Bill Welsh – Autism Treatment Trust ‘s Bewildering Conclusions

Bill Welsh, ex head of the now defunct ‘Action Against Autism’ and current big cheese at the ‘Autism Treatment Trust’ recently responded to a new study in The Lancet that suggested a prevalence rate for autism in the UK of 1 in 100. His response was published in The Herald and I reproduce it in full here.

It will come as no surprise to parents throughout Scotland that there has been a “sharp increase in autism” (July 14). The diagnosis of this devastating childhood developmental condition has increased to such an extent since 1990 that many, many families are now affected. It is very worrying that it has taken well over 10 years for the authorities at last to recognise that an autism epidemic has been sweeping the UK.

Psychiatrists and psychologists and those within the traditional autism support and services organisations must bear some responsibility for this sad state of affairs, as it is they who have continually denied that what we have been witnessing with our own eyes was actually happening. An estimated 12-fold increase in autism was apparently a mirage!

By sustaining this irrational stance these interest groups have hampered clinical examination, and likely condemned seriously ill children to years of unnecessary pain and distress. The psychobabble “experts” must now be informed that we have not been experiencing the world’s first genetic epidemic!

Importantly, there is much to learn from this latest Lancet paper. What it tells us is that (1) autism is not solely genetic in origin, (2) environmental factors play a far greater role than was previously understood, and as a result, (3) autism may be a treatable condition for some.

Supported by parents, Autism Treatment Trust opened an autism consultation and treatment centre in Edinburgh in April this year and to date we have comprehensively tested more than 60 autistic children. It is early days, but the results so far are very revealing.

For example, heavy-metal toxicity is a common feature, with significantly high levels of lead, aluminium, tin and antimony present in autistic kids, in comparison to typical children. Inflammation, particularly of the bowel, is often identified. Immune dysfunction is a recurring theme.

If these problems were addressed how would it affect the child’s autistic behaviours? Watch this space!
If the medical establishment continues to abandon these children, without addressing their underlying problems, this will rightly be interpreted, by every decent person with an ounce of compassion, as scandalous.

I read this response with a mixture of amusement and eye-rolling. It’s apparent that Mr Welsh has not read the paper in question. My response is below:

In his letter dated 17-07-06, Bill Welsh makes several errors regarding the interpretation of a recent study published in the Lancet regarding the prevalence rate of autism. This leads him to make misleading claims regarding autism and its treatment.

Mr Welsh first states that there has been a sharp increase in autism but this is not the finding of the Lancet paper. Baird et al state that that prevalence rate of autism is greater than was previously recognised. This is not the same as saying there has been a sharp increase in autism. Indeed, it may be a more accurate interpretation to say that autism has historically been under-diagnosed. However, the authors content themselves with stating that the reason for the increase is unknown which is the responsible thing to do as this question falls outside the remit of this study.

Subsequently Mr Welsh implies that this paper is proof of an ‘autism epidemic’. This is also a statment not based on the reality of current science. A study published in 2005 by Chakrabarti and Fombonne compared prevalence rates across a decade of autistic children in Staffordshire, England and found the prevalence rate stable. Indeed, Baird et al cite Fombonne in their study.

Mr Welsh goes on to point an accusatory finger at psychiatrists and psychologists for refusing to recognise Mr Welsh’s ‘epidemic’ and further paints them as condemning seriously ill children to years of pain and distress. These two scenarios do not tally. The diagnostic criteria for autism do not list any of the issues Mr Welsh cites.

Mr Welsh lists three things he has learnt from the Lancet paper. First, that autism is not solely genetic. This is not mentioned in the Lancet paper at all so I’m puzzled as to how Mr Welsh learnt that fact from this paper, but it does tally with mainstream thinking – most people believe autism is a mix of genetics and environment. Secondly, Mr Welsh has learnt that environmental factors play a greater role than first thought. Again, this is not discussed anywhere in the Lancet paper except as a brief mention in the conclusion which states:

Although a number of putative environmental factors might have contributed to the higher prevalence rates reported in studies published this decade, none has so far been empirically supported.

Thirdly, Mr Welsh says he has learnt that autism may be a treatable condition for some. Once again, this is not mentioned in any part of the Lancet paper and one must assumes stems from Mr Welsh’s fringe theories regarding heavy metal toxicity and autism which he later expounds on. Interestingly, a recent court case in America where a couple attempted to sue the maufacturers of RhoGAM as they claimed the mercury in it (used as a preservative) caused their childs autism had their case dismissed solely due to the poor standard of science used to support their case.

Mr Welsh closes by pointing another accusatory finger in the direction of the medical establishment stating that they have ‘abandoned’ autistic children. As parent to an autistic child I can say that I have never felt abandoned by our Health Authority and that I find Mr Welsh’s accusations and assertions without foundation and his tone troubling.