Archive | Age of Autism RSS feed for this section

In support of David Gorski

22 Jun

To whomever it may concern,

You have probably recently had to deal with a handful of vitriolic comments regarding the online activities of David Gorski. You will probably have been pointed to an online essay by a young man called Jake Crosby in which he makes a series of claims regarding David Gorski and his ‘ties’ to vaccines/vaccine manufacturers and other entities.

I urge you to read these comments and this essay very, very carefully. Once you do I am in no doubt that you will see what the rest of us clearly can – that this work is the work of a highly impassioned young man who believes that he is right. He believes that vaccines cause autism to state it clearly and he believes that by having some kind of – any kind of – tie to a pharma organisation means that David Gorski is ‘tainted’. But what really annoys master Crosby is the fact that David Gorski regularly blogs in support of the science that clearly shows vaccines do not cause autism and blogs against the pseudo science that attempts – and continually fails- to draw any kind of a link between vaccines and autism.

So this, in master Crosby’s eyes, is David Gorski’s crime – supporting the science and decrying the bad science.

In order to cast some kind of suspicion over David Gorski’s support of science, Crosby has ‘discovered’ that Gorski is conducting research into ways to reuse some types of drugs – drugs developed by Sanofi-Aventis who of course also manufacture some vaccines. And that, despite another few hundred words from master Crosby is that. That is the sum total of his ‘investigation’ and the sum total of David Gorski’s crime.

The only real eye-opener on this issue is that Jake Crosby managed to wring out as many words as he did on this total non-issue.

I have known David Gorski online for a number of years. We often quote one another and link to one anothers posts. We regularly email each other and I was disappointed to be unable to meet him for drinks on a visit to the UK he took a few years ago. In my experience of the man he is rigorous, almost fanatical with regards to accuracy and brings these traits to many areas of blogging and online writing including the investigation of bad science.

Why does it matter to me? It matters because I have an autistic child and an autistic step child. When my autistic child was first diagnosed I firmly believed that her autism was caused by vaccines. It was only through being exposed to writings of David Gorski and his peers on the science of autism and the bad science of the autism/vaccine connection that I eventually saw for myself what was obvious: vaccines don’t cause autism and never did.

Scientists such as David Gorski often blog and write online anonymously. They do this because to be exposed to the sort of people Jake Crosby colludes with often means being exposed to harassment and threats. David Gorski is now finding that out for himself. I hope that you as his peers, colleagues and employers will see how vital it is that David Gorski continues blogging and that you will support him in both his work and his blogging.

Age of Autism Abandon Pretence part II

16 Jun

A while back Kev wrote a piece, Age of Autism Abandon Pretence, pointing out how they are drifting away from any real connection to the autism communities in favor of attacking the vaccine program. It wasn’t shocking then to anyone who reads the Age of Autism blog. It isn’t shocking now.

In her piece, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein’s New Book Merits Close Attention, Anne Dachel wrote:

These are people I’m in touch with everyday and who’ve written on autism and on vaccines. Some I’ve had on my threads for years. And as someone who’s been active in the national autism community for a long time, I’ve seen tremendous changes. More and more people are speaking out. We are now an organized and united group, thanks mainly to the power of the Internet. Our message has severely eroded confidence in the cornerstone of health care: THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE PROGRAM. (And keep in mind that there are many more experts writing about this, people I’ve never been in contact with, all challenging the unwavering safety claims of our health officials.)

Bold added by me.

Previous comments on the Age of Autism blog include:

With less than a half-dozen full-time activists, annual budgets of six figures or less, and umpteen thousand courageous, undaunted, and selfless volunteer parents, our community, held together with duct tape and bailing wire, is in the early to middle stages of bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees.

True vaccine safety advocates don’t resort to attempts to bring “… the vaccine program to its knees” or eroding “…the cornerstone of health care”.

The American Rally for Personal Rights – bit of a damp squib

27 May

Yesterday was the American Rally for Personal Rights (an anti-vaccine rally) held between 3pm and 5pm in a park in Chicago, US. In attendance was ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield in whose honour the rally was held.

Hoping for thousands, the organisers got what looks like a hundred or so (click for full size).

including one young man (A certain J. Crosby, Age of Autism Editor) who carried the sign ‘Autistics for Wakefield’

I’m not entirely certain who the autistics were. I mean I see Jake but no one else. Also in attendance were Wade Rankin, Erik Nanstiel, Boyd Haley, Bob Krakow and Jim Moody and for ‘name’ anti-vaxxers that was it. No Jenny McCarthy, No Jim Carrey, No Generation Rescue, No Age of Autism bigwigs (aside from young master Crosby of course).

Of course for bloggers such as I, this is a tad disappointing. There’s not really a lot to talk about when nothing much happens, nobody of any consequence shows up and the whole thing resembles a rain-soaked firecracker.

On the bright side, there were The Refusers who I’m pretty sure would’ve been good for a very hearty laugh. Aside from that – nothing really to tell. The sun was out, some anti-vaxxers waved a few signs around and the world collectively yawned.

See ANB’s take on it, he actually attended the rally himself.

Anne Dachel, Age of Autism Editor, makes remarkable claim

27 May

I was browsing the comments section of a seemingly innocuous story about autism – that early intervention might not be the universal panacea once thought – when I came across a comment from Anne Dachel, one of the leading ‘thinkers’ and editors behind the online anti-vaccine blog Age of Autism.

…I think a disorder that was unheard of 25 years ago…

I had to read it a couple of times to make sure I was seeing it right – I was – Anne Dachel believes autism was unheard of prior to 1985.

To say this is a remarkable claim is being overly fair to Dachel. Its one of those claims that is regularly made by the Age of Autism team that leaves one’s jaw on one’s chest with the sheer audacity of either its boldness or stupidity. It reminds one of John Best’s claim that autism was unheard of in China prior to 1999. Another rampant piece of stupidity.

As previously noted, Dachel writes for Age of Autism. I’ll leave you to form your own conclusions as to the accuracy of their blogging based on their Editors own bizarre beliefs about autism.

Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish

17 May

One of the topics that comes up over and over online is “The Amish don’t vaccinate” and “the Amish don’t have autism”. Both statements are incorrect. The Amish have no religious prohibition against vaccination and they do have autism.

The question of autism amongst the Amish has been studied and is being presented at the IMFAR autism conference this week. The paper,
Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish, demonstrates a preliminary prevalence of 1 in 271 as the prevalence of autism amongst Amish children in two Amish communities: Holmes County, Ohio and Elkhart-Lagrange County, Indiana.

J. L. Robinson , Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
L. Nations , Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
N. Suslowitz , Center for Human Genetics Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
M. L. Cuccaro , Human Genetics, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL
J. Haines , Center for Human Genetics Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
M. Pericak-Vance , Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
Background:

The prevalence rate of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) appears to be steadily increasing. The latest report from the Center for Disease Control estimates the rate of ASD is 1 in 91 children (Kogan, 2009), up from 1 in 150 in 2007. Understanding the seeming changes in ASD prevalence require careful exploration of genetic and environmental factors. A method that has proven useful in dissecting the etiology of complex diseases is the study of isolated populations. One population isolate that has been studied extensively is the Amish, with well over 250 genetic studies. Expanding studies of autism to the Amish may provide important information about etiology. A crucial first step in this process is a feasibility study to determine ASD prevalence rates in this population.

Objectives:

This study presents preliminary data on the estimated prevalence of ASD among the Amish in two Amish dominant counties as part of a larger epidemiological study. All children between ages 3 to 21 in those counties will be screened for the presence of an ASD.

Methods:

Screening occurred in, two of the largest Amish communities in the United States. Trained clinicians ascertained door to door using a published Amish Directory as a guide. Families were approached and asked to participate in a brief interview regarding their children. Two primary screening instruments were used: the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) and the DSM-IV-TR Checklist (a tool created by the authors). A Vaccination History and a brief family history including questions specific to the ASD phenotype were also taken. Children screening positive on either the SCQ or DSM-IV-TR Checklist were seen for a more comprehensive clinical evaluation by two licensed psychologists. This evaluation included the Autism Diagnostic Observational Schedule (ADOS) and Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADI).

Results:

From September 2008 to October 2009, 1899 Amish children were screened in the two Amish communities. A total of 25 children screened positive for ASD on either the SCQ or the DSM-IV-TR checklist. A total of 14 screened positive for ASD on both screeners. Of those 25 children, 14 were evaluated and seven children were confirmed as having a diagnosis of ASD using the ADI and/or ADOS, and clinical judgment. Interestingly, four of the seven only met ASD criteria on the ADOS but not the ADI. Three of the four who were not diagnosed by the ADI only missed criteria on the Behavioral Domain, which may be attributable to the reporting style of Amish caregivers.

Conclusions:

Preliminary data have identified the presence of ASD in the Amish community at a rate of approximately 1 in 271 children using standard ASD screening and diagnostic tools although some modifications may be in order. Further studies are underway to address the cultural norms and customs that may be playing a role in the reporting style of caregivers, as observed by the ADI. Accurate determination of the ASD phenotype in the Amish is a first step in the design of genetic studies of ASD in this population.

PBS Frontline: The Vaccine War

16 Apr

I first heard that the show Frontline, from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), would be doing a show on “The Vaccine Wars” by reading comments posted online by supporters of groups like Generation Rescue. I was somewhat taken aback that they were happy to hear this was coming as Frontline is a very evidence-based show. I couldn’t see it being very supportive of Jenny McCarthy.

Frontline’s website had this to say about the show:

Public health scientists and clinicians tout vaccines as one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. But for many ordinary Americans vaccines have become controversial. Young parents are concerned at the sheer number of shots–some 26 inoculations for 14 different diseases by age 6–and follow alternative vaccination schedules advocated by gurus like Dr. Robert Sears. Other parents go further. In communities like Ashland, Oregon, up to one-third of parents are choosing not to vaccinate their kids at all. And some advocacy groups, like Generation Rescue, argue that vaccines are no longer a public health miracle but a scourge; they view vaccines as responsible for alarming rises in certain disorders, including ADHD and autism. This is the vaccine war: On one side sits scientific medicine and the public health establishment; on the other a populist coalition of parents, celebrities (like Jenny McCarthy), politicians and activists. It’s a war that increasingly takes place on the Internet with both sides using the latest social media tools, including Facebook and Twitter, to win the hearts and minds of the public.

I guess I am not on the “latest” social media tools, but I am blogging on the topic so I figure I count as a small part of the “war”.

Reading the above I felt that “The Vaccine Wars” was not going to be the Jenny McCarthy friendly show some were expecting. Being put on the side against “scientific medicine” is usually not a good thing. Also, Generation Rescue tries to pitch itself as being “pro safe vaccine” rather than anti vaccine. I doubt they would like to see themselves as being characterized as arguing “that vaccines are no longer a public health miracle but a scourge”. Then again, times may be changing with the founder of Generation Rescue stating:

With less than a half-dozen full-time activists, annual budgets of six figures or less, and umpteen thousand courageous, undaunted, and selfless volunteer parents, our community, held together with duct tape and bailing wire, is in the early to middle stages of bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees.

That’s hard to fit into a “pro safe vaccine” image.

One way to tell for certain if Generation Rescue and other groups are afraid of upcoming media attention is when they start attacking spokespeople like Paul Offit (chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and co-inventor of the RotaTeq vaccine against rotavirus). When that happened (recent blog posts on the Age of Autism, resurrecting old, incorrect information) I knew it was likely that “The Vaccine Wars” was not going to be a pro-Jenny program.

As it turns out, a video clip has been added to the Frontline website for “The Vaccine Wars”:

And, guess what, Dr. Offit was interviewed by Frontline for the piece.

The show airs on April 27th, and will be available online then as well.

Perhaps it is time for those who support the vaccine-causation idea to re-evaluate their position. I can’t tell how many times I’ve been told I need to be “open minded” about the subject. Open minded includes being willing to admit that your ideas on vaccines-causing-autism were wrong.

Let’s see–

One of the main proponents of the idea, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was found to be unethical and dishonest
The two main theories, really the only two theories, have failed (“not even close”) in the courts
The media is moving away from giving the vaccine-causation idea much weight.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe FrontLine will finally tell the story the vaccine-causation groups believe. Maybe they will uncover the vast conspiracies that are hiding the truth. Maybe. I doubt it.

IACC calls for $175 million in autism and the environment research

5 Feb

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has posted the revised Strategic Plan. I blogged it recently here on LeftBrainRightBrain. I made a note of the large commitment to environmental causation research. I thought it worthwhile to highlight that section, since this is the cause of so much criticism of the IACC.

Strangely, the criticism doesn’t come from those who are supposedly “It’s all genetic” types. No, the “it’s all environmental” groups seem to be very loud in complaining that all the research funding is going into genetics.

The Plan is divided by a number of questions. Research into causation is listed in Question 3: “What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?”

Under that category, there are seven projects on environmental or gene-environment research. Seven out of 10 projects. The estimated budget for all these projects? $175,900,000.

In other words, 70% of the projects and, if I did my math right, nearly 70% of the funding for causation is estimated to be going to environment and gene-environment projects.

This would seem like a great victory for those who have lobbied for more environmental research. I have yet to see anyone from that group even mention the new Strategic Plan, much less the large commitment to environmental research. Where are the statements from SafeMinds (who have a very vocal member who sits on the IACC proper and another who is on a working group)? How about Generation Rescue? The National Autism Association?

In my opinion, these groups really don’t care much about environmental causation unless it is either mercury or vaccines. Hey, I could be wrong. Let’s see if they surprise me with some acknowledgment of this effort by the US Government.

Here are the objectives if you would like to read for yourself.

Short-Term Objectives

1. Coordinate and implement the inclusion of approximately 20,000 subjects for genome-wide association studies, as well as a sample of 1,200 for sequencing studies to examine more than 50 candidate genes by 2011. Studies should investigate factors contributing to phenotypic variation across individuals that share an identified genetic variant and stratify subjects according to behavioral, cognitive, and clinical features. IACC Recommended Budget: $43,700,000 over 4 years.
2. Within the highest priority categories of exposures for ASD, identify and standardize at least three measures for identifying markers of environmental exposure in biospecimens by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $3,500,000 over 3 years.
3. Initiate efforts to expand existing large case-control and other studies to enhance capabilities for targeted gene – environment research by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $27,800,000 over 5 years.
4. Enhance existing case-control studies to enroll racially and ethnically diverse populations affected by ASD by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $3,300,000 over 5 years.
5. New objective
Support at least two studies to determine if there are subpopulations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures (e.g., immune challenges related to infections, vaccinations, or underlying autoimmune problems) by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $8,000,000 over 2 years.
6. New objective
Initiate studies on at least 10 environmental factors identified in the recommendations from the 2007 IOM report “Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research” as potential causes of ASD by 2012. Estimated cost $56,000,000 over 2 years.

Long-Term Objectives

1. Conduct a multi-site study of the subsequent pregnancies of 1,000 women with a child with ASD to assess the impact of environmental factors in a period most relevant to the progression of ASD by 2014. IACC Recommended Budget: $11,100,000 over 5 years.
2. Identify genetic risk factors in at least 50% of people with ASD by 2014. IACC Recommended Budget: $33,900,000 over 6 years.
3. Determine the effect of at least five environmental factors on the risk for subtypes of ASD in the pre- and early postnatal period of development by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $25,100,000 over 7 years.
4. Support ancillary studies within one or more large-scale, population-based surveillance and epidemiological studies, including U.S. populations, to collect data on environmental factors during preconception, and during prenatal and early postnatal development, as well as genetic data, that could be pooled (as needed), to analyze targets for potential gene/environment interactions by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $44,400,000 over 5 years.

Read more: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/iacc-strategic-plan-is-up/#ixzz0edI3Pe8h

With the facts against them Dr. Wakefield’s supporters appeal to emotion

3 Feb

I should stop being shocked and amazed at how little groups like the Age of Autism blog think of their readership. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is pretty clear that they expect us all to just read what they have to say and never go to the original sources and think for ourselves.

Case in point, the GMC hearing on Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield was guilty of ethical violations in the treatment of his disabled patients. Not once, not twice but many many times. But you wouldn’t know that to read some of the reports on the blogs and even a couple in newspapers.

We have the NAA SafeMinds and TACA telling us all about how bad this ruling is. We have been told that there was “false testimony”.

OK, take a look at the actual charges. Just for a moment. Here are a few examples

1) Dr. Wakefield took money from the Legal Aid Board (LAB) for procedures paid by the NHS. He then diverted some of the LAB money to other projects.

2) Dr. Wakefield got ethical permission to do his study in December 1996, only on patients enrolled after that date. However, he had already started research on children. Here are two examples:

Child 2 had an MRI, colonoscopy and lumbar puncture in September of 1996.

Child 1 was also a research subject without ethical approval. Tests were performed which were not in the clinical interests of the child.

3) For people who promote the myth that “the only thing he did was start early”, note that Dr. Wakefield’s team did invasive tests that were not called for. For example:

Child 3 was also a research subject without ethical approval, having started before the approval. He underwent a lumbar puncture even though: “The Panel has taken into account the fact that there is no evidence in Child 3’s clinical notes to indicate that a lumbar puncture was required.”

Was this the result of some “false testimony? According to the GMC ruling, experts on both sides stated that the lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated.

Experts on both sides, Professor Rutter and Dr Thomas both considered that such a test was not clinically indicated.

Dr. Thomas is not accused by the defenders of Wakefield as “giving false testimony”.

The above are only a few of the examples of clear misconduct on the part of Dr. Wakefield.

How many times must a man be found guilty of not doing what was in his patients’ clinical interests before we are allowed to consider him as, well, someone who doesn’t always put his patient’s clinical interests first?

Kim Stagliano has taken to the Huffington Post with “The Censorship of Autism Treatment“. No mention of the actual charges. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield was guilty. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield’s research efforts for the past 12 years have centered on repairing his own damaged reputation, not on autism treatment.

Can you find a single mention of the word “ethics” in her post? How about any comment about the actual charges levied against Dr. Wakefield?

You know you are in trouble just with the title from this story: MMR doc’s just guilty of caring . At least that article makes one clear statement:

It [the GMC ruling] focused on the methods of research used, some of which were undoubtedly questionable, but which were performed in the name of finding solace for desperate parents convinced their children had changed for ever following their one-size-fits-all MMR injection.

Yes, you can be unethical if you are “finding solace for desperate parents”.

A blog post by the National Autism Association stated:

“Many parents of children with autism view the GMC investigation as little more than character assassination of a physician brave enough to investigate controversial issues”

Well, not this parent. Anyone who paints the GMC investigation as “character assassination” didn’t read the ruling. Seriously, trying to dismiss this fact-filled ruling as “character assassination” is just plain bizarre.

another post comments, discussing the work Dr. Wakefield’s team performed on his study subjects:

the procedures involved were routine

and

No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided.

Lumbar punctures are hardly “routine”. Further, there is no reason to do them if not clinically indicated. Colonoscopies are not routine, especially in patients whose symptoms don’t warrant them. Say, as in Child 1.

One child suffered a perforated bowel (in 12 places!). His family won a lawsuit against the Royal Free hospital.

High Court papers alleged that the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’. They also claimed the ‘principal reason’ for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack’s clinical needs.

How does that not count as not “harmed”? Is it because he wasn’t one of the original 12 from the study in The Lancet?

The behavior of the Wakefield supporters is totally predictable. They have no science. They have no first (or second) tier researchers. They rely heavily on Dr. Wakefield. Who else has the perceived stature of Dr. Wakefield for them? When Brian Deer broke the story that Dr. Wakefield may have “fixed” data in his study last year, there was an immediate reaction from the Wakefield supporters: give him faux awards! Make him the keynote speaker at their conventions!

For the past year the message has been “Dr. Wakefield has not been discredited”. They’ve lost that now.

We’ve been warned that they are bringing out their big guns. Yes, David Kirby will blog about this on the Huffington Post. With apologies to Mr. Kirby, but when he’s their “ace in the hole”, you know they don’t have much.

As I finished this, David Kirby came up with his post: “The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing”. Joining in the style of the times, Mr. Kirby also ignores the actual GMC ruling. Nothing that actually defends Dr. Wakefield against the real charges.

Seriously, go read for yourself. It’s David Kirby with his usual talking points and straw men.

I hope David Kirby is wrong. I hope that things have changed. I hope that the future is a world where the loudest voices in the autism communities fight for a better life for autistics, rather than for a political goal of recognition for bad science, badly done.

I hope.

Another hit job from AoA

21 Jan

Vaccine rejectionists have long resorted to insulting and intimidating investigative reporters they can’t fool or charm, but the latest example kicks things up a notch. The fringe anti-science website AgeOfAutism has identified the sister of the Chicago Tribune reporter, in apparent retaliation for a scathing article about diet supplement entrepreneur Prof. Boyd Haley.

The AoA post reports that the sister of Tribune reporter Trine Tsouderos “worked for a company that did multi-center NIH-funded health studies.” An unholy alliance, according to the writer, between the newspaper, the NIH, and other sinister organizations, helps explain “the current Chicago Tribune obsession with autism treatments.” Still not getting the picture? Maybe this will help:

For those who do not know, there are many groups who have been fighting hard to suppress the fact that vaccines can cause autism.  They are people in the media, in public health, in medical organizations, in vaccine development and patents, in universities with autism gene chasing grants, in the public sector (NIH, CDC, AAP, et al) in the private sector, (pharmaceutical companies) and many in between.

Triple bank shot conspiracies are nothing new to the anti-vaccine crowd, and rejectionists have never been shy about naming names. What’s relatively new, and of no small concern to journalists, is the targeting of non-public inviduals – science writers and news reporters – and the unfounded allegations of corruption and professional malfeasance.

Alienating editors and reporters is an odd tactic for a special interest group that is paranoid about how it is portrayed in the nation’s media. Odder still when the group’s mission includes exposing children to dangerous infectious diseases – doesn’t it seem these people would want allies in the media? But here is AoA attacking veteran New York Times science writer Don McNeil in December, 2008, over a book review that was published a month later. The title of the post was Some New York Times Reporters are Just Ignorant:

He’s simply ignorant of this topic, and his preconceived notion that he understands what’s going on leads him down a certain path of who to trust and what to write. Did I succeed in changing his understanding? I doubt it. Expect a glowing review on False Prophets soon.

The same post refers to another science writer at the Grey Lady, Gardiner Harris, as “unquestionably the biggest jackass I have ever encountered.”

Vaccine rejectionists have dished out similar abuse to freelance writer Amy Wallace, and MSNBC medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman.

Why do anti-vaccine activists resort to attacking reporters?  Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who operates quackwatch.org, says, “I can’t speculate about motivation, but I can tell you that critics of  health misinformation and quackery are typically accused of being biased, close-minded, and/or having an economic motive.”

Time is running out for vaccine rejectionism, as the evidence, already plentiful, further mounts against a link between vaccines and autism. As more and more reporters get the story right, rejectionists are sure to step up their campaign of intimidation and innuendo.

Autism Epidemic Talk

20 Jan

A couple of slap dash blog pieces appeared today both on the same subject – the so called autism epidemic. First off is Harold who writes about a series of interviews with David Kirby. David says:

<blockquote>It’s crazy that in this debate, we’re still debating whether autism numbers are actually going up or not, which is insanity to me. It’s people desperately clinging to this belief that autism is genetic, that it’s always been with us at this rate, that we’re just better at counting it, better at diagnosing it.</blockquote>

Harold claims David has ‘hit the nail on the head’ with this quote. I disagree with Harold and I disagree with David. Its far from insanity to examine a perfectly valid hypothesis. More later.

Anne Dachel at the Age of Autism writes :

<blockquote>Why do I personally know so many young people with severe autism, whose symptoms can’t be ignored?  How could we have just ignored these people in the past?  Where are those misdiagnosed adults with classic autism—those with the same symptoms we see in so many children today?

I’m not talking about [Kristina] Chew’s autistic neighbor who was able to have a conversation with her, or [Paul] Offit’s people who are kind of ‘quirky.’  I mean adults who can’t talk, those in diapers, people who scream for hours and pound hours in walls and who constantly rock back and forth.</blockquote>

Dachel goes on to list several news reports which question the idea of there not being some kind of an epidemic. I disagree with her view and I disagree with the way she has reached her view.

Both Dachel and Harold (and David Kirby come to that) are claiming that epidemiology can be ursurped by individual experience – Dachel’s individual experience with ‘so many young people’ and David’s individual experience with the idea that people are desperately clinging on to some sort of belief in a genetic form of autism.

Now, casting aside the fact that the some of the forms of autism that we know about (Rett Syndrome etc) _are_ solely genetic we have to – as we do with _all_ forms of science, cast aside personal anecdote when making sweeping statements about a very large group of people. What we need to do instead is look at the science. So what does the science say?

Nothing. As far as I can see no firm case has been made that there either is or is not an autism epidemic. Why? Because the science hasn’t been done. It is maybe worth noting that it is the firm opinion of autism experts that a large part of any possible rise is due to:

a) Better diagnostic tools

b) More places at which to recieve a diagnosis

c) More awareness amongst clinicians of autism

d) Earlier diagnosis

e) Diagnostic substitution

f) Widening of diagnostic criteria

Experts such as Eric Fombonne, Roy Richard Grinker and Simon Baron-Cohen have all spoken about these ideas at length. However, that doesn’t make them right. There still seems to be no hard and fast science that says there is an autism epidemic or not.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →