Announcement

**Sofonda** · 09-26-2004, 05:20 PM

With all due respect LoE, I am a community health nurse who works with newborns and children under age 3. Several of my clients suffer from autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. You are entitled to your own opinion but I think you are potentially causing serious harm in espousing your argument that has no basis in fact.

From quackwatch.org

Misconception #9
Vaccines cause autism
On October 3, 1999, Cable News Network broadcasted a program on which the parents of three-year-old Liam Reynolds stated that he had developed autism two weeks after receiving measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine [1]. The program also aired the views of Stephanie Cave, M.D., a Louisiana physician who "specializes in treating autism" with diet and nutritional supplements [2]. An American Academy of Pediatrics official and explained why there is no reason to believe that a link exists between autism and vaccination. But the dramatic before-and-after videotapes of the child probably had enough impact to persuade many parents to avoid having their children vaccinated. The program's narrator stated there had been "a puzzling jump in the number of children being diagnosed with autism." However, the number being diagnosed may reflect increased reporting of cases rather than an increase in actual incidence.

Autism is a chronic developmental disorder characterized by problems in social interaction, communication, and restrictive and repetitive interests and activities. Autism may be initially noted in infancy as impaired attachment, but it is most often first identified in toddlers, mostly boys, from 18 to 30 months of age. Boys are 3-4 times more likely to be afflicted with autism than girls. Girls as a group, however, may be more severely affected. Correct diagnosis of autism depends on an accurate developmental history focused on types of behaviors typical of autism and on evaluation of functional skills. Approximately 75% of persons with autism are mentally retarded. Fewer than 5% of children with autistic traits have fragile X or another known chromosomal abnormality. Although no cure exists, autism is treatable. Symptoms associated with autism often improve as children start to acquire language and learn how to communicate their needs.

In most cases of autism, no cause is apparent. In a few cases, biologic causes have been identified, although none are unique to autism. Some prenatal factors include intrauterine rubella; tuberous sclerosis; chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome; as well as brain abnormalities, such as hydrocephalus. Frequently cited postnatal conditions associated with autism are untreated phenylketonuria, infantile spasms, and herpes simplex encephalitis. In the majority of cases, however, no underlying cause can be identified.

The current theory favored by many experts is that autism is a genetically-based disorder that occurs before birth [3]. Studies of persons with autism are finding abnormalities in brain structures that develop in the first few weeks of fetal development [4]. Evidence that genetics is an important, but not exclusive, cause of autism includes a 3-8% risk of recurrence in families with one affected child. A working group convened by the National Institutes of Health in 1995 reached a consensus that autism is a genetic condition. An issue unresolved by the group was the role of immune factors in autism spectrum disorders; it was suggested that studies to clarify the situation are needed.

No Evidence of Link

Some parents of children with autism believe that there is a link between measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. However, there is no sensible reason to believe that any vaccine can cause autism or any kind of behavioral disorder. Typically, symptoms of autism are first noted by parents as their child begins to have difficulty with delays in speaking after age one. MMR vaccine is first given to children at 12-15 months of age. Since this is also an age when autism commonly becomes apparent, it is not surprising that autism follows MMR immunization in some cases. However, by far the most logical explanation is coincidence, not cause-and-effect.

If measles vaccine or any other vaccine causes autism, it would have to be a very rare occurrence, because millions of children have received vaccines without ill health effects. The only "evidence" linking MMR vaccine and autism was published in the British journal Lancet in 1998 [5]. An editorial published in the same issue, however, discussed concerns about the validity of the study [6]. Based on data from 12 patients, Dr. Andrew Wakefield (a British gastroenterologist) and colleagues speculated that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism. No scientific analyses were reported, however, to substantiate the theory. Whether this series of 12 cases represent an unusual or unique clinical syndrome is difficult to judge without knowing the size of the patient population and time period over which the cases were identified. If there happened to be selective referral of patients with autism to the researchers' practice, for example, the reported case series may simply reflect such referral bias. Moreover, the theory that autism may be caused by poor absorption of nutrients due to bowel inflammation is senseless and is not supported by the clinical data. In at least 4 of the 12 cases, behavioral problems appeared before the onset of symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease. Furthermore, since publication of their original report in February of 1998, Wakefield and colleagues have published another study in which highly specific laboratory assays in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the posited mechanism for autism after MMR vaccination, were negative for measles virus [7,8].

Other recent investigations also do not support a causal association between MMR (or other measles-containing vaccines) and autism or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [9-13]. In one investigation, a Working Party on MMR Vaccine of the United Kingdom's Committee on Safety of Medicines (1999) was charged with the evaluation of several hundred reports, collected by a firm of lawyers, of autism, Crohn's disease, or similar disorders developing after receipt of MMR or MR vaccines. The Working Party conducted a systematic, standardized review of parental and physician information. Although acknowledging that it is impossible to prove or refute the suggested associations (because of variable data quality, biased selection of cases, and lack of a control group), the Working Party concluded that the information available "... did not support the suggested causal associations or give cause for concern about the safety of MMR or MR vaccines." [12] In March 2000, a Medical Research Council report concludes that between March 1998 and September 1999 no new evidence had suggested a causal link between MMR and autism or IBD [13]. The American Medical Association has reached the same conclusion.

A study by Taylor and colleagues provides population-based evidence that overcomes many of the limitations faced by the Working Party and by Wakefield and colleagues [14,15]. The authors identified all 498 known cases of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in certain districts of London born in 1979 or later and linked them to an independent regional vaccination registry. ASD includes classical autism, atypical autism, and Asperger's syndrome, but the results were similar when cases of classical autism were analyzed separately. The authors noted:

The known number of ASD cases has been increasing since 1979, but there was no jump after the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988.
Cases vaccinated before 18 months of age had similar ages at diagnosis as did cases who had been vaccinated after 18 months or not vaccinated, indicating that vaccination does not result in earlier expression of autistic characteristics.
At age two years, the MMR vaccination coverage among the ASD cases was nearly identical to coverage in children in the same birth cohorts in the whole region, providing evidence of an overall lack of association with vaccination.
The first diagnosis of autism or initial signs of behavioral regression were not more likely to occur within time periods following vaccination than during other time periods.
A weak statistical association existed between MMR vaccination and initial parental concern, but this appears to have been due to parents' difficulty in recalling precise age at onset and a preference for approximating the age as 18 months.
A study of the population of children in two communities in Sweden also found no evidence of an association between MMR vaccination and autism [16]. That study found no difference in the prevalence of autism in children born after the introduction of MMR vaccination in Sweden compared with children born before.

In January 1990, an Institute of Medicine committee examining possible health effects associated with DPT vaccine concluded that there was no evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine or the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and autism [17]. Also, data obtained from CDC's Monitoring System for Adverse Events Following Immunization (MASAEFI) system, showed no reports of autism occurring within 28 days of DPT immunization from 1978-1990, a period in which approximately 80.1 million doses of DPT vaccine were administered in the United States. From January 1990 through February 1998, only 15 cases of autism behavior disorder after immunization were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Because of the small number of reports over an 8-year period, the cases reported are likely to represent unrelated chance occurrences that happened around the time of vaccination. The most frequent vaccines cited in the reports were diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DPT), oral polio vaccine (OPV), and MMR. Other vaccines reported as having a possible association with autism were Haemophilus influenzae type B and Hepatitis B.

In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts ro review what is known about the development, epidemiology, and genetics of ASD and the hypothesized associations with IBD, measles, and MMR vaccine. The panel concluded:

Although the possible association with MMR vaccine has received much public and political attention and there are many who have derived their own conclusions based on personal experiences, the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism or associated disorders or IBD. Separate administration of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines to children provides no benefit over administration of the combination MMR vaccine and would result in delayed or missed immunizations. Pediatricians need to work with families to ensure that children are protected early in the second year of life from these preventable diseases. Continued scientific efforts need to be directed to the identification of the causes of ASD [18].

The fact that autism is diagnosed during the second or third year of life does not mean that it began at that age. Analyses of home movies made from birth onward have shown that most children who are diagnosed as autistic during the second or third year have abnormal signs during the first year -- and some even show abnormalities at birth [19-26].

Recently, the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) was examined to see if there was any link between measles vaccine and neurological events. Researchers in England found no indication that measles vaccine contributes to the development of educational and behavioral deficits or other possible signs of long-term neurological damage [27].

Most people have no adverse reaction after receiving a MMR vaccination. About 5%-15% of vaccines may develop a fever 5-12 days after MMR vaccination and 5% may develop a rash. Central nervous system conditions, including encephalitis and encephalopathy, have been reported with a frequency of less than one per million doses administered. In July 2002, after Wakefield testified before a U.S. Congressional committee chaired by a vaccine opponent, Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick (a British general physician and parenbt of an autistic child) charged that Wakefield "has opted out of medical science to join the world of pseudoscientific dogma, media celebrity and populist campaigning." [29] In a devastating review of the conduct of Wakefield and Paul Shattock, a pharmacist and vaccine opponent who runs the so-called Autism Research Unit at the University of Sunderland, Fitzpatrick stated:

There is now a flourishing network of private laboratories offering urine and blood tests of the sort carried out by Mr Shattock -- all of no recognised diagnostic value. There is a substantial business sector selling dietary supplements, vitamins, minerals, enzymes and all manner of special dietary products -- all of no proven therapeutic value. The common feature of both tests and supplements is their exorbitant cost, suggesting that high profits are being made from peddling interventions of no proven value, often to desperate parents, many on low incomes.

There are other beneficiaries of the anti-MMR campaign. Private GPs are now making profits of several hundred percent from selling separate vaccines. Lawyers are eagerly collecting legal aid fees by inflating the hopes of parents that they may gain substantial compensation for the alleged damages from MMR through the pursuit of litigation. It is not surprising that both are enthusiastic supporters of Dr Wakefield's crusade. It seems that Britain's investigative journalists are so smitten by Dr Wakefield's charisma and so credulous towards junk science, that they are reluctant to investigate the real abuses generated around the anti-MMR campaign [29].

As with the administration of any agent that can produce fever, some children may have a febrile seizure. Most that follow measles vaccination are simple febrile seizures and affect children without known risk factors. An increased risk of febrile convulsions may occur among children with a prior history of convulsions.

The Bottom Line
There are no proven data to suggest that measles vaccine will increase the risk of developing autism or any other behavioral disorder [28]. The known benefits vastly exceed any unknown risks. The CDC continues to recommend two doses of MMR vaccine for all children who do not have a known medical contraindication; the first dose is recommended at 12-15 months of age and the second dose is recommended at either 4-6 years of age or at 11-12 years of age [30,31].

To assure the safety of vaccines, the CDC, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other federal agencies routinely examine any new evidence that would suggest possible problems with the safety of vaccines. Currently, CDC is conducting a study in the metropolitan Atlanta area to further evaluate any possible association between MMR vaccination and autism.

Immunization against measles has led to a dramatic decrease in the incidence of measles, which is sometimes fatal. I believe that the manner in which CNN covered this issue was extremely irresponsible and will result in the death of children whose parents are scared out of having their children receive it.

Sofonda here again. I would suggest that anyone who has concerns about immunizations discuss these concerns with their child's pediatrician. You may find it interesting to find that most doctors and nurses vaccinate their own children, as I did, fully understanding the risks vs. benefits.

**Jerico** · 09-26-2004, 05:59 PM

So why is there an increase in the incedences of autism? Is that not a fact? I don't see one article more credible than other.

An article I posted a link to below says this...
"Autism spectrum disorder affects one in every 160 people and is growing worldwide. The California Department of Developmental Services recently reported that 20,377 children ages 3 and older were receiving state services for classic autism, the most severe form, as of December 2002. That was a 97 percent increase over the 1998 number. An earlier study had found the stateâ€™s autism rate increased 237 percent from 1987 to 1998."
That sounds pretty significant.

The quackwatch article says...
"...the number being diagnosed may reflect increased reporting of cases rather than an increase in actual incidence." That doesn't sound that convincing to me. Why not say "the number being diagnosed instead reflects..."?
Probably because it would not be a true statement.

Mercury being toxic is not a fact? M.S.D.S. is a scientific document and I'd say pretty darn trustworthy.

I have a degree in biology and there is nothing that seems loony about that first article.

To me, the main things to consider (about any disorder or disease) are our genes and our genes' interaction with the environment.

That means that some people may have a genetic predisposition to a certain disorder or disease, but it doesn't necessarily mean these people will have the disease or disorder. Being diploid organisms, meaning that we normally have two copies of each gene, one from mom, one from dad, we can still function even if one copy is dysfunctional or nonfunctional.

So if a diseased state arises it's when there is an exposure to something in the environment that leads to a compromise of the normal (wild type) functioning of a gene or, more likely, set of genes.

It's my best guess that something in the environment is causing the increase in autism. Or more specifically an environmental agent; something chemical. Could it be there are more pollutants (some mutagens) in the environment? Can it be something in what we are eating nowadays?
As many plausible hypotheses should be explored as possible.

From what I know from attending a symposium on autism, the disorder manifests post-birth. This is contrary to what the quackwatch site says. My knowledge of medical reseach is that of Dr. Eric Courchesne. Unless, his latest findings say otherwise, that is what he said.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...search&spell=1

and especially
http://www.chsd.org/11185.cfm

"Dr. Courchesneâ€™s latest research may also debunk the theory that childhood vaccines may be at the root of autism. Because the burst of brain overgrowth occurs in a brief period of time -between about 2 months and 6 to 14 months of age- autism cannot be caused by events that happen later, such as vaccinations for mumps, measles and rubella or exposure to toxins during childhood."
\Note that this paragraph DOES NOT say that the research absolutely debunks the vaccine theory. Even if they'd very much like to say that it debunks vaccinations, thay can't. The research doesn't strongly say that.
What is clear to me that a lot of things are not well understood yet.

This doctor's medical research into the etiology of autism haven't been very helpful. Why? Because although they know what's abnormal about the child (ie. abnormal hormone levels, abnormal brain growth, and such), they don't know what is causing it.* To me, the most salient finding is what I mentioned above-- that autism manifests post-birth. Thus it must be something in the environment because the children are born normal.

I hope knowing what exactly it is or they are, time will tell.

Finding the true cause(s) of autism will probably not result in great profits monetarily because I don't think a drug will be the cure, the cure will be stopping/ cutting off whatever the environmental cause(s) is/ are.

___________
* Well, being able to diagnose autism early on is very useful because you are aware of it, and able to plan for treatment very early in the child's life.
From what I know, behavioral psychology has the best "intervention."
Until it is known what exactly what causes the disorder, I think it will be impossible for there to be any drugs available. I think the second article would agree with this.

The thing I can say with greatest confidence is that what causes autism is NOT KNOWN at this time. Until we have the best, most reliable research that does, we can argue all we want and NOT be absolutely right 100% of the time. This means I will not lean more towards either of the articles presented above.

**Sofonda** · 09-26-2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Jerico

So why is there an increase in the incedences of autism? Is that not a fact? I don't see one article more credible than other.

"...the number being diagnosed may reflect increased reporting of cases rather than an increase in actual incidence." That doesn't sound that convincing to me. Why not "the number being diagnosed instead reflects..."? Probably because it would not be a true statement.

Mercury being toxic is not a fact? M.S.D.S. is a scientific document and I'd say pretty darn trustworthy.

To me, the main things to consider are our genes and our genes' interaction with the environment.

That means that some people may have a genetic predisposition to a certain disorder or disease, but it doesn't necessarily mean these people will have the disease or disorder.

I appreciate your response. To answer your first question I would say that we (meaning the medical community) are much better at recognizing and diagnosing ASD, hence the rise in diagnosis.

The main thing that I wish to point out is that many people lept to the incorrect conclusion based on Wakefield's initial study of only 12 (!) children. This study, to my knowledge, has never been replicated and has, in fact, been quite resoundingly refuted. As quackwatch pointed out, if there was a direct link between the MMR (or any of the other vaccines) we'd be seeing ASD diagnoses exploding on a much higher level than we are now.

But you do bring up a most interesting point about genes and environment. And, most assuredly, Mercury is harmful to humans. Take a look at the recent news reports on the risks of eating tuna for children and pregnant women. I've also read reports that there are (were) at one point a higher incidence of ASD in the so-called Silicone Valley. It begs the question, were these kids exhibiting genetic factors? Were there environmental factors present in that area? I never heard if that was studied or not.

But I did recently read a pretty interesting study on the link between artificial food additives (dyes and sugar substitutes and other common additives in "junk" food) and educational performance of children in school, particularly kids who have been suspected of having ADHD.

There is much that we don't know yet. But one thing is pretty clear and I will say it again, the risk of immunization is FAR FAR less than the benefits of protecting kids against diseases that we KNOW are deadly.

As much as I'd like to find fault with Bush et al, I think there are bigger fish to fry than some collusion between the administration and the drug companies in regards to immunizations.

**Jerico** · 09-26-2004, 07:34 PM

I am not against immunizations.

I am analyzing the info and looking for the truth, and
neither article has more truth than the other in my opinion.

Neither article is entirely objective.

**Jerico** · 09-26-2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Sofonda

I appreciate your response. To answer your first question I would say that we (meaning the medical community) are much better at recognizing and diagnosing ASD, hence the rise in diagnosis.

"Autism spectrum disorder affects one in every 160 people and is growing worldwide. The California Department of Developmental Services recently reported that 20,377 children ages 3 and older were receiving state services for classic autism, the most severe form, as of December 2002. That was a 97 percent increase over the 1998 number. An earlier study had found the stateâ€™s autism rate increased 237 percent from 1987 to 1998."

This IS from the medical community. From San Diego Children's Hopital, not Quackwatch.org.

Certainly the best researchers in the medical community have at least the same, if not more training in science than I do.
The university I attended is world reknowned for it's biomedical research.

**Sofonda** · 09-26-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Jerico

Originally posted by Sofonda

I appreciate your response. To answer your first question I would say that we (meaning the medical community) are much better at recognizing and diagnosing ASD, hence the rise in diagnosis.

"Autism spectrum disorder affects one in every 160 people and is growing worldwide. The California Department of Developmental Services recently reported that 20,377 children ages 3 and older were receiving state services for classic autism, the most severe form, as of December 2002. That was a 97 percent increase over the 1998 number. An earlier study had found the state’s autism rate increased 237 percent from 1987 to 1998."

This IS from the medical community. From San Diego Children's Hopital, not Quackwatch.org.

Certainly the best researchers in the medical community have at least the same, if not more training in science than I do.
The university I attended is world reknowned for it's biomedical research.

I don't disbelieve these statistics. But I'm not sure what your point is. I don't mean to be obtuse. Are you saying that it can't be genetic? That it can't be environmental? That you believe that immunizations are the root of this increase?

**Jerico** · 09-26-2004, 08:19 PM

My scientific training leads me to believe just what I stated...
when you consider a disease or disorder, it is the the genes interacting with the environment.

I see this stated again and again in the most reliable research literature.

Thus I think there is an environmental component to autism which is not known yet.

And I wouldn't rule out the possiblility that mercury in immunizations can be harmful.

None of any of the literature I've seen, be it biased or not, shows the absolute truth.

I cannot rule out that immunizations can be harmful in some cases.
I have a friend in Canada who chose not get her son immunized. He is a normal healthy two year old boy. Everything is fine. Excellent.
Until something goes wrong, he is a great example of how immunization is not necessary. <-- now that is not blasphemous. Getting immunizations is not the word of God is it?

I've been immunized plenty of times, and I had the chicken pox twice in my youth. I'm not going to preach for or against immunizations.
Polio used to be a problem, now it's not. Great. That doesn't mean I'm all for children getting the polio vaccine these days.
People can do research on their own and decide for their own children what to do.

I think it healthy to have a skeptical mind and question all information.
Like I said, neither one of the posted articles are completely objective. I am drawing my conclusions from my training in science, from LoE's post and others that I've read similar to it, from your post, and from the aritcles I've read on my own.

I think it good for everyone to see two opposing sides to any issue, including the autism-vaccination debate. Then parents can weigh the pros and cons, assess the risks and then make their decision.

**Sofonda** · 09-26-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Jerico

My scientific training leads me to believe just what I stated...
when you consider a disease or disorder, it is the the genes interacting with the environment.

I see this stated again and again in the most reliable research literature.

Well we are in agreement then. But the question remains....what in the environment is responsible?

If it is indeed genetic and these genes are dominant then it would make sense that the statistics will rise.

My point is simply that it is easy to point to one factor (immunizations) based on one study. I believe this is an incorrect assumption based on what I've read in the literature.

My hope is that we will soon find out the cause of this disorder and not base our assumptions on hype and fear based on the results of one poorly conducted study.

**Jerico** · 09-26-2004, 08:47 PM

It's not a question of genetic factors being more dominant over the environmental factors, sorry if I misunderstand you,
it's about what is/ are the specific environmental factor(s) causing
the disorder/ disease, because if the environmental agent wasn't there, the disease wouldn't manifest even though the individuals have the genetic predisposition for the disease.

What would cause an increase of frequency of a disease-linked gene in the human population?

1. inbreeding or 2. a mutagen that causes an increase of a specific mutation.

It's not inbreeding. ASD is found in a wide range of ethnic backgrounds (actually, if I recall correctly, it occurs in ALL ethnicities), and in children of mixed race.

**Jerico** · 09-26-2004, 09:09 PM

I doubt that AIDs in humans existed since the dawn of Man, like autism possibly(?) did.

Did it not originate
when a mutated form of a simian virus infected a human, and because it is a nasty retrovirus, spread through sexual intercourse and to a lesser degree through blood transfusions, and needle sharing :?: I think that is the best theory at this time. And, believe it or not, it is a well-understood disease. We know exactly what it is (retrovirus) and exactly how it replicates. The three-drug combo that Magic Johnson takes is a fail-safe formula.* It's just that it was, and still is I believe, too expensive to be a plausible universal treatment. A vaccine? Who are you going to test it on? People with AIDS have volunteered, and it hasn't been successful yet. Not that I know of, cuz if it was we would all know about it.

Viruses are nasty things because they have a high rate of mutation. That's why they will always be around. Even if a successful AIDS vaccine were discovered, it's success would probably be short-lived because another HIV strain would spread which the vaccine would be ineffective against.

A viral disease is much different than a genetic one, and I suspect autism has a big genetic component. Almost anyone can get AIDS if it enters the body by proper transmission, while autism only manifests in individuals who have the genetic predisposition. HIV cannot thrive when exposed out in the air-- you can't get it from toilet seats; you can't get it from food. Ironically, the people who aren't susceptible to AIDS are people with a mutant gene which prevents HIV from infecting cells via lack of wild type gene-product, the HIV co-receptor (CD-3 I believe the correct name is).

(edit again! on Monday after midnight:) I believe it's a mutation in the CD-4 gene, not CD-3, although CD-3, I believe is an HIV co-receptor as well. Co-receptor meaning that the protein is recognized by HIV and required to bind to the white cell (Helper T) and enter/ infect it.

I recently worked at The Salk Institute. I found it ironic that I got a flu shot, yet still got the flu and it was a nasty one; I was sick for at least a month. The nurse gave us the wrong vaccine, it wasn't for the strain that hit us all.

-----------------------
* each drug attacks the retrovirus at "different parts/ stages" of it's life-cycle, making it impossible for it to replicate.

**Doc** · 09-27-2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Sofonda

I appreciate your response. To answer your first question I would say that we (meaning the medical community) are much better at recognizing and diagnosing ASD, hence the rise in diagnosis.

The main thing that I wish to point out is that many people lept to the incorrect conclusion based on Wakefield's initial study of only 12 (!) children. This study, to my knowledge, has never been replicated and has, in fact, been quite resoundingly refuted.

It's interesting that these accusations surface from time to time. I agree vaccinations are often blamed for increasing instances of other conditions because as diagnostic skills and protocols are improving (although sometimes to the point of overdiagnosing), instances of a disease/ disorder often increase. More importantly, now that immunizations are standard, they become the most convenient common link. ADD and ADHD have also been similarly linked, with similarly flimsy evidence.

My biggest problem is what winds up being newsworthy. A study of 12 people can produce no reliable results. You can find interesting things, but elementary statistics tells you that it is impossible to generalize with less than 30 cases, and even that number is open to huge amounts of sampling error. However, the claims, however derived, wind up being reported as "medical research claims," regardless of how carefully the researchers couch their language. But the soundbite is still very appealing. I've had colleagues who've had their research misinterpreted in the press, telling the world that they said something they didn't. Similarly, I'd feel safe guessing that both Jerico and the Alderian have seen a hundred psychologically-based stories in the news that they can immediately identify as mis-reported or could refute them by what people learn in an introductory psychology classes.

Where I'm going with this is that the initial findings, no matter how trustworthy or grounded, are newsworthy, but the rest of the story isn't. Shaky claims and refutations don't make good soundbites.

As for the role of environmental factors...
We've certainly created a world that is very far removed from its state without human beings. Should we be surprised that we have more disease and disorders, both psychological and medical?

**Jerico** · 09-27-2004, 09:45 AM

Ditto!

**Jerico** · 09-27-2004, 01:52 PM

Si. Es claro.

Announcement

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Disorders & Politics

Disorders & Politics

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment