Alcohol Hand Sanitizers can be better.

A recent study compared the effectiveness of soap and water compared to alcohol based hand products. The alcohol based products were better.

Just remember that if there is dirt or nasty stuff beyond just the bugs on your hands, the soap and water will probably be more effective in removing the stuff.   Put another way, alcohol products may not be the best way to get clean after going to the toilet.

Prevnar 13 and Methodology

If you want to be accurate, you can't just cherry pick parts of abstracts.

A rant at Huffington-Post describes how mother nature can always win against vaccine makers:

Smash down an infectious agent and another one, sometimes more dangerous, pops up. In this particular case, the vaccine for pneumonia (Prevnar) only protects against some of the strains that can cause invasive pneumonia in children. And, for a few years, we saw a drop in cases. But, as Mother Nature moves to establish her dominance, we've seen an increase in another subtype of the bacteria. And guess what? 30% of these new cases were multidrug resistant. ...It is truly up to parents to be proactive in raising healthy children. You can NOT rely on your doctor anymore. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/3/429

The link to the comment is at the bottom of this blog entry.

My response
You can rely on your doctor if the doctor reads that journal. You cannot rely on vaccination opponents who either don't know how to research or don't accurately report what they find.

In 2000, the 7 strain Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV7) was introduced. Has the percentage of various strains of virus infecting children changed since the introduction of PCV7? Yes. There has been an increase in strain 19A cases.

Wakefield's Fees - The Story Keeps Changing

Going through my notes I found this one.


"We declare that:  Dr. Wakefield is a man of honesty, integrity, courage, and proven commitment to children and the public health."  Where do we learn this? Why at the online petition site  (I love the site name) http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com.


Where did the money go?
Here's what Wakefield said in February 2009. in a written emailed response [May26th, 2010 the link was to the childhealthsafety blog, but the article has been removed, see here for the same information] to questions Brian Deers' newspaper required him to ask Wakefield.

Any payment that I received over the course of working for more than 7 years as a expert to the UK courts...was donated to an initiative to build a new center for the investigation and care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease at the Royal Free. This matter is described in more detail in a forthcoming essay by Bill Long, access to which will be posted in due course at http://www.drbilllong.com/index.html.  

The Bill Long essays are based on January 2009 interviews.  In essay IX,  according to Mr. Long, the UK courts chopped a £100,000 off the £435,000 and the law firm didn't pay him £35000.  With the £300,000 he received, Wakefield paid for a researcher.  Nothing is said about donating a penny to the Royal Free.

In documents released in Dec. 2006, Wakefield is said to have received £435,000 for  his work on the lawsuit--making him the highest-paid expert in the entire case. This might be expected, since his work on Crohn's disease, the GI tract and the potential connection of the measles virus to the development of Crohn's disease was foundational for Barr's case. But a closer look at that £435,000 Pounds ($780,000) reveals less meets the eye. The court overseeing the litigation decided that it wouldn't award £100,000 of those £435,000. Then, the Barr law firm decided to withhold about £35,000 after the highly critical Feb. 2004 stories about Wakefield began to appear. With the British tax of 40%, this brings his "earnings" down to about £180,000 Pounds for seven years of engagement in the litigation. From this he paid for a research assistant and then paid at least £100,000 Pounds to file and update the patent application. Decisions to file in jurisdictions as wide as America, Europe, England and Japan drained a good deal of the expert fee money he earned. Thus, at the end of it all, Wakefield didn't "get rich" on either the patent application or the expert fees he earned. Most of it was invested in ways that would hopefully benefit the School of Medicine and patients with intestinal disease."

The UK courts awarded Wakefield £435,643 in fees. See the note at the top of the chart. Fees and expenses are assessed (taxed) by a UK court. The money goes to the lawyers who pay the experts.


The basis for his claim to have decided to give the money to a research centre is based on a letter he wrote in 1995 to the Royal Free Hospital. This was a time before he even met the lawyer leading the UK MMR lawsuit.  Unfortunately, I can't find the link again.

This is Wakefield. Within a month or two, Wakefield tells two different stories about the money, neither one of which is true.

Addendum May 28, 2010
I've now found the link to Wakefield's responses to an email of Brian Deer in December 2006 on the fees he received.  Wakefield wrote:

3. The money that I received was, after tax and out of pocket expenses, donated to an initiative to create a new center, in the first instance at the Royal Free Hospital, for the care of autistic children and those with bowel disease. This was unsuccessful at the Royal Free but ultimately succeeded in the US. This intention was made clear, in writing, to senior members of the medical school. 

5. The costs judge has revised the sum payable, by nearly £100,000 and I am happy to abide by this ruling. A substantial part of this money was not paid to me in the first place.

and

The letter to the Dean, copied to other senior members of the medical school, describing my efforts to create a new centre for the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, is dated 30th March 1995. I say this just in case you were tempted to say that you had contacted the medical school but no one knew anything about it.

Brian Deer added this footnote.

Here is the letter of 30 March 1995 which Wakefield says evidences that the money he received, “after tax and out of pocket expenses”, was donated to an initiative at the Royal Free hospital. This letter, in which he admits to trying to give himself a professorship, was written before he had ever been approached over the litigation.

Unfortunately, the link to the letter is broken.

Not Enough Enzyme - The Gut and Autism

Changes added to end on April 1, 2010.  I missed out the wooness factor.

Over at Age of Autism, they are trumpeting a clinical trial. Along the way, they manage to praise Wakefield. But somehow or another they manage to avoid specifying what the drug is and the conditions other than autism it might help and that it has nothing to do with vaccines.

Let us remedy their omissions. Here is the blurb from PennState University Hershey Children's Hospital,  one of the sites where the phase III study is being carried out.

LUMINENZ-AT™ is a lipid-encapsulated pancreatic enzyme concentrate (PEC) designed to release chymotrypsin and other proteases in the small intestine without extreme degradation. Research conducted by Curemark has indicated that digestive enzyme therapy with LUMINENZ-AT™ may lead to increased neurological function and a concomitant reduction in autistic and gastrointestinal symptoms. This study will further quantify the changes in the target population as measured by standardized behavioral and quality of life tests, physiological measures, as well as characterize the efficacy and safety of the product. The data from this study will help determine safety and efficacy of LUMINENZ-AT™ in pediatric patients with autism.  Source

Do you see the word vaccine in the description?  No. This is a drug developed by Curemark that allows concentrated pancreatic enzymes, used for many years, to get through the stomach and then be absorbed by the gut, which results in a higher level of the enzyme that can then break down more proteins in autistic kids. Autism is not the only condition which the drug might help.  Select disease target from here.

What causes the low level of this enzyme?  

"A variant of the MET gene involved in brain development and gut repair has been implicated in autism, giving further weight to Curemark’s theory, in Fallon’s [CEO of Curemark] view."

What should this mean as far as Wakefield and the Vaccine Causes Autism cabal?  A paper  that sees differences in the guts of autistic kids where Wakefield is the lead author is cited as a reference for the study at clinicaltrials.gov.  Other than that, it has nothing to do with Wakefield or vaccines.

Perhaps autism is a condition completed before birth which results in lower levels of some pancratic enyzmes. That still gives it a clean bill of health as far as vaccines are concerned.
Finally, here is the Age of Autism article, complete with ignorant comments on vaccines and Wakefield, which the censoring machinery at AofA somehow let through.

Changes added April 1, 2010.

Kwombles at Countering Age of Autism has a very different take on the drug trial.

"Age of Autism Proves It Has a Reading Comprehension Problem"

She noticed and tracked the wooness factor of the Curemark CEO, Dr. Fallon, which I missed except for that awful feeling I had when I saw a Wakefield paper being referenced at clinicalPublish Posttrials.gov.  

What gives the trial credibility is that it is being carried out at university connected hospitals. 

There are some additional problems with the study.  The inclusion criteria is ages 3-8. That seems awfully wide.  More importantly, there is no mention of the digestive system in the criteria. Apparently, children can be included who have normal bowels, constipation, irritable bowel syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease.  How will this be handled?  

Outbreak -Why Many Vaccinated Get Infected

Why many of those infected in an outbreak are vaccinated

Copied from Dyson's comment at Huffignton-Post 

Vaccines are not perfect. A certain percentage of those vaccinated will not be immunized (don't get infected when exposed to the disease)

Hypothetical but possible scenario:
Population of 1000 school kids.
95% measles vaccinated (950)
5% unvaccinated (50)

Measles vaccine efficacy of 90%
(= 855 immune)
easles is introduced.
It is highly infectious.
95% of vulnerable population develop disease.
This is 49 (95% of 50) unvaccinated kids, and 90 (95% of 95) vaccinated but nonimmune kids.

Antivax response:
"Hey! Look! More vaccinated kids get measles than unvaccinated kids! Vaccine sucks!"

Rational response:
Attack rate for vaccinated kids is 90 in 950 (9.4%)
Attack rate for unvaccinated kids is 49 in 50 (95%)
In other words, you are 10x more likely to get measles if you are unvaccinated.

These figures are hypothetical, but real world examples of exactly this situation exist. (The NJersey mumps outbreak illustrates it to a lesser extent)

Spreading out the Vaccine Schedule - Why?

A rant against a parent who only spread out the vaccinations of her child because of the bad reactions to the vaccine and who thinks Jennie McCarthy in not anti-vaccination. Original here.  

Elsewhere, I explained why it is fair to call Jenny McCarthy a vaccination opponent.You cannot overwhelm an infants or child's immune system by giving too many vaccines at one time. Your child's reactions would not have changed if you had followed the schedule. Believe it or not, people actually thought about the schedule. People who went to school for many years and have careers in these areas. You know, experts.

Even Dr.Sears has a really, really hard time explaining the benefit of a modified schedule for the simple reason that there is none. There is one benefit, supposedly it mollifies parents who might not otherwise vaccinate their kids. 

Spreading out the schedule puts your kid at risk for zero benefit. What's worse is you are now proudly proclaiming the gospel of spread out schedules. Who knows, people might listen and eventually you and all your right minded friends will succeed in putting a child in a grave.

The trend, believe or not, is to give more vaccines in a single shot to cut down on the number of shots needed. Hexavalent (6) disease protecting vaccines are very common in Europe, where they hate GMOs. Different cultures have their own bugaboos. In the US, it is the timing of the vaccine schedule.

Is Jenny McCarthy a Vaccination Opponent?

When talk turns to Jenny McCarthy and Generation Rescue, there is a conflict between many of her supporters and vaccination advocates. They do not see her as anti-vaccination, we do. Here is an example from a comment at Huffington-Post.

I've actually read all of Jenny McCarthy's books and she does not say not to vaccinate. She says that if your kid has other issues, you can modify the vaccination schedule and not give all the shots at once which could overload a system that is shutting down from too much external stimulation..

That mother is not following Jenny's advice.  As of March 2010 it includes:

If you plan to get the MMR vaccine, ask your doctor to give it in three separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella.  [emphasis added]

Merck, the sole supplier to the US market, stopped producing separate vaccines for Mumps, Measles and Rublella in 2008. Merck announced in October 2009 that it would not resume production of the separate vaccines as it earlier had been considering.  This is great news.  But McCarthy's suggestions are now even more out of date. It gets worse, McCarthy  writes:

1. Listen to the Doctor (Our Favorite) Comment: Donald Miller, M.D., is a surgeon at the University of Washington. His article, A User-Friendly Schedule is summarized into this schedule."

Not exactly, Miller's schedule is worse.  On the last page of A User-Friendly Schedule, are the 2004 recommendations of a cardiac surgeon.

1. No vaccinations until a child is two years old
2. No vaccines that contain thimerosal (mercury)
3. No live vaccines (except for smallpox, should it recur).
4. These vaccines to be given one at a time, every six months, beginning at age two:

• Pertussis (acellular, not whole cell)
• Diptheria
• Tetanus
• Polio (the Salk Vaccine, cultured in human cells) 

This is what McCarthy supports. On my planet, hell on any planet, that makes McCarthy a vaccination opponent.

Hostility towards a scientific consensus: A sign of a crank

Hostility towards a scientific consensus: A sign of a crank  by Orac is well worth reading.  

More Intellectually Dishonesty at Age of Autism - Stone's "The GMC and the MMR case: 162-95 is the key

John Stone makes a fallacious false dichotomy.(sometimes called false dilemma) argument in The GMC and the MMR case: 162-95 is the key.at Age of Autism. Stone is intellectually dishonest as he provides only evidence that supports his argument. He ignores all the back and forth we had  at Huffington-Post.

Only the first three paragraphs are relevant to the title.The GMC and the MMR case: 162-95 is the keyStone writes:

In order to convict all three doctors in the GMC hearing the panel had to dissemble in front of the press and public, maintaining that the generic ethical permission granted to Andrew Wakefield’s colleague Prof John Walker-Smith to retain biopsy samples for scientific use (given the reference by the Royal Free ethics committee of 162-95) was a “project”. Their ruling read out to the assembled media on 28 January stated: 

“The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition."

"Calling 162-95 a “project”  enabled the panel to avoid explaining before the public that Walker-Smith was acting inside his ethical remit as the most senior clinician in the field, or to avoid having to give any reasoning behind their decision that this ethical permission did not pertain in this instance. The GMC panel were required to come to a view on the basis of the highest standard of proof in English law (“beyond reasonable doubt”) and yet their decision effectively changed the rules on the basis of which Prof Walker-Smith and his colleague Prof Simon Murch had made their clinical decisions  13 or 14 years after the event.

 Stones false dichotomy argument: is: Because the panel did not expain to his satisfaction why they rejected the 162-95 argument, therefore they did so,

 "To avoid explaining before the public that Walker-Smith was acting inside his ethical remit as the most s enior clinician in the field, or to avoid having to give any reasoning behind their decision that this ethical permission did not pertain in this instance."

What Parents Believe Should Not Matter

A constant argument that is supposed to prove vaccination caused autism is the parents of autsitic kids blame vaccination and they know, by virtue of being parents and having seen what happened to their child, that this is correct.

There may be nothing wrong with what the parents observe, although research is showing that subtle signs of autism appeared months before many parent saw it.  But let us assume that the observations were 100% accurate

Here are the observations.
1.Baby appears to be developing normally.  The baby could actually be developing normally or in fact is not developing normally.
2. Kids gets vaccinated.
3. Kid shows signs of autism and gets diagnosed with autism.
------------------------------

Those 3 observations say nothing about whether, for this particular child, vaccines did or did not cause autism.  Eventually, some parents will believe the vaccine caused the autism and some will not.

Jenny McCarthy and others argue that the beliefs of the parents that blame vaccines should be listened because they are parents, they know what happened to their kid.

If you believe that, then this must also be true (although you won't hear it often).
The beliefs of the parents that DON'T blame vaccines should be listened because they are parents, they know what happened to their kid.

Now,do you understand it?  What parents have to say about the causes of their chld's autism does not help to explain whether on not vaccines caused or contributed to autism.

Does Regressive Autism Exist? And Secondary Sources

I am realizing more and more that one of the big problems that vaccines cause autism believers have is that they ignore secondary sources.  Which is what this comment at Huff-Po  ends up being about.

Here is the comment 
This is for Sheldon. I don't see why causes of regressive autism would warrent study funding, and be published by the AAP itself, if there were no such thing as regressive autism. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/3/405  Telling me you don't "believe" in regressive autism registers with me just as if you had told me you don't believe grass grows.  (permanent link) 
Here is how I replied
Autism   It is 2010 --- not 1999
I was surprised to read the Defendant's experts saying that 'regressive autism' was not a subset of autism that could be distinguished from other types of autism.

The paper you point to is was published in 1999, over a decade ago.  A lot of work has been done on the causes of autism since that time.  I don't know what the consensus was in 1999 regarding the existence of regressive autism, all I can report is a much more recent consensus as put forward at the trials..

I suggest the following. Look to recent secondary sources (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source). Using google or PubMed, search for articles that are recent and have 'review' in the title. See what wikipedia has to say, looking for links to articles with 'Review' in them. Read what is available in a public or medical school library.

The decisions in the autism cases are also reviews of what the experts have to say.  http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Hastings.King%20Decision.pdf and use the table of contents at the end. Look at a very well done excerpting  of  Special Master Vowell's decision in Dwyer http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/201/. The transcripts and expert reports at the trial are also secondary sources, which have the advantage of being put into less scientific language as it has to be understood by judges. Go here for an index to them. http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/189

An Australian Explanation of Hep B at Birth

It turns out Australia is, like the US, giving Hepatitis B vaccination routinely when children are born.  This is controversial in the US and the explanations I have seen aren't good. This one is better

Hepatitis B vaccine at birth from South Australia Web Site

Out of Date - Vaccines Cause Autism

I wonder if part of the reason for the belief that vaccines cause autism occurs because the main believers have not kept up to date with what is known of the cause of ASD.

I write this because of the utter disbelief when  I posted comments that had experts on both sides largely agreeing about the causes of ASD at the thimerosal trial at the vaccine court.

Similar disbelief followed my comment that the defendants experts at the trial rejected regressive autism as a separate category of autism.  See my Amazing ---Plaintiff's experts agreed with defendants on causes of Autism

This great excerpts from Special Master Vowell's decision in Dwyer at Neurodiversity in the section titled Conclusion regarding general causation (pp.256-263) sets out the time line.

What would I think if my Kid showed ASD immediately After a Vaccination

 Shawn Siegel    (permanent link to comment at Huffington-Post) asked me:

When kids begin to display symptoms of autism immediately after vaccination, what would you consider the most appropriate description of the correlation? The vaccine: caused the autism; triggered the autism; induced the autism; revealed the autism; initiated the autism; released the autism; other?

This has nothing to do with the court case or the judge or the text of the experts testifying on behalf of the parents, beyond how those factors may have shaped your thinking re what you consider the cause of autism and what role you think is played by the vaccinations. I want your opinion.

I replied (in a shorter version to fit the 250 word limit at Huff-Post)

Fingers in ears,"I CAN'T HEAR YOU, Laaaaaa Laa

RightorHappy, a newbie for whom there is some hope of rational thought (that's a compliment) in the Huffington-Post vaccine wars, wrote:

 O' Leary has always state his protocols were above reproach. There was no alteration in procedure.

O' Leary is the he Irish Unigenetics lab that got trashed at UK and US MMR vaccine causes autism hearings. I responded with:

I like special masters Hastings explanations best. So go to page 46 of the Cedillo decision http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf and you can learn how much unigenetics did improperly. Don't forget to read the qualifications of the experts on both sides and in particular that of Dr. Bustin.

Dyson, on of the regulars, gave a truly great illustration of confirmation bias.  

"Severely flawed" and "completely unreliable" are some of the conclusions that leap out at me about the Unigenetics lab results. Pity no-one else here want to read them.

Fingers in ears,"I CAN'T HEAR YOU, Laaaaaa Laa"  

Poster Presentation Warning

Once again, that poster presentation by two public health grad students in New York raises its ugly head.

C Gallagher, M Goodman, "Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years", Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, September 2008  http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=354

I don't have a problem with poster presentations being referred to, as long as there is truth in advertising.

Just include:  "This poster presentation was authored by two public health graduate students."   And put the following note at the end.

Relying Only on Product Insert

One of the funnier yet sadder discussions at Huffington-Post has been that vaccines, according to the product insert, have not been tested formally and the results included in the product inserts to see if they cause cancer or genetic mutations.   That is true, at least according to the product insert.  It may be true in fact as well.  I don't know. According to some anti-vaxers, that seems to be that.

At least according to a newbie to the vaccine wars at Huff-Po who is amazingly ignorant (at least from what is written, perhaps not from what is actually known by the newbie) and as is often the case with anti-vaxers amazingly pedantic.   They live in a world where, when it suits their ends, everything is black or white and nothing is nuanced.   The flu vaccine, for example, only prevents infection or it does not prevent infection.  Well, flu vaccination can also lessen symptoms.  Anti-vaxers truly, truly love the false dichotomy fallacy. 

So here is my response to this nonsense.

Transcripts and Expert Reports for Omnibus Autism Proceedings

 A great piece of work
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/189

Amazing ---Plaintiff's experts agreed with defendants on causes of Autism

Quote: "Three basic points concerning the causation of autism, which are well-accepted AND NOT DISPUTED by the petitioners in this case, are relevant here."
..."The first basic point is that there is a very strong genetic component to the causation of autism...[long snip]...The second basic point is that some specific non-genetic factors have been identified and accepted as  factors  in causing autism, but  those consist of exposures during  the early prenatal
period....[long snip] ...The third basic point is that autopsy studies, comparing brains of autistic children to those of  non-autistic  children,  indicate  that  the  autistic  brains  show  a  number  of  different  abnormal features that of necessity would have occurred during specific parts of the prenatal period, as the unborn child developed...
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Hastings.King%20Decision.pdf  starting at page 38.

Here is the first sentence again, "Three basic points concerning  the causation of autism, which are well-accepted AND NOT DISPUTED  by the petitioners in this case, are relevant here."

I was surprised, to say the least.

And on page 40.

Vaccines and Autism - What the Parents Believe is Irrelevant

 I would love the statistic as to what percentage of parents with ASD kids blame vaccination. 

We know some parents seeing signs of autism after vaccination do not blame the vaccination.  Some parents do blame vaccination. The same evidence, but a different choice as to what to believe. Leaving aside the scientific evidence, which set of parents should be believed?  That's a trick question. The answer is that the parents beliefs have nothing to say about the actual causes of autism.  Unfortunately, some people are persuaded not to vaccinate their children based on this fallacious argument.

For people to come on here [Huffington-Post], and spout their vitriol that vaccines causes autism pisses me off when it leads them to advocate that other parents should put their children at risk by not vaccinating them.

These anti-vaxers have no trouble accepting the marvels of science and technology when they don't have a clue about they work.  They don't question the expertise that makes it possible.. But when it comes to complex medical and scientific issues surrounding vaccines and viruses, they somehow or another become qualified to reject real expertise.  The actual facts are not important, what matters is what they feel, what they believe. 

They are doing what Adam Savage joked about, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=297

I want Homeopathy to Fit the World

It is possible to understand how antibiotics and bacteria work. And that antibiotic resistance makes sense in terms of evolution. This is so different from homeopathy where bacteria, plants, animals and humans for millions and millions and millions of years are supposed to have acquired and conserved the genetic material that allows the ideas of a German doctor of a few centuries ago to have his provings come true. It makes no sense.

I want an explanation that is consistent with physics, chemistry and biology that explains how homeopathy works. There just isn't one. At best, there is some mumbling about physics and some mumbling about the structure of water which only last for tiny parts of a second. But no explanation of how whatever gets into the body somehow or another actually does anything. It is just ridiculous magic.

Table of Contents - Thimerosal Decision

The three separate decisions by the special masters (judges) of the 'vaccine court' delivered on March 12, 2010 on the Thimerosal causes Autism test cases are a great educational tool.   What follows is the table of contents from the Hasting-King decision, found here. All of the decisions can be found here.

 Hastings-King Decision
APPENDIX: TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY SCHEME AND CASE LAW 2
II. FACTS 5
A. Jordan’s early period 5
B. Symptoms and diagnosis of autism 6
III. BACKGROUND:  THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING VACCINES
AND AUTISM, THE “OMNIBUS AUTISM PROCEEDING,” AND THE
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS CASE 7
A. Autism described 7
B. Increase in diagnoses, and inception of controversies about potential
vaccine causation 7
C. The Omnibus Autism Proceeding 8
1. Inception of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding 8
2. Plan adopted for hearing the petitioners’ causation theories 10
3. Execution of Omnibus Autism Proceeding plan to date 11
4. Note concerning usage of an “omnibus proceeding” 13
5. Additional procedural history of this King case 14
6. The scope of the record 15
IV. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 16

Thoughts on the Thimerosal Decison

A test of courage and morality and what's best for the children. The March 12, 2010 decisions of the vaccine court present those who believe that thimerosal caused autism with a huge test of their courage and morality.   Are they willing to sit down and spend the time necessary to work through at least one of the vaccine court decision rejecting  the existence of a link between thimerosal and autism?

Because the decisions are not that difficult to read and they go through argument after argument raised by those who blamed the thimerosal in vaccines and explain why they are rejected.

It will be very hard for the true believers to read these decisions, but if you are the parent of an autistic child and the child is undergoing treatment because of a concern with the thimerosal in vaccines, you owe your child the mental pain (no joke) of slowly but surely working through the decisions.

Olmstead's Dishonest Essay: Wakefield Inquisition Case Series Insanity

The panel deciding Wakefield's Fitness to Practice   a UK medical doctor defined dishonesty (FTP page 48) as conduct that "would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest."  By that standard, Dan Olmsted, author of  The Wakefield Inquisition Case Series Insanity March 5, 2010 is dishonest.  It cannot be ignorance because Olmstead criticizes those writing about the Lancet's complete retraction of Wakefield's 1998 paper who are not  "familiar with three things: Wakefield’s original paper; the General Medical Council ruling from the week before that found his ethical behavior “dishonest,” and The Lancet retraction of the paper itself that quickly followed."

Here is the statement from the Lancet:

Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation [the farcical investigation by the Lancet in 2004]. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were ‘consecutively referred’ and that investigations were ‘approved’ by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record." 

Like Olmstead, this essay does not discuss the ethics issues except to note that Bill Long has been having second thoughts regarding Wakefield's ethics.

2196 say Wakefield's a Saint - 1572 say He is a Saint with Flaws

 Sadly, we are seeing signs of rationality regarding Wakefield by the vaccines cause ASD community. It is a step towards throwing Wakefield personally under the bus to keep what is useful to them, his research, intact.

Of course, there is the problem that by scientific research standards, anything he helped author after (before and after?) the 1998 Lancet paper should now be withdrawn.

2196  signed the we support andy wakefield petition which states:
We declare that:
1.  Dr. Wakefield is a man of honesty, integrity, courage, and proven commitment to children and the public health.
2.  Dr. Wakefield’s research is rigorous, replicated, biologically valid, clinically evidenced, corroborated by published, peer-reviewed research in an abundance of scientific disciplines, and consistent with children’s medical problems.

On the other hand
1572 have signed the petition to the GMC. Bizarrely, it doesn't say what it wants.  This petition states:
...
I, numerous medical colleagues who are trying to help suffering autistic children, various researchers, and many parents of autistic children believe that the GMC has focused on trivial matters as a way (i) to deflect justified criticism of the vaccination program and, as a direct result, (ii) to turn attention away from the GMC's complicity in ignoring a subgroup of severely suffering children injured by vaccinations..

So 2196 hold to Andy Wakefield doing nothing wrong and 1572 now say that mistakes were made but they were trivial.

I bet there are people on both web pages.

Email Correspondence with Authors of Does The Vaccine Matter? Placeholder for Comments

This is just a placeholder for comments on my email correspondence with the authors  of The Atlantic Monthly November 2009 article Does the Vaccine Matter?

Letters to The Atlantic - Placeholder for Comments

 This is just a placeholder for comments on my letters to the editor and to the publisher of The Atlantic Monthly November 2009 article Does the Vaccine Matter?

High School Logic and Wakefield

It has been sad watching how Wakefield supporters react to the decision of the UK medical licensing body (GMC). It is possible to understand them continuing to support what he was trying to do.  But there is no logical explanation for them continuing to support how he did it.  What this demonstrates is that support for Wakefield is a religious matter for many groups and individuals.  Worse, they have decided to blindfold themselves and put in ear plugs to avoid learning anything that might upset their beliefs.

This has become clear when I've been trying to show some Wakefield supporters that Wakefield is obviously guilty of some of the charges. So let us see if they understand high school level logic.

THIMEROSAL - Guide for Kids 0 to 6 years of age

THIMEROSAL:  A GUIDE TO PARENTS in Canada and the US who have children 0-6 years of age
Added April 28, 2010 Error in  Canada section
Added April 30, 2010 link to letter on expiry dates 
Added June 22, 2010  information on trace amounts of thimerosal.
Added June 28, 2010  label is more accurate than product insert
Corrected September 23, 2010 Fluvirin in US in single dose has trace thimerosal.
Corrected  January 24, 2011  1999 recommendation excluded influenza because it excluded influenza.

In the past, some routine childhood vaccines contain thimerosal, a preservative In November 1999, ACIP recommende­d to the CDC all vaccines that were on the kid vaccination schedule be preservative free. At the time, the only influenza vaccine approved was in 10 dose vials and therefore used thimerosal as a preservative.  Influenza vaccine was not on the schedule, but was given to kids in high risk groups. The recommendations explicitly excluded influenza vaccine.

Evidence suggests that children with certain medical conditions (e.g., cardiopulm­onary disease, including asthma) are at substantia­lly increased risk for complicati­ons of influenza (7,8). During the influenza season, rates of cardiopulm­onary hospitaliz­ations for otherwise healthy women in their second or third trimester of pregnancy conditions­....ACIP concluded that the benefits of influenza vaccine outweigh the potential risks for thimerosal­."Recommendations Regarding the Use of Vaccines That Contain Thimerosal as a Preservative November 5, 1999

The last lots of vaccine routinely given to kids that used thimerosal as a preservative had expiry dates in 2001.  Influenza vaccine, excluded from the 1999 recommendation still used thimerosal as a preservative.

In 2006, it was recommende­d that all infants from 6 to 23 months routinely receive flu vaccinatio­n, but "persons for whom inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended may receive vaccine with or without thimerosal, depending on availability."

The U.S. vaccine supply for infants and pregnant women is in a period of transition; the availability of thimerosal-reduced or thimerosal-free vaccine intended for these groups is being expanded by manufacturers as a feasible means of reducing an infant's total exposure to mercury, because other environmental sources of exposure are more difficult or impossible to eliminate. Reductions in thimerosal in other vaccines have been achieved already and have resulted in substantially lowered cumulative exposure to thimerosal from vaccination among infants and children. For all of those reasons, persons for whom inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended may receive vaccine with or without thimerosal, depending on availability.

Prevention and Control of Influenza July 28 2006" 

There is no need to be concerned about the thimerosal in vaccines. But let us say that, for whatever reasons, you are concerned. Here is what you do.

For US residents,  go here, print off the table and take it to the doctor. You see that thimerosal has been removed from routine childhood vaccines except the flu vaccine -- where much of it is supplied in 10 dose vials. Single doses and the nasal spray do not contain thimerosal.  Corrected September 23, 2010.  Fluvirin in single dose syringes has a trace amount, less than 1mcg/dose.  It is only approved for those 4 years of age and over.
So all US flu vaccine, in single doses, for infants, has zero thimerosal.

  There are trace amounts in one of the DTaP vaccinesTripedia (Sanofi Pasteur, Inc) Trace(≤0.3 µg Hg/0.5mL dose).
Added June 21, 2010
Some vaccination opponents don't seem to understand what trace amounts mean *** The table linked to above states: The term "trace" has been taken in this context to mean 1 microgram of mercury per dose or less." As the standard amount of ethyl mercury in multi-dose vaccines was 25mcg, this was an enormous decrease.  The Omnibus Autism Proceedings thimerosal had the three special masters individually agreeing that the amount of  organic mercury from vaccines, even when there was much, much exposure to thimerosal was inconsequential.  If you reduce the amount of exposure, especially in a short period of time and especially for a young infant to either zero or twenty-five times less, that's truly, truly inconsequential.