If I could be in London next week for David Kirby’s PR visit these are some of the questions I would like to ask him. You may care to add your own.
Your book, Evidence of Harm, explores the premise that a 150 per cent increase in the mercury burden in US vaccines (from 75 to 187 microgams of ethyl mercury) that began in 1987 caused the dramatic rise in recorded cases of autistic spectrum disorder in the USA. Given that exposure to ethyl mercury in vaccines in the UK remained at 75 micrograms until it was finally removed in 2004, and we experienced a similar growth in autism, what possible relevance could your book or your theories have for the UK?
Thiomersal was completely removed from US vaccines and stocks exhausted by 2002. Yet autism rates have continued to rise. Do you agree that whatever plausibility there was to the thiomersal hypothesis when you were writing your book, it is contradicted by the data and should now be rejected? Are you now prepared to state publicly that there is no evidence of harm? That vaccines do not cause autism?
In your public debate with the journalist Arthur Allen you conceded that autism rates had not declined in line with your predictions after the removal of thiomersal from vaccines but went on to invoke other environmental sources of mercury such as toxic plumes crossing the Pacific from Chinse coal powered power stations, forest fires in California and even the smoke from crematoria. The UK is not being overwhelmed by pollution either from China or the USA and our autism rates are at least as high as yours. How do you explain this?
The organizations that are sponsoring your visit have been scathing in the past about the conflict of interest of scientific researchers who have repudiated any connection between mercury and autism. Does the fact that you are sponsored by anti-vaccine groups like Safe Minds and Generation Rescue and your current journalistic output is published on the Generation Rescue blog, The Age of Autism, create any conflicts of interest for you that might affect you impartiality as a journalist or are you happy with your role as a publicist for these organizations?
In recent months you have returned to the vaccine bandwagon, this time claiming that a significant number of autism cases are down to a reaction to vaccines that triggers a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder. You base your arguments on confidential documents leaked to you by people connected to Hannah Poling whose case is in the process of being settled at the US Court of Federal Claims. It is very difficult for us to judge the situation based solely on your speculations and the public statements of the Polings. When journalist Ken Reibel asked the Polings at the Autism One conference last month if they were prepared to release Hannah’s medical records and allow her treating physicians to comment publicly his press credentials were revoked and hotel securiy were summoned to expel him from the building. Surely this one sided speculation should cease until the case is settled and the science can be freely discussed by those qualified to do so?
May 31st, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism, journalism, mercury, vaccines |
14 comments
Lord Hodgson, who is sponsoring David Kirby’s speaking engagement at the Palace of Westminster, has made good use of his position in the House of Lords to question government ministers on vaccine safety. He is particularly interested in thiomersal/thimerosal and has even enquired after its use in cosmetics.
On December 16, 2002
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How many of the standard vaccinations that children receive in the United Kingdom contain thiomersal; for how many years these standard vaccinations have contained thiomersal; and what research has been carried out into the cumulative effects of the mercury content of thiomersal on infant children.[HL429]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath replied:
Vaccines containing thiomersal (a mercury-containing compound known as thimerosal in the United States) have been in use for over 60 years. The only vaccines used in the routine United Kingdom childhood immunisation programme which contain thiomersal as an excipient in the final product are diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis (DTwP) and diphtheria and tetanus vaccines.
In 2001, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) reviewed the available data relating to possible neurotoxicity of thiomersal in vaccines and advised that there is no evidence of harm caused by doses of thiomersal in vaccines. The CSM concluded that the risk: benefit balance of thiomersal-containing vaccines remains overwhelmingly positive. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States also published a detailed review of the evidence relating to possible neurotoxicity of thiomersal in vaccines in October 2001. The IOM findings were consistent with the CSM conclusions.
We are aware of two new studies in the UK looking at the relationship between mercury in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. One of these studies is funded by the Department of Health and uses the Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood. The other study is using the General Practice Research Database and is funded jointly by the World Health Organisation and the Public Health Laboratory Service (which receives its funding from the department). Neither of these studies supports an association between thiomersal exposure through the UK programme and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. The results of these studies have been made available to the department and a summary of the findings is available in a report to the US Congress which has been placed in the Library.
In addition to the above studies, evidence from a recent study by M Pichichero et al (published in the November 30 2002 Lancet) showed that giving vaccines containing thiomersal does not raise blood levels of mercury. The findings of this paper suggested that ethylmercury is rapidly eliminated from the blood after administration intra-muscularly. The levels of ethylmercury in the blood were no higher than in samples taken at birth—before any vaccines had been received.
On January 27, 2003
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether each child will by its 16th week of life have received, as part of the standard diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTwP) immunisation programme, 150 micrograms of thimerosal which, in turn, contain 75 micrograms of mercury; and, if not, how much each child will receive.[HL1023]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) replied:
The recommended vaccine for routine immunisation of children against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis remains diphtheria, tetanus and wholecell pertussis (DTwP) vaccine. A course of primary immunisation with DTwP vaccine consists of three doses starting at two months, with an interval of one month between each dose. Each dose of the standard DTwP vaccine contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal (containing 25 micrograms of ethylmercury). Therefore, by 16 weeks the total thimerosal exposure would be no more than 150 micrograms (75 micrograms ethylmercury).
This is significant. In 2003 the exposure to thiomersal in the UK was the same as that in the USA in 1987. Then the USA added the thimerosal containing vaccines HIB and Hep-B to the infant vaccination schedule. These raised the exposure levels for ethyl mercury in 6 month old infants who were fully vaccinated from 75 micrograms to 187 micrograms. Throughout the 1990s recorded rates for autistic spectrum disorders rose both in the UK and in the USA. In fact the UK has consistently recorded higher rates compared to the USA. The headline figure in the US is currently 1 in 150. In the UK it is around 1 in 100.
Whatever the cause for the increase, one would expect it to be the same for two countries who share so many other features. Thiomersal is obviously not the reason for the increase in the UK. So why invoke it to explain the increase in the USA? And why is our noble lord so concerned to invoke thimerosal in the UK? This is even more pertinent when we consider Lord Hodgson’s next foray into the world of vaccines, which confirmed that the infant vaccine schedule in the UK is now thimerosal free.
On October 11, 2004
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is the difference in cost between Pediacel and the vaccine currently in use.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner) replied:
Pediacel costs over £5 more per dose than the vaccines previously used.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether Pediacel will be the only form of vaccine available for the immunisation of children against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, HIB and polio, or will others be available on request.
Lord Warner replied:
For infants, Pediacel will be the only vaccine supplied by the National Health Service because it provides the best protection against these serious infections.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the inactivated polio vaccine, part of the new five-in-one vaccine, is incompatible with the preservative Thiomersal.
Lord Warner replied:
Thiomersal is not a component of the new vaccines as it would render the inactivated polio vaccine component ineffective.
So there you have it. There was never very much thiomersal in the UK vaccine schedule and now there is none. Case closed. But two months later Lord Hodgson was back on the case.
December 8, 2004
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty’s Government what they propose to do to increase the level of public trust in their vaccination and immunisation programme. The noble Lord said:
My Lords, the trigger for my decision to ask this Question was the Government’s sudden decision in August this year to introduce a new five-in-one child vaccine called Pediacel. Pediacel replaces the four-in-one vaccine previously used and adds polio to the diptheria, tetanus, pertussis and haemophilus influenzae type B—HIB—vaccine. The other critical by-product of the introduction of Pediacel has been the withdrawal of the preservative thimerosal which consists of 50 per cent ethyl mercury.
The withdrawal of a toxin as potentially harmful as that contained in thimerosal from infants’ vaccine, however small the amount contained therein, is a positive development on which the Government are to be warmly congratulated. However, I am not clear as to why this step was taken, if one is of a cynical turn of mind, in early August during the holiday season when minimum press comment could be expected.
He is still pursuing the argument that thiomersal was dangerous to health and had no place in childhood vaccines. He is implying that the government knew this all along and sneaked the thimerosal out of the vaccines in the same underhand way that they had originally sneaked it in. There follows a good bit of politicking on the same theme before he comes to the scientific evidence for thiomersal’s harmful nature
Most recently, a study by Doctors Hornig, Chian and Lipkin of Columbia University, published online on 8 June 2004 in the Nature publication, Molecular Psychiatry, indicated that postnatal exposure to thimerosal can lead to the development of autism-like damage in autoimmune disease susceptible mice. This reinforces previous studies, such as the works of Dr Mark and Dr David Geier, showing that a genetic predisposition in combination with certain environmental triggers can cause an increased risk of an adverse reaction.
I do not know who led Lord Hodgson to Mady Hornig’s infamous mouse study. It was probably the same person who introduced him to the Geiers’ less than monumental contribution to the literature of autism. I do not know if he actually read this tosh or was merely informed about it as part of a briefing. If he read it he was obviously not qualified to judge its merits. You might describe it as a failure of Peer review.
The noble lord then continues with his twin themes of government incompetence in undermining confidence in their own vaccine schedule and simultaneously implying that the schedule is not safe anyway. But this combination of politicking and scientificking is fundamentally dishonest. Lord Hodgson advocates for the sort of bad science that has had a demonstrable effect in undermining public confidence in vaccines on both sides of the Atlantic. He contributes to the scare stories and then admonishes the government for is ham-fisted response to those scare stories. He continues:
To a Written Question I put down on 22 January 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Minister’s predecessor, answered that,
“there is no evidence of harm from thiomersal contained in vaccines. Therefore, the CSM advised that the benefits of immunisation with thiomersal-containing vaccines outweigh any potential risks of vaccination”.—[Official Report, 22/1/03; col. WA 101.]
Such responses exemplify the Government’s reaction to the thimerosal debate over the past two years. Until August this year the Government gave the impression that it was much ado about nothing and there was no reason for thimerosal to be withdrawn. In August, at the height of the holiday season, thimerosal was suddenly withdrawn.
Whether thimerosal does have an effect on certain autoimmune disease sensitive infants may be proved or disproved in times to come or there may never be a conclusive result. But what does matter is that the Government should maintain the highest degree of transparency and openness in their communications with the public in this important and sensitive area.
There we have it. The only thimerosal debate in the UK that I am aware of is the one initiated by Lord Hodgson. He knows full well why thiomersal (I will stick with the UK spelling, even though the noble lord has recently taken to using the American version) was removed. Pediacel does not require it. In fact thiomersal reduces the potency of the IPV component. There has never been any firm evidence to suggest that thiomersal causes harm to people.
Lord Hodgson is arguing from some very poor studies that it could cause harm and what if it did and what is the government going to do about this hypothetical danger that is completely lacking in empirical evidence and no wonder people are losing confidence in the vaccine programme and just look at MMR and its ALL YOUR FAULT. And so it goes on. Etc. etc. for another 1300 words.
Lord Hodgson is an intelligent and able politician. Unfortunately he has been sold on some very dubious science and agreed to lend his name to a PR exercise fronted by David Kirby. Perhaps he should be told.
May 28th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism, Quackery, mercury, politics, vaccines |
6 comments
It had to happen. David Kirby, the erstwhile journalist and ersatz apologist for the mercury malicia is visiting Britain, paid for by Generation Rescue. There will be a public lecture on Wednesday 4th June, 6:30pm at Regent Hall, Oxford Street and a book signing and Q&A on Friday 6th June, 4:00pm at Gudrun Jonsson’s Biopath Centre in Kensington whose
unique philosophy focuses on a combination of the traditional healing arts from the sub-continent, biopathic treatments, and the latest scientific health and beauty advances. By combining these three concepts, Napier Road has developed an innovative and refreshing approach to health and beauty, which aims to reverse the degenerative processes of the body and promote general wellbeing.
So no surprises there, then. What is surprising is Kirby’s opening gig at the Palace of Westminster. According to an email circulating on numerous web forums
Mr. Kirby will speak about recent legal, political and scientific developments in the United States in the ongoing vaccine-autism controversy. The briefing is open to Peers in the House of Lords, Members of Parliament, their Staff, members of the Media, and Invited Guests. It is sponsored by His Lordship Robin Hodgson, Baron Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Shropshire.
Kirby and a biopath makes sense. Hack ‘n’ Quack sounds about right. But what is the connection between Kirby and Robin Hodgson? Hodgson was deputy chairman of the Conservative Party from 1997 to 2000 when he became a life peer. His wife is chairman (sic) of the Conservative Women’s Association. As a member of the House of Lords Robin Hodgson acted as a front bench spokesman on Trade & Industry and Home Affairs between 2002-2006. I do not know if he is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism. But he revealed that he has a son with ADHD when he introduced a parliamentary debate on the subject of Attention Deficit Disorders on February 5th, 2003.
Lord Hodgson on ADHD
Families with ADD/ADHD children need help. To get help, they need joined-up government across the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and local social services. The key is early diagnosis, so that families, schools and, where appropriate, social services are aware of the condition. Taking medication can then become the norm. By contrast, children who are diagnosed later have probably already experienced several years of underachievement and failure and are more likely to be oppositional and unprepared to co-operate with medication, thus in many cases condemning themselves and their families to a living hell.
We need to spread more awareness of the condition among the teaching profession. It is estimated that 90 per cent of teachers have had no special training on how to recognise the symptoms of ADD/ADHD.
Most importantly, we need immediately to begin a programme to build awareness among social workers. For the most part, they do not seem to appreciate the strain on a family living with a severely ADD/ADHD child. There is therefore little or no respite care. Rather, too many social workers have been inclined to see erratic behaviour by a child as evidence of child abuse. No one suggests that there is any malice in that; I am sure that everyone’s intentions are good; but there is profound ignorance that we must tackle.
He could just as easily be talking about autism and the problems we face from inadequate services provided by people without proper training or resources who are ill-equipped to understand our needs. And there is much in the debate in similar vein. There is also much else that we are familiar with.
Lord Hodgson on Quackery
Although medication undoubtedly has an important part to play, it is not the only help for which parents may reach. Indeed, for some children it does not work at all; for others it may lose its effectiveness in their teenage years. Alternative approaches can be tried: for example, homeopathy, specialist exclusion diets, cranial osteopathy, megavitamin therapy, together with behaviour modification therapy, psychotherapy and others. We need to know more about their relative success and to inform parents, teachers and social workers about them.
Lord Hodgson on Thimerosal
So why has there been that increase in those conditions and what can we do to reverse the trend? It is unlikely that there is any one single cause. Genetics and heredity will probably be found to play a significant part. But what other factors are in play? One matter looks increasingly likely to be a significant contributory cause: the requirement in this country that every baby receives three injections in the first 16 weeks of life as immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis—whooping cough, to laymen—(DTwP). As I understand it, each standard dose of the vaccine used in the UK contains 50 micrograms of a substance called thimerosal. Each dose of thimerosal contains 25 micrograms of ethylmercury. Mercury is a highly toxic substance. That means that, by the 16th week of life, every baby in this country, with an inevitably fragile immune and nervous system, has been injected with 75 micrograms of ethylmercury.
Lord Hodgson is not anti-vaccine
I must make it clear that this is not an attack on immunisation. Immunisation is an important part of child healthcare. But it is a question of what goes into the vaccines. Thimerosal is not an essential part of a vaccine; its function is as a preservative. There is a mercury-free vaccine licensed in this country under the name Infanrix DTaP. Although it is more expensive, that would be a small price to pay compared to the cost of a child with neurological damage.
But he does believe that a percentage of children are vulnerable to damage from mercury in the quantities that used to be present in the UK vaccine schedule.
The figure that has been suggested to me is 18 per cent of the whole.
Other contributions
Other speakers took up some of his themes. Lord Colwyn praised the Feingold diet and stated that study after study backs Feingold’s theories. He proposed vitamin B6 as an effective alternative to Ritalin and also blamed hypoglycaemia.
Earl Howe (not to be confused with Geoffrey Howe) admitted to reading
a most persuasive paper recently published in the United States, which concludes that the likelihood of a causal relationship between mercury in vaccines and autism is very great. If that theory is borne out, it has the most profound implications. I wholly agree with my noble friend that a great deal more research is needed.
The Earl Howe found Lisa Blakemore-Brown equally persuasive.
The notion that a child may have several disorders running alongside one another has been powerfully explained by a British child psychologist, Lisa Blakemore-Brown. She used the metaphor of a tapestry to illustrate that a child may present with various threads of difficulty; for example, ADD combined with Aspergers, or ADHD with a language impairment. Those threads may appear to be the same as those in another child but each individual will have his own unique weave of problems. The key to helping a child is discovering what threads are there and how they are interwoven. I believe that Lisa Blakemore-Brown’s book, Re-weaving the autistic tapestry, should be required reading in every LEA—and in the Department of Health. It is very persuasive.
Blame the Parents
I first came across Lisa Blakemore-Brown at a conference where we were both speakers. She made an eloquent, somewhat emotional speech, that relied more on anecdote than data to raise the question of false accusations of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy against parents of autistic children. There seem to be a number of potential pitfalls for parents of autistic or ADHD children.
- Parents’ concerns about their child’s problems are dismissed. If they persist they are accused of MSbP.
- Parents who claim their child has biomedical problems [either as a cause or a consequence of their autism/adhd] that need special diets and other alternative therapies are accused of MSbP.
- The child’s behavioural problems are recognized but put down to abusive parenting. When the parents insist that their child is autistic/adhd they are accused of MSbP.
The Earl Howe actually spoke a lot of sense about MSbP in this debate. I would not be surprised if he had been briefed by Lisa Blakemore-Brown. Unfortunately she also believes in a vaccine induced autism epidemic. And, if we are to believe Aasa over on the JABS forum, Ms Blakemore-Brown is also responsible for bringing David Kirby to London.
From Peer to PR
Back in 2003 it may have been reasonable for Hodgson and others in the House of Lords to want more investigations into thimerosal in vaccines. They were right then and now to ask whether medication is necessarily the best answer to behavioural and neurological difficulties in children. They are to be applauded for taking up the thorny issue of false accusations against parents. But, while Lisa Blakemore-Brown may continue to weave all these issues into a single tapestry, five years down the line we have the science to say that thimerosal in vaccines is a broken thread. Kirby is not worthy of Hodgson’s patronage. Hodgson has allowed himself to be misled and misadvised in this affair.
May 27th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism, Quackery, vaccines |
5 comments
Conflict of Interest [COI] in scientific and medical research about autism is often misunderstood amongst members of the autism community and beyond. For a start there are many potential conflicts of interest. Most people think of financial COIs. If I am paid by a drug company will my research be biased in their favour? If I have patented a vaccine am I going to defend the entire vaccination programme? If I am being paid as an expert witness am I going to tailor my evidence to satisfy my paymasters?
But what if I am also a parent? Am I motivated by hope of financial security for my child to select research that supports my case in court? Do I have a deeper, psychological need to absolve myself of any guilt for my child’s condition? Bettleheim still casts a long shadow. Am I too emotionally involved to be objective? And then there are autistic individuals engaged in autism research like Michelle Dawson and Larry Arnold. Where does their COI lie? Do we sometimes use conflict of interest to mean that you conflict with my interest?
And, as Larry argued both in his blog and in the comments on my earlier post on COIs, there are conflicts that arise because we all are individuals with a personal and cultual history and that history helps to shape the assumptions we bring to any subject.
The New McCarthyism?
Here is an extract from Richard Horton’s book, MMR Science and Fiction in which he cites Ken Rothman:
Rothman not only questioned the importance of conflicts of interest, but also challenged the policy that many scientists and editors were then and now espousing - namely, disclosure as a measure to ameliorate the conflicts that will inevitably exist in all research.
Rothman claimed that the label of ‘conflict of interest’ was little more than a thinly disguised accusation of dishonesty. The idea that there was anyone in science - or in any walk of life, for that matter - who could obtain a position of pefect objectivity was obviously wrong. Everybody, in one way or another, approaches a subject with a prior point of view. By focusing solely on financial conflicts of interest, the self appointed guardians of science, (he means people like myself, the editors of journals) were undermining a long held principle that work should be judged only on its merits. ‘By emphasizing credentials,’ Rothman wrote, ‘these policies [of disclosure] foster an ad hominem aproach to evaluating science.’ [p70]
For some people, if you declare a COI you are automatically tainted and everything you have to say is deemed worthless. But that is silly. Anyone who declares a COI is not saying “I am not to be trusted.” Just the opposite in fact. You are being completely honest. Hiding a COI is more likely to make people question your honesty.
There was a study last year into the relationship between RhIg exposure in pregnant women and autism. According to a report in Medpage Today
The study was supported by a grant from Johnson and Johnson Company and ongoing autism research support from the Leda J. Sears Trust. Neither funding source was involved in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data, preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Author conflicts of interest were not listed.
Johnson and Johnson are heavily involved in the manufacture of products that use RhIg. A cynic might argue that even though J & J had no direct influence on this study, the authors could have been tempted by the hope of future funding to come up with a result that pleased their patron. I would argue the exact opposite. If everybody knows that J & J are funding your study and your results exonerate J & J’s product, you are going to make sure that everything stands up to scrutiny. It is only when you fail to list the connection that people get suspicious.
That is the whole point. So-called COIs are inevitable in modern science. There would be very little research done without financial backing from industry. And what is the point of paying for lies? People talk about “big pharma” as if it were a single entity. This entity is made up of competing corporations. Even if J & J could buy a piece of research that exonerated their product, how long would it be before a rival corporation found a scientist to expose the flaws?
This brings us back to Rothman’s argument that all science should be judged on its merits and not on the supposed merits of its authors. Most of us are not equipped to judge. Even within science the degree of specialization is so great that there may be very few scientists who can judge a piece of research on its merits. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen cites the case of Richard Borcherds in his book, The Essential Difference. Borcherds was awarded the Fields Medal
for his work on a topic so obscure that most mathematicians working in his former Cambridge University department are unable to understand what he is doing. His mathematical brilliance is unquestioned by fellow mathematicians even if they cannot follow the specifics of his ideas. [p155]
Hence the importance of peer review, another much misunderstood concept. Publication after peer review does not automatically confirm the truth or falsehood of a piece of research or a theory. It tells us that a piece of work conforms to acceptable standards of scientific research and is taken seriously by fellow scientists who may go on to confirm or refute its findings in further studies.
When Rothman wrote Conflict of Interest, the New McCarthyism in Science? he had no way of knowing that 15 years later the aptly named Jenny McCarthy would be shouting down a respected pediatrician on national television while her supporters attempted to trash his reputation in the blogosphere. This is becoming a hallmark of the autism/vaccine camp’s response when legitimate science challenges their beliefs. They automatically seek to discredit the researcher rather than engage with him or her in a discussion of the research.
Over on LB/RB Joseph has written about a recent manifestation of this worrying trend. Dr Paul Offit has become a hate figure because he speaks up in favour of vaccination and is a patent holder for the Rotateq vaccine that he helped to develop. Anti-vaccine groups assume that everything he says about vaccine safety is a lie because he is defending his own financial interest.
Again this is astounding in its silliness. Even if doctors were only in it for the money you make money from developing a safe vaccine. You lose money if your vaccine is unsafe. Even a hint of danger will get a vaccine pulled. Rotashield was a vaccine against the Rotavirus. It was very effective but may have led to an increase in the risk of intussusception. The risk was of the order of 1 or 2 cases per 10000. This was quickly picked up and the vaccine was withdrawn. Rotateq was developed by Dr Offit to replace it. It does not carry an increased risk of intussusception and both he and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where he is head of infectious diseases have benefitted from the royalties on this drug. Where is the harm in that? Anyone who reads Offit’s biography of Mauurice Hilleman, Vaccinated cannot fail to appreciate that both men’s commitment to vaccination is enirely honourable and motivated by a desire to alleviate human suffering.
Expert Witnesses
Dr. Fombonne’s actions have not historically been in the best interest of families with autism—he has declared himself an expert witness on behalf of various pharmaceutical companies in thimerosal-related litigation.
So says Safe Minds. There are two sides - parents and drug companies. Fombonne has made his choice and like Offit should be disqualified from further comment because of his “conflict of interest.” This is either an outstanding example of stupidity or it is rank duplicity. I suspect the latter. There is a world of difference between the experts who have a track record in their chosen discipline and are well qualified to offer expert testimony and those who make a career out of offering their services as expert witnesses without necessarily having the necessary level of expertise to be taken seriously. Mark Geier and Boyd Haley are a case in point. Fombonne and other experts like him are employed as expert witnesses because they already have a sound background in the relevant disciplines. They are not playing catch-up on the science in order to beef up their prospects of employment as expert witnesses.
From McCarthy to McScience
One of the chapters in Horton’s book is entitled The Dawn of McScience. He argues that COIs can have a negative impact. When big money tries to dictate the scientific agenda the result is often junk science. Horton cites the dispute between researcher Nancy Olivieri and drug company Apotex over the efficacy of deferiprone, a treatment for thalassaemia. Horton’s sympathies are clearly with the researcher. A more even handed view is presented by Julian Savulescu, Uehiro chair in practical ethics at Oxford University. Both seem to agree on the need for ethical oversight of the outcome of research, alongside the traditional ethical oversight of research proposals. The latter is designed to protect research subjects. The former would give a role to ethics committees in resolving disputes over the results of research, especially when those disputes pertain to patient welfare.
This could be made to work. It might overcome cynicism about big science and big money. It might even help to stem the tide of really junk science that is used to justify so much of the so-called complementary and alternative therapies out there.
In the meantime, if we are to call a halt to the McCarthyite use of COIs to bully and harrass scientific critics of the vaccine-autism connection, it seems only fair to me to hold its advocates to the exact same standards of honesty about potential COIs that they claim to uphold.
May 25th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism, ethics, science |
10 comments
Thanks to Bev for alerting me to this story about the emotional abuse of a 5 year old by his kindergarten teacher, Wendy Portillo. Portillo thought it would be a good idea to stand young Alex Barton, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, in front of the class and invite other pupils to say what they did not like about him. Then she conducted a vote on whether he should remain in the class. The pupils voted 14 to 2 to exclude him. He spent the rest of the day in the nurse’s office and has not returned to the school. He screams whenever he accompanies his mother to drop off his sibling at the school. The police have investigated and the district attorney has decided not to prosecute. The school district is still investigating the matter.
Bullying of children with disabilities is commonplace. But I was shocked to read that a teacher was leading the bullying when I read Amanda’s blog about Alex, which suggested that bullying by adults or the sanctioning of bullying by adults who should be defending vulnerable children is a regular occurrence. Amanda also provides a valuable perspective on a culture that not only rewards the “winners” but also sets out to deliberately punish the “losers” as well.
Statements by public figures suggest that we aspire to an inclusive society that embraces diversity. The reality is somewhat different. Amanda asks a very pertinent question.
I also want to know what on earth it means that it’s considered “good social skills” to learn to be one of the people that excludes. And autistic and non-autistic people alike can eventually learn to be that, even if we weren’t much like that to begin with. I’m not trying to say we can’t, I’m not going to pretend not to notice what happens to autistic people who gain the power to become exclusive. But it’s sheer ugliness that these horrible things are treated as normal, and being the target of them makes you seen as somehow worse than the people doing the targeting. And the people doing the targeting are seen as the ones to emulate, it seems like.
I think we owe it to Alex to let the school authorities in Port St Lucie know that this teacher’s behaviour is beyond the pale. There is another way. I am emailing this story, originally posted by Fargo on alt.support.autism to the school principal, Maria Cully with copies to Wendy Portillo and the St Lucie County School Board.
SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT BENJI
Once upon a time there was a Benji. He looked like a little boy. He had
brown hair and big brown eyes and a very sweet smile. But Benji wasn’t like
other little boys. Sometimes Benji was very quiet and the other children at school didn’t
think that Benji knew how to play.Sometimes Benji was very noisy and the other children didn’t think that
Benji knew how to be serious.
And sometimes…sometimes Benji was very angry.
There was something very different about Benji.
But all the time, inside, Benji wanted to be like the other children.
He liked to watch them run on the playground. Sometimes they told him not
to stare.
He liked to watch them go down the slide but he didn’t like to go down the
slide himself and they thought he was a sissy.
He liked to play characters in movies and sometimes the kids said he was a
crazy guy.
Yes, there was something very different about Benji.
Then one day, the teacher told the classroom what it was that was different.
Benji was Autistic.
Benji could hear and could see and could feel things. But sometimes he
didn’t know what was said. Sometimes he didn’t know what to do. Sometimes
there were things he didn’t like to touch or to taste.
The teacher explained that while Benji was just like all the other kids on
the inside, sometimes things he heard or saw or touched or tasted got
confused before they reached his brain.
And this could make him very angry because, Benji was waiting and wanting to
be friends.
She told the children that each of them was different from the rest of the
class, just like Benji.
Mary was the tallest girl and Angie was the shortest.
Billy had the most freckles, and Charlie had the longest hair.
She told the class that being different wasn’t a bad thing because being
tall or short or having freckles or having long hair wasn’t a bad thing.
Sometimes it was very special.
She continued to go around the classroom telling each child something
special about them.
Toby told the funniest jokes and Max was the best speller.
Tammy could run the fastest and Richard drew the best airplanes.
Each child was different yet each child was special.
The teacher asked the children to try to help Benji learn how to do the
things the other kids knew how to do. And she asked for them to each find
out the answer to this question.
How is Benji special?
The kids decided to try to help Benji.
When Benji was quiet they would talk to him by saying “It is a nice day”
instead of asking him what kind of day it was.
When he was loud they would say, “Benji, we have to be quiet now. We will
be loud at recess.”
When he watched them run on the playground they would go over to Benji and
say, “Benji, will you run with me?”
And when he was afraid to go down the slide, they did not call him sissy.
They told him things they were afraid to do.
They played like they were characters in movies, too, and Benji joined in on
their games.
But most of all, they stopped calling Benji a crazy guy. Because once they
got to know him…they found out what was special about Benji.
Benji was “Cool.”
Alex is cool as well. I hope someone can tell him that.
May 24th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism, abuse, bullying, education |
18 comments
CONSPIRACY
Remember the outrageous subpoena against Kathleen Seidel that was recently quashed? Clifford Shoemaker, the author of the subpoena was ordered to show cause,
“why he should not be sanctioned under Fed R Civ P 11 – see Fed R Civ P 45(a)(2)(B) which requires that a deposition subpoena be issued from the court in which the deposition is to occur and Fed R Civ P 45 (c)(1) commanding counsel to avoid burdensome subpoenas. A failure to appear will result in notification of Mr Shoemaker’s conduct to the Presiding Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.”
His reply is basically that “a mere mother and housewife” could not possibly have written Neurodiversity.com on her own. She must have been prompted by malice and given material aid by the drug companies to pursue a campaign of intimidation against Clifford Shoemaker, his clients and his pet witness, Mark Geier. It is alleged that Kathleen is part of a conspiracy to protect the drug companies from the legitimate claims of parents of vaccine damaged children. As Kathleen says in her latest entry, Welcome to My Conspiracy
These documents offer a remarkable exposition of the grandiose, cartoonish conspiracy fantasies entertained by advocates of the concept of autism as toxicity and tort, and the arguments of those who seek to justify the perversion of legal processes in order to oppress their critics.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Imagine if a piece of research exonerating vaccines was put forward by a drug company employee whose husband was working for the defense team at the vaccine court. The parents who claim that their autistic children are vaccine damaged would quite rightly be appalled if such a potential conflict of interest was concealed. This weekend three pieces of research were presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London. All were co-authored by Dr Hewitson, all seek to demonstrate a link between vaccines and autism and the science has already been severely critiqued by Orac.
But there is more. Over on LeftBrain/RightBrain Kev has revealed that Dr Hewitson has her own potential conflicts of interest.
- She and her husband have an autistic child and are pursuing a claim for vaccine injury.
- Her husband is employed by one of her co-authors, Andrew Wakefield at Thoughtful House.
- She is affiliated to Defeat Autism Now.
This does not necessarily invalidate her work. But one wonders why Dan Olmsted, who is singing her praises over on The Age of Autism, neglected to include these details in his piece. Did he know? Did IMFAR know when they accepted her presentations? Of course it could just be another part of Kathleen Seidel’s conspiracy against anti-vaccine campaigners.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
It is important to scrutinize the claims of DANites, anti-vaxxers and their friends in the media. But in the wider world of autism there are more serious questions to engage with that pertain to the mainstream research and medical communities who exercise so much more influence over the world of autism than those on the pseudo-scientific fringe.
Is it right to refer to autistic people and “healthy” controls in a scientific presentation? How far are we justified in questioning the assumptions and methodology behind a lot of autism research? Under what circumstances, if any, is the medical model capable of yielding useful results? Who is paying attention to the ethical dimensions surrounding informed consent from autistic research subjects?
Larry Arnold, an autistic person who is also an autism researcher and a member of the board of trustees of the National Autistic Society raises these and similar questions in his initial reflections on IMFAR. After the tiresome but necessary task, so ably done by Kev, Orac and Kathleen, of dealing with some of autism’s stinkers it is good to be able to turn to an autism thinker like Larry.
May 19th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism rights, ethics, science, vaccines |
16 comments
To follow on from yesterday’s post on the JRC, it sems that while it may be legal under Massachussetts State Law to detain people against their will and torture them with electric shocks, it is illegal to record their screams without their express consent. This email explains it all. It sounds petty compared to the daily misery endured by the inmates at JRC. But, hey, whatever helps to close them down. Please respond directly to Ken Mollins if you have any information pertaining to this or to the grand jury investigation of abuses at the Judge Rotenberg Center.
Dear fellow advocates:
This latest letter from Attorney Kenneth Mollins exposes the illegal practice of recording all conversations at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in violation of Massachusetts State Law.
Please forward this letter to others and post on lists. Permission is granted by Kenneth Mollins.
If any readers have had their privacy violated at JRC you may want to contact Kenneth Mollins, or myself and I will forward your information to Ken. Perhaps this can be a concerted effort. You may also want to address your own personal letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley if you have been violated in this manner, or if you are aware of other criminal matters at JRC.
Thank you, for your active advocacy. Please remember that change can only occur if we take action! Our silence is only golden for Dr. Israel.
May 16, 2008
Via Facsimile (508)795-1991
Attorney General Martha Coakley
One Exchange Place, 3rd Floor
Worcester, MA 01608
Re: Judge Rotenberg Center
Dear Attorney General Coakley:
I am writing concerning ongoing apparent criminal activity that is occurring on a daily basis at the Judge Rotenberg Center (“JRC”) in Canton, Massachusetts, and where numerous people are being subjected to said criminal activities on a daily basis. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, §99 states:
It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts…
I have spoken with numerous prior employees of the JRC who all advise me that the entire school and residences are subject to the recording of conversations taken therein. These recordings not only apply to the students and faculty, but to the mailman, the person who delivers lunch, and to any other person entering the facility, all of whom are being recorded and replayed without their consent. I was in the facility back in early 2006 to meet with a client, and thereafter I was advised by both staff and parents of students in the facility that my conversations were recorded without my consent. In addition, I have spoken with others who have been in the facility without consenting to their conversations being recorded.
The criminality described herein is made worse by an examination of the release signed by the parents of students attending this center. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the applicable portion of the release which is the same release signed from 2003 to the present, the section enumerated as “H. Filming/Photographs.” The fact that audio taping and recordings are made during therapy sessions is expressed, but in the paragraph consenting to same, the audio portion is specifically deleted, and the consent goes to video taping and/or photograph of the student. This omission specifically vitiates any consent by the parent of any student or parent from September 2003 to the present. As such, I believe there are thousands of victims of criminality in violation of the aforestated section, of which I am one. In addition, in speaking with March Network, the company that does the video surveillance at JRC, they have also advised me that all conversations that take place in said center are recorded.
I ask that you immediately cause this criminality to cease and to prosecute the thousands of alleged criminal acts that appear to have occurred at this center and as a victim I hereby demand that you seek both monetary and criminal sanctions against those for acting in concert to commit a violation of the aforesaid criminal statute.
I am aware that you are currently investigating the JRC and that a grand jury has been convened to investigate criminal acts. It might save the taxpayers of Massachusetts time and expense if you present evidence to a grand jury of the criminal acts revealed herein. I will be happy to testify as well will others I have spoken with concerning same.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C.
By:
KENNETH M. MOLLINS
KMM/mc
cc: MA Governor Deval L. Patrick
NYS Attorney General, Andrew M. Cuomo
May 17th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism rights, Judge Rotenberg Center |
4 comments
This comment was posted to an old blog post of mine about the Judge Rotenberg Center.
I have a 25 year old son with severe autism, he is non verbal and is self abusive, self injury, aggressive, he’s 6′1″ too. I’d rather DIE than ever put my son into the JRC!! you need behavior modifaction! no punishments! now my son is doing much better I forgot to tell you those really bad behaviors had happened more when he was 15 yrs old, altho they still come up. I love my son with all my heart and I hate the fact he’s in a group home now. I live in R.I. I wish I could take him home forever. Thanks for reading.
If you read this press report you will understand the strength of her feeling. A prank phone call fooled the staff into administering a series of electric shocks to two unfortunate inmates for alleged misdemeanours committed earlier in the evening. This week the Boston Globe published a follow-up story.
By Patricia Wen
Globe Staff
May 15, 2008
State Police seized documents late last week from the offices of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton that are related to a prank phone call last summer that led two students to wrongfully receive dozens of punishing electrical shocks, according to two people with direct knowledge of the investigation
My immediate response is “Wrongfully?” So under what circumstances should students “rightfully” receive electric shocks? My second thought is that, even if one were to accept the premise that contingent electric shock is an effective and acceptable method of behaviour modification, what sort of staff would sanction this to take place hours after the alleged infractions, and on the basis of a phone call? The original report in the Boston Globe tells us.
Six staff members worked the overnight shift at the group home at 66 Kevin Clancy Way, a tan house located in a quiet cul-de-sac in Stoughton. Five of the six had already worked a double or triple shift, while the sixth worker showed up at 10 p.m. None had much experience caring for emotionally disturbed boys at the group home. Most had been on the job less than three months.
Inexperienced, overworked staff, that’s who. But why should they comply with such a bizarre request? Again the original Boston Globe report is invaluable.
The staff was “apprehensive” and confused about the caller and discussed what to do, but they went ahead with the punishments because they were told by the caller that they would be “evaluated” if they did not obey, the report said. The caller, who made a series of calls between 2 and 4:45 a.m., had detailed knowledge of the inside of the house and led the staff to believe that he was watching them on surveillance screens at the central office.
Inexperienced, overworked staff who were only following orders and were fearful of the consequences if they did not obey. Hmm. This is abusive and bullying on so many levels. The latest report updates us on a grand jury investigation
led by the office of Attorney General Martha Coakley, said Kenneth Mollins, a New York lawyer who has filed several lawsuits against the school and who said he spoke to a representative of Coakley’s office about the Rotenberg investigation. Mollins said he was told the grand jury is also examining possible financial improprieties by the school.
Ah yes, follow the money. JRC has around 250 inmates at $250,000 a year. They are plainly not spending it on quality staff. So where does the money go?
Ernest Corrigan, a spokesman for the school, did not confirm that a seizure of documents had occurred last week. He said only that school officials have been cooperative with state and local police ever since they reported the prank phone call to police last summer.
“We’ve been supportive of the investigation,” he said.
As a mark of their “cooperation” they destroyed the surveillance tapes of last years abuse even after being told by investigating officials to preserve them. For too long the JRC has got away with the abuse of autistic and other vulnerable young people. It remains to be seen if they will get away with abuse of the legal process.
May 17th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Autism, Judge Rotenberg Center, ethics |
2 comments
Autism in Scotland
Scotland has a population of just over 5 million people. In 2004 The Scottish Executive published the Audit of Services for Autistic People Statistical Report. This was the result of a questionnaire sent out to all local authority/National Health Service partnerships. Two areas, Borders and Western Isles failed to respond and were excluded from the subsequent ananlysis of results. As a consequence the Audit deals with a total population of approximately 4.9 million people.
The Audit found 3412 children and young people under 18 with a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder. The Audit could only find 645 adults with a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder. This finding has been taken as further proof of a putative autism epidemic by journalist David Kirby writing for The Age of Autism. Unfortunately for Kirby, he obviously has not read the report in question. Instead he offers
Many thanks to Clifford Miller for furnishing the Scottish audit data.
Miller also furnished this graph which Kirby faithfully reproduces.
A misleading source
It looks like a figure taken from the Audit. But this figure is not in the PDF version that Miller links to. Nor is it in the word.doc that I have read. The clue is in those weasel words at the top of the figure, “Data Source.” Yes, Miller invented the figure based upon data gleaned from the audit. This would matter less if it was an accurate representation of the data source. But it is not. If we start at the bottom with “Average age of diagnosis of autism - approx three,” Average age of diagnosis is nowhere mentioned in the Audit. Furthermore, the Audit only contains data on people aged 3 years and older. So is Miller claiming that everyone in Scotland was diagnosed around their third birthday? How does he explain Howlin and Moore [1997] who found a mean age of 5.69 years for diagnosis in Scotland?
Miller’s second innovation is to give us four age groups: those born up to 1954, and those born in 15 year birth cohorts: 1955 - 1970, 1971 - 1986, 1987 - 2002. These are not the age groups in the data source. The Audit does not refer to date of birth. It refers to adults over 50, adults aged 25 to 49, adults aged 18 to 24 and children aged 3 to 18. As 18 is the legal age of majority in Scotland I am going to assume they mean “up to but not including 18″ when they refer to children. Of the birth dates you can derive from these ages: up to 1954, 1955 -1979, 1980 - 1986, 1987 - 2001, only the over 50s group matches.
Miller is also dishonest when he compares adults to children in the same graph. Data for children is derived from the responses of 13 NHS boards. Only 10 NHS boards provided adult data. Those missing are
Ayrshire and Arran - population 376,000
Forth Valley - population 300,000
Greater Glasgow - population 1,200,000.
So the figures for adults are based on a population of approximately 3 million rather 5 mllion. They exclude Glasgow, the most densely populated urban area in Scotland. None of this matters to Miller. He believes there is a world epidemic of autism in children, a pandemic that is caused by “vaccines.” He does not specify which vaccines, or which components or how they might be acting to cause his pandemic. He argues that if there is no pandemic there ought to be 500,000 autistic adults requiring 24/7 care in the UK. This is plain silly. Never mind that we are talking about a spectrum of need, where most autistic adults do not require 24/7 care. If Miller were right there ought to be 133,500 autistic children requiring 24/7 care in the UK. Some do require constant care but most clearly do not.
A tenfold error
So much for Kirby’s source. What does Kirby make of this material? It turns out that he makes a complete pig’s ear of it.
Let’s look at the numbers. There are approximately 34,000 young people with autism in Scotland, born during the 16 years from 1987-2002. That is an average of 2,125 cases per birth cohort. But among older people, born during the 31 years between 1955 and 1986, there are only about 600 reported cases, or just over 19 cases a year.
If the rate of autism in Scotland had remained unchanged between 1955 and today, then there are many, many uncounted adults going without support, services, or even much recognition.
In fact, at 2,125 cases on average per year, there should be 65,875 people with autism in Scotland between the ages of 22 and 53 years alone. But only 600 have signed up for any help at all, in a country with universal healthcare, no less.
Which begs a few questions: Where are the other 65,275 people in that age group with autism? Why have 109 out of every 110 adults with autism never sought, nor received, any special attention for their particular needs? Why have they not been counted? And why is there no national outrage over the neglect of so many thousands of fellow citizens going without services that they need?
In a country the size of Maine, with a population much smaller than New York City, it seems that the government would be able to locate and help these people.
Unless, of course, some of them are not there.
These figures are hogwash. Kirby may be able to use a calculator but he cannot read a graph. The figure is 3,400 not 34,000. Incredibly this post has been up for over a week now and nobody seems to have spotted such an egregious error, neither managing editor Kim Stagliano, nor editor Dan Olmsted and certainly not Kirby himself. And none of his supporters has posted a correction in the comments section, not even Barbara Fishkin who commented,
May 11th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
adults, autism epidemic, journalism, vaccines |
24 comments
I have written in the past about the case of Abubakar Tariq Nadama here, here and here. In fact my first ever blog post in November 2005 began as an internal discussion document that I wrote for the National Autistic Society [NAS] following Abubakar’s death. It was subsequently published in Communication, the magazine for members of the NAS and roundly condemned by advocates for biomedical interventions in autism. I republished it on Blogger and invited my critics to debate with me there. 145 posts and 1,746 comments later the debate continues.
This week I was shocked to learn that criminal charges against the doctor responsible for treating Abubakar, Roy Kerry MD, had been dropped because the defense had presented new evidence. Science Blogger Orac’s analysis concurred with my feelings that the confusion engendered by misleading statements from the CDC in response to the killing of Abubakar created enough potential for reaonable doubt for the defence attorneys to persuade the District Attorney to drop the case.
But what new evidence could contradict the undisputed facts of a case in which a child was chelated by a physician who had never chelated a child before using a chelation agent with a black box warning that specifically warned against using an IV push to administer the medication? Kerry used the IV push on Abubakar twice and sanctioned the third and ultimately fatal IV push that was administered by a junior employee while Kerry was absent from his clinic.
Just to remind readers.
Abubakar was 5 years old. He was a lively, healthy autistic child. His mother moved with him to the USA to seek treatment for his autism. His father, a doctor who specializes in respiratory diseases, remained in England. Abubakar was seen by Dr Anju Usman, a Defeat Autism Now practitioner, who referred him to Kerry because of persistently elevated levels of aluminium. Kerry used an off label medication to treat him and he died.This is the part that really confuses me.
- I have yet to see any persuasive scientific evidence about a connection between aluminium and autism.
- Even if there were a connection between autism and aluminium there is no clinical indication that any formulation of EDTA, either Kerry’s drug of choice - Disodium EDTA [Endrate] or the allegedly “safe” alternative - Calcium Disodium EDTA [Versenate] has a therapeutic effect on aluminium levels.
- So why did Usman refer Abubakar to Kerry and why did Kerry use Endrate to treat him, not for elevated levels of aluminium, but for lead poisoning? And this despite the fact that Kerry’s own lab tests showed that Abubakar did not have a problem with lead.
The basis for my questions is public knowledge. You can read it in the Order to Show Cause issued against Kerry by the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine. But you will not find any answers to those questions. I had hoped that a court case would provide answers. The principle players, under oath, would have to tell the truth. So why is there no court case? I began by agreeing with Orac. The CDC flubbed it with their waffle about the wrong chelator, as if there had ever been a right chelator for autism.
But rereading the blogs I came across this entry from Kristina Chew in which she provided a source for the Nadama family’s decision to sue Kerry, his medical practice and his medical supplier, Apothecure. As well as condemning Kerry and his clinic, the legal notice also indicts Apothecure for providing misleading information about the Endrate they supplied to Kerry and accuses them of causing Abubakar’s death.
32. The inaccurate, unsound and dangerous information communicated by the ApothéCure Defendants to Dr. Kerry and Dr. Lewis as described in paragraph 30 was a direct and substantial cause in Dr. Kerry’s commission of the negligent acts described in paragraph 24 and 25. Therefore the ApothéCure Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct described in paragraph 24 and 25.
So is Kerry relying on the incompetence and negligence of his supplier to escape blame for his own incompetence and negligence in the case of Nabubakar Tariq Nadama? Are Pennsylvania going to pursue Apothecure through the courts? Perhaps they should consult with their opposite numbers in Oregon. It seems that Apothecure have a track record of incompetence and negligence in the manufacture and supply of drugs.
There is another possibility. Kerry’s attorney said
He said the defense was prepared to present expert witnesses who would testify the damage that occurred to Nadama’s heart, leading to a lack of oxygen to his brain and his death, was caused by something else, six to eight hours before the treatment at Kerry’s office.
Witnesses would have testified that the chemical used — disodium ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid — was appropriate, and there was nothing wrong with Kerry using an intravenous push instead of a slower I.V. drip to administer it.
So what made this child so sick in the hours before his final, fatal chelation episode at the hands of Kerry? And why was it not apparent and suficient to postpone the fatal IV push. And who are the bojos prepared to give expert testimony in contradiction of the recommendation of the FDA regarding IV push with EDTA? Do tell, soon, please.
Footnote:
This is the letter I wrote to the reporter who broke the story of Kerry’s escape.
Dear Brian
I have just read your report on the dropping of all charges against Roy Kerry in the case of Abubakar Tariq Nadama. I have blogged extensively on this case as has science blogger Orac, whose most recent post, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/no_justice_for_abubakar_tariq_nadama.php#more is in complete accord with my feelings on this matter. My amazement at the decision to drop all charges is only surpassed by my amazement at Kerry’s announcement that he wants to continue in medicine!
Kerry was a member of the American College for Advancement in Medicine. He was listed as a member in 2006, a year after Abubakar’s death. http://www.acam.org/dr_search/index.php?q=Kerry&field=lname&submitted=1 A search today yielded no results. ACAM is an alternative therapy outfit that promotes chelation for heart disease using disodium EDTA aka Endrate because it binds to calcium. The theory is that if heart disease results in calcium plaques forming blockages the Endrate will remove the calcium and destroy the plaques. This is quackery pure and simple and has no basis in science.
Kerry gave Endrate to Abubakar three times in a concentrated IV push, ignoring the black box warnings on the label to only give in a slow dilute infusion. Abubakar showed no indication of any of the diseases for which Endrate is licenced. They used the push instead of the infusion because Abubakar was a lively 5 year old who could not be held still for three hours. 4 adults held him down for 5 minutes strapped to a papoose board for the IV push. By the third treatment his body was so depleted of calcium that his heart stopped.
Although Kerry is no longer listed by ACAM he is on a list of Defeat Autism Now practitioners. http://www.autismwebsite.com/practitioners/us/Roy_Kerry,_M.D..htm DAN supports chelation as a treatment for autism. At the time of Abubakar’s death they made great play of the fact that they supported transdermal and oral chelation and not the IV chelation practised by Kerry. The following year he was admitted to their list after attending a one day conference for clinical training and agreeing to abide by their protocols. DAN’s treatment protocols also have no basis in evidence based medicine. And Kerry’s listing indicates that he will continue to offer IV chelation to autistic children. Will he switch from Endrate to Versenate, the formulation of EDTA that does not pull calcium out of young bodies? Will he use a slow infusion or will he revert to a rapid IV push on children forcibly restrained as in the case of Abubakar? Does DAN know or even care?
If another child should die it is not only Roy Kerry who should appear in the dock.
Mike Stanton
May 9th, 2008
Posted by
Mike |
Quackery in Autism, biomedical interventions, chelation |
2 comments
