NoMercury, the website of Dr Alan and Lujene Clark RN is a website dedicated to proving the idea that mercury causes autism. Alan Clark writes a loooooonngg open letter about it – an amassing of the evidence one assumes – in a page amusingly entitled ‘the science’.
Lots of people (including me) have debunked a lot of whats on that page and what the Clark’s believe and more will do so in the future no doubt. What I’ve been meaning to tackle for some time is their attempt to provide historical medical data to back up their claims that mercury causes autism.
In order to do this, they make use of a form of mercury poisoning called ‘Pinks disease’ which is a phenomenon rarely seen these days but which went through a few periods of high prominence, particularly in the early 20th century and again in the mid 50’s in the UK.
The Clarke’s make use of Pinks disease in order to try and explain why thiomersal only causes autism in such a very low set of kids:
Why does mercury toxicity at levels found in vaccines seem to only affect a subgroup of children, predominantly males? History provides the answer. The same target subgroup was noted in the early 20th Century during the epidemic of Pink’s Disease (Acrodynia) that was determined to be caused by mercury in teething powders given to children. About 1 in 500 children were afflicted, and some died as a result of this toxic insult.
Firstly, lets note that despite Clark’s claims above neither he nor Pinks disease reveal why autism affects mainly boys. There are no valid scientific theories that account for that fact. And lets be clear – in order for thiomersal to be taken seriously as a causative of autism, there damn well needs be. The absence of such data is (just like the evidence against the so called autism epidemic) another major unraveling of the conspiracy-theorists shroud of mystery.
Clarke then goes on to quote Dr. Thomas Clarkson, who, in his ‘The three modern faces of Mercury’ said:
It is interesting that not a single case of Acrodynia has been reported from exposure to vaccines despite the propensity of thimerosal to produce this syndrome when given in sufficient amounts.
Which is a great point. Clarke, of course, takes issue with it:
That remark is quite interesting in the face of many parental reports of just such a rash occurring in their child after a bolus of Thimerosal-laden vaccines in the 1990’s.
He then goes onto ‘prove’ his point by linking to a PDF on his own site that not only details a case study of Pinks disease but includes pictures so we can judge how Pinks disease makes kids hands and feet pink.
Intriguingly, I came across a differing version of these exact same images. There were two main differences between this report and the Clark’s – firstly, the report I found is hosted on a medical science database which tends to lend it a bit more credence. And the second difference? Well go see for yourself. Is it just me or has the level of ‘pinkness’ seemingly and magically drained away from the report on the Clarks website? Far be it from me to accuse anyone in the Clarke household of being a dab hand with Photoshop but if I was told I was going to look at something called Pinks disease I’d expect something more along the lines of whats on the Science site than whats on the Clarks site. You, Dear Reader, can make up your own mind.
Clarke then goes on to say:
Acrodynia is probably the most widely recognized form of mercury poisoning. Its symptoms have been documented as early as 1931 by Bancroft, Grant, Tanner, et al (Journal Lancet 71:56, 1931) and studied more extensively in the 1950’s by Warkany and Hubbard. In fact, a statement in some of their earlier work *is almost eerily predictive of the symptoms we are seeing today* since the iatrogenic exposure to mercury was increased significantly by the rapidly expanded immunization schedule beginning around the early 1990’s. Have their words from 1953 come back to haunt the medical community because mercury was left in vaccines?
Fascinating stuff. Except Clarke glosses over the pathology of Pinks disease. I mean, from what Clarke says about Pinks disease above you’d expect the pathology of Pinks and autism to be very similar.
The child becomes listless, no longer interested in play, restless and irritable. Generalised inconsistent rashes, which are protean, recur from time to time. Early, the tips of the fingers, toes, and nose acquire a pinkish colour and later the hands and feet become a dusky pink, with patchy areas of ischemia and cyanotic congestion. The colouring shades off at the wrists and ankles. These changes in the extremities are the most distinctive features of the syndrome and are responsible for the term pink disease. Frequently the cheeks and the tip of the nose acquire a scarlet colour.
As the disease becomes established, the sweat glands are enormously dilated and enlarged and perspiration is profuse. Secondary infection may lead to a severe pyoderma (a pus-like skin disease). There is desquamation of the soles and palms, which, though usually superficial, may be severe and recur during the course of the disease. The fingers and toes appear oedematous; the swelling is due to hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis of the skin. An outstanding symptom is constant pruritus with excruciating pain in the hands and feet. Children will rub their hands together for hours, and older children will complain of a severe burning sensation.
The nails become dark and frequently drop off. Occasionally, gangrene of the toes and fingers develop and trophic ulcers may result from the constant rubbing of the hands and feet. The hair tends to fall out and is often pulled out by the child.
There is photophobia without evidence of local inflammation of the eyes. The children shield their eyes or bury their faces in their pillows. The lax ligaments and hypotonia permit the children to assume unusual positions. In extreme cases the teeth may be lost; necrosis of the jaw bones frequently follows. Initially, the gums appear normal except for a slightly deeper red colour, later they become inflamed and swollen. Salivation then becomes pronounced, and the saliva often flows from the mouth in a constant stream. Anorexia is prominent, but because of the excessive perspiration large quantities of water are consumed. There may be diarrhoea and prolapse of the rectum is a frequent complication. The blood pressure and pulse rate may be increased significantly. Fever is usually not present unless there is some complication such as urinary tract infection or bronchopneumonia. Neurological symptoms are an important part of the syndrome and include neuritis, mental apathy, and irritability.
Early in the disease the tendon reflexes may be normal or increased, but later they disappear. There is not a true motor paralysis, but because of the soft, flabby musculature the child has no desire to walk and is hypotonic, listless and hypomotile. The severe pain prevents normal sleep. There is no time when a child with acrodynia appears happy or comfortable; the child does not play or smile, but appears dejected and melancholic, a picture of abject misery.
Does that sound anything – anything at all – like autism or autistic people you know? No, me neither. Clarke follows up with what one assumes is his knock out blow – ‘Autism – a Novel Form of mercury Poisoning’. A study that wasn’t good enough to make it into a proper science journal. One of the conclusions in that study and which Clarke points proudly to is:
Due to the extensive parallels between autism and HgP [mercury poisoning], the likelihood of a causal relationship is great.
Er, yeah. Extensive parallels. Right. It seems that the medical science of the time (and now) says that Pinks disease has a causal relationship with mercury. It also seems very obvious to me that Pinks disease shares no commonality with autism whatsoever. It also seems clear to me that Clark uses Pinks disease in a vague manner with nothing substantive to back up his assertion at all. We’re back to square one: Yes, mercury is bad – no there’s no evidence it causes autism.
Left Brain Right Brain 
The problem with the mercury poisoning=autism hypothesis is that its proponents tend to explain away symptoms that don’t apply to their cause.
Pink Disease is a classic example of this. Do autistic children suffer from peripheral neuropathy? Do their nails become brittle and fall off? Do they often suffer skin rashes or gum inflammation? Or hypertension? However, anti-thimerosal supporters explain away (or ignore) those conditions and focus on the ones they believe buttress their cause. And even the ones that supposedly do, like diarrhea or light sensitivity, aren’t found in even a majority of autistic children – much less all of them. Classic cognitive dissonance.
Pink Disease is an example of mercury being pretty indiscriminate. It’s not just going to a particular part of the brain (bypassing every other organ) and causing a specific sequalae of behavioral conditions. It’s pretty much whacking out the entire body.
I’m sure the counter argument from some will be “well, maybe there’s a segment of kids that suffer from mercury poisoning that is misdiagnosed as autism”. Ok, fine. But now you have to give up the claims that mercury (or most notably thimerosal) is the cause of the autism epidemic. You have to admit that the rise in autism was more likely due to the things you’ve often loathed admitting, like better diagnosis or availability of services.
For whatever reason, I don’t see that happening.
Thanks Kevin, this is great.
Autism Diva has gone and done it… signed up for a chemistry course, bought the book ($76 used) and everything.
Next quarter she’s going to try to get into another neurobiology class, one that gets more into the biochemistry of the nervous system. Hopefully, (sigh) by then the mercury hypothesis will be dead and buried… but just in case it isn’t, Autism Diva wants a better picture of exactly where they are lying about mercury poisoning being like autism.
And by then she should be able to cook up some TD DMPS in her own lab!!! …(throws head back) muwahahahahah!
eh, heh, *cough* Sorry. 🙂 Autism Diva will then know for herself if the stuff can pass through skin, etc.
I see that a recent rallying cry for the mercury parents’ next march on Washington DC calls mercury “wickedly toxic”– it was posted by someone from “ACHAMP” to the EoHarm group
— a perfect example of the demonization/personification of mercury as an evil being.
Best of it is that these EoH parents would laugh like hell at a Flat-Earther, without being willing to look at the ridiculous nature of their own position.
The fact that people with professional qualifications (MD, RN, etc) can end up putting out the kind of stuff that the Clarks have been doing is worrying in the extreme. Makes me fear for the quality of American qualifications. And Andrew Wakefield’s pronouncements give me similar concerns about UK equivalents.
“Autism Diva has gone and done it… signed up for a chemistry course, bought the book ($76 used) and everything.”
that’s great camille…I heard you’re an art history major, is that true? It’s nice to take electives. I am sure you’ll want to discuss heavy metals toxicity with the professor. Perhaps a little more education will enlighten you to what folks like Dr. Boyd Haley and Dr. Richard Deth have been saying for some time now…
“Next quarter she’s going to try to get into another neurobiology class, one that gets more into the biochemistry of the nervous system. Hopefully, (sigh) by then the mercury hypothesis will be dead and buried… but just in case it isn’t, Autism Diva wants a better picture of exactly where they are lying about mercury poisoning being like autism.”
Going in with an agenda probably isn’t the best approach to learning a complex subject. Best to keep your mind open. But you’re in luck. Most neurobiologists aren’t familiar with the neurotoxicology associated with thimerosal poisoning. You’ll probably find a professor or two to agree with you.
Erik, or should I call you Rumpelstiltsken? AD is not Camille. If you read anything that Camille has written, and compare it with the words of AD, you will find some similarities but more differences. Much like that other silly little theory of yours.
Hey, speaking of similarities, did you know that Kennedy (JFK not your bad journalist friend) was assassinated in a Lincoln and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy? There’s a long list of connections there if you want investigate. Maybe you can get Bobby Jr to help you since he likes a good conspiracy theory. Look into that grassy knoll thing too, while you are at it. You can call the group Generation Fescue or something, a real grass-roots organization.
Erik,
Autism Diva is, as far as I am aware, an EX-art major; she switched to psychology at least 18 months ago, to my knowledge.
“Most neurobiologists aren’t familiar with the neurotoxicology associated with thimerosal poisoning.”
Don’t you mean that most neurobiologists don’t listen to the kind of shit you do?
“Perhaps a little more education will enlighten you to what folks like Dr. Boyd Haley and Dr. Richard Deth have been saying for some time now… ”
Haley isn’t a neurochemist, to my knowledge. Not even an biochemist. I heard that he is an inorganic chemist. Deth is a pharmacy professor, and so is not a neurobiologist, nor is he a toxicologist.
Maybe that is why the IoM do not want this pair spreading more shite than is absolutely necessary.
Grow up, Erik. And go away.
Camille Clark is the Autism Diva. Now what are YOU saying?
What’s with all the Kennedy trivia???
So what difference does it make WHO she is? Or who I or you are? The only reason you want to know is so you can attempt to inflict a few scratches with that rapier wit of yours. You are angry at people that don’t agree with your convictions. How does that help your child?
Do YOU have a degree in chemistry and do YOU understand the research of Dick Deth? Remove the conjecture and you are left with a very simple in vitro experiment with no relevance to autism. Otherwise words like MAY and MAYBE wouldn’t be necessary.
Think about that the next time you read the paper and remember: Going in with an agenda probably isn’t the best approach to learning a complex subject. Best to keep your mind open.
Clone, I call the Diva by her first name, Camille, because I want to. I’ve known who she is for a long time, as has everyone. It makes no difference to me if she goes by any other name or alias… but when I talk to her, she’s “Camille,” or “Ms. Clark.” You seem confused that the Diva’s name was Camille… oh, well.
I am not angry at people who hold different opinions. I’ve interviewed researchers of varying opinions. All I care about is that they are doing their best to help these kids, medically…without throwing Ritalyn at them. Treat the medical issues, improve the child. I do not believe in masking symptoms with drugs. That’s lazy medicine.
To answer your question, No, I do not have a degree in chemistry. Neither do any of you. My foundation’s research director, however, DOES. and SHE understands the research…and what I have difficulty with, she explains to me…or I go directly to the researcher, (Dr. Deth, for example) and ask him/them directly. Yes, I have that kind of access.
And David…. there is ONE thing you can count on…I am never going to go away. Not until we’ve helped these kids…and stopped the poisonings.
Besides, I think you’d miss me… without an opposing view on this blog, there’d be little in the way of lively discussion… If you want to whine with your cohorts, you can hang out at AutAdvo and bash us “curbies” all you like.
Ahhh, Ritalin. A drug you say. Drugs are bad!!! Unless they are what? Alternative Medications? Herbs? Minerals? Supplements? Isn’t DMSA or DMPS a drug? How about B12 injections? Naltrexone? Should I go on? So treating the medical conditions is OK in your book as long as no mainstream big pharma products are used.
You say that all you care about is that they are doing their best to help these kids, medically, but your words betray your definition of medically. What you mean to say is treat mercury poisoning. Am I right?
Is it just me or has the level of ‘pinkness’ seemingly and magically drained away from the report on the Clarks website?
Good lord, the photos from CMAJ are astounding! Those feet and hands are practically magenta, they’re so very pink. Astounding.
And the description there of mercury poisoning doesn’t sound like any autistics that I know…
Also, in that paper, after the little girls had chelation there prognosis was still uncertain: “Over the 8 weeks in hospital they showed some minor neurocognitive improvements, but their long-term prognosis is uncertain. ”
The brain damage seems to be permanent.
I am not angry at people who hold different opinions. I’ve interviewed researchers of varying opinions. All I care about is that they are doing their best to help these kids, medically…without throwing Ritalyn at them.
Does that mean you’ll talk to anyone but only believe those whose opinion matches up with yours?
To answer your question, No, I do not have a degree in chemistry. Neither do any of you. My foundation’s research director, however, DOES. and SHE understands the research…and what I have difficulty with, she explains to me…or I go directly to the researcher, (Dr. Deth, for example) and ask him/them directly. Yes, I have that kind of access.
That’s actually a good idea – this going straight to the source thing. I did the same thing recently – for example, I went straight to the CDC and asked them to clarify several concerns often raised about Verstraeten’s thimerosal/autism study. I got some great responses – some of which I’ve published, some of which I’ve yet to do so.
And funny – most of the complaints about Verstraeten’s study are apparently unfounded. Go figure.
“Not until we’ve helped these kids…and stopped the poisonings.”
That’s fine for mercury poisoning… go for it; there needs to be protection there. But autism is not mercury poisoning.
Never was, never will be, and that is why they have different names.
“Treat the medical issues, improve the child. I do not believe in masking symptoms with drugs. That’s lazy medicine.”
Isn’t chelation stuff a medication? A drug?
Therefore, if it is a medication, chelation is also lazy medicine.
“All I care about is that they are doing their best to help these kids, medically…without throwing Ritalyn at them.”
So, not ritalin; but something far more dangerous, right?
You need help, pal.
Erik said: “Treat the medical issues, improve the child. I do not believe in masking symptoms with drugs. That’s lazy medicine.â€
David said: “Isn’t chelation stuff a medication? A drug?
Therefore, if it is a medication, chelation is also lazy medicine.”
Yes, chelators are a drug. But they don’t mask symptoms. They treat a cause. That’s my whole point. Please read more carefully.
And your assumption that chelation is far more dangerous than ritalin…where did you get THAT idea? Chelation: one death on record, since chelation was approved by the FDA for lead poisoning in the early 70’s. That’s a better record than even most over-the-counter drugs have!
Ritalin… there have been many deaths associated with that drug. But you wouldn’t bother to question Ritalin, would you? For all I know, it’s what’s allowing you to pay attention long enough to sit at the computer…
As for the mercury poisoning=autism debate…you’re half right. Mercury poisoning is not LITERALLY autism…but is merely a trigger for a neurodevelopment disorder…that RESULTS in autism. Sometimes the medical issues can be fixed early enough to allow the child to begin developing normally again…and come out of autism. Treat them too late…and the autism is with them for life…this “alternative wiring” so many of you talk about.
But Erik, how would you know? By your own admission you don’t really understand the science, you require other people to explain it to you, so how do you know they are correct? Could it be that you only listen to what you want to believe? Ask Deth if anything other than thimerosal or ethanol interferes with IGF-1 signaling. Here’s a thought, maybe less IGF-1 means less IGF-1 stimulation of methionine synthase, or is that to simple?
Well at least we have a way to distinguish autism from mercury poisoning. Pink hands mean mercury poisoning. Got it!
clone said: “By your own admission you don’t really understand the science, you require other people to explain it to you, so how do you know they are correct? Could it be that you only listen to what you want to believe?”
Well, now, that sounds as though you assume I don’t understand any of it. Not true. But from what I have learned, the biomedical research that implicates thimerosal in the triggering of autism is much more persuasive and formidable than the epidemiological studies that have been done.
But I’ll let the researchers/doctors speak for themselves. They’ve convinced me that this research is worth doing…so I am promoting their work. The more we understand the biology of Autism, the better we’ll be able to help these kids.
We CANNOT, in good conscience, just sit back and leave these kids to their toxicity issues, their bowel problems, their mineral deficiencies and behavioral/cognitive problems. If I followed everything the school system and my daughter’s former pediatrician would have me do…my daughter would be institutionalized some day. No, she deserves better than that. All these kids do.
It’s great that you are interested in promoting research and helping to understand the biology of autism but it sounds like you are only interested in mercury toxicology research. That’s great too but what does that have to do with autism? If autism is defined by behaviors, and these behaviors aren’t observed in verified cases of mercury poisoning then aren’t we talking about too different things? Why don’t you just drop the A word entirely and focus on mercury toxicity?
I have a feeling you have made up your mind but you must have some doubts about thimerosal causing autism. Isn’t that why you are trying to prove it once and for all? Most of the names you drop belong to people that have all of the proof they need, yet the quest goes on.
If you are so governed by your conscience, where is it as you choose to further stigmatize autistics as toxic?
I hope that your daughter doesn’t end up in an institution some day but I also hope she will be treated as something more than a biohazard, no matter her fate.
“If I followed everything the school system and my daughter’s former pediatrician would have me do…my daughter would be institutionalized some day. No, she deserves better than that. All these kids do.”
Oh, man – going to the “institution gambit”, aren’t we?
First off, not everyone with autism – even classic autism – is bound for an institution. I’d suggest the vast majority of them are not. In California, for example, over 90 percent of all autistics either live at home or in independent living facilities. Was your daughter slated to be one of the 10 percent? Who knows – you certainly don’t.
And your assumption that your child was destined for a horrible fate is quite presumptive, isn’t it? How do you know your child wouldn’t have caught up Or even if she didn’t catch up, could speech or occupational therapy or other non-biomedical treatments have helped?
You have no clue as to what your child’s potential was or is. Rather, you assume that she’s “poisoned” and “damaged. I find that quite sad.
“Ritalin… there have been many deaths associated with that drug. But you wouldn’t bother to question Ritalin, would you? For all I know, it’s what’s allowing you to pay attention long enough to sit at the computer…”
Fuck you, Erik, two things:
I am a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. I do not prescribe or approve of drug treatments unless there is a clear reason (99% of the time there is no such reason).
Secondly, my stipend comes from an educational trust fund source not connected with medical/pharmaceutical companies.
Oh, and whilst I’m here….
“but is merely a trigger for a neurodevelopment disorder…that RESULTS in autism.”
Get real. This has not been demonstrated at all. The evidence for it is patchy at best and absolutely shite at worst, as well you know.
“They treat a cause.”
According to biomed-based psychiatrists, so does ritalin.
“… my daughter would be institutionalized some day.”
Prove it. Absolutely prove it.
“As for the mercury poisoning=autism debate…you’re half right.”
Half-right, my arse, man!!!!! The fact is that no link has been demonstrated, and you know this.
“Ritalin… there have been many deaths associated with that drug. But you wouldn’t bother to question Ritalin, would you? For all I know, it’s what’s allowing you to pay attention long enough to sit at the computer…”
You arrogant, ignorant get, Erik. I think I just got what you meant. And it was a clear insult.
You think THAT shittily about autistics, no wonder you’re prepraed to take ignorant and stupid chances with your daughter’s health!!!! Evil.
Stay the fuck away from me.
Erik said, “that’s great camille…I heard you’re an art history major, is that true? It’s nice to take electives. I am sure you’ll want to discuss heavy metals toxicity with the professor.”
Amazing concept I would like to introduce here, Erik:
college students change majors.
Honestly, they do. Sometimes several times. Just ask beleaguered parents who are footing the bills out there…
For example, I was a Commercial Art major for an entire semester. I changed my major and got a BSc in Horticulture (gardening), and am finishing up a MSc in Entomology (insects).
To do the assorted classes for those various programs I have successfully completed coursework in color design, representational drawing, layout & typography et cetera, and then later took physics, calculus, three semesters of chemistry and a semester of biochemistry, genetics and so on.
Having been an art major, or a major in any kind of subject, does not preclude one from changing majors and going on to do and complete a degree in something radically different.
Saying that Camille is just an art history major who is taking electives is a condescending comment. What her background really means is that she has a wide range of scholastic aptitudes, abilities and interests.
andrea
Erik has trouble with the concept of thinking of more than one subject. He is LOCKED IN on one target! How do you stay so focused on one thing sans Ritalin Erik?
One last question for you Erik. What would happen if some of the research or researchers you say that you support turned up something that didn’t support your mercury hypothesis? What would you do? Change your mind or modify the hypothesis to fit the data? Just wondering.
He’s too much like Cyril Burt…. that’ll all go to his grave with him….
clone3g said, “Erik has trouble with the concept of thinking of more than one subject. He is LOCKED IN on one target! How do you stay so focused on one thing sans Ritalin Erik?”
Aw come on, haven’t you ever seen someone PERSEVERATE upon a subject before? Erik’s just engaging in a fine bit of monotropism is all (even if most of us think it’s a foolish subject).
I mean, think about it … autism IS genetic…
andrea
Hey Erik,
You know what? If you would go dig through the aut advo archives you can find a tome’s worth of discussion of my classes, assignments, grades… all kinds of stuff. Also, a tiny bit of digging on the net will prove that I’m a psych major from the only authority that counts.
When I was interviewed for the NYT ages ago, I was an art history undergrad with the intention to change majors… actually from the moment I applied to the university, it was my intention to be a psych major, but I got in as an art history major… if you think art history is easy… whoooo boy… it’s not… I can tell you all about baroque and rocccocco. What would you like to know about Tang Dynasty wine ewers? I did a tremendously long paper on one of them.
… since switching to psych I have focused on biopsych (brain biology) and now I will take a beginning chemistry course, and hopefully will be able to get a neurobio, physio, behavior minor… if I can get all the classes before I have to graduate….
the NPB minor is brand new.
Wanna talk sheep brains? Wanna talk sulci and gyri?
(((((((((I’m so excited. )))))))))))))
🙂
the ultimate crisis.
dr. Wakefield’s thougthfulhouse Yahoo! group has been deleted. with no warning. though there still is a link to it on the thoughtfulhouse.org website. what will texas do without Kirgsman and Wakefiled? think of all the parents who won’t have to waste money on seeing dr krisgman who prescribes unnatural big pharma drugs with very harsh potential side effects to poor autistic children.
Yay
The Diva’ s going chemical – ‘and proud of it’ – sorry, just thinking about Don Adams for a moment. However, having a major in Biochemistry myself, I remember with fondness a semester in neurobiochemistry- and guess who the lecturer was – Nicole Kidman’s Dad – who is now a psychology something or other – like the Diva but in reverse.
Great pity that more people don’t just go out and get the facts rather than rely on somebody else’s expertise. Would certainly put a large dent in the junk floating around.
I am an applied educational psychologist, who originally taught mathematical sciences in remedial settings; my ex-wife is an applied developmental social psychologist who trained originally in biology (biochemistry, genetics and plant physiology). According to her, the whole mercury=autism (or even mercury=>autism) thing is complete bollocks. My own understanding of biochemistry is not as good as either hers or Alyric’s, but I can understand a fair bit. I look for logic, and can see nothing of it in the whole mercury=autism thing.
The evidence that IS coming out (from both Johns Hopkins University Medical School and the University of Helsinki Medical School) is that autism is NOT about brain damage (certainly at the so-called “higher-functioning” end of the spectrum; a term I don’t really like, but I can’t find an alternative yet): neither set of researchers found signs of it. Piven at al, in 1998, found nothing abnormal in hypocampal structures in autistic participants; Courchesne et all, in 1999, found no brain-weight abnormalitys in the very majority of autistic cases; and, also in 1999, De Long was stating that new data on autism suggests a new theory.
Taina Nieminen-von Wendt, a paediatric neurologist I know, came to this conclusion with her team:
“CONCLUSION
There were no specific structural changes in the brain of individuals
with Asperger Syndrome. There is an evident overrepresentation of
minor abnormalities. Some of these findings have also been detected
in individuals with infantile autism. The most interesting finding was
the indication of a slightly reduced size of the mesencephalon in the
Asperger group. The significance of this finding remains speculative
but calls for both further three-dimensional volumetric and func-
tional neuroimaging analyses.”
Any structural differences were found to be non-consistent, hence not useful as possible causes of anything. It appears that Taina, Lennu and Tuula and their colleagues at the Meilahti campus did not even think the mercury issue was significantly rational enough to bother with it.
I wonder why not….
Not!
if you think art history is easy… whoooo boy… it’s not…
Art history is, in fact, a very difficult subject, and it teaches many things aside from art history, including developing the mind to practice critical thinking. You have to write quality essays (frequently extemporaneously), you have to remember all manner of obscure facts, dates, etc., you have to be able to research from a variety of sources.
In other words, those who sneer at art history are people who have no clue the amount of mental and scholastic discipline, not to mention intelligence, an art history degree requires.
Erik, I don’t know if you have already made up your mind on this, but if you find that your daughter does not recover from autism, I would encourage you to consider other living arrangements than institutionalization for her as she gets older. There are alternatives, and I think it is important for us to develop these and not just decide we are going to lock up our kids when they are grown. If you decide to put her in an institution, they may manage her with psychiatric drugs, which you may not want for her.
I was going to do a long reply, with references, but I’ve just come across this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15945282&query_hl=2
So, Erik, why aren’t the Inuit all autistic? Why wasn’t there an autism spike in Orkney in the 1920s-30s (scuppering of the German High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow would have led to elevated levels of heavy metals in the seafood dominated diet)? Both the above are examples of small communities; if there was a large rise in the numbers of their children with autistic difficutlies we’d surely know about it.
“Both the above are examples of small communities; if there was a large rise in the numbers of their children with autistic difficutlies we’d surely know about it.”
Yes, M; and not only that, but the rise would in such small samples be exaggerated… and yet we have not seen such rises.
I wonder why!
Then again… maybe I don’t. Don’t need to, do I?
I took a look at “the science”…. OMG!
“The term “Autism Spectrum Disorder” is confusing in that these disorders (which include ADHD, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and Autism) are not psychiatric problems per se, they are medical problems (toxic insults) with psychiatric (behavior) manifestations. ”
My god!!!! I have looked in the ICD 10 category for autistic conditions, and ADHD does not figure in that section at all!
ADHD is in F90 and the autistic conditions are in F84! Since when did ADHD become part of the autistic spectrum??? In DSM IV, the number code is 314; the autistic conditions are 299. The “science”? There no science in that gross error of classification there!
If the Clarks are so confused about this sort of thing, then what the hell are they doing in the medical and nursing professions? ADHD in the autistic conditions? That is ridiculous, and shows me at least that they are not very competent as diagnosticians!
It’s not even funny…..
I dont understand your logic here:
“Firstly, lets note that despite Clark’s claims above neither he nor Pinks disease reveal why autism affects mainly boys. There are no valid scientific theories that account for that fact. And lets be clear – in order for thiomersal to be taken seriously as a causative of autism, there damn well needs be.”
Why do we have to know why autism is more common in males to prove a link to thimerisol? Maybe the gene defect that causes suceptibilty to thimerisol poisoning is on the Y chromosome? (or some other reason males are more susceptible)
I don’t think anyone has ever said that thimerisol is the sole cause of autism, but I do know that my autistic son had hair mercury levels 4x of mine, his mother’s or his sister’s. Where did that come from? Well, he is the only one who had the 2nd day Hep 1b injection (which is NO LONGER being done). I don’t know of any other environmental differences.
…bill
David Andrews:
OMG ADHD and autism have different NUMBERS in the DSM IV – yeah there’s proof positive they are completely unrelated. Wow 314 vs 299 yeah there’s 15 things in between!
Truly infallible evidence…..
I don’t think anyone has ever said that thimerisol is the sole cause of autism
Then you think wrong. The Clark’s for example (you know ‘darth’ the people I was quoting?), believe that very thing. As do the group Generation Rescue.
You are, I’m afraid, falling into a logic trap – you say that maybe the gene that causes suceptibilty to thimerisol (sic) poisoning is on the Y chromosome.
You skipped kind of an important step there don’t you think? Unless of course you have proof that there is a genetic suceptibilty to thiomersal, which I don’t think you do.
‘darth’ again. ADHD forms no part of the diagnostic criteria for autism. ADHD can be, however, a comorbidity of autism.
Thank you, Kevin.
That fact remains that ADHD and ASCs are in separate categories for a reason! The task forces of both the ICD and DSM things have considerably more experience and expertise overall in this sort of thing (even if I do have difficulties with both ICD and DSM myself). There are bloody good reasons why ADHD is NOT in the ASC category! And these are so obvious as to not require an explanation!
I’ll do one if some readers here (they may even know who they are!) don’t understand plain English.
“Wow 314 vs 299 yeah there’s 15 things in between!”
Darth… wrong!
Within each number group, there’s add-on qualifiers; for example, 299.00 is autism and Asperger syndrome is 299.80; similarly, in ICD, autism is F84 and Asperger syndrome is F84.5 – reflecting inclusion of AS within the greater grouping of autism.
Simplisticism isn’t in there, Darth, but for you I’m sure I could get the task forces to consider it!
Kev: of course I don’t have proof – but you don’t have proof there isn’t, so your argument that i was replying to doesn’t hold up. I dont think you can say that sex bias in autism negates a thimerisol factor. The only facts I have are the ones I stated. I certainly don’t believe thimerisol is the one and only cause of autism, but i also don’t think it can be ruled out as 1 of many possible contributing factors either based on my own observations.
David – You failed to see my sarcasm, that being that you use as evidence that the Clark’s are wrong because the DSM puts the 2 conditions in different categories! If you want to dispute their position, use real evidence not somebody’s arbitrary numbering scheme.
Warning, more sarcasm ahead:
David said: “There are bloody good reasons why ADHD is NOT in the ASC category! And these are so obvious as to not require an explanation!”
I guess the authors of this study didn’t know those reasons:
ADHD & Autism:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/aalink.html
Kev: I looked at the Clark’s website and found no evidence that they believe that thimerisol is the one and only cause of autism. Please post a link to the page where they say that, maybe I didn’t look hard enough. Looks to me like they believe thimerisol caused their own son’s autism (which began after age 8, kinda weird) and that they don’t like mercury in vaccines in general, but that’s all I got from it in my admittedly short look at it.
So what you’re saying is that although 3/4 of people diagnosed as autistic are male and that there are at least two studies I know of and I have discussed in other pieces on here that state baldly that there is no correlation between gender and mercury poisoning that because I can’t prove a negative that gives your point validity?
Firstly, lets see _you_ prove a negative. Prove the non-existence of Darth Vader to me.
Second, you’re wrong. Your opinion that thiomersal causes autism is incorrect.
You should further be aware that hair testing for mercury is not approved by the AMA and is considered by them as quackery.
Lastly, autism doesn’t _require_ an environmental cause and even if there is one (which I’m happy to accept as a possibility) there are several respected studies refuting a causative link to thiomersal and none at all to support it.
Lujene Clark left a comment on this site stating:
Undoubtedly, genetics can play a role but what medical science is finding out is the dramatic impact of a “trigger†such as mercury to create a “toxic tipping point†for these children.
Go have a read. She also calls me mad because I state I have old autistic relatives.
How about no cases of autism are caused by thimerosal. Zero, Zip, Nada. Not a single one. Show me some evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of medical conditions that affect one gender more than others. PMS for example (joke)
JP wrote:
“In California, for example, over 90 percent of all autistics either live at home or in independent living facilities. Was your daughter slated to be one of the 10 percent?”
The number of autistic children currently being placed in institutions is much less than 10 percent, isn’t it? The “all autistics” data includes many older autistics who were abandoned in institutions when they were young children, several decades ago. Because (thankfully) it is no longer routine practice to abandon young autistic children, such a statistic cannot be said to reflect the odds of an autistic child being institutionalized.