"The Journal of Epidemiology suggested that the increase in cases was not due to genetics or over-reporting and that chemicals and infectious microbes were a likely cause of the changes in the neurological development of children.
"It's time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California," said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher, Irva Hertz-Picciotto. (3)"
Citation 3 is:
Study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis, Physorg. Web. 8 September 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news150636855.html
The citation is to just one publication of a press release from the MIND institute. Evidently Joanna couldn't be bothered to look up or cite the actual study:
Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. (2009) The rise in autism and the role of age at diagnosis. Epidemiology. 2009 Jan;20(1):84-90. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181902d15
What the paper actually said:
"Autism incidence in California shows no sign yet of plateauing. Younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases. Other artifacts have yet to be quantified, and as a result, the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear."
So there was a contradiction between the paper's findings and what Dr. Hertz-Picciotto said in the press release. Which should be given more credence? Or is it possible that in the press release, Dr Hertz-Picciotto was, well, exaggerating?
"This is completely at odds with the conclusions of the paper, and I find it quite dishonest. To make it perfectly clear, yes, I'm accusing Dr. Hertz-Picciotto of intellectual dishonesty."....
He went on to write of the study's other shortcomings:
"In other words, the MIND Institute study is not even informative about the impact of the artifacts it did take into account. I frankly can't see this study as a contribution to scientific knowledge at all. It gives the appearance of being part of a propaganda effort. "
The neurologist Steven Novella MD wrote, in his review of Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. (2009)
"This latest study is interesting, but was too limited in scope to significantly alter the evidence as a whole. I would not be surprised if some portion of the increase in autism diagnoses were due to environmental factors. But I don’t think current evidence lends much support to this notion either. The current state of evidence strongly suggests that the dominant reason for the increase in numbers is due to changes in diagnostic behavior."
So Joanna made a claim that for autism causation being due to "chemicals and infectious microbes ". Did the paper she cited mention these elements? No, not at all.
Did the press release? Yes -- in the context of two ongoing studies for which Hertz-Picciotto is the principal investigator.
"Hertz-Picciotto is the principal investigator on the CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risk from Genetics and the Environment) and MARBLES (Markers of Autism Risk in Babies-Learning Early Signs) studies.
CHARGE is the largest epidemiologic study of reliably confirmed cases of autism to date, and the first major investigation of environmental factors and gene-environment interactions in the disorder. MARBLES is a prospective investigation that follows women who already have had one child with autism, beginning early in or even before a subsequent pregnancy, to search for early markers that predict autism in the younger sibling.
"We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," Hertz-Picciotto said. "If we're going to stop the rise in autism in California, we need to keep these studies going and expand them to the extent possible."
Note what Hertz-Picciotto said, "the possible effects" in the context of ongoing studies, not anything that has been published.
Joanna turned that into "The Journal of Epidemiology suggested that the increase in cases was not due to genetics or over-reporting and that chemicals and infectious microbes were a likely cause of the changes in the neurological development of children. "
That is very sloppy writing and thinking -- not even up to the standard that one would expect of a high school student.
Comment Reply
Joanna wrote,
"The Journal of Epidemiology suggested that the increase in cases was not due to genetics or over-reporting and that chemicals and infectious microbes were a likely cause of the changes in the neurological development of children.
"It's time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California," said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher, Irva Hertz-Picciotto. (3)"
Citation 3 is:
Study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis, Physorg. Web. 8 September 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news150636855.html
The citation is to just one publication of a press release from the MIND institute. Evidently Joanna couldn't be bothered to look up or cite the actual study:
Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. (2009) The rise in autism and the role of age at diagnosis. Epidemiology. 2009 Jan;20(1):84-90. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181902d15
What the paper actually said:
"Autism incidence in California shows no sign yet of plateauing. Younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases. Other artifacts have yet to be quantified, and as a result, the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear."
So there was a contradiction between the paper's findings and what Dr. Hertz-Picciotto said in the press release. Which should be given more credence? Or is it possible that in the press release, Dr Hertz-Picciotto was, well, exaggerating?
As one autism parent wrote,
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2009/11/word-about-hertz-picciotto-delwiche.html
"This is completely at odds with the conclusions of the paper, and I find it quite dishonest. To make it perfectly clear, yes, I'm accusing Dr. Hertz-Picciotto of intellectual dishonesty."....
He went on to write of the study's other shortcomings:
"In other words, the MIND Institute study is not even informative about the impact of the artifacts it did take into account. I frankly can't see this study as a contribution to scientific knowledge at all. It gives the appearance of being part of a propaganda effort. "
The neurologist Steven Novella MD wrote, in his review of Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. (2009)
"This latest study is interesting, but was too limited in scope to significantly alter the evidence as a whole. I would not be surprised if some portion of the increase in autism diagnoses were due to environmental factors. But I don’t think current evidence lends much support to this notion either. The current state of evidence strongly suggests that the dominant reason for the increase in numbers is due to changes in diagnostic behavior."
So Joanna made a claim that for autism causation being due to "chemicals and infectious microbes ". Did the paper she cited mention these elements? No, not at all.
Did the press release? Yes -- in the context of two ongoing studies for which Hertz-Picciotto is the principal investigator.
"Hertz-Picciotto is the principal investigator on the CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risk from Genetics and the Environment) and MARBLES (Markers of Autism Risk in Babies-Learning Early Signs) studies.
CHARGE is the largest epidemiologic study of reliably confirmed cases of autism to date, and the first major investigation of environmental factors and gene-environment interactions in the disorder. MARBLES is a prospective investigation that follows women who already have had one child with autism, beginning early in or even before a subsequent pregnancy, to search for early markers that predict autism in the younger sibling.
"We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," Hertz-Picciotto said. "If we're going to stop the rise in autism in California, we need to keep these studies going and expand them to the extent possible."
Note what Hertz-Picciotto said, "the possible effects" in the context of ongoing studies, not anything that has been published.
Joanna turned that into "The Journal of Epidemiology suggested that the increase in cases was not due to genetics or over-reporting and that chemicals and infectious microbes were a likely cause of the changes in the neurological development of children. "
That is very sloppy writing and thinking -- not even up to the standard that one would expect of a high school student.
September 11, 2011 - 1:06pmThis Comment
Reply