Thanks, in part, to a generous travel grant from the Autism Science Foundation, I’ll have the opportunity to attend - and of course I’ll be blogging about it over at LBRB.

For the most part, I plan to write about research, projects, researchers themselves, or talks that I find interesting and attain sufficient understanding, but I’ll also be sharing a little with LBRB readers, about the overall IMFAR experience upon my return. I’m also looking forward to attending the Autism Science Foundation’s “Science and Sandwiches” where plans for this IMFAR lunchtime edition include presentations “from six ASF-funded pre-doctoral students who will describe their new research projects”.

I’ve always been pleasantly surprised by, and appreciative of scientists in general. I’ve had the opportunity to exchange ideas with many over the last few years while writing articles at both LBRB, and here at Autism Street, and even had the benefit of informal peer review (for some of the more scientifically involved articles) prior to publishing.

I’m working on the opportunity to meet and talk with individual researchers, I also hope to write some brief “Meet the Researchers” type pieces for those who might be able to take 10 minutes for a few questions. Hopefully this can bring a certain aspect of personal conversation with some of the scientists who’ll attend this year to readers over at LBRB.

If you’re ready for a detailed IMFAR preview, check out the program. If you’re ready to dig in deep with respect to the science, the abstract book is now online.

See you over at LBRB next week!

Clinical trial of Donepezil for improving REM sleep in autistic children

Sullivan discusses his thoughts about a new clinical trial aimed at scientifically evaluating whether or not  donepezil can increase REM sleep in autistic children (possibly leading to improved cognition).

Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan honored by the Association of Health Care Journalists for autism series

Chicago Tribune journalists, Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan, were awarded first place by the Association of Health Care Journalists for their autism series Dubious Medicine. Sullivan (via Autism News Beat) brings you the details.

Does The NIH Want To Study Jenny McCarthy’s Son?

A new clinical study from the NIH wants to look at “recovered” autistic kids. Jenny McCarthy has complained on more than one occasion that no health authority seems to want to know how she “cured” her son. That looks to be a thing of the past now. Will Jenny step up to the plate and participate? Is she spreading the word to her Generation Rescue Followers?

I’m not going to bother trying to explain to Dan why he’s attacking a straw man - a likely false position of the Lancet that the retraction of Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper is grounded in statistical error due to “selection bias”. Instead, I’m simply going to present a few selected quotes from Olmsted’s piece, evidence from a document he states should have been read, and ask him to reconcile the contradiction (without resorting to conspiracy theory).

Here’s quote #1

“But this was NOT a randomized clinical trial; rather, it was a report on a series of children picked for what they had IN COMMON, which was developmental regression and a bowel disorder.”

The all caps are Olmsted’s, the bold emphasis, mine.

Here’s quote #2

“At a minimum in the Wakefield case, this would mean that key reporters breaking the story nationally – on the TV news networks and major online news sites, in the big dailies and magazines – needed to be familiar with three things: Wakefield’s original paper; the General Medical Council ruling from the week before that found his ethical behavior “dishonest,” and The Lancet retraction of the paper itself that quickly followed.”

I agree, and the bold emphasis is mine.

Here’s quotes #3 and #4

So, again, what exactly did Wakefield do wrong?

We fail to see a problem here.

I’m glad Olmsted noted that he, et al. fail to see a problem, because that’s different than asserting that there is no problem. It means that if one can bring the problem out into the light for all to see, then perhaps (although possibly unlikely if he’s wearing his Wakefield fanboy goggles), the problem will then be visible to him, et al.

So in the first quote, Olmsted claims (similarly to the that infamous Lancet paper of 1998) that something the Lancet study children had in common was a bowel disorder. In the second quote, Olmsted states that familiarity with the GMC ruling is needed. And in the third and fourth quotes, Olmsted asks a question and highlights collective ignorance.

Here’s the piece of evidence I mentioned, from the document Olmsted says journalists should be familiar with.

[The entire document (recommended reading) is available online, by clicking on the image above]

Still fail to see the problem, Dan?

You said (so did the infamous Lancet paper, in so many words):

“a series of children picked for what they had IN COMMON, which was developmental regression and a bowel disorder“

The GMC ruling, which you say should have been read, clearly shows that four of the twelve children did not have any reported history of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Having regard to its findings in relation to Child 1, 9, 5 and 10, namely that these children were admitted to undergo a programme of investigations for research purposes, and that they all lacked a history of gastrointestinal symptoms

Are you getting this Dan? Without resorting to conspiracy theory, can you reconcile it? Do you understand that this means that your claim (and the Lancet paper’s claim) about what was actually studied, is false?  Do you see how this impacts the underlying science? Dan, this is the United States calling, are we reaching?

You’re probably also aware that the journal Neurotoxicology withdrew, what is now to many, Hewitson-Wakefield’s infamous “monkey study“.

Finally, it’s been reported that Andrew Wakefield no longer calls Thoughtful House his workplace.

It’s been an eventful couple of weeks for those who’ve been following news about Andrew Wakefield, and to say the least, it doesn’t look good for Wakefield.  Probably interesting to at least some, was the relative lack of any public statement amidst recent events, by Wakefield (or Thoughtful House, until very recently, and indirectly at that). Wakefield has seemed to remain pretty much silent. But, the silence is apparently over.

Where did Wakefield make what appears to be his first public statement in a couple of weeks? At the AoA Blog, in an interview with Dan Olmsted.

“There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from the autism community in response to the events of the last two weeks”, Wakefield told Age of Autism in an exclusive interview. “The most exciting part of it has been the opening up of an entirely new sort of opportunity that will allow me to continue my work on behalf of autism families.” Wakefield said he would provide more specifics on the nature of that opportunity soon. “In addition, I will now speak publicly to refute the findings that have been made against me. I know my necessary silence on these issues has troubled many parents in both the U.K. and the U.S. But I’m ready now to get back on the front foot and publicly contest the false accusations that have been made against me, my colleagues, and indirectly The Lancet children. It’s been long overdue.”

I have no doubt that Wakefield will now indeed “speak publicly” to attempt to refute the findings. My guess would be that the audience he will speak publicly to, may not necessarily include the Lancet, Neurotoxicology, or the GMC (I could be wrong about that though). It’s probably more likely to be of the eager listeners, long-time-supporters sort.

Regardless of what Wakefield does next with respect to the GMC findings, I find it interesting that he’s apparently remained silent the past couple of weeks, but now given his first “exclusive interview” in a fringe anti-vaccination, heavy on the alt med advertising blog.

It’s pathetic really.

Didn’t any “real” news outlets want to talk with Wakefield about his departure from Thoughtful House? Perhaps not. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

During part of his “exclusive interview” over at Age Of Advertising, Wakefield is quoted as saying:

“I have always followed the principle that good medicine, and ultimately good science, begins and ends with the patient. We need to remember that the purpose of medical science is not to serve the medical industry but rather the interests of the patients the industry serves.”

“Good medicine”? Beginning and ending “with the patient”? Good grief. Don’t people know that Wakefield is not licensed to practice medicine in the U.S.? It’s doubtful that he’d actually be involved with any patient care whatsoever.

_____

ETA:  Science Mom over at Justthevax blog takes note as well in:
And So the Spin Begins

Ted Talk by Aimee Mullins

about facing adversity. Carefully consider her message, and the potential impact of adaptation - you might just gain new perspective on “disability” along the way too.

My favorite quotes from the talk:

“We have to make sure that we don’t put the first brick in a wall that will acutally disable someone. Perhaps the existing model of only looking at what is broken in you and how do we fix it, serves to be more disabling to the individual than the pathology itself.”

“I think the greatest adversity that we’ve created for ourselves is this idea of normalcy. Who’s normal? There is no normal. There’s common. There’s typical.”

What were yours?

By now, many are aware of the proposed changes the DSM for autism that will subsume Asperger’s and PDD-NOS.

Some have expressed the view that this is a good thing, yet others seem to feign agreement while also expressing some degree of contempt.

Amidst the apparent concerns of a few, there are voices focused on the ethical and human rights implications of opposing the DSM changes. Particularly, please read Angry Aspies, Please Go Away by Bev over at Square 8.

On a side note: I know Bev to be a person who diligently promotes acceptance and human rights for all autistic people, and she’s apparently an early adopter of the pending new definition - she’s already changed the title of her blog and description of its purpose (it used to be Asperger Square 8).

If you’re interested in a little more background, check out Conversations by ABFH over at Whose Planet Is It Anyway?.

In addition to Bev and ABFH’s places, more discussion can be found over at Left Brain Right Brain, where Bev’s post also caught Kev’s eye. While I was perusing the comments at LBRB, this comment from Daedalus2u stood out. It’s empathetic at first and thoughtful throughout, but if you ask me, it succinctly points out what is right in this whole thing as a conclusion.

The only reason that some people with Asperger’s are angry with the definition of autism being changed is because they feel that being attached with the label “autism” does bring stigma. This is unfortunate. The purpose of a differential diagnosis is differential medical treatment. If there is no difference in treatment, there is no need or utility for a differential diagnosis.

What I find especially ironic is that the tendency to attach stigma to those who are “different” is usually a trait usually more associated with those with neurotypical development. It is a part of “human nature” to form a social hierarchy and put “the other” at the bottom. All social animals have a pecking order. Humans are no exception. Humans who are trying to be accepting of neurodiversity are trying to be different.

I have Asperger’s. I am not “proud” of my Asperger’s. I did nothing to acquire Asperger’s, I did nothing to change the course of my Asperger’s. I reserve my “pride” for things that I have done, not for things that are completely beyond my control.

I am not “proud” that I have ten fingers, two arms, two legs and ten toes. Why should I be? Why should I attach stigma to someone who has a different number of fingers, arms, legs or toes? I am proud of things that I have built with my hands, but that is something that I have done. A person with nine fingers has every right to be proud of what he/she has accomplished with those nine fingers too. My accomplishments with ten fingers do not detract from someone else’s accomplishments with ten or nine, eleven, or even with no fingers.

A change in the label that others attach to me does not change who I am in the slightest bit. It has not the slightest reflection on me, who I am, what I have done, or what I might do. It is very unfortunate that there is so much “othering” of people with labels and stigma. Stigmatizing other people is easy, that is the normal human default condition. Rising above that and not stigmatizing other people simply because they are different is difficult. It is something worth trying to do; and something worth being proud of when you are successful.

Other writing from Daedalus2u can be found at his blog.

In a recent article by Trine Tsouderos at the Chicago Tribune, the anti-vaccination brigade infested the comments like fleas. There was relatively little actual commentary on the article itself, the intersting points it raised, or the subject of the article - Boyd Haley’s new “dietary ingredient“ - OSR, that’s apparently being given to autistic children by parents who believe their childrens’ autism diagnoses are the result of some condition that is mecury-induced. Instead, anti-vaccine commenters turn the dialogue to vaccines, pharmaceutical industry conspiracy, and seem to spend more time attempting to appeal to fear than anything else.

One of the pervasive appeals to fear from vaccine rejectors is of course mercury in flu shots. They have to bring up flu shots most of the time, because they know (or should know) that mercury (ethylmercury specifically, present in the preservative Thimerosal, in multi-dose vials of injectable flu vaccines) has essentially been removed from the routine childhood vaccines that used to contain it. It’s been greatly reduced, or has been pretty much gone for seven or eight years now. The “Flu shots” is pretty much all they’ve got.

Nevermind that the anti-vaccination advocates never provide data about pediatric uptake of flu shots that actually contain Thimerosal. Nevermind that they don’t acknowledge the general availability of Thimerosal-free flu shots for pediatric patients. It seems like they’d pretty much prefer that others buy in to mercury fear. How do they fan the flames of fear? With misinformation. Here’s a fairly typical scare quote:

“And finally consider the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency HAS established a maximum daily dose of one tenth of a microgram per day per 2.2 pounds of body weight. The means a single flu shot with thimerosal would require a child to weigh 550 pounds in order to NOT exceed the USEPA DAILY amount per body weight.”

Holy crap, my kid doesn’t weigh 550 pounds! It seems that the author of this comment would have readers believe that kids being vaccinated for influenza are being overdosed with mercury - but, although it may appear scary on the surface, there’s more than one problem with this argument.

Here’s what this commenter’s argument would look like if it were factually correct:

“And finally, consider the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has established a daily oral intake reference dose for methylmercury of one tenth of a microgram  per 2.2 pounds of body weight. This means a thimerosal-containing flu shot given every single day of a child’s life for 75 years, would require a child to weigh 550 pounds in order to not to exceed the EPA’s oral RfD for methylmercury“

In case you’re wondering, thimerosal-containing flu shots don’t contain methylmercury, and children don’t get them every single day of their lives for 75 years.

The EPA’s RfD (Reference Dose) For Mercury

What is it really, and why does the EPA even have an Oral RfD for methylmercury? The answer is pretty simple. The EPA provides standardized guidance for exposure to methylmercury from seafood consumption to enable other federal, state, and local health agencies to make appropriate health advisories about seafood consumption.

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories

Lot’s of additional links to information from the EPA can be found at this link, and information (including citations of the supporting science) from the EPA about the .1µg/kg body weight RfD  can be found at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm. Yet more information is available from the National Academies Press(free to read online).

Two Big Problems With The Thimerosal-Containing Flu Shot Comparison

The first and perhaps most noticeable thing about this .1µg/kg body weight RfD is that it is for methylmercury, which has absolutely nothing to do with Thimerosal in Flu Shots. Methylmercury and ethylmercury are not the same substance. Methylmercury is not used in any vaccine - it typically finds it’s way into humans via the consumption of seafood. The half-life of ethylmercury and methylmercury in the blood of humans appears to be markedly different too (with ethylmercury clearing much more rapidly than methylmercury).

The second thing about the RfD that stands out as incongruous between the 550lb-kid canard and reality is that a flu shot is a one-time annual event. The RfD is clearly based on a reasonable expectation of safety with daily exposure, even by sensitive subgroups, over an entire lifetime. It’s not a simple one-day limit as implied by the canard.

The oral Reference Dose (RfD) is based on the assumption that thresholds exist for certain toxic effects such as cellular necrosis. It is expressed in units of mg/kg-day. In general, the RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.

[Emphasis mine].

It’s probably makes sense to most readers that understanding RfD in terms of daily exposure over a lifetime, paves the way for meaningful and standardized comparison to average weekly seafood consumption. It’s fairly straightforward for other agencies to adjust advisories (and make adjustments -  for things like local contaminant levels, or variability of mercury levels among different fish species). It doesn’t take a PhD to understand that seafood consumption advice expressed as .1µg/kg body weight, daily, over a lifetime is probably less useful for most consumers than say, specific guidance on number of meals per week for different types of fish [example].

For most readers, it won’t be terribly difficult understand that EPA RfD for MeHg really isn’t relevant to thimerosal-containing flu vaccines at all. There are those who will claim in some form or another, “but it is relevant, the government says so”. We’ll get to that in a minute, but first, let take a look at a real live example.

The Canard/Comparison In Action

To look for an example of this canard in action (other than in blog comments by people with likely anti-vaccination leanings), one need look no further than the NVIC.org website (Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder and President, and Kathi Williams, Co-Founder and Vice President). The NVIC website, which claims a title of “America’s Vaccine Safety Watchdog”, prominently displays a large graphical link to a “Vaccine Ingredients Calculator” dead center of its main page (as of this writing).

A quick visit to the calculator, entry of data for an average 12-month old, and selection of a Thimerosal-containing flu shot, reveals some interesting “RESULTS”.

There are problems with these “RESULTS”.

For now, disregard the fact that when Thimerosal-containing Fluzone was chosen there was no mention that the thimerosal-free version is the recommended, specifically packaged and labeled, and noted in the Fluzone dosing table for pediatric patients: 6-35 months (although a thimerosal-free version is listed in the vaccine choices of the Vaccine Ingredients Calculator). There are the two big problems with the comparison of a thimerosal-containing flu shot to the EPA’s RfD, that make this a perfect example of the canard.

1. Step 5 (Calculate mercury exposure) states, “Based on EPA standard of 0.1 mcg/kg/day.”

It should be clear that the EPA establishes no such standard for the ethylmercury in Thimerosal in a vaccine. Remember, the EPA’s reference dose is for methylmercury.

2. “RESULTS:” states, “Mercury amount the EPA says a 12 month-old can handle today: 1.0 mcg”.

If you’ve read any of the EPA reference materials linked in previous paragraphs, you should have no trouble recognizing that this is misleading! The EPA says no such thing. The EPA does say how much methylmercury a 12 month-old could ingest every day for 75 years (how a “lifetime” was defined), even if the 12 month-old is the most sensitive in the population, with a reasonable expectation of safety. Additionally, even if we were talking about ingested methylmercury, the EPA guidance is for daily exposure over a lifetime - it does not say anything about a single day event (e.g. “can handle today”).

Here’s the bottom line - The EPA reference dose is for the ingestion of methylmercury (primarily to provide scientific guidance for seafood consumption). The reference dose is an evidence-based guideline for a reasonable expectation of safety, expressed in a daily exposure amount, standardized to body weight,  over a person’s entire life. There’s a 10-fold safety factor built-in, and it’s intended to protect the most sensitive in the population.

The EPA RfD for oral MeHg has absolutely nothing to do with vaccines!

But wait… ”The Government Compared Thimerosal In Vaccines To The EPA’s Oral RfD for MeHg!”

It’s true. The FDA did consider ethyl- and methyl- mercury as if they were “equivalents”  in its risk evaluation - of 1999.

FDA has been actively addressing the issue of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001).

As part of the FDAMA review, the FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethylmercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methylmercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury.

As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines.

The FDA has also noted newer science that demonstrates a lack of equivalence between ethyl- and methyl-mercury since then, such as Pichichero et al., 2002:

Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies. Further, mercury was cleared from the blood in infants exposed to thimerosal faster than would be predicted for methyl mercury; infants excreted significant amounts of mercury in stool after thimerosal exposure, thus removing mercury from their bodies. These results suggest that there are differences in the way that thimerosal and methyl mercury are distributed, metabolized, and excreted. Thimerosal appears to be removed from the blood and body more rapidly than methyl mercury.

A Final Note On The “EPA Mercury Limit” Canard

The EPA’s oral RfD for MeHg has nothing to do with vaccines. Just because the FDA used it as a basis for comparison (considering it an “equivalent” for a study, but not claiming it was actually equivalent) to estimated ethylmercury exposure from vaccines in 1999, does not mean the EPA has said anything about ethylmercury in vaccines, let alone that it has set a “maximum daily dose”. To state or imply that the EPA has (such as in the case of the blog commenter), is inaccurate. To imply that the EPA guideline is a valid comparison, only to justify the validity of such a comparison by claiming the FDA drew such a conclusion is misleading. The FDA did compare exposure to ethylmercury to the guideline for methylmecury intake in their review in 1999, but did so in the lack of “existing guidelines for ethylmercury”, not because the two forms of mercury are equivalent.

Liz over at I Speak Of Dreams is keeping a list of several blog responses.

Visit the following link for more:

tinyurl.com/yz3vpor

If you’re a hard-working parent with school-aged children (perhaps even children enrolled in a couple of different public schools) who really can’t afford to have sick kids, let alone be sick and miss work yourself, the answer should be pretty straightforward.

A nasty case (or cases) of influenza in the household can create a few to several days of real overall misery (and serious illness in severe cases). And, while not perfect by any means, it’s pretty much a no-brainer to most intelligent people that even a modest reduction in the probability that you or a family member contracts influenza, or spreads it to others, is a good thing. Yes, the common-sense measures like regular hand washing and keeping sick kids at home, etc. are good ideas, and probably help decrease those probabilities quite a bit, but the scientific consensus is that getting vaccinated against influenza is a great way to decrease those probabilities.

Vaccine (and seemingly mainstream medicine) rejectors often parrot the claim that flu vaccines “don’t work”. While efficacy is seasonally variable, and influenza vaccines are by no means perfect, published science on the subject provides a different picture. Anti-vaccination advocates putting forth a claim that flu vaccines “don’t work” in support of not vaccinating, are doing little more that propogating logical fallacy (the Nirvana fallacy). Getting a Flu shot for yourself (or for your children, if you have them) is not an expression of false belief in instant invincibility or unchecked faith in the pharmaceutical industry, rather it is a rational and very simple step to take in order to decrease the odds of getting sick yourself and/or transmitting the flu to others. Just because a flu vaccine may not be perfect, does not mean all the chances that illness could be reduced/avoided should be tossed out.

Perhaps you’re one of those conscientious types who understands contribution to herd immunity, and its importance to infants who are too young to be vaccinated and to those patients who really can’t get a flu shot for medical reasons, and yes its unrecognized and probably denied importance to knuckleheads who refuse vaccines for themselves and their children. If you are that supportive of herd immunity type, there’s a good chance you’re quite capable of an informal, yet reality-based risk/benefit analysis; and that you probably already understand the relative statistical safety of getting a flu shot for yourself or your kids compared to, say, driving (or putting your children in a car and driving them school).

As a skeptic, it’s tempting to state that any discussion of flu shots is completely irrelevant to autism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Flu shots are relevant to all kids, including autistic ones. The bottom line is that both my typical, and my autistic children need to be in school. Among many other very important things, that’s the only place they get a regular and critical component of their education - learning through peer interaction. Missing school due to being nailed by influenza, is something to be avoided. Could my typical kids make up for that lost peer interaction time? Yes. Could my autistic kids make up for that lost peer interaction time? Absolutely yes too, but it will likely be a little more difficult, and may take a little longer. That’s just the way it is.

The reality is that all kids need to be healthy and in school to get the most out of it. The reality is that all kids need parents (or a parent) who is healthy and can provide, parent, and advocate for them. Reality is that increasing the odds of staying healthy, whether a season for modest or great increase in those odds of staying disease-free, is a good thing.

Remember, Nirvana is not the goal of a flu shot, reality is.

The good news is that a technique like this is fairly easy to do - there is no javascript or anything like that, all you need is two images (link to zip file containing both provided below) and a little know-how to add the link to the html of your blog and add some styling to the CSS.

 
Here’s how it works:

When the Autism Street page loads, it loads this entire image (”ahbutton.png”) in a single browser request as the background for the button.

Where the Autism-Hub button appears in the sidebar, the actual linked image is a 1×1 pixel transparent .gif file (”transparent.gif”), with a hyperlink to the Autism-Hub. The first part of this little trick is that the link area you can click on for that little 1×1 pixel transparent image is expanded to be the entire size of the hub button. The second part is that what’s seen through that transparent .gif file is a background that is the Autism-Hub button (the double image above) - the position of the background is simply moved for the hover mouse state, and the “width” and “overflow-hidden” constraints only reveal half of the background image. This switches between the low and high color states effortlessly and rapidly.

In the end what we have is a button that looks and works like this.

 
Here are the two images you’ll need (in a single .zip file).

If you’re an Autism-Hub blogger who’d like to give this a try Please host them on your own server or other suitable location, as links back to this site will be disabled, and you’ll be stuck with a non-functioning button.

ahbutton.zip

 
Here’s the sample HTML.

We’re simply creating a separate div class for the button (so it can be placed anywhere on your blog, and have the necessary style applied), calling up the transparent image, and linking it to the Autism-Hub.

<div class=”hub-button”><a title=”Visit the Autism Hub” href=”http://www.autism-hub.co.uk” target=”blank”><img src=”http://yoursite/transparent.gif” border=”none” alt=”Autism Hub” /></a></div>

 
Here’s the sample CSS that goes in your relevant stylesheet.

We’re specifying the size of the div that will contain the button, and pointing to, and positioning the background depending on the hover state.

.hub-button {
width: 120px;
overflow: hidden;
}

.hub-button a {
display: block;
width: 120px;
height: 48px;
background: url(’http://yoursite/ahbutton.png’) no-repeat;
background-position: 0px 0px;
}

.hub-button a:hover {
display: block;
width: 120px;
height: 48px;
background: url(’http://yoursite/ahbutton.png’) no-repeat;
background-position: -120px 0px;
}

 
As might be expected, these images and the sample code are provided “as is”.

By downloading (if you choose to do so), you acknowledge that you are solely responsible for their technical implementation and use.

Questions are welcome in the comments if you have them.