2/19/2011

The Evolution of a Vaccine Textbook and the Arrogant Ignorance of the Anti-Vaccine Movement (updated)

One of the fairly common things out of the "pro-safe" vaccine crowd insists is that there's inadequate research on vaccines. What better way to look at how information has grown over time than to look at the evolution of a vaccine textbook and how it has grown over five editions.

In 1988, Vaccines was one third the size of the present edition, published 20 years later.

"Product Details

Hardcover: 656 pages
Publisher: Saunders (W.B.) Co Ltd; 2nd edition edition (August 1988)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0721619460
ISBN-13: 978-0721619460"

The second edition of Vaccines was published in 1994. It added over three hundred pages in the six years between editions.

From Amazon:

"Product Details

Hardcover: 996 pages
Publisher: W.B. Saunders Company; 2 Sub edition (January 1994)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0721665845
ISBN-13: 978-0721665849
Product Dimensions: 10.3 x 7.3 x 1.9 inches
Shipping Weight: 4.6 pounds"

The third edition was published in 1999. In five years, it added over two hundred pages, and two and a half pounds.

From Amazon:

Product Details

Hardcover: 1230 pages
Publisher: W.B. Saunders Company; 3rd edition (February 15, 1999)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0721674437
ISBN-13: 978-0721674438
Product Dimensions: 11 x 8.7 x 2.4 inches
Shipping Weight: 7.1 pounds











The fourth edition of Vaccines was published in 2004 and jumped to 1408 pages.

Product Details


Hardcover: 1408 pages
Publisher: Saunders; 4 edition (September 19, 2003)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0721696880
ISBN-13: 978-0721696881
Product Dimensions: 11.2 x 8.8 x 2.4 inches
Shipping Weight: 8 pounds


The fifth edition of Vaccines was published in 2008.





From Publisher:









From Amazon:
Product Details

Hardcover: 1748 pages
Publisher: Saunders; 5 edition (February 7, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1416036113
ISBN-13: 978-1416036111
Product Dimensions: 11.2 x 9.1 x 2.4 inches
Shipping Weight: 8.4 pounds


At Amazon, the fifth edition is described as "comprehensive and current coverage of every aspect of vaccination-from development to use in reducing disease."

"Provides a complete understanding of each disease, including clinical characteristics, microbiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment, as well an epidemiology and public health issues.
Offers comprehensive coverage of both existing vaccines and vaccines currently in the research and development stage.
Examines vaccine stability, immunogenicity, efficacy, duration of immunity, adverse events, indications, contraindications, precautions, administration with other vaccines, and disease control strategies.
Analyses the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of vaccines.
Discusses the proper use of immune globulins and antitoxins.
Illustrates concepts and objective data with approximately 600 tables and figures."


In twenty years, the textbook by Stanley Plotkin and Walter Orenstein (and later Paul Offit) has doubled in weight, gone from 656 pages to 1748 pages.

Another complaint is that safety in vaccines isn't being studied. A search of clinicaltrials.gov for vaccines pulls up 3,644 trials. 2,741 clinical trials are pulled up when you add safety to the search term. It's beyond ignorance when you hear a "pro safe" vaccine advocate argue there's insufficient research being done. It's intellectual laziness. When you search for vaccines and efficacy, you get 2,089 results.

Pubmed has 8,316 results for "vaccines safety" and 14,163 for "vaccines efficacy." It has 602 articles for "vaccines herd immunity." Therre's a lot of research out there on vaccines despite what "pro safe" advocates would have you believe. And lest you think that they're not looking at adverse effects, the results for "vaccines adverse effects" are 23,179 articles on PubMed.

Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean the knowledge isn't out there. All it takes is a willingness to look and the effort. No, I'm not a vaccine expert, and I never will be, but I can find the resources that are available, I can take the time to look at the amount of research being done. And I can be humbled by the volume of information out there and the realization that no matter how hard I try, I will never come close to reading it all.

Individuals like Paul Offit, Stanley Plotkin and Walter Orenstein are the experts in their field. They have the expertise and the authority to speak about vaccines, their safety, their efficacy, and their adverse effects. Dr. Offit has never shied away from admitting the failures, the problems, or the need for improvement.

Offit indisputably is an expert in vaccines. When he speaks about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, there's no reason to doubt his knowledge about the subject or his willingness to speak candidly about the potential adverse effects. He doesn't claim to be an autism expert, but he doesn't have to. He is an expert in vaccines.

"Pro safe" advocates, especially taken in light of the available research on vaccines, look at best ill-informed and arrogantly ignorant when they criticize Offit and his qualifications to speak on vaccines.



Amendment/Update:
Please see comments for an expansion of the post's ideas and rebuttals to the argument about conflicts of interest and the old, always tired argument that Offit's made millions.


Thanks to ScienceMom for finding the disclosure in the NY Times letter that MJ in the comments insisted wasn't there:


Do you see it, MJ


Thanks to Liz Ditz for the following:


"To be perfectly clear, here is a partial list of Paul Offit's grants and publications, starting three decades ago, in 1981.

Principal Investigator of Grants:
      The study of rotaviruses with monoclonal antibodies, Individual National Research Service Award, F32 AI 06733, The National Institutes of Health, 1982-1984, $36,000.

Immune protection against rotavirus infection, New Investigator Research Award, 1 R23 AI 21065, The National Institutes of Health, 1984-1987, $107,000

Protection against viral enteritis by intestinal CTLs, Biomedical Research Service Award, RR 05506-26, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 1987-1989, $50,000.

Protection against viral enteritis by intestinal CTLs, The Thomas B. and Jeanette E. Laws McCabe Fund, #60888, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 1987-1989, $14,000.

Protection against viral enteritis by intestinal CTLs, The University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation Award, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 1988-1989, $18,000.

Modification of rotavirus virulence by genetic reassortment, The Lederle Young Investigator Award in Vaccine Development, The Infectious Disease Society of America, 1988-1990, $60,000.

Protection against enteric infection by intestinal CTLs, Research Career Development Award, 1 K04 AIDK00889-01 VR, The National Institutes of Health, 1989-94, $300,000.

Protection against enteric infection by intestinal CTLs, R01 AI26251-01, The National Institutes of Health, 1990-95, $552,290.

Rotavirus-specific cellular immune response after natural infection or immunization, Thrasher Research Fund, 1993-95, $84,168.

Enhancement of rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity, World Health Organization, 1995-97, $46,000.

Enhancement of viral immunogenicity by microencapsulation, R01 AI26251-06-10, The National Institutes of Health, 1995-2000, $980,350.

Enhancement of bovine herpes virus glycoprotein immunogenicity by microencapsulation, Pfizer Laboratories, 1996-1997, $62,500.

Enhancement of influenza virus and avian poxvirus-HIV recombinant immunogenicity by microencapsulation, Pasteur-Merieux Serum et Vaccin, 1996-1997, $230,000.

Enhancement of an E. coli fimbrial protein (F11) immunogenicity by microencapsulation, Intervet Laboratories, 1996-1997, $12,000.

Enhancement of canine parvovirus and feline leukemia virus immunogenicity by aqueous-based microencapsulation, Heska Laboratories, 1996-1997, $62,000.

Enhancing mucosal immune responses by microencapsulation, R01 AI26251-11-15, The National Institutes of Health, 2000-2005, $1,250,000.

To be perfectly clear, here is a partial list of Paul Offit's grants and publications, starting three decades ago, in 1981.

Publications

Original Papers

   1. Offit, P.A., G.B. Fleischer, N. Koven, and S.A. Plotkin.  1981.  Severe pneumonia in Epstein-Barr virus infection.  J. Adol. Health Care  2: 121-125.
   2. Offit, P.A., J. Campos, and S.A. Plotkin.  1982.  Ampicillin-resistant, beta-lactamase negative, Haemophilus influenza type B.  Pediatrics  69: 230-232.
   3. Offit, P.A., S. Starr, P. Zolnick, and S.A. Plotkin.  1982.  Acyclovir treatment in neonatal herpes simplex virus infection. Ped. Infect. Dis. 1: 253-255.
   4. Offit, P.A., H.F. Clark, W.G. Stroop, E.M. Twist, and S.A. Plotkin. 1983. The cultivation of human rotavirus, strain 'WA', to high titer in cell culture and characterization of the viral structural polypeptides. J. Virol. Methods  7: 29-40.
   5. Offit, P.A., H.F. Clark, and S.A. Plotkin. 1983. Experimental analysis of the immune response to rotaviruses of bovine or primate origin assessed by radioimmunoassay, radioimmunoprecipitation, and plaque-reduction neutralization.  Infect. Immun. 42: 293-300.
   6. Offit, P.A., Clark, H.F., M. Kornstein, and S.A. Plotkin.  1984.  A murine model for oral infection with a primate rotavirus (simian strain SA-11).  J. Virol. 51: 233-236.
   7. Offit, P.A., H.F. Clark, A.H. Taylor, R.G. Hess, P.A. Bachman, and S.A. Plotkin. 1984.  Rotavirus-specific antibodies in fetal bovine serum and commercial preparations of serum albumin.  J. Clin. Microbiol. 20: 266-270.
      8. Offit, P.A., and H.F. Clark.  1985.  Protection against rotavirus-induced gastroenteritis in a murine model by passively-acquired gastrointestinal but not circulating antibodies.  J. Virol. 54: 58-64.
   9. Offit, P.A., and H.F. Clark.  1985.  Maternal antibody-mediated protection against gastroenteritis due to rotavirus in neonatal mice is dependent on both serotype and titer of antibody.  J. Infect. Dis.  152: 1152-1158.
  10. Offit, P.A., G. Blavat, H.B. Greenberg, and H.F. Clark.  1986.  Molecular basis of                   rotavirus virulence: role of gene segment 4.  J. Virol. 57: 46-49.
  11. Offit, P.A., and G. Blavat.  1986.  Identification of the two rotavirus genes determining neutralization specificities.  J. Virol. 57: 376-378.
  12. Offit, P.A., R. Shaw, and H.B. Greenberg.  1986.  Protection against rotavirus-induced gastroenteritis in newborn mice by monoclonal antibodies to surface proteins vp3 and vp7.  J. Virol. 58: 700-703.
  13. Clark, H.F., P.A. Offit, K.T. Dolan, A. Tezza, K. Gogalin, E.M. Twist, and S.A. Plotkin.  1986.  Response of adult human volunteers to oral administration of bovine and bovine/human reassortant rotaviruses.  Vaccine 4: 25-31.
  14. Clark, H.F., P.A. Offit, K. Dolan, T. Furukawa, L. Bell, and S.A. Plotkin.  1985. Rotavirus (RV) of bovine and human origin: immune response of adults and children following oral administration.  Pediatr. Res. 19: 290 A.
  15. Clark, H.F., T. Furukawa, L.M. Bell, P.A. Offit, P.A. Parrella, and S.A. Plotkin. 1986.  Immune response of infants and children to low-passage bovine rotavirus (strain WC-3).  Am J. Dis. Child. 140:350-356.
  16. Shaw, R.D., T.V. Phuoc, P.A. Offit, B.S. Coulson, and H.B. Greenberg.  1986. Antigenic mapping of the surface proteins of rhesus rotavirus.  Virology 155: 434-451.
  17. Offit, P.A., G. Blavat, H.F. Clark, and H.B. Greenberg.  1986. Reassortant rotaviruses containing structural proteins vp3 and vp7 from different parents induce antibodies protective against each parental serotype. J. Virol. 60: 491-496.
  18. Bell, L.M., H.F. Clark, P.A. Offit, P.H. Slight, A.M. Arbeter, and S.A. Plotkin. 1987.  Rotavirus serotype-specific neutralizing activity in human milk.  Am. J. Dis. Child. 142: 275-278.
  19. Bell, L.M., H.F. Clark, E.A. O'Brien, M.J. Kornstein, S.A. Plotkin, and P.A. Offit. 1987.  Gastroenteritis caused by human rotaviruses (serotype 3) in a suckling mouse model.  Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 184: 127-132.
  20. Clark, H.F., Y. Hoshino, L.M. Bell, J. Groff, P. Bachman, and P.A. Offit.  1987.  A rotavirus isolate WI61 representing a presumptive new human serotype.  J. Clin. Microbiol.   25: 1757-1762.
  21. Liu, M., P.A. Offit, and M.K. Estes.  1988.  Identification of the simian rotavirus SA11 genome segment 3 product.  Virology  163: 26-32.
  22. Offit, P.A., and K.I. Dudzik.  1988.  Rotavirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes cross-react with target cells infected with different rotavirus serotypes.  J. Virol. 62:127-131.
  23. Offit, P.A., and K.I. Dudzik.  1989.  Noninfectious rotavirus (strain RRV) induces and immune response which protects against rotavirus challenge.  J.Clin. Microbiol. 27: 885-888.
  24. Matsui, S., P.A. Offit, P.T. Vo, E.R. Mackow, D.A. Benfield, R.D. Shaw, L. Padilla-Noriega, and H.B. Greenberg. 1989.  Passive protection against rotavirus-induced diarrhea by monoclonal antibodies to the heterotypic neutralization domain of vp7 and the vp8 fragment of vp4.  J. Clin. Microbiol. 27: 780-782.                                
  25. Offit, P.A., and K.I. Dudzik.  1989.  Rotavirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes appear at the intestinal mucosal surface after rotavirus infection.  J. Virol.  63: 3507-3512.
  26. Offit, P.A., H.B. Greenberg, and K.I. Dudzik.  1989.  Rotavirus-specific protein synthesis is not necessary for recognition of infected cells by virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes.  J. Virol. 63: 3279-3283.
  27. Offit, P.A. and Y.M. Svoboda. 1989. Rotavirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte response of mice after oral inoculation with candidate rotavirus vaccine strains RRV or WC3. J. Infect. Dis. 160:783-788.
  28. Brussow H., P.A. Offit, G. Gerna, A. Bruttin, and J. Sidoti. 1990. Polypeptide specificity of anti-viral serum antibodies in children naturally infected with human rotavirus. J. Virol. 64:4130-4136.
  29. Matsuda Y., O. Nakagomi, and P.A. Offit.  1990.  Presence of three P types (vp4 serotypes) and two G types (vp7 serotypes) among bovine rotavirus strains. Arch. Virol. 115:199-207.
  30. Offit, P.A. and K.I. Dudzik. 1990. Rotavirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes passively protect against gastroenteritis in suckling mice. J. Virol. 64:6325-6328.
  31. Offit, P.A., S.L. Cunningham, and K.I. Dudzik. 1991. Memory and distribution of virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and CTLp after rotavirus infection. J. Virol. 65:1318-1324.
  32. Offit, P.A., D.B. Boyle, G.W. Both, N.L. Hill, Y.M. Svoboda, S.L. Cunningham, R.J. Jenkins, and M.A. McCrae. 1991. Surface glycoprotein vp7 is recognized by crossreactive rotavirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Virology 184:563-568.
  33. Brussow, H., P.A. Offit, J. Sidoti. 1991. Neutralizing antibodies to heterologous animal rotavirus serotypes 5, 6, 7, and 10 in sera from Ecuadorian children. J. Clin. Microbiol. 29:869-873.
  34. Nadel, S., P.A. Offit, R. Hodinka, R. Gesser, and L.M. Bell. 1992. Upper airway obstruction in perinatally-acquired herpes simplex virus infection. J. Pediatr. 120:127-129.
  35. Offit, P.A., E.J. Hoffenberg, E.S. Pia, P.A. Panackal, and N.L. Hill. 1992. Rotavirus-specific helper T cell response in newborns, infants, children, and adults.  J. Infect. Dis. 165:1107-1111.
  36. Ammari, L.K., P.A. Offit, A.B. Campbell.  1992.  Unusual presentation of group B streptococcus osteomyelitis.  Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 11:1066-1067.
  37. Offit, P.A.,  E.J. Hoffenberg, N. Santos, and V. Gouvea.  1993.  Rotavirus-specific humoral and cellular immune response after primary, symptomatic infection. J. Infect. Dis. 167:1436-1440.
  38. Christy, C., P.A. Offit, H F. Clark, and J. Treanor.  1993.  Evaluation of a bovine-human rotavirus reassortant vaccine in infants.  J. Infect. Dis. 168:1598-1599.
  39. Offit, P.A., B.E.H. Coupar, Y. M. Svoboda, R.J. Jenkins, M.A. McRae, A. Abraham, N.L. Hill, D.B. Boyle, and G.W. Both.  1994.  Induction of rotavirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes by vaccinia virus recombinants expressing individual rotavirus genes.  Virology 198:10-16.
  40. Santos, N., Riepenhoff-Talty, M., Clark, H.F., Offit, P, and Gouvea, V.  1994. Vp4 genotyping of human rotavirus in the USA.  J. Clin. Microbiol. 32:205-208.
  41. Offit, P.A., Khoury, C.A., Moser, C.H., Clark, HF., and Speaker T.J.  1994. Enhancement of rotavirus immunogenicity by microencapsulation.  Virology 203:134-143.
  42. Khoury, C.A., Brown, K., Kim, J., and Offit, P.A..  1994.  Rotavirus-specific intestinal immune response in mice assessed by enzyme-linked immunospot assay and intestinal fragment culture. Clin. Diag. Lab. Immunol. 1:722-728.
  43. Treanor, J.J., Clark, HF., Pichichero, M., Christy, C., Gouvea, V., Shrager, D., Pallazo, S., and Offit, P.A.  1995.  Evaluation of the protective efficacy of a serotype 1 bovine-human rotavirus reassortant vaccine in infants.  Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J.  14:301-307.
  44. Brown, K.A., Moser, C.A., Khoury, C.A., Kim, J.E., and P.A. Offit.  1995. Enhancement by microencapsulation of rotavirus-specific intestinal immune responses in mice assessed by enzyme-linked immunospot assay and intestinal fragment culture.  J. Infect. Dis. 171:1334-1338.
  45. Khoury, C.A., Moser, C.A., Speaker, T.J., and Offit, P.A.  1995.  Oral inoculation of mice with low doses of microencapsulated, noninfectious rotavirus induces virus-specific antibodies in gut-associated lymphoid tissue.  J. Infect. Dis. 172: 870-874.
  46. Coffin, S.E., Klinek, M., and Offit, P.A.  1995.  Induction of virus-specific antibody production by lamina propria lymphocytes following intramuscular inoculation with rotavirus.  J. Infect. Dis. 172: 874-878.
  47. Moser, C.A., Speaker, T.J., Berlin, J.A., and Offit, P.A.  1996.  Aqueous-based microencapsulation enhances rotavirus-specific humoral immune responses after parenteral inoculation of mice. Vaccine 14:1235-1238.
  48. Lomotan, E.A., Brown, K.A., Speaker, T.J., and Offit, P.A.  1997.  Aqueous-based microcapsules are detected primarily in gut-associated dendritic cells after oral inoculation of mice. Vaccine 15:1959-1962.
  49. Moser, C.A., Speaker, T.J., and Offit, P.A.  1997.  Effect of microencapsulation on immunogenicity of a bovine herpes virus glycoprotein and inactivated influenza virus in mice. Vaccine 15: 1767-1772.
  50. Coffin, S.E., Moser, C.A., Cohen, S., Clark, HF., and Offit, P.A.  1997.  Immunologic correlates of protection against challenge after intramuscular immunization of mice with rotavirus. J. Virol. 71:7851-7856.
  51. Moser, C.A., Coffin, S.E., Cookinham, S., and Offit, P.A.  1998.  Relative importance of rotavirus-specific effector and memory B cell responses in protection against challenge.  J. Virol. 72:1108-1114.
  52. Brown, K.A. and Offit, P.A.  1998. Rotavirus-specific proteins are detected in murine macrophages in both intestinal and extraintestinal lymphoid tissue.  Microbial Pathogen. 24:327-331.
  53. Coffin, S.E., and Offit, P.A.  1998.  Induction of rotavirus-specific memory B cells in gut-associated lymphoid tissue after intramuscular immunization. J. Virol. 72:3479-3483.
  54. Moser, C.A., Speaker, T.J., and Offit, P.A. 1998. Effect of water-based microencapsulation on protection against EDIM rotavirus challenge in mice. J. Virol. 72:3859-3862.
  55. Coffin, S.E., Clark, S.A., Bos, N.A., Brubaker, J.O., and Offit, P.A. 1999. Migration of antigen-presenting B cells from peripheral to mucosal lymphoid tissues may induce intestinal antigen-specific IgA following parenteral immunization. J. Immunol. 163:3064-3070.
  56. Coffin, S.E., Moser, C.A., Cohen, S., Speaker, T.J., and Offit, P.A. 1999. Viral microencapsulation delays protection after intramuscular inoculation of mice with rotavirus. Drug Delivery 6:253-257.
  57. Brubaker, J., R. Patel, T.J. Speaker, and P.A. Offit. 2000. A quantitative luminescence assay for measuring cell uptake of aqueous-based microcapsules in vitro. J. Immunol. Methods 237:85-93.
  58. Macartney, K.M., D. Baumgart, S.R. Carding, J.O. Brubaker, and P.A.Offit. 2000. Primary murine small intestinal epithelial cells, maintained in long-term culture, are susceptible to rotavirus infection. J. Virol. 74:5597-5603.
  59. Brown, K.A., J.A. Kriss, C.A. Moser, W.J. Wenner, and P.A. Offit. 2000. Circulating rotavirus-specific antibody-secreting cells (ASC) predict the presence of rotavirus-specific ASC in the human small intestinal lamina propria. J. Infect. Dis. 182:1039-1043.
  60. Offit, P.A. 2000. Preventing harm from thimerosal in vaccines (correspondance). JAMA 283:2104.
  61. Moser, C.A., D.V. Dolfi, M.L. DiVietro, P.A. Offit, and H F. Clark. 2001. Hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and infectious virus in gut-associated lymphoid tissue of mice after oral inoculation with simian-human or bovine-human reassortant rotaviruses. J. Infect. Dis. 183:1108-1111.
  62. Kushnir, N., N.A. Bos, A.W. Zuercher, S.E. Coffin, C.A. Moser, P.A. Offit, and J.J. Cebra. 2001. B2 but not B1 B cells can contribute to CD4+ T cell-mediated clearance of rotavirus in SCID mice. J. Virol. 75:5482-5490.
  63. Clark, HF, D. Lawley, D. Shrager, D. Jean-Guillaume, P.A. Offit, J. Eiden, and A.R. Shaw. 2001. Immune response of infants to bovine human rotavirus serotype G1 reassortant WI79-9: the dose response pattern to virus surface protein vp7 differs from that to vp4. Vaccine [in press].
  64. Moser, C.A. and P.A. Offit. 2001. Distribution of rotavirus-specific memory B cells in gut-associated lymphoid tissue after primary immunization. J. Gen. Virol. 82:2271-2274.
  65. Brubaker, J.O., K.K. Macartney, T.J. Speaker, and P.A. Offit. 2002. Specific attachment of covalently modified aqeous-based microcapsules to macrophages, B cells, and dendritic cells. J. Microencapsulation 19:213-223.
  66. Offit, P.A., Quarles, J., Gerber, M.A., Hackett, C.J., Marcuse, E.K., Kollman, T.R., Gellin, B.G., and Landry, S. 2002. Addressing parents’ concerns: Do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system? Pediatrics 109:124-129.
  67. Offit, P.A., Gerber, M.A., Hackett, C., Marcuse, E., and Gellin, B. 2002. Too many vaccines? (correspondence). Pediatrics 110:649.
  68. Offit, P.A. and Hackett, C.J. 2003. Addressing parents’ concerns: Do vaccines cause allergic or autoimmune diseases? Pediatrics 111:653-659.
  69. Chow, A.A., Moser C.A., Speaker, T.J., and Offit, P.A. 2003. Determination of efficiency of attachment of biotinylated antibodies to avidin-linked, aqueous-based microcapsules by flow cytometry. J. Immunol. Methods 2003;277:135-139.
  70. Offit, P.A., Jew, R.K. 2003. Addressing parents’ concerns: Do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals? Pediatrics 112:1394-1401.
  71. Offit, P.A. and Coffin, S.E. 2003. Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine 22:1-6.
  72. Offit, P.A. and Peter G. 2003. The meningococcal vaccine: public policy and individual choices. N. Engl. J. Med. 349:2353-2356; Offit, P.A., Peter, G. Choices about meningococcal vaccine. [correspondence] N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;350:1156.
  73. Clark HF, Burke CJ, Volkin DV, Offit, P, Ward RL, Breese JS, Dennehy P, Gooch WM, Malacaman E, Matson D, Walter E, Watson B, Krah DL, Dallas MJ, Schödel F, Kaplan KM, Heaton P. 2003. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy in healthy infants of G1 and G2 human reassortant rotavirus vaccine in a new stabilizer/buffer liquid formulation. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 22:914-920.
  74. Clark HF, Lawley D, Shrager D, Jean-Guillaume D, Offit P, Eiden JJ, Bennett PS, Kaplan, KM, Shaw A. 2004. Infant immune response to human rotavirus serotype G1 vaccine candidate reassortant WI79-9: Different dose response patterns to virus surface proteins vp7 and vp4. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 23:206-211.
  75. Clark HF, Bernstein DI, Dennehy P, Offit P, Pichichero M, Treanor J, Ward RL, Krah DL, Shaw A, Dallas MJ, Eiden JJ, Ivanoff N, Kaplan KM, Heaton P. 2004. Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of a live, quadrivalent human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine in healthy infants. J. Pediatr. 144:184-190.
  76. Offit, P.A. 2005. Why are pharmaceutical companies gradually abandoning vaccines? Health Affairs Journal, 24:622-630.
  77. Offit, P.A. 2005. The Cutter Incident, 50 years later. N. Engl. J. Med. 352:1411-1412. 
  78. Vesikari T, Matson DO, Dennehy P, Van Damme P, Santosham M, Rodriguez Z, Dallas MJ, Heyse JF, Gouveia MG, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Christie C, Ylitalo S, Itzler RF, Coia ML, Onorato MT, Adeyi BA, Marshall GS, Gothefors L, Campens D, Karvonen A, Watt JP, O’Brien KL, DiNubile MJ, Clark HF, Boslego JW, Offit PA, Heaton PM. 2006. Safety and efficacy of pentavalent human-bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus vaccine in preventing rotavirus gastroenteritis and associated healthcare contacts. N. Engl. J. Med 354:13-23.
  79. Vesikari T, Clark HF, Offit PA, Dallas MJ, DiStefano DJ, Goveia MG, Ward RL, Schödel F, Karvonen A, DiNubile MJ, Heaton PM. 2006. Effects of potency and composition of the multivalent human-bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus vaccine on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in healthy infants. Vaccine 24:4821-4829.

Editorials, Reviews, Chapters:

   1. Offit, P.A., and S.A. Plotkin. 1981. The rubella vaccine. Clin. Microbiol Newsletter 3: 130-131.
   2. Offit, P.A., and D. Rubin. 1982. Viral diseases: infections of the gastrointestinal tract. Comprehensive Therapy8: 21-26.
   3. Greenberg, H.B., P.A. Offit, C. Tran, A. Kapikian, W. Robinson, R. Shaw, R. Gaeta, and R. Bellamy. 1985. Vaccine strategies for the prevention of rotavirus diarrhea. pp. 447-455. In: S. Tzipori (ed.), Infectious diarrhea in the young: strategies for control in humans and animals Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
   4. Greenberg, H.B., and P.A. Offit. 1986. Gene coding assignments for rotavirus surface proteins. pp. 221-225. In: Development of Vaccines and Drugs against Diarrheal Diseases, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
   5. Offit, P.A., G. Blavat, H.F. Clark, R. Shaw, and H.B. Greenberg. 1986. Role of gene segments 4 and 9 in determining rotavirus virulence and protection against rotavirus challenge. pp. 267-273, In: R.M. Chanock and R.M. Lerner (eds.): Vaccines '86: New Approaches to Immunization.
   6. Greenberg, H.B., P.A. Offit, and R.D. Shaw. 1988. Neutralization of rotaviruses in vitro and in vivo: molecular determinants of protection and role of local immunity. pp. 319-330, In: W. Strober, M.E. Lamm, J.R. McGhee, and S.P. James (eds.): Mucosal Immunity and Infections at Mucosal Surfaces.
   7. Offit, P.A. 1991. Viral gastroenteritis. In: A.M. Rudolph and J.I.E. Hoffman (eds.): Rudolph's Pediatrics, 19th Edition, Appleton and Lange, 1991: 670-671.
   8. Offit, P.A. 1993. Rotavirus. In: F.D. Burg, J.R. Ingelfinger, and E.R. Wald (eds.): Gellis and Kagan's Current Pediatric Therapy, pages 652-653. 14th Edition, W.B. Saunders.
   9. Greenberg H.B., H.F. Clark, and P.A. Offit. 1994. Rotavirus pathology and pathophysiology. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 1993;255-283, Springer-Verlag Publishers, Berlin, West Germany.
  10. Offit, P.A. 1994. Immunologic determinants of protection against rotavirus challenge. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 1993;185:229-254, Springer-Verlag Publishers, Berlin, West Germany.
  11. Clark, H F., and P.A. Offit. 1994. Rotavirus vaccines. pp. 809-822. In: S.A. Plotkin and E.A. Mortimer, Jr. (eds): Vaccines, 2nd Edition, W.B. Saunders.
  12. Offit, P.A. 1994. Virus-specific cellular immune response to intestinal infection. pp. 89-100. In: D.A.J. Tyrell and A.Z. Kapikian (eds.): Virus infections of the gastrointestinal tract, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc.
  13. Offit, P.A. 1994. Rotaviruses: immunological determinants of protection against infection and disease. Advances in Virus Research 44: 161-202.
  14. Offit, P.A., and Clark, HF. 1994. Rotaviruses. In: Mandell, G.L., Bennett, J.E., and Dolin, R. (eds.). Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, pp. 1448-1455. 4th Edition, Churchill Livingstone.
  15. Offit, P.A. and Clark, H.F. 1995. Vaccines for enteric viral pathogens. pp. 1471-8, In: Blaser, M.J., Smith, P.D., Ravdin, J.I., Greenberg, H.B., and Guerrant, R.L. (eds.). Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Raven Press, New York, N.Y.
  16. Offit, P.A. Viral gastroenteritis. 1996. In: A.M. Rudolph, J.I.E. Hoffman, and C.D. Rudolph (eds.): Rudolph's Pediatrics, 20th Edition, Appleton and Lange, pp. 642-643.
  17. Conner, M.E., Estes, M.K., Offit, P.A., Clark, HF., Franco, M., Feng, N., and Greenberg, H.B. 1996. Development of a mucosal rotavirus vaccine. In: H. Kiyono, P.L. Ogra, and J.R. McGhee (eds.): Mucosal Vaccines: New Trends in Immunization, Academic Press, pp. 325-344.
  18. Offit, P.A. 1996. Host factors associated with protection against rotavirus disease: the skies are clearing. J. Infect. Dis. 174 (Suppl 1): S59-64.
  19. Clark, HF., Offit, P.A., Ellis, R.W., Eiden, J.J., Krah, D., Shaw, A.R., Pichichero, M., Treanor, J.J., Borian, F.E., Bell, L.M., and Plotkin, S.A. 1996. The development of multivalent bovine rotavirus (strain WC3) reassortant vaccine for infants. J. Infect. Dis. 174 (Suppl 1): S73-80.
  20. Clark, HF., Offit, P.A., Ellis, R.W., Krah, D., Shaw, A.R., Eiden, J.J., Pichichero, M., and Treanor, J.J. 1996. WC3 reassortant vaccines in children: brief review. Arch. Virol. [Suppl] 12: 187-198.
  21. Offit, P.A., Kapikian, A.Z., and Clark, HF. 1997. Vaccines against rotavirus. In: M.M. Levine, G.C. Woodrow, J.B. Kaper, and G.S. Cobon (eds.): New Generation Vaccines, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, pages 659-671.
  22. Coffin, S.E., and P.A. Offit. 1997. New vaccines against mucosal pathogens: rotavirus and respiratory syncytial virus. Adv. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. 13: 333-348.
  23. Offit, P.A. 1998. Rotavirus, In: F.D. Burg, J.R. Ingelfinger, and E.R.Wald, R.A. Polin (eds.): Gellis and Kagan's Current Pediatric Therapy, pages 132-133, 14th Edition, W.B. Saunders.
  24. Offit, P.A., and H.F. Clark. 1998. The rotavirus vaccine. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 11:9-13.
  25. Offit, P.A. The rotavirus vaccine. 1998. Journal of Clinical Virology 11:155-159, 1998.
  26. Clark, H F., R.I. Glass, and P.A. Offit. 1999. Rotavirus vaccines. In: S.A.Plotkin and W. Orenstein (eds): Vaccines, pages 987-1005, 3rd Edition, W.B. Saunders.
  27. Offit, P.A., and H F. Clark. 1999. Rotavirus vaccines, pp. 171-195. In: Ellis, R. (ed.): Combination Vaccines 1st Edition, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey.
  28. Macartney, K.K., and P.A. Offit. 2000. Immunologic methods and correlates of protection, In: Gray, J., and Desselberger, U. (eds.): Methods in Molecular Medicine: Rotaviruses, Humana Press Inc., Totawa, New Jersey [in press].
  29. Offit, P.A. 2000. Withdrawal of rotavirus vaccine in the USA. Vaccines: Children and Practice 3:2-3.
  30. Offit, P.A. 2001. Correlates of protection against rotavirus infection and disease. In Gastroenteritis viruses. Novartis Foundation Symposium 238, pp. 106-124, Wiley, Chichester.
  31. Macartney, K.K., and P.A. Offit. How vaccine safety is monitored before and after licensure. Pediatric Annals 2001;30:392-399.
  32. Offit, P.A. 2002. The future of rotavirus vaccines. Sem Pediatr Infect Dis 2002;13: 190-195.
  33. Offit, PA, HF Clark, and RL Ward. Current state of development of human rotavirus vaccines. In: U. Desselberger and J. Gray (eds.): Viral Gastroenteritis, 2003; pp. 345-356, Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  34. Clark, H F., P.A. Offit, R.I. Glass, and RM Ward. Rotavirus vaccines. In: S.A.Plotkin and W. Orenstein (eds): Vaccines, 2003; pp. 1327-1345, 4th Edition, W.B. Saunders.
  35. Offit P.A., and C.J. Hackett. Multiple vaccines and the immune system. In: S.A.Plotkin and W. Orenstein (eds): Vaccines, 2003, pp. 1583-1589, 4th Edition, W.B. Saunders.
  36. Offit, P.A. 2003. Commentary: Let’s get parents truly "fully informed" about vaccines. Contemp. Pediatr. 12-16.
  37. Offit, P.A. 2003. The power of 'box a'. Expert Rev Vaccines 2003;2:1-3.
  38. Offit, P.A. “When Judges Play Doctor,” The Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2004.
  39. Ward RL, HF Clark, PA Offit, and RI Glass. 2004. Live vaccine strategies to prevent rotavirus disease. In: M.M. Levine, J.B. Kaper, R. Rappuoli, M. Liu, and M.F. Good (eds.): New Generation Vaccines, pp. 607-620. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
  40. Offit, P.A. Back to the future. Expert Rev Vaccines 2004;3:89-90.
  41. Offit, P.A., Golden, J. Thimerosal and autism. Mol Psychiatry 2004;9:644.
  42. Clark HF, and P.A. Offit. Vaccine for rotavirus gastroenteritis universally needed for infants. Pediatr Ann 2004;33:536-543.
  43. Offit, P.A., and G. Peter. Meningococcal conjugate vaccine in the UK: An update. Lancet 2004;364:309-310.
  44. Offit, P.A. “The Needless Worry Over Influenza Vaccine,” The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2004.
  45. McMillan, J.A., Abramson, J.S., Katz, S.L., and Offit, P.A. Reducing the risk of pediatric influenza: Prevention strategies help both the young and old.Contemporary Pediatrics
  46. Heaton, P.M., Goveia, M., Miller, J.M., Offit, P.A., Clark, H.F. Development of   pentavalent rotavirus vaccine against prevalent serotypes of rotavirus gastroenteritis. J. Infect. Dis. 2005;192:S17-21.
  47. Offit, P.A. “Lawsuits Won’t Stop Pandemics,” The Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2005.
  48. Offit, P.A., Clark HF. A multivalent bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq). Pediatr Annals 2006; 35: 29-34.
  49. H.F. Clark, Offit, P.A., Plotkin, S.A., and Heaton, P.M. The new pentavalent rotavirus vaccine composed of bovine (strain WC3)-human rotavirus reassortants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006; 25:577-583.
  50. Offit, P.A. “Fatal Exemption,” The Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2007.
  51. Offit, P.A. “Risks of Being Risk Averse,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 12, 2007.
  52. Offit, P.A. “Dr. Advertising,” The New York Times, July 12, 2007.
  53. Offit, P.A. “Thimerosal and Vaccines—A Cautionary Tale,” New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:1278-9.
  54. Offit, P.A. “Inoculated against Facts,” The New York Times, March 31, 2008.
  55. Offit, P.A. Vaccines. 2008. In: J. M. Bergelson, S. S. Shah, and T. E. Zaoutis (eds.): Pediatric Infectious Diseases, pp. 373-384. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA.

Books:

   1. 1. Offit, P.A., and L.M. Bell. 1998. What Every Parent Should Know about Vaccines. Macmillan Press, New York, N.Y.
   2. Offit, P.A., Fass-Offit, B., and Bell, L.M. 1999. Breaking the Antibiotic Habit: A Parent’s Guide to Coughs, Colds, Ear Infections, and Sore Throats. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
   3. Offit, P.A., and L.M. Bell. 1999. Vaccines: What Every Parent Should Know. 2nd edition, Hungry Minds, New York, N.Y.
   4. Offit, P.A., and L.M. Bell. 2003. Vaccines: What You Should Know. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
   5. Marshall, GS, Dennehy PH, Greenberg DP, Offit PA, Tan TQ. 2004. The Vaccine Handbook: A Practical Guide for the Clinician, Lippincott Williams & Wilkens, Philadelphia, PA.
   6. Offit, P.A. 2005. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
   7. Offit, P.A. 2007. Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases. Smithsonian Books, New York, N.Y.
   8. Offit, P.A. 2008. Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. Columbia University Press, New York, N.Y.

****Note, book list does not include the fourth and fifth editions of Vaccines or Deadly Choices.*****


40 comments:

MJ said...

I find it interesting that while you are praising Dr Offit you fail to mention his biggest problems as well. He has made millions of dollars from the sale of his vaccines and, as I understand it, is still receiving payments (although indirectly through a financial company).

This is a major conflict of interest that should be disclosed. Yet, for some odd reason, this conflict of interest is never mentioned by his supporters.

Why do you think that is?

KWombles said...

Because it isn't a conflict of interest as it's not based on facts. In fact, any time someone spouts the misinformation you've just posted, it is abundantly and immediately clear where the person got it from.

No, he's not receiving any money for his vaccine any longer. I've posted his email on that. Liz has posted it.

I find it interesting that you, on a post primarily about how the level of knowledge regarding vaccines has grown exponentially over the last two decades, how the number of studies and clinical trials being conducted has continued to grow over the decades, can instead choose to pull out the tired, false canard about Offit's millions. It's old and it's wrong.

He earned around $6 million dollars. It's not a conflict of interest as he acknowledges what he made from a 25 year investment of time, effort, and energy to create a vaccine that has the chance to save over half a million lives worldwide each year.

The remainder of my post is, indeed, about whether Paul Offit is qualified to speak regarding vaccines. Since he is coauthor on THE go-to textbook on vaccines, he is absolutely qualified, in fact one of the three most eminently qualified doctors, to speak out on vaccines, their safety, their efficacy, and their potential adverse effects.

Amy Caraballo said...

But Jenny McCarthy said her son is vaccine injured and she's a celebrity who was once married to Jim Carey who was in The Mask with Cameron Diaz who was in Knight and Day with Tom Cruise who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon. KEVIN BACON! Therefore, vaccine injury causes Autism because 7 Kevin Bacon would never lie to us.

MJ said...

"No, he's not receiving any money for his vaccine any longer. I've posted his email on that. Liz has posted it. "

So he traded his rights for one lump sum payment and no future payments of any kind? From what I understood he was still receiving what amounts to be an annuity.

"It's not a conflict of interest as he acknowledges what he made from a 25 year investment of time, effort, and energy to create a vaccine that has the chance to save over half a million lives worldwide each year."

All of these things are completely irrelevant when it comes to the conflict. It doesn't matter if he saved every person in the world repeatedly over a hundred years time. His professional work enriched himself personally - that is a classic conflict of interest and should be disclosed.

I should say that the conflict doesn't mean that he is wrong by default - just that it should be disclosed. However by choosing to not disclose (as he himself did many times), well, isn't there some doctor from England who got into trouble over that?

KWombles said...

You know, you seem to be missing the point. Your information is wrong. He's never denied that he's earned money from his vaccine. He's always acknowledged that he's a vaccine inventor and that he made money from that. You're attempting a false equivalence here. And you continue to ignore the post's contentions in favor of your desire to riff on "pro safe" vaccine talking points that have been repeatedly shown to be a lie.

Here is Offit's statement, since it appears you lack the basic drive to actually read relevant posts:

"Just for the record: I no longer financially benefit from the sales of RotaTeq. My financial interests in that vaccine have been sold out by either The Wistar Institute, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, or me. I will, however, continue to stand up for the science of vaccines because unfounded fears about vaccines have hurt children. That is why I do what I do and why I have always done it. And I will continue to closely follow the distribution of rotavirus vaccines because these vaccines have the potential to save as many as 2,000 children a day, which is why I joined the research team at Children's Hospital."

Do you realize how completely absurd your statement is?: "His professional work enriched himself personally - that is a classic conflict of interest and should be disclosed." His work brought him money? Wow. It's his WORK. And he never denied it brought him money.

It was disclosed. Repeatedly. Age of Autism and "pro safe" sites have put out a steady stream of inaccurate information regarding Offit. You can continue to hold fast to that misinformation but that won't make you factually correct.

MJ said...

"Here is Offit's statement, since it appears you lack the basic drive to actually read relevant posts:"

That doesn't answer the question - did he sell his rights for a lump sum or an ongoing payment? And if it is an ongoing payment does the amount vary - in any way - based on how well the vaccine does.

I don't know that it does, but based on the typical way these arrangements are done, I would strongly suspect that if there are ongoing payments that there is some relation. If that is the case then the conflict remains.

"His work brought him money? Wow. It's his WORK. And he never denied it brought him money. "

Give me a break, you know better than that. If a researcher fails to disclose a substantial financial interest then he has a conflict of interest. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter if it is his "work" or that he never "denied" it, he must disclose it. If he doesn't then there is a problem.

As for he "always acknowledged", that statement is easily proven false. Here is one example that I found in about ten seconds of looking -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31offit.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=vaccination&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Where is the disclosure?

Besides which all of this is moot. The point of my comment was that while you were singing Offit's praises you failed to mention the million dollar conflict.

Amy Caraballo said...

"However by choosing to not disclose (as he himself did many times), well, isn't there some doctor from England who got into trouble over that?"

Actually, that was not why Wakefield got in trouble. Wakefield falsified data, his control group was tainted and had his study paid for by the antivax movement. That's not science. That's lying.

The fact that he was going to reap millions from a vaccine he invented just clarified his motive.

There's a difference between someone who lies and cheats and someone who makes profit off of science. We do live in a capitalist country (in the US). Making money off your work is what we do.

However, someone who lies and cheats to make money? That's called a criminal.

Ren said...

Kim, you know it's just jealousy from MJ and others. Had they devoted their entire lives and careers to develop something that has been proven safe and effective in preventing a deadly disease... Had they done that, they would cash in as much and even more than Dr. Offit. You don't see him cursing at the anti-vaxers for writing books full of lies and unfounded allegations. (He criticizes, but hardly wishes them harm.) You don't see him doing the same to all others who charge exorbitant amounts of money for magic. He's just not that kind of guy.
And that's what MJ and others can't stand. They can't stand that good and honest people are trying to save lives using the best available knowledge and technology. That whole "Offit is making money" is so tiring. MJ might as well just write $$$$ and we'll know what the comment is about.
Tell me, MJ, do you complain to the crossing guard lady because she gets paid to stop cars from hitting kids? I bet you don't. You just hate (and I mean hate) that he's saved the world and all you can do it gripe about it on a blog.

MJ said...

Amy,

"Actually, that was not why Wakefield got in trouble. Wakefield falsified data, his control group was tainted and had his study paid for by the antivax movement. That's not science. That's lying. "

Uhm, no, not really. He "got in trouble" because GMC found that he acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" and showed a "showed a callous disregard" for the suffering of children. The allegations that he falsified data are just that - allegations.

Ren,

Yes, you figured me out, I am jealous of Offit's millions. And how did you know I have a thing for crossing guards? You are hillarious. Have you ever though of doing stand up?

Amy Caraballo said...

Actually, if you look at MJ's blog, it's another testimony to how society's inability to embrace differences and to teach in an individually appropriate way, are making parents feel they must change their children. Change the child, not society.

If the antivax crowd put 1/2 the time they spend on connecting conspiracy dots into advocating for better learning supports and social acceptance of our children's differences, we'd likely not be blogging about Autism anymore.

KWombles said...

MJ: Offit stated he "no longer financially benefit[s] from the sales of RotaTeq. My financial interests in that vaccine have been sold out by either The Wistar Institute, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, or me."

I'm sorry, but what again does that have to do with vaccines and the amount of research that's been done on them or his qualifications to speak as an expert?

A news article, which he has no control over how information is edited, what is included, what is excluded, is not proof that he failed to disclose that he co-invented a vaccine. It is not relevant.

Nor do I need to each and every post I write need to disclose information that is already public knowledge. Vaccines are his work. Seriously.

From the 5th edition of vaccines:

"PAUL A. OFFIT, MD
Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Professor of Pediatrics, Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"
"Paul A. Offit, MD
Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Professor of Pediatrics, Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Rotavirus vaccines; Vaccine safety"
As far as refusal to disclose conflicts of interest:
From http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full.pdf+html

"Acknowledgments
Potential conflicts of interest. P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific
advisory board to Merck. J.S.G.: no conflicts."

From http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/123/1/e164

"Financial Disclosure: Dr Offit is the coinventor of and co-patent holder for RotaTeq."


Your allegations that Offit does not disclose his conflicts is not borne out in the literature.

Amy Caraballo said...

Um, no really...he falsified data. You gotta read the data before you can make an educated statement:

"That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection."
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Seems to me, that's skewed data. We can argue whether it was a mistake or purposeful until the cows come home. If it is a mistake, it's pretty coincidental that it "proved" his case.

MJ said...

Amy,

Now why did you have to go and start making personal attacks? For your information, not that I think it will do any good, you don't "change the child" you teach them to be able to survive in the world. You correct the underlying biological problems and you teach them the skills that they need.

No amount of supports or social acceptance is going to teach my older children to talk properly or to be able to raise their zinc, cholesterol, iron, selenium, or phosphorous levels. No amount of social change will get correct their seasonal depression, stop the self injurious behaviors, or correct the immune system disregulation.

None of these things are idle speculation - all of them are medical facts for us.

So let me put this in simple terms so that you have a chance of understanding it. Many children with autism need more help than just "acceptance".

And again, not that I think it will do any good, I am not "anti-vax", a fact you should have been able to pick up on rather quickly if you bothered to take the time to read what I wrote.

But instead you did what people like you do quite frequently and leap to attack me.

Ken said...

MJ's allegations that Dr. Offit receives ongoing payments tied to the sale of Rotateq are just that - allegations. Unproven, baseless, and desperate allegations.

Allegations that Wakefield falsified data to scare parents into believing the MMR vaccine is associated with autism are backed by mounds of evidence. Wakefield attempts to discredit the allegations have thus far failed spectacularly.

Liz Ditz said...

1. MJ alleges that, relative to Paul Offit:


This is a major conflict of interest that should be disclosed. Yet, for some odd reason, this conflict of interest is never mentioned by his supporters.


I have two responses to that allegation:

a) it has been shown, again and again, that Offit's status as a patent holder on a single vaccine has been disclosed in the literature and in blogs such as Kim's here, my own, LeftBrain/RightBrain, Respectful Insolence...the list is quite long

b) At some point, facts (such that Offit spent two decades developing a vaccine against rotavirus and that the patent was sold, by which act Offit received a large lump-sum payment) pass into common knowledge. It has been discussed at length, including extensive rebuttals of the distortions published at Age of Autism. MJ, I didn't notice you listing your own conflict of interest-- that you have children with autism -- anywhere in your responses above.

2. The point of Kim's post was to show the contents of the vaccine textbook and that allegations that vaccines "aren't researched" is demonstrably false. Handwaving about Offit's alleged COI is beside the point.

Liz Ditz said...

To be perfectly clear, here is a partial list of Paul Offit's grants and publications, starting three decades ago, in 1981.

Principal Investigator of Grants:
The study of rotaviruses with monoclonal antibodies, Individual National Research Service Award, F32 AI 06733, The National Institutes of Health, 1982-1984, $36,000.

Immune protection against rotavirus infection, New Investigator Research Award, 1 R23 AI 21065, The National Institutes of Health, 1984-1987, $107,000

Protection against viral enteritis by intestinal CTLs, Biomedical Research Service Award, RR 05506-26, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 1987-1989, $50,000.

Protection against viral enteritis by intestinal CTLs, The Thomas B. and Jeanette E. Laws McCabe Fund, #60888, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 1987-1989, $14,000.

Protection against viral enteritis by intestinal CTLs, The University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation Award, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 1988-1989, $18,000.

Modification of rotavirus virulence by genetic reassortment, The Lederle Young Investigator Award in Vaccine Development, The Infectious Disease Society of America, 1988-1990, $60,000.

Protection against enteric infection by intestinal CTLs, Research Career Development Award, 1 K04 AIDK00889-01 VR, The National Institutes of Health, 1989-94, $300,000.

Protection against enteric infection by intestinal CTLs, R01 AI26251-01, The National Institutes of Health, 1990-95, $552,290.

Rotavirus-specific cellular immune response after natural infection or immunization, Thrasher Research Fund, 1993-95, $84,168.

Enhancement of rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity, World Health Organization, 1995-97, $46,000.

Enhancement of viral immunogenicity by microencapsulation, R01 AI26251-06-10, The National Institutes of Health, 1995-2000, $980,350.

Enhancement of bovine herpes virus glycoprotein immunogenicity by microencapsulation, Pfizer Laboratories, 1996-1997, $62,500.

Enhancement of influenza virus and avian poxvirus-HIV recombinant immunogenicity by microencapsulation, Pasteur-Merieux Serum et Vaccin, 1996-1997, $230,000.

Enhancement of an E. coli fimbrial protein (F11) immunogenicity by microencapsulation, Intervet Laboratories, 1996-1997, $12,000.

Enhancement of canine parvovirus and feline leukemia virus immunogenicity by aqueous-based microencapsulation, Heska Laboratories, 1996-1997, $62,000.

Enhancing mucosal immune responses by microencapsulation, R01 AI26251-11-15, The National Institutes of Health, 2000-2005, $1,250,000.

Liz Ditz said...

Offit has published 79 original papers and 55 editorials, reviews and chapters. It would take about 8 comments (given the character-count limit on comments) to list them all. I shall email the list to Kim to do with what she sees fit.

Books:

1. Offit, P.A., and L.M. Bell. 1998. What Every Parent Should Know about Vaccines. Macmillan Press, New York, N.Y.
2. Offit, P.A., Fass-Offit, B., and Bell, L.M. 1999. Breaking the Antibiotic Habit: A Parent’s Guide to Coughs, Colds, Ear Infections, and Sore Throats. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
3. Offit, P.A., and L.M. Bell. 1999. Vaccines: What Every Parent Should Know. 2nd edition, Hungry Minds, New York, N.Y.
4. Offit, P.A., and L.M. Bell. 2003. Vaccines: What You Should Know. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
5. Marshall, GS, Dennehy PH, Greenberg DP, Offit PA, Tan TQ. 2004. The Vaccine Handbook: A Practical Guide for the Clinician, Lippincott Williams & Wilkens, Philadelphia, PA.
6. Offit, P.A. 2005. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
7. Offit, P.A. 2007. Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases. Smithsonian Books, New York, N.Y.
8. Offit, P.A. 2008. Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. Columbia University Press, New York, N.Y.

KWombles said...

Liz, I'll be happy to add them to the end of the post. :)

MJ said...

@Kim,

"I'm sorry, but what again does that have to do with vaccines and the amount of research that's been done on them or his qualifications to speak as an expert?"

You are seriously asking what a financial conflict of interest has to do with a person's qualifications to speak as an expert? Really?

"A news article, which he has no control over how information is edited, what is included, what is excluded, is not proof that he failed to disclose that he co-invented a vaccine. It is not relevant."

It was a letter to the editor which presumably he had full control over since he wrote. There are also many TV appearances that he has made were he also failed to diclose.

"Nor do I need to each and every post I write need to disclose information that is already public knowledge. Vaccines are his work. Seriously."

So if I wrote about Wakefield and failed to include the fact that he lost his license due to misconduct, that would be OK because it is "public knowledge"?

@Amy,

"Um, no really...he falsified data. You gotta read the data before you can make an educated statement:"

Do you know what the word "allegation" means? Or are you suggesting that everything published in a journal is "proven"?

@Liz Ditz,

a) Single vaccine or multiple vaccines don't matter

b) See my response to Kim above about common knowledge.

2) The COI isn't alleged, it is factual. And it does matter quite a bit when you are holding someone out as an expert without disclosing a major source of possible bias.

Regarding the disclosure list, that was my whole point. The original post that held out Offit as an undisputed expert failed to mention his conflicts. This is exactly the same as quoting from Wakefield without mentioning that he has been de-doctored.

@Kim,

"Liz, I'll be happy to add them to the end of the post. :) "

And see, now that you addressed my complaint, I'm satisfied and won't heckle you anymore.

KWombles said...

Actually, I appended the rather hefty length of published papers to the paper, not your demand for a notification of conflict of interest.

Again, you have a problem with false equivalence. You love to pull out your critical fallacies at the drop of a hat, maybe that's one you should examine in greater detail.

Offit discloses his role as a vaccine inventor. It's not my job, especially on a blog that is serial in nature and has a long established readership who is well aware of Offit's role as an inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, to disclose common knowledge each and every time I write about Offit.

We've already established you have relied of false information for your claims; Offit is no longer receiving financial recompense for his role in creating a rotavirus vaccine.

As has been suggested, you fail to disclose your conflict of interest as a parent to three autistic children who happens to believe that vaccines play a role in his children's autism (i.e. your first blog post, referring to your twins). You fail to disclose that you have an emotional reaction to Offit and have written critically about him in the past, it appears, based on the false information you have regarding him ("On one side you have have Dr Offit who represents everything that is wrong about the modern medical industry. He is an insider who has had large vested financial interests in one side of the argument winning. Autism is not his field, he just comments on it as a hobby."-- http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2009/03/trolling-against-poling.html).


Contrary to your whole I'd-disclose-if-it-were-Wakefield, you wrote about Wakefield recently: http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2011/02/bill-gates-on-wakefield.html. No disclosure there. Hmmm.

Maybe you just forgot, right?
Well, let's see.

http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2011/01/jabberwocky-of-day-medical.html

No disclosure there.

I think I've made my point adequately. While you are absolutely right that there's no need to resort to personal attacks, your blog posts, your overall support of Wakefield, your propensity to attack Offit (though certainly gentler than AoA), your support of the vaccine-as-a-cause-of-autism idea, and your tendency to either flatly misread posts or argue strawmen certainly stands as relevant in evaluating your particular perspective.


So, heckle away (certainly not what you'd actually done, but perhaps we have different dictionaries) if you want, feel free and dandy. Or walk away and think you won the day. Suits me fine either way.

MJ said...

"We've already established you have relied of false information for your claims; Offit is no longer receiving financial recompense for his role in creating a rotavirus vaccine."

No we haven't. You haven't been able to answer my questions about the nature of the transfer. I am guessing that means you don't know the answer.

"As has been suggested, you fail to disclose your conflict of interest as a parent to three autistic children who happens to believe that vaccines play a role in his children's autism (i.e. your first blog post, referring to your twins). "

First, I am not a scientist nor a researcher nor do I claim to play one on the internet. Second, the "disclosure" is there for any one who clicks on the link on my name. Third, I think I was pretty clear recently about the relationship between vaccines and my older daughters' autism. Feel free to disagree with me on my recent post on the subject if you would like and tell me how I am wrong.

http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-years-of-autism-jabberwocky.html

"You fail to disclose that you have an emotional reaction to Offit and have written critically about him in the past, it appears, based on the false information you have regarding him"

No, I don't like him, but I would hardly call that an "emotional reaction". And I stand by my opinion of him. And I am still waiting to hear what false information I am using.

"Contrary to your whole I'd-disclose-if-it-were-Wakefield, you wrote about Wakefield recently: http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2011/02/bill-gates-on-wakefield.html. No disclosure there. Hmmm."

And that post wasn't about really Wakefield nor was I discussing him directly. That post was about Gates. Now, if you go back and look at what said when discussion Wakefield I think you will see the picture is different. Here's a link to get you started -

http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/search/label/Wakefield

"Well, let's see. http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2011/01/jabberwocky-of-day-medical.html No disclosure there."

Again, not about Wakefield. And I would draw your attention to the closing lines of that post -

"Given rants like this and other incidents in the past, I don't find him to be particularly believable or trustworthy. Wakefield is certainly not a saint but I don't think that Deer is any better.

But, like always, make up your own mind."

Get the drift?

"I think I've made my point adequately."

No, you haven't.

"your overall support of Wakefield"

Nope, I don't.

"your propensity to attack Offit"

Not typically, no. I don't like the guy but I don't go out of my way to attack him.

"your support of the vaccine-as-a-cause-of-autism idea"

Really? Where exactly did I say that? I thought I was very clear on that idea.

"tendency to either flatly misread posts or argue strawmen certainly stands as relevant in evaluating your particular perspective"

Pot, Kettle, Black.

KWombles said...

No, I've written on Offit's earnings; he's stated and explained how he was compensated. Just because you refuse to accept his answer doesn't mean I have to continue to play your game. If you can't understand what he means when he says he no longer receives any money for his vaccine, if you can't accept that he says he earned around $6 million dollars in all, that's a failure on your part, not on mine.

Oh, I assure you, I've read your blog, each and every post.

MJ, you're free to move on. I assure you, I won't miss your stirring repartee.

You argued I needed to disclose. You said you'd get a hard time if you didn't disclose when you wrote about Wakefield. Those two posts deal with Wakefield. Maybe not in their entirety, but neither did my post deal with Offit in its entirety. You didn't disclose he'd been struck off. I didn't disclose Offit co-invented a vaccine. Pot, kettle, black right back at you. That was the point. I don't need to go through every piece you wrote that dealt with Wakefield to prove you didn't disclose he'd lost his license.

You do misread. I've demonstrated it every single time you choose to comment on a post and butcher it. The fact that you hold fast to your position despite being made aware by a multitude of commenters that you're either incorrect in your reading, relying on fallacies, or flat out factually incorrect is an interesting insight into your psyche.

You still haven't addressed the main contention of the post, so I'm going to take it as your agreement with my main point and my conclusion. Thanks.

Science Mom said...

That doesn't answer the question - did he sell his rights for a lump sum or an ongoing payment? And if it is an ongoing payment does the amount vary - in any way - based on how well the vaccine does.

Yes it does answer the question. What part of, "Just for the record: I no longer financially benefit from the sales of RotaTeq. My financial interests in that vaccine have been sold out by either The Wistar Institute, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, or me." are you having difficulty with? Also from a personal correspondence: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/paul-offit-explains-the-money-side-of-the-rotavirus-vaccine-he-worked-on/

"CHOP sold its patent for $182 million. This information was made publicly available and was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer at the time. The inventors, Fred Clark, Stan Plotkin, and me split 10 percent of that three ways. This means that we each received about $6 million." As in he received past tense, no more money, no royalties. Dr. Offit has always been up front about his work, funding and patent sale. If you choose to not believe that he no longer receives any monies from the Rotateq vaccine, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate other than what he has disclosed and, "I heard blah blah blah" will get you laughed out of the room, as you must know by now.

Give me a break, you know better than that. If a researcher fails to disclose a substantial financial interest then he has a conflict of interest. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter if it is his "work" or that he never "denied" it, he must disclose it. If he doesn't then there is a problem.

As for he "always acknowledged", that statement is easily proven false. Here is one example that I found in about ten seconds of looking -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31offit.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=vaccination&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Where is the disclosure?


With about eight seconds of reading, his disclosure, "(In the interest of full disclosure: I am a co-inventor and co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine.)", bottom of the third paragraph. Now I wonder if you are this outspoken about Dr.s Poling, Hewitson, Wakefield, Krigsman or Haley et al. not declaring their conflicts of interest? I haven't ever seen a post or comment of yours that has admonished these 'investigators' for their lack of COI disclosure.

Amy Caraballo said...

"Now why did you have to go and start making personal attacks? For your information, not that I think it will do any good, you don't "change the child" you teach them to be able to survive in the world. You correct the underlying biological problems and you teach them the skills that they need."

Wow, you considered that an ATTACK? I was making a point to the commenter prior to me who did attack. I'd have considered my post a defense of your character. But I see that there is no reasoning with you. I am the enemy since I choose to believe my child is NOT defunct and in need of a cure.

You said: "No amount of supports or social acceptance is going to teach my older children to talk properly"

Talk PROPERLY? By whose standards? What the hell is proper? The Queen's English? C'mon. Communication is a way to get needs met. Older children on the spectrum are SUCCESSFULLY using alternative communication, such as we are doing right now.

You must have some serious hidden insight that the rest of the world doesn't have. I'd better go tell those many adults with Autism who were once labeled as Mentally Retarded who now write publications, hold real jobs and have families that they are not really in existence.

You go on with your endocrine babble about Zinc deficiency, iron, etc. So you must have medical PROOF that all children with ASDs have this? They don't. While it's common, have you tested the rest of the NT child population and done a correlative study? I think not. You've demonstrated exactly the behavior I was stating in the post you consider an attack. You've grab on to some scientific data and created the 10 commandments of Autism. Correlation does not EQUAL CAUSATION. Google it. Educate yourself. Really, it doesn't hurt that much.

You are not so different than any other parent who was dealt a card that wasn't in the original deck. And now you don't know where to turn.

Some of us turned to those who actually have Autism and LEARNED about what it is REALLY like to have it. We've learned that it IS no picnic because our society expects certain behaviors and verbal communication (which by the way, isn't really necessary in our world for survival with today's technology). We've learned that if everyone would stop passing judgement and presuming those with Autism are diseased and broken, we'd not be having any of these conversations right now.

You, on the otherhand, decided to turn to those who sold snakeoil promises. Sure, fix the kid -it's easier, right? It's also straight out child abuse what some snakeoil salesmen pitch.

Don't for one minute presume you have all the answers. If you did, I imagine we'd be reading YOUR scientific journal that proves all you support.

I, on the other hand, will happily report I don't have all the answers. And there in, lies the difference between science and bunk!

MJ said...

@Kim -

"If you can't understand what he means when he says he no longer receives any money for his vaccine, if you can't accept that he says he earned around $6 million dollars in all, that's a failure on your part, not on mine."

Your quote isn't that he no longer receives money but rather that he "no longer financially benefit from the sales of RotaTeq".

So, I guess the question is how much experience do you have with how financial transactions like this are done? As I suggested above, transactions like the selling of rights can still involve continuing payments. Or they might not. It all depends on how the transaction was structured.

You don't seem to know the answer to the question and keep repeating the same think over and over, so I guess that is the answer.

"Oh, I assure you, I've read your blog, each and every post. "

All 257 of them? Wow, I'm touched. But strangely I find myself believing Statcounter and Google Analytics and disbelieving you.

"Those two posts deal with Wakefield. Maybe not in their entirety, but neither did my post deal with Offit in its entirety."

Speaking of misrepresentations, you can't understand the difference between mentioning someone in passing and directly praising someone as an expert in their field?

"The fact that you hold fast to your position despite being made aware by a multitude of commenters"

Which multitude are we talking about? The person blathering about acceptance-only or the one saying I was jealous of Offit's millions? Seriously, two people responding intelligently (as of when you wrote that comment) is not a "multitude".

"interesting insight into your psyche."

Trust me when I say that trying to psych 101 me won't work.

@Science Mom -

"Also from a personal correspondence: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/paul-offit-explains-the-money-side-of-the-rotavirus-vaccine-he-worked-on/"

Wasn't that written by Bonie Offit?

But seriously, that post is all just guesswork by interested parties and is not in anyway definitive. I would give more weight to the direct quotes attributed to Offit than posts put together based on guess work.

"With about eight seconds of reading, his disclosure,"

Well, that's what I get for only quickly looking for the disclose at the bottom of the article where it should be. There are other articles and media appearances where the disclosure is not made so the point is still valid. But since you already have your blinders on, I am not going to waste my time digging up references so you can just ignore them.

KWombles said...

MJ: yeah, google reader, buddy. Any blog one follows and any blog one enters as a subscription can be read, in its entirety, on google reader. I'm one of your 63 subscribers.

All of your posts are available there when one subscribes to your feed. I read each and every post you write right there on google reader. And I can search key terms, there, as well. I can't read comments, there. I can't see side bars or what your blog looks like, but I can read your posts.

It's because of google reader that I've never accused you of only reading my posts you comment on. I mean, I can see through IP Tracer when you're here, what blog post you're looking on, how long you sit there, but to presume that's all you ever look at when I know there are other ways to gain access to my posts, like through the RSS feed, or through google reader, or by reading me at Open Salon or at beforeitsnews.com or over at Science 2.0, I don't presume that's all you've read.

I've also read your comments on blogs, so I've seen your recent postings to Interverbal, for example.

You really don't understand that "no longer financially benefit" means no longer gets paid? Really?

Offit has communicated clearly what he earned from the vaccine and that he no longer receives payment for it. It's your problem that you won't accept that. It's also indicative of your particular perspective.

And since I hold a master's in psychology and teach the subject, I'll feel free to analyze the content of your posts, comments, etc., to my heart's content. After all, you have no problem assuming all sorts of things and deciding you conclusively know something, so who are you to tell me I can't use my expertise? :-)

Now, you promised you'd go away, but you keep coming back. Why is that, exactly? Hmm, let me speculate about that.

Instead of owning your errors, you blather about our blinders? I'm gonna label that arrogance. And I'm going to point out that you have a spectacular tendency to prove my post's very points. Thank you.

MJ said...

Amy,

"Wow, you considered that an ATTACK?"

And what exactly was it then, because it sure wasn't a "defense".

"But I see that there is no reasoning with you. I am the enemy since I choose to believe my child is NOT defunct and in need of a cure. "

Actually, you have that backwards. I have absolutely no problem with you believing that your child can function with just acceptance and supports. That is good for you and, more importantly, for your child. But my children need far more than just acceptance and you seen to have a problem with my saying so.

"Talk PROPERLY? By whose standards?"

Oh, I don't know, the English language? Maybe the ability to "properly" use single words or even put multiple words together into a full sentence?

"Older children on the spectrum are SUCCESSFULLY using alternative communication, such as we are doing right now."

Huh, I was wondering what all those funny looking pictures on that board were and what that funny looking device sitting on my counter was. Maybe that explains some of the strange gestures the children sometimes use too.

Here's a hint for you, don't assume.

"I'd better go tell those many adults with Autism who were once labeled as Mentally Retarded who now write publications, hold real jobs and have families that they are not really in existence."

The existence of high function adults does not mean that the lower functioning children don't exist or that their needs should be ignored.

"So you must have medical PROOF that all children with ASDs have this? "

No, I was speaking of my children specifically. But in general, yes there is some amount of evidence (there is no such thing as "PROOF") that all of these things are seen more commonly in a subset of children with autism than in typical children.

"You've grab on to some scientific data and created the 10 commandments of Autism"

Unlike you, I don't claim to speak to the needs of every person with autism

"You are not so different than any other parent who was dealt a card that wasn't in the original deck. And now you don't know where to turn. "

Oh give me a break. Learn what the hell you are talking about before blathering.

"We've learned that it IS no picnic because our society expects certain behaviors and verbal communication"

But you haven't learned that, for some, autism is an actual disability that requires help.

"We've learned that if everyone would stop passing judgement and presuming those with Autism are diseased and broken, we'd not be having any of these conversations right now."

Oh brother, are you just reading from a standard book of plays now?

"You, on the otherhand, decided to turn to those who sold snakeoil promises. Sure, fix the kid -it's easier, right? It's also straight out child abuse what some snakeoil salesmen pitch. "

I abuse my children now by following the advice of their doctors? Good to know.

"Don't for one minute presume you have all the answers"

No, I don't, but you certainly seem to think that you have all of the answers.

Science Mom said...

@Science Mom -

"Also from a personal correspondence: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/paul-offit-explains-the-money-side-of-the-rotavirus-vaccine-he-worked-on/"

Wasn't that written by Bonie Offit?

But seriously, that post is all just guesswork by interested parties and is not in anyway definitive. I would give more weight to the direct quotes attributed to Offit than posts put together based on guess work.


How droll. LB/RB pieced together, based upon public documents what Offit and his co-inventors received. Dr. Offit confirmed this; AoA, on the other hand, continues to spittle their ridiculous assertions that he has made four times that and continues to receive royalties. I believe you are taking your talking points from them given your resistance to the reality of the situation.

"With about eight seconds of reading, his disclosure,"

Well, that's what I get for only quickly looking for the disclose at the bottom of the article where it should be. There are other articles and media appearances where the disclosure is not made so the point is still valid. But since you already have your blinders on, I am not going to waste my time digging up references so you can just ignore them.


Oh how lame. It was a newspaper editorial; there is no standard where a disclosure should appear. Now if you had actually read it, then you could have saved some face. Trying to spin your mistake by claiming that he must have done it somewhere is just as lame. So why not dig up references, clearly I'm not ignoring them ;)

MJ said...

"MJ: yeah, google reader, buddy. Any blog one follows and any blog one enters as a subscription can be read, in its entirety, on google reader. I'm one of your 63 subscribers."

Ah, that makes sense. And actually the number via google reader is 67, but who's counting?

"I've also read your comments on blogs, so I've seen your recent postings to Interverbal, for example. "

And?

"You really don't understand that "no longer financially benefit" means no longer gets paid? Really?"

The amount of financial ignorance in this country is staggering... Just a suggestion, for what whatever is it worth, when looking at a significant financial transaction of any sort read the small print - the devil is always in the details.

"I'll feel free to analyze the content of your posts, comments, etc., to my heart's content."

Feel free.

"who are you to tell me I can't use my expertise? :-)"

Well, you then might need more practice because your guesses are terrible. I know I don't give you that much to work with but come on, that's the best you can come up with?

"Now, you promised you'd go away, but you keep coming back."

I did? I seem to remember you telling me not to let the door hit me in the ass on the way out, but I didn't recall me storming out the door. But I get the hint, so goodbye.

Science Mom said...

"You really don't understand that "no longer financially benefit" means no longer gets paid? Really?"

The amount of financial ignorance in this country is staggering... Just a suggestion, for what whatever is it worth, when looking at a significant financial transaction of any sort read the small print - the devil is always in the details.


You are being very dishonest right now. Dr. Offit has confirmed what he has made and that he makes no royalties. Yes, the devil's in the details so why don't you look up CHOPs patent sale if you don't wish to believe us.

I also see that you have no interest in acknowledging the glaring mistake you have made regarding Dr. Offit's COI disclosures. There is no shame in making mistakes, it happens to me. The shame is pretending you didn't make them.

KWombles said...

So basically you're alleging Offit is a liar when he says he receives no more income over the vaccine?

Google reader, and I'm happy to capture it if you're that "skeptical" shows the following:


Feed URL: http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Posts per week:0.5Subscribers:63Last updated:4:30 PM (8 minutes ago)
Last 30 daysTime of dayDay of the week

As to comments, just sharing that it was possible to read your comments without you being aware of it.

Actually, I haven't engaged in a whole lot of effort to analyze you. I've spent just enough effort to read your opinions to gauge where you're getting some of your information. I've certainly made some judgments and I'd confess to having an opinion regarding you, but that's not particularly an effort relating to psychology. Can't say as I've made any guesses, but of course, like Dr. Jay, you like to offer stuff but not back it up.

You said "And see, now that you addressed my complaint, I'm satisfied and won't heckle you anymore." Since your definition of heckle obviously differs from mine, I thought that meant you were done commenting, especially since the tone didn't change when you came back.

Again, I'll note you didn't rebut my post itself, so I'll take that to mean you agree with my conclusion. Thanks.

KWombles said...

And MJ, to clarify, I'm not saying you're not welcome to comment here.

I am, however, through wasting my time responding to your general comments, especially when they cover no new ground. Don't take my silence as assent of your arguments, only that there's no point in repeating you're wrong. :-)

KWombles said...

https://picasaweb.google.com/kwombles/MJSSubscribers#

See, 63. I know how you like evidence, MJ. :-) Maybe yours says 67.

MJ said...

What is it with you people that you are unable to understand a nuanced statement? Show me a statement by Offit that he will receive no future payments of any kind as a result of the transaction and I will concede that point.

What I see is the statement of a very intelligent person (Offit) who, in an attempt to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, sold his interest in a patent. My question is under what terms this sale was done. Was it a one time cash payment, an initial payment with continuing payments, a series of ongoing payments, or some other combination?

People in the financial world frequently enter into these sorts of arrangements in make it look like they do not have a conflict of interest when in reality they continue to receive payments that are at least partially based on the item that they sold.

So when I see a statement from an intelligent person that contains what might be weasel words ("I no longer financially benefit from the sales of RotaTeq") and I know that this sort of transaction is done all of the time to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I get suspicious. Or perhaps a better word is that I am skeptical.

As for me being "dishonest", no, I am being completely honest. I acknowledged that I was mistaken about the article that I posted and gave an explanation as to why I made the mistake. If that is dishonest you are working from a different definition of the word.

I declined to go digging for the other examples that I have run across before because I don't really see the point. But if you really want to go looking, I suggest looking at his TV appearances and other letters he has written to media outlets. You should also look at the number of articles where he is quoted as an expert without and disclosure, such as this one -

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story?id=6531763&page=1

Feel free to skip the comments about how he had no control over the contents of the article.

None of these items addresses the first part of my complaint (see my first comment above). Offit still made 6 million dollars from his work and to hold him up as an undisputed authority on the subject without disclosing the fact that he has been personally enriched by his work is questionable at best.

As for the main point of the post, it is just kind of silly. The size of a book published on a subject and the number of hits in a research database says nothing about the quality of research being done. If you actually want to address the subject then pick a specific vaccine and write about the actual safety studies performed to show that vaccine was safe.

P.S. Kim, did you know that blogger sites have multiple feeds? The main atom feed from my site has 63 subscribers but a secondary one has 4, hence the 67 number. Have a look -

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/JmCaKVPjRjRgKtOONOX-OJ_MaPyPtb9xq-1iILrKVbU?feat=directlink

KWombles said...

I expect, based on my past experience with you, MJ, that you'll not admit you're wrong. Prove me wrong.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-medicine/2009/01/05/why-paul-offit-isnt-flexible-on-vaccines

"First, he addressed the apparent conflict of interest, an issue he described as 'very upsetting to me.' 'Yes, I'm co-inventor and co-patent holder of the rotavirus vaccine, but I didn't do it for money and I no longer make any money off of it.' He added that he's not blind to the risks posed by vaccines just because he invented one. 'Vaccines have side effects,' he says. 'The oral polio vaccine [no longer in use] can cause polio, and the acellular pertussis vaccine can cause seizures. But it could be that those children who develop severe reactions would be even more overwhelmed by a natural infection.' Genetic studies are now being conducted to see if this is indeed the case."

MJ said...

"I expect, based on my past experience with you, MJ, that you'll not admit you're wrong. Prove me wrong"

There you go making baseless claims against me, again. If you actually have been reading what I have been writing, you would notice that I do admit when I am mistaken.

You might also have noticed that I quantify statements that I am unsure of, you having being the master of psychology and all. Go back and read my first comment again.

Having said all of that, you seem to be correct about Offit still receiving payments. However, the first part of what I said still stands.

Another interesting thing about Offit from that article you cited. Did you know that he was an expert in toxicology and brain development as well?

"Offit says there's zero scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism and that thimerosal, aluminum, and other metals found in vaccines are in such small quantities that they pose no risk to brain development."

The same arguments were made in favor of lead not all that long ago. We now know that even a very small exposure to lead can cause problems. To the best of my knowledge, neither brain development nor toxicology is Offit's field and yet he doesn't hesitate in making a pronouncement.

Science Mom said...

What is it with you people that you are unable to understand a nuanced statement? Show me a statement by Offit that he will receive no future payments of any kind as a result of the transaction and I will concede that point.

What I see is the statement of a very intelligent person (Offit) who, in an attempt to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, sold his interest in a patent. My question is under what terms this sale was done. Was it a one time cash payment, an initial payment with continuing payments, a series of ongoing payments, or some other combination?


Ah, turn to conspiracy theory when your (non)argument fails. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/royalty-pharma-acquires-royalty-interest-in-rotateqr-from-the-childrens-hospital-foundation-for-182-million-57513462.html

Your mental gymnastics must be positively torturing.

So when I see a statement from an intelligent person that contains what might be weasel words ("I no longer financially benefit from the sales of RotaTeq") and I know that this sort of transaction is done all of the time to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I get suspicious. Or perhaps a better word is that I am skeptical.

When the man states he no longer makes any money from Rotateq, no longer benefits financially from the sale of Rotateq and has sold out his patent for cash, you're not being sceptical, you're just being thick. Pound that square peg into that round hole all you like; it's so obvious where you are getting your talking points from.

As for me being "dishonest", no, I am being completely honest. I acknowledged that I was mistaken about the article that I posted and gave an explanation as to why I made the mistake. If that is dishonest you are working from a different definition of the word.

Talk about weasel words, "his COI disclosure wasn't at the beginning where I thought it would be because I don't even check my own references", is about as slippery as it gets. But you don't stop there:

I declined to go digging for the other examples that I have run across before because I don't really see the point. But if you really want to go looking, I suggest looking at his TV appearances and other letters he has written to media outlets. You should also look at the number of articles where he is quoted as an expert without and disclosure, such as this one -

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story?id=6531763&page=1


The bloody article was written by someone else and he was quoted; it's not his bloody responsibility or even within his ability to ensure that his COI disclosure made it into an article not even written by him. It is positively hypocritical of you to consider this a lapse on his part. Ever mention Wakefield's, Poling's, Hewitson's name or any other notorious anti-vax "expert"? Of course you have. Have you ever mentioned their COI disclosure every time you typed their names? Do you take AoA to such task for not mentioning Dr. Poling's blatant ethical lapse for his publication about his daughter?

None of these items addresses the first part of my complaint (see my first comment above). Offit still made 6 million dollars from his work and to hold him up as an undisputed authority on the subject without disclosing the fact that he has been personally enriched by his work is questionable at best.

You didn't exactly start off on solid ground now did you? He is an infectious disease expert that actually developed a successful vaccine and has a stellar research and publication track record, and has been very vocal about his vaccine patent. If that doesn't put him in the realm of expert, then please, do enlighten me what does constitute expert. But you're going to pick at that scab because Kim didn't mention his COI in her blog?

KWombles said...

MJ,

If that's you admitting you were wrong, you might want to work on that. Try it: "I was mistaken about Offit and overly nitpicky because I don't like the man and I have an unfortunate tendency to read misinformation which led to my posting repeatedly here that "no financial benefit" somehow meant he was still making money."

Or a simple "I was mistaken."

Not to be overly pedantic, but I will point out that you charged in here, put forth your misinformation in a string of comments, showed yourself to be a prime example of the kind of individuals I wrote about: those who assumed they knew the state of things based on availability heuristic rather than having the intellectual curiosity to look it up, and failed to argue against any of my points: that vaccine knowledge has increased exponentially, that the number of clinical trials regarding vaccines, safety, efficacy, and adverse effects is robust, that the body of research in that area is extensive, and that Offit as co-author of the preeminent textbook in the discipline was more than qualified to speak about vaccines and research regarding them.

No, you quibbled over a perceived failure of a non-existent responsibility on my part to disclose on a blog in which it has been repeatedly disclosed for an audience already well aware of it, that he got paid for his work.

When held to task for pointing out that you don't do what you were demanding of me, you wiggled: but those posts weren't really about Wakefield. Bah. You'll note I respect your right to conduct your blog however you choose. I don't come tell you how you should have said this or done that.

To close the discussion with you: again, you did not argue against my main points. Therefore, I will assume you have no rebuttal to those arguments and are conceding them. Thank you.

MJ said...

Now that rant is a truly fascinating look at how you view the world. Is that what you really think happened? Lets take this statement

"again, you did not argue against my main points. "

I just did that, what two comments ago -

"As for the main point of the post, it is just kind of silly. The size of a book published on a subject and the number of hits in a research database says nothing about the quality of research being done. If you actually want to address the subject then pick a specific vaccine and write about the actual safety studies performed to show that vaccine was safe."

And yet I failed to respond to the main point, that number or size somehow equates to quality or completeness. Research is judged on the strength of the evidence, not the number of studies.

How's that strawman tasting?

Or how about this statement -

"When held to task for pointing out that you don't do what you were demanding of me, you wiggled: but those posts weren't really about Wakefield."

My point was -

"And that post wasn't about really Wakefield nor was I discussing him directly. That post was about Gates. Now, if you go back and look at what said when discussion Wakefield I think you will see the picture is different. Here's a link to get you started"

Notice the difference? When I discuss Wakefield directly I disclose, when I use his name is passing I don't. It really isn't that hard to understand.

When you use Offit's name and hold him out as a undisputed expert, you fail to mention the fact that he has been personally enriched by his work to the tune of 6 million dollars.

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to see the difference is very telling.

Or lets look at the charges you flung against me, lets see -

"While you are absolutely right that there's no need to resort to personal attacks, your blog posts, your overall support of Wakefield, your propensity to attack Offit (though certainly gentler than AoA), your support of the vaccine-as-a-cause-of-autism idea, and your tendency to either flatly misread posts or argue strawmen certainly stands as relevant in evaluating your particular perspective."

Still waiting for the support for those statements. So care to point out where I "support Wakefield" or support the idea as "vaccine-as-a-cause-of-autism"? Or are you going to admit that you were mistaken. Nevermind, that doesn't ever happen with you.

So did I -

"Not to be overly pedantic, but I will point out that you charged in here, put forth your misinformation in a string of comments"

I made one, quantified statement that was incorrect and yet that is a "string of misinformation". If you think I am wrong, then point out at least one other piece of "misinformation". If not, then you need should admit that you were wrong, again.

As for "charging in here", well, I have seen you do the exact same thing to people you disagree with, so cut the hypocrisy. Which was really my point, which you somehow missed.

It is one thing to say that you believe something, it is another to actually follow through on it. You like to pretend that you are all about the evidence but when it comes down to it, you do the exact same thing as the people you are blasting. You bash the people that you don't like but give a free pass to those you like.

KWombles said...

Dictionaries come in handy.
Rant:

"To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.
v.tr.
To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.
n.
1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy" (Daniel Okrent)."

I wasn't mad or angry. I was calm and deliberate.

Heckle:
"tr.v. heck·led, heck·ling, heck·les
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.
2. To comb (flax or hemp) with a hatchel."

So you're admitting your posts were designed to "try to embarrass and annoy"?

Main point of the piece: "Pro safe" advocates, especially taken in light of the available research on vaccines, look at best ill-informed and arrogantly ignorant when they criticize Offit and his qualifications to speak on vaccines.

At no time, other than your last comment, did you address this point. You have no idea whether the bulk of that research is good or not. What is absolutely clear through an examination of the major textbook is that in 20 years, the amount of evidence-based material to teach students has tripled. What is clear through a PubMed search is that tens of thousands of studies have been done. What is clear in a search of the current clinical trials is that thousands of trials have either recently finished, are ongoing or are in the process of beginning.

No one in mainstream science questions Offit's expertise on vaccines. Just because a band of dissatisfied conspiracy theorists can't get their facts straight and like to heckle him (see, that's correct usage) doesn't impact on his qualifications to speak as an expert on infectious disease and vaccines.

You are free to think as you like. I can't stop that. But I can judge that spending my time rebutting your comments is a colossal waste of time and cease to directly engage you, filing your comments accordingly. Your continued posting in which you offer no substantiation for your claims can be seen rightly as an attempt to waste other's time. You're done wasting mine.