Archive | Age of Autism RSS feed for this section

One line from the CDC Autism Prevalence report you will likely never see quoted

28 Apr

The CDC came out with an autism prevalence estimate a few days ago. There have been a number of news stories on the subject and the usual attempts by credulous websites to use this to claim that vaccines cause autism.

It’s right there at the top, in the interpretations section of the abstract:

Because the ADDM sites do not provide a representative sample of the entire United States, the combined prevalence estimates presented in this report cannot be generalized to all children aged 8 years in the United States

The Age of Autism blog (as noted already, always a good place to look for people getting it wrong on autism) ran a piece “Breaking News: 1 in 59 children Born in 2006 have Autism, 1 in 36 between the ages of 3 and 17. What’s going on?” Because, you know, claiming an epidemic is in their mission statement.

SafeMinds, another organization promoting the failed “vaccine-induced-epidemic” idea of autism wrote:

Baltimore, MD, April 26, 2018 – SafeMinds, along with other national autism advocacy organizations, sent a letter today to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials demanding a meeting within the next 30 days to discuss the creation of a Federal Autism Strategic Plan to address the nation’s autism crisis. The urgent letter follows the release of a report this afternoon by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC report found that autism is now diagnosed in one in every 59 American children, representing 2 ½ times more autism in 12 years and a 15 percent increase in just two years.

First, there is an Autism Strategic Plan. A member of SafeMinds helped craft it with HHS while she was on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. She voluntarily decided not to pursue another term on the IACC.

Second, your reason is that ” The CDC report found that autism is now diagnosed in one in every 59 American children”. The CDC told you explicitly in the first few paragraphs that can’t be said.

But I do appreciate that you are implying no epidemic among children. You clearly state that the rate is the same for all American children, not just the 8-year old children of the CDC study. Or did you miss that important point?

So, good luck with that letter. I’m sure your readership will not notice the problems with your logic, but HHS will.

There are more examples, but these make the point.


By Matt Carey

Advertisements

Did autism prevalence increase by 20%? (answer: no)

28 Apr

The CDC came out with a new autism prevalence estimate yesterday. Their estimated autism prevalence is 1.68%.  That’s up from the estimate from 2 years ago (1.46%), but lower than a different recent study (2.76%).

I’m going to discuss some minor-league shenanigans.  It’s no surprise that some groups abuse facts and cherry pick data to make political points.  In this case it was useless.  there was no need to cherry pick.  I’ve done a lot of exposing the abuse of facts by some so-called autism advocacy groups.  I don’t get any joy from noting that people in my community are both dishonest and ignorant of science.  But much as that bothers me, it pales in comparison to the lost opportunities.  Millions of dollars were spent on this prevalence estimate alone, but all some groups do is dig for reasons to justify their “epidemic” story and push the long-ago failed idea that vaccines are to blame.

Over the years, news organizations and autism groups have jumped at the chance to put their spin on each new CDC autism prevalence estimate. Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time trying to unspin the takes of groups like the Age of Autism blog. AoA is, well…if you want to see autism done wrong, read the Age of Autism blog. Science, medicine, human rights and dignity, they can be counted upon to get things wrong.

With that in mind I decided the CDC announcement was a time to break my current trend of ignoring AoA. I literally haven’t read it in months. What I saw was both surprising and typical for them. Surprising in that they didn’t even bother to write their own pieces for the new prevalence numbers. Seriously–they just copied a couple of articles from other sites and left it at that.

By the way–this new low-level interest in autism prevalence appears to me to be a general trend–beyond just AoA. Autism is losing it’s status as having intense focus from the US media and public.  The chance to leverage the public’s interest into meaningul change is waning. That’s a far more interesting topic and far more important than this and I want to come back to it in the future.

So, what did AoA post? Big League Politics BREAKING: CDC Reports 20 Percent Autism Increase In Children and Breaking News: 1 in 59 children Born in 2006 have Autism, 1 in 36 between the ages of 3 and 17. What’s going on?. That first one caught my eye. First because in absolute terms, the autism prevalence increased by 0.22%. In relative terms, that’s about a 15% increase.  They could have said 15% and made their point, but why do that when 20% is even more scary?  More to the point–digging just a little into this 20% figure gives understanding that a true advocacy organization could use.

So how did they come to the idea that the autism prevalence increased by 20%? They skipped to page 13 and took one part of one paragraph out of context and, well, cherry picked. Completely unsurprising. They skipped over pages of data showing that we are failing to identify–and, therefore provide adequate services for–autistic minority children.

Sadly, AoA and their allies have spent over a decade denying this huge issue.   The reason is obvious: it doesn’t fit into the “vaccines cause autism” narrative.  So rather than push for better identification and better services for minorities, they’ve sacrificed these communities in for their political message.

It’s disgusting.

They didn’t dig any deeper into these numbers, even though the data were right in front of them. Also completely unsurprising. If they were the sort of people who dig into data and question, they wouldn’t be pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism.   Seriously.

Here’s the section they are relying upon:

Among the six ADDM sites completing both the 2012 and 2014 studies for the same geographic area, all six showed higher ASD prevalence estimates for 2012 compared to 2014, with a nearly 10% higher prevalence in Georgia (p = 0.06) and Maryland (p = 0.35), 19% in New Jersey (p<0.01), 22% in Missouri (p = 0.01), 29% in Colorado (p<0.01), and 31% in Wisconsin (p<0.01). When combining data from these six sites, ASD prevalence estimates for 2014 were 20% higher for 2014 compared to 2012 (p<0.01).

So, if you only pick the states where there were data in both this study (called 2014 because that’s when the data were collected to be analyzed) and the previous (2012) study, you get about a 20% increase (click to enlarge).

But what happens if you ask “why?”  As in, why do these states show a larger increase than the entire group?

I put some numbers in red and bolded them for emphasis. Those are states with lower than average autism prevalences. Take a moment to think about that–the states with low autism prevalences are showing larger prevalence increases than other states. Start with a low number, and you are bound to get bigger percentage increases.

Missouri, Colorado and Wisconsin started out with very low identification rates.  They’ve improved their identification rates. What if someone were to ask, “how did they do that?  Can we use that elsewhere to serve more unidentified autistic children?”

I’m sure the cherry-picking “let’s find a reason to fit this into the vaccines-cause-autism story” groups have already focused on New Jersey in the above figure.  New Jersey stands out–their autism rate increased by about 19% and they have a much higher autism prevalence rate. New Jersey also stands out for another reason: they aren’t lagging in identifying black or Hispanic autistic children:

In New Jersey, there was almost no difference in ASD prevalence estimates among white, black, and Hispanic children. Estimates for Asian/Pacific Islander children ranged from 7.9 per 1,000 (Colorado) to 19.2 per 1,000 (New Jersey) with notably wide CIs.

Wouldn’t it be great if someone were to say, “how did New Jersey close the gap in identifying some minority groups?”

Groups advocating for a better future for disabled people would do that.  People trying to keep the failed “it’s all vaccines fault” idea alive won’t.

Some people will be confused, and understandably so, at this point.  These are “autism prevalence” numbers.  Doesn’t that mean that this is a complete and accurate count of the number of autistic kids in each location?  No, they aren’t.  The people at the CDC are working hard and doing a good job with the information they have.  But this is a review of existing records, not a test of each individual kid.  The CDC have access to medical and/or school records (it varies by location what sort of records they have).

Keep in mind–the CDC autism prevalence numbers aren’t “these are the absolute accurate numbers for how many kids are autistic”. We are missing identifying kids. Doctors are missing autistic kids.  Schools are missing autistic kids. The CDC tries to make up for this by reviewing the records to determine which kids are autistic (i.e. they don’t just count existing diagnoses in the records–they “diagnose” from the records).  But they still miss kids in their counts. We need to get better. The fact that New Jersey isn’t leaving minority kids behind is huge.  The fact that lagging states are catching up is huge.

Doing things right–checking on numbers is hard. It takes time. AoA not only doesn’t take the time to be careful (which is typical for the “vaccines cause autism” groups), they know that it’s the simple message that scares people. “Autism increased by 20%”!!!! It may only take 5 minutes to actually dig and see what’s going on. But that’s five minutes most people don’t have time for.

Which is the long winded way to say:

A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on

Groups like AoA live and breathe on taking advantage of that.  They were fake news long before the term was coined.

That said, I knew with the new autism prevalence numbers people would misuse them. It’s pretty obvious.  They’ve used that misinformation to drag parents into a world of guilt and shame for being part of vaccine injuries that, in at least the vast majority of cases, didn’t happen.  Even more, the autism-is-a-vaccine epidemic community had the resources for over a decade to make a real difference in the lives of autsitic people. As we watch autism fade a bit from the public’s view, it’s difficult to not cry a bit for the lost opportunity. It’s that, not their failed logic or twisted facts that is why I wrote the above.

By Matt Carey

To all who use Paul Offit’s 10,000 vaccine paper to scare others–put up or shut up. And that means you, Age of Autism and all your team.

6 Oct

I’ve generally stopped countering the misinformation by the Age of Autism blog. They are pretty much irrelevant now that they lost their star power, now that Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have dropped out of the picture. They still cause harm, but on a much smaller scale than in the past.

That said, I recently saw one of the Age of Autism contributors in an online discussion. And as is typical, the conversation devolved into throwing around the usual tired arguments. For example–

The notorious Offit 10,000 vaccine paper (we might add 10,000 vaccine doctrine) was written to be re-assuring to parents. The reality is that 1 vaccine might kill an infant. But what is the rhetorical effect of saying 10,000 vaccines (or 100,000 vaccines originally) are “theoretically safe”. It really says that if we give them 10 at time and hundreds over a childhood it is no big deal. What we are really on to here is the hit and run strategy. It doesn’t matter egregious the effects of the ever extended and mandated schedule are you can always insist that it wasn’t vaccines (which are theoretically safe). And you can flood the media with people like you deriding the experience of actual rather than theoretical families who have found that products are not necessarily that safe after all. And you can claim that everything you say is thoroughly scientific (hoho).

Now, this is a new way to misrepresent what Dr. Offit wrote. So far off that one wonders if the author of the comment (one John Stone) has actually read the original. He claims that the Offit paper’s claim is ” It really says that if we give them 10 at time and hundreds over a childhood it is no big deal.”

Really?

Nope. Not even close.

Here’s the section of the paper that that is being referred to:

Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities.38 But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual.

A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide),39 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL,39 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody39 (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 103 epitopes), and 5) approximately 107 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood,39 then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).

The paper merely states that an infant’s immune system can respond to the antigens in 10,000 vaccines.

So here is the challenge to Mr. John Stone (who wrote the above comment), the Age of Autism blog (where he writes, but not the above comment.) and everyone else who claims that the 10,000 number is wrong.

Prove it.

Prove the claim is wrong.

What in the above calculation is wrong? Is it the biology? The assumptions? The math? State clearly what is inaccurate in that calculation.

The answer is that many who cry out about “10,000 vaccines” haven’t read the paper. Or they have and they don’t understand it. Or, in rare cases, they understand it and are willfully trying to use it to scare people.

I have posted this challenge before on various internet discussions. And it is always, and I mean always, met with silence.

Notice that Dr. Offit doesn’t say that an infant can take 10,000 injections. But that “each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).” I.e. that an infant can respond to the challenge posed by the antigens in 10,000 vaccines.

But that’s not scary. And fear and doubt is what people are trying to create when they claim that Paul Offit’s 10,000 vaccine paper is “notorious”.

So, go ahead anyone and everyone that uses the 10,000 vaccine statement to scare people about vaccines. Back up your complaint. I’ve been waiting for years and expect to continue waiting.


by Matt Carey

SafeMinds: why won’t you tell your membership about the vaccine safety study you funded? Perhaps because it says vaccines are safe?

28 Aug

Earlier this year a paper was published on vaccine safety: Examination of the Safety of Pediatric Vaccine Schedules in a Non-Human Primate Model: Assessments of Neurodevelopment, Learning, and Social Behavior. This was a followup study to earlier pilot studies that got a lot of attention in the “vaccines-cause-autism” groups (Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine: influence of gestational age and birth weight and Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: a pilot study.)

It is worth noting that the pilot studies didn’t link vaccines to autism. They did make claims that some early reflexes were delayed in the monkeys given thimerosal containing vaccines. If you see someone talking about “root” or “snout” or “suck” reflexes in a vaccine discussion, they are referring to the studies above. These were pilot studies–small preliminary studies to see if it is worth launching a larger study. As such the results should have been taken with caution. But caution is not what groups like SafeMinds (or any of the groups that promote the failed vaccine-autism link) are known for. Inflating any scrap of evidence that can support their political point of view, that’s what they are known for.

SafeMinds made a big deal out of the early studies. Mark Blaxill (then of SafeMinds) called the study a “blockbuster” in a four thousand word analysis. That’s a lot of space to devote considering the full study was eight thousand words. And, as noted already, preliminary. But politics is politics.

Now, an intellectually honest person, or group, would watch for the followup study and report on it no matter the result. Because, let’s face it, if you are going to spend 4000 words overstating the importance of a study, scaring people and instilling them with guilt and pain over their child’s disability, you have a responsibility to do a follow up.

If you are intellectually honest.

So, as noted above, the follow up study was published. It was published in April. Four months ago. And I don’t see anything from Mr. Blaxill on the Age of Autism blog (where he posted his “blockbuster” article) or at the SafeMinds website on the followup study. SafeMinds has their own blog, and if you search it for, say “snout”, you get this article (Ground-Breaking Monkey Study: Mercury-Containing Hepatitis B Vaccine Causes Brain Damage) on the pilot study, calling it “groundbreaking” and claiming that it demonstrates that the thimerosal containing HepB vaccine causes brain damage.

Very strong words. Words which, if overblown, are very damaging. Imagine going through life as a parent thinking that you agreed to a vaccine and that caused brain damage to your child. Now imagine that the evidence you used to draw that conclusion was (a) not strong to begin with and (b) now refuted.

Wouldn’t you want to know the truth? Wouldn’t you expect the people and the organizations that convinced you of this falshood to seek you out and correct their mistake?

And this is why people don’t hold Mr. Blaxill or SafeMinds in high regard. They are quick to scare but don’t have the courage to admit they were wrong. Courage isn’t standing up and saying unpopular truths. Courage is standing up and admitting that your “unpopular truth” was, in fact, not the truth at all.

Now, why pick on SafeMinds in specific here? A lot of people and groups jumped on the pilot study and spread a lot of fear. Check out the footnotes of the study.

This work was supported by the Ted Lindsay Foundation, SafeMinds, National Autism Association, the Vernick family, and the Johnson family

SafeMinds helped fund the new study. The one they are ignoring. They were likely aware of the results before they were published. But no word.

I expect more from decent advocacy organizations. But I am not surprised with SafeMinds, nor Mark Blaxill.

Yes, the National Autism Association did too and they need to step up as well (a point I hope to make in a later article).

How about the Johnson Family? Well, the Johnson Center stepped up and put out a press release New Research Finds No Evidence That Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines Affect Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Infant Primates. (all SafeMinds, the Age of Autism and the National Autism Association needs to do as a start is publish the press release).

Here’s the last sentence of the press release, quoting the lead researcher: “Despite these limitations, the data in this primate study overwhelmingly provides support for the safety of pediatric vaccines”

It would take a lot of courage for SafeMinds and Mark Blaxill to publicize such a statement. More than they have.


By Matt Carey

Why won’t the government fund vaccine/autism research?

15 Jul

This question gets brought up a lot by some parent advocates. The are informed by groups promoting the idea of vaccine causation that the government is blocking this work. The evidence points strongly away from vaccines as a primary cause of autism, and investment in this area doesn’t seem wise. At least that’s the viewpoint of the majority of parents (including myself), autistics and researchers. But some remain unconvinced and want vaccine/autism research performed. And they are upset that none of this work is being performed.

Here’s a different question: why are the groups who promote the idea that vaccines cause autism failing to inform their members that, yes, indeed vaccine/autism research is being performed?

Or, to put it simply: vaccine/autism research is being performed and it’s being funded by the government. But you wouldn’t know that if you read, say, the Age of Autism blog, Generation Rescue’s website, SafeMinds’ website, or the other groups advocating for this research. If you are interested in vaccine/autism research and you are reading about these projects for the first time here, ask yourself “why have these orgs not informed me of this?”.

As noted here recently, Tom Insel discussed an upcoming vaccine/autism study. Already commissioned, performed and in the publication stage. That announcement was in April. What was the response from the community that has pleaded for vaccine/autism research? For the first few months: Silence. In July, SafeMinds finally put out an article showing that they were “worried” about this study. I don’t see much discussion of this announcement from other groups or outlets.

I’m not surprised by this. I’ve noted before that work on areas such as vaccines, mercury, environmental risk factor research and GI dysfunction don’t get discussed by the groups that are focused on these topics. I’ve covered the research in these areas more than they have.

So let’s get back to what other work is going on in vaccines and autism. Let’s start with the simple question: how would you find out? One place is the IACC/OARC Autism Spectrum Disorder Research Portfolio Analysis Web Tool. That could use updating, but it is an easily searchable database. Another place is NIH Reporter. It’s less easy to use than the Portfolio Analysis Tool and includes all of NIH. I.e. it covers non autism topics and doesn’t include projects being done outside of NIH (say, by Autism Speaks or other private funders). But, search Reporter for autism and vaccines or mercury and what do you get? Quite a number hits. Let’s consider a few.

How about:

There’s a study by Ian Lipkin’s group at Columbia titled: GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS IN AN AUTISM BIRTH COHORT.

There’s a study by Gene Sackett’s group, A PRIMATE MODEL OF GUT, IMMUNE, AND CNS RESPONSE TO CHILDHOOD VACCINES. This appears to be a follow on project to the Laura Hewitson studies that were discussed a great deal online a few years ago.

Isaac Pessah’s group at the UC Davis MIND Institute has a project NEURODEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY OF AUTISM. Prof. Pessah also had a multiyear project ENVIROMENTAL FACTORS IN THE ETIOLOGY OF AUTISM

Judy Van de Water’s group at UC Davis MIND Institute has a project IMMUNOLOGICAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AUTISM.

The Lewin Group study (which I believe is the one mentioned by Tom Insel) STUDY OF HEALTH OUTCOMES IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM AND THEIR FAMILIES. (Just a note–see how this has been publicly available information for a year?)

There’s the CHARGE study, which is looking at a large array of potential environmental risk factors, including specifically mentioning mercury. THE CHARGE STUDY: CHILDHOOD AUTISM RISKS FROM GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Here’s a 2014 grant to Ray Palmer, well known to the groups promoting mercury as a cause of autism, PRENATAL TIMING OF HEAVY METAL EXPOSURES FROM AUTISTIC AND NON-AUTISTIC CHILDREN.

The EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON AUTISM IN JAMAICA – PHASE II project is continuing (hence the Phase II) and includes work on mercury.

There are more projects. Some I left out because they are older. But I think the point is made and is very clear: vaccine/autism and mercury/autism research are being funded.

And that is without even discussing how research on the biology of autism feeds into all etiological questions. Whether it’s vaccine, genetics or what have you, if you understand the biology, you have a better chance of understanding the cause. (when I searched NIH Reporter with the terms Autism and Immune, I got 25 pages of hits. Sure, not all are on-topic, but that’s 25 pages, 606 topics).

Here are the full abstracts–with emphasis added by me–for the NIH Reporter projects mentioned above.

GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS IN AN AUTISM BIRTH COHORT.

Abstract Text:
Reports of increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), a set of highly genetic conditions, are intensifying interest in the role of environmental exposures, including infectious, immune, and toxic factors. Retrospective studies exploring associations between environmental factors and ASDs are compromised by selection bias, small sample sizes, possibly invalid diagnosis, and absence of biologic measures. This prospective study will employ an unselected birth cohort of 75,500 in which cases are ascertained through screening of the entire population, diagnoses established using uniform procedures, extensive histories and clinical data obtained, and biologic samples collected serially throughout pregnancy and early childhood. The application of high throughput laboratory assays to derive maximal information from developmentally-influenced, finite, and nonrenewable biologic samples, and inclusion of early screening and diagnostic assessments, will permit an unprecedented, rich view of the longitudinal trajectory and nascent signs and symptoms of ASDs, facilitate discovery of biomarkers, and afford unique insights into the role of gene:environment interactions in ASD pathogenesis. Specific aims are to: (1) establish the autism Birth Cohort (ABC) through ascertainment of cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD, N=150-233) and selection of controls (N-1000) from the Norway Mothers and Child (MoBa) cohort; (2) examine biologic pathways that may predispose to ASD, through evaluation of immune, endocrine, and neuroregulatory factors in mothers during early gestation or at birth and in children, at birth or 30 months postnatal; (3) identify environmental factors that may be directly or indirectly associated with ASD, including pre- or postnatal infection, vaccination, very low birth weight or other obstetric risk factors in which infections are implicated, dietary and/or environmental exposure to methylmercury; (4) describe the natural history of clinical, anthropometric, and neurobehavioral features of ASD; and (5) explore genotypic influences that may be directly or indirectly associated with ASD by testing associations of ASD and/or its endophenotypes with family history of autoimmune disease or selected candidate genes, and investigating conditional gene-environment effects using antecedent factors found to influence ASD risk.

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Brain Disorders; Clinical Research; Genetics; Immunization; Mental Health; Mental Retardation (Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD)); Neurosciences; Pediatric; Prevention; vaccine Related

Project Terms:
autism spectrum disorder; Autistic Disorder; Autoimmune Diseases; base; Biological Assay; Biological Markers; Birth; Candidate Disease Gene; case control; Child; Clinical; Clinical Data; cohort; Cohort Studies; Collaborations; Collection; Confusion; Control Groups; design; Development; Diagnosis; Diagnostic; Discipline of obstetrics; Disease; disorder risk; Drops; early childhood; Endocrine; endophenotype; Environment; Environmental Exposure; Environmental Risk Factor; Epidemic; Epidemiologic Studies; Evaluation; Exposure to; Family history of; gene environment interaction; Genes; Genetic; Hereditary Disease; Immune; immune function; Infection; insight; interest; Investigation; Laboratories; Life; Measles; Measures; member; Mercury; Methylmercury Compounds; Mothers; Mumps; Natural History; Nested Case-Control Study; neurobehavioral; Neurodevelopmental Disorder; Norway; novel; Pathogenesis; Pathway interactions; Phase; Population; postnatal; Pregnancy; prenatal; Prevalence; Procedures; prospective; Prospective Studies; Recording of previous events; Relative (related person); Reporting; Research; Research Design; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Role; Rubella; Sample Size; Sampling; Screening procedure; Selection Bias; Signs and Symptoms; Specimen; Testing; Vaccination; Vaccines; Vacuum; Very Low Birth Weight Infant

A PRIMATE MODEL OF GUT, IMMUNE, AND CNS RESPONSE TO CHILDHOOD VACCINES.

Abstract Text:
This subproject is one of many research subprojects utilizing the resources provided by a Center grant funded by NIH/NCRR. Primary support for the subproject and the subproject’s principal investigator may have been provided by other sources, including other NIH sources. The Total Cost listed for the subproject likely represents the estimated amount of Center infrastructure utilized by the subproject, not direct funding provided by the NCRR grant to the subproject or subproject staff. Diagnoses of childhood developmental disorders involving autism-spectrum symptoms are increasing, estimated to affect 1 in 100 children in the United States. Childhood Vaccines have been hypothesized to be contributory factors to this increase. The childhood vaccine regimen has an experimentally unstudied potential for cumulative and synergistic toxicities and possible immunologic interference to normal development. A prior study developed a primate model to assess neurodevelopmental consequences of the 1994-1999 pediatric thimerosal vaccine regimen (1994-1999). Significant neurodevelopmental deficits were evident for vaccinated animals in survival reflexes and standardized cognitive tests, and exposed animals developed gastrointestinal inflammation associated with focal transmural colitis, lymphoid hyperplasia, and syncytia.

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Brain Disorders; Cancer; Digestive Diseases; Immunization; Lymphoma; Mental Health; Mental Retardation (Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD)); Pediatric; Rare Diseases; vaccine Related

Project Terms:
Affect; Animals; Autistic Disorder; Child; Childhood; Cognitive; Colitis; cost; Development; developmental disease/disorder; Diagnosis; Funding; gastrointestinal; Giant Cells; Grant; Immune; Immunologics; Inflammation; lymphoid hyperplasia; Modeling; National Center for Research Resources; Neurodevelopmental Deficit; Primates; Principal Investigator; Reflex action; Regimen; Research; Research Infrastructure; Resources; response; Source; Symptoms; Testing; Thimerosal; Toxic effect; United States; United States National Institutes of Health; Vaccinated; Vaccines

NEURODEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY OF AUTISM

Abstract Text:
The long range goal is to determine if exposure to environmental toxicants early in development contributes to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. A related goal is to determine whether susceptibility to autoimmune disease increases the neurotoxicity of environmental contaminants and increases the risk for developing disorders such as autism. Understanding how exposure to environmental toxicants may contribute to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders is important so that the exposure risks can be identified and minimized. If immune system dysfunction is found to increase the risk of exposure to environmental toxicants, then exposure limits to toxic substances can be lowered, and children with immune system dysfunction who may be at increase risk can be identified and protected. The specific aims are to expose mouse strains with low (C57BL/6J) or high (SJL mice) susceptibility to autoimmunity perinatally to either methylmercury (MeHg), polychlorinated biphenyl 95 (PCB 95) or polybrominated diphenyl ether 47 (BDE 47). We will then compare the effects of toxicant exposure between these mouse strains on brain development, complex social behaviors, and immune system function. The hypothesis is that perinatal exposure to each of these toxic substances will impair brain development and behavior, and that suscepbility to autoimmune disease will increase the neuro- and immunotoxicity of these agents. We will also explore a potentially new model of autism in mice injected prenatally with unique autoantibodies isolated from the serum of mothers who have given birth to two more more autistic children. Brain development will be examined histologically using stereological procedures and immunohistochemistry. Complex social behaviors will be studied using behavioral testing procedures established in our laboratory that measure social recognition, social interaction and social communication in mice. Immune system status will be established by measuring cytokines, chemokines, immunoglobulins, and quantifying immune system response to antigenic stimulation. In addition, seizure susceptibility will be measured in toxicant-exposed mice as well as measures of synaptic excitibility and plasticity in hippocampal brain slices. These studies will provide critical new information on the role of the immune system and its interaction with environmental contaminants in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Autoimmune Disease; Behavioral and Social Science; Brain Disorders; Epilepsy; Mental Health; Mental Retardation (Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD)); Neurodegenerative; Neurosciences; Pediatric; Perinatal Period – Conditions Originating in Perinatal Period

Project Terms:
Age; Animal Testing; Antibodies; Anxiety; autistic Children; Autistic Disorder; Autoantibodies; Autoimmune Diseases; Autoimmune Process; Autoimmunity; Behavior; behavior test; Behavioral; Biological Assay; Birth; Brain; CCL2 gene; CCL3 gene; CCL4 gene; Cerebellum; chemokine; Chemokine (C-C Motif) Ligand 4; Child; Complex; cytokine; density; Development; developmental disease/disorder; developmental neurotoxicity; Disease; Environmental Pollution; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Etiology; Exposure to; fetal; Fibroblast Growth Factor; Flurothyl; Fright; Glutamate Receptor; Goals; Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor; Hippocampus (Brain); Histologic; Homer 1; human TNF protein; IL8 gene; Immune response; Immune system; Immune System and Related Disorders; Immunoglobulin A; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin M; Immunoglobulins; Immunohistochemistry; Immunophilins; immunotoxicity; In Vitro; in vivo; Infection; Interferon Type II; Interleukin-10; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-4; Interleukin-5; Interleukin-6; Kindling (Neurology); Laboratories; Learning; Leptin; link protein; Long-Term Potentiation; Measures; Memory; Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors; Methods; Methylmercury Compounds; Mitogens; Modeling; Mothers; mouse model; Mouse Strains; Mus; N-Methylaspartate; neurobehavioral disorder; neurodevelopment; Neurodevelopmental Disorder; Neurologic; Neuronal Injury; Neurons; neurotoxicity; offspring; Pentylenetetrazole; Perinatal; Perinatal Exposure; phenyl ether; Plasma; Poisons; Polychlorinated Biphenyls; postnatal; Predisposition; pregnant; prenatal; prenatal exposure; Preparation; Principal Investigator; Procedures; programs; Proteins; RANTES; receptor; receptor function; repaired; Research Design; Research Personnel; research study; response; Risk; Role; Ryanodine Receptor Calcium Release Channel; Ryanodine Receptors; Seizures; sensory gating; Sensory Motor Performances; Serological; Serum; Signal Pathway; Signal Transduction; SJL Mouse; SJL/J Mouse; Slice; Small Inducible Cytokine A3; social; Social Behavior; social communication; Social Interaction; Source; Splenocyte; Structure; Synapses; synaptotagmin; System; T-Cell Proliferation; Testing; Tetanus; Tetanus Toxoid; Tetanus vaccine; Toxic Environmental Substances; toxicant; Toxicant exposure; Toxicology; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors; Western Blotting; Work; Xenobiotics

IMMUNOLOGICAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AUTISM.
Abstract Text:
Recent studies indicate that immune function in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is profoundly altered compared to developmentally healthy controls. There is a strong interface between the immune system and the neurologic network, and successful neurodevelopment is contingent upon a successful interaction between these two systems. We have identified several aspects of immune dysfunction in patients with autism compared with typically developing controls. These include a reduced response to vaccine antigens of bacterial origin, altered cytokine levels in plasma and upon stimulation of PBMC, increased levels of leptin in patients with early onset autism, and autoantibodies to brain antigens. This wide and complex variety of immune anomalies noted in our first funding period is in keeping with the broad range of phenotypes encompassed by the autism spectrum. Thus, we will build upon our earlier findings of both serologic and cellular changes in immune function. While our studies in the previous project period were aimed at a broad analysis of immune function in patients with autism, the current proposal will address the mechanisms responsible for the numerous alterations in immune homeostasis uncovered in our earlier studies. Therefore, our primary focus will be on the mechanisms responsible for such anomalies in immune function through an in depth analysis of cellular immune function. Our overall hypothesis is that patients with autism have a fundamental defect at the cellular level that ultimately leads to abnormalities in immune function and heightened susceptibility to environmental triggers. To examine this, we propose to: (1) examine longitudinally the serologic profile of children with ASD to ascertain whether the various immune changes noted in our first studies are maintained and/or deteriorating further; (2) determine which immune cell population(s) plays a critical role in the immune dysfunction seen in patients with autism; and (3) fully characterize the autoantibody response in a subpopulation of children with ASD and some mothers of children with ASD. It must be noted that due to the highly heterogeneous nature of autism, there will potentially be immunologic differences that relate to sub-groups of patients with autism. Therefore, we will carefully define the study groups based on our current data to include children with early onset autism, children with delayed onset/regressive autism, general population controls, and children with developmental disorders without ASD. The studies will be performed on CHARGE subjects formerly analyzed by our laboratory (CHARGE-BACK study). This will allow us to extend our prior studies longitudinally to determine if the immune dysregulation, such as increased leptin levels in the early onset patients, remains over time. The following aims address both the serologic and cellular aspects of immune function in patients with autism.

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Brain Disorders; Mental Health; Mental Retardation (Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD)); Neurosciences; Pediatric

Project Terms:
Address; Age; anti-IgM; Antibodies; Antigens; autism spectrum disorder; autistic Children; Autistic Disorder; Autoantibodies; B-Lymphocytes; Back; base; Behavior; Blood Cells; Brain; calcium indicator; Calcium Signaling; Cell Culture Techniques; Cell physiology; Cell Proliferation; Cell surface; Cells; Child; Color; Complex; Cultured Cells; cytokine; Data; Defect; Development; developmental disease/disorder; Digestion; Disease; Dose; Dyes; early onset; Environmental Health; Etiology; fetal; Flow Cytometry; Flu virus; Frequencies (time pattern); Funding; Gel; General Population; HLA-DR Antigens; Homeostasis; Human; IgE; Immune; immune function; Immune system; Immune System Diseases; Immunoglobulin A; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin M; Immunologics; Label; Laboratories; Lasers; Leptin; Maps; Mercury; Microarray Analysis; Mitogens; Modeling; Mothers; Mus; Nature; neurodevelopment; Neurologic; Oligonucleotides; Pathogenesis; Pathology; Patients; Pattern; Peptides; Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell; Phenotype; Plasma; Play; Poly I-C; Population; Population Control; Predisposition; Pregnancy; Principal Investigator; Production; programs; Reagent; research study; response; RNA; Role; Serological; Serum; Source; Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization; Staining method; Stains; System; T-Lymphocyte; Testing; Time; TNFSF5 gene; Tube; Up-Regulation (Physiology); Upper arm; vaccine Antigen; Xenobiotics

STUDY OF HEALTH OUTCOMES IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM AND THEIR FAMILIES

Abstract Text:
This contract modification is to extend and supplement Contract HHSN271201000033C, consistent with the scope of work of “Study of Health Outcomes in Children with autism and Their Families¿ in order to access the currently validated database developed under the contract to provide for further analysis . Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a significant public health concern, with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 88 children in the United States. Much of the research to date has focused on the core social and communication deficits of ASD, but there are anecdotes and some survey data suggesting that the rate of comorbid health conditions may also be elevated in this population. Furthermore, despite several large-scale epidemiological studies that have assessed but not found any potential association between ASD and vaccinations, public concerns persist about such a causal link. At least partly as a consequence, health officials in the United States have reported an increased rate of vaccine refusal in the general population. The Study of Health Outcomes in Children with autism and their Families was begun two years ago. Under this contract, the Contractor analyzed a large dataset of retrospective commercial health plan claims of 46,236 children with ASD, their parents and siblings, and a comparison cohort of children and family members. They successfully completed the analyses requested in the original statement of work, which included a study of the validity of ASD diagnoses in the claims data, and descriptions of health outcomes and health care utilization of the ASD cohort, their family members, and the comparison cohorts.

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Brain Disorders; Immunization; Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD); Mental Health; Pediatric; Prevention; vaccine Related

Project Terms:
Anecdotes; autism spectrum disorder; Autistic Disorder; Child; cohort; Contractor; Contracts; Data; Data Set; Databases; Diagnosis; Epidemiologic Studies; Family; Family member; General Population; Health; health care service utilization; Health Planning; Link; Modification; Outcome; Parents; Population; Prevalence; public health medicine (field); Recording of previous events; Reporting; Research; Siblings; social communication; Surveys; United States; Vaccination; Vaccines; Work

CORE D: MOLECULAR GENOMICS CORE

Core 4 is the Molecular Core. It serves as the central resource for the projects that isolate and process RNA on Affymetrix microarrays, and for performing RT-PCR confirmation of the microarray data for those projects. The UCD Affymetrix Core Facility is run by Dr. Jeffrey Gregg and is equipped with fluidics stations, hybridization ovens, and the new scanner required to scan the human Affymetrix U133 2.0PLUS arrays. Preliminary data from the previous CHARGE study has shown that there are changes in gene expression in the blood of children with autism compared to control children in the general population (GP) and to control children with mental retardation and developmental delay (MR/DD). The blood genomic profile in children with autism without regression (A) was different from controls, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and different from children with autism with regression (A-R). In addition, there is a group of regulated genes in most children with A, A-R and with ASD that are expressed by natural killer (NK) cells in peripheral blood, suggesting an abnormality in this cell type that is common to all types of autism. These NK-cell related genes are expressed by all of the autism phenotypes including A, A-R and ASD, and hence may point to common pathways that underlie the common language and behavioral abnormalities in all three disorders. This core will be utilized by the projects as follows. Project #1: Aim #1: Perform genomic (RNA expression on microarrays) studies on blood from children with autism in the 4-9 year old range, and compare to the blood genomic profiles we have obtained in children with autism in the 2-5 year old age range. Aim #2. Compare gene expression as a function of blood metal levels in both age groups in A, A-R, ASD, MR/DD and GP groups. Aim #3. Examine genomic profiles in pregnant mothers who have previously given birth to an autistic child to determine if there is a specific genomic profile that correlates with whether the mother’s fetus is destined to develop autism. Project #2. Aim #1. Describe the gene expression profiles in the blood using specific white blood cell subsets including NK cells for children with autism without regression, autism with regression, and ASD children compared to GP and delayed children. Aim #2. Examine gene expression following stimulation or activation of specific white blood cell subsets of A, A-R, ASD, MR/DD and GP children with: low level mercury; immune cell stimulation/activation with vaccine antigens and cell-specific mitogens; and xenobiotics. Project #3. Compare gene expression profiles in the blood of children with autism to the blood of experimental animals exposed to toxicants including organic mercury, PCB 95, and PBDE 47 (Project #3).

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Biotechnology; Brain Disorders; Genetics; Mental Health; Mental Retardation (Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD)); Pediatric

Project Terms:
5 year old; 9 year old; Accounting; Age; age group; Animals; autism spectrum disorder; autistic Children; Autistic Disorder; Autoantibodies; base; Behavioral; Birth; Blood; Blood specimen; cell type; Cells; chemokine; Child; Core Facility; cytokine; Data; Developmental Delay Disorders; Disease; Environmental Health; Fetus; Gene Expression; General Population; Genes; Genetic; Genetic Transcription; Genome; Genomics; Human; Immune; immune function; Inherited; Language; Leukocytes; Mental Retardation; Mentally Disabled Persons; Mercury; Metals; Mitogens; Molecular; Molecular Profiling; Mothers; Natural Killer Cells; Pathway interactions; Patients; pentabromodiphenyl ether; peripheral blood; Phenotype; Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Population Group; pregnant; Principal Investigator; Process; programs; Resources; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; RNA Processing; Running; Scanning; Subgroup; Surveys; Toxic Environmental Substances; toxicant; vaccine Antigen; Xenobiotics

THE CHARGE STUDY: CHILDHOOD AUTISM RISKS FROM GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Abstract Text:
DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Few rigorous epidemiologic studies have addressed the environmental causes and biologic underpinnings of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The CHARGE (Childhood autism Risks from Genetics and Environment) Study is a large, population-based case-control investigation of environmental risk factors, broadly defined, in relation to ASD and developmental delay without ASD symptoms, with referents from the general population. Fieldwork began in 2003, and by now CHARGE has published widely on exposures such as air pollution, mercury, flame retardants, maternal nutritional status in the peri-conception, untreated fever during pregnancy, mitochondrial dysfunction, candidate genes, a wide array of functional immune markers in both the child and the mother, and maternal metabolic conditions including obesity and diabetes. This last finding is notable, given the epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes that has occurred in parallel with the steady rise in ASD over the last few decades. Moreover, an emerging literature implicates several endocrine disrupting chemicals as contributing to obesity and metabolic dysregulation, including hyperinsulinemia, and to neurodevelopmental disorders as well. This project therefore builds upon these observations in several ways. First, obesity and type 2 or gestational diabetes will be examined in a larger sample, and glucose challenge test (GCT) results for the first time, to determine associations not only with development of ASD and intellectual impairment in the children, but also with specific speech and language delays, behavioral phenotypes such as attention deficits or hyperactivity, and gene expression. Second, these maternal metabolic conditions will be evaluated for associations with markers of both metabolic and immune dysregulation to be measured in neonatal bloodspots. Third, the predictive value of neonatal bloodspot markers for a later diagnosis of ASD or other child developmental and behavioral outcomes will be assessed. Fourth, the maternal metabolic conditions will be analyzed for potential links with upstream exposures to phthalates and anti- bacterial compounds, ubiquitous chemicals in common household products. Finally, this project will examine how gene variants that play a role in biochemical pathways relevant to the processes under study may influence susceptibility of the mother, the neonate or the child. To ensure adequate power for this analysis of gene-environment interaction, the sample size will be increased to 2400 children. This project addresses several goals set by the NIH Interagency autism Coordinating Committee: 1) to discover environmental factors contributing to ASD, particularly in the prenatal period, 2) to understand biological mechanisms for ASD risk, including gene-by-environment interactions, and 3) to identify children at risk for ASD at earlier time points. Results of this detailed inquir into early exposures, maternal pathophysiology and prognostic markers in the newborn will set the stage for developing prevention strategies.

Public Health Relevance Statement:
PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: This project addresses several issues of direct public health relevance, and the science to be produced will lead to benefits in a wide cross-section of the U.S. population. Because obesity is reaching epidemic proportions and other metabolic conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and dyslipidemia are rising steeply, understanding environmental causes has tremendous public health potential for moving us closer to effective prevention strategies. If environmental chemicals used in common household products do prove to adversely affect body weight, measures can be taken to either reformulate those products, removing them from the market, or to educate consumers on how to avoid them. Similarly, steady increases in ASD might be curbed if the postulated causal pathway is supported by the evidence.

NIH Spending Category:
autism; Behavioral and Social Science; Brain Disorders; Clinical Research; Diabetes; Genetic Testing; Genetics; Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD); Mental Health; Neurosciences; Nutrition; Obesity; Pediatric; Perinatal Period – Conditions Originating in Perinatal Period; Prevention

Project Terms:
Address; Affect; Age; aged; Air Pollution; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Attention; autism spectrum disorder; Autistic Disorder; Behavior; Behavioral; Biochemical Pathway; Biological; Biological Markers; blood glucose regulation; Body Weights and Measures; C-Peptide; Candidate Disease Gene; case control; CCL2 gene; chemical association; Chemicals; Child; Childhood; Conceptions; cytokine; Data; Development; Developmental Delay Disorders; Diabetes Mellitus; Diagnosis; disorder risk; Dyslipidemias; Endocrine Disruptors; Ensure; Environment; environmental chemical; Environmental Risk Factor; Epidemic; Epidemiologic Studies; ESR1 gene; Exposure to; Fever; Flame Retardants; Functional disorder; gene environment interaction; Gene Expression; General Population; Genes; Genetic Risk; Gestational Diabetes; Glucose; glucose metabolism; Goals; high risk; Household; Household Products; human TNF protein; Hyperactive behavior; Hyperinsulinism; Hypertension induced by pregnancy; Immune; immune function; Immunologic Markers; Impairment; inattention; Inflammation; Inflammatory; Insulin Resistance; insulin sensitivity; interest; Interleukin-6; Investigation; Language Delays; Lead; Leptin; Link; Literature; Marketing; Maternal Exposure; Measures; mercury; Metabolic; Metabolic Marker; Metabolism; mitochondrial dysfunction; Mothers; Neonatal; neonate; neurodevelopment; Neurodevelopmental Disorder; Newborn Infant; Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus; Nutritional status; Obesity; Outcome; Pathway interactions; Phenotype; phthalates; Play; Population; population based; PPARG gene; Predictive Value; Predisposition; Pregnancy; prenatal; Prevention strategy; Process; prognostic; Prognostic Marker; public health medicine (field); public health relevance; Publishing; Regulation; Risk; Role; RORA gene; RPL10 gene; Sample Size; Sampling; Science; Self Care; Speech Delay; Staging; Symptoms; Test Result; Time; Triclosan; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; United States National Institutes of Health; Variant; Variation (Genetics)

PRENATAL TIMING OF HEAVY METAL EXPOSURES FROM AUTISTIC AND NON-AUTISTIC CHILDREN

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Little is known about the etiology or risk factors for autism, a disease affecting 1 in 50 children in the U.S. While genetic and environmental factors are thought to act together, the specific mechanisms are not known and the measurement of environmental risk factors during critical periods of neurodevelopment has been lacking. This case-control study seeks to apply a novel dental biomarker of early life metal exposure, including in utero, to identify risk factors for ASD. Beyond looking at exposure intensity, we will be able to identify differences in exposure timing between cases and controls. This will allow us to identify critical windows when exposure, even at low levels, increases the risk of ASD. Using the proposed biomarker, we will directly assess fetal exposure, and will not rely on maternal biomarkers which may only provide an indirect measure of fetal exposure to metals. This work will have substantial impact on epidemiologic investigations of the relation of early life chemical exposures to ASD and other neurodevelopmental disorders as it can be used to objectively reconstruct both exposure intensity and timing.

Public Health Relevance Statement:
PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Little is known about the causes of autism. This proposal seeks to apply a novel dental biomarker of early life metal exposure, including in utero, to identify risk factors for ASD. Beyond looking at exposure intensity, our application is novel in that we will be able to identify differences in exposure timing between cases and controls. This will allow us to identify critical windows when exposure, even at low levels, increases the risk of ASD.

Project Terms:
Accounting; Address; Affect; Aluminum; analytical method; Animals; Apatites; Arsenic; autism spectrum disorder; autistic Children; Autistic Disorder; Binding (Molecular Function); Biological; Biological Markers; bone; Cadmium; Calcified; Calcium; case control; Case-Control Studies; Chemical Exposure; Chemicals; Child; Childhood; Chromium; critical period; Data; deciduous tooth; Dental; Dentin; Development; Disease; early life exposure; Elements; Environment; Environmental Exposure; Environmental Risk Factor; Epidemic; Epidemiologic Studies; Etiology; Exposure to; fetal; Fetus; Genes; Genetic; Health; Heavy Metals; Human; Immune system; in utero; Investigation; Lead; Life; Literature; longitudinal design; Manganese; Measurement; Measures; mercury; Metal exposure; Metals; Methodology; Methods; mineralization; Mothers; neurodevelopment; Neurodevelopmental Disorder; Nickel; novel; Perinatal; Perinatal Exposure; Play; postnatal; Predisposition; Pregnancy; prenatal; Property; prospective; public health relevance; Recording of previous events; repository; Risk; Risk Factors; Role; Sampling; skeletal; Staging; Time; Tissues; Tooth structure; Toxic Environmental Substances; toxicant; Toxicant exposure; Work

Mark Blaxill on the Geiers: they do sloppy work

13 Oct

Mark Geier and, more recently, his son David have been active promoting autism as vaccine injury for over 10 years (Mark Geier has been active as an expert in, and been criticized for his lack of quality work, the vaccine court on non-autism issues for about 20 years). They have written multiple papers, ranging from bad to worse, attempting to argue the case that vaccines (and especially thimerosal) are a primary cause of autism.

There are multiple discussions over the years of the Geiers here on Left Brain/Right Brain, Respectful Insolence as well as many other places. The best work was done by Kathleen Seidel at Neurodiversity.com, but due to a server crash much of that content is not readily available. (although it is worth searching for the cached versions or the versions on the Wayback Machine).

The work of the Geiers is so poor that it has always been a wonder to me that no criticism has come from anyone promoting the idea that vaccines caused an epidemic of autism. It isn’t that those promoting the vaccine-epidemic idea are not bright, leaving me wondering if they are too biased by their beliefs or just unwilling to speak publicly against an ally. But, recall, these are the same people who closed ranks around Andrew Wakefield in the face of clear and proved ethical violations.

If we are to believe Jake Crosby, former writer for the Age of Autism blog, it appears that the tacit approval of the Geiers has, at least in part, been a case of “circle the wagons”. I.e. people defending an ally over speak their opinions. Mr. Crosby has blaxillwilliams and quotes more emails where Mark Blaxill (former board member of SafeMinds and a long-time proponent of the idea that mercury in vaccines are a primary cause of autism) expresses his views about the Geiers to Mike Williams (attorney involved representing the families in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding).

In an email image on Mr. Crosby’s blog, Mr. Blaxill is reported to have stated:

In the interest of full disclosure. I thought you might like to see my critique of the Geiers’ latest work on VSD. I have not been a big fan of the Geiers. I worry they do not represent our side well. They do sloppy work.

In another email (quoted by Mr. Crosby, the link to the original is nonfunctioning) quotes Mr. Blaxill as stating:

“As to the Geiers, I may be a bit of a minority voice here, but I worry very much that they can do our cause more harm than good. They are not very good scientists, write bad papers (both writing badly and reporting in sloppy fashion) and attract too much attention to themselves as individuals. In this last regard, they don’t show nearly as well as Andy Wakefield but they’re trying to play the same role. Frankly, if I were on the other side and were asked to critique their work, I could rip it to shreds. I’m surprised they haven’t been hit harder. So I think you are wise to diversify.”

Mr. Crosby’s stance is that this constitutes “interference” in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. I.e. Mr. Crosby seems to imply that the Geiers are not sloppy scientists whose work is poor, but that the Geiers should have been allowed a more active role in the Omnibus.

In this case I find myself agreeing, in part at least, with Mr. Blaxill. The work by the Geiers is poor. Where I don’t agree is Mr. Blaxill’s decision to hold back on making those statement public. Not just because it’s hard to take the stance that one is a only “…interested in the quest for the truth” when one holds back on key information like an entire critique of the Geiers’ VSD paper. No. It goes deeper than that. The Geiers’ junk science went beyond promotion of the idea that thimerosal is a primary cause of autism. The Geiers ran a clinic for many years. Mark Geier was a licensed physician, David Geier worked in the clinic (and has been accused of practicing medicine without a license). Through their papers and their talks at autism parent conventions like AutismOne, the Geiers became well known. One of the “brand name” autism clinics. They reached this level of respect within their community because no one within that community dared to speak out.

I’ve noted on Left Brain/Right Brain many times before that these parent conventions differ markedly from real science conferences in that no one ever seriously challenges the speakers. They can present almost any theory or idea, especially if they tie it to autism as vaccine injury, without anyone standing up and saying, “that makes zero sense”. These aren’t science presentations, they are advertisements. It would be interesting to see how many of these conventions Mr. Blaxill attended and yet remained silent on the “sloppy” work that could be “ripp[ed] to shreds” that the Geiers presented. Instead, parents were presented a view that the Geiers were good scientists who suffered unjust criticism for their “brave” stance on vaccines.

The Geiers were promoters of chelation as a treatment for autism. Not only does chelation have no scientific basis to be an autism treatment, a study just out this week using rodents states that chelation could be harmful if there is no real heavy metal toxicity:

Finally, we also found that succimer treatment produced lasting adverse neurobehavioral effects when administered to non-lead-exposed rodents, highlighting the potential risks of administering succimer or other metal-chelating agents to children who do not have elevated tissue lead levels. It is of significant concern that this type of therapy has been advocated for treating autism.

It is highly likely that Mr. Blaxill would disagree with the statement that chelation has no good scientific basis as a treatment for autism. He’d be wrong, but that’s been covered over and over before. The Geiers moved on from standard chelation to stranger, more dangerous therapies. As an aside, if chelation was a successful treatment one has to wonder why the Geiers were prompted to move on to using Lupron as an autism treatment. Lupron is very serious medicine and it shuts down sex hormone production in the body. Why Lupron, one might ask? The Geiers convinced themselves (or convinced themselves that they could pass off this explanation) that mercury bound itself to testosterone in the brain, making it hard to chelate. They cited a paper showing that if one heats testosterone and mercury salts in benzene, one could form these mercury/testosterone complexes. They actually claim (yes, they tried to patent this idea to make money off it) that this paper shows that “It is known in the art that mercuric chloride binds arid forms a complex with testosterone in subjects”. The “subjects” are beakers of benzene, not animals and not people. Add to that the lack of an explanation of how shutting down hormone production would break up these complexes. The Geier “science” supporting Lupron would be laughably bad if it wasn’t used to subject disabled children to Lupron injections.

Lupron clearly has no basis as an autism therapy. In fact, the “lupron protocol” played a major part in Mark Geier losing his medical licenses. One has to ask, how did the get such traction for such an obviously bad idea? For one thing, the Geiers were considered respected scientists in the vaccine injury/alternative medicine autism community due to their previous and ongoing work trying to link thimerosal and autism. Work which Mark Blaxill considered “sloppy” and worthy of being ripped to shreds. But instead of sharing his views on the Geier papers with the public, Mr. Blaxill shared them privately within his own circle.

It’s worth noting that the email quoted above was written before the “Lupron Protocol” was developed. We don’t know if Mr. Blaxill was alarmed by the emergence of the “Lupron Protocol”. I can’t find where he spoke out against it. We can see that his blog (under a different writer) promoted the idea as “MERCURY, TESTOSTERONE AND AUTISM – A REALLY BIG IDEA!“. Mr. Blaxill doesn’t seem to have commented there. For all the papers the Geiers have published, Mr. Blaxill only mentions them once in his book “Age of Autism. But as we’ve seen, tacit approval (silence) may not be the same thing as real approval.

Mr. Blaxill had the courage to testify before a congressional hearing last year. A hearing where the politicians had been lobbied in advance to be favorable to his cause. When it came to disagreeing with one of his allies, that courage was lacking. He allowed “sloppy” science from an ally to go unchallenged. An example of the fallout of such a decision, in my opinion had he stood up he could have slowed or even stopped the “Lupron Protocol”, a therapy which in my opinion amounts to the abusive treatment of disabled children in an uncontrolled and unapproved experiment.


By Matt Carey

No, the thimerosal in the flu vaccine does not explain why autism rates did not go down

6 Oct

Surprisingly enough, there are still people promoting the idea that the rise in autism diagnoses observed over the last decades was caused by thimerosal in vaccines. The original argument was this–vaccines were added to the vaccine schedule in the 1990’s and with them the infant exposure to thimerosal increased. Concurrent with this rise in infant thimerosal exposure was a rise in autism diagnoses. Add to this a poorly concocted argument that autism resembles mercury intoxication and you have the basis for the mercury hypothesis.

Thimerosal was phased out of infant vaccines over 10 years ago. Thus, if the thimerosal hypothesis were true, reported autism rates should be declining by now. As far back as 2005 David Kirby (whose book “Evidence of Harm” played a major role in promoting the mercury hypothesis) acknowledged this point in a statement

If the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis.

It’s 2013. Autism rates in California have not declined. Not in Special Education. Not in the CDDS roles. And, yes, we are six years past the 2007 deadline that David Kirby gave us.

To be specific, let’s use the same method that David Kirby and others used to claim a thimerosal induced autism epidemic in the 1990’s (namely the California DDS client count–which not a good method, by the way). Autism “rates” have gone up by over 150% since thimerosal was phased out of infant vaccines. The age 3-5 bracket had about 4000 children in 2003 and is currently over 10,000.

CDDS 3-5

So we have more kids in California receiving services under the autism label than when thimerosal was in vaccines.

This is but one in a huge list of reasons why the thimerosal hypothesis doesn’t work.

But let’s go back in time a bit. Not so long ago one would hear proposals that we go back to the vaccine schedule of the early 1980’s when, it is claimed, the autism rate was 1 in 10,000. Fewer vaccines, less thimerosal, less autism. So goes the logic.

Generation Rescue, in fact, used to recommend the 1983 schedule as one of their alternative schedules

Turn back the clock
Comment: This is the schedule from 1983. If it worked for kids then, why doesn’t it work for kids now?”

Does it make sense to go back to the 1983 schedule? No. Why? OK a lot of reasons, but let’s focus on the fact that infants were exposed to more thimerosal in the 1980’s than today. Infant vaccines have no or only trace amounts of thimerosal.  So if thimerosal were the (or even a single) primary cause of autism risk, we would see autism rates lower today. To not only 1990’s levels, but to something like 1980’s reported levels. Assuming that the reported rates in the 1980’s were an accurate count of how many autistics there were then (a bad assumption but it’s the one they use).

To recap–Infant thimerosal exposure from vaccines peaked at nearly 200 micrograms in the 1990’s, up from about 100 micrograms in the 1980’s and is now less than 10 micrograms. And autism rates have not declined at all. Much less to 1980’s levels.

Once anyone says this the instant answer is that there is still thimerosal in some influenza vaccines. This, they say, is why autism rates have not declined. (note that thimerosal containing vaccines, including influenza vaccines, are banned in California for infants and pregnant women…and autism “rates” have continued to climb here).  

For completeness sake, let’s consider a kid who gets the maximum exposure to thimerosal from vaccines. I.e. a non California kid.  A kid who turns 6 months (the earliest age they will give a flu vaccine to a kid) during the flu season.  That kid will get 2 vaccines in the first year (6 and 7 months) then another influenza vaccine each year thereafter. Each with 25 micrograms of mercury from thimerosal. How does the thimerosal exposure compare to the 1983 schedule?  Take a look for yourself (exposures in micrograms of mercury from thimerosal):

1983 schedule 2013 schedule
DPT Inluenza
2 months 25
4 months 25
6 months 25 25
7 months 25
Total by 1 year 75 50
18 months 25 25
Total by 2 years 100 75
30 Months 25
Total by 3 years 100 100

So by age 3, the exposures are the same.  Except that the kid of today gets the thimerosal later and more spread out over time.  As an aside–most people who talk about the rise in thimerosal exposure during the 1990’s neglect to point out that the cumulative exposure in the 1980’s was already 100 micrograms. I.e. the “safe” level was significant.

If thimerosal were the driving force behind the rise in autism diagnoses, we should be back to 1983 levels, misrepresented by those claiming an epidemic as 1 in 10,000.  Instead we are at 1-2%.  The “rates” didn’t go down.

By this point the proponents of thimerosal are basically screaming, “you are forgetting the vaccines recommended to pregnant women!” No, I just put that off until now.  Sure, the influenza vaccine is recommended for pregnant women, but as the CDC notes:

Prior to 2009, influenza vaccination levels among pregnant women were generally low (~15%) (5,9).

So, from about 2000 to 2009 there wasn’t a big increase (or even a large part of the population) getting influenza vaccines while pregnant, nor were their children getting exposures higher than those in the 1983 schedule.

Take a look at that graph for California administrative autism prevalence again. Between 2002 (after the drawdown of thimerosal in vaccines) and 2012 the autism count doubled. Thimerosal exposure was down. A lot. Below 1990’s “epidemic” levels. Back to the 1983 “worked for kids then” levels. But autism “rates” continue to climb.

The people still pushing the idea that thimerosal is a (or even the) primary cause of autism are not unintelligent. We are talking about college educated people. Ivy league schools. A former journalist, an intellectual property expert and more. There is no math above. It’s all quite simple and straightforward. It uses the exact same logic and methodology they used to promote the idea that mercury causes autism. This is where intellectual honesty and basic integrity should kick in and get people to suck it up, admit their mistakes and start repairing the harm they have caused.

I’m not holding my breath.

By Matt Carey