Archive | Autism RSS feed for this section

Wakefield

10 Feb

The name alone conjures up strong images for many in the autism communities. If you think vaccines cause autism, he is a hero. For many others, he has brought shame to the greater autism community.

In addition, I know many who think that Andrew Wakefield’s time has come and gone and we should just ignore him now. To those, I apologize, but the recent information is just too important to ignore.

Kev would be able to show the annoyance that Dr. Wakefield’s research has caused many of us in the autism community. It would be a better read than this–a post written by someone who finds the entire affair sad. Too much harm has been caused by what even before today was already pretty obviously bad science. It’s just a sad story that has just gotten sadder.

For those who may not know, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on the papers which attempted to link autism to the MMR vaccine. The story is so long and tortuous that it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. You know what, if you don’t already know the story–count yourself lucky and skip this post! How’s that for an introduction?

Brian Deer took a closer look than most (all?) journalists at Dr. Wakefield’s story. He exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s patients were litigants claiming MMR caused autism. He also exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield and some on his team were well paid for their efforts.

It is very likely that Mr. Deer’s investigation is what prompted the General Medical Council (GMC) to investigate Dr. Wakefield’s actions in this research. As part of that investigation, the GMC has collected medical histories of the subjects of Dr. Wakefield’s study. And, Brian Deer has had access to these data, and they don’t match what was presented by Dr. Wakefield’s team.

Before we look at what was said in the papers and what the medical histories actually indicated, let’s look at the introduction from the original Lancet paper:

We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance. We describe the clinical findings, and gastrointestinal features of these children.

Compare that to what’s here’s Brian Deer’s article, MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Ouch.

Here’s a more thorough article, again by Mr. Deer:

Hidden records show MMR truth
A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination

As a short sidetrack, Mr. Deer isn’t the only one suggesting that there were problems with the Wakefield studies.

Wakefield claimed (in a separate paper from the original Lancet article) that his team found evidence of persistent measles virus in gut biopsies from the autistic children he saw. In the Omnibus hearing, a member of Wakefield’s team told the story of how the data which clearly disagreed with Wakefield’s conclusions was ignored.

Or, to put it another way, Dr. Chadwick [note correction] told Dr. Wakefield that he (Bustin) had data which directly contradicted the results Wakefield was going to publish. This should have quashed the paper, and, yet, not mention is even made of it by Wakefield et al.

But, back to the Brian Deer report.

Let’s look at a few examples from Mr. Deer’s story. There were 12 children in the original study. Mr. Deer refers to them as child 1 through child 12. Mr. Deer looks at them individually..

Child 11 had a “positive” test for measles RNA by Wakefield’s team. The father had 3–yes 3!–other labs test the same biopsy samples. Result? No sign of measles.

Here’s a bit about child one from Mr. Deer’s story:

In the paper this claim would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said “behavioural symptoms” started “one week” after he received the MMR.

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

It’s very tempting to quote example after example, but I’ll just end up copying the entire story. I encourage you to read the story, there are numerous examples of how many of the 12 subjects of Wakefield’s study were not previously normal.

Rather than pick all the examples of discrepancies about development of Wakefield’s subjects, how about the second part of the question: did these kids all show GI problems? Again, there are numerous examples in Mr. Deer’s story. Here’s an excerpt.

The most striking change of opinion came in the case of Child Three, a six-year-old from Huyton, Merseyside. He was reported in the journal to be suffering from regressive autism and bowel disease: specifically “acute and chronic nonspecific colitis”. The boy’s hospital discharge summary, however, said there was nothing untoward in his biopsy.

A Royal Free consultant pathologist questioned a draft text of the paper. “I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word ‘colitis’,” Susan Davies, a co-author, told the ongoing GMC inquiry into the ethics of how the children were treated, in September 2007.

“I was concerned that what we had seen in these children was relatively minor.”

Not only are there problems in the reported information and the records, one of the co-authors is indicating that the paper overplayed the data they had.

Sorry, but this all just makes me more sad. Sometimes bad science can be, well a little funny. Sometimes just annoying. This is just really sad.

“A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”

What more can be said?

(note: I edited this shortly after publishing it. The substance was not changed)

Support a Disability-Friendly Stimulus

9 Feb

As noted recently on this blog, the U.S. economic stimulus package may have a big impact on the disability community.

I have concentrated on special education funding, but it goes deeper than that.

ASAN has an action alert on the change.org website. You can fill out a message and it will be sent to your legislators.

From the website:

Today, the Senate will likely pass stimulus legislation that includes substantial cuts in special education, vocational rehabilitation and other disability-related spending provisions as compared to the House version. Afterwards, the Senate and House will reconcile the bills and come up with a consensus version. This action alert enables you to tell your legislators how important it is to keep disability spending provisions fully funded as in the House version.

Please (PLEASE) take a minute and send the message.

Stimulus package update

7 Feb

I knew I was running the risk of having my last post become obsolete immediately. Had I checked the news before I hit publish, I’d have seen that reports were out that the U.S. Senate had already passed their version of the bill, making it obsolete even before it was public.

OK, remember your civics classes? Or, if you are not a U.S. citizen, remember all those times that the U.S. political system seemed utterly confusing?

This is one of those times. (But, bear with me…or skip to the bottom: we need your help!)

First the House of Representatives passed their stimulus bill: H.R. 1. After they finished, they sent the bill to the Senate. The Senate, being a bunch of opinionated people, get to muck around with H.R. 1 and rewrite it. What just happened today is that the Senate passed their version of the Stimulus package. This is S.A. 98. In the process of rewriting, they added, oh, about 400 amendments to the bill. I’d love to tell you what they are, but they’ve come in so fast and furious that the government’s website hasn’t been able to catch up yet.

Many of the amendments say:

AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

Here’s one that seemed good to me,

To provide an additional $6,500,000,000 to the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research.

Yep, $6.5B, with a B. That version got shot down…but this version (which appears the same in the short summary) got approved. Like I said, the U.S. Political system can be a little strange.

OK, it’s late. I don’t want to read through another 300 amendments. Especially when the amendment that has the cut to IDEA is buried in a quick summary like “to eliminate unnecessary spending”.

The word on the street (and probably somewhere on the Thomas.loc.gov website) is that the IDEA funding increase was cut down.

Does that mean the struggle is over? Hardly. It won’t be easy to get the funding level increased again, but keep in mind, the Senate and House versions of the bill are not the same. Before they send it to President Obama, they have to reconcile the two bills.

Or, as one news story puts it:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said negotiators from the House and Senate would begin crafting a compromise bill on Monday, with the goal of sending legislation to President Barack Obama by the end of next week.

So, there is a chance for the the House to assert its version of IDEA funding.

In other words, now would be a good time to call, email or fax your member of congress or senators.

IDEA funding

7 Feb

One of the reasons I was hopeful that Mr. Obama would be elected presidency was his promise to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This is the law which mandates special education in the United States. The original promise is that the federal government would pay for 40% of the costs of special education.

It never happened. I don’t think it ever got to 20%.

That a country like the United States could make a promise to some of those in greatest need and then not live up to the promise is painful for me to admit as an American.

If you’ve been keeping up on the news lately, even outside the US, you probably know that Mr. Obama has a huge (nearly $1 trillion) economic stimulus plan proposed.

What you may not know is that IDEA funding is included in the stimulus plan.

House Resolution 1 includes the following language

For an additional amount for `Special Education’ for carrying out section 611 and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (`IDEA’), $13,600,000,000: Provided, That $13,000,000,000 shall be available for section 611 of the IDEA, of which $6,000,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2009, and remain available through September 30, 2010, and $7,000,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2010, and remain available through September 30, 2011: Provided further, That $600,000,000 shall be available for part C of the IDEA, of which $300,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2009, and remain available through September 30, 2010, and $300,000,000 shall become available on July 1, 2010, and remain available through September 30, 2011: Provided further, That by July 1, 2009, the Secretary of Education shall reserve the amount needed for grants under section 643(e) of the IDEA from funds available for obligation on July 1, 2009, with any remaining funds to be allocated in accordance with section 643(c) of the IDEA: Provided further, That by July 1, 2010, the Secretary shall reserve the amount needed for grants under section 643(e) of the IDEA from funds available for obligation on July 1, 2010, with any remaining funds to be allocated in accordance with section 643(c) of the IDEA: Provided further, That if every State, as defined by section 602(31) of the IDEA, reaches its maximum allocation under section 611(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the IDEA, and there are remaining funds, such funds shall be proportionally allocated to each State subject to the maximum amounts contained in section 611(a)(2) of the IDEA: Provided further, That the provisions of section 1106 of this Act shall not apply to this appropriation.

It’s not perfect, but it was a big step forward in funding special education.

But, as Kristina Chew (and others) have noted, there is a push to cut this proposed amount.

Now would be a good time to let your legislators–especially senators–know that fully funding IDEA is the right thing to do.

Take a look at this document–it’s actually a pain since I couldn’t search it. It lists the funding increases for school districts under the original stimulus plan. I picked California since the Los Angeles Unified school district is HUGE. Just to make this point–the stimulus plan would add $90,000,000 to their budget in 2009.

Look up your state and school district here.

This could make a huge difference.

Don’t let them cut this proposed funding. At least, let’s not go down without a fight.

Autistic

5 Feb

This is one of those posts where the idea has been rolling around in my head for a very long time. For whatever reason, I feel the need to finally put it into words.

There is a struggle going on as to whether the word “autistic” is a valid now. As in, “Autistics deserve better”. There is a big push for “person first” language such as “people with autism deserve better”.

I’ll admit, I use both.

I’ll also admit, I think that people with autism deserve to have the vote in how they can refer to themselves and how they want others to refer to them.

Arguments against “autistic” range from silly (“autistic isn’t in the dictionary”) to something I can at least understand, if not fully agree with (“person first language honors the person, not the condition”).

On example of the push for person-first language cam in the last year or so. New York State passed a law requiring person first language in official documents. One autistic I know pointed out to me that groups such as the Society for the Blind or the Society for the Deaf, for example, might not appreciate the idea. Think of changing the name to “Society for people with blindess”. Any reason to do that?

Much of the discussion of “person first” in regards to autism, I am fairly sure, based on the nature of the term “Mental Retardation”. Once we hear “mental retardation”, it is hard to not hear “Mentally Retarded”, “Retarded” or the word that was discussed a lot in 2008: “Retard”.

“Retard” is vile and pejorative. It is an ugly playground taunt that has no place on the playground and unfortunately many adults never left behind. It has tainted the term “Mental Retardation”. Journals now recommend avoiding the term “Mentally Retarded”. Here is an excerpt from the Information for Authors on the American Journal of Mental Retardation (AJMR) website:

When context makes it clear whether an author is referring to people with mental retardation or when it is otherwise unnecessary to refer to intellectual level or diagnostic category, authors should use the most descriptive generic terms, such as children, students, or persons, without using qualifiers such as “with mental retardation,” “with handicaps,” or “with developmental disabilities.” Under no circumstances should retarded be used as a noun. Prepositional constructions such as “students with mental retardation,” or “individuals who have mental retardation’ are preferred over adjectival constructions such as “mentally retarded people,” except when clear communication dictates occasional use of adjectival designations. Because normal has multiple meanings and may inappropriately imply abnormal where it is not applied, this word should not be used. Instead, more operationally descriptive terms such as “intellectually average pupils” should be used.

(emphasis mine)

There is a lot of interesting stuff there. I like, most of all, the suggestion that generic terms (children, students or persons) be used as much as possible.

An interesting thing to note is that if you look on the journal archive page, you will see that starting in 2009, AJMR changed its name to the American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AJIDD). This is in part to recognize the broader scope of the journal (which includes papers on autism, fragile-x and other conditions). When I first saw this change, I couldn’t help thinking part of the reason is to get away from the term “Mental Retardation” as well and this is confirmed by an editorial in the first AJIDD issue:

The Journal has also changed dramatically over the years, with the issues addressed reflecting advances in technology, the advent of new theories and methods in other fields, and changing societal concerns. These influences have also led to a name change for the Journal. In part, the change has been motivated by a desire to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation. I fully endorse this change in terminology because it reflects our field’s commitment not only to our science but to the people whose lives we hope to improve through our efforts. Quite simply, the change in terminology is a tangible sign of our respect for, and solidarity with, people who have disabilities and their families.

The phrase I focus in upon is “… to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation.” (emphasis mine)

You see, it wasn’t always that “mental retardation” held as negative a connotation as it does today. More to the point of this post–we don’t have to let “autistic” become negative.

From my vantage point it seems as though if we say, “Don’t call my kid autistic” or “Don’t call me autistic”, we are creating the negative connotation where one doesn’t exist today. What if “the blind” or “the deaf” had complained years ago? Would we now be cringing when we hear the names of societies for “the blind” or “the deaf”?

I am not so disingenuous as to ignore the major difference between deafness, blindness and autism. Of the three, autism is the one associated with intellectual disability and differences in personality. It is a harder battle to keep respect in the connotations of “autistic” than for “blind” or “Deaf”.

But, I for one am not willing to help make “autistic” a bad word.

The vaccine-autism org spin on the IACC

2 Feb

The vaccine-oriented autism orgs are claiming that the IACC acted improperly when they removed the vaccine initiatives from the Strategic Plan. They claim that this wasn’t on the agenda. Uh, yeah.

Let’s take a second look at this, eh? Because, from what I can see, not only is there a lot of spin being added to this story, the spin is filled with hypocrisy.

These vaccine initiatives were added at the December IACC meeting. Here’s the agenda for that meeting. I don’t see where it says, “Add new initiatives”.  And, yet, here they are in the draft of the Plan.  Note that the vaccine initiatives are in all red–they were added at that meeting.

That’s not “according to procedure”, if we take the SafeMinds/TACA/GR/NAA spin where it has to be clearly in the agenda.

It isn’t even “according to procedure” in the real sense.  Science based initiatives are supposed to be generated by subcommittees who vet them based on need and whether they have a reasonable scientific basis.

Or, to put it another way–vaccines were added to the Plan at the last minute as part of an end-run around the system by Lyn Redwood. And, now, she and the vaccine-orgs are complaining that the removal of these initiatives is part of a “improper action” or some such nonsense because it wasn’t in the agenda.

Not merely a weak argument, but hypocritical as well.

Let’s take a look at some similar actions.  The January IACC meeting included an attempt by Lyn Redwood to basically rewrite the introduction to the Plan. (By the way, one of the IACC members called Lyn Redwood out (politely) on her constant attempts to rewrite the Plan, noting how this has delayed the entire process considerably. Thank you, whoever you are.)

Let’s take a look at the agenda for the January meeting. Do you see any mention of rewriting the introduction in there? I don’t. So, what do we have here? We have Lyn Redwood attempting to circumvent the procedure and introduce new initiatives outside of the process. Then, when they are removed, she cries foul, claiming that others are working outside of the process?!?

Clearly, this is a political move.  Adding vaccines to the Plan was a political move, not a scientific move.   The complaints lodged against the removal of the vaccine initiatives are political, not reality based.

And, while all this plays out, good research is stalled.

That’s a complete shame.

Strategic Plan: fact and fiction

2 Feb

If you’ve been reading some of the autism blogs lately, you’d think that the only question that the NIH has to consider on autism is whether to study vaccines. That’s because, it’s all the autism organizations seem to be talking about with respect to the IACC and the NIH.

Yes, I’ll admit I’ve contributed to the pervasiveness of the vaccine discussion by responding to those blogs. Just to get that out.

The big stink lately is the fact that the vaccine-specific initiatives were voted out of the IACC’s Strategic Plan in January. Autism Speaks and the small groups like Generation Rescue, NAA, TACA and SafeMinds (as an aside—why are there so many clone orgs? Do they really represent different views?) all issued statements or harsh words about this change.

The story being propagated is basically this: “All the money is going into genetic research. We asked for this small thing and they blocked it”

So, let’s do something different than the vaccine-orgs, eh? Let’s look at some of the initiatives that are still in the Plan. Let’s discuss what is really happening on that front. There is a lot more to discuss about the reality of the Plan, but I figure since no one wants to actually look at the initiatives, it’s fertile ground.

The Plan is divided into section (think chapters) according to “questions”. Let’s look at a few sections and pick a few initiatives out to consider.

Question 1: When should I be concerned?

Identify a panel of biomarkers that separately, or in combination with behavioral measures, accurately identify, before age 2, one or more subtypes of children at risk for developing ASD by 2014. Estimated cost: $30,000,000 over 5 years.

Develop at least five measures of behavioral and/or biological heterogeneity in children or adults with ASD, beyond variation in intellectual disability, that clearly relate to etiology and risk, treatment response and/or outcome by 2015. Estimated cost: $40,000,000 over 5 years.

Holy Moly! I’d expect end-zone victory dances over something like that–$30M for biomarkers? Another $40M that includes biological heterogeneity? Isn’t this exactly what these organizations claim they want—recognition and research into the biological underpinnings of autism?

Instead of victory dances, we get silence from the vaccine-orgs on these initiatives. It’s all “what happened to vaccines!”

Here’s one that I wouldn’t expect them to trumpet, but my eye was captured by this:

Validate and improve the sensitivity and specificity of new or existing screening tools for detecting ASD through studies of the following community populations that are diverse in terms of age, socio-economic status, race, ethnicity and level of functioning by 2012. Estimated cost: $5,000,000 over 3 years.

My eye was captured, but that’s because I am really into the idea of identifying underserved populations like adults, and racial and ethnic minorities. I don’t expect the vaccine-orgs to support this since admitting there are underserved populations threatens the “epidemic”, so I didn’t expect the vaccine-oriented organizations to comment on that.

OK, let’s move on to the next “question”:

Question 2: How can I understand what is happening?

Support at least four research projects to identify mechanisms of metabolic and/or immune system interactions with the central nervous system that may underlie the development of ASD during prenatal-postnatal life by 2010. Estimated cost: $6,000,000 over 4 years.

Whoa! Did I read that correctly? $6M for studies on immune system interactions in the development of ASD? And, from the vaccine-orgs that called for this research? The sound of one hand clapping?

OK, the really big study for this section is this one:

Complete a large-scale, multi-disciplinary, collaborative project that longitudinally and comprehensively examines how the biological, clinical, and developmental profiles of children, with a special emphasis on females, youths, and adults with ASD change over time as compared to typically developing individuals by 2020. Estimated cost: $50,000,000 – $100,000,000 over 12 years.

Again, they are tracking the “biological” side of autism. Not a word of welcome from the vaccine-orgs.

The study above is one of the most critical that the Plan can call for, in my most humble opinion. How many times have we all asked or read others ask, “how will things look into the future?” Wouldn’t that really help answer questions about who “recovers”? Won’t Seriously, wouldn’t it be nice to understand how many people show large gains? Although lets face it, it happens even without “biomed”.

And, yes, I am very glad to see the extra emphasis on adults and females as well, by the way.

Question 3: What caused this to happen and how can it be prevented

This is the section where the vaccine initiatives were shoehorned in. Let’s take a look at what is still in.

Check out this big one:

Support ancillary studies within one or more large-scale, population-based surveillance and epidemiological studies, including U.S. populations, to collect nested, case-control data on environmental factors during preconception, and during prenatal and early postnatal development, as well as genetic data, that could be pooled (as needed), to analyze targets for potential gene/environment interactions by 2015. Estimated cost: $40,000,000 over 5 years.

Wow! $40M in gene/environment interactions. How much closer to the supposed agenda of the vaccine-orgs can one get? And yet, once again, the vaccine-orgs aren’t talking about it.

How about two more initiatives:

Determine the effect of at least five environmental factors on the risk for subtypes of ASD in the pre- and early postnatal period of development by 2015. Estimated cost: $10,000,000 over 5 years.

Conduct a multi-site study of the subsequent pregnancies of 1000 women with a child with ASD to assess the impact of environmental factors in a period most relevant to the progression of ASD by 2014. Estimated cost: $10,000,000 over 5 years.

Another $20M on environmental issues.

I think the point is made—just in this list there are something like $100M to $200M in funding for the biology of autism and environmental factors.

Why don’t the vaccine-orgs talk about these initiatives? One could speculate that it hurts their political maneuvering complaining about the removal of the vaccine initiatives. “Senator, they gave us $100M for exactly what we asked for, but we didn’t get everything”. Doesn’t sound so good, does it?

But, and this is important, these same vaccine orgs weren’t trumpeting the inclusion of all these biology and environment initiatives even before the vaccine initiatives were removed.

That’s why I keep referring to them as “vaccine-orgs”. It seems vaccines are the one and only issue they care about. Sure, they gave some lip-service to environment and biology. But now it’s as if these initiatives don’t exist and aren’t important. If you listen to their spiel: “Poor us, we asked for this small vaccine initiative, but all we got was genetics”.

Genetics? Yep, it is in the Plan. And rightly so, I will add. There is real evidence for genetic links to autism. If we are to understand autism, even environmental causes, we need to have the genetic information. Take this initiative, for example:

Identify genetic risk factors in at least 50% of people with ASD by 2014. Estimated cost: $30,000,000 over 6 years.

That’s a big project, and that’s what the vaccine-orgs would like everyone to think is the core of the Strategic Plan. But, as we’ve seen, it just isn’t fair to paint the Plan as emphasizing genetics while ignoring environment and biology.

There is a big push right now to stall the Strategic Plan (as though it hasn’t been delayed enough already by the constant attempts to rewrite the Plan by Lyn Redwood. If you think I am the only one who thinks this, listen to the last IACC meeting.) Yes, the same organizations who called for research into the environment and gene-environment interactions are willing to stall that research for one reason: vaccines.

Who thinks that TACA or Generation Rescue or any of the other small orgs would sit quietly by and see all this research stalled if it weren’t for the possibility of getting vaccines into the Plan?

Why should the rest of us sit quietly and let them stall progress towards a Strategic Plan that includes good research projects on topics like lifespan issues?

We shouldn’t.

Autistic and in New Jersey? Governor Corzine needs your input

26 Jan

Autism is too often characterized as being something affecting children or families with children with autism. New Jersey has established an “Adults with Autism Task Force”. This is a great opportunity to be heard. The survey below gives those in New Jersey exactly this opportunity.

ASAN highly encourages eligible people to fill out this survey.

NJ Adults with Autism Task Force Informational Survey

From the survey page:

In September 2007 Governor Corzine signed into law legislation establishing the New Jersey Adults with Autism Task Force (NJAATF). The purpose of the NJAATF is to develop a comprehensive and actionable plan for meeting the various needs of adults with autism living in the State of New Jersey. This survey will provide valuable insight in forming the recommendations included in this plan.

If you reside in New Jersey and are 1) an individual with autism over 12 years of age, or 2) a parent or guardian of an individual with autism over 12 years, please consider taking a few minutes to answer the following. If you are a parent or guardian, please answer all questions with respect to the individual on the Autism Spectrum. For example, the address should be that of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) individual. The average time for this survey is 10 minutes. If you receive this survey more than once, please respond only once.

New thimerosal study, altogether now…

26 Jan

…there’s still no link.

‘Neuropsychological Performance 10 Years After Immunization in Infancy With Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines‘ is a new study from Italy.

Nearly 70% of the invited subjects participated in the neuropsychological assessment (N = 1403). Among the 24 neuropsychological outcomes that were evaluated, only 2 were significantly associated with thimerosal exposure. Girls with higher thimerosal intake had lower mean scores in the finger-tapping test with the dominant hand and in the Boston Naming Test.

And here’s the conclusion from the penultimate page of the paper (excluding references):

No study conducted to date has been able to provide conclusive evidence of an effect of thimerosal on neuropsychological development. Final judgments regarding this association must rely on the entire body of results from studies conducted in different settings and with different levels of validity and on the coherence of results. The lack of consistency among the results of our study and other available studies suggests that an association between thimerosal exposure through vaccination in infancy and neuropsychological deficits is unlikely or clinically negligible. Additional data from populations with wider ranges of
exposure to thimerosal and additional neuropsychological assessments at older ages may help to clarify the issue of potential associations between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Oh, and for the conspiracy theorists:

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

I’m not an epidemiologist so I’m not going to attempt to go through the nuts and bolts of this paper. Hopefully those who have more expertise can go through yet again why this shows that thimerosal in vaccines seems to be about as dangerous as the average housefly. I can’t imagine they really want to. God knows I don’t. But the stupidniks will no doubt need the finer points hammered home again.

Can you sense I’m getting bored with this yet?

Two new websites and help needed

23 Jan

As is my won’t I keep trying to stretch my web wings. The web is a hobby as well as my career so its only natural (I guess) that I branch out from time to time.

The first website is a personal one. Its based around the idea of Lifestreaming:

An online record of a person’s daily activities, either via direct video feed or via aggregating the person’s online content such as blog posts, social network updates, and online photos

I don’t do the video bit but I liked the idea of centralising all the social web stuff I already do at places like Last.fm, livingsocial, Twitter, Tumblr, this blog etc. The best thing about it was that after the design is done I don’t have to do anything else. Its all added via API and RSS.

So – thats here at kevleitch.me.uk should you be interested in my narcissism.

Next up is one I didn’t do but I’ve started contributing to. Its a joint venture by the EU via their EU Elections 2009 website and the offshoot project of that CaféBabel.

Welcome to cafebabel.com, the first multilingual European current affairs magazine, designed for readers across borders. Cafebabel.com revolutionises European media through participatory journalism, providing a unique platform of expression for the ‘eurogeneration’, the first generation living Europe on a day-by-day basis thanks to the Erasmus study exchange programme, the internet and an increasing mobility.

Its quite a cool Euro-friendly thing to be involved in and allows me to blog about autism from a slightly different perspective. Yes I’ll still talk about science and bad science but I’ll be able to talk even more about autism rights in a European political context. I’ll be trying to get as many non-UK EU autistic people to Guest Blog for me as I can (have to be honest though, I only know one guy from mainland Europe – suggestions welcomed!).

That blog is here should you be interested.

And so lastly I need some help. I’m interested in launching a new thing. A new Social media type site but its a biggie. I’d like to have 15 – 20 people to start using it reasonably soon as a closed access Beta. If you’re interested please let me know via email or the contact form.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →