MMS, or how to cure autism with bleach. Brought to you by AutismOne

30 May

There are so many strange theories about autism which come and go that one doesn’t have the time to read up on all of them. Such is the case with MMS, which I now know stands for Miracle Mineral Solution. Recently the chatter on some of the yahoo groups I subscribe to increased with discussions of MMS and I just didn’t read what they were talking about.

Dr. David Gorski at Science Based Medicine did look into this. His article Bleaching away what ails you goes into detail about MMS.

To put it simply, “Miracle Mineral Solution” is bleach. Like many alternative medicine treatments, proponents of MMS claim it can help almost anything. Including autism.

If you unfamiliar with it, AutismOne is a parent convention with a large focus on claims of vaccine causation and alt-med therapies for autism. When Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license for unethical practices, he was given a standing ovation at the following AutismOne conference. When Mark Geier’s medical license was suspended, he also was given a standing ovation. Year after year one can hear discussion of the failed idea about how mercury in vaccines caused an autism epidemic. There are some presentations at AutismOne which appear useful (such as special education law), but the fact that they have such low standards for science and treatment topics trumps whatever good they might do.

As in the talk this year on MMS (38 Children Recovered in 20 months: Autism Treatment with MMS). Slides for the talk are online.

The talk has a lot of the usual warning signs:

1) claims of recovery substantiated by anecdotes and testimonials.
2) pseudo-scientific claims (in this case discussion of the chemistry of the molecules)
3) reliance on non-scientific explanation of autism (in this case that autism can be cured by ridding the body of parasites)
4) re-defining adverse reactions as expected and helpful.

And it is this last point that is particularly troublesome. Many alt-med therapies result in adverse reactions. Read yahoo groups and you will see them frequently. For MMS you will see vomiting and diarrhea. Parents discuss ramping up the dose of MMS until the child starts to vomit, then backing off.

The presentation from AutismOne includes:

It is common to find that the child gets a fever. This is very good.

As well as a claim that the adverse reactions are “Herxheimer reactions”. Herxheimer reactions exist–search the Mayo Clinic website and you will find it for when syphilis is treated with penicillin. You won’t find it for when a child is made to drink bleach.

Why would a child have an adverse reaction to MMS? Because it’s bleach. Here is an FDA warning on MMS:

FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)
Product contains industrial strength bleach

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to take Miracle Mineral Solution, an oral liquid also known as “Miracle Mineral Supplement” or “MMS.” The product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health.

The FDA has received several reports of health injuries from consumers using this product, including severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.

Consumers who have MMS should stop using it immediately and throw it away.

MMS is distributed on Internet sites and online auctions by multiple independent distributors. Although the products share the MMS name, the look of the labeling may vary.

The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment. High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.

MMS claims to treat multiple unrelated diseases, including HIV, hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and other conditions. The FDA is not aware of any research that MMS is effective in treating any of these conditions. MMS also poses a significant health risk to consumers who may choose to use this product for self-treatment instead of seeking FDA-approved treatments for these conditions.

The FDA continues to investigate and may pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions as appropriate to protect the public from this potentially dangerous product.

The FDA advises consumers who have experienced any negative side effects from MMS to consult a health care professional as soon as possible and to discard the product. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events to the FDA’s MedWatch program at 800-FDA-1088 or online at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.

One has to question whether AutismOne spent any thought about promoting giving bleach orally or rectally to disabled children before accepting this speaker. Seriously, how hard is it to consider that forcing anyone, and especially disabled children, to drink bleach is a bad idea?

172 Responses to “MMS, or how to cure autism with bleach. Brought to you by AutismOne”

  1. Low Budget Dave June 11, 2012 at 18:07 #

    Like a lot of parents, we have tried a few approaches that were not well-supported by medical science. We tried the gluten-free and casein-free diet, for example. The theory is: “Couldn’t hurt.”
    Let’s not lump every snake-oil salesman together, though. Wakefield, for example, lost his license for failure to obtain adequate permission from parents of research subjects. That is a completely different affair from selling poison and misplaced hope to desperate parents.
    Like other parents in our local group, we have learned not to grasp at straws, particularly those that contain the word “miracle”.
    Still, wouldn’t it be nice if there were some actual doctors and scientists researching the fever effect, rather than just frauds and liars?

    • Sullivan June 11, 2012 at 23:36 #

      “Let’s not lump every snake-oil salesman together, though. ”

      True. But I’ll point out that I don’t.

      “Still, wouldn’t it be nice if there were some actual doctors and scientists researching the fever effect, rather than just frauds and liars?”

      You mean like the team at Johns Hopkins who published on it a few years ago?

      You will find that in general there isn’t much resistance to diets and supplements or many other “alternative” therapies which are basically benign. The real strong discussions on the GFCF diets were years back when people were claiming that autism is caused by “opioid peptides” released from the gut into the bloodstream. The bad science was the complaint. Another complaint is that there is basically no real guidance on the diets. Basically, implement them and if anything gets better, attribute it to the diet. If things get worth, attribute it to “detoxification” or some other “helpful” reaction. Either way, the logic tends to go, you need to do more biomed. If it doesn’t do anything good or bad, you still need to do more. There is no “exit plan” in place. No, “if a, b and/or c doesn’t happen in a month or two, move on”. The same can be said for most biomed treatments.

      There is nothing to say that autism prevents one from being sensitive to certain foods.

      Not to belabor the point, but Mr. Wakefield’s license was pulled for a large number of transgressions, not just what you meantioned.

      • futuredave5 June 12, 2012 at 03:12 #

        Thanks for responding. I do find the chemistry daunting, and I find myself talking to the doctor for even very minor decisions such as vitamin supplements.

        I can’t speak too well about Wakefield, because I really don’t know the details. But a lot of the media coverage smells like a smear job to me.

        As I recall, there were questions about the methodology and the conclusions of the study, but nothing worse than every study ever published by the tobacco industry. If you could lose your license for publishing a bad study, then the streets would be littered with doctors from both sides of the vaccine debate.

      • futuredave5 June 12, 2012 at 11:31 #

        Chris, thank you for the summary. Certainly easy to read. I never meant for this to be a discussion about Wakefield, it just seemed odd to me that he was lumped into the same group as parents who think poison might be a good treatment for autism.

        I did not attend the conference, but I know a parent who did. She said that Wakefield did not address his own shortcomings, but mostly attacked the scientific errors in the studies that were used to discredit him. This is a fairly easy task, and fairly easy to get applause. It reminds me of politics sometimes: Two candidates claim the other is incompetent, and both appear to be correct.

        The big CDC study, for example, was so rife with errors and omissions that the NIH refused to defend the methodology or the conclusions at a Congressional hearing. Instead, the NIH sent the topic back to the CDC, and instructed them to repeat the entire study.

        On the one hand, this is good science. You don’t want federal mandates driven by epidemiological studies that contain known errors. On the other hand, the first CDC study is still the most commonly cited research on the MMR vaccine. One doctor at the NIH characterized it as “the same kind of methodology that cigarette companies employed to prove that smoking did not cause cancer.”

        In the CDC study, for example, hundreds of children were eliminated from the sample because they displayed facial tics after the MMR vaccine, and were too young to diagnose with ASD. The original study (back when the MMR contained mercury) was never published in detail. The CDC simply released the conclusion and rejected all requests to view the data. The anti-vaccine studies are obviously terrible, but the subtle truth is that the pro-vaccine studies are also terrible. (http://www.safeminds.org/news/documents/Vaccines%20and%20Autism.%20Epidemiology%20Rebuttal.pdf)

        Like a number of children, my son had an adverse reaction to several different vaccines. On the advice of his doctor, we continued with the vaccines based on the theory that the disease would be worse than the adverse reaction. After the second MMR vaccine, though, my son started testing positive for measles. The adverse reaction and the positive RT-PCR are both fairly common. (Everyone has about the same chance of these side effects, regardless of ASD.)

        What is less common is that my son’s IgG and IgM scores for measles (for example) have continued to rise.

        According to current research, this is unrelated to autism. According to some research, it is not even related to the vaccine. Yet three of the four kids in my son’s playgroup have the same issue. (None show any signs of measles other than blood tests.) Since the kids are otherwise healthy, we are told not to worry about it. But to a parent, it is still distressing. If the tests showed that you had an active measles infection in your stomach, you might be concerned too.

        Then, when we go to autism conferences, we meet dozens of other parents with the exact same issue. All of us have been told not to worry about it. Nothing to see here, move along.

        Mainstream doctors are scared to discuss the subject, because they have seen what happens. They end up like Wakefield. I am not saying he was right, I am just saying that the multi-billion dollar campaign against him seemed to be a bit out-of-proportion. Could Paul Offit stand that kind of scrutiny? Could anyone?

        Parents of autistic children tend to love outsiders and underdogs. It is imprinted into our psychological DNA because of the way we love our kids. (We even cheer for the Cubs.) So when Merck attacks someone like that, they should have known that it might give him more credibility, not less.

        There are dozens of other doctors questioning the safety of vaccines. All of the others have been attacked, but none quite so much as Wakefield. Because of his ethical problems and vocal nature, he must be an easy target.

        Doesn’t matter to me: It was never my intent to go to war for Wakefield. He needs to fight his own battles, both financially and morally. But I will not have anyone say that I am a bad parent because I finally chose to discontinue vaccines. I made the decision based on medical advice from my son’s two physicians. I did not read anything by Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Wakefield.

        I read quite a bit by Paul Offit. I just disagree.

      • Sullivan June 12, 2012 at 13:20 #

        Andrew Wakefield has always had the chance to use his leadership role to help inform parents about the obviously bad therapies. He’s never stepped up to the task. MMS is just another example.

        He’s willing to spread fear of vaccines based on an “analysis” of the research which he has never shared, poorly done research and what could generously be called “half truths”. But he won’t take a minute out of his day to post to Facebook, ” maybe we shouldn’t be forcing disabled children to drink bleach”?

      • Sullivan June 12, 2012 at 13:34 #

        “The adverse reaction and the positive RT-PCR are both fairly common”

        No, they are not. If the were, the attorneys in the autism omnibus proceeding would have presented someone as a test case with reliable pcr data.

        Another way to say this is that false positive results were common for a while, they aren’t now.

        Andrew Wakefield did not fail “intense scrutiny”. He failed pretty much any scrutiny. Spectacularly. He misled his own coworkers about his multiple conflicts of interest. He misled a congressional hearing where he was specifically asked under oath what the source of his research support was. He quashed the results of his own laboratory.

        When someone is hiding things, they can’t complain that it took some effort to uncover what was hidden.

        When someone uses the press to propagate misinformation, they can’t complain that the press spends considerable time correcting that misinformation.

        When one makes ones self a news story, a celebrity, based on a deceiving the public, one can’t complain that he remains a news story when the deception is exposed.

      • Chris June 12, 2012 at 16:05 #

        Dave:

        The big CDC study….

        Since there were several, and the only hue and cry about one particular study not done by any American agency came from those who were not qualified to critique it, that diatribe is hollow. In the future be specific which of the dozens of studies you are referring to, and make sure to reference a critique from someone who is qualified to evaluate the study. Not someone who just has a business degree (that unsigned “critique” was written by Blaxill, and was on several studies).

        And the first studies that showed that Wakefield were wrong came out of the Royal Free Hospital:

        Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
        Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

        Vaccine. 2001 Jun 14;19(27):3632-5.
        MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association.

        BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
        Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.

      • DT35 July 19, 2012 at 21:29 #

        @Dave: “back when the MMR contained mercury”

        When was that, Dave, the twelfth of never? As a live-virus vaccine, MMR could not be formulated with a mercury preservative. You’re more convincing if you get basic facts straight.

      • bbmcrae October 11, 2012 at 20:13 #

        Just to review the rules I’m reading here by futuredave5:

        If you are exposed falsifying your research, spread lies about vaccines that will actually convince some people not to vaccinate their children and therefore put them (and us) at risk, and get your medical license revoked = you’re the victim of a sinister smear campaign and not just a dangerous fraud.

        Ok, all cleared up. Thanks!

    • daedalus2u June 12, 2012 at 13:24 #

      I have posted about what I think is the physiology of the fever effect.

      http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2008/01/resolution-of-asd-symptoms-with-fever.html

      and which I have linked to many times before. I have discussed my ideas with senior clinicians, so they know at least partially where I am coming from (limited by the amount of time they have allocated).

      If MMS is having any positive effects, they are likely mediated through a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction as bacteria in the gut are killed by the bleach. This is a terrible and non-effective way to trigger these effects. If my understanding is correct, MMS can only induce temporary resolution, and the autism will ratchet worse between each episode due to feedback inhibition.

      I think the problem is that people who study autism are not expert in acute immune system stuff, and there has been so much noise over vaccines that triggering immune reactions in children with autism would receive so much criticism (and death threats) that no one is proposing it (or no one is funding proposals which have been submitted which we don’t know about). Vaccines stimulate exactly these same types of immune system reactions. Immunogenic stuff from vaccines, or immunogenic stuff from bacteria killed by bleach, both elicit the same type of acute reaction. That acute reaction has not been studied very much because it is dangerous to induce artificially, and it is usually over by the time people get treated for infections. The magnitude of the prompt immune response is difficult to measure except after the fact when people either survive (if the immune response was weak enough), or don’t survive if it was too strong. This reaction is a delicate balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory processes. The details are not well understood because they involve the whole body and signaling pathways that are not yet known, with different tissue compartments doing different things based on differential signaling. Even if we knew what the signaling was (but we can’t because measurement in the many tissue compartments is not possible, we don’t know what the signaling is doing. Experts know they don’t know.

      A problem also is that people who are NT, are predisposed to think that anything that is different is abnormal and is pathological. It is the immune reaction that causes the very high mortality of sepsis (tens of percent in a hospital setting in previously healthy individuals). That is a “normal” immune reaction, normal as process. If you were living in Africa 50,000 years ago, and your physiology detected bacteria floating around in your blood stream, your physiology needed to take very strong action because if it didn’t, in an hour there would be 8 times more bacteria to deal with. Evolution minimized the sum of deaths from too strong an immune response and from too weak an immune response. To minimize the sum, you need to have some of both.

      Evolution didn’t have to get approval from IRBs before it did stuff, and didn’t have critics sending death threats.

      Fever Therapy worked to cure neurosyphilis but it killed ~10 to 20% of those who were treated with it. Those kinds of odds might have been acceptable for a disease that was 100% fatal (as neurosyphilis was), but are completely unacceptable for something like autism.

      Quacks do read (or rather misread) the literature. Why did the Geiers latch onto Lupron? In part because of SBC’s “extreme male brain” hypothesis. The saying “fools rush in where Angels fear to tread” is apt. SBC would never think of giving anyone with autism Lupron. He is quoted as saying the idea “fills me with horror”.

      I am certainly aware that quacks read what I have written and may, through hubris, think they understand it better than I do and are prepared to do things they don’t understand. If the immune system is invoked in the wrong way, it can easily kill people. That is what anaphylaxis is. It was anaphylaxis that killed more than a dozen children from a multi-dose vaccine that got contaminated and the bacteria that grew in it produced enough endotoxin to kill the children who were injected later. To prevent deaths from anaphylaxis is why preservatives were added to vaccines.

    • c.a. borg September 19, 2012 at 18:01 #

      You should read your research material better! Wakefield did not loose his license the way you claim. Secondly, he has been cleansed of all “suspitions” of any wrongdoing in his research. There was a socalled journalist behind a smear campaign against him, and he was finally exposed. He was paid by big pharma to do this kind of “work” on researchers that came up with “conflicting” results.. Conflicting to the big pharma corrupt “treatment” system… More and more research are done, and Wakefields results are corroborated. Besides, the real solution is NOT called Miracle Solution, but actually MASTER MINERAL SOLUTION! The “miracle” comes from the corrupt “journalists” paid by the big pharma to smear all serious research.

      • Allison H September 19, 2012 at 18:28 #

        Wakefield has not been cleansed of any suspicions of wrongdoing, his ability to practice medicine in the U.K. is still non-existent, and he recently had his libel suit against Brian Deer and the BMJ thrown out of court.

        No one has corroborated Wakefield’s research results other than a handful of similarly-minded anti-vaccine advocates. Many of those have had their studies retracted or only published in non-peer-reviewed journals.

        There is no scientific evidence to support the use of MMS as a treatment for autism.

      • lilady September 19, 2012 at 20:26 #

        c.a. borg: And you should read your research “better” and not believe everything you read on the notorious anti-vaccine websites.

        Wakefield had his medical license revoked in the U.K. because he subjected kids to unwarranted, not-medically indicated, painful and dangerous medical procedures. He failed to disclose prior conflicts of interests including the payments he received from an attorney (using public tax dollars) in the amount of $ 750,000 USD. for his “expertise” in his totally fictitious “regressive autistic enterocolitis” diagnosis. Other prior conflicts of interests included the two offshore companies he set up under his wife Carmel’s name. One company was going to market a single antigen measles vaccine; the other company, which had investors, was set up to develop tests for the diagnosis of his fictitious “regressive autistic enterocolitis” and to market those laboratory tests for his fictitious diagnosis.

        Furthermore, many of the lawyers’ prospective “clients” whose parents were going to institute a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the triple antigen MMR vaccine, were referred consecutively by an organization in the U.K. that is vehemently anti-vaccine.

        Wakefield, with the complicity of some of the childrens’ parents, falsified the childrens’ medical charts at the Royal Free Hospital…by dating the onset of symptoms of autism as taking place after the administration of the MMR vaccine, whereas some of the children exhibited developmental delays before they ever received the vaccine. Some children with very mild autism, which appeared months after they received the vaccine, had the dates of the onset of their symptoms “pushed backward in time” by Wakefield who falsified their charts to state the symptoms appeared within days of having received the vaccine.

        Show us, by providing links to any reliable website that Wakefield was exonerated and show us by providing links to any study published in a reliable first tier, peer reviewed medical journal that Wakefield’s study and conclusions…have been reproduced…anywhere.

        John Walker Smith, Wakefield’s coauthor appealed the decision by the GMC to revoke his medical license, Wakefield NEVER appealed the decision to revoke his license.

        John Walker Smith, prevailed and his medical license was restored because he was able to prove by the childrens’ chart notes that Wakefield overrode Walker-Smiths decision to not perform certain invasive, painful, dangerous tests (lumbar punctures) on the children.

        John Walker stated recently that the link between the vaccine and autism has been thoroughly disproved.

        So, c.a. borg…not only did Walker-Smiths successful appeal NOT have any impact of the decision to strike Wakefield from the register/revoke his medical license…it added more information to the ever growing body of evidence of Wakefield’s guilt.

        Do try to get some sources other than Age of Autism and their yellow journalism c.a. borg.

      • novalox September 19, 2012 at 22:16 #

        @c.a. borg

        So you support shoving bleach up a child’s bum?

        You are, simply put, a monster.

  2. Carrie July 19, 2012 at 01:07 #

    As a parent of a child with post-vaccine regressive autism, I am always reading about different vitamins/supplements/etc to help heal the gut of my child. Some of you are so critical about the few parents that try treatments that may not have double-blind studies with placebo to back them up. If we wait until that happens, our children might be 20 years old. The groups that you should be attacking are the CDC and the AAP. The vaccination schedule that our babies are subject to has NEVER been studied for safety. The vaccinations have only been studied by themselves, by the drug companies that manufacture them, with no placebo (the placebo being an unvaccinated child). It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is possible that these vaccines aren’t safe. So, instead of using your energy to target these people who are trying to figure out a way to kill the pathogens in their childrens’ bodies, why don’t you go after the people that are knowingly damaging our childrens’ health. I think if you looked further into the details of Andy Wakefield’s study, your opinion of him would be different. It’s not his responsibility to keep up on and research every single topic at the AutismOne conference. In the beginning of one of the biomedical autism books that I read last year, there was a quote or story that went something like this…… Picture this….You are on a dock. Your young child falls in the water without a life jacket and is 20 feet from the dock. There is a life preserver on the dock, attached to a rope. You don’t know if the rope is strong enough to withstand the force it would take to pull your child in. There has never been a double-blind study on the rope to make sure it won’t break. Wouldn’t you be CRAZY not to throw the life preserver to your child? (OK, I know the obvious thing to do would be to jump in and save your child. But for all intents and purposes, let’s say you’re in a wheelchair). There are so many agencies and forces and companies that are against autism parents finding the truth to what exactly caused their childrens’ regression. It will be a cold day in Hell before scientific studies come out showing us parents how we need to heal our children. Anyone who is fighting this fight can tell you that. For example, mainstream media is still saying that GFCF diet is not helpful. Come on people! These parents that are trying MMS are doing it in the best interest of their children, and you have no idea what or how much research they have done on this topic. I am not doing it myself. I just think the last group of people you should be attacking should be someone who is trying to heal the gut of a child with autism.

    • Chris July 19, 2012 at 02:27 #

      And this makes it okay to shove bleach up a kid’s bum how? Seriously, you think that a parent is trying their best by forcing a child to drink bleach? In case you missed it: MMS is an industrial bleach.

    • eirenehogan August 2, 2012 at 15:27 #

      Autism as a disorder is based in the brian, not in the gut. How can dealing with gut issues have any possible affect?

      If you want to help your son you need to aork with what is really wrong with him.

    • lisette1066 August 2, 2012 at 16:02 #

      Autism is genetic.

      • Dave August 3, 2012 at 02:29 #

        Current thought is that autism has genetic causes, but that environmental factors might play a role in triggering severe symptoms such as regressions. I suspect if there were a single factor, it would have been discovered by now.

      • lisette1066 August 3, 2012 at 06:37 #

        Dave
        OK – I guess one can’t argue with that – environmental factors will affect learning and behaviour. But it also means that autism can’t be ‘cured’. And environmental things like reactions to a vaccination or foodstuffs won’t change the way the brain is wired, it will just cause physical reactions which will then cause the child to react in a stressful way to that physical reaction. If the child is autistic he/she will react in an autistic way, and so then the autism is seen. If they are NT then they will react in an NT way. You can’t argue that the environmental stressor caused the autism any more than you could argue the environmental stressor caused neurotypicalism.

        Lisette

      • Kathryn Hedges August 3, 2012 at 07:32 #

        I agree with Lisette that autism is genetic, but I’d like to explain to Dave that this doesn’t imply autism is caused by only a “single factor.” Even though basic genetics from K-12 biology classes make it look like “genetic” means that specific genetic mutations always cause specific traits, that only happens in a small fraction of situations that make good classroom examples. Most genetic stuff is more complicated than that, particularly during development of an organism. Embryonic development is a complicated symphony of cells exchanging chemical signals, and the timing and duration of these signals is what directs the growth of the brain and body. If something gets out of tune or out of time, the result is not as expected. Because there is so much variation in this process, it makes sense to me that the symptoms become noticeable at different times in development.

        My understanding of the neurobiology of autism is that there are all sorts of critical points during development–as early as 3 weeks post-conception–where differences in genes or their activity can cause effects we consider autism. At some point, it is likely to involve the specific parts of the developing brain where genes are turned on and off, since autism does not affect the entire brain equally.

        This specificity is one of the things that makes me suspect any drug treatment to “cure” autism by reversing or preventing the differences in brain development is likelier to cause more damage than to prevent or reverse damage. If the wrong leads are connected in your computer, you don’t fix it by dunking the whole motherboard in solder.

      • futuredave5 August 3, 2012 at 11:52 #

        I agree, I may have spoken poorly.

        My understanding is that the best of current research is looking at genes involved in cell projection and motility, and, in general, neuron migration and neuron adhesion. Because cell development can be disrupted by a combination of duplications or deletions at any one, or a number, of thousands (or millions) of genetic loci, this means that there will never be any single cause discovered for autism.

        It also means that no single treatment is likely to work, and that differences in cognition and behavior observed in ASDs are more likely to be genetic than environmental. On the other hand, we know so little about how neurons relate to cognition and behavior that we are studying everything using statistics.

        When scientists say that 90% of autism appears to be genetic, they are just saying that statistically, it appears to be heritable . What is less well known is why some people with massive duplications in suspect genes do not have autism. It is also not understood why some autistic children have significant reactions to foods that are safe for the rest of the population.

        If I have implied that autism has an environmental cause, then I apologize. That sort of language feeds into the overly-simplistic thinking that the people on this board (and others) fight against.

        On the other hand, I am not the only parent who has seen my child react very badly to harmless food dyes and known-safe food preservatives. If something as simple as a cup of yogurt can cause profound behavior changes in my son for an entire day, then I am going to avoid that yogurt. (No one should freak out here, I am not clamoring to get the FDA to ban that brand of yogurt.)

        I am perfectly aware that it is his genetics that caused this particular reaction. It does not appear to be an allergy, it does not test as an allergy, and millions of other kids have eaten the same yogurt with no ill effects. It is simplistic to call it an “environmental trigger”; that just happens to be how I think of it.

    • Nika August 30, 2013 at 01:38 #

      I am also a parent and also very interested to treat the guits of my son. Just quickly made some research:
      1) it is 28% bleach
      2) it kills ALL anaerobs (organisms living in guts) and not ONLY PATHOGENI as they claim as ALL anaerobs have negative ORP, so either they do not even know what are they writing about or they mixed up anaerobs/aerobs with beneficial/ not benefitial – what is the same as the first suggestion actually. We should be happy they did not use a pretty term gramm-positive for beneficial and gramm-negative for non-beneficial.

      So – yes, it does destroy Lacto, Bifido, etc. as well as Strep, Candida, etc It oxidate everything in guts, incl tisssues as they also have negative ORP.
      And “detox signs” are actually intox signs.
      So, if your guts are healthy then after killing everything and damaging cell walls of the guts they would be restored and some new microbiota appears, but that would not be such a quick procedure in damaged guts.

      More then that, it depletes glutathioone, decrease T4, increases cholesterol, provokes stomach cancer in males and promotes biofilm formation – all PubMed research articles.

  3. Science Mom July 19, 2012 at 01:37 #

    Carrie, perhaps you would like to address the fact that Autism One hosted a speaker who advocates bleach enemas, drinks and baths for their children instead of presenting a hysterical wall o’ text. Good intentions does not cut causing harm to special needs children, or any children for that matter and anyone who can condone such abuse has no credibility and frankly, shouldn’t be a parent.

  4. Autismum July 19, 2012 at 02:07 #

    Carrie, you assume that people who can see Wakefield’s fabrications for what they are haven’t read the paper. I’ve read it and I’ve used it in teaching others how to critically evaluate scientific literature as an example of a truly awful piece of work (and that was way before the evidence that it was fraudulent became public).
    From your comment, it’s clear to see you have no idea what’s involved in a scientific study – you don’t even know the difference between a control group and a placebo, so really you’re just ranting. The parents trying to “kill the pathogens in their childrens’ bodies” are likely to kill a child before long just like those trying to purify a little boy’s body with chelation did. It’s all the same – a cultish purification ritual or exorcism.The parents willing to subject their kids to this need more help than the kids themselves.
    You condone this because you can’t get your head around the science of vaccines and the simplistic and slick sales pitches you hear from snake oil salespeople impresses credulous Carrie. So much so, you are publicly defending child abusers and I include Wakefield in that group.

    • Low Budget Dave July 19, 2012 at 02:45 #

      I think there is a room for more perspective here. Autism One has always promoted alternative therapies. I want to have an open mind, because I know people who have noticed benefits from HBO, dye-free diets, and even some nutty stuff like chiropractic. If a particular diet has been shown to help 1% of autistic kids, I might still give it a shot.

      It is a free country, and as long as it is not harmful, parents should have the right to try alternative treatments. We need to draw the line at MMS, though. There is vast potential for harm, and no benefit that can’t be obtained using safer methods.

      Autism One needs to stop publishing inflated claims, and give us better information so we can make up our own minds.

      On the other hand, the rest of us need to be careful not to condemn potential treatments just because they don’t fit our definition of traditional medicine. I don’t think it is fair to refer to every alternative treatment as child abuse.

      • Sullivan July 19, 2012 at 05:28 #

        “as long as it is not harmful”

        You wrote it. Tell me how you rationalize giving bleach to disabled children to a level that they are sickened as “not harmful” and we can continue this discussion.

        Of course, we will continue in a manner to inform you that you are incorrect.

      • Sullivan July 19, 2012 at 05:35 #

        Sorry

        I obviously didn’t read your full paragraph.

    • Rachel November 18, 2012 at 00:52 #

      I am the parent of a child with autism, and while I believe in the genetics of autism, I also believe my son’s autism was, in part caused by terbutaline therapy that I had when I was pregnant to stop preterm labor (17 weeks worth). That being said, I have long wondered if my mother would have gotten some sort of diagnosis if she had grown up in this decade, and she has a cousin who wrote a 200 page poem in iambic tentrameter (‘Nuff said). But let me make this clear; I do not believe the vaccines have anything to do with it, I would NEVER force bleach on my kid, and I do not believe there is a cure. I believe there are therapies that improve quality of life and functioning. I am wary of all these “gurus” who seem to have endless substances and therapies that they can charge you thousands of dollars and have you mortgaging your house. For what? So your child can be subject to grevious bodily harm and perhaps suffer brain damage from ingesting bleach? No thanks. Check out The Autism Acceptance Project if you want to see an organization who pays true respect to our beloved family members.

      • Autismum November 18, 2012 at 03:23 #

        Thank you so much for your comment. I’ve been really intrigued by the research on fever and ‘flu during pregnancy and the potential link to autism. I got the ‘flu at 30-odd weeks and it turned into pneumonia. I had a raging fever and hallucinations (I thought the obstetrician was Helen Mirren come to give me an Oscar). Though I can point to that in the time I carried the Pwd I also have to say there is autism in my close family as well as other developmental issues mainly affecting boys. I think there is an interplay of factors and that is, so far, what the evidence suggests.

  5. lilady July 19, 2012 at 08:08 #

    @ Carrie: Your first sentence is indicative of a credulous parent…

    “As a parent of a child with post-vaccine regressive autism, I am always reading about different vitamins/supplements/etc to help heal the gut of my child.”

    We just find it hard to believe that your child has regressive autism that was caused by an (unknown) vaccine. The very best cases, with the most “documentation” were heard in the Omnibus hearing in the Vaccine Court…where the burden of proof is so much lower than medical tort cases heard in Civil Courts (50 % plus a feather). None of these chosen cases…the ones that had the best chance to prevail…were awarded damages for vaccine-induced autism.

    Who ever told you that your child’s gut needs healing? What tests were performed by what doctor? Even if your child had a comorbid ulceration or Crohn’s disease it has nothing to do with your child’s autism and stomach or bowel conditions are not treated with “different vitamins/supplements, etc.”

    Do you even have an elementary education about normal flora within the digestive system, Carrie. Have you tried megadoses of antibiotics on your child which would surely cause the death of healthy bacteria in the digestive tracts and which would surely leaving your child at risk for fungal and yeast infections/? And, how exactly did you treat these iatrogenic treatment-caused fungal and yeast infections…with more regimens of mega doses of antifungal medication.?

    BTW, your phrase :”heal the gut” is a tip-off to your wallowing in Wakefield/Krigsman, etal theories of “leaky gut” syndrome.

    “Vaccines have never been studied for safety”

    Oh yes they are… prior to licensing, right after they are licensed and monitored tightly for any untoward reactions, for years afterward.

    You accuse us of not reading Dr. Wakefield’s data, yet that is a blatant lie. The blogger on this site as well as other science bloggers write frequently about Wakefield’s data and any of the regular posters here can and does cite specific instances where the data that was collected, was not reported accurately by Wakefield at the time of publishing in the Lancet…nor anytime since…during his “press conferences”, during his interviews and within the confines of the book he wrote.

    What other “biomedical *treatments/cures for autism” have you tried or are contemplating to use on your child, Carrie; chelation to remove *non-existent* heavy metal toxicities, hyperbaric oxygen chambers…or perhaps stem cell transplants. All these treatments are still be done and your DAN! doctor can refer to a specialist of most of the biomedical *treatments/cures* for autism. You can even find quack doctors who will examine you child here, take your money and send you and your child to Panama for G-d knows what substances for intrathecal infustion of supposed stem cells.

    Who ever told you or how did you get the idea that child *has* autism? Your child does not *have* autism, your child is autistic. He’s not a diseased dirty creature who needs to be dewormed, who needs the megadoses of antibiotics to cure him. Neither is he in need of anti-fungal medication….just because you messed with the natural balance of health bacteria within his GI tract.

    And, the ultimate outrageous remark in defense of abusive parents…

    “These parents that are trying MMS are doing it in the best interest of their children, and you have no idea what or how much research they have done on this topic. I am not doing it myself. I just think the last group of people you should be attacking should be someone who is trying to heal the gut of a child with autism.”

    They are child abusers and sadists Carrie…no better than the creepy pervert who has a captured child and takes joy out of inflicting harm and pain on a defenseless developmentally delayed child.

    • futuredave5 July 20, 2012 at 00:18 #

      In all fairness, the phrase about “healing the gut” is frequently used by some of the best doctors in the business. In particular, I would recommend the book “Children With Starving Brains.”

      Jaqualyn McCandless presents a variety of approaches, and discusses the science behind each one. It is well researched, well-written, and doesn’t degenerate into name-calling, like some other books by authors with the initials “JM”.

      I found CWSB to be useful. Your mileage may vary. If you don’t like it, though, there is no need to attack the book, or to attack me. (I will just get defensive, and stop listening.)

      As you might guess, I think we need to be careful not to launch personal attacks against people who are merely misinformed. The people who created MMS deserve to be prosecuted, but I am not sure we can blame parents for being desperate.

      Every parent wants the best for their child. There are some parents, who are getting their information in all the wrong places, and engaging in a little wishful thinking to supplement the reality of of our day-to-day lives.

      Just because we get all defensive about our children does not mean we are going to start mixing bleach in their milkshakes. At least no one that i know.

      • Sullivan July 20, 2012 at 01:54 #

        ““healing the gut” is frequently used by some of the best doctors in the business”

        I don’t put J. McCandless in the “best doctors in the business” category. I put her as one of the number of doctors who have reworked the vaccine-causation idea into a book to sell.

        She’s a supporter of Andrew Wakefield, even after it became clear he is unethical and his work was fraudulent. She promotes chelation, a therapy based on the mistaken idea that autism is caused by mercury exposure.

        Sorry to put it so bluntly, but the “I would recommend the book..” bit is off topic and is using my site to promote someone who has had ample opportunities over, what, four editions? to update to include understanding which has come since her first edition. Understanding which clearly refutes much of what she has to say.

  6. lilady July 20, 2012 at 06:51 #

    Sullivan, I read about “Children With Starving Brains” and its author here…

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/02/author-of-children-with-starving-brains-supports-dr-andrew-wakefield-in-letter-petition.html

    Sorry Dave, I don’t defend “desperate parents”, who abuse their kids behind closed doors. If they are so *convinced* that they are providing harmless and curative *biomedical* bleach treatment, why don’t they discuss the *treatment/cure* with their child’s teacher or their child’s school psychologist? Indeed, why don’t they *share* their miraculous find with their close family members, close friends and neighbors?

    • Sullivan July 20, 2012 at 07:28 #

      Apparently, they are trying both: working behind closed doors and bringing their find to the world. According to one group I follow, the MMS Facebook group has gone private, but they want members to have tested their child (ATEC, if I recall correctly) before being granted membership. That last bit suggests to me that they plan to collect “data” in the group to show that this works.

      • Rachel November 18, 2012 at 00:55 #

        They plan to, but haven’t done it yet. Studying it would be beneficial to do before you give it to small children. I wonder if they would sign themselves up as a control group.

  7. lilady July 20, 2012 at 07:46 #

    I believe I read somewhere that Kerri Rivera who *presented* at Autism One stated that they used ATEC scores to *monitor* the *treatment*. High scores are reported to have gone down dramatically…in one case…a score of “9″ was recorded following *successful MMS treatment!!!!

    They may collect “data”, but the publishing of that “data”…ain’t ever going to happen.

  8. Tony July 28, 2012 at 05:07 #

    On the topic if vaccines can’t we just simply acknowledge that the testing involved with their development falls subject to the laws if statistics? You take a random sample which you calculate as large and suficient enough and assuming the population follows a normal distribution then your results should be applicable to the entire population….what if these kids with autism fall in the tails of the normal distribution? What if they have genetic predispositions that were never represented in the random samples? Our population keeps growing and mutations/evolution happen for all species…yesterdays sample for today?

    • Sullivan July 28, 2012 at 05:21 #

      Tony,

      The framework you discuss precludes the idea of an autism epidemic caused by vaccines. If you are looking for rare cases, by definition you aren’t talking about the majority and the time trends involve in the majority. Or, to put it simply, a small fraction of cases does not cause a large shift in overall prevalence.

      Then you shift to biological plausibility and targeted studies. The thimerosal hypothesis doesn’t have good plausibility. The MMR hypothesis even less so. MMR was tested in a targeted population in a study by Hornig and Coworkers. Hornig et al.ade it clear that the MMR hypothesis didn’t work.

      • Tony July 28, 2012 at 17:40 #

        I believe there is a genetic predisposition exacerbated by environmental factors, one of which, but not necessarily limited to vaccines, in our case, it could have been my/her age at conception, she had to take antibiotics post back/scoliosis surgery for close to a year before the pregnancy, I am allergic to thymerosal myself, plus any other environmentals that I may not have identified

      • Tony July 28, 2012 at 17:50 #

        Aside from that I used to be one of those guys who thought that people who didn’t want to vaccinate their kids were whack jobs…that was until I saw my sons change after the MMR, of course I cannot prove it was the root cause, but the change was just to big not to be noticed

      • Chris July 28, 2012 at 20:11 #

        Yes, my son also changed quite a bit a couple of weeks after his MMR.

        Though I tend to blame the seizures on the dehydration he suffered from a week of having a severe gastrointestinal infection.

        Which do you think is more probable: the MMR vaccine or the seizures from being dehydrated?

      • futuredave5 July 28, 2012 at 23:50 #

        My son also had a terrible reaction. Maybe one of the people on the board can help direct me to some research on this. Are the terrible reactions more common in autistic kids, or are these similar to the general population?

        I know it is hard to quantify what constitutes a worse-than-average reaction, but I know it when I see it. After each vaccine, my son had between six days and nine days of screaming, crying, fever, self-injury, and tics that were so severe that my doctor had him tested for seizures.

        In addition, he went from sleeping three hours at a stretch to less than 40 minutes at a stretch. Instead of waking up screaming once every two or three days, he woke up screaming seven or eight times per night.

        My doctor assured me that this is all normal (after reviewing the EEG), and convinced us to continue the vaccine program.

        I completely understand that measles would have been worse. But still, why all the bad reactions? Does it indicate that my son has some sort of immune system irregularity? And if so, is this related to autism, or is it separate?

        Many times, when I ask these questions, I get the lecture that the vaccines did not cause my son’s autism. I believe that the vaccines are innocent in that respect, but I am still not convinced that they did more good than harm.

        My doctor tells me they did, but in all honesty, he doesn’t know. He is quoting me the odds, not the specifics.

        Also, he didn’t have to listen to his son cry himself to sleep for a week.

  9. lilady July 28, 2012 at 17:12 #

    The Managing Editor of AoA is blogging about MMS again. She also informs us that Teri Arranga interviewed Kerri Rivera on July 24th on her Autism One radio show.

    Don’t these cranks ever learn, that the touting of MMS at the Autism One Quackfest and a blog on AoA about MMS *treatment/cure* of autism, has been met with derision from the autism and science community?

  10. Science Mom July 28, 2012 at 17:35 #

    Don’t these cranks ever learn, that the touting of MMS at the Autism One Quackfest and a blog on AoA about MMS *treatment/cure* of autism, has been met with derision from the autism and science community?

    Of course they learn. Didn’t you notice how they obfuscate MMS by referring to it as sodioum chloride? They simply learn to disguise their abuse better.

  11. lilady July 28, 2012 at 19:10 #

    @ Tony: You need to get up to speed now. Just because your child had the MMR vaccine in the past does not prove that the vaccine caused the autism in your child.

    The fact that your wife took antibiotics before conception and that you say you are “…allergic to thymerosal myself, plus any other environmentals that I may not have identified”, also has nothing to do with your child’s diagnosis of autism.

    BTW, how do you *know* you are allergic to thimerosal?

    • Tony July 28, 2012 at 22:46 #

      Well I’ve known I was allergic to thymerosal since I was 15 at the time I tried to move from glasses to contacts…back then thymerosal was used in the solution used for contacts and I developed a severe reaction in my eyes…after visits to optometrist and doctors they told me I couldn’t use contacts because I was allergic to thymerosal…

      • Chris July 29, 2012 at 01:11 #

        I am also allergic to thimerosal. At least when put on the soft lenses I put on my eyes. I never had a reaction to any vaccine, and neither did my kids.

      • Chris July 29, 2012 at 01:12 #

        Also, the MMR vaccine has never contained thimerosal.

  12. lilady July 28, 2012 at 19:13 #

    @ Science Mom: Yup, the Managing Editor actually linked to a radio broadcast on July 24th…an interview between Autism One’s Teri Arranga and Kerri Rivera that *addressed* some of the flack that poured down on them after the MMS presentation at the Quackfest.

  13. Science Mom July 28, 2012 at 19:48 #

    that was until I saw my sons change after the MMR, of course I cannot prove it was the root cause, but the change was just to big not to be noticed

    Tony, this is a common meme amongst those who believe that X vaccine caused their child’s autism. However, when retrospective examination of the child is done, there are subtle and even very obvious signs of autism. Furthermore, when you think about the deficits of the spectrum, it makes more sense that they become more profound around the age of the MMR jab and that, along with the human foible of seeking patterns then parents fool themselves into believing it was the vaccines.

    • Tony July 28, 2012 at 22:49 #

      So I guess you can say with 100% certainty that vaccines don’t play a role

      • Tony July 28, 2012 at 23:04 #

        I would rather keep an open mind on this, as I have seen there isn’t a universally accepted theory on the root causes for autism…since my son was diagnosed the only thing I’ve seen is disagreement with everything causes, symptoms, the actual diagnosis and treatment…there are some that are against the label “autism”

      • Sullivan July 28, 2012 at 23:11 #

        Sorry Tony, but for me you lost the “open minded” label with your “whack jobs” comment earlier. Or was that some strange attempt to bud credibility? As in “I think these people consider non vaccinators ‘whack jobs’ so I will show them I was one of them.

      • Tony July 28, 2012 at 23:41 #

        Well I do think I’m open minded regardless of what you say…everyone is entitled to their opinion and I believe I have a right to change my mind as I become more educated on a subject…and that is what I was trying to indicate in my previous post…I am the son of a doctor and for the longest time my opinions were based on what I heard from my mom…now that we are facing autism a lot of the things I thought were set in stone are no more

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 00:18 #

        See, this is exactly the theme you were obviously setting up: those who take the position well founded in Science are not open minded (they consider others “whack jobs” and have opinions “set in stone”) ; but somehow taking a position not supported by science is not only” open minded”, for some (i don’t know if this applies to you) it is even equated with being open minded.

        One can have an opinion, even a strong opinion, and be open minded. There is a mountain of evidence that MMR does not increase the risk of autism. Beyond that, the idea fails from a biological plausibility standpoint.

        I’ll give you an example of one mindedness. Rick Rollens, a major proponent of MMR causation was involved as a community observer of the Hornig et al study. In the press conference for that study he admitted that MMR was off the table.

        Proponents who ignored the evidence are not open minded. There are some who have taken it to an extreme and claimed that the study somehow supports MMR causation. That’s something beyond closed minded.

      • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 11:01 #

        I don’t know, Sullivan. I blame the MMR vaccine for giving my son measles, but not autism. I think there is a lot of evidence that MMR does not cause autism, but on this board and others, people quote that evidence to say that “all vaccines are safe.”

        Just because something does not cause autism, does not mean it is “safe”. That is how science works. It could still cause a variety of other damage outside the scope of the study.

        More to the point, studies about certain other vaccines and other issues are inconclusive. We have studied MMR, for example, but does that mean that Hep B is “safe”? If so, why are there studies that say it is not?

        I am thinking of http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2012/01/hepatitis-b-vaccine-can-cause.html
        but I am sure you are aware of others.

        More to the point, the vaccine studies have only ever covered a single issue and a single generation. What if it turns out that the vaccines received in the 1960′s and 1970′s are causing autism in the children of the vaccinated population? I am waiting to see the science, of course, but this is a question currently being studied by people with detailed knowledge of how DNA works. And some of them are saying that DNA damage 30 to 40 years ago is one of only a few prime suspects in the rise of autism today.

        What if it turns out that my childhood vaccines are what caused my son’t autism? Will you still say that all vaccines are safe?

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 16:15 #

        The link you provided is exactly the sort of irresponsible fear mongering that has caused so much harm.

        Seriously, she goes from a single study claiming changes in mouse livers in a petri dish to a title that the vaccine causes mitochondrial disease (with the implication in humans)

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 16:28 #

        It would be good for someone with an understanding of how DNA works to be engaged with the vaccine skeptics. If that isn’t clear enough, a lot of the discussion of “dna in vaccines cause autism” has been pretty bad.

      • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 18:06 #

        Sullivan, are you really saying that you aren’t aware of any of the other studies on Hep B? I only listed one, because I thought you would know about all the others.

        “An abstract of the study was published in the September, 2009 issue of the respected journal Annals of Epidemiology. In it, Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman of the Graduate Program in Public Health at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY, wrote that, ‘Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys’.”

        Do you really want me to go on?

      • autismjungle July 30, 2012 at 00:08 #

        Tony:

        So I guess you can say with 100% certainty that vaccines don’t play a role

        After Wakefield published his “case study”, several large studies were done comparing the autism rate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. One study looked at over half a million children. The studies all found no difference.
        We can say that vaccines do not cause autism with a certainty of over 99%.

    • lisette1066 August 2, 2012 at 16:28 #

      yes, I agree. The signs of autism become more obvious at the age of the MMR vaccination, so parents ‘assume’ that has caused it, with no proof at all.

      The want a simple answer, and something that is outside of that child. By tbat I mean, they want to believe something came along to infiltrate and invade their perfect child to ’cause’ the autism. They can’t accept that the autism is inherent in the child.

  14. Science Mom July 28, 2012 at 23:16 #

    So I guess you can say with 100% certainty that vaccines don’t play a role

    No one can say that and you haven’t provided any evidence that your son is unique from the thousands who have declared the same thing and were wrong.

    I would rather keep an open mind on this, as I have seen there isn’t a universally accepted theory on the root causes for autism…since my son was diagnosed the only thing I’ve seen is disagreement with everything causes, symptoms, the actual diagnosis and treatment…there are some that are against the label “autism”

    Not having all aetiologies of autism known does not give one permission to make them up. In fact most diseases/disorders have gone with unknown aetiologies for millenia and many are still not known. Blaming vaccines for autism is diverting funds and attention from more viable avenues of research. Don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out.

    • lilady July 28, 2012 at 23:36 #

      I’m still waiting for Tony, as the father of a child diagnosed with an ASD, to roundly condemn parents who attempt to *treat/cure* their children with oral and rectal bleach doses.

      Tony, your allergy to thimerosal and what you report as your son’s reaction to his MMR vaccine are not “linked”. MMR vaccine never contained that preservative.

      • Tony July 29, 2012 at 00:05 #

        I have no comment on MMS as I don’t really know anything about it…haven’t used and would rather get more information before condeming anything…I won’t be your puppet

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 00:34 #

        So, you are commenting here without having read the article above?

        As in “here’s a discussion of a therapy. People are discussing how it provides no benefit and is potentially harmful. I’ll talk about my opinion that vaccines cause autism”?

      • Tony July 29, 2012 at 01:50 #

        I read the article but I’m not going to let it drive my point of view…I’d rather hear all sides of an issue and then form my own judgement

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 02:23 #

        So when you said you don’t know anything, you meant you read and discounted what I wrote? Very open minded of you.

      • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 10:40 #

        I think Tony’s point, in this particular sentence, is that it was not his job to condemn other parents in print.

        Your article helps make people aware of quackery and abuse. Having been made aware, though, it is not our job to join your team.

    • Tony July 29, 2012 at 00:10 #

      Wow…I don’t mean to upset you with my oppinions…. I guess I should open up his medical records for your review, or better yet why don’t you tell me what to think that way my brain won’t fall out

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 00:28 #

        You do know that calling someone else “upset” is dismissive, don’t you? It comes across as “you are not being rational, but I am”. Why not stick to the discussion?

  15. Science Mom July 29, 2012 at 00:17 #

    Wow…I don’t mean to upset you with my oppinions…. I guess I should open up his medical records for your review, or better yet why don’t you tell me what to think that way my brain won’t fall out

    I do believe I have been rational and patient so I am rather confused as to why I would provoke such a comment from you. You are making a claim that you believe MMR could have caused your son’s autism so yes, evidence is required to substantiate such a claim as it is not consistent with the many studies performed as well as the evidence presented at the OAP. Anyone claiming to be “open-minded” about a subject which is a bygone hypothesis is indeed in danger of his brains falling out.

  16. lilady July 29, 2012 at 00:26 #

    “I have no comment on MMS as I don’t really know anything about it…haven’t used and would rather get more information before condeming anything…I won’t be your puppet”

    Yet, you are the “puppet” for the anti-vaccine crowd Tony.

    What more information do you need about bleaching a child with autism to effect a *treatment/cure* Tony?

    • Tony July 29, 2012 at 01:58 #

      I don’t know, how about the points if view of people that have used it, maybe they have something to say…I don’t know, I guess I should treat the article above as gospel and not look for other points of view…right now there is a clinical trial looking at the effects of broccoli extracts on autism, before I read about it if someone would have said something like broccoli can help I could have easily dismissed it…now I have to believe that a solution can come from an unexpected place, now does that mean I’m going to bleach my 2 year old…no, but I’m going to be on the lookout for reputable research that can confirm or deny, not just base my opinions on an article

      • Tony July 29, 2012 at 02:08 #

        On the topic of vaccines…call me crazy but I did not see any other outside environmental factor at the time other than the MMR vaccine so I guess it’s easy for me to believe there is causality…I admit I can be wrong, on the other hand the regression in my kid was quite radical…he changed completely within a week of having the vaccine…I don’t believe I’m the puppet of any crowd pro/con vaccines…I’m just talking about what happened to my son…and what I believe…I may be uneducated on the subject, but then what can my pediatrician say, when he didn’t pick up on it and we were the ones that looked for specialist help…this whole experience has changed my life and I feel my rationality has gone out the window as I am sure at some point I’ll try the b12 shots and the hyperbaric chamber…sure it may turn out to be a waste of money and time, but I want him to be ok…

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 04:23 #

        No one can see calling you crazy. When you disagree with people, say those in this discussion, do you classify them all as crazy? My guess is the answer is no. Just as people reading and commenting here don’t think you are crazy.

        Sorry for these type of responses, but I’ve been through this sort of discussion so many times that I know where the discussion goes off the tracks. This is incorrect new of those points. Smart and non-”crazy” people make mistakes all the time.

        Sometimes people know what they saw. Sometimes people misremember what they saw.

        In many ways, that’s beside the point knowing what you saw and what it means are different things. Smarter people that they saw the sun rising and setting. They thought the sun traveled around the earth. Their hypothesis didn’t stand up to additional data.

        The MMR hypothesis didn’t stand up to test after test. If you believe your child was made autistic by MMR then you have an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That’s what people are pointed ng out to you.

        A couple of studies came out a year or so back. They are off topic but worth considering. Parents who have a negative view of their autistic child and the effect disability has on their family do so irrespective of the level of disability. Also, parents who don’t get out of the negative space inside of six months are unlikely to do so.

        There are enough challenges to living, to having a child, to having a disabled child. You are going to run into enough real wold challenges from a system that doesn’t have the money to do what we’ve promised to do for your child. You’re right, this whole experience has changed your life. Having a kid changed your life. Don’t fall into the mindset that your life is changed in a predetermined way. That because of your experience, you have to go down the “vaccines stole my child” mindset.

        Don’t fall for the “biomed cures vaccine injury” theme. In general, the more people push “do this because your kids is vaccine injured”, the less evidence they have that there is a biological plausibility for the treatment. This is the case with MMS. They use the idea of healing “pathogens” including (especially) vaccines because they don’t have real science.

        When I came online there was a guy telling us all “autism is just a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning”). Two years of chelation and you get your kid back. Say something with enough conviction and people believe. I’ve since seen magnetic clay baths, mega doses of vitamins (enough to be harmful), zeolite drops, long term antiviral meds, lupron (a drug which shuts down sex hormone production), and more. The ‘logic’) behind these would be laughable if they weren’t harming disabled people.

        So forgive me if I don’t have patience for someone telling parents to give their children bleach using science that my freshman chemistry class would have seen as junk science.

      • Sullivan July 29, 2012 at 02:22 #

        Sure,

        Point me to the opinions of nonverbal children who are being made nauseous from oral ingestion of bleach. Or the disabled children undergoing repeated enemas.

        Why do I suspect what you meant was “the opinions of parents facing their children to undergo this therapy” for not the opinions of the people using it?

        I also note you haven’t asked for the opinions of medical toxicolosts? You know, people who are actually experts in the field?

        When you were reading about the broccoli extract study did you notice the Principal Investigator? I can link you to Andrew Zimmerman expert report on the idea of vaccine causation, should you like.

      • Chris July 29, 2012 at 02:28 #

        …I don’t know, I guess I should treat the article above as gospel and not look for other points of view

        Perhaps just read it, and evaluate it on its own terms. Plus use your own common sense. The reputable research can usually be found at PubMed, but the trick is to not cherry pick, and be aware of author bias. A good reference to help evaluate the issues is Lies, Damned Lies and Science.

        By the way, an American two year old child is too young to have received a pediatric vaccine with thimerosal. They were essentially off the market (except for adult versions) by 2002. But you can go back and check the vaccine record with this list.

      • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 11:51 #

        Chris, I am a little suspicious of the FDA list. When my child received the Hep B vaccine (within a few days of birth), the hospital made my wife sign a release form that the vaccine “may contain” mercury. I supppose it could just be an old form.

        If we had read up on Hep B, though, we certainly would not have consented to that vaccine. The chance of my son getting a sexually transmitted disease in a good hospital in the first few days of his life seem fairly low to me.

        Anyway, Sullivan is doing a good job trying to turn the conversation back to the original topic, which is that any “miracle cure” for autism is likely to cause more harm than good, and MMS appears to be the worst of the crop.

        The field of science is littered with “cures” that turned out to do nothing, or to have unforseen negative consequences. HBO, chelation, lupron, marijuana, secretin, auditory training, the list goes on and on.

        Will we someday add certain vaccines to the list? Doubtful. For the vast majority of the population, vaccines seem to do more good than harm.

        How about vaccines for kids with autism? In my opinion, this is where it pays to have that open mind. I haven’t seen any good studies. There may be good studies out there, but they are hard to find.

  17. lilady July 29, 2012 at 05:10 #

    Tony, if you recall one of your comments upthread you questioned if the antibiotics that your wife took before conceiving your son might be implicated in his ASD diagnosis. You also wondered if your age/her age at time of conception or your allergy to the thimerosal in contact lens fluid might have caused autism in your child.

    Tony, I presume you had thimerosal when you were given DPT vaccine from multi-dose vials and as Chris stated, each of your child’s vaccines were from single dose vials that did not contain thimerosal; MMR has never contained thimerosal.

    Take a look at Sullivan’s blogroll and pick some sites that you are comfortable with to find out more about autism.

    BTW, some of the posters on this blog have children with autism and developmentally disabilities and they have great empathy for parents who are just learning about ASDs.

  18. Science Mom July 29, 2012 at 16:07 #

    My son also had a terrible reaction. Maybe one of the people on the board can help direct me to some research on this. Are the terrible reactions more common in autistic kids, or are these similar to the general population?</blockquote.

    Sullivan did just recently address some relevant research that is being conducted: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/07/23/what-projects-are-being-funded-in-autism-research-part-1-vaccines-and-gi-issues/

    I know it is hard to quantify what constitutes a worse-than-average reaction, but I know it when I see it. After each vaccine, my son had between six days and nine days of screaming, crying, fever, self-injury, and tics that were so severe that my doctor had him tested for seizures.

    I completely understand that measles would have been worse. But still, why all the bad reactions? Does it indicate that my son has some sort of immune system irregularity? And if so, is this related to autism, or is it separate?

    From what you posted previously, it sounds as though your son has a well-functioning immune system. Have you considered the possibility that because your son is autistic and responds to stimuli differently that that is what it could be? A fever and/or erythema can provoke a much different response in an autistic child than an NT child.

    • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 17:57 #

      Like many parents, we tend to look for causes, and sometimes link things together in our minds that may not be related. Nor am i an expert observer. The vaccines may not be to blame.

      On the other hand, they might be. I appreciate the link to the research on the primate model of responses to vaccines. I am going to read up on that research more. It seems interesting to me that in clinical trials, researchers (who are expert observers) are seeing some of the same things that I witnessed.

  19. Science Mom July 29, 2012 at 16:14 #

    On the topic of vaccines…call me crazy but I did not see any other outside environmental factor at the time other than the MMR vaccine so I guess it’s easy for me to believe there is causality…I admit I can be wrong, on the other hand the regression in my kid was quite radical…he changed completely within a week of having the vaccine…I don’t believe I’m the puppet of any crowd pro/con vaccines…I’m just talking about what happened to my son…and what I believe…

    Emphasis mine. That statement is provides substantial evidence that MMR was not to blame. You see the timeline is wrong as it takes at least a week or more for the virii to proliferate and cause even a fever let alone a moderate-severe reaction. Wakefield should have considered that when he forged his patients timeline because that is what parents tend to parrot.

    • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 17:37 #

      My observation was similar. I understand it takes a week for measles to incubate, and five days for vaccine related-fever to occur in typical kids, but my son was already having sleeping problems within two days, and was already running a fever within three.

      The available literature suggests this means that my son was already sick, and that I am confusing the illness with the vaccine reaction. It is possible, I’m sure. It is also possible that the available literature was prepared based on typical kids, and that autistic kids respond differently.

  20. Science Mom July 29, 2012 at 16:47 #

    I don’t know, Sullivan. I blame the MMR vaccine for giving my son measles, but not autism.

    Could you clarify this before I address it?

    I think there is a lot of evidence that MMR does not cause autism, but on this board and others, people quote that evidence to say that “all vaccines are safe.”

    This is a massive strawman and easily disproven. Who, as an authority, has stated that “all vaccines are safe”?

      • Autismum July 29, 2012 at 23:00 #

        I know Allison Hagood, one of the authors of Your Baby’s Best Shot and never would she contend, even in an informal setting, much less in print that vaccination carries no risk at all.

      • Allison Hagood July 29, 2012 at 23:12 #

        I am one of the authors of the book in question. There is an entire chapter in our book that discusses true adverse reactions to vaccines (not nebulous and unsubstantiated “vaccine injuries” touted by the anti-vaccine movement). My co-author and I were very careful to discuss vaccine issues from a factual, scientific standpoint.

        Since the book isn’t out yet (drop date is August 16), futuredave5 hasn’t even read it, and therefore cannot use the book as an attempt to claim that someone has stated that all vaccines are safe.

        In the future, futuredave5, it would be a good idea to actually read the sources you cite before you cite them, to make sure that the source actually says what you claim. Enjoy the book!

    • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 17:26 #

      As far as having measles, that is an oversimplification. He tests positive for measles, but as we have discussed, it does not mean that he has full blown measles.

      On the other hand, I am pretty sure he did not test positive for measles until getting the vaccine.

      • Darwy July 30, 2012 at 09:15 #

        If your son contracted measles after his MMR, and they took a blood test, it would be a simple matter to determine whether or not his measles was the vaccine strain or a wild strain.

        If there was no blood test, you cannot say with 100% certainty that his measles was caused by the vaccine as opposed to the wild virus.

        See how that works?

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 19:08 #

        Darwy, I think they did do such a test, but I do not have the results. I called the doctor and asked for a copy, but never received anything. The doctor, I think, was under the impression that I was trying gather evidence to sue him.

        So when I say I “blame” the vaccine for giving him measles, I do not have any evidence to support that theory.

        If this were a court of law, I would either have to get a court order, or retract my statement. I never thought it was critical to my point.

        Even if I saw a DNA test, though, I doubt I would understand it. I also doubt there is much I could do about it now.

        I chose to let it go, because I have enough stuff to worry about already.

  21. Lawrence July 29, 2012 at 17:34 #

    @futuredave5 – have you also come back to apologize for your inaccurate representations of Dr. Offit? Thanks for pointing back to that thread, I had forgotten about it.

    • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 17:41 #

      If you enjoyed that other link, enjoy this one:
      http://www.drpauloffit.org/

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 05:01 #

        Later in this discussion you take issue with someone suggesting that you could be lying. Here you link to a Site which promotes the lie that Dr. Offit “voted himself rich”. Is it okay here because you only linked to it? Looks like a double standard to me.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 21:52 #

        Hmmm. I was responding to novalox, and he did not call me a liar because I attacked Offit, he called me a liar because he was defending brian’s honor. (Which seems a little weird to me. I am assuming brian is a big boy, and knew exactly what he meant to say.).

        So you are saying that no one need apologize for insulting me unless I first apologize to Paul Offit? (Hmmm. I will think about it.)

        Or are you saying is that anyone on the board can insult me, and never have to apologize? (Actually, though, novalox did sort of apologize, as did Science Mom, twice.)

        Or if I link to an article that insults Offit, then everything else I say is automatically wrong?
        (Hmmm, I will have to think about that, too. I rarely like to backtrack, but honestly, I only linked to that particular site to troll Lawrence, because he was making fun of my absence.)

        So here goes: I have done a bit of reading on the outside, and it appears that Offit is pretty much what he says he is. Although he can be strident and uncompromising, he does not seem to have the same kind of improper financial interests that his detractors accuse him of. Moreover, many of his detractors, particularly the “MMS” community, seem to be much more financially shady than Offit.

        Happy?

  22. Lawrence July 29, 2012 at 18:02 #

    @futuredave5 – wow, really? All the same stuff we disproved the last time….you are a broken record.

  23. lilady July 29, 2012 at 18:08 #

    @ futuredave5:

    And you, can enjoy this one…

    http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/06/was-paul-offit-md-reprimanded-by-congress-.html

    I have to go offline now, but I’m sure other posters here will provide you with other science blogs that totally put those scurrilous attacks upon Dr. Offit, to rest.

    Now about that apology that is long overdue, since you have continuously attacked Dr. Offit.

    • futuredave5 July 29, 2012 at 18:36 #

      Sorry, any time someone demands an apology from me, I usually toss out one of those links. To you it may be trolling, but to me that is just a matter of presenting both sides of the debate.

      I have read a few of the numerous articles that defend Offit, and treat him like a cross between Mother Teresa and Socrates. I find those articles every bit as slanted as the silly stuff I just posted.

      The point I was making is that hundreds of people, including people on this board, have used very specific research to make blanket statements that “all vaccines are safe”. Since Lawrence chimed in to misconstrue my point, I responded in kind.

      If you are still looking for an apology, I have hundreds of other links similar to the one I posted above, including several links where Offit and his acolytes make statements that are every bit as childish as what I just posted.

      So yeah, if Offit apologizes for saying that I am a fear-mongering misinformed Jenny McCarthy clone, I will apologize for saying that his votes are based on his financial interests. For now, though, there seems to be just as much evidence to support my point of view about him as his point of view about me.

  24. Science Mom July 29, 2012 at 19:25 #

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/06/12/your-babys-best-shot-why-vaccines-are-safe-and-save-lives/

    Um no Dave, the book doesn’t state that vaccines are completely safe and no adverse reactions are ever experienced.

    As far as having measles, that is an oversimplification. He tests positive for measles, but as we have discussed, it does not mean that he has full blown measles.</blockquote.

    A high anti-measles antibody titre =/= measles Dave. How does one continually test positive for measles besides?

    • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 01:50 #

      As you pointed out, I judged the book by its cover. But the question you asked was “Who, as an authority, has stated that ‘all vaccines are safe’?”

      The book title doesn’t say: “Most Vaccines are Safe.” It just says “…Vaccines are Safe and Save Lives”. That is a blanket statement. In the post that I linked to, the discussion centered around the MMR vaccine, because that is the current debate in the media. I chose to jump in (there) and provide some details about the series of tests that my doctor recommended before eventually deciding that my son had an active measles infection. No, it was not just a titer test.

      I am not going to repeat the information here, but even after I provided a general description of the test results, Sullivan still spent some time searching through my syntax and grammar to look for clues that I was making it all up, or reporting something that actually happened to someone else.

      I chose not to discuss the research on other vaccines, because it is outside the scope of the original issue. But seriously, no one believes that all vaccines are 100% safe for autistic children, and no one seriously believes that autistic children will have precisely the same response to vaccines that typical kids have.

      As I am sure you will point out, the Hep B vaccine study confuses correlation with causality. Autistic kids who get the Hep B vaccine might be more prone to severe reactions. As a result, they are more likely to get diagnosed with autism at an early age, because their early symptoms are more obvious. (I know, I am making your point.)

      The good news is that many hundreds of kids might get early diagnosis for autism that they would not get otherwise. The bad news is that we are giving Hep B vaccines to millions of kids, and we have not established with 100% confidence that it is safe and effective for autistic children.

      If you are going to use the text of the book to backtrack the statement, and argue instead that vaccines do more good than harm, that is a different statement. That book should be called: “Vaccines Do More Good Than Harm.” I might even buy it. We are currently working with my doctor to find out what other vaccines might do my son more good than harm. We are stepping pretty carefully, though. My doctor understands my concerns, and I feel confident that he would not recommend more vaccines unless he was more than 90% sure of what he told us to do.

      He has built up some trust with us by listening to us, and researching our questions, rather than just lumping us into the same advice that he gives to everyone else. We have also built up some trust with him, by following his advice.

      Anyway, the point I was making was that many people are using targeted research to make blanket statements. And I think you have proven my point just as easily as I proved yours. Do you know for a fact that all those vaccines that my son received were safe for him specifically? Unless you are secretly my son’s doctor, you don’t.

      • Allison Hagood July 30, 2012 at 02:08 #

        Luckily, I didn’t have to run the book title by the anti-vaccine movement, or you, before we chose it. We’ll stick with the title we’ve chosen.

        A statement “vaccines are safe and save lives” is true in the context of the fact that people reading the book are given factual information about all aspects of vaccines, including the rare (and legitimate) serious adverse reactions (again, not the unsubstantiated “vaccine injury” reaction that the anti-vaccine movement claims). If we’d called the book “Vaccines are 100% safe 100% of the time for 100% of people,” then you’d have a legitimate beef. As it stands, you’re simply using a book THAT YOU HAVEN’T READ to support your strawman arguments.

        Not to mention that book titles are designed to be succinct, and a book title “Your Baby’s Best Shot: Why Vaccines are Mostly Safe Even Though There Might Be The Possibility of A Rare Serious Adverse Reaction, and Save Lives” doesn’t accomplish anything but giving credence to overstated anti-vaccine concerns

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 02:46 #

        Allison, I am glad you took the time to consider more than one side of the issue. It seems that you also took the time to read my post before responding, so thank you. Clearly you are aware that I was not using your book as an example, so much as using this website as an example. It just happens that a discussion of your book triggered this same discussion a month ago, so I thought it would be logical to refer people back to that discussion.

        But seriously, you think I am making a strawman argument? You are the one who “vaccines are safe”. All I did was ask the question: “Are they as safe for autistic kids as for the general population?” I am seriously trying to figure out if certain additional vaccines will do my son more harm than good.

        That is your idea of a strawman argument?

        Really?

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 04:50 #

        There is a classic double standard, often applied in the vaccine discussion : you have to be absolutely precise in all your statements, give qualifiers and caveats for everything and point out that nothing is 100% certain while I can give my opinion as fact.

        If something has to be 100.000000000000000000000% without any risk whatsoever to be deemed safe we wouldn’t have the words in the English language.

        And when someone says “vaccines” does he mean “vaccines in common use”, “all vaccines ever used” or “all vaccines, even experimental ones”.

        futuredave5 posed the statement ” I think there is a lot of evidence that MMR does not cause autism, but on this board and others, people quote that evidence to say that “all vaccines are safe.”

        Now he’s found himself in a bit of a hole. He’s misrepresented the position of myself and, I believe most if not all participants on this blog. So he pulls out my post on your upcoming book, does a little work in the sematics/debate realm and has” evidence” that this blog promotes the opinion that all vaccines have zero chance of ever causing harm.

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 05:35 #

        In case that last phase isn’t obvious enough: yes, futuredave5, it is a bit of a strawman representation of your argument. I’ve seen enough in your comments to put that one out.

        If the rest of these comments aren’t clear enough: you’d do well to drop the debate tricks. They are obvious. Just say what you mean.

        For example, I get it: you don’t like Paul Offit. Fine. What do you gain with links to websites and strawman arguments like your “mother Theresa” comments.

        I respect the man. His team created a vaccine which saves lives, reduces suffering and is safer than its predecessor. Dr. Offit can do whatever he wants, and he’s still doing the same thing as before his vaccine was adopted. That’s actually not completely true. He is no longer doing lab work. He is still working as chief of infectious diseases in a children’s hospital. He still makes rounds. He could leave. We hear so many complaints about the people moving into “big pharma”, and any honest observer will admit that if anyone had the opportunity to jump to a high paying “big pharma” job, it’s him. He’s donating time and money to autism research.

        In the end, do what you want. I’m just pointing out that your method isn’t helping you.

      • Science Mom July 30, 2012 at 02:45 #

        As you pointed out, I judged the book by its cover. But the question you asked was “Who, as an authority, has stated that ‘all vaccines are safe’?”

        And you used a book title, not a claim to make your vapid case that an authority claimed vaccines were perfectly safe. A book that you didn’t even read no less.

        I chose to jump in (there) and provide some details about the series of tests that my doctor recommended before eventually deciding that my son had an active measles infection. No, it was not just a titer test.

        I am not going to repeat the information here, but even after I provided a general description of the test results, Sullivan still spent some time searching through my syntax and grammar to look for clues that I was making it all up, or reporting something that actually happened to someone else.

        I don’t recall any conversation about tests other than an antibody titre. Perhaps you would like to provide the link so you don’t have to reiterate.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 02:49 #

        Go to the same link, and search for RT-PCR. I may be misreading your responses, but I thought we had been through this.

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 04:16 #

        Have you read the Hornig study on MMR and autism? Positive pcr results are occasionally found in both autistic and non autistic children. Those who think this is somehow proof of the MMR causation hypothesis have not asked the authors for clarification. The authors are very clear that this study put to rest the Wakefield hypothesis.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 11:36 #

        Sullivan,

        Quoting from the study you described: “12 of 25 cases (48%) received MMR before GI episodes began as compared with 3 of 13 controls (23%; P = 0.13; Table 2).”

        As you mentioned, only 5 (of 25) children in the sample received the MMR vaccine, developed GI problems, and then went on to receive diagnosis of autism. If autism were a monolithic condition, with only a sigle cause, 5 of 25 would absolutely disprove the link.

        Since we know that autism varies from individual to individual, 5 of 25 may represent a significant subtype. I don’t buy into that theory, of course, I am just pointing out that autism may have more than one cause, and a sample of 38 people with 5 “hits” and 33 various “misses” does not disprove any link.

        Statistically, by their own analysis, it provides 97% confidence that MMR vaccines do not cause autism through the GI inflammation discussed by Wakefield. It does not prove that the MMR vaccine is unrelated to giving measles to children with autism. In fact, it supports that theory.

        Specifically, 48% of autistic children developed GI issues after the MMR, compared to only 23% of the control sample. Although their sample size was relatively small, their own statistics suggest that this portion of the result needs further review.

        If this were a sample size of 38000 instead of 38, and twice as many autistics developed GI problems after receiving the MMR vaccine as typical kids, then doctors would immediately start recommending that autistic children not receive the MMR vaccine.

        Do you see where I am going with this?

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 19:20 #

        “Do you see where I am going with this?”

        I see where you’ve gone. And it isn’t good. I see glaring logical mistakes you are making. I don’t care if they are intentional or not. I do care that they misrepresent the findings of an important study.

        Statements like yours are why I went to the source for an interpretation of the results of the study. The words used for people who try to present the study as supporting MMR causing autism were clear and strong.

        “Specifically, 48% of autistic children developed GI issues after the MMR, compared to only 23% of the control sample.”

        The above statement is an example of the “perversion” of the results that has become common among those who refuse to let go of the MMR causation hypothesis.

        48% of the autistic children in the study had onset of GI issues after the MMR. This is VASTLY different than saying that 48% of autistic children developed GI issues after the MMR.

        Are you aware that the authors made it very clear that one of the problems with getting the study done quickly was that there were not that many autistic children who had GI issues of a level that made endoscopy clinically warranted? So, we are talking about 48% of a small sample, a sample chosen specifically for the presence of GI symptoms.

        “If this were a sample size of 38000 instead of 38, and twice as many autistics developed GI problems after receiving the MMR vaccine as typical kids, then doctors would immediately start recommending that autistic children not receive the MMR vaccine.’

        Do I see where you are going with this? Possibly. Are you calling for a study of tens of thousands of autistic kids with GI problems? I’d refer you back to the point that it took years to do a study with this many.

      • futuredave5 July 31, 2012 at 02:47 #

        Within the confines of the small sample size, the link between the MMR vaccine and the onset of GI problems is significant enough to require further research.

        If the general population (of 38) is 40% likely to have a particular trait, you would expect 15 “hits”. I am a little rusty, but the odds of a random sample of 25 having 12 (or more) hits is around 20%.

        This is not enough to invalidate the study, but it is enough to pose significant questions about the sufficiency of the sample size.

        If you compare this to the Hep B study that you dismissed, it is similar on almost every count. The Gallagher and Goodman study used the NHIS 1997-2002 probability sample dataset, and then repeated the study using the NHANES database. The results were similar.

        Because the study was cross-sectional, they never claimed it implied causality. (In fact, they also pointed out which autism disgnosis was based on parent reporting. This is a weakness, but I am not sure it is significant for this discussion.)

        On the other hand, the Goodman studies controlled for care-seeking behaviors, for age (since the Hep B vaccine varies widely in usage from year to year) and submitted their methodology for peer review.

        I am sure you know what the review suggested, I think I saw it on your board. They said the autistic sample size was too small, and said that further research was required. Where have we heard that before?

      • Sullivan July 31, 2012 at 02:52 #

        “If you compare this to the Hep B study that you dismissed”

        Could I ask you to stop trolling for responses?

        I didn’t dismiss the study. I downloaded datasets for multiple years to compare the one year they reported upon. My preliminary analysis was that there was no substance to their claims. I haven’t had the time to do a full analysis and write the paper.

  25. Science Mom July 29, 2012 at 21:29 #

    In it, Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman of the Graduate Program in Public Health at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY, wrote that, ‘Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys’.”

    Do you really want me to go on?

    Yes, by all means please go on and demonstrate how uncritically you accept really bad studies because they support your beliefs.

    • brian July 29, 2012 at 23:23 #

      I’d particularly appreciate a demonstration that there is a statistically significant difference between the Hep B vaccinated/Hep B unvaccinated groups with respect to the prevalence of autism. If you (or the authors) can’t do that, the paper goes pfffft.

      Thought so–but isn’t it strange that the authors neglected to address that issue?

      • brian July 30, 2012 at 00:11 #

        Sorry, Science Mom, I intended to direct my comment “If you [or the authors] can’t do that . . . . “) to futuredave5, not to you. I’m sure you understand the difficulty faced by those who lack the training and expertise required to critically evaluate scientific studies and who, therefore, rely on simple confirmation bias founded in ignorance.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 01:58 #

        Thanks Brian. I appreciate the name-calling. It lets me know how to respond to your future posts.

      • novalox July 30, 2012 at 03:12 #

        @futuredave5

        Where in brian’s post did he call you names?

        Unless I missed something, you are lying.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 03:30 #

        In most countries, when you accuse someone of “confirmation bias founded in ignorance.”, that is considered to be an insult. Since he does not know me, then it is simple name calling.

        As far as calling me a liar, I guess I can pretty much group you in with Brian?

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 04:12 #

        You complain about a slight and follow with a thinly veiled slam against two others. Just pointing out the obvious.

      • novalox July 30, 2012 at 03:40 #

        @futuredave5

        Okay, lying may have been too strong a word.

        Than being said, you have tended to post pseudo-scientific and poorly done scientific studieswork, as well as the unwarranted attacks on Offitt and other posters.

        I have to assume you are not posting here in good faith.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 11:50 #

        Or maybe I am just responding to poor science with poor science. I have not read all of the studies, I have only read a few of them. I was aware (when I linked to the Hep B study) that the statistics suggested further study.

        But, as people on this board have pointed out, it is not my responsibility to attack the studies I link to. No one else does this, nor should I.

        Nor is it my responsibility to respond politely to people who say I am stupid, or a liar.

        Finally, as several people have pointed out, even the titles of books are not required to be 100% accurate. For the sake of discussion, I hold myself to this same standard.

        I am allowed to make statements that represent my point of view, even if they are not supported by 100%-accepted clinical research. If this standard of “truthiness” changes, then it has to change for everyone on the board, not just me.

        But when I post a link to a study, it is important to note that I did not conduct the study, and I am not going to defend their statistical methods. If you choose to attack their statistical methods, by saying that they are not 100% correct, then be assured that I am going to apply that same standard of evidence to you.

        It is hardly a double standard.

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 17:53 #

        “Finally, as several people have pointed out, even the titles of books are not required to be 100% accurate”

        Don’t put words in other people’s mouths. That is NOT what was said. You have just done a nice passive-aggressive slam again.

        While it is true that a book title does not have to be 100% accurate, you are projecting an interpretation onto the conversation that the book title is not 100% accurate.

        If you don’t appreciate it when you are called out for playing games, stop playing games.

      • novalox July 30, 2012 at 16:33 #

        @futuredave5

        Yes, you are allowed to post here (as Sullivan deems allowable). But that also means that other posters are allows to point out flaws and mistakes in your reasoning and the papers you link to.

  26. Science Mom July 30, 2012 at 00:19 #

    No worries brian, I knew who you were responding to.

  27. lilady July 30, 2012 at 02:33 #

    The infamous Stony Brook hepatitis B birth dose study…that reportedly linked the vaccine to autism?

    That bogus study was discussed here…and on other science blogs:

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/17/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/

    Er…futuredave5…when can we expect a public apology directed at Dr. Offit…whom you maliciously and continuously malign?

  28. Science Mom July 30, 2012 at 03:13 #

    Go to the same link, and search for RT-PCR. I may be misreading your responses, but I thought we had been through this.

    Ok, now I see that we had this conversation. Here is my response to what you said:

    Be careful about how RT-PCR results are interpreted. Whether you are talking about real time or reverse transcription, it’s the same. But they are a snapshot, if you will, of the measles virus that may or may not be replicating or an active infection. Only a culture is definitive for that. PCR is diagnostically confirmatory along with supporting serology in an outbreak situation. It is a normal finding post-vaccination within a rough time frame.

    You (or your doctor) cannot say it was an active infection without more information. I don’t think Sullivan had anything to do with this portion of that conversation; it was just me as far as I can see.

    • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 04:18 #

      Much also depends on who does the pcr. As was amply demonstrated in the Omnibus, the prevalence results from unigenetics were unreliable (in fact, the methodology was fatally flawed)

    • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 04:30 #

      Later on in the same board, Sullivan responded on your behalf that “I won’t argue whether your family really got the test or whether it was positive. I will point out that in many points you’ve made which can be verified are incorrect.”

      I decided not to respond to that, because his statement was based partially on a misunderstanding of my original post. I did not say that the PCR test was common, only that the doctor told me that false positives were common in measles tests. I am not even completely sure that he was talking about the RT-PCR, but that is the way I understood it.

      I am not sure he even told me it was an “active” measles infection. That is just the way I understood it. He did tell me that my son had measles, but then he followed that with a bunch of disclaimers. I didn’t take notes.

      Also, it is Sullivan’s blog, and he is entitled to quibble over semantics, even if it comes across to me as insulting and condescending.

      So far, the owner (Sullivan?) has allowed me to express my opinion, and has not deleted or edited any of my posts. (In certain American political boards, people edit your posts and insert racial slurs in place of the original argument, because they have no good response to the argument itself. Talk about strawmen.)

      The good news is that we took our son ice skating earlier, to get out of the heat. He had a wonderful time, and we even met some people who offered to help get him some lessons. His sense of balance seems to be gradually improving, and he has been sleeping pretty well for more than a week. His language and social skills are improving.

      I don’t attribute this to anything special we have done, except follow the advice of experts.

      But in answer to the original question, if the “experts” recommend something like MMS, it doesn’t mean we would consider it, it just means we would re-consider who we think is an expert.

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 04:54 #

        Pointing out your use semantics isn’t quibbling.

        Nice dismissive tactic, though. Rather than respond to the comments, brush them aside as “quibbling”. Avoids the point and casts dispersion on the other party.

      • Science Mom July 30, 2012 at 16:37 #

        I am not sure he even told me it was an “active” measles infection. That is just the way I understood it. He did tell me that my son had measles, but then he followed that with a bunch of disclaimers. I didn’t take notes.

        You know that’s a huge difference than “he tests positive for measles” don’t you? Did he perhaps state something along the lines of what I told you? Again, having a positive RT-PCR for measles doesn’t mean it’s a measles infection.

        The good news is that we took our son ice skating earlier, to get out of the heat. He had a wonderful time, and we even met some people who offered to help get him some lessons. His sense of balance seems to be gradually improving, and he has been sleeping pretty well for more than a week. His language and social skills are improving.

        I don’t attribute this to anything special we have done, except follow the advice of experts.

        But in answer to the original question, if the “experts” recommend something like MMS, it doesn’t mean we would consider it, it just means we would re-consider who we think is an expert.

        That is great news and something you should focus on instead of crazy causality hypotheses that won’t do you any good anyhow. He will continue to show improvements and you should be very proud and share your positive experience with others who are wallowed in self-pity and anger. You can do a lot of good there and don’t have to be a scientist or expert.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 18:04 #

        Sullivan: Of course you are quibbling. I never said the PCR test was common. I just said false positives were common.

        The generally accepted use of the phrase is “among people who have had the test”.

        For example, if I were to say that I looked closely at my bosses new 23″ monitor, and found a dead pixel, I might then add, “but this is common”. Most people would understand that I meant “among 23-inch monitors,” or perhaps “among monitors”.

        If someone were to respond that 23″ monitors are rare, and therefore, my statement appears to be false, that would be quibbling.

        I dismissed your comment because it did not address my question, it ignored the statement I made, and it implied that I am a liar.

        And then you accuse me of skirting around your post because I did not respond to it? That is silly. The only thing I could have done to satisfy your argument is to scan my son’s medical records, post them to my website, and provide you a link for your analysis. Even then, several people here would second-guess my doctor, and call me ignorant for my inability to understand the medical details.

        I said early on that I am not a doctor. But that doesn’t mean that get all my opinions from Jenny McCarthy.

        If I link to an article with statistical errors, it is entirely fair to point out the errors. It is not fair to say that I am a liar and a fool.

        Similarly, if you refer me to a research piece that contains the exact same statistical errors, it is hardly a strawman argument when I point out the same errors.

        You can’t have it both ways: You can’t decry the Hep B research for a statistical failure, and then refer me to the Hornig study that contains a similar, if not greater, statistical failure.

        Let’s say that I gather some people who are experts, and dismantle a few sentences in the Hornig study. (Hopefully you know by now which sentences I am talking about.) Would that make you a fool for believing it? Would it make you a liar for posting it? Would it mean that you are posting in bad faith?

        Anyway, I actually do enjoy the discussion, and it does challenge me to re-examine some of the things that I previously accepted without much critical analysis.

        And, as before, you are free to change the ground rules at any time. You are free to enforce them as you see fit. It is your blog, and if I felt you were being unfair, I would go spend my time reading something else.

        To Science Mom: Thanks. As I am sure you guessed, we did not have just a single test, nor did we run out and over-react when the first test came back with unexpected results.

        We are going about the normal process of ABA, healthy diet, lots of exercise, and every few months, we have a few medical tests run.

        We only repeated the PCR test once, because that is all the insurance company would pay for. The titer scores continue to climb, but at a lower rate than before.

        As I am sure you can guess, I am not a big fan of the American corporate health insurance system, and I would move to England if I spoke the language.

      • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 19:33 #

        “Sullivan: Of course you are quibbling. I never said the PCR test was common”

        What are you responding to? My comment about the PCR test being uncommon is in reference to a statement by someone else. Note the quotes. Also note what I said.

        When you are reduced to such games as these, you have run out of things to say.

        “You can’t have it both ways: You can’t decry the Hep B research for a statistical failure, and then refer me to the Hornig study that contains a similar, if not greater, statistical failure.”

        The Hornig study was not a statistical failure. You don’t seem to understand statistics.

        Let’s say that I gather some people who are experts, and dismantle a few sentences in the Hornig study.

        Good luck with that. Ever look at the author list from the study?

        Mady Hornig1*, Thomas Briese1, Timothy Buie2, Margaret L. Bauman3, Gregory Lauwers4, Ulrike Siemetzki1, Kimberly Hummel5, Paul A. Rota5, William J. Bellini5, John J. O’Leary6, Orla Sheils6, Errol Alden7, Larry Pickering8, W. Ian Lipkin1*

        If you want to push that a group of people who were friendly to the autism vaccine idea (Maddy Hornig, John O’Leary), plus people who focus on autism and GI issues (Tim Buie) plus someone well respected for virology (Ian Lipkin) wrote a study you can “dismantle”, please write a response and submit it to the journal. Please do so. Please post the response here.

        Until then, your speculation is just another attack on the study without actually stepping forward to say what you think. Passive aggressive, yet again. Tiresome.

  29. Science Mom July 30, 2012 at 03:39 #

    In most countries, when you accuse someone of “confirmation bias founded in ignorance.”, that is considered to be an insult. Since he does not know me, then it is simple name calling.

    Surely you can’t be serious and that thin-skinned. He didn’t call you any names, an example would have been, “you stupid poo-poo head”. He made an observation about your statements, not name-calling and perfectly fair game.

    • Sullivan July 30, 2012 at 04:04 #

      I would add that futuredave5 doesn’t have the moral high ground either, given the slights he has used rather frequently.

      • futuredave5 July 30, 2012 at 20:16 #

        I am not particularly thin-skinned, it is just that if someone insults me, I reserve the right to insult them back.

        I typically don’t, because as you say, it reduces the comments section to a flame war, which is not useful to anyone, and less enjoyable than a good debate.

        If you go back over my posts, you will see that I only once opened with a personal attack. Every other time, my comments were responses.

        If I have misunderstood someone’s comment, and interpreted it as an attack incorrectly, then my apologies.

    • brian July 30, 2012 at 04:25 #

      Progress in science is not predicated on polite discussion.

      Whether or not futuredave5 is, in fact, a “stupid poo-poo head”, he should be able to understand that, in the context of this discussion, the inability of the authors of the study that he cited to meet the minimal standard of demonstrating that there is a statistically significant difference between the (Hep B) vaccinated and unvaccinated groups quite seriously undermines their conclusions. Promoting such conclusions is thus a major fail, but that may not be readily apparent to those who lack the necessary training and expertise to critically evaluate scientific publications.

  30. Lawrence July 30, 2012 at 10:33 #

    To follow up on what Sullivan wrote earlier – anti-vaccinationists will demand 100% absolute proof, track down every single COI (real or imagined), and even use their imagination to expand the roles of minor researchers into “Study Leads” – (Thorenson anyone) so they can dismiss any Science or Study that does not support their position.

    Conversely, they will accept any study, any research, no matter how unethical or poorly designed or shoddily implemented, accept any COI, or any for-profit motive (think MMS or Chelation) if it supports their own position.

    They are free to paint their opponents as evil, cannibals (Thanksgiving anyone?), monsters, part of a world-wide conspiracy, etc – but when they are challenged, suddenly they are the “wounded doe in the forest.”

    Irony meters don’t exist anymore because of them…..

  31. James July 30, 2012 at 21:41 #

    The fact that the FDA would call MMS bleach shows that there’s bias and disdain toward its use possibly due to lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies. MMS is chemically not bleach, and you need two chlorine atoms within the molecule for that and MMS only has one activated as CLO2. The FDA needs to go back to school and if MMS is bleach to the FDA simply because of the mere presence of one chlorine atom within the molecule, then NaCl (salt) and other such substances that contain an atom of chlorine within the molecule should be deemed unhealthy and a warning issued as well. It’s idiocy.

  32. brian July 30, 2012 at 22:02 #

    Please clarify your statement to the effect that “you need two chlorine atoms within the molecule” to qualify as “bleach” with respect to the molecular formula for household bleach (sodium hypochlorite): NaClO.

    Excellent. No go back and check the rest of your post.

  33. Waylon Coneys July 31, 2012 at 06:57 #

    Alternative treatments more often than not also works like conventional medicine. they are even safer and cheaper too. :;`.’

    Yours truly http://www.foodsupplementdigest.com“>

    • Lawrence July 31, 2012 at 10:28 #

      Too bad Waylon is spam, since my response will never be seen. What are “alternative treatments” that work? They are called conventional treatments / medicine…..the only reason people stick the alternative label on something is when they are in the market of selling something to gullible people.

      • futuredave5 July 31, 2012 at 11:39 #

        True, I was going to respond to that, but I figured someone (or everyone) else here would.

        At one point, one of our friends recommended aroma therapy. I asked her if it helped her child, and almost without thinking, she responded that it did not.

        We both laughed about that, because it is part of the cycle we get stuck in. We try almost any silly thing that comes along, as long as it seems harmless. We are both perfectly aware that aroma therapy is about 0% effective, but at 0%, it is within a few points of therapies that actually do work, and about 50% better than stuff like MMS.

  34. Lawrence August 1, 2012 at 10:49 #

    If an “alternative” therapy is done to the exclusion of a real medical treatment – like taking a quack cure for Cancer instead of chemo or surgery, even though the quack cure may be “harmless” the process by which conventional treatments are excluded is not harmless, and in fact could lead to the demise of the patient at worst or an overall much worse outcome regardless.

    Doing nothing isn’t harmless…..

    • futuredave5 August 1, 2012 at 11:30 #

      I assumed that went without saying, but I guess you are right, for some people it does not. To me, that is just a matter of priorities. You do the priorities first, and if you have an hour left after dinner, then you can fill it in with stuff like Thai massage treatment.

      No “low-percentage” therapies can be called “harmless” if they are used as a substitute for high-percentage therapies. Similarly, Water can’t be said to be harmless if you are using it as a substitute for food.

      Even high-percentage therapies are not harmless if they are used without proper prioritization. ABA works for most autistic kids, but if your kid also has a broken arm, that needs to be treated first.

      • lisette1066 August 2, 2012 at 17:12 #

        ABA doesn’t work for most autistic kids. It has a less than 50% claim to success.. It probably actually has a much lower rate of success. And how much is any so-called ‘success’ due to natural development of the child anyway?

      • futuredave5 August 2, 2012 at 21:39 #

        As far as evidence-based treatment goes, ABA is one of the only games in town. It is not a “cure”, but every study that has ever compared ABA to standard public education has found ABA linked to more improvements than other types of education.

        There is plenty of research to demonstrate that the improvements would not have happened anyway.

        In 2004, for example, J. Howard, C. Sparkman, etc., compared ABA to “eclectic” treatments in public special education classrooms. The ABA group scored significantly higher in all domains except motor skills.

        In the original Lovaas study, and in the similar studies that followed, intensive ABA is linked to improvements in about 90% of cases. This is quite a bit more than 50%

      • lisette1066 August 3, 2012 at 06:27 #

        futuredave5

        90%?? Wow, this is huge news! We have a cure for autism. ABA! Why all the angst about feeding them bleach? or risking measles by not giving them vaccinations? All autistic kids should be put on an ABA program. It is hard work, but it does work. 90% success rate! Wow! Why don’t all schools implement an ABA program for autistics? Why doesn’t the gov’t subsidise it? Why do we have to pay mega bucks for such a resoundingly successful program?

        The only figure I have found in my research (which I have done to try and find help for my autistic son) is 47% from Lovaas’s 1987 study. There are concerns that there were problems with the implementation of that study, and/or the follow up in 1993, which make even this figure suspect. For some info on this here is a link (if it’s ok to post a link here): http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html

        Many things call themselves ABA. Googling ABA will bring up all sorts of things.

        I just googled ABA and found an advert for a program to teach university students to successfully pass exams. It called itself ‘ABA”. It claimed a 90% success rate. Mind you, it was a website advertising its own program, not a medical scientific study.

        I am not saying don’t use ABA if you think it appropriate. I was just questioning your incredible figure of 90%.

        I personally have not chosen ABA because I don’t like the theory behind it. I don’t believe in behaviourism. ABA is based on old fashioned behaviourism, where the human brain was seen as a blank sheet and people learn everything from life. Much study since then has pointed to many more factors that make up the human brain and way of thinking, genetics being a big part of it.

        ABA may help train autisitcs to adapt to a neurotypical world. If it suits yourself and your child, then why not go for it. It is a therapy to help with adaptation. And if your child hates it and resents it, then they will learn little. People do not learn well if they do not like what is being taught, and more importantly, the way it is being taught. If a family in general likes order and structure and following rules (or guidelines) then their autistic child would probably like ABA. Why?, because they would have inherited the family’s like of structure and order and ‘guidelines’. But if the family hates that sort of thing and pushes hard against such control and rules, then the autistic child will probably be the same.

      • futuredave5 August 3, 2012 at 11:12 #

        As you say, different children will respond differently to different forms of therapy. Nothing will work for every child. But be careful what studies you read. Yes, there have been studies here and there that found “success” rates under 50%, but there have also been studies that found much higher success rates.

        Most of the studies I read were talking about ABA that was both “early” and “intensive”, but that is because it is the approach we chose to apply. This is a quick sample of the results I am thinking of, but I believe there are many others.

        http://analisicomportamentale.com/media/Smith%20Groen%20and%20Wynn%202000.pdf

        http://autism.healingthresholds.com/research/early-intensive-behavioral-treatment-replication-ucla-model-community-setting

        http://www.ctfeat.org/articles/Lovaas93.htm

        http://www.pacificautismcenter.com/ADA-Info/Eikeseth2007.pdf

        As to why more states don’t fund it, I suspect it is because they are dominated by bankers and insurance companies who would deny much-needed services to small percentages of the population in exchange for lower taxes. In fact, many legal scholars will contend they are doing exactly that.

        http://www.kcslegal.com/pdf/Treatment%20of%20ABA%20under%20IDEA.pdf

  35. usethebrainsgodgiveyou1 August 3, 2012 at 14:34 #

    The lead to this blogpost says something like “MMS–how to cure autism wit.” I thought, DAMN…that’s gonna be difficult. My son’s kind of a smart ass, figured pharma had come up with something for that.
    I have to pay more attention.

  36. Jenise August 27, 2012 at 09:39 #

    Have you ever tried Reliv.

    • autismjungle August 27, 2012 at 10:12 #

      Jenise is a spammer.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 27, 2012 at 14:59 #

        Thanks again!

      • Jenise August 28, 2012 at 15:57 #

        Oh yeah, and by the way a “spammer” is someone who gets a mass amount of people’s email and sends then advertisements without their permission. I do not do that at all. I do blog and reply to people’s comments. I also make an effort to inform people of what I know. Yet, no one on here will ever receive any email from me unless you actually want to communicate with me and even if you do want to communicate with me and learn more, I more than likely wouldn’t do so through email. I’m a relationship person and I prefer talking one on one over the phone or in person. So, bottom line, I am not a spammer. Yet, I do hope that those who want results for autism should seek out nutrition. I’ve known this for a long time. About a few years ago, part of the best remedies I used was Braggs Organic Apple Cider vinegar, and it is great for many uses; but that was then. I now have a hold of something that really is a sleeping giant waiting to get out there and help so many more people. As I told you before: Reliv.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 29, 2012 at 01:02 #

        Jenise,

        I don’t typically allow phone numbers on the site. If it isn’t spam, it’s advertising.

        You don’t understand the term spam, by the way. If you are really blogging, you have had to deal with spam. In WordPress there’s a category for comments suspected of not being real called “spam”.

        In your case, I’d put it down to advertising, not spam. Spam is typically robot generated and you are clearly interacting. However, you are attempting to use this site to advertise a product.

        You know, those who want results for autism are like every other living creature: they do seek out nutrition. Your statement is quite odd.

        You’re previous comment was removed as advertising. As your discussion is off topic, I don’t see the value in continuing it. Given that you seem attracted to this discussion of MMS–a “therapy” which is both clearly wrong and harmful–I am not inclined to consider your product as valuable. Not a judgement call, just information for you–be careful where and how you advertise. In this case, your effort speaks against your product, not for it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 30, 2012 at 18:36 #

        Once again, I am removing a comment with a phone number. Jenise, you may advertise elsewhere.

    • Lawrence August 28, 2012 at 16:17 #

      Has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so not only are you a spammer – you are also a troll.

      • Science Mom August 28, 2012 at 16:32 #

        Oh yeah, and by the way a “spammer” is someone who gets a mass amount of people’s email and sends then advertisements without their permission.

        OK how about woo pimp?

  37. psychtld September 6, 2012 at 20:49 #

    Show me how to cure autism with bleach and I’ll show you how to cure stupidity with strichnine!

  38. Lara Lohne October 13, 2012 at 09:16 #

    @futuerdave5: Your said earlier (forgive me of this has already been covered, I’ve not read through all the comments yet): “The original study (back when the MMR contained mercury) was never published in detail.” If you actually review the history of the MMR, it never did contain thimerosal. Just a minor correction in case you weren’t aware.

  39. F you June 24, 2013 at 18:32 #

    the only thing that can be said about MMS is that it is a fraud. peddle bleach for $25 a bottle and claim it is great. sadly these people will not have to answer for the fraud they are committing. in my opinion lock them up and give them their miracle cure 7 times a day and see how they like it.

  40. Windows 8 Professional Key June 24, 2013 at 20:27 #

    The good vibe for everybody.Problems of health blogging me at home (for the moment) I take of come here, participate a little good grow has all !

  41. rascal November 4, 2013 at 22:57 #

    Parents have been through this, over and over again. Secretin in the 90s, Chelation more recently, and now heal the gut (it’s called the gastrointestinal tract). If the methods are so spectacularly effective, why is the incidence of autism not falling. Beware of the vultures out there who are ready to give you “miracles”. It is not lost on me that Hubbard started this out as a treatment for everything from diabetes to cancer, then changed the name to Master Mineral Solution. Even the packaging of this stuff comes with a disclaimer. It’s not only not approved by the FDA, it’s banned. Therefore any person who inflicts this on a vulnerable person may be tried and convicted of abuse.

  42. Maria January 13, 2014 at 09:37 #

    I infected my husband with Hiv virus, and we started taking medication for us to live healthy. One i went online and search for cure for our virus, i saw many comment and many post until i saw a testimony about doctor Oye and how he helped so many people get cure to their virus on the site. I contacted him and told him how i and my husband got our Hiv virus, he told me what we will have to do which we did, and after he finished everything, he told me that we will take his medication for a weeks which we also did so and 2 weeks ago we went for test and surprisingly i and my husband are now HIV negative. I am so happy that i got my husband infected and i also make him negative. All thanks goes to God for bringing Dr Oye my way and at this point if there’s anybody who is infected and you think there’s no way of making yourself negative again i must tell you, that’s a lie because Dr Oye will make you negative again. contact Doctor OYE via Email: abuyespelltemple@gmail.com or call his mobile number: +2348071660388

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 13, 2014 at 15:19 #

      I dont allow spam. Especially when people are trying to sell a fraudulent HIV cure. Go elsewhere to kill people.

  43. how to stop acid reflux March 17, 2014 at 16:12 #

    I think this is among the most important information for me.

    And i’m glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The website style
    is ideal, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

  44. Muhammad Saghir Qureshi April 2, 2014 at 13:18 #

    No doubt it is a remakable reseasch and a Saluteable Study hence appriciated,
    Kind Regards ,M.S.Qureshi,
    Herbalist,

  45. treating hypothyroidism April 18, 2014 at 07:05 #

    Hey! I know this is kind of off topic but I was wondering if you knew where
    I could get a captcha plugin for my comment form?
    I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having difficulty finding one?

    Thanks a lot!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Should You Tell Friend Her Child Is Autistic? | Parenting Special Needs - August 15, 2012

    [...] Should you tell a stranger if you suspect their child may have autismYour Child Has Autism, and I Don’t Know What to Say: Seven Ways to Go the Extra Mile to Keep Your Friendship ThrivingMetropolitan State University Oral Health Care Practitioner Master Of – Online College Ebooks InformationMMS, or how to cure autism with bleach. Brought to you by AutismOne [...]

  2. What has become of Autism Science Digest? « Left Brain Right Brain - December 26, 2012

    [...] idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism, will speak. So will Keri Rivera, who last year gathered much criticism for promoting forcing disabled children to ingest bleach or undergo bleach laced enemas. [...]

  3. Miracle Mineral Supplement - Magic Bleach! Insufferable Intolerance - March 5, 2014

    […] what ails you – Science Based Medicine MMS (a.k.a., bleach) for autism – Respectful Insolence MMS, or how to cure autism with bleach. Brought to you by AutismOne Bleach-based cure-all online remedies, e.g., MMS, could […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 954 other followers

%d bloggers like this: