Dachel Media Review: Low Blow from Lipson
By Anne Dachel
Read Anne's commentary and view the links after the jump. The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and their OurKidsASD brand.
May 2, 2014, Discredited Autism Researcher Chills Future Research by Peter Lipson, MD
Has this question become difficult to study because of the baggage piled one by Wakefield’s actions, actions that have injured the public health of the US and the UK?
Emily points to a piece in the journal Pediatrics that says “yes”, Wakefield’s abominable actions have put a chill on a potentially important line of research.
Research that comes with a ton of ethical baggage, such as eugenics and experiments done by Nazis on prisoners raise important questions. In this case it’s not the ethical baggage but the outrageous actions by a single person, actions that have hurt real people.
For Dr. Lipson to reference Dr. Wakefield's work in such a manner is beyond contempt.
"Eugenics and experiments done by Nazis," Dr. Lipson? You need to read my story about Lorrin Kain and see what the DPT vaccine did to her.
You need to look at the ingredients regularly found in the vaccines we inject into babies and pregnant women.
It's clear, the medical community will go to any length to defend the poisoning of a generation of children. The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and their OurKidsASD brand. Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy is one of the largest and most respected compounding pharmacies in the country. They use only the finest quality chemicals and equipment to prepare our patients’ compounded medications and nutritional supplements. Customizing medication and nutritional supplements for our customers allows them to achieve their unique health goals.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which goes on sale this Fall from Skyhorse Publishing.
John- The 'big gun trolls' are out in force on that Forbes Lipson thread, basically, only four of them, the ubiquitous Lilady, Matt Carey (Sullivan) Dorit Reiss and of course Brian Deer himself, all of them spouting misinformation, venom and sheer rubbish. Carey acts as a kind of 'Greek chorus', backing up the others, and accusing John Stone, amongst other things, of not properly reading or understanding the Nature and other scientific articles, the BMJ articles and the GMC transcripts.
It's impossible to discredit our John on his factual reporting, always very accurate and dignified, so they resort to as many Ad Hominem comments as they can think of. Carey is in a difficult position these days, being a member of the IACC, and must not publish anything which looks vindictive or unprofessional.
I note Carey's Left Brain Right Brain website has not yet mentioned the Forbes Willingham v Wakefield proposed litigation, which is surprising under the circumstances. Even more surprising is the complete silence of Gorski (Orac) on his respectful insolence blog. Gorski describes Age of Autism as a "wretched hive of scum and antivaccine quackery" and is not normally slow to latch on to Wakefield issues. Maybe they are both busy writing this up, over the May weekend. We shall see.
Unlike ottoschnaut, I don't think Brian Deer has been 'unleashed' by his lawyers. In fact Deer must be a defence lawyer's nightmare. Even the GMC prosecution lawyers refused to allow Deer, the sole complainant whose evidence formed the basis of the GMC prosecution, to take the stand. It's not a good idea to 'shoot your mouth off' pending a litigation case against you and Deer has stated he is very aggrieved about answering litigation charges in Texas.
However, like ottoschnaut I DO also suspect there might well be some 'behind the scenes' wheeling and dealing involving Wakefield's lawyers and the BMJ. Whatever Deer and Godlee think, I am quite sure the BMJ Governors don't want this BMJ 'dirty linen' aired in a court of law, wherever it is based.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 05, 2014 at 04:01 AM
Thanks Jenny
I just responded:
All of this is a distraction (including whether I may be a "malignant crank" which I do not take to be a professional mode of criticism). I raised two points neither of which has been directly answered.
1) That Deer, Godlee, and Bjarnason were forced by Nature journalist Eugenie Reich to concede that there had not been improper intertpretation of the biopsies.
2) No one has produced any evidence for Deer and the GMC's allegation that the paper was an attempt at the Legal Aid Board protocol.
An obvious red-herring is the issue of research. The issue of research did not arise because the paper was a review of clinical data obtained in the routine investigation and treatment of the patients but this did not mean the data had no research interest and Walker-Smith was a research scientist (just like Wakefield) while being a clinician at the same time. Judge Mitting didn't find evidence for the LAB protocol hypothesis and he did not find evidence that Walker-Smith was investigating beyond clinical need. But clearly Walker-Smith did co-author the paper and if that in itself had been an issue then presumably Mitting would have found so.
You can try and distract from these basic points by trying to widen the issues but these are the ones that Deer and Reiss can't answer on and we should not be fooled. I deliberately linked to the GMC quote in my BMJ letter soon after the GMC delivered its findings (February 2010). Deer couldn't answer then and he can't answer now.
Posted by: John Stone | May 04, 2014 at 01:23 PM
As John Stone states:-
"Whether or not Deer ever has to answer for all this before a Texas court the documentary record has failed to support him about many things and yet his word is still being held up as reliable."
The following is from Brian Deer's latest comment in the Forbes Lipson article, (more or less in response to John Stone's very factual post concerning Judge Mitting's Verdict in the Walker-Smith High Court appeal against the GMC.)):-
"All this then was about natural justice, and not really much to do with the facts of the MMR research. As you say, Walker-Smith could argue that he was mainly doing clinical work. Wakefield, however, was doing research. No question.
Even Wakefield’s own legal team recognised this when they advised his funding body that he was unlikely to prevail if he appealed, so they cut off his money. Had Wakefield appealed, you can be absolutely certain that he would today still be a struck off ex-doctor. There were four findings of dishonesty against him, including one of research fraud (dishonest description of the patient population).
But it’s an interesting area, because it shows how the rule of law is still extending procedural fairness. We should all be glad about that, and its only sad to see malignant cranks using the Walker-Smith issue as another way to trick parents who are worried about their kids."
Brian Deer is now an apparent expert on the law, as well as an expert on complicated gastric medical issues and even histopathology. He is an expert on everything and anything, and can even see into the the minds of Dr Wakefield's own lawyers as well as the mind of Judge Mitting, (although a nasty little aside about the Judge presiding over 'mostly' immigration cases in his post, is meant to imply Lord Justice Mitting was somehow not quite competent to Judge the Walker-Smith appeal. Nasty, but Deer is accomplished in the arts of smear and innuendo).
Apart from any other consideration, lawyers are NOT in the business of discouraging insurance companies to fund legal cases. This would actually amount to professional suicide. For Deer to 'second guess' the result of a Wakefield GMC appeal(if it had taken place) is quite ridiculous
However, Deer is quite correct about Dr Wakefield being employed for purely research purposes by the Royal Free; indeed his contract precluded any clinical contact with patients. For this reason Dr Wakefield should NEVER have been the subject of a GMC disciplinary inquiry at all. In the UK there is a separate body which deals with allegations of research fraud.
The GMC exists purely to protect patients from incompetent, criminal or unethical clinicians. Since Dr Wakefield was neither employed as nor working as a clinician,at the time of the Lancet paper, then his research work was not part of the GMC's remit. The two clinician's Professors Murch and Walker-Smith were dragged before the GMC alongside Dr Wakefield, to answer the charges alleged by Brian Deer, that they 'conspired' to subject children to unnecessary invasive clinical procedures for purely research purposes. Deer previously (and forcefully) claimed the Lancet children had no GI problems at all. 'They didn't have bowel disease'.
Prof Murch was admonished and allowed to keep his licence; the GMC panel stated this was because he was 'junior' to Prof Walker-Smith. Since Prof Murch faced identical charges to Prof Walker-Smith, the GMC should have issued a pardon to Prof Murch after Prof Walker-Smith won his appeal. The Wakefield GMC verdict should be null and void due to the reasons I just explained.
Deer calls us all 'malignant cranks'. Pots and kettles come to mind.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 04, 2014 at 01:18 PM
In France the use of measles vaccines goes back to the mid 1980's.
Just about the time the realisation came that autism was an up and coming new disorder in terms of the unacceptable rise.
And while France lags behind abysmally in the uptake of this vaccine it coincidently lags abysmally behind in the proportion who suffer this condition.
Cause and effect or just a lucky chance that in France although there are too many with the condition of autism, the country should have many more cases than are apparent.
Or is it failure in 2014 to recognise those hidden cases of autism in France?
http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/vaccines/why-france-has-not-yet-eliminated-measles/
Posted by: John Fryer | May 04, 2014 at 11:44 AM
My daughter didn't develop the severe chronic constipation until after a summer flu that caused a high fever in August 2007, when she was seven. Now I think it was like the autism that starts after a high fever, the fever initiating the condition when it potentiates the stored heavy metals from vaccines (thank you, book Age of Autism!) The GFCF and then the grain-free diet have brought great improvement.
Posted by: cia parker | May 04, 2014 at 11:13 AM
I have just put this comment on Lipson's blog underneath Deer's:-
But Mr Deer could not stand by his results when challenged by Eugenie Reich of Nature after the interrvention of Dr David Lewis (nor could BMJ's editor Fiona Godlee or their advisor Prof Bjarnason), and this is how they were reported:
“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don't clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records. "The data are subjective. It's different to say it's deliberate falsification," he says.
“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…
“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111109/full/479157a.html?s=news_rss
However, let us also go back to GMC decision which was centrally based on Deer's allegation that that the Wakefield Lancet paper was based on protocol 172-96 and commissioned by the Legal Aid Board:
"The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/unexplained-puzzle-gmc-verdict-and-reponses-peter-flegg
And the reason why the senior author and clinician in the paper was exonerated was because in the English High Court before Mr Just Mitting the GMC's counsel was unable to indicate what evidence it was that had enabled the panel to reject this defence, and nor could the judge find any. There was zero evidence of the claim of the GMC and Deer that it was a study based on the LAB protocol 172-96 rather than an early report as stated.
At the GMC hearing I shouted out something about this (and Deer wrote an abusive comment about the incident on Orac's blog) but the matter has been tested, and Deer's allegation has failed.
Whether or not Deer ever has to answer for all this before a Texas court the documentary record has failed to support him about many things and yet his word is still being held up as reliable.
Posted by: John Stone | May 04, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Every word Brian Deer writes should be put under the microscope including "and" and "the." Was the Lancet children's characteristic shared feature severe constipation? I looked at Justice Mitting's summation of the children's health histories and here's what I found:
Child
1 diarrhoea
2 diarrhoea
3 constipation/"no control over bowel"
4
5 diarrhoea
6 diarrhoea
7 diarrhoea/constipation
8 diarrhoea
9 loose stool
10 diarrhoea
11
12 diarrhoea/loose stool
So is Brian Deer just totally lying? Well, Wakefield and co-authors in Furlano et al. do say that the children's main gastrointestinal presentation was either constipation or diarrhea.
Justice Mitting's decision: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/english-court-exonerates-mmrautism-doctor-uk-general-medical-given-sound-thrashing/
Furlano et al: http://integrativehealthconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Colonic-CD8-and-y8-T-cell-infiltration-with-epithelial-damage-in-children-with-autism.pdf
Posted by: Carol | May 04, 2014 at 05:05 AM
Hi Anne and other readers.
You might be interested in this story from the UK: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27259202
The stand out points are - this lawsuit concerns adults who were not affected by childhood vaccines, but believe they were affected by vaccines given in adulthood which led to Gulf War syndrome,
And - the lawsuit is suggesting the damage came from the number and combination of vaccines given, not the properties of each vaccine in isolation.
Posted by: Vera | May 04, 2014 at 04:38 AM
I see no point in wasting my time attempting to comment in Forbes. Apart from Brian Deer, the ubiquitous Lilady and Matt Carey(Sullivan) were dripping their poison. Brian Deer never lets the truth get in the way of a good story, but I was interested in this part of his comment:-
"The children’s most characteristic shared feature (apart from their parents involvement with compensation claims) was that almost all had severe constipation. And yet, because the paper’s purpose was to attack MMR, this sign was completely ignored. The word “constipation” never even appeared."
I have hunted through both the Lancet paper and Brian Deer's BMJ article 'How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed' 5-01-11, and can find only ONE reference containing the word constipation. It was contained in a quote from Professor Walker-Smith whilst giving GMC evidence about Child 3. However, there were lots of references in both articles to 'bowel disorders, bowel problems, and gastrointestinal problems. The Lancet article states about the Lancet childrens' GI issues:-
" They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases food intolerance"
In fact diarrhoea and abdominal pain seemed to be the most mentioned symptoms in both articles. It would be extremely unusual in the UK for a child to be referred to a hospital consultant for investigation, purely on the basis of constipation, but the far more serious condition of an impacted bowel, does warrant clinical intervention. This was why my own grandson was referred to the Royal Free after a bowel partial blockage. He was not one of the Lancet 12, but was amongst a larger group of around 40 other children with similar conditions, also treated at the Royal Free. My grandson also had intermittent diarrhoea and constant abdominal pain-he still has this condition.
It should be remembered Brian Deer's article was based on GP records, which were never seen by any of the Lancet authors, although Professor Walker-Smith, (who wrote the childrens' medical histories), did contact a few of the childrens' GPs to discuss their cases. Brian Deer, with no scientific or medical qualifications, is completely unqualified to comment on the childrens' gastrointestinal issues or their histopathology samples. The BMJ editors and so called peer reviewers should hang their collective heads in shame. Lord Justice Mitting, who carefully examined the GMC evidence on 11 of the Lancet children, during Professor Walker-Smith's appeal, was scathing about the GMC's 'inadequate' examination of the evidence, most of which was supplied by Brian Deer. The judge took only four days to exonerate Prof W-S and restore his medical licence.
Future doctors and scientists are going to look back on this nasty episode in history with utter amazement at the damage caused to mankind by establishment and corporate greed and protectionism, aided and abetted by a compliant press and media.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 03, 2014 at 05:57 PM
There is acid reflux too.
And it is not limited to retardation, or delaid ---
Kids that had Kawasakis; bipolar, - with regular intelligence.
Louis Conte had the his fictional character thrown out a high story window by thugs to keep him silent when it came down to the end.
I need to go read that part again.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 03, 2014 at 05:04 PM
Anne McElroy Dachel
Sorry you can't get anything on line
The Rat is on to us -- just back ground constipation from eating only limited food like chalk-- don't look but some of us notice that at first there is a lot of diarhea - green looking stuff - and that is for the adults too -- My daughter all last year after her last shot.
Since he is no expert there were other people looking at these guts on the Lancet paper:
Dr AJ Wakefield FRCS a , SH Murch MB b, A Anthony MB a, J Linnell PhD a, DM Casson MRCP b, M Malik MRCP b, M Berelowitz FRCPsych c, AP Dhillon MRCPath a, MA Thomson FRCP b, P Harvey FRCP d, A Valentine FRCR e, SE Davies MRCPath a, JA Walker-Smith FRCP a
Posted by: Benedetta | May 03, 2014 at 05:00 PM
BRIAN DEER POSTED THIS ON DR. LIPSON'S PIECE. I'VE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO POST EVEN A SHORT COMMENT OF A COUPLE OF SENTENCES AND IT NEVER APPEARS. FORBES IS CENSORING THE POSTED COMMENTS.
BRIAN DEER WRITES:
As the person who cracked open the Wakefield case series and revealed the true status, histories and diagnoses of the 12 subjects therein, I’ve long had a big interest this subject.
Some of the remarkable findings from behind the veil of what was published by Wakefield et al (retracted) in 1998 are that, as a group, the children’s most characteristic shared feature (apart from their parents involvement with compensation claims) was that almost all had severe constipation. And yet, because the paper’s purpose was to attack MMR, this sign was completely ignored. The word “constipation” never even appeared.
Later, the BMJ and I were able to obtain two sets of pathology reports on the children’s bowels: first from the hospital staff pathology team, and second from a subsequent “research review”. These showed mild inflammatory changes consistent with constipation, but no shared inflammatory bowel disease. Indeed, we put (surprisingly tatty, low-grade) pathology scoring sheets our for multiple expert reviews, and the consistent answer we got was that the pathology was the kind of thing you might find in almost anybody’s gut, particularly if they were constipated. There was nothing distinctive, and certainly nothing that suggested any unique process. Reviewers said that Wakefield was essentially reporting background noise – normality – as pathology so as to create a sham entity to submit in litigation as evidence of vaccine damage.
So, from a gatroenterological viewpoint, the paper hid the clinicians’ (not Wakefield’s, because he found nothing) findings: that constipation was often overlooked. This was in 1998, and nowadays there are a lot of papers around that say this. Indeed, constipation in what used to be called “mental handicap” was reported in the 1930s, and probably earlier.
But because the attack was on MMR – and the Lancet would never have published a paper on constipation in autism – the findings were buried.
Anecdotally, I have heard a lot about constipation in children with developmental disorders. It’s way outside my line of work to have much of an opinion on this, but I think there’s a strong case that (aside from challenged kids’ often weird eating habits, difficulties in toilet training, and suchlike) the gut-brain connection significantly goes in the opposite direction to what is being touted around at the moment.
This would be that the autonomic nervous system -> enteric nervous system are not correctly signalling the gut so as to clear feces, causing constipation, fecal stasis, mild inflammatory changes and pain.
My briefest summary of the Wakefield story is here:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
My most detailed is here:
http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-amended-declaration.pdf
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | May 03, 2014 at 03:16 PM
From past experience- don't be surprised if there is some movement on the Wakefield jurisdictional judicial proceeding that is not yet public. The "tell" is that Brian "Those Kids Don't Have Bowel Disease" Deer has emerged from seclusion and is commenting on the Forbes/Lipson article. I would suspect his lawyers have unleashed him for some as yet unknown reason.
Posted by: ottoschnaut | May 03, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Recently a Washington Post opinion writer provided a link to a CDC site containing errors and omissions. The writer stated “The belief that vaccinations cause autism or brain damage is wrong and dangerous.” See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-the-enduring-benefits-of-vaccination/2014/05/01/30bc6c84-d143-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html .
The CDC site referenced states “CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.” See http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/Index.html .
This is an error. The CDC gives the basis for this incorrect statement on a 2004 IOM review which actually finds studies providing evidence for a relationship. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10997&page=R1 .
But it also finds studies that fail to provide evidence. Then it concludes that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism."
This is illogical and unsafe. If, for example, some bridges with cracks collapse while others do not, wouldn’t the conclusion be, based on safety, that this evidence does not favor the rejection of a causal relationship between cracks in bridges and their collapse? See Richard Feynman’s bridge safety analogy at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt .
Also the current CDC site omits the fact that one of the studies that assisted in the IOM’s unsafe conclusion was a study in which Poul Thorsen played a significant role. That study is given by the IOM as Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB, “Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data.”Pediatrics 112(3 Pt 1):604-6. 2003. See http://www.pkids.org/files/pdf/PEDSarticle.pdf .
Currently Poul Thorsen is a fugitive from the US Justice Department and listed as one of the most wanted list! See http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2011/04-13-11.html and https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp .
So while the CDC revises the words "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism" to mean “there is no relationship;” and a while a writer for the Washington Post says a belief that there is evidence that vaccinations may cause autism is wrong and dangerous; the Washington Post remains silent on the fugitive Poul Thorsen.
No dots here folks, nothing to see, move along now.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | May 03, 2014 at 10:21 AM
The Forbes guys has laid down their plan to handle the GI-Autism connection which as good as a scientific fact following the review published few days ago.
They are going to come up now with a series of studies finding correlation between stress and gut problems in autistics kids, so they could blame stress for gut disorders in autistics.
Same like blaming hysteria for causing Gardasil victims' injuries. Always blame it on psychiatric issues and push more pills into them.
Posted by: vaccine.explorer | May 03, 2014 at 07:51 AM
They are way out there on that limb or so it does seem.
Any one got a - chain saw?
Posted by: Benedetta | May 03, 2014 at 01:15 AM
Anderson Cooper is a government hit man who uses interviews to hide the truth.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/technologies-for-hacking-brain/?WT.mc_id=SA_SA_20140218
Yet the purveyors of vaccines have no problem with OVERSTIMULATING an infant's brain business as usual. Over and over and over. EIGHT times in one doctor's visit.
"Despite a century of sustained research, brain scientists remain ignorant of the workings of the three-pound organ that is the seat of all conscious human activity. Many have tried to attack this problem by examining the nervous systems of simpler organisms. In fact, almost 30 years have passed since investigators mapped the connections among each of the 302 nerve cells in the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans. Yet the worm-wiring diagram did not yield an understanding of how these connections give rise to even rudimentary behaviors such as feeding and sex. What was missing were data relating the activity of neurons to specific behaviors."
Science says it doesn't know what makes the brain tick and yet Big Pharma and the CDC say it's O.K. to OVERSTIMULATE a baby's brain and the brains of American military personnel over and over and over and FREAKING over.
Posted by: Michael M. | May 03, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Jessica, I completely agree. Not many Doctors display the unbelievable courage that Dr. Wakefield has. Trying to now lay this blame on him …they've definitely stooped to a new, ridiculous low! Dr. Wakefield, you are a true hero!
Posted by: Anne J. | May 02, 2014 at 10:48 PM
So, are we to understand that scientists are not afraid to vigilantly and thoroughly pursue the relationship between vaccines and autism, not concern about rustling feathers, yet, they are terrified of studying the connection between autism and gastrointestinal, because they are afraid of rustling feathers? HHMMNNN!
Posted by: Greg | May 02, 2014 at 10:17 PM
"..It's clear, the medical community will go to any length to defend the poisoning of a generation of children…"
***************
Exactly. And although I feel for heroes like Dr Andrew Wakefield, I'm somewhat enjoying watch them dig their own graves.
Posted by: Barry | May 02, 2014 at 08:54 PM
Well;
They are stuck.
Research just keeps piling it on that the Lancet Dr. Wakefield article was correct.
And they have acted so mean and hateful -- it is not just hate on their side--- I admit there is a lot of hate on my side too.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 02, 2014 at 08:48 PM
If there is a chill it is that doctors are afraid of the witch hunt that ensued after Wakefield published his paper. It is the reaction to his paper, the trial without jury, the Anderson Cooper interview where he attacked Wakefield all the while admitting that he hadn't even read his book and so forth...what sane person would want this to happen to them? So the chill wasn't caused by Wakefield but by the lack of a decent, open and respectful scientific discussion. I don't think many doctors would like to be shouted at by Anderson Cooper on national television.
Posted by: Jessica | May 02, 2014 at 08:29 PM
You know, if I go to Google Scholar and search for article titles containing the words "autism" and at least one of the words "gastrointestinal" or "endoscopy" or "colonoscopy" or "gut," there are *zero* articles in the 15-year period from 1983 to 1998. (If I include citations in the search, there are three.) If I change the search to look in the 15-year period after the Lancet paper was published, 1999-2014, 109 articles are returned. (The majority of titles contain the words "autism" and "gastrointestinal.")
By this measure I'd say that the Lancet paper was a spur to research on gastrointestinal problems in ASD. Whether or not such research was more difficult I cannot say.
Posted by: Carol | May 02, 2014 at 07:35 PM