Archive | Advocacy RSS feed for this section

Association Between Autism and Environmental Mercury Exposure Disappears Once Population Density is Controlled for

2 May

california-pollution-autism-analysis

[Correction 5/4/2008: Please see this comment. The trends and conclusions don’t change. The scatter of the graphs is not affected in a way that is noticeable, but the Y ranges do change. The adjustment formula also changes. See the corrected spreadsheet for details.]

This is a critique of Palmer et al. (2008), a recent study claiming to associate the administrative prevalence of autism in Texas school districts and proximity to coal-fired power plants, as well as mercury emissions. Normally I would just point out the likely problems of the paper, but this time I will go further and test a key hypothesis of my critique using California data in a way that is straightforward enough for readers to verify.

Background

Palmer et al. (2008) is not the first study of its kind. Palmer et al. (2006) claimed to document that “for each 1000 lb of environmentally released mercury, there was a 43% increase in the rate of special education services and a 61% increase in the rate of autism.” The more recent paper by Palmer et al. does not result in such remarkable estimates, considering its finding that “for every 1,000 pounds of release in 1998, there is a corresponding 2.6 percent increase in 2002 autism rates.”

Windham et al. (2006) is a case-control study done in the San Francisco Bay Area which claims to associate autism with emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).

Then we also have Waldman et al. (2007), which I consider a study of the same type, except it associates autism with precipitation (as a proxy of television exposure) instead of environmental pollution.

My primary criticism of these types of studies is that they are attempting to find a cause for an epidemiological phenomenon that could very well not require an environmental explanation. That is, administrative data (special education data in particular) is not equipped to tell us if there are real differences in the prevalence of autism from one region to the next. No screening has ever demonstrated that substantial differences in administrative prevalence between regions are not simply diagnostic differences.

That said, the studies have been done, and they have found statistical associations. This usually means they either found a real effect or they have failed to properly control for some confound.

As I have noted repeatedly over the last couple of years, the glaring confound that most likely mediates these types of associations is urbanicity. The association between urbanicity and autism was documented even before these studies were carried out. It is plausibly explained by a greater availability of autism specialists in urban areas and by greater awareness in the part of parents who live in cities.

Palmer et al. (2008) does control for urbanicity, which might be one of several reasons why its findings are underwhelming compared to those of Palmer et al. (2006).

Is the control for urbanicity in Palmer et al. (2008) adequate?

There are two main problems with the control for urbanicity, described in the paper as follows.

Urbanicity. Eight separate demographically defined school district regions were used in the analysis as defined by the TEA: (1) Major urban districts and other central cities (2) Major suburban districts and other central city suburbs (5) Non-metropolitan and rural school districts In the current analysis, dummy variables were included in the analysis coding Urban (dummy variable 1, and Suburban (dummy variable2), contrasted with non-metro and rural districts which were the referent group. Details and specific definitions of urbanicity categories can be obtained at the TEA website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/data.html

.

1. It is too discrete. Within the set of urban districts, some districts will be more urban than others. The same is true of rural districts. Palmer et al. (2008) is effectively using a stratification method to control for urbanicity, but this method is limited, especially considering the paper looks at 1,040 school districts. A better methodology would be to use population density as a variable.

2. Modeling for distance. The paper models autism rates based on distance to coal-fired power plants. It follows that a control variable should model distance to urban areas rather than urbanicity of each district. Granted, this would not be easy because, as noted, urbanicity is not a discrete measure. But it needs to be noted as a significant limitation of the analysis. Consider school districts in areas designated as “rural” that are close to areas designated as “urban.” Such proximity would presumably provide access to a greater availability of autism specialists than would otherwise be the case.

California Analysis

This time around I thought it would be a good idea to run some actual numbers in order to test this population density confound hypothesis that up to this point has been simply theoretical. I will use county-level data from the state of California, which was fairly easy to obtain on short notice. The data used is the following.

  • Special education autism caseload data at the county level for 2005 was obtained from a California resident who had requested it from the California Department of Education.
  • County population and density data for 2006 was obtained from counties.org.
  • Atmospheric mercury concentration data was obtained from the EPA’s 1996 National Air Toxics Assessment Exposure and Risk Data for 2006.
  • All of the raw data, intermediate data, formulas, and resulting charts can be found in this spreadsheet which I am making available for readers to verify and tweak as needed.

Population Density vs. Autism

Autism prevalence was calculated by dividing the special education autism caseload of each county by its population (Column G). This is not a precise determination, of course, but it should not affect the analysis. In any given California county, the population under 18 is roughly a fifth of the total population of the county.

A first attempt at modeling population density vs. autism prevalence (Chart A) suggested the relationship was logarithmic. So I modeled log(population density) vs. autism prevalence, which resulted in the clear correlation you see in Figure 1 (Chart B).

Pop. Density vs. Autism Prevalence

Figure 1: Pop. Density vs. Autism Prevalence

–

This is as expected. You will note, however, there is one significant outlier in the lower-right quadrant. That is San Francisco county. Presumably, because of its peculiar geographic characteristics, its population density is the highest in the state. Nevertheless, San Francisco is an important data point since it is a significant urban area which happens to have a relatively low special education prevalence of autism. Let’s leave it in and see how it affects things.

I will use a simple standardization method of adjustment for population density. Basically, I will standardize autism prevalence in each county, such that population density is no longer a factor. Think of it this way. If the population density of each county grew such that its log were now about 3.5, how would we expect autism prevalence to be affected? The following formula is what I came up with.

Adjusted(Y) = Y + 7 – 1.93 * X

The fact that the adjusted prevalence (Column H) is not dependent on population density can be verified graphically (Chart C). Readers can click back and forth between Chart B and Chart C to better understand the effect of the adjustment. I will come back to this adjusted prevalence.

Mercury Exposure Concentration vs. Autism

I obtained atmospheric mercury exposure concentrations for each county from 1996 EPA data (Column I). More recent data would’ve been better since our population density data is from 2006, but it is not clear if newer data is available. I learned of the 1996 data because that is what Windham et al. (2006) uses. I’m working under the assumption that changes in population density in the last decade have been roughly uniform across the state.

Let’s first look at Figure 2 (Chart E), a graph of log(mercury exposure) vs. autism prevalence, without adjustment for population density.

Pop. Density vs. Autism Prevalence

Figure 2: Mercury Exposure vs. Autism Prevalence

–

There is a graphically noticeable trend in Figure 2, which is not surprising. The question is, does the trend remain after adjustment for population density?

Pop. Density vs. Autism Prevalence

Figure 3: Mercury Exposure vs. Autism Prevalence Adjusted For Pop. Density

–

Figure 3 (Chart D) is a graph of log(mercury exposure) vs. standardized autism prevalence; that is, autism prevalence adjusted for population density as previously calculated. In this figure we see there’s no longer a graphically discernable correlation between environmental mercury and autism. In fact, Excel produces a linear fit that indicates there’s somewhat of an inverse correlation between environmental emissions and autism prevalence.

Granted, if we were to remove San Francisco as an outlier, the trend would be pushed upwards. But then in this graph there appear to be two additional outliers in the middle upper part of the graph, Orange county and Los Angeles county. Keep in mind we have not adjusted for wealth. Regardless of how we might adjust the analysis, I fail to see that the graph would support a statistically meaningful association between mercury exposure and autism.

Further Confirmation

So far I have provided evidence that, in California, an association between environmental mercury exposure and autism disappears once we control for population density. This is clear to my satisfaction, but I thought it would be a good idea to attempt an inverse exercise as an illustration of the adjustment method. That is, let us try adjusting prevalence for mercury exposure, and see if the correlation with population density remains.

This is similar to what I did previously. A linear model is discerned from the correlation between log(mercury exposure) and autism (Chart E). This is used to derive an adjustment formula (Column K) whose validity can be verified graphically (Chart F). The new adjusted prevalence (Column K) is used in a new graph of log(population density) vs. autism: Figure 4 (Chart G).

Pop. Density vs. Autism Prevalence

Figure 4: Pop. Density vs. Autism Prevalence Adjusted For Mercury Exposure

–

What Figure 4 (Chart G) tells us is that even after we control for mercury exposure, there is still a clear correlation between autism and population density. In other words, population density wins bigtime – I believe that is the epidemiological term.

Conclusion

An analysis of California data suggests that correlations between the administrative prevalence of autism and environmental mercury emissions are fully mediated by population density. Palmer et al. (2008) suggests there is a real effect in Texas, but its results are not convincing primarily because its control for urbanicity is limited and inconsistent with the hypothesis the paper tests.

Tags: , ,

Mainstream Media & Autism

25 Feb

Autistics like Baggs are now leading a nascent civil rights movement. “I remember in ’99,” she says, “seeing a number of gay pride Web sites. I envied how many there were and wished there was something like that for autism. Now there is.” The message: We’re here. We’re weird. Get used to it.

Amanda Baggs

Mottron draws a parallel with homosexuality. Until 1974, psychiatry’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, described being gay as a mental illness. Someday, Mottron says, we’ll look back on today’s ideas about autism with the same sense of shame that we now feel when talking about psychology’s pre-1974 views on sexuality. “We want to break the idea that autism should definitely be suppressed,” he says.

Laurent Mottron

….she went on an information-devouring rampage. “There’s such a variety of human behavior. Why is my kind wrong?” she asks.

Michelle Dawson

All this from The New Autism which you can download from the Wired website – or buy in its offline format.

The evolution of Eli Stone

1 Feb

This is a Guest Blogged piece written by new bloggers from Hollywood Spectrum.

For those who don’t know (I wish I were one of you), there is a TV show about to premiere called "Eli Stone". It was likely going to be a pretty run-of-the-mill premiere. Possibly, it was going to be a total non event.But, the plot includes autism. Not only does it include autism, but it involves a lawyer doing what has never happened in real life-he win’s a case about how mercury in vaccines caused autism in a child. This led to a number of news stories, internet discussions and blog posts.

Well, after the initial press on this, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sent a letter to ABC/Disney asking them to pull the show since it could erode confidence in vaccines.  Somehow this was characterized as big-bad AAP trying to bully ABC/Disney.  Now, Disney is a company that has revenues of nearly $9B per quarter.  Yeah, AAP was twisting their arm by giving them free publicity.

Did anyone really believe that ABC/Disney would pull the show?  I mean, really, they just got a lot of free publicity for what was likely to be a pretty forgettable show.   How can I say this was going to be forgettable?  Because the original script was something worth forgetting.  Consider when Eli Stone visits a Chinese acupuncturist (who somehow brings about visions in Stone).  The good Dr. Chen was given such amazing lines in pigeon English as:

"You go regular doctor? Dr. Chen not MRI."

and

"I have patient, you come back half hour."

and

"No good hate dead people. Relah. Think good memory father. Dr. Chen help ungrateful son" 

OK, so, the dialogue was lame.  And, believe me, this isn’t the only example.  A whole blog post could be devoted to it, but this is an autism blog not a TV critic blog.  Maybe Dr. Chen is  supposed to be "comedy".  But, is it OK to stereotype for comedy?  If so, how about stereotyping (incorrectly) autism for drama.  Let’s look at how about the "autism" part of the script is portrayed. Here is their stage direction for the William character from the script:

William doesn’t smile. His autism doesn’t permit it.

What?!?  Autism "doesn’t permit" smiling?  So, people who smile aren’t autistic?  That should bring down the autism "epidemic"!  Just reject the diagnosis for all the people with autism who smile.  My guess is that it would be a pretty rare condition then. 

In the original script, the fight is with an insurance company who won’t pay for the treatments of the young "William", who is autistic.  The first mention of the word "autism" comes when the mother is describing this situation:

My son has autism. He needs Risperidone every day..

Whoa.  Was that about mercury?  Nope.  It’s about Risperidone.  Yep, instead of mercury causing autism, the story was about how the fictional kid needed an off-label prescription for an antipsychotic drug and the insurance company wouldn’t pay.

How does that jive with the writer’s idea of autism?  Well, the mother describes the value of Risperidone as:

After a month on the drug, he actually smiled.

For the record, Risperidone is pretty serious medication.  It has been shown to benefit some people with autism.  But, "smiling"?  I guess that scripts don’t need science advisor approval before being approved.

Somewhere between first and, let’s face it, lame final draft and premiere, the story shifted to vaccine/mercury caused autism.  A story line guaranteed to generate controversy.  A story line guaranteed to get publicity.

It’s too bad.  Yes, the reliance of the original script on Risperidone might have caused some consternation amongst the autism community.  Yes, the stereotype of the kid "whose autism prevents him from smiling" was lame at best, damaging at worst.  But, insurance coverage for autism is a big deal right now.  A good presentation of how insurance companies deny claims for autism could have actually helped people and families with autism.

From Mike McCarron to the Autism Hub

27 Jan

What follows is the text of an open letter, Mike McCarron, grandpa of Katie McCarron wishes to pass on to Autism Hub members.

An open letter to members of the Autism Hub.

I wish to thank each of you for your words; both about Katie and about people with special needs in general. In a world where differences easily become reasons to devalue people, your words have always conveyed respect, dignity and love for those with special needs.

I know that each of you from time to time question if you should express yourself and wonder if you are making a difference. Your opinions and descriptions of your travels in life have made a big difference to one grandfather and I suspect to many other parents.

In the days following my granddaughter’s death I was very upset. As I read comments from autism “advocates”, I moved from upset into anger. Many wanted to twist what happened to fit into their own agendas. All of you know the dialogue. I began to feel that all reason and common decency had been beaten out of society and replaced with hysterical and illogical screaming. Every time I would read some “advocate” say they could understand how a person could kill a child with autism I would bristle and await their self serving monologue of martyrdom. I even viewed a film clip that turned my stomach but it was receiving wide acclaim.

Then I encountered a different film, one of a little girl bouncing on a trampoline and I met Kevin. Next I found Kristina and the rest of your sites followed at different times mostly by reference from one of these two. During the extremely long trial process of twenty months I have visited your sites, some almost daily. Sometimes I would comment under a pseudonym but most of the time I just read and drew strength from your thoughts and your love. My interest in your posts varied by topic but I was always gratified and reassured by the love you expressed for your children and the respect shown for all people with differences.

I have had the pleasure of meeting some of you in person, I have corresponded with some of you, and still others I know only through your words on the internet. But words are so vitally important. The words used by some are frightening, intended solely for shock value, but are very divisive in the long term. Every time an “advocate” classifies autism as a fate worse than death they not only display the weakness of their own mind, but they do a terrible disservice to every autistic person. Your words and posts, firmly grounded in respect and love, foster the understanding needed for social movement toward improvement.

I sincerely hope that parents new to the autism community encounter the hub and your sites long before visiting many others. I find it strange to recommend sites that value human dignity; every site should, but too many don’t. That is what makes your sites so valuable. It seems that autism falls prey to every kind of con artist, they need to be exposed. It also seems that anything can be said about people with autism if the person saying it claims it was done to create awareness, they need to be set straight. Please continue to lead by example, do it as time permits but do what you can and what you already do so very well.

Sincerely,

Mike McCarron

Autism is a trait

6 Oct

Tyrin RencherDriving yesterday evening, I passed a bus stop with a United Way advertisement with the slogan, “Autism is a trait, not a debilitation.” Obviously, when I made my way back online, I tried to find out a bit more about this United Way Campaign.

Through Google, I found a link to the campaign on the United Way website. Unfortunately, when I tried the link I received a 404 error. Hopefully it comes back up soon.

There was also a link to a story in the Belleville (Illinois) News-Democrat about the spokesman of the campaign, Tyrin Rencher (pictured at right).

He is on posters, pamphlets and television screens all around the St. Louis region as one of the many faces of the United Way fundraising campaign this season.

Most people probably recognize Tyrin Rencher as the smiling young man in a red apron standing in the kitchen at Pasta Fare in Fairview Heights beneath the slogan: “Autism is a trait, not a debilitation.”

Rencher, 27, of East St. Louis, has autism. He was diagnosed with autism at 2 1/2 years old and was enrolled in the Illinois Center for Autism in Fairview Heights when he was 3. He still receives services through the organization and was selected as a spokesman for the United Way campaign this year and as a spokesman for the Illinois Center for Autism.

The article also gives a bit of bit of Tyrin’s history and what he’s up to today (besides being a “celebrity”):

He is currently a junior at the University of Missouri St. Louis, where he is working toward a degree in business administration.

When talking to Rencher, a person quickly learns that he’s a man determined to fulfill his dreams, in spite of the autism, and he is an example of the slogan over his head on the United Way posters.

“A lot of the stuff I planned is coming true and I’m speechless that it is all happening,” he said. “I want to open up a restaurant with my degree. Something small, like (Pasta Fare.)”

He is thankful the Illinois Center of Autism was around when he was diagnosed when he was a toddler.

“Without them, I would be lost,” he said. “I really wouldn’t be in a position to go to college right now.”

He is learning to live on his own for the first time, something that he sometimes finds difficult.

“But I’m learning, it’s tough, but I’m trying to adjust to living on my own,” Rencher said. “One of the things my family has taught me is perseverance, and I do that every day.”

I love to see “good news” stories about autism, and this is one of the “goodest” I’ve seen in a while: it shows an autistic adult making his way in the world, it shows that an autistic person’s dreams and life aspirations are just like the rest of ours, and it shows an organization dedicated to helping people make their way in the world AS THEY ARE instead of trying to fundamentally change them.

Why investigating Wakefield matters

1 Aug

I occasionally get emails or blog comments along the general lines of:

Why do you do this? These people [Wakefield, DAN, whomever] are trying to help autistic kids!

The (il)logic train is very simple to these people: X listened to their ideas about vaccines and autism, X tries out never-seen-before-treatments on autistic patients therefore X is a hero. When X gets examined with disdain from mainstream medicine X becomes a martyr.

There is a bizarre disconnect at work here. Somehow we have progressed from an idea that scientific enquiry adds to the general body of scientific knowledge to the idea that its just about OK to do anything to patients irrespective of what’s actually ‘wrong’ with them in order to advance a poorly supported hypothesis.

Here’s why this matters to me and why Andrew Wakefield is a prime example of all that has gone bad in the small but very vocal subset of autism parents who believe MMR/thiomersal/vaccines in general causes/triggers autism.

First and foremost is the basic injury done to the scientific objective truth. This is, I agree, an entirely abstract concept but it has implications in our every day real-world lives. Science is what brought us the nice cubes of ice in our whisky and also brought us the Nuclear bomb. Whatever we personally think of these results, science has prevailed in both cases. The _truth_ has prevailed.

The people I and others refer to as the Mercury Militia (referring to the anti-vaccine/autism/parent activists) are not interested in the truth. This is not an opinion, it simply is. From the National Autism Associations deliberate and outright lies about what science has revealed about autism, to their supporters attempts to silence the debate via threats of violence and encompassing Lenny Schafer’s admission that there is not enough science to support the idea of a vaccine hypthesis and their only chance of ‘winning’ is via a legal route with vastly lower standards of evidentiray proof as well as David Kirby’s refusal to fess up to the terms of the hypothesis he himself set.

What people need to grasp is that this basic dishonesty permeates the entire autism/vaccine hypothesis. Time after time, when presented with more attempts to establish the truth, they never fail to act dishonestly and lie to support their beliefs.

As far as scientific objectivity and a search for the _actual_ truth is concerned – forget it. This is a set of people who are simply uninterested. If a story/hypothesis emerges that doesn’t embrace vaccines as causative agents then they will attack it. And what they will attack it with is mostly lies.

I have a question for them and people who believe and trust them – and I know they read this blog. The question is this: how good do you think the quality of any information/data is that emerges from the mouths of people who lie, evade and threaten? How good do you think the science is that originates from people who plagiarise other peoples work? How accurate do you think advocacy groups that lie to the media about what they believe are?

At some point there has to be a time when even self-denial cannot support these people. As we have seen, recent attempts to coerce the media have resulted in humiliating climbdown after climbdown. How far can denial continue to power the majority of the new soccer-mom, middle-class powered anti-vaccine movement of the naughty noughties?

Let’s take an example that touches on the title of this blog – Andrew Wakefield. His hypothesis regarding MMR and autism was discussed at length during the recent Autism Omnibus hearings (Cedillo, June 2007).

Andrew Wakefield is seen as a pretty much a demigod amongst the Mercury Militia. His word is taken on pure faith. Why? Because he agrees with certain parents that the MMR jab caused/triggered their child’s autism. The basic hypothesis is as follows:

1) Child is injected with MMR
2) Measles virus (MV) travels to gut causing various gastro issues
3) MV carries on travelling to the brain causing autism symptoms

ergo – MMR causes autism with associated gastro issues.

The whole hypothesis stands or falls on finding vaccine strain MV in the guts of autistic children. Wakefield (and others) claim they have. However, the facts tell a different story.

Wakefield (and all others) used a technique called PCR to ‘find’ MV in their subjects. During the afore-referenced Cedillo hearing, Dr Stephen Bustin gave testimony. Bustin is possibly _the_ world expert on PCR. Not only does Bustin use PCR every day, he has 14 papers in the peer reviewed literature on PCR, over 8 book chapters and is personally the author of the A to Z of Quantitative PCR. which is considered ‘the bible’ of PCR. One of his papers has been cited over 1,000 times. Another has been cited over 500 times. He both organises and speaks at international PCR conferences.

Basically, when it comes to PCR, the technique Wakefield (and others) used to ‘find’ MV – this is the guy.

NB – this whole section of evidence I blogged extensively, including quotes. Please read for more detail.

Bustin was first and foremost concerned that:

1) The technique that utilised PCR and employed by Wakefield (and others) was essentially useless. No controls were used. This is a serious scientific omission and makes comparing the data accurately impossible.
2) The technique failed to outline procedures for dealing with contamination of data
3) There were mismatched and misrepresented data designs

These items raise very grave questions over the _methodology_ used. The next set of concerns reveal the full extent of the scientific shambles of the entire MMR/autism industry.

This is a vital point to understand before we discuss these things. It is vital that we remember that, aside from one unpublished poster presentation (Walker 2006), _all_ , I repeat _all_ science that has claimed to find vaccine strain MV in the guts of autistic patients used the same lab to get its results – Unigentics, the lab of Professor John O’Leary. It is also vital to remember that Stephen Bustin did not just examine for afar. He spent over 1,5000 hours in the O’Leary lab before coming to his conclusions.

His conclusions were devastating.

1) The O’Leary lab had failed to take necessary steps. This omission made it impossible they were detecting MV.
2) The O’Leary lab was contaminated.
3) It was the contamination that O’Leary’s lab was detecting, not MV. Its worth quoting Bustin at this point:

So all of this evidence suggests very, very strongly that what they are detecting is DNA and not RNA. Because measles virus doesn’t exist as a DNA molecule in nature, they cannot be detecting measles virus RNA. They are detecting a contaminant.

It cannot be any clearer. According to the the man who is the recognised world expert on the technique that *all published science claiming to find MV in the guts of autistic kids* lab utilised, it is simply not possible that this lab could’ve detected MV. Without MV, there is no MMR/autism hypothesis.

And what is the response of Wakefield’s supporters to all this? I will quote John Stone, who fancies himself the cool calm voice of the MMR branch of the autism/antivax movement. When presented with Bustin’s testimony, he said:

I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing about the contents of a test tube….

This tells us all we need to know about the levels of denial that operate in this arena. Stone resorts to saying that the Cedillo case was not settled yet, which is true. However he evades the point that Bustin’s testimony is not dependant on legal justification. It is dependant on scientific accuracy. Given that it is *documented by O’Leary’s own lab procedure* that they omitted key parts of the process necessary to establish the presence of MV, I really don’t know what else there is to say on the matter.

Secondly is the effect all this anti-vaccination rhetoric has on the health and safety of public citizens. News stories that are accumulating started circulating a year or so ago on dropping immunisation rates and rising deaths and injury from vaccine-preventable illness:

In the course of 10 days, officials confirmed four pertussis cases, including the hospitalization of one child to treat respiratory symptoms. All of the cases afflicted children under 5 years old, and one in an infant just a couple of days old, according to Ravalli County Public Health Nurse Judy Griffin…..There have been more than 450 cases of pertussis in Montana so far this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The infection rate is much higher than average years, when about 30 cases are reported….”Parents should check immunization records and make sure they’re up to date,” Nurse Judy Griffin said.

Ravalli Republic.

(Columbia) The state health department said yesterday that an infant has died from whooping cough. It is the first death reported in South Carolina from the disease in nearly three years….The health agency said it’s important children receive pertussis vaccinations on schedule.

WLTX News.

A whooping cough epidemic has hit Deschutes County. Health officials say that in the past six weeks, 18 cases of pertussis have been identified in the county. In all of 2004, there were only two cases of pertussis in Deschutes County.

KATU 2.

An increase in cases of the highly contagious whooping cough is prompting state health officials to urge stricter compliance with childhood immunization schedules….Cases have increased annually from 22 statewide in 1996 to 120 last year…Oklahoma’s childhood immunization levels continue to lag behind those nationally, officials said.

RedNova News

Kids are dying again. And in some areas of the US the disease causing those deaths is at epidemic (real epidemic as oppose to autism epidemic) proportions. And thats just one disease that vaccination removed the sting from for many years. In my country (UK) we’ve recently had a Mumps epidemic.

Vaccine uptake rates of this vaccine in the UK have fallen to amongst the lowest in Europe:

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

Source.

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

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

Source.

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

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

Source.

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

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

Source

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

This is real evidence of harm. Never forget it can be traced back to a man with absolutely no evidence at all to support the science of his claims.

Thirdly is the effect all of this has on autism and autistic people like my daughter. The vaccine induced blind panic that the people behind these hypotheses and their media agents at the NAA, SafeMinds, Treating Autism and Generation Rescue have done their best to inculcate is having a toll on autistic people. Here’s a passage from an email I received a few months ago:

…when I said he was autistic, they told me I shouldn’t bring him to a school, that vaccines had made him ill and that their kids could catch that illness….after all, these women reasoned that if it [autism] could be caused by vaccines, it could be caught and passed on to other kids….

This is frightening. Autism as a condition has a lot of stigma to deal with already. The fact is that any hypothesis that has gone on now for over 10 years without any scientific support, as the vaccine/autism one has, needs to shut up and move on. No good can come of creating more stigma for no benefit.

In 2004, the BBC discussed a report from the Institute of Child Health, the National Autistic Society and the Parents’ Autism Campaign for Education that looked at the state of autism research. One of its conclusions was that:

….the row over a possible link with the MMR jab has over-shadowed the fact that little is known about the behavioural disorder….

This has led to a situation wherein:

…It showed almost 60% of UK autism research only looks into the symptoms, while just 22% is dedicated to the causes, 8% to possible interventions and only 5% to the effect of family history.

So, a dwindling 8% of all autism research fundings looks into interventions. The marketing of the MMR hypothesis has meant that this pathetic 8% is all that autistic people can expect in terms of educational research, programs for adults – basically if it will have some tangible impact on the lives of autistic people then it comes out of this 8%.

This then, is the legacy of the autism/vaccine hypothesis and its supporters. Bad for the truth, bad for science, bad for public health and bad for autistic people.

Autism Omnibus crashing?

30 May

Another few points of interest in the Autism Omnibus proceedings.

Firstly and perhaps most significantly is the defining of the Omnibus proceedings as being at ‘crisis point’ by the Special Masters overseeing the case:

Petitioners were supposed to provide (by their own suggestion) test cases that would show, in the first instance, how MMR and thiomersal working in combination would cause autism. Special Masters agreed to this arrangement and dictated that three cases would be needed. So far, only one out of the 4,700 cases in the Omnibus can be found.

At (the) first status conference in December 20 2006, when the PSC (Petitioners – the parents) first proposed moving to a test case format, Special Master Hastings advised the PSC attorneys that for a ‘test case’ approach to be effective, the PSC would need to offer additional cases, rather than a single test case, for trial. Since that time, the PSC has stated that it will select two such cases, and has represented that it is working diligently on selecting the two cases. At the status conference held on Jan 25 2007, the PSC was orally instructed to designate such cases within 30 days (i.e. by Feb 24 2007). The PSC did not do so. At the status conference held on Feb 28 2007 the PSC representative stated that the teo cases would be designated within seven to ten days. That did not happen. After further discussion, we extended the deadline for designation until March 30 2007. that date, too, passed without any designation. At the status conference held on April 2 2007, the PSC attorney stated that the two cases would be designated on April 6 2007 but no designation was made by that date either We then extended the deadline to March 30, then again May 10, but, still no additional test cases have been designated.

So, out of the 4,700 cases filed under the Omnibus, apparently only one can show a theory about how MMR and thiomersal, acting in unison can cause autism. Which is weird considering that its a ‘fact’ amongst adherents of the vaccine hypothesis.

And how about that one case – Cedillo – what does that show?

…without going into detail, we note that the facts of that one ‘test’ case are fairly unusual and do not appear to be representative of the majority of the cases in the OAP (Omnibus Autism Proceedings).

Good grief. Could it be that, from the 4,700 cases in the Omnibus that there are _no cases_ representative of a general theory of how MMR and thiomersal working together cause autism? Back to the Special Masters – the emphasis in this passage is theirs, not mine.:

We want to stress that we believe we are at a _crisis point_ in the efforts to move the autism cases towards decision. The Office of Special Masters has adopted the approach toward these cases originally suggested by _petitioners’_ counsel and we have patiently waited almost _five years_ to give that approach a chance to succeed…..Either something must change or we will be required to go to a new approach.

And then the bombshell:

In the event that petitioners do not promptly come forward with additional test cases to allow us to pursue the ‘test case’ approach described above for handling the autism cases, it appears that the ‘omnibus approach’ to the autism cases may have to be declared a failure.

That is some pretty direct language. You’ve had five years, it says, we’ve done everything your way. Now shape up or ship out.

Things got worse for petitioners. For years they had been claiming that they couldn’t move forward without certain data (VSD data) being made available to them. It would seem that the Special Masters have seen this for the delaying tactic it clearly is as they have denied this motion.

They have denied it because they (rightly) claim that it is unnecessary and involved a lot of irrelevant data. They also note that petitioners should be able to make a case out of what they have and that petitioners failed to provide a good reason why this data was needed. Special Masters noted:

Finally we note that the PSC itself states that ‘the petitioners could very well establish general and individual causation in these Omnibus claims _without epidemiological evidence_ ‘

That’s what bragging gets you I guess.

Update: Daubert Ruling

The Special Masters also ruled on the applicability of Daubert in the Omnibus cases. Before we discuss that, lets have a brief refresher as to what it is.

Daubert is a legal precedent in the US that essentially makes the presiding judge the arbiter of good science. They _must_ under Daubert apply a very high standard of science. It speaks volumes that Martha Herbert, Boyd Haley, Mark Geier have all fallen foul of Daubert in the recent past. Under Daubert, Haley and Geier’s science was adjudged to be of such low quality that they never even testified – they were barred from doing so.

OK, so. Respondents asked the Special Masters to ensure that Daubert standards were applied to the causation issues in the Omnibus hearings. They even asked that four ‘expert’ witnesses be excluded under Daubert which was a legitimate thing to do.

If the Special Master had agreed with that request than that would have been game over for the whole Omnibus hearing. No expert witnesses = no causation = no case.

What the Special Master has actually done is not quite that, but Plaintiffs should be very concerned. The Special Masters have agreed that Daubert standards should play an extensive role:

I agree with respondent that the principle that scientific evidence must be evaluated for reliability, set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals….does have application to Vaccine Act cases.

That is big news. Plaintiffs need to realise that their science is going need to be of the utmost quality. However, the Special masters have decided that this proceeding is procedurally different enough that a small wrinkle should be introduced. This is a non-jury trial. In a jury trial, Daubert can be used (as I mentioned above) to exclude poor quality expert witnesses. This could also happen in a non-jury trial but the Special master has elected to not go that way. What they have decided to do is:

I conclude that the best procedure is to hear the testimony of the expert witnesses in question….I can then evaluate the reliability of the expert testimony in question [in the context of Daubert] and determine what weight it should be accorded, if any.

So, Daubert will apply, but instead of being used to exclude the possibility of juries hearing poor quality expert witnesses, as this is a non-jury trial, Daubert will be applied directly to the proffered testimony of the expert witnesses.

Whichever way you cut it, this is not good for Petitioners. They were staunchly opposed to the Daubert standard being applied at all as they knew it would mean that scientific standards of proof would apply. Standards that Boyd Haley and Mark Geier have already failed to meet in previous thiomersal/autism cases.

How long will it be?

19 Apr

The demonisation of the disabled has always been with us. The purposeful assigning of negative characteristics in order to worsen a case or point of view. Sometimes the people doing this are the very parents of the disabled people in question. Autistic kids have been called ‘toxic train wrecks’, ‘walking nightmares’, ‘unreachable’, ‘soulless’, ’empty shells, ‘dead inside’.

So, I have a nasty fear, shared by Asperger Square 8 and MOM-NOS that at some point, the murderer of several teachers and young people in a gun rampage in Virginia will be diagnosed by the media as autistic.

Here’s one media description of the murderer:

He was always really, really quiet and kind of weird, keeping to himself all the time,” he said. “Just of anti-social, didn’t talk to anybody. I tried to make conversation with him in August or so and he would just give one word answers and not try and carry on the conversation.”

Sound familiar? Yeah.

Or maybe he was just rude and didn’t like people. he did, after all, kill several of them.

On the EoH yahoo group one poster says:

Wonder if they can run that urine test polyprophilin???? on him for mercury poisoning. I bet that kid is toxic as all get out.

John Best chips in with:

The article says he didn’t make eye contact with his room mates and didn’t acknowledge people greeting him. That sounds familiar.

And when otehrs expressed skepticism that the murderer was on the spectrum, John explained why he wanted him to be:

If he was on the spectrum, then the shooting becomes the fault of Neurodiversity for encouraging him to celebrate the difference instead of getting cured.

Nice. Forget that people have been killed here, lets twist this to get at a group of people we don’t like. How respectful.

Thankfully, Erik put John right:

John, I hate the neurodiverse philosophy of no treatment/no cure, you know that. But what you’re saying is way off base.

But isn’t it amazing how even the parents of autistic kids are so very willing to see their own kids as similar to this murderer? Amazing and scary.

Also on EoH yesterday, a poster posted this link (warning – not nice) which is a petition to ‘kick out autistic retards from America’. The poster described how horrified she was by this petition. Me too. Its appalling.

But look at the wording of the petition:

In the past 15 years autism and mental retardation rates amongst children has skyrocketted. One out of every 100 children born in America is either retarded or autistic. Soon autistics and retards will make up 30% of the American population (and that’s a lot.) They do not deserve to live in America, not to mention that they take our tax dollars and our welfare money because they require special education and can’t work beacause they can’t communicate. Taxes will go up drastically in the next 20 years because of them.

Epidemic rhetoric, financial cost epidemic and demonisation. In a slightly differing context, I could easily have been reading a press release from the National Autism Association or the mainstream media.

If you have popularised the epidemic rhetoric, if you have popularised the financial cost rhetoric against autistic people then please know that you are not too dissimilar from this odious individual.

Autism should not, ever, be demonised in order to score political points. There is _no evidence_ to support the idea of an epidemic. There is _no evidence_ that autistic people are crazed killers. How is this advocacy? How does it help?

History repeating itself

4 Apr

A recent story from the Canadian (thank you jypsy) Globe and Mail tells us:

Each child diagnosed with autism will accrue about $3.2-million (U.S.) in medical and non-medical costs over his or her lifetime…

The story leads off with this fact and continues with such vitally important things as:

“But we need to ask the question: Does investment early on have significant economic benefits later?” Dr. Bryson said.

Vital, I think you’ll agree. How about this one:

Earlier research estimated that autism costs the U.S. economy about $35-billion annually, and the Canadian economy $3.5-billion.

Wow. So this must be what it feels like to actually have a price on your head.

Anyway, this reminded me of something, this talk of money and the idea of people having a monetary value. Then I remembered:

The english translation reads:

60000 RM, this is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too.

This was used to promote Hitler’s T4 Euthanasia program.

Maybe its just me but when people start using identical rhetoric to the Nazi’s I get a little bit nervous.

New: Autism Parents Forum

25 Mar

I’m launching a new project today primarily for parents of autistic children (of any age) which I’ve called Autism Parents.

I wanted to set up a forum where parents of autistic people who weren’t necessarily interested in the idea of cure could get together and swap hints/tips on parenting in an easier format than a blog could allow.

Its got boards for education, medical, officialdom where you can ask questions or answer questions from other parents just like you and me as well as boards for discussing books/movies/TV programmes and news stories etc related to autism.

Please go and signup, get posting and please – spread the word!

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →