Autism – Why Autism Research Goes Nowhere – The Researchers Who Take Us Down All The Blind Alleys

Have you ever wondered why supposedly no one knows where “all the autism” is coming from?  Here we set out a blatant example of a misdirection of research results taking the medical professions and the public down a blind alley. 

In the case of the paper “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1026-1032 the authors had and published data which was and remains fundamental to proving the increase in autistic conditions since the expansion in the vaccine programmes in the mid to late 1980s is real and substantial.

For the best part of two decades health officials around the world have insisted untruthfully that the increases in autistic conditions since the 1980s are attributable to “better diagnosis” and “greater awareness”.  They also used to insist that autistic conditions are caused by genetics [have “internal” causes] until it started to be established that the huge increases could not be accounted for on such a basis – because if it was all genetic then the numbers should have been the same all along over centuries.

What the data from “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” showed and shows was that prior to the introduction of vaccines to Israel the figure for cases of childhood [ie typical or Kanner] autism was 8.4 in 10,0000 children and there were even fewer cases of Asperger’s syndrome so the increase in cases of Aspergers is even more dramatic and serious than even that of childhood autism cases.

The data the authors obtained when compared to current data shows that not only has the incidence and prevalence of childhood autism increased dramatically but also that the incidence and prevalence of Asperger’s syndrome has been even more dramatic since the mid 1980s and dwarfs the increase in autism.  The data was obtained using current diagnostic criteria so was and is comparable to current data for current cases. So what the data and results of this paper really show is that the allegation the increase in autistic conditions is “better diagnosis” and “greater awareness” is false. You can read more about this here:

Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988

The authors not only ignored what seems a very obvious finding from their data and results but also misdirected the medical profession and the public away from that finding and down an obscure and blind alley.

Medicine in general is the best example of misdirection of research efforts where commercial and conflicting interests – ie pure greed for making money – seem to ensure that research in many areas is directed down all the blindest of blind alleys and the obvious avenues are either ignored or the research is suppressed or prevented.  The research funds are spent on research guaranteed not to find causes or cures, but at the very best only for drug treatments to be paid for over a lifetime of non cure treatments with drug adverse effects of the drugs aplenty. 

There is a great deal of money to be made that way over many decades.  “Genetic” research is a great general example where billions of US tax dollars have been spent and there is little to show for it – and especially where autistic conditions are concerned. 

Good old medieval serfdom and feudalism never died they have just been refined and redefined.  The majority, the 21st century “serfs”, pay their feudal “tithe” to their new feudal Lords in different ways.  In the 21st Century this means paying with their health and sometimes their lives – not much change there then.

Instead of focussing on an important result the authors of Advancing Paternal Age and Autism made a very different and obscure claim.   The claim was that fathers aged over 40 had a higher probability of having autistic children.  The authors made that the focus of their paper.  The claim was made on the basis of scant data.  The paper was a statistical study [ie this was tobacco science not clinical investigations] and this claim was based on a very small sample with a poor confidence interval.  Fathers aged over 40 involved in the sample accounted for 3 per cent of the children concerned and the confidence in the figures was very wide and thus of extremely low reliability.

Misdirection from studies like this one must obviously be holding back the uncovering of fundamental information regarding autistic conditions and supports and enables government health officials to continue to make over far too many years the kinds of false claims they have been making about the causes of autistic conditions.

The authors and the institutions for which they work need to explain themselves.  Israeli parents who performed their military service deserve better than this – which looks like it is mostly by Americans exploiting their connections with Israel.

Here are the details of the institutions and of the authors:

  • Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1230, New York, NY 10029 (Drs Reichenberg, Silverman, and Davidson),
  • Seaver Center for Autism Research (Dr Silverman), Mount Sinai School of Medicine;
  • Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University (Drs Gross, Bresnahan, Harlap, Malaspina, and Susser);
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (Drs Gross, Bresnahan, Malaspina, and Susser), New York;
  • Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, England (Dr Reichenberg);
  • Department of Psychiatry, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer (Drs Weiser and Davidson);
  • School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (Dr Rabinowitz);
  • School of Social Work, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Dr Shulman);
  • Medical Corps, Israel Defense Forces, Tel Aviv (Drs Lubin and Knobler), Israel.

7 Responses

  1. “The risk of ASD was 8.4 cases per 10 000 persons (319 cases) among all individuals in the cohort”

    Whilst the generally recognised risk of ASD stands at 100 cases per 10 000.

    Such confusing outcomes are rife in ASD research which is why standardised physiological bniomarkers need to be established.Otherwise any research in this area will remain virtually useless.

  2. A good article citing how the studies are done that lead towards, “Blind alleys,”, paths that are designed to make money only on creating medication-not prevention or cure. You cannot prevent Autism when you inject babies with aluminum,mercury, formaldehyde, peanut products, ether and you can SURELY not reduce Autism by loading a needle with chemicals and shooting fetuses- since 2009, via the pregnant mother. If the actual dollar amounts for this lackadaisical research could be listed per institution, some people might have second thoughts now that 1 in 29 boys are autistic in heavily vaccinated populations. Science without Conscience.

  3. Wow. This really says it all. The problem is that the majority of the autism community doesn’t wonder at all why this happens, but it’s the “others” that either don’t understand what this article says or don’t want to. Government health officials are making every effort to hide the truth about the dangers of vaccines along with drug companies. Most likely those who inject them are blind sighted by their own earlier bias and hubris. There is only one thing that children have in common all over the US since lthe early 1990’s and that is vaccines. Autism is a man made disease, but those in power won’t stop with their xxxxxxxx activities and our children continue to suffer.
    Maurine Meleck, SC

    [ED: Minor edits]

  4. A little something you missed:

    Virtually the same team, the very same data source, only somewhat different birth cohorts with much overlap, even though in both cases we don’t get the exact years of birth. Autism prevalence was significantly smaller with 6.8/10,000 , and given the significant overlap in the birth cohorts, it strongly suggests a significant increase during the 80’s.

    [ED: Thanks for pointing out this paper which shows the authors in fact had either the same data in 2004 [the paper was submitted for publication on 10 January 2005] as their later published “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” paper or had a different set of data and did not publicize the most significant and important points – a) the far more substantial increase in Asperger’s Syndrome in Israel compared to childhood autism in Israel and b) the substantial increase in Israel in childhood autism itself.

    And then they published the later paper two months later in September 2006 “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism”. [The latter was submitted for publication also only two months later on 22 March 2005]

    A significant difference from the later published paper is 1) there was nothing the authors could justify sending out a worldwide press release about with the conclusions they did draw [but no doubt would have done if they could justify other conclusions] and 2) that there is no seasonal difference is consistent with vaccines as a cause and 3) that there is no indication of a link to other environmental causes – which the authors refer to specifically

    Effects of season of birth have been documented in several neuropsychiatric disorders and are important to clarify because they may indicate such possible etiologies as viral infection, perinatal hazard, immunological response, ambient temperature, or diet

    As for the data there appear to be differences in the paper you note in your comment. The data was from 5 consecutive years in the early 1980s and involved a different number of children:

    “The cohort included all Jewish individuals born in Israel over 5 consecutive years (N=311,169) and assessed by the Israeli Draft Board as part of the mandatory assessment of eligibility for military service conducted at age 17.”

    Whereas for the “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” paper the data covered six and not 5 years and the authors do not refer to the early 1980s but just to the 1980s:

    “…. a cohort of Jewish persons born in Israel during 6 consecutive years in the 1980s. A total of 378 891 individuals in this 6-year birth cohort were assessed by the Israeli draft board at age 17 years. “

    The fact they fail to specify the years seems significant. Why not specify the years of birth concerned? It does seem odd in the circumstances.

  5. Reblogged this on Ahrcanum.

  6. Every which way but straight; the mothers are ‘too young’ the mothers are ‘too old’, hey, the mothers even ‘smoke’; the fathers had dodgy sperm, it’s an inherited genetic disorder … it’s well anything at all but the cause. [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

    [ED: Minor edit]

  7. […] Autism – Why Autism Research Goes Nowhere – The Researchers Who Takes Us Down All The Bl… […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: