Archive by Author

Wakefield Monkey Study Withdrawn by Editor

12 Feb

In case you missed it, Dr. Wakefield is a co-author on a series of studies vaccinating macaques. They have been touted as “blockbuster” studies, and also critiqued sharply.

With a hat-tip to KWombles for the information: The paper has been withdrawn

If you check the Neurotoxicology website, the paper now has “Withdrawn” added to the tile:

“WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight”

with the statement at the bottom:

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

Note to users: Withdrawn Articles in Press are proofs of articles which have been peer reviewed and initially accepted, but have since been withdrawn before being published in this journal. Reasons for withdrawal may be due to a decision by the author and/or editor, accidental duplication of an article elsewhere, or because the content contravenes the Elsevier publishing policy in some way. Withdrawn Articles in Press are only visible to users when following an external link, e.g., an end user following a PubMed or DOI link. Such Withdrawn Articles in Press are not searchable or otherwise available in ScienceDirect.

If you follow the link for the Elsevier policy on withdrawing papers, you will find these statements:

Article Withdrawal: Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like.

and

Article Withdrawal

Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors, may be “Withdrawn” from ScienceDirect. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the Elsevier Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal with a link to the current policy document.

Google Buzz – follow Left Brain Right Brain

12 Feb

If you’re a Google Buzz user you can now follow LBRB on our own dedicated Buzz account. Search for lbrainrbrain@googlemail.com and start following at your leisure 🙂

This accompanies our Twitter and Facebook accounts which you can use to follow us too.

Autism Science Foundation offering places at IMFAR 2010

11 Feb

Funds will enable parents and other stakeholders to attend the leading autism research conference and share what they’ve learned with the broader autism community.

The Autism Science Foundation today announced that is offering a limited number of grants to parents of children with autism and other stakeholders to support attendance at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR), to be held in Philadelphia, May 20-22, 2010. Awards of up to $1000 can be used to cover registration, travel, accommodations, meals and other directly related expenses, including childcare.

After the conference, grant recipients will be expected to share what they’ve learned with families in their local communities and/or online.

IMFAR is an annual scientific meeting, convened each spring, to promote, exchange and disseminate the latest scientific findings in autism research and to stimulate research progress in understanding the nature, causes, and treatments for autism spectrum disorders. IMFAR is the annual meeting of the International Society for Autism Research (INSAR).

“We are thrilled to be able to give back directly to the autism community in a research-focused way,” said Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation. “The award recipients will bring critical new research information to their communities, increasing the speed with which the latest data are shared with the broader autism community.”

“These scholarships are a wonderful opportunity to bring more stakeholders to the IMFAR and improve dissemination of the latest research findings presented at the conference,” said Dr. David Amaral, president of INSAR and director of research at the University of California at Davis M.I.N.D. Institute.

To apply, send a letter to grantsATautismsciencefoundationDOTorg describing why you want to attend IMFAR and, most importantly, explaining how you would share what you learn there with the broader autism community. Letters should be sent as Microsoft Word attachments of no more than 2 pages, 12-point type, “Arial” font, with standard margins. In the subject line please write: IMFAR Grant. Letters must be received by March 15, 2010. Recipients will be announced in April.

Anthony Cox published in PJ Online

11 Feb

Our very own Anthony Cox was published today in PJ Online (gateway to the world of pharmacy and medicines) concerning the MMR saga. I’ll copy and paste a key paragraph then urge you to go read the whole piece which is an excellent summation of events thus far.

In US court testimony in 2007, Chadwick stated that he had tested all the samples from Wakefield’s ASD children and found no MVV present. Wakefield was made aware of this before the publication of the 1998 paper, but saw fit not to draw attention to this negative finding that undermined his hypothesis.

Coming soon, the DSM-V. No more “PDD-NOS”, no more “Asperger”

11 Feb

Yes, a new version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is in the works. You’ve probably heard “DSM-IV” or read it a number of times. It is the manual used to describe the various “mental disorders” and the criteria for diagnosing them. (Pervasive Developmental Disorders or PDD’s are described there. These include Autistic Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS), Asperger Syndrome, Rett Syndrome and Childhood disintegrative disorder. If the proposed changes go into place, all that will be left is Autism Spectrum Disorder.

It isn’t that people with diagnoses of Asperger or PDD-NOS will no longer will no longer be recognized as having a diagnosis. It is just that the diagnosis name will be replaced with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Here is are the proposed DSM-V criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder (299.00)

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Must meet criteria 1, 2, and 3:

1. Clinically significant, persistent deficits in social communication and interactions, as manifest by all of the following:

a. Marked deficits in nonverbal and verbal communication used for social interaction:

b. Lack of social reciprocity;

c. Failure to develop and maintain peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

2. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least TWO of the following:

a. Stereotyped motor or verbal behaviors, or unusual sensory behaviors

b. Excessive adherence to routines and ritualized patterns of behavior

c. Restricted, fixated interests

3. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities)

Compare this to the DSM-IV criteria

299.00 Autistic Disorder

1. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3):
1. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction.
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity
2. Qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
3. Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least of one of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
2. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play.
3. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s disorder or childhood disintegrative disorder.

For a good discussion, there is an op-ed piece in the New York Times by Prof. Roy Richard Grinker. Prof. Grinker discusses about how the separate category of Asperger Syndrome really is not necessary in today’s culture. The reduced stigma attached to Autism makes it less helpful to have a separate name for “less severe” autism.

Professor Grinker was also interviewed for the United States’ National Public Radio. You can read or listen on their site.

Autistic Disorder, PDD-NOS, Asperger Syndrome and Childhood Disintigrative Disorder will all be a part of the new “Autism Spectrum Disorder”. Rett Syndrome will not be in the DSM-V at all.

One thing this will change is access to services–or possibly. For example, the State of California has “autism” as an eligibility category in the Department of Developmental Disabilities. This was put in place before the DSM-IV and the diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome was used. The state has interpreted the law to mean that only Autistic Disorder is a qualifying diagnosis, denying people with PDD-NOS and Asperger diagnoses unless they meet the criteria for the “other category”. This has put pressure to diagnose “Autistic Disorder” over PDD or AS.

Given the current budget crisis in the State of California, it isn’t as though having a diagnosis of “autism” is a key to great services anyway.

That all said, it will be interesting to hear the discussion of this change. One point that is interesting is the removal of the age 3 limit. Before, there had to be onset of symptoms before age 3. Now it is a more general statement: “Symptoms must be present in early childhood”. I find it interesting that the lack of imaginary play statement is gone as well.

The DSM is not a checklist. In the end, it will be the diagnostic instruments like the ADOS that will determine whether someone qualifies for a diagnosis. I wonder how they will modify these instruments? The “imaginary play” requirement seems to be in the ADOS as it stands now, with the birthday party section for example.

Maternal age affects autism development?

10 Feb

A new study that looked at a large birth cohort (almost 5 million participants) over a 10 year period has announced that maternal age is an indicator of developing autism with an approximately 50% higher risk for a woman in her forties than a woman in her twenties.

The researchers looked at the records for all births in California between Jan 1990 and Dec 1999. Cases of autism were identified from this cohort using the records from the Early Start Report (ESR) for children under three, and the Client Development and Evaluation Report (CDER) for children over three.

A diagnosis of autism was defined as either positive for Developmental Disabilities on the ESR, or an autism level of one a CDER record/ICD code for autistic disorder. After excluding children from multiple births and those with missing data there were 12,159 cases and 4,935,776 controls.

Thats an interesting autism rate of 0.2% which might indicate more than maternal age that ESR or CDER is not that good at catching autism diagnoses as its a very low rate compared to the US national 1%.

This paper also lacks strength when looking at confounding factors – admittedly a tricky proposition as we don’t know what causes autism – but it may be of interest that the confounding factors that they _did_ account for were mainly ethnocentric i.e. race, gender etc and that they found that yep – whites were mainly very well represented. It seems very likely therefore that of possibly more interest that maternal age might be that not enough efforts are being made by local authorities to go into non-white enclaves.

Stem Cell Therapy for Autism

10 Feb

There are many unproven therapies being used by alternative medicine practitioners on autistic kids. One newer “therapy” is the use of stem cells.

I have yet to see even a good explanation of why stem cells should work. Not even a fully thought out bad reason. And, yet, kids are being “treated” with stem cells.

For those who would like a rundown of stem cells, their use and the potential problems, I refer you to Promtheus’ A Photon In The Darkness blog and his post, Stem Cell Therapy for Autism.

Not to steal his thunder, but here is the part that I am having trouble getting out of my mind. A child was given multiple stem cell “treatments”. Later he developed recurring headaches. On testing…well, Prometheus says it:

In short, this lad had two separate brain and spinal cord tumours. Under the microscope, these tumours were not cancerous, but looked like disorganized neural tissue. When they were tested genetically, the tumours did not match the patient’s genetic markers. They were, in fact, from two separate donors.

Many alternative medical therapies appear to be basically harmless. Give a kid some extra vitamin, or change his/her diet. Stem cell therapy does not fall into that category. When a risk/benefit calculation is done, what can you say but there is significant risk and no discernible benefit.

Autism Science Foundation announces 2010 Doctoral Training Award Recipients

10 Feb

The Autism Science Foundation has awarded six student/mentor teams grants to further research.

The teams and projects are listed below:

Sarita Austin/Dr. Rhea Paul; Yale Child Study Center:
Enhancing Understanding and Use of Conversational Rules in School-Aged Speakers with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Karen Burner/Dr. Sara Jane Webb; University of Washington, Seattle:
Observational and Electrophysiological Assessments of Temperament in Infants at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorders

Rhonda Charles/Dr. Joseph Buxbaum; Mount Sinai School of Medicine:
A Preclinical Model for Determining the Role of AVPR1A in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Sarah Hannigen/Dr. Mark Strauss; University of Pittsburgh:
Defining High and Low Risk Expression of Emotion in Infants at Risk for Autism

Matthew Maenner/Dr. Maureen Durkin; University of Wisconsin, Madison:
Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Early Identification of ASD in the United States

Michael Sidorov/Dr. Mark Bear; MIT:
Investigation of Postnatal Drug Intervention’s Potential in Rescuing the Symptoms of Fragile X Syndrome in Adult Mice

The awards total $180,000.

Awards such as these serve a dual purpose. Yes, they get specific research projects support. More important in the long run is helping to recruit and keep good researchers studying autism.

Wakefield’s Lancet study is like cold fusion?

9 Feb

Hey, I didn’t say it. Mike Adams, “The Health Ranger”, out at NaturalNews.com said it in a blog post called, The Lancet retraction of vaccine autism paper condemned as Big Pharma conspiracy to discredit Dr. Wakefield.

I’ll do the geek stuff below, but let’s just say, Cold Fusion is synonymous with weak (or bad) science touted followed by a press conference that made claims which were amazing if true…but they weren’t.

For most of the world, comparing research to cold fusion is not a compliment. But NaturalNews.com doesn’t see it that way. After the announcement of Cold Fusion:

The conventional physics community went berserk. They attacked Fleischmann and Pons relentlessly, attempting to destroy their character and any scientific credibility they might have held. They paraded a gang of “hot fusion” scientists through the mainstream media, telling everyone it was “impossible” to create nuclear fusion at tabletop temperatures. Through a repetition of lies, they convinced the world that Fleischmann and Pons were frauds.

Yep. Just like Big Physics killed cold fusion, Big Pharma is out to kill the MMR/Autism link.

As I said recently, just when I think the Wakefield/MMR story can’t get stranger, it does.

For the geeks:

Fusion is the process where nuclei are, well, fused together to form the nuclei of new atoms. For example, one can fuse two duterium (hydrogen nuclei with a proton and a neutron) nuclei and get helium. People study fusion because it might give us a huge source of energy. Fusion reactors are big, expensive creations that raise the temperature of the nuclei very high, and have yet to become a viable energy source.

Cold fusion was an idea that under the right conditions, fusion could be induced near room temperature. Two of the researchers who “discovered” cold fusion held a large press conference and touted their study well beyond what their data could support.

Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas?

9 Feb

The Lancet is one of the medical community’s premier journals. As such, tetting a paper into such a journal is a big accomplishment for any medical researcher. When Dr. Andrew Wakefield chose to submit his 1998 study to The Lancet, it is likely he wanted to put it in as high a profile journal as possible. One can speculate how the Andrew Wakefield of 1998 would have viewed publishing his work in Medical Veritas, a newer journal which, well, is not generally highly regarded. Somehow, this observer thinks Dr. Wakefield would not have welcomed a suggestion to submit to Medical Veritas had it existed at the time.

Frequent readers to LeftBrainRightBrain, or most places autism is discussed for that matter, will know that Dr. Wakefield’s study has been retracted by the editors at The Lancet.

Frequent readers here may be also familiar with the magazine, Medical Veritas as it has been the home for a number of questionable autism/vaccine articles. If you aren’t familiar with Medical Veritas, let’s just say that Medical Veritas is not in the same league as the Lancet, to put it mildly.

Why bring these two very disparate journals into this blog post? Well, Medical Veritas has offered to republish Dr. Wakefield’s study:

So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.

Wow. What a strange move, and on so many fronts. The most obvious being–what sort of standards does Medical Veritas show when it is willing to publish a paper that has been found to be so fatally flawed? It is really hard to consider that this offer was serious. The Royal Free Hospital, Dr. Wakefield’s employer, assigned the copyright to his paper to The Lancet. The study, even retracted, likely remains the property of The Lancet. Also, it isn’t Dr. Wakefield’s right to decide for his coauthors whether to submit to another journal.

The strangeness goes on and on. Let me just pick out one more oddity of this offer by “the editors” of Medical Veritas. Dr. Wakefield is one of the editors. Yes, one read is that Dr. Wakefield has basically invited himself to reprint “his” paper in Medical Veritas.

Just when you thought the story of the Wakefied/Lancet paper couldn’t get stranger.