Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Unstrange Minds – UK release

5 Jun

I wrote about Unstrange Minds in 2006 when it was first published in the US only.

Cover of Unstrange Minds

It gives me huge pleasure to note that Icon Books have now released the UK version (also available on Amazon UK.

I loved Unstrange Minds unreservedly. Professor Grinker sent me a galley copy to read before it was published and I read it in a couple of weeks worth of train journeys to and from my workplace. So absorbed was I that I very nearly missed my stop more than once.

Its a book about two things. Firstly it is a Fathers paen to his autistic daughter. The love and respect he has for his daughter permeates every single page. It is clear that he finds his daughter fascinating and wonderful. Through the pages, we do too.

Secondly, it is a book about the ‘autism epidemic’ or rather the lack thereof.

The shift in how we view autism….is part of a broader set of shifts taking place in society.

Grinker goes on to take the reader through the often fascinating history of autism as a diagnostic label (Kanner is pronounced ‘connor’ – who knew??) to illustrate his theory of the apparent rise in autism prevalence being intrinsically linked to these cultural changes such as the growth in child psychology as an area of practice, the decline of psychoanalysis, the rise of advocacy organisations, greater public awareness to educational needs and change in pubic policies:

Doctors now have a more heightened awareness of autism and are diagnosing it with more frequency, and public schools….which first started using the category of autism during the 1991 – 1992 school year are reporting it more often….Epidemiologists are also counting it better.

One of the most fascinating parts of the book for me was Grinker’s exploration of autism in non-Westernised cultures such as South Africa and Korea. In some ways it was like reading about how autism was viewed here 20 years ago.

When [Milal School] was being built in the mid-1990s, some of the wealthy residents of this quiet neighborhood south of the Kangnam River in Seoul picketed the site, cut the school’s phone lines, physically assaulted school administrators, and filed a lawsuit to halt construction, because they believed that the presence in the neighborhood of children with disabilities would lower property values. The school opened in 1997, but only with a compromise. It was required to alter its architecture so that the children were completely hidden from public view. Some of the protestors were brutally honest. They said they didn’t want their children to see or meet a child with autism.

That seems (and is) outrageous to us but 20 years ago I can easily imagine this happening in the West. One only has to look at the recent experiences of Alex Barton to see how quickly the West can regress to barbarism.

I can’t recommend this book highly enough. Go buy it now.

A quiet concession

3 Jun

While much has been made of a certain “concession” lately, it is worthwhile noting that the past month has seen a significant shift in the mindset of people pushing the autism “epidemic”.  In vaccine court it was the petitioners (plaintiffs) who opened with the admission that if there is any group of people with autism as a result of vaccine injury, the number would be so small as to be invisible to epidemiological studies.  (This didn’t stop them from closing with the latest Geier paper claiming that they can see the effect of thimerosal on the autism rates.)

But, this hasn’t been such a sudden shift.  As far back as last November, David Kirby noted:

“Finally, to all those who are going to post comments about the autism rates in California not coming down, following the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines: You are right. The most likely explanation is that thimerosal was not responsible for the autism epidemic.”

Baby steps….baby steps…

That’s my way of saying to those who would bravely rise up in their seats and proclaim, “stop the hate speech!” that the above is progress.  Sure, we still have to continue to endure the “epidemic” language for now.  Why he can’t just admit it in full, I am not sure.  Oddly, Mr Kirby doesn’t put forth a valid suggestion of what caused this “epidemic” of non-thimerosal-induced autism.  He does try a last-ditch effort to prop up the possibility of a thimerosal-induced-autism-epidemic with claims of immigration and pushing the goalposts back to 2011.  

But, I felt I had to acknowledge the fact that even Mr. Kirby is stating that the most likely answer is that it is not thimerosal before I go on.  Because, if one looks at the data just a little farther, one can find a likely answer for why there is a larger number of young people identified with autism than older people.  It isn’t news to us, and it isn’t news to Mr. Kirby and the rest: one likely reason is substitution.  I don’t know which they would try to avoid more, admitting that substitution is a big effect or an MMR jab, but let’s look a the data.  Just a peak. 

Consider  Autism as a function of age in the CDDS (California Department of Developmental Services) data.  Keep in mind, this is service data–i.e. this is a count of who is receiving services from the CDDS, not a count of who has autism in California.  This is not epidemiological grade data.   But, since it has been used so much, let’s move forward, keeping the caveats in mind. (click on the graph if you want to see it larger and more clear)

 

So, Autism count vs. age (data in black), what do we see?  Of course, we see a big peak in the younger ages.  This is the “Tidle Wave” or “Tsunami” or “Insert Other Hate Speech Term Here” that people like to use to make this scary.  But, as you have noticed, I have included the data for “Mild Mental Retardation” as well, in red.   What do we see there?  A dramatic dip in individuals identified with mild mental retardation in the younger ages.  Does anyone believe that something happened in California to reduce the number of people with intellectual disabilities?  If so, they aren’t very vocal about it.

If I were reading this for the first time, I would be suspicious of someone using only one mental retardation category.  Believe me, all mental retardation categories show much lower numbers in the younger age brackets.

This is a clear indication of “administrative substitution”.  [edit–see comments below] Joseph has done a lot of work on the CDDS data in the past and notes (below) that it is very difficult to draw conclusions about substitution from the publicly available data.  However, this is similar to what people have reported in the literature especially using special education data: people with autism have very likely been mislabeled, their autism label was “substituted” for a different label.  They weren’t “missed” as the favorite straw-man arguement would have it, but mis-labeled.

One person in the AutismOne media discussion (as reported by AutismNewsBeat) kept saying, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet”, implying that the future is going to be very different from the past.  I have to agree, in the future, more adults with autism will be correctly identified.  They won’t be in hospitals with schizophrenia diagnoses, for example.  This will be a good thing.

Frankly, I’d like to see that change come sooner.  I’d like to see adults properly identified and appropriately served now.  We have to move away from baby steps and take bigger steps away from the “epidemic” and acknowledge that unidentified/misidentifed adults with autism are almost certainly out there.

Instead, we have people asking to “Green Our Vaccines“.  The “Green Our Vaccines” idea is a very cute way to mask the typical “epidemic” speech.  But it is the same old story: autism is vaccine injury and new.  Note that almost all of the groups sponsoring the “Green our Vaccines” rally are autism-related.   Sorry to divert to that topic somewhat, but I can’t help thinking that all that effort is being put into that rally by people who actively supress the existance of adults with autism.  I can’t help thinking that the present and the future would be better if they were acting to help everyone with autism, now.

(noted, this has been edited to more correctly reflect Joseph’s opinions on substitution.  Also, I missed another Green Our Vaccines link.)

How many autistic amish?

3 Jun

Yesterday, Joseph wrote a great post that looked at the prevalence of low functioning autism amongst the Amish and found it correlated strongly with non Amish sources.

Today, I want to look at the Amish through the lens of the ‘new’ prevalence that The Autism Omnibus Petitioners expert witness (for the families) Professor Sander Greenland testified to.

Now, as we all know, when Dan Olmsted first started writing about the Amish he claimed that both Amish children are never vaccinated and that the Amish either don’t have autism, or it is very rare.

It has been established since than that Omsted’s ‘reporting’ (which constituted asking a water cooler salesman) somehow missed the fact that the Amish actually do vaccinate in pretty high numbers.

Since that time, as the autism/vaccine hypothesis has become weaker and weaker we have seen a ‘silent switch’ amongst its proponents. Gone is the talk about ‘epidemic’ and hundred of thousands of children ‘poisoned’ to be replaced with talk such as:

My message is this: “We need more research to determine if a small subset of kids is genetically susceptible to lifelong neurological injury from something, or things, in our current vaccine program.

This has been echoed by Dan Olmsted. When Autism News Beat stepped into woo-land and visited Autism One, Dan Olmsted was quoted on camera as saying (this is a hurried transcription, apologies for slight errors):

…you try to listen for anything that’s useful in terms of information. Sometimes they tell you things that they don’t mean to in terms of how..uh..you know we learned things about the Amish from a blogger who tried to destroy my reporting about that because he basically talked to somebody who confirmed that there were very few cases of classic, regressive autism. So…it’s, you know…that’s the way it is…

So, we can see that the ‘silent shift’ is underway. Nobody acknowledges it but the media people amongst the autism/vaccine believers have switched their stance. Now we’re only looking for a small subset of regressive cases.

This was born out by the families expert witness Professor Greenland. He was asked to tackle the epidemiology for autism and stated that the number of kids made autistic by vaccines (assuming it had happened at all) was so small it could not be detected by epidemiology. He contended that it was in fact a subset of a subset he called ‘clearly regressive autism’.

Using his data, we could see that ‘clearly regressive autism’ accounts for 0.015% of a given population. According to Elizabethtown College the Amish population of the US is about 220,000.

So, in real terms we are looking for (0.015% of 220,000) 33 ‘clearly regressive autistic’ people.

According to Mark Blaxill, Olmsted has already found:

….less than 20 cases

Which is good news. It means he must already be over halfway in finding all the ‘clearly regressive autistic’ people he needs to in order to establish the Amish have the same rate of ‘clearly regressive autism’ as the rest of us.

The Amish Anomaly is an anomaly in one respect only – it is anomalous to keep silently shifting the numbers you want to find. Now that David Kirby, Dan Olmsted and the Autism Omnibus families are all on record as only looking for a ‘small subset’ isn’t it time that the Amish Anomaly was seen for what it is – anomalous.

The Bernadine Healy Card

31 May

Last month, ex NIH leader, Bernadine Healy came out of her semi-retirement to weigh in on the autism/vaccine hypothesis:

….the rise of this disorder, which shows up before age 3, happens to coincide with the increased number and type of vaccine shots in the first few years of life. So as a trigger, vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility.

It was a credulous article designed, I suspect, to have a bit of a snipe at HHS – currently embroiled in the Autism Omnibus. Why do I say that?

Well, being a UK citizen I’d never heard of Bernadine Healy so I did a bit of looking around to see if I could adequately explain to myself why such a luminary would say such plainly silly and unscientific things.

It seems that:

on 10 Feb [1993], Healy, who is known for her bluntness, went to her new boss, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Donna Shalala and asked about her future. Shalala apparently matched Healy for bluntness. “She let me know it wouldn’t work out in the long term.” Said Healy.

So possibly there is some lingering resentment towards HHS. Who knows. It seems doubtful that this would entirely (if at all) explain Healy’s decision to parrot pseudo-science but – people do silly things sometimes.

What I found fascinating was that this is not the first time Healy has taken an active role in direct opposition to science and the scientific process:

…..patients are forced into a one-size-fits-all straitjacket…..EBM [evidence based medicine] carries its own ideological and political agenda separate from its clinical purpose.

Dr. Bernadine Healy, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and former director of the National Institutes of Health, falsely claimed that “several” neurologists who “evaluated” Terri Schiavo determined that she had “a functional mind” and was “minimally conscious.”

Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institute of Health said, “Blenderizing these diverse trials into one giant 232,606-patient-strong study to come up with a seductively simple proclamation is just silly….”

That latter was Healy’s attack on a study that highlighted the dangers of vitamins.

So we can see that Healy has a history that is peppered with leanings toward a credulous approach.

It also seems that she is first and foremost a politician, willing to sacrifice her scientific credibility to support her party (she is a Republican):

Healy was appointed director of the National Institutes of Health in 1991….when Healy assumed control, the agency was beset with problems…..[s]cientists were leaving in record numbers because of…..politicization of scientific agendas (a prime example was the ban on fetal-tissue research because the Republican administration believed it encouraged abortion)

Healy had, at that time expressed support for fetal-tissue research:

….she had been a member of a panel that advised continuation of fetal-tissue research, her appointment was also seen as a move away from politicized science.

So, it must’ve come as something of a shock to NIH scientists when:

….she lobbied against overturning the Bush Administration’s ban on fetal tissue research, despite her previous support for such research.

She also had to defend herself against charges of mishandling a scientific misconduct case:

Healy demanded that OSI (like internal affairs for the NIH) rewrite a draft report that found misconduct on the part of Popovic. The OSI report also severely criticized Gallo.

“When her order for a rewrite was refused, Dr. Healy replaced the chief investigator [Suzanne Hadley] with one more malleable,” the subcommittee report said. The resulting OSI report was “watered down,” the subcommittee document said.

……….

In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences’ panel completed its investigation and produced a report critical of Gallo.

Healy chose to ignore the findings of the NAS panel and commissioned her own ad hoc committee of top NIH scientists, whom she called her “wise men,” the report said. Healy required the members to sign a secrecy agreement.

(Full story also here).

Maybe the biggest question mark against Healy’s scientific credibility and ability to be impartial as this. She was a member of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition:

The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group which promotes the idea that environmental science on issues including smoking, pesticides and global warming is “junk science”, which should be replaced by “sound science”.

Notably, TASSC promote the interests of tobacco companies:

Initially, the primary focus of TASSC was an attempt to discredit research on Environmental Tobacco Smoke [passive smoking] as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community — especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents. It subsequently advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr George Carlo. TASSC used the label of ‘junk science’ to criticise work that was unfavorable to the interests of its backers.

TASSC’s funders included:

3M
Amoco
Chevron
Dow Chemical
Exxon
General Motors
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lorillard Tobacco
Louisiana Chemical Association
National Pest Control Association
Occidental Petroleum
Philip Morris
Procter & Gamble
Santa Fe Pacific Gold
W.R. Grace

More can be found here.

So, all in all, I am disposed to not trust the words, or ‘beliefs’ of Bernadine Healy very much. Anyone who campaigns against the dangers of passive smoking to children or who is prepared to block science they allegedly once supported when it is politically expedient doesn’t seem that good a judge of what constitutes good science.

Dr John Briffa is wronger than wrong on vaccines and Hannah Poling

30 May

Media nutritionism is a crowded field, but John Briffa has managed to carve out a niche for himself. And Briffa’s take on vaccines stands out, even among media nutritionists. JDC takes a broader look at Briffa’s take on autism, but I’m going to focus on Briffa’s claim that:

the US Government recently looked at such evidence relating to just one girl (Hannah Poling) and concluded that vaccination had contributed significantly to her autism.

As readers of this blog can probably spot, almost every word of that statement is inaccurate: impressive work, indeed. Continue reading →

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Autism Conference and Autism Science

29 May

First of all, I want to let people know that the second USD Autism Conference involving Autism Hub members Has been announced.

There is a Facebook Event to allow the Autism Hub Facebook Group to disseminate information about the conference.

This is, once again, due to the tireless work of Steve. Thanks are due to him.

Secondly, an interesting piece of new science has been announced:

A Long Island researcher has pinpointed for the first time brain regions in children with autism linked to “ritualistic repetitive behavior,” the insatiable desire to rock back and forth for hours or tirelessly march in place.

…..

In children with autism, Shafritz found deficits in specific regions of the cerebral cortex, the outer layer of gray matter linked to all higher human functions, including repetitive behavior. He also mapped deficits in the basal ganglia, a region deep below the cerebral hemispheres.

So this would seem to be yet another area of autistic behaviour that has been ‘reclaimed’ from the anti-vaccine people who claim that the repetitive behaviours were a symptom of mercury poisoning. This is, of course, all to the good as it means that accuracy has replaced supposition.

Neurological diversity

28 May

It is a common tactic of some people who believe that autism should be cured at all costs to state that ‘the neurodiverse’ are a small minority of adults with Aspergers Syndrome, intent on preserving themselves at the expense of their ‘low functioning’ cousins.

Take a recent post from Harold Doherty railing against Andrew Solomon’s piece in New York Magazine:

The Alleged Autism Rights Movement isn’t much help for the severely autistic, the truly severely autistic….. like my son Conor who wondered (sic) across a busy main street oblivious to the dangers of traffic; or those like the 10 year old severely autistic boy in North Carolina who was struck by a train and killed Saturday half an hour after police received a report he was missing from his home. [Or] like the 50 year old autistic woman who could not communicate to tell the world she was being abused by staff in the residential care facility in which she lives in Long Island…

The sad fact is that, if Harold Doherty would allow himself to see it, no-one from ‘neurodiversity’ is suggesting that people like his son, the 10 year old boy he describes or the 50 year old woman he describes, should not be helped to the fullest possible extent. The trouble is, that Harold (and people who hold similar views) are so caught up in what they _think_ they never actually _see_ . The other fact is that the basic tenet of neurodiversity as _I_ understand the term is that people like Conor Doherty deserve respect. The whole ‘cure’ thing is a fairly trivial side issue. Respect is what comes first.

There is no cure for autism. Does this mean then, that we should not fight for the rights of autistic people of _all_ ages, abilities and expressions? That because they are not neurotypical they do not have rights? or deserve respect?

_That_ is what (to me and I think to very many people) neurodiversity is about. Take Alex Barton – the five year old voted out of his class. That is a _lack_ of respect. There is absolutely no justification for that teacher to behave in that way toward a five year old child. Neurodiversity says ‘this little autistic boy deserves to be treated as if he were the same as anyone else in terms of his right to belong’. I fear that some people who call themselves autism advocates think the problem is easily remedied by curing Alex Barton’s autism (hypothetically of course). I think that that entirely misses the point. People used to look for cures for homosexuality – that was wrong too. The _person who is autistic_ deserves as much of a chance to be judged for who they are with their own set of unique abilities, shortcomings and character as the person who is not.

Does this mean we should ‘leave the autistic child as he/she is’? Of course not! That is the largest of red herrings. If someone cannot communicate, you help them communicate. If someone cannot use the toilet, you help them to learn.

And then, when they have reached the upper limit of the potential for learning on each of these subjects, you accept that that is who they are. For some, that might mean they can now speak. For some it might mean they can barely use one Makaton sign. The _amount_ they have learnt is not the measure of how much respect they deserve. They deserve respect regardless. So we must all work to make the environment safer for young autistic children. We must all work harder to make autistic adults living arrangements safe. These are basic human rights.

It should also be noted that, far from being an autism related term, neurodiversity touches on a whole range of things. Of course, they’re not all called ‘neurodiversity’ but well….

Are voices a symptom of illness or a variety of human experience?

Research has shown that there are many people who hear voices, some of whom cope with their voices well without psychiatric intervention, it has also been found that there are many people who hear voices who can cope with their voices and regard them as a positive part of their lives. Neither is it the case that voices have always been regarded as a negative experience.

Throughout history and even today there are people who hear voices who find their voices inspirational and comforting. These are facts that on the face of it are hard to square with the extremely negative way that the experience is regarded by psychiatry. The researchers, practitioners and involved voice hearers believe it is mistaken to regard voice hearing as part of a psychopathic disease syndrome. Rather, they consider it to be more akin to a variation in human experience – if you like, a faculty or differentiation – something like homosexuality, that it is definitely not open to cure.

Thats taken from a page on Hearing Voices from the Mental Health Foundation. I would suggest that you go read that entire page. Like neurodiversity, some members of the hearing voices community acknowledge that their condition (or the condition of a loved one) can be disabling and distressing. However, they all realise that their can be a unique benefit and comfort in knowing who they are. They believe that who they are can be best expressed as a variation in human experience.

A little closer to home (for me anyway), there is something called Mad Pride which is a movement again neurodiversity in all but name. Its a loose conglomeration of self advocates who are (or have been) diagnosed with mental illness:

About 5.7 million Americans over 18 have bipolar disorder, which is classified as a mood disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Another 2.4 million have schizophrenia, which is considered a thought disorder. The small slice of this disparate population who have chosen to share their experiences with the public liken their efforts to those of the gay-rights and similar movements of a generation ago.

Just as gay-rights activists reclaimed the word queer as a badge of honor rather than a slur, these advocates proudly call themselves mad; they say their conditions do not preclude them from productive lives.

The people in all these movements are autistic, manic depressives, schizophrenics, tourettes and many more. None of us deny the bad things that being the way we are can bring. But we do not believe that the fact that we are the way we are means that we are second-class or fodder for nothing more than quack therapies and misplaced pity.

All these peoples – and many more – are the neurologically diverse. The Neurodiverse. Belonging to neither nation, nor politics but simply belonging to the simple idea that everyone is _not_ equal but everyone can advocate best for themselves if supported and respected:

“Broken down it means ‘speaking for yourself’, ‘communicating in other ways’, but it’s personal. For me it means that I can speak for myself. It means I’ve got a voice and even without a voice I can communicate in other ways. It means yes and no- most important- ‘No, I don’t want tea, I want coffee, I don’t want sugar’- all the things we take for granted. It means people must listen to me, I can take a risk, I can have a relationship, that can be hard. I can think for myself, I can go to the shop with support and if I need help, people can help me….

Jackie Downer, Down’s Syndrome Self Advocate.

Rodier on Bernard et al. and environmental causes of autism

25 May

The idea that mercury poisoning causes autism was first put forward in a paper by Sally Bernard and others entitled Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning.

This was published in a journal called Medical Hypotheses. As you might tell from the title, Medical Hypotheses presents hypotheses-not proven ideas. The journal has no peer review process. Instead, they basically print “…will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed”. If you write well and pay to publish, it will likely get in. Keep that in mind with any paper from “Medical Hypotheses”.

In this paper, the put forth the hypothesis that mercury causes autism. To support this idea, they compare the symptoms of autism and mercury intoxication.

In the Autism Omnibus Proceedings, Dr. Patricia Rodier spoke on specifically the Bernard paper. Dr. Rodier has a unique position in the United States, and likely the world: she is an expert on both mercury poisoning and autism. Below is a rough transcription based on the audio recording of that testimony.

She starts out by stating that she has many criticism of the Bernard paper. She also mentioned a response to that paper had already been published by Nelson and Bauman. That paper is worth reading, and it’s free on the Pediatrics website.

Dr. Rodier then discusses the comparisons made between mercury poisoning and autism, based on her experience with both. If you want the short version: there is no comparison.

First, many of the symptoms or characteristics that are discussed in the Bernard paper are not specific to either autism or mercury poisoning. These include, nausea, vomiting, irritability and temper tantrums. Basically, these are things that happen for all of us at times.

Other symptoms are common across many disabilities: mental retardation, depression and abnormal gait. Again, these are not specific to either autism or mercury poisoning.

Almost all the symptoms used for mercury poisoning are taken from “Mad Hatter’s” disease: the result of a very high exposure to inorganic mercury vapor. Only a few symptoms listed were from ethyl mercury exposure. Since the exposure from vaccines is due to ethyl mercury (thimerosal breaks down to ethyl mercury) that would be the valid comparison.

Dr. Rodier, in her testimony, then discussed how the Bernard paper doesn’t actually do what it purports to do. The comparison isn’t valid since the actual symptoms of autism and mercury poisoning do not match up in a comparison.

She then goes on to discuss many of the comparisons made by Bernard, et al., and show that the comparisons are not valid.

1. Under psychiatric disturbances, the paper discusses depression, flat affect, depressive traits, mood swings, impaired face recognition

1a. Depression is a symptom of acrodynia. This is an exposure to inorganic mercury, not ethyl mercury. While some, possibly many, autistics suffer from depression, it is not a characteristic of autism.

1b. Mood swings are a characteristic of Mad Hatters disease. Again, this is not an autism symptom or characteristic.

1c. Flat affect is a diagnostic trait for autism but not mercury poisoning . Also, this is the opposite of mood swings, a characteristic of mercury poisoning noted in ii, above.

1d. Impaired face recognition occurs in autism, but hasn’t even been tested in any kind of mercury poisoning.

So, in this first group of four: there is no overlap for the above 4 ‘symptoms’. If it happens in mercury poisoning, it doesn’t happen in autism and vice versa.

2. Under speech and language deficits, the paper describes:
2a. Verbalizing and word retrieval. This is a problem is observed in Mad Hatters disease but not autism. But, this is compared to ecololia and word use and pragmatic errors. These never happen in mercury poisoning. It is an autism trait.
3. Again under psychiatric disturbances, the paper lists “Lacks eye contact”, and “impaired vision” under mercury toxicity, compared to “problems with joint attention” as the ‘similar’ autism trait
3a. “lacks eye contact” is a symptom of autism, but not of mercury poisoning. Likewise, impaired visual fixation is a symptom of methyl mercury poisoning-the brain control of the eye muscles are impaired which doesn’t allow you to fixate on something-but is not a symptom of autism. Joint attention has nothing to do with vision. It is not a feature of any kind of mercury poisoning. It is a social impairment, not a vision issue.

4) Under CNS structure, they compare “progressive microcephaly” for mercury poisoning with “progressive microcephaly and macrocephaly” for autism.
4a. progressive microcephally is given as a symptom of mercury poisoning. The idea of ‘progressive’ is incorrect here. Also, microcephaly is a sign of methyl mercury toxicity prenatally, not postnatal exposure. Children are born with it.
4b. Progressive macrocephally is a sign of autism. However, it has never been reported in mercury poisoning.

5) Under Neurochemistry, they list “Causes demyelinating neuropathy” under mercury poisoning.

5a. Demyelinating nerorpathy results from a chronic exposure to inorganic mercury. It is not reported in autism.

5b) They list “demyelination in brain” as a characteristic of autism, but no one has ever listed this in autism and the reference doesn’t address it.

Dr. Rodier posed the question: since the authors are trying to show a connection between thimerosal containing vaccines and autism, why don’t they compare autism and ethyl mercury poisoning? Keep in mind, there are various forms of mercury (ethyl and methyl being two types of organic mercury). In their comparison, Bernard et al. have picked from ethyl, methyl and inorganic mercury symptoms. Dr. Rodier suggest the reason they didn’t stick to purely ethyl mercury symptoms because “It doesn’t make a good story”.

1) For example, in a paper by Zhang , 41 people were exposed to ethyl mercury from tainted rice. They knew dose from how much rice they ingested. The authors documented the symptoms. Doses varied from mild to death.

1a) The three most comment symptoms documented by Zhang were:

1a.i) Muscle Weakness

1a.ii) Loss of appetite

1a.iii) Dizziness

Dr. Rodier notes that “those don’t sound much like autism”.

1b) The next 10 symptoms listed by Zhang are

1b.i) nausea

1b.ii) abdominal pain and diarrhea

1b.iii) fever

1b.iv) numbness of the extreminties

1b.v) peresthesia and ataxia

1b.vi) vomiting

1b.vii) thirst

1b.viii) unsteady gait

1b.ix) ringing in the ears

1b.x) headache

Dr. Rodier: again, none of these sound like any of the symptoms of autism that are used in diagnosis.

Dr. Rodier stresses at this point: there is really no correspondence between the symptoms of ethyl mercury poisoning and autism

The government’s attorney asked: the current hypothesis is that low levels of inorganic mercury cause oxidative stress or an inflammatory process which cause autism. Does that make sense? Dr. Rodier answered quite directly, “no”. In the opinion of that autism and mercury poisoning expert, the logic does not work.

She went on to point out that scientists try to disprove hypotheses, not just find support for their given hypothesis. (author’s note here: this is quite true. You need to test a hypothesis and make sure it doesn’t fail, not just collect the evidence that implies it is correct).

She points out that there is one piece of evidence that completely refutes the Bernard et al. hypothesis. There have been autopsy studies performed on people with acute ethyl mercury poisoning. While they indeed had high levels of organic mercury after the ethyl mercury was gone, these people recovered from the mercury toxicity symptoms after the ethyl mercury was gone and the had inorganic mercury was left.

This was the end of the discussion on the Bernard paper and mercury. It is pretty clear when an expert in both fields-mercury toxicity and autism-speaks on the comparison. Compare this to the authors who wrote the paper. Of the three, only one had a background in medicine. That is Lyndelle Redwood, a nurse. None of them are researchers, none experts in either autism or mercury poisoning.

From the above it is pretty clear: the hypothesis put forth by Bernard et al. was a poorly formed and is definitely incorrect.

In the Omnibus Proceeding, the discussion then moved away from mercury directly and into the question of environmental causes of autism. The question was posed: when does autism begin? The answer was that it almost always is determined pre birth.

This led to a discussion of known environmental factors that lead to autism. Dr. Rodier listed them and listed when the exposure has to occur to result in autism.

The known environmental causes are: Rubella, thalidomide, valproic acid, ethanol, misoprostol. All are involved during gestation. The timing of exposure to increase autism risk is:

1) Rubella (German measles): before the 9th week

2) Thalidamide: week 3 and 4

3) Valproic acid: week 3 and 4

4) Ethanol: week 3-5

5) Misoprostol: week 6

She noted that tuberous sclerosis is an example of autistic symptoms developing after birth as the tumors progress.

Terbutaline has been brought up a number of times by the plaintiffs (petitioners) in the Omnibus as an example of an environmental cause of autism. The question was raised as to why Dr. Rodier didn’t discuss this. She described that it is not an environmental cause study, but a genetic study.

Twin pairs were studied. Some were exposed to terbutaline and some were not. They compared the concordance: the rate of one twin having autism if the other did not. No significant increase was found in general in this study. So, the authors looked at a smaller subset, and still found no increase. Then, they looked only at male twins, where no autistic siblings were present in the family. In that case only, they found a significant effect.

Dr. Rodier goes on to discuss that even interpreting this part is difficult because we don’t know if the increased risk was due to the terbutaline, or the fact that the children were at risk of being born early (terbutaline is given to prevent premature delivery).

The judge (Special Master in this court) asked if this was because without the terbutaline the children would not have survived to be born. Dr. Rodier agreed and pointed out that the interpretation the plaintiffs are supplying is further confused because low birth weight is also an increased risk factor. This is from a very recent paper in Pediatrics. Since the turbutaline twins were low birth weight, that could be a factor in the increased autism risk found.

The plaintiffs lawyers have been using a study on rats as an example of a post-natal environmental exposure. The government lawyer asked if this was a valid interpretation. Could this be used to suggest a post-natal exposure could cause autism in humans? Dr. Rodier answered that this is not valid. Newborn rats are more developmentally immature than newborn humans. Newborn rats have closed eyes, no hair, and in other ways are very much more developmentally like prenatal humans. The study would compare better to late-gestation humans.

There was much more in her testimony, but that gets even farther away from the Bernard paper, so we can end this discussion here and let others pick up the rest of her testimony.

Dr. Brent – Toxicologist at the Autism Omnibus hearing

25 May

Listening to Mr. Williams (lawyer for the parents) cross examine Dr. Brent the toxicologist (from May 19, Day 6) was difficult most because after 45 minutes of discussion of the toxicokinetics of ethyl-, vs. methyl, vs. inorganic-mercury all I could hear was “Blah, blah, don’t you agree that the Charleston monkey adult brain study showedgreaterinflammationoftheinorganic glutamaturgicneuron silvergrainsBurbacherinfant paper? Blah blah and further, isn’t it true thattheVahtergroup onlygave80milligramsperkilogramsperdayofmercuricchloride because the defensereferencemasterlist 436page8 indicatesthatSeychellesIslanders spoke at the IOM?”

Nevertheless, I forced myself to listen to portions of it again and again until I thought I understood what they were talking about exactly. There were several times, maybe 8 or 10 even where it seemed obvious to me that Dr. Brent had totally demolished the point that Mr. Williams was attempting to make and Mr. Williams continued on as if it was of no consequence. I kept getting this picture of King Arthur and the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail after King Arthur has sliced off the Black Knight’s arm:

ARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
‘Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm’s off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn’t.
ARTHUR:
Well, what’s that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I’ve had worse.

.

The following is more of my rough transcribing of the audio. I have no idea what that word is that sounds like “AT-trib-ated.” If you know I’d be happy to correct my spelling of it. I believe this first paper he’s referring to is one of the Charleston or Vahter adult monkey studies where they gave very large doses of methyl mercury to the monkeys every day, orally. Click here to hear this segment of the cross examination of Dr. Brent.

.

Mr. Williams: It’s says: “the microglia population is a responsive cell type. Once damage has been repaired following activation after injury microglia are known to return to a quiescent state. However, the number of attribated (sp?) microglia remained elevated … in the monkeys of the clearance group which were kept unexposed for 6 months following 12 months of methyl mercury exposure . This group had very low concentrations of methyl mercury, but retained elevated concentrations inorganic mercury at levels comparable to the 12 month exposure group and this suggests that inorganic mercury may be the proximate species of mercury responsible for microglial activation…” a situation similar to that proposed for the cortex study we already looked at. Now, do you agree that normally microglia have a protective role, they come in and clean up whatever’s there and then they return to their quiescent state?

Dr. Brent: To the extent that I understand microglia… which is limited, I would say, yes.

Williams: And if they stay activated then they can become toxic to neurons and astrocytes.

Dr. Brent: Once again, my, my understanding of microglia is more limited than other people who will be testifying later… my understanding is that microglial activations is not necessarily a bad thing and that … the effects here are not necessarily indicative of any neuropathology.

Once again, you know, we are talking about inorganic mercury effects at the concentrations they give here, and if the inorganic mercury is causing adverse effects at the concentrations, then it’s the seafood and the chicken that people are eating and not the vaccines because that’s where the far greater exposure comes from. And that doesn’t make any sense, because everyone is eating seafood and chicken, including children who are getting mercury via breast milk, and we don’t think of breast milk as a neurotoxin!

Williams: If we go down the column on the same page to about 4 sentences above… yeah about where you have it highlighted…
It says: “Further loss of astrocytes would be expected to have deleterious effects on the neuron population, for example through a excitotoxic mechanism. You were here when Dr Kinsbourne testified that that was his … understanding of the mechanism that could likely be at work here that you would have astrocytes no longer able to take up glutamate, so yyou’d have excess of glutamate and have neurons get over excited. Right?

Dr. Brent: Once again your getting a little out of the mercury area, so my answer here is going to be quite limited, what I took away from Dr. Kinsbourne’s testimony was that he was hypothesizing it was excitotoxic mechanism, related to astrocyte effects. But here for example it says, “further loss of astrocytes,” in this study there wasn’t even that much loss of astroycytes! And certainly, uhm, well we talked about the exposure scenario, so I won’t bring that up again …

Williams: And although, you want to talk about the methyl mercury dose here, you recall that the authors of the infant monkey study made a point of saying that the levels of inorganic mercury in these adult monkeys was only 5 times higher on average than the levels they found in those infant monkey brains, right?

Dr. Brent: That’s right, and that’s very good evidence therefore, that the inorganic mercury is not acting as a neurotoxin, or else we are being poisoned every day, and we are having autism being formed every day, from breastmilk, from seafood, from chicken.

Williams: (Clears throat.)

.

I don’t know if it’s immediately obvious to those who haven’t followed the discussion closely, but basically, Mr. Williams had pointed out that inorganic mercury is the “proximate” cause of damage to brain cells. Which is to say that, it doesn’t matter if the original source of the mercury was methyl-, ethyl- or inorganic mercury, because the mercury doesn’t hang around in the brain as either methyl- or ethyl-mercury. Those forms get changed into inorganic mercury, and it’s the inorganic mercury that hangs around. Inorganic mercury (referred to sometimes in the hearing as “Hg-plus-plus,” Hg++) is the same stuff whether or not it started out as methyl-, ethyl-, thimerosol, breast milk, or chicken. And the exposure to breast milk and chicken for the infant and toddler set is much higher than their exposure to thimerosal from vaccines, now or ever. Dr. Brent had said earlier in the cross examination that over the course of 6 months and infant gets “about 250 micrograms of methyl mercury.”

macaque monkey

Besides that the PSC keeps bringing up these studies where macaques were given significantly higher doses, even massively higher doses, of mercury, either thimerosal or methyl-mercury, than babies ever got. The monkeys in the Vahter study were given 50 mcg per kilogram per day of methyl mercury, which Dr. Brent explained is the equivalent in a 70 kg person getting 3,500 mcg a day of methyl mercury. The average diet for that 70 kg person would expose him or her to 11,000 mcg a year. A year! So essentially, the monkeys got a level of mercury in 3 days what they’d get in a year if they had been eating a typical American diet. But some of the monkeys were fed like this for a year. That’s the “12 month exposure group” referred in what I transcribed (above).

And even though they had had that large continual dose of mercury for a year and many of their brain cells were pretty much impregnated with mercury, the monkeys were normal behaviorally. Even if you wouldn’t expect them to become autistic because they were exposed as adults, surely they’d show some outward sign of brain damage if that much mercury were extremely dangerous to brain function.

It was also interesting to me that Burbacher had used 3 or 4 times the amount of thimerosal to dose his infant monkeys as humans got. Had Burbacher used the equivalent amount of thimerosal in the human vaccine schedule the outcome would likely have been that the levels of mercury in the monkey’s brains would have been so low that it wouldn’t have been detectable. (Clears throat.)

There was also some fun discussion about how there’s no increased autism in the Faroe and Seychelle’s islands in spite of the fact that infants have high levels of mercury in their brains (from maternal diet). Mr. Williams stated that “fish is very good for brains” as if that was a point for his side.

Dr. Brent was the first of the respondents expert witnesses to testify in this portion of the Omnibus hearing. He also had testified in the Cedillo hearing. Some of the points about Kinsbourne’s hypothesis regarding astroglial activation, glutamate excess, and cell death were dismantled by Dr. Johnson, and by other experts who testified in the past weak. Dr. Deth’s hypothesis about autism being the result of oxidative stress was pretty much smithereened by two or three of the petitioners experts. I’m still catching up with listening to all of their testimony, but of extensive portions I’ve listened to so far, well, I think it’s looking really bad for dead parrot hypothesis.

Dr. Johnson testifies in the Autism Omnibus Hearing

24 May

Dr. Johnson’s testimony was fabulous and I think it’s safe to say that it wreaks more devastation on the petitioners'(the parents) case. As of this moment, I can’t give you a lot of detail about Dr. Johnson’s qualifications, unfortunately. For some reason a portion of the audio recording (MP3) that would have included Dr. Johnson’s statement of his qualifications is missing.

One thing I think is important to point out here is that the respondents experts’ (written) reports, and even the list of the respondents’ experts has not been posted to the Autism Omnibus docket. The parents’ lawyers (the Petitioners Steering Committee, or PSC) do have their experts list posted to the docket. Some time ago (I think it was more than a year ago) the Department of Justice attorneys asked the Special Master if the Federal Court would refrain from posting the lists of the respondent’s experts for fear that their experts would be subjected to harassment. That request doesn’t seem to be on the docket now, but it used to be. It’s likely that after the experts were listed the first time the experts for the government were harassed. This would be in keeping with the way different experts, and even parents such as myself and Kevin Leitch and others, have been harassed by “mercury parents” or their friends. You can see from the Autism Omnibus Proceedings Docket Here: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2718 that the there are no more postings of lists of respondents’ experts after mid 2006. There’s an entry from March of 2007 that is called, “Respondent’s Notice of Expert Witnesses,” but there’s no document now linked to that entry.

The point I’m trying to make about the missing expert list is: I can’t pull up the list of expert witnesses for the respondents (the US government, essentially) for this hearing because it’s not available. So I can’t find out easily who Dr. Johnson is, though he is a professor at university, and has a lab, and has published on neurophyisology and neurodegenerative diseases, and he uses tissue slides and tissue cultures. Worse, “Johnson” is a very common name so if you go looking for experts named Johnson who publish in neurodegenerative diseases, you’ll find 3 or 4 of them in pubmed. The DoJ lawyer here is one of Mr. Matanoski’s team of attorneys. As far as I can tell the junior attorneys on the team are Bo (Beau?) Johnson, Ms. Ricciardella, Ms. Renzi and Ms. Espinoza (Espinosa?).

I don’t know which lawyer is examining Dr. Johnson. From her voice, I’m guessing (again) that it’s Ms. Renzi. Again this is my transcribing of what was said, some of it is word for word, some of it is a close paraphrase of what was said you can find the following somewhere around 8 minutes 43 seconds on the second MP3 file from Day 7 (May 20). Here is some of the very interesting testimony from Dr. Johnson:

Ms. Renzi: Dr. Deth cited a paper by Mady Hornig in support of his arguments. You mentioned that the mouse strain Dr. Hornig used was selected because it had a stronger immune response, but took issue with Dr. Deth’s explanation of the rationale behind the use of the strain. … Deth said hers was a mouse strain harboring genetic deficits in redox related enzymes… What strain of mouse was used?

Dr. Johnson: It was an SJL-J mouse. (Dr. Deth) was inferring that there was a redox enzyme differential, or some kind of differential (in this strain) and that’s absolutely not true. The mice have a this increased immune response and that’s why they were selected. … There’s absolutely no data supporting the fact that there is a redox enzyme differential. Now I can understand the reason that it’s in there because it supports his hypothesis… but it’s not an accurate representation of these mice.

Renzi: Do you have confidence in Dr. Hornig’s reported results?

Johnson: Uh, no.

Renzi: Part of that has to do with the hippocampal sections, correct?

Johnson: The quality of the images,… I’ll point this out, (the sections from the Hornig paper) .. What you can see is when you look at these images–to me these images are absolutely awful, now the staining here is hematoxylin and eosin, and it’s supposed to stain for architecture and cell integrity and a variety of other things. The pictures are diffuse, there’s no clear neuronal fields. Right here there is weak staining. … If you look here, the cells that are dark right there, those are the neuronal fields. The quality is just extremely low. … Quality of the sections themselves are low. … Let’s put it this way, I’ve seen this in my lab before. I’ve seen people come to me with sections stained like this. I’ll say: Something’s wrong. OK? The tissue wasn’t prepared right. There’s something definately wrong here. Because these do not maintain the nice cellular architecture that you should see if the experiment is done right and the tissue is harvested correctly.

Renzi: Problems with these slides led you to doubt the findings of the Hornig paper? Has a recent paper contradicted Hornig’s findings? …

Johnson: The… comparable fields in the Berman paper. To me they are absolutely beautiful. … It looks very, very, very good.

Renzi: … What dose of thimerosal was used in the Berman paper?

Johnson: …They also used a does that was 10 times higher…

Renzi: Did both studies (stain with antibodies)?

Johnson: There is a distinct difference between Berman and Hornig studies’ slides… If you look at the architecture of the tissue in the Berman study…. (there is) nice staining in the hippocampus….

Special Master:… (interrupt for clarification)

Johnson: … Berman sections are the two sections on the left side… What you can see is there’s very nice staining in the field, the neuronal field are not staining intensely (which is what they are expected to show)

Now if you look at the upper 4 panels on the right side these are from the similar panels from the Hornig study. The first thing that I want to point out is that if you look at the tissue, it’s full of holes… Look at this enhanced image right here, the bottom two panels C and D from the Hornig. You can see that the tissue almost looks like it’s disintegrating, It’s breaking down. There’s holes all over in the tissue.

I know from experience when you see tissue like this the amount of nonspecific staining by antibodies could be intense.

Basically, if someone came to me with this kind of staining in my laboratory I would say to go back and do the whole experiment again,… I would not want… for one these are unpublishable to me, and two the potential for artifactual data to be generated from this kind of (poor quality tissue) is extremely high. … This is very important. You know, you can do whatever you want after you’ve got the tissue, but it’s the process of getting the tissue so that the quality is extremely good. You need to start with high quality tissue.

… The Berman tissue was absolutely perfect. … The sections are beautiful.

One thing I took away from Dr. Johnson’s testimony is that there’s no way that the Hornig paper should

have made it past a competent peer review and into a “peer reviewed” publication. The Hornig paper has a few other problems that have been discussed before, but these problems never been reported in into a letter to the journal that published that paper, Molecular Psychology, as they should have. (Click here to download a copy of that paper from the SAFE MINDS website.)

Hornig wrote that paper with her main squeeze, Ian Lipkin, and with David Chian. This research was funded by the UC Davis MIND Institute, SAFE MINDS and by part of an NIH grant of Ian Lipkin’s. Surely someone knew how bad those tissue slides were even before it was submitted to the journal. Surely someone at the journal should have had a person with some kind of expertise review the article. Surely in 2004 some person with expertise would have noticed the problems with the degraded and uninterpretable tissue slides in the Hornig paper. I didn’t notice any problems with the slides when I read the paper because I don’t know what stained tissue of mouse hippocampus is supposed to look like and neither would most of the mercury parents who have tried to use this paper to show that their own child was made autistic by vaccines containing thimerosal.

The MIND Institute scientists must have seen the problems with Mady Hornig’s study, but they invited her to come speak about her thimerosal-causes-susceptible-mice-to-become-mindlessly-violent-killers hypothesis at the conference I call the “MIND’s mini-DAN!”. Video of her speaking at that conference is still available on the MIND’s website here: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/events/toxicology_recorded_events.html

And you can see video of John Green speaking there, too. He was described in the most glowing terms by Dr. Robert Hendren. Maybe Dr. Hendren didn’t know about the “earthworm eggs” and “fecal implantation enemas” that Dr. Green had prescribed to some of his patients. After Green spoke, Dr. Hendren knew about the problems with Green’s citing of a provoked urine toxic heavy metals lab result from Doctor’s Data Inc that was in Dr. Green’s slides, because I told Dr. Hendren about the problem with that lab report. As far as I could tell, Dr. Hendren wasn’t particularly worried about that. The video of Dr. Green “explaining” what that lab test meant to him is still on the MIND’s website. I have a problem with that, since parents can watch those videos and make poor treatment decisions for their children based on them. On the other hand, those videos seem to stand as a testimony to something less than scientific that seems to be going on at the MIND Institute. To UC Davis’ credit however, the Berman (2008) study that totally contradicts the Hornig (2004) study was also conducted at UCD.

Dr. Johnson has plenty of interesting things to say about Dr. Richard Deth and his neuroblastoma cell line experiments. Apparently, Dr. Deth will be back to testify again in the autism omnibus. Perhaps he will explain why he seemed to cut his experiments short (time-wise) and why he called neuroblastoma cells “neronal cells” when they should not be called neuronal cells, and why he didn’t show critically important “dose response curves”.credit: taminsea

I may have to devote a separate post to the issue of Deth taking data from (but not citing) a 1958 paper (pdf) that reported the level of cystathionine in duck brains (besides duck, also, human, cat, rat, guinea pig, horseshoe crab, chicken, cow and monkey).

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →