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.
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, “The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education,†suggests that autism diagnoses haven’t actually risen over the past two decades, despite *growing and credible scientific evidence to the contrary*. In addition to the study’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. Shattuck’s former research partner, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin’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 author’s ties to this agency is a glaring omission that requires an explanation,†commented NAA board chair Claire Bothwell. “Clearly, 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.
Left Brain Right Brain 
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.
Great new website: putchildrenfirst.org
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
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.
Register this:
How about – postsomethingmoreimaginatveorseeitgetdeleted.end
– edited by Kev
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.
How about:
weregettingdesperatesoitstimetobreakoutthenamecalling.com
Orac provides more background.
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?
This one is not bad either. From me to the pro-thimerosal quakbusters:
howdoyouspelliq.org
You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing, Kevin. Get help.
F. Hampton = J. Best?
How do you spell Quack?”
You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing”
Comedy Gold.
_”You cognitive dysfunctions are embaressing, Kevin. Get help.”_
Weere wud ewe zuggeest eye geet hyelp?
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.
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.
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
Kev,
“They also mention ‘weak methods and erroneous conclusions’ yet again failing to illustrate what these ‘weak methods’ 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.
I have seen Newschafer’s comments – if you go to Orac’s blog you’ll find coverage of them there.
_”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.”_
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 it’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.
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
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,†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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Dr Shattuck
Thank you very much for your kind offer to answer questions.
Orac´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+….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 Luján Ferreira
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.
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.
ASA joins the attack
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=63633
Good Math, Bad Math finds that Dr. Shattuck used _good_ math:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/good-vs-bad-in-math-of-autism-studies.html
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.
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.
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.
_”The mercury parents are making autism research a viper’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.
clone3g,
Someone has sent the papers to Mark of Good Math Bad Math. Maybe several someones have by now. 🙂
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/
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?
And who the fuck is J. Best?!
K,
That specualtion is as dumb as the specualtion in the 50’s about autism was a outcome of” bad mothering”.
F. Hampton – why is it dumb?
_”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!”_
Nice turn of phrase there. Please refrain from using the word ‘retarded’ as some kind of insult.
_”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.”_
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.
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.
Kev, 8th paragraph here
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/10_11a_04.html
a google for:-
autism gene copy number
should find it.
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.
F.
F. wrote “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!â€
“Intellectual suicideâ€? That is unsupported in this case, so that would be sophism. “Voluntary amateur scientist’s cognitive abilities†which does not establish that that person is correct and acts as a red herring. “Retarded 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 “But let’s cut the mumbojumbo, shall we.The case is: You do not know the flying fuck about science.â€
But you don’t establish how, sorry F. sophism isn’t going to work out here; still no points.
F. wrote “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.â€
Ah, attacking the CDC and FDA for dishonesty with no real proof. That would be the argumentum ad hominem, my favorite.
F. wrote “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.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 “mass corruptionâ€, that would be the fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth.
F. wrote “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.â€
I care, because their comments affect the judgments of kids with autism.
F. wrote “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.â€
Evidence?
F. wrote “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/â€
“Damaged intellects?†Wow…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 “Damaged intellects†have a different sort of cognition rather than a “damaged†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.
F. wrote “That specualtion is as dumb as the specualtion in the 50’s about autism was a outcome of†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.
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.
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.
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!
Pair him up with Boyd Haley and they can convince us of the importance of thimerosal containing 49.5% mercury by weight.
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?