Autism Speaks may just be a "part-time" job


Geri Dawson is ALSO at UNC and Columbia U.

http://www.med.unc.edu/www/newsarchive/2011/march/unc-researchers-unravel-clues-develop-interventions-for-autism/


" Dawson also holds the positions of Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Dawson


Above all, she is a Rock Star
http://www.rockstarsofscience.org/2010_rockdocs_dawson.htm

The other person at Autism Speaks besides Geri Dawson, Andy Shih $196,308.00 total compensation in 2010.

I have been interested in the other scientist at AS ---- Andy Shih

2012
http://gma.yahoo.com/researchers-gene-mutations-may-key-autism-180440027.html
"This kind of investigation is of tremendous value for understanding the genetic architecture of risk for autism," said Andy Shih, vice president of scientific affairs at Autism Speaks, a national advocacy group.
"We can probably explain genetic risk factors that might lead to autism in less than 30 percent of the population" from previous research, Shih added.

The gene mutations identified in this research "underscores that autism is a complex interplay between genes and the environment," Shih said. For example, CHD8 can control the expression of other genes in response to environmental stimuli.
This research is also a reminder that autism is a group of related disorders involving many genes in different pathways, he added. "Each of the genes [in these studies] seem to confer only a small risk, and are only readily found in a small percentage of individuals with autism," he noted.
However, Shih said, these studies show that with more genetic analyses involving more patients, "there could be some unifying principles revealed that could allow identification of individuals at risk of autism and guide therapeutics."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-03/health/measles.autism_1_autism-link-andrew-wakefield-measles-vaccine?_s=PM:HEALTH

"This really puts this issue to bed," said Andy Shih, vice president for scientific affairs of "Autism Speaks," an advocacy group.
Dr. William Schaffner, vaccine expert and chairman of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, called the study results "conclusive."
Dr. Neal Halsey, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins Children's Center who specializes in infectious diseases, told CNN, "They have shown the Wakefield study was incorrect." The new study shows "there's no temporal relationship between the vaccines and the gastrointestinal disorders and autism."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008
http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=611489
Still, the new research "adds to the body of existing evidence in which there is no causal connection that demonstrates thimerosal is a primary cause" of autism, said Andy Shih, vice president of scientific affairs for Autism Speaks, an advocacy organization.

Shih said the study methods are "robust," adding that the authors appeared to address limitations of earlier studies. However, he said, the research "doesn't address the possibility that there might be a subpopulation who might be particularly vulnerable to a vaccine with thimerosal."
If just 1 percent to 2 percent of children were especially sensitive to the effect of thimerosal, the study wouldn't be able to pick it up, he said.
Schechter agreed, saying it was true that the research didn't address whether thimerosal might cause problems in a small number of cases.
As for a possible link between vaccines and autism, Shih said, "the jury is still out," especially considering that children are exposed to a large number of vaccines before age 2.
And he added, "Some people in the community feel that they might lead to immune problems that could either exacerbate or lead to autism. All this is purely hypothetical, but this is an area where we need to continue to do more research."
====================================================

John, et al. (to make it look suitably academic here...!),

You've now added a lot of info that was not in JB's original post. Which rather accords with my point that he had not already properly made his case in the first place (that Geri D is either idiot or corrupt).

My views of what would be proper research priorities differ profoundly from those of AS and Geri D. In fact she personally sent me an email recently refusing a piddling $1-2000 to cover open access publication fees for a paper of mine (subject to peer-review), on grounds that they supposedly cannot fund such publishing (due presumably to only having a few dimes to spare).

In common with most people at AoA I think there should be less obsession with genetics and drugs and proof the autism world is still flat, and a concentration instead on studying the mercury connection and the many reports of recovery by various means.

But meanwhile the research agenda of AS/GD is one that is very much the same as in most other organisations in the field. It's obvious that profitmaking-prioritised money has much to do with that.

But just because you disagree with something it doesn't follow that the people you disagree with have evil motivations. You point out that GD earns a lot of money. Sure that doesn't impress us, but it doesn't follow that she must go to bed every night smirking about all those tragic families she appears to be betraying so horrendously. Please note well the following counter-example.

Just about ALL peer-reviewed pubmed-indexed papers, and autism websites, start off by going on about children "with" autism etc. Which is absolutely bonkers because the world certainly does not divide into those "with" autism and those "without". The people who write such utter rubbish all have PhDs and many have professorships. I don't infer that they must be either idiots or liars. Just people do commonly hold absurd beliefs in the face of stark contradictory evidence.

On the basis of that, I reiterate the points I made to begin with on this page, and which remain as true as ever:

Quote:

I have no idea whether Geri Dawson is the most evil person on the planet, or alternatively one of autism research's greatest heroes/heroines.

What I do know is that JB Handley here comes to a very serious conclusion ("idiot" or "corrupt") on a basis of entirely unsound evidence. Basically just because he doesn't like the results of a new study he reacts by finding the messenger guilty. And he presumes that just because lots of parents "think" their autism was caused by mmr that ~therefore~ it obviously was (and this supposedly proves the measles results were a lie).

It is very important in science that people are free to state unpopular findings or notions without being subject to such character assassination reactions. This applies to this attack against Geri Dawson exactly the same as it does to the (certainly unwarranted) attacks against Dr Wakefield. Even if people espouse views that are absurdly illogical or counterfactual, we must understand that it does not follow that they are "either idiot or corrupt".

The man who is often said to call the shots (as it were) at Autism Speaks is Bernie Marcus. Here he is early last year falling in behind Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, Harvey Marcovitch, jane Smith - who seem to be journalists and/or possibly medical bureaucrats, not scientists.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=173580

Of course, his point about the Wakefield "Lancet" paper is not well taken: it was only supposed to be an early report. But clearly if he is dependent on Geri Dawson and colleagues for his views he may not be getting the best advice. The rhetoric of course is that he's in the middle and "the scientists" are only saying one thing, but actually there other scientists saying other things, even though it may not be a wise career move. And, of course, there is:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/vaccination-causes-autism-%e2%80%93-say-us-government-merck%e2%80%99s-director-of%c2%a0vaccines/

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/italy-court-holds-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism-iv-but-so-has-the-usa-some-autism-history/

Robin said:
"I don't "make concessions" about what parents report - I just say what I think of the distinction between direct factual reports and minimally-informed amateur speculations"

Why Robin a parent can't tell you what they saw because you are waiting for a doctor to tell you what the parent saw?

Even if the parent reports rechallenged episodes!!!!

Factual reports - as what - not the parent holding a catitonic or seizing child right after a vaccine
but rather a report from the local doctors - who will lose their carreers because the NIH tyranical rule!

>>1) Your comment seemed to be written as if JB had just said it.

His words are still on this webpage and don't have a disclaimer such as "this is from a while back" on it! Has JB meanwhile retracted it?!

>>2) Geri Dawson should have read the paper before commenting (I must presume that she did).

On the contrary you must not presume but rather confirm before endorsing accusations of corruption.

>>3) Of course Autism Speaks knows what we are saying about them.

That's not the point. The point is was GD aware at that time of that headline and its unacceptability. In absence of which accusations of corruption or idiocy are premature. Would you like to be tried by a jury of this mindset yourself?

>>4) The study corroborates the finding of measles RNA in both autistic and non-autistic groups, and suggests the earlier findings are correct for the groups being investigated.

But surely it showed low levels and no autism assocn. And anyway I don't see why the presence of measles rna is very heavily indicative of autism causation. A person is inoculated with measles, then measles rna found in them, so what?

>>5)

I don't "make concessions" about what parents report - I just say what I think of the distinction between direct factual reports and minimally-informed amateur speculations.

Sure the medical establishment is abysmal in their irresponsibility and unaccountability. Your instance is rather trumped by the secret revelation in my own (backroom) high court case, that the "advice" given by the Chief Denial Officer (that amalgam is perfectly harmless) carries not a whit of legal obligation or duty of care, despite no hint of any disclaimer to that effect being given.

I think you need also to be careful to distinguish between the crrap that goes on in the (mal)administration of "healthcare" and the crrap entering into the scientific debate associated with it. The fact that NHS chief execs lie to me proves nothing about what science is true or not. I share your concern about the agenda of denying honest treatment as a prelude to forcing official profit-quackery on people. And I can see how AS is likely helping with that malign agenda.

Meanwhile if you give someone a reputation as a crook they may then feel they have nothing to lose by living down to it.

Hello again John,

I just typed that comment below as a brief commentary on JB's original item here, on the case he presented there. You've now come back with a reply that brings up a whole lot of things that weren't in JB's article. (I think we have here a case of a common phenomenon when people of a certain view think they have made their case when they haven't. Anyway....)

>>It looks like it may have escaped your notice that this commentary in JB's characteristic barn-storming style is nearly four years old,

And that makes it out of date? Or what?

What JB overlooked to specify in his above is how that headline (in caps) was out of line with the paper's contents as you quote here. Yes there is indeed something unworthy about that headline. JB says that Geri Dawson was responsible for it. I guess the answer is yes, but I don't actually KNOW that GD wrote or even read that headline. Is it still there? Did anyone contact her to challenge it? Until we have answers to these questions it is premature to find her guilty of idiocy/corruption.

>>So, in fact, buried in the interstices of this study was information that it corroborated the earlier Uhlmann study!!!

Hmm. I didn't see any such corroboration in that info you quoted, just the possibility that both studies could be correct in at least some way.

>>Apart from that it worries me that you don't seem to take the point that when parents date their child's problems to the taking of a vaccine that they should actually be treated with respect and concern.

Of course they should be treated with respect and concern. Should even give some credibility to their statements of *fact*. But that doesn't mean you should assume their theories are correct, or do some clever statistical generalisation therefrom. It stands to reason that you aren't ever going to get any parents saying their children's autism caused them to have a vaccination a few hours later. Anecdotal evidence of becoming autistic is a much weaker than than the "anecdotes" of recoveries (that are supposedly impossible).

>>Not to do so - or to dismiss it all on the basis of epidemiology - is in itself an act of bad faith,

No it isn't. As I just said above, there's huge difference between disbelieving parents' reports of their observations and disbelieving the proto-theories they infer therefrom.

An infinitely clearer case of bad faith is the Hertz-Picciotto et al blood mercury 2010. It is absolutely inconceivable that whoever wrote that paper, carefully hiding its utter irrelevance in a cryptic sentence near the end, could have done so other than with deliberate deceit in mind.

On the other hand I believe that quite a lot of these falsehoods get written in a sort of self-deluding "good faith". For instance I suspect that Paul Offit actually believes he is guiding people to the truth with his outrageously deceiving works.

And yes, Geri has some dubious associations there. But maybe she is just seeking money and support for a (supposedly) good cause from wherever it may come. A good principle is that of J Christ, to judge them by their outputs. Not very hot on that measure either it seems. Unfortunately the notion that putting more money into a field will bring more progress rarely bears any relation to reality, as the professional pseudo-researchers soon home in to it.

I think an important problem with "professional science" [oxymoron] is that the basic obligatory qualification, of successfully persisting with a phd project for several years, virtually guarantees that genuinely talented people will never be allowed in. But there are still some honest people out there and sometimes a truth may get out.

Hi Robin,

It looks like it may have escaped your notice that this commentary in JB's characteristic barn-storming style is nearly four years old, and of course the primary question that he asked was whether Geraldine Dawson was "a blithering idiot". It is a fairly good question when you consider the following remarks from the paper itself, whch seem at utter variance from its headline conclusion and recommendations:

"Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children... Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls."

So, in fact, buried in the interstices of this study was information that it corroborated the earlier Uhlmann study!!! So, who were they all kidding? Geri Dawson, perhaps?

Apart from that it worries me that you don't seem to take the point that when parents date their child's problems to the taking of a vaccine that they should actually be treated with respect and concern. Not to do so - or to dismiss it all on the basis of epidemiology - is in itself an act of bad faith, which deserves only to lead to the mistrust and contempt that you see underpinning JB's polemic.

John

PS One problem is of course that "science polemics" have descended via Goldacre, Gorski et al to a very low level. I have just noted a BBC science/comedy programme which seems to work on the basis of lampooning any anyone who wanders from othodoxy. Other people are also seen as having conflicts - I don't know that we really need to regard scientist as having inherently more integrity than politicians or estate agents. Geri has some interesting conflicts:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/05/1-in-38-autism-speaks-new-normal-is-the-biggest-business-bonanza-ever.html

And the trouble is that she's talking across people - de-legitimising them on the basis of rank - who know that she's wrong. I would like to see a return to the basic courtesies of science, and the scientists can begin by cleaning up their own act.

Dr. Carolyn,

I do not mean to be snipe, but I agree with John. JB is not in the habit of making fillets out of people, only in calling out the truth. And that is exactly what Age of Autism is all about.

It is we, the parents, who have led researchers for over 40 if not 50 years, to the answers regarding causation research, and treatment methodology of autism spectrum disorders. BUT it is those such as Geri Dawson, and I might include yourself as well at this point, who are locked in a lab, and not speaking out.

The UK has 1 in 60 with autism. The US Dept. of Ed shows 1 in 67, and last count 1 in 88 (outdated) in the US military with autism. And it goes up every year.

Why haven't you spoken out previously in Geri's defense? Why now? Studies are many times bad across the board, yet no one but the autism community seems to speak up and say anything about these. We certainly don't see any retractions of badly done studies being published, with regard to autism, in ANY of the journals.

QUite simply, we have found the "real" culprits, the problem is this: you all have been locked in a lab too long and not living real life. You've not lived autism. We HAVE. And we HAVE found the culprits. You just can't figure it out. But We HAVE!

So again, not to be snipe, but shall I put my yellow sticky notes, any plastic, cable TV, (oh and of course my cell phone), in the recycling bin and everyone else does the same, and that will make autism disappear??? Sorry, I think NOT.

I am so glad to hear that sound research is being done by Autism Speaks the gene-environment interactions. I think I may have a few ideas for them. Outside the box of autism. Neurological in origin - again outside autism.

Have Autism Speaks ring Autism Salutes won't you???

Oh, again not to be a snipe (or snark), but as a parent I've got Geri beat in years of research, firing doctors, and getting my kids treated for neurological disorders, including autism. You game? I am. autismrr at gmail dot com

Lovely. I'll look to hear from you. I do believe the Managing Editor just might have my number, if you'd rather.

One last thing, you said it is not fair for "you to attack her personally because you disagree with her position..." Nor is it fair for GOVERNMENT and INSURANCE to "attack" AKA "discriminate" against our children with autism. And that is what happens hourly.

I'll look to hear from you.

I have known Geri Dawson for over 15 years and am absolutely horrified to see her fileted in this manner. She has committed her entire career to understanding the causes of autism- genetic, psychological and gene environment interactions. She is a solid scientist who cares deeply for children with autism and their families and has worked tirelessly on their behalf for her entire career. You can disagree with her but name calling and these unfounded, accusatory statements about her ethics are completely out of line. One of the major programs that she is supporting is trying to figure out what it is in the environment that is the risk because the sound scientific data are not supporting thimerosal as the environmental hit. Badly done studies that are widely cited that show a correlation between the increase in rate of autism and the vaccine rate have been detrimental to progress (you could get the same result if you looked at the rate of autism and the use of cable TV, yellow sticky notes, bottled water and the phthalates that emanate from all those plastics - anything that as become widely used in the past 30 years). The real culprits are still out there and she is trying very hard to help find them and through Autism Speaks, sound research is being done to investigate gene-environment interactions. It is not fair for you to attack her personally because you disagree with her position, especially when she has worked so hard for YOUR kids.

Carolyn Schanen, MD PhD
Nemours

The publication is a goldmine of innuendo and illusion, an excellent example of the use of limited fact sprinkled with scientific jargon describing procedures that pay lip service to previous studies it is supposed to invalidate, thence creating extensive suggestion, before inducing a conclusion that bears little relationship to the intention explicit in its original objective. No wonder it fools so many journalists, some of who parade scientific qualifications that belie their apparent dogmatic acceptance of illusion created by scientists. Why have they failed to ask the right questions?

Any journalist/investigator has an obligation not only to repeat the publication accurately but also to play devil's advocate otherwise all they do is repeat publication. That's not journalism, when there are dissenting views, it's advertising.

Look at the possible points for which a reasoning individual might require clarification..

For example, they state they used 48% “cases” v 23% “controls” who had MMR pre GI and that only 20% of “subjects” had "MMR pre GI" "and had GI pre AUT". I am always suspicious of statisticians who deliberately mix up titles; why not make it clear how many of each group (Case/Control) there were exactly and leave "Subjects" out of it in that case - the maths is easy enough?

For example, they discovered "only 2" children were positive for MV infection in the gut, but they do not clarify for the reader if either had "MMR before GI and GI before AUT", or not. If 2 kids have MV in their gut, even though the information would not alter their statistical deduction, in a cohort of only 47 of which there were 7 'opt outs' with only 13 controls even ONE boy with positive MV and a history of "MMR then GI then AUT" is clinically, if not statistically (and face it, they opine out of statistical jiggery pokery not absolute fact), significant.

For example, if Wakefields' families' autistic children "had MMR then GI then AUT" (if those parents sensibly presupposed the importance of "AUT coming after GI after MMR" for suspected MMR causation) it might have been a more useful, and more equitable, to have selected a cohort purely having kids who "had MMR then GI then AUT", as per Wakefield's families; thence investigate possible mechanism using DNA / RNA / PCR techniques, without clouding the issue through lots of ASD kids with or without GI problems who did not have MMR beforehand. OK it does not give the statistical appreciation Hornig et al produced but it offers an opportunity for scientific evaluation of clinically more appropriate children. One concludes that either this study was designed to cloud the issue, it being easy to show from a mixed but small cohort of AUT kids there are many without the "MMR to GI to AUT status" but it cannot say 100% for that cohort that the single child with AUT did not suffer GI and AUT due to MMR without specifying that the boy developed his GI and/or AUT before he had his MMR, so why not mention it?

For example, Controls had more vaccines than Cases yet that information is not investigated - confounding the issue - obviously parents that suspect MMR (and any other vaccine used before MMR was offered) are likely to avoid repeat doses, and possibly other vaccines, and therefore be “missing” from any sampling process no matter how large or small that sampling process is.

For example, MV was found in the 2 kids at different gut locations, in the Case more widespread than in the Control but, as the authors chose statistical wizardry over clinical deduction, this aspect was thrown out with the bathwater.

For example, different types of IBD may suggest different familial (genetic) predispositions; familial/genetic predispositions are ignored in this small study.

For example, they ignored the potential for temporary MV presentation – another layer of investigation – unacceptable when one considers their statement in conclusion.

Fascinating to see that this week's issue of British Medical Journal has come out without a report of the Hornig study. They have gone for a news blackout in the UK, as this demonstrates.

http://www.bmj.com/content/vol337/issue7670/

Thanks JB for your excellent article. It is now clear that the public health/pharma players are onto a delaying game and its not going to end soon. We desperately need some new counter tactics and perhaps we need some unity and organisation to carry those out.
Are we not also sometimes lured into the swamp of delay? I may be wrong as I was not part of it, but what was all that puzzle piece of autism thing? Did that not purvey the idea that pharma most loves- Autism its so so so mysterious- Its going to take us a hundred years to figure it out.
Right now I can picture some Dickensian characters raising their glasses and toasting their new gift of mitochondrial disorder. Since mitochondrial disorders have been so little studied- at least 10 to 20 years could get prolonged in that alone.I truly hope that we can find a way out of this.
On the topic of MMR, can anyone out there tell me if there are cases in which the child only had MMR and no mercury vaccines at the same time? We now have plenty of autistic kids in India but we dont seem to hear about this gut problem. There is probably a difference in vaccine schedules to account for this. Our kids get plenty of mercury vaccines- perhaps more than most US kids ever did, but I think the mmr may be given later and alone.I have met two families here who noticed immediate change after the mmr, but the kids dont seem to have the long term bowel problems, tho it is possible that those problems existed before I saw the kids. I also feel that the importance of fish as a source of mercury may have been underestimated in the U.S.. We are most likely to see autism in India among families that eat a lot of fish and in the children who have been vaccinated at govt clinics and hospitals as those clinics use Serum Institute of India vaccines that have the highest level of mercury (25 mcg mercury per pediatric dose)

While we are on the subject of journalists, spare a thought for Brian Deer who originally brought the allegations against Andrew Wakefield. Deer - who has not been seen in the Sunday Times for more than a year - has placed the Hornig study on his website:

http://briandeer.com/mmr/hornig-lipkin.pdf

This is despite the fact that Hornig undermines his case fatally in two respects, repudiating both the claim that Wakefield's results were false positives, and that the three Royal Free Hospital doctors now standing trial at General Medical Council were acting unethically.

This is on top of the fact that the other part of his story, that Lancet editor Richard Horton, did not know of Wakefield's involvement in the MMR litigation has also collapsed:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/JABS%20Briefing%20Note,%209%20April%202008.pdf

So it looks, despite the silence of the British media, as if the entire story was garbage.

Poor Brian!

Diane

I have no doubt some of the patterns are different in the US from the UK, but the media used to report on these matters and now with a few noble exceptions (and almost none in the UK) they do not. A great deal of the immense stonewall that has been constructed is corrupt, but a lot of it is intimidation. Journalists are disinclined to stick their necks out but in the UK, at least, it is the editors that have shut down on reporting our side entirely. Last year, as an example, the editor of Observer newspaper lost his job over a mildly flawed report concerning MMR, and he is now on his very best behaviour as editor of the Independent. How the pharma must have salivated as his head rolled.

By the way, one of the things to be said in favour of the Hornig study is that it is mostly written in perfectly intelligible English. But you are right, mostly even specialist science or health journalists seldom bother to look.

JB,

I think this about sums up what I think of the "recent MMR study".

http://forum.autisticliving.com/showthread.php?t=309

I was so excited when I saw that this "study" was taking place, even though I had no details. 38 kids? That's two classrooms, in a SMALL school.

We're putting the health of the world's children in the hands of two classrooms?

The question "Are you **ittin me?" came to mind when I read the results.

My advice is to gather 38 children for the next event you do. Line them up on stage, or better yet, cluster them together in the crowd. Then say "This is the amount of children we're basing decisions for the world on. We ask for major research studies, and they take a hard look at a boy scout troop"

...and yes, "corrupt hack" about sums it up too.

-AL

I emailed Peter Bell at Autism Speaks asking him to include a link to Thoughtful House's statement in their blurb on the MMR study.
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/040908.htm

No response, and no action taken to date.

This just proves the point that we need "practice based evidence" rather than "evidence based practices".

Find out whats working in practice and study that appropriately. It will help people immediately and also provide "evidence" of what the potential causes are.

The evidence based science is a slow moving bureaucracy cash cow for researchers who often spend all that money to conclude "needs more study" (translates to "we need more funding"). Autism Speaks is a corporate charity based on milking this paradigm.

I am certainly not against science or study - that's what I do. But our kids need help now. Our kids deserve the funding that furthers improvements now rather than researchers endlessly looking at brain scans to see how they react to pictures of Cartoon characters smiling (think Monty Python "do you have the machine that goes "BING"?) hoping that will somehow one day detect and prevent. Hey, what about those dealing with autism now? How about funding finding the cause(s) rather than funding the detection equipment and specialists? Then we won't need to waste money that parents with little money raise walking on endless genetic and brain scan studies, 6 figure incomes, corporate jets (just ask Diddy how expense that gets), or high rent offices.

Let's be clear, the Hornig study states:

"Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children [10], [41]. Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140

So, if they had replicated the Uhlmann study they are saying that they would most probably have got the same results.

I have just had a very interesting email exchange with a leading British science journalist. His response was:

1) He had reported what authors said (it has to be said somewhat selectively).

2) The authors had not complained.

3) He would only report criticisms if they appeared in a peer review journal.

There was a British civil servant, Lord Armstrong, who attempted on behalf of the government in the mid 1980s to stop the memoirs of a former British spy being published in Australia. Under pressure in the Australian court he admitted to being "economical with the truth". I am afraid that that is where we are now with the serious players in this tragedy.