My Reply to Non Autism Expert Dr. David H. Gorski Also Known as ORAC

Dr. David H. Gorski, who is NOT an autism expert, somewhat ironically,

  attacks parents, professionals and journalists who disagree with

his autism disorders opinions as "quacks"

Dear Dr. David H. Gorski.

Thank you for acknowledging your total lack of autism expertise.  For the benefit of  readers unfamiliar with your "style:" I did not make the statements set out in quotation marks by you,  the learned Dr. Gorski which you altered to suit your (silly) purposes.  The statements in quotation marks are silly distortions, falsifications, of what I actually said in my blog comment on the Alex Spourdalakis case:

1. Orac

September 7, 2013

Shorter Harold (from that link):

“I’m awesome and know autism. I even have a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal to prove it! Emily Willingham doesn’t and is exploiting the Alex Spourdalakis murder for evil intent. Oh, and it will be decided by the court, not bloggers.”

That last statement is what I refer to as a “Well, duh!” statement and an attack on a straw man. No one is claiming that the Spourdalakis case won’t be decided by the courts.

Add to that in the comments here:

“You can’t comment on the Alex Spourdalakis case unless you’re an expert in autism or have personal experience with autism. If you do comment your are proclaiming yourself falsely to be such an expert.!

Seriously, though, I share Kreboizen’s curiosity about Mr. Doherty’s stance towards autism biomed.

BTW, I added a couple of fresh quotes about the Spourdalakis case to this post, one from John Stone and one from Kim Stagliano. They are doozies, so much so that I wanted to feature them somewhere. I didn’t think they deserved their own post, however.

2.     In comment #50 on your Respectful Insolence blog rant Is Sharyl Attkisson feeling the heat over her irresponsible reporting of the Alex Spourdalakis case?   I asked a simple question in respect of the trial of Alex Spourdalakis case:

Anyone here know if Dr. David H. Gorski will be appearing in the Court proceedings to give testimony as an autism disorder expert?

You moderated (changed)  my comment to change the name in my question from Dr. David H. Gorski, your actual name, to  Orac, the name  under which you attack and denigrate autism parents, professionals,  journalists and anyone else who questions your opinions.

Harold L Doherty

Canada

September 7, 2013

Anyone here know if Orac will be appearing in the Court proceedings to give testimony as an autism disorder expert

Why you ran away from this simple truth is not clear since everyone knows that the Disrespectful AND Insolent blogger Orac is actually Dr. Davd H. Gorski.

As for my blog reference to my QE II Diamond Jubilee medal it  is simply a recognition that my involvement with autism, apart from my son's own severe autism disorder has also included 15 years of successful advocacy for all children and students with autism in New Brunswick, Canada to receive evidence based  (as determined by real autism experts like those at the office of the US Surgeon General, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Association for Science in Autism Treatment) early intervention and school instruction and support services.   At all times in any autism advocacy in which I was involved I have tried to follow such expertise and the expertise and guidance of local academics and clinicians, who unlike you Dr. Gorski, have considerable expertise in autism disorder issues.

Neither Ms. Emily Willingham nor Dr. David H. Gorski have published any references to indicate they have done any advocacy for children and students with autism disorders or that they have any academic or real life involvement with severe autism disorders and the impacts they have on parents and family members.  Instead they choose to attack parents of children with severe autism disorders about whose challenges both Willingham and Gorski are totally ignorant and ill informed.  

To address Dr. Gorski’s perpetual issue, and mode of dismissing any autism parent on any issue with which he disagrees, I support public vaccination programs and my family, including myself,  receive all vaccinations recommended by our family doctor. This fall I will receive a flu vaccine as recommended by my treating respiratory specialist after I was hospitalized this past spring with a respiratory infection coupled with an aggravated asthma attack. I follow my doctors' recommendations.   

Although I am not convinced of the role of vaccines (in causing autism in some cases) I do recognize that vaccines, like any medical treatment, can have adverse side effects.  This summer my younger son who also suffers from epileptic seizures suffered an adverse reaction to his anti-seizure medication of that time Lamictal/Lamotrogine.  ( For Dr. Gorski's benefit a high percentage of persons with autism also suffer from epileptic seizures, particularly when, like my son, they also have an intellectual disability). The conclusion that my son’s life threatening adverse reaction was caused by his medication rather than an infection was reached, after direct observation, testing and successful treatment  by the ICU team that saved his life, not by me.

Even the US Vaccine Court has recognized that vaccines can have harmful side effects some of which appear to relate to autism symptoms. (Dr. Gorski can challenge Dr. Jon Poling to a public debate  on that issue if he wishes to show off his all consuming  knowledge of science, vaccines and autism disorders.  No I won’t hold my breath waiting for a Gorski-Poling match  I don't  think Dr. Gorski has the parts for that).   What Dr. Gorski who is NOT an autism expert may not understand is that autism as a singular disorder is losing standing the community of autism experts who view autism more as a grouping of autism disorders or symptoms.  Arguably this paradigm shift will call into question some of the concessions made by the US in the Vaccine Court cases where autism like symptoms were acknowledged but not “autism”.

Dr. Gorski's venomous attacks on parents, professionals and journalists who do not share his views have not resulted, as far as I am aware, in an increase in public vaccination rates in the US. Given that fact it is difficult to see why he engages in such childish, unprofessional behavior other than one reason:  he enjoys making, he takes pleasure in making,  such attacks. There is only one person who has degraded Gorski's credibility to speak on autism issues and that person is "Dr" David H. Gorski himself. 

The Burden of Proof: IACC Director Insel's 2009 Statement On Autism Increases

"Based on the above mentioned research, approximately 53% percent of the increase in autism prevalence over time may be explained by changes in diagnosis (26%), greater awareness (16%), and an increase in parental age (11%). While this research is beginning to help us understand the increase in autism prevalence, half of the increase is still unexplained and not due to better diagnosis, greater awareness, and social factors alone. Environmental factors, and their interactions with genetic susceptibilities, are likely contributors to increase in prevalence and are the subject of numerous research projects currently supported by Autism Speaks.

The increase in autism prevalence is real and the public health crisis is growing. More families are affected by autism today then ever before."

Autism Speaks Official Blog, October 22, 2010, 

Before the Recent CDC estimate that autism now affects 1 in 88 children.

The Neurodiversity ideologues are doing it again.  

Each announcement of increased  rates of autism diagnoses (the past year saw the CDC revise its estimate from 1 in 110 to 1 in 88) brings the same, tired refrain about increases in autism: it ain't real babe.  The Neurodiversity ideologues recycle the explanations trotted out for each announced increased in autism rates: 1994 DSM diagnostic definition changes and increased awareness being the two most prominent. 

They have done so again in an article in Discovers "big idea" blog "The Crux" by Emily Willingham. Discover is the home of Neurodiversity writer Steve Silberman and the Willingham article was immediately embraced in an article by another Neurodiversity "science" journal: Boing Boing.  Boing Boing quickly  applied its scientific expertise and  reported, based on Willingham's opinions, that " It looks like the majority of the "increase" in diagnoses can really be attributed to the process of diagnosis itself"

No one denies that the two decade old diagnostic definition change and increased awareness factors, explain part of these increases, the issue is whether they explain them entirely or to what extent and whether the increased rates also reflect real increases, increases arising from environmental factors. 

Dr. Tom Insel is known to everyone involved in autism issues as the head of the IACC, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.  He can not be attacked as being an "anti-vaxxer" or as an emotional, hysterical parent of an autistic child.  Dr. Insel had this to say in a December 18, 2009 interview by David Kirby:

"It looks like about 24 percent of the California increase can be attributed to something like a change in diagnosis criteria. They are beginning to use multiple diagnoses. So that children before, who were listed simply as mentally retarded rather than autism - but they had both - are now logged in with both. But that really caps out at around 24 percent. There’s probably another piece of this, which globally could be attributed to ascertainment. But that caps out at around 16 percent, or something like that. And when you put all of that together, you are still well below explaining 50 percent of the increase.

So what does that mean? It means that, as far as I can tell, the burden of proof is upon anybody who feels that there is NOT a real increase here in the number of kids affected. Because all of the evidence we have up until now says that, well there are what we could call – I wouldn’t call them ‘trivial’ factors – but they are factors that are not related to incidence, but would be simply related to prevalence, like ascertainment. But they don’t really explain away this huge increase. "

This tells you that, you really have to take this very seriously. From everything they are looking at, this is not something that can be explained away by methodology, by diagnosis. Some piece of it can, but the whole thing can’t."" 

It fits Emily Willingham's Neurodiversity ideology to recycle the diagnostic change/substitution and increased awareness factors.  What we don't need is yet another recycling of these long understood factors which undoubtedly explain part of the increases in autism rates.  What we do need is a focused environmental research strategy as advocated for In A Research Strategy to Discover the Environmental Causes of Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities, an editorial in a recent issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, authors Philip J. Landrigan, Luca Lambertini and Linda S. Birnbaum.

Landrigan, Labertini and Birnbaum summarized the evidence for the "proof of principle" that early exposures during “windows of vulnerability” that open only in embryonic and fetal life and have no later counterpart can cause autism.  They review the large numbers of synthetic chemicals, many of them untested, some of which are known to have toxic properties. The authors proposed a strategic approach to researching possible environmental causes of autism by focusing:

"research in environmental causation of NDDs on a short list of chemicals where concentrated study has high potential to generate actionable findings in the near future. Its ultimate purpose is to catalyze new evidence-based programs for prevention of disease in America’s children."

We don't need more recycling of the known diagnostic change and ascertainment factors that undoubtedly explain part of the incredible increases in autism diagnoses. What we need is leadership by the IACC and other major autism focused health agencies to encourage a stragic approach to determine  possible environmental factors involved in causing the various autism disorders. 

What we need is to find out what has been, and still is, happening to our children.  Until we do the burden of proof is on those who push the non-environmental factors which explain only part of the incredible increases in autism diagnostic rates.