When Reporters Don’t Read: Media Draws Incorrect Conclusions on Pediatrics GI Autism Papers
By Laurette Janak
The January 2010 issue of the journal Pediatrics includes two newly published studies investigating GI and dietary issues in children with Autism (1,2). The lead author for both studies was Dr. Timothy Buie. After reading the actual studies, I quickly realized how the media has put out material, which can lead the public to incorrect conclusions. For example, in response to the Buie studies, the Associated Press carried an article written by Carla K. Johnson, which started out with the following paragraph,
“An expert panel says there's no rigorous evidence that digestive problems are more common in children with autism compared with other children, or that special diets work, contrary to claims by celebrities and vaccine naysayers.” (3)
There are two parts to that paragraph and I will address each one separately. The first part concerns the prevalence of GI problems in children with autism. Some might interpret the lack of evidence as “proof” that children with autism do not have a higher incidence of GI problems. This situation extends back to an earlier study published in the same journal so I will pick up the story there.
The August 2009 issue of Pediatrics presented a population-based study, which looked at the incidence of GI symptoms in 121 case children with autism (4). According to this study by Ibrahim SH et al. they found a higher occurrence of constipation in children with autism however no difference was observed in the overall incidence of GI symptoms. Ibrahim’s study stated that because constipation has a
“behavioral etiology, data suggest that a neurobehavioral rather than a primary organic gastrointestinal etiology may account for the higher incidence of these gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism.”(4) It further went on to explain that,
“Our findings are consistent with previous reports that have found that children with autism do not have an increased rate of either gastrointestinal disorders in general or celiac disease in particular.”(4)
Just to make sure the Pediatric readers “really” understood that there were no GI problems associated with autism, this same issue published a commentary by Gilger MA et al. in which Gilger reiterates the Ibrahim findings that,
“…the overall incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms did not differ between cases of autism and controls.” and that, “Ibrahim et al are to be commended for a well-performed study, with which they attempt to put to rest the nagging suggestion that there exists a link between autism and gastrointestinal disease.”(5)
Back in August, the media immediately jumped on this “well-performed” study to tell us that autism and GI symptoms are not related.
But is this what the Pediatrics articles by Buie found? Did Buie say that the prevalence of GI symptoms in autism is the same as in the control population? Absolutely NOT!
In the study, Buie tells us that,
“The prevalence of gastrointestinal abnormalities in individuals with ASDs is incompletely understood.”(1)
He furthermore goes on to say,
“Despite the limitations in type and quality of available evidence, the preponderance of data were consistent with the likelihood of a high prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders associated with ASDs.”(1)
What can account for the major difference between the findings published in the August Pediatrics study by Ibrahim and the January Pediatrics study by Buie? The answer to that becomes evident when you read Buie’s two papers. Buie goes into extensive detail explaining how the diagnosis of autism may cause doctors to overlook GI symptoms because children with autism present in an atypical and nonverbal manner. This stands in contrast to the August study by Ibrahim who so easily dismisses the elevated occurrence of constipation in children with autism as being a “neurobehavioral” problem.
The second area of misunderstanding by the press concerns the use of the gluten-free (GF) diet that is currently being successful utilized by so many parents (including myself) who have children on the autism spectrum. For individuals diagnosed with celiac disease a GF diet is the only proven method of treatment. But do children with autism have celiac?
A 2009 celiac study by Ludvigsson JF et al. (6) found 28% of children with a form of celiac called latent celiac had constipation yet Ibrahim easily dismissed the constipation in children with autism as being behaviorally related. He specifically tells us that in his cases of 121 children with autism there were no diagnosed celiacs. He does not tell us if any of the 121 cases had actually ever been screened for celiac. This is disappointing when one recognizes that using our current standards of celiac screening 90% of celiac disease is being missed and that celiac can be completely asymptomatic (7). Ibrahim then references one study, which he uses to conclude there is no increased prevalence of celiac in the autism population. It is of importance to note that the study he relied on screened a mere 11 individuals with autism for celiac (8).
Latent celiac is found in family members who have first-degree relatives with celiac. So it is critical to know that in the exact same issue of Pediatrics in which Ibrahim refuted an association of celiac with autism, another study just pages away found for the first time an increased risk of ASDs with a maternal history of celiac disease (9). Since the incidence of celiac disease among members who have a first-degree relative with celiac is significantly higher than that of the general population and maternal celiac is a risk factor for ASD, it is highly probably that children with autism have a higher incidence of celiac disease but it is going undetected. Clearly, such children would benefit by a gluten free diet but what about children with autism who do not have celiac?
The Buie study cited only one reference in which the value of a gluten free diet had been investigated (10). This study was a randomized double-blind cross–over study which looked at the behavioral impacts of a gluten-free casein-free (GFCF) in children with autism. This should have been considered the “gold standard” in science however; it had some rather severe limitations, which deserve your attention. Firstly, only 13 children completed the study. Secondly, the time on each arm of the study was only six weeks and there was no washout time between the crossover arms. The results were reported as grouped data and not as per individuals, none-the-less the following was said,
“It is also interesting that even though grouped data were non-significant for each of the dependent variables, behavior and language improvement could be seen in individual children.”(10)
“Clearly this was a heterogeneous sample in reference to age, severity of autism, and cognitive abilities and thus it was difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the group as a whole.”(10)
As if the above information was not bad enough, the real kicker came when the authors said the following:
“…even though most parents were conscientious regarding the dietary restrictions, there were several reports of children “sneaking food” from siblings or classmates.”
In other words, this study was useless because it did not even assure the condition of being gluten free.
While it is a correct statement to say that the GFCF diet has not been scientifically tested, it is an error to say that it has been found useless. Thousands of parents have seen first hand the benefits of the GFCF diet and several published papers have documented such case studies. It is of particular interest to read some of the comments from one such thoroughly documented case study from a culture that is not so reliant on wheat. In the case history documented by medical doctors in Taiwan the authors acknowledge that,
“…this treatment option is more feasible with patients in East Asia than in western countries due to the different dietary habits and food selection.” (11)
After demonstrating the growth changes and changes in behavior (scored and reported) this group of Taiwan doctors state:
“In the future, we will try to analyze underlying biochemical alterations in children successfully treated with such dietary restrictions in order to precisely define and predict the subgroups of ASD that responded positively to this therapy”
Meanwhile, their recommendations are:
In our experience, this adverse-effect-free therapeutic intervention is worth promotion in children with ASD.
And I agree!
Laurette Janak
January 6, 2000
1.) Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals
with ASDs: A Consensus Report
Pediatrics Volume 125, Supplement 1, pages S1-S18 January 2010
Buie T et al.
2.) Recommendations for Evaluation and Treatment of Common Gastrointestinal
Problems in Children with ASDs
Pediatrics Volume125, Supplement 1, pages S19- S29 January 2010
3.) http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14116398
4.) Incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism: a poulation–based
study
Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):680-6
Ibrahim SH et al.
5.) Autism and the Gut
Pediatrics 2009;124; 796-798
Mark A. Gilger and Carol Anne Redel
6.) Symptoms and signs in individuals with serology positive for celiac disease but
normal mucosa.
BMC Gastroenterol. 2009 Jul 22;9:57.
Ludvigsson JF, Brandt L, Montgomery SM.
7.) Ninety Percent of Celiac Disease is Being Missed
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2007 Oct;45(4):497-9.
Ravikumara M, Nootigattu VK, Sandhu BK.
8.) Autism and Celiac Diseas: Failure to Validate the Hypothesis that a Link Might
Exist
Biol Psychiatry. 1997 Jul 1;42(1):72-5.
Pavone, Fiumara, Bottaro, Mazzone, Coleman
9.) Association of Family History of Autoimmune Diseases and Autism Spectrum
Disorders
Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):687-94
Atladóttir HO, Pedersen MG, Thorsen P, Mortensen PB, Deleuran B, Eaton WW,
Parner ET.
10.) The Gluten-Free, Csein-Free Diet in Autism: Results of a Preliminary Double Blind
Clinical Trial
J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Apr;36(3):413-20.
Elder JH, Shankar M, Shuster J, Theriaque D, Burns S, Sherrill L.
11.) The Effects of A Gluten and Casein-free Diet in Children with Autism: A Case
Report
Chang Gung Med J. 2009 Jul-Aug;32(4):459-65.
Hsu CL, Lin CY, Chen CL, Wang CM, Wong MK.
To "B. Williams":
PLEASE stick around and read a bit more here, I am SORRY to say you will continue to be SHOCKED, DISMAYED, and VERY ANGRY.
May I ask where you are writing for? You sound like an interesting and HONEST journalist who is searching for the truth...
So, take a look around, stay for awhile, and ask as many questions as you need to!
Angie
Mom to Ethan, Alex, and Megan
Posted by: Angie | January 16, 2010 at 06:38 PM
A great article!
Has anyone been paying attention to the recent FDA warnings about BPA...for once, they are actually admitting now that it IS dangerous, especially for women, fetuses, babies, children? especially in and on food products?
Gosh, I guess the Government and "mainstream" scientists CAN BE WRONG about things AND also be able to 'admit' when they have made (even if purposeful) errors in the past...HOWEVER,
OF COURSE IT DOESNT RELATE TO Vaccines/Autism, OF COURSE there are NO cover-ups or mistakes or 'bad' science or anything related to "money" in regards to Vaccines/Autism...
As a great man once said "Do they really think we are THIS STUPID?"
It infuriates me...
We need to continue to work hard here, between the professionals that post here, and the parents turned researchers and writers, and maybe, just maybe 'journalism' can become HONEST again.
Now, as far as I see it, the Newspapers should all be free, like the little local papers, because when 'the big' "news" outlets start raising their prices...heck, all it is is a bunch of paid advertisements...no truth anymore...sad to say, but the most truthful parts of the 'news' papers today are probably the USED car listings! LOL!
Thanks to the author and to AoA for continuing to fight the good fight!
Angie
Mom to Ethan, Alex, and Megan
Posted by: Angie | January 16, 2010 at 06:21 PM
"I am stunned, appalled, shocked, speechless."
B Williams, welcome to the world of autism!
Posted by: Natasa | January 16, 2010 at 04:24 PM
No one really expected a hack reporter to actually read the study - did they?
Posted by: GrammaKnows | January 13, 2010 at 08:52 AM
I tried to post one line at Salon.com (where the AP story appeared)to the effect that the conclusions drawn by the authors of the Pediatrics articles were misrepresented by the AP writer, but Salon closed the comment thread after 5 comments.
Posted by: Coralie | January 12, 2010 at 07:48 PM
Opps...I accidently posted this to the wrong story. Sorry. Let me try again....
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to some important points brought up in a post by Judy Converse. Judy questioned whether the individual nutrient status of the children in the GFCF study by Elder was determined to see if any of the children were anemic or low in zinc at the start of the trial. Judy posted that,
“GF CF diets often fail when other nutrition variables are not repaired first, in my 10 years' clinical experience with hundreds of children using these tools.”
Nowhere in the GFCF study by Elder did they make any mention of testing for any nutritional status in the children. But I would like to bring the readers attention to an article I read subsequent to writing my above essay.
The article published by Genuis et al. in the J. Child Neurol 2010 presents a case history of a 5 year old child diagnosed with severe autism whose symptoms of autism rapidly abated upon diagnosis and treatment for celiac disease CD. His accompanying nutrient deficiencies were treated as well.(1) This well documented case history clearly illustrates some of the concerns voiced by Judy so it deserves mention here.
The first thing that stands out when reading this case history was the difficulty the child had in getting a CD diagnosis. The authors report on the many doctors who had been consulted and the wide range of tests that had been run including, “A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), optometry assessment, blood work and genetic testing…” on the case child as a 3 year old (1). Clearly, much time had been spent and money laid out for testing and doctor hopping but all to no avail. Finally at the age of 5 years, a nutritional biochemistry assessment was done which revealed, “inadequate levels of fat-soluble vitamins, including notable deficiencies of vitamins A, D, and E as well as low coenzyme Q10 and folate.” (1) Other findings included low zinc and ferritin with abnormal fatty acid levels. The case child was fortunate because this particular doctor not only took the time to run essential tests, but furthermore he knew the significance of the abnormal biochemical findings and tested the child for celiac disease. Upon serological confirmation of CD, a gluten free diet was instituted. This is the point where the story differs significantly from what might have occurred had a typical GI doctor consulted with this family. Understanding the significance of nutrient deficiencies, the doctor on this case took great care to assure his patient became replete in all his missing nutrients in addition to placing him on a gluten free diet. “Within 3 months, his functioning had improved so much that he no longer required an individualized learning program and was able to enter a normal classroom with no aide.” (1) Genuis makes reference to a paper by Barcia and colleagues that, “recently found an increased incidence of intestinal biopsy-confirmed celiac disease in their patients with pervasive developmental disorders (3.3%) compared to the normal population (0.9%).” (1) In contrast to the Buie consensus paper, the authors of this study believe all children with autism should be screened for celiac disease even if they do not present with GI symptoms.
And I agree!
I commend the authors of this paper for bringing out several absolutely excellent points, which I share for you here in my own paraphrasing.
The body is complex and requires that all essential nutrients be available in optimal quantities to function correctly.
The medical profession needs to update its attitude of considering nutrient manipulation to be in the realm of “alternative medicine” and come into alignment with the massive amount of published medical literature showing “nutrition is a well-recognized common cause of illness.”(1)
The authors do not believe in a “shot-gun” approach to treating with supplements but rather believe in testing for the specific biochemical abnormalities in each individual and designing a program custom fit to the findings of lab tests.
In closing I leave you with one final quote from this superb paper,
“Recognizing that neuropsychiatric dysfunction exacts an enormous cost both financially and personally, micronutrient screening is recommended for all children with significant central nervous system dysfunction. Such screening should include plasma amino acid status, serum screen for coenzyme Q10 and fat-soluble vitamins, red blood cell mineral status, serum folate, plasma fatty acid profile, and urine organic acids to assess functionality of nutrient physiology.” (1)
And I agree!
Laurette Janak January 11, 2010
1.) Celiac Disease Presenting as Autism
Genuis SJ, Bouchard TP.
J Child Neurol. 2010 Jan;25(1):114-9
Posted by: Laurette Janak | January 12, 2010 at 09:49 AM
Twyla - no doubt they do, and God bless them.
I'm thinking more of the reporters who write the hit pieces. How many of them actually raise their own children? How many of them have their schedule wrecked when their child gets the flu? Is that a major reason why we now have some of these harmful vaccines? Can we be honest about that in this country?
Can we stop asking children to pay the price for our consumer-driven economy?
This was an issue I considered long and hard when I left the professional world to help my child. It has required a lot of sacrifice, but it has been worth it. I just want more honesty in the reporting, and in the reporters themselves. They need to consider whether their biases ("gee, don't ask me to change my lifestyle") taint their objectivity.
Posted by: Parent | January 12, 2010 at 07:11 AM
Carla Johnson is the AP medical writer who wrote the "political" spin on the Pediatrics GI paper which was picked up pretty much everywhere. The HealthDay News reporter, EJ Mundel wrote a better article. Geraldine Dawson laments, "parents are just left to just sort this out individually because we simply don't have enough data to either say that it's helpful or not." That should be the mission statement for AS: Parents, you're on your on.
What's also interesting is that 2 days before the GI stories made press, the NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/health/02flu.html?hp had this quote from Dr Michael Osterholm, "despite the fact that there are many fewer reporters who understand medical issues than there used to be." (Maybe Dr. Osterholm is finally in agreement with us regarding the pathetic reporting of ASD medical issues.) This is the same article that CDC revealed how they used reporters to control the message on anything adverse from the H1N1 mass vaccination program.
When it comes to the range of illness, disability, treatment, diagnosis of what is occurring in so many children, its not just reporters who "lack" understanding of medical issues, but the current crop of pediatricians who are clueless and useless. It appears that the AAP is positioning itself on that platform.
Age of Autism parents, you are the future of the new medicine, of new curriculum's. Onward!
Posted by: michael framson | January 12, 2010 at 02:48 AM
I will admit from the outset that I am unfamiliar with the issues that are being discussed here. I came cross this site while looking for articles where main stream journalists write pieces that are at variance with the actual facts of what is happening. Whether this is done through ignorance, bias, promoting an agenda or any other reason is what I am actually looking for.
The headline for the article published here on this page is "When Reporters Don’t Read: Media Draws Incorrect Conclusions on Pediatrics GI Autism Papers".
Ah, excellent, I think to my self. Just what I am looking for. So I set out to read the news article and the reports referred to in it. What’s even better is the author on this page has listed all relevant sources in the footnotes. Nice. Footnotes 1 and 2 list the reports being referred to in the news media in footnote 3. I read the news article and then try to read the reports named in footnotes 1 and 2. I head over to the journal http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/current.dtl Pediatrics to do so. Bugger. The articles listed in footnotes 1 and 2 are in a supplement, the supplement is not on the website, time for me to move on.
So why am I posting a comment here?
The article above piqued my interest a bit but it was not till I read in the comments post number 5 - Posted by: xxxxxx | January 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM.
Poster says "
Well, how many of you, like myself, had your child turned away by GI doctors without examiination? It is a problem of epic proportions. Therefore, how can our kids have a documented GI condition in their charts when doctors routinely turn them away without examination? Any other kid who would have walked into that doctors office with the same complaint as my son would have gotten an examination, but because my son is autistic it was dismissed as, "oh, that's just the Autism."
"
What is this? Doctors refusing to treat sick kids? Sounds to me like negligence at best and malpractice at worst. This is criminal behaviour.
What ever my original reason for coming here, I was dumbfounded and shocked to read this - hence my post.
Doctors are refusing to examine and/or treat sick kids - then using another illness to justify the refusal to treat them?
This site "Age of Autism" needs to start a name and shame campaign of these so called health practitioners.
I am stunned, appalled, shocked, speechless.
As I admitted at the start of this post I am unfamiliar with this issue, but after reading what is written here I feel my ignorance of these issues needs to change big time. It is time for me to educate myself about what seems to be medical malpractice on a huge scale.
Thank you.
Posted by: B. Williams | January 12, 2010 at 01:29 AM
@ "Parent" - Plenty of working moms cook GFCF.
Posted by: Twyla | January 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM
I HAVE SAID IT FROM DAY ONE, ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY, AND THE GOV, AND MEDICAL, AND PHARMACYS ARE ALL IN IT TOGATHER. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY AND POPULATION CONTROL.
Posted by: BARBARA | January 11, 2010 at 09:34 PM
At long last we have a document from an organization doctors will actually listen to and what does the media do? Turn it into yet another 15 second spin debasing diets and vaccine causation. Please make sure that the doctors of your children actually READ the recommendations put out and don't just trust headlines of news articles based on the most attention grabbing nugget the author and editors can find.
Have the name of the article ready, show them that you have the interest in your child's health and that they should be up on ALL of the information being put out by the organizations they belong to. There are so many good recommendations made by this panel's report, that it is a crime that journalists are ignoring them in favor of more cheap headlines...
Posted by: livsparents | January 11, 2010 at 06:42 PM
Laurette, thanks for pointing out the incredibly bizarre situation we find ourselves in. Parents overwhelmingly endorse diets as useful; the diets are in any event not harmful; yet they are discarded because of no "evidence." What an astonishing moment in the history of medicine, not to mention autism. -- dan
Posted by: dan olmsted | January 11, 2010 at 05:35 PM
It is amazing to me that so-called journalists use the government, and "officials" as their main source, and because it is coming from an "official", they see it as gospel. The purpose of the media is to be a watchdog of government! That isn't so anymore with most media outlets. But.....another problem is, when they talk to advocacy groups about this type of issue, most of the people they speak to are not up to date on things, and therefore, have no real grasp on what they need to say! So....you have a well rehearsed "official" versus a not so well rehearsed advocate, supposededly speaking on behalf of all! It can be ugly, and most times is!
Posted by: Ralph Toddre | January 11, 2010 at 02:18 PM
Laurette, thank you.
Julie, you crack me up.
JB "Where the hell does it come from?"...
My theory: the psychiatrists/pharma.
How dare "they" - anyone outside of them (e.g., gastros, etc. from the ATN) tread on "their" big pharma territory research careers. Or, even psychologists (and behavioralists, OTs, PTs, w/out MDs for that matter), as they are not "real" doctors and/or scientists. So how dare psychologists/other professionals dare to get funding for their behavioral/intervention studies?
Imagine the autism pie of funding... the psychiatrists/big pharma camp (where the true power is) want all the money (for their pharmaceutical studies and their, oh so interesting, "gee, people with ASD don't have joint attention" studies.
God forbid if you could actually treat autism outside of Risperdal (that's a joke, by the way) or "their" behavioral modifications.
I think they are terrified of the implications of Hannah Polling. It cannot be! Treating autism with coQ10 cannot be possible! If so, they're in serious trouble.
They'll do anything to protect their territory, research funding, grants, careers, number of post docs/grad students. If that means slamming anyone in their way, so be it.
They are terrified. This is what I think it is all about.
Psychiatrists/big pharma funded scientists. They OWN the autism funding pie (from the NIH, etc.). How dare ANYONE else get a piece?
Posted by: hendersonwood | January 11, 2010 at 02:09 PM
JB - that may be partially due to the fact that the working mothers writing the stories don't want to give up chicken nuggets and pizza for their kids - staples of the mainstream American family diet.
After all, they might have to stay home (GASP!) and cook a meal every now and then! GFCF diets threaten all they hold dear!
And let's not forget the Big Food sponsors - we can't anger them. They might pull their ad $$$.
We truly live in a world where "fact is fiction and TV reality." [thanks U2]
Posted by: Parent | January 11, 2010 at 02:05 PM
It's remarkable that "GFCF DIets Don't Work" was often the headline for this important publication. It's as if anything our community is saying becomes the focus of the reporters, rather than truth. Does the AAP provide guidance to reporters? Where the hell does it come from?
Posted by: JB Handley | January 11, 2010 at 01:19 PM
Kudos to Laurette! Your research abilities are astounding!
However, the lack of "truth" reporting doesn't astound me anymore. The old days are long gone.
I received my degree in Journalism and advertising markteting. As a trained journalist in a past life, I found that they weren't interested in the facts, they just wanted a "story" to publish that was interesting (to get readership).
Oh, yeah, they wanted it fast. The more articles you could write, the better.
I was once told by my editor, "Just get A source." No need to validate the source, just get one. So you could base your entire story off the one source. If the facts were incorrect, then the newspaper could blame the source. "I just report it..." Balanced, ethical reporting went to the wayside with the internet competition.
Nonetheless, I left the low-paying, long-hours, bad mgmt occupation after only 2 months...and you wonder why so many are closing their doors???
Meanwhile, the IACC does nothing to settle these arguments by creating and funding worthwhile studies...
Posted by: Kevin | January 11, 2010 at 01:10 PM
Diets aren't psych meds. Controlling all the variables is nearly impossible - did each child on the "gold standard" GF CF diet trial eat the same calories per pound per day? Did parents administer the diets, or did the researchers do that? Same total grams protein, same types of fats? Were other inflammatory foods removed, controlled for? Did they have untreated bowel infections? Were they all screened for individual nutrient status first, any of them anemic, or low in zinc at start of trial? Were any of the children in growth regression, or at a body mass index below 10th percentile? All of these and many other nutrition pieces have potential to impair a child's behavior, functioning, focus, and mood. How were improvements defined and reported? Who evaluated the improvements? GF CF diets often fail when other nutrition variables are not repaired first, in my 10 years' clinical experience with hundreds of children using these tools. How diets are studied requires expertise in nutritional epidemiology that has yet to be applied to this debate. I appreciate that people like Tim Buie have to be extremely cautious with how he navigates this. Sad but not surprising though that the media is so unable to get the reality summarized for the public.
Posted by: Judy Converse MPH RD LD | January 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Julie said: "It's not just sloppiness.
It's on purpose"
Julie,
I totally agree.. a campaign of disinformation paid for by Pharma.
Posted by: Sarah | January 11, 2010 at 12:31 PM
I've posted this two other times today, and I am sure you are already sick of this, but once again, and I group in this catagory the media as well as the goverment and medicine fits this all to well!
I heard the following quote on a comedy special on Saturday.
"They ain't look for no cure!! What's the last thing they cured? Polio! 40 years ago!! And it p*^ed them off!! Lost millions of dollars! They ain't trying to cure anything! There isn't any MONEY IN THE CURE!! The money is in the COME BACK, in the treatment!"
Scary insn't it?
Posted by: Darian (nickname) | January 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM
These studies are often based on documented GI conditions. Well, how many of you, like myself, had your child turned away by GI doctors without examiination? It is a problem of epic proportions. Therefore, how can our kids have a documented GI condition in their charts when doctors routinely turn them away without examination? Any other kid who would have walked into that doctors office with the same complaint as my son would have gotten an examination, but because my son is autistic it was dismissed as, "oh, that's just the Autism." I think we need to collectively stand up and tell doctors we are banning that phrase, "oh, that's just the autism" as an excuse for not digging deeper with our kids.
Posted by: xxxxxx | January 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM
In my area, they raised the price of a newspaper to $1.00. Everyone I know cancelled their subscription. That's just too much money for lies.
Posted by: Maggie | January 11, 2010 at 09:49 AM
You have to wonder if the journalists are responding to the pressure of their sponsors or pressure from physician groups (or both) but the damage done by incorrect reporting is irresponsible.
Posted by: MaryS | January 11, 2010 at 09:13 AM
It's not just sloppiness.
It's on purpose.-julie
Exactly. That is what is so disgusting about all the media failures surrounding vaccine injury, and why I don't believe the "truth" will ever be told. This is all purposeful denial.
Posted by: kathleen | January 11, 2010 at 09:11 AM
It's not just sloppiness.
It's on purpose.
Posted by: julie | January 11, 2010 at 06:38 AM