Archive by Author

Time Magazine picks up “I am Autism” protests

7 Nov

Time magazine has an article online today, ‘I Am Autism’: An Advocacy Video Sparks Protest. The article notes the protests staged in response to the I Am Autism video. (I have made my own position clear on the video Autism Speaks media campaign…I am autism, Why I don’t like “I am Autism”, I am autism video removed from Autism Speaks’ website…or is it?, The Autism Speaks bait and switch with I am Autism, and ASAN’s Letter in Response to Autism Speaks’ Exploitative Practices.)

Time starts out with the controversies in the autism communities:

Few medical conditions rival autism as a magnet for controversy. Practically everything about the disorder — its cause, its treatment, the way it is diagnosed, how it is studied — is subject to bitter dispute, sometimes to the point of death threats.

Time has comments from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network’s Ari Ne’eman.

Some autistic “self advocates” are furious over the tone of the video. “We don’t want to be portrayed as burdens or objects of fear and pity,” insists Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, a 15-chapter group he built while attending college at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “Apparently, should my parents divorce, it’s all my fault,” says Ne’eman, who received a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome, a relatively mild form of autism, at age 12.

Also, they quote Peter Bell of Autism Speaks:

“I Am Autism,” which turns hopeful about halfway through its 3 minutes and 44 seconds, was created for a World Focus on Autism event that coincided with the opening of the U.N. General Assembly in September. “It was never intended to have a life beyond that event,” Bell said.

Bell admitted that Autism Speaks does not have any individuals with autism currently serving on its board. “We are looking at adding individuals with autism to various advisory committees,” he said. The group is also initiating a better outreach to adults with autism.

I would welcome (to put it mildly) Autism Speaks getting some autistic representation in their organization. I think “advisory committees” sounds a bit weaker than the sort of representation I’d want to see, but it is a start.

As an aside, can someone explain this part of the article to me?

He notes that other disability groups have moved away from using fear and pity in their media campaigns. (See the best and worst Super Bowl commercials of 2009.)

OK…I’ll grant you that Super Bowl Commercials are not big on Pity and Fear, but it just doesn’t seem to fit the story.

Time has linked to protest videos “I am socks” and “I am Autism Speaks”

AoA Circulates H1N1 Hoax

6 Nov

On October 27, AoA posted an article titled “Without Vaccine, Australia Shrugs Off Swine Flu”, By David Burd. This article consists of a string of claims clearly at odds with reality:

“(Australia has) no vaccine available for H1N1 flu…”

The University of Queensland claimed to have manufactured the first litre of an H1N1 vaccine made in Australia on June 29, 2009. Large-scale immunization began on September 28.

“Australia recently ended its 2009 `Flu Season’ (their Winter in our Summer), with 186 flu-associated fatalities of 36,991 Aussies confirmed having H1N1.”

Australian authorities openly acknowledge that their “official” numbers are very incomplete. Many possible cases have gone unconfirmed, due to limited resources and the rapid accumulation of reports. It is possible that a significant number of deaths went intentionally unreported, to circumvent government rationing of antiviral drugs. In any event, H1N1 is presumably still spreading, as the number of officially acknowledged cases has continued to grow. On October 26, the day before Burd’s article was posted, a new report acknowledged 37,039 cases, 48 more than the Oct. 21 report which provided Burd’s figure.

“Canadian front page news on flu vaccinations has transfixed Canada health authorities, prompting official suspension of regular flu vaccination programs until further notice.”

What actually happened is that authorities in one province of Canada decided not to give the H1N1 vaccine to those over 65 H1N1 vaccine production and distribution has not stopped and may accelerate. A Canadian commenting on an earlier essay of mine has said, “The only temporary suspension that occurs is when we run out of vaccines…”

“This comes from a sweeping study of Canada by research Doctors Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre of Disease Control and Gaston De Serres of Laval University in Quebec concluding Canadians receiving flu vaccinations have twice the risk of coming down with the flu, compared to those who do not take the shot.”

The study in question did not claim that receiving an H1N1 vaccine increased the risk of H1N1 infection, which is almost certainly what Burd wishes to imply. Rather, it claimed that those who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 were at higher risk of catching H1N1 during the following year. Skowronski openly admitted that an actual causal relationship is open to debate.

“(On Oct. 4) U.S. doctors offered the opinion that the Canadian doctors’ flu vaccination study was certainly wrong and must have used flawed study parameters, though (they) admittedly could not identify anything specific.”

No later than September 26, CDC spokesman Joe Quimby stated, “(S)cientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not seen this effect in systems we have reviewed in the U.S.”

The most benign interpretation of this article is that Burd has credulously accepted a number of possible “urban legends”. I think there can be little doubt that modern “legends” are involved. I find the claim that H1N1 vaccination has been suspended in Canada, in particular, plausible as a “real” Canadian rumor. Bogus reports of current or impending changes in US government policies are a common type of “urban legend” in the US itself, and it is only to be expected that other nations would be subject to similar lore. But, such bogus reports often merge into hoaxes and scams. (A commonly aired suspicion is that individuals or groups create or promote legends about their enemies.) I am inclined to interpret Burd’s article (and AoA’s publication of it) as more in the vein of a hoax. Even if they more or less believe the story, it is hard to regard its posting as anything but cynical posturing.

Urban legends about H1N1 and its vaccines are already being noted, as in a chain email about a hospital supposedly warning staff not to be vaccinated. Such rumors can be recognized questioned promptly by looking for the following “clues”:

1. The report is more like a personal narrative than “news”, particularly in giving very specific details about people and events without specific dates, locations, etc.
2. The narrative, or a part thereof, is attributed to someone other than the immediate source or an acquaintance thereof (the infamous “friend of a friend” tale!)
3. The narrative features what I call a “phantom quote”: a sensational statement by a supposedly authoritative but unnamed or unfamiliar source.
4. Statements by named and familiar sources are not easily found or verified, for example being without a given broadcast or publication date, or especially being allegedly censored before wide distribution.
5. You have already heard a similar story with differences in key details.

By recognizing such clues, one can recognize a fundamentally suspicious story even before trying to verify it independently. Being on guard at first hearing may well be a better defense against the spread of disinformation than any amount of subsequent investigation.

David N. Brown is an AS adult living in Mesa, Arizona. He is author of the ebook The Urban legend of Vaccine-Caused Autism and several works of fiction, and creator of the autism website evilpossum.weebly.com.

Political abuse and the abuse of autism

5 Nov

“Political autism” has emerged again in a row within the European Union (EU). Despite taking Britain into the EEC (the forerunner of the EU) in 1973, the Conservatives have always been vulnerable to disputes between their pro-European wing and the euro-sceptics who are mistrustful of European federalism and keen to defend British independence. The Labour Party has comparable factions within its ranks.

Thus political leaders of both the main parties have always had to perform a tricky manoeuvre, demonstrating their European credentials to a business community that knows where its markets lie and appealing to an electorate, many of whom prefer to blame faceless European bureaucrats for all our ills. This has led to an inconsistent approach that causes exasperation amongst some of our European partners.

This came to a head again this week over the lack of commitment by the Conservative Party leadership to the European Union. According to the Guardian

Pierre Lellouche, France’s Europe minister, described as “pathetic” the Tories’ EU plans announced today, warning they would not succeed “for a minute”.

Giving vent to frustration across the EU, which has so far only been expressed in private, Lellouche – who said he was reflecting Nicolas Sarkozy’s “sadness and regret” – accused William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, of a “bizarre autism” in their discussions.

He said: “They have one line and they just repeat one line. It is a very bizarre sense of autism.”

This is not the first time autism has been used as a term of abuse in politics. But the National Autistic Society launched an immediate complaint

Autism (including Asperger syndrome) is a serious, lifelong and disabling condition. Comments such as those attributed to Pierre Lellouche, France’s Europe Minister, in which he seemingly suggests the Conservative Party, and in particular, William Hague, demonstrate a bizarre sense of autism are therefore extremely unhelpful.
To use the terms ‘autism’ and ‘autistic’ in a derogatory or flippant manner can cause deep distress and hurt to people affected by the condition. The National Autistic Society (NAS) is keen to address this issue, in order that these terms are not used lightly, particularly by commentators or people in positions of power or influence.
Autism is much more common than most people think and affects over half a million people in the UK. To use the terms as a criticism, for dramatic effect or to try and gain political advantage only perpetuates the confusion and misunderstanding which people with autism have to cope with everyday. This is simply unacceptable and must stop.

Today’s Times ran with the story of Monsieur Lellouche’s apology.

France’s Europe Minister has expressed his deep regret at causing offence by calling the Conservative Party “autistic”, but also blamed a mis-translation for the furore today.

Pierre Lellouche said that he was voicing his real concern about the Tories’ Eurosceptic slide under David Cameron when he reproached the party for “a very bizarre sense of autism” in an interview with The Guardian.

He also called their hostility to the European Union “pathetic” and said that the party’s policies in the European Parliament had “castrated” them. Aside from the political row, the remarks were condemned by autism advocacy groups.

However, although the minister said today his remarks were “clumsy”, he claimed that the term, which is colloquially used in French to refer to a stubborn person who does not listen, is a common term of political abuse in France.

Leaving politics aside, this derogatory use of autism reflects some very primitive and harmful ideas that still hold sway in France. Two years ago I wrote about an abusive “treatment” known as “packing” that is still going on today

“A French treatment for autistic children with psychiatric problems which involves wrapping the patient in cold, wet sheets from head to foot is undergoing a clinical trial for the first time, which critics hope will see an end to the controversial practice.

The treatment, known as “packing”, involves wrapping a child in wet, refrigerated sheets in order to produce a feeling of bodily limitation and holding, before psychiatrically trained staff talk to the child about their feelings. Critics have called the procedure cruel, unproven and potentially dangerous, but its proponents say they have seen results.”

This cruel treatment has been condemned by advocates for neurodiversity and proponents of biomedical cures alike. I have made my feelings regarding Lorene Amet’s position on vaccines and biomedical treatments perfectly clear here and, more recently, here. But I agree with her that Packing is barbaric.

It is time that the French medical and educational systems came to grips with the reality of today’s autism. Placing autistic children in hospitals, under psychiatric surveillance, refusing their inclusion in proper educational systems, refusing their access to medical examination
and treatments, violating their human rights and dignity, and even worse still allowing interventions such as “packing” to be conducted in hospital settings is unhelpful and has to be stopped.

According to the Times French autism organizations have welcomed the NAS response and are equally condemnatory of the casual use of autism as a term of political abuse in France.

French autism groups said that the affair demonstrated how offensive was the current use of the term in French public discourse.

Patrick Sadoun, a member of the Sesame Autism Association, said: “The English are right to be shocked. I congratulate a country that reacts to this. I am horrified that French politicians, at the slightest occasion, call one another autistic.”

While autism is an acceptable term of abuse autistic people continue to be the victims of unacceptable physical and psychological abuse.

This post is also available on Action for Autism.

Tags: , , ,

Bye bye Aspergers?

4 Nov

The recent article in the New York Times concerning the possibility of the ‘vanishing’ of Aspergers Syndrome from the next version of the DSM (due in 2012) only asks two people (Temple Grandin and Ari Ne’eman) for their opinions. Nothing wrong with that as such but I’d like to hear what the AS community at large thinks.

Temple thinks that the AS community is too large and too vocal to simply disappear but I think she’s missing the point somewhat. The point is (in my opinion) neatly encapsulated by Ari. He points out that AS isn’t disappearing, its simply formally becoming ‘part’ of autism. Something the vast majority of the autism and autistic community have always known it is. To answer Temple directly, the AS community isn’t disappearing, its just finally taking its rightful place alongside the others in the autism community.

NB: this post first erroneously stated Temple Grandin had an AS diagnosis. This is now corrected.

IACC to hold extra conference call on risk factors and prevention tomorrow

3 Nov

This notice just in from the IACC email list:

At the request of members of the IACC, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Scientific Workshop Panel 3 will be holding a conference call tomorrow from 12:00 – 1:00 PM ET, Wednesday, November 4, 2009 to discuss the updating of Question 3 of the 2009 IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research.

The agenda for the conference call will include a discussion of recommendations for line edit changes for Question 3 of the IACC Strategic Plan – “When Should I Be Concerned?” which addresses ASD risk factors and prevention. The draft line edits will be discussed at the November 10, 2009 meeting of the IACC full committee.

This phone call will be open to the public via conference call lines. Members of the public who call-in will be able to listen, but will not be heard.

To access the conference call dial:

USA/Canada Phone Number: 1-888-455-2920
Access code: 1050786

The latest information about the call can be found at: http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2009/iacc-scientific-workshop-conference-call-cont.shtml.

You received this announcement because you attended a previous meeting of the IACC or joined the IACC mailing list. We apologize for duplicate notices. For more information on this meeting, or the IACC, please visit http://iacc.hhs.gov/

The IACC also can now be found on Twitter (www.twitter.com/IACC_Autism).

Please note: Schedule subject to change.

Age of Autism: misquotes Story Landis…jumps to unsupported conclusion

2 Nov

When the Age of Autism reported on a note written by Story Landis, they added a word that dramatically colored what was said. I am left wondering why would AoA make such an clearly detectable misquote? Read on and you will see what I mean.

Take a look at the piece titled “Dr. Story Landis: Autism not a multi-symptom disease but a money making scheme?“. That whole “money making scheme” part is what got people riled up. But is it really supported by what was said?

Here’s a little screenshot of the Age of Autism blog post, if you don’t want to click through to their site:

Segment of post about Story Landis

Segment of post about Story Landis

I know this seems redundant, but here is what they quote Dr. Landis as saying:

“I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as a multi-symptom disorder in order to feed into vaccine injury awards.”

Emphasis added by me.

Why add emphasis, you might ask? Because “awards” is not in what Dr. Landis wrote in that first line. Go ahead and check. Here’s the note, as downloaded from the of the Age of Autism blog.

“I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as multisystem disorder to feed into vaccine injury?

It is the second line that mentions awards:

Would be a good justification for looking at vaccine injured kids who have gotten awards.

The insertion isn’t a simple mistake–it is made twice in the same blog post. Here is the second place the mistake was made:

How could Landis imply that families are “trying to make” autism into a total body disease in order “to feed into vaccine injury awards.”

Neither section in the “quotes” is accurate. “Trying to make” isn’t in what Dr. Landis wrote, and, as we have just seen, “feed into vaccine injury awards” isn’t either.

Without the word “awards” added the meaning that the Age of Autism blog post tries to convey, heck, the title of the blog post–that Dr. Landis was speculating that this was a “money making scheme”–is unsupported.

Let’s dive into this a bit deeper. David Kirby, blogger at the Age of Autism and at the Huffington post did a very strange thing. In his piece he gets the correct quote from the note, doesn’t mention the mistake made at the age of autism, but still pushes the Age of Autism interpretation:

To many parents, it seemed that Dr. Landis suspected Redwood of “pushing” the study of these multisystem problems merely to boost the number of autism cases filed in vaccine court (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program), and to increase their chances for victory. Judging by the comments on Age of Autism, those parents were profoundly offended by the implications of that interpretation.

I’m curious as to how Mr. Kirby came to the conclusion that Dr. Landis’ note was “merely to boost the number of autism cases filed in vaccine court” and “to increase their chances for victory”. Dr. Landis didn’t mention the court, the chances of victory…or even “awards” in the context that would support Mr. Kirby’s interpretation.

I’d be curious as to whether Mr. Kirby pointed out the mistakes to the Age of Autism blogger in question.

A casual observer might find it odd how Mr. Kirby corrected the quote and yet persisted in pushing (yes, I’ll use the term pushing) the interpretation based on the misquote. The same casual observer would find it especially odd, since Mr. Kirby was the one to publicly disclose Dr. Landis’ explanation of her comment:

The other part of my note addressed the fact that it is important for autism researchers to study the children who have been most profoundly affected by their response to vaccines. That in no way mitigates my sincere apology to the families who interpreted my note to be uncaring and disrespectful.

“The other part of my note” being “Would be a good justification for looking at vaccine injured kids who have gotten awards.”

If you can look at the quote fresh, consider this interpretation–the first sentence, “I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as multisystem disorder to feed into vaccine injury?” is discussing the if autism as a multisystem disorder would feed into the *idea* of autism as a vaccine injury. The assertion that her comment referred to vaccine injury “awards” is at best speculation and, at worst, a pretty clear misquote. I could speculate on the motives of the Age of Autism blogger, but haven’t we just seen how dangerous it is to speculate on motives with little information?

note: I made some small edits for clarity shortly after publishing this.

Evaluation of Immunization Rates and Safety Among Children with Inborn Errors of Metabolism

2 Nov

Ever since the Hannah Poling case became public, and especially give the way in which David Kirby has presented the case, there has been a question of whether vaccines can cause regressions in children with inborn errors of metabolism (mitochondrial disorders are a subset of these).

I discussed one very recent paper Fever Plus Mitochondrial Disease Could Be Risk Factors for Autistic Regression. Commenter and LBRB blogger Joseph made the very correct observation then:

I’d say it’s potentially interesting, but limited. In order to tell that something is a risk factor, you need a case-control study.

More specifically, can self-selection bias be discounted in this study?

It is encouraging to see that such studies into this question are being staged. Here is the abstract from a study presented 2009 Infectious Diseases Society of America titled, Evaluation of Immunization Rates and Safety Among Children with Inborn Errors of Metabolism.

Abstract

Background: Children with metabolic disorders are a potential high-risk group for vaccine-preventable diseases. Despite recommendations that they receive all routine immunizations, information regarding both immunization rates and safety data within this population is lacking.
Methods: Using Northern California Kaiser Permanente’s (NCKP) integrated electronic medical record, we identified children up to age 18 years who had an inborn error of metabolism (IEM) from 1990 to 2007. We assessed immunization rates among a subset of infants with IEM born at NCKP who were members until age 3 years matched to healthy infants (1:20), comparing both immunizations received by age 2 years and timing for receipt of vaccines. We next separately assessed for adverse events after immunization by using self-controlled analyses among all children up to age 18 years with an IEM who received at least 1 vaccine at any time, comparing emergency room visits and hospitalizations during post-vaccine days 0-30 to post-vaccine days 31-60.
Results: We identified 79 infants with IEM who were born and remained a member of NCKP at age 3 years. Compared to 1580 matched controls, there was no difference in the proportion of children with IEM up to date for vaccines at 2 years, nor was there any delayed receipt of recommended vaccines during the first year. We also preliminarily identified 322 children with IEM who received any vaccine. Preliminary analysis in this group did not detect an increase in emergency room visits [rate ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60, 1.14] or hospitalizations (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.4) during the 30 days after vaccination compared to post-vaccine days 31-60.
Conclusion: Children with metabolic diseases in this cohort were vaccinated at rates comparable to healthy children. Although sample size is a limitation, preliminary evidence does not suggest an association between vaccination and an increased risk for serious adverse events.

Emphasis added.

A news story on the subject quoted the session chair where the study was presented:

“These findings are very reassuring,” said Larry Pickering, MD, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, who moderated the session at which the study was presented.

“Most of us who take care of kids with inborn errors of metabolism think vaccination is one of the best interventions we can offer them,” he said. “They are at increased risk for devastating complications, even death, from the diseases that the vaccines prevent.”

This is reassuring. Preliminary, yes. I can already see the criticisms, both legitimate and otherwise, that will be levied against this study. but potentially very reassuring. Vaccines are one of the front line interventions in protecting people with mitochondrial disorders.

Let’s see if I can predict the criticisms:

1) not peer reviewed
2) many authors received grant money from vaccine manufacturers.
3) the sample size is small (79 infants)
4) the number of infants with mitochondrial disorders is even smaller (7)
5) it would be good to see a comparison of hospitalizations in the months previous to immunizations (if possible)
6) the time spanned by the study covers a large change in the immunization schedule. The sample size of infants immunized in the current schedule is likely to be rather small.

The sample size is small, but it would be interesting to see if the prevalence of metabolic disorders has increased over this time span. But, as autism has shown us, the correlation=causation arguments can be shaky at best.

Why don’t the so-called “vaccine safety” orgs talk about vaccine safety?

30 Oct

I really do plan to get back to real autism related subjects. I do. This subject just came up yesterday and it really bugs me so I decided to write something quick.

One of the most common statements from the groups (Generation Rescue, Think About Curing Autism (TACA), the National Autism Association, SafeMinds….) who promote the vaccines-caused-autism-epidemic idea is that they are “vaccine safety” groups, not “anti-vaccine”. The self-named “National Vaccine Information Center” is, I would think, supposed to have vaccine information.

One vaccine these groups love to hate is Rotateq, a vaccine against rotavirus infection. Why? Because it was invented by a team including Dr. Paul Offit, who just so happens to be one of the most vocal critics of the vaccine-caused-autism-epidemic.

Take, for example, this comment by SafeMinds member, and Age Of Autism blogger Mark Blaxill:

“Paul has saved hundreds of thousands of lives (granted mostly in underdeveloped countries, but rotovirus still kills a small few in the US).”

That’s quite an extravagant assertion, and almost certainly false. What evidence do you have that Rotateq (Offit’s invention) has been adminstered in sufficient quantities to prevent death in developing countries from complications of diarrhea? Rotateq is deployed in only one country besides the US. Here in the US we know Rotateq (and Rotashield before it) has CAUSED death and have little information that it has prevented any.

The consistent hyping of the benefits of marginally beneficial vaccines is one of the most disturbing features of a vaccine development industry run amok. Rotateq is perhaps the most egregious example of a vaccine product that provides next to zero benefit in the markets in which it has been deployed.

Let me be clear. In the markets in which it might have value, Rotateq is far too expensive to be widely deployed and is therefore rarely used. In the markets in which it is not needed, it is mandated at high prices and used widely with little benefit and documented (and almost certainly underestimated) serious risk. Those mandates and high prices are justified by a marketing non sequitor that Josh perpetuates here: pointing to deaths outside the geography in question as justification for a vaccine blockbuster that can have no impact whatever on those deaths.

Orwell never dreamed of doublespeak as bad as this.

What made this comment stick in my mind is the unsupported claim that Rotateq “CAUSED” death (nice use of all caps, there, by the way).

I am also drawn to the common belief (not directly expressed in the above quote) that there is no or only minimal safety research done.

This week, the CDC put out an MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) on the effects of Rotateq. The cliniical trial showed that Rotateq works. The surveillance shows Rotateq works–the number of submitted samples that tested postive went down after Rotateq was introduced.

The big point I’d like to bring to light was a recent talk given at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting. They are monitoring intussusception in children given Rotateq. Intussusception is an intestinal problem, potentially fatal, that was linked to the previous rotavirus vaccine. It is why that vaccine, Rotashield, was pulled from the market. As such, it is good an proper that they monitor intussusception with Rotateq.

The results?

Results provide no evidence that RotaTeq®receipt is associated with an increased risk for IS [intussusception] 1-30 days or 1-7 days following vaccination.

Typically those trying to claim that Rotateq is dangerous use the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Any event reported to VAERS is taken to be caused by the vaccine. VAERS is a “passive” system. People report into VAERS and no one checks that the diagnoses are accurate. Also, intussusception happens even without vaccines. So you really can’t take every VAERS report as a causal event–i.e. just because someone reports to VAERS that a child had intussusception sometime after Rotateq, that doesn’t mean Rotateq caused it.

Do I expect people like Mr. Blaxill to stop claiming that Rotateq is dangerous? No. But I put this out there to take away any last shred of “plausible deniability”. They, the self-styled “vaccine safety” groups, don’t report on actual vaccine safety studies. That doesn’t mean they don’t read them and know about them.

IACC meeting November 10

29 Oct

The following is an announcement from the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC)

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) will be holding a Full Committee Meeting on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 from 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM ET at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, in Rockville, MD.

The agenda for the meeting will include a discussion of recommendations for the annual update of the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research.

The meeting will be open to the public and pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be available on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered. Online pre-registration will be available. Please visit the IACC website for pre-registration information: http://www.iacc.hhs.gov/events/2009/full-committee-mtg-announcement-November10.shtml.

The meeting will be remotely accessible by videocast and conference call.

To access the conference call dial:

USA/Canada Phone Number: 888-577-8995
Access code: 1991506

Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting, but will not be heard.

The latest information about the meeting, including videocast information and online registration can be found at: http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/.

You received this announcement because you attended a previous meeting of the IACC or joined the IACC mailing list. We apologize for duplicate notices. For more information on this meeting, or the IACC, please visit http://iacc.hhs.gov/

The IACC also can now be found on Twitter (www.twitter.com/IACC_Autism).

Please note: Schedule subject to change.

You can call in for whatever amount of time you have available. Get the information firsthand.

Amy Wallace discusses the responses she got to the WIRED article

28 Oct

A recent article in WIRED magazine took a close look at the vaccine/autism discussion. I discussed it briefly in a previous post. The article took a very science-oriented stance which, you can imagine, did not please the vaccines-cause-autism organizations.

For example, the “vaccines-cause-autism” organizations are listed by WIRED as “anti-vaccine” organizations.

The WIRED piece has caused a stir, even outside of the autism communities. Ms. Wallace’s piece has been noticed by Time Magazine, MinnPost.com, and The Atlantic. Oh, and some of the “anti-vaccine” orgs blogged about it too.

Not surprisingly the author of that piece, Ms. Amy Wallace, received a lot of responses to her article. In an interesting move, she has discussed many of the responses on Twitter. These have been compiled on the “bastard sheep” blog.

In addition to the WIRED article getting noticed, the responses are getting noticed. The Terra Sigillata blog has a piece up. The LA Times LA Observed has a piece on their blog.

Let’s take a closer look at the responses. She got about 250 so far, with about 3:1 in favor of the article. Some of the responses from her twitter feed: Some responses, like the one noted in Terra Sigillata, were quite harsh. Here are a couple:

I’ve been told I’ll think differently “if you live to grow up.” I’ve been warned that “this article will haunt you for a long time.”

“If she lives to grow up”? Pretty clear threat there.

She has every right to complain. Instead Ms. Wallace has reported on these comments, but for the most part she hasn’t added commentary. This hasn’t stopped her detractors from calling her a “cry baby”.

I’ve been called stupid, greedy, a whore, a prostitute, and a “fking lib.” I’ve been called the author of “heinous tripe.”

This is one view the outside world is getting of the autism communities. Does anyone think this is helping? OK, there are the small minority. So, to be more precise, does anyone reasonable disagree with the idea that this hurts the autism communities?

Here are some more comments she received that focus more on the autism communites:

In his book, Autism’s False Prophets, Dr. Offit writes about scientists who have been intimidated into staying silent about autism/vaccines. If scientists – who are armed with facts and trained to interpret them – are afraid, can it be any surprise that a lot of parents are, too?

No, it isn’t a surprise. Sad, yes. Surprise, no.

One persistent theme in their emails is the idea that vaccination policies abridge our civil rights. As one reader put it, “Me and mine are not a herd. Human beings are capable and entitled to decide for themselves what to put in our bodies.” Another mom wrote, “The PARENT knows their child more than anyone in the world. The PARENTS, Ms. Wallace, NOT Mr. Offit.” Another said, “I have a Son that needs Me – not another needle.”

To which Ms. Wallace responded rather well:

This idea – which we discuss in the Wired story – is powerful: that parents, not medical experts, should be the ultimate authority on their children’s health. To which I say, with all due respect, and as a parent myself: loving your child doesn’t make you an expert. It makes you a devoted parent.

Ms. Wallace goes on to state:

The dominant emotion in even the angriest emails to me is despair. Forget the vitriol, the slurs, the insults. The despair is what I find truly painful to read.

Which she follows with this comment from a parent:

“Those of us with autistic children are really sick of you know-it-alls,” one mom wrote me. Then she delivered the best description of what a loving parent wishes for their child that I have received so far. “I want my daughter to feel like a ‘typical’ child,” she wrote. “I want her to experience ONE day of no GI pain or headaches. I want my daughter to be able to gain weight and be able to have enough energy to play on the playground with her friends. So, in between therapies, doctors’ appointments, crying, diarrhea, no friends, trouble with school, countless vitamins to keep her tiny body going and being near bankrupt, you think I want to be in this fight?”

Ms. Wallace responds:

No, I don’t think she wants to be in that fight. Who would? Autism can be truly devastating to families. There is no debate about that. Which is why – as so many parents have said — every available research dollar should be aimed at finding the causes of the disorder

Leaving aside the discussion of whether autism is a medical condition for the moment (although I expect and welcome comments on this):

With all due respect, here Ms. Wallace made a common mistake in equating understanding causation with progress towards therapies. Ms. Wallace seems to have bought into the assumption that if we know the causes, we will automatically know treatments. Well, yes and no. Yes, understanding causation may help in many cases. At the same time, in many cases it likely will not.

Take, for example, the idea that autism is vaccine injury. The alternative medical community already assumes autism is a vaccine injury. They already claim to be treating autism as vaccine injury. Do they have a “cure”? No. Do they even have any proven therapies? No. For that matter, are any of their therapies really based on treating vaccine injury, as they claim? No. As a simple example: can anyone point to a truly innovative therapy that Andrew Wakefield (father of the MMR-causes-autism theory) has developed?

Consider HBOT (Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy). Can anyone give a clear explanation how that ties into vaccine injury? The closest “therapy” based on vaccine injury proposed so far is chelation. The removal of mercury from a body supposedly mercury poisoned from vaccines. The latest study, from their own researchers mind you, shows it is as effective as a placebo. Which is a nice way of saying: chelation doesn’t work.

I am not saying that causation research is useless. Far from it. However, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce the medical therapies many parents are searching for to treat their children.

I’ve gone off track from reporting the responses Ms. Wallace received to her piece. I’ve probably also sidetracked the discussion that will happen here.

Today Ms. Wallace added some comments she has received from autistics.

n the past week or so, I’ve heard from several people who said they were on the autism spectrum. They all said they enjoyed the article. What they don’t enjoy, however, is hearing themselves described as people that no one wants to be.

I’ll end with one comment out of those tweets:

“I have Autism. But: I am a person, not a problem. I am an asset, not a subject. I’m not a lab mouse, I am human.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →