Archive | Autism RSS feed for this section

Amanda Peet and the Streisand Effect

16 Jul

I had never heard of the “Streisand Effect” until a few months ago. That’s when Clifford Shoemaker subpoenaed.

The basic idea is simple: someone tries to censor or remove some piece of information from the internet, and, instead, the actions cause the information to be much more widely spread than it would have been otherwise.

In the case of the subpoena, many (MANY) people heard about the neurodiversity.com site and, especially, some of the actions of Mr. Shoemaker, than would have happened had the subpoena not been issued.

I was reminded of this phenomenon today when I found that the Amanda Peet story has started to catch on big. Amanda Peet was quoted in Cookie Magazine with a very pro-vaccine stance. She had been scared by…

….the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood

So, what did she do? She asked a medical professional for advice. Dang, what a concept! She was very fortunate that her brother in law is a doctor and, even more luckily, he works at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) where Paul Offit works.

Dr. Offit knows vaccines. Not in the, “I’ve read a ton in the internet” version of “knows” vaccines. No, He researches and develops vaccines. He is also a vocal spokesperson against the idea that vaccines cause autism. That, as you can imagine, makes him very unpopular with some segments of the autism community.

So, you can imagine what happened when Amanda Peet came out pro vaccine, against the vaccine-autism connection and stated that she got information from Dr. Offit. Yes, she got the usual hate-filled reception. And make no mistake, I am not downplaying that. I would not be surprised if she, like others before her, have had to forward emails or phone calls to the authorities because they seem threatening.

But, as time goes on, the message isn’t getting quashed. Salon.com picked up the story today and stated,

Now, Peet vs. McCarthy is the celebrity smackdown du jour. Sure, we’d all be better off taking our medical advice from doctors and nurses rather than celebrities. Yet, everyone from the American Academy of Pediatrics to Salon columnist Dr. Rahul Parikh has tried to reassure parents that vaccines don’t cause autism. Meanwhile, public health officials worry when public confidence in vaccinations continues to erode, in part because of high-profile celebrity advocacy, like McCarthy’s Green Our Vaccines march and rally held in Washington, D.C., in June.

And, what was that “smackdown du jour”? Looks like E! picked up the story as well.

All these web stories give the usual crowd an opportunity to add comments. The forums and comment sections for those stories are filled with people trashing Amanda Peet. I wish those people would catch a clue–have someone outside the autism community read what they write. The comments are strident, rude and, in general, really make the autism community as a whole look bad. It’s one thing to rant away in a closed yahoo group or in the comment section of the Age of Autism blog, but the public doesn’t know (and I wish they didn’t) just how mean and nasty these “advocacy” groups can be.

This story isn’t going away. Amanda Peet is now a spokesperson for Every Child By Two, a pro-vaccine organization founded by former first lady Rosalynn Carter. (as an aside–the Carters are one of the best ex-first-families the U.S. has seen).

Now that Amanda Peet has come down against the idea that vaccines cause autism, pretty much everything she says will be picked apart and analyzed. One comment that is giving a lot of ammunition to her detractors is this: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Read the comments and how many people try to make it sound like Amanda Peet is calling autism parents “parasites”. (Hint, she didn’t).

Let’s take a quick look at that term, parasite.

a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Now, let’s take a look at what Dr. Sears, one of the people often quoted by vaccine rejectionists, has to say about the MMR vaccine:

“I also warn them not to share their fears with other neighbors, because if too many people avoid the MMR, we’ll likely see the diseases increase significantly.”

So, he appears to this reader to be telling parents who don’t give the MMR vaccination to their children to keep mum, or the herd immunity will be compromised and the advantage to those parents will be lost.

Sweet. That doesn’t sound like “receiving advantage” without giving anything useful in return, does it?

Don’t get me wrong. For people with real reasons to avoid some or all vaccines (one regular commenter on this blog comes to mind). But, “I am scared of MMR causing autism so I am not going to vaccinate my kid, but I’ll hide in the herd immunity” doesn’t sit very well.

Also, where is the compassion for those who really need the protection of herd immunity? Where is the “Consider that your neighbor’s kids could use the advantage of your child’s immunity”?

But, to bring this back to where we started: Amanda Peet has hit the scene. She has jumped in with both feet, and appears to be staying for a while. A lot of voices appear to be trying to shout her down. Instead, they just seem to be giving Amada Peet’s message more coverage.

Age of Autism get annoyed at Amanda Peet

15 Jul

Remember last week when actress Amanda Peet gave a few people some home truths?

Once we had spoken, I was shocked at the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood,” says Peet, who quickly boned up on the hot-button controversies surrounding the topic, including the unproven link between certain vaccines and autism; the safety of preservatives like mercury-based thimerosal; and the fear that the relatively high number of shots kids receive today can overwhelm young immune systems. Her conclusion? Well, not only is Frankie up-to-date on her vaccines (with no staggering), but her mom will soon appear in public-service announcements for Every Child by Two. “I buy 99 percent organic food for Frankie, and I don’t like to give her medicine or put sunscreen on her,” says Peet. “But now that I’ve done my research, vaccines do not concern me.” What does concern her is the growing number of unvaccinated children who are benefiting from the “shield” created by the inoculated—we are protected from viruses only if everyone, or most everyone, is immunized: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”

Well, today, Age of Autism posted a blog entry that gave full vent to their response:

…you have no idea who you are messing with. You have never seen the power of our numbers, our anger, our commitment, and our conviction. At present, you really have no dog in this fight.

Quite apart from the overtly threatening tone, I would like to remind these people that of _course_ Ms Peet has a ‘dog in this fight’. Everyone does. The collective health of us all clearly affects everyone. Parents who blog on Age of Autism and who blog about Gardasil have ‘no dog in that fight’ according to AoA logic.

The blog post contains one amusing little faux pas:

Ms. Peet’s decision to work with them [CDC] is analogous to the scientists in the 1950s who chose to assert that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer and work closely with Philip Morris to do so…

This is the same blog that continues to trumpet the opinion of Bernadine Healy who actually _did_ assert that cigarettes do not cause cancer and worked closely with Philip Morris to do so. Its either stupidity or a purposeful attempt to obfuscate the truth, I couldn’t possibly say.

The blog post closes with the contact details of Ms Peets advisors, along with the further threat:

…your client has chosen to align herself with him [Paul Offit]. In doing so, Ms. Peet puts herself directly in the line of fire.

If you wish to support Ms Peet’s stance, which I believe is a good one for both public health _and_ which will have a positive impact on autism in terms of moving on from this increasingly desperate and nasty campaign to convince the world vaccines cause autism, then please leave a comment in the comments section of this post, or email me (kevleitchATgmailDOTcom).

I can assure you that unlike the emails that will be sent using the details provided by the AoA blog, your comments will definitely be seen by Ms Peet.

Additional: There’s a nice piece on Amanda Peet and vaccines in Salon.com today.

Age of Autism still don't get it

15 Jul

Over on our favourite pompous blog, the authors and readers still seem to have trouble processing their collective importance to autism related science (none at all) as well as how successful politicians are at directing science (not at all).

They flourish a letter from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee (long enough name fellers?) which is itself breathtaking in its dumbness.

In the Combating Autism Act, Congress directed DHHS to conduct research into screening, diagnosis, treatment and medical care for individuals with autism. These areas of research are essential to a balanced approach. In addition to these areas, I strongly encourage the IACC to promote a balanced research portfolio when examining the underlying causes of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An examination of the FY07 ASD Research Portfolio shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies related to autism. There is growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role in the emergence of ASD.

So, they firstly admit the role of CAA did not ask DHHS to examine the causes of autism but then ask the IACC (a committee appointed as a result of the CAA) to do it anyway. They then tick the IACC off for having a preference for genetic based studies and say there’s growing evidence that a ‘wide range’ of things cause autism. Possibly thats true, but the reference they provide to support that statement belies their beliefs. They reference the recent IMFAR poster presentation of Laura Hewitson. A study that has not even been published. This _is_ a science committee right?

They then go on to repeat a number of anti-vaccinationist talking points (Hannah Poling, biomedical treatment etc etc) and then make their recommendation:

I urge you to consider forming a Secretarial-level Autism Advisory Board (AAB). While the IACC is the primary mechanism for the coordination of research, surveillance, and early detection activities within the Department of Health and Human Services, an AAB could provide additional public feedback and serve as a liaison between parents, individuals with ASD, advocacy groups and the Department of Health and Human Services, and would assist in reestablishing public confidence

and whom might be on such a board I wonder?

Groups such as SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks, the Simons Institute, the National Autism Alliance, and the Autism Research Institute all have or are currently supporting research. Such groups have experience evaluating research, an in-depth knowledge of the current body of ASD research, and an appreciation of the new questions that may need to be examined in order to move our understanding of ASD forward.

This is a bad joke, surely. What is driving this is the fact that some IACC members are annoyed that the IACC didn’t immediately capitulate to their demands to study vaccines and vaccines only. There was a good reason why they didn’t. Its already been done. No association. Move on.

I have to say the idea of SafeMinds and Generation Rescue being on a board that is to restore public confidence to “parents [and] individuals with ASD” amuses and scares me in equal part. Maybe Mr Miller hasn’t seen founding members of Generation Rescue calling autistic people ‘trailor dwelling coo-coos’ or founder members of SafeMinds referring to blogs authored by autistic people and parents of autistic people as part of a ‘Wackosphere’? I think once he has (and he will, as will Secretary Leavitt and Dr Insel) he might stop and think futher.

Anyway, I digress, back to AoA. They employ a clever bit of deviousness to try and lever vaccines into the CAA:

The CAA listed 13 scientific fields but the only specific research topic mentioned in the legislative history was vaccines and their preservations as a possible cause of autism.

Hey, why would they need to? The Omnibus Autism hearings are doing that right?

But read carefully. It looks on a quick pass like vaccines are mentioned in the CAA. But they aren’t. They are mentioned in the ‘legislative history’. What that means is that there is no mention of vaccines in the CAA (and there isn’t. Read for yourself.)

Another word that would equate with ‘legislative history’ is ‘rubbish’ meaning ‘that which has been thrown away’. AoA – or in this instance Kelli Anne Davis (apparently the DC Political Liaison for Generation Rescue) – will be using the phrase ‘legislative history’ to try and afford some weight to the idea of vaccines being in drafts of the CAA. I really doubt anyone is going to fall for that little sleight of hand Kelli Ann.

And here’s the kicker:

This letter is the result of a year-long, collaborative effort between Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee.

I’ll bet it is.

Just this week, yet more genetic evidence was uncovered into the aetiology of autism. Y’know, the kind of evidence AoA et al are saying is useless and there’s too much of.

Let this be a marking point. Let us all remember that this is the week that the political process was co-opted in order to achieve a useless goal. The results of that, if successful, will be even less research into what could be vital therapies, educational strategies, residential innovations and means of garnering respect for autistic people.

Facist Britian?

14 Jul

Watch Channel 4 news tonight at 7pm (for non UK-ers you may be able to watch here. There is apparently a horrific (if true) autism related story on tonight.

According to an email circulating:

…a special report regarding a disabled child taken into care through the back door by Bedfordshire, following the parents successful appeal to SENDIST and a High Court decision, which is irrational but dangerous. It is important piece especially for parents whose children are in boarding schools as it is enabling LEAs to place children in local provision and care, if the cost is cheaper than the child’s current provision.

Basically, what this report is claiming is that a couple tried to get their child into a particular school. The LEA protested their choice (far from uncommon). SENDIST supported the parents decision which meant the child would go to the school of the parents choosing. At this point, the LEA had the child taken into care. This would mean they would have control of where the child was schooled.

If this is true this is beyond appalling. The only reason I can possibly think of for the LEA to initiate such a despicable action is to save money. It sounds like the parents wanted a school that the LEA felt was too pricey. Thing is, for LEA’s (and I speak from experience) ‘too pricey’ is comparable to a bag of chips.

Worryingly, IPSEA (Independent Panel for Special Education Advice) seem to have experience of this very thing:

We have received some reports of parents being threatened with the removal of their child (or actual removal taking place) because the approach those parents have taken towards their child’s education is alleged by their LA to constitute “child abuse”. An example of such “abuse” has been a parental request for special school placement rather than mainstream placement.

Amazing. I can’t imagine anything more terrifying then some jumped up suit wearing bureaucrat telling you to agree with them or they’ll remove your child. How do the people who do this sleep at night?

UPDATE. Below is the Channel 4 report.

http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1184614595

Ad Council increasing autism awareness

13 Jul

This is one of the questions that comes up a lot in many discussions. Many people (myself included) believe that an increased awareness of autism, both amongst parents and professionals, has led to much of the increase in the number of people identified with autism.

So, can awareness be increased? Apparently, the Ad Council. and their partner in a recent ad campagin, Autism Speaks, think so. They recently ran an ad campaign to raise awareness about autism.

The campaign was effective enough that the Ad Council is including it as one of their recent success stories by posting a ‘case report‘ on it.

After only three months in the marketplace, the campaign reached No. 2 among 50 active Ad Council television campaigns. In the nine-month period from April to December 2006, the “Odds” campaign earned almost $47 million in donated media.

That’s a lot of exposure, and a lot of money. That would have purchased a lot of, say, full page ads in USA Today. But, it wasn’t the amount of exposure alone, it was the tone of the campaign. The Ad Council did some background research before they started spending a lot of donated ad money. What did they find?

It became apparent that there was a disabling fear among parents regarding autism, a fear that led them to tune out information.

I am sure we could have a nice lively debate about how much fear was used in the ad council campaign which focused on the “odds” of a child being diagnosed with autism. But, their background research was indicating that the fear mongering campaigns (think print ads with giant vaccine syringes for one example) were actually driving people away, making them “tune out”.

Hmmm, the previous ad campaigns, run by organizations populated with public relations people, were making people “tune out”.

But, did the campaign work? Yep, they increased awareness of autism. The ad council claimed a 35% increase in awareness. More importantly, “Parents are also increasingly likely to take action as a result of the campaign.” Parents are talking more about autism, seeking out autism websites and, most importantly, they are talking to their doctors about autism more. That last bit has to impact the number of kids identified with autism.

The campaign also benefited their partner in this: Autism Speaks. Traffic to their website spiked to nearly 450,000 visitors a month. That would be about 15,000 visitors a day. For reference, Kev has noted that this blog gets about 3,000 unique visitors a day. Not bad for someone who built the traffic to this website on words, not money.

Perhaps no other childhood disorder has come into the public eye as quickly and widely as autism. The “Odds” campaign has successfully made autism a more common subject for family concern and discussion. By doing so, the campaign has laid the groundwork for an effective follow-up phase, in which parents can be educated about the early signs of autism and empowered to take action that will significantly enhance their children’s development. Considering the widespread nature of the disorder, such action could potentially benefit nearly 2 million children in the U.S., significantly improving the health and welfare of future generations.

First off: whoa! 2 million children?!? I can only imagine that they are including children with other, non-autism, conditions who might be helped by parents seeking out information. Or, are they considering future generations? Or, the American children who are now grown up into adults? That aside, the ad council (and their partner Autism Speaks) appears to be agreeing that raising awareness about autism can lead to parents taking action. In other words, parents will be more likely to get their kids properly identified…increasing the “epidemic” of autism by counting the uncounted.

The Ad-Council/Autism Speaks alliance has been continued for another three years.

The campaign has thus far generated more than $125 million in donated print, broadcast and online media and is credited with raising awareness of autism by more than 43%.

Raising awareness. More people will be identified. Is the Ad-Council adding to the epidemic?

In closing I have to add: where is the campaign about adults with autism?

Small Omnibus updates

12 Jul

OK, I am watching this closely enough that I read the small updates.

This one discusses a number of small topics.

First, evidence and all arguments are now complete for the First Theory of Causation. This is the theory argued last year in the Cedillo, Hazelhurst and Snyder cases. The theory there was that thimerosal plus the MMR vaccine combine to cause autism.

There was some delay as the petitioner’s lawyers (PSC) attempted to get some documents from the UK. It appears that there was a low likelyhood of that ever happening, so the PSC dropped the request (ceased efforts in that regard).

What does this mean? It means the Special Masters (SM’s) have all the information that they are going to get. They have already spent a lot of time analyzing what they have, and they expect to make a “detailed written ruling as soon as possible”.

Second is an update on the Second Theory of Causation. That is the theory that thimerosal alone can cause autism. This was mostly a summary of the fact that two of the specific cases (King and Mead) have been heard this May and that the third specific case (Dwyer) will be heard later this month.

Third, is the, well, Third Theory of Causation. This is the theory that MMR alone causes autism. As near as I can see, this is in a bit of a limbo right now. The PSC was supposed to submit expert reports and prepare for specific cases in September. However, there have been motions stating that there is no new general causation evidence. The evidence would be the same as for the First Theory hearings held last year. The Special Masters appear to be still working on how to respond to those motions.


Another update was submitted recently. This is a strange one. There was discussion during the May hearings (on the thimerosal theory) that two more respondent (i.e. government side) expert witnesses would give general testimony (in person and/or by expert report) in the July hearing (Dwyer). Those were to be Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos. The PSC wanted to put Dr. Aposhian on to rebut their testimony. All well and good. Except that the Respondent’s decided to pull the expert reports by Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos. The PSC then said that they still wanted to put Dr. Aposhian on to rebut other testimony. Still following? Well, the SM’s said that since Dr. Aposhian was only on there to rebut the Dr.’s Clarkson and Magos, he couldn’t go on if they didn’t.

Now, I expect this to draw a lot of speculation. People will be claiming that for some reason the DoJ was afraid of what Aposhian had to say, to the point of scuttling their own witnesses. I expect this from the internet, because, well, that’s the sort of thing that happens here. But, there is this bit in the Omnibus update:

Mr. Powers then stated that the petitioners might wish to file a motion requesting that certain unspecified inferences be drawn from the respondent’s decision to withdraw the reports of Drs. Magos and Clarkson. As we noted during the conference, we will certainly consider any such motion

So, the PSC want to “draw inferences” from this action. As I said, I expect that from the internet. I was a little surprised to see it from the lawyers in this case. (I may surprise easily)

There is something of substance in this: general testimony for the Second Theory is over. No more expert witnesses talking about the general idea that thimerosal causes autism. There will be a few days of testimony about one more of the Petitioners (Dwyer), but it is supposed to center only on the details of his case.

(note: a few small edits were added about my surprise in the request for ‘inferences’)

Autism Speaks refuses to talk: 1.5 million autistic people? How do you figure?

12 Jul

Not long ago Michelle Dawson, an autistic adult and autism researcher in Montreal, Canada, wrote that she had tried to get Autism Speaks to explain how they arrrived at their well known number of autistic people in the US (or just autistic children in the US, depending on which of their statements you are reading). She phoned the Autism Speaks offices not too long ago and eventually was handed off to a man named Michael. This apparently was Autism Speaks epidemiology “expert” of sorts, Michael Rosanoff, a young man in a sort of low level position at Autism Speaks and without much training in epidemiology it seems.

You can read some of what transpired in Michelle’s conversation
on her QT board And on her blog

I like this paragraph in particular from that blog

On the other hand, if Autism Speaks applies their advertised 1 in 150 prevalence figure to the entire US population (which cracked 300 million in 2006), then the result is a total of 2 million autistics in the US, of whom about 500,000 are children and 1.5 million are adults. But this would mean that there has been a high stable rate of autism. This is a scientifically sound position, but one that Autism Speaks and autism advocacy in general has rejected.

jypsy also contacted Autism Speaks through a form on their website and was sent to check out a page on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website that explained the 1 in 150 number, which was not jypsy’s question. Hers was the same as mine, “How did you get the 1.5 million autistics in the United States number?”. jypsy was told to check back with Autism Speaks if she didn’t get her answer on the CDC website. She checked back with them reiterating that she wanted to know how they got the 1.5 million number and they didn’t respond.

So I emailed Michael Rosanoff (mrosanoff@autismspeaks.org) and the AS general email address (contactus@autismspeaks.org) my question, which is below Mr. Rosanoff’s response here from Monday, July 7, 2008:

Ms. Clark,

Thank you for the e-mail. I will be glad to answer your questions. Would you be available for a brief phone call? If so, please provide me with some dates/times you are available as well as a number at which you can be reached. I look forward to speaking with you.

Best,

Michael

—–Original Message—–
From: [Ms. Clark]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 5:57 PM
To: contactus; Michael Rosanoff
Subject: Question about autism epidemiology

Dear Autism Speaks and Michael Rosanoff,

I am gathering information for an article I want to write about
autism prevalence in the United States. Autism Speaks uses the CDC’s
latest estimate of autism prevalence, that is 1 in 150.

Autism Speaks also uses a figure for the total number of people with
autism in the United States, 1.5 million.

1) Can you show me how you arrived at the 1.5 million number?

2) Which census numbers were you using when you arrived at 1.5 million
and which prevalence numbers were you using?

3) Is it possible that the number of autistic people in the US is
significantly higher that 1.5 million? That is, if you divide the
currently population of the United States by 150 would you arrive at
1.5 million?

4) Can you tell me how you see the 1.5 million breaking down by age
groups, in other words, about how many of the 1.5 million are about
age 3-15 and about how many are 16-21? Also, how many are over 21,
and how many are over 50? If you can break out the ages using
different age groups that would be fine, but basically, how many
youngsters and how many adults?

5) Please indicate if you are using numbers for the whole spectrum:
autistic disorder, pdd-nos and Asperger’s disorder, or if you believe
that a set of numbers only applies to people with “classic autism”.

Thank you very much in advance.

[Ms. Clark]

I sent my question to Mr. Rosanoff on Friday, July 4, and he responded on Monday which was nice and prompt. I answered him on Tuesday saying that he could call me Thursday and gave him a time slot. I then told him if he confirmed that time was good I’d send him my phone number.
He didn’t respond.
Then I found out that it was likely that Mr. Rosanoff would not be responding, that it was likely he was just trying to give the impression that he wanted to respond… since really, he could have responded in the email to me instead of asking if we could talk on the phone. The whole thing about needing to talk on the phone struck me as a little bizarre anyway. Why couldn’t he just answer the questions, he being Autism Speaks epidemiology expert? Shouldn’t he be able to crank out the answers in his sleep? For that matter why isn’t there a page or two on Autism Speaks devoted to explaining how many autistic adults they are trying to serve as the big mondo world encompassing AUTISM (b)org?

So after getting no response about my offered time slot for Michael Rosanoff to call me, I sent Mr. Rosanoff and a few others at the now curiously silent Autism “Speaks” (including to media@autismspeaks.org) semi-cranky email saying this shouldn’t be a so difficult you guys, and asking them just to answer my questions, please, thank you. And I have had no response from any of those I emailed.

So I encourage any of you to also email Autism Speaks or to call them and ask them, how do you get your 1.5 million number. About how many are adults and how many are children? You could also ask them if they have a vague idea of how many of the total have “autistic disorder” and how many have another of the ASDs/PDDs.

If you’d like to send them a letter you could address it to:

Autism Speaks
2 Park Avenue
11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

This is their general phone number (212) 252-8584 and their fax: (212) 252-8676, if you prefer faxing the question. I suppose they answer the phone from 9-5 Monday through Friday, Eastern Time excepting holidays. I encourage all to use your “indoor voice” when calling and be polite as possible.

This is not a trivial question. If Autism Speaks wants to be BIG AUTISM* the borg (We are Autism Speaks. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.) of autism organizations then they should be able to give basic facts about the community they are claiming to serve when they are out pounding on people’s emotions to get them to fork over cash to support Autism Speaks.

*”Big Autism” is an apt term that was coined by the blogger Prometheus.

WXYZ and bad "investigative" reporting

11 Jul

Wouldn’t you love to move on from the thimerosal debate? Yes, I mean that as part of the greater move away from the vaccine/autism debate. But we are closing in on the end of the thimerosal era and, let’s face it, the nebulous arguments about “toxins” will be around for a while. People have learned the lessons of not making clearly falsifiable claims or setting deadlines for the “autism rate to decline”, so they will be able to keep the general vaccine discussion alive for some time to come.

But, we aren’t there yet with thimerosal. And, to prove the point, Steve Wilson at station WXYZ in Detroit has managed to regurgitate the standard thimerosal arguments. That would be not surprising. I expect a these aftershocks. What I is really annoying is the methodology. Orac has referred to it as “yellow journalism”, and I quite agree.

I will note that Orac and the Denialism Blog have both covered this in greater detail than I can. AutismNewsBeat has a journalist’s viewpoint as well.

Why am I annoyed with Steve Wilson? First off, he starts out by claiming that the “prevailing strategy seems to be to downplay the possibility of any link so that parents will continue to vaccinate their children”. (rough quote, sorry, I just don’t want to listen to that over and over again).

Sounds like a page from the Bernadine Healy playbook. Let’s imply something sinister is going on. Let’s imply that the AAP is hiding evidence. Steve: how about acknowledging that the “prevailing strategy” is to tell people what the science actually says? Doesn’t that seem like the “prevailing strategy” that the AAP and others are using? It does to me.

Another big chunk of the Steve Wilson’s report is based on this statement:

“..the truth is, there is still as much as ever..in 11 vaccines”

At this point, it’s worth reading Orac who lists the actual pediatric vaccines and their thimerosal levels.

You see, Steve Wilson pulled a classic con. Sorry to call it so bluntly, but that’s what I see. He talks about vaccines that aren’t being given to children young enough to develop autism. I don’t even know if the 11 vaccines he is talking about really do have thimerosal. Because, it doesn’t matter in this discussion. What matters is the pediatric vaccine schedule.

The part that bugs me is that Steve Wilson knows it. He gives as an example the thimerosal in tetanus boosters given to 11 year olds. Yes, he actually talks about 11 year olds.

Yep, the goalposts have moved so far, we are building new stadiums. 11 year olds being given tetanus boosters might develop autism. Except for Jim Carrey, who has ever implicated Tetanus shots? Even Jim Carry didn’t indicate that it was the booster given at age 11.

It appears to me that Mr. Wilson isn’t even going to the actual sources for his information. His report is a nice smattering of the standard vaccines-cause-autism line. One bit that caught my attention is when he talks about statements in the congressional record.

A congressional committee that studied the matter has already concluded: “Thimerosal…is directly related to the Autism epidemic.”

I was pretty sure that was a Dan Burton quote, so I Googled it to find the source. I came up with Deadly Immunity, by Robert Kennedy Jr, but I didn’t find the part of the congressional record with it. I looked a bit harder and found that the congressional record shows the statement as:

“Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines in [sic] likely related to the autism epidemic.”

I don’t agree with the above either. But, compare “likely related” (Steve Wilson) and “directly related” (congressional record). Somewhat different meaning, don’t you think?

I can’t resist putting out some of the list of “what do we know about mercury”? As it turns out, a lot. A lot more than I ever wanted to know, I’ll tell you that. A lot more than actually helps my family. But, here are some examples of what we know:

1) the dose makes the poison. Absolutely. There has to be a dose small enough that it would not cause toxicity.

2) mercury is everywhere. It was in the organic cinnamon-applesauce cup I just ate. It was in the organic lemonade juicebox I just drank. (sounds like I am the one on the playground, eh?).

3) When used in vaccines, it doesn’t increase the risk of most neurological disorders. Most? Yes, they didn’t include autism (see (5) below). Also, there were disorders that were indicated as possibly associated. Then again, there were some positive outcomes that were indicated as possibly associated with thimerosal. It looks like random chance–association is determined by statistics, and if you test enough associations, some will appear to be statistically significant.

4) when injected into pregnant women in RhoGaM type shots, it does not increase the risk of autism.

5) indications are that the upcoming CDC report on thimerosal and autism will show no increased risk.

6) Autism symptoms are not the same as mercury intoxication…autism is not “a novel form of mercury poisoning.

We could go on for a long time with the evidence against the concept that autism is caused by mercury. But, this is just a small list of the many things that somehow didn’t get into Steve Wilson’s investigative report.

New clues to autism's cause

10 Jul

Time report on a new study that found yet more genetic clues to what causes autism.

A paper published in the current issue of Science by researchers at Children’s Hospital Boston and members of the Boston-based Autism Consortium identifies five new autism-related gene defects. Already, more than a dozen genetic defects have been found to be associated with autism spectrum disorders, which affect about 1 in 150 children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the good news, say the Boston researchers, is that many of the genes are beginning to fit into a pattern. “While it might seem discouraging that it’s a growing list of genes, we can be encouraged that a common pathway is emerging,” says Dr. Christopher Walsh, chief of genetics at Children’s Hospital Boston and an author of the paper.

I haven’t read the paper yet but it sounds pretty interesting. They eschewed US and European people and elected to study Turkish and Middle East autistic people because these families have a high incidence of cousins marrying cousins. The end product of this paper is that the authors believe autism may:

…fundamentally amount to molecular defects in learning.

I have issues with the word defect. Some research indicates clearly that autistic people learn differently and not in a way that should be classed as a defect. However, I understand that scientists use terminology pertinent to their training. Hopefully, lessons can be learnt in this arena.

One fascinating thing – and one long suspected by many of us:

There may be hundreds of varieties of autism. From what researchers have seen so far, says Morrow, “It looks like almost every child with autism is different from the next — a different gene is mutated in almost every child.”

A different gene in every child. That – to me – is one more confirmation of what I once thought of as a spectrum and now imagine as an ever-shifting Aurora of autism. And not just autism but _all_ neurological differences.

Amanda Peet says it like it is

10 Jul

From Cookiemag.

Peet’s analytical urges are comical when she’s talking about kids’ gear, but not when she’s discussing a subject she feels is among today’s most pressing public-health issues: infant vaccinations. “As soon as I was pregnant, the neuroses kicked in,” says Peet, 36, who is married to screenwriter David Benioff. She began calling her older sister’s husband, a Philadelphia pediatrician, “every five minutes” with all kinds of questions, especially about shots. “I asked him, ‘Why are all of these necessary? Why are some people staggering them?’?” Eventually her brother-in-law arranged a series of phone calls between Peet and his own mentor, Paul Offit, M.D., who is chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, and a board member of Every Child by Two, a pro-vaccine organization cofounded in 1991 by former first lady Rosalynn Carter.

“Once we had spoken, I was shocked at the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood,” says Peet, who quickly boned up on the hot-button controversies surrounding the topic, including the unproven link between certain vaccines and autism; the safety of preservatives like mercury-based thimerosal; and the fear that the relatively high number of shots kids receive today can overwhelm young immune systems. Her conclusion? Well, not only is Frankie up-to-date on her vaccines (with no staggering), but her mom will soon appear in public-service announcements for Every Child by Two. “I buy 99 percent organic food for Frankie, and I don’t like to give her medicine or put sunscreen on her,” says Peet. “But now that I’ve done my research, vaccines do not concern me.” What does concern her is the growing number of unvaccinated children who are benefiting from the “shield” created by the inoculated—we are protected from viruses only if everyone, or most everyone, is immunized: “Frankly, I feel that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.“

Amanda Peet

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →