Archive | Autism Epidemic RSS feed for this section

Generation Rescue II – This Time It’s Vague

3 May

As already blogged by Steve and Orac, Generation Rescue have undergone a change in both website and message.

Up until this week and for the last two years, Brad Handley – GR Head Honcho has promoted a message quite unequivocal:

“Autism is treatable. It’s reversible. It’s nothing more than mercury poisoning,” said JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue.

In fact, giving a reason for the redesign of the site on Orac’s blog, Brad said:

From my perspective, our website and its message have always been broader than “its ONLY mercury”…

Huh. Weird. Maybe its just me but I detect a teensy-weensy inconsistency between those two statements. Lets switch to the video!!:

And for the non-video-blessed amongst us, what Brad said was:

We immediately realised…and I think this is something that is a big surprise to people….um, that autism is a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning.

Riiight. So let me see if I can summarise the position. When there is no science to have an informed debate about mercury, and when there’s lots of scary sounding stuff like ‘the Amish aren’t vaccinated and have no autism’ or ‘CDDS proves the epidemic’ floating around then the situation is:

“Autism is treatable. It’s reversible. It’s nothing more than mercury poisoning”.

Now that there’s no science to establish a causative link between mercury and autism, plenty of epidemiology to refute it and now that the first piece of science on the Amish has shown that actually they do vaccinate and that the penny has finally dropped, even for David Kirby, regarding CDDS’ inability to support the epidemic, what is the Generation Rescue position now? Lets see shall we?:

Our children are experiencing epidemics of ADD/ADHD, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and Autism. We believe these neurological disorders (“NDs”) are environmental illnesses caused by an overload of heavy metals, live viruses, and bacteria.

Wow. So we’re now no longer talking about just autism. We’re now talking about ‘neurological disorders’, including ADD/ADHD which is not even classed as being on the spectrum. That is quite some turnabout.

And look at this! Now, we’re talking about a _combination_ of causative agents: heavy metals (not just mercury any more), live viruses and bacteria.

Incredible. Makes you feel almost sorry for poor old mercury don’t it? Last week it was the Terror of the High Seas. Now it doesn’t even make it as a distinct causative agent.

The ‘live viruses’ is in there to placate the Wakefield Worshipers who think the MMR also (or in combination with mercury) caused autism. The ‘bacteria’ mention is I’m guessing a nod to the Martha Herbert theory of mold causing autism – a theory that was described thusly last time Martha took it to court:

Dr. Herbert’s publications indicate that she is an outspoken advocate of increased attention to the possibility of environmental influences. Even she, however, despite that acknowledged perspective, speaks in her published work of possibilities and potentialities, rather than of the ‘reasonable degree of medical certainty’ to which she offers to testify under oath in this case. Neither Dr. Herbert’s publications, nor any others cited, identify mold exposure as even a suspected, still less a known or proven, trigger of autism

Going back to MMR and taking a brief side journey for a minute, here’s the latest update from the Autism Omnibus proceedings. When last we left it, Petitioners had put forward one family as a ‘test case’ to see if the whole Omnibus proceeding had enough merit to proceed. There were supposed to be three. Awhile ago, the court told Petitioners to hurry up and identify the other two. They couldn’t. Respondents replied with:

The Court ordered the PSC to find two cases (similar enough to the first) to present the same basic theory of causation…..the essence of its (PSC’s) response is that it does not know of any case presenting the same causation issues as are implicated in Cedillo.

Ouch. How long has this been dragging on? Five years or something? And out of the 4,700 cases in the Omnibus no other case can be found to match the first one put forward. The only people who must be enjoying this are the lawyers.

Anyway, back to Generation Rescue.

Of particular note is the much vaunted, never seen ‘California-Oregon Unvaccinated Children Survey’ of described thusly by GR:

no studies have ever been done to compare neurological disorder (“ND”) rates of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. We commissioned a national market research firm to survey more than 17,000 children in California and Oregon.

National market research firm eh? How very scientific. Researching popular chewing gum, researching autism causation. Yep, they’re the same. Souds very much like a a ‘convenience sample’ where people are called up. Here’s a friend of Brad’s describing what a convenience sample is and is not:

So. Not data according to David Kirby. Bummer.

Generation Rescue have also revamped their ‘Testimonials’ section. This is the section I looked at I August of last year and reached a (very) rough figure of a 5% success rate for the kids talked about on the GR site where ‘success’ is losing the diagnosis:

Out of these 59 success stories, just 3 describe their child as having been reclassified as no longer meeting a diagnosis of ASD. That’s a ‘recovery’ rate of 5%. Interestingly, one of these cases states they did not use chelation at all. That puts the Generation Rescue chelation success rate at a little over 3%.

Now, Generation Rescue have 76 ‘success stories’ (except they’re not called that any more, now they’re ‘testimonials’). Of that number, 6 claim full recovery with total loss of diagnosis. That’s a percentage of 7.8%. A heady leap of over 2%. Woo-hoo.

I was drawn to some of the newer testimonials, particularly the 6 year old ones as Meg only recently turned 7. One of them, about a girl called Liz was fascinating.

Our daughter Liz was diagnosed with low functioning autism at age three. We blamed the DTP vaccine which she had a bad reaction to. She would have very long lasting meltdowns, she would smear faeces, she would exhibit self injurious behaviour, she did not talk at all, she avoided eye contact and her only activity was that involving toys that spun. She walked on her tip toes and the doctor said she had a low IQ (below 70). We were told by mainstream medicine that she was ‘unreachable’.

Today Liz is six and after following biomedical interventions (and some other things) Liz will talk – on Christmas morning this year I went to wake her up and she said ‘good morning’ to me. She no longer smears faeces and is 99% toilet trained, she can write notes to people and knows all the letters of the alphabet and can count up to 40 unprompted. She can use a computer mouse unaided and has numerous favourite websites. The self injurious behaviour is vastly lessened, as are the meltdowns. Her eye contact is now perfect and overall her sensory issues seem 99% under control. She can drink out of a normal cup and use a knife, fork and spoon to eat whilst sitting at the table.

In so many ways, this is a different child.

Why was I drawn to this little girl so much?

Because it’s Megan’s story. I assumed a false name – Mr Clarence House – and emailed it to the Generation Rescue site. ‘Clarence’ received an email saying it was going to be on the new site which I was very happy about.

All of it is true except the name. The biomedical treatments I was talking about were multi vitamins, fish oil and a steroid inhlaer for her asthma. The ‘other things’ were love, acceptance, patience and education.

Why do this? To prove a point. You can make anyone’s story fit your own beliefs if you twist it hard enough.

Don’t worry, if it disappears I took a loving screenshot.

Brad Handley has tried to shift his goalposts as his first guess wasn’t working out. As evidenced above, he has latched on to items that are equally silly. As evidenced above he is incapable of seeing autism. He only sees mercury. As evidenced above, improvement is not limited – or even related to – detoxification of heavy metals.

Oh David, David, David….

26 Apr

David Kirby has been chewing away at the edge of the CDDS data since it became apparent that he’d screwed up and actually set himself (and the thiomersal hypothesis) an actual measurable target (eek!). I can’t believe there isn’t anyone in the autism community who doesn’t know about the CDDS’ data and its role from Saviour of the thiomersal hypothesis to Villan of the thiomersal hypothesis. But just in case, here’s a potted history. For (lots) more search my site for ‘cdds’ and you’ll get lots more background reading.

1) Kirby writes EoH and is spoon-fed the Rollens line that we’re in the midst of an autism epidemic and that the CDDS data proves this by going up and up and up.
2) Thiomersal is removed from its preservative role in vaccines and by Feb 2002 there is an estimated 1.9% of vaccines left containing thiomersal.
3) Geier paper indicating that CDDS data is going down following removal of thiomersal
4) Kirby crows about this, refers to CDDS data as ‘the gold standard’ of autism data
5) Transpires Geier dip is a load of bollocks – CDDS data still going up
6) Kirby says (paraphrasing) – if CDDS data not falling by 2007 its a sever blow to the thiomersal hypothesis.
7) 2007 – Happy New year
8) CDDS data still climbing
9) First quarter for 2007 in – CDDS data still climbing
10) CDDS data abandoned by Kirby/Rollens et al in favour of educational data in the hopes _this_ data will show them what they want it to
11) No one really talks about CDDS data anymore

Quite early along this line several skeptical bloggers including myself, Do’C, Interverbal, Joseph and Autism Diva all said over and over again: ‘Yeah, hi, no actually you can’t use CDDS data to prove or disprove either the autism epidemic or the role of thiomersal. Here’s the disclaimers on the CDDS website that explains why not.’

Which brings us to yesterday and a post to the Yahoo EoH group from one D.Kirby reading:

This is interesting. Calif Dept of Health Services will be presenting DDS data at IMFAR

They will report that the number of 3-5 year old cases was still rising as of Sept 2006 – thus no evidence for a major role for thimerosal in ASD was found.

But, the abstract makes a very interesting point. It says that: “Limitations of the DDS database and lack of individual exposure data prevent conclusions, based on these data, about thimerosal as a cause or modifier of autism in a specific subgroup or child.

(Emphases are mine)

I read this to mean that one cannot apply the California data to prove that a specific group or child (ie one with a genetic predisposition) was NOT harmed by thimerosal. Also, there is no way to know for sure exactly how much mercury individual children were exposed to during the period in question.

Please, someone explain to me why I am wrong, and that includes any lurkers out there who believe that the California numbers mean it is time to close the thimerosal books once and for all.

I am being serious. I really thought these numbers were probably the death knell of this hypothesis, and they may still be. But it seems that the State of California would have us interpret these numbers with a bit more caution.

The abstract is below. ALL comments welcome, and that includes skeptics. Thanks. DK

No dude, you’re not wrong. Know why? *This is exactly what we’ve been telling you for the last two/three years*

Nobody has ever claimed that the CDDS data can disprove the epidemic or the thiomersal hypothesis. What we _said_ was that you couldn’t use it to _prove_ it either.

What CDDS will be presenting is exactly what they say – that CDDS can be used to demonstrate no correlation between autism and thiomersal for a select group of individuals. That doesn’t mean thiomersal _didn’t_ cause autism or that it _did_. It means CDDS can’t show causation one way or the other. I’m so glad that’s finally filtered through.

Bear in mind the ramifications of this Mr Kirby. CDDS data cannot be used to prop up the epidemic hypothesis any more. I think you can finally see that. I hope we can expect to see you publicly putting people right on that. Maybe a post on your HuffPo blog?

And let me tell you what _really_ worries me about all this Mr Kirby. Firstly, you swallowed this whole debacle hook line and sinker. The Mercury mums and dads sold it to you and you just believed them. Aren’t you supposed to be an investigative reporter? Where was the investigation? Secondly, you and others have been using this non-connection as the _sole epidemiology_ to prop up the thiomersal and epidemic hypothesis. Now that the penny’s finally dropped where does that leave you?

I’ll close by asking you a favour Mr Kirby. You were spoonfed this idea and swallowed it whole without thought. Now you’ve guessed you were wrong. You’re being spoonfed clinical papers that are equally bad. You seem to be swallowing them whole. Please. Please go and talk to actual, real scientists about them.

More

Dad of Cameron‘s take on this.
Diva’s take on this.

Autism amongst the Amish

22 Apr

Don’t Stand So Close To Me

I recently had an email conversation with someone who is married to a lapsed Mennonite and who’s secretary is a lapsed Amish. As this was too good an opportunity to miss I asked xyr about autism amongst the Amish and vaccinations.

I was interested in Dan Olmsted’s idea that he and his sources waltz around Amish communities, grabbing people and asking ‘got any autism in the family’? and calling this reporting. When we talked about this xyr answer was fascinating:

As for tracking autistics, forget about it. Families are not likely going to seek diagnosis unless there are seizures or some other acute issue. Imagine driving up to a bunch of Amish farms and asking, “Are any of your kids autistic?” I would guess they probably haven’t ever heard of the word.

As xe explains it, the Amish are deeply religious people. Xe has first hand experience of this and explained to me how it would be virtually impossible given these beliefs and on such a short aquaintance for Olmsted – or his sources -to get ‘close’ to the Amish as a population:

The entire Amish religion is based on shunning the outside, secular world, these are the biblical tenants they live by:

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. (II Corinthians 6:14)

Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. (II Corinthians 6:17)

And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

The Amish only make accommodations when necessary. So, they have a phone in the barn to call the vet and the dairy plant. They accept rides in automobiles and trucks but don’t drive. They may shop for essentials but they aren’t going to chat you up.

And as I said before, I doubt seriously that they would seek a diagnosis for autism unless there was some acute comorbidity like seizures. They would likely know that their child was different but that was god’s will.

and as for vaccination:

The Amish are not anti-vaccine. Some Amish kids go to public school and must be vaccinated. My brother-in-law was raised Amish until about age 10 and he’s got the small pox scar to prove the point.

The basic gist is that the Amish are leery of non-Amish/Mennonite (whom they refer to as ‘the English’ (!!) apparently) but if a matter is medical and may cause threats to health than they are not stupid and seek out Western medicine.

Based on this, I really have doubts that Olmsted ever did more than stablish himself as a ‘nosey English’. I really have trouble believing that such a reserved, separate people would open up to either him or his water cooler salesman source about their personal, private medical matters.

No Autism Amongst The Amish

Its a long standing (and oft repeated) belief amongst the autism/antivaccine believers that there is no autism, or vastly reduced incidence of autism, amongst the Amish. This belief is repeated by all and sundry:

…thousands of Amish, almost all of whom do not vaccinate their children and do not seem to suffer much autism.

Dan Olmsted.

This finding of no significant level of “autism”….has also been observed in the unvaccinated children of the Amish

Dr Paul King, CoMed, closed access Yahoo List.

….the Amish community who do not participate in Western medicine, including the practice of vaccinations, have demonstrated their rates of autism are substantially lower.

Lisa Ackerman, TACA (Talk about Curing Autism) Executive Director, closed access Yahoo List.

Why has there never been autism in the Amish community? They dont vaccinate!

Poster ‘Jan’ to closed access Yahoo List.

I challenge anyone to go into any Amish community in this country and find autistic children. You won’t find them. Yet, our schools are being over run with autistic children. Why? The Amish do not vaccinate.

Poster ‘Paul Troutt’ to closed access Yahoo List

HE [friend of the poster] HAS NEVER SEEN AN AUTISTIC AMISH CHILD OR ADULT…. Why? THE[y] DO NOT IMMUNIZE….EVER.

Poster ‘Amethyst Mueller’ to closed access Yahoo List.

And so it seems clear right? All these people are saying the same thing. We could go into any Amish community and find very, very low or zero autism. And to what do these people attribute the non-existent autism? Vaccines (or the lack thereof) of course!

What would happen if we removed one of these factors from the equation?

The Old-Order Amish have low rates of vaccination and are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. A written survey was mailed to all Amish households in the largest Amish community in Illinois inquiring about their vaccination status and
that of their children.

Source.

Well, well. How very interesting. Finally some _science_ , as oppose to journalism, that examines whether the oft-reported belief that the Amish don’t vaccinate is true. What did these guys find?

Responses were received by 225 (60%) of the 374 Amish households in the community with children aged <15 years. An additional 120 responses were received by households without children. A total of 189 (84%) households with children reported
that all of their children had received vaccinations; 28 (12%) reported that some of their children had received vaccinations; and
8 (4%) reported that none of their children had received vaccinations.

84% of Amish households reported all their kids had received vaccinations. Only 4% reported that none of their kids had received vaccinations.

Among all respondents who knew their own vaccination status, 281/313 (90%) reported that they had received vaccinations
as children

Wow. Amazing how the two to three ‘toxic train wrecks’ from amongst these adults could not only have been missed (vaccine induced autism being unmissable as we all know) but also managed to fill in a survey.

So – we can say that the assumption that the Amish do not vaccinate is in severe doubt. When 90% of Amish adults in a survey state they received vaccinations and when 84% state all their kids have been vaccinated to what do we attribute the fact that according to Dan Olmsted, Dr Paul King, Lisa Ackerman and various posters on Yahoo groups there is little to no autism amongst the Amish?

How long will it be?

19 Apr

The demonisation of the disabled has always been with us. The purposeful assigning of negative characteristics in order to worsen a case or point of view. Sometimes the people doing this are the very parents of the disabled people in question. Autistic kids have been called ‘toxic train wrecks’, ‘walking nightmares’, ‘unreachable’, ‘soulless’, ’empty shells, ‘dead inside’.

So, I have a nasty fear, shared by Asperger Square 8 and MOM-NOS that at some point, the murderer of several teachers and young people in a gun rampage in Virginia will be diagnosed by the media as autistic.

Here’s one media description of the murderer:

He was always really, really quiet and kind of weird, keeping to himself all the time,” he said. “Just of anti-social, didn’t talk to anybody. I tried to make conversation with him in August or so and he would just give one word answers and not try and carry on the conversation.”

Sound familiar? Yeah.

Or maybe he was just rude and didn’t like people. he did, after all, kill several of them.

On the EoH yahoo group one poster says:

Wonder if they can run that urine test polyprophilin???? on him for mercury poisoning. I bet that kid is toxic as all get out.

John Best chips in with:

The article says he didn’t make eye contact with his room mates and didn’t acknowledge people greeting him. That sounds familiar.

And when otehrs expressed skepticism that the murderer was on the spectrum, John explained why he wanted him to be:

If he was on the spectrum, then the shooting becomes the fault of Neurodiversity for encouraging him to celebrate the difference instead of getting cured.

Nice. Forget that people have been killed here, lets twist this to get at a group of people we don’t like. How respectful.

Thankfully, Erik put John right:

John, I hate the neurodiverse philosophy of no treatment/no cure, you know that. But what you’re saying is way off base.

But isn’t it amazing how even the parents of autistic kids are so very willing to see their own kids as similar to this murderer? Amazing and scary.

Also on EoH yesterday, a poster posted this link (warning – not nice) which is a petition to ‘kick out autistic retards from America’. The poster described how horrified she was by this petition. Me too. Its appalling.

But look at the wording of the petition:

In the past 15 years autism and mental retardation rates amongst children has skyrocketted. One out of every 100 children born in America is either retarded or autistic. Soon autistics and retards will make up 30% of the American population (and that’s a lot.) They do not deserve to live in America, not to mention that they take our tax dollars and our welfare money because they require special education and can’t work beacause they can’t communicate. Taxes will go up drastically in the next 20 years because of them.

Epidemic rhetoric, financial cost epidemic and demonisation. In a slightly differing context, I could easily have been reading a press release from the National Autism Association or the mainstream media.

If you have popularised the epidemic rhetoric, if you have popularised the financial cost rhetoric against autistic people then please know that you are not too dissimilar from this odious individual.

Autism should not, ever, be demonised in order to score political points. There is _no evidence_ to support the idea of an epidemic. There is _no evidence_ that autistic people are crazed killers. How is this advocacy? How does it help?

MMR and Autism – 2007 is the year

1 Apr

This year, the Autism Omnibus hearing in the USA will examine the idea that MMR causes autism. They will do this by taking one of the plus 4,500 cases and looking at it as a ‘test case’. The case in question is the Cedillo family, mother Theresa (just a coincidence), father Michael and daughter Michelle.

The document above by the way establishes that they want the evidence they accumulate to be open to the other families but that they do not want the identities or the evidence of their expert witnesses to be made available online. I wonder why. If I may be so egotistical, it could have something to do with the fact that several bloggers have trounced both the data and the experts and they don’t want this happening any more.

Anyway. What do we know about the Cedillo’s?

We know that Michelle’s bioposies were examined by Professor O’Leary, one time colleague of Andrew Wakefield who went on to have his own results seriously questioned and who went to say:

Professor John O’Leary, who did the tests for solicitors representing the families of autistic children, said his scientific findings “did not support the MMR/autism hypothesis”.

We also know that Michelle was seen by Arthur Krigsman, who, despite claiming to replicate Wakefield’s discredited Lancet paper has had no papers on autism, or vaccines published at all. What he has had however, are numerous close calls with licensing bodies – in one instance he had to resign in order to escape official investigations into his conduct.

And what do the Cedillo’s believe has happened to Michelle?

We just found out the left hind foot bones in Michelle’s foot are deformed. Instead of being one on top of the other, they are growing side by side. Michelle is on pain meds nearly around the clock. She limps and walks with a side to side gait instead of forward like normal. This was caused by the Crohn’s associated arthritis (confirmed independely by 2 orthopedic spec and a ped rheumatologist AND Dr. Krigsman and Dr. Wakefield), which was caused by the Crohn’s disease caused by the vaccine strain measles RNA found in her bowel tissue from the MMR. Michelle gets periodic ocular inflammation – also from the Crohn’s disease. This gives her headaches.

Its terrible that such a young girl is in so much discomfort. But looking past that and concentrating solely on the science, we see that the Cedillo’s believe that Michelle contracted Crohn’s disease brought on by the measles element of the MMR.

So – Crohn’s _and_ autism? Searching VAERS, I find only seven cases that refer to ‘crohn’ and had the MMR vaccine. That’s pretty rare.

Even those who might be expected to support the MMR/autism hypothesis don’t. In an email to the Autism Biomedical Group on March 08, 2004, Vice President of SafeMinds Mark Blaxill stated:

epidemiological evidence (albeit from studies that have not carefully considered interaction issues), have not supported the broader proposition that “MMR causes autism.”

I will be very curious to see exactly who their experts are and what their evidence will be. If it really is, as I suspect, Andrew Wakefield, then they won’t be able to choose a worse time to invoke his ‘expertise’. Wakefield’s hearing at the GMC starts at about the same time.

Here’s a beginners guide to the MMR/autism hypothesis and what Wakefield claims to have found. The hypothesis states that the MMR vaccine, being a live vaccine, leaves bits of live Measles virus in the gut. Wakefield claimed to have found it there. This goes on to trigger autism.

No part of this hypothesis has ever been replicated and published in a decent journal. Wakefields closest colleague – Krigsman – has been unable to find a publisher for his ‘replication’ which indicates the quality of _his_ science. As reported above John O’Leary claimed to have replicated Wakefield’s work but it turned out there was a good chance his data was contaminated and he later stated none of his work showed a connection. Various epidemiological studies have also failed to find any link (as Mark Blaxill admits).

We also have two clinical science papers that demonstrate convincingly that Wakefield did indeed make a substantial error. One Paediatricsin Pediatrics was very damning:

The real-time assays based on previously published primers gave rise to a large number of positive reactions in both autism spectrum disorder and control samples.

Translation: We replicated Krigsman/Wakefield etc to their end point and there were lots of measles virus just like they said.

Almost all of the positive reactions in these assays were eliminated by evaluation of melting curves and amplicon band size.

Translation: We did the science properly just like they didn’t. When we did most, but not all of the positive reactions disappeared.

The amplicons for the remaining positive reactions were cloned and sequenced. No sample from either autism spectrum disorder or control groups was found to contain nucleic acids from any measles virus gene.

Translation: When we looked at the rest of the very small number of positives we had left we found no measles virus in any of them.

In the nested polymerase chain reaction and inhouse assays, none of the samples yielded positive results. Furthermore, there was no difference in anti-measles antibody titers between the autism and control groups

Translation: We double checked our methods and tools and there were now _no_ positive reactions at all. Further more, just for clarity – there were none in our non autistic people _or our autistic people_.

It’s going to be very, very difficult for the Cedillo’s to overcome this.

Now, closer to home (for me anyway), there are a couple of new papers that discuss what impact the MMR really _did_ have on people. Here’s some real evidence of harm.

In “Tracking mothers’ attitudes to MMR immunisation 1996–2006“, we hear the alarming statistic of how much damage Wakefield et al did to the UK MMR program:

The proportion of parents believing MMRto be a greater risk than the diseases it protects against has fallen from 24% in 2002 to 14% in 2006. The proportion of ‘hard-core rejectors’ of MMR vaccine remains stable at 6%. There has been a gradual and sustained increase in the proportion of parents across all social groups saying MMR was completely safe/slight risk rising from 60% in 2002 to a current level of 74%. There now appears to be a sustained move away from fears over MMR safety and belief in the unfounded link to autism towards a more positive perception of the vaccine.

It a relief that the authors believe there is a sustained move back towards a more rational state of mind regarding MMR but its incredible that 24% of people ever believed that MMR was more risky than the diseases it protected against.

Its no surprise then, that in the years 1997/98 – 2004/05, MMR uptake dropped by a massive 10%. Of interest, when comparing that _fall_ in MMR uptake is the epidemic rhetoric that claims autism is sweeping the UK too. Both things can’t be true. If MMR causes autism then however one paints the stats, there should’ve been a 10% fall in autism.

One group of people truly have suffered through this period. They have been the front line recipients of the bad science of Wakefield et al: parents of autistic kids.

In the new paper, “MMR: marginalised, misrepresented and rejected? Autism: a focus group study“, investigators interviewed parents of autistic kids:

Of the parents whose children received the MMR vaccine, many felt guilty that they may have caused or contributed to their child’s autism. Some parents felt frustrated by health professionals’ lack of understanding of the negative impact the MMR controversy has had on them. Some parents were anxious about subsequent MMR decision-making for their children.

This is the legacy of Andrew Wakefield. Parents who are guilt ridden and unsure who to turn to. The study conclusions state:

The controversy has had a negative impact on some parents of children with autism. This has implications for health professionals, who need to be particularly aware of the issues these parents face in future MMR decision-making for their affected child and younger siblings.

These focus group discussions produced moving and often emotional accounts of parents trying to come to terms with their child’s diagnosis of autism against a backdrop of widespread public speculation about the role of the MMR vaccine in the aetiology of autism.

As Jim Sinclair states in his essay ‘Don’t Mourn For Us’:

Some amount of grief is natural as parents adjust to the fact that an event and a relationship they’ve been looking forward to isn’t going to materialize. But this grief over a fantasized normal child needs to be separated from the parents’ perceptions of the child they do have: the autistic child who needs the support of adult caretakers and who can form very meaningful relationships with those caretakers if given the opportunity.

The parents in these focus groups (and remember these people were interviewed when the MMR conspiracy theory was still well underway) never had a chance to move past the natural adjustment period and on to acceptance. When the media and ‘scientists’ continue to express certainty despite having absolutely no evidence that MMR causes autism its hard to get past the guilt. I know. That’s how I felt as well.

Parents often spoke angrily about how the MMR controversy had impacted on their lives. Even parents who stated that their
child’s autism was entirely genetic in origin felt affected by the uncertainty about the causes of autism which were heightened
by the controversy. For example, one mother who thought her son had been born with autism nonetheless found the speculation surrounding MMR upsetting, and stated that: … it makes you feel pretty damn rotten. I feel as if at the time I did the best for my boy… I wouldn’t have put my child through anything that I think would harm him. (G1: P3)

Thanks again Andy.

Education data is the new black

26 Mar

Or, more accurately, Education data is the new CDDS.

Up until this year, David Kirby, Lenny Schafer, Rick Rollens et al said that CDDS data was the gold standard of autism data and because rates were rising during the 90’s according to CDDS data this proved that vaccines caused autism. Then they said this would be proved in 2005 – sorry, 2007 – when it was firmly established thiomersal was pretty much out of all vaccines in the US schedule excepting the voluntary flu jab. Kirby went so far as to say that if the CDDS rates didn’t fall by 2007 then this would be a significant blow to the thiomersal theory.

Guess what? No fall. In fact, there was a continued climb.

Next they all said – CDDS? That stuff is rubbish – California is ‘special’. No, no, no, what _really_ counts is educational data. In fact, just this morning, the latest Schafer Autism Report carried new data that showed how autism rates were still climbing.

But hang on….seeing as we _know_ that the amount of thiomersal in vaccines is essentially nil, and tests show that as early as 2002, over 80% of doctors surgeries reported they carried no thiomersal containing vaccines, how can we possibly carry on with the stupendously idiotic hypothesis that thiomersal in vaccines causes autism?

Feh. Never mind. Thiomersal is out of favour these days. These days its all about Aluminium or whatever other vaccine ingredient people want to wring their hands about.

Anyway, here’s a post I came across on EoH today:

I just found this newsletter from last fall- vaccine rates dropping funding short- sounds good to me. Too bad we are not counting AUtism rates like CA.

and it linked to this PDF which says:.

Alarmingly, our childhood vaccine rates have dropped from the highest in the nation to just below the national average. From 90% of two year olds fully immunized to less than 80%.

The inference is clear, right? If only we could count the number of autistic people in Maine up to and including 2006 I bet we’d see them dropping as the vaccine uptake in Maine dwindled. And hey – this should be an easy drop to find in the state that had the highest vaccine uptake in the nation, right? Oh, if _only_ someone had tracked the autism numbers in Maine!!!

Well, worry no more – the great guys at the Vaccine Autoimmune project have. (IE link only, poor web development ahoy!). Lets take a look shall we?

State 2000-2001 2005-2006 Percentage Increase
Maine 150 311 107

Huh??

Wait now…you mean to tell me that vaccine uptake _fell_ over 10% and yet autism _increased_????

Miraculous – whatever can it mean???

Ayoub/Yazbak/Fombonne

8 Mar

_Jonathon has posted an excellent summation which I entirely agree with on the Ayoub/Yazbak/Fombonne ‘affair’. I’ll include it here and shut off comments, including a link to Jonathon’s post for you to see references and leave comments._

_My one comment is to say that I think that Fombonne has a case to answer. I also hope that he will. I further think that the critical errors Jonathon highlights show clearly that the more outlandish claims that Ayoub and Yazbak have demonstrated correlation between MMR and autism are unfounded. They should’ve just stuck to the genuine and good quality criticism of Fombonne._

_The floor is now Jonathon’s: _

A Review of the Critiques of Fombonne et al. (2006)
Abstract

The critiques of Fombonne et al. (2006) do point some relevant problems with that study. However, they also use some considerably problematic arguments themselves.

Introduction

Fombonne et al (2006) attempts to correlate data between an increase in the number of cases of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders and vaccine use in school children residing in Montreal, Canada. That research failed to reveal any such correlation. In addition the researchers found a prevalence rate of the PDD’s which match what is seen in the US (Bertrand et al., 2001), the UK (Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001; and Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2005), the Faroe Islands in Northern Europe (Ellefsen et al., 2006), and matches data on Autistic Disorder in Japan (Honda et al., 2005)

Recently, two web based articles have been released and promoted based out of the National Autistic Association website. These articles were written by Dr. David Ayoub & Monica Ruscitti for one letter and Dr. Edward Yazbak for the other. These authors raise important and damaging points which call into question the validity of Fombonne et al. (2006). I note however, that not all the points raised in these critiques have equal merit; in fact some of the points raised are most notable for their lack of merit. The points raised in the critiques are discussed below.

Review of Ayoub & Ruscitti

The authors point out that Fombonne et al. (2006) only uses data from only one of Montreal’s five school districts. This district is specifically an English speaking section. The authors accurately point out that a selection bias may have occurred here. In addition the authors note that Fombonne et al. (2006) claimed they could not gain access to the other school districts’ data. The authors then claimed they gained access to this data and make specific claims about a notably higher rate of autism in the school district Fombonne et al. used. I note that these data and analysis methods are absent.

The authors note that English is only the third most common language in Quebec, the largest group being French and the second largest being assorted foreign languages. The authors note that access is restricted to the English speaking school district by a law designed to help protect the French language. However, the authors simultaneously make the claim that this English speaking school is more inclusive than the others. This claim seems contradictory. It is possible that while the English speaking district is more exclusive in general it is in fact more inclusive towards students with disabilities. However this point is not explained.

The authors correctly criticize Fombone et al. (2006) for describing thimerosal laden shots as “nil”. The authors go on to describe vaccines in Canada that continue to use thimerosal. However, the authors fail to note that none of these vaccines are actually required any longer and for that reason exposure should not be comparable.

The authors mention that fourth graders largely participated in a voluntary vaccination program for Hepatitis B, which contains thimerosal. However, the DSM-IV mandates that Autistic Disorder first appear in a child by age 3, even if it is diagnosed later. Fourth graders do not develop autism. Also, and rather remarkably the authors cite Roy et al. (1999) which is concerned with the health and safety including vaccination based on high risk behaviors of street youth in Montreal. The median age of that study was 19.5.

The authors criticize Fombonne in the following terms:

“he ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the immunization schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage rates. Obviously the increased amount of administered viral load to the population was far greater influenced by a doubling of shots administered than by a marginal drop in immunization coverage rates. He likewise ignored the potential impact of mass measles immunization campaigns in Quebec that delivered a second dose of measles to a large number of infants and children throughout 1996. (11) The subsequent rise in PDD shortly after that campaign is clearly depicted in their figures and would lead us to believe this observation supports an association between PDD and MMR exposure.”

The above assumes that the drop in thimerosal was not only made up, but actually exceeded by the increase in MMR dosage. For this explanation to work, one must simultaneously assume that both thimerosal and the MMR can cause autism. A more parsimonious explanation would be that the rate of autism would have risen regardless, which is certainly what we see in other locations including the no longer mandatory thimerosal exposure in California.

The authors also state:

“Numerous reports of higher PDD rates among immigrants have been reported in Canada and other industrialized countries.”

This claim is demonstrated no where in any research. It even seems to contradict some actual research (Kamer et al., 2004).

The authors go on to assert:

“Finally the paper’s observation about rising PDD rates seems to contradict Dr. Fombonne’s well-known contention of the lack of evidence of an autism epidemic. In an Inserm interview, Dr. Fombonne said, “to declare an epidemic, or sensible increase of the prevalence, it would take incidence studies, always the same, year after year, but this data is not available in any country.” (12) The database we obtained from the MEQ represents the type of dataset Fombonne stated was required to detect true increases in PDD. According to one Montreal-based autism organization, data from the MEQ revealed an increase in annual PDD cases in Quebec from 410 (1990-1991) to 4,483 (2005-2006), a nearly 1,000% increase over 15 years. (13) This is staggering and is strong evidence of a real rise in neurodevelopmental illnesses that cannot possibly be solely genetic in nature but supports an environmental etiology.”

The above statement is presents a false problem. An increase in this data set may not be attributable to real change in the actual number of cases. The system could be open to a lack of control for the six threats to statistical validity. This is a well known problem in other administrative data sets in the world of autism.

Review of Yazbak

The author submitted an letter to the editor detailing concerns about uptake of the MMR rate in Montreal and the increase in the PDDs. The editor forwarded this comment from Dr. Fombonne:

“This person is known to pursue the MMR-autism agenda at all
costs in order to ‘demonstrate’ a link he strongly believes in. The only way ahead is to encourage him to do independent research. All controlled epidemiological research thus far has concluded to the absence of such a link.”

the editor of the journal had this to say:

“As a note, I believe the evidence of no link between MMR and Autism is sufficient. It’s not worth publishing more on this subject. We will not be publishing this exchange of correspondence.”

I disagree with Dr. Fombonne’s approach to this situation. It is not relevant that Dr. Yazbak believes in a vaccine etiology of autism. I also disagree with his failing to address Dr. Yazabak’s criticisms which are specific and serious.

I also heartily disagree with the editor’s refusal to publish Dr. Yazbak’ criticism. While it is certainly his job to ensure that all matters within the journal merit inclusion under a serious scientific aegis, Dr. Yazbak’s criticisms are specific and fall into known categories of scientific criticism. Whether or not he believes it has no beating on his responsibility to publish scientific criticism.

However, given the title Dr. Yazbak selected “Far-Fetched”, perhaps the editor had ground to refuse this letter or at least demand that it be re-titled. Pediatrics is a serious academic journal of high standard. In most such journals while a given level of sarcasm and dismissiveness is permitted, this seems to have crossed the line of acceptability.

Dr. Yazbak goes on to assert:

“When he was in France, Dr. Fombonne was a well known psychiatrist who published articles on psychiatric topics. He was still a psychiatrist when he moved to England …until Andrew Wakefield suggested that the link between MMR vaccination and autism should be further investigated and suddenly …Dr. Fombonne became a “psychiatrist / epidemiologist” and a consultant to the UK medical authorities on MMR vaccination and autism”

The Wakefield controversy began in 1998. So:

Fombonne, E. (1996). Is the prevalence of autism increasing? Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 673–676.

Fombonne, E. (1997). The prevalence of autism and other pervasive
developmental disorders in the UK. Autism, 1, 227–229.

QED.

The author further asserts that:

“It is obviously customary to disclose sources of funding, Disclosing sources of “Non-Funding” on the other hand is unusual. In any case, it is nice to know that Dr. Fombonne’s research was never funded by the “Industry”.”

This is easily explainable in that Dr. Fombonne’s work has been informally criticized as being supported by the pharmaceutical industry, possibly with the intent that he would manipulate the data in favor of finding no association. This statement may have been given to help put such non-sense to rest.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that the weak criticisms in the critiques above do not remove the genuine and quality criticisms. The authors do point some genuine problems. The failure of both editor and Dr. Fombonne to make adequate response is also disagreeable.

By the same token some of the criticisms are remarkable for their lack of relevancy or factual basis. There are problems with these critiques that have a real potential to mislead others. It is to be hoped that the NAA and the authors will take steps to amend this, leaving their better criticisms intact.

See references and leave comments on Jonathon’s site.

Problems with prevalence

8 Feb

The ‘autism epidemic’ lives and dies on prevalence. The assumed prevalence in the US again came under the spotlight due to a CDC study being released that showed an increased rate of prevalence.

Autism is more common in the United States than anyone had estimated, affecting about one in every 150 children, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday.

Pfft – that’s nothing. Us Brits can post a recent prevalence estimate of one in every 100 children and as Joseph shows a 1% prevalence is not really anything new either. What _is_ new is that this new study from the CDC is slowly beginning to approach the prevalence rate of around 1% reported in the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden and, less strongly, Norway.

So when I say ‘increase in prevalence’ – and when these people refer to the same – are we all saying that the prevalence rate is actively increasing? No. No one (at least no one legitimate) is suggesting that there is an active increase in the amount of people who _are_ autistic. Rather the suggestion is that we continue to move (some countries faster than others) to an international autism prevalence of (as yet) some undiscovered figure, but one which is definitely over 1% where rates will probably plateau with minor tweaks up and down.

An interesting quote from the same interview:

“The older statistics always estimated 70 to 75 percent of kids with autism had cognitive impairment,” Rice said. “We found 33 to 62 percent.”

So, ask yourself, is this a cognitive impairment ‘anti-epidemic’? If you believe the changes in autism prevalence represent an epidemic, surely it must follow that these figures represent an ‘anti-epidemic’?

Or maybe, just maybe, this is an illustration of two things a) the changes in diagnostic criteria for autism as a whole and b) improved diagnosticians and diagnosing techniques.

As a further exercise and as I’ve been perseverating a tad on them of late, lets see what the changing face of prevalence can tell us about CDDS data as of 2005 (year end).

OK, as of 2005, the population of California was 36,132,147. The number of CDDS registrants as of 2005 was 29,424. This gives an autistic population in CA in 2005 of 0.08% according to CDDS.

We now have three potential prevalence rates to measure the accuracy of CDDS – do the CDDS numbers accurately match any of the three prevalence rates? Well, clearly the answer is no. At a rate of 1 in 166 (the ‘old’ prevalence rate) there should be an autistic population of 0.60% and using the ‘new’ 1 in 150 rate there should be an autistic population of 0.66% – and we already know that in Canada and parts of Europe the rate is 1%.

Let’s be clear here, CDDS is reporting between 8.1% and 13.5% (depending on the prevalence rate you go with) of all autism in California. That’s not so good. Especially when even _those_ figures have stopped supporting your hypothesis.

David Kirby/Arthur Allen Debate Part IV

4 Feb

There’s Something About California!

So says David Kirby in the second part of his look at CDDS numbers. Lest we forget, whilst the California numbers seemed to support the thiomersal hypothesis, there was _nothing_ unusual about California. Now they don’t, there apparently is.

Right.

So, Kirby says there are seven reasons why ‘there’s something about California’. The first one is fascinating:

Wow. That’s pure, unadulterated bull. Sorry to be so blunt but it is. Far from ‘phoning people up to see what they had in the fridge’, here’s what the minutes of the meeting in which this was raised actually said:

….N.I.P. estimated the amount of thimerosal in provider vaccine inventories in a survey conducted September 20, 2001 to February 20, 2002. The targets were a convenience sample of providers getting site visits from public health officials across the country. Inventory counts were done of all refrigerators for D.T.a.P., Hib, and hep B pediatric vaccines. The thimerosal classification was based on the lot number information, which was verified by the manufacturers. In September 2001, 225 sites were canvassed, and 447 by February 2002…..During the visits, the providers were surveyed about thimerosal-containing vaccines in their inventories. Of the 447 interviews, 83.5 percent reported no thimerosal-containing vaccines in stock at any time since October 2001.

So, no Mr Kirby no one ‘picked up the phone and asked – do you have any mercury in your refrigerator’. Site visits. Public health officials went out and counted. No one’s claiming its iron clad but its hardly throw away either.

But it is, however, nice to know what Kirby’s opinion on phone call based surveys are. I’ll remember that when Brad launches the fruits of his recent labour.

Kirby’s six other points are the same old same old about RhoGAM (not a vaccine and recently and recently trounced in court), Flu shots in mercury. Thats an odd one. Maybe someone could explain to me how a voluntary flu shot, given once a year that contains about a 1/8th of the thiomersal that vaccines used to can cause autism rates to go _up_ ?

What else? Oh yeah – immigration and population grew in CA and hey – maybe some of those durn immigrants got vaccinated twice? Cus – y’know – immigrants ain’t too smart at counting.

Then to add to the illogical fear of foreigners David ‘yellow peril’ Kirby brings out his piéce de resistance – Asian coal. Yeah. Damned Asians and their coal. Grrrrr. Sorry – what? Even if it is true, what the hell has it got to do with thiomersal?

Oh and he mentions that Aluminium might play some unspecified part in some unspecified way maybe.

Truly, in the annals of debating history, DK will go down as the ‘shuck and jive’ expert. When in doubt, change the subject, make up some stuff and show some cool looking graphs really, really quickly.

Sacking Dr. Nick

2 Feb

Yesterday’s post on the CDDS numbers drew a response from JB Handley. Cool. However it seemed that he entirely missed the point of the post, either through misunderstanding or wilful choice. I’ll discuss this aspect of his commentary later, but for now, lets try and remove all ambiguity from the point of the CDDS post.

Poor Dr. Nick.I fondly imagined that using a well known quack would demonstrate the usefullness of CDDS for autism epidemiology as subtly as the dialogue in an Arnie movie demonstrates Arnie enjoys big guns. Sadly it seems that that optimism was misplaced as both commenter ‘666sigma’ and Brad showed they didn’t get it.

In one sentence, the previous post was made to illustrate the inability of CDDS data to show anything meaningful regarding the epidemiology of autism. Using CDDS I managed to ‘prove’ that the fastest growing cohort on CDDS was the 62 – 99 year olds.

I did this as for the last few years Brad, David Kirby and Rick Rollens have made a series of suggestions, proclamations and predictions regarding this data. All revolve around the central hypothesis of thiomersal containing vaccines causing autism. Lets look at what they’ve said.

In an interview with FAIR Autism Media, David Kirby said:

It’s now 2005. Mercury started to be removed from vaccines roughly in 2001, we don’t know exactly when as the FDA won’t tell us, but kids entering the system now, four year olds for example in California entering the Dept of Developmental Services [CDDS] were born in 2001. So those kids theoretically get less mercury on average than kids born in 2000. So we should see fewer cases entering the system this year than we did last year.

So in 2005 David Kirby says CDDS should show a dropoff in numbers starting in 2005. 2005 came and went and guess what? No dropoff. He then claimed he’d never said that and instead said in an email to blogger Citizen Cain that:

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis….total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

No explanation was given for this tacking on of two extra years.

And so, 2006 came and went and here we are in 2007 and guess what? Still no decline.

No explanation has been offered by David Kirby as to this. He is now claiming, in debates about vaccines, that enviornmental mercury from forest fires, crematoriums and China is partialy to blame.

Lets be clear on this – he might be right. But a) No data has been offered to support this hypthesis either and b) this has absolutely no bearing on the vaccine hypothesis.

David Kirby put forward a hypothesis that thiomersal containing vaccines cause autism and that using CDDS data we would see a decline in 2005. We didn’t. He then claimed he meant 2007. Again, we didn’t.

And what of Brad? IN an interview with the Times Union in July 2005, Brad said:

Late 2006 should be the first time that rates go down,” said Handley. “If they don’t, our. hypothesis will need to be reexamined.

Just to reiterate, rates did not go down. They are still rising according to CDDS data.

And so we come to the crux of this issue. Do the mercury militia want to carry on using CDDS or not? If they do, then they need to explain why all of their predictions have so far failed to come true.

If they do not then they need to contradict Rick Rollens, who launched another epidemic-supporting missive yesterday. He says that there must be an epidemic because 78% of the CDDS autism population are under 18. Rollens claims this works out to approximately 14,000 ‘missing’ adult autistic people.

Mr Rollens reached these figures by using CDDS data. Amusingly, Brad quoted Mr Rollens in his comments yesterday and thus exposed the poor logic he utilises.

Which is true? Is there an epidemic of autism as shown by CDDS numbers? Or does thiomersal cause autism?

In the past, the ‘epidemic’ hypothesis supported the thiomersal hypothesis but as we have now passed three separate deadlines for a drop in numbers and as a drop in numbers fails to materialise (as evidenced by Mr Rollens) then these two hypothesis have now become competing rather than complimentary. You can’t have an ongoing epidemic and still say thiomersal causes autism. As I’ve discussed before, at an ACIP meeting in 2002 it was revealed that the total thiomersal containing vaccine (TCV) population was 1.9% as of Feb 2002.

So, on one hand we have virtually no TCV’s and on the other we have a steadily increasing amount of autistic people in CDDS across all cohorts.

The combination of this extreme paucity of TCV’s and Mr Rollens continued insistence we have an autism epidemic are thiomersal hypothesis killers.

But lets turn this whole thing around a minute. The point of yesterdays post was to illustrate that CDDS is not a good source of epidemiology. Why do I say that?

First we should note that Brad accused me of only saying this _after_ my post. As I said at the start of this one, I would’ve thought Dr. Nick guest blogging this would’ve been a bit of a giveaway, as would the title ‘manipulating CDDS’ but still….

I first recall mentioning the shortcomings of CDDS in Feb 2006. I can also recall Do’C, Joseph, Diva and Jon posting at various times between then and now about how poorly the mercury militia were using CDDS figures. And in fact, I can remember Brad being part of those debates too. He must’ve forgotten that.

So why are so many of us saying that CDDS is a poor source of data for autism epidemiology?

Well, mainly because thats what CDDS says themselves. There is a PDF on the front of the site with a warning against doing exactly what Rollens, Kirby and Handley have done/are doing. In April 2005 Autism Diva wrote to CDDS for clarification as to why this was. The following points emerged (bulleted – read the whole entry on Diva’s site for detail – quotes from a CDDS email to Diva)

1) Numbers reported do not represent all persons with developmental disabilities in the State of California
2) The numbers can not be used to report the incidence of autism
3) The number does not represent only individuals newly added (or new intakes) to the DDS system.
4) New intakes may be one component of the net value.
5) The difference in the number of persons reported with a given characteristic from one quarter to the next is simply a net value of the above factors
6) It is inaccurate to represent the change in the numbers reported from one quarter to the next as “new intakes”
7) In some cases the developmental disability recorded on an individual’s CDER may be changed to another type of developmental disability

Surely it must be clear to even the most opportunistic of armchair epidemiologists that using this data is _a bad idea_ ?

Diva has also provided further clarification as to the makeup of those autistic people in the CDDS system. It has long been an article of faith to the mercury militia that CDDS figures are good because they are made up _only_ of ‘full spectrum’ autism (classic, low functioning, whatever) and they use this to exclude Aspergers, High functioning etc. Here’s David Kirby:

…the Golden State, however, is said to operate the gold standard of autism epidemiology, having always tracked “full-blown” autism only, as defined by the DSM-IV manual. In other words, children with milder forms of the disorder, such as PDD and Apserger Syndrome, need not apply for services.

It seems that that just isn’t so:

The following was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities. It is a letter written by Rita Eagle PhD of the California Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS). (Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2004)…..The California Department of Developmental Services (April 2003) reports that the proportion of “higher functioning” children among the autism population has substantially increased and is on the rise, with a steady decline in the proportion of persons with autism who also have MR……To many clinicians, it appears that more and more children who, in th epast, would never have been referred to the regional centers–for example, bright but anxious and slightly socially inept kids with average or better IQs and children who, in the past, had been or would have been diagnosed as ADHD, OCD, ODD, anxiety disorder, learning disabilities, psychotic, and so forth—are now being diagnosed wit high-functioning autism and/or Asperger syndrome and referred to the regional centers for services.

So not only are the mercury militia using bad source data, they are presenting it to back up a scenario that simply doesn’t exist.

But hang on here – what am I saying? Surely if I’m stating that CDDS data is no good for autism epidemiology then I must be giving more weight back to the thiomersal hypothesis? If the Rollens/CDDS supported epidemic now undermines the CDDS supported thiomersal hypothesis (which it does) then surely by undermining the epidemic I’m re-establishing the thiomersal hypothesis? Haven’t I and lots of others been using CDDS data to show that autism rates are still increasing even after 5 years plus of TCV removal?

No. What we were doing was saying, ‘OK, if you want to use this data then use it but be aware that we can show that the same data shows the serious flaws in the thiomersal theory.’ Personally, I don’t believe CDDS data shows anything one way or the other. That was the point of yesterdays post – if you can use CDDS data to show that the heaviest area of growth in the ‘epidemic’ is the 62 – 99 cohort then I think we can pretty much say anything.

However, what I _know_ is that its now been five years since thiomersal was removed from vaccines. If it was even a partly contributing causative agent to a rise in autism then we should’ve seen a massive fall in autism. This fall would’ve been absolutely unmissable.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →