Archive | 2006

No Nonsense from Joseph

11 Apr

Its that time of year again – quarterly release from CDDS.

Joseph was very quick off the mark with an analysis. I’m going to quote the main points, shut off comments here and point you straight to the source:

As we can see, CDDS autism caseload continues to have strong growth. There’s an unexpected increase in the caseload growth this quarter (what’s usually referred to as “New Cases” by mistake). The prior tendency was for population growth to stabilize. Annual growth (calculated against the corresponding quarter the year before) has dropped a bit, but it still has a long way to go before it matches population growth in the state of California, about 1%, as would be expected in the long run. There is strong growth in the 3-5 age range, which suggests there is no drop in administrative incidence.

Just as a reminder, the 3 – 5 cohort is the cohort that David Kirby agreed was the only one worth measuring.

Despite law changes (Lanterman Act, 2003) specifically aimed at decreasing caseload growth, it’s clear administrative prevalence will continue to increase for a long time to come, perhaps one more decade. Trends in the 3-5 age range do not support an incidence drop following removal of thimerosal from vaccines. I recommend Dr. Geier’s paper be renamed to “Upward Trends in Neurological Disorders Remain Strong Following Removal of Thimerosal from Vaccines” if the paper is to be salvaged in any way.

Indeed.

Meanwhile over on the EoH group, poster Lynn asked if anyone had analysed the new stats yet. From the ringing silence, I guess we can assume they have.

You can comment on this story over at Joseph’s blog.

Enough

10 Apr

_An open letter to Generation Rescue, NAA, SafeMinds, ASA, A-CHAMP, DAN et al._

I’ve had enough.

If I might be permitted to make a few assumptions I believe its accurate to say that _we’ve_ had enough. Who are we?

We’re parents like you. However, unlike you, the self-styled ‘autism community’, we are also autistic people. We are also scientists. We are also professionals working in the field of autism. We represent groups of people that you never can and never will. We are fundamentally different in attitude from you and _we have had enough._

Enough of the lies. Enough of the misrepresentation. Enough of this media circus you are turning autism into.

_You lie._ When the NAA published its scurrilous attack on Paul Shattuck it revealed the depth of its desperation. By wilfully and deliberately *lying* about the ‘Merck’ connection, you revealed yourselves as people willing to do anything and everything to blacken the name of those who simply disagree with you.

When you allege conflicts of interest that amount to absolutely nothing – _and when they know this to be the case_ – then you again reveal yourselves as tawdry and grubby dirt diggers, desperate to besmirch people. The irony of your president having an established and non impartial financial connection to David Kirby and your chairperson having been in the pay of lawyers litigating the thiomersal connection is immense. It boggles both the mind and any ordinary persons sense of common decency. At the absolute least you owe Paul Shattuck an apology.

_You mislead_ . When Generation Rescue _continue_ to state baldly that autism and mercury poisoning are interchangeable – that one is the other and that is all that autism is, it is obvious that that organisation is comprised of absolutist zealots who care nothing for reality, science or truth – all of which are concepts that stand in direct opposition to your beliefs. When you ignore the reality that there is likely to have been _no epidemic of autism_ and yet you continue to use falsely inflated statistics like a 6000% increase in autism _and when *you know* this increase is down to better diagnosis, widening criteria and the fact that its only in the last 15 years or so that autism has been counted separately to other developmental ‘disorders’_ then you move beyond the bounds of simply misleading, you move beyond the bounds of simple innocent ignorance and enter the area of wilful, deliberate manipulation.

When you resort to buying and placing adverts that _you know_ are misleading and with which _you know_ the people you cite do not agree, when you resort to employing the services of media manipulators like Fenton Communications to dress up your spin for you then you have left simple campaigning behind and entered the realm of deliberately misleading, exaggerating and falsifying.

When Generation Rescue employ the services of men like John Best Junior to enter the homes of families then you know something is badly awry with the morals and ethics behind this organisation. These are the words of a Generation Rescue Rescue Angel:

Some “brilliant” goofball coined the term “Homophobia” in a pathetic attempt to bring some small measure of respectability to a perversion. Fortunately for me, I grew up in an era when people were not subjected to public acceptance of sexual perversion. I never “stomped” a queer and I don’t approve of that behavior. I also don’t want to have to hear about this nonsense portrayed as anything near normalcy.

The scientists you quote range from respectable to quacks. You misrepresent the nature of the respectable science and hype the quacks as credible scientists. When your science is conducted by men censured by government and peers (the Geiers) or is conducted by men who behave very curiously such as pre-registering patents that back up future research, source subjects for studies that are undergoing litigation or allegedly financially benefit from these associations (Wakefield) or who refer to autistic children as ‘mad’ (Boyd Haley) or ‘train wrecks’ (Rick Rollens/MIND) or who attempt to make their science relevant _to autism_ where it is clearly not (Hornig, Burbacher, Deth, Bernard) then you have a serious credibility problem.

But none of this – none of it – would matter at all, except for one thing (or several things). You call yourselves the ‘autism community’. You present your manipulations as fact. You fail to understand the good science and twist the bad science to fit your agenda. You rely on people such as David Kirby – a man who is demonstrably dishonest and a man like RFK Jr who invents conspiracies where none exist. These are the people who shape your policy and guide your information – David Kirby, Dom Imus, RFK Jr, Dan Olmsted. Journalists, chat show hosts and a wannabe politico.

Enough is enough. I’ve had it. Up until now, we’ve contented ourselves with correcting your ignorance and dishonesty in blogs, forums and chat rooms. Now we will be finding ways to extend ourselves. Wherever you are quoted, we will follow up. We will make sure that people know the sort of spin you employ, the sort of manipulation you attempt and the sort of people who are aligned to your cause. Because of you, vaccine uptake is dropping. Because of this, epidemics are breaking and people are dying. Because of you the field of autism research is being turned, into the words of Lisa Randall, into a ‘a vipers nest’ where scientists are more and more loth to get involved. Who can blame them when the sort of shameful behaviour in evidence on the Evidence of Harm email list comes to the fore? Parents hassling and abusing people like Paul Shattuck, despite his clear request for them to cease and desist. Parents making alleged threats of property violence against Paul Offit.

Because of you, the field of autism research is in extreme danger of sinking into a dark age. The gains that autistic people themselves have fought for over the last few years are slipping away into a _real_ abyss of ignorance and stigma. This must be stopped. _You_ have to be stopped.

This is about dignity. Its about respect. You have none and you are in the process of taking ours away. We will fight for it. For ourselves, for our children, for our siblings, for the good of diversity and to attack stagnation we will fight.

Get ready.

Upcoming Autism Conference

7 Apr

The Fifth Annual Meeting for Autism Research will shortly be going ahead in Montreal. There’s a few very interesting papers being discussed. Here’s a few abstracts:

No Autism Amongst Inuits From Northern Quebec?

_E. Fombonne, J. Morel, J. Macarthur_

*Background* : Autism has been found in most populations where it has been investigated. We have preliminary evidence that autism does not exist in the Inuit population of Northern Quebec

*Methods* : The authors know extensively the Inuit population (N=12,000) of Northern Quebec. They have been responsible for more than 15 years for pediatric care and special education in the 14 villages of this huge territory. There is a universal free health care and educational system, with repeated periodic medical examinations from birth onwards, compulsory attendance to school, and excellent medical/educational tracking record system for each child

*Results* : No case of autism was ever reported in an Inuit child in this population in the last 15 years. A computer search of discharge medical and psychiatric diagnoses failed to identify an ICD-9 diagnosis suggestive of autism or one of its variant. No case was referred for psychiatric evaluation or special educational assessment that would be consistent with autistic developmental impairments. In order to develop a full epidemiological enquiry, we have conducted a pilot study in 2 villages that demonstrated the feasibility of this planned investigation.

*Conclusion* : Autism appears to not exist amongst Inuits from Northern Quebec. If confirmed, it would have significant implications for the genetic understanding of autism. In addition, as Inuits are exposed through their fish-eating practices to high pre- and post-natal levels of mercury, it would also suggest that high mercury exposure in itself does not increase the risk of autism.

A STUDY OF MERCURY LEVELS IN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH AUTISM USING LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF HAIR SAMPLES

_P. G. Williams, J. Hersh, L. L. Sears_

Autism is a developmental disability characterized by severe, pervasive deficits in social interaction, communication and range of interests and activities. The neurobiologic basis of autism is well accepted, although the specific etiology is unknown. It has been theorized that autism may result from a combination of predisposing genes and environmental factors. While autism has a known association with some environmental factors such as rubella and valproic acid exposure in utero, other proposed environmental mechanisms such as mercury toxicity or other heavy metal exposure have limited research support. Despite this fact, interventions including oral chelation therapy are being used to treat autism after hair, blood or urine samples are analyzed by specialty laboratories. Controls and standards for these laboratories are often unclear with minimal data supporting differences in lab values for children with autism and typically developing children.

Hair samples were obtained from 14 children with autism and 16 controls between the ages of 2 and 6 years. These *samples were then sent to Doctors Data Lab* where mercury levels were reported. *The autism and control groups did not differ significantly in age or gender distribution*. Analysis of hair sample data by t-tests for equality of means and equal variance yielded *no significant difference in mercury levels for the two groups*. Despite the small sample size, results raise questions about the usefulness of evaluation for mercury exposure using hair samples, and about claims of mercury toxicity in children with autism.

BLOOD METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CHARGE STUDY

_I. Hertz-Picciotto, P. G. Green, L. A. Croen, R. Hansen, P. Krakowiak_

*Background* : Adverse effects on neurodevelopment have been observed for lead and mercury. Previous reports of associations between body burdens of mercury and autism have been inconsistent or come from studies lacking rigorous quantitation of metals.

*Objectives* : To determine if blood levels of metals differ between children with versus without autism.

*Methods* : The CHARGE Study has been enrolling a population-based sample of 2-5 year old children with autism (AU), children with developmental delay (DD), and general population (GP) controls frequency matched on age, sex, and geographic region. Venous blood samples were drawn and metals were measured by inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry. Metals determinations were completed on 380 total children (261 AU, 40 DD, 79 GP). The AU cases were further divided into regressive (n=101) and early onset (n=119). ANOVA with unequal variances was used to compare means across groups.

*Results* : No significant difference in blood mercury was observed between the AU children (mercury mean±SD: 0.50±1.15 micrograms/dl) and either DD (0.41±0.51 micrograms/dl) or GP (0.51±0.74 micrograms/dl) children. Blood lead values were similar across AU, DD, and GP children (1.38, 1.30, 1.41 micrograms/dl, respectively). Similarly, children with a regressive trajectory versus early onset did not differ in their concentrations of circulating metals.

*Conclusions* : In 2-5 year olds, neither mercury nor lead concentration in peripheral blood of children with autism differs, on average, with that measured in population-based controls. Sponsors: NIEHS, EPA, M.I.N.D. Institute

M.I.N.D? Oh dear, what _will_ Rick Rollens have to say about that> _Thats_ not the result he paid to get!

In the meantime lets all look forward to the full release of these and the many other papers that will be presented.

*Update* Just noticed Autism Street has a similar post up.

Autism ‘Epidemic’ Groups Turn To Misrepresentation

5 Apr

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.

Source.

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.

Open Letter To Andrew Wakefield

4 Apr

Dear Mr Wakefield,

Following your announcement of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, uptake rates of this vaccine in the UK have fallen to amongst the lowest in Europe:

Take-up rates of the jab dropped throughout the UK, down to less than 70% in some areas, after a small-scale study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggested a link to autism.

Source.

In 2004, mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004, nearly a four-fold increase.

And in the first month of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases. Most were among young adults born before 1988 and who would, therefore, not have been offered MMR as a child. In the second paper, Dr Ravindra Gupta, from London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’, working with colleagues from King’s College London, found cases have also occurring in very young children who would have been eligible for the MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – vaccine…..Dr Gupta (…) said uptake of MMR among two-year-olds in the UK fell from around 92% in early 1995 to around 80% in 2003/4.

Source.

In October 2004, experts predicted that due to falling vaccination uptake, the UK would start to suffer from ‘small outbreaks’:

The medical newspaper Pulse has warned that there could be a measles epidemic this winter on a scale last seen in the 1960s. It said that lowering levels of immunity meant as many as 12% of children and 20% of adults could be hospitalised if infected by measles.

Source.

And now, this year, 18 months after this warning, we have the UK’s first measles induced fatality in 14 years.

The 13-year-old who died last month lived in a travellers’ community. It is thought that he had a weakened immune system; he was being treated for a lung condition. The boy died of an infection of the central nervous system caused by a reaction to the measles virus. The Health Protection Agency described his death as shocking.

Source

The Times also says that of the 72 reported measles cases last month, 9 required hospitalisation – this tallies almost exactly with the 2004 prediction of a hospitalisation rate of 12%.

I have a few questions for you Mr Wakefield.

Do you accept that there is a strong causative correlation between the falling MMR vaccine uptake and the rise in both mumps and measles? If you do not, could you please explain why not. If you do could you please explain what you feel is your role in these matters.

Is it true that, as reported by Brian Deer in the Times and in the Channel 4 current affairs programme ‘Dispatches’, that you received up to £55,000 to find scientific evidence of a link between MMR and autism and that you did not disclose you were being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers?

Is it true that the vast majority of your subjects from the Lancet study were not, as you claimed, captured through the normal referral process, but actually supplied to you by lawyers representing these people and their families in vaccine litigation?

Is it true that up to nine months prior to the publication of your paper showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism that you and the Royal Free (where you conducted your research) filed numerous patent applications which were alternatives to the MMR vaccine? If you did, would you consider it a lucky guess that led you to do this seeing as your MMR paper had yet to be published?

Do you believe, like your collaborator Hugh Fudenberg, that:

Some parents would rather see their kid die than live as a severely autistic.

Source.

These are serious matters Mr Wakefield. I’m aware that you are pursuing three court cases related to these matters (although at least one is currently stayed) and you are also due to be investigated by the GMC sometime this year but as the parent of an autistic child – in short exactly the sort of person you claim to want to help – I need answers now. What I read of you indicates wrong doing on a grand scale. If these things are established to be true you are guilty of not only extreme medical negligence but also of betraying thousands of parents and forcing thousands of autistic children to undergo totally unnecessary and highly invasive medical procedures.

You need to account for yourself Mr Wakefield. Please don’t wait for more children to be hospitalised or die.

Meme Clobbered – Where Was I?

3 Apr

H has meme clobbered me and as I took the piss out of 37 Signals so mercilessly I can no loger cry off such things. Damn you karma!!

Where Was I One Year Ago?

One year ago I worked for a financial services company as their in house designer/developer. We were also getting our daughter established in a mainstream school, my wife was six months pregnant and I had gone through about 3 re-designs of this site in a month.

Where Was I Five Years Ago?

2001 right? Erm….I was working for a design agency (clients included Disney, Nat West, Jarvis and others) churning out very dodgy Flash based websites and living the dotcom dream. Shorlty afterwards I was laid off. The dotcom nightmare.

Where Was I Ten Years Ago?

Christ. In 1996 I was at University doing my degree and was doing a bit of web stuff to make ends meet. I had just met Naomi. I was thinner. I was fitter. I had a better blood pressure. Other than that I cannot remember/am not saying.

Its customary at this time for me to clobber three other people with this meme. I shall therefore choose one design blogger, one autism blogger and one skeptic blogger.

Dan Olmsted And The Autisms

2 Apr

No, not a new rock group.

Dan Olmsted is a UPI reporter who forms part of the Holy Trifecta of Media – the other two prongs being Evelyn Pringle and of course, good old honest, impartial David Kirby.

Dan Olmsted burst onto the scene with the attention getting ‘Amish Anomaly’ wherein he discovered through an exhaustive and meticulous system of asking a water purifier salesman if he knew of any, that only vaccinated Amish people are autistic.

The ‘Amish Anomaly’ caught peoples imagination – ‘if vaccines don’t cause autism then why don’t the Amish have more autistic people’? was the cry on everyones lips – conveniently brushing aside the fact that Olmsted’s system was about as much use as a chocolate fireguard – and also conveniently brushing aside the fact that the Amish have a virtually closed gene pool. But of course all right thinking people know that autism was invented by Eli Lilly in 1931 thus these facts don’t make any difference.

So it must’ve been strange for these ‘right thinking people’ when a bunch of autistic people turned up right in the same area Dan Olmsted performed his meticulous research. Only these people were found as part of a research paper summarised here.

A study of Old Order Amish children has identified the genetic mutation that causes a previously unknown disorder, with seizures that progress to autism and retardation.

How could this be? Surely a reporter as experienced as Dan Olmsted with autism couldn’t have missed this? Here’s Dan’s primary source – the water purifier salesman – again:

I’ve got to tell you, I have never seen an autistic Amish child — not one,” he said. “I would know it. I have a strong medical background. I know what autistic people are like. I have friends who have autistic children.”

And here’s the science again:

A study of Old Order Amish children has identified the genetic mutation that causes a previously unknown disorder, with seizures that progress to autism and retardation.

Huh. Something of an anomaly. Or maybe – just maybe – Dan Olmsted’s source was full of shit.

So how _could_ Dan’s source have screwed up? Maybe because he _doesn’t_ know autism as well as he thinks he does. These children were ‘secondary’ autistics: those who’s autism is a comorbidity in itself (example: in this page autism is a comorbidity of Down’s Syndrome). In the case of the children in this study, their autism was secondary to their seizures.

However, that does _not_ equate to them not being autistic any more than an autistic person with a comorbidity of asthma is not asthmatic.

This is _exactly_ why reporters words shouldn’t be enshrined as gospel truth. If Dan Olmsted had noted he’d not found a lot of autistic people amongst the Amish and left it at that or even followed it up a bit more responsibly then there would be no problem. However, as befits a good friend of SafeMinds Director Mark Blaxill, he went in with a preconceived agenda and thus found (or failed to) exactly what he wanted.

Read more at Prometheus’ place, Autism Diva’s place and Dad of Cameron’s place.

A Few Questions For David Kirby

28 Mar

A few questions for Mr Kirby.

(All originally posted in the comments section of the above blog post)

You state that a study has recently been completed that:

showed that a few minutes of exposure with even miniscule amounts of thimerosal can damage dendritic cells, causing immune dysfunction and cytokine-induced inflammation, both of which are found in autism.

I’m aware of the study you are referring to but I am unsure of which study you draw your conclusion from that cytokine-induced inflammation is found in autism. You also fail to mention if it is a typical or rare phenomenom. Certainly it fails to appear in the diagnostic criteia for autism and a Google Scholar search for “”cytokine-induced inflammation” autism” reveals nothing. The same is also true for your claim that immune dysfunction appears in autism. You fail to state whether this is a common or rare occurance and yet again, it fails to appear in the diagnostic criteia for autism. Based on those facts, I fail to see what worth your interpretaton of this study has.

You are a staunch believer in the mercury/autism connection despite their being no symptomatic connection between merucry poisoning and autism except for that published in the oft-refuted ‘Mercury: a novel form of mercury poisoning’ paper.

Further, In the New York Times in 2005 you stated:

Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year.

The rates of autism did not fall that year.

A couple of months later you told blogger Citizen Cain:

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

I was puzzled enough by the discrepancy of you adding on two years to email you to ask you to clear it up. You replied to me:

Many thanks for your note. The Times misquoted me. I actually asked for a correction, but did not receive one. What I told the reporter is that we should know in the next few years.

In the interests of being thorough, I prevailed upon the two reporters for the NYT for their version of events. Reporter Gardiner Harris replied:

Prior to publication, we read the entire passage relating to this matter to Mr. Kirby. He approved it.

And reporter Anahad O’Connor said:

…we stand by that quote. David Kirby was interviewed at length, and we verified that quote and additional information with him before the article was published. He certainly did not object to that assertion at the time.

It is hard to escape the conclusion Mr Kirby, that you misled me and that you further tacked on a couple of extra years when the autism rates failed to decrease to support your original assertion. Will you now stand by your original statement that the incidence of autism should’ve fallen in 2005?

You attempted to use California DDS data to back up your continued assertion that autism rates had climbed throughout peak thimerosal useage periods and then dropped after thimerosal removal from the majority of vaccines. However, when blogger Citizen Cain pointed out you were using the data incorrectrly you conceeded:

…that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

Even a cursory glance at current and past CDDS data reveals that according to CDDS data, that cohort is still actively rising. Do you see that as another indicator that thiomersal plays no role in autism as you implied in your NYT interview?

In the course of this blog post you have made repeated mention of thimerosal still being in vaccines in the form of the flu shot. I wondered if you knew of the total mercury burden over time of mercury in vaccines?

US pre-thimerosal removal: 187.5 µg Hg.
US just flu shot: 25 µg Hg.
UK pre-thimerosal removal: 75 µg of Hg.

The US and UK have almost identical prevalence rates for autism. Given that we have very different thimerosal rates, how do you reach the conclusion that thimerosal can cause autism? Given those stats, shouldn’t US children have far more ‘full syndrome’ autism than UK children? How do you also account for the fact that even though US children are now recieving approx 7.5 times less thiomersal than they were at the height of thiomersals use the rate of autism amongst the 3 – 5 cohort is still climbing if we examine CDDS data – data that you refer to as the ‘gold standard’?

You are also a stauch proponent of the idea of there having been an epidemic of autism. You don’t base this on any science but rather what you claim to be an abscence of adults. Indeed on this very blog you asked:

But if autism is purely genetic (without an environmental “trigger”) and has always been prevalent at the same constant rate, then where are the 1-in-166 autistic 25-year-olds (those born in 1980)? Where are the 1-in-166 autistic 55-year-olds? Why can’t we find them?

You may remember that I mailed you a PDF report (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1095/0001881.pdf) from the Scottish government of a 2004 ‘audit’ of autism. One of the questions they asked the Health authorities, Trusts etc under the national banner was:

Research tells us that prevalence rates of autistic spectrum disorder represent an underestimate. To what extent do you consider the numbers above to be an accurate reflection of all those who live in your area?

Approaching 45% of all councils/executive/NHS Trusts questioned responded that the prevalence for adults was grossly underestimated, badly reported and that a lot of these adults exist without diagnosis. A typical response was:

Figures for adults reflect the national findings that the numbers known to services/diagnosed represent a significant underestimate of those individuals likely to be affected. For example day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis. _(Perth & Kinross Council)_

I apologise for mentioning this here but you failed to respond to my email regarding this matter.

Thanks in advance for your comprehensive answers.

UPDATE: Mike Stanton has found yet more evidence of your ‘hidden horde’:

_Liam Byrne, the health minister, said that 6,170 children under 16 had been diagnosed in England last year, compared with 3,100 in 1997-98. The number of cases including adults rose from 4,220 to 9,170 in the same period._

_So autism diagnoses for children have nearly doubled in 8 years from 3100 to 6170. Meanwhile adult diagnoses have nearly tripled in the same period from 1120 to 3000._

UPDATE No. 2: I just remembered an interesting quote from a New Scientist feature on the autism ‘epidemic’:

This view (that there are many children today diagnosed with autism who would not have been labelled as such in the past) is difficult to substantiate, but in 2001 a team led by Helen Heussler of Nottingham University, UK, had a crack. They re-examined the data from a 1970 survey of 13,135 British children. The original survey found just five autistic children, but using modern diagnostic criteria Heussler’s team found a hidden hoard of 56. That’s over a tenfold rise in numbers, which puts the California figures in perspective. Heussler and her colleagues concluded that estimates from the early 1970s may have seriously underestimated the prevalence.

Lenny Schafer’s Cognitive Dissonance

27 Mar

Another day, another Schafer Mercury Report.

Lenny has a dig at the recently published Afzal et al paper ‘Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK’:

It is hard to understand why the authors claim that their study of MMR virus in the blood “failed to substantiate” the reports by Andrew Wakefield, and by now any other researchers — that they found the MMR virus in gut biopsy samples from autistic children.It is obviously far easier to collect blood samples than to collect biopsy samples from the GI tract, which is an invasive procedure with risks. If blood were a suitable source to look for the MMR virus, Wakefield would have used blood in his study

I have no doubt it _is_ hard for Mr Scahfer to understand. It was hard for me to understand too. So I asked someone.

…measles is a lymphotropic virus, even more so for the vaccine strain which has been selected to exploit the CD46 cellular receptor. If there is a persistent MV infection the most logical place to detect it is in cells that it is most adept at infecting. Lymphocytes

Lymphocytes are a type of blood cell. Of course, given that, Lenny’s question re: Wakefield becomes unintentionally hilarious:

If blood were a suitable source to look for the MMR virus, Wakefield would have used blood in his study

Only if it occurred to him Lenny, only if it occurred to him.

Simple translation: Yes, this new study does not replicate Wakefield examining the gut. This is because there’s no need to. Blood cells are more likely to show infection than the gut. If Wakefield or Bradstreet wanted to make a special case for the gut then they failed to do so.

Interestingly, Afzal et al approached both Wakefield and Bradstreet to collect samples of the tissue they collected but they never responded to the request:

The groups of investigators that either had access to original autism specimens or investigated them later for measles virus detection were invited to take part in the study but failed to respond. Similarly, it was not possible to obtain clinical specimens of autism cases from these investigators for independent investigations.

Cynic that I am, I have to wonder why. Too busy to ask a research assistant to locate, package up and send off some samples? Or maybe too worried about what a decent scientist would reveal.

Amusingly, Lenny next attacks Parental Perspectives on the Causes of an Autism Spectrum Disorder in their
Children which recently reported that a low percentage of parents blamed their childs autism on vaccines:

This immense undertaking involved collecting questionnaires from a grand total of 41 parents! It is remarkable that as many as 16 of the respondents said vaccines are a cause of autism. How many questionnaires were given to parents who simply discarded them, knowing that a survey conducted by a University Department of Medical Genetics has little interest in learning what parents think about the role of vaccines in causing autism?

Can anyone remind me again how many kids were involved in the original Wakefield paper? Was it 41? No? 20? No?

Twelve?

Twelve.

Lets also not forget that another recent study looked at what treatment options parents were pursuing. Only 7% were pursuing detoxification (chelation etc). That was from a total of 552 returns.

Lenny seems disturbed that he is part of a minority. I’d advise him to get used to that feeling. As decent science like Afzal et al continues to refute the poor science that precedes it, people like Lenny will become more and more isolated.

Announcement About Megan

21 Mar

As most of you know I stopped blogging about Megan publicly some time ago.

Well, I really miss it. It really irks me that I can’t tell people whats going on in her life and how she’s doing.

What I’m, going to do is set up a private blog which will require people to enter some sort of password to access. If you’d like to access that blog then please leave a comment below.

I’m also getting a bit ticked off with this design. It looks really poor on shorter posts like this. Thing is, I’ve customised WordPress so heavily I’m worried about screwing it totally. Damn. On the other hand Veerle has raised the bar and I’m getting a design itch that requires some scratching. It seems to be quite ‘cool’ to go for a dark bg so I probably won’t do that but all the blue on here is getting on my nerves a tad.

I’m thinking – background styled to look like a notepad and plenty of Comic Sans. Yummy.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →