In This Edition

 

 

Are you receiving TACA's regional newsletters with information on local TACA meetings and events? We can't send it to you if we don't know where you are! Please Join TACA (it's free) or update your membership to include your location. If you include your mailing address, you'll receive TACA's print newsletter, Talking Autism.

Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) provides general information of interest to the autism community. The information comes from a variety of sources and TACA does not independently verify any of it. The views expressed herein are not necessarily TACA’s. TACA does not engage in lobbying or other political activities.

Return to
Newsletter
Navigation

TACA E-Newsletter

September 2009 #1

Here is your update on TACA (Talk About Curing Autism). If you are new to our site... WELCOME! This newsletter is produced two to four times each month.

We are an autism education and support group. We want to make this e-newsletter informative for you. As always, contact us your thoughts and/or questions so we can improve it.

We focus on parent information and support, parent mentoring, dietary intervention, the latest in medical research, special education law, reviews of the latest treatments, and many other topics relating to autism. Our main goal is to build our community so we can connect, share and support each other.

Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) provides general information of interest to the autism community. The information comes from a variety of sources and TACA does not independently verify any of it. The views expressed herein are not necessarily TACA’s.

1. Find a TACA Meeting

Come to a TACA Meeting!

TACA holds monthly meetings in many locations throughout the United States that feature educational speakers on important topics and allow family members to connect with one another and stay on top of the latest information in the autism world. Each TACA group maintains a resource library of the latest autism books and tapes that can be checked out by members at no charge.

Check out our group listings: each contains information on TACA meetings and special events as well as a contact form.

Are you wondering what happens at a TACA meeting? Watch our video.

2. Real Help Now Conference - Early Registration Ends Sept. 21!

Listen, Learn & Take Action for Your Child at the Real Help Now Conference

Saturday, October 3, 2009 • 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

Searching for and finding the right information to help your child can be overwhelming for families affected by autism. The Real Help Now Conference was developed to bring the latest information on medical, dietary and legal issues for children with autism, and most importantly, help parents through the often daunting process of determining how to organize and prioritize their intervention efforts.

The Real Help Now Conference will provide two important tools for translating the information gained from the speakers into action for your child:

1. Real Help Now Workbook with step-by-step processes to help you to determine appropriate interventions and timelines for taking action in the realms of medical and dietary intervention, education, finances and home life. (Sorry, this Workbook is only available at the conference.)

2. TACA parent mentors who have been there, done that. Our experienced mentors will be on hand to to work with you one-on-one to answer your questions and share what has worked for their child.

Whether you are just starting out on the autism journey or are an experienced parent, you will learn from nationally known experts about how you can help your child at the Real Help Now Conference. Our speakers include:

• Lisa Ackerman, TACA Founder & Executive Director
• Timothy A. Adams, Esq., special education attorney
• Lynne Arnold, TACA mom
• Koren Barett, ND, naturopath and DAN! doctor
• Michael Giammatteo, TACA dad
• Moira Giammatteo, TACA mom
• Jerry Kartzinel, MD, internationally known author, lecturer, and clinician
• Doris Rapp, MD, author of "Is This Your Child?"
• Cindy Schneider, MD, DAN! doctor

Register now online and save on early registration!

• Parent Registration: Individual, Couple with One Guide, Couple with Two Guides
• Professional Registration
• Exhibitor/Sponsor Opportunities

Complete conference information

3. Join Us for Coffee Talk!

Come and receive some extra support or to chat all topics related to autism and meet other TACA families at these informal, monthly get-togethers.

› Fultdondale, AL
› Huntsville, AL
› Bakersfield, CA
› Inland Empire, CA
› Orange County, CA
› Visalia, CA
› Indianapolis, IN
› Glen Burnie, MD
› Gaithersburg, MD
› Hamilton, NJ
› Las Vegas, NV
› Ardmore, PA
› Fitchburg, WI

4. 93.1 Jack FM & TACA Are Back for Jack's Fourth Show

Culver City - The Dumpy Little Building is again mildly ecstatic to tell you about JACK’S FOURTH SHOW! It’s JACK’s fourth concert (hence, the name) starring a bunch of bands and will be on stage for your viewing and listening pleasure Saturday, October 10, 2009 at Verizon Wireless Amphitheater in Irvine, CA.

• See ticket info at www.931jackfm.com
• Jack’s VIP Pit Tickets (similar to the first 3 shows) on sale September 28.

What has JACK FM & TACA accomplished together?

5. TACA and Howcast Team Up to Help Families Dealing with Autism

Do you know of a family with a newly diagnosed child with autism? Not sure how to help? If so, this may be just what you are looking for. Howcast teamed up with TACA to deliver this informative video, "How To Help A Child With Autism." This three-and-a-half minute video provides parents with strategies and resources to get their child on the path to improvement.

TACA was thrilled to partner with Howcast on this effort and believes this video falls in line with TACA's mission to speed up the cycle from autism diagnosis to effective treatments. Howcast is an amazing website that provides free how-to videos to its viewers. Learn more about Howcast.

6. Daily Autism Updates for Families

All news related to autism:  

For daily updates to all autism legislative issues: ChangeforAutism.org

AgeofAutism.com

7. ARI Seizure Survey

Dear TACA families,

In January 2009 ARI held a think tank on seizures, and in May 2009 Autism One held a complementary think tank on seizures. As a follow-up to those think tanks, Dr. Richard Frye is working with the attendees on a Consensus Paper on Seizures in Autism and How to Treat Them.

If your son/daughter (or you) suffer from seizures, we would like to ask you to fill out a survey created by Dr. Richard Frye with the help of Prof. James Adams, Science Coordinator of ARI/Defeat Autism Now. We think that this very detailed survey will provide a much richer understanding of the efficacy and possible side-effects of current treatments for seizures.

Please help us by filling out the survey if it applies to you, and by forwarding information about this survey to other autism groups.

You can access the survey at http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?E8CCA0BDEFA3B9B8

Thank you very much for helping us find answers to seizures in autism.

Sincerely,

Richard E. Frye, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.P.
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Neurology
University of Texas-Houston

James B. Adams, Ph.D.
Professor, Arizona State University
Science Coordinator, Autism Research Institute/Defeat Autism Now!

8. About Learning Disabilities: What's an Auditory Processing Disorder?

ADDitudeMag.com

If your child has problems understanding and following your directions, she may have CAPD - an often-overlooked learning disability.

by Anita Gurian, Ph.D. , Susan Schwartz

Do you sometimes feel that what you say to your child isn't sinking in? Does he often misunderstand you, have trouble following directions, or respond to your questions with "What?"

These are signs of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), a learning disability that impacts the brain's ability to filter and interpret sounds. Children with CAPD have a hard time receiving, organizing, and using auditory information. They're able to hear, but fall short at listening.

Pegging the problem CAPD usually shows up in the early grades, when children are required to become active listeners. Even before school age, however, there may be warning signs. A young child with CAPD is fidgety at story time and overwhelmed in noisy settings. Sound discrimination problems may cause him to mispronounce words. Later, he may have trouble with reading, which involves the manipulation of sounds.

If you suspect a problem with auditory processing: first have your pediatrician rule out hearing loss. Identifying CAPD requires tests by an audiologist, typically performed after age seven, when kids can understand the instructions. An evaluation should distinguish CAPD from ADHD and other disorders that share some of its symptoms. In some children, these disorders coexist - and learning more about learning disabilities is a must.

School strategies
These academic accommodations can be included in your child's Individualized Education Program.

A teacher can:

Improve classroom acoustics. CAPD makes it hard to screen out background noise. Adding bookshelves, carpeting, and drapes to a classroom absorbs the extra sound.

Provide attention prompts. Seat a child away from windows, doors, and other sources of distraction. Periodically touch her shoulder to remind her to focus. Streamline communication. Establish eye contact and insert pauses to allow time for sorting information. Ask questions to see if the child is following the lesson, and rephrase material that has been misunderstood.

Use visual aids. Jot instructions or key words on the board, and provide simple written or pictorial outlines.

Build in breaks. Children with CAPD have to work harder than other kids to pay attention, and may need more frequent downtime to consolidate information.

Use a microphone and headset. The teacher's voice is amplified through a microphone connected to the student's headset. This helps to focus attention on the teacher.

What parents can do: Many of the techniques described above are helpful at home as well as at school. Try these strategies, too.

Boost auditory attention with games and tapes. Games like Simple Simon teach a listening strategy and provide a chance to practice.

A story tape, such as Peter Pan, can have the same benefit. Each time Captain Hook sees the crocodile, have your child raise his hand.

9 Ways to Achieve Success at School Look ahead.
Go over the basic concepts and help your child learn any new words in upcoming lessons. Develop routines. Provide a structure to help your child focus in chaotic environments. Before going to his school locker, for instance, have him check his assignment book and list what he needs to take home. Above all, teach your child to create the conditions she needs for optimal listening. By the time she heads for high school, she should be well-armed with coping strategies.

Adapted from an article by Susan Schwartz and Anita Gurian, Ph.D., of the NYU Child Study Center in New York City. The entire article can be viewed at aboutourkids.org.

9. Why Current Thinking About Autism Is Completely Wrong

Huffington Post

Mark Hyman, MDPracticing physician and pioneer in functional medicine

"Autism is caused by poor mothering." That was the belief of the medical community until the late 1960s.

"Autism is a genetic brain disorder." That is what most people -- and most of the medical community -- believe today.

I'm here to tell you that neither one of these statements is true.

Think about it. Rates of autism have skyrocketed over the years, from an estimated 1 child in 3,000 to just 1 in 150 kids today. Sure, wider criteria for diagnosis and better detection might explain some of it -- but not an increase of this magnitude.

The real reason we are seeing increasing rates of autism is simply this: Autism is a systemic body disorder that affects the brain. A toxic environment triggers certain genes in people susceptible to this condition. And research supports this position.

Today I will review some of this research and explain how imbalances in the 7 keys systems of the body may be the real cause--and thus the real cure--of autism.

A New Understanding of Autism

Dramatic scientific discoveries have taken place during the last 10 to 20 years that reveal the true causes of autism -- and turn conventional thinking on its head. For example, Martha Herbert, MD, a pediatric neurologist from Harvard Medical School has painted a picture of autism that shows how core abnormalities in body systems like immunity, gut function, and detoxification play a central role in causing the behavioral and mood symptoms of autism.

She's also given us a new way of looking at mental disease (and disease in general) that is based on systems biology. Coming from the halls of the most conservative medical institution in the world, this is a call so loud and clear that it shatters our normal way of looking at things.

Everything is connected, Dr. Herbert says. The fact that these kids have smelly bowel movements, bloated bellies, frequent colds and ear infections, and dry skin is not just a coincidence that has nothing to do with their brain function. It is central to why they are sick in the first place! Yet conventional medicine often ignores this.

My friend and mentor, Sidney Baker, MD -- a pioneer in the treatment of autism as a body disorder that affects the brain -- often says, "Do you see what you believe or do you believe what you see?"

The problem in medicine is we are so stuck in seeing what we believe that we often ignore what is right in front of us because it doesn't fit our belief system. Nowhere is this true more than in the treatment of autism.

This is in the front of my mind, because I see so many behavioral symptoms in kids from learning disabilities to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and even autism.

And I see the rates of medication use skyrocketing for these kids -- from stimulants to anti-psychotics (one of the fastest growing drug categories) to anti-seizure medicine, and more. There is another way ... Let me tell you a story about a little boy I saw recently.

Sam's Case: Autism as a Systemic Disorder

Recently, a mother came to see me, desperate because her 2 1/2 year old son had just been diagnosed with autism.

Her son, Sam, was born bright and happy, was breast-fed, and received the best medical care available (including all the vaccinations he could possibly have). He talked, walked, loved, and played normally -- that is, until after his measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination at 22 months.

He received diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps and rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis A and B, influenza, pneumonia, hemophilous, and meningitis vaccines -- all before he was 2 years old. Then something changed. Vaccines may affect susceptible children through different mechanisms. In some it is overwhelming of an already taxed immune system with over 2 dozen vaccinations at a very young age, for some it is the thimerosal (ethylmercury) used as a preservative until recently in most vaccines (although it is still present in most flu vaccines).

He lost his language abilities and became detached. He was unable to relate in normal ways with his parents and other children. And he became withdrawn, and less interactive. These are all signs of autism.

Sam was taken to the best doctors in New York and "pronounced" as having autism, as if it were a thing you catch like a bug. His parents were told that nothing could be done except arduously painful and barely effective behavioral and occupational therapy techniques. The progress would be slow, and his parents should keep their expectations low, the doctor said. Devastated, the mother began to seek other options and found her way to me.

There is much to undo and peel away, like the layers of an onion. But treating autism as a body disorder that affects the brain gives us SO many other treatment choices. Children treated in this way can often have dramatic and remarkable -- if not miraculous -- recoveries.

Before I explain how I found the clues that gave me a means to treat Sam, let me remind you that the whole basis of functional and systems medicine is the concept of biochemical individuality.

That means that if you take 100 kids with autism, each one may have unique genetics, and unique causes or triggers for their autism and need very different treatments to get better. Autism is just a label. Like every condition or illness, the key is to dig into the layers and peel the onion to discover what is really happening. It is not usually one think but a collection of insults, toxins and deficiencies piled on susceptible genetics that leads to biochemical train wreaks we see in these children.

We have to pay close attention to what we see, and be ready to work with the unexpected according to the basic principles of systems biology and medicine (known as functional medicine).

That is what I did for Sam ...

When I first saw him, this little boy was deep in the inner wordless world of autism. Watching him was like watching someone on a psychedelic drug trip. So we dug into his biochemistry and genetics and found many things to account for the problems he was having.

He had very high level of antibodies to gluten. He was allergic not only to wheat, but to dairy, eggs, yeast, and soy -- about 28 foods in total.

He also had a leaky gut, and his gut was very inflamed. The immune system in his gut showed a high level of inflammation by a marker called eosinophil protein X. He had 3 species of yeast growing in his gut and no growth of healthy bacteria. Urine tests showed very high levels of D-lactate, an indicator of overgrowth of bacteria in the small intestine.

Sam was also deficient in zinc, magnesium, and manganese, vitamins A, B12, and D, and omega-3 fats. Like many children with autism, he had trouble making energy in his cells, or mitochondria.

His amino acids -- necessary for normal brain function and detoxification -- were depleted. And his blood showed high levels of aluminum and lead, while his hair showed very high levels of antimony and arsenic -- signs of a very toxic little boy. His levels of sulfur and glutathione were low, indicating that he just couldn't muster the power to detox all these metals. In fact, his genes showed a major weak spot in glutathione metabolism, which is the body's main antioxidant and major detoxification highway for getting rid of metals and pesticides.

Sam also had trouble with a key biochemical function called methylation that is required to make normal neurotransmitters and brain chemicals and is critical for helping the body get rid of toxins. This showed up as low levels of homocysteine (signs of problems with folate metabolism) and high methylmalonic acid (signs of problems with B12 metabolism). He also had two genes that set him up for more problems with this system.

Finally, he also had very high levels of oxidative stress or free radical activity, including markers that told me that his brain was inflamed and under free-radical fire.

This may all seem complicated, but it really isn't. When I see any patient, I simply work through the 7 keys to UltraWellness (based on functional medicine) to see how everything is connected, create a plan to get to the causes of the problems, and then help each patient deal with all the biochemical and physiological rubble that those causes have left along the road.

Having a roadmap, a new GPS system based on functional medicine and UltraWellness, makes this straightforward. You just take away what's bothering the patient. Give his body what it is missing and needs to thrive (based on the individual's biochemical uniqueness). Then the body does the rest.

Here is the roadmap I used to help Sam recover.

Sam's Roadmap to Recovery: A Model for Treating Autism

Step 1: Fix His Gut and Cool the Inflammation There

This step included a number of different tactics including:

• Taking away gluten and other food allergens

• Getting rid of his yeast with anti-fungals

• Killing off the toxic bacteria in his small intestine with special antibiotics

• Replenishing healthy bacteria with probiotics

• Helping him digest his food with enzymes

Step 2: Replace the Missing Nutrients to Help His Genes Work Better

In Sam's case we:

• Added back zinc, magnesium, folate, and vitamins A, B6, B12, and D

• Supported his brain with omega-3 fats

Step 3: Detoxify and Reduce Oxidative Stress

• Once his biochemistry and nutrition was tuned up, we helped him detoxify and reduce oxidative stress.

Improve nutrition, reduce inflammation, heal the gut, detoxify -- this should sound familiar.

As I said before, the keys of UltraWellness can help, no matter what the disease or condition. You see, biology has basic laws, which we have to follow and understand. All the details of Sam's story fit into these laws. We just have to dig deep, peel back the layers, and understand what is going on. When we do this the results are nothing short of miraculous ...

After following a gluten-free diet and treating his gut for 3 weeks, Sam showed dramatic and remarkable improvement. He's getting back much of his language skills and showing much more connection and relatedness in his interactions.

After 4 months, he was more focused, unstuck and verbal.

After 10 months, his bowels were back to normal, he was verbally fluent, mainstreamed in school and he "lost" his diagnosis of autism.

After 2 years all his abnormal tests were normal including the high metals, gut inflammation and damage to his mitochondria and free radicals.

And more importantly, the child was totally normal. Not every child has such a dramatic recovery but many improve, and some improve dramatically using the approach of functional or systems medicine.

Every child with behavior problems, ADHD, or autism is unique -- and each has to find his or her own path with a trained doctor. But the gates are open and the wide road of healing is in front of you. You simply have to take the first step.

Please visit the Defeat Autism Now website for more information on this subject, including resources and conferences for doctors and parents.

Now I'd like to hear from you...

Are you raising a child with autism?

How is he or she being treated?

Have you tried any of the approaches here? How have they helped?

Please share your thoughts by adding a comment below.

To your good health,

Mark Hyman, M.D.

References

Because of the interest in this topic and controversies surrounding it, I am posting all the references for the issues talked about in the article.

1. Curtis TR, ed. The London Encyclopedia. London: Griffi n and Co; 1839.

2. James SJ, Melnyk S, Jernigan S, et al. Metabolic endophenotype and related genotypes are associated with oxidative stress in children with autism. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2006;141B(8):947-956.

3. Williams TA, Mars AE, Buyske SG, et al. Risk of autistic disorder in affected offspring of mothers with a glutathione S-transferase P1 haplotype. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(4):356-361.

4. Reddy MN. Reference ranges for total homocysteine in children. Clin Chim Acta. 1997;262(1-2):153-155.

5. James SJ, Cutler P, Melnyk S, et al. Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(6):1611-1617.

6. Bull G, Shattock P, Whiteley P, et al. Indolyl-3-acryloylglycine (IAG) is a putative diagnostic urinary marker for autism spectrum disorders. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9(10):CR422-CR425.

7. Wright B, Brzozowski AM, Calvert E, et al. Is the presence of urinary indolyl-3-acryloylglycine associated with autism spectrum disorder? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47(3):190-192.

8. Amminger GP, Berger GE, Schäfer MR, Klier C, Friedrich MH, Feucht M. Omega-3 fatty acids supplementation in children with autism: a double-blind randomized, placebo- controlled pilot study. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61(4):551-553.

9. Johnson SM, Hollander E. Evidence that eicosapentaenoic acid is effective in treating autism. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64(7):848-849.

10. Poling JS, Frye RE, Shoffner J, Zimmerman AW. Developmental regression and mitochondrial dysfunction in a child with autism. J Child Neurol. 2006;21(2):170-172.

11. Herbert MR. Autism: A brain disorder or a disorder of the brain? Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2005;2(6):354-379.

12. Herbert MR. Large brains in autism: the challenge of pervasive abnormality. Neuroscientist. 2005;11(5):417-440.

13. Vargas DL, Nascimbene C, Krishnan C, Zimmerman AW, Pardo CA. Neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism. Ann Neurol. 2005;57(1):67-81. Erratum in: Ann Neurol. 2005 Feb;57(2):304.

14. Wakefi eld AJ, Ashwood P, Limb K, Anthony A. The signifi cance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;17(8):827-836.

15. Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G. Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003498.

16. Uhlmann V, Martin CM, Sheils O, et al. Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant infl ammatory bowel disease. Mol Pathol. 2002;55(2):84-90.

17. Kawashima H, Mori T, Kashiwagi Y, Takekuma K, Hoshika A, Wakefi eld A. Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Dig Dis Sci. 2000;45(4):723-729.

18. Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, et al. Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(9):e3140.

19. Bradstreet JJ, El Dahr J, Anthony A, Kartzinel JJ, Wakefi eld AJ. Detection of measles virus genomic RNA in cerebrospinal fl uid of children with regressive autism: a report of three cases. J Am Phys Surgeons. 2004;9(2):38-45.

20. Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):2026-2029.

21. Williams R. Biochemical Individuality, New York: McGraw Hill; 1998.

22. Autism Research Initiative. Treatment Options for Mercury/metal Toxicity in Autism and Related Developmental Disabilities: Consensus Position Paper. San Diego, CA: Autism Research Initiative; 2005. Available at: http://www.autism.com/triggers/vaccine/ heavymetals.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2008.

23. Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in fi rst baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol. 2003;22(4):277-285.

24. Adams JB, Romdalvik J, Ramanujam VM, Legator MS. Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007;70(12):1046-1051.

25. Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al. Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(13):1281-1292.

26. Geier DA, Geier MR. A prospective study of mercury toxicity biomarkers in autistic spectrum disorders. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007;70(20):1723-1730.

27. Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, et al. The association between a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase, dental mercury exposure and neurobehavioral response in humans. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006;28(1):39-48

28. Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, Bittner AC Jr, Farin FM, Garabedian CC, Woods JS. Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with self-reported symptoms and mood. Toxicol Sci. 2004;81(2):354-363. Epub 2004 Jul 14.

29. Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, et al. Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with cognitive and motor function. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005;27(6):781-796.

Mark Hyman, M.D. practicing physician and founder of The UltraWellness Center is a pioneer in functional medicine. Dr. Hyman is now sharing the 7 ways to tap into your body's natural ability to heal itself. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on Youtube and become a fan on Facebook.

10. Swine Flu Vaccine Will Be Too Late to Prevent Pandemic, Experts Say

New York Times

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: September 11, 2009

Several prominent epidemiologists are warning that even though the new swine flu vaccine works much better than expected, it will still come too late to blunt the peak of this season’s pandemic.

The epidemiologists said Friday that they expected the peak to come as early as next month, long before enough vaccine to protect all 159 million Americans who need it most will be ready.

“It would be bizarre for it to peak in January or February, the way seasonal flu does,” said Dr. Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and a consultant on flu epidemics to the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. He noted that the pandemics of 1918 and 1957, which were also caused by new viral strains, had both peaked early. Influenza cases are usually near zero at this time of year, but Friday’s weekly report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rated flu activity as “widespread” in 11 states, mostly in the Southeast but also inArizona, Alaska and Oklahoma. (“Widespread” is the highest of five levels.)

According to Dr. Anne Schuchat, the agency’s chief of immunization and respiratory diseases, 98 percent of those flu cases are the new swine flu.

On Thursday, federal officials reported that one dose of the new vaccine, rather than the two they had expected, appeared to fully protect recipients against swine flu. They said that meant there would eventually be plenty of vaccine for everyone given first priority for shots: health care and emergency workers, pregnant women, everyone aged 6 months to 24 years, adults up to age 64 with medical problems, and people caring for infants under 6 months old.

The officials expect about 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine to reach government warehouses by Oct. 15, and another 20 million doses to be ready each week after that until 195 million is reached.

Then those lots must be shipped to health centers, schools and other vaccination venues, people must be injected, and each must develop immunity. Immune responses are different in each individual, but the clinical trials suggest most will be protected after 8 to 10 days.

So if the epidemic’s peak comes in late October, millions of people are likely to catch the flu before the vaccine is available.

“A month would have made a huge difference,” said Ira M. Longini Jr., an author of a report by an epidemic-modeling team at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington.

If one shot turns out to be protective in children and if the flu peaks in late December, as the 1968 Hong Kong flu did, “we could be O.K.,” Dr. Longini said. “But that’s a lot of ifs.”

In response, federal officials said there was no way to tell whether the pessimistic models would be right, since flu peaks at different times in different regions each year.

“I can’t tell you it’s going to be too late for ‘a lot’ of people,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who is in overseeing vaccine trials for the National Institutes of Health. “It’s certainly going to be too late for some.”

In any event, most cases are expected to be mild. The virus has not changed significantly since the spring and, while a few cases of strains resistant to the antiviral drug Tamiflu have been detected, they have not yet become widespread.Dr. Fauci said Friday that the trials he is overseeing confirm that one dose usually creates immunity in adults. In the elderly, only 50 to 60 percent develop it, but that is “right in the ballpark” for seasonal flu shots in the elderly, since their immune responses are weaker.

11. The Real Health Care Scare

Huffington Post

James Moore, Author, Communications Consultant, Novelist Manque', Genial Wiseacre

In all of the white-hot vitriol being spewed over a national health care plan, very little attention is being directed at the pharmaceutical companies and the potential conflicts of interest involving the doctors doing their research. In America, we are generally of the belief that by the time a drug or vaccine has made it into the marketplace there has been enough testing conducted by the FDA and objective physicians and researchers that we can trust its safety. Frequently, we are wrong. Great profit tempts drug manufacturers to deceive or cut corners to get more quickly to the market. Pfizer recently agreed to pay $2.3 billion in fines as a penalty for marketing drugs "off label," which means for other than their prescribed purpose. Merck, too, has a $4.85 billion legal settlement for Vioxx, a painkiller that doubled the risk of stroke and heart attack, and Eli Lilly agreed to almost $1.5 billion in penalties for illegal marketing of its top-selling anti-psychotic drug. .

Those numbers may look big but they are nothing compared to revenues. Pfizer earned $44.2 billion last year and can handily absorb the penalty. Industry experts don't expect the off label marketing to end because the profitability is so great. With this kind of money at stake, willful deception with off label marketing, and a public record of failure, why are we so inclined to readily accept drugs and vaccines from these manufacturers?

As autumn approaches, we are once more being whipped into a frenzy about H1N1 and a need for another vaccination. Imagine the profits if only it were government mandated. I am not anti-vaccine. I am, however, pro-full disclosure. Vaccinations are one of the most important advancements in medical history. Nonetheless, when they became huge profit centers, the numbers of vaccines on the schedule for our children rose to the point where there are now 42 recommended and, in many cases, most are required for admission to public school facilities. Because we are inclined to trust our physicians and federal regulators, we generally take the needle.

But we need to look more closely. The internecine relationships between drug companies and researchers and their institutions deserve constant scrutiny. As an example, the highest-profile proponent of vaccines like the MMR for children, Dr. Paul Offit has been made a wealthy man by Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that manufactures MMR. Offit did not conduct the research on the MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) vaccine but sold a patent to Merck for a vaccine against rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where Offit works, sold its royalty rights on the vaccine, which, according to a financial analyst firm's filing, netted the hospital $153 million. Based on hospital distribution guidelines, Offit, as the inventor, appears to have earned as much as $45 million for his 30 percent share.

The details of Dr. Offit's fiduciary interest in Merck are never disclosed when he is out pushing the safety of MMR, one of the company's biggest profit centers. Although the hospital appears to have taken its royalty in a lump payment from a company that purchases long term drug royalties and Offit is not known to be in the midst of a Merck revenue stream, his opinion can hardly be considered unbiased when speaking about the company's MMR product. None of this is ever disclosed when the media frequently run to interview Offit as a vaccine expert on MMR. In fact, during a recent broadcast on NBC Dateline, "A Dose of Controversy," it was the first time Offit was asked in an interview about the millions he had earned on his rotavirus vaccine royalty. However, no mention was made of Merck by either NBC's Matt Lauer or Offit.

Offit readily agreed to do the interview with Lauer because the program was centered on Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research regarding a possible link between MMR and the onset of autism in some children. He had refused, however, to sit for an interview with CBS News when Sharyll Attkisson was preparing a report about the relationships between pharmaceutical firms and researchers. (Offit said publicly that his email correspondences with Attkisson convinced him she was not going to do a balanced story. Later, on a friendly web site, he called her a liar.) As chief of infectious diseases at CHOP and a professor of pediatrics at University of Pennsylvania's medical school, Offit has credibility but rarely is anyone aware of the financial role Merck has played in his life. In fact, even the $1.5 million Paul Offit research chair at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is funded by Merck. In other words, he is entirely beholden to the company.

Offit was also in the enviable position of voting himself wealthy while serving on the government's Advisory Committee on Vaccine Practices (ACVP). He voted to approve the inclusion of his rotavirus vaccine in the Vaccines for Children Program, which, ultimately led to the widespread distribution of the Rotateq patent he developed at CHOP. When the big royalty check arrived Offit was quoted as saying, "It felt like winning the lottery." While dehydration through diarrhea is undoubtedly a big problem in developing countries, how essential is it that such a vaccine be included for every single child in the US schedule and millions spent on its administration?

Technically, Offit appears to meet the letter of the law and basic ethical standards with his disclosures. Before the ACVP meetings, he acknowledged a $350,000 grant from Merck to conduct the rotavirus research and that he was working "as a consultant to Merck." The compounding failure belongs to the media, which runs to Offit as the consistent pro-vaccine voice without ever acknowledging or writing about his Merck-generated wealth. Offit is allowed to call other researchers ethically conflicted without being confronted over his own relationships with the manufacturer of MMR.

On Dateline and in his lectures and publications, Offit dismissed Dr. Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper on potential links between autism and bowel issues (possibly prompted by MMR) because he said Wakefield was conflicted by being a medical expert for a law firm looking at the issue for potential litigation. Physicians are constantly retained to provide medical expertise for law firms and the only ethical question is disclosure. Wakefield has documentation showing his relationship with the law firm was disclosed to the Lancet well before publication as well as in communications with the Royal Free Hospital where he worked, and in articles in the news media

The Lancet paper that Offit has vilified was nothing more than an analysis of a collection of data from children being admitted to Royal Free with bowel problems. Drs. John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, some of the pre-eminent gastroenterologists in the world, were encountering children whose bowel inflammation occurred weeks after their MMR vaccinations and were then followed by regression into autism. Their data was provided to Wakefield and led to the 1998 Lancet paper. Wakefield had the temerity to suggest that there might be an association between bowel disease, autism, and MMR and called for further studies, a logical rather than audacious proposition.

In "A Dose of Controversy," Lauer said Wakefield's research had never been duplicated and that epidemiological studies had proved there was no association between the MMR vaccine and autism. Both statements are incorrect. Because I am involved as an advocate of research and Wakefield's point of view, I was present when NBC's producer was provided five papers from researchers and institutions in Canada, Italy, the US, and Venezuela where the bowel disease-autism link was confirmed and there was further description of the disease's pattern. NBC failed to cite that research while giving complete credibility to Offit and the epidemiologic research, which has endured significant criticism. Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health and member of the Institute of Medicine, acknowledged on the program that it was possible the population samples were too small in the epidemiological studies Offit and others are using to dismiss Wakefield's work.

Mainstream medicine, of course, can be wrong, as Merck and Pfizer and Eli Lilly have proved. Wakefield's outrageous act is to demand safety studies on MMR and other vaccines. Most Americans are undoubtedly unaware that there has never been a long-term study conducted on MMR to compare a vaccinated population of children with an unvaccinated population. If Offit is a researcher of the most rigorous discipline, he would be leading the call for such a study using his rather large media megaphone. However, he told Jim Moody, legal counsel for the National Autism Associations that such a study is "impossible prospectively and unethical retrospectively." Actually, it seems unethical not to do such a study to prove conclusively a vaccine like MMR is safe to give to our children and our government clearly is aware of this failing. A media strategy document from the Center for Disease Control makes the sad confession that the government does not actually have the science to prove that vaccines are safe. Undoubtedly, that has much to do with why anyone who questions MMR or other vaccines is dismissed as an "anti-vaccine nut." Research costs money and takes time and is likely to make people question the shots being given to their children.

Nothing, of course, matters but the science. Unfortunately, when it is finally done, the truth it provides will arrive many years too late for millions of families. They erroneously placed their trust in our government's policies and the physicians and researchers that were supposed to "first do no harm.".

Also at www.moorethink.com.

12. Africa: 'The Most Effective Vaccine against Child Death in Africa is a Glass of Clean Water'

allafrica.com

Interview
Washington, DC — Kevin Watkins, the lead author of the UN Human Development Report and head of the office that produces it, visited AllAfrica recently to discuss this year's document. Released on November 9, the 2006 report notes that the average person in the UK or the USA flushes 50 litres of water down the toilet daily, while as little as 20 litres of clean water a day can save millions of lives and promote economic development. Excerpts from the conversation:

I think scarcity is a loaded concept when you apply it to water. If you look at water availability in Africa as a region, there is not a scarcity of water. The problem is when you start disaggregating the region. Africa's water is very heavily concentrated in a few countries, in a few places - often places where there are not many people - so there is a mismatch between where water is and where people are.

Discounting regions that are acutely drought prone - parts of the Sahel and northeast Kenya and so on – the real issue of scarcity in most of sub-Saharan Africa, we would argue, is a product of governance and how water is managed. Take Nairobi as a classic example. About 700,000 people live in an area called Kibera.

Clean water is acutely scarce. There is a child death rate something like seven times the Kenyan average because of water-related infectious disease - mostly diarrhea. Water is very expensive for people who live in Kibera. In fact, the per-unit cost of water is higher than it is in New York or London. So you could infer from that that Nairobi is a city where water is scarce.

But over the main road from Kibera, you have the Royal Nairobi Golf Course, which has the sprinklers operating on a 12-hour-a-day basis. Right next to the seventh green, you have [former Kenyan President Daniel] Arap Moi's house, which has a swimming pool and a very green lawn. So water is very scarce for some people in Nairobi but is very abundant for other people.

What we are trying to look at in this report is the politics of scarcity. Why is water scarce for some people and not for other people? There is a scarcity issue at a household level – but that is structured scarcity, and it is politically structured. It reflects decisions on investment and about how you govern the resource.

Part of the report looks at water for livelihoods. Water is a productive resource. Africa is in a different position than most other developing regions, because it has very limited water infrastructure. Probably 90 per cent-plus of African producers rely on rain-fed agriculture. So, as a region, Africa has got something like one to two per cent of global irrigation capacity. That means that the region is very highly dependent on rainfall, which is variable. It is that variability that makes agricultural production in Africa such a risky activity – and why you find such high levels of poverty relative to rural areas in south Asia, where they have irrigation.

There are obviously difficult questions around the irrigation issue. If you create irrigation resources, who gets access to them and who doesn't? We actually try to show, in the report, that in the parts of the Sahel where they have introduced irrigation, the access is being distributed in a very unequal way. So again, there is the question of structured scarcity - some people get it, and some people don't.

We are trying to sort of politicize the idea of scarcity. Too often people write about water problems as if this is somehow a natural or physical outcome. What we are trying to say that it is not a physical outcome, but it is a political outcome. You need to understand the politics of it, and that is what we are really trying to focus on.

Women, Water and Development

A big part of what we do in the report is sorting out what the problem is. We commissioned a study, which we did with the World Health Organization, trying to understand the real public health outcomes from the water crisis in Africa. The headline number that comes out is: globally there are roughly two million child deaths as a result of not having access to clean water. And Africa is hugely over represented in that number. It accounts for something like a third or more, roughly 40% of total child deaths from water-related problems. That is a health outcome.

There is a parallel outcome, which is the impact of all of this on economic growth, and how that relates to investment in areas like public health and education. We estimate that the African region loses five per cent of GDP annually as a result of both women having to walk huge distances to collect water - which diverts labor, apart from the huge personal cost that it puts someone in - and the impact of disease on productivity.

And five per cent of GDP is a lot of GDP. It is more than Africa gets in aid! There are more people campaigning on aid and debt relief, but this problem dwarfs what goes into Africa through aid and debt relief. The real burden, when you get down to the household level, is uses of women's time. And I think that people do not understand the problem, to be honest.

In Kibera, you see these little kids, young girls, carrying 20 liter buckets of water. This is more than half of their body weight. Walking for more than an hour in rural areas is even worse.

The minimum amount of water that people need, and what we argue in the report, is 20 liters daily. We say 20 liters should be a right of citizenship. In rural villages in parts of east Africa, and even in urban areas, and people are using 9 or 10 liters of water a day.

Now if you have sick person in the house, and you have nine liters of water a day for cooking, for washing, for drinking, it's impossible to meet basic public health standards, apart from the huge costs in terms of children who get infected with unclean water. Actually, what we say in the report is that there's a lot of thinking that's going on about immunization – and of course that's critical – but, actually, the most effective vaccine that you can give against child death in Africa is a glass of clean water.

Public versus Private Water

It's a huge explosive issue in most countries. We come out in an aggressively agnostic position. Which is to say that for most poor people in most of Africa, this debate is totally irrelevant.

Most people in Africa are operating in totally privatized water markets – most poor people, I mean – regardless of what the formal water system. You've got 700,000 people in Kibera who are operating in a total free market for water. They get out of bed in the morning; they take their money to the water kiosk; they buy their water; they go home.

Arap Moi ought to have a big interest in whether the water utility is public or private, because he's getting cheap water. But for people in Kibera, this is a different story.

Africa has one of the lowest connection rates. It's about 40 per cent, officially, who don't have access to piped water or an improved water source. We say that the real figure is way, way higher than that. The other thing that we do, which is even more interesting in some ways, is we've got the national breakdown of who's got access to water and who doesn't. Then we've used micro-level household data for differentiating between the richest 20 per cent and the poorest 20 per cent, and some of those figures are very ugly for Africa. For example, in Ghana connection rate for the richest 20 per cent is something like 85 per cent-plus. For the poorest 20 per cent it is something like 10 per cent-minus, which comes back to the realities of these poor people who are in the water market, which is not connected to the utility.

Climate Change – a Predictable Disaster

We've got a very strong environmental- change, global-warming story on sub-Saharan Africa in the report. We've looked at the implications for the production of food staples of shifting climatic patterns, and I think that's a pretty disturbing story that the international community needs to take a lot more seriously then they have.

I'm sure everybody's aware that climate change is already affecting weather patterns all across Africa. It probably started in the Sahel in the 70's and 80's, and we see it now in Ethiopia and north-east Kenya and parts of southern Africa. So the first thing that people need to understand, which most people don't – people think of global warming as something that's going to really hit us in fifty years time, and, actually, this already happening to a lot of people.

Read rest of article.

13. H1N1 Flu Update from Jay Gordon

I have seen more children and adults with influenza-like illness: 104 degree fevers, muscle soreness, sore throat and negative tests for strep, than in any summer I can remember. I haven't used the "flu swab" to test anybody, but I'm sure that many if not most of these sick people had Swine Flu. They all felt miserable, and they are all feeling just fine now.
 
 Preventing outbreaks of this "novel H1N1" influenza may be a mistake of huge proportions. Yes, sadly, there will be fatalities among the 6 billion citizens of the planet. Tens of millions of cases of any illness will lead to morbidity and mortality, but this is completely (tragically) unavoidable. The consequences of not acquiring immunity this time around, however, could be really terrible and far outweigh a mass prevention program.
 
 Here's my rationale for not using Tamiflu:  If (if, if, if) this virus circles the globe as the rather innocent influenza it now appears to be, but mutates and returns as a very virulent form of influenza, it will be quite wonderful and life-saving to have formed antibodies against its 2009 version. These antibodies may be far from 100% protective, but they will help. This is incredibly important but being ignored in the interest of expediency.  
 
 In 1918, it appears that influenza A (an H1N1, by the way) did this globe-trotting mutation and killed millions. The times and state of medical care are not comparable, but a milder parallel occurrence is possible. Perhaps this happens every 100 years or so, perhaps every three million.
 
 Whenever possible, we should form antibodies against viruses at the right stage of their existence and at the right stage of our lives (For example, chickenpox in childhood and EBV/mono in early childhood. There are many other examples.) Getting many viral illnesses confers lifetime immunity, and very few vaccines do.
  
 Tamiflu is a very powerful drug with little proven efficacy against this bug, and with its major side effect being tummy upset. I'm not using it at all. Psychiatric side effects are also possible.
 
 I also won't be giving the flu shot to the kids and parents in my practice unless there are extraordinary risk factors.  I anticipate giving none at all this year.  I doubt that there will be any really large problems with the vaccine, but I also doubt any really large benefits. As I said, I think that this year's version of this particular H1N1 is as "mild" as it will ever be and that getting sick with it this year will be good rather than bad.  The chances that a new "flu shot" will be overwhelmingly effective are small.   
 
 I consider this, and most seasonal and novel influenza A vaccines, as "experimental" vaccines; they've only been tested on thousands of people for a period of weeks and then they'll be given to hundreds of millions of people. Not really the greatest science when we're in that much of a hurry. Yes, one can measure antibodies against a certain bacterium or virus in the blood and it may be associated with someone not getting sick, but there are very few illnesses common enough or enough ethics committees willing enough to do the right tests.  That is, give 1000 people the real vaccine and 1000 placebo shots, expose all of them to the disease and see who gets sick.  Seriously. I know it sounds terrible.
 
 This is, obviously, a difficult public discussion because it touches on the concept of benefits and risks, again, of morbidity and mortality. Few public officials have the courage or inclination to present all facets of this difficult decision. I give vaccines to my patients every single day, but I always err on the side of caution. Implying that this is a dangerous new shot is not scientifically or statistically correct and represents hyperbole and even dishonesty on the part of the so-called "anti-vaccine" camp.  
 
 It sure isn't "sexy" to suggest handwashing, good nutrition, hydration, extra sleep and so on. It's not conventional to suggest astragalus, echinacea, elderberry and vitamin C. Adequate vitamin D levels are crucial, too.
 
 I just think that giving this new H1N1 vaccine is not the cautious nor best thing to do.    

 Best,
 
 Jay Gordon, MD FAAP
 
 www.drjaygordon.com

14. Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lori Kozlowski, Rosie Mestel, Thomas Maugh, David Gorski, Virginia Hughes, Science Journalists, The Dying of the LA Times and an Angry Autism Mom

Adventures in Autism

Six years ago next week my youngest son got his 18 month vaccinations, DTaP, Hep B, Polio, Pneumo and Hib and then regressed into autism. Almost a year later I started this blog for the simple purpose of keeping a public daily journal while my son went through treatment on which there was not a lot of public information. I thought that others could read about what our experience was in evaluating whether or not it might be useful for their child.

But what began as a mother's journal has turned into a reaction to and an act of rebellion against the widespread corruption of the institutions whose stated purposes are to protect the safety, health and rights of individuals, to guide them in good decision making and to get to the truth of a matter and inform the public so that they can make wise choices; and the dishonorable behavior of many who man those institutions.

Because once upon a time I was a trusting consumer of the science and medical industries, and even a participant in them. I followed what I believed was their earnest advice, because I believed that they were working in my best interest, that they were working in the best interest of my children, and that they were upholding the basic standards of their professions that would protect them from gross error in their rendering their opinions.

I vaccinated my children as I was told to do.

I was very, very wrong to blindly trust those sources. Following their advice turned out to be as wise as taking a sledge hammer to my son and my family.

After my son's regression, I was told by all the supposedly reputable, vetted sources that I looked to that my son's regression could not have been caused by his vaccines. But that just didn't seem right to me, so I started reading. Vaccine package inserts, a few studies, AAP/CDC web sites, a few media accounts and I had a question that I could not find an answer to. That question was:

"If the Hepatitis B vaccine is known to cause Gillian-Barre, an autoimmune disorder where in the the immune system attacks the central nervous system, then why can't it cause autism, an autoimmune disorder where in the immune system attacks the central nervous system?"

So I printed out the vaccine package insert, highlighted the relevant parts and took it to my pediatrician, who didn't read it and didn't answer my question. But he did tell me to go ask the American Academy of Pediatrics. Which I quickly learned, does not answer vaccine/autism questions from parents.

And then I read Evidence of Harm and saw what a horrid sausage factory the medical research industry can be. And then I got online and started asking more questions. I quickly learned what a house of cards vaccine safety research was, that there was no safety test for the chemical cocktail that my son got on September 18th, 2003 (still looking if anyone knows of one), that there is no comparison study between children who are given the CDC vaccine schedule and those who are not, that vaccines are not tested against a true placebo, that children with my son's medical histories are not included in vaccine safety research hence that research cannot be applied to them, that vast conflicts of interest (both declared and undeclared) exist in those making health recommendations and overseeing product safety, that many of those same conflicted people claim that there is no connection between vaccines and autism even though the research required to make that statement has never been done, that these institutions regularly made contradictory, nonsensical, unscientific and easily disprovable statements for which they are never called out and that the media doesn't talk about any of this.

I learned that I had been robbed of informed consent.

And then I learned that there was no way for me to hold accountable any of the institutions or individuals who had participated in robbing me of informed consent. Pretty much my only recourse was to write to them and just have to deal with being ignored.

So I started writing about it.

And as I wrote about it, I was determined not to become like the people I was criticizing. Not to ignore my critics, not to overstate my case, not to treat people whose opinion (or personality) I didn't like as if they didn't count, to correct myself when I was wrong and to give everyone a fair shake and a hundred chances to correct their mistakes. To be earnest even to those who were not. To engage in civil discourse, even when I was really angry about something. To give people the benefit of the doubt that they earnestly want to get to the truth of the matter. All this is the hopes of allowing every chance for an actual coming together of "us" and "them" to figure out how peoples opinions differ so vastly on the vaccine/autism connection and in how to treat these kids.

I have not always succeeded in living up to that standard, but on the whole I don't think I have done too bad.

Along the way I have had the pleasure of engaging with earnest people who really took seriously whatever role they had in this debate. They understood that their opinions and actions had consiquences. They took criticism and had the ability to check themselves, because they understood that children's lives were at stake, so they had to be sure they were getting it as right as they could.

And then there are people like Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lori Kozlowski, Rosie Mestel, Thomas Maugh, David Gorski and Virginia Hughes.

About three weeks ago a friend sent me and article entitled "Bringing science back into America's sphere" by Lori Kozlowski in the LA Times. It made me really angry. Angry that the LA Times was printing such a frivolous article about a subject so important that greatly impacts the health and lives of almost every child on this planet, angry that Chris Mooney seemed to have no insight into the fact that the public's 'rejection of science' as described by him may have something to do with the vast corruption in the science industries and the public health agencies who regulate them, angry that the second most contentious issue in medicine (behind abortion) was treated as if its outcome was a forgone conclusion, and angry that tens thousands of parents and even well respected, well reasoned, seasoned medical professionals were treated as if they were neanderthals for believing that vaccines might have an association to autism. Angry that the LA Times was hosing this shallow and irresponsible discussion between these two obviously very young writers.

And that anger apparently began to push me over some line somewhere, because today, three weeks later, I just don't care about giving myopic, immature, biased and unprincipled "science writers" the benefit of the doubt or a hundred more chances any more.

I wrote to Lori Kozlowski, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (with whom Chris wrote his book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future) and posed the basic questions, 'Might not the expanding chasm between the scientific community and the American public be the fault of the corrupt science industries who have destroyed public trust? Might the public be walking away from you because you have treated them... us... so damn badly? When a community like yours (Mr. Mooney identifies himself both with Skeptic Brand Science and the larger science and science journalism industries) dismisses, devalues, insults, misinforms, lies to, lies about, steals from and poisons the public, why are you surprised when they walk away from you? Where is your responsibility in this?'

I asked them to do some self-evaluation. Demanded really.

I emailed the letter to Lori Kozlowski, posted it on my blog and Age of Autism (which Chris disparaged in his interview) also ran it. The overwhelming response from my community of autism parents, "us" if you will, can be sampled in the comments sections following the piece and can be roughly characterized as, "What Ginger said".

Some of those I wrote to responded, some did not.

The response from "them" to my challenge that their dismissals, their insults, their lack of insight into themselves, their inability to self-correct and refusal to examine and address "our" concerns might be the problem, was to dismiss me, insult me, demonstrate an extreme lack of insight into themselves, display an inability to self-correct and to refuse to examine and address my concerns.

They responded to my accusations of failing to live up to the standards of their chosen industries, by failing to live up the standards of their chosen industries.

I called them biased, and to prove me wrong, they showed me their bias.

The picture I have had in my head as I have read the emails that have gone back and forth between these "science writers" and me is of a snake chomping down on its own tail. But not in the circle of life or ourosbors symbolism kinda way. More like what would actually happen if a snake in the real world decided to make a meal of himself. Suicide by ignorance. And oddly, responding to the woman shouting to them that they are eating themselves by eating themselves faster and with more zest.

Because what these individuals are doing is neither science nor journalism, and in the process they are destroying the professions of science and journalism.

And when I pointed this very phenomenon to one "science writer", David Gorski, MD, PhD, he still didn't get it. Or refused to get it. Or got it but still chose to dismiss me, insult me, avoid my questions, etc... etc...

Then yesterday I was contacted by Virginia Hughes, another young "science writer" who wanted to know if I would post her survey on my blog so that she could get the input of my community for a ethics report that she had been commissioned to do for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory to inform the direction of their genetic autism research.

Well that really got to me.

Because the young Ms. Hughes had interviewed me two years ago at length for a piece she published in Nature Medicine, that... well... was not reflective of the actual content of the debate or information I offered her, portrayed parents and dangerous whack jobs and didn't exactly fully vet the information she was offered by those who claim that vaccines don't cause autism. She let her readers know that poor scientists like Paul Offit were in danger for their lives from conspiracy theorists parents like me who believe that vaccines are associated with autism that she reported were known as "The Mercurys". (A moniker she apparently made up because not even Mom's Against Mercury had ever heard that nick name before. It didn't sick.) And although she can't even write an objective article about autism causation and treatment research, she is being asked to contribute to the direction of autism causation and treatment research.

Brilliant.

And because Ms. Hughes, who 'gushes about a hodgepodge of mostly scientific ideas on the ever-rockin' ScienceBlogs network' and is apparently BFF's with "band chick" Sheril Kirshenbaum (for whom "scientist" is just "one of [her] many hats at the moment" and who wants to be an astronaut when she grow up) and Chris Mooney, who conveys all the subtly in his arguments (liberals good, conservatives bad, smart liberals smart, smart conservatives stupid) of... well... a 31 year old, unmarried guy with no children who is impressed with how clever he is.

And because these three very young, inexperienced and immature people are being published, and asked to serve on panels and invited to speak on life and death issues for children... for my children... by a science/journalism industry who seems to me to have lost its mind. Or is it that a corrupt industry can't find any grown ups to put forth these silly, biased, partisan arguments any more?

Smart does not equal wise, and foolish people in positions of influence are a recipe for disaster.

As I watch Chris Mooney claim to be a "journalist" and give a speech to the American Institute of Biological Sciences where in he shows a slide of Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey calling them "Dumb and Dumber", I want to scream, "Where are the grown ups who are supposed to be overseeing these people! Parents of children with regressive autism are insult worthy to this guy, and he is being put in front of a microphone to talk to scientists about his book about how mainstream America, where the autism rate is now 1 in 100, is rejecting the message of people like him?! Is this whole thing one big practical joke?"

So I have just decided to give up. By all means Mainstream Science Journalism Industrial Complex, go ahead and put tweeners who dismiss half of the country, and insult and ignore people who say things they deem unworthy right out in front as your standard bearers. Continue to ignore your critics, and cash your Pharma checks and enjoy giving awards to one another as you become less relevant to people's lives and your news outlets fail. I am going to just pass you the salt and watch you devour yourselves.

But what I am not willing to do is let people remain under the impression that you are earnest, unbiased, professionals, leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of the truth and in service to the public, if I can do any little thing about it.

So I am going to share with my readers all of the emails that I have been exchanging with these "science writers" for the last three weeks so that they can see for themselves that said writers cannot or will not evaluate information that does not fit into their paradigms, that they cannot or will not do any self-evaluation to see if they are on the wrong path, they cannot or will not simply answer the questions of a random angry autism mom and that when they pose as objective and thoughtful scientists or journalists, they are a perpetrating a fraud.

The responses I have gotten have been varied. David Gorski says that I don't count, Sheril Kirshenbaum thinks whatever David Gorski thinks, Chris Mooney apparently doesn't think any thing at all as he has never responded. Lori Kozlowski thanks me for my interest and encourages me to up her profile and readership by posting my thoughts on the new thread that the LAT has set up for commenters, complete with medical industry ads. Rosie Mestel, Lori's editor, wants me to not be so hard on Lori, poor thing, and does not want to address the implication that she may have made a really bad call in assigning this material as she did.

Then there is Thomas H. Maugh II who thinks I am, "Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!"

For those of you who have read this far, and intend to read the whole thing, please take note of what you will not see in the responses that I got from these "science journalists" who are posing to be accurate, objective reporters on autism

You will not see the phrase, "that is a good point, let me think about that". No where will you read, "yes our community might have a blind spot there, we need to work on that". No one responded, "you are right, we have never even covered that part of the debate, can you point me toward your source on that?" Not even a, "well I can see why you are all worked up about this and you could be right there, but we are so overwhelmed we just don't have the resources to look into that right now".

Because those of you who still believe that what you read from these sources is well thought out, thoroughly investigated and crafted by earnest, wise, honest professionals working hard to overcome the biases and corruption that are inherent in any kind of writing, and understand the dead seriousness and life or death consequences of the words they will be putting down on paper, just might be wrong.

And that is important, because at issue is not your picks for fantasy football. At issue is the life and health of your child.

These writers combined reach hundreds of thousands of people. Millions even. On a good day I have about 500 visitors. All the power I have in the world to fight this are my words typed from my living room as I run back and forth from my computer to my mischievous and danger prone son with autism, but I am spending it all here. So for the few of you who will read this, please encourage those you love to think critically about the messages they are getting. To ask hard questions of those making medical and scientific pronouncements and when those pronouncements don't hold up to scrutiny, to vote with their feet and walk away.

Because morality, honor and wisdom in scientific journalism is dying. The corruption is drowning out the voices of the few in the industry that are speaking out against the nonsense, and the death continues because it is propped up by those who won't walk away from the individuals who are killing it. Editors and media owners have no motivation to check their writers as the bias of their writers are bring in Industry Dollars (even while their readership dwindles because they are not getting the hint). The only check in this system any more is the American Public.

In the last few years I have become interested in the anatomy of corruption. The actual process by which institutions (and individuals) destroy themselves or betray their own mandate. It can be likened to the process of death by cancer.

I read once that it is estimated that 90% of the public has "cancer" at any given time. Generally speaking "cancer" happens when a cell divides incorrectly, which happens a lot. Fortunately a healthy immune system will spot the errant cells and destroy them before they cause harm, so most people are not threatened by these errors.

But when the immune system ceases to recognize and address these errors, two malignant cells become four, which become eight which eventually kill the host.

The LA Times is dying. They filed for bankruptcy in December and have laid off people this year. And of course they are. When a reader writes passionately to them that they have handled a very important issue, very poorly, and they respond with dismissals, insults and see it as an opportunity to capitalize on controversy rather than doing their journalistic duty, it is ample proof that their immune system is dead and the cancer is running amok in the body.

As I publish this piece and the correspondence between these individuals and myself, it is in the full expectation that the reaction that I will get will be dismissals, insults... blah, blah, blah... ad infinitum... the snake continuing to eat itself. But in the event that anyone decides to take a look in the mirror, makes a move to end the cycle of self destruction and actually begins to try to answer my questions or take a hard look at themselves to how they are contributing to the demise of their own work and the alienation of the public, I will certainly call attention to it.

So public, decide for yourself. Are these the people that you want to be taking medical and scientific advice from on how to keep your children safe? Read entire article.

15. Science Journalism that is Neither Science nor Journalism

Age of Autism

By Ginger Taylor

Three weeks ago Age of Autism ran a letter that I had written to Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, authors of "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future", and to Lori Kozlowski freelance writer, in response to a Los Angeles Times piece penned by Kizlowski called "Bringing science back into America's sphere". The article, a trite interview with Mooney about his book during which he disparaged AoA and treated the vaccine/autism connection as a closed case, reported that Americans were rejecting science because they just were, well... pathetic I guess, and needed to be listening to "super smart" scientists.

My letter to them suggested that America might not be listening to the science industries and to people like Mooney because they are treating America so poorly and with such little regard.

The letter generated a number of responses both privately and publicly in which I (member of the pathetic public in the very same demographic which Mooney suggested that science journalists should be reaching out to) was treated poorly and with little regard.

These included email exchanges between myself and Lori Kozlowski, her editor at the LA Times Rosie Mestel and LA Times science writer Thomas Maugh.

Chris Mooney chose not to respond to the letter.

David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACSw, breast cancer surgeon at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Associate Professor of Surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine, (known for his cruelty as he blogs under the moniker of "Orac" despite being a senior cancer surgeon who is pushing fifty, and who last week used John Cleese's speech from Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch in a mock eulogy on the death of an alternative medicine practitioner for whom he freely displayed his contempt by calling her "... an EX-QUACK"), did respond to the letter on his own blog, even though the letter was not addressed to him. This generated an email exchange between he and I, one of many we have had over the last five years or so, but decidedly less polite then has been the case in the past.

Sheril Kirshenbaum posted a reply to me on her blog, which actually made no reply to me, but merely pointed to David Gorski's rebuttal. Private appeals to her to respond herself and take responsibility for her own words as a writer, failed to convince her to do so.

Finally Virginia Hughes, another "science writer" in the skeptic community who had written hit pieces on our community (including the initial piece that claimed Paul Offit was in danger from us and tried to slap us with the moniker, "The Mercuries" ) wrote to me this past week posing as an earnest reporter who (again) wanted to hear from our community. This contact generated yet another email exchange between us.

I have written a very lengthy piece entitled, "Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lori Kozlowski, Rosie Mestel, Thomas Maugh, David Gorski, Virginia Hughes, Science Journalists, The Dying of the LA Times and an Angry Autism Mom", which publishes all these exchanges on my own blog so that our community can see how my previous AoA post on the matter, which generated a strong response from our community, played out. There is so much there I really should have just taken more time and published a short book.

I also published all this so that everyone who has the patience and interest to read it can see that the "science journalists" that they are trusting to discern the truth of the very important autism/vaccine debate are far from professional, objective and earnest, and are not following the evidence where it leads.

And after five years of this bullshit I am fed up. I am so, so angry.

For the record, none of the people I have written about have responded since this piece was published last Thursday, except for David Gorski, who emailed me to tell me he was disappointed with me for my breach of netiquette for publishing his private emails to me with out permission and asking me to remove them from my site. I declined his request, citing the fact that I didn't care what he thought or wrote about me any more, and let him know that if at any time he wanted to deal with the matter like a grown up, he had my number and was free to call me.

The gist of the whole thing is that all these exchanges actually proved the thesis of my original letter. That those practicing "Skeptic Brand Science", refuse to address the science or questions that are inconvenient to their stance, have contempt for the people that they are supposed to be serving, the same people whom Mooney says that they should be reaching out to (which is me, whom he will not answer).

Further, the fact that the National Autism Association's "How Much Longer" campaign that took place on 09.09.09 generated more that 167,000 emails to President Obama, the FDA, the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Department of Education, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Senators, Congressmen and the Mainstream Media, and the only response that NAA received were form letters, just reinforces that the gate keepers in mainstream science, politics and the media have decided that they just will not earnestly address our issues no matter how much evidence is brought to light, no matter how many children are getting sick and no matter how many people become angry about it.

The result for me is that after five years of good faith efforts to have earnest, productive exchanges with people like these, I have given up. I just don't care what they think any more.

I hope you will carve some time out of your schedule this week and read the piece, and pass it along, so that the public can start to understand the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the media in reporting on the life and death issues of our children.

And start thinking for themselves rather than swallowing what they read in the paper.

Finally, I would like to express my undying gratitude to those in the sciences and journalism who have burned hot enough to reach escape velocity from the gravitational pull of this destructive mainstream monolith. I am grateful that you have begun to depart with this myopic bunch and to practice real science, medicine and journalism in the service of our children and humanity. We understand how many of you have had to sacrifice to do so because of people like these.

Thank you.

Ginger Taylor holds a master's degree in Clinical Counseling from Johns Hopkins University that Dr. Gorski thinks she should not mention so much. She is an autism mom with a really messy house because she believed that those pretending to serve man kind actually were and spent way too much time trying to get them to look at evidence that a generation of children are being severely injured by over vaccination and pollution. She blogs at Adventures in Autism, where she will be absent for a bit in order to clean up her life after all the time and energy she has wasted on posers who don't give a shit about sick children. Her current projects include praying to God to take away her bitterness and anger, and playing Farm Town with her sons where her blueberries are at 23%.