New Brunswick's H1N1 (Swine Flu) Vaccine Autism Experiment

New Brunswick is about to conduct its own H1N1 Vaccine Autism experiment. The H1N1 vaccines used here will contain both thimerosal AND unspecified adjuvants. As with most public health authorities the NB government information is not balanced concerning the possible risks associated with the vaccines generally and specifically with respect to possible vaccine autism connections. There is frequent mention of authorities like the WHO which called this H1N1 flu virus a pandemic in the first place, and the CDC, in supporting the safety of the vaccines generally.

There is also the usual one sided information concerning possible vaccine autism connections, information which fails to mention credible health authorities like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Jon Poling who have said that more research needs to be done on vaccine autism issues. Nor does the information release mention the critique offered by those like Dr. Healy who points out that the "science" to date on vaccine autism issues, the epidemiological studies, are not specific enough to determine the impact of vaccines on vulnerable population subsets, on individual children with conditions that might render them vulnerable. Dr. Healy also points out that flu vaccines have contained thimerosal and thimerosal crosses the placenta. (Dr. Poling, a neurologist, was involved with the issue with his daughter on whose behalf it was successfully claimed that her autism resulted from vaccination. The US government settled on the basis that her "autism like symptoms" were caused by the vaccine aggravation of her pre-existing mitochondrial disorder).

The NB government communication release does not mention that no observational study has been done comparing autism rates of vaccinated populations with autism rates of unvaccinated populations. With the use of vaccines containing thimerosal and adjuvants, most likely squalene, with pregnant women and young children targeted for early receipt of the H1N1 vaccines, the NB government is essentially conducting such a study. Hopefully they will remember these events in assessing NB autism rates 2 to 5 years from now as the young children vaccinated with the thimerosal and adjuvant (squalene) and the new born children of vaccinated pregnant women mature.

I don't know if vaccines cause or trigger autism. I am no longer assured by overstated health authority pronouncements that vaccines do not cause autism, that the science is closed on these issues, when people of such credibility as Dr. Healy, Dr. Gerberding and Dr. Poling say more research is needed.

I do hope that our NB health authorities turn out to be right whether it is from a lucky guess or not. I hope that they save every child and adult from H1N1 flu death with no resulting cases of autism. But I am far from convinced that such will be the case. I absolutely hope that they remember this H1N1 flu vaccine and assess future autism rates with an eye to its ingredients - thimerosal, squalene and whatever other ingredients it contains. And it is probably hoping for too much for them to actually record and compare the autism rates of children who are vaccinated with the H1N1 vaccine and those whose parents refuse the vaccination for them. Time will tell.

H1N1 flu virus update (09/10/08)

NB 1521

Oct. 8, 2009

FREDERICTON (CNB) - The following update on the H1N1 flu virus was issued by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for New Brunswick on Thursday, Oct. 8:

• We have moved forward with our seasonal vaccination program, according to plans. It started last week and will run for the month of October. The public awareness piece accompanying the campaign speaks to those most at risk of developing complications from seasonal influenza. They are: children six-to-23 months old, pregnant women, people with chronic health conditions, and the elderly. We encourage these groups to get the publicly funded vaccine. A list of clinics by region may be found at www.gnb.ca/flu.
• There has been a frequently referred to, but as-yet unpublished, Canadian study that suggests an association between seasonal flu vaccine and acquiring a mild case of the H1N1 virus. This study is inconsistent with other international studies, and has failed to show a relationship that one causes the other. Both the Public Health Agency of Canada and the World Health Organization have responded to the study, saying that preliminary data show that there is no link between having a severe bout of pandemic flu and having had a seasonal flu shot last year. New Brunswick's position on this study has never changed.
• We know that seasonal flu is fatal to 100-150 New Brunswickers each year, and that children are hospitalized by influenza more than any other age group.
• In making decisions for the province, we balanced this known significant risk and a vast body of published research against the results of one unpublished study, and determined that the best way to protect all New Brunswickers from both diseases was to move ahead with our plans to run a seasonal flu immunization campaign in October, and an H1N1 immunization campaign through November.
• We are running both campaigns because it is the best decision for New Brunswick. We made operational decisions early on that will allow us to have the capacity to offer both vaccines.
• There has never been a one-size-fits-all approach to seasonal vaccines in Canada, and this year is no different. Provinces and territories have not previously had to administer two separate flu immunization programs in a single season, and some of the decisions taken on seasonal and H1N1 vaccine timing reflect concerns over logistics, capacity and likely vaccine uptake.
• The seasonal flu vaccine is safe, and those in the high-risk groups, in particular, should take the steps to receive it as soon as possible.
• There have also been reports and public speculation about the safety of the H1N1 vaccine. The contents of the H1N1 vaccine will protect against contracting H1N1. The included additives and preservatives are there to help the vaccine work, and are not cause for alarm.
• As a multi-dose vaccine, the H1N1 influenza vaccine will contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal to prevent contamination of the vaccine by serious infectious agents from the growth of bacteria. Thimerosal also has a stabilizing effect on the vaccine, ensuring its effectiveness.
• The seasonal flu vaccine and most hepatitis B vaccines are also multi-dose vaccines, and thimerosal is added during the manufacturing process to maintain sterility of the vaccine.
• There is no safety reason to avoid using vaccines containing thimerosal. The best available scientific evidence to date shows no link between vaccines containing thimerosal and any adverse health condition, including neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.
• The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) has reviewed the safety of thimerosal and concluded that, "There is no legitimate safety reason to avoid the use of thimerosal-containing products for children or older individuals, including pregnant women." International bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, share this opinion.
• Most of the H1N1 vaccine available in New Brunswick will also contain an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance that is added to a vaccine in order to boost an individual's immune response. It also means that less of the virus, or antigen, is needed to make a dose of the vaccine. Unadjuvanted vaccine has no booster element, and more antigen is needed to create this kind of vaccine.
• By developing an adjuvanted vaccine, Canada has used less of the virus material (antigen), allowing us to immunize more people in a timely manner.
• Adjuvants are not new. Many commonly used vaccines in Canada contain an adjuvant. Adjuvants have been used for several decades to boost immune response to vaccines. However, adjuvants have not previously been used with influenza vaccines in Canada.
• The WHO has indicated that it has no special concerns about the safety of adjuvanted H1N1 vaccines in general.
• New Brunswickers should continue to protect themselves and those around them by washing their hands thoroughly and often, coughing or sneezing into sleeves, staying home if sick, and keeping common surfaces clean.
• Persons at high risk of complications from influenza-like illness should seek medical attention promptly. Those at risk include pregnant women, people with underlying medical conditions such as diabetes, or those with compromised immune systems.
• Persons with influenza-like symptoms should stay home and minimize contact with family members as much as possible. If symptoms worsen, they should visit their physician or nurse-practitioner, a walk-in clinic or the nearest hospital emergency department.
• It is recommended that persons with influenza-like symptoms limit contact with other people, including other household members until they are free of symptoms and are feeling well.
• Those experiencing influenza-like illness should consider ending self-isolation when they are able to participate fully in all of their normal daily activities.
• It is important for New Brunswickers to understand that if they do not have influenza-like symptoms it is safe to go to work and school, to participate in activities and to socialize.
• More information on the H1N1 flu virus may be found online, or by calling the 24-hour H1N1 line, 1-800-580-0038.

• 09/10/08

  MEDIA CONTACT: Danielle Phillips, media relations, H1N1 Pandemic, Department of Health, 506-444-3821, flumedia@gnb.ca.

autism

Should Dr. Thomas Insel be Replaced as Chair of the IACC, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee?

It is clear that Dr. Thomas Insel will not permit the IACC to recommend funding of an observational study comparing autism rates of existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as called for by many parents and credible health care professionals. He claimed before Senator Harkin's committee that such a study could not be done, contrary to the opinion of many health care researchers including Dr. Alexander on the IACC.

Such a study could actually provide reliable information about the possible role played by vaccines in triggering autism. Dr. Insel has also downplayed the recent studies recently reporting a 50% increase in autism diagnoses over a two year period. This latest information brings the reported rates from 1 in 500 to 1 in 91 over a 10 to 15 year period. Despite this alarming trend Dr. Insel responds with speculation, unsupported by any studies, that the increase could be due to better ability to detect autism disorders.

Should Dr. Insel be replaced as Chair of the IACC, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee by someone who would take autism disorders seriously?

Offer your opinion here and vote in the poll on the sidebar of this site.

autism

Autism and H1N1 Vaccine Articles: Meagan Fitzpatrick Clarifies

I was quoted by Meagan Fitzpatrick of CanWest News Service in an article about autism and the H1N1 vaccine. 3 versions of the story appeared on line within 24 hours. I found this disturbing since the omission of information in the briefer versions, in my opinion, totally changed the story ... from one which was reasonably objective to one which followed the "Jenny McCarthy versus the scientists" script promoted by Dr. Paul Offit and other defenders of public vaccine programs who dismiss parental concerns. Ms Fitzpatrick called me, and at my request subsequently emailed me, to clarify her role and that of Canwest News Service:

Hi Mr. Doherty,

I would like to provide you with the link to the full story that was published by Canwest News Service related to the autism-vaccine debate.

I would also appreciate the opportunity to clarify that I did not, nor did Canwest News Service, publish different versions of the story. I write for Canwest News Service and when I file a story it is available for use by all of the publications that subscribe to our wire service. If different versions of the story appear either in the print or online versions of those publications it is because that individual publication edited it. It would be ideal for every publication to run my stories at their full length, but unfortunately that’s often not the case. It can be frustrating at times to see how my stories run in various publications. It appears that at least one newspaper published the autism story on its website that was only about half the length of the full article, and that is indeed unfortunate. I would encourage your blog readers to read the full article here:

http://www.canada.com/health/vaccine+rekindles+debate+over+connection+autism/2019601/story.html

Thanks very much,
Meagan Fitzpatrick

NOTES: (1) All three versions of Meagan Fitzpatrick's article were published under Canada.com logos. Canada.com, an internet portal, and Canwest News Service, are related media assets owned by Canwest Global Communications Corp.

(2) The mainstream media almost never mention that there are credible members of the scientific community who maintain that the science is not conclusive on these issues, that the studies relied upon by Dr. Offit and others do not address the impact of vaccines on vulnerable population subsets. The epidemiological studies to date do not even compare autism rates of existing unvaccinated to vaccinated populations, an observational study that could and should be done according to some prominent members of the scientific/health community (Dr. B. Healy, Dr. J. Gerberding, Dr. D. Alexander, Dr. J. Poling).

autism

List of Excuses for Recent Autism Rate Increase - Add Your Own

The incidence of autism spectrum disorder in eight-year-olds in the U.S. has risen by 50% since 2007, from one in 150 to one in 100, according to a CDC report that will be released later this year. However, the higher rate might not mean that more U.S. children have autism spectrum disorder, but instead that physicians' ability to detect the disorder is improving, according to Tom Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health.

California Healthline, October 5, 2009

It was completely predictable.

As soon as word began to circulate that studies announcing an increase in autism diagnoses from 1 in 150 to 1 in 100 or is it 1 in 91 you had to know that the usual excuses would be trotted out so that health authorities could continue to deny that there actually is an autism epidemic.

1. The 1994 DSM definition changes are STILL being used to explain a 50% increase in autism rates between 2007 and 2009.

2. Increased social awareness.

3. Alleged availability of autism services. Autism diagnoses provided so that patient can obtain autism services.

4. Greater ability to detect autism. Thank you Dr. Tom Insel.

If anyone has any other excuses being used to deny that autism is really increasing despite a 50% increase in two years feel free to offer them for this list. Maybe it is time to stop conducting such surveys if the people who actually provide the surveys and studies do not take them seriously.

autism

Autism Rate Now 1 in 100 but Nothing is Clear for Dr. Tom Insel

"It is not clear more children are affected rather than just changes in our ability to detect,"

Dr. Tom Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, LA Times, October 5, 2009

What is not clear is whether Dr. Tom Insel has informed the media that funding of the autism research that might "clear up" some of his confusion has been denied for the most part over the last 10 years and that he has played a significant part in ensuring that some of the possible factors or causes, such as vaccines, are not properly researched.

The man who is "not clear" over the reality of autism increases has played a key role in ensuring that any possible vaccine autism causal connection is not properly studied and has done nothing to reverse the grossly disproportionate funding of genetic autism research over environmental autism research. Environmental autism research might disclose causal factors or triggers of autism and might indicate, even to Dr. Tom Insel, that the increase is real and why it is happening.

What is not clear is why Dr. Tom Insel is director of the US National Institute of Mental Health and Chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Not clear at all.

autism

Michelle Dawson's False and Absurd Anti-Parent Rhetoric

I have always been amazed that any one takes seriously the absurd autism rhetoric of Michelle Dawson. She engages in angry rhetoric aimed at the parents who advocate for ABA intervention for their own children. And she is continuing to do do so with her most recent post on her blog site in which she falsely states that ABA advocates in Canada deny the humanity of autistic persons, including their own children. Ms Dawson's latest false and absurd rant can be found on her blog site in Autistic people are persons: An anniversary where she states:

"In ABA-related litigation, autism advocates have used Canada's major human rights laws, including our highest law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to deny the humanity, personhood, equality and human rights of most autistics in Canada.

This wholesale denial and dehumanization is exemplified in the Auton and Wynberg trial decisions. These two decisions have been universally revered and promoted by autism advocates, as representing what autistics deserve.

Autism advocates also universally opposed my intervention in Auton, which sought to inform the Supreme Court of Canada that, contrary to the positions of both sides, autistics are human beings with human rights, and this status should not be denied to most autistics in Canada."

Contrary to Ms Dawson's nonsensical rhetoric Canadian ABA advocates, meaning Canadian parents seeking ABA services for their own autistic children, have never advocated for those services on the basis that their children, or any autistic persons, are not human beings. Ms Dawson has never published a single statement that I have seen where any parent or other ABA advocate, or any party involved in the Auton or Wynberg cases, has ever done so by denying that their children were not human or did not enjoy human rights. To the contrary their claims have been advanced on the basis that their children's basic human rights include the right to treatment for their medical disorders, their autism disorders.

Michelle Dawson also wrongly claims that the CHRT decision in which some of her complaints against Canada Post were accepted, and others dismissed, established that autistic persons were human beings with basic human rights. That is not a correct interpretation of the decision.

In Canada a Court, or a Tribunal, has authority to decide the issues that are properly before it based on the facts and the positions taken by the parties. The issue of whether autistic persons were "persons" with equality before the law, and with basic human rights, was not before the Tribunal in the case of Dawson v Canada Post. What was before the Tribunal were Ms Dawson's allegations that as an employee of Canada Post she had been discriminated against, harassed and suffered retaliation as a result of her disability ... which in her case was her "autism".

All Canadians by definition under our Constitution are persons enjoying equality before the law and basic human rights. Our Charter of Rights and our various Human Rights statutes all recognize the right of every Canadian to enjoy protection against discrimination on a variety of grounds including that of disability, the ground on which Ms Dawson's claim proceeded.

Furthermore, as would be expected, Canada Post did not take, or argue, the absurd position that autistic persons are not persons, or that they do not enjoy basic human rights. Since the matter was not in issue a gratuitous remark by the Tribunal member who decided her case that he agrees that autistic persons are persons does not mean that the decision itself established that autistic persons are persons. It did not have to be decided based on Canadian law or based on the arguments in that specific case. The comment was obiter dicta, outside the scope of what had to be decided in the case.

Michelle Dawson continues to falsely claim that Canadian parents advocating for ABA services for their autistic children are denying their basic humanity. She is wrong and she is doing a disservice to autistic children by interfering with parents' efforts to help their children. It is she who is denying a basic element of the humanity of autistic children ... the right recognized by the United Nations to enjoy the fullest protection and assistance their parents can provide.

autism

Autism and ABA - Edward K. Morris Accuses Morton Ann Gernsbacher of Misrepresenting ABA

WOW! I am not a fan of Morton Ann Gernsbacher and her positions on ABA and autism but I have never seen anyone thoroughly, systematically and candidly dissect and demolish her criticisms of ABA as Edward K. Morris of the University of Kansas has done in an article published in The Behavior Analyst and posted at Paul Coyne's site. The title of the article gets right to the point: A Case Study in the Misrepresentation of Applied Behavior Analysis in Autism: The Gernsbacher Lectures. Morris pulls no punches and states with respect to Gernsbacher's ABA criticisms that :

Sentiment against applied behavior analysis is not, of course, necessarily anti science. No matter what Gernsbacher’s sentiments may be, her achievements are anything but anti science.What stunned me, then, was how she reached her conclusions: She inaccurately represented research reviews, wrongly characterized applied behavior-analytic interventions, misleadingly appealed to history, inaccurately conveyed research designs, selectively omitted research results, and incorrectly interpreted intervention outcomes. Although misrepresentations often only a minor nuisance in science, they can have harmful consequences, which I believe hers did (and do), both locally and more broadly.

The local consequences included misinforming KU’s community members about ABA-EIBI; hundreds of KU students about a science of behavior and its application; current and prospective ABS majors about course of study at KU (and careers); and KU staff, faculty, and administrators about scholarship in a department renowned for its research in applied behavior analysis. The broader consequences include Gernsbacher’s probable influence on behavioral, social, and cognitive scientists who teach, conduct research, and provide services in autism; funding agencies and foundations who set priorities and allocate resources for autism research and applications; and state and federal agencies that set standards for autism services and funding. She has standing and stature in most, if not all, of these venues: in APS, of course, but also in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), where she is a psychology section member at large, and in the National Science Foundation (NSF), where she is on the Advisory Committee for the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. Although Gernsbacher surely gained these highly respected positions by conducting first-rate science, the hallmarks of her science were largely absent in this section of her lecture.

Morris sent a copy of his critique of her ABA positions to Gernsbacher before publishing the article. Morris reports that after she received the article Gersnbacher continued to make the same misrepresentations of ABA which ... if she read the article ... might suggest that she did so knowingly. He invited her to participate in a symposium on the evidence for the efficacy of ABA- EIBI. She declined.

Morris offers his primary rationale for his devastating critique of Gernsbacher's ABA criticisms:

Mainly, though, I wrote it for the families of children with autism and, ultimately, for those children who need and deserve evidence-based treatments, of which ABA-EIBI so far has the best support. Unfortunately, many parents are dissuaded from using it by misinformed, misguided, or misleading advocates of other approaches. As a result, they often use these approaches until they see their children’s poor progress. When they begin using ABA-EIBI to good effect, they speak of their great regret and guilt for not having used it earlier, when their children had the most to gain and the most time to make those gains. The opportunity cost of not using ABA-EIBI, or any equally effective intervention, is that their children will be delayed in achieving their full potential or never achieve it at all. As a result, their children will need more supportive services and institutionalization later into their lives and perhaps for the rest of their lives at significant personal and social costs to them, and financial costs to us all. This is a crime.

autism

Autism Rate Now 1 in 100: Here Comes the Diagnostic Change Excuse Yet Again

The CDC is now revising its autism rate figure from 1 in 150 to 1 in 100. Watch for the usual bright lights to trot out the 1994 DSM definition change to rationalize this very dramatic increase in autism rate estimates. From 1 in 500 to 1 in 250 to 1 in 166 to 1 in 150 to 1 in 100.

Amazingly the same factors - diagnostic definition change, increased social awareness etc are trotted out each time to deny that autism is really increasing. This happens almost as soon as the estimate is changed and without any science to back up the claim. Anything as long as we can deny that autism rates are really increasing.

Amazingly, US Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius has, according to the Age of Autism, called for more genetic as opposed to environmental autism research to explain the increase.

Incredible. Someone should change her talking points.

autism

ASAN's Autism Spectrum Takeover: Disempowering the Severely Autistic

ASAN is an acronym for an organization called the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. It's board of directors consists of persons self described as persons "on the autism spectrum". The founding president is Ari Ne'eman a university student who has declared to the world that "WE" don't want to be cured". Who is included in Mr. Ne'eman's Royal We is not entirely clear although it certainly does not include my son on whose behalf Mr. Ne'eman definitely does not speak. Essentially ASAN is comprised of a group of persons with Aspergers and HFA diagnoses, and others who identify with the Autism Spectrum and who purport to speak on behalf of all persons "on the spectrum". Although it purports to speak on behalf of all persons on the spectrum ASAN actually objects to truthful depictions of those suffering from the realities of classic, severe, autistic disorder diagnoses.

Other than its university student president the ASAN Board of Directors comprises other persons "on the spectrum" who are lawyers, computer science and information technology graduates. One who claims to have an autism diagnosis is a lawyer, married with two children and gainfully employed in the publishing industry. These people have nothing in common with the autistic persons who can not communicate or have very little communication ability, with or without technology. They have nothing in common with those autistic persons who live in institutional care.

The ASAN Directorate, understandably given its members impeccable academic and professional credentials, objects to any negative depictions of autism disorders. The ASAN directors and members want to redefine autism. They do not want to be identified with the many persons with Autistic Disorder who are intellectually impaired or otherwise severely challenged. They find offensive any mention of the challenges faced by families or society in caring for the severely autistic. ASAN has organized public protests and petitions to oppose any negative depiction of autism spectrum disorders. It's most recent victims were the parents who produced the "I Am Autism" video through Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks "kowtowed" (as described by Jonathan Mitchell of Autism's Gadfly) before ASAN's pressure. Autism Speaks effectively abandoned those parents and the severely autistic in favor of the academic and professional persons on ASAN's autism spectrum.

ASAN expressly subscribes to a social model of autism. That is to say that it does not see autism disorders (it does not use the term disorders to describe the conditions of those on the "Spectrum") as medical disorders at all even though some of them have medical diagnoses of unspecified Pervasive Developmental Disorders. ASAN objects to the notion of curing autism.

You will find no mention of the severely autistic on the ASAN web site. You will find no mention of Autistic Disorder. You will find no mention of the fact that many persons with Autistic Disorder also have serious intellectual deficits. Autism disorders are never mentioned in negative terms. You will see rationalizations and even glorification of some of the deficits associated with life "on the spectrum".

On the ASAN web site you will see an article, About Autism, borrowed from Change.org's autism (neurodiversity) page which does not refer to intellectual or other deficits. Instead it describes different sensory experiences, non-standard ways of learning and approaching problem solving, deeply focused thinking and passionate interests in specific subjects, atypical, sometimes repetitive, movement, difficulties in understanding and expressing language as used in typical communication and difficulties in understanding and expressing typical social interaction.

Those with severe autistic disorder, those autistics with intellectual deficits, those who live in institutions do not exist on the ASAN "spectrum". The severely autistic are being disempowered ... by an organization which defines autism in terms of the self images of the high functioning professionals and university students who comprise the ASAN leadership.

To the extent that ASAN suppresses free expression of the realities of the severely autistic it is acting contrary to the interests of the severely autistic. ASAN's leaders are disempowering and oppressing the very people who, unlike ASAN's leaders, would have been diagnosed as autistic under the DSM III.

ASAN is effectively engaged in the takeover of the Autism Spectrum.

autism

William Stillman's Autism Nonsense

I am not going to say too much about William Stillman's view of autism except to say that it is nonsense.

As the father of a 13 year old boy diagnosed with Autistic Disorder, a boy who is profoundly developmentally delayed I have experienced the realities of severe autism first hand. I have seen self aggression by the boy that I love. I have experience the fear of his wandering off into busy streets. I have seen children his age grow in their understanding of the world, leaving him far, far behind. I have struggled to communicate with him and to teach him to communicate. As an autism advocate I have visited institutional facilities and seen the realities of life for the adult autistic persons living therein. I would never dream of mouthing the type of nonsense that I find in the words of William Stillman in his article Everyone Has Autism : "The curious thing is we all have autism to one degree or another"

If you connect on the above link you will see many instances where Mr. Stillman finds instances of what he calls autism in common everyday experiences. I am sure that if you take Mr. Stillman's logic and applied it to any disorder you could say that we are all bipolar or schizophrenic, obsessive compulsive, etc. Pick your disorder and we all exhibit some trait of any disorder, and we are all therefore bipolar, schizophrenic etc. to some extent.

Mr. Stillman makes no mention in his article of the very real challenges faced by persons with actual Pervasive Developmental Disorders, particularly the challenges faced by people like my son Conor who is actually diagnosed with Autistic Disorder and assessed with profound developmental delays.

Mr. Stillman's article is nonsense. Pure babbling nonsense. Amazingly, he actually copyrights this nonsense. Even more amazing is that, apparently, he is both consultant and speaker about autism, someone who, presumably, is paid by someone to help their autistic child or to appear before audiences and present such nonsense for a fee.

Incredible.

autism

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

Autism and Vaccines - Excellent Commentary at Biology in Action

On the Biology in Action site Rebecca Baker, a biology student, offers an excellent commentary on vaccines and autism "Vaccines and Autism: Many Hypotheses, But No Correlation Found" making a point with which I am in complete agreement - there is a need for more research on the issue.

On one side the commentary is a bit shallow focusing on Jenny McCarthy but not mentioning Dr. Bernadine Healy or the Poling and Banks cases ( as the mainstream media also does). BUT in exploring the other side of the debate the blog author does not give Dr. Paul Offit the free ride he gets from the mainstream media and from "autism is beautiful", Offit worshipping blogs like Left Brain/Right Brain:

Based on the radically different studies on the topic, I think that this debate has just begun. More research must be done in order to come to a definite conclusion. While reading the article I found, I had several questions. Whenever Dr. Offit was discussing one of the hypotheses, he stated that he analyzed several studies that refuted the idea. He never specified which studies he looked at. It seemed as though he did not provide enough evidence to support his findings. Also, if some children show severe reactions to the vaccines, is it not possible some kids are allergic to the vaccinations, as I am to penicillin? Because I am not convinced by both sides of the argument, more research must be conducted.

The vaccine-autism debate could use more balanced, common sense commentary like that by Ms Baker at Biology in Action.

autism

Has Autism Speaks Abandoned Severely Autistic Persons and Their Families?

I am not an Autism Speaks basher.

I have criticized specific decisions it has made such as the funding of research by Dr. Laurent Mottron who believes that the idea of curing autism is nonsense. I am appreciative though of the great work Autism Speaks has have done in raising awareness of autism around the globe including its work, in conjunction with the State of Qatar, in creating World Autism Awareness Day. A couple of days ago I thanked Autism Speaks on this blog site for the I Am Autism video which speaks some of the harsher truths about autism, particularly the severe ... and original ... autism.

But Jonathan Mitchell, at Autism's Gadfly, and Roger Kulp, who commented on this site, are correct. Autism Speaks has "kowtowed" to the Neurodiversity movement led by a gentleman with Aspergers and some Aspergers and High Functioning Autism followers. Autism Speaks has removed the I Am Autism Video from their main web site pages.

The barely autistic have once again succeeded in suppressing free expression about the harsher truths of autism, the harsher realities confronting those who would be classified as autistic BEFORE the DSM definition was expanded to include those with good or excellent intelligence, good command of language and who can have good social skills. These are the people who rise up in protest and condemn parents such as those who actually created the "I Am Autism Video" ... because they dared speak the truth. They are the people who do not want the world to know about the original, now barely visible, autistics with severe autism challenges.

Autism Speaks did not stand behind the parents who created the Autism Speaks video. By "kowtowing", as Autism's Gadfly put it, Autism Speaks has taken a huge step toward abandoning the severely autistic and their families. I have been a supporter of Autism Speaks but that support is beginning to fade as this once helpful organization aligns itself with those who do harm to the interests of the severely autistic that Autism Speaks once helped.

autism

Redefining Autism: Should the Autism "Spectrum" Concept be Abandoned?

Should the concept of an autism "spectrum" of disorders be abandoned?

The DSM III originally included strict criteria for Kanner's infantile autism. These strict criteria were relaxed in the DSM III-R which "broadened the concept of autism to include children who, although socially impaired, are not pervasively unresponsive to others(1)". Another huge expansion took place with the DSM IV inclusion of Asperger Disorder in the Pervasive Development Disorders category: "Asperger Disorder is characterized by the same types of social impairments seen in autism plus the development of very bizarre intense interests such as bus timetables, insects, meteorology, cartography, etc. It is distinguished from autism by the presence of normal cognitive development and the absence of clinically significant language delay. In other words, children with Asperger Disorder have normal IQ and usually are speaking in phrases by three years of age.(2)"

The PDD's have in common usage become referred to as Autism Spectrum Disorders and from there it has become common to refer to all forms of PDD's as "Autism". The expansion of the autism "spectrum" has been cited each time an increase in rates of autism diagnoses is reported. When my son was initially diagnosed in 1998 the figure of 1 in 500 persons having "autism" was commonly cited, then 1 in 250, 1 in 166, then 1 in 150 and soon the CDC is expected to fall in line with the UK figure of 1 in 100. Each time the estimate changes the expansion of the criteria for defining "autism" is trotted out to argue against the existence of a real increase in autism.

The expansion of the diagnostic criteria of "autism" disorders have become a useful tool for public health officials who wish to maintain the position that autism is entirely genetic, that there are no environmental causes and especially that autism can not be triggered by vaccines. It helps in justifying the enormous disparity in funding genetic autism research compared to environmental autism research. In 1999 Teresa Binstock reported the "it's gotta be genetic" paradigm of autism research funding. Ten years later Irva Hertz-Picciotto states that the discrepancy is still between 10 or 20 to 1 in favor of genetic over environmental autism research funding. The expanded definition explanation has been used, used again, and again in justifying the argument that there is no real increase in autism increase, that autism is entirely genetic.

The expanded definition of autism to include High Functioning Autism cases and Asperger Disorder creates confusion in the public mind over what constitutes autism and leads to conflict amongst persons affected by "autism". To many members of the public an autistic person is someone like Michelle Dawson, a former Canada Post postal worker who excelled in a very complex work environment, went on to become a researcher, appear before the highest court in Canada, before Human Rights Tribunals and in countless media interviews. They do not see the autistic person who can not speak OR communicate with assistive technology. The public does not see the persons with Autistic Disorder living their lives in institutional care.

Persons with Asperger and HFA often react to what they call negative depictions of autism which they no longer consider to be a medical disorder, equating autism with left handedness or homosexuality as differences not disorders. The recent anger amongst persons with HFA and Asperger Disorder over the "I Am Autism" video is directed at the depiction of some of the harsh realities that often accompany Autistic Disorder. These people do not want to be associated with intellectual deficits, serious behavioral issues or serious family or societal expense. It hurts and offends some with HFA and Aspergers to be compared to people with severe Autistic Disorder, people like my son.

The "spectrum" concept that helps create confusion also helps create some confusion in autism research. Researcher Dr. Laurent Mottron works almost exclusively with HFA/Asperger subjects and his research often been aimed at demonstrating the innate abilities of persons with HFA/Asperger Disorder. Historically Dr. Mottron was conscientious about pointing out that his subjects were persons with HFA/Asperger Disorder as opposed to persons with Low Functioning severe Autistic Disorder. Some recent studies have not made that distinction clear and his studies are also interpreted by many as applying to "autism" generally. It is difficult to compare autism studies or data over extended periods of time because of the different ways in which autism is referred to in the research literature with some making clear distinctions between low functioning Autistic Disorder and those with HFA or Aspergers while others simply refer to Autism.

One of the most bizarre consequences of the expanded definition of autism in the DSM-III R and DSM-IV is the attempt by some persons with Asperger Disorder to extinguish the right and responsibility of parents to speak on behalf of their autistic children or to seek treatment and cure for their children. The "Autism" Self Advocacy Network is led by Ari Ne'eman a very high functioning person with Asperger Disorder whose disorder would not have been included in the "autism" spectrum in the DSM-III or the DSM-III-R.

Why Mr. Ne'eman and his followers are not content to call themselves the Asperger Self Advocacy Network is not clear. Why this very high functioning person with Asperger Disorder feels that it is legitimate for him to speak on behalf of all persons with Autism Disorders of any type and declare that they do not want to be cured is not clear. Why he, and his followers, feel it necessary to lobby against any negative depiction of autism is not clear. Why he, and his followers, feel that they have the right to dictate to parents that they should not seek to treat or cure their own children of a severe neurological disorder is not clear.

What is clear is that the Pervasive Development Disorder category of the DSM has morphed into the Autism Spectrum and from there to "autism" and this has not been helpful.

Maybe it is time to abandon the Autism "Spectrum" and establish two separate categories with Autistic Disorder comprising classic autism while HFA and Aspergers Disorder are placed together in one category .... Aspergers Disorder.

Or perhaps a better solution to the Autism Spectrum confusion would be to abandon the spectrum concept altogether by removing HFA and Asperger Disorder from the DSM leaving only Autistic Disorder as a category for those with severe or low functioning autism. Many persons with HFA and Aspergers argue that they do not have a medical disorder at all. Maybe it is time to acknowledge their arguments, remove Asperger Disorder from the DSM, and go back to the DSM III criteria for Infantile Autism or Autistic Disorder.

autism

Thank You Autism Speaks for I Am Autism

Autism Speaks, with its brutally honest new video "I Am Autism", has broken Commandment #6 of Neurodiversity's Ten Autism Commandments which forbids any negative depictions of autism.

The information in the video is not presented delicately but the challenges faced by persons with severe autism and their families are depicted honestly, perhaps too honestly for many. But the people most upset by this video are those who subscribe to the belief that autism is not a disorder but rather something to be celebrated.

My son Conor is severely autistic and he and our family have experienced many of the challenges featured in I Am Autism. I applaud Autism Speaks for breaking the absurd taboo against speaking the truth about autism disorders imposed by those who do not share the realities of severe autism; people like Ari Ne'eman, the very high functioning, intelligent person with Aspergers who does not share the challenges of persons with severe Autistic Disorder. These "Autism" Self Advocates and Neurodiversity ideologues protest because they have essentially co-opted autism disorders since the expansion of the DSM criteria in 1994. They like to call themselves "autistics" and "auties" but they do not want to acknowledge the harsher realities of the severely autistic. The severely autistic are shunted into the closet of suppressed speech where they can remain invisible and not offend the sensibilities of the HFA/Aspergers leaders of the self advocacy movement.

I will speak the truth about autism and I will not be cowed by those who have it much better than my son. I find the continuing attempt to suppress the truth about autism to be offensive and a violation of my son's most basic rights of expression through me and others who speak honestly about his condition.

Thank You Autism Speaks for speaking the truth about autism ... the real autism.

autism

Yes Mom I REALLY Am Taller Than You

Conor leaves no room for doubt. He really is taller than Mom. And at 13 he has lots of time to zoom by Dad too.

autism

Autism Redefined

The Neurodiversity people have been very successful at redefining the word Autism. The word now means "exceptional intelligence." If an autistic child suffers any deficit at all, it's a "comorbid" condition.

Tony Tamer, British Columbia Autism Advocate

autism

Conor Lowers the Canadian Flag On a Brisk Fall Friday Afernoon

It was Freaky Friday weather wise with rain to start the day turning to sun with a good breeze and sunshine turning back to rain and so on. But the weather was just right when Conor ended his school day with one of his favorite activities, lowering the flag, the Canadian Flag, his favorite.

autism

Autism Myth Making and Sloppy Autism Journalism at the UK Guardian

The UK Guardian is practicing sloppy autism journalism, peddling as fact the speculation that Mozart, Orwell, Einstein, Beethoven and Newton were autistic:

"Mozart, Orwell, Einstein, Beethoven and Newton all had it, and now new research funded by the Department of Health shows that one in every 100 adults has it too – autism, that is."

These historical figures all lived before autism disorders were recognized as medical conditions and none of them were diagnosed during their life times by a treating medical professional. But it makes for a good article intro line. Mozart may have been eccentric but he also lived out his career in a very demanding, highly social environment, married and had several children. So where is the autism?

Autism Speaks is currently being ripped by the persons with Asperger's Disorder who purport to speak on behalf of all persons with ASD's, including those like my severely autistic son with Autistic Disorder, because of a new video which portrays autism disorders in a negative light. Speculation about historical figures who might have been autistic is fine though as long as they were extremely intelligent or talented.

The UK Guardian is happy to practice sloppy autism journalism to accommodate those whose agenda focuses on recasting autism, changing public perception of it from the disorder which restricts the lives of so many of our children, to a blessing in disguise. Maybe the UK autism "journalists" should join my CBC friends in visiting an institution where some persons with actual, severe autism disorders spend their lives. Maybe then both institutions of journalism would cease glorifying what for many is a severe, life limiting disorder.

autism

Why the Big Pharma, Pro-Vaccine Cult is Losing the Vaccine-Autism War

Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People

If you support vaccine programs as important public health tools then you are probably insulted, and not persuaded at all, by the title of this blog comment. If anything you will have dug in your heels in opposition to anything further that I might have to say. I doubt that Dale Carnegie would try to persuade people with opposing views to change their mind by insulting them.

Yet, that is exactly what is done every day by media editorial writers, bloggers and even health care professionals who dismiss parents concerned about vaccines being injected into their own children as hysterical. Anyone who asks questions about vaccine safety is branded as a nut, a hysterical parent, ignorant and ill informed, a conspiracy theorist etc. Is it any wonder that parents are not persuaded by such obvious attempts to marginalize them, to dismiss them and their concerns, to insult them?

Directly related to the use of insults to marginalize parents is the disregard for parents direct observation of what is happening to their children. Science, to this layperson anyway, must rely on actual observation as a basis for its method. No one has more direct, prolonged opportunity to observe their children then the parents who live with and care for those children. Yes, other issues arise because of the intensity of that emotional connection but the fact remains that it is parents, not Paul Offit, who actually observes their children, see them progressing and enjoying the milestones typically involved in infant development. It is parents who witness their children regress into autism disorders after vaccination that are in the best position to assess what has happened to their child.

The parents observations are, contrary to some statements that there is no evidence of vaccine autism links, exactly that. This direct observation does constitute evidence, albeit anecdotal evidence, that vaccines caused or contributed to their children's' autism disorder. Dismissing these observations as coincidence is not persuasive unless YOU can prove that it is a coincidence.

There have been a number of epidemiological studies done which are used to argue that science has conclusively disproved a vaccine autism link. Yet those studies have been subjected to what appears to be valid criticisms. The Danish study is perhaps the most notorious example. It compared autism rates before and after thimerosal was removed from vaccines in Denmark, Yet the study itself points out that the comparisons were questionable because of the different groups examined in the different time frames. The Danish study looked at autism rates in the period from 1972-2000. As everyone knows who argues against a real increase in autism rates, the diagnostic criteria for autism changed in the early 90's making it difficult to draw firm conclusions from that study. Perhaps equally as negative about the Danish study is that it was conducted after serious prodding by American health authorities who wanted to dispel a vaccine autism connection.

The epidemiological studies are observational. They do not test an hypothesis in a controlled experiment. No observational studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations have been conducted despite existing unvaccinated populations and despite calls for such a study from parents and professionals concerned about possible vaccine autism connections. Dr. Insel did not persuade any persons with vaccine and autism concerns that vaccines are not connected to autism when he appeared before Senator Harkin's committee and declared that an observational study comparing autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations could not be done. His statement was directly contrary to those of Dr. Bernadine Healy (former NIH head), Dr. Julie Gerberding (former CDC director) and Dr. Duane Alexander, a member of the IACC to the effect that such a study COULD be done. Dr. Healy and Dr. Gerberding have both said that such a study SHOULD be done. When public health authorities refuse to undertake credible research to examine the vaccine autism issue and yet state to the media that the matter is closed, that science has determined the issue conclusively and for all time, their credibility is undermined, their ability to convince concerned parents is weakened.

Dr. Healy, in calling for more research on vaccine autism issues, has pointed out that the epidemiological studies are not specific enough to address vulnerable population subgroups. The Poling case is a perfect example of the validity of that criticism. Not all people are constructed the same. The effect of a vaccine on one person may not be the effect of a vaccine on another. In the Poling case autism resulted from the impact on the child's mitochondrial disorder. Dr. Healy has called for a variety of studies to examine further the vaccine autism issue. Yet her name rarely appears in media summaries of the issue which prefer to paint the issue as Jenny McCarthy against the scientists.

If public health authorities want to restore public trust in vaccines they should do the research that Dr. Healy has called for. They should conduct the observational study comparing existing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations and stop pretending that it can not be done. They should stop pretending that science has conclusively decided the issue when too many people know that not to be true and refuse to be bullied and intimidated. Public health authorities should not be afraid to do more homework to ensure that the chemical and biological concoctions they are insisting people inject into their children are safe in all instances.

If public health authorities want to restore public trust in vaccines and convince us all that vaccines do not cause or contribute to autism they should stop condescending. They should start treating parents like what they are in this matter ... the front line researchers whose observations are invariably the first stage in recognizing and understanding autism disorders in their children. They should start treating those parents with the respect they deserve. Their failure to do so to date has been the biggest reason why they are failing to convince some parents that vaccines are safe. It is the biggest reason the public health authorities are losing the battle to restore public confidence in the safety of vaccines. If you don't believe me, check with Dale Carnegie. He left us with some notes on the subject.

autism