Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield…what do these people have in common? They have all helped promote fear of vaccines—especially the Measles/MumpsRubella (MMR) vaccine—by claiming there is evidence vaccines cause autism.

To be fair, Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy relatively new to the scene, unlike Dr. Wakefield, whose flawed research really fueled the fear. Perhaps the actors could learn from the doctor’s lesson: you claim MMR causes autism, that reduces the number of people getting immunized and people get sick. Pretty simple logic.

Measles was considered basically wiped out in the UK until a few years ago when it returned, sickening thousands and killing a few. Last year, measles returned to the US, and it’s back this year. Now we see that the UK isn’t being spared int he 2008-09 season: Wales has approximately 60 cases of measles suspected or confirmed.

Nineteen cases are in Llanelli—that’s in the lower left corner of this map:

That’s a short ride from Swansea, Cardiff, Bristol…lots of high density population centers. Any reasonable person would find that scary.

We in the autism communities need to stand up against misinformation that leads to people being sickened and, in some cases, killed. The MMR-Autism link never had good evidence, and now there is good evidence that MMR does not cause autism Even people like the autism-is-vaccine-injury proponent Rick Rollens admitted it’s time to look beyond MMR (and here).

Jim Carrey seems to understand at least on some level that it is wrong to dissuade people from vaccination. He claimed (incorrectly):

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio…

Maybe there is some Clintonian logic about the words “We” and “argued”. But, on Larry King Live, Jenny McCarthy stated:

You need to find a doctor that can find an alternate schedule. Generationrescue.org has three of them on there.

Generation Rescue, aka “Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Autism Organization” has alternate schedules on their website. The “favorite” of the three alternate vaccine schedules states, very clearly,

One should avoid vaccines that contain live viruses. This includes the combined measles mumps and rubella vaccines…

You’ve talked the talk, time to walk the walk, Jim. Pull that schedule off your website. Get your organization to make a clear statement about the value of vaccinating against measles.

I realize that I have concentrated a lot on Jim Carrey in this piece. But, there is a man who can make a difference in the future. That future will see people in the US and the UK sickened by measles. The question is how many. What Jim Carrey says could make that number larger or smaller, it all depends on whether he makes good on his sentiment that measles is a serious disease worth immunizing against.

Write a quick comment

When I found that the Autism Omnibus Proceeding expert reports were public, the first one that caught my eye was by Andrew Zimmerman. Obviously, it caught Kev’s attention too :)

But, I have only a brief time available today, so I will start with this letter by Dr. Michael Oldstone. It is brief enough that I have copied the body in its entirety below.

To summarize, Rick Rollens asked Dr. Oldstone to consider collaborating with Dr. O’Leary and Dr. Wakefield on the Autism/MMR question. It was a good move on Mr. Rollens’ part, as Dr. Odlstone is one of the preeminent researchers in viral pathogenesis. Has been for decades.

Before agreeing to collaborate, Dr. Oldstone wanted to check on the quality of the results coming out of the O’Leary laboratory. Dr. Oldstone sent tissue samples to Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory, some with measles virus, some without. Dr. O’Leary tested them—and got the wrong answer 20% of the time. Dr. Oldstone sent another batch of samples, some duplicates from the first batch. Not only did Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory get 20% wrong again but, in Dr. Oldstone’s words:

Most troublesome, some samples, when tested twice under different code numbers ‘switched’ from positive to negative or from negative to positive. On this basis of inaccuracies of their PCR test, I declined from further working with either Drs. Wakefield or O’Leary.

This goes directly towards the question of the quality of the data coming from Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory. This is a big question. The Hornig study came out last year, an attempt to replicate Dr. Wakefield’s research. In one of the strangest moves I have ever seen by a researcher, Dr. Wakefield claimed that this study actually supported his research by demonstrating that Dr. O’Leary’s lab is capable of making accurate PCR measurements. Dr. Wakefield neglected the obvious point—being accurate today doesn’t mean one was accurate yesterday. He also neglected the suggestion (made by Dr. O’Leary himself at the press conference for the Hornig study) that Dr. Wakefield’s samples could have been contaminated.

Well, here is a good example that Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory was not making accurate measurements. This was iin the “early 2000’s”. Note that the Uhlman paper (Dr. Wakefield’s team’s paper supposedly finding measles virus in gut tissue) came out in 2002—the same time period.

Below is the letter, dated Oct. 12, 2007, from Dr. Oldstone to Dr. Brian Ward.

Dear Dr. Ward:

I recently became aware that my work in the field of viral persistence is being quoted in support of the hypothesis that the measles virus component of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is supposedly associated with the development of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

Measles virus has been a focus of my laboratory for many years so this autismlmeasles link has been of interest to me. Further, I should state up front that I see at present no evidence whatsoever for such a link.

In the early 2000s I was asked by Rick Rollens to consider a collaborative grant between my laboratory and that of Drs. Wakefield and O’Leary. Prior to making a decision, I decided to assess the performance of Dr. O’Leary’s PCR-based assays targeting measles virus. My laboratory generated samples from tissue culture cells infected with MV as well as tissue samples from our transgenic mouse model of MV infection (including gut and brain tissues), which were coded and sent to the O’Leary laboratory. Samples had varying titers of measles virus as well as appropriate negative control and measles virus positive samples. The arrangement was informal in that the samples were only sent to Dr. O’Leary for testing. After receiving Dr. O’Leary’s results, the code was broken and I discovered that approximately 20% of the samples were incorrect as to the
presence or absence of measles virus. I reviewed the results with Dr. O’Leary as well as his protocols for preparing his assay, which I found to be sound and decided that perhaps there may have been some unknown error and a second set of samples should be sent. This second set was again coded anew and contained both new samples and several original samples. The results of the second round were no better with again approximately 20% of the samples misidentified by Dr. O’Leary’s laboratory. Most troublesome, some samples, when tested twice under different code numbers ‘switched’ from positive to negative or from negative to positive. On this basis of inaccuracies of their PCR test, I declined from further working with either Drs. Wakefield or O’Leary.

Sincerely,
Michael B.A. Oldstone, M.D.
Head, Viral-lmmunobiology Laboratory

Write a quick comment

Once more for the record, I like David. I tried very hard to get to see him in London last time he was over and we’d arranged to meet up for a drink but due to my family situation it wasn’t to be. However, I cannot let that stop me from recalling that we have very differing views on a wide range of things to do with autism and vaccines.

I have noticed of late a tendency for David’s HuffPo blog posts to be more than usually full of ‘if’ ‘maybe’ ‘might’ etc. However his skill as a writer buries these ambiguities and makes them appear certainties. I’m not even sure its a concious thing for David. His need to write well sometimes (I think) obscures a clinical need for precision in such delicate areas as he and I write in.

With that in mind, I recalled a post of his from November 2008 entitled ‘Tom Daschle: Friend to Many Autism Families’ in which he describes Mr Daschle thusly:

By nominating Tom Daschle to head up the Department, President Elect Obama has selected a man who has demonstrated an unflinching willingness to question vaccine safety, and to fight for the rights of those people who believe they have been, or may be, seriously injured by certain vaccinations.

I think David might’ve been trying to insinuate that Tom Daschle’s nomination was good for the autism/antivaccine community. Certainly however, as with the autism/antivaccine’s belief that RFK Jr would be appointed by Obama, this nomination might not be quite what that community is expecting. As blogged by Orac today, Daschle’s true feelings on vaccinations were spelt out by the man himself:

Immunization is probably as—as sound an investment as we can make in good health. I can’t imagine that we could do any better than ensure that every—every child is immunized, and that we understand the importance of—of broad-based immunization and the tremendous good health that can come from it.

Following that, David made a fairly innocuous presentation from a US Army scientist look much more sinister than it actually was. He claimed that the army listed autism as a possible ‘health effect’ of mercury/thiomersal. It turned out that that was not actually the case.

Dr. Centeno’s presentation, entititled ‘Mercury Poisoning: A Clinical and Toxicological Perspective,’ did mention Thimerosal. However, its inclusion was specifically intended to point out that although there has been some speculation about a potential association between Thimerosal and Autism, currently there is no data or science to support such a claim. Neither the AFIP nor Dr. Centeno have been involved in or conducted research on Autism.

After that was the recent debacle when David mixed up Change.org and Change.gov – the latter being a website of Obama. The former a privately owned enterprise for at least the last 2 years. David thought (and committed to a blog post) that Obama had hired pro-neurodiversity bloggers and he imagined a conversation Obama might have with an autism parent:

It is hard to imagine the President one day saying…“I do not think we should devote resources to finding out what happened to your [autistic child]. I do not believe there is anything we can do to help him, and it is not desirable to even try.

This post made me sad and angry. I thought better of David than that. To say that any of us who do not believe vaccines cause autism do not think it is desirable to help our autistic children is massively insulting. I hope someday David can maybe spend a bit of time with parents who don’t think vaccines caused their child’s autism and see for himself how we help our kids. And maybe an apology might be forthcoming also.

David’s latest faux pas is regarding the latest MIND institute study. In a post entitled ‘UC Davis Study: Autism is Environmental (Can We Move On Now?)’ David says:

Autism is predominantly an environmentally acquired disease, the study seems to conclude. Its meteoric rise, at least in California, cannot possibly be attributed to that shopworn mantra we still hear everyday, incredibly, from far too many public health officials: It’s due to better diagnosing and counting.

The autism epidemic is real, and it is not caused by genes alone: You cannot have a genetic epidemic. It really is time that we, as a society, accept that cold, hard truth.

Here’s the full conclusion:

Autism incidence in California shows no sign yet of plateauing. Younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes
in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases. Other artifacts have yet to be quantified, and as a result, the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear.

Lets look at that last again:

...the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear.

And yet David seems to to think its crystal clear. The paper itself also contains some direct and fairly easy-to-check errors. For example:

The inclusion of milder cases has been suggested as an explanation for the increase in autism. Neither Asperger’s
syndrome nor “pervasive developmental disorders not otherwise specified” qualify under the category of autism in the DDS system.

Here is what DDS passed on to me in Summer of 2007. I promised not to attribute the quote to an individual so I won’t, but you can email DDS yourselves and ask them.

The current CDER was written in 1978 and updated in 1986, which is why the language is so out of date ( e.g., Residual Autism). California has clinicians in the field who are, of course, using modern criteria in their assessments but then they have to go backwards and try to fit those kids into the 1986 CDER. So you are going to have Aspergers kids, PDD-NOS kids in both categories 1 and 2. Categories 1 and 2 are called ‘Autism.’ But because there are so many clinicians, using lots of different techniques for evaluation, there is a lot of inconsistency and enrollment figures should not be misused as epidemiological data.

Hertz-Picciotto might also be interested in a quote from Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS) to Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004:

To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in the past, would never have been referred to the regional centers for example, bright but anxious and slightly socially inept kids with average or better IQs and children who, in the past, had been or would have been diagnosed as ADHD, OCD, ODD, anxiety disorder, learning disabilities, psychotic, and so forth are now being diagnosed wit high-functioning autism and/or Asperger syndrome and referred to the regional centers for services.

Truth is that a lot of Hertz-Picciotto 2009 is simply wrong. For an extensive overview of why, please read Joseph’s technical takedown from which I’ll quote his conclusion:

H-P et al. is a surprisingly poor paper. It does not produce any new data in order to support its two main results. It makes an apples-to-oranges comparison between a Finnish epidemiological study and California DDS ascertainment over time. It tells us the obvious about “milder” cases. In the end, I don’t think this is an improvement over the 2002 MIND Institute report to the California Legislature. In fact, it could very well be worse.

The way H-P et al. have gone about trying to show there’s a real rise in autism incidence over time is not a very good way to go about doing things, in my view. There are other ways. For example, I’ve suggested trying to replicate Lotter (1967) in detail. This would not be as easily challenged.

David closes his latest error prone piece with:

But the sooner our best minds in science and medicine come to grips with the fact that these poor, hapless kids have been exposed to the wrong environmental toxins and/or infectious agents at the wrong time, the sooner we can find out how to best treat what really ails them.

This is a prime example of bad science leading the media. David has reported on a paper that has made fairly bad errors and taken them at their word. Sadly, this sort of thing will only continue as long as institutions like MIND (controlled by a man who is dedicated to proving vaccines cause autism) churn out error strewn papers.

Write a quick comment | View 23 more comment(s).

Note: I didn’t do my homework—Ms. Attkisson has discussed the Hornig paper. She manages to do exactly what we would expect: toe the ThoughtfulHouse line. The blog piece by Ms. Attkisson was posted while I was finishing my fax, given the time stamp.

As you will read below, I didn’t find Sharyl Attkisson’s recent blog post to be what I expected. OK, I wasn’t expecting her to be convinced by the recent study by Hornig et al., (paper here) but I at least expected her to comment on it. Instead, she dodged the issue completely. Worse yet, her post boils down to (a) assuming that the government doesn’t do vaccine safety research then (b) apparently implying that she and Dr. Bernadine Healy are somehow responsible for a “new” effort by the government to study vaccine safety.

So, CBS news has two new pages in their fax machine (to go along with a previous fax). In an effort to save their staffers the time of forwarding the fax, I quote it below.

September 8, 2008

Katie Couric, Managing Editor
CBS Television Network
524 West 57th Street
6th Floor
New York, NY 10019-2902

VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Ms. Couric,

I have faxed you recently about my concerns with the reporting of Ms. Attkisson. I would love to be writing you now with word that things have improved. But, sadly, they have not.

Ms. Attkisson appears to have avoided the key story of the week (if not month) in vaccines and autism: the study by Hornig et al. which shows (again) a lack of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Instead, Ms. Attkisson ran a blog piece that perpetuates the myth that vaccine safety is not a high priority for the nation’s health researchers.

Hornig et al. is precisely the sort of study that Dr. Bernadine Healy (in an interview by Ms. Attkisson) claimed the research establishment was “afraid” to perform: a study looking not at large populations, but specifically at children with autism. In this paper, the study group critera were very narrow: children with autism who regressed and have significant GI problems. The study sought to answer questions raised by Dr. Wakefield’s flawed study, which has caused much distress in the autism community for 10 years. The study found that MMR is not linked to autism: a conclusion accepted by autism advocate Rick Rollens, one of the most vocal spokespeople for the autism/vaccine link.

You can imagine that, yes, I expected Ms. Attkisson to address this study in her blog or reporting. Instead I read with dismay her blog piece on September 4th, “Vaccine Watch”. In her introduction, she references her interviews with Dr. Healy, but avoids the issue of the Hornig MMR study. Instead, she discusses recent NIH grant solicitations in the area of vaccine safety, and presents them as though vaccine safety research is something new. As noted above, this perpetuates the myth that vaccine safety is not being studied.

In addition to the Hornig et al. study, there is another study soon to be released on autism and thimerosal containing vaccines. Again, a targeted study looking at the exact population of interest. I would hope that this one doesn’t escape Ms. Attkisson’s attention. Also, one need look no further than clinicaltrials.gov to find ongoing studies on vaccine safety and adverse events. It is difficult to find a way that will not appear sarcastic to point out that the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Office is a very clear example of the government’s ongoing commitment to tracking vaccine safety.

If you have any question of how important the Hornig study is in the autism community, take a look at the comments on Ms. Attkisson’s own blog post. You will find that, even though Ms. Attkisson avoided the study, the autism community considered the Hornig study to be the news of the week, not the NIH grant solicitations.

Accusations of media bias are often applied too quickly by readers who disagree with the stances taken on certain stories. However, in the case of Ms. Attkisson, I find it difficult to understand how she could avoid a story which not only was so important to the community, but also answered the precise questions she has posed in her previous reporting.

I appreciate your time in this matter, and will gladly clarify any statements above that may not be clear.

Sullivan
Autism Parent
LeftBrainRightBrain.co.uk
SullivansJourney@gmail.com

Write a quick comment

It’s been interesting reading the news reports following the Hornig MMR/regression/bowel-disease study. That has been picked up by most major outlets (and minor outlets). It has been extensively blogged (Kev, Orac, Kristina, Anthony, Steve, Phil (bad astronomy), to name a few).

I have enjoyed reading the various experts that have been brought in to comment on the paper. I list some of them here.

CNN

“This really puts this issue to bed,” said Andy Shih, vice president for scientific affairs of “Autism Speaks,” an advocacy group.

ABC News

Dr. Marie McCormick of the Harvard School of Public Health said these results are definitive and significant.

“This is the nail in the coffin,” she said. “The final bit of research we were looking for to finally discredit this link between the measles vaccine and autism” is proven. But there have been dozens of studies over the years debunking a link between vaccines and autism and the controversy has still continued.

WebMD

“This really closes the scientific inquiry into whether measles or MMR vaccination causes autism,” Schaffner tells WebMD. “It is convincing because it takes the original concept of the profoundly flawed [earlier] study and does it the way it should have been done the first time.”

One of the most amazing parts of this event was the participation of Mr. Rick Rollens. Scientific American included some of Mr. Rollens’ statements:

Rick Rollens, who has an autistic son who suffers from a “horrible bowel disorder,” called the new research sound science and praised it for calling attention to an underserved subset of the autism spectrum: those children who also suffer from GI problems. But he insists that it does not give the all clear to all vaccines.

“I’m totally convinced that a vaccine caused the autism my child suffers from,” Rollens says. “This study by itself does not exonerate the role of all vaccines”—only the MMR.

On the stranger side (is it possible to get stranger than using Rick Rollens’ quotes in support of a study unlinking a vaccine from autism?), Sallie Bernard, quoted at WebMD states

“On the plus side, this study has shown a link between gastrointestinal distress and regression in autism,” Bernard tells WebMD. “A lot of people don’t accept this and deny parents’ perspective when they say their kids’ with autism have GI trouble.”

I call this one strange because (a) the study didn’t show this link and (b) she complains that the study size is too small to be significant. Too small for the parts she doesn’t like, just fine for the conclusions she wants to create.

What’s missing so far is a statement from some of the people whom we all expect to not accept this study. The good people at the Age-of-Autism have warned us that they have a “powerful response” from Mr. Olmsted coming out on Friday. It’s 11:38 now on the west coast, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it didn’t happen. Julie Deardorff (Julie’s Health Club, a blog run by the Chicago Tribune) skipped past it and blogged about the vaccine uptake data that came out the next day. Sharyl Attkisson…well, it doesn’t seem to be on her radar that yes, indeed, researchers have not turned their backs on the question of vaccines and autism. Yes, indeed, they are looking at “the children that got sick”. Odd, since she has a vaccine-oriented blog post dated Sept. 4. It would have been very easy to include this new study there. I guess correcting her old stories wouldn’t be much fun.

What is fun, and totally off topic, was a bit from this blog post by Ms. Attkisson. She was complaining that the CDC wastes money. She talks about

“...grants being awarded to projects that investigators have found in some cases to have “no objectives,” are “not performing,” or have been rated as “abysmal.” In other cases, grants have gone to community-based groups with very little oversight.”

I hope she (and others) apply similar rules when considering whether to include projects in the IACC’s Strategic Plan that are likely to be rated “abysmal”, or are expected to be “not performing”.

I wonder how she would feel about hundreds of thousands of dollars in pork sent to one of autism’s alternative medical groups with no oversight, no results.

Well, I’ve wandered off topic. It is 11:59 and still no “powerful response” from Mr. Olmsted. Time to hit “publish”.

Write a quick comment | View 12 more comment(s).

In shocking news, yet another study shows that the MMR doesn’t cause autism. The study (which is here for your edification Dear Reader).

attempted to replicate 1998 research by a team led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, then of Britain’s Royal Free Hospital, in the Lancet medical journal that suggested the vaccine was linked to autism and gastrointestinal problems.

And how did that work out for them?

....they could not find any link and hope their study will encourage parents to vaccinate their children to combat a rash of measles outbreaks.

The ‘official’ study conclusion is:

This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD.

Interestingly, the lead author is one Mady Hornig whom you might remember from the infamous Rain Mouse debacle. Seems like she’s turned over a new leaf. Gone are the lurid descriptions of skull chewing and in instead are pleas to vaccinate children from a killer disease. Credit where its due Ms Hornig, well done.

“We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism,” Dr. Mady Hornig, also of Columbia, said in a statement.

Another interesting aspect is that the methodology the team used means they utilised three different labs. One of which was the O’Leary lab. This time, they did a good job. Shame they screwed up so bad the first time. Maybe if they hadn’t, things would’ve been over a long time ago. Is it just me or does this paper feel like a few people trying to claw back some scientific credibility?

Anyway, the study also found:

But the study did find evidence that children with autism have persistent bowel troubles that should be addressed.

They still didn’t say whether these bowel troubles (which they found weren’t associated with the MMR) were occurring at a higher rate in autistic kids. Maybe someone will address that one day.

Oh and Rick Rollens was there too, teeth and buttocks clenched no doubt as he congratulated the scientists. He said:

No longer can mainstream medicine ignore parents’ claims of clinically significant GI distress.

Had they ever? I’ve never seen a study that shows that. He also said:

“This study by itself does not exonerate the role of all vaccines”

What a genius. He spotted the phrase ‘Measles Virus Vaccine’ in the study title and worked out the rest all by himself! Nothing gets past our Rick!

So, MMR doesn’t cause autism. No news and of course won’t convince the flat earthers but still – another welcome addition to the ever growing canon of evidence against MMR causation.

Further Reading Elsewhere
Mike at Action For Autism
Kristina at AutismVox
Anthony at Black Triangle
Orac at Respectful Insolence
Steve at One Dad’s Opinion
Phil at Bad Astronomy

Write a quick comment | View 31 more comment(s).

OK, this one has been beaten to death. I am amazed that it still think that there is evidence of an “epidemic”. This is especially true of those who rely on the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) data. These data are so muddy as to be able to hide a real increase or a real decline.

These data have severe limitations as noted before on this blog. They are not “epidemiological” data. They are not a census of those with autism in California. They are a count of who is getting services and this can and does vary dramatically over time and geography.

That said, let’s take a look at how service rates change with time for a given birth cohort. (click to enlarge). [edit: this is the 1984 cohort] This is much as you would expect. Kids start being listed at age 3. The number increases year after year until a plateau is reached. This happens at about age 7 or 8. There is some slope to the curve: additional kids are being added to the roll even after 8 years old.

This is very straitforward and expected. But, what happens over a longer time to this cohort? Click to enlarge this graph. Ignoring the obviously leading arrow and label for now, it is abundantly clear that something unexpected has happened. A second large increase in the number of clients is observed. Why would this happen? Well, one of the possible explanations is shown by the arrow. In 1997, the “epidemic” was declared. Autism awareness increased dramatically.  One possibility is that the 1984 cohort was still in school where people might notice them and identifiy them. This cohort nearly doubled in numbers from 1997 to 2003. 

This brings up so many questions, many of which we just can’t answer with the data we have access to.

It would be interesting to see if there was substitution. Were these kids (heck, teenagers) listed by CDDS under a different label?

How did roughly half the kids in this cohort avoid detection? I think the new phrase is “it’s like missing a forrest fire”. Well, these forrest fires were blazing for 13 years before people started noticing them.

Also, what happened to other cohorts? Well, for one thing, a similar jump in cohort size around 1997 is observed for birth years in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. It isn’t as clear or as consistent birthyear-to-birthyear as you go back in birthyears, but it is observable in some birth cohorts. One example where one can see this is the 1960 birth cohort, which increased about 15% around year 2000.

That last paragrah wasn’t clearly written, I admit. But if you are thinking, “what? The CDDS ‘found’ 15% more 40 year olds?” you read it right. This graph (click to enlarge) shows the number of CDDS autism clients as listed in 1986 and 2007 by birth year. The 1986 (in black) data are the same as shown before. The drop in the client count in the early 1980’s is an artifact: those kids weren’t identified yet in 1986. The 2007 client count (in red) show something very interesting, at least to me.

There is an increase in autism clients for almost all the birth year groups. 40-year olds, 50 year-0lds, even older people were added to the client list as “autistic”. Again, we don’t know if or how these people were classified before the “epidemic”. They could have been (and likely were, in my opinion) clients listed in another category in 1986.

Let’s take a look at the difference between these two curves. I included data for people with birthdays in the early 1980’s, but these are not reliable. Those people weren’t through the first round of identification by 1986. 

The graph shows the difference as a percentage increase. This allows us to see the older cohorts easier. At the same time, it allows people to accuse me of doctoring the data to make it seem like a bigger effect than it really is. That would be an obvious way to try to divert attention from the fact that the “epidemic” caused a roughly 40% increase in CDDS autism clients born in the 1960’s. For those clients born from 1940-1955, the increase was 70+/-28%.

Think about that a second. Autism amongst forty year old people increased by 70% during “the epidemic” years.

How can this be? How could CDDS have missed people with autism for forty or fifty years? Sure, some of these people may have moved into the state. Some of them may have been cared for by family and not been served by CDDS. The trends of these birth cohorts with time do not show the sharp rise in the late 1990’s as observed above for 1980’s cohorts.  For me, this is suggestive that the those who could be identified in the school systems, were.

Obviously there are a lot of open questions here.  How and why these increases were observed is a big question.  Why no one has seen fit to mention this before is another question.  The CDDS did not create these data sets for me.  Someone else has been paying for that for some time, according to Mr. Kirby…who also hasn’t mentioned this.

People keep saying, “you can’t have a genetic epidemic”.  Well, you can’t have an epidemic of a childhood onset “disease” in forty-year-olds either.

________________________________________

Edit: 

 First, note that the birth cohort in the first figue above is from 1984.  That is not clear.  Second, here is a graph with multiple cohorts.  Note that all the cohorts have an upswing in the client-numbers in the late 1990’s.  Even the 1990 cohort does this.  It does not appear to be based on age, but on calendar year.

Write a quick comment | View 15 more comment(s).

Every god-damn quarter, without fail. Every single one. The CDDS data gets released – Rick Rollens releases his usual ‘full syndrome’ crapola and tells us how autism is still skyrocketing and does his best Chicken Little impression and David Kirby chews at the edges of the data to try and find something that will support the idea that thiomersal plays any kind of role in autism.

Its getting really, really old.

Please let me say it to you one more time.

CDDS is not good source data for epidemiology. They say so themselves.

When CDDS refer to ‘full syndrome autism’ they are not, repeat, not referring to classical autism. See this form here? CDDS use it to record autism. It was designed in the 1970’s. The version in use today was last updated in 1986. Don’t believe me? Ask them.

Item 23 is where the term ‘full syndrome’ is used. This term is today utterly without meaning. It is the only place to record autism at all.

If we trun to this document and go to page 71 we can see the section dealing with autism. In terms of having autism, a person either can, can’t or have autistic-like symptoms associated with mental retardation. Its not until page 77 that we get to any kind of recording of degree of severity. Note that this has no bearing on whether a person has autism . That is already indicated.

Here is what CDDS passed on to me. I promised not to attribute this quote so I won’t but if anyone wants to double check then an email to CDDS would back me up:

The current CDER was written in 1978 and updated in 1986, which is why the language is so out of date ( e.g., Residual Autism). California has clinicians in the field who are, of course, using modern criteria in their assessments but then they have to go backwards and try to fit those kids into the 1986 CDER. So you are going to have Aspergers kids, PDD-NOS kids in both categories 1 and 2. Categories 1 and 2 are called “Autism.” But because there are so many clinicians, using lots of different techniques for evaluation, there is a lot of inconsistency and enrollment figures should not be misused as epidemiological data.

You might also be interested in a quote from Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS) to Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004:

To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in the past, would never have been referred to the regional centers–for example, bright but anxious and slightly socially inept kids with average or better IQs and children who, in the past, had been or would have been diagnosed as ADHD, OCD, ODD, anxiety disorder, learning disabilities, psychotic, and so forth—are now being diagnosed wit high-functioning autism and/or Asperger syndrome and referred to the regional centers for services.

I really don’t know how much clearer this information can possibly be. And yet we still have full syndrome arseholes like Rick Rollens sending out emails that contain:

As stated many times before in these Reports, the numbers being reported by DDS only reflect those children that have received a professional diagnosis of full syndrome DSM IV autism, and do not include those with any other autism spectrum disorder such as PDD, NOS, Asperger’s, HFA, Retts, etc

So Rick:

a) Its impossible for a document/process written in 1978 and updated in 1986 to reflect the DSM IV.
b) The numbers quite clearly do contain PDD-NOS, Aspergers Syndrome and Rett Syndrome.

And hey, if CDDS data is good then how would the following be explained?

It’s now 2005. Mercury started to be removed from vaccines roughly in 2001, we don’t know exactly when as the FDA won’t tell us, but kids entering the system now, four year olds for example in California entering the Dept of Developmental Services [CDDS] were born in 2001. So those kids theoretically get less mercury on average than kids born in 2000. So we should see fewer cases entering the system this year than we did last year.

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis….total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

Late 2006 should be the first time that rates go down,” said Handley. “If they don’t, our. hypothesis will need to be reexamined.

Write a quick comment | View 13 more comment(s).