Wakefield,Baseball and Monkeys

In a recent post, I tried to help J B Handley find the monkeys he was so worried about finding. Actually, he was trying to promote a monkey study by Andy Wakefield, who had recently been reamed out by the GMC in the UK, and them got another thrashing when the Lancet retracted his "study" that lead to the MMR panic that resulted in thousands of preventable cases of measles and mumps, and several dead children.

Well, Andy and his henchmen had submitted that study to Journal of Neurotoxicology and were awaiting publication, which seemed to be delayed.

Now, as Orac reports, the editors of Neurotoxicology have snatched that paper out of the hopper. Whether it ever goes back in, we will have to wait and see. So...

• GMC smackdown....STRIKE ONE!
• Lancet retraction....STRIKE TWO!
• Neurotoxicology retraction...STRIKE THREE!

YER OUT, ANDY!

As for JB seeing his monkey study....


JB, quick...follow the monkeys....your study is getting away....

He Wants To See Monkeys?

In a recent post on the Al Quaeda of Autism blog, JB Handley said he wanted to see monkeys. He does not have far to look.

When I saw this, it reminded me of this one I took in Sydney Australia a few years ago.

I do believe that most of what is written on the Al Quaeda of Autism blog is written at a pub, but one much seedier than this one.

Experts Used By the 4th Estate Should be Experts! Right? Well, not really...

This article is a departure from my usual cogent analysis of the antics of the Al Quaeda of Autism, their lemmings, et al. Here, I want to address the media and let them see just how sloppy they are.

And they are sloppy.

I was reading a newsgroup and came across a link to a video of a news story aired on Fox News dealing with the H1N1 virus and, at that time, the soon to be released vaccine. They included the usual and customary "infectious disease expert".

After I viewed the video, and, as usual, I decided to check out the good doctor, Kent Holtorf. He demonstrated a truly impressive skill set that I have rarely seen.

Since he is an MD, I like to check medical credentials. He is licensed to practice medicine by the Medical Board of California:

License: G 74797
License Type: Physician and Surgeon
Licensee may be a U.S. or Canadian medical school graduate whose pathway to licensure was based on the NBME examination.
Name: KENT ALAN HOLTORF, M.D.

(I redacted his address.)

Address of Record County: LOS ANGELES
License Status: License Renewed & Current
Licensee meets requirements for the practice of medicine in California.
Public Record Action(s): No Public Record Actions available
Original Issue Date: July 28, 1992
Expiration Date: June 30, 2010
School Name: ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Year Graduated: 1991

So far, so good. He is licensed and in good standing. No discipline. Next....

Activities In Medicine: PATIENT CARE - 20 TO 29 HOURS
RESEARCH - 20 TO 29 HOURS
TEACHING - 10 TO 19 HOURS
ADMINISTRATION - 20 TO 29 HOURS

Primary Practice Location Zip Code: 90505
Board Certification(s): No board certifications identified

(I expect that any physician who has made the effort to secure board certification would list that with the licensing agency.)

Primary Practice Area(s): FAMILY PRACTICE
Secondary Practice Area(s): ENDOCRINOLOGY
Post Graduate Training Years: 3 YEARS

3 years is an adequate period of post graduate training for someone to qualify for board certification. It seems to be getting stranger by the moment

(I do not answer these questions, either, and this really is not germane:)
Ethnic Background: Declined to Disclose
Foreign Language(s): Declined to Disclose
Gender: Declined to Disclose

Since the video calls him an expert in infectious diseases. Well, that would usually mean he would be board certified in that discipline. Since he did not list board certification in his license (I know it is not required), I decided to check with the American Board of Medical Specialties. You'll have to register, but, it is free and does not generate spam.

I was shocked to find that Dr. Holtorf is not listed by the ABMS as being board certified. Didn't Fox News say he was in infectious disease EXPERT?

Since he listed his main practice area as Family Practice, one the harder disciplines, and endocrinology as his secondary, I thought I would check to see whether he has any published research. His licensing information states that he spends 20 TO 29 HOURS a week engaged in research, and this should generate a peer reviewed study or three .

So, I went to PubMed and, searching on "Holtorf K", which would give me the widest search parameters I found:

The bioidentical hormone debate: are bioidentical hormones (estradiol, estriol, and progesterone) safer or more efficacious than commonly used synthetic versions in hormone replacement therapy?

Holtorf K.

Postgrad Med. 2009 Jan;121(1):73-85. Review.
PMID: 19179815

Hmmm....this is not peer reviewed, and it is a review of other research.

and then this one...

Hormones in wellness and disease prevention: common practices, current state of the evidence, and questions for the future.

Schwartz ET, Holtorf K.

Prim Care. 2008 Dec;35(4):669-705.
PMID: 18928825 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I am glad to see he is sharing his knowledge, but, neither are research articles. So, I then looked at his websites:. The first I looked at, led me to the second.

I looked high and low, every page, and found nothing showing that the good doctor has published any peer reviewed research on infectious diseases, not has he listed any training or other experience in that field.

What I did find was interesting, thought. Using the search tool on the website, I did a search on vaccine and was referred to a page where his appearances on rush Limboob, Sean Insanity (Hannity), Glen Beck, et al, are referenced and linked. They all refer to him as an expert on infectious diseases. Thus, my search for proof that he is a true expert on infectious disease led to nothing. I was disappointed in that.

However, not all was lost. The simple fact is, the good doctor has managed to demonstrate just how easy it is to bamboozle the media. Either they never bothered to check his credentials, or, because he was spouting their party line, it did not matter.

Furthermore, I did some additional Googling of his name and found that the NY Daily News, the newspaper of my youth, the one I delivered, the one which used to have the best sports section in the world, had several articles where he is referred to as a board certified endocrinologist in one article, and a specialist in women's health in another. (There is no board certification in women's health, unless they meant OB-GYN, and he is not board certified in that, either). In another article, concerning the Haitian tragedy that is still unfolding as I write, he comments on how high humidity could increase survival times while buried in the rubble.

Thus, the good doctor has demonstrated just how lousy an idea it is to rely on the media for medical advice and information. Utterly sloppy of these august organs of the 4th Estate.

Please note that I was not surprised with my findings. I expected nothing more that this from Fox News, and those who bought the line. Their "research" seems to consist of determining whether a good story can hit the media, and whether it may be controversial. Having homeopathic like expertise is another criteria.

As for the Daily News, they have NO excuses. Their own internal archives demonstrate that there is a question regarding the doctor's "expertise". They should be ashamed of themselves.

Al-Qaeda of Autism

When I first started this blog, I did so because I had been censored on AoA, and came up with the idea that they exemplify the Age of Ignorance. I have no doubt, confirmed over the months since then, they are the cesspool of ignorance. However, out of every cesspool grows something. The past few months have shown that the growth is truly worthy of being born in a cesspool.

AoA has moved on from the mere censorship that had initially concerned me. Granted, I wrote here and here about some of their more nefarious tactics, most specifically "outing". "Outing" occurs when a person who has chosen a degree of anonymity by using a pseudonym has their real name linked. I have been outed by some of the drones of the AoA collective.

However, outing, and their other old tactics, are merely annoyances in the scheme of things. What has happened recently is that the True Believers of the AoA collective have taken several quantum steps further.

Back around Thanksgiving time 2009, the Collective posted an article which had a photoshopped image of several people sitting around what looked to be a Thanksgiving dinner table, preparing to eat a baby. Who were these people? The post includes a poorly photoshopped picture of prominent science-based medicine proponents feasting on a dead baby. The guests were journalist Alison Singer, the NIH's head honcho Tom Insel, journalist Trine Tsouderos, Science and Science Based Medicine Blogger and Editor Steve Novella, Amy Wallace and the "One They Fear The Most" bogeyman extraordinaire, vaccine developer, saver of the lives of thousand of children, Dr. Paul Offit.

The blogosphere was in an uproar, and the intellectual cowards of the AoA Collective removed the offending post. The photo is available elsewhere. I will not link to it.

Did this event constitute a set-back for the Drones? Not at all. It appears to have energized them into perpetrating even more outrageous attacks on those who have the nerve to disagree.

Fortunately, Trine Tsouderos and her editors at the courageous Chicago Tribune (I would live there if it were warmer in the winter) was not intimidated by the initial attack. Following the heritage of great journalists, the ones I learned about in my college course on the History of Journalism which was part of my minor in Journalism, they forged ahead, and continued to investigate and study the Evil Empire of the anti-vaccinationists masquerading as "pro-safe vaccines" advocates that infest the Autism community.

On January 17, 2010, the Tribune published the third article in Trine Tsouderos three part series. In this article she exposes Dr. Boyd Haley's probable illegal marketing of an industrial chemical agent as a supplement, to be administered to children with Autism.

Just who is Boyd Haley? Simple, he is the darling of the AoA Collective. However, a look at his record does show something interesting about this retired professor of chemistry.

Peter Bowditch of Ratbags asked Haley about "claim that mercury is 50% of thimerosal". Have you taken high school chemistry? If so, find your old text books and check out whether this has any meaning what-so-ever. While it is true that the one atom of Mercury comprises approximately 50% of the molecular weight of thimerosal, does this have any chemical or toxicological significance? Peter's exchange with Haley would lead anyone who has not taken high school chemistry to think so.

Now he is marketing this industrial chelator for human consumption, and IGNORING THE FDA's requests for information. Haley said, "... that the compound had been tested on rats and that a food safety study was conducted on 10 people[and himself, do the math = 11]". When she asked him to "...provide documentation of the studies, he stopped communicating with the Tribune."

Instead, the Drones of the Collective took over and, AoA mercilessly hunted down Tsouderos' family and outed them. Read Orac's excellent article and the one by Ken Reibel at LeftBrain/RightBrain. I am sure there are more, and I invite links in the comments. Please.

There have been many other attacks, too numerous for me to compile here. Others have, and links in the comments would be appreciated.

Now, what does this all mean? Simple, and it truly is. We now know that the Drones of the AoA collective will stoop as low as they can go and stop at nothing to silence those with whom they disagree. Initially, their tactics reminded me of the response by Scientology to the Time Magazine article by Behar. Do your own search, and see how ugly that got.

Orac mentioned in one of his articles (I cannot find it) that this also reminded him of Scientology.

However, we are both wrong. The tactics being used, and the overall strategy are pure terrorist based tactics that are being used to stifle and silence critics.

And, that is why the Age of Autism is now most correctly referred to as the Al-Qaeda of Autism.

I truly hope that the Tribune, and other news sources, pick up on this story and begin a year long counterattack on the terrorism. The power of the press, in Oliver Wendell Holmes' Free Market Place of Ideas, is the most potent weapon in the battle for truth.

Heckenlively's Fallacious Analysis of the Cedillo Appeal Decision Rebutted

Kent Heckenlively, Esq., a regular contributer to the AoA Collective posted his analysis of the Cedillo Appeal, and, as usual, got it completely wrong. How did he manage to be so wrong, considering that he is so educated?

A guest Blogger, PeterP, will explain:

Heckenlively claims to be a lawyer, like most lawyers his skill is therefore to cherry-pick the bits of evidence that suits him rather than looking at it all. This suits an adversarial court system but does not lend itself to finding the truth in science.

>Reading the decision in the Cedillo appeal gives me a greater appreciation
>of that story. It doesn't seem to matter what's presented, the Special
>Masters are still going to deny any connection between vaccines and autism.

Probably because no one has managed to show there is one. The Cedillo case certainly didn't.

>The Cedillo case depended a great deal of the identification of the measles
>virus discovered in an intestinal biopsy taken from Michelle Cedillo and
>analyzed by the Unigenetics Laboratory of Dr. John O'Leary. The court
>agreed that "the general reputations of Unigenetics and Dr. O'Leary are
>good." (P. 11) It also agreed that the reliability of the Unigenetics
>Laboratory was "the single-most critical issue in the case." (P. 10)

Having considered both the general reputation and specific work on measles it concluded :

"However, I conclude that the overall evidence weighs strongly in favor of a conclusion that, whatever the general caliber of the work of the O'Leary laboratory group, the group's measles virus detection work, done largely under the Unigenetics Ltd. name, simply is not reliable. The overall evidence specific to that measles virus detection issue is simply too strong to be outweighed by mere evidence of a good general reputation concerning other work.

In this regard, two further observations are relevant. First, as noted above, the measles virus detection work was done, at least for the most part, under the Unigenetics Ltd. name. Dr. Bustin testified that Unigenetics Ltd. was not accredited, and that Unigenetics Ltd. declined to participate in a quality control program, so that there was never any independent quality assessment made of any of the work that was carried out by Unigenetics. (Tr. 2034, 2057A.)

Significantly, petitioners never attempted to rebut that aspect of Dr. Bustin's testimony.

Second, the record also indicates that Unigenetics Ltd. is no longer in business, and there is no evidence that the O'Leary laboratory has ever published any work defending the reliability of the Uhlmann study, despite the criticism of that study. Thus, it seems that the O'Leary laboratory has not publicly defended the reliability of its efforts at measles virus detection during the early 2000s.

Accordingly, considering all of the evidence of record, I conclude that, regardless of whether the O'Leary laboratory might have a solid reputation with respect to its other work, nevertheless that laboratory's efforts to detect measles virus in the early 2000s were flawed and unreliable."

>There was discussion of other studies, namely the Uhlmann study which
>supported the finding of a measles infection in the guts of children with
>autism,

Using the same Unigenetics Lab as Wakefield. Remember also that Unigenetics was not a university laboratory but a private "for profit" company specifically established to test for an MMR/measles link on behalf of the UK MMR litigants. It was closed in 2005.

>On the issue of DNA contamination, though, the testimony was pretty clear
>that DNA contamination is an issue only if there are relatively low numbers
>of the virus detected. Michelle Cedillo's test results showed high levels
>of the measles virus, and thus even from the testimony, should not be
>something cited by the Special Masters in their review.

The testing was by PCR, I assume Heckenlively knows little about this procedure and how sensitive it is to contamination. To say that "DNA contamination is an issue only if there are relatively low numbers of the virus detected" shows remarkable ignorance.

One of the telling points against Unigenetics was that they produced positive results when it was simply impossible. They omitted the Reverse Transcriptase step in their tests. Measles virus exists as an RNA molecule. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay amplifies DNA. Thus to detect an RNA molecule in a PCR assay, the RNA must first be copied (by the reverse transcriptase enzyme) into DNA, which can then be amplified. Bustin showed that the O'Leary lab reported positive results even when they could not possibly have detected an RNA molecule because they had left out the step to copy that RNA into DNA. Thus the positive results reported for such test were, without any doubt at all, false positives.

>On the issue of reliability, it's curious that while the court admits that the general
>reputation of the lab and Dr. O'Leary are good, they unaccountably failed in
>this instance.

See above. That they failed, and failed abysmally, is beyond question. Why they failed may have something to do with their sole source of funding. They were for example using older instruments, and on some of these faults were discovered by Bustin. For example there was a huge variation in the heating and cooling characteristics across the sample block producing variable results depending on where sample tubes were placed on the instrument.

>(Author's note - The U.S. government later hired Dr. John
>O'Leary to set up two labs for the Hornig/Lipkin study on the prevalence of
>the measles virus in the guts of children with autism. Amazing how one day
>the government is trying to destroy your reputation and soliciting your help
>on another.)

The US government did not "hire" O'leary, and by the time of Hornig/Lipkin Unigenetics had been closed. Three laboratories were utilised by Hornig/Lipkin, O'Learys Trinity College laboratory at Coombe Women's Hospital,. The Center for Infection and Immunity, New York; and the Measles, Mumps,Rubella, and Herpes virus Laboratory Branch, CDC, Atlanta.

>And this is where the independent judgment of the court is supposed to come
>in. One side says you didn't perform the tests the way you should. That's
>fair game and deserves to be explored. The other side says, you can't find
>the measles virus in the red blood cells of affected children, only in the
>gut which you can biopsy, or the brain, which short of an autopsy, is
>exceedingly difficult. You should consider that claim as well.

The fact was that no measles virus was detected in the gut. This was the conclusion reached by Chadwick, working with Wakefield, before Unigenetics came into being. As it wasn't the answer which was wanted the work was taken away from a University laboratory and given to a commercial one set up for the purpose.

As a matter of interest the vast majority of samples from autistic tested for MV by O'Leary in the Unigenetics lab in Dublin were from blood, not gut tissue.

>But that didn't happen in the Cedillo case. The Special Masters accepted
>one side, and paid no attention to the other. I acknowledge these are
>confusing issues, but where's the evidence disputing the claim that measles
>virus is not present in red blood cells, but only affected organs?

There is nothing confusing about there being no credible evidence that measles was in the gut. This is the simple fact that the author seems to ignore.

The Unigenetics findings were false. Unigenetics claimed to have found measles virus in _both_ blood and gut samples. Bustin's lengthy report clearly showed their results were as a result of poor laboratory practice. As Bustin, far more of an expert in PCR than O'Leary ever will be, aid :-

"My clear conclusion then was that O'Leary's results were caused by
defective experimental technique and inappropriate interpretation of
results, since he was detecting DNA, and measles virus does not exist
as DNA. "

> The
>Court acted as if these issues weren't even worthy of consideration. And if
>Dr. O'Leary's lab was so incompetent in detecting the measles virus, why did
>our own government later hire him to set up two such labs?

It didn't. He collaborated as a professor at the Department of Histopathology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, not as Managing Director of the closed Unigenetics Laboratory Ltd. Unigenetics had some specific problems associated with trying to do things cheaply. Many of the "staff" were undergraduates. Unigenetics was also not an accredited laboratory and Unigenetics had no external quality controls.

>A similar narrowness of vision was present in other parts of the decision.
>The third criterion to be satisfied to obtain recovery is a "proximate
>temporal relationship between vaccination and injury." The medical records
>for Michelle Cedillo are actually quite compelling in establishing a short
>time period between her vaccinations and the development of her problems.

Actually, together with recordings of her made beforehand, they were very compelling in showing symptoms of ASD long before she received MMR.

>"A May 2, 1997 letter from an Arizona neurologist, Dr. William Masland,
>deserves particular mention. After examining Michelle Cedillo on May 2,
>1997, Dr. Masland noted that Michelle lost her speaking ability after her
>post-MMR fever episodes. He further stated 'it would appear that there was
>some neurological harm done at the time of the fevers.' He added, 'whether
>this was a post-immunization phenomenon or a separate occurrence, would be
>very difficult to say.' The Special Master concluded that Dr. Masland's
>letter, at most, speculated as to whether the MMR vaccine was causing
>Michelle's neurologic abnormality and did not constitute an opinion that the
>MMR vaccine caused Michelle's autism." (P. 20-21)

That's correct, it was an opinion of an observer. It could equally well have been made about the temporal association between visiting McDonalds and losing her speaking ability.

>I know this will be disputed by some, but the fault in Cedillo wasn't with
>the evidence, or the way the attorneys presented the case. The fault was
>with the Special Masters and may lie in a prejudice that even they don't
>fully appreciate.

However you try to spin it the evidence was overwhelmingly against the claimant. Look at the authors of the Hornig/Lipkin study :- Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study Mady Hornig, Thomas Briese, Timothy Buie, MargaretL.Bauman, Gregory Lauwers, Ulrike Siemetzki, Kimberly Hummel, Paul A. Rota, William J. Bellini, ,John J. O'Leary, Orla Sheils, Errol Alden, Larry Pickering, W.Ian Lipkin O'Leary and Sheils are co-authors. If they were that convinced that their Unigenetics work was right why did they support this later studies conclusion which was :-

"This study provides strong evidence against association of autism
with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. "
Was it simply because they realised they had been wrong with
Unigenetics and this later, properly conducted, properly documented
and properly supervised work, clearly showed that?

Another Suppository of Ignorance

Not on the same par as AoA, so far, but this blog that calls itself Child Health Safety, is headed in that direction.

I posted in the thread using my Nom-de-Blog, FreeSpeaker, and was promptly outed by the blogger, since he posted my real name, which is no big secret.

I then posted a response, citing s/h/it's antics, and that post was removed.

I was responding to s/h/its comments:

ED: What a pile of drivel. So it looks like you are expecting the UK's GMC to acquit him. And just like The Sunday Glaxo you want to start all sorts of new unfounded accusations to keep the MMR controversy running forever? Smart move.

So when are you going to start accusing CHS of lying? Bowditch can hardly ever write a sentence without accusing people of lying and you normally do much the same.

Looks like someone eise is desperate that they thought sending in you two characters might be worth doing.]

He was responding to my comment:

Let’s see…you make a claim that the PCC ordered Deer to removethe articles, and, Peter Bowditch says that the PCC website does not mention it. Then, you personally attack Pter Bowditch. Sounds like you are desperate.

As for Wakefield, the testimony during the Omnibus hearings should be use to indict him for gross negligence, willful harming of children and being a lying quack in the first degree. I read the entire transcript, every single word, and listened to much of the testimony. The experts submitted by the government destroyed any pretense of objectivity and competence that Wakefield may pretend to have.

Clearly, this blogger does not have a clue as too truth or logic. Another woefully blinded supporter of Wakefield.

Now, here is a serious question...Does anyone know what Wakefield is doing behind closed doors at Thoughtful House in Austin, Texas? He does not have a license to practice medicine anywhere in the US, and hopefully, will not have one in the UK soon.

Oh, and I expect the UK's GMC not to acquit Wakefield, but to strip him of his license and publicly tar and feather him. This is Britain, you know. :)

UPDATE

I went back to this suppository of ignorance and found that yet, again, another response of mine was deleted. Thus, I wrote:

This is fast becoming a bastion of censorship. Now I have had two posts censored.
However, the purely ad hominem attack on Peter Bowditch remains, and the drivel from John Stone, where he tortures logic and twists the facts to blame The Times and Brian Deer, when it was the duplicitous Wakefield who broke the gentlemen's agreement, remains intact.

Yes, this blog has become another suppository of censorship, run by a pro-infectious disease merchant of disability amd death.

What are these people so damn afraid of? Why can't they engage in discussion?

What does the bull do after he stops?

Kelli Ann supplied them with the tag-line "The Bull Stops Here!"

This drove me to think? What does a bull do when he stops? After reading AoA, one can only conclude that he leaves his thoughts behind.

This merely demonstrates the quantity of the "thinking" of the AoA Collective. It in no way reflects that true lack of quality.