Recent Movies
‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات Brian Deer. إظهار كافة الرسائل
‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات Brian Deer. إظهار كافة الرسائل

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

A Dose of Controversy Breezes Over Most Autism Vaccine Issues But Was Fair to Wakefield

I was actually pleased with the Matt Lauer/NBC coverage of the Wakefield/Deer and MMR/Vaccine Issues in A Dose of Controversy. I thought he was fair to Dr. Wakefield, giving him an opportunity to address allegations made against him. The program didn't go after Brian Deer for some of the allegations against him. While the program did give Paul Offit a free run to say what he wanted about vaccines and autism I thought he, of all people involved in the program, looked the most emotional and overwrought.

The coverage of vaccine-autism issues was light and glossed over many important issues including the "science disproving vaccine autism causal connections". The show did give Dr. Healy a brief spot to point out what is my main concern with the vaccine autism war - the obvious attempt to stifle scientific inquiry on vaccine autism issues that has been going on expressly since the IOM 2004 Report and the insufficiency of the scientific investigation to date of these issues. I don't know if Dr. Healy's sensible observations will make any impact on important audiences like IACC members but you never know.

A major criticism is the continuation of the characterization of parents as desperate, hysterical, dangerous, ignorant and unable to understand the issues or the science. It is a belief genuinely held by figures like Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Thomas Insel and it is a belief which prevents them from being able to make their case persuasively to parents.

These criticisms aside I was pleased that NBC tried to air both sides of the Wakefield/Deer MMR war instead of following recent trends and simply giving a one sided account based totally on the medical establishment position.




Bookmark and Share

Dr Wakefield's Formal Complaint Against Journalist Brian Deer

Some bloggers and mainstream media took as gospel, as decided fact, the allegations made against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by journalist Brian Deer in the Sunday Times (UK) last month. The article ran the week prior to the Vaccine Court's omnibus ruling in three cases involving allegations that vaccines caused autism and only 24 hours after Dr Wakefield claims he was informed of the story allegations. As reported by David Kirby at the Huffington Post, Dr. Wakefield has now filed a formal complaint against Mr Deer with the UK Press C0mplaints Commission. It should be must reading especially for those who accepted as decided facts the allegations made in the article.

Dr. Wakefield deals with the allegations in very specific, documented detail. As a lawyer who is regularly concerned with issues of fairness, proper notice and due process I am disgusted that a story such as Mr Deer's would run only 24 hours after giving notice to the person against whom the allegations are made. To make it worse the allegations were made against a person involved in a proceeding involving the same matters, a proceeding in which the journalist who wrote the article has been a key participant.

Some bloggers and mainstream journalists who accused Dr. Wakefield of data manipulation based on Mr. Deer's article may want to read Dr. Wakefield's complaint against Mr. Deer. They might also want to consider extending an apology to Dr. Wakefield.





Bookmark and Share

Vaccine-Autism War: Teresa Binstock's Prophetic Hunch

The dramatic events of the past two months in the vaccine-autism war were predicted a decade ago by researcher Teresa Binstock in her article IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change in which she reported the funding bias in favor of genetic based theories of autism causation. She also indicated that studies of potential environmental causes of autism, including vaccines and vaccine ingredients, were unlikely to receive funding. Studies which reinforced the prevailing "it's gotta be genetic" model of autism were favored. Binstock described the health establishment's disregard for parents' observations of their children's reactions to vaccine, the demeaning marginalization of parents and professionals who question the official autism paradigm and the disregard for contrary evidence. Ms Binstock noted that:

"when a medical model becomes institutionalized and its primary spokespersons become set in
their well funded ways, such institutions and individuals strongly resist change"

No medical model is anymore entrenched then the vaccine model of public safety. And few spokespersons are better funded than vaccine patent holder Dr. Paul Offit who has been on a never ending tour promoting his book about what he calls autism's false prophets. There are a number of indisputable good reasons for the entrenchment of the vaccine model: the reduction and near elimination of serious diseases, some of which can kill, are very powerful reasons in support of public vaccination programs. But few systems or models are perfect. Most require adjustment when problems are found.

If vaccines do cause harm in some cases then those harmful, and potentially harmful, effects should be studied and adjustments made. Unfortunately the vaccine programs have been elevated to a sacred level by public health authorities to such an extent that people who ask questions or voice concerns are dismissed as hysterical, as cranks, quacks, charlatans and any number of other pejoratives.

Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the GMC for several years. Journalist Brian Deer who has had some serious involvement with the laying of charges against Dr. Wakefield has recently published an article in the Sunday Times in which he "convicted" Dr. Wakefield of data tampering. Other imperious journalists like Andre Picard at the Globe and Mail have decreed that the debate over vaccine safety must end now. Imagine, a journalist dictating that free public discussion of public safety issues must end now?

Of course THE primary spokesperson for the entrenched medical model, the entrenched "speak no evil of vaccines model" is Dr. Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is the vaccine patent holder whose genial face, cozy sweaters and "regular guy" flannel shirts appear every other day in a major media interview describing his own heroics on behalf of the children of the world and demonizing the evil parents who have voiced their concerns about vaccines thereby contributing to the growth of disease and death.

In 1999 Teresa Binstock offered the following hunch which has proved prophetic:

My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004) proved Ms Binstock's hunch to be correct when it expressly discouraged further investigation of vaccine safety. Last month the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) confirmed her hunch as prophecy when it reversed its own decision reached only weeks earlier to authorize funding for research of vaccine-autism connections, research that might have provided the kind of evidence found to be non-existent in the recent Vaccine Court Autism Trilogy.

As Teresa Binstock predicted in 1999 any research of non-genetic causes of autism, including and especially, potential vaccine causes, will have to come from outside the public health establishment. Of course the ability to conduct such research will be further hampered by well orchestrated media campaigns led by Dr. Paul Offit with journalists from institutions like the Sunday Times, the New York Times and the Globe and Mail scurrying about helping to suppress public discussion of concerns which raise any doubts about the deeply entrenched vaccine health model.

Personally it is the suppression of research and public discussion which causes me the greatest concern about the safety of vaccine programs. Ultimately, as the Semmelweis case reviewed by Teresa Binstock shows, the truth will out. In the meantime though some vulnerable children might be harmed by vaccines and vaccine ingredients. harm that might have been avoided with some adjustments. The vaccine program itself will most definitely be harmed by the campaign to suppress research and discussion of vaccine safety concerns.




Bookmark and Share

So Much For Due Process: TimesOnline Convicts Wakefield Of Fixing Autism Data

In England, the land where the common law was born that ultimately provided the foundation for legal systems around the world, including the United States, Canada and Australia, due process is apparently viewed by the media as a quaint historical relic. At least one could reasonably reach that conclusion after reading MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism published February 8 2009 on TIMESONLINE. Dr. Wakefield, with two professors, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, is currently facing charges of serious professional misconduct brought by the General Medical Council (GMC).

Wakefield and the two professors deny the allegations but the TIMESONLINE, in an article by Brian Deer, has apparently decided to dispense with old fashioned notions of due process and is informing the world of its verdict:



"Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.

...

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal."

These are obviously very serious allegations. Perhaps I am biased, being a humble, small town lawyer in New Brunswick, Canada but I prefer to await the decision of the tribunal before reporting the verdict.




Bookmark and Share

Labels

أحدث المواضيع

 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2013. Entries General - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger