Autism Blog - Autism ‘Epidemic’ Groups Turn To Misrepresentation

05 Apr 2006

Author: Kev
Comments: 105

Autism ‘Epidemic’ Groups Turn To Misrepresentation

Following publication of the Shattuck paper casting doubt on the evidence for an autism epidemic:

The mean administrative prevalence of autism in US special education among children ages 6 to 11 in 1994 was only 0.6 per 1000, less than one-fifth of the lowest CDC estimate from Atlanta (based on surveillance data from 1996). Therefore, special education counts of children with autism in the early 1990s were dramatic underestimates of population prevalence and really had nowhere to go but up. This finding highlights the inappropriateness of using special education trends to make declarations about an epidemic of autism, as has been common in recent media and advocacy reports.

Source.

The usual suspects have begun to trot out the usual ploys to try and misrepresent and obscure. The National Autism Association write:

A study published today in Pediatrics, â€œThe Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education,â€ suggests that autism diagnoses havenâ€™t actually risen over the past two decades, despite growing and credible scientific evidence to the contrary. In addition to the studyâ€™s weak methods and erroneous conclusions, questions have now arisen over possible failure to disclose conflicts of interest and recent findings that data from previous autism projects with which current study author Paul Shattuck has been associated were fabricated.

So first lets tackle the ‘growing and credible scientific evidence to the contrary’. Where is it? Where does it exist? Note that NAA totally fail to name, or even reference this ‘growing evidence’.

They also mention ‘weak methods and erroneous conclusions’ yet again failing to illustrate what these ‘weak methods’ are or why they are weak. As far as erroneous conclusions go, that seems to be NAA double-speak for ‘things we disagree with but can’t back up’.

But what about ‘failure to disclose conflicts of interest’? NAA say:

Although the article states that Dr. Shattuck has indicated he has no financial relationships relevant to the article, NAA has learned that he was a Merck Scholar Pre-doctoral Trainee from 1999-2003, and in 2003-2004 he successfully applied for $530,000 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Somebody remind me again – what year is this? 2003? 1999? Or is it 2006? two years after Dr Shattuck had an alleged financial relationship with Merck.

UPDATE: Orac Provides the following: “Oooh, Shattuck received money from the evil Merck to support his training! Except that the Merck we’re talking about seems to be not the evil drug company but rather a nonprofit organization, the John Merck Fund, which supports research into a variety of areas, particularly developmental disabilities.”

By comparison, Wendy Fournier, president of the NAA has an ongoing, established financial relationship with David Kirby – author of Evidence of Harm – as does Safe Minds. Claire Bothwell, Chair of the NAA, works(worked?) for Waters and Kraus, lawyers who solicit thimerosal plaintiffs over the internet.

Lastly, what about ‘recent findings that data from previous autism projects with which current study author Paul Shattuck has been associated were fabricated’? Sounds damning, until you read on:

Although he was not personally implicated, Dr. Shattuckâ€™s former research partner, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsinâ€™s Waisman Center, was recently disciplined by the Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity for scientific misconduct due to fabrication of data. Dr. Shattuck and others published several articles and delivered scientific presentations using data from the project in question

So someone that Shattuck once quoted got themselves in trouble. Thats hardly what I’d call

...with which current study author Paul Shattuck has been associated…

There’s also no indication that these studies Shattuck referenced, or the presentations he made which referenced them had anything at all to do with autism.

The press release goes on to say:

Given the rocky history of the CDC and the autism community, failing to mention the authorâ€™s ties to this agency is a glaring omission that requires an explanation,â€ commented NAA board chair Claire Bothwell. â€œClearly, the CDC has a vested interest in deflecting attention from the possibility that children injured by mercury-containing vaccines ended up with autism diagnoses which fueled autism rates off the charts

First of a message to the NAA, Safe Minds, Generation rescue etc – you are not the autism community . You represent a small subset of parents. Thats it. What you have is a good PR campaign and a few pet journalists.

Secondly, its clearly the case that several anti-vaccine groups such as NAA, SafeMinds etc are beginning to get very very jumpy and have a vested interest in deflecting attention away from the increasing evidence that there has been no epidemic of autism and that autism is not caused by thiomersal in vaccines. Autism rates are not ‘off the charts’ – the charts were simply never big enough to start with.

These groups need to stop politicising the issues, need to stop painting themselves as ‘the autism community’ and need to stop this pointless and utterly transparent attack on any credible science that undermines their isolationist position.

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2006/04/autism-epidemic-groups-turn-to-misrepresentation/">Autism ‘Epidemic’ Groups Turn To Misrepresentation</a>

Comments

105 Responses to “Autism ‘Epidemic’ Groups Turn To Misrepresentation”

Bronwyn G
April 5th, 2006
12:11:59

Um, Kev, there’s an organisation

(Generation Rescue)

which claims the CDC is solely responsible for a

wait for it

6000%

increase in autism.

Please explain.
EriK Nanstiel
April 5th, 2006
13:04:06

Great new website: putchildrenfirst.org
clone3g
April 5th, 2006
13:26:12

EriK Nanstiel : Great new website: putchildrenfirst.org

A few more you should register Erik:
tryitonchildrenfirst.org
putchildrendown.org
putlawsuitsfirst.org
makechildrenhurt.org
exploitchildrenfirst.org
putsciencelast.org
Kev
April 5th, 2006
13:53:05

Nice Erik – ask JB how long did it take to reskin the GR site?

Also, ask him if he’s aware of the meaning behind the phrases ‘doorway pages’, ‘black hat SEO’ and a few others. Assure him he soon will be. You might also warn him that the status of that domain is set to:

Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED

Thats not so good.
F. Hampton
April 5th, 2006
15:20:04

Register this:

How about – postsomethingmoreimaginatveorseeitgetdeleted.end

– edited by Kev
anonimouse
April 5th, 2006
16:12:06

Everyone has forgotten the cardinal rule of anti-thimerosal public relations.

Rule #1: If you are involved with a study that refutes the autism-thimerosal link, any involvement with the government or pharmaceutical company, no matter how transient or insignificant, is grounds to cast serious question or outright dismiss said study.

Rule #2: If you are involved with a study that supports the autism-thimerosal link, it is wholly irrelevant whether you stand to profit from discoveries related to your research or whether you or your financial backers have a legal or monetary stake in proving the autism-thimerosal theory correct.
anonimouse
April 5th, 2006
16:13:10

How about:

weregettingdesperatesoitstimetobreakoutthenamecalling.com
Kev
April 5th, 2006
16:16:21

Orac provides more background.
HN
April 5th, 2006
16:30:32

The background by Orac notes that the “Merck” that provided the scholarship is NOT the pharmaceutical, but this:
http://www.jmfund.org/about.html

It is named after John Merck, the developmentally disabled child of the founders.

Is this confusion the type of shoddy research done and suppported by the NAA?
F. Hampton
April 5th, 2006
16:45:24

This one is not bad either. From me to the pro-thimerosal quakbusters:
howdoyouspelliq.org

You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing, Kevin. Get help.
anonimouse
April 5th, 2006
16:52:02

F. Hampton = J. Best?
clone3g
April 5th, 2006
16:59:01

How do you spell Quack?”

You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing”

Comedy Gold.
Kev
April 5th, 2006
17:07:37

“You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing, Kevin. Get help.”

Weere wud ewe zuggeest eye geet hyelp?
Bartholomew Cubbins
April 5th, 2006
17:46:05

re: “You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing”

clone – s/he was talking TO his/her own cognitive dysfunctions. The rest of us ‘teh intarneters’ just got in the way.

carry on hampton, I’m gonna get some popcorn.
Joseph
April 5th, 2006
18:27:04

I’ve posted confirmation of Shattuck’s findings in this post using public California data, in case there are any doubts about falsification of data.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 5th, 2006
18:37:35

anonimouse: “F. Hampton = J. Best?”

LoL

Fuck, I’d say so for definite! Only JBJr is that fucked up that he can’t spell what he thinks he wants to say! LoL

He’s been obsessing about my scrotum and its contents for way too long, and all that masturbating’s sent the poor evil fucker senile! LoL
David H
April 5th, 2006
18:53:55

Kev,

“They also mention â€˜weak methods and erroneous conclusionsâ€™ yet again failing to illustrate what these â€˜weak methodsâ€™ are or why they are weak.”

Perhaps you missed this part of the statement but I would venture to guess that this is part of what they are referring to by weak methods & erroneous conclusions.

The paper’s use of Department of Education data to conclude no epidemic exists is troubling. The study author himself said that the data set is inconsistent and is subject to administrative and policy changes by the states. He notes that 28 of the 48 states included in the analysis do
not support his theory of reclassification as a reason for autism increases.

“Each state has its own rules and the autism rates by state vary greatly, so aggregating the state-level data to a US average is not good statistical practice,” explained Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds.

Kev, do you really think it’s valid to aggregate the state-level data? Additionally, the study has been commented on by Newshaffer but I haven’t seen that yet.
Kev
April 5th, 2006
19:30:25

I have seen Newschafer’s comments – if you go to Orac’s blog you’ll find coverage of them there.

_”The paperâ€™s use of Department of Education data to conclude no epidemic exists is troubling. The study author himself said that the data set is inconsistent and is subject to administrative and policy changes by the states. He notes that 28 of the 48 states included in the analysis do
not support his theory of reclassification as a reason for autism increases.”_

I did not miss that part of the statement but then I also read the Shattuck paper – particularly the part where he mentioned that this was exactly his point – the data is unreliable.

“Kev, do you really think itâ€™s valid to aggregate the state-level data?”

No, I don’t. However, I can’t help but note that Mr Blaxill failed to complain when Rick Rollens erroneously uses CDDS data every quarter or the Geier’s use it in their papers.

The whole point of the Shattuck paper was to demonstrate (yet again) that there is no reliable source for proving the existence of an epidemic. When you read Newshaffer you’ll see that he agree’s with this. Shatuck went on to suggest things like diagnostic substitution.
Paul Shattuck, study author
April 5th, 2006
20:50:44

Dear Readers,

Several have wondered about the validity of “aggregating the state-level data” and I thought you might be interested in a little more detail behind the methods of the study.

Any study of aggregated data should also make efforts to explore the variability that are present among aggregated units. So, in an intervention study for instance, researchers should never rely solely on changes in group means to measure and describe the effect of the intervention. There should always be consideration of how the response varied among subjects and a description of cases that were exceptions to the group norm.

Likewise in my research, I have attempted to simultaneously characterize the “average” experience among states using the aggregate data while carefully examining and quantifying the variability among states…noting that clearly not all states followed the same pattern of diagnostic substitution.

Furthermore, one of the statistical approaches I used, “random coefficient growth modeling”, was specifically developed for the purpose of simultaneously measuring main aggregate effects and the variability among sub-units around those average main effects. I apologize for how dense the statistics are in the paper. I actually revised that section in consultation with the editor in order to make it more user-friendly because most clinicians are not statistically adept. But even after revision I realize it is still pretty thick going for most.

I think the important methodological point to take away from my article, that makes it different from others who have approached this topic, is that I used several different ways of attacking the same question.

The ideal situation you hope for in data analysis is that your substantive conclusions are robust across different methods of analysis. In other words, you want to be sure that your findings are not only present if you use a particular technique, only to vanish if you attack the analysis using a slightly different approach. If you keep finding basically the same answer using a variety of analytic techniques, then this bolsters your confidence in the validity of your findings…and makes you more confident that your conclusions are bullet proof.

My 3-step approach A) demonstrated that MR and LD prevalence tended to decrease significantly during the same period as autism was increasing (my statistical models are merely a formal way of measuring what is visually apparent in the line graph of Figure 2), B) found that when analyzed on a state-by-state basis, the increase of autism tended, on average, to be significantly correlated with a decrease in the other categories, and C) found that the year when autism was introduced as a new reporting category marked a discontinuity in the pre-existing trajectory of change for both LD and MR (i.e., marked a downward turn in their pre-existing trends of change). The peer reviewers seemed to agree that my 3-pronged analytic approach was a particular strength of this paper.

Thank you all for your interest in the paper. I actually welcome disagreements and debates about the methods and substance of the paper. We argue over things like this in science all the time and I don’t take it personally. Feel free to contact me with more questions.

Best regards,

Paul Shattuck
Jonathan Semetko
April 5th, 2006
21:01:23

David H.

You quoted “Each state has its own rules and the autism rates by state vary greatly, so aggregating the state-level data to a US average is not good statistical practice,â€ explained Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds.”

True, however, Mr. Blaxill offers us an irrelevant conclusion. The variation within/between States is a source of statistical error when one tries to calculate trend/ prevalence/ incidence/ correlation. This was Shattuck’s point (as stated in the article) and very good one.

Dr. Newschaffer does not challenge this study on method or statistics. He simply says that it is difficult to know what the autism is doing in terms of incidence or prevalence based on the data systems we have. He suggests that instead we put effort in to fiding causes.

With all due respect for Dr. Newschaffer, I am going to disagree. Descriptive epi might point us in the direction of a cause or help us rule out some potential causes.
Jennifer
April 5th, 2006
21:13:21

Dr. Shattuck,
You say on Orac’s blog that you still consider it an open question as to whether there is a real increase in autism rates. Can you tell me if there is any data, other than school data, that suggests an increase in autism rates? The recent study by Chakrabarti and Fombonne, Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;162(6):1133-41, suggests a stable incidence.

Thank you for inviting questions. I hope you don’t get too many!
Joseph
April 5th, 2006
21:58:41

Dr. Shattuck:

“My 3-step approach A) demonstrated that MR and LD prevalence tended to decrease significantly during the same period as autism was increasing (my statistical models are merely a formal way of measuring what is visually apparent in the line graph of Figure 2), B) found that when analyzed on a state-by-state basis, the increase of autism tended, on average, to be significantly correlated with a decrease in the other categories, and C) found that the year when autism was introduced as a new reporting category marked a discontinuity in the pre-existing trajectory of change for both LD and MR (i.e., marked a downward turn in their pre-existing trends of change). The peer reviewers seemed to agree that my 3-pronged analytic approach was a particular strength of this paper.”

Does your analysis adjust for population growth? If not, could that be the reason why California and other states don’t follow the pattern you see in other states?
Paul Shattuck, study author
April 5th, 2006
22:08:26

Hi,

Yes, it “adjusts” for population growth in that prevalence was estimated in each calendar year as the child count in special ed. divided by the corresponding annual population estimate for children that age in any given state.

“Prevalence” is just a fancy way of saying “proportion.” The measure of proportion most are familiar with is the percentage…i.e. how many out of 100.

If you were tracking the prevalence of a condition in a community of 100 people and found that it occurred in 5 of them then the prevalence would be 5/100. If you went back ten years later and the community had grown to 1,000 and there were now 50 people with the disease then the prevalence would be 50/1,000, which is equivalent to 5/100. So, prevalence estimates that have a constantly updated population estimate in the denominator can be said to “adjust” for population changes in this sense. Hmm, not sure if I explained that too well, and I’m in a hurry to get somewhere now…but I hope you get the idea.
Joseph
April 5th, 2006
22:34:24

Yes, it â€œadjustsâ€ for population growth in that prevalence was estimated in each calendar year as the child count in special ed. divided by the corresponding annual population estimate for children that age in any given state.

Ok. It looks like population estimates in states with fast population growth like California could easily throw off the numbers. In the CDDS data I get the right results with a 53% growth in the last 13.5 years (which matches population data I’ve seen) but if that were only 47%, then the diagnostic substitution effect is no longer observed. I’m wondering if it’s true that the states where the diagnostic substitution effect is clear are states with slow population growth.
MarÃa LujÃ¡n Ferreira
April 5th, 2006
22:36:00

Dr Shattuck
Thank you very much for your kind offer to answer questions.
OracÂ´s blog mentioned
While pointing out the number of studies looking for a link between mercury and autism that failed to find a link, (Dr)Shattuck does emphasize that the results of his do not disprove a connection between environmental factors and autism
If a real environmental insult, very complex in nature and individualized in manifestation ( plus the effect of genetics) has been/is collaborating in the real etiology of autism do you think that actual tools of epidemiology can show this kind of collaboration?
If there are factors in combination ~~not alone~~ that are problematic-even unknown but present-, IF part of the problem is the accumulation of insults, IF
I imagine autism for a child as composed of A+B+â€¦.Z ( including genetics). For each individual the combination can be extremely complicated or less complicated, but it has more or less ~~to null~~ the A to Z components.
How do you think that this kind of potential effect of environmental insult in genetically susceptible children can be detected using epidemiology in the general population?
Thank you in advance for your advice and explanation. I have no knowledge in Epidemiology,therefore I really appreciate your time.
Sincerely
MarÃa LujÃ¡n Ferreira
Kev
April 5th, 2006
22:39:05

HI Mr Shattuck,

I read your comment over at Orac’s blog and just wanted to add my thanks to the others for refusing to make the issue ‘black or white’ and sticking to the facts at hand.

I also thank you for taking the time to turn up here to answer further questions, its very much appreciated.
Bronwyn G
April 5th, 2006
23:00:23

I too really appreciate your comments on autism prelevance in the United States.

Have you noticed bigger growths in more autism-aware states or did you have to control for them?

Did you find the growth was related to the availaibility of services for that period?

I saw a survey where most of the states get an F for mental health or a D. Only 5 states have a B and none an A. Conneticut and Maine are two of the B states. Maybe we should have a grading system for this for autism and rate everywhere all over the world. We could have a map and rate where we live.
jypsy (janet norman-bain)
April 5th, 2006
23:51:24

ASA joins the attack
http://releases.usnewswire.com.....p?id=63633
HN
April 6th, 2006
01:12:54

Good Math, Bad Math finds that Dr. Shattuck used good math:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2.....udies.html
Lisa Randall
April 6th, 2006
01:48:59

I think it is extraordinarily nice of Dr. Shattuck to engage with questioners the way he has done today.

The deplorable tactics displayed by the likes of the NAA in their attacks on Dr. Shattuck harm autistics just as surely as, if less directly than, the more egregious of the “biomedical” treatments that the mercury parents inflict upon their children. If this is the kind of treatment a gifted researcher can expect upon publishing a solid paper which contributes to science’s understanding of autism, how many skilled individuals can be expected to even enter the field? The mercury parents are making autism research a viper’s den.
clone3g
April 6th, 2006
02:22:43

HN: Good Math, Bad Math finds that Dr. Shattuck used good math:

Can someone send the 3 Pediatrics pdf’s over to Mark? His addy is in his profile.
bonni
April 6th, 2006
05:38:50

pro-thimerosal quakbusters

I love that. One of the stupidest of logical fallacies right there.

Being a “quackbuster” is not equivalent to being “pro-thimerisol”.

One does not equal the other. Only people with limited reasoning ability are unable to work through this.
Kev
April 6th, 2006
06:02:13

“The mercury parents are making autism research a viperâ€™s den.”

This is a real worry. I’ve commented in the past that over here in the UK, monies for research have dropped to around an 8% slice of the whole autism ‘pie’. Part of the reason is the increasingly hostile atmosphere generated by people engaging high end PR companies to flood media and political circles with misinformation like this. It has to stop. Science needs to be about science not about manufacturing answers to pre-determind questions.
Ms Clark
April 6th, 2006
06:07:16

clone3g,

Someone has sent the papers to Mark of Good Math Bad Math. Maybe several someones have by now. :-)
F. Hampton
April 6th, 2006
12:00:50

Oh, what an intellectual suicide. I attack Big Pharmacy’s voluntary amateur scientist’s cognitive abilities and I go silly with a spelling error and present myself just as retarded as the dumb-fuck himself! A real cracker indeed!

But let’s cut the mumbojumbo, shall we.
The case is: You do not know the flying fuck about science. You do not know anything about toxicology and neurochemistry and can not on any respectful intellectual level separate pseudo-science from real science. Now I can, at least to certain extent, but I am at least informed enough to know who I can trust and not. The CDC and FDA is fucking with the epidemiological data as pro criminals and the Big Pharmacy-lobbyists in the congress has bought them enough space to whatever they want. Every independent PhD who has done some serious research in the Thimerosal-Autism debate has waved with red flags and slaughtered the E. Miller studies ( E. Miller who finds it very important that she receive a lot money before she makes the garbage) and the junk danish study(Madsen/Hviid). It’s a fucking shame that the danish study has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal, another horrendous example on what mass corruption we’re dealing with here.

And to what concern Kirby, Olmsted and Blaxhill and the other non-scientists reflections and views on the autism case I do not give the shit. All I care about is science, and to see how the dollars are been weighed more important then doing real scientific studies by the health officials in the US makes me sick.

But trust me Mr. Leitch, I will personal do everything as a chemistry student to rip Eli Lily, Merck & Co. for every fucking dime their is possible to retrieve in compensation for all the damaged intellects in the Thimerosal Generation(89-03).
Take a look on this video:
http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/
K
April 6th, 2006
12:05:38

Hi Kev, I followed over from Dr Crippen’s blog. I’m not sure if you are actually interested in this, but what do you know about the speculation that autism is linked to specific variants in number of gene copies?
F. Hampton
April 6th, 2006
12:08:54

And who the fuck is J. Best?!
F. Hampton
April 6th, 2006
12:12:17

K,

That specualtion is as dumb as the specualtion in the 50’s about autism was a outcome of” bad mothering”.
K
April 6th, 2006
12:13:52

F. Hampton – why is it dumb?
Kev
April 6th, 2006
12:15:27

“Oh, what an intellectual suicide. I attack Big Pharmacyâ€™s voluntary amateur scientistâ€™s cognitive abilities and I go silly with a spelling error and present myself just as retarded as the dumb-fuck himself! A real cracker indeed!”

Nice turn of phrase there. Please refrain from using the word ‘retarded’ as some kind of insult.

“But letâ€™s cut the mumbojumbo, shall we. The case is: You do not know the flying fuck about science. You do not know anything about toxicology and neurochemistry and can not on any respectful intellectual level separate pseudo-science from real science.”

Not quite my friend :o)

Its true that I am no scientist. Thats why I rely on actual scientists opinions. After I’ve read them, digested them and thought about it for a bit I feel fairly confident of being able to seperate good studeis from the sort of quackery you believe in.

“Every independent PhD who has done some serious research in the Thimerosal-Autism debate has waved with red flags and slaughtered the E. Miller studies “

Maybe you could list those studies for us?

“And to what concern Kirby, Olmsted and Blaxhill and the other non-scientists reflections and views on the autism case I do not give the shit.”

Good for you :o)

“But trust me Mr. Leitch,”

You can call me ‘Kev’ – anyone who feels comfortable referring to me as ‘dumb-fuck’ is surely on an intimate enough basis to call me by my first name.

“I will personal do everything as a chemistry student”

Aha. Would you like to be introduced to some actual chemists? A number post on here.

_”Take a look on this video:
http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/”_

Seen it.
Kev
April 6th, 2006
12:17:20

Hi K – feel free to ignore F Hampton. S/he has a bad case of the ‘I know everything’s.

I’m afraid I’m not entirely sure exactly what you’re referring to. Could you point me to some literature?

EDIT: F Hamptin is not John Best. F is Norwegian. Or at least posting from Norway.
K
April 6th, 2006
12:25:15

Kev, 8th paragraph here
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org.....1a_04.html

a google for:-
autism gene copy number
should find it.
Kev
April 6th, 2006
12:38:02

Thanks K.

I found a review that covered genetic candidates. The review abstract states that:

“In case of recurrent deletions or duplications on chromosome 15 and 22, the positions of the low copy repeats that are thought to mediate these rearrangements were used to define the most likely boundaries of the implicated ‘Cytogenetic Regions Of Interest’ (CROIs).”

So it seems there is genuine correlation but that must be tempered with the fact that corellation is not equal to causation. There are likely numerous genes that contribute to autism. I’ll try and get hold of a full copy of the review or one of the science bods on here might have a copy and comment further for you.
Jonathan Semetko
April 6th, 2006
13:18:18

F.

F. wrote â€œOh, what an intellectual suicide. I attack Big Pharmacyâ€™s voluntary amateur scientistâ€™s cognitive abilities and I go silly with a spelling error and present myself just as retarded as the dumb-fuck himself! A real cracker indeed!â€

â€œIntellectual suicideâ€? That is unsupported in this case, so that would be sophism. â€œVoluntary amateur scientistâ€™s cognitive abilitiesâ€ which does not establish that that person is correct and acts as a red herring. â€œRetarded as the dumb-fuck himselfâ€, uses a special ad hominem generalized to a whole group of people, known as bigotry. No points F., try again next round.

F. wrote â€œBut letâ€™s cut the mumbojumbo, shall we.The case is: You do not know the flying fuck about science.â€

But you donâ€™t establish how, sorry F. sophism isnâ€™t going to work out here; still no points.

F. wrote â€œYou do not know anything about toxicology and neurochemistry and can not on any respectful intellectual level separate pseudo-science from real science. Now I can, at least to certain extent, but I am at least informed enough to know who I can trust and not. The CDC and FDA is fucking with the epidemiological data as pro criminals and the Big Pharmacy-lobbyists in the congress has bought them enough space to whatever they want.â€

Ah, attacking the CDC and FDA for dishonesty with no real proof. That would be the argumentum ad hominem, my favorite.

F. wrote â€œEvery independent PhD who has done some serious research in the Thimerosal-Autism debate has waved with red flags and slaughtered the E. Miller studies ( E. Miller who finds it very important that she receive a lot money before she makes the garbage) and the junk danish study(Madsen/Hviid). Itâ€™s a fucking shame that the danish study has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal, another horrendous example on what mass corruption weâ€™re dealing with here.â€

You might want to go out and actually read that research. Gernsbacher et al., Laidler, and Shattuck, are independent and have found evidence against a connection.

Oh and â€œmass corruptionâ€, that would be the fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth.

F. wrote â€œAnd to what concern Kirby, Olmsted and Blaxhill and the other non-scientists reflections and views on the autism case I do not give the shit.â€

I care, because their comments affect the judgments of kids with autism.

F. wrote â€œAll I care about is science, and to see how the dollars are been weighed more important then doing real scientific studies by the health officials in the US makes me sick.â€

Evidence?

F. wrote â€œBut trust me Mr. Leitch, I will personal do everything as a chemistry student to rip Eli Lily, Merck & Co. for every fucking dime their is possible to retrieve in compensation for all the damaged intellects in the Thimerosal Generation(89-03).
Take a look on this video:
http://movies.commons.ucalgary.....;€

â€œDamaged intellects?â€ Wowâ€¦picking on those poor autistic people looks so easy, almost like there is no thought involved. However, congitive science (you claim to love science right) has shown that these â€œDamaged intellectsâ€ have a different sort of cognition rather than a â€œdamagedâ€ one. In fact they are rather superior at certain tasks.

Your mercury generation needs to start in 1986-1987, by the way, that is the year the first autism spike occurred.
Jonathan Semetko
April 6th, 2006
14:38:04

F. wrote “That specualtion is as dumb as the specualtion in the 50â€™s about autism was a outcome ofâ€ bad motheringâ€.”

No dice, seeking a genetic cause is not same as proposing that autism is caused by bad parenting. Your statement was a false equation.
anonimouse
April 6th, 2006
15:08:57

Besides, acknowledging that autism existed in the 1950’s to any great degree certainly puts a damper on the position that thimerosal is a primary cause of autism.
Joseph
April 6th, 2006
15:10:45

Hampton said: “And who the fuck is J. Best?!”

A guy who thinks every single fact contrary to his position is all part of a big conspiracy. Maybe you’ll find more of his views compatible with yours.
bonni
April 6th, 2006
15:30:25

Oh, dear. I hope that the pharmaceutical companies of the world are worried. After all, A CHEMISTRY STUDENT is angry with them and is going to bring them down. DOWN, I’m telling you!
anonimouse
April 6th, 2006
17:52:39

Pair him up with Boyd Haley and they can convince us of the importance of thimerosal containing 49.5% mercury by weight.
David H
April 6th, 2006
17:53:42

Dr. Shattuck,

I appreciate you taking the time to answer questions on this blog. One concern I have in reading your paper is that you base your conclusions on the analysis of 5 or 6 categories of diagnostic criteria. That may be perfectly valid but I wonder if there could be additional categories that might be relevant to this discussion that were not included. For example, what if there were some other relevant category or categories not listed in your study that were increasing? This could be important because if there are other categories that are increasing during the time periods you studied it could, perhaps, explain the decrease in MR & LD that you found in some states. In your research, did you review other categories or did you limit yourself to the categories described in your paper?

For example, I’ve heard other people talk about childhood schizophrenia as something that could be substituted for autism. I don’t know if that is true or not but it might be interesting to include in this discussion.

As another example, I have read the Verstaeten VSD study. In that study (which is admittedly very different than the one you did) many more categories were studied including Other childhood psychosis, Other unspecified psychosis, stammering & stuttering, tics, repetitive movements, sleep disorders, emotional disturbances, ADD, etc…

Would PDD-NOS be included in your “autism” category?
Joseph
April 6th, 2006
19:18:33

For example, what if there were some other relevant category or categories not listed in your study that were increasing? This could be important because if there are other categories that are increasing during the time periods you studied it could, perhaps, explain the decrease in MR & LD that you found in some states. In your research, did you review other categories or did you limit yourself to the categories described in your paper?

If there were no “epidemic” of anything else, it’s safe to assume that declines in diagnoses of MR and LD are going to autism/PDD. But you might have a point when it comes to ADHD. However, it’s unlikely MR would go to ADHD.

For example, Iâ€™ve heard other people talk about childhood schizophrenia as something that could be substituted for autism. I donâ€™t know if that is true or not but it might be interesting to include in this discussion.

This would be diagnostic substituion similar to LD & MR, in the same direction. Educational data is probably not helpful in this regard, however. It is well known that schizophrenia overall is in decline, and if you put two and two together, it’s easy to imagine why.
David H
April 6th, 2006
21:04:23

Joseph,

“If there were no â€œepidemicâ€ of anything else, itâ€™s safe to assume that declines in diagnoses of MR and LD are going to autism/PDD.”

But without first analyzing all of the categories how would we know if there was an “epidemic” in another category?

“But you might have a point when it comes to ADHD. However, itâ€™s unlikely MR would go to ADHD.”

I was a little confused by this when reading the paper. Paul does state that he uses “autism” synonymously with “ASD” but I didn’t see a description of what subcategories were included as part of “autism.” This is why I asked if PDD-NOS was included or not.
David H
April 6th, 2006
21:14:50

Dr. Shattuck,

I know your research is not intended to answer the question of whether vaccines have played a role in autism. Regardless of your intention, I suspect some will refer to it as a piece of evidence to suggest that vaccines have not played a role.

My feeling is that the years studied in your paper are too recent to determine if vaccines have played a role in autism. In the US, the vaccine schedule was modified in the late 80’s & the early 90’s. If vaccines did cause autism in a subset of children, those first (the ones vaccinated in the late 80’s & early 90’s) children would probably have been diagnosed as MR or LD according to your argument. Then in 1994 and in the years following children would have received the correct diagnosis of autism, resulting in the diagnostic substitution that you found. So it would be interesting to see the data in the years preceding your analysis. For example, did MR and/or LD increase in the late 80’s & early 90’s, possibly as a result of the new vaccination schedule?
David H
April 6th, 2006
21:19:20

Dr. Shattuck,

In your paper you state that the California data is unique and should not be used as a gauge for the rest of the country. But some argue that the California data is actually more valid (perhaps “less invalid” is a better way to describe it) than any other state. This is at least partly due to the fact that California has been the most consistent state regarding the autism diagnosis since it has only tracked “full blown autism.” Thoughts?
anonimouse
April 6th, 2006
21:57:31

David,

My feeling is that the years studied in your paper are too recent to determine if vaccines have played a role in autism. In the US, the vaccine schedule was modified in the late 80â€™s & the early 90â€™s.

If there was a link between the inclusion of HiB and HepB and such disorders, the appropriate timeframe to look at would be the mid-1990’s after those vaccines had been on the schedule a couple of years (and adopted by a number of states to boot) and children involved were old enough to require educational or special education services.
Ms Clark
April 6th, 2006
22:11:32

In case Dr. Shattuck doesn’t keep checking back here you should be able to get his email address from the Waisman center website.

His email address is on the paper, but I don’t want to post it here, I’m sure the mercury mafia are screaming bloody-conspiracy at him about now.

I wonder what the autism rate is in Norway and how it correlates with thimerosal usage. I wonder if there’s some reason for raging chemistry students to be attracted to life in Norway…

Weird business.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 7th, 2006
01:09:37

DH: “â€œfull blown autism.â€”

What is that?

Either someone is autistic, as per the criteria, or someone is not.

I am trained to do this dx, so I know.
David H
April 7th, 2006
01:23:45

“What is that?”

“Either someone is autistic, as per the criteria, or someone is not.”

“I am trained to do this dx, so I know.”

I’m attempting to distinguish between autism, PDD-NOS & Asperger’s. So when I say “full blown autism” I’m trying to be clear that I’m not including a diagnosis like PDD-NOS or Asperger’s.
MArÃa LujÃ¡n Ferreira
April 7th, 2006
01:24:04

Hi David
I am asking you because my experience was very bad in the sense of diagnosis: atypical autism, PDDNOS , childhood schizophrenia or desintegrative disorder. I imagine that trained and serious people avoid to mention all this together but unfortunately many times happen, like happened to us, whereas my son was… asleep… and remained all the interview .
Is there archetypical and atypical autism as diagnostic definitions in your practice?
Thank you in advance for your advice
MarÃa LujÃ¡n
Joseph
April 7th, 2006
01:29:47

In your paper you state that the California data is unique and should not be used as a gauge for the rest of the country. But some argue that the California data is actually more valid (perhaps â€œless invalidâ€ is a better way to describe it) than any other state. This is at least partly due to the fact that California has been the most consistent state regarding the autism diagnosis since it has only tracked â€œfull blown autism.â€ Thoughts?

Unique and not a good gauge for the rest of the country doesn’t mean useless. It’s not surprising that it’s unique. California is the largest economy in the US, correct?

I don’t know about the IDEA data, but CDDS is remarkably good and consistent. There’s stability in diagnoses other than autism, which I take as an indication of reliability. Plus it gives a wealth of information on client characteristics and regional differences.

Within California, I’d say each regional center itself is ‘unique’. The ones in the LA area are quite different to those outside the LA area. So we couldn’t use Westide, for example, as a gauge for the rest of the state. Still, looking at the pattern of prevalence growth in Westside can be quite useful.
hollywoodjaded
April 7th, 2006
01:40:04

” ... California has been the most consistent state regarding the autism diagnosis since it has only tracked â€œfull blown autism” ...”

This is completely and utterly NOT true.
David H
April 7th, 2006
01:43:23

Dr. Shattuck,

Other diagnostic categories that may be relevant to the diagnostic substitution argument are EBD (Educationally Behaviorally Disturbed, SBD (Severe Behavioral Disturbance) & Multiple Handicapped.

I’m interested in learning if these categories were considered during your research.
Sue M.
April 7th, 2006
01:59:40

Ms. Clark wrote:

“Iâ€™m sure the mercury mafia are screaming bloody-conspiracy at him about now”.

– Interestingly, you guys are treating him like some sort of saviour for your cause (apparently you are starving for some support). The fact is, he seemed pretty clear that he is open to the possibility of the vaccine-autism link (unlike some of you pro poison pushers) and even brings up the Hornig study as “tantalizing evidence to keep examining the issue”. Don’t you guys typically call those the silly mousey studies (or other such nonsense)? If and When Shattuck rifles through some of the previous blog entries here or elsewhere I believe he will agree that you guys could care less about the “science”. You just don’t care. Notice how he also is smart enough to recognize that “of course the CDC has completely bungled how they’ve handled the situation and I totally understand why people are mistrustful at this point”. You guys don’t seem to think that way, do you? Never heard it from you. So it seems to me that Shattuck has a bit more sense than you all. Which is great. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let me ask him directly (you never know)... Mr. Shattuck, is it responsible to continue to allow thimerosal to be injected into infants via flu shots for the pregnant mom or infants 6+ months? Is it responsible to be shipping thimerosal-containing vaccines overseas considering the ongoing discussions about it? What is your feeling on that?
Jonathan Semetko
April 7th, 2006
02:56:56

Hi again Sue,

And off we go:

You write â€œInterestingly, you guys are treating him like some sort of saviour for your cause (apparently you are starving for some support).â€

Saviour? No, I am genuinely (incredibly so really) delighted that someone noted the same problems that I and others have with the IDEA data.

No Sue, I (and I would assume others) are not â€œstarving for supportâ€ I am simply pleased that people will be less likely to use a database for a purpose it was never intended for in the first place. They are now more likely to put effort into well controlled epidemiology.

You write â€œThe fact is, he seemed pretty clear that he is open to the possibility of the vaccine-autism link (unlike some of you pro poison pushers)â€

Very true, he is a good role model in that he allows such possibility (the evidence in the future could prove our assertions right or wrong). In addition, he has conducted himself with dignity in spite of ad hominem attempts by NAA and false oppositions from ASA. In addition he does not employ sophistic name-calling against his intellectual critics/opponents such as referring to them as e.g. (money grubbers or pro-poison pushers). I encourage you to model your behavior based on this individual.

You write â€œand even brings up the Hornig study as â€œtantalizing evidence to keep examining the issueâ€. Donâ€™t you guys typically call those the silly mousey studies (or other such nonsense)?â€

Yes, and here Dr. Shattuck and I do not agree. The Horning study is not nonsense, it is fallacious (slight difference) it is definitely based on a false equation. The â€œautistic-likeâ€ symptoms are not convincing and that one rat chewed through his cage-mates skull does not seem like any autistic child I have met. Further Autism Diva points out that the relevant strain of mouse is know for behavior similar to what occurred (to a lesser degree of course).

You wrote â€œIf and When Shattuck rifles through some of the previous blog entries here or elsewhere I believe he will agree that you guys could care less about the â€œscienceâ€. You just donâ€™t care.â€

No, Sue we do care, we care a whole heck of a lot, about what the science says. You on the other handâ€¦.wellâ€¦.you obviously donâ€™t care at all.

No, I donâ€™t really believe that you donâ€™t care. I wish to point out the absurdity of claiming (with not even a half-hearted attempt at validation) that we â€œjust donâ€™t careâ€

You wrote â€œNotice how he also is smart enough to recognize that â€œof course the CDC has completely bungled how theyâ€™ve handled the situation and I totally understand why people are mistrustful at this pointâ€.

Sue, you will get no argument out of me that the CDC didnâ€™t bungle this affair (ditto the IOM), I also understand that people are distrustful. I could wish that the CDC screw ups never happened and that the Danish and Verstraten studies were well controlled; if that would do any good. Even with these I still suspect autistic kids would be treated by Naturopaths, Chiropractors, Homeopaths, DAN! folks, and other assorted non-science based treatment providers. And dollars to donuts, there would still be some mom of an autistic child whom would attempt to foist her version of â€œcommon sense/non-scienceâ€ on this group.
Kev
April 7th, 2006
05:33:49

“Interestingly, you guys are treating him like some sort of saviour for your cause (apparently you are starving for some support).”

I love how you see things Sue :o)

Mr Shattuck has shown that its is not possible to use a certain set of data to illustrate the idea of an autism epidemic. As thats what all of us except for yourself and a few other commenter’s discuss every time the word ‘epidemic’ is mentioned, its nice to have yet more verification that our opinions on this matter concur with the mainstream science.

“The fact is, he seemed pretty clear that he is open to the possibility of the vaccine-autism link (unlike some of you pro poison pushers)”

Yeas….and….? How does that mean we shouldn’t agree with his thoughts on the ‘epidemic’? I’ve quoted Paul Shatt*ock* to various people – he’s shown the presence of autistic people in Victorian Britain – and he’s also amenable to the idea of vaccines being linked to autism.

Its not necessary to agree with everything a person says to find one thing they say honest and evidential.

“Donâ€™t you guys typically call those the silly mousey studies (or other such nonsense)?”

Yup. Thats because they are. I ran through exactly why with you before and you ignored my comment.

“I believe he will agree that you guys could care less about the â€œscienceâ€. You just donâ€™t care.”

As I’ve said to you very recently – we care an awful lot. I’ll quote myself answering you less than 2 days ago: “I canâ€™t think of one single person on â€˜myâ€™ side of the debate who hasnâ€™t stated they are happy to follow where the science leads them. To put it more plainly, if its firmly established mercury causes autism (or whatever illness you want to attribute it to this week) then as long as the science is valid, replicated etc weâ€™ll have to believe it. This is because we are open to that possibility as people who recognise the legitimacy of decent science. Its also the reason I changed my mind before about what I thought â€˜causedâ€™ my daughters autism. An open mind. An ability to re-examine the evidence. An ability to listen to all sides.”

“Notice how he also is smart enough to recognize that â€œof course the CDC has completely bungled how theyâ€™ve handled the situation and I totally understand why people are mistrustful at this pointâ€. You guys donâ€™t seem to think that way, do you? Never heard it from you.”

Thats because its irrelevant. Have the CDC bungled their communication efforts? Big time. So have the UK Government over the MMR debacle over here. Unfortunately for you Sue bungling communication is not equatable to mercury causes autism.

And whilst the CDC and the UK Gvmt have certainly bungled their communication/PR drive, conversely, the NAA, SafeMinds and whomever else was involved in this nasty little press release have flat out lied, exaggerated innocuous events and inferred non-events. Not that there’s anything new there.
bonni
April 7th, 2006
09:26:40

Hmmm. According to the World Health Organization, a child dies of measles at a rate of one per minute in the world.

Most kids survive measles. Some don’t.

But then, I guess the WHO is in on the Big Conspiracy™.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 7th, 2006
09:47:29

“Hi David”

Hi MarÃa…

“I am asking you because my experience was very bad in the sense of diagnosis: atypical autism, PDDNOS , childhood schizophrenia or desintegrative disorder.”

OKay. Sorry to hear that you had bad experiences there.

“I imagine that trained and serious people avoid to mention all this together but unfortunately many times happen, like happened to us, whereas my son wasâ€¦ asleepâ€¦ and remained all the interview .”

Well, in all the so-called PPDs, the dx is made on the basis of a thorough developmental history (at least, as thorough as one can get) and the matching of things which crop up regularly to criteria published in either DSM or ICD. Observations of the diagnosee are useful but sometimes do not need to be made (I’d say that many times, they might be used in cases where other evidence has been difficult to find). Why was your son asleep for the length of the interview? That would be a good question… did he find it boring? Or was he tired? Or ill? Or was it other things?

And what did the diagnostician do about that? (very important question).

“Is there archetypical and atypical autism as diagnostic definitions in your practice?”

There are (wrt ICD 10) the following diagnostic options available:

quote
F84 Pervasive developmental disorders
F84.0 Childhood autism
F84.1 Atypical autism
F84.2 Rett’s syndrome
F84.3 Other childhood disintegrative disorder
F84.4 Overactive disorder associated with mental retardation and stereotyped movements
F84.5 Asperger’s syndrome
F84.8 Other pervasive developmental disorders
F84.9 Pervasive developmental disorder, unspecified
endquote

(source: http://www.psyweb.com/ICD/ICD10/f80f89.jsp)

I’m assuming that, by “archetypal”, you mean F84.0 Childhood Autism. As you can see, there are many options for dx-making, and the rubric in the manual tells what one needs to do to be in a position for making a dx. It is also recommended (as in DSM IV) that a cook-book approach is not used… the criteria are basically ideas about what one would expect to find in someone with a given dx.

“Thank you in advance for your advice
MarÃa LujÃ¡n”

Not really sure I’ve actually given any as yet, but in any case you’re very welcome :)

David
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 7th, 2006
09:55:51

DH: “Iâ€™m attempting to distinguish between autism, PDD-NOS & Aspergerâ€™s. So when I say full blown autism Iâ€™m trying to be clear that Iâ€™m not including a diagnosis like PDD-NOS or Aspergerâ€™s.”

Okay… I can go with that.

My own position, for what it’s worth, is that they would all come under the general dx of autism, and then something would be tagged on to pinpoint that person’s functioning within a conceptual space (if that makes any sense… I try to do things mathematically, since that’s how my mind works on this matter). So, as I have actually done, I might give a dx as:

Dx: F84 Autism (F84.5 Asperger syndrome)

... since people develop over time and the diagnosis is actually akin to being a snapshot at a particular time. (Again, hoping that this makes sense).

Cheers.
David H
April 7th, 2006
16:21:48

Looks like Dr. Shattuck is done answering questions on blogs. His response to my email:

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in my Pediatrics article. The response and volume of questions has been gratifying, but also overwhelming. I am no longer responding to individual questions. Later this spring, as time permits, I will be setting up a web page with answers to common questions.

Best regards,

Paul Shattuck
hollywoodjaded
April 7th, 2006
16:50:17

In terms of the phrase “full-blown autism” being used in re: California, it’s my fairly certain recollection this terminology was first used by Rollens … and from where I sit with several years personal experience with CDDS/Regional Ctrs … the term was employed merely as a political tool. I have never personally heard anyone official from the CDDS use the term “full-blown autism”. I have, however, seen Rollens use it in every over-wrought press release he’s written/comissioned to write about the ‘California numbers’ and the ‘epidemic’. Rollens is using this term to his advantage: It’s completely misleading from a diagnostic perspective; further Rollens has now leveraged the term as a prejudcial/political tool in attempts to DENY services to many, many with ASD.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 7th, 2006
18:07:39

Re: “full-blown”/”full-syndrome” autism…

hwj: “Itâ€™s completely misleading from a diagnostic perspective…”

Absolutely.

This was my point to DH, in fact.

hwj: “Rollens has now leveraged the term as a prejudcial/political tool in attempts to DENY services to many, many with ASD.”

Sadly, this is what happens when misleading (and non-justifiable) terms are used… they take on a life of their own and, coming out of some mouths, they an do incredible damage.
hollywoodjaded
April 7th, 2006
18:25:08

Yes, thanks much, David. I have watched this morph from “full-blown” to “full-syndrome” with Rollens, all the while, putting the Regional Centers in a strangle-hold. He controls California tax-payer monies via his ‘positions’ within the UC-system (MIND Inst./UC-Davis—a public univ.) and as a paid lobbyist within the CDDS/Reg Ctrs. He has used both public entities to push his own personal agenda. I stand in disagreement with his political tactics, his mis-use of my tax dollars and his extreme bigotry. Yes, incredible damage has been done.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 7th, 2006
20:19:53

hwj: “I stand in disagreement with his political tactics, his mis-use of my tax dollars and his extreme bigotry. Yes, incredible damage has been done.”

Personally, I think it’s time he was made to answer in a court of law.
Joseph
April 7th, 2006
21:31:30

They have 3 codes for autism in the CDDS:

1: Full syndrome
2: Autism, residual state
9: Autism, suspected not diagnosed

It is unclear if all of these appear in the report, but that’s a safe assumption. More info here.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 7th, 2006
21:40:21

Joseph: “They have 3 codes for autism in the CDDS:”

Aha…. and I wonder how the fuck they got that first one in there….. Hmmm…..

Rollens, ya bastaaaaaard!

;)
hollywoodjaded
April 7th, 2006
22:26:16

Damn, I just had a very long reply typed-out addressing this and I zapped it making a minor edit. I can’t re-create it at this point … but will try again later.
hollywoodjaded
April 7th, 2006
22:52:56

Briefly: When, I wonder, did the phrasing change from “Autism, full syndrome” to just simply “full syndrome”. In the ‘86 version (pg. 23) they all read as “Autism, . . .” Not too many years ago, what was required for services (in my personal experience) was a 299 dx. This dx. could (and often was) given by the Reg Ctr itself. With the recent changes in eligibility requirements (cf. ARCA/Rollens), a potential client now needs an outside, third-party diagnosis and they must meet much more and many more stringent requirements (ASD dx. notwithstanding) than in the recent past. Complicating this is not all Reg Ctrs went along with the ARCA rec’s—this was optional as I understand. Further, it’s of some debate who adheres to Lanterman. Essentially, you cannot match Reg Ctr to Reg Ctr. Then, finally, we have the financial audits imposed on one’s family in order to remain a Reg Ctr client and/or continue receiving services. The “California numbers” are simply fraught with too many political issues to truly gauge those Californians with Autism—of any flavor.
Joseph
April 7th, 2006
23:25:12

The â€œCalifornia numbersâ€ are simply fraught with too many political issues to truly gauge those Californians with Autismâ€”of any flavor.

The 2003 law change is a big blip in the numbers. That said, the data is a very useful research tool. It’s not a good tool to determine prevalence of autism. But it’s good in helping determine what causes administrative prevalence to go up or down. For example, if a law change causes administrative prevalence to go down, you can easily check if this is an actual drop by comparing client characteristics before and after the drop.
hollywoodjaded
April 8th, 2006
00:53:48

Thanks, Joseph, very well said. I addressed more in those five paragraphs that I zapped, but no matter—as you pointed out something I had been going for … but was far, far from succint in getting at … and that’s the matter of “administrative prevalence”! I could speak to this, but must wait. However, I will say that the interests of the clients are so often not being served (more and more of late) and think this has everything to do with internal politics. BTW, I am a big fan of your blog.
afeared of the Hg mafiosi
April 8th, 2006
01:07:24

Regarding Shattuck, I would think that he’d be hiring legal counsel about now to sue the mercury mafia for defamation of character.

It wouldn’t seem that he’d be feeling too favourable toward the mercury mafia now, though he might have been a little open minded toward them a few months ago. Sue, I think you can remove Shattuck from your list of partial supporters. You can send a thank you note to the NAA for that.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 8th, 2006
01:36:59

aotHgm: “Regarding Shattuck, I would think that heâ€™d be hiring legal counsel about now to sue the mercury mafia for defamation of character.”

What happened?

Where did they do that? I’d be interested to see this.
Junior
April 8th, 2006
02:00:52

I just wanted to say that in order to qualify for special education services in the US, you must have a disability as listed in IDEA. The disabilities listed are: mental retardation (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities. Also, at the discretion of the state a child aged 3-9 experiencing developmental delays. There is no seperation of the various autism spectrum diagnoses in IDEA.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 8th, 2006
02:17:31

Hi Junior: “There is no seperation of the various autism spectrum diagnoses in IDEA.”

Thanks for that.

The whole separation thing seems to come down to Rollens’ idiotic political buggering about, doesn’t it?
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 8th, 2006
02:52:46

Seen the stuff that was said by the NAA.

Shame on them for being bastards.
Junior
April 8th, 2006
03:19:38

Ooops! I just realized I left out hearing impairments before including deafness. So it should read: mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities. Also, at the discretion of the state a child aged 3-9 experiencing developmental delays. There is no seperation of the various autism spectrum diagnoses in IDEA.
Nana
April 8th, 2006
05:25:51

Do you think a few polite but firm emails to NAA expressing disappointment in regards to their smearing Mr Shattuck’s character would render an apology?

Could we expect Hell to freeze over first?
Kev
April 8th, 2006
05:28:24

Nana – I think someones already done that but a few more can’t hurt :o)
Joseph
April 8th, 2006
05:57:35

Do you think a few polite but firm emails to NAA expressing disappointment in regards to their smearing Mr Shattuckâ€™s character would render an apology?

An open letter indicating that you’ll blog responses or lack thereof might be more effective.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 8th, 2006
10:11:09

Nana: “Could we expect Hell to freeze over first?”

Personally, given the entrenched nature of the mercury-parent belief systems, I’d say that Hell will freeze over many times before an apology is delivered by the NAA, etc, to Dr Shattuck since they would have to accept that his work does indeed make their position somewhat less than tenable (thereby invalidating that position, and leading to the conclusion that they have wasted their resources and – in some cases – their children).

Don’t hold your breath. I shaln’t.
Sue M.
April 8th, 2006
14:57:48

afeared wrote:

“It wouldnâ€™t seem that heâ€™d be feeling too favourable toward the mercury mafia now, though he might have been a little open minded toward them a few months ago. Sue, I think you can remove Shattuck from your list of partial supporters”.

– I never counted on him as a partial supporter. I said that I had an open mind to him as long as he hadn’t closed the door on the possible link (like so many of the pro poison pushers have done). Are you suggesting that Shattuck’s backbone could crumble so readily after some negative remarks from a group of people. Hope not, that would be a shame. I’ll still be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Ruth
April 8th, 2006
16:02:51

As a Michigan native, I can verify that Hell (MI) did freeze over last night. : )

As a toxicologist, I find the any amount of Hg is toxic argument weak Botulism has the smallest LD50 recorded, but vain people will pay lots of money to have low doses injected into their wrinkles. If Botox dosn’t send lots of people into paralysis, then trace amounts of Hg won’t cause neurotoxicity. The fact that Hg inhibits dendrite growth cnes in cell culture is VERY old news. The question is, does enough Hg make it through the bodies detox system to be present at the site of actual neurons to cause the same effect in an actual animal? I made lots of compounds in my day that worked in culture, but failed in mice. They were broken down in vivo or never made it to the site of action. This is basic toxicology/pharmacodynamics.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 8th, 2006
16:29:15

Ruth: “As a Michigan native, I can verify that Hell (MI) did freeze over last night. : )”

You mean there’s actually colder places than Finland just now with people living in them? :O

Ruth: “As a toxicologist, I find the any amount of Hg is toxic argument weak Botulism has the smallest LD50 recorded, but vain people will pay lots of money to have low doses injected into their wrinkles. If Botox dosnâ€™t send lots of people into paralysis, then trace amounts of Hg wonâ€™t cause neurotoxicity.”

Interesting. Nice one. Thank you :)
Jonathan Semetko
April 8th, 2006
17:21:45

Hi Ruth,

Cool, another Michigan person.

How you know you are from Michigan, reason #6:

Not only is there really a Kalamazoo, you know that it is not far from Hell.
Ruth
April 8th, 2006
19:05:06

David,

Northern Michigan has the largest Finnish population outside Finland. They liked in because it was cold and rocky, just like home. My mother-in-law studied music at Suomi College. Yes, I’ve taken a sauna and rolled in the snow. Sisu!

Jonathan-Work has taken us to St. Louis, but Michigan will always be home. Also, everyone knows Hell is in the lower peninsula, but the UP has Paradise.
jypsy (janet norman-bain)
April 8th, 2006
21:59:10

Regarding Shattuck…. seems the EoH crew, or some of them anyway, don’t understand “Please do not contact me again by e-mail, phone, or other means.” and kept at him anyway.
Then they pointed list members here where he had posted..
I don’t blame him for not wanting to be attacked and defamed here too.
hollywoodjaded
April 8th, 2006
23:43:52

David: “Personally, I think itâ€™s time he was made to answer in a court of law.”

Thank-you, David. I also think it’s time that RR take a, well … let’s say, hiatus from his current positions within the MIND Institute and ARCA. He’s cross with so many all the time, I just think he could use the break … as it were. ; ] I know this California tax-payer would be glad of it!
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 9th, 2006
09:34:17

Ruth: “Northern Michigan has the largest Finnish population outside Finland. They liked in because it was cold and rocky, just like home. My mother-in-law studied music at Suomi College. Yes, Iâ€™ve taken a sauna and rolled in the snow. Sisu!”

I knew there was a large ex-pat and immigrant Finnish population in the US, but I was never actually sure where… now I know, and that good :)

I didn’t know about that Suomi College… gonna have a look at that :D Sounds way cool…

Heh… sauna and snow-rolling… yeh, I done that too :D KyllÃ¤ sisua paljon tarvitaan siihen ;)

Always nice to learn more about the Finnish diaspora. The Finns at home rarely get to learn about this. I’m a Scot living here, but my daughter is Finnish (she says so herself) and I don’t really know if she’ll ever learn about her fellow Finns around the world at school.
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 9th, 2006
09:39:56

Aha…

“Regarding Shattuckâ€¦. seems the EoH crew, or some of them anyway, donâ€™t understand ‘Please do not contact me again by e-mail, phone, or other means,’ and kept at him anyway.”

The ignorant bastards. I can’t find a good word for that crew at all. I really think that they do not care about the damage that they do… and that is just plain antisocial, nothing else. If anyone did that to them, they’d be up in arms, calling the perpetrators all manner of bastards. But it’s alright for them to harrass people into the ground, it seems. The two-faced, ignorant bastards.

“Then they pointed list members here where he had posted..
I donâ€™t blame him for not wanting to be attacked and defamed here too.”

I can understand that. Poor man. He tries to shed light on what he found out – in a spirit of open-ness and honesty – and he gets harrassed by those idiots for it. That’s unjust in the extreme. We should start doing it to them and see how those ignorant bleeders feel.

I wonder if SueM can justify that crew’s actions here… or if she’ll distance herself from that part of the crew which does that sort of thing.
brian deer
April 9th, 2006
19:53:23

David:

I don’t think they’re idiots (for the most part). When they accuse others of corruption, it’s a moral re-balancing exercise to give themselves peace of mind.

It’s like how the mafia call themselves “the good people”. If they hadn’t worked out an ideology along such lines, they couldn’t look in the mirror.

Here endeth the epistle…
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 9th, 2006
21:05:04

Interesting point, Brian… and I can see where it comes from…. they have to disparage someone, in order to feel good about themselves… which they do by making a downward social comparison.

Sad thing is that they can’t feel good about themselves just by feeling good about themselves. But then, they know that they are wrong… but just can’t admit it to themselves….

Any news on whether Wakefield is going to get a serious bollocking from the GMC for his work?
Ms Clark
April 9th, 2006
22:00:31

Sue M.,

The mercury gang (think, “thugs”) didn’t criticize Shattuck, they slandered him, they libelled him, they defamed him, they smeared him. They clumsily and stupidly tried to link him to some female he worked with who had been disciplined for dishonesty. I think he’d have a good case to get NAA for defamation. If you catch someone in the act of lying and expose it, that’s legal. To falsely accuse someone of bad behavior it is libel/slander/defamation. The so called NAA tried to make it look like he had created data himself in the dx substitution paper … when… get this … the data was collected by the schools and is open for all to see. How’s he going to create it, Sue?

What I want to know is, Ms. Swe who made up data regarding family members of autistics… was she working with the mercury gang? Did the data she made up made autism look more like poisoning? Why did she make up data? Was she afraid that the real data would show no connection between vaccines and autism? Maybe not, but it would be interesting if she was a member of NAA.

It’s the mercury gang members who fudge data, look at the Holmes baby hair study, look at the Hornig study. What a couple of bad jokes. Look at the entirely imaginary “sheets of testosterone” stated to be in kids’ bodies by the Geiers. The data totally doesn’t support their conclusions. Look at the way the IDEA data and Cal DDS data is totally abused to support a false picture of an epidemic.

Talk about lying with footnotes. Good grief! I’d love to see Al Franken go after David Kirby and his oh so righteously indignant truthiness.
Sue M.
April 11th, 2006
01:46:43

Ms. Clark wrote:

“The mercury gang (think, â€œthugsâ€) didnâ€™t criticize Shattuck, they slandered him, they libelled him, they defamed him, they smeared him”.

– Sounds like the crap Wakefield had to go through… Your buddy Mr. Deer knows a lot about that sort of activity.
Kev
April 11th, 2006
02:51:23

Where has Brian Deer slandered, libelled, defamed or smeared Andrew Wakefield?
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
April 11th, 2006
13:36:17

Brian Deer has evidence to back up his claims.

He’s an investigative journalist.

Wakefield’s court case against Deer/Ch4 was not about libel or about slander (which – had Brian Deer’s claims be false – Wakefield could have sued on and won)... it was a gagging order that AW was seeking… to stop the Ch4 documentary from going ahead…

Presumably because it was too near the knuckle for Mr Wakefield.
anonimouse
April 11th, 2006
17:48:06

Sue,

Show me the information on Brian Deer’s website that is false and injurious to Dr. Wakefield. To back up libel claims, you’ll need to prove that what Deer has written about Wakefield is false.

And no, you can’t go with the “there’s so much false information I don’t know where to start” retort.

Find one piece of information, one set of statements that Deer has made that you can conclusively prove to be untrue. Just one.