On the heels of our nations birthday let's talk about America, more importantly, America's ambivalent relationship with science. Here at Momma Data it's no secret that I find fault with information parents receive about their children. That would be info gleaned from scientific discoveries. I portion out the blame to journalists, scientists, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and yes, we parents.
And lately I've been musing that it's the more educated, the more sophisticated amongst us that sometime side step around the weighty piles of scientific evidence.
It's my better-schooled friends and fellow parents who still suspect vaccines have something to do with autism if not other chronic conditions - they're the ones not vaccinating their kids. It's the same group who breastfeed their children until age 2 at sometimes great sacrifice. And you know what I think about the exaggeration of breast feeding's benefits! And yes, the same group who ditched the bottles with bisphenol-a and suspect the FDA is simply not capable of determining its safety.
So I wasn't surprised to read "Why America Is Flunking Science" at Salon.com. Writers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum point fingers at everyone too, including Hollywood and also note that it's the more degreed amongst us who seek out information confirming their beliefs - to the neglect of good science. It's kind of a depressing article as they can find no way to counter this new trend save reiterating the bad science and faulty opinions.
I say why not use a rating system much like the film industry. It makes me somewhat crazy that I can check up on the latest entertainment options but not the latest research. Why not grade research too?
Check out a recent survey by the Pew organization on science.
FYI: Although large gaps separate the views of scientists and non-scientists on evolution, global warming, even the use of animals in scientific research....
But the good news - they are closer together on vaccines.
"There is less of a schism over the need for universal vaccinations: 82% of scientists and 69% of the public at large say that all children should be required to be vaccinated. Just 17% of scientists and 28% of the public say parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children."
It's just that the small percentage of anit-vaccines parents are making a lot of noise.
And don't know how to interpret this. The best informed (scientifically) lay people seem to be those are aged 30 to 49, in other words, those in the midst of their child-rearing year. At least they did best on a science pop quiz that got at some facts (is there water on mars?) more than scientific thinking.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Americans Red, White, and Blowing Science? Educated Parents Most At Fault for Faulty Beliefs about Vaccines, Breastfeeding, Bishpenol-A?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Is Bisphenol A Dangerous? Newsweek Says Yes. Experts Say No. BPA and More Bad Behavior
Been quite a week for that little chemical, bisphenol A, aka BPA, the suspected toxic substance in hard clear plastic, like baby bottles and sippy cups.
Let's see. Sharon Begley, the science editor at Newsweek, glossed over the mountains of evidence suggesting no harm from BPA, studies that not only experts at the FDA but those from around the world, including Europe, Japan, and Australia, have reviewed and reviewed again, finding it more convincing and more rigorous than research showing it's dangerous.
But Begley dismisses this large, well-scrutinized body of evidence in one cheeky swoop:
Evidence on the other side is both stronger and more convincing. I can regale you until I'm out of space with studies showing that in monkeys, levels of BPA at the upper end of what the U.S. government calls safe harm synapses responsible for learning and memory; that people with the highest levels of BPA are most likely to have type 2 diabetes or heart disease; that BPA given to pregnant lab animals permanently alters the expression of genes responsible for uterine development and damages the reproductive system of their fetuses. More telling than individual studies is the weight and quality of the cumulative evidence. (When Studies Collide: Rethinking the evidence on BPA, from the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009).
Maybe she should take some of her own advice:
My point is not that science is always tentative and that scientists are fallible, though both are certainly true... but that almost anyone with an agenda can find research to support it.
Ah, yes, Ms. Begley, including writers for magazines who love a juicy headline.
Maybe you should consider the STATS experts who have reviewed all the evidence (Science Suppressed: How America became obsessed with BPA) - and have no agenda other than correcting faulty science in the public discourse - and reminded us that some of the studies showing harm were funded and conducted by environmentally-minded organizations that have a definitive point of view and agenda.
Or consider the weight U.S. government health organization that funded poor quality research according to STATS:
Missing in this debate is that it’s not just “industry groups” that think BPA shouldn’t be banned – or just industry-sponsored studies that say it’s safe. Scientists, regulators, and politicians in Europe, Australia, and Japan have all rejected the evidence that the chemical is harmful as methodologically flawed, badly conducted or irrelevant – with some warning that banning it could actually endanger the public. Now that the National Institutes of Health has acknowledged it funded a lot of poorly-designed research on BPA – the very research that activists touted as evidence that the chemical is deadly – it’s time to ask whether America has been spun by clever marketing rather than clever science.
Or consider the source for much of the BPA frenzy, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, that not only won major awards for it's "Chemical Fall Out" series on BPA, but in over 40 articles featured only a small group of anti-BPA scientists and led the campaign to ban the chemical.
And please, please, please read at least the summary of this very detailed STATS report that in addition to scrutinizing the research on both sides of the issue, also chronicles how BPA become public enemy number one last year.
FYI- After reviewing the evidence, the European Food Safety Authority (the European equivalent of the FDA) found BPA safer than previously thought and raised the level of BPA that's considered safe by a factor of five.
- A science writer at a lofty news weekly says BPA is bad and that people have not been paying enough attention to the studies saying so.
- An expert non-partisan, non-politically affiliated group of researchers say it's safe in a 50-page report after reviewing all the scientific evidence. And conclude the media has overplayed the bad BPA card.
Let's see. Sharon Begley, the science editor at Newsweek, glossed over the mountains of evidence suggesting no harm from BPA, studies that not only experts at the FDA but those from around the world, including Europe, Japan, and Australia, have reviewed and reviewed again, finding it more convincing and more rigorous than research showing it's dangerous.
But Begley dismisses this large, well-scrutinized body of evidence in one cheeky swoop:
Evidence on the other side is both stronger and more convincing. I can regale you until I'm out of space with studies showing that in monkeys, levels of BPA at the upper end of what the U.S. government calls safe harm synapses responsible for learning and memory; that people with the highest levels of BPA are most likely to have type 2 diabetes or heart disease; that BPA given to pregnant lab animals permanently alters the expression of genes responsible for uterine development and damages the reproductive system of their fetuses. More telling than individual studies is the weight and quality of the cumulative evidence. (When Studies Collide: Rethinking the evidence on BPA, from the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009).
Maybe she should take some of her own advice:
My point is not that science is always tentative and that scientists are fallible, though both are certainly true... but that almost anyone with an agenda can find research to support it.
Ah, yes, Ms. Begley, including writers for magazines who love a juicy headline.
Maybe you should consider the STATS experts who have reviewed all the evidence (Science Suppressed: How America became obsessed with BPA) - and have no agenda other than correcting faulty science in the public discourse - and reminded us that some of the studies showing harm were funded and conducted by environmentally-minded organizations that have a definitive point of view and agenda.
Or consider the weight U.S. government health organization that funded poor quality research according to STATS:
Missing in this debate is that it’s not just “industry groups” that think BPA shouldn’t be banned – or just industry-sponsored studies that say it’s safe. Scientists, regulators, and politicians in Europe, Australia, and Japan have all rejected the evidence that the chemical is harmful as methodologically flawed, badly conducted or irrelevant – with some warning that banning it could actually endanger the public. Now that the National Institutes of Health has acknowledged it funded a lot of poorly-designed research on BPA – the very research that activists touted as evidence that the chemical is deadly – it’s time to ask whether America has been spun by clever marketing rather than clever science.
Or consider the source for much of the BPA frenzy, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, that not only won major awards for it's "Chemical Fall Out" series on BPA, but in over 40 articles featured only a small group of anti-BPA scientists and led the campaign to ban the chemical.
And please, please, please read at least the summary of this very detailed STATS report that in addition to scrutinizing the research on both sides of the issue, also chronicles how BPA become public enemy number one last year.
Get ready for more BPA brouhaha as the FDA will release yet another report sometime this summer.
For those of you interested in the actual science behind the battle: one of the major issues (flaws) regarding the interpretation of studies showing harm involves how research participants, that is, rats, received the chemical. Rats were injected with it. Studies in which rats ate it do not show harm. Researchers believe that injection is much more dangerous than ingestion. You can read more about the actual research in the STATS report.FYI- After reviewing the evidence, the European Food Safety Authority (the European equivalent of the FDA) found BPA safer than previously thought and raised the level of BPA that's considered safe by a factor of five.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Babies, Bubble Bath, and Bad Science: Do Baby Bath Products Cause Cancer?
So now we're supposed to throw out baby bath products? If you believe what you've been reading about these chemical-laced shampoos and lotions you may hesitate the next time you plop the baby into the warm (but not too warm) water.
Maybe you read "Group Finds Carcinogen in Kids Bath Products" in USA Today. Here's the not-so-subtle opening:
Many children's bath products contain chemicals that may cause cancer and skin allergies, according to a report released Thursday by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
Twenty-three of 28 products tested contained formaldehyde, the report says. Formaldehyde — considered a probable carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency, — is released as preservatives break down over time in a container.
Of course I'm going to tell you this information is suspect, misleading. The sciency-factoids come thanks to the people at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, hardly an objective group. But you can read the excellent review by Trevor Butterworth, senior fellow and editor at STATS.org. Butterworth reports the chemicals in bath products are indeed carcinogens, as are many common ingredients in heavy doses - and given the right exposure. For instance, gasoline, he notes, is also dangerous if you drink it. So there's the issue of exposure. Simply rubbing this stuff on does not pose a risk. And then there are the studies in which animals receive extremely high doses of the chemicals. As if we force-feed these potential toxins to our children. Toxicologists, by the way, are much more concerned about environmental sources of toxins, not so much the bath soap.
Fortunately the New York Times had the good sense get a comment from Butterworth in their more balanced (than USA!) coverage of the issue "Cleaning Up Baby Products."
And this: even fruits and veggies naturally contain formaldehyde.
Who knew. Think of this the next time you put the apple in the lunch box.
Maybe you read "Group Finds Carcinogen in Kids Bath Products" in USA Today. Here's the not-so-subtle opening:
Many children's bath products contain chemicals that may cause cancer and skin allergies, according to a report released Thursday by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
Twenty-three of 28 products tested contained formaldehyde, the report says. Formaldehyde — considered a probable carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency, — is released as preservatives break down over time in a container.
Of course I'm going to tell you this information is suspect, misleading. The sciency-factoids come thanks to the people at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, hardly an objective group. But you can read the excellent review by Trevor Butterworth, senior fellow and editor at STATS.org. Butterworth reports the chemicals in bath products are indeed carcinogens, as are many common ingredients in heavy doses - and given the right exposure. For instance, gasoline, he notes, is also dangerous if you drink it. So there's the issue of exposure. Simply rubbing this stuff on does not pose a risk. And then there are the studies in which animals receive extremely high doses of the chemicals. As if we force-feed these potential toxins to our children. Toxicologists, by the way, are much more concerned about environmental sources of toxins, not so much the bath soap.
Fortunately the New York Times had the good sense get a comment from Butterworth in their more balanced (than USA!) coverage of the issue "Cleaning Up Baby Products."
And this: even fruits and veggies naturally contain formaldehyde.
Who knew. Think of this the next time you put the apple in the lunch box.
Oprah Crazy, Womenomics Women Say That's Crazy: The Conflict Between Science and Media Rears It's Crazy Head
Oprah's gone crazy on the cover of Newsweek.
She's spreading bad health advice according to the June 8th cover story "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures and You." Oprah's hands are outstretched, eyes teary, mouth ajar on the cover photo.
Yes, I agree. The talk show potentate is not portraying the science behind autism accurately - I don't know a thing about bioidentical hormones - and I've worried about it earlier this month in a post about Jenny McCarthy's ascension in the Oprah universe.
But that Newsweek cover was a little too crazy. Maybe it's the new Newsweek design (change is hard, I know) - but I found it all too tabloid - not to mention the photo of Oprah in the backseat of the limo with big fat curlers in her hair. And that in a story that attempted to bring Oprah up on charges of fraud, as in fraudulent science.
Too bad even when journalists attempt to question inaccurate health information in the media - they just don't get it right. It's disappointing. Maybe you'll get it right next time, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert.
What if they hadn't portrayed Oprah as a blubbering, ranting mess on the cover? What if they'd dropped the crazy talk? What if they'd simply addressed the health claims her guests had made?
Ahhh - but that exposes the all too familiar conflict between science and the media. Empiricism meets sensationalism.
You can bet other journalists were spitting mad at the dissing of the big O. Fine. The women behind the recently released Womenomics, journalists Katty Kat (of the BBC) and Claire Shipman (of Good Morning America), commented on the crazy talk about Oprah in an interview on NPR with Brian Lehrer at WNYC. Mind you, their segment was not about Oprah, or science in the media, but about their book focusing on how women bring up the profits (tangible and intangible) in the workplace.
Which was all well and good. Until they ventured into the science behind autism. One of the authors (Shipman?) reported ABC killed a story she'd worked on about using brain imaging to diagnose autism. Fine. But then she revealed it was too bad we didn't know for sure whether vaccines cause autism. And that it's still possible that vaccines could trigger autism in some children and that we just haven't disproved that yet.
Hmmm.
Thank you, Brian Lehrer for pointing out that science has largely rejected the vaccines-cause-autism claim.
So, here we have another respected journalist dispersing faulty health info.
Could it be that a very small percentage of autism cases were triggered by vaccines? Yes. We don't have large enough studies to get at this issue. Do we have studies that would have found a link if vaccines were responsible for most cases of autism. Yes and they did not find a link. Shipman's comments display the lack of scientific savvy that plagues the public discourse of health and well-being.
If only she'd stopped at crazy Oprah and not segued into bad science.
And shame on NPR. Brian Lehrer knew she was going to speak on autism. I stayed tuned because his teaser promised she'd talk on it later in the show. And even though I knew my blood pressure might rise, I did stayed tuned and she confirmed all my fears.
She's spreading bad health advice according to the June 8th cover story "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures and You." Oprah's hands are outstretched, eyes teary, mouth ajar on the cover photo.
Yes, I agree. The talk show potentate is not portraying the science behind autism accurately - I don't know a thing about bioidentical hormones - and I've worried about it earlier this month in a post about Jenny McCarthy's ascension in the Oprah universe.
But that Newsweek cover was a little too crazy. Maybe it's the new Newsweek design (change is hard, I know) - but I found it all too tabloid - not to mention the photo of Oprah in the backseat of the limo with big fat curlers in her hair. And that in a story that attempted to bring Oprah up on charges of fraud, as in fraudulent science.
Too bad even when journalists attempt to question inaccurate health information in the media - they just don't get it right. It's disappointing. Maybe you'll get it right next time, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert.
What if they hadn't portrayed Oprah as a blubbering, ranting mess on the cover? What if they'd dropped the crazy talk? What if they'd simply addressed the health claims her guests had made?
Ahhh - but that exposes the all too familiar conflict between science and the media. Empiricism meets sensationalism.
You can bet other journalists were spitting mad at the dissing of the big O. Fine. The women behind the recently released Womenomics, journalists Katty Kat (of the BBC) and Claire Shipman (of Good Morning America), commented on the crazy talk about Oprah in an interview on NPR with Brian Lehrer at WNYC. Mind you, their segment was not about Oprah, or science in the media, but about their book focusing on how women bring up the profits (tangible and intangible) in the workplace.
Which was all well and good. Until they ventured into the science behind autism. One of the authors (Shipman?) reported ABC killed a story she'd worked on about using brain imaging to diagnose autism. Fine. But then she revealed it was too bad we didn't know for sure whether vaccines cause autism. And that it's still possible that vaccines could trigger autism in some children and that we just haven't disproved that yet.
Hmmm.
Thank you, Brian Lehrer for pointing out that science has largely rejected the vaccines-cause-autism claim.
So, here we have another respected journalist dispersing faulty health info.
Could it be that a very small percentage of autism cases were triggered by vaccines? Yes. We don't have large enough studies to get at this issue. Do we have studies that would have found a link if vaccines were responsible for most cases of autism. Yes and they did not find a link. Shipman's comments display the lack of scientific savvy that plagues the public discourse of health and well-being.
If only she'd stopped at crazy Oprah and not segued into bad science.
And shame on NPR. Brian Lehrer knew she was going to speak on autism. I stayed tuned because his teaser promised she'd talk on it later in the show. And even though I knew my blood pressure might rise, I did stayed tuned and she confirmed all my fears.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Health Risks Overhyped: Toxicologists Don't Trust Media
Teflon, pesticides, cosmetics - the media often portrays these as serious health risks. But a new survey shows toxicologists aren't as concerned as media reports suggest. In fact, according to the study conducted by STATS (The Statistical Assessment Service) and the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, toxicologists trust WebMD and Wikipedia more than traditional media:
• 56% say WebMD accurately portrays chemical risks
• 45% say Wikipedia accurately portrays chemical risks
• By contrast, no more than 15% say that leading national newspapers, news magazines, and television networks accurately portray chemical risks
• Over 80% say that leading national newspapers, news magazines, and television networks overstate chemical risks
Wow. Now that's unsettling but somehow not surprising.
To learn more about what toxicologists find risky, read the report "Are Chemicals Killing Us" by S. Robert Lichter on STATS.org.
• 56% say WebMD accurately portrays chemical risks
• 45% say Wikipedia accurately portrays chemical risks
• By contrast, no more than 15% say that leading national newspapers, news magazines, and television networks accurately portray chemical risks
• Over 80% say that leading national newspapers, news magazines, and television networks overstate chemical risks
Wow. Now that's unsettling but somehow not surprising.
To learn more about what toxicologists find risky, read the report "Are Chemicals Killing Us" by S. Robert Lichter on STATS.org.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Perilous Plastic and Preemies: NICU Babies, Phthalates, and Sexual Development
Are seriously ill babies in the NICU at risk for developing even more health problems because of all the plastic they're exposed to in incubators, breathing tubes, and the other equipment?
There's been much speculation about one ingredient in plastics, phthalates. One worry is that the chemical could act like a hormone and ultimately a carcinogen. There's some evidence rats given very large doses develop hormonal abnormalities. Some say scientific evidence does not warrant the clamor and ban on phthalates (see the other NPR story "Public Concern, Not Science, Prompts Plastics Ban").
But how could we study the issue in humans? Which population should we study?
What about babies in the NICU?
A group of researchers speculated that if phthlates were dangerous, we might be more likely to see evidence of their risk in the more vulnerable populations, like premature and sick babies in the NICU, who are not only in poor health at a critical developmental period but also exposed to more phthalates early on due to their hospital care.
I bring up this issue not only because phthalates have been a hot topic in the parenting loop, but also because a recent NPR story (Surrounded By Plastic, NICU Infants Tested For Risk) gets at some of the problems and choices researchers encounter when they want to study something and also how and why they choose certain study populations.
Why not focus on a healthy population, kids who weren't in the NICU? Well, for one thing, they might not be effected by the substance. Or the effects would be so tiny they'd not turn out significant. A good study would include these kids as a control group. But I can imagine a large study using ONLY this population then concluding the possible perilous plastic wasn't dangerous. Then we'd have to wonder about the more at risk kids.
BTW, the researchers didn't find any harmful effects (like premature sexual development or abnormal hormonal levels) in the NICU children they'd followed. Of course the sample was limited to only 18 kids - way too small a sample to find any minor effects.
There's been much speculation about one ingredient in plastics, phthalates. One worry is that the chemical could act like a hormone and ultimately a carcinogen. There's some evidence rats given very large doses develop hormonal abnormalities. Some say scientific evidence does not warrant the clamor and ban on phthalates (see the other NPR story "Public Concern, Not Science, Prompts Plastics Ban").
But how could we study the issue in humans? Which population should we study?
What about babies in the NICU?
A group of researchers speculated that if phthlates were dangerous, we might be more likely to see evidence of their risk in the more vulnerable populations, like premature and sick babies in the NICU, who are not only in poor health at a critical developmental period but also exposed to more phthalates early on due to their hospital care.
I bring up this issue not only because phthalates have been a hot topic in the parenting loop, but also because a recent NPR story (Surrounded By Plastic, NICU Infants Tested For Risk) gets at some of the problems and choices researchers encounter when they want to study something and also how and why they choose certain study populations.
Why not focus on a healthy population, kids who weren't in the NICU? Well, for one thing, they might not be effected by the substance. Or the effects would be so tiny they'd not turn out significant. A good study would include these kids as a control group. But I can imagine a large study using ONLY this population then concluding the possible perilous plastic wasn't dangerous. Then we'd have to wonder about the more at risk kids.
BTW, the researchers didn't find any harmful effects (like premature sexual development or abnormal hormonal levels) in the NICU children they'd followed. Of course the sample was limited to only 18 kids - way too small a sample to find any minor effects.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Uh Oh Oprah: Talk Show Host Backs Up Bad Science
Oprah, where's your science savvy?
Oprah's teaming up with Jenny McCarthy, the celeb mom who says she's cured her son's autism through alternative therapies. And who still believes vaccines cause autism despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary. McCarthy's been on the the show and now will blog on Oprah's website.
According to Arthur Allen at Slate, David Tayloe, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrians, is none too pleased with the new actress/autism activitist/blogger:
"If you give her a bully pulpit, McCarthy is going to make people hesitate to vaccinate their children. She has no medical or scientific credentials. It disturbs us that she's given all these opportunities to make her pitch about vaccines on Oprah or Larry King or U.S. News or whatever. We have to scramble to get equal time—and who wants to see a gray-haired pediatrician talking about a serious topic like childhood vaccines when she's out there blasting the academy and blasting the federal government?"
But McCarthy doesn't worry Dr. Paul Offit, an esteemed medical doc, vaccine inventor, and author of Autism's False Prophets. Why?
Because people won't listen to a celebrity for medical advice. Hmmm...
Does he know the former Playboy Bunny (who dropped out of nursing school) has turned out several parenting books? A few bestsellers? Like the newest, Healing and Preventing Autism: A Complete Guide?
And hey, surely there's someone in the AAP who wouldn't bore people to tears on Oprah. Someone who might just make her estrogen-packed audience tune in - and get their kids vaccinated.
Oprah's teaming up with Jenny McCarthy, the celeb mom who says she's cured her son's autism through alternative therapies. And who still believes vaccines cause autism despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary. McCarthy's been on the the show and now will blog on Oprah's website.
According to Arthur Allen at Slate, David Tayloe, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrians, is none too pleased with the new actress/autism activitist/blogger:
"If you give her a bully pulpit, McCarthy is going to make people hesitate to vaccinate their children. She has no medical or scientific credentials. It disturbs us that she's given all these opportunities to make her pitch about vaccines on Oprah or Larry King or U.S. News or whatever. We have to scramble to get equal time—and who wants to see a gray-haired pediatrician talking about a serious topic like childhood vaccines when she's out there blasting the academy and blasting the federal government?"
But McCarthy doesn't worry Dr. Paul Offit, an esteemed medical doc, vaccine inventor, and author of Autism's False Prophets. Why?
Because people won't listen to a celebrity for medical advice. Hmmm...
Does he know the former Playboy Bunny (who dropped out of nursing school) has turned out several parenting books? A few bestsellers? Like the newest, Healing and Preventing Autism: A Complete Guide?
And hey, surely there's someone in the AAP who wouldn't bore people to tears on Oprah. Someone who might just make her estrogen-packed audience tune in - and get their kids vaccinated.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Au Revior, Autism: Can Autism Be Cured?
A cure for autism? Should I have paid more attention to Jenny McCarthy when she told Oprah she'd cured her son's autism?
Can we really cure this often profound disorder?
University of Connecticut psychology professor Deborah Fein believes it. She presented a study at an autism conference showing 20 children recovered from autism - most who'd undergone many hours of rigorous therapy, some 30 -40 hours a week since age 5. The kids, aged 9 to 18, no longer displayed the typical autistic tendencies. She figured 10% of autistic children could overcome it. She does admit that some of the kids are still quirky and socially odd if not verifiably autistic. BTW, the study has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The rub? All the kids were diagnosed earlier with the mildest form of autism, had high-IQs and were in the normal range of physical behavior (e.g., walking, holding pencil). Not the classical, pre-autistic spectrum autism. And they received lots of therapy. The 'cured' sample included a mere 20 children. And I don't know if there were any statistical tests involved nor did I read about any control groups. Meaning, how many (similar, high-functioning) kids didn't improve? Given the prevalence of autism I would expect a larger sample of children with mild autism. If it wasn't a large sample (comprised of many who did not recover) - than I'd be suspicious of the reliability of the small sample. If there was a large sample, than obviously only a small percentage recovered.
The question comes up. Were these children "autistic" in the first place? Fein verified their earlier diagnoses through medical records - which makes me wonder if they all received a proper diagnosis. But let's assume they did.
It's true, we've changed our notion of autism over the decades. The DSM, the bible of mental health practitioners (and insurance companies) has expanded the autistic spectrum, adding new symptoms and disorders (e.g., Asperger's Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder). So it seems likely these high-functioning kids probably would not have been labelled some 15 to 20 years ago.
So, given that the children in the study improved other experts have asked if the kids should have been labelled in the first place.
Would the kids have overcome the developmental lags? It's not clear from this study. Perhaps another would address this issue. But I assume it would be difficult to find a bunch of kids who are labelled but not receiving therapy. And of course, it sounds unethical. But that would be the perfect experiment. To compare groups of similar kids (in terms of autistic symptoms), one group that received intense therapy, and one that didn't.
A "cure" brings up another issue.
What distinguishes an assortment of developmental delays from a true disorder? Is there a difference? Does it matter? If therapy improves lives, than should we care if we're treating a full-blown disorder or merely a group of symptoms? If no one else, the insurance companies certainly do care - they only pay for DSM diagnoses.
What about the children who can never recover? Is it a disservice to them to classify the "temporarily" autistic on the autistic spectrum?
Read the comment on Parentdish from a mother whose son was "cured"- she suggests all this talk about a cure gives "false hope" to families dealing with severe autism.
Can we really cure this often profound disorder?
University of Connecticut psychology professor Deborah Fein believes it. She presented a study at an autism conference showing 20 children recovered from autism - most who'd undergone many hours of rigorous therapy, some 30 -40 hours a week since age 5. The kids, aged 9 to 18, no longer displayed the typical autistic tendencies. She figured 10% of autistic children could overcome it. She does admit that some of the kids are still quirky and socially odd if not verifiably autistic. BTW, the study has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The rub? All the kids were diagnosed earlier with the mildest form of autism, had high-IQs and were in the normal range of physical behavior (e.g., walking, holding pencil). Not the classical, pre-autistic spectrum autism. And they received lots of therapy. The 'cured' sample included a mere 20 children. And I don't know if there were any statistical tests involved nor did I read about any control groups. Meaning, how many (similar, high-functioning) kids didn't improve? Given the prevalence of autism I would expect a larger sample of children with mild autism. If it wasn't a large sample (comprised of many who did not recover) - than I'd be suspicious of the reliability of the small sample. If there was a large sample, than obviously only a small percentage recovered.
The question comes up. Were these children "autistic" in the first place? Fein verified their earlier diagnoses through medical records - which makes me wonder if they all received a proper diagnosis. But let's assume they did.
It's true, we've changed our notion of autism over the decades. The DSM, the bible of mental health practitioners (and insurance companies) has expanded the autistic spectrum, adding new symptoms and disorders (e.g., Asperger's Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder). So it seems likely these high-functioning kids probably would not have been labelled some 15 to 20 years ago.
So, given that the children in the study improved other experts have asked if the kids should have been labelled in the first place.
Would the kids have overcome the developmental lags? It's not clear from this study. Perhaps another would address this issue. But I assume it would be difficult to find a bunch of kids who are labelled but not receiving therapy. And of course, it sounds unethical. But that would be the perfect experiment. To compare groups of similar kids (in terms of autistic symptoms), one group that received intense therapy, and one that didn't.
A "cure" brings up another issue.
What distinguishes an assortment of developmental delays from a true disorder? Is there a difference? Does it matter? If therapy improves lives, than should we care if we're treating a full-blown disorder or merely a group of symptoms? If no one else, the insurance companies certainly do care - they only pay for DSM diagnoses.
What about the children who can never recover? Is it a disservice to them to classify the "temporarily" autistic on the autistic spectrum?
Read the comment on Parentdish from a mother whose son was "cured"- she suggests all this talk about a cure gives "false hope" to families dealing with severe autism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
