One of the political problems of taking mitochondrial dysfunction seriously in autism is that it would potentially connect autism to the mitochondrial dysfunction in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and AIDS which all may be caused by the virus HHV-6. HHV-6 is the virus that has been trying to come out of the closet as the real AIDS and CFS virus since its discovery in 1986.

Three supposedly difference epidemics actually all triggered to a degree (or completely) by one virus? That would cause the mother of all paradigm shifts and one that would threaten the public health establishment’s credibility for a century. An innocent mistake? Tell that to the marginalized whistleblowers and critics fighting the official line on AIDS and CFS for two decades. There’s a paper trail.

If you read Hillary Johnson’s book, “Osler’s Web,” you will find evidence that the CDC has been in a chronic state of denial about the connection between AIDS and CFS. If they haven’t been able to deal with that for two decades, how will they add autism to the mix?

By the way, this comes at a time when the CDC has been handed the task of also dealing with the detection of diseases caused by biological weapons of mass destruction. So trust and credibility are now at a premium at the very moment when the AIDS/CFS/Autism story could make the public skeptical of every word that comes out of the CDC.

The next president should go into the CDC (and NIAID) and drain the swamp.

I think that the idea of a dearth of trust is dead on, and one that should have people in regulatory agencies very worried. The problem I see, is they don’t seem to be doing much about reversing the pattern.

By way of example, the government has had laboratory studies of the biological markers of Hannah’s mitochondrial dysfunction for a long time now; several months. It would seem logical that the thing to do would be to perform additional studies on the autism population to determine if, indeed, these same biological markers are more prevalanet in that population than those without a diagnosis.

Where is this study? In all of their TV performances and OP Ed pieces, why hasn’t a single representative of the CDC, AAP, or FDA said, ‘We really need a better understanding of how common this actually is; and therefore, we are initiating a clinical study of a thousand children with autism, a thousand without, and performing analysis for the biological markers we found in Hannah. We expect to have those values available in a few months.’?

In all seriousness, can anyone think of a valid reason such a study has not been commissioned?

This would be a big step in restoring confidence; the notion that they are actually interested in looking for answers. I don’t get that feeling right now.

Take care!

- pD

There have really only been two scientific advances in autism research. Kanner’s 1943 article which defined the syndrome. Kanner was a child psychiatrist. The second great advance came with the publication of Rimland’s book in 1964 proving that infantile autism was not a psychogenic condition but rather a biological condition. Kanner recognized Rimlands work but Rimland did not have a medical degree.

The most important thing to focus on in these discussions is education and services to help autistic students achieve their best potential.

The other threat to the elites is that many of the rubes affected by AIDS/CFS/Autism are informed and smart enough not to be browbeaten by anyone who claims that they speak for “science” or that anyone who questions the elite or the establishment is trapped in a bitter life of magical thinking (to borrow the Obama word of the hour).

I agree. This is both what we do, and what works best. I might prefer that it be otherwise, privilege the research, but it’s the stories that touch people and persist.

http://unstrange.com/media_wallstreet.html

There are some teachers who really deserve to be considered “elite” in their dedication to helping kids who they spend the whole day with, and their efforts are showing now and in decades to come. Very best.

@M, you are too kind!

AIDS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome divided up this way, too. In AIDS the AIDS elite helped support the government’s pronouncement that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and they helped undermine the credibility of the AIDS rubes who doubted the HIV theory by portraying them as conspiracy theorists full of “suspicion and “wary and fearful.”

The same thing happened in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The CFS elite attacked the CFS rubes who think the government is lying about the nature and scope of the CFS epidemic. They are also portrayed as conspiracy theorists full of “suspicion” and “wary and fearful.”

In all three of these political medical issues (and they are very political) it is important for public health officials to cultivate the elite to keep the rubes from dominating the debate.

Whether the elites have, in the long run, actually helped anyone with AIDS, CFS or autism may have to be determined many decades from now.