Wakefield’s paper vindicated “again”? Not likely.
Andrew Wakefield is in disgrace.
Earlier this year, he was forced to resign from the US-located autism clinic Thoughtful House, which he established after leaving the UK in 2005. In the longest investigation in the history of the General Medical Council, surrounding his behaviour during research for his notorious “Lancet” paper he was found to be unethical, callous and irresponsible.
Following this, The Lancet made a complete retraction of the paper, six years after the majority of the authors had already disassociated themselves from it in 2004. Another paper, accepted and due to be published in NeuroToxicology, showing that thimerosal caused impaired neurological development in baby macaques, was withdrawn.
These days he can be seen hanging out with the likes of Dr. Joseph Mercola, the anti-vaxer, anti-pharmaceuticals and lover of all things woo.
Yet, because of the publicity at the time (and subsequently) surrounding the Lancet paper, it is often forgotten that what Wakefield and colleagues actually claimed was not MMR causes autism, but that autism was linked to a new form of gut pathology, dubbed “autistic enterocolitis” (essentially ulceritive colitis in autistic children).
But like much of the data in the now retracted paper, it appears the pathology results purporting to demonstrate this are under suspicion. According to a recent feature in the British Medical Journal from investigative journalist, Brian Deer;
“Two years before the paper was published he (Wakefield) was hired by a solicitor to help launch a speculative lawsuit against drug companies that manufactured MMR vaccine. And the instrument of their attack was to find what he called at the time “a new syndrome” of bowel and brain disease caused by vaccines.”
.
Notably, Wakefield was also paid in excess of four hundred thousand pounds of legal aid money by the lawyers to find this link. Some pretty hefty vested interests involved there.
But, despite Wakefield being completely disgraced, his believers have clung on even tighter to his findings in the face of consistently damning evidence.
The comments on the piece from Brian Deer already contain claims that other papers have “vindicated” Wakefield’s 1998 study. What they mean is that the findings of ulceritive colitis in autistic children has since been repeated.
(Interestingly, one piece of supporting evidence they are citing is an abstract which was presented at a conference as a poster on Sunday, May 2, 2010. It’s not indicated if it has been published in the conference proceedings).
I haven’t read the studies cited in the comments, which apparently prove Wakefield was right after all, as there are many. But I have no immediate reason to doubt their validity. As a body of work, they may indeed support the hypothesis that ulceritive colitis exists in autistic children.
But why bring in the discredited and retracted (= scratched from the scientific record) Wakefield study into the mix? Why not let the new work stand on it’s own? Particularly when the pathology slides from the Wakefield study are now lost and the conclusions under suspicion.
From Brian Deer:
“The biopsy slides are no longer available, according to one of the paper’s authors, Professor Amar Dhillon, but the GMC obtained all but one of the hospital pathology reports, and for the missing case I obtained the discharge summary. I passed the summary and reports to specialists for their reaction. They concluded that most of the 11 children reported as having non-specific colitis in the Lancet paper had been reported by the Royal Free as having normal pathology.”
.
So how was the diagnosis of non-specific colitis obtained in the paper if the pathology slides were normal? Well it’s not entirely clear but it is known that Wakefield apparently wrote them into the paper.
And recall;
“Two years before the paper was published he (Wakefield) was hired by a solicitor to help launch a speculative lawsuit against drug companies that manufactured MMR vaccine. And the instrument of their attack was to find what he called at the time “a new syndrome” of bowel and brain disease caused by vaccines.”
.
Even the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who withdrew the paper, was circumspect about the condition;
“I do believe there was, and remains, validity to the connection between bowel disease and autism, which does need further investigation,” Richard Horton told the BBC in February 2004.
.
Wakefield has fallen, hoisted by his own petard. He will not be published in scientific journals again. His latest work is “Callous Disregard“, an account of the GMC enquiry in his own words, with a forward by the poster child of anti-vax, Jenny McCarthy. Any one not wanting to tarnish their reputation or their science, would be advised to stay well away.
Software glitch hampering adverse reactions reporting
Authorities are no closer to determining what caused hundreds of adverse reactions in the under 5s receiving the 2010 trivalent influenza vaccine.
But investigations are being hampered somewhat, due to a software glitch which has prevented optimum recording of doses on the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR).
A spokesperson for Medicare Australia, which administers ACIR, said they were aware that software had affected the transmission of data from some practices, and were advising all providers to review products.
The Western Australian Department of Health issued a letter to providers on May 6th;
“One of the major deficiencies in interpreting the data is the lack of reliable information on numbers of children vaccinated, including the brand and batch of vaccine used. This has arisen because of problems with the transfer of influenza vaccination data from practice software systems to the ACIR.”
.“Better data on total numbers of children vaccinated and the brands/batches used will allow calculation of rates of adverse events, and a clearer determination as to whether the risk is truly elevated compared to expectation (e.g. relative to the 2008 and 2009 WA programs and international experience), and whether any increase is specific to a particular vaccine brand or batch used.”
.
They are also asking for providers to supply them with the numbers of children having received the vaccine manually.
“Because uncertainty remains as to how effective the ACIR upload approach may be, WA DoH would be very grateful if you could also complete the attached form, indicating numbers of children vaccinated with a trivalent influenza vaccine between the dates of 8 March and 23 April 2010, by age group, vaccine brand and batch. This information will also help to clarify how well influenza vaccination data entered in practice software systems is being transferred to ACIR.”
.
The latest figures indicate 400 cases of fever and 77 convulsions in five states. Those reports led the Chief Medical Officer to suspend flu vaccination in all children younger than five years.
Associate Professor Richmond, a consultant at Princess Margaret hospital, (where most of the cases have appeared), and head of the WA influenza vaccine trial, said the adverse events this year appeared excessive compared to last year when 60,000 children – around half of the eligible cohort – received free influenza vaccine funded by the West Australian Government.
“The original whole flu virus seemed to be associated with more fevers, but now the virus gets split. So that will be something people will be looking at – is there more or less flu virus in this year’s vaccine which could be causing problems.”
However, some children who presented at hospital with high fever had gone on to have a second dose of vaccine without incident, he said.
In Australia the flu season is rapidly approaching, resulting in a rush on the vaccine for those still eligible and a subsequent exhaustion of supplies.
Those most vulnerable to such flu complications are adults over 65, especially those in nursing homes and kids under 2. Kids under 5 have been at higher risk of swine flu complications.
In Australia in 2009 there 47, 736 cases of laboratory confirmed influenza and so far in 2010 there have been 488.
Flu vax reactions; bad batch ruled out, the search for the cause continues.
One of the criticisms being leveled at the government for the recent adverse flu events is the question of how thoroughly the current 2010 seasonal flu triple antigen has been tested.
This year’s vaccine contains three viral components,
• A/California/7/2009 (NYMC X-181) (A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) – like) 7.5 µg haemagglutinin per dose
• A/Wisconsin/15/2009 (NYMC X-183) (A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) – like) 7.5 µg haemagglutinin per dose,
• B/Brisbane/60/2008 (B/Brisbane/60/2008 – like) 7.5 µg haemagglutinin per dose, a combination not used in Australia before.
Ian Barr, the deputy-director of the World Health Organization’s influenza centre in Melbourne, was interviewed for the World Today on ABC radio on Monday April 26th, about the question of whether the current seasonal flu combination has been tested in clinical trials.
IAN BARR: In Australia we don’t require that the influenza vaccine, the seasonal vaccine is tested for combinations but they have done that overseas, so they have tested in fact giving a full seasonal vaccine with the swine flu, so four vaccines at once if you like and there were no untoward effects there.
.
So I think there’s a high expectation that the combination of these three viruses will be no different from any other three viruses which we include every year without doing formal safety testing which takes quite a period of time and it is extremely expensive and time consuming.
.CHARLOTTE GLENNIE: So in your opinion the fact that it is a combination vaccine would have nothing to do with this situation that we’ve got at the moment as far as you know now?
.IAN BARR: I think that’s unlikely to be a factor. Certainly all viruses are slightly different but in terms of how they’re produced in the laboratory and tested in laboratory and then made in the commercial scale vaccine production areas, they’re all investigated individually for any particular differences in those viruses which might lead to some of these things we’re seeing currently, such as fever.
.
So I think that it’s unlikely but I guess we have to wait and see on analysis of these particular batches.
.
But subsequent tests by the TGA and other independent agencies have not identified a batch related problem. The Federal Government’s chief medical officer, Professor Jim Bishop, says there is no evidence to suggest that faulty batches of flu vaccine are to blame for adverse reactions in children, although further testing is yet to be completed.
Could old technology be to blame?
But rival vaccine manufacturers are questioning the manufacturing technique used by CSL Limited. Influenza Deeds of Agreement are in place with CSL Limited and Sanofi Pasteur for the supply of seasonal, pre-pandemic and pandemic influenza vaccines, but CSL is the primary supplier of AH1N1 vaccines to the Australian government.
CSL was once a division of the Federal government. Known as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, it was established in Australia in 1916, then incorporated in 1991 and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 1994. But CSL continue to maintain a close relationship with the government much to the critique of their rivals.
Flinders University’s Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, the research director of rival vaccine manufacturer Vaxine, says CSL’s relationship with the Federal Government virtually guarantees it funding. So CSL has no interest in developing better vaccines with new technology such as genetically engineered proteins.
“They’re comfortable to really exploit the old technology which is highly profitable to sell each year to the Australian Government.”
CSL’s seasonal flu vaccine, Fluvax, is based on technology which involves growing the influenza virus in eggs – a technology which has been around for about 50 years. Professor Petrovsky says the CSL vaccine varies from batch to batch.
“That’s one of the consequences of using a 50-year-old technology, you get that variability,” he said.
He is calling for an independent inquiry into the Federal Government’s relationship with CSL.
A spike in vaccinations means a spike in reactions?
To date, there have been 57 reports of adverse reactions (including high fevers and convulsions) in WA, six in Victoria, four in NSW and Queensland, two in South Australia and one each in Tasmania and the ACT. One child died in QLD after receiving a flu injection. Initial findings from the coroner did not find the vaccine at fault but tests are ongoing.
Prof Bishop said some three million doses of the seasonal flu vaccine have gone out this year, with up to two-thirds sent to WA.
It could be a “partial explanation” as to why the western state has experienced a much higher rate of complications, normally expected in one out of every 1000 to 10,000 cases, Prof Bishop said.
WA provides the seasonal flu shot for free to children under five, whereas the rest of the country doesn’t.
The WA trials were started after the 2007 flu season, after 8 children across Australia under five years of age, died within 24 hours of developing mild and non-specific symptoms of respiratory infection. Although the cause of death has not been reported in many of these cases, these deaths appeared to be associated with influenza A.
In 2008, almost 65,000 children aged 5 and younger in Western Australia received free flu vaccinations made by CSL and Sanofi- Aventis SA as part of a trial that reduced hospitalizations by 88 percent, the state’s health department said in a statement last year.
Each year, CSL’s Fluvax vaccine contains fragments of three different types of influenza virus as recommended by the TGA and this depends on the strains of infectious flu in the environment. In addition, flu viruses mutate from season to season so vaccines become less effective and need to be modified to keep up with the current mutants.
The components have been tested individually but not in combination.
Although the current Fluvax® combination has not been tested in Australia, the individual components have.
Fluvax® Jnr (2005/2006 batches) showed very good safety and efficacy profile in clinical trial.
.
Safety and efficacy of CSLs Fluvax® Jnr – seasonal flu vax (no thimerosal, no H1N1) This study was undertaken using the 2005-2006 flu vaccines, is designated the Paediatric study CSLCT-FLU-04-05 and was published in 2009.
The safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of Fluvax® vaccine was tested in 298 participants from a paediatric population (> 6 months to < 3 years and > 3 years to < 9 years).
.
Group A
Equal to or greater than 6 months to less than 3 years old
Biological: Influenza Virus Vaccine
2 dose vaccine regimen: 2 X 0.25mL vaccinations 30 days apart and a booster vaccination was administered 12 months after the first dose
.Group B
Equal to or greater than 3 years to less than 9 years old
Biological: Influenza Virus Vaccine
2 dose vaccine regimen: 2 X 0.50mL vaccinations 30 days apart and a booster vaccination was administered 12 months after the first dose
.
The total number of participants was 298 (Group A n=151; Group B n=147). There were no reports of serious adverse events related to Fluvax® vaccine during the vaccination period. Within 7 days after administration of Fluvax® vaccine, all adverse experiences reported with an incidence of 2% or greater. Unsolicited adverse events were collected for 30 days post-vaccination. Very common unsolicited events (< 1/10) reported were rhinitis, cough, teething and influenza-like illness.
.
Panvax® Jnr was tested in a 2009 trial and showed ~30% adverse effects in children under the age of 8.
.
Testing began on CSLs 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine (CSL425) in July 2009, on 370 kids aged between 6 Months to 8 Years.
.
CSL Limited makes two AH1H1 vaccines, Panvax® and Panvax® Jnr (thimerosal free). The clinical trial is registered and published here.
.Mild adverse effects were defined as adverse events easily tolerated by the participant, causing minimal discomfort and do not interfere with everyday activities (e.g., soreness at injection site)?.
Following the first vaccination:
.• 16.3% had a mild fever (>37.5 degrees C < 38.5 degrees C) in the 15µg group
.• 23% had mild fever in the 30 µg group
.Combined mild adverse reactions, for 15 µg and 30 µg were 31.9% and 33.7%, respectively.
For moderate adverse reactions, 15 µg and 30 µg were 18.9% and 27.2%, respectively. This was defined as significantly discomforting, interferes with daily activity.
.
The clinical trial data was evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and reviewed by the expert Advisory Committee on Prescription Medicines (ACPM). The evaluations found the vaccine, delivered in two doses not less than 28 days a part in children aged 6 months to 9 years, to be both safe and to offer good protection.
Panvax® was approved by the TGA on December 3, 2009 and the national immunisation program began on 30 September 2009.
The TGA has been closely monitoring any side effects from the use of the vaccine. To that date approximately 6 million doses of Panvax® had been distributed in Australia. As at 31 December 2009 a total of 1289 suspected side effects have been reported to the TGA following vaccination with Panvax® in Australia.
This is the current trial of the 2010 vaccine, containing A/California/7/2009 (NYMC X-181), (A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) – like) A/Wisconsin/15/2009 (NYMC X-183), (A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) – like) & B/Brisbane/60/2008 (B/Brisbane/60/2008 – like)
.
Current Influenza Vaccine Study in 6 month to 17 year olds
.
Australia is considering introducing the Influenza vaccine for all children under 5 years. At the same time, this study aims to improve our knowledge of the safety of Fluvax® in children aged from 6 months to 17 years old. Information from this study will help future decisions on how best to use Fluvax® in children.
.What does the study involve? Each participant will be in the study for about 6 or 7 months. They will receive 1 or 2 doses of Fluvax®, depending on their age and how many doses of ‘flu vaccine they have had in the past. You will be asked to record certain reactions that might occur for 30 days following each vaccination.
.
This study has been approved by a human research ethics committee. In Perth the study is run by the research staff at the Vaccine Trials Group, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in conjunction with Princess Margaret Hospital for Children and the University of Western Australia School of Paediatrics.
The latest information on the website says; “recruitment complete” which means they have enough people for the trial. I don’t know what stage they are at with respect to results. There is a brochure available here.
Parents call for calm.
Meanwhile, some parents are calling for calm and warning others not to shun vaccines completely.
Kellie Connolly writing for the Daily Telegraph on April 30th, recounts how her three year old contracted swine flu last year and was extremely ill for 2 months. He couldn’t keep food down for 13 days, lost a third of his body weight and he eventually developed pneumonia.
When she took him for his flu shot this year, around the time of the recent scare, he suffered an adverse reaction of high temperatures, vomiting and headaches.
Kellie says that of course she has concerns and she expects the authorities to thoroughly investigate them, but she was adamant;
“..As a mother of a child who’s had a terrible case of swine flu, and then witnessed an adverse reaction to a vaccine, I still say VACCINATE for everything else recommended by our health officials.”
Similarly,
Kylie Orr on the Essential Baby blog says;
“Why would I question a free service provided by the government, which has been exhaustively researched and documented? I am not a scientist, medical practitioner or spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company.”
Ultimately, I am a mum and if the experts tell me immunising my child is the best bet for keeping them safe from potentially deadly diseases, well that’s enough for me. If someone offers a counter argument, showing me figures and relevant links, backed up by science…..”
The vaccination programme for under fives remains suspended. You can report an adverse effect to vaccination, or other drugs at the TGA website.
Flu vax programme for kids suspended due to vaccine reactions
Seasonal flu shots have caused adverse reactions in 251 children under five in Western Australia, the state’s chief health officer says.
In Western Australia, 55 children suffered convulsions after having the vaccination, and almost 200 others suffered fevers and vomiting, chief health officer Dr Tarun Weeramanthri said.
The vaccination programme was suspended last week when adverse reactions began to appear.
Health authorities are undertaking urgent tests in an effort to understand why the reactions took place. Most of the adverse reactions took place in WA, but reports are now trickling in from SA, QLD and NSW.
In NSW, one child with a fever and rash and one child with a febrile convulsion have been reported to NSW Health. Both children have now fully recovered.
Earlier this month, a child aged 2 from Queensland died 12 hrs after receiving a seasonal flu vaccination, but it is not yet known if the vaccine was implicated. The coroner is investigating.
State authorities are currently working together to compile the spread of the reactions to better characterise the problem.
The Commonwealth’s chief medical officer, Professor Jim Bishop told ABC radio;
“We’ve got to keep this in perspective. We’re looking at an increase in fever causing convulsions in a state and we’ve got to work out if that’s above the baseline.”
Initial speculation was the vaccines may have been a bad batch but this has since been ruled this out, since multiple batches were used. CSL, the manufacturers of Fluvax, said three rival vaccines are available nationwide and that investigators have yet to discover which vaccine was given to the affected children.
Professor Bishop said this year’s batch includes swine flu vaccine, which was subject to thorough testing last year, and two strains of seasonal flu that were only minutely different to previous vaccines to combat slight genetic changes in the virus.
Dr Barr, the deputy director of the World Health Organisation’s influenza centre in Melbourne, said he thought it unlikely that the combination of the different strains in the vaccine would have triggered the reactions.
Dr Barr told ABC Radio that viruses produced and tested in a laboratory, then made into vaccines on a commercial scale, were ”all investigated individually for any particular differences in those viruses which might lead to some of these things we’re seeing currently, such as fever”.
The TGA is currently testing samples of the vaccines used in Western Australia where most of the reactions have occurred.
—-
UPDATE: from the Brisbane Times
An initial autopsy into the death of a Brisbane toddler has found no sign the seasonal flu vaccine was to blame, the state’s chief medical officer has said.
Dr Jeannette Young said a series of further tests would be necessary.
During a press conference this afternoon, Dr Young defended Queensland Health’s handling of the toddler’s case and blamed the private general practitioner who administered the vaccine to the girl for not reporting it, as is required under law.
She has referred the Mt Gravatt doctor to the Medical Tribunal Board.
My Shorty Award arrives, but something’s missing..
It seems like it been ages since my Shorty Award win on March 3rd in New York City, in the category of health.
Since I was unable to attend the ceremony, the organisers, Sawhorse Media, kindly arranged to have my trophy shipped to me here in Sydney. They even sent me a tracking notice on April 3rd to advise it was being shipped it. I was very excited!
After much anticipation and checking my pigeon hole every day, I was very pleased to see a dirty big box sitting atop it today as I sashayed past to attend an hour long seminar. I wanted to tear the box open then and there but I doubt the speaker would have been very impressed to be interrupted by tearing cardboard and tape.
So instead I did what any self respecting Shorty winner would do and tweeted!
Finally the seminar ended and I struggled with the layers of tape and padding to reveal the sleek glass trophy – only to find my name was incorrectly spelt. Bugger.
My name is spelled RachAel not “el”. A small thing you might say, but something that just bugs me and has done for my 39 years on the planet.
It’s a shame too, because clearly Sawhorse went to the trouble of ensuring they had spelt my name properly. How do I know this? Because the three shipping dockets on the box were all spelled correctly, the programme from the night was correct, an indiscriminate label on the box was correct, even the box the trophy came packed in had my name written twice in thick black texta and it was spelled correctly. Unfortunately whoever engraved the glass was not quite as meticulous.
Oh well. I guess I can’t really complain. I mean over @27bslash6 – his arrived in 2 pieces!
But bless my mates, they came to the rescue of my disappointment. Thanks to @weezmgk who ‘shopped this one.
Then ‘shopped it better!
And some lovely folks even tweeted the Shortys to ask for a replacement.
But on the bright side, even if the award is missing an “a” at least it doesn’t say Mercola or Health Ranger!
Once again, a big thank you to everyone who made this award possible.
The Medical Journal of Australia – media release
EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT HOMEOPATHY IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT
Embargoed until April 18th, 12 noon.
Current evidence showing that homeopathic medicines are ineffective treatments is not
biased against homeopathy, as some homeopaths have argued, according to a review
published in the Medical Journal of Australia.
Prof Edzard Ernst, Director of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, UK,
writes that about 150 controlled clinical trials have been published on homeopathy – a
therapeutic method that often uses highly diluted preparations of substances that, when
administered to healthy people, create the same effects as the disorder in the unwell patient.
Prof Ernst said in situations where the results of these trials were neither all negative nor all
positive, some commentators resorted to “cherry picking” those findings that fit their own
preconceptions.
“The problem of selective citation is most effectively overcome by evaluating all reliable
evidence, an aim best met by systematic reviews,” Prof Ernst said.
He searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews – generally considered to be the
most reliable source of evidence – in January this year for reviews that had the term
“homeopathy” in their title, abstract or keywords. Of the six articles that met the inclusion
criteria, none provided compelling evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.
“Homeopaths have argued that systematic reviews that fail to generate positive conclusions
about homeopathy are biased,” Prof Ernst said.
.“However, as most of the reviews I appraised were authored by homeopaths, it seems
unlikely that they were biased against homeopathy. In fact, one might argue that they were
biased in favour of homeopathy.
.“For instance, one reviewer [not a Cochrane author] deliberately set out to select only the
positive evidence and omit all negative evidence.”
Prof Ernst said some homeopaths argued that the controlled clinical trial was not suited for
the study of homeopathy and that observational data, which appeared to suggest that
homeopathy was effective, demonstrated the true value of the method.
“A more rational explanation would be that the positive outcomes of observational studies are
caused by the non-specific aspects of homeopathic treatments, while the controlled trials
demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are placebos,” Prof Ernst said.
The Medical Journal of Australia is a publication of the Australian Medical Association.
Get the full pdf here.
The British Chiropractic Association drops libel case against Simon Singh
After two years of a long and drawn out battle, the BCA has finally caved in and announced they are withdrawing their libel action against Simon Singh.
In a statement, they said:
Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st
April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel
action against Simon Singh..
As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh
had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be “bogus”..
…the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.
Simon recently won the right to appeal the initial decision by Justice Lord over the meaning of the word “bogus” and had stated that he would continue to defend his position, even though he expected the case could cost him 1 million pounds. He has already spent 100, 000 pounds of his own money defending the case.
The action taken by the BCA resulted in significant scrutiny of chiropractic treatments and claims, and following complaints, one in four chiropractors in Britain are currently under investigation for allegedly making misleading claims in advertisements.
In another stunning move, the McTimoney Association of chiropractors (MCA) deleted their website, and advised its members to do the same. In a leaked email they told their members:
REMOVE all the blue MCA patient information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice. The MCA are working on an interim replacement leaflet which will be sent to you shortly.
In October 2009, Australian Skeptics had a complaint lodged with the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) following the publication of Singh’s article on their website. Chiropractor Joseph Ierano wrote a letter to the organisation with a detailed but somewhat rambling rebuff of the article, and when he did not receive a response he liked, he went the the HCCC. The complaint was dismissed.
Simon Singh:“The case is not quite over, because we still have to argue over costs. Having backed down and dropped the case, I expect the British Chiropractic Association to pay my legal bill of 200,000 pounds. I fully expect the BCA to argue that they should not pay all my costs, but I think it is the very least that they should do because this entire legal battle has been instigated by the BCA.
The decision by the BCA to wthdraw the action despite being “…advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal” is a victory for journalists and science writers. Singh said he was hugely relieved, but expressed his annoyance that libel actions continued to be used to block what he viewed as legitimate scientific inquiry and debate. See more on the BBC.
But libel reform is still desperately needed in the UK. Please sign the petition here – you do not have to be a UK resident to sign.
Happy Chiropractic Awareness Week!
More coverage at Sense About Science.
Credulous reporting on regular milk and disease on the 7:30 Report
Tonight the usually high standards of journalism displayed by the ABCs 7:30 report failed dismally when they aired a story about regular cows milk causing all manner of diseases from schizophrenia, heart disease, diabetes to impaired neurological development and autism.
It was a purely appalling piece, (watch it here) containing red flags for pseudoscience at every turn. Run as the lead story (making it appear to be important) it was peppered with testimonials, anecdotes and some very dodgy looking science.
I thought I must have stood on the remote and switched over to A Current Affair or Today Tonight when they showed footage of a woman saying switching from regular milk cured her hives and deep tissue swelling in only four weeks.
Then there was the story of the farmer’s daughter who was cured from diarrhea and vomiting overnight (or somesuch) after switching to magic milk.
Of note, scant evidence for regular milk causing these conditions was presented, or maybe I blinked and missed it. Instead there were statements about countries where more regular milk is consumed displaying higher levels of obesity and other diseases, but correlation does not equal causation. And these studies need to be interpreted with caution.
“They had someone who had a kid with eczema and the eczema had gone away, someone who didn’t get migraines anymore, someone who didn’t get stomach upsets anymore – those types of issues. All the stories can’t be wrong. I just believe there’s got to be something in it.”
So what is this magic milk of which they speak?
Cows give one of three types of milk. There’s milk with A1 casein (a type of protein), milk with A2 and some cows give milk with a combination of both. A theory, which apparently started in New Zealand in 2000, is that A2 milk is much better for your health than A1 milk.
The type of protein a cow produces depends on genetics, so A2 cows must be bred.
But what is even more interesting when I was researching this story I found out this is not the first time the A2 milk story has been covered by the ABC.
After the theory was first proposed in the year 2000 in New Zealand, the ABC covered it on Four Corners in 2003 and then on Landline in 2006.
The transcripts are available on-line and appear to be quite similar.
Just look at this for an example.
Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:
Nevertheless, a possible mechanism for how A1 milk might cause disease was now proposed. Protein molecules of A1 and A2 milk are both chains of amino acids. But in the A1 molecule, one amino acid is different, a weak link. A2 researchers believe this causes the chain to break, creating a small piece called Beta Casomorphin 7. And this piece is able move through the gut wall, into the blood, triggering disease.
Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:
A possible mechanism for how A1 milk might cause disease was now proposed. Protein molecules of A1 and A2 milk are both chains of amino acids, but in the A1 molecule, one amino acid is different – a weak link. A2 researchers believe this causes the chain to break creating a small piece called Beta Casomorphin 7 and this piece is able to move through the gut wall into the blood, triggering disease.
7:30 Report, 07/04/2010 (attributed to Four Corners 2003)
They claim that trigger is found in a weak link in A1 milks chain of amino acids causing the chain to break and creating a small piece called BCM7. They say that piece moves through the gut wall into the blood stream causing disease
But being that today’s date is 07/04/2010, it seems this story might be on a cycle of every 3 – 4 years. Slow news day 7:30 Report?
Here are some more similarities:
Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:
Milk has long been blamed for health problems – heart disease, diabetes and even autism. But in the new hypothesis, it’s not fats or sugar but protein, something you can’t even taste, under the microscope. A2 milk’s backers claim A1 triggers these diseases.
Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:
Milk has long been blamed for health problems – heart disease, diabetes and even autism. But in the new hypothesis, it’s not fats or sugar but protein, something you can’t even taste, under the microscope. A2 milk’s backers claim A1 triggers these diseases.
Oh Aunty, really?
And they even spoke to many of the same people.
Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:
Well, in 2004, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority asked Professor Boyd Swinburn from Deakin University to evaluate the research.
Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:
PROFESSOR BOYD SWINBURN, SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, DEAKIN UNIVERISTY
After re-watching tonight’s story on-line, I’m not sure what prompted them to run it again. You might guess some significant new scientific breakthroughs, or advances in the understanding of how regular milk might cause such diseases. But sadly no.
I only saw one piece of new science in this version of the story, a paper from Russian researchers claiming developmental delays in babies fed A1 formula, which correlated with high levels of circulating BCM7.
But Professor Peter Clifton had this to say;
“I’ve certainly read that paper and I don’t think it’s groundbreaking and significant. In fact, if I had been editing that journal I wouldn’t have accepted that paper for many many reasons, essentially I don’t think they’ve actually measured what they claim to measure”.
There’s more
Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:
In 2004, the Queensland Health Department fined A2 milk marketers $15,000 for making false and misleading claims about the health benefits of A2 milk. Dairy Australia says the company broke the rules.
7:30 Report, 07/04/2010
It’s wary about the way it promotes the product. Mindful that back in 2004 another A2 milk marketer was convicted of making false and misleading health claims.
And finally:
Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:
TICKY FULLERTON: Just how plausible do you think it is that one factor, a protein in A1 milk, could contribute to diabetes, heart disease, autism and schizophrenia?
7:30 Report, 07/04/2010
Reporter Lisa Whitehead: Why don’t you go as far as claiming that A1 milk can cause heart disease, juvenile diabetes, even autism
The answer was a piece of unsubstantiated scaremongering from an A2 supporter:
“We’ve really left that topic to the scientists to talk about, there are many eminent scientists who would support that. Ummm, we would certainly say that yes, there’s some evidence, we don’t certainly talk avidly about that evidence but we believe yes consumers should make up their own minds about that.”
A2 milk is big business and much money can be made if either side can convince consumers that their milk is healthy and the other causes autism. I know, I’ve seen the reports detailing the ins-and-outs three times now (go read the transcripts if you want to know more). But this debate is really about the politics, and the money, not the science.
Well done to the 7:30 Report for contributing to the scaremongering by A2 producers and potentially lining their pockets, for the third time, along the way.
What a disgrace ABC.
The AVN knocked back from advertising in mums & babies publication
It was recently revealed that the AVN was allegedly knocked back from putting paid advertising into a publication for mums and babies.
The Child group of magazines, covering Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Canberra and Perth are free monthly publications distributed via childcare centres and baby shops and are highly targeted to Australian parents.
The website of Sydney’s Child describes the publication as, “..well established in the marketplace and highly respected by readers.”
“With six publications reaching across Australia, the Child group of magazines offer advertisers the ability to advertise nationally, or selectively depending on their needs. The tailored content within each magazine ensures that the publications always remain locally relevant to readers.”
All of which combines to make this the perfect platform for the AVN to scare parents into not vaccinating with their misinformation about vaccines causing autism, SIDS, shaken baby syndrome etc.
I understand that the AVN applied to purchase a 1/3 page ad in Sydney’s Child, Melbourne’s Child and Brisbane’s Child at a total estimated cost of $8000.
But in a highly principled and responsible move, it appears that the magazine declined the AVN the opportunity to do so, thus forfeiting a large amount of advertising money. This is a honorable move on their part, especially since being a free publication, they rely heavily on advertising revenue.
At question here is how the AVN came to have a spare $8000, after their recent donation drive initiated apparently to keep them from going under. Meryl apparently needed the cash to cover debts, so just a few weeks later she has enough in the coffers to blow eight grand on advertising?
I also wonder if her donors would be happy to see their money being diverted from keeping the AVN running to this new venture. That is, if indeed it is their money.
In August 2009, she was asking for donations to run a Generation Rescue ad, for which they would cover half the costs. An ad which never ran mind you, because we pipped her at the post. So it is possible that they have come to the party here.
In any case, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Meryl was told that The Child group did not want her anti-vaccine money. If she was not already convinced there is a conspiracy to see her silenced, then she ought to be well and truly by now. Paranoid much? Well maybe you should be Meryl!
I would like to clarify that neither Australian Skeptics, Stop the AVN or myself had anything to do with this decision. I’m sure Meryl will blame us, and I certainly wish I had the influence to persuade publishers and journalists to never publish her nonsense again, but I don’t.
(Or do I? *look over there, it’s a reptilian overlord*)
Congratulations to The Child group for adhering to their editorial policy and extending this to advertising:
Editorial Integrity – Our editorial integrity ensures that advertisements are always viewed within the context of a highly regarded, quality publication. That our magazines are seen in such a favourable light contributes positively to how an advertiser’s message is received by our readers.
The Child Group had done a great service to public health by limiting the exposure of the AVN’s misinformation. And by doing so, they may have saved a baby’s life.
World Homeopathy Awareness Week, April 10 – 16th 2010.
According to the World Homeopathy Awareness website the focus of this years’ festivities will be “Mental Well-being, Body and Mind in Balance”.
Whatever that means.
The week will also reflect on the memory of the 255th anniversary of the Birth of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the creator of homeopathy.
Homeopaths and homeopathy supporters from around the globe will join forces in April during World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW). The website lists many suggested activities and events, such as handing out fliers, promoting homeopathy through television and radio, organising musical concerts/stage concerts/skits/plays, etc with a homeopathic theme. Which all seem pretty harmless and twee, until you get to this one.
“Contact other homeopaths in your area and organize free clinics for the poor.”
Why? Are the poor thirsty? Or need a bath? Why else would they be wanting expensive water?
I also plan to get the word out about homeopathy during WHAW.
And the word is bollocks.
But seriously, as sceptics we should make an effort to publicise homeopathy during this time to let people know it does nothing and it contains nothing. It’s water, or whatever else was used to dissolve the active ingredient, which has long disappeared by the time it appears on the shelf.
I plan to dig up some of the position statements from organisations concerned with the harm that homeopathy can do.
Many of us are familiar with the one released by the WHO in response to an open letter from Sense About Science imploring them to take a position on homeopathy. Their response was;
The WHO DOES NOT recommend the use of homeopathy for treating HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea
Dr Mario Raviglione, Director, Stop TB Department, WHO: “Our evidence-based WHO TB treatment/management guidelines, as well as the International Standards of Tuberculosis Care (ISTC) do not recommend use of homeopathy.”
.Dr Mukund Uplekar, TB Strategy and Health Systems, WHO: “WHO’s evidence-based guidelines on treatment of tuberculosis…have no place for homeopathic medicines.”
.Dr Teguest Guerma, Director Ad Interim, HIV/AIDS Department, WHO: “The WHO Dept. of HIV/AIDS invests considerable human and financial resources […] to ensure access to evidence-based medical information and to clinically proven, efficacious, and safe treatment for HIV… Let me end by congratulating the young clinicians and researchers of Sense About Science for their efforts to ensure evidence-based approaches to treating and caring for people living with HIV.”
.Dr Sergio Spinaci, Associate Director, Global Malaria Programme, WHO: “Thanks for the amazing documentation and for whistle blowing on this issue… The Global Malaria programme recommends that malaria is treated following the WHO Guidelines for the Treatment of Malaria.”
.Joe Martines, on behalf of Dr Elizabeth Mason, Director, Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, WHO: “We have found no evidence to date that homeopathy would bring any benefit to the treatment of diarrhoea in children…Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and prevention of dehydration – in total contradiction with the scientific basis and our recommendations for the management of diarrhoea.”
Of course it might also be time to remind people about the recent findings by The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in the UK on homeopathy. In a 273 page report, they concluded
* The UK National Health Service should cease funding homeopathy
* No further clinical trials of homeopathy should occur.
* Evidence shows homeopathy doesn’t work.
* Explanations for why homeopathy works are “scientifically implausible.”
* Committee viewed homeopathy as placebo.
The UK Health Protection Agency also published a statement saying they do not recommend homeopathy for malaria prevention.
“There is no scientific proof that homeopathic remedies are effective in either preventing or treating malaria. In addition, the Faculty of Homeopathy does not promote the use of homeopathic remedies for disease prevention and note that their use in malaria prevention is unlikely to be acceptable to insurance providers.”
But in an undercover investigation by Simon Singh and Sense About Science, a researcher pretending to be travelling to malarial affected areas was advised that homeopathy was effective, by homeopaths and pharmacy assistants. At Nelsons Pharmacy in London, which claims to be Britain’s biggest manufacturer of homeopathic remedies she was advised of the remedies;
“They make it so your energy doesn’t have a malaria-shaped hole in it so the malarial mosquitos won’t come along and fill that in.”
Are you serious? You have to be making that up.
Of course, if homeopathy is just water then it won’t hurt you right? Well no, as long as you are also receiving evidence based, effective treatments. Otherwise, it can be lethal.
I plan to make as many people as possible aware of WHAW.
Aware that it’s complete bollocks.
