Archive | Blogging RSS feed for this section

More Hot Air about HBOT

6 Apr

A few weeks ago, BMC Pediatrics published an article that purports to show that Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) can produce “…significant improvements in overall functioning, receptive language, social interaction, eye contact, and sensory/cognitive awareness..” in autistic children. This study (Rossignol et al, 2009) is billed as a “…multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.”

It’s all that and much, much less.

Let’s start by looking at the six “centers” where this research was carried out.

The Centers

The International Child Development Research Center (ICRDC):

This imposing name is attached to a rather less imposing edifice. The ICRDC, brainchild Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet, is located in a strip mall in Melbourne, Florida, where it not only carries out “cutting-edge research” but also sells a complete line of “supplements” and treats autistic children with a dizzying array of “alternative”, “biomedical” and “integrative” therapies, including HBOT.

Daniel Rossignol MD (Family Practice), Lanier Rossignol (Nurse Practitioner) and Scott Smith (Physician’s Assistant) were the authors from the ICDRC.

The Center for Autism Research and Education (CARE):

This “center” is located in Phoenix, Arizona and has – according to its website – a single practitioner, Cynthia Schneider, MD (OB/Gyn), who is also an author on this paper. One of the “integrative” therapies this “center” offers is HBOT.

One of the other authors, Sally Logerquist, is a PhD psychologist who – according to the paper – is also associated with CARE, but also appears to run social skills therapy groups for autistic children using the “Logerquist Excellent Attitude Program” (LEAP).

True Health Medical Center:

It’s rather difficult to find anything about this “center”, apart from the fact that it is located in Naperville, Illinois – in what appears to be an office complex. Anju Usman, MD (Family Practice) is the author associated with this location.

Neubrander Center:

Although not officially called a “center”, the office of James Neubrander, MD (Pathology) is apparently one of the “centers” of this study. His office is located in the Menlo Park Mall (near Macy’s) and offers – you guessed it! – HBOT as a treatment for autism.

Princess Anne Medical Associates:

A Family Practice medical group in Virginia Beach, Virginia, this “center” is the home of Eric Madren, MD (Family Practice). It’s not clear if this four-physician practice offers HBOT.

The Rimland Center for Integrative Medicine:

A small, one-physician “center” in Lynchburg, Virginia, this is practice location of author Elizabeth Mumper, MD (Pediatrics). Not surprisingly, this “center” sells HBOT services for autistic children.

So, of the six “centers” involved in this study, five are single-physician operations. The remaining “center” has two physicians (three, if you count the naturopath).

I’m underwhelmed.

Well, what about the research itself? Maybe that’s better than the “facilities” might suggest. Let’s take a look.

The Subjects

This study initially enrolled 62 children (33 treatment; 29 control), but only 29 of the treatment group and 26 of the control group finished all 40 sessions. For reasons that pass my understanding, one treatment subject who only finished 9 sessions was included in the analysis. The authors stated that including this subject did not alter results, which begs the question: “Why did they include this subject if it made no difference?”

Outcome measures

The authors used the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) as their outcome measures. All except the ATEC are widely accepted for use in autism treatment trials.

The ABC is a 58-question checklist of – surprise! – aberrant behaviors which are each given a score from “0” (“not at all a problem”) to “3” (“severe problem”). This test has been use – and validated – in a number of disorders, including autism. It gives a global score as well as five subscales: a total of six measures.

The CGI is a generic rating scale used in a variety of clinical trials. For each parameter (e.g. “overall functioning”, “sleep pattern”), the rater gives a score of between “1” (“very much improved”) and “7” (“very much worse”). The authors had both the treating physician and the parents rate the subjects on overall improvement and eighteen discrete parameters: a total of 38 measures in all (19 by the physician and 19 by the parents).

The ATEC was developed by Bernie Rimland and Stephen Edelson and has not been validated. In fact, it has only been used in two published studies – one by Rossignol et al. The ATEC has 25 questions on which the evaluator rates the subject on either a three-point (“not true”, “somewhat true”, “very true”) or four-point (“not a problem”, “minor problem”, “moderate problem”, “serious problem”) scale. It provides a total score and four subscales: a total of five measures.

In all, each subject had a total of 49 evaluation measures (CGI scores and the change in ABC and ATEC scores), of which 47 are independent. The importance of this will become apparent in the section on statistical analysis.

Analysis

As I mentioned above, the decision to include one treatment subject who only completed nine sessions was curious. Why they included this subject and not any of the other three treatment subjects and three control subjects who also failed to complete the entire course of the study is concerning. The smart thing – and the proper response – would have been to drop this subject from analysis.

The authors’ method of analyzing the CGI scales was also curious. Rather than simply using the scores as they were provided, they took the scores and subtracted them from four (the “no change” score). There are a few problems with this.

For starters, the scores are not linear – the difference between “much improved” and “very much improved” is not necessarily the same as between “no change” and “minimally improved”. Nor is the difference between “no change” and “much improved” twice the difference between “much improved” and “very much improved”. For that reason, these types of numerical scores are often referred to as “pseudo-numbers”.

This may seem like nit-picking, but it is a serious concern. Imagine, if you will, that the numbers were replaced by colors. Is the difference between green and orange twice the difference between orange and red? If half of a population of birds are blue and the other half are yellow, is the “average” bird green? The simple fact is that it is not appropriate to treat these “scores” as though they were real numbers, to be added, subtracted and averaged.

Secondly, it appears that the authors used parametric statistics for their analysis of the CGI scores. This is a problem since – as I indicated above – it is nonsensical to do math on pseudo-numbers. I don’t have the raw numbers, so it isn’t possible for me to calculate the absolute impact of this mistake for all of the CGI subclasses, but I can figure out the raw numbers for one group, so let’s look at that one.

It took a little work, but the authors gave enough clues to tease out the raw numbers in the physician “overall functioning” CGI score. The treatment group had an “average” of 2.87 and the control group’s “average” was 3.62; using the unaltered data, a t-test [Note: not an appropriate use of the t-test] gives p-value of 0.0006, not far from what the authors report. When a more appropriate statistical test [Mann-Whitney U-test] is used, the p-value is 0.002, very different from the reported 0.0008. While this is still less than the threshold p-value of 0.05, see below for a discussion of multiple comparisons.

All of these statistical analyses of the CGI scores ignore the fact that these are pseudo-numbers and need to be treated as discrete groups rather than as actual numbers. In truth, even the ABC and ATEC scores should have been treated this way, as well, although it is fairly common practice to treat such multi-factor scores as real numbers. A Chi-square test or Fisher Exact test would be the ideal test, but the problem with that is that the treatment group has one score of “1” (very much improved) and the control group doesn’t. Likewise, the control group has two subjects with a score of “5” (minimally worse) and the treatment group has none. This prevents a Chi-square or Fisher test from comparing each score independently.

One solution is presented by the authors themselves, although they apparently didn’t use it. In their discussion of the CGI, the authors said:

“Children who received a score of ‘very much improved’ or ‘much improved’ on the physician CGI overall functioning score were considered to be ‘good responders’ to treatment.”

If we “bin” the scores into “good responders” and “others”, we find that there were 9 (out of 30 – 30%) “good responders” in the treatment group compared to 2 (out of 26 – 8%) in the control group. Unfortunately, this is not a statistically significant difference (p = 0.08) in the (Yates) Chi-square test and barely reached significance (p = 0.05, but see below) in the Fisher Exact test.

An even bigger problem in the statistical analysis was the failure to correct for multiple comparisons. This problem was brought up by one of the reviewers, and the authors responded by eliminating a table. They did not make the appropriate corrections.

The reason that multiple comparisons are a problem is that the analysis for statistical significance is based on probability. If the probability (the p-value) that the differences between the two groups (treatment and control) is due to random chance is equal to or less than 5%, that difference is considered to be “statistically significant” and accepted as real. That means that there is still a 5% (or less – look to the p-value) chance that the difference is due to chance and not real.

If multiple comparisons are made on the same group of subjects, the probability that one (or more) of them will be “statistically significant” by chance starts to climb. If 14 comparisons are made, the chance of an erroneous “statistical significance” is over 50%. If 47 independent comparisons are made – as in this study – the chance of an erroneous “statistical significance” is over 90%.

For this reason, it is standard procedure to apply a correction for multiple comparisons. The most well-known (and simplest) of these is the Bonferroni Correction, which changes the threshold for statistical significance by dividing it by the number of comparisons. In the case of this study, the threshold (normally p less than or equal to 0.05 or 5%) is reduced to 0.001.

Applying the appropriate correction for multiple comparisons changes the results of this study significantly. Only the physician CGI scores for overall functioning and receptive language reach significance – and these numbers are already suspicious because they were improperly handled to begin with. In fact, as I have shown above, the CGI “overall functioning” p-value wouldn’t reach significance. It is possible that – if the proper statistical tests were used – that the CGI score for “receptive language” would also not reach significance.

Another curious thing. The authors asked the parents after the study whether they thought their child was in the treatment or the control group. Rather than say that the parent’s guesses were no better than random chance (i.e. 50%), the authors stated:

“…there was no significant difference between the two groups in the ability of the parents to correctly guess the group assignment of their child.”

As I said, this was a curious way to put it. As I read this, all it says is that each group of parent were equally able to guess which group their child was assigned to. That could be a 50% accuracy (which would be equal to chance), but a 90% or 99% accuracy – if both groups were that accurate – would also fit that description.

Now, this could simply be an clumsy phrasing by the authors, or it could be a way to make it sound like their blinding was successful when it actually was not.

Summary

This study may have collected some useful data, but its analysis of that data rendered it useless. The CGI scores – where the only statistically significant result was (possibly) seen – were improperly manipulated and the wrong statistical analysis was used.

The other issue is that there is no discussion of why HBOT is thought to be superior to providing the same partial pressure of oxygen at room pressure. This study used 24% oxygen at 1.3 atm, which gives the same partial pressure of oxygen as 31% at sea level. This concentration of oxygen can be easily attained with an oxygen mask or simple oxygen tent – both of which are vastly less expensive than HBOT.

If the authors are arguing that the mild pressure of their inflatable HBOT chambers contributes to the treatment effect, they need to look at the literature on cell membrane compressibility. For those who want to do the calculations at home, the bulk modulus of water (the major component of cells) is 21,700 atm. This means that a 0.3 atm increase in pressure will reduce the cell volume by 0.0014%. The bulk modulus of the lipid bilayer in cell membranes is around 30,000 atm. This means that an increase of 0.3 atm pressure causes a 0.0010% reduction in membrane volume. These are well below the threshold for any clinical effects.

Real pressure effects on the central nervous system are seen at pressures over 19 atm. These effects are:

dizziness
nausea
vomiting
postural and intention tremors
fatigue and somnolence
myoclonic jerking
stomach cramps
decrease intellectual and psychomotor performance
poor sleep with nightmares
increased slow wave and decreased fast wave activity in EEG

None of these effects could be construed as “improvements”, even in autism.

So, this study fails to answer the following questions about HBOT and autism:

[1] Does HBOT improve any feature of autism?
[2] If so, is HBOT any better than supplemental oxygen (which is much cheaper)?

The only real effect of this study was to give a cover of legitimacy to practitioners who are already using HBOT to “treat” autism.

Prometheus

Mild hyperbaric therapy for autism – Shh!…don’t say it’s expensive

30 Mar

When I recently wrote about the new HBOT-for-autism study (Rossignol et al. 2009)1, I took issue with unlikely claimed treatment pressures for at least one of the study locations. While a potential methodological weakness, this is probably a fairly small problem in light of potential issues with blinding and interpretation of the results as quantitatively and objectively meaningful with respect to autism. But let’s set those potential issues aside for a moment.

Let’s assume that treatment with slightly enriched air (24% vs. 21% oxygen) in an inflatable hyperbaric chamber pressurized to 4 PSI2,3 above ambient atmospheric pressure, could confer some sort of benefit to an autistic child.

I’m not suggesting assumption that it does confer benefit. I’m asking readers to set aside any knowledge of hemoglobin’s role in oxygen transport, as well as any knowledge of real hyperbaric oxygen therapy (breathing 100% oxygen at greater than 1 ATA)4, and evaluate a simpler proposition. Accept the proposal that some sort of benefit is scientifically possible, but then ask yourself a fairly simple question:

Compared to 24% O2 at 4PSI above ambient atmospheric pressure in an inflatable hyperbaric chamber, equivalent oxygen delivery can be achieved with simple oxygen therapy (an oxygen mask) at a fraction of the cost5 – why is a study of the hyperbaric version of this increased oxygen important?

One possibility: studying what’s already for sale

While some might call it being on the “cutting edge”, others may consider it putting the cart before the horse. No matter how you see it, it’s no secret that some Defeat Autism Now practitioners were already selling this type of hyperbaric oxygen therapy well before this study came out. It should be noted that this study’s authors did disclose this conflict of interest with respect to derivation of revenue in their clinical practices from HBOT.

DAR, LWR, SS, CS, AU, JN, EMM, and EAM treat individuals with hyperbaric treatment in their clinical practices and derive revenue from hyperbaric treatment.

Lisa Jo Rudy over at autism.about.com6 had additional comments about the subject:

Dr. Rossignol is “the” proponent of HBOT, and has been speaking at conferences all over the world in support of the treatment. Clearly, he has a personal and professional stake in seeing that the outcomes of a research study are positive.

The present study was funded by the International Hyperbarics Association, a trade group of private hyperbaric therapy centers. Clearly, they have a similar stake in seeing positive outcomes.

While there may certainly be an aspect of genuine scientific interest in understanding if this type of hyperbaric oxygen therapy is beneficial for autistic kids, I think there may also be a certain degree of assumption that it is. After all, why would a practioner already be selling something if they didn’t “believe” it worked? Given the stated conflicts of interest, it doesn’t seem implausible that the authors might have an interest in seeing a long-term revenue stream that could come from additional, and deeper pockets than those of parents willing to “believe” and pay – despite the lack of really convincing scientific evidence at this point.

Consider the following portions of an interview with Dr. Dan Rossignol7:

We chose 1.3 ATA because a lot of children with autism are currently receiving this dose and we are hoping to prove that it works.

“Hoping to prove that it works.”

Dr. Rossignol’s point does not seem unclear. HBOT is popular, and he is, in his own words, “hoping to prove that it works”. This is a valid reason, I suppose, if he is also open to the possibility that it may not, or that it may be a completely moot point if something on the order of one tenth of the cost can do the same thing. Following Dr. Rossignol’s communication about the hope to “prove that it works”, the interviewer asks:

How is the insurance situation coming along?

Insurance situation? Coming along? Was this situation already a well-known “work in progress” back in 2006 (e.g. had it been decided by some, prior to the science, that “mild” HBOT for autism does work, and that insurance reimbursement is really the goal now? Let’s see if we can get Dr. Rossignol’s take on this.

Well, obviously, HBOT is not approved for autism, but we hope to get there. Interestingly, if you take the ABC scale and look at the lethargy subset score, we saw a 49% improvement in symptoms at 1.5 ATA with a p-value of 0.008. If you look at the New England Journal of Medicine study on risperidone from 2002, there was a 56.9% improvement on the ABC irritability subscale with a p-value < 0.001. So the results we had on these 6 children with 1.5 ATA approached the percentage improvement seen with a drug approved for the use in autism. We just need to be able to reproduce these type of findings in a placebo study.

Hopefully when we finish these studies and show that hyperbaric therapy works, then insurance reimbursement will follow.

I don’t necessarily see a geniune scientific perspective here, but that could just be me. I get more of a vibe (at least from this interview), that the interest may lie more in “finishing” the studies and showing “that hyperbaric therapy works”, rather that actually finding out, with really good quality scientific methodology, whether or not it really does work. I’ll acknowledge that I could be wrong about this. Do you think readers will have noticed that the study result mentioned for comparison, was from 1.5 ATA, and probably totally irrelevant to the 1.3 (or less) studies?

Is it just me, or would it seem naive to wish that a few studies like the recent one, are really going to catalyze insurance reimbursement in the long run? I get the impression that many parents may believe this. Insurance companies work to achieve cost efficiencies. One of the ways they do this is by reimbursing at higher rates for equivalent things at lower costs – hospital stays in contracted facilities, generic drugs as compared to name-brand versions, etc. Why on earth would an insurance company reimburse for a 4-5% increase in blood oxygen content for a couple of hours at a time, in an inflatable hyperbaric chamber (at a few thousand dollars a month), when the identical oxygen increase could be delivered with a simple oxygen mask (for under $200 a month)?

You don’t have to take my word for this comparison of oxygen delivery, you can take Dr. Rossignol’s acknowledgement in that same interview:

Some people have criticized using mild hyperbarics at 1.3 ATA because they state that when compared to this pressure, you can get just as high an oxygen concentration in the blood with oxygen by face mask without a chamber. And this may be true in some cases.

In fact, it’s true in most (if not all) cases. The physics of partial pressures does not discriminate. But there may be more to the story.

Squeeze in some hope

After acknowledging the reality of the partial pressure comparison problem, Dr. Rossignol continues:

However, we must remember we are dealing with 2 separate components with HBOT — the oxygen and the pressure. So it appears that many of the effects of HBOT are from the increased oxygen, but we cannot dismiss the pressure effect. I think we need more studies on this as well.

So “many of the effects” are from the oxygen increase, but we can’t dismiss the pressure effect? What pressure effect? Is there a demonstrated significant clinical effect for autism from a very slight, and very temporary, increase in atmospheric pressure alone?

Although I suppose it is possible, a clinically significant effect for autism at such low pressures doesn’t seem likely at all. If it turns out that I am incorrect, this may be good news for some of the parents of autistic children in several U.S. cities: Albuquerque, NM (5312′ AMSL), Aurora, CO (5471′ AMSL), Colorado Springs, CO (6035′-7200′ AMSL), Denver, CO (5280′ AMSL), Reno, NV (4505′ AMSL), and Salt Lake City, UT (4226′ AMSL), to name a few. Something as simple as a move to a closer to sea-level city might provide increases in atmospheric pressure not a lot unlike those provided by the inflatable hyperbaric chambers. If there were some beneficial effect of slight additional atmospheric pressure for autism, certainly there would have been some observations (anecdotal or media reports) over the years, of families with autistic children who moved from states like Colorado to lower elevation states like California – and noticed. Who knows? Perhaps this is something to yet be uncovered.

So, aside from the fact that an identical oxygen increase can be achieved with simple O2 therapy without a hyperbaric chamber at all (and at a fraction of the cost). And, aside from the point that the minute pressure increase (while certainly possible in a strict scientific sense) isn’t known to be a likely candidate to significantly clinically impact autism, is there anything else about this newest HBOT-for-autism study that may merit some critical thought? Maybe, but it’s really just a side-note (perhaps interesting to some, but not terribly relevant to the science itself).

Who farted in the HBOT chamber? (Shh!…Don’t say it’s expensive)

The original manuscript8 for this study contained what I thought was an appropriately realistic comment from the authors in the conclusion. This comment has value in terms of practical knowledge that readers who are not familiar with hyperbaric oxygen therapy would probably find useful. What follows is the first-draft conclusion of this study with that comment emphasized.

Hyperbaric treatment is a relatively time-intensive treatment and can be costly. However, given the positive findings of this study, and the shortage of proven treatments for individuals with autism, parents who pursue hyperbaric treatment as a treatment for their child with autism can be assured that it is a safe treatment modality at the pressure used in this study (1.3 atm), and that it may improve certain autistic behaviors. Further studies are needed by other investigators to confirm these findings; we are aware of several other planned or ongoing studies of hyperbaric treatment in children with autism.

Again, Lisa Jo Rudy over at autism.about.com notes:

No insurance company will cover the very high cost of HBOT for autism, as it is considered an experimental and unproven therapy.

But the above conclusion is not the conclusion that appeared in the peer-reviewed, edited version. Here it is:

Given the positive findings of this study, and the shortage of proven treatments for individuals with autism, parents who pursue hyperbaric treatment for their child with autism can be assured that it is a safe treatment modality at the pressure used in this study (1.3 atm), and that it may improve certain autistic behaviors. Further studies are needed by other investigators to confirm these findings; we are aware of several other planned or ongoing studies of hyperbaric treatment in children with autism.

Why would the authors remove that valuable bit of practical knowledge about time requirements and high cost? Apparently due to a comment from referee #3 for this paper.

Discretionary Revisions

Page 24 In view of the highly positive findings of this study and the fact that no other trial has demonstrated such benefits under strictly controlled conditions to open the conclusions with negative comments demeans the study. Many other inventions used for ASD children are equally time consuming and hyperbaric treatment need not be expensive.

Authors: “The negative comments were removed from the conclusion.”

Opening the conclusion with negative comments demeans the study? Such comments don’t really touch the content of the study itself, and what the now absent comment did do, was provide some practical perspective – quite likely, very accurate practical perspective. Why would it be suggested by referee #3 that the practical comments demean the study? Perhaps it was meant that the comments demean the use of mild hyperbaric oxygen therapy as an autism treatment (therefore actually demeaning a desired interpretation of this study)? That would seem a real possible concern, since the justification offered, has absolutely nothing to do with the study itself, and doesn’t amount to much more than logical fallacy and simple assertion.

“Many other inventions used for ASD children are equally time consuming…”

This is about as basic an example of the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy as can be presented. Two wrongs don’t make right. Just because other interventions are also time consuming, does not mean a researcher is unjustified, or shouldn’t add the point about practicality that HBOT is relatively time consuming. Further, if the authors are aware of such a potential practical issue, it could be argued that ethics would dictate that it is mentioned. Other treatments presenting similar impracticalities do not automatically relieve any potential ethical responsibility in this regard.

“…hyperbaric treatment need not be expensive.”

Compared to what? Hyperbarics in a gold-plated hyperbaric chamber? If there is no significant effect for autism from the brief, and small increase in added pressure in one of these inflatables, the increased oxygen delivered by providing 24% O2 at 4 PSI above ambient atmospheric pressure, is easily matched (or exceded) with simple O2 therapy. In short, this type of hyperbaric treatment would be the hard way, and the expensive way to achieve the results.

Referee #3 also added the following comment:

The reviewer has a preference for the word treatment rather than ‘therapy’. In view of the proven changes that relate to increased inpsired fractions of oxygen it is suggested that treatment would be preferable.

Authors: “The word “therapy” has been replaced with “treatment” throughout the paper.”

The “T” in the acronym “HBOT” does, in fact, represent the word “therapy” in medical usage. I happen to think the terms “treatment” and “therapy” are fairly interchangeable in the context of drug delivery, but I do wonder if there is any significance to such a preference. Is this a semantics issue that has the potential to impact perceptions of those who make decisions about insurance coverage for autism? But I digress. So what’s up with these comments from referee #3, comments with a little fallacious reasoning, that express possible concern about the perception of a high price tag for mild hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and a commment that communicates a preference for the word “treatment” over “therapy”?

I honestly don’t know. What I can tell you is that referee #3 was Philip James, MD. Dr. James is a professor in the field of hyperbaric medicine and hails from the U.K. He appears to have published quite a bit in the field of hyperbaric medicine as well.

According to the International Hyperbarics Association website:

Dr. James is responsible for founding the Hyperbaric Trust in the United Kingdom which promotes the treatment of cerebral palsy and the brain injured child and was responsible for having the National Health Service pay for this therapy.

Dr. James (Referee #3) appears to have been categorized (with a doctor profile) as a medical advisor to International Hyperbarics Association back in February of 2006 (shortly before this study9 began). Hey wait a minute, there’s that name again – International Hyperbarics Association. Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, in the study itself:

We are grateful for the work of Shannon Kenitz of the International Hyperbarics Association (IHA) for an unrestricted grant which funded this study, which included use of hyperbaric chambers and funding for all hyperbaric technician salaries during the study. The IHA had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

I’m not sure how the International Hyperbarics Association defines itself exactly – are its listed medical advisors excluded from that definition? That would seem likely.

As of this writing, Dr. Rossignol is listed as a medical advisor at the IHA website. 10
As of this writing, Dr. Neubrander is listed as a medical advisor at the IHA website. 10
As of this writing, Dr. James (referee #3), is categorized as a medical advisor at the IHA website with a physician profile page.11,12

Side notes aside, where to, from here

So all in all, it seems that “mild” HBOT-for-autism researchers may have their work cut out for them. Although probably not very likely, it is possible that a small temporary change in atmospheric pressure could do something for autism, and that should be studied next, then, better replications should follow.

In the long run, it will be difficult to ignore the scientific fact that simple oxygen therapy alone can easily provide identical increases in blood oxygen content, at a fraction of the cost of mild hyperbaric oxygen therapy (as it currently being studied for autism). If HBOT-for-autism proponents think insurance companies should step up to pay for an expensive treatment that provides a 4-5% increase in blood oxygen (without scientifically establishing benefit of the small and temporary pressure increases), they might do well to consider these famous words (most recently from Barack Obama) – “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Notes:

1 Hyperbaric treatment for children with autism: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Click to access 1471-2431-9-21.pdf

2 Medical device pre-market notification (FDA-cleared)

Click to access K001409.pdf

3 Manufacturer product sheet

Click to access vitaeris-lowres2007-8.pdf

4 Definition of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
http://www.uhms.org/ResourceLibrary/Indications/tabid/270/Default.aspx

5 Hyperbarics and Hypotheses

Schooling and Statement

6 Hyperbaric Oxygen as a Treatment for Autism: Let the Buyer Beware
http://autism.about.com/b/2009/03/14/hyperbaric-oxygen-as-a-treatment-for-autism-let-the-buyer-beware.htm

7 Interview with Dr. Dan A. Rossignol: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Improves Symptoms in Autistic Children

Click to access Rossignol%20HBOT%20Medical%20Veritas%202.pdf

8 Pre-publication history
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/9/21/prepub

9 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00335790
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00335790

10 Medical Advisors
http://www.ihausa.org/

11 Index of /docs
http://www.ihausa.org/docs/

12 International Hyperbarics Association Medical Advisor – Professor Philip B. James, M.D.
http://www.ihausa.org/docs/james.html

Autism, HBOT, and the new study by Rossignol et al.

21 Mar

I recently read the BMC Pediatrics article, “Hyperbaric treatment for children with autism: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial”1. I know this paper is attracting a lot of attention in the media, and it is certainly being ballyhooed about the internet. Hell, I’ve even received e-mail spam about this study! But I’m sorry to say, I don’t really share the excitement. In fact, I see what looks like a pretty significant error in the methodology of this study. It’s one of those types of potential errors that stand out like a strobe light or a siren – it’s really tough for me to pretend it’s not there.

Once again, I’m going to ask readers to set aside, for the moment, anything they may know about the role of hemoglobin in oxygen transport and how the minute increases (probably around 3-4%) in total blood oxygen content afforded by this kind of hyperbaric therapy, or simple O2 therapy for that matter, are probably pretty likely to be insignificant.

Both the paper and ClinicalTrials.gov2 list the Center for Autism Research and Education, Phoenix, Arizona, as a study location. This is a problem, because the stated treatment pressure in the study (1.3ATM) seems highly unlikely to actually be achievable in Phoenix with the equipment that was apparently used for this study.

As described in the section titled, “Interventions”:

“These procedures included covering control switches, inflating and deflating the chambers to simulate pressure changes, and masking the sounds from the chambers.”

The use of inflatable monoplace hyperbaric chambers, is a clear indication that the actual total pressures (and quite likely results of this study) would have been affected by the ambient air pressures at the times and locations of treatment. In fact, the ambient air pressure is the largest component of the stated treatment pressure in this study (ambient pressure + added treatment pressure = total treatment pressure).

Ambient pressure

Local atmospheric pressure is typically reported as sea-level pressure3 for its utility to aviation, and the meaningful interpretation of weather maps, etc., but the actual station pressure is affected by the elevation. The expected ambient atmospheric pressure, corrected for altitude, (or station pressure) in Phoenix, Arizona4 is 28.69 in Hg (where there is a modest elevation of 1161’ AMSL). Wanting to give this paper the benefit of the doubt, and knowing that “high pressure” weather is typical of the Phoenix climate, I looked at 30-day data5 for actual station pressure in Phoenix at a station of slightly lower altitude than the Center for Autism Research and Education. The 30-day mean station pressure is 28.81 in Hg, so I’ll use that one for calculations, as it will yield results more likely to be in the study’s favor.

Added treatment pressure

The actual operating pressure of the inflatable chambers, as stated by the manufacturer, is 4 PSI. 6,7 This pressure is also indicated on the Center for Autism Research and Education’s website:

“The chambers used at care utilize a pressure of 4 psi.”8

Total treatment pressure

The total treatment pressure can be easily calculated with the following conversions:
in Hg * 0.491 = PSI
PSI + PSIG = Total PSI
Total PSI * .068 = ATA

For Phoenix, Arizona, this gives a calculated total treatment pressure of 1.23 ATA.

28.81 * 0.491 = 14.15 PSI
14.15 PSI + 4 PSIG = 18.15 PSI
18.15 PSI * .068 = 1.23 ATA

Damn, that’s a pretty big difference from the paper’s stated 1.3 ATM – representing an addition of only .23 ATM (instead of .30 ATM) above mean sea-level pressure of 1 ATM.

I’ve corresponded with the lead author of this study in the past, and he stated that he observes gauge pressure of 4.15 PSI. Despite the manufacturer specs, the FDA-cleared medical device premarket notification, and the Center for Autism Research and Education’s website (which all indicate operating pressure of 4 PSI), and wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, I’ll use 4.15 PSI for the next calculation, as it will be more likely to yield results in the study’s favor.

28.81 * 0.491 = 14.15 PSI
14.15 PSI + 4.15 PSIG = 18.30 PSI
18.30 PSI * .068 = 1.24 ATA

It could be argued that treatment pressure for the other study locations were properly rounded up to 1.3 ATM (even though the actual pressures were quite likely to be considerably lower), however, even with all the calculations purposely leaned in favor of a higher number for Phoenix, Arizona, the study’s stated treatment pressure, there, should have properly rounded to 1.2 ATA! This suggests an overstatement of the added treatment pressure for the Phoenix location of 50% (.3 ATM is 150% of .2 ATM). Even if given the benefit of the doubt yet again, and an exception to proper rounding were made for solely for the Phoenix location in this study, the study’s likely overstatement in added treatment pressure for Phoenix is still a full 25%. (.3 ATM is 125% of .24 ATM – 25% more added pressure above 1 ATM was claimed in this paper, than was probably delivered).

I think this is a big enough boo-boo, that the editors of BMC Pediatrics should call for detailed errata. In the interest of scientific accuracy, it would seem prudent for BMC Pediatrics to:

1. Clarify for its readership and the scientific community, that the stated pressure of 1.3 ATM in this study is rounded up, and includes the ambient air pressure, or alternatively, state the estimated pressure in terms of ATA.

2. Clarify for its readership and the scientific community, that the stated pressure of 1.3 ATM in this study is an estimated pressure, since no actual measurements of ambient station pressure for the locations, and dates/times of treatments were reported.

3. Note for its readership and the scientific community, that the stated pressure of 1.3 ATM was not likely to be uniformly achievable across all study locations due to the use of inflatable hyperbaric chambers and changes in elevation (and atmospheric pressure) across study locations, potentially confounding the results of this study.

4. Note for its readership and the scientific community, that estimated pressures in the placebo control group are affected by these same issues that affect the treatment group, potentially confounding the results of this study further.

What do you think?

1 BMC Pediatrics 2009, 9:21doi:10.1186/1471-2431-9-21
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/9/21/abstract

2 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00335790

3Federal Meteorological Handbook No. 1 – Table 11-2
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oso/oso1/oso12/fmh1/fmh1ch11.htm

4 LAT/LON 33.5º N 118.08º W

5 http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=psr&sid=KPHX&num=720

6 Medical device pre-market notification (FDA-cleared)

Click to access K001409.pdf

7 Manufacturer product sheet

Click to access vitaeris-lowres2007-8.pdf

8 http://www.center4autism.org/therapyHBOT.asp

Autism and Murder

18 Mar

Two stories recently made a splash in the autism community. In the first:

An 18-year-old man described as “severely autistic” is in custody on suspicion he murdered a 59-year-old Coos County woman…

and in the second:

A judge has ruled that Asperger’s syndrome cannot be used by the defense in the case of a man accused or murdering a woman after he lured her to his home in Savage in October 2007.

Three blogs carried this story, each revealing their owners particular viewpoints. In his small circulation blog, Harold Doherty said:

In recent days and weeks two severely autistic young men have been implicated in homicides. In one case, a young man with autism has been implicated in the death of his mother who publicly professed her deep love for her son and the joy that he brought to her….Neurodiversity ideologues are unlikely to change. Their views are entrenched and tied to their own public careers as professional “autistics” or “enlightened” autism parents. The truth is that they discourage society from addressing the harsher realities of autism by effective therapy, treatment or cure. They help keep members of the public from understanding the full nature of autism, particularly as it affects the most severely autistic. Theirs is a movement whose aim is to keep everyone from facing autism reality. Theirs is a movement which wants society to keep our heads in the sand and ignore autism reality.

And on their advert covered anti vaccination site, Age of Autism said:

How many stories of violent deaths allegedly at the hands of autistic teen males will we have to read before the world either A) embraces treatment for autism as a medical ailment or B) paints all autistic males as dangerous killers and locks them away a la 1955?

So you can see that Harold uses these deaths to say how silly neurodiversity is and AoA use them to say that treatment for autism is the only valid option before society is overrun with autistic killers.

Both viewpoints are pretty ridiculous. Harold builds up the idea that members of neurodiversity don’t like to talk about the bad things autism can bring. This is patently untrue as just a fairly random peruse around Autism Hub blogs would reveal. In fact, what neurodiversity bloggers tend to talk about are the good things and the bad. A quick example from Niksmom for example. The thing is that for parents on the Autism Hub who talk openly about their kids, they easily mix the good and the bad. Amanda Baggs, an autistic person, talks about some of the bad things that can happen to autistic people often. What Harold finds offensive is that we talk about the good things *at all* . I have no idea why.

And of course, on AoA they are desperate to link everything together with treatment. To make sure that *every aspect* of autism is seen as medical and to encourage biomedical treatment of those issues. A simple look at the advert-riddled blog that they have become is evidence of that. NB – I’m not knocking ads on websites at all but six image and text ads and five ‘sponsors’ is a little bit too much.

But then the third blog I’m talking about is Lisa Jo Rudy’s where she asks carefully and thoughtfully about how we can make sure that autism is _accurately_ reported on and presented to the world?

How can we battle the anxiety felt around the “autism spectrum” diagnosis? How can we present the face of autism accurately, without raising the specter of violence? What are your thoughts on this thorny issue?

Note the lack of appeal to fear (cure ’em or they’ll kill us!!) or appeal to fallacy (the evil ND’s are brainwashing the world!!) that AoA and Harold feel compelled to perpetuate. In fact the only quibble I’d have with Lisa Jo’s piece is the emphasis she places solely on children. However as someone writing from the POV of a parent maybe this is understandable.

In my opinion, the answer to Lisa Jo’s question – how do we get accurate information out about autism? – can be answered in some part by science.

I found it quite difficult to get ahold of papers about autism and death attributed to an autistic person. But the few that I did get access to point to quite a different direction than the overly bleak and purposefully twisted futures foreseen by Harold Doherty and AoA.

In this study, the authors looked at rates of criminality amongst those with a Pervasive Developmental Disability (subgrouped to ‘childhood autism’, atypical autism and AS) . In the childhood autism group (which corresponds to severe/kanners/etc) 0.9% had a conviction as adults. In the control group, the rate was 18.9%. For atypical autism the conviction rate was 8.1%. The control group was 14.7%. For AS, the rate was 18.4% and the control group was 19.6%.

So, in each subgroup of PDD the authors looked at, the rate of criminal conviction was lower than controls. For the type of autism that Doherty and AoA are talking about less than 1% had a conviction compared to 18.9%. I think its clear that if this paper is accurate then we’re hardly going to be overrun with autistic killers.

In the other paper I couldnt get ahold of to read in its entirety, the authors looked at wether moral judgement was present in autism. Its worth noting the assumption that ‘theory of mind’ is somewhat accurate by these authors but still,:

Cry baby scenarios, in which the distress of the victim is “unreasonable” or “unjustified,” do not elicit moral condemnation from normally developing preschoolers or from children with autism. Judgments of moral transgressions in which the victim displays distress are therefore not likely the result of a simple automatic reaction to distress and more likely involve moral reasoning…

Therefore,

…basic moral judgment [is] substantially intact in children with autism who are severely impaired in ‘theory of mind’.

Or in other words, severely autistic people demonstrably know the difference between right and wrong.

The third paper that I did get ahold of in its entirety was a very disturbing case study about an autistic 10 year old girl who killed her baby sister. After reading it and the heap of physical and mental abuses placed upon the autistic child, including the parents letting neighbours beat her and the parents withdrawing her seizure medications I felt this case was too extreme to be valid.

The feeling I get is that these tragic cases of severely autistic people seriously harming others are rarer than rare. Certainly the observation that severely autistic people clearly are aware of right and wrong and that the follow up observation that severely autistic (and atypically autistic) people had an extremely low conviction rate compared to controls shows that I think its very wrong to paint autistic people as requiring a cure before they kill us all or are forcibly locked away. It is also wrong to suggest that the ability to find happiness in a life with autism is somehow not realistic because autistic people kill others. Its a real shame that Doherty and AoA – all parents of autistic people – have so little respect for the sort of people their children may turn out to be.

Who carries the authority?

19 Feb

The recent Omnibus decisions are hoped by some to stem the tide of rabid anti-vaccine beliefs espoused by people who shame the name of autism advocacy. On Salon, Rahul K. Parikh says:

In the case of autism, science and reason have too often failed to reach people. And consequently they have turned to the courts. For those of us who believe in the scientific method, the autism trials have not been necessary. But judges, unlike doctors in their cold white coats, still command a great deal of respect, and so perhaps the court’s recent ruling will sink in and finally persuade parents to regain their confidence in vaccines.

Never happen Rahul, never happen. These same anti-vaxxers have already began spin campaigns not only against the legality of the verdicts but against the three Special Masters themselves. To this group, the Special Masters command no respect whatsoever and neither do their verdicts. Take this piece of rampant stupidity from Barbara Loe Fisher:

The U.S. Court of Claims special masters are hampered from considering evidence which has not yet been published in the medical literature regarding potential associations between vaccines and the development of regressive autism

I don’t see how it is possible to make a dumber statement. What she’s saying is she wanted the Special Masters to look at unpublished science. As is well known, unpublished science is not like an unpublished novel. Unpublished science means its science that has not been put through the rigour of peer review, not had its methods examined to ensure they are transparent and reproducable, not had its conclusions reviewd to see iof they are accurate and not had its data examined to see if it is usable. This unreviewed, unpublished ‘science’ is what got us to this stage in the first place. A ten year multi-million pound, dollar and euro effort to close down bad science.

So how does she and people like her get away with saying such things? *Just because they can* . Because people believe extremes and people believe celebrities. People believe bloggers and people believe those who have shared (or think they have) experiences. I’m not saying its right but its true. If anyone genuinely believes this ruling will shut the door on these people they’re wrong. For confirmation of that you need look no further than Rolf Hazlehurt, father of one of the kids who made up the three test cases from the Autism Omnibus.

If we win, we keep going.
If we lose, we keep going.
If we win, the going will be easier.
If we lose, the going will be more difficult.
However, the Court rules, we will keep going.

You have to understand. This is not about scientific truth – or even truth at all – to these people. Its about winning and its about pushing their antivaccine beliefs as fast and far as they can. Even as they claim to not be anti-vaccine they write emails to others clearly showing they are. One of these emails will come to light very soon I believe. Expect to see very familiar names on it.

To these people science has no authority. Doctors have no authority. The Special Masters have no authority. The only people who have authority – real authority – can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. David Kirby. Jenny McCarthy. Maybe Dan Olmsted. If one of these people were to bow to the obvious and say so publicly then we might have a very different scenario. But they won’t. They have too much invested in esposuing the anti-vaccine line.

Mainstream media have a lot to apologise for also. The red tops, the broadsheets and all those hundreds of little bitty TV channels all over the US that gave the anti-vaxxers airtime in the name of impartiality and allowed them to scare away facts and reason, they need to reverse that policy.

But more than that, scientists and doctors need to get online and blog, get on Twitter and use them. Talk to people in their own language. Screw decorum. Ask people who’ve been using their blogs to support vaccines for _years_ what to do and how to do it. People like Oracand Ben Goldacre are prime examples.

This needs to happen because we’ve already lost one generation of kids to their loony parents. The loony parents who only recognise the authority of celebs, authors and each other in nests of email lists and blogs. If we want to give up another generation to the reach of the internet then keep on keeping on and hope that Rahul K. Parikh is right. But he’s not.

Two new websites and help needed

23 Jan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That blog is here should you be interested.

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

The Guardian – purveyors of bad science

14 Jan

I’ve watched for awhile as the UK media whips itself up into a frenzy over the latest bit of autism research from Simon Baron-Cohen. I wanted to see if they could manage to curb themselves and their tendency to reduce everything to soundbite. Of course they couldn’t. The idea they could is silly.

However, call me an old Lefty but I thought The Guardian might do a little better than it has. It not only started this silly pre-natal testing storm-in-a-teacup, it continues to push it in the most credulous way.

On 12th Jan Sarah Boseley (apparently a Health Editor) wrote:

New research brings autism screening closer to reality

A piece that says:

New research published today will bring prenatal testing for autism significantly closer…

This is twaddle. And yet, The Guardian published an op-ed piece (well, blog post) today from Marcel Berlins which leads with:

The prospect of a screening test on a pregnant woman predicting her child’s autism is not far away, and Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, leader of the Cambridge University research team that developed the test…

Again, twaddle. And twaddle on two fronts.

Here’s the truth stated simply: Baron-Cohen’s work is not going to speed up a pre-natal test for autism. Baron-Cohen did not develop any test.

In a piece in Nature, Baron-Cohen explains:

The Guardian [newspaper] is focusing on the issue of screening. The study is not about screening and it is not motivated by trying to develop the screening test. It was motivated by trying to understand possible causal factors in autism…

So not only is Baron-Cohen _not_ developing a pre-natal test, he is quite clear that his work _will not_ speed up the development of a pre-natal test.

And yet two prominent Guardian columnists are writing as if it was a done deal.

In fact, the misrepresentation of the science involved goes beyond the surface of what Baron-Cohen is _not_ doing but what his work _is_ doing. From the NHS website:

The findings are based on a scientific study of 235 children aged between eight and 10, whose mothers had amniocentesis, a test analysing fluid taken from around a foetus. None of these children were autistic, but those exposed to higher testosterone levels showed higher levels of ‘autistic traits’, such as poor verbal and social skills.

So, lets be clear, *none of the kids in this study were autistic* – so touting this study as a potential shortcut to a pre-natal test is several steps ahead of itself.

The study itself was in undergone to further test Baron-Cohen’s theory that autism is an ‘extreme male brain’ disorder. It is worth remembering that this theory is contentious even within the mainstream autism science community.

Psychologist Kate Plaisted Grant, also from the University of Cambridge…isn’t convinced that the findings support the underlying theory. “The broader scientific community hasn’t accepted the idea of the extreme male brain,” she says. Fetal testosterone “may create a special brain, but it doesn’t necessarily create a male brain”.

Psychiatrist Laurent Mottron…says that just because males and people with autistic disorders score similarly in autism questionnaires, this does not mean that autistic traits are the same as male traits. Rather, he argues, it just shows that the test cannot discriminate between maleness and autism.

“For me, it’s exactly the same as saying that two things that weigh the same are both made of the same stuff,” he explains.

There is also the distinct possibility that autistic women have not been counted accurately in the past. I know I have read some research on this but I cannot put my hands on it. Maybe someone in the comments can help me out.

The Guardian need to take a step back and screw their collective heads back on. There should be a debate about pre-natal testing for autism but to me, its not a debate to have until it becomes a realistic possibility. The autism community has enough on its plate right now without getting into a purely theoretical debate.

Tags: , ,

Why is David Kirby grasping at straws?

9 Jan

Once more for the record, I like David. I tried very hard to get to see him in London last time he was over and we’d arranged to meet up for a drink but due to my family situation it wasn’t to be. However, I cannot let that stop me from recalling that we have very differing views on a wide range of things to do with autism and vaccines.

I have noticed of late a tendency for David’s HuffPo blog posts to be more than usually full of ‘if’ ‘maybe’ ‘might’ etc. However his skill as a writer buries these ambiguities and makes them appear certainties. I’m not even sure its a concious thing for David. His need to write well sometimes (I think) obscures a clinical need for precision in such delicate areas as he and I write in.

With that in mind, I recalled a post of his from November 2008 entitled ‘Tom Daschle: Friend to Many Autism Families’ in which he describes Mr Daschle thusly:

By nominating Tom Daschle to head up the Department, President Elect Obama has selected a man who has demonstrated an unflinching willingness to question vaccine safety, and to fight for the rights of those people who believe they have been, or may be, seriously injured by certain vaccinations.

I think David might’ve been trying to insinuate that Tom Daschle’s nomination was good for the autism/antivaccine community. Certainly however, as with the autism/antivaccine’s belief that RFK Jr would be appointed by Obama, this nomination might not be quite what that community is expecting. As blogged by Orac today, Daschle’s true feelings on vaccinations were spelt out by the man himself:

Immunization is probably as — as sound an investment as we can make in good health. I can’t imagine that we could do any better than ensure that every — every child is immunized, and that we understand the importance of — of broad-based immunization and the tremendous good health that can come from it.

Following that, David made a fairly innocuous presentation from a US Army scientist look much more sinister than it actually was. He claimed that the army listed autism as a possible ‘health effect’ of mercury/thiomersal. It turned out that that was not actually the case.

Dr. Centeno’s presentation, entititled ‘Mercury Poisoning: A Clinical and Toxicological Perspective,’ did mention Thimerosal. However, its inclusion was specifically intended to point out that although there has been some speculation about a potential association between Thimerosal and Autism, currently there is no data or science to support such a claim. Neither the AFIP nor Dr. Centeno have been involved in or conducted research on Autism.

After that was the recent debacle when David mixed up Change.org and Change.gov – the latter being a website of Obama. The former a privately owned enterprise for at least the last 2 years. David thought (and committed to a blog post) that Obama had hired pro-neurodiversity bloggers and he imagined a conversation Obama might have with an autism parent:

It is hard to imagine the President one day saying…“I do not think we should devote resources to finding out what happened to your [autistic child]. I do not believe there is anything we can do to help him, and it is not desirable to even try.

This post made me sad and angry. I thought better of David than that. To say that any of us who do not believe vaccines cause autism do not think it is desirable to help our autistic children is massively insulting. I hope someday David can maybe spend a bit of time with parents who don’t think vaccines caused their child’s autism and see for himself how we help our kids. And maybe an apology might be forthcoming also.

David’s latest faux pas is regarding the latest MIND institute study. In a post entitled ‘UC Davis Study: Autism is Environmental (Can We Move On Now?)’ David says:

Autism is predominantly an environmentally acquired disease, the study seems to conclude. Its meteoric rise, at least in California, cannot possibly be attributed to that shopworn mantra we still hear everyday, incredibly, from far too many public health officials: It’s due to better diagnosing and counting.

The autism epidemic is real, and it is not caused by genes alone: You cannot have a genetic epidemic. It really is time that we, as a society, accept that cold, hard truth.

Here’s the full conclusion:

Autism incidence in California shows no sign yet of plateauing. Younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes
in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases. Other artifacts have yet to be quantified, and as a result, the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear.

Lets look at that last again:

…the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear.

And yet David seems to to think its crystal clear. The paper itself also contains some direct and fairly easy-to-check errors. For example:

The inclusion of milder cases has been suggested as an explanation for the increase in autism. Neither Asperger’s
syndrome nor “pervasive developmental disorders not otherwise specified” qualify under the category of autism in the DDS system.

Here is what DDS passed on to me in Summer of 2007. I promised not to attribute the quote to an individual so I won’t, but you can email DDS yourselves and ask them.

The current CDER was written in 1978 and updated in 1986, which is why the language is so out of date ( e.g., Residual Autism). California has clinicians in the field who are, of course, using modern criteria in their assessments but then they have to go backwards and try to fit those kids into the 1986 CDER. So you are going to have Aspergers kids, PDD-NOS kids in both categories 1 and 2. Categories 1 and 2 are called ‘Autism.’ But because there are so many clinicians, using lots of different techniques for evaluation, there is a lot of inconsistency and enrollment figures should not be misused as epidemiological data.

Hertz-Picciotto might also be interested in a quote from Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS) to Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004:

To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in the past, would never have been referred to the regional centers for example, bright but anxious and slightly socially inept kids with average or better IQs and children who, in the past, had been or would have been diagnosed as ADHD, OCD, ODD, anxiety disorder, learning disabilities, psychotic, and so forth are now being diagnosed wit high-functioning autism and/or Asperger syndrome and referred to the regional centers for services.

Truth is that a lot of Hertz-Picciotto 2009 is simply wrong. For an extensive overview of why, please read Joseph’s technical takedown from which I’ll quote his conclusion:

H-P et al. is a surprisingly poor paper. It does not produce any new data in order to support its two main results. It makes an apples-to-oranges comparison between a Finnish epidemiological study and California DDS ascertainment over time. It tells us the obvious about “milder” cases. In the end, I don’t think this is an improvement over the 2002 MIND Institute report to the California Legislature. In fact, it could very well be worse.

The way H-P et al. have gone about trying to show there’s a real rise in autism incidence over time is not a very good way to go about doing things, in my view. There are other ways. For example, I’ve suggested trying to replicate Lotter (1967) in detail. This would not be as easily challenged.

David closes his latest error prone piece with:

But the sooner our best minds in science and medicine come to grips with the fact that these poor, hapless kids have been exposed to the wrong environmental toxins and/or infectious agents at the wrong time, the sooner we can find out how to best treat what really ails them.

This is a prime example of bad science leading the media. David has reported on a paper that has made fairly bad errors and taken them at their word. Sadly, this sort of thing will only continue as long as institutions like MIND (controlled by a man who is dedicated to proving vaccines cause autism) churn out error strewn papers.

Autism community show their compassion

6 Jan

I’ve refrained from blogging about the death of Jett Travolta because I don’t really know what to say about it directly. I’ve mentioned the lad before in passing and his dad in terms of the suggestion that Jett was autistic and his mum and dad were refusing to recognise his autism because their scientologist beliefs wouldn’t let them. I definitely have opinions about the life and death of Jett Travolta but, hey guess what? Maybe right now isn’t the time for me to air them?

In fact, whilst I think about it, maybe this isn’t the time for any autism group to air them when those opinions are simply carefully veiled hit-pieces designed solely to try and draw attention to ones own ideas about autism causation. Distasteful isn’t the word when you read something like the below from Dan Olmsted:

We don’t know why Jett Travolta died, but we do know that our environment is making more and more of our kids sick while the medical community and public health officials deliberately avoid investigating “the equivalent of a metallic chemical,” whether it’s found in commercial products, vaccines or carpets with spilled mercury. Our kids are paying the price.

which appeared at the end of a piece he wrote on AoA trying to link Kawasaki disease (which the Travolta’s say Jett had), acrodynia (a form of mercury poisoning) and autism. The man has absolutely no shame or decency.

But even Olmsted’s lack of social skill pales into insignificance when compared to the group Autism United who apparently tried the most appallingly bad taste PR stunt to promulgate their message.

This is a difficult time for John and Kelly, and our prayers are with them,” said Ain. “But this could be an opportunity for them to use their son’s death and their celebrity to help thousands of parents, who are caring for sick youngsters.

Yeah, because if one of my kids had literally _just_ died the first thing I’d feel like doing is jumping in front of a TV camera and ‘using my childs death’.

Jesus Christ. Gave the family a break yeah? Whatever his beliefs were and whatever my opinions about them are, I hope I can see the truth about how John Travolta felt about his son.

If there’s anyone out there who sees that and can’t see that the man loved his boy then there’s something wrong with you. If there’s anyone out there who feels that this is a good time to start *using* Jett Travolta’s death to further their own crackpot ideas, there’s something wrong with you.

Age of Autism's reporter of the year 2008

3 Jan

Age of Autism’s reporter of the year for 2008, David Kirby, made something of an error yesterday. On the Huffington Post, the following headline appeared:

Obama Transition Team: “Recovery from autism is neither possible nor desirable”

You see, David was alluding to the fact that Kristina Chew and Dora Raymaker head been appointed by Change.org to be their autism bloggers. Trouble is that somehow he got the idea in his head that Change.org was actually Change.gov’s website.

Change.org is actually a social action networking site run by people who took the time to sift through the applications they received and interview those they shortlisted. They were very, very knowledgeable about the split in the autism community and decided that rather than rely on the sort of scare-mongering and factless blogging that permeates the vaxosphere they would get their facts about autism from a professor with an autistic child and (gasp!) an autistic person themselves.

Lets be clear about the size of David’s error here (in case the post is now gone I have a screenie for you to grab) davidkirbyoopsie

David has pretty much just accused the Obama transition team – without doing the most basic of fact checking – of wanting to leave autistic children to ‘a nightmare without end’.

A lot of David’s post is factless twaddle and made me quite angry to read. He (like everyone else on his side of the autism divide) states there are thousands of recovered autistic kids? Where? Where are the case studies? Certainly not in PubMed.

David claims Kristina doesn’t speak for the ‘countless thousands’ of parents he knows who think vaccines injured their kids. So? AoA don’t speak for the ‘countless thousands’ if not millions of parents that exist all over the world who don’t think vaccines cause their child’s autism.

I have a very strong suspicion in fact that David didn’t actually visit the website of Change.org. If he had he would’ve seen instantly just by the design of the site that its nothing to do with the transition team. I think some AoA bigwig forwarded on Kristina’s posts and ‘asked’ David to blog about them pointing out all the key ranty elements David mentions in a style that is not usually his.

Perhaps the most damage will be done by the paragraphs:

The President Elect has an old, dear friend going all the way back to Chicago, with a young son on the autism spectrum. That friend will soon be a Senior White House Official.

It is hard to imagine the President one day saying to this man: “I do not think we should devote resources to finding out what happened to your son. I do not believe there is anything we can do to help him, and it is not desirable to even try.

I’m afraid David, that by placing words in the President elects mouth – and utterly wrong words at that – you have demonstrated a certain hubris.

Not only are you wrong that Obama has shown any inclination to say that, Kristina Chew has shown no inclination to say that either. Unlike you, she is parent to an autistic child and you have just said that she feels it is not desirable to help her son. I hope you have the grace to apologise to her publicly as these words are far from true. Maybe you should try spending some time away from the anti-vaxxers and spending some time with the _actual_ autism community – a community who work damned hard with their children. They just don’t subject them to meaningless, expensive and dangerous experimentation.

Update
Age of Autism are obviously not HuffPo readers – they just posted their own copy of the story. And then just as quickly deleted it, but not quickly enough to beat the mighty G. aoaasses click for bigger.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →