Someone at the CDC screwed up. There, I said it.
That’s the bottom line of the story, in case you don’t want to plow through this rather messy story.
Two stories out today are discussing how the 1% autism prevalence story has been handled by the government, the AAP and the media. An emphasis is being placed on how the information embargo was handled and, possibly, mishandled.
One at the Covering Health blog is titled, Autism news raises question: When is an embargo not an embargo?. The second story, at National Public Radio, is titled When News Breaks On Autism, Who Gets It Out First?
Let’s go through the history of this story to unravel a bit of what happened.
This past summer, two studies were in press discussing the autism prevalence in the United States. The first study, based on data from the National Children’s Health Survey, was to be published in the Journal Pediatrics. (This is the one just published) The second study is a CDC report, in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) series. Previous MMWR’s have given us prevalence numbers of 1 in 166 (based on data taken in 2000) and 1 in 150 (based on data taken in 2002).
Someone at the CDC leaked information about these studies to Lee Grossman. Whether Mr. Grossman approached the CDC employee or the other way around is unknown. There also isn’t any information on whether Mr. Grossman was supposed to keep this information confidential.
What is known is that Mr. Grossman publicly discussed this information at an Autism Society of America meeting in July.
Mr. Grossman also discussed this information with Mr. Kirby. How exactly that exchange came about we don’t know. Mr. Kirby has given a version of the story on his blog, but he has also shown himself willing to lie in order to protect a source.
Mr. Kirby blogged information about the two studies on August 11th. He did not name pediatrics as the journal, but he did note that the study would involve the NCHS data.
The pediatrics study was scheduled to come out this week (Monday, October 5). As is usual, the American Academy of Pediatrics released information to the press the week prior. These releases are made so that the press can prepare well researched stories to be published coincident with the paper. The press are not allowed to disscuss the story until the “embargo” was lifted at 12:01 eastern time, Monday Oct. 5.
The embargo system is actually a quite good one. This insures that the press has the time to put together well researched, thoughtful stories on a given topic. The writer who spends a lot of time on a story isn’t penalized by some guy slapping together a quick story to make a scoop. It’s a win-win: the press get to write better stories, and groups like the AAP get good press coverage.
But what do you do when someone has already leaked part of the story? To make it even more complicated, there were really two stories here: the Pediatrics paper published on Monday and the MMWR that isn’t published yet.
Understanding the high level of interest in the story, the U.S. Government decided to hold a conference call with the press. They planned their own data–the MMWR. In this way, journalists covering the Pediatrics story could include the MMWR without having to rely on the bits and pieces leaked by Mr. Kirby.
This call was scheduled for last Friday (Oct. 2) at 3pm.
The information from this call was embargoed. From the NPR story:
“Both the CDC overview and the HRSA study [in Pediatrics] were embargoed, because the subject nature was obviously so similar,” a spokesman for the National Institute of Mental Health told Covering Health. “It just wouldn’t be appropriate to not have the CDC following the same set of guidelines as the HRSA study as it relates to the embargo.”
This call was at 3pm.
The U.S. Government decided early Friday morning to hold a second conference call for autism advocacy organizations. This call was scheduled for 2pm, and did not include embargoed information. They didn’t discuss the details of the papers, just the new prevalence numbers (about 1%).
The Age of Autism blog posted the announcement and call in number.
According to Andrew Van Dam at Covering Health:
CDC spokeswoman Artealia Gilliard told AHCJ on Tuesday afternoon that everything in the 3 p.m. press call was under embargo, while nothing that would have been covered by that embargo was mentioned in the earlier call with the autism community. In particular, Gilliard said, no specific prevalence rate numbers were given out on the call.
“We basically said ‘On Monday, two studies will come out. They will update the prevalence estimate we previously had.’ … It didn’t actually have any of the information that was embargoed.”
Gilliard, who was on both calls, specified further: “I know they didn’t put out numbers in the advocacy call. I know we didn’t say 1 in 100. What we’ve been saying is ‘approximately 1 percent of children.’”
So, we have two conference calls, discussing much the same information (about 1% prevalence). One was embargoed and the other was not.
David Kirby blogged the story right away on Friday. Mr. Kirby starts his post with:
Washington loves to dump its bad news on a Friday afternoon, and on October 2 it confirmed that 1 percent of American children (and by extension, perhaps 1-in-58 boys) has an autism spectrum disorder.
It is possible that Mr. Kirby didn’t know that the Pediatrics study was to be published on Monday. It is possible that he didn’t know about the second, embargoed conference call.
Possible, but very unlikely.
If he knew (and I believe he did), his introduction is highly irresponsible. It fans the flames of the idea that the government tries to bury autism information. No surprises there, as Mr. Kirby has made a career out of fanning those flames.
Mr. Kirby further fans the flames by indicating that the 2pm call was short:
There was no alarm, and little time for questions from the community that was invited to “visit.” After about 15 minutes, questioning was cut off, and the call abruptly ended. I tried three times to ask a question (via a telephone switching system) and so did many other people on the call, which lasted a total of 39 minutes.
As we now know, the government had to prepare for the 3pm call. Perhaps Mr. Kirby didn’t know about that call. Again, that seems highly unlikely.
Mr. Kirby complains of not being able to pose his question. You can go read it if you want, I am not copying it here. The question, in classic Kirby style, is really a lecture putting out the current talking points of the vaccines-cause-autism groups.
Dan Olmsted at the Age of Autism blog mentioned the conference call as well, but his post was brief and not filled with the leading comments Mr. Kirby chose.
Lisa Jo Rudy at autism.about.com read the Kirby and Olmsted pieces (she mentioned this in her piece) and decided to blog the story herself. Unfortunately, she was a bit confused by what was embargoed and what was not–she discussed the Pediatrics paper (which was embargoed). This was reported to the AAP, who contacted Ms. Rudy and Mr. Rudy pulled the piece. The AAP decided that the embargo breach wasn’t so big as to pull the embargo entirely. In other words, they went ahead and kept the rest of the press to the Monday morning embargo date.
On Sunday, 7 hours before the embargo was lifted, Mr. Kirby ran a copy of his Age of Autism blog piece on the Huffington post.
The Age of Autism blog is still trying to fan the flames, pushing the idea that the mainstream media doesn’t want to cover this story. Mark Blaxill posted a piece today, Autism News: Pathetic Non Coverage, discussing how his home-town newspaper (The Boston Globe) didn’t cover the story when the embargo lifted on Monday. He states that “In the meantime, on Tuesday the Globe posted a link to an abbreviated form of the Associated Press story. A day late and a dollar short.”
I don’t profess to know what methods Mr. Blaxill used when he couldn’t unearth the story on the globe.com webiste. I know that I used “autism” as the search term and quickly found this story, which came out Monday, October 5. There is also the abbreviated AP story that the Globe put out on Tuesday, which Mr. Blaxill references.
What can we say about the whole debacle? It is a big mess. It is a big mess that started when someone at the CDC told Lee Grossman of the Autsim Society of America some confidential information. That person at the CDC screwed up.
Isn’t that just a bit sad? Trusting a prominent representative of a major autism organization has been shown, in this case, to be a mistake.
I won’t say that Mr. Grossman made a mistake by talking to David Kirby. An error in judgment, yes. Mistake, no. Mr. Kirby’s track record of presenting any data in a very biased mode to promote vaccines-causing-autism is quite well established.
I didn’t see any mainstream press coverage that included any of Mr. Kirby’s talking points. He was able to get a prominent spot in the google news searches on autism with his Huffington Post piece.
The main fallout seems to be (a) the CDC will probably clamp down on giving out information and (b) the press has an impression that autism advocates are irresponsible with information.