The aim of this shop is to raise funds to support our objectives.
Shop online at Littlewoods, Sky, BT, M&S, Mankind, Goldsmiths and many many more.
Clifford G. Miller <cgmiller@cliffordmiller.com>
I hope this may be of assistance regarding your story today concerning the study Advancing Paternal Age and Autism which was published Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
I have seen the study and it is out of date before it was written. It also has no relevance to the substantial increase in autism since the mid 1980s. It is based on data from Israeli military draft board records of 17 year old conscripts born in a six year period commencing no later than 1982. The failure to mention the distinction between early onset and late onset autism is also highly significant.
As you know, the new problem since the mid-1980s is late onset autism where the children develop normally and then start regressing around 18 months and older:-
The uncertainty over accuracy is called the "confidence interval". The range of values given in a confidence interval are values which could all be valid. The problem is that the data is so inaccurate no one can tell for sure which is the right figure - hence the "confidence interval".
What this means is that the risk for fathers 40 and over could be exactly the same as that for those 39 and under. The lowest risk figure of 2.65 times for fathers 40 and over fathering an autistic child is exactly the same as the highest risk figure for fathers between 30 and 39.
The data is so inaccurate the authors give it a wide confidence interval of as low as 2.65 times the risk or as high as 12.46 times the risk for fathers aged 15-29. This is a very large confidence interval - or really it is a "lack of confidence interval" - and this also does not take account of any errors or biases by the researchers which they have missed themselves.
The reason for the inaccuracy is that the number of children and fathers is very small:-
Despite the low confidence level in the data, for sensationalism the story issued to the press cited the highest risk figure. That is scaremongering. It claimed fathers over 40 are six times as likely to have an autistic child than fathers aged 15 to 29.
It is not scientific to suggest the conclusions of the paper as reported in the press are valid for the entire world when based on such a small sample - especially one genetically biased to jewish israeli fathers and which has not been subject yet to critical scrutiny by the scientific world post publication.
It is also interesting that the researchers could have chosen data subjects from Israeli draft board records earlier than 1980 but they did not. The reason for that could well be that there are very few autistics over 25 years old and that is part of the evidence for this new problem since the mid 1980s.
We are told there is no point studying why autism is almost unknown in the Amish, because it is alleged the Amish might be genetically different. However, we are now told a study genetically limited to jewish people born in Israel in the early 1980s is relevant. See this extract from the study abstract:-
"Participants We conducted a study of Jewish persons born in Israel during 6 consecutive years. Virtually all men and about three quarters of women in this cohort underwent draft board assessment at age 17 years. Paternal age at birth was obtained for most of the cohort; maternal age was obtained for a smaller subset. We used the smaller subset (n = 132 271) with data on both paternal and maternal age for the primary analysis and the larger subset (n = 318 506) with data on paternal but not maternal age for sensitivity analyses.
Main Outcome Measures Information on persons coded as having International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision ASD was obtained from the registry. The registry identified 110 cases of ASD (incidence, 8.3 cases per 10 000 persons), mainly autism, in the smaller subset with complete parental age data."
Here is the real importance of the new paper Advancing Paternal Age and Autism.
It is the first time we have hard scientific proof that autism spectrum disorder has increased 1200 percent since the mid 1980s.
Previously this huge increase has been dismissed as "better diagnosis" and "greater awareness" as the government and others claim.
What is important about this paper is that it is the first time a paper has applied current diagnostic techniques and criteria to those born in the early to mid 1980s. Accordingly, the results for the 1980s kids are directly comparable to kids born in the 2000's. The paper's overall figures showing the increase for all the 120,000 subjects are far more likely to be reliable than the tiny number for fathers 40 and over (And as these were only 3 percent of the total they cannot have been responsible for the huge increase in autism even if the data were accurate, which it is not).
Further, even the very recently reported paper in July by British scientist Baird found ASD was now 1 in 100 in British kids. However, Baird did not prove it was a real increase, nor did she prove it was not better diagnosis or better awareness. Now the government cannot use that excuse for doing nothing.
The paper also confirms the problem is international and backs up the reported figures from the US and other countries. The diagnoses were in the past 6 years and when the subjects were at age 17. The most recent classification and diagnostic standards were used and diagnosis was according to the current International Classification of Disease 10th edition and not those used in the 1980s.
The new paper proves the incidence of ASD is 12 times less in early to mid-1980 than it is in the UK now of 1 in 100. The papers shows the rate as 8.4 per 10,000 which is 1 in 1200:
"The risk of ASD was 8.4 cases per 10 000 persons (319 cases) among all individuals in the cohort who were assessed by the draft board, 8.3 cases per 10 000 persons (110 cases) in the smaller subset used for the primary analysis, and 6.5 cases per 10 000 persons (208 cases) in the smaller subset used for the sensitivity analysis. The risk is somewhat lower in the latter subset because paternal age data were more likely to be missing for ASD than non-ASD cohort members (see the “Methods” section)."
Note: some links no-longer active.
The Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2006 is about to be introduced in the House by Representative Carolyn Maloney.
This bill calls for the NIH to conduct a comprehensive study to compare total health outcomes, including risk of autism, in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in the United States.
Researchers may not be employed by any Federal, State or local public health agency. They may not be a member of an entity responsible for formulating immunization policy on behalf of any Federal, State of local public health agency or component thereof. They must have no history of a strong position on the thimerosal controversy, nor may they be employed by or receiving funds from a pharmaceutical company.
To read the complete bill, please visit:
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/maloneybill.pdf
NAA applauds Congresswoman Maloney in her continuing efforts to support families affected by autism with this new legislation and co-sponsorship of Congressman Weldon's Vaccine Safety bill.
We will pass along the bill number as soon as it is assigned and encourage you all to contact your representatives while they are home for the August recess to ask for their support of this bill and HR5887, the Vaccine Safety bill introduced by Congressman Weldon yesterday.
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/weldonvaccinesafetybill.pdf.
above from 
Click here to visit website
10.10.04
The article set out in full below was published in the eBMJ today. Whilst there is no doubt MMR is one of the causes of the autism epidemic, alongside other vaccines, something else is clear. Our governments know this, and have known it for a long time, along with their advisors. Each time I have raised in the eBMJ that the MMR children's cases are CDR and CD (challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge and challenge-dechallenge), with example case histories, it has never been denied. CDR and CD case series are the strongest proof of an adverse drug reaction and all of these children are a very large case series. In private correspondence, citing CDR and CD with documented examples has elicited the concession MMR does cause autism but likely only in a small number of susceptible children.
For those who have not seen it, The Observer, a UK Sunday broadsheet newspaper also carried a story on the Yazbak critique of the Madsen paper which can be found at: - MMR report 'not denial of autism link' - Crucial child study missed many cases, claim US experts Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday October 10, 2004 The Observer
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following was a response to a typical approach of a drug company paid advisor and MMR defender, which can be seen at:-
Re: HAVE VICARS-GENERAL OF VACCINATION GOT THE NEEDLE?
|
||||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Send response to journal:
Dear Sir, "Goldman/Yazbak shows, which Mr Jacobs admits, autism increased in Denmark. That is a significant admission. All the time Madsen's paper was interpreted as saying that it did not. Madsen was used as the entire basis for denying there was any evidence that MMR causes autism, all prior papers to that effect relied on by government officials having been shown to be defective in that regard. Now Madsen suffers the same fate, devastated by Goldman/Yazbak, it is not the "all-singing-all-dancing" answer government officials have been claiming it to be.The person who should be explaining in this journal is Madsen. We also need explanation from Dr David Salisbury, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson and the Secretary of State for Health why they have pursued this charade. There are more. Let us summarise the other evidence. Standard pharmacology, CDR and CD prove MMR causes autism. Further strong proof of causation, not hitherto brought into play, is the extremely close temporal association between administration of vaccine and recorded adverse reactions. The case histories of the children are also proof. The testimonies of the parents backed by video, photographs and medical records. There is also evidence of vaccine persisting in children who have suffered adverse reactions, when that is only previously known to occur in pathological circumstances. It is overwhelming. So, there is no need to look further at yet more weak and debunked epidemiology. And there never was need in the first place. There is also no need to go into 'extra time' on any of this after the game is over. Mr Jacobs' constant changes of direction in these responses are indicative of a lack of the same. I am moving on to the risk/benefit issue, as it is critical to the debate and the one thing the parents need to know about in making their decision. And it is their decision. It is not the World Health Organisation's decision. It is not Professor Sir Liam Donaldson's decision. It is not Dr David Salisbury's decision. And it is certainly not Tony Blair's decision. If Mr Jacobs or any of this clients or the government or its officials would like this l'il ole lawyer from a village in Kent, England to comment on the supposed criticisms of Yazbak, they must first deal with the criticisms of Madsen and then deal with Yazbak. If they want me explain to them on these pages, it would assist if they get their cheque books out, as they are being paid for their efforts, whilst I am not. I also use the 'extra time' game analogy advisedly. It seems to me someone is playing a game here, it is not me and it is a very dirty game. When Dr Wakefield was interviewed (5) in 2001 after giving evidence to the US IoM on the MMR children's case series, he tells us the IoM were agitated by his evidence and went into a closed session, in which he was asked to present the evidence, including the CDR and CD evidence. Subsequently we are told that Congressman Dan Burton of the US House Oversight Committee requisitioned the tapes as part of an investigation. The first set the IoM presented to the Oversight Committee were blank. Congressman Burton requisitioned the originals. They were blank. In the UK this goes into the office of the UK Prime Minister. What possible reason did he have to get involved? Why was such pressure brought to bear to deny the MMR children justice and cast the burden of their care on their impoverished families and the taxpayer? So is this what 'New Labour' is all about: Machievellian political manoeuvering against the small children of this country to achieve some unstated end, coincidentally of benefit to vaccine manufacturers whilst killing and maiming some of our children with adverse reactions to vaccines our authorities are not prepared to document or investigate? Unlike Tony Blair's government who will no doubt whoop with joy at the first case of congential rubella syndrome ('CNS') or the first death from measles, at least Conservatives are taking a responsible line and seem to care about whether children get measles and CNS. They alone are prepared to offer single vaccines. At least this will assist in providing some immunity to our young girls approaching puberty and to the unborn children of our country-women from rubella. Tony Blair's government cynically and recently withdrew that protection; no doubt with an eye to planning another Blair spin campaign on the back of the first deaths and injuries. 1) HAVE VICARS-GENERAL OF VACCINATION GOT THE NEEDLE? 5 October 2004 - Adam Jacobs 2) Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477- 82. 3) Re: Danish MMR study 22 September 2004 - Adam Jacobs 4) HAVE VICARS-GENERAL OF VACCINATION GOT THE NEEDLE? 5 October 2004 - Clifford Miller 5) Autism and the MMR Vaccine - An interview with Andrew Wakefield, MD - Fall 2001 Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
The autism Society has changed its name from (®SFTAH) ®Society For The Autistically Handicapped to ®Autism Independent UK, with working names: ®SFTAH, and Electronic Names (www(web)) ®Autism Online and ®Autism For All. These have been deposited to the UK's Charity Commission for England and Wales
DISCLAIMER: The (SFTAH) Autism Independent UK is a non-medical advice and information centre. It does not offer individual advice on health and would advise anybody seeking such advice to go to their own physician. Information given is for general use and should not be viewed as applicable to any individual situation.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of information we do not take responsibility for its use by individuals.
