Spanking increases agressive behavior in young children

15 Apr

Spanking. Corporal punishment. Aversives. There is obviously a major controversy about punishment in the autism community (for example, the Judge Rotenberg Center). But what about spanking in general, for the general population? Is it effective in reducing aggression? According to a new paper in the journal Pediatrics, the answer is a clear no. Not only that, but spanking leads to more aggressive behavior.

This is shown in Mothers’ Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children’s Aggressive Behavior, Catherine A. Taylor et al..

Here is the abstract:

Objective The goal was to examine the association between the use of corporal punishment (CP) against 3-year-old children and subsequent aggressive behavior among those children.

Methods Respondents (N = 2461) participated in the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study (1998–2005), a population-based, birth cohort study of children born in 20 large US cities. Maternal reports of CP, children’s aggressive behaviors at 3 and 5 years of age, and a host of key demographic features and potential confounding factors, including maternal child physical maltreatment, psychological maltreatment, and neglect, intimate partner aggression victimization, stress, depression, substance use, and consideration of abortion, were assessed.

Results Frequent use of CP (ie, mother’s use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.

Conclusions Despite American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations to the contrary, most parents in the United States approve of and have used CP as a form of child discipline. The current findings suggest that even minor forms of CP, such as spanking, increase risk for increased child aggressive behavior. Importantly, these findings cannot be attributed to possible confounding effects of a host of other maternal parenting risk factors.

I decided to not go into detail on the paper. The relevant information for this discussion is there in the abstract: children who are spanked at age 3 are more likely to be more aggressive at age 5. Long term, spanking makes things worse. It doesn’t “teach a child a lesson”.

This isn’t an autism paper, but LeftBrainRightBrain is an autism blog and I’ve been wondering how this might apply to young autistics. Are autistic children (or developmentally disabled children in general) more susceptible to the harmful effects of frequent spanking or aversives? I have to admit, I wonder about the effect of electric shocks on older children and young adults at the Judge Rotenberg Center. Whether it actually makes things worse for some of their students in the long run.

Brian Deer discusses Andrew Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” in the BMJ

15 Apr

Before the General Medical Council reached a verdict on Dr. Wakefield, Brian Deer was promising that he was going to report on the data Dr. Wakefield used for his now retracted Lancet paper. We were told that he would give a first time ever view of a journalist allowed to check the facts on a scientific research paper.

After the GMC verdict was handed down, I watched the Sunday Times for such an article. I waited. Well, the wait is over. And it isn’t in the Times. Mr. Deer reports his findings in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

Although much of the attention on Dr. Wakefield’s work has centered on the possible MMR connection, the topic of a “new syndrome” called “autistic enterocolitis” was proposed in that paper. In Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope, Mr. Deer takes a closer look at that claim. He does what is very rarely done: he obtained original data used for the study and obtains expert opinions on that data.

In his introduction, he notes the “new syndrome” and the MMR angles of the Lancet paper. Citing the press release from the Lancet paper:

“Researchers at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine may have discovered a new syndrome in children involving a new inflammatory bowel disease and autism,” the institution announced in a press release in February 1998. “Their paper . . . also suggests that in a number of cases the onset of behavioural symptoms was associated with MMR vaccination.”

Mr. Deer notes that before any patients were investigated, Dr. Wakefield was already proposing in a submission to the Legal Aid Board that such a new syndrome exists and it is linked to regression in children.

“In contrast to the IBD cases, which have a prima face [sic] gastrointestinal pathology, children with enteritis/disintegrative disorder form part of a new syndrome,” said Wakefield and the lawyer in a confidential submission for legal aid funding for the project in June 1996, before any of the 12 children in the paper had been investigated. “Nonetheless, the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.”

For emphasis:

The evidence was “undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology”.

Before children were investigated.

That on its own is huge. And, from what I can tell, not consistent with the image Dr. Wakefield is portraying in the alternative media.

That said, was there evidence of this “new syndrome”?

But when the children were brought in to the Royal Free for ileocolonoscopy, between July 1996 and February 1997, a snag in Wakefield’s project emerged. The hospital’s pathology service repeatedly judged colonic biopsy samples to be unexceptional, and thought bowel disease was a possibility in only one child.

The Royal Free’s own pathology service thought that the biopsy samples were unexceptional.

How can Mr. Deer make such a claim? He obtained data from the children’s records from their investigations at the Royal Free. Unfortunately, the actual samples are no longer available, but the reports are, and Mr. Deer submitted these to experts to review:

The biopsy slides are no longer available, according to one of the paper’s authors, Professor Amar Dhillon, but the GMC obtained all but one of the hospital pathology reports, and for the missing case I obtained the discharge summary. I passed the summary and reports to specialists for their reaction. They concluded that most of the 11 children reported as having non-specific colitis in the Lancet paper had been reported by the Royal Free as having normal pathology.

One expert reviewer stated:

“In the present reports and patients, overall, it is my impression that 8 of the 11 [for whom pathology reports were available] were normal,” Karel Geboes, a professor in the gastrointestinal pathology unit of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, told me.

How does this compare to what was reported in the Lancet?

Eleven of the 12 children were said to have “non-specific colitis”: a clinically significant inflammation of the large bowel. In all 11, it was said to be “chronic,” while in four it was reported as both “acute and chronic.”

In other words, the report in the Lancet is not consistent with how experts interpret the pathology reports.

Mr. Deer further notes:

In fact the [Royal Free’s pathology] service identified findings suggestive of possible inflammatory bowel disease in only one of the 12 children. “The mild patchy generalised increase in inflammatory cells with lymphoid aggregates and follicles is not very specific but could be in keeping with low grade quiescent inflammatory bowel disease,” it reported for child 2. But this inflammation resolved after two months’ enteral feeding with a product now marketed as Modulen. A repeat ileocolonoscopy found no abnormality, and a food intolerance was diagnosed.

Yes, it appears that the pathology service, at Dr. Wakefield’s own hospital, at the time of the investigation, didn’t find evidence of abnormalities reported by Dr. Wakefied’s team.

In the GMC hearing, one of the co-authors on the Lancet paper, Dr. Susan Davies, discussed her concerns about the changes in the findings from normal to abnormal at the time of the investigation.

These changes—from normal to abnormal, or from healthy to diseased—had also raised concern in the mind of at least one of the paper’s authors. In September 2007, Davies, the lead histopathologist for the Wakefield project, was examined at length before the panel. “When you were given a draft of the Lancet paper, did you read it?” she was asked by Sally Smith QC, for the doctors’ regulator.
“Yes,” Davies replied.
“What was your overall view of the terminology used in relation to the histology findings in the Lancet paper, just when you read the paper?”
“I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word colitis.”
“First of all, what did you understand that word to mean?”
“I personally use that terminology, ‘colitis,’ when I see active inflammation, or a pattern of changes which suggest a specific diagnosis, and it was not my impression that the children coming through in the spasmodic way that they had, I [sic] had formulated some distinct pattern warranting that terminology.”

If even a co-author was concerned, and the hospital’s pathology reports don’t support the diagnosis of colitis, the obvious question would be: how did the paper reach it’s conclusions?

The answer appears to be that the results underwent a second review. This second review is discussed in the Lancet paper, but there is no mention of the review changing the interpretation of the data,

Mr. Deer poses an important question:

[H]ow many peer reviewers would have felt comfortable approving the paper if they had known that the hospital pathology service reported biopsy specimens as largely normal, but they were then subjected to an unplanned second look and reinterpreted?

Which we are fortunate enough to have answered. Mr. Deer was able to obtain an answer from one of the peer reviewers:

“I’m surprised the GMC didn’t make more of this,” said David Candy, paediatric gastroenterologist at St Richard’s Hospital, Chichester, who reviewed the paper in 1997. “That’s an example of really naughty doing—to exclude the original pathology findings.”

“Really naughty doing”. Not very clinical but I think it tells the story well.

Is it possible that the hospital’s pathology service missed the condition? Apparently at least one author (Dr. Walker-Smith, a co-defendant with Dr. Wakefield in the GMC hearings) noted this in his GMC testimony:

And how bad was this “colitis,” such that the hospital’s pathology service didn’t spot it as the children came through? Walker-Smith told the GMC panel that he had “concerns” about the service and its ability to detect inflammation.

In his report, Mr. Deer counters with:

Yet inflammatory indices that were not reported in the Lancet paper, including serum C reactive protein concentrations and other blood tests, were almost all within normal ranges for the 12 children.6 And as an alternative explanation for any inflammation that was present, nearly all of the children had constipation with megarectum16 (unreported in the paper), which specialists say can cause cellular changes.

Mr. Deer attempted to speak with Dr. Dillhon, a co-author on the Lancet paper. Dr. Dillhon viewed the slides made from the samples taken from the children, and he graded them with Roman numerals to rank the degree of inflammation. At some point, those Roman numerals were translated into “non-specific colitis”.

So who translated these scores on the grading sheet into findings of “non-specific colitis” in the paper? Dhillon says it wasn’t him. He says he would like to see the slides again, but they are missing from the Royal Free laboratory. “He [Dhillon], Andrew Anthony, and Wakefield all looked at them,” I was told, on Dhillon’s behalf, by a senior member of staff at the Royal Free. “Andy [Wakefield] then synthesised their results into what appeared in the paper.”

But still, according to Mr. Deer, “…how the Roman numerical scores, histopathological gradings for a variety of sites in the colon, became the “colitis” findings might, under such circumstances, be anybody’s guess.”

Mr. Deer posits a possible scenario, based on Dr. Wakefield’s complaint to the press complaints commission:

Wakefield wrote: “When the biopsies were reviewed and scored by experts in bowel pathology—namely, Drs Dhillon and Anthony—these doctors determined that there was mild inflammation in the caecum, ascending colon, and rectum,” he said. “This was correctly reported as non-specific colitis in the Lancet.” In other words, it looks like it was Wakefield who translated the scores.

A companion editorial was published in the BMJ by Prof. Sir Nicholas Wright, warden, of Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London. He lists in his conflict of interest statement: “He has provided expert opinion in the case of Wakefield v GMC and acted as a character witness for Professor John Walker-Smith.”

His editorial:

Does autistic enterocolitis exist?
Despite the retracted Wakefield study, questions remain

His conclusion:

Is autistic enterocolitis a histopathological entity or even an entity at all? In view of the lack of data and the entrenched position of many of the protagonists and antagonists, any firm conclusion would be inadvisable. The expert review, referenced by Deer, concludes that key areas such as the prevalence and best treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in people with autistic spectrum disorders are incompletely understood, and that evidence based recommendations are not yet available. We should remember, as recent experience in several fields has shown, that although science has its defects, it is a self correcting process. Time is, perhaps, the wisest counsellor of all. In the meantime, this case offers a salutary reminder for researchers and journal editors alike that coauthorship means bearing responsibility for what is written.

First, I would submit that Dr. Wright is not being clear on the subject. It is not whether autistics have a greater prevalence of GI issues, or whether there is a difference in the treatment for autistics. The question is whether there is a specific entity which is unique to autistics: autistic enterocolitis. Further, it is also a primary question whether “autistic enterocolitis” is causal in autism. While one can hide behind the “you can’t prove a negative” shield, the answers at present appear to be no to both questions.

Second, the idea that science is a self correcting process is often times true. In this case, it clearly is not. The science, the Lancet paper, was not corrected through science but through investigative journalism. Without the stories in The Sunday Times, Dr. Wakefield’s “science” would likely still be in the official record of The Lancet. Much more, the Lancet study and the presumed expertise of Dr. Wakefield would have likely been key in litigation in the UK and the US. Without Mr. Deer’s continued scrutiny, the facts behind the research into the Lancet paper, specifically that the pathology reports on those children were not consistent with the findings of the paper, would almost certainly not have come to light.

Returning to Mr. Deer’s article, he concludes:

So what should we make of all this? Now the Lancet paper is retracted, its findings don’t officially exist. And, if Dhillon is right in saying the slides can’t be found, the ultimate proof is missing. All we have are the pathology reports, which independent specialists seem to agree are largely unremarkable. “They wanted this bad,” commented Tom MacDonald, dean of research at Barts and the London School of Medicine and coauthor of Immunology and Diseases of the Gut. “If I was the referee and the routine pathologists reported that 8/11 were within normal limits, or had trivial changes, but this was then revised by other people to 11/12 having non-specific colitis, then I would just tell the editor to reject the paper.”

Clearly the Lancet paper should have been rejected. But this isn’t just a scientific paper that made a bad conclusion. This paper impacted multiple families inside the autism communities to believe that their child’s autism was caused by MMR. This paper led many families in the autism communities to apply poorly researched “therapies” to their disabled children. This paper led many families to stop vaccinating their children, leading to outbreaks of measles in the UK and elsewhere.

It is easy to go through Mr. Deer’s paper in the BMJ point by point in a clinical fashion, noting how the research went awry, showing that “autistic enterocolitis” has what appears to be no founding in science. But how does one express the reaction to so much damage caused by Dr. Wakefield’s investigation?

Of course, a further question I have and I bet I share with Dr. Wakefield’s supporters is this: is Brian Deer finished or is there even more yet to be unearthed in this sad tale of research gone awry?

How much do autism parents really buy into the vaccine causation idea? Not so much.

13 Apr

Yeah, they are loud. They are on the internet forums. They are on the blogs. They are seemingly a huge presence. Who am I talking about? The people who push the idea that there is an epidemic of autism caused by vaccines. Stop vaccinating, they say, and autism will go away.

Yeah, we all hear the message. Some people buy into the idea that vaccines can cause autism. But, do they really believe that their child was made autistic by vaccines?

People who believe that their child was injured by vaccines in the U.S. can apply for compensation from the government. They “petition” the government. If you’ve followed this story, you’ve no doubt heard that over 5,000 families have petitioned the government claiming autism as a vaccine injury.

How many people petitioned the government in 2009?

Eleven.

Yep, fewer than one a month. About 250 times fewer than the peak. The 2010 count is much lower than the 2009 count (108) that I wrote about last year.

Here’s a graph of the number of petitions by year,
from the U.S. government statistics..

The Natural Variation Autism Blog discusses the fact that the number of reports to VAERS system, and the number of autism/vaccine news stories has dropped dramatically too.

Blogging about IMFAR

12 Apr

INSAR‘s annual International Meeting For Autism Research (IMFAR) is convening in Philadelphia this May (May 20-22).

Thanks in part to a generous travel grant from the Autism Science Foundation, I’ll have the opportunity to attend – and of course I’ll be blogging about it here at LBRB.

For the most part, I plan to write about research, projects, researchers themselves, or talks that I find interesting and attain sufficient understanding, but I’ll also be sharing a little with LBRB readers, about the overall IMFAR experience upon my return. I’m also looking forward to attending the Autism Science Foundation’s “Science and Sandwiches” where plans for this IMFAR lunchtime edition include presentations “from six ASF-funded pre-doctoral students who will describe their new research projects”.

I’ve always been pleasantly surprised by, and appreciative of scientists in general. I’ve had the opportunity to exchange ideas with many over the last few years while writing articles at both LBRB, and Autism Street, and even had the benefit of informal peer review (for some of the more scientifically involved articles) prior to publishing.

If the opportunity arises to meet and talk with individual researchers, I also hope to write some brief “Meet the Researchers” type pieces for those who might be able to take 10 minutes for a few questions. Hopefully this can bring a certain aspect of personal conversation with some of the scientists who’ll attend this year to readers at LBRB.

As more details about the planned presentations (and even posters) become available, be sure to let me know about any you (dear readers) think look particulary interesting. Simply leave a comment, or drop me a note at:

autism blogger at gmail (remove the spaces, and use the symbol for at).

Illini with Asperger Syndrome wins slot in U.S. geography bee.

10 Apr

An article in the Chicago Tribune, Palatine student qualifies for National Geographic Bee in Washington, D.C., describes how a 13 year old won the slot for Illinois in the National Geographic Bee:

At night, 13-year-old Anton Karpovich curls up with a good atlas.

“Geography gives me a way to get away from the world,” said Anton, who has Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism.

On Friday, he didn’t want to get away. Anton, an eighth-grader from Walter R. Sundling Middle School in Palatine, won the state qualifier for the National Geographic Bee.

The rest is on the Tribune’s website.

He gets a paid trip to DC for the national competition. I wish him good luck.

Jenny McCarthy asking for grant from Pepsi for Generation Rescue

9 Apr

Pepsi has a grant program, the Pepsi Refresh Project. The idea is simple, organizations and people can apply for grants in different categories ($5K, $25K, $50K and $250K). Those projects that get the most votes each month get funded.

Jenny McCarthy is asking people to vote for Generation Rescue’s plea: Help children with Autism throughout the USA. The stated purpose is:

– Provide biomedical treatment grants for families who can not afford it. Each grant provides two visits with a physician specifically trained to treat autism and diagnose the child’s needs. The grant also provides essential vitamins and minerals that scientific studies have shown are deficient in children with autism, as well as science-based laboratory testing.

– Each grant costs $2,500. The support of $250,000 will allow us to provide treatment for 100 families.

Here is what Generation Rescue had to say about their program on their website:

Generations Rescue’s Rescue Family grants are designed to provide support to individuals and families affected by Autism Spectrum Disorders. Each grant recipient will receive 2-doctor visits with a specially trained physician who treats autism; vitamins, minerals and supplements for 90 days, a Generation Rescue Rescue Mentor and dietary intervention training.

$2,500 buys $90 worth of supplements and two doctor visits?

The Pepsi idea is pretty cool. Here’s my suggestion: go to the website, search under the term disability, and vote for some cool projects.

What changes are in store for Generation Rescue?

9 Apr

If you haven’t read the celebrity gossip news you may have missed it (and good for you!). Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have split. As an aside, in classic Hollywood fashion, news also just came out that her ex husband is in a new celebrity relationship. I’ll never understand the way Hollywood uses relationships for image promotion.

That said, this is not an easy thing to blog about. First, there is the fluff component. This isn’t a celebrity gossip blog. Second, Jenny McCarthy’s kid is only seven. He doesn’t deserve to lose another father figure. I wish him well.

One question this poses is whether Jim Carrey will continue with Generation Rescue?

It appears not. Generation Rescue has revamped their website. The picture of Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy and Evan McCarthy is gone. GR is now just “Jenny McCarthy’s autism organization”. Jim Carrey is no longer on the page of the Board of Directors.

Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey were the wealthy celebrity couple that revitalized Generation Rescue. And, let’s face it, Jim Carrey is the part of the couple with most of the celebrity and wealth.

The Generation Rescue website is probably in flux so we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions about what is missing as of now. That said, consider this:

Not only is Jim Carrey missing, but Dr. Jill James is no longer listed as a part of their science advisory board.

Mention of Desiree Jennings is gone. (She is the person who claimed that a flu vaccination caused dystonia, a claim that didn’t appear to hold up to scrutiny ). I don’t think this signals anything other than it was a convenient time to quietly pull support for someone who was, well, a liability.

On the main page for Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy is pushing hard to get a $250,000 grant from Pepsi. Is this prompted by the loss of Jim Carrey’s financial support? If you haven’t seen the plea from Ms. McCarthy, consider it. At least the first 20 seconds. That way you can hear her state that Generation Rescue “…helps and Treats thousands, millions of children with autism”

Yes, millions of children are supposedly helped by Generation Rescue. That would be more autistic kids than in the entire U.S..

I remember when Jim Carrey first hit the scene. He paid for a full page ad for Generation Rescue in USA Today. Just up and paid for it. Those ads cost over $200,000 as I recall. Now GR is pushing hard for a grant of that size.

Jim Carrey was a bit of a lightweight when it came to autism and disability issues. He demonstrated that clearly at the Green Our Vaccines rally. But, he was an asset to Generation Rescue. His leaving can’t be helping GR.

IACC conference call on the Strategic Plan

8 Apr

I just received this announcement from the IACC:

A Conference Call and Webinar of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Subcommittee for Planning the Annual Strategic Plan Updating Process

Please join us for a conference call and webinar of the IACC Subcommittee for Planning the Annual Strategic Plan Updating Process that will take place on Monday, April 19, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET.

No registration is required

Conference Call Access
USA/Canada Phone Number: 888-577-8995
Access code: 1991506

Webinar Access https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/455522202

The agenda for this conference call is to discuss plans for updating the 2010 IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research.

Please visit the IACC Events page for the latest information about the conference call, including access information, as well as all other IACC events.

For more information about the IACC, please visit www.iacc.hhs.gov.

Now follow the IACC on Twitter (www.twitter.com/IACC_Autism).

The Contact Person for this conference call is:
Ms. Lina Perez
Office of Autism Research Coordination
National Institute of Mental Health, NIH
6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC
Room 8185a
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301-443-6040
IACCpublicinquiries@mail.nih.gov
Please Note: This conference call may end before 12:00 PM if the discussion is completed ahead of schedule.

Young Autistic and Stage Struck

8 Apr

Channel 4 in the UK has this show: Young Autistic and Stage Struck. I have to see if I can download it from iTunes, as it looks like it may be very cool.

This landmark series follows nine autistic youngsters as they attempt to produce their very own stage show, under the guidance of theatre professionals who’ve never worked with an autistic cast before

The synopsis for Episode 1 looks good:

The first episode of the series introduces the first five youngsters. Twelve-year-old Ben has high functioning autism: he’s exceptionally bright but experiences acute loneliness. But as the project develops he starts to bond successfully with the other youngsters.

Andrew, 17, is classically autistic, and despite limited social skills, he is very keen to have his first proper relationship with a girl. From day one he starts getting closer to Claire, 19, and takes her on the first date of his life: a night at the cinema. Claire is a talented singer and pianist who also struggles socially.

Mollie, 11, is prone to tantrums and lengthy sulks, which test her mother’s considerable patience. She suffers from PDA – Pathological Demand Avoidance – a pervasive developmental disorder with symptoms including mood swings, language delay and obsessive behaviour. A talented singer, Mollie was diagnosed with autism at four.

Eleven-year-old Jozsef is more challenged by his autism, but his playfulness makes him endearing to others and soon turns him into the group joker.

Basically, it looks like a reality show where they recruit a group of autistic kids, working with the National Autistic Society, and together with Lyric Hammersmith help the kids workshop a show.

What a cool idea.

A clarification

7 Apr

The following post was written by a group of LBRB authors

LBRB is produced by team of writers who do not always agree on everything. But we each expect the others to ensure that statements of fact can be corroborated. Mostly this works. But once in while these expectations are not met and one of us is so certain of their opinion that it is presented as fact. This happened recently with a story about Danish scientist Poul Thorsen, who is at the centre of investigations into the disappearance of $2 million in research grants. Because he was one of the authors on two studies that showed no evidence of a vaccine autism link anti-vaccine campaigners at The Age of Autism blog seized on this story as soon as it emerged and argued that Thorsen’s alleged dishonesty regarding the missing funds meant that these studies were tainted.

At the time, coming soon after Wakefield’s disgrace at the GMC and the withdrawal of his now discredited Lancet paper, this seemed a little too convenient. Was the story a fabrication? Were Age of Autism the willing victims of an elaborate hoax? One of our authors thought so and wrote a post which proved to his satisfaction that it was so. A second post by him compounded the error. Both posts were removed (as they were incorrect) and this one https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/03/autism-study-doctor-facing-grant-probe/ stands in their place.

Age of Autism is now trying to use this to attack LBRB founder Kev Leitch, saying he is to blame for allowing the now withdrawn posts to appear in the first place. And the rest of us are guilty by association. We are in good company.

Age of Autism regularly lies about those it sees as opponents. It famously exaggerated Paul Offit’s earnings from the vaccine, Rotateq, stated that he voted for its inclusion in the vaccine schedule and was reprimanded by a congressional committee. All false. None withdrawn.

Another bete noir for AoA is Richard Roy Grinker, whom they regard as an “epidemic denialist.” GRINKER’S STINKER: HIS WIFE RUNS THE IACC was their response to the news that Joyce Chung was the new executive secretary of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Apparently being married to someone AoA disagrees with makes you open to corruption.

They accused Simon Baron-Cohen of lacking humanity because he wrote about the positive aspects of autism. Eric Fombonne, Catherine Lord and Bennet Leventhal were called parasites because they gave evidence against the vaccine autism connection. They have campaigned against Julie Geberding when she was director of the CDC because, like Simon Baron-Cohen she “lacked humanity” for failing to agree that there was a vaccine induced autism epidemic.

None of these posts have been taken down. No corrections have been published. No apologies have been made. LBRB will continue to make mistakes and when they are pointed out we will correct them. We will continue to allow open debate in the comments to our posts. But we will not be lectured by the anti-vaccine fanatics and autism haters that infest The Age of Autism.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →