Goes number 3; Taylor number 50
Theoretical aspects of autism: causes--a review. Ratajczak HV. Theoretical aspects of autism: causes--a review. J Immunotoxicol. 2011 Jan-Mar;8(1):68-79.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
This is one of the more risible papers in the list.
From Kev Leitch at LeftBrain/RightBrain
The rest of the paper is a rogues gallery of debunked and fringe science. Helen Ratajczak cites the Geiers numerous times, DeSoto and Hitlan, Nataf and Rossignol to name but a few. This isn’t a paper so much as an advert for the sort of poor science that was examined in the Autism Omnibus proceedings and roundly rejected by the Special Masters. For goodness sake, she even cites David Ayoub of the Black Helicopter infamy.
David Gorski MD addresses Ratajczak's claim that "human tissue" in vaccines can cause genetic mutations leading to autism:
If there were scientific data that convincingly suggested a hypothesis, even one as implausible as the one above, I’d think about it and possibly even conclude that this is an area worthy of investigation. There were no data presented. There weren’t even studies cited that convincingly supported Ratajczak’s assertions. That’s it? I was thinking as I read her article. That’s all she’s got? Seriously? I thought it was a joke; so I read the entire article again. Yes, that is all that she has got: Implying that correlation equals causation, combined with an observation that there are “hot spots” for DNA insertion in the X chromosome in some autism-associated genes. From that, she concludes that the existing data support the hypothesis that human DNA in MMR II could be at least responsible for the “autism epidemic” through homologous recombination in the brain resulting in autoimmunity and chronic inflammation? And she cites the anti-vaccine blog Child Health Safety as one of her references? The date of the CHS entry cited is June 30, 2010. All I could find was this entry, which purports to argue that both Merck’s Director of Vaccines and the U.S. government have admitted that vaccines cause autism all based on the long known science showing that a maternal case of rubella while carrying a fetus can result in autism in the child, something that’s been known for several decades and is in fact one reason why vaccination against rubella is so important. How on earth did this get through peer review? Obviously, the peer reviewers of Dr. Ratajczak’s article were either completely ignorant of the background science (and therefore unqualified) or asleep at the switch.
The rest of Dr. Ratajczak’s article is a greatest hits collection of anti-vaccine hypotheses, speculations, ideas, and brain farts mixed with the occasional–and I do mean occasional–grain of scientifically supportable hypotheses regarding autism. The vast majority of what is discussed, however, is pure vaccine pseudoscience.
Does this review "demonstrate that vaccines can cause autism"? No. It actually demonstrates nothing.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/
Comments