BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal (BMJ)’s commissioned writer Brian Deer duped the father of the 11th child described in The Lancet paper into believing his son’s case was misrepresented. That father, Richard Demirjian, was led to believe the paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began weeks after vaccination when the report said no such thing. The Lancet paper was perfectly consistent with what Demirjian said happened to his son.

So Autism Investigated wrote BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee about how Deer misrepresented Demirjian’s son. Yes, it was that Dr. Godlee who Autism Investigated’s editor confronted back in 2011.

Despite past history, she replied cordially:

Thank you for your message. Might you or Richard Demirjian send a rapid response to the article on BMJ.com. We can then ask Brian Deer to respond. Best wishes. Fiona Godlee

But two months after Autism Investigated submitted a rapid response at her invitation, she coldly rejected it:

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with our lawyer. We will not be publishing your rapid response. It is highly defamatory of Brian Deer and the allegations you raise have already been refuted in detail by Brian Deer on his website. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

When asked for details, Godlee gave no reply.

In any case, read the below response and see for yourself if it defames Brian Deer. It doesn’t, but it shows Deer and the BMJ defamed Wakefield – in large part by deceiving parent Richard Demirjian.

Lancet father 11 hammers a nail into the coffin of Deer’s fallacious allegations

Brian Deer republished his Sunday Times accusations in the BMJ knowing that they were refuted in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 58-page press complaint against him and against the newspaper that ran the article two years prior.(1) Deer’s justification for doing so was the GMC’s ruling in favor of his earlier accusations of unethical research.(2) He has also misled a parent of one of The Lancet paper children (child 11) into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented the child’s case, but the wording in The Lancet paper itself confirms that the child’s case was not misrepresented.(3) The GMC’s findings have been overturned,(4) and a letter from the parent corroborates that The Lancet paper accurately represented his son’s condition.(5)

Two months after the article was published, Brian Deer received a letter from the parent of The Lancet child 11 that directly contradicts Deer’s account. Yet no correction has ever been made in the BMJ.

In the first article of Brian Deer’s MMR series for BMJ, Deer wrote of The Lancet Child 11:

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.(6)

However, Deer’s claim that child 11 regressed before the vaccine was disputed by child 11’s father in the letter he wrote to Deer (that is currently posted on Deer’s website):

One of the incorrect statements in my son’s discharge report was that autistic symptoms were seen from 13-18 months, while the vaccination was at 15 months. This is clearly inaccurate as his symptoms began several months after the MMR, as reflected in my initial correspondence to the Royal Free requesting my son be included in the research study.(5)

In the private meeting between Deer and father 11 that was referenced in Deer’s article, Deer had apparently misled the father into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented his son’s case. In that same letter to Deer, father 11 echoed Deer’s false statement that The Lancet paper put child 11’s first autistic symptoms at one week after the vaccine when in fact, the paper makes clear that that was only when child 11’s first behavioral symptom (associated, as also described in Table 2, with recurrent “viral pneumonia”). The first symptom, that could have been any of a number of behaviors such as permanent or chronic change in sleep pattern, occurred after vaccination. The table father 11 referred to in The Lancet paper makes no mention of onset of first autistic symptoms.(3) Father 11 corroborates The Lancet paper and contradicts Deer’s BMJ article.

Despite Deer being told by father 11 directly that his son did not regress until after his vaccination, Deer made no effort to correct the misinformation in his BMJ article. On Deer’s personal website, he even continues to cast doubt on father 11’s account:

Which is true for child 11? Who can say, years later? The father says one thing, the medical records another. Nobody can time-travel back to the 1990s. And in lawsuits, it is the records that usually count. But, whichever version is right, Wakefield’s story was not. Neither can be reconciled with The Lancet.(7)

The fact is there is only one correct version: The Lancet paper account corroborated by father 11 twice, both in his correspondence with the hospital and with Deer. The incorrect version is the faulty discharge summary exploited by Deer to mislead. This is not the first time that evidence was submitted to BMJ that dismantles the article’s veracity post-publication.

When other evidence was previously brought to the journal in November 2011 that also supported The Lancet papers findings,(8)(9) Deer deflected by referring back to the GMC findings.(10) Though Deer cited them to add credibility to all his allegations, the findings themselves have been deemed unsustainable by an English High Court ruling.

In 2012, Justice Mitting overturned the GMC decision that The Lancet paper had misrepresented its patient population, was unethical and was part of a litigation-funded project.(4) By extension, the paper’s lead author Dr. Andrew Wakefield could not have been dishonest for not disclosing that the paper was funded by litigation or was part of that project when neither was the case.

In fact, the court decision refutes all the GMC findings that Dr. Wakefield broke any rule of professional conduct as laid out in GMC’s Good medical practice guidance.(11)(12)(13) Likewise, there is no existing justification for the paper’s retraction.(14) The Lancet knows this. When I confronted The Lancet ombudsman, Dr. Malcolm Molyneux, with the fact that the GMC findings that served as the basis for the retraction were killed, all he could say was:

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.(15)

As the above statement reveals, the ombudsman is unable to state a single reason for the paper to remain retracted. Furthermore, there can be no “other elements on which the decision was based” since the retraction statement only cites the GMC findings – now overturned.(14)

Of Brian Deer’s many false claims, among the most egregious is his deceiving father 11 and misrepresenting child 11’s case.

1.     http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Complaint_to_UK_PCC1.pdf

2.     http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

3.     See Table 2: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

4.     http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.rtf

5.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted-child-11.pdf

6.     http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

7.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted.htm

8.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed

9.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/17/re-pathology-reports-solve-%E2%80%9Cnew-bowel-disease%E2%80%9D-riddle

10.   Deer dismissed slides from The Lancet paper co-author Dr. Andrew Anthony later supplied by Dr. David Lewis on the excuse that Dr. Wakefield could have tampered with them. The only supporting evidence Deer offered of tampering was the GMC’s ruling that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest” based on the disciplinary findings that were since overturned. http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-2.htm

11.    See 12a, which proves Dr. Wakefield was not professionally obligated to disclose his personal connection to litigation or his patent application to the editor of The Lancet. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/30191.asp

12.    See page 8, endnote 7, which refers to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) rules for when Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval is necessary. (NRES link in endnote no longer works) http://www.gmc-uk.org/Good_practice_in_research_and_consent_to_research.pdf_58834843.pdf

13.    NRES rules prove Dr. Wakefield’s birthday party blood draws did not require REC approval because they were not done on patients, therefore falling outside GMC’s authority to make any judgement on the matter. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/does-my-project-require-rec-review.pdf

14.    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext

15.    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Elizabeth Warren Wanted To Punch Polio Victim “In The Face”

Three years ago, fake Indian Senator Elizabeth Warren invoked the horrors of polio to push vaccines. Today, she’s claiming a long-deceased law professor “chased” her around an office – completely leaving out the fact that he was paralyzed by polio.

Senator Warren was one of four female senators – all Democrats – to talk about her story of alleged sexual harassment. Warren talked about how late Professor Eugene Smith was “trying to get his hands on me.” She even vowed she would “punch him in the face” if he did.

Isn’t polio supposed to be a serious disease? Why would a young law professor struggle to avoid being grabbed by a polio victim? This is also someone who Warren gave a eulogy for at his funeral.

And why is his disease not even worth being mentioned, even though Warren said three years ago that it “destroyed children’s futures?” It didn’t destroy Eugene Smith’s future enough to become a law professor, chase an able-bodied person around an office and get eulogized by her at his funeral anyway.

The same can never be said for the countless children poisoned into autism by vaccines. They will be institutionalized after their parents die, not accomplished law professors chasing their female colleagues around an office.

(H/t: Breitbart)

Addendum: Title and some words edited for emphasis.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

“Science”Blogs About To Die After Giving Bloggers 2-Week Eviction Notice!

Goodbye “Science”Blogs!

Yes, it’s happening! Blogs exposed as pretending to be about “science” in a Two-Part Series eight years ago are finally gonna die! “Science”Blogs’ failing owner Seed Media Group no longer has the money:

A little over a week ago, Scienceblogs announced to us writers that they no longer had the funds to keep the site operational, and so they would be shutting down.

How hilarious! “Science”Blogs has given its own bloggers – including a few hacks who have been the subjects of Autism Investigated posts – a two-week eviction notice! Ouch.

As an Age of Autism contributor, Autism Investigated’s editor has exposed one blogger in particular for his extensive pharmaceutical ties after he claimed for years that he was independent. In other words, big pharma has tossed them all aside like the used condoms they’ve become!

“Science”Bloggers have cheered the censorship of scientific evidence of vaccine injury. They have also called for a boycott of journals that published such evidence. Furthermore, they have consistently campaigned against the academic freedom of scientists like yours truly.

That said, Autism Investigated will not link to any new domain of any former “Science”Blogger. Autism Investigated will throw any comments containing those links in the trash. Cut off their oxygen, and let them wither away into nothingness.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Paul Offit Edits His Website, But Still Misrepresents Himself

Paul-offit.com – Before and After

After Autism Investigated broke the news that Paul Offit misrepresents himself as Infectious Diseases Chief at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, he edited his website. His homepage bio and “About” page bio no longer list him as “Chief.” However, under his homepage bio is the hyperlink “Click to view Dr. Offit’s resume”. Clicking on it will download a page-long bio, the first sentence of which says this:

Paul A. Offit, MD is the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. (boldface mine)

Autism Investigated has produced photographic proof.

Move the cursor to the hyperlink on Offit’s bio, the hyperlink’s URL appears showing that it still downloads his old bio from April 2013. His demotion was in 2014. Meanwhile, his linkedin account profile, Autism Science Foundation bio all remain unchanged. There is also no indication that he made any effort to correct the scores of media outlets he has misled over the years.

Poor Paul Offit. Three years later, he still can’t get over not being “Chief of Infectious Diseases” at CHOP. That is hardly surprising in light of the fact that he continues to lie that vaccines are safe when he knows they are not.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Paul Offit, Top U.S. Vaccine Doc, Misrepresents His Credentials

Paul-offit.com

CBS News has called vaccine developer Dr. Paul Offit one of “the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety”. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called him the vaccine industry’s “principle spokesperson”.

But what about Offit’s official title? His personal website, his Wikipedia page, his linkedin profile, his Autism Science Foundation bio, a new medical textbook he co-edited and an endless array of both mainstream and social media sites state that he is the “Chief of Infectious Diseases” at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). There’s just one problem: he’s not, nor has he been for the last three years.

According to CHOP’s website, Offit has been demoted from “Chief” to “attending physician.” It also clearly shows the role of “Chief” belonging to someone else. Yet Offit’s bio on both the homepage and “About” page of his own website call him “Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases” at CHOP, as does his resume linked from his homepage. How long has he misrepresented himself? Dig deep enough, and the story comes to light.

Buried in his second resume – a 32-page CV downloadable from his website -Offit is listed as “Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia” for the years 1992-2014. That means Paul Offit knowingly misleads visitors to his site about his current role at CHOP. Few would find the news of his demotion buried in his CV, but virtually everyone visiting his site would see his bios prominently misidentifying him as “Chief of Infectious Diseases at CHOP.”

Even worse, the creation date of his CV is November 21st, 2016. That means that for more than two years after he lost his title, there was absolutely nothing on his site that contradicted his bio falsely stating his CHOP role. Archived webpages show that the title of “Chief” was the very first title listed in Offit’s “About” bio on his website. Then in early-2015, Offit temporarily removed the “Chief” title from his “About” page bio (his homepage bio never changed). But then sometime in late 2016 or early 2017, he added the title “chief” back into his “About” bio where it remains as of this writing.

The implications of Offit’s fabrication are far-reaching. Reports falsely saying Offit is the “Chief” of infectious disease at CHOP continue to be cranked out: CBS NewsNBC NewsCNNThe New YorkerThe Washington PostPBS FRONTLINEThe LA TimesThe Philadelphia InquirerScientific AmericanC-SPANForbesAlterNetThe Daily BeastThe Huffington Post and Politico to name a few of dozens.

Several times, Offit was introduced on video with his former title of “Chief of Infectious Diseases,” yet he did not correct the people introducing him. When the president of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia introduced Offit as “Chief of Infectious Diseases” on C-SPAN2 in 2015, Offit simply said “Thank you for that kind introduction.”

He did not react the same way, however, when he had to sit right next to the moderator for Scientific American who stated Offit’s false credentials, just prior to his talk as part of a videotaped lecture series. That time, he was visibly uncomfortable being introduced as “Chief,” and even struggled to get words out initially when it was his turn to speak. But just as with the C-SPAN video, Offit failed to correct the person who introduced him.

The misrepresentations have continued as recently as last summer. In an article for STAT News dated August 21st, 2017, Offit was described as the “head of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.” Offit still has not corrected anyone and why would he? He has gotten away with it for three years.

What he has gotten away with for much longer, however, has been his unchallenged misrepresentations about vaccine dangers and the media’s culpability. He relies on studies he privately admitted were garbage to declare the debate on vaccine safety over. To deny that vaccines cause autism, he actually claims that autism diagnoses cause children to be vaccinated. And of course he has infamously stated that an infant can safely handle 10,000 vaccines, later upping the number to “closer to 100,000.”

One of the big ways Offit has been able to lie with such impunity about vaccine dangers has been to flaunt his supposedly impeccable credentials. Perhaps that’s why he lied about being the “Chief” of infectious diseases at CHOP long after he wasn’t.

Credentials, not integrity, are all that matter in Offit’s world. They matter so much that it’s even worth lying to claim credentials he no longer has.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Eli Lilly Executive Likely To Be HHS Secretary – And No, This Is Not A Joke

Former Lilly USA President Alex Azar is likely to be appointed new HHS Secretary according to anonymous White House sources. Eli Lilly is the company that introduced thimerosal, the toxic, mercury-based vaccine preservative still used in vaccines given to children and pregnant women. It has also been proven to cause autism.

If President Trump nominates Azar for the position, it will represent a marked departure from Trump’s pre-election promises to “fix” the autism epidemic. Previously, Autism Investigated heavily protested the appointment of the current CDC director Brenda Fitzgerald. Trump also nominated Scott Gottlieb to run FDA, a major pharma shill and defender of dangerous vaccines.

Azar’s appointment would truly be a case of the revolving door coming full-circle. Before working as an executive for Eli Lilly for 10 years, Azar was deputy HHS Secretary and general counsel for HHS under the Bush Administration. Azar was at HHS when GOP Senator Bill Frist led an effort to shield Lilly from litigation while he was receiving thousands in campaign contributions.

How is it that a president who met with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this year to discuss a vaccine safety commission ends up appointing an executive from one of the biggest corporate perpetrators of vaccine injury? How is it that that same president met with Dr. Andrew Wakefield last year?

The White House had reportedly been arranging for Kennedy to meet with officials from the FDA and NIH. Not surprisingly, those agencies dismissed his concerns yet again. Does President Trump expect that having an Eli Lilly executive at the top of HHS will somehow change that? How can he take the vaccine issue seriously if he’s putting people with deep industry ties in high government positions? If Trump’s appointees are not willing to take action on this important issue, then President Trump should directly intervene.

But setting the vaccine issue aside, there is another issue with Azar running HHS: his primary support for a presidential candidate with very, very low energy.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Please Extradite Danish Fraud Poul Thorsen to the US, President Trump!

Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services

Last year, Autism Investigated’s editor publicly spoke out at the annual AutismOne  conference in favor of renewed efforts to push for extradition of vaccine-autism link “debunker” Poul Thorsen. This year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is leading the push to do just that:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and World Mercury Project Issue Report Regarding New Evidence of Ongoing Corruption and Scientific Misconduct at CDC

Kennedy hopes new evidence and a fresh look at criminal misconduct will result in law enforcement action, rigorous and transparent vaccine safety science, and safer vaccines.

In a new report released September 18, 2017, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his team outlined various criminal acts on the part of employees and consultants for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whose questionable ethics and scientific fraud have resulted in untrustworthy vaccine safety science.

Among other information, Kennedy has found additional evidence of criminal activity by the CDC consultant, Poul Thorsen, the author and principal coordinator of multiple CDC studies exonerating the mercury-based preservative thimerosal in the development of autism.

The new evidence, recently uncovered World Mercury Project, shows that Thorsen and his collaborators did not obtain permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct their research, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and Pediatrics in 2003. In 2011, The Department of Justice indicted Thorsen on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering for stealing over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research. The product of Thorsen’s work for CDC was a series of fraud-tainted articles on Danish autism rates that, today, form the backbone of the popular orthodoxy that vaccines don’t cause autism.

In 2009, when CDC discovered that Thorsen never applied for the IRB approvals, staff did not report the errors and retract the studies. Rather, FOIA documents show that CDC supervisors ignored the missteps and covered up the illegal activity.

This misconduct, undermines the legitimacy of these studies, which were used to refute vaccine injury claims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). The studies were also used in the NVICP’s “Omnibus” to dismiss 5000 petitions by families who claimed that their children had developed autism from vaccines. These claims, if settled in the claimants’ favor, would have resulted in payouts totaling an estimated $10 billion.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, stated, “World Mercury Project calls upon Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to extradite Thorsen back to the U.S. to face prosecution. We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”

Originally published at World Mercury Project

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

To Boost Vaccines, Texas Doc Calls for White Genocide

In a panel discussion at the National Meningitis Association’s annual conference, infectious disease doctor Carol Baker called for getting “rid of all the whites” in America. Her reasoning was that people who refuse vaccines are often white and well-educated. Sitting on the panel with her was Dr. Paul Offit, vaccine developer and former member of the US Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Another panelist was Alison Singer, who runs a fake autism charity dedicated to white-washing the vaccine-autism link.

As InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson writes:

Imagine a situation where people in the black community were refusing to undergo a certain treatment or medical procedure. Would anyone ‘joke’ that a good solution would be to “get rid” of all the black people?

This is yet another example of how casual anti-white racism has been allowed to become mainstream by dominant leftist cultural institutions.

Carol Baker has no shortage of ties to major medical institutions. She is liaison representative to ACIP for the Infectious Disease Society of America as well as a faculty member of Baylor College of Medicine. Baylor is also home to vaccine developer and Stockholm Syndrome-suffering autism parent Peter Hotez. Baylor College of Medicine is part of the Texas Medical Center Corporation, the world’s largest medical complex which also includes Texas A&M College of Medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

BREAKING: AI Demands Daily Beast Retract Paul Offit Post on Vaccine-Miscarriage Study

Paul Offit has written a post for The Daily Beast arguing that a CDC study of miscarriage and influenza vaccination should have never been published. He bases his argument on his own misrepresentations of the study’s results. Read Autism Investigated’s below letter to The Daily Beast’s editorial team demanding they retract Offit’s post.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Paul Offit’s Article Misrepresents Study Findings, Should be
Retracted
From: <info@autisminvestigated.com>
Date: Sun, September 24, 2017 3:33 pm
To: editorial@thedailybeast.com

Dear Daily Beast,

Your contributor Paul Offit’s latest article “The Pregnancy Vaccine Scare That Should Have Never Been” makes multiple misrepresentations of a recent CDC study on influenza vaccination and miscarriage. Since these misrepresentations form the basis of his central argument that the study should never have been published, Offit’s article is fatally flawed and should be retracted by your publication.

Offit states about a recent study of miscarriage and flu vaccination that the study authors found no overall association with miscarriage and flu vaccination when they had:

“The CDC’s question prior to this study was “Does influenza vaccine cause spontaneous abortions?” The answer to that question was no. It was only after investigators sub-stratified their data to include those who had or hadn’t received a vaccine the previous year that they could find statistical significance.”

This is directly from the study, contradicting Offit’s claim:

“The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6)”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308666

As someone who holds a degree in epidemiology (unlike Offit) and has analyzed the database used in this study (also unlike Offit), I can assure you that that is a significant association. The “95% CI” (confidence interval) excludes the number 1.0. Therefore, the answer to their study question would point in the “yes” direction.

This also demolishes his next point about the study, that the association was based on small numbers:

“After the CDC researchers had finished sub-stratifying their data, the numbers were small”, concluding the results due to “the curse of small numbers gleaned from a large database.” But even before the authors had computed their next association from a smaller sample, the association from their full study sample was already significant. But because Offit misrepresented the association as being insignificant, his point about the study’s findings being based solely on small numbers is also wrong.

His very first point was also wrong, too:

“Researchers had studied two influenza-vaccine seasons: 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The problem of first-trimester spontaneous abortions occurred during the first season but not the second.”

The study itself makes clear this happened in both seasons: “This effect modification was observed in each season”

Because the majority of Offit’s points are based on his own misrepresentations – including all those that discussed the study findings directly – simple corrections are too mild. The entire post should be retracted by The Daily Beast, especially since the purpose of the post was to make the case for why the study should have never been published. In reality, The Daily Beast should have never posted this fatally flawed article by Paul Offit and should now retract it.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Brian Deer Rejects Film Offer, Gets Mad He’s Not in Film!

A critical film about Dr. Andrew Wakefield – the first scientist to raise a connection between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism – will soon be released. Yet the person mad about its release is his arch nemesis Brian Deer, who is credited with destroying Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation. So angry was Deer that he even sent a letter and ultimatum to the documentary’s director.

The reason for Brian Deer’s anger? The documentary said he declined to be part of the film, when he did exactly that. When declining the offer, he even cited not being paid as his reason for doing so when he’s spent almost 15 years accusing Dr. Wakefield of being motivated by money.

The Facebook page of The Pathological Optimist provides details:

Miranda Bailey, the director of “The Pathological Optimist,” recently received a letter from journalist Brian Deer. For those who don’t know, Brian Deer was the journalist who originally investigated the paper published in the “The Lancet” written by Andrew Wakefield, and his colleagues. His reporting was instrumental to the UK General Medical Council’s investigation into Wakefield, which ultimately led to the loss of his medical license.

Read below as journalist Brian Deer “man-splains” to director Miranda Bailey how documentary filmmakers “should and should not behave.” He then goes on to accuse her of several fallacies before ultimately making demands and threats:

(From Deer’s letter): “If by midnight, Pacific, Tuesday, I have not received your assurance in these respects, or been offered by you a credible alternative plan to remedy the damage that your “documentary” inflicts on my reputation (presenting me, as you do, as too cowardly to defend my journalism), I will publish this letter to media, as well as to senior independent film makers, festival directors, and others who may be in a position to advise me. I give you four full days to decide and tell me what you are going to do.”

Brian Deer’s full letter is available to read using the link below along with Miranda Bailey’s response. We’re guessing that this is not the “apology” he was looking for.

Click here to read the full exchange between Miranda Bailey and Brian Deer. It’s comic gold.

Time for the folks behind The Pathological Optimist to reconsider who is pathological, and realize it’s not Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon