Archive by Author

autism epidemic science, autism vaccine science

27 Jan

Ex Derdrie Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology team leader Philip J. Landrigan is the latest scientist once associated with the debunked vaccine causation ideas to repudiate those ideas in a scientific journal.

Writing in Current Opinion in Pediatrics, Landrigan has published ‘what causes autism? Exploring the environmental contribution’ in which he explores what might be a plausible environmental causation. He also touches on genetics and the so-called ‘autism epidemic’.

Touching on genetics, he states:

Genetic and familial factors are unquestionably involved in causation of autism [4]. Families with multiple cases have been described. Autism has repeatedly been seen in sibs and twin pairs. Concordance in monozygotic twins is
reported to be as high as 70% [15], and, when the broader phenotype of autism is considered, concordance in monozygotic
twins approaches 90%. Concordance rates for autism in dizygotic twins appear no higher than among singleton siblings. Families with autistic children may contain members with ‘autistic traits’ such as social isolation or tendency toward repetitive behavior [13]. Autism occurs in a number of genetic conditions, among them Fragile X syndrome, Down syndrome, Cohen syndrome, Angelman syndrome [16] and Rett syndrome [17].

Regarding genetics as a whole Landrigan claims that autism can already be accounted for to the tune of between 7 – 8%. In an email to me he stated:

THE FRACTION OF AUTISM CASES THAT CAN RELIABLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO GENETIC CAUSES WILL CERTAINLY INCREASE AS MORE RESEARCH COMES IN

By how much though? No idea and Landrigan wouldn’t be drawn.

Regarding the ‘epidemic’ Landrigan states:

The reported increase in prevalence of autism has triggered vigorous debate as to whether the trend reflects a true increase in incidence, or is merely a consequence of expansion in the definition of ASD and greater awareness, improved diagnosis and better reporting [11]. This highly controversial question is not yet settled [14]. A
recent critical analysis concludes that increases in recognition, changed diagnostic criteria, and changing public
attitudes about autism have played a major role in catalyzing the upward trend in reported prevalence. This analysis observes, however, that the possibility of a true rise in incidence cannot be excluded [12].

Which should be – if one is truly interested in following the science so far – the correct conclusion. In other words, nobody really knows but the recent increases in recognition, changed diagnostic criteria and changing public attitudes (amongst other things) have played a major role.

In relation to vaccines, Landrigan states unequivocally that:

To address the issue, a series of studies was undertaken in the US, the UK, Europe and Japan. None of these studies have found any credible evidence for a link between vaccines and autism [12]…..Fear of autism does not justify failure to vaccinate children against life-threatening diseases [75].

In an email to me Landrigan stated:

IT WAS RESEARCH THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN DOZEN, HIGH-QUALITY NEGATIVE STUDIES OF THE ISSUE IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON…

I’m not sure it was research that needed to be done given the extremely tenuous hypotheses that began the various vaccine/autism strands but I agree that it is time to move on.

I was somewhat surprised at this paper as I had become used to seeing Landrigan’s name associated with those who believe vaccines cause autism and certainly his involvement with Derdrie Imus would indicate his belief in that set of ideas. It was a nice surprise to see that he was sticking to the science.

So what can we draw from this? First and foremost we have to say that a colleague of Derdrie Imus stating publicly that vaccines don’t cause autism is the biggest red flag so far that even the scientists who once gave credence to those ideas are moving away from them. Secondly we can say that althoough we cannot preclude the idea of a real actual increase, the major role in causing an increase in autism numbers still remains the combination of increased recognition, changed diagnostic criteria, changed public attitude, diagnostic substitution, more available locations for gaining a diagnosis and more doctors trained to give diagnoses. Lastly we can say that here is a toxicologist who acknowledges that there is a strong genetic component and that that component is likely to increase.

Pity for the Rankins

26 Jan

Its no secret that Wade and I were once pretty good internet pals. We regularly communicated despite our staunch opposition to the others beliefs regarding vaccines role in autism. That changed however as Wade sunk deeper and deeper into the bad science surrounding autism.

Wade and his wife Sym have recently been the subject of a piece by the Chicagoist following Wade’s open letter to the Trib. The Chicagoist reporter (one Mr Carlson) had obviously read both the Trib articles and Wade’s open letter before writing his own piece.

And now Wade has been obligated into writing yet another blog piece as it seems the Chicagoist has taken a similar line to the Trib. Wade says:

Reading through Mr. Carlson’s brief post gave me the distinct impression that somehow the meaning of our letter had gotten lost,

A brief digression. Wade and his family used to live in the South and were affected very badly by Hurricane Katrina. Once the dust had settled they decided to resettle in Chicago. Once there I learned they had become aquainted with the infamous Erik Nanstiel and David Ayoub, both hardcore believers of the vaccine causes autism idea. Not long after that Wade’s own beliefs on the subject hardened and it wasn’t difficult to see where this hardening of beliefs was being hardened from. I found it increasingly difficult to accept the things Wade was saying. An intellegent man, his new beliefs can be summed up in his opinion of Lupron and OSR.

…we have not, as yet, utilized either the Lupron protocol or OSR #1, both of which were the subjects of Tribune smear pieces. That is not to say, however, that those interventions may not be appropriate treatments in particular circumstances. On the contrary, we know families that these interventions have helped…

The old Wade would not have ever considered using these snake oil treatments. The old Wade would not have described the Trib articles as ‘smear pieces’. The old Wade wouldn’t have described knowing families who did use them and would have been much less credulous about their effectiveness.

SO, back to Wade’s statement that he believed the meaning of his open letter had been lost. It was lost, he’s right. It was totally lost on Carlson, it was totally lost on the commenters to the site and its totally lost to people like me. Not that I’m singling myself out for any special praise – thats kind of the point. I’m just an ordinary person with no special agenda and yet Wade’s point is totally lost on me and I very much suspect the vast majority of people who read Carlson’s piece or either of Wade’s long pieces on the subject. (Its hard to say which of the two points of the Somerset Maugham quote Wade utilises for his blog ‘Have common sense and … stick to the point’ that Wade has more strongly abandoned).

I miss the old Wade very much – a strong, principled and funny man, Wade has become just another sad foot soldier in Jenny McCarthy’s Bimbo Brigade alongside his fellow Chicago hardcore believers. His child is 10 years old and I doubt very much that xe is anywhere even approaching the level of ‘cure’ or ‘recovery’ that Wade has been promised by the various DAN doctors and new friends I have no doubt xe has been worked through. Wade’s tone in both of his blog pieces is a sad, tired sort of bewilderment – a bewilderment that the world just can’t see what he can apparently see. Sadly – pitifully – the viewpoint that he has adopted only means he’s going to become more bewildered.

OSR#1: Industrial chemical or autism treatment?

26 Jan

The Chicago Tribune has added another chapter to their ongoing series posing difficult questions to the autism alternative medical community. OSR#1: Industrial chemical or autism treatment?, by Trine Tsouderos demonstrates the very low standards the alt-med community is willing to accept, at least when it comes to “supplements”.

OSR#1 is being marketed as a supplement by Boyd Haley, retired professor of Chemistry from the University of Kentucky. The chemical used is a powerful chelator, which will come as no surprise to those familiar with Dr. Haley’s history as a proponent of the mercury causation theory in autism. However, “chelation” is not mentioned in the marketing for OSR#1.

Trine Tsudorous has a style I like. She asks very tough questions, points the spotlight on questionable practices and backs up her stories with quotes from experts in the field.

One of the biggest questions raised about OSR#1 is whether the appropriate safety testing has been performed. The marketing doesn’t mention that the chemical used is a chelator.

The company that makes the supplement, CTI Science, describes it as an antioxidant. But pharmacologist Dr. Arthur Grollman, director of the Laboratory for Chemical Biology at State University of New York at Stony Brook, said it is obvious from the product’s chemical structure that it is also a “powerful chelator,” a compound that binds to heavy metals such as mercury.

Note that CTI Science used to be called “Chelator Technologies, inc”. The chemical used in OSR#1 was invented (and patented) by a colleague of Dr. Haley’s at the University of Kentucky. According to the Tribune story, the original purpose of the chemical was to chelate “heavy metals from soil and acid mine drainage.”

Why would someone avoid calling a chelator a chelator? Especially in the autism alternative-medical community which has been led to believe that chelation is a valid treatment for autism? It appears that chelators are drugs and, as such, are subject to much more stringent and costly safety and efficacy testing than supplements. Dr. Haley is quoted as describing the chemical as “a food”. To my knowledge, this chemical is not found in nature and is not an extract from some food but, rather, a synthetic compound.

From the FAQ for OSR#1

Is OSR#1® a natural compound?

OSR#1® is a combination of two natural compounds that are non-toxic.

Perhaps I missed something–but either this is dodging the question or this is an admission that OSR is not a natural compound. However, either way the wording is carefully chosen.

Ms. Tsuderous brought in an expert on antioxidants for her story as w ell.

“I would worry a lot about giving anything to a small child that hasn’t been scrutinized for both safety and efficacy by the FDA,” said antioxidant expert Dr. L. Jackson Roberts, a pharmacologist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Which brings up the question, has the safety and efficacy been scrutinized by the FDA? From the Tribune story:

In January 2008 Haley changed the name of his company from Chelator Technologies Inc. to CTI Science Inc. Less than a month later, he notified the FDA he would be introducing the compound as a new dietary ingredient.

Federal law allows manufacturers of dietary supplements to market them without the rigorous testing for safety and efficacy the FDA requires of drugs. Developing, testing and bringing a drug to market can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, according to some studies.

But the law does require makers of supplements containing new dietary ingredients — such as OSR#1 — to establish that the product can be expected to be safe.

In June 2008, an FDA senior toxicologist sent a letter to Haley that questioned on what basis the product could be expected to be safe and could be considered a dietary ingredient. According to FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey, Haley has not responded to the request for more information.

DeLancey declined to discuss OSR#1 specifically, but she said the government prohibits companies from selling a product until the safety requirement is satisfied. Penalties can include warning letters, seizure of products or criminal prosecution. DeLancey said she did not know of any actions taken against Haley or his company.

Haley did not respond to questions from the Tribune about the FDA.

Well, Dr. Haley hasn’t responded to the request for more information. He could face…a warning letter. Sorry, that just summons up images of Michael Palin doing the “Spanish Inquisition” sketch from Monty Python. So far the FDA seems to have let this case slide for over a year, and should they focus attention on OSR#1 and find fault they might issue a “warning letter”? Has the FDA no teeth?

Some of the questions that arise in my mind reading this article are:

1) Is OSR#1 a chelator?
2) is it being marketed as an antioxidant/supplement to avoid the more costly and time consuming process of approving a drug?
3) is the level of safety testing OSR#1 has undergone appropriate?
4) are the customers for OSR#1 buying it as a chelator or as an antioxidant/supplement?

Let’s take a look at these questions

First, is OSR#1 a chelator? It appears the answer is a fairly clear Yes:

The company that makes the supplement, CTI Science, describes it as an antioxidant. But pharmacologist Dr. Arthur Grollman, director of the Laboratory for Chemical Biology at State University of New York at Stony Brook, said it is obvious from the product’s chemical structure that it is also a “powerful chelator,” a compound that binds to heavy metals such as mercury.

Second, is OSR#1 being marketed as an antioxidant/supplement to avoid the more costly and time consuming process of approving a drug? I don’t think we can tell the motivations of Dr. Haley or his company. However, the Tribune story seems to ask the same question:

In January 2008 Haley changed the name of his company from Chelator Technologies Inc. to CTI Science Inc. Less than a month later, he notified the FDA he would be introducing the compound as a new dietary ingredient.

Federal law allows manufacturers of dietary supplements to market them without the rigorous testing for safety and efficacy the FDA requires of drugs. Developing, testing and bringing a drug to market can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, according to some studies.

Third, is the level of safety testing appropriate? Again, the Tribune brings up the question of whether the FDA has had all its questions answered, even for the lower standard of a supplement.

While not directly on point as to the safety testing, two quotes from the Tribune story stick in my mind when it comes to safety/efficacy:

Ellen Silbergeld, an expert in environmental health and a researcher funded by the National Institutes of Health studying mercury and autism at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said she found the sale of the chemical as a supplement for children “appalling.”

and

“Treatment of autistic children with a potent chelator is potentially hazardous and offers no benefits,” Grollman said.

Lastly, I posed the question of whether the customers for OSR#1 are buying it as an “antioxidant/supplement” or as a chelator. Again, it is very difficult to ascribe motivations. However, I will point out that in over 400 comments to the Tribune piece, few (if any!) discuss OSR as an antioxidant. Instead there is much discussion of mercury. Rather odd discussion for something that is marketed “only as an antioxidant supplement”.

If you want more details than in the Tribune article, OSR was discussed by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity.com in three articles:

A Fine White Powder

The Industrial Treatment

and

An Inquiry Emerges

Kathleen Seidel is the blogger with the most thoroughly researched articles I have ever seen.

One of the complaints about Ms. Tsudorous’ previous articles, posed by those promoting alternative medical treatments for autism, is that she didn’t seek out “balance”. First, Ms. Tsudorous did enough hard legwork to support her stories without having to rely on pitting parent/advocate opinion on an equal footing with medical experts. Second, Ms. Tsudorous attempted to get comments from a prominent parent/advocate who had publicly touted OSR#1. The parent declined to let her opinion be heard.

The bottom line for this autism parent? OSR#1 doesn’t come close to being something I would give to my child, no matter whether you call it a supplement or a drug. First I side with Dr. Grollman (“Treatment of autistic children with a potent chelator is potentially hazardous and offers no benefits”). Second, what I have seen of the safety studies doesn’t meet my standards. That’s putting it lightly.

edit to add: the Tribune has posted some of the communications between the FDA and the company selling OSR#1:

Click to access 51678955.pdf

Autism Epidemic Talk Part II

25 Jan

Some more rumblings on the wider web regarding the autism ‘epidemic’ – I’m not allowed to carry on commenting at Harold’s (he allowed me one then when I further backed up my points he refused to allow those comments through. Amazing behaviour from someone who _invited_ me to take part in a dialogue!)

Take a closer look – always take a closer look – and what do we see from those convinced there is such a thing as an autism epidemic. We see opinion and we see personal anecdote. Much of it self fulfilling nonsense along the lines ‘before my Billy was diagnosed I didn’t know any autistic kids, now theres 20 just in his class!!!!’ or the classic ‘I asked my teacher/doctor/social worker/whatever and they said they’d never SEEN so many autistic people!’ Well…d’uh…of course not. Better diagnosis, increased ascertainment, more centres for diagnosis, more cultural awareness etc etc etc will lead to more people with a diagnosis. As would a real increase.

The bottom line for me is this: nobody knows if there’s a real autism ‘epidemic’ or not. Not in the strict epidemiological manner the word is used in. Why? Because really, despite all our bombast we (the entire autism and autistic community) know jack shit about autism from a perspective of how many autistic people thre are and what may cause fluctuations.

Take this story I found today which argues very persuasively that girls are not fully accounted for in autism epidemiology. Imagine that we take this too literally and hypothesise that autism is equally prevalent amongst girls as it is boys. The rate in the UK would shoot up to between 1.5 and 2% of the entire population. Would that have been a real increase? Of course not.

Beware of those people who will tell you with certainty that there is an autism epidemic. The truth is that there is no conclusive science either way. Until it is done *no one knows* .

Autistic Woman Raped in Broad Daylight

25 Jan

This is just a nightmare scenario in so many ways. Sexual abuse is just horrible in any form. Rape is just plain evil. I don’t think one can say any case is worse than another, but I can say that this case hurts me, a total stranger, very deeply.

An autistic woman was raped on a busy street in broad daylight.

I got the story from a google news alert pointing to this blog post, Autistic Woman Raped By Teen, No One Helps. It is worth reading the story, but I’ll pull one statement out, this from the victim:

“I’m ticked off because people were doing nothing. Just driving by. What kind of humans are we becoming?”

I wish I could talk more to this story, do more research. I just can’t right now. What a nightmare. I hope the victim gets the help she needs to heal as much as possible from this horrible trauma.

What are the charges against Dr. Wakefield?

25 Jan

The General Medical Counsel is set to publish their findings this week in the case of Doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch. With that deadline there is a lot of discussion going on about the GMC hearings. I see a lot of comments about how this is some sort of referendum on the research, which isn’t really the case. So, I thought I would (again) post the list of charges.

Below is a short version. I say short because the full version is 93 pages long.

The goal of the GMC is *not* to determine the scientific quality of the research. Rather, it is to determine whether the three doctors acted ethically in their treatment of their patients and whether they acted ethically in preparing the research report. It is a “fit to practice” determination. I.e. the question asked is whether these gentlemen “fit to practice” medicine in the UK, not whether their research was accurate or of high quality.

The focus of the inquiry on the ethical treatement of the patients is why you will find the phase “Your conduct as set out above was contrary to the clinical interests of Child X” repeatedly in the GMC charges.

To make this point clear, here is a section of the GMC statements

The GMC does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research.

The GMC hearing is not about whether the team led by Dr. Wakefield questioned the safety of MMR. It is about whether they acted in an ethical manner. The accusations are quite serious in nature. I count about 30 instances of the phrase “contrary to the clinical interests” in the GMC charges. I personally find those charges to be the most serious. Well beyond any questions of professional misconduct involving the research paper.

At this point, these are still charges. Many are listed as “admitted and found proved”, but those are mostly statements of recorded facts such as what procedures were performed on specific children and when.

With that in mind, here is a short version of the GMC’s description of the Fitness to Practice Panel’s effort:

Dr Andrew WAKEFIELD
Professor John WALKER-SMITH
Professor Simon MURCH

Fitness to Practise Panel

Planned dates: 4 – 29 January 2010
This session is expected to last 20 days.

Please note that the Panel is currently deliberating in private session until further notice.

The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at Regent’s Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN, to continue its inquiry into three new cases of conduct.

This case will be considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel applying the General Medical Council’s Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988.

Dr Andrew WAKEFIELD
GMC Reference number: 2733564
Professor John WALKER-SMITH GMC Reference number: 1700583
Professor Simon MURCH
GMC Reference number: 2540201

The GMC’s statutory purpose is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

We investigate complaints about individual doctors in order to establish whether their fitness to practise is impaired and whether to remove or restrict a doctor’s registration.

The GMC does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research.

The following is a summary only of the allegations which will be made before the Panel at the forthcoming hearing.

The Panel will inquire into allegations of serious professional misconduct by Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, in relation to the conduct of a research study involving young children from 1996-98.

Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, were at the relevant times employed by the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine with Honorary Clinical contracts at the Royal Free Hospital.

It is alleged that the three practitioners were named as Responsible Consultants on an application made to the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust (“the ethics committee”) in 1996 to undertake a research study involving children who suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms and a rare behavioural condition called disintegrative disorder. The title of the study was “A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative disorder following measles/rubella vaccination”.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that the three practitioners undertook research during the period 1996-98 without proper ethical approval, failed to conduct the research in accordance with the application submitted to the ethics committee, and failed to treat the children admitted into the study in accordance with the terms of the approval given by the ethics committee. For example, it will be alleged that some of the children did not qualify for the study on the basis of their behavioural symptoms.

It is further alleged that the three practitioners permitted a programme of investigations to be carried out on a number of children as part of the research study, some of which were not clinically indicated when the Ethics Committee had been assured that they were all clinically indicated. These investigations included colonoscopies and lumbar punctures. It is alleged that the performance of these investigations was contrary to the clinical interests of the children.

The research undertaken by the three practitioners was subsequently written up in a paper published in the Lancet in February 1998 entitled “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children” (“the Lancet paper”).

It is alleged that the three practitioners inaccurately stated in the Lancet paper that the investigations reported in it were approved by the ethics committee.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in failing to disclose in the Lancet paper the method by which they recruited patients for inclusion in the research which resulted in a misleading description of the patient population in the Lancet paper. It is further alleged that Dr Wakefield gave a dishonest description of the patient population to the Medical Research Council.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith administered a purportedly therapeutic substance to a child for experimental reasons prior to obtaining information about the safety of the substance. It is alleged that such actions were irresponsible and contrary to the clinical interests of the child.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield was involved in advising solicitors acting for persons alleged to have suffered harm by the administration of the MMR vaccine. It is alleged that Dr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to research funds obtained from the Legal Aid Board (“LAB”) was dishonest and misleading. It will be alleged that Dr Wakefield ought to have disclosed his funding from the LAB to the Ethics Committee but did not.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield ordered investigations on some children as part of the research carried out at the Royal Free Hospital from 1996-98 without the requisite paediatric qualifications to do so and in contravention of his Honorary Consultant appointment.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield failed to disclose his involvement in the MMR litigation, his receipt of funding from the LAB and his involvement in a Patent relating to a new vaccine to the Editor of the Lancet which was contrary to his duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield acted unethically and abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner by taking blood from children at a birthday party to use for research purposes without ethics committee approval, in an inappropriate social setting, and whilst offering financial inducement.

We cannot guarantee that all those wishing to attend the hearing will be able to do so, as seating is limited. If you plan to attend the hearing please email the GMC press office press@gmc-uk.org. In the event that we have to allocate seats those people who have notified the press office will be seated before others.
-Ends-

For further information please contact the Media Relations Office on 020 7189 5454, out of hours 020 7189 5444, fax 020 7189 5401, email press@gmc-uk.org, website http://www.gmc-uk.org.

The General Medical Council licenses doctors to practise medicine in the UK. Our purpose is summed up in the phrase: Regulating doctors, Ensuring Good Medical Practice.

The law gives us four main functions:
• keeping up-to-date registers of qualified doctors
• fostering good medical practice
• promoting high standards of medical education
• dealing firmly and fairly with doctors whose fitness to practise is in doubt

Brian Deer: Truth of the MMR vaccine scandal

24 Jan

The General Medical Counsel (GMC) hearings on doctors Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch are over and the decision is expected to be made public this week. Brian Deer, the reporter who broke the story exposing the possible misdeeds involved in the MMR-causes-autism research conducted at the Royal Free Hospital by Wakefield et al., has a story out in the Sunday Times:

Truth of the MMR vaccine scandal
After an epic misconduct hearing, the doctors who caused panic over the vaccine are about to learn their fate. A report on the greatest health scare of recent times

The story re-introduces the readers to the story of MMR scare and how it began. I suspect the real story will come out after the GMC decision is handed down and details from the patient records are discussed as in Brian Deer’s recent articles such as MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Mr. Deer faces a pretty major smear campaign from Dr. Wakefield’s supporters. I can only expect it to get worse after the decision is handed down–whatever that decision may be.

Another hit job from AoA

21 Jan

Vaccine rejectionists have long resorted to insulting and intimidating investigative reporters they can’t fool or charm, but the latest example kicks things up a notch. The fringe anti-science website AgeOfAutism has identified the sister of the Chicago Tribune reporter, in apparent retaliation for a scathing article about diet supplement entrepreneur Prof. Boyd Haley.

The AoA post reports that the sister of Tribune reporter Trine Tsouderos “worked for a company that did multi-center NIH-funded health studies.” An unholy alliance, according to the writer, between the newspaper, the NIH, and other sinister organizations, helps explain “the current Chicago Tribune obsession with autism treatments.” Still not getting the picture? Maybe this will help:

For those who do not know, there are many groups who have been fighting hard to suppress the fact that vaccines can cause autism.  They are people in the media, in public health, in medical organizations, in vaccine development and patents, in universities with autism gene chasing grants, in the public sector (NIH, CDC, AAP, et al) in the private sector, (pharmaceutical companies) and many in between.

Triple bank shot conspiracies are nothing new to the anti-vaccine crowd, and rejectionists have never been shy about naming names. What’s relatively new, and of no small concern to journalists, is the targeting of non-public inviduals – science writers and news reporters – and the unfounded allegations of corruption and professional malfeasance.

Alienating editors and reporters is an odd tactic for a special interest group that is paranoid about how it is portrayed in the nation’s media. Odder still when the group’s mission includes exposing children to dangerous infectious diseases – doesn’t it seem these people would want allies in the media? But here is AoA attacking veteran New York Times science writer Don McNeil in December, 2008, over a book review that was published a month later. The title of the post was Some New York Times Reporters are Just Ignorant:

He’s simply ignorant of this topic, and his preconceived notion that he understands what’s going on leads him down a certain path of who to trust and what to write. Did I succeed in changing his understanding? I doubt it. Expect a glowing review on False Prophets soon.

The same post refers to another science writer at the Grey Lady, Gardiner Harris, as “unquestionably the biggest jackass I have ever encountered.”

Vaccine rejectionists have dished out similar abuse to freelance writer Amy Wallace, and MSNBC medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman.

Why do anti-vaccine activists resort to attacking reporters?  Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who operates quackwatch.org, says, “I can’t speculate about motivation, but I can tell you that critics of  health misinformation and quackery are typically accused of being biased, close-minded, and/or having an economic motive.”

Time is running out for vaccine rejectionism, as the evidence, already plentiful, further mounts against a link between vaccines and autism. As more and more reporters get the story right, rejectionists are sure to step up their campaign of intimidation and innuendo.

Autism Epidemic Talk

20 Jan

A couple of slap dash blog pieces appeared today both on the same subject – the so called autism epidemic. First off is Harold who writes about a series of interviews with David Kirby. David says:

<blockquote>It’s crazy that in this debate, we’re still debating whether autism numbers are actually going up or not, which is insanity to me. It’s people desperately clinging to this belief that autism is genetic, that it’s always been with us at this rate, that we’re just better at counting it, better at diagnosing it.</blockquote>

Harold claims David has ‘hit the nail on the head’ with this quote. I disagree with Harold and I disagree with David. Its far from insanity to examine a perfectly valid hypothesis. More later.

Anne Dachel at the Age of Autism writes :

<blockquote>Why do I personally know so many young people with severe autism, whose symptoms can’t be ignored?  How could we have just ignored these people in the past?  Where are those misdiagnosed adults with classic autism—those with the same symptoms we see in so many children today?

I’m not talking about [Kristina] Chew’s autistic neighbor who was able to have a conversation with her, or [Paul] Offit’s people who are kind of ‘quirky.’  I mean adults who can’t talk, those in diapers, people who scream for hours and pound hours in walls and who constantly rock back and forth.</blockquote>

Dachel goes on to list several news reports which question the idea of there not being some kind of an epidemic. I disagree with her view and I disagree with the way she has reached her view.

Both Dachel and Harold (and David Kirby come to that) are claiming that epidemiology can be ursurped by individual experience – Dachel’s individual experience with ‘so many young people’ and David’s individual experience with the idea that people are desperately clinging on to some sort of belief in a genetic form of autism.

Now, casting aside the fact that the some of the forms of autism that we know about (Rett Syndrome etc) _are_ solely genetic we have to – as we do with _all_ forms of science, cast aside personal anecdote when making sweeping statements about a very large group of people. What we need to do instead is look at the science. So what does the science say?

Nothing. As far as I can see no firm case has been made that there either is or is not an autism epidemic. Why? Because the science hasn’t been done. It is maybe worth noting that it is the firm opinion of autism experts that a large part of any possible rise is due to:

a) Better diagnostic tools

b) More places at which to recieve a diagnosis

c) More awareness amongst clinicians of autism

d) Earlier diagnosis

e) Diagnostic substitution

f) Widening of diagnostic criteria

Experts such as Eric Fombonne, Roy Richard Grinker and Simon Baron-Cohen have all spoken about these ideas at length. However, that doesn’t make them right. There still seems to be no hard and fast science that says there is an autism epidemic or not.

The Tribune leads the way on autism coverage

19 Jan

The story sounds too lurid to be true – ignoring FDA regulations, a retired chemistry professor takes a chemical used to treat toxic waste,  and repackages it as a dietary supplement for disabled children. Welcome to the world of autism quackery.

The story in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune is the latest in a year-long investigation into America’s anti-vaccine movement, and its spin-off treatment industries. Last May the newspaper introduced us to <a href=”http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-autism-lupron-geiers-may21,0,983359.story”>a Maryland physician</a> who purports to treat autism with Lupron, a powerful castration drug also used to treat sex offenders. In November, reporters Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan showed how alternative practitioners <a href=”http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-autism-science-nov23,0,6519404,full.story”>misrepresent legitimate science</a>, and <a href=”http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-autism-treatments-nov22,0,7095563,full.story”>use phony lab results</a>, to push quack autism treatments. “There is a whole industry that preys on people’s fears of heavy metal poisoning,” said Dr. Carl R. Baum, director of the Center for Children’s Environmental Toxicology at Yale- New Haven Children’s Hospital, something that comes as no surprise to the nation’s 60,000 pediatricians.

The latest story introduces us to Prof. Boyd Haley, a retired former head of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky, and a micro-celebrity in the vaccine-rejection community. His wonder-drug, called OSR#1, was first formulated as an industrial chemical that separates heavy metals from polluted soil and mining drainage. Haley first repurposed the chemical as a chelating agent for treating autism, but when FDA approval was not forthcoming, he rebranded OSR as a nutritional supplement. Only one problem – the FDA says food supplements must be, uh, edible.

No wonder Haley runs from publicity he can’t control.

Federal law requires manufacturers to explain why a new dietary ingredient reasonably can be expected to be safe. The Food and Drug Administration told the Tribune that Haley had not submitted sufficient information.

In an interview, Haley said that the compound had been tested on rats and that a food safety study was conducted on 10 people. Asked to provide documentation of the studies, he stopped communicating with the Tribune.

Experts expressed dismay upon hearing children were consuming a chemical not evaluated in formal clinical trials for safety, as would be required for a drug prescribed by doctors.

Ellen Silbergeld, an expert in environmental health and a researcher funded by the National Institutes of Health studying mercury and autism at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said she found the sale of the chemical as a supplement for children “appalling.”

“I would worry a lot about giving anything to a small child that hasn’t been scrutinized for both safety and efficacy by the FDA,” said antioxidant expert Dr. L. Jackson Roberts, a pharmacologist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

The anti-vaccine movement has long relied on message control to convince parents that vaccines were more risky than the diseases they protect us against, and for too long credulous editors and reporters obliged with dutiful stenography and false balance. The Tribune’s coverage shows us that those days are numbered.

Cross-posted at AutismNewsBeat.com

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →