The Vaccine Times: There isn’t a single study on the cumulative effects of……

A very interesting post recently at The Vaccine Times reporting on an early result from a study.  I highly suggest you check out the linked Steve Novella link as well.  This is from a neurologist, and the study results are about neurology after all!  Just be glad the science takes a rigorous approach and actually comes to defensible conclusions about the world around us as opposed to finger pointing and wild speculation.

Recently a new study came out which suggested that changes to the brains of autistic children might be detectable as early as 6 months of age. Steve Novella has covered this particular study at his Neurologica blog so there is no need to repeat what he said there. Predictably, the anti-vaccination crowd has come out restating their belief that vaccinations are still to blame. Now, to be fair nothing in this study proves that vaccines cannot cause, or have any effect on, autism. All it says is that it may be possible to notice differences in the brain as early as 6 months of age, and even at that it does not provide a diagnostic tool, due to its size (92 infants) and limitations. It certainly points to an interesting direction, but I do not believe any strong conclusions can be drawn from it.

If the results can be replicated in larger studies though, it would certainly lay to rest one of the myths about vaccines and autism, namely the one that maintains that vaccines given at or around the age of 2 cause autism, i.e. it would exonerate the MMR vaccine for example. But that is not what I wish to deal with today. What I do wish to deal with today is the common anti-vaccine conundrum that “there isn’t a single study on the cumulative effects of vaccines on (fill in the blank)“. You will always hear this from the anti-vaccine crowd, especially when the topic of autism is being discussed. Superficially it seems to make sense, after all if we’re giving vaccines to children why shouldn’t we test if in the cumulative they cause autism?

The problem is, of course, that there are thousands of afflictions that one could choose to blame vaccines for, and then turn around and ask why a cumulative study of the effects of the vaccination schedule on that particular affliction has not been done. The list could include, but not be limited to:

• Nearsightedness
• Farsightedness
• Cancer (all types)
• Diabetes
• Bone breakage
• Deafness
• Blindness
• Heart problems
• Lung problems
• Kidney failure
• and on, and on, and on

I wish to be clear that I do not mean to make light of the seriousness of autism as a disorder. The point is that we could pick literally hundreds of things to blame on vaccines and demand cumulative studies to be done, and maintain the vaccines are to blame until said studies are done, effectively perpetually moving the goal post so that vaccines are never considered “good enough”. Even the most strident anti-vaccine activist has to concede that research money is limited and we cannot possibly run studies about everything, so a certain level of plausibility must be established before studies of this magnitude are to be undertaken.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

A Photon in the Darkness: Autism and Insurance

I have been very negligent in posting lately, so I plan on setting quite a few posts up in the queue in order to pass along some information to you all.  This particular post from "Prometheus" at the A Photon in the Darkness blog seems rather appropriate, even though the date of the post is a bit out of date.

Autism and Insurance: Myths vs Reality

December 22nd, 2011

Earlier this week, I had arranged to have coffee with a close friend of mine. When I arrived, she was holding a copy of the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal and was quite upset about an article on the “Affordable Care Act” (”Obama-care”). In this article, it was mentioned that the department of Health and Human Services was planning to leave it up to the various states whether or not to mandate “autism treatment” coverage. This, she felt, was a cruel blow to families with autistic children. Fortunately, I had been through this all before, many years ago, when my child was first diagnosed with autism, so I had some perspective to offer.
Back in those dark days, we were casting about for something, anything to do to help our child, even to the point of attending a “DAN! conference”. In that “conference” (it was more like a revival meeting than a conference), we heard repeated, over and over, that health insurance plans would not pay for anything related to autism, the dreaded “299.0″ (ICD-9 code for autism). As I later recalled, this “fact” was most often mentioned by practitioners who offered “alternative” treatments for autism.
Shortly after returning from that “conference”, I had the opportunity to question (”interrogate” might describe the flavour of that exchange better) our paediatrician about that point. He was - and is - an exceptionally patient person and managed to answer my question without adressing my obvious hostility.
As he explained it, the insurance companies look over each bill and ensure that - among other things - that the procedural code (CPT codes) matches up with the diagnostic code. They want to ensure that a doctor isn’t claiming reimbursement for an appendectomy when the diagnosis is “bunion”, for example. For this reason, chelation and HBOT aren’t “approved” for autism because - as I’ve outlined in several ‘blog postings - they haven’t been shown to be effective in the treatment of autism, just as appendectomy hasn’t been shown to be an effective treatment for bunions.
Other issues that arise, especially in the “alternative” treatment of autism, are when the “treatment” is either of questionable effectiveness, such as “Applied Behavioral Analysis”, or its effectiveness has not been demonstrated. Insurance companies usually see these as “experimental” treatments and refuse to pay for them.
However, parents have also complained that they are unable to get insurance companies to pay for “mainstream” therapies, such as speech therapy and psychiatric consultation when the diagnosis was “autism”. This, according to our patient paediatrician, is due to the ignorance of the practitioner. There is no universal treatment for “autism” - it is too broad and heterogenous a diagnosis for that. So, to justify - for example - speech therapy, another diagnosis is needed, since the diagnosis of “autism” does not, in itself, imply a need for (or benefit from) speech therapy. Experienced and well-trained practitioners are aware of this requirement and so don’t submit bills that don’t have proper justification for the prescribed (or recommended) therapies.
When I later questioned some of the parents who had complained about having insurance companies refuse to pay for “autism”-related treatments, I found that a few things kept cropping up:

READ THE REST OF THE POST HERE.

Scientific American: Autism in Another Ape

Every time I hear anyone proclaim how unique humans are, I want to correct them.  We are animals just like any other animal.  And we have some very close cousins out there that demonstrate this all the time.  It's just that most of us are in our own little worlds that we don't ever notice.

Autism in Another Ape

Rambunctious one-year-old Teco, a third-generation captive-born bonobo at the Great Ape Trust in Des Moines, Iowa, has an ape’s usual fondness for games and grapes. But perhaps because of trauma from a difficult birth (his mother was in labor for 60 hours) or a genetic predisposition, Teco is different from his bonobo peers in ways that resemble autism in young children. He could not cling to his mother or nurse the way healthy young apes do instinctively, mimicking the aversion to physical contact seen in children with autism. Teco also tends to fixate on shiny objects and avoids eye contact, and he has trouble coordinating his four limbs. A genetic analysis of bonobos, already under way, may shed light on Teco’s condition and offer new perspectives on autism’s genetic roots in humans.

A Photon in the Darkness: “Latex causes autism”

Well, I hope that this is actually a sign that the anti-vax pro-disease loonies are finally running out of steam, and are grasping at straws like a drowning man grabs at anything in their death throes...  A Photon in the Darkness has this to say about this crazy idea:

Let the Nonsense begin!:

Before May of this year, I was in blissfiul ignorance of the “hypothesis” that latex - specifically, latex in vaccines (of course) - was the cause (or a cause) of regressive autism. But then Orac (of the Respectful Insolence ‘blog) posted a short notice (here) of a press release for the book Vaccine Delivery and Autism (The Latex Connection), by Dochiak and Dunn. It was a small post, with only a minimum of “respectful insolence” added, since the premise of the book seemed laughable enough.  The press release described the authors thusly:

“Michael J. Dochniak and Denise H. Dunn are leading experts in the etiology of allergy-induced regressive autism and have previously authored a book for Nova Science, entitled ‘Allergies and Autism.’ Dochniak is a scientific researcher in the field of Hevea brasiliensis natural-latex induced autism. Dunn is an early childhood educator who works closely with autistic children and adults, and has been teaching for more than 15 years.”

Fortunately, it wasn’t too hard to check on Mr. Dochniak’s credentials as a “scientific researcher in the field of Hevea brasiliensis natural-latex-induced autism”. In reality, he has a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and psychology (both awarded in 1985) and has published - apart from the two books - one article in Medical Hypotheses.  That article - needless to say - had no data. In fact, Mr. Dochniak’s only “research” into autism has been in the library and on the Internet, although he has written a few articles on latex for adhesive and sealant trade newsletters and is on a number of patents and patent applications, including one for a “Method to affect the development of autism spectrum disorders” (#20070034214).

 A day after the post, the lead author, Mr. Michael Dochniak, appeared in the comment thread and - as they say - hilarity ensued.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

Dr Bob is only looking out for you (or himself)

The Sears' website has been modified again, and here is Dr. Bob himself, explaining the origin of his alternative vaccination schedule. It is really all about parental concerns (not about his own flirtations with the anti-vaccine crowd, or the fact that his "alternative" schedule almost doubles the number of office visits for vaccine purposes at $75 to $200 dollar a pop). Good to know, right?

Harpocrates Speaks: Just Answer the Question

Todd W. (yes, that Todd W.) runs a site called Harpocrates Speaks, and he has a brilliant entry that starts of in a manner that I myslef find a great deal of confusion on.  Hexactly how deluded are these people, and do they even realize that they are that deluded!

Just Answer the Question

There are times that I am truly amazed at just how seemingly clueless a person can be. Often, in dealing with alternative medicine or other pseudoscientific belief systems, individuals go to great lengths to avoid answering questions that are asked. The honest believers give it a good go, doing their best to support their beliefs with what they think are legitimate sources. Sometimes, reason breaks through and plants a little seed of critical thinking, and the believer realizes that they've fallen for a lie. On the other hand, the dishonest (and by that I mean the ones who outright lie or misrepresent things) go to great lengths to dodge direct questions. They build straw men, answering questions that were never asked. They deny and obfuscate facts. They work so incredibly hard to convince everyone that the naked emperor over there is actually clothed. Generally, they have some financial stake in it, and when push comes to shove, they quietly slink away, only to trot out their erroneous claims another day.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

I found particularly amusing Todd W.'s summation of quakery arguments as:

• X causes Y
• Some people with autism have Y
• Therefore Y causes autism
• Buy my book

And I went with just generic X and Y arguments, because they do seem to come out of the woodwork with all sorts of crackpot ideas.

Greg Laden's Blog: What are the adverse effects of vaccines?

12,000 peer reviewed studies.  I think that should say it all right there, but that still probably won't silence the liars from the anti-vax pro-disease movement...  Greg goes into a lot of details on his blog post, but I wanted to pull a couple of pertinent details from his post.  Again, I urge you to read his entire post on the subject, or even go to the report itself when it comes out.  Amazingly (well, not really), all the adverse effects are not at all what the anti-vax pro-disease nutters would have you think.  Here is a list of them (enmphasis mine):

Convincingly supported links are:

Varicella Vaccine:
Disseminated Oka VZV without other organ involvement (got chicken pox)
Disseminated OK VZV with subsequent infection resulting in Pneumonia, Menningitis, or Hepatitis (got chickenbox, bad)
Vaccine strain viral reactivation without other organ involvement
Vaccine Strain viral reactivation with subsequent infection resulting in menningitis or encephalitis
Anaphylaxis (a multi-system immune reaction, very variable but considered dangerous)

MMR Vaccine:
Measles Inclusion Body encaphalitis
Ferbile seizures
Anaphylaxis

Influenza Vaccine:
Anaphylaxis

Hepatitis A Vaccine
Nothing Noted

Hepatitis B Vaccine:
Anaphylaxis

HPV Vaccine:
Nothing noted

DT-IT and aP containing vaccines:
Anaphylaxis
Meningococcal Vaccine:
Anaphylaxis

Injection-related events:
Deltoid Bursitis (arm hurts)
Syncope (fainting)

Keep in mind that most of these effects are rare and many are minor. The main effect linked to these vaccines is immunity to a potentially deadly disease.

READ THE REST OF THE POST HERE.

Suffice it to say, there is no connection with autism.  Again, will that stop the lies?  Of course not, lies are not supported by any facts, whereas science is.

Keep in mind, the adverse effects from vaccines runs at about 1 or 2 per MILLION.  Whereas the adverse effects for a disease is in the neighborhood of 1 in 500 to 1 in 10,000 (depending on the disease).

A Photon in the Darkness: Dr. “Know-it-all”*

I have often said that the most powerful words in the English language are "I don't know."  They are hard to say, and infuriating to admit to, but they are more often than not, true compared to the stuff that comes out of most people's mouths.  As human beings, we don't like not knowing something, and that's where the practitioners of woo step in.  The unethical approach is that instead of saying "I don't know.", they will just make stuff up and give people a false sense of having gotten an "answer".  Even if the answer is wrong.  As people have often said, "Reality and science is hindered by the fact that they simply cannot just make stuff up."  So, when Prometheus posted this story, was reminded of that saying.  As well as reminding me that folks need to check out What's The Harm to see the effects of many of these ill founded and unethicaly promoted ideas.

Dr. “Know-it-all”*

A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with the mother of an autistic child that highlighted both the appeal and the danger of ”alternative” autism therapy. This mother, who is a bright and well-read person, is not medically or scientifically sophisticated, like most of the population, including most parents of autistic children.

During our conversation, this woman mentioned that she was having concerns about her child’s “DAN! doctor” (her term), specifically the expensive medications and “supplements” he was prescribing. In addition, although this practitioner described himself as a “holistic” physician, treating the “whole patient”, he refused to treat the boy’s seizure disorder or his asthma. Apparently, “holistic” doesn’t include the brain or lungs.

What struck me, however, was her comparison between their “DAN! doctor” and the neurologist who is treating their son’s seizures. She felt an uncomfortable lack of confidence in the neurologist because she stated, in the first visit, that she didn’t know what was causing the boy’s seizures and needed to do some tests. In fact, this neurologist went so far as to admit that they might never discover a cause for the seizures, even after extensive testing. In contrast, their “DAN! doctor” always has an answer and uses tests to merely confirm his “clinical impression”.

Therein lies the appeal and the danger of “alternative” practitioners.


To recap - the neurologist admitted to this parent that she - the neurologist - couldn’t tell what was causing the seizures and needed to do further testing. The “DAN! doctor”, on the other hand, could tell that her son was suffering from “mercury toxicity” on the first visit and only did the $1400 worth of blood, urine and stool testing in order to confirm his diagnosis.

At this point, I asked my friend if she would look at the situation from a slightly different angle. Instead of seeing the neurologist’s lack of certainty as a flaw, maybe it was simply honesty. After all, how could anyone be sure what was causing the seizures without some testing? For that matter, how could her “DAN! doctor” be so certain that her son had “mercury toxicity” before any of the tests were done? And why - if the diagnosis was so obvious - did he need to do $1400 in tests (all done at expensive mail-order labs)?

Another curious point is that this “DAN! doctor”, while he has never wavered in his assessment of “mercury toxicity”, has been all over the map in terms of therapies. He started out with chelation, which he assured my friend would “recover” her son “in a matter of months”. When the boy’s behavior worsened, the doctor said it was “the toxins being mobilised” and when she commented after a year of chelation that her son seemed no better, the doctor said “It’s because you are too close - I see tremendous improvement!”. Funny thing, the boy’s teachers, who had no knowledge of the chelation, didn’t see much improvement, either.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ENTRY!

Vaccine Times: Argumentum ad TVum

On Saturday's post, I may have made some statements about the anti-vax pro-disease crowd that may have seemed mean, and been an insult at their integrity.  Well, I stand by them!  And just to go into how incredibly out there their arguments can be, I present a new logical fallacy coined by the Vaccine Times:  Argumentum ad TVum...  Yes, it really is what it sounds like!  If they saw it on a TV show (a sitcom no less), it must apply to real life!  Just imagine the hilarity that will ensue.

Argumentum ad TVum

One of the stranger arguments made by vaccine critics over the years references an episode of the television sitcom The Brady Bunch where the kids came down with measles. The argument goes that because measles was treated as just a minor inconvenience for the family and not a life and death struggle on the show, it demonstrates medical authorities warning the public of serious risks from measles are nothing but alarmists using fear-mongering to increase vaccine sales for Big Pharma.

This Brady Bunch argument seems to originate with a tweet from leading vaccine critic Jay Gordon and has been repeated everywhere from random internet forums to Age of Autism, sometimes citing variations including different television shows and different vaccine-preventable diseases.

The most recent version, posted on Age of Autism, refers to a clip from a children’s cartoon called Arthur in which parents reassure their child that chickenpox is not serious. Nobody seemed to panic on the TV show and health authorities weren’t quick to condemn the show’s irresponsibility, so that must mean these diseases aren’t serious…right?

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

A Photon in the Darkness: Another worthless autism-vaccine study

Here is my first catch up post.  As is so often the case with people who hold anti-reality views, lying is one of their most cherished recourses.  They get so good at it, and do it so often, that they don't even realize they are doing it!  And that statement is supported by a great deal of neurological research (I suggest Dr. Shermer's books on belief for an introduction).  So it is no surprise that a sketchy journal with an anti-vax pro-disease nutter at its helm publishes a poorly researched paper.

Another worthless autism-vaccine study

In May of this year (2011), the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A published an article by Dr. Gayle DeLong, professor of economics and finance at Baruch College, that claims to show a correlation between vaccines and autism:

DeLong G. A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. Population. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 2011 74(14):903-916

To readers who are curious why this article would appear in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, recall that this is the same journal that has published (thoroughly debunked) articles on autism causation by Mark Geier (four, by my count), and James Adams (two). Clearly, someone on the editorial board of this journal has a “soft spot” for autism research that wouldn’t get published anywhere else.

Getting back to DeLong (2011) - the premise of Dr. DeLong’s study is that the increase in vaccination, specifically the hepatitis B vaccine, has been associated with a corresponding rise in autism diagnosis (from IDEA data). Curiously, Dr. DeLong doesn’t explicitly mention that her study is looking at the impact of the hepatitis B vaccine, although the rise in vaccination rate she follows is due to the addition of infant hepatitis B vaccination to the recommended schedule. Figure 1 clearly shows that, in the period 1995 - 2001 (the period Dr. DeLong covers), the US uptake of DPT, polio, measles and Haemophilus influenzae B (HiB) vaccine (the line marked 4:3:1:3) were relatively constant, while the hepatitis B vaccine coverage (included in the line marked 4:3:1:3:3)  showed an increase during that period. I have taken the liberty of showing the data on vaccine uptake after 2001 to show the later trend.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ENTRY!

Vaccine Times: Russell Blaylock MD - The new Wakefield?

Is anyone taking bets on when this charlatan will be on some credulous TV show spouting off his nonsense?

The anti-vaxers’ ability to find real doctors to support their particular brand of quackery is admirable: think Dr. Jay Gordon, Andrew Wakefield and countless others. Someone I was not previously aware off joins the illustrious ranks; we are  introduced to Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. In a recent tweet, Meryl “I’m not anti-vaccine I’m pro-safe-vaccine even though vaccines=rape” Dorey linked to an article ominously titled “If You Are In Support of Vaccinations, Read This If You Dare“, published at thehealthy- economist.com. Now, how could I be expected to resist a dare from thehealthy- economist? I had to read.

As the first sentence of the article shows, we’re in for quite a spectacle:

If you are in support of vaccinations, this well written, concise and compelling letter by world renowned neurologist Dr. Russell Blaylock MD will dismantle every single argument used to support this inhumane, barbaric practice.

Wow, he’s world-renowned and is going to dismantle every single argument supporting vaccinations in one letter. What could possibly go wrong with that? I’m sure a world-renowned neurologist won’t stoop to the tired, old, already debunked anti-vaccine talking points. No, this guy will present earth-shattering evidence, unassailable arguments that will just leave the rest of us in the pro-health community flabbergasted and speechless. Did I mention he’s a world-renowned neurologist?

Who is Russell Blaylock MD?

He’s not new to the pseudo-scientific world according to the Skeptics Dictionary. He’s been around for a while apparently dabbling in pseudo-scientific endeavors with regards to vaccines, cancer, and other woo lovers topics such as water fluoridation, teeth fillings, aspartame etc.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.  It's a long one, but forewarned is forearmed.  And this nutter needs to be shown for what he is!

Anti-Vax Nutters Show the Weakness of their Position

The anti-vax crowd likes to get together and mentally masturbate over their position.  One such venue is the Autism One convention.  By now, I'm sure you've heard about Jamie Bernstein, and her treatment at that convention.  Especially considering that she registered for it, and was adhering to all the rules.  I think it highlights the weakness of the anti-vax crowd when they go to such lengths to silence any dissent to their position.  And in such an over the top way!

The Bad Astronomer has a good take on the article, with plenty of links to follow up with on the whole story.  I will add in my own musing on this whole issue.  What I find particularly ironic about these alt-med woo peddlers is that they are up in arms about some faceless “Big Pharma” selling medicine (THAT ACTUALLY WORKS), but when some unqualified quack tries to sell them twigs and berries that do nothing, they gladly fork over their money…

There’s a grand irony about skepticism and alt-med groups that I suspect most people don’t know. Skeptics are commonly seen as curmudgeonly cynics, poopooing new ideas and excluding anyone not in their club. Alt-med people are seen as warm, open, willing to try new things, and welcoming anyone to their group.

But that’s not the way it really works. In fact, skeptical groups welcome people who believe in various things we don’t (we’ve had them come to various TAMs; the effort we make in outreach could be improved, of course, but we certainly don’t turn them away — an important point, as you’ll see in a moment), and alt-med groups… well, they talk a good game, but when it comes down to a skeptic actually showing up at their meetings, their actions speak much louder than words.


But don’t take my word for it. You can read all about what happened to my pal and active supporter of real medicine Jamie Bernstein when she attended the antivax Autism One convention. She wrote up her experience in two parts: the first on Skepchick, and the second on Friendly Atheist.

The upshot? Despite behaving herself, obeying the rules, and being very polite, she was escorted out of the meeting by three security guards and four armed police officers, ejected on clearly trumped-up charges.

As Orac points out, does this sound like an open and honest movement? Or does it sound like people who are terrified of different opinions and quash dissent, even before it happens?

Yep, she looks downright criminally dangerous, doesn't she!

BBC News: Measles in the UK

IVAN3MAN sent me this link about measles in the UK.  The thing to note here is that the UK is not some third world country here, but one of the more modern nations on earth.  Yet people are needlessly suffering due to the lies of one person.  Some basic facts for you before I present the article (emphasis mine):

Measles cases in Europe

Jan-April 2011

• France - 7321*
• Spain - 657
• Switzerland - 390
• UK - 345
• Germany - 276*

*Jan-March figure / Source: EUvac

Measles Q&A

• How safe is it to take children to mainland Europe who have had two doses of the MMR vaccine?

It gives 99% protection against the measles virus.

• What if they have had only one dose of MMR?

One dose is better than none, but two doses is better than one. If you are concerned about travelling to an outbreak area you can bring forward the second MMR dose. Speak to your GP about it.

• What if my children are not vaccinated at all?

The advice is to go to your GP and arrange for them to be immunised as soon as possible before you travel. Measles is a dangerous viral illness which can be fatal.
BBC Health - Measle

MEASLES FACTS

• It is a highly infectious viral illness
• It causes a fever, coughing and distinctive red-brown spots on the skin
• Measles is contracted by breathing in tiny droplets created when an infected person coughs or sneezes
• Possible complications include pneumonia, ear and eye infections and croup
• Serious complications include inflammation of the brain (encephalitis), which can be fatal
• Measles in pregnancy can cause miscarriage, premature labour or a baby with low birth weight
• The most effective way of preventing measles is the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine
• There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism

Measles outbreak prompts plea to vaccinate children

By Philippa Roxby Health reporter, BBC News

Parents in England and Wales are being urged to have their children vaccinated after a tenfold rise in measles cases in the first four months of the year.

The Health Protection Agency reported 334 cases compared with 33 in the similar period last year.
The outbreak is thought to be linked to an epidemic in France, where 7,000 cases have been reported since January - more than in the whole of 2010.

The HPA says it is "crucial" that those at risk are fully immunised.

It says the latest cases are mainly among unvaccinated people under 25 years old and are centred on "small clusters in universities, schools or families or associated with travel abroad".

Worst-hit are London and the South East, with 104 and 102 confirmed cases respectively in the first quarter of this year.

Recently the Health Protection Agency sent out letters to some primary schools and further education colleges in London warning of the risks of taking children who are not fully immunised to mainland Europe.

'Potentially dangerous'

Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at the Health Protection Agency, warned parents and young adults of the importance of immunisation.

"Although MMR coverage has improved over the last few years, we cannot stress enough that measles is serious and in some cases it can be fatal.

 CLICK HERE TO READ REST OF STORY.

Just the Vax: Still no independent confirmation of Wakefield's claims

Sometimes people will not accept being wrong.  No matter how often they are told they are wrong, or how poorly they came up with their information.  It's well known that Wakefield not only lied and fabricated his data, but he also had a serious conflict of interest.  Yet people insist on saying that he was somehow right.  So a lot of people are spending a great deal of effort to continue to prove him wrong.  And a lot of other misguided folks think he was somehow right despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary...

Still no independent confirmation of Wakefield's claims

One of the things that anti-vaccines groups desperately want to have, is the scientific support for their claims. A lot of parents know that rigorous studies, peer reviewed, published in scientific journals and indexed on Pubmed are the standard in discussions about medical care. Therefore, the anti-vaccine brigade are trying to maintain that, really, countless scientific studies across the globe have shown that vaccines are bad for you.

The anti-vaccine, pro-any-conspiracy theory website Whale.to (the citation of which automatically invokes Skopie's Law), provides a neat shopping list that staunch supporters of the long debunked “MMR causes inflammation of the gut which somehow causes autism and Andrew Wakefield is really a hero” notion can use to spam evidence based discussions, as recently seen on the Shot of Prevention blog where Marsha McClelland of the “We the People United for Vaccine Education Misinformation” Yahoo group copied and pasted in support for Andrew Wakefield.

CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF PAPERS THAT SHOW WAKEFIELD WAS AND IS STILL WRONG.

Vaccine Times: South Korean Autism Study

Quite often people will use the argument that autism rates have increased dramatically as a result of vaccines.  The proposed mechanism for this increase has been bandied about, and the anti-vax pro-disease contingent can't get their act together on this.  The insistence that Thimerosal was supposed to be the cause, yet rates have continued to climb, even though vaccines have been free of Thimerosal for a decade is of no matter (or the really embarrassing fact that MMR vaccines never contained Thimerosal to start with!).  So this study on autism itself was interesting.

South Korean Autism Study: did autism rates triple overnight?

One of the points that anti-vaccine proponents keep bringing up is how autism prevalence has been going up over the past few decades. They notice how autism diagnoses have gone up and correlate that with an expanded vaccine schedule, then finally make the leap to imply it was the vaccines that caused autism. When we say that an expanded definition and expanded surveillance is what has in big part resulted in the increase, they laugh it off. That is not possible, they say; the increase must be a real increase of actual cases.

Recently, a new study came out of South Korea. It was a 5 year study that looked at all children in a South Korean community, not just high risk kids, or those that went to the doctor. They found an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) prevalence rate of 2.6%. By comparison the current rate is estimated to be 1/110 or 0.9%. By looking at all children, vs. just those in the high risk groups, as has been the practice generally, the prevalence rate almost tripled.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

Vaccine Times: Age of Autism considers reliable only the sources that agree with them

To drive home the point of how deluded the Age of Autism folks are, it's easy to compare them to conspiracy theorists.  And not the garden variety ones, but the worst of deniers of reality.  I think Vaccines Times actually cuts them a lot of slack, but I would say that the anti-vax pro-disease movement is only slightly less crazy than a flat earther or geocentric believer.

Age of Autism considers reliable only the sources that agree with them

Between the Obama ‘Birthers’, climate change deniers, and those who insist that Osama bin Laden’s reported death was staged, conspiracy theories and denialism have been ubiquitous in the news lately. Science journalist and author Chris Mooney has only been one of many to recently discuss the psychology of denialism at length.

Mooney’s latest article on the topic begins with an appropriate quote by  Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger, who observed:

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

CLICK HERE TO READ REST OF ARTICLE.

A Photon in the Darkness: Anti-viral nonsense

One of the most awful things to watch is a distraught parent get taken advantage of because they don't have a good grounding in actual science.  Now we heard about that scumbag of an individual calling himself a doctor in Maryland, so I thought it would be appropriate to pass along more information about the sort of scams these people pull on parents.

Anti-viral nonsense

There are some “alt-med” treatments for autism that are like the zombies in B-grade horror movies. You think they’re dead, but as soon as you turn your back, they’re up and shambling around, searching for…..well, they’re usually looking for money, so they don’t fit the zombie analogy that well.

Chelation, secretin and HBOT have all been shown to be no more than profit centers for “alternative” practitioners, but my contacts in the “biomed” world tell me that they are still being prescribed (and inflicted) on autistic children. Apparently, it’s going to take more than decapitation or a stake through the heart to put these undead therapies in the ground for good.
Which brings me to the undead therapy that has - I would have thought - the best reason to be dead, buried and resting in peace: acyclovir/valacyclovir.

For the past few years, I had been living in blissful ignorance of the ongoing use of acyclovir and valacyclovir in the “treatment” of autism. Sure, they were “hot stuff” a few years ago, back when some misguided practitioners were using them to treat “chronic measles infection”. But I thought that people had wised up and realised that these anti-viral drugs have absolutely no effect on measles and - in plain fact - can’t have any effect on the measles virus.

Fast forward to a few months ago, when a worn-out mom asked me if I thought that acyclovir would be as effective as valacyclovir for the treatment of chronic measles.

My initial thought was that they would be equally ineffective, but I managed to keep that thought from being voiced. Instead I asked, “Are you sure that your doctor is using valacyclovir for measles?” The answer was chilling - the undead zombie of “valacyclovir for chronic measles” had risen from its restless grave.


Before I go any further, it might be useful to explain what acyclovir and valacyclovir are, how they work and what their side-effects are.

READ REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE!

I also recommend that you visit What's The Harm.   Tim Farley does a great job in showing that not being grounded in reality and good science can result in a lot of misery.

Despicalbe Human Being gets Just Rewards (Oh, and FISH)

Today a despicable human being who claimed the title of "Doctor" lost his privileges to that because of his abuses and rejection of reality.  Yet this is the sort of person that so many people end up going to because the aren't satisfied with the current state of knowledge (or lack thereof) when dealing with autism.  Sadly, I am afraid this will not serve as a lesson to the quacks that behave like this excuse for a medical practitioner, nor will it warn off frustrated and tired parents from similar pro-disease wackjobs.  I think Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy summed it up quite well:

I do so love to report these wins for reality, as rare as they are: the very vocal antivax advocate Mark Geier has had his medical license revoked in Maryland. Why?

The Maryland State Board of Physicians reviewed nine cases of autistic children seen by Geier, of which he treated seven. Of those nine, the Board found he misdiagnosed six of them. He (mis)diagnosed them with "precocious puberty", a medical condition where kids have extremely early onset of puberty. Why would he do such a thing? Well, this condition can be treated with Lupron, a drug which lowers testosterone (it’s used to chemically castrate adult men). Geier happens to think Lupron can also help autism — despite there being no evidence at all that’s the case — which makes his diagnosis very suspect. It implies strongly that he used the precocious puberty diagnosis as an excuse to prescribe the drug.

By the way, Lupron costs $5000 – $6000 a month to administer. The side effects can be severe as well, including seizures, and it’s known that autistic children are prone to seizures. That’s why the Board wrote that Geier’s treatment "exposed the children to needless risk of harm, " (pp 12 – 13). As far as his medical expertise, the Board also wrote that Geier’s "assessment and treatment of autistic children as described herein, however, far exceeds his qualifications and expertise" (p. 13). That dry assessment does nothing to convey the horror I felt reading the Board’s document, though. In several cases, he didn’t even diagnose the children in person. 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

For more information, feel free to go to sites like Harpocrates Speaks, Seth Mnookin, and Orac.  These folks really get into the details.

Oh, did I mention FISH in the title?  My good friend IVAN3MAN sent me a link from the BBC that caught my interest, and I figured that I would share this one as well. It's an interesting article about how we betray our fishy origins every time one of us is conceived and gestates.  And we still bear the marks after we are born, yet never think about it.  Here is a quick excerpt from the article:

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

By Dr Michael Mosley

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish, but the evidence can be found not just in fossils but also within our own bodies.

Your face is your most expressive feature; it tells the world what you are feeling, who you are and where you come from. Although no two faces are exactly the same, they share a number of common characteristics; a couple of eyes, a nose, a mouth and a philtrum.

The philtrum is the groove on your top lip that lies just beneath your nose. You see it every day in the mirror so you probably never think about it.

It has no obvious function. Instead it is an accident of our origins, a clue to our fishy past and how our faces first formed.

Your face is formed in the womb in the first couple of months of life, from when you were the size of a grain of rice to when you were the size of a kidney bean.
The video (above) of a growing human face shows how this process happens. It has been created from high quality scans of human embryos at early stages of development, provided by universities and hospitals.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

ALERT: Demand That CBS Not Air Outdoor Anti-Vaccine Ad!

American media will let any idiot get on TV or in the public eye it seems.  Even those who advocate actions that are a clear hazard to public health and people's lives...  The Skeptical Teacher has found out about an advert that will advocate an anti-vax pro-disease message couched in "let's all be informed" language (much like evolution deniers couch their language in teach the controversy).  That is to say, they are spreading lies and misinformation.

Okay folks, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get skeptically active.  I have found out that CBS plans to air an anti-vaccination ad on the Jumbotron at 42nd Street in New York’s Times Square starting on April 28th.  The sponsoring organizations are the notoriously anti-vaccinationist Mercola and National Vaccine Information Center. These are a couple of the biggest groups out there promoting the falsehood that, among other things, vaccines cause autism (they don’t, btw).  And while their ad gives the impression that they want to simply inform people about their “vaccine choices”, what they are really about is spreading flagrantly non-scientific, incorrect, and fear-mongering bilge about vaccines.  If you’d like to see some accurate info on vaccines, check out this link to the Hug Me, I’m Vaccinated website.

Folks, we have to do something to stop this.  Why?  Simple: because vaccines save lives.  Period.

READ REST OF ARTICLE HERE.

Also please sign this petition at Change.org. There are additional ideas in the article for communicating your thoughts to CBS as well.

Just the Vax: Dr. Bob Sears' Alternate Reality or Everyone is a Pharma Shill

Today I read another article that I think all should read.  This is the oft touted, but 100% wrong, idea that there is a "Big Pharma" covering up the autism/vaccines link...  Normally I w9ould do a teaser, and then have you "CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY" bit, but this is important.  Over and over again there are studies that totally debunk (dare I say destroy) the lie spread by these irresponsible shysters, yet they keep trotting out the same old tired lies.  They are exhibiting the classic hallmarks of denialism.  Sadly, those sort of minds are very hard to reach.  However, anyone that actually values evidence needs to read this entire article.

Dr. Bob Sears' Alternate Reality or Everyone is a Pharma Shill

On 17 February, 2010 Dr. Bob Sears appeared on The Dr. Oz Show; the topic was "What Causes Autism". Dr. Oz packed the audience with mainly those who believe autism is caused by vaccines thus setting up all of the legitimate panel members (paediatricians) to be on the defensive. It was a live viewing, however, of how "alternative" practitioners get to play by their own rules enticing the audience, leaving those who remain true to the facts appearing unsympathetic and cold. One particular statement that Dr. Bob made was rather sensational and undoubtedly meant to be:

"Most of the vaccine studies that show no link between vaccines and autism are funded by the pharmaceutical companies."

Audience applause then:

"In fact, if you look at the 23 major studies that have shown no link, 18 of them are funded by big pharma."

Yes, he really did say "big pharma". Needless to say, I found this claim rather intriguing so I asked Dr. Bob which studies was he referring to:

On the Dr. Oz Show about autism a couple of weeks ago, you stated that most studies exonerating vaccines as the culprit for autism were pharma-funded, 18/23 to be exact. I'm very curious as to which 23 studies you were referring to.

 He kindly replied:

Not counting studies labeled as “commentary,” since that isn’t original research, I count 18 out of 23. There may be some studies I didn’t include here, but these are most of them:

Studies that compared children who received vaccines with mercury with children who did not and found no association between vaccine mercury and autism:

1.) Association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, Hviid A, et al., JAMA 2003;290(13):1763-66. Pharma-funded. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/13/1763.long

2.) Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study, Pichichero M, et al., Lancet 2002;360(9347):1737-41. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426

3.) Thimerosal and autism? Nelson K and Bauman M., Pediatrics 2003;111:674-79. Commentary. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/3/674

4.) On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes, Smith M. and Woods C. Pediatrics 2010;125(6):1134-41. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20498176

Studies that show autism continued to increase even after mercury was removed from vaccines:

5.) Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from danish population-based data, Madsen K, et al., Pediatrics 2003;112:604-606. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=madsen&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=112&issue=3&resourcetype=HWCIT

6.) Continuing increases in autism reported to california’s developmental services system, Schechter R, Grether, J., Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008;65(1):19-24.http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19

7.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al., Pediatrics 2006;118:e139-e150. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

Studies that examined the rates of autism compared to the cumulative levels of mercury in vaccines and found no association:

8.) Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism, Price C. et al., Pediatrics 2010;126:656-64. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837594

9.) Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization database, Verstraeten T. et al., Pediatrics 2003;112:1039-48. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/5/1039

10.) Neuropsychological performance 10 years after immunization in infancy with thimerosal-containing vaccines, Tozzi A, et al., Pediatrics 2009;123:475-82. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/2/475

11.) Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association, Stehr-Green P., Am J Prev Med 2003;25(2):101-106. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880876

12.) Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the united kingdom does not support a causal association, Heron J, et al., Pediatrics 2004;114:577-83. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577

13.) Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes, Thompson W, et al., N Engl J Med 2007;357:1281-92. Pharma-funded. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa071434#t=articleTop

14.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al., Pediatrics 2006;118:e139-e150. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

Research comparing autism rates in children who did and did not receive the MMR vaccine and found no increased risk of autism:

15.) A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism, Madsen KM, et al. N Engl J Med 2002;347(19):1477-82. Pharma-funded. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134#t=articleTop

16.) No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study, Honda H, et al., J Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:6 (2005); 572-79. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763

Research that duplicated Wakefield’s study and found no association between MMR and autism:

17.) Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study, Hornig M, et al., PLoS ONE 2008;3(9):e3140. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/?tool=pubmed

Studies showing no evidence of a temporal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism:

18.) MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study, Smeeth L, et al., Lancet 2004; 364:963-69. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15364187

19.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al., Pediatrics 2006;118:e139-e150. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

20.) No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism, Fombonne E and Chakrabarti S, Pediatrics 2001;108:e58. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11581466

21.) No evidence for links between autism, MMR, and measles virus, Chen W. et al., Psychological Medicine 2004;34(3):543-53. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839

22.) Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, Mäkelä A, et al., Pediatrics 2002;110:957-63. Pharma-funded. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/5/957

23.) Association of autistic spectrum disorder and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, Wilson K. et al., Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:628-34. Commentary. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/157/7/628

24.) Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005; issue 4. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16235361

Studies that show no link between MMR and autism or gastrointestinal disease:

25.) MMR vaccine and autism: an update of the scientific evidence, DeStefano F., Thompson W., Centers for Disease Control, Expert Review of Vaccines 2004;3(1):19-22. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761240

26.) Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders, Baird G, et al., Arch Dis Child 2008;93:832-37. Pharma-funded. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252754

27.) Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review, Jefferson T. et al., Vaccine 2003;21(25-26):3954-60. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12922131

28.) A case-control study of measles vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease, The East Dorset Gastroenterology Group, Feeney M. et al., Lancet 1997;350(9080):764-66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9297995

Miscellaneous

29.) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism, Immunization Safety Review Committee, Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2004. Commentary. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/

Research can be funded in numerous ways, for example, government institutions such as the NIH or CDC, special interest groups such as Autism Speaks or Autism Science Foundation, charitable/philanthropic organisations such as The David & Lucile Packard Foundation or Wellcome Trust and of course, industry such as pharmaceutical or agricultural companies.  When Dr. Bob states, "funded by pharmaceutical companies", that has a very specific meaning, that the study was funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Let's look at the funding sources for those he tagged as "pharma-funded":

1.) Association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, Hviid et al.
Author Affiliations: Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology Research (Messrs Hviid, Wohlfahrt, and Dr Melbye) and Medical Department (Dr Stellfeld), Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Funding Statement: This study was supported by grant 11 from the Danish National Research Foundation and grant 22-02-0293 from the Danish Medical Research Council.

The Danish System is unique in that they have universal healthcare; Statens Serum Institut (SSI) is a public enterprise that operates under the Danish Ministry of Health.  SSI has a division which develops vaccines and is essentially, a non-profit.  SSI also has divisions which operate much like the CDC in the U.S.  These divisions are where the authors of this study are employed.  A comprehensive explanation of SSI's structure can be read here.  This is not "big pharma" by any stretch of the imagination.

2.) Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study, Pichichero M, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Microbiology/Immunology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, NY, USA.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Funding Statement: The investigation was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, under contract 1 AF-45248.

4.) On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes, Smith M. and Woods C.
Author Affiliations: University of Louisville School of Medicine, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 571 S Floyd St, Suite 321, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Conflicts of Interest: Drs Smith and Woods are or have been unfunded subinvestigators for cross-coverage purposes on vaccine clinical trials for which their colleagues receive funding
from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, MedImmune, and Novartis; and Dr Woods has received honoraria for speaking engagements from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, and MedImmune and has received research funding from Wyeth and Sanofi Pasteur.
Funding Statement: This study was conducted without funding from any company (e.g., vaccine manufacturer) or agency (e.g., the CDC). We conducted this study on our own after requesting and receiving the publicly available data that were used for the analyses. Our unrelated interactions with vaccine manufacturers have been appropriately disclosed for full transparency in accordance with our own ethical standards as well as formal guidelines from the Academy of Pediatrics and the University of Louisville.

This is what Dr. Bob had to say about the study when he was asked (he also copied a communication from Dr. Rosen included in the preceding link):

Major flaws by Dr. Bob Sears - posted on 5/25/2010
Let me first say I haven't read it yet. Too busy in office last few days. But here are three observations: 1 - they excluded kids with autism from the study (DUH! - that's the type of kids you'd want to include in this!)
2. Hugely funded by pharmaceutical companies - the list of conflict of interest is quite long. Publishing a study like this with pharma funding is 100% worthless - the only people who will believe it are those who don't mind conflicts of interest.
3. Here's a comment from one of a doctor in the AAP who heads up one of the AAP divisions: this is the letter he wrote the journal:

"Dear Sirs,

I read with great interest Smith and Woods article, "On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes." This issue is of paramount importance in clinical primary care practice today. However, I was dismayed by two factors within minutes of reading the piece. One, of perhaps lesser importance, in the Results Section, the numbers, simply put, do not add up. If all of the subjects are added as listed, a total of 1037 (not 1047) is obtained. Furthermore, the percentages are incorrect as listed. The final group (311) is in fact 30% of the incorrect total, not 20% as listed. It always concerns me and forces me to question the validity of the other findings when a mistake like this is notable. In any case, the finding that approximately 50% (depending on the true numbers) received an alternative vaccine schedule, even as long ago as 1993-1997 is of interest.

Of greater concern to me, personally, is the Financial Disclosure listings. It is very difficult in this day and age to review the authors' conclusions without considering their considerable potential biases given where their funding comes from. I believe every known vaccine manufacturer is listed on the payroll. Until we have well-done, conflict- free published research on this topic, both the public and skeptical physicians must continue to look for honest answers."

Dr. Bob didn't even read the study, let alone read the response that Dr. Rosen received about funding sources (self-funded) from the authors and absolutely no pharmaceutical funding.  He doesn't even grasp that Dr.s Smith and Woods used the data set from Thompson et al. (13), which specifically excluded autism and explained why. This is just Dr. Bob being intentionally misleading so he doesn't have to confront any evidence that is antithetical to his "trademark alternative vaccine schedule".

5.) Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from danish population-based data, Madsen K, et al.
Author Affiliations:  Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Institute for Basic Psychiatric Research, Department of Psychiatric Demography, Psychiatric Hospital in Aarhus, Risskov, Denmark
National Centre for Register-Based Research, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
State Serum Institute, Department of Medicine, Copenhagen, Denmark
Funding Statement: The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were involved in the study design.

7.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Lester B. Pearson School Board, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Conflicts of Interest: In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation.
Funding Statement: None of his research has ever been funded by the industry.

8.) Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism, Price C. et al.
Author Affiliations: Abt Associates Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Immunization Safety Office, and Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland,California;
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Kaiser Permanente ASD Center San Jose Northern California Region, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California;
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;
Southern California Kaiser Permanente, and Center for Vaccine Research, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and
Center for Health Research Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta, Georgia
Funding Statement: This work was supported by a contract from the CDC to America’s Health Insurance Plans and via America’s Health Insurance Plans subcontracts to Abt Associates Inc; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School; Southern California Kaiser Permanente, and Center for Vaccine Research, University of California Los Angeles; and Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Ironically, this is the study that Dr. Bob's colleague, Sally Bernard of SafeMinds participated in.

9.) Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization database, Verstraeten T. et al.
Author Affiliations: Epidemic Intelligence Service Program, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Vaccine Safety and Development Activity, Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
University of Washington and Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington
Center for Child Health Care Studies, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, and Division of General Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
Funding Statement: None declared.

Ironically, this study group invited Dr. Bob's colleague, Lyn Redwood of SafeMinds to review the findings.

11.) Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association, Stehr-Green P. et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
National Board of Health and Welfare (Tull), Stockholm, SwedenStatens Serum Institut (Stellfeld), Copenhagen, Denmark
National Centre for Register-Based Research (Mortenson), Aarhus, Denmark
National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Simpson), Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Funding Statement: Financial support for the compilation of the data used in this investigation and the preparation of this report was provided by the National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We are grateful to Victoria Romanus of the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, Ingrid Trolin of the Swedish Medical Products Agency, Anne-Marie Plesner and Peter Andersen of the Danish Statens Serum Institut, and Roger Bernier and Susan Chu of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their contributions in the design and conduct of this investigation, and in the preparation and review of this manuscript.

12.) Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the united kingdom does not support a causal association, Heron J, et al.
Author Affiliations: Unit of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, Department of Community-Based Medical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Funding Statement: Financial support for the establishment of the ALSPAC cohort was provided by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, and DfEE, the National Institutes of Health, and a variety of medical research charities and commercial companies. Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Health (Ref VIE 134/1).

13.) Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes, Thompson W, et al.
Author Affiliations:  From the Influenza Division and Immunization Safety Office , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta;
Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA;
Group Health Center for Health Studies, Seattle;
the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston;
Kaiser Permanente Division of Research and Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, CA;
UCLA Center for Vaccine Research, Torrance, CA;
Southern California Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles;
RTI International, Atlanta; and
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding Statement: Supported by the CDC.

14.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Lester B. Pearson School Board, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Conflict of Interest: In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation.
Funding Statement: None of his research has ever been funded by the industry.

15.) A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism, Madsen KM, et al.
Author Affiliation: Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Århus, Denmark;
Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark; and
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
Funding Statement:  Supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation; the National Vaccine Program Office and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the National Alliance for Autism Research.

16.) No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study, Honda H, et al.
Author Affiliations: Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, Yokohama, Japan;
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Funding Statement: None declared.

18.) MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study, Smeeth L, et al.
Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology and Population Health;
Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases ;
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;
Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children’s Hospital, Canada;
and Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, UK
Conflicts of Interest: L Smeeth, C Cook, L Heavey, L C Rodrigues, and P G Smith have no conflicts of interest. E Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee), and to several government committees. A J Hall received a financial contribution from Merck towards research on hepatitis B vaccination in 1998. He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (2002–present).
Funding Statement: The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. L Smeeth is supported by a Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellowship.

19.) Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations, Fombonne E, et al.
Duplicate of (14)

20.) No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism, Fombonne E and Chakrabarti S
Author Affiliation:  Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom;
Child Development Center, Central Clinic, Stafford, United Kingdom.
Funding Statement: None declared.

22.) Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, Mäkelä A, et al.
Author Affiliations:  Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Funding Statement: Dr Mäkelä was partially supported by a grant from Merck & Co.

26.) Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders, Baird G, et al.
Author Affiliation: Newcomen Centre, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK;
Biostatistics Group, Division of Epidemiology & Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK;
Behavioural and Brain Sciences Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK;
Department of Paediatrics, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK;
Chatswood Assessment Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;
National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, UK;
Virus Reference Department, Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, London, UK
Conflicts of Interest: MA and DB have given unpaid advice to lawyers in MMR and MR litigation. GB has acted as an occasional expert witness for the diagnosis of autism. AP receives royalties from SCQ and ADOS-G instruments. PBS has acted as an expert witness in the matter of MMR/MR vaccine litigation. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement: he study was funded by the Department of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR) and Remedi. The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing
of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Of the 18 studies that Dr. Bob declared are pharma-funded, 1 (22) is partially funded by Merck, three studies (9, 16 and 20) don't have funding statements and 1 (19) is a duplicate of (14).  That leaves 13 studies with no pharmaceutical funding whatsoever, confirmed.  I already knew this so I offered Dr. Bob the chance to rectify his "mistake":

I really do wish to thank you for answering me. In doing so, I would like to extend you the courtesy of retracting your statements that, "Most of the vaccine studies that show no link between vaccines and autism are funded by the pharmaceutical companies" and, "In fact, if you look at the 23 major studies that have shown no link, 18 of them are funded by big pharma." before I write about this.

However, instead of making the honest gesture to retract his demonstrably false statements, Dr. Bob "clarifies":

Clarification by Dr. Bob - posted on 3/10/2011

A quote from the beginning of the Fombonne study:
Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation.

The qualifications I use to determine if a study is pharma-funded is 1. The research is directly funded by pharma, or 2, the researchers involved have received money from pharmaceutical companies for services rendered, or 3. The researchers in the past have had other studies funded by pharma (I'm don't think this last one applies anywhere here, but I don't remember now).

Because Dr. Fombonne has been an expert witness in defense of the pharmaceutical companies, this creates a clear financial and professional conflict of interest.

I know that none of this would matter to some of you on this board, but I think it matters to most parents in general.

And this goes both ways. Some of the doctors who HAVE found a link between autism and vaccines in their research have testified AGAINST pharma on behalf of vaccine injury claimants. I also consider that a conflict of interest in their research.

But of course!  Create an overreaching, blatantly dishonest, weasel-worded definition for what he meant; pure truthiness.  He devises an alternate rendering in order to set up the premise should "big pharma" even fart in the general direction of an investigator, he can label their study as "pharma-funded".  Even by his own tortured criteria, he can't claim that the three studies with no funding declaration are "pharma-funded" but yet he does.  He doesn't even read these studies; he doesn't know how but only knows that they don't concur with his pre-conceived notions (and his bread and butter).  How does he explain that these so-called "pharma-funded" studies' results are concordant with those that he hasn't deemed "pharma-funded"?  He can't.

As for this statement:

And this goes both ways. Some of the doctors who HAVE found a link between autism and vaccines in their research have testified AGAINST pharma on behalf of vaccine injury claimants. I also consider that a conflict of interest in their research.

It's a right load of bollocks.  His Vaccine Book is rife with "studies" by the Geiers, Wakefield, Classen, Goldman, Yazbak and Bradstreet, all with conflicts of interest, businesses that profit from "vaccine damage", and/or appearances as "expert witnesses" for petitioners in the NVICP.  Why he still considers Andy (Wakefield) a close friend and stands behind his research, not to mention Dr. Bob's own flagrant conflicts of interest.  As a DAN! doctor, he thrives on hawking "vaccines cause autism" and promoting fear about vaccines helps to keep his books, products and services selling.  He clearly has a financial and personal investment in denying the legitimacy of any studies that don't support his paradigm.

Do some authors have conflicts of interest?  Yes they do and their declarations allow the readers of their studies to properly assess their value and consider replication of other studies.  Had Dr. Bob stated that some of these authors have conflicts of interest, he would have made a factual statement, but he also wouldn't have made the same impact on the audience and I believe he knows that, which is why he defers to truthiness.  It is a predictable tactic for the deceptive "vaccine safety" party line pushers to take.  Furthermore, he only includes about half of the list of studies that cannot find a vaccine-autism association; hand-picking only those he believes he can apply his crooked standard to.

It is also worth noting Dr. Bob's dishonest/incompetent labelling of studies 3, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 29 as "commentaries".  Again, a word with a very specific meaning when referring to scientific publications.  For example, Pediatrics defines commentaries as follows:

Abstract length: no abstract
Article length: 400 to 800 words
Commentaries are opinion pieces consisting of a main point and supporting discussion. These contributions usually pertain to and are published concurrently with a specific article; the commentary serves to launch a broader discussion of a topic. Commentaries may address general issues or controversies in the field of pediatrics.

Nearly all medical/scientific journals will have a commentary or editorial section and they are rather consistent.  What Dr. Bob labelled as "commentaries" are actually reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses and only one actual commentary and it is positively cloddish that he either doesn't know this or is too morally bankrupt to care.  A review, as the name implies is an article that provides a more generalised, critical review of a specific topic.  They are almost always solicited and peer-reviewed in the same manner as original research.  They are very useful, mostly written by top experts in their respective fields (the quality, of course, depends upon the quality of the journal) that provide a good overview although can still be subject to author bias.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be very powerful study designs as explained in this study module by The Cochrane Collaboration.  I doubt Dr. Bob has the desire to actually learn something contrary to his witless dogma by reading this, but "systematic review" in the titles of the damn studies should have tipped him off.  For him to try and pass off an Institute of Medicine - Immunization Safety Review as a commentary just begs for a rhetorical drubbing.

Dr. Bob is nothing more than a self-styled marketeer, a medico last.  He has managed to parlay some business acumen, M.D. credentials and family name into a business that obfuscates his mediocre medical skills and complete oblivion of science.  He is influencing public health and has absolutely no competence to do so.

Paediatricians need to be more proficient at countering his fabrications when both dealing with parents and confronting him in the media.  Parents' fears can be acknowledged without being validated and sadly, paediatricians have to make an effort to undo the damage that the likes of Dr. Bob have done on their own time while he makes a living off of generating fear with patently false information.