Showing posts with label Brian Deer. Show all posts

Wheeling & Dealing & Avoiding FDA Scrutiny at the Vaccine Business Industry (Big Pharma) Congress



The vaccine industry business congress  referenced above states that it is scheduled for Baltimore in the fall of 2011 although the agenda indicates dates in March 2011.   More significantly the first items on the agenda show clearly the priorities of Big Pharma, as the conference brochure itself refers to the vaccine industry, which are maximizing government sponsored funding and avoiding FDA scrutiny.  Great stuff.

Yes, the Congress brochure does refer, several times, to Big Pharma, so don't go all Orac berserk on me for using that expression.

No word on whether  Offit, Orac, Mnookin or Deer were/will be in attendance.

Posted in , , , , , , |

Will New Prohibition Against Exploring Possible Vaccine Autism Connections Stop ALL Environmental Autism Research?


The last few years have seen an all out offensive to shut down discussion of vaccines as possible triggers of autism disorders.  The withdrawal of the 1998 Lancet article, the banishment of Dr. Andrew Wakefield by British medical authorities, the conviction of Andrew Wakefield of fraud in The Court of Brian Deer and the mainstream media puppeting and promotion of the Deer conclusions have occupied much public space in discussion of autism disorders.  And of course no less a public figure than Bill Gates has accused those who question vaccine safety of killing children around the globe. Autism Speaks has declared that it "is time to change the conversation".  In other words "sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuttttttt up" or face the consequences.

In the era of the New Prohibition, the prohibition against discussion of  possible vaccine autism discussions, will research which MIGHT implicate vaccines as possible be prohibited? Environmental autism research focused on prenatal and early postnatal environmental impacts on the fetus and developmental disruption has been featured in reports to the US senate on the State of Research on Potential Environmental Health Factors with Autism and Related Neurodevelopment Disorders:

Paul Anastas Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and Science Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)


Because of its extraordinary complexity, prenatal and early postnatal brain and nervous system development can be disrupted by environmental exposures at much lower levels than would affect adults.5,6,7,8,9 We are learning that there are critical windows of susceptibility both prenatally and in early childhood, during which the effects of exposures to environmental contaminants, depending on dose and timing, can be significantly more severe and can lead to permanent and irreversible disability.10,11,12 For these and many other reasons, EPA is especially concerned about potential effects of environmental chemicals on children’s health and neurodevelopment.

Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S. Director, National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services

Development of the nervous system begins in the womb and extends through childhood. During these periods of rapid development, the brain is vulnerable to some environmental exposures that may have the potential to disrupt the chemical signals that organize development. Even small changes in the timing of critical development events can potentially have major consequences for brain structure and function. Thus even brief exposures at these vulnerable stages can have lasting effects on adult brain function. We refer to "windows of susceptibility: to mean the life stage at which the brain is exposed, during which different agents can effect the brain in specific and deleterious ways. For example, the dose of lead that is neurotoxic to an infant is much less than the dose that would be neurotoxic for an adult, so infancy in this case is a "window of susceptibility" .... Learning disabilities are on the rise in the United States and we now have a significant body of information on how exposure to certain environmental agents can affect children's intelligence quotients (IQs). For example, scientific literature attests to the effect of lead exposure in early life on IQ. ... Mercury also has been shown in multiple studies to be a developmental neurotoxicant. .... A study published last year from Columbia University showed that a mother's exposure to urban air pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can adversely affect a child's IQ.  PAHs are released into the air from the burning of coal, diesel, oil, gas and other organic substances such as tobacco.  In urban areas motor vehicles are a major source of PAHs. 

Bruce P. Lanphear MD, MPH Senior Scientist, Child & Family Research Institute, Professor, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Adjunct Professor, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center


Children’s environmental health -- the study and prevention of disease and disabilities in children from exposures to social, physical, biologic, and chemical agents -- has emerged as a new field of research, policy, and clinical practice (Landrigan et al. 1998). The growth of this field has been fueled by the emergence of new morbidities in children, research showing that the fetus and child are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences, and mounting evidence implicating environmental exposures as major risk factors for prevalent diseases and disabilities in children (Lanphear, 2005).


One in six American children have a developmental problem, from a subtle learning disability to overt behavioral disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism (Boyle et al. 1994; Hertz-Picciotto, 2009). These conditions can severely impair a child’s ability to succeed in school, elevate their risk for violent and criminal behaviors, and dramatically diminish their ability to contribute to society. The findings from some of the most thoroughly studied and widely dispersed environmental toxicants indicate that exposure to exceedingly low levels are risk factors for the “new morbidities” of childhood -- intellectual impairments, behavioral problems, asthma and preterm birth (Lanphear, 2005). Indeed, there is often no apparent threshold and, in some cases the effects appear to be greater at the lowest levels of exposure (England et al. 2001; Canfield et al. 2003; Lanphear et al. 2005; Yolton et al. 2005).

Exposures to established environmental toxicants -- such as lead, tobacco, PCBs and mercury -- have consistently been linked with higher rates of intellectual impairment or behavioral problems, such as conduct disorder and ADHD (Needleman et al. 1990; Schantz et al. 2003; Kahn et al. 2003; Wakschlag et al. 2002; Stewart et al. 2003; Needleman et al. 1979; Lanphear et al. 2005; Yolton et al. 2005). There is emerging evidence that a whole host of new environmental chemicals – such as Bisphenol A, PBDEs, pesticides, phthalates, and airborne pollutants – are associated with intellectual deficits or behavioral problems in children, but the evidence is not as conclusive (Rauh, 2006; Engel, 2010; Eskenazi, 2007; Braun, 2009; Perera 2009; Herbstman, 2010). Much of this research was done by the NIEHS/US EPA Children’s Environmental Health Research Centers working collaboratively with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Children’s developing brains are more vulnerable to certain toxicants and pollutants than adults. The central nervous systems of the fetus and young child, which are undergoing rapid changes, are particularly vulnerable to some toxicants. The fetus is a recipient of toxicants through placental transfer (Perera et al. 2003; Whyatt and Perera 1995; Bearer 2003). In some cases, such as mercury, the fetus is exposed to a larger dose than the mother (Ramirez et al. 2000). In other cases, such as organophosphate pesticides, the fetus may lack critical enzymes to metabolize environmental toxicants (Chen et al. 2003). Toddlers are often at greater risk for exposure to many environmental toxicants because they have a high degree of hand-to-mouth activity and they absorb some toxicants more efficiently (Bearer 1995).

As the above quotes illustrate environmental  research is examining many potential causes and triggers of autism disorders at the prenatal and early childhood stages.  Mercury is only one of the potential causes of autism being researched but it is one which is very sensitive to those who insist that discussion and research of possible vaccine autism issues must stop.   Teresa Binstock wrote about the "it's gotta be genetic" model of autism and the consequences for any professional who explored vaccine autism connections over a decade ago.   Much of what Binstock discussed is taking place now as Dr. Andrew Wakefield is well aware.  The current suppression of vaccine safety discussion and research will probably be accompanied by a complete return to the 100% genetic model of autism, a model which has already sucked the life out of environmental autism research funding for decades.  All serious efforts to find the environmental causes of the vaccine epidemic, to find out what is really happening to  our children are likely to come to an end.

Posted in , , , , , , , , , , |

Will Current Media Frenzy Attacking Possible Autism Vaccine Links Be Counter Productive?


Will the current media frenzy unleashed with the BMJ-Brian Deer fraud allegations (unproven in a court of law) against Andrew Wakefield, followed up with another Paul Offit big media tour, and a star celebrity turn by Bill Gates yelling "LIARS" in his very loud voice finally result in an increase in vaccinations or will it be counterproductive?    Feel free to register your vote on the poll at the top of the sidebar. 

Posted in , , , , , |

Should Wakefield Be Prosecuted as "Special to CNN" Commentator Advocates?



Alex B. Berezow, according to the CNN Opinion site, is the editor of RealClearScience and holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.  Mr. Berezow has provided a "special to CNN" opinion in which he argues that Dr. Andrew Wakefield should face  criminal prosecution for fraud in the United Kingdom AND in the United States. Alex B. Berezow Ph.D. repeats the accusation published in the BMJ that Wakefield falisfied patient histories in the now retracted Lancet study.  

Berezow leaves no doubt that, in his mind, Wakefield is guilty of fraud:

"It is for these reasons that Wakefield should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of American and British law. Perhaps if he spends the next few years behind bars, people who have suffered from the impact of his actions will see that justice is being done."

Berezow does not consider the other possibility, the possibility that Wakefield is NOT guilty of fraud.  This humble small town Canadian lawyer lacks the intellectual brilliance of a microbiologist and CNN commentator, and lacks the ability to get past, as the mainstream media appears to have done,  that old fashioned "presumption of innocence" thing. 

It is not my place to tell authorities in any jurisdiction who they should prosecute, or for what alleged offences.  I do not advocate that Dr Wakefield should face prosecution based on the work of journalist Brian Deer or any journal publication.  If a prosecution does take place though,  as Mr Berezow desires, it would, at least, give Dr. Wakefield an opportunity to answer the allegations. At this time the fraud allegations, remain just that ... allegations, notwithstanding the massive media piling on and promotion of those allegations as though they were proven facts.

Will a fraud prosecution happen?  Or will unproven fraud allegations continue to be made with abandon in the mainstream media?  Dr. Wakefield would obviously lose much if convicted.  But the credibility of the BMJ, the Mainstream Media and Brian Berezow would suffer greatly if Dr Wakefield was acquitted or found NOT GUILTY.

I am going to guess wildly that no prosecution will occur, that those who allege Wakefield committed fraud  are happy to let the Mainstream Media repeat the allegations as fact and let it end at that.

Posted in , , , , , , |

What Court of Law Convicted Dr Andrew Wakefield of Fraud?


The "autism" news has been overwhelmed in the past 48 hours with news that Dr Andrew Wakefield committed fraud in conducting and publishing the MMR study which has since been retracted.  

I was aware that a medical society tribunal in the UK had found problems with the MMR study but I was unaware that a court of law, or governing medical society tribunal, had found Wakefield guilty of the serious offence of fraud.

If anyone knows which court of law,  or governing medical society tribunal,  found Dr. Wakefield guilty of fraud could you post a link to this site please?

Thank you.

Posted in , , , |

Search

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark. Converted by LiteThemes.com.