Chiropractic “Doctor” tries to validate their treatment for Autism

Autism is a often claimed by Chiropractic practitioners as something they can treat through spinal manipulations; and while there is no robust evidence for this, nothing stops them from trying to make up conclusions about research papers.

Case in point is below, where an Autism Research who presented a hypothesis caught wind of a Chiropractor using his research to validate his Chiropractic Treatments.

I’m famous. Well, sort of. Earlier this week, one of my colleagues sent me a link to a YouTube video in which chiropractic doctor David Sullivan discusses one of my papers on autism and how it influences his “evidence based practice”.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loJP3TFavQA

Our paper was called “The temporal binding deficit hypothesis of autism” and came out in the journal Development and Psychopathology nine years ago (now there’s a scary thought). In it we suggested that autism might be caused, at least in part, by a reduced interaction between different brain regions.

We didn’t show anything; there was no evidence, no data; we had an idea and ran with it. As it happens, there have since been a number of studies suggesting that autistic brains on the whole are less well-connected than your average brain.

Different studies find that different neural pathways are disconnected. Some studies even suggest heightened connectivity. And while there’s lots of evidence for abnormal brain oscillations, look more closely and the actual pattern of abnormality isn’t very consistent. Another big problem is that evidence for abnormal brain connectivity has been found for umpteen other disorders that are quite different to autism. And there’s a fairly compelling counter-argument that anomalous brain connections might be a consequence of autism rather than its cause.

Last time I checked, autism wasn’t considered to be a form of back problem. Sullivan doesn’t provide any evidence that chiropractic is a suitable treatment. He doesn’t explain how it might be beneficial, even in theory. More to the point, he doesn’t elaborate on how the insights gained from our paper are at all relevant to his practice.

From: Cracking the enigma: Autism, temporal-binding, and … Chiropractic

Wakefield Supports Vaccines

“My opinion, again, is that the monovalent, the single vaccines, measles, mumps and rubella, are likely in this context to be safer than the polyvalent vaccine.”

– Andrew Wakefield, Twenty Twenty Television

I found the quote to be quite a far way away from what is preached by the no-vaccination lobby group like the Australian Vaccination Network (Anti-Vaccination Network), who still refuses to place this health warning issued by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC):

More on the Australian Vaccination Network Warning:

http://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/Publications/Media-Releases/PUBLIC-WARNING-/default.aspx

PUBLIC WARNING ABOUT THE AUSTRALIAN VACCINATION NETWORK (AVN)

26 July 2010

by the Health Care Complaints Commission under section 94A of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 

The Health Care Complaints Commission has investigated two complaints about the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), a non-profit organisation registered in New South Wales that provides information about vaccination. The complaints alleged that the AVN provides incorrect and misleading information about vaccination.

The Commission’s investigation of the complaints focussed on the material presented by the AVN on its website http://www.avn.org.au.

The Commission’s investigation established that the AVN website:

 

  • provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
  • contains information that is incorrect and misleading
  • quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.

On this basis, the Commission recommended to the AVN that it should include a statement in a prominent position on its website to the following effect:

 

  • The AVN’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination, in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere.
  • The information provided by the AVN should not be read as medical advice.
  • The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.

The Commission recognises that it is important for there to be debate on the issue of vaccination. However, the AVN provides information that is inaccurate and misleading.

The AVN’s failure to include a notice on its website of the nature recommended by the Commission may result in members of the public making improperly informed decisions about whether or not to vaccinate, and therefore poses a risk to public health and safety.

Further Information

For further information, contact Mr Kim Swan, the Executive Officer of the Health Care Complaints Commission, on 9219 7483 or send an email to media@hccc.nsw.gov.au.