Paul Offit Lies About Jake Crosby; Tara Palmore Throws Him Out and NIH Covers it Up
By Jake Crosby
Like Seth Mnookin did earlier this month, Paul Offit blatantly lied about me while giving a lecture. The congressionally reprimanded millionaire vaccine industrialist told a room full of people I was a “stalker,” and event organizer, Dr. Tara Palmore had me escorted out of the “Great Teachers” lecture given by Paul Offit at the NIH on December 14, now on Videocast.
My crime: Asking Dr. Offit a challenging question and then pointing out one of the fallacies in a statement he made after dodging my question. Drs. Offit and Palmore also had a little talk about me at the end of the lecture, which was recorded onto the VideoCast, unbeknownst to them.
It all began when I found out online that Paul Offit would be speaking at the NIH, part of the “Clinical Center Grand Rounds – Great Teachers Series,” sponsored by Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. The title of Dr. Offit’s lecture was “Communicating Vaccine Safety Science to the Public.” He’s also author of the now infamous claim that an infant can safely take 10,000 vaccines at once. So I took the metro out to the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, just as I did for the talk given by Fiona Godlee. As I took my seat, I saw Paul Offit in person for the first time.
Dr. Palmore – associate director of the Infectious Diseases Training Program for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease - gave a grand introduction to Dr. Offit and described how he has bravely taken on the “anti-vaccine movement” (even though most vaccine safety advocates are not against all vaccines). She called him a “Rock star in the pediatrics and infectious diseases communities.” He’s more like Ronald McDonald for the vaccine industry. She also introduced his son who was with him and looked college-age.
Despite the estimated $10 million Paul Offit earned from RotaTeq vaccine sales and despite his Merck-sponsored chair at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, his lecture began with his incredible claim that he has no relevant financial disclosures. He even received a congressional reprimand for taking part in voting on vaccine policies for which he is conflicted.
Here’s what he said instead:
“I’m sorry. I have no financial conflicts of interest. This is my only real conflict is that I am a Philadelphia Eagles season ticket holder, which gives me an inability to actually effectively assess that team.”
When Paul Offit’s presentation ended, the question and answer session began. A woman sitting near me asked Dr. Offit if he recommends “scare tactics” (which he favored). At that point I went to the microphone, ready to ask my question.
Even though there were already two men lined up behind another microphone, Dr. Offit looked directly at me, which I took as a cue to ask my question. So I began (42:59 on VideoCast):
“Hi, Dr. Offit - Jake Crosby - GW School of Public Health and Health Services, I’m a grad student there actually studying epidemiology for an MPH.”
Just then, as you can see in the VideoCast, Dr. Palmore – in a white lab coat – bolted from her second row seat and dashed towards the back of the room, out of camera shot. (43:12) That’s how quickly she decided I had to go – all I’d stated was my name and where I go to school. Fortunately, I had time to ask a quick question before being evicted.
“You said that Dr. Andrew Wakefield said that the MMR vaccine causes autism. He never said that actually. He said that the safety data to back up the MMR vaccine’s use was inadequate and seven years later the Cochrane Review basically came to that same conclusion. What do you have to say to that?”
Paul Offit responded, without addressing his misrepresentation of Dr. Wakefield:
“What I would say is what I said before which is that those 14 studies have looked very carefully at whether or not MMR vaccine is associated with autism - has clearly shown that it doesn’t. I think the second thing that is clear is that if you look at the cause or causes of autism I think an enormous amount of data has come up with that. We now know that there is a genetics [sic] to autism. We also know there can be environmental influences, but when those environmental influences occur, they have to occur in the first or second trimester - take your pick - valproic acid, congenital rubella virus, thalidomide. So I think that those…”
At this point, Dr. Palmore’s hand can be seen resting on his podium (44:01).
She shadowed him for the rest of the talk, literally. Her shadow hovered next to him – as if to guard him from other unauthorized questions.
Seeing that he dodged my question about Andrew Wakefield and instead rehashed several of his talking points, I decided to challenge him on one of them.
“Well those are prenatal but that doesn’t mean that everything that could possibly cause autism has to be in the womb just because those two exposures just so happen to be prenatal.”
I mistakenly said “two” instead of “three,” but it hardly mattered. As with my original question, he did not address my point at all. This time, however, he got personal.
“So maybe, just for those of you…because this is a good teaching point actually.
There are many things you encounter when you stand up for vaccines. You get, uh…sometimes you get hate mail. Sometimes you get sued. And sometimes you have a stalker. I have mine; his name is Jake Crosby.” [pointing at me as if to make his lie true].
“And Jake Crosby routinely…”
“Excuse me,” I responded, “you came - I already live in the DC area - you came here to speak. I just rode the metro. I only - this is the first time I’ve seen you.”
[My only other contact with him was a brief email exchange two years ago in which I asked him to verify a blogger’s claim. He did so.]
As I was trying to defend myself, Tara Palmore tried to shout me down, “Alright, we need to move on!” Then an event coordinator came, put his hand on my shoulder and told me to leave, though his voice was not included in the recording, nor was I shown on the video being led out:
“Let’s go,” he said.
As I was turning away from the microphone, Paul Offit continued, now unchallenged:
“So what Jake Crosby does is he routinely writes articles on Age of Autism vilifying me. Jake doesn’t like me, so, but you know – life goes on.”
“Life goes on,” he says philosophically - as his henchman escorts me out - but thanks for plugging Age of Autism, Dr. Offit.
Of course, it’s okay for Paul Offit, the vaccine industry’s number one spokesman, to vilify Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, Oprah Winfrey, David Kirby, Myron Levin, parents of vaccine-injured children and me.
As I was being led out of the room, a woman in the audience said:
“…I have heard Andrew Wakefield a number of times from a podium such as that say ‘MMR causes autism!’”
“No, he hasn’t,” I said back, as she was obviously lying to cover for the ultimate liar in the room.
“Yes! He has!”
Of all the people who stood up to ask Paul Offit questions, I was the only one who was not shown on camera. The scene of me being forced out of the “Great Teachers” lecture did not make the final cut – maybe because it would make the “teacher” look not so great.
I later saw on the VideoCast that Offit’s “stalker” claim was believed by audience members - just like his other lies.
“Hi, thanks for your talk and congratulations on having a stalker,” a man said.
Paul Offit replied:
“I think that’s when you’ve made it! You know?”
Dr. Offit seemed to be taking pride in his lie. Having been sued twice already for defamation, he just doesn’t seem to learn. Calling someone a stalker, according to Maryland Law, is a very serious accusation.
The question that directly followed mine was probably not what Dr. Offit was hoping for. An apparent acquaintance of his, “Phil” lamented that it’s the highly educated parents who are vaccinating less and that “newly minted pediatricians” are less enthusiastic about vaccines than older doctors. Perhaps that’s because younger doctors are more likely to have grown up seeing all the chronic illnesses that affect today’s children.
Later, a graduate student played teacher’s pet to the “Great Teacher”:
“So I’ll try to rescue the good name of graduate students by asking a real question.”
But his “real question” had nothing to do with the lecture and was completely self-serving:
“I’m trying to figure out what I wanna be when I grow up as a graduate student. So whose job is it and are there jobs in this field to try to bridge the gap between formal science education taking place, K-12, college, grad school so on and the people who had their last science classes 20-30 years ago from books that were 20-30 years out of date then. So whose shoulders should these fall upon? Are there potential opportunities for jobs there?”
Offit replied, “I’m not sure I’m the best person to answer that question.”
Too bad the job of kicking people out for asking Dr. Offit a question he can’t answer is already taken. Throwing me out of such lectures has apparently become pharma’s new strategy; Seth Mnookin just recently booted me out of a public conference on ethical research.
I find it quite funny, given that the day before Dr. Andrew Wakefield's lecture at Brandeis University, pharma’s online mouthpiece David "Orac" Gorski blogged:
I'd like to see a bunch of skeptics show up, politely listen to Andrew Wakefield's talk, and then during the questions and answers session ask him the hard questions.
One such person showed up, asked questions, and interrupted Dr. Wakefield twice (while confusing the Lancet paper with an entirely different study). Yet no one attending the lecture was thrown out.
Not surprisingly, David Gorski does not support asking “hard questions” of Paul Offit. Gorski supports shutting up the people who ask them as he made clear when he blogged about Offit’s talk, lauding him for lying that I am a “stalker.”
But while Offit’s poor performance may be supported by his priggish fans, history suggests it will not help his image.
After Seth Mnookin kicked me out of his PRIMR talk, Dr. Judy Stone – a fan of Mnookin’s and no fan of mine - admitted earlier this month via Twitter:
some in audience would have liked to hear both sides
One person who I am especially pleased was in the audience at Paul Offit’s talk was his son, witnessing firsthand how his father deals with questions he can’t answer and the people who ask them.
Really telling was Offit’s answer to the final question:
“…we now require parents sign a consent, a form of consent, each time their child receives a vaccine…there are four papers given to you. Each one has three sentences about why you would want that vaccine and then the rest of the page about why you wouldn’t… I’m just curious if we can get rid of it. That would be helpful. Thank you.”
Offit replied:
“Well we’re never going to be getting rid of it, I can tell you that. I mean, the vaccine information statements sheets are a matter of federal law. That federal law would have to be overturned. That’s not going to happen…I couldn’t agree more with you – it’s like three lines of you know, ‘yeah, the disease is bad,’ but here’s what could happen…I…it just…if you really read that I couldn’t believe why anybody would get a vaccine! [laughing] It’s, it’s, it’s awful and I’m not sure what’s going to make it go away, but it’s not going away anytime soon.”
Yes, covering up vaccine injuries is okay, just like throwing someone out who asks a challenging question is also okay. To Paul Offit, the ends justify the means. It’s all about protecting vaccine industry profits.
Speaking of profits, after he claimed to have no financial conflicts to disclose at the beginning of his lecture, he then bragged about his involvement in the development of the rotavirus vaccine. He also had a lot to say about vaccines and autism and brought up Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet paper, misstating that it had eight subjects; in reality it had 12, just eight whom had developed autism shortly after receiving their MMR vaccinations. Dr. Offit also falsely stated there were only eight subjects in the Lancet paper when he appeared on The Colbert Report nearly a year ago.
He then attempted to make a joke about the Lancet paper:
“Just as a tip for future epidemiologists, there were actually eight study subjects and 13 authors, I think you should always have more study subjects than authors.”
But Offit then went on to acknowledge that it was a “simple case series” and not a study. Indeed, it was only good for hypothesis generating, not hypothesis-testing. There was nothing about this paper’s subject size that made it invalid, in contrast to the talking points of Offit and friends. The reason there were so many authors was because the children were so sick that they required a variety of medical care from many different specialists.
Throughout Paul Offit’s lecture, he claimed that Andrew Wakefield said that the MMR vaccine causes autism, including at the March 1998 press conference at the Royal Free Hospital; a transcript of Wakefield’s talk proves otherwise:
“It’s a moral issue for me. I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination, until this issue has been resolved.”
Nowhere in that quote did Dr. Wakefield say the MMR vaccine causes autism, rather that its safety was understudied. At that time in the UK, the MMR was available in the form of three separate shots, the use of which he supported.
Dr. Offit said that Dr. Wakefield’s Lancet paper was “bad science” but wouldn’t say why. What struck me was that Offit completely avoided Brian Deer and the BMJ’s fraud allegations.
Dr. Offit said of Dr. Wakefield:
“Andrew Wakefield is reassuring because he's immutable. He has a belief much as one holds a religious belief. I mean, he looks up at that light and he sees a truth. And that truth is that MMR vaccine causes autism. Period. And it doesn't matter what people say. It doesn't matter what the data show. He knows this to be a truth. It's a belief system. And science is never that, science is an evidence-based system. And if you ask him the question - I know this because I've asked him this question - 'Is there a study that can be done that tells you your hypothesis is wrong?' He would say 'no.' What scientist says that?”
I emailed Dr. Wakefield asking him to comment on the above quote. He did not recall having any such exchange. He did, however, say of Dr. Offit:
His use of "would" to imply an inclination rather than "Wakefield said no" is interesting. It appears to reflect his belief rather than having any basis in fact - more from the gospel according to Paul.
Studies that aim to convince people of a particular point of view - such as autism and vaccines being unrelated - are tobacco science. And yet the NIH’s director of Strategic Planning for Vaccine Research who formerly worked for Merck, Dr. Gordon Douglas, said that’s exactly what such studies finding no link set out to do:
"In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.”
Clearly, this is an anti-scientific, morally bankrupt position Offit supports. He cited a dozen such studies he claims show the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, the first being Brent Taylor’s, which ignored the first children to receive the MMR vaccination in the UK –and in doing so – ignored increasing autism rates that correlated with MMR’s introduction. Taylor also did not mention a cluster of reported parental concern about their children within five months after that vaccination and he turned down a request by Dr. Bernard Rimland to independently assess the study data. The second author for that study, Elizabeth Miller, sat on the Joint Committeee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) that approved a brand of the MMR vaccine knowing it can cause viral meningitis. She continues to try to cover up the link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
Offit’s list of references also included the study by indicted fraudster, Poul Thorsen, that did not report that the MMR vaccine is associated with a 45% increased risk for an autism diagnosis and a 2.5 increased risk two years after administration of the MMR vaccine. In fact, the risk of autism in children who received the MMR vaccine at all categorized ages was higher than in the non-MMR-vaccinated group. When McGill biostatistician Dr. Samy Suissa sent a letter pointing this out to the New England Journal of Medicine, they censored it from publication. Finally, Offit included the Smeeth et al. study, which the authors knew well in advance was too underpowered to determine if the MMR vaccine is associated with autism, yet it’s continually used as evidence of no link. The rest of the studies Offit cited were thrown out as uninformative either by the 2005 Cochrane Review, the recent 2011 IOM Report, or both. Indeed, all of these studies were created to cover-up a link between autism and vaccines.
Paul Offit, who consistently opposes debate against his point of view, claimed that Evidence of Harm author David Kirby should not have been allowed on NBC’s Meet the Press to debate Harvey Fineberg, the President of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), of which Offit is now a member.
Some background on the IOM: In 2004, the institute released a report with a preconceived conclusion that mercury-based Thimerosal in vaccines does not cause autism. The IOM Committee Chairwoman, Marie McCormick, said way back in 2001 that the committee “will never come down that it [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal. The report relied mostly on the fudged studies of Poul Thorsen and colleagues. McCormick now sits on the National Vaccine Advisory Council with James Mason, the former CDC director who is now a trustee of a group that claims to faith-cure homosexuality. Defending his institute’s bogus report, IOM President Fineberg lied on Salon that none of the review panelists had ties to CDC or pharma when many of them did. Pharmaceutical companies continue to be protected from all vaccine liability by federal law.
Offit dismissed David Kirby’s meticulously written book, Evidence of Harm as “paranoid conspiracy theorist” and dismissed Kirby as having no “expertise,” even though Offit fully supports Seth Mnookin writing on the subject when his only expertise on injections is the illegal kind. Dr. Offit even lied that Kirby’s book was “paid for” by SafeMinds, which he dubbed an “anti-vaccine group.”
Paul Offit then explained why he appeared on The Colbert Report but did not accept an invitation to appear on Oprah:
“But you can’t go on these shows, tempting as it may be, because basically Oprah is there to tell a story. Her story has three roles to play. There’s the hero, the victim and the villain. Jenny [McCarthy] is the hero; her son is the victim. This leaves only one role for you. So you can’t…I mean, you’re just the guy to tell her she’s wrong. And, and she knows the cause of autism; you don’t. She has many cures for autism; you have none. You’re just the guy to say no.
And to be completely politically incorrect, it is a studio audience full of women. You just don’t go on that show and tell a woman she’s wrong. Sorry, it doesn’t work.”
Of course, McCarthy’s son, Evan, is a victim because he nearly died of a seizure disorder and regressed into autism following his MMR vaccine. Medical treatments not sanctioned by Dr. Offit successfully recovered Evan from autism, though not from his seizure disorder.
Dr. Offit told us that if there is anyone who could help the vaccine industry, it is Stephen Colbert, because:
“Nothing dismisses an argument better than humor.”
This is just further proof that Dr. Offit’s main objective is to dismiss an argument, not address or look at it. He also said that Colbert’s father was an immunologist. No kidding - according to the 2009 book “Vital Signs in Charleston,” a history of the Medical University of South Carolina edited by Carolyn B. Matalene and Katherine E. Chaddock:
Dr. James W. Colbert had joined the faculty as the first vice-president and provost, and he envisioned a new integration of medical education and medical research to make MUSX a nationally recognized academic institution. He began by recruiting prominent researchers. One of the first was his friend Dr. Albert Sabin, famous for developing the live polio vaccine that eliminated the crippling disease in America.
Ironically, Sabin’s live polio vaccine proved to cause polio paralysis in some recipients and was eventually replaced with the inactivated version. Also ironic is that James Colbert died in 1974, before vaccine manufacturers were indemnified against litigation and the vaccine schedule exploded.
Stephen Colbert is named in the book’s acknowledgements for his interview about his father. The comedian is apparently the vaccine industry’s response to Bill Maher and Jim Carrey.
Offit described meeting Colbert:
“People say he never goes out of character, but he does. He’s kind enough to meet with you before the show and say ‘I play a character. I’m going to stay in character the whole show. Don’t let my character get away with anything. I mean, I believe you. I agree with you. So don’t let me get away with anything.’ It makes it a lot easier, but believe me he can kill you if he wants. He’s a very smart guy and very science-oriented.”
Colbert may be funny, but the swat team of Offit and Palmore is also quite entertaining. They had a little talk about me after everyone was told to leave the room for pizza; Offit started the exchange - caught on camera (59:42).
“I saw him earlier; I saw him sitting there earlier.”
“You did?”
“I was about three-slides into it.”
“You signaled me; I didn’t realize it. I’m sorry.”
“No, no, I didn’t signal you. It was really too late.”
And thus ended the “Great Teacher’s” lecture.
Jake Crosby has Asperger Syndrome and is a contributing editor to Age of Autism. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a BA in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy. He currently attends The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services where he is studying for an MPH in epidemiology.
An aristocrat or just "stuck-up"?
Posted by: For Benedetta | January 22, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Jake;
You have listened to Dr Offit more than I have, but from just the little that I have listened to him on the internet -- I know that he is an aristocrat.
He does not see you has a student that has accomplished extrodianary things, not only in your studies, but in your passion, has become a voice for a good cause, and on top of all this you have over come, but still fighting an illness. Life has been handed to this aristocrat and he feels he is entitled.
Dr. Offithas the attitude of the old aristocrat. There are those who ruled and those that serve because of genes and God made it that away. God did not mean that the ruling class and the serving class should converse. As far as Offit is concerned he is the ruling class because God gave him the superiour brain. He will not talk to those that are not his equal -- That is why he talked to Mary and not to you.
This illness was bad enough and now we have to fight people's attitudes too. My son will be out of school in six months and is smart and sensitive, and human as anyone else, we are in for a world of hurt.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM
I don't see how these people can go to hear him speak and not ask themselves "hmmm should I go read actual medical studies or just take this guys word?" All they'd have to do is read the studies on vaccines to see that they're fraudulent. No one reads the actual studies!! I can't find a single legitimate pro-vaccine study and I've been looking for years.
Posted by: keith | January 22, 2012 at 09:35 AM
I like to refresh my memory about this from time to time:
"An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled 'Dr. Paul Offit Responds' contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit’s statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report 'How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?' July 25, 2008....Offit told the OC Register that he provided CBS News 'the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck.' However, documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck, including a $1.5 million Hilleman chair he sits in that is co-sponsored by Merck. According to the CBS News’ documentation recently reviewed by the OC Register, the network requested (but Offit did not disclose) the entire profile of his professional financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including: The amount of compensation he’d received from which companies in speaking fees; and pharmaceutical consulting relationships and fees. The CBS News documentation indicates Offit also did not disclose his share of past and future royalties for the Merck vaccine he co-invented."
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/correction-296910-dated-entitled.html
Posted by: Carol | January 07, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Paul Offit has covered the Big Pharma trail for some time now. Conveniently, he downplays cancer-causing SV40, autism, vaccine reactions, etc., and I'm sure he makes a pretty penny doing so.
Posted by: Jeffry John Aufderheide | December 31, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Paul Offit's picture is worth a thousand words. His mouth is tightly shut in a thin line, and his jaw looks tense. It looks like his teeth are clenched but I can't be sure. His facial expression reminds me of his stubborn stance on his sacred cow, one-size-fits-all vaccines, and his stubborn denial that they do no harm. Then how come less than two days, after my daughter's four-month shots, did she become allergic to her milk-based formula? Then over the next 14 months, we discovered severe allergies to peanuts, nuts, and strong allergies to milk, eggs, chicken, beef, ETC. She even threw up rice! We had a similar experience with my son. The doctor kept vaccinating, insisting it wasn't related until I finally said enough. No more vaccines for my children. Too many, too soon! The timing was no coincidence!
Posted by: Lori | December 30, 2011 at 08:50 PM
Hi Carol,
Thanks so much for the link.Dr Wakefield had requested a
debate on vaccine issues with mr.prOffit,he had not responded yet.Porcine viruses (one and two)showed up in his Rotateq vaccines.Where this contamination came from? Virus 2
causes wasting disease in pigs or Necrotic Enterocolitis.
Both vaccines are still on the market,because "benefits
outweigh the risk";to the stock holders or to the patients?
Mr.prOffit needs time to review his old textbooks and needs to brush up on on the immune, gut and brain connections.
Posted by: oneVoice | December 29, 2011 at 07:29 PM
me love you Barry, we are on the same page~ That's all I have to say, LOL
Posted by: kathy blanco | December 29, 2011 at 05:57 PM
I think you are very brave.
Posted by: Lisa | December 29, 2011 at 02:12 PM
You can tell a lot by the way a person characterizes other people's arguments. If he presents a cartoon version of another's arguments ("conspiracy theory," "religious belief"), then I know his own arguments are weak. If he presents his opponent's strongest arguments fairly, then his own arguments are probably strong. This is a big difference between Offit and Wakefield. Wakefield presents his opponents' arguments better than they can themselves.
Here's one of my favorite Wakefield talks:
http://www.vaccinesafetycoalition.com/event-video.html
Posted by: Carol | December 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM
The rhetoric of the person commenting under the name "Lawrence" bears a striking resemblance to that of a frequent commenter on the Autism Speaks forum – a man who has never admitted to receiving so much as a flu shot, one time citing the cost of the shot as prohibitive.
But money is no object when it comes to vaccinating other people's children. He vigorously defends doctors who administer many vaccines at once to tiny infants, and he finds no fault with pediatricians who vaccinate babies who are ill at the time of their shots or who were born premature. Every shot given is “evidence-based” no matter how recklessly administered. To advocate against vaccinating a baby with an ear infection would be considered "anti-vaccine."
He reveres Paul Offit, frequently parroting his arguments which are fraught with contradictions, distortions, evasions, omissions, ad hom attacks and outright lies. “Lawrence’s” MO is to post articles sympathetic to the "neurodiverse" point of view while systematically attacking autism parents who consider autism tragic, who support biomedical treatments or who criticize vaccines, calling such parents hysterical, obsessed, and even going so far as to compare them to holocaust deniers.
He is well-protected by Autism Speaks which has evicted many autism parents from its forum for not following rules about “respect."
Posted by: He doesn't know Jack about autism | December 29, 2011 at 11:43 AM
I thought the most interesting part of Offit's talk was in the very beginning when he described developing the rotavirus vaccine. I had no idea the process was so detailed, so tedious, so "prove this", "prove that". Oh and what about the packaging - does that affect the contents?
That's a lot of time, energy and money to prove something is safe and effective.
IMO
Posted by: Sincerely | December 29, 2011 at 05:43 AM
Wow, Offit is such a miserable coward. And this is the "rock star" that industry gushes about? Sick.
Posted by: Sylvia | December 29, 2011 at 02:44 AM
This ISN'T about 'Lawrence' -Good riddance to him I say- but just in case any AoA readers are confused by what he said about ethyl and methyl mercury:-
"If you actually cared to research the real data that is available. As to the comments regarding mercury, the difference between ethyl & methyl mercury has been stated again, and again, and again, and again, and again - so if you don't get it, you don't get it."
This is a complex subject and involves even more complicated stuff about metabolic pathways in humans and animals. Don't bother with researching the so called 'data'; there is tons of it, much of which is very similar to the stuff produced by the 'tobacco scientists' to prove that smoking is good for you.
All you need to know about Thiomersal is that it is almost 50% mercury and mercury is a proven powerful neurotoxin, a fact acknowledged by goverments in terms of waste disposal and chimney emissions laws, but mysteriously ignored in relation to mercury containing vaccines injected into tiny babies and toddlers.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | December 28, 2011 at 07:58 PM
This is wonderful to know that Mr. "For Profit" Offit reads this blog regularly! I'm happy that he plugged Age of Autism as well.
How could PrOffit get away with saying that he "has no financial conflicts of interests"? I wonder if his son was proud of his father for that untruth. Surreal, really. Wouldn't his son know that his father made millions off of a vaccine? Wouldn't his son know that he makes money being a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical companies?
Interesting as well that honest questions are met with disregard and a need to yank people out of meetings?
The fact that these psychos make jokes about people like Jake who simply stand up to ask questions of them is quite telling. You can almost feel them squirm. They know. They know that vaccines cause harm to babies. They know that they are partially responsible. I wonder if they quickly remove those who are asking the questions in order to squelch the guilty feelings that have to come to them. There is no way that they don't know that babies are injured and they are covering it up.... I hope it's done out of guilt... either that or we are dealing with true psychopaths here.
Posted by: Susie Q | December 28, 2011 at 07:58 PM
Lawrence is gone - his message is abundant elsewhere - not necessary here. We wish him a happy healthy New Year and move on - K
Posted by: Managing Editor | December 28, 2011 at 07:41 PM
Jake you give me so much hope. Thank you for all that you do for the community.
Posted by: owntruth | December 28, 2011 at 06:26 PM
Lawrence,
Like seriously, you do realize that we all know you're a troll.....right??? I don't know if your new to the troll game, or if you're just particularly bad at it . But you'd do well to ply your trade elsewhere, because people here can smell a troll from a mile away.
My childs' vaccine injury (..or autism as you probably call it) has changed his life forever, and it didn't have to happen. I am 100% anti vaccine, and I have no problem whatsoever admitting that. In fact, when you consider what they did to my son, I believe that I'd deserve to be called an idiot if I said I was anything else but.
I may be limited in the ways that I can help my son now, but I'll do anything I can to make sure other innocent children don't suffer the fate that mine did. And just so we're clear Lawrence, the main reason my son was injured, is is that people like you kept the truth from getting to me.
If you disagree with me, then by all means, produce a single shred of scientific evidence which PROVES, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that any vaccine has ever prevented a disease of any kind. If you can do that, then I will gladly change my any-vaccine position, and shut my mouth on this issue forever.
if you can't do that, then I would appreciate you shutting yours.
Posted by: Barry | December 28, 2011 at 05:33 PM
Lawrence wrote:
[“Okay, I'll bite - if the article was about car safety, I would expect to see a list of concrete & scientifically supported actions, improvements, etc. that could be proposed and tested to show that they would in fact make a car safer. Or, a minimum, recommendations for what cars are safer than others.”]
Lawrence, first of all Jake's article is about Offits’ unwillingness to allow honest debate in a public setting and his misrepresentation of fact. As far as car safety goes, the government does not mandate car use, does not penalize those who choose not buy them, and does not criticize those who question their safety. I would also suspect that manufacturers spend m time and resources testing them, knowing they are monetarily liable for injury if they cut corners.
[“Also, in this case, you are recommending that people don't drive cars until they are 100% safe (which, of course, they never can be in all situations).”]
I have never seen in any of Jake’s articles where he suggests people do not vaccinate. You are not being intellectually honest. There are many commentors who may have done so but lets stick to your original accusation that Jake is “anti-vaccine”.
[“And finally, I can't imagine what issue you would have in supporting the tetanus & rabies vaccines - unless you are either unable or unwilling to support any vaccines, in any situation.”]
I don’t know how Jake feels but I can tell you that I had a doctor tell me that there has never been a case of tetanus in a person who has had at only one tetanus shot – boosters every 10 years are unnecessary. I also think that if a parent believes that they will able to keep their infants out of animal feces (only way to get tetanus) until their bodies and immune systems are more well developed, they should have the CHOICE to do so. As for rabies vaccine, I did not know that it was a routinely administered recommended vaccine – have you had it yet?
[“Of course, given that any public support of vaccines (regardless of type) by AoA or its supporters would upset various anti-vaccine constituencies (and monetary supporters), I guess I would already know the answer to the question.”]
Again, Jake has nothing to do with the views of AoA commenters. I do think you are likely correct in assuming that there are commenters here that would be strongly passionate about recommending zero vaccines – but just as many who might say only single vaccines, later in childhood, or even just taking into consideration the current health status of the person (crazy idea, I know) – but to generalize our collective ideology in order to ignore the real issue of allowing honest debate regarding vaccines is simply dodge ball on your part.
[“I doubt this will make it out of moderation, but if you truly want an honest dialogue, you must be able to at least allow for opinions that don't jive with your own.”]
Now there is a mouthful!!! An honest dialogue is all Jake Crosby was asking Paul Offit and Seth Mnookin for, and he was asked to leave both conferences. If you truly believe what you just wrote, get your hero Paul Offit to debate the issue, in public, where he has no ability to just ask people to leave when, as you say, he is not “able to at least allow for opinions that don't jive with your (his) own.”
Lawrence, I am looking forward to your response, but please stick to the subject of the honest dialogue that Jake is looking for, and why you think that Offit does not need to have one.
Posted by: Tim Kasemodel | December 28, 2011 at 05:15 PM
Given the reputation that has been garnered with the rather draconian moderation policies you have, I'd think my concerns were rather valid.
I'd also say that your questions could be answered here:
http://antiantivax.flurf.net/
If you actually cared to research the real data that is available. As to the comments regarding mercury, the difference between ethyl & methyl mercury has been stated again, and again, and again, and again, and again - so if you don't get it, you don't get it.
And lastly, and I'll leave it at that - if you'd take your chances with tetanus (10% untreated survival rate) over the vaccine, I'm quite frankly shocked.
Posted by: Lawrence | December 28, 2011 at 05:13 PM
Lawrence, I think the things you're asking for have been provided in the article above - e.g., that it's safer to give vaccines separately than vaccines given all at once and that it's safer to give vaccines without mercury than those with the neurotoxin. As John Stone already made clear to you, however, it is not AoA's role to promote certain vaccines.
Frankly, I think for you to be asking for "scientifically supported actions" is utterly laughable when Offit and his colleagues have essentially been busted for skirting vaccine safety science to cover-up vaccine injury.
Even more laughable is your asking for an "honest dialogue" under an article I've written about getting kicked out of Offit's talk, despite asking a perfectly reasonable question and having it ignored and then making a perfectly reasonable point and then getting lied about attacked.
You, in contrast, have had all three of your comments make it through moderation. This is in spite of the fact that what you've repeatedly asked for has been provided to you at length by myself and other commenters. Instead of acknowledging this, you've accused us of demanding 100% safety, of opposing all vaccines, and made some snide remark about the monetary contributions this site receives through donors.
You are not interested in "honest dialogue"; you are interested in trolling.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | December 28, 2011 at 05:12 PM
Lawrence you started off OK then dipped into the usual slights and jabs - including the ubiquitous, "I doubt this will get out of moderation." Le sigh.... Our sponsors do not control our content, nor would they want to in any fashion. You can find the answers to all your questions by reading our thousands of posts. Start with Exclusives, then tackle Blaxill and Olmsted, then Stone and Conrick and work your way down our list of contributors. Happy New Year.
(PS) Tetanus is loaded with mercury - still
Posted by: Managing Editor | December 28, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Okay, I'll bite - if the article was about car safety, I would expect to see a list of concrete & scientifically supported actions, improvements, etc. that could be proposed and tested to show that they would in fact make a car safer. Or, a minimum, recommendations for what cars are safer than others.
Also, in this case, you are recommending that people don't drive cars until they are 100% safe (which, of course, they never can be in all situations).
And finally, I can't imagine what issue you would have in supporting the tentanus & rabies vaccines - unless you are either unable or unwilling to support any vaccines, in any situation.
Of course, given that any public support of vaccines (regardless of type) by AoA or its supporters would upset various anti-vaccine constituencies (and monetary supporters), I guess I would already know the answer to the question.
I doubt this will make it out of moderation, but if you truly want an honest dialogue, you must be able to at least allow for opinions that don't jive with your own.
Posted by: Lawrence | December 28, 2011 at 04:14 PM
I can't get Offit's speech out of my brain!
Sorry!
His entire speech was that of a Elite - ism, superior, dema God.
He is from Boston, so he laughs at 300 nurses he spoke to in Louisiana!
He puts down the South part of the United States.
He puts down the stupid nurses from that area(they would have been doctors if they had been smarter).
He puts down religeous beliefs.
He puts down women that watch Oprah-- just the women.
He puts down Jenny MaCarthy.
He puts down Andrew Wakefield.
He puts down parents that suggest that they saw their kids regress.
he puts down the uneducated parent that listens to other parents experiences.
He puts down parents that are very educated because they think they can figure out stuff by reading that should be left to others like him.
Have I left out anyone??? Please feel free to tell me who I forgot since it seems to one big long thing in his speech?
*********************************************************
Coincidence is when a daughter in California burns her had and 3000 miles away her mother feels pain in her hand at the same time. That is coincidence.
Since this is a symbolic, cute joke for parents that say my child had a vaccine and they reacted by degressing into autism- for the joke to match my family's experience it would have to read like this:
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
Then it would fit for my son.
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
Then this would fit for my daughter.
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
A daughter burns her hand and at the same time,3000 miles aways her mother feels pain in the same hand. That is coincidence
Then it would fit for my husband.
When does it stop being a coincidence?
.
Posted by: Benedetta | December 28, 2011 at 02:19 PM
Unbelievable the lengths these people must go to in order to defend their positions. Offit calling Jake a "stalker" is laughable yet I'm not sure it should go unpunished. How desperate is that character that he must draw upon dubious science studies to defend vaccines, lie about people and have an innocent person asking a question thrown out of a public meeting. He is seeming desperate. What an embarrassing example for his son. He reminds me of Captain Smith waiting in the steering room just before the Titanic is about to sink. Creaking, groaning of unbelievable pressure surrounding the ship just before its flooding.
Posted by: Jen | December 28, 2011 at 02:15 PM
what is so wrong with saying you are anti vaccine when you do the math, the science and add the equations up? I would never call a murderer of my children, safe, sane, or reasonable? Personally, I think if we all had to do it over again, we would forego all vaccines in our children. I think the most reasonable article I have ever read on this is from Kenney Krieger institute. It is a noteworthy save on your computer, trust me.
Dr. Kelley at Kennedy Kreiger Institute. Here it is:
http://www.epidemicanswers.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Dr.-Richard-Kelly-Autism_Mitochondrial_Disease.pdf
Had we screened individually every child for susceptibility to vaccines, their toxicants, and or actually make vaccines safe (right, not going to happen)...then things would be entirely different. Let's add up the inflammation insults and score children for their ability to handle vaccine schedules...nah...too time consuming, espensive....(their argument)...I argue entirely differently. It would save our society BILLIONS of dollars. If you have to mandate a medicine
it must be full of problems.
Instead of being dishonest, beyond reproach or questions, how about leaving this baby wide open for the review of independent research and study? Too much scrutiny may spell absolute denials of the damage, along with derogatory terms such as anti vaccine nut jobs. I stand seculuded. Now we know exactly where truth stands...truth stands in the light of day, not in a dark dingy meeting like this, with money grubbing greedy b's.
Posted by: kathy blanco | December 28, 2011 at 01:38 PM
I love this article! Good on you for standing up to this imbecile. I will also happily contribute to your legal bills if you sue this mf. I am very thankful people like you are willing to throw themselves out there and stand up for what I believe is absolutely right. I am ashamed I don't do more of the same myself.
Posted by: Jamie Amir | December 28, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Lawrence,
If this article criticized car safety, and the author advocated for steps being taken to prevent injury and death by car, would you accuse the author of being anti-car? Would you say "If you're not anti-car, please let us know which cars you are in favor of."
This analogy has been posed many times to those who brand all vaccine safety advocates "anti-vaccine." But the response is crickets chirping. It doesn't seem to matter how many times the fallacy in their logic is pointed out to them, they'll continue their ad hom attacks against vaccine safety advocates.
Notice how Lawrence completely avoids the central issue in the article: Why was someone thrown out of a public meeting about vaccines for asking a question about vaccines?
Posted by: Your tactics aren't working. | December 28, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Interesting title for the lecture - "Communicating Vaccine Safety Science to the Public". Wonder how Offit defines 'communicating'? Looks like the response to anyone who even questions vaccine safety, whether in a doctor's office or in an industry-funded circlejerk presentation like this one is identical: you are silenced and you get kicked out. (only difference is there's no pizza party to go to after you're kicked out of the pediatrician's office)
Jake, I greatly admire your tenacity and I would gladly contribute to your legal fees, should you ever decide to sue this bastard.
How unbelievably arrogant of Offit to assume he is even stalk-worthy. Give me a break!
Posted by: Donna L. | December 28, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Maybe Mr. Mnookin and Mr. Offit should be sued for descriminating against someone with special needs?
Posted by: DownWitDaSickness | December 28, 2011 at 08:29 AM
Mr. prOffit need to disclose all his profits from his vaccine business,all the money he receives from Merck and big pharma,he should not be voting on vaccine policies at all.The system is corrupted and he is not being honest and
transparent.I feel like screaming he is a LIAR.That is why
we do not like you mr.prOffit.How many kids died or suffered adverse bowel disorders from your RotaTeq vaccine mr.prOffit?
Posted by: oneVoice | December 28, 2011 at 02:01 AM
Lawrence
Age of Autism advocates parental care and genuine informed consent in relation to vaccines. It is not our job to promote specific vaccines. We have a problem that many of them are not properly tested individually but they are certainly not tested in conjunction in an ever more crowded vaccine schedule. We are wisely sceptical of a vaccine schedule in which one size fits all, there is coercion, where the risk is entirely that of the user and not manufacturer and its expansion over a 30 year period has been driven by the sheer greed of an industry:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/05/scientists-and-drug-companies-scheme-to-avoid-fda-scrutiny-and-exploit-us-vaccine-programme-immunity-against-the-public-inter.html
This is not a system which is safe or fit for purpose.
Andrew Wakefield in 1998 advocated splitting the administration of the components of MMR up (an available option in the UK at the time he suggested it) on the grounds that his reading showed that it had not been properly tested: a view confirmed seven and half years later by Cochrane (quoting off the top of my head "The design and reporting in MMR safety studies, both pre and post marketing is largely inadequate"). Perhaps you can help us then and tell us what the basis is for its current prescription.
Posted by: John Stone | December 28, 2011 at 12:35 AM
No, I don't "care to explain." I don't have to explain anything. The people who are anti-vaccine are the people who say they are anti-vaccine - not the people who say vaccines cause autism - although I am sure the latter understandably includes some of the former.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | December 28, 2011 at 12:19 AM
Hey Jake,
I met you at AutismOne and knew that you had the promise to be a game changer! You just made my year by taking this courageous stand and asking this question. You should be placed in the hall of fame for best stalker of the year! Be proud that you alter the conversation and sue his gd ass for calling you a stalker!
Keep up the great work! I pray many more will follow your lead and speak up. You have bold leadership in the face of huge corporatism. You make things happen that were not going to happen. I thank you. Future generations thank you.
The first time I heard a mother speak out abut vaccines was in 1998 at a Mother of Preschool gathering in a church. I remember how shocked the other moms were about her concerns over vaccine safety. Nowadays parents talk openly on the playground about this concern and what to do about it. Last I heard, more parents are questioning vaccines in the doctor's office. The time went up from 7 minutes to closer to 20 minutes per well baby visit. You are entering the field of public health and introducing the new view - good going Jake! We are not rolling over and letting the companies trounce our good conscience.
Posted by: MotherofPossibility | December 28, 2011 at 12:19 AM
Again, I thought you weren't anti-vaccine? But as of yet, I see no evidence that you find even one vaccine acceptable? Care to explain?
Posted by: Lawrence | December 27, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Good going, Jake, I'm proud of you, even though the goings on there were not easy for you. I'm also proud of my own kids, even though they have rarely been called upon lately to either accept/refuse vaccines. From what I have heard from them, after all I have told them, they would most likely refuse any vaccines offerred to them, and try to convince their friends to do the same. My daughter has already done that with her friends regarding Gardasil and flu vaccines.
What happened to the "just say NO" campaign? It could easily apply to dubious vaccines!
Aasa
Posted by: Helkie | December 27, 2011 at 09:32 PM
There was a strange comment from one questioner (obviously a doctor) at the end about everyone knowing someone with a child with a developmental disorder or seizures.
This is what makes me so angry about Offit and CDC and AAP officials. These are the people who are supposed to care about our children and their health. I sick to death of hearing about cases of measles or whooping cough when no matter what the autism rate is, no one cares. These same people are happy to pretend that autism is a genetic disorder that just, in Offit's words, "randomly happens." I tired of the marginalizing of autism. Whole families have had their lives overwhelmed by autism and not one of these experts gives a damn.
Offit seriously thinks that autism as an issue should just go away. It's not going to. And the more people and the press talk about autism, the more the link to vaccines will be included. You really can't have one without the other. This is the truth that Offit hasn't grasped yet. We're not going away and more and more questions will be asked just like yours Jake!
Anne Dachel, Media
Posted by: Anne Dachel | December 27, 2011 at 08:18 PM
Jake, I wish I had been there with you. YOU ARE FANTASTIC! I love the look Offit gave Dr. Palmore when you started to talk.
Before being carried out (kicking and yelling) I would have politely asked, "Dr. Offit, you place a lot of trust in epidemiological studies. Why haven't you asked for the one, simple population study that could end the vaccine safety issue here and now? Why has there never been a study looking at the health of fully-vaccinated children and never-vaccinated ones? I'm sure you'd agree that if we could find a one percent autism rate in both groups, it would clearly show no link between vaccines and autism. With so many parents now too afraid to vaccinate, the study group is out there. Why has this study never been done?"
(Actually I was on an Internet talk with Offit and I asked him this question. He said the only valid way this could be done was by determining two study groups and purposely not vaccinating one of them and that would be unethical. That of course makes no sense since lots of parents never intend to vaccinate their children today. This man loves population studies and even the most uninformed could understand what this kind of study would show about vaccines and autism.)
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/
Posted by: Anne Dachel | December 27, 2011 at 08:05 PM
The underlying message here was a subtle call for censorship. One questioner said:
Regarding informed consent when a child is vaccinated. "[There are] three sentences about why you would want the vaccine and the rest of the page about why you shouldn't.... I know that changed in the 90's and I'm just curious if we can get rid of it. It would be helpful."
Offit agreed with her but lamented that it's a matter of federal law and said it's not going to changed.
In addition, in his view that we only look at the science, he doesn't want to see anyone else getting coverage but the experts and all their population studies. After slamming David Kirby, Jenny McCarthy and those in the media that include them in covering both sides, he champions Stephen Colbert because he was decidedly pro-vaccine and wasn't interested in what anyone else had to say.
The terms "fair and balanced" and "informed consent" have no place in Offit's world. We are the ignorant masses unable to understand this subject. We're moved by emotion and anecdotal evidence. It's all about the science.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/
Posted by: Anne Dachel | December 27, 2011 at 07:53 PM
Jake, I take it you didn't get to go to the pizza reception that followed the talk.
Anne
Posted by: Anne Dachel | December 27, 2011 at 07:47 PM
Another interesting article Jake. I really appreciate learning Stephen Colbert's background. If his dad was an immunologist and died in 1974 when Stephen was pretty young he has to immortalize the man and his work. I mean what else would a good son do? And who knew on top of all his flaws Offit is s sexist pig as well? And to be completely politically incorrect, it is a studio audience full of women. You just don’t go on that show and tell a woman she’s wrong. Sorry, it doesn’t work.” Can you believe he said that? Although, these encounters Jake you have with these "characters" are amusing they are becoming rather concerning. As Kim mentioned you are following a story. Searching for facts and accuracy. That these people can't even seem to handle answering your questions in a polite and respectful manner is rather bizarre. Especially Offit? And the whole civil rights issue....Where is ASAN when you need them?
Posted by: Andrea | December 27, 2011 at 07:33 PM
Mnookin says Jake is a heckler, now Offit says Jake is a stalker. Both had him ejected from events for asking a question. Is Jake Crosby a danger to society? Or is something else going on?
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2011/12/offitcrosby.html
Posted by: Ginger Taylor | December 27, 2011 at 07:08 PM
A greedy old doctor from Philly,
Told terrible lies willy-nilly.
Making piles obscene
From his patent vaccine
He could never afford to look silly.
Posted by: Lear | December 27, 2011 at 06:48 PM
"Those who don't know the truth, or are covering it up, will call you a conspiracy nut. The word 'conspiracy' is commonly used now (either as an adjective or part of a phrase) to malign those who raise unpopular questions about sensitive issues. The fact is, conspiracies do exist. There are laws on the books addressing them and Justice Department officials deal with them all the time."
Kristina Borjesson from _Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press_
Posted by: Carol | December 27, 2011 at 06:35 PM
Jake, if Offit called you a "stalker" on camera, don't you have a legal case against him? Isn't he guilty of slander?
Posted by: Taximom | December 27, 2011 at 06:30 PM
Perhaps it's worthwhile to mention again that Andrew Wakefield has repeatedly invited Offit to debate in any forum of Offit's choosing, but Offit lacks the stones to accept.
Posted by: Carol | December 27, 2011 at 06:27 PM
But the truth is about people like Colbert is that having "sound views" on vaccination is presently part of the admission price to a certain class - so even if he didn't have that background it wouldn't surprise me. When I see the media close ranks and even those who usually pose as the subversives are prepared to engage in bare-faced deceit I would be very surprised to see anything different.
Posted by: John Stone | December 27, 2011 at 05:11 PM
Whoa! I am SO glad that someone finally explained Stephen Colbert to me. He's so smart, I just could not for the life of me understand why he was so clearly pro vax. It disappoints me greatly, but I'm kind of happy to know that there's a sort of reason for his myopia in this arena.
As for Offit and his henchwoman, I'm glad to see you are giving them lots of practice at clutching their pearls and swooning. They are going to need it as the numbers keep rising, the science keeps progressing, and their ridiculous position becomes ever more untenable.
Posted by: Garbo | December 27, 2011 at 04:53 PM
It is odd that an audience at NIH of all places is so hostile and close minded.
Someone needs to remind those pups that it was as recently as 2008 that an NIH former director (their boss) was on national TV decrying the "one size fits all," "medically indefensible" US vaccine policy.
I hope Jake does sue the rump off Offit for his verbal assault.
Posted by: Ottschnaut | December 27, 2011 at 04:09 PM
Apparently Paul Offit's definition of "stalker" is as loose and self-serving as his definition of "vaccine safety."
Outstanding article, Jake; you have a deft touch with the wry humor that escapes the blundering Offit. His patronizing use of derision is one of the red flags cuing consumers to the level of mismanagement eroding our nation's vaccine program.
Some folks are easily coddled by rhetorical diversion and take years to finally realize that important vaccine safety questions aren't being answered. Unfortunately a lot of these folks are in journalism and public health, looking for shortcuts.
Posted by: nhokkanen | December 27, 2011 at 03:57 PM
I always thought ABC's "20/20" program was exactly as advertised .. a prime time news magazine which brings to the viewer "hard-hitting investigative reports, newsmaker interviews and compelling human interest and feature stories."
I wonder if ABC is aware of the fact that Offit is giving lectures throughout major universities and prestigious institutions .. wherein he calls to question the professional integrity and veracity of 20/20 content .. by "quoting" an executive producer of 20/20 who stated her job .. "is to be interesting, if it happens to be true, great".
In other words .. Offit is claiming 20/20 simply cannot be trusted to tell the "truth" .. which I suspect will be "news" to them.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | December 27, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Lawrence asks:-
"I'm curious - if you're not anti-vaccine, then please let us know which vaccines you are in favor of?"
You're not curious 'Lawrence'; you are attempting to make ridiculous and derogatory generalisations about a very diverse 'Age of Autism' community, and please tell us who is 'us'?
Paul Offit claims Jake 'routinely writes articles on Age of Autism vilifying' him, but how can it be possible to 'vilify' anyone simply by quoting THEIR OWN words and reporting THEIR OWN actions? Think about it.
I am actually pro vaccine, as are my own fully vaccinated family members, but after one of my grandsons developed autism, epilepsy and horrific bowel disease after his MMR vaccination, we were not too keen on allowing his little brother to have this vaccination. Instead we took Dr Andrew Wakefield's excellent advice and got single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines for him instead. We also spaced out these vaccinations. I believe our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, did the same for his own son Leo, who is the same age, but Tony has never admitted it!! Incidently, in the UK this cost a great deal of money and involved a lot of travelling, but it was worth it.
Do I approve of the vaccines? Well obviously I have reservations about the MMR vaccine, although I accept that this is safe for MOST children. However, I fervently believe that monovalent vaccinations are SAFER for ALL children. The autism rate is far too high and is increasing exponentially. Even Offit admits an environmental cause, but there is precious little research in this area to protect our precious children. As for mumps, in the UK this is becoming prevalent again in teenage children, most of whom have been vaccinated. Our Scottish government is now going into secondary schools to vaccinate teenagers with yet another MMR 'booster'.
I am old enough to qualify for a free annual flu vaccination, for which I am grateful, but I would NOT have had the H1N1 separate vaccination if I had known how untested this vaccine and its adjuvent was. The H1N1 has now been incorporated into the 'normal' vaccine.
As for the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which appears to be killing and injuring large numbers of young girls, (and now boys), frankly words fail me. I regard this as a crime against humanity and am seriously worried about my sub teenage grandaughter who is due to receive this vaccine. This dangerous vaccine is coming to the UK, unless our health departments 'see the light'.
These are just MY views and should not be taken as ANY KIND of AoA collective opinion, but all of us are united about the necessity of putting vaccine safety BEFORE vaccine manufacturers' profits.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | December 27, 2011 at 03:51 PM
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
You are inspirational, Jake! A wonderful 2012 to you!
Posted by: Michelle | December 27, 2011 at 03:10 PM
"He’s more like Ronald McDonald for the vaccine industry." LOL! Love that line.
Posted by: Adam M | December 27, 2011 at 02:56 PM
All I can say is it's good to know Colbert is in the same company as Offit, Snyderman, and Mnookin, and that he "agrees" with the patent-holding tyrant so much he gave him a venue on his show to spread his propaganda. I'll be passing this information on to fans of the show who have vaccine injured kids or were injured themselves. That's a pretty large show demographic to lose...
Neither Colbert or Stewart struck me as particularly intelligent, but at least Colbert made me laugh. Not anymore, though.
Posted by: Josh Day | December 27, 2011 at 02:32 PM
My comment was how I found it interesting that they are outright attempting to censor the truth and that it appeared by Offit's behavior that the microphone was supposed to be turned off on Mr. Crosby's question.
Although Offit's entire speech was disturbing I found the part about the problem of population control especially strange.
Posted by: Patrick | December 27, 2011 at 02:29 PM
Great job again Jake. It seems to me that the case against vaccines is just getting warm, but heating up rapidly, even Brian Deer is starting to defend himself on the recent comment section of the Boise Weekly, although not much of a defense.Jake, these guys are feeling the heat, but its about to get a lot hotter.
Posted by: victor pavlovic | December 27, 2011 at 02:28 PM
I don't know whether I have managed to retrieve all the lost comments but I think this must be most of them, John
Cassandra
Boy, this is what passes for a science lecture at the NIH!? Sad, sad. The trouble for the CDC/NIH/FDA goons is that parents can now watch lectures like this online. They can watch Offit and then Andrew Wakefiled, they can easily tell who is telling them the science, and who is more interested in character assassination and propaganda talk.
John Stone
Hi Benedetta The epoch we are talking about is certainly before the invention of the Hep B vaccine, but actually British infants have remarkably always been spared that anyway. The industry maintains constant pressure to introduce it, but I think our Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation reckon it has too dirty a history at this stage not bring down public scrutiny of their entire activities, if they let it through. John
Jakefan
Jake, you give me great hope for the future. Having attended ACIP meetings and seeing Paul Offit walk out during public comment. I think that he enjoys making drama where there isn't any. (Who has time in the Autism community to stalk anyway?)It's all money and white coats. Demonizing those that ask tough questions the order of the day. Only galvanizing my concerns as a parent that vaccines are nothing but a money pit, indemnified by the government. Jake you are destined for greatness soldier on!
Mark Struthers
Offit is so much a product of the age of ‘greed, corruption and breathtaking stupidity’. I look forward to that being a bygone age. But I’ll not hold my breath …
Carol
Perhaps it's worthwhile to mention again that Andrew Wakefield has repeatedly invited Offit to debate in any forum of Offit's choosing, but Offit lacks the stones to accept.
The Poor Son
Thank you, Jake for your earnest attempts to get some serious questions answered. The fact that Offit is making a mockery of you, of parental concerns, of those injured and of federal safety guidelines is horrendous. You are not stalking. You are making a point in trying to get questions answered that concern public safety, a personal and professional interest of yours. The fact that he is accusing you of stalking smacks of libel. His assertions, like the 100,00 vaccines an infant can safely take was then changed to 10,000, are unproven and unsafe. He is a flim-flam man, using words, jokes, sarcasm, ad hominem attacks, and true lies to paint a picture. That picture is to take all research, researchers, science, parents who have injured children, and those injured who have a voice, like Jake, and omit, falsify, accuse and shield all truth. His son must be getting groomed and indoctrinated. I'm sure he thinks his dad is saving mankind because he has been taught that from his early days. It would be a painful experience for the truth to be known as to find out your dad is really denying vaccine injuries in an attempt to profit and hoodwink the public. Paul Offit knows vaccines can harm, cause autism and kill. For him to say, "We now know that there is a genetics [sic] to autism. We also know there can be environmental influences, but when those environmental influences occur, they have to occur in the first or second trimester - take your pick - valproic acid, congenital rubella virus, thalidomide."...is a blatant lie, an omission of truth and facts.
Benedetta
John Stone if Sir Richard Doll had did his work - I am sure the same--- but expanded sub-groups would have been those that not only reacted to the DPT shots but the HEP B too! I don't see how Colbert could joke his way out of eye witnesses to a vaccine injury. No body is that funny! Quote from the Jake's article above: "Brent Taylor’s, which ignored the first children to receive the MMR vaccination in the UK –and in doing so – ignored increasing autism rates that correlated with MMR’s introduction. Taylor also did not mention a cluster of reported parental concern about their children within five months after that vaccination and he turned down a request by Dr. Bernard Rimland to independently assess the study data" Good GOD! How on earth did we get under the thumb of such men? And Jake who ever blogged under the name; Downwithesickness was right you are the ROCK STAR. And for everyone in that meeting; that sat there like a knot on a log and let you be escorted out without one comment -- Our forefathers would have been ashamed and that would include Ben Franklin. Even though Ben Franklin was quoted recently by a historian about Franklin's regret at not vaccinating his son that died of small pox)- he also said they (including him) had given us a Republic if we could keep it - and sitting there -everyone in that room was not safe guarding the Republic. The guy who congradualed Offit for being successful in this world because he had a stalker--could be taken several ways - One would be that really Dr. Offit are we to think your jack ass work is worthy of a stalker?
Carol
"Those who don't know the truth, or are covering it up, will call you a conspiracy nut. The word 'conspiracy' is commonly used now (either as an adjective or part of a phrase) to malign those who raise unpopular questions about sensitive issues. The fact is, conspiracies do exist. There are laws on the books addressing them and Justice Department officials deal with them all the time." Kristina Borjesson from _Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press_
Mark Struthers
Well played Jake and beautifully written! The wretches are on the run ... those charlatans, fraudsters and snake oil salesmen of the pharma-industrial-complex.
Lawrence
I'm curious - if you're not anti-vaccine, then please let us know which vaccines you are in favor of?
C
Hey Paul, I'm going to assume you're reading this, because now that you've branded this kid a "stalker", I know he has your attention, and you couldn't help but read it. Sooo.... There are probably 4 larger autism conferences that are going to occur in 2012. 1. April 2012 - Autism Research Institute - New Jersey 2. May 2012 - Autism One/GR - Illinois 3. October 2012 - Autism Research Institute - California 4. November 2012 - National Autism Association - Florida Now I say that there are a lot of people, on both sides of this debate, as well as the middle, that would like to see this discussion put to rest. I know I'm one of them. In the spirit of the debates going on around the 2012 election, I think it's time that you engage on a meaningful level. No, not these drive-by hit-jobs that you do during these unchallenged interviews. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a real debate, where everyone is given equal time, with a panel of moderators to ask questions of both sides. I think one of those 4 conferences would be willing to host it. In fact, I'm almost sure they'd make time just for you. So how about this? How about you find 3 other like-minded folks for your side of the debate? This side I'm sure will have no trouble finding their 4. I propose that each side is given 45 minutes to present their case. At the end of the 2nd presentation, all 8 of you engage in a 150 minute debate. The idea is of course flexible. I'm sure the logistics can be worked out to suit both sides. What do you say, Paul? Would you like to stop hiding in plain sight, and walk the walk with those capable of tripping you? Or do you wish to continue hiding behind rehearsed interviews and love-fest conferences where all of the presenters are carefully vetted and objectionable speakers are thrown out? Let's put it to bed. If you're interested, reach out to the editors of AOA. I have no doubt they'd be willing to facilitate the planning of this event. That is of course after they pick themselves up off the floor from the shock of you coming out of hiding. Happy New Year, Paul. This year is your opportunity to become a man. –C
Patrick
It's interesting how they are outright censoring the truth. I found it humorous Offit's body language when he finds out that the technicians turned off the wrong microphone (the microphone of the speaker before Mr. Crosby). This was disturbing. Especially the strange point he was trying to make about vaccines being the problem based on a belief system or faith where as current problems such as population control are based on science??? He said there is no college education about vaccines, but that he was making appearances and that he got a grant to produce educational materials including animation for every grade level.
Stagmom
My Dad was a dentist, I don't use fluoride. Just because our parents were "something" doesn't mean we have to deify them or it. I hate that my Dad worked with mercury - having seen up close and personally the damage it has done.
Andrea
Another interesting article Jake. I really appreciate learning Stephen Colbert's background. If his dad was an immunologist and died in 1974 when Stephen was pretty young he has to immortalize the man and his work. I mean what else would a good son do? And who knew on top of all his flaws Offit is s sexist pig as well? And to be completely politically incorrect, it is a studio audience full of women. You just don’t go on that show and tell a woman she’s wrong. Sorry, it doesn’t work.” Can you believe he said that? Although, these encounters Jake you have with these "characters" are amusing they are becoming rather concerning. As Kim mentioned you are following a story. Searching for facts and accuracy. That these people can't even seem to handle answering your questions in a polite and respectful manner is rather bizarre. Especially Offit? And the whole civil rights issue....Where is ASAN when you need them?
Media Scholar
Too bad NSA, CIA, and other agencies within the federal government are hog-tied - making it impossible for them to reveal the messages, phone conversations, and other various forms of communication between these bright sparks. So what's the next scamdemic gonna be? It would be nice if our clandestine operations would give us the courtesy of a heads-up, but it's non-essential. It's all there - a treasure trove of incriminating stuff - and the federal government is completely chicken about the American people finding out the "top secret" vaccine marketplace dirty secrets. Vaccines are way over-rated. They cause sickness. They spread novel disease. They are against all nature. They pervert science. They kill American babies each and every day. Most Americans already know the federal government is lying through their teeth about Autism and any number of other man-made conditions. There is nothing scientific about the angry "pay backs", fake research, and fake news reports.
Stagmom
I wonder if The President calls the media "Stalkers." Jake is a journalist pursuing a story. And he happens to be a person with Asperger's - making the expulsion a civil rights issue. Funny how we at AofA are told we don't respect people with autism. What a rude dismissal of Jake by Dr. Offit who has never had a debate/dialog in public with anyone in the vaccine safety community who would be armed with facts and science. Steve Colbert? Try sitting across from Andrew Wakefield or Mark Blaxill, Dr. Offit.
Posted by: John Stone | December 27, 2011 at 02:25 PM
Hi Everyone,
I read the deleted comments and enjoyed them a lot. Please repost them.
Jake
Posted by: Jake Crosby | December 27, 2011 at 01:44 PM
Do you think Paul Offit and cronies make a distinction between causality and trigger? If so could causation be a sort of scientific red herring to create diversion away from the irrefutable observational evidence that parents have of vaccination triggering an autistic state in their child?
So what then exactly are the allopathic benchmarks for determination of a trigger or taking such a sure stance of being able to refute vaccinations as a possible trigger for an expression of autism. Genetics are not a fixed state. Offit's science is not just Tobacco science, it is much more limited than that. Thanks for your hard work Jake.
Posted by: jean | December 27, 2011 at 01:42 PM
We apologize, some comments were deleted during moderation. Blame the holiday fatigue! Thanks. KIM
Posted by: Comment Glitch: Managing Editor | December 27, 2011 at 01:32 PM
It is beyond amazing that someone who has had his vaccines removed from the market could get up in front of a group and criticize Dr. Wakefield or anyone else for that matter. It would be nice if Dr. Offit would explain each and every infant death that did not die due to his Rotashield vaccine given on the same day...
The epidemiology used for "Offit Science" is far beyond flawed . Epidemiology can be used to spot a medical trend that needs "further investigation with real science." "Offit-ology" could study 200 children without a peanut allergy and then state that there is no such thing as a peanut allergy... with Dr. Nancy saying the work was brilliant science...
As always Dr. Offit might take some time to explain a few favorite pages here.....
From Evidence of Harm by David Kirby pages 280 - 283
In October of 2003, Dr. Mark and David Geier were given access to the CDC vaccine injury database at the CDC's Center for Health Statistics.
With the "inside help of a CDC staffer" with an affected child in her family, they compared Autism rates for children who had received "three DTaP shots with Thimerosal" and those that had received "three Thimerosal free" DTaP shots.
The CDC vaccine injury records of thousands of children, showed Autism rates 27 times higher in the Thimerosal / mercury group.
Posted by: cmo | December 27, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Kim,
I know what you mean. My dad was a pharmacist. I hate pharma! Seriously, my point was since his father died when Colbert was so young that he has probably become some kind of dead hero in Stephen's eyes. Whatever dear old deceased dad chose to do with his life had to be amazing and wonderful and righteous.
Posted by: Andrea | December 27, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Jake I do admire your persistence!! Keep on 'stalking' these persons. As we say in Scotland, 'It gives them a good showing up!'
I love your faithful write ups and research too. This report was particularly interesting because it seems to indicate a change of approach on the part of vaccine manufacturers and their apologists. Belatedly, there seems to have been some realisation that the traditional 'scare tactics' about so called 'deadly diseases' just aren't working anymore. Offit & Co are reduced to 'ad hominem' slurs and ever more vociferous advocacy in favour of 'vaccine safety', which ignores or rubbishes any evidence to the contrary,(or the messengers).
Even more interesting was the way Offit ignored the roles of Deer and Godlee in the Wakefield saga. This is from Brian Deer's November 2011 address during a Vaccine Marketing conference at the Fondation Merioux premises, Annecy, France:-
“During the DTP controversy, big media would shout ‘scare’ and that was that. They decided the terms of the debate. We’re not in that environment anymore. There is now a marketplace of people searching desperately for information. In some cases they find websites which sound official but have questionable merit. Things have changed and this must be addressed,” he told a meeting hosted by the Fondation Merieux which examined public engagement with vaccination policy.
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/social-media-shifting-vaccines-conversation-brain-deer-comments/
Yes Age of Autism, you are successfully 'rattling the cages'!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | December 27, 2011 at 09:26 AM
Jake, I'm glad this maniac, Dr. prOffit reads your stuff and this blog! He's complicit in an industrial campaign that is ruining lives worldwide. I bet he even knows it... which would make him an evil man.
Posted by: Erik Nanstiel | December 27, 2011 at 09:19 AM
Jake ...YOU are the ROCK STAR!
Posted by: DownWitDaSickness | December 27, 2011 at 09:05 AM
There’s a long fight ahead, Jake. Comparisons to the Agent Orange fiasco are instructive. “In 2004, Jill Montgomery, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange, saying: ‘We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause, but reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects’” (Wikipedia).
Déjà vu, anybody?
Posted by: Dan E. Burns | December 27, 2011 at 07:35 AM
Hi Jake,
Just to be clear the Taylor study ignored a host of vaccine confounders in the birth cohorts of 1979 to 1992 (in NE London), which showed a 16 fold exponential increase in autism for the 14 year period.
1) Rising uptake of single measles vaccine and mercury containing DPT through the early to mid-80s.
2) Retrospective MMR campaign for those born before it was available.
3) Introduction of the accelerated DPT schedule in 1990 bringing forward vaccination to an earlier age.
4) introduction of HiB vaciination in 1992
About the Taylor study a leading epidemiologist warned me that it was completely useless because there was no control group, and Cochrane commented: “The study demonstrates the difficulties of drawing inferences in the absence of a non-exposed population or a clearly defined causal hypothesis”.
Of course, a fundamental problem with epidemiological studies (even supposing they had been conducted with far more rigour and disitetrestedness than they were) is as Bernardine Healy pointed out that they might still be powerless to identify significant sub-groups. She advocated studying sub-groups (which is what Wakefield was doing, and why he had to be taken out). Peter Fletcher told me that he had been given similar advice about the ineffictiveness of epidemiological studies for detecting the ill-effects of DPT by Sir Richard Doll more than 30 years ago.
John
Posted by: John Stone | December 27, 2011 at 06:49 AM