I just heard from a representative from the Public Relations department at Pace University School of Law. She wondered why a press release cited in my earlier blog would say that members of their law school had been involved with the investigation into and presentation of "Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury," when there was no such involvement in either the investigation or the presentation.
Naturally, I doublechecked the press release I'd received, and realized there were actually two separate releases, one sent on the 6th and one sent on the 9th of May. Both had the same people listed as contacts.
The first, from the Elizabeth Birt Center, had the headline "Families of Children with Autism to Unveil Major Investigation for the First Time in Washington, DC in which Federal Government Paid Millions of Dollars to Vaccine-Injured Children with Autism."
It starts with the words: "Parents and children with autism from across the United States will unveil a major investigation in which millions of dollars were paid by the Federal Government to compensate vaccine-injured children with autism. This is the first time that this investigation will be made public."
The second release, dated May 9th, is from an organization called The Center for Personal Rights (of which I've never heard). The headline reads "Major Law School to Join Autistic Children, Parents and Activists to Announce Historic First Study that Links Vaccines and Autism Investigators to Unveil Almost 100 Autistic Children Compensated by the Federal Government for Vaccine Injury."
This one starts with the words "Investigators from Pace Law School in New York will be joined by parents and children with autism to announce a groundbreaking study that strongly suggests a link between vaccines and autism on Tuesday, May 10 at 12:00 pm in front of the US Court of Claims (717 Madison Place in Washington DC)."
According to the Pace Law School, no one from the school was involved with the investigation, nor did anyone from the law school take part in the presentation. In addition, it is important to note, the Pace Environmental Law Review is a student run publication. What's more, all of the investigators involved with this publication and presentation represent clients who have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Here is the statement I just received from Pace Law School:
The article, titled, "Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury," is authored by four board members of the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy. It will be published in the Winter 2011 edition of the Pace Environmental Law Review, Volume 28.2. It will be available May 10 on the Pace Environmental Law Review's website.
The article's authors are Mary Holland, Research Scholar and Director of the Graduate Legal Skills Program at NYU School of Law; Louis Conte, an independent investigator; and Robert Krakow and Lisa Colin, attorneys in private practice who represent clients who have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They are all on the board of the Brooklyn-based Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy, which provides training, resources and a forum within which to advance legal and advocacy strategies to improve the lives of those with autism.
Established in 1982, the Pace Environmental Law Review (PELR) was one of the first scholarly journals in the then-new field of environmental law. It is run and edited by Pace Law School JD candidates. Since August 1, 2009, the law review has used an anonymous peer review process to select articles for publication. Submissions are reviewed internally, and then forwarded to a selected group of peer reviewers: academics, practitioners, and experts in the field, including members of Pace Law School's world-renowned environmental law faculty.
I have no further information about why the press release was rewritten to suggest the involvement of Pace Law School investigators, nor why the investigation was published, not in a major law journal, but in a student-run publication.
Thanks for figuring that out. I thought it was very odd that some of the sitings were of bloggers and journalists. Now it makes more sense. “all of the investigators involved with this publication and presentation represent clients who have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” So wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest, really?
I think we can all take a pretty informed guess about why that might be Lisa Jo
Kev – a good journalist never makes guesses. Of course I’m a blogger not a journalist… la la la…
But actually it’s kind of strange, because the second press release is not CORRECTING an error but MAKING an error… and it comes from the same PEOPLE but from a different ORGANIZATION.
I could logically imagine a situation in which the SECOND release was written FIRST, and then corrected by the same folks. But given this scenario, I really don’t have a good guess as to why or how that second release was written!
Lisa
First, the Harvard Law Review is run by “students”– “The Harvard Law Review is a student run law journal that publishes eight regular annual issues of various legal articles.” It is also one of the highest regarded law journals in American that, like the Pace review, publishes peer-reviewed articles by professors, legal scholars and independent researchers.
Second, conflict disclosure was made in the article: “For purposes of disclosure, Robert Krakow and Lisa Colin represent clients and have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
Third, what does it matter what a press release from an ancillary organization says? The Pace folks were correct to say what they did if some group’s press release misrepresented something. The sponsors of the press conference were from EBCALA. Now, if they said something false that would be a story.
Fourth, have you downloaded and read the article yet? Please focus your criticisms on that.
You chasing straws, Lisa Jo, and you’re not helping your credibility.
Hi Kev,
All law journals in the US are edited by students. The Pace Environmental Law Review is highly unusual for a law journal in that it is peer reviewed.
And if you read the article you would have seen that nine Pace Law students did research for the article. But I guess that is the great thing about being blogger you don’t have to even pretend to make an effort to get your facts right.
And after the way you got the Thorsen issue so spectacularly wrong I think you might want to do a little actual work before you start typing.
John, I don’t know why the publication thanks Pace students for their involvement; I have been informed by a reliable source that there were no students involved. I can’t absolutely assert this to be the case, since I don’t have a signed statement, but this is the info I’ve been provided.
Setting that point aside -
I can absolutely negate the claim (as written in the press release) “Major Law School to Join Autistic Children, Parents and Activists to Announce Historic First Study that Links Vaccines and Autism.”
I’m also a bit confused by the press release’s claim of “Investigators to Unveil Almost 100 Autistic Children Compensated by the Federal Government for Vaccine Injury.” From what I can glean from the actual report, the number of “possibles” was 83 and the number of “likelies” was 21.
Lisa
I don’t believe I’ve ever blogged about Poul Thorsen have I?
Hey La-La-La Lisa
On a day when 50-plus families reveal they have been awarded settlements from the government for vaccines that caused autism to their children, you start going through the verbiage on press releases.
Wow – did you catch a typo?
Did someone have a dangling participle in their sub-head?
Do you there are about 5,000 press releases that go on news wires every day.
Then in an earlier post you cite the fraud of all times Seth Mnookin to support your views. Putting aside the obvious problems he has in his past, he is terrible writer who was caught making up measles data in his book and on CNN.
Yep, he said a recent measles outbreak in San Diego cost $10 Million to contain. A reporter actually did some reporting and found out it only cost $179 K.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/article_7b224316-4366-11e0-b061-001cc4c03286.html
Get a clue, La-La-La Lisa.
Lisa, never mind the creepy commenter above. I agree that the release is misleading, the study authors have major conflicts and this doesn’t help to lend credibility to the study. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
Lisa:
Where is your compassion for the 83 kids?
The families who spoke today?
Any interest in reading the actual study and commenting on that? By simply playing “Gotcha,” you are starting to act a lot like those NDs…
JB
JB – this post is about misleading language and actions by a group of lawyers. Perhaps their compassion led them to mislead the autism community … and perhaps they feel that the end justifies the means. The problem is that I don’t feel the families involved are getting much help from this type of event – especially when significant ethical mistakes are made.
We also need to remember that, once again, legal arguments are being used to provide “proof” and “evidence” about a putative vaccine-autism link. It would be quite another story if a study were published in a medical or scientific journal.
Hi Kristina,
This about 83 people who were compensated by the VICP for vaccine injuries who also have autism as one of their vaccine injuries, for which they were not compensated. Their ASD diagnoses are confirmed by either the VICP documents, MDs diagnoses of parent reports.
Would you like to meet one of these families? It could be arranged pretty easily. Perhaps you would like to blog about their experiences.
No, it is about 83 people SOME of whom (or perhaps all – pending further investigation) have autism which MAY (or may not, pending further investigation) be directly related to vaccines.
This doesn’t mean vaccines can’t cause autism. But honestly, this particular study is about associations – and is very clear in saying “this is not science.” There is a great deal we don’t know about these individual cases.
Actually, I haven’t voiced any opinion about the content of the study at all.
I have, however, noted NOT that there are typos or dangling participles, but that the information in the press release is incorrect AT BEST. In addition, I note that the investigators have a conflict of interest, in that they are in line to be paid significantly if the cases they represent win in vaccine court.
On the other hand, I think that there is good reason to believe that at least some cases of autism have resulted from vaccine injury. Like many other commenters on this case, I question the vaccine court’s choice to use terms like “autism-like symptoms” and “autistic behaviors” rather than “autism.” I agree that it seems disingenuous.
I am not at all sure why this particular group of investigators chose to get involved in a project with such a clear conflict of interest, nor why they produced such a misleading piece of information about the investigation.
The outcome is that the content of the finding becomes questionable.
Lisa
What is the “conflict of interest”
I see you are continuing to make aspersions about the ethics of the authors of the article. What is their conflict of interest? That there children have autism? That two of them practice law in the VICP, including Lisa Colin who, to my knowledge represents on client in the VICP, her son? And just who would do this type of research other than parents of children with autism?
And if a case is successful in the VICP there is no lump sum of money handed over. Some expenses related to care of the child will be compensated. So before you make suggestions that parents and their attorneys are looking to score you should again do a minimal amount of research before you start writing.
If you had read the paper you would know that claiming autism as a vaccine injury in the VICP instead of encephalopathy or seizures is a guaranteed way not to win a judgement.
The fact that you cast aspersions on the character of these authors, and continue to focus on demonstrable false issues, rather than looking at the substance of what they are saying says a great deal about you Lisa Jo.
Come on John, how can one be more conflicted than to have a child involved?
Where’s YOUR compassion for the other 999,917, JB? So busy with a personal vendetta against the vaccine program to think about what trying to attach the autism card to vaccine injured children does to legitimate autism research? We should be studying seizure disorder, not going on a Congressional witch hunt.
Lisa’s got more journalistic integrity on her blog than most anything you post on that so called ‘newspaper’ over at AoA. If you are not neurodiverse JB, you SHOULD be…unless you really DON’T care about what happens to autistics…
On a wholly unrelated topic – seeing the number of men posting here, I thought I’d make you aware that I’m inviting autism dads to submit guest blogs for Father’s Day! Here’s a link to the info I just posted: http://autism.about.com/b/2011/05/10/autism-dads-submit-your-guest-blogs-for-fathers-day.htm.
Thanks all!
Lisa
I’d love to, but I’m afraid I’d be accused of being Mrs Seth Mnookin!
Hi Lisa Jo,
First, why are you more interested in some erroneous press release from a small non-profit not involved in this issue than the finding of more than 80 vaccine-injured people compensated through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program who have documented autism as one of their vaccines injuries?
Second, perhaps if you had read the article some of your questions would have been answered. It was posted this morning on the Pace University website
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr
Third, Robert Krakow and Lisa Colin, two of the authors, cited their cases in the VICP on the first page of the article, which you would have known had you read the article,
Fourth, Lou Conte and Mary Holland do not have cases in the VICP.
Fifth, again had you read the article before you filed an error filled report you would have read the following:
“Pace Law School provided significant research support for this study. The authors thank former Environmental Law Dean Alexandra Dunn and law students Jillian Petrera, Kyle Caffrey, Sohad Jamal, Alison Kaplan, Georgine Bells, Jonne Ronquillo, Lisa Hatem, Allison Kazi and Adrienne Fortin. The authors also thank volunteers who worked under the direction of Louis Conte. For purposes of disclosure, Robert Krakow and Lisa Colin represent clients and have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. ”
Fifth, Law school journals are all student written and edited. You might recall that President Obama lead the Harvard Law Review when he was a student there.
I know that as a blogger you do not believe that you need to be guided by usual journalistic standards but don’t you think that a prominent correction is in order.
John, the post is about the press release. There were two press releases. One was misleading, in that it suggested that the Pace Law School was not only involved with the research but actually presenting the research. According to the Law School itself, they were not involved; I don’t know why there is a difference in this reporting.
In addition, the “conflict of interest” was not related to the fact that the investigators have children with autism but to the fact that they are representing parents in vaccine court and will WIN MONEY for their practices if they are able to get an admission that the vaccines cause autism. IMO, when that is the case there is, in fact, a conflict of interest!
Lisa
Again Lisa you haven’t bothered to obtain any information before writing and you made another substantial factual error. Attorneys, such as Robert Krakow, who represent clients in the VICP get paid exactly the same fee whether the client is compensated or not.
And to extend your argument to its logical conclusion if Robert Krakow cannot write about the VICP then no lawyer should write about any area of law in which they practice.
How much more of this ready-fire-aim stuff do you want to do Lisa? And are your going to print a correction of your substantive factual errors that could have been corrected prior to publication if you had expended minimal effort to get your facts right? I am no lawyer but I have a feeling you may have crossed the line into slander if you don’t.
Listen to Mary Holland’s very eloquent statement here:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ebcala
Regarding conflicts, she says, “We the authors are lawyers, investigators, and Ebcala board members, but we are also parents of children with autism diagnoses. We are stakeholders in pursuit of this knowledge. But our deep personal motivation has not blinded us with bias. On the contrary, it has helped us to uncover these new facts for public scrutiny.”
Lisa says, “I am not at all sure why this particular group of investigators chose to get involved in a project with such a clear conflict of interest…” They got involved because they care about autism and vaccine injury. Those not affected generally don’t care.
Was it a conflict of interest for Black people to fight for an end to slavery and then to fight for civil rights? Wow, what selfish motives! They wanted freedom and equality for themselves! They should have just sat there doing nothing until someone else decided to fight on their behalf!
Kristina Chew said, “We also need to remember that, once again, legal arguments are being used to provide ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ about a putative vaccine-autism link. It would be quite another story if a study were published in a medical or scientific journal.”
The paper states:
“This preliminary study suggests that the VICP has been compensating cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder associated with autism since the inception of the program. Through this preliminary study, the authors have found eighty-three cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage.9
“This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decisions in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP. Nor does this article have anything to say about state childhood immunization mandates in general. This finding raises fundamental questions about the integrity, transparency, and fairness of this forum. What this article does point to are unanswered questions about vaccines and autism, a thorny issue that affects approximately one in one hundred and ten children.10 On this point, this study strongly suggests the need for further Congressional and scientific investigation to explore the association between vaccine-induced brain injury and autism and the integrity of this federally-administered compensation program.11”
This paper does provide evidence, but not scientific proof. It provides evidence which should be a starting point for further investigation and formal study.
Read the paper! It makes sense!!
Of what this paper states it doesn’t do, this is what it claims it did do:
“This finding raises fundamental questions about the integrity, transparency, and fairness of this forum. What this article does point to are unanswered questions about vaccines and autism”
What many are saying is valid. When anyone looses in court no matter what type of court, you’ll find something like this as an appeal, by attorneys who are paid by the plaintant. It’s their opinion mainly not based on much, clearly not based on anything of true value so I’m not sure where the answers are about those unanswered questions. Sounds more like a song title. This paper more or less is disagreeing with anyone who lost or may loose in federally administered compensation program based on previous cases that won. This may work easier for case history in criminal legal matters, but medical is far more difficult to set a precedent. But really what this papers purpose was, was “integrity, transparency, and fairness” which answers little about autism and vaccines. I’m also not sure how this paper will inspire “investigation to explore the association between vaccine-induced brain injury and autism” when this papers main target is decisions of federally administered compensation program. That statement alone leads the reader to believe this papers shows no association between vaccine-induced brain injury and autism, or why ask for more investigation.
It is misleading language, and I did read the paper. It doesn’t make sense, not in the manner they intended.
Lisa said, “JB – this post is about misleading language and actions by a group of lawyers. Perhaps their compassion led them to mislead the autism community… and perhaps they feel that the end justifies the means. The problem is that I don’t feel the families involved are getting much help from this type of event – especially when significant ethical mistakes are made.”
Lisa, that makes absolutely no sense!! There was no misleading, and there were no ethical mistakes, let alone significant ethical mistakes. And families involved will be helped if this “event” and paper inspire further investigation of the unintended adverse effects of our overly aggressive vaccine program, which is causing serious problems for some children.
Twyla, the post is about the press release. There were two press releases. One was misleading, in that it suggested that the Pace Law School was not only involved with the research but actually presenting the research. They were not. In addition, the “conflict of interest” was not related to the fact that the investigators have children with autism but to the fact that they are representing parents in vaccine court and will WIN MONEY for their practices if they are able to get an admission that the vaccines cause autism.
Lisa
Before you write anything else about this topic, Lisa, you might want to read up about how the VICP works. Nobody “WINS MONEY.” Not the parent, not the attorney. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the attorney is not paid a percentage of the claim like in personal injury litigation. Moreover, parents don’t receive money from VICP. The money is paid directly for the care of the vaccine-injured child. When a family prevails in VICP, it’s not some sort of fantastic lottery “win,” it simply means the federal government will pay directly for the child’s medical and daily care. It’s the least we can do for anyone who is injured by an immunization.
I find it quite unbelievable how much of this stuff can go on. Isn’t this the largest elephant in the room seen by the fewest people. Will someone tell me whether there is any such thing as an unvaccinated or unRho-gamed individual who is autistic? If there is why has absolutely no-one ever told me of such – please help-do they exist or not?
Tony Bateson, Cheltenham, Glos UK
One lady in the chat room (of the press conference live stream) had a vaccinated son that had autism… she refused to vaccinate her second child but that child also had autism.
She actually asked in the chat room if it’s possible to ‘catch’ autism because she was confused as to how her second child could possibly have “become autistic.”
I didn’t respond to her but I sure did have a lot of questions.
That’s just one example but I talk to parents all the time that have multiple children that they either vaccinate less or not at all and they still have autism.
There is no dispute that some children develop autistic conditions without vaccines.
The issue is that the pre-vaccine era level was around 4 in 10,000. Now it is 1 in 110 [USA], 1 in 64 [UK] and 4 in every 5 cases is a boy.
And see above [May 11, 2011 at 4:25 am] links to quotes from US Government health officials, agencies, Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Division and the US Federal Court confirming vaccines cause autistic conditions.
“According to the Pace Law School, no one from the school was involved with the investigation, nor did anyone from the law school take part in the presentation.”
From the text on page 504 -
“The authors, with the assistance of Pace Law students, created a database of VICP published decisions that used relevant terms related to autism”
Are students part of the law school and would they count as “investigators from Pace Law School”? They are clearly not part of the staff of the institution but you could see where the term could come from.
Really? Is it really necessary to attack Lisa or each other? Focus on the information… By all means, present your case, but don’t be mean. Come on, you can do it… Think of the children!
@JB Handley:
You say “Any interest in reading the actual study and commenting on that? By simply playing “Gotcha,” you are starting to act a lot like those NDs…”
Have you considered passing that suggestion onto your regular contributors John C “Conflict Of Interest!!!” Stone and Jake “Seven Degrees of Separation” Crosby?
Kind regards,
Becky
In my view the problem with articles like this is everyone now is back on the battle between vaccines or not vaccines and it pushes farther back in research and support. We need to move forward and help the children and figure out how to prevention. The Autism News and research along with much better support services is what we need.
thanks for clairfication
Curtis Maybin
what a waste of space… Rome is burning and you’re arguing about wording in press releases? Maybe you should put down the fiddle and listen to what these parents are saying.
Did you listen to the parents? What have you to say about the fact that the government has settled many vaccne injury court cases and that 83 of these kids have autism meanwhile the government is still publically saying there is no association? Where’s your compassion for the kids Lisa Jo?
Deflecting the attention onto the wording of press releases is weak, very weak but it also speaks volumes.
Wording makes a big difference. authors admit that, of these 83 children, they could only find documentation of autistic symptoms for only 39.
Yankeegirl, if you look at my blog and site you will see dozens of articles and posts about vaccines, the vaccine court, vaccine injuries, the contents of vaccines, the types of vaccines, Andrew Wakefield, and on and on infinitum.
Please feel free to actually read the site before taking it upon yourself to accuse me of not caring. In fact, please read my comments on this thread before making that accusation.
Lisa
I think this topic has been covered, very thoroughly, in all directions. I am now closing comments on this thread.
Please feel free, men, to take part in the Father’s Day Guest Blog Festival (knowing that I am interested in your personal reflections, not in political manifestos).
Please feel free, everyone, to return to comment on other topics or – in the best of worlds – to add helpful insights into issues confronting families every day.
Lisa