Archive | Age of Autism RSS feed for this section

MMR doesn’t cause autism: Generation Rescue study proves it!

7 May

Generation Rescue is making a big deal out of their “study” on autism and vaccines. This was a very dishonest attempt to promote their view on autism and vaccines, no doubts about that.

While analyzing their study, I realized how much easier it is to think like someone from Generation Rescue. Rather than challenging my own conclusions, why not go the GR way and start with a conclusion and look for data–any data–to support it! This is a LOT less work, and, heck, fun too!

Let’s take a look at the question, Does the MMR vaccine cause autism? Well, GR has conveniently given us enough data to draw a conclusion! Forget the fact that the GR “data” is bunk. Remember, no critical thinking allowed for this analysis–are we not pseudoscientists? We are Gee-Ar!

Let’s look at autism prevalence by country and compare that to whether they use the MMR vaccine or not. That sounds like we should be able to come to some definite conclusions!

Here are the autism prevalence by country and whether they use the MMR shot in their schedule. (European data are here, Israel here, Japan here).

We are going to ignore the data from the United States. Why? Because it doesn’t fit our conclusions, silly. If you are going to think like GR, go all the way, I say!

Country, prevalence, MMR status:

Denmark: 1 in 2,200. MMR at 15 months
Norway: 1 in 2,000. MMR at 15 months
Iceland: 1 in 1,100. MMR at 18 months
Israel: 1 in 1,000. MMR at 12 months.
Sweden: 1 in 862. MMR at 18 months
Finland: 1 in 719. MMR at 14-18 months
France: 1 in 613. MMR at 12 months and second shot at 13-24 months
Japan: 1 in 475. No combined MMR

Wait a minute–who has the highest prevalence? Japan!!!!

Who doesn’t use the combined MMR shot? Japan!!!

Pretty conclusive, I say (as long as I have my Generation Rescue Thinking Cap on!). MMR doesn’t cause autism!

Hey LeftBrain/RightBrain–this is too tempting. It is so much easier than real blogging. As compared to real scientific research, GR research is a snap! I may just have to accept the vaccine hypothesis just to save some time!

[edit to include correction from the comments!]

Are the Minnesota Somalis political pawns?

5 May

Let me start out by saying I hope a good answer is found for the high number of Somali children getting special education services in MN under the autism label. The only way to do that properly will take time, money and cooperation from the Somali community.

That said, I will admit that I have avoided this subject up until now. It was very obvious to me that without accurate numbers, this is likely going to just be a game of politics. And, let’s face it, educational numbers are not an accurate way to measure autism. The fact that David Kirby chimed in very early didn’t help either. If I’ve learned anything reading blogs, it is that Mr. Kirby is quite willing to misuse data.

As background, there are more young Somali kids in the Minneapolis schools getting services in autism preschools. Groups such as Generation Rescue have been using this to support the idea that vaccines cause autism. Others have been claiming that vitamin D deficiency is to blame.

It is worth noting that the fraction of Somalis in the autism preschools is about 1%. While this is high compared to the non-Somali’s in preschool, it is about the same fraction for older children in the Minneapolis schools.

As I said, I was planning on leaving this subject alone. That is until I read the Simons Foundation blog on the topic, reporting on this report. The SFARI blog (as it is known) uses precise language to describe the situation (something that would be good for us all to learn).

Public health clusters are usually suspect, but in a report released last week, the Minnesota Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that, among 3- and 4-year-old children, those of Somali origin are two to seven times more likely to be placed in preschool programs for autism.

That’s right. They didn’t find that more Somali kids have autism, they found that they were placed in autism programs. You don’t need a medical diagnosis to be placed in an autism school program.

But that wasn’t what got me to write this post. What prompted me to blog was the next sentence:

The report also found other ethnic trends in these classes: just two Asians and one Native American between 2005 and 2007.

Wow. There were even years with zero Asians in those classes. If one is to take the data from the Minneapolis schools as indicating that Somalis have more autism, one has to then explain why Asians and Native Americans have almost no autism!

Why does this bug me? Because it exposed the exact sort of hypocrisy that typifies the efforts of Generation Rescue, Dan Olmsted, Mark Blaxill, and David Kirby (to name a few): “Look until you find something that supports your preconceived notion, then stop!!!!” They have to stop before they find something that would be difficult to explain–like the low prevalence amongst Asians and Native Americans.

Generation Rescue’s motto is “Autism is preventable and reversible”. If so, why aren’t they looking into the low administrative prevalence amongst Asians and Native Americans in Minneapolis.

Jenny McCarthy has often complained that no one wants to study her son to see why he was cured of autism (which begs the question: why hasn’t the alternative medical community studied him?). Why isn’t Jenny McCarthy and her partner Jim Carrey in Minneapolis calling for a study of the Asians and Native Americans in Minneapolis?

I could keep going on and on, but you get the point. Generation Rescue cherry picks the data that supports their notion of vaccines causing autism. They ignore the inconvenient information. One group, the Somalis, are used as political pawns because they help GR with the idea that vaccines cause autism. As to the idea that autism is “preventable and reversible”? I guess if GR really cared they would be looking at the Asians and Native Americans in Minneapolis.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen Speaks

22 Apr

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University’s autism research team wrote a piece for New Scientist recently about media distortion:

WHEN media reports state that scientist X of Y university has discovered that A is linked to B, we ought to be able to trust them. Sadly, as many researchers know, we can’t.

He talks about the Observer debacle of 2007 and how that paper made a total hash of leaked data. At the time Baron-Cohen said:

The draft report, he says, “is as accurate as jottings in a notebook”

The big furore was that the paper was working on prevalence rates and mentioned a few rates of autism from 1 in 58 to 1 in 200. Guess which one the Observer decided was the more newsworthy? Baron-Cohen again:

Baron-Cohen says their study of Cambridgeshire children, which has been running for five years, comes out with a range of figures from one in 58, to one in 200, depending on various factors. The draft report, he says, “is as accurate as jottings in a notebook”. He adds that the data is with public health officials, who are crunching the numbers.

So it was really a total non-story. Some scientists were working on a paper about prevalence and had some unadjusted figures. At that point, someone in the team decided to leak the unadjusted report to the press who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Fast forward to last month and the Daily Mail runs a story:

Researchers now believe as many as one in 60 children has some form of the condition.

Up and down the blogosphere at the more credulous blogs and news pages the 1 in 60 figure is touted about. Indeed, only yesterday on the Age of Autism John Stone was claiming Baron-Cohen’s silence about the Daily mail article in his New Scientist piece as proof definite that the 1 in 60 figure was accurate:

The most significant thing about Simon Baron-Cohen’s recent New Scientist grouse about media irresponsibility and science (HERE) was that he did not mention the publication just a few days earlier in the Daily Mail of his latest – if long delayed – figure for the prevalence of autism in the UK school population of 1 in 60….

Given the importance of this figure – a true rate 66% higher than formerly acknowledged – the long term reticence of Baron-Cohen and the study’s sponsor Autism Speaks UK is dismaying – indeed Science Media Centre and Autism Speaks UK were still apparently trying to deny it to the Mail ahead of publication of the article.* But the silence of all these parties, and most particularly of Baron-Cohen after the Daily Mail article came out suggests that they did not have a leg to stand on.

When John Stone speaks with certainty in his voice, that is a certain clue that something is not as it seems. So I decided to email Professor Baron-Cohen to get his take on the Daily Mail. After a chat about what it meant he obliged me with an exclusive quote:

The Daily Mail was irresponsible in reporting on the results of our study before it was published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal and where the details of the study are publicly available for scrutiny. The study will be published in the British Journal of Psychiatry on June 1st 2009.

My own opinion based on the discussion we had and that quote is that the paper might not be quite what it appears from the abstract posted at IMFAR. At any rate Professor Baron-Cohen is right that the Daily Mail have – just like the Observer – acted very irresponsibly. So are those that are reporting a UK prevalence of 1 in 60. Irresponsible and very previous.

The Somali Minnesotan Autism Epidemic

13 Apr

One of the most intriguing scenarios to pop up from the so-called autism epidemic happened in Minnesota in the US. It was noted that there were what seemed to be disproportionately high numbers of second generation Somali children in Minnesotan schoolrooms. Of course, this was immediately latched on to by the usual suspects, despite the caution issues by health authorities that until proper epidemiological studies had been done it would be impossible to say whether this really was a cluster worth investigation or just a coincidence.

On the 31st March, the Minnesota Dept Health released the study. Its a fairly substantial read. One thing immediately struck me about this:

Administrative prevalence of Somali children, ages 3 and 4, who participated in the MPS ECSE ASD programs was significantly higher than for children of other races or ethnic backgrounds

OK so this is what the families were saying. But there’s an extreme note of caution that should be noted here. This is basically CDDS all over again. Just like some believed that an increasing number of reports to CDDS meant that there was an autism epidemic and just as CDDS said there reports really shouldn’t be used to study these things, MDH are also saying:

Because of the study’s limitations, it is not proof that more Somali children have autism than other children…

This is a vital point. Back in 2005, James Laidler made the clear point that Department of Education data on autism are not reliable for tracking autism prevalence.

Sadly, the new Age of Autism editor, Abdulkadir Khalif, either misunderstood or elected to ignore this issue when he said:

It was obvious from the numbers that the issue of prevalence has finally been settled, and that there definitely is a cluster of autism in Minneapolis

It is clear from the report that Khalif has grossly overstated the case. Firstly, the issue of prevalence is far from settled. MDH seem to be solely using educational data which, as pointed out by Laidler, is not reliable for tracking autism prevalence. Indeed the phrase ‘administrative prevalence’ used by MDH reflects this. ‘Administrative prevalence’ refers solely to numbers of kids in educational programs. This is a clear distinction from ‘prevalence’ which is the proportion of individuals in a population who suffer from a defined disorder. Using only educational data gives a distorted picture.

As has been shown, the USDE data on autism are at odds with studies of autism prevalence, largely because the criteria used by the school districts (the source of the USDE data) to categorize children as autistic are neither rigorous nor consistent. They are inconsistent over time, as are the medical criteria, and are inconsistent from region to region. The USDE data are not reliable for tracking the prevalence of autism, and they in fact never were meant to fill this need.

Secondly Khalif uses the word ‘cluster’ whereas the MDH report does not use it at all. And it is not a word that should be used in such a throwaway fashion – it has a distinct epidemiological meaning.

So clearly, contrary to Khalif’s assertion that the issue of prevalence has been settled, it has not. Contrary to his statement that there is a cluster, there has been no such epidemiological assessment or statement.

Here are some more quotes from the MNH report that Abdulkadir Khalif either chose to ignore or never actually read:

The fact that a child is participating in an ASD early childhood program is an indicator of educational need, but that child may or may not have a medically diagnosed ASD.

Further, Minnesota’s public school open enrollment policy allows children to attend special education programs in school districts where they are not residents. This raised the question of whether participation rates for Somali children might appear higher than the participation rates for non-Somali children because of an influx of Somali children who are not residents of the Minneapolis school district attending MPS ECSE programs for ASD.

Data on variability of ASD prevalence by race, ethnicity, and SES is limited and inconclusive, and apparent differences between racial and ethnic populations may largely be due to differences in case finding and service provision.

Across all assumptions and ASD program types, administrative ASD prevalence estimates for Somali children were uniformly higher than the U.S. parental reported ASD prevalence, but most of the 95% confidence intervals corresponding to the administrative prevalence estimates for Somali children contained the value of the U.S. parental reported ASD prevalence estimate – suggesting that the 2005-2006 administrative ASD prevalence for Somali children might be no different from what would be expected in the U.S. population of children ages 3 and 4 based on parental report.

So what does this mean?

It means that there are no firm answers and that Khalif is simply wrong to assert that there are.

Its always been one of the great puzzles to me that a section of (mostly) parents who demand accurate answers fast cannot seem to understand that there _are_ no accurate answers until the science – proper science – has been done. And that takes time. What legacy do these parents want to leave the autism community? Fast inaccurate mistakes? Or well planned and rigorous science that helps build the growing knowledge we already have?

Who is antivaccine?

25 Mar

The group that wants to bring the third world up to modern standards of vaccination or the group that wants to bring the US to current third world standards?

I’ve been trying to avoid responding to Age of Autism blog posts. I have a full time job, I don’t need another one. But, this one struck me as worth a few minutes.

Mr. Olmsted posted the blog piece, “WHO is Anti-Vaccine?” In it, he quotes a newspaper article that stated

“In the first nine months of life, the World Health Organization recommends vaccines for tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and measles.”

Mr. Olmsted then tries to draw a parallel between his own organization (Generation Rescue et al.) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Since both organizations recommend fewer vaccines than in the current US schedule, supposedly his group is mainstream.

Mr. Olmsted chafes at the reputation he has earned (and earn it he did) for not digging very deep into a story. He won his battle star, as it were, by missing out on a big part of the Amish story, the Clinic for Special Children. No doubt the revisionist history, complete with stories by angry Amish, will fill at least a chapter in his upcoming book.

Why bring this up? Because once again, Mr. Olmsted looked only far enough to support his preconceived ideas. The WHO campaign he is discussing is well covered on…well, the cryptically named World Health Organization website.

Page 15 of this presentation, gives a good idea of WHO’s goals: by 2015, introduce new vaccines. They discuss adding HepB, Hib and also:

Japanese Encephalitis
Yellow Fever
Rubella
Pneumo (Conjugate vaccines)
Rotavirus Diarrhoea
Typhoid Fever
HPV
Mening Conjugate A

Here is fact #2 in the WHO 10 facts about immunization. Would Mr. Olmsted and his organization agree?

Immunization currently saves between 2 and 3 million lives per year. It is one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions.

Mr. Olmsted: enter “autism” into the search box on the WHO website.

First hit MMR and autism.

Based on the extensive review presented, GACVS concluded that no evidence exists of a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism or autistic disorders.

Another of the top links–a page from the WHO Bulletin. The story? ‘Science vs ‘‘scaremongering’’ over measles-mumps-rubella vaccine’.

How about this link, also on the first page: “No vaccine for the scaremongers”. Here’s a nice quote from that article:

While parents in developing countries have, for example, first-hand experience of measles and welcome vaccination against it, the uptake by parents for the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in many developed countries has yet to recover almost 10 years after a study linking it to autism, even though the original study has long since been discredited and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that refutes the link.

Frankly, I think Mr. Olmsted is squarely in the group the WHO would call “scaremongers”. It is ridiculous in the extreme for him to try to draw a parallel between him and his organizations and WHO.

Again I will ask, who is antivaccine, the group that wants to bring the third world up to modern standards of vaccination or the group that wants to bring the US to current third world standards?

Autism and Murder

18 Mar

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

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

and in the second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore,

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

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

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

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

Oops! The Kirby Autism-Speaks connection.

26 Feb

David Kirby just published a piece at the Huffington Post about an Autism Speaks interview that supports the idea that we need to do research on the proposed autism-vaccine connection.

No surprises there.

I was laughing at myself on the way home from work, thinking “Heck, if I were one of the Generation Rescue crowd, I’d be claiming a conspiracy. I’d be saying, ‘looks like Generation Rescue and Autism Speaks and the rest are on a concerted effort to ramp up hype on vaccines”.

But I’m not that paranoid.

Then David Kirby posted to the EOHarm yahoo group about his Huffington Post piece.

He included an email exchange between himself and Peter Bell of Autism Speaks. [edit: Note that Peter Bell is not just anybody at Autism Speaks. He’s Executive Vice President. See the first comment below]

Oops.

Here’s Peter Bell telling David Kirby about the interview

From: Peter Bell [mailto:pbell@…]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:29 PM
To: David Kirby
Subject: NICHD Director Dr. Alexander Discusses the Need for More Research on Environmental Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorders

I think you will find this of interest: http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/nichd_alexander_interview.php

We just posted this on our website.

And David Kirby’s response. He’s going to blog it!

From: David Kirby [mailto:dkirby@…]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:32 PM
To: Peter Bell
Subject: RE: NICHD Director Dr. Alexander Discusses the Need for More Research on Environmental Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorders

Wow!

Amazing

I will write about this – thanks

DK

For some reason, Mr. Bell doesn’t want people to know that he tipped David Kirby off:

—–Original Message—–
From: Peter Bell [mailto:pbell@…]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:03 PM
To: David Kirby
Subject: RE: NICHD Director Dr. Alexander Discusses the Need for More Research on Environmental Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorders

You just happened to find this on our website, right? J

And Mr. Kirby agrees to keep the story…only he didn’t. He forwarded the entire exchange to the EOHarm list.

—–Original Message—–
From: David Kirby [mailto:dkirby@…]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:24 PM
To: ‘Peter Bell’
Subject: RE: NICHD Director Dr. Alexander Discusses the Need for More Research on Environmental Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorders

I go there often, yes!

The piece will be up in minutes

NICE JOB!

dk

Oops. Again.

I don’t really know why Autism Speaks wants to keep their connection with David Kirby a secret. I mean, it’s pretty clear that AS has vaccines as their top priority (they didn’t mention anything else about the IACC’s strategic plan).

OK, I can see why Autism Speaks would want a bit of distance between themselves and David Kirby and Generation Rescue. It can’t help fundraising efforts, for one thing to be “just another anti-vaccine autism organization”.

But one more time: Oops!

Another misinterpreted study. This time they are misusing Israel data

22 Feb

Kent Heckenlively from the Age of Autism blog has recent post up on a study out of Israel on autism. In it, he notes that the “incidence” of autism in Israel actually dropped for a few years

What’s curious, though, is how this population of medical professionals who were supposedly good at identifying and diagnosing autism in 1999, then had a drop of more than 40% by 2002. Did they lose their newly-acquired skills in a sophomore slump? If I’m not mistaken, those were also the years of the vaccine-autism “panic” which began shortly after the publication of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s article in the Lancet, linking the MMR shot and autism. Was there a drop in vaccination rates in Israel after the Wakefield publication? Did vaccination rates then subsequently go up in later years?

Here’s the figure.

Figure 1 from Israel Autism Paper

Figure 1 from Israel Autism Paper

Let’s do this quickly. The interpretation is nonsense. Start from the fact that Google Ph.D.’s seem to rarely check simple facts using google.

Enter “Israel Vaccine Schedule” into google. The top link is a WHO site.

Take a look at how the MCV (Measles Containing Vaccine) coverage has varied with time.

MCV uptake was increasing steadily up until 2003, when it dropped for two years.

Year MCV Uptake Measles cases
1998 97% 8 (Year of Wakefield paper)
1999 97% 14
2000 97% 36 (year “incidence” starts to drop in Israel
2001 96% 19
2002 98% 2
2003 95% 124
2004 84% 116 (year MCV uptake drops)
2005 96% 2
2006 96% 9
2007 96% 539 (measles spike)

Obviously the drop in autism “incidence” in Israel isn’t related to measles vaccines–the drop in uptake happened after the drop in autism “incidence”. Note that I put “incidence” in quotes. The paper isn’t measuring incidence. I’ll get to that later.

In 2007, something else happened. Measles cases spiked. Yep, 3 years after vaccination rates dropped, there’s a big spike in measles. Are they connected? Possibly. I would want to see information like how many of the 539 measles cases were children 4-5 years old, for example.

Other issues with the paper.

1) they don’t give “incidence” or “prevalence”, really. They are giving the number of people who are getting services for autism. Sorta like the California DDS data. Why is this important? We don’t know how easy it is to qualify for services. We also don’t know how hard they are looking for people with autism. It isn’t the same thing as a measure of all the people with autism.

2) Note that 97.5% of the people with autism are Jewish. About 25% of the population in Israel is non Jewish (if Wikipedia is accurate). So, is being Jewish a “risk factor”, or is there an issue with access to services.

3) According to Mr. Heckenlively, the prevalence of Autism in Israel is 1 in 2,400. I guess low prevalence numbers invalidate studies when they are in Denmark, but not when they are in Israel?

By the way, consider that low “incidence” value for Israel. Now look at their vaccine schedule (I am only listing those for very young children)

DTaPHibIPV: 2,4,6,12 months
HepA: 18, 24 months
HepB: Birth, 1, 6 months
MMR: 1 year, 6 years

Hmmm. Remember how Israel has a low autism “incidence”?

Look at that first big combo vaccine–5 vaccines at once. I guess combo vaccines don’t cause autism, eh?

HepB is given at birth. I guess that isn’t a risk factor either, eh?

Separating out the combo vaccines, I count 28 different vaccines given by 24 months in that vaccine schedule. So much for “too much, too soon”, eh?

Of course, this is stretching the Israel data waaaay too far. Of course we can’t say that the Israel data prove that HepB, combo vaccines and too-many-too-soon are not risk factors. Just like we can’t use these data to support Dr. Wakefield’s hypotheses.

I’m glad to see autism studies come out of new countries. Let’s not use data with big limitations to support our preconceived ideas, shall we?

(note, I made corrections shortly after publishing. These did not change the content substantially. I did change the title to clarify that it is not the Israeli researchers who are misinterpreting the data)

Give your ego a rest

17 Feb

hu·bris (hy??’br?s)
n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.

Since the first set of Omnibus decisions have come in we’ve seen demonstration after demonstration of the personal hubris of one person after another from the antivaxosphere. This is not unusual from that camp of course. Who can forget Mark Blaxill’s self-aggrandising pontificationon AoA regarding blogs that don’t agree with him:

Let serious people do serious work.

The implication being of course that what AoA do is ‘serious work’ and the people it calls scientists are ‘serious scientists’.

Trouble is, as has recently been made absolutely crystal clear, the sort of person Mark Blaxill likes to refer to as serious of are _not_ serious scientists at all.

Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science, conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding of ASD

…..

After careful consideration of all of the evidence, it was abundantly clear that petitioners’ theories of causation were speculative and unpersuasive

….

[they have]…been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.

Just in case anyone is in any doubt, those judgements are referring to the people who formulated the ‘science’, practised ‘medicine’ on children and who stood as ‘experts’ in its defence during the Omnibus hearings.

On AoA since the decisions were made the spin has been so furious I’m surprised the planet has orbit has changed direction. Over there I’ve read:

1) ….They really believe that we are a bunch of anti-science, creationist, non-global-warming believing, tin foil hat wearers. Really. It’s just so surprising and disappointing to me that the same people who are so willing to “fight the power” on the political front have absolutely no concept of where the recent science is….

2) …this ruling couldnt be more transparent, its not about the topic or the science, but the word play….

3) ….I’m actually rather appalled at the Special Masters summation of the expert testimony, and the fact that they actually stated the respondents “were better and more qualified” (defamation?)….

4) …While large scale studies have not shown a link between vaccines and autism, there are lingering legitimate questions about the safety of vaccines that must be addressed… (Autism Speaks statement)

5)…I have to think that the reason it took nineteen months for a verdict is that the decision was difficult to conclude. The burden of scientific proof in vaccine court is “more likely than not” that the vaccine caused the child harm. These Special Masters must have wrestled with their verdicts….(TACA statement)

There are so many other examples that I would be here for a long time putting them all down. The JABS loonies attacks on Brian Deer whilst refusing to tackle the content of what he says, Kent Heckenlively’s petulant ranting about the decisions following his gloating predictions on AoA that victory was assured, Melanie Phillips statement that the Omnibus decisions looked ‘pretty thin’ to her – as if she had the intelligence or familiarity with the subject matter to offer a legitimate opinion – I could go on and on.

Here’s the bottom line. The people you rely on for science are not scientists. The people you rely on for medical treatment are cranks. The big organisations you think represent you are useless. A lot of you are individually egotistical fools so convinced you are right that you will twist and spin anything. I have read accusations of conspiracy, comparisons to Hitler and Nazi’s generally – all the usual crap that the antivaxosphere reel out when their bottom lip starts trembling after reality has just kicked their collective arse. I sincerely hope the Special Masters have taken steps to protect themselves and their families.

And heres another thing. All the antivax groups who released statements ‘acknowledged’ the three families. As well they should. These three families were their lab rats. But lets not beat around the bush. These families are going to be pretty much bankrupt as a result of being their labrats.

I’ve estimated that the collective spend of some antivax orgs, based on registered accounts for 2004/05/06 is over US$2M. I’m not sure what exactly thats gone on but I have a suggestion for where the next two mil could go – the Cedillo’s, Snyder’s and Hazlehursts who bankrupted themselves in the name of…well…nothing…

And here’s the last thing for now…I’m fucking furious. Really, really angry. £16M in the UK has been spent defending the MMR/autism shit. Christ knows how much the Omnibus proceedings are costing. For shit science, from shit scientists. For ‘results’ that people have been saying for _years_ are rubbish and mean nothing. You people are actively holding back autism science.

You’ve been proved wrong. Now shut up and get the fuck out the way.

Kirby blows another irony meter

11 Feb

I need to find a source for militaryp-spec irony meters.

David Kirby has posted a piece on the Brian Deer investigation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Here’s the comment that blew the irony meter:

Imagine if a US journalist sued a doctor for libel or misconduct, and then went to the NY Times and asked to be hired as a freelancer to cover the trial that they themselves had instigated in the first place. It wouldn’t happen.

So, David, you wrote “Evidence of Harm”, massively fanning the flames of the mercury causation theory.

You are now blogging on the Age of Autism blog.

Are you paid for that effort?

I haven’t seen a lot of non-vaccine/autism bylines for you in the past few years. So, if AoA is paying you, it would be a sizable fraction of your “journalist” salary.

If so, couldn’t it be well argued that you created your own “journalist” job?

Ironic, eh?

Ah well…as long as we are discussing Mr. Kirby, here is another of his comments:

In his writing, Deer claimed that Wakefield had made up results about severe MMR reactions in the children just days after receiving the shots, had ignored signs of autism in some kids before they received their MMR vaccine, and changed lab reports on the gut biopsies – among other alleged infractions that have been covered in the two year trial in London of Wakefield et al.

The accusations printed in the Sunday Times are, frankly, outlandish. And they are false.

Hmmm, false? Do you have the facts to back that up? Have you seen the medical records that Mr. Deer has reported on? It seems highly unlikely to this observer.

Let’s look at some of Mr. Deer’s claims:

Supposedly, Dr. Wakefield found measles RNA in the guts of his subjects. From Mr. Deer’s report, the father of child 11 from the Lancet study has stated that he had no fewer than 3 separate tests for measles RNA from the same gut biopsies that Wakefield tested. Three negative results.

Dr. Wakefield claimed that the children were developing normally before the MMR. According to the Deer article, another child from the original 12’s story:

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

Dr. Wakefield claimed that the 12 study subjects were presented sequentially to his hospital, indicating that they were randomly selected. And, yet, none of them were in the Royal Free Hospital’s catchment area–or even the greater London area. That’s one fact that doesn’t take access to the GMC’s records. And it demonstrates a clear non-random nature to the subject choice.

How about the report by Dr. Wakefield that the subjects had regressions shortly after their MMR shot? Again, from Mr. Deer’s article:

This was Child Two, an eight-year-old boy from Peter-borough, Cambridgeshire, diagnosed with regressive autism, which, according to the Lancet paper, started “two weeks” after his jab.

However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later.

A pretty major disconnect between Dr. Wakefield’s story and the medical records.

How about the measles-in-the-gut theory? Dr. Chadwick, working in Dr. Wakefield’s own hospital, testified in the Omnibus proceeding that he told Dr. Wakefield pre-publication that the PCR data directly contradicted the results Dr. Wakefield was publishing. Dr. Wakefield knew when he published that there were good data that showed he was incorrect. How did you sweep that under the rug, Mr. Kirby?

Did Dr. Wakefield fabricate results or is there another reason why he got a lot of very important facts wrong? I don’t know, but I do agree with Dr. Fitzpatrick who asked why Dr. Wakefield’s papers have not been retracted. They should be.

(And I thought Dierdre Imus wrote the worst blog post of the day!)

post-publication note: Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick has written an excellent article on Dr. Wakefield’s studies, including the recent information from Mr. Deer.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →