Archive | Science RSS feed for this section

Globanews.ca reports:Health Canada seizes dangerous health product

20 Oct

The article is very short but the news is good–Health Canada has gone beyond issuing warnings about MMS (also known as CD protocol, CDS, Chlorine Dioxide Solution, Magic Mineral Solution). They have seized the product from one supplier:

According to Health Canada, MMS contains sodium chlorite, which is used as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant. An alternate form of MMS, which is called CDS, is also being sold on the same web site. It would have the same risks associated with it as MMS.

Health Canada has now seized the product since sodium chlorite is not approved for human consumption.

If you have been using the product, it is recommended you stop immediately and go see your doctor.

MMS is a scam, plain and simple. And a dangerous scam. More discussion of it can be found at the Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism in: Dangerous Interventions: MMS and Autism by Emily Willingham, Ph.D..


By Matt Carey

The Quacks behind the Warrior Moms

13 Oct

I accept Dr Carpenter’s opinion that there is no evidence that any of these treatments were individually beneficial for M and that collectively they were intrusive and contrary to his best interests.  M’s life was increasingly dominated by the programme of treatment to the exclusion of other activities.  I find that E has implemented a programme of diet, supplements and treatments and therapies indiscriminately, with no analysis as to whether they are for M’s benefit, and on a scale that has been oppressive and contrary to his interests.  She has exercised total control of this aspect of M’s life.’

Mr Honourable Justice Baker, In the Court of Protection, Judgment, In the matter of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in the matter of M, 11 August 2014

Brian Deer has once again done a service to the autism community, by putting in the public domain the judgment of Mr Justice Baker in the case arising from a dispute between a local authority and the mother (E) and father (A) of a young man (M) with autism.

http://briandeer.com/solved/mother-lied-protection-news.htm

Deer’s report, published in the Sunday Times on 12 October, focuses on the judge’s scathing judgment on E, a prominent supporter of the claim by the discredited Royal Free researcher Andrew Wakefield of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Mr Justice Baker concluded that E had fabricated evidence of an adverse reaction to MMR in her son, invented a range of associated diagnoses, subjected her son to unnecessary tests and treatments, neglected a dental abscess and indulged in fantasy conspiracy theories.

This Court of Protection case offered a rare opportunity to ventilate in public some of the controversies that have raged in the world of autism over the past decade. In the USA, the Omnibus Autism proceedings in 2008-9 provided a public forum in which claims regarding vaccine-autism links and associated alternative treatments were exposed as scientifically baseless and clinically irresponsible.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6283#.VDqLgWd0yUk

Though Mr Justice Baker did not address the MMR link or alternative treatments in general, his 92 page report provides a devastating indictment of the role of a range of therapists in relation to M, some of whom appeared as witnesses. In addition to exclusion diets and supplements, M received homeopathy, cranial osteopathy, reflexology, naturopathy, light and sound therapy, auditory integration training and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. It is clear that E’s descent into irrationality and paranoia was supported and encouraged by a number of dubious authorities and therapists, with damaging consequences for her son and her family.

Three therapists gave evidence in support of E’s treatment of her son. Shelley Birkett-Eyles, an occupational therapist working in a private clinic, was accepted by Mr Justice Baker as a ‘responsible practitioner’, though he noted that her reliability was challenged by Dr Peter Carpenter, a consultant psychiatrist with a special interest in learning disability, the expert witness called by the local authority.

Dr Peter Julu describes himself as ‘autonomic neurophysiologist’ (based at the private Breakspear Clinic), though Mr Justice Baker questioned whether this was a legitimate speciality and noted that his diagnosis of ‘neurodevelopmental dysautonomia’ was disputed by Dr Carpenter, who also challenged the reliability of his assessments and treatments, particularly his recommendation of hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Ms Juliet Hayward, a nutritional therapist, was censured for giving ‘advice well beyond her expertise’, in endorsing a diagnosis of Lyme Disease and in prescribing a dietary protocol without taking an adequate medical history. Mr Justice Baker concluded that he ‘was left with a profound anxiety about Ms Haywood’s influence on E and her role in the treatment that M has received.’

Mr Justice Baker was particularly concerned that none of these three had received training in issues of ‘mental capacity’ as codified in the 2005 Mental Capacity Act. He observed that ‘it was clear from their evidence that none of them had given proper consideration to the question whether M had capacity to consent to their assessments or the treatment they were prescribing’.

In addition to these therapists, E called as expert witnesses two veterans of the Wakefield anti-MMR campaign: Dr Ken Aitken, a clinical psychologist formerly associated with the (now defunct) Autism Treatment Trust providing alternative treatments in Edinburgh; and Mr Paul Shattock, a retired pharmacy lecturer from Sunderland, a long-standing promoter of exclusion diets and unorthodox biomedical therapies.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/5992#.VDqNsWd0yUk

By contrast with other expert witnesses (including Dr Peter Carpenter, Dr Alison Beck, Professor Robin Williamson, Dr Gwyn Adshead, Mr Keith McKinstrie), whom Mr Justice  Baker found to be ‘wholly reliable and professional’, he expressed considerable reservations about Aitken and Shattock:

‘I was concerned at times as to their qualifications to opine on some of the matters about which they gave evidence.’

In his conclusion, Mr Justice Baker categorically rejected the approach advocated by Aitken and Shattock in relation to M:

‘I stress, again, that I am not making any definitive findings on the efficacy of alternative treatments generally.  That is not the subject of these proceedings, which are about M.  I do, however, find that: (1) there is no reliable evidence that the alternative treatments given to M have had any positive impact on people with autism generally or M in particular and (2) the approach to prescribing alternative treatments to and assessing the impact of such treatments on people with autism in general and M in particular has lacked the rigor and responsibility usually associated with conventional medicine.’

Mr Justice Baker repudiated ‘the fallacy’ of E’s belief that there are two parallel approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of autism, each of which is equally valid:

‘The evidence in this hearing has demonstrated clearly that there is one approach – the clinical approach advocated by Dr Carpenter – that is methodical, rigorous and valid, and other approaches advocated by a number of other practitioners, for which there is no evidence of any positive impact and which (in this case at least) have been followed with insufficient rigor.  Whilst each treatment may be harmless, they may, if imposed collectively and indiscriminately, be unduly restrictive and contrary to the patient’s interests.  These disadvantages are compounded when, as in several instances in this case, insufficient consideration is given by the practitioners to the question of whether a mentally-incapacitated patient has consented to or wishes to have the treatment.’

Given his characterisation of E’s performance in court as controlling, manipulative, duplicitous and obstructive it was perhaps not surprising that Mr Justice Baker expressed some sympathy for the long-suffering family GP, Dr W. This ‘older-style family GP’ had been ‘tolerant and sympathetic’ and had maintained a good relationship with the family ‘until he went into the witness box’, when it became clear to E and her husband that, though Dr W had been attentive to the family needs and had responded to her requests to arrange investigations that he did not consider clinically indicated, he did not endorse her wilder theories and diagnoses. Though the parents later expressed ‘disillusionment’ with Dr W, Mr Justice Baker found his evidence ‘responsible, truthful and humane’.

Michael Fitzpatrick

13 October 2014

Michael Fitzpatrick has an autistic son close in age to M; he is a doctor, former GP and the author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (2004) and Defeating Autism: A Damaging Delusion (2009)

Since bleach wasn’t enough, let’s start adding hydrochloric acid to MMS?

27 Aug

MMS. Miracle Mineral Solution is dangerous bunk. They’ve taken such a hit with people exposing it as bunk that they’ve started rebranding themselves as “CD” of “Chlorine Dioxide”.

The basic idea is that there are bad things inside you that make you sick. And by sick, they include autistic. If you ingest something that kills the bad things, or take enemas that kill the bad things, you will no longer be sick. There’s a lot of handwaving about how this only works on the bad things and not the good things like, say, the tissues in your body.

It’s nonsense. Dangerous nonsense.

MMS stands for Miracle Mineral Solution. It’s not a miracle. It’s not a mineral. It is a solution made by combining two other solutions to get chlorine dioxide in solution. The two starter solutions are sodium chlorite (a powerful bleach) and citric acid.

Well if citric acid is “good”, how can we make it “better” some have asked?

A New Simpler MMS: CDH – Chlorine Dioxide Holding (01-04-2014)

Here’s what they say:

While CDS has no raw materials left in the final product, CDH does, making it similar to classic MMS. The main difference between classic MMS and CDH, however, is that the sodium chlorite is allowed to react with the acid for a much longer period of time which reduces the amount of unactivated sodium chlorite and activator left in the final CDH solution. Then, since CDH is more fully activated outside of the body, it causes little or no stomach upset in most people. Also, CDH made with 4% HCl tastes much better. (Note: For those who still have a problem with the taste, “Sweetleaf” brand liquid stevia has been tested and is compatible with MMS, thus can be used to make it taste even better.)

If you took high school or college chemistry you probably remember the very sharp aroma of HCl. You may remember how it can burn skin and the lining of your nose. It’s nasty stuff. Sure, they’ve got relatively dilute HCl (4%), but, still, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING? (and after that–people are looking at 10% HCl! There is something seriously wrong here)

MMS/CD/CDH, whatever you want to call this, it’s a scam. People post to Facebook pictures of the intestinal linings of their disabled kids, passed with the help of MMS enemas. They caption these pictures with statements about how MMS killed “worms”. Rather than go to a doctor and see if there are real parasites, they are self-diagnosing and self-treating and causing harm.

One of the main avenues for promoting this to the autism community is the AutismOne parent convention, where MMS pracitioner Terri Riviera sells her services under the guise of “scientific” presentations.

And all the people presenting at AutismOne stand by and don’t say a word. The supposed leaders in that community don’t seem to have the ability to spot scam artists (which is pretty obvious given the years they have spent promoting Andrew Wakefield, to give just one example). They also lack courage. They rarely if ever stand up to anyone who is promoting obvious and dangerous nonsense.

The all show up, promote themselves, their goods and services, and go home. It’s time for them to show some courage. They can put a stop to this. Instead they lend their names and credibility to this obvious scam.


By Matt Carey


By Matt Carey

Recent Autism Gastrointestinal research funded by NIH

24 Jul

There are many parent advocates asking for research into gastrointestinal disorders and autism. My own anecdotal observations have been that these same parent advocates are of the belief that no work is ongoing. There are a number of projects ongoing and I’ve tried in the past to make that point (What projects are being funded in autism research? Part 1: vaccines and GI issues). I found 14 projects, nearly $3M in 2010. I found 11 projects for $1.7M in 2009.

I thought it time to revisit this question. I’m using a different data source–the NIH RePORTER database. Because of that these projects are those funded by NIH. Other Federal groups can and do fund autism research. Also private organizations like Autism Speaks

Below are the projects I found for the past few years. There are projects on epidemiology, treatment and biology.

While I think that the funding agencies could do a better job informing the communities about these projects, I sincerely wish that the parent advocacy groups calling for this research would inform their members that it is going on. I am actually very curious as to why they have not done that.

MECHANISMS OF AUTONOMIC BRAINSTEM DEVELOPMENT ($243,000)

Brainstem and autonomic circuitry, though understudied in neurodevelopmental disorders, are implicated in pathophysiology and co-occurring medical conditions, such as gastrointestinal disturbances (GID). The goal of this R21 project is to fill this knowledge gap, based on significant preliminary data.

CASEIN KINASE 1 INHIBITORS FOR TREATMENT OF AUTISM $349,610

The overall goal of our program is to (1) identify CK1 [Casein Kinase 1] inhibitors suitable for development as therapeutic agents and (2) to use these agents to investigate the suitability of CK1 inhibitors for addressing specific behavioral features of the complex, multi-symptom disorder known as autism.

The CADDRE SEED studies are multiyear but I haven’t listed all the grants. So the amount is much higher than even the substantial sums noted below.

MD CADDRE: STUDY TO EXPLORE EARLY DEVELOPMENT, SEED PHASE II $91,706

MD CADDRE: STUDY TO EXPLORE EARLY DEVELOPMENT, SEED PHASE II $1,600,000

CALIFORNIA CADDRE-SEED PHASE II $1,100,000

NC CADDRE: STUDY TO EXPLORE EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SEED) PHASE II $1,100,000

COLORADO CADDRE STUDY TO EXPLORE EARLY DEVELOPMENT CADDRE_SEED II $1,100,000

PA-CADDRE: STUDY TO EXPLORE EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SEED) PHASE II $1,100,000

SEED will address hypotheses including: ASD phenotypic variation, including the pattern of clustering of core symptoms, timing of onset, cognitive status, and presence of medical and psychiatric co-morbidities; gastrointestinal features; genetic variation and interaction with environmental risk factors (GxE); infection, immune function, and autoimmunity factors; hormonal factors and maternal reproductive characteristics; and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors.

INVESTIGATING THE GUT MICROBIOME FOR NOVEL THERAPIES AND DIAGNOSTICS FOR AUTISM $558,136 (also funded in 2013 for $558,136)

Based on compelling preliminary evidence, this project aims to explore the potential connection between GI barrier defects and altered behavior in preclinical models of autism. Our long-term goal is to explore possible serum biomarkers for ASD diagnosis, and potentially develop a novel probiotic therapy for at least a subset of children with ASD with GI issues.

2013 projects

TREATMENT OF MEDICAL CONDITIONS AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS $488,568 (also, $339,591 in 2012, $264,726 in 2011, $578,006 in 2010, $535,209 in 2009, and $465,840 in 2008)

The life-long impairments in communication and social function are often complicated by the presence of medical comorbidities, including epilepsy, (and epileptiform discharges), gastrointestinal disturbances and sleep disorders.

REGULATION OF GASTROINTESTINAL NEUROMUSCULAR FUNCTION BY NIBP/NFKB SIGNALING $320,576 (and 2012 $343,747)

The proposed research is relevant to public health because the discovery of a novel function of NIBP/NFkB signaling in enteric neurons and glial cells is ultimately expected to increase the understanding of the pathogenesis of gastrointestinal diseases. It also shed light on the therapeutics for gastrointestinal inflammation and functional disorders.

ARE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKY-GUT AT AN EARLY CRITIACAL PER $292,221 (and 2012 $302,820, and 2011 $302,820)

This project seeks to answer fundamental questions about the connection between early development of gastrointestinal (GI) problems (constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, etc.) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)

From 2011

NEUROIMMUNOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS OF AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS (ASD) $264,726

A number of anecdotal reports have linked autism with gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction; most notable among these are reports that autism is associated with “leaky gut” syndrome. Microbial translocation (MT) is the process by which bacteria or microbial byproducts permeate through the wall of the GI Tract (or other abnormally porous mucosal barriers) into the bloodstream. The microbial byproducts would then stimulate the immune system, which could have secondary effects on CNS functioning, or the byproducts could have a direct neurotoxic effect. We conducted assays of MT products in children with autism (from blood and CSF), as well as typically developing children (blood samples only).

and

Our ongoing phenotyping studies will be used to identify a cohort of children with autism who also have significant gastrointestinal symptoms in order to address this potentially important subgroup of patients.

A PRIMATE MODEL OF GUT, IMMUNE, AND CNS RESPONSE TO CHILDHOOD VACCINES $156,634


By Matt Carey

Press Release: Common gene variants account for most genetic risk for autism

23 Jul

This press release is from NIH: Common gene variants account for most genetic risk for autism

Common gene variants account for most genetic risk for autism
Roles of heritability, mutations, environment estimated – NIH-funded study

Most of the genetic risk for autism comes from versions of genes that are common in the population rather than from rare variants or spontaneous glitches, researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health have found. Heritability also outweighed other risk factors in this largest study of its kind to date.

About 52 percent of the risk for autism was traced to common and rare inherited variation, with spontaneous mutations contributing a modest 2.6 percent of the total risk.

nimh-20_l

The bulk of risk, or liability, for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) was traced to inherited variations in the genetic code shared by many people. These and other (unaccounted) factors dwarfed contributions from rare inherited, non-additive and spontaneous (de novo) genetic factors. Source: Population-Based Autism Genetics and Environment Study
“Genetic variation likely accounts for roughly 60 percent of the liability for autism, with common variants comprising the bulk of its genetic architecture,” explained Joseph Buxbaum, Ph.D., of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS), New York City. “Although each exerts just a tiny effect individually, these common variations in the genetic code add up to substantial impact, taken together.”

Buxbaum, and colleagues of the Population-Based Autism Genetics and Environment Study (PAGES) Consortium, report on their findings in a unique Swedish sample in the journal Nature Genetics, July 20, 2014.

“Thanks to the boost in statistical power that comes with ample sample size, autism geneticists can now detect common as well as rare genetic variation associated with risk,” said Thomas R. Insel, M.D., director of the NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). “Knowing the nature of the genetic risk will reveal clues to the molecular roots of the disorder. Common variation may be more important than we thought.”

Although autism is thought to be caused by an interplay of genetic and other factors, including environmental, consensus on their relative contributions and the outlines of its genetic architecture has remained elusive. Recently, evidence has been mounting that genomes of people with autism are prone to harboring rare mutations, often spontaneous, that exert strong effects and can largely account for particular cases of disease.

More challenging is to gauge the collective impact on autism risk of numerous variations in the genetic code shared by most people, which are individually much subtler in effect. Limitations of sample size and composition made it difficult to detect these effects and to estimate the relative influence of such common, rare inherited, and rare spontaneous variation.
Differences in methods and statistical models also resulted in sometimes wildly discrepant estimates of autism’s heritability – ranging from 17 to 50 percent.

Meanwhile, recent genome-wide studies of schizophrenia have achieved large enough sample sizes to reveal involvement of well over 100 common gene variants in that disorder. These promise improved understanding of the underlying biology – and even development of risk-scores, which could help predict who might benefit from early interventions to nip psychotic episodes in the bud.

With their new study, autism genetics is beginning to catch up, say the researchers. It was made possible by Sweden’s universal health registry, which allowed investigators to compare a very large sample of about 3,000 people with autism with matched controls. Researchers also brought to bear new statistical methods that allowed them to more reliably sort out the heritability of the disorder. In addition, they were able to compare their results with a parallel study in 1.6 million Swedish families, which took into account data from twins and cousins, and factors like age of the father at birth and parents’ psychiatric history. A best-fit statistical model took form, based mostly on combined effects of multiple genes and non-shared environmental factors.

“This is a different kind of analysis than employed in previous studies,” explained Thomas Lehner, Ph.D., chief of NIMH’s Genomics Research Branch. “Data from genome-wide association studies was used to identify a genetic model instead of focusing just on pinpointing genetic risk factors. The researchers were able to pick from all of the cases of illness within a population-based registry.”

Now that the genetic architecture is better understood, the researchers are identifying specific genetic risk factors detected in the sample, such as deletions and duplications of genetic material and spontaneous mutations. Even though such rare spontaneous mutations accounted for only a small fraction of autism risk, the potentially large effects of these glitches makes them important clues to understanding the molecular underpinnings of the disorder, say the researchers.

“Within a given family, the mutations could be a critical determinant that leads to the manifestation of ASD in a particular family member,” said Buxbaum. “The family may have common variation that puts it at risk, but if there is also a de novo [spontaneous] mutation on top of that, it could push an individual over the edge. So for many families, the interplay between common and spontaneous genetic factors could be the underlying genetic architecture of the disorder.”

New Study: Most genetic risk for autism resides with common variation

23 Jul

A new large study on autism genetics just came out: Most genetic risk for autism resides with common variation. The study is in Nature Genetics, one of the top journals.

The study is the latest in the evolved view of autism genetics. Contrary to political statements made by some groups, autism genetics is not about searching for a single “autism gene”. Here’s a quote from the CNN Blog that makes this clear:

Chris Gunter, an autism researcher at the Marcus Autism Center and professor at the Emory University School of Medicine, says the findings of this study are similar to those reported in other studies.

“There is no one gene for autism,” Gunter said. “Instead there are many different genetic variations which each contribute a little bit to the risk of developing the group of symptoms we diagnose as autism.”

No single autism gene. You might carry one or more genes which are associated with autism and not be autistic. But the more you have, the more your risk goes up. It may be linear: each variant has a “score” and you add them up and if your score is very high, you are autistic. Or it may be nonlinear: some genes in combination may create a greater risk than the sum of their individual risks. I don’t think they understand or have cataloged the genes well enough to say.

The researchers in this current paper are estimating about 60% of autism risk is genetic. Here’s a graphic showing the breakdown of the various risks–different types of genes (common genes that are inherited, rare genes that are inherited, new (de novo) mutations, etc.):

nimh-20_l

What does this mean for the future of autism research? It means that continuing to look at both genetics and environmental risk factors is valuable. As I’ve said before, from my perspective if autism risk is 10% genetic or 90% genetic, you still need to apply resources to both genetics and environmental risk factors.

Now to answer the more mundane questions. What does this mean for the vaccine epidemic? You can’t have a genetic epidemic (not really true, but good enough for this discussion)! This doesn’t fit with the idea that about 99% of autism is now caused by vaccines.

Yep. These data are yet another reason why your idea doesn’t work.

But isn’t this just blaming the mothers?

I’m always amazed when that argument comes up on autism genetics. And, yes, it does come up. Your children’s genetic makeup is neither a source of pride nor of blame. You really didn’t have any say in the matter. You didn’t create nor change your genes, how can you be blamed for the genes that your child inherits?

Won’t genetic research lead to aborting babies?

Maybe. If it does, it will be much different than the current situation with Down Syndrome. Autism doesn’t have many examples of single-genes, as this study points out. There have already been groups claiming to be working on tests involving multiple genes and autism risk scores.

Does this mean that the story is finished? That we have the last answer about how much risk is genetic and how much is environmental?

No. There will be more papers and more estimates. These are tough questions and knowledge evolves.

Here is the paper’s abstract:

A key component of genetic architecture is the allelic spectrum influencing trait variability. For autism spectrum disorder (herein termed autism), the nature of the allelic spectrum is uncertain. Individual risk-associated genes have been identified from rare variation, especially de novo mutations. From this evidence, one might conclude that rare variation dominates the allelic spectrum in autism, yet recent studies show that common variation, individually of small effect, has substantial impact en masse. At issue is how much of an impact relative to rare variation this common variation has. Using a unique epidemiological sample from Sweden, new methods that distinguish total narrow-sense heritability from that due to common variation and synthesis of results from other studies, we reach several conclusions about autism’s genetic architecture: its narrow-sense heritability is ∼52.4%, with most due to common variation, and rare de novo mutations contribute substantially to individual liability, yet their contribution to variance in liability, 2.6%, is modest compared to that for heritable variation.


By Matt Carey

Is Boyd Haley resurrecting OSR#1 as a chelator?

22 Jul

Boyd Haley was a professor of chemistry who was very active in the failed thimerosal-causes-autism movement. He earned extra notoriety for trying to coin the phrase “mad child disease” (yes, a variation of mad cow disease) for autistic children. He also found notoriety for marketing a synthetic chemical as a “nutritional supplement”, calling it OSR#1. Prof. Haley is certainly persistent. He’s working on a clinical trial.

How did this come to pass? Well, one of the professors in Prof. Haley’s department found that a certain compound could effectively treat mining waste, removing mercury. Given his own interests, Mr. Haley started a company with an investor with the intent to bring this chelator to the public. The chelators used in medicine today were developed for lead and have been expanded to also treat mercury. I.e. there is no mercury specific chelator and this new compound would fill that gap.

All well and good, but in his zeal to bring this product to market, Prof. Haley cut a few corners. Chelators are drugs. The compound he was working on was synthetic. But Prof. Haley chose to rush the product to market as a “nutritional supplement”. Instead of calling it a chelator, he called it OSR#1. OSR standing for “oxidative stress relief”. Mr. Haley skipped the process to prove that his drug was safe and effective. Supplements have a much lower standard for safety and efficacy testing.

The FDA was not fooled. Mr. Haley and his company were given a warning letter which pointed out that the compound is not a supplement, it is a drug:

Your firm markets OSR#l as a dietary supplement; however, this product does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement in section 201(ff) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff). To be a dietary supplement, a product must, among other things, “bear[ ] or contain[ ] one or more … dietary ingredients” as defined in section 201(ff)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C.§ 321(ff)(1). Section 201 (ff)(1) of the Act defines “dietary ingredient” as a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of any dietary ingredient from the preceding categories. The only substance listed as a dietary ingredient on the labeling of OSR#1 is N1,N3-bis(2-mercaptoethyl)isophthalamide. N1,N3-bis(2mercaptoethyl) isophthalamide is not a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake. Further, N1,N3-bis(2-mercaptoethyl)isophthalamide is not a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of any such dietary ingredient. Thus, because OSR#1 does not bear or contain a dietary ingredient as defined in section 201(ff)(1) of the Act, this product does not qualify as a dietary supplement under section 201(ff) of the Act.

Also that the company was making claims that the drug could treat medical conditions and that the labeling was misleading in this regard. Further, that the toxicity was not adequately tested nor reported.

Your website states that” [s]ome reports of temporary diarrhea, constipation, minor headaches have been reported but these are rare and the actual causes are unknown,” as well as “OSR#1 is without detectable toxicity” and “OSR#1® … has not exhibited any detectable toxic effects even at exceptionally high exposure levels.” However, animal studies that you conducted found various side effects to be associated with OSR#1 use, including, but not limited to, soiling of the anogenital area, alopecia on the lower trunk, back and legs, a dark substance on lower trunk and anogenital area, abnormalities of the pancreas, and lymphoid hyperplasia. Based on these animal studies and side effects known to be associated with chelating products that have a similar mechanism of action to OSR#1, we believe the use of your product has the potential to cause side effects, and the before-mentioned website statements falsely assert that the product does not have the potential to cause side effects. Therefore, these statements render your product’s labeling false or misleading. As such, OSR#1 is misbranded under section 502(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(a).

That was in 2010. Prof. Haley and his company are now back, trying to get a clinical trial started on their compound. Essentially, they are trying to do what they should have done in the first place: get proper approval for a drug. An article in Chemical & Engineering News discusses this effort. Actually, it’s part of the cover story, “Building Pharma Molecules”

buildingpharma

The story on Mr. Haley’s Company, CTI Science, has contracted with another company, PCI Synthesis, to manufacture the new compound.

haley2

The article is, well, a bit of a sales pitch and gets a few facts wrong. There’s a bit of spin on the FDA warning letter, for example:

“The effort to develop the compound as a mercury poisoning therapy accelerated in 2010 when the company received notification from FDA that it couldn’t market NBMI as a nutritional supplement until it underwent the full drug approval process”.

As we’ve just seen above, the compound is not a nutritional supplement at all. It needs the drug approval process because it is a drug.

The CEO of PCI is quoted as stating:

“The main starting material is cysteamine hydrochloride, which is basically an amino acid and found naturally. So it has attributes that could qualify it as a natural product.”

Which was part of the sales pitch for the OSR#1 in the old days and, again, the FDA disagreed. Just because something is synthesized from a natural product, that doesn’t make it a natural product. Otherwise there would be no synthetic products at all. Everything at some level comes from a natural product.

The article discusses how to qualify for a clinical trial the product must meet current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). The article states:

The primary challenge was the removal of impurities to a level that meets cGMP standards

Think about that a moment. Apparently OSR#1 was sold with more impurities than would meet this standard–a standard for food and dietary supplements.

The article notes that, yes, this compound was sold as a product at one time

Sales to date: $1.5 million, as a nutritional supplement

$1.5M in sales. And the only reason it wasn’t higher was because the FDA stepped in. It was only out for about a year, as I recall.

I found this statement interesting, from the Wikipedia page for the compound:

In animal experiments, the amount of mercury in brain tissue was not increased, but also not decreased

So, even if you believe in the failed mercury hypothesis. What exactly were you supposed to get from this compound? I somehow doubt that even the strong believers in the mercury hypothesis think that removing mercury from, say, your liver will cure autism.

It does seem that Mr. Haley and his company are doing some of the right things now. Show that this drug is safe and effective for its intended purpose: chelation. There are some problematical statements that they may market this not as a drug but as a nutritional supplement, which is a non-starter.


By Matt Carey

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,132 other followers