8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?

Yes;

Here’s one where Dr. Deth betrays his interests:

5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data?

Yes; The Discussion is refreshingly brief and well-focused. However, the authors could/should have discussed the how the level of observed improvement compares with other autism interventions (e.g. ADA etc.). Is it similar? Or superior? They could also have discussed the public health implications of an observed improvement in autism with chelation (i.e. heavy metal exposure as a cause of autism).

In other words: What the paper is missing is that they should’ve said mercury causes autism.

Regarding how it compares to other interventions, I think the main question should be how it compares to placebo.

Ray Palmer then opines:

This is a well-written, well-conducted study that addresses a timely topic of great current need. Many of the contributors have been in this area of research for many years and have contributed substantially to the field.

Both declare no competing interests. Let me find the journal’s definition of “competing interest”...

A competing interest exists when your interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by your personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment were they to become public after the publication of the manuscript.

...

Are there any non-financial competing interests (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) to declare in relation to this manuscript? If so, please specify.

If you are unsure as to whether you or one of your co-authors has a competing interest, please discuss it with the editorial office.

The peer-review process of the Adams study was a complete travesty, in other words; practically fraudulent.

give it a rest.

DMSA and autism—two papers refereed by chelationists, which make claims that are not supported by the data they collected. Thank god I didn’t get sucked into that nonsense.

The way the results are spinned is dishonest, in my view, but even two years ago it was clear that was the plan. A randomized trial with no significant differences in outcome between groups should normally be interpreted as showing that the treatment was not beneficial. Adams et al. interpret the results as if both groups had been helped by the treatment. They can only do this because the design of the study is not truly placebo-controlled. (Both groups got one initial round of DMSA - the rationale for this is questionable, especially in light of how they ended up selling the result.)

Why did this spin get past peer review? If you check the pre-publication history, they let you see who the peer reviewers were. They happen to be Richard Deth (of “I wager the thimerosal hypothesis will be proven in 18-24 months” fame) and Ray Palmer (of “mercury from power plants is associated with administrative autism prevalence” fame.) How this could happen, I have no idea, and it frankly causes me to lose confidence in the whole “peer review” heuristic.

Now my mother always told me to consider the source. Now let us look at the source of those papers: Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine

Sorry, but that is not a place that practices real science. Plus provoked tests for mercury are not exactly accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

And you say the biomed yahoo groups will attack and ban those who don’t agree or speak out?? Well, I must disagree. You are targeting the wrong group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOFMslNrIRY

Since the topic of this blog posting was the use (or overuse) of biomedical treatments on an autistic child, your comments are completely off topic.

You should find another way to channel your outrage.**

• Having one of each (autistic/apraxic and NLT) I know they are completely different.

** I have several suggestions, but I don’t think you’d appreciate them. Personally I have found weed therapy and prune therapy to to be very effective. One reason why I had very well pruned roses and espaliered apple trees during IEP periods. Also, since it was usually in November—- I was surprised how many tulip bulbs I could plant. Who knew one mom could dig so many holes in a day!? Oh, and another suggestion… never plan other parent/teacher conversations on the day of a two hour IEP meeting. I was so loopy after having the teacher conferences for two kids, that I spaced out of the IEP meeting and was surprised when son’s speech therapy time was doubled.

The group does NOT endorse biomedical treatments nor are the vast majority of the members “in denial” about their child’s supposed autism. They are a group of folks who have simply questioned the system’s methods for diagnosing autism and have chosen to pursue the best course of action for their child. This does NOT mean that they will dismiss the idea of autism completely. The goal of this group is to seek ACCURATE diagnosis. Not to deny their child has a problem.

If anyone wants a real description of the group’s objectives, just check out their website: http://www.naturallatetalkers.com. It is brief, but I think you’ll get an idea of the overall goal of the group.