Tag Archives: Child Health Safety

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.

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

Hand me down clothes for the “mercury causes autism” mannequin

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Science by

Back in early August Swinburne University of Technology published an astonishing media release.

Australian research finds autism risk

Date posted: 9 Aug 2011

A family history of pink disease is a significant risk factor for developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research from Swinburne University of Technology has found.

The results of the study, conducted by Associate Professor David Austin and Ms Kerrie Shandley from the Swinburne Autism Bio-Research Initiative (SABRI), have been published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Pink disease was a form of mercury poisoning prevalent in the first half of the 20th century. [….] When mercury was identified as the culprit and removed as an ingredient in teething powders in the 1950s, the disease was essentially wiped out. […]

“Staggeringly, we found that one in 25 grandchildren of pink disease survivors aged 6-12 had been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. This compares to the current Australian prevalence rate for that age group of one in 160. […] In the meantime, Austin suggests those with a suspected family history of pink disease to minimise their exposure to mercury. This is particularly important for young children and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

“This can be done by observing the recommendations of Food Standards Australia regarding seafood consumption, opting for non-amalgam dental fillings and requesting preservative-free vaccines from your doctor,” he said.

“Staggeringly”! I hope you got that. By what mechanism I wondered? That was absolutely crucial. Huge toxic loads of mercury caused Pink disease (acrodynia). Thimerosal is ethylmercury rapidly removed from the body, monitored to the nth degree to ensure safe exposure. Teething powders contained 65,000 micrograms per dose of mercurous chloride which decomposed into elemental mercury and poisonous mercuric chloride on exposure to sunlight.

Thousands of children died – between 10 and 33% of cases. Yet not all exposed children suffered acrodynia – it was a minority of 0.2%. Are they thus suggesting a pre-existing inherited genetic susceptibility or susceptibility brought on by acrodynia, which was known to cause infertility? How did parents of children in the Swinburne study fare, in view of other studies linking high maternal exposure to mercury to autism in offspring? How robust was the data collation?

Kerrie Shandley and David W. Austin return to The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health to publish Ancestry of Pink Disease (Infantile Acrodynia) Identified as a Risk Factor for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Yes, that Journal of Toxicology…. The one that provides succour to Dr. Mark Geier of chemical castration and misdiagnosis fame in his “ASD Centers” across eight USA states. In 2007 the journal published A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders by the infamous father and son team of, to say the least, dubious reputation. Geier senior is presently watching as his medical licence is suspended in consecutive US states.

We can learn quite a bit of these author’s intentions, hence the quality of research, simply by checking their track record. In 2008 Shandley and Austin published An Investigation of Porphyrinuria in Australian Children. They leap straight into citing from known offenders perpetuating the mercury-autism link – Geier and Geier, Nataf et al., Bernard et al., Mutter et al., – in the abstract claiming;

These (atypical urinary porphyrin profiles in children with an autism spectrum disorder) serve as an indirect measure of environmental toxicity generally, and mercury (Hg) toxicity specifically, with the latter being a variable proposed as a causal mechanism of ASD…. To examine whether this phenomenon occurred in a sample of Australian children with ASD, an analysis of urinary porphyrin profiles was conducted. [….] Three independent studies from three continents have now demonstrated that porphyrinuria is concomitant with ASD, and that Hg may be a likely xenobiotic to produce porphyrin profiles of this nature.

The discussion is far more circumspect about this correlation [italics mine], despite the authoritative recommendation [in my bold];

 Furthermore, this study provides further evidence suggestive of an environmental toxicant variable, consistent with Hg, contributing to the maintenance, and possibly development, of ASD.

Given the consistency of the emerging research, health authorities worldwide need to move without delay to further elucidate the specific nature of the toxic insult.

The bibliography is rather short but as well as the above includes Edward Yazbak, Mark Blaxill – editor from Age of Autism – and Sally Bernard et al.’s Autism: a novel form of poisoning from Medical Hypotheses 2001. It’s a Who’s Who of vaccines cause autism mythology whose work is featured by Generation Rescue, The Australian Vaccination Network, Age of Autism and their ilk. Shandley and Austin write erroneously, citing Yazbak, that autism [the disease – not the diagnosis frequency] is “increasing at epidemic rates” then cite Blaxill et al, arguing it;

…. cannot be accounted for by changing diagnostic criteria or improved diagnostic systems

In fact changing criteria has been proposed for years by many paediatricians including Gillian Baird and quantified recently by Brugha et al, who used current diagnostic criteria to uncover a population of autistic adults only 2% smaller than the child population. However, whilst porphyrinuria may indicate environmental exposure to heavy metals including lead and mercury other studies have shown correlation to autism and not Aspergers. Yet this heavy metal/autism mechanism, and what it exactly means is even less certain.

Porphyrins are oxidised byproducts that have “escaped” the heme biosynthetic pathway. We expect to see elevated levels in the urine of elderly, nutritionally deficient, regularly medicated and physiologically distressed individuals. The body can generally physiologically manage toxic build up. Hepatic and renal pathways of elimination serve as detoxification routes for the body. Porphyrinuria heralds a drop in efficacy of biosynthesis or environmental toxic exposure.

If the autistic sample is not recently exposed to environmental toxicity – or as the authors may argue, mercury – then we have to accept compromised biosynthesis. Whether this is due to autism, which does accompany a range of physiological challenges, or whether compromised biosynthesis indicated by porphyrinuria is contributing to autism, is unknown. It’s worth noting that enzymatic and physiological abnormality at the molecular level has been hypothesised as contributing to hypo’ and hypersensitivity in autism. The pathophysiology of autism sufferers is extensive and well documented. The angle Shandley and Austin take is the dramatic call to discover the nature of the “toxic insult” potentially causing ASD. Reading between the lines, and all academic company considered, that “toxic insult” is mercury in vaccines.

This is brought home strongly by Austin’s lone foray the same year in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. An epidemiological analysis of the ‘autism as mercury poisoning’ hypothesis, is a scruffy 11 point synopsis concluding that mercury does indeed cause autism. In point 9, he addresses “Mercury levels are higher in autistic than non-autistic children”. He argues that the “causal” hypothesis would suggest that mercury levels would be higher in autistic children. Of course, that’s just what we find chopping into this straw man. Nataf et al., Geier and Geier, Bradstreet and Geier et al., make up three references. The fourth is DeSoto and Hitlan who court ample controversy not least for citing Geier and Geier excessively.

He notes that either mercury causes autism or autism causes mercury. The second notion being “patently nonsensical” and unsupported by literature. Which is unusual because with the cause of autism unknown and the many times exposure to mercury has been ruled out the same could be said of the first notion. We do know that biologically, neurologically and physiologically autistic individuals face many hurdles, and as I suggest above biosynthetic dynamics can’t be ruled out or in.

I was treated once again to a fallacy I’ve had shoved at me in other areas in public health in which robust data indicate no causation between variables. A type of “better to be safe than sorry”, usually proffered by those bent on ideology. Austin here hijacks the “Precautionary Principle (‘First, do no harm’)” as point 10;

The science behind the autism as mercury poisoning hypothesis meets all epidemiological criteria across too many independent studies to be dismissed as coincidence. So, the hypothesis that mercury likely causes autism is confirmed epidemiologically.

He also rewrites history on Pink Disease in point 9, by suggesting that “despite limited evidence” mercury containing compounds were recalled. This is nonsense. Fierce resistance to accepting mercury poisoning was the norm with medical focus being on a physiological cause. It’s argued the mercury hypothesis gained stronger ground only when opponents “became old and disappeared from the scene”. Gaining credibility via attrition of opposition is not application of the precautionary principle. Austin here is exposed as deceptive, misleading readers for his own purposes.

He concludes his plunge from the windowsill of academic integrity with;

The existing literature provides grounds for suspicion that mercury plays a causal role in the development of autism. [….] …it would be negligent to continue to expose pregnant and nursing mothers and infant children to any amount of avoidable mercury. Health authorities worldwide should move without hesitation to ban and remove all mercury in all medical products at the earliest possible date.

Again with the dramatic calls. Where is this mercury really coming from? Ethylmercury or methylmercury in the diet, pre-term maternal diet, breast feeding or toxic exposure? We can infer with a good deal of accuracy he alludes to thimerosal in vaccines. It’s a shocking paper without even an acknowledgement of the impact of changing diagnostic criteria. The bibliography continues to fail with Boyd Haley, who pops up twice, Mark Blaxill again along with another showing from Sally Bernard. Indeed the “epidemiological analysis” of “existing literature” is a predetermined collation of biased and discredited publications.

Still, we can now return to the most recent paper with a clear understanding of these authors’ predetermined agenda.

To begin with they wheel out all the veteran offending authors, including their previous work to make the case there’s a relationship between mercury and autism. Well, third time lucky just doesn’t apply here. In the tradition of discerning character from the company one keeps, I think we can indeed confirm intention from citations. From the abstract they propose susceptibility and genetic predisposition to explain the small subset of Pink disease sufferers and of autism diagnoses today;

Pink disease (infantile acrodynia) was especially prevalent in the first half of the 20th century. Primarily attributed to exposure to mercury (Hg) commonly found in teething powders, the condition was developed by approximately 1 in 500 exposed children. The differential risk factor was identified as an idiosyncratic sensitivity to Hg. Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have also been postulated to be produced by Hg. Analogous to the pink disease experience, Hg exposure is widespread yet only a fraction of exposed children develop an ASD, suggesting sensitivity to Hg may also be present in children with an ASD. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that individuals with a known hypersensitivity to Hg (pink disease survivors) may be more likely to have descendants with an ASD.

Fair enough. Yet as we’ll see both the genetic component and the exposure to mercury in subsequent generations is unconvincing. Besides, where might this mercury today be coming from?

Mercury contained in vaccines (as a preservative under the tradename Merthiolate, but more commonly known as thiomersal/thimerosal), dental amalgams (silver fillings), seafood, and the atmosphere is argued to be the primary set of sources of Hg exposure for infants both in utero and in their early years.

Well that’s pretty clear. Small children awaiting first or second teeth won’t be worrying about dental filings. Big Atmosphere is here to stay and dietary sources are by choice. In short the only tantrum one need throw is over vaccines. They continue firming the dual hypothesis of susceptibility and exposure to mercury;

… the Hg-autism hypothesis is, in reality, a two-part hypothesis that states that Hg exposure combined with a genetic/physiological sensitivity to Hg or a predisposition to impaired Hg excretion capacity leads to a chronic elevation of Hg in the brain and body.

The purpose of the present study was to test the Hg-autism hypothesis. If the hypothesis is indeed correct, and a sensitivity to Hg is heritable (genetic), the prevalence of ASD among the descendants of a cohort confirmed as having a hypersensitivity to Hg (pink disease survivors) should be higher than a comparable general population prevalence.

Results were reported in the media release and in Fairfax: Mercury poison linked to autism. We can also check back to the abstract for a more telling summary;

Five hundred and twenty-two participants who had previously been diagnosed with pink disease completed a survey on the health outcomes of their descendants. The prevalence rates of ASD and a variety of other clinical conditions diagnosed in childhood (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, epilepsy, Fragile X syndrome, and Down syndrome) were compared to well-established general population prevalence rates. The results showed the prevalence rate of ASD among the grandchildren of pink disease survivors (1 in 25) to be significantly higher than the comparable general population prevalence rate (1 in 160). The results support the hypothesis that Hg sensitivity may be a heritable/genetic risk factor for ASD.

The most telling flaw is the efforts gone to in constructing the apparent genetic susceptibility to mercury leading to autism in grandchildren of acrodynia sufferers.

As identified earlier, numerous studies demonstrated a relationship between ASD and Hg. Our results suggest that this variable may have a heritable component and therefore, of course, a genetic basis. What our results do not do, however, is enable an understanding of the degree to which the susceptibility is inheritable and the mechanism by which this may occur.

Firstly if there’s a genetic component, why did the grandparents – and indeed the entire cohort of acrodynia children – not show prominent autism diagnoses. Secondly, how did the parents of the children escape autism? They lived in an era of mercury in house paint, mercury compounds in worming treatments, mercurochrome was a standard in First Aid kits – then suddenly vanished, industrial waste spilled into local rivers where kids regularly swam as standards of control were far more lax and mercury was used in the manufacturing of more products.

In short the parents with the same, “…heritable component and therefore, of course, a genetic basis”, were exposed to much more environmental mercury. Yet they emerge unscathed. Surely we should be seeing a reduction in ASD. Each subsequent generation is exposed to less mercury and the genetic component is halved. Unless there’s some incredible generational leap. Yet the authors themselves answer my initial question on mechanism – it’s unknown – and can offer no insight into the degree of genetic susceptibility.

So we must examine data collation. A survey completed by 522 infantile acrondyia sufferers. Self reporting data is perhaps the least reliable source of data in the absence of correction or follow up. In this case to correct for response bias it was crucial to chase up each and every one of the 522 respondents grandchildren to confirm that yes, they meet Australia’s criteria for autistic diagnosis. After all the authors are using the 1 in 160 frequency figure gained this way to claim “a six times higher” prevalence. The problem of perceived but undiagnosed autistic disorders may be impacting on results.

But they didn’t do this. The Age reports;

The authors said although they did not validate the autism diagnoses provided by the survivors in the surveys their study added to mounting evidence of a link between genetics, mercury sensitivity and autism spectrum disorders.

“The authors said”, eh? Right. It’s not as if they’re biased or anything – just look at their body of work. This emerging train wreck gets worse in that they likely promoted response bias. The study was advertised on the Pink Disease Support Group site. Yet the author’s write;

In order to minimize response bias, the true purpose of the study was not included on recruitment materials sent out to potential participants; instead, recruitment materials indicated that the purpose of the study was to investigate the general health outcomes of the descendants of pink disease survivors.

All up 23% of surveys were returned. What of the other 77%? Perhaps they had no descendants with health problems and thus were not motivated. Members of this support group with ill descendants are far more likely to respond, if not initially being prompted to join for the very reason the authors favour. Surely this “mounting evidence” would reach the ears of many Pink disease survivors. It’s even more likely those with autistic descendants would know of the hysteria over mercury in vaccines and thus reply, skewing results.

It is in fact arguable that some members of PDSG with autistic descendants – or who perceive they have autistic descendants, or have been told – gravitated toward membership because of the wide coverage of mercury being linked to autism. This point is just as likely as the supposed “six times higher” frequency rate. In truth we just don’t know. This is bad science that merely postulates a hand-me-down trick to breathe more life into the “mercury causes autism” corpse.

So in conclusion, we have two highly biased authors with a well documented track record of being unable to source reputable and bipartisan material on the issue of mercury and autism. They have a demonstrated propensity to argue against thimerosal in vaccines and immerse themselves in research and writing that we can only describe as being fringe or by known crackpots. David Austin in particular has previously written deceptive rubbish and aligned himself with known culprits in perpetuating known myths.

Shandley and Austin have a demonstrable predetermined agenda. Together they’ve come up with an appalling hypothesis because of this yet continue to cite these same biased sources. Their methodology is fatally flawed. Their conclusions are bordering on the absurd as they fail to justify the degree or mechanism of their observation which is based on unreliable data. To battle through this mess they cite over and again the same disreputable sources, which does not strengthen their argument. No dissenting citations are presented and challenged. They have published in a journal of dubious integrity and made public claims that remain scientifically unsubstantiated.

What.A.Mess. There’s nothing to see here – move along, move along.

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.

The Wakettes

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, General, Scam by

As many readers will know there’s been a hysterical spike in attempts to exhume the corpse of the vaccine/autism myth this year. Certainly this has reached fever pitch since Wakefield was expunged from the registrar of humane beings.

Like watching a religion evolve his adherents have been gripped in ecstasy, rejecting evidence for fantasy. I mean, just check out the font size at Dr. Wakefield’s work must continue. You can imagine them living on a small island that time forgot – much like out of a King Kong movie. Dressed only in loin cloths, bodies glistening in the fire light given off by burning effigies of Paul Offit, carrying Wakefield on a sedan chair made of discarded MMR syringes and the bones of dead Pharma executives held together with saliva soaked vaccine package inserts.

You may laugh but it appears this is indeed what has happened. The audio below was captured by intrepid journalists on an off the map Pacific island covered in deep jungle, behind the walls of an ancient stone fortress just as Wakefield was carried past his adoring crowd.

We had the Groundbreaking vaccine-autism investigation, promising to shatter the earth only to fizzle to muffled laughter back in May this year. Despite promises of putting Big Pharma to the rack it emerged that a bunch of Pace Law school students produced “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury”.

Media spokesperson Danielle Orsino must have felt a goose when all she could muster was that this “strongly suggests” a link. In fact it suggested naught but the reality these unfortunate cultists will continue to manipulate, abuse and obfuscate data whilst lying to the public and exploiting those with autism and their families. Meryl Dorey took the results – debunked 10 days earlier – by the horns turning the meaningless review of 21 VICP cases into “the vaccine court… has paid compensation to hundreds, possibly thousands of families [for autism]” as she lied on air to David and Tanya on 102.9 KOFM last May.

Tanya on KOFM was carelessly querying Dorey about parents who have a child vaccinated, then “… suddenly have an autistic child on their hands….. Fact or fiction?”. “Oh Tanya, I wish I could say it’s fiction but it’s fact”, Dorey lied. Later Tanya argued with David (who to his credit says parents who don’t vaccinate children are selfish), saying to listeners “aren’t you scared with statistics mentioned by Meryl… thousands of cases of autism, ADD, ADHD…”.

The VICP associated court has paid no-one compensation for autism due to vaccination. Hannah Poling herself has an underlying mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah does not have autism. Hannah has encephalitis. Hannah’s parents believe vaccination triggered the encephalitis. Her mitochondrial disorder is documented as causing encephalitis between first and second years of life. Vaccination is not documented as causing autism. The Polings are very lucky the court erred in allowing compensation. One case, and a shocking anomaly it is.

The tragic thing about how easily Tanya was scammed by Dorey is that the “latest figures from the USA” Dorey alluded to came from the above paper. Crucially there’s not one statement to the effect “this child was compensated due to developing autism as a result of vaccination”. Children with autistic like symptoms are compensated quite rightly for demonstrable vaccine injuries. Children with autism who develop encephalitis as a result of vaccination are compensated. These poor children are exploited ruthlessly via the false insinuation there’s causality between the vaccination and autism. Yet I stress again there’s nothing suggesting compensation “because of their autism”.

Like something out of a Wakefield cultists version of Mission Impossible this paper would self-debunk in 10 seconds. Filled with self-serving nonsense such as “acknowledged autism or autism-like symptoms through vaccine induced encephalopathy and seizure disorder”, “settled cases suggesting autism”, “language that strongly suggests autistic features”, “published decisions that used terms related to autism”, “payment of vaccine injured children with autism”, even providing a case table headed, “Language suggesting autism or autistic-like symptoms”. But no, nothing definitive. It was a sham from day one.

Consider this oft’ repeated quote on that dumping ground of all things grossly offensive Child Health Safety. You may have recently read Dorey’s links to this blog claiming that the real fraud was by Brian Deer and the BMJ. Under conspiracy speak headings like “Secret British vaccine files on MMR forced open by legal action” then “read here what will be discovered and more”, we get… nothing. Granted it goes back to January 19, 2011 before the epic failure of May 10th. But we’re told breathlessly this quote is from an email to CBS written by the Health Resources Services Administration of the US.

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.

I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. As I’ve commented over yon scribe, encephalopathy may be accompanied by blue eyes, blonde hair and bad breath but nor are these linked to vaccination. The statement is clarifying the very lie the author has attempted. Compensation for vaccine induced encephalitis for a child who also has autism, is not compensation for vaccine induced autism. Encephalitis can effect measles sufferers at a rate of at least one in 5,000. MMR vaccination presents a rate of less than one in 1 million. Given the size of the USA, UK and European populations we are going to see large numbers of children with encephalitis following vaccination.

Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis hits one in 8,000 children under two with measles. MMR vaccination yields zero cases. Measles causes death in one in 2,500 – 5,000 depending on age. MMR vaccination results in death in zero cases. 15% of SSPE children will die. SSPE can strike at a later age after measles resolves, and is often fatal. Still however, we have people feverishly working to allow these horrific realities to increase. Misinformation and lies are created and fed to people by deluded and insistent miscreants who cannot admit their error. Wakefield’s continued defence is testimony to the misled. But the perpetrators are something altogether more malignant.

So prevalent are people who keep doing this in the face of overwhelming evidence, and so unconscionable are their tactics we really need a new term to describe them. They represent the nadir of intellectual and humane evolution of our species at present, and thus deserve to be recognised. I propose Wakette. 

As in “… well known Wakette, Meryl Dorey wrote a piece on Wakefield’s Kangaroo Court“. Or “… and in other news, over at Child Health Safety we read yet another typical Wakette piece that invents associations of hilarious proportions”. Or Erwin Alber…. er, no. Come to think of it I don’t want to Alber anything unless absolutely necessary. [group involuntary shudder]

For the record, Skeptard is lurking in the urban dictionary. Definition;

Any one who is blindly skeptical to the evidence around them, regardless of research done on any given topic, in addition to any one who refuses to do the research necessary, before jumping to conclusions.

So for Wakette we can propose;

Any person who continues to maintain that vaccines cause autism, despite being aware of the Wakefield fraud and the abundance of dissenting evidence, in addition to any person who sets out to misrepresent research to claim this link can be revived anew.

So let’s take Wakette for a test flight. Say in 15 years or so:

“Hey remember that Nimrod Weiner guy?”.

“Sort of, who was he again?”

“The wakette who didn’t even know where Wakefield’s fraudulent paper was published”.

“Oh, yeah… I remember him. What about him?”

“Saw him chirobusking* in the subway at Central Train Station”.

“Huh, figures. He had a carny gig at the travelling circus next to the fortune teller for a while”.

“Yeah, heard that too. Most of those wakette’s are history now”.

(High fives and laughter)

[* – “chirobusking” is the term given in future to chirpractors who busk alongside magicians, mimes, acrobats and musicians for small change. They have little fold up tables and have swapped white coats for coloured robes]

See! It works quite well. Plus serves as a handy mnemonic device. As the science of Wakettism improves we’ll be able to distinguish between Alpha Wakette’s like… er, Wakefield, or Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill (from Age of Autism), or dominant and submissive wakette’s. Dorey’s a rather dominant wakette on her Facebook page and the submissive wakette’s members just go along, knowing they’ll be banned if they happen to speak the truth or produce any evidence.

Then there’s loner wakettes who wish to be Alpha Wakettes. Here’s where our friend at Child Health Safety comes in. Master of deceit, obfuscation and pure invention with a talent for plumb conspiracy language you probably know the site.

Having a look at this will be the subject of my next post.