Edited by author 07-06-2007 06:09 PM
Not too bad Science News article about our Raven paper http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070707/fob4.asp

I spoke with the reporter (Bruce Bowen) for a while, mostly in response to his queries about the weak central coherence hypothesis (which is mentioned in our paper). His interpretation of what I said is, uh, interesting. I remember I briefly described our block design paper (which is referred to in the Raven paper) to help him understand the idea of cognitive versatility in autism.

The paper from Uta Frith's group he mentions is also cited in the Raven paper (and is described a bit in the learning chapter) and is a sterling example of how autistic strengths are interpreted as being evidence of serious pathology. In this case (Scheuffgen et al., 2000), it was found that autistics perform spectacularly well on a test (of visual inspection time) related to intelligence. This was interpreted to mean that we have a gigantic social deficit.

Article in Science News:
Hidden Smarts: Abstract thought trumps IQ scores in autism, re Mottron and Dawson, comments by Uta Frith and Helen Tager-Flusberg.

Oops, I posted too late!

Edited by author 07-07-2007 07:12 AM
The Canadian city with the most sunshine year-round is Medicine Hat, Alberta. The city with the least sunshine year-round is Prince Rupert, BC. See http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/weather/winners/winners-e.html.

Montreal is the "quintessential city for Canadian weather." It "experiences a little bit of almost every Canadian weather condition." See http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/weather/winners/all-season-city-e.html.

One of my siblings was born in Medicine Hat. I was born in Edmonton. Of the provinces, Saskatchewan gets the most sun, and Alberta is second (see http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/weather/winners/sunniest-e.html ).

Hmmm, I'd say that Montreal experiences "a whole lot" of almost every Canadian weather condition (the flood of 1987 and the ice storm of 1998 spring to mind). Anyone who expects Montreal not to have weather extremes is in for a surprise.

Autistics are taking over the known world, says the Guardian http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...s&feed=networkfront

We're up to 1 in 58, they say. The paper which reports this is not published yet.

This finding belongs to Prof Baron-Cohen, who's had trouble with epidemiology before (he's the one Eric Fombonne described as a Texas sharpshooter; Fombonne, 2003). I'd really want to see his methodology and data, before making a whole lot of comments.

SBC is apparently alarmed by his own data:

"He was so concerned by the one in 58 figure that last year he proposed informing public health officials in the county."

So they could, what, order an evacuation? Call in the army?

The Guardian reports that the children in SBC's study were "at primary school in Cambridgeshire between 2001 and 2004," so it's possible their birth years would not be later than 1998 or so (I'm assuming primary school starts around age 6yrs in the UK and I could be totally wrong about that). There's at least the possibility that SBC's study would overlap in time with the 2nd Chakrabarti & Fombonne (2005) paper, where the birth years were 1995-1998, and the prevalence found was 1 in 170.

Dr Wakefield speaks http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2121522,00.html Another Guardian (or Observer, aren't they the same?) article, this one featuring an interview with Dr Wakefield before his disciplinary hearing (at the General Medical Council) begins.

Dr Wakefield says what you'd expect him to (he is a faultless saint who only wants to rescue ruined children), but I was surprised that the NAS is on the fence about the MMR, as appears to be claimed here:

"Interestingly, the charity does not adhere to the medical consensus which categorically rejects any link between MMR and autism. 'The NAS is keenly aware of the understandable concerns of parents surrounding suggested links between autism and the MMR vaccine,' says a spokeswoman."

The journalist describes autism this way,

"Autism baffles science. Unlike diseases - and autism is a neurological condition, not a disease - few experts would claim to know exactly what causes it, much less treat it."

I'm not sure "science" can be baffled, but regardless of noticing that autism isn't a disease, the journalist calls us "sufferers." [sigh] The journalist also forgets to mention that after Japan stopped using the MMR, the apparent rate of autism increased (Honda et al., 2005).

I think this is a bit misleading also,

"An editorial in the New Scientist magazine has expressed alarm over the implications of the GMC's action for health professionals' freedom to raise questions about possible safety flaws. 'The notion that he should have kept quiet is ludicrous: there are too many cases where doctors' concerns have proved correct, such as their fears over the impact of antidepressant drugs on children.'"

Raising questions and concerns is one thing. Ethical violations and violations of standards of medical practice that may harm actual humans (including children) are another. I don't think the New Scientist would argue that ethical and medical standards should be jettisoned in the case of autistics, though this is what Dr Wakefield's many admirers and supporters (there's a petition somewhere and parents are planning on holding demonstrations) are demanding.

Regarding the latest in the guardian/observer.

The Guardian is a daily newspaper published Monday to Saturday. It owns the Observer - a Sunday newspaper. The articles were published today in the Observer.

The age range for primary education in England is 5 to 11. Children usually start school in the academic year (commences Sepember 1st) in which they have their 5th birthday. So children born between 1 September 1996 and 31 August 1997 would be eligible to start school during the 2001-2002 academic year. So a child who was 4 on August 31st could start school the next day. But a child who was 4 on September 1st would have to wait until the following Setember to start school. Legally, compulsory schooling begins in the school term after the child's 5th birthday. In practise most parents put their child into school at the earliest opportunity.

Primary education covers infant and junior schools. Infant schools or infant departments in all-age primary schools cater for 5 to 7 year olds. Junior schools or departments cater for 8 t 11 year olds.

The dates in the newspaper indicate a three year cohort which suggests that the study was done in infant schools. That would also explain the low numbers - 12000 children. An earlier study in Cambridgeshire of 5 to 11 year olds covered a population of 43,472.
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/p...etal_Prevalence.pdf

So we have a rate of 57 in 10000 in the 5 to 11 year olds in Camridgeshire schools in July 1999. I am surmising that the same researchers went back to the same schools and, presumably applied the same methodology to all the 5 to 7 year olds in Cambridgeshire schools in July 2004 and found a rate of 178 in 10000.

Given the MMR spin being put on this story it is interesting to note that IF these figures are reliable they cover exactly those children who were least likely to get the MMR after Wakefield's allegations received widespread publicity in 1998. When vaccination rates dropped there was an increase in autism. If we were to apply the same standards of scientific rigour as the anti-vaxers we would be using this to argue that MMR protects against autism!

Back in the real world the most striking parallels are with Chakrabarti and Fombonne's studies in Stafford. They cover similar populations in similar areas over similar time scales and show virtually no change in prevalence over time - 62 in 10000 in 2001 and 58 in 10000 in 2005.

So what is going on in Cambridgeshire? There are a number of possible confounds.
The high profile of the Autism Research Centre under Simon Baron-Cohen may attract parents of autistic children to the county.
The disproportionately large academic population may harbour more high functioning/Asperger types than the general population.
Being constantly surveyed by Baron-Cohen's team may produce study fatigue in schools where autism is not perceived as a major issue.
Conversely, schools that are pro-active about autism and attract more autistic pupils than their less responsive neighbours, are more likely to support research initiatives coming out of Cambridge University.

There is another possibility. Two of the authors of the unpublished study, Fiona Scott and Carol Stott were major recipients of fees from lawyers acting on behalf of the MMR litigants in the UK. Carol Stott works for Wakefield at his Thoughtful House clinic in Texas. Both continue to insist that MMR may be a factor in some cases of autism. There is a gratuitous reference to a book, as yet unpublished, by Richard Halvorsen, another recipient of fees as an expert witness in the UK's ill-fated MMR litigation.

So we have autism linked to MMR and a new 'epidemic' on the front page of the Observer. Inside we have a two page spread on Wakefield in the run up to his appearance before the GMC to face charges of professional misconduct over his behaviour during the MMR controversy. The only quotes from the NAS are from pages on their website. As far as I can ascertain, nobody from the observer contacted the NAS regarding this story. The quotes are taken from old articles on the website.

This suggests that Wakefield's supporters have succeeded in pulling off a PR coup in advance of the GMC hearings next week and we can expect more of the same in the UK mdia in the days ahead. Checkout this website that has just been launched
http://www.cryshame.net/

Sorry this is so long. I may turn it into a blog post unless somone beats me to it.

Thanks for all the info, Mike S.

I'm wondering if this pdf http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/S...ackToParents_v4.pdf from the ARC website describes SBC's new study. The authors (7 of them, including Scott and Stott) are consistent with the media reports, and so is the population base (~12,000), from which they received 3370 responses, from which they looked at about 170 kids (5%) "representing a range of scores on our questionnaire".

Using UK GP records (General Practice Research Database), Jick et al. (2005) showed a unique, high spike in autism diagnoses in 2-4yr old boys in 1999--the year after Wakefield and autism were all over the media. The authors wrote,

"This finding provides further credence to the proposition that the diagnosis of autism is influenced by clinical perception and awareness of the symptoms, as well as by the public pressure that characterizes the tendency to make this diagnosis."

Rapid responses to the hype about Wakefield in these blogs plus mine of course which contains active links to all of the following.
http://mikestanton.wordpress.com
Autism Diva, Autism Vox, BadScience, Black Triangle, LeftBrain/Right Brain, Public Address and Breath Spa for Kids

Edited by author 07-08-2007 06:28 PM
An update from Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comments (I hope that's the right link). He had written to Fiona Scott:

----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

Re: your comments on MMR and autism

Dr Scott,

I see from the Observer today that you draw a link between the increased prevalence of autism identified in the unpublished data from a recent unpublished ARC study, and the MMR vaccine.

Can I ask what are your reasons for making this link?

To be absolutely clear, I should say I am writing to you as a journalist,

Ben

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Dr Scott has now responded:

----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

I can respond to your question in terms of the following which will be the formal press release available from the National Autistic Society:

The Cambridge University Autism Research Centre have not yet released the findings from their prevalence study, as the study is not yet complete. The Cambridge researchers are surprised that an unpublished report of their work was described out of context by the Observer. They are investigating how this report was made available to the Observer. They are equally surprised that the Observer fabricated comments attributed to their team. They do not believe there is any link between rising prevalence and the MMR, or chemical toxins. It is untrue that Prof Baron-Cohen “was so concerned by the 1 in 58 figure that he proposed informing public health officials in the county“. Such journalism raises anxiety unnecessarily and is irresponsible."

--------------------------------------------------------- -----------------

Fiona Scott, who was "quoted" in the Observer article on MMR and autism has issued this retraction on Ben Goldacre's badscience blog.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#more-445

"I can respond to your question in terms of the following which will be the
formal press release available from the National Autistic Society:

"The Cambridge University Autism Research Centre have not yet released the
findings from their prevalence study, as the study is not yet complete. The
Cambridge researchers are surprised that an unpublished report of their work was described out of context by the Observer. They are investigating how this report was made available to the Observer. They are equally surprised that the Observer fabricated comments attributed to their team. They do not believe there is any link between rising prevalence and the MMR, or chemical toxins. It is untrue that Prof Baron-Cohen “was so concerned by the 1 in 58 figure that he proposed informing public health officials in the county “. Such journalism raises anxiety unnecessarily and is irresponsible."

Hi Michelle,
Snap!

Edited by author 07-08-2007 10:07 PM
"New fear over MMR link with rising autism" UK Telegraph story with irresponsible headline http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...07/09/nmedic109.xml includes Dr Scott's retraction, and an explanation for the 1 in 58 figure:

----------------------------------------------------------- --------------

Two of the seven experts who contributed towards the study, Dr Fiona Scott and Dr Carol Stott, are reported to have said in private that they thought the high figure could be linked to the use of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. However, last night Dr Scott denied this was the case.

She said the main purpose of the study was to look at how different methods of assessing the prevalence of autism could affect the final outcome.

She said the one in 58 figure was the highest out of three methods tested, and that the other two did not differ significantly from previous findings.

"The figure is one of several we researched," she said. "One of the elements of the research was how different methodologies can affect the result. One of the figures was one in 58. The other figures were lower than that.

"I absolutely do not think that the rise in autism is related to MMR. My own daughter is getting vaccinated with the MMR jab on July 17.

"My position is and always has been that if there are children who have been damaged by the MMR vaccine it is the same proportion of children who have been damaged by other vaccines."

She said she thought the MMR jab could cause a form a brain damage similar to autism in a "very, very small number of children".

---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

I'd like to see some evidence that the MMR has caused "a form" of "brain damage similar to autism" (I guess Dr Scott sees autism as brain damage? Or is it just the journalist again?). And isn't this ARC unpublished study showing, yet again, that the supposed "rise" in autism is related to (among other factors) changes in ascertainment and diagnostic methods and instruments (and standards)?

Hello Michelle;
I finally decided to redesign step by step the general look and feel of my home page and also tweaken some of my articles.
As you will notice I also removed the animated icons.

http://membres.lycos.fr/theandroiddata/panneaunavigation.htm

Emmanuël/Data

Hi Michelle

At least some of the comments on the Telegraph report are pointing out the obvious mistakes ;-)

I've blogged on all this stuff.
http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/2007/0...vine-excrement.html
It's not as polite and well written as Mike's post, as usual! But, I was so mad when I read the Observer article.