Imus, Northvale, and Some Numbers
October 17, 2007 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Imus is back and so is the Environmental Center founded by his wife, Deirdre Imus, via a press briefing about autism in Northvale, New Jersey. In June, it was reported that 14 out of 39 children born since 1997 to teachers at a special education school in Northvale have “disabilities ranging from autism to muscular degeneration.” This finding immediately led to proclamations that there was an “autism cluster” in Northvale, which is in highly populated Bergen County and just over the border from New York state. The special ed school was housed in a long-since closed Catholic school, St. Anthony’s, and the St. Anthony’s Task Force was initiated by the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology®, at Hackensack University Medical Center (HUMC).
These considerations aside, given Deirdre Imus’ interest in the effects of environmental factors on health, it is not perhaps surprising that the Task Force has found that the cluster is “legitimate” as reported in a press briefing.
“There is initial evidence of a cluster of autism cases at Northvale School,” said Michael Brimacombe, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Vice Chairman, Biostatistics, Director Biostatistics Core Facility, NJMS, Department of Preventative Medicine, New Jersey Medical School and School of Public Health – University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. “Further study, both to investigate potential causes of autism and prevent future cases at the school would seem warranted.”
Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, who was (coincidence?) just quoted here yesterday in regard to astroturf, is to become the Chairman of the St. Anthony’s Project Advisory Board. He is also, according to his biography on the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center’s webpage, been involved since 1999 in development of the National Children’s Study.
But back to the Task Force’s study. 42 children whose mothers were teachers at St. Anthony’s were compared to a “control group of children born to teachers at another Northvale public elementary school.” A project summary reports that 10 out of the 42 children have an autism spectrum disorder. (The summary notes that 42 children were in the study, instead of the 39 in earlier reports.) The study group was comprised of 24 women, all of whom were teachers at the special ed school. The control group was comprised of 7 women, all of whom are teachers at a public school for grades 4-8 in Northvale, Nathan Hale School; these 7 women had 15 children.
So, 42 children born to 24 women are in the study group, while there are 15 children born to 7 women in the control group. The 24 women are involved in the special education field, while it seems that the 7 women in the control group are “mainstream” teachers and not as attuned, perhaps, to detecting autism or other disabilities.
Or maybe that is assuming too much—-just as using the word “cluster” to describe the ten autistic children whose mothers were teachers at St. Anthony’s does, too. Says Dr. Walter Zahorodny, director of the New Jersey Autism Study and assistant professor at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in today’s Bergen Record:
“It’s not really interpretable scientifically. I wouldn’t say it’s meaningless, but it would take some more basic investigation to show if this was indeed a cluster…..It seems what’s being reported is an informal survey based on a small number of cases.”
Uh, oh. Not a big enough study to qualify as epidemiology. I guess that means any results will be meaningless and not considered credible.
Why even bother investigating?
/sarcasm
/sarcasm taken with a smile!
I’m curious, Schwartz. Do you believe such a study SHOULD be considered reliable? (Given that the statistical precept of sample size is pretty well accepted as a component of good science.)
Also seems that’s a separate question from whether this phenomenon should be further studied. I didn’t hear anyone saying it shouldn’t be. (In fact, the doc’s statement at the end seems to suggest it might be a good idea.)
And my apologies in advance if i’ve misinterpreted the intention of your sarcasm. Maybe a larger sample of sarcastic comments would help?
Gathering further info here probably isn’t bad regardless, but the odd sampling does seem, at best, something that should have been recognized. It’s even noteworthy that teachers go into special ed if they have an autistic kid because of the experiences they have had with the autistic kid. So could someone explain in particular why this cluster wasn’t really to be expected? Otherwise, and correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like going to a national autism convention and blaming the carpet on the floor for causing autism.
Cliff
Cliff,
So could someone explain in particular why this cluster wasn’t really to be expected?
The Special Ed teachers are “more aware” of the diagnosing criteria and more “accepting” of the educational treatment their child would receive then the mainstream teachers.
Note I used the negative. Your point, Chuck, suggests the opposite of my question, and supports why it would be expected.
Cliff
The mainstream teachers are “less aware” of the diagnosing criteria and less “accepting” of the educational treatment their child would receive then the Special Ed teachers.
I still don’t see what you’re getting at. If anything, the lack of awareness would see less recognized autism, where the increase would see more, and the acceptance would allow for the label to be used as fine.
Under those circumstances, it would be predicted the cluster exists. I was asking why that might not be so, and, tell me if I’m wrong, you’ve been supporting why it is.
Cliff
Once studies can control for “awareness”, “services”, and immigration, then “environmental factors” may be able to identify “cluster” areas.
Yes, but the point I’m making is that I don’t see that control.
Cliff
Cliff wrote: “It’s even noteworthy that teachers go into special ed if they have an autistic kid because of the experiences they have had with the autistic kid.”
Or they could go into special ed because of autistic characteristics they have or other family members have. I was really ready to think they might be on to something until I saw that the school was a special ed school.