Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Mother Jones: Rep. Dan Burton’s Legacy: Lots of Sick Kids

1 Feb

Dan Burton, representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana announced today he would not seek re-election this year. Mother Jones has an article to mark the end of Dan Burton’s career in congress: Rep. Dan Burton’s Legacy: Lots of Sick Kids. The link says a lot “rep-dan-burton-goodbye-and-good-riddance”.

Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones starts out:

So Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) is finally retiring, after two decades in Congress. He’s got a notable record of craziness, having doggedly pursued President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal while knowing full well he’d had an affair himself and even fathered a child out of wedlock. He famously claimed to have shot up a “head-like object” (likely a melon or a pumpkin) to try to re-create the alleged “murder” of former Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, who committed suicide. But Burton doesn’t get enough credit for what may be his lasting legacy: helping turn Americans away from life-saving childhood vaccines.

Representative Burton has an autistic grandchild. Mr. Burton is of the belief that vaccines were causal in that autism. If you’ve read David Kirby’s book, “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical” you know that Rep. Burton is a major figure in that narrative.

Rep Burton helped promote Andrew Wakefield’s ideas, including a hearing held in 2000. Mr. Wakefield’s testimony is not exactly what I would call accurate. As is now well known, Mr. Wakefield was financially supported by attorneys seeking to prove a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. When Rep. Burton asked him about financial support, here’s how Mr. Wakefield responded:

Mr. Burton. Who funded your study, Dr. Wakefield?
Dr. Wakefield. We did. We have a small charitable
contribution, but—-
Mr. Burton. A charitable organization did; I see.
Dr. Wakefield. We found it a little difficult to get
funding—-

Mr. Burton cut Mr. Wakefield off at this point, addressing another speaker at the hearing. “A charitable contribution” is a rather odd way to describe money from attorneys. Mr. Burton held at least six hearings on vaccines. That is not a problem. However, the evidence was going from weak to strongly against him over the years.

Mr. Burton has thankfully been more quiet on the issue in his recent years in office. Still, I’m with Mother Jones on this. Good Bye and Good Riddance.

Time Magazine: Great Science Frauds

14 Jan

Add Time magazine to the list of those calling out Andrew Wakefield a fraud. Not just any fraud, a “great science fraud”:

Great Science Frauds

Autistic Advocacy Group Condemns Presidential Appointment of Anti-Vaccine Activist Peter Bell

12 Jan

Peter Bell of Autism Speaks has been appointed to the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities. As I read about the appointment I felt that there would be some reaction. Perhaps even a strong reaction. And, as you will see, I was correct. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) has issued a press release condemning the appointment.

Here is the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS CONTACT:
Melody Latimer
Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Phone: 202-630-7477
mlatimer@autisticadvocacy.org

AUTISTIC ADVOCACY GROUP CONDEMNS PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF ANTI-VACCINE ACTIVIST PETER BELL

Recent appointee Peter Bell has a long history of supporting fringe, anti-vaccine positions widely discredited in the scientific community

Washington, DC – January 12, 2012 – The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the nation’s leading advocacy group run by and for Autistic adults, today expressed concern and disappointment over President Obama’s announcement Tuesday of his intent to appoint anti-vaccine activist Peter H. Bell as a member of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities.

“Bell’s appointment shows such contrast to the forward motion the Obama administration has shown in the areas of autism and disability as a whole,” said Melody Latimer, ASAN Director of Community Engagement and an autistic parent of autistic children herself.

Bell, Executive Vice President of Programs at Autism Speaks, has a long history of supporting anti-vaccination related causes, dating back to his time as President and CEO of Cure Autism Now, which merged with Autism Speaks in 2007. Despite wide ranging scientific evidence to the contrary, Bell and others in the anti-vaccine movement have long maintained the existence of a link, a position viewed as irresponsible by many public health advocates.

“The link between Autism and vaccines has long been discredited, and so an appointment placing an anti-vaccine leader in a position to influence a greater audience and re-open the issue is disappointing and ill-advised. We respect and appreciate the Obama Administration’s commitment to autism issues, but hope they will vet their appointees more carefully going forward,” Latimer noted.

Autism Speaks, Bell’s employer, has a checkered and controversial history. In 2009, Autism Speaks lashed out at the Department of Health and Human Services for refusing to incorporate research objectives connecting autism to vaccines in the Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee’s Strategic Plan for Autism Research. In response to Autism Speaks’ disconnect from mainstream science on this question, several senior executives resigned from the organization in protest.

Autism Speaks has also been viewed with substantial controversy by Autistic people themselves, in large part due to the organization’s failure to meaningfully include individuals with the disability on their board of directors or in more than token roles in their senior leadership. Other criticisms of the organization include the low percentage of funds Autism Speaks invests in services, abnormally high executive salaries and what many have interpreted as deeply offensive advertising utilizing fear and pity to raise money. In 2009, the organization debuted its much-ridiculed video “I Am Autism” at the United Nations in New York City, presenting autism as an anthropomorphic force aiming to steal children. After widespread protests from Autistic adults across the country and criticisms from other disability organizations, Autism Speaks eventually pulled the promotional film.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) is the nation’s leading advocacy organization run entirely by and for Autistic adults and youth. ASAN’s supporters include Autistic adults and youth, cross-disability advocates, family members, professionals, educators and friends. ASAN was created to provide support and services to individuals on the autism spectrum while working to change public perception and combat misinformation by educating communities about persons on the autism spectrum. The organization’s activities include public policy advocacy, community engagement to encourage inclusion and respect for neurodiversity, quality of life oriented research and the development of Autistic cultural activities and other opportunities for Autistic people to engage with others on the spectrum.

Brian Deer responds to David Lewis’ complaint

10 Jan

Much attention has been focused on Andrew Wakefield again recently. This follows Mr. Wakefield’s lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Also, a lengthy complaint authored by David Lewis was made public, detailing his views about the allegations of fraud levied against Mr. Wakefield by the BMJ.

The two are not directly related as Mr. Lewis’ complaint fails to address many of the issues raised by the BMJ in their articles alleging fraud. That said, If one pokes around Mr. Deer’s website, one will eventually stumble upon this page: David L Lewis: indignant abuse as complaints turn to nothing. There is an introduction to the subject including Mr. Deer’s interactions with Mr. Lewis followed by a point by point response to Mr. Lewis’ complaint. For anyone who may be thinking that Mr. Deer is intimidated by the complaint I encourage you to read the response. It is very much in the style of Brian Deer. For example

DAVID L LEWIS: “My report, which I have submitted to UCL, UKRIO and HEFCE, includes 72 emails exchanged between me and the BMJ’s editors.”

DEER: I offer the recipients at UCL, UKRIO and HEFCE my sympathy.

Aside from such dismissive statements, Mr. Deer takes on the many (often repetitive) claims by Mr. Lewis directly. Mr. Lewis’ complaint and main thesis in his rapid response to the BMJ focus on non-specific colitis as used in the Lancet paper: the histology grading sheets of Dr. Dillhon somehow prove that there was no fraud. It is a confusing argument because it doesn’t address the many issues raised by Mr. Deer and the BMJ.

Per Mr. Deer in his introduction:

These biopsy assessments, however, weren’t the basis upon which, in January 2011, the BMJ concluded that Wakefield’s MMR work was “an elaborate fraud”. The evidence we presented rested firmly on the GMC panel’s findings of research dishonesty, and was overwhelmingly related to Wakefield’s activities with regard to the admission of patients to the study, as well as the purported clinical histories and findings which lay behind a claim by Wakefield of a 14-day temporal link between the administration of MMR and the first “behavioural symptoms” of autism. We say this purported link was fraudulent.

Later, in response to Mr. Lewis’ claim:

DAVID L LEWIS: “… alleged that Andrew Wakefield fabricated the diagnosis of colitis in a 1998 Lancet study involving 12 children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).”

Mr. Deer responds:

DEER: At the core of our problems in dealing with Lewis is that nowhere was such an allegation made in the BMJ. He repeatedly identifies my feature “Autistic enterocolitis under the microscope”, published in April 2010, but this simply doesn’t make such an allegation. Plain reading would make this clear.

Not only can I find no foundation for this fundamental of Lewis’s complaint (and I think I’d remember forming any view at that time that the histopathology reporting in the Lancet was fraudulent, as distinct from, say, wrong, misleading or incompetent), we consulted legal counsel, before and after publication, and expert peer-reviewers. We remain unable to identify any text inferring Wakefield’s intent with regard to histology reporting. I’ve similarly asked Nature to identify any such text, and they too have failed

Mr. Lewis has taken issue with the fact that the BMJ did not print his rapid response exactly as submitted:

DAVID L LEWIS: “To support their new fraud theory, Godlee rewrote my Rapid Response, removing any evidence that undermined their allegations against Wakefield and others.”

DEER: Lewis’s rapid response was extensively re-written because it was false and defamatory. Legal advice was taken. Two peer reviewers rejected the submitted text. No changes had any effect in supporting any “fraud theory”, whether new or otherwise. Lewis approved the published text.

In hosting the words of Mr. Lewis, the BMJ would itself be responsible in part for any defamatory language included. This is the way of the law in the U.K..

In my opinion, the Mr. Lewis’ arguments are a side show of the the Wakefield saga (Yes, in my view Mr. Wakefield is a major side show in itself). They don’t address the substance of the claims of fraud put forth by the BMJ.

The Autism Vaccine Controversy and the Need for Responsible Science Journalism

7 Jan

The Huffington Post has a new section on science. One of the first articles discusses the “Autism Vaccine Controversy”. In The Autism Vaccine Controversy and the Need for Responsible Science Journalism, Seth Mnookin starts out:

Earlier this week, The Panic Virus, my book on the controversy over vaccines and autism, was released in paperback. While there haven’t been many scientific advances in this particular issue since the hardcover edition was published — the evidence supporting vaccines’ paramount place in public health efforts and the total lack of corroboration supporting a causal connection between vaccines and autism remain as strong today as they were a year ago — there have been new developments in the story. Their coverage highlights an enduring passion of mine: The need for reliable, responsible science journalism.

Yes, Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus, is writing for the Huffington Post, a site which has contributed greatly to misinformation about vaccines and autism. The Huffington Post has been home to David Kirby (who was a major promoter of the mercury/autism concept) as well as welcoming input from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, to name but a few of the poor choices for writers the Post engaged.

On PLoS blogs, Mr. Mnookin announced this new gig with Has the Huffington Post embraced science & closed the door on anti-vaccine quackery? We can hope. I wouldn’t place any bets on it though.

No Evidence of Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Viruses in Live Attenuated Human Vaccines

6 Jan

There has been much discussion of XMRV, Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, here at Left Brain/Right Brain and elsewhere in the past few months. The reason for the discussion here is the (now shown to be false) idea that XMRV is implicated in autism causation. Two papers have addressed this question and found no evidence of a link. XMRV came to prominence as a possible candidate in causing chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Multiple papers have found no evidence of a link between XMRV and CFS (fan example is discussed here) and the original paper on the topic was withdrawn by editors of the journal Science after it became clear that those results were suspect.

The idea that autism and XMRV was promoted by David Kirby, whose efforts also strongly promoted the debunked autism-epidemic-caused-by-mercury idea. Mr. Kirby’s article at the Huffington Post was Is Autism Associated with A Viral Infection?. In this he quoted CFS/XMRV researcher Judy Mikovits:

And then Dr. Mikovits dropped a bombshell that is sure to spark controversy.

“On that note, if I might speculate a little bit,” she said, “This might even explain why vaccines would lead to autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and grow in lymphocytes — the immune response cells, the B and the T cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your immune system into overdrive. That’s its job. Well, if you are harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you’ve now broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system could no longer control other infections, and created an immune deficiency.”

Mr. Kirby went on to write:

So there you have it – a possible explanation of regressive autism in a significant number of cases associated with immune system deregulation triggered by vaccination.

Of course, much more work is needed to nail down the exact significance of such an association. For example, is the virus implicated in the cause of autism, or do children harbor the virus as a result of autism?

Yes, Ms. Mikovits and David Kirby were proposing a possible link between autism, XMRV and (of course) vaccines.

That was October 2009. Fast forward to today, two years later and we see

A) Neither Ms. Mikovits nor anyone else has published the data supposedly linking XMRV and autism

B) Two studies have looked for evidence (and failed to find any) of a link between XMRV and autism,

Lack of infection with XMRV or other MLV-related viruses in blood, post-mortem brains and paternal gametes of autistic individuals.

PCR and serology find no association between xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and autism.

C) Evidence has arisen that much of the data linking XMRV to CFS is faulty.

Studies on XMRV are still ongoing. If experience from the vaccine-autism-epidemic idea tell us anything, the idea that XMRV causes CFS and/or autism will die slowly and even more data are needed.

To that end, a recent study explored whether XMRV is a contaminant in live virus vaccines. (note that in other vaccines, the XMRV is likely as dead as the other constituents of the vaccine). You can tell the result from the title: No Evidence of Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Viruses in Live Attenuated Human Vaccines.

Background

The association of xenotropic murine leukemia virus (MLV)-related virus (XMRV) in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome reported in previous studies remains controversial as these results have been questioned by recent data. Nonetheless, concerns have been raised regarding contamination of human vaccines as a possible source of introduction of XMRV and MLV into human populations. To address this possibility, we tested eight live attenuated human vaccines using generic PCR for XMRV and MLV sequences. Viral metagenomics using deep sequencing was also done to identify the possibility of other adventitious agents.

Results

All eight live attenuated vaccines, including Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) (SA-14-14-2), varicella (Varivax), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR-II), measles (Attenuvax), rubella (Meruvax-II), rotavirus (Rotateq and Rotarix), and yellow fever virus were negative for XMRV and highly related MLV sequences. However, residual hamster DNA, but not RNA, containing novel endogenous gammaretrovirus sequences was detected in the JEV vaccine using PCR. Metagenomics analysis did not detect any adventitious viral sequences of public health concern. Intracisternal A particle sequences closest to those present in Syrian hamsters and not mice were also detected in the JEV SA-14-14-2 vaccine. Combined, these results are consistent with the production of the JEV vaccine in Syrian hamster cells.

Conclusions

We found no evidence of XMRV and MLV in eight live attenuated human vaccines further supporting the safety of these vaccines. Our findings suggest that vaccines are an unlikely source of XMRV and MLV exposure in humans and are consistent with the mounting evidence on the absence of these viruses in humans.

Yes, there is no evidence of XMRV in vaccines. This is rather anticlimactic given the evidence already in place that XMRV is not linked to autism, and the fact that the XMRV/CFS link is already tenuous at best.

The blogger erv has done the most thorough job following the XMRV study out there, including discussing the paper above. Others have taken up where David Kirby left off and promoted the idea that XMRV and autism are linked, and that vaccines are a possible part of that link. I would hope that those people would see the value in letting their readers know about this paper (and others, and the retractions).

BMJ instructs lawyers to “defend the claim vigorously” against Andrew Wakefield’s lawsuit

6 Jan

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has issued a press release (below) about the lawsuit initiated by Andrew Wakefield claiming defamation arising from a series of articles published last year. The BMJ and Mr. Deer stand by their articles and statements and have instructed their attorneys to “defend the claim vigorously”.

Although not formally served with the legal papers, the BMJ is on notice that Andrew Wakefield has issued defamation proceedings, not in London as might be ordinarily expected as concerns a predominately English publication, but in Texas, USA, where he now lives. The proceedings primarily relate to an article written by Brian Deer and published a year ago on 5 January 2011, entitled Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine was Fixed, and an accompanying editorial which related to Mr Wakefield’s now infamous Lancet Paper on MMR.

Of course, following the findings of the British General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice Panel and Mr Wakefield’s history of pursuing unfounded litigation, any action brought against the BMJ and Mr Deer in London would have been immediately vulnerable to being struck out as an abuse of process.

Despite the findings of the GMC’s Fitness to Practice Panel and his co-authors having publicly retracted the causation interpretation put forward by the Lancet Paper, it would appear from the Claim filed at court that Mr Wakefield still stands by the accuracy of the Lancet paper and his conclusion therein, thereby compounding his previously found misconduct. While we await formal service, unsurprisingly the BMJ and Mr Deer standby the material published in the BMJ and their other statements and confirm that they have instructed lawyers to defend the claim vigorously.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Lancet Paper was published on 23 February 1998 entitled “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. Its claims of a temporal association between MMR vaccine and autism were retracted by the authors (excluding Mr Wakefield) on 6 March 2004, following the first findings from Brian Deer’s investigation for The Sunday Times. The paper was retracted in its entirety by the Lancet on 2 February 2010, with the Lancet noting that elements of the paper “have been proven to be false” during hearings of a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel.

2. Following a 217-day investigation by the GMC’s panel, on 24 May 2010, the panel found Mr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct. It found that Mr Wakefield “had a clear and compelling duty to ensure that the factual information contained in the [Lancet] paper was true and accurate and he failed in this duty”. The Panel also found that Mr Wakefield was intentionally dishonest and misleading in describing the patient population, and that he had been dishonest when questioned about it later. Similarly, the panel stated that “the description of the referral process was irresponsible, misleading, and in breach of [Mr] Wakefield s duty as a senior author”. The Determination also set out how Mr Wakefield compounded his misconduct by failing to correct the content of the paper.

3. As a result of Mr Wakefield’s “persistent lack of insight” into his behaviour, the GMC determined that his name should be erased from the medical register.

4. Mr Wakefield adduced no evidence in mitigation and made no arguments or pleas in mitigation in front of the Fitness to Practice panel. He did not appeal its decision and has not attempted to replicate the Lancet paper’s findings in order to attempt to vindicate his position.

5. At various times in the past, Mr Wakefield has brought claims and made complaints against Mr Deer, The Sunday Times, Channel Four and Twenty Twenty Productions in respect of allegations of dishonesty relating to his Lancet paper. In no case has he been successful. Indeed, in each instance the case has been dropped by Mr Wakefield. In Wakefield v Channel Four Television Corporation, Twenty Twenty Productions Ltd and Brian Deer [2005] EWHC 2410 (QB) Mr Justice Eady refused to grant a stay sought by Mr Wakefield, stating that the case would turn on fundamentally serious issues going to the heart of the Claimant s honesty and professional integrity.

In refusing the stay, Eady J considered Mr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to the various proceedings he had brought. He noted that Mr Wakefield had written to a number of other organisations including: the Cambridge Evening News; Evan Harris (an MP who criticised Mr Wakefield on a radio programme); and the Department of Health (which provided a link on its website to the Channel Four Dispatches website).

Mr Wakefield informed these entities in correspondence that he had issued proceedings against The Sunday Times, Mr Deer and/ or Channel Four, indicating that proceedings were ongoing. He made no mention of the stays which he had obtained, or was seeking. Eady J considered this misleading, and concluded that Mr Wakefield wished to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the downside of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification. The Judge believed that there was a pattern of using the existence of libel proceedings, albeit stayed, as a tool for stifling further criticism or debate.

6. On 2O December 2011, the BMJ’s solicitors, Farrer & Co, wrote to Mr Wakefield’s Texan lawyers setting out the matters referred to above, as well as other points. No response has been received.

7. Mr Wakefield’s allegations, that the MMR vaccines causes or contributes to autism, were investigated in three test cases in the United States Court of Federal Claims, heard from July 2007 and with judgments handed down on 12 February 2009. Although listed as a witness, Mr Wakefield was not called to give evidence, and his allegations were rejected. The judgments were upheld on appeal. In the lead case, Cedillo v Secretary for Health and Human Services, Special Master George Hastings said in his judgment with regard to evidence in the case: “Therefore, it is a noteworthy point that not only has that autistic enterocolitis theory not been accepted into gastroenterology textbooks, but that theory, and [Mr] Wakefield s role in its development, have been strongly criticized as constituting defective or fraudulent science.”

Andrew Wakefield takes to the courts again

5 Jan

Andrew Wakefield, one of the doctors who was stricken from the register by the U.K.’s General Medical Council, has filed a complaint in Texas claiming that Brian Deer (Journalist) and Fiona Godlee (Editor of the British Medical Journal). The complaint alleges that the articles, editorials and statements made later about those include “false and defamatory allegations” about Mr. Wakefield.

From the complaint filed:

This defamation lawsuit arises, in part, out of the publication on or about January 5, 2011 and thereafter, in the British Medical Journal, of an article authored for the BMJ by Brian Deer, titled Secrets of the MMR Scare (Exhibit A) and accompanying editorials by the BMJ’s editor, Fiona Godlee (Exhibit B 1-2). Defendants’ article and editorials, distributed to subscribers in Texas and which fonn the basis of Plaintiffs claims, contained unfair, incorrect, inaccurate and unjust criticisms of findings previously reported by Dr. Wakefield and 12 other co-authors. More significantly, Defendants accused Dr. Wakefield of fraud and of fraudulently and intentionally manipulating and falsifying data and diagnoses in connection with a clinical paper he co-authored called Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, originally published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1998 (the “Lance,t Paper”). Defendants’ false and defamatory allegations have been widely disseminated by Defendants through the BMJ and other sources since their original publication.

Mr. Wakefield sued Mr. Deer in the past, but dropped that suit.

Mr. Wakefield’s legal team consists of William M. Parrish, J.D. Ellwanger, John D. Saba Jr of DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP, a firm which primarily focused on intellectual property and commercial litigation.

Mr. Wakefield does not specify an amount for damages:

Dr. Wakefield hereby prays for a trial by jury as to all disputed issues of fact, and upon findings appropriate, further prays for judgment from this Court against the Defendants for: nominal damages, actual and compensatory damages, special damages, including injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, exemplary damages pursuant to TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE §41.001, et. seq., declaratory relief, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, and for such other and further relief to which he may be justly entitled.

Should this go to court, Mr. Wakefield, In arguing a “injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, will have to quantify the state of his reputation and character, feelings, humiliation and loss of earning capacity at the time. This will have to take into account the fact that he had already been struck off the medical register in the UK after being found to have committed “serious professional misconduct” and had lost his job at Thoughtful House. Were the donors to the “Strategic Autism Initiative” less likely to contribute after the BMJ articles?

Honestly, I thought the Andrew Wakefield saga was over and I was glad of it.

Los Angeles Times: Discovering Autism

23 Dec

The Los Angeles Times produced a series of articles called “Discovering Autism”. The series is in four parts and represents was researched for years. The articles are:

Autism boom: an epidemic of disease or of discovery?
Autism rates have increased twentyfold in a generation, stirring parents’ deepest fears and prompting a search for answers. But what if the upsurge is not what it appears to be?

Warrior parents fare best in securing autism services
Public spending on children with autism in California varies greatly by race and class. A major reason: Not all families have the means to battle for coveted assistance.

Families cling to hope of autism ‘recovery’
An autism treatment called applied behavior analysis, or ABA, has wide support and has grown into a profitable business. It has its limits, though, and there are gaps in the science.

Autism hidden in plain sight
As more children are diagnosed with autism, researchers are trying to find unrecognized cases of the disorder in adults. The search for the missing millions is just beginning.

The first article brought a great deal of criticism, from many quarters. As you can imagine challenging the way the “autism epidemic” is viewed is not welcomed by those promoting vaccines as a primary cause of autism. This article also brought out at least one commenter who asserted that the rise in autism diagnoses is driven by people seeking social security payments (SSI), which goes to show that readers tend to bring their own preconceptions to what they read.

Interest in the online discussion of the series dropped off dramatically after day one.

Autism boom: an epidemic of disease or of discovery? looked at the rise in autism diagnoses observed in many places. Writer Alan Zarembo points out quite rightly that autism rates vary dramatically by school district in California, as well as state to state.

Such variability of autism rates across geography speak strongly against the idea of a single cause, such as vaccines. Autism Diva wrote about the strong variation by regional center district within California years ago (her piece is not up, but this article from LBRB discusses her article)

The variation by school district and by race/ethnicity was a major factor in helping me see that the vaccine-epidemic of autism did not make sense, back when I first started to read up on autism.

The LA Times quotes Prof. Peter Bearman of Columbia University, who studied the California Department of Developmental Services data closely and showed, amongst other things, that a large autism “cluster” existed in Southern California. The Times notes that similar clusters were found by U.C. Davis Professor Irva Hertz-Picciotto. (I was present when Autism Diva discussed the regional center graph with Prof. Hertz-Picciotto, by the way).

Prof. Bearman also showed that social forces were at work–awareness, if you will–which has aided the increase in autism diagnoses.

In other words, autism is not contagious, but the diagnosis is.

“`Is it real or not?’ is a meaningless question,” Bearman said of the surge in cases. “The sociological processes are as real as the biological processes.”

A diagnostician (neurologist) is quoted in the Times:

Dr. Nancy Niparko, a child neurologist in Beverly Hills, said that whether she identifies a child as autistic can come down to whether she believes it will do any good.

“If it’s going to improve the possibility of getting services that will be helpful, I will give the label,” she said.

“I don’t work for labels. Labels work for me.”

In Warrior parents fare best in securing autism services makes the point that it takes work, hard work, to get the services that a child may need. An autism diagnosis is not a ticket to services, it is a first step. Parents who fight harder and longer tend to get higher levels of services for their children.

The Times points out that within a single district (albeit one of the largest in the U.S., Los Angeles Unified), the fraction of students with 1:1 aides varies by geography and race/ethnicity:

District officials acknowledge that advocacy efforts make a big difference in who gets services, but see things differently than parents on the value of 1:1 aides:

L.A. Unified officials offered a similar explanation for the disparity. As parents successfully lobbied for outside aides, the idea spread, and in certain schools it became standard practice to offer them.

“Parents learned from each other,” said Nancy Franklin, a top special education administrator. “It became a cottage industry in LAUSD.”

The district is trying to break the pattern by persuading parents that its own staff can meet children’s needs in many cases.

“We’re paying lots of money for services that are of questionable value,” said Eileen Skone-Rees, who oversees the district’s contracts with companies that supply one-on-one aides.

In Families cling to hope of autism ‘recovery’, the Times focuses on ABA. Biomedical approaches are not really discussed.

The article talks about ABA from the early work of Ivar Lovaas to the present day, where it is common in some school districts and regional centers. The high costs and the level of research support are discussed along with examples of children who are success stories and those who are not.

In Autism hidden in plain sight, the Times looks at how autism is often missed in adults.

The Times presents an intriguing look at the past in medical records from a child diagnosed by Leo Kanner (whose work coined the term “autism”).

The times provided a number of slide show vignettes of people they interviewed.

I can’t link to them directly, but I’ve watched a few and enjoyed them. Jeane Duquet, autistic adult diagnosed at age 39 (right side, middle). Jesse Castillo, age 11 (bottom right corner)

The author of the series, as well as Catherine Lord were interviewed by NPR:

http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=144022386&m=144022377&t=audiowidth=”400″ height=”446″ />

I would certainly have done some things differently had I written the series. I would have chosen different wording, for example. Yes, the pieces brought out some less than pleasant perspectives. I’ve read a few complaints about the series, from not supporting vaccine causation or biomedical approaches to presenting autism as a costly burden. Ironically, these complaints come from the same people who repeatedly say that “autism costs society $3.5 million per individual”. A big piece of that $3.5M is ABA and if we as a community (or part of the community) are to defend the need for ABA, we have to accept that there is a cost. I believe, and I commented, that the choice of language at times put a negative slant where one was not needed. However, the series put some very good information out, including: 1) the “epidemic” has a large portion which is driven by social factors, with a much smaller part that may be a real change in the number of autistics, 2) services are not handed out on a silver platter. Parents and autistics have to fight for what supports the law says they should get, 3) 1:1 therapies such as ABA may be effective, but they are expensive and the research behind them is still incomplete and 4) adult autistics are out there in greater numbers than is currently reported.

The biggest complaint about the series is that it portrays parents as seeking diagnoses for their kids for some sort of financial gain. Dr. Jay Gordon (a major promoter of the vaccine-epidemic idea) has noted this where Mr. Zarembo has been interviewed (http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/12/22/21866/autism-diagnoses-spike-an-epidemic-in-the-making). Mr. Zarembo makes it clear in the interview that this is not his point. That the autism diagnosis “opens the door” and that parents are doing what they should for their children–including fighting hard to obtain appropriate services once the door is opened.

For those complaining that the LA Times series didn’t cover the vaccine-epidemic idea or biomedical approaches to autism: I’d recommend you be thankful. Quite frankly an evidence driven newspaper series on these issues will not go the way you want.

The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism: The Book

19 Dec

I was fortunate to attend IMFAR (the International Meeting For Autism Research) this year. One big part of what made that experience valuable to me was the opportunity to spend time with Shannon Des Roches Rosa. Shannon’s writing can be found many places including online at Squdalicious and Blogher, and in print in the book My Baby Rides the Short Bus (a great interview about the book can be found on the KQED website).

At one point at IMFAR I posed a problem I saw in much of the online discussion I often am involved in: that while we can and do effectively counter much of the misinformation that permeates the autism-parent discussion, we don’t have much to offer people. She paused for a second, just long enough for me to realize that “we” didn’t mean her, and told me that this was the reason for The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism and that the book was in the works.

The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism has been a very successful website with excellent discussion for some time now, and now the book is available. You can buy it on Amazon. From CreateSpace you can read the short blurb:

Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism (TPGA) is the resource we wish we’d had when autism first became part of our lives: a one-stop source for carefully curated, evidence-based information from autistics, autism parents, and autism professionals

Having read the first two chapters I agree with the statement above. It is a resource I wish I had when my kid was diagnosed. Sure, I’d have loved to have read this book before and been better prepared.

The book doesn’t pull punches. From the experiences of the adult autistics who wrote many essays to those of the parents,

From the introduction:

The Goal of The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism is to help you fast-forward past society’s rampant autism fabrications and negativity by providing clear, thoughtfully presented, balanced, and referenced information

the essays form a guide. They are not telling people what to do, but providing good information to help one make decisions.

In the past Left Brain/Right Brain has reviewed some books in detail, chapter by chapter. I plan to do this with TTPGTA (The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism).

Tags:

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →