Generation Rescue: a dishonest autism charity?

6 May

Generation Rescue has a long history of promoting bad science. They even have tried their hand at it themselves before, with a phone survey that was so bad it would have earned a college freshman in epidemiology a failing grade.

So when they came out with their own “study” of vaccination rates around the world, you can imagine I didn’t expect it to be good. In fact, I just avoided it altogether until they sent me an email telling me how good it was.

So I looked.

It was worse than I expected. Far worse.

The “study” is here. Generation Rescue (GR) looks at the vaccine schedules for multiple countries and compares this with the infant mortality rate and autism rates in those countries.

I read it and, Oh…my…god… I expected bad science and poorly/biased interpretations. Instead, what I found was pretty clear evidence that Generation Rescue is knowingly distributing misleading information.

Before you get worried that this post is way long and question whether you really want to read the details, here’s the short version:

1) They compare infant mortality rates between the US and other countries–even though it is clear (according to their own expert no less!) that the US uses different criteria for infant mortality and it isn’t accurate to compare the US infant mortality to that in other countries.

2) They compare autism rates amongst countries to show the US has the highest rate, suggesting that the higher the number of vaccines the higher the autism rate. They just “forget” to tell you that the prevalences for the other countries are from old studies. We can debate why the reported autism prevalence is going up with time, but no one debates that the older studies report lower prevalences than we see now. So, why does Generation Rescue compare prevalence in the US using 2002 data for kids born in 1994 with, say, a Finnish study using 1997 data on kids born as early as 1979? I consider them very biased, but not incompetent enough to miss those fatal mistakes in their study.

3) They claim that the US has the highest vaccination rates and the highest autism rates. They conveniently ignore prevalence from Canada and the UK, which have comparable prevalences to the US and much much lower numbers of vaccines. Yes, you read that right, they left out the well known studies that would show that their conclusions are nonsense.

The worst part is that it is almost certain that Generation Rescue didn’t make an honest mistake. These are so obvious that whoever wrote that “study” had to know he/she was producing what amounts to the lowest form of junk pseudoscience.

For those who want the gory details, here they are:

Infant Mortality Rates

Generation Rescue points out that the reported infant mortality rate is highest in the United States, which also has the most childhood vaccines. All well and good, but can we really compare the infant mortality rates from country to country?

When I type infant mortality rate into a google search, the first hit is a Wikipedia page which, as it turns out, addresses exactly this question.The answer is a resounding “NO”, we can’t compare the US infant mortality rate with that of other countries.

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.

So, who wrote that 2006 article in US News & World Report?

Bernadine Healy.

Yep, the same Bernadine Healy that is Generation Rescue’s favorite “mainstream” doctor.

One has to believe that GR saw that article in Wikipedia and the US News article. They are, after all, Google Ph.D.’s. Given the author was Bernadine Healy, they have to have considered it accurate, don’t you think? And, yet, GR conveniently forgets to mention the differences in how the US and other countries count infant mortality in their vaccines cause autism “study”.

Autism Rates 1: Autism Prevalence by country

Start with the conclusion of the Generation Rescue “study”:

This study appears to lend credibility to the theory that the U.S. vaccine schedule is linked to the U.S. epidemic of autism, particularly when compared to the published autism rates of other countries.

Given this bold claim, it is critical that they use good data for the autism rates. By “good” I mean that they need data that they can accurately compare to the CDC reported prevalence of 1 in 150. That data was taken in 2002 on 8 year old children. I.e. kids born in 1994. Since reported prevalence numbers are going up with time, it would be very misleading if they were to use, say, prevalence numbers from the early 1990’s, wouldn’t it?

Any prevalence that they use would have to use prevalence numbers from about the same time, on kids of about the same age.

Here’s their table comparing the autism rates.

gr_table3

Let’s take a look at the studies they cited for their numbers, shall we?

Iceland: Prevalence of Autism in Iceland. This 2001 study uses kids from birth years 1984-1993. I.e. most (if not all) of the kids are from the time before the big upsurge in autism diagnoses. Hardly a good comparison to the 2002 CDC study, eh?

For Sweden, they use a paper called, “Is autism more common now than 10 years ago?” from The British Journal of Psychiatry. Published in… 1991. That’s pre DSM-IV. Amongst other problems, they won’t be including the other PDD’s in the autism spectrum, like the CDC study does. Besises, the kids from the CDC study weren’t even born yet, it was so old! Is there any wonder that the Swedish study shows a lower prevalence?

For Japan, they use a paper titled Cumulative incidence and prevalence of childhood autism in children in Japan. The study uses data from 1994 on kids who were born in 1988.

Are you starting to see the pattern here? Time after time, GR is comparing US 2002 prevalence data to much older data from other countries. Let’s go on:

For Norway, they use the paper Autism and related disorders: epidemiological findings in a Norwegian study using ICD-10 diagnostic criteria. The paper was published in 1998 on children 3-14 years of age. Simple math suggests they had kids with birth years going back to at least 1984 in that study. Hardly a good comparison to kids born in 1994.

For Finland, they use Autism in Northern Finland. Here is an updated version from 2005. The study uses data from 1996-97, on kids up to 18 years old. I.e. they are using kids that were born as early as 1979. Also, they are using data on patients from hospital records who used “communal health services”. Sounds a lot like “inpatient”–one of the critiques that GR uses against studies from Denmark. Also, the Finland study didn’t include Aspeger syndrome, as that was a new diagnosis at the time. Hardly a good comparison to the CDC study.

For France, they use Autism and associated medical disorders in a French epidemiological survey. This uses “French children born between 1976 and 1985″.

For Israel, they use Autism in the Haifa area–an epidemiological perspective. This paper looks only at autistic disorder (no PDD-NOS, no Aspergers, no Rett’s no Childhood Degerative Disorder). Right off the bat that reduces the prevalence and makes it impossible to compare the the CDC 2002 study. The Israell study also is, you guessed it, based on kids older than the CDC study: children born between 1989 and 1993.

Last, Denmark. If you’ve been following the thimerosal debate, you know this is going to be ironic. They use Madsen’s paper, Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data. Generation Rescue refers to this study (incorrectly, I might add) as “This one goes beyond useless”. I guess “useless” is only when it is used to refute the thimerosal hypothesis? Come on, GR, this level of hypocrisy is just painful.

Missing Studies

There are some very well known studies that Generation Rescue somehow forgot to include in their “study”. Could this be due to the fact that they are very good counterexamples to the vaccine-hypothesis ? Let’s look at some and see, shall we?

United Kingdom: Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Preschool Children: Confirmation of High Prevalence ( study performed in 2002 with a prevalence of 1 in 170), and Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool children (study performed in 1998/9 with a prevalence of 1 in 160).

Canada: Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations (birth years 1987 to 1998. Prevalence 1 in 154).

Wow, the United Kingdom and Canada have prevalence numbers comparable to those in the US!

So, let’s complete the comparison, shall we? What is the vaccine schedule like for the UK and Canada? Using the Generation Rescue “study” we get 20 vaccines for Canada and 21 for the UK.

Wow, that’s way less than the US (with 36), and they have the same autism prevalence as the US? How could that be? Is it, perhaps, that the autism is NOT related to the number of vaccines in a given country’s schedule?

Anyone doubt why GR left the UK and Canada off their table of Autism Prevalences Around the Globe? No, I am not giving them a pass that this could be an honest mistake.

To quote Generation Rescue’s top funny guy (Jim Carrey), “How stupid do you think we are?”

About these ads

30 Responses to “Generation Rescue: a dishonest autism charity?”

  1. Joseph May 6, 2009 at 20:28 #

    Bernardine Healy apparently forgot what she wrote back in 2006, as evidenced by this recent claim of hers:

    If you look at the best-performing countries in terms of infant and early-childhood mortality, the average number of doses is 18, with most of the Scandinavian countries, Japan, and Israel mandating just 11 to 12.

    Occam’s Razor would suggest she didn’t actually write the more recent US News article. That would explain the strange promotion of Generation Rescue and the odd Paul Offit mention.

  2. Arthur_ May 6, 2009 at 21:07 #

    “Anyone doubt why GR left the US and Canada off their table”

    Should be UK and Canada.

  3. Kev May 6, 2009 at 21:44 #

    Don’t forget the South Thames study that gave a UK prevalence of 1%.

  4. Prometheus May 6, 2009 at 21:47 #

    Good job, Sullivan!

    Before someone from GR tries to sidetrack the discussion, the GR “infomercial” (their advertisement that looks like a scientific paper) was looking at mortality in children under five years old, not infant mortality, which is defined as the deaths of children under one year old.

    However, in most countries – including Iceland, Canada, the US and the UK, infant mortality makes up the majority of the mortality under age five years. For example, Iceland has an under five mortality of 3.9 per thousand live births and an infant mortality of 3.3 per thousand live births.

    In the US, the numbers are 7.8 for the under five mortality and 6.4 for infant mortality. Canada has an under five mortality rate of 5.9 per thousand live births and and an infant mortality of 4.6 per thousand. The UK has an under five mortality of 6.0 per thousand and an infant mortality of 5.0 per thousand.

    Interestingly, the US has a 1 to 5 year mortality of 1.4 per thousand and Canada has 1.3 – a statistical dead heat. Yet Canada – we are told – has a much gentler vaccination program.

    But seriously, the whole point of this GR advertisement wasn’t to scientifically analyze the data – why else would they be looking at mortality and talking about autism?

    The whole point of this pointless “pseudo-study” was to encourage fear, anger and doubt about vaccines. This is all about marketing an idea (“Too many, too soon”). It’s just an advertising campaign.

    The business types that run organisations like GR aren’t interested in finding out anything about autism because they already know what the “truth” is. Their only goal is to convince enough of the public that their “brand” is “the best”. It is utterly irrelevant to them what the data about autism say because they aren’t interested in data, only in “selling” their idea.

    If you look at it that way, it all starts to make sense. They’re salesmen – they don’t understand that there is actually a correct answer to the question “What causes autism?”. To them, it’s all a matter of “selling” their brand, of convincing enough people that their idea is correct, whether it is or not.

    I don’t expect a Coke salesman to tell me about the ways his product is inferior to Pepsi and I don’t expect any of the “Too many, too soon” sales staff to admit – even to themselves – that their “brand” just doesn’t work.

    So, expect to see a lot more full-page ads, fake scientific “studies” and on-camera informercials by clueless actors. The big sales push is on!

    Prometheus

  5. Sullivan May 6, 2009 at 22:03 #

    Arthur_,

    thanks for the correction!

  6. Sullivan May 6, 2009 at 22:06 #

    Kev,

    thanks for that one! It is a later study (2007), though.

    That’s the main reason I left out the Simon Baron-Cohen study that GR has been misrepresenting. GR is claiming that the study will show 1 in 60 as the prevalence. So, according to GR, the UK has a MUCH higher prevalence and a MUCH lower vaccine count.

    (the true number, based on the IMFAR abstract appears to be about 1% for the SBC study, btw).

  7. Squillo May 6, 2009 at 22:10 #

    So much for the GR “Scientific Advisory Board.” As Prometheus points out, their work is obviously marketing dressed up as scienciness, designed to confound the scientifically naive. What’s funny (or would be if the consequences weren’t so potentially serious) is that the folks who will buy what they’re selling, hook, line and sinker, are the same folks who inevitably congratulate themselves on being so much more savvy and educated than everyone else, and therefore immune to the evil marketing schemes of Big Pharma, Big Government, and Big Pediatrics.

    I got a good chuckle out of the Bernardine Healy reference when I ran across it researching a recent post I happened to do about what national infant mortality rates might mean or not mean. Funny, it never occurred to me that someone might try to use them as a proxy for autism rates.

  8. Sullivan May 6, 2009 at 22:11 #

    Prometheus,

    thanks for the clarification on infant vs. childhood mortality.

    I totally agree that GR is basically doing a sales job. The fact is that the lies are quite obvious–they must have known they would be outed. But, it doesn’t matter if talk show hosts don’t know the details. GR can throw sound bytes out and make an impact–continuing to confuse the public (read: future jury pools) about autism and vaccines.

  9. anothervoice1 May 6, 2009 at 22:54 #

    Even after the clarification by Prometheus it would appear that the U.S. has both a higher infant and child mortality rates. Is that correct or have I confused myself?

    If the rates are higher does anyone have any information about why?

  10. Joseph May 6, 2009 at 23:21 #

    If the rates are higher does anyone have any information about why?

    It’s mostly due to the prevalence of low birth weight. Also check out the old Bernadine Healy article linked in the post.

  11. rajensen088 May 6, 2009 at 23:50 #

    The US has higher rates of infant mortality, and a shorter life span and poorer outcomes virtually across the board than all the industrialized countries with universal health care.

    The sad statistics on healthcare outcomes in the US compared to other Western countries has nothing to do with vaccinations, its poor access to medical services (50 million uninsured) in the US and the insurance industry’s strangle hold on healthcare in the US.

  12. Squillo May 7, 2009 at 02:41 #

    “he sad statistics on healthcare outcomes in the US compared to other Western countries has nothing to do with vaccinations, its poor access to medical services (50 million uninsured) in the US and the insurance industry’s strangle hold on healthcare in the US.”

    I’m sure that is true in part, but at least with regard to infant mortality, part of the reason may also be that we have a larger population of people of African descent than many other industrialized nations; African-Americans appear to be at higher risk for some of the top killers of infants: complications related to prematurity, and SIDS. I have read (but can’t put my fingers on at the moment) that this is true independent of socio-economic factors.

  13. anothervoice1 May 7, 2009 at 02:53 #

    Yes, Dr. Healy’s article was informative; she attempted to explain the differences and her reasoning does make sense; thanks Joseph.

    From her aticle it appears that she feels the U.S. does not have a higer rate of infant mortality.

  14. Sullivan May 7, 2009 at 03:31 #

    “The sad statistics on healthcare outcomes in the US compared to other Western countries has nothing to do with vaccinations, its poor access to medical services (50 million uninsured) in the US and the insurance industry’s strangle hold on healthcare in the US.”

    At least some of this has to do with the fact that we define infant mortality differently. Did you read the section where that was discussed in the above post?

  15. Matt May 7, 2009 at 04:06 #

    The ironic thing is that for years the US was viewed as far behind the European and Japanese estimates due to not a lot of scientific interest as well as our fragmented health care system.

    The GR study is a clear attempt at fraud, pure and simple. The US rates cited are the entire spectrum. In addition to the Israeli study Sullivan pointed out, the Iceland, Norway, France, and Finland studies are all limited to classic autism (aka childhood and infantile autism), and excluded the two other main categories: PDD-NOS and Asperger’s. In most studies, those other two categories account for between 1/3 and 3/4 of all cases of autism.

    Moreover, as Sullivan pointed out, GR cherry picked studies to get the results they wanted, an apparent higher level of autism in the US. They used the 1996 Honda study in Japan, but somehow missed the excellent 2005 Honda study that was an update to the 1996 study, which showed a cumulative prevalence of childhood autism (they weren’t measuring for ASD’s in either study) of 27.2 per 10,000, which is at the higher end of the range of estimates globally, including the American studies, which were primarily done by the hated CDC – funny they are citing CDC. They also missed the Kawamura study in 2008 that reported an ASD rate of 1.81%, or 181/10,000 or 1 child in about 60. For Denmark, they cited the 2003 Masden paper on classic autism and then ignored the 2008 Parner study on the whole spectrum which showed ASD rates in the oldest cohort studied (1994-1995) of 82 cases/10,000 for ASD and 21 cases/10,000 for classic / childhood autism.

    They missed the 2009 Fombonne manuscript in Pediatric Research where he surveys the recent, better studies primarily from Europe and Japan and concludes: “from recent studies, a best estimate of 60 to 70/10,000 (or 1 child in 150) can be confidently derived for the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders”. This was a global estimate, not just the US. I didn’t see anything from Christopher Gillberg, probably the most prolific autism prevalence researcher in the world who works mostly in Sweden. For instance, Gillberg’s 2006 study in Goteberg showed a prevalence of 80/10,000 for kids born in the oldest cohort studied, 1989-1994, and 51/10,000 for the three cohorts studies stretching over 15 birth years.

  16. Sullivan May 7, 2009 at 04:34 #

    Matt–

    wow–I should have checked with you before writing this! Lot’s of really good info on studies I missed and on details of the studies I cited.

  17. laurentius-rex May 7, 2009 at 05:15 #

    Is there no law they can be prosecuted or sued under?

  18. rajensen088 May 7, 2009 at 11:28 #

    “At least some of this has to do with the fact that we define infant mortality differently. Did you read the section where that was discussed in the above post?”

    Yes I did and it is the same cherry picking speculative nonsense you accuse others of making.

  19. Joseph May 7, 2009 at 14:12 #

    The autism part of the “study” is garbage. I don’t see how an ecological analysis could even be done at the country level. You don’t have that many data points to begin with. The countries where ASD is studied have a varying number of prevalence studies, all with different ascertainment methodologies. Which one do you pick and why?

    I discussed the inaccuracy of three of the prevalence numbers that GR cherry-picked here. Additionally, Dr. Novella pointed out that the prevalence of ASD in Denmark is 80 in 10,000 here.

    BTW, the vaccine counts are probably biased as well. It’s not straightforward to reproduce the numbers in the “study” and they come from different sources.

  20. Sullivan May 7, 2009 at 14:14 #

    RAJ,

    interesting interpretation. Of course I think your interpretation is incorrect or I wouldn’t have brought up the example.

    thanks for participating in the conversation, though.

  21. anothervoice1 May 7, 2009 at 17:13 #

    I watched clips on AofA of J. McCarthy, Dr. J. Kartzinel, J. Handley appearing on a segment of the “Doctors” hosted by Dr. J. Sears and Dr. T. Stork. Granted these may be edited. This “study”, which has been discredited here, was quoted as factual by Mr. Handley and the hosts did not challenge the basis for his statements. Both Dr. Sears and Dr. Stork appeared to be caught flat footed, they expected a dialogue to explore common ground; instead they lost a debate. I am not sure they even realized they were in a debate until it was over.

    Why would doctors go on TV with these folks without being prepared? There are at least three people posting on this site that could have prepared Dr. Sears and Dr. Stork in probably less than thirty minutes.

  22. Prometheus May 7, 2009 at 17:13 #

    The reasons for the higher infant mortality rate in the US compared to Canada are manifold. To be sure, one part of the difference is that the US has held to the WHO standard for defining “live birth” (shows any sign of life – breathing, movement, heart beat – after birth, no matter the gestational age), where other industrialized countries have not.

    However, it cannot be denied that the US health care system is partially to blame, as is the fact that the US has a much more diverse population and a much broader range of cultural practices than most of the industrialized counties. An extreme example of this is Iceland, which is perhaps the antithesis of ethnic and cultural diversity and – interestingly – has a significantly lower infant mortality than other industrialized nations – including those with “universal” health care.

    Whatever you may think about the reasons for the (relatively) high US infant and under five mortality, the causes are obvious not simply vaccination schedules.

    “Another voice” asked:

    “Even after the clarification by Prometheus it would appear that the U.S. has both a higher infant and child mortality rates. Is that correct or have I confused myself?”

    The US has a higher infant mortality and under five mortality than most “Western” industrialized nations. However, the under five mortality in most of these countries – including the US – is largely a reflection of infant mortality. If you look at the 1 – 5 year mortality (subtract the infant mortality from the under five mortality), you’ll find that the US (1.4 per thousand) is essentially (and statistically) equal to Canada (1.3 per thousand).

    Now, there are a number of differences between the US and Canada, including (as GR has pointed out) the number of vaccinations children receive. For one, Canada has “universal” health care. In fact, Canada’s system seems to be working better than that in the UK. Yet the difference in the 1 – 5 mortality is not significant.

    The reasons for both infant mortality and under five mortality are far more complex than differences in health care systems. They are certainly more complex than “too many, too soon”.

    Prometheus

  23. Sullivan May 7, 2009 at 20:54 #

    However, it cannot be denied that the US health care system is partially to blame, as is the fact that the US has a much more diverse population and a much broader range of cultural practices than most of the industrialized counties.

    The much higher mortality rates amongst African Americans is definitely a cause of great concern. We need either an explanation or a solution. My guess is we need a solution.

  24. Sullivan May 7, 2009 at 21:15 #

    Prometheus

    I think the 36 comes from the list on this advert by Generation Rescue.

    http://tinyurl.com/GR-propaganda-1

    1) Influenza (prenatal)
    2) HepB (Birth dose)
    3) HepB (1 month)
    4) DTaP (2 months)
    5) Hib (2 months)
    6) IPV (2 months)
    7) PCV (2 months)
    8) Rotavirus (2 months)
    9) HepB (4 month)
    10) DTaP (4 months)
    11) Hib (4 months)
    12) IPV (4 months)
    13) PCV (4 months)
    14) Rotavirus (4 months)
    15) HepB (4 month)
    16) DTaP (6 months)
    17) Hib (6 months)
    18) IPV (6 months)
    19) PCV (6 months)
    20) Rotavirus (6 months)
    21) HepB (6 month)
    22) Influenza (6 months)
    23) Hib (12 months)
    24) MMR (12 months)
    25) Varicella (12 months)
    26) PCV (12 months)
    27) Hep A (12 months)
    28) DTaP (15 months)
    29) Hep A (18 months)
    30) Influenza (18 months)
    31) Influenza (30 months)
    32) Influenza (42 months)
    33) MMR (48 months)
    34) DTaP (48 months)
    35) IPV (48 months)
    36) Influenza (54 months)

    Note that six vaccines are influenza. Flu shot uptake is low, but that doesn’t matter in an advertising campaign.

    Note that 3 more are after 3 years, so they are beyond the time when autism would manifest.

  25. Sullivan May 8, 2009 at 18:31 #

    One more observation–no one at Generation Rescue had the guts to put his/her name on that piece of junk. It is only attributed to Generation Rescue.

  26. jeremyocohen May 10, 2009 at 23:00 #

    GR’s representation of itself as some kind of “scientific” organization is disingenuous at best, and anyone with even an inkling of what science is and how it works should be able to pick apart their methodology even as presented only in their so-called “36” ad:

    “The statistics speak for themselves. since 1983, the number of vaccines the CdC recommends we give to our kids has gone from 10 to 36, a whopping increase of 260%. And, with it, the prevalence of neurological disorders like autism and AdHd has grown exponentially as well. ”

    That is clearly not an exponential increase! Not only that, but this paragraph has already ‘shown’ a causal link post hoc ergo propter hoc merely by putting both sets of “data” in the same paragraph!

    “[T]housands of parents believe their child’s regression into autism was triggered, if not caused, by over-immunization with toxic ingredients and live viruses found in vaccines.”

    The history of science (including medicine) is full of stories of what people believe versus what science/medical research has shown to be correct (or at least disproven the popular mythology). These parents believe the cause to be “over-immunization” because of, what, 3 articles published in the last 10 years in the popular press (including Kennedy’s Rolling Stone article)? The rise of the internet as a portal for information good and (mostly) bad has been substituted for good, solid research into peer-reviewed studies.

    “[T]he Centers for disease Control and the American Academy of pediatrics [sic] dispute this but independent research and the first-hand accounts of parents tell a different story.”

    Notice the conflation of true science and anecdote as equal sources of information and “proof!”

    “Why are we giving our children so many more vaccines so early in life?”

    Perhaps because as medical research has advanced it has uncovered many more beneficial vaccines? Presumably GR would pillory Edward Jenner, as the smallpox vaccine led to an infinite percent increase (from 0 to 1) in the number of vaccines given (although, admittedly, not just to children under 3, at least at first).

    In short, GR’s methods remind one of intelligent design methodology, in which complexity simply cannot be the result of evolution, thus “disproving” evolution. Even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, and a diminishing pile of “evidence” in favor of their viewpoints, they soldier on, moving the goalposts.

  27. Joseph May 14, 2009 at 13:55 #

    I came across this article, which seems relevant.

  28. Kelli September 9, 2009 at 09:32 #

    I would like to see a study done on people who criticise the Generation Rescue efforts and how many of them actually live with a child that has austism.

    Unless you are a parent or can walk a day in the shoes of a parent that raises an austistic child, I don’t think that your opinions carry much weight.

    It is my understanding that Generation Rescue started to help find answers. What they are trying to do is get more research into what causes autism. Let’s see do you think that Merick will fund that one?

    • Sullivan September 9, 2009 at 16:33 #

      Kelli,

      I’d volunteer for your proposed study. So, I imagine, would most of not all the bloggers on this site. We are parents and, in some cases, autistics.

      If you don’t understand why parents of children with autism would be critical of Generation Rescue, go ahead and ask. The post above is a great example–Generation Rescue created a fake study that is just plain dishonest and misleading.

      If the above wasn’t clear–I have an autistic kid. Kev. who started and owns this blog, has an autistic kid.

  29. Anne September 9, 2009 at 21:55 #

    I propose that the study compare supporters and critics of GR for years of experience either being autistic or raising an autistic child. My hypothesis is that the critics have more experience with autism than the supporters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: