|
Post by uscientist on Jun 30, 2009 22:31:28 GMT -5
Havent had a chance to get involved in the woo-fest over at HuffPo, but this article is no exception to this.
Although Dr (?) Karp has outlined some interesting vaccine information in previous articles, with this one, he pretty much puts himself in the camp with the AoA crowd. "Toxins" in the environment is going to be a hot topic and blamed for all sorts, as its a generic revolving subject matter (just like vaccine ingredients - take you pick which one you want to focus on).
I'm not saying that environmental pollution and waste cannot affect human health, but it all boils down to scientific evidence and dose. as for endocrine disruptors, the evidence is not in yet (but the hypothesis is tangible); just look at studies in amphibian development on this issue. there are very few references, and when you read them they are either opinion pieces (the Baron-Cohen link), or not what he says: "Here is where the very interesting link to EDCs comes into play: EDCs often act as weak estrogens and estrogen feminizines the body, but in a fetus' developing brain estrogen actually has the opposite effect...it causes masculinization." the link is about androgens and mouse brain cells in a dish.
In the end, the article end up pandering to the AoA and anti-vax crowd: "I support other new studies to look at: 1) the autism risk in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids; 2) the metabolism of vaccine ingredients (like aluminum, added to make shots work better)" c'mon!
now, the most logical major scenario as a cause of autism is: 1. diagnostic changes (autism also isnt a simple "disease" diagnosis as say diabetes 2. genetics combine 1&2 and autism hasnt actually changed, but we're just more aware of it and it could mainly be a genetic disorder. there may be other rare instances where autism is a symptom of another disease state (eg. mitochondrial disorder).
ok, whats everyone's thought on this?
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 30, 2009 21:11:29 GMT -5
I havent had a chance to read through all of this, but my first impression is one of woo.
On Dr Martin: The guys address (Martin) is a second floor apartment for his labs. Noone has been able to detect these "stealth viruses" except him. He has a few papers in small journals, where he seems to be also the only author (another thing that sets off alarm bells).
as for sv40 and the cause of all disease, thats a whole woo in itself. i would be especially dubious of someone like above offering sv40 testing. and mycoplasma....
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 20, 2009 19:20:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 15, 2009 20:09:16 GMT -5
so basically the response if it anything but a vaccine, then any contaminant is fine. in fact, its good for you!
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 15, 2009 20:08:39 GMT -5
NetDude I'm a Fan of NetDude I'm a fan of this user permalink photo www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31088175/ns/health-alternative_medicine/Lead in ginkgo pills. Arsenic in herbals. Bugs in a baby's colic and teething syrup. Toxic metals and parasites are part of nature, and all of these have been found in "natural" products and dietary supplements in recent years. jened I'm a Fan of jened I'm a fan of this user permalink yeah, that contamination you're talking about is accidental. We can't stop some of that from happening- and there is a hygiene hypothesis that says we do need a certain amount of exposure to germs/foreign objects to prime our immune system. BUT, with vaccination you have a very purposeful exposure to MANY ingredients, wihich, to be honest with you, have not ever been effectively tested for safety. Just because vaccination has such a noble intent doesn't mean it can't be harmful to babies; it also doesn't make it exempt from rigorous, objective scrutiny. The stakes (our children) are too high.
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 8, 2009 23:53:55 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-schneider/oprah-backlash-in-newswee_b_211673.htmlDear Lee, Whilst I applaud you for recognizing the rubbish of Jenny, there are errors here. It is true that medicine as you point out, is historically fraught with quackery. But it is science-based medicine that showed this to be the case . This same methodology continues to the present day that is responsible in the advanced in modern medicine. "The line between courage and dumbness, however, can be slim." True and the same applies to Susan Sommers. However she is not alike with Dr Marshall who performed good science to prove his hypothesis to be true. Sommers has performed no studies that involve the scientific method to examine her claims. What Oprah does, which is featured in this Time article is to feature people like Sommers and McCarthy, proposing these as "alternative medicine". There is no "alternative medicine", there is only medicine that works. The "new medicine" you describe has been shown to be a placebo effect. The "breakthroughs" come from rigorous scientific experimentation. As boring as these may be (not involving your "chi" or "zen" or some shaken water (homeopathy)), this is how we will find answers to disease. The idea that Sommers and others are misunderstood geniuses, is known as the Galileo fallacy. "...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 8, 2009 20:39:40 GMT -5
You know, I feel the same way. Before I was aware of the woo he'd written I was hopeful that obama would appoint him as head of the EPA or a similar position. Now, i understand why they've kept clear of him
disappointment only begins to express my sentiments
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 6, 2009 17:44:57 GMT -5
for kirby this is quite reserved, but the antivax nuts are out in full force
"you're not a parent, you don't understand" crap as usual
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 6, 2009 0:48:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on Jun 3, 2009 20:42:46 GMT -5
"Fromageofautism"
Fromage facism?
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 28, 2009 18:50:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 26, 2009 10:02:48 GMT -5
KWombles writes (in response to Kim's opening note): "Is your argument that if regular docs do it and don't know the effects, then no bigger if the Greiers do it?" I think the big difference is this: The Geiers have studied it significantly and have some very compelling evidence of its potential to help these kids. Most mainstream Peds write scripts right and left with no personal investment in even reading the studies done on these drugs---much less doing the research themselves. There's a big difference there www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/olmsted-on-autism-welcome-to-illinois.htmlNot even going to try to respond since nothing is getting on in rebuttal. I take back thinking my original post saying they wouldn't know science if it smacked them in the face was mean; it was kinder than it should have been. AoA is a heavily moderated site. i.e. anything anti-AoA argument will be removed or not posted
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 26, 2009 10:01:41 GMT -5
That study linking MT1 expression and thiomersal administration in mice was a load of bollocks. For a start, you can't extrapolate mRNA expression into protein expression, because post-translational modification plays a big part and there is little correlation between the two. As for making the leap between the supposed MT1 expression and autism, that's just a joke. And what's the point of even studying the effects of thiomersal when it is almost longer in use? exactly. and didnt some similar rubbish in primates show completely different results (i'd have to look up the reference). further, i've noticed that the woomeisters have been talking about the metallthionein gene a lot in their "hypotheses". its one of the favorites in the chelation field. however, there is no published evidence to link this gene reliably to autism. its function is still not well understood. i saw kirby is trying to link this and glutathione levels in his talks (autism one most recently). if you read the text it sounds convincing, but again there is no evidence to support the hypothesis. the other two refs quoted were also review articles, so dont count (as these are opinion articles based on other refs)
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 23, 2009 22:51:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 22, 2009 18:49:12 GMT -5
From TIME:
Is the Autism Epidemic a Myth? By Claudia Wallis
Epidemic is a powerful word. It generates bold headlines, congressional hearings, research dollars and dramatic, high-stakes hunts for culprits. It's a word that has lately been attached to autism. How else to account for the fact that a disorder that before 1990 was reported to affect just 4.7 out of every 10,000 American children now strikes 60 per 10,000, according to many estimates--the equivalent of 1 in 166 kids?
But what if there is no epidemic? What if the apparent explosion in autism numbers is simply the unforeseen result of shifting definitions, policy changes and increased awareness among parents, educators and doctors? That's what George Washington University anthropologist Roy Richard Grinker persuasively argues in a new book sure to generate controversy. In Unstrange Minds: Remapping the World of Autism, Grinker uses the lens of anthropology to show how shifting cultural conditions change the way medical scientists do their work and how we perceive mental health.
In addition to rising awareness of autism, Grinker points to these factors:
BROADER DEFINITIONS Each successive edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--the bible of mental health--has revised the criteria for identifying autism in ways that tend to include more people. Two conditions on the milder end of the autistic spectrum--Asperger's syndrome and the awkwardly named PDD-NOS (pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified)--were added to the DSM in 1994 and 1987, respectively. Grinker and others say 50% to 75% of the increase in diagnoses is coming in these milder categories.
SCHOOL POLICY U.S. schools are required to report data on kids who receive special-education services, but autism wasn't added as a category until the 1991-92 school year. No wonder the numbers exploded--from 22,445 receiving services for autism in 1995 to 140,254 in 2004. Grinker points out that "traumatic brain injury" also became one of the 13 reportable categories in 1992, and it had a similar spike.
MORE HELP, LESS STIGMA As services have become more available for kids with autism, more parents are seeking a diagnosis they would have shunned 30 years ago, when psychiatrists still blamed autism on chilly "refrigerator" mothers. Doctors are also more willing to apply the diagnosis to help a patient. "I'll call a kid a zebra if it will get him the educational services I think he needs," National Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist Judith Rapoport told Grinker.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES In some states, parents of children with autism can apply for Medicaid even if they are not near the poverty line. A diagnosis of mental retardation doesn't always offer this advantage.
RELABELING For all the reasons above, many kids previously given other diagnoses are now called autistic. University of Wisconsin researcher Paul Shattuck has found that the number of kids getting special-ed services for retardation and learning disabilities declined in 47 states between 1994 and 2003, just as those getting help for autism was rising. In 44 states, the drop exceeded the rise in autism.
As convincing as Grinker's analysis seems, arguments about the apparent epidemic will probably continue. It's simply impossible to accurately reconstruct the past incidence of the disorder, given how radically definitions have changed. Those who believe the increase is real often focus on the mysterious paucity of autistic adults. With their conspicuous symptoms like hand flapping and little or no language, "I think we would be recognizing them in institutions," says Dr. Robert Hendren, executive director of the M.I.N.D. Institute at the University of California, Davis.
Grinker's answer is that autistic adults are out there but wearing other labels. "Where are all the adults with fetal alcohol syndrome?" he asks. No one over 40 has the condition, thought to affect up to 1 in 500 kids today, because it was not recognized until the mid-'70s. "But no one would say alcoholism among pregnant women just started," says Grinker.
Grinker, whose 15-year-old daughter is autistic, concedes that there's something reassuring about the idea of an epidemic: "Thinking about any disorder as an epidemic is easier than thinking about it in terms of multiple causes, shifting definitions and a scientific reality we are only just beginning to understand." Besides, if a disease suddenly spikes, it seems more plausible that the increase could be reversed--if only we could find the mysterious environmental trigger. With autism, though, that hopeful scenario seems just too simple. very good post. brave of Dr Grinker to stand up like this
|
|