Kim Wombles over at Countering Age of Autism pointed this out:
Why, you ask, is this whole 13 monkeys, 14 monkeys irrelevant? Well, see, here’s where it gets really interesting. If you want to read this study, you go here: the 14 studies site by Handley. Thoughtful House has a press release on how it was published online in Septermber 2009. I went to the journal itself, though, straight to Neurotoxicology to look for the article since it’s getting all this attention from the anti-vaxers as proof that it is proof of mercury causing autism. Guess what? It isn’t there! Don’t believe me? It’s been withdrawn.
And so it has.
The SciencdDirect link to Wakefield’s monkey study (blogged about by me here, here, and here, and by Prometheus here) has this notice appended to it:
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
A further note reads:
Note to users: Withdrawn Articles in Press are proofs of articles which have been peer reviewed and initially accepted, but have since been withdrawn before being published in this journal. Reasons for withdrawal may be due to a decision by the author and/or editor, accidental duplication of an article elsewhere, or because the content contravenes the Elsevier publishing policy in some way. Withdrawn Articles in Press are only visible to users when following an external link, e.g., an end user following a PubMed or DOI link. Such Withdrawn Articles in Press are not searchable or otherwise available in ScienceDirect.
Elsevier’s policy on article withdrawal states:
Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors, may be “Withdrawn” from ScienceDirect. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the Elsevier Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal with a link to the current policy document.
I don’t know enough to be able to comment on what may have happened here. It may be that the editors decided to withdraw the paper, or it may be that Laura Hewitson and Andrew Wakefield asked the editors to withdraw it. In fact, I rather suspect the latter. My guess is that Wakefield and Hewitson will now try to “fix” all the problems with the paper pointed out here and on other blogs and then submit a “new and improved” or “complete” manuscript, either to NeuroToxicology or another journal, most likely something like JPANDS, an alt-med journal, or the new autism “biomed” journal Autism Insights. Perhaps that was what Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey were referring to when they said, in essence, wait until the complete study is published. In any case, even though I’m having a schadenfreude moment, I had nothing at all to do with this. As I pointed out, I didn’t even approve of the letter sent by David Brown to the editors of NeuroToxicology asking them to withdraw Wakefield’s article because of scientific fraud. I realize my saying this won’t stop AoA from insinuating (hell, forget about insinuating, they’ll just accuse me of it!) that I somehow got Wakefield’s crappy and unethical study pulled from the medical literature, but I’d like to be clear about this anyway.
I’ll keep an eye out for new developments. No doubt Age of Autism and Thoughtful House will soon post cranktastic statements whining about “suppression of research” and “censorship” or disingenuously explaining that we mean bloggers gave Wakefield no choice but to withdraw the manuscript. In them, Wakefield will likely metaphorically shake his fist and rant, “I’ll show them. I’ll show them all!” and say he will publish the “complete” study somewhere else. Indeed, I can hear Mark Blaxill’s and Andrew Wakefield’s keyboards clattering away as I type.
Time will tell.
If I had to guess, I’d speculate that either the University of Pittsburgh IACUC had second thoughts or that there was a major deviation from the protocol approved by UPitt’s IACUC. Maybe that’s why Hewitson left UPitt and headed for Austin to work at Thoughtful House. Who knows? I don’t, but I wish I did. If anyone knows the scoop, I’d appreciate hearing from you.
121 replies on “Wakefield’s “monkey business” hepatitis B vaccine study withdrawn?”
“If I had to guess, I’d speculate that either the University of Pittsburgh IACUC had second thoughts or that there was a major deviation from the protocol approved by UPitt’s IACUC.”
My thoughts exactly. It seems odd that Hewitson would have abandoned what was a promising career for exile (in academic terms) with Wakefield unless it was clear that her presence at Pittsburgh was no longer welcome.
I am still very disappointed that a proposal which included Wakefield et al. was ever given consideration by the IACUC at all, their names alone should have sounded alarm bells straight off.
Pittsburgh should now be open about what went wrong and what steps they have taken to ensure that this debacle is never repeated. I dare say that they are reluctant to expose themselves to bad publicity but the sooner they demonstrate that they have got their house in order the better. They wouldn’t be the first to have been taken for a ride by the anti-vaxers, and sadly will probably not be the last. Wakefield is a slippery customer, no doubt his lawyers have tied Pittsburgh up in knots, but that shouldn’t be used as an excure to avoid taking the actions necessary to restoring the reputation of primate research at their University.
Incoming cries of censorship from anti-vaxers in 3..2..1…
As someone who has to deal with my own IACUC all the time and the immense amount of paperwork and oversight over mouse studies, I really have to believe that, like you said, UPitt’s IACUC had some sort of problem with the monkey study. I still cannot wrap my head around how they’d approve a monkey study with such disproportionate groups, leading me to suspect that they didn’t. Of course, that’s mere speculation.
Neurotoxicology’s a third-tier journal with an impact factor (and, yes, I know IF isn’t perfect) hovering in the 2.4 – 2.6 range. I’m not entirely sure where a paper withdrawn from there would go. Well, actually, in this case I’m pretty sure it’ll go to a non-peer reviewed alt-med journal. Might as well cut out the middle-man as long as you’re not concerned with scientific ethics.
My prediction for AoA’s response is that they will cry censorship and conspiracy (a rather hypocritical view), since the note states that the article was withdrawn at the request of the editor, not the author(s).
He’ll publish it in his new for-money journal Autism Insights, which is plainly being paid for out of the same pots of cash that Wakefield controls. This is the scam he obviously learnt from his old buddies at Merck.
The material will be worthless in litigation, which is plainly what it was done for, but it will keep a few of the Age of Autism believers sending their children to his operation in Austin.
This guy is finished as a researcher, and has no license to practise medicine. I don’t know how many paperclips they have to count at Thoughtful House, but I think a lady called Anissa Ryland does that for $100K plus, so what Wakefield will be doing for his $280,000 (out of the pockets of families with autistic children) we can only imagine.
Do we know that Wakefield’s name was even on the IACUC application? It might not have been; maybe only Hewitson’s name and those of other UPitt faculty and lab personnel were on it. The reason I speculate this is because many investigators don’t put the names of their collaborators from other institutions on IACUC applications. Certainly I don’t, because they’re not doing the actual animal studies. My lab is, and my lab people are doing the studies at my institution. All our IACUC wants to know is the names of faculty who will actually be overseeing the studies and lab personnel who will actually be doing the studies or having contact with the animals.
Just noticed that in the older post (https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research.php) the criticism of the array study harped on “fold-change>1.5”, ignoring the more important “p<.001" criteria, indicating that the insolent one may need an extra hand on occasion. Offer: I am willing to make array studies pee in a cup for a good cause. Of course no one can detect if a study started with 7 vs 7, but after peeking got reduced to 5 vs 3 or such, in order to optimize the number of significant differences found. (Takes 5 minutes to peek at the first few principal components.) If you do that, the differences might just reflect RNA quality (or who-knows-what) though. I've previously noticed that Neurotoxicology does not seem to require making array data publicly available like good journals do. Not coughing up array data (and the like) is an abomination.
I know we are all in speculation land right now, so it is anyone’s guess. Although, I can’t imagine that the authors would voluntarily pull this from a peer-reviewed journal that was accepted on its face-value to put it into vanity press. I am inclined to think that this was a move on the part of the editors or author institutions.
I’d be willing to bet money that it eventually ends up in JPANDS.
The retraction says that it was pulled because the editors requested it.
Still nothing up on AoA. With the speed they reacted to the Lancet retraction, you would have thought that they would have something up by now. Then again, another thought occurred to me: if they wanted to remove the evidence of a bad study so they could fix it up, they might have spoken with the editor, expressed their concerns about the public having access to it and suggested that the editor remove it.
If that’s the case, then I can see why they wouldn’t want to bring any attention to it. But then, the internet holds many wonders.
Geezus! Talk about a kick in the teeth! I’ve been reading up on the AoA site the last 2 weeks and this Wakefield verdict has really demoralized them! Nearly every article deals with that topic (as opposed to autism). Over the past couple days, the postings have devolved into conspiracy rants and the 13 to 14 to ? monkey study that supposedly is like slam dunk Nature/Science article. Now, all of this hoopla about their slam dunk “study” is all for naught…because it’s been pulled by the editors?! The remaining question is how much farther into delusion will these people go?
Maybe these dip-turds should focus on autism, people with autism, and support services for families instead of their full-frontal assault on science to cast blame on someone else for their “misfortune”.
Orac “Do we know that Wakefield’s name was even on the IACUC application? It might not have been; maybe only Hewitson’s name and those of other UPitt faculty and lab personnel were on it.”
A good question, I was assuming that Wakefields name would be on it because he was the PI (his name is the final one on the Neurotoxicology paper author list) but as you say it may well not have been.
That would certainly make sense than them not realising who Andrew Wakefield was. Poor bastards didn’t know what was about to hit them.
That was supposed to read:
ignoring the “p less than .001” criteria.
I have to watch out for greater than and less than symbols, which can get interpreted as HTML I suppose. Always preview is my new motto.
Exactly. They have a post up today about a woman who poisoned her autistic son with bleach. The comments are in the “the vaccines poisoned her” and “blame the evil Big PharmaTM/Gov’t” vein. I posted a comment along those lines (more education/support needed), but I’m sure it was censored. You can read it here.
Ring… Ring… Ring…
“Oh, hello doctor, I’m from Autism One, and we’d be very honored if you will accept the second Andrew Wakefield Courage in Medicine award at our forthcoming conference?”
“Uhm, ah, I really don’t deserve that.”
The Science Direct link specifically says ‘this article was withdrawn at the request of the editor’.
IANAL, but I can think of several valid reasons to suppose that if the authors actually want a given article to be withdrawn, the notice would specify ‘at the request of the authors’. Given the extent to which the Wakefield camp has been touting the appearance of this study in a ‘highly respected journal’, I have a harder time believing that the authors were really the ones who pulled the plug.
I agree that the most likely course of action from here on will be to publish in a non-peer reviewed and/or quack-friendly rag that can subsequently be waved in the faces of the desperate, confused families seeking answers at Thoughtful House as PROOF of the OSUM SCIENZ.
Ugh. I’ve just killed my schadenfreude buzz with that thought.
Hewitson is still listed on the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine site:
And there’s lots of information about her work (which sounds like it is on-going) here:
Maybe someone who knows about these grants, and how they are awarded can comment futher, but it seems that she was well-funded.
One other strange thing – when you search for Hewiston in the directory at U Pitt, you find that she is listed as a “volunteer”.
Hewitson is funded by Wakefield. Medical Interventions for Autism is Wakefield.
I am on the faculty at Univ. of Pittsburgh, although in a different department, and it pains me to no end that Hewitson is still listed on the web site. My guess is that she didn’t actually quit, but took a leave of absence, which will hopefully be permanent. As for grant support, she is listed as the PI on a primate core grant, but that’s it for NIH.
To escape the angle brackets, the codes are:
> => >
< => <
If you use escape codes, though, don’t post from the preview. It horks them up. Preview, then go back and post from the main window.
just like that old saying in the Farmer’s Almanac…
If you give 13 or 14 monkees coffee enema’s and then each an electric typewriter, given enough time, one of them will eventually type out a bigPharma conspiracy theory…
This has been a rough week for Andy and J.B. Perhaps Andy will learn something about his new home country, and JB…well….
I just noticed that the chemists on the “monkey paper” came out of U. of Kentucky. I wonder if Atwood and his grad students are buddies with/referred by Boyd Haley. hmmmm?……The conspiracy plot thickens.
@ #19 Broken Link:
Just FYI: Don’t know how it works at U. Pitt, but we have volunteer faculty at the Big Medical School(tm) I work with. Usually just means they’re not “core” paid faculty. Most of them teach students and residents at their facilities in the community. They do it for free, and in exchange they get the benefit of being able to say they are faculty at BMS. So there’s nothing necessarily shady about Hewiston being a volunteer.
Not only that, but one of the editorial board members for NeuroToxicology is Robert Yokel, a U. Kentucky Pharmacy faculty member whose special area of interest includes chelators. His bio lists a bunch of papers on aluminum.
Not sure how big or small the academic “neurotoxicity” world is, so I don’t know how much weight to give these connections. I’m curious about the reactions of others more knowledgeable than I am about these matters.
RJ @26; Take a look at http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=178 for Atwood’s involvement. Yes, it’s with Boyd Haley.
“Not only that, but one of the editorial board members for NeuroToxicology is Robert Yokel, a U. Kentucky Pharmacy faculty member whose special area of interest includes chelators.”
As I pointed out at LBRB, the “monkey study” was accepted in significantly less time than 13 (of 17) other submissions I looked at. This is consistent with the process being sped up by an interested party. I believe I recognize Yokel’s name as a “suspect” I have seen named. However, as I put in a comment, it appears that acceptance required the approval of the whole board, so we can’t place blame only on Yokel.
As I see it (and others have discussed) this could go two very different ways. Wakefield’s paper could lose its publication status, or it could simply be resubmitted in a different form.
The IACUC data (i.e., PI, researchers) have always been publicly available at the universities where I’ve worked. Are they not at Pitt?
I think I’m probably the one who first brought up Yokel, give that two or three other authors on the paper were Kentucky and his involvement with “chelators.” Just seemed too much for a coincidence, and I couldn’t think of another reason even a third-tier journal like this one would let that study get by them. As for whether or not editors have any such power, just revisit the Lynn Margolis debacle in PNAS of recent vintage.
The link posted in #29 suggests that at some point the whole paper was posted for anyone to download at Thoughtful House. I wonder if this alone could explain the withdrawl of the paper. Most journals are not particularly happy to have copyrighted material sent to anyone who wants it.
I just looked at the list of “publications” of the “research” produced by Thoughtful House on their web page. I really like the link that leads you to the journal Neurotoxicology abstract with the glaring ‘WITHDRAWN’ in big, pretty letters!
Some of the other ‘publications’ are in some real winner journals. What a sham!
It would be nice if their was some follow up on what is going on at TH.
@Emily: “As for whether or not editors have any such power, just revisit the Lynn Marg[u]lis debacle in PNAS of recent vintage.”
You mean to generalize from PNAS’s eccentricities?
@31: Ugh don’t get me started on PNAS…
What an unfortunate acronym.
I am sure that this observation must have been made already on this blog, but the conspiracy theorists that keep pushing the anti-vax line are doing the rest of us an enormous disservice. From time to time pharmaceutical companies actually do the wrong thing and the ongoing cries of ‘wolf! wolf!’ from antivaxers may end up covering for wrong on the occasions when it is being done.
It’s only just come to my attention that Handley wrapped up the “Show me the monkeys” screed with a (flippant) account of my letter to Neurotoxicology. I posted this comment in reply:
wrote the letter to Neurotoxicology, and I must insist that certain things be noted. First, I sent the letter last November, as soon as I became aware of the paper. Second, I ensured that my exchange was documented thoroughly and in a timely way, and made available to whom it might concern. Thus, to speak of “claimed” and “alleged” is quite frivolous. Finally, my only arguments were the evidence that Wakefield committed fraud, and the standard professional penalties for fraud. I said nothing whatsoever about the honesty or quality of Wakefield’s current work. Therefore, to precede a discussion of my correspondence with a hypothetical line about “poisoned” monkeys is entirely deceptive.
Well. . . at the rate Wakefield is going he’ll be out of papers to retract soon. Which rather kills his credibility.
Of course, Jenny McCarthy will happily go on bleating out that Wakefield’s studies are her proof, and that Wakefield’s being jobbed by The Man.
Me, I’ll just do what I always do. point at her and laugh.
Sorry, sometimes derision is the proper response.
Haven’t w heard from Elsevier in another context (fairly) recntly? – publishing journals specifically to puff products?
BrokenLink “Hewitson is still listed on the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine site:
Although she is listed on a 2009 paper by Gerald Schatten’s group I suspect that her involvement with this work was several years ago…those studies take time. It’s a shame to see a scientist who was involved in some very interesting work throw her career away on anti-vaccine crankery.
I wonder if her methylmercury study, supported by a pilot grant from Pitt, was ever even started. As to her still being on the websites in my experience universities are often very slow in updating group and department websites, they can easily be a couple of years out of date. Though in this case you’d think they’d have got a wiggle on.
I couldn’t see the IACUC summaries anywhere obvious on the Pitt IACUC website http://www.iacuc.pitt.edu/, though it should be possible to FOI them.
Whilst blogging about this today, I found this flow chart explaining the reasons behind The Lancet retraction and the Neurotoxicology withdrawal.
As expected, it is a witch hunt and a conspiracy. See http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/02/anatomy-of-witch-hunt.html
Oh the lulz.
@ Rita Wing: Yes. About another retraction(of Duesberg)9/15/09 @ Respectful Insolence.I believe that Medical Hypotheses retracted another HIV/AIDS Denialist article by an Italian, Ruggiero;recent talk of changing the journal to peer review(see Seth Kalichman’s blog, Denying AIDS and other oddities)
About withdrawal of the Duesberg and Ruggiero articles(see Denying AIDS and other oddities: 8/8/09)
@David N. Brown
It looks like they did not let your comment through. Please feel free to copy it at Silenced by Age of Autism.
My son could nurse well when he was first born, but not after he got the HepB.
I took him to doctor after doctor, even took him to a dentist in attempts to figure out what the problem was.
I didn’t know about the possible side effect of losing ability to nurse thanks to HepB administered within 12 hours of birth. Yes, other vaccine injury was suffered, but it took years for us to ‘get it’ – the source of his ill health and developmental delays was vaccination.
Its unbelievable to me that Dr. Wakefield is being penalized for actually looking into what ails a whole generation of children. Its shocking to me that so many people are incapable of critical thought. Read the whole studies, folks, not just the conclusions. Learn some design of experiments so you can know what you are reading. Vaccination studies to prove safety have never been conducted – to do so you have to test them the same way you use them. With adjuvants, and administered many together, and to everyone, not cherry-picked test subjects.
Amomwho – it’s not very clever to insult and slate the very people you are attempting to educate, especially not on a blog where a significant minority are significanly more educated in medicine, health and science than the average person.
“Its unbelievable to me that Dr. Wakefield is being penalized for actually looking into what ails a whole generation of children.”
First, he focused on a small number of a very small sub-section of a small sub-section, not a ‘whole generation’.
Second, he was penalised for misbehaviours that have nothing to do with contact with the children in his study. He was charged – and found guilty – of research and ethical violations, as well as misreporting of his role.
Actually reading the charges and findings would have been helpful.
“not cherry-picked test subjects”
You mean like a handful of monkeys?
Not that I expect you will care but vaccines are tested in groups the way they are used. If your son suffered I am sorry but correlation does not equal causation. Any number of events could have triggered the symptoms or none. You nail vaccines because it is easy. Genetics anyone?
Its even more egregious when those educated in science fail to use what they have ostensibly learned. IF you are insulted for being called on it, that’s your problem.
I was talking about the monkey study, not the case study. Wakefield is conducting research on the entire vaccine schedule and comparing a vaccinated population with an unvaccinated population. To even the uneducated, it would seem such a study should have been done a long time ago.
The Lancet study specifically stated that a link between MMR and autism has not been proven. So, since it has been retracted, does that mean we an infer a link has been proven? Wakefield stated that the PARENTS reported a link between MMR and regression, he merely found “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers”
The whole Wakefield story is long and convoluted, but I don’t think Wakefield deserves the treatment he is receiving in the media. Who was it that said, “if you don’t read the news you are uninformed, but if you read the news you are misinformed”? Here is the other side of the story. http://www.autismone.org/content/second-looking-case-dr-andrew-j-wakefield-william-long-mdiv-phd-jd
I will be ever thankful for Dr. Wakefield’s work. Had it not been for Thoughtful House, my son would have never been correctly diagnosed for his medical condition, a medical condition causing neurological impairment. My son’s pediatrician was totally shocked at the improvement in only four months from TH’s prescribed treatments, and last I heard he had gone into emergency pediatrics and quit routinely giving vaccinations. I convinced him, and with access to shared real knowledge, you could probably be convinced, too.
Feel free to post links that show that childhood vaccines have been tested together 6 or 7 at a time as they are administered, using vaccines with adjuvants, and on children not free from family history of common ailments. There aren’t any that I am aware of.
While you are at it, post data showing that HepB administered at 12 hours of age was tested to be safe. If it takes you a while to track that down, I understand, given the data doesn’t exist.
No, the monkey study is bad science, designed to be used in litigation, and riddled with conflicts of interest:
Robert Krakow (the pro autism-vaccine solicitor) seems to have decided to try poke at blogs writing about this, such as my own (see link on my name). I would gather this has been is style for a good number of years.
Can someone tell me if he is on Thoughtful House’s board or has other professional association with Wakefield’s or his group?
Further to my previous comment, is Krakow the lawyer/solicitor for Hewitson and Hollenback in their suit for “HHS for vaccine injury visited upon their son Joshua”, as per the first link Orac cites above (https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research.php)
“I was talking about the monkey study, not the case study. Wakefield is conducting research on the entire vaccine schedule and comparing a vaccinated population with an unvaccinated population. To even the uneducated, it would seem such a study should have been done a long time ago.”
To even the uneducated, it would seem that it might be difficult to diagnose autism in monkeys.
“IF you are insulted for being called on it, that’s your problem.”
Only true if the criticisms are legitimate. Otherwise, insulting accusations are the problem of the person making them.
“I was talking about the monkey study, not the case study.”
Possibly, but you failed to say so. Also irrelevent to the point made about Wakefield.
“To even the uneducated, it would seem such a study should have been done a long time ago.”
Correct. To the educated however, the flaws in asking for such a study are apparent, obvious and have been extensively discussed, here and elsewhere.
“The Lancet study specifically stated that a link between MMR and autism has not been proven.”
True, yet irrelevant to determining what the hypothesis, conclusion or discussion of the entire paper indicated. You don’t go by a single sentence. The paper certianly heavily suggests a link, and only mentions parents as initial reporters.
“So, since it has been retracted, does that mean we an infer a link has been proven?”
In a way, and possibly, perhaps. He is listed on the Petitioners Steering Committee (the PSC) of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. In think that means he’s part of leadership of the group of attorneys representing all those petitioners.
I suppose it’s possible that the cited petition (that of Hewitson and Hollenbeck), is not part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, and is some separate non-autism claim.
I imagine it’s possible the Hewitson/Hollenbeck petition has be withdraw too.
I agree, absolutely! I find it so unbelievable that I don’t believe it one little bit!
Again, I find myself in complete agreement with “Amomwho…”, just not in the way she might think.
I truly is concerning that so many people – hundreds at the least – are so lacking in rudimentary critical thinking that they would believe that a conspiracy as vast as the one “Amomwho…” proposes could maintain secrecy for a month, let alone several years.
Resort to ad hominem attacks if you must, I am still waiting patiently for data proving vaccines are safe as used. Particularly the HepB neonate dose. I never said anything about a conspiracy. And, yes, I made a typographical error, typing “an” instead of “can” Is this the evidence you were looking for to confirm I am genetically defective?
At the end of the day, nothing I can say would be adjudged as anything more than anecdotal evidence. But, it should raise at least some suspicion that so many, many parents relay the same anecdotal tales. Each tale is substantiated by individual home movies, so plagiarism is not at the root of it all. Physicians should listen to their patients, and question paradigms as the need arises. Wakefield was brave enough to do that, and look how he has been repaid.
Given I am an engineer and registered patent agent, I am educated in science and I was not inclined to believe anyone who claimed vaccines caused neurological damage, either. It is the biggest regret of my life, my smugness in my belief in ‘science’ and the fact that I wouldn’t listen. I am convinced that my son fell victim to a cruel bait and switch. What was tested as ‘safe’ and what he received were two entirely different things.
Everyone else can go on their merry way and vaccinate themselves and their children daily for all I care. (well, the public costs of all the disabilities that will results concerns me as a taxpayer) However, I have lost confidence in vaccines and mainstream medical in general, and I want to remain free to be let alone. Herd immunity, bullshit. If you think the damn things work and are safe, go ahead and get them but leave everyone else alone. My kids were continually sick until I quit vaccinating them. We’re not getting any more vaccinations of any kind ever again unless and until I am satisfied that they have been proven to be safe.
Orac – I don’t know that anyone who embarks on any autism research is free from accusations of conflicts of interest. In the monkey study, I personally was happy to see confirmation of what I had complained about way back when.. and the doctor paid no heed to the fact that something was obviously amiss. My blisters were of no concern to him because my son was growing at such an incredible rate. It was almost as if my son knew his only defense was to be bigger, so he grew. You should really meet him, learn his history, ask him what he remembers, why he wanted to get IV chelation treatments. Better, you should meet his former pediatrician who gave me his “underhanded approval” to continue following TH’s recommendations – which he lectured me against even trying before I actually went to TH. His comment? “You can’t argue with results”
If I had stuck with mainstream doctors, I would have an autistic son incapable of going to regular school. I took my son to Thoughtful House, and my son goes to public school and is in the accelerated program. His handwriting leaves a lot to be desired, but if he’s not NT, he’s pretty damn close and getting closer all the time. I believe I have Dr. Wakefield to thank for escaping the clutch of autism, and I know Dr. Wakefield to be a good man.
Apparently not enough if you think Wakefield’s monkey study is good science:
Ad hominem attacks continue, still I am patiently waiting for the safety studies showing vaccines are safe as administered from birth to 36 months…
I’m not going to dismiss your anecdotal stories. I tend not to dismiss them off hand. But I will dismiss your claim that many (as in hundreds or thousands, I presume) such stories exist and are substantiated by home movies, unless you provide means to verify said claim.
No one here appears to have used an ad hominem against you, please quote the post and line that contains any.
“And, yes, I made a typographical error, typing “an” instead of “can”.”
It has nothing to do with the typo (why you assumed I was too stupid to work out a simple typo is beyond me), but with the apparent logic of the statement.
“But, it should raise at least some suspicion that so many, many parents relay the same anecdotal tales.”
But parents don’t relay the same tales. The last interview I did with a person that ‘suspects’ MMR caused their sons autism reported a 24-48 hour total change after the MMR. I’m aware of others that report anything from hours to months.
“Each tale is substantiated by individual home movies, so plagiarism is not at the root of it all.”
Extremely doubtful and most likely false. Even when true, such as in the autism omnibus, home video can indicate pre MMR vaccination symptoms of autism.
“Wakefield was brave enough to do that, and look how he has been repaid.”
That he was ‘brave’ enough to do is irrelevant. How he went about being ‘brave’ was the focus of the GMC hearings, none of the material for which you’ve shown any knowledge of, much less attempted to address.
Wakefield may, or may not, have helped your child. You may want to consider whether your view of him is being influenced by that.
Still patiently waiting on that safety data.
And, an ad hominem attack occurs every time you attack me instead of my argument.
MAny of you seem quite MMR fixated. MMR is administered with several other vaccines at 12 months. The most profound reaction we saw was after MMR (et.al) because he was screaming for a full 24 hours afterward – but he was continually ill from the very first HepB onward, and it wasn’t until we stopped vaccinating that he went for any length of time without getting an ear or sinus infection. It was vaccines that caused his ill health and neurological impairments and developmental delays, I can’t point to any one as the only cause.
I provided a link about the Wakefield witch hunt. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing he did that was questionable is take blood samples at a birthday party. I think he has been singled out to make an example of…
There are hundreds if not more parents with videos. I know they were being compiled, but I don’t know where they are now. For a good sampling of videos of recovering children, see Dr. Neurbranders website. Pay particular attention to the parent videos where the parents are also doctors, pediatricians. They come around, when its their kid afflicted. Go figure.
Don’t you know how to use http://www.PubMed.gov?
There are thousands of vaccine studies there, go for it.
“And, an ad hominem attack occurs every time you attack me instead of my argument.”
You weren’t asked for a definition, you were asked for an example. Anyone of the ones that prompted you to accuse people will do.
I’ve looked at all the replies since your February 13, 2010 3:17 PM post, and the nearest I can find is Orac pointing out that you are not as well versed in science as you claim. He then linked to articles that oppose your belief.
You do realise an ad hominem is an attempt to invalidate your arguement on the basis of an irrelevent personal characteristic, not determining a characteristic on the basis of your arguement?
Please use an appropriate definition, and not one you appear to have made up to suit yourself.
“I provided a link about the Wakefield witch hunt. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing he did that was questionable is take blood samples at a birthday party.”
Then you are at complete odds with the findings of the GMC. If you were to imagine this from a unbiased observers view, why should anyone believe Wakefield over the GMC?
That you are determined that it was a witchhunt would explain why the only thing you think is questionable is the blood-taking. Ironically, this false belief then perpetuates the interpretation that it was a witch-hunt.
Where is the evidence that the GMC was actually wrong?
“For a good sampling of videos of recovering children, see Dr. Neurbranders website.”
*sigh* This was not what was under discussion. We were talking about the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism. You have suddenly started talking about videos showing recovery without apparently bothering to tell anyone else that that was what you were doing.
Please tell us what you’re talking about next time. It will save some confusion.
You reside in a realm of communal reinforcement where parental claims are reinforced by or readjusted to fit other parental claims. And let’s face it, it isn’t as though your hive-mind masters are willing to allow challenging dialogue. As for your home movies claim? It’s actually just the opposite, the most famous being Michele Cedillo. Home videos have been used to identify subtle autism behaviours before parents even notice and even well-before 1 year old.
Of course physicians should listen to the parents but not in the way you think they should. Wakefield didn’t question anything, he was handed a legal claim that needed science to back it up. That was his first big mistake and has most recently culminated in the withdrawl of the Hep-B/monkey study, which he and at least 3 of the other authors omitted conflicts of interest (seems to be a Wakefield et al. theme). The study itself was rubbish, poorly executed and nothing but pre-ordained results.
Education is not tacit for critical thinking. Look after all, at Wakefield, Hewitson, Haley, and all of their cronies. They are educated but have thrown what could have been promising (or at least, mediocre) careers out in lieu of the pursuit of pseudo-science. I certainly don’t expect someone like you who has gone down the rabbit hole to suddenly acquire actual critical-thinking skills, but it should be pointed out that you wouldn’t know what critical thinking even was, let alone accuse anyone here of lacking it.
Chelation? You rail about vaccine safety and have the gall to blithely announce you consented to chelation of your child? Did you ask Andy what studies are there for the safety and efficacy of chelation? So sad for you, most parents of moderately and mildly autistic children report developmental leaps and mainstreaming them into school without chelating them or ever resorting to any of the bio-med crap pushed by dubious practitioners like those at Thoughtful House.
You can’t make that claim at all. Exactly what studies have been done on the efficacy of TH’s protocols? Oh right, none and why should they when enough desperate parents are perfectly content to rely upon nothing but anecdotes.
Wakefield talkinâ to me – tryinâ to run me up a creek.
Says you can buy my research now – you can pay me next week, ahh!
Too much monkey business. too much monkey business.
Too much monkey business for me to be involved in!
(with apologies to Chuck Berry)
How do you know this – autism is a from of developmental delay, not developmental stasis. Many children move off the spectrum without interventions. This statement alone shows that you do not have clue about the scientific method or critical thinking.
This one redlined the old irony meter since first birthday videos have shown autistic behaviour in children prior to vaccinations in cases where parents claimed their children regressed from “normal” to autistic immediately after vaccinations. This even occurred in one of the autism omnibus cases. The plaintiffs presented video tapes as evidence that their child’s autism was caused by vaccines when the tapes clearly indicated the child was autistic prior to the vaccines. This shows the degree to which parent’s who believe vaccines cause autism can deceive themselves.
No you aren’t. I am an engineer (BSc Mechanical Engineering 1978) We learned bugger all about the scientific method. In the subsequent 30+ years I have never ceased to be appalled at the lack of understanding of science and the scientific method by engineers. The unjustified extrapolation of a single experience is very common. Ever notice how many engineers are creationists or IDiots. Several engineers have been featured in ORAC’s Friday dose of woo. You are just as embarrassing the profession. (That’s an insult, not an ad hominem by the way.)
Provably untrue. In what was supposedly a gold-standard case for the vaccines-cause-autism movement, it was actually the home movies that disproved the hypothesis that the vaccinations caused autism, as the child was seen displaying autistic behaviors well before the vaccination on which the parents had decided all the blame must rest.
Oh, and to answer your other question, “since [the Wakefield paper] has been retracted, does that mean we an infer a link has been proven?” there is only one set of circumstances where this is accepted scientific practice. This occurs when Bizarro, the imperfect clone of Superman from the planet of Htrae, announces “Me am worst scientist! Me retract paper!” Because everything Bizarro says is the opposite of what he means, we are able to safely deduce that Bizarro does indeed stand by the conclusions of the paper.
Trying, in any other circumstances, to seriously put forth the suggestion that the double negative of “the paper didn’t state a link” and “the paper is retracted” constitutes a positive, indicates only that the person putting forth the suggestion has a grasp on Earth logic no better than that of Bizarro.
Dangerous Bacon @69 – What Chuck Berry song did you put those lyrics to?
Corrections to my post @70
Should have read “No you aren’t educated in science”
Sadly, I have no reason to doubt your claim to be engineer.
Should have read “You are just as embarrassing to the profession.”
Preview would be my friend if I would use it.
wow, you have continually attacked and insulted me. Say whatever you’d like – it doesn’t change the fact that kids like mine get better thanks to doctors like those at Thoughtful House.
Perhaps you should read Dr. Jepson’s book?
still no safety data proving he safety of the Hep B – doesn’t it take a lot of gall to find fault with a study using only 13, 16, 20 monkeys when the powers that be decided HepB was safe using ZERO – zerp, zip nada zilcho. a Big goose egg- no testing what so ever.
Since this vaccination is given at birth, it is impossible to comment about any child showing signs of autism before vaccination. How did you master critical thinkers miss that one?
I know my son would not have gotten well had I not sought out Dr. Jepson at Thoughtful House because he did not get properly diagnosed until that time. He would have gotten worse, his pediatrician missed completely that his bowels were completely impacted and was encouraging, take a wild guess… prescription psychiatric meds. Yea, right, my son would have gotten better anyway.. Who lives in bizarro?
Yes, chelation is the proper treatment for heavy metal toxicity. And when a little boy asks to go back for more IV chelation, you know its because it makes him feel better. When my MD saw my sons porphyrin data, she said he needed chelation. But you idiots on the internet know more than all my doctors, MD or ND, right?
Most parents like me don’t bother with forums like this…. Now I know why. The mainstream medical adherents would rather we let our kids remain ill than challenge their vaccine paradigms. Sorry, we aren’t that stupid. And we aren’t going away.
Did you get that NO SAFETY DATA TO JUSTIfY GIVING HOURS-OLD INFANTS VACCINES!!! If that doesn’t attest to the strength of paradigms surrounding vaccines, I don’t know what can.
@ Militant Agnostic –
I’m not Dangerous Bacon, but…
That’s just demonstrable nonsense.
How could you possibly know that? It’s actually rare for autistic children to get “worse” over time.
Sorry, I have a life outside of the forum. I had hoped by now that the thorough deconstructing of your arguments by others would have driven you back into your pseudo-science hole. Alas, no.
I have 2 links for you. The first is more of an effectiveness report on hepatitis vaccines but it does indicate that the CDC is keeping up and watching. Some comfort for the sane there. The second is a list of links to information about the vaccine and how it was approved. Enjoy those.
Your second link does not appear to be working.
Thanks for the heads up Todd. Must be (I hope) a cut & paste error. Try this.
This is another theme amongst those defending DAN! quackery and biomed woo. It’s positively amazing how no physicians can competently treat co-morbidities that can accompany autistics. Well, I’m afraid that again, many more parents that don’t do the alt-med route have something vastly different to say.
Yes, chelation is the proper treatment for ACTUAL metal toxicity, not as a result of the dubious tests that DAN!s routinely give, which involve a chelation challenge prior to testing and/or creative interpretation of the results from custom labs. My children ask for ice cream for dinner because it will make them happy, but I am their mother and as such, know better. It is nothing short of disgusting that you would justify a dangerous procedure on your own child because you say he asked for it. Not only do we ‘idiots’ here know more than your physicians or NDs about these untested, dubious ‘treatments’, but scientists and medicos that halted a chelation study on heart patients and cancelled a chelation study for autism because of the dangers that presented themselves. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec06/LeadChelation.kr.html
No, most parents like you don’t like to venture outside of their communal reinforced sites is because you don’t want your paradigm challenged. Your charge that we want children to remain ill is just another indication of the pathological need to justify untested, potentially dangerous treatments for your children.
As for safety data, this took me ~15 seconds to find: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734710 and you can also look up the clinical trials listed on the package inserts. You may also wish to consider that most other countries do not administer a hep B birth dose, have lighter schedules in general and have the same or even higher rates of ASDs. What you and the rest of your hive-mind collective claim is simply not borne out in the real world. Now why don’t you cough up some safety and efficacy data for the garbage that you have subjected your child to.
Here’s a good accessible discussion of the rationale for giving the hepatitis B vaccine to neonates and why it’s done differently in different countries:
Lots of links to HebB data – but none of it performed before HepB was approved for use on hours old infants. No HepB data showing it is safe to use on newborns. I looked though the crap you linked to, none was performed to show safety before it was added to the vaccine schedule. What a bunch of lemmings we’ve become.
Attack me all you want. I’m glad I didn’t come on this type of forum when I was trying to figure out what to do to help my son – I might have incorrectly concluded that things were as dismal as the mainstream doctors claimed. To conclude otherwise would have required questioning the sacred cow paradigms.
Years have gone by, and the best mainstream medical has to say about autism is: Its not vaccines. You are genetically defective. And the doctor who shows there is a GI link – well he’s unethical. Go take some psychiatric meds and shut up. Your recovered kid was never autistic, but if he was, he would have gotten better without biomedical interventions anyways. Never mind that mainstream medical has no children recovered without biomedical. We control the news. So we are right. And no one wants to doubt us because its unfathomable that anyone is either as stupid or unethical as we must be to allow this travesty to continue without ever studying the afflicted children.
Isn’t it interesting no one bothers to study the afflicted children? hm…
Where’s the safety data for the chelation procedure you subjected your son to as Science mom asked?
Dozens of studies since wakefield’s crap was published tried and failed to find a link between autism and vaccines. Where’s the condemnation for wakefield’s competing vaccine that he tried to lie into the market?
Vaccines work. They are not spewed to the marketplace untested. It is very likely that autism is genetically related. If so much money wasn’t wasted correcting St Andy, more money might have been spent in pursuit of real causes.
Go back and abuse your kid some more. Science will move forward without you.
Then you lack the critical-thinking skills that you claim to possess. There were more than enough studies there to support the existence of testing on neonates, here’s more:
I have no expectation that you will or can even read the relevant studies but it is important to refute your very erroneous statements that no safety testing for vaccines is performed.
Dismal? Don’t be ridiculous; there are many parents of autistic children that post here and simply prefer to accept their children for who they are and provide them with proven therapies to assist with their inevitable development. If you had sought out sites that employ evidence-based therapies for autism, then you could have enjoyed watching the developmental progression of your son without pumping him full of untested, unproven crap.
Wakefield et al. did no such thing, many of the children in his original study didn’t even have GI pathology as he reported. So of course he is unethical, also, the fact is, is that there are no more GI pathologies found in autistic children than in the general population. A couple of studies came out about this last year, I guess you didn’t get the memo? Or would that be that your sources of information didn’t like those results?
This is just delusional. Those that eschew the alt-med rubbish have children that have progressed and even to the point that they have had their diagnoses changed and/or removed. They just don’t go about obsessing about ‘fixing’ their ‘broken’ and ‘damaged’ children, nor treating them as such.
You may want to point that question to your altie-quacks. The fact is, is that there are thousands of studies that have been published and underway. Your lot just don’t like the research direction because they don’t have to do with vaccines. Did you also miss the studies on GFCF diets? Why don’t DAN!s perform any safety and efficacy studies on their protocols? They are, after all, the ones that are making the claims and whining about non-acceptance by the medical community. And I am still waiting for those chelation studies for autism.
“Since this vaccination is given at birth, it is impossible to comment about any child showing signs of autism before vaccination. How did you master critical thinkers miss that one?”
Uh, because this discussion isn’t all about just your beliefs?
Uh, because that was the claim of the parents that lead to the Wakefield paper?
Uh, that their children were not autistic before vaccines and then were afterwards?
It’s one of the core claims of vaccine-skeptics. You are in a minority claiming it is the HepB. There are more people involved in this than just you. You would do very well to learn that very quickly.
You can focus on the HepB all you want, but we would like to talk about the entire issue, not just the small subsection you are attempting to dictate we do. You are not the master of this discussion.
Please pardon us silly little people for thinking the stated arguements of many vaccine skeptics were their actual arguements.
How foolish of us to take the parental claims in Wakefield 1998, the Autism Omnibus, and many organisations such as AoA and GR at face value.
My son had neonatal seizures. There are those who have suggested that it was due to the HepB vaccine, but start stuttering and spitting when I tell them that he is 21 years old. They, like you, belong in the same category as the loon who told me his seizures were from drinking milk. Of course when I reminded that the infant was only getting breastmilk he sputtered and spitted that is was because I drank milk!
Of course, since he had a history of seizures he had another big one as a toddler when he had what is now a vaccine preventable disease. That seizure is probably why he is now permanently disabled.
Guess what, momwhoguessedwrong (and when I saw the moniker, I actually thought she was part of pkids.org, where there are parents of kids with chronic Hepatitis B), things happen to kids even without vaccines. Your blathering about beliefs, and the use of dangerous medical interventions does not help here. Neither does going on about Jepson (who does not have much credence here).
Also, I agree with Militant Agnostic when he says:
Before I had to quit working as an engineer to be with my disabled child I was often amazed at the same lack of understanding from some co-workers. Then, again, I also had to explain in minute details some basic math relationships (relative coordinate systems), and how to use some simple graphics software (where in one case I had a guy not understand the basics, and where the one page of simple commands were in the manual finally tell me “I don’t have time to read the book”… to which I responded I did not have time to help him!).
The momwhobelievesanddoesnotcareaboutthescience sounds just like those guys.
Seriously, momwhobelievesinonlywhatshewants, you want us to rely on your anecdotes, well here are a couple more for you:
The Day My Son Recognized His Mortality
The Struggle of Privacy versus Prevention
Not one of the HepB neonate studies cited vaccines having adjuvants. I looked. If I missed it, please do particularly point it out. “http://tinyurl.com/ydqwt3t
I have no expectation that you will or can even read the relevant studies but it is important to refute your very erroneous statements that no safety testing for vaccines is performed.”
NO safety testing for HepB at birth with adjuvants was performed before this vaccination was added to the schedule. Show me that data, it doesn’t exist. This is not an erroneous statement, much less a “very erroneous statement”
One study you linked did indicate the vaccine was safe because there were no febrile seizures or sepsis. Well, loss of the ability to nurse is neither of those things – but loss of the ability to nurse is hardly ‘safe’ for newborns.
Chris, its true, sometimes things ‘just happen’ to children. But, for my son, it wasn’t a ‘just happen’ it was a ‘just triggered’ – and triggered by his vaccines. And, whether he is genetically predisposed or whether other, additional environmental factors played a role is hardly the point. Of the three, only when and whether to vaccinate is squarely in my control, other environmental factors being controllable, marginally controllable only if they are known. I know my son had a loss in ability to nurse between the moment he first nursed immediately following his birth and after he got the HepB – had he been my first child I probably wouldn’t have noticed, given how hard it was for me to learn to nurse my first baby. I know my son was continually sick as an infant. I was foolish for not learning more before blindly following the untested, recommended vaccine schedule – I would have done things much differently. The data to support his receiving so many adjuvanted vaccinations so soon and so many at a time did not exist then, still does not exist now. So, accuse me of ‘experimenting’ on my kid – undeniably my son has been ‘experimented’ on – but that experimentation began with the unproven vaccinations he received starting with the HepB at birth and the experiment continued with each vaccine.
I’m grateful I had experience as an engineer – for many years I was a process engineer in a high-volume semiconductor manufacturing fab. I was familiar with having to take the incomplete data I had and make important decisions with it to either keep the line up, or get it back up. Had I not been successful with using incomplete data, I might have been a lot more worried about embarking on the biomedical pathway we eventually took. Somehow I have just known the right thing to do, without knowing why, exactly. No one at work ever really cared that I wasn’t able to explain how I knew what would ‘fix it’ – they were just happy I fixed it. Assert that my son would have gotten better somehow anyways – I don’t know how you think you could know without knowing anything about him. Certainly his own mainstream doctor told me to continue with biomed after he saw the improvements my son experienced due to biomed. Have you ever seen a doctor’s chin hit the floor in astonishment? I have.
Yes, we did the therapies mainstream medicine promotes – with underwhelming results. If he made any progress with those therapies, the progress was so slow as to be unrecognizable. Until his underlying bowel disease was diagnosed and treated, he didn’t improve. I don’t know how he could have gotten better without diagnosing and treating the bowel disease, as you imply would have happened.
Dr. Jepson ordered x rays at our first appointment = and they confirmed his diagnosis. My son’s bowels were impacted. His mainstream doctors missed it completely. My son never mentioned it, he knew nothing other than pain his whole life so he didn’t KNOW to say that he was in pain.
Be as hateful to me as you wish – accuse me of abusing my kid (yea, I would have to agree signing for vaccinations that weren’t tested was abusive). Doesn’t change the fact that my son has made huge improvement through bio-med. Doesn’t change the fact that my son’s GI problems were causing “autistic symptoms” – and once his GI problems were eliminated, the “autistic symptoms” abated. Sorry it isn’t what you want to hear, doesn’t make it less true. Sorry you can’t believe there is no safety data for the vaccines my son received in the manner he received them, it doesn’t make it less true. Don’t attach a bunch of links that answer the wrong questions about vaccines… show me data that answers the right questions – oh, wait, it doesn’t exist.
Except you still don’t understand that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Your story is just one anecdote.
And seriously, look at the stories of real moms who “witnessedhepbdamage” from the actual disease.
And I have never accused you of abusing your kids. You have been duped by those who feed off of the desperation of parents. And now you are a true believer, and no amount of reason or evidence will convince you of anything.
What on earth are you talking about? Hep B vaccines are adjuvanted. Did you just read the titles or actually retrieve any of the articles of interest?
Or better yet, I suppose your ridiculous red herring is just a deflection from the fact that you are using completely untested, potentially dangerous treatments for your son. Several of us posted the studies you asked for, in spite of your dislike for the results but I have yet to see a single study for the safety and efficacy of your biomed.
Just because you do not look for the references does not mean they do not exsist.
This was a small study-but it has been replicated. Has it been extensively tested like the rotovirus vaccine ( I believe that study had around 70,000 children, half received the vaccine, half a placebo)- no it has not. I guess the cdc thought it was best and recommended everyone get the hep B, since it protects against certain forms of liver cancer. All references can be found at:
Note there are about 10 pages of the article, so read them all and the references. You will find clinical trials with newborns in there. You will need full journal access; most do not focus on the side effects, but rather does the infant posses immunity after the shot. However, they all comment that no serious side effects were reported. Iâm sure someone like you does have full access-reading the abstracts only will only result in you making an ass out of yourself.
Btw, England does not require Hep B for all newborns and yet has the same autism rate…The hep B vaccine was not recommended by the cdc for all newborns until about 2002, why did autism start to âriseâ before that?
amom: you need to realize that to Chris you are all just “anecdotes” and tiny “percentages.” Your stories of vaccine damage are qualitatively different, apparently,compared to people who have the real disease for which a vaccine milght be intended. Apparently.
Why yes, Jen, anecdotes about ‘vaccine damage’ absent any supportive evidence whatsoever are indeed qualitatively different than the centuries of robust epidemiological data we have on vaccine preventable diseases. And you are also quite correct that the real, verifiable risks of complications, while potentially serious, are very small compared to the potential harm caused by the actual diseases.
You seem to understand this perfectly, yet your comment drips with sarcasm. What’s up with that?
I was just speaking with a co-worker the other night. Her son died from a vaccine-preventable disease, this is not different than a child who is actually injured by a real vaccine reaction both lives are equally important.
You are misrepresenting what Chris said a while back, and you know it. She simply stated that only a small percentage of children have profound autism and they don’t represent children with autism as a whole. She didn’t minimize the challenges of profoundly autistic individuals and their caretakers.
Autism is not a vaccine injury, and no amount of stomping your feet a screaming that it is will make it such. Just because amom believes her child’s autism to be related to vaccines doesn’t make it true.
My JAMA article makes you go through the library at UIUC. Here is a public link:
This has more more data too:
Thanks for playing, Josh, but both those studies are for moms who actually test positive for HepB at the time they deliver. The other links were inaccessible. I don’t know what kind of women you hang with, but I am neither a prostitute nor IV drug user – those are typically the only moms who have HepB in the first place.
Not one person has provided a link to a study conducted BEFORE the addition of the neonate HepB dose to the vaccine schedule. No testing was done whatsoever. This is just a fact. Moreover, no good explanation for adding this particular vaccine was provided. Maybe for HepB positive moms it was justifiable, but there is and was no MEDICALLY justifiable reason to give it to every newborn infant.
So, my point is, chide Wakefield for only having 13 monkeys. Its 13 more than the government had before it decided to add the HepB vaccine to the schedule. And, ridicule his results if you want, but he found exactly what I saw with my son.
I recommend you write to the FDA and submit a FOIA request for the clinical trials performed in neonates that were required for marketing approval. You could also look at some of the studies in the supporting references in the package insert for the vaccines.
Or, if you want, here’s a study from 1982 that examined the adjuvanted vaccine in neonates.
There’s also this 1989 study.
Those both predate the mid-90s addition of HepB to the schedule. And, they both use the adjuvanted vaccine and included children born to mothers without HepB. You know, PubMed can be a wonderful tool, if you choose to use it.
Amomwhocan’tfindalibrary, Studies on neonates born to Hep B positive mothers are perfectly valid. But your goalpost shifting is typical of anti-vaxers who get their questions answered but refuse to accept them.
Don’t vaunt your superiority, about 1/3 of Hep B positive people have no known risk factors. It really is annoying and doesn’t do anything for your claims when you are presented with literature searches and you just dismiss them. For you to be making the claims that you do, you should be even more familiar with the literature than we. But the fact is, you’re not and just want choice works spoon-fed to you. Here are just a few of the many clinical studies done on neonates:
Start doing your own damn work and access these, something you should have done long ago if you weren’t so lazy.
Doesn’t matter that the kids were Hep B positive. The fact is there were “NO serious side effects”. Are you suggesting that newborns that have Hep B will have less side effects from the vaccine than those who do not have Hep B?? If you think that, you are an idiot. Wait no your right, if you take chemo and have cancer-no side effects right. Only when those damn doctors give chemo to people who don’t need it that you see the side effects.
Perhaps buy the articles-you’ll get more info rather than just reading abstracts you little scientist you.
The reason was to prevent certain types of liver cancers. SBM went over that.
I believe Orac referenced it already.
I’m still curious – The hep B vaccine was not recommended by the cdc for all newborns until about 2002, why did autism rates start to âriseâ before that?
That study is no good, because one of the researcher’s has a Jewish-sounding name.
Come on, why can’t you produce research made by gentiles like I’ve been asking all along?
The hepatitis B vaccine was recommended for all infants (in the US) starting in 1991 – about six years after the “autism epidemic” allegedly began. Given that this recommendation wasn’t adopted overnight, the lag between the putative start of the “autism epidemic” and widespread hepatitis B vaccination of infants is even longer.
By 2002, the children’s hepatitis B vaccine was only available without thimerosal. The sudden withdrawal of thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccines led to a dramatic drop in the number of infants receiving the vaccine for about a year. There was not a corresponding drop in autism prevalence for that group of children.
I could go on, but it seems pretty clear that vaccines aren’t linked to autism. Those that fail to see that are victims of their own closed minds.
That’s simply untrue, if you look at some of the recent papers that follow children diagnosed early (like at age 2.)
Additionally, I’m not aware of any children recovered with biomed either. I’ve heard claims of children who are “recovering,” and the definition of this term varies from person to person apparently. I’ve seen videos too, and they are very telling. Depending on what you call recovery, you might consider the autistics from Kanner (1972) to be “recovered.” They lived well before any of the modern interventions (woo and non-woo), and their outcomes are considered some of the best outcomes in the autism literature.
I got my words completely mixed around. To have all newborns vaccinated against Hep B started in 2002
The years before that it seems that if the mom was HepB antigen negative, then you don’t have to vaccinate until 2 months old. Thanks for correcting me.
amomwho witnessedhepbdamage @ 65:
So, you’re okay with the colonoscopies (including the one that resulted in multiple colon perforations and nearly cost the child’s life), all of which required the use of mind-altering substances to help the autistic children cope (it’s rough on normal adults; I can’t even imagine how bad colonoscopy is on an autistic child)? You’re okay with the lumbar punctures (which carry risks of death and paralysis and are quite painful, often resulting in excruciating headaches lasting hours to days after the procedure)? You’re okay with the fact that when one technician told him that the positive results were false positives, that he just went to a less experienced technician who wouldn’t turn up inconvenient information? You’re okay with the fact that nobody has been able to duplicate his results? You’re okay with the fact that his study was not randomized and that the cases were most definitely hand-picked? (You objected to that sort of thing earlier in this thread; strange you wouldn’t mind that from Wakefield.) You’re okay with the fact that the measles RNA did not match the MMR strain? You’re okay with the fact that most of his 12 subjects did not have diagnoses of gastrointestinal disorders, but suddenly acquired those diagnoses during the referral for colonoscopy? You’re okay with the fact that although Wakefield’s study reports all of the biopsy samples as being signs of inflammation, the actual pathology reports declared most of them to be normal? (That’s called fraud. He made up data. Are you okay with that?)
Okay, I know you wanted to talk about the monkey study, not the dreadful MMR study. At least in the monkey study, no children were harmed, but 13 (or 14? the number seems to vary) monkeys were killed. You’re okay with that? You’re okay with the fact that there is no accepted diagnosis of autism in monkeys, and therefore no way to replicate what he claims to have found? You’re okay with the fact that naively doing a “divide human life expectancy by monkey life expectancy” calculation to work out how to “model” the vaccine schedule resulted in monkeys being separated from their colony and their mothers *several times a day* and then injected, a process which would be guaranteed to produce abnormal social behavior even if they were injecting with saline — or hell, just poking the poor monkey? You’re okay with the fact that the numbers of study and control monkeys have varied over time with reports on the study, a very suspicious sign?
You’re okay with all that?
If I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying “you didn’t shove premarket safety data in my face, though I do see postmarket data showing it’s perfectly safe to give HepB to newborns. Therefore I reject it and continue to believe HepB vaccine causes autism.” WTF?
Did you know chelation kills people? Did you know DMSO, in rat studies, produced substantial neurological damage? Why are you so paranoid about vaccines, but uncritically accept some really seriously dangerous drugs if it’s given by the people at Thoughtful House?
Are you aware of a non-adjuvanted version of the vaccine?
Oh good lord — a cargo cult engineer. For reference, that’s an engineer who does something because they saw things work after they did it, although they don’t know why, and aren’t particularily curious about it. I’m a software engineer, and the level of cargo cult practices in coding is quite depressing at times. It really holds the field back, not least because the engineers involved are too arrogant to think very hard about things or even consider that maybe, just maybe, the fact that they don’t understand why it works might be significant down the road.
Y’know, this explains a great deal about your viewpoint. Your mind is utterly closed. You are shockingly incurious, and do not entertain inconvenient questions — such as why Wakefield manipulated data the way he did. Instead, you focus more on how to raise objections that give you the opportunity to avoid examining your position any further.
Again, very reminiscent of too many engineers that I know. It’s all too easy to wind up in a defensive attitude, protecting your opinions rather than collaboratively seeking the best path. Gets worse when pride becomes involved.
Want an anecdote?
My two children are fully vaccinated (for their ages, obviously). The eldest is on the autism spectrum. She has made astounding progress lately, going from one-word outbursts to full sentences and even discussing her feelings. She’s even starting to look people in the eye, and get a handle on her impulsive behavior and her tantrums. I am immensely proud of her and what she’s achieved. We didn’t try any biomed at all. Part of it was just her maturing. Most of it has been the social/behavioral therapy and speech therapy that she’s been getting for the past two years.
Or, for a more dramatic case, look at my brother. Twenty years ago, you would’ve sworn he’d be institutionalized for life — nonverbal, very poor physical coordination, no eye contact, very little emotional affect. Today, he’s nearing graduation from college, and though he’s a little quiet, you wouldn’t know there was anything odd about him without getting to know him. The secret? Love, physical, neurological, behavioral, and speech therapy, special ed, and some luck. (Not all kids as severely impaired as he was will recover this well. It’s very hard to predict.) I’m immensely proud of him. He didn’t get any biomed at all, and he’s a functioning adult today.
(Hell, look at Temple Grandin — both as a case against HepB vaccine being the cause, since she predates it pretty substantially, and because she’s an independent adult today with no Thoughtful House to help her.)
Does this mean all autistics should be expected to completely “recover”? No. But if two of my first-order relations did, that strongly implies that it’s possible to recover without chelation, which means you can’t rely on an anecdote (even your own) to know if the chelation actually caused the recovery. How do you know your son wouldn’t have recovered on his own? You don’t. But you won’t give him the credit for it, I can see that.
Thank you Calli, thank you. You have far more patience than I do and have written so much. It is sad that if you receive a reply it will almost certainly ignore everything you have pointed out about the studies and the problems with the previous statements made by the poster. But I can hope that someone else who is less entrenched will come here and see your posting and possibly question what they had read. Those flaws should be plain to everyone on either side of this issue and anyone who was honest should seriously be concerned with them rather than brush them off.
Wow, Callie, thanks so much for that thorough and thoughtful post. Sadly, Amomwho… will almost certainly ignore or dismiss it, but lest you think such efforts are a waste of time, I know a lot of readers/lurkers will benefit from your words.
BTW, Temple Grandin just gave a talk here last week. Her talk was advertised to the community and I know several parents of ASD children who attended. Very cool lady, although I did frown a bit when she advocated the GF/CF diet as part of her success story.
I don’t get it. On what basis could one even accuse the HepB vaccine of causing autism? As I’ve said before, at least the “MMR causes autism” crowd has a post hoc ergo prompter hoc possibility. Autism symptoms do indeed become apparent more around the time that the MMR vaccine is given, so at least there is an apparent association. The association has been testing and found to be not true, but at least you can understand the basis for the claim.
However,HepB is given to newborns, for pete’s sake. Why in the world would anyone associate that with autism?
If you think about it, the HepB causes autism advocates are in opposition to the MMR group, because the HepB causes autism claim requires that autism originates long, long before MMR comes along. So in that respect, why would someone who thinks autism is caused by HepB support Wakefield, whose work, if it were to be believed, contradicts that hypothesis?
Of course, the answer is that for these dorks, as long as you are anti-vax, you must be ok, regardless of whether you are completely opposite. It’s like how all JFK conspiracists stick together, despite the fact that they all have different conspiracies.
Thank you for your thoughtful and enlightening comment. I just got home from work and the first thing I did was read your comment and it gave me alot to think about.
Although, like always, it will probably fall on deaf ears in the case of amom. But I do think there might be someone reading here who will think that maybe what they were told before might not be true.
brilliant post. Cut, paste, frame.
Because, as you kinda said, it’s all about the vaccines. As Barbara “I’m not antivaccine” Loe Fisher said, “And if it’s not thimerosal, then it must be some other vaccine-related interaction.”
Awesome post. I’m going to link to it from Silenced by Age of Autism as an example of something people will never see on AoA.
Pablo @ 107 – this is just a guess, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some anti-vaxxers think Hep B is an acceptable target. Most people think of it as an STD, so they believe children are at nearly 0 risk of contracting it except from an infected mother. (I know this isn’t true, but I don’t think the majority of the population does.) So giving the Hep B shot to infants can seem unnecessary to the uneducated. This shuts off one of the standard pro-vaccination arguments – even if vaccines do cause autism, the benefit from not getting the diseases outweighs the detriment of a small number of children developing autism.
Not just “an infected mother,” but “a prostitute [or] IV drug user.” See @95.
A close relative was an RN for decades and has hepatitis antibodies in her bloodstream from some unknown incident along the line, making her ineligible to ever donate blood, which she hates. Comments like that really make me see red.
Wow. Thanks for the kudos, folks! I had to respond, especially when I saw the engineering comment. Engineering is *infested* with this sort of attitude, and it really does hurt the field in the long run. That inspired me to do the larger response, because this mother is clearly not doing due diligence but is instead seeking information which confirms her views and rejecting information which doesn’t, with all other considerations secondary.
Calli – I am not seeking information which confirms my views, I am acting on the information I have. I”m glad your child is making progress, but I wonder what kind of progress she’d make if you investigated and cured whatever medical ailments she has? For what its worth, my son did absolutely no behavioral therapy. You mention first hearing sentences. Want to know the first full sentence I remember? “Thanks for getting all that poop out of me, Mom.” That was spoken almost immediately after I learned from Dr. Jepson that his bowels were impacted.
Four years ago, I was told my son was autistic and would never go to regular school. One week later I took him to Thoughtful House. 6 months later, he was in regular school. Today, he’s in his school’s gifted program and if he has any signs of autism at all, they are pretty hard to find. (BTW Calli – I quit having to tell him to ‘look at my eyes’ after we did DMPS IV – and he really wanted to get those treatments because he said they made him feel better. It took a lot of research for me to finally agree to do IV chelation, and now I wish I hadn’t waited so long.)
At the end of the day, I’m following my mainstream pediatrician’s advice. He told me “you can’t argue with results” and he gave me his “underhanded approval” to continue the biomed treatments Thoughtful House prescribed.
You may not be consciously seeking information which confirms your views, but it sure looks like you are rejecting information out of hand if it contradicts your views. In particular, your rather outrageous statement that you didn’t care about data on HepB vaccine safety in newborns if it wasn’t premarket data. Regardless of whether or not the vaccine was proven safe in infants before it was used in them (and it *was*), the postmarket data exonerates it, and you didn’t give any reason whatsoever for rejecting that.
You also are accepting rather hazardous substances which have not been studied (much less approved) for the indications which you are using them, while simultaneously criticizing vaccines for rather nebulous reasons. I do not understand that. Why are you okay with intravenous DMPS, but not okay with Hepatitis B vaccine? DMPS is not harmless at all. (No chelating agent is, because they are not terribly discriminating. They *like* metals, though some like certain metals more than others. Not even the all-natural oxalic acid, which is what makes rhubarb dangerous for people prone to kidney stones.) And there’s no evidence it helps autism, nor that autism is caused by mercury poisoning (which has distinctly different symptoms in any case).
Though it does not pertain directly to autism, you may be interested in this paper, which pertains to long-term use of DMPS in a child being treated for chronic exposure to mercury vapor. (In other words, DMPS being used for its actual approved use.) Make sure you click through to the full text, and not just the abstract.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome in a child with chronic mercury exposure and 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate (DMPS) therapy
Severe constipation is not common, but more common in autistic children. There are several proposed reasons, but one thing which is undeniable is this: it’s very uncomfortable (even painful), and the child will progress much better once that discomfort is relieved. That’s even true of non-autistic children. I’m glad you pursued your son’s bowel issues, because those are important.
My autism-spectrum daughter does not have bowel issues, but her “neurotypical” sister does. I feel so sorry for her when she gets blocked up. For her, I’ve found the best remedy is glycerine suppositories. Icky, yeah, but it’s better for her than drug-based laxatives. Laxatives work, but they have their own unpleasant side-effects.
BTW, what makes you think I didn’t investigate my daughter’s medical ailments? She actually takes medication for her attention problems, and for her acid reflux disease. (Family curse; I have that too.) She’s also been seeing a wide range of child psychologists, psychiatrists, and learning disorder specialists for over three years (since before her diagnosis, actually), in addition to her regular pediatrician. We are also fortunate in that we have a mental health care insurance plan. The coverage isn’t stellar, but it’s a heck of a lot better than nothing, and it does cover her treatment. Also, the local school district has been nothing short of AWESOME. We’re extremely fortunate to live in a district with excellent services for autism. Most districts don’t have that.
According to various yahoo groups, Wakefield has resigned from Thoughtful House. The TH statement is:
“The needs of the children we serve must always come first. All of us at
Thoughtful House are grateful to Dr. Wakefield for the valuable work he has done
here. We fully support his decision to leave Thoughtful House in order to make
sure that the controversy surrounding the recent findings of the General Medical
Council does not interfere with the important work that our dedicated team of
clinicians and researchers is doing on behalf of children with autism and their
families. All of us at Thoughtful House continue to fight every day for the
recovery of children with developmental disorders. We will continue to do our
very best to accomplish our mission by combining the most up-to-date treatments
and important clinical research that will help to shape the understanding of
these conditions that are affecting an ever-increasing number of children
It is unlikely that there will never be an end to the vaccination debate. The “parents are idiots” position of the pro-vaccination medical community simply alienates those that have seen extreme reactions to vaccines, and subsequent regressive autism.
In my personal experience with a relative that experienced febrile seizures starting within a day of the MMR, the pediatrician’s response was that the febrile seizures were not related to the vaccination received the day before. If this rather obvious temporal co-incidence is dismissed, it is no wonder that the loss of verbal communication, affection and so on that also followed the seizures culminating in a diagnosis of autism many years later was also dismissed. Nope, JAMA and NEJM have published articles that shown no correlation.
Pretty much all research on both sides can be torn apart using various means – e.g. possible subject selection bias, subgroups not identified, changes in diagnostic criteria or increased “awareness”. If that fails, then there is the ever-present lack of detail and transparency in peer-reviewed literature. In some, or many cases, the references used are not particularly appropriate or properly analyzed (especially the ones added for padding the list). Before I would accept a statistical evaluation, I would want to check the raw data, accuracy and percision of measurments etc. Unfortunately, using these criteria, I find precious little peer-reviewed literature regarding vaccination to be useful. Even thorough review may not reveal the impact of conflicts of interest. I’m left with having to find non-sequitors in various conclusions compared to the evidence presented, and
having to speculate on the validity of the methods used, statistical analysis and the auhours’ bias.
But, then, I’m an engineer. But a dangerous one, as I am also have a doctorate in engineering, and a patent. In my field I much prefer conference proceedings that are not peer-reviewed to peer-reviewed literature in general because usually the raw data is much more transparent in the former.
If there is any doubt, my children have not been vaccinated.
I don’t think the great majority who comment here think that parents are idiots. IMHO, it is rather that parents tend to be emotionally biased when it comes to their children.
Febrile seizures can be an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine. But I think it is a fallacy to equate the febrile seizures with the later diagnosis of autism. I don’t know if there is a study of febrile seizures after vaccination and subsequent developmental delay, but most children who have febrile seizures don’t develop autism according to the only study I could find to the effect (this is what I gleaned from the abstract, I couldn’t get the whole text).
There are adverse reactions to vaccines, as there are to all medications. But, as pointed out on this blog and Science-Based Medicine many times, their is no doubt that these reactions do not include autism. This is a great article from Discover Magazine that goes over the evidence.
One other note, the diseases vaccinated for are very dangerous. Most don’t die from these childhood diseases, but some do, and death is not the only bad outcome. My mother went mostly deaf from the mumps, she was very happy there was a vaccine so we didn’t have to go through the same thing. After being vaccinated, myself, and my eight siblings haven’t had any of the diseases we have been vaccinated against. I haven’t known anyone my age who has had any of these diseases, so I am convinced of the value of vaccines (anecdotal, of course).
You sound very reasonable. Just keep looking at the evidence. I hope you do get your children vaccinated. I have a friend at work who’s son died recently from meningitis (he was eighteen months old), nobody should have to go through that, and this is a death a vaccine might have prevented.
Straw man argument. No one here says that “parents are idiots.” What we do say is that they share with all human beings certain cognitive oddities that lead them to confuse correlation with causation very easily. For instance, take a look at what I said just yesterday:
In other words, it’s not being “stupid” to confuse correlation with causation in these cases. It’s being a human being who sees only one data point and not the whole picture.
Now, that doesn’t mean that some parents aren’t stupid. Jenny McCarthy, for instance, is flamingly stupid. J.B. Handley, while not stupid about other matters, is blisteringly ignorant of science and so arrogant that he refuses to be educated, despite many attempts by many different people.
“Maybe these dip-turds should focus on autism, people with autism, and support services for families instead of their full-frontal assault on science to cast blame on someone else for their “misfortune”.”
I am sure that you have moved on from monitoring this discussion. But I just happened upon it, and I have never felt so insulted by a blog post that wasn’t aimed personally at me.
I invite you to e-mail me personally at [email protected]
You can review my son’s health records and then decide if I am a dip-turd who has nothing to to complain about. And I invite you to spend a week in my home, getting a taste of what my experience is like with 3 autistic kids.
I hope you NEVER have to experience what our lives are like.
links are not working