Archive | Age of Autism RSS feed for this section

Asperger Syndrome is not a disability, just ask Lenny Schafer

6 Aug

Lenny Schafer wrote one of the most insulting comments I have seen on the Age of Autism blog in a long time. This is actually old news–the comment was made on Luly 13th. I missed the comment, but how did I miss that it was, no kidding, picked as an award winning “comment of the week” by the “editors” of the Age of Autism blog.

If you didn’t see it, here is Mr. Shafers, award winning comment from the Age of Autism blog:

“Disability” is not a literary term open to subjective interpretation. It is a forensic, legal term defined in documents like the DSM-IV for the parsing of government entitlements and insurance compensations. Asperger Syndrome is not defined as a disability. Those with Aspergers do not get Social Security Disability benefits. They are not entitled to most state entitlement disability programs and are not qualified to park in disabled parking zones. Those with Aspergers ARE disadvantaged and deserve support and our advocacy for them, but not at the same levels for the disabled. Let us stop interchanging the term “disability” with “disadvantage”.

Also, the term “high functioning autism” is a street jargon misnomer and has no clinical definition, despite it widening use. It is a term that also trivializes autism. It is oxymoronic. Autism is defined by disability, lack of function. Is there such a thing as high-sighted blindness? Or high-hearing deafness? Perhaps “HighER Function Autism” might make more sense because it is not self-contradictory. (We then wouldn’t need the redundant “Low Functioning Autism” label either.)

The whole autism spectrum labeling is a mistake, in any event, for a number of reasons I won’t go into here. However, we are stuck with it. Let’s get clear on related word meanings. Lack of good communication skills is a definite disadvantage, but not necessarily a disability.

And let us hope that the upcoming DSM-V gets clearer about defining autism only as a disability — and kicks the high functioning ND autism squatters onto the personality disorder spectrum where they belong.

There is so much that can be said, point by point, in response to Mr. Schafer’s comment. But my guess is that most readers of this blog need no commentary to realize what a grossly insulting statement Mr. Schafer made.

What boggles the mind even further is that this was a comment to Mr. Jake Crosby’s piece, “Autism, Asperger’s: Who is Truly Disabled?“, a piece all about how Asperger syndrome truly is a disability. Mr. Crosby’s concluding statement in that piece was:

Unfortunately, that is what’s happening, but as a person with Asperger’s I can tell you that I am truly disabled, albeit much more mildly than others with autism.

While we have disagreed on some points, Mr. Crosby and I have been having a good discussion in the comments of this blog. I believe we both agree that Asperger Syndrome is a genuine disability. I couldn’t see him agreeing with Mr. Shafer’s comments, so I went digging to see what comments Mr. Crosby made.

Here are two comments by Mr. Crosby in response as posted to AoA:

I’m a contributing editor to this site, but played no role in Lenny Schafer winning the “comment of the week.” His comment isn’t just grossly offensive to parents of those on the higher end of the spectrum, but also to those of us ON the higher end of the spectrum.

and

Schafer’s post is wrong on so many levels. It is the comment of the week alright, the worst comment of the week.

I almost didn’t post Mr. Crosby’s comments. I didn’t want to go for the easy, “look there’s dissension in the ranks at AoA” message. As I said above, Mr. Crosby and I don’t see eye-to-eye on all subjects. But I can still recognize and respect the courage it took to speak out like that. Mostly, it is worth noting that Mr. Crosby doesn’t share Mr. Shafer’s opinion.

The Age of Autism has officially closed comments to Mr. Crosby’s piece and to the “commenter of the week” post.

I’d love to see the comments they deleted.

Congress says no to misleading autism information

16 Jul

Last year Mr. Mark Blaxill and Mr. David Kirby were given the privilege to misinform members of the U.S. government and their aids. Besides the fact that Mr. Blaxill has yet to retract his position (and pseudo-papers) claiming that autism is mercury poisoning, and the mish-mash that Mr. Kirby makes of science, there is the curious incident of the misquoted quote. Mr. Kirby made a serious error in his talk, misquoting a statement by the NIH, and was caught by a congressional staffer (an M.D. who was obviously well prepared).

It isn’t like this sort of inaccuracy was something new. Mr. Kirby was having a lot of difficulty with accuracy about this subject around that time. Epiwonk discussed in great detail how serious Mr. Kirby’s misinterpretations are here and here.

I don’t really understand Mr. Kirby sometimes. Epiwonk’s first blog post caused Mr. Kirby to admit he made a mistake and “pull” his blog post. Mr. Kirby posted a second, with this statement:

NOTE: My original post on this topic mischaracterized the 2003 CDC vaccine investigation as an “Ecological Study,” which it was not. I am reposting this piece to reflect that information accurately, but also to point out that many of the weaknesses identified in the CDC’s data and methods apply to the published 2003 “retrospective cohort” study, as much as they do to any future “ecological” ones. I regret and apologize for the error.

He apologizes for the error. He removed the direct link to the post from his main webpage. But, did he pull the blog post which even he declares was “in error”? Nope. It is still on the Huffington Post for all to see. Hence my quotes in the phrase “pull” his blog post.

What about the misquote in Mr. Kirby’s lecture? Well, last I checked it was still in the power point presentation he has on his website. No comment, no correction.

I’m sure Mr. Kirby is planning on being more careful this year. This year? Yes, he and Mr. Blaxill are being hosted to give another briefing to congress.

Last year, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill packed a small room. This year, they seem to be struggling to get people to fill even that small space. How do I know? Well, the good people at the Age of Autism blog have supplied us with a list of the people in the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E) who will be attending, and who attended last year but not this year.

Want to run some stats? My unofficial and highly unscientific accounting based on the information on the Age of Autism blog:

C.A.R.E. has 11 offices attending who saw the briefing in 2008 returning in 2009.

However, C.A.R.E also has 26 offices declining the opportunity to observe Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill for a second time. (including, oddly enough, Dan Burton)

Yep, you read that right. 70% of the C.A.R.E. offices who heard the briefing last year have decided to give it a pass this year. I actually doubt it is because Mr. Kirby was caught in a fabricated quote last year. My guess is that it’s just because Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill basically had little accurate information of value to say last year, and little different to say this year.

Continuing with the stats:

C.A.R.E. has 8 offices attending for the first time in 2009.

C.A.R.E. also has 110 offices who did not attend in 2008 and are not attending now.

Summarizing these numbers, we see that, by far, most of C.A.R.E is not attending. ( I count 17 offices attending out of 153. Or, 89% are not attending).

Again, I don’t think it is because of Mr. Kirby’s lapse. The lack of a clear, scientifically sound message is much more likely the reason. Congress heard what Mr. Kirby and Mr. Blaxill have to say and there is no point in hearing it again.

Last year’s congressional briefing was the subject of three blog posts here:

Vaccines on the Hill. Vaccines on the Hill II. Vaccines on the Hill III.

Brian Deer talks back to Andrew Wakefield

7 Jul

I was copied in to the following:

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:12:00 +0100
To: “Joanna Bower”
From: Brian Deer
Cc: Thoughtful House

Ms Joanne Bower,
RadcliffesLeBrasseur LLP

Dear Ms Bower,

Your client, Dr Andrew Wakefield, has published, and caused to be published, on his website, thoughtfulhouse.org, and on other sites, false claims that the Press Complaints Commission has issued an “interim order” concerning my investigation into his conduct. Dr Wakefield claims that The Sunday Times has been ordered by the PCC to remove my stories about him from its website.

I understand that the PCC has written to your client to point out that these claims are untrue. In fact, all of my stories concerning him are available at the Times Online website.

thoughtfulhouse.org is unquestionably controlled by Dr Wakefield, and his publication there has caused similar untruths to be published on websites either directly controlled for his interests, such as cryshame.org, which, as you may know was set up by Mrs Isabella Thomas, the parent of two of the children anonymised in the now-infamous Lancet MMR paper, or indirectly controlled for his interests, such as ageofautism.com, operated to promote and profit from concern over children’s vaccines.

It is, of course, nothing new for Dr Wakefield to mislead the public, and especially the parents of autistic children. He has faced the longest ever proceedings before a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel, following the GMC’s reinvestigation of my journalism. In due course, I’d expect he will face a hearing of the PCC, covering much of the same ground on a significantly different evidential base.

However, you may feel it advisable to explain to your client that either he accepts the untruth of his latest claims and takes them down, or he maintains them in publication, in which case his conduct would not merely be wrong, but would be dishonest.

With best wishes,

Brian Deer

http://briandeer.com

Jake Crosby’s great big straw man

10 Jun

I’ve said it before—a blogger could spend his entire online time debunking blog posts from the Age of Autism. Between the pseudoscience and the bad policy promoted on that site, it is draining to just read it on a regular basis, much less respond. A few weeks ago a particularly bad post came through and I wanted to respond but, frankly, I just didn’t have time. The post was by Jake Crosby about a (then) upcoming article in Newsweek about Ari Ne’eman.

It is no secret to people who read this blog that I admire Mr. Ne’eman. A rough analogy is that Ari Ne’eman is to autism advocacy what David Mandell is (in my mind) to autism science: a person who is asking the right questions and staying above the vaccine debates. Mr. Ne’eman founded the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN).

It really is worth taking a few minutes to read the Newsweek article. I read it online, read Kev’s blog post, and then stumbled upon it in my doctor’s office last Friday.

Erasing Autism

Scientists are closing in on the genes linked to autism. So why is Ari Ne’eman so worried?

Since I am discussing Mr. Crosby’s blog post, you should read that as well. The history leading to that post is somewhat sad. A reliable source I know says that prior to the publication of the Newsweek article, Stephen Shore leaked the information. This led to a blog post by John Best, including death threats. Jake Crosby at the Age of Autism decided to blog his own misconceptions about it. Here’s one bit of advice for Mr. Crosby: when you are pickup up stories from John Best, fired Generation Rescue “Rescue Angel”, you are putting yourself in really bad company**. I am sure Mr. Shore did not intend to precipitate a blog post by John Best. At the same time, I hope Mr. Shore is somewhat chagrined to realize that this happened.

Mr. Crosby’s blog piece had a fairly simple theme: “don’t publish the Ari Ne’eman article; interview me instead”. Or, failing that, “Give me equal time”. We all knew (and I assume Mr. Crosby is intelligent enough to know as well) that his was an empty commentary: the article was already in press. There was no way to either pull it or to add Mr. Crosby’s comments*. But, it makes good blog fodder and may get Mr. Crosby’s foot in the door for future articles by Newsweek. Somehow I doubt Newsweek is impressed by strawman arguments, but, who knows, Mr. Crosby might appear on their radar now.

Let’s do what Mr. Crosby didn’t do. Let’s really look at what is being said and done by Mr. Crosby, Mr. Ne’eman, ASAN, Newsweek…you know, let’s discuss some facts.

Mr. Crosby has taken on one of the Age of Autism’s favorite tactics: the “straw man argument”. He pretends that Ari Ne’eman promotes the idea that autism is not a disability. There is a common tactic amongst those who dislike Neurodiversity: try to define it to be something it isn’t. I understand the motivation: it is really hard to go out in public as an autistic or the parent of an autistic and say “I am against a movement that thinks autistics deserve civil rights”. But, they people try this argument all the time. Case in point, Mr. Crosby’s blog post:

Neurodiversity is an ideology supported primarily by some autistic individuals and parents who do not believe that autism is a disability, and opposes any potential cure.

The statement was clearly false when Mr. Crosby wrote it. Mr. Ne’eman clearly considers autism to be a disability. I hope that Mr. Crosby was duly embarrassed when the Newsweek article was published, including a simple statement outlining Mr. Ne’eman’s position on the autism spectrum:

It’s a disability, yes, but it’s also a different way of being, and “neurodiversity” should be accepted by society. Autistic people (he prefers this wording to “people with autism,” a term many parents use, because he considers the condition intrinsic to a person’s makeup) must be accommodated in the classroom and workplace and helped to live independently as adults—and he is pushing to make this happen for everyone on the spectrum. They should also be listened to.

See what I mean? I find it amazing that a person with an ASD like Mr. Crosby could be against accommodations, independent living, and acceptance as people. So, rather than address this issue head on, he builds his straw man.

The real argument, we all know, is about the “cure” question. Mr. Ne’eman believes that Autistics should be allowed to say, “I don’t want a cure” and “please respect me as for who I am: autistic.” For those using pity politics to promote a cure agenda, people like Mr. Ne’eman are very tough obstacle to overcome. Case in point, a quote from the Newsweek article:

“There’s a misperception that autism is some thief in the night that takes a normal child and places an autistic child in its place,” he says. “That’s not true.”

Mr. Crosby has cast his lot with the pity-politics groups represented at the Age of Autism blog. That’s fine, it is his right. He is even within his rights to misrepresent other people and organizations in order to further his own ideology. I don’t think it is a good idea, or that it makes sense, but it is his right.

Mr. Crosby makes a number of completely unsupported assertions.

Yet, it appears there has been a mainstream media blackout on those of us within the community who publicly disagree with that point of view.

When I first read “Media blackout” all I could think was: do a Google news search for Jenny McCarthy and for Ari Ne’eman and get back to me on that one, would you Mr. Crosby? But, Mr. Crosby is lamenting the fact that autistic voices that dissent with Mr. Ne’eman are not heard. Well, perhaps that would change if, say, Generation Rescue or any of the other organizations who sponsor Mr. Crosby’s blog writing would put autistic people in prominent positions? Isn’t it ironic that this is exactly the sort of thing ASAN is promoting? Nothing about us without us. If Generation Rescue would listen to ASAN, perhaps Jake Crosby would have his platform. Instead, he supports groups that have no autistic representation.

Mr. Crosby uses another common Age of Autism tactic: use every chance possible to promote the “epidemic”. He argues against the “epidemic denialists” who don’t agree with the mercury-autism hypothesis. One thing I admire about Mr. Ne’eman is that he doesn’t spend much (if any) time on the “epidemic” and, instead, fights for the rights of people with disabilities.

Jake Crosby has to dig deep in order to find reasons to criticize Ari Ne’eman. Case in point, from a second blog piece by Mr. Crosby:

Then the Ari Ne’eman piece ran online a week later and then in the May 25th issue, where he professed his anti-cure views while expressing an unfounded fear of the unproven idea that autism can be prevented through eugenics.

Mr. Crosby plainly gets it wrong. The argument isn’t that autism can be prevented through eugenics. The argument is that with a good genetic test, one might in the future prevent autism through eugenics.

If one can find anything amusing about eugenics discussions, it might be this: Jake Crosby disagrees with JB Handley…and JB Handley agrees with Ari Ne’eman. You see, JB Handley has also raised the worry about genetic testing leading to a form of eugenics in a piece Autism Speaks: The Abortion Industry’s Best Friend.

Mr. Crosby closed his first blog post with this lament:

Unfortunately, I have not been as active as I would have liked since I am in college and just declared my major in history

Let me just point a few things out to Mr. Crosby: While an undergraduate, Ari Ne’eman has founded ASAN, worked in numerous states on bullying issues, special education reform, assisted living supports, issues for adults with autism and he was instrumental in getting the “Ransom Notes” ad campaign pulled. Mr. Ne’eman works with other disability groups to give advice to the federal government at high levels.

I don’t think he got where he is by making obvious staw man arguments about people he disagrees with.

Perhaps that is why Newsweek wants to talk to Ari Ne’eman and people like Mr. Crosby and myself are just blogging.

*Mr. Crosby has noted that he did not know that it would be difficult or impossible to pull or change an existing story. He also did not know beyond a vague “couple of weeks” how soon the article would be published.

**Mr Crosby states that his information did not come through John Best. I take him at his word and appreciate the fact that he doesn’t want to be associated with Mr. Best.

Autism Minnesota Somali community see through anti-vaccine brigade

29 May

In November last year, David Kirby wrote a Huffington Post entry about the Minnesota Somali autism situation saying:

In fact, one of the most obvious “environmental” differences between Minnesota and Somalia is mass vaccination…

And of course, the Age of Autism site, made many proclamations about the Somali community and vaccines:

Somali parents, I offer this advice as the father of a son with autism. Like many of you, I watched my normal son descend into autism after receiving his vaccines. I genuinely believe too many vaccines given too soon in our children’s lives is the primary trigger for the autism epidemic

However it seems that maybe the Minnesotan Somali autism population have done their own reading and come to their own conclusions.

The Somali American Autism Foundation is a new-ish Foundation. The domain name was created in Feb 2009 for example. Pretty much in the middle of the period that the Age of Autism crew were waxing lyrical about standing shoulder to shoulder with their Somalian friends in the battle against vaccines.

One of the founders of the SAAF, Idil Abdull, has this to say:

When my son Abdullahi was first diagnosed with autism at age three, I felt angry, sad and confused because I have never heard of the word Autism before. I had no idea what to do next and how to help my son. A mother’s job is to help her child with whatever life throws at them, but when the doctor told me there is no known cause and cure for autism, I felt helpless and hopeless.

I remember crying for what seemed forever. After I realized to be thankful that god blessed me with a beautiful son, I saw the hope in him and the help he needed from his mother. I rolled up my sleeves and went to work by reading every autism book I could find and going online for any help to give my son the hope he and countless others need and deserve. I would not change a thing about my son Abdullahi. He is a happy and loving child and I thank god everyday for him. There is HELP and There is HOPE not just for my son but for all of our children.

Now thats a pretty fantastic, positive and…yep, neurodiverse, type of message don’t you think?

But there’s more.

The SAAF website carries a detailed explanation of what a vaccine is and how they were first started. It takes away a lot of the negative mystery and states:

There is a strong minority of people who believe that the increasing rates of autism and learning disabilities in the U.S. are related to its mandatory immunization program. There is still no credible evidence of a correlation between autism and vaccinations. This position is supported by the World Health Organization, the CDC, The AMA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

They then recommend that a parent talk to their physician. What simple, credible and good advice.

I’d like to welcome The SAAF to the growing community of autism organisations that are clearly fed up with a constant preoccupation with a disproven hypothesis. Maybe it would be a good idea for SAAF and the newly created Autism Science Foundation to talk together.

Circling the Wagons

29 May

The alternative medicine community is certainly loyal to their own. This seems especially true in the world of Autism where no idea is ever abandoned, no practitioner ever criticized.

After the Chicago Tribune published articles on the Geiers (and here), as well as Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, it was a forgone conclusion that the community would close ranks.

These articles were published right before the AutismOne conference–which chose to honor Andrew Wakefield after news was released that he may have altered his data. See what I mean? No quicker way to be a hero than to have really the skeletons in your closet made public.

The most basic response was from Kim Stagliano, who let this tweet on Twitter:

From Kim: Chicago Trib is close to dead. Suddenly launches full frontal attack on autism during Autism One. AAP in backyard. They hear us.

Yes, the Tribune is bad and in the pockets of the AAP and the AAP are evil. Please.

Dan Olmsted came out rather quickly with a piece in the Age of Autism blog in defense of the Geiers and Dr. Eisenstein. Later, Anne Dachel did another piece.

Both use a simple contrivance: avoid the real questions raised by the article. Instead, write about “what the Tribune story should have included”. This is especially true of Anne Dachel, who went on and on over pretty much all the media talking points of the vaccines-cause-autism movement.

For example, both Mr. Olmsted and Ms. Dachel thought the Tribune should have discussed Dr. Bernadine Healy. The connection to the story? None. But, Dr. Healy is vitally important to the story Olmsted and Dachel want to tell. See what I mean?

Dan Olmsted’s method sidestepping of the real questions was rather poorly done. In his piece, he writes:

The article lumps Lupron — about which I know nothing, and have no opinion — in with alternative approaches like diet, about which I do know something, and do have an opinion.

Frankly, I found this a ridiculous statement. Dan Olmsted was attending the AutismOne conference–a conference which for years has hosted talks by Mark Geier on Lupron and which Dan Olmsted has attended for years. I guess he missed the Geier talks?

It isn’t as though Mr. Olmsted isn’t able to form an opinion on scant data. Mr. Olmsted has shown a particular interest in Kathleen Seidel–to the point where Mr. Olmsted “diagnosed” her kid with mercury poisoning based on a paragraph in the book Autism’s False Prophets. From only a snippet (wrongly interpreted by Mr. Olmsted) about one of Ms. Seidel’s previous jobs, Mr. Olmsted claimed that she had high levels of mercury, and further stated:

Laugh me off if you want, but I have spent a lot of time looking for plausible links between parents’ occupations and autism in their children, and I know them when I see them.

So, he’s willing to go out on a limb based on a few words in a book, but, say, the page after page that Ms. Seidel wrote about the Geiers and Lupron (e.g. here, here and here) left no impression?

Sorry, Mr. Olmsted. I know ’em when I see ’em too. I see you dodging really tough questions about the Geiers in an effort to protect one of the big names in autism psuedoscience.

To further point out how silly the “about which I know nothing, and have no opinion”, one of the readers of that blog piece pointed out:

Dan, last year AoA published a post from Kent Heckenlively entitled “MERCURY, TESTOSTERONE AND AUTISM – A REALLY BIG IDEA!” In the comments, you said that you had gone to the Geiers’ house and witnessed a child receive a Lupron injection and improve immediately. You “just had to put this on the record,” you said.

I take the fact that Mr. Olmsted has gone from Lupron shill to even this weak distancing himself from Lupron (“I know nothing”) as a good sign. Even Dan Olmsted must be seeing the cracks in the Lupron Logic.

Ms. Dachel does her own “two step” around the question of her real opinion on Lupron.

Let me say that I’m not an expert on any of the medical aspects of this; I’m merely an observer. So here’s what I’m seeing.

Since when does not being an expert on the medical aspects stopped anyone at the Age of Autism blog from making very clear opinionated statements?

But, again, I take the clear signal that she is willing to distance herself from Lupron as a small, but positive sign.

So, let me use their contrivance–let me list what Mr. Olmsted and Ms. Dachel should have written about in their blog pieces. Let me list many of the real questions raised by the articles in the Tribune. As you read this list, it will become obvious why the Olmsted/Dachel tag-team avoided these questions: these are serious questions about people possibly harming children with autism and Dan Olmsted and Anne Dachel don’t have answers to these questions.

At least, they don’t have answers which would satisfy their readership.

Here is the list of questions I had after reading the Tribune articles:

1) Are parents still being sold the idea that Lupron will help remove mercury from their autistic children?

2) Are parents still being told that mercury causes autism? (OK, we all know the answer to that one. The answer is yes. No amount of data will convince Mr. Olmsted.)

3) Are the diagnoses of “precocious puberty” valid? Would a real pediatric endocrinologist agree with the Geier’s assessments? From the Tribune, quoting an actual expert in precocious puberty:

None of the data verify or even suggest that any of these patients have precocious puberty.

4) What is the purpose of all the extra lab tests the Geiers are performing? Are they for the Geiers’ research? If so, why should the parents (or their insurance) foot the bill?

5) Why do the Geiers use 10 times the normal dosage of Lupron?

5) Is Lupron being used as a chemical restraint?

6) Does Lupron even work well enough to warrant its use? Given that Dr. Eisenstein is reported to be close to dropping Lupron, it clearly isn’t a “miracle drug”.

7) what are the side effects of extended use of Lupron. Especially, what are the side effects of wrongly delaying puberty? According to the Tribune story:

Experts in childhood hormones warn that Lupron can disrupt normal development, interfering with natural puberty and potentially putting children’s hearts and bones at risk.

8) Why don’t the Geiers recommend patients to see board certified pediatric endocrinologists?

9) If precocious puberty is so prevalent amongst children with autism, why don’t pediatric endocrinologists see it? According to the Geiers:

Mark Geier responded that these are “opinions by people who don’t know what they are talking about,” saying the pediatric endocrinologists interviewed by the Tribune don’t treat autistic children and have not tried the Lupron treatment.

10) What about older kids the Geiers are treating? Are they being correctly diagnosed? From the Tribune story:

David Geier said his father diagnoses high-testosterone teens not with precocious puberty, but with another very rare condition: testicular hyperfunction.

How does “testicular hyperfunction” explain the older girls the Geiers have treated?

11) The effects of Lupron on sex hormones are temporary. Stop the shots, the hormones return. The loss of the beneficial effects of puberty are permanent. Does the trade off make sense?

And that is just the list of questions based on the article on the Geiers. Then there is the story about Dr. Eisenstein. This too raises a number of tricky questions.

1) Is Dr. Eisenstein a credible resource for information? After reading the article, one has to question that.

2) Would people like Anne Dachel, Kim Stagliano and Dan Olmsted recommend people see a physician whose malpractice insurance may be “phony”?

In court records dating back three decades, the families of dead and brain-damaged children repeatedly alleged that doctors who work for Eisenstein made harmful mistakes — sometimes the same error more than once. His practice also has been dogged by accusations in court records that its offshore malpractice policy was phony.

3) Would Is Dr. Eisenstein’s record of selling “illegal” health insurance troublesome?

He also dabbled in group health plan sales to Illinois families but tangled with state insurance regulators in the mid- to late 1990s. Regulators warned consumers in a newsletter that Eisenstein “continued to illegally market” the Homefirst Health Plan, based in the British Virgin Islands, even after they told him the plan was ineligible. Despite this, he continued selling the plan, records show, and they ordered him to “cease and desist.”

4) Dr. Eisenstein seems to be good at blameshifting. In this case he accuses the parents of making a mistake that appears to be clearly that of his colleague at HomeFirst. Is this the sort of doctor parents of autistic kids should be seeing?

A Homefirst doctor took a sample of blood from Na’eem’s umbilical cord that could have been used to diagnose the problem and could have led to prompt treatment, according to court testimony. But instead of dropping off the sample at the lab, the doctor said under oath, he was tired, went home and put the sample in his refrigerator, where it sat the whole weekend.

In an interview, Eisenstein blamed the parents for not taking the baby to the emergency room for a blood test. Na’eem’s parents testified that no one from Homefirst ever told them to go to the emergency room.

5) Dr. Eisenstein appears to make some rather questionable decisions about insuring his own practice. Also, it appears from this quote that perhaps he has gone without malpractice insurance. Again, is this the sort of doctor parents of autistic children should be using?

After Nathan Howey’s death, Weiss Hospital sued Homefirst, Rosi and Eisenstein for fraud, alleging they misrepresented their Caribbean-based malpractice policy. Eisenstein testified that he was in St. Kitts helping one of his daughters, a veterinary student there, buy a condo when the lawyer who helped arrange the sale told Eisenstein he also sold malpractice insurance.

“I was tickled pink to get insurance,” he said under oath.

A Cook County judge called it an “improperly underwritten insurance plan.” Eisenstein, who says the policy is legitimate, agreed to pay Weiss $50,000 after mediation.

6) Dr. Eisenstein appears to have inflated his credentials:

Eisenstein said under oath that he was a faculty member at the Hinsdale Hospital Family Practice Residency Program from 1992 to 2003. A hospital administrator testified that Eisenstein “never was” a faculty member. In a recent interview, Eisenstein said that while he wasn’t a faculty member there, he did teach students from that program and kept snapshots of them.

(anyone else reminded of Vera Byers, witness for the petitioners in the Omnibus, who claimed to be faculty at UCSF? In reality, she used the library and attended parties there.)

7) Lastly, is this the type of doctor we should be taking our kids to?

Reflecting on the $1.275 million malpractice settlement, he appeared unshaken.

“It’s the cost,” he said, “of doing business.”

I’m sure the parents were glad to hear that their kid’s life was “the cost of doing business”.

There are a lot of questions raised by these stories. Hard questions. Questions Mr. Olmsted, Ms. Dachel and Ms. Stagliano should answer if they want to really serve their readership.

What do corrupt politicians tell us about autism policies in the UK?

26 May

One strand of thinking in those who promote the autism-MMR vaccine hoax in the UK is that the political system is corrupt. At the worst level this leads to conspiratorial thinking, as in this statement from an Independent leader from February 24th 2004:

Are we wrong to detect the distant whirr of the same spin spin machine that so recently set about destroying the reputations of David Kelly, Andrew Gilligan and others?

John Stone, an active JABS (the UK’s leading anti-vaccine site) activist who now writes for Age of Autism, recently posted a call to arms by Alison Edwards on the MPs’ expenses controversy. Her post reminds us that much of the controversy about MMR vaccine is possibly displacement activity after struggles to obtain help and support. After a go at MPs’ expenses, she draws her inspiration from her son.

My son is my inspiration, he has no idea of the anger I harbour at what I have been forced to endure since the day his MMR left him unable to control his bowels. Not to mention the other battles for services and therapies, the list of refusals is a familiar one to anyone caring for an autistic or disabled child. All we can do it watch as our young morph into adults before our eyes. Yet our claims to assist the most vulnerable with their most basic needs, go unheard.

WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Being angry about MPs expenses is a reasonable position, but there are many other issues others have been fighting for, and they should feel equally aggrieved. Think of any lobby group, and you can probably come up with a reasonable view that more attention should have been paid to it, than were paid to the acquisition of LCD TVs, the cleaning of moats, and other such pathetic squandering of taxpayers’ money.

The corruption is spread throughout the parties, and throughout MPs of all views within them. For example, Julie Kirkbride is a UK MP who has expressed views on MMR vaccine, to the detriment of an autism campaign launch; a microcosm of the general effect the MMR-vaccine-autism hoax has had on autism awareness in the UK:

she had chosen the same day to hold her own conference at Westminster to highlight alleged links between autism and the controversial MMR vaccine.

“I am furious that a conference that could have been held yesterday or could have been held tomorrow is being held on the day that we are actually trying to focus, for once, on the needs of autistic people instead of this debate over MMR,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“This is the first major conference of autism awareness year. It has been organised for months. To detract attention from it today of all days is, I think, pretty silly.”

Julie Kirkbride is now under intense pressure over expenses. Does this have any bearing on her position on MMR vaccine? Not all all.

The expenses saga may remind us of the sense of entitlement of UK MPs and their failure to police their own behaviour, but it tells us nothing about public policy on autism or vaccines.

Is lupron just a chemical restraint?

26 May

Since it was first proposed by Mark and David Geier, Lupron therapy for autism has been criticized heavily. Do a google search–if your results are like mine, the first hit is a blog post by Kathleen Seidel “Playing with Fire“. Ms. Seidel has done much to expose the questionable methods used by the Geiers to promote Lupron as a therapy for autism. Her list of Lupron links is quite valuable for anyone considering this therapy. Top amongst those is a blog post by Prometheus at the Photon in the Darkness blog, exposing the questionable science behind the supposed testosterone/mercury connection.

Lupron is a drug which shuts down sex hormone production in the body–temporarily. Because of the hormone reduction, lupron is used in the treatment of prostate cancer in men and fibroids in women. The only approved use for children is to treat “precocious puberty”–i.e. the onset of puberty too early. It is useful because it temporarily reduces hormone production.

But, that isn’t what the Geier’s proposed. They didn’t start out to treat precocious puberty. It is worth looking at the history to see how much the Geiers’ stories have changed. There appear to be three stories now.

Story one: mercury binds to testosterone making it difficult to chelate out of the brain. The science backing this up was ridiculous (unless you think your brain is a vat of boiling benzene). Seriously, I am embarrassed for the Geiers. Even in the world of alternative medicine, this was junk science.

Story two: autistic kids almost all have “precocious puberty”. Odd that no one else has ever seen this, but it gives a medical reason to prescribe Lupron (one that will pass insurance scrutiny).

But, both “story one” and “story two” seem to be in the past. Yes, there is mention of precocious puberty in the recent articles in the Chicago Tribune (‘Miracle drug’ called junk science). But, here is a paragraph worth reading:

By lowering testosterone, the Geiers said, the drug eliminates unwanted testosterone-related behaviors, such as aggression and masturbation. They recommend starting kids on Lupron as young as possible and say some may need the drug through the age of puberty and into adulthood.

Does that sound like (a) they are treating mercury poisoning or (b) they are treating precocious puberty?

Here is a quote from Anne Dachel’s rather weak defense of the Geiers:

One of the issues in the stories is the use of Lupron to treat aggression in autistic children who have high levels of testosterone. This is a huge controversy. The treatment is slammed as “unproven and potentially damaging” in the Tribune.

Does that sound like (a) they are treating mercury poisoning or (b) they are treating precocious puberty?

The Rev. Lisa Sykes, in the comments to the Tribune article wrote:

As the parent of the first child to be treated by Dr. Geier for high testosterone, a condition caused by cinically diagnosed mercury-poisoning from the theraputic use of vaccines and RhoD, I can only wait for the day the press gets it right.

Does that sound like (a) they are treating mercury poisoning or (b) they are treating precocious puberty?

Remember, this is the same Lisa Sykes whose video interview promoting Lupron talks about finding a way to get the mercury out. But, now it is “high testosterone”. Sure, she asserts (without any support) that this is caused by mercury poisoning. Anyone want to guess who “clinically diagnosed” the mercury poisoning, by the way? I know who my money is on.

Before I go too far off track, let’s bring this back to the big question–if the story is no longer “mercury poisoning” or “precocious puberty”, is Lupron being used for any other purpose than controling behavior through limiting testosterone levels? And, at 10 times the normal dosage used for precocious puberty, isn’t this a rather handed approach?

Lupron has been called a “chemical castration” drug due to the fact that it shuts down the body’s testostoerone production and has been used to control behavior in sexual predators. Lupron obviously will have profound effects on the behavior of people–children or adult, autistic or not.

If testosterone control is the real purpose for the “Lupron Protocol” (as the Geiers have named it) shouldn’t we then ask: isn’t this just a form of restraint?

Keep in mind, Lupron only works temporarily. Stop giving the Lupron shots and testosterone levels will rebound. Remember this quote from the Tribune story?

They [the Geiers] recommend starting kids on Lupron as young as possible and say some may need the drug through the age of puberty and into adulthood.

Anyone remember how the “mercury toxic” children idea was perpetuated? Since standard tests don’t show high levels of mercury, “challenge” chelation tests were used. When real toxicologists test children shown to be “mecury intoxicated” by alternative medical practitioners, the real answer is no mercury poisoning. Is the same pattern happening in the world of testosterone testing?

Let’s check the patent application the Geiers’ submitted. The first patient mentioned in the application is “child X”. Child X had serum testosterone levels of 25ng/dL. The reference range was 0-25ng/dL. In other words, the kid was within normal ranges.

How about the other patients? Child Y, for instance? Again, within normal ranges.

Child Y’s total serum testosterone was determined to be 20 ng/dL. The reference level of total serum testosterone for a male child of Child Y’s age at this laboratory was from 0-20 ng/dL.

“Child A” was slightly above normal ranges.

Laboratory analyses for androgen metabolites revealed an elevated serum total testosterone=23 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=0-20 ng/dL)

Child B was higher than the reference ranges.

Laboratory analyses for androgen metabolites revealed an elevated serum testosterone=18 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=0-10 ng/dL)

Now, here is one that amazes me:

Additionally, analyses of Child D’s blood androgen metabolites revealed a serum testosterone=153 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=0-350 ng/dL) and serum/plasma DHEA=291 ng/dL (age- and sex-adjusted LabCorp reference range=183-383 ng/dL) within their respective reference ranges.

After extensive discussions with his parents concerning the risks, benefits, and alternative treatments available, a decision was made to place Child D on a course of LUPRON® therapy.

It doesn’t appear to matter. If a child is within the reference range, slightly above, or above, the answer is the same: treat with Lupron.

So, I again pose the question: is Lupron a chemical restraint? I will add a further question: is it being applied to children whose testosterone levels are not high?

Bravo Age of Autism

20 May

Yep, you read that correctly.

In a recent blog post on the Age of Autism blog, Dr Lorene E.A. Amet wrote about “Testosterone and Autism”. While much of the piece seems to be fighting a straw man (the theme is that Simon Baron-Cohen wants to use testosterone to screen for autism prenatally–without a link to the story or a quote from SBC, I found this difficult to wade through). But, as part of her piece, Dr. Amet wrote:

It is of great concern that studies on testosterone and autism are being misinterpreted, leading to the use of therapies aimed at disturbing steroid hormone production in individuals with autism. Currently, many autistic children may be being treated, without proof of safety and scientific and medical evidence of benefit, with a view to reducing their hormonal secretion of testosterone (Lupron Therapy, Spironolactone). The rationale behind advocating these therapies appears to be based on a misunderstanding of autistic behaviours and without systematic laboratory evidence of abnormal testosterone levels.

I had to double check that I was reading the right blog! I mean, Age of Autism allowed someone to state that the the rationale behind using Lupron to treat autism is “based on a misunderstanding”.

For those who are lucky enough to not know, Lupron as a treatment for autism is the pet project of Mark and David Geier. These are near heroes to the world of Age of Autism, due in large part to their promotion of REALLY bad epidemiology (for example, here, here and here on Epiwonk’s blog) to support the thimerosal/autism link.

The Geiers took the testosterone theory of Dr. Baron-Cohen and ran with it. Ran without knowing what they were doing or where they were going. Somehow they came to the conclusion that Testosterone binds with mercury in the brain, making it difficult to remove the mercury with chelation. Reduce the testosterone in the system, they guessed, and one could get the mercury out. Since in their world autism is caused by mercury, this will “recover” or “cure” people of autism.

Doesn’t make any sense to you? That’s because it doesn’t make any sense. At all.

Even though the idea of using lupron is misguided and potentially dangerous, that doesn’t mean that the groups that sponsor the Age of Autism blog would be willing to out the Geiers, even without specifically naming them, for the unscientific team that they are.

To be honest, I think the Age of Autism editors just missed that paragraph by Dr. Amet before approving it to be published (if they approve at all).

But, it’s there now for all to read. Bravo Age of Autism. Bravo for joining the world of people who find the Lupron Protocol to be based on a “misunderstanding” of the science.

Ari Ne’eman on autism

16 May

Ari has had a quite wonderful piece on him in Newsweek. It takes on the hard questions for Ari and he answers them with the aplomb that has come from years of hard work of learning to be an excellent networker:

Ne’eman battles a strange kind of image problem: his critics accuse him of not really being autistic. His mother, Rina, is particularly sensitive about this. “People who see Ari today have no idea where he’s been,” she says. As a young child, Ne’eman was verbally precocious but socially challenged. “I didn’t understand the people around me, and they didn’t understand me,” he says. He was bullied and ostracized—back then he didn’t look at people; he flapped his hands and paced incessantly (he still does both today); he brought newspapers to elementary school as leisure reading. “I think the word ‘freak’ may have come up,” he says. He was, at one point, segregated from his peers in a special-ed school. That led to struggles with depression and anxiety so severe he would pick at his face until it bled. I asked Ne’eman how he manages all the professional mingling he does today. Small talk makes him uncomfortable, but he’s learned to play along. Still, none of it is easy. “You come out of a meeting and you’ve put on a mask, which involves looking people in the eye, using certain mannerisms, certain phrases,” he says. “Even if you learn to do it in a very seamless sort of way, you’re still putting on an act. It’s a very ex-hausting act.”

This is a common attack tactic from people like Jake Crosy at AoA or Harold Doherty. They demean the efforts that autistic people such as Ari have needed and still need to put into their lives to advocate for their own beliefs in favour of the promotion of their own limited and limiting set of autism related beliefs. But as history has shown, its people like Ari – those who are willing to be openly challenged about what they think who will win the respect of people.

Well done Ari, I’m proud to think that you are representing all manner of people on the spectrum, from the very high functioning Jake Crosby to the very low functioning such as my daughter. Thank you.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →