Autism Biomed Bullshit Booming in Ireland

I didn't expect that the promoters of uncontrolled and unethical experimentation on autistic children would be allowed to sell their services on RTE TV. Thanks to Suzy (who alerted me to all this stuff) I was able to catch the Morning Edition show of 21 March (segment starts at 57 minutes) when USA-based Great Plains Laboratory boss William Shaw was interviewed as an "expert in biomedical interventions" along with Karen O'Connor, boss of home-grown organisation The Child Development Centre. Shaw wasn't challenged despite claiming that they had "reversed" autism in many children with their treatments. The RTE reporter provided no balance or probing of these claims- just bovine acceptance. William Shaw's lab is one of those places where quacks send samples of urine and blood to be tested for the terrifying toxins that proper doctors and real hospitals can't find because they aren't using dodgy testing systems. The Child Development Centre provides some proper therapies like speech and language therapy and occupational therapy as well as rubbish like biomedical and craniosacral therapy and its shiny website contains a page full of jolly testimonials. There's no price list but I bet it all comes with a high price tag. 

The TV show, as always with these things, showed a mum telling the miraculous story of her son's escape from the clutches of autism (tendencies) via music, biomedical therapy and craniosacral therapy. "Two years later," claims the reporter, "he's really reaching his true potential." Two years is a long time, and autism is developmental delay not developmental stasis. The Child Development Centre is being credited with all that slow, natural progress the child made in this lovely infomercial courtesy of RTE. 

Today FM also promoted the Child Development Centre and their conference in an interview as bland as that on RTE. A mother describes how her perfect son was all of a sudden diagnosed with autism and "turned to a stone" but then they went to a herbalist and the Child Development Centre and were able to "bring him back" and now "he's not lost any more." He never was lost.

Hey Irish media, how about when you have a story on autism or some other condition, you seek out a person who has that condition. If you want an expert on autism, talk to an autistic.

Neither was I expecting to read a circa 2007 article on quack autism cures in the Irish Times a few days ago. Dear Maud this one is truly terrible. It (again) features the mother of an autistic kid who claims that following a particular regime rid her child of teh autisms. This time it's the services of Natasha Campbell McBride's and her GAPS diet that are being promoted and Geoff has written a wonderful post detailing just a few of her outrageous claims and dubious and potentially dangerous practices.

This article follows the tried and tested Autism Article^TM template as described below.

Don't stray from the template- sure who wants to know about the reality of life with autism!

It really astonishes me just how closely Adrienne Murphy sticks to the template I wrote in 2008!

But it's 2014 and we should not have to keep having these discussions. I'm tired of dismantling specious claims by unscrupulous hacks. Autism is nothing like that described by Murphy in the Irish Times. Autism is a genetically-based human neurological variant and NOT "the result of a complex intermeshing of degenerative diseases and comorbidities, largely created and exacerbated by environmental factors."

Autistic children are NOT "fully recovering" after biomedical treatment. Autism is not a disease though some people may have medical conditions as well as autism for which they must obviously receive proper medical treatment.

Murphy describes herself as "a lay expert" in autism yet fails to understand the most basic explanation for rising diagnoses.

Yet there's a final insult in the closing lines of the article: "Adrienne Murphy will be joking about autism as one of the performers in Stand Up For Humanity! Activists do Stand -Up Comedy for Charity."
After the disablism and inaccuracies of her article, I think it's for the best that I'm too far away from Dublin tonight to attend.

Double Helix Water Autism Quackery

There's a new quackery promoter in town and he sent me the following email a few days ago. My thoughts are in red:

"Dear Sharon, 

I have just been reading your blog I don't think so and wanted to introduce you to a new approach to working with Autism. Rather than send you a long email.
Don't leave me hanging, rather than send a long email you'll...?

I just wanted to say that I am new to the Autism community here in the UK allow me to represent the autism community in the UK and Ireland and say hello and welcome as I am working to try and connect with parents of Autistic children but not autistic adults? with a view to subsidising a trail oh here it comes of a water product that is having very positive outcomes with Autistic children. Wowee positive outcomes! That sounds like a good if rather vague achievement. And you're subsidising a trial? Does that mean people are actually being asked to pay to take part in a research project? Ethics fail.

I have attached a couple of pdf's for you to look at and look forward to hearing back from you when you have a moment.

 

Best Regards,
Jeremy Jones

Double Helix Water (UK) Limited

Company Number 8482978

Distributors of Double Helix Water for United Kingdom and Ireland"

(Double Helix Water-it's like DNA and water combined and doesn't that sound just awesome!)
Jeremy's email included a link to a science-y video all about the mysteries of water. Also attached was a slick marketing PDF which is what really piqued my ire. I can't find a link (will forward PDF to anyone interested) I uploaded it to Google Drive and here's the opening page:

 

Autism- ripping jeans and upsetting little kids since 1943

 

 

They're selling hope, the most marketable of all products. But they need first of all to frighten potential customers who, if they knew that autism is part of the naturally occurring diversity of human experience, wouldn't be hoodwinked by their pitch.

 

This document which I'm calling A New Hope goes on to proclaim that we're in the midst of a Global Epidemic, autism is a "medical and social issue that we can no longer afford to ignore. It has to be dealt with, and real solutions need to be
found." 

 

This is followed up with an unreferenced "study" concluding that biomedical treatments are 81% safer and 60% more effective at "producing improvement" than drug treatments for autism, all based on parent consultations and the Autism Research Institute. 

 

So much fail. To start:

1. who was "improved" and how?
2. drugs don't count as "biomedical treatments"?!
3. how was relative safety defined and measured
4. parental opinion is hardly objective.
5. the Autism Research Institute is a key player in the axis of autism-vaccine nonsense, it is a disreputable organisation promoting pseudo-scientific and potentially dangerous treatments for autism.
6. what exactly are the drug treatments referred to?

On to page 11 and more misinformation:

"Genetics Does Not Explain Autism
A Stanford University study of twins published last year found that genetics accounts for just 38 percent of the risk."

That's not what the study found- its authors say that the role of environmental factors has been underestimated. However an alternative analysis of their data concludes that it supports the findings of all previous twin studies and provides further evidence of the heritability of autism.

There is certainly no evidence for A New Hope's next claim, "The Majority Of Autism Is Caused By Environmental Factors."
After the usual autism-snake-oil pitch about gastrointestinal disorders and chemicals and toxins (oh my!) we're shown the solution- our saviour is so highly qualified the page is crammed with accolades:

Our hero

And this genius discovered something remarkable- stable water clusters. I think he means ice crystals. But anyway these, A New Hope claims, "have a remarkable effect on the Human Immune system."

What is it with quacks and non-standard word capitalisation?

On page 21 we learn that they use "Completely Safe thermal imaging" not harmful x-rays to examine the patient. But why would anyone even suggest using x-rays to discover anything about autism?!

Pink bad green good

So the magic water is administered and as the "startling" thermal image above of an autistic 7 year old shows, after only 20 minutes the child's temperature has dropped. Perhaps the heating was broken.

A New Hope ends with a pair of testimonials about how the magic water made a little boy and autistic teens smarter and healthier.

OK I'm convinced- where can I sign up to get the boy known as Duncan a supply of water clusters to make him more green and less autistic? Thankfully there's a FAQ on the website telling all. There's also the small detail of cost, they ask "participants to contribute $800 for this research project for three months". And they have the cheek to ask people to fork out that kind of money for water with a disclaimer that comprehensively states that participants can and should expect nothing for their money: "Nothing in this material is presented here as an effort to offer or render medical advice or opinions or otherwise engage in any type of medical practice."

This is a ridiculous con but some parents of autistic children will fall for it. It disgusts me that the people behind these companies are so lacking in standards, morals and ethics that they prey on people at a vulnerable point in their lives.

Mike directed me to a site dedicated to water quackery which other than homoeopathy, was to me, an undiscovered ocean of woo. Dr Lo and his Double Helix water gets a special mention.

And Allan sent me a link to an inadvertently funny video about emotional water- with ice crystal formation supposedly dependant on exposure to words.

What would happen if the water was exposed to these words?

 

The Good News According to Tony

I my previous post I wrote about the Tony Humphreys radio interview. I messed up the html somewhere and am unable to edit that post- even to add a title and there was another part of the interview I wanted to write about so I shall do so here.

Tony Humphreys said something that can't be left unopposed. This is what he claimed was his good news message. He told the interviewer, Claire Byrne:

"when I wrote that article, Claire, I thought this was good news. I thought that I was going to ... that parents would be relieved ... "I haven't passed any neurobiological defect on to my children, or any genetic defect." The news now is that there are creative possibilities if we examine everything in our own lives and our children's lives, we may now discover, "Oh My God, this is what may help my child and myself to have a deeper relationship."" (Emphasis mine.)

This is not good news. This is an outrageously disablist, callous and immoral position to hold. Tony Humphreys thinks we will be relieved at not having passed on our children's conditions genetically. The corollary is that he thinks we out to feel shame if our children are born with a genetic condition (or defect, to use his term) like Fragile X, or Huntingdon's Disease, or Sickle Cell, or Down Syndrome -or autism. He has this bizarre idea that we will be pleased to know that our genes lack any of those icky, troublesome defects and it was just the way we failed to raise our children properly that caused all the trouble. But hey, here comes Tony with a solution- creative examinations to build deeper relationships- or something.

What Tony doesn't understand is that I am proud of my children, pleased that my genes go towards making each of them who they are. I delight in my one perfectly autistic son. He is not defective. Many people who have autistic children are themselves autistic to some degree. More of us share some Broader Autism Phenotypes. Why would this man expect me to feel shame of something I am only proud of?

Some of the genetic conditions I listed result in illness or shortened life-span. In those cases also, guilt or shame have no place in effective parenting. Parents can be proud of their children and do their best for them while supporting proper research efforts to improve the lives of their children.

For that reason we do well to avoid the quacks and snake-oil salespeople who promise creative possibilities for problems we don't actually agree that we have.

Claire Byrne Interviews Tony Humphreys

On Saturday I listened to Claire Byrne interview Tony Humphreys on the Marian Finucane show. It was the first media appearance the disgraced psychologist has made since publishing his vile column in the Irish Examiner, apart from some quotes in that paper in which he reiterated his notions while claiming he never intended to hurt anyone.

(A transcript of the show has been made available on the Irish Autism Action Facebook page. I have used this but altered a few words to fit what I heard TH saying.)


He was introduced as "consultant clinical psychologist Dr Tony Humphreys" though I have yet to see evidence that this title accurately describes his experience and training. When asked what he though of the reaction to his piece he replied:

"I was absolutely overwhelmed, because my intention was to bring good news to people but that somehow what I said was very much misinterpreted as my blaming parents and if anybody knows my work over the last 20 years I have always said parents always do their best. Parents never deliberately neglect their children. But we all come into our roles whether as parents or teachers or childminders, other adults [unclear] with our own hurts and our own unresolved issues and these operate at an unconscious level and what's been hugely missing from the whole controversy is that we operate unconsciously we never consciously want to hurt anybody, right, or neglect our children and not love our children."

This cracks me up. Like a missionary, he sought to bring "good news" to the unenlightened. I can't wait to find out quite what this is. He then claims that all his many critics are at fault as we have "very much misinterpreted" his words. Nope, the problem isn't that we have poor reading comprehension, but that he wrote a terrible, parent-blaming, diagnoses-denying, inaccurate and illogical article. He says what is "hugely missing" is that we, the parents whom he reckons have the magical ability to train our children to be autistic, are doing this without being aware of our actions. Poor Tony, he seems to think we object to his twisted thesis because it hurts our feelings. Well it does, but that's not the point. We object because it is bollocks.

When asked if he thinks parents can cause autism by being heartless he said:

"No because I don't ... I mean, I've ... see I don't believe in autism and I concur with Dr Timimi that autism has not been established as a neurobiological fact, right. What I do believe, right, what, if anybody responds to you or me in a heartless way then we do react, right, and we find a way to protect ourselves and defend ourselves against that heartless reaction. But we do that unconsciously as well. It is not that we want to hurt the person that treats us unkindly, it is that we have a need within ourselves to be kindly met that now becomes unmet, so we retreat into a defence and what happens then is that defence meets defence and the whole thing escalates."

"I DON'T BELIEVE IN AUTISM"!!!!!! This is a position of faith, for this man evidence is irrelevant and facts don't count.

"I think one of the other things I want to say Claire, is that you know, eh, in my work over the last thirty years, ehm, my work has always been about compassion and understanding and empowerment of people and I was shocked, right, absolutely shocked at the level of hurt out there and, um, in my experience a huge sadness around that because I would never, never wanted to create that in any human being, right and so ... and also I have suffered my own hurt in, you know, in being seen as somebody who would want to cause hurt because actually it's light years away from what I would want to do."

Again with the self pity and the refusal to accept responsibility and the consequences for the harm and hurt he has caused. Instead he is sad at how he has been portrayed- such a consciously selfish and immature reaction. He continued to try to justify his self-serving behaviour as "opening a debate". No he isn't, he is disagreeing with well established explanations of autism, that are backed up with proper research and evidence.

The interviewer played a tape of Dr Timimi saying that he absolutely does not take the position Tony Humphreys does on autism. Humphreys was unrepentant, and when asked about how, unlike Timimi, he is "pointing the finger at parents" he said:

"Um no, well not only at the parents right, but it's not pointing the finger, in other words ... I've worked with many parents over the years, children ... parents with children. Labelling them with ASD, ADHD and the other labels that children get, right, and when parents come to me, I hold ... that I ... if they are in troubled places, my first response is to where they are at, right, and to look at what they are carrying and the hurts they're carrying and to resolve those hurts. As those hurts are resolved, they automatically change in their relationship with their children. Now it's not just parents who are in relationships with children. Every one of us is in a relationship with children and that old village, that old African saying, "it takes a village to raise a child" is so accurate because it takes a whole society to raise a child and child minders and teachers and peer groups all affect children's' concepts of themselves."

So he accepts that he blames parents and all adults involved in raising children but somehow thinks this is not pointing the finger because, presumably, all these errant adults are failing their children unconsciously. The thing that Tony doesn't seem to get, is that neglecting children will harm them, but it won't make them autistic! People who are autistic were not made that way by how their parents raised them. He reiterated his notion that we, the parents of autistic people, need to get over ourselves and sort our own issues:

"But we all carry baggage, we all have major defences and unless we get the holding in relationships, we don't examine our defences, and to examine our defences is very challenging in a judgemental culture."

After more waffle he passed judgement on how we fail to respond to our children's communication.

Understanding and enabling our children's ability to communicate more effectively is one of the most important thing parents and teachers of autistic children can do. But we learn how to do that by talking to people who understand autism- autistic people being the most important teachers of all. We can also learn from experienced speech and language therapists, teachers and other professionals.

Tony Humphreys pontificated at some length on his own quaint notions about autism and developmental disability. He shared an anecdote about a woman who "realised that she hadn't been making eye contact with her child." He claimed that babies "make the most amazing eye contact with us, right, because they need us first to see them and to respond to them."

My autistic son never made eye contact with me as a baby. His non-autistic siblings both did. All three were breast fed for over a year and I gazed adoringly at each one as I held them. Duncan was uninterested in looking back. It was innate in him even as an infant. Tony Humphreys denies that is possible.

Tony Humphreys named a few people whom he claims agree with him but ignores the proper peer-reviewed scientific research, then he said:

"there's a whole huge body of research out there. But I can understand, right, that people who have believed a certain thing for many years, it's very difficult now to have that suddenly challenged, right, and I have no trouble with sitting with these people and hearing where they are coming from once they also give me the freedom to also to say where I am coming from"

I doubt that Tony Humphreys would really want to sit with me and hear where I'm coming from. He pulls a freedom of speech defence too, asking us to allow him to say his piece. Sure, he can hold whatever bizarre notions he wants, he can think that autism is caused by extraterrestrials if he wants, he just shouldn't teach that at a reputable university, to influence people who may well work with these disabled children, or to be held up as an expert and given a column in a national newspaper. My dog knows more about autism than Tony Humphreys.

The best bit of the interview occurred when he had a quote from his article read back to him and he said it was "a total misinterpretation of what [he] said" and that he wasn't "playing word games with anybody!" Classic!

He ended with his line about opening debate and the interview ended so the good people of Ireland could worship some bells.

Today the Irish Minister for Health, James Reilly, who has an autistic son, publicly condemned Tony Humphreys (link opens video). So now the Health Minister, all the Irish autism charities, huge numbers of parents and autistic people, the Psychological Society of Ireland, a raft of experienced and respected autism professionals and researchers, the two men named in the original article- all stand united in their criticism of Tony Humphreys.

Hilariously, in the video linked to above, we learn that Tony Humphreys encourages the Minister and all parents of autistic children to read the up-to-date literature on autism. The bare-faced cheek of the scoundrel! He doesn't regret speaking out on what he BELIEVES is the truth. Again with the faith Tony!

I'd ask Tony Humphreys to do the same. I'm much better informed than he is and very much wish he would heed his own words. Then he needs to apologise and retire from making public pronouncements on autism and all medical conditions.

Half Hearted Apology from Irish Examiner

The Irish Examiner today repeated the half-apology they made on Tuesday but have still failed to retract the article. An article is published in which they share the Psychological Society of Ireland's condemnation of the article and their disagreement with Humhrey's views.

The Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI) has described as "unhelpful and likely to cause upset" comments by clinical psychologist Tony Humphreys that inferred parents of children with autism were to blame for their child’s condition.

Mr Humphreys made the comments in an article published in this newspaper a week ago. They have been criticised both by fellow experts and parents of children who have the condition.

"It is grossly inaccurate and demonstrated a clear ignorance of the most basic understanding of autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)," said Brigid Sinnott, manager of ABA and Autism Services in St Catherine’s Association.

Dr Humphreys has since said parents were "never to blame" for autism and his intention was simply "to inform and enlighten".

PSI president Michael Drumm said: "Tony Humphreys’ assertions are not supported by the vast body of published research in the field of ASDs and are unhelpful and likely to cause upset."

ENOUGH of the guff about what Tony Humphreys intentions were- lots of people do harm unintentionally but they should still be held to account.

Here comes the apology bit:

Irish Examiner editor Tim Vaughan, in an editorial earlier this week, apologised for the hurt caused by Dr Humphreys’ comments.

"His comments have caused enormous upset for many parents and relatives of children with autism and I very much regret and am sorry for this," said Mr Vaughan last night.

This is a classic non-apology. Tim Vaughan is sorry, not for the actions of his paper, but for the reactions we have had to it and I do not need Tim Vaughan to apologise for me.

I think it is the best we can hope to get from this newspaper. I think they have a very skewed sense of decency and ethics. Tony Humphreys is back writing his pcychobabble column in today's Irish Examiner Feelgood section. And again his topic of choice is "love." I have not had a chance to read it yet but have it good authority that it adheres to the man's usual standards of expression, logic and accuracy.

Let us not forget that this is not all about autism. A bit of searching has shown that this man has pontificated on all sorts of serious conditions: asthma, IBS, cancer, schizophrenia, tonsillitis. The Irish Examiner have taken his columns on IBS and asthma down from their site. Yet they still employ him to write as an expert in their health supplement. I find this astonishing.

The Irish Examiner have a very skewed sense of journalistic integrity and ethics. However I read that Alan Crosbie, chair of the group which publishes the paper, at a recent conference on media diversity in Dublin, called on the governmant to:

"address the threat to humanity posed by the tsunami of unverifiable data, opinion, libel and vulgar abuse in new media.”

Isn't it ironic.

Excuses Not Apology from Irish Examiner and Tony Humpreys

The saga continues. The Irish Examiner today have Tony Humphreys' words in their paper, as both the paper and the disgraced "psychologist" attempt once again to excuse the damaging and error-laden autism article. Unfortunately they do not offer an apology or a retraction. In direct opposition to the what they published on Friday, today's piece has the title, "Parents ‘never to blame’ for autism." and is by Conall Ó Fátharta. Well Conall, that's been known for about 50 years, but nice of the Examiner to finally catch up.

Dr Tony Humphreys said parents were "never to blame" for autism and his intention was simply "to inform and enlighten" the public of research in the area.

Tony Humphreys needs to be clearer- he needs to say, "On Friday I had an article published in which I directly and unequivocally claimed that bad parenting causes autism.I was wrong and I apologise."
Because that is what happened. This is just more bullshit spin. He was not attempting to "inform and enlighten" he was making a claim he had zero evidence for.

He has been severely criticised for his article in last Friday’s Irish Examiner which gave the impression parents were to blame for their child’s condition. Yesterday, he said he never intended "to hurt anybody".

The article did more than "[give] the impression parents were to blame for their child’s condition" in the article he made his opinion perfectly clear- parents are to blame for their child's condition.

Tony Humphreys is quoted:

"My intentions were honourable. I wanted to inform the public of up-to-date research that is there. It was never my intention to hurt anybody.
"I have the greatest compassion for parenting. It is the most important profession we have in society and one which we get the least preparation for. We don’t prepare parents for the complexity of what is involved."

I care not what his intentions were, I'm interested in the facts and the very real effects. If he hadn't intended to hurt anyone he should not have written his toxic, damaging article. He did not inform the public of up-to-date research, he was rehashing a theory comprehensibly discredited 50 years ago.

Dr Humphreys said he simply wished to show research that had proposed a broader examination of autism rather than focusing on it as simply a genetic neurobiological disorder.

"There are complexities and intricacies of family life that didn’t come through in what has been said.
"What I wanted to inform people of is that we need to look at children in a broader sense and look at every aspect of their lives, every relationship they have, at their social and economic experiences, rather than just focusing on a hypothetical, neurobiological defect.
"I wanted to point out that we should look at every aspect of a child’s life in order to truly understand why children behave a certain way," he said.

Tony Humphreys informed people of nothing but his own prejudice and ignorance. He may have seen this going differently in his imagination but thankfully, I don't live in Tony Humphreys' head and the reality is, he hasn't a clue what current research says. His buff about looking into the families of children with autism counts for nothing. Is he going to have someone poke into the "complexities and intricacies" of everyone's family life? We know from his other writings that he thinks parents cause all sorts of conditions from IBS to asthma, so Tony Humphreys would probably say yes, lets examine the dynamics of every family in the country and check they adhere to some state mandated level of love and support. That's bound to work.

At a public meeting in Cork last night, a mother of a five-year-old boy with autism confronted him but he refused to elaborate on what he had written in the Irish Examiner, and said he had already given his response to criticism.

Well done that mum. He has given a response, but it is totally inadequate.

Dr Tony Humphreys responded to comments on blogs and social media websites which questioned his professional background. He pointed out he had a BA (hons) and MA (hons) in applied psychology from UCC and a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Birmingham.

Dr Humphreys worked for eight years with Mid-Western Health Board psychiatric services and for two years in Staffordshire Health Authority in Britain. He also has 20 years’ experience as a courses director and lecturer in UCC.

His qualifications do not protect him from justifiable criticism. Parents of autistic children, autistic people themselves and professionals with a real knowledge and understanding of the condition are united in their criticism of his piece. Knowledgeable, experienced and skilled psychologists, both educational and clinical, have expertise on autism and can be incredibly helpful to families. I have had valuable input from these professionals at various stages. Tony Humphreys is bringing the profession into disrepute. Parents may be put off using their services in fear of finding others with stone age views like Humphreys.

I also am very concerned that a man with his views is allowed to teach anyone and the reputation of UCC is damaged by its connection with this man.

Tony Humphreys in Irish Examiner- Parents to Blame for Asthma

I wondered why the Irish Examiner editorial was so keen to protect Tony Humphreys and to continue to promote him as a "highly experienced and well-regarded clinical psychologist, successful author, and broadcaster." Then I discovered he is a regular columnist in their Feel Good heath supplement. I read a few more of his column, they usually say the same thing- parents don't love their children unconditionally, indeed bad parenting abounds and causes all ills. Here is his take on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The PDF file linked to may not open, but I have saved a copy.

As regards IBS, when exploring the psycho-social aspects of the dis-ease (word reads more accurately when hyphenated), it is important to understand that the psycho-social intentions of the dis-ease will be different for each person who has the condition and that for a particular person the intentions will differ each time the symptoms reoccur.

For instance, the unmet needs of a sufferer of IBS when a child or a teenager will be very different to those the person has when adult. Unmet needs — physical, emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, behavioural — are the sources of most problems in living, lack of loving being the most common. (Emphasis mine.)

He also pontificates on asthma. Asthma is a serious and potentially fatal condition. According to Asthma UK, on average, 3 people per day or 1 person every 8 hours dies from asthma. Only experienced and properly qualified people ought to write as experts on such a condition. But here is non-expert Tony Humphreys writing in the Irish Examiner and giving his unique "perspective" on asthma:

The causes of asthma are not known and the suggestion of a genetic link is too remote to be seriously considered. Certainly, environmental causes have been posited — dust mites, pollution, over-heated homes — but these don’t ring true because most people who are exposed to these same physical environmental threats do not develop asthma.

The environmental threats that are far more prevalent for children are emotional and social. The home is the most dangerous place for children to be — the threats they may daily encounter are physical, sexual, emotional, intellectual, behavioural and social — the greatest of all being the absence of unconditional love.

Again the PDF link I give isn't working for everyone but I have copied the article and taken screengrabs.

This is so dangerous and wrong. Tony Humphreys is a menace and the Irish Examiner has even more explaining to do. 

Irish Examiner Responds to "Autism Controvery"

After all our letter writing, tweeting and blogging, the Irish Examiner today published their response. It is wholly inadequate. They have published an editorial basically saying that they were correct to publish the article because, they say, in a democratic society, everyone has the right to their opinion. It's nice of them to offer us all a civics lesson. I shall however, examine their editorial in detail.

They published wonderful letters from parents and people critical of the article. There was also a letter from Waterford music therapist, Jim Cosgrove in agreement with Humphreys. I wonder is he has any autistic children as clients. I wonder if he still will after today.

There is an excellent article by Kevin Whelan, the chief executive of Irish Autism Action, refuting the article and describing the reality of parents and families struggling and coping as best they can with unbounded love and determination. Lastly, Tony Humphreys is once again given a platform for his opinion in a piece entitled, "Research is crucial to care debate." Research is, conjecture ain't.

IN ALL my work over the years in supporting families with their very real difficulties it has been clear to me that parents always do their best; it would be an act of neglect on my part to withhold information, because information is a very important source of support.

It is now clear to him that parents always do their best, a far cry from the defamatory statements he made on Friday about how parents seek help for their children only to avoid looking into their "own emotional and social struggles" and that we "often need more help than [our autistic children] do."

But what is this information he has such a duty to impart?

My intention in last Friday’s article was to give people information that has emerged in recent times in relation to troubling behaviours in children that are commonly called autistic spectrum disorders (ASD). This ASD perspective has dominated and has been presented as fact. My goal was to show there is another perspective on this and that what has been presented as fact is not fact; it is simply a perspective. It is very important we hold an open mind and keep ourselves informed.

Aw here, why are all of us who have autistic family members getting so stressed, he's only wanting to offer a new perspective. We may have struggled for years to have our concerns about our children taken seriously, and may have navigated the complex diagnostic system and sat with our children through many difficult multidisciplinary assessments before they received the diagnosis. But we shouldn't be so damned closed minded, we ought to listen to Dr Tony- there are no facts, there are only perspectives! Duh, it must be those broader autistic phenotyoes some of us have that limit us to black and white thinking. We probably believe in gravity and the germ theory of disease, dismissing all alternative perspectives!
This is preposterous, Tony Humphreys is rejecting reality.

The seminal work in 2011 The Myth of Autism by Dr Sami Timimi, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, and his two colleagues provides very important findings from rigorous research and scientific enquiry. Incidentally, Dr Timimi and one of his co-authors had been diagnosed with ASD when they were children. In the interest of responding effectively and caringly to both children and their parents and teachers, it is crucial this research-based information be taken into account.

Oh it's a seminal work! Can I argue with that. Well, yes. 
The authors he places so much faith in disagree with his assertions, saying "We are NOT saying any of the following: 1. Autism is a condition caused by poor parenting." Moreover, real scientists refer to peer reviewed scientific publications from respected journals when citing research, not popular science books. Mike Stanton has explained, the book was only "a mixture of reviews of certain areas and detailed analysis of particular papers."

Humphreys concludes;

There are very important policy and care decisions involved here. If we can stay open to different perspectives and engage in mature debate, our chances of coming up with the best solutions for what are very real difficulties in family and school holding worlds increase enormously.

Basically, he has taken lots of words to say very little. Why should policy and care decisions be influenced in any way by the discredited model of autism Humphreys promotes? You may as well have astrologers running the judiciary. Nonsensical.

Worse yet is the editorial from the Irish Examiner: "The right to an opinion."

They acknowledge that people were hurt and angered by the article, and mention the criticism they faced then go on to make much of Tony Humphreys credentials as an expert:

Dr Humphreys is a highly experienced and well-regarded clinical psychologist, successful author, and broadcaster.

They mention their "record of campaigning for the rights and services for people with an intellectual disability" and finish:

While we regret and are sorry for the obvious hurt caused by Dr Humphreys’ comments, we stand by his right to freedom of expression in a democratic society, just as we would support the rights of others to disagree with and criticise his views and criticise us for having published them.

So basically, we're sorry you lot took offence and complained because we were only doing our democratic duty to give this dude a platform to express his views.

What I'd like to know is, given that they have mentioned his expert status, and that his article was published in a health supplement, why are they now portraying it as just one man's opinion?
So which was it, expert reportage or opinion?
The piece was ridden with errors, not one bit of it stands up to any kind of scrutiny. Even the Cambridge researcher mentioned by name has called the piece "offensive" and said it "turns the clock back 50 years". Tony Humphreys does not have the right to create a loads of "facts" that are harmful to so many people. Clearly despite the credentials the Irish Examiner is so in awe of, Humphreys is no expert on autism. In fact if that is the level of journalistic standards they adhere to, why don't they get me to write farming reports, or as my friend Lisa suggested, David Irving on foreign policy.

If it is just opinion, and the Examiner feels it is their democratic duty to publish any opinion no matter how factually incorrect, toxic, damaging and hurtful, can I expect to see a parade of bigots getting their chance to have their views aired in a major newspaper? Because after all, we have the right to disagree and criticise them for publishing.

This editorial has made a bad situation worse. This is not over.

Tony Humphreys Toxic Autism Article

Tony Humphreys' awful article has been criticised in several places. Lisa wrote how reading it made her feel she had:

stepped into a time warp that has taken us back to the 1950's when Autism was blamed on so-called "refrigerator mothers" whose coldness towards their children caused them to be developmentally delayed and socially withdrawn.

She also makes an important point about Humphreys' academic pursuits:

Disturbingly I found out today that he lectures on "interpersonal communications" and "parent mentoring" at University College Cork. So potentially there is a student being indoctrinated with these ideas right now.

I have emailed the Vice President for Teaching and Learning at University College Cork and The Centre for Adult Continuing Education, asking them to investigate this matter, writing:

Dr Humphreys even goes so far as to assert in his article that the very existence of autism is not a scientific fact, an utterly ridiculous assertion. These are toxic, false and damaging ideas. It is very worrying that a university of such repute would allow someone holding these views to teach particularly on courses taken by parents and those training to work as Special Needs Assistants.

I look forward to hearing their response.


I had emailed Professor Simon Baron-Cohen yesterday to alert him to the misrepresentation of his research in Tony Humphreys' article. He was kind enough to reply that he was going to tweet a public response;

He wrote, "Offensive Irish article blames autism on unemotional parenting and turns the clock back 50 years http://tiny.cc/ffxg8"

It doesn't look good for Tony Humphreys when the researcher he quoted in support of his theory is willing to condemn his article publicly.

Where I focussed on the inaccuracies of his article and the harm they will do to parents, especially of newly diagnosed children, Siobhan O’Neill wrote about growing up with her autistic twin brother, demonstrating clearly how nonsensical Humphreys' notion that a parent can make their child autistic really is.

Another post at Three Mile Limit took issue with factual errors in Humphreys article and offered to give him a name for his  hypothesis, "Refrigerator Cousin."

Mike Stanton examined more closely Humphreys' claim that the "Myth of Autism" book he referenced backs up his notions and found that not even this was true: 

Skip to page page 293 when the authors clearly state

We are NOT saying any of the following: 1. Autism is a condition caused by poor parenting.

That is concurring with Humphreys attack on parents who possess few or no heart qualities? It seems only right that ill-written books should be ill-read. But, bad as it is, The Myth of Autism does not deserve to be as badly read as it was by Tony Humphreys, if he read it at all.

Bock the Robber writes about Humphreys former role as a cleric:

the denunciation of parents in the article of Tony Humphreys has a smell of clericalism about it.  This article sounds a lot like the sort of judgemental nonsense we heard from priests and bishops over many years.

After listing the errors in the Examiner article he makes a valid point:

If you're a scientist, present your research.  Publish your research papers.  List the peer-reviewed publications you've produced.
If you're not a scientist, don't presume to talk about things you don't understand.

If only we lived in a world where it worked like this.


The last post I have noticed is by Magnumlady who writes:

We are living in a world where it’s hard to get by if you have a disability (especially an unseen one) and are trying to get people to understand about autism. It’s not helped by articles like this.

I quite agree.

Many people have expressed their hurt and shock at the Irish Autism Action Facebook page where the article was transcribed. 

Eventually The Irish Examiner made a response, of sorts. This afternoon they released the following on twitter:

"We will be publishing a full range of reaction in tomorrow's edition relating to Tony Humphrey's column in Friday's Feelgood." link

"While giving a platform to diverse opinions is central to our journalism the views of TH on autism should not be mistaken as our own." link

(The irony that a piece which made so many feel so rotten was published in a section entitled "Feelgood" is not lost on me.)

I find it astonishing that the Irish Examiner feels this is an appropriate response. No one who has complained that the article is damaging and toxic believed that it was an editorial. It was not clearly marked as an opinion piece.  Even if it was, it was irresponible and unethical to give a platform to such a piece, lacking as it did all veracity and which has caused real harm.

Already I have witnessed the people who argue that there must be something to Humphreys' arguments- that there are too many children labelled, that diagnoses are made too quickly, that perhaps parents need to look at themselves- as if we don't! None of this is based on fact- but newspaper articles like this one make it harder for families to convince people that their children's disabilities are real and that they require adaptations and support.
 
The Examiner have contacted some people who emailed them (not me) and asked permission to publish their letters. It appears they will be hosting a vox-pop, as though there is any doubt that Humphreys wrote an article entirely lacking merit. He was mistaken, the paper should apologise and retract the piece.

 Please let me know in the comments if there are any other posts I may not have noticed yet so I can add them to the list. Thanks.

Autism Ordure in Irish Examiner- Why Worry?

I was asked- why bother asking for a retraction and an apology for the vile Irish Examiner article by Tony Humphreys. I agree that any apology the disgraced psychologist gives would most likely be insincere. I still think it is important to contact the newspaper that opted to actually publish his outrageous and damaging piece. I want to draw attention to what this man has said, to explain clearly all the things he got wrong in his article. That his words were published in a newspaper will give them a veneer of truth and respectability to many people.

I have been in touch with a few people whose children have only recently been diagnosed with autism and who were particularly upset by the article. In those early days you are dealing with so much; coming to terms with changed expectations, the knowledge that your child faces difficulties typically developing children don't, learning about disability and your child's rights and how to navigate the complex worlds of benefits and special education. Currently it is harder than ever as cuts and reduced services make everything such a battle and people are struggling to adapt and survive. These parents have not yet developed a thick skin like those of us well accustomed to the charlatans who use autism to advance their agendas. The quacks have no regard for how they will affect people living with autism or those who love them. It can come as a shock at first when you read about how awful your life is, how damaged your children, how they are to blame for all your problems- or, with retrogrades like Tony Humphreys, how you are to blame for all their problems.

This article was so bad though it even hurt many of us hardened old-timers. It hurt to hear a so-called professional get it so very wrong about our families, to slander us by claiming that instead of doing our best for our child/children with a neurological condition causing developmental delay, we caused it. And we caused it by failing at the one thing that matters most to us- our parenting. He tells the world that we are cold and unloving, that we seek help for our children to avoid our own issues.
What tosh.

Now having a disabled child certainly doesn't make anyone a perfect parent. I've witnessed some bad behaviour from the parents of autistic children in my time among the online autism communities. But we're just like any other set of people, we're fallible, some good some bad and most trying our best to be good enough.

By issuing an apology, The Irish Examiner could go some way towards making ammends to all the people they have hurt.

I wrote the following to the editor:

I wish to respond to the article "Core Connection" by Tony Humphreys and published on 3 February 2012.

This article author propagates damaging and discredited ideas of autism causation. It is accepted by all professionals of repute that autism is a neurological condition associated with developmental delay. It is not, despite what Tony Humphreys professes without evidence, the result of children "defending themselves against the absence of expressed love and affection and emotional receptivity." Blaming parents causes pain to people already struggling to raise their children in a time of cut-backs and reduced services. Parents of newly diagnosed children will be especially vulnerable to these outrageous and contemptuous accusations against them.

Tony Humphreys even goes so far as to assert that the very existence of autism is not a scientific fact, an utterly ridiculous assertion. He is no brave maverick going against the tide of received wisdom, he is a mere crank. The author is either courting controversy to sell books and gain more media exposure and is using your paper to promote himself, or he is setting himself up in a new career as a provocateur columnist. Either way, he and your paper, are trampling all over the families of autistic children.

I shall expect you to publish an apology and a full retraction of this article, and to give space to a proper autism professional to explain just how wrong Tony Humphreys was. I shall also expect to see the parents of autistic people given space to explain just how loving and close their families are.

I have also contacted Professor Baron-Cohen to alert him to how his work has been twisted to fit Humphrey's notions.

I now think that Humphreys is hoping to not just promote himself and his book at the expense of autistic children, he is hoping to gain customers seeking to redress their failures as parents and fix their children. The biomedical quackery industry have seen parents willing to subject their children to all sorts of unproven and dangerous "therapies" when told it would lead to a cure. The psychoanalysts want some of that action. In order to sell their services, they have to convince enough parents that the cause of their children's autism is known and fixable.

What I fear now is seeing Tony Humphreys making a tour of TV and radio stations, promoting himself, his book and his ability to cure the children currently "misdiagnosed" as autistic. I hope the media will do the right thing and refrain from giving this man further publicity.

Irish Examiner and Tony Humphreys- A New/Old Theory of Autism

I've been justifiably angry often lately. First there is the Welfare Reform Bill that will cause real harm to disabled people and those already poor and vulnerable. Much of the media and many politicians have been busy spinning the truth about people's lives and impairments to portray people who require support as scroungers and layabouts, out to milk the system. Then there was the quack clinic, purporting to prevent and cure autism in infants showing "pre-autistic traits" and which received uncritical publicity in the media because celebrity Melanie Sykes gives it support.

But with this my ire boils over and if I don't blog a bit to release the pressure, I fear I may blow.
A man called Tony Humphreys has written an article available in the print edition of The Irish Examiner on February 3 2012. The article has been reproduced in full here. Humphreys describes himself as "Ireland’s most influential psychologist" and he runs courses at University College Cork and All Hallows College, Dublin. To read his article however, you would be forgiven for thinking he has absolutely zero knowledge or experience of autism. It ranks as one of the worst and most detestable diatribes relating to autism I have had the misfortune to read and given that I have been examining the world of autism quackery and myth for 10 years, that's really something special.

He starts by referring to the work of  Professor Simon Baron-Cohen and the Cambridge Autism Research Centre saying that "the children and grandchildren of engineers were more likely to be autistic." But then Humphreys expresses shock that these researchers are "assuming that autism is a scientific fact".
Yes really, we can stop right here and know that Ireland's most self-regarding "influential" psychologist has the gall to call into question that the very existence of autism. The latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is currently being produced. Perhaps Humphreys should contact them and inform them to leave autism out since he clearly knows something all the other professionals don't.

Though he has already shown himself to be ignorant of autism science, I shall soldier on because Humphreys decides now to slander all parents of autistic children but also all engineers and scientists by claiming that as we all "live predominanently in [our] heads and possess few or no heart qualities, [our] children will need to find some way of defending themselves against the absence of expressed love and affection and emotional receptivity".

Ouch.

The Irish Examiner has thought it right to publish an article in which the author denies the existence of autism and claims that the children currently diagnosed as such are merely reacting to their cold and loveless upbringings.

He continues:

After all, the deepest need of every child is to be unconditionally loved and the absence of it results in children shutting down emotionally themselves because to continue to spontaneously reach out for love would be far too painful.

Children's wellbeing mostly depends on emotional security - a daily diet of nurture, love, affection, patience, warmth, tenderness, kindness and calm responses to their expressed welfare and emergency feelings. To say that these children have a genetic and/or neurobiological disorder called autism or ASD (autistic spectrum disorder) only adds further to their misery and condemns them to a relationship history where their every thought and action is interpreted as arising from their autism.

This is a rehash of the comprehensibly discredited "refrigerator mother" hypothesis of autism. The truth is that autism is lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people. 

Humphreys next asserts that parents seek help for their autistic children to avoid examining their "own emotional and social struggles.
...
it is their adult carers who often need more help than they do."

Humphreys further exposes his ignorance by distinguishing incorrectly between "the autism described by psychiatrist Leo Kanner in 1943 and the much more recently described ASD (autistic spectrum disorder, often referred to as Asperger's syndrome)."


These two are the same thing. He next spins the gender differences in autism diagnoses to fit his notion of autism as caused by cold, unloving parents.

Mike Stanton blogged about the Sami Timimi book Humphreys refers to next. Read Mike's post for a thorough assessment of Timmini's assertion that the autism "label should be abolished".

Humphreys concludes: 

The authors are not saying that the children are not emotionally and socially troubled. What they are saying is - and I concur with them - that focus needs to be on the relationship contexts of these children's livews, and to take each child for the individual he or she is and to examine closely the family and community narratives and discover creative possibilities for change and for more dynamic and hopeful stories to emerge for both the children and their carers.

Dr Tony Humphreys is a consultant clinical psychologist, author and national and international speaker. His book 'All About Children" is relevant to todays article. 

Humpreys decries the autism industry, though he clearly wants a bit of that action for himself. He has a book out that is "relevant to today's article" and it sounds like he reckons we need people like him to examine our narratives. Nought like a spot of old fashioned psychoanalysis to sort out our selfish ways, eh Tony?

Or perhaps Tony Humphreys is just looking for a spot of provacateur columnist work like Kevin Myers, Rod Liddle, Jan Moir and Liz Jones. Either way both he and the Irish Examiner should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I shall expect a retraction and an apology.

Obscure Blogger Vilifies Johnny Ball? No, Actually

I thought I might get back into blogging some time but didn't know it would happen like this.
I wrote this small scale blog for a few years before taking a long break. In that time I deleted most of my sidebar, especially links to other blogs I am no longer regularly reading, leaving static links like a 3 year old blog awards badge and the link to sense about science's libel campaign. A working email address was still displayed on my Blogger profile, but I rarely checked it. All new comments go to my main email so I see those right away. Oh and I haven't checked my stats for at least a year- why bother?!

Recently I checked that little used email address and had a message alerting me to a Science Blogs post on Deltoid, a blog by Tim Lambert. This was the first notice I had that Johnny Ball was going around telling credulous journalists that a nasty blogger was mounting a campaign against him. In an interview with the TES he complains that:

his bookings have dropped by 90 per cent over the past year and the 72-year-old has blamed this on harassment by extreme environmentalists who object to his dismissal of climate change as “alarmist nonsense”.

He continued to complain about some blogger saying he “should not be allowed near children”. He then claimed:

This was clearly a criminal act aimed directly to damage me and my career business,” he said. “Since notifying the police of these acts aimed at damaging my name and reputation, the offensive web links have quite amazingly disappeared.

So who is this mysterious blogger who removed one of the "offensive" links after he complained to the police- it's all revealed on his own (horrible looking, badly formatted) blog. He writes [scroll down to the terrifying sounding headline: "VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT. Wednesday 9/2/2011"] My thoughts are in red:

It is with horror and disgust that I find that I am the victim of some kind of Internet Smear Campaign.Oh really? Tell us more.

I have had to complain to the police and my problem is now logged as a harrassment (sic) case and is being investigated. Wow, sounds serious. Someone better look out or the fuzz'll be onto their bad self.

This morning, an early phone call asked if the voice mail saying I could not attend a Teacher Training event on 1st March was true. Luckily the recipient knew that I make all my own telephone calls. We have the recording which we will hand to the police. The event was posted on my News and Apperances (sic) listing. How awful, Johnny is loosing bookings over all this! Just who could have so much power in the life of the famous man?

Anyone Googling “JOHNNYBALL” (without the gap) may have found a sponsored direct link to “Johnny Ball/Paul Raymond” which when clicked on immediately opens up on a collection of explicit nude pictures of females. I had obviously opened this link and contacted the Paul Raymond organisation. Before they could act, the link had been removed, - 9/2/11 - so it is clear that I am being monitored. Someone please explain the internet to Johnny- meta tags, other people in the world sharing his name- there are many non-conspiracy reasons why this could have happened.

Also on a Northern Ireland Blog, The Family Voyage, you tell 'em Johnny...wait a minute, that's me! WTF? which prides itself on winning some Blog Award (yay! big up my blog award...oh, he's being snarky, I'm hurt now) flagged JohnnyBall and featured the statement, “Johnny Ball should not be allowed near children.” This is a lie- neither the blog post nor the comments contained that statement. Being near to children has been my career for over 50 years. As yet I cannot contact them, as their site is only open to known members?? (Their flagged Johnny Ball link has now miraculously disappeared) It's easy to contact me. Also, the post has not and never had disappeared- no idea why he claims this.

Their beef is that I dared suggest in 2009 on NI Radio that Sammy Wilson as Energy Minister was right when he refused to air “Carbon Trust” TV commercials, one of which showed a very young child being told a story of a drowning world through climate change. Following complaints to the Advertising Authorities, these ads were found “guilty of exaggeration and alarmism over climate change” and were ordered to be dropped. So that would indicate that I was totally justified in condemning them?

Anyone who knows me and my career, must know that I have never done anything that in any way would harm a single child. Who has claimed that he would?

I defy anyone to find anything that I have done in my career that, were it publicly known, would harm my reputation.

[Here follows some of his funny wee notions on climate science.]

Everyone who knows me, will know just how sad I am that I have had to write this blog.

Hopefully it will be the last. I so enjoy working to kids and making them laugh, before I add material that should hopefully give them confidence in their own abailities (sic) and their future as adults. Whatever is wrong with our society I see nothing wrong with the vast majority of the kids I aim to inspire.

Johnny Ball - Wednesday 9/2/2011 - updated 14/2/11

Note the lack of links in this piece- perhaps he doesn't know how to hyperlink?

So far, so daft. But this sparked off a furor among mainstream journalists and climate change "skeptics" all outraged at the evil "climate change zealot" who defamed their Johnny.

The Telegraph: Johnny Ball 'abused by environmentalists' over climate change denial by Graeme Paton

In an interview, he told how websites had been set up in his name featuring pornographic images and a blogger wrote that he should “not be allowed near children”.

The Daily Mail: Climate zealots made my life hell for being a sceptic says Johnny Ball, who was victim of porn and blog smears by Kate Loveys

Yesterday he revealed he has become the victim of a vicious hate campaign by environmentalist ‘zealots’.Mr Ball – father of Radio Two DJ Zoe Ball – popularised maths and science for millions of youngsters in the 1970s and 1980s with his eccentric TV shows. More recently he has carved out a career giving talks in schools and at science festivals and teachers’ conferences.

This will make the right-on brigade hot and bothered But he says zealots are trying to sabotage his career because he has described climate change as ‘alarmist nonsense’.
He claims the internet has been used to try to discredit his opinions. Bloggers have run campaigns stating Mr Ball ‘should not be allowed near children’.

Notice that my one lowly blog has metamorphosised into a whole host of campaigning zealot bloggers out to get poor Johnny. Wow.

Via the Deltoid post, I hear of a bloke writing in something called the Herald Sun who got really hot and bothered about all this: “Pedophile!”, the warmists argued

"It’s that totalitarian mindset outing itself again. The savagery and intolerance are unmistakable giveaways."

Writing on the Guardian Environment Blog, Leo Hickman wrote: Let's join Johnny Ball in condemning extremists in the climate debate

Ball says he was forced to call the police last week after a website featuring a pornographic image was posted online bearing his name. In a separate incident, he says a blogger stated that "he should not be allowed near children". He says that both sites have since been taken down and South Thames police says it is investigating his complaints.

No links to the blog in question on any of these so readers can assess the claims for themselves. Nor does it look like any of these esteemed journalists spent the 2 minutes or so it would have taken them to find the post Ball referred to and realise he was spouting bollox! I am only grateful that my name was not mentioned on any of articles as the climate change deniers are a scary bunch and I wouldn't want to have to deal with their attacks.

You might think given all the references to the police taking action against the perpetrators of these dastardly crimes, they might have been in touch, but no. The PSNI have not bashed my door down in a quest for justice. My blog has sat there utterly unchanged, uncontested and mostly unread for ages.

If you want to read the post in question, it's this: Johnny Ball, what happened to you?

In the comments, one person wrote:

I just went on Johnny Ball's site to send him an email asking him not to damage himself in this way. I then read his blog and it's all come clear. He's a religious nut. Should of been clear before. That's why he tied scientists to eugenics. Something religious people do. Suggesting that science caused the holocaust. Heard it before, again and again from these people. Johnny is not a man who should go anywhere near children with his ideas. He is not a man of reason and evidence but a ranting old lunatic. Guess the reason he disappeared from our screens is a mystery no more. Sad.

Note the quote in red. It is very different from what Ball claims I wrote.

At least Leo Hickman posted an update when commentors on his initial article on the matter posted a bit more information; things that he should have investigated himself.

Johnny Ball denies 'climate zealots are ruining my career' claims

For example, one of Ball's central claims was that a blogger had stated that he "should not be allowed near children". The word "paedophile" was not used, but the implication was clear. But soon the original blog posting was isolated and it turned out that the full statement used – by a reader on a blog run by a woman with an autistic son – was that Ball, as a climate sceptic, "should [not] go anywhere near children with his ideas". A very different message. Speculation mounted in the comments beneath my article – and elsewhere – that Ball was wrongly maligning and blaming environmentalists with this pointedly edited sentence.

Well quite!

But in this article Hickman quotes a conversation he had with Ball, asking for clarification. Ball just isn't ready to let go of his rancour with me:

The other [link which was removed] appeared on a Northern Ireland blog that prided itself in winning a blog award. Sheesh Johnny, enough praise for my blog award already! It was years ago! Googled items usually have two lines of introductory text. This one said, 'Johnny Ball should not be allowed near children.' This appeared on the listing and was very alarming. More lies.

Their issue was in my support on BBC Radio Northern Ireland of Sammy Wilson as Energy Minister who had said he would not allow a Carbon Trust commercial which showed a child of around 5 being read a bedtime story in which the world was drowning. On that show, I lost my temper as two other NI MPs were banging on about who had the largest carbon footprint over the mileage they each did in a week.

After many complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority declared the ads alarmist, or whatever - the point is they did feel they might be damaging and worrying for children and they were withdrawn – so, whatever the beef was, my stance was in line with the authorities and so I was justified. But for whatever reason, for that blog to make such derogatory statements about me, was totally out of order. The two blogs disappeared a few days later. The most derogatory statement I made about him was to call him a silly old duffer- a comment I stand by. Also, once again- the post never has disappeared! Wow- boggles!

So there you go, my reintroduction to blogging- not with a charming anecdote about my beautiful son, but in order to defend myself against ridiculous and frankly defamatory statements about me which were (though thankfully without including my name) propagated by the mainstream media. These articles gave rise to over 1000 comments, many of which were directed against the evil blogger attacking dear sweet Johnny.
Frankly I'm amazed. And rather pissed off.

We're NOT supporting Andrew Wakefield Facebook Group

I started a group on Facebook for everyone who wishes to record their opinion on the Andrew Wakefield GMC rulings. Anyone who is/is closely connected to an autistic person is especially
welcome. Join here:

Parents and autistic people supporting GMC rulings against Andrew Wakefield

I want to show that we do not all support Andrew Wakefield who despite the damning verdict against him, is unrepentant and said in his recent statement "It remains for me to thank the parents whose commitment and loyalty has been extraordinary."

The newspapers writing about the guilty man also refer to his support base and in some ways imply that parents of autistic children are more inclined to stand behind the disgraced doctor.
Please join the group and spread the word to show how we really feel about a man who has been found guilty of a disgraceful lack of ethics, a "callous disregard for the suffering of children" and who has done so much to denigrate autistic people and increase the spread of preventable infectious disease.

Andrew Wakefield Verdict- Guilty

Guilty

The General Medical Council has ruled that Andrew Wakefield, one of autism's most notorious False Prophets and quintessential brave maverick doctor is guilty of having "showed a callous disregard" for the suffering of children and has "abused his position of trust."

According to The Guardian's report:

Wakefield also acted dishonestly and was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described research that was later published in the Lancet medical journal, the GMC said. He had gone against the interests of children in his care, and his conduct brought the medical profession "into disrepute" after he took blood samples from youngsters at his son's birthday party in return for payments of £5.

The doctor, who was absent from today's GMC hearing, faces being struck off the medical register. The panel decided the allegations against him could amount to serious professional misconduct, an issue to be decided at a later date.

It's a damning verdict. This man should be ashamed of how terribly he has used autistic children to make a name for himself. He cares more for the adoration of the deluded and confused who flock around him at the autism quack conferences like he's Jo Jonas or something thinking his use of their children means he cares or can help. No one should let this man anywhere near their children, autistic or not. He has caused a shit storm of harm to autistic people by leading the troops describing the condition as vaccination damage, with all the negative rhetoric they propagate. Thousands of parents were confused by the reporting of his crappy paper and his lack of dignity and honesty in refusing to admit that it was a fair cop even when it came out in public that he'd totally fixed his results. He is responsible for so many people choosing to avoid vaccinating their children; the subsequent rise in measles cases caused death and disability in children when it could have been avoided.

Simon Singh's chiropractic article: “Beware the spinal trap”

Many bloggers today are reprinting a slightly altered version of the article on chiropractic Simon Singh wrote for The Guardian. Unlike scientists who defend their claims by discussion in the scientific media, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) used the method so beloved of practitioners of non evidence based medicine, and sued Simon Singh for libel. There's nothing the alties like so much as a spot of legal chill.

Like all forms of woo, chiropractic is said to cure/treat autism. Quentin Wilson says it cured his autistic son and he used to be on the telly talking about cars so he should know. His anecdote is used by this UK chiropractic clinic as some sort of evidence of effectiveness.

Chiropractic is one type of woo that has before now, seemed to avoid close inspection from the DCs of the world who excel in exposing pseudoscience, as it seemed more scientific, or at least, sciencey. But the decision of the BCA to apply legal muscle to silence reasonable critique has only drawn lots of people to focus attention on their practices and positions. They are not enjoying the scrutiny.

Simon Singh wrote a decent, informative article and it'd do no harm for more people to read it.
If you agree that the law has no place in scientific disputes, please add your name to the statement.

-----------------------------------------------------

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that '99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae'. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: 'Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.'

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.