Category Archives: Denialism

Vaccination’s vexed link to bad journalism

Posted in Denialism, Health by

Since the obliteration of both Andrew Wakefield’s character and his fraudulent claims, the “vaccines cause autism” lobby has become a most fascinating creature.

On the one hand we have the devout. The fundamentalists waging an emotional jihad against academic reality. Time and again they try to resell Wakefield, sully those who exposed him, concoct some bizarre “confirmation revelation” by distorting other research or parade a wounded parent.

Some plot to sell the compensation myth using cases of children with autism who sustain a vaccine injury. Or children with complex developmental disorders and autistic-like symptoms that were exacerbated by vaccination. Well aware this is not “compensated because of autism”, their intent is to trick others into joining or rejoining their cause.

Others seek to mask their intent. The flawed August attempt by David Austin and Kerrie Shandley from Swinburne to exhume the mercury autism corpse, made it as far as The Age in Melbourne. Devotees to the mercury-in-vaccines cause and members of the Who’s Who of this junk science even these culprits had to publically admit to a meaningless sample, an unproven hypothesis. Yet still they crowed success.

Most recently independent multi-topic author Marj Lefroy joined the obfuscation approach in publishing Vaccination’s vexed link to autism – a “life and style” opinion piece. Posed as a thoughtful observation it soon gives way to a clearly predetermined agenda. All the sign posts are there. The screaming baby being jabbed in the arm file picture, the sheer ignorance of the topic of both vaccination and autism, the erroneous exaggerations, appeal to authority, the seemingly unanswered questions.

It winds up being a free kick for the “vaccines cause autism” lobby. As such it tries to get away with an appalling journalistic standard, void of corroborating research. For example the case of Hannah Poling is raised as some type of proof, yet later Lefroy brings up Dr. David Amaral – who I wrote about recently – as he’s cautiously postulating a maybe. Hannah Poling was destined to manifest the symptoms of mitochondrial enzymatic deficiency vaccines or not. Underlying causes precipitating autistic like symptoms, do not an autism diagnosis make. This is what Amarai is alluding to. Other references to soundly debunked crackpot claims in the US are most cringe-worthy.

Lefroy begins;

Vaccines and autism: why this curious case is not closed

The case is closed. There’s nothing curious about it. An abundance of research has shown no causal relationship between the two and health authorities have bent over backward accommodating the goal post shifting of the anti-vaccination lobby. It remains a threat to confidence in vaccines, thus public health due to articles like this. It is the lack of understanding around autism and the presence of conditions with autistic like symptoms that is a problem.

For many parents, childhood vaccinations are this century’s abortion debate – highly divisive and driving a wedge between friends and neighbours. In the red corner are those banging the ‘vaccinate at any cost’ drum, and in the blue corner a collection of concerned parents and carers who say they’re dealing with the damage done.

Immediately the choice to vaccinate is cast as a thoughtless ideology beholden to vaccines. “Vaccinate at any cost”? This predicates that understanding vaccination means accepting there is a large scale cost to be paid. In truth the only cost in town is that accompanying the decision to not vaccinate. The steadily rising death and permanent injury toll from vaccine preventable disease is forgotten. There are far more common accidents than vaccine injury.

Eg; In the USA 10 children die of gunshot wounds every day [Tanac R et al. “A Case of Gunshot Wound Presenting with Atypical Cardiorespiratory Findings”. Journal of Pediatric Sciences. 2011;3(2):e78]. Aussie kids drown, die on the roads, in accidents at home or become permanently disabled before vaccine injury comes close.

Those in the blue corner, “concerned parents and carers”, are cast as victims of Lefroy’s non-existent ideology. Worse, they are dealing “with the damage done” (from vaccination). This is a complete distortion of the reality.

Firstly, parents with a child who has a condition some blame on vaccination are by no means unanimous. Quite the opposite with parents of such children far more often in favour of vaccination and properly armed with the facts. Secondly most in this other corner adhere to a belief system void of reason, evidence and the vast weight of research. A belief that says far more about their own irrational and tribal rejection of conventional medicine. There’s no evidence the bulk are even parents, much less with a vested interest. They overlap with new age impossibilities and sheer crackpottery.

Claiming they’re “concerned parents and carers”, is a rubber stamp of Lefroy’s ignorance. Organised anti-vaccination lobbyists such as Meryl Dorey and Viera Scheibner in Australia double as scam artists and law breakers. In the main they have very little in reality to deal with – much less “the damage done”. So many are trying to profit from the myth that vaccines potentially cause such harm, that they actively promote it as a choice running scare tactic seminars of unconscionable content. They fall upon anti-vaccination nonsense perpetuated by the Marj Lefroy’s of this world, with glee.

For people in the pro-vaccination camp, the fact that there is even a debate to be had is vexing. “What’s wrong with these irresponsible parents?” they say. “So educated and yet so stupid! Don’t they know that MMR study was discredited? And how can you take a Playboy Bunny seriously?” But there are reasons why the case of the curious link between vaccinations and autism is not closed, and Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy are not necessarily two of them.

There’s that term Scheibner loves to use: “pro-vaccination”. As if there’s an action that follows an ideological conviction. When in fact the decision to vaccinate is a no brainer. The scale of risk one is exposed to, and exposes others too is difficult to appreciate. As I’ve hinted, those with a vested interest in alternative therapy, new age diagnosis or the sickening “treatments” offered up to parents who believe vaccines caused their child’s injury benefit every time the term is used.

But Lefroy goes one better and even puts words into the mouths of this heartless pro-vaccine-at-any-cost group. Once again the reality is quite the contrary. Health professionals are trained in vaccine myths and part of this training demands not exhibiting ones own position. There is no vexing debate, but a very real psycho-social phenomenon that at times is heart breaking but at it’s roots has the very confidence in mythology Marj Lefroy is exhibiting.

As I also pointed out above Wakefield (whose work and detraction I hope Lefroy has seen) has spawned a belief system buoyed by an army of devout followers. He travels the world persisting in the same falsehood, proclaiming he’s the victim of “a hitman” for Big Pharma. Claims have metamorphosed into everything from complex muti-faceted disorders to simple one line scare tactics about aluminium or formaldehyde. Jenny McCarthy had and has the backing of some of the most powerful media personalities in the world. Far better to calmly point out the absurdity of her claims to have “cured” her son’s autism, and that she has in retrospect edited her web site once claiming “and, boom – the soul’s gone from his eyes”, following vaccination.

If the voices of those concerned parents and carers aren’t enough, consider this: recently, in a case before the US Court of Federal Claims, the US government conceded vaccines had aggravated a young girl’s mitochondrial disorder to the point where she developed autism. As a result, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program awarded her family an upfront payment of $1.5 million, and an additional ongoing payment of $500,000 per year to cover her care as well as the family’s lost earnings, pain and suffering.

It has since emerged that dozens of other families have reached similar settlements, and the Centers for Disease Control in the US has announced new research into vaccine safety.

Not true. Hannah Poling was compensated for encephalopathy brought on by mitochondrial enzyme deficiency. Whilst not unusual for children with her disorder to develop autistic like symptoms in the first two years of life, her parents were adamant vaccination was the cause. They fought and won the legal case. What this says clinically is perhaps nothing new. Regrettably her parents made much of the finding calling it a “landmark” in vaccine autism compensation. Jon Poling a neurologist and wife Terry Poling a nurse and lawyer, worked hard to ensure this erroneous message got out.

Yet, again pointing to the compensation myth I opened with above, it is well known that around one in one million children develop encephalopathy following MMR. Quite rightly these children are compensated. It is certainly worth noting at least one in 5,000 measles cases develop the same condition. Thus, we can now see why it has not “emerged that dozens other families have reached similar settlements”. Lefroy’s referring to the scam involving Pace Law students in May this year (I recommend reading this) headed by perpetual touble maker and unscrupulous vaccine fear author Mary Holland.

Not only did Pace Law School administrators come out and distance themselves from the entire disgrace, rather than lending weight to vaccines causing autism, it really shows how run of the mill the Poling’s case is. As media spokesperson for the charade Danielle Orsino said at the time responding to queries for conclusive evidence, “it strongly suggests” a link. Not only did they have nothing, leading telephone interviews made up 3/4 of the sample. And weren’t ethically approved. The CDC officially denies any causal link between autism and vaccination. Period.

Consider this, too: while we still don’t know exactly what causes autism, the latest research – including the study released by Dr Amaral of the University of California last week – is coalescing around the view that it’s a combination of genetic, immune system and environmental factors. Earlier this year, Dr Amaral said that, “there is a small subset of children who may be particularly vulnerable to vaccines if the child had a precondition like a mitochondrial defect … vaccinations, for those children, may be the environmental factor that tipped them over the edge.”

So why hasn’t this come up in vaccination studies to date? Dr Martha Herbert, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, says, “the problem with the population studies is they aren’t necessarily designed to have the statistical power to find subgroups like that if the subgroups are small.”

That means we’re not studying the right kids. We don’t even know where to find them, because most of the time we don’t know they have those vulnerabilities until they’re aggravated. Herein lies the great mystery.

The great mystery? To whom for goodness sake? For someone who has been labelling parties and speaking for them, Marj Lefroy seems suddenly remarkably ill informed. “Mitochondrial defect” was the crux of the Hannah Poling case 3 1/2 years ago. Genetic predisposition brought on by environmental exposure in autism (never mind being separate entities) is well established. Research into autism and autoimmune dynamics has been thriving over the last decade.

Many predisposed children will in most if not all cases develop severe disability. Vaccination may temporally get the gong. As might any other medication or indeed any illness. Thankfully, science doesn’t work by gathering seemingly related material, dismissing what one doesn’t want and gushing about what one does want.

So where do I stand on this? I’m not a parent. I haven’t yet had to make the agonising decision about whether or not to vaccinate my child. But I do know this: I’m definitely pro-vaccines and understand all too well the benefits they bring, and I also know they’re toxic for some kids. Because I saw what happened in the case of one of my nephews, for whom vaccination was one of several environmental factors and assaults to his immune system that, along with genetic predisposition and an underlying vulnerability, stressed his body and his mind so much that he slipped into autism. It’s not a conclusion that his mother, a sober individual pushing 40 with an honours degree in science and a background in public health, wanted to reach, but in the end it was undeniable.

His two brothers were vaccinated too, and they were fine. He was not. And it sends a chill down my spine when people talk dismissively about the “acceptable risk” of vaccines in the context of a broader public good. If it were their child, the risk would not be acceptable. Particularly if something could be done to mitigate it without compromising the benefits – and clearly, there is.

Make what you will of this personal, emotive venture. Marj has gone all “pro-vaccine”, despite writing about it like ritual sacrifice to the gods of herd immunity. The giveaway is “agonising decision” to vaccinate. With “toxic for some” vaccines. This in itself is an intellectual absurdity of towering immorality. It sets a tone of potential doom for what is a simple, perfectly safe routine process. And why? Well through a masterpiece of special pleading we get to hear about the autistic nephew. It must be true. “Undeniable” no less – despite zero evidence to support this notion – because his mother has “an honours degree in science and a background in public health”.

Blame. The need to apportion blame. I’ve seen a lot of it in other areas of controversial public health. It’s powerful, it’s blind, it’s destructive and meaningless.

So Marj tries on her new found knowledge about vaccines, genetics and environmental factors, actually coming to a conclusion ahead of David Amaral of The Autism Phenome Project! Marj believes her nephew “slipped into autism” and has used recent knowledge to shape a rationale. Fascinating.

And don’t you go talking of acceptable risk like one in one million trivalent vaccines, vs one in at most 5,000 cases of a single disease for encephalitis. Measles will kill between one in 2,500 – 5,000 depending on age. The MMR vaccine will kill zero. SSPE will afflict one in 8,000 measles cases, the vaccine will render zero cases. Or calculate that feasibly, a person may live to be 8,000 years old sustaining the infant/childhood vaccine schedule every year and still have no serious reaction.

That “chill down my spine” should be reserved for the return of measles, polio, pertussis, varicella, rotavirus, rubella, diphtheria, meningococcal disease, tetanus….. Recent surveys using todays ASD diagnostic criteria indicate autism levels haven’t changed in 30 years – despsite the increase in vaccines.

We can change the ingredients (like we did when we removed mercury). We can change the way they’re administered (using drops instead of injections, so the virus can be broken down by the immune system’s natural defence mechanisms before it gets into the bloodstream, instead of being propelled straight into it at full strength). We can get better at identifying children with vulnerabilities and treating them accordingly. And we can persevere with research until we find out why this keeps happening.

Vaccines “…being propelled straight into it [the bloodstream] at full strength”. Of course this never happens. It’s very telling terminology and hints at where Lefroy’s loyalties lie. Injected intramuscularly there is no sudden insult. In fact, with adjuvants their role in part is to keep the antigen at the injection site longer so the immune response will be controlled and optimal. Also, to lessen the amount of antigen needed. Research will always continue and safer compounds when available will be introduced.

These are things we can and must do. The trouble is, in today’s polarised public square, the middle ground seems to have disappeared from beneath our feet. Conversations about vaccines typically descend into petty point-scoring and vilification, particularly on the troll-fertilising Internet. It discourages honest, respectful discussion. And to those who think giving oxygen to the debate will cause parents to stop vaccinating their kids, I say this: it’s happening anyway. It’s precisely the lack of information, the factual vacuum, that fuels anxiety and stifles life-saving progress.

I can’t find much fault with much of that paragraph. Only to stress the lack of oxygen has been suggested as a suitable means to keep thoroughly disreputable sources where they belong: away from influencing the public. The Australian Vaccination Network is typical. Once given ample oxygen to represent “debate” and “informed choice” they did untold damage. Only now do we know the current president is a charlatan, thief and fraud. Her reach has been pruned splendidly.

I may add however, it’s articles like this very piece by Marj that push parents away from vaccination. There’s not so much a factual vacuum as a hurricane of misinformation. The real trick parents must learn is to trust expertise, not expect to understand what they never can or conclude on what they simply do not understand.

Like any issue with a degree of complexity, there are more than two sides to this one. We must have the courage and maturity to listen to everyone, including the mothers and the fathers dealing with the unacceptable, potentially avoidable consequences. They’re the canaries in the coalmine, and the real reason why this case is not closed. It’s just that science, like the law, sometimes takes a while to catch up.

Sadly, at the last Lefroy is reverting to the past. Desperate to sound rational we hear of courage and maturity. Maturity Lefroy has forgone with respect to an autistic nephew. The work has been done Marj. The risk remains infinitesimal. Irrationality and bizarre belief is spreading, massaged and milked by fringe disciplines, alternative practices and die hard lobbyists. The canaries have been heard, the coalmine has been mapped. The case is indeed closed.

Marj Lefroy signed off as an author with a “special interest” in autism. I’d call it a conflict of interest. Many people, always ill informed, think they can blame a non-existent lag in science for something they simply cannot accept.

It’s such a pity that in this case innocent children will suffer as a result.

Debunking Viera Scheibner on Sunrise

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Health, Immunisation, Media by

In 1985 a micropalaeontologist who had emigrated from Slovakia to Australia in 1968 was testing the breathing patterns of babies recently vaccinated with DTP.

Using an infant breathing monitor invented by her late husband the geological surveyor with NSW Department of Mineral Resources claimed to have witnessed “stressed breathing”. With this one unconfirmed assertation the woman, Viera Scheibner, went on to claim she had discovered the cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. She attempted to alert the scientific community to this Nobel Prize worthy “discovery”.

The claim – having none of the specifics of established scientific inquiry – was dismissed. Thus began the long career of arguable revenge that has driven Viera Scheibner to not only blame vaccines for almost all physical ills but to claim her conclusions come from the very literature source whose authors spurned her “discovery”. Claiming vaccines cause AIDS, asthma, immune suppression, Legionnaires, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, indeed all infectious disease, Scheibner insists “orthodox medical research” shows this. Disease conversely is “good”.

Scheibner is a role model to Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Network. However Viera clearly tries to fool Australians. In her book she writes that when Japan moved vaccination age from under 12 months to 2 years the incidence of SIDS “virtually disappeared”. In fact she had sourced her figures from vaccination compensation. In Japan SIDS is only diagnosed in infants under 12 months. Thus SIDS had not disappeared, only the opportunity to link it to vaccination compensation.

Despite claiming that Sweden abandoned pertussis vaccination due to a loss of trust, Scheibner forgets to recount the immediate rise in pertussis cases and their research effort into new pertussis vaccines. Nor does she recount how Sweden resumed pertussis vaccination to great success. She continues to insist vaccines have done nothing more than “sensitise” human beings to viral infection despite dissenting data and massive drops in disease. Scheibner also denies smallpox was eradicated.

This video refutes the claims she recently made on Channel 7’s Sunrise program in Australia.

Viera Scheibner on Sunrise

Autism Phenome Project confirms two subsets of autism

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Health, Science by

The UC Davis Mind Institute has confirmed two types of autism, with different biological aspects at Perth’s Asia-Pacific Autism Conference.

Whilst different subsets of autism appear likely the behavioural outcomes are the same. This suggests there may be genetic, environmental and immune aspects that whilst different all lead to a common aspect manifesting as autism. For example it’s known that mothers with one autistic child are 18% more likely to have another child with a developmental delay diagnosis.

Boys can develop a subset that presents brain hypertrophy earlier than predicted. Not seen in all boys this form is also not seen in girls, according to Dr. David Amaral from the Autism Phenome Project.

The ABC report;

“We don’t see it in girls, and even in boys we see it only in a subset of children with autism,” he said.

He says in biological terms there are different types of autism, but they all have similar symptoms.

“That’s one of the mysteries at this point. We know that there are different biologies but that the behavioural symptoms of children with autism all look basically the same,” he said.

“Many, many people now are trying to figure out whether all of these various biological causes are focusing on one final common pathway.”

He says as research progresses, one form of autism might be more easily treated than others.

“As one example, about 12 per cent of women who have children with autism have antibodies that are directed at the foetal brain,” Dr Amaral said.

“We’re doing research now to determine whether that really is a cause. And if that’s the case, that leads directly to a diagnostic marker for a subset of families that are going to go on to have children with autism.

“We expect that as we learn more and more about the various subtypes we can develop strategies to more effectively either prevent or treat each one of those different categories.”

The Autism Phenome Project focuses on:

  • Medical evaluation
  • Environmental exposure and epidemiology
  • Behaviour
  • Genomics
  • Immune function
  • Proteomics and metabolomics
  • Bioinformatics

Newtown Community Chiropractic: referencing rubbish

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Chiropractic, Denialism, Health by

I’m good at knowing how to read a research article, and knowing whether it’s viable or not. I’m also good at collecting a lot of research. This vaccine topic I update every single week. So what we’re looking at is new as of yesterday morning.

Nimrod Weiner. Antivaccination Presentation recorded by AMA

Nimrod Weiner, anti-vaccination lobbyist and chiropractor from Newtown Community Chiropractic went into overdrive deleting and editing his online rubbish last week.

This followed a report in The Australian expressing valid concerns that a so-called health professional would be actively spreading demonstrable untruths about the safety of vaccination. In the opening of his talk on the audio recorded by AMA members, Weiner talks of his unique skill and superior position due to his reading of research. I’ll get to that. Yet, he also talks of the presentation “being about the best possible result” for participants. He’s going to challenge long held paradigms and “help you get through that”. To “look at the science…”.

The Nimroddery that Weiner presented is indeed due to his unique reading habits. Thanks to intrepid observers* of recent developments his ancient, cobwebbed “bibliography” of long debunked hysteria is below. Unwittingly accepting the advice I often give to all antivaccination advocates and general enemies of health science –  If it’s peer review, it’s not for you – Weiner has cobbled together some beauties. Exactly how anyone who makes money from government subsidies, Medicare and insurance underwriters can knowingly go forth and spread this tripe is simply outrageous.

What I’ve done for your reading ease dear easygoing reader, is highlight in yellow all the references we may quaintly label as pure garbage. Some of these such as Every second child and How to raise a healthy child in spite of your doctor are well known crackpot bibles. Not only antivaccination but anti-medicine and/or medical practice. That magnet for all things ridiculous, and creator of its own law, Whale.to lists Every Second Child. In part we read;

His experience showed that after being immunized, some of the animals died suddenly within 24 hours.  These deaths had been attributed to anaphylaxis…. I suggested that vitamin C deficiency was the cause.  Like primates they required it in their diet. […]

The importance of this discovery can hardly be stressed.  In Australia and all over the world, infants were being immunised.  Those whose vitamin C status was low were at risk.  here, at last, was experimental evidence that supported my claims that stepping up immunisation campaigns among Aboriginal infants increased the death rate.

You may know of the book. Cited often as proving vaccination seeks to purposely kill, it resurfaced recently here and there in defence of Viera Scheibner following a 60 Minutes episode espousing her wisdom, Getting the point. Of course we should remember Scopie’s law when we speak of whale.to. From Rational Wiki;

In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately …and gets you laughed out of the room.

Whale.to is a website run by Herefordshire pig farmer John Scudamore. It is a notorious dumping ground for all things pseudoscientific… as well as a few other things. Like the complete text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, documentations of Illuminati mind control plots, and articles about the Catholic world conspiracy. It contains every (and we do mean every) half-baked pseudoscientific theory ever concocted.

Shockingly, it was used as a source by the plaintiffs in the Autism omnibus trial, and it has seen increasing use as a “source” by anti-vaccinationists and propagators of the vaccine-autism connection.

Again Scopie’s Law is shown to be valid. Weiner indeed loses on many levels and should really have been laughed out of the room. I’ve popped a red square over the number signifying an Australian Vaccination Network publication offered as a reference. The circle around number 11 is a special award for Wilson’s Vaccination and Behavioural Disorders: a review of the controversy, just for emerging from Lismore and being in disgraceful company.

You can find this nonsense along with other “related books” that Weiner has on his exceptionally biased bibliography. All on the one page of conspiracy and hysterically themed books on the internet. I think we can guess at Weiner’s researching skills and professional objectivity just from this one observation. As for updated information?

  • Every Second Child was published in 1981
  • How to raise your child… in 1983.
  • A shot in the dark, by Barbara Loe Fisher and Harris Coulter – 1991
  • Vaccination, social violence and criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain, by harris Coulter – 1990
  • Vaccination: 100 years of orthodox research shows that vaccines represent a medical assault on the immune system, by Viera Scheibner – 1993

There’s also In the wake of vaccines, by Barbara Loe Fisher and cited on whale.to by Nimrod Weiner – 2004. Yet the real herp derp kicks in with the citing of Informed Choice magazine, Wellbeing magazine, International Wellbeing and of course citations from Chiropractic Leadership Alliance.

Most of this misinformation is over a decade old, with some up to thirty. The AVN now push Living Wisdom. Before that it was Informed Voice and before that Informed Choice (the latter change in August 2006). Weiner only quotes from Informed Choice – defunct seven years ago.

Just how long has Weiner been sabotaging community health one may wonder? Without even updating his woo? Yet he begins his attack on vaccination efficacy and safety by telling his audience how well read he is. He sits on two boards – so it’s his business to read huge amounts of information.

“I sit on the spinal research foundation board. What that means is, everyday I’m reading a lot of research articles”. Weiner argues that he’s been “studying vaccination for hundreds of hours”. Whilst this makes him a lazy hobbyist, it’s worse to find he’s not studying at all. It’s like a psychologist boasting of research only to be found out reading New Idea.

Wellbeing magazine is another depository for anything irrational, non toxic and “natural”. Ditto International Wellbeing. He only cites antivaccination material. One stunner is the thrice listed AVN’s 1998 offence entitled, Vaccination Roulette; Experiences, Risks and Alternatives. 

All up we have;

  • 26 yellow highlights of discredited and dangerous misinformation, including…
  • 11 direct AVN references from non proven or reviewed magazine articles aiming to provoke fear, ignorance and hysteria
  • “Wellbeing” magazine articles
  • 2 Viera Scheibner references discredited across the globe
  • 6 notably unscientific book references of conspiracy theory proportion
  • whale.to
  • Mercola
  • Super Baby: Boost your Babyʼ s Potential from Conception to Year 1, 1998
  • And more…

Certainly Weiner does list a handful of actual journal articles but these have not been selected as balance to the insulting rubbish from the AVN, or to defend vaccination. Calmly exploiting the reality that vaccine science is not perfect, and that unlike chiropractic, medical professionals do report, research and strive to overcome adverse reactions. Australian government publications are there to back up his misinformation that they try to hide vaccine reactions.

His advice, in this era of pertussis epidemics and rising measles cases resulting in death and disability? Slide 82 from Weiner’s presentation, suggests;

Delay starting the vaccinations for as long as you can. A minimum of 12 months is favourable while a minimum of two or more years may be more beneficial… Ask for mercury free vaccines (they will still contain other toxic chemicals: formaldehyde, aluminium, antibiotics)

Nimrod Weiners bibliography for Vaccinations: An Informed Choice

*Thanks to @DrRachie for finding the references.

Child Health Safety: The Wakettes arise

Posted in Denialism, Scam by

I mentioned the blog Child Health Safety last post, alluding to Wakettism of the first order.

I recently commented under the post Wakefield and MMR – Brian Deer fails to answer. Apparently my observations deserved an entire blog post, headed Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988. This was copied and pasted back as a reply ignoring the content of my comment. The thrust was to debunk my claim of no real autism epidemic. I’d used Brugha et al. “Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England.” Archives of General Psychiatry  –  doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38. This paper uses today’s diagnostic criteria and shows adults have autism at a rate of 9.8/1000 in adults.

Today’s rate is difficult to ascertain, but can be 10/1600 to 10/1000 in children. The latter is the more common – 1%, although this is probably high given other estimates. Brugha concludes no epidemic exists, but that diagnostic criteria has changed, suggesting he alludes to the 10/1000 figure. Many who point to large scale increases also support the reality of changing diagnostic criteria. Brugha’s paper is discussed here on Ars Technica, Autism Epidemic? More likely we’re just better at diagnosis which also uses the 10/1000 – or 1% figure today. Other publications discuss the findings: “Most adults with autism go undiagnosed” AlphaGalileo. “University of Leicester researchers present further evidence from first ever general population survey of autism in adulthood.” Disabled World

Our Wakette at Child Health Safety is claiming a 1200% increase in autism frequency in eight years. He chose an Israeli study – as is plain if you read his post above, with 0.84 cases per 1000 – Advancing Paternal Age and Autism by Reichenberg et al. Then he uses Baird’s well known figure of 11.6/1000 to get his 1200% increase. Just one lone paper no doubt chosen to sustain this 1200% increase claim. The three variables impacting on frequency are criteria, age of cohort and geographical location. Age and location impact on our friends mythical 1200%.

So, over to this new post I went. Now, you may wonder what the relevance of a comment stream is. However, I found this typical of antivaccination lobbyists particularly those who seek to maintain the autism myth. I’ve always wondered what made the crackpots behind this site tick. They have “secrets” on Wakefield. Brian Deer and the BMJ are the real fraudsters. “Governments” have been exposed. Typical conspiracy central meanderings.

Rather than address the clear challenges we find a challenging tone and combative presentation. Combined with false dichotomies by association, censoring of comments by deletion then eventual banning. I actually began by apologising below for sending them off in a huff. One comment (under a piece defending Wakefield) that nailed them left them pleading inability to understand. Anyway, I commented;

I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

You quote Reichenberg et al’s Israeli study from the Archives of General Psychiatry to “set a benchmark”, which you then compare to Baird’s UK figures. Yes both use DSM IV. But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory. No offence but you can’t just make up relationships between unrelated data sets without correcting for other variables. You need to show statistically why the individual sets relate to your argument. This is a common flaw. Genetics, environment, parental education and rearing techniques… etc.

Still, let’s go with it. 8.4:10,000 or 0.84 per 1000. Then Baird’s UK figures of 116.1:10,000 or 11.6 per 1000. From this you argue a 1200% increase insinuating vaccination. Yet Baird had written.

“Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear.”

Thus, you make conclusions from Baird’s work that even he did not. I shall argue you selected the lone Israeli paper for it’s dramatic impact. Now onto research that seeks to determine if any increase at all has occurred. We can stay in the UK eliminating the genetic and environmental confounding variables of Israel data. Let’s examine adults using the same diagnostic criteria.

Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England – Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):459-465. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38

We find 9.8 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-16.5). The author’s write:

“The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.”

It’s documented by Baird that younger children – indeed younger subjects often have a higher score in diagnosis. Using this reality we expect to see significant decreases in adults. But we have Baird’s 11.6 and Brugha’s 9.8 per 1000. Given the approximation of these figures using today’s diagnostic criteria and the huge age difference one may assume autism is falling as we’d expect to see a much lower rate in adults. More so, in 2003 Baird himself writes in Diagnosis of autism – BMJ;

“… several factors account for the increase–for example, changing conceptualisation to a spectrum rather than a core categorical condition; changes in diagnostic methods; …”

That’s probably enough. Although consider:

1 in 150 (1988-1995; Bertrand et al., 2001)
1 in 175 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2000)
1 in 85 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2006)
1 in 150 (1992; ADDMN, 2007)
1 in 160 (1992-1995; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001)
1 in 150 (1994; ADDMN, 2007)
1 in 58 (1993-1997; not published)
1 in 170 (1996-1998; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2005)

– which is markedly inconsistent with the myth of an epidemic. it is consistent with methodology. Selecting data to suit your argument will not change reality.

I apologise for having such fun with your bag of errors. It was an appalling reply and a ridiculous blog post however. The above post is very plain in showing that you’re inventing a phenomena not supported by research nor even by Baird himself. Autism rates have not changed. Diagnosis has. A decrease is most likely.

Thank you.

And;

Your comment in blue above:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

… is meaningless. I stressed this in another comment but you couldn’t answer. Let me be quite plain. Compensation for encephalopathy or general brain disease is due to vaccination. It may be accompanied by…. autism. It may also be accompanied by blue eyes, blonde hair or bad breath. None of these are due to vaccination. This comment is one of many that stress compensation for vaccine induced autism has never occurred. Even Poling had a predetermining mitochondrial disorder.

As I stressed elsewhere. Only reading something like; “This child was compensated due to autism developing directly as a result of vaccination”, will sustain the allusion above. As I said elsewhere, defeating your ability to reply – Even the recent Pace Law school student foray into 21 VCIP cases and over 60 biased phone call interviews offered “it strongly suggests” a link. (Quoting Danielle Orsino media rep).

That paper is “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury”. But as Orsino says, there’s a “suggestion”. Period.

You contention is demonstrably flawed on many levels.

Thank you.

Apparently no point to answer exists;

Paul @ 2011/08/20 at 2:01 am

I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

Really? In an earlier comment elsewhere you drew our attention to the letter in the peer reviewed Journal of the Israeli Medical Association which draws attention to the figures from the Paternal Age paper. Thanks for that. We did not know and have added a reference to this article so it now can draw on authority of a peer reviewed journal.

You seem not to be able to agree with any medical experts. That’s fine. We are letting you let off steam here.

And;

Paul @ 2011/08/20 at 3:02 am

“Your comment in blue above:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

… is meaningless.”

Oh dear. You just cannot trust governments can you? The US Health Resources Services Administration give a quote to a journalist of a national TV news broadcast network confirming the US government has compensated cases of children who developed autistic conditions from vaccines and paid out lots and lots of dollars to them and it turns out to be meaningless.

LOL. Back to the drawing board for everyone.

I replied;

I think you have seen the flaw. That comment is all over the place here. Yep – meaningless.

“Autistic conditions” are not vaccine induced autism. You’re at least changing language – the first step in accepting facts. Sadly, there’s no LOL. I’m glad you think it’s funny. One in 1 million children suffer encephalitis from vaccine reactions. They are compensated as is just. Many have autism. The comment is debunking the very untruth you seek to make.

“…. may be accompanied by an array of symptoms”.

Until you can produce “compensated because of their autism”, you have no case. The facts and government positions are against you. Global research is against you. From ethyl mercury to vaccines to numbers of vaccines no link can be shown.

Accept it.

Thanks again.

Then horror upon horror, they clicked on my URL and delivered;

LOL, Rant on Paul.

We are content to rely on a peer reviewed journal. Thanks for drawing our attention to it – so we could add the link to the article.

You might as well let everyone know you are a friend of Peter Bowditch and the “skeptics” crowd who are happy to victimise and attack people personally on the web, spread misinformation lose legal actions and then claim they have not. Similarly Terry Polevoy – Terry Polevoy vs Ilena Rosenthal.

Birds of a feather flock together. What a lot of flockers.

Those nasty skeptics all linked up like a hive… I tried again;

I thought this was about debating and/or defending the premise of your post?

I think given the tone and lack of substance of your replies, it’s clear I’ve upset your apple cart here. Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year. Why can’t you address this simple reality? The above reply is most unbecomming.

Yes I know of Peter and enjoy the skeptic community. So, you clicked a link to my site. Welcome. I’m ignorant as to the case you refer to or Polevoy. I do know Peter posts everything on his site so is unlikely to spread misinformation. Either way I could be head of GSK yet I still have a valid argument you avoid. No laughing matter. Autism is decreasing if we involve your figure from Baird.

Also, go back to my original comment. You have much work to do. Don’t feel embarrassed – science is all about being proven wrong. No need to turn aggressively defensive. I’m not judgmental.

I await your reply with eagerness.

All the best now.

Next, missing the point of Brugha’s comparison to contemporary childhood figures;

Paul @ August 21, 2011 at 2:04 am

Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year.

Shame you have not read either paper or maybe you have and you know you are talking rubbish. Comparing chalk and cheese just like your mates Bowditch and Polevoy to lie about the facts. Baird was dealing with children. Brugha was dealing with adults. So you are saying the same children Baird covered became adults in one year and 13.7% of them simultaneously were cured.

LOL. Nice one.

Pretty good refutation we think. But then that is just the style of Bowditch, Polevoy and friends.

The old, “tar ’em with the same brush trick”, eh? I continued self flagellating;

I may have been generous with my stats. It’s a 13.79% decrease. My bad… apologies.

Pretty much a 14% decrease in autism in the same nation in one year. Geographic location is a plus. Age is a plus. Criteria is a plus. The 3 variables effecting frequency of autism. You still need to address your “theory” using Israeli data to compare to a different location & age group.

All the best.

Things deteriorated along those lines. More allusion to “Bowditch and Polevoy” and whatever case of which I had no knowledge. Sadly, my dear comment protagonist first began censoring comments that refuted his ongoing claims, then banned me altogether. Perhaps referring to “the awesome Ben Goldacre” was pushing my luck. Back in 2007 he’d written an excellent article. Clearly whomever it is holding the reins at Child Health Safety has a thing about Polevoy and dear Peter Bowditch. He/she/they did have one point. I mentioned Brugha as “citing” the 10/1000 figure of todays frequency vs his adult findings of 9.8/1000. I was in error. Brugha studiously avoids picking any of the many autism frequencies out there today.

Yet Brugha’s 9.8/1000 in adults advanced as showing no change to todays child frequencies of 10/1000 (the widely used 1%) leads me conclude it’s safe to argue with the 10/1000 figure. That’s rather clear in the post deleted but found here. Also Brugha et al. wrote;

The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.

From Alpha Galileo we have;

Dr Brugha said the new scientific article confirms the already published report from the survey (2009) that 9.8 per thousand adults in England meet official diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. There was no evidence of an ‘autism epidemic’ of marked increase in people with the condition.

He said: “Overall our findings suggest that prevalence is neither rising nor falling significantly over time. This favours the interpretation that methods of ascertainment (case finding) have changed in more recent surveys of children compared to the earliest surveys in which the rates reported were considerably lower”.

I could have chosen the 10/1600 figure, rendering Brugha’s finding more compelling. It’s fascinating to consider that adults today may present at 9.8/1000 vs children at as little as 10/1600. Knowing that increases in cohort age correlate to a reduction in frequency diagnoses, and adults have learned many skills that also lower overall score, we’re left to consider an actual drop in autism over the last generation. How wonderful if that were true and perhaps due to the protection from measles induced encephalitis due to MMR vaccination.

In conclusion, this poor author has unwittingly proven my point. Had he shown the courtesy of reading my sources he’d have noted studies devoted to examining the very question, don’t support an epidemic. Had he even read Baird’s papers he’d have seen Baird herself doesn’t claim an absolute increase but stresses causes are unclear and changing diagnostic criteria are a variable. I guess what got up my nose is fishing for an obscure study, comparing it to Baird’s work and using this to conclude there’s a 1200% increase in autism due to vaccination.

Not only is this not repeated anywhere no attempt was made to eliminate confounding variables. No understanding of using unrelated data sets or attempt to justify correlation between them exists. Just a very low figure plucked out and used “as a benchmark”.

Moving away from Baird and Brugha we find a range of diagnostic papers that fail to support the contention of a steady increase. I’ll give the last word to Ben Goldacre from 2007, writing About that surge in autism, in The Autism Crisis;

Autism advocates are free to seek that recent surge in autism–that catastrophic epidemic–in anecdotes, in education numbers or the CDDS, in sensationalist headlines and so on. This is all in keeping with the rotten standards of science and ethics they’ve imposed on autistics, and with their own steadfast resistance against verifiable information. But on the off-chance anyone’s interested in the published, peer-reviewed data, I thought I’d go fetch some. If anyone finds any factual errors in the information I’ve presented, I’d greatly appreciate knowing. Accurate information is always good for autistics.

Indeed.