Comments on: Thimerosal and Autism on Trial: Closing statement by Mr. Matanoski

By: gwynfryn

gwynfryn — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:04:32 +0000

So how long will it take? I note you haven’t deleted my comments, so respect for that!

By: brian

brian — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:44:53 +0000

“The 10% of cases with a known genetic cause is not proven. The conditions where it is claimed that a genetic cause has been found (Fragile X, Down’s Syndrome, Tuberous Sclerosis, Rhett Syndrome and others) are not necessarily genetic causes of autism.”

There is absolutely no reason to believe that because a mutation in a particular gene can cause mental retardation or other problems mutations that affect that particular gene cannot, therefore, also cause autism.

By: Tsu Dho Nimh

Tsu Dho Nimh — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:16:49 +0000

If there is a standard for provoked urines in adults—even for the laboratories that she uses—then why aren’t those laboratories using those standards for their lab test reports?

There is none that I remember, from my med tech days. It would be difficult, because it gets into dosage and patient size and which chelating agent you used.

The problem of doing the provoking in non-exposed adults (a hundred or so, to get a good reference level) would require deliberately using a powerful chelating drug on them, without much of a reason.

A 24-hour unprovoked urine collection and assay is the best measurement, or a blood test.

By: Ringside Seat

Ringside Seat — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:36:20 +0000

The temporal links are almost always made up, and usually based on some lawyer’s reading about some other vaccine with a totally different profile.

By: RAJ

RAJ — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:04:02 +0000

“Two common mistakes people make: 1) When they hear something like “10% of cases of autism are from a known genetic origin,” they think this means that 90% of autism cases are not genetic, when in fact what it really means is opnly that the exact genetic relationship is known in 10%”

The 10% of cases with a known genetic cause is not proven. The conditions where it is claimed that a genetic cause has been found (Fragile X, Down’s Syndrome, Tuberous Sclerosis, Rhett Syndrome and others) are not necessarily genetic causes of autism. All of these disorders are mental retardation syndromes with a small subgroup having enough isolated secondary symptoms shared by many neurologically impaired children to qualify for an ASD diagnosis.

There is also a lack of evidence in all of these genetic mental retardation syndromes in that the broad autism phenotype in the parents have not been observed.

For example, the social problems seen in mentally retarded Fragile X boys does not resemble the social problems that Kanner first reported in 1943. The social problems observed in these boys are problems of social anxiety and shyness not a pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8110411?

By: The Truth Is Out There, But Smallpox?

The Truth Is Out There, But Smallpox? — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:00:29 +0000

[...] I was always struck by one detail in particular in these parent accounts of a vaccine “causing” their child to “become autistic.” Many of the accounts emphasized that, “one day” a child was fine—normal—and then he or she had a shot or shots and the next day, overnight, the child had autism. The “onset” of autism was, accordingly, often linked to a child receiving a vaccine, and was indeed said to be “caused” by the vaccine. Chronology has been given a big role in the hypothesis about vaccines or something in vaccines somehow leading to autism: In the Autism Omnibus “vaccine court” hearing last year for then 12-year-old Michelle Cedillo, videotapes showed that she had already been showing signs of delayed and/or unusual development prior to receiving her vaccines. [A transcript from the most recent Autism Omnibus trial can be read here.] [...]

By: Guest Blogger Transcriber

Guest Blogger Transcriber — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:52:28 +0000

I noted that Dr. Mumper essentially misrepresented one fact. She seemed to imply that there is a standard for provoked urine heavy metals in adults, but, she lamented, it’s so unfortunate that they don’t have them for children. If there is a standard for provoked urines in adults—even for the laboratories that she uses—then why aren’t those laboratories using those standards for their lab test reports? She also said something that made no sense to this listener, while wandering off on a tangent she said that she longed for a the norms for provoked urine tests from a past, pre-industrial society. What would norms from 2 centuries ago tell her about today? I believe the Chinese had been using mercury for hundreds of years before their industrial age.

By: Alexander Cominos

Alexander Cominos — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:31:53 +0000

Two common mistakes people make: 1) When they hear something like “10% of cases of autism are from a known genetic origin,” they think this means that 90% of autism cases are not genetic, when in fact what it really means is opnly that the exact genetic relationship is known in 10%, while scientists are still working on the rest. Autism genetics is still young. 2) When they hear that someone had a “high” post-provocation mercury level they hear the word high uncritically. As Matanoski’s team, with a little help from the special master, elicited from Mumpers, there is no reference range, so no one knows what is normal or not in a post-provocation test. Surprisingly, in one of the transcripts I saw over on a competing autism blog, the blogger said that Mumpers said something inaudible. I heard it clearly. She said, in response to the special master, who asked how she knew that a value of 17 was high for Colin Dwyer when there are no reference ranges, that it based on her “conversations” with toxicologists and her experience. Not a very compelling answer. One hopes the special masters will apply Daubert as they should.