Strange Bedfellows · 2006-03-12 17:00

Promoters of the hypothesis that autism is a common adverse reaction to vaccination rely heavily upon articles published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS, originally Medical Sentinel). Previous perusals of JPandS tables of contents left me with the general impression that its sponsors tended toward the conservative end of the political spectrum. I therefore decided to make a comprehensive survey of the website of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, to get a sense of the convictions driving its editorial policies.

Fundamental Principles

A political advocacy organization comprised of doctors, lawyers and others who support free markets and limited government, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons defines itself as:

…a national association of physicians dedicated to preserving freedom in the one-on-one patient-physician relationship. AAPS members believe this patient-physician relationship must be protected from all forms of third-party intervention. Since its founding in 1943, AAPS has been the only national organization consistently supporting the principles of the free market in medical practice.

A preliminary review of cumulative indices of AAPS publications yields numerous dramatic descriptors indicative of the organization’s political orientation:

Criminalization Of Medicine
Eco-Imperialism
Government Arrogance
Incremental Socialism
Left Illusions
Medical Herdology
Physician Slavery
Police State of Medicine
Socialized Medicine

Members are encouraged to prize their status as “mavericks,” and to regard those of different mind as “the herd.”

Inescapably, the herd is a force to be reckoned with in all of our professional lives. We must be prepared to travel with it or alongside it, to one degree or another, without being trampled or singled out for extermination. And, for those few physicians who still believe in individual-based medicine practiced according to the principles of Hippocrates, and in watching out for one another when one of our own is attacked, fortunately we have the AAPS. We are a fellowship of “different doctors,” and the distinction is apparent. (Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD; AAPS Board member and former President; Editor-in-Chief, JPandS)

AAPS opposes any form of government involvement in the provision or regulation of health care.

AAPS oppose continued and increasing government interference, supervision, and control in the practice of medicine; promote the immediate repeal of all laws, regulations, and policies that allow direct or de facto supervision or control over the practice of medicine by federal officers or employees; and call for a moratorium on any further laws, regulations, or policies that authorize government control over the practice of medicine. (AAPS Resolution, 2001)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Care Financing Administration are both derided as unconstitutional. Medicare is roundly condemned. Members are encouraged to refuse to participate in Medicare, and are offered practical advice towards achieving that goal:

AAPS recommends a policy of Non-Participation to all physicians as the only legal, moral, and ethical means of concretely expressing their complete disapproval of the spirit and philosophy behind these amendments. [i.e., the Social Security Amendments of 1965, a.k.a. Medicare law (Public Law 89-97, 1965)] (AAPS Principles of Medical Ethics)

AAPS condemns the concept of universal health care and rejects the argument that health care should be deemed a fundamental human right. Those who promote such goals are presumed ignorant or participants in a multigenerational conspiracy to oppress the populace over generations.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons declares that medical care is a not a right that can be bestowed by the state and that any laws, regulations, or policies that attempt to establish a government-mandated entitlement to medical care are not only unconstitutional and therefore illegal, but immoral and inimical to the physician’s ethical principles. (AAPS Resolution, 2001)
Lenin once said that “medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism,” and I believe those who are promoting “universal coverage” via government-run and government-controlled medicine know this. What they hope is that the public won’t find out the truth. (Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, AAPS Board member and former President; Editor-in-Chief, JPandS)

Though unsuccessful in their earlier years, true to Schlesinger’s promise by pursuing both permeation and incrementalism, the socialists have made great progress and today have willing disciples in both Houses of Congress and both political parties, though their greatest power and numbers still dominate in the Democratic Party. (Edward Annis, MD)

Public health programs are described as agents of tyranny.

…there is no end to the interventions that could be justified in the name of public health, as that concept is currently understood… Public health, in other words, is inconsistent with the right to be left alone. Of all the risk factors for disease or injury, it seems, freedom is the most pernicious. (Jacob Sullum)

AAPS opposes the concept of evidence-based medicine, warning its members that:

Physicians must beware of accepting the concept of a standard of care that is itself evidence-based, threatening the autonomy of physicians and subjugating the patient’s interest to that of the collective. (AAPS Newsletter)
[Evidence-based guidelines] are a divisive force, creating uncertainty and mistrust, and undermining confidence in physicians and our medical system. EBGs can be used either to accuse physicians of withholding therapy, or of prescribing unnecessary or unproven treatments. Behind the façade of EBGs, [managed care organizations] can determine medical policy with impunity. (Norman Latov MD)

Practice guidelines and treatment protocols are regarded as impediments to the unfettered practice of medicine.

There is a lot of pressure to restrict physicians’ treatments to practice guidelines and to methods that have been shown to be both safe and effective in double-blind controlled trials. If we were to insist on this across the board, a huge number of medical treatments that physicians rely on would be ruled out… If everything can be done with treatment protocols, then perhaps we should do without physicians altogether. Of course, we recognize that there are varying abilities, but I think it is a mistake to say that one small group, politically appointed, can sit in infallible judgment on just who the real physicians might be…. (Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director, AAPS)

Guiding Inspiration & Ongoing Struggle

The philosophy of Ayn Rand is frequently invoked in quotation and analogy:

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)
Atlas Shrugged foretold the degradation, devaluation of professional services, and destruction of the practice of private medicine that physicians are experiencing today… As creeping socialism is upon us and the road to freedom is well marked, the survival or demise of the free market and the practice of private medicine in this country is in the hands of its physicians. Physicians, we must now stick together or we shall most assuredly be stuck, one at a time, separately. (Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, AAPS Board member and former President; Editor-in-Chief, JPandS)

The Cold War lives on at the AAPS. Illegal drug use is regarded as a weapon of Russian domination; generation-spanning conspiracies are envisioned, their purpose to enslave the citizens of the United States.

Given today’s relative East-West freedom to interact and widespread belief in the West that the Cold War has ended, mind control drugs could well be far more important in shaping world events today when distrust of the Russians and Chinese has all but vanished — especially among those most at risk; that is, important Western targets. (Joseph Douglass, Jr., PhD)
I predict the widespread use of these drugs, many of which increase free radical generation and elicit excitotoxic reactions in the brain, will lead to a society filled with young people crippled by neurodegenerative diseases. They will be unable to work, think clearly, and will essentially become wards of the state, exactly what the Soviets wanted… a nefarious program created in the former Soviet Union that exceeds even the far-reaching imaginations of Hollywood writers… was designed to destroy a civilization for many generations to come; to create chaos, disease epidemics, violence, broken homes, ruined lives, and the eventual collapse of freedom itself… The old Soviet intelligence services have joined forces with the Russian Mafia in a quest to dominate the world economically and politically. (Russell Blaylock, MD, Member, Medical Sentinel Editorial Board)
Much of the collectivist international entanglement and domestic plunder is and must be done by subterfuge, because the plain, simple, direct, elementary language of the Constitution forbids even entertaining thoughts of subjugation of the(se) United States in the collective socialism of the “ecumenical” quagmire of the new world order. (Curtis Caine, MD, AAPS Board member)

In sum, the political views of AAPS can be fairly described as ultra-conservative-libertarian-individualist — with a generous helping of conspiracism thrown into the mix — reminiscent of the philosophy espoused by the John Birch Society.

Controversial Issues

AAPS opposes the provision of abortion by physicians to patients who seek it. AAPS supports pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and opposes over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill.

AAPS discourages federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and describes embryonic stem-cell researchers as scheming to “pick taxpayers’ pockets” rather than seeking to expand scientific knowledge to relieve human suffering:

Proponents of embryonic stem-cell research say that the federal funding is necessary to maintain America’s preeminence in biomedical science. This appears to be a weak pretext for picking taxpayers’ pockets. As to America’s competitive edge, its future depends more on the genius and resourcefulness of our scientific enterprises, thriving in a wholesome atmosphere of low taxes and limited government, than on profligate infusions of taxpayer cash. (AAPS Newsletter)

In Medical Sentinel, an AAPS Board member condemns the theory of evolution in favor of “the creation religion of Jehovah.”

Humanists employ the slight of hand linguist trick of substituting the religion of evolutionary humanism for the creation religion of Jehovah by tagging the latter “religion, forbidden by the First Amendment” and the former “scientific fact.” Both labels, like humanism itself, are conspiratorial fabrications. (Curtis Caine, MD, AAPS Board member)

The AAPS condemns programs that encourage physicians to warn patients about the potential dangers to children of guns improperly stored in the home. They assert that those who advocate for such counseling are motivated by self-interest and bigotry rather than concern for the welfare of children, and that those who engage in it are committing “boundary violations.”

In what is described as an effort to curb handgun violence, a group called Doctors Against Handgun Injury, a spin off of the AMA and organized medicine, is calling for sweeping changes in the patient-doctor relationship that would allow physicians, including psychiatrists, to pry into their patients’ gun ownership… The American Psychiatric Association has regrettably joined Doctors Against Handgun Injury, the gun prohibitionist coalition. This coalition — which also includes the American Medical Association and, not surprisingly, the strident (i.e., when it comes to gun control) American Academy of Pediatrics and ten other medical organizations reportedly comprising 600,000 doctors — has called for a variety of patient privacy-invading measures in the name of gun safety. Don’t be fooled by their innocuous-sounding name and publically stated objectives… With good reason, patients may now perceive that their doctors, in asking them about guns in their homes, are acting more as an arm of the government prying into their personal lives than as their advocates in health care. (Miguel Faria, Jr., MD, Editor Emeritus, Medical Sentinel)
They profess concern for patient safety. But their ulterior motive is a political prejudice against guns and gun owners. And that places their interventions into the area of unethical physician conduct called boundary violations. (Timothy Wheeler, MD)

AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg presents his theories as a guest of AAPS. Fellow AIDS denialist Nathaniel Lehrman — advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) — judges homosexuality as inherently conducive to crime and disease:

…the “gay” male lifestyle significantly increases the incidence of infectious disease and shortens life expectancy by about 20 years… The concept of homosexuality as a permanent “orientation” is, however, without scientific validation; the notion is entirely politically grounded. One effect of this new view has been to understate the medical and societal harm produced by the promiscuous sexual practices typically associated with homosexuality… [E]ven though homosexuals seeking to change often succeed in doing so (frequently with the aid of therapy), the AMA statement, by publicly opposing “reparative” or “conversion” therapy “based on the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation,” seems to take an implicit moral position of denying that such change should occur. (Nathaniel Lehrman, MD)

Undocumented immigrants are described by Madeline Pelner Cosman — a trial lawyer and featured speaker at the 2004 Annual Meeting of AAPS — as ominous threats to public health. The author’s assertions are largely supported by newspaper articles and political literature.

The influx of illegal aliens has serious hidden medical consequences. We judge reality primarily by what we see. But what we do not see can be more dangerous, more expensive, and more deadly than what is seen. Illegal aliens’ stealthy assaults on medicine now must rouse Americans to alert and alarm… What is seen is the illegal alien who with strong back may cough, sweat, and bleed, but is assumed healthy even though he and his illegal alien wife and children were never examined for contagious diseases. By default, we grant health passes to illegal aliens. Yet many illegal aliens harbor fatal diseases that American medicine fought and vanquished long ago, such as drug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, plague, polio, dengue, and Chagas disease…
Tough medicine could end the cataclysm in American medicine. I suggest the acronym CRAG for four critical actions to reclaim America’s EDs; to restore medicine’s proud scientific excellence and profitability; and to protect Americans against bacterial, viral, parasitic, and fungal infectious diseases that illegal aliens carry across our borders. Close America’s borders… Rescind the citizenship of anchor babies… Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a crime… Grant no new amnesties. We must choose either to surrender medicine to illegal aliens, or to fight illegal aliens. Surrender to illegal aliens is surrender to collectivist America: land of moral ambiguity and home of pacifist appeasement. Fighting against illegal aliens is fighting for individualistic America: land of moral strength, and home of responsible liberty. As we fight to reclaim medicine, so we defend our nation. (Madeleine Pelner Cosman, PhD, Esq.)

Opponents of fluoridation are portrayed as struggling heroes fighting against an intransigent, all-powerful establishment:

Fluoride in water is also a medication that is forced upon people who do not want it. This is arguably a violation of law, because in the United States, people may not be medicated without their permission. Fluoridation is different from chlorination of water because the chlorine is used to kill microbes, not to medicate people… Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. (Joel Kauffman, PhD)

The EPA is accused of fraud for banning the use of DDT, and the federal government of irresponsibility for banning the use of asbestos in construction.

The most common examples of fraud in the United States appear to be environmental, including acid rain, ozone holes, carbon dioxide, ultraviolet radiation, global cooling, global warming, endangered species, and pesticides. This article will primarily concern the last, especially DDT. (J. Gordon Edwards, PhD)
Tens of millions of dollars in government money are being spent on investigations of the WTC collapse. Paid for by government, these studies are designed to exonerate government. A researcher would risk his career and future funding by asserting that government negligence or malfeasance contributed to the WTC collapse… The litigation-fed hysteria over asbestos has led to the fiction that adequate substitutes exist… While there may be risks associated with certain forms of asbestos, these are far less than the risks of many substances that are still widely used or ingested despite lack of any compensatory benefits, such as cigarettes. (Andrew Schlafly, Esq., AAPS General Counsel)

A rehabilitation doctor with no declared expertise in autism offers advice on autism prevention. Edward Harshman makes reference only to a psychiatry textbook and a general article on autism prevalence, with no acknowledgement of the considerable body of research disputing theories that propose that autism is a maladaptive emotional response to social influences or parental behavior.

While [current] theories do partially explain autism, parental behavior has been generally overlooked… Boys are more likely than girls to become autistic. Genetics aside, our society tolerates a wider range of behavior in girls than in boys, as with women relative to men, because of recent social changes. A boy, if troubled by social pressures, is less likely than a girl to share his feelings openly and have them handled constructively by sympathetic parents or friends. He therefore risks reacting dysfunctionally, perhaps by severing his emotional link to the rest of the world to insulate himself from pain… To prevent autism, preserve children’s right to have feelings and opinions that are inconvenient. Permit disagreement; confine your discipline to actions and behaviors. (Edward Harshman, MD, MBA)

AAPS describes its publications as “peer reviewed journals.” However, whereas conventional peer review generally involves careful scrutiny of submissions to determine their scientific rigor and overall level of scholarship, AAPS’ primary criterion appears to be the compatibility of an author’s views on political and moral issues with the official positions of AAPS. A high tolerance is demonstrated for speculative and unorthodox opinions and hypotheses, often substantiated by minimal academic sources.

AAPS & Vaccination

AAPS opposes “mandated vaccination,” calls for its members to “insist upon truly informed consent for the use of vaccines,” persistently questions the safety and efficacy of immunization to prevent infectious diseases, and offers dire scenarios of supposed threats posed to children by vaccination requirements for public school entry.

If children do not receive all the mandated vaccines, because of their beliefs or individual medical circumstances, they may be deprived of their liberty to associate with others or of their supposed “right” to a public education. (Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director, AAPS)

AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient declares that federal provision of recommended vaccination schedules constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine:

By means of vaccine policy, which was previously discussed in these pages, the federal government is effectively making critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children… The relationship of patient and physician is shattered: in administering the vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent of the state. (Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director, AAPS)

In the Spring of 2000, Medical Sentinel devotes an issue to vaccines. An editorial asserts that immunization programs are a sign of “collectivist morality” and agents of social control:

It’s time physicians choose: In vaccination, as in everyday practice, is it the dictate of your conscience to abide by the individual-based Oath and ethics of Hippocrates or to comply with the collectivist morality of population-based medicine? (Miguel Faria, Jr., MD, Editor Emeritus, Medical Sentinel)
…these mandatory public health policies subordinate the patient-doctor relationship to the manifest interest of the state… This collectivist ethic is rooted in the new tenets of population-based medicine associated both with managed care and “national health” policies… Government wants to protect us from ourselves, and control entire populations from birth. (Miguel Faria, Jr., MD, Editor Emeritus, Medical Sentinel)

In the special Medical Sentinel issue, Medicine as a Tool of the State, the American Academy of Pediatrics is accused of unethical collusion with a vaccine manufacturer for accepting charitable contributions for a building campaign; pediatricians are accused of engineering well-baby visits to maximize vaccine-related profits, rather than to provide appropriate preventive health care to vulnerable infants.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a major supporter of mandatory chickenpox and other vaccine mandates across the country, shares incestuous financial ties with Merck. When constructing its new headquarters in suburban Chicago, the AAP solicited funds from Merck, and received $100,000 for its building campaign. Vaccines represent an economic boon for pediatricians. Profitable well-baby visits are timed to coincide with vaccination schedules established by the AAP and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Kristine M. Severyn, RPh, PhD)

Medical Sentinel articles about vaccination focus primarily on immunization programs’ presumed threat to physician and patient autonomy.

The vaccine market is also a perfect target for socialistic do-gooders, because nobody questions a plan to prevent children from getting crippling diseases… Vaccines make a very powerful argument for socialized medicine. Even hard-core libertarians usually admit that it is good to have government-sponsored vaccinations. A broader and centrally-managed vaccine program that goes unchallenged will set an example for government management of other medical operations… There is too much money and politics favoring a dictatorial vaccine policy. (Roger Schlafly, PhD)

A few Medical Sentinel articles, such as F. Edward Yazbak’s Adverse Outcomes Association with Post-partum Rubella or MMR Vaccine, offer a scientific rationale for suspicion of vaccination, based on cases of “self-selected women who read materials that focus on suspected adverse effects of vaccines.” (Although Dr. Yazbak discloses in later articles that he is grandfather to an autistic child, he does not disclose that fact in this article.)

Other authors minimize the significance of immunizations in the decline of dangerous infectious diseases, and accuse government officials of overstating their efficacy. Official responses to reports of adverse reactions and the replacement of old vaccines with newer formulations are interpreted as evidence of poor research, ignorance or self-interest.

…all the hoopla about the success of vaccines had to do more with timing than anything else. Whooping cough, measles, and diphtheria were mostly under control by the end of World War II, when vaccines began to appear… This decline, however, has been conveniently forgotten (or covered up) to bolster the notion that vaccines dramatically reduce and prevent disease.
Complications with three vaccines have caused them to be suspended… Many questions need to be answered and better research on vaccines needs to be carried out… The best that can be hoped for is more freedom for parents to decide what immunizations their children receive. While I doubt that “officials” will ever go that far (they “know” better what your child needs than you do), the opportunity to break down the juggernaut of automatic acceptance and implementation of vaccines is present like it has never been before. When the establishment admits its own errors, their citadel is ripe for storming… I often place “officials” in quotes because they are either grossly ignorant or they have hidden agendas — power, money, self-aggrandizement, etc. All these cancel any moral authority they have. Unfortunately, many have legal authority to enforce their tainted opinions. (Franklin Payne, MD)

In 2001, AAPS introduces the “vaccine defense” against accusations of child abuse through violent shaking. Introducing the article, Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis?, AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient scoffs at the thought that some people abuse children, and minimizes the contribution of vaccines to the prevention and eradication of infectious disease.

Parents (and grandparents and au pairs) have, for some reason, apparently developed an inclination to shake their babies violently… Will future generations study our times in the same light as the era of witch trials, or the age of denial of the importance of hygiene? (Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director, AAPS)

From Political Polemics to Scientific “Evidence”

Medical Sentinel contained a preponderance of political commentary on issues pertaining to medical practice. In 2002, AAPS decided to revamp their journal — giving it a new name, a more professional appearance, and shifting its editorial focus from political commentary to “more articles of a scientific nature, particularly if they are relevant to contemporary policy debates.” Sporting a new masthead, AAPS would devote an increasing amount of space to scientific articles reflecting the organization’s politics and philosophy.

The refurbished publication — Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons — was unveiled in March 2003. JPandS promptly distinguished itself for featuring articles offering scientific justification for the AAPS opposition to abortion. Assertions made in Karen Malec’s The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent, Brent Rooney’s Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births and Joel Brind’s Induced Abortion as an Individual Risk Factor for Breast Cancer have since have been disputed by numerous cancer researchers. JPandS continues Medical Sentinel‘s tradition of conservative political commentary on medical topics, and has also published articles on hyperbaric oxygen therapy, including its controversial use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis; pain management, opioids, and physician prosecutions; hospital pricing transparency; sham peer review; nutritional treatments for ADHD and herpes; low dose radiation therapy for cancer; and the effects of diagnostic and environmental radiation.

Over the past three years, JPandS‘ editors have devoted the greatest proportion of its space to articles alleging drastic harm by vaccines. The inaugural issue featured the first appearance in an AAPS journal of Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier, a father-son consulting team specializing in providing legal consultation to vaccine-injury plaintiffs. Almost every subsequent issue of JPandS has featured articles associating vaccines with autism or death, and critical of vaccine research, some written by authors previously published in Medical Sentinel, others by newcomers.

Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States (Mark Geier, MD, PhD; David Geier, BA)
Is Vaccination Dissent Dangerous? (Roger Schlafly, PhD)
A Case-Control Study of Mercury Burden in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (Jeff Bradstreet, MD; David Geier, BA; Jerold Kartzinel, MD; James Adams, PhD; Mark Geier, MD, PhD)
Autism in the United States: a Perspective (F. Edward Yazbak, MD)
Detection of Measles Virus Genomic RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Children with Regressive Autism: a Report of Three Cases (Jeff Bradstreet, MD; Jane El Dahr, MD; A. Anthony, MB, PhD; Jerold Kartzinel, MD; Andrew Wakefield, MB)
Chronic Microglial Activation and Excitotoxicity Secondary to Excessive Immune Stimulation: Possible Factors in Gulf War Syndrome and Autism (Russell Blaylock, MD)
An Investigation of the Association Between MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark (Gary Goldman, PhD; F. Edward Yazbak, MD)
The Shaken Baby Syndrome (Ronald Uscinski, MD)
Is it “Shaken Baby,” or Barlow’s Disease Variant? (C. Alan Clemetson, MD)
Does Free Iron in the Brain Interact with Vaccines to Trigger Lipid Peroxidation and Hemorrhagic Encephalopathy? (Harold Buttram, MD)
MMR and Autism in Perspective: The Denmark Story (Carol Stott, PhD; Mark Blaxill; Andrew Wakefield, MB, FRCS)
Association of MTHFR Gene Variants with Autism (Marvin Boris, MD; Allan Goldblatt, PA; Joseph Galanko, PhD; S. Jill James, PhD)
Reflections on “Shaken Baby Syndrome”: A Case Report (Jane Orient, MD)
Post-Mortem on a “Shaken Baby Syndrome” Autopsy (F. Edward Yazbak, MD)
On Evidence, Medical and Legal (Donald Miller, Jr., MD, Clifford Miller, Esq.)
New Vaccine for Shingles: Is Prevention Really Better than Treatment? (Joel Kauffman, PhD)
World Health Organization Vaccine Recommendations: Scientific Flaws or Scientific Misconduct? (Marc Girard, MD, MSc)
“Shaken Baby Syndrome”: Do Confessions by Alleged Perpetrators Validate the Concept? (Jan Leestma, MD, MM)
Vaccines, Apparent Life-Threatening Events, Barlow’s Disease, and Questions about “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (Michael Innis, MBBS)
Caffey Revisited: A Commentary on the Origin of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (C. Alan B. Clemetson, MD)
Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines (David Geier, BA; Mark Geier, MD, PhD)

Symbiotic Relationships

The escalation of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ storming of the immunization citadel, and the emergence of a multitude of new contributors of articles on the subject, followed the escalation of a well-funded campaign by personal injury lawyers, and political action and grantmaking organizations aimed at convincing great numbers of parents of autistic children that those children were autistic as a consequence of vaccine injury for which they should be entitled to compensation. According to a January 2002 Autism-Mercury newgroup post, attorney Jeff Sell, cofounder of the Vaccine Injury Alliance, stated:

I don’t think the ‘pharm companies will just declare bankruptcy AND/OR congress will just end up bailing out pharm companies / doctors from liability and no one will get much of anything?’ If I did we surely would not have invested over a million dollars to date in these cases. I fully understand that folks will need serious money to provide for their children and loved ones — I have autistic twins remember, so I get a double whammy on everything from nutritional supplements to OT services.

Between July 2002 and September 2003, the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) caseload skyrocketed from 400 to 3,200 pending complaints alleging vaccine-induced autism. The number currently stands at over 4,700. Parents need only complete a simple short form and pay a $150 filing fee to initiate a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) claim. In their recent study of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System filings, Michael Goodman and James Nordin discovered that 27% of litigation-related complaints to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) do not contain a vaccination date. This, as well as the testimony offered in many public statements made by parents on online autism newsgroups, suggests that many families have insufficient evidence to prove that their autistic children suffered adverse reactions at the time of vaccination, and that many have been retrospectively convinced that their children are autistic because they have been iatrogenically damaged.

Autism per se is not already recognized by the VICP as a vaccine injury. Lawyers representing plaintiffs who allege that their children were made autistic by vaccines are therefore required establish “general causation,” i.e., they must prove to the satisfaction of the court that autism is often caused by vaccine damage. The general causation issue had not been argued in the OAP in 2003, and remains undecided today. It was not until February 14, 2006, that the Petitioners’ Initial Declaration of Experts was filed with the Special Master of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. Several class action lawsuits with requests for jury trial are also pending.

Initiation of legal action against pharmaceutical companies and government agencies in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence to support a causal connection between vaccines and autism — in the words of Mark Blaxill —

puts the blame game before the scientific inquiry…

The blame game continues, as does the scientific inquiry. Numerous large-scale epidemiological studies have dismissed a causal connection between autism and vaccines. Clinicians with expertise in autism and toxicology have clearly distinguished between symptoms of autism and those of mercury toxicity. Concurrently, parent-advocates and sympathetic scientists under pressure to present legal proof of “general causation” — proof that did not exist at the time that any now-suspect vaccines were administered — have produced a multitude of articles positing a connection between autism and vaccine injury, for use as evidence in an adversarial judicial process, and have disputed any evidence that would undermine the attainment of their litigation agenda. An aggressive public relations campaign is also underway aimed at cultivating widespread public belief that autism is a consequence of poisoning, and thereby gaining political support for litigants.

AAPS has wholeheartedly facilitated this activity, which furthers its longstanding political agenda of undermining support for public health programs and promoting suspicion of vaccines. In the three years since its refurbishment in 2003, JPandS has published 21 articles promoting a link between vaccines and autism or death, some heralded by press releases widely-distributed by the AAPS and other organizations.

It is a marriage of convenience that is both fortuitous and ironic, considering the recent AAPS public statement on malpractice reform:

AAPS supports tort reform measures, but any long-term solution must address causes… We need to put patients back in the financial equation, and remove lawyers from it…

As recently as May 2000, Miguel Faria, Jr. wrote passionately about the need for tort reform:

…rampant litigation [has] become a malevolent trend threatening to unravel the fabric of society and individuals. The trend has recently cranked up to high gear as attorney-litigators have found yet new venues for enacting disruptive litigation… The trial lawyers have found allies in the media who see an opportunity to correct perceived evils of society which they attribute, among other things, to economic maldistribution and legal inequities of the past. They see litigation against “deep pocket” defendants as a means to redistribute wealth and of correcting social injustice (either real or imagined).
Significant medical liability (tort) reform at the state level, if not at the federal level, should include… Redefinition of the statutory standard of care which is often open-ended, and allows medical experts reviewing the care after the fact, to find legal fault with the treating physician simply because the physician did not choose the treatment alternative the expert would have selected. Instead, we should propose the adoption of the “reasonable medical judgment” standard that has the potential of reducing the use and cost of defensive medicine. (Miguel Faria, Jr., MD, Editor Emeritus, Medical Sentinel)

Only a few years later, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons would be transformed into one of the primary media allies of litigators and plaintiffs seeking to review medical care after the fact, and find legal fault with physicians, vaccine developers and public health authorities who exercised accepted standards of care prevalent at the time they made their decisions.

Five plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding have contributed to articles on the subject to JPandS (Mark Geier, Jeffrey Bradstreet, Boyd Haley, Andrew Wakefield, and James Adams); other authors have served as expert witnesses in homicide cases (Harold Buttram, Edward Yazbak, Ronald Uscinski, Jan Leestma and Michael Innis), or in MMR litigation in the U.K. (Carol Stott, Andrew Wakefield, Jeffrey Bradstreet).

In their article, On Evidence, Medical and Legal Dr. Donald Miller and lawyer Clifford Miller (an active participant in the MMR controversy in the U.K.) assert the superiority of legal standards of proof over evidence-based standards of proof, causation, efficacy and practice generally accepted in medicine and science. They seem to imply that a single case study should be sufficient to prove causation of harm — and, by extension, legal liability — in cases involving many thousands of claimants with widely varying circumstances and documentation.

…scientific standards of proof are not uniform and well defined, in contrast to legal standards. Standards of measurement, ways of reporting and evaluating results, and particular types of experimental practices vary. As a result, there is no simple and reducible algorithm against which “good” science can be evaluated. There is another aspect of the scientific standard of proof that particularly impacts medicine. Science’s quest for objective certainty admits only a narrow range of evidence… With regard to uncommonly occurring and rare events like adverse drug reactions and vaccine-induced autism, judges need to realize that a CDR [child death review] case report and CD case series alone can prove causation to a very high standard… medicine needs to develop a better understanding of the nature of evidence and of evidentiary proof, by emulating law’s approach to evidence. Law in turn needs a better understanding of the shortcomings of medicine’s current approach to evidence.…

Relaxed editorial standards and the haste to produce “science” that supports predetermined conclusions and offers a scientific rationale for a political and legal agenda, have been accompanied by some notable irregularities in articles published in JPandS.

Disclosure issues include Jeffrey Bradstreet’s failure to indicate in the 2003 article, Case-Control Study of Mercury Burden in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, then-pending vaccine-injury claims he had filed in November 2002 on behalf of his autistic son and non-autistic daughter. Those proceedings were not dismissed until May 2004, and constituted a significant source of bias. In Association of MTHFR Gene Variants with Autism, co-author S. Jill James did not disclose that she is mother to an autistic child, a personal relationship acknowledged by other authors on the subject as a potential source of bias. Neither were the funding sources of the MTHFR study disclosed. In Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines, published in March 2006, Dr. Mark Geier did not disclose his status as an expert witness on behalf of petitioners in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding.

Problems with scientific methodology occur, for example, in Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, where Mark Geier and David Geier make specious comparisons between autism — a pervasive and lifelong condition — and acute, short-lived vaccine reactions. They confuse increase in incidence of diagnosis with increase in prevalence of autism; assert that similar abnormalities exist between autism and mercury poisoning, citing the claims of non-scientists with no clinical experience in toxicology, at least one of whom was involved in civil litigation alleging vaccine injury; fail to consider research documenting prenatal developmental anomalies and large head size in autistic subjects; and disregard epidemiological studies that do not support their assertions. The Geiers’ most recent study uses faulty statistical methodology and inappropriate measures for determining autism prevalence. David Geier had, in fact, announced the results of this study several months prior to conducting the analysis of the data upon which it was based.

As ironic as the fellowship between a dedicated litigation team and an organization that ostensibly supports tort reform is the readiness of individuals like the currently-liberal Arianna Huffington, environmental-activist-turned-wind-energy-opponent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., former gay-interest writer David Kirby, and assorted so-called “progressives,” to uncritically accept and publicize “science” emanating from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons — a bastion of ultra-conservatism that:

— advocates for an absolute minimum of government oversight or quality control in the provision of health care;
— rejects efforts intended to minimize the incidence of potentially disabling and fatal infectious diseases, and consistently questions the integrity of those who engage in those efforts;
— rejects public policies intended to provide adequate health care to those in reduced circumstances — a class that includes many disabled citizens;
— publishes anti-homosexual and anti-immigrant polemics, and the works of AIDS denialists and creationists;
— advocates for a return to the use of asbestos in construction;
— promotes conspiracy theories reminiscent of those spawned in the McCarthy era;
— and has provided a platform for an utterly unqualified commentator who argues that autism is a consequence of social, emotional and parental oppression.

But then, these are things that happen when scientific inquiry is subordinated to politics and the blame game.

Comments


  1. Ok, I’ve gotten half the way through and need to start jotting notes:
    Ayn Rand, creationists, AIDS denialists, and anti-stem cell research. Ok, continuing… Shockingly unscientific “research” papers, vaccine litigation, and big money trial lawyers.

    Ok, I’ve had enough. The organization behind JandPS is a pit of vipers to be sure. I have no tolerance for elitist Ayn Rand zombies. The root of the extreme right-wing, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-government types masking themselves as libertarians is becoming clear now.

    Amazing work, as usual. Please disregard the hatemail you’ll get over this post, I’m sure the extremists will be out in force.

    — Bartholomew Cubbins    2006-03-12 18:04    #

  2. I thought JPandS was just a really crappy pseudoscience rag. Now I’m starting to think I would reach for a handful of poison ivy over JPandS the next time I go camping and forget to pack the Charmin.

    — notmercury    2006-03-12 20:25    #

  3. I knew the AAPS was shady, but this is pretty horrifying. Wacky is too lighthearted a word for these folks.

    — Lisa Randall    2006-03-12 22:19    #

  4. NM, you’re not being fair to the innocent and environmentally beneficial Poison Ivy.

    Ethics First!

    — Dad Of Cameron    2006-03-12 22:56    #

  5. Someone send this woman some flowers and a gift certificate for a massage or something. This is a lot of work. Thank you, again.

    — Ms Clark    2006-03-12 23:34    #

  6. What, you mean Medical Sentinel/JandPS is a conspiracy wacko rag? No way.

    Peruse the anti-mercury/anti-vaccine boards and look at the political and social leanings of the regulars, and then compare them to the leanings of the AAPS.

    Exactly. Conspiracy theorists, true believers, charlatan quacks and ambulance chasers, one and all.

    — anonimouse    2006-03-13 13:31    #

  7. A long time ago, I read a book titled, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”, which was put out by the John Birch Society, apparently. This MS/JandPS bunch sounds exactly the same. Break out the tinfoil hats.

    Thanks, Kathleen.

    — Clay    2006-03-14 14:43    #

  8. Yes, yes of course. Anyone who dares to disagree with you folks is obviously a bunch of insane kooks that must be marginalized and ridiculed. Don’t they know that proper medical care must provided at the barrel of a gun. How dare they advocate for individual rights and the sanctity of the physician patient relationship. That’s just plain crazy!

    — Paula    2006-03-14 19:34    #

  9. Paula,

    As someone who quite enjoys Ayn Rand myself and who is a big believer in the philosophy of individual rights, I say that the JPandS and the Geiers simply fail to practice anything resembling decent science and that’s all there is to it. No amount of rhetoric will make the conspiracy theories of these groups the truth. Furthermore, Rand would be horrified at the little cult of personality objectivists have created around her. Live by logic and evidence, not by falling into the most fashionable “conspiracy of the month” or “What Would Ayn Do?” bumper sticker.

    In reality, it is the organizations that advocate concepts like mercury being responsible for autism that are members of the herd mentality. Furthermore, there is nothing anti-individualist about making a minimum health care option available to all, should that be the conclusion of a democratic society. To quote Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (certainly no socialist tract), “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater portions of its members are poor and miserable.” Don’t fall prey to dogmatism and thoughtless conspiracy theories. It is disheartening to see anyone who claims the high ground of classical liberal thought sinking so low.

    — Ari    2006-03-14 20:41    #

  10. Sorry Paula but no one here has criticised the former Medical Sentinel for having good values, it’s the damn awful values that I think most of us have some concern for. Two things stuck out for me: The first was the rejection of evidence-based medical science, the justification for which was conspiracy theory. Second was the completely ignorant suggestion on how to prevent Autism- as if the mountains of research and history on it did not exist and could be ignored. The author’s professional(not just personal) opinion was not based on anything rooted in reality.

    Some of what is said in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is genuinely there to encourage fear, hate and marginalise named groups of people such as illegal immigrants and homosexuals.

    The model of medicine that they practice is wide open to quackery without scrutiny. My grandfather used to tell me that before we had a national health service here in the UK, a lot of people in the area would always find a Jewish doctor because they were scrutinised: by their own community, their friends and family would not forgive them if they did something immoral to a patient. JAPS promotes the idea that medicine should be a business subject to full free-market capitalism. This is incompatable with medical science that is not evidence-based because then a quack doesn’t have to prove a treatment works, just that it’s cheaper than others.

    You may of course disagree with ‘us folks’, but please make a civil discussion instead of using ridicule yourself whilst accusing others of it.

    And to be honest, this publication hardly ever deals with science: it cherry-picks subjects to promote a political view vaguely related to the actual science. For that same reason, I actually did agree with the author that asserted it’s not a doctor’s business to know which of their patients owns a gun. But the crux of that kind of gets lost among the other rantings.

    — Lucas McCarty    2006-03-14 20:46    #

  11. Lucas make a good point. There is one issue that JPANDS deals with that is pretty mainstream among doctors and that is sham peer review. Hospitals have peer review committees that investigate claims of wrongdoing among their medical staff. The problem is, all too often these peer review committees are used by some doctors not to improve care but to eliminate competition, for example, getting rid of a competitor whose practice is growing at the expense of theirs. Sometimes it’s the hospital trying to get rid of a whistleblower who’s reporting shoddy care. Sometimes it’s personal spite. This is what’s known as “sham peer review.” See:

    http://www.semmelweis.org/issue.htm

    Unfortunately, there is no appeal and almost no legal recourse for doctors targeted by sham peer review.

    When JPANDS speaks out about sham peer review, it has a point. The problem is, its valid point is buried in so much of the other wingnuttery and quackery that JPANDS espouses that it’s easy to dismiss along with all the rest of the idiocy publsihed in that journal.

    — Orac    2006-03-14 23:52    #

  12. As Orac points out, concern about sham peer review is totally legitimate. So is concern about inappropriate prosecution of physicians who prescribe needed pain medications to their patients, and concern about the need for hospital pricing transparency. So is the matter of tort reform. Ongoing litigation is distorting public discourse about autism and vaccines, and creating a cottage industry for the production of incredibly shoddy “science” about both of these subjects, prepared by non-scientists and professional expert witnesses who proceed from foreordained conclusions.

    My point was not to trash people who believe in individual rights, but to describe the AAPS’ politics using the words of its leaders, members and featured authors; demonstrate how those politics dominate and slant their presentation of supposedly “scientific” information; illustrate the consistent negative attributions that are routinely made by AAPS authors about individuals whose behavior or beliefs they disapprove of (including gays, illegal aliens, “humanists,” most pediatricians, doctors who recommend safe storage of guns, embryonic stem cell researchers, anyone deemed to be part of “the herd”); and point out some significant inconsistencies between the organization’s official political positions and its actions as a publisher. When I read Miguel Faria’s article on tort reform, then thought about the direction the AAPS house organ has taken, I thought, whoah Nellie! now there’s some turnaround!

    — Kathleen Seidel    2006-03-15 09:36    #

  13. As an AAPS member, I can tell you that just like every other professional advocacy organization, it’s going to hold some beliefs with which many members may disagree. To tell you the truth, I also think some of the papers in their journal do more harm than good to the organization. Some papers are terribly “politically incorrect” and honestly out of the mainstream. However, I think everyone should be glad that there is an outlet for this kind of work. Germ theory and vaccines themselves were also thought to be the realm of “kooks” when they were proposed. There is a distinct danger to thinking that “because everyone believes it, it must be true”. And if you don’t think that the editors of all the “Ivory Tower” medical journals pick and choose content with political undertones that support their particular agenda you are terribly naive.

    — Dr. J    2006-03-15 10:53    #

  14. Dr. J, I agree with you that there is a distinct danger to thinking that “because everyone believes it, it must be true.” I would suggest that the mirror image of that statement also holds: that there is a distinct danger to thinking that “because this one person is so self-confident, his ideas must be true,” even if he can produce little independently verifiable evidence to substantiate his assertions.

    I wouldn’t automatically doubt that the editors of certain "Ivory Tower" medical journals pick and choose content that supports a political agenda. If anyone made the effort to investigate and document in detail their concerns and observations in that regard, I’d certainly consider what they had to say—especially if their editorial focus were autism or vaccines.

    — Kathleen Seidel    2006-03-15 12:47    #

  15. Dr. J,

    I’d suggest that if regular contributors to JPandS really felt as if their work could stand up to legitimate scientific scrutiny that they would publish it in mainstream journals. The reason these articles are in AAPS, in my opinion, is because they’re junk science that can’t get published anywhere else.

    — anonimouse    2006-03-15 12:55    #

  16. In what seemed to me to be a remarkably ironic juxtaposition, Dwight Meredith of Wampum cited the Geiers’ study, describing the JPandS as “the peer-reviewed quarterly journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).”
    Now, Dwight is the organizer of the well-regarded Koufax awards for left-leaning blogs, and just about as far from AAPS on the liberal-conservative axis as it’s possible to get.
    So I pointed out the contrast in a comment, using the word “bedfellow.” Dwight got a little huffy over that, and I apologized. I feel a little less sheepish now that I see the “b” word in your post’s title.
    As I write, there is still no indication that he has actually read the paper, or realized what a nest of vipers he has stumbled into.
    This is actually a very interesting test case. If Dwight Meredith can bring himself to call JPandS credible, it will demonstrate how the desperate need to believe can conquer even the deepest and widest political divide.

    — jre    2006-03-15 14:58    #

  17. Here’s something I stumbled upon this afternoon—Conservative Medicine, a snarky article from last April about AAPS, focusing on its politics and its personnel overlaps with the conservative news outlet NewsMax.com.

    The author, Terry Krepel, notes that NewsMax columnists Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak are both AAPS members; they’re also two of the fellows who unabashedly reported on AAPS member Boyd Haley’s summer 2004 lecture in which Haley offered the ill-advised phrase mad child disease as a metaphor for autism (a phrase also memorialized by another AAPS member, Donald W. Miller, co-author with lawyer Clifford G. Miller of the article on medical and legal evidence cited above).

    Krepel also draws attention to a very different story about convicted pain doctor William E. Hurwitz than that told by Hurwitz and his champions (Pain Control in the Police State of Medicine, Part I and Part II), or by Jane Orient in NewsMax.

    — Kathleen Seidel    2006-03-15 17:03    #

  18. I’m having a hard time understanding why overlawyered.com would link to this article. Ad hominem attacks? Self-righteous certitude? Tired liberal cliches? What’s the point here? Why don’t you try again, but this time, try to be a little less self important and smug. If you’ve got a problem with some research this group published then lay it out there. Tell us why it is invalid or incorrect. Teach us all a lesson and show us the errors in the paper. I’ve got no problem with that. But you just keep repeating that opposition to socialism and advocating limited government is akin to suffering from some type of mental illness. Do you read anything that’s not from moveon.org?

    — Jim    2006-03-15 22:55    #

  19. Jim, thanks for stopping by, even if you didn't like what you read. I'm grateful to Walter Olson for linking to my article, since it's attracted a few readers who might not otherwise have visited my autism weblog. No doubt he and I might disagree on many issues, but we share a concern about the deleterious social impact of lawsuits, which includes the dissemination of shoddy science and propaganda masquerading as science — these are problems no matter what point on the political spectrum it comes from. His focus is broad, whereas mine is pretty specific to autism. I've addressed my concerns about errors in the Geiers' most recent paper in a previous post; that paper has been widely criticized elsewhere, including by folks who are inclined to give credence to the possibility that autism is a consequence of toxicity. As for ad hominem attacks, self-righteous certitude, tired liberal cliches, or suggestions that opposition to socialism and advocacy for limited government are a sign of mental illness — I'm not sure where you found those in my article. Some of the comments on this page are pretty blunt, but I don't censor my commenters. (I do moderate comments in order to keep one persistent troll at bay.)

    I don't read a thing that comes from Move On these days; I'm too busy trying to keep current with the autism=poisoning controversy. I've offered more than a few pointed criticisms of the opportunistic environmental lawyer RFK Jr., and generally find myself in agreement with Michael Fumento on the thimerosal issue. I've also published an essay by Ari Ne'eman, a young man for whom I have a lot of respect, who holds decidedly conservative opinions on questions of individual rights and responsibility. Maybe that might take me out of the cliche zone?

    — Kathleen Seidel    2006-03-16 07:41    #

  20. It’s worth stating, for the record, that a hypothetical left-wing mirror image of JPandS would be just as worthy of criticism. The issues of flawed methodology, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and political advocacy (of whatever polarity) trumping scientific integrity are independent of which side of the aisle you’re on.
    I liked the courtesy and measured tone of Dr. J.’s comment, but disagree with the broad implications of the statement that ”[I]f you don’t think that the editors of all the “Ivory Tower” medical journals pick and choose content with political undertones that support their particular agenda you are terribly naive.”
    That statement is phrased narrowly enough that one could always pick a few examples to defend it—but I don’t think it is naive at all to expect scientific journals to at least strive for some kind of political neutrality, and in any event to always put the facts first.
    JandPS does not even try to be politically neutral, and has demonstrated countless times that it is willing to throw good science overboard to make room for more ideological cargo. The “Ivory Tower” journals are not even in the same category here, Dr. J. to the contrary.
    That’s why they are credible, and JPandS is not.

    — jre    2006-03-16 11:55    #

  21. The closest thing I can think of that is a left-wing type of publication is “Mothering”. That has come under severe criticism by Orac and others for its stance on vaccines and AIDS/HIV.

    Good science does not play political favorites. It is interesting that two organization that are polar opposites in politics do have similar opinions on several medical issues, including vaccines. They are the American Council on Science and Health… who even have a link to their left-wing UK counterparts, Spiked-Online on their Fact and Fears Page.

    — HCN    2006-03-16 21:17    #

  22. Okay, different format for a URL… try again: ACSH Fact and Fears Page

    Look down the list of links on the right, and you will find lots of different things, including Spiked Online (which is a couple of links above John Stossel)

    — HCN    2006-03-16 22:42    #

  23. This is in the catagory of “why couldn’t I find that link BEFORE I posted the comment?”. I even looked for it. I am so sorry for clogging this up with three comments that should have only really been one.

    But here it is, a commentary from the fairly libertarian ACSH on the Marxist bunch at Spiked-Online .

    Its concluding sentence is:
    “Science, which knows no party affiliation or cultural allegiances, is the best antidote.”

    — HCN    2006-03-16 22:50    #

  24. Hi Kathleen
    I have/am reading your comments and blog with interest. I think different in many ways but I respect a lot your concerns and deffense of autistic rights. As a mom of an ASD child I want a more inclusive world for all, considering with respect the different abilities. However, your comment on Michael Fumento surprised me. Dr Fumento demonstrated in several ocasions , in my opinion, a very close mind and a very bad attitude in front of parent´s open concerns.
    Please let me know if you are interested about. I would be glad to comment my ideas with you, if you are interested. If not, sorry if I disturbed you anyway.
    Sincerely
    María Luján

    — María Luján    2006-03-17 09:11    #

  25. Maria, thanks very much for visiting; there's no disturbance or inconvenience at all. That's what a weblog is for!

    I have just re-read several of Michael Fumento's articles about the autism-vaccine controversy, and can reaffirm my agreement with his perspective on that subject. Although he is scrappy and occasionally sarcastic about vaccine panic-promoters, in none of these articles do I see him insulting parents. His outspoken disagreement with certain parents' conclusions and statements about medical and scientific matters is not in itself a sign of disrespect. However, if you read through Fumento's vaccine hate mail, you'll see that he gives as good as he gets. Letter-writers who accuse him of dishonesty, stupidity, ignorance, malice, or just plain being an evil person, cannot expect a gentle reply, whether they're parents or not.

    — Kathleen Seidel    2006-03-17 10:57    #

  26. Kathleen
    Thank you for the information about the vaccine hate mail- I did not know this page. I agree with you that this is uncorrect and it is human to react.
    My point is that as a Dr , even when unfortunately he had to face the kind of situations you describe- that I disagree with-the reaction must not be ever equal, considering that all parents ( or people in general) are going to mistreat him if they disagree with him. Is like to react in advance, a situation that in the present debate is many times common.
    However, I did not see Dr Fumento discussing the science published on pharmacovigilance of vaccines for example or reactions in susceptible children. I also want to let you know that I think that vaccines are very important. Please let me know if you are interested in some review of the published literature on the topic. I would be interested on your opinion about.
    Thank you very much for your kindness in providing the links about further information I did not have. For me it is very important to have the most wide picture of the debate in all the aspects related to autism. Also it is very important the oportunity of to know the opinion of people thinking different than me. I do think that what is important here to me is to learn as much as I can to do the best decissions. Therefore I am very interested in science discussions ( but not only this aspect)-
    Thank you again

    — María Luján Ferreira    2006-03-17 12:15    #

  27. Amazing review of JPANDS Kathleen. Before much longer, I can see a bunch of these people sitting in a room somewhere. And, as the discussion goes round, one or more of them, with an idea about the stuff which has come tumbling out in the last couple of years about this vaccine-autism thing, will be thinking to themselves: “Hey, this room is full of crooks, quacks and idiots. What does that say about me?”

    Maybe not. Maybe they’ll just never get it.

    — brian deer    2006-04-14 18:04    #

  28. Kathleen,
    Good review, thanks. Did you find anything about JPANDS peer review process? Their site is very scant about their publication policies and the review process. Also, I am curious about the background and qualifications of the editors.

    — diego    2006-04-27 14:46    #