Is there more to Professor Simon Baron-Cohen than meets the eye?

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen may be the director of the Autism Research Center at the Cambridge University and won several awards for his outstanding research but he has left me seriously doubting his expertise and integrity in the field of Autism. One minute he was reported to be saying that in the future a test for Autism in the womb may be possible, the next he is seen to be saying that Autism is known not to be 100% genetic. I researched the Vaccine/Autism debate and found some very interesting conflicts of interest. These made me question whether Professor Simon Baron-Cohen's interests, really lay with the Autistic children and their families at all.

For many years Scientists have been researching a genetic cause for Autism. Last week the team that Professor Simon Baron-Cohen heads, at Cambridge University, announced that new genetic research may bring about the possibility of prenatal testing for autism, a step closer. This may allow parents to opt for a termination should their babies have the condition. This news has prompted experts to call for a national debate about the consequences of screening for the disorder in the womb and allowing women to terminate babies with the condition.

The study, hailed a 'breakthrough' by Cambridge University's Autism Research Center, has followed 235 children from birth to the age of eight. The team found that high levels of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women, was linked to autistic traits, such as a lack of sociability and verbal skills, in their children.

The problem with this of course is that no two Autistic children are the same and whilst some children with Autism have no speech and have a severe lack of social skills others have rare gifts such as artistic, musical and mathematical skills which often have them described as genius. If a parent can elect for a termination many of these children with these amazing talents and gifts could simply disappear. This I feel would be of tremendous loss to mankind.

Whilst I can appreciate this is an excellent medical advance, sadly, I remain unconvinced to it´s potential value and for me this raises further questions in the Vaccine/Autism debate.

I presume, albeit naively, that the 235 children involved in this study had received their vaccines, if so, this leaves me wondering, was it in fact the child´s genetical make up that caused them to go on to develop the Autistic traits, or was their 'Autism' in fact a by-product of the effect of the vaccine? If we go forward with the termination of many of the embryos that are affected, then could we be actually terminating the children who are more likely to react to vaccines rather than children who will become Autistic?

Professor Baron-Cohen feels it is now time to start considering where society stands on the issue of the prenatal testing for Autism , he is reported to have said to the Guardian Newspaper :-

"If there was a prenatal test for autism, would this be desirable? What would we lose if children with autistic spectrum disorder were eliminated from the population?" he said. "We should start debating this. There is a test for Downs syndrome and that is legal and parents exercise their right to choose termination, but autism is often linked with talent. It is a different kind of condition."

However this week the professor seems a little less sure of last weeks revelations. It is reported here that Professor Baron-Cohen now has this to say :-

"We know that autism is not 100% genetic in origin, since in the case of identical twins (who share 100% of their genes), there are instances of one twin having autism and the other not having it. In fact, the liklihood of the co twin also having autism where one of them has it (in monozygotic (MZ) pairs) is about 60%. This means that there must be some non-genetic (i.e enviromental) factors that are part of the cause of Autism."

Professor Baron-Cohen made the same point in a December 2007 interview piece published on TimesOnLine,Freedom of Expression

"Studies of twins have established that it is not 100 per cent genetic, since even among identical twins, when one has autism, the likelihood of both twins having autism is only about 60 per cent. This means there must also be an environmental component, but what it is remains unknown"

As a parent of two Autistic children, I am now totally confused.

Is Professor Baron Cohen saying that there is a link between Autism, Genetics, and an unknown environmental component or not? If he is, then why has he not followed the advice of fellow professionals from all over the world and advised his team to explore vaccination as the possible environmental component?

First we are led to believe by the media, due to information they received from the Autism Research Center Cambridge, that new research has found Autism to possibly be linked to high levels of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of pregnant mothers. Then we are led down a murky black path leading us to explore Eugenics it seems, by a so called expert telling parents that in the future prenatal tests may be available, so it may be possible to abort Autistic babies, which in turn led to issues on 'The Right to Life'.

This is what the Guardian Newspaper said :-

"Baron-Cohen says we need a public debate about the prenatal diagnosis of autism. Although such a test is not yet available, it soon could be.

Baron-Cohen points out that the use of embryo selection during IVF to reject babies with autism genes might have the effect of preventing some individuals with brilliant mathematical abilities from being born."

You see, for me the mere fact that he mentioned prenatal testing in any form suggested that the cause of Autism had been found to be genetic in origin.

Then when this expert was challenged by others in particular John Stone who is a parent to an Autistic son, suddenly he says the British Media had misrepresented what he had said. I personally would like to know what he did say to the media. It seemed to me and I could be totally wrong, that when interviewed he did discuss prenatal testing as a way of filtering out Autism but when this led to a public outcry he began to feel very uncomfortable indeed which is what led him to say " We know that autism is not 100% genetic in origin" which I thought was an extremely odd thing to say given that prenatal testing had been suggested.

I am no expert but over the years I have listened to and read many theories on Autism and in all that time only one expert has stood out from the others and made any sense to me what so ever. Lisa Blakemore-Brown is an expert who like Professor Baron-Cohen is a psychologist. Before embarking on an assessment she takes a full family history including grandparents, she discusses any injuries and illness the child may have had. She takes a full vaccine history and looks into any traumas the child or the family may have had. She then carefully assesses the child in many settings. She does not just examine and assess the child for an hour but over many hours.Its only after all this she takes her evidence away with her and studies it carefully and methodically and pieces together her report.

Lisa Blakemore- Brown along with other professionals believe that the mercury in some vaccines can trigger off reactions in some children that can lead to Autism. She feels this research has been covered up. She believes that the Government here in the UK are silencing professionals such as herself . Could she be right, after all it does seem that when professionals speak out about their growing concerns on vaccines they find themselves facing disciplinary action.?

Lisa has this to say in a recent article on One Click :-

"Simon Baron-Cohen, Psychologist

Professor Baron-Cohen himself has come out to say that his research has been misrepresented by The Guardian but no-where does he address the real and pressing issues now being opened up in the US, which we have all been aware of for more than a decade: that we can map the rise in autism onto the changes in the vaccine programme; that research has been covered up which showed the damaging effects on children of mercury in vaccines; that dysfunctioning mitochondria can make an infant susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines and that this in itself can be an adverse reaction to vaccines. Gradually once high ranking officials are standing up and getting counted on what they know, but in Britain we are silenced by a Government which claims to care about people, their futures and their human rights.

It is shocking that autistic children and their suffering is routinely ignored for years and years, until Professor Baron-Cohen suggests casually to the world via the BBC that autism may one day be picked up in the womb. Suddenly we hear of the terrible lives many children and their families have to endure, in order to justify the idea of aborting them before they are born. Perhaps Professor Baron-Cohen should address the possibility that these bio-markers may simply show which children might react to vaccines and their components such as mercury and aluminium and the tapestry effect when live viruses are introduced? In which case it´s the damaging vaccines that need terminating not the babies! It beggars belief that we can wrongly blame parents, deny the suffering of children which is staring us in the face, raise the spectre of eugenics: yet we are not allowed to even whisper that there might just be something wrong in the vaccine programme. These trivial pieces of research, costing the earth, take the focus away from what really may have caused damage to normal children to make them autistic. This latest piece of research has caused terrible distress and damage to multiple thousands of families the world over."

She is 100% correct of course. For a while now, USA experts, have also been looking into Genetics and the causes of Autism but unlike Professor Baron-Cohen not to rid the world of Autistic children with prenatal testing but to learn if the interaction of vaccines may in some children trigger responses which causes them to develop Autism.

Only last year the case of Hannah Polling hit the headlines. Hannah's case was a landmark case proving that her Autism was caused by a vaccine that interacted with her genetic condition 'dysfunctioning mitochondria' .

Hannah Polling

Lisa, I believe is a true expert in Autism. She does not flit from one theory to another, she stands firm in her beliefs. She does not make sweeping statements to the press. No matter what personal hardships she may suffer as a result, no matter what accusations are hurled her way, she fights to find out the truth. She is unafraid to be challenged, speaking out instead for the Autistic children and the families who love and support them. She is not on fat wages, supported by big organizations with research being paid for by Governments and pharmaceutical companies, quite the opposite. Instead she chips away trying to break down the brick wall that has been built up between the vaccine/autism link and the people who stand to lose if that wall ever crumbles to the ground.

The real experts in the world are the ones who do not change the way they say things if they are challenged but are the ones who have enough knowledge, wisdom and belief in the what they say to be able to give a powerful enough debate to change the challengers beliefs.

A few brave experts have, like Lisa, stood up and fought for their views to be considered, their opinions to be listened to and their research to be looked at, only to be discredited and destroyed and with them the lives of the Autistic children and their families who they have fought so bravely to help. Sadly the list is getting longer. In the UK we have Lisa Blakemore-Brown, Dr Jayne Donegan, Dr Andrew Wakefield, Dr Peter Mansfield, each one of them have faced or are facing Conduct hearings or Fitness to Practice hearings, there are many others who also have found speaking about there concerns have led to hate campaigns on the Internet and their opinions and research trashed.

My children are not worthless, they are beautiful, full of love and innocence. It is not their fault they have ASD. It makes me so angry that so called experts like Prof Simon Baron-Cohen who works with the National Autistic Society and has done for over a decade ,a society seen to be dedicated to helping families of Autistic children, is looking at termination as a way of controlling the rise in Autism. Would the world be a better place without my boys? No, it most certainly would not. Would my life be any better without them? No, because they have enriched my life and taught me about true values.

What makes me even angrier is that he was awarded the Spearman medal by the British Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association's McAndless Award for his outstanding contributions to research see here , while Lisa Blakemore-Brown the true expert and professional in my view is called 'Paranoid' by the very same British Psychological Society in comparison for hers. This leaves me to draw my own conclusions as to why

The National Autistic society carry all of Prof Baron-Cohen's books, they boast about the many wonderful papers he has written whilst in comparison they do not carry Lisa Blakemore-Brown's book which was once considered as the 'Top Book on Autism'. Parents who now want to buy it are pushed to find a copy, However if you look around carefully it is possible and some sites still list it as a top book .

Lisa tells her own story of what happened to her book ´Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry´ on her blog 'Thimerosal Thoughts

Neither do the NAS boast about the many wonderful papers and articles she has written throughout the years.

It is not only Ms Blakemore-Brown's work which is ignored but any professional who mentions vaccines as a possible trigger to Autism. Maybe Vernon Coleman who is the author of 114 books which have sold over 2 million copies in the UK has he answer.

Vernon Coleman has a medical degree and has worked as a GP and a hospital doctor. Often described as an 'iconoclast' he has organised numerous campaigns for people and for animals. Although he now concentrates on writing books he has in the past presented numerous programmes on television (he was breakfast TV's first doctor) and radio and has written over 5,000 columns and articles for over 100 of the world's leading newspapers and magazines.

It appears that Mr Vernon Coleman wrote a very revealing letter to the National Autistic Society and received an equally revealing answer. Of course I do not know if these letters are genuine, however, given Mr Vernon's high profile I personally am in little doubt of their authenticity. In his letter to the NAS he wrote

To the National Autistic Society

"I see that a drug company which makes the MMR vaccine is one of your financial supporters (and has been since 2003). I understand that the company has, for example paid for mailing to over 4,000 GP surgeries with information about autism"

He went on to say ;-

"Since there is a huge debate ongoing about whether or not autism is caused by the MMR vaccine I would be interested to hear the society's explanation for accepting this funding."

Do you not feel that by accepting money from GlaxoSmithKline you are abandoning your independence, your reputation and your value to autistic patients and their care?"

This is what the NAS had to saying their reply:-

"In this case we have accepted money from GSK for a number of small projects, including a GP mailing to raise awareness of autism last year. None of these projects have had any link to anything we have said on the MMR vaccine and GSK have never raised this topic with us. Furthermore, the overall funding to date amounts to such a tiny percentage of our income".

Vernon had this to say in his witty but strong reply :-

"So, how much money will GlaxoSmithKline have to give before the National Autistic Society is compromised by the association? How many other drug companies contribute to the Society?

Personally,I feel that a hooker who charges £5 for sex is no less a hooker than a hooker who charges £1,000."

So we now know that if these letters are genuine then that the NAS is in part funded by Glaxo Smith Kline. Glaxo Smith Kline manufactures the MMR. This is the same National Autistic Society who Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has worked with for over a decade.

I was curious so I looked on the Glaxo Smith Kline website and found them saying this:-

The National Autistic Society

"NAS provides support and advice to families and individuals across the autistic spectrum and are increasingly concerned by the lack of information and advice available to GPs and health professionals in terms of diagnosing this condition.

We have supported this organisation since 2003.

During 2006:

Our charitable donation of £9,988 will fund a targeted mailing to over 4,000 GP´s surgeries in the UK with information about autism, NAS and their services.

Our funding represents 0.15 per cent of their income overall."

So this proves what Mr Colman says in his letters to be true.

If the intrigue stopped there then it would be bad enough but it doesn't because Professor Baron-Cohen has had a proportion of his research including past genetical research at the Autistic Research Center funded by the Wellcome Trust which is known to have very close links with GSK.

On a paper written by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen

The extreme-male brain-theory of autism

Professor Baron-Cohen makes an acknowledgement to the Wellcome Trust for their support. As follows :-

"Acknowledgements: I am grateful for support from the MRC (UK), the Wellcome Trust, and the Gatsby Foundation, during the preparation of this work."

On his CV he has admitted to accepting funding from the Wellcome Trust in 1996-1998 and again in 2003.funding

The Wellcome Trust and Glaxo Smith Kline are known to work together on projects.

see here

So where does this leave us? For myself personally I am shocked to find that the National Autistic Society is being part funded by the very drugs company that manufacturers the MMR, which is at the very heart of this debate. However, I am now beginning to understand why professionals like Lisa Blakemore-Brown, Dr Jayne Donegan and Dr Andrew Wakefield have been destroyed because of their views and I certainly understand why Lisa's book 'Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry' is no longer on the National Autistic Societies book list and why Professor Simon Baron-Cohens work is held in such high regard.

Of course there is yet another twist to all this and that is the Department of Health. Even they seem to be very cosy with the Pharmaceutical Industries. In Australia the Federal Department of Health received a complaint from Meryl Dory from The Informed Voice Magazine

She was outraged when she saw GlaxoSmithKline (a major multinational pharmaceutical company) advertising that they will be offering $10,000 grants to medical practitioners who successfully push their DTP vaccine.After being given the run around she eventually got to speak to the Federal Department of Health but instead of getting a shocked reply to her complaint and promises of immediate action they had this to say

"Finally, I got someone at the Federal Department of Health who basically told me that this was not an issue they handled but suggested that I file a complaint with Medicines Australia."

So are Glaxo Smith Kline beyond reproach? I believe they are, it's a case of wheels within wheels and as the saying goes 'Money Talks'.