Archive | Science RSS feed for this section

Sharyl Attkisson's long history of anti-vaccinationism

1 Aug

As blogged by Mike, Liz, Autism News Beat, Kristina and Orac, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson seems to the prime suspect in the matter of how a fax sent to CBS News by Voices for Vaccines turned up on the Age of Autism blog less than 1 day later.

This matters. Reporters are supposed to be independent. They are supposed to give a balanced view. The very act of forwarding this fax to Age of Autism simply confirms that someone at CBS News, mostly likely Ms Attkisson, is deeply affiliated with Age of Autism. This makes her conflicted and she is totally the wrong person to be investigating the autism/vaccine hypothesis.

I went looking to see what else I could find to support my opinion that Ms Attkisson is someone who is not a reporter, but someone presenting her opinion in the name of investigative news. I found plenty.

Take this ‘interview‘ with Rep. Dave Weldon about the Poling case. I put the word interview in single quotes because it really isn’t an interview, its more a series of questions to allow Weldon to trot out a series of inaccuracies supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism. This is the sort of journalist who would ask God ‘tell me God, do you believe in creationism?’ And then give God a five minute run to explain how he does.

She was also the CBS employee (it seems wrong to keep saying she is a reporter) who interviewed Bernadine Healy in which the former Philip Morris shill said we should re-examine the autism/vaccine idea.

Over on the ‘No Mercury’ website, there is a long list of videos of Ms Attkisson (35 in total, dating back to March 2002) of which all seem to be ‘investigations’ into vaccines and other pharma related activities.

This piece which relates some of the most common and mind-numbingly stupid antivax canards around is just about the clearest indication of her loyalties. Anyone who states the following is not impartial and should not be investigating this story:

Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

How the Hidden Horde were hidden

1 Aug

One of the (many) controversies within the autism community is the question of the hidden horde. The basic argument is:

1) Autism diagnosis have ‘increased’ massively in recent years. Prevalence now stands in the UK at approx1 in 100 and approx 1 in 150 in the US.

2) Something(s) must have caused this large scale increase.

This is where the division point is. Devotee’s of the ‘autism is vaccines/TV/mobile phones/whatever’ ideas say that the increase is not in diagnosis but in autism itself. That there really is a massive increase since the early 90’s in the amount of autistic people. They call this ‘the epidemic’.

People like me think that there may be a small ‘real’ increase but it is very small and what we are seeing is the effect of (to quote an authority on the subject):

The shift in how we view autism….is part of a broader set of shifts taking place in society.

…..

Doctors now have a more heightened awareness of autism and are diagnosing it with more frequency, and public schools….which first started using the category of autism during the 1991 – 1992 school year are reporting it more often….Epidemiologists are also counting it better.

…..

Still, these rates may not be proof of an epidemic. Why? Because the old rates were either inaccurate….or based on different definitions of autism than the ones we use now.

Interestingly, in the Autism Omnibus hearings, the families are now arguing (after years of ‘epidemic’ talk) that the amount of children allegedly poisoned by vaccines is so small as to be undetectable. Hardly a hallmark of an epidemic.

One of the arguments used by people who believe there has been an epidemic of autism is to say ‘if there has _not_ been an epidemic, then where are all the adult autistics?’ meaning that if the rate of autism has always been 1 in 100 or 1 in 150 then there should be an equal number of adult autistic people to children.

Its a logical thought but it doesn’t take into account one crucial fact; as far as I know, *no* epidemiological study has tried to count the adult autistic population in any country. So we have no real idea how many adult autistic people there are.

We have some clues – such as the 2004 Scottish audit that revealed that 45% of local authorities in Scotland considered adult prevalence grossly underestimated. For example, Perth and Kinross commented:

Figures for adults reflect the national findings that the numbers known to services/diagnosed represent a significant underestimate of those individuals likely to be affected. For example day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis.

And this year, the UK Gvmt announced the would be undertaking the first ever audit of autistic adults in England.

But we do have the odd clue thrown to us now and again that shows where the so-called Hidden Horde might be. As the Scottish Audit suggests, they live amongst us, unrecognised or wrongly diagnosed.

Two recent studies from the Netherlands have shed a bit more light on what may be happening with adults.

In ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Adults‘, the abstract states:

The expression of impairments in social interaction, communication, imagination and mental flexibility changes during development into adulthood.

Autism spectrum disorders in adults may mimic, or be overshadowed by, other psychiatric disorders.

Almost a direct agreement with the Perth and Kinross statement from the Scottish Audit.

The second paper ‘Recognition of autism spectrum disorders in adults‘ has an Abstract worth quoting in full;

Autism spectrum disorder was diagnosed in three adults. The first patient, a married man aged 41, was referred to a psychiatrist with ‘impending burn-out’. The second was a 32-year-old male student with schizophrenia and a depressive disorder who was referred to a centre for autism because a friend of his mother’s knew someone with Asperger’s syndrome. The third patient was a 25-year-old woman with a ‘fixation on food’ who was referred by her general practitioner to a psychiatrist for evaluation of longstanding use of antidepressant medication. Autism used to be thought of as a condition of childhood. Only recently has the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders become the focus of attention in adult psychiatry. It is made all the more difficult as during development into adulthood, the expression of disorders of reciprocal social interaction, communication, imagination and repetitive stereotypical thinking and actions, change.

This again shows how autism can be ‘masked’ and how diagnostic tests suitable for children may not be suitable for adults. It also touched on another key issue – that only recently have adults begun to be looked at. It also thirdly touched on another issue – comorbidity. All these three people had ‘other’ psychiatric issues. I have no idea if their diagnosticians considered their autism to be comorbid or if their other diagnoses were considered comorbid to their autism. In the end it doesn’t really matter, except in one important regard: By failing to help these people properly when they were children, did their other psychiatric issues grow so pronounced that their autism was ‘eclipsed’ until a suitable diagnostic test was undertaken? If that is the case then we need to be very aware that there is indeed a large population of adults who have not got a full and proper diagnosis and thus are missing out on help they need and deserve.

Conflicts of interest, whats good for the goose…

28 Jul

As recently blogged by Autism News Beat, CBS Evening News (an American news outlet) recently performed an investigation into ‘how independent are vaccine defenders’? Something of an exercise in futility, it concluded that:

Ideally, it [vaccines] makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.

So, CBS say that the vaccine schedule makes for a healthier society but that the advice given about vaccines could impact the advice given.

Uh…so? Lets go through that again. It makes for a healthier society. Would CBS rather it didn’t? Bizarre.

Specifically, they attack the AAP, the Every Child By Two website and Paul Offit. The AAP has conferences funded by vaccine manufacturers, ECBT takes money from the vaccines industry….in fact, hold on…CBS say in their report (assume breathless excitement reporter voice)

Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too…

Oh do they? They admit it do they? Under the rigour of your intrepid journalism no doubt? Except that information is clearly available for all on their website. I do wonder if anyone from CBS even spoke to ECBT.

And of course there is Paul Offit – the official poster boo-boy for anti-vaccinationists everywhere. The man who dares to make a profit from his inventions! CBS took him to task for holding a patent on a vaccine. Shall we look at another man who made a patent application for a vaccine? That’s right – Andrew Wakefield. Except, unlike Dr Offit, who made no attempt to hide his association with the vaccine he was responsible for, Andrew Wakefield’s solicitors said that ‘Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine’.

How about other people who make a tidy income from the anti-vaccine industry? The Geier’s maybe who invented their own IRB to make sure that their ‘science’ was unhindered by ethical considerations…..or maybe Dr. Jay Gordon who thinks that the Polio vaccine could be replaced by simply not eating cheese. How much do you charge your clients Dr Jay? How about Laura Hewitson who’s husband works for the Wakefield owned Thoughtful House and who seems to be part of the Autism Omnibus hearings….how independent can her science be? How about the ARI/DAN group who are led by people who clearly have no clue at all as to the medical science they are making a large profit on. How much do each of these people make? How about Rashid Buttar who lists non-existent memberships on his CV and who charges upwards of $800 for a 1 hour consultation fee and who’s ex-patients report being out of pocket by about $20,000 in about a year.

Its up to you Dear Reader – are these things we should be worried about? Are these things CBS should be worried about? Are these conflicts of interest? Does the act of making any sort of money either from treating people or from existing business interests mean you cannot and should not talk about these things? Should we assume that only certain people have an agenda?

In my humble opinion, it should only become an issue when attempts are made to hide these things. Or deny them when they are clearly true. That cannot be said of the AAP, ECBT or Paul Offit. Maybe CBS should be asking to see the balance sheets of DAN doctors or vaccine litigation specialists. What have they got to hide? Maybe CBS should be inspecting the credentials of people who claim to be able to cure autism and reverse old age. Maybe CBS should be looking at the disturbing increase in ties between autism/anti-vaccinationists and scientology.

But I would think in the meantime that CBS will take the easy route of producing crap that informs no one about anything. Lets hope it doesn’t turn around and bite them on the arse eh?

Elsewhere
Orac weighs in too.

How urban legends get started

27 Jul

Its not often we in the autism/bad science community (you’ll know who we are, just look for the Reptiles who guard our huge mansions paid for by big pharma, or our Black Helicopters parked outside said mansions) get to see the actual birth of a brand new urban legend. When we do, we must tread warily, lest we scare off the fledgling nuttiness like bird watchers creeping up on a White-rumped Sandpiper.

But here we are, presented to you courtesy of two genuine, grade a mouth-frothers from those hallowed fori of all things anti-vaccine JABS (not, as some think an acronym for Just Awful British Silliness).

First, lets meet ‘Guss the Fuss’ – a person who ends each post with the legend ‘MMR RIP’, he seems to be under the delusion that the MMR is in some way dead. Or maybe that its pulled off a spectacular fart.

Second, is ‘Truthseeker’ who is non other than the owner of whale.to, one John Scudamore, a strange person who features anti-Semitic material on their site along with ‘The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave’. Also apparently a man who thinks that satanic ley lines burnt his bottom. In fact, so impressed was I with Mr Scudamore, I decided to create the first in a series of Bad Science tarot cards, commemorating his ass-related event.

John Scudamore - Tarot

Anyway, on this occasion, these two paragons of anti-vaccinationism managed to start an urban legend that fullfilled the prime directive of anti-vaccinationism; its bullshit.

Gus The Fuss started a thread entitled: Sainsbury’s to offer holiday MMR jabs.

Oh no, the horror….except when Guss (the Fuss) linked through to the story, well, there was absolutely no mention of MMR whatsoever. When this was pointed out to him, he answered:

Dr Thomas P again you’ve proven to take articles at face value…

????

Someone else attempted to gently remonstrate with Guss (the) Fuss:

Gus, this is a story about getting vaccines against diseases you may encounter on holiday. Have you not read it?

There’s nothing about scheduled vaccines, is there? Eh? Is there?

Sainsbury’s are NOT offering the MMR vaccine.

And thats when John ‘Truthseeker’ Scudamore turned up:

Who is mentally ill and showing sociopathic tendancies out of you or Gus. The bad science PHD Doctor who is happy that allopathic mnedicine is still killing 750,000 americans each year and you still condone it? The bad science PHD who will not even attack the indusrty that commits this genocide? You are either a Sociopath or you are mentally ill as you can not see reality as is or you condone genocide.

All this about a total non-story.

This, Dear Reader, is how anti-vaccination/autism bull gets started and spread. Someone makes up a story, links to a news story that has a slight relationship to it and then….away we go!

Thanks JABS, for making sure misinformation grows. Thats really helpful!

Tags:

Elizabeth Mumper – Autism Omnibus, Dwyer vs HHS

25 Jul

Some highlights, courtesy of a Guest Blogger, er Transcriber 🙂

Beau Johnson DoJ lawyer: Neither the myelin basic protein nor the IGM neuro filament antibody test is diagnostic of any disease is that right?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: They are very nonspecific findings.

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: And isn’t it true that these antibodies have been reported as elevated in normal individuals with no disease?

Mumper: That is true in some cases. Exactly.

Johnson: And because these markers were measured in the serum rather than the CSF they provide no direct evidence of what is going on in Colin’s central nervous system is that right?

Mumper: I guess I would quibble with how you get direct evidence, in this case in order to get direct evidence of neuroinflammation I guess we’d would really needed to have done a brain biopsy on him in 2002. I can tell you from personal experience that even wanting to look at CSF in children with autism for the presence of inflammatory markers is widely perceived as an invasive procedure. So those of us who might want to be able to document it more directly are constrained from doing so by standards of care criticisms. So we have to rely on other markers, and it’s not a direct marker but I would argue that a clinician would not have the ability to do a direct assessment in a living child.

Johnson: For whatever reason that evidence is just not present in this case, is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true

Johnson: Do you know what protocol Immunosciences used to perform these two lab tests?

Mumper: You know I don’t. I have visited the immunosciences labs on two occasions and talked to the director and viewed their facilities. But I am not a lab scientist. I can tell you that when I visited and had it explained to me it made sense at the time, but I could not reproduce the protocol.

Johnson: Do you know how Immunosciences established it’s references ranges?

Mumper: I do not know the details of that, no.

Johnson: Do you know whether these reference ranges take the age factor into account?…

Mumper: I do not think they are normed for children, but for things like neurofiliment antibodies and myelin basic protein antibodies the values for children would be expected to be less than people as they aged…

Johnson: But you don’t believe that these reference ranges are normed for children?

Mumper: I do not think that they are. That’s correct.

Johnson: Do you know if immunosciences lab ever been accredited by the College of American Pathologists?

Mumper: I do not know if they have. I do know that their work, their lab reports come disclaimers about use for research and careful clinical applicability and those types of things.

Johnson: Do you know if immunosciences is currently performing any clinical testing?

Mumper: I believe they are not.

Johnson: I’m going to show you what we’ve marked as respondent’s trial exhibit 14 and it is a letter that I found on the Immunosciences website.

Mumper: OK.

Johson: Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: Yes I have.

Johnson: And does this letter reflect that Immunosciences has in fact stopped performing clinical testing as of July 21, 2007?

Mumper: Yes, as i just testified to.

Johson: Do you know why it stopped performing clinical testing?

My understanding from talking to Dr. Vodjani and some health department officials, is that his lab was investigated for their testing as related to mold. Looking for mold evidence of chronic mold exposure as a potential cause of chronic illness. My understanding from Dr. Vodjani that the investigation was perhaps precipitated by a court case in which mold testing had been used and the plaintiff who had claimed damage from mold had won a huge settlement and the health department was concerned about the possibility of on the basis of that mold test and wanted to investigate the lab with regard to that.

Johnson: So its your understanding that the problems with Immunosciences lab were limited to its mold testing?

Mumper: That is my understanding, but I have not investigated all the depth of the investigation, nor read any of the official documents, so I really do not have full knowledge of that.

Johnson: I’m now going to show you respondents trial exhibit 15 which is another letter that I found on Immunosciences website.

Mumper: OK. Thank you.

Johnson: Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: I believe I have. Yes.

Johnson: Did you receive this letter since it is addressed to “Our valued clients and associates”? Was this sent to you?

Mumper: Yes.

Johnson: This letter is signed by doctor Vodjani?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: I believe you testified in May that you have an article in press (which has) Dr. Vodjani as the lead author?

Mumper: That is correct.

Johnson: Do you know what CLIA stands for?

Mumper: … I can’t remember…

Johnson: OK and just for the record it’s Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 and we’ll just refer to it as CLIA for ease of reference.

Mumper: OK

Johnson: Do you know what CMS is?

Mumper: According to the letter it might be Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services?

Johnson: That’s correct. CMS regulates all laboratory testing on humans in the United States through CLIA in order to insure quality laboratory testing, is that right?

Mumper: Uhuh.

Johnson: Dr. Vodjani’s letter states in the third paragraph that “CMS had found deficiencies during a 2004 CLIA survey of Immunosciences that led it to conclude that the lab’s test results since 2002 may not be accurate and reliable.” Were you aware of those findings by CMS?

Mumper: Uhm, yes, since I got this letter.

Johnson: I’m not going to show you respondents trial exhibit 16. This is a letter from CMS. Doctor have you seen this letter before?

Mumper: Yes I have.

Johnson: Did you receive this letter?

Mumper: Yes I did.

Johnson: And this letter does in fact say at the beginning of the second paragraph on the first page that: We are writing both to inform you of the current sanction action and to alert you that test results that you received since June 2002 from Immunosciences lab might not be accurate or reliable. Is that what that says?

Mumper: I would like to add that… I did call Mary Jew as suggested in this last line. I can’t remember the details now, but I talked to three different people on the staff. I tried to get information about what particular concerns they had because I was trying to figure out for the labs that I had done on my patients if this were a global concern or if it was related to the mold or if there were tests that I was using that I may still be able to rely upon, and I was very frustrated in not being able to find out from those people who I think their hands were tied as far as talking about an ongoing investigation, what the problems were.

Johnson: We may be able to provide some of that information now. I’m going to show you now what is marked as respondents trial exhibit 17. And this is the CLIA annual laboratory registry from 2005. Have you seen this document before?

Mumper: No I have not.

Johnson: Look on page 5 of this document. Does this indicate that Immunosciences’ CLIA certification was being revoked due to condition level noncompliance?

Mumper: Uhm, cancellation of a approval to receive medicare payment due to noncompliance. Yes.

Johnson: Now I’m going to show you respondents trial exhibit 18. And these are actually excerpts from a much larger report. And this is the, a report from the survey that CMS did of this lab. … does that appear to be correct to you?

Mumper: Based on my thirty second review that does appear to be correct.

Johnson: If you’ll turn to the fifth page of the trial exhibit. This document lists a number of findings in connection with Immunosciences general immunology testing. Is that correct?

Mumper: It appears that that is correct.

Johnson: Were you aware that CMS noted problems at Immunosciences lab in connection with its failure to follow written policies and procedures for an ongoing mechanism to monitor, assess and correct problems in the pre-analytic systems?

Mumper: No I did not have access to that information.

Johnson: And were you aware that the CMS found that the laboratory
failed to determine calibration procedures and control procedures based upon established performance applications?

Mumper: No I was not aware of the specifics.

Johnson: And were you aware that the CMS found that Immunosciences laboratory failed to verify the continued accuracy of the test systems throughout the laboratory’s reportable range of test results? …

Mumper: … I was not aware of the specifics.

Johnson: And under sub paragraph I, the CMS found that the Immunosciences laboratory failed to establish the statistical parameters of the unassayed control materials used for it’s various in-house ELISA test systems?

Mumper: I was not aware of that.

Johnson: Ok and these findings all relate to Immunosciences general immune testing is that correct?

Mumper: It would appear that that is the case.

Johnson: And if you will look at the next to the last page of the trial exhibit. Were you aware that CMS found with respect to the anti MPB and neurofilament test in particular that Immunosciences failed to have written policies and procedures, for patient preparation, specimen collection, specimen storage and preservation, conditions for specimen transportation and specimen acceptability and rejection?

Mumper: And what was the date of that that it was not in place? Because it seemed to be on the website when you cited it earlier. And when we sent specimens in 2003 we were able to obtain written instructions about the specimens submitted, they came actually in the test kit.

Johnson: I believe this was from a survey from 2004 …

Mumper: What I was trying to explain to you that as a clinician the test kits came in a box, and there’re the tubes and a series of explanations about how the specimens need to be prepared. … So I can only testify as to what I know… we had procedures to follow when we submitted our blood samples in 2003.

Johnson: And all I’m asking you is that at the time that CMS performed this survey it found that those aspects of Immunosciences laboratory practice to be inadequate. Is that correct?
…

Johnson: Look at the last page of the trial exhibit…at the time it performed this survey with respect to the anti MPB and neurofilament test that Immunosciences failed to provide documentation the laboratory director’s review and approval for those procedures?

Mumper: It does suggest that there was no documentation to show his review and approval… so how much this was a matter of paperwork versus actual analysis, I can’t say.

Johnson: And Dr. Vodjani’s letter of January 16th, 2006 ,he indicates that Immunosciences had planned sue over the survey results.

Mumper: I believe he said he planned to vigorously fight or something to that effect …

(Special Master: And that was trial exhibit 15? …)

Johnson: We have a copy of the settlement agreement from that lawsuit it’s been marked as respondents trial exhibit… Focusing on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. …

Mumper: OK

Johnson: It appears that one of the conditions of the settlement that Immunosciences would obtain accreditation through the College of American Pathologists or else it would voluntarily withdraw from the CLIA program and cease testing on human specimens, is that correct?

Mumper: That does seem to be the case.

Johnson: Based on the fact that Immunosciences is no longer performing clinical testing, isn’t it reasonable to assume that they did not receive accreditation through the College of American Pathologists…

Mumper: (interrupting) or that they chose not to pursue it I would think would be the two possibilities.

Johnson: Doctor based on this information do you have any concerns about the reliability of the Immunosciences test results?

Mumper: I was not aware that the MBP or neurofilament testing was under contention, and if that were the only thing that I was relying upon to make my judgement I would be concerned that I had over-read the labs. I would give relatively less credence or perhaps even be forced to discount those particular lab tests given  the information in the settlement agreement that I wasn’t privy to knowing the details of.

Johnson: The next test results that you discuss in your report are results from Great Smokies lab that purport to show abnormal glutathione, lipid peroxide and cysteine levels.  Is that correct?

Johnson: … That would have been when Colin was about 3 1/2 years old… So to the extent that these results indicate anything about whether Colin was under oxidative stress at the time … they don’t tell us if he was in oxidative stress at the time of his immunizations. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: These tests were blood tests is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson: Do you know if these tests were normed for children?

Mumper: I do not know the answer to that question.

Johnson: And as you note in your report a number of other factors can explain oxidative stress such as poor nutrition. Is that right?

Johnson: Would you agree that a mercury efflux disorder is still a hypothesis at this point

Mumper: Yes.

Johnson: So low cysteine and plasma sulfate levels can’t be diagnostic of that disorder..

and those levels can be explained by a number of other factors is that right?

Mumper: That’s correct.

Johnson:… I’d like to go through all the mercury testing if you don’t mind.

…

Mumper: It would appear that 4-19-02 was the time of the very first visit to Dr. Bock. So there is not evidence that he would have been on a chelating agent at that time.

Johnson: And the result for this test of mercury was that it came back the non-detectable limit … Is that correct?

Mumper: Right.

Johnson: The next test that we found was the December 2002 test and that was a urine toxic metals test… although the report says that there was a chelating agent administered, you don’t believe there was, is that correct?

Mumper: Yes that’s correct.

Johnson: and the result shows no detectable mercury.

Mumper: Yes that’s correct.

Johnson: and the result shows no detectable mercury.

The next test was the December 22, 2002 …The next test was the December 22, 2002 test which is at petitioner’s exhibit page 90 and … this was post provocative test … and this test result showed that mercury was at 17 mcg per gram of creatinine. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: And the report indicates that DMSA was administered in connection with this test … and again the result from this test for mercury was nondetectable. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: There’s only test that showed mercury outside the reference range is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true.

The next test was the December 22, 2002 test which is at petitioner’s exhibit page 90 and … this was post provocative test … and this test result showed that mercury was at 17 mcg per gram of creatinine. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: And the report indicates that DMSA was administered in connection with this test … and again the result from this test for mercury was nondetectable. Is that correct?

Mumper: That’s correct.

…

Johnson: There’s only test that showed mercury outside the reference range is that correct?

Mumper: That’s true.

Johnson: And that was the provoked test from December 22, 2002. … Doesn’t Doctor’s Data say in bold right on the test report that reference ranges are representative of a healthy population under non-challenged or non-provoked conditions?

Mumper: That’s true.

Johnson: So we just don’t know what the normal range would be for a provoked test. Is that right?

Mumper: It is difficult to know…

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.

David Kirby vs Accuracy

20 Jul

As I’ve said before, I like David Kirby personally. We exchange friendly emails. We even recently discussed the idea of having a private blog – readable by all but one that allowed only two posters (David and I) and no commenters. This would, I suggested, give us the opportunity to have a civil debate.

Unfortunately, David was too busy, which was a shame. However, the offers always open should he find a bit more time.

He did have time yesterday to blog a piece for the Huffington Post in which he discussed Amanda Peet and said she was ‘against the medical establishment’ for taking the stance she did. He cited a few things to support his point. I’d like to discuss these things but before I do I’d like you Dear Reader to take note: someone who was at the IACC meeting David talks about (he wasn’t there) will hopefully be posting their account of proceedings on LB/RB.

Anyway. Lets proceed. David’s first piece of rhetoric to support the idea Amanda Peet was against the medical establishment was:

A workgroup report of the IACC (the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, which includes HHS, CDC, NIH and others) says that some members want “specific objectives on vaccine research” included in the new, multimillion-dollar national autism research program, as mandated by Congress in the Combatting Autism Act.

I’m sure that some members do want this. Lynn Redwood and Mark Baxhill to be precise. As the upcoming IACC account will show, I don’t think any other IACC workgroup members were interested. (Please see this correction of an ignorant Limey’s take on the US system.)

I would also like to correct David on his characterisation of the Combating Autism Act. The Act contains no mention of vaccines. It specifies environmental research but the words ‘vaccine’, ‘vaccination’ ‘immunize’, ‘immunization’, ‘mmr’ or ‘thimerosal’ appear nowhere in the CAA. I hope David will correct his HuffPo piece accordingly.

Notes from the meeting indicate that workgroup members want federal researchers to consider “shortfalls” in epidemiological studies cited as proof against a vaccine-autism association (by Offit, Peet, et al); as well as a specific plan “for researching vaccines as a potential cause of autism.” The workgroup also says that the final research agenda should “state that the issue is open.”

Once again, David’s notes are coming from two people, Lynn Redwood and Mark Blaxill and indeed – they asked for all these things. The account of the meeting I have heard (from someone who was there) differed somewhat. As a flavour of how much the majority of the working group listened to Redwood and Blaxill, I enclose a teaser quote from chairperson Tom Insel:

“Lyn, your community is not the whole community and there are many people with well thought out concerns about ethics of the concept of prevention and if we want to be inclusive we will not do this.”

Back to David:

July 14, 2008 – Rep. Brad Miller (R-NC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, (Committe on Science and Technology) writes to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to complain that current federal autism research “shows a strong preference to fund genetic-based studies,” even though there is, “growing evidence that suggests a wide range of conditions or environmental exposures may play a role” in autism.

I blogged that episode here. Suffice it to say that a _politician_ is not representative of the medical establishment. I would urge everyone reading this to read that piece as it suggests amongst other things that Generation Rescue and SafeMinds be responsible for a Board that would serve as a liaison between the IACC and parents of autistic people and autistic people themselves!. After reading that I would urge everyone to contact the following people to express your thoughts (politely!) to the decision makers:

HHS Sec Mike Leavitt (mike.leavittAThhs.gov)
NIMH director/IACC director Tom Insel (tinselATmail.nih.gov)
Everyone here: http://science.house.gov/about/members.htm

Once again, back to David:

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report tells CBS News that, “Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” and says they “don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.”

I still can’t get over the fact that David is using this person to back up his points! He continues to trumpet the opinion of Bernadine Healy who actually did assert that cigarettes do not cause cancer and worked closely with Philip Morris to do so. She also totally reneged on her stance on fetal tissue research when she found herself in the same camp as President Bush. In AoA language she’s a shill.

David then goes on to cite al three Presidential Candidates – as if a politicians opinion in an election year means anything! I definitely fail to see what any of them have to do with being part of the medical establishment.

Onwards:

March 29, 2008 – Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, speaking about the Hannah Poling case on CNN says: “If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and was pre-disposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (including) symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

Er, so? I’m really not sure how this is a ‘point’ for David (or anyone else who thinks its supportive of the idea vaccines cause autism). If she’d said ‘yes, vaccines caused autism in Hannah Poling’s case’ (which no-one ever has by the way, despite statements to the contrary) than _that_ would be a bombshell. As it was Dr. Gerberding was simply speaking what is obvious.

David again:

The CISA Network (Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment), headed by the CDC, receives a report from top researchers at Johns Hopkins University that 30 typically developing children with mitochondrial dysfunction all regressed into autism between 12 and 24 months of life. At least two of them (6%) showed brain damage within one week of receiving simultaneous multiple vaccinations.

Now, I can’t answer this as much as I’d like to. I have spoken to people involved in the preparation and writing of this report (as has David) and I was given two take home points from our email chat:

1) The science is _not yet complete_ . The paper is not published.
2) The authors feel ‘disappointed’ in the slant David has put on their work and are loth to discuss it with anyone else due to that. I was told that David might be rather surprised when everything comes out later in the year.

David once more:

Medical Personnel at HHS concede an autism case filed by the family of Hannah Poling in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, before the claim can go to trial as a “test case” of the theory that thimerosal causes autism. Though portrayed by some (ie, Dr. Offit) as a legal decision, it is in fact a medical decision. HHS doctors admit that the “cause” of Hannah’s “autistic encephalopathy” was “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves,”

First of all, I beg to differ with David. The concession was a legal one. By definition the phrase “autistic encephalopathy” does not exist in mainstream science so if it was used (a fact which has yet to be determined – I invite David once more to link through to the document where this is stated). A simple test of its non-existence is to search for the phrase on PubMed. I got:

Quoted phrase not found.

So we have a multitude of uncertainties here:

1) Nowhere (except in David’s writings) can we find evidence of HHS apparently saying “autistic encephalopathy” caused Hannah Poling’s autism.

2) The phrase itself (“autistic encephalopathy”) does not appear in the entire PubMed database, thus causing me to doubt its use by the medical establishment.

3) Is the concession legal or medical? If a diagnosis does not exist but is used in a legal document then by definition it must be legal – thats my opinion anyway.

David also mentions a HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group meeting but I know next to nothing about that so can’t comment.

I have to say that based on the above, David seems to be attempting nothing more than an intellectual ‘land grab’ i.e. to attempt to paint those who claim vaccines cause autism as part of the medical establishment and those who stand against them as not. Its a good political idea but I don’t think its going to work. There are just too many holes in this particular boat for it to float for long.

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.

Ad Council increasing autism awareness

13 Jul

This is one of the questions that comes up a lot in many discussions. Many people (myself included) believe that an increased awareness of autism, both amongst parents and professionals, has led to much of the increase in the number of people identified with autism.

So, can awareness be increased? Apparently, the Ad Council. and their partner in a recent ad campagin, Autism Speaks, think so. They recently ran an ad campaign to raise awareness about autism.

The campaign was effective enough that the Ad Council is including it as one of their recent success stories by posting a ‘case report‘ on it.

After only three months in the marketplace, the campaign reached No. 2 among 50 active Ad Council television campaigns. In the nine-month period from April to December 2006, the “Odds” campaign earned almost $47 million in donated media.

That’s a lot of exposure, and a lot of money. That would have purchased a lot of, say, full page ads in USA Today. But, it wasn’t the amount of exposure alone, it was the tone of the campaign. The Ad Council did some background research before they started spending a lot of donated ad money. What did they find?

It became apparent that there was a disabling fear among parents regarding autism, a fear that led them to tune out information.

I am sure we could have a nice lively debate about how much fear was used in the ad council campaign which focused on the “odds” of a child being diagnosed with autism. But, their background research was indicating that the fear mongering campaigns (think print ads with giant vaccine syringes for one example) were actually driving people away, making them “tune out”.

Hmmm, the previous ad campaigns, run by organizations populated with public relations people, were making people “tune out”.

But, did the campaign work? Yep, they increased awareness of autism. The ad council claimed a 35% increase in awareness. More importantly, “Parents are also increasingly likely to take action as a result of the campaign.” Parents are talking more about autism, seeking out autism websites and, most importantly, they are talking to their doctors about autism more. That last bit has to impact the number of kids identified with autism.

The campaign also benefited their partner in this: Autism Speaks. Traffic to their website spiked to nearly 450,000 visitors a month. That would be about 15,000 visitors a day. For reference, Kev has noted that this blog gets about 3,000 unique visitors a day. Not bad for someone who built the traffic to this website on words, not money.

Perhaps no other childhood disorder has come into the public eye as quickly and widely as autism. The “Odds” campaign has successfully made autism a more common subject for family concern and discussion. By doing so, the campaign has laid the groundwork for an effective follow-up phase, in which parents can be educated about the early signs of autism and empowered to take action that will significantly enhance their children’s development. Considering the widespread nature of the disorder, such action could potentially benefit nearly 2 million children in the U.S., significantly improving the health and welfare of future generations.

First off: whoa! 2 million children?!? I can only imagine that they are including children with other, non-autism, conditions who might be helped by parents seeking out information. Or, are they considering future generations? Or, the American children who are now grown up into adults? That aside, the ad council (and their partner Autism Speaks) appears to be agreeing that raising awareness about autism can lead to parents taking action. In other words, parents will be more likely to get their kids properly identified…increasing the “epidemic” of autism by counting the uncounted.

The Ad-Council/Autism Speaks alliance has been continued for another three years.

The campaign has thus far generated more than $125 million in donated print, broadcast and online media and is credited with raising awareness of autism by more than 43%.

Raising awareness. More people will be identified. Is the Ad-Council adding to the epidemic?

In closing I have to add: where is the campaign about adults with autism?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →