Archive | Science RSS feed for this section

Can Children with Autism Recover? If So, How?

2 Dec

An interesting new study with that very title found its way into my inbox last month. I’ve taken awhile to blog about it whilst I read, re-read, re-re-read, re-re-re-read it (its 23 pages long – 28 with references) and swapped emails with the lead author and approached an understanding of its implications.

Here’s the abstract:

Although Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are generally assumed to be lifelong, we review evidence that between 3% and 25% of children reportedly lose their ASD diagnosis and enter the normal range of cognitive, adaptive and social skills. Predictors of recovery include relatively high intelligence, receptive language, verbal and motor imitation, and motor development, but not overall symptom severity. Earlier age of diagnosis and treatment, and a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified are also favorable signs. The presence of seizures, mental retardation and genetic syndromes are unfavorable signs, whereas head growth does not predict outcome.

Controlled studies that report the most recovery came about after the use of behavioral techniques. Residual vulnerabilities affect higher-order communication and attention. Tics, depression and phobias are frequent residual co-morbidities after recovery. Possible mechanisms of recovery include: normalizing input by forcing attention outward or enriching the environment; promoting the reinforcement value of social stimuli; preventing interfering behaviors; mass practice of weak skills; reducing stress and stabilizing arousal. Improving nutrition and sleep quality is non-specifically beneficial.

There’s a number of issues that I found interesting about this paper. First was the identities of two of the co-authors – Marcel Kinsbourne (testified for the plaintiffs in the Autism Omnibus) and Martha Herbert (testified that mould causes autism – case lost).

Second was the criteria used to define ‘history of autism’ and also to define ‘current functioning’. Both seemed pretty stringent to me. First ‘history of autism’ (study members were currently aged between 8 – 18 by the way):

By history: (1) The child was diagnosed with an ASD in early childhood (i.e., by age 5) by a specialist (i.e. someone whose practice is at least 50% devoted to autism). (2) There was early language delay (either no words by 18 months or no word combinations by 24 months). (3) Review by one of our team, blind to current group membership, of early reports (age 2–5) and/or videotapes, with diagnostic formulations elided, confirms early ASD.

Second, ‘current functioning’:

By current functioning: (1) The participant does not meet criteria for any Pervasive Developmental Disorder, including PDD-NOS (at least one symptom in social domain plus one additional symptom), which generally means that no social symptom of ASD is present by best clinical judgment. (2) The participant does not meet ASD cutoff on social or communication domain of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, (3) any special education services the participant receives are to remediate difficulties with attention, organization, or specific academic difficulties and not to address features of autism, (4) the participant is functioning without an individual assistant in a regular education classroom, (5) VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ are all at 78 or above (1.5 standard deviations below average), (6) Vineland Communication and Socialization Scales are all at 78 or above.

So recovery is indicated by moving from stage 1 to stage 2. I hope others can give their own opinions in the comment section as to how stringent the two criteria are but it seems fairly impressive to me.

So what happened with these kids? How did between 3 – 25% become recovered (by the terms of the study)?

1) Having relativelyhigh intelligence,
2) Having receptive language
3) Displaying verbal and motor imitation
4) Displaying motor developmentbut
5) Earlier age of diagnosis and treatment
6) Having a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified
7) Use of behavioral techniques (there is a section in the paper expressing caution over the veracity of this finding or at least, its my understanding that there is).

Interestingly, overall symptom severity plays no part in recovery and neither does head growth.

The presence of seizures, mental retardation and genetic syndromes are unfavorable signs.

Something else that seems to play no part:

The recovered children studied by us and others, and described above, however, have generally not received any biomedical intervention.

I was (obviously) particularly interested in this so I asked the author about vaccination status. The reply was:

Complete medical histories were taken, including vaccination status, and had it turned out that our optimal outcome sample hadn’t been vaccinated or had by and large received chelation, we certainly would have reported that…

Its a fascinating paper, not least to me personally as it indicates once and for all that vaccinated kids can (and do) recover without biomedical interventions, thus indicating the vaccination plays no causative role in autism.

David Kirby on mitochondral autism

1 Dec

Over the last few months David Kirby has been talking about a new paper that would be forthcoming that would postulate a link between autism and vaccines via Mitochondrial disease. He claimed to have some inside knowledge of this due to interviewing one of the co-authors.

That co-author was Richard Kelley and that paper has indeed been published prompting another excited flurry of posts from David on the Huffington Post. I know it was Richard Kelley as I’ve also been conversing with Dr Kelley via email. Following David’s initial post on the subject several months ago, amongst many other things Dr Kelley expressed:

…furor and frustration that we all feel right now is due to the very poor way in which this has been handled by several people each trying to claim an undeserved 15 minutes of fame.

It was easy to tell that here was a man who was immensely angry but was determined not to discuss any results – possible or actual – until they had gone through the rigour of peer review.

A day or so ago David published a post about this new study but I have to say that in my lowly opinion it left quite a lot unsaid and inflated the significance of what it did say.

David made much of key sentences of this paper (Cherry picking) and really the overall importance of it was a bit sidelined. For example, David says:

[This paper tackles]..The widespread misconception that Hannah’s case was “unique,” and without any bearing on other autism cases…

Whereas, the actual paper states:

Recently, there has been increased concern regarding a possible causative role of vaccinations in autistic children with an underlying mitochondrial cytopathy. For one of our 25 patients, the child’s autism/neurodevelopmental deterioration appeared to follow vaccination. Although there may have been a temporal relationship of the events in this case, such timing does not prove causation.

That one patient was, of course, Hannah Poling. Now, if there was ever ‘widespread misconception’ that mitochondrial autism was real (which I don’t believe there was) then this paper certainly adds weight to the argument that it exists. However, if David is trying to claim that this paper indicates that autism caused by vaccine fuelled mitochondrial disease is not unique to Hannah Poling then I think he has misunderstood or misread it. One out of twenty-five is pretty much the definition of uniqueness.

David then goes on to claim that this study gives weight to the claim that regressive autism is real. As it happens I agree with that. However, it should be placed in its proper context. David states:

Nearly all of the children in my book regressed into autism – a process that often began almost immediately after receiving multiple vaccinations.

Perhaps that is why the very idea of regressive autism has been cause for derision among many scientists, who insist that the parents were simply too ignorant to “notice” autism symptoms in their children earlier on.

That is, with due respect to David, simplistic and not representative of either data, or testimony. During the Autism Omnibus hearings, Professor Sander Greenland gave testimony (for the petitioners it should be noted) that clearly demonstrated that such scientists as Eric Fombonne clearly accept that regression exists and can possibly account for 28% of autism cases. Thats not exactly science being derisive of parents ideas about regression. However, it must be evaluated on a scientific case-by-case basis. As also testified to during the Autism Omnibus proceedings, parents who thought their child (Michelle Cedillo) had regressed were clearly shown to be in error when video evidence demonstrated obvious indicators of autism prior to vaccination.

However, David suggests that ‘nearly all’ the children in his book were regressive following vaccination. As Greenland showed during testimony. At most, this group of ‘clearly regressive autistics’ (autistic people who allegedly regressed following vaccines) could – at most – account for 6% of all ASD cases. If we take the numbers down to the sort of ‘low functioning only’ cases that I have heard many autism/vaccine believers in then we are down to 2% of all autism cases. This translates to approx 11,200 0 – 21 year olds in America. How this number constitutes an autism epidemic I have no idea.

David goes on:

Most of the children in my book – and Hannah Poling as well – had rather severe physical, biomedical problems associated with their regression. Again, this claim has been met with scorn by many in the medical and science communities, who say that autism is much more of a behavioral/neurological than biomedical condition. Parents and doctors who do try to treat these physical symptoms – with conventional and alternative therapies alike – are singled out for particular damnation by many of these so-called experts.

Firstly, I very much doubt that any parent who is treating a childs illness with conventional therapy has been scorned by anyone. There is however, no epidemiology that associates autism per se with the mainly toxicological and/or gastric issues most biomed parents talk about. The paper states:

Twenty-one patients (84%) had histories of major non-neurological medical problems, most commonly of the gastrointestinal system, with gastroesophageal reflux affecting nine and constipation affecting eight subjects.

The other ‘major non-neurological’ were things already associated with autism or other developmental disorders such as Prader Wili.

Lets also note that none of the symptoms listed by David would be treatable by chelation for example.

This study found 64% had GI dysfunction. This is very high and warrants further study, no doubt about that but…what relation has this to vaccines?

The claim that vaccines cause GI dysfunction revolves around the MMR hypothesis – a hypothesis that has taken an absolute battering of late. It has been established in clinical science that the findings of Wakefield et al cannot be replicated and the original findings that indicated a link were based on corrupt data. Of all the various vaccine hypotheses this is by _far_ the weakest.

There is also the fact that the GI Symptoms listed in the study are common amongst a whole range of Mitochondrial diseases and thus its hard to see what particular significance they have to mitochondrial autism.

David goes on:

VACCINES MAY PLAY A ROLE IN AUTISTIC REGRESSION IN SOME CHILDREN WITH MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTION

“Recently, there has been increased concern regarding a possible causative role of vaccinations in autistic children with an underlying mitochondrial cytopathy (cellular disorder),” the authors wrote. “For one of our 25 patients [Hannah, who DOES have autism, contrary to claims by Gerberding, Offit et al, who erroneously insisted, without ever meeting the child, that she only had “features” of autism], the child’s autism/neurodevelopmental deterioration appeared to follow vaccination. Although there may have been a temporal relationship of the events in this case, such timing does not prove causation.”

Maybe not – but one must wonder, then, why medical personnel at HHS’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program conceded that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.”

Inserts are David’s.

Lots of things to cover here. Firstly, David says “VACCINES MAY PLAY A ROLE” whereas the study authors say: “..the child’s autism/neurodevelopmental deterioration appeared to follow vaccination. Although there may have been a temporal relationship of the events in this case, such timing does not prove causation.”

I think its pretty clear that the study authors are – at best – dubious that vaccines played a role. They are simply saying what the rest of us have always said: correlation does not equal causation.

David once again insists that HHS medical personnel “conceded that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.””

Where?

I asked twice in the comment thread that followed where this HHS document was and if we, the general public, could read for ourselves – and in context – these words. I am not suggesting David is lying at all. However, by his own admission David has been wrong more than once on what were previously firmly held opinions. This is nothing that should be being speculated about. We need to see this document.

Lastly, Gerberding, Offit et al were quite right to use the phrase ‘features of autism’. That is the phrase that both the HHS report and the case study (co-authored Jon Poling) used. Some say it is hair splitting but I don’t believe that saying someone has autism is the same as saying someone has features of autism. I’ve expounded on this before for those interested but suffice it to say I have a similar eye colour to Clive Owen. This doesn’t make me Clive Owen (much to my wife’s disappointment).

David goes on:

When I first reported this story, the researcher I spoke to told me there had been 30 children in the study, and two of them (8%) showed signs of brain injury from vaccines. Of the five children since excluded from the final published review, one must have been the second vaccine-related regression.

I very much think David might have been incorrect about that. I’m reasonably sure that Dr Kelley would not have referred to ‘brain injury from vaccines’. Given that the study he has just put his name to has cast doubt on that idea I don’t think its a valid idea.

There follows a series of what can only be called strawmen- this study didn’t do this, didn’t do that etc. For example:

….we now find out that nine of the children (36%) had so-called “multiple regressions,” and nothing in this review indicates that any attempt was made to determine if vaccines, febrile infections, or some other factors acted as triggers in the subsequent regressive episodes.

But in the sentence immediately before that David says:

Most of the children had regressed following illness-induced fever, the doctor told me.

The answer to the ‘question’ is right there. One regression, two regressions, twelve regressions – the Doctor states that regression followed illness-induced fever. In other words, given that these doctors know what caused the regressions why would it be necessary to look for something else? Something else that the authors have stated fairly clearly they don’t see any evidence for. However, as befits scientists discussing something both fairly new and of large public interest, they are careful:

Large, population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies.

Thats fair enough I think. However I also think its going to be difficult. Sander Greenland made it very clear that detecting the hypothetical ‘clear;y regressive autism’ (i.e. autism caused by vaccines) was going to be next to impossible in large population-based studies, stating the the case amount was so small it would be pretty much undetectable by epidemiology. How to perform the kind of studies necessary to prove/disprove a relationship in such a small amount I have no idea. We’re basically trying to prove that vaccines trigger a mitochondrial cytopathy that leads to autism in – no matter what David thinks – is a pretty small group of people:

28% of people have a regressive form of autism. In 2003 at a LADDERS conference in Boston, Kelley postulated that 20% of regressive autism is due to mitochondrial cytopathies. CDC says that approx 560,000 of autistic people in the US are between 0 – 21. Therefore 28% of 560,000 = 156,800. 20% of 156,000 = 31,360. That’s about 5.6% of autistic children.

Rare? Not sure. Common? Hardly.

Paul Shattock gets his Biatch on

29 Nov

Alongside the error strewn Edelson piece that I already blogged about, Communication also ran a response from Paul Shattock that avoided Edelson’s mistakes of making factual errors about chelation and Tariq Nadama by simply going for a handbag wielding biatch attack more suited to Paris Hilton sulking about Nicole Ritchie wearing the same dress as her:

Although of no relevance, Michael Fitzpatrick’s views on biomedical approaches designed to
ameliorate some difficulties experienced by people with autism, and on me personally, are widely disseminated in newspaper and magazine articles and blogs. I remain unenthusiastic about encouraging
discussions of my personal inadequacies in Communication.

Miaow! Paul Shattock’s lip trembles with rage as he considers the lack of worth of Michael Fitzpatrick’s opinion.

Actually, I can’t recall on part of Mike’s book that espoused any views on Paul Shattock. Having just done a quick check, I see that he appears 3 times. Once in the Preface, once on page 71 and once on page 118. On _none_ of these occasions does Mike express any opinions on Paul Shattock.

He goes on:

Evidence of efficacy for many interventions from appropriate and scientifically valid research-based protocols is being published.

Hear we go again. ‘Is being published’. How long has the autism community been hearing this? Tell us _when_ Mr Shattock, or preferably, refer to supporting material that _has_ been published in a decent journal. And what ‘interventions’ are we talking about? Mr Shattock is utterly ambiguous.

Shattock then goes on to claim that the entire membership of NAS wants research into such things. I can assure him thats nowhere near true. I can think of several NAS members who want to *move on* from this never ending promise of science that is always ‘coming soon’ and yet never arriving.

Shattock goes on:

The American Academy of Paediatricians (AAP) is now actively investigating the usefulness of such interventions and members of the American Academy of Paediatric Gastroenterologists (AAPG) are currently collaborating with the Autism Society of America (ASA) and the Autism Research Institute (ARI) in investigating gastrointestinal issues.

I think Mr Shattock maybe overestimating the AAP’s keenness to stay chummy with ARI. I also can’t find any org called the American Academy of Paediatric Gastroenterologists so I can’t comment on how closely they’re working with ARI, or if they exist at all.

Shattock fumed on:

Professor Rutter, at the recent NAS conference, drew attention to the need to investigate environmental factors and mechanisms involved in triggering autism and to study dietary
treatments for autism.

Mike Stanton saw Rutter at that conference. He didn’t mention what Shattock reports but there’s nothing particularly earth shattering about the idea of environmental factors and mechanisms being involved with autism – except we all know what Shattock, one time warm-up man for Andrew Wakefield, really thinks these are, and for those there is no evidence and I also doubt Rutter has any truck with these ideas either.

Its an odd, petulant semi-rant from Shattock. I have no idea what use he thinks it will be to seemingly purposefully misinterpret Mike’s words. It should be easy to refute Mike – stop talking about studies that will be published and get on with publishing them. Science is the final arbiter of scientific ideas, not a mudsling from someone on the edge of scientific ideas regarding autism.

Bad Science Part 2: Blinding

26 Nov

Continuing my ‘homage’ to Ben Goldacre’s excellent new book ‘Bad Science‘, this time we discuss Ben’s explanation of the scientific concept of Blinding.

One important feature of a good trial is that neither the experimenters nor the patients know if they got the [thing we want to test] or the simple placebo sugar pill, because we want to be sure that any difference we measure is the result of the difference between the pills and not of people expectations or biases.

Page 45. Inserts mine.

The stakes are fairly important. Ben tells how the biggest figures in evidence based medicine got together and did a review of blinding in all kinds of trials of medial drugs. The trials that used bad blinding techniques (or none at I guess) exaggerated the benefits of treatments by 17%.

Frequently I hear complaints from people who don’t care for the scientific method or who believe it is part of a massive conspiracy to cover up ‘the truth’ that things like blinding, randomisation, placebo effects, using controls and meta-analysis are essentially silly nitpicking to rubbish ‘the truth’. Clearly, when there is a 17% exaggeration, this cannot be accurate.

When doctors and scientists say that a study was methodologically flawed and unreliable, it’s not because they’re being mean, or trying to maintain the ‘hegemony’ or to keep the backhanders coming from the pharmaceutical industry: it’s because the study was poorly performed – it costs nothing to blind properly – and simply wasn’t a fair test.

Page 47.

Read more about Blinding techniques at Wikipedia.

Stephen M Edelson gets it wrong, wrong, wrong…

25 Nov

Communication is the members mgazine of the UK’s National Autistic Society. In an issue earlier this year, Mike Fitzpatrick, GP and author had an extract from his latest book published.

The extract touched on chelation and the death of Tariq Nadama.

This prompted a bilious response this month from Stephen M Edelson in this months Communication. The level of ignorance in his response is astounding. I have attached the whole response as a Word document to save me getting accused of taking things out of context. BUt for here, I’ll quote selected parts.

Fitzpatrick has been a longtime, outspoken critic of chelation. (Chelation involves a medication, such as DMPS or DMSA, which removes neurotoxic heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, from the body; it is given under the supervision of a doctor.) If an individual tests with very high levels of one or more heavy metals, chelation is the treatment of choice throughout the medical profession.

If test results indicate very high levels in someone on the autism spectrum, isn’t this person entitled to the same medical care as someone without autism?

This is far too simplistic. Of _course_ if someone on the spectrum has test results that indicate high levels of metals they should have the standard treatment. That is a strawman.

The _point_ is rather more complex that that as Mike mentions in his book and I have blogged about numerous times.

The labs that Mr Edelson and his DAN! colleagues recommend test for levels of metals in people on the spectrum very, very often give false results. Take this extract of the testimony of Dr Jeffrey Brent, a sub-specialty board certified medical toxicologist and the former President of the American Academy of clinical Toxicology.

…I have seen a number of patients now come to me because of these ‘doctor’s data’ type of laboratories which are based on urines – chelated urines – and they always have high leads in their chelated urines and I tell them ‘well, lets just do the gold standard test, lets get a blood/lead level and so far, *100% of the time they’ve been normal*.

So when ‘these Doctors Data’ type of labs do the tests they indicate the need for chelation. When _experts_ in the field such as Dr Brent do the gold standard tests ‘100% of the time they are normal’.

Dr Edelson needs to realise that _that_ is why chelation is an invalid treatment for autism. The fact that when taken to an expert in Chelation and Toxicology, the results usually indicate that chelation is not warranted.

Edelson continues:

In his article, Fitzpatrick brings up the accidental death of Tariq Nadama after chelation treatment. What he does not tell the reader is that Tariq was given the entirely wrong drug, one with a similar name and label that was nearby on the office shelf. Regrettably, these drug errors do
happen in hospitals and doctors’ offices and Fitzpatrick has exploited this unfortunate incident several
times in the past without explaining the complete story. (I have already corrected Fitzpatrick in a previous issue of Communication, and I am disappointed that the editor knowingly allowed such half-truths to be disseminated to NAS’ membership once more.)

Once more, Mr Edelson is quite wrong. Tariq Nadama was not given a drug by mistake ‘with a similar label that was nearby on the office shelf’.

When Dr Roy Kerry (who joined Mr Edelsons loose affiliation of practitioners after the death of Tariq Nadama) was prosecuted for the death of Tariq, the following was admitted by him:

70. Respondent admitted that EDTA is very rare to use on children.

71. Respondent admitted to using Disodium EDTA to chelate Tariq.

72. Respondent stated to Investigator Reiser that Disodium EDTA is the only formula of EDTA he stocks in his office.

73. Respondent admitted that CaNa2EDTA is available but that he has never used this agent.

I would recommend that Mr Edelson reads the entire complaint against Dr Kerry.

Edelson continues again:

Over the past 20 years, scientists have clearly documented immune system dysfunction and gastrointestinal problems associated with autism. Many of these problems can be treated successfully using established medical treatments.

Of course, this is twaddle. I challenge Mr Edelson to provide peer reviewed journal published science to back up these statements. As recently documented by Professor Stephen Bustin, the gastrointestnal ‘link’ to autism is not valid and never was.

I wonder why these treatments that so successfully treat autistic peoples autism have never had one single (that I can find) case study published?

Update 28 Nov 2008

An update from Mike who read some of this thread:

It is true that a number of environmental factors have been identified as causing autism in a small number of cases – these include viral infections (rubella, CMV) and drugs (thalidomide, sodium valproate). What is striking is that ‘over the past decade not a single new environmental factor has been identified as playing a significant role in the causation of autism’ (Defeating Autism: A Damaging Delusion, p 81). Indeed, it would be more accurate to say ‘over the past two decades’. By contrast, over this period there have been dramatic advances in the genetics of autism. Meanwhile intensive researches into alleged vaccine-autism links have failed to confirm any causative relationship.

‘The conviction of the biomedical activists that there must be some environmental explanation for the rising prevalence of autism has grown in intensity in inverse proportion to the emergence of scientific evidence in favour of any particular environmental cause.’

Bad Science Part 1: Randomisation

22 Nov

I’ve finally finished ‘Bad Science’ by Ben Goldacre and I intend to give this a bit more than just a review. I intend to take certain bits from it and blog them in order to explain why the scientific concepts you hear expounded about on this blog and others are important – or more accurately, why the lack of them is important. But before I do, here’s a (now traditional) short review of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre: Holy shit this book is good, go buy it (Amazon UK, US, unavailable in Canada).

It is _not_ an autism book, although autism is discussed via the chapter on MMR. However, it will give those who wish to discuss science with some degree of confidence a primer in the basics. First thing I want to talk about is the concept of Randomisation:

Here’s Ben discussing the concept in relation to a Homeopathy study:

Randomisation is another basic concept in clinical trials. We randomly assign patients to the placebo sugar pill group or the homeopathy sugar pill group, because otherwise there is a risk that the doctor or homeopath – consciously or unconsciously – will put patients who they think might do well into the homeopathy group and the no-hopers into the placebo group, thus rigging the results.

(page 48)

The issue with randomisation is not that it is never done – Ben mentions that it is rare to find a study so bad that randomisation is not done _at all_ – but that it is done poorly. Poor examples of ‘randomisation’ (e.g. methods that aren’t really random) include: selecting every other patient to a group depending on which order they sign up to the study i.e. Patient 1 goes into the control group, patient 2 into the non-control group, patient 3 into the control group etc etc, last digit of date of birth, date seen in clinic etc. Ben says that some studies claim to randomise patients by tossing a coin!

All these are open to conscious or unconscious manipulation by the researcher signing people up and are thus not trustworthy.

Ben describes the state of the art randomisation method as being:

1) Sign the patient up to the study
2) Make them call a special phone number
3) Someone at the other end answers the call
4) This person uses a computerised randomisation programme.

This is good because the actual research team are pretty much removed from the physical process of randomisation.

Ben goes on to ask: does randomisation matter?

Turns out it really does:

….people have studied the effect of randomisation in large numbers of trial and found that the ones with dodgy methods of randomisation overestimate treatments effects by 41%.

(Page 50)

Worse that that are the (many it seems) studies where the paper doesn’t tell you _what_ methods of randomisation was used, usually a clear red flag that the study was poorly designed and executed.

…trials with unclear methods of randomisation overstate treatment effects by 30%…..

(Page 50)

This is fascinating stuff from Ben and I promise there’s more to come. I hope this mini-series of articles from Ben’s excellent book will give you the impetus to keep reading when discussions evolve into exchanges of a technical nature. Of course, it is no substitute for buying the book itself, something I urge you to do post haste.

I Object! (Part 2)

19 Nov

It’s amazing that a relatively short letter could be so objectionable as to take multiple blog posts to discuss.

And, yet, here I am, on my third post. You can read the other two, I Object (Part 1) and Why should the Strategic Plan include vaccines.

Continuing on with bullet points (b) and (c)…

Bullet point (b), or “you are leaving money on the table”

[Letter](b) The plan fails to allocate commensurate resources. The CAA authorized $645 million for NIH research over five years. The plan falls short by close to $200 million. Given the urgent situation, we consider the CAA allocation to be a minimum requirement for federal agencies and feel that even greater resources are needed.

Who is going to say no to “we should apply more resources to the situation”? Certainly not I. But I’m not an MBA. I count resources in terms of how many good research groups are doing quality research in relevant areas. Counting the money, that comes second.

This is similar to the method used by the IACC. People tend to think–and this letter helps perpetuate–the idea that the CAA appropriated money and that the IACC worked from that budget to create the Plan.

Both ideas are incorrect.

First, in admittedly confusing language, the CAA authorized the appropriations. The CAA states, “…there is authorized to be appropriated..”, not, “this amount is appropriated”. Another way to look at it is to see how often “subject to the availability of appropriations” is used in the text of the CAA. It isn’t as though there is a bank account with $645M waiting to be tapped into.

Second, the IACC did not work from a budget and then decide on a Plan. They didn’t say, “Well, we’ve got $645 million, how will we spend it?” What they did was say, “what needs to get done?”. Near the end of the process, they passed the Plan on to the implementation subcommittee to draft the budgets for the various projects.

This sounds like the much more defensible method. The IACC can go to congress and say, “this is what we need to get the job done.” Had they come up with a budget higher than the CAA allocated, they would have been in a good position to ask for more. They are (I hope) in a good position to get their budget fully funded–they can defend why they came to the total cost in their budget.

That said, of course I’d like to see more research funded. But, I’d like to stay on a friendly partnership with the NIH too. Presenting their actions inaccurately (as this letter appears to do) doesn’t accomplish that in my mind.

let’s look at what the CAA authorized to be “appropriated“:

[Combating Autism Act]`SEC. 399EE. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Developmental Disabilities Surveillance and Research Program- To carry out section 399AA, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $15,000,000.
`(2) For fiscal year 2008, $16,500,000.
`(3) For fiscal year 2009, $18,000,000.
`(4) For fiscal year 2010, $19,500,000.
`(5) For fiscal year 2011, $21,000,000.

`(b) Autism Education, Early Detection, and Intervention- To carry out section 399BB, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $32,000,000.
`(2) For fiscal year 2008, $37,000,000.
`(3) For fiscal year 2009, $42,000,000.
`(4) For fiscal year 2010, $47,000,000.
`(5) For fiscal year 2011, $52,000,000.

`(c) Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; Certain Other Programs- To carry out section 399CC, 409C, and section 404H, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $100,000,000.
`(2) For fiscal year 2008, $114,500,000.
`(3) For fiscal year 2009, $129,000,000.
`(4) For fiscal year 2010, $143,500,000.
`(5) For fiscal year 2011, $158,000,000.’.

So, the $645 million number comes from section c. Two things to notice. First, there are large sums in sections (a) and (b) as well. I hope they are getting appropriated. Second, notice that there is money budgeted for 2007 and 2008 in that number. Remember that the CAA hasn’t been funded yet? Has NIH been sitting on their hands, waiting for the budget before they do autism research? Hardly.

The NIH budget for autism in 2007 is estimated at $127 million ($27M more than the CAA called for all IACC sponsored research, which includes CDC and other agencies). Similarly, $128M is the estimated budget for 2008 ($14M above the IACC budget).

Perhaps I am missing something. It is quite possible. But it appears to me that the NIH is working in good faith here.

Again, given the urgent need–to identify and serve the underserved in this country–I would consider there to be a great reason to increase resources applied by the IACC. I just don’t think that is want the signators of that letter had in mind. Consider the next point they make:

Bullet point c, More environmental research, or, what happened to the “V” word?

[Letter]Research on the environment, gene-environment interaction, and treatment are underrepresented in the draft plan. The plan should apply additional resources to these areas.

As already discussed, I found this statement interesting for what it doesn’t say, far more than what it says. What it doesn’t say explicitly is “mercury” or “vaccines”. As noted in that previous blog post: if the signatories of that letter are OK with this wording, it should be OK in the Strategic Plan.

Sullivan’s take

The order of these two bullet points sends a clear message: The Plan doesn’t use all the money “appropriated” and, yet, the Plan should put additional resources into environment and treatment.

Or, “why don’t you take some of the $200 million and spend it on these areas?”

It would be a good question if that was the way the process worked. (A) the money wasn’t appropriated (so there isn’t $200M sitting unused) and (b) the Plan was built on a “what needs to be done” basis, not “how much do we have to spend” basis. The push for more environment/treatment really needs to be justified in terms of “what needs to be done”.

But, again, I’d agree that more resources would be welcome. And, again, I would suggest attempting to meet the great need of serving the underserved. Research into services like the Taft Transition to Independent Living program comes to mind.

more to follow…

Why should the strategic plan include vaccines…

14 Nov

…if all the vaccines-cause-autism advocacy organizations can’t ask for it?

I’ve been watching the process for the IACC fairly closely. You may have noticed my obsession. One issue that has come up is…you guessed it, vaccines. IACC meetings have been available to listen to by phone. (thank you NIH!) I’ve listened to long…long…long…speeches about the importance of research on vaccines and mercury. It’s had very broad support from…well…Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill. Pretty much silence from the rest of the IACC.

That said, I can’t say I am not surprised that an 11th hour attempt to change the process. Yes, according to a letter sent to members of the IACC, “we as a community community” are “united” expressing disapproval for for the Strategic Plan in the current form. This isn’t new. In person and in letters, members of these organization have co-opted my rights into an “autism community” that supports their vaccine/mercury agenda.

But, it’s worth taking a look at the letter. Alternatively, you could trust me to tell you what I found. Better yet, let me tell you what I didn’t find: vaccines. No mention of the word vaccines…or mercury…or thimerosal…or immunization…or epidemic. I seriously had to check that the search function was working as I read that document.

Why point this out? To jab a little fun at our good friends? No, there is a much more important message here:

Take a look at the organizations that signed this letter:

Autism New Jersey
Autism Research Institute
Autism Society of America
Autism Speaks
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Organization for Autism Research (OAR)
SafeMinds
Southwest Autism Research & Resource Center (SARRC)
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA)
Unlocking Autism

If they can’t agree on including “vaccine”, “mercury”, “epidemic” or any variation of those words—

WHY SHOULD THE IACC INCLUDE THOSE WORDS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN????

Seriously, there has been a big push to get the IACC to make a strong statement on the vaccine issue. And yet, these words are missing from their own letter.

So, I’ll say it again: if Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the rest can’t agree to put “vaccines” or “epidemic” in a letter, why should the IACC bow to their wishes and include these terms in the Strategic Plan?

Autism Myths

11 Nov

It is my great pleasure to release my latest website – Autism Myths. Its not a blog, its more like a collection of blog posts on very specific subjects regarding autism.

Topics referenced so far are:

The IOM Are Afraid to Look At Susceptibility Groups
The Myth That Autistic Children Can’t Develop
The Myth of No Autistic Adults
The ‘Leaky Gut’ Hypothesis
The Myth of Overwhelming Immunity
Misleading Lab Reports
“Mrs Toast”
The Autism Epidemic
The Verstraten Paper
The Poling Concession
The Simpsonwood Conspiracy
The Amish Anomaly

Please use the contact page to send me comments and suggestions but if you do suggest stuff, please include a link to a blog entry that you think best dispels the myth in question. Please further note that the site is *not* just about vaccines, it is about all myths related to autism.

Dear Mr Obama

9 Nov

As a Brit, it really matters not one jot what I write to you, think of you or think of your policies. However, as we both know, it _does_ matter. Your soon-to-be-predecessor (and my goodness I am happy to write those words of Dubya) never understood why the opinion of the outside world mattered but you clearly do. And we in the outside world are rather keen on you.

I am very happy to note that your appointments indicated so far include Michael Strautmanis – father to an autistic child. As I understand it Mr Strautmanis very much favours an evidence based research approach to science. Good to know.

I was also amused to note that some think a certain Mr Kennedy may get an influential post. I suspect not. You don’t strike me a stupid man Mr Obama. Maybe some other portfolio needs filling? May I suggest Mr Kennedy becomes your drugs Cszar? I understand he has a good history in sniffing out drug issues.

Anyway, I was reading your Obama Statement in Support of World Autism Awareness Day and Awareness Month and I was both tut-tutting and nodding approvingly.

Tu-tutting as I read occasional talk of ‘epidemic’ and nodding approvingly as I read things like:

This effort will include diverse but credible research, treatment, personal care/assistance and family support…

and

Our nation and our world deserve an immediate and focused four-prong approach: research, intervention, life-long support, and an end to discrimination. As a result of the crisis, there is much debate as to the cause of autism and how to address it. What we need to do is devote ourselves to a solution built from a comprehensive plan that is research-based, inclusive, and effective.

Credible research….a plan that is research-based….very good to hear. I fear your recent competitor had no such plan but it is very good to hear of your commitment to a research-based plan.

Its also good to hear that you accept autism as a lifelong issue that requires intervention and an end to discrimination. Although this puts you at odds with the flat earthers who insist there is an autism epidemic which can be cured through non research based interventions (which obviously, they cannot back up) I think you have taken the right path and concentrated on the right issues – research based science that will offer a lifetime of evidence based interventions and care and result in an end to discrimination.

Glad you got in soon-to-be Mr President. I think you’ll do the real autism and autistic communities some real good.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →