Thursday, December 20, 2007

Comment on ANB note of style

This item was emailed to this blog-AR

A Note on Knowledge:
As a licensed health care professional who knows the profoundly deficient working knowledge of chemistry and physics that nowpermeates U.S. medicine from decades of neglect of basic science understanding in pursuit of easily written scripts from large pharmaceutical companies, I can tell you that Dr. Boyd Haley's knowledge on the subject of heavy metal toxicology dwarfs that of allbut a few MDs or DOs in this country. The cultural distance of the best and brightest PhDs from MDs on the campuses of this country's universities is growing at the peril of our healthcare system. Your"note on style" appears to be a weakly veiled attempt to diminish this man's accomplishments by the title behind his name. Most of the advances of our healthcare system are pioneered by PhD's who get the willing ear of visionary MDs to creatively problem solve for the benefit of society and ultimately, many of the Pharmafia corporations that run this country.

ANB: Don't you have some connections with companies that might be interested in my ELISA in home vaccine titer check idea? We couldmake a killing on that one and short sell vaccine companies who will undoubtedly lose tons of money on having no reason for all those unnecessary boosters once we get our test kits out on the market ;-)You in?

Edward F. Fogarty, M.D.


Whistleblower said...

Dr Fogarty - I think your faith in Professor Haley is touching but somewhat misplaced. This is a man who cannot tell the difference between different states of mercury. (

This is also a man who cannot pass a Daubert test when attempting to pass himself off as an expert witness (

"The court…finds that Dr. Haley’s report does not state an expert opinion that thimerosal causes autism, rather just that he has a theory about how such a thing could happen. At best, he expressed “strong belief” that the cause of “neurodevelopmental disorders in infants” is exposure to an organic-mercury compound such as thimerosal."

anb said...

Boyd Haley, PhD, is a professor of chemistry, and KOMU should have identified him as such. Referring to him as a doctor, small d, was misleading in the context cited.


Kathleen Seidel said...

Dr. Fogarty, I share ANB's concern. Professor Haley's "level of knowledge" on medical subjects is irrelevant to the question of whether Ms. Reynolds should imply that he is a medical doctor. He is not, and she should not.

Honestly, I'm surprised that the senior editors at KOMU didn't catch that one.

Anonymous said...

KOMU, as one commenter noted, is in central Missouri, so we all need to cut the editors some slack. Apparently it is by God's grace they even have electricity, let along editorial standards.

EFFIIIMD said...

There is a long list of scientists who would not pass the legal criteria of Daubert at the beginning of a paradigm shifting idea. There has never been any long term study of safety on thimerosal, weak epedemiologic evidence exists that the IOM can't say conclusively exonerates it. In the med-speak of epidemiology to say "favors rejection of a causal relationship" is to say they can't be sure. If Haley can't pass Daubert, the researcher that takes at risk kids on the basis of functional screening for metal sensitivity and then gives the current high intensity CDC protocol versus age appropriate low intensity protocol with both protocols startified to thimerosal free and thimerosal containing vaccines will likely actually have to STOP the study because it will have teased out the OBVIOUS-SOME KIDS CAN"T HANDLE 36 VACCINE IN 3 years. WHY DOESN"T THE CDC DO THAT SCIENCE?

ANONYMOUS: Alot of this country's real genius comes from the small towns of the Plain States.

Kathleen, I generally agree with you but it is obvious to me the Autism News Beat has an agenda.


ANB said...

So you object that I have an agenda? And you don't? Or do you believe, as does Linda W., that anybody who doesn't buy into her double bank shot conspiracy theories must be drinking java from an Eli Lilly Credit Union coffee mug?

Do you also believe it's acceptable to assume facts not in evidence, i.e, that I'm on "big pharma's" payroll? If so, can I then assume you're collecting a bounty for every autistic kid you deliver to Mark Geier's chemical castration mill?

It's a very dark place where Linda W. is leading us. Do you really want to go there? I know I don't.

effiiimd said...

My agenda is to improve the safety of a universal mandate by screening the vulnerable population for adverse outcomes relating to over-vaccination. I am an advocate for transparency and have never hidden my identity on this blog. I certain don't object to your agenda because in the end, your thoughtful questions help me articulate and further refine ways of getting to the truth behind this matter, so thank you.

There are all kinds of great people in medicine who are working in a dearth of information on this issue who don't "buy" any connection between vaccines and climbing auto-immune rates and autism. Much of this collective opinion would be changed in a transparent review of documents from the CDC, FDA, IOM and the Simpsonwood meeting by all US pediatricians-maybe you can help me with that advocacy. If I were a U.S. pediatrician that had a chance to read the Simpsonwood transcripts I think I would be concerned that my trusted agencies of oversight in this country had failed me and my beloved patients. Most U.S. pediatricians work their butts off everyday and don't have any idea that document exists-I have a number of family members who are physicians (as well as attorneys and journalists) who had no idea such a discussion took place with such major implications until my digging into this situation over the last two years; maybe each state public health department should have a representative at such future meetings; I know my representative pediatrics colleagues from North Dakota would be much more impartial to the situation that was examined at Simpsonwood than any but one or two of that meeting's participants. Frankly I will strongly advocate that all such future meetings get representation from outside specialty groups at any level. A few surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, internists, family practice and obstetrics professionals on the front lines of community (not just academic) medicine should have been in that meeting to keep things honest. Its human nature for physicians of the same background and specialty to see things the same way, there are so many times in medicine where the perspective a colleague from a different field can really help to pull oneself away from the inherent biases of one's own training. If everything is so clear cut and on the up and up these suggestions should be no problem for implementation.

Adam Weinmaster's story is important simply as an affirmation of the impact of dialogue in society and the benefits of freedom of information. His story and his mother's opinions and observations are a valid point of communication for the fourth estate, if you don't care to hear it you can turn off the television or quit frequenting this blog.

Is it acceptable to assume facts not in evidence? Well, if you are an Ockhamist then no. No one on this planet gets by without assuming some facts "not evident" though. Is is a horrible sin to do that? Well I do it everyday; I assume that when I see a disc herniation on an MRI that its painful, but as many neurosurgeons and orthopedists will tell you some disc herniations are in fact, not symptomatic. I assume that a man in a nice suit walking down the street is less likely to assault me than a teenager that by appearance might be labeled a skinhead when there is no factual knowledge of those specific individuals that I would have as relates to their propensity for violence. You can assume whatever you want of me, or I can just tell you what you want to know; I am not hiding behind anything here. By the way, the progress of science shows that what are now facts were previously "not in evidence" and previously held "facts" are no longer considered as such; the world was flat once, right. So to look at problems in a new light as I have advocated across this blog is what is need to exonerate vaccines from provocation of any illness.

As for your working as communications proxy for some sort of pharmaceutical industry shell, I guess I am sorry you are not a consultant that enjoys payment for your thoughts. You ought to get paid by me at least for helping me illustrate to many through this blog the exact science that needs to be done to exonerate thimerosal and that an expanding vaccination protocol is not associated with any harm to the entire US population of children.

Linda Weinmaster and other vaccine safety advocates are the only real check left in the system for vaccine safety, we are already in the "very dark place" simply on the basis of the lack of transparency in the process of evaluating safety of all sorts of medical interventions the FDA is supposed to regulate. Until I see some of the real science of thoughtful well controlled protocol comparisons with and without thimerosal, checking efficacy and need for boosters by titer surveillance there is a definite darkness in pediatrics. Testing of alternate protocols is simply in order now. Really, there is no argument not to do that . . . must be your trouble. Hell, it might bear out that we would do much more good by expanding disease coverage in vaccination protocols by the improved safety margin garnered from proving the overwhelming majority of boosters are a complete waste of money. This increased utilization of laboratory services might help get hospital administrations and pathologist on board as an economic resource for getting some of this science done-AH you have done it again another GREAT IDEA, thank you! Gotta email some of my path buddies now.

AutismNewsBeat said...

As an out Ockhamist, you know doubt agree that all other things being equal, we should prefer the simplest theory. So how do you square that basic truth with your assumption, sans evidence, that anybody who disagrees with Linda Weinmaster's keen insights must be a paid agent of pharma?

Would it be an equally great leap of logic if I assumed you have an autistic child at home that you haven't mentioned? I have no evidence to think that, just observations.

For example, you may be a genius with X-rays, but let's face it - you have no more specialized training in toxicology, immunology, or pediatric neurology than Linda Weinmaster. Furthermore, your passionate, albeit redundant posts, tell me you have a emotional stake in the subject. As do I.

Physicians are no more immune to being irrational in the face of their own child's disability than a Kansas State University theatre major, or anybody else for that matter. And like Linda Weinmaster, you are no less vulnerable than she to your grief over the death of the perfect child. So you deny the genetic transmission of socially devalued characteristics, and assign blame to malevolent forces.

So there I go, assuming facts not in evidence. Thanks for listening.

Whislteblower said...

"There is a long list of scientists who would not pass the legal criteria of Daubert at the beginning of a paradigm shifting idea."

This 'paradigm' has been apparently 'shifting' for over 10 years. Except it hasn't.

1) Still no epidemiological basis for an autism 'epidemic'
2) Even less for one related to any kind of vaccine
3) Even less for one related to any kind of mercury (or MMR)
4) No medical basis for a relationship between any kind of vaccine ingredient and autism exists in the scientific literature.

What has happened over the last 10 years is that lots of quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo has been 'published' in rags like JPANDS and Medical Hypothesis and treated as plausible by people like yourself who should know better.

Your tortuous and convoluted self-justifying paragraphs above that attempt to support the hypotheses that exist are perfect example of self supporting paranoia...Haley can't pass Daubert because of a paradigm shift? Please, thats the most embarrassing justification I've heard yet. Tell me - at what point in time does a paradigm shift collapse under the weight of the overblown verbiage weighing it down and the lack of facts to support the verbiage?

You think the CDC needs to do a safety study? Whatever. But before that, you need to produce some semblance of good science to support some aspect of these vaccine related hypothesis.

FOGARTY said...

The CDC needs to do protocol comparison studies of safety just as all the oncologists of this country have too for safety and efficacy any time they change gears. People are seeing right through you now.

Whistleblower said...

"The CDC needs to do protocol comparison studies of safety just as all the oncologists of this country have too for safety and efficacy any time they change gears."

Great, fine - let them do it.

This doesn't address my point. What science exists to support this 'paradigm shift' you mentioned. What science (peer reviewed, published in a decent journal, replicated) exists that supports a causl connection between any vaccine ingredient and autism?

AutismNewsBeat said...

Seems like a reasonable question to ask before we invest in Titer Meter® stock. I'd also be concerned about your proposal to experiment on children. Your college's IRB will ask for data, because members will want to know if your study is necessary. We're all in philosophical agreement that child abuse is wrong, and the CDC needs to continue its work. It's always details that separate us.

So with your indulgence, I'd like a few days to think of some questions and concerns, and as I perform my due diligence, I'll spend time with my family and drink egg nog and open presents, and I hope you are doing the same thing. Merry Christmas, Dr. Fogarty.