Several Mentions & Many Thanks · 2007-03-30 12:15

The March 31, 2007 British Medical Journal features a two-page article by Brian Deer, the London-based investigative reporter well-known for his in-depth articles about the MMR scare in the U.K. and the work of Andrew Wakefield. What Makes An Expert? is available to BMJ subscribers, through Interlibrary Loan services and from most medical libraries. Brian’s article discusses Autoimmunity Reviews’ recent retraction of Mark and David Geier’s article, The biochemical basis and treatment of autism: Interactions between mercury, transsulfuration, and androgens, and highlights my series of articles and letters, Significant Misrepresentations: Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol, written and published here since last February.

My most sincere thanks to Brian for calling the attention of the medical community to some of the many concerns I have raised about Dr. and Mr. Geier’s work, and for his most flattering remark:

But the Geiers and the journals that have published their work have reckoned without Ms. Seidel.

Thanks, too, to Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen, Director of Cambridge University’s Autism Research Centre for his equally flattering comment:

I’m very impressed by the scholarship in the neurodiversity.com website. I welcome the debate being widened now that science is transparent on the Internet.

And thanks to Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick, who mentioned the Significant Misrepresentations series in Autism and Environmental Toxicity, in which he critiqued Richard Lathe’s Autism, Brain & Environment, and The Lancet’s choice of Mark Geier to review Lathe’s book.

I’m honored that Autism Diva tagged me with the Thinking Blogger Award. This slow tag player is hoping to pull together a little list of thought-provoking blogs within the next week or two.

Comments


  1. My favorite quotes:
    “Kathleen Seidel, an autism activist …, who runs the website neurodiversity.com, criticised the paper in a 2500 word email sent to the journal’s editors-in-chief, Yehuda Schoenfeld of Tel Aviv University, and Eric Gershwin of the University of California, Davis, and copied to all 42 members of the journal’s editorial board.”

    I love the UCD part,

    and this one
    “The Geiers’ paper in Autoimmunity Review has now been retracted, but I have been unable to discover the journal’s reasons for retraction and the editors have not responded to my emails and phone calls. Professor Graham Hughes, formerly of the Rayne Institute at London’s St Thomas’s Hospital, and a member of the journal’s board, was also unable to help. “All I know is that I got a rather heated 20-page email from a lady,” he said when asked for his comments on the retraction. “I really don’t know what it’s about.” “

    I love the flustered tone and the guy saying, you were a lady. So true. If he wanted to know what “it’s about” all he’d have to do is read the email. (rolls eyes)

    — Ms. Clark    2007-03-30 14:53    #

  2. Ok so Laurentius Rex may not be so illustrious a figure to be making citations, but I thought I would let you all know that the blogging world features heavily in my latest Birmingham University Assignment, and since it ain’t complete yet nothing would be finer for me to work in this latest info and cite the latest edition of the BMJ as proof of what I have been saying about how we are all having an effect on the way researchers should behave and being taken notice of.

    — laurentius-rex    2007-03-30 17:04    #

  3. Thanks from all of us Kathleen.

    Tom

    — Tom Smith    2007-03-30 18:23    #

  4. Great – you deserve every syllable and more:)

    — Alyric    2007-03-30 19:00    #

  5. Tip of the hat to you Kathleen. It’s always a rewarding challenge to bend my brain around your very thorough work.

    — jypsy    2007-03-30 19:00    #

  6. Thank you Kathleen.

    Here is a quote from the article:

    Professor Graham Hughes, formerly of the Rayne Institute at London’s St Thomas’s Hospital, and a member of the journal’s board, was also unable to help. “All I know is that I got a rather heated 20-page email from a lady,” he said when asked for his comments on the retraction. “I really don’t know what it’s about.”

    I would never characterize you as “rather heated”, instead I’d say “rather cool and collected”.

    And I think that Professor Graham Hughes should really thoroughly read his e-mail (or get a sense of ethics).

    — Jennifer    2007-03-30 19:31    #

  7. Kathleen, thanks for all your hard work. Huzzah!

    — Ralph Smith    2007-03-30 20:19    #

  8. Someday someone will be researching and writing about neurodiversity.com as a blog that made a real difference.

    — autism vox    2007-03-30 20:47    #

  9. efficacy!
    wonderful just reward for all your work. That is two significant triumphs for autism science this week – see also the report of the Canadian Senate committee (thank you Philip on TMOB)

    Part 1. Section A – Definition of Autism:

    A number of autistic individuals and researchers in the field define autism not as a mental disorder, but rather as "a neurological difference classified as a developmental disability [...]. They explain that while autism may affect behaviours in [...] social interaction, communication, and restricted interests or repetitive behaviours – it also presents measurable and admirable differences in perception, attention, memory, intelligence etc. In their view, autistic individuals have strengths and traits not seen in the general population, just like ‘non-autistics’ have strengths of their own."

    — dinah    2007-03-31 01:14    #

  10. Thank you, Kathleen, for all that you are doing.

    — Phil Schwarz    2007-03-31 11:26    #

  11. Hey, I’ve always been impressed by your scholarship. Makes me really, really glad you’re on our side!

    — Clay    2007-03-31 11:47    #

  12. Nice work, Kathleen. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and respected by many.

    — steve d    2007-03-31 12:20    #

  13. The thing I don’t get, however, is what these people have to say about all this. I emailed the Geiers (twice), and could find no listed phone number or website for their impressively-named organisations. I emailed both editors of Autoimmunity Reviews. And in no case did I get a reply. I phoned one editor in Tel Aviv. First time, he said “call back in an hour”, and when I did so, he didn’t answer. The next time I called, he hung up as soon as soon as I said who I was.

    Now, as far as I can tell, Kathleen has received no answers either.

    I mean, folk can be rude to me if they like, but you’d think that a 2,500-word analysis, to the standard that Kathleen prepared, would, at the very least, get an acknowledgment. If only out of courtesy…

    But nothing: silence.

    — brian deer    2007-04-01 08:53    #

  14. You deserve much more recognition than can be given Kathleen.

    — Joseph    2007-04-02 18:53    #

  15. Brian,
    I think it possible that the one of the editors of Autoimmunity Reviews (M.E. Gershwin) is also planning to testify in the omnibus proceeding, and thus has a vested interest in increasing the apparent reliability of the Geiers.

    — Broken Link    2007-04-03 22:13    #

  16. Hear that? (crickets) It’s the sound of the guilty consciences of Yehuda Schoenfeld and Eric Gershwin, or maybe I’m hearing the drip drip drip of flop sweat.

    — Ms. Clark    2007-04-04 03:24    #

  17. I still wonder if what the Geier’s are doing is even legal. It would seem that having a biochemistry lab with a ventilation hood, biohazardous materials, and maybe radioactive isotopes in your suburban home would be, at the very least, a zoning violation.

    — trd    2007-04-06 09:16    #

  18. May I add my belated thanks and congratulations. I have just returned from holiday. I think you deserve a holiday now.

    — Mike Stanton    2007-04-17 15:05    #

  19. Congratulations Kathleen. It’s great to see your wonderful work receiving due recognition.

    — Sharon    2007-04-25 03:37    #

  20. Heated? Hardly. Icewoman is more like it.

    — TheProbe    2007-05-03 11:19    #