David Kirby is right (and wrong)

6 Apr

David Kirby has an excellent title for his blog post: ‘CDC Has Lost Control of the Autism Argument’.

I happen to to think he is 100% gold-plated correct. In fact I would go even further than that – the CDC, the FDA and the AAP have become, on this issue, little short of a laughing stock. They have bungled, mismanaged, failed to address and not known how to retort at just above every step of the process.

Controversially perhaps I think a lot of it has to do with the bureaucratic nature of these monoliths – they need to reform their way of working. They’re slow and outdated in their PR and media handling. That is not to say that the people working within these systems are terrible useless people – clearly they are not – but they operate within a system that cannot seem to effectively communicate the scientific truth behind the various vaccine hypotheses.

And now we truly _do_ have various vaccine hypotheses. Once it was ‘….nothing more than mercury poisoning.’. Then it was the MMR too. Then it was a combination of both. Then it wasn’t _just_ mercury in vaccines it was all the other ingredients too.

Now we have another twist: the mito/autism/vaccine hypothesis which I have no doubt has sent scores of parents all over the Western world forking out for yet another set of tests and will no doubt prompt yet another set of questionable treatments repackaged and rebranded for autism.

I think its worth while remembering at this point that, despite the furore over the last few weeks, one thing has not changed: *the science* .

All the talk shows and Larry King appearances and cloak and dagger leaked reports are all very exciting and good blogger fodder for people like me and David but the bottom line is this: no new science has been added to the equation regarding any vaccine/autism hypothesis. So, when I read the Larry King transcript and saw David snapping ‘the debate is over!’ I raised an eyebrow as I couldn’t recall any new science being brought along that night (or any other night) that had caused the debate to be over.

Anyway, back to David’s HuffPo entry. Now, I’ve swapped very courteous emails with David Kirby and whilst I have also posted quite angrily about him too I think he cares about people. Which is why when I read a paragraph such as the following I get perplexed. Here’s David:

A recent government decision to award nine-year-old Hannah Poling taxpayer dollars for her multiple vaccine-induced autism, has left parents anxious and alarmed….

A recent government decision. Hmm. Lets see what the Special Masters who are overseeing the Autism Omnibus (of whom Hannah Polings case was until recently a part of) said:

….reports have erroneously stated that the Office of the Special Masters has recently issued a “decision,” “opinion,” or “ruling” concerning the issue of whether a Vaccine Act claimant’s autism symptoms were caused by one or more vaccinations. The OSM has not issued any such decision, ruling or opinion.

No decision.

And David Kirby also refers to Hannah Poling’s ‘multiple vaccine-induced autism’. Lets see what the OSM says:

this court has issued no decision on the issue of vaccine causation of autism

But maybe by ‘government’ David means the HHS? Not the courts? If thats so, can David – or anyone else – point out to me where in any HHS statement they note that have decided to award Hannah Poling money for ‘vaccine-induced autism’?

Or maybe David means someone else when he refers to ‘government’?

And lets also be clear. Not only has the OSM _nor_ the HHS referred to ‘vaccine-induced autism’, neither has any aspect of the medical literature written about Hannah Poling (or any other claimant).

So yes, I find David’s over-exuberance perplexing on occasion. I am also concerned that paragraphs such as the above are muddying waters that need to be crystal clear right now. We serve no one by misleading them either intentionally or not.

Kathleen Seidel

5 Apr

There’s no point at all in my rehashing what has happened to Kathleen. We all know. The blogging communities response has been swift and fierce – rightly so. I don’t imagine the lawyer in question has made many friends in his profession over the last couple of days.

I wanted to write a blistering, thundering post too because, believe me, that’s how I felt after reading the subpoena Kathleen received. I consider her a friend and ally of a good many years now – as I do Dave. They both do what they do because they care. They care about their own autistic children and they care about all of our autistic children and they do what is right – they question what is suspicious and they support what is worthwhile.

But I can’t write a blistering, thundering post. The last few weeks have been something of an education for me on how the world works. I am even having to be incredibly careful about how I write this post, a tribute to the tenacity of my friend Kathleen.

Where my American friends can rest easy in the knowledge that their law supports them in their right to speak freely, mine does not. Where Kathleen can put together such an excellent response, I – and all other British bloggers – cannot. Unless we are very rich, or insured or employed by a paper that is insured, we are totally stymied.

Please rest assured that I have very recent knowledge of this process. To the extent that whilst I can say that I have first hand knowledge I cannot discuss it, I cannot (and will not) name names. I don’t like this but I have no option. This is modern Britain. Bloggers can be silenced. I hope that Kathleen is never, ever silenced. The world needs truth and integrity.

Autism Omnibus: Special Masters Speak

4 Apr

A new document has been uploaded to the Autism Omnibus hearing section by the Special Masters. It regards the Poling case. I want to pick out a couple of sections (thanks to M and MS for this tip):

We do note, however, that under the statutory provision in question,information from a Vaccine-Act proceeding may be disclosed if the person who supplied such information provides “express written consent” for such disclosure. 42 U.S.C. 5 300aa-12(d)(4)(A). Thus, for example, in the six autism “test cases” discussed above, we are able to disclose the names of the cases in this pdate, because the families in question have provided such “express written consent.” Therefore, in the case that is the subject of the media reports, if the parties who supplied documents and information in the case provide their written consent, we may then be able to appropriately disclose documents in the case. Until such consent is provided, however, we cannot disclose any information. We reiterate that this court has issued no decision on the issue of vaccine causation of autism

And:

In recent weeks, there have been a number of reports in the media concerning a certain Vaccine Act case, currently pending before the court. Some of those reports have erroneously stated that the Office of the Special Masters has recently issued a “decision,” “opinion,” or “ruling” concerning the issue of whether a Vaccine Act claimant’s autism symptoms were caused by one or more vaccinations. The OSM has not issued any such decision, ruling or opinion. (All Vaccine Act decisions and opinions are posted on the Court’s web site at www.uscourts.gov/vaccine-opinions-decisions) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa=12(d)(4)(A), officials of this court are generally prohibited from revealing any information concerning vaccine Act case, until a written decision concerning the case has been issued. Accordingly we cannot provide any details concerning this matter at this time

Jenny McCarthy on Larry King Live

3 Apr

Well, she’s just an actress…and unfortunately, we place too much value on the opinions of actors in this country.

~ Erik Nanstiel, Feb 2006

Now Erik was discussing Sigourney Weaver (the future Mrs Leitch if she ever stops stalking me) and her role in Snowcake but I thought it might serve as an interesting comparison for how another actress, Jenny McCarthy, is currently viewed.

In point of fact, I entirely agree with Erik, we _do_ place far too much importance on what acctresses and actors say. For example, on Larry King Live last night jenny McCarthy spoke quite a lot but didn’t actually _say_ much at all.

For example:

It’s a global epidemic…

Really? Where is the science that supports that position? Because there is an _awful_ lot of evidence that entirely refutes it.

I went online and I found a community called Defeat Autism Now……I believed enough — even though my pediatrician at the time said it’s all bull — and followed this treatment and my son got better

Yeah, that and all the ABA, and the Indigo/Crystal beliefs:

The day I found out I was an adult Indigo will stay with me forever. I was walking hand in hand with my son down a Los Angeles street when this women approached me and said, “You’re an Indigo and your son is a Crystal.” I immediately replied, “Yes!” and the woman smiled at me and walked away. I stood there for a moment, because I had no idea what the heck an Indigo and Crystal was, but I seemed so sure of it when I had blurted out “Yes!” After doing some of my own research on the word Indigo, I realized not only was I an early Indigo but my son was in fact a Crystal child.

A what?

The Indigo child concept was first publicized in 1999 by the book The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived, written by the husband-and-wife team of Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. Carroll insists that the concept was obtained via conversations with a spiritual entity known as Kryon.

Wikipedia

Except, the website that carries all her beliefs has been quietly vanished. If you want to find this info now, you have to look in Google Cache.

Onwards,

I’m not, nor is the autism community, anti-vaccine. We’re anti-toxin and we’re anti-schedule.

The autism community? Who _is_ this woman with the ego to think she speaks for the entire autism community? Good grief. And as for the section of the community she speaks for not being anti-vaccine? Try these on Jenny:

!http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/images/eoh/PowerOfTruthRallySign.jpg!
!http://www.autismrally.com/IMG_5365.jpg!
!http://www.autismrally.com/IMG_5426.jpg!

All taken from the sort of rally you’re promoting later on in the show.


JM:

And isn’t it ironic, in 1983 there was 10 shots and now there’s 36 and the rise of autism happened at the same time?

Ironic like this?

No, its not ironic. Its another example of correlation not implying causation – you can see another graphic example on the ‘canards’ page of this very website.

JM:

I believe that parents’ anecdotal information is science-based information

Yeah. Its not.

JM:

environmental toxins play a role. Viruses play a role. Those are all triggers. But vaccines play the largest role right now

No evidence of any kind was presented to back this up. Later on McCarthy sneered at the AAP for talking about studies that weren’t ‘independent’ (what she meant by that is anyone’s guess) but in short succession she said that parental anecdote was good science and that vaccines play ‘the largest’ role in causing autism.

David Kirby was sitting right next to McCarthy and yet neither of them mentioned his HuffPo entry in which said:

And, if 20% of autism cases are mito related, and 6% of those cases regressed because of vaccines, that would mean that at least 1% of all autism cases were vaccine related.

1%.

Lets compare that to the approximately 40% already genetically accounted for. I don’t think its difficult to process which is the larger number.

And after that Dear Reader I simply can’t carry on ploughing through the rest of McCarthy’s contributions. They range from the offensive to the inane.

But here’s an offer for Ms McCarthy – and David, I know you’re a reader so feel free to pass this on:

Come and pay my family and me a visit Ms McCarthy. Just you and maybe your son – no media, no journos, no cameras, no Hollywood bullshit. You and I can have a proper well mannered debate whilst our kids play and see if we still feel the same afterwards. What about it? Got the balls?

Ginger Taylor – The Smearing Continues….

3 Apr

Thanks to anonymous person who alerted me to the fact something was wrong here.

Short recap: Janny McCarthy and David Kirby were guests on a US shows called Larry King Live where they had some kind of debate (although it really sounds a bit like it was a shouting match) with some AAP guys.

Ginger reported it thusly and laid into an AAP guy called Dave Tayloe, Jr.. Here’s Taylor’s opinion on the man:

Tayloe is just dangerous.

This man has GOT to be removed from the position that he has been elected to before he takes office. I would take Karp in a second over this guy. Karp was wrong, but he wasn’t crazy person saying insane things with a smile wrong.

But then the real fun starts:

UPDATE: OMG! Turns out the Vaccine Injury Compensation Court exists in part due to the 3.5 million dollar malpractice suit that Dr. David Tayloe lost in 1985 when a child he gave the DPT shot to magically got permanent brain injury!! That Asshole just got on TV and implied that he had never SEEN a vaccine injury in his practice!!!

Dangerous….crazy…asshole…..

And having a court force him for giving a shot to a kid who could not handle it was still not enough to teach him the lesson that not all vaccines are safe for every child, because he went on the Today show and said that ALL VACCINES ARE SAFE FOR EVERY CHILD!!!!

The information Ginger Taylor posts regarding this lawsuit is here. But here’s a key section:

$3,500,000 Jury Verdict, May 1, 1985

The Defendant Pediatrician, David Tayloe, who at that time was the President of the National Pediatric Association, strenuously fought this case all the way to a jury verdict….

Now if you visit the AAP site you will find out that in 1985, the man who appeared on Larry King Live (named David Tayloe Jr) had only qualified in 1977. And yet a bare 8 years later we’re supposed to think he was the President of the National Pediatric Association? I suspect it might have been this mans father. David Tayloe Snr.

You might also note that:

Dave [Tayloe Jr] has served in the leadership of the NC Chapter since 1985.

Straight from a failed multi-million dollar lawsuit into a leadership position huh? I really don’t think so.

If I was a blogger like Ginger Taylor I might call her names for (yet again, in the space of one week) irresponsibly publishing information about a man that will serve to inflame the sensibilities of people who really need to calm down. Taylor is developing something of a reputation for this of late.

She might be right, it might conceivably be the same David Tayloe but I have to say it sounds very, very unlikely. Did Ginger Taylor do any background reading on this or was she simply too fired up from Jenny McCarthy saying a rude word to bother?

Oh and AAP? I bet you’re really really pleased with your decision to meet the DAN! brigade now, right? Thanks once again for deciding to sacrifice credibility and evidence based medicine to try and ‘meet halfway’ a bunch of people bending over backwards to shit on you the first chance they get.

36 Years

1 Apr

It can’t ever be enough.

Nothing will bring Katie back and nothing will make it not have happened but tonight my hope is that for the first time in a long, long time the McCarrons can mourn for their daughter/granddaughter/sister/niece without the shadow of yet another court date where they will have to look at or deal with her murderer.

Paul Offit causes a stir

1 Apr

On 31st March, Dr Paul Offit wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled Inoculated Against Facts in which he discussed the recent Poling situation.

In response to this, David Kirby wrote a blistering response entitled Lies My New York Times Told Me (Or, Why Trust a Doctor Who Says 10,000 Shots Are Safe?).

Offit says:

An expert who testified in court on the Polings’ behalf claimed that the five vaccines had stressed Hannah’s already weakened cells, worsening her disorder. Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible.

To which Kirby responded:

no one “testified in court” in this case, as confusingly stated by Dr. Offit, who also writes that, “Without holding a hearing… the court conceded.”

My take on what Offit said was that any document submitted as part of a legal process must, by definition, form part of a courts records and thus be considered testimony. I think there’s a difference between ‘heard in court’ (heard as part of a legal proceeding) and ‘a hearing’ (discussed in open court)

Kirby also says:

It was a medical concession, not a legal decision. Dr. Offit and the New York Times know this.

Its also (as I understand it) part of the process that the Special Master could’ve refused to accept the so-called concession. This makes the fact they did a legal decision. The Poling’s could’ve elected to have their daughters case heard in a civil court (I think) in which case they really would’ve been held to a medical/scientific standard of proof. They chose not to do so.

Kirby goes on:

This statement, too, is misleading: “Even five vaccines at once would not place an unusually high burden on a child’s immune system.”……Hannah received five shots, but nine vaccines.

Which, to be fair to Dr Offit is exactly what he said:

In 2000, when Hannah was 19 months old, she received five shots against nine infectious diseases.

I think this is merely a semantic misunderstanding as to what constitutes ‘one’ vaccine.

Kirby goes on:

More importantly, Dr. Offit’s statement contradicts the second HHS concession (for epilepsy) in the Poling case, to wit:

The cause for autistic encephalopathy in Hannah “was underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.”

Now, lets be honest – nobody aside from David Kirby has actually _seen_ this second HHS ‘concession’. I can’t help but note that the part that Mr Kirby quotes from this second report does not contain the phrase ‘autistic encephalopathy’ (and what exactly _is_ ‘autistic encephalopathy’?). I also think its a little unfair to expect Dr Offit to be a mind reader and know what an unreleased report says.

I further think that in a piece that asks why we should just trust, Mr Kirby (with all due respect to him) asking us to do the exact same thing is a little incongruous.

We really need this issue sorted out by either releasing this document that directly ties a diagnosis of autism _directly_ to vaccines, or by applying the same rules to everyone.

Mr Kirby then goes on to challenge Dr Offits most (in)famous statement:

“Our analysis shows that infants have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once”

This is slightly disingenuous as this really has no bearing whatsoever on the Poling case. Its also – as stated by Dr Offit – a _theoretical_ scenario. No one is seriously suggesting any infant has 10,000 shots. The paper from Dr Offit used this calculation to respond to the idea that vaccines can overwhelm the immune system.

And lets be clear. This is science. Good science. To the best of my knowledge no-one has refuted it in any reputable journal. If anyone has an issue with the overall idea (vaccines not overwhelming the immune system) or the maths involved, then they should submit it to a reputable journal for peer review.

However, one of the most disturbing aspects of this turn of events is the response to Dr Offit’s piece on the EoH Yahoo Group. I should note that David Kirby has _no control or ownership of this group_ before I continue.

Within a few hours of Dr Offit’s piece being published, Ginger Taylor took it upon herself to send Dr Offit’s phone number to the EoH group at large, as part of an email conversation she had had with Dr Offit. Thus drew a number of responses from her list mates such as:

Oh no….. His phone number on EOH? Lord help him!

Quite. Although the group moderator was quick to ask people not to harass Dr Offit, he stopped short of deleting this very ill-considered post.

Lets not forget that Dr Offit (and his children) have been the subject of severe harassment from those who believe in an autism/vaccine hypothesis:

….as Paul Offit, a vaccine expert who served on the committee, tried to make his way through the crowd, one of the protestors screamed at him through a megaphone: “The devil—it’s the devil!” One protester held a sign that read “TERRORIST” with a photo of Offit’s face. Just before Offit reached the door, a man dressed in a prison uniform grabbed Offit’s jacket. “It was harrowing,” Offit recalls.

….

He has since received hundreds of malicious and threatening emails, letters and phone calls accusing him of poisoning children and “selling out” to pharmaceutical companies. One phone caller listed the names of Offit’s two young children and the name of their school. One email contained a death threat—”I will hang you by your neck until you’re dead”—that Offit reported to federal investigators.

Knowing this, why Taylor saw fit to do this at all is puzzling. However, when she was asked how she felt about communicating with Dr Offit, she also saw fit to comment:

The whole thing actually creeped me out and I just dropped it.

My personal opinion is that a considered reply from Dr Offit to Taylor which included a friendly invitation to contact him again is not creepy at all. What _is_ creepy (to me) is publishing the phone number of a man who has been subject to vicious abuse – as have his children. To me, it is irresponsible in the extreme.

A blast from the past

28 Mar

The following comes directly from Kanner (1965):

Questions have arisen, however, with regard to the ease with which the diagnosis was suddenly bestowed upon a relatively vast contingent of patients. Bender, who in 1942 had, as she said, “not seen very many cases in which we could make a definite diagnosis,” announced later that by 1951 “over 600” schizophrenic children had been studied in one single psychiatric unit, that of the Bellevue Hospital in New York. By 1954, she had as many as 850 cases on her list, which means an addition of about 250 in the short span of three years. It is highly improbable that all of them would be acknowledged as being schizophrenic by many other experienced child psychiatrists, and yet it cannot be denied that Bender has made careful investigations and has conscientiously adhered to her established criteria.

Out of this emerges a rather disturbing dilemma. We seem to have reached a point where a clinician, after the full study of a given child, can say honestly: He is schizophrenic because in my scheme I must call him so. Another clinician, equally honest, can say: He is not schizophrenic because according to my scheme I cannot call him so. This is not a reflection on anyone in particular. The whole concept has obviously become a matter of semantics.

It’s an interesting paper where a lot of the same ideas you’d hear today about autism are expressed about schizophrenia, a practically forgotten construct nowadays.

 

The Next Big Autism Bomb?

28 Mar

Over on the Huffington Post, David Kirby has posted about The Next Big Autism Bomb. Its a very long post so take a sammich.

The gist (with apologies to Mr Kirby) of it is that there was a conference call to discuss the autism/mito issues:

On Tuesday, March 11, a conference call was held between vaccine safety officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, several leading experts in vaccine safety research, and executives from America’s Health Insurance Plans, (the HMO trade association) to discuss childhood mitochondrial dysfunction and its potential link to autism and vaccines.

The purpose of the call was:

“We need to find out if there is credible evidence, theoretically, to support the idea that childhood mitochondrial dysfunction might regress into autism,” one of the callers reportedly told participants.

To that end, Mr Kirby mentions four studies throughout the rest of his piece. Three are accessible but the fourth is a total mystery. This is unfortunate as it is this fourth one which the majority of his blog post relies upon for its conclusions.

The first three are discussing what the prevalence of mito _within_ autism might be. Kirby states:

CDC officials were made aware of a Portuguese study, published last October, which reported that 7.2% of children with autism had confirmed mitochondrial disorders. The authors also noted that, “a diversity of associated medical conditions was documented in 20%, with an unexpectedly high rate of mitochondrial respiratory chain disorders.”

There is a slight point of confusion to clear up here. The figure of 7.2% is from a 2005 study ‘Mitochondrial dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders: a population-based study‘.

The study (by the same author) that Kirby mentions as being published last October is ‘Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorder in Portugal: prevalence, clinical
characterization, and medical conditions‘ declares a 4.1% figure.

The reason for this is that the lead author re-examined his data from the 2005 study and adjusted it downwards in the 2007 study. So Kirby is not correct to state that the authors believe that the rate is 7.2%. The latest figure from these authors is 4.1%.

The third study that discusses prevalence is referenced by Kirby as:

They also know that some reports estimate the rate of mitochondrial dysfunction in autism to be 20% or more. And the rate among children with the regressive sub-type of autism is likely higher still.

Kirby links to a web page that is the web interface to a mail list.

Upon searching for this paper I couldn’t find it anywhere. It is not in PubMed or Google Scholar and in fact I can only find three references to it online at all.

It since transpires that this paper is not in fact a paper at all and has not been published anywhere. It is in fact a summary for attendees of a 2003 LADDERS conference in Boston, USA. Therefore it has not been subject to any kind of peer review. That’s not to say the figure is wrong, merely that it hasn’t been verified or undergone any kind of the usual scientific checks and balances a published piece of work must undertake to ensure quality.

Its also been explained to me that the percentage of “mitochondrial autism” reported by any group will vary with the percentage of regressive autism in their ASD population. So it is not true that the summary states a differential between autism and regressive autism. Rather that “mitochondrial autism” exists _within_ regressive autism.

And so we move on to the fourth study.

One doctor reported his findings from a five-year study of children with autism, who also showed clinical markers for impaired cellular energy, due to mild dysfunction of their mitochondria.

The biochemistry of 30 children was studied intensively, and in each case, the results showed the same abnormalities as those found in Hannah Poling, participants said. Each child had moderate elevations or imbalances in the exact same amino acids and liver enzymes as Hannah Poling.

All thirty children also displayed normal, healthy development until about 18-24 months of age, when they quickly regressed into clinically diagnosed autism (and not merely “features of autism”), following some type of unusual trigger, or stress, placed on their immune system.

……….

But what causes the stress? That is a very big question.

Apparently, in only two of the 30 cases, or 6%, could the regression be traced directly and temporally to immunizations, and one of them was Hannah Poling. In the other cases, there was reportedly some type of documented, fever-inducing viral infection that occurred within seven days of the onset of brain injury symptoms.

Mr Kirby makes this study the raison d’etre of the rest of his post.

I have some major concerns about this. Who is this doctor? What is this study? Where is it published? Where can we _read for ourselves_ what this study says? Without wishing to question the honesty with which Mr Kirby is posting, its obvious that – even in this post as I discuss above – errors and misinterpretations have crept in.

Lets be honest here. These are some *major* claims being made. Firstly that all 30 kids in the study regressed into clinically diagnosed autism as opposed to features of autism. All 30? That’s incredible.

Secondly that 6% of the regressions into clinically diagnosed autism are traced directly from immunisations. That’s big. That is about as big as it gets. I would really like to see this study.

I have asked (twice) in the comments section of Mr Kirby’s post to be pointed to this study. So far, no answer has been forthcoming from anybody.

However. I note that Mr Kirby states that one of the 6% is Hannah Poling. If this is so then it is not true to say that:

the…[autistic]…regression…[can]… be traced directly and temporally to immunizations

(insertions mine for clarity).

As I’ve discussed before, none of the listed symptoms attributed to immunisations can accumulate to a diagnosis of autism. So unless we can actually see this study, know who the author, see what checks and balances this paper has undergone, we’re in a bit of a limbo.

Maternal antibodies involved in aetiology of autism(s)

26 Mar

A new study released by John Hopkins indicates that maternal antibodies may play a role in the aetiology of autism:

[a]…possible explanation involves the transfer of reactive antibodies from the mother through the placenta to the fetus.

To investigate the latter, the team measured the antibody-brain reaction in blood samples from 100 mothers with and 100 mothers without a child diagnosed with autism.

Mothers of children with autism had a stronger reactivity or more areas of reactivity between antibodies and brain proteins compared with mothers without an autistic child. The presence of maternal antibodies also correlated with having a child with developmental regression, a primary feature of autism.

Things to note. No one, repeat no one is assigning _blame_ to mothers. I have no doubt there will be an attempt in some quarters to twist this into an attack on the sainthood of autism parents but its really not. Biology is biology. C’est la vie. Nobody in this study had the last name Bettlehiem.

Its a fascinating hypothesis though. Along with the latest cutting edge science that has found a genetic basis in approximately 40% of autism this hypothesis utilises good ideas in a rigorously scientific way. Of course, it may well turn out to be wildly wrong, but its a nice change to see some science that’s not about cure or vaccines but just interesting in and of itself.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →