Internet Autism Discourse: False Allegations from Knight Errant Sir Kev

Don Quijote by Honoré Daumier(1868)

Discussing autism issues on the internet often invites wild and baseless accusations no matter what point is being made.  Mention the word vaccine though and you can be guaranteed someone will react irrationally.  Such is the case of Kev Leitch, a knight errant  in search of a battle in which to prove himself,  who has falsely accused me of being an "anti-vaxxer".  For the record both of my sons have received the recommended and required vaccines,  I have never attributed my youngest son's autistic disorder to receipt of any vaccines and I have often recognized the important role of vaccines as a public health tool which has prevented and controlled some deadly diseases.  So why does Kev call me an "anti-vaxxer"?

My sin? I keep an open mind on issues about vaccine safety, the extent to which vaccines are used today and the way in which they are pushed and promoted in our modern society.  I particularly object to the constant smearing and marginalizing of anyone who questions vaccine safety.  Kev Leitch is one of those who, for reasons unknown to me, feels compelled to twist and slant comments of anyone, even this humble blogger, who do not treat vaccine issues as though they have been decided for all time by some holy text. 

Sir Kev's need to defend vaccines from all threats real or imaginary, present or anticipated, emerged again in this post  in which he accused me of  being an anti-vaxxer and making "implied" false statements.  Making an implied false statement is quite a trick.  I have no idea how I did it or what false statement I implied but I will leave that explanation to Sir Kev:

"However, as ever in the world of autism, the world of the anti-vaccinationists are never far behind. This passage from Harold Doherty demonstrates this bizarre need to always conflate the two:

The Poling family was successful in advancing a vaccine injury claim on behalf of their daughter Hannah Poling to the point of settlement by US authorities. Hannah’s father is Dr. Jon Poling, a practicing neurologist in Athens, Georgia, and clinical assistant professor at the Medical College of Georgia. He reviewed his daughter’s case in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on April 11, 2008. In his comments Dr. Poling explained how mitchondrial dysfunction was related to his daughter’s case and to the existence of a possible mitochondrial dysfunction subgroup of autism disorder. He also discussed, as a medical doctor who expressly recognized the importance of vaccines in preventing serious diseases, the need for public health authorities to abandon fear tactics and conduct research to restore confidence in public health authorities and vaccines

In order to try and staunch the upcoming flood of misunderstandings and false statements like those implied by Doherty (and John Poling whom other mtDNA specialists such as John Shoffner clearly don’t trust on the issue), I contacted Professor Giulivi and asked her three simple questions about the study she is lead author of. She supplied three simple answers.

KL: Do you think, based on available science (including your paper) that vaccines cause autism?

CG: We do not have any evidence for this in our study. Our study was cross-sectional not longitudinal so it cannot point to any cause (not just vaccines), meaning we do not have anydata supporting one way or another."

At no point in my comment did I state that vaccines cause autism. I have never, ever stated that vaccines cause autism disorders and that was not implied in my article.  My position on autism disorders generally is that we do not know specifically what causes them but they appear to be caused by the interaction of genetic and environmental factors.  We do not know what specific environmental factors are involved because so little research has been done on the environmental side of the equation.  There are many possible environmental factors which MAY cause autism disorders including vaccines, particularly those given to pregnant women. I have maintained, and still do, that more research should be done on all possible environmental causes or triggers of autism disorders including possible vaccine triggers.  For taking these positions Kev Leitch falsely accuses me of being an "anti-vaxxer".

Nor did I state or insinuate in my comment that mitochondrial dysfunction causes autism disorders.  I did indicate that the study will prompt much more research on possible connections between mitochondrial dysfunction and autism disorders.  I also  commented on the fact that any mention of  a possible connection, and of a possible vaccine connection, would result in more of the kind of smearing and marginalization that was seen in the Economist article that I had referenced.

The Economist article that I quoted in my comment was a knee jerk attempt to find a target (lawyers) in anticipation of issues arising from the Autism and Mtiochondrial Dysfunction study.  Kev Leitch has, once again, done exactly the same ... as expected.

On to the next windmill Sir Kev.

Read more »

2010 Autism Words of the Year: Mitochondrial Dysfunction

The word mitochondria is not new to discussions of autism disorders.  The Poling case "injected", no pun intended, mitochondria into the debates over vaccines and autism.  The recent UC Davis study, by Cecilia Giulivi, Ph D., and other researchers, Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism, published in the December 1, 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association has brought the association between mitochondrial dysfunction and autism disorders into mainstream public consciousness and into mainstream medical legitimacy.  Make no mistake about  it we will now hear much, much more about the connection between autism disorders and mitochondrial dysfunction.

The Poling family was successful in advancing a  vaccine injury claim on behalf of their daughter Hannah Poling to the point of settlement by US authorities.  Hannah's father is Dr. Jon Poling, a practicing neurologist in Athens, Georgia,  and clinical assistant professor at the Medical College of Georgia.  He reviewed his daughter's case  in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on April 11, 2008. In his comments Dr. Poling explained how mitchondrial dysfunction was related to his daughter's case and to the existence of a possible mitochondrial dysfunction subgroup of autism disorder.  He also discussed, as a medical doctor who expressly recognized  the importance of vaccines in preventing serious diseases, the need for public health authorities to abandon fear tactics and conduct research to restore confidence in public health authorities and vaccines:

"Mitochondria key

To understand Hannah's case, it is important to understand mitochondria, which act like batteries in our cells to produce energy critical for normal function. Because the government's concession hinged on the presence of Hannah's underlying medical condition, mitochondrial dysfunction, some claim the decision is relevant to very few other children with autism. As a neurologist, scientist and father, I disagree.

Emerging evidence suggests that mitochondrial dysfunction may not be rare at all among children with autism. In the only population-based study of its kind, Portuguese researchers confirmed that at least 7.2 percent, and perhaps as many as 20 percent, of autistic children exhibit mitochondrial dysfunction. While we do not yet know a precise U.S. rate, 7.2 percent to 20 percent of children does not qualify as "rare." In fact, mitochondrial dysfunction may be the most common medical condition associated with autism.

Biological markers

Although unlikely, if the Portuguese studies are incorrect and mitochondrial dysfunction were found to be a rarity occurring in less than 1 percent of all autism, it would still impact up to 10,000 children (250,000 worldwide), based on current estimates that 1 million people in the U.S. (25 million worldwide) have autism. If, on the other hand, the research showing that 7.2 percent to 20 percent of children with autism have mitochondrial dysfunction is correct, then the implications are both staggering and urgent.

Autism researchers do not currently understand whether mitochondrial dysfunction causes autism or is simply a secondary biological marker. Autism clearly has many different causes, and should really be separated into multiple autism(s). I propose that we clearly identify and research the subpopulation term of "mitochondrial autism," which is distinguished by its unique biological, but not genetic, markers.

Based on what we know now, it is time to follow the prestigious Institute of Medicine 2004 report regarding autism and vaccines:

"Determining a specific cause (for autism) in the individual is impossible unless the etiology is known and there is a biological marker. Determining causality with population-based methods requires either a well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general population."

A paradigm shift

When the IOM report was published, mitochondrial dysfunction defining an autistic subpopulation was not firmly established. Today there is no doubt that mitochondrial dysfunction represents a distinct autism subpopulation biological marker. I urge health officials and the IOM to embrace their own report and pursue this breakthrough in the science of autism. National public health leaders, including those at CDC, must now recognize the paradigm shift caused by this biological marker with regard to their current position of dispelling a vaccine-autism link.

In light of the Hannah Poling concession, science must determine more precisely how large the mitochondrial autism subpopulation is: 1 percent, 7.2 percent, 20 percent?

Based on the 2004 IOM analysis, if the mitochondrial autism subpopulation is found to be relatively uncommon, then all conclusions from prior epidemiological studies refuting an autism-vaccination link must be discarded. New studies then need to be performed exclusively with the mitochondrial subpopulation. If mitochondrial autism turns out to be common, then we could re-analyze the data from prior studies to determine if these studies were powered sufficiently based on a predicted effect size. If not powered appropriately, the conclusion refuting an autism-vaccine link would again have to be rejected. These statistical concepts are basic.

The current vaccine schedule, co-sponsored by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics, injures a small but significant minority of children, my daughter unfortunately being one of those victims. Every day, more parents and some pediatricians reject the current vaccine schedule. In an abundance of caution, meaningful reform must be performed urgently to prevent the re-emergence of serious diseases like polio or measles.

Need for research

As a neurologist, I have cared for those afflicted with SSPE (a rare but dreaded neurological complication of measles), paralytic polio and tetanus. If these serious vaccine-preventable diseases again become commonplace, the fault will rest solely on the shoulders of public health leaders and policymakers who have failed to heed the writing on the wall (scribbled by my 9-year old daughter).

The mitochondrial autism scenario that my daughter has so eloquently painted has the CDC and public health experts logically cornered. Denial and fear tactics won't close Pandora's Box. Whether we find that mitochondrial autism is rare or common, there is urgent research left to be done to fully understand the interrelationship of vaccines, autism and mitochondria.

Reform of the vaccine schedule will be an important part of the solution, whether vaccines play a major or minor role in autism. Our public health agencies and programs need a reconstruction plan. Day one of the reconstruction hopefully starts at the Vaccine Safety Advisory Committee's Working Group, to be held at HHS headquarters today in Washington."

Dr. Jon Poling, as a neurologist,  is not an easy target for an anti-parent smear campaign.  His call for the need to understand mitochondrial dysfunction as a subset of autism could not simply be ignored.  Now with the JAMA published study by the UC Davis researchers mitochondrial dysfunction and its connection to some autism disorders will most certainly be debated and researched more intensively.  Those who foolishly believe that public confidence in vaccines, and other possible sources of mitochondrial disruptive products like pesticides, will be restored by simply attacking and marginalizing those who ask questions will soon have to wake up and face reality.  

The smear tactics have not worked, they will not work.  That will not stop them from happening though. Instead of attacking credible figures like Dr. Jon Poling or the UC Davis researchers who conducted the JAMA published story the Economist, after emphasizing the study limitations properly reported by the study  authors themselves, and trotting out the usual "correlation does not imply causation" caution,  responded with a favorite noted by Shakespeare centuries ago in Henry VI, part 2,  - "the first thing we do, kill all the lawyers".

The Economist,  recognizing the threat to commercial interests posed by mitochondrial dysfunction research in connection with autism, does not actually advocate killing all the lawyers, it simply wants to discredit them and the cause of autistic children and their families they might come to represent:

"The genetic condition in this particular case is rare: only four other examples are known. And no scientist—least of all Dr Giulivi—is suggesting that the new study bears on the question of environmental triggers of mitochondrial malfunction. But if faulty mitochondria do turn out to be a cause of autism, even if not in all cases, that question will have to be investigated. And you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere out there is a lawyer wondering whether he can do just that."

With such attacks the Economist glosses over its assertion that mitochondrial disorder is rare.  It also glosses over the possible role of environmental factors in damaging mitochondria.  Dr. Poling addressed these arguments with  actual figures and analysis unlike the Economist which simply made the claim and quickly went  after a straw man.  Jenny McCarthy may not be in this fight, Dr. Wakefield is involved as an author of the study, and the study is JAMA published.  A new straw man is needed to deflect energy and attention from facts and analysis and lawyers are a tried and  true target .... at least when they represent the little guy.

The Economist though is firing a bullet with no bite. The fear tactics and smears, even the almost 100% dedication of funding for genetic based autism research,  have not worked.   The  silly attack on lawyers betrays the fear in the Economist's response.... the fear of the potential threat to commercial interests arising from mitochondrial dysfunction research findings,  a fear that may well have prompted the Offit Offensive which was launched aggressively in late 2008 and early 2009 after the Poling settlement, and mitochondrial dsyfunction,  had become public. Look for the UC Davis, JAMA published study, to provoke more hostile responses and diversions ...  as well as more research.

The JAMA study is a benchmark though.  Those who pretend that all is known about autism disorders and their causes, that autism is 100% genetic, that no further research is needed on important potential causes of the various autism disorders, are failing, their armies are struggling. They are losing the battle to freeze our knowledge of autism.

With the UC Davis, JAMA published study, we know more about autism disorders, and we will  be more inclined to  do more actual research, and learn much more  about the causes of autism disorders, whether they do, or whether they do not, implicate vaccines, vaccine ingredients or the many toxins produced in the products we consume and wear in our homes, workplaces and schools. 


"Mitochondrial dysfunctions", in my humble opinion, are the autism words of the year in 2010.

Read more »

The Time is Now to Redress the Autism Research Imbalance

As with many complex disorders, causation is generally thought to involve some forms of genetic risk interacting with some forms of non-genetic environmental exposure. The balance of genetic risk and environmental exposure likely varies across the spectrum of ASD.  ..........  Researchers are working to better understand the interaction of genetic vulnerability with developmental experiences, such as a specific environmental exposure. While gene-environment interactions have been hypothesized to play a role in many medical disorders, these interactions have been difficult to prove or disprove beyond statistical tests showing that some genetic subgroups have a greater response to some environmental factor. ............ Progress in identifying environmental factors which increase autism risk has been made recently (Eskenazi et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 2006; Palmer, Blanchard, & Wood, 2009; Rauh et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007; Windham et al., 2006), although this area of research has received less scientific attention and far fewer research dollars than genetic risk factors. Environmental factors may be pertinent not only to brain development but also to chronic systemic features of at least some subgroups of ASD.

- The 2010 Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research - January 19, 2010, Question 3: What Caused This To Happen and Can It Be Prevented?

The 2010 IACC Strategic Plan  statement  that environmentally focused autism research has been under funded and largely ignored could properly be characterized as a long overdue confession by the autism research establishment.  Autism research has been  focused overwhelmingly on genetic causes of autism to the near exclusion of environmentally focused research. for well over a decade with potentially serious consequences for our current understanding of possible autism causes and treatments.   Given that imbalance it is perfectly understandable that few potential environmental causes of autism have been identified or confirmed through research.  If we don't open our eyes and look, if we don't do the research, then we will not find environmental causes of autism.

The overwhelming imbalance in favor of genetically based autism research was identified over a decade ago by  researcher Teresa Binstock in her 1999 description of the  "It's gotta be genetic" autism research paradigm.  Binstock  pointed to the culprit -  the old guard network that insisted that autism research be genetically focused in order to have any hope of receiving public funded research dollars:

My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations.

-Teresa Binstock, 1999, IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change

The imbalance in favor of genetic over environmental focused autism research has resulted in a call for more balance from many sources and hopefully that call will result in more than lip service.  There have been signs of an autism research paradigm shift over the past few years from the purely genetic model of autism to one which looks at autism as the result of a genetic and environmental interaction but the pace of change has been far slower than first hoped as pointed out by the 2010 IACC Strategic Plan above , by Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto and by Dr. Jon Poling.

Too much time has been wasted on the irrational insistence that autism research must be genetically focused.  We have lost the knowledge that years of more balanced autism research, with greater attention to potential environmental factors, might have given us. We must find that balance as we move  forward or more knowledge, and possibly treatments and cures, will continue to be lost.

Environmentally focused autism research must receive more attention and funding. Even the IACC has recognized the imbalance in favor of genetic over environmentally focused research. 

It is now time to redress the imbalance. 

autism

Read more »

Autism and ScienceBlogs: Dr. Gorski Replies, Sort Of

Alleged science blogger Dr. David H. Gorski is at it again lashing out at anyone who disagrees with his views, and hurling ad hominem attacks. Once again Dr. Gorski  demonstrates no knowledge of autism disorders while commenting, albeit indirectly, on autism causation.

Dr. Gorski displays poor research skills  by describing me as an Age of Autism hanger on which is quite funny because I have over the years often disagreed with views posted on that site. A year ago I questioned Kent Heckenlively of Age of Autism about his apparent endorsement of the ACE Pathway investigation one of several critical posts  I made about ACE Pathway which I viewed with concern.

If Gorski actually read anything on this site he would know that I advocate for evidence based interventions and services for autistic children and adults and have done so for a decade along with other parents, and with some real results, in my home province of New Brunswick, Canada. In our autism advocacy efforts studies and reports by  American health and science experts on autism were the foundation of our efforts. They were invaluable. Dr. Gorski's name was not amongst those that I have encountered over the years as having any expertise on the subject of autism.

I never used to accept that vaccines played any role in causing autism.  I have  moved from agreeing with the view  that there was no merit at all to the vaccine causes autism theories to accepting that the issues arising from the injection of vaccines into children and pregnant women have not been "determined for all time" and may trigger autism in some vulnerable predisposed children.   My move toward an open mind on these issues was prompted not by the Age of Autism but by Dr. Healey, Dr Poling and even Dr. Julie Gerberding, the soon to be Merck vaccine division head and former CDC director. Dr. Gorski would know this if he actually read this site before slinging mud.

Dr. Gorski, apart from failing to demonstrate any knowledge of autism in his new commentary, also tried to reduce my views, and the views of many others, about potential environmental causes of autism to the vaccine issues.  He does so  no doubt because it is easier to attack people who question vaccine safety than those who question the impact of environmental chemicals generally on the neurological development of children. Dr. Paul Offit has led a very successful campaign to whip the mainstream media into condemning people who question vaccines as fringe, hysterical extremists.  It is more difficult for Gorski, or Offit for that matter, to argue that it has been "scientifically proven for all time" that there are no environmental causes or triggers of autism.

I don't know if Dr. Gorski is aware of the recent CDC study which measured and reported on 212 toxic chemicals found in our bodies today,  a list which included mercury, lead, aluminum, arsenic and many other goodies.  Like the autism prevalence study and the Gerberding move to Merck announcements, this study too was "publicized" in the pre-Christmas period when most people, and especially the mainstream media, are busy with family and Christmas.  With so many toxic chemicals in our bodies, with rising incidence of autism disorders in our children it is not just unscientific to assume that these chemicals are not involved with causing autism disorders ....  it is foolish.

My lay person's understanding of science is based on the notion, perhaps naive, that issues are not "decided for all time".  I am now in the undecided camp about vaccines and autism and suspect that in some instances vaccines may trigger autism disorders, and other neurological damage, in some children.   I believe that more study should be done on this issue.  

And I believe very firmly that the imbalance in funding of autism research must be shifted from the near 100% funding of genetic based autism research to a  model which provides equal funding for environmentally focused autism research. 

I hope that the ScienceBlogs bloggers abandon cheap personal attacks on those who question vaccine safety and offer ... some real science.   I hope they live up to their claim of being science bloggers ... at least when they are discussing autism disorders.

autism

Read more »

Autism Research Funding: It's Still Gotta Be Genetic

Even the IACC has acknowledged in its public statements that the emerging view of autism causation is that autism likely results from the interaction of genetic, biological and environmental factors. Although there have been calls for more funding of environmental based autism research of late the "it's gotta be genetic" paradigm identified by Teresa Binstock in 1999 still appears to be holding sway over funding of autism research.

As reported in the LA Times yesterday $4.5 million from the US government stimulus funding will go toward one study by researchers at Harvard University and Children's Hospital Boston involving the sequencing of genomes of at least 85 people diagnosed with autism "in a bid to tease out the genetic basis for some cases of the neuropsychiatric disorder". As long as autism research funding is restricted to genetic focused research only the genetic bases of autism will be found. Possible environmental causes and triggers of autism will remain unknown or unconfirmed.

Information concerning the development of autism by children living in close proximity to power plants and steel mills, the role of toxic plastic materials and other potential environmental causes and triggers of autism will never be determined with any degree of certainty if funding continues to be directed towards genetic based autism research by as much as 20 to 1 compared to environmental based autism research. And of course, if funding for an observational study comparing autism rates in existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is not provided an informed understanding of the possible role of vaccines in causing or triggering autism will not emerge. The Offit extremists will continue to maintain that there is no evidence to support a vaccine-autism connection and the vaccine- autism war will continue.

Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Jon Poling, Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, and others who have called for more environmentally focused research of autism causes, do not appear to be heard by those who call the shots.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

autism

Read more »

Swine Flu Vaccine and Autism Debate: CANWEST & Fitzpatrick Publish 3rd Version of Same Article

UPDATE The original full unedited version of the article is now online again and the 2 cropped versions removed

CANWEST News and Meagan Fitzpatrick have published yet another, a third, version of the article firs published yesterday on the Swine Flu vaccine refueling the autism debate. This 3rd version is expanded to reinsert information about Jenny McCarthy but does not include my comments or more importantly those of UWO researcher Dr. Derrick MacFabe.

The article does not mention that Dr. MacFabe, Dr. Bernadine Healy (a former NIH and American Red Cross head), Dr. Julie Gerberding ( a recent CDC head) and Dr. Jon Poling (a neurologist, professor and father of an autistic child who successfully established a claim in the US vaccine court on behalf of his daughter whose autism was caused by vaccine insult to her pre-existing mitochondrial disorder). All of these people have called for more research on vaccine autism issues. Dr. Derrick MacFabe was mentioned in the 1st of the 3 "autism debate" articles published yesterday but not in the 2 redrafts published today.

The effect of the latest draft is to cast the dispute as one led by actress Jenny McCarthy on the side of those concerned with vaccine autism issues, without any mention of the professional calls for more research on the vaccine autism issue.

H1N1 vaccine arrival refuels autism debate

BY MEAGAN FITZPATRICK, CANWEST NEWS SERVICESEPTEMBER 22, 2009

The much-anticipated H1N1 vaccine has given new life to an ongoing debate about whether vaccinations in children can cause autism, a discussion that will likely heat up as Canada and other countries move closer to releasing the new vaccine.

From one side of the debate come assurances that vaccines are safe and there is no conclusive link to autism; from the other, warnings that there is a relationship and parents should think twice about giving shots to their children.

Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, has repeatedly said that vaccines have a long history of being safe and effective.

Weighing in on the autism debate, he noted that vaccines are given to children at around the same age as when neurological disorders can surface.

"You can have a close time frame," he said.

"Just because something's associated in time does not mean it's causal."

Butler-Jones said he recognizes that parents are searching for answers about autism's cause, but added claims that vaccines are the culprit have not been proven.

"The studies have been pretty clear and consistent that vaccination is not the cause of many of the things that have been claimed around the vaccine,"he said.

The benefits of immunization far outweigh the risks, said Butler-Jones, but he understands people need to think carefully about it.

"It's important that they get the facts -- not the theory, not the conjecture, not the claims -- but the actual facts about what we know about the vaccine and the disease and I think . . . virtually everybody would choose the vaccine," he said.

The theory that childhood vaccines are behind an upsurge of autism cases emerged in the 1990s and in recent years has gained high-profile advocates such as Hollywood star Jenny McCarthy, whose son was diagnosed with autism.

McCarthy is among those who believe children receive too many vaccines, too close together, and that a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal used in some vaccines is harmful. She is passionate about her cause, but she has her critics who are equally fervent on the pro-vaccination side of the debate.

- - -

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We want to hear from you. Send your comments on this story to

letters@nanaimodailynews.com. Letters must include your first and last names, your hometown and a daytime phone number.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

autism

Read more »

Swine Flu Vaccine and Autism: Some Disturbing Reporting by Megan Fitzpatrick

UPDATE The original full unedited version of the article is now online again and the 2 cropped versions removed

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted the following blog the article I checked on line and found that the original report from yesterday had been reposted by Megan Fitzpatrick and CANWEST.

The article was modified to omit my comments and those of Dr. Derrick McFabe. The result was to recast the debate as one beween parents and the health care community. For that reason I modified my blog comment title from "refreshingly balanced reporting" to "disturbing reporting". See my next post on this subject for more.

Harold Doherty

I was pleased to see the balanced reporting by Megan Fitzpatrick of CANWEST NEWS SERVICE in her report on the H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine and a possible autism connection in Flu vaccine rekindles debate over connection to autism. I was interviewed for that article and Ms Fitzpatrick placed me accurately, and fairly, as being in the middle on vaccine autism issues. I no longer accept without questioning the official opinion that vaccines play no role in causing or triggering autism, and I do not believe that parents' observations of their child's development should be dismissed. I believe that more research needs to be done, a belief inspired by several prominent professionals including Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Jon Poling and Dr. Julie Gerberding.

The article reported comments from Dr David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, whose voice has been everywhere during this alleged swine flu pandemic. The public positions of Jenny McCarthy are reviewed along with some comments from autism researcher Dr. Derrick McFabe of the University of Western Ontario who stated that parents who believe that their children's autism resulted from vaccinations must be heard.

There have been a string of one sided media reports since the New York Times public relations style interview with Dr Paul Offit. It appears that many journalists have abandoned any pretense of old fashioned objectivity and have chosen to enlist fully in Offit's Army. They repeat ad nauseum his simplistic assertions that the research is "done" and that "science" has conclusively determined that there is no vaccine autism connection. In reading Ms. Fitzpatrick's article it was refreshing to see an honest attempt to convey all sides of the issues from multiple sources.

One omission from my interview that I wish Ms Fitzpatrick had included in her article is that I informed her that my belief that an observational study comparing autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should be done is not my original idea. My belief is based on the statements of Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Jon Poling and other respected professionals who do see a need to conduct further research on possible vaccine autism issues .... and other possible environmental factors causing or triggering autism disorders. Media narratives invariably portray the vaccine debate as one pitting parents against doctors and professionals without mentioning that some credible health care professionals are of the view that the science is not "done" or concluded on these issues, that more research needs to be conducted.

What might be original in my comments is the notion that we may in fact be undergoing an unintended experiment on some vaccine autism issues with the public health authorities response to the current alleged swine flu pandemic. Not everyone agrees that we are in fact facing such a pandemic. Not everyone will be taking the swine flu vaccine. Those who are targeted - pregnant women and young children, will in some cases be receiving shots which include thimerosal and an adjuvant known as squalene which caused serious harm to Gulf War soldiers. If the young children receiving the shots, and the new born children of women who received the shot while pregnant have significantly higher autism rates than those who do not receive the shots will Offit, health authorities, and most of the mainstream media just ignore that information? Will they continue to decree in very unscientific like manner that the science is closed on these issues?

We will only know the answers if the data is recorded and made known. At this time we do not know if that will be done. We do not know if public health authorities will begin to take autism spectrum disorders, and the parents of children with autism, seriously.

We can only hope.

autism

Read more »

Stupid Autism Parents?

Apparently there are a lot of SAPs, Stupid Autism Parents, behind all the uproar over possible vaccine autism connections.

Those parents who accept the official view that autism is 100% genetic and that substances injected into young children can not possibly disrupt or damage their neurological systems are smart, good guy parents. Those who want to treat or cure their children, who question vaccine safety, the combinations of vaccines, the frequency of vaccines and the biological and chemical agents contained in vaccines are ..... well .... just not that smart.

Being a Stupid Autism Parent who believes that autism is a disorder for which a cure is badly needed, that it results from an interaction of genetic and environmental factors and that vaccines MIGHT play a role in causing or triggering autism in some cases I was grateful to learn from a discussion at "Aspies for Freedom" that it is just my own stupidity that leads me to such erroneous beliefs and irrational concerns. In the end parents who post at Autism Speaks are stupid and parents who post at Aspies for Freedom are smarter. It's true, Aspies for Freedom says so.

Aspies for Freedom is a site which appears to be dedicated to the rights of "Aspies" to be free, although free in what sense is not clear since most of the posters appear to reside in the US, UK and Canada where fundamental freedoms are constitutionally entrenched. Perhaps it means freedom to determine what is best for other people's Autistic children? Aspies for Freedom started a highly enlightening, intellectually sophisticated discussion topic called:

A General Comparison Between Parents on This Forum and Parents on Autism Speaks

The general gist of the opening post, by a brilliant intellectual posting as Mars Mariner, and subsequent discussion is that parents who post at Aspies for Freedom are smart and parents who post on the Autism Speaks forum are well ... not so smart:

Post 1

I would make a general comparison between parents here and parents on Autism Speaks. Again, this is a very general comparison, one that I do not intend as a slander against the parents on the "other" forum. However, my sense is that parents here enjoy a greater level of education and critical faculties than their peers on the other forum. It is not my intent to belittle the earnest and sincere parents on Autism Speaks. However, it seemed from my experience there as though they were not discerning people. My sense is that they were younger, not college educated, and more susceptible to seeing the world simplistically. I may be wrong in my perception, but that seems like a general rule of thumb.

I am not coming at this from an elitist perspective (I hope not). Rather, I am sincerely recalling my experience there. What disturbed me, however, was one other difference between parent cultures there and here. Parents there seemed not to care about children beyond their own to the degree that parents here do. It was not so much that they agreed with the torture going on at the Judge Rotenberg Center; more that they did not care too much about the sphere beyond their immediate concern. Parents here seem a lot warmer.

If I am mistaken, or if I have over-generalized, I apologise. Again, I think that parents on the other forum are more likely to look at reality simplistically. A lot of them were disaffected with Autism Speaks because it will not endorse the vaccine view. Autism Speaks endorses establishment positions, while the anti-vaccine people are decidedly against the pharma cartels. However, both factions, the establishment eugenicists and the anti-establishment vaccine people, believe in Neurotypicalism. Neither side can see Autistic people as having positive contributions to make. Both see a "problem," to be cured in a society dedicated to Enlightenment modes of rational problem solving.

In summation, my time there was somewhat disturbing. I wanted to like the parents there, but found that I could not relate to most of them. Few of them were even interested in what I had to say enough to tell me to shove...whatever they would tell me. This was disturbing, because I was willing to be of assistance as much as possible with what I could help.

However, it is also possible that few parents of intellectually inclined Autistics visit that forum. It is possible that more such parents are here than there. Hence, my experiences may not have been of value to them. My time there was brief, and rather unproductive. To top it off, the moderators there allowed a pornographer to spam the whole website, one visited by children! I will never return.

Another intellectual giant writing as Pakrat chipped in:

Post 2

RE: A General Comparison Between Parents on This Forum and Parents on Autism Speaks

I also notice on FB that the old chestnut of vaccine causing autism is very much alive and some of the parents disbelieve the evidence discrediting the supposed link. One woman got incredibly hysterical when I told her that vaccines did not cause her brother's severe autism. She made all kinds of insults against me which I found amusing since they were so ludicrous but it goes to show that when there is an emotive subject, reason can be quite lacking.

Yes, I believe the parents here are generally brighter and more deep thinking than in sites such as Autism Speaks. It's also possible though that the other parents have more severely affected children and therefore were exposed to more hype about "cures" and more indoctrination about the "tragedy of autism". People who prey on desperation are indeed despicable and all too common.

The discussion was also enlightened by one of the "smart" parents, posting as "atypical", who frequents the Aspies for Freedom site and, not surprisingly. agrees with the proposition that parents who frequent Aspies for Freedom are smarter than those at Autism Speaks:

Post 4

I think that if we/us parents seem brighter - it may be because -we found this place and stayed because the people here remind us of our children - or something in ourselves. Not average and mundane, but interesting, complicated, freedom lovers (It's in the name!)...

I feell lucky to have a different way of looking at things -I/WE ARE LUCKY TO BE AWARE, it is a blessing to see things in an atypical way AND instead of us changing our children, our children change us.

I am probably just not as smart, or as "aware", as "atypical" but I do take autism seriously as a disorder which seriously restricts the life opportunities of my son. It is in truth sad to see some persons with Aspergers Disorder, and some parents, posting such offensive material on the site, one of the alleged "Autism" Hub sites.

I know some persons with Aspergers and High Functioning Autism who do not indulge in such foolish, offensive trash talking and who do in fact show respect for the rights and responsibilities of parents to do the best they can to help their children live the fullest life possible. It is too bad that the "intellectuals" at Aspies for Freedom and other Autism Hub web sites don't display the same good character.

In the bigger picture the demeaning characterization of parents who seek cures for their autistic children or those who question vaccine safety as less intelligent than those who embrace their children's autism disorder as a blessing and do not question what gets injected into their young children's bodies is not much different than the marginalization of parents conducted by Paul Offit and other government and pharmaceutical spokespersons.

Offit and company also want the public to believe that parents who question vaccine safety are of lesser intelligence. Parental observations, no matter how many times the same pattern occurs are dismissed as coincidence. Parents, ALL parents who question vaccine safety are gullible fools seduced by charlatans ... or they are hysterical wing nuts because some apparently committed criminal, threatening acts toward Dr. Offit and his family.

And so we can just ignore ALL parents who see their children regress into autism after vaccination (unless they are a neurologist who can not be ignored or marginalized like Dr. Jon Poling).

If only those Stupid Autism Parents would just do as they were told.

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: Will Beating Up Jenny and Oprah End the War?

From Newsweek to Discover online to the self appointed protectors of science who contend that any questioning of the safety of injecting substances containing mercury, aluminum and biological agents directly into the blood of young children on dozens of occasions constitutes "woo" the Offit Offensive has rolled out with a vengeance lashing out at Jenny McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey for the attention they bring to parents' concerns about vaccine safety. Will these vicious personal attacks convince those parents who have seen their children regress into autism after vaccination? I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

If the self styled anti-woo brigade really wants to persuade parents that their concerns about multiple injections of potentially toxic chemicals and biological agents into their children's bloodstream is risk free they should change course. Stop repeating the same failed tactics over and over and over again. Do the comparison study of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations that credible health authorities like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Duane Alexander and neurologist, university professor, "autism dad" and successful vaccine autism litigant, Dr. Jon Poling have all said could and should be done.

Dr. Paul Offit and others should stop the silly name calling. You will change no minds with such foolishness. Stop playing in the "woo" and do the credible studies to change minds. If you want to stem the tide of concern over vaccine safety do the research that will convince people of vaccine safety .... or start accepting your own responsibility for continued public suspicion over the safety of vaccines.

autism

Read more »

Autism, Vaccines and Public Trust: AMA Votes to Continue Sit Down and Shut Up Approach

The AMA has rejected a proposal by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law that asked the AMA Council on Science and Public Health to review the most recent research on vaccines and autism.

In rejecting any further review the AMA is essentially telling people like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Jon Poling that their critiques of the epidemiological study limitations or the desirability of conducting comparative studies of vaccinated and un-vaccinated groups are invalid or unworthy of consideration. In citing the three recent vaccine court decisions rejecting any vaccine-autism link the AMA makes no mention of cases like Banks and Poling where the government settled vaccine autism injury claims in favor of the plaintiffs. In rejecting any further review of a possible vaccine autism link the AMA has shown that it does not have a clue about how to restore public trust in vaccine programs.

The full resolution considered by the AMA proposed that:

• the AMA reaffirm its support for universal vaccination,
• asked the AMA Council on Science and Public Health to review the most recent research on vaccines and autism, and
• urged the association to continue to support research into the etiology and treatment of autism.

The AMA rejected only the second element of the three part resolution. How it would continue support for research into the etiology and treatment of autism while preordaining that the etiology can not include consideration of the possible role of vaccines is beyond me. The AMA is apparently saying that "we don't know the causes of autism but we do know that the causes do not include any of the biological or chemical ingredients injected into your child's bloodstream." Not a very convincing position. Of course I am just a dumb, ignorant parent of a child with autism.

In addition to dismissing the concerns raised by some health care professionals and researchers the AMA is essentially telling the many parents concerned about possible vaccine autism connections that they should sit down, shut up and do as they are told by "the doctors".

The AMA is apparently unaware that the sit down and shut up approach to restoring public confidence in vaccine safety has not worked.

In continuing this approach the AMA has shown it lacks understanding of how to restore public confidence in vaccine safety.

In continuing this approach the AMA is ensuring the continuation of the vaccine-autism war.

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: National Post Junk Journalism Continues With Jenny McCarthy Attacks

Jenny McCarthy is an easy target.

For that reason the lazy, ill informed "journalists" at the National Post continue to attack Ms McCarthy in yet another doomed to fail attempt to quash public discussion of vaccine autism concerns. Meanwhile they continue to omit any reference to respected medical and research authorities like Dr. Bernadine Healey, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Duane Alexandre all of who have said that more research could and should be done on the issue. The junk journalists at the NP ignore Dr. Jon Poling a neurologist and father of an autistic child who brought a vaccine based autism claim to successful conclusion on behalf of his daughter when the government settled.

The NP despite having its attention brought to the Poling and Banks cases again omits any reference to these two cases in which it is known that the government settled vaccine autism claims. The NP omitted any reference to the IACC decision to include vaccine autism research in its strategic autism research planning. The NP omitted any reference to the criticisms of the epidemiological studies which are used to trumpet the position that the science has "decided" that vaccines do not cause or contribute to autism onset. The NP has omitted any reference to the well founded view that such studies do not examine the impact on vulnerable population subsets and possible connections to autism among such groups of children. The NP has omitted any reference to the fact that public health authorities have long discouraged the kinds of research that might disclose any vaccine autism connection.

In all fairness to the National Post Junk Journalists the issues listed above might be above their pay grade. Better for them to refrain from doing any real, hard journalism or any real, hard thinking.

Far better, and easier, to simply malign Jenny McCarthy. Of course those who actually know something about the subject and who want their concerns addressed will not be persuaded by such cheap, cowardly excuses for journalism

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: National Post Ripped Over Junk Journalism

Vaccines have saved the lives, and continue to save the lives, of many children.

To my knowledge no one doubts that fact. No one doubts that vaccine programs serve the public interest. Many people, however, want to be informed about the negative aspects of vaccines. Contrary to what many in the media believe there are serious, legitimate questions that remain about the possible role of vaccines and vaccine ingredients in relation to autism. Many parents of autistic children refuse to shut up and be silent. They refuse to be told that they can not discuss vaccine safety issues in public. They refuse to be told that vaccine programs are sacred cows which must not be questioned.

There is a need for more research to be done on vaccine safety issues generally and in relation specifically to autism. Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Duane Alexandre and neurologist and autism dad Dr. Jon Poling, he who successfully reached a settlement on behalf of his autistic daughter in a vaccine damage claim, have all called for more research to be done on possible vaccine autism connections. Sounds reasonable but many "journalists" have climbed aboard the "speak no evil", "ask no questions", "shut up and be a good little mommy or daddy" train of thought which dictates that it is wrong to discuss or research these issues. Such efforts to suppress free discussion by parents seeking to protect their children are counter-productive. The failure of such a strategy was recognized by the IACC, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee when its recently released strategic plan included vaccine autism research; if only to restore public confidence in vaccine programs.

Media outlets though continue to talk as though no legitimate questions have been asked. They offer completely one sided pictures of the legitimate vaccine autism issues. One recent example is the National Post article Junk science has a new cover girl in which the National Post attacks any and all who presume to ask questions about vaccine safety and autism. The NP article focuses on Jenny McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey and is blatantly one sided. Autism blogger Lea Schizas at Shaking the System, a blog she co-authors with Litsa Kamateros, has critiqued the NP's "journalism" in her aptly named comment Junk Journalism Once Again. Lea has written a letter to the National Post which I reprint here with her permission:

How like a newspaper to give a one-sided account and not bother to contact the biomedical specialists who are doctors and get their input. Has the newspaper business become so afraid to counter the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry and give a thorough investigation?

Allow me the opportunity to dissect Mr. Allen’s article with my own input:

A parent is a parent is a parent. As doctors themselves state we are the ones who best know our children. So whether Jenny was once associated with Playboy is not the issue but only a glamorous put down by this journalist. Jenny is not the only one who noticed a change in her child but thousands, and I state thousands because there were 4900 cases pending in the US last year all waiting to have their chance to say how vaccines had injured their children.

Also, I didn’t read the part where Jenny states she is pro-vaccine but wanting the medical profession to change the vaccine schedule for the children who might hide a disorder/dysfunction that makes them susceptible to multi-vaccines. Missing, too, was the fact that in the 80s US children received 10-12 vaccines by the age of 6 and now up to 36. Are you telling me that these compounded vaccines do not have the possibility of harming a toddler, ones who might have a mitochondrial dysfunction?

Where, also, is mention of the Hannah Poling or Bailey Banks cases where they were conceded in the courts that vaccines DID cause these children’s autism? How many cases of vaccine-injured children do we need to show that some children cannot handle the accumulated toxins needled into them? The medical professionals need to devise a test to try and evaluate a child’s susceptibility before their vaccines begin. And please get it right that no one disputes that vaccines have helped and will continue to help. But a better or delayed schedule should be considered. Children are now given at day one of birth the Hepatitis Vaccine, an age where any hidden health issues might not have surfaced yet.

And your mention of Humphrey Bogart, Louis Armstrong, and Elvis Presley advocating for vaccines gives no credence to an issue that back then had no clue about autism as much as there is now.

Research continues in various levels from genetic to environmental factors. And if you’re going to bash Jenny McCarthy, then why not mention Robert Kennedy as well with his own backing and autism advocacy about a meeting behind closed doors of top specialists and organizations where whispers of the possibility of vaccines harming children were spoken.

For this reason my title to Mr. Allen’s article is Junk Journalism Once Again.

Lea Schizas

In addition to the blog Shaking the System Lea Schizas and Litsa Kamateros publish on their web site The Autism Epidemic.

autism

Read more »

Autism Science Foundation - Doesn't Science Require An Open Mind?

The Autism Science Foundation, a new purported autism advocacy group, has been formed and announced to the world.

I have some concerns about the ASF's approach to advocating for "autism science". The new Foundation has announced that it will focus on non-vaccine related causes of autism. From its inception it has ruled out the possibility that vaccines could cause or contribute to autism, even in potentially susceptible population subgroups. To this humble non-scientist such an approach smacks more of political goals than scientific research. The ASF makes a clearly political statement supportive of vaccine programs and concluding with finality that vaccines do not cause autism:

The Autism Science Foundation’s mission is premised on the following facts and principles:

• Vaccines save lives; they do not cause autism. Numerous studies have failed to show a causal link between vaccines and autism. Vaccine safety research should continue to be conducted by the public health system in order to ensure vaccine safety and maintain confidence in our national vaccine program, but further investment of limited autism research dollars is not warranted at this time.

In fact Dr. Bernadine Healy former CDC head, and Dr. Julie Gerberding, recent NIH head, have indicated that more vaccine autism research is needed. Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), an NIH agency stated, as reported by David Kirby at the Huffington Post that "scientists must investigate susceptible subpopulations of children, including kids with mitochondrial disorders and those who have trouble metabolizing mercury." Kirby quotes Dr. Alexander's statement from a February 24, 2009 interview with Dr. Geraldine Dawson of Autism Speaks:

"One question (is) whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines"

Given the existence of legitimate questions concerning possible vaccine autism questions it seems odd for an organization founded to provide quality scientific research to make such a dogmatic statement conclusively ruling out those very questions. It also seems odd that the founders of this organization believe that public confidence in the vaccine program will be maintained by shutting the door on areas of research in which substantial numbers of the population believe are legitimate areas of inquiry - including members of the public like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Duane Alexander and Dr. Jon Poling.

Personally, this father of a 13 year old autistic boy does not have a rigid view of the vaccine-autism issues. While I once accepted without serous question the official view of these issues I have changed my position. While I have not concluded that vaccines or vaccine ingredients cause autism I now have an open mind on the issues, largely because of the views expressed by credible people like Dr. Healy. As a lawyer I can also not ignore the fact that some of the vaccine cases have resulted in settlements in favor of the plaintiffs where a vaccine-autism connection was alleged, particularly in the Banks and Poling cases.

Personally, this humble member of the public would have greater confidence in the safety of vaccine programs if more research of the type suggested by Doctors Healy, Gerberding and Alexander were conducted and the results were positive than by the incessant repetition of the dogma that the vaccine-autism link has been disproven. It has not. And many members of the public know that. It is time to do the research and move on.

Hopefully the "Autism Science Foundation" will stick to advocating FOR research of possible autism causes, and treatments, and not spend its time simply promoting the view, not shared by all, that there is no possible vaccine- autism connection.

autism

Read more »