A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Paul A offit is a liar (with a vested interest in vaccines) and got caught



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 18th 08, 11:54 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default Paul A offit is a liar (with a vested interest in vaccines) and got caught

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c...fit-again.html

A few months ago, Paul Offit told some mistruths about the Poling case in
the NYT, and they ran Jon Poling's correction a few days later.

Offit has not stopped lying mistruthing and now Poling is correcting him
publicly for a second time, now in the New England Journal of Medicine.

One of the errors that Offit keeps repeating is that the Poling judgment was
a court decision (Offit's disciple Amanda Peet repeated this untrue
statement on GMA yesterday), which I have heard him state repeatedly since
Poling corrected him last spring. Offit's assertion is that these decisions
don't belong in the courts, but that they should only be made by doctors,
which is exactly how the Poling case was made. So then why would Offit be
complaining about something that actually worked the way that he said it
should work?

At first I thought that he was just not listening, assumed that it was a
court ruling and just shooting his mouth off with out thinking. But then I
realized that he is not claiming that the Poling decision was a court case
and dismissing court decisions to insulate the vaccine program from the
Poling decision, he was doing it to insulate Vaccine Inc. from all the forth
coming decisions from the Omnibus hearings and any of the other 5,000 cases
pending in vaccine court.

He knows that petitioners will be awarded judgments by the court and he is
trying to use his interviews on the Poling case front load his talking
points that delegitimatize the "unusual vaccine court".

This is all IMHO of course.

New England Journal of Medicine Volume 359:655-656 August 7, 2008

Vaccines and Autism Revisited

"To the Editor: In his Perspective article on a possible connection between
vaccines and autism, Offit (May 15 issue)1 speculates about my daughter,
Hannah, and repeats inaccuracies from a March New York Times opinion piece
that was officially corrected by the Times and our April 5 letter. By
omitting critical information from my March 6, 2008, statement, Offit
misrepresents my position. I said, "Many in the autism community and their
champions believe that the result in this case may well signify a landmark
decision as it pertains to children developing autism following
vaccinations. This still remains to be seen, but currently there are almost
5,000 other cases pending."

Offit's remarks about Hannah's case are not evidence-based. He has no access
to my daughter's personal medical records, legal documents, or affidavits.
In contrast, physicians from the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) who studied this information recommended that the government concede
Hannah's case. The clinical history Offit presents contains significant
inaccuracies, and the resulting conclusions are consequently flawed.

Offit confuses issues by comparing Hannah's case with unrelated decisions in
"vaccine court." The Office of the Secretary of DHHS, through the Department
of Justice, conceded Hannah's case. There was no courtroom hearing and no
decision from the "unusual vaccine court."

Offit is frequently cited regarding the "biologically plausible" theory that
simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines is safe. His opinion is
unsupported by clinical trials, much less investigations in potentially
susceptible subpopulations.

Despite the high frequency of mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic
children,2 studies have not established primary or secondary roles. To
explore this question, we need an immunization database for children with
metabolic disorders to establish safety guidelines3 and improve vaccine
safety for minority subgroups of children.

I agree with the statement of Bernadine Healy, former director of the
National Institutes of Health, who said, "I don't think you should ever turn
your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it
might show. . . . If you know that susceptible group, you can save those
children.

If you turn your back on the notion there is a susceptible group . . . what
can I say?"4 Also commendable is the new 5-year research plan of the
National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which will entail the study of minority
subpopulations, including patients with mitochondrial disorders.5

A strong, safe vaccination program is a cornerstone of public health.
Misrepresenting Hannah Poling v. HHS to the medical profession does not
improve confidence in the immunization program or advance science toward an
understanding of how and why regressive encephalopathy with autistic
features follows vaccination in susceptible children.


Jon S. Poling, M.D., Ph.D.
Athens Neurological Associates
Athens, GA 30606

Dr. Poling is the father of Hannah Poling and reports receiving consulting
or lecture fees from Pfizer, Eisai, Ortho-McNeil, Biogen, Teva, Immunex, and
Allergan. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter
was reported."
So now Offit has been twice publicly corrected in two of the highest profile
publications in the world, and from here on out if we hear Offit repeat the
"court case" misinformation, there can be no doubt that the man knows
exactly what he is doing and he is just a flat out liar.

Yesterday at the "Vaccinate Your Baby" press conference Offit said that
Bernadine Haley, former head of NIH who believes that the vaccine/autism
link may be real and it should be the focus of study, must not have done her
research, since she disagreed with him. He continues to lie about the
Poling case despite the recurrent corrections of Jon Poling a respected
Neurologist with Johns Hopkins credentials.

I think Offit is so used to just saying whatever he wants about anyone that
disagreed with his vaccine stance for a long time, with few consequences,
because when he started years ago it was only powerless parents that he was
degrading. He does not seem to have noticed that now that respected people
in main stream medicine are waking up to the problem, his blanket smearing
of people who take the theory seriously, and lying about the facts is now a
slap in the face of people much more respected than he is.

But I guess he has that book coming out in a month so there is no turning
back for him. He is all in and will be going out with a bang.

UPDATE: Don't miss Anne Dachel's post on the matter over at Age of Autism.

On August 7, the New England Journal of Medicine published the opposing
opinions of Dr. Jon Poling, father of Hannah Poling, and Dr. Paul Offit,
Infectious Disease Specialist from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, on
the Vaccine Court case in which the federal government conceded that
vaccines were a factor in the development of autism in Hannah. Titled,
Vaccines and Autism Revisited, the letters run in the "Correspondance"
section of NEJM. (Click HERE to read the August 7th piece)

In the May 15 NEJM Perspective section, Offit split every hair he could to
try and lessen the impact of the Poling case. He tried to convince the
public that there was no scientific basis for the concession. (Click HERE to
read the May 15th piece.) Offit's remarks led to the August 7 response by
Dr. Poling.

In his August 7 piece, Poling went after Offit's opinion about his
daughter's case using phrases like "Offit misrepresents my position,"
"Offit confuses issues," and "His opinion is unsupported by clinical
trials."
Poling also said that he agreed with the remarks made by former head of the
National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, on CBS News, who said,
'I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis
because you're afraid of what it might show. . . . If you know that
susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the
notion there is a susceptible group . . . what can I say?'

The fair and balanced NEJM then allowed Offit to respond to Poling at the
bottom of the article. Offit defended his remarks by claiming that the
science is on his side and the facts support his view. He made one stunning
comment. He brought up Healy's remarks about the need for further study of
a subgroup of children who might be damaged by vaccines. Offit wrote, "Now,
Poling and Healy are standard-bearers for the poorly conceived hypothesis
that children receive too many vaccines too early. As a consequence, some
parents are choosing to delay, withhold, or separate vaccines."

That was really a low blow. To claim that one of the top doctors in the
U.S. was promoting a "poorly conceived hypothesis" and that "the public
airing of that hypothesis caused thousands of parents to avoid the MMR; many
children were hospitalized and several died from measles as a result," was
really pitting doctor against doctor in the vaccine war. (Amanda Peet just
told us on Good Morning America, "Please don't listen to me. . . . Go to the
experts." Well, here they are and they don't agree!)

I had to go back to the remarks made by Healy on CBS Evening News (Click
HERE) on May 12 to figure out what exactly she said that could be described
as a "poorly conceived hypothesis." Soft-spoken and reasonable in her
conversation with CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, Healy called for more
studies on vaccines and autism. She said that we need to do the studies to
find out if there is a subgroup of children who are susceptible to a
particular vaccine, to vaccines plural, or to components in vaccines. She
urged scientists "to take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it."

Healy said nothing to undermine that vaccine program. She told the public,
"A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren't good." She firmly
stated that she didn't believe "the public would lose faith in vaccines."

We have the most heated controversy in medicine today over vaccines and
Healy addressed it by saying, "It is the job of the public health community
and of physicians to be out there and to say yes, we can make it safer
because we are able to say, this is a subset. We're going to deliver it in
a way we think is safer."

Sharyl Attkisson then brought up the fact that health officials will deny
there is a link between vaccines and autism. They say there's no evidence.

Healy, shaking her head, firmly stated twice, "You can't say that."

Why? Because they haven't studied "the population that got sick."

Healy said that she hasn't seen "major studies that focus on 300 kids who
got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of getting a vaccine."

Healy noted the primate and mouse studies that have been too quickly
dismissed. She challenged the conclusions of the IOM Report of 2004 where
we were told not to "pursue susceptibility groups." Healy said, "I really
take issue with that conclusion. The reason they didn't want to look for
those susceptibility groups was because if they found them, . . . that would
scare the public away."

Offit might think that the endless epidemiological studies have settled the
question, but Healy made it clear, "Populations do not test causality, they
test associations. You have to go into the laboratory."

Healy chided the medical community by saying, "The fact that there is
concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real
disappointment to me."

She ended a chilling comment about vaccines and the link to autism: "The
question has not been answered."

From his remarks, it's pretty obvious that Offit is opposed to any open
scientific inquiry. Healy didn't say that all children were receiving too
many too soon, as Offit claimed. She said we need to find that subgroup of
children.

The CDC studies that are always being promoted in the press haven't settled
a thing. The public is growing increasingly skeptical of health officials
and their claims. They don't want to risk the health of their children by
giving them vaccines with possibly damaging side effects. Healy's was the
refreshing voice of reason in this debate. Too bad Offit refused to listen.

Perhaps the ending of the Poling/Offit pieces said it all. After Poling's
remarks, he listed his conflicts from the lecturing and consulting fees he
had received from different pharmaceutical companies. At the end of
Offit's, all we see is "Children's Hospital of Philadelphia."

Here's the body copy from NEJM:

Vaccines and Autism Revisited

Related Article
by Offit, P. A.

To the Editor: In his Perspective article on a possible connection between
vaccines and autism, Offit (May 15 issue)1 speculates about my daughter,
Hannah, and repeats inaccuracies from a March New York Times opinion piece
that was officially corrected by the Times and our April 5 letter.

By omitting critical information from my March 6, 2008, statement, Offit
misrepresents my position. I said, "Many in the autism community and their
champions believe that the result in this case may well signify a landmark
decision as it pertains to children developing autism following
vaccinations. This still remains to be seen, but currently there are almost
5,000 other cases pending."

Offit's remarks about Hannah's case are not evidence-based. He has no access
to my daughter's personal medical records, legal documents, or affidavits.
In contrast, physicians from the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) who studied this information recommended that the government concede
Hannah's case. The clinical history Offit presents contains significant
inaccuracies, and the resulting conclusions are consequently flawed.

Offit confuses issues by comparing Hannah's case with unrelated decisions in
"vaccine court." The Office of the Secretary of DHHS, through the Department
of Justice, conceded Hannah's case. There was no courtroom hearing and no
decision from the "unusual vaccine court."

Offit is frequently cited regarding the "biologically plausible" theory that
simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines is safe. His opinion is
unsupported by clinical trials, much less investigations in potentially
susceptible subpopulations.

Despite the high frequency of mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic
children,2 studies have not established primary or secondary roles. To
explore this question, we need an immunization database for children with
metabolic disorders to establish safety guidelines3 and improve vaccine
safety for minority subgroups of children.

I agree with the statement of Bernadine Healy, former director of the
National Institutes of Health, who said, "I don't think you should ever turn
your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it
might show. . . . If you know that susceptible group, you can save those
children. If you turn your back on the notion there is a susceptible group .
.. . what can I say?"4 Also commendable is the new 5-year research plan of
the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which will entail the study of
minority subpopulations, including patients with mitochondrial disorders.5

A strong, safe vaccination program is a cornerstone of public health.
Misrepresenting Hannah Poling v. HHS to the medical profession does not
improve confidence in the immunization program or advance science toward an
understanding of how and why regressive encephalopathy with autistic
features follows vaccination in susceptible children.

Jon S. Poling, M.D., Ph.D.
Athens Neurological Associates
Athens, GA 30606

Dr. Poling is the father of Hannah Poling and reports receiving consulting
or lecture fees from Pfizer, Eisai, Ortho-McNeil, Biogen, Teva, Immunex, and
Allergan. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter
was reported.

References

Offit PA. Vaccines and autism revisited -- the Hannah Poling case. N Engl J
Med 2008;358:2089-2091. [Free Full Text]
Oliveira G, Ataíde A, Marques C, et al. Epidemiology of autism spectrum
disorder in Portugal: prevalence, clinical characterization, and medical
conditions. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007;49:726-733. [ISI][Medline]
Brady MT. Immunization recommendations for children with metabolic
disorders: more data would help. Pediatrics 2006;118:810-813. [Free Full
Text]
CBS News. The "open question" on vaccines and autism. May 2008. (Accessed
July 18, 2008, at
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05...y4090144.shtml.)
Draft ISO Scientific Agenda for NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention's Immunization Safety Office scientific
agenda: draft recommendations. April 4, 2008. In: Scientific review.
Washington, DC: National Vaccine Advisory Committee Vaccine Safety Working
Group, April 11, 2008:30. (Accessed July 18, 2008, at
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_...ons_080404.pdf.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The author replies: Poling implies that by omitting his phrase "many in the
autism community and their champions," I unfairly attributed the notion that
vaccines might cause autism to him alone. However, Dr. Poling's public
announcement of the DHHS concession to the press and his subsequent
appearances on national television and at autism conferences suggest that he
is, at the very least, a vocal centerpiece of that community.

Poling claims that I didn't have access to his daughter's medical records.
My information was based on a verbatim transcript of the DHHS concession,
which stated that his daughter had had frequent ear infections and a series
of viral infections early in life. These infections, which are a far greater
immunologic challenge than attenuated or inactivated vaccines, are not in
dispute.

Poling states that my assertion that the administration of multiple vaccines
is safe is an "opinion . . . unsupported by clinical trials." But studies of
concomitant use, which are required by the Food and Drug Administration
before licensure to show that new vaccines do not affect the safety or
immunogenicity of existing vaccines or vice versa, have clearly shown that
multiple vaccines can be administered safely.

Poling agrees with Healy that "you should [n]ever turn your back on any
scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show." However,
scientists have not been afraid to test the hypothesis that vaccines might
cause autism. Far from it: the ill-founded notion that the
measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism was tested in 10
epidemiologic studies. Unfortunately, the public airing of that hypothesis
caused thousands of parents to avoid the MMR; many children were
hospitalized and several died from measles as a result.1,2,3,4 Now, Poling
and Healy are standard-bearers for the poorly conceived hypothesis that
children receive too many vaccines too early. As a consequence, some parents
are choosing to delay, withhold, or separate vaccines. The problem here is
not a failure of scientists to consider hypotheses; rather, it is a failure
of the media and the public to distinguish hypotheses from scientific
evidence.

Paul A. Offit, M.D.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA 19104

References

Mulholland EK. Measles in the United States, 2006. N Engl J Med
2006;355:440-443. [Free Full Text]
McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O'Donovan C, Cafferkey MT. Measles
outbreak in Dublin, 2000. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:580-584.
[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Jansen VAA, Stollenwerk N, Jensen HJ, Ramsay ME, Edmunds WJ, Rhodes CJ.
Measles outbreaks in a population with declining vaccine uptake. Science
2003;301:804-804. [Free Full Text]
Smith MJ, Bell LM, Ellenberg SE, Rubin DM. Media coverage of the
measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to
MMR immunization rates in the United States. Pediatrics 2008;121:e836-e843.
[Free Full Text]

Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c...y-two-and.html


Sharyl Attkisson was generous to these three vaccine promoters in her piece.
She didn't even mention Offit's scolding by congress for his serious ethics
breaches and conflicts of interest during his time on the CDC's Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices. Nor did she mention the absurd safety
statements that the incoming head of the AAP, David Tayloe, has been making,
as he did on Good Morning America. Really there is enough here for hours of
in depth news magazine coverage or even a book or two.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
STUDY: Vaccines adsorbed onto aluminium salts are a more frequent cause of local post-vaccinal reactions than plain vaccines. Ilena Rose Kids Health 5 August 21st 07 10:26 AM
Kane's a pathological liar Doan's a pathologial liar. Greegor Spanking 22 January 22nd 07 04:42 AM
Vaccine Dangers and Vested Interests john Kids Health 0 March 7th 06 06:50 PM
HEY PAUL Bebelestrnge0721 Single Parents 44 May 7th 04 02:21 PM
Paul Fritz.. Fraud Fighting For Kids Child Support 7 November 18th 03 03:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.