Nature Publishing promote bad autism science

UPDATE: Nature Publishing Group now appear to have removed the links criticised in this post and the page looks to be much improved (although see the additional criticism at LBRB)

Nature Publishing’s Publishing Group’s (NPG) Scitable has previously been a fairly good example of accessible online science information. However, as Kev has noted, Nature’s NPG’s autism Scitable is well below their usual standard:

who thought it necessary to link to no less than three anti-vaccine links on the home page of this….blog? Wiki? Two links to Autism Speaks whose controllers recently attended a DAN! conference and one link to ARI itself.

Nature also links to Thoughtful House (the US autism clinic where Wakefield was based) when “Explaining the rise of reported cases”. Classy.

Particularly interesting – ‘interesting’ in the banging-head-on-desk-sense of the world – is the Autism Research Institute document they link re the Nutritional Treatment of autism

ASA: Dore advert is “misleading” and breaches rules on “truthfullness” and “substantiation”

I was delighted to see that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint of mine about Dore’s advertising. I complained about an advert referring to “help with Dyslexia, ADHD, Dyspraxia or Asperger’s”. The ASA has reviewed the evidence Dore submitted to support their claims, and found that:

the evidence was inadequate to support claims to treat those [Aspergers Syndrome and dyspraxia]. With regards to dyslexia and ADHD, we did not consider that the studies were sufficiently robust to support the treatment claims for those conditions, and we therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies).

I am delighted that the ASA has made such a firm ruling.

The Times and Hopkins allow Quinnell to plug Dore

Sigh. John Hopkins in the Times has given Scott Quinnell substantial opportunity to plug the Dore treatment for specific learning difficulties (which Quinnell has now invested in). Quinnell is a former rugby international, and his current support of Dore does not change the fact that there is not good evidence that Dore works.

Quinnell states that

I want to help children and adults overcome dyslexia, dyspraxia, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, autism and Asperger’s…I want to be able to help people not to be what they were before.

If he does want to help people with learning difficulties, there are so many more things that he could do. Promoting expensive ‘miracle cures’ – without good evidence that they work – is not helpful. Neither is the negative approach of seeking to have people “not…be what they were before”.

Many people with learning difficulties develop extremely effective coping strategies (in the article, Quinnell says he is/was dyspraxic; nonetheless, he was able to do remarkably well at sport). Providing appropriate support for people with learning difficulties is much more valuable than promoting non-evidence-based miracle cures.

The Times does give brief mention to the criticisms of Dore. However, these are not given nearly enough weight: the fact that expert psychologists specialising in the field have been scathingly critical of Dore is rather more relevant than the fact that a former rugby international (with a financial interest in Dore) says it works. However, the focus of the article is very much on Quinnell’s views; Hopkins does not even both to include a quote from any of Dore’s critics.

One would hope that a responsible newspaper would offer more evidence-based coverage of learning difficulties. The Times itself has noted some of the problems caused when Dore went into liquidation: it should be aware that plugging such ‘miracle cures’ is not risk-free. I have previously argued that

‘miracle cure appears not to work’ stories are seen as far less newsworthy than ‘miracle cure saves children and cute fluffy bunnies’ stories

It also appears that ‘miracle cure endorsed by celeb’ stories may be more newsworthy than ‘miracle cure still doesn’t work’ stories. That is a pity.

Roy Rutherford and the Autism Treatment and Prevention Centre

We were fascinated to see that Dr Roy Rutherford (who helped found Dore and is listed as a Medical Consultant there) has now set up the Autism Treatment and Prevention Centre (AUTAP). Given that there is currently very little in the way of proven autism treatments/prevention techniques, we were fascinated to see what they had to say about autism treatments. We were not impressed.

The site offers lots of referency, sciency-looking links – so we thought we would follow through a few of these. One might first note that a positive link to What Doctors Don’t Tell You is not a good sign. However, optimistically, we ploughed on.

Stupid autism article in the Independent, and Research Autism are not helping

We were surprised to seeing the Independent running a story by Rob Sharp which can be summed up as ‘autistic child develops as she gets older (while parents invest lots of time and money in dubious treatments)’. This may be shocking to Independent journalists, but autism is a developmental difference, not developmental stasis. While it is always nice to see children developing, this ‘story’ is no more news than ‘pope revealed to be Catholic’ would be. Despite or because of an apparent lack of competent research, though, the story does find space to plug Defeat Autism Now and the Sewell Foundation: both organisations promoting dubious ‘treatments’ and ‘cures’ for autism.

More worrying, though, is what Richard Mills – quoted as research director for the charities Research Autism and the National Autistic Society – had to say about the dietary changes tried by the family.

Will Patrick Holford Be Calling Upon His Mailing List to Sign the New Andrew Wakefield Petition? If So, We’ve Made Some Annotations

In June 2007, as the Autism Omnibus Hearings were in progress and the initial test case was being heard, Patrick Holford contacted his mailing list and asked them to sign a petition in support of Dr Andrew Wakefield. Although it doesn’t look like he ever signed the petition, it is clear that he influenced other people to sign, people who directly cited him as instrumental in the decision not to vaccinate children against preventable diseases.

Dr Carmel O’Donovan, Andrew Wakefield’s wife, recently emailed around asking for signatures in support of him. However, it seems that there is another petition, this one grandiosely and desperately asking people to sign up to We Support Andy Wakefield (Tiny URL’d). Age of Autism rather half-heartedly just reproduces the blusterous call for an enquiry (Tiny URL’d) and, without any trace of irony, condemns “the censorship of science” and the competence of Brian Deer in his remarkable investigative journalism.

We offer an annotated version of the petition: all links have been added by us and our text additions are in italics.

Patrick Holford on Andrew Wakefield: He Needs to Issue an Update

Former Visiting Professor Patrick Holford has what he calls a blog.^[a]

So far, it contains the usual inaccuracies and reproduces articles that he wrote some time ago and Holford seems to regard it as a way of recycling his usual work.

However, this has been such a remarkable week for exposing the shoddy edifice that supports some of Holford’s cash cows and entrepreneurial enterprises that we had wondered if he would crack and write about them.

Special Court that Heard the Autism Omnibus Says that Measles Vaccine Is Not Associated with Neurological Damage: Some Detail from the Rulings

The Autism Omnibus held hearings into three tests cases that were intended to establish a principle of general causation that links vaccinations with developmental conditions or neurological damage and would therefore qualify for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Three families agreed to be the test cases presented in court – the Cedillos, the Hazelhursts and the Snyders – on behalf of the Petitioners’ Steering Committee (PSC). However, the panel of Special Masters has ruled that the PSC did not presented sufficient plausible or adequante evidence to demonstrate that vaccines are causally linked to autism in these children, even using the comparatively light standard of the ‘preponderance of evidence’. Brief ruling note.

Thousands of parents who claimed that childhood vaccines had caused their children to develop autism are wrong and not entitled to federal compensation, a special court ruled today in three decisions with far-reaching implications for a bitterly fought medical controversy…

The decision by three independent special masters is especially telling because the special court’s rules did not require plaintiffs to prove their cases with scientific certainty — all the parents needed to show was that a preponderance of the evidence, or “50 percent and a hair,” supported their claims. The vaccine court effectively said today that the thousands of pending claims represented by the three test cases are on extremely shaky ground.

In his ruling on one case, special master George Hastings said the parents of Michelle Cedillo — who had charged that a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their child to develop autism — had “been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.”

There is some additional information on US Court of Federal Claims and the detailed rulings behind the decisions are available.

Jeni Barnett, LBC and Global Radio, MMR Segment 7 Jan 2009 and the Ben Goldacre Coverage: Part 2

The first part of the list is: Jeni Barnett and the LBC Radio MMR Vaccine Segment: Updated with links of blog coverage.

We are now constructing a supplementary list of blog posts and other coverage of Ben Goldacre v. Jeni Barnett, LBC and Global Radio in re: MMR Vaccine Segment 7 Jan 2009 from Feb 11 2009 (with some key posts from the first list). This will be a rolling update for some time.

Andrew Wakefield Responds to Brian Deer: Summary, “I regret nothing…Single jabs are the way ahead”

Dr Andrew Wakefield has responded to the series of claims made in Brian Deer’s Sunday Times‘s articles: Andrew Wakefield’s Response To Brian Deer (pdf) (also now online in html). Wakefield continues to imply that any mistakes are the responsibility of his colleagues (see earlier indications of this) and his clearest message is that he regrets nothing: