Archive | Age of Autism RSS feed for this section

No, the thimerosal in the flu vaccine does not explain why autism rates did not go down

6 Oct

Surprisingly enough, there are still people promoting the idea that the rise in autism diagnoses observed over the last decades was caused by thimerosal in vaccines. The original argument was this–vaccines were added to the vaccine schedule in the 1990’s and with them the infant exposure to thimerosal increased. Concurrent with this rise in infant thimerosal exposure was a rise in autism diagnoses. Add to this a poorly concocted argument that autism resembles mercury intoxication and you have the basis for the mercury hypothesis.

Thimerosal was phased out of infant vaccines over 10 years ago. Thus, if the thimerosal hypothesis were true, reported autism rates should be declining by now. As far back as 2005 David Kirby (whose book “Evidence of Harm” played a major role in promoting the mercury hypothesis) acknowledged this point in a statement


It’s 2013. Autism rates in California have not declined. Not in Special Education. Not in the CDDS roles. And, yes, we are six years past the 2007 deadline that David Kirby gave us.

To be specific, let’s use the same method that David Kirby and others used to claim a thimerosal induced autism epidemic in the 1990’s (namely the California DDS client count–which not a good method, by the way). Autism “rates” have gone up by over 150% since thimerosal was phased out of infant vaccines. The age 3-5 bracket had about 4000 children in 2003 and is currently over 10,000.

CDDS 3-5

So we have more kids in California receiving services under the autism label than when thimerosal was in vaccines.

This is but one in a huge list of reasons why the thimerosal hypothesis doesn’t work.

But let’s go back in time a bit. Not so long ago one would hear proposals that we go back to the vaccine schedule of the early 1980’s when, it is claimed, the autism rate was 1 in 10,000. Fewer vaccines, less thimerosal, less autism. So goes the logic.

Generation Rescue, in fact, used to recommend the 1983 schedule as one of their alternative schedules

Turn back the clock

Does it make sense to go back to the 1983 schedule? No. Why? OK a lot of reasons, but let’s focus on the fact that infants were exposed to more thimerosal in the 1980’s than today. Infant vaccines have no or only trace amounts of thimerosal.  So if thimerosal were the (or even a single) primary cause of autism risk, we would see autism rates lower today. To not only 1990’s levels, but to something like 1980’s reported levels. Assuming that the reported rates in the 1980’s were an accurate count of how many autistics there were then (a bad assumption but it’s the one they use).

To recap–Infant thimerosal exposure from vaccines peaked at nearly 200 micrograms in the 1990’s, up from about 100 micrograms in the 1980’s and is now less than 10 micrograms. And autism rates have not declined at all. Much less to 1980’s levels.

Once anyone says this the instant answer is that there is still thimerosal in some influenza vaccines. This, they say, is why autism rates have not declined. (note that thimerosal containing vaccines, including influenza vaccines, are banned in California for infants and pregnant women…and autism “rates” have continued to climb here).  

For completeness sake, let’s consider a kid who gets the maximum exposure to thimerosal from vaccines. I.e. a non California kid.  A kid who turns 6 months (the earliest age they will give a flu vaccine to a kid) during the flu season.  That kid will get 2 vaccines in the first year (6 and 7 months) then another influenza vaccine each year thereafter. Each with 25 micrograms of mercury from thimerosal. How does the thimerosal exposure compare to the 1983 schedule?  Take a look for yourself (exposures in micrograms of mercury from thimerosal):

1983 schedule 2013 schedule
DPT Inluenza
2 months 25
4 months 25
6 months 25 25
7 months 25
Total by 1 year 75 50
18 months 25 25
Total by 2 years 100 75
30 Months 25
Total by 3 years 100 100

So by age 3, the exposures are the same.  Except that the kid of today gets the thimerosal later and more spread out over time.  As an aside–most people who talk about the rise in thimerosal exposure during the 1990’s neglect to point out that the cumulative exposure in the 1980’s was already 100 micrograms. I.e. the “safe” level was significant.

If thimerosal were the driving force behind the rise in autism diagnoses, we should be back to 1983 levels, misrepresented by those claiming an epidemic as 1 in 10,000.  Instead we are at 1-2%.  The “rates” didn’t go down.

By this point the proponents of thimerosal are basically screaming, “you are forgetting the vaccines recommended to pregnant women!” No, I just put that off until now.  Sure, the influenza vaccine is recommended for pregnant women, but as the CDC notes:

Prior to 2009, influenza vaccination levels among pregnant women were generally low (~15%) (5,9).

So, from about 2000 to 2009 there wasn’t a big increase (or even a large part of the population) getting influenza vaccines while pregnant, nor were their children getting exposures higher than those in the 1983 schedule.

Take a look at that graph for California administrative autism prevalence again. Between 2002 (after the drawdown of thimerosal in vaccines) and 2012 the autism count doubled. Thimerosal exposure was down. A lot. Below 1990’s “epidemic” levels. Back to the 1983 “worked for kids then” levels. But autism “rates” continue to climb.

The people still pushing the idea that thimerosal is a (or even the) primary cause of autism are not unintelligent. We are talking about college educated people. Ivy league schools. A former journalist, an intellectual property expert and more. There is no math above. It’s all quite simple and straightforward. It uses the exact same logic and methodology they used to promote the idea that mercury causes autism. This is where intellectual honesty and basic integrity should kick in and get people to suck it up, admit their mistakes and start repairing the harm they have caused.

I’m not holding my breath.

By Matt Carey

Is there a split in the autism-vaccine groups?

1 Mar


2010 tax form 990
2011 tax form 990











Hooker-Segal 2




The so called autism community is represented by:







First this one (actually two, it was repeated):



Mr. Segal went on:


1.That there needs to be more vaccine research


And this:









By Matt Carey


26 Feb


















CDDS total


CDDS 3-5


CDDS 6-9


S-G CDDS paper figure


By Matt Carey

For the first time in history!

29 Oct

Here’s one of those statements that seem dramatic until one puts it into historical context:


Who wrote that? Someone from a group calling itself “SaneVax”. And repeated by none other than Dan Olmsted, proprietor of the Age of Autism blog. Yes, a man who has for years promoted the (failed) idea that mercury in vaccines caused an epidemic of autism is repeating the claim that ” For the first time in history, a biologically plausible mechanism of action has been discovered linking a vaccine to a serious adverse event.” The same Dan Olmsted who has offered up support for Andrew Wakefield and his failed claims that the MMR vaccine also caused a rise in autism rates.

Begs the question of why Mr. Olmsted has put so much time and effort into ideas like mercury and the MMR if they had no biologically plausible mechanism.

Of course no one believes Mr. Olmsted has changed his mind. It’s fairly clear this is just sloppy writing by “SaneVax” and some quick copy-and-paste work by Mr. Olmsted (sure he cited the source but did he read it?) . It would be amusing if the thimerosal and MMR ideas didn’t cause (and didn’t continue to cause) harm both within the autism communities and the general population.

For the record, this claimed “first biologically plausible mechanism” is from a paper by Prof. Shaw. His paper proposing a link between aluminum in vaccines and autism was very poor. Add this to the lack of relavence to autism andI see little point in putting much time into this new (gardasil) paper.

Also for the record and more historical context:

There were reactions to multi dose vaccines in the pre preservative era. The biologically plausible mechanism there was the growth of bacteria introduced into the vial by the needle.

There were reactions to the early polio vaccine produced by Cutter Laboratories. The biologically plausible mechanism there was the injection of live polio virus instead of the inactivated virus that was supposed to be used.

Similarly, the live virus in the oral polio vaccine  can occasionally cause paralysis. The OPV is no longer used in the U. S. after the efforts of a true vaccine safety advocate.

It probably seems strange but it is these last examples that strike me then most sad. Sure, they forgot their own claims that vaccines cause autism. But these other examples are very real, demonstrated vaccine reactions with clear biological mechanisms. But I am being naive. I am expecting a discussion of facts rather than a public relations and political commentary.

Edit to add: I’m not the first to notice this sloppy writing.

35 Nobel Laureates are all in the pocket of Big Pharma?

27 Jun

Yes. A group of 35 Nobel Laureates has been accused of working with the “vaccine industry”. Those familiar with the online discussions of autism and vaccines will likely be unsurprised that this claim comes from the Age of Autism blog. Given the odd nature of this claim, most will likely be unsruprised that this will take some lenghthy introduction.

The article at the Age of Autism is Write the President of Cameroon to Defend Dr. Luc Montagnier, which opens so many questions. Why do they want to defend Luc Montagnier? Why would one write the president of Cameroon to do so?

Luc Montagnier received the Nobel Prize in medicine in 2008. His research has since moved into some rather questionable territory. For example, he claims that DNA from bacteria can, in highly diluted samples, induce low frequency electromagnetic radiation. This brings us to his connection to the autism communities. He claims that he can detect the electromagnetic radiation from the blood of autistic children, but not from non-autistic children. He claims that this radiation is a sign of pathogentic bacteria, and, further, claims that based on this one might treat autism with long term antibiotic therapy.

Here is part of his summary from when he presented these ideas at AutismOne this year:

There is in the blood of most autistic children — but not in healthy children — DNA sequences that emit, in certain conditions, electromagnetic waves. The analysis by molecular biology techniques allows us to identify these electromagnetic waves as coming from already known bacterial species. This correlation, which is based on more than one hundred children of European origin, naturally does not prove a causal relationship. However, a therapy first started by a group of independent clinicians and now performed in conjunction with laboratory observations reinforces the idea that systemic bacterial infections play a role in the genesis of symptoms of autism.  

These are, to put it politely, extraordinary claims. They are without the extraordinary evidence which would support them.

Those with experience following the autism/vaccine discussion will not be surprised that even with these odd claims, the alternative-medical community has embraced Luc Montagnier eagerly. He has a Nobel Prize, after all. And these groups have shown a strong desire to establish some credibility. Most of their proponents are non-medical specialists (think Kerri Rivera whose presentation at AutismOne promoted using a bleach as an oral and enema-based “therapy”) and their medical specialists include people whose reputations are less than stellar (for example, Andrew Wakefield and Mark Geier).

Luc Montagnier ties his theory into the permeable-gut theory of autism.


And questions whether risks are worth the benefit for vaccines in the modern world

My position on vaccines has not changed over the last 30 years: the principle has proved to be excellent in the past. Smallpox has been eradicated in the world thanks to the use of vaccination, with attenuated vaccinia virus. But some had to pay a horrific price: encephalitis in a certain number of children. Over the years, vaccinations against bacteria and viruses have multiplied, appearing as the most cost-effective way to prevent epidemics. However, side effects are becoming more important and a single death cannot be tolerated any longer. Many parents have observed a temporal association – which does not mean causation – between a vaccination by puncture and the appearance of autism symptoms. This should not be neglected by the medical community and public health decision makers. It is therefore of prime importance to study the risk factors, both environmental and genetic, which could be involved in order to prevent them. Presumably, vaccination, especially vaccination against multiple antigens, could be a trigger of a pre-existing pathological situation in some children. The vaccine denialists are not the courageous individuals who raise the problems of vaccination accidents, but are those people who deny the existence of these tragic accidents. The latter believe in the dogma “vaccines are good”, period. They are forgetting the Hippocratic oath: primum, non nocere. First, do no harm.

He has credentials. He claims to have a potential cause and potential treatment for autism. He supports the gut-brain theory and is openly skeptical about the way vaccines are used. Is there any surprise that the vaccines-cause-autism/alternative-medicine groups support him?

A news article on the Nature website discusses some recent controversy involving Luc Montagnier. In Nobel fight over African HIV centre Declan Butler writes

A fledgling AIDS research centre in Cameroon, already struggling to find a scientific leader, is now facing insurrection from an unlikely quarter: a group of 35 Nobel prizewinners.

The laureates are calling for the centre’s interim scientific director, fellow prizewinner Luc Montagnier, to be removed from the part-time post. Observers say that unless the leadership crisis is resolved quickly and decisively, it could harm the prospects of the Chantal Biya Inter­national Reference Centre (CIRCB) in Yaoundé.

Yes, 35 Nobel Laureates have signed a letter asking an AIDS center in Cameroon to reconsider hiring Luc Montagier in a part time post.

The laureates argue that his embrace of theories that are far from the scientific mainstream, as well as what they claim are anti-vaccination views, risk hurting the CIRCB’s research, health-care programme and reputation. Montagnier has suggested, for example, that water can retain a ‘memory’ of pathogens that are no longer present1; that the DNA sequences of pathogens emit electromagnetic waves that could be used to diagnose disease2, 3; and that stimulating the immune system with antioxidants and nutritional supplements may help people to fight off AIDS4.

1) Montagnier, L., Aïssa, J., Ferris, S., Montagnier, J.-L. & Lavalléee, C. Interdisciplin. Sci. 1, 81–90 (2009).

2) Montagnier, L. et al. Preprint at (2010).

3) Montagnier, L. et al. Interdisciplin. Sci. 1, 245–253 (2009).

4) Butler, D. Nature 468, 743 (2010).

One could argue that it is this last point which is the most important, and the likely strongest motivation for the group of Laureates to write their letter. From reference 4:

Since then, Montagnier has supported non-mainstream theories in AIDS research that have put him at odds with other scientists. Most recently, he has argued that strengthening the immune system with antioxidants and nutritional supplements needs to be considered along with antiretroviral drugs in fighting AIDS, in particular in Africa.

“Montagnier’s embrace of pseudoscientific and fringe agendas over the past few years has been seized on by AIDS denialists and other fringe groups, who make the case that Montagnier now supports their crazy views,” says John Moore, an AIDS virologist at Cornell University in New York. Montagnier says that AIDS denialist groups misrepresent his thinking.

My suspicion is that the group of 35 Nobel Laureates are very concerned that an AIDS treatment center in Africa might take a path towards non-scientifically based treatments.

The Nature news article does mention Luc Montagnier’s connection to the autism communities:

The last straw for Montagnier’s critics seems to have been his appearance in May alongside vaccine sceptics at a conference in Chicago, Illinois, organized by US patient-advocacy groups AutismOne and Generation Rescue. Montagnier’s talk, on his hypothesis that bacterial infections may be one of many causes of autism spectrum disorder, states: “There is in the blood of most autistic children — but not in healthy children — DNA sequences that emit, in certain conditions, electromagnetic waves.”

The same groups who greeted a single Nobel Laureate with such vigor have now 35 other Nobel Laureates who consider this move by Luc Montagnier to be “the last straw” in his actions. That is a rather stunning rebuke.

And, as already alluded to above, a rebuke which has not gone unanswered. The Age of Autism blog is calling for support for Luc Montagnier. Their article, Write the President of Cameroon to Defend Dr. Luc Montagnier, begins:

A recent article in Nature shows that the vaccine industry has been closing ranks against Dr. Luc Montagnier ever since his brilliant lecture at AutismOne last month. In particular, 35 Nobel Laureates, led by one who sells commercial products to the vaccine industry, sent a letter to the President of Cameroon protesting Dr. Montagnier’s leadership position on a national research organization dedicated to HIV research.

Immediately we read that it is the “vaccine industry” closing ranks against Luc Montagnier, and the Nobel Laureates are led by one with a link (however tenuous) to the vaccine industry.

What is more stunning in this article is the fact that they never address the simple question of whether it would be good for the AIDS community in Cameroon to have Luc Montagnier on board at the Center. The letter is entirely focused on arguments that vaccines cause autism.

In conclusion, the evidence to date shows that Dr. Luc Montagnier’s serious consideration to the vaccine-autism connection is as correct as his original discovery of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Please do not cave to the coercive and corrupt powers of the vaccine industry, which includes an old rival who previously tried to take credit for Dr. Montagnier’s Nobel Prize-Winning discovery of HIV. We believe that through his work on autism, Dr. Montagnier has further demonstrated a level of scientific rigor and innovation of unparalleled accomplishment that could hold significant promise for patients suffering from AIDS, as it does for patients with autism.

What the autism/vaccine discussion has to do with Cameroon’s decision whether to keep Luc Montagnier on board for an AIDS center is not a part of the letter. This letter has frankly nothing to do with Cameroon’s decision whether to keep Luc Montagnier on board at an AIDS center. It is just a rundown of the rather weak arguments behind the vaccine-autism proposed link, with a liberal dose of “coercive and corrupt” powers language. This may come as a bit of a harsh surprise to the author of the letter, but, this letter will only serve to help convince the President of Cameroon to let Luc Montagnier go.

It is likely that the president of Cameroon will not do much fact checking, but should he chose to, here’s one section that takes no interpretation:

The latest CDC Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network report from one US state found a 20% decrease in autism spectrum disorder prevalence in children born in 2000, the first year after a joint statement was made in the United States by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service calling for thimerosal to be removed as soon as possible. This is the first statistically significant decrease in autism reported in this surveillance system’s decade long-history.

The prevalence estimate went from 1 in 110 to 1 in 88. That’s an increase.

Here is Luc Montagnier’s own response to the letter submitted by the 35 Nobel Laureates: Luc Pr Luc Montagnier HIV – AUTISM – VACCINES: FACTS and HOPES

What letter, Mr. Olmsted? Why this one, of course.

14 Mar

When Brian Deer wrote one of his 2009 article for the Sunday Times: Focus: Hidden records show MMR truth, he introduced the article with a discussion of the father of Child 11, the only American child in the Lancet 12:




Mr. 11, as he is known, was the one parent who chose to confirm the results he was given by Mr. Wakefield’s team at the Royal Free. In particular, he wanted to confirm whether the tissue samples taken from his son really contained measles virus, as he was told. After taking samples to people outside Mr. Wakefield’s team at the Royal Free:


This comes as no surprise to readers today. Mr. Wakefield’s graduate student, Nicholas Chadwick, was telling him all along that the virology results were negative.

In a later report, How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, Mr. Deer also introduced the article with Mr. 11. He noted that Child 11 was listed in the Lancet article as having a first behavioral symptom of “Recurrent “viral pneumonia” for 8 weeks following MMR” as occurring 1 week after the administration of the MMR vaccine, a point critical to Mr. Wakefield’s claims. However, according to documents available to Mr. Wakefield, the child showed signs before the MMR. Per Mr. Deer:


Enter Dan Olmsted, proprietor of the Age of Autism blog. Mr. Olmsted sought out Child 11’s father to corroborate Mr. Deer’s story. Such is the importance of contradicting Mr. Deer that he was willing to contradict Mr. Wakefield’s claim in the Lancet as well. Mr. Olmsted claims that Mr. 11 wrote him that rather than 13 months, “The onset of his autistic-like behaviors began around 18 months.”

The one thing that Dan Olmsted, Brian Deer and Mr. 11 apparently agree upon: the report in The Lancet is incorrect. Somehow I expect there is some convoluted explanation Mr. Olmsted would offer to avoid this problem, but lets move on. Unfortunately to a rather odd back-and-forth where neither party (Deer and Olmsted) communicating directly. To start, Mr. Olmsted would have us believe that Mr. 11 is annoyed? angry? with Mr. Deer’s reporting and thinks they “misrepresented the facts”.

Mr. Olmsted wrote:
[edit to add: Mr. Olmsted is quoting Andrew Wakefield’s defamation complaint here. I.e. these are Andrew Wakefield’s words]

Indeed, the child’s father has since written Deer and the BMJ to explain that Deer was misrepresenting facts about child 11, yet Deer and BMJ have printed no retraction, correction, or mention of this fact.

Mr. Deer noted this claim by Mr. Olmsted in his declaration:

Neither I nor (to my knowledge) the BMJ have received any letter from this father accusing me of “misrepresenting facts.” Nor have we received any request from this father asking for any retraction, correction, or for us to take any action at all. On the contrary, the father confirms the terms of the medical record (which he gave me at a meeting in California in September 2007), but disagrees with the accuracy of that record. The matter is thus purely a (very common) situation where parental recall and medical records do not coincide, and naturally parents believe their recollection to be right.

In a recent article, Mr. Olmsted wrote:

But the father told me: “Mr. Deer’s article makes me appear irrational for continuing to believe that the MMR caused difficulties which predated its administration,” a clear contradiction that called for a prompt correction.

See what Mr. Olmsted did there? He cut short Mr. 11’s sentence and added his own ending. Which made me wonder, what was the full sentence and what was the full context.

If you are wondering that too, here is the full sentence from that email, in context:


Is that an accusation of “misrepresenting facts” by Mr. Deer, as Mr. Olmsted asserts? Rather than call for a retraction or correction, as Mr. Olmsted claimed, Mr. 11 noted that “The Lancet article is a clear misrepresentation of my son’s history”, and that “the Lancet article is simply an outright fabrication.”

How do I know what is in the full email? Brian Deer entered it (redacted, of course) into the public record as an exhibit to his declaration. Given the way Mr. Olmsted was clearly cherry picking the email, I wanted to obtain the source for myself.

With apologies in advance for any transcription errors. But mostly with apologies to the young man who was Child 11 and to his father:

Daniel Olmstead
Brian Deer
Dear Mr. Olrnstead & Mr. Deer:






Mr. 11 asked for courtesy and discretion on confidentiality issues. I would put to Mr. Olmsted that when he published the first name of Child 11, he may not have been heeding Mr. 11’s wishes.

The father has made a few more statements about these events:

First, about the Age of Autism series: “Olmsted’s logic is twisted and emotional”.

About the research at the Royal Free: “We all make daily human errors, but I guess some people ( Royal Free ) do it for a lifetime !”


“What a HUGE embarrassment, and scientific fiasco ! “.


Whether one agrees with the “epidemic” or not, the idea of moving on from the “debacle” (which I read in context to refer to the story about Mr. Wakefield and the Lancet study) and focusing on research is a very wise suggestion. As Mr. Olmsted has shown, not only has Mr. Wakefield been a huge distraction, but his supporters have been as well.

Another manufactured controversy

26 Jul

People are mad at Brian Deer. Really mad. His work uncovered a number of facts behind Andrew Wakefield’s research and business interests. These facts, these actions by Mr. Wakefield, led to many of the problems Mr. Wakefield has suffered in recent years. It is understandable that people are mad at Brian Deer. Andrew Wakefield is rather important to the groups who believe that vaccines caused an epidemic of autism. Mr. Wakefield is the researcher who took the parent’s hypothesis and put it into a prestigious medical journal. Mr. Wakefield has good credentials, and demeanor which makes for excellent TV footage. It is difficult to listen to him and think, “here is a man who lied to the world, caused a fear of the MMR vaccine and vaccines in general, and hid not only his faulty research, but other ethical lapses and shortcuts taken along the way”.

Difficult, but not impossible. The U.K.’s General Medical Council decided that contrary to what Mr. Wakefield had to say in his defense, he had misrepresented his work, he had taken many ethical shortcuts. While the GMC wasn’t interested in the vaccine fears promoted by the faulty, even fraudulent research, the GMC did find Mr. Wakefield guilty of ethics violations, research misconduct and dishonesty and had him struck off the U.K.’s medical register.

And, yes, it was the facts that led to the downfall of Mr. Wakefield. But, that doesn’t shield the messenger. In this case, Mr. Deer. Well, he was more than the messenger. He uncovered the facts as well as presented them.

One thing Mr. Wakefield’s supporters are mad about is the fact that Mr. Deer interviewed one parent using a pseudonym. He presented himself as “Brian Lawrence”, not “Brian Deer”. This is not news, having been in the press for at least 7 years. Much more to the point, it isn’t even a controversy, as I’ll show below. But, it is blog fodder. Apparently enough for Dan Olmsted of the Age of Autism to put out 3, count them 3, articles on the subject.

Since AoA have discussed Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Deer on their blog, it is not surprising that people came here looking to see if there would be a response to Mr. Olmsted’s pieces. There was a time when I read the Age of Autism blog, so perhaps, just perhaps, I was aware of the articles. In a comment on my piece, My comment to the IACC, I got the following

Jim Thompson, frequent commenter here, wrote:


It seems that your interests parallel those on AoA with a major exception. Have you read this?

See “I was visited yesterday, Friday 28th November 2003 by Brian Lawrence…” at…..dical.html

I used to get a lot of comments like that. Thread-jacking comments pointing me to one blog or another where some heated discussion was supposedly going on. I pulled the comment this time. In this case I felt it justified. The article it was attached to had nothing to do with the subject of the comment. In fact, to be blunt, I found it both ironic and insulting that the comment was attached to that piece.

Yes, my piece asking for research into better medical care for autistics is so like rehashing the “Brian Deer used a pseudonym” argument. If anything, this serves to show the differences between the Age of Autism and Left Brain/Right Brain. Differences which are becoming more pronounced with time. I’m pushing for a better future. They are rehashing their failures of the past.

Believe me, when I first heard that Brian Deer used a pseudonym in order to obtain an interview, I looked into the question. I asked a simple question: can a journalist lie to a source and if so, when?

The answer is, yes, a journalist can lie. As to when: there are two criteria that must be met. First, there must be a pressing need for the public to obtain the information. Second, the information is not expected to be obtainable by straightforward means.

Let’s consider the news investigation into Mr. Wakefield’s research. It is clear that there was a pressing need for the public to know whether the details were being accurately presented. Mr. Wakefield’s research was creating a fear of vaccines in general, and the MMR in specific. The vaccination rates were dropping to dangerously low levels, presenting a public health hazard. An investigation into the research, even if it required suberterfuge, was warranted, as long as the second criterion was met: there must be a valid expectation that the information would be obtainable by straightforward means.

OK, so point one is met. Let’s look at point two. Mr. Olmsted gives us insight into that question himself:

Deer had written a number of critical articles about parents’ claims of vaccine injury, and if he gave his real name, he doubtless feared, Child 2’s mother would not agree to talk to him. Once she checked his blog, she would be more likely to kick him out of the family home than sit still for what turned into a six-hour inquisition.

Mr. Deer is also described by Mr. Olmsted as being considered at the time of the interview as “a journalist notoriously hostile to people who claimed that vaccines had injured their children. ”

Clearly, the second point is met as well: the information was not expected to be obtainable by straightforward means

Mr. Olmsted is, no doubt, quite aware of the ethics of such methods. The Society of Professional Journalists have the following rules (emphasis added):

Journalists should:
— Never plagiarize.

As an aside: consider the rules above and Mr. Olmsted’s reporting on autism. “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting”. “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.” and more…

Back to the question of whether it is permissible to use “surreptitious methods of gathering information” in obtaining a story. Aside from these being the published rules of the Society of Professional Journalists, Mr. Olmsted is likely well aware of the method. Back when he was at UPE, Mr. Olmted’s journalism partner on what may have been his real intro into medical news reporting (a series on Lariam) was a gentleman named Mark Benjamin. Mr. Olmsted included Mr. Benjamin in the dedication of his book, “The Age of Autism”.

I believe that this is the same Mark Benjamin who went on to write a series for called “Getting straight with God“, a “four-part investigation into the Christian netherworld of “reparative therapy,” a disputed practice to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals. ”

How did Mark Benjamin, a straight man, obtain the information he needed for the story? ” I told Harley I was gay, although I am straight and married. I used a fake name. ”

He flat out admits, he lied:

When I arrived in Levy’s office, I was asked to fill out roughly 15 pages of questions about myself and my family. Mostly the questions centered on how I got along with my folks. In a section about my problems, I wrote “possible homosexuality.” The fact is, I’m straight, I’m married to a woman, and I have a 3-year-old daughter and a son due in October. I wrote on the form that that I was married with a kid. But I lied and said I was also living a secret life, that I harbored homosexual urges.

This is why I’m calling this out as a manufactured controversy. Brian Deer interviewed someone using a pseudonym. He misrepresented himself. It happens in journalism. It not only happens, it is clearly allowed under specific circumstances. As a journalist, a journalist whose colleagues have used the same techniques, Mr. Olmsted should be quite aware of this.