Archive | Autism RSS feed for this section

Yet more Scientology and Autism

11 Mar

After my post on Friday detailing how one of the ‘recovered’ poster children of Generation Rescue was in fact diagnosed, treated and recovered by Scientologists (people who do not, by definition, believe in psychiatric conditions), I was forwarded another piece of information that really did make me sit back in my chair and wonder where this was all leading.

Dan Burton is a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Indiana. He is a firm believer in the autism/vaccine connection, being on record as stating:

“My only grandson became autistic right before my eyes – shortly after receiving his federally recommended and state-mandated vaccines”

He has acted in the interests of various parent led organisations who claim to be autism advocates and has become a powerful voice.

However, as the saying goes: behind every great man…

The people behind Dan Burton include (or used to) one Sarah Elizabeth (Beth) Clay who:

Beth Clay is Congressman Burton’s assistant, and Burton is the Chair of the House Oversight Committee.

This puts Ms Clay in a position of some strength with a man who is in a powerful position. In fact, as we can see Ms Clay has lobbied for SafeMinds, one of the largest antivax/autism movements, on numerous occasions.

Ms Clay also runs her own lobbying organisation BC and A International:

During her Capitol Hill tenure, Ms. Clay’s work focused on several breakthrough issues, including: complementary and alternative medicine, dietary supplement regulation, the epidemic rise in rates of autism spectrum disorders…..issues…..mercury and heavy metal toxicity

However, Ms Clay’s CV also includes other activities that are oddly not mentioned on BC and A’s website. She is a Board Member of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, an organisation that:

CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and the internationally acclaimed author, Dr. Thomas Szasz.

Yup, Beth Clay, Assistant to Congressman Dan Burton and hired gun of SafeMinds is a Scientologist, or works with them.

We now have several DAN! doctors who are scientologists, several thiomersal/autism lawyers who are scientologists, a ‘cured’ child who was diagnosed (partly), treated and ‘cured’ by scientologists and now one Congressman who’s advisor is a scientologist. We also have one indirect link from scientology to Generation Rescue (in the shape of Julia Berle, founding parent of that organisation and mother to the ‘cured’ child described above) and one direct link from scientology to SafeMinds in the shape of Beth Clay.

Maybe its worth reminding ourselves what Scientology is. According to ex-scientologist, Roland Rashleigh-Berry, Scientology is:

….a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives

The founder of this cult, L Ron Hubbard, once said:

Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion

Or maybe sell snake oil.

Autism and Scientology again

9 Mar

Awhile ago, I wrote a post the detailed the disturbing links between the DAN! movement and scientology. It transpired that scientology – being a movement that is big on non psychiatric modes of treatments is a good fit for DAN! adherents. Both value detoxification for a range of things and it seems Scientologists have not been slow to ingratiate themselves into the DAN! movement. So far, I’ve identified three Scientologists who are also DAN! Doctors. One of them was involved in the death of a parent of a schizophrenic man in 2002.

One of the darlings of the autism/vaccine movement is Julia Berle who’s son, Baxter, was used in a Generation Rescue advert. Ms Berle is a frequent poster to various autism/vaccine groups. Her signature reads;

Julia, mom to Baxter, recovered in 2005, Founding Parent of Generation Rescue

As mum to a recovered child, Ms Berle’s opinion is sought in many places and she never stints from dispensing the advice she got far and wide.

Baxter Berle was diagnosed (at least partly it seems) by Scientologists. If I may quote myself:

Baxter Berle attended a school called ‘The Learning Castle’ which is an alleged elementary ‘feeder’ school for the Renaissance Academy with which it shares a campus (there seem to be about seven separate units on campus all feeding the Renaissance Academy). Here’s a little bit of information about the Director of the Renaissance Academy, Ann Hazen;

Renaissance Academy is truly bringing education back to life through the use of a full academic program, athletics, the Arts, a warm and caring staff coupled with the brilliant study and educational philosophies of humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard.

Yup, they’re Scientologists too.

So Scientologists had a big say in the diagnosis of Baxter Berle. What about his recovery? I was recently forwarded this email by a member of a autism/vaccine group Ms Berle is also a member of:

— begins —

Re: Opinion of Dr. Nancy Mullan ?
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:25 pm
— In autisminterventionsocal@yahoogroups.com,
“djberle” wrote:

Hey there,

We used Dr. Mullan to recover Baxter. I like that she stays cutting edge on top of all new topics as it relates to autism. She attends numerous conferences to stay current. I also highly respect her availability to parents and compassion to “work with you” on
all aspects (to include financial to some degree). She cares deeply for our children and wants to help them….Our experience with her was very positive. I refer her often to other local. parents. I also refer Dr. Hirani as she helped us as well.

— ends —

So Dr Mullan recovered Baxter. Dr Mullan is also a Scientologist. She is the Medical Director of the Scientology owned Safe Harbor organisation. She also used Dr Hinari who studied under Julian Whittaker – another doctor with Scientology connections.

Here we have a situation where Scientologists have (maybe) diagnosed, treated and recovered a boy. This boy was subsequently turned into one of the poster children for successful recovery by Generation Rescue (of whom Ms Berle describes herself as a founding member).

Maybe I’m just a cynic but this reeks of ‘set up’ to me.

Ayoub/Yazbak/Fombonne

8 Mar

_Jonathon has posted an excellent summation which I entirely agree with on the Ayoub/Yazbak/Fombonne ‘affair’. I’ll include it here and shut off comments, including a link to Jonathon’s post for you to see references and leave comments._

_My one comment is to say that I think that Fombonne has a case to answer. I also hope that he will. I further think that the critical errors Jonathon highlights show clearly that the more outlandish claims that Ayoub and Yazbak have demonstrated correlation between MMR and autism are unfounded. They should’ve just stuck to the genuine and good quality criticism of Fombonne._

_The floor is now Jonathon’s: _

A Review of the Critiques of Fombonne et al. (2006)
Abstract

The critiques of Fombonne et al. (2006) do point some relevant problems with that study. However, they also use some considerably problematic arguments themselves.

Introduction

Fombonne et al (2006) attempts to correlate data between an increase in the number of cases of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders and vaccine use in school children residing in Montreal, Canada. That research failed to reveal any such correlation. In addition the researchers found a prevalence rate of the PDD’s which match what is seen in the US (Bertrand et al., 2001), the UK (Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001; and Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2005), the Faroe Islands in Northern Europe (Ellefsen et al., 2006), and matches data on Autistic Disorder in Japan (Honda et al., 2005)

Recently, two web based articles have been released and promoted based out of the National Autistic Association website. These articles were written by Dr. David Ayoub & Monica Ruscitti for one letter and Dr. Edward Yazbak for the other. These authors raise important and damaging points which call into question the validity of Fombonne et al. (2006). I note however, that not all the points raised in these critiques have equal merit; in fact some of the points raised are most notable for their lack of merit. The points raised in the critiques are discussed below.

Review of Ayoub & Ruscitti

The authors point out that Fombonne et al. (2006) only uses data from only one of Montreal’s five school districts. This district is specifically an English speaking section. The authors accurately point out that a selection bias may have occurred here. In addition the authors note that Fombonne et al. (2006) claimed they could not gain access to the other school districts’ data. The authors then claimed they gained access to this data and make specific claims about a notably higher rate of autism in the school district Fombonne et al. used. I note that these data and analysis methods are absent.

The authors note that English is only the third most common language in Quebec, the largest group being French and the second largest being assorted foreign languages. The authors note that access is restricted to the English speaking school district by a law designed to help protect the French language. However, the authors simultaneously make the claim that this English speaking school is more inclusive than the others. This claim seems contradictory. It is possible that while the English speaking district is more exclusive in general it is in fact more inclusive towards students with disabilities. However this point is not explained.

The authors correctly criticize Fombone et al. (2006) for describing thimerosal laden shots as “nil”. The authors go on to describe vaccines in Canada that continue to use thimerosal. However, the authors fail to note that none of these vaccines are actually required any longer and for that reason exposure should not be comparable.

The authors mention that fourth graders largely participated in a voluntary vaccination program for Hepatitis B, which contains thimerosal. However, the DSM-IV mandates that Autistic Disorder first appear in a child by age 3, even if it is diagnosed later. Fourth graders do not develop autism. Also, and rather remarkably the authors cite Roy et al. (1999) which is concerned with the health and safety including vaccination based on high risk behaviors of street youth in Montreal. The median age of that study was 19.5.

The authors criticize Fombonne in the following terms:

“he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates. Obviously the increased amount of administered viral load to the population was far greater influenced by a doubling of shots administered than by a marginal drop in immunization coverage rates. He likewise ignored the potential impact of mass measles immunization campaigns in Quebec that delivered a second dose of measles to a large number of infants and children throughout 1996. (11) The subsequent rise in PDD shortly after that campaign is clearly depicted in their figures and would lead us to believe this observation supports an association between PDD and MMR exposure.”

The above assumes that the drop in thimerosal was not only made up, but actually exceeded by the increase in MMR dosage. For this explanation to work, one must simultaneously assume that both thimerosal and the MMR can cause autism. A more parsimonious explanation would be that the rate of autism would have risen regardless, which is certainly what we see in other locations including the no longer mandatory thimerosal exposure in California.

The authors also state:

“Numerous reports of higher PDD rates among immigrants have been reported in Canada and other industrialized countries.”

This claim is demonstrated no where in any research. It even seems to contradict some actual research (Kamer et al., 2004).

The authors go on to assert:

“Finally the paper’s observation about rising PDD rates seems to contradict Dr. Fombonne’s well-known contention of the lack of evidence of an autism epidemic. In an Inserm interview, Dr. Fombonne said, “to declare an epidemic, or sensible increase of the prevalence, it would take incidence studies, always the same, year after year, but this data is not available in any country.” (12) The database we obtained from the MEQ represents the type of dataset Fombonne stated was required to detect true increases in PDD. According to one Montreal-based autism organization, data from the MEQ revealed an increase in annual PDD cases in Quebec from 410 (1990-1991) to 4,483 (2005-2006), a nearly 1,000% increase over 15 years. (13) This is staggering and is strong evidence of a real rise in neurodevelopmental illnesses that cannot possibly be solely genetic in nature but supports an environmental etiology.”

The above statement is presents a false problem. An increase in this data set may not be attributable to real change in the actual number of cases. The system could be open to a lack of control for the six threats to statistical validity. This is a well known problem in other administrative data sets in the world of autism.

Review of Yazbak

The author submitted an letter to the editor detailing concerns about uptake of the MMR rate in Montreal and the increase in the PDDs. The editor forwarded this comment from Dr. Fombonne:

“This person is known to pursue the MMR-autism agenda at all
costs in order to ‘demonstrate’ a link he strongly believes in. The only way ahead is to encourage him to do independent research. All controlled epidemiological research thus far has concluded to the absence of such a link.”

the editor of the journal had this to say:

“As a note, I believe the evidence of no link between MMR and Autism is sufficient. It’s not worth publishing more on this subject. We will not be publishing this exchange of correspondence.”

I disagree with Dr. Fombonne’s approach to this situation. It is not relevant that Dr. Yazbak believes in a vaccine etiology of autism. I also disagree with his failing to address Dr. Yazabak’s criticisms which are specific and serious.

I also heartily disagree with the editor’s refusal to publish Dr. Yazbak’ criticism. While it is certainly his job to ensure that all matters within the journal merit inclusion under a serious scientific aegis, Dr. Yazbak’s criticisms are specific and fall into known categories of scientific criticism. Whether or not he believes it has no beating on his responsibility to publish scientific criticism.

However, given the title Dr. Yazbak selected “Far-Fetched”, perhaps the editor had ground to refuse this letter or at least demand that it be re-titled. Pediatrics is a serious academic journal of high standard. In most such journals while a given level of sarcasm and dismissiveness is permitted, this seems to have crossed the line of acceptability.

Dr. Yazbak goes on to assert:

“When he was in France, Dr. Fombonne was a well known psychiatrist who published articles on psychiatric topics. He was still a psychiatrist when he moved to England …until Andrew Wakefield suggested that the link between MMR vaccination and autism should be further investigated and suddenly …Dr. Fombonne became a “psychiatrist / epidemiologist” and a consultant to the UK medical authorities on MMR vaccination and autism”

The Wakefield controversy began in 1998. So:

Fombonne, E. (1996). Is the prevalence of autism increasing? Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 673–676.

Fombonne, E. (1997). The prevalence of autism and other pervasive
developmental disorders in the UK. Autism, 1, 227–229.

QED.

The author further asserts that:

“It is obviously customary to disclose sources of funding, Disclosing sources of “Non-Funding” on the other hand is unusual. In any case, it is nice to know that Dr. Fombonne’s research was never funded by the “Industry”.”

This is easily explainable in that Dr. Fombonne’s work has been informally criticized as being supported by the pharmaceutical industry, possibly with the intent that he would manipulate the data in favor of finding no association. This statement may have been given to help put such non-sense to rest.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that the weak criticisms in the critiques above do not remove the genuine and quality criticisms. The authors do point some genuine problems. The failure of both editor and Dr. Fombonne to make adequate response is also disagreeable.

By the same token some of the criticisms are remarkable for their lack of relevancy or factual basis. There are problems with these critiques that have a real potential to mislead others. It is to be hoped that the NAA and the authors will take steps to amend this, leaving their better criticisms intact.

See references and leave comments on Jonathon’s site.

Airbrushing science from causation

4 Mar

Another update from the Autism Omnibus proceedings. This one I find worrying. It essentially presents two things for the courts consideration from petitioners (those who think vaccines cause autism):

1) That the scope of the hearings does _”not”_ :

…limit the scope of these proceedings to only those cases with a formal diagnosis of autism

2) That ‘Daubert’ is not utilised as the evidentiary standard.

The first one I find very worrying indeed. This essentially opens up a never ending series of possible cases surely? It also raises the ugly question of the honesty of the people raising this legal case. These are parents who hitherto have described their children as those who have been made autistic by vaccines (either just thiomersal or just MMR or a combo of both). Now, apparently, it is enough that:

…the injuries at issue here include neurodevelopmental disorders _similar_ to autism…

I have to wonder: just how many of these 4,700+ children have actually been diagnosed as being autistic? And how many are children being made to act as Trojan horses for a possible cash windfall for their parents? A disturbing, uncharitable thought to be sure but I don’t know what else to make of this.

Even more worrying is the petitioners attempts to make sure Daubert is not used as the means of determining evidentiary standard.

Lets remind ourselves of what Daubert is. Daubert is a legal precedent which:

[is] raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. This is a special case of motion in limine, usually used to exclude the testimony of an expert witness who has no such expertise or used questionable methods to obtain the information.

In plan terms it means that crap evidence cannot be presented to a court. I’m going to quote from Wikipedia directly:

In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges now must evaluate proffered expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”; a two-pronged test of admissibility.

a) The relevancy prong: The relevancy of a testimony refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence “fit” the facts of the case. For example, you may invite an astronomer to tell the jury if it was a full moon on the night of a crime. However, the astronomer would not be allowed to testify if the fact that the moon was full was not relevant to the issue at hand in the trial.

b) The reliability prong: The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must have derived his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The Court offered “general observations” of whether proffered evidence was based on the scientific method, although the list was not intended to be used as an exacting checklist:
– Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
– Subjected to peer review and publication.
– Known or potential error rate.
– Whether there are standards controlling the technique’s operations.
– Whether the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

What this boils down to is this – Daubert ensures that science presented as evidence is _good science_ . The petitioners are fighting hard to try and make sure Daubert does not become the way the omnibus case is judged:

…the notion that Daubert should provide the substantive criteria for resolving general causation issues in the omnibus proceeding ought to be explicitly dismissed.

Why? Well they _say_ its because Daubert is procedural, not practical, that Daubert interprets _Federal_ rules of evidence that do not apply in the Omnibus and that it is based on development of expert evidence through revealing documents which is not available in these proceedings.

Uh-huh, and of course the fact that Daubert demands a _scientific_ level of proof has nothing to do with things. Right.

Hilariously, what the petitioners want is to establish general causation in a Daubert-less series of hearings using a few ‘case studies’ hand picked from the 4,700 and then use _these_ as the body of general causation evidence to go on and establish specific causation in each single member of the 4,700. Stop and think about how poor the state of their science must be if they are arguing tooth and nail to do this.

Let’s not forget that three high echelon members of the mercury militia have all fallen foul of Daubert within the last year when trying to establish quack causes for autism: Martha Herbert, Boyd Haley and Mark Geier all came to realise that quackery and bad science is quickly exposed by such a hearing. And now – all of a sudden – the petitioners don’t want any truck with Daubert. Shocking.

Make no mistake – if they get their way, _which they may very well do_ – then a) these kids don’t have to be autistic and b) no science needs to be presented to establish general causation.

The closest recent bout of idiocy I can think to compare to this was when certain Southern US states stated that creationism was a viable science to be taught in a science class alongside actual science. They went on to win a a legal case as well if I recall. Don’t think that this one can’t be won by bad science too.

Portia Iverson – Strange Son

4 Mar

This isn’t a book review.

This is the the unfolding story of some book reviews about Portia Iverson’s new book ‘Strange Son’.

Ms Iverson is a founder of CAN (Cure Autism Now) and wrote this book about her own son Dov and another autistic boy – Tito Mukhopadhyay. Here’s how an author I once had a great deal of respect for described this book:

Love introduced two mothers, one who lived in India and the other in the United States. Their passion to seek health for their children, both afflicted by autism, brought the two women across continents and over oceans. Each stimulated the other with her fervor to find medical breakthroughs. Their story is exciting and uplifting.

Amazingly (or not so in this day and age) the first customer review is written by Tito Mukhopadhyay, one of the ‘strange sons’ who was ‘afflicted by autism’. Here’s his review:

I am Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay.

The book ‘Strange Son’ felt like a ‘slap’ on my face from someone who mother and I trusted the most.

Overstimulation and puberty stage can be difficult for many like me. But getting recorded in a way like that, ‘hurts more than my Autism’.

‘May the writer find whatever she seeks’.

By the way, I ‘hand-write’ and communicate/write my books (the Mind Tree, Gold of the Sunbeams, Beyond the Silence). Next year my new book (untitled) will be out, which will describe my sensory conditions in detail, so that other authors may be more equipped before writing about them as ‘observers’ if they watch the ‘show’.

Regards to one and all.

Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay

Here’s a young man who patently feels that he was used, presumably as fodder for Ms Iverson’s publishing career.

Later on, in a separate review, Tito comments:

Honest from the author’s perspective. Perception is a tricky business. But some honesty hurts and Mutilates the trust forever.

Indeed. I would agree with Mr Mukhopadhyay that Ms Iverson’s perception of him is probably flawed and coming from her odd opinions regarding the nature of autism. The following is from a review by a Lisa Helt:

I can’t believe anyone could write such cruel things about any human being, much less a child with a disability. She uses the words, “beast-like”, “alien”, “possessed by a demon”, “like a wild beast”.

The next reviewer in this thread is Portia Iverson herself who says:

I never use the terms: “beast-like”, “alien”, “possessed by a demon” to describe my son in my book. This inaccurracy and others make it clear that this reviewer has not actually read the book.

What Iverson fails to note is that Ms Helt did not claim these comments were specifically about her own son, Dov. No, she reserved these words for the foreigner. And as Ms Helt points out, she certainly _did_ use them:

Actually, you did use these terms. On page 129,”When I left their apartment that day I felt as if I’d glimpsed into the mind of an alien being.”; Page 116, “‘Tired’ was hardly an apt explanation for the extraordinary scene we had been witnessing … where food was flying in every direction, accompanied by his odd grimacing sounds…”; Page 117, “I emailed Tito that same night and asked him why he behaved like that at the table, grabbing food and acting like a wild beast …”; Page 126, “He dashed through the house and raced toward the fridge, the first stop on the terrible circuit he could not break free of. He flung open the refrigerator door and wildly rifled through its contents… ‘You’ll never get a publisher with this kind of behavior!’ I commented in a low voice”; Page 127, “Now it seemed as if Tito were possessed by a demon.”;

As commenter Anne Bevington states later on:

An alien, a wild beast, possessed by a demon … the author was writing about Tito, not Dov. I’m sure Tito has brought in a lot of attention and money for the author’s organization, Cure Autism Now. This is the thanks he gets. The author owes Tito an apology, at the very least.

Another reviewer, Linda Lange comments:

One thing I’ve gathered from this book is that the author believes whole-heartedly that calling others strange (including her own son, and those with autism) is okay with her. However, she draws the line at others who question strange aspects of her story. Interesting phenomena which deserves contemplation, especially as it relates to the contrast of the journeys of those described in the book. Conversely, those who are being called strange in this book don’t seem to have much of a say on the matter. Truly, strangely upsetting.

Indeed. I can’t see myself shelling out money on this book.

There’s a number of lessons to be learnt from this. Number one, this is the age of the internet Ms Iverson, don’t expect to remain free of criticism from the subject matter of your books whom you have clearly offended and abused the trust of. Secondly, lying in retorts to reviews makes you look silly.

But thirdly, and most sadly of all, you will get away with it. Here’s a section of the review from one Barbara Fischkin:

As for those of us who are getting some flack for saying we want to “cure” autism and give autistic kids “souls”: Speaking for myself, not Iverson, I think this is the shorthand of busy mothers who do many other things. Curing a child does not mean you eradicate him or her. It means you take the best, and perhaps some of the worst, that he or she demonstrates as a human being, and help him or her to show that to the world in the form that is the most comfortable for that individual. My own son, now 19, would, I am convinced, prefer to speak instead of grunt his very strong opinions. He would prefer to waste less time worrying about his bodily functions and the inappropriate way in which they have a mind of their own. And yes, he would like his old soul back, the one that was killed….

Here we have the continuing example of a parent who believes that they can not only speak for, but unfailingly know the mind of, their autistic kids. Ms Fischkin cannot even take the trouble to look up and see Tito Mukhopadhyay’s thoughts on those who would presume to speak for him:

Perception is a tricky business. But some honesty hurts and Mutilates the trust forever.

Note that Fischkin believes her son’s soul is currently dead. Killed. This dehumanisation is a direct consequence of the thought processes outlined in Strange Son.

Update

Read more from Autism Diva and MOM-NOS and the Autism Demonized team blog.

Dan Olmsted – Autism’s Dick Tracy

2 Mar

Apparently.

Dan Olmsted, who writes for the Moonie owned UPI recently published another interminable piece in his ongoing series on autism (it isn’t really about autism, its about thiomersal causing autism but what the hell…)

In this one, he reveals the shocking results of his ongoing investigation into the private lives of the first set of Kanner’s patients and tries as hard as he can to draw a parallel between them and mercury. This time he’s struck the mother lode.

Patient Frederick W’s father is now identified as Frederick L. Wellman, a scientist who’s collection of papers ‘fill 18 boxes in the Special Collections Research Center at the North Carolina State University Libraries in Raleigh’.

The first item in the first folder in the first box is dated Spring 1922, when the senior Wellman was working toward his doctorate in plant pathology at the University of Wisconsin…..Wellman collected cabbage seeds infected with a common fungus and dunked some of them in a solution of mercury salts and hot water. “The lots treated with mercuric [chloride] were shaken vigorously at first to get thorough contact with the solution,” he wrote.

And that’s not all.

Case 1 grew up in a town called Forest, Miss., surrounded by logging camps, lumber mills, and a national forest being planted by the Civilian Conservation Corps. Forest is 50 miles from the Mississippi sawmills where ethyl mercury fungicides were first tested in the United States in 1929 to preserve lumber, a practice that quickly became widespread;

Case 3 was the son of “a professor of forestry in a southern university,” Kanner wrote….In 1936, he assisted in the planting of pine seedlings in the university’s newly acquired Hofmann Forest. His son was born in 1937. Organic mercury fungicides, including an ethyl mercury brand, were often used to prevent “damping off” or fungal contamination of pine seedlings during that era.

All this led Mark Blaxill of Antivax group SafeMinds to comment:

So now we have learned that Frederick Wellman handled ethyl mercury fungicides that were first introduced to the market in 1929 and that his child was Kanner’s patient No. 2….And we know that cases 1 and 3 grew up around the first application of ethyl mercury products. If that’s not a smoking gun, I don’t know what is…

A smoking gun. Impressive.

Except, lets apply a little less gasping credulity and a little more logic.

Fredrick Wellman’s documented use of ethyl mercury was 14 long years before his son was born. Does ethyl mercury have special time travelling properties no one told me about? And how exactly does Wellman Snr being associated with ethyl mercury lead to his son becoming autistic? By that logic every person who ever worked with ethyl mercury should both be autistic themselves and have autistic kids. Did Wellman inject the ethyl mercury into his scrotum?

And what was he doing during the year of his son’s birth? He wasn’t even in the country:

During most of 1936, Wellman was hunting exotic plant diseases in Turkey, Egypt, and Iran.

Case 1 ‘grew up’ (but where was he born?) 50 miles away from ethyl mercury. Everything else in that particular quote is supposition. Case 3’s Dad once planted seedlings that were planted about the same time that some fungicides that might’ve contained ethyl mercury might’ve been used. Thats a sight to may ‘might’ve’s for me.

Sorry, but this to me is not a smoking gun. Its not even a lukewarm barrell.

Another intriguing thing to note was that, in a follow up paper in 1971 Kanner found only two of his original eleven had had what he termed a favourable outcome. Those two were Wellman’s son and ‘case 1’. I’ll apply some Olmsted logic and conclude that the ethyl mercury obviously mitigated the worst of the ravaging effects of the hellish autism.

Harold L Doherty – at it again

26 Feb

Harold Doherty last week built himself an army of strawmen in order to demoinse the neurodiversity movement. I and many people left comments that were never published so I wrote the above linked post to demonstrate to Mr Doherty how illogical, ill-thought out and just plain old wrong his points were. He never responded but it seems Mr Doherty is never one to let a little thing like accuracy cloud his opinions.

Today I see a post entitled ‘Is The Neurodiversity Movement Ashamed of Lower Functioning Autistic Persons?’ to which the short answer is ‘uhhh, no – whatever gave you that idea?’

Luckily Mr Doherty proceeds to tell us what gave him that idea. Strawmen ++

It seems at times that the Neurodiversity Movement is ashamed of the lower functioning members of the autism world. Autism is defined by the ND movement as simply another natural variation of human wiring.

No it isn’t. That is one _aspect_ of what autism is.

“Autistic intelligence” is defined as a different, perhaps even a superior form of intelligence.

Might be. There seems to be good evidence for extraordinary mental skills in some autistic people.

Doubt is cast on whether lower functioning autistic persons even exist by the more strident ND’ers.

Really? Where? Who says that?

Even autistic persons who have demonstrated no communication skills, engage in seriously and repetitively self injurious and dangerous behavior should not be treated or cured in the view of the ND movement.

Ditto. At some point Mr Doherty you’re going to have to start _providing some sources_ – all this alarmist arm waving is mildly entertaining but ultimately just silly and self defeating.

Recently CNN’s Dr. Gupta featured the story of Amanda Baggs, diagnosed as being a low functioning autistic person, but clearly very intelligent and, with the aid of technology, an excellent communicator. The implied message – even low functioning autistic persons are really quite intelligent and do not need a cure or treatment.

Nothing at all was implied. It seemed quite clear to me. Amanda does not need a cure. I believe she has had some treatments of mixed efficacy at various points in her life. Your implication seems to be – and feel free to turn up and correct me if I’m wrong – that silly old Amanda can’t possibly know what’s good for her and she can have no empathy with other low functioning autistic people, whereas the Great Mr Doherty knows all. He knows for example that silly old Amanda doesn’t know what’s good for her.

Unfortunately Dr. Gupta played into this denial of the existence of truly low functioning autistic persons by continuing a long history of media focus on autistic savants and other high functioning autistic persons while ignoring the sometimes brutal realities which confront low functioning, seriously disabled, autistic persons.

Yeah, or maybe we could discard the conspiracy theory and conclude that this particular piece wasn’t about that aspect of autism?

My autistic son, Conor, is a low functioning autistic person who brings me great joy. I delight in talking about how happy he makes me every single day. But, unlike members of the Neurodiversity I am not ashamed to admit the severe challenges he faces in life and I am not afraid to talk about them publicly.

I wonder how Conor feels about that and whether Mr Doherty would care?

Anyway, the point is that no one I know is ashamed to admit the severe challenges autistic people face in life. In fact, that’s kind of the point. To highlight these kind of things. Here I’ll say it in the plain English that I reserve exclusively for people incapable of appreciating shades of grey:

Autistic people face severe challenges in life. I am not ashamed to admit this publicly. I am however, afraid to talk about them publicly because when I did, various people who wanted to cure their kids were vicious about her. So now I and my wife talk about her in a private closed access blog which is open to friends and family only.

Unless such public discussion takes place there will be no improvements for Conor and other autistic persons like him. Of course that is exactly why the Neurodiversity movement attempts to censor such discussion.

I love accusations of censorship that come from men like Mr Doherty who actively censor their own blogs and refuse to participate in debate. Its always good for a chuckle.

I _think_ Mr Doherty is alluding to the revulsion some of us have for Autism Speaks and their one sided propaganda piece ‘Autism Every day’. We don’t want to censor it Mr Doherty. We (all 748 – so far – of us) want to expand it to truly reflect the reality of ‘Autism Every day’. Not just the self pity bits. If you don’t want these parts included then I think you need to carefully look at how that holds up against your accusations of censorship.

Meg’s blog – update

26 Feb

Just a small update. If you look to your right in section 01 of the sidebar you will note a new link – this is to the latest post on Megan’s blog.

I’ve been aware for awhile that its very difficult for a private access blog to ‘let people know’ when its been updated so now all you need to do is glance and click.

The blog is (and will remain) private access but I know that some of you who I gave access to might’ve misplaced your usernames and passwords. No problem, just drop me a mail and I’ll remind you :o)

Evil neurodiverse rising

25 Feb

Sometimes there’s a sea-change in the atmosphere that you can just sense and following a recent unprecedented few days for autism acceptance I can feel one of those sea changes.

Things kicked off with Jeanette’s family appearance on a US show called Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (very extreme. I understand they literally knock down your old house and build you a new one!). Jeanette has a wealth of experience as an autism mum – 16 years to be precise. I’ll quote from her blog post about the whole experience:

The only positive we wanted to show out of Extreme Makeover was that our children were awesome….and the producer’s made sure that happened. Through them and Ty, Paige, Eduardo, Paulie, and Tanya the world saw that autism is not a disability…we truly thank them for that.

Jeanette, like me, used to believe dire things about autism as I understand it but, again like me, has weathered those storms and come out the other side.

Next up was Amanda’s appearances. First in New Scientist. The New Scientist piece starts with:

“Far from being purposeless, the way that I move is an ongoing response to what is around me,” says the robotic voice that narrates her typed words. The class reacts emotionally – not out of pity but in response to Baggs’s proud and moving appeal for viewers to recognise “the existence and value of many different kinds of thinking”.

(Overall the article is not great but its an acceptable first step maybe).

But Amanda’s next appearance was even better – a two part segment over two nights on a CNN show called Anderson Cooper. Amanda was interviewed by a guy called Sanjay Gupta who blogged his impressions in a (badly) entitled piece: ‘Behind the veil of autism’. A more accurate title would’ve been ‘Behind the veil society has placed in front of autism thus far’. But possibly not so snappy.

It really started me wondering about autism. Amanda is obviously a smart woman who is fully aware of her diagnosis of low-functioning autism, and quite frankly mocks it. She told me that because she doesn’t communicate with conventional spoken word, she is written off, discarded and thought of as mentally retarded. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I sat with her in her apartment, I couldn’t help but wonder how many more people like Amanda are out there, hidden, but reachable, if we just tried harder.

Dr Gupta is using a form of words I might not choose myself but he is at least thinking now and encouraging others to think about the reality of the autistic experience as perceived by autistic people.

I personally think this was an incredibly brave thing for Amanda to have done. She has revealed herself and her home to the eyes of the whole world and I hope that the changes in routine and accompanying stress have not been too much for her. Anyone who chooses to visit Amanda’s blog should know that she’s taking a break to regroup but you are free to leave comments.

ABC recently presented a broadside on our self-obsessed Western cultures entitled ‘Should Parents Worry About Vaccinating Their Children? Fears of Vaccinations Rise, Diseases Reemerge’.

On internet sites, Walther read so many horror stories about vaccines, that so she postponed vaccinating her daughter, Mary Catherine. “Some of the vaccine stories said that if I had my child vaccinated they were going to die of SIDS,” she said. “I’m very protective of my children, I don’t want to do something to them that might cause them harm.” But not vaccinating caused harm. Mary Catherine got very sick with spinal meningitis.

There’s a very simple and easy to understand fact here and its a fact that groups like the NAA, Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, A-CHAMP etc miss again and again: they are urging people not to vaccinate either explicitly or implicitly. This is having an effect on vaccine uptake rates. As uptake rates fall, incidents where people are injured or are dying from vaccine preventable diseases is rising.

In the UK, following the Wakefield induced mass hysteria MMR uptake fell to 70% in some parts of the country. In 2004 mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436. In the _the first month_ of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases.

In 2004, authorities predicted that 12% of all cases of MMR related diseases would require hospitalisation. In March 2005, that prediction came true as – out of the 72 reported measles cases -9 were serious enough to require hospitalisation. One boy died from measles. The first measles related fatality in over 10 years in the UK.

The afore mentioned groups can take those figures and those injuries and deaths to their hearts. They are partly responsible. Thank goodness John Stossel has joined the clamour of media figures willing to see this for what it is:

I told McDowell [a vaccine injury lawyer] I thought he was part of the Fear Industrial Complex, scaring people and making money off of it. After a long pause, he said, “True.”

McDowell is simply one of many quacks, ambulance chasers and hysterical flat earthers out there. They had their 15 minutes of fame, failed to come up with any convincing evidence and deserve nothing but recriminations. Anyone who has made money from this scenario should be ashamed of their part in the death and injury of people but as I know from speaking to this class of people – they won’t be.

David Kirby’s Causation Trail

22 Feb

In a truly fascinating exchange on the Evidence of Harm Yahoo Group, David Kirby has revealed:

…the studies which, when taken together, suggest a plausible biological mechanism for mercury exposure as a contributing factor to regressive autism

The exchange came about as a ‘renegade’ poster to that group started laying down a smidgen of fact regarding the state of the science that props up the thiomersal hypothesis. S/he is not a popular bunny on that group.

The exchange led group big cheese Lenny Schafer to state:

It seems that junk science is in the eye of the beholder. It will probably take an impartial jury in a court of law to substantially settle if there is enough evidence of harm to implicate thimerosal and or vaccines in autism.

Seems like Lenny hasn’t been keeping up with the news in that regard.

Anyway, back to David Kirby. Hot on the heels of his amusing further goalpost shifting (somehow the non-decrease in autism numbers which, in 2005 and 2006 would be a grave blow to the thiomersal hypothesis are now suddenly nothing to trouble this teflon coated hypothesis) comes this – David Kirby’s statement on the existing studies which support mercury exposure (what? Not ‘MERCURY _IN VACCINES_ AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY’ David? Just any old mercury now is it? Bless you for exposing the courage of your convictions.)

So which studies float David’s boat? This is his list:

Richard Deth, Northeastern U;
Martha Herbert, Harvard U;
Jill James, Univ of Arkansas;
Thomas Burbacher, Univ of Washington;
Diana Vargas, Johns Hopkins;
Isaac Pessah, UC Davis;
Mady Hornig, Columbia U;
Mark Noble, Univ of Rochester.

Eight people, eight studies. Thise is the ‘science’ that David thinks suggest a plausible mechanism for mercury being a contributing factor for regressive autism.

As an amusing aside, don’t you love (and appreciate!) how careful David is becoming with his choice of words these days? No more of this ‘thiomersal causes autism’ stuff for him! Now its’mercury’ (not ‘MERCURY _IN VACCINES_ AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY’) and instead of ‘causing’ we have ‘contributing factor’ and instead of autism we now have ‘regressive autism’. best of all we have ‘suggest’ instead of MERCURY IN VACCINES AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC. Bless him, all the blog reading he’s been doing from the skeptical folks is finally paying off.

So, lets turn our attention to these studies of David’s. First of all we should note that the Mark Noble cite is a red herring (you lose skeptic points for that David) as, if I’m not mistaken, this study is a) a pilot study and b) not as yet underway. Certainly none of the other ten studies PubMed attributes to Noble, M. appear to discuss autism. Naughty naughty.

Richard Deth

Deth’s paper, if I may quote myself, can be summed up thusly:The basic gist of the Deth paper is that various toxins, including thimerosal, affect methionine synthase activity (a process that helps in building proteins) and that this can adversely affect children. In short, the Deth paper alleges that thimerosal causes methionine synthase dysfunction (MSD).

There are several issues with this as they relate to autism. Firstly, MSD and autism do not resemble each other. Symptoms of MSD are: Anemia, moderate to severe developmental delay, lethargy, anorexia, and homocystinuria (mental retardation, dislocation of the crystalline lens of the eye, sparse blond hair, and cardiovascular and skeletal deformities). Further issues:

1) There is no active transport mechanism into the central nervous system currently known for ethylmercury (thimerosal) whereas there is an known and active transport mechanism for methylmercury.
2) Because its half-life is much longer, methylmercury is more likely to accumulate than ethylmercury, causing higher levels of mercury in the blood.
3) Exposing cells in vitro to ethylmercury eliminates the most important difference between those two forms of mercury, and ignores the fact that ethylmercury is unlikely to enter the central nervous system at concentrations likely to be harmful.
4) The authors chose to use a cell line derived from a metastatic peripheral nervous system tumor to make predictions about developing healthy cells of the central nervous system. If the authors were interested in making claims about the developing central nervous system they should use cells derived from there.
5) The authors make statements in their introduction about developmental disorders such as fetal alcohol syndrome, Rhett’s syndrome, or Fragile-X syndrome, they fail to consider the fact that all of these diseases have their origins in the developing embryo and fetus, not postnatally.
6) The authors’ reference a study that evaluated the causal association between thimerosal and vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Remember how good VAERS is?

Bart Cubbins produced a video detailing similar points.

Martha Herbert and Dianne Vargas

These two papers independeintly of each other indicated a role for neuroinflammation in autism (<a href="http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/herbert.pdf&quot; rel="nofollow"Herbert here and Vargas here but they differ slightly. The Vargas paper states:

neuroinflammatory process appears to be associated with an ongoing and chronic mechanism of CNS dysfunction

and leaves it at that. Herbert specualtes with no basis regarding the fact that metals might play a part in the neuroinflammation. She has no basis for these speculations and it surprises me that they’re in a paper published in such a good journal.

Jill James

Jill James’s studies revolve around glutathione. Glutathione, amongst other things, removes merucry from the human body. James’ studies purport to show that autistic people are deficient in Glutathione and thus when they get mercury they can’t excrete it in the same way non-autistic people do.

However, they don’t. James tried to show that the two types of Glutathione in the body (what she called Active and Inactive) were about 31% (Active) and 33% (Inactive) less in autistic kids than non-autistic kids. However, it should be noted that these are not two differing forms of Glutathione but instead two states of one thing which have a relationship to each other – when one goes up, the other goes down. As Not Mercury states:

Decreased synthetic capability is one possible explanation but this would probably result in a significant deficit of total glutathione not an imbalance between the two oxidation states. _If James found any evidence of impaired glutathione synthesis in this small group of children it wasn’t included in any of her published work_. It doesn’t sound like the children were suffering from a glutathione deficiency as much as an increased oxidative burden greater than the capacity to recycle and glutathione and maintain full oxidative defense capacity.

No deficiency in Glutathione. But Not Mercury takes it a step further:

let’s suppose children with autism had significantly lower levels of glutathione. Would it render them unable to detoxify thimerosal from vaccines? Probably not.

The average human carries about 6milligrams mercury, even if James’ figures were accurate (which they are clearly not) or represent what she claims they do (which they clearly don’t) then the human body would still have several million times more glutathione than needed to excrete the suspect mercury. As Not Mercury says:

A person so severely deficient in glutathione they would be unable to detoxify 250 micrograms of mercury (upper limit of thiomersal in vaccines 5 years ago) probably wouldn’t survive long enough to be vaccinated in the first place. Every breath of air would expose them to lethal levels of ozone, pollutants and other oxidants.

Please read all of Not Mercury’s piece. It’s an eye opener.

Thomas Burbacher

This paper reached one conclusion.

The key findings of the current study are the differences in the disposition kinetics and demethylation rates of thimerosal and MeHg. Consequently, MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal derived Hg. Knowledge of the biotransformation of thimerosal, the chemical identity of the Hg-containing species in the blood and brain, and the neurotoxic potential of intact thimerosal and its various biotransformation products, including ethylmercury are urgently needed to afford a meaningful interpretation of the potential developmental effects of immunization with thimerosal-containing vaccines in newborns and infants. This information is critical if we are to respond to public concerns regarding the safety of childhood immunizations

In other words, Burbacher blood vs brain is not a valid comparison and that methHG vs ethHG is not valid either. He then goes on to state that more research is needed into what the toxic effects of thimerosal might be. He states that mercury from vaccines doesn’t accumulate as much in blood as it does in the brain and thusly, using blood levels of mercury to represent brain levels of mercury is innacurate.

It was also presented that this paper connected the dots between thiomersal and neuroinflammation (see Herbert and Vargas) but this is a false representation and not claimed or even insinuated by Burbacher.

Two more issues arose from this paper. Firstly, when the Burbacher team performed the extraction of mercury from the blood or brain matter, they failed to introduce controls to ensure that the thimerosal was not degraded in any way as a result of the extraction process. This means they had to basically assume from the resultant possibly contaminated material how much was attributable to methylmercury and how much to thimerosal (ethylmercury). Secondly, Burbacher used thimerosal free vaccines and added pure thimerosal. It is difficult to know how this fresh preparation compares with vaccine formulas when thimerosal is part of the manufacturing process and may have suffered some degradation to inorganic Hg in the vials before administration.

Issac Pessah

The Pessah paper related how the study team found that thiomersal administered to mice caused “dendritic cells” damage. Specifically:

the thimerosal disrupted the normal biological signals that take place in cells, Pessah said. At lower concentrations, the signal disruption caused an inflammatory response; at higher concentrations it caused cell death.

So the position here is that thimerosal has a negative effect on the immune system. Lots of parents think autism is immune-system related. However, this study is a) unreplicated (as far as I know) and b) we may be overestmating the real world effect. Here’s Autism Diva talking about hearing Pessah on Autism One radio.

But the really weird thing is how he described how long the effect would last when the dendritic cells came into contact with mercury. If Autism Diva understood him correctly, lets say a kid gets injected with a vaccine containing thimerosal and the dendritic cells that come into contact with the thimerosal. This is not necessarily all the dendritic cells–some of them, and the DCs are affected by the thimerosal, depending on how much thimerosal they come into contact with. And this effect lasts…. years and years? Is that what he said? No.

Was it months and months? Is that what he said? Maybe it was days and days? Hours and hours? No, actually, what he said, if Autism Diva heard him correctly, was “minutes and minutes.”

So, we know that if you take dendritic cells of a particular kind out of a mouse, and grow them in a glass dish and dump a weak solution of thimerosal on them, they freak out or get a little weird and either way can’t do their job normally, and this effect lasts for,

(gasp)

minutes and minutes.

And speaking of Autism Diva we come around to:

Mady Hornig

Briefly, Mady Horning conducted a study wherein she claimed to have developed a mouse model for autism which she then used to test how the model responded to the introduction of thiomersal. According to Hornig, the study showed that:

1. The mice they used are a good model for autistic people
2. The ‘vaccine’ schedule they used successfully mimicks childhood immunization programs
3. That the outcomes from Auto-immune disease sensitive mice were consistent with autism
4. That this indicates a genetically influenced sensitivity to thimerosal in autistic people

Autism Diva took this study apart when she pointed out that:

Did Dr. Hornig and colleagues find these features [diagnostic criteria for autism] in the ‘SJL Thim” mice?’ No.

Prometheus also had reservations about the design of the study:

So, the human experiences a maximum blood level of 1.63 (arbitrary units) and the mouse – since it is being dosed at a smaller fraction of its half-life – sees a maximum blood level of 2.61. In short, the mouse gets to a blood level 60% higher than the human……I found myself wondering, “Why didn’t they use the 50th percentile (50% weigh more than this weight, 50% weigh less – sort of an ‘average weight’)?” I have no answer – but I have an idea. By using the 10th percentile, they were able to give the baby mice an even bigger dose of mercury……So, by using the 10th percentile weights, the authors were able to give the mice about 15% more thimerosal. This goes nicely with the dosing schedule to significantly raise the dose the mice receive.

One of the big talking points from this study was reported by David Kirby in Evidence of Harm:

… putting up a photo of two mice. “He has groomed through the skull, and eventually destroys his partner,” Hornig said. Every parent of an autistic kid in the room could be seen grimacing in dark recognition of such destructive behavior.”(page 312)

Uh-huh, or maybe they were just grimacing as its not nice looking at mice chewing through the skulls of other mice?

Anyway, hyperbole aside, why did Hornig choose those particular mice? Here’s what else Autism Diva found out.

Why did Hornig pick the SJL/J mice in particular?….Besides being an “autoimmune disease-sensitive” breed what else is known about the SJL/J mice?

Good question. Diva found the answer highly revealing:

Behavior
1. High spontaneous fighting….
2. Severe fighting among males housed together, beginning at about 8 weeks.
3. Most males will be killed by 4-5 months unless caged separately….

Diva also found a separate source that showed that:

…some breeds do a kind of agressive grooming of other mice called, “barbering”

So, it seems that Hornig sourced a set of mice known to be aggressive, she then systematically overdosed them and then reported the fact that this aggression was indicative of autism. Right.

Wrapping It Up

A study that hasn’t yet been done. A study that alleges something it can’t back up. A study with no data and empty conclusions. Two studies that have nothing discernable to do with heavy metals. A study that shows ethylmercury and methylmercury are not comparable. A study that damages cells taken from a mouse for the span of minutes and a study that purposefully overdosed mice known to be aggressive.

Lets remind ourselves of the Judge;s opinion of this same body of science when it was presented by Dr Geier in the RhoGAM hearings as support for the view that thiomersal causes autism:

…the Court notes that, in fact, a literature review can be an appropriate part of a method of determining general causation. However, a literature review must still be performed appropriately. As revealed by his testimony at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Geier, however, relied upon a number of disparate and unconnected studies, including the findings of Dr. Haley and Dr. Lucier, to reach a piecemeal conclusion with respect to general causation…..However, upon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier’s analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court’s view, to be overstated.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →