Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
My first big splash in the blogosphere will have occurred five years ago in June, when I first discovered the utter wingnuttery that is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It was then that I wrote a little bit of that not-so-Respectful Insolence that you've come to know and love entitled Salon.com flushes its credibility down the toilet, a perfect description of an article by RFK, Jr. published in Salon.com and simultaneously in Rolling Stone entitled Deadly Immunity. As I look back, I realize that, as widely linked to and discussed as it was at the time, that post, arguably more than any other, was the one that established me as one of the go-to bloggers when it came to vaccines. Of course, it may also have been the gloriously Orac-ian verbiage I employed. As longtime readers may (or may not) recall, at the time, I referred to RFK's article as the "biggest, steamingest, drippiest turd I've ever seen it [Salon.com] publish, an article so mindnumbingly one-sided and uncritical that in my eyes it utterly destroys nearly all credibility Salon.com has had as a source of reliable news and comment." Nothing in the five years since then has changed my assessment of RFK, Jr.'s investigative prowess. Indeed, if anything, he's gotten worse, such as the time he tried to out-crank CBS News' resident antivaccine propagandist Sharyl Attkisson (who has been in bed with someone at Age of Autism to coordinate counterattacks on its enemies) or the time he teamed up with David Kirby and Generation Rescue to cube the stupidity.
That was over a year ago, and since then RFK, Jr. has been fairly quiet, at least on the vaccine front. Maybe it had something to do with his being ignored by the then-new Obama administration when his supporters lobbied very hard to get him appointed to head the EPA. Or maybe it was embarrassment at having so successfully cubed the stupid. Who knows?
Whatever the reason for his year-long disappearance from the anti-vaccine fray, it would appear that he's been pulled out of storage, dusted off, and sent once again to tilt at mercury windmills. It feels like 2005 all over again. That's because RFK, Jr. has laid yet another one of his steamy, drippy, corn-textured turds on the blogosphere as only he can in the one place where such a stench of bad arguments and pseudoscience can go completely unnoticed among all the other turds that routinely drip from it. That's right, RFK, Jr. has reappeared on that bastion of anti-vaccine pseudoscience, The Huffington Post, and the title of his latest turd is Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Cover-Up Absconds With $2M. In what appears to be an obviously coordinated attack, Generation Rescue's anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism is promoting RFK, Jr.'s article and adding a few of its own with titles such as Poul Thorsen's Mutating Resume by the not-so-dynamic duo of fact-challenged anti-vaccine propagandists Mark "Not a Doctor, Not a Scientist" Blaxill and Dan "Why can't I find those autistic Amish?" Olmsted and NBC 11 Atlanta Reports: Vaccine Researcher Flees with $2M, featuring this news report:
Looks like the mercury militia got to another reporter. There's Lyn Redwood spewing misinformation and nonsense hither, thither, and yon.
So what's going on here? Let's look at RFK's article and how he starts it:
A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.
You know, either heaven shines on them or the anti-vaccine movement must be the luckiest bunch of pseudoscientists in the world. Here it is, a mere couple of weeks after Andrew Wakefield's fall was complete, after he had, in rapid succession, been found guilty of research misconduct by the General Medical Council in the U.K.; had his pride and joy retracted from the scientific literature, his 1998 Lancet paper claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and "autistic enterocolitis," a paper that, with the help of Wakefield himself and the credulous, scandal mongering U.K. press, sparked a fear of the MMR vaccine that persists 12 years later and has resulted in MMR uptake rates plummeting; had his most recent pride and joy, an unethical bit of bad science in which he subjected baby Macaque monkeys to experimentation all in the name of "proving" that the hepatitis B vaccine causes autism and/or neurological damage withdrawn from the literature; and been ignominiously forced to resign from Thoughtful House by, of all people, Jane Johnson, heiress to the J&J; pharmaceutical fortune. The result has been some truly tinfoil hat worthy conspiracy mongering from Age of Autism and Jenny McCarthy herself. And what happens? There's a vaccine scientist who appears as though he may have absconded with as much as $2 million dollars, giving Generation Rescue and the anti-vaccine crankosphere an opportunity to go full mental jacket putting a face to vaccine scientists that they could attack. As Paul Offit knows, that's what the anti-vaccine movement does best. (Certainly it's not science that it does best.)
But was Thorsen really the driving force behind the Danish vaccine-autism studies that the anti-vaccine movement hates so much? I've been paying close attention to the vaccine-mercury-autism manufactroversy for nearly five years now, and I've never heard of him, although I had heard of one of his coauthors. If Thorsen was so important to the pro-vaccine movement, you wouldn't know it from the two studies that the mercury militia is hoping to discredit by turning up its propaganda machine to 11 about Thorsen's possible criminal behavior. Those papers are:
- Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82.
- Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics. 2003 Sep;112(3 Pt 1):604-6.
It is the Pediatrics paper that the mercury militia appears to be concentrating mostly on because it directly deals with thimerosal in vaccines. But look at the citations above for both papers anyway. Do you notice something? Look where Thorsen's name is in the list of authors in both studies. Notice that it is not first, nor is it last. This is important because author order matters in scientific and medical studies. In straight science studies, the two most important authors are usually the first author and the last author. The last author is usually the senior author in whose laboratory the work was done, while the first author is the person whose project the work represents and who was the primary author of the manuscript. In medical papers, as in Pediatrics or NEJM, the author list usually signifies the relative contribution of each author to the article, the first being the most important and the last being the least important. In both types of articles, there is always designated one author who is the corresponding author. In scientific papers, the corresponding author is almost always the last author; in medical papers it is usually the first author. The corresponding author is responsible for answering inquiries about the study and, way back in the age before PDF files, used to be the author to contact to request reprints. Not only that, the corresponding author is generally considered to be the primary author for the paper.
Notice something else?
That's right. Poul Thorsen is not the first author for either of these studies. He is not the last author, either. He is not the corresponding author; that would be Kreesten M. Madsen, MD, who was corresponding author on both the NEJM and Pediatrics papers. As it turns out, Thorsen is safely ensconced in the middle of the pack of co-authors. That's why, when RFK, Jr. refers to the Pediatrics study as "Thorsen's study," he is either grossly ignorant or outright lying. (Take your pick.) Anyone who knows anything about how the scientific literature works would be able to spot that immediately just by looking at the abstracts of these articles. Trust me, if studies this large really were Thorsen's babies his name would not have been relegated to fourth or sixth on the list of authors. Basically, Thorsen's position in the author lists of these two papers indicates that, whatever leadership position he may have held at Aarhus University and in its vaccine studies group, he clearly was not the primary contributor for these studies, and they were not his studies primarily.
Not that that stops the mercury militia from going out of its way to paint him as such, referring to him as a "central figure." I have to tip my hat to RFK, Jr. his language throughout his article is truly Orwellian, a propaganda masterpiece of prestidigitation of language and innuendo. Here are just a few examples of perfectly loaded phrases sprinkled throughout the article, all designed to suggest concealment and conspiracy:
- ..."built a research empire..."
- "...failed to disclose..."
- "...has disappeared..."
- "...damning e-mails surfaced..."
- "...culprit behind..."
- "...leading independent scientists have accused CDC of concealing the clear link between the dramatic increases in mercury-laced child vaccinations."
- "...safe to inject young children with mercury..."
- "...CDC officials intent on fraudulently cherry picking..."
RFK, Jr. also parrots anti-vaccine lies about the study that were hoary back when David Kirby first published the mercury militia Bible, Evidence of Harm, lies like:
His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits.
Notice how RFK Jr. really, really wants you to believe that the Danish studies are the primary foundation upon which the science exonerating MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines as a cause of autism rests, the be-all and end-all of the epidemiology studying thimerosal-containing vaccines, when in fact there are multiple studies and lines of evidence, of which the Danish studies are but a part. Also notice how he conflates a study's being weak with its being fraudulent. The two are entirely different concepts, and it is entirely possible for a study to be poorly designed and executed without even a whiff of fraud. (In fact, fraud is almost certainly far less common than that.) Be that as it may, the Danish studies, although they have weaknesses inherent in a retrospective design, are actually pretty darned good studies. As I said before, RFK's whine in the passage above is the parroting of a hoary criticism of the Danish studies cribbed straight from anti-vaccine sites. The criticism goes like this. Anti-vaccine propagandists argue that because, beginning in 1994, outpatient records were used in addition to inpatient records for case ascertainment in Denmark for purposes of these studies, the whole set of studies must be crap. As Steve Novella points out, this change was not chicanery, and in fact Madsen et al tried to test whether the change in case reporting by doing this was significant. Here is a quote from Madsen et al:
In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only. This was done to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen.
In other words, Madsen et al considered the possibility that adding outpatient records to inpatient records beginning in 1994 might change the results. They tested for that possibility and determined that the addition of outpatient cases did not change the trend of increasing autism diagnoses. Again, RFK, Jr. is either grossly ignorant of the facts or lying through his. (Take your pick--again.) The same is true of J.B. Handley when he repeats the same misinformation time and time again, particularly on his Fourteen Studies website, and and of Ginger Taylor when she in her arrogance of ignorance parrots the same lie. Come to think of it, so is SafeMinds when it touts the fact that many of the study authors are employed by Statens Serum Institut (SSI), claiming that it is a conflict of interest because as a "government-owned vaccine manufacturer," supposedly SSI makes a lot of money off of vaccines and would be liable legally if thimerosal in vaccines were found to cause autism. Believe it or not, this distortion was dealt with by a guest blogger Kristjan Wager (whose regular blog is here) way back in 2006. Not surprisingly, it's utter nonsense born of a misunderstanding (either unwitting or deliberate) of the medical and legal systems in Denmark. Unfortunately, anti-vaccine lies never die; like a certain undead dictator, they always rise again.
Meanwhile, Not A Doctor, Not A Scientist (Mark Blaxill, in case you forgot), along with No Longer a Journalist (Dan Olmsted) lay down flaming stupid like this:
Thorsen, of course, is pre-eminently one of those leading scientists and was a co-author of a New England Journal of Medicine study on the MMR. Thorsen and Aarhus, as we've reported for years, made important contributions to some of the most influential autism-vaccine mercury (thimerosal) studies - studies disputed as poorly done and unconvincing by critics that over the years have grown to include the head of a panel mandated by Congress to study the issue. But based on five studies, three of which included Aarhus - and one of which Thorsen co-authored -- the U.S. Institute of Medicine concluded in 2004 that "the evidence now favors rejection of a relationship between thimerosal and autism."
Here's what's going on. In the wake of debacle the implosion of Andrew Wakefield represented, the anti-vaccine movement needed a distraction badly, and they needed it fast. It would be even better if the distraction were one that they could spin to make it look as though there were some dark corruption at the heart of the vaccine science that has exonerated vaccines as a cause of the "autism epidemic." Like manna from heaven, Dr. Thorsen's case dropped seemingly from the sky. I'm going to admit right now that I have no idea of Dr. Thorsen is actually guilty of absconding with $2 million in grant money. He may well have, and if he did justice needs to be done. He needs to be caught and tried. But here's the rub.
It makes absolutely no difference to the science exonerating vaccines or thimerosal in vaccines as a cause of autism whether Thorsen is a criminal and thief or not.
As one of my readers pointed out, trying to argue that because Thorsen may have fled with stolen money is akin to arguing that if the fourth co-author of one of Einstein's papers describing the Theory of Relativity ran off with $2 million it would somehow invalidate the Theory of Relativity. Maybe J.B. Handley, No Longer a Journalist, RFK Jr., or Not a Doctor Not a Scientist can help me out here. Was there an allegation against Poul Thorsen of actual scientific--rather than financial--fraud of which I wasn't aware? Was there an allegation that somehow this alleged financial fraud had anything whatsoever to do with the design or excecution of Danish studies that failed to find a link between either MMR or thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism? Is there any evidence anywhere that Poul Thorsen committed scientific misconduct on the order of what Andrew Wakefield did? Seriously. I don't see anything in any of the number of vicious attacks on Poul Thorsen (who may or may not be a criminal), the SSI (which doesn't deserve them), or Aarhus University in Denmark (which also doesn't deserve them). It's a pure smear against these latter two institutions, guilt by association.
In other words, it's very typical of the anti-vaccine movement. The bottom line is that this is not a scientific scandal. It is a financial scandal that happens to involve a scientist.
Here's the other thing to remember. Even if RFK, Jr., Mark Blaxill, J.B. Handley, Dan Olmsted, and the rest of the merry band of anti-vaccine loons currently attacking these institutions were completely correct and the Danish studies were actually hopelessly tainted by Thorsen's alleged criminality--even if both studies were completely expunged from the medical literature--it would not change the scientific conclusion that neither MMR nor thimerosal-containing vaccines. That's because of a little pesky thing known as reproducibility. The Danish studies are not the only studies exonerating thimerosal as a cause of autism. There are Canadian, U.K., and U.S. studies whose results are concordant with those of Madsen et al.
For the anti-vaccine movement, the problem with the idea that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism was always that it makes a testable hypothesis. Remove the thimerosal from vaccines, and autism rates should plummet. This experiment has been tried in at least three countries, and the results have always been the same. Autism rates continued to rise after thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines. Indeed, thimerosal exposure from the vaccine schedule in the U.S. is currently lower than it was in the 1980s (there is still trace thimerosal in some childhood vaccines, and the flu vaccine still has thimerosal), but there has not been a decline in autism prevalence to what it was in the 1980s. The hypothesis that thimerosal causes autism has been roundly falsified, not just by the Danish studies but by several other studies.
In the end, anti-vaccine propagandists are very much like creationists and other cranks. They focus on the person more than the science, and they labor under the delusion that there is a single study (or tiny handful of studies) that are the whole support for the scientific conclusions they despise and that, if destroyed, would lead to the edifice of the science they hate collapsing. That's why they prefer to attack persons rather than use evidence and reason to argue ideas. It's also why they are always seeking that one study that they can tear down and thus "prove" that evolution didn't happen, vaccines cause autism, the moon landing never happened, or the Mossad and the Bush administration were beind 9/11.
ADDENDUM: Further confirming that Thorsen was not a major player in the Pediatrics and NEJM publications reporting the Danish studies is this article at Philly.com:
In 2002, Thorsen was the sixth named author of a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that analyzed whether where is a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism by examining 537,303 children born in Denmark from 1991 through 1998.The researchers concluded that their data provided "strong evidence" that there is no link.
"Poul Thorsen had absolutely no influence on the conclusions regarding this paper," wrote Mads Melbye, head of the division of epidemiology at the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen and senior author of the study, in response to e-mailed questions.
"Thorsen was not actively involved in the analysis and interpretation of the results of this paper," Melbye said.
The second study, published in Pediatrics in 2003, examined 956 Danish children diagnosed with autism from 1971 to 2000. It concluded the incidence of autism increased in Denmark after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, the lead author, said Thorsen played a minor role.
"Dr. Thorsen was not in a position to change or compromise the data," Madsen wrote. "Dr. Thorsen was part of the review cycle, but never very active in giving input. Dr. Thorsen never had access to the raw data nor the analysis of the data."
Which is pretty much what I would have expected based on his position in the list of co-authors. Of course, this makes me wonder why his name was on either paper at all. Ah, well, that's academia; you can sometimes get your name on papers for which you did very little work.
In the meantime, the comments after the Philly.com article make baby Jesus cry, so full of anti-vaccine pseudoscience, misinformation, and outright lies are they. The anti-vaccine contingent is there in full force, polluting the discussion thread with their ignorance. Come to think of it, they're there in the comments of RFK Jr.'s HuffPo article, too.
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
If anyone with any taint of impropriety (for whatever reason) had their studies expunged from the scientific literature, at least we wouldn't have to tolerate references to the work of any of the antivax crew's favored pseudoscientists. I can't think of one of them who has not been accused of something unsavory.
Bring it on, I say.
Posted by: deetee | March 12, 2010 8:37 AM
So one lonely guy runs with some money (allegedly) and all vaccine studies are worthless lies? Yet one chick is proven to be faking her so-called dystonia by being caught on tape walking normally and driving her car, and the anti-vaccine groups that comfort and supported her knew nothing about it?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the double standard anymore.
I hope not one of your supporters is with fault, or those loons "over there" will come after you, Orac.
Posted by: Rene Najera | March 12, 2010 8:44 AM
"In the end, anti-vaccine propagandists are very much like creationists and other cranks."
Thank you. I'm *almost* convinced that the anti-vaccinationist debate is a faith-based debate. There is a point in creationist arguments where science is left out in the hayshed (where the strawmen are assembled), and out of the argument. That point is not much earlier than when an anti-vaccinationist does the same. That is the point where evidence-based science is no longer an issue for one side, and we know which side that is.
Posted by: reasonablehank | March 12, 2010 8:46 AM
It seems that it is unlikely that he is the person wanted for stealing the money (some more information here http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/03/update-dr-poul-thorsen-not-missing-not-suspected-in-theft/)
a spectacular own goal from the anti's- perhaps this just isn't their year.
Posted by: symball | March 12, 2010 8:55 AM
Not only creationists, but scientologists. Isn't this the same as the "dead agenting" tactic they use? reasonablehank is right, this has been faith based all along; we knew that when McCarthy uttered her "my son is my science" screed. Like scientology: when you can align the belief systems of the gullible and vulnerable to the needs of the profiteers, you have a powerful and alluring combination.
Posted by: Terry | March 12, 2010 8:57 AM
So, since everyone and his cousin is speculating wildly about Thorsen and the money, can I do it to? To me, a former university staffer, it smells like Thorsen got into a snit either with his teammates or with the Aarhus admins about how to allocate this grant money, and then transferred the money where it could be returned to the CDC in a flash.
That's the only explanation I can see for why he would feel safe walking around the US having gotten into a dispute over federal grant money. So this might not even be theft, just a case of duelling prima donna professors.
Posted by: Omri | March 12, 2010 9:12 AM
just curious - does anyone know if the cast of characters mentioned in this piece had their own kids vaccinated?
Posted by: David Wescott | March 12, 2010 9:13 AM
"...steamy, drippy, corn-textured turds..."
You do have a way with words, Dr. Orac! LMAO
Posted by: Jen in TX | March 12, 2010 9:20 AM
And what relevance does this have to the mercury militia's smear campaign?
Posted by: Orac | March 12, 2010 9:23 AM
symball @4,
Great link. By AoA's standards then, anything Olmstead and Blaxill turn up is bogus. They surely screwed up the Offit investigation so how can we ever trust them to do anything correctly?
Priceless (but typical) hypocrisy.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 12, 2010 9:25 AM
The Handley-Blaxill-RFK anti-science spin machine has revved it up to 11 on this one.
@reasonablehank - go get in some of their discussion boards sometimes (AoA, ABMD, and others) and your suspicion of them functioning as a cult will be reinforced and engraved in polished granite.
Posted by: v | March 12, 2010 9:28 AM
Waitaminute. The news were only online yesterday, and RFK is already talking about it. I say it's suspicious. How did he get the info that fast? And who gave it to him?
Mode sarcasm off. My brain is hurting.
Posted by: Seb30 | March 12, 2010 9:30 AM
What struck me about the Kennedy article was the poor calibre of the person who wrote it. I'd naturally assume that someone with those family connections would have some sense of measure in their language, and a general demeanour of intelligence and professionalism. I believe he may have been to law school, also, and have some sense of the difference between, say, a falsehood and a lie, or between "missing" and "couldn't be contacted". Little things, which you find, for example, in the Philadelphia Inquirer report, which was, plainly, the work of an intelligent professional.
But there was none of that. It was like it was written by a college sophomore. Oozing malice and prejudicial, unsupported assertions, it was just of such poor quality. Like you, I've no idea about this Thorsen guy, who is plainly not a major player in the relevant research, but I was shocked by the hysterical tone of this man Kennedy's contribution. It's plain that neither Olmsted nor Kirby are professional journalists, but I'm just left wondering why the heroes of vaccine-autism believers are all of such meagre talent. It's kind of sad really.
Posted by: Brian Deer | March 12, 2010 9:45 AM
Actually, Olmsted was at one time a professional journalist working for UPI. What happened to him, I don't know, but I can guess. He wrote a series of articles he called "Age of Autism" (hence the name of the anti-vaccine crank blog) in which he first promulgated the myth that the Amish don't get autism and don't vaccinate (the do both) and couldn't even find an institute right in the heart of Amish country that takes care of autistic Amish. So, yes, he once was a professional journalist and apparently a reasonable one, but over the last several years he's devolved into just another vaccine crank.
Posted by: Orac | March 12, 2010 9:52 AM
@ Brian Deer
If anyone with an ounce of journalistic talent gets anywhere near the anti vaxxers cause, they will run away holding their noses as fast as they can. Even a cursory check on the evidence shows this to be a conspiracy theory- which leaves only the dregs who can't or won't* look at it objectively to write this sort of dross.
(*I'm not sure where people like Melanie Phillips stand)
Posted by: symball | March 12, 2010 10:00 AM
In your list of RFKisms you forgot "mercury-laced." It's an old favorite.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 12, 2010 10:06 AM
orac; you da man
Posted by: zach cp | March 12, 2010 10:10 AM
FYI:
To the station manager, NBC11 Atlanta
I write concerning an item yesterday by your Jayne Watson, who has caused to be broadcast a significantly misleading report. I can understand that Jayne may have been anxious to convince her managers that her material had some substance behind it, and wasn't merely the recycling of anti-vaccine campaigners' suppositions, but to misuse material taken from the NBC network's Dateline, and specifically footage concerning my own work in The Sunday Times of London, is unprofessional beyond belief.
The following is the message I posted at your station's relevant webpage:
"I am very concerned by the ethical standards at NBC's Atlanta affiliate. You have used a clip giving viewers the impression that a report by me in The Sunday Times of London, headlined "MMR research scandal", concerning Dr Andrew Wakefield, is in fact related to the allegations you make against a Danish scientist.
"I find it hard to believe that your action was accidental. It appears to me that you have sought to give viewers the impression that your report was based on some wider anxiety, and have intentionally misused my report to help you make your point.
"I know nothing of Dr Thorsen, but I strain to avoid the conclusion that, whatever he may or may not have done, you have acted dishonestly, with the intent to mislead your viewers."
I look forward to hearing that you have looked into this matter, and removed any online clips, and made the necessary correction and apology.
I have notified the Dateline producer of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Deer
Posted by: Brian Deer | March 12, 2010 10:14 AM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/87437502.html
there may be some truth to the grant accusation if the Philly Inquirer is to be believed.
Posted by: cbe | March 12, 2010 10:19 AM
People, go check out what symball @ 4 found -- it looks like the antis smeared an innocent man:
Update: Dr. Poul Thorsen not missing, NOT suspected in theft
For some reason, there seems to be a redirect on the direct link (has someone been hacking LBRB?), but I found a link to a comment therein that will get you to the post if the direct link doesn't work: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/03/update-dr-poul-thorsen-not-missing-not-suspected-in-theft/#comment-79324#ixzz0hyYrvnbK
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | March 12, 2010 10:19 AM
In other words, it's one big poisoning the well fallacy.
Posted by: superdave | March 12, 2010 10:37 AM
RFK jr. co-hosts a radio show,the enigmatically named "Ring of Fire"(originally on the now-defunct Air America),which apparently continues and has a website,ringoffireradio.com. It appears to allow comments.Gentlemen and ladies,start your engines.
Posted by: Denice Walter | March 12, 2010 10:46 AM
"That's because RFK, Jr. has laid yet another one of his steamy, drippy, corn-textured turds on the blogosphere as only he can in the one place where such a stench of bad arguments and pseudoscience can go completely unnoticed, given all the other turds that routinely drip from it"
Damn, Orac, tell us how you really feel! Lol...quite the visual, thanks.
Posted by: bones | March 12, 2010 11:05 AM
Y'know, offline and away from the info, I was feeling my way through the issues (not thinking rationally or caring), and it occurred to me that I like RFK Jr. He had all that family tragedy, the sad stutter, the look of a beaten dog, some vocal concern for real issues. I was considering posting a question on SciBlogs wondering whether the one-sided nature of your stances may blind you to possibilities of corporate malfeasance - Not that I believe for an instant in antivax BS, but that maybe ol' RFKjr was taken in by a very reasonable suspicion of The Man.
But seeing this post (and associated links) illuminated the truth of the matter to me: RFKjr is a charlatan who is undoubtedly sowing profits by helping a ring of malicious con men bleed the unfortunate and gullible. Oh yes, he can go to hell.
-
Posted by: CS Shelton | March 12, 2010 11:07 AM
One very minor nitpick (SIWOTI syndrome?):
The practice you name as universal in scientific papers (first and last authors most important, minor ones in between) is not that universal: In theoretical physics, for example, common practice is to list authors alphabetically, no matter what their contribution was. I have also seen papers where the sequence of authors was exactly the sequence of "importance":
PI, guy who did all the work, everyone else.
Not that this changes anything of substance in your post...
Posted by: MartinB | March 12, 2010 11:28 AM
"Oozing malice and prejudicial, unsupported assertions, it was just of such poor quality".
Sort of like anything that I have read by you in regards to Dr. Wakefield.
Posted by: Orac's Wackosphere | March 12, 2010 11:41 AM
I am a creationist. Intelligent design makes me happy :)
I am not really into the anti vac thing. But, I had wondered about it for years since my daughter has autism. She is seventeen now. The theory never computed for me. There are deficits, beyond getting the shots, that caused the neurological condition of autism...
I think many parents of autistics have hung their hat on MMR as the cause. It gives them comfort to do so, for varied reasons. Then there are also doctors out there encouraging the belief. I guess if they can blame the shots, they can allow the idea that detoxing the child will cure him or her. I am not clear on how many this has actually happened for.
I am sorry that the parents become conspiratorial in their comments, and lash out. I encourage your patience as you kindly and persistently continue to point to facts and science - the hard headedness that we parents of autistics display also translates to going the extra mile for them.
There were things that I believed in the past, with regard to autism and how it might be handled, and I was proven wrong - but it took many years and a lot of "butt kickings" from my daughter's several years spent in worsening psychosis, from initial label of autism. We both came out of it a little different, a little better. I now understand how little we all know, and how important she is as an individual in spite of her challenges. No matter the cause of her challenges.
She is doing pretty great at seventeen years old.
Posted by: val | March 12, 2010 11:42 AM
So the 2 million dollar question is, if Thorsen is proven to be a fraud and dishonest in his career as a scientific researcher should his work be called into question? And since Thorsen is the founder of the University's North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliances and Keersten Madsen is paid thru the NANEA wouldn't it stand to reason that this could turn into a huge problem regarding a chain of custody as it pertains to the studies both Madsen and Thorsen worked on together?
Posted by: bensmyson | March 12, 2010 11:46 AM
I just wanted to thank you for your work on this. When my first child was born in 2006, someone forwarded me the RFK Jr. article, and I assumed he was being honest and doing a decent job of journalism simply because of his name and didn't do much further checking. Fortunately, I did do a little checking and found that the thimerosal had been removed from most childhood vaccines by then. I'm not sure, even had I not found that, that the article would have been enough to convince me not to vaccinate, but I'm sure for many people (including the family member who sent me the article) it was. I went ahead with the standard vaccine schedule with my child, and my second child is following the vaccine schedule as well, especially since later searches on the subject led me hear and to Bad Astronomy.
It is simply irresponsible for any outlet, Rolling Stone, Salon.com, the Huffington Post, or anyone else with a shred of credibility to be publishing this tripe. I only hope that your work, and the work of others will help to counter the dangerous effects of RFK Jr. and other anti-vaxer's work and of HuffPo and other credulous outlets. Thank goodness for the publicity created for this issue by the recent Wired Magazine piece, since it seems that the side of reason rarely gets good media coverage.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
| March 12, 2010 11:54 AM
Posted by: Adam_Y | March 12, 2010 12:01 PM
I figured you'd do a post on this. I was over there yesterday hitting reply and doing my best to be as insolent as the censors would allow, but it was a big job. The believers were surely in the majority. I wish you had done the same on Dana Ullman's latest screed.
I used to respect RFK, Jr, but now I am suspect of anything he is involved in. What a waste.
Posted by: Anthro | March 12, 2010 12:04 PM
Rene @ 2: Actually, Desiree is probably NOT "faking". As Steve Novella and others have observed, "psychogenic" does not equal "faking". It's a real psychological condition that she'd rather not have. It just so happens it's not a direct physical disorder. She needs a good psychotherapist, in other words.
bensmyson@28: Um. Did you read this article? Your questions were addressed. At present there's no evidence or allegation of scientific misconduct (and now Thorsen may be off the hook entirely). But I do slightly disagree with Orac's claim that this would be completely irrelevant. Without evidence of scientific fraud, I agree that it would be unlikely to affect the study's validity. Nonetheless, I do think any such outright financial misconduct would raise a little bit of worry. It calls his ethics and character into question in such a way that would leave his scientific integrity less than certain, as I think it relies on similar behaviors and choices. Not remotely enough to bin the study and again, hopefully he's not a crook anyway, but I do think that would be a factor if it were true.
Posted by: rrt | March 12, 2010 12:06 PM
@bensmyson
The 2 million dollar question REALLY is, if Tiger Woods cheated on his wife during his career as a professional golfer, should his game be called in to question? Furthermore, since he was sponsored by Nike, and was one of their leading spokespeople, wouldn't it stand to reason that Nike encourages marital infidelity?
Or how about this one. Winston Churchill was a drunk. Doesn't that call into question his abilities as a politician? Since he was the political leader of the United Kingdom during WWII, doesn't it stand to reason that England actually LOST that war?
Or this one! Mel Gibson is a drunken lunatic anti-Semite. He is only TWO DEGREES away from Kevin Bacon. Doesn't it stand to reason that Kevin Bacon gets drunk and smashes his car into synagogues on a regular basis?
(The answer to all of these questions is "no, stop being an idiot")
Posted by: Ian | March 12, 2010 12:11 PM
@ian
Actually Thorsen's questionable intergity seems to be of more importance. These studies effect lives.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 12, 2010 12:20 PM
In statistics, there is a concept called "leverage" in linear regression. This has to do with a point that lies outside the expected spread of data around the "best fit" line. It is possible that this outlying residual may influence the slope of the line, which depends on a number of factors: how far away it is, how many other data points there are, and where on the line it lies (if it lies towards the ends of the X axis it exerts more influence than if it's in the middle).
Let's say that Thoursen is the most diabolical and corrupt person in the world (his data point is far away). He still fails to exert enough influence on these studies to affect their scientific validity (he lies somewhere in the middle of the dataset, rather than on the ends). Furthermore, he is one of several authors of one of several papers refuting the thimerosal/autism link (there are many other data points). Strictly speaking, he lacks the leverage for this to make any difference at all.
Posted by: Ian | March 12, 2010 12:20 PM
RFK jr is an arrogant jerk who is typical of someone "who was born on second base and thinks they hit a double". Like Prince Charles, his major accomplishment has been making the correct choice of parents.
He is also I a total hypocrite on environmental matters as illustrated by his reaction to a proposed wind power project that would have spoiled his ocean view. I heard him interviewed on the CBC radio One program "The Current". He thought oil prices should be subsidized - that will really help with global warming.
As to whether he is colossally ignorant or lying - since he is a politician, I go for both.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | March 12, 2010 12:25 PM
@bensmyson
Right, because nobody died in WWII. My bad.
Also, thanks for missing the whole point of my incredibly hilarious retort, which is that your "reasoning" is as full of holes as Churchill's liver. If this guy stole money, that doesn't have anything to do with the science he's done (except insofar as now there's $2m less to fund it). The argument that him being a thief makes him scientifically untrustworthy is only valid if nobody checked his work... ever... and if there were ethical violations inherent in his study.
Posted by: Ian | March 12, 2010 12:26 PM
Please cite the unsupported allegations Orac has written about Wankerfield.
I shall now demonstrate my psychic abilities by predicting that the troll shall do nothing of the sort.
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 12:26 PM
@Orac:
Considering that UPI's the in-house news agency for the cult-owned Washington Times, saying that Olmsted was a "professional journalist" is being very generous.
@bensmyson:
Let's assume, for a moment, that Thorsen really is guilty as charged. If you want to argue that the Denmark vaccine-related studies suddenly need to be revisited (even though Thorsen wasn't a primary author on any of them) then fine.
But at the end of the day, does it really change anything, when the results of said studies have been replicated several times in other parts of the world? The answer is no, and if you were the least bit intellectually honest, you'd agree with that. Of course, that assumes someone like yourself has the capacity for intellectual honesty.
Posted by: a-non | March 12, 2010 12:35 PM
@rrt #32
No, she is faking. If you look at the latest video from Inside Edition (http://goo.gl/RMDE), you can see her symptoms come and go, appearing only when she knows the camera is on. Then again, being a pathological liar is a psycho-logical condition.
There's crazy, and then there's batshit crazy.
Posted by: Rene Najera | March 12, 2010 12:37 PM
bensmyson - chain of custody? They're scientists, not cops.
Posted by: Natalie | March 12, 2010 12:37 PM
@Natalie
I've seen CSI. It's the same thing. Also, at least one of the authors is a former stripper with a heart of gold and an ass that refuses to quit. My guess is Hviid.
Posted by: Ian | March 12, 2010 12:45 PM
I haven't digested all of the stuff over at LeftBrainRightBrain, but it certainly looks like the anti-vaxxers really screwed themselves.
First, someone has a news story that someone at Aarhus University has been accused of theft.
Then, someone published a poorly-forged document saying that it was Thorsen.
Lastly, the idiots run with what they wish so hard to be true that they do not even bother with their bullshit detectors.
The amazing thing is that some major media have taken the story back and reported on it.
This could be actual libel.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for the anti-vax crowd to decide that the person who forged the document is part of the Pharma conspiracy? (I had some friends insisting that the memos Dan Rather put on the air were forged by Karl Rove.)
Posted by: Dan Weber | March 12, 2010 12:57 PM
Only one question are you all on the payroll or are some of you just stupid.
Posted by: Maureeh | March 12, 2010 12:59 PM
has anyone read this? http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/87437502.html
The Inquirer is reporting that there really is an investigation into Thorsen going on and that he has left a few posts this week because of it.
I know the post at LFRB seems to say that he is "off the hook" but the Inquirer piece says the opposite.
Posted by: cbe | March 12, 2010 1:03 PM
Can some real journalist call Tom Skinner to say if he really made this statement?
Posted by: Dan Weber | March 12, 2010 1:03 PM
"Also, at least one of the authors is a former stripper with a heart of gold and an ass that refuses to quit. My guess is Hviid."
*snorting coffee out my nose*
Posted by: LovleAnjel | March 12, 2010 1:07 PM
That's two questions.
Posted by: mad the swine | March 12, 2010 1:11 PM
@a-non
You said: "But at the end of the day, does it really change anything, when the results of said studies have been replicated several times in other parts of the world? The answer is no, and if you were the least bit intellectually honest, you'd agree with that. Of course, that assumes someone like yourself has the capacity for intellectual honesty."
At the end of the day if the studies have been replicated and there are no other studies that dispute it then yes Thorsen's work is useless. But my problem is Im not smart enough to examine and understand all these hundreds of studies that claim vaccines are safe. Also I wonder if there have been studies for things like Vioxx that were corrupt that werent actually discovered for years. Oh here's something http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html
Chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence, physical or electronic such as material gathered from 432,000 subjects in a particular study.
Chain of custody is also used in most chemical sampling situations to maintain the integrity of the sample by providing documentation of the control, transfer, and analysis of samples. Chain of custody is especially important in environmental work where sampling can identify the existence of contamination and can be used to identify the responsible party.
Posted by: Bensmyson | March 12, 2010 1:12 PM
I'd be more confident about agreeing with you if it were spelled Hvidd...
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 1:23 PM
@Maureeh:
"Only one question are you all on the payroll or are some of you just stupid."
It's not appropriate to assume that antivaxxers are on the payroll of some anti-American organization, or that they are incapable of understanding simple concepts. They are merely mistaken. Please be more considerate
Posted by: An drew | March 12, 2010 1:24 PM
Orac,
As always, hats off to you for diving into the muck. I've learned a great deal here about how to critically evaluate scientific papers and how to deal with rhetorical fallacies. Thanks a million.
One thing to add, Thorsen actually IS the "central" figure in those papers because his name is in the "middle" of the list. I guess his detractors were being literal (or maybe illiterate, hard to say).
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 12, 2010 1:25 PM
@Scott
*Slow clap* Took me a second there... double D... nice.
Posted by: Ian | March 12, 2010 1:31 PM
"Phoenix Woman",
I wrote the articles for LBRB. My initial appraisal was that the document was forged, and I stand by the evidence I presented as raising that possibility. At this point, I consider authenticity still an open question, but don't plan on saying anything more without some comment from Aarhus on the matter. I also stand by my conclusion that, PRIOR to this CDC statement, there was no direct identification of Thorsen as suspect.
I have noticed the influence of Kennedy on this affair. A comment I wrote for an unfinished article is that his initial article "has been shot into more pieces than Robert Patrick in Terminator 2."
Posted by: David N. Brown | March 12, 2010 1:33 PM
Uhhh, until a few days ago I think you could have found Thorsen at Drexel University in Philly...and he gave a presentation there in Oct 2009.
Posted by: Pete D | March 12, 2010 1:36 PM
Ooh, it's giant-smear-by-association season. I like this game. OK, how about: "Roy Kerry killed a kid, therefore Robert, Jenny and Dan are child killers too?" Next up: a pitchfork wielding mob.
Posted by: has | March 12, 2010 1:36 PM
@David: Even if Aarhus doesn't ever say anything about it, I think at some point you have to post a correction, e.g. when Thorsen is formally charged. It was a blunder to make accusations of forgery, and also to give undue importance to Thorsen's guilt or innocence. We all make mistakes. The difference between us and the likes of AoA is -- I hope -- that we do admit making mistakes.
Posted by: Joseph | March 12, 2010 1:42 PM
Jesus H Christ, they're squeezing blood from a stone to get at this guy. Here's the way science works: As a lead author or a communicating author I'm responsible for every freaking piece of data and analysis that goes into the paper. The fifth guy on a paper will have his work checked. If coauthors don't they run the risk of getting spanked and no one wants that. The only time I don't check a coauthor's data is if I have a long relationship built on trust.
@bensmyson is right about a chain of custody but he/she and the other bleevers are spending time pole vaulting over mouse turds to compensate for a lack of science that back up their beliefs. If the water is muddy enough, there could be anything there at the bottom.
Posted by: Vindaloo | March 12, 2010 1:44 PM
It's really not that complicated - AoA employs an us-vs-them mentality. Their idol, Wakefield, has been completely discredited. Therefore, they seek out an expert of the "enemy", and purposefully create a controversy where none exists.
Enter Thorsen.
Once the troglodytes at AoA feed their minions the conspiracy fodder, it becomes irrelevant whether there is a shred of truth to story. The misinformation being voraciously ingested, it is then regurgitated throughout the anti-vax community until it becomes so interwoven with their other fables as to render moot any defense or explanation.
AoA did it's job. It justified its existence by creating controversy where none exists, and diverted attention away from the fact that they have absolutely no scientifically credible evidence demonstrating their claims....as ever changing they may be.
They're a very predictable group.
Posted by: bones | March 12, 2010 1:46 PM
*takes a bow* Thank you, thank you. No applause please, just throw money.
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 1:50 PM
As soon as my Big Pharma cheque comes in. Any year now, I'm sure...
Posted by: Ian | March 12, 2010 1:54 PM
As a Philly native, I'm sorry about the Philly.com comments; My New Year's Resolution was to not read the comment section of local papers. The stupid burns.
Posted by: themann1086 | March 12, 2010 2:06 PM
In other words, bensmymom, you're not intellectually dishonest, you're intellectually lazy. That's a distinction, but it's a zero-sum one because the result is the same.
And by the way, nice attempt to tie vaccine safety to Vioxx. So using that same criteria, because Dr. Wakefield is a fraud whose research was bogus, all research that suggest there's an autism-vaccine link is equally bogus. I think that's fair, then, don't you?
Posted by: a-non | March 12, 2010 2:23 PM
Okay, now that I've gone through LBRB, I don't think we have forged documents -- at least, forged by AoA or their friends.
The Denmark newspaper didn't identify Thorsen, although he certainly seems like the person based on their descriptions. But European newspapers often have different standards. They may not want to use Thorsen's name until he has been charged or more. (This is a good thing. A lot of people have been found not guilty in America yet the newspapers are filled with stories about the accusations.)
And the PDF from January wasn't accusing Thorsen of stealing money, either.
I do wish I could find the CDC statement somewhere on the CDC's website, but they probably do lots of statements every day that they don't publish like that. American newspapers don't seem to have covered this much, but they may think it's a Denmark story for now.
Posted by: Dan Weber | March 12, 2010 2:24 PM
Thought these quotes from the Philadelphia Inquirer linked in #19 were good. They show exactly what contribution a middle author from a study makes - essentially none.
"Poul Thorsen had absolutely no influence on the conclusions regarding this paper," wrote Mads Melbye, head of the division of epidemiology at the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen and senior author of the study, in response to e-mailed questions.
"Thorsen was not actively involved in the analysis and interpretation of the results of this paper," Melbye said.
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, the lead author, said Thorsen played a minor role.
"Dr. Thorsen was not in a position to change or compromise the data," Madsen wrote. "Dr. Thorsen was part of the review cycle, but never very active in giving input. Dr. Thorsen never had access to the raw data nor the analysis of the data."
Posted by: BKsea | March 12, 2010 2:42 PM
Oh, and a quick point about Desiree Jennings. If she truly is faking or overstating her dystonia symptoms intentionally than that is one of the most appalling things I've ever seen. Especially after watching that video of kids and adults suffering with real case of dystonia.
Posted by: a-non | March 12, 2010 2:48 PM
Rene: Yeah, I saw that broadcast when it aired. It didn't seem to change Dr. Novella's opinion (from what I recall), and as a non-doctor, it at least seems plausible to me that it could still be psychogenic. It's a non-physical psychological condition, after all...so if some part of her brain is already saying "you're sick! Act like it!", I could also see it saying "These people don't believe you're sick and they have cameras...make sure you look sick!". And likewise, having no problem with her symptoms being inconsistent and mild (or nonexistent) when she's not on the spot since they are of course a hassle.
So I'm not saying I'm sure she isn't faking, but I can still buy it. Inconsistency is one way to spot the psychogenic (and the sham). But if so, I'd think the latter Inside Edition report would be a good tool for a therapist to pry open her delusion.
Posted by: rrt | March 12, 2010 2:55 PM
Yeah, really. The conference paper I submitted to accompanying my master's thesis in Computer Engineering, all of the people in the department who had had anything to do with it, even if all they did was sit in on the defense, wanted their name on it. I wasn't exactly in a position to complain, and truth be told I didn't really care either (my master's thesis turned out to be a bit of a dud, which wasn't really anybody's fault; sometimes you pursue a research angle and you turn up a big nothing -- which doesn't mean the work was bad, but it often means that nobody is going to cite it, and barely anybody is even going to read it. Ah well, c'est la vie)
Madsen's e-mail makes it sound like he read through an early draft and pointed out a spelling mistake or something. Ooooooo....
Posted by: James Sweet | March 12, 2010 3:08 PM
You know, for a guy who's supposedly "fleeing", Poul Thorsen is surprisingly easy to find.
As for him (or someone else with the same name) "stealing" $2 million in grant money - well, that's not so easy. It's not like the granting agency just sends the PI a box of cash (small, unmarked bills, please) - they send the money to the university, foundation, research center, etc. and their financial folks do the doling out of funds for equipment and salaries.
Only in the rare case where the "research center" is a small fly-by-night organisation can someone actually "take the money and run". And Aarhus University is not a small or disorganised organisation.
In my years of research, I've seen similar accusations flung about when a researcher receives a grant while working at one university and takes it with him (figuratively - they don't actually take the cash) when he moves to another university (or research center). Twice it has happened to people in my department.
The argument usually plays out like this - the university (research center, etc.) feels that the money is theirs because the researcher wouldn't have gotten it if they weren't working at such a prestigious facility and the researcher sees the money as theirs because they were the one who wrote the grant and did the research (and, curiously, most granting agencies see it that way, too).
Did I mention that universities and research centers skim 50+% "off the top" of all grants they administer? They call it "overhead". There are other names used by other people. Anyway, it suggests that Aarhus University may have....other motivations when it comes to accusing Dr. Thorsen of theft.
Unless someone is arguing that Poul Thorsen somehow deceived the financial dept. at Aarhus University into paying for a boat or Swiss chalet from his grants or paying him an outrageous salary, the use of "theft" to describe what happened is pure hyperbole.
I expect that when this all sorts out, we'll find that Aarhus University was peeved when Dr. Thorsen transferred his grant money - which had been held at and managed by (and skimmed off by) Aarhus University - to pay for research that was done somewhere else. The "theft" - I suspect - will turn out to be their "cut" ("overhead") that they feel entitled to despite not providing any of the services and facilities (the usual rationale for "overhead") for Dr. Thorsen's work while he was working out of the country...at a different research facility.
I could be wrong, but I find it difficult to imagine any other way Dr. Thorsen could have been said to "steal" grant money from Aarhus University without them handing it to him in a bag (which - as I said above - would be a singular event, indeed). He simply doesn't have access to the money in that way.
And even if he did take the money - at gunpoint, say - it wouldn't reflect on his research (although it might make it harder to get grants in the future).
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | March 12, 2010 3:11 PM
I just saw Kennedy in the DVD for the recent Oscar-winning documentary "The Cove". I was looking forward to seeing the movie, which is about dolphin slaughtering in Taiji, Japan. After I watched it (and enjoyed it), I checked out the "special features", one of which is a short documentary titled "The Cove: Mercury Rising". Kennedy appears in it at length, literally lying through his teeth about the long-disproven "link" between Thimerasol and autism, while simultaneously claiming to be "pro-vaccine", "pro-science", and, most laughably, "pro-truth".
As much as I agree with the filmmakers of "The Cove" on their stance regarding the capture, captivity, and slaugher of dolphins and whales, I will not support their cause as long as they continue to use harmful anti-vax lunacy in an attempt to bolster it.
Posted by: ezwriter | March 12, 2010 3:12 PM
"Unless someone is arguing that Poul Thorsen somehow deceived the financial dept. at Aarhus University into paying for a boat or Swiss chalet from his grants or paying him an outrageous salary, the use of "theft" to describe what happened is pure hyperbole."
Could it be that the admins at Aarhus are not familiar with the conditions that come with American Federal grant money?
Posted by: Omri | March 12, 2010 3:20 PM
Dan,
"I don't think we have forged documents -- at least, forged by AoA or their friends."
It was never my intent to accuse AoA or any other party of a forgery. Conventional wisdom among those who deal with such things (see "P&G; Satanism" rumor, which I have previously researched and written about) is that it's nearly impossible to trace a "bogus warning" type document to a specific source.
Posted by: David N. Brown | March 12, 2010 3:20 PM
8942 1139
Jørgen Jørgensen , Universitetsdirektør [email protected]
Mobil: 2467 0040 Rektoratet (1430-214)
Okay, the one thing in the story that does check out is that this guy is the director. I am writing him an open letter later.
Posted by: Omri | March 12, 2010 3:24 PM
Adding some fictional postdocs to the payroll and collecting their checks would qualify. Depending on the systems in place, it might also be possible to inflate the cost of purchased equipment and pocket the difference.
There are a few possibilities. I'm not, of course, saying that he did any such thing - just that, in principle, such things could happen.
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 3:33 PM
Well yes and no.
Federal grants, at least NIH grants and DOD grants (both of which I've had) usually add in overhead at a negotiated rate on the dollar, usually somewhere in the vicinity of 50%, depending upon what the university has negotiated with the feds. Let's say I land a nice, juicy R01 from the NIH for $250,000 a year and, for simplicity's sake, let's assume my institution's federal overhead rate is 50%. That means the NIH will dole out to my university $375,000 a year. I get to use $250,000 of that for my research; the university pockets the $125,000 for "overhead," usually with lots of complicated arrangements for how much goes to the department, to the school, and to other entities that make up the university. So, in reality, the university doesn't really skim 50% off the top; the government ladles 50% more on the university, which it keeps for "overhead."
Now, it is possible that Dr. Thorsen didn't understand this arrangement and spent too much, such that the university thought that it was owed the overhead, although $2 million in overhead would have had to mean that the total grants he controlled had to be on the order of around $4 million (or $6 million if you add $2 million in overhead to a $4 million grant).
There's no arguing about one thing, though. Grant money isn't just ladled out to the investigator or handed over in a large bag containing unmarked bills. It's given to the university, which then disburses it, and the government has rules demanding careful accounting of how the money is spent. Investigators can only access the money through the university, using it to order supplies, hire technicians or postdocs, what have you (all of which is paid for through university purchase orders for supplies or the university payroll to pay for grant-funded employees). I can say from experience that it is rarely the investigator that can take the money. Usually, I'm poring over budget and spending reports line by line to figure out how the university shorted me when my estimate of my spending doesn't match the balance shown in my accounts reports.
Consequently, I find the explanation that there was some sort of dispute over the funds when Thorsen left Aarhus and took his grants with him very plausible.
Posted by: Orac | March 12, 2010 3:36 PM
I should additionally add that the possibilities mentioned wouldn't be easy to pull off if there are ANY safeguards in place (which there almost certainly are). But such things happen.
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 3:57 PM
Has a charge actually been filed yet?
Posted by: Regan | March 12, 2010 4:16 PM
I made the mistake yesterday of looking at the HuffPost comments section. Yikes!
In response to repeated requests for a paper saying that there was no link between thimerosal and autism, an enlightened commenter provided likes to a half dozen papers at PubMed. These links were dismissed because "they are also at NIH".
Apparently the person
a) didn't know the difference between the CDC and the NIH
b) didn't know what PubMed was at all
c) thought that a paper listed at PubMed must have been authored at NIH, and thus, at CDC.
I pointed out that PubMed lists every single article published in every major medical or biological journal and asked what would be left if the suggested purge of literature were enforced.
(sigh)
The whole thing is sad.
I noticed that HuffPost was also rating actresses at the Oscars for how well they showed their cleavage. They might be well-advised to stick to the latter type of reporting.
Posted by: RickD | March 12, 2010 4:16 PM
A special court ruled Friday that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that vaccines caused autism in three cases.
It's over, Bobby. It is so over.
Posted by: Cervantes | March 12, 2010 4:17 PM
@79:
Was this an appeal on the test cases or something? It so sounds like old news.
At the moment, the comments include:
1. MERCRY IS TEH TOXINZ
2. Admirably sane
3. It's all vitamin D from the GUVMINT telling people to stay out of the sun
4. IT'S JUST ONE INGREDIENT, STILL THE VACCINES
5. Also admirably sane
40% is a surprisingly good ratio, even with the small numbers. And that depresses me.
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 4:30 PM
Now, it's new news -- spanking new news. The previous rulings were about MMR sans thimerosal; and the girl with the mitochondrial disorder. These are the three thimerosal test cases. This is the money shot. "Special Court Rules Connection Between Vaccination and Autism 'Scientifically Unsupportable" This afternoon, just a few minutes ago.
Posted by: cervantes
| March 12, 2010 4:35 PM
@ Cervantes--
I'm not sure how you can consider this over. Some of the so-called "evidence" considered by the court came from papers that received ratings of negative 5 on the famous '14 Studies' 0 to 40 point scale! Oh, never mind . . . .
Posted by: brian | March 12, 2010 4:37 PM
@81:
Ah, the other three test cases. Makes perfect sense, thanks.
Posted by: Scott | March 12, 2010 4:48 PM
I'll harken back to my high school athletic days, and start singing the "warm up the bus" song to the anti-vaxers.
Time to get off the court, guys. Both figuratively and literally.
Posted by: a-non | March 12, 2010 5:20 PM
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Hastings.King%20Decision.pdf
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Campbell-Smith%20Mead%20Autism%20Decision.pdf
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Vowell.Dwyer.FINAL.pdf
Here are the 3 decisions that just came out today. I call Shenanigans! This is a plot by the illuminati. These decisions were clearly rendered intentionally to distract from the global intrigue about an author no one has ever heard of, who held a minor role in the Danish MMR and Thimerosal studies but Handley, Olmstead, Blaxhill, Kennedy & Associates are going to inflate its value well beyond insanity.
Posted by: Science Mom | March 12, 2010 5:22 PM
No, no, you see, what Aarhus University thought was theft was actually a bribe. Big Pharma indirectly put pressure on the NIH through Congress and/or directly bribed members of the NIH to send $2 million Thorsen's way to fabricate data, so the NIH intended for Thorsen to get the money, and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those
meddling kidsAarhus University's sharp eyed accountants.Posted by: Matthew Cline | March 12, 2010 5:27 PM
I agree with Prometheus, a lot of the story sounds like a typical "guy changes job, takes customer/contact list/grant money/secretary with him", and the old employer is griping. Add the "he had a contract with a new employer while still working for the old one" and it gets nasty fast. Add the international angle, plus him moving to the country the sponsoring agency is located (making legal life for the Danish university tricky), and you have a "scandal". Only RFK could spin it worse than a National Inquirer headline.
Posted by: Mu | March 12, 2010 6:23 PM
What it looks like, from the Aarhus statement, is that Thorsen pulled down some advances from Aarhus based on possibly forged documents related to CDC funding. So I'm assuming that Aarhus made some advances expecting money to be coming in from the CDC, and the money didn't come. What the advances were used for isn't clear, but I assume that Aarhus didn't just write a check to Thorsen so he could "abscond" with the money. This is all speculation of course.
Posted by: Anne | March 12, 2010 6:27 PM
Re Cervantes
As dandy Don Meridith used to say on Monday Night Football, turn out the lights, the partys' over.
Posted by: SLC | March 12, 2010 6:56 PM
@78
I once had an anti-vaxxer tell me that they wouldn't believe any article I pulled off PubMed because it was a "government" site and couldn't be trusted (you know, www.pubmed.gov).
My response: it's a search engine, dipstick. ::huge eyeroll::
Posted by: Enkidu | March 12, 2010 7:17 PM
I took a look at Junior's article and was struck by his assumption of Thorsen's guilt. Uh, what about presumption of innocence, Junior? Were you nodding off the day that was covered in law school?
Once again, I call on the late Dominick Dunne to give his verdict on RFK Jr:
“I don’t give a fuck about what that little shit has to say,” Dunne spits back. “That fucking asshole. This pompous, pompous, POMPOUS man. I don’t care what he has to say. He’s not a person that I have any feeling or respect for.”
Read more: Dominick Dunne vs. Robert Kennedy http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_8816/#ixzz0i0mYEg00
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 12, 2010 7:24 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html?show_comment_id=42106261#comment_42106261
Poe's Law sure is true, isn't it?
Posted by: muteKi | March 12, 2010 7:34 PM
Stranger things have happened.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html
Posted by: bensmyson | March 12, 2010 9:44 PM
You didn't answer the question posed @63, Tre.
Posted by: Otto | March 12, 2010 11:10 PM
bensmyson @93, The Thorsen story will probably end up being rather mundane. Just so you don't think that I am an apologist for any 'pro-vax' scientists that go tits up, I hope that, when this all shakes out, and if he has committed fraud, that he will be summarily punished for it. However, you won't get your deep desired wish that the science is shite. His role in those studies was too insufficient to have manipulated data and results and there are still many more that have replicated it. You don't seem to have any problem accepting replication by the same, incestuous group of authors swirling about and including ol' Andy, but you stick your fingers in your ears when it is pointed out that the Danish studies have been independently replicated. Must be funsies in your opposite world.
Posted by: Science Mom | March 12, 2010 11:22 PM
Science Mom - Do you have any links for the independantly replicated studies? It would help me out greatly, thanks in advance.
Posted by: Dan the Man | March 13, 2010 1:23 AM
@ bensmyson #93:
What a pathetic attempt at committing the Genetic Fallacy.
It's very simple...If the studies were fraudulent then it should be possible to prove such, like what happened with Wakefield's work. Unless you can provide evidence to that effect, then you're just making using a fallacy to avoid discussing the lack of evidence (not to mention credibility) of the anti-vax position.
BTW are you going to answer the question at #63?
Posted by: Zetetic | March 13, 2010 4:49 AM
Im sorry I missed the part about Wakefield being a fraud. I read that he paid some kids at a birthday party for a blood sample but fraud? Hasnt his work been replicated? http://www.la-press.com/article.php?article_id=1816
Thorsen is a horse of a different color dont you think?
And seriously, stranger things have happened. You have the CDC's authorities of vaccine safety taking money and favors from drug companies, you have a famous researcher faking his studies on Vioxx and other drugs for money. This alleged stealing of 2 million and forgery is nothing like that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html
Im sure somewhere on some dusty shelf there is a study that backs up Thorsen's study. Just like Im sure there is a study somewhere saying that smoking Marlboros brings out the cowboy in you.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 6:51 AM
Yes, rambling describes your writing well. Methinks thou dost protest too much. And the 6-7 comments I've read evidence not so much scientific detachment and dispassionate reasoning as sycophancy. Ramble on.
Respectfully and insolently yours,
bkrider9
Posted by: bkrider9 | March 13, 2010 7:09 AM
I'm open to a pro-vaccines viewpoint, but here the emotions run too high to be considered reliable objective science. And the 6-7 comments I've read evidence not so much dispassionate reasoning as sycophancy. This website claims much, but the smell of lobbying is overpowering.
Posted by: bkrider9 | March 13, 2010 7:13 AM
Re T. Bruce McNeely @ #91
Although I have no use for Robert Kennedy Jr., who is clearly a whackjob on the subject of vaccines, I would hardly consider the late cokehead, Dominick Dunne, a reliable source of information. The issue that was the cause of the brouhaha between Kennedy and Dunne was the accusations Kennedy made against him relative to the trial and conviction of the formers' cousin, Michael Skakel, for the murder of Martha Moxley. Kennedy blamed Dunne for the leak of a private investigators' report of an interview with Skakel; the private investigator had been hired by Skakels' father.
Actually, Skakel senior made a fatal mistake when he personally hired the investigator. Had he obtained the services of an attorney to hire the investigator, the report would not have been admissible as it would be considered work product under the attorney/client privilege. Thus Kennedys' complaint against Dunne was ill founded because no attorney/client privilege was in force.
However, like CNN whore Nancy Grace, Mr. Dunne had the bad habit of declaring defendants guilty before trial and pillorying their legal counsel. In fact, he once stated that we shouldn't get too excited about erroneous guilty verdicts because the defendant was probably guilty of other crimes where either there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction or the latter was guilty of crimes for which he was not a person of interest.
Posted by: SLC | March 13, 2010 7:40 AM
Re T. Bruce McNeely @ #91
In addition, cokehead Dunne made an atrocious accusation for which he provided not a jot or a tittle of evidence. He claimed that Rushton Skakel was faking Alzheimer' disease when he testified on the witness stand that he had no memory of the events surrounding the Moxley murder. This despite the testimony of several physicians. It should be noted that the elder Skekal died fairly shortly after the trial of his affliction.
In short, cokehead Dunne was a scumbag.
Posted by: SLC | March 13, 2010 7:48 AM
"Please cite the unsupported allegations Orac has written about Wankerfield.
I shall now demonstrate my psychic abilities by predicting that the troll shall do nothing of the sort".
Dear Scott,
While it would be a lot of fun to waste time getting that information for you... The quote that I referenced was from Brian Deer, not Orac. I see that Reading Comp isn't one of your areas of expertise.
Posted by: Orac's Wackosphere | March 13, 2010 7:59 AM
See:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/surprise_surprise_andrew_wakefield_was_p.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/why_am_i_not_surprised_it_looks_as_thoug.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/the_martyrdom_of_st_andy.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/the_martyrdom_of_st_andy_part_2_david_ki.php
Posted by: Orac | March 13, 2010 8:12 AM
Wacko,
Brian Deer's investigative reporting was thorough and supported by evidence. Wakefield foolishly tried to sue Deer and lost, in part because the evidence was supported.
Wakefield will likely lose his license and should complete his despicable career in obscurity except for the odd reverence he engenders in the loon anti-vax community. That despite his efforts to replace the MMR with a vaccine of his own. Cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 13, 2010 8:28 AM
The benismymom-Sue M antivax hissing cockroaches are antivax. Back under your rocks, ladies. There you can take the time necessary to open your minds to science and reason so you don't miss the part about Wakers being a fraud... or you can keep posting your little hopes and dreams on AoA and ABMD to the willing 10's of like-minded lemmings.
Posted by: Sue M->Common Sense->Orac's Wackosphere | March 13, 2010 8:40 AM
Thanks Orac, although Im sure your opinion and that of Brian Deer are well thought out dont you think that would be like me quoting or linking to a AoA blog?
What I found was the GMC said that children had been subjected to invasive procedures that were not warranted, a disciplinary panel ruled. They had undergone lumbar punctures and other tests solely for research purposes and without valid ethical approval. And that he did not tell the Lancet that £55,000 funding for the study came from the legal aid board. Wakefield was advising Richard Barr, an attorney who was acting on behalf of the parents of children with autism.
Was there any proof that Wakefield's article was slanted to favor Barr? Wasn't it the CDC's money that funded Thorsen's investigation? Aren't a large majority of research studies funded by either the CDC, the NIH or pharmaceutical companies?
Forging signatures, lying on grant applications and absconding with a couple of millions of dollars seems to be a horse of a different color.
BTW, hardly anti-vax here, I had my son vaccinated.
Back under the rock, opening mind.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 9:20 AM
bensmyson
Glad Ben is vaccinated.
Read through Brian Deer's investigation here. Eye-opening.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 13, 2010 9:49 AM
"BTW, hardly anti-vax here, I had my son vaccinated."
So, this was written by someone else?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yjcsvk4
Posted by: Otto | March 13, 2010 9:57 AM
Dan @96
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818529
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15342825
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/793
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/12880876
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/14595043
http://tinyurl.com/ylqkfam
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519711
Bensmyson @98:
Don't play coy; you are a regular of AoA amongst other anti-vax sites so you know what Wakefield has been found guilty of. How could you even consider yourself to be informed if you haven't read the OAP? Wakefield was dropped as a petitioners' witness for very good reason, which was highlighted by Dr.s Bustin and Chadwick.
That is not independent replication of Wakefield's work; it's just the same incestuous group slopping together a pseudo-scientific paper in a non-peer reviewed vanity journal put together and is overseen by Wakefield. Don't be a drooling sycophant, content to get spoon-fed pabulum by agendised organisations like AoA, read for yourself, discuss the studies with those that know what their talking about.
Posted by: Science Mom | March 13, 2010 10:04 AM
Dan the Man:
List of journal articles here.
Summary of research here. List of thimerosal studies from that link (cut and paste), notice that they are from four different countries:
Source Study design Location
Stehr-Green et al., 2003 [22] Ecological Sweden and Denmark
Madsen et al., 2003 [23] Ecological Denmark
Fombonne et al., 2006 [9] Ecological Canada
Hviid et al., 2003 [24] Retrospective cohort Denmark
Verstraeten et al., 2003 [25] Retrospective cohort United States
Heron and Golding, 2004 [26] Prospective cohort United Kingdom
Andrews et al., 2004 [27] Retrospective cohort United Kingdom
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2010 10:06 AM
@107: Or this?
"At a year old our son's pediatrician looked my wife in her eyes and insisted to her that vaccines are safe just before our normally developing was injected with 3 shots containing 8 vaccines. After that nothing was ever the same. He crashed. Vaccines are not safe, it says so right on the side of the box they come in. He lied."
http://bit.ly/7FSpb2
Posted by: Otto | March 13, 2010 10:18 AM
Do you consider the quotation I provided "information"?
And as far as declaring someone guilty before trial, what's with the "cokehead" shot?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 13, 2010 10:30 AM
Dan @96
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818529
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15342825
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/793
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/12880876
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/14595043
http://tinyurl.com/ylqkfam
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519711
Bensmyson @98:
Don't play coy; you are a regular of AoA amongst other anti-vax sites so you know what Wakefield has been found guilty of. How could you even consider yourself to be informed if you haven't read the OAP? Wakefield was dropped as a petitioners' witness for very good reason, which was highlighted by Dr.s Bustin and Chadwick.
That is not independent replication of Wakefield's work; it's just the same incestuous group slopping together a pseudo-scientific paper in a non-peer reviewed vanity journal put together and is overseen by Wakefield. Don't be a drooling sycophant, content to get spoon-fed pabulum by agendised organisations like AoA, read for yourself, discuss the studies with those that know what their talking about.
Posted by: Science Mom | March 13, 2010 10:39 AM
where was RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE during the tobacco years?
Posted by: mmmbuck | March 13, 2010 10:56 AM
Huh?
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2010 11:02 AM
It wasn't too long ago in history when the Nazi Government of Germany professed to its people and the rest of the world that scientific evidence from research showed the Aryan people to be superior to all other races.
In our own U.S. history we took so called scientific research at its word in the 1940s and 1950s when it was determined by researchers a select few should be sterilized because of discoveries of mental disorders which were thought to be hereditary. We also legitimized the direct exposure to nuclear blasts for a number of experiments in the name of science and stood by watching silently as human beings suffered and died from syphilis.
Surely the scientists of that era had found evidence to support such claims and actions. Such is science.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 11:13 AM
Oh, wow. An invocation of Godwin's law all mixed up with a silly and fallacious invocation of the "science was wrong before" gambit.
A true crank masterpiece!
Posted by: Orac | March 13, 2010 11:19 AM
Thank you! I do my very best, its nice to be recognized. I wish I could take all the credit but I can't.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 11:29 AM
It's too bad nothing has changed in the realm of medical science since the 1950s. At all. As a specific reaction to those things bensmyson just talked about.
Yes, science has been wrong before, and the word "science" has been abused (even though there is no science supporting Aryan supremacy, the safety of radiation, or justifying the non-treatment of syphilis). You know what's been wrong even longer? Stupidity.
Posted by: Ian | March 13, 2010 11:34 AM
I take it this an admission to copy pasting antivax lunacy from here, there and verywhere as you own.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | March 13, 2010 11:38 AM
bensmyson, instead of invoking strawmen, why don't you look at how the scientific process works. Tobacco companies failed in their endeavour because the science that demonstrated the association between smoking and lung cancer prevailed. Your ilk like to invoke Needleman's research confronting corporate interests; his science was sound.
Now I find it positively bombastic that you would even mention the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment without recognising that your own champions have violated the Declaration of Helsinki such as the Geiers and Wakefield et al. I wouldn't be too damn proud of that if I were you.
Wakefield's science was built upon a fraud from the get-go and that is why it can't be replicated. Can you really not see this? Does it mean so much to you to defend an unethical, dishonest man because he told you something that you wanted to hear? I'll bet a lot of smokers and the physicians that touted smoking were happy to hear that smoking didn't cause lung cancer but they were deluded now weren't they?
Posted by: Science Mom | March 13, 2010 11:51 AM
"Oh, wow. An invocation of Godwin's law all mixed up with a silly and fallacious invocation of the "science was wrong before" gambit.
science usually gets it correct eventually - just not in oncology
Posted by: mmmbuck | March 13, 2010 11:59 AM
mmmbuck,
Come on, at least put a little effort into it. At least bensmyson usually writes more than one sentence and tries to make a point even if it is silly, wrong, or just ignorant. My initial response to your posts is something like "Boring troll is boring (and stupid)" because of the lack of content.
Posted by: Travis | March 13, 2010 12:05 PM
Im sorry if I gave you the impression that I am defending Wakefield. I am not educated enough to understand, in such detail as what you are familiar with, one scientific paper from another. But some things make sense when compared to personal experience and others dont, that's my science I guess. For instance, Im sure eugenics means one thing to some and another thing to others.
Did not mean to side track this Thorsen story. My point is that as it seems to me and my uneducated tin-foil hat covered pea brain, Thorsen's situation could be something much worse than what Wakefield did with his son's friends at a birthday party.
And Declaration of Helsinki, what's that? I honestly have no idea.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 12:08 PM
bensmyson - why do you bother with this site?
i stumbled upon it, have wasted about 5 min and will now move on; maybe you should to.
oncology is still a gong show
Posted by: mmmbuck | March 13, 2010 12:13 PM
bensmyson, I have not been following this story so much so I am not going to reply to all of your post in 125, I am sure those who have been participating will do that. But the Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles for the medical community related to experimentation using humans.
Posted by: Travis | March 13, 2010 12:15 PM
"Im sorry if I gave you the impression that I am defending Wakefield. I am not educated enough to understand, in such detail as what you are familiar with, one scientific paper from another."
Tre, who exactly do think you're crappin'?
http://bit.ly/aP21Ve
Posted by: Otto | March 13, 2010 12:30 PM
Oh that Helsinki thing, the one the FDA doesnt recognize right?
"At the end of April (2008) the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a regulatory change ending the need for clinical trials conducted outside of the US to comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. The FDA’s decision had been in the making for several years and is a major victory of corporate interests which have sought to loosen the ethical standards for international clinical trials." http://www.socialmedicine.org/2008/06/01/ethics/fda-abandons-declaration-of-helsinki-for-international-clinical-trials/
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/173ED118.html
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 12:33 PM
Google it.
While you're at it, Google the Common Rule and the Belmont Report. These are documents that set forth the ethical principles upon that all biomedical research is expected to follow. In fact, search this blog for these terms as well, because I've written about them on multiple occasions over the last five years.
Really, if you can't be bothered to learn relevant background that is mind-numbingly easy to find, why should we bother to spoon feed it to you?
As for claiming that what Wakefield did was "just" offering kids money at a birthday party to let him draw their blood, you clearly have no clue. I posted the links showing Wakefield's undisclosed conflicts of interest, his incompetent science, his subjecting children to invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture without a valid medical indication, and his very likely research fraud, but you obviously didn't bother to read them. The posts to which I linked all contain additional links to the primary sources.
Posted by: Orac | March 13, 2010 12:34 PM
Re T. Bruce McNeely @ #113
1. Let me amend my comment by stating that Mr. Dunnes' opinions are worth about as much as any information he may convey. Namely zilch.
2. Mr. Dunne, by his own admission, was a long time user of cocaine. He claimed to have kicked the habit interview he gave in which this admission was made. However, it is my information that long term use of cocaine is not the way to preserve brain function.
Re mmmbuck
One certainly hopes that, if Mr. mmmbuck is diagnosed with cancer, he will eschew seeking treatment from an oncologist.
Re Bensmyson
Since Ms. Bensmyson essentially admits that she doesn't know her posterior orifice from an excavation in tierra firma, maybe she should acquire some knowledge on the subject before commenting.
Posted by: SLC | March 13, 2010 12:45 PM
Thanks Orac, I got the links, I went through what you had to say, your interpretations seem a valid opinion based on your understanding and the understanding of others. To me though a colonoscopy is a necessary investigative tool when dealing with children with bowel disorders, likewise if one discovers measles virus in the intestines to do a lumbar puncture to see if the gut has leaked into the brain. I know a child that had cancer and was being treated with chemotherapy and radiation, made him very uncomfortable and it was a tough decision for his parents to experiment on him that way.
An April 2000 paper presented by Professor John O’Leary to the Committee on Government Reform reported the investigation whether measles virus was present n the gut biopsies of autistic children, and if so, where and how much. The paper reported that the biopsies of 24 out of 25 (96%) of the autistic children examined were positive for measles virus, and that amongst normal (non-autistic) controls, only 1 out of 15 children (6.6%) were positive, strongly suggesting a connection between measles virus and autism.
A February 2004 paper presented by Singh, Department of Biology Center for Integrated Biosystems, Utah State University, to the US Institute of Medicine, Washington DC, measured antibodies in autistic children to five viruses, measles, mumps, rubella, CMV and human herpes virus 6. Researchers found that the antibody level of the measles virus alone, and not the other four, was significantly higher in autistic children than in normal children. The research also found a correlation between measles antibody and brain autoimmunity, which was marked by myelin basic protein antibodies. The two markers correlated in over 90% of the autistic children tested for them, suggesting a causal link between measles virus and autoimmunity in autism. The serology to other viruses and other brain autoantibodies did not show this correlation. This suggested a temporal link of measles virus in the etiology of autism.
An earlier 1999 paper Bitnun et al, Measles Inclusion-Body Encephalitis Caused by the Vaccine Strain of Measles Virus, Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal, 1999, 29 855-61 (October) has previously and independently confirmed the presence of measles virus in the brain tissue of a previously-healthy child following exposure to MMR, when the child had no history of wild measles infection.
Stands to reason that Wakefield may have believed he was on to something when he began his work with those children.
But again we are drifting away from Thorsen arent we?
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 12:56 PM
"To me though a colonoscopy is a necessary investigative tool when dealing with children with bowel disorders, likewise if one discovers measles virus in the intestines to do a lumbar puncture to see if the gut has leaked into the brain."
This has got to be a put-on.
Posted by: Otto | March 13, 2010 1:05 PM
"This has got to be a put-on."
No, I can assure you that this is how bensmyson is on all websites I've witnessed xir on, and on all topics, in all conversations with all people.
Posted by: Dedj | March 13, 2010 1:11 PM
I have neither time nor inclination to get into a complicated discussion right now, but @bensmyson -- perhaps you missed the bit of the evidence against Wakefield, which pointed out that more than half the children in his study did not, in fact, have the GI symptoms he claimed they did. (This is made explicit in the GMC ruling, available at http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf .) The colonoscopies etc. were not clinically indicated, because Wakefield was lying about what GI symptoms were present and when. Which is also clear research fraud.
Explain to me, please, just for my curiosity, what serious cognitive compartmentalisation allows you to ignore this.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | March 13, 2010 1:30 PM
Thanks Dedj, glad youre a fan!
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 1:32 PM
@bensmyson
Stop saying "it stands to reason". That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. You haven't used anything close to reason even once on this thread.
Posted by: Ian | March 13, 2010 2:11 PM
Ian- I use that term a lot? Really? Thanks Ill try to use something else, maybe Ill just say, "it seems to me" from now on.
Seems to me Thorsen's work should be called into question, even if it is just a simple hearing that's open to the public in order to explain how he had no influence over any of the work, that he just signed on because he was head of the organization receiving the grant.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 2:46 PM
Cut the coy act; you look psycho. You are quite an outspoken defender of Wakers although I agree that it is done by one that is not educated enough to understand, in such detail as what you are familiar with, one scientific paper from another.
Thorsen's situation could very well be worse than that single incident on Waker's behalf. But that is not Waker's only offence, in fact, probably one of the lesser revolting of many. I find it so curious that you choose to only recognise that as his only offence. Is that because he was captured on videotape joking about it and can't slime his way out of it with his mindless sycophants?
I don't think that you are actually reading the materials that you are being provided with if you think that this is any replication of Waker's 1998 study. O'Leary's lab was subject to an extensive audit by Dr. Stephen Bustin (someone who actually knows how to do PCR) and there was no way, O'Leary could have found measles vaccine-virus. You see, measles virus is an RNA virus and O'Leary's lab left out the crucial reverse transcription step for some of the samples. His instruments were also not calibrated correctly which would have also altered the results and he didn't have sufficient starting material, i.e. RNA in samples. Still want to defend this piece of tosh as replication? Given what O'Leary and Wakers claimed to have found, it would only require a study size of 15 to get a statistically significant difference between autistic and normal cohorts when detecting measles vaccine virus. But guess what? Studies that employed more rigorous detection methods with larger sample sizes couldn't find a damn thing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18769550
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252754
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16555271
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/11318548
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/4/1664
Thorsen was not a point man on the Danish MMR and thimerosal studies, he was not responsible for any data collection or analyses and since the lead author has spoken as to Thorsen's role (or lack thereof) in those studies, I don't foresee them coming into question accepting those, like you that have such a tenuous grasp on reality to begin with. What may be scrutinised, are the studies that he had in the pipeline for which this grant money was allocated for, if that was indeed, the case.
Bollocks! These findings don't mean what he thinks they mean: http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2009/04/mmr-vaccine-roseola-and-autism.html The mere presence of anti-myelin basic protein antibodies is meaningless as well.
Nice quote-mining. The child was found to have an immunocompromised disorder and that is the only case of MIBE after MMR vaccination. MIBE is a specific diagnosis with specific clinical features, not GI issues, nor autism and given that these works were published after Waker's 1998 study, how could he think he was 'on to something'? Or is that part of the anti-vax group-think time warp?
Keep digging though, it's always fun when your lot come to sites like this to edumcate us and spread your twoof. You are doing more to educate parents as to the perils of anti-vaxxing then we ever could.
Posted by: Science Mom | March 13, 2010 2:48 PM
"Seems to me Thorsen's work should be called into question, even if it is just a simple hearing that's open to the public in order to explain how he had no influence over any of the work, that he just signed on because he was head of the organization receiving the grant."
I recommend the site of the Spahn Ranch as a venue. You'll feel right at home.
Posted by: Otto | March 13, 2010 3:28 PM
"Thanks Orac, I got the links, I went through what you had to say, your interpretations seem a valid opinion based on your understanding and the understanding of others. To me though a colonoscopy is a necessary investigative tool when dealing with children with bowel disorders, likewise if one discovers measles virus in the intestines to do a lumbar puncture to see if the gut has leaked into the brain. I know a child that had cancer and was being treated with chemotherapy and radiation, made him very uncomfortable and it was a tough decision for his parents to experiment on him that way. "
To me, as an autistic who knows what it's like to be an autistic kid, I think that a colonoscopy would have been an absolutely terrifying experience, to the point of health-threatening anxiety. And that is apart from the normal risks of colonoscopies, especially when they mean comrposmising the integrity of the colonic mucous to remove a sample. I also know that lumbar puncture would have been no fun either.
To me, as an adult, this looks like a perfect example of the need for independent institutional review boards to oversee experimentation on human beings, the same kind of oversight that Wakefield deliberately evaded.
Posted by: TemporarilyAnonymous | March 13, 2010 3:45 PM
@ bensmyson:
First of all, you may not have noticed (whether it's due to a lack of comprehension, Morton's Demon, or you're just lying...I don't know), but it's NOT "Thorsen's work" as you claim in what seems to be an attempt to make a deliberate lie. Rather, it is a couple of papers for which Thorsen was a participant.
Please read the following...Autism-study doctor facing grant probe
Also, please note the parts about Thorsen's limited involvement in the reports.
Once again you're resorting to the Genetic Fallacy. You're asserting the if Thorsen was involved in the studies then they must be tainted, ignoring not only the quality of the reports and the other (more influential researchers involved) and ignoring the body of other independent research that also come to the same general conclusions. You also seem to be hoping that we won't notice the systematic corruption and fraud in the anti-vax industry (because lets face it..it's a business) as well as the utter lack of credible supporting evidence for a link between vaccines and autism.
So yes, it will be investigated, but in the end it won't matter because even if the papers Thorsen was involved in were fraudulent (and that looks rather unlikely at this point, since it seems to be simply a matter of possible graft) there is still the body of independent work that still supports the scientific conclusion that there is no link between vaccines and autism. Just as one hoax fossil does nothing to undermine modern evolutionary theory. So even if (and that's a BIG "if") the studies are found to be fraudulent, it does nothing to change the rest of the body of evidence against the anti-vax position, and it does nothing to provide the still missing credible positively supporting evidence for the anti-vax position.
So once again the anti-vax community is trying to put the pro-science side on the defensive with baseless accusations and guilt by association. Meanwhile ignoring both the body of evidence against their position, the lack of credible evidence supporting the anti-vax side, and the rancid stink of corruption coming from their own house.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others have already pointed out Wakefield's fraud and how the only "replication" of his work involved equally bad science. Not to mention Wakefield's deliberate attempts to hide his financial conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence Deer when he tried to bring the truth about Wakefield into the light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when are you going to answer the question at #63?
Posted by: Zetetic | March 13, 2010 4:28 PM
I find it ever so humiliating to respond politely to such vicious personal attacks. It seems to me that many of you feel I am a threat, otherwise why take this so personally?
Personal, you know what's personal? Having your 12 months old child's brain swell, his fever reach critical levels, seizures, measles titers 15 times the high norm, loss of nearly every developmental milestone and the over $50,000 of uninsured therapy and the enormous loss of income associated with our need to give him every chance humanly possible to bring him back.
Now to me this was absolutely no coincidence, this happened immediately after his 12 month vaccines. That's just me, my observation, my science and I realize those of you who have never experienced anything remotely like it will never understand or believe. To me, resorting to personal attacks is just wrong. I am no threat, I mean no harm, there are lots of questions I have and I seek answers.
I don't have the education and experiences many of you have, but I have what is in the next room, playing with his Thomas the Train, pretending, using his imagination, theory of mind I think it is called. This education and experience I have comes from that 4 year old little boy and all that we have been through together the past 3 years to get him so he can play, pretend, wonder where I am, when I am coming into the room to play along side. I've lived this, I know what happened to my child, I know for nearly 2 years he suffered. I know he is a great kid, a kid that has been diagnosed several times with autism, not an ASD, autism. I know he is different than many kids his age, its not that hard to see. I know that on April 18th, 2007 as he lay in his mothers lap, screaming, that the shots he got 3 hours earlier were wrecking his brain. I know this without an MRI, or what ever it would take to see inside him, I know this because it was that night when asked, "What's wrong?" he responded "Me miss daddy" and that was the last thing he spoke for nearly a year.
Maybe your sense of right is to attack me personally, to attempt to portray me as an idiot, a tinfoil hat wearing loon. Fact is you might be right, I dont know anymore, but isnt that like calling someone in a wheelchair a cripple, or my son a retard? What sport is that?
Posted by: bensmyson | March 13, 2010 6:40 PM
"Now to me this was absolutely no coincidence, this happened immediately after his 12 month vaccines. That's just me, my observation, my science and I realize those of you who have never experienced anything remotely like it will never understand or believe. To me, resorting to personal attacks is just wrong. I am no threat, I mean no harm, there are lots of questions I have and I seek answers. "
Yes, that is just you and your observation. It is not, and will never be, your science. It is ample justification for you to feel strongly about the situation. But that is itself justification for setting your opinion aside when the science doesn't support it. And it is not a justification for your behavior on this site.
Posted by: TemporarilyAnonymous | March 13, 2010 7:12 PM
A person in a wheelchair or someone with a developmental disorder didn't choose to be the way they are. It's cruel to taunt someone over a difference they can't control and didn't choose. You, however, are alternating between being willfully ignorant, parroting old and oft-refuted arguments completely uncritically, and fishing for sympathy because you're just a woeful mensch who can't understand all this big fancy book learnin'. Even if you don't have the education to interpret the literature, there are lots of science blogs (this one included) that have discussed the studies at length in layman's terms. Instead, you seem to prefer to spout faux-concern and then, when cornered, you cry about how people are attacking you personally. Pointing out stupidity isn't an attack, it's an observation of fact. The people who have been responding to you have been attacking your poor logic and unsupported assertions.
While I am sympathetic to your history and that of your son, it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the science is correct. It is also completely irrelevant to the validity of the unsupported aspersions you've been casting at the authors of the study. The fact that your family has suffered doesn't give you any scientific insight, it means you have personal experience. It's absolutely appropriate to talk about gaps in service or lack of care for autistic kids - that's something your experience makes relevant. But leave scientific commentary alone until you understand the process better.
You are one of the more polite combatants I've seen on these forums, though. So thanks for that.
Posted by: Ian | March 13, 2010 9:21 PM
Interesting -- "bensmyson" is already in my killfile, yet I don't remember putting him there.
Is it yet another incarnation of Happeh?
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | March 13, 2010 9:52 PM
@bensmyson,
Your attempt to get people to pity you in your woe-is-me post at #143 strikes me as more than disingenuous at best, given your tendency in other venues to engage in highly questionable comments that are vaguely menacing:
"My feelings exactly. Im scared, Im angry, Im depressed, Im broke, Im frustrated, Im sick, hurt, and did I say angry? It's a good thing I dont know how to fly a plane.... by remote control. :)" AoA, Feb 21, 2010 9:09 am
"I hope this guy is found and brought in alive, there are a few questions Id like answered." AoA, Mar 11, 2010, 8:55 am
"Thorsen, whatya wanna bet, won't make a single headline. My guess is if he is mentioned at all it will be because he was found in the trunk of some burned out car." AoA, Mar 10, 2010 6:58 pm
Posted by: KWombles | March 13, 2010 10:47 PM
@bensmyson,
Posted by: a-non | March 14, 2010 12:01 AM
First of all, I am very sorry that your son has the condition he has. It must be very difficult for you to deal with.
But that doesn't justify you remaining willfully ignorant. You will almost certainly yammer back with self-pitying bullshit about "oh how dare you launch your vicious personal attack on me I choose to interpret that as proof that I must be right because otherwise why would you so cruelly attack saintly little me --" Because you are willfully ignorant, refusing to learn anything that would contradict your presently held ideas, that's why I'm calling you willfully ignorant.
I'm sorry that you and your son have a hard row to hoe. But calling what happened to your son "my science" is like interviewing a single person and calling it "my poll." "Mr. President, how can you ignore a clear mandate from the people? 100% of the Americans who responded in my poll said they wanted your top priority to be elimination of crabgrass! Why are you ignoring the people??" Sound silly? Well, guess what. It sounds equally silly to anyone who knows science when you say "Event A happened and 3 hours later Event B happened and that proves that Event A causes Event B, that's my observation and that's my science."
Let me explain something to you very clearly. Emotion does not trump reality. You seem to think that telling us why you are so emotional on the subject of the alleged vaccine-autism connection will convince us that you are an expert on the alleged vaccine-autism connection. "those of you who have never experienced anything remotely like it will never understand or believe ..." "I know this without an MRI, or what ever it would take to see inside him, I know this because it was that night when asked, "What's wrong?" he responded "Me miss daddy" ..."
But it doesn't work that way. I could get kidnapped tomorrow by Muslim terrorists, but that wouldn't make me an expert on the Middle East. You had the heartbreaking experience of seeing your son regress into autism but it doesn't mean you know what causes autism. Caring very much for your son with autism doesn't mean you know what causes autism.
You tell us you want answers and God knows that's understandable; who could possibly be in your position and not want answers?? But when you tell us that you already have the answers to the puzzle of autism, answers that have eluded researchers who make it their life's work, and you have these answers not because you actually went through a sane process of inquiry which would eventually produce the correct answers and weed out the plausible-seeming-but-incorrect answers, but merely because autism has caused you heartbreak, you are making no sense.
If I got kidnapped by Muslim terrorists, it would certainly motivate me to try and figure out what's really going wrong in the Middle East. But if I started showing up on forums devoted to studying the situation in the Middle East and announcing that my kidnapping already taught me what I needed to know about the Middle East, and I sneered at anyone who tried to tell me anything about the Middle East that didn't fit with my existing "knowledge", people would very soon start treating me as an idiot or a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon. For the very good reason that I'd be acting like one.
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | March 14, 2010 1:38 AM
bensmyson @ #143:
Do you seriously think that the people here pointing out the fallacies in your reasoning and how your past comments contradict your current statements is a "vicious personal attack"?!?! Really?
You should try posting on Pharyngula! ;-)
Not really, it's just about countering obvious falsehoods/fallacies in order to not let them mislead any fence-sitters (at least for me it is).Everything in the above article, and the links, already pointed out that Thorsen was apparently just a part of the teams involved here, there is no evidence that he was the principle author or a major influence.So why you to keep talking like he was when you know you have nothing to support that assertion?
You already should know that the abuse of public funds and fraudulent research are two different things, so why do you act like they're not different?
You should already know that there is a vast body of research supporting showing a lack of connection between autism and vaccines, so why do you act as though these two studies are somehow so important? While on the subject, have you ever asked yourself why the anti-vax groups don't try to fund credible research over their own? Why is that the anti-vax research always turns out to be poorly-done/fraudulent/incompetent?
If true, I'm sorry to hear that, but considering how easy it is to induce false memories and how often the parents of autistic children tend to misremember the progression of symptoms in their child's condition, I'm afraid that unverifiable anecdotes aren't that convincing. It's nothing personal, it's just that people are often wrong about many things, especially when deep emotions are involved. They tend to be confident in their recollection of things that didn't happen the way they recall. That's not a slight against you personally, but it's a fact, all humans have the problem of being poor witnesses. I personally would gladly change my position if credible evidence that the damage caused by vaccines outweighed the harm, but what I find instead are strings of logical fallacies, bogus "evidence", and excuses.
That's why the pro-science side keeps asking for scientifically credible evidence, but when asked for it the anti-vaxers almost invariably get offended or start to make excuses. What we don't see are credible studies being performed that show support for the position that vaccines cause autism, just a few such studies could change the world of medicine(if the premise is true) and help thousands of future children. So why aren't the anti-vax groups trying to perform credible tests/studies that are ethically acceptable?
For me it's not about making fun of you. It's about arriving at the truth (or something reasonably close to it) so as to maximize human welfare. Bad logic and unfounded assertions don't cut it when trying to rationally determine what is best for the general public. To borrow your analogy, it's not like making fun of someone in a wheelchair, it's more like trying to quarantine Typhoid Mary to prevent harm to innocent people.
If what you say about your child is true then maybe your time would be better spent trying to encourage others in the anti-vax community to push for some credible research from the anti-vax organizations. Personally though, I'm not holding my breath for any such research from groups like AoA and Generation Rescue.
Posted by: Zetetic | March 14, 2010 5:55 AM
Thanks Science Mom and Chris for the links to those studies. I am not so good with that sort of thing. They have been a big help to me, cheers.
Posted by: Dan the Man | March 14, 2010 6:36 AM
In a moment of weakness I pulled out the hankie to offer up a bit of background regarding what fuels the fire that drives me to post the things I do. Some of you have see what I witnessed with my own two eyes as I guess a coincidence and others as false memory. To me it is my science, my own personal science. I could care less what others experience in their world, it is my world that is important to me. Do I need to read and pour over in detail a study that says coffee/caffeine tastes good or bad for me to know whether or not I will drink it? My tasting of it is my science.
Two things disturbed me most about your responses. One, "Typhoid Mary?" Harm to innocent people? Please! Exactly how immune are you right now to the diseases you have vaccinated against? Hand washing (sanitary conditions) , food and access to proper health care have been known to save a few lives.
The other thing that disturbs me but in weird, wacky kind of way is KWombles collection of my prior posts and her attempt to portray me in a particular "vaguely menacing" light. Vaguely menacing? WTF is that? How silly! :)
I do sense a genuine spirit of compassion regarding my son and I am appreciative. I am not surprised because Im sure a majority of you are parents yourselves, parents who love and cherish your own child and know in your heart of hearts that you would do anything to see to it your child has every advantage possible. They say there is no greater love than what a parent has for their child.
Some of you may be under the mistaken impression that I have fallen for quackery and voodoo. Nope, I havent. But I will say this about that, whatever a parent chooses to do for their child is their right. They want Jesus to heal them, fine, want to rub oil of pecans on them, fine, want to carry them to a doctor who tells them that sticking the child in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber in hopes of helping them, fine.
Some of you are smart enough to look up studies about hope versus no hope. Hope is telling the world things are looking up. No hope is what happened to 8-year-old Jude Michael Mirra in a Manhattan hotel. I want parents to have hope, even if it is false hope, long enough for them to find solid ground and proper support.
Enough of this. Save your stories of chelations gone wrong and Lupron and the rise in measles and McCarthy for someone who cares. Time to get back on to the topic.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 14, 2010 7:01 AM
"But I will say this about that, whatever a parent chooses to do for their child is their right. They want Jesus to heal them, fine, want to rub oil of pecans on them, fine, want to carry them to a doctor who tells them that sticking the child in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber in hopes of helping them, fine."
You left out "sell them to a dog-fighting ring as training bait."
Posted by: Otto | March 14, 2010 10:10 AM
And here is the difference between you and us. We want the parents to have REAL hope, and not waste their time and money with charletons who are profiting off of their dispair.
I support people who are seriously looking for honest answers and solutions. You are like Suzanne Sommers, and running to anyone who is willing to tell you what you want to hear, even if they lie to you. You know what happens when you do that? They lie to you.
Posted by: Pablo | March 14, 2010 10:46 AM
@Bensmyson,
"In a moment of weakness" my arse. You made an appeal to pity. You insist that your science is a personal science of one and all you need. Bleh. You really don't understand science, then. That's anecdote, and faulty at best.
You assert here and elsewhere that parents can do whatever they like with their children, whatever that may be, and I cry foul on that as well. Legally (and you of all people should know better) you do not have the right to do whatever you like for and to your child. Morally, you do not, either. And you sure don't have the right to behave in whatever fashion you like regarding your child and not deal with the societal repercussions of your actions.
You are not a victim. I'll very much grant that your child may be, though, but vaccines aren't what he's a victim of.
False hope is no hope at all.
Posted by: KWombles | March 14, 2010 11:11 AM
@Pablo
You said, "You are like Suzanne Sommers, and running to anyone who is willing to tell you what you want to hear, even if they lie to you."
You obviously have no idea who I am. Because you made such a assertive statement about something you have no idea about, what kind of person does that make you?
Any idea about placebo effects and why they work?
http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar02/placebo.aspx
A 2004 study in the British Medical Journal of physicians in Israel found that 60% used placebos in their medical practice, most commonly to "fend off" requests for unjustified medications or to calm a patient. The accompanying editorial concluded, "We cannot afford to dispense with any treatment that works, even if we are not certain how it does." Nitzan U, Lichtenberg P. 2004 Questionnaire survey on use of placebo. BMJ. Oct 23;329(7472):944-6. PubMed
Posted by: bensmyson | March 14, 2010 11:21 AM
I think your activities here and elsewhere speak volumes about who you are, your ethos and what you are willing to do to your child, not to mention what you may be capable of doing to those you perceive as causing your child's autism.
Are you seriously trying to equate the 'biomed' crap you subject your child to with a placebo? If only that was all you were truly giving your child. It's for you, only for you because you feel like you have to do something radical or you have failed.
If you were truly in the throes of de-programming, you would have so many questions and you would, undoubtedly, be treated much differently. But you aren't as your easily-found internet activities establish. I don't know what your game is, but it sure isn't 'to learn'. You have been provided with a lot of good information and your response has been contrary to one who is looking for answers.
Posted by: Science Mom | March 14, 2010 11:44 AM
#132 @bensmyson = whale.to plagiarist
It's like watching ping pong with this one - waaaah, I'm not smart enough, quote whale.to, waaaah, I'm not smart enough, quote whale.to, waaaah, I'm not smart enough, quote whale.to.
You came here to make a point. You did. It wasn't the point you intended. But I will give credit to you and Handley's other five web-mouths: you're loud.
Posted by: Vindaloo | March 14, 2010 11:46 AM
And now you have no excuse to complain when people call you a willfully ignorant loon. You have already had it explained to you why a single personal experience, no matter how emotional it was for you, cannot be promoted to the status of "science," but you insist on doing so.
And by the way, telling people that there is something you would do in your state of anger and depression, if you were able to fly a plane by remote control, that it's "lucky" you're not able to do? Everybody understands the implication you're making. You're talking about a violent act of mass destruction at the very least if not murder. KWombles is not being "silly" in the least by describing that as menacing; you are being silly when you pretend that it's not menacing to talk about how you envision yourself lashing out violently to satisfy your anger.
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | March 14, 2010 12:02 PM
This is why AoA will gather the faithful more easily than we will; they're muuuuuch nicer than us :P I love watching the comments on AoA articles where someone will say something COMPLETELY off-the-wall (like 'whatever parents decide for their children is their right') and instead of countering that dangerous assertion, they line up to kiss the behind of whoever has the saddest story.
Maybe we should hire some PR people, or get some popular figure to be our spokesperson. I hear Andy Wakefield's looking for work - people seem to love him.
Posted by: Ian | March 14, 2010 12:33 PM
@ Antaeus Feldspar - Do you not see the little smiley face at the end of that quote?
It really is enlightening to see how all your black and white, analytical minds have absolutely pegged me so perfectly with your keen perception and dead-on sense of reasoning with almost mystical powers and of course clairvoyant like social skills. Amazing, no wonder you have such a superior indisputable grasp of all things science, especially how it relates to autism. (I know some of you think you are autistic because at 40 you got a diagnosis of aspergers but Im talking about autism) Raise your hands if you currently care for someone diagnosed with autism. Wombles? Otto? Sciencemom? Any of you other “cockweasel douchenozzle” know-it-alls?
Someone, anyone, please tell me exactly what if any bio-med programs I have involved my son in, tell me what if any invasive procedures I have subjected my son to, please prove that you have any knowledge of what I do or dont do with my son in regards to therapy and treatment. You know absolutely nothing yet you post things like this, "You are not a victim. I'll very much grant that your child may be, though, but vaccines aren't what he's a victim of." "I think your activities here and elsewhere speak volumes about who you are, your ethos and what you are willing to do to your child" "'biomed' crap you subject your child to" and "you feel like you have to do something radical or you have failed" And you know this how?
And again Antaeus Feldspar, I said "To me it is MY science, MY own personal science." Did I say anything about expecting it to be yours?
Posted by: bensmyson | March 14, 2010 12:58 PM
True. I only know you from what you say.
Hence, my response.
If you are not a sucker like Suzanne Sommers, who prefers to be lied to rather than to face reality and the truth and work within that, then stop acting like you are.
And as others have noted, your concept of a placebo effect is so far afield from reality that I don't even know where to start.
Posted by: Pablo | March 14, 2010 12:58 PM
Many times Pablo hope is just a placebo. Churches are full of people of faith based on hope. And if you spent a second or two looking at the science of placebo effects and what effect false hope has on healing and the physiological transformations that take place in the brain of the believer you might want to say you're sorry for being so ignorant.
Are people who get on their knees and pray fools? Do they waste their time? You ever wish someone "Good luck"
Posted by: bensmyson | March 14, 2010 1:10 PM
There is no such thing as "your own personal science." It's as asinine to talk about such a thing as it would be for a convicted criminal to say "Well, yeah, I was caught red-handed in the actual act of first-degree murder, and the jury did find me guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the crime, but my verdict, my own personal verdict, is that I am not guilty." The criminal has his own wish for what the verdict was, but that does not mean that wish can be artificially promoted to the status of a verdict, or referred to by any such asinine locution as "his own personal verdict."
But you know something? Even if, for the sake of argument, it was possible for people to have "personal" sciences, what you have been referring to as your "own personal science" still would not qualify. Science is a process of looking at multiple hypotheses and evaluating their likelihood based on the evidence. By your own admission you simply selected a hypothesis to explain your child's autism and ruled out all others based on your emotional convictions.
This means when you tell us that your conviction about what happened to your son is "your own personal science" and expect it to be respected it's as dishonest as a counterfeiter passing a phony $100 bill and expecting it to be honored because he calls it "my own personal currency." ;) See the little smiley face? Doesn't that make everything better? ;) It's so versatile! ;) I can say that you are an ignorant dishonest manipulative untrustworthy whackball loon and you can't claim I insulted you because I used a smiley face! ;) Because if you claim that it remains an insult despite the smiley face at the end, then the logical conclusion is that a statement about lashing out violently to satisfy one's sense of entitlement is still a statement about lashing out violently to satisfy one's sense of entitlement even if a smiley face is appended! ;)
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | March 14, 2010 1:41 PM
"There is no such thing as "your own personal science."
Personal science and/or experience works... When vaccines damage a child, it is that child's (family's) personal experience. Period. This isn't difficult people.
Posted by: Orac's Wackosphere | March 14, 2010 1:53 PM
Posted by: Pablo | March 14, 2010 1:56 PM
After reading the back and forth between bensmyson and all the rest, and on top of my own experience with the antivaxers, I'm beginning to get the sense that many antivaxers are true narcissists with control issues. It's not just about name calling; they seem to make the issue very much about themselves and hope to get attention.
Posted by: Whirl | March 14, 2010 2:10 PM
Wacko:
And it is just too bad when the actual disease causes damage? Perhaps it was because the child was not "healthy" due to some random definition? I've actually had some say that somehow my son deserved his seizures and permanent disability due to some perceived guess at his "health."
Again, what evidence do you have that shows that vaccines damage children at the levels you claim? What evidence shows that the MMR vaccine causes damage greater than measles does? Measles is known to cause permanent damage at about one of a thousand cases.
Of course you will come back with your normal insults that are completely devoid of data.
Posted by: Chris | March 14, 2010 2:12 PM
Personal experience. The messianic model of science fed to us by Hollywood. The delusion that a human being can attain godlike infallibility in regards to causal relationships by observing ONE event, divorced from a worldwide context.
We don't buy into that bullshit, Wacko. Human beings are fallible creatures. That's why we need science. That's why science is largely a process of enforced humility. We won't let you prop up anyone as a god. You're just angry that we won't worship you and your friends as superior beings.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 14, 2010 4:27 PM
Wacko is sort of right about this. There's a reason we have a biological instinct to assume correlation is causation. It must be an adaptive trait to some extent, so it must work more often than not.
However, when your personal experience is at odds with more careful population-level observations, then it's a good idea to question your personal ad-hoc "science." (Coincidences do happen.) This is a luxury that technological humans have and that our ancestors didn't have. Use it.
Posted by: Joseph | March 14, 2010 4:44 PM
"By your own admission you simply selected a hypothesis to explain your child's autism and ruled out all others based on your emotional convictions."
What other hypothesis have I ruled out? And what exactly are my "emotional convictions" You honestly think that while my son was suffering from chronic fevers, seizures and encephalitis I didn't look at fifty causes? That the staff of doctors at major university hospitals zeroed in on vaccines as the cause of my son's injury? Did I not go through very expensive genetic testing to look for a clue?
Again you think you know me and you dont.
*"But for the parents, my wish is to do something to actually help your child!!!! Don't screw around with them just because it makes you feel better. Do things that make THEM better."*
What things are there to do that MAKE them better? If their immune system was comparable to someone suffering from AIDS would you boost their immune system? If they couldnt talk would you get them speech therapy? Would you cram experimental drugs down their throat? Do you have any idea what I have done or didnt do?
And Pablo, you said "How does praying for someone help them?" I guess you would have to ask the billion people that ask for prayer on a daily basis.
"Science is a process of looking at multiple hypotheses and evaluating their likelihood based on the evidence."
Merck's ProQuad (an MMRV) was written up by the FDA for having contamination, faulty measurement equipment, high incidents of seizures. Merck in November of 2008 filed a report with VAERS that ProQuad caused two deaths, bringing the total for the year to 4. It was black labeled, removed from the AICP recommendation list and is still not back on the market.
My son immediately developed a fever, seizures, uncontrolled crying, and a few days later a body rash that was diagnosed by his pediatrician over the phone as roseola. He lost his language, changed his eating habits, and a couple of months later he stopped responding to outside stimuli and did not register any discomfort to pain.
The blood work taken after his vaccines showed a compromised immune system. Six months ago Ben's measles titers were 15 times the high norm.
It is well documented that vaccines cause injuries, and they injured my son. I have evidence of that. But do I have evidence that a vaccine caused his autism? No. As far as I know there is no blood test or anything that proves the date of onset of autism. I know we recognized a serious change in behavior within a couple of days, we just didnt suspect autism.
Perhaps with some of your already proven psychic abilities of discernment you can tell me exactly what caused my son's regressive autism. Ruling out of course vaccines, we know that's not possible right?
As far as I know, no one has looked at records of all those tens of thousands of children who regress every year and interviewed parents, looked at home movies, journals, medical records for a common link. Are all parents left handed, exposed to a certain chemical toxin, blue eyed, of German decent, tick bit, dog owners, shell fish eaters, or what have you?
There have been studies looking at the MMR alone, studies looking for genetic traits, head sizes, etc but no one has knocked on my door, no one has given me some paperwork to fill out. No CDC investigator phoned for an interview.
And now the Thorsen allegations and the so many other news articles of drug studies faked and conflict of interests.
It really is hard for simple minded people like me to know what the truth is.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 14, 2010 5:33 PM
Some good scientists turn out to be rather poor financial managers. There are lots of ways to get into trouble for misusing funds that do not necessarily involve converting grant funds for personal use. I've seen most of these happen:
1) Using money awarded for one grant to fund studies that were not proposed on that grant. Most scientists do this to some extent. It is almost the only way to do the preliminary studies needed to initiate a new project. Most funding agencies understand this and tolerate it to some extent, but one can get into trouble by doing it too flagrantly. Many scientists tend to treat all of their grant funds as one big pot of money, and not worry too much about which product is going to use, for example, a particular chemical (besides, often the answer is "both of them"). Standards have gotten tighter, and things that a scientist may regard as routine practice may not be perceived in the same way by an auditor.
2) Running over budget. Many universities do not keep close track of grant funds. At some institutions, grant funds are only debited once invoices are paid. As this may happen weeks or months after placing the order, those funds will still be listed for some time in one's grant balance even though the money has actually been spent, and it is possible for a careless investigator to spend the same money more than once, only to have the grant end up overspent. If this is extreme, this could result in legal action.
3) Moving equipment from institution to institution. Most institutions allow grants to be transferred to other institutions, although they do not have to. Technically, the grant is to the institution, not the investigator, and the institution can potentially decide to retain the grant and assign a new principal investigator. However, there is a sort of "gentleman's agreement" among universities not to do this when somebody is moving to another academic institution. However, this does not apply when somebody moves to a private company, and in any case, equipment can be a source of disputes. Depending upon what funding source a piece of equipment was purchased with, a university may insist that some of the equipment purchased for a project must remain at the institution. Usually, there is negotiation involved over what an investigator gets to take and what they have to leave behind, but sometimes an investigator will simply pack up and move equipment that is not theirs to take as far is the university is concerned, and this can result in legal action. Similar issues can arise regarding valuable research materials created at a university, such as transgenic animals.
4) Commercially valuable discoveries made using university facilities are technically the university's "intellectual property." The investigator may not see it this way, and there may be disputes about to when and where a particular discovery was made if an investigator leaves a university to found a private company to exploit some particularly valuable idea or discovery.
Posted by: trrll | March 14, 2010 5:38 PM
benismyson: If your child really had an immunocompromised state equivalent to late stage AIDS you would have known about it long before any MMR vaccine. Look up "severe combined immunodefiency" and "agammaglobulinamena" for some examples.
Posted by: dedicated lurker | March 14, 2010 5:40 PM