Conspiracies, conflicts of interest and the bigger picture.
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.
Pingback by A Mother and a Housewife | May 19th, 2008
[...] “conflict of interest”). (Not that others in autism research don’t have a few conflicts of interest of their [...]
Comment by RAJ | May 19th, 2008
Conflict of interest is the reddest of all red herrings… on both sides. Dr. Paul Offit, a well known pro-vaccine researcher has a patent on a retrovirus drug for which he he makes substantial royalties. Eric Fombonne another researcher who is a passionate pro-vaccine advocate accepts large sums of money to appear as an expert witness for the pharmaceutical industry in the vaccine trials. Dr. Eric London, who has been promoting PROZAC as a therapy for ASD’s also receives financial support from the manufacturers. Even the genetic theorists like Joseph Buchsbaum, a member of the Autism Genome Consortium Project has taken out a patent for what he speculated is an ‘autism’ gene and is selling a diagnostic tool-kit available for parents to make informed reproduction decisions.
All of the advocates on both sides passionatly believe they are right, they all hope to gain financially, but Mike, you seem to support the position that only the anti-vaccine crowd are greedy, conspiracy minded ideologues only in it for financial gain.
A pox on both your houses.
Comment by Joseph | May 19th, 2008
All of the advocates on both sides passionatly believe they are right, they all hope to gain financially, but Mike, you seem to support the position that only the anti-vaccine crowd are greedy, conspiracy minded ideologues only in it for financial gain.
I don’t think it’s true that *all* of the advocates on both sides hope to gain financially. That is probably not even close to true, and I don’t think you can even say the advocates on one side hope to gain about as much as the advocates in the other side.
And I don’t think there’s equivalence in the positions. If I thought there was, I’d be on the fence. I hate these apologetic arguments that try to make it sound as if both sides are equally bad.
There might be scientists who sometimes serve as expert witnesses, or who have received funding from pharmaceutical companies. This cannot be compared in good conscience to having the plaintiffs produce their own research on causation, and then, fail to disclose that conflict of interest. Wakefield himself failed to declare that he had been paid close to $1 million for his 1998 paper. When was the last time this happened when it comes to the defense? If you can advance such an equivalence argument, let’s hear it.
Comment by RAJ | May 19th, 2008
Speaking of interests, here is an outrageous one. Professor Eric Hollander is promoting fluoxetine, an orphan drug base on Prozac. Dr. Hollander owns the patent for this generic PROZAC and is employed by MT Sinai Hospital in New York, one of the USA’s Centers for Excellence in Autism centers. I understand he visited the UK last year and was promoting the use of the drug he holds the patent on for use in the UK’s autistic community. Here’s a part of the media release by the company who manufactures Dr. Hollander’s patent:
“In 2006 Neuropharm acquired the rights to the NPL-2008 programme from the Mount
Sinai School of Medicine in New York, where Professor Eric Hollander was granted
Orphan Drug Designation in 1999 for the use of fluoxetine in autism. Under
Professor Hollander’s direction, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine has
completed a Phase II and a Phase III clinical trial of fluoxetine in autism in
both children and adults in work funded by the Food & Drug Administration’s
Office of Orphan Product Development. Professor Hollander is now a consultant
to Neuropharm, and also holds share options in the Company. The results of his
trials were positive, producing statistically significant results showing a
reduction in key symptomatology of autism”.
He makes more off his beliefs than any vaccine lawyer or the Geir’s thus this childish impugning of the character of any one in the vaccine debate adds nothing.
Comment by Joseph | May 19th, 2008
I’ve never even heard of Professor Eric Hollander, nor of his involvement in the autism causation debate, so I’m not sure what his earnings have to do with anything that is being discussed.
Again, the problem with the Geiers and Wakefield is not exactly that they have conflicts of interest. You don’t see that? To demonstrate equivalence you have to demonstrate there’s equivalence in the shenanigans of both sides. If you can advance that argument, let’s hear it.
Comment by laurentius-rex | May 19th, 2008
Once again everyone is missing the point.
Never mind all the sundry interests that scientists have, I have never believed that any of them can come unbiased by something in there past, there is always subtle pressure put on by the need to please the funders of the project or the funders of the school.
It is more than this though, it is the attitude that scientists (and social scientists can be just as bad too) the schema’s about autism and the disconnect between them and the people they are studying, be that a group of autistic ’subjects’ or a tribe in new Guinea.
When the science degenerates to mere curiosity, simply the desire to publish and inflate the citations ratings for the school then it loses touch with day to day reality as it is being lived.
It shows in the way they write up posters and papers, and the way they talk when they make presentations. It shows up in the shock and horror when an autistic speaks to challenge autism speaks.
May I never end up as just another academic hack.
Comment by Patrick | May 19th, 2008
I call pox on RAJ, for failing to understand that Mike lives in what appears to be at least a third house
Comment by Prometheus | May 19th, 2008
RAJ seems to be a wee bit confused about a few things.
“Professor Eric Hollander is promoting fluoxetine, an orphan drug base [sic] on Prozac.”
Actually, fluoxetine is Prozac. Prozac is the trade name, fluoxetine is the generic name.
“Dr. Hollander owns the patent for this generic PROZAC [sic]…”
[1] The whole IDEA of “generic” drugs is that they are “off patent”, i.e. the patent has expired and anyone can make and sell them.
[2] Owning the patent on fluoxetine would be the same as owning the patent on Prozac, so the entire argument is ridiculous.
My guess is that RAJ is simply repeating something he/she/it read on the Internet. I hope this has shown him/her/it the hazards of believing everything you find on the web.
Prometheus
Comment by RAJ | May 20th, 2008
Dr. Hollander does not ‘own’ fluoxetine, he holds the patent for use of fluoexitine for the “TREATMENT OF AUTISM’.
http://www.24dash.com/news/Health/2007-09-21-Autistic-children-should-be-given-Prozac-to-control-their-symptoms
He also recommnds the use of fluoexitine or children as young as 2 years old.
USe of SSRI’s in the treament of autism has a tragic history. In the 1980’s Dr. Edward Ritvo promoted the use of fenfluramine. His clinical trials (like Hollander’s) found the treatment to be an effective intervention and fenflourimine treatment became an even bigger fad than chelation therapy. Dozens of unbiased trials over several years failed to replicate Ritvo’s results.
It was later found tht Ritvo had financial interests in promoting the treatment, and a few years ater that Fenfluramine was removed from the marketplace after it was linked to heart damage.
Ritvo was one of the leading autism researchers and was even the Chair of the APA’s working group on autism that led to the introduction of DSM-III-R in 1987.
Hollander is also one of the leading researchers in autism as chair of the MT Sinai medical school, one of the Centers for Excellence in Autism Research designated by the NIH. He is also one of the scientific advisors for Autism Speaks in the US.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/scientific-meetings/recurring-meetings/iacc/nih-initiatives/staart/staart-network-centers-mt-sinai-school-of-medicine.shtml
Dr. Joseph Buchsbaum also of Mt. Sinai has a patent for an ‘autism’ gene he reported in his research. The finding has failed to be replicated in other studies, yet he is marketing a genetic test for the gene.
Prometheus may be impressed by the Advanced Degrees and resumes of his favored researchers, but apparently does not hold them to the same high standards as the researchers he disagrees with.
Comment by RAJ | May 20th, 2008
BTW Prometheus, you speculated that you guessed that what ‘raj’ is simply repeating is what he/she/it read on the internet’ and that ‘ I hpoe this has shown ‘him/her/it’ the hazards of believing everything you find on the web’.
Your scientific credentials apparantly consists of hurling sophomoric, childish insults at anyone you debate not even knowing a thing about the person who you are childishly insulting.
What exactly are your scientific credentials, have you ever published anything in a peer reviewed respected Journal?
I have been a contributor to the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders and can assure you I might am not one who you would denigrate as a Google PHD.
Biblography:
Jensen RA. Autism and the chemical connection.
J Autism Dev Disord. 1994 Dec;24(6):785-7. No abstract available.
Jensen RA. Re: “Family characteristics of autistic children: a further report”.
J Autism Dev Disord. 1991 Dec;21(4):557-9. No abstract available.
Jensen RA. Autism and the use of hypnotic barbiturates in obstetrics and pediatrics.
J Autism Dev Disord. 1991 Jun;21(2):254-7. No abstract available.
Comment by laurentius-rex | May 21st, 2008
As if JADD is a decent journal, I have vowed never to publish there
Never mind the peer review it is in severe need of an ethical review.
Well even DSM will not escape the hands of “big pharma”
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/05/psychiatric_man.html
http://tinyurl.com/4eeczq
Comment by Prometheus | May 21st, 2008
RAJ,
Thank you for clarifying your statement about Dr. Hollander’s patent on fluoxetine. Perhaps you would also address Dr. Geier’s patent on the use of Lupron to treat autism.
Additionally, I should point out that listing letters to the editor (as all three of your listed “contributions” are) as “publications” or “contributions” is not just misleading, it says volumes about your publication list.
Sad to say, one of the many liabilities of anonymity is that I cannot point to my degrees, my position, or my publications and say, “See, you must believe me because I have done so much.” As a result, my arguments must stand or fall on their own merits, not on my reputation.
Prometheus
Comment by RAJ | May 22nd, 2008
Prometheus;
Geir’s patent on Lupron is snake oil salesmanship. We aren’t very far apart when it comes to the promotion of quack therapies for autism treatment, although you seem to give a pass when it is offered by reseachers with advanced degrees and affiliations with leading instutions such as Dr. Eric Hollander who has a patent on autism drug treatment for youngsters as young as two years old.
No advanced degree or academic affiliation or positions of authority on autism should be given any free pass based on assumed credentials. The history of snake oil promotion does not end with those who you feel are unqualified. Hollander and Ritvo hold or held patents and promoted their own miracle cures, with Ritvo’s fenfluromine treatment linked to such adverse events (heart defects) that the drug was taken off the market by the FDA. Even Loretta Bender, a child psychiatrist with all the credentials you so admire and who was a leading authority on autism in the 1960’s promoted LSD treatment for autism.
As far as what ’says volumes about my publication list’, I can assure you that Professor Eric Schopler, the editor of the JADD at the time, personally reviewed and edited all those contributions, as did Professor Sir Michael Rutter who was the European editor at the time.
The contribution I am most proud of is raising for the first time in the JADD the hypothesis that exposure to anti-convulsant drugs might be an increased risk factor for autism.
It is now accepted that exposure to anti-convulsant drugs is linked to increased risk for autism validating the hypothesis I first raised with Professor Schopler in 1990.
I discussed at length the hypothesis with Dr. Schopler and he rewrote the paper but did credit me as the auther.
Jensen RA. Autism and the use of hypnotic barbiturates in obstetrics and pediatrics.
J Autism Dev Disord. 1991 Jun;21(2):254-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 1864833
Letters in peer reviewed journals receive the same stringent peer review process as do lengthy articles. As far as referring to me as ‘he/she/it’, sorry, but hurling childish insults at someone you know nothing about does nothing to add to any discussion of issues related to autism, given your adnavced education you should know better.
Pingback by blog-thing : Conflict of Interest - censoring the autism debate? | May 25th, 2008
[...] 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 [...]
Comment by Mike | May 25th, 2008
My latest post on Conflicts of Interest is now up.
Pingback by An Invasion of MMR/Vaccine Misinformation | May 26th, 2008
[...] is a petitioner in a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (And bloggers Larry Arnold and Mike Stanton comment on the notion of “conflict of [...]