A Humorous Threat from a Fiendish Marsupial

I normally am someone who doesn't like to post email correspondence. Usually, if someone takes the time to email me, it is of a personal matter or private matter, which the individual doesn't want aired out all over the interwebz. However, when that email constitutes a legal threat, even one as laughable as this one, then it's fair game to post it on my blog. So, here it is, ladies and gentlemen; my first legal threat from someone who really has no idea what Libel is.

I have been removed as an LBRB contributor after Olmsted made a completely vacuous legal threat:“Remove accusations of hoax by aoa and apologize within 24 hours or I will pursue all available remedies.” I wish to sue Dan Olmsted for libel for said threat, on the following grounds:







1. The reference to a “hoax by AoA” is itself a false accusation. I stated my opinion that AoA was reporting a story based on a forged document. I did not allege that any member of the AoA organization was responsible for a forgery. In fact, I suggested that the document’s creator was “an English-speaking author from the UK rather than the US”, which to my knowledge was not true of any of AoA’s core members. When some misunderstood the article as a direct allegation against AoA, I promptly made revisions and comments to clarify my position.






2. My efforts included 2 comments posted at Olmsted’s own article. The first stated in part that “I do not suspect you or anyone within your organization”. The second, in response to a comment by Craig Willoughby, stated in full: “I proposed that the document was a forgery. I never speculated on the identity of the forger, beyond proposing that it was someone from the UK. To claim that I ever accused anyone within AoA of forgery is LIBEL against me.” By AoA’s stated policies, Olmsted is “moderator” of his own articles and had sole discretion to allow my comment to appear, or at least to make a statement of his own acknowledging its substance. These comments never appeared. This will serve to establish that, where Olmsted may be said to have begun with legitimate cause for complaint, he refused to acknowledge and when given the opportunity actively obstructed my efforts to resolve the issue in “good faith” and in a timely manner. (MySocratesNote: I never said it was David Brown, aka Evil Possum who made the allegation. Here is the actual comment in it's entirety, along with a link to the article:


"I think it is hysterical how some of the Oraccolytes are clinging to the idea that this is some elaborate hoax that AoA has concocted in order to discredit this poor man. I've even seen them go as far as accusing AoA of faking the original document.The pathetic! It Burns!!")




3. Olmsted made his original threat without presenting any argument against my conclusions, offering any evidence or argument for the document’s authenticity, or even stating that he sincerely believed it to be authentic. He thus offered no reasonable grounds for me or LBRB to issue a correction, let alone “remove” the article from public view. Furthermore, his failure to comment directly on the issue of authenticity raises the question whether even he had full confidence in the “source” for his story.






4. A key article, written by Katherine Burgemeister and reposted at AoA under Olmsted’s own byline, made so many allegations clearly contradicted by the disputed document and/or independent records (most notably that ““Thorsen vanished in March 2009”, where the document said only that he “resigned his faculty position at Aarhus University” at that time, and even though I and others easily located ample documentation of his activities after that time) that it could credibly be argued to be a “hoax” (by its broadest usages including unintentional deception and self-deception, as in “`War of the Worlds’ hoax”) even if the document itself is accepted at face value.






5. Olmsted’s failure to correct or qualify a single one of Burgemeister’s unsubstantiated or clearly erroneous claims proves that at best he had not studied the document in any detail, and therefore was unqualified to make any comment on its authenticity. The only alternative is that he chose to repost Burgemeister’s article uncritically, despite full knowledge that it contained many errors, and therefore is guilty (conceivably even more than Burgemeister) of knowingly promoting falsehood.
(MySoctatesNote: The previous statements are grounds for Libel? And, I do believe the story was corroberated by the CDC and several different news sources, wasn't it? Ah, but only David Brown has his story correct.)





6. Olmsted had personal motive to use a heavy-handed response to this article as a means to seek to limit the circulation of other works by me, including an LBRB post in which I showed that Olmsted exaggerated a vaccine inventor’s income from a patent by 500% based mainly on documents which were clearly dated before that patent existed. Since my removal as an LBRB contributor, this work and others making well-substantiated complaints and criticisms against AoA have no longer been visible there, giving Olmsted something he had reason to desire but was in no position to achieve by honest and direct argument. (MySocratesNote: Oh, the horror!! Everyone is out to get him! Dan is teh bad ebil person who is trying to prevent the troof from coming out!!)






7. Writing is my sole source of actual and potential income. Making free contributions to others’ sites is my sole means of promoting works from which I can receive income. By causing or contributing to my removal as a contributor to Left Brain/ Right Brain, Olmsted’s substantially false complaint has significantly damaged my potential to support myself, and thus satisfies the definition of “libel”. (MySocratesNote: And yet, he offers no real evidence of how Dan's complaint is false. He has failed to really offer any valid reason for libel. And if this is his sole means of income? Well, I'm sorry, but he needs to find a real job)






8. Olmsted and other AoA staff have on many previous occasions censored my comments, referenced my work inaccurately and without “credit”, and referred to me pejoratively. I consider some of these prior instances sufficient to justify legal action in and of themselves, if the resources had been available. This will serve to establish that this complaint is only my most serious against Olmsted and his organization. Furthermore, I offer this as evidence that I cannot disregard Olmsted and his allies as a threat to my future livelihood: If I do not take action now to establish as a matter of undisputed, public record that Olmsted’s complaint against me was spurious and that what he reported was in fact false on many levels, said complaint could be reused against me at a future time. (MySocratesNote: *Sniffle Sniffle* They're making fun of poor wittle David? Waaaaaaahhh!!!! Notice how he offers no evidence of said pejorative comments.)






At the present time, I have no fiscal resources to pursue such an action. I request donations and/or other assistance that others can offer this matter. I will freely forego such an action now or in the future if Age of Autism publishes a post making the following admissions:






i. Statements by Olmsted, Craig Willoughby and others to the effect that I had accused AoA of creating a forgery were in error. (MySocratesNote: Be specific now, David....where did I accuse you of making the claim that AoA made a forgery? Lawyers and judges like specifics)






ii. As of end March 2010, representatives of Aarhus University had neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the disputed document. (MySocratesNote: In the case of a criminal investigation, that is entirely in their right and best interests)






iii. The statement that Aarhus “appears only to have been made available today to the media” was unsubstantiated, as the full contents of the document were not carried by mainstream media prior to its distribution by the anti-vaccine movement. (MySocratesNote: Except from the Copenhagen Press....which is a media outlet)





iv. Statements that Thorsen “disappeared” on March 2009 or at any other time were in error, as the document stated only that he “resigned his faculty position at Aarhus University” at that time, and his regular appearances and communications (if not his exact, current place(s) of residence) can be documented from public information up to at least March 16, 2010. (MySocratesNote:  No, they said he resigned his position at Aarhus University in March of 2009 (link here))






v. The initial identification of Thorsen as a suspect, prior to a confirming statement on March 10 from the US CDC, was based on descriptions of an unidentified suspect in the Danish media. Those who identified Thorsen on these grounds, without qualifying that the suspect was unnamed in primary sources, acted inappropriately. (MySocratesNote: How so? The statement was true, was it not?)





vi. The statement that Aarhus “`expressly prohibited' Dr Poul Thorsen from working for a second university, Emory” was unsubstantiated, as the relevant passage in the document refers to “double Full-time employment “ as the subject of a dispute. It is reasonably clear that it is not being claimed that Thorsen was forbidden from being employed at all by Emory. It was also highly improbable, given that simultaneous employment at multiple institutions as “adjunct faculty” is a pervasive practice, and Aarhus openly records current employment of others such as Albert Gjedde, Martin Kussman and Henrik J. Andersen as “adjunct faculty”. (MySocratesNote: Evidence?)





vii. The statement that “(t)he double role of Thorsen came to light after the university detected a shortfall in funding” was unsubstantiated and probably in error, as the document makes no statement to this effect. (MySocratesNote: So, the document was their only source of information about this? Wow)






viii. The statement that “(t)he revelation that Thorsen had a second secret job will raise fears of a hidden bias in the studies and undermine the scientific case for thiomersal" was in error. His employment at Emory was not secret, as he was openly listed among Emory faculty, and the Aarhus document makes no statement to the effect that his employment there was ever wholly unknown to the university. It did not constitute a “conflict of interest” related to vaccination, because Emory University does not manufacture vaccines. It was irrelevant to his paper on thimerosal, because that paper was published 5 years before he became an emory employee. (MySocratesNote: The Danish publication Politiken reported [in translation]: “'He is no longer employed at Emory. He was part time occupied at the department of epidemiological research from 2003 and from April 2008 to June 2009 as full time research professor' informs assistant vice director at Emory University Sarah E. Goodwin." When was the Thimerosal study done again? 2003?)








ix. The statement that Thorsen “continued to pass himself off as the head of the international project” is unsubstantiated, as the document only states that he “has continued to act in such a manner as to create the impression that he still retains a connection to Aarhus University after the termination of his employment by the university”. The document’s allegation appears to be itself in error (at least for the document’s given date), as Thorsen’s biography as of January 22, 2010 indicates that his employment at Aarhus ended in 2008.






x. The statement that Thorsen “was an author along with Kreesten Madsen of a key study that used data from Danish children to show that there was no link between mercury” was in error. This study was published in 2003, and had five additional coauthors. (MySocratesNote: Is AN AUTHOR. Doesn't that make him a co-author? So, how is this in error again?)






xi. Statements that Thorsen “absconded with $2 million” are unsubstantiated and probably in error, as the relevant document mentions only “advances” of an unspecified amount on grants for that total amount, makes no allegation that Thorsen took or spent any amount of money for his personal use, and makes no reference to a discrepancy between the money given and recorded spending on research that would justify such an allegation. (MySocratesNote: This claim by David is unsubstatiated. The CDC has confirmed the missing $2 million)






xii. The statement that data in an email by Dianne Simpson showed “a clear, linear relationship between the increase in vaccination rates (from 50.9% to 75.7%) and the number of autism cases per year (from 176 to 1182, a 6.7x increase) between 1980-1994...” These data actually show an exponential rise in autism diagnoses, compared to fluctuations and some linear increase in vaccination rates. The data also show the trend in autism diagnoses continuing if not accelerating in ca. 1990, as low-thimerosal or thimerosal-free DTaP vaccines became increasingly available. (MySocratesNote: Heh.....heh heh...BWAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! Oh my....oh my goodness...stomach hurts!)
Now, I understand that, allegedly, David has Asperger's Syndrome (likely self diagnosed). Some of you may think that my criticism of this letter is cruel because of this. No, I am treating this letter with all of the scorn and derision it deserves because this is nothing but the petty foot stomping of a spoiled child. If he thinks that some of the things said about him by Olmsted and Handley were cruel, then he needs to pony up and offer examples.

Novella Gets it Wrong Big Time, part deux

Again, I would like to take the time to thank our guest blogger, Schwartz, for his time and effort in taking down Novella's shameful display of ignorance. Schwartz, I do hope to see more of your writing here. Thank you again! -MySocratesNote


In Part I of this series, we examined an interaction between Dr. Novella, and Mr. JB Handley regarding a new study on Autism. You can re-read the exchange here, here and here


The study being discussed is A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism.


In the first segment we went through Dr. Novella’s last post and examined in detail his arguments. A close examination reveals almost all of them to be light in evidence and logic, and heavy in biased or erroneous opinion.


In this second segment, we’re going to drill in a lot deeper into the cornerstone of Novella’s primary argument and the unsupported assumptions his arguments all hinge on.


Let’s start with looking back at Novella’s key point in his final conclusion:


In the end, all that matters is the science, which clearly shows that there is no association between vaccines and autism. This one study has minimal implications for an alleged connection, except that it clears the most often implicated vaccine – MMR. It also supports other evidence that the onset of autism is earlier than many parents observe and much earlier than formal diagnosis, which calls into question any casual observations about the timing of onset to any potential triggers.



All of these conclusions rest primarily on one key assumption which is repeated by Novella throughout his opinion pieces.


As we now know, from multiple studies, true clinical onset (biological onset is likely earlier) is between 6 and 12 months.



I noted in the first segment that this assertion was unreferenced by Novella. This is certainly true in the second segment of the series which we looked at. When we look through the whole series, Novella’s hypothesis changes a bit over time and he discusses it in more detail in prior postings. Let’s review some segments from his first piece:



Retrospective studies, largely involving review of home movies, have suggested that autism can be diagnosed as early as 6-12 months,…


...

 

But what these results indicate is that clear signs of autism emerge between 6 and 12 months of age.


In this segment, he provides some references which we’ll go through a bit later.


Prior studies using home movies have shown that signs of autism can be detected between 8-12 months. A study looking at head circumference found statistical differences prior to 12 months. And one study looking at movements found differences between 4-6 months. So it seems the consensus of current evidence is that objective and detectable signs of autism emerge between 6-12 months. This study does not support detection prior to 6 months, but other studies do suggest this might be possible.


...


The true onset of autism in most ASD children likely began a year or two prior to the vaccines that are blamed as the cause.


...


The current study adds nicely to the growing consensus that the true clinical onset of ASD is between 6 and 12 months of age.



This shows an interesting progression:



   * He starts out with suggesting that autism can be diagnosed as early as 6 months.

   * Then we have clear signs emerging between 6-12 months.

   * a couple more studies later (which we’ll examine in more detail later) and suddenly we have a consensus that detectable signs of Autism emerge between 6-12 months

   * all of a sudden true clinical onset is most likely in the first year of life

   * now we have a growing consensus that the true clinical onset is between 6-12 months

In the second segment we see:

As we now know, from multiple studies, true clinical onset (biological onset is likely earlier) is between 6 and 12 months.


...


Now we know the age of clinical onset is between 6 and 12 months…



He has now progressed to definitive onset being known without any further evidence: “The true clinical onset is known to be between 6-12 months.”


I’m going to point out and list the assumptions inherent in Novella’s assertion. Our astute readers will already realize Novella’s assertion is really a hypothesis, and infers the following assumptions:

    1. There is a consensus about the age of the clinical onset of Autism

    2. The “consensus” has changed from some earlier consensus or lack of consensus

    3. The clinical onset of autism is consistent within a narrow range of 6-12 months

    4. The onset is early and uniform, consistent with genetic causes

Keep these in mind as we review the evidence that Novella is using and ignoring to form his opinion.


After the current study under question, Novella’s first reference is his own opinion piece here.


Once you stop laughing, I’ve done the work for everyone and linked and summarized a couple of the studies his older opinion piece references.


Rate of Head Circumference Growth as a Function of Autism Diagnosis and History of Autistic Regression.


Summary of study findings:


    * retrospective study of 28 boys with ASD and 8 with developmental delay

    * measured the rate of growth of head circumference and compared to reference population data published by CDC

    * in 60% of the autistic boys, they had accelerated growth prior to the onset of the symptoms of autism (7-10 months old)

    * in the children who’s parents reported regression the results were similar – unknown if the sample size here was large enough to allow those results to be considered significant



This small study noted that in children that were ultimately diagnosed with ASD, there were biological differences from the general population at 7-10 months of age. However, these differences were not coincident with the onset of Autism as described by the studies authors in the conclusion:

Findings from this study suggest that the aberrant growth is present in the first year of life and precedes the onset and diagnosis in children with autism spectrum disorder with and without a history of autistic regression.

Summary of conclusions:


    * identifies possible predictors of future onset of ASD

    * does not suggest the onset of autism is coincident with accelerated head growth

    * does not suggest an onset of Autism prior to 12 months of age

    * suggests that head growth is similar in regressive vs non-regressive Autism

    * despite significant differences, the results were not overly consistent or homogenous (60% with a small sample size)



Novella is implying that observed correlation of increased head circumference growth is coincident with the onset of Autism and thus it supports his assertion that the “true onset” of Autism is earlier than the reported onset of actual ASD symptoms. This study in no way suggests that increased head circumference growth causes or is equivalent to the onset of Autism.


Novella refers to some studies that looked at home videos and found some possible signs of autism as early as 12 months, but the link is broken. At any rate from his own description, these do not support a “true onset” from between 6-12 months of age.


The next study is from Philip Teitelbaum:


Movement analysis in infancy may be useful for early diagnosis of autism


Summary of study findings:

    * retrospective study of 17 children diagnosed with Autism

    * they found detectable movement disorders in all of the children including some issues visible at birth

    * a wide range of different movement issues occurring at different ages were discussed

    * based on 17 cases, the authors suggest that their diagnostics procedures could be used to provide an earlier diagnosis of autism



This is a very interesting study as they research a number of infant movements is explicit detail and find problems in each of their test cases and in some of the cases, very early ages. Here as well, we find a leap of assumption by the study authors similar to that of Novella:


Furthermore, because these movement disorders always could be detected with our methods as early as 4–6 months of age and sometimes as early as the first few days after birth, we suggest that the study of movement disorders in infancy may serve as an earlier indicator than presently available methods for diagnosing autism in children.



That wording is pretty bold as they state it can be used to diagnose Autism at such a young age. However, when we read on, it is tempered by a later discussion (emphasis mine):


The fact that such early diagnosis is possible now highlights the need for the development of earlier therapies that will be effective in the treatment of potentially autistic children. Because diagnosis was not generally possible so early, no systematic methods are currently available for the treatment of infants at risk for autism. Our findings should provide the impetus for systematic search for such treatment methods.



Yet another quote:


By combining movement analysis in infancy with MRI analysis, it may be possible eventually to diagnose differential areas of brain involvement in different subtypes of autism.



Novella has clearly focused on the text that supports what he seems to desperately want to believe: biological onset of autism occurs in the first months of life and pre-determined by genetics. Although Teitelbaum suggests this in one section, the bulk of the discussion appropriately limits the scope of his conclusions.


This study was published in 1998 and there was a single follow-up in 2004:


Eshkol-Wachman movement notation in diagnosis: The early detection of Asperger’s syndrome.


In this study, they find similar results as the first.


In the present article, using Eshkol–Wachman movement notation, we present evidence that abnormal movement patterns can be detected in AS in infancy. This finding suggests that AS can be diagnosed very early, independent of the presence of language. As shown earlier by us, almost all of the movement disturbances in autism can be interpreted as infantile reflexes “gone astray”; i.e., some reflexes are not inhibited at the appropriate age in development, whereas others fail to appear when they should. This phenomenon appears to apply to AS as well. Based on preliminary results, a simple test using one such reflex is proposed for the early detection of a subgroup of children with AS or autism.



Again, we get some strong but ultimately conflicting language. A few more observations come to mind here. This research is quite old, and yet, there has been no follow-up to validate these findings in a prospective, or larger study. I’ll also note that these studies were published in PNAS. Although it is peer-reviewed, they allow member authors to select their own referees and manage the referee process. This may explain the conflicting and sometimes overreaching statements. I also found it interesting to note that the members of second study group were recruited personally by the authors at conferences, the internet, and through advertisements.


Study Conclusions:


    * the authors find a correlation between autistic children and detectable movement disorders in some cases at an early age

    * sample size is very small – 17 children

    * the results do not support a uniform or consistent onset of symptoms

    * the use of these finding as a diagnostic tool is untested despite the results being quite old



Unfortunately, the sample size is very small, so leaping to any conclusions regarding the “true onset” of autism is clearly premature.


In this opinion piece Novella makes the following statement based on the first two studies we just looked at:


Taken together there is copious evidence that autism is a primarily genetic disorder that is present at birth, with subtle but increasing signs that separate ASD children from non-ASD children as they age.



I’ll just note quickly, that in the comments on Novellas blog we see a familiar pattern: Novella hasn’t even read the original study. In fact, he doesn’t even link to it, he just links a press release. I’m curious how anyone – let alone a scientist – can consider two retrospective investigations of a total of 45 children copious amounts of evidence of anything.


(A side note: it is not lost on me that the original Wakefield Lancet study was a retrospective case study with a small number of cases and a key criticism is that the cases were recruited by the doctors…)


I’m also unclear what evidence is presented here to indicate that Autism is genetic in nature or that the onset actually occurs when some of these early signs are present. The only way to draw a genetic conclusion based on these studies is to assume that the early biological signs and movement disorders found in the first months of life are caused primarily by genetic defects. His assumption of early onset of Autism implies that the biological cause of autism is present and also causing the early signs observed in these two studies.


There is no evidence in either of these studies to support that hypothesis as they are only noting a correlation in a very small retrospective sample. Without a prospective study of a larger size, that conclusion is a giant leap of faith, unless you assume that the cause is genetic. Of course in that case, Novellas argument now looks circular because he uses these assumptions to state that the “true onset” of Autism is uniform and in the early years of life consistent with genetic disorders.


Early and fairly uniform onset is consistent with genetic causes of ASD, rather than environmental causes.



These studies do not provide any evidence of uniformity in timing or signs and symptoms.


Let’s get back to the study that started the whole series.


A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism


In an editorial in the same journal (Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), Tony Charman, PhD discusses the study:


To date, less than a handful of studies have reported in terms of early signs that predict autism outcomes. The study by Ozonoff and colleagues [1] is the first to do so on a sample as large as 25 siblings who went on to receive an autism spectrum (ASD) diagnosis at 36 months.



On one side we’ve got Novella throwing around “copious” amounts of evidence and from the expert we have a handful of small retrospective studies.


From the study itself (Ozonoff et al) we see they talk about conflicting evidence from different patterns of the onset of autism:


Recently, the adequacy of a dichotomous classification of onset has been questioned,17 based on emerging results from studies that provide evidence of other onset patterns. Some parents report that their child displayed neither early signs of autism nor regression, a phenomenon that has been called developmental plateau17,18 or stagnation.19 Other studies have found evidence of both early signs of ASD and regression simultaneously present in the retrospective histories of children with ASD.9,11,12,20



The introduction of this study discusses the various onset patterns in autism and references no less than 20 different studies. Apparently Novella must have skipped or missed this part of the study because it’s pretty clear right from the introduction that there is no consensus on the question of onset of Autism(s), let alone “true clinical onset”. In fact, many of the different Autisms are classified by the differing timings of actual onset. There is certainly no evidence of uniformity. The authors confirm this in the discussion section and even diverge from the traditional classifications of the Autisms:


The present findings suggest that existing definitions of onset patterns will need to undergo further development. One possibility is that we need to expand the number of categories used to describe onset. For example, perhaps there are four rather than two categories of onset, including groups characterized by developmental plateaus and by mixed features of early symptoms plus later regression, as we have suggested elsewhere. 17 The prospective data acquired in the present investigation suggest another possibility, however. We hypothesize that symptom emergence may better be considered dimensionally, as a continuum characterized by the amount and timing of regression.



They are not describing consensus at all. In fact there is little consensus in the prevailing classifications and these authors are suggesting yet another point of view. However, this point of view is not consistent with Novella’s assumption of uniformity of onset. That is clear in the following quote:


In this conceptualization, at one end of the continuum lie children who display loss of social interest so early that the regression is difficult to see and symptoms appear to have always been present. At the other end of the continuum lie children who experience losses of social interest and communication skills so late that the regression appears quite dramatic.



So this study has already torpedoed two of Novella’s key assumptions, let’s tackle the “true clinical onset” at 6-12 months assumption. Looking at the abstract we see the following in the results:


Group differences were significant by 12 months of age on most variables.



The fact that significant differences were noticed at 12 months does not imply uniformity and is not evidence that the “true clinical onset” is uniform and occurs between 6 and 12 months. Reading the conclusions from the abstract:

These results suggest that behavioral signs of autism are not present at birth, as once suggested by Kanner, but emerge over time through a process of diminishment of key social communication behaviors.



The authors specifically avoid listing a timeline and that is consistent with the discussion we reviewed above. It appears that Novella might have gotten one assumption right: that the old consensus – genetic disorder present at birth as per Kanner – is no longer considered valid. If we go back to Tony Charman we see he also makes another important note when it comes to old preconceptions:


Ozonoff et al. suggest that regression might be the norm and not the exception in autism. A similar suggestion was recently made by Pickles et al.8 based on retrospective parental report. They found not only that regression was very specific to autism, as it was almost never found in children with language impairment without autism, but also a strong association between age of first words and likelihood of undergoing regression. That is, frank loss of language skills was associated with switching from the most advanced early language to being among the slowest (in terms of eventual onset of phrase speech).



He implies that Autism is unique compared to other developmental disorders involving language impairment. At first blush, that doesn’t seem consistent with uniform genetic disorders. He goes on:


We do not know what the nature and causes are of the neurodevelopmental perturbations that underlie regression but the existence of such “high-risk” prospective studies offers an opportunity to investigate these questions.



This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of Novellas hypothesis masquerading as fact. Without knowing the causes or the nature of the neurodevelopment signs we’re seeing at a young age in some children, we can’t know whether they are genetically caused or whether they’re predictive of an autism diagnosis later in life.


Dr. Charman closes with this statement:


Ten years ago, the prospective study of the emergence of early or even prodromal signs of autism would not have been considered possible or practicable. These two studies exemplify the new science of “autism in infancy.”



The real Autism scientists are talking about small new groundbreaking Autism science in it’s “infancy” and the “scientist” Novella is spewing opinion about copious amounts of evidence and a conclusive understanding of the “true” clinical onset from genetic causes.


Conclusion:


In this segment, we investigate in detail the cornerstone of Novella’s argument against vaccine causation and for the genetic causation of Autism. Not surprisingly, we find it completely unsupported by the evidence he provides. Even worse, most of his implicit assumptions contradict the evidence he references.


Walking through his arguments which move from a “suggestion of early signs” to a conclusive statement of “true clinical onset” of autism reveals that his interpretation of the evidence and application of logical arguments is seriously compromised. It is bordering on nonsensical. It appears he makes his definitive statements based on a few select lines from study abstracts and press releases. From this “selective hearing” – my apologies to Alan Golding and his video about Brian Deer – he makes giant leaps of assumption and produces what he and Gorski consider “scientific reference” material for doctors.


It certainly doesn’t take a degree in Neurology to understand the scope of these small case studies. If Novella makes so many errors of interpretation and leaps of assumption in these simple cases, it makes me question what he and Gorski are doing when they look into the far more complex epidemiology studies that form the basis of his vaccine safety arguments.


I can’t decide which of his bias’ he is so desperately trying to protect: the quickly dying idea that Autism is purely genetic or the idea that vaccines have no part in the autistic regression of many children. Perhaps if he declared his conflicts of interest, we would gain some insight into the true source of his bias?


I found a lot of details that have interesting implications when reading these studies. They point to a large variance in onset and early signs and symptoms which leads us farther away from a pure genetic cause and explains why there is a growing consensus that environmental influences have a key role to play in the causation of Autism. This new information certainly does not exonerate vaccines or MMR.


Perhaps I’ll write a third segment pointing some of my observations of the science.


Potential Conflicts of Interest: None

Guest Blogger: Novella Gets it Wrong...Big Surprise

My good friend Schwartz took the time to write this amazing article about Dr. Novella and his early diagnoses farce. Thanks, Schwartz for your welcome take-down of Dr. Novella.


Several weeks ago, I observed an interesting exchange between JB Handley and Dr. Steven Novella here, here, and here.


Here is a link to the study being discussed.


After reading it all, I decided to perform an analysis of Dr. Novella’s final response. I’ll warn everyone here that this is a long article because we actually drill into the details. What we find is very disturbing although not surprising to some of us. In part I of this analysis we find Dr. Novella’s writing littered with factual errors, misrepresented facts, false logic, and unprofessional prose. It raises a lot of questions as to why Dr. Novella is considered a credible resource when it comes to the questions surrounding vaccines and Autism.

“Science based medicine” comes across as the more “professional” sounding arm of the scienceblogs crew which includes Dr. Gorski who blogs there under the pseudonymn of Orac. Although Dr. Novella does not blog under scienceblogs, he publishes an irreverent podcast which discusses topics in a similar insulting style. When these people want to appear more credible, they tend to publish under the sciencebasedmedicine moniker.

The question of credibility is an interesting topic. Much of the debate surrounding complex health topics such as Autism are subject to considerable opinion given that the problems are complex and very few definitive facts exist. It is quite common to see a majority of arguments in any particular blog or newspaper article on autism and vaccines, based purely on opinion which is inherently founded on an assumption of credibility. I can only assume that’s why Drs Gorsky and Novella started up sciencebasedmedicine because the podcasts and scienceblogs are both filled with rhetoric and personal insult which has no place in professional science.


I prefer to judge credibility based on measuring what someone says against the evidence they present and the evidence they ignore, not the letters after someone’s name. Yes, that takes a lot more work than just trusting smooth talking authority, but real knowledge is gained only through hard work and reading the details.


So let’s get straight to work. I’ll skip the pre-amble from the article move right to where Novella opens with an admission to a single error:


“Unfortunately, I made a statement that is simply wrong. I wrote:


Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule.”


“First, this was a vague statement – not quantitative, and was sloppily written, giving a different impression from the one I intended. I make these kinds of errors from time to time – that is one of the perils of daily blogging about technical topics, and posting blogs without editorial or peer-review. Most blog readers understand this, and typically I will simply clarify my prose or correct mistakes when they are pointed out.”


Ok, the mea culpa. No problems there. However, I think Novella’s excuse is important to make note of, especially in light of the point I made earlier about hard work. A blog is a perfectly valid way to discuss one’s opinion. However, there are many people that treat this material as if it was scientific reference as intended by the author. Novella also makes many statements of fact in his piece. In the comments section someone else pointed this out and Novella responded including this:

“But even then, the rate of errors like this is very low – as a percentage or even total number. And when they crop up, we rapidly correct them.”


We will revisit this one later. Let's continue with his article.


"However, since I often write about topics that interest dedicated ideologues who seek to sow anti-science and confusion, sometimes these errors open the door for the flame warriors. That is what happened in this case."


It’s interesting that Dr. Novella implies that a proper correction is merited because others might “take advantage” of his mistake. I also notice the “air of professional” blog didn’t stop him from slipping in a personal insult as well.


"J.B. Handley, writing at Age of Autism, saw my error as a way to demonize me before his enthralled mobs – and he dives into his task with gusto – although without much care or attention to detail himself, as we will see. Handley also is clearly not interested in what the science actually says, only in grabbing a propaganda opportunity."


He’s throwing more personal insults while complaining about being demonized. Let’s move on to the actual arguments. I’ll skip over the next paragraph where he agrees there are many vaccinations prior to the age of 12 months and move directly to the arguments.


“I wrote that “many children are diagnosed between the ages of 2 and 3. About this statement Handley writes:



“Firstly, the last time I checked, the average age of diagnosis for a child with autism was somewhere between 3-4 years of age, not 2-3.”



"In fact, the average age of diagnosis is 3.1 years (although to be fair other studies give the average at 3.6 – there is some regional variation). This is “somewhere between 3-4 years of age” but Handley’s point is still incorrect. I did not write that the average age was between 2 and 3 but that many children are diagnosed between 2 and 3, which is certainly true if the average age at diagnosis is 3.1. In his exuberance, Handley simply got this wrong."


Novella seems to be splitting hairs here and he is vigorously defending yet another vague, not quantitative statement, so we’ll indulge him and check the reference provided: (here).


3.1 years for Autistic disorder, 3.9 for pdd-NOS, and 7.2 for aspergers. The weighted average is 4.3 years for ASD.


We all know the term "Autism" is ambiguous since it has multiple meanings. If we look at the original study that Novella commented on, it was using the term Autism to refer to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): (here)


ASD actually includes Austistic Disorder, PDD-NOS, and Aspergers.  (Here)


Novella's use of the 3.1 year old number is clearly not accurate. He needs to take the combined average of the three values contained in his reference and that average is a lot closer to Handley’s stated range and his argument. 


I hope that someone correcting erroneous commentary would double check that they got it right the second time especially when they provide a reference. In Novella's reference, the three numbers are listed together so oversight is unlikely but giving him the benefit of the doubt leaves us with three possible conclusions:



1) Novella doesn't really understand Autism


2) Novella purposefully used an incorrect number hoping you wouldn't notice


3) Novella made yet another mistake in his correcting submission


(MySocratesNote: I suspect all three)
 

All three possibilities are pretty embarrassing. If we consider the assertion that his use of the term “many” is accurate we have to take a look at the graph from the study he referenced to support his average age of diagnosis. (here)


A quick glance illustrates that the majority do not get diagnosed between the ages of 2 and 3. The average survey age from the study was 10. If Novella insists that his use of the term "many" is still technically accurate because it is ambiguous, then his argument is ambiguous. The end result is his argument is either ambiguous, or just plain wrong. In science based medicine, I'm not sure which is worse, but I'm certain neither one is scientific. I’ll just repost his mea culpa from the opening: “First, this was a vague statement – not quantitative, and was sloppily written…”. I’m unclear why he would spend paragraphs trying to defend yet another example of vague poorly written statements while admonishing Handley for quoting an average which is actually a quantitative term?


Novella's reason for making his original statement was to support his hypothesis that the correlation being made by parents between vaccination and Autism was only because the age of the “height of vaccination” corresponded to the age of diagnosis. He used both of these erroneous facts to support his hypothesis that this observation of correlation and subsequent conclusion of causation was an example of “telescoping phenomenon” due to the perceived concurrent timing. As Handley correctly pointed out, the majority of diagnosis is later than Novella stated, and the “height of vaccination”, earlier. Moving on he continues:


"I don’t expect him to make a correction, however. The last time he attacked me, he make a rather amateurish mistake, confusing incidence and prevalence, and used his error as the basis of his criticism. He never admitted or commented in any way on his gross error."


This criticism hinges on this statement from his previous paragraph: "I did not write that the average age was between 2 and 3 but that many children are diagnosed between 2 and 3, which is certainly true if the average age at diagnosis is 3.1. In his exuberance, Handley simply got this wrong."


Reading Novella’s own reference we see that the average age of diagnosis for ASD (which is the criteria for the study in question) is not 3.1 years. Basic examination of the evidence referenced by Novella contradicts his assertion and supports Handley’s point. In light of his continuing lack of rigour and “vague” language, Novella’s rebuke of Handley is all the more ironic. I wonder if he’ll make another correction?


"But onto the substance of his latest attack. The point that I was trying to make, which I did in fact clarify later in my post, is that when parents attempt to date the onset of their child’s autism they typically will date the onset later than the true onset."


This is revisionist. Here is exactly how he makes his point in the original article:


"The authors, however, do not discuss one very significant implication of this study (although an implication already raised by prior studies demonstrating early signs of ASD) – the observation made by many parents that ASD symptom onset correlates with certain vaccinations."


His key point or “significant implication” of the study is that parents are suffering from telescoping phenomenon.


"What this and other studies show is that not only is the assumption of causation fallacious, the observation of correlation is likely flawed as well. The true onset of autism in most ASD children likely began a year or two prior to the vaccines that are blamed as the cause."


Again, he implies quite strongly that the parents are wrong again and he provides two pieces of evidence to support it: the timing argument, and the Cedillo Omnibus case. Since his first argument is fundamentally flawed – and the only argument based on the study under discussion – we’re left with the Cedillo example. We don’t even need to investigate the merits of that case because it is a classic example of an anecdote. Novella is making a strong broad based conclusion purely based on the merits of anecdote. If I remember correctly, that reads like a Plural of Anecdote fallacy. I also note the flying reference to “this and other studies”. No references were provided. I’ll let you decide if you have faith in his assertion. (MySocratesNote: Also keep in mind that the Cedillo case was a trial, not science. Isn't that what they said about the Poling and Banks cases?)


Moving back to the newer post, Novella states:


"As we now know, from multiple studies, true clinical onset (biological onset is likely earlier) is between 6 and 12 months. Parents may not notice this onset until much later, and formal diagnosis is later still. This diagnosis happens within the childhood vaccination schedule, so it is likely that parents will have some recent vaccine to point to when looking for factors that seem to correlate with the onset of autism."


You might not have noticed, but Novella just pulled a couple of really fast ones, one of which he also pulled in the original article. First he revises his argument by saying that diagnosis happens within the childhood vaccination schedule. I think I saw a moving goalpost there. Even still, it is a meaningless statement since a glance at the schedule – referenced by Dr. Novella earlier – shows that vaccination occurs throughout all of childhood from birth so of course it occurs during the vaccination schedule.


The real news is that Novella just discovered that the true clinical onset of ASD was between 6 and 12 months. That statement of fact about the “true clinical onset” is not referenced so I can only assume he's using this latest study as evidence to back it up. This study does not conclude anywhere that the “true clinical onset” of ASD is between 6-12 months. Novella just made a giant leap of assumption. He again provides no other references despite stating they exist.

I’m going to continue on with the analysis of his post now, but I will return to the issue of “true clinical onset” in part II of this analysis. We will soon see that all of Novella’s fundamental arguments rest on his slight of words “true clinical onset” and the completely unreferenced “biological onset is likely earlier”. Let’s move on.

"That was my point – a point that I and many others have made previously. By pushing earlier the true clinical onset of autism this study adds to evidence against the involvement of later vaccines. It is true that many vaccine are given in the first year of life, and of course this study by itself does not let all vaccines off the hook – nor did I say that it does."


Since this study never states that the “true clinical onset” is 6-12 months, his statement is completely unsubstantiated and we must assume is his opinion. Given that he admittedly has no clinical experience with Autism, and that he has now made two basic fundamental errors of analysis, his opinion – unsupported by any scientific reference – isn’t very convincing.


Reading on, Novella continues to the topic of MMR:


"But I did discuss one vaccine in particular – the MMR vaccine. MMR has received more attention than any other vaccine as a potential cause of autism, thanks to the now-discredited work of Andrew Wakefield. The first dose of MMR is given at a minimum of 12 months of age, with the second dose being given between 4 and 6 years. Certainly this study is relevant to the claim that MMR is a significant cause of autism"


Novella goes on:


“There is much evidence to support the conclusion that there is no correlation between MMR and autism. It should be obvious that this study is further evidence against a correlation. If most children with autism show signs by 12 months, then a vaccine which is not given prior to 12 months cannot be to blame.”


If we review the results of the study, there were only 4 parents of the 25 ASD children that actually reported regression. Ignoring the extremely small sample size that Novella’s hypothesis covers, there is no information in the study to indicate at what age those regressions occurred. Consequently, it is not possible to determine whether the reported regressions occurred prior to or after any specific vaccination. Novella is really arguing against a strawman – that all reports of autistic regression occur after MMR vaccination. Either that or he is making the classic error of assuming that the onset of regression for the group applies to each individual case.  (MySocratesNote: I'd also like to interject that the study said that in the majority of cases, onset occurred between 12 and 18 months, with some being seen as early as 6 months. So, he misrepresents the data, omitting that crucial detail)

Novella continues:

“This was not obvious to Handley, however. He wrote:



“In fact, between the ages of 2 and 3, children receive all of 2 vaccines, accounting for 5.5% of the vaccines they receive, while a full 70%, including MMR, come in their first 12 months of life, perfectly matching the time when this new study reported the beginning of a regression into autism!"


"Wrong, Handley. The MMR does not come “in their first 12 months of life.” At the very earliest it comes AT 12 months, which obviously cannot be responsible for symptoms that are present by 12 months. Maybe Handley was just sloppy in his choice of words (but it is odd that he went out of his way to mention MMR by name). Or maybe he is guilty of all the things of which he falsely accused me. This is certainly the same kind of error I made, although more specific. My error was inadvertent and I have readily admitted my mistake and am taking great pains to correct it. Let’s see how Handley responds when this error is pointed out to him.”


Novella is complaining about Handley’s assumption that MMR occurs at exactly 12 months despite the schedule recommending it between 12-15 months. For anyone who has kids (I'm guessing Novella doesn’t because it’s pretty hard to miss the “height of the vaccination schedule” if you do) there will almost certainly be a one year pediatrician visit around the first birthday. For the majority of children, the MMR vaccine will be administered at this time at the age of 12 months. 


If Novella really wants to argue minute details, he might want to take note that the differences between the ASD and ND groups only became significant at the 12 month period and that a 12 month visit – at 12 months of age per the study description – is a point in time occurring within a 30 day period. This means that a statistically significant regression measured at 12 months of age could occur after a 1 year anniversary MMR vaccination. There is not enough detail provided in the study, or in the vaccine records for these children to provide any support for his hypothesis about MMR and autistic regression. If we review Handley’s argument, Novella certainly has not provided any convincing scientific evidence to contradict it.


“The bottom line is that this study does in fact add to the body of evidence against an association between MMR and autism, because of the timing of the onset of autism.”


As we reviewed earlier, Novella’s sweeping assumptions about the onset of ASDs are not supported by the evidence provided.


“I have the experience of actually seeing and diagnosing patients, reviewing their histories and comparing them to documented evidence in some cases. So I, like other experienced clinicians, understand this phenomenon well. For example, I see many patients with dementia, like Alzheimer’s disease, and they or their family will often date the onset of symptoms at a point in time some months prior to presentation, often anchored to a specific event (a phenomenon actually known as “anchoring”). But when I probe for specific details, it is apparent that there were signs of dementia for 1-2 years prior to the family’s dating of the onset. Or, I may have the benefit of a documented exam or history, clearly showing onset prior to the memory of those giving the history.”


This section borders on an argument from elitism and the fallacy of intuition. Dr. Novella’s clinical experience does not imply he is right and Handley is wrong. Additionally, Dr. Novella’s own experience with dementia does not allow us to assume he can intuit what parents are experiencing when they observe Autistic regression after vaccination. He’ll have a hard time convincing me that parents pay as much attention to their aging spouses or parents as they do to their newborn infants.

"Handley seems naive to all of this, and rather he is content to grossly mischaracterize my point as calling parents “dumb,” which, of course, I never did. This is because Handley’s purpose, in my opinion, is not to meaningfully explore the evidence, but to demonize scientists and physicians with whom he disagrees. Read the comments to his blog and you will see that his attempts at demonizing me and others are quite successful in the echochamber of his followers. He wrote:" Further, this notion by Novella that we parents are “telescoping” is simply the ridiculous introduction of a new and confusing term to try and explain away the chorus of tens of thousands of parents all screaming the same thing about what happened to their kids."


Since misery begs company, I have to post a comment from Novella’s blog:


“But this won’t carry any weight with the anti-vaxxers, because they are already convinced that it is the vaccines. The details don’t matter, and we’ve already seen that the narrative can shift wildly, so long as it ends up with the finger being pointed at vaccination. They’ll just conclude that perhaps the child had some kind of a “risk factor” to begin with, or else the damage was done by the early vaccines but not recognized, and the later vaccination was the “straw that breaks the camels back” and made the autism worse.”

There isn’t much to say about that is there? Moving on:


"The authors of this study itself applied the concept of “telescoping” or dating autism onset as more recent that it really was. I simply used their term, which they in turn took from the literature. It is a well-described concept, not invented by me or this study’s authors – people remember events in the past as being more recent than they actually were. For Handley’s purposes, however, he wants to characterize a well-known and scientifically established psychological phenomenon as being equivalent to calling people stupid, or spinning reality."


This is serious revisionism. As I covered early on, Novella clearly tried to attribute the correlation of Autistic regression with vaccination to the telescoping phenomenon using his erroneous calculations as evidence. Additionally, Novella implies that the study discussed telescoping without providing a quote. As we recall, a closer inspection of the study doesn’t leave much to discuss about that topic because the vast majority of the parents never reported any regression and the study never discusses its timing. I hope Novella clarifies this problem with his argument.


“Further, Handley is now trying to argue that this new study supports a correlation between vaccines and autism. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. It does all but eliminate MMR, varicella, and Hep A as having any potential role in autism, as these vaccines all come after the onset of autism in most cases. Handley, if he were being intellectually honest, should admit this, but he doesn’t, and very dishonestly implies that MMR specifically is still a potential cause.”


This is opinion masquerading as fact. His whole argument rests on his unsubstantiated statement about the onset of autism. (MySocratesNote: Again, I'd like to point out my earlier comment about what the paper really says about onset)


“Average age of diagnosis of autism is about 3.1 years of age, and when that was the best information we had to go on the anti-vax movement argued that this showed a correlation with vaccines. Then clinical studies showed that the diagnosis could be reliably made between age 2-3 years of age, but that’s OK, that still correlates with vaccines. Now we know the age of clinical onset is between 6 and 12 months, and Handley is saying this still correlates with the vaccine schedule.”


Novella now uses an argumentum ad logicam – he is implying that errors in previous hypotheses mean that the current conclusion is invalid. He also invokes stereotype which is rhetorical and obviously the “anti-vax” arguments he refers to can’t actually be referenced. Honest debate does not invoke stereotype in an argument. To add insult to injury, he again erroneously uses the wrong average age of diagnosis based on his own scientific reference. He also repeats his unreferenced statement of fact that we know the true age of clinical onset of autism. His definitive conclusion is completely unjustified and unsupported by the evidence he provides. 


“There is also nothing about the vaccine hypothesis that led anyone in the anti-vaccine camp to predict that the true age of onset of autism is earlier than it is being diagnosed, and certainly not to within 6-12 months of age. So Handley is just retrofitting – declaring whatever evidence there is as supporting his position.”


In addition to invoking stereotype again, this is an Argumentum ad logicam: Errors in previous hypotheses do not invalidate the current conclusion. From his tone here, I also get the impression that Dr. Novella disagrees with altering a hypotheses based on new information, something that is an integral part of the scientific method. (MySocratesNote: Again, he makes the same error about what the paper actually said)


“Since the HepB is given at birth, and other vaccines at 1-3 months, moving the diagnosis of autism up even further would still correlate with some vaccines. Since Handley is willing to blame any vaccines, regardless of type (live virus or otherwise) and ingredients (thimerosal or not) no age of onset would disprove his cherished vaccine hypothesis.”


Novella gets the details wrong again on this one. If we take a trip over to the CDC recommended schedule from his own reference: (Here)


We see that the bulk of the early infant vaccinations occur between 2 and 6 months, not between 1 and 3 months. I’m really surprised at this one, since Handley walked through the schedule is gross detail. This whole section consists of a rant about Mr. Hanley littered with false arguments.


“There is also nothing about the vaccine hypothesis that led anyone in the anti-vaccine camp to predict that the true age of onset of autism is earlier than it is being diagnosed, and certainly not to within 6-12 months of age. So Handley is just retrofitting – declaring whatever evidence there is as supporting his position.”


Again, more complaints about a modified hypothesis based on new evidence. This is also ironic because we’ve seen a fair bit of retrofitting in Novella’s single series of two blogs. He again repeats his unsupported assertion that the true clinical onset of Autism is 6-12 months.


“Finally, Handley pulls the “pharma shill” gambit on me as part of his smear campaign. He trots out an accusation he has made before, portraying my association with the ACSH as being sinister. As I have already explained, my association with the ACSH is limited to me agreeing to advise them on areas of my expertise. That’s it. I have, in fact, performed zero work for them. I have had no contact with them, other than them sending me their public material, and I have never received any kind of remuneration from ACSH. I have corrected Handley on this before, so I know that he knows what he is writing is wrong, and he has failed to correct his errors.
Further my associations with the pharmaceutical industry are minimal – a couple lectures and consultations for nominal fees years ago (and nothing ever to do with vaccines). I have never received a dime from any company to express an opinion on a scientific topic, or write a particular blog or article. I suppose that Handley believes my many hours of work producing podcasts and blogs and promoting science and skepticism is all an elaborate smokescreen for shilling for industry, all without receiving a dime for my efforts, which makes me the worst shill ever.”


On a side note, the ACSH is an industry funded organization that has dubious credibility given their severe conflict of interest, and some of their questionable positions, but that is a whole blog topic on its own. Any association with that organization is questionable and Novella’s response confirms my suspicion that he knows this based on his desperate attempts to distance himself from them.


However, what is important is that perceived conflict of interest is the standard requirement for declaration these days. Novella does not declare any conflicts in his writing, and thus it is perfectly valid for Mr. Handley to point them out. If Dr. Novella doesn’t like someone else’s portrayal of those conflicts, he should properly declare his own interests with his writing as should everyone at that website. I’m personally curious what he considers a “nominal fee” or “minimal” association. Holding shares in pharmaceutical companies, or your employer receiving research grants are also fair game here. Let’s see if Novella decides to stop appealing to pity and step up by clearly declaring his conflicts of interest in the future.


“Actually, I don’t suppose that at all. Rather I think that Handley knows that what he is writing is pure BS, especially since I have called him on it before, and openly challenged him to produce a shred of evidence to support his false accusations. But Handley knows the narrative of the anti-vaccination movement – everyone who denies that vaccines are evil are themselves evil shills for even more evil industry.”


Novella now reduces his “professional scientific” website even further by hurling insulting rhetoric laced with sweeping generalization and stereotype. Those have no place in an honest debate.


Moving on to his closing statements:


“In the end, all that matters is the science, which clearly shows that there is no association between vaccines and autism. This one study has minimal implications for an alleged connection, except that it clears the most often implicated vaccine – MMR. It also supports other evidence that the onset of autism is earlier than many parents observe and much earlier than formal diagnosis, which calls into question any casual observations about the timing of onset to any potential triggers.”


Here again, Novella invokes rhetoric in his first statement. Science can’t “clearly show” a lack of association without providing a definitive cause. He implies that there is no scientific debate which is demonstrably false. Certainly by evidence based medicine standards, the studies done to date are far from the highest quality and there are increasing calls for higher quality study. Additionally, we have the Cochrane report that clearly states the safety and efficacy studies about MMR are “inadequate”. (Here)


That Dr. Novella makes a definitive statement like “clearly shows” based on weak “inadequate” study is telling and a further blow to his credibility. Based on our investigation here, I am skeptical on how much time he spent reading the details.



In the next sentence he again makes an erroneous statement of fact, one that certainly can’t be substantiated by a study that didn’t include any data about the timing of vaccination let alone MMR. Stating fact without evidence based on personal assumption and conjecture is not scientific or logical. He also reiterates his giant leap of faith regarding “clinical onset” again. In the next statement, he makes an unreferenced assertion that there is other evidence that parental observations of regression are delayed from clinical onset. As we discussed earlier, we found no reference in this study as to the timing of parental observations compared to measured regression.

 
“In my first article on this topic I was sloppy in that one sentence about the vaccine schedule – an error I have now corrected. But that error did not affect the relevant points I made in the rest of the article, which I have also amplified here.”
 
Our detailed examination has shown that his errors in logic go far beyond one sentence. Even worse, his correction is littered with errors that are just as egregious as we’ve discussed here at length.
 
 
 “J.B. Handley thinks he has scored some points for his side by jumping on my error, but he has only shown himself, once again, to be a propagandist with no regard for science, accuracy, or even common decency.”
 
 
The irony should not be lost that Dr. Novella invokes rhetoric while in the same breath accusing Mr. Handley of a lack of common decency.




I can only conclude that Dr. Novella's false assumptions and failed arguments are a classic illustration of "inherent bias". Contrary to his pleading here, we have seen that his only admitted error undermined one of his key objectives, to show that parents were falling prey to the telescoping phenomenon.

 
I may not agree with everything Mr. Handley says, but in this exchange of arguments, the vast majority of logical arguments and balance of credibility sit on the side of Mr. Handley.




What can we take away from this analysis? I’ve observed a few things right off the bat:

* Dr. Novella does not appear to be familiar with childhood vaccination or autism

* Dr. Novella unprofessionally misrepresents opinion as fact

* Dr Novella, is not rigourous in his fact checking or in valid scientific references

* “Sciencebasedmedicine” purports to be a “scientific” reference blog, yet this writing includes personal insults, and classic examples of false logic

* Dr. Novella does not appear to learn from his own admitted mistakes


If we look on the website for sciencebasedmedicine we see the following: “This is meant as a resource for the public, for health care professionals, writers, journalists and other members of the media.”


If you combine this article with the frank admission by Dr. Novella regarding the time invested in his articles it dangerously re-enforces the growing consensus in the public that many Medical Doctors suffer from a god complex. Unlike almost every other profession, their organizations act like they are immune (vaccinated?) to the ever pervasive conflicts of interest and now it seems some of them think they can produce high quality reference material without investing any serious time or effort.


Mark Crislip stated quite eloquently in another blog entry: “Call me arrogant, but if you want to be a legitimate source of information there are dues that have to be paid.” (Here)


Stay tuned for part II.


Conflicts of interest: None declared

My Son Doesn't Dream

Soon after my son began having seizures, my wife and I did what any doting parent would do; we sought a specialist. Admittedly, it was only after my wife's gentle urgings that I said to go ahead and do it; my distrust of doctors is that strong, especially after dealing with such morons like Dorkski and Novella. And as I mentioned in one of my previous posts (Here), I was pleasantly surprised by this Neurologist. He ordered the works for tests, including genetic testing (no fragile-x, no "autism" genes...color me unsurprised), EEG's and MRI's.

A few days ago, we got the results back. The EEG and MRI's were particularly interesting, to say the least. Apparently, he has been having seizures for some time, but we only just noticed them (believe me...a Grand Mal seizure is hard to miss). The EEG showed him having seizure activity when he's asleep, right before he slips into REM. As the Neuro said, these seizures are preventing his brain from actually getting true rest, and they are also preventing him from dreaming. This, of course, fascinated me to no end, and retrospectively, it made sense. My wife and I continually used to comment on how tired he always looked. The Neuro explained that because of all of this, Nate's brain wasn't growing or developing. Another thing the Neuro asked was if my son had suffered from a brain injury or encephalitis when he was younger, and my wife asked why. He said that what the MRI showed was something consistant with a brain injury of some type. My wife and I never mentioned to him that we believed he was vaccine injured, but when she told him that we believed that my son had developed an encephalitis after an adverse reaction to a vaccine, the doctor nodded his head knowingly.

For right now, the Neuro prescribed Nate Depakote for his seizures. We have to give him at least 10 days to see if it is working. The Neuro was extremely reluctant to do this, as there are absolutely no seizure medicines on the market that are without some pretty severe side effects. We're going to see how it goes, but it doesn't look promising so far (which is nothing against the Neuro...I understand that some people have different reactions to medication, which is something the medical and pharmaceutical industries do not grasp). If this doesn't work, we're looking at the Ketogenic diet; the poor little guy's brain needs fatty acids to help it grow and heal.

Uh oh...the Parents are right about something....yet again.

This just in:

Parents are right about yet another Autism treatment. According to this article (Here), the hormone Oxytocin is showing promising results as a treatment for Autism. After several autistic adults were given the spray, they were better able to differentiate social behaviors and facial features.

But parents have been using this for a while now. But we're just terrible, crazy parents for wanting to help our childrens' more severe symptoms.

What else have parents been off their rockers about? GI symptoms are common in Autistic children. Well, that's just crazy! But wait, the AAP has announced that pediatricians should start treating GI symptoms in autistic children because they acknowledge that GI symptoms are common in Autistic children.

So that means that parents of Autistic children who have been treating their children for these conditions with a controlled diet and with Oxytocin spray were right? Whoa!!! I'm shocked! Everyone knows that us curebies are nutters and don't know what we're talking about. And how dare we try to cure our children! How dare we try to stop them from hurting themselves and others! What's wrong with us?

Or maybe, just maybe, these idiot doctors and scientists and wannabes who mock and ridicule these parents should listen to them instead. Such a novel concept, that.

I'm Convinced

The past few years have been difficult for me. Indeed, they have been difficult for anyone with an autistic child, especially one as severe as my son. Many people wonder why I fight and argue the way I do. Sometimes, I even wonder.

Here's the deal. On one side of the fence, you have thousands of parents saying that their child or children had serious reactions to one or several vaccines, and then they lost speech, skills, and milestones. On the other side of the fence, you have people telling these parents that what they experienced didn't really happen. They are asking these parents to lie to themselves, to their families, and to their children. They are asking these people to accept their children as is and not try to cure them. Then, these people run off to their little blogsites or onto message boards and ridicule these parents. It's a game to them. They mockingly blame computers. Or cell phones. Or Star Trek. They make these sweeping claims that we believe in grand conspiracy theories that involve thousands of people from all over the world. But this is no different than their claim that thousands of parents from all over the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to fake their children's vaccine reactions in order to extort money from the NVICP. It's all funny to them, and they refuse to take into account how it feels for these parents to be ridiculed in this way. For these parents, this is a very real and very traumatic experience. This mockery diminishes and trivializes everything these children have gone through. If children like my son could understand it, it would offend them greatly. I can say that my oldest daughter does read these things, and it upsets her to no end how cruel and callous these people are to parents who believe that their children had adverse reactions to a vaccine.

By mocking these parents, you mock their children.

Oh, I know. Kathleen on CAoA will say that I'm making it about me, like she did when I wrote about my son's first word in 5 years. A parent celebrating their child's first word in 5 years is somehow wrong in her book.

It's not about me, you fucking moron; it's about my son.

It's about my son when I struggle to control his diet. But, I should just accept the fact that he smears shit on himself and everything around him because he's just expressing himself, right?

It's about my son when I sleep by the front door and set alarms around the house in order to prevent my son from trying to open the front door in the middle of the night and wander out into the wilderness, possibly getting lost and dying out in the elements. But, I should just accept the fact that he's being curious and wants to explore, right?

It's about my son when I have to take my son to the floor and restrain him for hitting himself, biting himself, or trying to hit his mom or his sisters. But I should just accept that because he's angry and needs an outlet, right?

It's about my son when I or my wife stands out in the yard with him, running after him when he dashes for the street with no concept of the danger to himself. But I should just accept the fact that he just wants to play, right?

It's about my son when I want him to have the fullest and richest life possible. But, I should just accept the fact that after my wife and I are gone, he will likely be forced into a mental institution, drugged into oblivion, and promptly forgotten by the very same people who did this to him.

I'm convinced that these people are the most horrible people in the world. I have no words to describe my disgust. I have no words to describe my contempt for their actions. I'm convinced that these people just barely qualify as human beings, and that they are no longer worthy of my time and effort. I'm convinced that nothing anyone can ever say will convince them that they could be wrong; that they haven't even accepted that possibility. So why should I continue trying? I will no longer spend my time responding to their idiotic hypocrisy.

Oh no, don't take it that I'm stopping the fight. No. Like everything, you have to read the fine print. I'm focusing my efforts elsewhere. I'll still blog when the mood suits me. I'll still comment on something that I find intriguing. But my sarcastic and snarky retorts to these idiots on HuffPo and AoA will no longer be seen. Instead, I will start work on another endeavor that I'll keep quiet about, for now. It will take considerable time and effort on my part, but I think that those that I deem the Quackosphere (tm) will never see it coming.

Some words of advice to these idiots. It isn't a game. It never has been a game. It isn't funny. Your mockery isn't making any friends, and it does absolutely nothing to win people to your cause. In fact, it likely convinces them that the parents of vaccine injured children may just be right. And relying on substandard studies from companies that have been caught repeatedly lying about the safety of their products does absolutely nothing to add any credibility to your cause. And lastly, celebrating about when a study that could show something that opposes your viewpoint is pulled for some reason only shows that you are not interested in the welfare of these children; you're only interested in being right.

One last thing. Kim Wombles made a comment on her site CAoA that I find troubling (Here);
"And somebody explain to me why three of the most prominent male commenters on there have damn near identical stories? And no one over there can clue in on this?"

Is she saying that there is a commentor over there who is signing on with 3 different names? If so, that accusation is hysterical, especially considering how many of the Quackosphere (tm) sign in under several monikers. Is she talking about how our stories are so similar? Is it really hard to believe that these circumstances coincidentally mirror each other? I mean, after all, the Quackosphere (tm) expects us to believe that thousands of adverse reactions to vaccines are coincidental and didn't actually happen. Or, is she saying that we're making all of it up?

I'll allow her the courtesy to clarify this statement, as she is one of the people on the other side of the fence who I have a healthy respect for. If she is talking about me (and I have a feeling she is), then I am highly offended, and she has lost all respect I've had for her. Her posts and comments of late have been very angry, and she is starting to sound like a female version of Orac, which I find very sad. So Kim, if you read this, please take the time to clarify. If you weren't talking about me, then please accept my apologies. If you were, well, we'll talk about that when we come to it.

To Ken Reibel

Since I've gotten my letter returned twice now (I may have the wrong address; I'm unsure), I think it fitting that I place the contents of this letter here. This is legally sufficient to qualify as a Cease and Desist and will be adequate for legal purposes if you continue to contact me. I've also copied all of your continued correspondence to me and given it to my lawyer.

Farewell and good riddance.

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER


January 14, 2010

Ken Reibel:

This Cease and Desist Order is to inform you that your harassing and intimidating actions against me have become unbearable. Your actions have caused distress and embarrassment to me and my family. Such anti-social behavior is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. This letter is to demand that your continuing involvement in information gathering, harassment, antagonism and intimidation must cease and desist immediately. Should you continue to pursue these activities in violation of this Cease and Desist Order, I will not hesitate to pursue further legal action against you, including, but not limited to, civil action and/or criminal complaints.

Your continued information gathering, harassment, antagonism and intimidation of me includes, but is not limited to, your posting of libelous remarks on a public internet message board about me, including allegations that I am a jihadist. Additionally, you publically noted on this same message board that you knew the location of my place of residence, which I have not publically revealed. You continued to post this information even after I asked politely that you not do so. This will no longer be tolerated.

Note that this letter is admissible as evidence in a court of law and will be used as such if need be in the future.

This Cease and Desist Order demands that you immediately discontinue and do not at any point in the future under any circumstances do the following to me: speak to, contact, pursue, harass, threaten, antagonize, respond to messages by me on internet message boards, telephone (via cellular or landline), instant message, page, fax, email, stalk, or gather information about me. All future correspondence between you and I must cease.

Violation of the above demands will result in prosecution under Texas Penal code 42.07 Harassment and 42.072 Stalking.

Note that this letter does not in any way mean that you will not be allowed to post to the same internet message boards that I post to, just that you will not respond to me or make defamatory comments about me. In deference to the spirit of this letter, I will also refrain from speaking to you, responding to any of your posts, or making defamatory, inflammatory, or intimidating comments toward you.

Sincerely,
Craig Willoughby

Mountain, Molehill, Dumbass.

The Quackosphere (tm) of late has been abuzz with talk of a supplement known as OSR. Now, to be fair, I know very little of OSR and have never used it on my child. But from what I've read, there have been quite a few people who say that their children are having good results from using it.

Then along comes Trine "Imagine a Cupcake" Tsouderos and her transparent take-down of OSR and autism treatments (Here). Really, she just rehashes the typical bullshit that we have all come to know and get nauseated by from the Quackosphere (tm). Hasn't been properly tested, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah. Really, she makes OSR out to be the most horrific thing you've ever heard of. It's an Industrial Chelator (insert dramatic horror music here)! It has all of these horrible ingredients that are all just so terrible. Again, I haven't really looked at all of them, nor have I read  much about OSR, but really, can these ingredients be any worse than some of the ones in Vaccines? Thimerosal anyone? And Vaccines have been properly tested? Really? Where's those control groups?

The comments are just as good. The Moron Supreme shows up there and gets a very sound trouncing from a commentor named Melpominee, who I am assuming is a female (Melpominee is one of the 9 Greek muses, daughters of Zeus). She asks something that no one was able to give her an answer for. I'll get more into that later.

Then along comes David "I have a PhD so I know more than EVERYONE" Gorski, aka Orac, aka SoCal Gal, aka scumbag (I'd link but I won't give that shithead any hits). He rehashes Ms. Cupcake's parroted talking points and doesn't really say anything new, just that parents like me are so horrible and that our children should be taken away by CPS. But if he is so adamantly opposed to it, I may just run, not walk, to my nearest supplement store and stock up.

What neither of these idiots can or will say, though, is how many people have had bad reactions to OSR. None of them can produce any reports of hospitalizations because of it. No one can say how many people have been injured by it. No one was able to respond to Melpominee's comment concerning this question. Someone even went to Orac's hate site and asked, very politely (and anonymously), if anyone has heard of any adverse reactions. Twice! The comments were completely ignored. Of course, we've all seen the data on how many people have had reactions to products that the Pharmaceutical industry shits out, haven't we? Moron Supreme makes a completely idiotic comment about how reports weren't being filed because there is no data tracking system for suplements. So, it's a grand conspiracy of people taking OSR who are somehow banding together to repress these reports of all of the adverse reactions to this product. Ooooo....scary.

Does it seem to you that they are making a mountain out of a molehill? And, oddly, not a fucking one of them can produce any data that says that OSR doesn't work. Strange indeed.

When you look at Ms. Cupcake's ties to the vaccine industry, her article is not in the least bit surprising. But, this is typical of the Oraccolytes. As long as it defends vaccines, no matter how poorly written or researched it is, it's a-ok. But, it's not ok when a celebrity mom questions vaccine safety because, hey, she used to bare her boobs. Doesn't matter that the celebrity mom who believes that anything Offit and the Pharma giants say about vaccines is a-ok in her book used to bare her boobs too. Or it's not ok that a doctor who questions the safety of vaccines allegedly faked some studies. But it's a-ok in their book that an entire industry has REPEATEDLY faked studies about their products. They are perfectly honest when it comes to their vaccine products.

Pot. Kettle. Morons.

Addendum:

I just found out something interesting over at the Tribune article from someone named ccdaddy about Moron Supreme. Apparently, he runs a corporate communications consultation business. It says on their website that their company "provides pharmaceutical marketers with safe and effective direct marketing and advertising."

I am not 100% sure that it's the same company that he works for. But if it is? This means that he has misrepresented himself to everyone in terms of objectivity and his "unbiased" opinion. It also means he's an utter pharma-whore and that he has lied about that as well. It also explains how he always has the time to go to the hundreds of blogs and sites he goes to and spews out his propaganda.

Oh, this is absolutely rich!!!

Further Addendum:
Apparently, the company he works for is a different one from the one that ccdaddy said. Or so Moron Supreme says....

Ah well. He's still a putz.

I hate Decembers

I know it's been a little while since I last posted. It has been horrifically busy over here with my wife and the kids and doctors and hospitals and holidays and work, etc. etc. that I have had no time at all whatsoever to write, blog, read, or do much of anything of personal interest (other than watch the entire Lost series up to the end of Season 5....where the hell have I been and why the hell haven't I watched that series before now?)

So, my little guy started having a new symptom that I'm pretty sure can be attributed to his condition. The weekend after Thanksgiving, he had his very first, full blown Grand Mal seizure. We brought him to the ER, and the completely useless and clueless "Doctor" tried to pass it off as febrile. Really? Then why wasn't he running a fever? Seriously, the idiot doctors that the Medical Schools are crapping out makes me truly worry about the future of Medicine in the US (David Gorski, case in point). Then, the day after Christmas, he has a second seizure, much smaller this time. Ah, the joys of Autism...

Our next step, and one I was extremely reluctant to do, was to take him to a Neurologist. It was only through the pressuring of my wonderful wife, her mother, and my mother combined that I caved in and finally allowed a Neuro to look at my son.

I was well beyond pleasantly surprised.

The Neuro was very adamant about not wanting to give my little man any drugs (huge point in his favor). He was highly interested in my son's diagnosis, how he was diagnosed and whether or not his condition was regressive, i.e. normal development followed by a loss of skills, speech, etc. He watched Nate for a bit, listened to our descriptions of his seizures, and then said he would like to run several tests. He wanted to do an EEG to monitor brain activity (pretty standard from what I've read); he wanted to do some blood tests (also standard). And then he said he wanted to test Nate for heavy metal toxicity. What? A mainstream doctor wanting to see if heavy metals were atributing to a child's autism and seizures? I say again; what? Not only was I pleasantly surprised; I was floored.

Bloodwork was done today, and the EEG will happen over a 48 hour period over this weekend (can you all imagine the fun of trying to keep the leads on the head of an 8 year old who has the mental capacity of an 18 month old). It's nice that for the first time, we have a mainstream doctor who is actually LISTENING! He WANTS to help.

As to my normal stuff, I promise that I will have more stupidity "Insolence" to pick apart soon. Orac is too much of a moron not to. Too bad he's so irritatingly boorish. Also, I have a few legal matters to attend to. Like finally sending off a certain Cease and Desist order (been entirely too busy) and send a certain individual's continued correspondence (after he had been told not to) to a lawyer. Curious...his bleeting has been welcomingly silent these past few weeks. Ah well....take what blessings I can when I can.