Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

Fire, Fatal Injury, and Claims of Certification in an Independent HBOT Clinic

4 May

By now, most readers of LB/RB have learned about the critical injury of an Italian 4 year-old (Francesco Martinizi), and the death of his grandmother, which occurred as the result of an apparent flash fire/explosion at a hyperbaric oxygen therapy center in Florida.

Media Story

Apparently, the boy was likely being treated for Cerebral Palsy.

Media Story

Cerebral Palsy is not an Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS)-approved indication for the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and this was recently commented on by Dr. Charles S. Graffeo in an article in the New York Times online by Jane E. Brody.

He cautioned patients to steer clear of independent hyperbaric centers owned by a single doctor or small medical group that is not affiliated with a major hospital or medical school. Commenting on claims commonly made by such clinics, he said: “No legitimate organization would condone treating cerebral palsy with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. I haven’t seen anything that is even potentially promising to support such a use. If I had a C.P. child, I wouldn’t even consider it.”

Given these recent comments in the New York Times article, I wanted to learn a little more about this Florida hyperbaric oxygen therapy clinic – Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center (OHNC). It’s a clinic that apparently may also use HBOT to treat autism. The clinic appears to be exactly what Dr. Graffeo cautioned about. It seems to be an independent, privately-owned hyperbaric center, and according to the clinic’s website, appears to have a single MD on the board and staff.

The medical director listed at the OHNC’s website is George F. Daviglus.

Dr. Daviglus is a licensed medical doctor in the state of Florida, and apparently, as allowed for by Florida law, may not carry medical malpractice insurance.

Additional information from the OHNC’s website tells us the following about Dr. Daviglius:

Dr Daviglus performed duties as co-director of Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center since 1998 and is now proud director of the clinic. He is certified in Hyperbaric Medicine by the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society and is Diplomate of the American Board of Surgery, Thoracic & Cardiovascular. Additionally, Dr Daviglus holds teaching and attending medical positions at numerous medical institutions including Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery at VA Hospital, Jackson Memorial Hospital and University of Miami School of Medicine.

While seemingly innocuous (and likely reassuring to potential patients), it’s probably somewhat misleading because it’s stated that Dr. Daviglus is “certified” in Hyperbaric Medicine “by the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society”. The UHMS is apparently not an organization that “certifies” the medical expertise of physicians in hyperbaric oxygen therapy like a medical specialty board at all. From the UHMS website page that elaborates on physician certification:

Physician Certification

Physicians can obtain board certification in Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine through the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) and the American Board of Preventive Medicine (ABPM), with a current certification from one of the 24 primary member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Physicians must submit an application to the board through which they are certified. Physicians certified by an ABMS member board other than ABEM and ABPM and who fulfill the eligibility criteria must apply to ABPM. Upon successful completion of the examination, certification is awarded by the board through which the physician submitted the application.

So it appears that “certification” in Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine is actually the responsibility of ABEM and ABPM, not the UHMS. Both the ABEM and the ABPM are member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties. If a physician is certified by either the ABEM or the ABPM (or any other ABMS member boards), a search at the ABMS website should reveal this. A search for physicians with the last name “Daviglus” turns up the following:

George F. Daviglus

American Board of Surgery
Surgery – General (General indicates Primary Certificate)

American Board of Thoracic Surgery
Thoracic Surgery – General (General indicates Primary Certificate)

There was nothing returned for ABEM or ABPM, nothing about Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, and Dr. Daviglus does not appear on UHMS-maintained lists of physicians certified by ABEM and ABPM.

The UHMS does provide accredidation for hyperbaric facilities themselves – The Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center is not listed by the UHMS as a UHMS-accredited facility.

Additionally, the UHMS appears to have some potential affiliation with the National Board of Diving and Hyperbaric Medical Technology (NBDHMT), the board that certifies hyperbaric technicians, diving medical technicians, and hyperbaric registered nurses.

While the two technicians listed on the Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center’s staff page do appear certified as stated, a search for “Daviglus” turns up zero results at the NBDHMT website for CHT, DMT, or CHRN.

It should also be noted that the UHMS does certify “Diving Medical Examiners”. Physicians receiving this education and certification provide medical assessments of “fitness for diving”. Dr. Daviglus does not appear on the list of UHMS-certified Diving Medical Examiners.

It seems possible at this point, that the Ocean Hyperbaric Neurological Center webpage about the staff may not reflect what some would expect with such a claim of certification.

Although unconfirmed, it may be that the director of the clinic possesses a certificate (or certificates) of completion from UHMS-approved Hyperbaric Medicine CME coursework for physcians. Such courses do have the objective of providing education on the subject and often include the word “certification” in the course title. While not exactly “certification in Hyperbaric Medicine by the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society”, according to one of the providers of this type of education, an introduction to hyperbaric medicine course “provides the credentials recommended for Physician Hyperbaric Supervision”.

If this is the extent of the “certification” held by Dr. Daviglus in hyperbaric medicine, the clinic’s website might better serve those seeking to clearly understand the staff’s relevant training and “certifications” by adding some clarification. Then again, if something along the lines of completion of one or two weeks worth of CME coursework in hyperbaric medicine represents the extent of the “certification” in hyperbaric medicine held by the director of this clinic, this may contribute to an explanation of why this facility appears to treat conditions like cerebral palsy and autism in the first place – conditions for which there appears to be very little legitimate scientific support behind the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (some have even called the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for such conditions, “quackery”).

Yes, this accident (fire/explosion) is tragic, very tragic. If Francesco indeed survives the injuries he’s apparently sustained, the next couple of months are likely to be very very rough. The situation certainly isn’t helped by the fact that there probably isn’t much in the way of good scientific evidence to support the notion that little 4 year-old Francesco should have ever been in such a facility in the first place.

Author Note: “Do’C” is a nickname, short for Dad Of Cameron. Do’C is not a physician or licensed healthcare provider of any kind. Along with occassional guests, Do’C writes the Autism Street blog.

HBOT quackery maims 4 year old

2 May

So it turns out that four year old Francesco Pio Martinisi had Cerebral Palsy.

HBOT is not a valid treatment for CP and there is no quality science to support the idea that it may be one day.

There is growing interest in the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO2) for children with cerebral palsy. Although there is no rigorous evidence to support this management, private hyperbaric centers have been established throughout the United States and Canada….

They are Italian and in an echo of Tariq Nadama, came to the US for a treatment not offered in their home country. CBS4 states they have spent ‘hundreds of thousands’ of dollars on HBOT ‘treatment’.

Nobody knows why the fire started but one thing is sure. There was no medically indicated reason for Francesco to be in that chamber. This was another totally unnecessary accident.

The problem with the IACC is…

27 Apr

…that Tom Insel is too nice.

OK, that is as oversimplification, but bear with me. Dr. Insel is the director of the NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) and the chair of the IACC (Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee). As chair, he gets to run the meetings. Lucky him!

I say that with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Dr. Insel has a tough job trying to manage the IACC.

Let’s back up a little bit. The IACC committee meets regularly to work on producing a plan for the government’s research effort in autism. The idea is simple–gather together a lot of people who can bring their expertise to the table and work together to build a good plan.

Unfortunately, Lyn Redwood apparently didn’t get that memo. Ms. Redwood represents her organization (Safe Minds) as well as the views of a number of other autism organizations who promote the idea that vaccines caused an epidemic of autism.

Lyn Redwood spends each meeting as though it is held for everyone to listen to her talk about vaccines. I know that sounds like an exaggeration–it isn’t. Here is a quote from another member of the IACC committee from a recent meeting, speaking about an effort by Lyn Redwood to insert a large amount of new language into the Strategic Plan.

I’m just a little perplexed as to why we are actually looking at this. Because we worked so hard over many months as a committee and..you know..and as one person in the field who is constantly seeing more and more children with autism this sense of urgency seems to sabotaged by this constant barrage of another opportunity for one person of this committee to constantly try to rewrite the Plan. It doesn’t seem to be the correct process.

Dr. Insel then commented “There are heads shaking here.” “Heads Shaking” is what Dr. Insel says when people are nodding in agreement during a meeting. In other words–a large portion of the IACC agreed with the idea that Lyn Redwood was hijacking the process again!

The problem is, to say it again, Tom Insel is too nice. He gives Lyn Redwood a LOT of leeway to talk about…well, whatever she wants to talk about. Unfortunately, she spends a lot of time talking vaccines. Lots of time. The IACC doesn’t have lot’s of time to spend on any one subject. Especially a subject like vaccines that the rest of the committee clearly isn’t interested in discussing. To make matters worse, many of the discussions are nearly meaningless. “Should we phrase this noncommittal statement this way or that way?”

Another person draining a lot of valuable time from the IACC is Mark Blaxill. Mr. Blaxill is not on the main IACC committee. He is in one of the working groups (think advisory group to the main committee). While, luckily, he doesn’t get to vote in the main committee, in his own way he is worse than Ms. Redwood. He makes long speeches, filled with insults to the other committee members, calling those who don’t agree with him “Epidemic Denialists”.

It strikes this listener that Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill are trying desperately to engage the other IACC people in a debate on the autism vaccine question. Ms. Redwood has offered to bring in papers supporting her position. Thankfully, Dr. Insel avoided that mess. I can easily imagine many of the researchers on the IACC thinking, “Gad! I already wasted part of my life on that junk science when I read it the first time. Can’t we just get something accomplished for people with autism here?” I mean, seriously, does Ms. Redwood think that people haven’t read the papers she leans on? The implications sounds like, “You don’t agree with me. That means you haven’t read these studies.” What she doesn’t understand is that pretty much everyone has read the studies she uses as support for the “mercury and vaccines caused an autism epimic” idea. Everyone has read them, and most who have read them find them to be really bad science. The academics could use them as examples of bad science for their students. Those studies are that bad.

Here’s some much needed background. The IACC committee is made up of a number of professionals and stakeholders. People fly in from all over the US to attend meetings–most of which are only a day long. The agendas are packed; there isn’t much time to waste.

Rather than accept that IACC meeting time is limited and precious, with many topics to cover, both Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill act as though they are in one of Senator Dan Burton’s hearings, where the goal was to get as much of the idea that vaccines cause autism into the public record as possible–whether the science was good or not.

So, what’s happening while Ms. Redwood or Mr. Blaxill are talking? This is where the “Tom Insel is too nice” bit comes into play. Dr. Insel, chair of the IACC, allows them all the time they want to take (and they want a lot of time) to talk about vaccines. I don’t know how much of it is Dr. Insel being polite or how much is an effort to stave off future complaints that the vaccine lobby was excluded from the process. There are likely multiple reasons. Net result–lots of time taken up talking about vaccines.

Well, that’s not really accurate. There is a lot of time lecturing about the supposed vaccine/autism link. You see, there is almost no discussion amongst the commitee. Just the one-sided presentations by Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill. The rest of the IACC members often (almost always) remain silent. My guess is that they are just too smart to get dragged into the discussions. Yes, too smart. What purpose would it serve?

From what I can see, the rest of the IACC “gets it”. They “get it” in the fact that they already understand the vaccine debate. I don’t see the point in taking up committee and working group time with Lyn Redwood or Mark Blaxill pretending to be trying to educate the other members. The rest of the IACC also “gets it” in the fact that they understand to avoid getting sucked into the debate. Mark Blaxill would likely enjoy some blog fodder. The likes of David Kirby and Robert Kennedy Jr. would love to take everything out of context and misinterpret it for their own blog readers. All this would come at the cost of people with autism.

Dr. Insel could, I guess, limit the time that Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill use. To be honest, he does manage their time somewhat, but much more would help keep the meetings productive. Dr. Insel is in a hard spot–even a reasonable level of limiting the discussion would obviously be used to fuel complaints that the vaccine debate is being quashed or the process is corrupt.

So, in the end, Dr. Insel plays the nice guy. What else can he do? Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill take advantage of it and, in the end, it is people with autism who pay the price when the IACC meetings are hijacked and the sense of urgency is lost as one person tries to rewrite the strategic plan.

An open letter to Jim Carrey

22 Apr

Today on The Huffngton Post, actor Jim Carrey posted his thoughts about autism and vaccines. With his very first paragraph it became apparent how little Carrey understood the issues involved:

Recently, I was amazed to hear a commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown on the controversial vaccine issue. After a ruling by the ‘special vaccine court’ saying the Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot wasn’t found to be responsible for the plaintiffs’ autism, she and others in the media began making assertions that the judgment was in, and vaccines had been proven safe. No one would be more relieved than Jenny and I if that were true. But with all due respect to Ms. Brown, a ruling against causation in three cases out of more than 5000 hardly proves that other children won’t be adversely affected by the MMR…

Point one Mr Carrey. The vaccine issue is only controversial to adherents of your belief system. Within scientific, medical, legal, autistic and parental circles its not even slightly controversial.

Point two, the three cases chosen were chosen – by the plaintiffs legal team – to represent their absolute best chance of winning. If they had won, there was an excellent chance all the cases that were suggesting MMR as causation would have just ‘won’ automatically. Thats why its called an Omnibus.

Point three, regarding the MMR, it has been firmly established that:

a) The data supporting the MMR hypothesis was fixed.

b) The science supporting the MMR theory was badly wrong – both badly done and exposed to contaminants.

You might also note that the court was not attempting to see if the children were ‘adversely affected by the MMR’, it was looking to see – using the three cases the legal team representing the families thought were the absolute best – if MMR caused autism. It didn’t. Thats probably why your Campbell Brown found it easy to say the MMR hypothesis was dead and buried.

You go to say Mr Carrey that:

Not everyone gets cancer from smoking, but cigarettes do cause cancer. After 100 years and many rulings in favor of the tobacco companies, we finally figured that out.

Yes, we did – and do you know how? With _good science_ – just like the science that established in the three MMR test cases that the MMR didn’t cause autism. And its fascinating that you bring up this parallel to the smoking issue and then later in your blog post invoke the name of Bernadine Healy. Healy – who’s ‘more sensible voice’ you say you’d rather listen to. Did you know Healy used to be a member of TASSC:

TASSC was created in 1993 by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm, and was funded by tobacco company Philip Morris (now Altria)….

According to Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in their article How Big Tobacco Helped Create “the Junkman”, one of the forerunners of TASSC at Philip Morris was a 1988 “Proposal for the Whitecoat Project,” named after the white laboratory coats that scientists sometimes wear. The project had four goals: “Resist and roll back smoking restrictions. Restore smoker confidence. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS (passive smoking) is harmful. Restore social acceptability of smoking.”

[own inserts]

Is that what you consider a sensible voice Mr Carrey? Someone who supported the tobacco agenda?

Moving on, you say:

If we are to believe that the ruling of the ‘vaccine court’ in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.

First and foremost, the vaccine court did not rule at all in the Hannah Poling case. HHS conceded. And what they conceded was that Hannah Poling was damaged by vaccines resulting in ‘autism like features’. In fact, when we look at the the one piece of medical science carried out on Hannah Poling (co-authored by her own father), we see that only three of the symptoms described as being the result of vaccine injury appear on the DSM (IV) diagnostic criteria for autism.

As for Bailey Banks, this is a perfect illustration of both how the vaccine court in the USA was designed to work and also how terrible the evidence was in the three MMR test cases.

The Banks ruling (subtitled ‘Non-autistic developmental delay’ by the way) drew a line of causation from vaccine to PDD-NOS. It is able to do this as the burden of proof for any science presented to the vaccine court is ‘50% plus a feather’. In other words, it just has to be plausible, no causation needs to be shown.

What doesn’t seem in doubt is that Bailey was injured by a vaccine which resulted in a condition called ADEM. The judge in the case then went on to accept the plaintiffs position that the ADEM in turn caused PDD-NOS. He did this seemingly because there was no evidence to the contrary – e.g. no evidence that ADEM *doesn’t* cause PDD-NOS.

In any scientific situation – including civil court in the US – this would never have been accepted. The plaintiff would have had to have demonstrated that ADEM *did* cause PDD-NOS. And a search of PubMed reveals nothing for ‘ADEM autism’ or ‘ADEM PDD’.

So, in the Banks case, because there was no evidence that ADEM does not cause PDD-NOS, they won. In every situation bar the vaccine court, the Banks’ would not have won their case. There is no science to support the idea ADEM causes autism.

Bearing this ‘50% plus a feather’ concept in mind it is clear just how utterly dreadful the evidence was to support the idea MMR caused autism. Not only could plaintiffs not provide any evidence that MMR causes autism, respondents produced reams of evidence to show it clearly doesn’t.

You carry on Mr Carrey to say:

I’ve also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who’ve been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony. There’s no evidence of the Lincoln Memorial if you look the other way and refuse to turn around. But if you care to look, it’s really quite impressive. For a sample of vaccine injury evidence go to http://www.generationrescue.org/lincolnmemorial.html.

Your analogy is ridiculous. I could go to any library and find evidence for the Lincoln Memorial without ever seeing it. In fact, what your analogy does is demonstrate exactly how blinkered and able to only face one direction at one time you and your colleagues are.

The evidence you present as that being supportive of evidence between a link between vaccines and autism is equally ridiculous and blinkered. I simply don;t have the time to tackle the mountain of misinformation presented on the page you link to suffice to say there’s not a single section that doesn’t have a major error. Most of them have been tackled on this and other blogs over the years.

Next you say:

In all likelihood the truth about vaccines is that they are both good and bad. While ingredients like aluminum, mercury, ether, formaldehyde and anti-freeze may help preserve and enhance vaccines, they can be toxic as well. The assortment of viruses delivered by multiple immunizations may also be a hazard. I agree with the growing number of voices within the medical and scientific community who believe that vaccines, like every other drug, have risks as well as benefits and that for the sake of profit, American children are being given too many, too soon. One thing is certain. We don’t know enough to announce that all vaccines are safe!

Mr Carrey, *vaccines do not contain anti-freeze* – for goodness sake, even Jay Gordon, Evan’s Paediatrician knows that! Did you also know that (to quote myself):

There’s also Aluminium in breast milk so lets compare the two.

According to this paper (which is from 1990 – any more up to date papers welcomed) the amount of Aluminium in breast milk is 49 ?g/L. The average amount of breast milk expressed per day is 0.85 liters.

This means that 41.65?g Aluminium per day is in breast milk.

Now, according to this paper, there is between 125 – 850?g of Aluminium per dose in a vaccine.

So, for a 6 year old, total Aluminium is between 2,125 – 14,450?g.

In real terms this means that after between 51 and 346 days breast feeding, a 6 year old will have taken onboard the same amount of Aluminium as from the total US vaccine schedule.

Now I couldn’t find out what vaccines contained the lower amount or which contained the higher amount. Even so, this means that if every vaccine a 6 year old has that contains Aluminium contains the highest possible amount, within a year of breast feeding they will have matched that.

Or to put it another way, an anti-vax tree-hugger soccer mom who doesn’t vaccinate her baby will have given him the same amount of Aluminium he would’ve had in six years after one year of breast feeding.

And thats of course, not even touched on the fact that:

In the Earth’s crust, aluminium is the most abundant (8.13%) metallic element, and the third most abundant of all elements (after oxygen and silicon)

And is found naturally occurring in sea water, fresh water, the human body etc etc.

[Regarding Formaldehyde]…There’s also Formaldehyde in Apples, Apricots, Banana’s and….ah, I lost interest. Lots of stuff. Including the human body.

So – how much is in vaccines?

According to this and using it in combination with the US vaccine schedule referenced above, we can see that the total amount of Formaldehyde in vaccines from the vaccine schedule for a 6 year old child is 1.2016mg (again, do your own maths, correct me if I’m wrong).

For comparison to that 1.2mg in all vaccines for a 6 year old, 1 (one) banana contains 16.3mg Formaldehyde.

Mr Carrey, you’ve got to stop throwing these scaremongering nonfacts around. Its damned irresponsible for a start.

Lastly Mr Carrey, you say:

If the CDC, the AAP and Ms. Brown insist that our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world, we need more independent vaccine research not done by the drug companies selling the vaccines or by organizations under their influence. Studies that cannot be internally suppressed.

In terms of autism, if you want to make a big deal out of the fact that ‘our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world’ then please consider this – the UK has less shots than you. We also have a higher prevalence than you. 1 in 100 vs 1 in 150.

And please also don’t invoke silly conspiracy theories. Think about how science works. A study is done, funded by Eli Lily for example. It is peer reviewed and found to be good quality and it is published in, lets say NEJM. Now, *every single reader of that study* can see exactly what methods and means were used to reach the studies conclusions. I ask you Mr Carrey, how much more independent can you get? How much more transparent? Basically anyone, anywhere can try and replicate that same studies results. If they can and a few others can – the results are good. If nobody can (think Andrew Wakefield) then the results must be bad.

And for goodness sake man, grow up, who is ‘suppressing’ what study exactly? Have you _any_ evidence at all that any study ever has been internally suppressed? Or are you just throwing this stuff out to scare people?

Mr Carrey, I loved the Truman Show but this isn’t it. There’s no god like figure overseeing every aspect of your life and wanting to control it. I ask you – get in contact with an actual scientist and go through your concerns with them. At the very least they’ll be able to stop you saying silly things like there’s anti-freeze in vaccines.

Thrown under the bus…but for a good cause, right?

21 Apr

America is a wonderful place. Where else can someone publish absolute garbage, refuse to retract it, accuse the government of being involved in a massive conspiracy–and still end up on a government committee?

I am speaking of Lyn Redwood. She is one of the coauthors on ‘Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning’. This was ‘published’ in Medical Hypotheses. I put ‘published’ in quotes because Medical Hypotheses is a pay-to-publish pseudo-journal that has no review (peer or otherwise) at all. OK, the editor does check that the authors are talking about something medical, and makes sure that some sort of narrative is put together. But, scientifically? No review. Too many people, especially those parents with new autism diagnoses for their children, are unaware that “Medical Hypotheses” ‘papers’ have no place next to actual research papers.

If that piece of junk science wasn’t enough, Ms. Redwood was also a co-author on another less-than-worthless Medical Hypotheses ‘paper’, Thimerosal and autism? A plausible hypothesis that should not be dismissed. The first author on that “paper” was Mark Blaxill. Truly, one of the scary moments in the Omnibus proceeding came when the research head of ARI (Autism Research Institute) referred to Mark Blaxill as “brilliant”. No exaggeration–that was a frightening thought to this listener. Mr. Blaxill is probably rather bright and likely good at whatever he does professionally. But the idea that the information is traveling from him to the research head of the Autism Research Institute rather than the other way around is just scary.

The time to pay-to-publish retractions of these papers was years ago. Yet, both papers are still out there, and new parents usually won’t find out for a long time that those papers a junk.

Besides promoting bad science, what do Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill have in common? Well, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, for one thing.

Ms. Redwood sits on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. This group helps coordinate the US Government’s research efforts on autism. Rather that fight for better understanding and services for, say, adults, the poor, or minorities with autism, Ms. Redwood filled meeting after meeting (after meeting) with struggles to get the wording of the Strategic Plan as close as possible to a government admission that vaccines cause autism.

Mark Blaxill sits on one of the working groups for the IACC, probably placed there by Ms. Redwood. Mr. Blaxill, also a co-author on a number of papers that any reasonable person would have retracted by now, has wasted considerable meeting time with long, insulting ramblings. I know there are people who appreciated Mr. Blaxill’s speeches, but I consider likening the other people on the committee to holocaust denialists insulting. Maybe I misinterpreted his repeated use of the phrase “Epidemic Denialists”. If so, I bet I’m not the only one. Somehow, I don’t think I’m wrong. It appears to be an insulting and deliberate choice of phrases.

Unfortunately for the undercounted communities like adults with autism, the poor with autism, minorities with autism–a number of our own–they present an “inconvenient truth” to people like Mark Blaxill and Lyn Redwood. They demonstrate that the numbers groups like SafeMinds use to promote the faux autism epidemic are terribly flawed. If we are still under counting people with autism in the U.S., how can we use the counts from the California Regional Centers or from education data so far as “evidence” of an “epidemic”?

I know I wrote about this issue recently. But, reading the expert report by Dr. Rodier, and writing about it, I realized anew that a few individuals have caused this harm. And, those few individuals could (and should) work hard to correct that harm.

So, in place of calling on the IACC to fund research that could help the under counted, Ms. Redwood and Mr. Blaxill got this paragraph:

Research on environmental risk factors is also underway. An Institute of Medicine workshop held in 2007 summarized what is known and what is needed in this field (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2007). Numerous epidemiological studies have found no relationship between ASD and vaccines containing the mercury based preservative, thimerosal (Immunization Safety Review Committee, 2004). These data, as well as subsequent research, indicate that the link between autism and vaccines is unsupported by the research literature. Some do not agree and remain concerned that ASD is linked or caused by vaccination through exposure to Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR), imposing challenges to a weakened immune system, or possibly due to mitochondrial disorder. Public comment to the Committee reflected opposing views on vaccines as a potential environmental cause. Those who are convinced by current data that vaccines do not play a causal role in autism argue against using a large proportion of limited autism research funding toward vaccine studies when many other scientific avenues remain to be explored. At the same time, those who believe that prior studies of the possible role of vaccines in ASD have been insufficient argue that investigation of a possible vaccine/ASD link should be a high priority for research (e.g., a large-scale study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups). A third view urges shifting focus away from vaccines and onto much-needed attention toward the development of effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD.

Let’s just pull that last sentence out for emphasis, shall we?

A third view urges shifting focus away from vaccines and onto much-needed attention toward the development of effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD.

It’s odd to me–I would have fought that language if I were Lyn Redwood. I would have pointed out that I have a broader perspective than just vaccines, and that I also care about development of effective treatments, services and supports. Isn’t it just a little sad that the people who are pushing the vaccine connection don’t have the view that effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD’s are a top priority?

But, it wasn’t their top priority. It still isn’t. In the end, Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill, people who are on the IACC to represent the interests of the entire stakeholder community, threw the underrepresented autistic communities under the bus.

Autism Science Foundation

20 Apr

There’s a new autism research organisation in town – the Autism Science Foundation.

The Autism Science Foundation’s mission is to support autism research by providing funding and other assistance to scientists and organizations conducting, facilitating, publicizing and disseminating autism research. The organization will also provide information about autism to the general public and will serve to increase awareness of autism spectrum disorders and the needs of individuals and families affected by autism.

You might expect me to have mixed opinions regarding this organisation and that is the case. On one hand, the are very very positively consigning the autism/vaccine episode to the scientific dustbin where it belongs.

Vaccines save lives; they do not cause autism. Numerous studies have failed to show a causal link between vaccines and autism. Vaccine safety research should continue to be conducted by the public health system in order to ensure vaccine safety and maintain confidence in our national vaccine program, but further investment of limited autism research dollars is not warranted at this time.

Two thumbs up to that. My own opinion is that it is not just a waste of research dollars it is also an insulting slur to autistic people to be denigrated as ‘poisoned’ in some way.

So thats the good. And that bad? Well, consider this:

Autism Spectrum Disorders are characterized by significant impairments in social interaction and communication skills, as well as by the presence of extremely challenging behaviors. Such behaviors include stereotyped motor behaviors (hand flapping, body rocking)

I don’t consider hand flapping or body rocking to be ‘extremely challenging behaviours’. I consider them to be the typical movements of an autistic person either communicating or adjusting to an environment or both. I have never challenged my own autistic child’s hand flapping or body rocking and never will.

Moving on, who is on this Foundation? Firstly and most familiar to me is Paul Offit. I think this is an *excellent* start. Karen Margulis London I know next to nothing about. Same with Michael Lewis. That leaves one other.

As we all know Alison Tepper Singer left Autism Speaks earlier this year due to its anti-vaccination leanings. As we _also_ all know, prior to that she was best known to the autism community as one of the central figures in the very unfortunate ‘Autism Every Day’ video.

Ms Tepper-Singer and I have been communicating via Facebook for the last few weeks. The ‘Autism Every Day’ video has been discussed as well as a few other things. I also discussed this with a few close friends (some autistic, some not).

In the interest of totally coming clean, I’d like to therefore say that we have been talking about the ASF for a few days. I have made clear to Ms Tepper-Singer that my clear priority is the friendships I have and community I am part of. The website is very new and therefore the language on it could be very much better and should be for example. This is one case of where I would very much like to see more respectful and accurate language being used.

But overall, I would like to see an autistic person in at least the same position as I am – advising. I was therefore very heartened to learn that that is already the case. I don’t think it would be fair for me to name that person and I will ask that if anyone does know then please do _not_ name them in the comments or elsewhere. I see forced ‘outing’ as akin to bullying so please refrain.

This is going to be a surprise for a lot of people I guess. The man who created the petition that has gained nearly 2000 signatures speaking clearly against Autism Speaks, ‘Autism Every Day’ and Alison Tepper-Singer in particular colluding with that same Alison Tepper-Singer.

All I can tell you is why I am doing this. I am doing it because I think that to have someone(s) on the inside is much more productive than being on the outside. This community has been passed over time and again and now we have a legitimate organisation that I believe _wants_ to learn to do the right thing fulfilling the mantra of ‘nothing about us without us’ and doing it in a way that is dedicated to good science, not harmful and costly quackery.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could. And if I am then I will step back and not participate. But I think that the only we way we can achieve our goals is to take chances now and then. I will be utterly transparent and as I have told Ms Tepper-Singer no doubt I and the other adviser(s) will have plenty to say. And if things do not work out then the onus falls on me to explain myself and me alone. There will be no comeback on the neurodiversity community.

Putting a price on life

20 Apr

Sometimes you really have to wonder exactly what the motivations and priorities are of people who work for disability charities. For example, the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities recently commissioned a study that showed that:

The findings, detailed in the Economic Consequences of Autism in the UK report, reveals that children with autism cost £2.7 billion a year, yet for adults the figure is £25 billion – more than eight times as much.

Funded by the Shirley Foundation and led by Professor Martin Knapp at the London School of Economics and King’s College London, the research shows that for adults with autism the highest costs are those generated by health and social care provision (59%), followed by lost employment (36%) and family expenses (5%).

Now, the reason this study was commissioned was apparently to show how;

…[the figures] give serious weight to the argument that more resources are needed to intervene early and effectively in the lives of those who are affected by the condition. Early intervention would help individuals with autism and their families experience a better quality of life and reduce the high costs incurred in later years…

Well, maybe.

To me they smack far too uncomfortably of putting a price – a cost – on a persons life. I wrote about this three years ago and I invoked the spectre of the Nazis. My friend Dinah Murray commented on Mike Stantons blog:

[A] philosopher told me about a Nazi propaganda film he’d seen, called ‘Freedom through Death’. It featured golden haired youths clad in white, wheeling drooling [non]persons around in wheelchairs while the audience was asked to consider how much labour was being wasted on keeping the droolers alive.

Yes, it smacks far too uncomfortably of that. That it was commissioned by the Foundation *for* People with Learning Disabilities makes it all the more disturbing.

And lets not beat around the bush here, when you put a financial cost on a life you are explicitly enslaving that person. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 4 states:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

In *all* their forms.

And when you enslave someone you cheapen the worth of their life. That individual is referred to as ‘slave’ not ‘person’. The irony here being that the reader of _this_ story is invited to think about how unnecessarily expensive the life of an autistic person is. The ends do *not* justify the means.

California tries to win back “stay put”

13 Apr

Parents, of course, have the primary responsibility to provide for the needs of their children. But, children and adults with special needs often require more than their parents can provide, and that’s where government agencies are supposed to help out.

In California, the Regional Centers manage government sponsored services for those with exceptional needs up to age 3. At age 3, the school districts take over as the lead agency, with the RC’s taking a secondary role.

That is, of course, if all goes according to plan.

What if a school district is swamped or for any other reason isn’t prepared to take over? What happens to the child’s services?

Up until a couple of years ago, the child would stay in the same services until the school district and parents could work out the new plan. This was called “stay put”. A family could say, “Hey, look, you aren’t prepared to take on my kid’s services in the school, so we are going to ‘stay put’ with the services we have until this gets worked out”. During ‘stay put’, the district pays for the same services the RC was paying for until age 3.

Then came a change to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Stay put was lost.

Yeah, parents can pay out of pocket while going through a dispute process. That is, parents with the money to do so. The dispute process, at best, take a few months.

This didn’t happen without a lot of activism to try to keep “stay put”. So far, it hasn’t reinstated “stay put”, but there is hope. State Assembly Bill AB1124 is in process.

There is a hearing on this with the Education Committee, this Wednesday (April 15).

This is a proposed California Law, but, let’s face it, setting the precedent that stay put needs to be in place could help people throughout the US. For Californians, now would be a good time to contact your assembly person about this. If your assembly person is on the Education Committee, now is a REALLY good time to contact him/her.

The vaccine debate has a real cost

31 Mar

Of course, this isn’t news. But usually the cost is characterized in the danger to public health.

What about the cost to people with autism? Here’s a blog post from the Simons Foundation. (as an aside–there is a real autism organization). They are quoting Cathy Lord and Paul Shattuck.

Given the diversity of the panel’s members, the strategic plan was, unsurprisingly enough, hotly debated, and continues to be scrutinized.

Most of the debate centers around the plan’s emphasis on environmental risk factors. Lord says this came at the cost of research on more worthwhile topics, such as how to expand treatment services to low-income families — a project for which she was hoping to be funded.

“It’s gone, just gone. I was pretty astonished to see that that had disappeared,” she says.

The report also doesn’t emphasize studying autism’s course beyond childhood, notes Shattuck. “The amount of money that goes into understanding services and aging and supporting people in their daily lives seems disproportionately small,” he says.

One of the problems with the vaccines-cause-autism groups is that they really don’t advocate for people with autism. They have abandoned entirely people of low income and minorities (except where they can be used for political gain).

It isn’t just that groups like SafeMinds, Generation Rescue and the rest can’t be bothered to spend the time worrying about minorities or adults. It’s the fact that the data those groups use to support the “epidemic” makes ZERO sense when you consider minorities.

Consider this: the “rate” of autism is 0.3 per 1,000 for Hispanics in Wisconsin, but 10.6 for Whites in New Jersey.

Why isn’t Generation Rescue calling for an investigating the Hispanics of Wisconsin? Shouldn’t they want to know what is “protecting” that subgroup from autism?

They don’t care, they don’t want to bring attention to the Hispanics in Wisconsin (or the under represented minorities across the nation), because it blows a big hole in the “epidemic”. Obviously we still aren’t counting all the people with autism in our prevalence estimates. How can we rely on the historical data that shows an “epidemic” if we aren’t doing a good job even now?

We’ve covered this many times in the past. It is one thing when the damage caused is more abstract. But when it become very real, when minorities are being left out in the cold, it is an outrage.

Hours and hours were spent in the IACC meetings wordsmithing the vaccine language. To groups like SafeMinds and people like Lyn Redwood, the Strategic Plan was a political document. It was a statement by the government, and it was critical to get as much “admission” of autism being caused by vaccines as was possible. So what if another generation of minorities gets mislabeled with Intellectual Disability or some other Special Education category when SafeMinds was able to get the IACC to admit that many parents think vaccines cause autism?

This is what happens when psuedo “Vaccine-injury” advocates pretend to be Autism advocates and take seats at the table. Lyn Redwood put her own interests and those of her organizations ahead of the well being of people with autism.

That’s just plain wrong.

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.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →