Autism Vox

Does it all add up? Olmsted on autism, Still’s, Pink Disease

by Kristina Chew, PhD on November 10th, 2006

Dan Olmsted in The Age of Autism: Still’s and Pink’s (November 9) thinks it must be more than a coincidence that Donald T., the first child diagnosed with autism by Leo Kanner, not only had Still’s disease—”a systemic form of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) in which the immune system inexplicably attacks the body”—but also that JRA was cured with gold salts. Without stating so outright, Olmsted connects autism to JRA/Still’s disease to Pink Disease:

Because Donald’s was the first case of autism ever formally diagnosed, trying to estimate its prevalence at the time is no easy thing. Suffice it to say that autistic children were rare; let’s use the widely accepted early figure of 1 in 10,000 children (it’s more like 40 per 10,000 today).

Now, how rare is Still’s disease? It looks to be even rarer, but for simplicity’s sake let’s put it at 1 in 10,000 as well. Doing the math — 10,000 times 10,000 — suggests that having the two separate disorders just by chance is a 1-in-a-billion shot. Effectively, Donald would have been the only person in America in 1947 who just happened to have both.

And on top of that, he’s autism’s Case 1?

Oh, brother. This does not compute.

But do Olmsted’s connections “compute”—-or is he simply connecting symptoms noted in one article about one disease to another article about another one?

Olmsted notes that that the “‘peculiar, transient ’salmon-pink’ rash” that characterizes Still’s “reminds” him of Pink’s disease or Pink disease, which occurs in children and which is caused by mercury poisoning in babies. Babies who are hyper-sensitive to mercury get Pink disease, which became rare in 1947, after it was discovered that teething powder and other baby products often contained mercury. Olmsted then connects Pink disease to “the nervous child”: In a 1943 article in the Journal of Pediatrics, children with Pink disease are said to be “disturbed emotionally; they are ‘nervous children’ and … they conform to the ‘nervous child’ syndrome.” And, as Olmsted notes in his final connection in this series of disorders, “The Nervous Child” is the name of the journal in which Leo Kanner published his first study on autism, “Autistic disturbances of affective contact” (1943).

Concludes Olmsted:

Nor can I forget how Donald’s brother described the impact of the gold salts: “The nervous condition he was formerly afflicted with was gone. The proclivity toward excitability and extreme nervousness had all but cleared up.”

Olmsted ends his The Age of Autism: Still’s and Pink’s rhetorically:

I’m not suggesting Donald had Pink’s disease. But I do wonder if his remarkable recovery across the board should have raised a lot more questions a long, long time ago.

In classical rhetoric Olmsted’s “I’m not suggesting Donald had Pink’s disease” is a use of the trope called litotes, in which one affirms a positive point by using a negative statement. For instance, at John 6:37 in the Bible, “I will in no wise cast out” means “I will certainly receive.” Another example of litotes would be “not unwelcome” on a mat in front of your front door. So Olmsted’s “I’m not suggesting Donald had Pink’s disease” can be read as saying “I am most certainly suggesting Donald had Pink’s disease,” and that is why he is most certainly suggesting that Donald’s “remarkable recovery across the board should have raised a lot more questions a long, long time ago.”

A question to raise right now is, does autism = JRA/Still’s disease = Pink disease “compute”?

Or, as a researcher a few weeks ago hypothesized, does watching TV in places where it rains a lot adds up to causing autism?

Share This

Related Stories

Epitasis and Aposiopesis: On Dan Olmsted’s rhetoric
The Autistic/Has Autism Question
The Age of Autism Awards 2006
Olmsted on Newsweek: Diagnosis, Epidemic & 1985
A Ribbon for Katherine

POSTED IN: Classics, Diagnosis, Health, History, Treatment