Autism Omnibus PSC, Whose side are they on?
Sullivan, writing for LeftBrain/RightBrain has a post lamenting the poor performance of the Petitioner’s Steering Committee of the Autism Omnibus on behalf of the parents. Feeling that as the AO was a going concern, the PSC should be doing the best they could for their clients, such as noting as others have done before them that there are cases where compensation has been made where autism was also involved. OK, it’s not applicable to more than a few maybe, but since they were so willing to extrapolate Poling, why not these cases?
In any event, I’ve been wondering just what the PSC is doing in light of the very short but also damning testimony proffered for Colin Dwyer – all in one short day.
First up – Dr Mumper, whose basic testimony has all been seen before, but here’s a few twists. Led gently into the ring by PSC lawyer, Tom Powers, Mumper was quick to stress that the Dwyers had done everything possible financially to assure Colin’s continued treatment and improvement. However, the concern for financial strain on the family didn’t go quite so far as assuring that very expensive tests were carried out by an accredited laboratory. So, the family is out of pocket to the tune of thousands for no gain, because there is no reason to assume the lab knew what they were doing and who would trust results from a non accredited lab? Why were they sent to a non-accredited lab in the first place? Second, it suddenly comes to light that urine test results are ‘provoked’, but the reference ranges are not. Kathleen has a really thorough post on all this. So, Mumper is left looking counterfeit and clueless and the Special Masters have noted that the results are worthless.
Second, a quick plug for the paper of Young and the Geiers is put up by PSC lawyer Williams, but look at how he did it. Here, says Williams, is a paper that shows a causal relationship between TCVs and autism. Directing the Special Masters, he then goes on to advise, that though they may distrust the Geiers, it was really Young’s paper and all the Geiers did was provide ‘access’. Kaiser Permanente who own the data may have something to quibble about with the access issue, but the main point is that a PSC lawyer told the Special Masters to just ignore two out of three authors on one paper because there may be a trust issue there! What are they doing? Perhaps point three may add some direction.
Powers, on all occasions, has emphasised the ‘dynamic’ nature of the ‘scientific evidence’ regarding TCVs and autism. Never mind that Marcel Kinsbourne’s neuroinflammation theory first saw the light of day a few weeks short of the commencement of the AO. But then these guys are heavily into the ‘plausibility’ in place of ‘probability’. So, as predictably as the sunrise, the PSC is assuring the Special Masters that they cannot possibly come to any conclusion because two very important ‘expensive’ studies are due to be published in September. But in any case, says Williams for the PSC, the Special Masters may assume that the studies will support the PSC! At that point, I wondered if I’d misread Holland’s transcript, but no. So, who is the PSC representing?
Not the parents; some of the lunatic statements on this day of testimony demolish any pretension to being there to serve the parents. They’re there simply for themselves and as much of that $2.4 billion they can get hold of. Their tactics have not changed in the least. It took six years to get the PSC to the table and they complaining all the way that the studies just were not there. Haven’t got a good theory, go for the newly minted variety produced by a guy noted for 30 appearances in vaccine court and one paper in a medical journal. String it together with as much speculation as necessary and hold off for as long as possible. The longer this drags out the more in billable hours, expert fees etc is available. The real losers in this have always been the parents. Vaccine court personnel can be irritated by what they hear, but that’s a passing thing. For the parents, who is going to support their autistic children in the future is no passing phase. No doubt Powers et al will have concocted a convincing tale why Vaccine Court will not be that support, in the very likely event that it concludes that autism and vaccines have no association. As I recall, Powers laid some of the groundwork for that on a recent Autism One program.
In any event, I’ve been wondering just what the PSC is doing in light of the very short but also damning testimony proffered for Colin Dwyer – all in one short day.
First up – Dr Mumper, whose basic testimony has all been seen before, but here’s a few twists. Led gently into the ring by PSC lawyer, Tom Powers, Mumper was quick to stress that the Dwyers had done everything possible financially to assure Colin’s continued treatment and improvement. However, the concern for financial strain on the family didn’t go quite so far as assuring that very expensive tests were carried out by an accredited laboratory. So, the family is out of pocket to the tune of thousands for no gain, because there is no reason to assume the lab knew what they were doing and who would trust results from a non accredited lab? Why were they sent to a non-accredited lab in the first place? Second, it suddenly comes to light that urine test results are ‘provoked’, but the reference ranges are not. Kathleen has a really thorough post on all this. So, Mumper is left looking counterfeit and clueless and the Special Masters have noted that the results are worthless.
Second, a quick plug for the paper of Young and the Geiers is put up by PSC lawyer Williams, but look at how he did it. Here, says Williams, is a paper that shows a causal relationship between TCVs and autism. Directing the Special Masters, he then goes on to advise, that though they may distrust the Geiers, it was really Young’s paper and all the Geiers did was provide ‘access’. Kaiser Permanente who own the data may have something to quibble about with the access issue, but the main point is that a PSC lawyer told the Special Masters to just ignore two out of three authors on one paper because there may be a trust issue there! What are they doing? Perhaps point three may add some direction.
Powers, on all occasions, has emphasised the ‘dynamic’ nature of the ‘scientific evidence’ regarding TCVs and autism. Never mind that Marcel Kinsbourne’s neuroinflammation theory first saw the light of day a few weeks short of the commencement of the AO. But then these guys are heavily into the ‘plausibility’ in place of ‘probability’. So, as predictably as the sunrise, the PSC is assuring the Special Masters that they cannot possibly come to any conclusion because two very important ‘expensive’ studies are due to be published in September. But in any case, says Williams for the PSC, the Special Masters may assume that the studies will support the PSC! At that point, I wondered if I’d misread Holland’s transcript, but no. So, who is the PSC representing?
Not the parents; some of the lunatic statements on this day of testimony demolish any pretension to being there to serve the parents. They’re there simply for themselves and as much of that $2.4 billion they can get hold of. Their tactics have not changed in the least. It took six years to get the PSC to the table and they complaining all the way that the studies just were not there. Haven’t got a good theory, go for the newly minted variety produced by a guy noted for 30 appearances in vaccine court and one paper in a medical journal. String it together with as much speculation as necessary and hold off for as long as possible. The longer this drags out the more in billable hours, expert fees etc is available. The real losers in this have always been the parents. Vaccine court personnel can be irritated by what they hear, but that’s a passing thing. For the parents, who is going to support their autistic children in the future is no passing phase. No doubt Powers et al will have concocted a convincing tale why Vaccine Court will not be that support, in the very likely event that it concludes that autism and vaccines have no association. As I recall, Powers laid some of the groundwork for that on a recent Autism One program.
posted by Alyric | 2:22 PM
1 Comments:
This poor performance is oneof the most dangerous problems, I have never read something similar in my life, si I think that "Autism Omnibus PSC,Whose side are they on?"is a great blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home