Stem Cell Therapy for Autism

10 Feb

There are many unproven therapies being used by alternative medicine practitioners on autistic kids. One newer “therapy” is the use of stem cells.

I have yet to see even a good explanation of why stem cells should work. Not even a fully thought out bad reason. And, yet, kids are being “treated” with stem cells.

For those who would like a rundown of stem cells, their use and the potential problems, I refer you to Promtheus’ A Photon In The Darkness blog and his post, Stem Cell Therapy for Autism.

Not to steal his thunder, but here is the part that I am having trouble getting out of my mind. A child was given multiple stem cell “treatments”. Later he developed recurring headaches. On testing…well, Prometheus says it:

In short, this lad had two separate brain and spinal cord tumours. Under the microscope, these tumours were not cancerous, but looked like disorganized neural tissue. When they were tested genetically, the tumours did not match the patient’s genetic markers. They were, in fact, from two separate donors.

Many alternative medical therapies appear to be basically harmless. Give a kid some extra vitamin, or change his/her diet. Stem cell therapy does not fall into that category. When a risk/benefit calculation is done, what can you say but there is significant risk and no discernible benefit.

Autism Science Foundation announces 2010 Doctoral Training Award Recipients

10 Feb

The Autism Science Foundation has awarded six student/mentor teams grants to further research.

The teams and projects are listed below:

Sarita Austin/Dr. Rhea Paul; Yale Child Study Center:
Enhancing Understanding and Use of Conversational Rules in School-Aged Speakers with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Karen Burner/Dr. Sara Jane Webb; University of Washington, Seattle:
Observational and Electrophysiological Assessments of Temperament in Infants at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorders

Rhonda Charles/Dr. Joseph Buxbaum; Mount Sinai School of Medicine:
A Preclinical Model for Determining the Role of AVPR1A in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Sarah Hannigen/Dr. Mark Strauss; University of Pittsburgh:
Defining High and Low Risk Expression of Emotion in Infants at Risk for Autism

Matthew Maenner/Dr. Maureen Durkin; University of Wisconsin, Madison:
Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Early Identification of ASD in the United States

Michael Sidorov/Dr. Mark Bear; MIT:
Investigation of Postnatal Drug Intervention’s Potential in Rescuing the Symptoms of Fragile X Syndrome in Adult Mice

The awards total $180,000.

Awards such as these serve a dual purpose. Yes, they get specific research projects support. More important in the long run is helping to recruit and keep good researchers studying autism.

Wakefield’s Lancet study is like cold fusion?

9 Feb

Hey, I didn’t say it. Mike Adams, “The Health Ranger”, out at NaturalNews.com said it in a blog post called, The Lancet retraction of vaccine autism paper condemned as Big Pharma conspiracy to discredit Dr. Wakefield.

I’ll do the geek stuff below, but let’s just say, Cold Fusion is synonymous with weak (or bad) science touted followed by a press conference that made claims which were amazing if true…but they weren’t.

For most of the world, comparing research to cold fusion is not a compliment. But NaturalNews.com doesn’t see it that way. After the announcement of Cold Fusion:

The conventional physics community went berserk. They attacked Fleischmann and Pons relentlessly, attempting to destroy their character and any scientific credibility they might have held. They paraded a gang of “hot fusion” scientists through the mainstream media, telling everyone it was “impossible” to create nuclear fusion at tabletop temperatures. Through a repetition of lies, they convinced the world that Fleischmann and Pons were frauds.

Yep. Just like Big Physics killed cold fusion, Big Pharma is out to kill the MMR/Autism link.

As I said recently, just when I think the Wakefield/MMR story can’t get stranger, it does.

For the geeks:

Fusion is the process where nuclei are, well, fused together to form the nuclei of new atoms. For example, one can fuse two duterium (hydrogen nuclei with a proton and a neutron) nuclei and get helium. People study fusion because it might give us a huge source of energy. Fusion reactors are big, expensive creations that raise the temperature of the nuclei very high, and have yet to become a viable energy source.

Cold fusion was an idea that under the right conditions, fusion could be induced near room temperature. Two of the researchers who “discovered” cold fusion held a large press conference and touted their study well beyond what their data could support.

Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas?

9 Feb

The Lancet is one of the medical community’s premier journals. As such, tetting a paper into such a journal is a big accomplishment for any medical researcher. When Dr. Andrew Wakefield chose to submit his 1998 study to The Lancet, it is likely he wanted to put it in as high a profile journal as possible. One can speculate how the Andrew Wakefield of 1998 would have viewed publishing his work in Medical Veritas, a newer journal which, well, is not generally highly regarded. Somehow, this observer thinks Dr. Wakefield would not have welcomed a suggestion to submit to Medical Veritas had it existed at the time.

Frequent readers to LeftBrainRightBrain, or most places autism is discussed for that matter, will know that Dr. Wakefield’s study has been retracted by the editors at The Lancet.

Frequent readers here may be also familiar with the magazine, Medical Veritas as it has been the home for a number of questionable autism/vaccine articles. If you aren’t familiar with Medical Veritas, let’s just say that Medical Veritas is not in the same league as the Lancet, to put it mildly.

Why bring these two very disparate journals into this blog post? Well, Medical Veritas has offered to republish Dr. Wakefield’s study:

So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.

Wow. What a strange move, and on so many fronts. The most obvious being–what sort of standards does Medical Veritas show when it is willing to publish a paper that has been found to be so fatally flawed? It is really hard to consider that this offer was serious. The Royal Free Hospital, Dr. Wakefield’s employer, assigned the copyright to his paper to The Lancet. The study, even retracted, likely remains the property of The Lancet. Also, it isn’t Dr. Wakefield’s right to decide for his coauthors whether to submit to another journal.

The strangeness goes on and on. Let me just pick out one more oddity of this offer by “the editors” of Medical Veritas. Dr. Wakefield is one of the editors. Yes, one read is that Dr. Wakefield has basically invited himself to reprint “his” paper in Medical Veritas.

Just when you thought the story of the Wakefied/Lancet paper couldn’t get stranger.

Jim Carrey Jenny McCarthy Definitely not anti-vaccine

6 Feb

In the recent statement released by Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy regarding Andrew Wakefield, the twosome made a number of references that clear up once and for all how they feel about vaccines. Because as we all know they’re not anti-vaccine.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers…

Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers…

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers…

The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the
possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

No, definitely not anti-vaccine.

Is Wakefield being shut up, or are Jenny and Jim trying to get publicity for his research?

5 Feb

In a public statement, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey claim that “Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published”. Readers of LeftBrainRightBrain are already well aware that Dr. Andrew Wakefield was recently found to be “dishonest” and to have acted in a manner against the clinical interests of the children who were his research subjects. This recent statement is in support of the now discredited doctor.

Or, is it? A cynical mind might consider that this is a public relations ploy to get Dr. Wakefield’s current research in front of the media. His last paper was much hyped by Jenny McCarthy’s organization, but got little if any actual press coverage. But now, with the media focused on Dr. Wakefield, what better time to promote his research in hopes of getting some play in the media?

Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey are prominent members of Generation Rescue (“Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Autism Organization”) and have posted their statement on the Generation Rescue website with the full version on the blog sponsored by Generation Rescue, the Age of Autism.

This reader is somewhat amazed at the language used and the ignorance of the history of the General Medical Counsel proceeding that Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey have shown.

The language puts the team well into the world conspiracy-theory:

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues

We are to believe that the news reporting on the retraction of the paper in The Lancet is orchestrated by vaccine manufacturers. That’s worth considering a moment–two actors, people who depend on their public image for their livelihood–are claiming that the reporting on a major news event is “engineered by vaccine manufacturers”.

The fact is that Dr. Wakefield thrust himself into the limelight with a press conference to publicize the paper. This and the fact that he has kept himself in the public’s eye for 12 years appears to have been lost on the McCarthy/Carrey team. After over a decade of promoting his research well beyond its importance or scientific merit, of course the media would take to the story that Dr. Wakefield had been found guilty of misconduct and that his paper had been retracted.

If there is any doubt as the conspiracy-theory theme of the statement, phrases like “Kangaroo court” and “in the pocket of vaccine makers” should put that to rest:

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury.

The article goes on:

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield’s original paper regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet’s retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

This is a very strange statement to have made by representatives of Generation Rescue. Generation Rescue states on their own website, in reference to Dr. Wakefield’s paper in The Lancet, “”This study demonstrates that the MMR vaccine triggered autistic behaviors and inflammatory bowel disease in autistic children”.

Much more to the point, the press release for Dr. Wakefield’s press conference on the release of his study in The Lancet states that “Their [Wakefield et. al] paper, to be published in The Lancet 28 February, suggests that the onset of behavioural symptoms was associated with MMR vaccination”

If the defense now is that there is a difference between “proven” and “associated with” in the minds of the public, the importance of that is lost on me. Dr. Wakefield himself put the idea in the public’s mind that the MMR was causing autism.

In a video interview about his 1998 study, Dr. Wakefield stated that the link was not proven. However, he went on to claim that the “risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combine vaccine”:

Again, this was very contentious and you would not get consensus from all members of the group on this, but that is my feeling, that the, the risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.

If there is rampant misreporting of the notion that Dr. Wakefield’s study in The Lancet promoted the idea that vaccines cause autism, then it is the fault of Jenny and Jim’s own organization, together with Dr. Wakefield himself.

Much of the trouble resulting from Dr. Wakefield’s work (and by that I mean trouble caused to the world and the autism communities in particular, not trouble to Dr. Wakefield), stems from Dr. Wakefield overplaying the importance or the quality of his research. Even had the study been done as claimed in the publication, it was not a very strong study. It has been reported that four referees recommended rejecting the paper before publication. I don’t know the policy at The Lancet, but often 2 or 3 referees total are used to screen a paper for a journal.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, overplaying the importance of research well beyond its scientific merit. In their statement, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey promote Dr. Wakefield’s ongoing research as though it is so earth shattering that it must be stopped at all costs. They discuss a series of studies Dr. Wakefield’s new group is undertaking. This research has been discussed by Medical Researcher David Gorski in an article Monkey business in autism research.

We are to believe that there is a media campaign afoot to keep Dr. Wakefield from making his new research public. In the internet age, there is no way to keep information from the public. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues are even editors of a new pseudo-journal for autism research.

At no point to Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey address the ethical violations that Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of. No mention of whether it is appropriate for medical researchers to perform invasive procedures on disabled children when there is no clinical reason to do so.

In other words, Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Carrey never actually defend Dr. Wakefield for his actions. They never address the serious ethical lapses found proved by the General Medical Counsel.

I am left thinking that this is in reality a pre-release promotional event to get press coverage for Dr. Wakefield’s upcoming paper. The study is “on the brink” of being published. In other words, it is likely already in-press. The faux outrage that his work is being suppressed in light of this is painful to read.

U.S. Government Committee recomends increased research into the needs of autistic adults

5 Feb

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee is a group representing government agencies that research autism and some segments of the autism community. It was reenacted as a result of the Combating Autism Act. The main product, if you will, of the IACC is the Strategic Plan, which lays out a suggested framework for the U.S. government’s autism research activities.

The main section of the Plan is divided into seven sections, framed around questions. I think it unfortunate that the questions are voiced as though they are posed by a parent. Be that as it may, here are the sections/questions:

1. When Should I Be Concerned?
2. How Can I Understand What Is Happening?
3. What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?
4. Which Treatments And Interventions Will Help?
5. Where Can I Turn For Services?
6. What Does The Future Hold?
7. What other Infrastructure and Surveillance Needs Must be Met?

It is my belief, and that of many others, that the most important section is number 6: what does the future hold? This section covers research into understanding autistic adults. This is an area that has been woefully neglected in my opinion.

The goals below have a projected total budget of over US$50 million. I’d like to see a lot more. I’d like to see it now. But this is a good step forward.

Short-Term Objectives

1. New objective
Launch at least two studies to assess and characterize variation in the quality of life for adults on the ASD spectrum as it relates to characteristics of the service delivery system (e.g., safety, integrated employment, post-secondary educational opportunities, community inclusion, self-determination, relationships, and access to health services and community-based services) and determine best practices by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 3 years.
2. New objective
Evaluate at least one model, at the state and local level, in which existing programs to assist people with disabilities (e.g., Social Security Administration, Rehabilitation Services Administration) meet the needs of transitioning youth and adults with ASD by 2013. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 3 years.
3. New objective
Develop one method to identify adults across the ASD spectrum who may not be diagnosed, or are misdiagnosed, to support service linkage, better understand prevalence, track outcomes, with consideration of ethical issues (insurance, employment, stigma) by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $8,400,000 over 5 years.
4. New objective
Conduct at least one study to measure and improve the quality of life-long supports being delivered in community settings to adults across the spectrum with ASD through provision of specialized training for direct care staff, parents, and legal guardians, including assessment and development of ASD-specific training, if necessary, by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $7,500,000 over 5 years.

Long-Term Objectives

1. New objective
Develop at least two individualized community-based interventions that improve quality of life or health outcomes for the spectrum of adults with ASD by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $12,900,000 over 5 years.
2. New objective
Conduct one study that builds on carefully characterized cohorts of children and youth with ASD to determine how interventions, services, and supports delivered during childhood impact adult health and quality of life outcomes by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 5 years.
3. New objective
Conduct comparative effectiveness research that includes a cost-effectiveness component to examine community-based interventions, services and supports to improve health outcomes and quality of life for adults on the ASD spectrum over age 21 by 2018. IACC Recommended Budget: $6,000,000 over 5 years.
4. New objective
Conduct implementation research to test the results from comparative effectiveness research in real-world settings including a cost-effectiveness component to improve health outcomes and quality of life for adults on the ASD spectrum over age 21 by 2023. IACC Recommended Budget: $4,000,000 over 5 years.

IACC calls for $175 million in autism and the environment research

5 Feb

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has posted the revised Strategic Plan. I blogged it recently here on LeftBrainRightBrain. I made a note of the large commitment to environmental causation research. I thought it worthwhile to highlight that section, since this is the cause of so much criticism of the IACC.

Strangely, the criticism doesn’t come from those who are supposedly “It’s all genetic” types. No, the “it’s all environmental” groups seem to be very loud in complaining that all the research funding is going into genetics.

The Plan is divided by a number of questions. Research into causation is listed in Question 3: “What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?”

Under that category, there are seven projects on environmental or gene-environment research. Seven out of 10 projects. The estimated budget for all these projects? $175,900,000.

In other words, 70% of the projects and, if I did my math right, nearly 70% of the funding for causation is estimated to be going to environment and gene-environment projects.

This would seem like a great victory for those who have lobbied for more environmental research. I have yet to see anyone from that group even mention the new Strategic Plan, much less the large commitment to environmental research. Where are the statements from SafeMinds (who have a very vocal member who sits on the IACC proper and another who is on a working group)? How about Generation Rescue? The National Autism Association?

In my opinion, these groups really don’t care much about environmental causation unless it is either mercury or vaccines. Hey, I could be wrong. Let’s see if they surprise me with some acknowledgment of this effort by the US Government.

Here are the objectives if you would like to read for yourself.

Short-Term Objectives

1. Coordinate and implement the inclusion of approximately 20,000 subjects for genome-wide association studies, as well as a sample of 1,200 for sequencing studies to examine more than 50 candidate genes by 2011. Studies should investigate factors contributing to phenotypic variation across individuals that share an identified genetic variant and stratify subjects according to behavioral, cognitive, and clinical features. IACC Recommended Budget: $43,700,000 over 4 years.
2. Within the highest priority categories of exposures for ASD, identify and standardize at least three measures for identifying markers of environmental exposure in biospecimens by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $3,500,000 over 3 years.
3. Initiate efforts to expand existing large case-control and other studies to enhance capabilities for targeted gene – environment research by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $27,800,000 over 5 years.
4. Enhance existing case-control studies to enroll racially and ethnically diverse populations affected by ASD by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $3,300,000 over 5 years.
5. New objective
Support at least two studies to determine if there are subpopulations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures (e.g., immune challenges related to infections, vaccinations, or underlying autoimmune problems) by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $8,000,000 over 2 years.
6. New objective
Initiate studies on at least 10 environmental factors identified in the recommendations from the 2007 IOM report “Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research” as potential causes of ASD by 2012. Estimated cost $56,000,000 over 2 years.

Long-Term Objectives

1. Conduct a multi-site study of the subsequent pregnancies of 1,000 women with a child with ASD to assess the impact of environmental factors in a period most relevant to the progression of ASD by 2014. IACC Recommended Budget: $11,100,000 over 5 years.
2. Identify genetic risk factors in at least 50% of people with ASD by 2014. IACC Recommended Budget: $33,900,000 over 6 years.
3. Determine the effect of at least five environmental factors on the risk for subtypes of ASD in the pre- and early postnatal period of development by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $25,100,000 over 7 years.
4. Support ancillary studies within one or more large-scale, population-based surveillance and epidemiological studies, including U.S. populations, to collect data on environmental factors during preconception, and during prenatal and early postnatal development, as well as genetic data, that could be pooled (as needed), to analyze targets for potential gene/environment interactions by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $44,400,000 over 5 years.

Read more: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/iacc-strategic-plan-is-up/#ixzz0edI3Pe8h

Wakefield, O’Leary and Bustin

4 Feb

Below is an old post from 2007 when the Omnibus hearings were in full swing. It goes through the testimony of Professor Stephen Bustin and why it was so deadly to the MMR hypothesis. I thought now might be an ideal time to republish it.

On Day 8 of the Autism Omnibus proceedings, the MMR section of the hypothesis under examination (that thiomersal and MMR together cause autism) was examined. Just to briefly generalise about the MMR hypothesis –

It was hypothesised that measles virus (MV) from the MMR was travelling from the injection site, to the gut and then to the brain where it either a) causes autism or b) in conjunction with thiomersal causes autism. Wakefield claims to have found MV in the gut of several kids. Krigsman claimed to have replicated this work. They both used the lab of one Professor John O’Leary (Unigenetics IIRC) in Ireland.

So, on Day 8 of these proceedings Stephen Bustin came to the stand. Bustin is possibly _the_ world expert on the techniques used in the O’Leary lab that he claimed led to identifying MV in autistic kids gut and brain. The technique is called PCR. Not only does Bustin use PCR every day, he has 14 papers in the peer reviewed literature on PCR, over 8 book chapters and is personally the author of the _A to Z of Quantitative PCR._ which is considered ‘the bible’ of PCR. One of his papers has been cited over 1,000 times. Another has been cited over 500 times. He both organises and speaks at international PCR conferences (1934 – 37).

Basically, when it comes to PCR – this is the guy.

The first part of Bustin’s testimony concentrated on an explanation of PCR techniques and how these techniques were employed in a key study relied upon the week previous to make the MMR/Cedillo case: Uhlmann 2002. This paper describes the _exact process that Unigentics lab used to carry out their PCR work_ .

This is a mind bogglingly techie area so I’m going to try and stick to laypersons terms. Basically, the Uhlmann study is badly flawed. The key issues related to controls. Uhlmann (and a subsequent, as yet unpublished Walker poster presentation) didn’t use any.

a positive control is an essential control that tells you whether your assay is working, so what you would do is you would take the target that you’re interested in detecting and put it into a test tube and use your assay to detect it. If you don’t detect it, you know there’s a problem with your assay because it’s a positive control. If you do detect it, you know your assay is working. If you do this consistently each time, you know how efficient your assay is from day to day.

The positive control is simply something that tells you that your assay is okay.

Q And a negative control?
A A negative control is something very crucial. There you leave out your target, so if you don’t detect it then that means that there’s no amplification, which is what you want. If you do detect a positive in a negative control then you know there’s a problem with your assay because it should not be there, and you always get suspicious of any assay that gives you a positive result in a negative control.

So, back to Uhlmann:

Q And did Uhlmann provide the information necessary to establish whether these controls were working as expected?
A No. One of the surprising aspects of this paper is they give you very little information about how the assay was performed, about what the results actually were, and it really does not let you evaluate at all how reliable and consistent the results are.

Q Is there any discussion in Uhlmann about contamination?
A No.

Q Is this important?
A It is essential because obviously if you are trying to detect a very low copy number target and there is contamination around, and if you do not know whether there’s contamination around, then you can’t rely on your assay.

……

Q Now, did Uhlmann discuss how the RNA was handled?
A No. As I think I said one of the things about this paper is that it’s fairly unique in my experience, and it’s given no information at all about what actually was done. It actually tells you in outline what they did, where they got their samples from and that they prepared RNA, but it gives you no information whatsoever about, for example, the quality of the RNA the quantity of the RNA and how the different RNAs were extracted from different samples which they refer to.

Without being sure of how RNA is handled, it is impossible to rule out contaminants. i.e. that the samples are contaminated. And there’s more:

Q Did you also identify a mismatch between the measles virus sequences listed in the paper and the probes?
A Yes. This is, again, well, it suggests that there’s a problem with the probe design.

Q Now, regarding consistency and reproducibility did Uhlmann provide any data regarding amplification sensitivity or efficiency?
A No. I need to come back to what I’ve been saying several times now. There’s this lack of information that doesn’t allow you to evaluate this paper properly in terms of its validity.

And specifically regarding the Walker poster presentation:

….Now, as I tried to point out today I think virtually every expert in this case has referred to controls are essential. You always want controls of your samples. There’s no controls on this. So even though this is a poster presentation at the very least there should be a negative control on there to show that the PCR in the negative control hasn’t worked.

We don’t have that information. So this immediately invalidates these results because we can’t now say whether these are genuine or not because there’s no negative control there. So that’s a real problem….

Q Unless these issues are resolved would you have confidence at least in what’s been presented from the Walker lab?
A I can’t have any confidence because there’s actually no results I can evaluate without referring to a negative or a positive control, and these don’t give them to me.

So basically, Mr PCR – the guy who literally wrote the book on PCR – thinks these two things – the Uhlmann paper and the Walker poster presentation – are essentially useless.

Lets also not forget that these two items describe the exact methodology that Unigentics – O’Leary’s lab – used to state that Wakefields/Krigsmans and a multitude of private cases had MV in their samples.

Oh yeah – and as for the old crapola about the two clinical studies done thus far not repudiating Wakefield et al because the look at blood, not gut, Bustin states emphatically:

this is not an assay that is at its limits so this should be easily detectible, and it also means that if you’ve got that much measles virus in a gut sample it probably is in other cells as well and you should be able to detect it, for example, in blood.

In blood.

Turning to Unigenetics itself, as part of the failed UK litigation against MMR, Bustin was asked to look at the lab and samples that the Unigentics team had worked on. For this work he put in an astonishing 1,500 hours of work.

Now, Professor O’Leary’s own controls tell us that this should have been shifted upwards because this is much poorer quality RNA. The evidence from his own data is completely clear. There’s no such shift. This must mean that whatever this is is a contaminant that has been introduced after the sample has been formalin-fixed.

So by definition this cannot be part of the original biopsy because if it had been it will have shifted upwards.

Ouch. But the next one is a body blow to the entire MMR hypothesis.

…if you have a reference gene in that sample that is a cellular reference gene you should detect it if the RNA is of good quality.

If you don’t detect it there’s something wrong with the RNA. As Professor O’Leary’s SOP states, if we can’t detect the GAPDH we shouldn’t use the sample for analysis, which makes perfect sense.

Now, it happens that Professor O’Leary did use those samples for his analysis, and that’s why I was able to then hopefully identify what the contaminant is.

To summarise: O’Leary’s RNA was poor quality. There is no reference gene. There is something wrong with the RNA. O’Learys lab SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) states that in the events of this happening, they shouldn’t use the sample for analysis. But they did use it. They used contaminated RNA for their analysis. And Bustin has identified exactly what the contaminant was.

But first, what is _definitely not_ ?

If you detect a target that is apparently measles virus in the absence of an RT [like this one] step by definition it can’t be measles virus because it has to be DNA [measles virus does not exist as a DNA molecule]. It’s a very simple concept. At least it is to me. It’s not to everyone else.

Whatever it is that O’Learys lab is picking up in their lab tests, it cannot possibly be Measles virus. No RT step was taken:

What I immediately observed was that they had forgotten to do the RT step

No RT step means it’s DNA. Measles virus does not exist as a DNA molecule. That’s simple medical fact. Bustin later summed up:

So all of this evidence suggests very, very strongly that what they are detecting is DNA and not RNA. Because measles virus doesn’t exist as a DNA molecule in nature, they cannot be detecting measles virus RNA. They are detecting a contaminant. All of the additional evidence, from the nonreproducibility by Professor Cotter of the same samples that Unigenetics analyzed to the analysis of the data where there are discordant positives, where the negatives came up positive, suggests very, very strongly to me that there is a lot of contamination in the laboratory, which is not unusual, but they have not handled it very well in how they have troubleshot their problems.

So I have very little doubt that what they are detecting is a DNA contaminant and not measles virus, and I do not believe there is any measles virus in any of the cases they have looked at.

And just as an added kick in the teeth:

Q Now, we know that cerebral spinal fluid samples were sent from Dr. Bradstreet to Unigenetics for testing. Do the same concerns you’ve outlined here apply to that testing?
A Yes. Exactly the same concerns would apply to that.

This testimony exposes the MMR hypothesis as totally dead in the water. What a waste of time, money and health.

Elsewhere

Arthur Allen in the Huffington Post
Autism Diva

More on autism “clusters”

4 Feb

There are regions of California where the autism “rate” is much higher than in other regions. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you are likely thinking “repeat!” Yes, between Kev and myself and even the Evil Possum himself, David N. Brown, we have about 10 posts about the GMC ruling on Andrew Wakefield and the retraction of his article in The Lancet. Now another “autism cluster” post?

Only a month ago I blogged “Autism Clusters Found: areas with high incidence of autistic children“, discussing a paper by Dr. Hertz-Picciotto at the U.C. Davis MIND Institute. Well, it turns out that another “cluster” paper has been published. This article, The spatial structure of autism in California 1993-2001, is by Prof. Bearman’s group at Columbia. This is the same group that recently published Diagnostic change and the increased prevalence of autism

Here’s the abstract:

The spatial structure of autism in California, 1993-2001.

Mazumdar S, King M, Liu KY, Zerubavel N, Bearman P.

Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

This article identifies significant high-risk clusters of autism based on residence at birth in California for children born from 1993 to 2001. These clusters are geographically stable. Children born in a primary cluster are at four times greater risk for autism than children living in other parts of the state. This is comparable to the difference between males and females and twice the risk estimated for maternal age over 40. In every year roughly 3% of the new caseload of autism in California arises from the primary cluster we identify-a small zone 20km by 50km. We identify a set of secondary clusters that support the existence of the primary clusters. The identification of robust spatial clusters indicates that autism does not arise from a global treatment and indicates that important drivers of increased autism prevalence are located at the local level

They used data from the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS). This dataset has been discussed a lot online. While the work of Dr. Bearman’s group and Dr. Hertz-Picciotto’s group are both much more rigorous than the simple comparisons done by myself and others, there are severe limitations in using CDDS data. The CDDS does not make an effort to seek out all autistics, for one thing. There are variations by Regional Center in identification and services for disabled Californians.

That said, Prof. Bearman’s group found a large “cluster”. If a child was born in this region, he/she is about 4 times more likely to be listed by the CDDS with the label of autism than if he/she were born in the rest of California.

The cluster is in the Los Angeles area. (map was taken from the Wall Street Journal’s story, L.A. Confidential: Seeking Reasons for Autism’s Rise)

Prof. Bearman’s group checked that the cluster was stable over time and found that there was a region with the high administrative prevalence existed for 5 or more years. That is one good check that this is a “real” cluster and not a statistical artifact.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Prof. Bearman:

Dr. Bearman says he believes social influences are the leading cause for the high autism rates in Los Angeles, although the researchers continue to examine environmental issues.

Other studies have shown that older parents run a greater risk of having an autistic child. But when the Columbia researchers adjusted the Los Angeles cluster to factor out parental age, the higher levels remained. Dr. Bearman says he believes the high levels will also remain after the data are adjusted for education levels, socio-economic status and other demographic characteristics in future studies.

You may recall that the MIND Institute study found multiple “clusters”, using different criteria.

There is a cluster roughly centered on Hollywood in those maps, consistent with the newer Columbia study. (as an aside, the closeup map from the MIND Institute press release doesn’t look like the same region to me.)

It seems reasonable to assume that both groups were looking for clusters in a search for a possible “hot spot” of some environmental trigger for autism. Instead, Bearman’s group indicates “social issues” and Hertz-Picciotto’s group found parental education and proximity to autism treatment centers were linked to the “clusters”.

Both groups are to be commended, in my view. They are looking for some answers on causation. They are working with data that are much less than high quality, and they are dealing with shifting awareness and societal influences which could cloud any trends that may or may not exist.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →