What Would Amanda Peet Do?

Lately there’s been a lot of talk about a teen vaccine schedule. Apparently the drug companies realized they were leaving lot money on table by not going after teens with the same vigor as they currently go after infants and toddlers. Additionally the government do-gooders probably realized there was a lot of do-gooding left to be done and additional budget resources to be claimed by targeting our twelve through eighteen year olds.

My daughter falls into this twelve to eighteen year old group, so all this talk got me to thinking, “What if we were wrong all along? What if vaccines actually were the right choice?”

I raised the issue with my wife who, insightful as always, said, "You know whose opinion I‘d like to get?" 

"No, who?" 

"Amanda Peet." 

"Yes that’s it! Amanda Peet."

My wife had hit the nail on the head

I’d been impressed by Ms. Peet since she burst onto the entertainment scene back in the 90s, appearing in both a Skittles television commercial and an episode of Law & Order

“But, maybe her voice would echo those of other celebrites, celebrites who questioned the safety of vaccines,” I told my wife.

“Amanda peet isn’t like other celebrites!” she snapped. “We’ll just have to sit tight until we find out where she stands on the issue.” 

So I got to work and googled Amanda Peet and vaccines and vaccination and discovered she was actually quite active speaking out for vaccines, even calling parents who don’t vaccinate parasites. Additionally I found she was affiliated with a shadowy vaccine activism group known as Every Child by Two and under the tutelage of noted vaccine guru Dr. Paul Offit.

With Amanda Peet, supported by a respected medical professional, firmly behind vaccines, my wife and I agreed: it was time for the catch-up schedule. Since Dr. Offit says that a child can theoretically receive 100,000 vaccines at one time and that those that space out vaccines risk their children’s lives by increasing the time to which they are vulnerable to largely non-existent infections illnesses, I hoped we could get my daughter in for all forty-five or so doses she’d missed over the last fifteen years.

But when I called the pediatricians office, the receptionist said the doctor couldn’t actually give all the vaccines one day.

That’s strange I thought, so I looked a little more deeply into Offit’s background. What I found was troubling to say the least. Offit, I discovered, was on record stating that vaccines were safer than vitamins. But I’d never heard of vitamins causing seizures or hours of non-stop high-pitched crying. There wasn’t even a National Vitamin Injury Compensation Program

Additionally, I learned that Offit, responding to concerns that vaccines might cause autism, said studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated had been done (It’s common knowledge that they haven’t. Only one vaccine, the MMR, and one vaccine ingredient, thimerisol, have ever been studied to any great extent) Additionally Offit, in another interview, contradicts himself by stating studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children would be both unethical (some children would not have the protection of vaccines) and even if such studies were performed, they would be "fraught with bias."

Furthermore, it came to my attention that Dr. Offit, when discussing the risks posed by vaccine-preventable illnesses, is often wildly off base. For example he states that, in the pre-vaccine era,  deaths as a result of measles-related complications numbered 3,000 while in reality the number was only about 450.

So if Offit was clueless and he was Peet's mentor, how could we trust her opinion? I was crestfallen. With my faith in Amanda Peet crushed, I had to look to myself and trust the information that I, and not vaccine special interests such as ECBT, had gathered over the years: information that said vaccines didn't deliver enough reward to offset the risks they presented.  Ms. Peet, Dr. Offit and ECBT could have their shots, but for us and our teen, there would be no vaccine.

Offit on Colbert

 

The Machine media blitz that began with the recent attacks against Andrew Wakefield continued last night as Paul Offit appeared in a well-rehearsed performance on The Colbert Report.

As the show progressed, I was having difficulty determining who knew less about vaccines, Offit or Colbert, until I realized Offit’s ignorance was only apparent – a result of placing pro-vaccine misinformation ahead of honesty.

The doctor recited his deceptive talking points beginning with a fanciful story (thoroughly debunked here) about how a pertussis outbreak was in some way related to people choosing not to vaccinate.

Colbert then jokingly informed us that his doctor encouraged his sick child/children to go to school while sick in order to expose other children to whatever illness necessitated the doctor visit. Amazingly Offit, imagining a past that never occurred, responded, “that’s what we used to do”

Colbert then asks about a possible connection between autism and vaccinations. That question has been asked and answered retorts Dr. Offit. Studies have shown vaccines don’t cause autism! Wow what a relief. But wait I know the mercury compound thimerisol has been studied but that’s not a “vaccine.” And the MMR vaccine was studied by those producing and promoting vaccination but that’s only one of dozens of vaccines given. So it’s at best disingenuous to imply that vaccination itself has, as a cause of autism, ever been, in any way investigated.

I really can’t believe he continues to disseminate this repugnant piece of misinformation.  Especially when he, in his new book, exhorts us to trust the Machine saying:

When parents choose to vaccinate their children, one element is critical to the decision: trust. A choice not to vaccinate is a choice not to trust those who research, manufacture, license, recommend, promote and administer vaccines – specifically, the government, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors. If we are again to believe that vaccines are safer than the diseases they prevent, we’re going to have to trust those responsible for them. This isn’t going to be easy.

You're right doctor, it’s not going to be easy. That's because trust isn’t built on a foundation of misinformation and deception. Trust is earned by trustworthy behavior. If you truly wanted to build trust you would have said something to the effect that mercury, the one and only vaccine ingredient ever studied as a possible cause of autism, was suspected because it has a reputation for toxicity and because it’s administered during a time in which autism either develops or is diagnosed.

And you wouldn’t forget to mention that no one really knew how much mercury was contained within the entire vaccine schedule and that no one knew what that meant for children’s safety.

You would have continued by informing viewers that only one of dozens of vaccines and vaccine combinations has ever been studied and those studies were conducted by the institutions selling and promoting the very vaccines under investigation.

That is if you were concerned about building trust. Unfortunately you’re not; you’re concerned about selling vaccine.

Rather than inspiring trust, Dr. Offit’s never-ending media appearances inspire me to question more deeply studies extolling the safety of vaccines. His blatant attempts to alter reality in order to shelter vaccines makes it exceedingly difficult to believe studies done by Offit and those who inhabit his world.

Geeks and Nerds

 

As we count down to the release of Paul Offit's latest book, I thought it would be a good time to briefly examine one of his pet theories regarding autism. 

Offit, who will embrace any hypothesis that deflects attention away from a possible link between vaccines and the disorder, has come up with the "autistics are really geeks" theory. 

ABC news reports him as saying:

People that we once called quirky or geeky or nerdy are now called autistic

and the evidence he presents to support this assertion? 

because when you give that label of say, autistic spectrum disorder, you allow that child then to qualify for services which otherwise they wouldn't be qualified to get."

That's it? The government services did it. I'm not even sure what government services would be of value to geeks and nerds.


In addition to an absence of evidence supporting his hypothesis, Offit's revelation seems to conflict with his belief that autism is a condition with a strong genetic component. On page 218 of Autism's False Prophets he states: 

The first clue to the cause of autism is that it's genetic. 

Since those traits thought of as "geeky" would be present in both child and parent, his genetic theory would seem to conflict with his geek theory since so many non-geeky parents have autistic children.

After all when I attend autism conferences, there’s nary a geek in the house. While parents of autistic children such as Dan Marino, Jenny McCarthy, John Travolta, Holly Robinson-Peete and Sylvester Stallone hardly seem like nerds. 

Additionally Geeks and nerds had geek and nerd friends and interacted with one another. Yet difficulty with social interaction is a key diagnostic feature of any autism spectrum disorder

Finally, anyone with even a cursory understanding of autism realizes there’s noting in the DSM that would cause one to conflate the two conditions

Diagnostic Criteria for Autistic Disorder

A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)

(1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(a) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)
(d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

(a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
(b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
(c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
(d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play

C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.

Since there seems to be nothing remotely similar between an autism diagnosis and what we would think of as a geek or nerd, perhaps Offit, by "autism" means PDD NOS - which is a diagnosis falling under the autistic spectrum. Let's look at the diagnostic guidelines for PDD NOS then

PDD NOS

This category should be used when there is a severe and pervasive impairment in the development of reciprocal social interaction or verbal and nonverbal communication skills or when stereotyped behavior, interests, and activities are present but the criteria are not met for a specific pervasive developmental disorder,

Admittedly, the above criteria is somewhat cryptic, but it's far from certain - or even plausible - that  "severe and pervasive impairment" is today's version of nerdiness.

Of course if autism was always present at current levels, todays expanded vaccine schedule could not have caused an increase that, in actuality, never occurred

So there we have it. The man who believes that vitamins are more dangerous than vaccines, that children can get 100,000 vaccinations on one day and that vaccines aren't very profitable; is trying to sell the idea that autism is really nothing new based on a self-contradictory theory apparently woven out of whole cloth. 

Countdown to Insanity: Paul Offit's New Book

I was excited to learn Dr. Paul Offit, America’s number one vaccine evangelist, will soon be releasing yet another book celebrating the miracle of vaccination.

What new absurdities will he invent to defend the elixirs of life upon which his very existence is based?

In his previous works, he has set the bar on the absurdity meter astronomically high. Vitamins are more dangerous than vaccine, children can safely get 100,000 vaccines at one time and today’s autistics are really just the geeks and nerds of the 50s – imagine Ralph Malph and Potsie Weber.

Several Offit sycophants have already weighed in with reviews. One, David Oshinsky, author of an excellent history on polio in America exhibits a bizarre detachment form reality in his gushing appraisal of the book.

“A medical crisis has come to America. Diseases of our grandparents’ generation are making a deadly comeback as more and more parents choose not to vaccinate their children.

Oshinsky imagines waves of parents depriving their children of life-saving vaccine while actual vaccination rates are at all time highs. He envisages benign illness such as the mumps and measles to be demonic killers. He suffers hallucinations of an America in crisis, streets filled with dead and or dying children.

Descending from fantasy into gibberish he asks.

…what can be done to reverse this unconscionable assault upon our nation’s public health?

Nations public health? Does he mean the health of people? People, who if they so desire can excercise, refrain from smoking, eat a healthy diet and access as much vaccine as they desire? No, more likely Oshinsky refers to the public health establishment - an entity whose mission is to intrude into our lives by means of forced vaccination, food policing and soda taxation.

So conditioned to believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual, Oshinsky sees the simple desire of Americans to be left alone as an assault upon the rightful role of our benevolent public health masters

So much fanatical vaccine nonsense in just a few paragraphs. I can’t wait for the entire volume to be released.