“You seem to have the mistaken impression that doctors who suggest these supplements would not take the time and effort to check what they were suggesting.”

Are you suggesting that these doctors send the supplements out for independent testing? I have seen no evidence of that – in fact, most of the doctors recommending supplements merely give their patients the name of a few sources. The supplements usually never enter the practitioner’s office.

MJ continues:

“As a matter of fact, if you look at the details of this specific recall, you will find that it was a DAN doctor who discovered the contamination and altered [sic] Kirkman’s about it.”

True, and my point, exactly – the “DAN doctor” was probably suspicious of contamination because of consistently elevated urinary antimony levels.

MJ also claims:

“You are extrapolating a widespread problem from a single recall and way overstating your case. It does not follow from a single incident that “any results” are “suspect” given a known contamination of a few lots from a single company.”

As Tom mentioned above, quality control in plants that make “dietary supplements” is spotty, and Kirkman has a reputation for being among the best. The problem is that they aren’t required to test their raw materials and so (as in the case of Kirkman) don’t bother to unless a problem arises.

A better question is how the antimony got into the stevia. Again, we run up against the problem of the almost completely unregulated “supplement” industry. While it is possible that the stevia was contaminated by taking up antimony from the soil, that probably wouldn’t account for the amount seen in the final product, since stevia is 250 times as sweet as sugar, and so should be used in very small amounts. This leaves us with the fact that the stevia was heavily contaminated with antimony.

MJ concludes:

“If you think that there is widespread contamination then I would suggest buying random samples of the supplements and having them tested.”

The “funny” thing is that what MJ suggests I do at my own expense is what food and drug companies outside the “dietary supplement” industry do themselves, on their own products. Considering where the “supplement” companies get some of their “alternative” ingredients, extra caution would be warranted.

There have been numerous reports of contamination of “alternative” medicine products with heavy metals, bacteria, pharmaceuticals (not always “contamination” – often deliberate) and etc. I don’t feel that it is “unfounded speculation” to wonder how much of the “heavy metal toxicity” seen in autistic children receiving “supplements” and “alternative” medications is due to contamination.

Contamination and adulteration is a known problem in the “supplement” and “alternative medicine” industry and it would unfounded speculation to assume that the “supplements” so many autistic children receive are free of contamination when there is apparently no testing to confirm this.

Prometheus

As a products liability lawyer, I know that a manufacturer like Kirkman who specializes in “special needs kids” has an elevated duty to test for substances that it is not required to do so. And yes, I spoke to Kirkman yesterday and they confirmed that the antimony levels are 10-20 ppm for the most part. My son’s antimony blood levels were drawn two days after we started the zinc supplement and the antimony levels already came back elevated. He was on the supplement for 2 months. (On a side note, anyone else on the supplements notice white stools.)

I agree, though, that unless Kirkman steps up to the plate, this is a class action waiting to happen.

And so you propose the absurd notion that the onus for quality control is on the consumer to insure that a supplement company isn’t poisoning customers. By the way MJ, Prometheus is hardly alone in rasing concerns about this issue. From http://www.theannals.com/cgi/c.....t/37/6/893

“Quality control standards for dietary supplements run the gamut from good to nonexistent. Contamination, false labeling, and incomplete labeling are not uncommon problems — as are significant discrepancies in disintegration, dissolution, and in vitro release characteristics of various dietary supplements. The need for improved regulation has led to plans for increased FDA involvement through enforcement of good manufacturing practices and truths in labeling. Meanwhile, independent product certification companies have emerged and provide some reassurances; however, they possess several limitations as well.”

I don’t think there is any reason to think (or evidence for that matter) that there has been a long term and wide scale undetected contamination of “supplements” across a variety of manufacturers. You seem to have the mistaken impression that doctors who suggest these supplements would not take the time and effort to check what they were suggesting.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the details of this specific recall, you will find that it was a DAN doctor who discovered the contamination and altered Kirkman’s about it.

“Now we see that even vitamin and mineral supplements may be a source”

You are mistaken, it was not the vitamin or mineral supplement per se that was the problem – it was the sweetener (stevia I believe) that was used in the supplement. This sweetener has a wide range of uses outside the supplement market.

“Given that most “alternative” autism practitioners make little distinction between the “heavy metals”, ascribing autism to any and all of them”

That “most” is a gross overstatement, try “some few” instead.

“Added to this is Kirkman’s coyness about the levels of antimony they found in their products”

They have disclosed to doctors that have asked what the levels were. If you are interested, I suggest you as the company directly.

“Given this, we should view any urine “heavy metal” results from children as suspect until we can determine that they aren’t getting them in their “supplements”.”

You are extrapolating a widespread problem from a single recall and way overstating your case. It does not follow from a single incident that “any results” are “suspect” given a known contamination of a few lots from a single company.

That would be like saying I have a yellow ball therefore every ball in the world should be considered yellow until proven otherwise.

If you think that there is widespread contamination then I would suggest buying random samples of the supplements and having them tested. If you find problems then by all means write about them. I would certainly want to know. However without any data to back up your assertions I think you may label your statements as the unfounded speculation that they are.

“Then what exactly is the “problem” that you are attempting to point out? That a company had a contaminated product or that the people you like to make fun of aren’t castrating the company for allowing this to happen?”

How about this one – that the “supplements” that parents are giving autistic children have elevated levels of antimony, a toxic metal that many “alternative” practitioners are following as a marker of both how their patients became autistic and how their therapies are progressing.

Let me spell this out:

[1] If a child is receiving a “supplement” that contains an elevated amount of, say, antimony, they will have elevated antimony levels in their urine – especially if they are being chelated at the time the specimen is collected (as is often the case).

[2] An “alternative” practitioner, seeing these elevated levels of antimony, will tell the parents “Your child has elevated antimony levels, he/she has heavy metal toxicity.”

[3] The child will continue to show elevated levels of antimony (especially if chelated) because they are receiving a contaminated “supplement”. This will convince the “alternative” practitioner that [a] the child continues to need chelation and [b] that their therapy is “working” because it is continuing to remove significant amounts of antimony.

We have no way of knowing – short of submitting all “supplements” and other “alternative” medicines to comprehensive testing – how much of the elevated “toxic metals” in autistic children is spurious, introduced in the very compounds the parents are using to try to “cure” their children.

The amount of antimony in Kirkman’s products was probably small – they haven’t released the concentrations. However, it is telling that they detected the problem because children taking the products were having high – probably very high – excretion of antimony, enough that the parents and/or practitioners began wondering about the source.

Given that most “alternative” autism practitioners make little distinction between the “heavy metals”, ascribing autism to any and all of them (and even to non-heavy metals, such as aluminium) and seeing elevated urinary levels as a “good” thing, I suspect that the urine antimony levels were significant. Added to this is Kirkman’s coyness about the levels of antimony they found in their products, which could indicate that the concentration of antimony they found was higher than I initially thought.

I have written before about my concern that imported DMSA and DMPS, not to mention alpha-lipioc acid (ALA) might be contaminated with heavy metals because they have such a high affinity for them. Now we see that even vitamin and mineral supplements may be a source.

Given this, we should view any urine “heavy metal” results from children as suspect until we can determine that they aren’t getting them in their “supplements”.

Personally, I find this to be a bigger problem than the blatant hypocrisy of the “alternative” autism therapy movement that was (again) exposed by their non-response to this contamination issue.

Prometheus

You don’t come off very well by responding to concerns about your maturity by being immature. Bear this in mind for the future.

But onwards to your mistakes:

“You seem to have missed the points that –
1. I have no affiliation with AoA.”

Irrelevant. I did not say this, nor is it required.

“2. I did the responsible thing and posted about the issue on the location that had available in attempt to spread the word about the recall. But the point was only to spread the word about the recall, I did not take the time to point out that LBRB failed to publish a notice since that wasn’t the point.”

Irrelevant. No one is concerned with what you did or did not do.

“2 (sic). AoA posting or not posting has nothing to do with what I am saying.”

Irrelevant. We are discussing what Sullivan is saying, thus AoA posting or not posting is THE point of the discussion. If you have trouble sticking to this, please cease responding.

“4. Using an issue like this to attempt to make an opponent look bad or score points which, as you say in your comments, was at least one of the goals of the post, is completely inappropriate.”

False, it’s appropriate to use an example of a lack of consistency as an example of a lack of consistancy, especially one as charged as this. This would be major sport for AoA had it been a pharma company. Unlike your accusation in your last post this is a real story (quite why you suddenly think it isn’t when Sullivan mentions it is a logical inconsistency you probably didn’t even spot, much less are able to justify) that AoA appears to have missed. I’ve asked you directly for a reference or link that deals with the thread topic. You have failed on all counts at all attempts.

That you feel it is distasteful is irrelevant to the appropriateness.

This is about AoA, not how much you want to score points off Sullivan. Deal with the issue or kindly stop responding.

Toodles.

If you want to play word games, you really should get better at it. If you would care to categorize your “resentful anger aroused by a violent or offensive act” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrage) as not “engaging in a quarrel; arguing” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fight) with “one that opposes another or others in a battle, contest, controversy, or debate.” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opponents), then I suggest you pick better words.

To me it looks like criticising their actions, and based on your past statements, I don’t think that you consider the people at AoA to be your friends. And when people use the word “outrage” what they are normally looking for is a fight, normally against another party. Therefore, I think the words fight and opponent are appropriate.

What I am “outraged” about is your attempt to turn what is a serious matter into a talking point, fight, “outrage”, or (insert other not-so clever synonym here) against your non-opponents who you spend a lot of time discussing, bashing, fighting, criticising or whatever else you care to call it.

“I’ve seen nothing on the major biomed blogs or discussions about this”

You haven’t been looking in the right places.

“AoA and the rest need to police their own.”

Aoa isn’t a governmental agency in charge of regulating the supplement market and Kirkman is taking the appropriate action here – recalling the product and altering their customers.

If another large company had the same circumstances and took the same action, I doubt it would be a big deal. Consider the recall of Mattel toys for lead, they didn’t talk about that. Nor do I remember them talking too much about the recall of Thomas the train (I could be wrong there, I am going from memory).

For that matter, why aren’t you writing about the current recall of tylenol products and how J&J doesn’t seem to be doing a good job of handling it? You clearly support main stream medicine and your readers could be impacted. Should I be outraged that you aren’t covering it?

AoA isn’t covering it either – should we be outraged about that too?

No, and the reason is that the purpose of the blog isn’t to spread that kind of information and that conventional channels are better at it.

“Attacking opponents (yes, to them it is a fight, with opponents) and ignoring real stories like this that could reduce potential harm and parental anguish, that I don’t find responsible.”

Really? Your position is that “they” attack opponents and fight with people but you are just expressing your non-directional “outrage” without any sort of adversarial overtones?

Is that the sound of logic screaming as it is twisted into a pretzel I hear?

“Your logic is ALWAYS fautly. Without fail, you misread a post here and then complain that your misinterpretated version is something bad.”

Thank you, coming from you, that is a complement.

“By “anyone” you are not including me, right? The one person who can say what I really think? Or are you saying that your interpretation is somehow the most valid version of what I think?!?. What arrogance.”

Good grief.

The word anyone in that sentence was used to imply another person in a general context. As most people who can read english would be able to figure out, I was clearly not saying that my opinion is the only valid one.