Autism: Trying Most Things, But Not Everything

6a00e55255b462883401901b97af0f970b-200wiI recently read a column in the New York Times by Jane Brody titled “Trying Anything and Everything for Autism.” In it, parents of an autistic child find success with alternative treatments, but are unsure whether the treatment relates to the child’s improvement. The article quotes a physician from England who suggests that alternative treatment for autism like avoiding dairy is like returning to the Dark Ages.

What emerges from Jane Brody’s column minimizes the two important positive responses that the boy, Casey showed to the alternative treatments of dairy-free diet and hyperbaric oxygen. The difficulties of avoiding certain foods are emphasized, but compared to the Behavioral Approach, which is promoted but requires working with a child for 30-40 hours per week, dietary restriction should be relatively simple.
Nothing is mentioned about the science related to casomorphin from milk affecting brain function, nor anti-gliadin antibody levels indicating wheat sensitivity.
Other non-conventional treatments are also based on scientific data. Genetic defects found in some autistic children in a biochemical pathway called “methylation,” respond to correction with a combination of B-vitamins and other
supplements. Yeast overgrowth in the intestines irritates the lining and allows undigested food molecules to leak into the circulation and irritate the immune system.  This can be corrected by diet changes and supplements. Since specialized immune cells are involved in the nervous system, it is not hard to imagine that improper dietary stimulation of the immune system could interrupt proper brain development.  Far from the Dark Ages, we can begin to understand multifactorial Autism by connecting scientific basis to anecdotal evidence.

My medical colleagues who specialize in autism treatment use the above science-based and other forms of analysis and therapy.  It would be a shame if parents, physicians, and researchers don’t vigorously pursue these connections that may lead to effective treatment.

To your health,

Dr. Alan M. Dattner, MD

Holistic Dermatology
New York, New York

__

As always, the content of this blog is for information and education purposes only, and should not be used to prevent, diagnose or treat illness; please see your physician for care.

 


Lancet retracts claims… might science be influenced by industry?

 

feb-2010-bCould Science be influenced by Industry and Government or individual self-interest?

Of course we all know that science, because of its objective methods, is free from bias of particular self interests.  That is why this new retraction of a publication, declaring it unholy and not worthy of being quoted as scientific evidence in the scientific peer reviewed literature, is such a shock to people like me who have devoted part of my life to doing good scientific investigation.  And it was done so, supposedly on a technicality related to the methods used.

It is very interesting indeed, that many reputable scientists and physicians are outspoken in their denial of any evidence that vaccination could be linked to Autism, and that this report stood as a scientific thorn in the side of that denial, until it was recently withdrawn.

This is a new tactic in denial of any relationship of the relationship between the rising incidence of autism and vaccination.  Autism is officially a disease without a known cause, and will probably become more an more common, and expensive to us as a society and to the parents who bear its burden, until we take our heads out of the sand, and look around for a cause in an unbiased way.  I have heard many patient stories, read reports in the literature, and heard of colleagues treating this disorder in a manner highly suggestive of vaccination being given just before a child dropped off the normal development curve.  I cannot let go of the strong suspicion of association  between vaccine and autism without some really well-done honest investigation that accounts for the post-vaccination illness followed by loss of normal behavior in these infants and children.

I still believe that vaccination protects people in general, at the same time I believe that some sort of immunological screening and changes in vaccine technology and administration could reduce this incidence.  So too, might a combination of warning and intense therapy during the acute post- vaccination illness.  But this type of “science control” assumes that we are all dumb sheep, and can have our fates controlled and manipulated by those who know better than us when they admit they do not understand the cause of autism.

This is a wakeup call to the entire General Public, as well as scientific and medical community. If we let this go by, we are saying we are suckers for whatever other nonsense they have to cram down our throats.  I thank naturopath James Elkin for bringing this to my attention, and hope that you share this with your friends and legislators.

By the way, the mercury in vaccinations and the attenuated viruses both have the ability to disrupt normal regulation of the immune system, and to modify normal cells so that the body will attack them.  Development of the nervous system involves a form of removal of unwanted connections, known as “neuronal pruning”, which is done by microglial cells, which are also part of the Brain/spinal cord immune system.  So if you disrupt the signals for these immune cells known as glial cells, you could disrupt the developmental process in the brain.  This new removal is a statement that we will not look in that direction for answers.

Alan M Dattner, MD

Lancet Retracts 1998 Paper Linking Autism to MMR Vaccination 

 

The Lancet has “fully” retracted a paper it published in 1998 that suggested a link between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and the subsequent development of autism.

 

The journal’s editors point to a recent judgment by a panel of the U.K.’s General Medical Council, saying that “it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.”

 

The editors say that two claims in the paper “have been proven to be false.” Contrary to the authors’ claims, the patients studied were not consecutively referred, and the local ethics committee had not approved the investigations. The editors conclude: “Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.”

 

Asked to comment on the journal’s action, Dr. Andrew Wakefield sent the following statement: “The allegations against me and against my colleagues are both unfounded and unjust and I invite anyone to examine the contents of these proceedings and come to their own conclusion.”