Kevin's Watch

Study: Vaccine blocks cervical cancer
'100 percent efficacy' against cancer-causing virus, maker says

Thursday, October 6, 2005; Posted: 8:04 a.m. EDT (12:04 GMT)
TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- The first major study of an experimental vaccine to prevent cervical cancer found it was 100 percent effective, in the short term, at blocking the disease and lesions likely to turn cancerous, drug maker Merck & Co. said.

Gardasil, a genetically engineered vaccine, blocks infection with two of the 100-plus types of human papilloma virus, HPV 16 and 18. The two sexually transmitted viruses together cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.

Other types of HPV also can cause cervical cancer and painful genital warts. About 20 million Americans have some form of HPV.

The final-stage study of Gardasil included 10,559 sexually active women ages 16 to 26 in the United States and 12 other countries who were not infected with HPV 16 or 18. Half got three vaccine doses over six months; half got dummy shots.

Among those still virus-free after the six months, none who received the vaccine developed cervical cancer or precancerous lesions over an average two years of follow-up, compared with 21 who got dummy shots.

"To have 100 percent efficacy is something that you have very rarely," Dr. Eliav Barr, Merck's head of clinical development for Gardasil, told The Associated Press. "We're breaking out the champagne."

The study, which was funded by Merck, was to be presented Friday at a meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

A second analysis, including hundreds more women participating in the ongoing study, showed that after just one dose the vaccine was 97 percent effective. That analysis found only one of the 5,736 women who got the vaccine developed cervical cancer or precancerous lesions, compared with 36 among the 5,766 who got dummy shots.

Barr said the 97 percent rate was more "real world," given that patients sometimes miss or delay follow-up shots or tests.

"I see this as a phenomenal breakthrough," said Dr. Gloria Bachmann, director of The Women's Health Institute at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick.

Bachmann said diagnosis of infection leaves women anxious over the heightened risk of cervical cancer and raises questions among couples about infidelity and prior sexual activity.

"You have to get students in grammar school, middle school, high school (vaccinated) before they become sexually active," she said.

Cervical cancer is the second-most common cancer in women and their No. 2 cause of cancer deaths, resulting in about 3,000 deaths in the United States and nearly 300,000 around the world each year. At least half of sexually active men and women become infected with genital HPV at some point.

The immune system clears most such infections in a year or two, but several types of HPV can persist, cause cervical cancer or trigger other cancers in the genital area. There is no cure for HPV, but the cancers can be treated and an improved Pap test is catching more cervical cancer before it has spread.

Whitehouse Station-based Merck, hammered by slumping revenues and profits and facing roughly 5,000 lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, is seeking to beat rival drug maker GlaxoSmithKline to market with the first cervical cancer vaccine.

GlaxoSmithKline did not return a call seeking comment, but has published research showing its vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 prevents persistent HPV infection. The Merck vaccine also reduces infection with HPV 6 and 11, which cause 90 percent of genital warts cases.

Merck plans by year's end to seek Food and Drug Administration approval to sell its vaccine for use by girls and young women.

"If all goes well, sometime in 2006 it should be on the market," Barr said.

Merck is continuing research on Gardasil and will soon report on four years of follow-up on women in the current study. The company also will explore whether the vaccine's effectiveness wanes over time. Barr noted that some women in the study developed dangerous precancerous lesions caused by HPV types other than 16 and 18.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Doctors challenge baby feeding myths
Doctors say fighting obesity might mean changing early habits

Monday, October 10, 2005; Posted: 11:33 a.m. EDT (15:33 GMT)
(AP) -- Ditch the rice cereal and mashed peas, and make way for enchiladas, curry and even -- gasp! -- hot peppers.

It's time to discard everything you think you know about feeding babies. It turns out most advice parents get about weaning infants onto solid foods -- even from pediatricians -- is more myth than science.

That's right, rice cereal may not be the best first food. Peanut butter doesn't have to wait until after the first birthday. Offering fruits before vegetables won't breed a sweet tooth. And strong spices? Bring 'em on.

"There's a bunch of mythology out there about this," says Dr. David Bergman, a Stanford University pediatrics professor. "There's not much evidence to support any particular way of doing things."

Word of that has been slow to reach parents and the stacks of baby books they rely on to navigate this often intimidating period of their children's lives. But that may be changing.

As research increasingly suggests a child's first experiences with food shape later eating habits, doctors say battling obesity and improving the American diet may mean debunking the myths and broadening babies' palates.

It's easier -- and harder -- than it sounds. Easier because experts say 6-month-olds can eat many of the same things their parents do. Harder because it's tough to find detailed guidance for nervous parents.

"Parents have lost touch with the notion that these charts are guides, not rules," says Rachel Brandeis, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "Babies start with a very clean palate and it's your job to mold it."

It's easy to mistake that for a regimented process. Most parents are told to start rice cereal at 6 months, then slowly progress to simple vegetables, mild fruits and finally pasta and meat.

Ethnic foods and spices are mostly ignored by the guidelines -- cinnamon and avocados are about as exotic as it gets -- and parents are warned off potential allergens such as nuts and seafood for at least a year.

Yet experts say children over 6 months can handle most anything, with a few caveats: Be cautious if you have a family history of allergies; introduce one food at a time and watch for any problems; and make sure the food isn't a choking hazard.

Parents elsewhere in the world certainly take a more freewheeling approach, often starting babies on heartier, more flavorful fare -- from meats in African countries to fish and radishes in Japan and artichokes and tomatoes in France.

The difference is cultural, not scientific, says Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' nutrition committee who says the American approach suffers from a Western bias that fails to reflect the nation's ethnic diversity.

Bhatia says he hopes his group soon will address not only that, but also ways to better educate parents about which rules must be followed and which ones are only suggestions.

Rayya Azarbeygui, a 35-year-old Lebanese immigrant living in New York, isn't waiting. After her son was born last year, she decided he should eat the same foods she does -- heavily seasoned Middle Eastern dishes like hummus and baba ghanoush.

"My pediatrician thinks I'm completely crazy," says Azarbeygui, whose son is now 13 months old. "But you know, he sees my child thriving and so says, 'You know what, children in India eat like that. Why not yours?"'

How to introduce healthy children to solid food has rarely been studied. Even the federal government has given it little attention; dietary guidelines apply only to children 2 and older.

In a review of the research, Nancy Butte, a pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, found that many strongly held assumptions -- such as the need to offer foods in a particular order or to delay allergenic foods -- have little scientific basis.

Take rice cereal, for example. Under conventional American wisdom, it's the best first food. But Butte says iron-rich meat -- often one of the last foods American parents introduce -- would be a better choice.

Grain cereals might be worst thing
Dr. David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston, a specialist in pediatric nutrition, says some studies suggest rice and other highly processed grain cereals actually could be among the worst foods for infants.

"These foods are in a certain sense no different from adding sugar to formula. They digest very rapidly in the body into sugar, raising blood sugar and insulin levels" and could contribute to later health problems, including obesity, he says.

The lack of variety in the American approach also could be a problem. Exposing infants to more foods may help them adapt to different foods later, which Ludwig says may be key to getting older children to eat healthier.

Food allergy fears get some of the blame for the bland approach. For decades doctors have said the best way to prevent allergies is to limit infants to bland foods, avoiding seasonings, citrus, nuts and certain seafood.

But Butte's review found no evidence that children without family histories of food allergies benefit from this. Others suspect avoiding certain foods or eating bland diets actually could make allergies more likely. Some exposure might be a good thing.

And bring on the spices. Science is catching up with the folklore that babies in the womb and those who are breast-fed taste -- and develop a taste for -- whatever Mom eats. So experts say if Mom enjoys loads of oregano, baby might, too.

That's been Maru Mondragon's experience. The 40-year-old Mexican indulged on spicy foods while pregnant with her youngest son, 21-month-old Russell, but not while carrying his 3-year-old brother, Christian.

Christian has a mild palate while his younger brother snacks on jalapenos and demands hot salsa on everything.

"If it is really spicy, he cries, but still keeps eating it," says Mondragon, who moved to Denver four years ago.

That's the sort of approach Bhatia says more parents should know about. Parents should view this as a chance to encourage children to embrace healthy eating habits and introduce them to their culture and heritage.

"So you eat a lot of curry," he says, "try junior on a mild curry."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Gupta: Progress, hurdles in breast cancer fight

Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 9:07 a.m. EDT (13:07 GMT)
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta
(CNN) -- In 1987, around one in four women age 50 and older said they'd had a mammogram and breast exam in the past two years. Eleven years later, that number jumped to 69 percent.

Despite that progress, breast cancer today remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women in the United States, except for skin cancer.

As part of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta sheds some light on the successes and obstacles in the fight, along with debunking some common breast cancer myths.

Q: What progress has been made over the decades in the fight against breast cancer?

A: The decline in breast cancer death rates since 1990 has been attributed to improvements in treatment and to early detection. But, while utilization of mammography has been increasing, women below the poverty level are still less likely to have had a mammogram within the past two years than women at or above the poverty level. We need to do a better job of reaching out to the poor and the uninsured to make sure they have access to early detection and the best treatments.

Q: What are some other areas of advancement?

A: In a September report, the American Cancer Society announced:


Progress in early detection and treatment of breast cancer continues to result in a slow, steady drop in mortality rates, a trend that started in 1990. The latest figures show the death rate from breast cancer dropped by 2.3 percent a year since 1990, with the drop most evident in younger women.


Between 1987 and 2002, incidence rates increased by 0.3 percent per year overall, with the increase limited to women age 50 and older. Rates actually declined among women 40 to 49, and there has been little change among women under 40 during that same time period.


The death rate from breast cancer in women decreased by 2.3 percent per year between 1990 and 2002. Death rates decreased by 3.3 percent per year among women younger than 50, and by 2 percent per year among women 50 and older.

Q: What about risk factors? Are some people more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer?

A: We do not yet know exactly what causes breast cancer, but we do know that certain risk factors are linked to the disease. A risk factor is anything that increases a person's chance of getting a disease such as cancer. Different cancers have different risk factors. Some risk factors, such as smoking, can be controlled. Others, like a person's age or family history, can't be changed. But having a risk factor, or even several, doesn't mean that a person will get the disease. Some women who have one or more risk factors never get breast cancer. And most women who do get breast cancer don't have any risk factors.

Q: What effect do birth control pills have on breast cancer risk?

A: It is still not clear what part birth control pills might play in breast cancer risk. Studies have found that women now using birth control pills have a slightly greater risk of breast cancer. Women who stopped using the pill more than 10 years ago do not seem to have any increased risk. It's a good idea to discuss the risks and benefits of birth control pills with your doctor.

Q: What about the relationship between breast-feeding and cancer incidence?

A: Some studies have shown that breast-feeding slightly lowers breast cancer risk, especially if the breast-feeding lasts 1½ to 2 years. This could be because breast-feeding lowers a woman's total number of menstrual periods, as does pregnancy. One study found that having more children and breast-feeding longer could reduce the risk of breast cancer by half.

Q: What are some of the myths surrounding breast cancer causes?

A: Internet e-mail rumors have suggested that underarm antiperspirants can cause breast cancer. There is very little evidence to support this idea. Also, there is no evidence to support the idea that underwire bras cause breast cancer.

Q: Explain the roles pregnancy and menopause play in a woman's risk of breast cancer?

A: Women who began having periods early (before 12 years of age) have a slightly increased risk of breast cancer.

Women who went through the change of life (menopause) after the age of 55 have a slightly increased risk of breast cancer.

Women who have not had children, or who had their first child after age 30, have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. Being pregnant more than once and at an early age reduces breast cancer risk.

Q: Today, what are the survival rates for women with breast cancer?

A: The overall five-year relative survival rate for women diagnosed with breast cancer is 88 percent. The 10-year relative survival rate is 80 percent.

Q: How prevalent is breast cancer in the United States?

A: In 2002 (the latest year figures are available), nearly 2.3 million women living in the United States had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in U.S. women (excluding cancers of the skin), with 211,240 cases of invasive breast cancer expected in 2005. This accounts for nearly one out of three cancers diagnosed in U.S. women.

As far as cancer deaths are concerned, breast cancer ranks second in U.S. women (after lung cancer), with 40,410 deaths expected in 2005.

Spanking Causes Violence Across Cultures, Study Says
Study Looks At Parenting In Six Nations

POSTED: 11:31 am EST November 15, 2005

Children who are spanked are more likely to be anxious and aggressive than children who are disciplined in other ways, according to researchers in six countries.

The study grew out of controversy over whether parents should use physical discipline. Some experts argue it should never be used because it creates child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse. Others argue that the effects of discipline depend on characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which physical discipline is used, according to a news release about the study.

So researchers from Duke University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Geteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy, Kenya, the Philippines and Thailand.

They asked mothers about how often they physically disciplined their children, how that compared to others in their nation, and how often the child worries, gets in fights or bullies others.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used physical discipline.

In countries in which physical discipline was more common, children who were physically disciplined were less aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.

In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was associated with more child aggression and anxiety.

Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline their children; those in Kenya were most likely to physically discipline their children.
Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Astronaut's eyes may become windows
on the bloodstream





ANN ARBOR, Mich.---Our eyes may become more than windows of the soul if a multidisciplinary team of University of Michigan researchers succeeds with a clever combination of nanoparticles and ultrafast pulsed laser to see individual cells as they zip past in the bloodstream.
The U-M team of physicians, scientists and engineers has $3 million from NASA to determine a way of detecting radiation exposure on the fly by looking for individual cells that have been harmed. Now, such cell counting is only achieved by drawing blood and using an expensive machine called a cytometer, operated by a skilled lab technician.

A certain amount of cell death is normal and expected, so there would always be some background fluorescence. What the researchers are looking for is a sudden increase in the population of dead white blood cells, which is one of the calling cards of radiation poisoning.

NASA is particularly concerned with radiation exposure as one of the leading health risks in long-term space travel. Radiation---sub-atomic particles moving at tremendous speeds---careens in all directions in space. It can kill cells and damage the DNA within them, causing long-term health problems, especially cancers.

Individual cells in the bloodstream are tagged with a nanoparticle called a dendrimer that is much smaller than a blood cell. It's a synthetic that is grown in layers of branching molecules that resemble a tree. At the tips of these branches on the dendrimer, scientists can attach biomolecules that have specific affinity for the white blood cells. Other arms of the dendrimer carry a fluorescent material that will light up on cue if the white blood cell dies.

The idea of using dendrimers for real-time cell counting came from Dr. James R. Baker Jr., the Ruth Dow Doan Professor of Biologic Nanotechnology and director of U-M's Center for Biologic Nanotechnology. His research group is also exploring the use of dendrimers for drug delivery and improved medical imaging.

To see cells as they flow, the researchers are using a pulsed laser developed by physicist Theodore Norris of the U-M's Center for Ultrafast Optical Science that can be focused down to a spot smaller than a cell. "Jim (Baker) was wondering about cytometry in vivo, and we came in with a photonic solution," Norris said.

The spot-focused laser allows researchers to watch a capillary blood vessel just a few blood cells in diameter and to count individual spots of fluorescence as they zip past. The focal area of the near-infrared laser is so tight that they can be sure that each flash of fluorescence represents just a single cell, said Norris, professor of electrical engineering and applied physics.

"This could be used for more than just radiation exposure," Baker said. "We should be able to continually monitor cell death from whatever cause."

On Earth, we are protected from most of this space radiation by the planet's magnetic field and by the thickness of the planet itself beneath our feet. But away from the Earth, astronauts will have only the vehicle around them and their clothing to shield them.

It is estimated that a 2-1/2-year mission to Mars could expose an astronaut to the lifetime dose of radiation allowed by NASA. An intense solar flare during the journey could even deliver a fatal dose of radiation in a single burst.

"NASA has told us that the trip to Mars could be one-way," Norris said. "Still, they've got people who are willing to do it."

U-M studies on living mice have shined the light through their semi-translucent ears to see the fluorescing dendrimers within capillaries. The proposal to NASA was for using the capillaries on the retina at the back of the eye, but human ears might work just as well. "We just need to see a capillary," Norris said. "It doesn't have to be in the eye."

For more information, visit: www.umnbei.umich.edu/

For more on Baker, visit: ipumich.temppublish.com/public/experts/ExpDisplay.php?ExpID=945

For more on Norris, visit: www.eecs.umich.edu/OSL/Norris/

Lesbians' brains respond like straight men

Monday, May 8, 2006; Posted: 6:28 p.m. EDT (22:28 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women.

An earlier study of gay men also showed their brain response was different from straight men -- an even stronger difference than has now been found in lesbians.

Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women.

In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.

"It shows sexual orientation may very well have a different basis between men and women ... this is not just a mirror image situation," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

"The important thing is to be open to the likely situation that there are biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation," added Witelson, who was not part of the research team.

The research team led by Ivanka Savic at the Stockholm Brain Institute had volunteers sniff chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones -- molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

The same team reported last year on a comparison of the response of male homosexuals to heterosexual men and women. They found that the brains of gay men reacted more like those of women than of straight men.

The new study shows a similar, but weaker, relationship between the response of lesbians and straight men.

Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one.

All three groups rated the male hormone more familiar than the female one. Straight women found both hormones about equal in intensity, while lesbians and straight men found the male hormone more intense than the female one.

The brains of all three groups were scanned when sniffing male and female hormones and a set of four ordinary odors. Ordinary odors were processed in the brain circuits associated with smell in all the volunteers.

In heterosexual males the male hormone was processed in the scent area but the female hormone was processed in the hypothalamus, which is related to sexual stimulation. In straight women the sexual area of the brain responded to the male hormone while the female hormone was perceived by the scent area.

In lesbians, both male and female hormones were processed the same, in the basic odor processing circuits, Savic and her team reported.

Each of the three groups of subjects included 12 healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative individuals.

The research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, Karolinska Institute and the Wallenberg Foundation.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Study: DNA marker linked to prostate cancer risk

Monday, May 8, 2006; Posted: 10:58 a.m. EDT (14:58 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists have identified a common genetic marker that signals a 60 percent heightened risk of prostate cancer in men who carry it, and it may help explain why black men are unusually prone to the disease, a new study says.

The DNA variant may play a role in about 8 percent of prostate cancers in men of European extraction and 16 percent of the cancers in blacks, researchers said.

The study was published online Sunday by Nature Genetics and will appear in the journal's June issue. The work is reported by Kari Stefansson and colleagues at deCode genetics in Reykjavik, Iceland, and scientists elsewhere.

The variant is about twice as common in blacks as whites, so that may contribute to the higher incidence of prostate cancer in blacks, the researchers said.

Stefansson said in a statement that deCode plans to use the discovery to develop a genetic test that might help doctors decide how closely to follow men at high risk and how to treat prostate cancer cases. The study indicated the variant might be associated with more aggressive forms of the disease.

It's not clear whether the heightened risk comes from the variant itself or from another that lies nearby on chromosome 8.

In general, men run a 1-in-6 chance of developing prostate cancer at some point in their lives. The risk is greater for those who are older, black or have a brother or father who's had the disease. More than 230,000 new cases are expected this year in the United States, with about 27,000 deaths.

The researchers found that the DNA variant was more common in prostate cancer patients than in the general population, suggesting an association with the disease. They compared a total of 3,430 patients with more than 2,000 others, drawing on study populations in Iceland, Sweden, Illinois and Michigan.

Among whites, the variant appeared in about 19 percent of patients and 13 percent of the other participants. Among blacks, both numbers were about twice as high.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Study: Obesity not in eye of beholder

Monday, April 10, 2006; Posted: 10:44 a.m. EDT (14:44 GMT)

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (AP) -- Obese people have a blind spot when it comes to their own weight problem, according to a study that showed only 15 percent of people in that category view themselves as obese.

Such a lack of self-awareness can be deadly.

"If somebody doesn't perceive themselves to be obese, they are most likely not going to pay attention to any public health information about the consequences of obesity," said Kim Truesdale, a nutrition researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Among those consequences are heightened risk of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and arthritis.

The study of 104 adults, ages 45 to 64, showed that only 15 percent of people who fit the body type for obese correctly classified themselves that way.

In contrast, 71 percent of normal-weight people and 73 percent of people classified as overweight were accurate in their self-assessments.

"I think part of the disconnect is just the overall image people have when you say 'obesity,"' said Truesdale, who presented her findings recently at conference in San Francisco. "They see someone who's 400 pounds, maybe morbidly obese. They don't think about the person who's 5-10 and you weigh 208, 209 pounds and you are technically obese. You can probably think of a lot of men who are 5-10 and over 200 pounds."

A 5-foot-10-inch adult -- both male and female -- is overweight at 174 pounds and obese at 209, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

John Cawley, a researcher at Cornell University who has studied body image, questioned the study's reliance on body-mass index as a measure of obesity. He said many researchers view BMI -- a ratio of a person's weight and height -- as being of limited use.

"BMI does not take into account body composition -- weightlifters and other athletes may be classified as clinically obese because their weight is high even though they have almost no fat," Cawley said.

On a Web page that discusses BMI, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention makes a similar point, giving the example of a 6-foot-3 man who weighs 220. A BMI ratio of 27.5 defines that man as overweight when in reality he could be anything from a musclebound bodybuilder to a schlumpy couch potato.

"BMI is only one piece of a person's health profile," the CDC notes.

Unfortunately, as many experts note, most Americans are not overweight because of an excess of muscle. And more than two-thirds of the country is fat.

The CDC's latest survey reported 71 percent of men are overweight and 31 percent are obese. For women, it's 62 percent overweight and 33 percent obese.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Inside the autistic mind
New research, understanding lifting veil on mysterious condition

Sunday, May 7, 2006; Posted: 12:39 p.m. EDT (16:39 GMT)

Editor's note: The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

(Time.com) -- The road to Hannah's mind opened a few days before her 13th birthday.

Her parents, therapists, nutritionists and teachers had spent years preparing the way. They had moved mountains to improve her sense of balance, her sensory perception and her overall health. They sent in truckloads of occupational and physical therapy and emotional support.

But it wasn't until the fall of 2005 that traffic finally began to flow in the other direction.

Hannah, whose speech was limited to snatches of songs, echoed dialogue and unintelligible utterances, is profoundly autistic, and doctors thought she was most likely retarded.

But on that October day, after she was introduced to the use of a specialized computer keyboard, Hannah proved them wrong. "Is there anything you'd like to say, Hannah?" asked Marilyn Chadwick, director of training at the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University.

With Chadwick helping to stabilize her right wrist and her mother watching, a girl thought to be incapable of learning to read or write slowly typed, "I love Mom."

More than 60 years after autism was first described by American psychiatrist Leo Kanner, there are still more questions than answers about this complex disorder. But slowly, steadily, many myths about autism are falling away, and researchers are finding some surprises.

Autism is almost certainly, like cancer, many diseases with many distinct causes. It's well known that there's a wide range in the severity of symptoms --from profound disability to milder forms like Asperger syndrome, in which intellectual ability is generally high but social awareness is low.

Indeed, doctors now prefer the term Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD). But scientists suspect there are also distinct subtypes, including an early-onset type and a regressive type that can strike as late as age 2.

Once thought to be mainly a disease of the cerebellum, a region in the back of the brain that integrates sensory and motor activity, autism is increasingly seen as a pervasive problem with the way the brain is wired.

The distribution of white matter, the nerve fibers that link diverse parts of the brain, is abnormal, but it's not clear how much is the cause and how much the result of autism.

The immune system may play a critical role in the development of at least some types of autism. This suggests some new avenues of prevention and treatment.

Many classic symptoms of autism -- spinning, head banging, endlessly repeating phrases -- appear to be coping mechanisms rather than hard-wired behaviors. Other classic symptoms -- a lack of emotion, an inability to love --can now be largely dismissed as artifacts of impaired communication. The same may be true of the supposedly high incidence of mental retardation.

The world of autism therapy continues to be bombarded by cure-of-the-day fads. But therapists are beginning to sort out the best ways to intervene.

And while autism is generally a lifelong struggle, there are some reported cases in which kids who were identified as autistic and treated at an early age no longer exhibit symptoms.

Indeed, most researchers believe autism arises from a combination of genetic vulnerabilities and environmental triggers. An identical twin of a child with autism has a 60 percent to 90 percent chance of also being affected with the disorder. And the sibling of a child with autism has about a 10 percent chance of also having it.

Luckily for Hannah, her voice and thoughts are being heard.

Since learning to type, she has begun to speak a few words reliably -- "yes," "no" and the key word "I" -- to express her desires.

All this seems miraculous to her parents. "I was told to give up and get on with my life," says her mother. Now she and her husband are thinking about saving for college.

Click here for the entire cover story on Time

Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.

With Chadwick helping to stabilize her right wrist and her mother watching, a girl thought to be incapable of learning to read or write slowly typed, "I love Mom."