Archive | Genetics RSS feed for this section

autism epidemic science, autism vaccine science

27 Jan

Ex Derdrie Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology team leader Philip J. Landrigan is the latest scientist once associated with the debunked vaccine causation ideas to repudiate those ideas in a scientific journal.

Writing in Current Opinion in Pediatrics, Landrigan has published ‘what causes autism? Exploring the environmental contribution’ in which he explores what might be a plausible environmental causation. He also touches on genetics and the so-called ‘autism epidemic’.

Touching on genetics, he states:

Genetic and familial factors are unquestionably involved in causation of autism [4]. Families with multiple cases have been described. Autism has repeatedly been seen in sibs and twin pairs. Concordance in monozygotic twins is
reported to be as high as 70% [15], and, when the broader phenotype of autism is considered, concordance in monozygotic
twins approaches 90%. Concordance rates for autism in dizygotic twins appear no higher than among singleton siblings. Families with autistic children may contain members with ‘autistic traits’ such as social isolation or tendency toward repetitive behavior [13]. Autism occurs in a number of genetic conditions, among them Fragile X syndrome, Down syndrome, Cohen syndrome, Angelman syndrome [16] and Rett syndrome [17].

Regarding genetics as a whole Landrigan claims that autism can already be accounted for to the tune of between 7 – 8%. In an email to me he stated:

THE FRACTION OF AUTISM CASES THAT CAN RELIABLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO GENETIC CAUSES WILL CERTAINLY INCREASE AS MORE RESEARCH COMES IN

By how much though? No idea and Landrigan wouldn’t be drawn.

Regarding the ‘epidemic’ Landrigan states:

The reported increase in prevalence of autism has triggered vigorous debate as to whether the trend reflects a true increase in incidence, or is merely a consequence of expansion in the definition of ASD and greater awareness, improved diagnosis and better reporting [11]. This highly controversial question is not yet settled [14]. A
recent critical analysis concludes that increases in recognition, changed diagnostic criteria, and changing public
attitudes about autism have played a major role in catalyzing the upward trend in reported prevalence. This analysis observes, however, that the possibility of a true rise in incidence cannot be excluded [12].

Which should be – if one is truly interested in following the science so far – the correct conclusion. In other words, nobody really knows but the recent increases in recognition, changed diagnostic criteria and changing public attitudes (amongst other things) have played a major role.

In relation to vaccines, Landrigan states unequivocally that:

To address the issue, a series of studies was undertaken in the US, the UK, Europe and Japan. None of these studies have found any credible evidence for a link between vaccines and autism [12]…..Fear of autism does not justify failure to vaccinate children against life-threatening diseases [75].

In an email to me Landrigan stated:

IT WAS RESEARCH THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN DOZEN, HIGH-QUALITY NEGATIVE STUDIES OF THE ISSUE IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON…

I’m not sure it was research that needed to be done given the extremely tenuous hypotheses that began the various vaccine/autism strands but I agree that it is time to move on.

I was somewhat surprised at this paper as I had become used to seeing Landrigan’s name associated with those who believe vaccines cause autism and certainly his involvement with Derdrie Imus would indicate his belief in that set of ideas. It was a nice surprise to see that he was sticking to the science.

So what can we draw from this? First and foremost we have to say that a colleague of Derdrie Imus stating publicly that vaccines don’t cause autism is the biggest red flag so far that even the scientists who once gave credence to those ideas are moving away from them. Secondly we can say that althoough we cannot preclude the idea of a real actual increase, the major role in causing an increase in autism numbers still remains the combination of increased recognition, changed diagnostic criteria, changed public attitude, diagnostic substitution, more available locations for gaining a diagnosis and more doctors trained to give diagnoses. Lastly we can say that here is a toxicologist who acknowledges that there is a strong genetic component and that that component is likely to increase.

Genetic tests and insurance

10 Sep

Does your insurance cover genetic testing?

Many do. But often only in the case of high risk pregnancies or amniocentesis. If you want a diagnosis for your self or your already born child, it’s on your dime.

In other words, if you would like to consider terminating your pregnancy and not bringing a heavy user of insurance covered medicine into the world, the insurance companies are happy to help. If you might be looking for answers, which may result in greater medical expenses, the insurance company doesn’t want to help.

Parents’ Interest in Predictive Genetic Testing for Their Children When a Disease Has No Treatment

25 Aug

If you are a parent, would you have asked for a genetic test for autism on your child before his/her diagnosis?

Consider an article in today’s issue of the journal Pediatrics, “Parents’ Interest in Predictive Genetic Testing for Their Children When a Disease Has No Treatment”.

This is not about autism specifically, but about an unnamed “disease”. The researchers posed two “vignettes” and asked the parent to respond to them.

Before people heap criticism over bringing up a paper with the word “Diseases” in the title (and throughout the paper) in relation to a discussion of autism: I am not saying autism is a disease.

Here are the two vignettes:

Vignette 1: Disease With Severe Symptoms and Uncertain Time of Onset
Imagine that a genetic test exists that can identify people at increased risk for developing a certain disease for which there is currently no treatment. Disease symptoms are severe and sometimes lead to early death. People may develop symptoms either as an adult or as a child, and it is not possible to predict how old a person will be when he or she develops symptoms.
Would you want to have your child get this genetic test? Please answer for your youngest child.

And

Vignette 2: Disease With Uncertain Symptoms and Uncertain Time of Onset
Imagine that a genetic test exists that can identify people at increased risk for developing a certain disease for which there is currently no treatment. Some people with this disease will develop severe symptoms, whereas others will develop only mild symptoms. It is not possible to predict how severe the symptoms will be or at what age they will develop.
Would you want to have your child get this genetic test? Please answer for your youngest child.

I would argue that the public’s perception of autism (especially with regression) would fit into Vignette 2. I would further argue that if “disease” were replaced with “developmental disability”, it would have been an even more relevant to the public’s perception of autism.

The results surprised me. There was little if any difference in the responses to vignette 1 and vignette 2. Somehow, I figured more people would want the test for conditions that were always severe and could result in death (vignette 1).

For both vignettes, the responses were fairly evenly split into 3: “probably/definitely”, “unsure” and “probably not/definitely not”.

In other words, about 1/3 of parents say they would want a genetic test and about 1/3 say they would not, with the remainder unsure.

It would be very interesting to formulate “vignettes” that are targeted to developmental delays in general and autism in specific.

What if instead of “diseases” they asked about “developmental delays”? What if instead of “no treatment” they said, “no cure, but some therapies (e.g. speech and occupational) could be beneficial”? What would the responses be like?

The main reason this paper caught my eye is the fact that the study begs the question: if the genetic test can be performed on child, why not prenatally? What would be the difference in the responses from the parents if they were asked about prenatal testing?

Or, to put it very specifically, what if parents were told to consider a genetic test for autism?

How would the responses vary depending on the parents’ perception of autism?

Two new genetic studies – care required

30 Apr

Its always interesting to read about new quality science and two new genetic oriented studies in Nature give us just that – quality science.

The first of two Nature studies released today found that 65 percent of autistic participants shared a variation between cadherin 10 and cadherin 9, a region of the genome that controls cell-adhesion molecules in the brain. Those molecules help brain cells connect, and autism researchers have long suspected that trouble there may be linked to the disorder.

…

The second study suggested a link between autism and an excess of genetic material associated with ubiquitin, a protein involved with cell-adhesion molecules and connections between brain cells.

Truly fascinating stuff it looks like and yet I think the time is fast approaching when the need for an ethics debate about this becomes paramount.

I am on record as saying that I do not think science could be (as oppose to should be) curtailed when following research interests. In other words, we couldn’t stop an autism researcher from finding a cause or cure even if we wished to. Politics and research science are a bad mix.

However, that should not ever stop us from debating how to use (if at all) such a thing and the following statement from one of the research members is – to me – a bugle call to start thinking of ways we (the autistic community and the scientific community) can do this and remain on good terms:

If we could remove this variant from the population, just take it away … as much as 25 percent of autism would disappear, which is highly significant,” Hakonarson said.

It is indeed, highly significant. It opens up not only a world of scientific possibility bit it must also open up a genuine debate about the ethical issues surrounding this. But before we do this we need to clarify statements like this. 25% of the entire ASD population? 25% of an individual? 25% of the more disabling aspects of autism? 25% of what exactly?

So we need to clarify things like this. Lets hope we can do this very soon and start a respectful debate between two camps who have worked well together up till now – science and neurodiversity.

Strategic Plan: fact and fiction

2 Feb

If you’ve been reading some of the autism blogs lately, you’d think that the only question that the NIH has to consider on autism is whether to study vaccines. That’s because, it’s all the autism organizations seem to be talking about with respect to the IACC and the NIH.

Yes, I’ll admit I’ve contributed to the pervasiveness of the vaccine discussion by responding to those blogs. Just to get that out.

The big stink lately is the fact that the vaccine-specific initiatives were voted out of the IACC’s Strategic Plan in January. Autism Speaks and the small groups like Generation Rescue, NAA, TACA and SafeMinds (as an aside—why are there so many clone orgs? Do they really represent different views?) all issued statements or harsh words about this change.

The story being propagated is basically this: “All the money is going into genetic research. We asked for this small thing and they blocked it”

So, let’s do something different than the vaccine-orgs, eh? Let’s look at some of the initiatives that are still in the Plan. Let’s discuss what is really happening on that front. There is a lot more to discuss about the reality of the Plan, but I figure since no one wants to actually look at the initiatives, it’s fertile ground.

The Plan is divided into section (think chapters) according to “questions”. Let’s look at a few sections and pick a few initiatives out to consider.

Question 1: When should I be concerned?

Identify a panel of biomarkers that separately, or in combination with behavioral measures, accurately identify, before age 2, one or more subtypes of children at risk for developing ASD by 2014. Estimated cost: $30,000,000 over 5 years.

Develop at least five measures of behavioral and/or biological heterogeneity in children or adults with ASD, beyond variation in intellectual disability, that clearly relate to etiology and risk, treatment response and/or outcome by 2015. Estimated cost: $40,000,000 over 5 years.

Holy Moly! I’d expect end-zone victory dances over something like that–$30M for biomarkers? Another $40M that includes biological heterogeneity? Isn’t this exactly what these organizations claim they want—recognition and research into the biological underpinnings of autism?

Instead of victory dances, we get silence from the vaccine-orgs on these initiatives. It’s all “what happened to vaccines!”

Here’s one that I wouldn’t expect them to trumpet, but my eye was captured by this:

Validate and improve the sensitivity and specificity of new or existing screening tools for detecting ASD through studies of the following community populations that are diverse in terms of age, socio-economic status, race, ethnicity and level of functioning by 2012. Estimated cost: $5,000,000 over 3 years.

My eye was captured, but that’s because I am really into the idea of identifying underserved populations like adults, and racial and ethnic minorities. I don’t expect the vaccine-orgs to support this since admitting there are underserved populations threatens the “epidemic”, so I didn’t expect the vaccine-oriented organizations to comment on that.

OK, let’s move on to the next “question”:

Question 2: How can I understand what is happening?

Support at least four research projects to identify mechanisms of metabolic and/or immune system interactions with the central nervous system that may underlie the development of ASD during prenatal-postnatal life by 2010. Estimated cost: $6,000,000 over 4 years.

Whoa! Did I read that correctly? $6M for studies on immune system interactions in the development of ASD? And, from the vaccine-orgs that called for this research? The sound of one hand clapping?

OK, the really big study for this section is this one:

Complete a large-scale, multi-disciplinary, collaborative project that longitudinally and comprehensively examines how the biological, clinical, and developmental profiles of children, with a special emphasis on females, youths, and adults with ASD change over time as compared to typically developing individuals by 2020. Estimated cost: $50,000,000 – $100,000,000 over 12 years.

Again, they are tracking the “biological” side of autism. Not a word of welcome from the vaccine-orgs.

The study above is one of the most critical that the Plan can call for, in my most humble opinion. How many times have we all asked or read others ask, “how will things look into the future?” Wouldn’t that really help answer questions about who “recovers”? Won’t Seriously, wouldn’t it be nice to understand how many people show large gains? Although lets face it, it happens even without “biomed”.

And, yes, I am very glad to see the extra emphasis on adults and females as well, by the way.

Question 3: What caused this to happen and how can it be prevented

This is the section where the vaccine initiatives were shoehorned in. Let’s take a look at what is still in.

Check out this big one:

Support ancillary studies within one or more large-scale, population-based surveillance and epidemiological studies, including U.S. populations, to collect nested, case-control data on environmental factors during preconception, and during prenatal and early postnatal development, as well as genetic data, that could be pooled (as needed), to analyze targets for potential gene/environment interactions by 2015. Estimated cost: $40,000,000 over 5 years.

Wow! $40M in gene/environment interactions. How much closer to the supposed agenda of the vaccine-orgs can one get? And yet, once again, the vaccine-orgs aren’t talking about it.

How about two more initiatives:

Determine the effect of at least five environmental factors on the risk for subtypes of ASD in the pre- and early postnatal period of development by 2015. Estimated cost: $10,000,000 over 5 years.

Conduct a multi-site study of the subsequent pregnancies of 1000 women with a child with ASD to assess the impact of environmental factors in a period most relevant to the progression of ASD by 2014. Estimated cost: $10,000,000 over 5 years.

Another $20M on environmental issues.

I think the point is made—just in this list there are something like $100M to $200M in funding for the biology of autism and environmental factors.

Why don’t the vaccine-orgs talk about these initiatives? One could speculate that it hurts their political maneuvering complaining about the removal of the vaccine initiatives. “Senator, they gave us $100M for exactly what we asked for, but we didn’t get everything”. Doesn’t sound so good, does it?

But, and this is important, these same vaccine orgs weren’t trumpeting the inclusion of all these biology and environment initiatives even before the vaccine initiatives were removed.

That’s why I keep referring to them as “vaccine-orgs”. It seems vaccines are the one and only issue they care about. Sure, they gave some lip-service to environment and biology. But now it’s as if these initiatives don’t exist and aren’t important. If you listen to their spiel: “Poor us, we asked for this small vaccine initiative, but all we got was genetics”.

Genetics? Yep, it is in the Plan. And rightly so, I will add. There is real evidence for genetic links to autism. If we are to understand autism, even environmental causes, we need to have the genetic information. Take this initiative, for example:

Identify genetic risk factors in at least 50% of people with ASD by 2014. Estimated cost: $30,000,000 over 6 years.

That’s a big project, and that’s what the vaccine-orgs would like everyone to think is the core of the Strategic Plan. But, as we’ve seen, it just isn’t fair to paint the Plan as emphasizing genetics while ignoring environment and biology.

There is a big push right now to stall the Strategic Plan (as though it hasn’t been delayed enough already by the constant attempts to rewrite the Plan by Lyn Redwood. If you think I am the only one who thinks this, listen to the last IACC meeting.) Yes, the same organizations who called for research into the environment and gene-environment interactions are willing to stall that research for one reason: vaccines.

Who thinks that TACA or Generation Rescue or any of the other small orgs would sit quietly by and see all this research stalled if it weren’t for the possibility of getting vaccines into the Plan?

Why should the rest of us sit quietly and let them stall progress towards a Strategic Plan that includes good research projects on topics like lifespan issues?

We shouldn’t.

Parental age is a 'risk factor' for autism

15 Dec

A story today talks about how parental age _may_ be a ‘risk factor’ (loaded phrase much?) for autism. According to the studies lead author (Dr. Maureen Durkin of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health):

What we found was that actually it’s both parents age, and when you control for one parent’s age you still see the effect of the other parent’s age, and vice versa,

….

After the researchers accounted for factors that might influence the results, they found that children born to mothers aged 35 and older were 30 percent more likely than those whose mothers were 25 to 29 years old to have been diagnosed with autism. Having a father who was 40 or older boosted risk by 40 percent.

The study didn’t really look at why this might be but they did do a bit of educated blueskying:

Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmental contaminants in their bodies.

They are also more likely to have used assisted reproduction technologies, which have been tied to poor pregnancy outcomes. And there could be something about the behavioral traits or psychological makeup of people who wait to have children that boosts autism risk in their offspring.

Which is all a fancy way of saying: I got nuthin’ so here’s an answer that covers everything. Which is fair enough, it falls totally outside the remit of the paper to answer those questions.

So now you can expect a whole bunch of people to cast aspersions on this study, relating how really they were only 19 when they had an autistic kid and that its all a big conspiracy to detract from the evil vaccines. Whatever.

Its quite an interesting study, the most recent of many that look at (and find a connection) between parental age and autism. Does it move us forward in terms of causation? Nope. Does that really matter? Nope. Its still nice though to see science being done that is just that most important of work – the hog work that starts to fill in the blanks of the most basic facts surrounding an issue. Thanks to this study and those preceding it I think its fair to say now that raised parental age is a factor in autism causation. Not always but sometimes.

Another interesting bit of blueskying:

The findings could also help explain why autism appears to be on the rise in the United States, the researchers added, since the percentage of children who are born to mothers 35 and older and fathers 40 and older has risen steadily since 1980.

I think this is a very interesting hypothesis to follow up on and I hope someone does. But first of all of course we need to establish _if_ autism is ‘on the rise’. Many people will tell you there’s an epidemic of autism but there is in fact no valid evidence to support this supposition. I hope some evidence can be forthcoming. We need it.

Sharyl Attkisson's 3rd autism/vaccine concession

26 Aug

A few days ago, I posted an entry about Sharyl Attkisson’s breathless parroting of ‘facts’ regarding a case from 1991 based on a child born in 1974. This case was settled in favour of the child. It transpired (of course) that the Special Master had in fact said nothing about autism whatsoever.

However, an interesting comment was left by ‘M’ who said:

Dravet syndrome? It is a genetic disorder, de novo mutations of the sodium-channel gene SCN1A. Children with these mutations are seemingly normal until they have the first high fever episode (it could be post-vaccination fever as well) – then the syndrome manifests with epileptic syndrome and subsequent developmental delay (encephalopathy). The genetic diagnosis was not possible until recently – the mutation was first identified in 2001.

An intriguing possibility that I read and then with my usual stunning foresight, totally forgot about.

However, I got an email yesterday that raised the issue once more. I cannot share with you who its from, a fact that is rather annoying (but understandable, this person doesn’t want to expose themselves to the loving care of the mercury militia) but I assure you, you would recognise this name.

The writer assumes that this is a vaccine injury because the special master determined that this was a compensable case. However, this event occurred in 1974 and the hearing in 1990-91. Now, in 2008, it is obvious that the epilepsy and resultant developmental impairment and “autism” are not caused by DTP but, rather, are due to Dravet syndrome (or severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy), which is a genetic epilepsy with a mutation or change in the SCN1A gene. The evolution is typical of this disorder. It is a very temperature sensitive epilepsy (a 1 degree Celcius elevation is sufficient to trigger a seizure) and is not caused or aggravated by any immunization. Berkovic et al described this entity as a cause of vaccine encephalopathy in their Lancet Neurology 2006 paper.

I am concerned about the superficial investigatory actions of this writer (actually no real investigation was done – she assumes everything to be true). I thought I would share this information with you and let you use the information as you wish.

I can’t find a copy of the entire transcript, but from the parts Attkisson transcribed and quoted and comparing the evolution to the Dravert Syndrome home page, it certainly does look like a good match.

So what does that imply? Well, if its _not_ Dravert Syndrome then, nothings changed – still not autism though. If it _is_ Dravert Syndrome then it goes to show how little we know about genetic disorders and how careful we should be about rushing to judgements.

Autism pre-birth gene test. Here?

22 Jul

Has the day finally come?

CombiMatrix Corporation (Nasdaq:CBMX) announced today that it has launched an updated version of its ATScan(tm) test for pre-disposition screening for autism, through its wholly owned subsidiary CombiMatrix Molecular Diagnostics (CMDX). The ATScan test has been updated to encompass recent discoveries published in the journal, Science, which confirm the role of several new genomic imbalances in the etiology of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

The product page for this testing is here.

CMDX is proud to offer the first of our ATScan™ suite of BAC (Bacterial Artificial Chromosome) array CGH (Comparative Genomic Hybridization) based tests. ATScan™ is designed to detect known genomic copy-number variations (CNVs) associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and this test is now available to our physicians and consumers.

I can’t find anything out about this test – such as price or reliability. Any comments would be welcomed.

Socially aloof? Moi?

19 Jul

A New Scientist report discusses an intruiging new study that reports on how parents of autistic people process visual information. Turns out they do it very similarly to their autistic offspring:

The study evaluated how parents of autistic children evaluated facial expressions and found that they gauge the faces in exactly the same way as people having the disorder, despite them not being classified as autistic themselves.

And

They discovered that while those having autism had to make effort to read others’ emotions, all three groups of parents scored equally on the task, getting it right around 83 percent of the time.

But, when they paid attention to how the parents were judging the faces, it was found that the socially aloof parents with autistic children were increasingly dependent on looking at the mouths of the faces, and not the eyes.

“This bears a striking resemblance to what we have reported previously in individuals with autism,” New Scientist quoted Adolphs, as saying.

On the other hand, neurotypical people seemed to be more interested in looking at people’s eyes, in order to read how they are feeling.

This is yet another small cog in support of the genetic case for autism and a pretty interesting study in its own right.

“It definitely supports the idea that there is a genetic basis to autism,” says Angelica Ronald, an autism researcher at Kings College London.

One emerging theory is that behavioural traits such as introversion are passed down genetically, so if you have a parent who is introverted and another who is mildly obsessive, their child could be at increased risk of developing autism – although environmental factors are also likely to play a role as well.

The ‘social aloofness’ of parents of autistic people is something I’ve heard mentioned time and again, both online and amongst the parents I know locally to me. They (me too) tend to have few close friends and are quite happy with that, they are not big fans of smalltalk and are very happy with that. They have a few other features of autism too, which is again, not an unknown phenomenom.

I have heard some criticism of this study that it is tying to bring back the Bettlheim era of ‘refrigerator parents’. I don’t see how myself. That useless, unscientific idea expressley blamed parents for their children’s autism, stating it was a direct cause of bad parenting. This is is just an interesting take on how the parents of autistic kids in this study processed information in a way similar to their kids. The idea of blaming onesself for the genes you carry is faintly ridiculous anyway.

Age of Autism still don't get it

15 Jul

Over on our favourite pompous blog, the authors and readers still seem to have trouble processing their collective importance to autism related science (none at all) as well as how successful politicians are at directing science (not at all).

They flourish a letter from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee (long enough name fellers?) which is itself breathtaking in its dumbness.

In the Combating Autism Act, Congress directed DHHS to conduct research into screening, diagnosis, treatment and medical care for individuals with autism. These areas of research are essential to a balanced approach. In addition to these areas, I strongly encourage the IACC to promote a balanced research portfolio when examining the underlying causes of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An examination of the FY07 ASD Research Portfolio shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies related to autism. There is growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role in the emergence of ASD.

So, they firstly admit the role of CAA did not ask DHHS to examine the causes of autism but then ask the IACC (a committee appointed as a result of the CAA) to do it anyway. They then tick the IACC off for having a preference for genetic based studies and say there’s growing evidence that a ‘wide range’ of things cause autism. Possibly thats true, but the reference they provide to support that statement belies their beliefs. They reference the recent IMFAR poster presentation of Laura Hewitson. A study that has not even been published. This _is_ a science committee right?

They then go on to repeat a number of anti-vaccinationist talking points (Hannah Poling, biomedical treatment etc etc) and then make their recommendation:

I urge you to consider forming a Secretarial-level Autism Advisory Board (AAB). While the IACC is the primary mechanism for the coordination of research, surveillance, and early detection activities within the Department of Health and Human Services, an AAB could provide additional public feedback and serve as a liaison between parents, individuals with ASD, advocacy groups and the Department of Health and Human Services, and would assist in reestablishing public confidence

and whom might be on such a board I wonder?

Groups such as SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks, the Simons Institute, the National Autism Alliance, and the Autism Research Institute all have or are currently supporting research. Such groups have experience evaluating research, an in-depth knowledge of the current body of ASD research, and an appreciation of the new questions that may need to be examined in order to move our understanding of ASD forward.

This is a bad joke, surely. What is driving this is the fact that some IACC members are annoyed that the IACC didn’t immediately capitulate to their demands to study vaccines and vaccines only. There was a good reason why they didn’t. Its already been done. No association. Move on.

I have to say the idea of SafeMinds and Generation Rescue being on a board that is to restore public confidence to “parents [and] individuals with ASD” amuses and scares me in equal part. Maybe Mr Miller hasn’t seen founding members of Generation Rescue calling autistic people ‘trailor dwelling coo-coos’ or founder members of SafeMinds referring to blogs authored by autistic people and parents of autistic people as part of a ‘Wackosphere’? I think once he has (and he will, as will Secretary Leavitt and Dr Insel) he might stop and think futher.

Anyway, I digress, back to AoA. They employ a clever bit of deviousness to try and lever vaccines into the CAA:

The CAA listed 13 scientific fields but the only specific research topic mentioned in the legislative history was vaccines and their preservations as a possible cause of autism.

Hey, why would they need to? The Omnibus Autism hearings are doing that right?

But read carefully. It looks on a quick pass like vaccines are mentioned in the CAA. But they aren’t. They are mentioned in the ‘legislative history’. What that means is that there is no mention of vaccines in the CAA (and there isn’t. Read for yourself.)

Another word that would equate with ‘legislative history’ is ‘rubbish’ meaning ‘that which has been thrown away’. AoA – or in this instance Kelli Anne Davis (apparently the DC Political Liaison for Generation Rescue) – will be using the phrase ‘legislative history’ to try and afford some weight to the idea of vaccines being in drafts of the CAA. I really doubt anyone is going to fall for that little sleight of hand Kelli Ann.

And here’s the kicker:

This letter is the result of a year-long, collaborative effort between Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee.

I’ll bet it is.

Just this week, yet more genetic evidence was uncovered into the aetiology of autism. Y’know, the kind of evidence AoA et al are saying is useless and there’s too much of.

Let this be a marking point. Let us all remember that this is the week that the political process was co-opted in order to achieve a useless goal. The results of that, if successful, will be even less research into what could be vital therapies, educational strategies, residential innovations and means of garnering respect for autistic people.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →