The NYTimes misportrays the autism “debate”
Deal in an Autism Case Fuels Debate on Vaccine is the headline for an article in today’s New York Times by Gardiner Harris about the case of Hannah Poling, the 9-year-old autistic child whose “pre-existing mitochondrial disorder…. was ‘aggravated’ by her shots,” as was conceded last week by the government in the Court of Federal Claims. Unfortunately, the New York Times does not present the full scope of the debate and makes it seem that there are two clear-cut sides, scientists and government officials, and parents of autistic children.
Two officials from the CDC, Dr. Julie Geberding and Dr. Edwin Trevathan are quoted in the article, and three parents, John Gilmore of Autism United, Lyn Redwood of Safe Minds, and Rita Shreffler of the National Autism Association (NAA). What the New York Times fails to acknowledge is that Safe Minds and the NAA are organizations that clearly support the hypothesis that vaccines or something in vaccines, such as mercury, causes autism, and that the three parents quoted are strong advocates of a vaccine-autism link.
There are many parents of autistic children, such as my husband Jim and I, who do not believe that vaccines or mercury caused their children to become autistic. By not showing that Gilmore, Redwood, and Shreffler represent only one group of parents, the New York Times incorrectly represents the debate over the vaccine-autism link and also misrepresents the views of all parents of autistic children. Autism United, Safe Minds and the NAA do not speak for me.
Tags: asd, asperger, autism, dna, Genetics, Health, measles, mercury, mmr, new york times, Parenting, pdd-nos, shots, VaccinesRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Autism Organizations, Vaccines
38 opinions for The NYTimes misportrays the autism “debate”
Emily
Mar 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm
And they willfully continue to give the impression that there is anything to debate. There’s no debate here, just a lot of emoting and pseudoscience on one side against an array of facts and data on the other.
Emily
Mar 8, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I note here something that I think is relevant and revelatory: News reports have repeatedly stated that Dr. Poling “left his job” at Johns Hopkins to take work in private practice so that he could help care for his daughter.
Ahem. A timeline: Med school completion usually happens at age 26 at the earliest. Residency comes next; for neuro, 4-5 years. He and his wife had Hannah when he was ~28 and his wife was 10 years older. Ergo, this guy was simply finishing his RESIDENCY at Hopkins and left *because his residency was done*, just like everyone else who finishes a residency usually does.
The NYT now reports that he was a *resident* at Hopkins.
Squirrelly stuff, in my mind. Oh, sniff. The dad left his amazing, high-profile HOPKINS job for his little girl. Sniff.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I think “debate” is a misnomer too. Two sides who
Also worth noting is what Club 166 notes about Dr. Poling referring to “Ms. Geberding,” and about the Polings’ lawyer, Cliff Shoemaker, who is “no stranger to vaccine litigation”:
His website is:
http://www.attorneyaccess.net/Cliff.cfm
Emily
Mar 8, 2008 at 5:46 pm
There is another piece that describes his leaving his position as “Chief Resident” at Hopkins to go into private practice:
“Dr. Jon Poling, a graduate of Georgetown Medical School, had the coveted position as Chief Resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He left his position to go into private practice in order to pay for Hannah’s numerous therapies and treatments.”
His bio online says that he graduated from med school 11 years ago. That would be about 1997. So, three years later, he’s chief resident of neurology at Hopkins, based on that timeline (his daughter received her shots in 2000). He was a third-year resident at that point. Hopkins must appt chief residents in the third year.
Unless I learned wrongly at the med school where I postdoc’d, residents must actually complete their residencies to be eligible to practice medicine. He had to finish that year. He couldn’t have left it early and still have been eligible to practice medicine. I’m inferring that he simply completed his residency that year and then went into private practice, like most do.
It may be that he was in an (extra) fourth year. He still would have had to leave the program at the end of that year. But it looks like chiefs at Hopkins in neurology are third year.
I’m actually not trying to hammer on the guy. But I don’t like the way this looks as though there was some manipulation of the facts for public consumption to add some pathos to an already sad situation. I guess that this apparent factual fuzziness combined with the (to me) offputting and intrusive videotaping of their daughter in their hotel room strikes me as really manipulative. These are smart people. They know that.
Emily
Mar 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
OK, now I’m just perseverating, but…
Johns Hopkins University, Department of Neurology/Neurosurgery, Neurology Resident 2001
INOVA Fairfax Hospital/Georgetown Hospital, Transitional Intern 1998
Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC - M.D./Ph.D. 1997
———————–
Looks like he finished his JH residency in 2001. Hannah got her shots in 2000.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 8, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I think it’s important to point all this out—-one reason for this case getting so much attention is because he is a doctor—a neurologist—-and the public is more likely to believe what is said about this case for those reasons.
Samantha Pierce
Mar 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“There are many parents of autistic children, such as my husband Jim and I, who do not believe that vaccines or mercury caused their children to become autistic. By not showing that Gilmore, Redwood, and Shreffler represent only one group of parents, the New York Times incorrectly represents the debate over the vaccine-autism link and also misrepresents the views of all parents of autistic children.”
This is one of the things that irritates me so about so much of the media coverage of this issue. It presumes that parents of autistic children are monolithic in their beliefs (and it ignores autistic individuals entirely). I blogged about it yesterday (These people DO NOT speak for me!) and I just sent an email to NPR about their story on the case as well. It’s amazing how journalists seem to have such a hard time finding parents to talk to who don’t believe that vaccines cause autism.
Club 166
Mar 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I think what you just said, Kristina, is why I’m so riled up about this.
I really hold doctors to a higher standard when it comes to things like this. They have had enough training (especially an MD/PhD whose had research training, for Pete’s sake) to know the difference between proving something with science and “baffling them with your bulls**t”.
And the public expects that physicians and researchers are more informed in areas like this, and thus their opinions “count” more in the court of public opinion.
And then they go and let some lawyer use this to advantage, just to make money.
It really ticks me off.
Joe
Club 166
Mar 8, 2008 at 8:36 pm
…It’s amazing how journalists seem to have such a hard time finding parents to talk to who don’t believe that vaccines cause autism.
No, if they did they wouldn’t have a neat little controversy/David and Goliath struggle story on their hands.
Joe
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 8, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I wrote a letter to the Times.
They certainly chose the right lawyer, as you pointed out, Club 166.
brstpathdoc
Mar 8, 2008 at 10:35 pm
The New York Times has some serious credibility issues. And this is the source from which most of the lay media base their stories. Anything I read in the times I take with a Mt.Everest sized grain of salt.
@Emily: A neurology residency, at least when I trained (and this guy is my exact contemporary), was a 4 year program: one year of general internal medicine as an intern, then 3 more in straight neurology. As such, it seems that your math and timeline of events is accurate.
Unfortunately, the field of medicine represents a cross section of society as a whole, in that you have the bright and honest, and their counterparts. You can have a CV that glows in the dark, replete with oodles of Big Name Programs, and still be an idiot and/or a quack. I don’t know this guy, so it’s tough to judge his motivations. However, when I read that his wife is a nurse and a lawyer, I suspected the worst. Lawyers are not interested in the truth, only perception of the truth. Even the good lawyers. Based on HIPAA regulations, these people can release only the information they want to, and hide the rest behind confidentiality to any level that fits their agenda.
Mitochondrial genetic disorders are inherited exclusively from the mother. The mother is a lawyer. Ergo, lawyers cause autism. I’ve solved the mystery. Please alert The Times.
nicola
Mar 8, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Maybe this is a crazy thought, but why don’t some people who live in the New York area make signs, placards, etc. and go stand on the the steps of the NY times and make their physical presence known? If I lived in New York, I would do this myself. This paper is a primary source of information for many people, and these assumptions frequently go unchallenged. Even if something appears in a sort of reader’s comment area, its not enough.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 8, 2008 at 11:06 pm
@brpathdoc,
now maybe you’re onto something……..
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 9, 2008 at 12:02 am
@nicola,
it’s a great idea and we have indeed often walked past the NY Times building on our walks in New York. But the Times is something of a Goliath in itself, though since we live in northern NJ, we tend to think of it as “the local paper.” I just noticed that the vaccine-autism article was the most emailed today from the Times’s website. A lot of correcting to do.
Cliff
Mar 9, 2008 at 4:04 am
First of all, I need to express (a totally irrational, yet poignant) some indignation over the fact that a lawyer pushing the autism-vaccine link shares a bastardization of my name (last name Schumacher, as opposed to Shoemaker. Shoemaker is what nearly every sales clerk takes my name to be).
But, yes, I can see how that is easily constructed. There are fewer parents coming out saying “No, that’s not how all of our children are.” as “experts” on the subject. It’s easier to construct an argument between two sides than a array of various voices, and when you’re walking to an argument fairly blind, like a reporter, that’s what’s bound to happen. So I don’t blame them, really, because it’s expected.
Cliff
MJ
Mar 9, 2008 at 10:59 am
First, when did it become acceptable to attack the parents of a child with autism? So speculating on the time line that the father was at one place or the other is just gossip. Unless you have specific knowledge or did the legwork TO ACTUALLY FIND OUT you cannot have an informed opinion. You like to complain about pseudo science but then engage in malicious gossip, how do you square those two actions?
This is one of the major reasons that this debate won’t die, you don’t discuss the subject matter at hand, you engage in character assassination.
So Kristina, I am sorry, but statements like :
“By not showing that Gilmore, Redwood, and Shreffler represent only one group of parents”
are just silly. You have (to the best of my knowledge) no real knowledge of the case other than one was been publicly disclosed. You do not know the real facts of the case, you do not have access to the child’s medical record, and you do not have any knowledge of the reason that the government conceded this case.
So there is nothing that you could have added to the article other than a “we don’t believe it” point of view. Which in light of the fact that you have zero real knowledge of the details of the case means that the amount you could contribute to the article is just that, zero.
I understand that you do not believe in the connection, however, in this case, the information available (that I have seen) point to the fact that for whatever condition this child has, that vaccines did play a role.
Your belief is not required. The people who actually do know all of the details of the case have decided that is the case.
You can question and speculate about the specifics of the case all that you want, keeping in mind that it is just that, speculation. So if you want to discuss that the child may not have want you would consider autism, great. If you want to talk about the underlying disorder, great.
What is not acceptable is to attack the parents.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 9, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I am looking forward to the day when it is acceptable not to attack those who state publicly that vaccines or something in vaccines, such as mercury, does not cause autism.
MJ
Mar 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I am not attacking your stance that vaccines have nothing to do with autism. You are more than welcome to your opinion on the subject. You are more than welcome to express your opinion on the subject, I normally enjoy reading them. I think that you may be correct, at least for some some set of the autistic population.
What I am attacking is implication that everyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw that is causing them to make false claims or is a lier or is hiding something or is just in it for the money, etc.
I am also very strongly attacking exchanges like this:
“…Squirrelly stuff, in my mind. Oh, sniff. The dad left his amazing, high-profile HOPKINS job for his little girl. Sniff.”
“I think it’s important to point all this out—-one reason for this case getting so much attention is because he is a doctor—a neurologist—-and the public is more likely to believe what is said about this case for those reasons.”
That is just malicious gossip. You have NO first hand knowledge of this person’s background, you are completely speculating the time line of his career and his reasons for leaving a giving position.
Yet you feel that “it’s important to point all this out”. Why? What can it add to the debate that, you specifically, based on second hand knowledge, without actually having taken any attempt to determine what the actual facts of the matter, feel that it is important that your unfounded speculation is known by everyone else?
And more importantly, your unfounded statements are attempting to portray an individual in a unflattering way solely because you don’t like his opinion or the fact that the government conceded that vaccines cased his daughter medical problems.
I assume you are familiar with the definition of libel? From Merriam-Webster :
“a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression”
or
“a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt”
I am also attacking the implication that the NYT should have included you or another parent “who do not believe that vaccines or mercury caused their children to become autistic” is someone skewing the article.
The article is not about the debate as a whole, it is about a very specific court case and the outcome of that case. What could it possibly matter that you, specifically, do not agree with the governments decision? How specifically would that have made the article more balanced? Do you have some important information that was not included in the article? And if not, why should your speculation about the case be included?
Emily
Mar 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“First, when did it become acceptable to attack the parents of a child with autism? So speculating on the time line that the father was at one place or the other is just gossip. Unless you have specific knowledge or did the legwork TO ACTUALLY FIND OUT you cannot have an informed opinion. You like to complain about pseudo science but then engage in malicious gossip, how do you square those two actions?”
Hey, baby. I did my legwork. See above. And it becomes acceptable to attack ANYONE when they make themselves public figures and place themselves in the middle of a major controversy with opinions that are in themselves contradictory and controversial. They are public figures now.
I do, in fact, have knowledge about this person’s career from this person’s OWN CV, which is published online via the Website for this person’s place of work. Thus, it is not “malicious gossip.” It’s called deduction based on facts given–that is NOT gossip. And again, because they have now made themselves PUBLIC FIGURES, whatever you bother to write about libel doesn’t actually count. You’ll note that I provided all of the options there, anyway. Sorry…nothing libelous in that.
These parents have trotted out their autistic daughter on national television, allowing a film crew to film her in their hotel room, and allowing that film to be posted on Websites for anyone on the planet to view. And guess what? We’re any of us allowed to have an opinion about that, just as we’re allowed to have an opinion about the assertion that this man “quit his job” at Hopkins and the characterization of what that job was and how it squares with what his own CV says it was. Yep, that’s allowed.
Emily
Mar 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm
brstpathdoc
Hopkins is a three-year residency in Neuro, according to their Website. I also thought that it would be longer for Neuro.
Emily
Mar 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm
@MJ: You said, “That is just malicious gossip. You have NO first hand knowledge of this person’s background, you are completely speculating the time line of his career and his reasons for leaving a giving position.”
You yourself have done exactly what you accuse me of doing here. Of course I have knowledge of his background. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have posted his actual background.
You said, “Yet you feel that ‘it’s important to point all this out’. Why? What can it add to the debate that, you specifically, based on second hand knowledge, without actually having taken any attempt to determine what the actual facts of the matter, feel that it is important that your unfounded speculation is known by everyone else?”
You are so funny. As though I would put that information about his career up there based on “complete speculation.” Good Lord, no. I got that information from his OWN CV. Thus, every single argument you make above is just baseless. None of this is “complete speculation.” The only thing that is complete speculation is what you’ve written about me, accusing me of having not “attempted to get the facts of the matter,” etc…as though I would do that. I think I oughta sue YOU for libel, seeing as how I’m not a public figure at all.
And it’s important to point out things like this because this entire situation is completely manipulated, and in my mind, these issues are demonstrations of that manipulation. The entire “vaccine=autism” movement is one of manipulation of data and facts to fit the a priori assumptions and its hallmark is manipulation of people’s emotions to advance the movement. This inferred behavior of these parents–some of which is actually evidenced in their willingness to parade their daughter around on national TV (gee, guess ya can’t call that “pure speculation” or “malicious gossip”–is a perfect example and thus I find it completely relevant.
If you’re looking for pure speculation, I’d like to refer you to the autism websites that blame vaccine for autism. That’s the best place. Also a good place to go if you’re looking for some real examples of pseudoscience. What I’ve posted here is a good example of actual practice of the steps of the scientific method: Observe, question, hypothesize, collect data, get results, draw conclusions. Hello! Did all that! Did you?
MJ
Mar 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Emily, you said”
“Hey, baby. I did my legwork.”
Did you speak with the person in question? Did you speak with his coworkers or supervisors at JH? Did you contact JH to confirm his situation? Do any other fact checking?
“I do, in fact, have knowledge about this person’s career from this person’s OWN CV, which is published online via the Website for this person’s place of work”
Oh, so you graduated from Google U too? Is this counted as acceptable evidence in the scientific method that you quote?
“And it becomes acceptable to attack ANYONE when they make themselves public figures and place themselves in the middle of a major controversy with opinions that are in themselves contradictory and controversial.”
I think I have to disagree with you here. It is never acceptable to attack someone simply because you feel that they have it coming, whether it be because “hey have now made themselves PUBLIC FIGURES” or “their willingness to parade their daughter around on national TV” or whatever your reason.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 9, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I’m also looking forward to when it’s acceptable to state there’s no autism epidemic and not be attacked.
Thanks for bringing up this topic, MJ, and fascinating to see autism discussions hark back to the days of Jonathan Swift, to make a very modest proposal.
Emily, thanks always!
Metaphors, Mitochondria, and the MMR
Mar 9, 2008 at 6:00 pm
[…] read this quote from Dr. Jon Poling, the father of Hannah Poling, in more than a few news stories and most recently in one today in the […]
Cliff
Mar 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sigh… I’ll echo Kristina here. Thanks, Emily.
It simply isn’t libel to pull information from the person’s own CV, and look at what is actually being said, and look at the accuracies of the piece itself and the implications. If I said I had worked directly for the president from the age of six, it’s acceptable to question such a premise. It doesn’t matter whether I’m dying of a terminal illness, it simply can be done. If I was to use that logic to a fault, I could simply be untouchable for the fact that I am autistic. Yet, I pray that you do not do that (and in fact would be very offended if you did). So it’s not ok to go straight into direct ad hominem arguments, but it isn’t a direct ad hominem, it’s pointing out a misrepresentation from the point of an individual and from the larger media.
And, yes, it’s fair to make some generalizations. We don’t have to talk to every person surrounding a situation in order to make some implications. It’s a fair circumstance.
And Kristina’s point is well taken. In doing this, the New York Times has constructed a simple two-sided conflict, essentially “all scientists” versus “all parents” (at parts by implication). And while it’s optimistic to think that such a report would really go deep enough to voice all of the contradictory voices in this situation, it’s nonetheless unfortunate that occurred, because it is a perversion of the situation.
Also, odd assumption here; do you think any of the parent advocates from organizations like Safe Minds have any more information than Kristina? I’m not inclined to think so. It’s fair to analyze the case as presented without “well, you don’t know everything about the case”. Heck, in a technical sense, the judge probably doesn’t know everything about the case, though I hope all of the important details.
Cliff
Owl
Mar 9, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought I noticed more of a problem of the way his position was reported causing all sorts of inappropriate emotionalism to get involved. Newspapers can be kind of funny and mess up their information in all sorts of ways. Nobody seems to have a direct quote of the father saying that he was employed somewhere and then had to quit. We keep indirectly quoting the newspaper. So if he actually is in print having claimed that his school was actually employment then great we have something to complain about. Otherwise we have something to complain about newspapers instead of him. Honestly I can’t sort out that part because the linked new york times article above correctly stated that he was a resident at John Hopkins. So where this part of the debate comes from I can’t pin point. To quote Emily:
News reports have repeatedly stated that Dr. Poling “left his job” at Johns Hopkins to take work in private practice so that he could help care for his daughter.
That’s bad reporting, not bad dishonest parents. Granted the parents may stand to benefit from the misconception but its origin so far apparently has nothing to do with him that anyone’s pointed out so we are NOT slandering him.
Also, getting accurate doctors credentials from a website is a normal thing to be able to do. Any institution will try to post their credentials up publically, and even if its not there are official doctor directories you can do limited searches in for free, and even purchase local directories. I know because I used to use those for a job where I copied medical records and sent electronic or paper copies to wherever the patient requested. Every time a patient sent in a letter saying “please send my file to Dr. Smith” I had to pull those out to identity the doctor in question. So that kind of information is public and typically accurate as long as pulled from the above sources, and if Emily did actually get it from the website of the practice I wouldn’t doubt the information for an instant, unless say you want to accuse the father of lying on his publicly posted resume.
The original blog post still stands correct, the NY Times and the general media under represent people who actually believe the scientists on this one or parents of autistic children who weren’t the regressive mode. To quote the NY times:
Study after study has failed to show any link between vaccines and autism, but many parents of autistic children remain unconvinced.
Sure they put in the word “many” but it leaves the public with the impression that the scientists are out of touch with everyday parents who “really” know. That is a slander on parents of autistic children everywhere, suggesting they are all a bunch of alternative medicine quacks who don’t know and don’t care how science works. Since they put in the word “many” I’m willing to admit people who read it that way just can’t read analytically, but autism coverage isn’t just about how many alternative medicine believers there are among autism parents. It’s just the only part that is sensational. And sensationalizing autism is NOT the same thing as advocating for autistics.
Also, I think we have a right to criticize the parents of this child because they’ve come out in print despite all their medical training and declared as the NY times quoted:
There are two theories about what happened to Hannah, said her mother, Terry Poling. The first is that she had an underlying mitochondrial disorder that vaccinations aggravated. The second is that vaccinations caused this disorder.
“The government chose to believe the first theory,” Ms. Poling said, but added, “We don’t know that she had an underlying disorder.”
And that is a medical statement of fact they assert publicly, one that the government has the right to contest and we have the right to criticize as outright unscientific.
Emily
Mar 9, 2008 at 8:29 pm
http://www.athensneuro.com/medicalstaff.html#poling
@MJ: Aw, now you’re going and changing the rules. Suddenly, we’ve gone from my engaging in “pure speculation” to your hammering on me for not engaging in appropriate journalistic practices. Above is the link to his CV. Looks pretty damned legit to me, but feel free to call the office if you feel otherwise. Even has a pretty picture. Let me know if you find that it’s not legit and if the information it lists is inaccurate or does not agree with what I’ve posted here. Happens also to agree with all of that “pure speculation” I posted here, which I posted after looking into information on the Johns Hopkins Website, Dr. Poling’s own publications (he got one out of his daughter’s case, actually), his presentations, his interviews (both in print and on video), and his CV. I realize that were I writing for the Washington Post, I’d have to get some kind of quote for attribution at least about the process of appointing chief residents at Hopkins…but these are comments on a blog. In my experienced opinion, the sources I have are absolutely sufficient, reliable, and appropriate for the venue.
You saidL: “I think I have to disagree with you here. It is never acceptable to attack someone simply because you feel that they have it coming, whether it be because “hey have now made themselves PUBLIC FIGURES” or “their willingness to parade their daughter around on national TV” or whatever your reason.”
There we obviously differ. I’ll attack whom I please if I feel like they’re doing something harmful to the public health. For what it’s worth, this is hardly an attack. Not only are the gloves on, but they’re very thick, puffy, feel-good, soft gloves. What I’ve posted here is a pale reflection of what the bare-knuckles opinions would be.
To answer your other questions:
“Did you speak with the person in question?” No. have you?
“Did you speak with his coworkers or supervisors at JH?” No. Have you?
“Did you contact JH to confirm his situation?” No. Have you?
“Do any other fact checking?” Of course. Have you?
“Oh, so you graduated from Google U too?” No, PhD UT-Austin and post doc fellow at UCSF. And you?
“Is this counted as acceptable evidence in the scientific method that you quote?” Yes. Evidence must always be appropriate to the question at hand, and this evidence meets that criterion. Have you found any for yourself to support your own “pure speculation” about me? Let’s hear it.
If you have more questions for me, MJ Sassypants, just let me know. Are you Dr. P’s cousin, or what? You seem quite emotionally invested.
Regan
Mar 10, 2008 at 3:58 am
Kristina,
:-) You got a mention.
Forbes.com “Autism Debate Go-To Blogs”
http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebizblog/2008/03/autism-debate-g.html
MJ
Mar 10, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Emily - your initial statement was:
“I note here something that I think is relevant and revelatory: News reports have repeatedly stated that Dr. Poling “left his job” at Johns Hopkins to take work in private practice so that he could help care for his daughter”
What you said you had a problem with was:
“Ergo, this guy was simply finishing his RESIDENCY at Hopkins and left *because his residency was done*, just like everyone else who finishes a residency usually does.”
And you analyzed his CV to “prove” that this was the case.
Along the way you added in statements like:
“Squirrelly stuff, in my mind. Oh, sniff. The dad left his amazing, high-profile HOPKINS job for his little girl. Sniff.”
and
“But I don’t like the way this looks as though there was some manipulation of the facts for public consumption to add some pathos to an already sad situation. I guess that this apparent factual fuzziness combined with the (to me) offputting and intrusive videotaping of their daughter in their hotel room strikes me as really manipulative. These are smart people. They know that.”
Assuming that the timeline that you deducted is accurate, what part of his CV gives the reason that he did not stay at JH? What part of it gives the implication that he was attempting to “manipulative”?
Because it seems from my perspective that your statements are designed to cast doubt on his character. Given the fact that you clearly think that the child’s autism was not caused/aggravated by the vaccines I would have to think you started from assumption that the case cannot be valid. You even said as much:
“And it’s important to point out things like this because this entire situation is completely manipulated, and in my mind, these issues are demonstrations of that manipulation.”
So you therefore decided to look for ways to poke holes in the case - and started attacking the character of the parents.
None of the above is based on “evidence” - just “deduction” from a CV. Which might be just me, but I would call that best speculation or more appropriately gossip.
“If you have more questions for me, MJ Sassypants, just let me know. Are you Dr. P’s cousin, or what? You seem quite emotionally invested.”
No, just annoyed. I think statements like this:
“Squirrelly stuff, in my mind. Oh, sniff. The dad left his amazing, high-profile HOPKINS job for his little girl. Sniff.”
are inappropriate and show a complete lack of empathy for what the parents and child have gone through and their situation in life. Especially the “sniff”.
Cliff you said:
“it’s pointing out a misrepresentation from the point of an individual and from the larger media.”
I think it went a little beyond that. Saying that someone is “manipulative” is not pointing out a misrepresentation - it is making a statement about their character.
“Also, odd assumption here; do you think any of the parent advocates from organizations like Safe Minds have any more information than Kristina?”
No, I don’t think they have any more information. They may have spoken directly to the parents but I do not know. However, I don’t think their comments in the article are any more relevant as they have a clear bias in their statements. But for that matter the CDC weighing in isn’t really relevant either.
Owl you said:
“Also, I think we have a right to criticize the parents of this child because they’ve come out in print despite all their medical training and declared as the NY times quoted:
….
And that is a medical statement of fact they assert publicly, one that the government has the right to contest and we have the right to criticize as outright unscientific.”
No, it is an opinion that is quoted in a newspaper, not a medical statement of fact. Furthermore, you do not know the full medical history underlying the case, so calling the opinion “outright unscientific” is completely unjustified. There could be facts in the details of the medical records or other details of the case that would give the proper scientific level of detail. And unless you are an expert on this particular area of medicine, I don’t think you are really able to say that it is “outright unscientific”.
At the end of the day, the government conceded the case. So I would gather from that simple fact that they (the government) thought that there was at least a good chance that they would have lost had the case been presented at trial. So is the government being “outright unscientific” as well?
However, even granting for the sake of argument that your statements are true and that the parents did make a “medical statement of fact” that is “outright unscientific”, you have the right to criticize the statement. Attacking them personally is another matter all together.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 10, 2008 at 5:59 pm
As Orac notes, about the standard of evidence applied in this case:
The government’s concession in this case was based on a legal, not a scientific, standard of evidence. The case of Hannah Poling does not offer scientific proof that vaccines cause or contribute to autism.
Emily
Mar 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Wow. Do I lack empathy? Gee, I’ve never been accused of that before. Hey, everyone…do you know anyone who’s ever been accused of lacking empathy?
One thing I have in abundance, however, is irony. Wahoo.
Emily
Mar 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm
And I’d like to know if you fact-checked that before making the accusation. ;)
Cliff
Mar 10, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“I think it went a little beyond that. Saying that someone is “manipulative” is not pointing out a misrepresentation - it is making a statement about their character.”
Heh, not to be too pessimistic on that, but manipulation happens all of the time in media, and if you took every such incident to be a moral incident, you might as well throw every person who’s worked in media as a sinner. It’s part and parcel of the job.
Note I haven’t particularly indicted the Pollings morally, but I think there is a manipulation here, since it has been reported as such so often in that format. If anything, they weren’t as straightforward about the facts as much as the message they were trying to present. Now, I also know that people are far more territorial about that then I have ever been, and hold people accountable more than I do for putting the message over the facts as a form of lying. I respect that, but find it highly optimistic.
Really, my defense was more of the usage of the CV to make inferences on the subject. That should never have been considered libel in any way or form.
“No, I don’t think they have any more information. They may have spoken directly to the parents but I do not know. However, I don’t think their comments in the article are any more relevant as they have a clear bias in their statements. But for that matter the CDC weighing in isn’t really relevant either.”
On the one hand, yes, they don’t know everything about the case, like the CDC and all others. If we were to take a radical form of argument, we could just as well say that any analysis of a murder trial is useless, because we don’t know that a murder is being contested with absolute certainty, because we don’t know all of the details about the case.
But I hope you understand that I’m not going to venture into this, because the standard of proof is too high. We have a general outlook on scientific factors in this case that have been presented, and we have a general outlook on the legal standards in this case, and we have a general standard as to the nature of the case as it relates to other cases. Yes, they’re non-specific, but I don’t need to say which organs were punctured to make moral claims about a stabbing death, for example. Analysis of the situation is fair without an intimate level of detail that no one is ever going to have.
As to the scientific nature of the claims; the claim made is a direct attribution about a scientific detail in the case from Ms. Polling. That is a claim about the science, and it can be addressed in those terms. Now, you can make the case that the paper skewed the quote in order to present Ms. Polling differently, but otherwise it’s a fair to address the claim as such.
And the government concession it isn’t relevant to the quotation, because the government wasn’t conceding anything about the causation of the mitochondrial condition as much as it was the causation of the autism-like symptoms that come from the condition. They’re very different things.
And, again, these aren’t unfair challenges. If you’re making statements in order to create an authenticity or representation, such a representation is a statement, much like any other, and can be contextualized differently as to bring a different message (even something of a non-message). It’s not as if we’re just using some direct attributions to the person.
Cliff
MJ
Mar 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“Gee, I’ve never been accused of that before.”
It isn’t an accusation, it is an opinion. Which is way I phrased it “I think statements like this…”
“And I’d like to know if you fact-checked that before making the accusation.”
Yes, I checked by asking myself twice.
“my defense was more of the usage of the CV to make inferences on the subject. That should never have been considered libel in any way or form.”
And my point was the CV does not contain any reasons or circumstances around why he left for another job, just when he did.
“And the government concession it isn’t relevant to the quotation, because the government wasn’t conceding anything about the causation of the mitochondrial condition as much as it was the causation of the autism-like symptoms that come from the condition. They’re very different things.”
I don’t think there is enough evidence from documents released to say which came first, the chicken or the egg. And the phrase autism-like symptoms is just silly. Autism is based on behavioral characteristics, it either meets the criteria or it doesn’t. Since the case was part of the omnibus case and scheduled to be one of the test cases I would think that it would have already gotten beyond the question of whether the child had autism. If the government had reason to doubt the autism I would have thought they would have attempted to have the case disqualified from the proceedings and dealt with separately. However, I don’t know that for certain, I am just guessing.
“The government’s concession in this case was based on a legal, not a scientific, standard of evidence.”
The courts decisions are based in science, not credibility of the parties or laws. If it was not scientifically plausible for the injury to occur the settlement would not have.
Now I would give you that it is a long way from there to proven. But this isn’t just some obscure legal argument either. 50% and a feather is a long way from being a quack.
Emily
Mar 10, 2008 at 8:05 pm
MJ, nice to see that you’re upholding good double standards.
Regan
Mar 10, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Coming back to Kristina’s original premise about representation of points of view, I wondered if the particular reporter was relevant–for example, I have some anticipatory sense of the flavor of a Benedict Carey or a Dan Olmstead article…
This was interesting, and interestingly enough about Gardiner Harris, the author of the NYTs story, although on an unrelated story a few years back. The point was criticism of injecting more politics than might be called for into reporting a medical story and perhaps not including broader points of view. I thought that the Columbia Journalism Review made an interesting point,
Partisan Infection Strikes Medical Coverage
Columbia Journalism Review
“…if you’re going to include in an article on a life-and-death medical matter wild speculation from a partisan with no medical training, you must — any White House reporter can tell you how this works — also include wild speculation from an untrained partisan from the other side of the debate. ..”
http://www.cjr.org/politics/partisan_infection_strikes_med.php
(I know, then you get into that “balance” thing…which was addressed in the NYTimes (!) :-))
The bottom line for me is that, influential or no, it is a newspaper, not a research journal, and if I am really interested, I figure that I’ll have to read the primary sources or wait for a good research review article, because I don’t expect the beat reporters to be scientists or to include all the details and subtlties or even to necessarily quote the most relevant people. I figure most of what laypeople say in these kinds of articles are their opinion.
Regan
Mar 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm
“Autism is based on behavioral characteristics, it either meets the criteria or it doesn’t.”
———————
And if the specific behavioral criteria gets changed in the next DSM is it still “Autism”?
I probably won’t comment about this part again, but the use of this single word seems to cause more trouble than it is worth, esp. since the term seems to denote something different or more with each revision and since it is based on a selection of behaviors and not necessarily the inclusion of all, not even comprehensive or necessarily cross-referenceable. Labelling specific behavioral and physical manifestations, biochemical (as they become available and reliable) and developmental trajectories seems more useful. JMO.
(Sorry ’bout that, but I needed to get that off my chest with this ongoing discussion about what “causes” “autism”. Thanks for your tolerance.)
Cliff
Mar 10, 2008 at 9:29 pm
“And my point was the CV does not contain any reasons or circumstances around why he left for another job, just when he did.”
Direct implications as to the message as presented. When he did happened to be directly relevant to the misinformation.
As to the timing of the disorder, it’s true that I don’t have the true information on that, fair enough. Thing is, that’s what the concession was. So, without noting whether or not it happened before or after the vaccination (I could argue that, but it’s not what I’m arguing here), it just happens to be what was conceded. Basically, the concession is dismissing that it caused the mitochondrial disorder, but it is saying that it may have accentuated a preexisting condition.
Also, a tic; “scientific plausibility” is a gargantuan, broad term that basically says “anything goes, so far as it fits in with inductive reasoning”. Now, there’s obviously some stuff which is considered not so, for reasons of crippling any progress. But to simply throw the term as a conditional for the case is like saying “Well, I’m sure the government would have thrown out the case if it didn’t have a premise”.
______________________________________
I see your point, Regan, but I still see the issue. It is a newspaper, indeed, and if you are concerned you will look for other sources. But, at the end of the day, we’re not concerned mainly about people who are going to inform themselves on the subject, we’re concerned about those who aren’t. And that’s where the misrepresentation becomes an issue, such that people not only will take it for granted but, as a dominant source, will have a cognitive bias for certain constructions. I mean, I’m not concerned about you being misinformed, or Kristina. I’m worried about going home to my grandmother and having to explain to her why mom and dad aren’t taking up the fight against vaccines.
That said, I’m not expecting that to change, but I’m not exactly an optimist. Reporters are flitting observers, no more. Explaining all of the nuances to someone who has to see many stories at the same time, or has limited time for each, isn’t going to happen, and so we get some simple constructions. And that’s being optimistic (for me), because I’m assuming competency, and having done some work in public relations as an intern I get that reporters can be, well, a little lazy.
Oh, yeah, the term “autism” is problematic. Especially because if you look at the discourse there’s sometimes a issue of attribution (”autism” means very different things to different people), and often looking at the way it is used and described conceptually shows some distance between the term itself and the diagnostic criteria (a good thing, in my view, since I find the criteria to be absurd).
Cliff
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: