…and this is a 
Attempted suppression of Seidel
Category:
Posted on: April 4, 2008 8:48 AM, by PZ Myers
The Sykes family has my sympathy — they have an autistic child, and that has to be difficult. My sympathy is limited, however, by the fact that are lashing out seeking to blame someone, have bought into the thimerosal hysteria, have hired a bottom-feeding shyster to sue various pharmaceutical companies, and said unethical ambulance-chaser is now using the power of the subpoena to harrass and intimidate bloggers who aren't at all involved in the case, but have simply written about the absence of a thimerosal-autism link.
They have subpoenaed Kathleen Seidel of the Neurodiversity blog for, well, just about anything they can think of. She isn't involved in the trial otherwise; she is a knowledgeable person with no special inside information on either the Sykes or the drug company, but has only written critically about the case as an outsider. For that, her reward is that a lawyer with a history of attempts to use bad science in legal cases wants to silence her.
There's more on the case at Pure Pedantry and Overlawyered.
Comments
The best thing she can do is not back down. Internet is a free country. And seriously, FUCK them. Pharmaceuticals have nothing to do with their poor child's state.
It's terrible but there is no one to blame. It happens.
Posted by: Michelle | April 4, 2008 9:00 AM
What grounds does he have to do anything to anyone apart from the manufacturers of thimerosal?
Anyway, autism is awful for the family, but there's a growing movement now amongst adult autism sufferers to promote actual understanding, rather than a search for a "cure".
Posted by: wazza | April 4, 2008 9:08 AM
I'm clearly not a lawyer, because this just seems screwed. How is it that a lawyer can just arbitrarily "command" someone to give deposition in a civil case? Even overlooking that fact that the parent's are barking up the wrong tree, Kathleen is a private individual - this seems like a horribly intrusive way to run a civil legal system.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | April 4, 2008 9:29 AM
Oy! America certainly is a childish place.
Posted by: Dan | April 4, 2008 9:36 AM
She isn't being sued, she's being subpoenaed, which is will within the plaintiffs' right to do. If she doesn't want to to testify or turn over documents, she probably won't have to: I doubt there are many judges in this country who would uphold such a demanding subpoena for someone completely unrelated. If it weren't for the demands of materials, the subpoena would hold up easily, I believe.
I would just be careful about blaming the legal system and starting to scream "frivolous!", it's just an overzealous lawyer. I work with lawyers a lot (my job entails it) and while I know that they are greedy and make too much money, they are one of the only groups of people standing between the American people and a corporate world where an individual-vs-corporation lawsuit is a thing of the past. Those goons at Overlawyered.com want "tort reform" and they want it in copious amounts. And that's not a conspiracy: Ted Frank from overlawyered heads up (or used to) the "liability project" at the American Enterprise Institute. Walter Olson from overlawyered is a "tort reform advocate" (or "corporate puppet") as well.
Posted by: Kyle | April 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Despite what you might have seen on TV over the past few days thanks to the pity party of a portion of autism advocates, autism is not necessarily "awful for the family" and I speak as the mum to a very autistic boy. It helps to understand the different wiring he's inherited and to adapt our life style to suit his needs and preferences. As such, having a disabled son has made me and many parents I know, rethink much of what they previously thought about science, disability, the meaning of 'normal' and even faith issues. Kathleen Seidel is herself, mother to an autistic child.
Right, now I've got that off my chest, this subpoena appears to be a disgraceful attempt to suppress Kathleen's discussions on Shoemaker and the Rev. Sykes. She has pointed out the extent of Shoemaker's earnings on vaccine litigations, and has described Sykes' collaboration with the Griers and their "research" of a chemical castration agent as a treatment for autism. Yes really.
I have a list of the blogs discussing this.
Posted by: sharon | April 4, 2008 9:39 AM
Oy! America certainly is a childish place.
Posted by: Dan | April 4, 2008 9:39 AM
There is a lot of evidence now that autism has a strong genetic component. Ditto schizophrenia.
The parents should sue themselves or rather their genetic material.
Posted by: raven | April 4, 2008 9:42 AM
Whoa... Scienceblogs seems to be a little glitchy today. Sorry about the double post. I had... ummm... an error --a 500 error which is considerably more serious than a 400, or paltry 300 error.
500 is the stuff dreams are made of.
Posted by: Dan | April 4, 2008 9:42 AM
It has to be someone's fault or they would be forced to sue God. But they are too religious to do that my guess is!
Posted by: baley | April 4, 2008 9:43 AM
Uh, yeah, perhaps I should have put that better...
Autism can be awful for the family if they have trouble communicating due to their child's different wiring
that said, family friends with lots of kids, and one of twins with Asbergers = not good. The other kids started using her strategies to get things they wanted, but in a more obnoxious way.
Posted by: wazza | April 4, 2008 9:43 AM
Is there anyone who can explain what the motives are that drives these people to so rabidly attack pharmacutical companies for causing autism, where did that come from? And why does it often go hand in hand with the religious right? I really don't get it and haven't read much about it besides on these blogs, it seems to be a problem mostly situated in the US. I get the suspician towards pharmaceutical companies, it is not in their interest to completely cure people as that would put them out of business. But a conspirancy so big, with so many involved, the proof to support such a conspirancy should be overwhelming, no way people are going to shut up about it, too much money and fame to be made by opening the case wide open. And what would be the argument for willingly causing autism? Really nobody has benefit from having masses of autistic people that need looking after to and taken care of. And again, why the fanaticism to go after people that report on the cases that simply have a different opinion of it? It really does feels like the antics usually subscribed to by the religious fundies.
Posted by: Clan:Rewired | April 4, 2008 9:43 AM
Your bottom feeders have set up a a poll. Anyone can vote - and as I discovered, can vote often. Six or seven others doing same can reverse the trend...
Posted by: davem | April 4, 2008 9:44 AM
The "subpoena" is a joke. I've seen huff-and-puff letters that were better constructed.
I expect that $50,000 plus court costs for burdening the judicial system with this frivolity will make S&S back off right quick.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | April 4, 2008 9:45 AM
Here's a couple of good articles on this issue from the Skeptical Inquirer:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-06/novella.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-06/judelsohn.html
Posted by: Fire Ant | April 4, 2008 9:46 AM
After reading the summary of legal proceedings up to this point and the ever changing claims made by the plaintiffs it seems to me that this lawyer is one scum-bag mother fucker.
Doesn't this subpoena constitute harrassment of Kathleen? She is just an observer on the sidelines and now the lawyer seems to be unfairly targeting her and prying into all sorts of irrelevant aspects of her life.
This prick deserves to have his license to practice law revoked.
Posted by: Schmeer | April 4, 2008 9:47 AM
Ewww, you linked to overlawyered?
I'm sure they'll be surprised at all the liberals suddenly visiting their website; it's basically a front for the AEI and other conservative think tanks to voice their "concern about frivolous lawsuits."
Which is code for "concern about corporate bottom lines."
That being said, the lawyer is extremely out of line and the judge will tell Seidel to ignore it. I don't know if it's an attempt to intimidate, though, because it wouldn't really serve his purpose. Someone accuses you of something on a blog, so you subpoena them to talk about it in court? In front of a judge or possibly a jury? Is that the best way to uphold your reputation as a lawyer, if you plan on winning cases? I think the guy's just an idiot.
Posted by: James T. | April 4, 2008 9:49 AM
She should file a Motion to Quash. No lawyers cannot just subpoena anyone and get away with it. Or rather they can and people are free to dispute their subpoena and without probable legal justification it is thrown out.
Alternatively she could just testify and ask for witness fees and travel time. Happened to me once in a civil case and I told them they had to reimburse me for witness fees, travel expenses, and time for a document search. The lawyers grudgingly agreed to do so.
Never happened. They also figured out it wasn't going to help their case and dropped it.
Posted by: raven | April 4, 2008 9:52 AM
Posted by: Schmeer | April 4, 2008 9:58 AM
When my daughter was diagnosed with PDD-NOS (part of autism spectrum), Kathleen's blog was a source of science-based information that helped me. I realize I probably have Asperger's.
The anti-vaxers range from granola moms concerned about traces of toxins to Phyllis Schafly. ERV reported on an anti-vax talk she attended in a whole foods store. The problem is elevating feelings over facts. Jenny McCarthy will get more sympathy than any dose-response curves I can draw.
Posted by: Ruth | April 4, 2008 10:12 AM
It's the old situation where something goes very badly, and they have to blame someone.
Well, it can't be atheists this time, so it's thimerosal. Which isn't used any more (probably that's for the best), and yet autism doesn't decrease (the count continues to go up, probably due to greater awareness).
There's never been more than the slightest evidence that thimerosal could be to blame, but what's evidence when you are out to blame somebody?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 10:47 AM
I noticed that recently she's claiming that she cured her son with diet. And, using her as the source again, others say that he must have never had it, but she's sure that's simply an excuse for those who believe it never goes away.
Count me among the skeptics (not a naysayer, I'm waiting on better evidence), but if her son has dramatically improved it's certainly a personal triumph for them.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 10:51 AM
Not just out to blame someone, Glen, but out to blame them and take their money!
muahahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: wazza | April 4, 2008 10:52 AM
Ruth#22
don't overanalyse yourself: the pathologisation (hope I got that right) of personality traits is a game that even more respectable science commentators play. Real Aspergers is a crippling condition, which you almost certainly don't have.
In the UK there are also big problems with the parents of Autistic children, egged on by elements on the left or in the media, blaming it on the MMR innoculation. The balance of scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that it's nothing to do with MMR, and the consequence is that many children are suffering infections, sometimes with serious results, because of all the publicity.
My heart goes out to the parents of handicapped children, and I can almost understand them suing left right and centre to try to get some financial support. But the consequences for society and the development of drugs are absolutely dire.
Peter
Posted by: Peter | April 4, 2008 10:54 AM
Whatever your opinion of Overlawyered's other commentary, on the issue of vaccines and autism and the frivolous lawsuits spawned by a scientifically discredited concept, Overlawyered is right on. These "vaccine injury" suits are frivolous lawsuits, and this subpoena is clearly issued with the intent to punish Kathleen for her previous blog posts by going on an open-ended fishing expedition designed to dig up dirt and intimidated. Olson called it like it was, and he was right to do so.
I linked to Overlawyered too, over this issue and make no apologies for it. The post there hits the nail squarely on the head.
Posted by: Orac | April 4, 2008 10:55 AM
As a parent of a kid with autism, I meet a fair number of other parents in my situation. And I see a fair amount of denial around the time when the initial diagnosis comes around (and in some cases, for a long time afterwards). I think that the urge to find a culprit and make them pay is just a part of the denial. It's not rational and it's not helpful, but it's understandable.
Posted by: AK47 | April 4, 2008 10:56 AM
Some friends of my family have a child who had a genuine, severe allergic reaction to early infancy vaccines. It happens, though rarely. After conference with their pediatrician, they decided their other children had too high a chance of a similar adverse reaction, and not to vaccinate them as infants. This is a perfectly rational decision, one I think most of us can get behind, based on the relative likelihood of an adverse reaction and actual exposure to the diseases in question.
Unfortunately, they didn't stop there. They've jumped on this entire anti-vax bandwagon, and jumped hard. The worst of it is, they're very active in the neighborhood, and they're pitching it to the neighbors. Many of these people can't afford to care for a child with, say, scarlet fever, either from the standpoint of health care spending or on a time front; many of these people have lots of children. Trying to talk low-income families, many of whom are already suspicious of the child services infrastructure, OUT of getting their infants vaccinated (a free service in my city) has got to be Evil.
Posted by: lytefoot | April 4, 2008 10:58 AM
In case people don't bother to read further, this is what the subpoena demands:
From someone who has nothing to do with the case! This is clearly an attempt at intimidation. Holy Freakin' Moly!
Posted by: Damian | April 4, 2008 11:18 AM
Good point, wazza.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 11:25 AM
Peter-#24
When I was a child, I would not make eye contact, and avoided people-my parents said I was just very shy. That and some sensory issues and obsessive interests would probably meet DSM-IV criteria. I don't think everyone with social problems is autistic. Humans have a range of traits, and all of us have some of the traits labeled as autism. Many people who were odd like me grew up to be sort-of-functioning adults, without the quack cures being marketed now. Just because I can type doesn't mean I haven't experienced depression and missed social cues that affected my day-to-day functioning.
My brother is face-blind, but was not diagnosed until age 45. I respect your point that Asperger's should not be treated flipantly, but the broadened diagnostic criteria is likely how we reached the 1 in 150 having autism.
Posted by: Ruth | April 4, 2008 11:35 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | April 4, 2008 11:38 AM
For more background from Britain take a look over at
http://briandeer.com/mmr-lancet.htm
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | April 4, 2008 11:42 AM
Is there anyone who can explain what the motives are that drives these people to so rabidly attack pharmacutical companies for causing autism, where did that come from? And why does it often go hand in hand with the religious right?
I think it's pretty understandable- it's about people looking for a reason Why Bad Things Happen. If there's a *reason*- whether it's a drug gone wrong, or a vengeful God, or bad Karma, or Mercury in retrograde- whatever- it means there's some *sense* to it, it gives you a bit of control. It means there are rules, it means maybe you could have prevented it, or can keep it from happening again. There's some comfort in that.
The truth- that sometimes bad things happen for no reason- not because you're a bad person, not because it's someone's fault- can be pretty damn terrifying, and I can understand why people grasp at desperate things to give life structure.
Posted by: MAC | April 4, 2008 11:47 AM
Ruth and Peter: I'm also not convinced that Asperger's syndrome is a unitary entity in which people are equally effected by all of the possible manifestations. For example, by the ability to read people's emotions from their expressions test, I have severe AS: my score was just barely outside the CI for random. OTOH, I'm able to maintain a relationship and career, which suggests a fairly neurotypical pattern. Is this AS or some variant thereof or just mildly eccentric brain wiring? Go figure.
Personally, I think that the Sykes family would be best off if they admitted that they were upset and angry that their child was autistic, genuinely mourned the loss of the imagined "perfect child" and started working on loving and appreciating the child that they do have instead of looking for someone to blame and hoping that suing the right person will somehow turn their autistic child into the neurotypical child of their dreams. As far as anyone knows, it's just bad luck or maybe poor choice of grandparents. It's unfair and I hope that they get every form of aid they can to help the child live as happy and independent life as possible, but sometimes life is unfair and there's just no one to blame.
Posted by: Dianne | April 4, 2008 12:31 PM
I hope that they get every form of aid they can to help the child live as happy and independent life as possible,
Seems like this is exactly what they are trying to do; in the form of a large monetary settlement. I'm sure they realize the suit will not "correct" the autism, they just want the money and the right to place blame.
Posted by: SteveM | April 4, 2008 12:45 PM
The anti-vaxers share several characteristics with creationists, including a deep suspicion of science in general, and a strong respect for Other Ways of Knowing -- personal experience, trusting God, nature's intuition, ancient wisdom, folk knowledge, and/or "the mommy instinct." As Ruth #20 put it, both groups have a tendency to go with feelings over facts. As a parent, you "just know" that your child would have been fine if they hadn't had that shot. As a parent, you're more than competent enough to decide if the science behind what they're going to teach your child is True. The process of scientific investigation and testing isn't seen as innovative, adversarial and competitive, but more like a church or exclusive club, where scientists get together at their conventions and journals to stand in circles, hold hands, and reinforce their beliefs (projection anyone?)
Both anti-vax and creationists also seem to buy into a similar counterculture hero mindset, where the scenario pits simple piety against Big Science.
It's interesting that Clan:rewired in #12 identifies the anti-vaxxers with the Religious Right. Usually they tend to be identified with the Spiritual Left, and their belief that Nature wants what is best for us, so we should not interfere. But of course it draws from both sides -- just as creationism also includes plenty of religious people on the 'left' side of the spectrum. Those would be the folks who see evolution as progressive and driven by Consciousness, with frequent miraculous punctuations helping the Life Force manifest itself into higher and higher levels of Spiritual Awareness.
Posted by: Sastra | April 4, 2008 12:50 PM
Except that they are aiming at the wrong target and trying to lay the blame there. Neither the mercury in thimerosal-containing vaccines nor vaccines themselves are the cause of their child's autism. The science is quite clear on this. Like creationist attacks on evolution, it is not a scientific controversy. The issue of whether vaccines cause autism or not is kept alive primarily by antivaccinationists who mistakenly believe that vaccines caused their children's autism, facilitated by pseudoscientists like Dr. Mark Geier and Boyd Haley, who produce dubious studies, usually in dubious journals but occasionally they manage to slip one in a real peer-reviewed journal, claiming to support such a link; celebrity morons like Jenny McCarthy and her boyfriend Jim Carrey; and Kool Aid-drinking "journalists" like David Kirby and Dan Olmsted.
Although I always have sympathy for parents raising autistic children, given how difficult it is, the Sykes lost any respect or sympathy I may have had remaining for them, even after their dubious lawsuits, when they decided to let their lawyer try to intimidate Kathleen Seidel. They no longer deserve my sympathy, only my contempt, and my contempt goes double for their lawyer, Clifford Shoemaker.
Posted by: Orac | April 4, 2008 12:52 PM
Let's just assume there's a genetic component to autism and sue the parents.
Posted by: Umilik | April 4, 2008 12:56 PM
Seems like this is exactly what they are trying to do; in the form of a large monetary settlement. I'm sure they realize the suit will not "correct" the autism, they just want the money and the right to place blame.
I'm not convinced. They've put their son through a series of poorly supported or completely discredited "treatments" all of which promise (without foundation) that they will cure autism. I think that the Sykes are convinced that if they just do the right thing, sue the right person, place the blame where it should be, their son will magically become neurotypical. Their approach is slightly more reality based than that of the family that prayed their diabetic daughter to death, but not much. There is no way currently to cure autism. There are behavioral techniques that can make life easier for autistic people and their families, but a cure is not available and endangering the kid with lupron and chelation is not going to make him not autistic. Nor is suing the makers of vaccines.
Posted by: Dianne | April 4, 2008 1:00 PM
PZ:
When you were the recipient of some equally idiotic and blustering "legal chill" a while back, don't I remember some civil liberties / right-to-free-speech-minded law Profs and/or lawyers offering pro bono help and advice? Perhaps you could refer them on to Kathleen.
Posted by: Dr Aust | April 4, 2008 1:00 PM
hey pz,
i'm a big fan of the site, thought i've never commented. just might wanna change "shyster". i know it's not really a jewish thing anymore, but the word definitely has anti-semitic connotations. like, when i saw it, i was kind of taken back. i know you aren't anti-semitic, but i might switch that up.
-brian.
Posted by: brian | April 4, 2008 1:00 PM
A settlement for what? There is no scientific or medical data to back any claim that vaccine ingredients are in any way causative of ASD. As a parent, I can completely appreciate that a diagnosis of this nature would be really devastating. But rational thought has to kick in at some point. The frustration and sorrow these parents undoubtedly feel is no excuse for lashing out at the pharmaceutical industry, and certainly does not forgive the harrassment of an innocent third party like Kathleen. In this case they do NOT have the 'right to place the blame' anywhere but on bad, dumb, luck, and probably genetics.
The parents, however misguided, at least have the excuse of emotion-driven decisions. The people involved like Geier, JB Handley, and David Kirby, who are fanning the flames of this pseudoscientific panic to the extent that we could see a resurgence of childhood diseases that have been all but eradicated in the last 50 years of the vaccine program, have no excuse. They are contemptible, fear-mongering bastards. And hand in hand with them are the myriad of quacks offering bogus 'cures' and 'treatments' for autism, capitalizing on the fear and desperation of the parents like parasites. They are ghouls, pure and simple.
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 4, 2008 1:07 PM
brian #41:
Interesting -- I didn't know the word "shyster" ever had Jewish connotations in the first place. It just sounds like tough urban slang to me.
Posted by: Sastra | April 4, 2008 1:10 PM
It's interesting that Shoemakers Ass. have a poll(?) asking people "Do you believe that thimerosol in vaccines has contributed to the autism epidemic?"
Results are 71% No, 29% Yes
Is this a new thing in the USA, where the validity of Scientific claims are determined through opinion polls ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 4, 2008 1:18 PM
Well in fact it most likely come from the German, the root word being "Scheiss" (the "Scheiss-ter" being a shitty person--to deal with, in particular).
Some people think it had something to do with Jews because of Shylock, the Jew in the Merchant of Venice. And of course there might have been association of "shyster" with Shylock since Shakespeare wrote it, but it's apparently a "false association."
Can't say whether it should be used or not. Seems a shame to give it up over an incorrect etymology, but on the other hand, I wouldn't use it if people are offended by it (think of "niggard," which has nothing to do with "nigger," but sounds so close that it's virtually unused today, save in discussing historical works). I don't hear or see it often, for what it's worth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 1:28 PM
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | April 4, 2008 1:41 PM
"LexisNexis® and PACER usage records"
That was Kathleen's correction.
The actual subpoena demanded "Lexus Nexus" usage records.
I think they should have asked about Ferraris too.
You just can't make this shit up.
Posted by: I am Kathleen | April 4, 2008 2:08 PM
Hi PZ,
My kid's pediatrician had an interesting take on this whole fiasco, and given I am a computer scientist and not a pediatrician, geneticist, or an evolutionary biologist I'd love to get your take on it:
His thoughts:
As a physician for > 40 yrs he could not think of a single instance of a poison that that selects by gender. He suggested that if Thermisol were the culprit, shouldn't the autism rates between boys and girls be roughly equal or even stilted towards girls since they represent the larger population? (I believe the numbers are somewhere around 4:1 in terms of boys with autism versus girls.)
He thought that perhaps environmental exposure to some genetically damaging toxin or perhaps past paternal drug use was causing X chromosome damage passed on to the boys that is perhaps being counteracted in girls by redundant non-damaged genes.
I am paraphrasing of course, but does this strike you as a more logical explanation or atl east a more logical line of argument..?
regards,
David
Posted by: David HM Spector | April 4, 2008 2:12 PM
PZ, thank you for picking up on this issue. I fear that if the subpoena is not quashed, it will have a chilling effect on the blogosphere.
I am one of the 100+ bloggers named in item 5 of the subpoena. I suspect that Shoemaker's office just listed everybody on the Neurodiversity blogroll. I do write about autism and anti-vaccination lunacy, but it is a small part of my topic list.
For those interested in following the discussion, I'm keeping a running list of blog comments at I Speak of Dreams.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | April 4, 2008 2:26 PM
Are scientific claims are determined through opinion polls?
Silent Spring, anyone?
Posted by: gregor | April 4, 2008 2:32 PM
David @#48: It's a good question, but genetics is rarely that clear-cut. So far, to my knowledge, at least twelve different genes have been implicated in Autism Spectrum Disorders. At least two of these are on the X chromosome, but that leaves many more on the autosomal chromosomes common to males and females. Such clinically and genetically heterogeneous diseases usually take a great deal of time and effort to study, so it is frustrating for all concerned--parents, clinicians, and researchers--in the interim.
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 4, 2008 2:37 PM
Spot on. Our son has Asperger's, and we were actually relieved to get such a diagnosis. Until that point, we were battling Occam (he was diagnosed as ADHD, oh add General Anxiety Disorder, a touch of OCD,...). We read about the claims wrt Thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative for vaccines? That just sounds reckless), but realized that what was important wasn't assigning blame, but getting him the help, counseling, and training he needs, as well as the training and such for us. He has come leaps and bounds in progress, and deserves a huge amount of credit for all the work he's done. NOT helped by a distracting and malicious lawsuit, regardless of the potential cash payout.
Posted by: True Bob | April 4, 2008 2:47 PM
DanioPhD @ #51
I should have been a little more clear in my paraphrasing: He though perhaps one explanation for the higher prevalence among boys might be some X chromosome issue ... but his over arching point was the issue that this is a really complex genetic issue and that the Thermisol debate should be a non-starter given the ratio which is completely off given that boys and girls are vaccinated equally.
On the slapping down this as an issue, I do wonder why I haven't seen anyone raise the ratio issue at all... it would seem to be a coupe de grace for the whole argument against Thermisol.
_David
Posted by: David HM Spector | April 4, 2008 2:48 PM
I wonder if the relevant jurisdiction in this case has anti-SLAPP statutes.
Posted by: angrynight | April 4, 2008 2:49 PM
It now looks like genetics account for most autistic cases. There are probably dozens or hundreds of alleles that each have a small effect, like SZ, rather than a few autism genes.
Thimerosol was taken out of vaccines years ago. Probably a good idea. Few if any vaccines these days contain thimerosol. The incidence of autism just keeps going up anyway. So much for that theory.
Posted by: raven | April 4, 2008 2:50 PM
I wrote:
A settlement for what? There is no scientific or medical data to back any claim that vaccine ingredients are in any way causative of ASD.
I agree completely, but what is the purpose of a lawsuit? To place blame and be compensated with money. That is their hope, whether they actually have a case or not is a seperate issue. I am not claiming they have a case, I'm just saying that they are trying to "ease their pain" with money. Also, no matter how ill informed their understanding of medicine and science (which led them to quack cures) I can't believe they think that the result of the lawsuit would be a "cure" for their son's autism. Does anybody believe a "wrongful death" suit will bring their loved one back to life or that a malpractice suit will heal their injury? Of course not, but they do want to be compensated for their suffering and the only possible remedy is money.
In no way do I believe they have a valid case, but I still say the lawsuit is about laying blame and monetary compensation, not curing the condition.
Posted by: SteveM | April 4, 2008 3:01 PM
Just file a Motion to Quash. For the 100 bloggers, dragnet subpoenas are illegal.
What is illegal are frivolous and malicious lawsuits and abuse of process, both can be civil torts and abuse of process can also be a criminal violation in some jurisdictions. The lawyer is just thrashing around trying to look busy and huffing and puffing. I hope the parents aren't paying him upfront or they are wasting their money.
It is worth paying attention to but not worth worrying much about. Unless someone with a blog was secretly putting massive amounts of thimerosol in vaccines as a hobby [and got caught!], their liability is about zero.
I'd be far more concerned about going through the subpoena motions and not getting witness fees, travel costs, and document search time. Do you know how long it can take to search a filing cabinent for a lawyer you don't much like?
Posted by: raven | April 4, 2008 3:02 PM
I have no idea how that might have happened!
Posted by: Schmeer | April 4, 2008 3:09 PM
raven,
She has already filed a Motion to Quash. It's linked to above in the original post ("subpoenaed...").
Posted by: SC | April 4, 2008 3:13 PM
Unfortunately, the only people who seem to have taken this out for a spin are the Mercury Militia, and they've taken it to a very scary place.
SteveM:
Ok, yes, this is in fact the motivation behind most such cases. But as you originally posted this in response to an excerpt from Dianne's comment, specifically : "I hope that they get every form of aid they can to help the child live as happy and independent life as possible", perhaps you can understand the wish of the collective to clarify the validity of the case.
Whatever the motivations of the Sykes and their representatives may be, they are misdirected and deluded. And, with people like Jenny McCarthy spewing lies about the evil medical/pharma conspiracy to harm children, and how she 'cured' her son with various medically baseless (and likely very spendy, only-a-D-list-star-with-an-A-list-boyfriend-can-afford-them) therapies, it's not as much of a stretch to imagine monetary compensation being parlayed into a 'cure' as it might first appear.
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 4, 2008 3:15 PM
"Is there anyone who can explain what the motives are that drives these people to so rabidly attack pharmacutical companies for causing autism, where did that come from?"
It's being pushed by two well organized and well funded autism organizations in the United States. The first is ASA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_Society_of_America
The second is DAN!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_Autism_Now%21
Both were founded by Dr. Bernard Rimland who recently died. He was a very powerful figure in the autism community since he was the one who debunked the "refrigerator mother" hypothesis concerning autism which was proposed by Bruno Bettelheim. Unfortunately Rimland became a strong backer of the vaccine theory of autism.
Posted by: Tom Marking | April 4, 2008 3:30 PM
Current results make no damn sense whatsoever:
What the hell?
Posted by: MartinM | April 4, 2008 3:30 PM
Ah, never mind, it's now at roughly a 90/10 split, with sensible numbers. I suspect they removed a load of votes from the 'no' option and neglected to correct the total.
Posted by: MartinM | April 4, 2008 3:33 PM
And now it's:
YES
95 88.8%
NO
12 11.2%
Number of Voters : 107
First Vote : Saturday, 15 March 2008 11:10
Last Vote : Friday, 04 April 2008 09:32
Hmmm...perhaps not such a bullet-proof method of determining science policy after all.
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 4, 2008 3:34 PM
Ok, yes, this is in fact the motivation behind most such cases. But as you originally posted this in response to an excerpt from Dianne's comment, specifically : "I hope that they get every form of aid they can to help the child live as happy and independent life as possible", perhaps you can understand the wish of the collective to clarify the validity of the case.
True, I am often guilty of leaving too much implied and therefore easily misunderstood. What I was trying to say is that a large cash settlement would certainly help him live as happy and as independant as possible. It was not meant to endorse the validity of their claims, just recognition that money would certainly help them cope and possibly support him for the rest of his life.
Posted by: SteveM | April 4, 2008 3:34 PM
Is it wrong if I find one redeeming quality of the original subpoena?
It actually has the words "meow meow meow... blah blah blah"
(I'm still giggling)
Posted by: Maria | April 4, 2008 4:18 PM
Hmmm... that seems better.
Posted by: Schmeer | April 4, 2008 4:22 PM
Glen @ 45:
According to my Merriam-Webster Collegiate, the etymology of "Shyster" is: prob fr. Scheuster fl1840 Am attorney frequently rebuked in a New York Court for pettifoggery. It says nothing of Scheuster's ethno-religous identity.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | April 4, 2008 4:24 PM
I'm extremely skeptical of dietary claims for "curing" autism, since there's no solid science establishing that anything which diet could address is even part of the problem, much less that these particular diets actually help. "Results" like this are most likely the products of confirmation bias, selective memory, and the fact that autistic children will often improve somewhat over time - the condition is a disability, not a complete developmental flatline.
More later.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Strangely the poll appears to have disappeared. wonder why? ;-)
Posted by: Mikewot | April 4, 2008 4:35 PM
Peter (and Ruth):
That is why they call it an autism spectrum disorder rather than just "autism." I have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, but even a friend who lived with me for two years didn't know it. And yes, I've got it moderate-to-severe (depending on if I'm on the proper meds or not).
My brother has it also. It destroyed his relationship with his ex-fiancee. I, on the other hand, have been married for the last 9 years (as of this past week) and with my husband for 11 years. Luckily, he's an understanding (and infinitely patient) guy. The same disorder may not manifest the same way in every individual. My mother is schizophrenic and just able to live "on her own" with supervision in an apartment. I know another friend who is schizophrenic but who can hold down a job, a relationship, and function "mostly normally," yet still has hallucinations that she is careful not to let other people on to.
Autism is a continuum, not a discrete entity. Please remove the "Real Asperger's" label from your head. ;)
Posted by: Rebecca | April 4, 2008 4:36 PM
I have seen that one, but thought the other more convincing:
In any case, none of the commonly accepted etymologies for it have connections to Jews.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 4, 2008 4:37 PM
Not a big fan of litigation for crap like this (particularly before there's a proven link between the two), and big fan of the maxim that "correlation does not equal causation," especially in cases like these.
However, to say that the link is an "overwhelmingly discredited hypothesis" based on the "studies" she cites is ridiculous. The argument she's making is that "there is no link because reported cases continued to go up after use went down." But autism has become a "fad condition," like ADD -- overly anxious parents see some of the symptoms (which most of us normal people have from time to time) and get the doc to prescribe a treatment!
The point is this: Just because more cases are being diagnosed doesn't mean there isn't a link between the mercury and autism. Increased cases could be caused by any number of things IN ADDITION to the mercury, to include its having become a "fad condition." It's possible that the cases DUE TO MERCURY are decreasing, while the cases due to "OMG my baby's really focused on those blocks and I heard about autism on the news!" are increasing. We don't know.
Of all people to be aware of this fact, you'd think an advocate of "diversity in human wiring" would be one of them. But she seems to conveniently forget that point when it comes to using the "study" to aid her argument.
Real scientists would actually study the effect of mercury on the brain. But renaming your biases "science" is cheaper and easier, I guess.
Posted by: ungtss | April 4, 2008 4:45 PM
Another attempted suppression is PZ's expelling from Expelled. Now the journalist showings have started.
Dave Mosher, LiveScience Staff Writer: