the betterment of the human race. To help us live longer, healthier, happier lies. To answer all the tough questions about what's good for us and what's bad for us. The customer of medical research is mankind.
If mankind is the customer here, I would make another argument. Mankind's most important members are babies and children. Agree? And, nothing is more painful for mankind or more detrimental to mankind's life, liberty, and happiness than a sick child. Ask any family.
So, here's some reality for you:
Terry has a daughter named Hannah. Through eighteen months, Hannah's pediatrician notes she is meeting all developmental milestones – a normal developing child. At nineteen months, Hannah gets taken to the pediatrician, presumably by her Mom, and she gets five shots in one visit: DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV. A five shot visit? In the U.S., this happens thousands of times a day.
Suddenly, things for Hannah change. I'll let the now-famous court document tell the story from here:
"According to her mother's affidavit, Hannah developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. She exhibited intermittent, high-pitched screaming and a decreased response to stimuli. Terry spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that Hannah was having a normal reaction to her immunizations. According to Hannah's mother, this behavior continued over the next ten days, and Hannah also began to arch her back when she cried.
On July 31, 2000, Hannah presented to the Pediatric Center with a 101-102 degree temperature, a diminished appetite, and small red dots on her chest. The nurse practitioner recorded that Hannah was extremely irritable and inconsolable. She was diagnosed with a post-varicella vaccination rash.
Two months later, on September 26, 2000, Hannah returned to the Pediatric Center with a temperature of 102 degrees, diarrhea, nasal discharge, a reduced appetite, and pulling at her left ear. Two days later, on September 28, 2000, Hannah was again seen at the Pediatric Center because her diarrhea continued, she was congested, and her mother reported that Hannah was crying during urination. On November 1, 2000, Hannah received bilateral PE tubes. On November 13, 2000, a physician at ENT Associates noted that Hannah was "obviously hearing better" and her audiogram was normal. On November 27, 2000, Hannah was seen at the Pediatric Center with complaints of diarrhea, vomiting, diminished energy, fever, and a rash on her cheek. At a follow-up visit, on December 14, 2000, the doctor noted that Hannah had a possible speech delay.
Hannah was evaluated at the Howard County Infants and Toddlers Program, on November 17, 2000, and November 28, 2000, due to concerns about her language development. The assessment team observed deficits in Hannah's communication and social development. Hannah's mother reported that Hannah had become less responsive to verbal direction in the previous four months and had lost some language skills.
On December 21, 2000, Hannah returned to ENT Associates because of an obstruction in her right ear and fussiness. Dr. Grace Matesic identified a middle ear effusion and recorded that Hannah was having some balance issues and not progressing with her speech. On December 27, 2000, Hannah visited ENT Associates, where Dr. Grace Matesic observed that Hannah's left PE tube was obstructed with crust. The tube was replaced on January 17, 2001.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, evaluated Hannah at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic ("Krieger Institute"), on February 8, 2001. Dr. Zimmerman reported that after Hannah's immunizations of July 19, 2000, an "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." He noted a disruption in Hannah's sleep patterns, persistent screaming and arching, the development of pica to foreign objects, and loose stools. Dr. Zimmerman observed that Hannah watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination and would not make eye contact. He diagnosed Hannah with "regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." Dr. Zimmerman ordered genetic testing, a magnetic resonance imaging test ("MRI"), and an electroencephalogram ("EEG").
Did you read that whole excerpt? Did you really read it? If you did, and if you are human, it rips your heart out. If you are the parent of a child with autism as I am, it more than rips your heart out, it causes you to die all over again. And, as we both know, Hannah's story is far from unique. In the autism world, it's the norm. I'd hazard to guess that Hannah's story is shared by several hundred thousand families in the US alone.
How does the experience above benefit mankind?
Can science help us out of this mess?
The Failure of Science and the Big Lie
As we all know, Hannah's Mom is a nurse and her Dad is a neurologist. I've never met the Polings nor have I ever talked to them. But, I know that Jon, Hannah's dad, was very much part of the mainstream medical establishment before seeing what happened to his daughter, as he himself has said.
I have no doubt that as Dr. Poling was watching these events unfold with his daughter that he was looking for answers through science and from the people and journals he trusted. And, I have little doubt that he found nothing.
Let me ask you a simple question, and I particularly want to ask it of the liars like David Tayloe, Paul Offit, Nancy Snyderman, and others who falsely reassure parents every day that everything is OK when everything is not OK. Please, a simple question:
Can you show me the science that would convince the Polings that it wasn't the vaccines?
Please. Show me. She got five vaccines in one day. She was never the same. Show me the science where you can proudly stand up and say, "Vaccines do not cause autism, I'm sorry about what happened to your daughter but it wasn't the vaccines, please read this." Is it the British study, the one that made me think I was on Neptune? Or, is it that one from CDC, the one where they were unable to determine anything? Which one should the Polings look at so they can move off of vaccines as a likely culprit to their daughter's regressive autism?
The lie needs to end. Those who have been telling the lie need to be called out. They need to be removed. Every day, another parent is falsely reassured because they listen to someone they think they can trust who is feeding the hungry lie.
It makes me so damn mad to write this piece, perhaps that's why it's so long, but really, I don't even know how to end it. The more I look at the details, the madder I get. Since I can't trust myself to end this piece in a thoughtful way, I will bring in Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health, herself an M.D. from Harvard and someone who directed the nation's largest organization dedicated to medical research.
Dr. Healy fits into this story because it was Hannah Poling's case that caused her to take a closer look at the controversy. Unlike many of the feeders of the lie, I have no doubt that Dr. Healy actually has read the science that many of her colleagues claim shows vaccines don't cause autism, and Dr. Healy didn't like what she learned at all. So, I'm going to finish with a quote from her, but not until I get one final request in here:
If you are reading this, and you can do something about all these liars who falsely reassure parents every day, please do. Thank you.
Here's Bernadine Healy, talking to CBS Evening News:
"We have to take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it. I think we have the tools today that we didn't have 10 years ago, 20 yrs ago, to try and tease that out and find out if there is a susceptible group…A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines are not good. What a susceptible group will tell us is that maybe there is a group of individual who shouldn't have a particular vaccine or shouldn't have vaccines on the same schedule…I don't believe that if we identify the susceptibility group, if we identify a particular risk factor for vaccines or if we found out that maybe they should be spread out a little longer, I do not believe that the public would lose faith in vaccines…
I think that the government or certain public officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick…I haven't seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine…I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation…I think they have been too quick to dismiss studies in the animal laboratory either in mice, in primates, that do show some concerns with regard to certain vaccines and also to the mercury preservative in vaccines…The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public…I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show…
Populations do not test causality, they test associations. You have to go into the laboratory and you have to do designed research studies in animals…The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. You can save those children…The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done on animals.
If you also look at some of these individual cases and if you look at the evidence that there is no link what I come away with is the question has not been answered."
J.B. Handley is co-founder of Generation Rescue and a contributor to Age of Autism.
Feeding a Hungry Lie
By J.B. Handley
January 09, 2009
There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food... The problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it has had enough to eat, and it always needs more food.
It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more frequency lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter and fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many people need this lie to be true.
Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just gone for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed me half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!
Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with people who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before, whether it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC blessing the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.
Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains this recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as due to "the tendency of humans to model their actions—especially when dealing with matters they don't fully understand—on the behavior of other humans."
So, some humans purportedly in the position to understand something say the lie, and repeat it over and over again and pretty soon a bunch of people who don't really understand it start saying the same thing.
What's the big lie? Trust me; I really want to tell you, I've just struggled with which lie-teller to quote first. These days, there are so many people telling the lie I hardly know where to start.
I thought long and hard about which lie-teller should get us going, and I've settled on Dr. David Tayloe. As the President-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics, he's supposed to have our kids' back. Of course, he doesn't. And he's certainly not above telling the lie.
I also picked David Tayloe because he said on Larry King Live that, in all his decades of being a pediatrician, he'd never reported an adverse event from a vaccine. Given how long he's practiced, and how many kids he's shot-up, it's a near impossibility that no child had an adverse event to a vaccine from his practice, so that makes Dr. David Tayloe somewhat or fully full of "expletive deleted". So, he gets the nod.
I've dragged this out so long, I almost don't want to drop it on you now, but here goes, here's Dr. David Tayloe, President-elect of the AAP, telling the big, big, very hungry lie:
"Vaccines do not cause autism and we're not afraid of the truth." Dr. Tayloe may not be afraid of the truth, but he's certainly afraid to speak it.
Lest you think I'm picking on Dr. Tayloe, which I certainly am, just know that he is well-supported by other humans who don't really understand the issue telling the same lie he's telling because they heard other people say it. Consider these luminaries of the hungry lie:
Dr. Paul Offit: "It's been asked and answered: Vaccines don't cause autism."
Amanda Peet, spokesperson for Sanofi Pasteur and Every Child By Two: "Fourteen studies have been conducted (both here in the US and abroad), and these tests are reproducible; no matter where they are administered, or who is funding them, the conclusion is the same: there is no association between autism and vaccines."
Dr. Nancy Minshew, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Excellence in Autism: "The weight of evidence is so great that I don't think that there is any room for debate. I think the issue is done. I'm doing this for all the families out there who don't have a child with autism, who have to deal with the issue of 'Do I get a vaccination or do I risk my child's life' because they don't understand what the science is saying."
Dr. Michael Katz, senior vice president for Research and Global Programs for the March of Dimes: "The implication that vaccinations cause autism is irresponsible and counter productive."
Dr. Renee Jenkins, current President of the AAP: "A television show that perpetuates the myth that vaccines cause autism is the height of reckless irresponsibility on the part of ABC."
Dr. Nancy Snyderman, medical correspondent for NBC: "Sixteen separate studies have shown no causal association [between vaccines and autism]."
The American Medical Association: "Scientific data overwhelmingly show that there is no connection between vaccines and autism."
Whew. I'm tired just typing all those quotes. If that's not a sign that there is "consensus" on an issue…I don't know what is.
What do we make of so many official people saying, and at times shouting, the same thing? The late Michael Crichton, himself an M.D., addressed this notion of a bunch of pedigreed people shouting the same lie, with a level of eloquence I could never summon:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
Birth of the Lie: 2004
We all know the year. We all know the organization. We all know the document. No document on earth has ever been more widely quoted, misquoted, represented, and misrepresented to prove, once and for all, that vaccines do not cause autism. Because this document is so damn important, and because we know exactly when the document was released, we can be very clear about exactly when this very hungry lie was born:
May 17, 2004.
Before I continue, I need to tell you something, and I really, really need you to listen. I'm going to quote a cliché, one that has been used many times, and is used so often that sometimes we may forget to reflect on its meaning, so please, take a moment and really think about this: The devil is in the details. Always.
With that cliché now bouncing around in your head, let's look at the birth date of this very hungry lie when the Institute of Medicine released a document with the very official sounding name Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. HERE: http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/6.1.pdf
There it is. There's the very first lie. And, oddly enough, it's the title of the entire document. Stick with me on this, and remember the cliché I just mentioned to you. The title of the document is "Vaccines and Autism." To the average person, this would presume that the document explores the concept of whether or not vaccines cause autism.
But, it doesn't. And, the study itself is far more honest than its own title. The study itself actually tells you what the IOM looked at and here it is, the IOM summary of what they actually looked at in the study they released on May 17, 2004:
"In this report, the committee examines the hypothesis of whether the MMR vaccine and the use of vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal can cause autism."
Wait a minute. The world thinks the IOM considered whether or not vaccines can cause autism. There are 11 separately licensed vaccines given to children (I'm counting DTaP and MMR as one each, even though they are triple shots), many given multiple times. The IOM looked at only one of these vaccines, the MMR, and an ingredient found in many others, Thimerosal.
But, the hungry lie started that day, two months before my own son was diagnosed with autism. It started with a very odd and very contradictory piece of journalism by a writer from Reuters who seems to be more confused by the issue than most. This writer, Maggie Fox, reported on the IOM's document soon after its release, and her headline is clear enough:
VACCINE DOES NOT CAUSE AUTISM, PANEL SAYS
That's as clear and concise a version of the lie as you will ever see, although the use of the word "vaccine" rather than "vaccines" is odd. Within her own story, Ms. Fox goes on to explain what the IOM study actually did do, which contradicts her own headline:
"Neither the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine nor a mercury-based preservative used in some childhood shots cause autism, a U.S. health panel has found."
Hmm, that's weird. Even weirder is the quote she pulled out of Marie McCormick, the chairperson of the very IOM committee that issued the report that started the lie:
"The weight of that evidence is pretty substantial," said Dr Marie McCormick, an expert in child and mother health at the Harvard School of Public Health who chaired the panel. "The overwhelming evidence from several well-designed studies indicates that childhood vaccines are not associated with autism," she added.
Childhood vaccines are not associated with autism? That's quite a statement; particularly given the panel only contemplated two things: the MMR vaccine and an ingredient (mercury) in some vaccines. It's not just quite a statement; it's an unbelievably bold misrepresentation, which is a nice word for a lie.
I have noticed this trend a lot lately, where health authorities in positions of influence seem to bounce back and forth between representing honestly what research has actually been done and making sweeping statement of false reassurance. Consider the curious case of Dr. Paul Offit, a henchman for Merck and vaccine patent-holder. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine several years ago, Dr. Offit spelled out the research fairly clearly:
"Fourteen epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of autism is the same whether children received the MMR vaccine or not, and five have shown that thimerosal-containing vaccines also do not cause autism."
Today, why bother with the details? It's much easier for Offit to say, "It's been asked and answered: Vaccines don't cause autism" and be done with it.
I wish I was done at this point, partly because all these details really wear me out, but the story actually gets a lot worse.
Devilish Details
I'm now going to make a point, and this is without a doubt the most important point I'm making today, so I hope you can once again take just a little bit closer of a listen. As we all know, the IOM looked at many different studies regarding both Thimerosal and the MMR vaccine.
But, there is a point, and it's a point many of us think we know, but it's a point rarely discussed and a point so important that I think someday when they are piecing together how in the world the autism epidemic ever happened and how in the world such a big hungry lie was ever told for so long, I think this is the point they will make, so I'm going to make it first:
There isn't a single study contemplated by the IOM, or cited by any medical authority whether CDC, AAP, WHO, IOM, or ECBT, that compares anything EXCEPT vaccinated children.
How can that be? How can the IOM's document that tells the world that vaccines do not cause autism be resting on a foundation of studies that only ever looked at vaccinated children?
We need some analogies here:
That would be like looking at people who smoke one pack a day versus two packs a day and seeing no difference in lung cancer rates and saying cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.
That would be like looking at people who eat chocolate chip cookies with chocolate chips and chocolate chip cookies without chocolate chips and seeing no difference in obesity rates and saying cookies don't contribute to obesity.
That would be like looking at people who smoke low-tar cigarettes and people who smoke normal cigarettes and seeing no difference in lung cancer rates and saying cigarettes don't cause lung cancer…
Do I need to continue? When I explained this trick to my 9 year-old, he got it, so I hope you do, too. If you can look at these studies and say that vaccines do not cause autism, well, I think you make Foghorn Leghorn look like Chickenhawk.
Let's go back to Reuters for a second, because the article is terribly important, being the media's first brush with the lie and all. Let's look at what else Ms. Fox said back in 2004:
"The panel, which included experts in paediatrics, family medicine, statistics and epidemiology, had reported in 2001 that there was no proven link between vaccines and autism but said there was not quite enough evidence to be definitive. Since then, they have reviewed five large epidemiological studies done in the U.S., the U.K., Denmark, and Sweden that found Children who were vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines were no more likely to have autism than children who received thimerosal-free vaccines."
Five large studies done? OK. And, these studies were the ones that turned the tide, right? That's certainly what this writer appears to have learned from the IOM. Just for fun, let's actually look at the "new" studies that were contemplated by the IOM. Not all five of them, but just for fun I'll pick two of the studies Ms. Fox is talking about, the one from the US and the one from the UK, published in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Before we look at these two studies, I need to make another point: the majority of studies that authorities point to as proof that vaccines do not cause autism have been published in a journal called Pediatrics. As Pediatrics will tell you, they are the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. As we know, the AAP is a trade union for pediatricians with two unfortunate truths:
- The AAP derives a majority of their outside contributions (estimated at more than $25 million per year) from pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines
- The very people the AAP represents, pediatricians, derive the majority of their annual revenues from the administration of vaccines to children
Do you think that's a coincidence?
CDC Study, the one that just won't go away
The first of the two studies I'll look at, the one that most people cite as the definitive work that vaccines do not cause autism, was published in Pediatrics in November 2003 and was written by the CDC by a lead researcher named Thomas Verstraeten. It's called Safety of Thimerosal Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases.
To say that much has been written about this study is like saying much has been written about Britney's love life – it's always an understatement. So, I'm just going to make two points about this study, two points that will show you how big this lie has really become:
1. The study's authors, after analyzing the only data ever run on American children (data that was later lost by the CDC), concluded that they couldn't prove anything either way. Their study was simply inconclusive. Not positive, not negative. Just neutral. After the press and vaccine talking heads tried to turn the study into the first evidence of the very big lie, the study's lead author, that same guy Verstraeten, wrote a desperate letter to Pediatrics because he was distraught at how his study--the one he was the lead author for--was being misused:
"Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative [where 'negative' implies no association was shown between Thimerosal and autism] by many...The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come...A neutral study carries a very distinct message: the investigators could neither confirm nor exclude an association, and therefore more study is required."
It's hard to imagine a second point actually worse than the point I just made, the point that one of the most famous studies routinely held up to support the position that "vaccines don't cause autism" actually reached no decision at all. 0./But, it does get worse.
2. Like every study the IOM considered in reaching their conclusion, and like every study ever cited by anyone defending the vaccine program, this study only looked at children who had been vaccinated. If that wasn't bad enough, the authors actually went a step further. Because there were so few children available who had received vaccines without Thimerosal, they actually compared children who had received MORE Thimerosal with children who received LESS Thimerosal to try and reach a conclusion. In point of fact, this "large-scale" study, as it's so often portrayed by the media, evaluated a total of exactly 223 children with autism, all of whom had been vaccinated, and over 80% of whom had received vaccines with 87 or more micrograms of mercury.
Man, I'm really tired of talking about these details. If you think it's hard reading this lengthy piece, try writing it. In fact, it's the painful nature of these pesky details that makes the lie so easy to feed and perpetuate. Who really reads this "expletive deleted"? No one, I think. In fact, I have a little secret to tell you: I have actually read every single study the IOM based their conclusions on and every study the other side claims supports their case. I have them all sitting right next to me here in a tidy little folder. I may be the only human being on earth (except perhaps Bernadine Healy) who has actually done this.
How am I so sure? I'm not, really. I just know it took me several hours and several hundred dollars to even get all the studies together in one place. You see, many of the actual studies are not freely available online for the average journalist to find, you have to buy them from the websites of the journals. Testing this hypothesis a step further, I asked a journalism friend of mine to ask Every Child By Two if they had copies of all the studies they cite on their website that prove vaccines don't cause autism. Surely they had copies and had read them all…surely?
Here's what he heard back:
Unfortunately we do not have copies of all of the studies available. I would suggest that if you check the main library at [your school]. They often get these journals even though your school doesn't have a medical or nursing program and you can copy what you need. Some may also be available online.
Rich Greenaway
Director of Operations and Special Projects
Every Child By Two
Nope, even ECBT doesn't have the studies; they just speak authoritatively about the conclusions of studies they've never actually read…
The "British" Study – Am I on Neptune?
Ok, I'll admit it -- up until a week ago, I'd never read the large-scale epidemiological study from the UK that clearly shows vaccines don't cause autism as was clearly stated in the Reuters article and clearly part of the IOM's very clear conclusion. I feel terrible, but I just never took the time to read it.
When I finally read it, cover to cover, all 7 pages of this published study, I only had one conclusion: Am I living on ... Neptune?
You see, if you think the CDC study I just told you about is a shaky foundation for building a hungry lie, then the British study is the foundation of a thousand year old clay shack in the Sichuan Province during a 9.0 earthquake.
Like all studies, the UK study has a very official sounding name, and one I will repeat so I can be as clear as possible:
Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
Wow, that's an earful. Oddly, like few other studies I have seen, the title includes the conclusion of the study, albeit a deceitful representation of the actual conclusion.
This UK study is such junk, it's really hard to write about. I imagine a journalist trying to read this study for the first time, and probably struggling with what the hell was actually done, sort of like a monthly statement from Bernie Madoff, and falling back to just reading the title again and hoping for the best. Yet, after reading the study enough times, I was able to actually figure out what had been done, and I'll start by quoting you from the authors' own summary of what they did, from the Methods section of the study on page 577 of Pediatrics in September 2004:
"The study has been monitoring >14 000 Children who are from the geographic area formerly known as Avon, United Kingdom, and were delivered in 1991–1992. The age at which doses of thimerosal-containing vaccines were administered was recorded, and measures of mercury exposure by 3, 4, and 6 months of age were calculated and compared with a number of measures of Childhood cognitive and behavioral development covering the period from 6 to 91 months of age."
OK, I know. You have no idea what that means, I certainly didn't. So, I will use the kind of English most of us can understand so you can see how amazingly unbelievable this study really is:
- 100% of the children in this study were vaccinated
- 100% of the children in this study were vaccinated with the thimerosal-containing DTP vaccine
- If you were a child who hadn't completed the full series of thimerosal-containing DTP shots, which in Britain is 3 doses, you weren't even in the study
- The only variable considered, and I'm going to put ONLY in all-caps so you really hear me, the ONLY variable considered was the TIMING of the 3 doses of thimerosal-containing DTP vaccines given to kids
- And, when I say timing, what I mean is they compared kids who had gotten these shots by 3 months, 4 months, and 6 months
That's it.
The timing of thimerosal-containing shots was explored. The authors are actually honest about this in their own conclusion to the study:
"This study, based on a large United Kingdom–based prospective cohort, shows no evidence of any harmful effect of an accelerated immunization schedule with thimerosal-containing vaccines."
There it is, clear as day: an accelerated schedule of TCVs. TIMING is the only variable this study considered.
One side point, for those of you who noticed. The IOM study came out in May 2004. This study was published in Pediatrics in September 2004, four months later. What gives? What gives is that the AAP did an excellent job of getting a crap study in front of their friends at the IOM to give them more ammunition to birth the hungry lie.
A "Dose" of Reality
It's hard to write this piece, because it makes me lose even greater faith in our health authorities. I think about a guy like Dr. David Tayloe and I just want to know what's actually true:
- Is he the gullible guy who just believes what others say and repeats it?
- Is he so stupid that he's read all the science and believes it proves that vaccines don't cause autism?
- Does he know the science doesn't remotely say that, but thinks it's better to say so anyway and protect the vaccine program?
I don't know, but any of those reasons pretty much suck.
I mention above about giving a dose of reality, so I'm going to. But first, a question:
What is the purpose of science, and more specifically, of medical research?
I think the purpose of science and medical research is the betterment of the human race. To help us live longer, healthier, happier lies. To answer all the tough questions about what's good for us and what's bad for us. The customer of medical research is mankind.
If mankind is the customer here, I would make another argument. Mankind's most important members are babies and children. Agree? And, nothing is more painful for mankind or more detrimental to mankind's life, liberty, and happiness than a sick child. Ask any family.
So, here's some reality for you:
Terry has a daughter named Hannah. Through eighteen months, Hannah's pediatrician notes she is meeting all developmental milestones – a normal developing child. At nineteen months, Hannah gets taken to the pediatrician, presumably by her Mom, and she gets five shots in one visit: DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV. A five shot visit? In the U.S., this happens thousands of times a day.
Suddenly, things for Hannah change. I'll let the now-famous court document tell the story from here:
"According to her mother's affidavit, Hannah developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. She exhibited intermittent, high-pitched screaming and a decreased response to stimuli. Terry spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that Hannah was having a normal reaction to her immunizations. According to Hannah's mother, this behavior continued over the next ten days, and Hannah also began to arch her back when she cried.
On July 31, 2000, Hannah presented to the Pediatric Center with a 101-102 degree temperature, a diminished appetite, and small red dots on her chest. The nurse practitioner recorded that Hannah was extremely irritable and inconsolable. She was diagnosed with a post-varicella vaccination rash.
Two months later, on September 26, 2000, Hannah returned to the Pediatric Center with a temperature of 102 degrees, diarrhea, nasal discharge, a reduced appetite, and pulling at her left ear. Two days later, on September 28, 2000, Hannah was again seen at the Pediatric Center because her diarrhea continued, she was congested, and her mother reported that Hannah was crying during urination. On November 1, 2000, Hannah received bilateral PE tubes. On November 13, 2000, a physician at ENT Associates noted that Hannah was "obviously hearing better" and her audiogram was normal. On November 27, 2000, Hannah was seen at the Pediatric Center with complaints of diarrhea, vomiting, diminished energy, fever, and a rash on her cheek. At a follow-up visit, on December 14, 2000, the doctor noted that Hannah had a possible speech delay.
Hannah was evaluated at the Howard County Infants and Toddlers Program, on November 17, 2000, and November 28, 2000, due to concerns about her language development. The assessment team observed deficits in Hannah's communication and social development. Hannah's mother reported that Hannah had become less responsive to verbal direction in the previous four months and had lost some language skills.
On December 21, 2000, Hannah returned to ENT Associates because of an obstruction in her right ear and fussiness. Dr. Grace Matesic identified a middle ear effusion and recorded that Hannah was having some balance issues and not progressing with her speech. On December 27, 2000, Hannah visited ENT Associates, where Dr. Grace Matesic observed that Hannah's left PE tube was obstructed with crust. The tube was replaced on January 17, 2001.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, evaluated Hannah at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic ("Krieger Institute"), on February 8, 2001. Dr. Zimmerman reported that after Hannah's immunizations of July 19, 2000, an "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." He noted a disruption in Hannah's sleep patterns, persistent screaming and arching, the development of pica to foreign objects, and loose stools. Dr. Zimmerman observed that Hannah watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination and would not make eye contact. He diagnosed Hannah with "regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." Dr. Zimmerman ordered genetic testing, a magnetic resonance imaging test ("MRI"), and an electroencephalogram ("EEG").
Did you read that whole excerpt? Did you really read it? If you did, and if you are human, it rips your heart out. If you are the parent of a child with autism as I am, it more than rips your heart out, it causes you to die all over again. And, as we both know, Hannah's story is far from unique. In the autism world, it's the norm. I'd hazard to guess that Hannah's story is shared by several hundred thousand families in the US alone.
How does the experience above benefit mankind?
Can science help us out of this mess?
The Failure of Science and the Big Lie
As we all know, Hannah's Mom is a nurse and her Dad is a neurologist. I've never met the Polings nor have I ever talked to them. But, I know that Jon, Hannah's dad, was very much part of the mainstream medical establishment before seeing what happened to his daughter, as he himself has said.
I have no doubt that as Dr. Poling was watching these events unfold with his daughter that he was looking for answers through science and from the people and journals he trusted. And, I have little doubt that he found nothing.
Let me ask you a simple question, and I particularly want to ask it of the liars like David Tayloe, Paul Offit, Nancy Snyderman, and others who falsely reassure parents every day that everything is OK when everything is not OK. Please, a simple question:
Can you show me the science that would convince the Polings that it wasn't the vaccines?
Please. Show me. She got five vaccines in one day. She was never the same. Show me the science where you can proudly stand up and say, "Vaccines do not cause autism, I'm sorry about what happened to your daughter but it wasn't the vaccines, please read this." Is it the British study, the one that made me think I was on Neptune? Or, is it that one from CDC, the one where they were unable to determine anything? Which one should the Polings look at so they can move off of vaccines as a likely culprit to their daughter's regressive autism?
The lie needs to end. Those who have been telling the lie need to be called out. They need to be removed. Every day, another parent is falsely reassured because they listen to someone they think they can trust who is feeding the hungry lie.
It makes me so damn mad to write this piece, perhaps that's why it's so long, but really, I don't even know how to end it. The more I look at the details, the madder I get. Since I can't trust myself to end this piece in a thoughtful way, I will bring in Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health, herself an M.D. from Harvard and someone who directed the nation's largest organization dedicated to medical research.
Dr. Healy fits into this story because it was Hannah Poling's case that caused her to take a closer look at the controversy. Unlike many of the feeders of the lie, I have no doubt that Dr. Healy actually has read the science that many of her colleagues claim shows vaccines don't cause autism, and Dr. Healy didn't like what she learned at all. So, I'm going to finish with a quote from her, but not until I get one final request in here:
If you are reading this, and you can do something about all these liars who falsely reassure parents every day, please do. Thank you.
Here's Bernadine Healy, talking to CBS Evening News:
"We have to take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it. I think we have the tools today that we didn't have 10 years ago, 20 yrs ago, to try and tease that out and find out if there is a susceptible group…A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines are not good. What a susceptible group will tell us is that maybe there is a group of individual who shouldn't have a particular vaccine or shouldn't have vaccines on the same schedule…I don't believe that if we identify the susceptibility group, if we identify a particular risk factor for vaccines or if we found out that maybe they should be spread out a little longer, I do not believe that the public would lose faith in vaccines…
I think that the government or certain public officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick…I haven't seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine…I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation…I think they have been too quick to dismiss studies in the animal laboratory either in mice, in primates, that do show some concerns with regard to certain vaccines and also to the mercury preservative in vaccines…The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public…I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show…
Populations do not test causality, they test associations. You have to go into the laboratory and you have to do designed research studies in animals…The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. You can save those children…The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done on animals.
If you also look at some of these individual cases and if you look at the evidence that there is no link what I come away with is the question has not been answered."
J.B. Handley is co-founder of Generation Rescue and a contributor to Age of Autism.
for all one knows, that kid could have been given aspirin the day before, or right after by a parent who did not know not to give aspirin
Again, when you are 100% behind the fact that Bush has killed 1.89 MILLION people based on a phony official story, we can talk.
But I haven't seen you post on any of those threads.
(and neither does RWS very often).
Thats 1.89 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide who have been eliminated in just the last 7 1/2 years alone.(who knows how many more million were wounded
and add the family members and it probably is more than what Hitler did).
Again, when you are 100% behind the fact that Bush has killed 1.89 MILLION people based on a phony official story, we can talk.
But I haven't seen you post on any of those threads.
(and neither does RWS very often).
Thats 1.89 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide who have been eliminated in just the last 7 1/2 years alone.(who knows how many more million were wounded
and add the family members and it probably is more than what Hitler did).
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 10 2009, 08:54 AM)
for all one knows, that kid could have been given aspirin the day before, or right after by a parent who did not know not to give aspirin
Again, when you are 100% behind the fact that Bush has killed 1.89 MILLION people based on a phony official story, we can talk.
But I haven't seen you post on any of those threads.
(and neither does RWS very often).
Thats 1.89 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide who have been eliminated in just the last 7 1/2 years alone.(who knows how many more million were wounded
and add the family members and it probably is more than what Hitler did).
Again, when you are 100% behind the fact that Bush has killed 1.89 MILLION people based on a phony official story, we can talk.
But I haven't seen you post on any of those threads.
(and neither does RWS very often).
Thats 1.89 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide who have been eliminated in just the last 7 1/2 years alone.(who knows how many more million were wounded
and add the family members and it probably is more than what Hitler did).
Graham, when you are this offensive how can you expect anything but the most derisive kind of dismissal? Believe it's views on 911, which you don't know, have no bearing on this issue. And he owes you absolutely nothing about his views on that. If he wants to discuss them, he will discuss them. That's it! Judge his views on this matter on the merits of the case he makes.
And RWS doesn't owe you anything either.
I nearly fell out of my chair tonight upon hearing Olbermann label Dr. Andrew Wakefield 'The Worst Person In The World.'
Prediction: Olberman will issue a full retraction in time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29128976
Worst Person in the World (BIG MISTAKE)
More negative media here except, of course, by the parents of children with autism vociferously defending him,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/d...w_n_165033.html
Link from Huffington Post to original Brian Deer article
526 Comments
Looked around online for an explanation, ho, ho, ho, very interesting... now this makes much more sense.
CHRONOLOGY:
1 - “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” by Dr. Ari Brown is published
Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Brown’s “Clear Answers” is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. Given this background, any reasonable person might expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview.
2 - Response by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues supported by 20 child health safety organisations is published online February 6, 2009.
Press release and full report below.
3 - Brian Deer publishes factually inaccurate article in TimesOnline after notification of Dr. Wakefield on February 6.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5683671.ece
4 - Dr. Andrew Wakefield issues full rebuttal within 24 hours unreported by mass media, however.
Prediction: Olberman will issue a full retraction in time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29128976
Worst Person in the World (BIG MISTAKE)
More negative media here except, of course, by the parents of children with autism vociferously defending him,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/d...w_n_165033.html
Link from Huffington Post to original Brian Deer article
526 Comments
Looked around online for an explanation, ho, ho, ho, very interesting... now this makes much more sense.
CHRONOLOGY:
1 - “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” by Dr. Ari Brown is published
Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Brown’s “Clear Answers” is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. Given this background, any reasonable person might expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview.
2 - Response by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues supported by 20 child health safety organisations is published online February 6, 2009.
Press release and full report below.
QUOTE
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.htm
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Feb 6, 2009
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
Read Full Document: Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
The full response was produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccine-autism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response.
We are most grateful to the Editor and staff of Medical Veritas for their expert assistance in the review and editing of this document. The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924.
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Feb 6, 2009
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
Read Full Document: Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
The full response was produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccine-autism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response.
We are most grateful to the Editor and staff of Medical Veritas for their expert assistance in the review and editing of this document. The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924.
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath
3 - Brian Deer publishes factually inaccurate article in TimesOnline after notification of Dr. Wakefield on February 6.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5683671.ece
4 - Dr. Andrew Wakefield issues full rebuttal within 24 hours unreported by mass media, however.
QUOTE
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer-response.pdf
Autism, bowel disease, and MMR vaccination
In his desperation, Deer gets it wrong once again
By Andy Wakefield
Below is a list of the allegations made by Brain Deer against me, received on Friday 6th February 2009, 2 days prior to his publishing in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper (my response is provided in Arial font)...
Autism, bowel disease, and MMR vaccination
In his desperation, Deer gets it wrong once again
By Andy Wakefield
Below is a list of the allegations made by Brain Deer against me, received on Friday 6th February 2009, 2 days prior to his publishing in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper (my response is provided in Arial font)...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 10 2009, 09:35 AM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 10 2009, 08:54 AM)
for all one knows, that kid could have been given aspirin the day before, or right after by a parent who did not know not to give aspirin
Again, when you are 100% behind the fact that Bush has killed 1.89 MILLION people based on a phony official story, we can talk.
But I haven't seen you post on any of those threads.
(and neither does RWS very often).
Thats 1.89 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide who have been eliminated in just the last 7 1/2 years alone.(who knows how many more million were wounded
and add the family members and it probably is more than what Hitler did).
Again, when you are 100% behind the fact that Bush has killed 1.89 MILLION people based on a phony official story, we can talk.
But I haven't seen you post on any of those threads.
(and neither does RWS very often).
Thats 1.89 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide who have been eliminated in just the last 7 1/2 years alone.(who knows how many more million were wounded
and add the family members and it probably is more than what Hitler did).
Graham, when you are this offensive how can you expect anything but the most derisive kind of dismissal? Believe it's views on 911, which you don't know, have no bearing on this issue. And he owes you absolutely nothing about his views on that. If he wants to discuss them, he will discuss them. That's it! Judge his views on this matter on the merits of the case he makes.
And RWS doesn't owe you anything either.
no, they don't owe me anything
But just in general, anyone who not only believes the official story of 9-11, but refuses to even consider the 911truth, owes 1.9 million people who died,
and 5 million more family members of those 1.9, let alone the injured, etc...they are owed an apology
Seems in the realm of importance, the sheer #s of that is alot more, than statistical noise.
Good odds are, it was plain ole' Johnson & johnson aspirin that made those kids sick, because they had a little sore feeling after the innoculation
(which can be from any jab). And the parents forgot one never gives aspirin to little kiddies, but Tylenol. (unless the batch is poisoned).
and then...
Keith Olbermann is one of the good guys.
Now they resort to smearing him
Good night and good luck indeed.
Talk about a witchhunt.
Let alone smearing millions and millions of more learned doctors than this Wakeman dude. (who has been repudiated how many times?
Just like the so called "doctors" who say Al Gore is full of spit.
How many times have we seen that?
Hey, the world is flat (as Hal Ketchum said, must be, "because people leave town and they never come back"
©Hal Ketchum Small Town Saturday Night
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 11 2009, 05:28 AM)
no, they don't owe me anything...
But you do owe it to yourself to carefully read this, it explains a lot. Explicitly WRITTEN FOR PHYSICIANS AND TO BE PUBLISHED IN A MEDICAL JOURNAL (where the battle belongs, not in a proxy fight on Olbermann with inane name-calling), the authors begin,
"Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
QUOTE
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath1; Mark Blaxill, MBA1; Boyd Haley, PhD3;
Anissa Ryland1; Daniel Hollenbeck, BS1; Jane Johnson1,4; James Moody, JD5; Carol Stott, PhD1,2
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
This document is produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccineautism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response. (Note: Dr. Brown’s comments are italicized.)
“I’ve heard autism is on the rise. Why?”
Brown begins by addressing the rise in autism diagnoses. The question of whether the rise is real or not is an important one that has profound political and policy implications. It matters because if the increase is real, there must be an environmental contribution to the cause. There’s no such thing as a purely “genetic” epidemic. If there’s an environmental cause(s), then it, or they, can be found and eliminated, thereby preventing many new cases of autism. The search for an environmental cause might also inform treatment strategies for existing cases. Denial of the epidemic takes resources away from looking for an environmental cause.
Brown proposes alternative explanations for the rising number of cases: “Displacing one diagnosis for another: In previous generations, many children were diagnosed with mental retardation, schizophrenia or some other psychiatric disorder. Today many of these same kids are diagnosed with severe autism.”
Brown’s position is not supported by the scientific evidence. In 2002 astudy of California children, born 1987–1994, examined the degree to which improvements in detection of autism and changes in diagnostic guidelines have contributed to the observed increase in autism prevalence [2]. The study also evaluated any change in prevalence of mental retardation (MR) without autism over the same period. The authors reported that autism prevalence increased by 9.1 per 10,000, while during the same period the prevalence of mental retardation without autism decreased by a similar amount. They initially concluded that diagnostic substitution (displacing one diagnosis for another) accounted for the observed increase in autism. The authors’ conclusions were amended, however, after Blaxill, et al. pointed to several fundamental improvements in detection of autism and changes in diagnostic guidelines have contributed to the observed increase in autism prevalence [2]. The study also evaluated any change in prevalence of mental retardation (MR) without autism over the same period. The authors reported that autism prevalence increased by 9.1 per 10,000, while during the same period the prevalence of mental retardation without autism decreased by a similar amount. They initially concluded that diagnostic substitution (displacing one diagnosis for another) accounted for the observed increase in autism. The authors’ conclusions were amended, however, after Blaxill, et al. pointed to several fundamental analytic errors, including the failure to account for age-related ascertainment biases in the mental retardation category [3]. After a re-analysis in which these factors were taken into account, Croen, et al. withdrew the conclusion of their
original paper, stating instead that “diagnostic substitution does not appear to account for the increased trend in autism prevalence” [4].
A larger study reported by Newschaffer, et al. also failed to find a decline in either mental retardation or speech and language disability, while autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) continued to rise [5].
Finally, in 2006 Shattuck sought to revive the hypothesis of diagnostic substitution that by then had been either proposed and retracted [2-4], disavowed [6], or falsified [7-10] in previous studies [11]. Again, it was Mark Blaxill who pointed out that in constructing a set of diagnostic categories that showed a declining trend in MR, Shattuck omitted developmental delay (DD), a category that was added to US special education in 1997 and was often used interchangeably with MR [3,10]. A simple analysis was drawn up showing the effect of adding DD cases to the data on the supposed substitution of autism for MR, which is shown on the following page. The inclusion of the DD category eliminated Shattuck’s hypothesized substitution effect between MR and autism.
“Changing criteria, broader diagnosis: The definition of autism has changed over the years. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the authoritative bible for psychiatric disorders in the US. The first two editions never even listed autism as a diagnosis…it was not until 1980 when psychologists recognized autism. That’s when the DSM for the first time listed criteria for diagnosis of autism. The autism diagnosis broadened again in 1994 when several more disorders were officially added to the DSM: Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), PDD-NOS (not otherwise specified, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder)… By expanding the definition of autism, suddenly many more kids were declared autistic…”
This is incorrect. PDD was included in the DSM-III in 1980 [12]. PDDNOS appeared in the DSM-III-R in 1987 [13], and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder was included in DSM-II in 1968, as a psychosis of infancy and early childhood [14]. The only addition has been the specification of Asperger’s syndrome in 1994, a condition previously recognized and subsumed under DSM classifications from 1980 onwards as either Childhood Onset Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Atypical Developmental Disorder (DSM-III) or as PDD-NOS in DSM-III-R. In fact, the diagnostic criteria for autism underwent a corrective narrowing in 1994 [15], adjusting for apparent false-positives noted in DSM-III-R, and converging with ICD-10, which made the autism diagnosis more exclusive and the non-autistic spectrum disorders more clearly defined. Despite this, the dramatic increase in numbers of children with both autism and non-autistic spectrum disorders has continued.
“Unfortunately, many states don’t break out where kids are on the autism spectrum. California’s autism rate is often cited in the media as example [sic] of the ‘autism epidemic’—yet California doesn’t specify where kids are on the autism spectrum, so it’s hard to get solid numbers.”
This is also incorrect. California’s autism numbers are provided by the Department of Developmental Services, based on DSM criteria. In order to be eligible for services in this system, a professional diagnosis of full-syndrome DSM autistic disorder is required. California data exclude those with Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and all other non-autistic PDD diagnoses [16].
“Better awareness, better and earlier diagnosis: When it comes to autism, this newfound awareness is actually a positive step. More people—parent and doctors alike—are on the lookout for children with autism.”
Not in California. Notably, in order to reduce the growing number of new autism diagnoses, the state government, in response to the budget crisis in 2003, changed the eligibility criteria for all conditions entitled to services, to exclude children who could tie their shoelaces. Despite this effort to artificially reduce autism numbers, children with autism fail this ill-conceived test and continue to flood into the system in record numbers [16].
“Making a diagnosis and starting therapy earlier in life improves kids’ long-term outcomes. But it also looks like autism is on the rise. Why? Because kids were previously diagnosed with autism after age five or six. Today, kids are diagnosed as early as 18 months of age. This adds many more kids to the rolls ... but is autism really increasing? Or is there just an earlier diagnosis?”
Earlier diagnosis has no impact on the ultimate prevalence for any particular birth cohort (group born in any calendar year). Earlier diagnosis would initially lead to an apparent increase in numbers, but this apparent increase would disappear over time as all children who were going to develop autism in any particular birth-year group were eventually diagnosed. If earlier diagnosis
were the cause of the “apparent” rise, then by age ten, for example, all children with autism would be diagnosed whether they were born in 1980 or 1990. This has not happened. There were many more children with autism who were born in 1990. The California data show that when comparing the prevalence of autism by age six in 1989 with children aged six in 2000 (by that age the great majority of affected children would have been diagnosed in both years), the prevalence of autism was greater by a factor of over sevenfold in 2000 compared with 1989 [17].
Although not available to Brown at the time she went to press, a new study of autism incidence in California [18] dispels the myth that the rise isn’t real. This important study, published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Epidemiology, was reported as indicating that “research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California’s children”[19]. “It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto [19], a professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology, and an internationally respected autism researcher.
“Why does the U.S. have so many autism cases? Autism is not just an American disease— it happens worldwide. But why do the U.S. and United Kingdom have such high autism rates? That’s because the U.S. and U.K. have done the lion’s share of research and studies into autism.”
It is far more likely that the US and the UK have done more research because this is where the epidemic was first manifest, and where the caseload is greatest and therefore where the need for research is self-evident. Research is responsive—albeit typically belatedly so—to demand. It rarely anticipates demand, and it did not cause the rise in autism.
“And counting autistic kids is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before recent legislation led to schools labeling more kids as autistic, researchers just looked at either medical or school records to determine autism rates. This was imprecise to say the least.”
Brown is wrong; pervasive developmental disorders have been the subject of empirical diagnostic trials for decades. Indeed, the changes implemented in versions of DSM from DSM-III to III-R to IV were based primarily on extensive, multisite, international field trials comparing current and proposed definitions [20, 21].
With respect to legislation for schools, children with autism have been entitled to special education benefits under the federal-state IDEA program since its inception in 1975. IDEA was amended in 1990 to require that autism be counted and reported separately because it was rising faster than all other covered disabilities [22]. The change in IDEA did not cause the epidemic—it was a logical response to it.
“Prevalence vs. Incidence: Most of what we know about autism rates is based on prevalence studies: these are a sampling of a population at one point in time used to estimate overall rates. By contrast, incidence studies identify the ACTUAL number of autism cases over a period of time.”
This statement is inaccurate; a prevalence estimate is not a “rate” but a proportion (a rate is a measure of occurrence over time). We might describe prevalence as a snapshot, and incidence as a short movie. Brown contends that prevalence studies provide only estimates based on a population sample, while incidence studies (somehow) provide actual numbers of cases, rather than mere estimates. In fact, incidence is also an estimate, an approximation based on population samples. The difference is that incidence estimates involve counting the number of new cases occurring over a specified time-period (e.g., the number of new flu cases per month per thousand in the population) rather than the number of existing cases at any one time (e.g., all flu sufferers at a
single point in time). Both are estimates, and neither is more nor less accurate than the other. They simply measure different things.
“The only way to know if autism is really an epidemic is to see a rise in the incidence of autism.” Incidence studies would provide no further clues about the reasons for the rise than do prevalence studies. The reason incidence studies would advance our understanding of causality is that they would help us design studies with sufficient power to compare levels of risk between groups, e.g., the fully vaccinated vs. the never vaccinated.
"Unfortunately, there are very few incidence studies of autism. That’s because it is extremely difficult to do this research. Only one incidence study on autism is available—that 2005 report found that rates of PDD in the 90’s were unchanged. So even though PREVALANCE studies seem to show autism is increasing, the incidence proof is lacking.”
This is incorrect. Several incidence studies are available, and they show a rise. Honda, et al. published a study on the cumulative incidence of autism in Yokohama, Japan. They found a remarkable rise in incidence, from less than 20 per 10,000 per year in 1987 to over 160 per 10,000 per year in 1994—just a seven-year period, which concomitantly followed the introduction of the
MMR vaccine [23]. (Additional data presented in this paper have been misinterpreted as indicating no effect of MMR on rising incidence; this is discussed in detail below.)
Kaye, et al. carried out an incidence study of autism in the UK using the General Practitioners Research Database; they found that the incidence of newly diagnosed autism amongst children under 12 years of age increased sevenfold, from 0.3 per 10,000 people in 1988 to 21 per 10,000 people in 1999 [24]. Powell, et al. have provided a further incidence study from the UK [25], and now another is available from California, confirming a real and major increase [18]. For a more detailed analysis of this issue, one can read Mark Blaxill’s “What’s going on? The question of time trends in autism”[26].
“Social acceptance: We’ve come a long way since autism was first identified as a disorder. Originally, experts thought autism was caused by poor parenting— namely, the mother.”
This is true; in fact, a generation or less ago, “refrigerator mothers” were blamed for hating their children and thus causing their children’s autism.
“Today, we realize it is not mom’s fault—and thus parents are more willing to accept an ASD diagnosis. And the diagnosis now allows for special education services, which many parents realize can help their child.”
The implication that there might be a group of undiagnosed older people with autism has been used by others to argue that this has kept apparent incidence rates lower in the past. If so, where are all the autistic adults? There should be at least 1 in 150 walking around in plain view or in institutions if this suggestion is true; although studies have searched [27-29], the few cases that have been found—they have been referred to as the “Hidden Horde,” somewhat ironically—could not account for the rise.
“Over or misdiagnosis? There is so much awareness now of Autism Spectrum Disorders, that perhaps clinicians are over diagnosing it. One reputable study suggests that kids who actually have anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, and personality disorders may be misdiagnosed now with ASD.”
The “reputable study” cited by Brown makes no reference whatsoever to anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders or personality disorders [30]. In addition, the reference she mis-cites is a theoretical analysis, and not one based upon an actual population of children. As such, it remains speculative. In contrast, a study from the M.I.N.D Institute at UC Davis showed that a
comparison of diagnostic quality in two groups of children with autism—one diagnosed in the mid-80s and one diagnosed in the mid-90s—showed that the diagnostic precision was identical in both groups [31].
“These are possible explanations for the ‘autism epidemic’—but we don’t have all the answers yet. The bottom line: in the 1980’s, one in 10,000 kids were diagnosed with autism. Today, it’s one in 150. The U.S. is not the only country seeing this trend. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, and Sweden also report a disconcerting rise.”
In 2009 this “1 in 150” number is likely to be considerably higher. Brown bases her statement on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That in turn is based on data from six years ago on eightyear- old children. In fact, the CDC has two ongoing projects to study autism prevalence: ADDM Network and the MADDSP. Back in 2003 the MADDSP program published a study pegging autism prevalence at 1 in 250, based on data recorded in 1996. Four short years later, on February 9, 2007, the ADDM Network published two studies indicating autism prevalence at 1 in 150, using data from 2000 and 2002. The second of these studies showed that several states had a statistically significant growth of autism prevalence between 2000 and 2002 [32].
The CDC updated their website on February 7, 2007 stating that: “CDC will soon publish the following: An update from MADDSP on the prevalence of ASDs over time in metropolitan Atlanta and updated reports from the ADDM Network on the prevalence of ASDs in multiple areas of the United States in 2004 and 2006.” It is two years later and this data has not yet been published or released.
In 1992 there were 15,580 affected children in the IDEA (public education) system; fourteen years later there were 224,594 children [33]. If the increase were due to greater awareness, as Brown contends, it would mean that as recently as 1992, health care professionals and schools were unaware of (or willfully blind to) 93% of affected children. This seems unlikely.
Bottom line: the autism epidemic is real; already, far too much precious time has been wasted instead of mobilizing the necessary scientific, medical, and educational response.
(continued for an additional 11-1/2 pages at link)
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath1; Mark Blaxill, MBA1; Boyd Haley, PhD3;
Anissa Ryland1; Daniel Hollenbeck, BS1; Jane Johnson1,4; James Moody, JD5; Carol Stott, PhD1,2
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
This document is produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccineautism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response. (Note: Dr. Brown’s comments are italicized.)
“I’ve heard autism is on the rise. Why?”
Brown begins by addressing the rise in autism diagnoses. The question of whether the rise is real or not is an important one that has profound political and policy implications. It matters because if the increase is real, there must be an environmental contribution to the cause. There’s no such thing as a purely “genetic” epidemic. If there’s an environmental cause(s), then it, or they, can be found and eliminated, thereby preventing many new cases of autism. The search for an environmental cause might also inform treatment strategies for existing cases. Denial of the epidemic takes resources away from looking for an environmental cause.
Brown proposes alternative explanations for the rising number of cases: “Displacing one diagnosis for another: In previous generations, many children were diagnosed with mental retardation, schizophrenia or some other psychiatric disorder. Today many of these same kids are diagnosed with severe autism.”
Brown’s position is not supported by the scientific evidence. In 2002 astudy of California children, born 1987–1994, examined the degree to which improvements in detection of autism and changes in diagnostic guidelines have contributed to the observed increase in autism prevalence [2]. The study also evaluated any change in prevalence of mental retardation (MR) without autism over the same period. The authors reported that autism prevalence increased by 9.1 per 10,000, while during the same period the prevalence of mental retardation without autism decreased by a similar amount. They initially concluded that diagnostic substitution (displacing one diagnosis for another) accounted for the observed increase in autism. The authors’ conclusions were amended, however, after Blaxill, et al. pointed to several fundamental improvements in detection of autism and changes in diagnostic guidelines have contributed to the observed increase in autism prevalence [2]. The study also evaluated any change in prevalence of mental retardation (MR) without autism over the same period. The authors reported that autism prevalence increased by 9.1 per 10,000, while during the same period the prevalence of mental retardation without autism decreased by a similar amount. They initially concluded that diagnostic substitution (displacing one diagnosis for another) accounted for the observed increase in autism. The authors’ conclusions were amended, however, after Blaxill, et al. pointed to several fundamental analytic errors, including the failure to account for age-related ascertainment biases in the mental retardation category [3]. After a re-analysis in which these factors were taken into account, Croen, et al. withdrew the conclusion of their
original paper, stating instead that “diagnostic substitution does not appear to account for the increased trend in autism prevalence” [4].
A larger study reported by Newschaffer, et al. also failed to find a decline in either mental retardation or speech and language disability, while autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) continued to rise [5].
Finally, in 2006 Shattuck sought to revive the hypothesis of diagnostic substitution that by then had been either proposed and retracted [2-4], disavowed [6], or falsified [7-10] in previous studies [11]. Again, it was Mark Blaxill who pointed out that in constructing a set of diagnostic categories that showed a declining trend in MR, Shattuck omitted developmental delay (DD), a category that was added to US special education in 1997 and was often used interchangeably with MR [3,10]. A simple analysis was drawn up showing the effect of adding DD cases to the data on the supposed substitution of autism for MR, which is shown on the following page. The inclusion of the DD category eliminated Shattuck’s hypothesized substitution effect between MR and autism.
“Changing criteria, broader diagnosis: The definition of autism has changed over the years. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the authoritative bible for psychiatric disorders in the US. The first two editions never even listed autism as a diagnosis…it was not until 1980 when psychologists recognized autism. That’s when the DSM for the first time listed criteria for diagnosis of autism. The autism diagnosis broadened again in 1994 when several more disorders were officially added to the DSM: Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), PDD-NOS (not otherwise specified, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder)… By expanding the definition of autism, suddenly many more kids were declared autistic…”
This is incorrect. PDD was included in the DSM-III in 1980 [12]. PDDNOS appeared in the DSM-III-R in 1987 [13], and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder was included in DSM-II in 1968, as a psychosis of infancy and early childhood [14]. The only addition has been the specification of Asperger’s syndrome in 1994, a condition previously recognized and subsumed under DSM classifications from 1980 onwards as either Childhood Onset Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Atypical Developmental Disorder (DSM-III) or as PDD-NOS in DSM-III-R. In fact, the diagnostic criteria for autism underwent a corrective narrowing in 1994 [15], adjusting for apparent false-positives noted in DSM-III-R, and converging with ICD-10, which made the autism diagnosis more exclusive and the non-autistic spectrum disorders more clearly defined. Despite this, the dramatic increase in numbers of children with both autism and non-autistic spectrum disorders has continued.
“Unfortunately, many states don’t break out where kids are on the autism spectrum. California’s autism rate is often cited in the media as example [sic] of the ‘autism epidemic’—yet California doesn’t specify where kids are on the autism spectrum, so it’s hard to get solid numbers.”
This is also incorrect. California’s autism numbers are provided by the Department of Developmental Services, based on DSM criteria. In order to be eligible for services in this system, a professional diagnosis of full-syndrome DSM autistic disorder is required. California data exclude those with Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and all other non-autistic PDD diagnoses [16].
“Better awareness, better and earlier diagnosis: When it comes to autism, this newfound awareness is actually a positive step. More people—parent and doctors alike—are on the lookout for children with autism.”
Not in California. Notably, in order to reduce the growing number of new autism diagnoses, the state government, in response to the budget crisis in 2003, changed the eligibility criteria for all conditions entitled to services, to exclude children who could tie their shoelaces. Despite this effort to artificially reduce autism numbers, children with autism fail this ill-conceived test and continue to flood into the system in record numbers [16].
“Making a diagnosis and starting therapy earlier in life improves kids’ long-term outcomes. But it also looks like autism is on the rise. Why? Because kids were previously diagnosed with autism after age five or six. Today, kids are diagnosed as early as 18 months of age. This adds many more kids to the rolls ... but is autism really increasing? Or is there just an earlier diagnosis?”
Earlier diagnosis has no impact on the ultimate prevalence for any particular birth cohort (group born in any calendar year). Earlier diagnosis would initially lead to an apparent increase in numbers, but this apparent increase would disappear over time as all children who were going to develop autism in any particular birth-year group were eventually diagnosed. If earlier diagnosis
were the cause of the “apparent” rise, then by age ten, for example, all children with autism would be diagnosed whether they were born in 1980 or 1990. This has not happened. There were many more children with autism who were born in 1990. The California data show that when comparing the prevalence of autism by age six in 1989 with children aged six in 2000 (by that age the great majority of affected children would have been diagnosed in both years), the prevalence of autism was greater by a factor of over sevenfold in 2000 compared with 1989 [17].
Although not available to Brown at the time she went to press, a new study of autism incidence in California [18] dispels the myth that the rise isn’t real. This important study, published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Epidemiology, was reported as indicating that “research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California’s children”[19]. “It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto [19], a professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology, and an internationally respected autism researcher.
“Why does the U.S. have so many autism cases? Autism is not just an American disease— it happens worldwide. But why do the U.S. and United Kingdom have such high autism rates? That’s because the U.S. and U.K. have done the lion’s share of research and studies into autism.”
It is far more likely that the US and the UK have done more research because this is where the epidemic was first manifest, and where the caseload is greatest and therefore where the need for research is self-evident. Research is responsive—albeit typically belatedly so—to demand. It rarely anticipates demand, and it did not cause the rise in autism.
“And counting autistic kids is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before recent legislation led to schools labeling more kids as autistic, researchers just looked at either medical or school records to determine autism rates. This was imprecise to say the least.”
Brown is wrong; pervasive developmental disorders have been the subject of empirical diagnostic trials for decades. Indeed, the changes implemented in versions of DSM from DSM-III to III-R to IV were based primarily on extensive, multisite, international field trials comparing current and proposed definitions [20, 21].
With respect to legislation for schools, children with autism have been entitled to special education benefits under the federal-state IDEA program since its inception in 1975. IDEA was amended in 1990 to require that autism be counted and reported separately because it was rising faster than all other covered disabilities [22]. The change in IDEA did not cause the epidemic—it was a logical response to it.
“Prevalence vs. Incidence: Most of what we know about autism rates is based on prevalence studies: these are a sampling of a population at one point in time used to estimate overall rates. By contrast, incidence studies identify the ACTUAL number of autism cases over a period of time.”
This statement is inaccurate; a prevalence estimate is not a “rate” but a proportion (a rate is a measure of occurrence over time). We might describe prevalence as a snapshot, and incidence as a short movie. Brown contends that prevalence studies provide only estimates based on a population sample, while incidence studies (somehow) provide actual numbers of cases, rather than mere estimates. In fact, incidence is also an estimate, an approximation based on population samples. The difference is that incidence estimates involve counting the number of new cases occurring over a specified time-period (e.g., the number of new flu cases per month per thousand in the population) rather than the number of existing cases at any one time (e.g., all flu sufferers at a
single point in time). Both are estimates, and neither is more nor less accurate than the other. They simply measure different things.
“The only way to know if autism is really an epidemic is to see a rise in the incidence of autism.” Incidence studies would provide no further clues about the reasons for the rise than do prevalence studies. The reason incidence studies would advance our understanding of causality is that they would help us design studies with sufficient power to compare levels of risk between groups, e.g., the fully vaccinated vs. the never vaccinated.
"Unfortunately, there are very few incidence studies of autism. That’s because it is extremely difficult to do this research. Only one incidence study on autism is available—that 2005 report found that rates of PDD in the 90’s were unchanged. So even though PREVALANCE studies seem to show autism is increasing, the incidence proof is lacking.”
This is incorrect. Several incidence studies are available, and they show a rise. Honda, et al. published a study on the cumulative incidence of autism in Yokohama, Japan. They found a remarkable rise in incidence, from less than 20 per 10,000 per year in 1987 to over 160 per 10,000 per year in 1994—just a seven-year period, which concomitantly followed the introduction of the
MMR vaccine [23]. (Additional data presented in this paper have been misinterpreted as indicating no effect of MMR on rising incidence; this is discussed in detail below.)
Kaye, et al. carried out an incidence study of autism in the UK using the General Practitioners Research Database; they found that the incidence of newly diagnosed autism amongst children under 12 years of age increased sevenfold, from 0.3 per 10,000 people in 1988 to 21 per 10,000 people in 1999 [24]. Powell, et al. have provided a further incidence study from the UK [25], and now another is available from California, confirming a real and major increase [18]. For a more detailed analysis of this issue, one can read Mark Blaxill’s “What’s going on? The question of time trends in autism”[26].
“Social acceptance: We’ve come a long way since autism was first identified as a disorder. Originally, experts thought autism was caused by poor parenting— namely, the mother.”
This is true; in fact, a generation or less ago, “refrigerator mothers” were blamed for hating their children and thus causing their children’s autism.
“Today, we realize it is not mom’s fault—and thus parents are more willing to accept an ASD diagnosis. And the diagnosis now allows for special education services, which many parents realize can help their child.”
The implication that there might be a group of undiagnosed older people with autism has been used by others to argue that this has kept apparent incidence rates lower in the past. If so, where are all the autistic adults? There should be at least 1 in 150 walking around in plain view or in institutions if this suggestion is true; although studies have searched [27-29], the few cases that have been found—they have been referred to as the “Hidden Horde,” somewhat ironically—could not account for the rise.
“Over or misdiagnosis? There is so much awareness now of Autism Spectrum Disorders, that perhaps clinicians are over diagnosing it. One reputable study suggests that kids who actually have anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, and personality disorders may be misdiagnosed now with ASD.”
The “reputable study” cited by Brown makes no reference whatsoever to anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders or personality disorders [30]. In addition, the reference she mis-cites is a theoretical analysis, and not one based upon an actual population of children. As such, it remains speculative. In contrast, a study from the M.I.N.D Institute at UC Davis showed that a
comparison of diagnostic quality in two groups of children with autism—one diagnosed in the mid-80s and one diagnosed in the mid-90s—showed that the diagnostic precision was identical in both groups [31].
“These are possible explanations for the ‘autism epidemic’—but we don’t have all the answers yet. The bottom line: in the 1980’s, one in 10,000 kids were diagnosed with autism. Today, it’s one in 150. The U.S. is not the only country seeing this trend. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, and Sweden also report a disconcerting rise.”
In 2009 this “1 in 150” number is likely to be considerably higher. Brown bases her statement on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That in turn is based on data from six years ago on eightyear- old children. In fact, the CDC has two ongoing projects to study autism prevalence: ADDM Network and the MADDSP. Back in 2003 the MADDSP program published a study pegging autism prevalence at 1 in 250, based on data recorded in 1996. Four short years later, on February 9, 2007, the ADDM Network published two studies indicating autism prevalence at 1 in 150, using data from 2000 and 2002. The second of these studies showed that several states had a statistically significant growth of autism prevalence between 2000 and 2002 [32].
The CDC updated their website on February 7, 2007 stating that: “CDC will soon publish the following: An update from MADDSP on the prevalence of ASDs over time in metropolitan Atlanta and updated reports from the ADDM Network on the prevalence of ASDs in multiple areas of the United States in 2004 and 2006.” It is two years later and this data has not yet been published or released.
In 1992 there were 15,580 affected children in the IDEA (public education) system; fourteen years later there were 224,594 children [33]. If the increase were due to greater awareness, as Brown contends, it would mean that as recently as 1992, health care professionals and schools were unaware of (or willfully blind to) 93% of affected children. This seems unlikely.
Bottom line: the autism epidemic is real; already, far too much precious time has been wasted instead of mobilizing the necessary scientific, medical, and educational response.
(continued for an additional 11-1/2 pages at link)
(The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924)
are you cgcs poster veritas under a different name? (so as to present an argument of a different political bend than normal,
your posting style is quite similiar?)
(though I might not argue veritas' posts, so if you are, let me know).
your posting style is quite similiar?)
(though I might not argue veritas' posts, so if you are, let me know).
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/olmsted...-the-world.html
Olmsted on Autism: Worst Person in the World
By Dan Olmsted
February 11, 2009
Yesterday morning I warned that things could go against us big-time in the next few months -- see Steel Thyself. So Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calling Andy Wakefield "The Worst Person in the World" last night didn't exactly shock me. In this case, you have to laugh (a little) because the first and second runners-up for Worst Person of the World were Olbermann's Permanent Nemesis Bill O'Reilly and someone else from, as Olbermann puts it, "Fix News." That's Fox, of course. Owner: Rupert Murdoch. And where is Olbermann getting his information about Wakefield? From the Times of London. Owner: Rupert Murdoch. C'mon Keith, show a little consistency here, will ya?
Meanwhile, check out this superb look at current issues in the vaccine-autism debate written by Andy, with our own Mark Blaxill as a co-author (HERE.)
And be sure to visit the Child Health Safety blog post: Sunday Times Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation.
You can email Keith Olbermann at countdown@msnbc.com.
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.
Olmsted on Autism: Worst Person in the World
By Dan Olmsted
February 11, 2009
Yesterday morning I warned that things could go against us big-time in the next few months -- see Steel Thyself. So Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calling Andy Wakefield "The Worst Person in the World" last night didn't exactly shock me. In this case, you have to laugh (a little) because the first and second runners-up for Worst Person of the World were Olbermann's Permanent Nemesis Bill O'Reilly and someone else from, as Olbermann puts it, "Fix News." That's Fox, of course. Owner: Rupert Murdoch. And where is Olbermann getting his information about Wakefield? From the Times of London. Owner: Rupert Murdoch. C'mon Keith, show a little consistency here, will ya?
Meanwhile, check out this superb look at current issues in the vaccine-autism debate written by Andy, with our own Mark Blaxill as a co-author (HERE.)
And be sure to visit the Child Health Safety blog post: Sunday Times Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation.
You can email Keith Olbermann at countdown@msnbc.com.
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 11 2009, 05:28 AM)
no, they don't owe me anything
But just in general, anyone who not only believes the official story of 9-11, but refuses to even consider the 911truth, owes 1.9 million people who died,
and 5 million more family members of those 1.9, let alone the injured, etc...they are owed an apology
Seems in the realm of importance, the sheer #s of that is alot more, than statistical noise.
But just in general, anyone who not only believes the official story of 9-11, but refuses to even consider the 911truth, owes 1.9 million people who died,
and 5 million more family members of those 1.9, let alone the injured, etc...they are owed an apology
Seems in the realm of importance, the sheer #s of that is alot more, than statistical noise.
Rather arrogant, aren't we?
What if the so-called "911 Truthers" are wrong? Then couldn't you say that they are complicit in the deaths of those 1.9 million by perpetrating a really sexy but fundamentally incorrect explanation of what went on, thus distracting people from the truth?
Now personally I would not make such a direct connection. I would have no problem in saying that people have the responsibility to not only be open to new information but to be open to different sources, and to be willing to use logical reasoning to go to places that one may not feel like going to, because knowing the truth is hard enough even without stacking the game so we get to the conclusion we like, as opposed to one closer to the truth and thus much more likely to be useful to preventing calamaties to all of those deaths and provide a just closure concerning the people who did die.
But that is continuing your digression. Whatever your case (and here I tend to agree more with you than Believe it) you don't help it with these irrelevant topics.
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/olmsted...-the-world.html
COMMENTS
(email to MSNBC) Honestly I don't even know what to say or how to begin with your naming a man who has helped countless children with bowel disorders and autism worst person of the day. This was a huge mistake, I wish only that you had gone to Wakefield himself and found out both sides of the story. Brian Deer has years of attacking Wakefield, to go by his word only, is irresponsible journalism.
I am the parent, like many thousands, of a child that regressed into autism after his vaccinations. It started with the MMR. 48 hours later 105 degree temp, 3 days later full body rash. He has been sick since with bowel dysfunction, extreme pain, toxic nonstop stool, major food intolerances where some foods now cause absence seizures, etc. As a lifetime lefty I am exhausted trying to show the "left" that vaccines, known to them as all good with no consequence, do and can cause many consequences, for some. Not everyone can handle every type of medical procedure and to suggest that they can is reckless.
I'm sure many people have forwarded you Wakefield's response but I felt I should as well. Below that is a piece I wrote on Merck no longer letting parents choose to split up the MMR into 3 separate vaccines, another irresponsible/careless move. There is a link to a video on a child who was recently awarded a win in vaccine court that MMR caused his lifelong chronic illness and there are also pieces of the story of my son.
Wakefield's response
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer-response.pdf
My MMR piece
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/mmr-its...-to-choice.html
I know you are a reasonable person Keith. My friends and I all have watched you over the years. You really need a retraction on this one. My son and thousands of other children deserve that you do, Dr. Andy Wakefield is one of the only people to recognize their physical medical needs and is helping them. You are hurting them by discrediting him.
Posted February 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
That paragon of scum and villiany that is my antithesis (spell my name backwards) is over on his site celebrating the fact that the media is destroying this man's life. All for a grudge.
What I find humorous and ironic is that this particular individual that runs that bigotted site openly mocks the media for allowing the parents of vaccine injured children to have a voice. What, are we in a Communist state? And then, when the media releases something that is riddled with numerous research errors by someone who has an obvious bias, but it supports the position of those spiteful people, then it is ok. Delicious irony.
What they fail to realize is that the British media will not touch this story. This is why Deer had to release this vituperation on the online Times.
This is mudslinging at its worst, and the brainwashed zombies that plague the internet hate sites are eating it up like candy. These people are supposed to be intelligent....
Posted February 11, 2009 at 09:57 AM
(Aside: Refers to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/..._in_the_wor.php
BARF)
Olberman was grossly irreponsible. I doubt he knows any about autism other than what he read off the teleprompter last night. Oh, how I wish my son's bowel disease did not exist and was merely a figment of my "paranoia" as he descibes it. Maybe Bill O'Reily is right and Olberman really is an idiot?
Posted February 11, 2009 at 09:46 AM
That linked response paper from Wakefield is beautiful!
Andy Wakefield = hero.
Posted February 11, 2009 at 09:12 AM
COMMENTS
(email to MSNBC) Honestly I don't even know what to say or how to begin with your naming a man who has helped countless children with bowel disorders and autism worst person of the day. This was a huge mistake, I wish only that you had gone to Wakefield himself and found out both sides of the story. Brian Deer has years of attacking Wakefield, to go by his word only, is irresponsible journalism.
I am the parent, like many thousands, of a child that regressed into autism after his vaccinations. It started with the MMR. 48 hours later 105 degree temp, 3 days later full body rash. He has been sick since with bowel dysfunction, extreme pain, toxic nonstop stool, major food intolerances where some foods now cause absence seizures, etc. As a lifetime lefty I am exhausted trying to show the "left" that vaccines, known to them as all good with no consequence, do and can cause many consequences, for some. Not everyone can handle every type of medical procedure and to suggest that they can is reckless.
I'm sure many people have forwarded you Wakefield's response but I felt I should as well. Below that is a piece I wrote on Merck no longer letting parents choose to split up the MMR into 3 separate vaccines, another irresponsible/careless move. There is a link to a video on a child who was recently awarded a win in vaccine court that MMR caused his lifelong chronic illness and there are also pieces of the story of my son.
Wakefield's response
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer-response.pdf
My MMR piece
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/mmr-its...-to-choice.html
I know you are a reasonable person Keith. My friends and I all have watched you over the years. You really need a retraction on this one. My son and thousands of other children deserve that you do, Dr. Andy Wakefield is one of the only people to recognize their physical medical needs and is helping them. You are hurting them by discrediting him.
Posted February 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
That paragon of scum and villiany that is my antithesis (spell my name backwards) is over on his site celebrating the fact that the media is destroying this man's life. All for a grudge.
What I find humorous and ironic is that this particular individual that runs that bigotted site openly mocks the media for allowing the parents of vaccine injured children to have a voice. What, are we in a Communist state? And then, when the media releases something that is riddled with numerous research errors by someone who has an obvious bias, but it supports the position of those spiteful people, then it is ok. Delicious irony.
What they fail to realize is that the British media will not touch this story. This is why Deer had to release this vituperation on the online Times.
This is mudslinging at its worst, and the brainwashed zombies that plague the internet hate sites are eating it up like candy. These people are supposed to be intelligent....
Posted February 11, 2009 at 09:57 AM
(Aside: Refers to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/..._in_the_wor.php
BARF)
Olberman was grossly irreponsible. I doubt he knows any about autism other than what he read off the teleprompter last night. Oh, how I wish my son's bowel disease did not exist and was merely a figment of my "paranoia" as he descibes it. Maybe Bill O'Reily is right and Olberman really is an idiot?
Posted February 11, 2009 at 09:46 AM
That linked response paper from Wakefield is beautiful!
Andy Wakefield = hero.
Posted February 11, 2009 at 09:12 AM
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/for-kei...n.html#comments
For Keith Olbermann
By Kim Stagliano
February 11, 2009
Last night, Keith Olbermann pronounced Dr. Andrew Wakefield, "The worst person in the world." There is a full PR campaign running against Dr. Wakefield and anyone else who speaks out against the safety and efficacy of vaccinations. I doubt Mr. Olbermann had spent more than a moment on the vaccine topic prior to last night. He got a press release, or a whisper in his ear. This is for you Keith.
Don Henley - Dirty Laundry Live Video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x33q6c_do...ty-laundry-live
COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Olbermann,
Over the past couple of years I have become of big fan of your program and have grown both to respect and be highly entertained by you. Therefore, I was quite shocked to find you had labeled Dr. Andrew Wakefield as your “Worst Person in the World” last night. Shocked not only because it related to an issue I am passionate about, but also because I couldn’t believe you could have gotten an issue like this so wrong.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is nothing short of a hero. The intestinal problems of children with autism are well documented and I can speak to them from personal experience. When so many doctors ignored this fact, preferring in general not to deal with our sick children, Dr. Wakefield sought to find out why and to find out what this might have to do with the manifestation of their autism. The answer was troubling. So troubling in fact that the powers that be have preferred to ignore it altogether or to attack and destroy the man that proposed it. The result of this is hundreds of thousands of children that have continued to suffer in PAIN due to these intestinal disorders over the past decade. Yet, because of his continued pursuit of the truth, some, like my own children, have been healed. The life my children can now lead is owed in large part to the courageous efforts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
The attempt of the GMC in Britain to destroy him for uncovering an unpleasant fact is shockingly similarly to the Bush administration’s punishment of those that would speak out against it. This is what makes me so incredulous about your proclamation last night. You were Bob Novak to Wakefield’s Valerie Plame. You of all people should be ashamed for this. I hope you’ve done more research and put more thought into the other stories and reports I’ve trusted over the past year.
Posted February 11, 2009 at 08:56 AM
For Keith Olbermann
By Kim Stagliano
February 11, 2009
Last night, Keith Olbermann pronounced Dr. Andrew Wakefield, "The worst person in the world." There is a full PR campaign running against Dr. Wakefield and anyone else who speaks out against the safety and efficacy of vaccinations. I doubt Mr. Olbermann had spent more than a moment on the vaccine topic prior to last night. He got a press release, or a whisper in his ear. This is for you Keith.
Don Henley - Dirty Laundry Live Video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x33q6c_do...ty-laundry-live
COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Olbermann,
Over the past couple of years I have become of big fan of your program and have grown both to respect and be highly entertained by you. Therefore, I was quite shocked to find you had labeled Dr. Andrew Wakefield as your “Worst Person in the World” last night. Shocked not only because it related to an issue I am passionate about, but also because I couldn’t believe you could have gotten an issue like this so wrong.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is nothing short of a hero. The intestinal problems of children with autism are well documented and I can speak to them from personal experience. When so many doctors ignored this fact, preferring in general not to deal with our sick children, Dr. Wakefield sought to find out why and to find out what this might have to do with the manifestation of their autism. The answer was troubling. So troubling in fact that the powers that be have preferred to ignore it altogether or to attack and destroy the man that proposed it. The result of this is hundreds of thousands of children that have continued to suffer in PAIN due to these intestinal disorders over the past decade. Yet, because of his continued pursuit of the truth, some, like my own children, have been healed. The life my children can now lead is owed in large part to the courageous efforts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
The attempt of the GMC in Britain to destroy him for uncovering an unpleasant fact is shockingly similarly to the Bush administration’s punishment of those that would speak out against it. This is what makes me so incredulous about your proclamation last night. You were Bob Novak to Wakefield’s Valerie Plame. You of all people should be ashamed for this. I hope you’ve done more research and put more thought into the other stories and reports I’ve trusted over the past year.
Posted February 11, 2009 at 08:56 AM
RECAP:
(in outline form for all parents or parents-to-be to review... many details in expanded links above),
Countdown on MSNBC yesterday, February 10,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29128976
Olbermann's Worst Person in the World (BIG MISTAKE)
More negative media here except, of course, by the parents of children with autism vociferously defending Dr. Wakefield,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/d...w_n_165033.html
Link from Huffington Post to original Brian Deer article published in Rupert Murdoch owned UK TimesOnline only
526 Comments
Looked around online for an explanation, ho, ho, ho, very interesting... now this makes much more sense.
CHRONOLOGY:
1 - “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” by Dr. Ari Brown is published
Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Brown’s “Clear Answers” is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. Given this background, any reasonable person might expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview.
2 - Press Release on response written by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues for physicians and supported by 20 child health safety organizations is published online February 6, 2009. Press release and link to full report below.
3 - Brian Deer publishes factually inaccurate article in Rupert Murdoch owned TimesOnline after notifying Dr. Wakefield on February 6.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5683671.ece
4 - Dr. Andrew Wakefield issues full rebuttal within 24 hours unreported by mass media, however.
(in outline form for all parents or parents-to-be to review... many details in expanded links above),
Countdown on MSNBC yesterday, February 10,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29128976
Olbermann's Worst Person in the World (BIG MISTAKE)
More negative media here except, of course, by the parents of children with autism vociferously defending Dr. Wakefield,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/d...w_n_165033.html
Link from Huffington Post to original Brian Deer article published in Rupert Murdoch owned UK TimesOnline only
526 Comments
Looked around online for an explanation, ho, ho, ho, very interesting... now this makes much more sense.
CHRONOLOGY:
1 - “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” by Dr. Ari Brown is published
Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Brown’s “Clear Answers” is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. Given this background, any reasonable person might expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview.
2 - Press Release on response written by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues for physicians and supported by 20 child health safety organizations is published online February 6, 2009. Press release and link to full report below.
QUOTE
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.htm
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Feb 6, 2009
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
Read Full Document: Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
The full response was produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccine-autism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response.
We are most grateful to the Editor and staff of Medical Veritas for their expert assistance in the review and editing of this document. The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924.
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Feb 6, 2009
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
Read Full Document: Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
The full response was produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccine-autism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response.
We are most grateful to the Editor and staff of Medical Veritas for their expert assistance in the review and editing of this document. The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924.
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath
3 - Brian Deer publishes factually inaccurate article in Rupert Murdoch owned TimesOnline after notifying Dr. Wakefield on February 6.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5683671.ece
4 - Dr. Andrew Wakefield issues full rebuttal within 24 hours unreported by mass media, however.
QUOTE
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer-response.pdf
Autism, bowel disease, and MMR vaccination
In his desperation, Deer gets it wrong once again
By Andy Wakefield
February 7, 2009
Below is a list of the allegations made by Brain Deer against me, received on Friday 6th February 2009, 2 days prior to his publishing in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper (my response is provided in Arial font)...
FULL REBUTTAL AT LINK
Autism, bowel disease, and MMR vaccination
In his desperation, Deer gets it wrong once again
By Andy Wakefield
February 7, 2009
Below is a list of the allegations made by Brain Deer against me, received on Friday 6th February 2009, 2 days prior to his publishing in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper (my response is provided in Arial font)...
FULL REBUTTAL AT LINK
I can't speak to the vaccination issue. Both of my children received the full recommended slate of vaccinations and immunizations with nothing more a slight "fever" at the injection site and a little crankiness. As a teacher, I believe that the increase in the number of those diagnosed with autism comes in part as a response to the clarification of the definition of autism. Autism is a diagnosis that umbrellas a host of disorders, some more severe than others.
QUOTE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/...e_b_166103.html
Keith Olbermann -- Today's Best "Worst Person in the World"
by David Kirby
Posted February 11, 2009 | 03:39 PM (EST)
Last night, thousands of parents and grandparents of children with autism sat in front of their TVs, mouths agape, as Keith Olbermann declared their national hero, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Tuesday's "Worst Person in the World" on the popular Countdown show on MSNBC.
Quoting from a story in the Sunday Times of London, Olbermann said that Dr. Wakefield had fabricated data in a 1998 Lancet article about 12 children with autism and severe bowel disorders. Wakefield had written that eight of the families noted deterioration in their children within days of them receiving the triple live virus MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, and that vaccine-strain measles virus had been identified in gut biopsies in some of the patients.
The uproar has never really subsided, especially in the United Kingdom, where Wakefield and two other doctors who worked on the Lancet study are on trial at the General Medical Council on several serious charges of misconduct.
The person who brought these charges to the Medical Council was a freelance reporter named Brian Deer - the same Brian Deer who wrote the article on Wakefield in the Sunday Times. In his writing, Deer claimed that Wakefield had made up results about severe MMR reactions in the children just days after receiving the shots, had ignored signs of autism in some kids before they received their MMR vaccine, and changed lab reports on the gut biopsies - among other alleged infractions that have been covered in the two year trial in London of Wakefield et al.
The accusations printed in the Sunday Times are, frankly, outlandish. And they are false. A thorough accounting of the entire blackballing of Andrew Wakefield was published today by journalist Melanie Phillips in The Spectator, (UK): called The Witch-Hunt Against Andrew Wakefield."
It makes for some pretty interesting reading:
What the [i]Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from... Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago. He has thus been reporting upon the hearing into his own complaint. Since when has a reputable paper published a story by a reporter who is actually part of that story himself -- without saying so - and who uses information arising from the disciplinary hearing which he himself has instigated and which is investigating allegations he himself made in the first place.
The point is an excellent one. Imagine if a US journalist sued a doctor for libel or misconduct, and then went to the NY Times and asked to be hired as a freelancer to cover the trial that they themselves had instigated in the first place. It wouldn't happen.[/i]
Ms. Phillips also wrote:
It is remarkable how so many commentators take at face value the claims being made by Wakefield's detractors, and how many recycle the misrepresentions of easily verifiable facts - such as what the Wakefield paper actually said -- which his detractors disseminate.
Which brings us to Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
It does not matter what opinion you have about the vaccine-autism controversy (and you know you do) for you to realize that Dr. Wakefield was unduly maligned by the Sunday Times. The allegations are not true, and Andy Wakefield is not, nor has he ever been, the "worst person in the world."
What made Keith Olbermann's mistake almost deliciously ironic was that, in the same "Worst Persons" segment, he gave the Bronze Award to a Fox News Anchor for reading Republican talking points without doing any independent reporting or verification. The Silver went to Bill O'Reilly (no surprise there), another employee of Fox News -- and Rupert Murdoch.
Mr. Olbermann even got out his trademark pirate voice to imitate right-winger Murdoch, by saying, "We have never been a company that tolerates facts! Rrrrrr!"
So here was Keith Olbermann, in the same segment, slamming Fox News -- owned by a company that does not "tolerate facts" -- for promoting falsehoods and propaganda; and then slamming Dr. Wakefield for something that was reported in The Sunday Times -- owned by that same fact-intolerant company.
Countdown's producers clearly took the Sunday Times story at face value, without doing a little due diligence. After all, Wakefield had denied the allegations in the original article, he issued a formal statement of denial earlier this week, and the autism treatment group he works for in Austin, TX also issued a statement. Olbermann's people should have picked up the phone and called Austin before he blasted Wakefield for faking scientific data.
Which brings us to today's Best Person in the World -- Keith Olbermann, who is issuing an eloquent and fitting correction on tonight's show.
I contacted his office today, as did many, many people, to see if he would address the issue. And address it he will. Here is the email I got back this afternoon:
Here is Keith's script from tonight's show, where Brian Deer will receive (at least) the bronze Worst Person in the World honors... it will air tonight, barring breaking news:
The bronze to Brian Deer.
He wrote the Times of London report that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had allegedly altered key research linking the Measles, Mumps and Rubella triple-vaccine to autism in children, which earned Dr. Wakefield a spot on this list yesterday.
The Times of London did not bother to mention that the British investigation into whether or not Wakefield did that was the result of a complaint by... Brian Deer.
The guy who wrote the article about the investigation never mentioned he was the complainant who precipitated the investigation.
The truth about the doctor's research may be in doubt here, but not Deer's vast conflict of interest nor the Times of London's journalistic malfeasance.
The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and it's my bad for forgetting his new motto: "We have never been a company that tolerates facts."
It might have been your bad, Mr. Olbermann, but you have turned it into a good.
------
PS - Just to remind everyone that vaccine-autism research is neither fringe, nor a threat to civilization as we know it, I copy again this list below, which I also sent to the good people at Countdown:
I hope you will take just one moment to see that vaccine-autism research continues, because the link has not been disproven. Even the new President agrees with that statement, so Dr. Wakefield is not as far outside the mainstream as you might think. (Please see below)
MAINSTREAM VOICES FOR VACCINE RESEARCH:
President Barack Obama -- Who said last year, that: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- Who said last year that, " I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) -- Who told Congress in 2006 that the Combatting Autism Act should fund "environmental research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components and autism. In January, 2008, he called efforts to strip vaccine research from funding, "contrary to the spirit of the (CAA) bill."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- Who said last year, "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) -- Who told Congress in 2006, "I want to be clear that ... no research avenue should be eliminated, including biomedical research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components, and autism."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) -- Who concured on the Senate Floor with Senator Enzi's remarks.
Bob Wright, Co-Founder, Autism Speaks -- Who told the UK Daily Telegraph in 2008 that, "There is no question but that autism is partly genetic and partly environmental. We ought to be able to zero in on some of the environmental factors in early childhood. Vaccines are one of the variables."
CDC's Immunization Safety Office -- As part of its draft research agenda for vaccine safety, this agency last April proposed looking at several clinical outcomes from childhood vaccinations, including "Autoimmune diseases; central nervous system demyelinating disorders; encephalitis/ encephalopathy; and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism."
Former CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding -- who told CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta: "If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (and) symptoms that have characteristics of autism. We have to have an open mind."
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases -- who told US News, "If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination (for) undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochrondrial disorder."
Drs. Richard I. Kelley, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Margaret L. Bauman, Massachusetts General Hospital, Marvin R. Natowicz, Cleveland Clinic, etc -- "Large, population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."
Scientists at UC San Diego -- They wrote in the journal Autism that children given Tylenol after the MMR shot were several times more likely to develop autism. Tylenol can reduce levels of glutathione - a powerful antioxidant and detoxifier. "Tylenol and MMR was significantly associated with autistic disorder," the authors wrote. "More research needs to be completed to confirm the results of this preliminary study."
Former NIH Director and current IOM Member Dr. Bernadine Healy - She told CBS News that, "public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the (vaccine) hypothesis as 'irrational,' without sufficient studies of causation... without studying the population that got sick."
Former Chief Scientific Officer, UK Department of Health, Dr. Peter Fletcher - The former equivalent of the US FDA Adminstrator, said, "This really proves the causal role of vaccines: Somali children who are newly exposed to aggressive vaccine programmes have exceptionally high levels of autism. What more evidence is needed? The refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history."
CURRENT VACCINE/MERCURY RELATED STUDIES:
The National CADDRE Study -- This 5-year project of the CDC's Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) Network will "help identify what might put children at risk for autism," the CDC says. Among those risk factors: "specific mercury exposures, including any vaccine use by the mother during pregnancy and the child's vaccine exposures after birth."
The Kennedy Krieger Institute -- The nation's premiere autism research outfit is sponsor of the Interactive Autism Network (IAN). Its new questionnaire deals with autism and vaccines. Thousands of families are describing their experiences with autistic regression following vaccination. Top scientists will then use this information, "to conduct additional vaccine-focused studies."
The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network -- CISA is a CDC-sponsored group that brings together leading autism research institutions and America's health insurance companies. Last April, the CDC proposed this research question: "Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?" To find out, "CISA has formed a working group to study methods related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization," the CDC said.
Autism Speaks -- Autism Speaks recently authorized three studies on thimerosal, vaccines and autism, and the foundation is considering funding a lot more highly significant research into the possible links between vaccines and autism.
The National Children's Study -- This is not a vaccine-autism study. But the HHS-EPA joint effort will investigate "the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United States," including autism. As part of their work researchers will track medical records, which include vaccinations.
UC Davis MIND Institute -- Authors of a new study say that genetics alone cannot explain the rise in autism in California. "We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," said Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a co-author and professor at UC Davis.
The University of Texas -- Two studies led Ray Palmer, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center show increased risks for autism among kids living closest to mercury-emitting sources, such as coal-fired power plants.
California Department of Health Services/ Kaiser Permanente -- This CDC- funded, NIH-published study showed that kids born in the most polluted tracts of the SF Bay Area (mercury was a significant factor) were more likely to develop autism: "Our results suggest a potential association between autism and estimated metal concentrations."
MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTION AND AUTISM:
The Hannah Poling Case - A year ago, medical personnel at HHS determined that this girl's autism was caused by, "vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves." Hannah had low cellular energy related to her underlying and mild mitochondrial dysfunction. Many children with autism claims in Vaccine Court have almost identical mitochondrial dysfunction.
Mitochondrial disorders are not rare in autism -- Research suggests that dysfunction may affect 10-to-30% of all kids with autism -- perhaps more among "regressive" cases.
Mitochondrial disorders are probably not rare in the general population -- Such disorders were thought to affect 1-in-5,000 people. But new research suggests that genetic mutations that might confer mitochondrial dysfunction might be found in 1-in-400 to 1-in-50. A study by the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF) found mitochondrial DNA mutations that might cause disease in up to 1-in-200 people.
Children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk of autistic regression -- A new study by researchers at Cleveland Clinic and elsewhere found that a trigger for autistic regression in kids with mito disorders could possibly come from a vaccine reaction. "There might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases," they wrote.
Children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk of vaccine injury -- This according to Dr. Douglas Wallace, Professor of Molecular Medicine and Director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine in Genetics at UC Irvine. A member of the UMDF's scientific board, he stated, "We advocate spreading vaccines out as much as possible -- each time you vaccinate, you're creating a challenge for the system, and if a child has an impaired system that could in fact trigger further clinical problems."
Keith Olbermann -- Today's Best "Worst Person in the World"
by David Kirby
Posted February 11, 2009 | 03:39 PM (EST)
Last night, thousands of parents and grandparents of children with autism sat in front of their TVs, mouths agape, as Keith Olbermann declared their national hero, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Tuesday's "Worst Person in the World" on the popular Countdown show on MSNBC.
Quoting from a story in the Sunday Times of London, Olbermann said that Dr. Wakefield had fabricated data in a 1998 Lancet article about 12 children with autism and severe bowel disorders. Wakefield had written that eight of the families noted deterioration in their children within days of them receiving the triple live virus MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, and that vaccine-strain measles virus had been identified in gut biopsies in some of the patients.
The uproar has never really subsided, especially in the United Kingdom, where Wakefield and two other doctors who worked on the Lancet study are on trial at the General Medical Council on several serious charges of misconduct.
The person who brought these charges to the Medical Council was a freelance reporter named Brian Deer - the same Brian Deer who wrote the article on Wakefield in the Sunday Times. In his writing, Deer claimed that Wakefield had made up results about severe MMR reactions in the children just days after receiving the shots, had ignored signs of autism in some kids before they received their MMR vaccine, and changed lab reports on the gut biopsies - among other alleged infractions that have been covered in the two year trial in London of Wakefield et al.
The accusations printed in the Sunday Times are, frankly, outlandish. And they are false. A thorough accounting of the entire blackballing of Andrew Wakefield was published today by journalist Melanie Phillips in The Spectator, (UK): called The Witch-Hunt Against Andrew Wakefield."
It makes for some pretty interesting reading:
What the [i]Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from... Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago. He has thus been reporting upon the hearing into his own complaint. Since when has a reputable paper published a story by a reporter who is actually part of that story himself -- without saying so - and who uses information arising from the disciplinary hearing which he himself has instigated and which is investigating allegations he himself made in the first place.
The point is an excellent one. Imagine if a US journalist sued a doctor for libel or misconduct, and then went to the NY Times and asked to be hired as a freelancer to cover the trial that they themselves had instigated in the first place. It wouldn't happen.[/i]
Ms. Phillips also wrote:
It is remarkable how so many commentators take at face value the claims being made by Wakefield's detractors, and how many recycle the misrepresentions of easily verifiable facts - such as what the Wakefield paper actually said -- which his detractors disseminate.
Which brings us to Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
It does not matter what opinion you have about the vaccine-autism controversy (and you know you do) for you to realize that Dr. Wakefield was unduly maligned by the Sunday Times. The allegations are not true, and Andy Wakefield is not, nor has he ever been, the "worst person in the world."
What made Keith Olbermann's mistake almost deliciously ironic was that, in the same "Worst Persons" segment, he gave the Bronze Award to a Fox News Anchor for reading Republican talking points without doing any independent reporting or verification. The Silver went to Bill O'Reilly (no surprise there), another employee of Fox News -- and Rupert Murdoch.
Mr. Olbermann even got out his trademark pirate voice to imitate right-winger Murdoch, by saying, "We have never been a company that tolerates facts! Rrrrrr!"
So here was Keith Olbermann, in the same segment, slamming Fox News -- owned by a company that does not "tolerate facts" -- for promoting falsehoods and propaganda; and then slamming Dr. Wakefield for something that was reported in The Sunday Times -- owned by that same fact-intolerant company.
Countdown's producers clearly took the Sunday Times story at face value, without doing a little due diligence. After all, Wakefield had denied the allegations in the original article, he issued a formal statement of denial earlier this week, and the autism treatment group he works for in Austin, TX also issued a statement. Olbermann's people should have picked up the phone and called Austin before he blasted Wakefield for faking scientific data.
Which brings us to today's Best Person in the World -- Keith Olbermann, who is issuing an eloquent and fitting correction on tonight's show.
I contacted his office today, as did many, many people, to see if he would address the issue. And address it he will. Here is the email I got back this afternoon:
Here is Keith's script from tonight's show, where Brian Deer will receive (at least) the bronze Worst Person in the World honors... it will air tonight, barring breaking news:
The bronze to Brian Deer.
He wrote the Times of London report that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had allegedly altered key research linking the Measles, Mumps and Rubella triple-vaccine to autism in children, which earned Dr. Wakefield a spot on this list yesterday.
The Times of London did not bother to mention that the British investigation into whether or not Wakefield did that was the result of a complaint by... Brian Deer.
The guy who wrote the article about the investigation never mentioned he was the complainant who precipitated the investigation.
The truth about the doctor's research may be in doubt here, but not Deer's vast conflict of interest nor the Times of London's journalistic malfeasance.
The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and it's my bad for forgetting his new motto: "We have never been a company that tolerates facts."
It might have been your bad, Mr. Olbermann, but you have turned it into a good.
------
PS - Just to remind everyone that vaccine-autism research is neither fringe, nor a threat to civilization as we know it, I copy again this list below, which I also sent to the good people at Countdown:
I hope you will take just one moment to see that vaccine-autism research continues, because the link has not been disproven. Even the new President agrees with that statement, so Dr. Wakefield is not as far outside the mainstream as you might think. (Please see below)
MAINSTREAM VOICES FOR VACCINE RESEARCH:
President Barack Obama -- Who said last year, that: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- Who said last year that, " I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) -- Who told Congress in 2006 that the Combatting Autism Act should fund "environmental research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components and autism. In January, 2008, he called efforts to strip vaccine research from funding, "contrary to the spirit of the (CAA) bill."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- Who said last year, "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) -- Who told Congress in 2006, "I want to be clear that ... no research avenue should be eliminated, including biomedical research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components, and autism."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) -- Who concured on the Senate Floor with Senator Enzi's remarks.
Bob Wright, Co-Founder, Autism Speaks -- Who told the UK Daily Telegraph in 2008 that, "There is no question but that autism is partly genetic and partly environmental. We ought to be able to zero in on some of the environmental factors in early childhood. Vaccines are one of the variables."
CDC's Immunization Safety Office -- As part of its draft research agenda for vaccine safety, this agency last April proposed looking at several clinical outcomes from childhood vaccinations, including "Autoimmune diseases; central nervous system demyelinating disorders; encephalitis/ encephalopathy; and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism."
Former CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding -- who told CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta: "If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (and) symptoms that have characteristics of autism. We have to have an open mind."
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases -- who told US News, "If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination (for) undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochrondrial disorder."
Drs. Richard I. Kelley, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Margaret L. Bauman, Massachusetts General Hospital, Marvin R. Natowicz, Cleveland Clinic, etc -- "Large, population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."
Scientists at UC San Diego -- They wrote in the journal Autism that children given Tylenol after the MMR shot were several times more likely to develop autism. Tylenol can reduce levels of glutathione - a powerful antioxidant and detoxifier. "Tylenol and MMR was significantly associated with autistic disorder," the authors wrote. "More research needs to be completed to confirm the results of this preliminary study."
Former NIH Director and current IOM Member Dr. Bernadine Healy - She told CBS News that, "public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the (vaccine) hypothesis as 'irrational,' without sufficient studies of causation... without studying the population that got sick."
Former Chief Scientific Officer, UK Department of Health, Dr. Peter Fletcher - The former equivalent of the US FDA Adminstrator, said, "This really proves the causal role of vaccines: Somali children who are newly exposed to aggressive vaccine programmes have exceptionally high levels of autism. What more evidence is needed? The refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history."
CURRENT VACCINE/MERCURY RELATED STUDIES:
The National CADDRE Study -- This 5-year project of the CDC's Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) Network will "help identify what might put children at risk for autism," the CDC says. Among those risk factors: "specific mercury exposures, including any vaccine use by the mother during pregnancy and the child's vaccine exposures after birth."
The Kennedy Krieger Institute -- The nation's premiere autism research outfit is sponsor of the Interactive Autism Network (IAN). Its new questionnaire deals with autism and vaccines. Thousands of families are describing their experiences with autistic regression following vaccination. Top scientists will then use this information, "to conduct additional vaccine-focused studies."
The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network -- CISA is a CDC-sponsored group that brings together leading autism research institutions and America's health insurance companies. Last April, the CDC proposed this research question: "Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?" To find out, "CISA has formed a working group to study methods related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization," the CDC said.
Autism Speaks -- Autism Speaks recently authorized three studies on thimerosal, vaccines and autism, and the foundation is considering funding a lot more highly significant research into the possible links between vaccines and autism.
The National Children's Study -- This is not a vaccine-autism study. But the HHS-EPA joint effort will investigate "the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United States," including autism. As part of their work researchers will track medical records, which include vaccinations.
UC Davis MIND Institute -- Authors of a new study say that genetics alone cannot explain the rise in autism in California. "We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," said Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a co-author and professor at UC Davis.
The University of Texas -- Two studies led Ray Palmer, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center show increased risks for autism among kids living closest to mercury-emitting sources, such as coal-fired power plants.
California Department of Health Services/ Kaiser Permanente -- This CDC- funded, NIH-published study showed that kids born in the most polluted tracts of the SF Bay Area (mercury was a significant factor) were more likely to develop autism: "Our results suggest a potential association between autism and estimated metal concentrations."
MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTION AND AUTISM:
The Hannah Poling Case - A year ago, medical personnel at HHS determined that this girl's autism was caused by, "vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves." Hannah had low cellular energy related to her underlying and mild mitochondrial dysfunction. Many children with autism claims in Vaccine Court have almost identical mitochondrial dysfunction.
Mitochondrial disorders are not rare in autism -- Research suggests that dysfunction may affect 10-to-30% of all kids with autism -- perhaps more among "regressive" cases.
Mitochondrial disorders are probably not rare in the general population -- Such disorders were thought to affect 1-in-5,000 people. But new research suggests that genetic mutations that might confer mitochondrial dysfunction might be found in 1-in-400 to 1-in-50. A study by the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF) found mitochondrial DNA mutations that might cause disease in up to 1-in-200 people.
Children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk of autistic regression -- A new study by researchers at Cleveland Clinic and elsewhere found that a trigger for autistic regression in kids with mito disorders could possibly come from a vaccine reaction. "There might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases," they wrote.
Children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk of vaccine injury -- This according to Dr. Douglas Wallace, Professor of Molecular Medicine and Director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine in Genetics at UC Irvine. A member of the UMDF's scientific board, he stated, "We advocate spreading vaccines out as much as possible -- each time you vaccinate, you're creating a challenge for the system, and if a child has an impaired system that could in fact trigger further clinical problems."
TammyJo58, the journal article written by Dr Wakefield and colleagues announced in last Friday's press release may be directed toward other physicians, but anyone can read it. I think you'll find an erudite, eye-opening, 13-page summary of the most up-to-date information on autism (with 173 journal citations), proving, among other things, that the crisis is both real and new.
QUOTE
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.htm
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Feb 6, 2009
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
Read Full Document: Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
The full response was produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccine-autism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response.
We are most grateful to the Editor and staff of Medical Veritas for their expert assistance in the review and editing of this document. The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924.
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Feb 6, 2009
Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
Informed consent is a crucial element of the foundation upon which ethical medical practice rests. Providing patients, parents, or guardians with an honest assessment of the risks and benefits of any medical procedure requires the physician to be, to the best of his or her ability, “informed.”
Read Full Document: Response to Dr. Ari Brown and the Immunization Action Coalition
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/dr-ari-brown-response.pdf
The full response was produced by Thoughtful House Center for Children in response to one written by Dr. Ari Brown titled “Clear Answers and Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots,” which attempts to deal with the vaccine-autism controversy. Brown is an official spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her document [1], is endorsed and published by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), a US organization funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the vaccine manufacturers. In short, it is the public relations arm of those who are legally and ethically responsible for vaccine safety. Given this background, one might reasonably expect a comprehensive, well researched, and persuasive overview. Since the topic of vaccination is so important and because we have major concerns about the accuracy of much of what this document says, we are providing a point-by-point response.
We are most grateful to the Editor and staff of Medical Veritas for their expert assistance in the review and editing of this document. The article will appear in Medical Veritas 2009;6:1907-1924.
Andrew J Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/vaccine...rsday.html#more
Vaccine Court To Weigh In On Thursday
By David Kirby
February 11, 2009
8:30 PM EST - UPDATE:
I have confirmed the following information: Members of the US Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs have been caught somewhat off guard with the news that the MMR autism rulings would be released on Thursday. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the Court of Federal Claims, and to the Justice Department, asking why the decisions had not yet been handed down. I wrote:
“It seems very clear that the Court is aware of the content of these decisions, yet there does not seem to be any rationale for withholding the rulings any longer. As a journalist, I believe the public has an inherent right to know the decisions made by the Special Masters in a timely and responsible manner.”
I did not hear back from the court. But within 45 minutes, I got this reply from DOJ: "David, We have no information in response to any of those questions. We, too, are awaiting those decisions from the court. -Charles Miller, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice."
That was at 2:30PM yesterday. But by 2:30PM today, Public Affairs staff were bracing for a huge workload and a very long day on Thursday, knowing they would be taking press calls from all over the globe. They are grumbling that the Court did not give them more time to prepare.
Interestingly, and in an unusual move, the DOJ staff are also sending around copies of the Sunday Times of London articles by Brian Deer, about Andy Wakefield’s alleged scientific misconduct - in an effort to discredit him and his work prior to the Vaccine Court rulings.
I have no idea what any of this means, but I thought I would report it. DK
(More at link..)
David Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm, a founding contributor to Huffington Post and a contributor to Age of Autism. His next book, “ANIMAL FACTORY” – about the impact of industrial livestock production on our health and the environment – will be released within the year.
Vaccine Court To Weigh In On Thursday
By David Kirby
February 11, 2009
8:30 PM EST - UPDATE:
I have confirmed the following information: Members of the US Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs have been caught somewhat off guard with the news that the MMR autism rulings would be released on Thursday. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the Court of Federal Claims, and to the Justice Department, asking why the decisions had not yet been handed down. I wrote:
“It seems very clear that the Court is aware of the content of these decisions, yet there does not seem to be any rationale for withholding the rulings any longer. As a journalist, I believe the public has an inherent right to know the decisions made by the Special Masters in a timely and responsible manner.”
I did not hear back from the court. But within 45 minutes, I got this reply from DOJ: "David, We have no information in response to any of those questions. We, too, are awaiting those decisions from the court. -Charles Miller, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice."
That was at 2:30PM yesterday. But by 2:30PM today, Public Affairs staff were bracing for a huge workload and a very long day on Thursday, knowing they would be taking press calls from all over the globe. They are grumbling that the Court did not give them more time to prepare.
Interestingly, and in an unusual move, the DOJ staff are also sending around copies of the Sunday Times of London articles by Brian Deer, about Andy Wakefield’s alleged scientific misconduct - in an effort to discredit him and his work prior to the Vaccine Court rulings.
I have no idea what any of this means, but I thought I would report it. DK
(More at link..)
David Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm, a founding contributor to Huffington Post and a contributor to Age of Autism. His next book, “ANIMAL FACTORY” – about the impact of industrial livestock production on our health and the environment – will be released within the year.
QUOTE
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...eadlights.thtml
A deer in the headlights
by Melanie Phillips
Monday, 16th February 2009
The Spectator
"...Now here’s another strange thing. Last week there was a big vaccine damage judgement in the US – the ‘Cedillo’ case – in which the court said the Wakefield theory about MMR was out to lunch in la-la land. This is what Deer posted on the Left Brain Right Brain website in the wake of that case:
That said, I’m also very proud that, like the GMC, the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court. I was surprised by this. I assumed that they would have sophisticated contacts with other governments and with industry, and could pretty much get what they wanted. However, on a number of occasions I would come home, find an email from the department of justice asking me for a document, and see that the next day it was being run in court. Bit of a seat of the pants job by the DoJ (brought about by the plaintiffs changing their case at the last minute). Indeed, I recall supplying a key document on the O’Leary lab business, which the DoJ didn’t seem to know about just weeks before the hearing. Hence the late surfacing of Bustin and Chadwick. It was me wot done that, and I’m glad. I don’t say these things to boast, only perhaps to wonder why — if there are all kinds of grand conspiracies behind the defence of vaccine safety — governments and regulators are so untogether that a mere journalist can get ahead of them in the game.
If his boast is true, it would seem that the US court — whose ruling looks pretty thin to me — arrived at its conclusion based on Deer’s allegations. In other words, two major quasi-legal hearings relating to Andrew Wakefield’s theory, one of which is being reported by Deer, have depended significantly or wholly upon a journalist’s own allegations..."
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849
A deer in the headlights
by Melanie Phillips
Monday, 16th February 2009
The Spectator
"...Now here’s another strange thing. Last week there was a big vaccine damage judgement in the US – the ‘Cedillo’ case – in which the court said the Wakefield theory about MMR was out to lunch in la-la land. This is what Deer posted on the Left Brain Right Brain website in the wake of that case:
That said, I’m also very proud that, like the GMC, the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court. I was surprised by this. I assumed that they would have sophisticated contacts with other governments and with industry, and could pretty much get what they wanted. However, on a number of occasions I would come home, find an email from the department of justice asking me for a document, and see that the next day it was being run in court. Bit of a seat of the pants job by the DoJ (brought about by the plaintiffs changing their case at the last minute). Indeed, I recall supplying a key document on the O’Leary lab business, which the DoJ didn’t seem to know about just weeks before the hearing. Hence the late surfacing of Bustin and Chadwick. It was me wot done that, and I’m glad. I don’t say these things to boast, only perhaps to wonder why — if there are all kinds of grand conspiracies behind the defence of vaccine safety — governments and regulators are so untogether that a mere journalist can get ahead of them in the game.
If his boast is true, it would seem that the US court — whose ruling looks pretty thin to me — arrived at its conclusion based on Deer’s allegations. In other words, two major quasi-legal hearings relating to Andrew Wakefield’s theory, one of which is being reported by Deer, have depended significantly or wholly upon a journalist’s own allegations..."
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 9 2009, 11:34 AM)
Do YOU believe 9-11 official story was real or 100% bogus?
Are you 100% pro-choice, anytime, anywhere?
Are you for sex ed in schools from grade school on?
I find these anti-vaccine people tend to be anti-abortion, anti-sex ed in schools
Another case of Pelicanism. Not allowing birth control, or abortions, then not caring if a child grows up to die of cancer.
I am 100% FOR this protection from cancers for all kids age 10 and up, boys and girls.
Same as the flu shot.
And, as NO shot leads to a virus that could infect another human being, I for one would make it manditory without choice, like the other things that have
save millions of lives (like the flu shot, pnemonia shots, polio shots, etc.)
No shots/ No school
Are you 100% pro-choice, anytime, anywhere?
Are you for sex ed in schools from grade school on?
I find these anti-vaccine people tend to be anti-abortion, anti-sex ed in schools
Another case of Pelicanism. Not allowing birth control, or abortions, then not caring if a child grows up to die of cancer.
I am 100% FOR this protection from cancers for all kids age 10 and up, boys and girls.
Same as the flu shot.
And, as NO shot leads to a virus that could infect another human being, I for one would make it manditory without choice, like the other things that have
save millions of lives (like the flu shot, pnemonia shots, polio shots, etc.)
No shots/ No school
Hmm I think again as usual you are wrong. I dont think people who oppose the vaccines below to any politicial ideology. I seem to recal that Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey are big anti-vaccine advocates. I dont think they would be classified as conservatives. I believe there is at least one town in Oregon thats not vaccinating their children, again Oregon isnt a conservative strong hold. The parents are not againt protecting their children but if they feel that the vaccinations do more harm then I can see why they might be apprehensive about it.
QUOTE(believe_it @ Feb 10 2009, 07:51 AM)
The facts speak for themselves, graham. Please watch the CBS investigative report on Gardasil again before you preposterously call for mandatory vaccination of all children as you did on the other thread. Aren't you a champion of CBS investigative reporting, like the Bush National Guard Story, Abu Ghraib, etc? And because you asked, here's another pair of devastating articles for you to draw your own conclusions from. Can you forgive the anger or at least understand it?
QUOTE
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/02/the-aap-knows-v.html
Opinion: "THE AAP KNOWS VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM"
By DR. DAVID AYOUB
February 23, 2008
Editor's note: Dr. David Ayoub, a radiologist from Springfield, Ill., gave this speech at the rally Wednesday in front of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Chicago. Age of Autism is pleased to help it reach the wide audience it deserves.
I thought I would share with you some of my personal experiences with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
My experience with lobbying for safer vaccine laws in Illinois and Massachusetts gave me some insight into the heart and soul of the AAP.
As most of you know, after joining the Public Health Service in a joint statement in 1999 supporting the immediate removal of Thimerosal from vaccines, the AAP has in effect, completely reversed its precautionary position by 1) endorsing and promoting the expansion of routine influenza vaccinations to pregnant women, infants and young children without a stated preference to Thimerosal-free formulas, 2) joined public health departments in strongly opposing state and federal legislation that would prohibit the use of Thimerosal, 3) oppose legislative requirements that would require informed consent before Thimerosal containing vaccines are administered, 4) failed to notify its own pediatrician members to preferentially deliver Thimerosal-free shots even after state bans such as the one in Illinois were signed into law and 6) has consistently mislead legislators, journalists, parents and professionals by adhering to the outright lie that all mercury in childhood vaccines, has been removed or reduced to trace amounts when in fact, children today adhering to the flu vaccine schedule will be receiving well over 50% of the total dose given before 2000, a dosage that is likely to continue to increase with further adjustments to the doses and target ages of flu vaccine recipients.
It is perplexing that the AAP has so strongly endorsed these new flu vaccine recommendations yet overlooked the glaring fact that the greatest threat to the supply of the influenza vaccine is not state Thimerosal bans, but ironically is the vaccine industry's ill advised reliance upon mercury as a preservative. Not only are there numerous scientific reports from decades ago that concluded thimerosal was an ineffective and toxic preservative, but as recently as 2004, Thimerosal again failed after the bacterial contamination of Chiron's 2004 flu vaccine stockpile--- the largest scale contamination of any pharmaceutical product in history. This failure resulted in the temporary loss of over half of the US flu vaccine supply. It has become painfully obvious that the silence of the AAP and public health officials to demand a better preservative or use of nonpreserved single dose preparations clearly and unequivocally indicated that these agencies are incapable and uninterested in making sound healthcare policies for Americans. Is it any wonder that the US infant morality rates rank a dismal 32nd of 33 industrial nations worldwide according to a recent Save the Children Survey. This statistic speaks volumes and no one in that building should be proud of this statistic or the utterly deplorable situation we have with escalating incidences of a multitude of chronic illness.
The AAP has played an important role in perpetuating the misconception that current research refutes the thimerosal-autism link. Three key papers have been published in the AAP trade journal Pediatrics: Madsen (Danish epidemiological study); The Verstraeten study, of Simpsonwood fame, and Fombonne (Quebec epidemiological study). The editor-in-chief Dr. Jerald Lucey received numerous, substantiated criticisms of each of these studies, but has created an effective roadblock in disallowing any criticisms to be published in the letter to the editor section of the journal. His response to thoughtful and reasonable criticisms has been unprofessional, illogical and insulting. My own letter to Lucey criticizing the Fombonne study was not even allowed to be published on the less publically visible online forum, even though we had obtained a copy of the Fombonne database and vaccine records from,several parents proving Fombonne's work fraudulent.
Why would the organization most influential in pediatric healthcare in America turn its back to our concerns and pleas? That is not a challenging question. The AAP reports annual revenues of about $70 million, but only 1/4th comes from membership dues. Their website lists extensive corporate donors, none more generous than the vaccine makers. Their journal Pediatrics generates about $10,000 per page for a drug ad, translating into $200,000 monthly. Even more money is generated for reprint orders, often 6 figures, that are distributed to pediatricians without of course the criticisms.
When I attended the AAP's National Convention in Washington, D.C., in 2005, I attended as many talks I could on 2 topics that interested me -- 1) diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities and
2) vaccine safety. From the meeting brochure I made the following observations:
First, 16 speakers contributed to 18 lectures in these categories.
According to the AAP's meeting brochure and my own knowledge of the presenters, 15 of 16 speakers had strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry, including the CDC. One Harvard physician claimed 42 different financial arrangements with 14 different pharmaceutical companies! My, when does he find the time to vaccinate anyone?
It is no wonder that the message delivered by AAP and industry influenced professionals to attending pediatricians was crystal clear: THERE IS NO VACCINE LINK!
Let me conclude by making the obvious conclusions about how I feel about the AAP. The politically correct statement would be to say that key individuals from within this organization have gone to great extents to obscure the vaccine-autism connection and by doing so are protecting profits and liability for one of the world's largest and most dangerous industries.
In reality, let me be blunt and politically incorrect. The AAP leadership knows very well that vaccines cause autism. We need not waste anymore efforts in trying to educate them, we need to indict them.
They may me morally bankrupt, but they are not stupid. They have lied to legislators, they have lied to journalists, they have lied to pediatricians, and worst of all, they have lied to you and your children.
The theme at the 2005 annual meeting was a celebration of "75 years of caring." It was not clear exactly what they cared most about, their corporate sponsors or protecting their leadership status over our nations' pediatricians. One thing is abundantly clear, the don't give a damn about scientific truth and they don't give a damn about you or your children.
I hope the autism community continues to move forward and expose all those involved who have put millions of children in harm's way.
Opinion: "THE AAP KNOWS VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM"
By DR. DAVID AYOUB
February 23, 2008
Editor's note: Dr. David Ayoub, a radiologist from Springfield, Ill., gave this speech at the rally Wednesday in front of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Chicago. Age of Autism is pleased to help it reach the wide audience it deserves.
I thought I would share with you some of my personal experiences with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
My experience with lobbying for safer vaccine laws in Illinois and Massachusetts gave me some insight into the heart and soul of the AAP.
As most of you know, after joining the Public Health Service in a joint statement in 1999 supporting the immediate removal of Thimerosal from vaccines, the AAP has in effect, completely reversed its precautionary position by 1) endorsing and promoting the expansion of routine influenza vaccinations to pregnant women, infants and young children without a stated preference to Thimerosal-free formulas, 2) joined public health departments in strongly opposing state and federal legislation that would prohibit the use of Thimerosal, 3) oppose legislative requirements that would require informed consent before Thimerosal containing vaccines are administered, 4) failed to notify its own pediatrician members to preferentially deliver Thimerosal-free shots even after state bans such as the one in Illinois were signed into law and 6) has consistently mislead legislators, journalists, parents and professionals by adhering to the outright lie that all mercury in childhood vaccines, has been removed or reduced to trace amounts when in fact, children today adhering to the flu vaccine schedule will be receiving well over 50% of the total dose given before 2000, a dosage that is likely to continue to increase with further adjustments to the doses and target ages of flu vaccine recipients.
It is perplexing that the AAP has so strongly endorsed these new flu vaccine recommendations yet overlooked the glaring fact that the greatest threat to the supply of the influenza vaccine is not state Thimerosal bans, but ironically is the vaccine industry's ill advised reliance upon mercury as a preservative. Not only are there numerous scientific reports from decades ago that concluded thimerosal was an ineffective and toxic preservative, but as recently as 2004, Thimerosal again failed after the bacterial contamination of Chiron's 2004 flu vaccine stockpile--- the largest scale contamination of any pharmaceutical product in history. This failure resulted in the temporary loss of over half of the US flu vaccine supply. It has become painfully obvious that the silence of the AAP and public health officials to demand a better preservative or use of nonpreserved single dose preparations clearly and unequivocally indicated that these agencies are incapable and uninterested in making sound healthcare policies for Americans. Is it any wonder that the US infant morality rates rank a dismal 32nd of 33 industrial nations worldwide according to a recent Save the Children Survey. This statistic speaks volumes and no one in that building should be proud of this statistic or the utterly deplorable situation we have with escalating incidences of a multitude of chronic illness.
The AAP has played an important role in perpetuating the misconception that current research refutes the thimerosal-autism link. Three key papers have been published in the AAP trade journal Pediatrics: Madsen (Danish epidemiological study); The Verstraeten study, of Simpsonwood fame, and Fombonne (Quebec epidemiological study). The editor-in-chief Dr. Jerald Lucey received numerous, substantiated criticisms of each of these studies, but has created an effective roadblock in disallowing any criticisms to be published in the letter to the editor section of the journal. His response to thoughtful and reasonable criticisms has been unprofessional, illogical and insulting. My own letter to Lucey criticizing the Fombonne study was not even allowed to be published on the less publically visible online forum, even though we had obtained a copy of the Fombonne database and vaccine records from,several parents proving Fombonne's work fraudulent.
Why would the organization most influential in pediatric healthcare in America turn its back to our concerns and pleas? That is not a challenging question. The AAP reports annual revenues of about $70 million, but only 1/4th comes from membership dues. Their website lists extensive corporate donors, none more generous than the vaccine makers. Their journal Pediatrics generates about $10,000 per page for a drug ad, translating into $200,000 monthly. Even more money is generated for reprint orders, often 6 figures, that are distributed to pediatricians without of course the criticisms.
When I attended the AAP's National Convention in Washington, D.C., in 2005, I attended as many talks I could on 2 topics that interested me -- 1) diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities and
2) vaccine safety. From the meeting brochure I made the following observations:
First, 16 speakers contributed to 18 lectures in these categories.
According to the AAP's meeting brochure and my own knowledge of the presenters, 15 of 16 speakers had strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry, including the CDC. One Harvard physician claimed 42 different financial arrangements with 14 different pharmaceutical companies! My, when does he find the time to vaccinate anyone?
It is no wonder that the message delivered by AAP and industry influenced professionals to attending pediatricians was crystal clear: THERE IS NO VACCINE LINK!
Let me conclude by making the obvious conclusions about how I feel about the AAP. The politically correct statement would be to say that key individuals from within this organization have gone to great extents to obscure the vaccine-autism connection and by doing so are protecting profits and liability for one of the world's largest and most dangerous industries.
In reality, let me be blunt and politically incorrect. The AAP leadership knows very well that vaccines cause autism. We need not waste anymore efforts in trying to educate them, we need to indict them.
They may me morally bankrupt, but they are not stupid. They have lied to legislators, they have lied to journalists, they have lied to pediatricians, and worst of all, they have lied to you and your children.
The theme at the 2005 annual meeting was a celebration of "75 years of caring." It was not clear exactly what they cared most about, their corporate sponsors or protecting their leadership status over our nations' pediatricians. One thing is abundantly clear, the don't give a damn about scientific truth and they don't give a damn about you or your children.
I hope the autism community continues to move forward and expose all those involved who have put millions of children in harm's way.
Believe it, there is on thing you will come to learn about G4A, he only champions that supports his crazy theories or beliefs. So if a CBS report doesn't support his current argument of the day, then CBS be damned.
QUOTE(believe_it @ Feb 11 2009, 02:41 AM)
I nearly fell out of my chair tonight upon hearing Olbermann label Dr. Andrew Wakefield 'The Worst Person In The World.'
Prediction: Olberman will issue a full retraction in time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29128976
Worst Person in the World (BIG MISTAKE)
Prediction: Olberman will issue a full retraction in time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29128976
Worst Person in the World (BIG MISTAKE)
don't hold your breath, the truth and Olberman go together like G4A and white people.
QUOTE(GOPGuy @ Feb 17 2009, 07:25 PM)
...I dont think people who oppose the vaccines below to any politicial ideology. I seem to recal that Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey are big anti-vaccine advocates. I dont think they would be classified as conservatives. I believe there is at least one town in Oregon thats not vaccinating their children, again Oregon isnt a conservative strong hold. The parents are not againt protecting their children but if they feel that the vaccinations do more harm then I can see why they might be apprehensive about it.
EXACTLY! Thank you! That's common ground! (except Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey aren't actually anti-vaccine)
QUOTE
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/200...-day-in-dc.html
Green Our Vaccines - 140 pictures speak 140,000 words
Green Our Vaccines - 140 pictures speak 140,000 words
QUOTE
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/jenny-mcc...lly-washington/
Jenny McCarthy & Jim Carrey Host the Historic Green Our Vaccines March and Rally in Washington DC on June 4, 2008
NEW YORK, May 27, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ ----Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey will lead the Green Our Vaccines march, rally and press conference on Wednesday June, 4th at the Capitol Building, West Capitol Grounds in Washington, DC. The sponsored event has been organized by Talk About Curing Autism (TACA: 3.13, 0.022, 0.71%), Generation Rescue, Healing Every Autistic Life, and Moms Against Mercury.
McCarthy, author of the best-selling book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism," and Carrey have joined forces with national advocacy organizations in the battle to eliminate toxins from children's vaccines and to encourage national health agencies to reassess mandatory vaccine schedules. While they do support immunization, like many parents and experts in the medical community, McCarthy, Carrey and their many allies feel that children are receiving too many vaccines, too soon, many of which are toxic. Their goal is to demand a safer vaccine supply and schedule for children.
"This day will go down in history as a time when parents' voices and their message to change the vaccine program was finally heard and acted upon," said Jenny McCarthy.
Families from across the U.S. are already committed to marching for safe vaccines and the numbers are growing. "Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are heroes to hundreds of thousands of families who love a person with autism and for all families who want safe vaccines that are toxin free. Their desire to help and be a vocal instrument of change are warranted and greatly appreciated," said Lisa Ackerman, TACA Executive Director.
Participants will gather at 9 am at the Capitol Building, West Capitol Grounds. The march will promptly begin at 10 am with a Press Conference immediately following.
http://www.safevaccines.net
Sponsors & volunteers of the rally include: Generation Rescue, Healing Every Autistic Life, Moms Against Mercury & TACA. Over 39 other autism and environmental groups have signed on showing their support for the Green our Vaccines march & rally.
About TACA
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) provides support, education and information, and resources to more almost 9,000 families across the United States who are touched by autism. One in every 150 children in the United States has autism. TACA provides the largest national telephone and email response team for parents who have a child affected by autism. 95 percent of TACA's programs and services are provided at no charge and include education and support meetings, parent mentoring, and the Autism Journey Guide. TACA helps to strengthen the autism community by connecting families with professional assistance and serves to bridge the gap between diagnosis and effective treatment. http://www.tacanow.org
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.