Joanna Weiss on "Autism's Unblessed Scientists"

Managing Editor's Note: This post is from Boston.com. Click the link to comment at Boston.com please.

Autisms  ‘unblessed’ scientists
By Joanna Weiss
Globe Columnist / June 1, 2010 

Last Tuesday, British officials revoked the medical license of Andrew Wakefield, the ethically challenged researcher whose 1998 paper first raised the specter of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Public health officials declared the case closed and lamented a decade of lost ground in the fight against infectious disease.

But Wakefield spent the rest of the week declaring that his work would go on (as well as promoting his new book, “Callous Disregard.’’) His followers were also undeterred. On Friday, Wakefield got a hero’s welcome at the Autism One conference in Chicago, sponsored by two groups that largely cling to the belief that vaccines can cause autism. “Andy needs our support more than ever!’’ blared a headline on the Autism One website.

Also speaking at the conference was Northeastern University professor of pharmacology Richard Deth. He is 65, soft-spoken, and intense, and he believes in the possibilities of outside-the-mainstream therapies and research.

He also understands the consequences of appearing at conferences like Autism One, of aligning with groups that operate on the fringes of accepted science.

“That’s a risk that I’ve recognized for several years,’’ Deth told me last week, “but I feel like a better person for having taken it.’’ He appreciates the audience of well-intentioned parents, looking for help. And he says those parents have given him ideas that have led to research.

Specifically, he’s been intrigued by the use of special diets and supplements, and curious why — on a cellular level — they sometimes appear to work. A few weeks ago, in his office at Northeastern, he gave me a two-hour primer of his work. It was a fast-flash course in molecular biology, but the gist of it was this: Exposure to certain heavy metals can keep brain cells from growing as they should. Some people, through quirks of their cellular makeup, are more likely to be affected than others. And kids with autism sometimes fit this profile.

Yes, vaccines contain heavy metals — most notably aluminum — but Deth allows that the troubles could be also caused by something in the air, the water, those baby bottles we didn’t know were toxic until recently. He claims not to care about the cause so much as the potential for prevention, even cure.

To my lay mind, his conclusions don’t seem terribly controversial. They seem, in fact, a possible path to common ground: If we could agree that vaccines are only risky for a few, perhaps we could learn how to identify those at-risk kids and immunize them safely.

But in the years that he has pursed this line of research, Deth often found himself persona non grata among his fellow scientists. Some Northeastern professors once told graduate students to leave his lab. A dean once sent him a letter, telling him to stop.

But now Deth has his colleagues’ respect. “He’s a man of great integrity,’’ said Mansoor Amiji, chairman of Northeastern’s Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, who was a student of Deth’s before he joined the faculty. Amiji said Deth’s research is relevant, not just to families of autistic children, but to aging people with degenerative disease.

“His approach is very fascinating,’’ Amiji said. “He’s looking at this issue of environment and its role.’’

But Deth has had trouble getting his most recent work into top peer-reviewed scientific journals. The rejection letters don’t dispute the research itself, but suggest that it isn’t interesting enough to other scientists.

It may be that they’re right. It may be, as Deth believes, that in the world of autism research, there are “divisions of information, some blessed and some unblessed,’’ and the “unblessed’’ information doesn’t get heard.

The “unblessed’’ scientists have made clear that they won’t stop. And if one good thing can be said of this protracted and ugly debate, it’s that it has spurred so much research into matters of vaccine safety — including a study released last week, spurred by parent concerns, that showed it was safe to give children multiple shots at once.

Deth, whose young granddaughter is due for shots soon, said the news was reassuring. He did have a few questions about the study. And when it comes to science, can asking questions ever be a bad thing?

Joanna Weiss can be reached at weiss@globe.com.

Comments

[kathleen]

The bottom line of Wakefield's book to me is that you are left with one question...
Did our children deserve further investigation?
The answer in an absolute YES! The reference to pediatrician's who did not perform LP's is lost on me. They don't for the most part...not because it isn't justified, but rather because the A diagnosis gets you a pat on the back and a small shove toward seeking therapy. These docs don't believe it is possible to cure autism...therefore there is NO research into what is happening to them on the inside. Not the "mental" inside, but the gut.
Fever of unknown origin in a child at the facility I work, is more than enough of a reason to perform an LP. No one questions the ethics of these pediatrician's for the many, many LP's done.
The only problem here is that the implication of damage by vaccine is not up for investigation.

[GrammaKnows]

Someone needs to take a good hard look at that study released last week. Its based on a resortment of a data set that:
1. Came from HMOs. HMOs are known to pay doctors a premium for fully vaccinated patient population. Hence, the doctors exclude and ask atients to leave if they avoid vaccines, all or in part, for any reason.

2. The original study from whence these numbers were derived involved thimerosal impact on children age 7-10. Very specifically, the developmental and neur assessments did not include any assessments for autism.

3. The original thimerosal study made NO calculation of mercury dose per lb beyond the age of 214 days. In other words, the measurements were early on in the vaccine schedule and specifically excluded the burden most parents state "tipped" their children into regression.

4. The population chosen specifically excluded children who had encephalitis and other neuro inflammatory diagnosis.

How can anyone trust a study that used every possible convolution to screen out children with potential neuro conditions and make the claim the population left for the data set gives any conclusion as to the causation of neuro disorders or representation of safety in the vaccines or vaccine schedule?

Resorting data for analysis for other purposes than the original study is a valid methodology - but not when that data specifically excludes the population it is targeting for analysis.

There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics...in this case, the statistics are the damn lies.

[WILLIE]

Prospective randomized double blind studies with placebo controls performed in the USA and independent of all financial and economic reationships with signed disclosures and declarations are the gold standard and ALL OF OUR CHILDREN MERIT THE GOLD STANDARD.

They do not have any of those for any of the major vaccines, and yes I have reviewed many of them as well as the researchers that allegedly performed the studies and they are disqualified for a number of reasons not the least of which is their financial interest and the fact that all of the studies are done by the same researchers at places like Brown over and over and their job is to secure millions of dollars in grant money from pharmaceutical giants and rubber stamp their vaccines.

The classic example is the rotashield virus that was deemed safe by Dennhey from Brown when in fact it caused a complication, intussuception, that is not only not found in the wild type virus but also can cause death and require surgery for the removal of dead bowel in a newborn, a study done later at UCLA blamed the vaccine and it was pulled from the market.

So in addition to not being neccessary the vaccine which was a xenograft hybrid (part human part primate) was SH--.

THIS IS ALL YOU CAN EXPECT FROM DRUG DEALERS, SH-- , AND THESE ARE DRUG DEALERS IN EVERY CONSIDERATION OF THE PHRASE.

[Anonymous]

Garbo
Sadly, you are absolutely right. I agree with everything you said. I've lost all faith, too.

[Garbo]

"It was really a meaningless study. It's hard to believe it was funded or published."

Really? Because it seems to me that the only studies that DO get funded and published are the meaningless ones. The ones that are designed and manipulated to hide any semblance of the truth. I think it is this perversion of science, more than anything else, that has caused me to lose faith in all institutions I once held dear. Scientists, if they are true scientists, should be screaming at the top of their lungs about this.

[Benedetta]

AnaB
10 years I painfully came to know Lousiville while I was trying to get help for my son. The many we saw in that town could not figure out my son had epilepsy. My gosh that after he had many grand mal seizure, the staring kind of seizures, and myclonic jerks (all the time). This was even after The Univeristy of KY had long given them heads up and said he did when he was only 1 year old.

It was also Louisville that did a muscle biopsy (checking for mitochondria dysfunction) on my husband, without any pain killer on his shoulder and thigh (they messed that up there too) because the samples were useless. He had to actually go to Emory Clinic and have it done again.

He refused to allow his son or daughter to go through the muscle biospy deal because of them.

I hope no one is partial to Louisville but they have proven over and over again to me to be second rate, and I am being kind. What I want to say is the bottom of the barrel.

[Anonymous]

The study didn't say anything about the safety of giving multiple shots at once compared to spacing out shots. It was supposedly about delaying shots. It looked at differences between kids who got their shots when they were supposed to according to the schedule at the time compared to kids (mostly from lower income and/or single-parent homes) who got one or more of their shots a little late.

In addition to what AnaB said, some of the problems with the study were that the data was old and the schedule was not the one currently used. They only considered the first year and its schedule. They didn't account for the possibility that a child's subsequent shots in a series (like DTP) were delayed because the child had an adverse reaction to the first or second shot in the series.

It was really a meaningless study. It's hard to believe it was funded or published.

[Donna K]

Joanna Weiss concludes her article with,"And when it comes to science, can asking questions ever be a bad thing?" Obviously, she didn't consider that her opening critique of Dr. Wakefield perpetuated one of the best examples of efforts to censor scientific inquiry. As we know all too well, asking questions about inconvenient truths in science can be a bad thing, a very bad thing.

[Adriana]

Dr. Deth is not only a committed scientist but he also has a beautiful way with words. "Unblessed"-- kind of reminds us that mainstream science has been elevated dangerously to the status of religion.

I'm a little impressed at the article. The rift behind the scenes in media companies over the vaccine/environmental-autism issue is growing as more and more of their own children are effected. A rift behind the scenes was the only reason that news leaked out about murders and atrocity in South America in the American media in the 70s and 80s and about Vietnam in the 60s.

It's a small leak now but could become a geyser. I wonder what industry will do to stop it up now that their "little Dutch boy", Paul Offit, has a PCV-tainted vaccine on the line? They're getting desperate, which is a little scary.

[AnaB]

The media will continue reporting on this in one way or another because it garnishes them so much attention, which draws in ad revenues. So, even if it is just to bash us they will always report on he subject, much to the chagrin to those that wish it wouldn't.

[michael framson]

What ever honesty starts appearing in the media will come in homoepathically small amounts.

[AnaB]

It was a study by the University of Louisville published in Pediatrics.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2009-2489v1?maxtoshow&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Michael+J.+Smith&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&

[Anne McElroy Dachel]

It's amazing to see a big city paper publish a piece like this. Usually, the way they tell it, there is no possibility of any connection between vaccines and autism. All the science is in, according to the pharma-funded sources cited from the CDC. It doesn't bother them that no one can give us any other reason for the explosion in the autism rate. I'd like to think this is the beginning of more balanced coverage of this critical health care issue.
Anne Dachel
Media

[AnaB]

Yeah, about that recent study that said it is safe to give multiple vaccines at once. The data set that study used is from an earlier Thimerosal study ("Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years" New England Journal of Medicine, Thompson WW et al. (September 27, 2007). That Thimerosal study excluded many children who we have since learned are more likely to develop ASD: multiple births, children with congenital problems, low birth weight. It also exluded families with higher locational mobility, plus only 30% of the partipants tapped for participation actually participated, which is very low.

So, if this new study used data that excludes those most likely to have a neurodevelopmental disorders then it is more likely to not detect a possible subgroup.

Why can't any recent study use original data, as many of those Thimerosal studies have been widely criticized? I truly consider each study on it's own merit and make no assumptions until I read it, but it always seems to come back to this.

[LJ GOes]

What study showed that giving kids multiple shots is safe?