Olmsted on Autism: The breast cancer analogy

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- One big problem the autism community faces is lousy coverage by Big Media. Where is the curiosity and sense of urgency in the face of the soaring autism rate? Where is the willingness to challenge self-interested parties like the CDC and the AAP rather than rewriting their press releases and calling it a day?

This kind of coverage is not limited to autism, and it can be revealing to look at other illnesses and see the same kind of haphazard and just plain mediocre reporting. This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so let's make it a case study.

Time Magazine's Oct. 15 cover says, "Why Breast Cancer is Spreading Around the World." You'd expect when you read the story to find out why, would you not? But the story itself is a mish-mash. Rather than focus in-depth on the question, the article offers touching but irrelevant anecdotes (so-and-so in China was recently diagnosed and might not have been a decade ago) and pointless diversions. "Of all the things that can determine a woman's chances of surviving breast cancer, perhaps one of the most powerful is the simple matter of race."

Well, that's interesting and important, but it has zero to do with "why breast cancer is spreading around the world." Time devotes only a couple of paragraphs to answering its cover question.

Here are the reasons Time offers:

1)  "Women are simply living long enough to reach the age at which they're most susceptible to breast cancer."

2)  "With Westernized life spans, however, can come Western habits too – fatty foods, lack of exercise and obesity, all of which may raise the incidence of breast cancer."

3) Having fewer children can raise breast cancer risk.

4) There are a bunch of other tenuous and unproven links, from anti-perspirants to birth control pills.

And that's all, folks. Longer lives, fewer children, more habits like ours – that's why breast cancer is spreading around the world. What is a woman supposed to do with this information besides buy lean beef, walk briskly for 20 minutes three times a week and talk to her doctor about what medication option is right for her – the usual panacea for everything that ails anyone. I paid $4.95 for this? There's got to be more going on here.

And there is. In an unfortunate bit of timing for Time, a study came out the same week that raised the issue the magazine ignored – the environment. The Washington Post reported, "A new study has found a significant link between women's exposure to DDT as young girls and the development of breast cancer later in life.

"The results are something of a surprise, researchers said, because several previous studies have found no link between cancer and the insecticide, which was widely used during the 1950s and '60s but was banned in the United States in 1972."

Now we're back in familiar territory, aren't we, fellow autism travelers? A whole host of flawed studies over many years found "no link" between DDT and breast cancer. Meanwhile, it's banned here but used in developing countries, perhaps with unintended consequences for a whole generation.

I don't want to get into a debate about DDT; it's possible the risk of malaria, which kills 1 million children a year, may outweigh the risk of judicious use of DDT. What I want to point out is that DDT is one plausible factor in the rise of breast cancer around the world – a phenomenon Time basically attributes to eating too many cheeseburgers, having two kids instead of 10 and lazing around the office rather than picking cotton by hand.

Nor is DDT the only possible environmental factor ignored by Time. Spurred by the contrast between the Time article and the DDT study, I found dozens of Web sites and numerous studies that focus on an environmental component to breast cancer. To pick just one, Breast Cancer Action has a fact sheet on its Web site, www.bcaction.org, titled "What you should know about breast cancer and the environment."

As Dick Engberg would say, Oh my. Turns out there are all kinds of plausible environmental factors. You can read about organochlorides, plastic additives and ionizing radiation. You can learn that "Of an estimated 85,000 chemicals in use today, more than 90 percent have never been tested for their effects on human health. Meanwhile, production of these chemicals is rising at least 3.3 percent a year." And spreading around the world, no doubt.

What needs to be done? Breast Cancer Action says we need to reduce our exposure to chemical carcinogens, make companies accountable for their products and – again, this will be especially familiar – make "research into environmental links to diseases" a priority. "In order to stop cancer where it starts, we need to spend as much time and money researching causes as we spend looking for cures."

The highly respected Susan G. Komen foundation is on the same trail. Just this past May, they and the Silent Spring Institute (remember Rachel Carson and DDT?) published "Environmental Factors in Breast Cancer," which it describes as "the most comprehensive review to date of scientific research on environmental factors that may increase breast cancer risk. "

They go on to say that "researchers identify 216 chemicals that cause breast cancer in animals" and have created an online database with information on each carcinogen. What's more, the study findings were published in June in Cancer, a journal of the American Cancer Society. You don't get much more mainstream than that.

What we have here, Luke, is a failure to communicate the full story of breast cancer risk by the most trusted magazine in America. And that is no aberration – Time after Time, so to speak, the major media outlets simply don't do a very good job of delving into environmental factors that lead to a higher incidence of diseases and disorders.

Thus the analogy to autism. Once-over-lightly is what we're getting from the folks who are supposed to be independently digging for the truth (the whole truth) themselves. We need to do a lot better than that, but more and more it looks like we'll have to do it ourselves. And we will.

Comments

[Diane]

Not pertaining to cause, but detection....
Yesterday, Pediatricians recommended that all children be screened twice for autism before the age of two. Its like mamograms for babies!

[Rich]

No to take too much of a diversion here, but your DDT story links up well with other recent big news: the success of theGates Foundation malaria vaccine phase II trial.

So, a vaccine could not only save millions of children's lives but also avoid cancer by removing DDT from the environment?

Sounds really cool to me.

[Les]

How about this factor in non-familial autism?

"It is very possible that Paternal Age is the Major Predictor for autism---"Harry Fisch, MD

Harry Fisch is the author of The Male Biological Clock, The Patient's Guide to Vasectomy Reversal, The Patient's Guide to Varicocele Repair and Managing The Vasectomy Patient. He is one of the nation's leaders in the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility and microsurgical vasectomy reversal. Dr. Fisch is director of the Male Reproductive Center and directs urologic microsurgery in the Department of Urology at Columbia University Medical Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. He is also professor of clinical urology at Columbia University, where he was recently named Teacher of the Year in his department.
For over fifteen years, Dr. Fisch has focused his research, practice, and surgery on male infertility and reproduction.

http://autism-prevention.blogspot.com/

[Sonja]

Thanks Dan for another great piece...too bad Time won't publish this article. You are absolutely right...we will have to do it ourselves...it is already happening...what we need is cohesion...that part is a bit more difficult but will happen with time (no pun). The truth always emerges eventually. What we need to do is to speed it up. Keep writing.