What the Observer Left Out

Ever since Saturday night when I first read the Observer article on “new health fears over big surge in autism“—in which an “as yet unpublished” study of children in Cambridgeshire, UK, was reported to show that “as many as one in 58 children may have some form of the condition”—I have been bothered by two paragraphs of the article.

Baron-Cohen and his team studied the incidence of autism and autistic spectrum disorders among some 12,000 children at primary school in Cambridgeshire between 2001 and 2004. He was so concerned by the one in 58 figure that last year he proposed informing public health officials in the county.

Controversy over the MMR jab erupted in 1998 after Dr Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in north London, said he no longer believed it was safe and might cause autism and inflammatory bowel disease in children. Many parents panicked and MMR take-up fell dramatically. More families opted to have their child immunised privately through three separate injections to avoid the possibility of their immune system being overloaded by the MMR jab, thus leaving them at greater risk of infections.

What has been bothering me is the abrupt change in subject matter from the first paragraph to the second, and unmediated by any transition: One goes from reading about a “study”—-details, such as who might be publishing it, not otherwise specified—to “controversy” concerning the MMR, autism, and Wakefield, whose hearing before the General Medical Council is this week. The two previous paragraphs have mentioned the MMR in regard to the rise in numbers of children with autism; Baron-Cohen is quoted as saying “‘……at this point one can conclude that evidence does not support the idea that the MMR causes autism.’” The validity of the last sentence of one paragraph, that Baron-Cohen “was so concerned by the one in 58 figure that last year he proposed informing public health officials in the county,” is cast into doubt after reading an email communication with Dr. Fiona Scott (on Bad Science):

The Cambridge University Autism Research Centre have not yet released the findings from their prevalence study, as the study is not yet complete. The Cambridge researchers are surprised that an unpublished report of their work was described out of context by the Observer. They are investigating how this report was made available to the Observer. They are equally surprised that the Observer fabricated comments attributed to their team. They do not believe there is any link between rising prevalence and the MMR, or chemical toxins. It is untrue that Prof Baron-Cohen “was so concerned by the 1 in 58 figure that he proposed informing public health officials in the county “. Such journalism raises anxiety unnecessarily and is irresponsible.

One can speculate that the Observer reporter was determined to work in a mention of the MMR and of Wakefield, and that the Cambridgeshire study was included to highlight what would be a very high prevalence rate for autism (1 in 58): Why might a reader not think how can this just be a “coincidence?” By not indicating a direct connection between the “untrue” statement from Baron-Cohen and the mention of MMR and Wakefield, the Observer article can suggest a connection without directly making one. Such an omission of conjunctions between clauses is a rherotical figure called asyndeton. Asyndeton refers most particularly to the omission of conjuctions (”and”) in words, phrases, and clauses:

veni, vidi, vici ["I came, I saw, I conquered"; it is implied that the one act followed upon the preceding]

This, then, is why I have been bothered about those two paragraphs from the Observer. Whatever one’s views about what causes or does not cause autism, a transition—-some connecting word or phrase—-is lacking to link the two paragraphs and a reader is left to formulate a grab-bag of conclusions, about the prevalence rate of autism, causes for autism, and a this-month-to-be-published book connecting the MMR to autism by Dr. Richard Halvorsen. As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Criticism (1.625):

“For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.”

And, as Bad Science has posted, more than a few “Fools” have already rushed in: There is the “strange case” of Carol Stott, who the Observer refers to as stating that the MMR “could be a factor in small numbers of children” becoming autistic; the Observer does not refer to the fact that she has received 100,000 pounds for testyifying that MMR causes autism and that, along with Wakefield, she is listed as a researcher for Thoughtful House, an Austin-based treatment center that “is fighting to recover children with developmental disorders.” Bad Science notes Stott’s “sweary outburst” at journalist Brian Deer (be careful what you email); Left Brain/Right Brain, The Voyage, Autism Diva, and Respectful Insolence weigh in on “Wakefieldgate.”

Pope distinguishes between “Distrustful Sense” which “with modest Caution speaks” and “ratling Nonsense, who is “…never shock’d, and never turn’d aside,” and which “Bursts out, resistless, with a thundering Tyde!” Amid the welter of “bad” and “junk” and “pseudo” and “maybe” and “real” science that parents of autistic children hear about every day, a little “Distrustful Sense” might indeed be of use—-if only to detect, what the Observer left out.