Paranoid control freaks trying to hide from the outside world.  Why does that sound familiar?

What was I thinking?

Dear Mr. Reibel,

The purpose of our Wisconsin Real Help Now Conference on Saturday, February 27, 2010 is to bring together members in the autism community in order to educate and support families and facilitate dialogue on important issues related to autism. As such we want to nurture an environment that is conflict free and allows open communication.

Your attendance at a previous national autism conference was disruptive to the mission and purpose of that conference. We want to ensure the focus of the conference is on education and support and that the environment is safe and supportive for conference attendees.

We have given you a full refund of the purchase price. You will not be admitted to this conference.

TACA Foundation

That makes three different explanations for my expulsion from the 2008 AutismOne conference, held at the Westin O’Hare Hotel. The first was that I had snuck into the gathering without registering. When conference organizer Ed Arranga realized that I was indeed registered, the story changed to “you broke your agreement not to videotape any of the meetings.” There was, of course, no such agreement, and no evidence of such an agreement. I filmed openly for two days without incident, as were dozens of other parents, not to mention film crews from local television stations. So that couldn’t be it either.

But this latest explanation brings vaccine rejectionists within shouting distance of the truth, even though they don’t know it. Skepticism and pointed questions are by their nature disruptive to the “mission and purpose” of these types of organizations. Asking “what is your evidence” at an AutismOne conference is like bringing a camera to a nudist colony – the longer you stick around, the more vulnerable the campers feel.

So what is the mission and purpose of TACA’s Wisconsin Real Help Now Conference? One clue can be found on the Real Help Now website, which reads:

TACA strives to ensure that the focus of our conference is education and support, and to provide a safe, supportive environment for our attendees. TACA reserves the right to refuse admittance to any individual.

In the real world, education means asking questions, challenging assumptions, and going wherever the evidence might lead. At a TACA conference, it means the opposite: providing a safe, supportive environment for denial and magical thinking, a sterile bubble where attendees can live in the moment, shielded from the pathogens of free inquiry and doubt. Support is served cafeteria style, so you can pass up the harder dishes of acceptance and responsibility, and head right for the dessert tray for a banana boat of recovery and blame.

As most adults suspect, the cost of entry to this magical land is much higher than the $50 entrance fee suggests.

Education and support were much in evidence at an Age of Autism Media Roundtable, during the 2008 AutismOne conference in Chicago.

The boy reportedly returned from the trip on June 17, 2009. UK health authorities reported approximately 7,400 cases of laboratory-confirmed mumps in 2009. The boy then attended a summer camp for tradition-observant Jewish boys in New York, where he infected other campers and staff members. By Jan. 17 of this year, 1,521 cases of mumps were reported.

The outbreak has remained confined primarily to the tradition-observant Jewish community, with less than three percent of cases occurring among persons outside the community. Nearly half the cases were in New York City, primarily Brooklyn.

England suffered a outbreaks of measles and mumps following Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s now discredited paper in The Lancet. Britain’s General Medical Council recently found Wakefield guilty on 30 counts of unprofessional conduct in connection with that paper, and the journal recently retracted the paper. The paper hypothesized a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite the total lack of credible evidence, Wakefield suggested that worried parents should break up the vaccine into three separate shots to avoid injury. That comment set off a panic that saw MMR uptake plunge to 50% in some parts of the UK.

The mumps component of the MMR vaccine provides less protection than the measles or rubella components.  The CDC estimates a mumps-vaccine efficacy of 73%-91% after 1 dose and 79%-95% after 2 doses.

Of those infected in this outbreak, 88 percent had received at least dose of MMR, and 75% had received two. Health officials aren’t taking any chances:

Beginning on January 19, 2010, in Orange County, New York, public health officials began offering a third dose of MMR vaccine in three schools where, despite documentation of a high level of 2-dose coverage among students, transmission had continued for >2 months. This intervention is being carried out under an Institutional Review Board–approved protocol that provides for an evaluation of the impact of the intervention.

One of the most common symptoms of mumps among boys is orchitis, or testicular inflammation, which can lead to sterility. In the latest outbreak, 76% of the victims were male. The median age of those infected is 15 years.

So it’s no surprise when a D-list sort porn comedienne and her clueless boy toy are crucified by E! Online for putting childrens’ lives at risk. That’s even worse than slapping a paparazzi, or wearing cargo pants to the mall.

Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are at it again, this time issuing a ridiculous press release in support of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the UK doctor who started the vaccine panic that keeps on giving.

According to Carrey and McCarthy, Wakefield is now having an awful time getting his current work published, for no good reason other than corporate treachery.

“Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent a historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials,” read part of a long, detailed statement issued Friday by the couple.

That historic study, by the way, was just withdrawn by the editor of Neurotoxicology. Oops,

Jezebel.com, which divides its attention between “celebrity, sex, and fashion for women”, sums up the press release with a headline and a quote. First the header: To Jenny McCarthy, Science Is “Censorship”. Now the quote: “Jenny, honey, the science has left the building. Why are you still here?” The quote is from Strollerderby, “The mother of all parenting blogs”, whose previous hit pieces include “Bye bye, baby food”, and “Mom advice from Martina McBride”.

Who else could join the LA tabloid press and mothering blogs in common cause besides Jenny McCarthy, whose mothering advice includes turning your kid into a science project and exposing him to dangerous pathogens?

What McCarthy lacks in scientific literacy she makes up for in media savvy. Until recently she’s been a master at bamboozling news reporters, and manipulating her angry mob. But publicity is a double edged sword. One one hand, it’s free, and comes disguised as vetted truth. But publicity is difficult to control, especially when one’s message is “Parents! Stop vaccinating your children!”

As more and more media catch on to vaccine rejectionism, McCarthy and her angry mob will find themselves in the crosshairs of more bad publicity, from a surprising variety of sources.

The stigma of autism is fading fast, says Grinker, a professor of anthropology at George Washington University, and author of Unstrange Minds, which deconstructs the myth of the autism epidemic. The proposed changes to the DSM V would fold the current subtypes of autism into the category of “autism spectrum disorder”. Gone will be the labels of Asperger’s syndrome, autistic disorder, and PDD-NOS. Grinker makes a convincing case for the change.

When the American Psychiatric Association first recognized Asperger’s disorder in 1994, it was thought to be a subtype of autism. As the diagnosis became more common, it broadened the public understanding of autism as a spectrum. It helped previously undiagnosed adults to understand their years of feeling unconnected to others, but without bestowing what was considered the stigma of autism. And it helped educators justify providing services for children who, in the past, might have been unappreciated or even bullied because of their differences, but received no help from teachers.

But what is culturally convenient is not necessarily scientifically accurate. The differences between the “high functioning” Asperger’s and autistic disorder are not as sharply drawn as commonly thought. “People who now have a diagnosis of Asperger’s can be just as socially impaired as those with autism,” writes Grinker, whose 18-year-old daughter, Isabel, is on the spectrum. “So Asperger’s should not be a synonym for ‘high functioning.’ Likewise, people with autism who are described as ‘low functioning,’ including those without language, can have the kinds of intelligence and hidden abilities that are associated with Asperger’s — in art, music and engineering, for example — and can communicate if given assistance.”

The practical advantage of viewing autism on a continuum, rather than a collection of distinct subtypes, makes it easier for diagnosticians, and parents, to identify and appreciate the “often unpredictable changes among children with autism, ” says Grinker. He cites his own daughter as an example.

When Isabel was 3, she had all the symptoms of autistic disorder, but if she walked into a doctor’s office today as a new patient — a chatty, quirky high school senior — she would more likely be given a diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder. Narrow diagnostic categories do not help us understand the way a person will develop over time.

That’s something that is easy for parents to forget – that autisms are developmental delays, not stasis. These kids continue to grow, adapt and learn, just as their neurotypical peers do, albeit at their own pace. Vaccine rejectionists, and the spin-off autism recovery industry, simultaneously ignore and feed off of this fact. But given enough time, and lack of a control group, a diet of peanut butter sandwiches and grape Nehi is sure to be followed by a welcome developmental spurt.

The grants come after less than ten months of fundraising and operations for the once fledgling ASF. The organization is co-founded by Alison Singer, who very publicly left her post as executive vice president of Autism Speaks one year ago.

“Too much time has been spent looking backwards at the now debunked theory that vaccines caused autism,” said Singer, who is ASF’s president. “We need to regroup; we need to look forward and invest in discovering biomarkers that can lead to earlier diagnosis, in animal models that can illuminate biological pathways, and in treatments that target the most debilitating aspects of autism. This round of grants is aimed in that direction.”

Grant applications were reviewed by members of the Autism Science Foundation’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) as well as by outside scientific experts in specific subject areas. Grants were also reviewed by ASF’s Stakeholder Review Committee, comprised of parents, individuals with autism, a special education teacher and other stakeholders.

The following projects were selected for funding (student/mentor):

• Sarita Austin/Dr. Rhea Paul; Yale Child Study Center: Enhancing Understanding and Use of Conversational Rules in School-Aged Speakers with Autism Spectrum Disorders
• Karen Burner/Dr. Sara Jane Webb; University of Washington, Seattle: Observational and Electrophysiological Assessments of Temperament in Infants at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorders
• Rhonda Charles/Dr. Joseph Buxbaum; Mt. Sinai School of Medicine: A Preclinical Model for Determining the Role of AVPR1A in Autism Spectrum Disorders
• Sarah Hannigen/Dr. Mark Strauss; University of Pittsburgh: Defining High and Low Risk Expression of Emotion in Infants at Risk for Autism
• Matthew Maenner/Dr. Maureen Durkin; University of Wisconsin, Madison: Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Early Identification of ASD in the United States.
• Michael Sidorov/Dr. Mark Bear; MIT: Investigation of Postnatal Drug Intervention’s Potential in Rescuing the Symptoms of Fragile X Syndrome in Adult Mice

As the GMC approaches a verdict on the misconduct of Andrew Wakefield, anti-vaccine sources are engaged in a concerted effort to make the “doctor” into a martyr rather than a sociopath. It is vital to ensure that the general public is not in any way lulled into sympathy for the “doctor”. In my judgment, the most important point to drive home is that, while Wakefield and associates play up the image of the “doctor” being persecuted for his ideas, he is the one who has persistently acted to suppress any discussion not entirely in his favor. To that end, I have compiled the following list, complete to the best of my ability, of recorded frivolous lawsuits, libels, complaints and harassment by Wakefield and his immediate associates against his numerous critics.

3 October 1996: Wakefield files a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Commission over a broadcast critical of his claims that MMR was associated with Crohn’s disease.

1998-2003: Nick Chadwick withholds negative results suppressed by Wakefield from the public, apparently as required while litigation was ongoing.

February 2002: Wakefield files or threatens to file complaints to the GMC against critical colleagues. One formal complaint involved a statement made in 1997. He reportedly told government chief medical health officer Sir Liam Donaldson: “It has come to my attention that you have sought details of our studies from the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free NHS trust. I infer from this that faced with an increasingly compelling scientific case against the MMR vaccine you are seeking to discredit the scientists involved. Your attempts to interfere in the scientific process are unacceptable. Not only do you have no right whatsoever to this information without permission, but also your action has had an indirect but nonetheless profound effect upon our ability to help these desperately ill children. I am seeking advice prior to taking this issue up with the General Medical Council.”

27 February 2004: The Sunday Times and the Lancet received a letter from Wakefield’s attorneys denying Feb. 20 reports that Wakefield failed to disclose conflicts of interest related to the 1998 paper, with the stated purpose “to invite you to agree promptly to publish a full apology to our client”.

November 2004: Wakefield files a lawsuit against Brian Deer and Channel 4 for libel. At around the same time, his attorneys send a letter falsely alleging that Deer “has made a formal statutory complaint to the General Medical Council against Mr Wakefield and others concerning these matters.” The letter also refers prominently to “a current Press Complaints Commission” of Brian Deer, though no such complaint is on record. The claim of a complaint by Deer is taken up by Carol Stott, and continues to circulate to the present despite repeated denials by Deer and the GMC. Curiously, a February 27, 2004 BBC article stated, “The General Medical Council is now carrying out an investigation into Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who led the 1998 study.” This statement, coming only five days after Deer’s first report was published, not only weakens any suggestion that Deer directly initiated the investigation, but raises the possibility that some form of GMC inquiry on Wakefield (conceivably rising from his own past complaints against others) was under way even before Deer’s allegations were made public.

March-October 2005: Wakefield’s attorneys seek to freeze further action in the libel suit against Deer. Justice Eady “The claim form was issued on 31st March but only served on 22nd June 2005. Thereafter, it seems, the particulars of claim were served with some reluctance following prompting by the Defendants and an order of Master Rose on 27th July of this year. They eventually appeared on 10th August. There has thus apparently been a rather relaxed and dilatory approach towards litigation of a kind which is supposed to achieve vindication of reputation.” He further questions Wakefield’s motives in the lawsuit as a whole: “Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims.”

31 January 2005: Wakefield files a second lawsuit against Deer, over content of briandeer.com, and a third against the Sunday Times and Channel 4.

29 June 2005: Cambridge Evening News receives a letter from Wakefield’s attorneys over a citation of a Brian Deer report (worded as “the article alleged…”), calling on the paper to “publish an apology”.

July 2007: Martin J. Walker initiates smears against Brian Deer. Claims include allegation that Deer initiated GMC hearings against Wakefield. Though Wakefield condemns Walker on 3 November 2008, Deer reports a December 2009 newsletter for Wakefield’s “network” requesting donations to pay an additional 5,500 pounds to Walker.

6 February 2009: A letter letter to Brian Deer requests that an article (published 2 days later) presenting evidence that Wakefield case histories in 1998 paper not be published: “(Y)ou appear to be considering publishing an account which covers much of the same material as is being considered by the Panel. Publication of your allegations and account at this time will give rise to serious risk that the GMC process will be prejudiced and the fairness of the hearing compromised. You also know that, at this juncture in the GMC process it would be inappropriate for Dr Wakefield to give a detailed response to you. He has denied the allegations and gave a detailed response over many days to the GMC Panel.”

13 March 2009: Andrew Wakefield files complaint with Press Complaint Commission, over Feb. 8 story. The key allegations are that Deer “knew that these allegations were either false or misleading, based on incomplete records – or, at the very least, open to question” and that “it was he who brought the original complaint. He therefore has an undeclared interest in its conclusions.”

20 March 2009: Andrew Wakefield files addendum to complaint over Brian Deer’s statement, “I did not lay the initial complaint against Wakefield. This allegation is a fabrication, albeit rather a small one in the MMR issue.” Bizarrely, Wakefield presents truth of his own allegation as immaterial: “(W)hether or not Mr. Deer initiated the GMC investigation as ‘complainant’ in his letter dated Feb. 25, 2004, or acted as an ‘informant’ in an investigation already begun by the GMC, he did not disclose his own direct participation in the GMC investigation in his most recent accounts in the Sunday Times, intending to give the public the misimpression that he was acting as a neutral and disinterested reporter.“

3 July 2009: Thoughtful House release, “Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site”, alleges, “The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories,” despite implicit admission in Feb. 6 that Deer reported only what had been alleged by others.

9 July 2009: Second press release, “Sunday Times Defies Press Complaints Commission”, alleges that “the Sunday Times has now defied the PCC by putting the stories back online after complaining Dr. Wakefield publicly announced the PCC’s directive.”

8 September 2009: NAA press release “Offit’s Failure to Disclose Jeopardizes Swine Flu Vaccine Program” is carried by Reuters. The stated location of “Austin, Texas”, in contrast to NAA headquarters location of Nixa, Missouri, strongly suggests that Wakefield and/or Thoughtful House are the creators of the release. The release defends Wakefield, attacks Paul Offit, and by extension attacks Dateline broadcast in which Wakefield was portrayed critically. It includes the claim, first made in a hoax published by Age of Autism, that “Offit’s share of a royalty sale for the Rotateq vaccine to Merck is a minimum of $29 million and may approach $50 million.” Wakefield’s use of a third party to promote the hoax in September raises the possibility that he significantly contributed to the hoax itself, in which figures were inflated through an inapplicable 2007 CHOP policy and documents from a patent which preceded the one which was sold.

27 January 2010: On the day before the GMC released its first findings against Wakefield, a 104-page complaint is filed with the GMC. The most straightforward and prominently publicized claim is that Drs. Horton, Salisbury, Zuckerman, Pegg, and Rutter “gave false statements”. Obviously prepared long in advance, this complaint can be presumed without merit, and could easily be used as a basis for countersuits. Its greatest significance will almost certainly be as yet another obstacle to timely disclosures of findings and to further legal actions, of which US disciplinary proceedings against Wakefield and litigation against him and Thoughtful House are the most threatening to the “doctor’s” interests.

In hindsight, there are many things that were “off” about Wakefield. He relied (perhaps not wholly by his own choice) on an image of a “young maverick”, though he was in fact a well-established but not distinguished researcher with dozens of previous publications (none of which is listed in a Thoughtful House bibliography!). He earned his doctorate in 1981, at the strikingly early age of 25, yet PubMed records only 3 papers of his published before 1991. He held several formal titles at Royal Free, yet his contract stipulated that he have “no involvement in the clinical management of patients.” His previous efforts to link MMR with Crohn’s disease came very close to drawing charges of fraud (see review ) His publications in the affair show a shifting roster of coauthors and repeated changes in publishing journals. I find the path of his career (particularly his early display of apparent talent followed by surprising early difficulties) strikingly like that of artists who go on to commit forgery. I also see disturbing parallels to “angels of death” such as Richard Angelo, who left a trail of bodies along with a string of failed jobs as a male nurse. A major complaint to rise from hospitals in this and other cases is that they had been limited in their ability to denounce ex-employees by the threat of being sued by same (though I suspect fear of being sued by the victims’ survivors had far more to do with it!). Wakefield can be added as an even more egregious example of the abuse of the legal system (not to mention the press) to delay exposure of misconduct.

The bottom line is that the only thing necessary to stop Wakefield was for those who knew the most about his conduct to speak up before his spurious claims became cultural currency. The best way to ensure that similar (or even worse) offenders are exposed before they do harm is to reform the courts, so that litigation is NEVER allowed to trump timely criticism among scientific professionals

Lauer’s hour-long Dateline report on Wakefield last August wasn’t TV journalism’s finest hour. The popular Today Show host  stumbled through the story, and missed several opportunities to prove Wakefield wrong. Science blogger RangelMD put it best:

Even though he “confronted” Dr. Wakefield with several of the accusations of fraud and conflict of interest that are now well known in association with this case, Mr. Lauer appeared to be more than content with Dr. Wakefield’s minimalist denials and stonewalling. The entire interview can be summed up thus:

Mr. Lauer: “What do you say to those who accuse you being a fraud?”

Dr. Wakefield: “I’m not a fraud.”

Mr. Lauer: “Well, OK then.”

So it might just be that Lauer has something to prove. Stay tuned.

“A few weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new statistics showing that 1 in 110 children will be diagnosed with autism,” says Wright, trying hard to evoke anxiety and fear. “Ten years ago the numbers were one in 500. Fifteen years ago it was one in 10,000.”

Wrong.

The CDC, a source Wright has no problem quoting, found the rate of autism spectrum disorders among 8-year-old children in 2000 totaled 1 in 153. That’s not even close to 1:500.

As for an autism rate of 1:10,000, that’s a line of agit prop taken directly from a Feb., 2008 USA Today display ad paid for by nursing school drop out  Jenny McCarthy and her comedian boyfriend, Jim Carrey.  Epidemiologists, the ones who stayed in school and spend their careers in this field, tell us the rate of Kanner’s autism, generally regarded as the most severe form of the disorder, was about 5:10,000 40-50 years ago. If Wright was correct, then the rate of autism actually declined between 1980 and 1995. Except she isn’t.

But this is TV news, where the assumed veracity of a claim is directly proportional to the size of the smile it is delivered with. And so for the next four nights WTAE told us over and over that a “tidal wave” of adults needing care was bearing down on our sleepy village, each and every one costing $3.2 million for a lifetime of care.

The series went downhill from there.  Tuesday’s report led off with this lively bit of banter between the news anchors and Wright:

News anchor:     “This individual topic is so controversial”
Wright:                 “Very controversial.”

Why is it controversial? Because WTAE says it is! Wright doesn’t put it this way. Instead she goes for the false balance that derails much of what passes for autism coverage. So we hear a mother tell us her child’s fever spiked to 107 degrees only 45 minutes after receiving a vaccine – “and within a week he lost verbalization, eye contact – he began to spin and flap, and grow more distant.” Then comes the token scientists who tell us there is no evidence for an association.

Then we heard from more people telling us how awful autism is. Wright ended the segment with another dire prediction:

“Think about this: 54% of cases of autism are elementary age school children, so in the coming years there will be a tidal wave of individuals needing services.”

Wright’s case rests on the unproven premise that the true prevalence of autism is climbing, you know, from 1:10,000 only 15 years ago to 1:110 today. There’s no effort to explain the apples to oranges comparison of a made-up number that only relates to a small percentage of ASDs to a survey that counts all five spectrum disorders. And no mention of the fact that autism is a development disorder, which means that Wright’s “elementary school age children” continue to grow, learn, adapt and mature, which is to say “develop”, and that not all will need a lifetime of platinum-class care. Better to scare the bejeebers out of the viewers, and keep their fingers off the remote, than to traffic in boring facts, and treat autistic people with the respect they deserve.

On Wednesday, Wright reported on the cost of providing care, and she repeated the number – $3.2 million over a lifetime for a person with autism. She did not say that the estimate comes from a 2006 Harvard University School of Public Health that counts direct and indirect costs, including lost productivity and lost wages for parents. Nor did Wright compare the figure to the cost of lifetime care for other conditions, such as Alzheimer’s ($91 billion); mental retardation ($51 billion); or anxiety ($47 billion). Hell, Americans spend $23 billion annually on their pets – where is the outrage!

After hearing from some University of Pittsburgh Medical Center researchers, viewers are told that “early diagnosis is important to improve treatment outcomes. Doctors said the longer you wait, the harder it is to correct some of the problems of autism.” True statement, but the implications apparently escaped Wright – the more parents who actively seek out a diagnosis for their children, the higher the rate of autism climbs, which strongly suggests an unknown but substantial number of undiagnosed cases yet to be uncovered. In fact, the latest CDC survey revealed that 23% of the children counted as autistic had been undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed, before they were screened for the survey. As LBRB blogger Sullivan puts it:

That’s worth repeating—about 23% of 8 year olds identified as autistic were mislabeled as non-autistic by their schools, parents and doctors. That’s an interesting fact for those who claim that autism is easily identified.

Thursday’s report kicked off with the well-traveled urban myth that “Divorce rates are high among couples with autistic children.”  How high? Wright doesn’t say, but her comment echoes the Queen of Daytime Television, Oprah Winfrey, who once said:

“The stress of raising an autistic child also takes a toll on many marriages. Autism Speaks, the nation’s largest autism advocacy organization, reports that the divorce rate within the autism community is staggering. According to their research, 80 percent of all marriages end.”

Make that 100% of marriages end. The question is, how many end in divorce? Many have tried, and none have succeeded, to answer that question with hard evidence – the very definition of a myth.

The week ended not with a bang, but another tidal wave reference. The topic was the lack of services for adults with autism, which is a real problem. But again, why frame the story in terms of a human tsunami of spinning, flapping adults who will drain the national treasury and antagonize their aging parents?

And what local TV news series is complete without the self-congratulatory banter to close out the segment.

“Michelle, it’s been a revealing and remarkable week with your series,” says the news anchor.

“It’s been so educational and enlightening,” says Wright.

The story in tomorrow’s Chicago Tribune is the latest in a year-long investigation into America’s anti-vaccine movement, and its spin-off treatment industries. Last May the newspaper introduced us to a Maryland physician who purports to treat autism with Lupron, a powerful castration drug also used to treat sex offenders. In November, reporters Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan showed how alternative practitioners misrepresent legitimate science, and use phony lab results, to push quack autism treatments. “There is a whole industry that preys on people’s fears of heavy metal poisoning,” said Dr. Carl R. Baum, director of the Center for Children’s Environmental Toxicology at Yale- New Haven Children’s Hospital, something that comes as no surprise to the nation’s 60,000 pediatricians.

The latest story introduces us to Prof. Boyd Haley, a retired former head of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky, and a micro-celebrity in the vaccine-rejection community. His wonder-drug, called OSR#1, was first formulated as an industrial chemical that separates heavy metals from polluted soil and mining drainage. Haley first repurposed the chemical as a chelating agent for treating autism, but when FDA approval was not forthcoming, he rebranded OSR as a nutritional supplement. Only one problem – the FDA says food supplements must be, uh, edible.

No wonder Haley runs from publicity he can’t control.

Federal law requires manufacturers to explain why a new dietary ingredient reasonably can be expected to be safe. The Food and Drug Administration told the Tribune that Haley had not submitted sufficient information.

In an interview, Haley said that the compound had been tested on rats and that a food safety study was conducted on 10 people. Asked to provide documentation of the studies, he stopped communicating with the Tribune.

Experts expressed dismay upon hearing children were consuming a chemical not evaluated in formal clinical trials for safety, as would be required for a drug prescribed by doctors.

Ellen Silbergeld, an expert in environmental health and a researcher funded by the National Institutes of Health studying mercury and autism at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said she found the sale of the chemical as a supplement for children “appalling.”

“I would worry a lot about giving anything to a small child that hasn’t been scrutinized for both safety and efficacy by the FDA,” said antioxidant expert Dr. L. Jackson Roberts, a pharmacologist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

The anti-vaccine movement has always relied on message control to convince parents that vaccines were more risky than the diseases they protect us against, and for too long credulous editors and reports obliged with dutiful stenography and false balance. The Tribune’s coverage shows us that those days are past.