THE WILLINGNESS TO CONFRONT UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS

I’ve been on one of my blogging sabbaticals for a while. It’s not that there hasn’t been anything to write about; rather, it’s a matter of other things having higher priority than spouting off my opinions. As could be predicted, it took a condescending comment from Paul Offit to spur me to sit at the keyboard.

In an Associated Press report on the next test case in the Court of Claims, the reporter decided to get a quote from Doc O, the infectious disease guy who holds a vaccine patent and is a consultant for Merck (and, as is usually the case, those parts of his résumé were left out of the article). In an apparent reference to the fact that there is more than one theory being explored, Dr. Offit said: “I think that what’s so endearing to me about the anti-vaccine people is they’re perfectly willing to go from one hypothesis to the next without a backward glance.”

For those who aren’t able to recognize it, that statement is an example of what we call “sarcasm.” And what is he being sarcastic about? It seems that some of us have the temerity to constantly reexamine our opinions in the face of emerging science. I always thought the evolution of an idea lay at the heart of the scientific method, but apparently I was wrong. (Okay, that’s a little sarcasm on my part.)

Dr. Offit chooses to cling to a static concept, without regard to mounting evidence against that concept. It’s simply too uncomfortable for him to challenge his notions.

Contrast Dr. Offit’s smug attitude with the open mind of Dr. Bernadine Healy. Dr. Healy’s about as mainstream as it gets; she’s a former head of the National Institutes of Health and she’s a current member of the Institutes of Medicine. She’s hardly an antivaccine zealot. But in a recent interview with Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, she stated her opinion that the question of a potential link between vaccinations and autism in genetically susceptible individuals is not yet settled and deserves serious study ⎯ study that has not yet been undertaken by the institutions charged with the protection of public health.

According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.

The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer.

Dr. Healy has not formed an opinion that vaccines are definitely a trigger of ASD, or that vaccines are a major contributing factor to the current epidemic. She’s merely saying that there’s enough evidence to warrant a real examination.

As a commentator ⎯ albeit an amateur ⎯ on the issue of autism causation, I must admit that I’ve always found Paul Offit to be . . . well, endearing. Whenever I can’t seem to find anything to write about, Doc O comes to my rescue by saying something that just calls out for a comment. It’s nice, though, to have someone like Dr. Healy, who invites comment of a more flattering nature.

Check out an extended version of the interview with Dr. Healy to hear what a reasonable scientist sounds like.

WILL AUTISM SPEAKS LISTEN TO KATIE WRIGHT?

It’s no secret that I’m not exactly a big fan of Autism Speaks. There is someone who has a more-balanced view of that organization than I have: Katie Wright. It is, of course, ms. Wright’s son’s regression into autism that gave birth to the organization. Her parents, Bob and Suzanne Wright saw a need and created what has quickly become the 900-pound gorilla in the room. The arrogance with which the organization has run roughshod over other organizations, autistic individuals, and just about anyone that doesn’t subscribe to their views has been nothing short of shameful.

Through it all, Katie Wright has remained loyal to her parents, even after they threw her under the bus for making public pronouncements on the issue of vaccines as a potential trigger for ASD. She has always been careful to separate the role of her parents from the influence of other officers and directors of Autism Speaks. I tend to think she underestimates Bob Wright’s influence on the organization’s direction, but she is certainly in a better position to know what’s in her father’s heart.

In a new post at Age of Autism, Ms. Wright again pays tribute to her parents, while calling Autism Speaks to task for ignoring the biomedical community. It’s an articulate statement that deserves to be read. Unfortunately, it probably won’t have an impact on those who really need to understand: the leadership of Autism Speaks.

FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT WE GOT PAST 1984

Courtesy of Ginger Taylor comes a dissection of Julie Gerberding's recent appearance on CNN, which seems to have been intended to reassure us all that the government is doing all it can to clear up the confusion, and that there is no danger. The CDC Director's "answers" were classic examples of Orwellian doublespeak.

I'm not the first to point out that the CDC's search for the cause of the autism epidemic, under Director Gerberding, has demonstrated all of the determination and doggedness of O.J. Simpson's search for "the real killer."

SICKNESS AT HOME AND AT THE CDC

I’m not really up to a full post right now. I’m recovering from a few days of illness: chills, body aches, coughing. And no, I did not get a flu shot this year. Even if I had gotten one, however, it would have done no good. As you are probably aware, the CDC guessed wrong on the strain this year, and the current shot has not been that effective (which I suspect is more common than they admit). Besides, I don’t have the flu; I have flu-like symptoms.

Speaking of the CDC, check out what David Kirby has to say about Julie Gerberding’s reaction to the Polling case. He hits the nail squarely on the head.

Speaking of heads, there’s sickness not just in the Rankin house right now. There’s a real sickness in the CDC, an agency that’s supposed to be protecting our health. In my case, I got better with a few days rest and lots of fluids. The CDC’s sickness, on the other hand, will require drastic surgery: amputation of the head.

ADDENDUM:
Looks like someone else went down with flu-like symptoms. And unlike me, I have to think that he got his flu shot.

IMAGINE

Okay, I realize I’ve been linking to Ginger’s blog a lot lately, but she’s been a lot more active at this than I have, and I rarely find anything to disagree with her about.

She’s just posted The Responsible Government Fantasy in which she imagines the press conference that would result if Julie Gerberding (Director of the Centers for Disease Control) would show an ounce or more of integrity. Ginger sees a kinder, gentler Julie giving a thoughtful reaction to the Poling concession, and actually reaching out to offer parents help.

Of course, it’s just a fantasy. As Ginger notes, “OJ looked harder for Nicole’s ‘real killers’ than Julie has looked for the causes and possible cures of autism.” Still, it’s nice to imagine a country in which the government actually has our best interest at heart.

One thing that’s missing from Ginger’s fantasy is an admission by Gerberding that the CDC, which is charged with the responsibility of promoting the vaccination program, might just have a conflict of interest ⎯ or at the very least a perceived conflict ⎯ with the role of determining vaccine safety. I imagine Julie standing at the podium calling upon Congress to create a separate safety agency, to be led and staffed by physicians with no ties to either the CDC or vaccine manufacturers (okay, that might be drifting a little too far into the realm of science fiction).

I picture Ms. Gerberding specifically calling for research into not just what individual vaccines and vaccine components might be potentially dangerous, but also whether numbers of vaccines and particular combinations of vaccines might pose a risk to our children.

Unfortunately, it’s just a fantasy. But just imagine if it were true.

Supermom

Here's something else I found via Ginger. Jenny McCarthy's recent appearance on Canadian television is quite a sharp contrast to her appearance a few months ago on The View. When she's given a chance to say something without constant interruption and argument from the host, it's downright amazing how much substance there is to this woman. She's talkin' sense!

Hmmmmm

Check out this recent post over at Ginger's Adventures in Autism. I understand there's no way to determine the veracity of the comment (one of the problems with net anonymity). And I'm not sure I agree that thimerosal is completely "removed." But the common sense of the comment's point is obvious. What passes for safety testing in the vaccine approval process simply does not measure the true risk, nor does it intend to.

REPORTS OF THE DEBATE’S DEATH WERE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

In breaking my little hiatus, I obviously need to put aside anything else I was going to write about because the government concession in the Poling case changes everything . But maybe not in the way you think.

The fact is, the concession has very little impact on the rest of the cases pending in the Court of Claims. There is no precedential effect at all. The most that can be said about the legal side of the development is that for the first time the Department of Justice was willing to concede that ⎯ at least in one case ⎯ there just might be a problem. It’s hard to say why they did that, but I suspect they had problems with the defense experts, and perhaps they were afraid to risk a fully ajudicated loss in a case in which the plaintiffs could not be easily dismissed as wackos.

It’s obvious that the DOJ hopes their concession will not have any impact beyond the Pollings. The tortured semantics of the concession display the intent to make the action more narrow than logic would allow. I mean, really, what the hell can “autism-like symptoms” mean? Autism is not so much a distinct disorder as it is a descriptive term for a constellation of clinical indications. By definition, autism is nothing more than a collection of “autism-like symptoms.”

The DOJ gambled that their little concession would not make much of a splash, and that they could continue to rely on the perception that all of us who believe that vaccines may have played a role in triggering our children’s “autism-like symptoms” are anti-science zealots who practice voo doo on our kids. (When I originally noted that some of the Pollings' public statements led me to believe that they rely primarily on more conventional interventions. See Ginger's comments to this post for further clarification.) Of course, a truly critical examination leads to the opposite conclusion: that the “junkier” of the competing sciences are the epidmiological number crunches that try to disprove a connection.

The government lost its gamble. And that’s the true significance. The mainstream media now acknowledges that the debate may not be as close to over as was previously portrayed. Many people are now taking a fresh look at the issue, who once took for granted the party line that “virtually all reputable studies, yadda, yadda.” And this time, those who are taking that fresh look are exercising a more critical attitude, and they are not so willing to assume that the official story is correct.

Courts of law have never been very adept at determining scientific truth. When it comes to science, they are designed to maintain the status quo. That’s been the problem with the vaccine court process from the beginning. The statute of limitations ⎯ and to an equal extent the financial needs of the claimant families ⎯ have demanded that the legal system make decisions prematurely, before science can give us a real handle on the truth. Justice has never been guaranteed (or even expected).

But now we have an admission that there might be something worthy of further study, an admission that’s getting a lot of attention. It is now much harder to argue against funding studies that are designed to take a fair look at the issue.

If the Polings are the last family to receive compensation in these cases, we all have still won a great victory. We’re a step closer to a truth that will be acknowledged as such.

I HAVEN'T FALLEN OFF THE EDGE OF THE PLANET

I've been having a little computer problem lately, and like all mac owners, I'm a little perplexed by it all because problems are so incredibly rare for us. In any event, I haven't been posting much lately, but I have a few things I'm working on. In the meantime, Ginger has been pretty active over at Adventures In Autism. Go check out what's going on.

ADAPTING TO OUR ENVIRONMENT

That time is upon us: the day that for most of the world is merely Tuesday, but on which New Orleans celebrates its uniqueness. Last year was very strange for us, living in a place where there are no parades, no costumes, no craziness, etc. I'm happy to report, however, that the Little Rankster and I have found a way to celebrate Mardi Gras -- Midwest style.

Happy Mardi Gras!

IN RE: AAP v. ELI STONE

In case you’ve been away from the net lately, ABC is currently promoting a new lawyer show, Eli Stone. And the first episode promises to be memorable. The title character will represent a family suing a vaccine manufacturer, alleging that a toxic component in a vaccine triggered their son’s autism.

Generally I’m not a big fan of lawyer shows, because they tend to oversimplify things to fit into a one-hour time slot. Likewise, I think focusing on thimerosal ⎯ and the fictional vaccine component in the Eli Stone episode sure sounds like the regrettably non-fictional thimerosal ⎯ has been counterproductive. Instead of establishing the process by which various toxins can trigger autism, which I believe would assuredly lead to mercury and thimerosal as a major, and perhaps the single greatest, contributing factor, we have focused solely on that one “what” before we have established the “how.” This has allowed those who would fail to see the forest (i.e., the CDC, the IOM, the AAP, and, of course, the vaccine manufacturers) to hack at that one tree with half-truths and half-baked epidemiology.

Still, we must be on to something because those guys keep acting scared. When word got out about the premier episode of Eli Stone, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) prepared an over-the-top letter of protest to ABC, filled with self-righteous indignation. They are demanding that ABC not run the show. They protest that the American public ⎯ you know, us idiots without medical degrees ⎯ will believe a fictional television drama rather than their doctors. That protest speaks volumes of how our country’s pediatricians view their own credibility ... or lack thereof.

Since none of us has actually seen the show, it’s a bit premature to talk about its merits or deficits. The AAP’s heavy-handed attempt at censorship, however, is in front of us and deserves comment and censure. But rather than reinvent the wheel, I would simply direct you over to Ginger’s blog, where my friend (as usual) has beaten me to the punch and done a far better job than I could.

JOHN STEWART: A FAN’S REMEMBRANCE

The word “fan” is defined as “[a]n ardent devotee; an enthusiast” with the derivation being from the word “fanatic” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004). Of course, the word has taken on a more generalized meaning in which the devotion is not necessarily fanatical. I consider myself a fan, in the more casual sense, of numerous sports teams, individual athletes, actors, writers, and musical artists. But my truly fanatical interest has always been reserved for John Stewart. That’s why the news of his passing last weekend was like a kick in the stomach.

He was an incredibly prolific songwriter and recording artist, who is considered one of the pioneers of what came to be known as the “Americana” style of folk music. His songs were of America and Americans, a land and people for whom patriotism was neither blind nor mute. In one of my favorites, a song called “Survivors” from the vastly underrated Wingless Angels album, he tells us that we can and will endure, despite the “outlaws in office” that shatter our lives.

An irony he undoubtedly enjoyed was that for all his folk credentials, his best-known song was the Monkees’ hit “Daydream Believer.” For that song, the record company infamously decided that Davy Jones could not possibly sing the line “now you know how funky I can be,” so the word “happy” was substituted for “funky.” The change of that one word managed to render a great song utterly senseless. With characteristic good humor, Mr. Stewart was able to laugh about the bowdlerization of his work because “happy” worked just fine for him after the song shot to the top of the charts.

I first heard John Stewart’s unmistakable voice as a child on old Kingston Trio records lying around the house. Later, when I started collecting my own albums, I bought a copy of his Phoenix Concerts and was hooked for life. It is one of those rare live albums where the connection between performer and audience is palpable.

I was lucky enough to have experienced that live connection twice back in the eighties and nineties. New Orleans was pretty far removed from where most of his fan base was located in the West, so the opportunities didn’t come often.

The first time I saw him was in a reformed disco in the suburbs, called “Richie’s 3-D Lounge.” It was the most incongruous venue I could imagine for John Stewart, with its mirrors, disco balls, and tables spread out on a dance floor meant to be lit from below. And to top it off, he played before a “crowd” of about 15 people (including the bartender and the guy working the sound board). Still, he sat on a stool and played as if we were all sitting in his living room. It was an amazing performance.

The next time I saw him a few years later was at a French Quarter club called “Storyville” (the location is now Mararitaville for those who know the City). With that better location, I hoped he would draw a larger audience, and I suppose he did. I think I counted 23 people that night. A lot of guys with international reputations would have shrugged their shoulders and phoned it in. Mr. Stewart came out on stage, suggested that "we all room together next semester," and launched into an unforgettable set, including an encore.

Although I didn’t get each and every album he released (the number is estimated to be in the mid forties), I probably wound up with over half of them. He continued to release them on a variety of labels, each one containing brilliant lyrics set to a constantly evolving guitar style.

Just before he suffered the stroke that led quickly to his death, he completed work on yet another album. Reportedly, the recording included contributions from his friend, Lindsey Buckingham (who helped record what was to have been his biggest hit as a performer, “Gold,” back in the seventies). One of the new songs is entitled “I Can’t Drive Any More,” a nod to his recently diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease. He was determined to continue writing, recording, and performing as long as his mental state would allow.

It’s difficult for me to believe that the next album will be the last. Fortunately, he left a large catalog of music to discover, rediscover, and savor.

ADDENDUM:

After posting the above last night, I spent some time on You Tube looking at videos, and came across a couple I thought I'd share. The first was taken from a Kingston Trio reunion in the eighties, which was put together as a PBS fundraiser. John was at the peak of his career, and was given a solo spot in the show. He chose to do "Kansas," one of his older songs that had always been done acoustically. Here, before an audience of folkies, he performed it electric (and then some). For that occasion, it was an interesting choice lyrically, made even more interesting by his performance.



The second came from a performance last April, and it's really poignant. In the last couple of years, Mr. Stewart had aged tremendously. His voice, like that of his friend, Johnny Cash at the end of his life, had taken on a crusty aura. Although the Alzheimers may not actually have been diagnosed at that time, he was obviously frail. He was struggling with playing the guitar (and he had always been known as a fine guitarist). The song is "Mother Country," one of the tunes off of the classic California Bloodlines album, which marked the beginning of the style that came to be labeled "Americana."

If the first video was John's Dylan-goes-electric-at-Newport moment, this one is his E.A.Stuart moment. Any Stewartistas out there know what I mean; the rest of you will understand after watching the whole video. It's a brave performance.

A MEASURE OF JUSTICE

I have only mentioned Karen McCarron’s killing of her daughter, Katie, a couple of times on this blog. The more recent occasion was to respond to someone I considered a friend, who had taken me to task for not discussing something I really didn’t understand. The first time was to politely suggest that restraint might be called for in discussing the matter until we truly knew what happened. I still can’t pretend to fully understand it all ⎯ I seriously doubt I will ever come to that point ⎯ but it seems appropriate to say something now.

Like most people in the greater autism community, I followed the news reports about the trial, but my experience in litigating cases (including some of a high-profile nature) taught me that the press sometimes misses nuances. So I don’t always trust the press. But I do trust juries. Although juries occasionally get it wrong, they get it right far more often.

People who serve on juries, almost without exception, take their task very seriously. That’s not to say that judges do not; most do. Jurors, though, listen with ears that have not heard it all. They watch with eyes that have not become jaded. Most importantly, jurors infuse a human element into the proceedings; they understand that their decision will have an impact on everyone involved. It is that human element that adds an extra measure of justice to the law.

In this case, the jury found Karen McCarron guilty of murder. That jury heard all of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. They were able to observe the manner in which the witnesses testified. Their decision is entitled to respect. Moreover, all indications point to their having got it right this time.

There were two things reported in the press during the trial that stood out for me. The first came in the testimony of Paul McCarron, Katie’s father. This is how the Pekin Daily Times described it:

After Paul and Katie spent several months in North Carolina, where Katie received therapy, both Paul and Karen decided to move Katie back to Morton. While Paul was in North Carolina finishing his work as an engineer with Caterpillar Inc., Karen brought Katie back.

However, prior to Katie’s return, Karen asked Paul what he thought about putting Katie up for adoption.

When asked by Johnson how he replied to this, Paul said, “No way in hell.”

As a parent, I immediately identified with Mr. McCarron’s sentiments. There is no way in hell I would ever disown any child of mine, autistic or neurotypical. Karen McCarron’s idea of doing that to her child displayed a complete disconnection to her daughter that I cannot fathom. She committed the worst sin a parent can commit; she lost hope.

Of course, the defense in this case was based on mental illness. And the presence of mental illness seems pretty likely. Did it stem from the inability to accept a child’s disability after trying so hard to have a family (the Daily Times report cites two prior miscarriages)? Was it because Karen McCarron went off of her medications, or could it even have stemmed from being on the medications in the first place? Although it is human nature to speculate on such things, at the end of the day the cause of the mental illness is irrelevant. Whatever role mental illness played in Karen McCarron’s actions, the illness does not absolve her of legal or moral culpability for the murder.

I’m not sure what standard Illinois recognizes for an insanity defense, but I assume it is either the traditional McNaughton rule, or something similar. This is what I previously wrote on that subject:

There have been many comments made in various places about the mental state of the mother, but that does not begin to provide an answer about her moral culpability, or lack thereof.

As a very general statement, I think the McNaughton rule, recognized by most American jurisdictions in determining insanity as an exculpatory defense, stands as one of the rare instances in which law and morality actually match up. The test is whether an alleged perpetrator could appreciate the distinction between “right” and “wrong” at the time of an otherwise criminal event. That test is not satisfied if the defendant was unaware of a specific law, or if the defendant felt a mere moral justification. Rather, the rule tests whether the specific individual was intellectually, mentally, and emotionally capable of understanding that the ethics and mores of society hold the act to be wrong. My personal feeling has always been that any person who is capable of that understanding is under a moral obligation to seek help if he/she feels that he/she may have difficulty controlling an immoral or illegal impulse.

That leads to the second telling moment of the trial, as reported in the Associated Press:

In a videotaped confession played in court Thursday, McCarron said she began having thoughts of hurting her daughter a year before the May 2006 slaying but put them out of her mind. On the day of the killing, though, the thoughts were stronger than ever.

“They were so intense,” McCarron said.

The video continued with Karen McCarron’s description of the murder ⎯ a description that is detailed, graphic, and horrifying. Then came the kind of question that good, experienced investigators ask:

Interviewers asked McCarron if she knew what she did was criminally wrong.

“I have enough education to know that,” she answered.

The jury got it right. Karen McCarron is guilty. And it’s important that we in the “cure” community say it.

It’s important because the excuses Karen McCarron threw out in that videotaped confession were themes that are identified ⎯ correctly or not ⎯ with us. She said she felt guilty over the vaccinations Katie received and she was distraught because the interventions she used failed to deliver a child free of autism. And it’s important for us to say it because, after the murder occurred, many in our community questioned what external problems may have been a factor. Many were folks who were struggling to understand how someone they considered a friend could have committed the worst of crimes. Well, we may not fully understand the “why,” but we now know that a lack of services had nothing to do with this tragedy.

This murder occurred because a mother stopped seeing humanity in her child. She couldn’t see her child at all: only the autism. Despite what our friends in the neurodiversity movement may say, I refuse to believe that such a failure is common among cure-oriented parents. But if that failure is part of any parent’s thought process, it is something we must all fight.

After the verdict, Paul McCarron released a statement that has found its way onto several sites. This is how it ends:

I ask all parents and especially those of children with disabilities to ALWAYS love your children and be proud of them. Cherish every moment you have with them. Love, patience and tender efforts are the best therapies.

Indeed. I have said before that the love of a parent is the most important intervention for an autistic child. That love must be our guide in all other interventions. That love must keep us honest so that we may constantly examine our path anew lest we put our children in harm’s way. That love must give us hope to persevere.

JB OUTS THE INSIDERS

J.B. Handley has always let it be known where he stands. He has been willing to put his money where his mouth is by founding Generation Rescue, and by helping to give birth to the Age of Autism site.

Over the last couple of years, J.B Handley has acquired the reputation of being a bull in a china shop. I guess that comes from being pissed off about what happened to his son ⎯ about what happened to a lot of our kids.

That pissed-offness has led him into being . . . well . . . blunt. It’s a directness that has grown on me over time. There’s a distinct absence of what one normally finds left behind by bulls.

He gets mad at things that make me mad as well. One of those things is the incestuous nature of the mainstream scientific community: a nature that is designed to maintain the status quo, even at the expense of our children. In a recent post at the Age of Autism, J.B. details the kind of relationship that should raise the eyebrows of even the most ardent supporter of the mainstream medical establishment.

It seems that Dr. Joyce Chung, the newly appointed Executive Secretary of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), is married to none other than Roy Grinker, the anthropologist who, with the help of a generous grant from our “friends” at Autism Speaks, has published a book telling us there is no autism epidemic.

So let me get this straight. The ascending autism tsar who will have enormous influence on how government funds will be doled out to the NIH and others, shares a home and her life with a guy who probably doesn’t see much point in researching potential causes and treatments. Did they think that nobody would notice?

Why am I not surprised?

ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES OR ONLY WHAT YOU’RE TOLD?

The other day, I came across a story from The Shreveport Times, discussing the biomedical interventions of one parent making progress utilizing biomedical interventions with her autistic daughter. Although supplements and chelation therapy were mentioned, the focus was on the gluten-free/casein-free (GFCF) diet. It was a relatively balanced report, which noted that even GFCF would necessarily help every child.

What interested me were quotes from experts outside of the DAN! world.

One occupational therapist, Suzanne McMillan, had this observation about kids on the GFCF diet:

McMillian has noticed marked changes in some children on the diet and others not so dramatic.

“But one thing that is noticeable is if they’ve been on the diet for a consistent amount time and then eat something off the diet, you can tell,” she said. “I do recommend they talk to their (regular pediatrician); that’s the responsible thing to do.”

Those comments, no doubt, struck a familiar chord with every parent who has noticed positive results from the diet. Gluten infractions can ruin a day.

Although Ms. McMillan is correct that any part of an overall biomedical plan, including implementing a GFCF diet, should be subject to medical guidance, I have to question whether most pediatricians are really going to consider doing anything but roll their eyes and sigh. Still, the Shreveport reporter managed to find one, Dr. Margaret Crittell, who seems to have an open mind:

But when Kelly’s then 2-year-old daughter came in for a visit after about a week on the diet, Crittell wasn't expecting what she saw.

“I called her name and she looked at me and started interacting with me,” Crittell said. “Before she’d always looked past me and there was no interaction. It was interesting to me and hopefully more research will be done.”

While anecdotes are not definitive, overnight improvement is observed often enough that serious attention must be paid. Unfortunately, not every physician is as willing as Dr. Crittell to challenge the conventional thinking that pervades “mainstream” medicine. The article quotes an academic gastroenterologist as saying he “believes any positive changes that parents are seeing may be answered by the placebo effect.”

Huh?!? Does he really think a child between the ages of two and four has enough understanding of the reason Mommy and Daddy are feeding him/her different foods that the child will think he/she should be feeling an easing of autistic symptoms? Can the sudden onset of speech and social engagement ⎯ which has been noticed at various ages upon starting the diet ⎯ be just a trick of the mind?

I grew up in an academic family. I’ve known enough people with advanced degrees to know that the educational process is not necessarily a vaccination against ignorance. Still, I shudder when I see such ignorance and closed-mindedness running rampant.

A little skepticism is not a bad thing when determining a scientific question. But to assume something is not genuine because properly designed controlled studies have not yet been performed is the height of ignorance. The self-proclaimed skeptics love to say that some of our minds are so open that our brains must be falling out. It’s a cute little joke. Still, one has to wonder how anyone can see when they are keeping their eyes shut because there haven’t been five replicated studies to prove that a little light helps a person see.

As I often say, there are none so double-blind than those who will not see.