I Speak of Dreams

Anti-Vaccine Terminology Defined: The Greenburg Gambit and the Natural Decline Gambit

Inspired by a comment by Krebiozen  at Respectful Insolence:

• The "Greenberg Gambit" is the claim that diseases have not disappeared, they have just been relabeled as something else. 
• The "Natural Decline Gambit" is  also known as "Vaccines Didn't Save Us" 
• The two gambits are distinct and not interchangeable, but when an anti-vaccine advocate deploys one gambit and fails, the other is often then advanced. 
• Both are counter-factual.

The "Greenberg" in question is one Bernard Greenberg, and he's being mis-represented.  The 1962 edition of  J.I. Rodale's The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases (Rodale Books Inc., Emmaus, PA) included the following assertion (emphasis added): 

"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. "

In 2007, a professor at Seton Hall, Thomas W. Kavanagh, researched the background of Rodale's claim of Greenberg's views, publishing his results on the Web forum  Medical Knowlege Base:

Conclusions:

As noted above, Greenberg did note how data had been handled in a "very misleading way." But he ascribed much of that to the mass media, singling out a "recent Associated Press release" (1962:95), not to a 'medical establishment' conspiracy [single quotes enclose my terms]

Greenberg did describe how the methods for calculating incidents of polio had changed from 1955 to 1959. But at no point did he, nor anyone else on the panel, ascribe this to malicious intent by a 'medical establishment.' Indeed, he explicitly commented that the post-1959 were "improved" methods of diagnosis" (1962:97) [my emphasis].

Again, Greenberg did question the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine as being unknown because of the statistical problems, but not of vaccines in general. Indeed, Greenberg eagerly awaited both a live virus vaccine (more effective), and an oral vaccine (as the primary route of polio infection was oral).

Ultimately, the way the 1960 panel discussion is being presented today is probably even more misleading than the way the 1955-59 statistics were then.

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics; and then there's the Web.

Thomas W. Kavanagh, Ph.D. Seton Hall University

By all accounts, Greenberg was a remarkable man, and I for one am grateful to Dr. Kavanagh for defending his honor.

The Natural Decline Gambit in its natural habitat can be observed here: 

http://www.whale.to/a/lie_effective.html

Sample statements"

• "We are taught by the authorities that vaccines protect us against eventual aggressive viruses and microbes, and, therefore, prevent contagious illnesses and epidemics. This lie has been perpetuated for 150 years despite the INEFFECTIVENESS of vaccines in protecting against illnesses...the USELESSNESS of certain vaccines, notably, TB & Tetanus..Diptheria....Influenza and hepatitis B."----Guylaine Lanctot (a former Canadian M.D. )
• "The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and hunger (Dr. Buchwald draws the Committee’s attention to a series of about 50 graphs in his book which show that vaccinations have no effect on the decline of infectious diseases).-- Gerhard Buchwald, M.D., 1920-2009, a committed German anti-vaccine activist.
• "Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diptheria, and measles occured before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics."---Archie Kalokerinos, M.D (28 September 1927 – 1 March 2012
• "According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S.A. were diptheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95% before the implementation of mass vaccine programs."--Harold Buttram MD, anti-vaccine doctor and autism quack.
• "All infectious diseases decreased without vaccinations. Not only did vaccines have no influence over the decrease of the diseases, the contrary is true, they slowed down the downward trend of all diseases. The best example for this is polio. After the majority of people were vaccinated, severe epidemics occurred, such as in 1962 in the German speaking countries, after vaccination had been in full force for 3 years. Dr Buchwald carefully collected the facts in his book, which prove this fact beyond doubt for all infectious diseases38."----Anita Petek-Dimmer, German-born Swiss anti-vaccine activist.

Fills you with confidence about the accuracy of their opinions, doesn't it?

Another Immunization Masterpiece from ZdoggMD: Flu Shot Anthem

Oh my goodness this made me laugh. Watch here too: http://zdoggmd.com/2012/08/one-injection-flu-shot/ (and the name of that really hot nurse and the lyrics)

Myths about flu shot, dispelled:

Flu Shot Causes Flu: nope. Inactivated viral fragments in the vaccine don’t cause the flu. The virus is deader than Tupac, yo. You may get some localized soreness and low grade fever/muscle aches from the immune response to the vaccine (a good thing), but that ain’t flu. Like any vaccine, there are rare severe side effects, but the benefits of mass vaccination outweigh these by far.

Flu Shot Don’t Work: untrue. Flu shot is an effective way to produce complete or partial immunity to the covered influenza strains. Obviously, no vaccine is 100% effective, but even a partially effective vaccine has huge benefits when we’re talking about something nasty that can be prevented, like the flu.

I Don’t Get Sick, So I Ain’t Gettin’ the Shot: OK, and I bet your s**t don’t stink either, smarty pants! Up to 50% of people with documented influenza viral infection have no symptoms. Yet they can in theory spread the virus to our most vulnerable, like little kids and the elderly. So vaccinate yourself, because it’s about Community Immunity!

The story behind whooping cough outbreaks: vaccine improvement sometimes doesn't

At BoingBoing, Maggie Koerth-Baker abstracts Maryn McKenna's story on the efficacy of whole-cell vs. acellular vaccines against pertussis (whooping cough).  

Maggie writes:

A key thing to remember: This is a nuanced theory that may or may not turn out to be right. But, if it does turn out that this vaccine isn't as effective as we want it to be, that's not a dark mark against vaccines, in general. Sometimes, medicine doesn't work as well as intended. It's a risk of medicine. And the fact that it's major research institutions pointing this possibility out, should give people some comfort in the scientific process. If doctors and organizations who promote childhood vaccination are all in the pockets of an evil conspiracy then there would be no reason why they'd ever do research like this, or talk about it publicly.

Link to Maryn McKenna's story at WiredScience

Delicately and cautiously, health authorities in the United States and other countries are beginning to open up a difficult topic: Whether the extraordinary ongoing epidemic of whooping cough, the worst in more than 50 years, may be due in part to unexpected poor performance by the vaccine meant to prevent the disease.

That possibility, captured in several recent pieces of research — one published last night — is being raised so carefully because it might lead vaccine opponents to claim incorrectly that pertussis vaccination does not work. That fear contains a deep irony: The current vaccine, in use for about 20 years, replaced an older and more effective one that went out of use because vaccine critics charged it had too high a rate of side effects.

FYI: anti-vaccinationists are already falsely claiming the current pertussis vaccine is worthless.

Blogust: August 1, Why Comments Matter

I missed this one yesterday, and comments are closed, but this is an important one to read.

In 2004, Cecily Kellogg had (I think) twins, who sadly didn't survive.  She was buoyed but by the pages and pages of comments she recieved on her blog,  Uppercase Woman.

Yesterday, she returned the favor, and was the kick-off blogger for the Blogust  fundraising-by-blog comments campaign.  It worked!

Why Comments Matter.

Blogust: August 2, CC Chapman on Clarence Smith jr.

The post for August 2 is CC Chapman on the multi-talented Clarence Smith jr. Don't comment here, go there and leave a comment. (Serendipity: I'm reading CC Chapman's Content Rules at the same time. It didn't occur to me to look for his blog. Thanks Shot@Life! )

August is National Immunization Awareness Month

As you know, I'm a lay advocate for the safety and efficacy for vaccines.

But I forgot on Tuesday to let you know that August is National Immunization Awareness Month.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) of the United States has resources for lay folk like you and me on:

• Influenza vaccination 
• Recommended vaccinations for adults
• Recommended vaccinations for preteens and teens
• Recommended vaccinations for infants and toddlers

I am going to do my best to post daily on the safety and efficacy of vaccines this month.

Vaccine Exemptions: Conference Call with Richard Pan MD and Paul Offit MD --Pt 1

Edited to give credit where credit is due:

The conference call was hosted by Amy Pisani of Every Child by Two.  I was invited to the call by Christine Vara of Shot of Prevention.

This afternoon (July 24, 2012) I had the distinct pleasure of being on a conference call with Richard Pan MD (who is also a California state representative) and with Paul Offit MD, who is perhaps the US's leading advocate for vaccine safety and efficacy.  The call focused on vaccine exemption issues.

What follows is not a word-for-word transcription (that will be posted at Shot of Prevention) but the gist of Dr. Pan's and Dr Offit's comments. Part 1 will focus on Dr. Pan; Part 2 will be Dr. Offit's remarks. Any mistakes or inaccuracies are solely my own.

Dr. Pan spoke on the bill he introduced, AB 2109, which is a very simple bill.  If a parent wishes to  send her child to school without the required vaccines, the parent must document having had a face-to-face conversation about vaccine risks and benefits with a health care provider.  

That's it.  That's all.  It doesn't take away "parent choice" or "force parents into a relationship" or any of the other specious objections the anti-vaccine forces, lead by NVIC and the Canary party, have ginned up.

California's current Personal Belief Exemption law is one of the most lax in the nation. All a parent has to do is to merely sign the back of the school immunization form, attesting that their personal beliefs means their children are exempted from vaccines.

This is the extent of the exemption process.  Click to enlarge:

That's it: one or two parental signatures, depending on the district.

Going back to the conference call: Pan is a pediatrician and made the case that vaccines are the #1 health care advance of the last two centuries.. His experience as a pediatrician led to two insights: (1) Parents are frightened by the misinformation that is more easily available than accurate information, and (2) the value of vaccination is difficult for the current generation of parents to percieve, because they don't have the personal experience of the misery of mumps and measles (for example).  The current generation tends to undervalue the benefit of vaccines.  And for everyone, it's hard to appreciate the value of a negative -- that vaccines prevent infection.

In Pan's experience, most parents who are vaccine refusers do so because they are uncertain about the risks and benefits of vaccines, not because they are hard-core anti-vaccinationists.  The fence-sitters and the hesitant, provided with answers to their questions and fears, nearly often choose to vaccinate.

On the internet, there is a raft of misrepresentation and confusion about vaccine safety and efficacy; it is easier to find misinformation than accurate information. Pan specifically named Jenny McCarthy as a promoter of vaccine misinformation.  Pan felt very strongly that face-to-face conversations between a health-care provider and a family is necessary to dispell the family's fears.  One of the anti-vax talking points is "informed choice".  Pan countered that  the counselling gives parents truly informed choice. 

In his closing remarks after his presentation, Pan spoke of what he has learned from experiencing the fervor of the anti-vaccination movement.  Many of the anti-vaccine folks have been vociferous.   He went on to comment on celebrity opposition to AB 2109, The celebrities didn't do as much research as they might have; they really misrepresented vaccines.  

(Dr Pan is being polite. ToddW at Harpocrates Speaks demolishes the anti-AB 2109 talking points  and demonstrates anti-vax hypocracy about informed consent. Orac at Respectful Insolence has covered AB 2109 rather thoroughly, in Real Informed Consent; Despite the Anti-vax Movement, AB 2109 Moves On;  The Latest Celebrity Antivaccinationist Makes a Fool of Himself; and School Vaccine Mandates: The Nuremburg Code.  One of the speakers against AB 2109 at the Senate Health Committee hearing was Julian Whitaker, MD.  Recently, the noted skeptic Steven Novella MD debated Dr. Whitaker over the safety and efficacy vaccines. Dr. Novella easily refuted each of Dr. Whitaker's tropes and canards. (So much so that some fun was later had.) Later Orac came back with Dr Whitaker Responds.)

Later in the conference call, there was opportunity for questions and answers.  

Russell Saunders MD, who is a pediatrician, commented that he has not had Pan's success with converting the vaccine hesitant. 

Pan responded with three points:  

1. There is evidence that the conversation requirement will make a difference: the data from Washington State, which enacted a similar law last year.  After just one year, vaccine exemption rates dropped from about 6.2% to 4.5%.
2. Fence sitters can be persuaded.  Pan's experience is that the vaccine-hesitant have been highly underestimating vaccine benefits and exaggerating the risks.   For these reasons, a hand-out isn't good enough.  Parents need and deserve a face-to-face conversation with a knowledgable health-care provider, with ample opportunities for parents to ask the questions they may have and to express their fears.
3. Sometimes parents who currently have personal belief exemptions (PBE) aren't actually  vaccine refusers or vaccine hesitant at all.  The PBE is a matter of convenience not conviction.  These kind of parents have experienced some kind of barrier to on-time vaccination, such as not havingtime for vaccine visits, financial difficulty, or other kinds of access barriers.  California's form is so easy, compared to getting the student's shots up to day money etc. access.  You might say these are vaccine refusers   by convenience.

One of the things that has bothered me about AB 2109 is that it doesn't really specify what kind of information needs to be shared with parents.  I asked Dr. Pan why the bill did not specify a curriculum, or if there would be a curriculum developed.

Dr. Pan responded with points I hadn't given enough consideration: that what works best in converting vaccine-hesitant parents to vaccine-accepting parents is a conversation that is unique to each set of parents.  While there will be common questions and fears, the real issue is to develop more trust and communication between the parent and the health care provider.  

(Later, a friend from the California Immunization Coalition suggested that when the bill passes,  the California Department of Public Health would likely develop a list of resources similar to that developed by the State of Washington.  Here's a copy of the Washington exemption form.   Here's a more robust form developed by the Immunization Action Coalition.)

Shannon Rosa asked a question of both Dr. Pan and Dr. Offit, about helping autism parents to understand that vaccines do not cause autism.  Dr. Pan spoke about taking parents' vaccine safety concerns seriously.  When the question of the MMR being causal in autism came up, the question was addressed by serious research, with multiple studies in multiple countries.  When the notion of thimerosal being causal in autism came up, again parents' concerns were taken seriously with multiple large-scale studies.  This huge research investment indicates how seriously the medical establishment takes vaccine safety.

Edited to add: two questions from the Moms Who Vax team, Karen Ernst and Ashley Shelby

 Karen Ernst  asked Dr. Pan about CA AB2109, specifically about the language and how parents were to report that they had had an interaction with a doctor.

Ashley Shelby  asked why naturopaths were included on the list.

The questions arose because Ernst and Shelby, who live in Minnesota, would like to have Minnesota's exemption law be strengthened.  Currently, exemptions only have to be notarized, and even that was threatened this year by an anti-vaccine legislator.

Dr. Pan responded to both questions.  The language was intentionally vague, as  the anti-vaccination activists had both attacked the language of the bill as it stands, and had submitted their own proposed amendments with more specific language.  As to the naturopaths, the bill allows only naturopaths who are practicing under the direction of a licensed MD.

At the end of the call, Dr. Pan brought up another anti-vaccination talking point, the so-called issue of "parental rights" -- in other words, parents' rights to direct their childrens'  medical care.  Pan indicated that vaccine advocates shouldn't let that assertion pass unchallenged. He called for vaccine advocates to vigorously present the opposing view: That parental rights end with the parents' own child.   Parents who refuse vaccination for their children are making choices for other people and their children--those too young to be vaccinated, those who cannot be vaccinated, those who are immune-compromiased.  These people have a right to health that vaccine-refusing parents endanger. 

Next I will post on Dr. Offit's remarks, on how the language we use for describing school vaccine exemptions is inaccurate and misleading.

Edited to add Shannon Rosa's tweet stream

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Listening to Amy Pisani, exec director of Every Child By Two, about vaccine exemptions affecting our national public health. #vaxfax

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Every Child By Two works with orgs nationwide to ensure our kids are vaccinated against vaccine-preventable disease #vaxfax

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Will be hearing from Dr. Richard Pan, pediatrician and state legislature member, on CA AB 2109, on tightening vaccine exemptions. #vaxfax

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Dr. Pan speaking now. Been in pediatric practice for over 10 yrs feels vaccinations = 1 of our century's most important pub health advances.

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Dr. Pan: Have vaccines been too successful? Parents no longer understand the consequences of vaccine-preventable disease, haven't seen them.

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa And then there's the Internet and Jenny McCarthy, promoting theories like vaccine- #autism causation that have been widely debunked.

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Parents come into his office after being scared by woo, but emphasizing benefits of vaccines is hard because evidence = lack of infection.

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa When parents have a chance to sit down with a health care professional, they generally make the right decision re #vaxfax.

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa So AB 2109 says that if you want to send your child to school unvaccinated, you have to have a conversation with a health care prof. 1st.

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa AB 2109 is about *ensuring* informed choice, so they understand broader effects of not vaccinating. #vaxfax

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa Vaccination rates are falling below herd immunity rates because of ant-vaccination scare-mongering. AB 2109 aims to counter that

Shannon Rosa @shannonrosa AB 2109 will be on CA Governer's desk but the end of this session, unfortunately celebrity anti-vaccination folks are muddying waters.

Summer Sightings: See it, Share it, Win it! « Shot of Prevention

My personal favorite image:

 

 

Summer Sightings: See it, Share it, Win it! « Shot of Prevention.

Summer is for traveling, and if you’ve been hitting the road lately, than perhaps you’ve seen these brilliant outdoor advertising images from Every Child By Two (ECBT).   If not, then be on the lookout, because for each summer sighting you can be entered to win a $25 Amazon gift card.

Every Child By Two (ECBT) has teamed up with the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) to put a clever spin on their Vaccinate Your Baby campaign.  Recently, billboards and bus shelter ads that communicate the importance of timely immunizations and the concept of “cocooning” infants through adult vaccination, are being spotted all across the United States.

And this summer Shot of Prevention is asking you to help them share the message! If you see any of these billboard or bus shelter posters, email them at shotofprevention@gmail.com to be entered in the Summer Sightings Sweepstakes.

More images and details at Shot of Prevention.

Was Paul Offit MD "Reprimanded by Congress"?

The short answer is that no, Dr. Offit has never been "reprimanded by Congress" for any reason.

This myth came up again today at LeftBrain/Rightbrain.

[Paul Offit] was reprimanded by Congress for voting on vaccine policies for which he had financial conflicts.

What actually did happen is that Dr. Offit served on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) from from October 1998 until June 2003.

In August 1999, the Congressional Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation into Federal vaccine policy; the investigation focused on possible conflicts of interest on the part of Federal policy-makers.  Why would a committee undertake such an investigation, if there wasn't a hint of a problem?  Because the committee was chaired by Rep. Dan Burton, the congressman who to this day believes in the vaccine theory of autism causation and is notably anti-vaccine.

Note the date, 1999.  This was during the "autism is vaccine injury" panic.  Do you think the investigation was unbiased?  I don't either.

The other half of the puzzle is the short-lived rotavirus vaccine Rotashield.  This vaccine  was licensed in August 1998, and withdrawn October 22, 1999, after concerns about an elevated occurance of intussusception among  children who received the vaccine. The CDC estimated that one to two additional cases of intussusception would be caused among each 10,000 infants who received the RotaShield vaccine. The incidence of intussusception was sufficiently rare that field trials of hundreds of thousands of children would have been required to detect this attribute of the vaccine.  In other words, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System worked.

The report, Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making, was released on August 21, 2000.  The report was critical of the CDC's policies and enforcement of policies, and used the conditions of committee members to illustrate the weak policies and lax enforcement.  

Here's what the actual report says about Dr. Offit:

Page 30:

Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and received a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he acts as a consultant to Merck.

Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.

Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, “I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.”

Hardly a "reprimand".

If you want to read the actual report yourself,   Download Conflicts_of_Interest_Aug_21_2000

Totally False in at Least Two Dimensions "New Study: Baby monkeys develop autism after routine CDC vaccinations"

 I have no idea why the Hewitson macaque-vaccine "study" is being presented as news, or as meaningful.  Hewitson's team's research (and ethics) were severely criticized from 2008 to 2010 by research scientists.  Also, I don't think either the amygdala growth study or the HepB study have been replicated.

First it's Catherine J. Frompovich at VacTruth on April 29, 2012:

Monkeys Get Autism-like Reactions to MMR & Other Vaccines In University of Pittsburgh Vaccine Study

Then Ethan A. Huff at Natural News picks up the beat  on May 6, 2012:

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms

Both stories go on to represent the Hewitson monkey studies as (a) fact (b) news.  They are neither.

No, the macaques in the study did not develop "autism like reactions".  No, you can't draw any conclusions from the studies.   All you can really tell is that twenty infant macaques (and maybe fewer) were subjected to invasive procedures and death -- for no benefit.

The Hewitson studies are confusing because of their history and the fact that the same monkeys are used to make different points.  

Here is a listing of the publications that used infant macaques injected with vaccines and that listed Hewitson as an author.

1. 2008: Poster presentation at the International Meeting For Autism Research (IMFAR) poster 3024:    Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Amygdala Growth and Opioid Ligand Binding: authors L. Hewitson, B. Lopresti, C. Stott, J. Tomko, L. Houser, E. Klein, C. Castro, G. Sackett, S. Gupta, D. Atwood, L. Blue, E. R. White, and A. Wakefield. "The objective of this study was to compare early infant cognition and behavior with amygdala size and opioid binding in rhesus macaques receiving the recommended childhood vaccines (1994-1999), the majority of which contained the bactericidal preservative ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid (thimerosal)". (Exposed to thimerosal,N=13 ; unexposed; N=3). (The "significant changes in bhavior after MMR" study) Conclusions: This animal model, which examines for the first time, behavioral, functional, and neuromorphometric consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen, mimics certain neurological abnormalities of autism.
2. 2008: Poster presentation at IMFAR poster 3028 Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Brain Stem Volume and Opioid Ligand Binding authors A. Wakefield C. Stott, B. Lopresti, J. Tomko, L. Houser, G. Sackett, and L. Hewitson. "The objective of this study was to compare brain stem volume and opioid binding in rhesus infants receiving the recommended infant vaccine regimen." (Exposed to thimerosal,N=13 ; unexposed; N=3). (The "delayed reflexes study") Conclusions: This animal model examines the neurological consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen. Functional and neuromorphometric brainstem anomalies were evident in vaccinated animals that may be relevant to some aspects of autism.
3. 2008:  Poster presentation at IMFAR poster 3033 Microarray Analysis of GI Tissue in a Macaque Model of the Effects of Infant Vaccination  authors S. J. Walker, E. K. Lobenhofer, E. Klein, A. Wakefield, and L. Hewitson.  Objectives:   This study was designed to evaluate potential alterations in normal growth and development resulting from the vaccine regimen that was in use from 1994-1999.  Specifically, this portion of the study was to compare the gene expression profiles obtained from gastrointestinal tissue from vaccinated and unvaccinated infants.  (Vaccinated, N=7;  Unvaccinated, N=2)  Conclusions:   We have found many significant differences in the GI tissue gene expression profiles between vaccinated and unvaccinated animals.  These differences will be presented and discussed.   
4. 2009 (October) Paper in NeuroToxicology; withdrawn February 2010: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight L. Hewitson, L. Houser, C. Stott, G. Sackett,  J. Tomko,  D. Atwood, L. Blue, E. R. White, and A. Wakefield.
5. 2010 Paper in Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):147-64. Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study. L. Hewitson, B. Lopresti, C. Stott,  NS Mason and  J. Tomko.  (This appears to be the same study as the poster presentation 3024, minus some authors. & adding NS Mason.)
6. 2010 Paper in Toxicol Environ Health A Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine: influence of gestational age and birth weight. Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER.J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(19):1298-313.PMID: 20711932 (this appears to be the same paper as the withdrawn NeuroToxicology paper with the subtraction of  Wakefield as a co-author).

On to the criticisms:

1. May 16, 2008 Kev at LeftBrain/RightBrain Monkeying Around This post introduces what posters are, in a scientific context.
2. May 17, 2008 Orac at Respectful Insolence Some monkey business in autism research (or why it is not a good idea to provoke Orac 
   1. In the biomedical field, poster presentations are the lowest form of "publication" of one's data. 
   2. The poster presentation only sketches out the methodology, and important 
   3. It's evident that this is really one study divided into MPUs (minimal publishable units) of 3.
   4. Why is the control group so small (3 monkeys) and the effect group so large?  How were individual monkeys assigned to control vs. condition groups? 
3. May 18, 2008 Kev at LeftBrain/RightBrain Laura Hewitson's Stinker, on all 3 IMFAR poster presentations:  Hewitson has severe and significant conflicts of interests (COI) that were not revealed, contrary to the IMFAR requirements.
   1. Her partner is a employee of Thoughtful House,
   2. Her co-author, Andrew Wakefield is (at the time of publication) chief researcher at Thoughtful House
   3. Her partner is on the Board of Directors of SafeMinds (the "thimerosal causes autism" organization)
   4. Hewitson's son has autism
   5. Hewitson and her partner are part of the Omnibus Proceeding--in other words, the Hewitson family are suing the government for compensation for their son's alleged vaccine-caused autism.
4. July 16, 2008 Emily Willingham at A Life Less Ordinary Autism: No Rats Will Be Harmed, But Keep An Eye on the Kids. Most of this post is about the ill-fated NIMH chelation for autism study,  but Willingham addressed some significant flaws in the first two poster presentations, namely, the undisclosed conflicts of interest, and sharply questioning the framing of the discussion:
   1. Willingham highlights  the connection between Thoughtful House and the 3 poster presentations, a conflict of interest that is not disclosed.
   2. Posters 3024 and 3028 use the phrase "Childhood vaccines are a possible causal factor in autism".  This is an astonishing assertion:  by 2008, there was  "no peer-reviewed published research confirming this statement--especially the "causal" part--and a substantial amount countering it".
   3. Poster 3024 asserts, and 3028 implies two things: (a) the majority of childhood vaccines contained thimerosal and (b)the thimerosal might be the vaccine component associated with autism.  This is simply silly on both counts: it is not true that "the majority" contained thimerosal; the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal; and pediatric vaccines became thimerosal-free in 2001.  
5. October 7 2009 Catarina Science Mom at JustTheVax 20 Monkeys, which discusses the withdrawn 2009 Hewitson HepB study in NeuroToxicology.  She finds that there are multiple procedural and study-design flaws that render the study almost worthless:
   1. The three IMFAR posters mentioned above are clearly part of the same set of monkey studies
   2. There was no randomization of the subjects.  A study either is randomized or not. 
   3. Since there was only one interpreter of the monkeys' behavior pre- and post-vaccine administration, no blinding was possible, introducing another layer of potential biase.
   4. It seems that an additional 4 control animals were added after the IMFAR poster presentations.  Rather than strengthening the study, the late addition of subject weakens study as it adds a possibly confounding variable.
   5. The authors failed to publish baseline biochemical data, such as blood mercury levels pre- and post-injection.
   6. The authors collected data on 18 behaviors and published tables on 13 behaviors.  H0wever,  only 3 reached statistical significance.
   7. The significant conflicts of interest of 3 authors (Hewitson, Wakefield, and Stott) are noted, with a particular emphasis on Stott.
   8. The study was funded by a collection of groups and individuals with vested interests in finding vaccines harmful to health and causal in autism.
6. October 7 2009 Orac at Respectful Insolence Some Monkey Business in Autism Research discussing the withdrawn 2009 Hewitson study in NeuroToxicology;
   1. "Even if the study was well designed and executed (which it is not), and even if the study conclusively showed delayed development of survival reflexes (which it does not), it is still a very, very, very long leap to conclude that vaccines and or thimerisol are responsible for increased autism rates in humans. 
   2. These "survival" reflexes (called "primitive reflexes" in humans) are present at birth in human infants and their  absence would be noted by any competent pediatrician.
   3. Absence or delayed appearance of "primitive reflexes" is not a feature of autism.
7. October 24, 2009 Prometheus at Photon in the Darkness A Made for Court Study? (This is another of Prometheus's master class in how to read and analyze scientific papers -- you would do well to study his technique)
   1. "Most fatal for this study – is that there was not an increase in human infants who were late to suck, root, etc. following the introduction of neonatal hepatitis B vaccination in 1991. Given that the “uptake” of this vaccine at birth was close to (and often exceeded) 90%, an effect of this magnitude would have been noted. Nor is there a difference between the US – which has continued hepatitis B vaccination at birth – and the UK – which almost never gives the hepatitis B vaccine at birth – in developmental delay or autism prevalence."
   2. "This current study, as well as the entire macaque research program by Hewitson, is a good example of terrible research. The subject numbers are far too small for any meaningful statistics, and the outcomes being followed are numerous and tricky with a random scatter of results not even consistent between different publications of the same research."
   3. "What we have is far worse than ideological reporting and spinning of the scientific research – apparently we have the ideological conduction of research in the first place. This is similar to the research program of Benveniste on homeopathy."
8. February 12, 2010 Prometheus at Photon in the Darkness Where are the Monkeys? (on the sudden withdrawal of the 2009 HepB paper in NeuroToxicology)
9. February 12, 2010 Orac at Respectful Insolence Wakefield's "Monkey Business" Hep B paper withdrawn? (on the sudden withdrawal of the 2009 HepB paper in NeuroToxicology)
10. July 16, 2010 Steven Novella at Neurologica Blog Terrible Anti-Vaccine Study, Terrible Reporting, on the 2010 paper in Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):147-64.Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study. 
    1. The number of subjects (9) and controls (2) is far far too small to determine anything.
    2. The authors "also makes multiple analyses (another red flag by itself), which means she can compare multiple variables looking for any difference. Then she invokes the sharpshooter fallacy and declares any change she does find to be clinically meaningful."
       
11. July 16, 2010 Sullivan at LeftBrain/RightBrain From IMFAR to Poland: How A Monkey Study Can Totally Change  In this post, Sullivan compares the withdrawn 2009 Neurotoxicology paper to the recently-published paper in 
    1.  Of 13 authors on the original abstract, only 4 remain
    2. A new author was added, N.S. Mason.
    3. In the Neurotoxicology paper, the study had data on 13 vaccinated monkeys. Now the number of monkeys is only 9. 
    4. The Neurotoxicology paper had data on 3 controls. Now it is only 2.
    5. In the Neurotoxicology paper, the vaccinated monkeys “showed attenuation of amygdala growth”
    6. In the Acta Neurobiol Exp paper, the vaccinated monkeys have larger amygdalas
    7. A commenter notes that the researchers adminstered  "the vaccines at four times the human rate
12. July 16, 2010 Sullivan at LeftBrain/RightBrain The genie is out of the bottle: Vaccines cause autism This is Sullivan's sarcastic commentary on how enthusiastic the "vaccines cause autism" brigade is over the Hewitson Acta Neurobiol Exp paper, "Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study."  Sullivan has the questions listed below, and concludes "Just another 16 monkeys giving their lives for nothing."
    1. Why is there such a large difference between the number of subject animals and the number of control animals?
    2. Why did the number of control subjects go from 4 to 2?  What happened to the other 2?
    3. Why did the "unexposed" monkeys' amygdalas shrink?
13. July 16, 2010 Kev at LeftBrain/RightBrain The genie is out of the bottle: part 2: More genies, more bottles  As it turns out, this issue of Acta Neurobiol Exp is devoted to "issues in autism", a notion proposed by Professor Dorota Majewska, who is a significant supporter of Andrew Wakefield; the editor missed the three questions that Sullivan posed.
14. July 16 2010 Orac at Respectful Insolence Too much vaccine/autism monkey business for me to be involved in--but evidently not Laura Hewitson
    1. Because all vaccines now are   thimerosal-free, Hewitson had to add thimerosal to the vaccines to produce its replication of the vaccine schedule from the 1990s. 
    2. Because Macaque monkeys mature faster than humans, the macqcques received in one year what humans receive in four years.
15. July 16 2010 ToddW at Harpocrates Speaks Newsflash!  Vaccines Cause Autism...If you are Scientifically Illiterate
    1. On the small sample size, ethics of animal experimentation, and institutional review: "If the sample size is going to be so small that no statistically significant or meaningful results can be found, then there is no reasonable justification for subjecting animals to the research"
16. July 26, 2010 Sullivan at LeftBrain/RightBrain Laura Hewitson has left the University of Pennsylvania
17. July 27, 2010 Emily Willingham at A Life Less Ordinary In the Name of Science