Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
I had tried to give the Dr. Mark Geier and his son David a rest for a while, as I suspected my readers may have been getting a little tired of my bashing them, no matter how deserved that bashing may have been. After all, they do shoddy science in the service of "proving" that mercury in vaccines causes autism. They concoct dubious IRBs riddled with conflicts of interest to "approve" their research. When the evidence that this is not the case becomes more and more compelling, they add a twist of a claim that many autistic children suffer from "precocious" puberty," which requires treatment with a powerful hormone blocking drug called Lupron (my take on this here). Unfortunately, the Geiers use very loose criteria to diagnose "precocious puberty," so much so that almost any child could qualify, particularly given the leading questions that parents are asked regarding their children's development of secondary sexual characteristics. Most recently, Kathleen Seidel has documented how the Geiers have now stopped referring to "precocious puberty" and started calling it "hyperandrogenicity in autism," as if the two terms are interchangeable. (They're not.)
But last week, a truly delicious judicial ruling came down. If you think the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was a lovely slapdown for "intelligent design" creationism, you'll love U.S. District Court Judge James Beatty's ruling against the Geiers' clients that came down on July 6 in the case of John and Jane Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
Basically, this case involves parents suing Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics because they believed that the thimerosal in RhoGAM given to the mother while she was carrying the child. RhoGAM is the trade name for Rho(D) immune globulin. This particular antibody is used to prevent hemolytic disease of the newborn that can happen when an Rh-negative mother has been sensitized to the Rh antigen by bearing an Rh-positive child (which can only happen if she has a child by an Rh-positive father, resulting in an Rh-positive fetus). The facts of the case are summarized as follows:
Plaintiffs allege that Minor Child Doe 2 ("Minor Child Doe") has suffered severe neurodevelopmental disorders and permanent injuries from exposure to toxic levels of mercury. Plaintiffs claim that this mercury exposure resulted from one single shot of RhoGAM that Jane Doe received while 28-weeks pregnant and another shot of RhoGAM that Jane Doe received shortly after Minor Child Doe's birth. Plaintiffs argue that this limited amount of thimerosal, which contains a mercury derivative, in both of those shots given to his mother caused Minor Child Doe to develop autism approximately sixteen months after his birth.
Relevant to my discussion:
In order to prove their claims Plaintiffs designated three experts on the question of whether thimerosal could cause autism: Dr. Mark Geier ("Geier"), Boyd Haley, Ph.D. ("Haley"), and George Lucier, Ph.D. ("Lucier").
Yes, this is one of the first real judicial cases conducted over whether thimerosal can cause autism. In this case, the claim is that it can affect the fetus in utero, although I'm puzzled how a shot of RhoGAM after the birth of Minor Child Doe could have anything to do with affects on the child. The implication seems to be that mercury in the mother's breast milk contributed to her child's autism, but, given the tiny amount of thimerosal in a single vial of RhoGAM, that seems a stretch even if you accept that mercury might be related etiolotically to autism. In any case, the judge had to rule on the admissibility of the scientific evidence and address the qualifications of the expert witnesses, particularly Dr. Mark Geier. Basically, Judge Beatty used a commonly used legal standard known as the Daubert standard, which takes its name from the case Daubert v. Merrel Dow Chemicals. Basically, according to Daubert, Federal Judges were to become the "gatekeepers" for expert testimony, requiring them to rule on the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Basically, there are two prongs to this standard: relevancy (the testimony of the expert must be relevant to the facts of the case and the determination of a judgment) and reliability (the expert must have developed his conclusions from the scientific method). As Judge Beatty summarizes:
The nature and necessity of a Daubert hearing is derived from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). Under Daubert, this Court must rule on the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Daubert requires a two-part analysis: first, this Court must determine whether an expert's testimony reflects "scientific knowledge," whether the findings are "derived by the scientific method," and whether the work product is "good science." Second, this Court must determine whether the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand." This gate keeping function is important because, "due to the difficulty of evaluatig their testimony, expert witnesses have the potential to be both powerful and quite misleading."In Daubert and related cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has elucidated a number of factors for District Courts to consider when determining whether to admit expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.4 For example, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Daubert that courts may consider whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether it can be and has been tested; whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and the existence and maintenance of standards and controls. These factors are not exclusive nor dispositive. Since Daubert, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have also identified additional factors that may be considered, such as whether an expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion, whether an expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations, or whether an expert is proposing to testify about matters "growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying."
So how did the Geiers do under the Daubert standard? Not well at all. Indeed, Judge Beaty gave Dr. Mark Geier a serious slapdown. He starts out, however, by simply summarizing some basics, namely that Dr. Geier based his claims mainly on a review of the literature rather than his own work, pointing out that the research cited by such an "expert" must also meet the Daubert test and concluding that Dr. Geier's testimony did not meet the Daubert standard. Some commentary in the ruling that justifies this conclusion:
He [Geier]is a medical doctor who specializes in obstetrical genetics with a Ph.D. as well in genetics. He is board certified in medical genetics and forensic medicine. However, it is significant to the Court that he is not board certified in pediatrics or in pediatric neurology, nor is he certified as an epidemiologist or biostatistician. Dr. Geier did serve as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 10 years and worked as a professor at John Hopkins University. While he has published more than 50 peer-reviewed medical papers, none of these prior publications were on the specific issue at hand, that is, whether RhoGAM with thimerosal causes autism. The Court has taken into account, as well, the fact that Dr. Geier has testified as an expert witness in about one hundred cases before the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of the United States Court of Federal Claims. It is noteworthy that in more than ten of these cases, particularly in some of the more recent cases, Dr. Geier's opinion testimony has either been excluded or accorded little or no weight based upon a determination that he was testifying beyond his expertise.
Ouch. That one's going to leave a mark. But Judge Beatty was just getting warmed up. First he dispenses with Dr. Boyd Haley's contribution, finding that
.
..Dr. Haley's report does not state an expert opinion that thimerosal causes autism, rather just that he has a theory about how such a thing could happen. At best, he expressed "strong belief" that the cause of "neurodevelopmental disorders in infants" is exposure to an organic-mercury compound such as thimerosal. Additionally, Plaintiffs proffered the report of Dr. Lucier, who is an expert in methylmercury and not ethylmercury, which is the substance in RhoGAM. Dr. Lucier does not offer an opinion that methylmercury causes autism, but rather that it may cause "developmental disorders." Significantly, the Court notes that neither Dr. Haley nor Dr. Lucier asserts that he is an expert on autism nor are they offered as such. In any event, the Court finds that neither of the proffered reports of Dr. Haley nor Dr. Lucier are sufficiently reliable under Daubert on the general causation issue because neither is relevant to the "task at hand." It would be an unacceptable scientific leap to suggest that they serve as proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of Plaintiff's claim that the thimerosal in RhoGAM can cause autism.
And all this is summarized in a single footnote! But Dr. Haley is lucky; he got off easily compared to Dr. Geier. What Judge Beatty says about Dr. Geier and his testimony is even more damning. Commenting on previous findings in previous cases that in which Dr. Geier's testimony was dismissed on the basis of "largely irrelevant" qualifications; his being a "professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise, and experience"; his "speculation that is directly contrary to the conclusions reached in well-respected and numerous epidemiologic and medical studies ranging over two decades"; his "neither being board certified nor [having] formal training in pediatrics and pediatric neurology"; his work not being "based on based upon scientific validity, valid methodology, peer review or testing, and more than
minimal support within the scientific community"; and, my favorite of all, a finding that Dr. Geier's testimony was "intellectually dishonest" and that his affidavit was "nothing more than an egregious example of blatant, result-oriented testimony."
"Results-oriented testimony"? Talk about a serious spanking! Yep, that just about sums up it up. He might as well have said "results-oriented research," which is pretty much the totality of the Geiers' work with respect to vaccines and autism. It gets better, though:
As revealed by his testimony at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Geier, however, relied upon a number of disparate and unconnected studies, including the findings of Dr. Haley and Dr. Lucier, to reach a piecemeal conclusion with respect to general causation that the small amount of thimerosal received in this case by the mother of Minor Child Doe during the course of her pregnancy and shortly after the child's birth, could cause autism. Dr. Geier's methodology consisted of attempting to connect various individual studies that had developed the existence of certain findings such as thefollowing: (1) mercury exposure could destroy neurons; (2) high levels of methylmercury exposure may cause developmental defects in children (Faroe Islanders study and Iraq study); (3) mercury can be transmitted through a mother's milk to her suckling child (Iraq study); (4) thimerosal can cross the blood-brain and placental barriers (this study considered doses of 1,000 micrograms of thimerosal, whereas the product RhoGAM has only about 10 micrograms of thimerosal); (5) direct and multiple (6x) injections of 50 miligrams of thimerosal can kill or deform embryonic chickens; (6) topical use of thimerosal as an antimicrobial by pregnant women may have caused birth defects; (7) a mouse model exposed to thimerosal in a way mimicking a childhood immunization schedule developed physical, psychological, and (Holmes study).Thus, on its face, all these study results, when pieced together, would seem to support Plaintiffs' general causation theory, as offered by Dr. Geier, that RhoGAM could cause autism.However, upon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier's analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court's view, to be overstated. For example, in examining Dr. Geier's methodology, the Court notes that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study, including anything that he had published, that conclusively determined that the amount of thimerosal in RhoGAM when given not to the fetus but to the mother, as in this case, could cause autism. It is also significant in the review of his methodology that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study that conclusively determined that any amount of mercury could cause the specific neurological disorder of autism. Even with respect to the Holmes study, which was an important part of Dr. Geier's methodology and ultimate conclusion, Holmes states the following in the last sentence of the paper: "Our study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism." (emphasis added). Such a conditional statement cannot meet the preponderance of the evidence standard that Plaintiffs need to meet to show that the thimerosal in RhoGAM could cause autism. This Court must find more than the "hypothesis and speculation," engaged in by Dr. Geier in this instance, in order to allow Dr. Geier to rely upon the methodology he used in forming a conclusion based upon his review of the literature presented to the Court. In any event, Dr. Geier's conclusion in this matter is not supported even by the literature he presented to the Court. Moreover, Dr. Geier's conclusion that the peer-reviewed literature he has relied upon supports his theory that autism can be caused by thimerosal is flatly contradicted by all of the epidemiological studies available at this time.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, I've made many of the very same points about the very same studies in previous posts (1, 2, 3). Indeed, Judge Beatty said essentially the same thing that I and others have said about the shoddy methodology and downright horrible statistical analyses used when the Geiers mined the VAERS database. And I particularly like the description of all the studies the Geiers rely upon as "a motley assortment." Man, are they ever motley! They're a bunch of poorly related studies, some shoddily performed, some represented as supporting a link between autism and mercury when in reality they do not. And that's the best evidence the mercury militia can come up with to counter large, well-designed studies that don'tfind a link.
The court was also not fooled by some of the Geiers' latest work, which has not yet been published, that Dr. Geier tried to sneak in to show that maternal exposure to RhoGAM causes autism:
Nevertheless, looking at these studies in conjunction with Dr. Geier's literature review, the Court remains unpersuaded that Dr. Geier's testimony meets the Daubert test, particularly because Plaintiffs have failed in each instance to show: (1) that the theory employed by Dr. Geier is generally accepted in the scientific community; (2) that Dr. Geier's most recent and most applicable work concerning RhoGAM has been subjected to peer review and publication; and (3) that Dr. Geier properly controlled his studies and maintained standards: particularly, that he failed to take into account that RhoGAM is not the only Rho D immunoglobulin on the market and RhoGAM's competitor did not contain thimerosal, and Dr. Geier admittedly has not separately analyzed which of his patients received Defendant's product RhoGAM and which received some other Rho D immunoglobulin to determine respective autism rates. Moreover, the Court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias in Dr. Geier's methodology and ultimate conclusion given the recency of Dr. Geier's research into the cause of autism, which he admittedly began in only the last two and a half years, a time period that also represents the pendency of this lawsuit.
"The court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias"? That's about as close as the judge can get to calling Dr. Geier a biased hack that you'll see in legal language.
You may have noticed that I haven't said all that much in this post and have mostly selected choice tidbits from the ruling to bolster my point. It's the same sort of thing that I did with the Kitzmiller decision, because it's the same sort of decision, when a judge, with startling clarity and vehemence, completely stomps on pseudoscience. Such decisions are rare and to be savored when they appear. Also, when the judge is mirroring my viewpoint in slapping down pseudoscience so well, I see little need to add a lot of my own commentary, except for a bit of background and (when I can't help it) a bit of sarcasm. Indeed, I was tempted to quote the judge further as he ripped Geier to shreds for his poor differential diagnosis skills and the fact that Geier never even considered or mentioned alternate hypotheses for the causes of autism. Geier never even mentioned the most obvious hypothesis other than his bête noire (mercury), namely genetic causes, which also happens to be the one that most investigators consider to be the primary cause, with others likely to be much less important. That Geier never even mentioned genetics as a cause, even if only to dismiss it and explain why he considered it less likely than mercury, reveals the depths of his bias, a bias that Judge Beatty clearly saw through. Throwing just a pinch of salt in the huge gaping wounds he had inflicted on Dr. Geier's credibility, Judge Beatty also pointed out that Dr. Geier could not pass his Boards in Pediatric Genetics, which means he is not certified even to be making differential diagnoses in that field.
Mark Geier should just be exceedingly grateful that this decision weighs in at only around 25 pages, rather than the 100+ pages Judge Jones produced in the Kitzmiller decision demolishing "intelligent design" and its adherents who testified in the case. Perhaps the reason the ruling is so short is because the plaintiffs' evidence was so bad that the case was dismissed with a summary judgment with prejudice.
But the issue of the Geiers aside, what's really interesting about this case is what it might mean for the Autism Omnibus hearings. As Kevin Leitch points out, Drs. Geier and Haley are two of the main expert witnesses and have been found severely wanting, as has the best evidence the mercury militia can come up with thus far. After a judicial humiliation like this, Mark Geier and Boyd Haley as "expert witnesses" are probably now liabilities to the plaintiffs in the Omnibus case. Mark Geier can continue to be the Don Quixote of the mercury militia, tilting at windmills made of mercury, but his credibility as an expert witness may have just taken a fatal blow. At least, we can hope that's the case.
Note: Prometheus and Kevin Leitch have also commented on this ruling.
Comments
I have already mentioned elsewhere that Geier's flurry of research was an attempt to back door support his testimony, as he saw the writing on the walls with those previous ten decisions. Expect more garbage.
This decision is a wonderful "how-to" manual for the DOJ attorneys on how to negate the horde of experts that that plaintiffs have listed in the Omnibus claim. Geier relies on his, Haley and some other's work, Haley relies on Geier and some other, etc. etc. It is really a tremendous house of cards created for the sole purpose of litigation as the Judge points out.
One can only hope that the USDOJ attorneys get a copy of the decision.
Posted by: TheProbe | July 10, 2006 9:47 AM
"BAM!" -Elzar, and that guy he parodies.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 10, 2006 10:07 AM
I strikes me that Geier must know that there's no link between mercury and autism. People spreading nonsense such as ID have a religious and political agenda, but what is Geier after with this?
Posted by: Flaky | July 10, 2006 10:11 AM
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 10, 2006 10:16 AM
...but what is Geier after with this?
$$$$$ also from up front fees the Geier's received for their "expert testimony," as was suggested on Kev's earlier blog.
Another case is due in the 5th Circuit (LA). Here's a link to blog by Charles Fox, a special ed lawyer and from what I can tell, a drooling, hungry vaccine lawyer at that: http://specialedlaw.blogs.com/home/2006/07/autismmercury_c.html#more
Apparently Mr. Fox hasn't read what Judge Beatty has written in his home state of IL. Perhaps I'll enlighten him.
Posted by: mekei | July 10, 2006 10:46 AM
I do not handle vaccine cases. Maybe you need to check your own religious fervor at the door. Sorry if there any typos, I was wiping drool off the keys.
Posted by: Charles P. Fox | July 10, 2006 11:57 AM
It is a shame such situations can't also result in a contempt of court penalty with a hefty fine for both the witnesses and the attorney who called them to testify.
Three cheers for what may have been [or at least could have been] an Orac-inspired legal opinion.
Posted by: epador | July 10, 2006 12:16 PM
Mr. Fox,
You might not handle vaccine cases, but your blog clearly illustrates that you believe the vaccine-autism link is credible despite a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: anonimouse | July 10, 2006 4:25 PM
I've frequently heard scientists express reservations regarding scientifically untrained judges handing down decisions on complicated scientific matters, but here, as in Daubert and Kitzmiller, we see evidence that judges, backed by evolving legal precedent establishing procedures for evaluating scientific testimony, can deal quite well with such issues.
Posted by: trrll | July 10, 2006 6:27 PM
Mouse wrote:
"You might not handle vaccine cases, but your blog clearly illustrates that you believe the vaccine-autism link is credible despite a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary".
A wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary? Where the hell is it, Mouse? Get off your excercise wheel and get in the game. A quote from Fox's blog:
"Even if this suit fails it is still an important round one in what promises to be the beginning of many such cases. The tobacco cases went on for years with the defendants winning every case until the fairly recent past. At the very least the arguments and science that link autism and mercury/thimerosal will finally get a full hearing before a jury and a court with powers to order damages that actually compensate the full measure of harm".
Exactly... he's right on. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 10, 2006 8:26 PM
My favorite sentence in the whole opinion was:
"Plaintiffs' gambit failed."
Now, that's elegant.
Posted by: Kathleen Seidel | July 10, 2006 9:14 PM
"although I'm puzzled how a shot of RhoGAM after the birth of Minor Child Doe could have anything to do with affects on the child."
Oooooh, I know, I know!!! Quantum Homeopathy! If a shot of RhoGAM before birth can cause autism, a shot to the mother after birth must cause 30C autism!
C'mon, you know they're going to go to that argument once they get desperate.
(oh, and I think you're gonna have to rename the blog to "Respectful Schadenfreude")
Posted by: Hyperion | July 10, 2006 9:45 PM
Sue w/ no Common Sense wrote: "A wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary? Where the hell is it, Mouse? Get off your excercise wheel and get in the game."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/793
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15121295
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/5/1039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14519711&dopt=Abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/6/e645
Posted by: HCN | July 10, 2006 9:48 PM
At the very least the arguments and science that link autism and mercury/thimerosal will finally get a full hearing before a jury and a court with powers to order damages that actually compensate the full measure of harm".
when the jury of scientist peers require too rigorous a burden of proof, it's time to doctor up the story and sell it to the court system.
Sue, you asked for evidence against the purported link? The evidence is that there is no evidence for a link. As has been pointed out to you before, fries and nutrasweet are just as likely the root of an invented epidemic.
You mentioned running on a wheel. Sue are you powering your PC with one? I ask because you're just not ever getting any place.
Posted by: Calm On Scents | July 11, 2006 12:20 AM
Scientific evidence 2 - 0 Some guys making stuff up as they go along
The system works, folks! The Geiers' amazing variety of proposed mechanisms in two and a half years should be warning enough that they've got no idea what they're doing.
Posted by: Alexander Whiteside | July 11, 2006 4:19 AM
I like this bit:
As previously noted, the Court has found that Dr. Geier's methodology, concerning the general causation question, that is, whether the thimerosal in RhoGAM could cause autism, has not met the Daubert standard. Based upon this finding, the Court need not go further. [...] nevertheless, for sake of completeness, the Court wil also examine Dr. Geier's methodology concerning specific causation, that is, whether RhoGAM specifically caused Minor Child Doe's autism.
"I've trashed your testimony sufficiently for the summary judgement, but because I think it's important, I'll also go over how useless you are in general."
Posted by: Alexander Whiteside | July 11, 2006 4:42 AM
(No) Common Sense wrote:
"Even if this suit fails it is still an important round one in what promises to be the beginning of many such cases. The tobacco cases went on for years with the defendants winning every case until the fairly recent past. At the very least the arguments and science that link autism and mercury/thimerosal will finally get a full hearing before a jury and a court with powers to order damages that actually compensate the full measure of harm".
Exactly... he's right on. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
This is why you come off as being not very smart. (and this guy doesn't seem like the world's best lawyer, either)
Why did Big Tobacco start losing lawsuits after winning all of the early ones? It had nothing to do with science, because the science was on the side of the plantiffs for the longest time. No, lawyers started winning more often when they took the tact not that cigarettes were defective (because they weren't - they did what they were designed to do) but that the manufacturers of cigarettes lied about the risks. It's one thing to say "cigarettes are bad for you, if you want to smoke go ahead", quite another to downplay or dismiss the risks altogether.
This is the crux of the mercury militia's case - that drug companies knew thimerosal could cause neurological disorders and continued to put it in vaccines. The problem with that argument is that unlike Big Tobacco, there is very little evidence that thimerosal plays even a minor role in such conditions. And it goes without saying there is even less evidence that drug companies knew that thimerosal could cause these conditions and chose to cover it up. If the best "smoking gun" you've uncovered in all your months and years of discovery is a memo from Maurice Hilleman expressing concern about thimerosal content in vaccines, then you've got no chance to win a lawsuit.
Here's the ironic difference, SueTheDrugCompanies - unlike the tobacco lawsuits, the drug companies have mainstream science on their side.
What I find interesting, though, is that you chose not to address the points at hand. The Geiers are one of the lynchpin expert witnesses for the drug companies. Without their evidence and testimony, what's left?
Posted by: anonimouse | July 11, 2006 9:36 AM
The system works, folks! The Geiers' amazing variety of proposed mechanisms in two and a half years should be warning enough that they've got no idea what they're doing.
I've never understood why that didn't strike reasonable people as odd. The Geiers' couldn't even stick with one plausible line of inquiry. They just switched aroud based on what could make them the most money.
Posted by: anonimouse | July 11, 2006 9:42 AM
HCN,
Is that all you've got? Lame list. That's the best of your best? Let's see.
1) I'm not at all impressed with Fombonne's latest and greatest epidemiological study.
2) Second study out of UK claims a "beneficial effect of thimerosal". Yeah, right.
3) The third study done by a guy out of the National Immunization Program with the CDC. Whatever.
4) Your 4th study was just crushed by Burbacher's study. Not only that but did you actually read that 4th study? It states:
"The scientific evidence is not yet sufficiently strong to provide the same level of assurance for thiomersal-containing vaccines for use in pregnant women or the premature or low birth weight infant. There is an increased sensitivity of the fetal brain to mercury whether it is ethyl or methyl mercury".
-Not exactly a glowing endorsement of thimerosal.
5) A watered down Verstraeten study. Great. This is the same guy who saw a significant correlation earlier and has said himself that it clearly needs more study.
6) Danish trash? Why bother even posting this one?
7) Not sure why you posted this hep b study here. Doesn't quite fit in...
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 10:27 AM
Mouse wrote:
"quite another to downplay or dismiss the risks altogether".
Mouse, I don't have time to tear your argument apart. Let's just leave it at this. You wrote the above quote in reference to cigarrettes. This will be similar to a quote in the future in regards to unsafe vaccinations. Some will say, but vaccinations saved many lifes... Wonderful, it's one thing to talk of the lives saved, it's "quite another to downplay or dismiss the risks altogether". That is exactly what is happening here.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 10:34 AM
CommonDunce,
If you're going to claim that a drug company conspiracy exists to downplay or dismiss significant risks of vaccines, the first step is to prove such risks actually exist. Can you at least do that BEFORE you go to the conspiracy card? Next thing you're going to tell me you think whale.to is a good source of medical information.
And of course you don't have time to tear my argument apart. You never have time to rebut anything that make sense, you'd rather just pick at straw men.
Posted by: anonimouse | July 11, 2006 1:29 PM
CommonSlush,
1) I'm not at all impressed with Fombonne's latest and greatest epidemiological study.
Of course not. It uses logic and statistically valid metholodogy.
2) Second study out of UK claims a "beneficial effect of thimerosal". Yeah, right.
That's the best you can do? Wow, feel the smackdown.
3) The third study done by a guy out of the National Immunization Program with the CDC. Whatever.
Using that unassailable logic, the numerous studies showing the harmful effects of smoking done by the government should be ignored. You do realize that the NIP has no power other than to make recommendations to states with regards to their vaccine policy? (and not all of them follow those recommendations?) Of course you don't.
4) Your 4th study was just crushed by Burbacher's study. Not only that but did you actually read that 4th study? It states:
"The scientific evidence is not yet sufficiently strong to provide the same level of assurance for thiomersal-containing vaccines for use in pregnant women or the premature or low birth weight infant. There is an increased sensitivity of the fetal brain to mercury whether it is ethyl or methyl mercury".
-Not exactly a glowing endorsement of thimerosal.
Hey, genius. That last paragraph (totally taken out of context) is scientific-speak for "we can't rule anything out". And what did Burbacher's three monkeys prove other than some inorganic mercury remains in the brain after mercury exposure and that methylmercury hangs around the body (destroying things like you kidneys) a lot longer than ethylmercury. Of course, Dr. Tom took the money from the autism groups and is now distorting the results of his own research, which is sad.
5) A watered down Verstraeten study. Great. This is the same guy who saw a significant correlation earlier and has said himself that it clearly needs more study.
When you see the same result from several different places using different population groups, that's a pretty good indicator that result is correct. Sue, you just hate the idea that you're wrong.
6) Danish trash? Why bother even posting this one?
It's marginally contributory. I've never been a fan of these studies either, but if you add them to the body of science as a whole it becomes pretty compelling.
7) Not sure why you posted this hep b study here. Doesn't quite fit in...
This is the consequences of the actions of people like you and activist loons like Generation Rescue. People don't vaccinate their kids when they should and put the population at risk, not to mention their own children. I'm not surprised at all that you don't get the correlation.
Let me ask you this, Sue. Why don't you provide us a list of studies? Don't tell me you don't have time, don't tell me to look it up myself, don't tell me it's a waste of time for you, blah, blah. If you're going to trash the scientific body of work disputing a link between autism and vaccines, the very least you can do is provide alternative research that makes your case.
Posted by: anonimouse | July 11, 2006 1:41 PM
"It's marginally contributory. I've never been a fan of these studies either, but if you add them to the body of science as a whole it becomes pretty compelling".
Even contemplating this as part of a "body of science" in any respect puts you in the twit category. Not worthy of my time.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 1:52 PM
CS -
Don't you have anything better than the "my opinion is better than yours becuase I say so"?
Appeal to self-importance?
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 11, 2006 2:03 PM
Oh, wait... I forgot:
"Hey, genius. That last paragraph (totally taken out of context) is scientific-speak for "we can't rule anything out".
Sounds like scientific-speak for we have no idea what happens when ethyl mercury... blah, blah, blah... At least they are somewhat honest. Put it in context for me, please, if you feel the need. Since the Burbacher study came out after this study, I'll wait for the next study to come out to address the issues that he presents.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 2:05 PM
"Don't you have anything better than the "my opinion is better than yours becuase I say so"?
Appeal to self-importance"?
Perhaps you are new here or perhaps you have never read Kev Leitch's blog. I spent a few months trying to talk common sense to people. They don't speak common sense... so now, I just toss out a few comments and move on. It takes less time. Since you are a "doctor", do you inject neurotoxins into babies? Seriously, it's not a trick question and it deserves an answer. So, do you?
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 2:17 PM
Second study out of UK claims a "beneficial effect of thimerosal". Yeah, right.
So you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with your prejudices? I can think of a number of possible ways in which thimerosol could have a beneficial effect--an antiviral action, for example.
But considering that they looked at 69 behavioral measures and found (after correction for known confounding influences) only 8 apparent "beneficial" effects (compared to one marginally significant "harmful" effect), it could just be a minor statistical anomaly. The bottom line is that a very large study--and a prospective one, at that (which reduces a major source of bias)-- was unable to detect any evidence of a causal relationship between thimerosol and autism.
Posted by: trrll | July 11, 2006 2:29 PM
when you look at the original *super secret* Simpsonwood minutes, you will find that the group exposed to the highest amount of thimerosal had a 50% reduced risk of epilepsy. I wonder why that never made the Pediatrics paper - must a conspiracy of the pharmas who will be catering to more epileptics, now that thimerosal has been removed from vaccines.
(irony off)
Posted by: Catherina | July 11, 2006 2:34 PM
Sue - your nom de plume is hilarious. You wouldn't know sense - common or uncommon - if it came up and delivered a hefty kick to your rear end.
Your suspension was lifted on July 1st by the way. When can we expect you back to argue your case with your usual meticulous eye for accuracy and sound science?
Posted by: Kev | July 11, 2006 3:00 PM
"Your suspension was lifted on July 1st by the way. When can we expect you back to argue your case with your usual meticulous eye for accuracy and sound science"?
You won't see me back in that pit, Kev. Why torture myself with nonsense?
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 3:05 PM
"So you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with your prejudices? I can think of a number of possible ways in which thimerosol could have a beneficial effect--an antiviral action, for example".
If your argument is that thimerosal is beneficial and can be used safely, then prove it. If you can't, then I will continue on *knowing* that ethylmercury injected into babies is dangerous. Period.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 3:09 PM
"You won't see me back in that pit, Kev. Why torture myself with nonsense?"
Well, you've been torturing us with nonsense for months now. I see from your contributions to this thread that you're still doing it.
Funnily enough though, checking my referral stats I see you're still a regular visitor. 390 visits this moth alone so far. Guess you can't stay away ;o)
Posted by: Kev | July 11, 2006 3:23 PM
Hi Sue,
How many Autistic children do you have? I have two, one who received all scheduled vaccines including a few with thimerosal, the other never received a single vaccine. Since personal opinion and anecdote is important to you, will mine count?
Why don't you sit down and take the time to make a point. If you truly understand what you are talking about, it should take you no longer than ten minutes. Start by explaining the Burbacher study and what you've learned from his work. Just a short paragraph - break it down for those of us lacking common sense. Come on oh-wise-one, educate us.
Feel free to consult with your other coma sense anti-vax friends.
Posted by: Not Mercury | July 11, 2006 3:31 PM
"Funnily enough though, checking my referral stats I see you're still a regular visitor. 390 visits this moth alone so far. Guess you can't stay away ;o)"
Actually, that's quite true. I do keep checking in. I keep waiting for something... anything... to come out of your blog. It's so interesting... morgue-like when we don't post. I was also embarrassed for you treating people like such crap when they visit your blog. I was having fun with you over on another site but of course you ran away when things didn't go your way. Typical.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 3:37 PM
"390 visits this moth alone so far. Guess you can't stay away ;o)"
Is this how you count your hits or whatever. I bet those 390 visits added up to about 2 minutes of time. Is that how you determine if you are popular Kev? If so, I'd try to find another way to justify your existence in the blogosphere, Kev.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 3:41 PM
"How many Autistic children do you have? I have two, one who received all scheduled vaccines including a few with thimerosal, the other never received a single vaccine. Since personal opinion and anecdote is important to you, will mine count"?
Of course your "anectdote" is important. I would need more to go on though. For example, I have a friend who is a chiropractor and did not vaccinate his young son. Recently, I had heard through another friend of mine that his son was having developmental issues. I took note of the fact because I knew that his son had not been vaccinated. Interestingly, when I met his wife, I had a light bulb moment, she had the worst teeth that I've ever seen. Silver fillings galore. It could have been a coincidence :)
As for my kids, I have 10 of them. They are all perfect. As I'm sure that yours are. Thank you for asking.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 3:52 PM
"Interestingly, when I met his wife, I had a light bulb moment, she had the worst teeth that I've ever seen. Silver fillings galore. It could have been a coincidence"
No, it's not that interesting to me actually. Believe it or not I wasn't looking for an online diagnosis from an hysterical antivax mother but I'm sure your chiro-friend appreciated the amateur toxicologist/dental aesthetician evaluation.
Are you saying that a child who hasn't received thimerosal containing vaccines can still be autistic as a result of prenatal exposure to the mother's dental amalgams? So if, by your logic, it's possible to have an autistic child without thimerosal exposure, isn't it also possible that thimerosal doesn't play a role at all? Isn't it also possible that mercury isn't involved at all?
I know you think you are on a noble mission to warn other parents about the dangers of vaccines and all but tell me, how do you think you are helping my children? Do you understand why I might be less than grateful to people who think they can speak for and about my children and all autistics in general?
If you, and people like the Geiers and Buttar, had a conscience you might consider the damage you are causing by spreading lies about something you obviously know nothing about.
Still waiting for your review essay on the Burbacher paper.
Posted by: Not Mercury | July 11, 2006 5:19 PM
"Actually, that's quite true. I do keep checking in. I keep waiting for something... anything... to come out of your blog. It's so interesting... morgue-like when we don't post."
So I'll never see you there again, but you do keep checking in...? Come on Sue, you used to be able to do better than that ;o)
And if by 'morgue like' you mean 'a bit more tranquil now there are less kooks' then you are quite right. However, as I've told you on numerous occasions, comments are unimportant but nice. Readers are vital. Those numbers continue to grow nicely :o)
"I was also embarrassed for you treating people like such crap when they visit your blog."
Whereas I think most people are mainly just embarrased for you without qualification :o)
"I was having fun with you over on another site but of course you ran away when things didn't go your way. Typical."
Well, call me odd Sue but when autistic members are called 'fucking retards' by non autistic members and when your pal John Best Jr makes yet more allusions to paedophilia then that's not really a place that I want to be a part of. Besides, I heard someone say once that the best idea when participating in these kind of discussions was just to 'just toss out a few comments and move on'. What's your opinion?
"I bet those 390 visits added up to about 2 minutes of time."
Fortunately, my software not only tracks how often you visit but how long those visits actually last. Your average visit length lasts approx 6 mins. That equates to about 39 hours of time you've spent on my blog in the eleven days of July.
"Is that how you determine if you are popular Kev? If so, I'd try to find another way to justify your existence in the blogosphere, Kev."
Don't worry, its enough for me to know that I keep the online stalking community happy and sated ;o)
Posted by: Kev | July 11, 2006 6:54 PM
"but I'm sure your chiro-friend appreciated the amateur toxicologist/dental aesthetician evaluation".
Are you kidding? I wouldn't offer that up as a possible reason to him. That's none of my business. I think that you way overestimate what I would/would not say to people out in the "real world".
"Are you saying that a child who hasn't received thimerosal containing vaccines can still be autistic as a result of prenatal exposure to the mother's dental amalgams"?
I've always said that. There can be many factors involved. Thimerosal isn't the only factor (in my opinion).
"Do you understand why I might be less than grateful to people who think they can speak for and about my children and all autistics in general"?
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself and my family. A question to you, when are you going to be getting your second child vaccinated? It's perfectly safe, right?
"If you, and people like the Geiers and Buttar, had a conscience you might consider the damage you are causing by spreading lies about something you obviously know nothing about".
My conscience is just fine. I don't do anything but ask people to do their own research on the current vaccination recommendations. What's the issue? Where are the lies?
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 7:08 PM
"So I'll never see you there again, but you do keep checking in..."?
Back up, Kev. You will see me check in, you won't see me post and get caught up in the ugliness of your blog. I'll laugh from a far...
"Those numbers continue to grow nicely" :o)
I think that people find you somewhat amusing Kev. You certainly can also be a complete a-hole to those that disagree with you.
"Your average visit length lasts approx 6 mins. That equates to about 39 hours of time you've spent on my blog in the eleven days of July".
That is by far the funniest thing that I have heard in a long time. The idea that I could have spent 39 hrs. of time on your blog in 11 days. Hilarious, Kev. Now, here's the thing... it is possible that maybe I was logged in to my computer/your site and left it on for a while to boost that average but NO CHANCE in hell that I spent 39 hrs. on your blog this month? On what? You haven't even had any good debates going on?? You are off your rocker if you believe that stat, Kev. Too funny.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 7:35 PM
Commode Sense said: My conscience is just fine. I don't do anything but ask people to do their own research on the current vaccination recommendations.
That's total BS and you know it. How many examples of your anti-vax stance would you like?
Oh, and thanks for the question, I'll be happy to answer once you've answered any of the direct questions you always manage to dodge. Let's start with how many ASD kids you have, and 'perfect' doesn't answer the question, unless you consider autistic children imperfect.
Posted by: Not Mercury | July 11, 2006 7:36 PM
"That's total BS and you know it".
No, that is not total BS. In my everyday life, I don't tell people what to do or what not to do. I give them the facts and tell them to do their own homework and/or research.
"Let's start with how many ASD kids you have, and 'perfect' doesn't answer the question, unless you consider autistic children imperfect".
I have 10 kids and they are all perfect (both autistic and NT kids can be perfect to a mom). So, when are you vaccinating your younger child?
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
I just spent some time reading Mr. Fox's website about special education. I found it to be rather comprehensive, and it does provide much useful information. Let's be fair and acknowledge that.
Posted by: TheProbe | July 11, 2006 8:30 PM
I'm still waiting for one of you people to produce a single iota of reliable evidence. At current, you rank right up there with the people who put their faith in Q-Ray bracelets and Amway: Nothing but plattitudes, distractions, veiled threats, and precisely zero evidence worthy of consideration.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 11, 2006 8:36 PM
CS: In my everyday life, I don't tell people what to do or what not to do.
It's nice that you are able to compartmentalize like that. Most people apply the same ethics and standards to on or off line personas.
I have 10 kids and they are all perfect
Are you also anti-contraceptive? Seriously? You have 10 kids? How do you find time to pursue your antivax hobby? How many would you have if the laptop wasn't always in the way?
Posted by: Not Mercury | July 11, 2006 8:40 PM
"That's because most people I know are fully aware of the need to do their homework".
Interesting. I am around very smart people and most of them just believe their doctors and follow the recommended vaccinations without putting much thought into it. I get them to research the issue. That shouldn't be an problem, should it?
"They know that they should be able to support their statements, rather than declare their conclusions and pretend they've backed them up".
I can back up everything that I say.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 9:27 PM
"It's nice that you are able to compartmentalize like that. Most people apply the same ethics and standards to on or off line personas".
Really? So does Kev berate people in his "real life"? Does the Diva get on her high horse and rant away? Does David (pending diploma) swear at people and call them nasty names? Hopefully not. My point is, I express my opinions about vaccinations on forums where that is the topic being discussed. If it's not the topic, I'm typically not discussing it... A few of my friends are aware of my beliefs so they will occassionally ask me a question or two and I'll give them my opinion but that's about it...
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 9:36 PM
"You have 10 kids"?
Yup. I don't know how I do it either.
Posted by: Common Sense | July 11, 2006 9:41 PM
Common Sense: I can back up everything that I say.
Good, you can start by backing up your statement that thimerosal - at the levels found in vaccines - is a neurotoxin and explain how that could possibly cause autism.
Posted by: Not Mercury | July 11, 2006 9:59 PM
"I think that people find you somewhat amusing Kev. You certainly can also be a complete a-hole to those that disagree with you."
I can most certainly be an a-hole to those that behave like a-hole's to me. I operate a simple rule. I treat others as they treat me (that's true in all aspects of my life). Disagreement is absolutely fine. Behaviour such as you displayed on my blog from your very first visit onwards is not.
"That is by far the funniest thing that I have heard in a long time. The idea that I could have spent 39 hrs. of time on your blog in 11 days. Hilarious, Kev. Now, here's the thing... it is possible that maybe I was logged in to my computer/your site and left it on for a while to boost that average but NO CHANCE in hell that I spent 39 hrs. on your blog this month? On what? You haven't even had any good debates going on?? You are off your rocker if you believe that stat, Kev. Too funny."
Who are you trying so hard to convince? ;o)
Sue, its OK - websites are there to be visited - there's no shame in having one's little obsessions :o)
Posted by: Kev | July 12, 2006 12:09 AM
Sue Margaret,
a blast from the past...
John Best said, "I think you should hang yourself, you'd be better off."
Death? Nice. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Mr. John Fore Sam Best, Rescue Angel extraordinare, supported and encouraged by JB Handley of Generation Rescue.
Although it was plugged earlier, check out Joseph's cataloging of some of Best's bests.
This is the guy that typifies Generation Rescue. The strap-hangers like the boot-licking Handley-is-god poster above typify the scientifically ignorant, type-A, conspiracy mongerers who spend their calories spreading a belief, and nothing more than an evidence-free belief.
Posted by: Sick of it all | May 16, 2006 01:03 PM
Sick of it all,
Are you caring for a child with autism or are you just pissed off and angry for no reason?
What exctly are you sick of?
If things don't improve your way soon, you should take John's advice and off yourself.
I certainly won't miss you and your nasty off the wall comments.
Margaret
Posted by: margaret | May 16, 2006 01:16 PM
link
Posted by: 390 Common Sue | July 12, 2006 12:17 AM
I think Not Mercury makes a good request of Common Sense. Let's see her data, and then we can continue from there.
Please, everybody, don't distract Common Sense from her research into the subject, and providing us with the evidence for her stance. We know she is easily distracted, so if she seems to be going on in a different direction, we can always refer back to Not Mercury's request.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 12, 2006 2:47 AM
I don't inject anybody with anything these days as I have left practice.
But prior to that I did vaccinate children (and have my own vaccinated) - but of course, no thimerosal since around 2001. But before that I did vaccinate children with thimerosal-containing vaccines, yes.
And strangely I am from a birth cohort (1969) who received the 5 shot DPT series (with thimerosal) prior to school entry. And stangely, there was very little autism back then.
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 12, 2006 8:39 AM
"I treat others as they treat me (that's true in all aspects of my life). Disagreement is absolutely fine. Behaviour such as you displayed on my blog from your very first visit onwards is not".
Sure, Kev. You are an a-hole to anyone who has an opinion which is different from you. Anyone who can read can see that. Most recently to that guy John who posted on your site. You were an a-hole.
"Who are you trying so hard to convince? ;o)"
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I actually am finding it quite funny that this is how you use your tracking system. Hey, guess what? I just went to your site to check on John's name (see above), in the meantime, I got up from my computer to fix some breakfast for one of my 10 kids... so does it show you that I spent 15 minutes on your oh so informative site? Good stat, Kev. Desperato?
Posted by: Common Sense | July 12, 2006 9:13 AM
"I treat others as they treat me (that's true in all aspects of my life). Disagreement is absolutely fine. Behaviour such as you displayed on my blog from your very first visit onwards is not".
Sure, Kev. You are an a-hole to anyone who has an opinion which is different from you. Anyone who can read can see that. Most recently to that guy John who posted on your site. You were an a-hole.
"Who are you trying so hard to convince? ;o)"
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I actually am finding it quite funny that this is how you use your tracking system. Hey, guess what? I just went to your site to check on John's name (see above), in the meantime, I got up from my computer to fix some breakfast for one of my 10 kids... so does it show you that I spent 15 minutes on your oh so informative site?