Alongside the error strewn Edelson piece that I already blogged about, Communication also ran a response from Paul Shattock that avoided Edelson’s mistakes of making factual errors about chelation and Tariq Nadama by simply going for a handbag wielding biatch attack more suited to Paris Hilton sulking about Nicole Ritchie wearing the same dress as her:
Although of no relevance, Michael Fitzpatrick’s views on biomedical approaches designed to
ameliorate some difficulties experienced by people with autism, and on me personally, are widely disseminated in newspaper and magazine articles and blogs. I remain unenthusiastic about encouraging
discussions of my personal inadequacies in Communication.
Miaow! Paul Shattock’s lip trembles with rage as he considers the lack of worth of Michael Fitzpatrick’s opinion.
Actually, I can’t recall on part of Mike’s book that espoused any views on Paul Shattock. Having just done a quick check, I see that he appears 3 times. Once in the Preface, once on page 71 and once on page 118. On none of these occasions does Mike express any opinions on Paul Shattock.
He goes on:
Evidence of efficacy for many interventions from appropriate and scientifically valid research-based protocols is being published.
Hear we go again. ‘Is being published’. How long has the autism community been hearing this? Tell us when Mr Shattock, or preferably, refer to supporting material that has been published in a decent journal. And what ‘interventions’ are we talking about? Mr Shattock is utterly ambiguous.
Shattock then goes on to claim that the entire membership of NAS wants research into such things. I can assure him thats nowhere near true. I can think of several NAS members who want to move on from this never ending promise of science that is always ‘coming soon’ and yet never arriving.
Shattock goes on:
The American Academy of Paediatricians (AAP) is now actively investigating the usefulness of such interventions and members of the American Academy of Paediatric Gastroenterologists (AAPG) are currently collaborating with the Autism Society of America (ASA) and the Autism Research Institute (ARI) in investigating gastrointestinal issues.
I think Mr Shattock maybe overestimating the AAP ’s keenness to stay chummy with ARI. I also can’t find any org called the American Academy of Paediatric Gastroenterologists so I can’t comment on how closely they’re working with ARI, or if they exist at all.
Shattock fumed on:
Professor Rutter, at the recent NAS conference, drew attention to the need to investigate environmental factors and mechanisms involved in triggering autism and to study dietary
treatments for autism.
Mike Stanton saw Rutter at that conference. He didn’t mention what Shattock reports but there’s nothing particularly earth shattering about the idea of environmental factors and mechanisms being involved with autism – except we all know what Shattock, one time warm-up man for Andrew Wakefield, really thinks these are, and for those there is no evidence and I also doubt Rutter has any truck with these ideas either.
Its an odd, petulant semi-rant from Shattock. I have no idea what use he thinks it will be to seemingly purposefully misinterpret Mike’s words. It should be easy to refute Mike – stop talking about studies that will be published and get on with publishing them. Science is the final arbiter of scientific ideas, not a mudsling from someone on the edge of scientific ideas regarding autism.
Alongside the error strewn Edelson piece that I already blogged about, Communication also ran a response from Paul Shattock that avoided Edelson’s mistakes of making factual errors about chelation and Tariq Nadama by simply going for a handbag wielding biatch attack more suited to Paris Hilton sulking about Nicole Ritchie wearing the same dress as her:
Miaow! Paul Shattock’s lip trembles with rage as he considers the lack of worth of Michael Fitzpatrick’s opinion.
Actually, I can’t recall on part of Mike’s book that espoused any views on Paul Shattock. Having just done a quick check, I see that he appears 3 times. Once in the Preface, once on page 71 and once on page 118. On none of these occasions does Mike express any opinions on Paul Shattock.
He goes on:
Hear we go again. ‘Is being published’. How long has the autism community been hearing this? Tell us when Mr Shattock, or preferably, refer to supporting material that has been published in a decent journal. And what ‘interventions’ are we talking about? Mr Shattock is utterly ambiguous.
Shattock then goes on to claim that the entire membership of NAS wants research into such things. I can assure him thats nowhere near true. I can think of several NAS members who want to move on from this never ending promise of science that is always ‘coming soon’ and yet never arriving.
Shattock goes on:
I think Mr Shattock maybe overestimating the AAP ’s keenness to stay chummy with ARI. I also can’t find any org called the American Academy of Paediatric Gastroenterologists so I can’t comment on how closely they’re working with ARI, or if they exist at all.
Shattock fumed on:
Mike Stanton saw Rutter at that conference. He didn’t mention what Shattock reports but there’s nothing particularly earth shattering about the idea of environmental factors and mechanisms being involved with autism – except we all know what Shattock, one time warm-up man for Andrew Wakefield, really thinks these are, and for those there is no evidence and I also doubt Rutter has any truck with these ideas either.
Its an odd, petulant semi-rant from Shattock. I have no idea what use he thinks it will be to seemingly purposefully misinterpret Mike’s words. It should be easy to refute Mike – stop talking about studies that will be published and get on with publishing them. Science is the final arbiter of scientific ideas, not a mudsling from someone on the edge of scientific ideas regarding autism.