Archive | 2007

Meg’s blog – update

26 Feb

Just a small update. If you look to your right in section 01 of the sidebar you will note a new link – this is to the latest post on Megan’s blog.

I’ve been aware for awhile that its very difficult for a private access blog to ‘let people know’ when its been updated so now all you need to do is glance and click.

The blog is (and will remain) private access but I know that some of you who I gave access to might’ve misplaced your usernames and passwords. No problem, just drop me a mail and I’ll remind you :o)

Evil neurodiverse rising

25 Feb

Sometimes there’s a sea-change in the atmosphere that you can just sense and following a recent unprecedented few days for autism acceptance I can feel one of those sea changes.

Things kicked off with Jeanette’s family appearance on a US show called Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (very extreme. I understand they literally knock down your old house and build you a new one!). Jeanette has a wealth of experience as an autism mum – 16 years to be precise. I’ll quote from her blog post about the whole experience:

The only positive we wanted to show out of Extreme Makeover was that our children were awesome….and the producer’s made sure that happened. Through them and Ty, Paige, Eduardo, Paulie, and Tanya the world saw that autism is not a disability…we truly thank them for that.

Jeanette, like me, used to believe dire things about autism as I understand it but, again like me, has weathered those storms and come out the other side.

Next up was Amanda’s appearances. First in New Scientist. The New Scientist piece starts with:

“Far from being purposeless, the way that I move is an ongoing response to what is around me,” says the robotic voice that narrates her typed words. The class reacts emotionally – not out of pity but in response to Baggs’s proud and moving appeal for viewers to recognise “the existence and value of many different kinds of thinking”.

(Overall the article is not great but its an acceptable first step maybe).

But Amanda’s next appearance was even better – a two part segment over two nights on a CNN show called Anderson Cooper. Amanda was interviewed by a guy called Sanjay Gupta who blogged his impressions in a (badly) entitled piece: ‘Behind the veil of autism’. A more accurate title would’ve been ‘Behind the veil society has placed in front of autism thus far’. But possibly not so snappy.

It really started me wondering about autism. Amanda is obviously a smart woman who is fully aware of her diagnosis of low-functioning autism, and quite frankly mocks it. She told me that because she doesn’t communicate with conventional spoken word, she is written off, discarded and thought of as mentally retarded. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I sat with her in her apartment, I couldn’t help but wonder how many more people like Amanda are out there, hidden, but reachable, if we just tried harder.

Dr Gupta is using a form of words I might not choose myself but he is at least thinking now and encouraging others to think about the reality of the autistic experience as perceived by autistic people.

I personally think this was an incredibly brave thing for Amanda to have done. She has revealed herself and her home to the eyes of the whole world and I hope that the changes in routine and accompanying stress have not been too much for her. Anyone who chooses to visit Amanda’s blog should know that she’s taking a break to regroup but you are free to leave comments.

ABC recently presented a broadside on our self-obsessed Western cultures entitled ‘Should Parents Worry About Vaccinating Their Children? Fears of Vaccinations Rise, Diseases Reemerge’.

On internet sites, Walther read so many horror stories about vaccines, that so she postponed vaccinating her daughter, Mary Catherine. “Some of the vaccine stories said that if I had my child vaccinated they were going to die of SIDS,” she said. “I’m very protective of my children, I don’t want to do something to them that might cause them harm.” But not vaccinating caused harm. Mary Catherine got very sick with spinal meningitis.

There’s a very simple and easy to understand fact here and its a fact that groups like the NAA, Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, A-CHAMP etc miss again and again: they are urging people not to vaccinate either explicitly or implicitly. This is having an effect on vaccine uptake rates. As uptake rates fall, incidents where people are injured or are dying from vaccine preventable diseases is rising.

In the UK, following the Wakefield induced mass hysteria MMR uptake fell to 70% in some parts of the country. In 2004 mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436. In the _the first month_ of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases.

In 2004, authorities predicted that 12% of all cases of MMR related diseases would require hospitalisation. In March 2005, that prediction came true as – out of the 72 reported measles cases -9 were serious enough to require hospitalisation. One boy died from measles. The first measles related fatality in over 10 years in the UK.

The afore mentioned groups can take those figures and those injuries and deaths to their hearts. They are partly responsible. Thank goodness John Stossel has joined the clamour of media figures willing to see this for what it is:

I told McDowell [a vaccine injury lawyer] I thought he was part of the Fear Industrial Complex, scaring people and making money off of it. After a long pause, he said, “True.”

McDowell is simply one of many quacks, ambulance chasers and hysterical flat earthers out there. They had their 15 minutes of fame, failed to come up with any convincing evidence and deserve nothing but recriminations. Anyone who has made money from this scenario should be ashamed of their part in the death and injury of people but as I know from speaking to this class of people – they won’t be.

David Kirby’s Causation Trail

22 Feb

In a truly fascinating exchange on the Evidence of Harm Yahoo Group, David Kirby has revealed:

…the studies which, when taken together, suggest a plausible biological mechanism for mercury exposure as a contributing factor to regressive autism

The exchange came about as a ‘renegade’ poster to that group started laying down a smidgen of fact regarding the state of the science that props up the thiomersal hypothesis. S/he is not a popular bunny on that group.

The exchange led group big cheese Lenny Schafer to state:

It seems that junk science is in the eye of the beholder. It will probably take an impartial jury in a court of law to substantially settle if there is enough evidence of harm to implicate thimerosal and or vaccines in autism.

Seems like Lenny hasn’t been keeping up with the news in that regard.

Anyway, back to David Kirby. Hot on the heels of his amusing further goalpost shifting (somehow the non-decrease in autism numbers which, in 2005 and 2006 would be a grave blow to the thiomersal hypothesis are now suddenly nothing to trouble this teflon coated hypothesis) comes this – David Kirby’s statement on the existing studies which support mercury exposure (what? Not ‘MERCURY _IN VACCINES_ AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY’ David? Just any old mercury now is it? Bless you for exposing the courage of your convictions.)

So which studies float David’s boat? This is his list:

Richard Deth, Northeastern U;
Martha Herbert, Harvard U;
Jill James, Univ of Arkansas;
Thomas Burbacher, Univ of Washington;
Diana Vargas, Johns Hopkins;
Isaac Pessah, UC Davis;
Mady Hornig, Columbia U;
Mark Noble, Univ of Rochester.

Eight people, eight studies. Thise is the ‘science’ that David thinks suggest a plausible mechanism for mercury being a contributing factor for regressive autism.

As an amusing aside, don’t you love (and appreciate!) how careful David is becoming with his choice of words these days? No more of this ‘thiomersal causes autism’ stuff for him! Now its’mercury’ (not ‘MERCURY _IN VACCINES_ AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY’) and instead of ‘causing’ we have ‘contributing factor’ and instead of autism we now have ‘regressive autism’. best of all we have ‘suggest’ instead of MERCURY IN VACCINES AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC. Bless him, all the blog reading he’s been doing from the skeptical folks is finally paying off.

So, lets turn our attention to these studies of David’s. First of all we should note that the Mark Noble cite is a red herring (you lose skeptic points for that David) as, if I’m not mistaken, this study is a) a pilot study and b) not as yet underway. Certainly none of the other ten studies PubMed attributes to Noble, M. appear to discuss autism. Naughty naughty.

Richard Deth

Deth’s paper, if I may quote myself, can be summed up thusly:The basic gist of the Deth paper is that various toxins, including thimerosal, affect methionine synthase activity (a process that helps in building proteins) and that this can adversely affect children. In short, the Deth paper alleges that thimerosal causes methionine synthase dysfunction (MSD).

There are several issues with this as they relate to autism. Firstly, MSD and autism do not resemble each other. Symptoms of MSD are: Anemia, moderate to severe developmental delay, lethargy, anorexia, and homocystinuria (mental retardation, dislocation of the crystalline lens of the eye, sparse blond hair, and cardiovascular and skeletal deformities). Further issues:

1) There is no active transport mechanism into the central nervous system currently known for ethylmercury (thimerosal) whereas there is an known and active transport mechanism for methylmercury.
2) Because its half-life is much longer, methylmercury is more likely to accumulate than ethylmercury, causing higher levels of mercury in the blood.
3) Exposing cells in vitro to ethylmercury eliminates the most important difference between those two forms of mercury, and ignores the fact that ethylmercury is unlikely to enter the central nervous system at concentrations likely to be harmful.
4) The authors chose to use a cell line derived from a metastatic peripheral nervous system tumor to make predictions about developing healthy cells of the central nervous system. If the authors were interested in making claims about the developing central nervous system they should use cells derived from there.
5) The authors make statements in their introduction about developmental disorders such as fetal alcohol syndrome, Rhett’s syndrome, or Fragile-X syndrome, they fail to consider the fact that all of these diseases have their origins in the developing embryo and fetus, not postnatally.
6) The authors’ reference a study that evaluated the causal association between thimerosal and vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Remember how good VAERS is?

Bart Cubbins produced a video detailing similar points.

Martha Herbert and Dianne Vargas

These two papers independeintly of each other indicated a role for neuroinflammation in autism (<a href="http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/herbert.pdf&quot; rel="nofollow"Herbert here and Vargas here but they differ slightly. The Vargas paper states:

neuroinflammatory process appears to be associated with an ongoing and chronic mechanism of CNS dysfunction

and leaves it at that. Herbert specualtes with no basis regarding the fact that metals might play a part in the neuroinflammation. She has no basis for these speculations and it surprises me that they’re in a paper published in such a good journal.

Jill James

Jill James’s studies revolve around glutathione. Glutathione, amongst other things, removes merucry from the human body. James’ studies purport to show that autistic people are deficient in Glutathione and thus when they get mercury they can’t excrete it in the same way non-autistic people do.

However, they don’t. James tried to show that the two types of Glutathione in the body (what she called Active and Inactive) were about 31% (Active) and 33% (Inactive) less in autistic kids than non-autistic kids. However, it should be noted that these are not two differing forms of Glutathione but instead two states of one thing which have a relationship to each other – when one goes up, the other goes down. As Not Mercury states:

Decreased synthetic capability is one possible explanation but this would probably result in a significant deficit of total glutathione not an imbalance between the two oxidation states. _If James found any evidence of impaired glutathione synthesis in this small group of children it wasn’t included in any of her published work_. It doesn’t sound like the children were suffering from a glutathione deficiency as much as an increased oxidative burden greater than the capacity to recycle and glutathione and maintain full oxidative defense capacity.

No deficiency in Glutathione. But Not Mercury takes it a step further:

let’s suppose children with autism had significantly lower levels of glutathione. Would it render them unable to detoxify thimerosal from vaccines? Probably not.

The average human carries about 6milligrams mercury, even if James’ figures were accurate (which they are clearly not) or represent what she claims they do (which they clearly don’t) then the human body would still have several million times more glutathione than needed to excrete the suspect mercury. As Not Mercury says:

A person so severely deficient in glutathione they would be unable to detoxify 250 micrograms of mercury (upper limit of thiomersal in vaccines 5 years ago) probably wouldn’t survive long enough to be vaccinated in the first place. Every breath of air would expose them to lethal levels of ozone, pollutants and other oxidants.

Please read all of Not Mercury’s piece. It’s an eye opener.

Thomas Burbacher

This paper reached one conclusion.

The key findings of the current study are the differences in the disposition kinetics and demethylation rates of thimerosal and MeHg. Consequently, MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal derived Hg. Knowledge of the biotransformation of thimerosal, the chemical identity of the Hg-containing species in the blood and brain, and the neurotoxic potential of intact thimerosal and its various biotransformation products, including ethylmercury are urgently needed to afford a meaningful interpretation of the potential developmental effects of immunization with thimerosal-containing vaccines in newborns and infants. This information is critical if we are to respond to public concerns regarding the safety of childhood immunizations

In other words, Burbacher blood vs brain is not a valid comparison and that methHG vs ethHG is not valid either. He then goes on to state that more research is needed into what the toxic effects of thimerosal might be. He states that mercury from vaccines doesn’t accumulate as much in blood as it does in the brain and thusly, using blood levels of mercury to represent brain levels of mercury is innacurate.

It was also presented that this paper connected the dots between thiomersal and neuroinflammation (see Herbert and Vargas) but this is a false representation and not claimed or even insinuated by Burbacher.

Two more issues arose from this paper. Firstly, when the Burbacher team performed the extraction of mercury from the blood or brain matter, they failed to introduce controls to ensure that the thimerosal was not degraded in any way as a result of the extraction process. This means they had to basically assume from the resultant possibly contaminated material how much was attributable to methylmercury and how much to thimerosal (ethylmercury). Secondly, Burbacher used thimerosal free vaccines and added pure thimerosal. It is difficult to know how this fresh preparation compares with vaccine formulas when thimerosal is part of the manufacturing process and may have suffered some degradation to inorganic Hg in the vials before administration.

Issac Pessah

The Pessah paper related how the study team found that thiomersal administered to mice caused “dendritic cells” damage. Specifically:

the thimerosal disrupted the normal biological signals that take place in cells, Pessah said. At lower concentrations, the signal disruption caused an inflammatory response; at higher concentrations it caused cell death.

So the position here is that thimerosal has a negative effect on the immune system. Lots of parents think autism is immune-system related. However, this study is a) unreplicated (as far as I know) and b) we may be overestmating the real world effect. Here’s Autism Diva talking about hearing Pessah on Autism One radio.

But the really weird thing is how he described how long the effect would last when the dendritic cells came into contact with mercury. If Autism Diva understood him correctly, lets say a kid gets injected with a vaccine containing thimerosal and the dendritic cells that come into contact with the thimerosal. This is not necessarily all the dendritic cells–some of them, and the DCs are affected by the thimerosal, depending on how much thimerosal they come into contact with. And this effect lasts…. years and years? Is that what he said? No.

Was it months and months? Is that what he said? Maybe it was days and days? Hours and hours? No, actually, what he said, if Autism Diva heard him correctly, was “minutes and minutes.”

So, we know that if you take dendritic cells of a particular kind out of a mouse, and grow them in a glass dish and dump a weak solution of thimerosal on them, they freak out or get a little weird and either way can’t do their job normally, and this effect lasts for,

(gasp)

minutes and minutes.

And speaking of Autism Diva we come around to:

Mady Hornig

Briefly, Mady Horning conducted a study wherein she claimed to have developed a mouse model for autism which she then used to test how the model responded to the introduction of thiomersal. According to Hornig, the study showed that:

1. The mice they used are a good model for autistic people
2. The ‘vaccine’ schedule they used successfully mimicks childhood immunization programs
3. That the outcomes from Auto-immune disease sensitive mice were consistent with autism
4. That this indicates a genetically influenced sensitivity to thimerosal in autistic people

Autism Diva took this study apart when she pointed out that:

Did Dr. Hornig and colleagues find these features [diagnostic criteria for autism] in the ‘SJL Thim” mice?’ No.

Prometheus also had reservations about the design of the study:

So, the human experiences a maximum blood level of 1.63 (arbitrary units) and the mouse – since it is being dosed at a smaller fraction of its half-life – sees a maximum blood level of 2.61. In short, the mouse gets to a blood level 60% higher than the human……I found myself wondering, “Why didn’t they use the 50th percentile (50% weigh more than this weight, 50% weigh less – sort of an ‘average weight’)?” I have no answer – but I have an idea. By using the 10th percentile, they were able to give the baby mice an even bigger dose of mercury……So, by using the 10th percentile weights, the authors were able to give the mice about 15% more thimerosal. This goes nicely with the dosing schedule to significantly raise the dose the mice receive.

One of the big talking points from this study was reported by David Kirby in Evidence of Harm:

… putting up a photo of two mice. “He has groomed through the skull, and eventually destroys his partner,” Hornig said. Every parent of an autistic kid in the room could be seen grimacing in dark recognition of such destructive behavior.”(page 312)

Uh-huh, or maybe they were just grimacing as its not nice looking at mice chewing through the skulls of other mice?

Anyway, hyperbole aside, why did Hornig choose those particular mice? Here’s what else Autism Diva found out.

Why did Hornig pick the SJL/J mice in particular?….Besides being an “autoimmune disease-sensitive” breed what else is known about the SJL/J mice?

Good question. Diva found the answer highly revealing:

Behavior
1. High spontaneous fighting….
2. Severe fighting among males housed together, beginning at about 8 weeks.
3. Most males will be killed by 4-5 months unless caged separately….

Diva also found a separate source that showed that:

…some breeds do a kind of agressive grooming of other mice called, “barbering”

So, it seems that Hornig sourced a set of mice known to be aggressive, she then systematically overdosed them and then reported the fact that this aggression was indicative of autism. Right.

Wrapping It Up

A study that hasn’t yet been done. A study that alleges something it can’t back up. A study with no data and empty conclusions. Two studies that have nothing discernable to do with heavy metals. A study that shows ethylmercury and methylmercury are not comparable. A study that damages cells taken from a mouse for the span of minutes and a study that purposefully overdosed mice known to be aggressive.

Lets remind ourselves of the Judge;s opinion of this same body of science when it was presented by Dr Geier in the RhoGAM hearings as support for the view that thiomersal causes autism:

…the Court notes that, in fact, a literature review can be an appropriate part of a method of determining general causation. However, a literature review must still be performed appropriately. As revealed by his testimony at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Geier, however, relied upon a number of disparate and unconnected studies, including the findings of Dr. Haley and Dr. Lucier, to reach a piecemeal conclusion with respect to general causation…..However, upon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier’s analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court’s view, to be overstated.

Harold L Doherty builds a strawman army

18 Feb

I’ve been reading Mr Doherty for awhile now. He keeps a blog that discusses his views on autism advocacy and to his credit he stresses the importance of evidence based methods for helping his autistic son, Conor. This means he holds the vaccine/autism bull in as much disdain as I do.

However, this would seem to be the beginning and the end of his skeptical nature. He has, over recent weeks, been involved in a blog war with Michelle Dawson during which he claims (as far as I can see) that Ms Dawson is actively campaigning against ABA based therapies. Ms Dawson claims (with some justification) that what she is doing is suggesting that ABA is not the only methodology that helps. He makes occasional side references to this issue in the comments of blog posts such as this one in response to Kristina’s take on autism mythology:

Today, in place of Bettleheim, we have new forces ready to condemn parents of autistic children. Bettleim’s handiwork today is done by those who attack parents because they advocate for improved health and education of their autistic children and are accused of violating the human rights of all persons with autism by doing so. One hurtful urban myth gives way to another.

This was the first of Mr Doherty’s strawmen army that I noticed. I asked Mr Doherty to back up his position with a quote from someone actually doing that:

Could you provide an example of someone attacking parents of autistic people for advocating for improved health and education for the reason that these same people think that improved health and education violate human rights?

To which he answered:

If you want an example try this one, a comment attributed to Ms. Dawson in reference to parent advocates “they make me sick” is what she is quoted as having said

And he is correct, that’s indeed what she said. However, that wasn’t what I asked. I asked for a quote that showed someone attacking parents of autistic people for advocating for improved health and education for the reason that these same people think that improved health and education violate human rights, which Ms Dawson’s stated opinion clearly does not. Mr Doherty’s reply was:

I gave you a very obvious example. You simply refuse to accept the statement for what it is.

Which is just a new variation on the close minded doggerel.

Today I noted a new post from Mr Doherty. This post is simply one logical fallacy after another. He starts of by defining ‘Sirens’ for us as those who would seduce sailors to their deaths with sweet sounds.

Lets not forget that a siren is also that which makes a long, wailing, irritating noise.

Anyway. Lets address Mr Doherty’s first strawman:

Parents and families of children newly diagnosed with autism will face many daunting, at times overwhelming challenges. As the father of a soon to be 11 year old boy with classic Autism Disorder I have dealt with those realities for the 9 years since my son was diagnosed at age 2. One of the more seductive challenges that parents will face is the siren calls of those who oppose any effort to treat, educate or heaven forbid change an autistic child for the better. Do not listen to the sirens’ call.

This paragraph encapsulates the position of the rest of the post perfectly. It also reveals its weakness. It is simply a strawman argument. A regurgitation and expansion of his comment on Kristina’s blog. No one I know has ever opposed ‘any effort to treat, educate or change an autistic child for the better’. If Mr Doherty believes they have I would appreciate seeing supporting material or quotes. As has happened many times before, Mr Doherty is taking a very easy to understand proposition – that desiring a cure for autism is not analogous to respecting autistic people – and imbuing it with false exaggerations in order to demonise that position.

Here’s another example:

The sirens will outright mislead you and tell you that autism is not a disorder or a disability, that it is simply another variation in the human condition, neither good nor bad

Again, this is simply false. I personally tell people that autism is both a disability _and_ a difference. To pretend that being autistic cannot present one with disabling situations is ridiculous _so nobody I know presents it as a belief_. That includes Ms Dawson.

The sirens will not talk about such realities as lack of communication, self injurious behavior, or lack of awareness of potentially life threatening dangers posed by automobiles or broken glass. The sirens will not tell you that some autistic children are sent home from neighborhood schools sometimes in handcuffs or that they are sometimes housed in criminal detention centers for youths because no decent facilities exist in which autistic youths and adults with severe behavioral issues can reside. They will not talk to you about autistic adults residing in mental health hospitals.

Here we say Mr Doherty taking the ‘scattergun’ approach to logical fallacy. Just about every sentence in that scaremongering paragraph is fallacious. For example, its no secret that my daughter doesn’t speak. Ballastexitenz has a whole category regarding self-injurious behaviour. I have written more than once about the horrors that can happen when there is a lack of decent facilities for autistic youths and adults, as has Ballastexistenz, Mike Stanton, Kristina Chew and most of the online community Mr Doherty would think of as falling under the umbrella of ‘sirens’.

The attraction of the siren’s call is the attraction of sweet surrender. If a parent is told that their child’s autism is a beautiful thing, a joy to be embraced by the parent it will be easier to let go, to give up and to refrain from taking on the enormous challenge of doing the best that can be done for your child. It is not easy to raise, care for and educate many autistic children. It is absolutely one of the most rewarding tasks a parent can face but it is challenging, stressful and costly. It would be easy to give up and let go.

Here we have another old ‘ND’ logical fallacy – that accepting autism is the same as doing nothing. I can personally attest that this is laughably fallacious. What my wife and I spend most of our time on is raising, caring for and educating our children – including our autistic daughter. Mr Doherty’s implication that those of us who don’t believe in the things he does have have given up is a particularly cowardly and distasteful Ad Hominem fallacy.

Moving away from logical fallacies, Mr Doherty expresses what – to my mind – are gravely disturbing opinions regarding the nature of acceptance and moving on:

The sirens will tell you not to mourn for your autistic child, to accept your child’s autism; the will even tell you to find joy in your child’s autism. They will encourage you to accept your child as he or she is and not to seek to change your child.

Mr Doherty seems to be alluding to the essay ‘Don’t Mourn For Us‘ with this statement. If so it is an incorrect reference. Here’s what Jim Sinclair says about mourning:

Some amount of grief is natural as parents adjust to the fact that an event and a relationship they’ve been looking forward to isn’t going to materialize. But this grief over a fantasized normal child needs to be separated from the parents’ perceptions of the child they do have: the autistic child who needs the support of adult caretakers and who can form very meaningful relationships with those caretakers if given the opportunity

Mr Doherty’s exhortation to wallow in grief seems to me to be the opposite of sense and practicality. There have been times in my life I have mourned friends and family who have died. I don’t believe it is healthy to try and force a relationship that is motivated or fed on grief. The autistic child is _still alive_ . To behave as if it is dead is not, in my opinion, a good thing for parent or child.

I would indeed heartily recommend finding the joy in your child’s autism. It is there to be found if you look. My autistic child is a delight. Yesterday was her 7th birthday and we had a great time doing the things _she_ likes. We didn’t have a party. We didn’t make her unwrap her presents. We didn’t have lots of people around. It was just the five of us. We did it that way as that’s what _she_ feels comfortable with. It was truly a lovely day. I don’t understand why Mr Doherty would rather (if I understand him) I turned these sort of days into a funeral dirge.

I would also like to once again quote from one of my favourite peer reviewed papers entitled: _”A qualitative investigation of changes in the belief systems of families of children with autism or Down syndrome”_. In this paper the authors have investigated the lives of families who have autistic members or members with Down’s Syndrome:

Over time, parents may experience changes in ways of seeing their child, themselves and the world. These new perspectives may encompass profound rewards, enrichments, and the appreciation of the positive contributions made by people with disabilities

and

A wide range of positive changes or transformational outcomes have been reported by parents of children with disabilities, including: the development of personal qualities such as patience, love, compassion and tolerance (Summers et al 1989; Behr & Murphy 1993; Scorgie & Sobsey 2000; Kausar et al. 2003); improved relationships with family members and others (Stainton & Besser 1998; Scorgie & Sobsey 2000; Kausar et al 2003); stronger spiritual or religious beliefs (Yatchmenoffet al. 1998; Scorgie & Sobsey 2000; Poston & Turnbull 2004); an ability to focus on the present (Featherstone 1980); and a greater appreciation of the small and simple things in life (Abbott & Meredith 1986; Kausaret al. 2003). Studies therefore indicate that, with time and experience, parents of children with disabilities may come to regain a sense of control over their circumstances and a sense of meaning in life by seeing the positive contributions of their children with respect to personal growth and learning whatis important.

and

Our children have taught us the true worth of an individual. Our society tends to value persons based on performance, knowledge, education, the ability to earn income. And these children have taught us that there are so many more inherently important values, which have shaped us as a family.

and

Another thing that makes me feel that I am so much smarter than I used to be is that I have given up trying to fix my son. . . . All I have to do is figure out . . . what he wants and what will make him happy, and try to put a structure around it. . . . He’s fine the way he is, and it was for me to figure that out and, gee, the poor guy while I was figuring that out.

and

And it’s true that if you don’t change the way you think about this child, if you always think that you wanted to have a normal child and you are always comparing your child to a normal child, you’ll never really be accepting and you just don’t get anywhere.

I hope Mr Doherty can one day stop constructing strawmen to fight his battles and can start to appreciate the truths he ignores.

Update

Mr Doherty failed to publish many of the comments I know he received. That’s fine – his blog, his rules. He did however make another post on the subject which I’ll reproduce below:

When I posted yesterday about “Neurodiversity’s” attempts to downplay the existence of severely autistic persons I expected, and received, some heated comments although some were civil and on topic enough to post. But none of the comments that I received acknowledged a central reality that the Neurodiversity movement seems ashamed to admit – that there are many autistic persons in the world whoin fact are severely disabled, who are dangerous to themselves and who require 24/7 care and attendance to ensure their safety. I am still waiting for one of the Neurodiversity advocates to admit these truths – but I am not holding my breath while I wait.

The ugly truth is that many in the Neurodiversity movement seem ashamed to acknowledge the existence of severely autistic persons – like my son.

Here we see yet more Strawmen. Mr Doherty has shifted from specifics – as he was challenged on them and obviously had no response – back to generalities. He now states that the neurodiversity ‘movement’ fail to acknowledge a ‘central reality’ – that there are autistic people who:

a) are severely disabled
b) are dangerous to themselves
c) who require 24/7 care

He claims he is still waiting for one of the neurodiversity advocates to admit these truths, but (put on a lofty tone of voice) ‘I am not holding my breath while I wait’.

Several times in my blogging career I have mentioned my great uncle. He died some years ago. He was born before 1920 and I never met him. He was according to his sister-in-law, my grandmother, severely disabled and whilst he was not considered dangerous he was adjudged to need 24/7 care which he duly received. He was occasionally self-injurious and during those times he was, I suppose, a danger to himself.

As I say, this is not the first time I have mentioned my great uncle. If Mr Doherty spent as much time researching the stated facts regarding those he chooses to misrepresent as he does constructing logically weak arguments then we might do away with all this silliness.

Jeff Bradstreet deserts the sinking ship

12 Feb

Cast you mind back, dear Reader, to July last year when the RhoGAM ruling failed to find general or specific causation for thiomersal causing autism. That little episode has taken a heavy toll on the ‘expert witness’ status of both Mark Geier and Boyd Haley, both of whom were eviscerated by the presiding judge.

But, hey, at least they had the guts to stick around. Some people decide to do a runner at the first sign of trouble.

Enter Jeff Bradstreet, advocate of <a href="exorcism (yes, really) for treating autism.

In September of 2006, Bradstreet was the designated ‘expert witness’ in a case of Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. Skevofilax, the latter being a family that filed suit on the claim that:

…their minor son’s autism was caused by toxic levels of mercury contained in thimerosal, a preservative used in the vaccines.

This trial ended abruptly when:

After three amended scheduling orders and nearly eleven months of discovery, Respondents’ sole expert on specific causation withdrew from further participation in the case without ever having rendered his expert opinion.

There’s a lot of legal stuff going on in the background of this case regarding whether it was right to hold the Skevofilax’s responsible for the failure of the case. The first trial said it was, they appealed and the appeal judge supported this appeal and now this summary judgement has reversed the appeal.

However, what I’m really interested in is _why_ the ‘expert witness’ failed to materialise.

James Jeffrey Bradstreet, M.D., was designated to testify to specific causation, i.e., “that significant amounts of mercury to which the minor plaintiff was exposed, including bolus doses received as a result of vaccination, was a substantial factor in causing [Michael’s] current injuries and symptoms,” and further, “that the exposure to toxic levels of mercury within the vaccines [was] a substantial contributing factor to the minor Plaintiff’s ultimate injuries and symptoms.”

But what happened? Why did Bradstreet never testify?

On 26 October 2004, Respondents notified Petitioners, by letter, that “due to unforeseen circumstances [genomic profiling] test results critical to [Dr.] Bradstreet’s opinions” would be delayed up to sixty days. The relevant genomic susceptibility tests assertedly needed for Dr. Bradstreet’s expert medical opinion were being performed by a laboratory at the University of Arkansas. An affidavit completed by Dr. Bradstreet stated that an outbreak of leukemia in New Mexico caused the Arkansas lab ‘s director, Dr. Jill James, to be called out of town to consult on that outbreak, and that she would not be returning for several weeks. Drs. James and Bradstreet previously had collaborated on other projects. According to Dr. Bradstreet, he would be unable to formulate an expert medical opinion regarding causation specific to Michael’s injuries until the results of the genetic test results were received fro m Dr. James’ lab

Who else is rolling their eyes right now? Apparently, these ‘tests’ can only be performed by Jill James lab. And only by Jill James herself (I assume the other employees are useless?). There’s further no evidence to assume that these tests provide evedence of anything anyway and apparently the dog once ate his homework.

So, respondents and plaintiffs argued over a new schedule and a new schedule had to be enforced by the court in the end and Jeff Bradstreet was once again instructed to be made available for deposition, this time on 19 Nov 2005. Subjects at that deposition concerning Bradstreets role as an expert witness would include:

[a]ppropriate topics of inquiry for this deposition, [were to] include, but not be limited to, the nature and purpose of the GST [glutathione-S-transferase, a particular family of enzymes in the human genome] M1 [a particular gene which encodes the GST enzyme] polymorphism [i.e., difference or variation] test, the work that Dr. Brad street [had] performed to date in this action, his qualifications, his affidavit submitted in connection with Plaintiff ‘s Motion for Continuance, all of his opinions on the subject of general causation, and the results of those tests that Dr. Bradstreet [had] performed or directed to be performed and that [were] available as of the date of [the] initial discovery deposition.

In other words, a thorough examination of the man, his qualifications and the quality of his science.

But, the court decided if the results of his tests of unknown origin or efficacy that could only be performed by Jill James at Jill James lab ‘became available’ (snigger) then:

Dr. Bradstreet would be made available for additional discovery by no later than 14 January 2005 in order to explain how those results pertained to his expert opinion regarding specific causation.

And then (gasp!) the court received the following:

Counsel for Respondents informed the Circuit Court and opposing counsel, by letter dated 23 November 2004, that Dr. Bradstreet declined to participate further in the litigation. According to Respondents’ counsel, Dr. Bradstreet withdrew due to outside “professional and personal commitments and time constraints.

According to Bradstreet:

…the primary reason for his withdrawal was the impact the time commitment would have on his ability to spend time with his family.

So either he had no family before the start of proceedings or he forgot he had a family and then remembered or…oh hell, I don’t know…but strangely, Bradstreet was not to busy to speak at The Autism One conference in May 2005, or May 2006, or to attend and speak at a conference of the American Dietetic Assoc in October 2005.

I guess ‘too busy’ depends pretty much on how much money each gig pays and how often difficult questions are asked.

The end result for the Skevofilax’s?

Despite three amended scheduling orders, and approximately 11 months allotted to conduct discovery, Respondents failed to produce an expert who could testify to specific causation within a reason able degree of scientific certainty. Without such an expert, Respondents’ claims must fail as a matter of law.

Bradstreet hung them out to dry and they couldn’t find anyone else prepared to take on causation.

Thanks to A for the file :o) .

Reversal of Rett Symptoms

9 Feb

Reversal of Neurological Defects in a Mouse Model of Rett Syndrome.

Rett Syndrome is an ASD. My friend Kassiane has Rett Syndrome. I would bookmark her blog as I’m sure she will want to talk about this.

Yesterday, the news was published that claimed that symptoms of Rett Syndrome had been reversed in a mouse model of Rett. It seems like decent enough science and yet all the news reports I’ve seen are encouraging very worrying responses in some people.

First, lets go through the science at a level people like me can understand it.

Rett is ’caused’ due to mutations in the MECP2 gene. In simple terms what this paper described was the science team attempting to emulate Rett in mice and then turn on the MECP2 gene to see what happened. One of the things that happened was that in roughly half of the mice they did indeed reverse the symptoms of Rett.

This paper has made it into the Schafer Autism Report already. It is also being discussed on the Autism Yahoo Groups with a view to possibly extending these findings:

Is any one going to contact them in regard to our children’s symptoms?

Posted yesterday to the Autism-Mercury group.

What is worrying to me is two things. First is the applicability of this work to humans. One of my science guys whom I rely on to translate this kind of stuff said:

Simply put, this paper is good work, but it’s a headline job because it has no applicability to humans; this paper simply validated Zoghbi’s work.

That’s worrying enough but in a world inhabited by the likes of Rashid Buttar, the Geier’s and various others who leap from madness to madness in their frightening treatment regimes is the second and much more truly scary aspect of this paper that no one seems to be discussing.

I said above that in half of the mice Rett symptoms were indeed reversed. What about the other half?

….prior to symptom onset, revealed toxicity associated with abrupt Mecp2 reactivation as 9 out of 17 mice developed neurological symptoms and died….The data indicate that sudden widespread activation of the Mecp2 gene leads to either rapid death or complete phenotypic rescue.

This is quite literally, kill or cure.

I have a really horrible feeling that certain ‘doctors’ are going to be chasing this like a dog with a bone – already the Yahoo Groups are asking for details. No one is discussing this ‘detail’. A little bit of restraint is very much what’s required here.

UPDATE

Its begun already. Sallie Bernard posted a comment from Richard Deth on the Autism-Mercury group:

The just-published study shows “Rett syndrome” can be reversed in mice, lacking MeCP2, which binds to methylated DNA. Reversal was accomplished by turning on MeCP2 after symptoms (neurological and obesity) were fully developed. The important point is that an abnormal pattern of gene expression, due to interuption of the methylation-dependent epigenetic mechanism, can be reversed if the methylation-dependent epigenetic mechanism is brought back to normal.

The parallels for autism are clear. If impairments of methylation-dependent epigenetic regulation, caused by oxidative stress
rather than MECP2 deletion, can be reversed, then recovery can occur.

No mention of the rather important details that the reversal killed half the mice, instead just a comparison of this decent science with his own brand of poor science in order to lend it weight and credibility it doesn’t have,

Problems with prevalence

8 Feb

The ‘autism epidemic’ lives and dies on prevalence. The assumed prevalence in the US again came under the spotlight due to a CDC study being released that showed an increased rate of prevalence.

Autism is more common in the United States than anyone had estimated, affecting about one in every 150 children, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday.

Pfft – that’s nothing. Us Brits can post a recent prevalence estimate of one in every 100 children and as Joseph shows a 1% prevalence is not really anything new either. What _is_ new is that this new study from the CDC is slowly beginning to approach the prevalence rate of around 1% reported in the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden and, less strongly, Norway.

So when I say ‘increase in prevalence’ – and when these people refer to the same – are we all saying that the prevalence rate is actively increasing? No. No one (at least no one legitimate) is suggesting that there is an active increase in the amount of people who _are_ autistic. Rather the suggestion is that we continue to move (some countries faster than others) to an international autism prevalence of (as yet) some undiscovered figure, but one which is definitely over 1% where rates will probably plateau with minor tweaks up and down.

An interesting quote from the same interview:

“The older statistics always estimated 70 to 75 percent of kids with autism had cognitive impairment,” Rice said. “We found 33 to 62 percent.”

So, ask yourself, is this a cognitive impairment ‘anti-epidemic’? If you believe the changes in autism prevalence represent an epidemic, surely it must follow that these figures represent an ‘anti-epidemic’?

Or maybe, just maybe, this is an illustration of two things a) the changes in diagnostic criteria for autism as a whole and b) improved diagnosticians and diagnosing techniques.

As a further exercise and as I’ve been perseverating a tad on them of late, lets see what the changing face of prevalence can tell us about CDDS data as of 2005 (year end).

OK, as of 2005, the population of California was 36,132,147. The number of CDDS registrants as of 2005 was 29,424. This gives an autistic population in CA in 2005 of 0.08% according to CDDS.

We now have three potential prevalence rates to measure the accuracy of CDDS – do the CDDS numbers accurately match any of the three prevalence rates? Well, clearly the answer is no. At a rate of 1 in 166 (the ‘old’ prevalence rate) there should be an autistic population of 0.60% and using the ‘new’ 1 in 150 rate there should be an autistic population of 0.66% – and we already know that in Canada and parts of Europe the rate is 1%.

Let’s be clear here, CDDS is reporting between 8.1% and 13.5% (depending on the prevalence rate you go with) of all autism in California. That’s not so good. Especially when even _those_ figures have stopped supporting your hypothesis.

David Kirby/Arthur Allen Debate Part IV

4 Feb

There’s Something About California!

So says David Kirby in the second part of his look at CDDS numbers. Lest we forget, whilst the California numbers seemed to support the thiomersal hypothesis, there was _nothing_ unusual about California. Now they don’t, there apparently is.

Right.

So, Kirby says there are seven reasons why ‘there’s something about California’. The first one is fascinating:

Wow. That’s pure, unadulterated bull. Sorry to be so blunt but it is. Far from ‘phoning people up to see what they had in the fridge’, here’s what the minutes of the meeting in which this was raised actually said:

….N.I.P. estimated the amount of thimerosal in provider vaccine inventories in a survey conducted September 20, 2001 to February 20, 2002. The targets were a convenience sample of providers getting site visits from public health officials across the country. Inventory counts were done of all refrigerators for D.T.a.P., Hib, and hep B pediatric vaccines. The thimerosal classification was based on the lot number information, which was verified by the manufacturers. In September 2001, 225 sites were canvassed, and 447 by February 2002…..During the visits, the providers were surveyed about thimerosal-containing vaccines in their inventories. Of the 447 interviews, 83.5 percent reported no thimerosal-containing vaccines in stock at any time since October 2001.

So, no Mr Kirby no one ‘picked up the phone and asked – do you have any mercury in your refrigerator’. Site visits. Public health officials went out and counted. No one’s claiming its iron clad but its hardly throw away either.

But it is, however, nice to know what Kirby’s opinion on phone call based surveys are. I’ll remember that when Brad launches the fruits of his recent labour.

Kirby’s six other points are the same old same old about RhoGAM (not a vaccine and recently and recently trounced in court), Flu shots in mercury. Thats an odd one. Maybe someone could explain to me how a voluntary flu shot, given once a year that contains about a 1/8th of the thiomersal that vaccines used to can cause autism rates to go _up_ ?

What else? Oh yeah – immigration and population grew in CA and hey – maybe some of those durn immigrants got vaccinated twice? Cus – y’know – immigrants ain’t too smart at counting.

Then to add to the illogical fear of foreigners David ‘yellow peril’ Kirby brings out his piéce de resistance – Asian coal. Yeah. Damned Asians and their coal. Grrrrr. Sorry – what? Even if it is true, what the hell has it got to do with thiomersal?

Oh and he mentions that Aluminium might play some unspecified part in some unspecified way maybe.

Truly, in the annals of debating history, DK will go down as the ‘shuck and jive’ expert. When in doubt, change the subject, make up some stuff and show some cool looking graphs really, really quickly.

Rosie O’Donnell vs Evidence of Harm

4 Feb

I have to admit that before this whole thing kicked off, I didn’t really know who Rosie O’Donnell was (I do now so no need for explanations :o) ) and that my first real knowledge was David Kirby’s recent Huffington Post blog entry wherein he describes being invited to a show called The View that Ms O’Donnell presents….and how put out he was that the great DK did not actually end up being called upon to impart his wisdom:

During the breaks, however, I could hear women in the audience murmuring to each other: “But what causes it? Why so many children? What about mercury? How can I get more information?”

Yeah. I’ll bet.

My head spun as the show wrapped up. Had The View finally squelched Rosie O’Donnell? Did mercury trump Trump? Was this the heavy metal that dare not speak its name, at least on a network flush with Pharma ads?

Oho….from what I can gather, Ms O’Donnell is about as outspoken as you can get, even by American standards. Kirby thinks that she’s been ‘got at’ by the Pharma’s.

Over on the EoH Yahoo Group, opinions on Ms O’Donnell were changing from ‘I love Rosie’ to:

I used to be a Rosie Supporter but for some reason, she doesn’t really want to talk about Causation! Who is paying her!

Let’s be clear here. When someone who frequents the EoH group talks about ‘causation’ they really mean thiomersal. There’s a whole bunch of pissed off people here because Ms O’Donnell didn’t venerate David Kirby and wasn’t interested in the thiomersal issue. And why wasn’t she interested in the thiomersal issue?

Because its crap maybe?

No, couldn’t be that:

Too bad our kids are autistic and not gay….We could have show after show on anything we wanted.

I subsequently learned Ms O’Donnell is gay. How unnerving to discover John Best isn’t the only homophobe on EoH.

Ms O’Donnell also has a blog which the EoH members flocked to in an effort to wring ‘the truth’ (you know that evil Pharma had ‘gotten to’ her). The lovely Erik asked her:

Rosie, “The View” avoided any discussion of Autism’s causality, and only picks orgs as resources who have no interest in the thimerosal controversy. Why? Have you been pressured?

To which Ms O’Donnell answered, fairly unequivocally:

pressured? by who
listen
I ROSIE ODONNELL
chose not to do causation
ME

Over on Conspiracy theory Central EoH Roger asks:

Why do we think that the author of these messages is actually Rosie?

Woooo – scary! Good ol’ list Daddy, Lenny adds:

She has a pronounced style. It would not be so hard to do her.

So, here’s Ms O’Donnell not venerating at the feet of David Kirby – this must be a conspiracy. And here’s Ms O’Donnell having her blog authored by Shadowy Figures……I can almost feel the Black Helicopters taking off, can’t you?

In an amusing side issue, the Arthur Allen book, Vaccine was also being discussed on EoH and the members were taking extreme umbrage at being described as:

“much of the “antivaccinist” leadership is composed of countercultural types who view life through the prism of conspiracy
theory: the government lies, the drug companies are evil, the medical profession is corrupt; trust the Internet instead.”

Which characterisation was described as ‘grossly unfair’ by several EoH members. Yeah, how unfair to suggest people who accuse people of Big Pharma gaggings and ghost written blogs as being into conspiracies. How could they come to _that_ conclusion eh?

What’s the actual issue here? According to mainstream reports I’ve read it was a good program that focussed on awareness and adult services. Here’s the unvarnished take an awareness from EoH:

I am so tired of awareness. We are more than aware of autism. We are so over awareness. I understand that her friends children may be young and they are not as far along as we are.

and

I don’t give a shit if my neighbor is enlightened- I want my son to stop banging his head on the floor (my son doesn’t do that anymore- but just as an illustration)

Here are some other commenters from Ms O’Donnell’s blog. Lets hope EoH’ers can someday see why they are true:

You do a wonderful show on autism – whole show – compassionate – building awareness – yet you get critical letters – Look at what you DID do – some people are never happy. Thanks for not giving up.

Rosie – Everyone keeps coming after you for not speaking of causation on the autism show. No one is mentioning that thimerosal has been removed from shots, but autism diagnosis haven’t declined.

Have you read David Kirby recent blog? As a mom of a 5 year old son with autism I think you guys did a wonderful show. Let’s focus on the good

My nephew is severely AUTISTIC -doesn’t speak most of the time- HE HAS HAD NO SHOTS –

People don’t get it. On Autism. Awareness is about enlightening. Cause is looking for blame. Awareness is light and moving forward. Blame is being stuck.

As a health educator/parent of 2 boys with autism, I applaud you on NOT getting into the causes, as no-one is sure of the one or more ways children get autism, its important to understand their world.

Please people – get over it – it didn’t happen. Stop feeding money to quacks. Your kids are going to need a parent focussed on _them_ , not on their own needs to fuel a conspiracy theory because they are stuck in guilt and blame. Your kids are autistic. It wasn’t your fault. It wasn’t your doctors fault. It wasn’t Pharma’s fault. This is just they way life is.

Sacking Dr. Nick

2 Feb

Yesterday’s post on the CDDS numbers drew a response from JB Handley. Cool. However it seemed that he entirely missed the point of the post, either through misunderstanding or wilful choice. I’ll discuss this aspect of his commentary later, but for now, lets try and remove all ambiguity from the point of the CDDS post.

Poor Dr. Nick.I fondly imagined that using a well known quack would demonstrate the usefullness of CDDS for autism epidemiology as subtly as the dialogue in an Arnie movie demonstrates Arnie enjoys big guns. Sadly it seems that that optimism was misplaced as both commenter ‘666sigma’ and Brad showed they didn’t get it.

In one sentence, the previous post was made to illustrate the inability of CDDS data to show anything meaningful regarding the epidemiology of autism. Using CDDS I managed to ‘prove’ that the fastest growing cohort on CDDS was the 62 – 99 year olds.

I did this as for the last few years Brad, David Kirby and Rick Rollens have made a series of suggestions, proclamations and predictions regarding this data. All revolve around the central hypothesis of thiomersal containing vaccines causing autism. Lets look at what they’ve said.

In an interview with FAIR Autism Media, David Kirby said:

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.

So in 2005 David Kirby says CDDS should show a dropoff in numbers starting in 2005. 2005 came and went and guess what? No dropoff. He then claimed he’d never said that and instead said in an email to blogger Citizen Cain that:

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.

No explanation was given for this tacking on of two extra years.

And so, 2006 came and went and here we are in 2007 and guess what? Still no decline.

No explanation has been offered by David Kirby as to this. He is now claiming, in debates about vaccines, that enviornmental mercury from forest fires, crematoriums and China is partialy to blame.

Lets be clear on this – he might be right. But a) No data has been offered to support this hypthesis either and b) this has absolutely no bearing on the vaccine hypothesis.

David Kirby put forward a hypothesis that thiomersal containing vaccines cause autism and that using CDDS data we would see a decline in 2005. We didn’t. He then claimed he meant 2007. Again, we didn’t.

And what of Brad? IN an interview with the Times Union in July 2005, Brad said:

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

Just to reiterate, rates did not go down. They are still rising according to CDDS data.

And so we come to the crux of this issue. Do the mercury militia want to carry on using CDDS or not? If they do, then they need to explain why all of their predictions have so far failed to come true.

If they do not then they need to contradict Rick Rollens, who launched another epidemic-supporting missive yesterday. He says that there must be an epidemic because 78% of the CDDS autism population are under 18. Rollens claims this works out to approximately 14,000 ‘missing’ adult autistic people.

Mr Rollens reached these figures by using CDDS data. Amusingly, Brad quoted Mr Rollens in his comments yesterday and thus exposed the poor logic he utilises.

Which is true? Is there an epidemic of autism as shown by CDDS numbers? Or does thiomersal cause autism?

In the past, the ‘epidemic’ hypothesis supported the thiomersal hypothesis but as we have now passed three separate deadlines for a drop in numbers and as a drop in numbers fails to materialise (as evidenced by Mr Rollens) then these two hypothesis have now become competing rather than complimentary. You can’t have an ongoing epidemic and still say thiomersal causes autism. As I’ve discussed before, at an ACIP meeting in 2002 it was revealed that the total thiomersal containing vaccine (TCV) population was 1.9% as of Feb 2002.

So, on one hand we have virtually no TCV’s and on the other we have a steadily increasing amount of autistic people in CDDS across all cohorts.

The combination of this extreme paucity of TCV’s and Mr Rollens continued insistence we have an autism epidemic are thiomersal hypothesis killers.

But lets turn this whole thing around a minute. The point of yesterdays post was to illustrate that CDDS is not a good source of epidemiology. Why do I say that?

First we should note that Brad accused me of only saying this _after_ my post. As I said at the start of this one, I would’ve thought Dr. Nick guest blogging this would’ve been a bit of a giveaway, as would the title ‘manipulating CDDS’ but still….

I first recall mentioning the shortcomings of CDDS in Feb 2006. I can also recall Do’C, Joseph, Diva and Jon posting at various times between then and now about how poorly the mercury militia were using CDDS figures. And in fact, I can remember Brad being part of those debates too. He must’ve forgotten that.

So why are so many of us saying that CDDS is a poor source of data for autism epidemiology?

Well, mainly because thats what CDDS says themselves. There is a PDF on the front of the site with a warning against doing exactly what Rollens, Kirby and Handley have done/are doing. In April 2005 Autism Diva wrote to CDDS for clarification as to why this was. The following points emerged (bulleted – read the whole entry on Diva’s site for detail – quotes from a CDDS email to Diva)

1) Numbers reported do not represent all persons with developmental disabilities in the State of California
2) The numbers can not be used to report the incidence of autism
3) The number does not represent only individuals newly added (or new intakes) to the DDS system.
4) New intakes may be one component of the net value.
5) The difference in the number of persons reported with a given characteristic from one quarter to the next is simply a net value of the above factors
6) It is inaccurate to represent the change in the numbers reported from one quarter to the next as “new intakes”
7) In some cases the developmental disability recorded on an individual’s CDER may be changed to another type of developmental disability

Surely it must be clear to even the most opportunistic of armchair epidemiologists that using this data is _a bad idea_ ?

Diva has also provided further clarification as to the makeup of those autistic people in the CDDS system. It has long been an article of faith to the mercury militia that CDDS figures are good because they are made up _only_ of ‘full spectrum’ autism (classic, low functioning, whatever) and they use this to exclude Aspergers, High functioning etc. Here’s David Kirby:

…the Golden State, however, is said to operate the gold standard of autism epidemiology, having always tracked “full-blown” autism only, as defined by the DSM-IV manual. In other words, children with milder forms of the disorder, such as PDD and Apserger Syndrome, need not apply for services.

It seems that that just isn’t so:

The following was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities. It is a letter written by Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS). (Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004)…..The California Department of Developmental Services (April 2003) reports that the proportion of “higher functioning” children among the autism population has substantially increased and is on the rise, with a steady decline in the proportion of persons with autism who also have MR……To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in th epast, 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.

So not only are the mercury militia using bad source data, they are presenting it to back up a scenario that simply doesn’t exist.

But hang on here – what am I saying? Surely if I’m stating that CDDS data is no good for autism epidemiology then I must be giving more weight back to the thiomersal hypothesis? If the Rollens/CDDS supported epidemic now undermines the CDDS supported thiomersal hypothesis (which it does) then surely by undermining the epidemic I’m re-establishing the thiomersal hypothesis? Haven’t I and lots of others been using CDDS data to show that autism rates are still increasing even after 5 years plus of TCV removal?

No. What we were doing was saying, ‘OK, if you want to use this data then use it but be aware that we can show that the same data shows the serious flaws in the thiomersal theory.’ Personally, I don’t believe CDDS data shows anything one way or the other. That was the point of yesterdays post – if you can use CDDS data to show that the heaviest area of growth in the ‘epidemic’ is the 62 – 99 cohort then I think we can pretty much say anything.

However, what I _know_ is that its now been five years since thiomersal was removed from vaccines. If it was even a partly contributing causative agent to a rise in autism then we should’ve seen a massive fall in autism. This fall would’ve been absolutely unmissable.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →