On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:19:09 -0600, Ilena Rose <BIA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Recently, England and Ireland re****ted that autism is affecting one in
>58 individuals.
England and Ireland re****ted no such figure. McCarthy continues to
repeat this patent falsehood despite having been corrected on numerous
occasions.
In July 2007 one newspaper, The Observer, published lurid headlines
with these figures claiming as its source "senior members" of a
Cambridge research team led by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen,
Director of the Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University.
His response to the claims was:-
"Your story ('New health fears over big surge in autism', last week)
was a misleading re****t of research still being undertaken at the
Cambridge University Autism Research Centre. The article linked MMR
and autism. The research does not.
The research is based on a study of Cambridge****re children, which ran
for five years. It has not yet come out with a definitive figure on
the prevalence of autism and it is therefore irresponsible to single
out one figure.
The best estimate of the prevalence of autism is the 1 per cent figure
published in the Lancet in 2006.
My view is that any apparent rise is likely to be driven by better
recognition, greater awareness, growth in services, a widening of the
definition of autism and a ****ft towards viewing it as a spectrum
rather than a categorical condition.
Professor Simon Baron-Cohen
Director, Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University"
The article also quoted Dr Fiona Scott. another researcher on the
study, but unfortunately the Observer journalist (who was usually
their s****ts correspondent) had forgotten to speak to her at all, much
less get anything he could quote. She was understandably somewhat
annoyed.
Part of her response was :-
“I feel, given that I was one of the two ‘leaders in the field’
(flattering, but rather an exaggeration) re****ted as linking MMR to
the rise in autism, that I should quite clearly and firmly point out
that I was never contacted by and had no communication whatsoever with
the re****ter who wrote the infamous Observer article. It is somewhat
amazing that my ‘private beliefs’ can be presented without actually
asking me what they are. What appeared in the article was a flagrant
misrepresentation of my opinions—unsurprising given that they were
published without my being spoken to...It is outrageous that the
article states that I link rising prevalence figures to use of the
MMR. I have never held this opinion. I do not think the MMR jab ‘might
be partly to blame...."
It subsequently became clear that the source of the story was Carol
Stott an ex-junior researcher and adviser to the legal team which
failed in seeking compensation for parents who believed that MMR
caused their child's autism (for which help she collected GBP100,000
in fees).
Stott had left Cambridge some time previously for more lucrative
employment and was now working for the discredited Andrew Wakefield
at Thoughtful House in Texas. It seems increasingly likely the story
and concocted "MMR link" was simply a PR "plant" timed to appear just
before the start of Wakefields still ongoing disciplinary hearing at
the General Medical Counsel.
|
