And so, the latest fire-storm in the autism blogosphere continues to rage. If you’re unaware of the story I’ll offer a brief recap (as unbiased as I can make it) before trying to offer up some commentary.
Briefly, JB Handley of Generation Rescue bought the domains supportvaccination.com, oracknows.com and autismdiva.com. Why? I don’t really know. On a practical level they can’t be doing him much good at all so one is left to consider the possibility that he did it as either a joke or to be spiteful. I sincerely hope that the team who is working on his search engine marketing hasn’t recommended that he does stuff like this as if they are then they’re moving him into the realms of what is termed as ‘black hat SEO’ – this refers to doing lots of bad stuff that is against acceptable internet policy to get a good rank on a search engine results page. The penalties for this can be severe if search engines catch you at it and include blacklisting the sites in question and terminating any associated AdWords accounts. From what I know of JB he loves to push the envelope a bit so I wouldn’t be surprised if he is doing this. He is playing with more fire than I think he knows about though.
Anyway, the unsurprising upshot of this is that most people on ‘his’ side of the debate think that a) his methods are questionable but seeing as he’s promoting such an important message the ends justify the means or b) that its downright hilarious. People on ‘my’ side of the debate (please note by using the phrase ‘my side’ I’m not assuming ownership of it) think that a) its all very childish and a bit sad or b) that what he’s doing is tantamount to willfully misleading people.
What are the definite results of JB’s actions? Well, he’s polarised two sides that were beginning to listen to each other a little better. He’s created a new battlefront where none existed before and he’s upset people.
Lets look at JB’s sides claims that even though his methods are questionable that its OK as the message he’s relating is so important the end justifies the means.
First, that is a very dangerous argument to apply to anything. If we call ourselves a society that has a moral base then ‘the ends justify the means’ is at best, ambiguous as a reason.
Secondly, lets look closely at what JB’s message actually is to see if it is indeed justifiable to use methods such as these. Lots of people, particularly JB’s supporters either don’t know or seem intent on ignoring JB’s message. It is this: autism is mercury poisoning. Not _may be_ , not _in some cases_ , not _might be triggered by_ but simply *is*. Now and forever. This is an absolutist position and its the main thing about Generation Rescue that I believe it is imperative to challenge. Why? Because autism is *not* only mercury poisoning. The vast majority of the information on the GR site revolves around the idea that thiomersal in vaccines causes autism. Lets leave the debate as to the scientific validity of that belief to one side for now. I’m quite happy to entertain the possibility that he may well be right. I’m equally happy with the science that as of this time, states that he is not. For my argument – its irrelevant. The fact is that even if JB is right and thiomersal does cause autism _it is not the *sole* cause of autism_.
Big deal say people – why does that matter? It matters because if that viewpoint comes to be accepted fact then the standard treatment for autism will become chelation. And seeing as it is a verifiable scientific fact that autism existed _long_ before thiomersal was ever used this would mean that there were a very large number of autistic children undergoing chelation totally unnecessarily. Question: Is it stupid or clever to subject children to unnecessary medical procedures?
The irony of this message is that it is a standard complaint of the mercury = autism belief system that they couldn’t get their Doctors to look beyond their narrow treatment options. This is _exactly_ what will happen should mainstream medicine ever accept the GR viewpoint that autism is mercury poisoning to the exclusion of everything else.
Let me reiterate once more – I have no issue with any group that calls for more investigation into the use of thiomersal in vaccines and that I’m glad that it is no longer in vaccines. I also fully accept that there are occasions that vaccines have damaged children. I also fully accept that mercury is a known neuro-toxin. What I do not want however, is for my daughters treatment to be a) enforced and b) an unnecessary and dangerous procedure when there is no basis for such absolutism.
So I ask you again Dear Reader – is JB’s absolutist message so good that it justifies his actions? Lets not forget that his actions also include name-calling (JB referred to friends of mine as ‘trailer dwelling coo-coo’s’ and me personally as a ‘wanker’ – a phrase for the non Brit-slang understanding amongst you that means that JB believes I masturbate to excess – roughly equitable to ‘jerkoff’ in US parlance I believe). This is as well as buying up domains that belong to sites that disagree with him.
Many claim that JB has apologised (although I fail to see where he apologised to me) and thus should be forgiven. I agree and disagree with that. I agree that for the debate to progress we all need to forgive and move on. However, this is not a one-off circumstance for JB. This is his MO. At some point, we have to stop making allowances and start holding people to account.
That said, up until this incident, I believed JB’s latest apology was sincere. I still hope it was.
People have also referred to JB’s behaviour as a bull-in-a-china-shop and expressed admiration for his go-get-em approach. I can’t see how such an approach is particularly admirable. Bulls loose in china shops breaking everything indiscriminately and certainly I feel less sure of the shaky common ground that had just started to be secured between the two sides. Lets also not forget _my_ message: that autism is not solely thiomersal poisoning and that bulls loose in _that_ particular china shop run the risk of doing very great damage to the delicate objects inside it.
Now lets move on to the point about upset. People from JB’s side of the debate cannot seem to understand why this action has upset Camille so much. As she is very much smarter than me she doesn’t need me to speak for her but I do wish to add my opinion as to why whats happened might cause her distress.
As a blogger who comments particularly on the science behind the debate she stands or falls on the accuracy of that science. If anyone was misled into thinking she endorsed the GR view then that person may well have further doubts about her validity. I hesitate to speculate as to whether or not that might be one of the reasons JB did it of course.
Secondly, there is an issue here of implicit control. An ugly image is called to my mind of a rich businessman laughing uncontrollably at the image of a less affluent woman as he dangles her on puppet strings. Fanciful? Yes. Exaggerated? No doubt. Based in some element of truth? I’m afraid I think it is.
Thirdly, again, lets look at the GR message and think about why those who are autistic particularly might not want to be associated with it. They believe GR is wrong. Further though, they see GR reducing who they are to a set of mercury related symptoms. Lets not forget that GR believe that autism is *only* mercury poisoning.
Once upon a time (in fact less than 40 years ago) psychologists ‘knew’ that homosexuality was *only* an illness that could be ‘cured’. How do you think that – at the time – that made gay people feel? Imagine a blogging community of parents desperate cure their gay adolescents (who ‘know’ that their children are just ill) – would gay adults be horribly offended and fight back? Or would they sit on their hands and do nothing?
For us parents, the outcome of this debate is very important – our kids depend upon it. For those people who are autistic, the outcome of this debate is absolutely crucial. Their continued survival depends upon it. I ask you once more: in an area of such vital importance, is the method really unimportant when the method denigrates so much? Is it something to be brushed aside as we smile indulgently at its instigator when its tantamount to an attempt to control a debate that affects peoples very right to exist?
Is this message so right that such a total lack of respect for a differing view is at best readily embraced and at worst tolerated in the way we would tolerate a favourite but slightly spoiled child?
Left Brain Right Brain 
Pretty typical for you.
Hehe. Yeah. Well, sometimes I just like to take bits of things and play with them. Believe it or not, I don’t take all this bickering particularly seriously. I take my own child’s life and development seriously, but not this yakkity yack blah blah blah that goes on.
On occasions when I’ve made extremely serious and lengthy observations and asked questions and posed ideas and so forth, I’ve frequently had my observations ignored or been roundly insulted for my trouble, so why bother to share them at all? I’ve really got better things to do with my time than try to convince anyone of anything, to be perfectly honest. I have my opinions, others are welcome to theirs (so long as they’re endangering no one, I care not at all).
May as well have fun with it, right? May as well just make the occasional snarky comment and jut let the rest go, because it’s mostly just pissing in the wind, anyway, if you’ll pardon the rather crude expression.
David wrote:
“I think that Clone was taking the piss a wee tad there”…..
— Translation, please?
-Sue M.
Sue: “—Translation, please?”
It WAS in English……
David-
This may surprise you but in America we don’t use this expression:
“was taking the piss a wee tad thereâ€â€¦..
I’m pretty sure that I get the drift but I didn’t want to put words in your mouth, so you can translate OR we can just forget about it… Not important.
– Sue M.
Um… Sue…
I think that clone3g was taking the piss a wee bit.
That is… he wasn’t seriously suggesting anything like you responded with!
Sue: “This may surprise you but in America we don’t use this expression”
And the US actually initiated Tartan Day?????? (which it did)…..
There’s this thing called “Google”. Works really well when you want to look something up. For example, I typed the words “take the piss” (with quotes) into the search part and got some interesting returns, including this one:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=take+the+piss
(And yeah, I’m taking the piss out of you, now.)
David wrote:
” That is… he wasn’t seriously suggesting anything like you responded with”!
— Really, you’re kidding me. I thought he was serious. Oh boy, do I feel dumb.
-Sue M.
Sue: “Really, you’re kidding me. I thought he was serious. Oh boy, do I feel dumb.”
Trying to take the piss?
Not working……
The definitions of “take the piss” at the Urban Dictionary site are a bit on the harsh side. Often, “taking the piss” is just plain teasing, maybe with a sense of to see how far you can prod someone before they figure out you’re teasing them. But it’s not always mocking. When Australians say they’re “just taking the piss out of you” they mean “just teasing playfully,” usually. I suspect the same is true in UK and/or New Zealand dialect, as well.
Just FYI.
Nice one, bonni….
try this one…. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pillutettu 😉
bonni: “I suspect the same is true in UK and/or New Zealand dialect, as well.”
Has a spectrum of meaning, including said 😉
Meanwhile, back at Kev’s blog…
andrea comments with the following quote:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
–Aldous Huxley
ergo….
the fact that I am seriously handsome and well worth a lay in any woman’s terms is no less true for the disputing of it …. YAY!!!!!!!!!
I may get some before my dad dies…..
… “Say good-night, Gracie.”
Er…. Gracie…. g’night—– no bugger off an let me get on wi’ it.. 😉
JB said, “Kevin is right. There are no absolutes in ASD. Can I prove an absolute. No?” huh?
I feel like a spring is compressing. If so, get out of the way because when it comes back it’s gonna be ugly. 1-D simple harmonic motion (undamped) has nothing to do with harmony.
I really want to believe in the apparent sincerity, but it’s tough given your history.
When will the GR website get updated?
BC: “1-D simple harmonic motion (undamped) has nothing to do with harmony.”
Absolutely.
BC: “When will the GR website get updated?”
You’re joking, right?!
Oh, and I’m not “Dr. Profit”, sorry to disappoint. I think it’s unproductive, except the pictures of JG, those are truly funny.
JB
No David, I’m not joking. What JB said was revolutionary coming from him. It marks a total paradigm shift. What he said pulls the rug from under Myth #1.
Frankly, I’m shocked.
PS – JB, I never heard anyone suggesting you were behind Dr. Proffit. However if a leader turns a blind eye or conducts her/himself in such a way that underlings can reasonably assume that the boundaries of normal behavior can be crossed without consequences, well then that leader is responsible for the line crossings.
David, Re: SHM – I suppose it might be harmonious if one were to simply zone out and watch it for a while – I’m thinking a cubicle toy.
sinusoidal.
totally.
BC: “Frankly, I’m shocked.”
And I remain sceptical….
BC: “David, Re: SHM – I suppose it might be harmonious if one were to simply zone out and watch it for a while – I’m thinking a cubicle toy.”
?
I have some ideas… but even *I* daren’t post them here…….
And if it ain’t naughty…. I’s’ll be bored
😉
“We cannot fashion our children after our desires, we must have them and love them as God has given them to us.â€
–Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Um…. nice one Andrea…..
That’s gonna fuck a few folk off….
As of I give a shit 😉
As *if*, that is….. 6.46am….
“If we cannot end our differences at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”
–John F. Kennedy
“Human diversity makes tolerance more than a virtue; it makes it a requirement for survival.”
–Rene Dubs
“I believe that many pediatricians, CDC, FDA, etc. are scared to acknowledge that biomed treatments MAY really help some children on the spectrum. By doing so, they open up a big can of worms. By opening this can of worms, they may be faced with a truth that is too frightening to believe.”
I was talking to a doctor yesterday about Fetal Valporate Syndrome; then of course there is Thalidomide; probably a few others around. There’s no such thing as a ‘too frightening’ truth. Medicine is all about balancing benefits and harms (for example, the poisonous nature of chemotherapy). To say that doctors won’t see the ‘truth’ about thiomersal because it is ‘frightening’ is rather strange. There has been an easy (well, relatively) and widespread acceptance of avoiding prescribing SSRIs to children because it has been linked to increases in suicidal behaviour. This was accepted because of good research. That was a huge can of worms, because it took away a first line treatment of depression in teenagers. But research and evidence (not anecdote) was presented, and the conclusions accepted.
_”Kevin is right. There are no absolutes in ASD. Can I prove an absolute. No? Does he need to worry about forced chelation anytime soon? I think not.”_
Well, I’m glad you recognise that JB, I really am. Can we look forward to a slight modification to the wording you use?
I think I do need to worry about chelation. I realise that US citizens have a largely private health service where parents can pick and choose but autism is a universal thing. Its no respecter of boundries. We have an NHS system over here that _will go_ for the cheapest option. M works for the NHS. I work for a company closely aligned to the NHS – we know what we’re talking about here. If they felt it was cheaper than ABA or care or TEACCH or PECS or whatever then they *would* adopt it.
_”And so it goes. You may not agree with my methods. Nothing new for me and feel free to project on to me, I can take it.”_
Dammit JB – my point here is about _avoiding_ unnecessary conflict. You and I have common ground. I don’t think your methods are serving the *whole* autism world although I agree they may be serving the world of people who believe their children are mercury poisoned very well.
_”As anyone who knows me would tell you, I’m not afraid of conflict. The fight I really have is with CDC, IOM, and AAP – this is where my energy is headed. They are the villains, not parents who disagree. I’m confident my “methods†will make a dent.”_
But can’t you see that you _are_ fighting parents (and others) who disagree. I personally have zero issues with you taking on the CDC, IOM or whomever you feel needs to hear your message. What I am saying is that your message *will harm* autistic people in the long term. And all you need to do to avoid that is very very slightly modify your stance from one of absolutism to one where its recognised that there are numerous potential causes for autism – one of which may well be mercury poisoning.
I’m asking you because I don’t understand – what is the issue with that?
Bonni wrote:
“The definitions of “take the piss†at the Urban Dictionary site are a bit on the harsh side. Often, “taking the piss†is just plain teasing, maybe with a sense of to see how far you can prod someone before they figure out you’re teasing them. But it’s not always mocking”.
— Well, wonderful. Thank you. I am glad that I didn’t follow your suggestion to just “google it”. Instead, I wanted to hear from David exactly what he meant by the comment. Pretty good move on my part, wasn’t it? I feel better now. While your googling things, feel free to google thimerosal and autism and do some reading… you may actually learn something.
– Sue M.
Now on to more important things.
M wrote:
“There’s no such thing as a ‘too frightening’ truth. Medicine is all about balancing benefits and harms (for example, the poisonous nature of chemotherapy). To say that doctors won’t see the ‘truth’ about thiomersal because it is ‘frightening’ is rather strange”.
– I don’t completely disagree with you here. Bear with me for a minute. The benefit/harm factor is something that doctors need to consider all the time. The examples that you provide don’t really work when comparing the thimerosal/autism scenario in my opinion. Chemotherapy is given when a person is diagnosed with Cancer. The person is sick and chemo (at this point) is the best that we have to treat a sick person. You don’t see doctors administering chemotherapy to a perfectly healthy person, do you? Also, with medications for depression. There is a perceived need. A teenager is suffering. The parents are concerned, etc. Whatever the case may be. Doctors look to this option OR they decide that it is not a viable option due to the risk factors. They certainly don’t mandate that teenagers be put on SSRI’s, do they? Fine.
Now, we have thimerosal in vaccines. Thimerosal was administered via vaccinations on the first day of life for many children. A known toxin injected into a perfectly HEALTHY newborn baby. Smart? Of course not. Also, the truth is that vaccines have saved many lives. I’m certainly not going to debate that. So, while most children do ok with vaccines and they are seen as such a good thing then I believe that doctors have a difficult time seeing that there is a great possiblity that they have also done immense harm to many. I will stick to my belief that it is too frightening. God knows, I wouldn’t want to be a pediatrician these days. No disrespect intended to those who are in this very important profession but if I were to have the knowledge that I do now and I was a pediatrician, I would be sick with guilt…
– Sue M.
Sue M: “you may actually learn something”
We already have. We are not impressed. I think you saw the letter written to the NYT by the scientists there, didn’t you?
Mini-correction; I don’t work for the NHS. I work for a small charity that is partially funded by the NHS, and is based in an NHS building. My mother works for the NHS in the area of autism. If she were getting kickbacks from Big Pharma I would be expecting bigger Christmas presents this year.
But my point still stands; there are mechanisms in place for the evaluation of therapies within the NHS. The whole area of autism (and I’m not just talking here about chelation or anything else) is plauged by poor research. Talking to someone who is involved in the SIGN guidelines on autism, autism research often has poor controls, bad evaluation and many other faults (this isn’t even going into the area of diagnostic criteria for inclusion, the probability that we are not talking about ‘autism’ but ‘autisms’). Present them with some good quality research and they’ll love you for it. Present them with good quality research that proves there are ways for them to save money, and they’ll probably offer to marry you 🙂
Don’t want JB’s admiration. Don’t care if he goes after the CDC, IOM or whichever agencies he wishes.
He obviously doesn’t have much in the way of science behind him. His add bereft of the scientists who asked to be removed from his list, leaves Blaxill, Redwood, Bernard and their non scientific friends.
Wakefield, who has nothing to do with mercury, research-wise and is in big trouble for being allegedly unethical.
Then there’s Hayley and his new protege Mutter both of whom make really bizarre unscientific statements in their papers. Hayley showed the smoking tooth video for the IOM or whoever on that video on SAFEMINDS. The smoking tooth doesn’t show mercury gas rising from it, that’s water vapor.
Mutter has bought the autism epidemic lie and puts it in his paper.
Mady Hornig is hiding (apparently) the fact that she’s the mom of an autistic child and is essentially as much a mercury mom as Bernard and Redwood are.
Her love interest, Ian Lipkin’s , research is suspect for the same reason (but his research isn’t in the ad).
Let’s see the Hornig paper was junk and Jill James methylation study on the recessive kids didn’t prove anything about autism and mercury, but she’s another mercury mom, if I’m not mistaken… the book *Evidence of Questinonable Ethics* says she has an autistic child.
This is even more odd in light of one of the EoHarm regulars saying that Dr. Laidler was hiding something by not stating that he had autism spectrum kids as a conflicting interest in his recent *Pediatrics* paper.
The Burbacher paper listed in the ad doesn’t show anything about autism and he explained exactly how useless his paper was in talking to Erik Nanstiel on video. Useless as far as proving JB’s point that all autism is is mercury poisoning.
There’s no there there. There nothing in that ad but bluster and inuendo, as pointed out by Newschaffer, Herbert and the rest who signed the letter to the editor of the NYT.
It would be fair for JB to buy at least a half page ad in the NYT so those scientists can clear their reputatons of the harm done by JB’s ad.
There’s a paper that shows that the blood of newborns later dxd with autism have higher levels of BDNFand VIP3 (?) I can’t remember now… in their blood comopared to typical kids and Down kids.
autistic kids are born with autistic brains, some of the parents have the same kinds of brains but aren’t showing ASD traits strongly enough to get the dx. It’s not about mercury.
Why don’t you start looking at prenatal pesticide and plasitcizer exposure, JB et al? Why not? Alcohol needs to be looked at, too.
“ad” not “add”
Ms. Clark wrote:
“autistic kids are born with autistic brains, some of the parents have the same kinds of brains but aren’t showing ASD traits strongly enough to get the dx. It’s not about mercury”.
— Did you ever think that the parents and the children have the “same kinds of brains” but the parents weren’t slammed with a whole bunch of MERCURY in their early stages of development. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
-Sue M.
_”Did you ever think that the parents and the children have the “same kinds of brains†but the parents weren’t slammed with a whole bunch of MERCURY in their early stages of development. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist.”_
Interesting Sue. So your take on it is that both parents and children in some families do have a genetic predisposition to autism but that mercury in the form of a thiomersal overdose has acted as a trigger for some children as oppose to an out-and-out cause? Is that a fair representation of your belief?
An interesting case in point for me would be my own familial history. One of my great aunts and my great uncle were both autistic (they were brother and sister) and were both born before 1920 and therefore long before thiomersal made it on the scene (my grandfather and my other great aunt had no ASD type behaviours or traits). Between them and my daughter no one in my family has recieved an autism diagnosis (as far as I’m aware) even though we were all born and raised _after_ thiomersal was introduced. We got the same amount of thiomersal (indeed, probably more) than my daughter.
To me, it all indicates that even if thiomersal is implicated (which I’m not sure it is, scientifically) that its far from the only factor in play. We really need to get that message out as well don’t you think Sue?
Clarification on ‘black hat SEO’: JB has done nothing wrong with teh domains he has bought in terms of search engines having an issue with his actions. He’s not set up keyword-heavy pages, masked doorway pages or spam traps that would definitely be dodgy. My point was that he needs to be careful what he does do with them. I have a secondary link pointing to this blog – http://www.autism-blog.org – myself.
While your googling things, feel free to google thimerosal and autism and do some reading… you may actually learn something.
I have. That’s why I don’t believe autism is mercury poisoning. I’ve read more on the subject (on both sides) than you might imagine. I’m a voracious reader, and I’m on the net on all day on account of my job, and I spend a great deal of time looking things up.
I was honestly just teasing you on the Google thing. I’m sorry if you were offended.
Oh, and for the record. one of the things I looked up was the use of thimerisol in various countries and guess what? It’s not used in Australia and hasn’t been for years. My child was never “slammed” with it in an early developmental phase.
Kev wrote:
“To me, it all indicates that even if thiomersal is implicated (which I’m not sure it is, scientifically) that its far from the only factor in play. We really need to get that message out as well don’t you think Sue”?
– I have ALWAYS said that there is a genetic component to autism. It takes certain genetic factors and an environmental trigger. I believe that the trigger in the majority of cases since the late 1980’s is from thimerosal. The rates of increases of autism, the “coincidental” increase in thimerosal in vaccines given during that time as well as my own personal family story has brought me to this belief. I have never discounted genetics in this story. I don’t have a problem with getting that message out about the genetic factors involved in autism. I doubt that JB would either, by the way.
As an aside, when were your great aunt and great uncle diagnosed as autistic? Was this a diagnosis based upon descriptions given by other relatives? I’m not doubting this at all, it just seems that the dates that you give would lead me to believe that a true clinical diagnosis of autism would have been unlikely. Certainly, I could be wrong.
-Sue M.
Bonni wrote:
“I was honestly just teasing you on the Google thing. I’m sorry if you were offended”.
– Do you think that I would still be posting here if I was easily offended 🙂 . No, I might get testy at times but not offended.
Bonni wrote:
” It’s not used in Australia and hasn’t been for years. My child was never “slammed†with it in an early developmental phase”.
– Well, that’s good. You certainly don’t need to answer but if you want to… how old is your daughter?
-Sue M.
My great uncle was diagnosed sometime in the 1960’s I believe (he’s dead now as is my great aunt). I can’t remember when (if at all) my great aunt got a formal diagnosis.
They grew up in a small fishing costal town in Fife, Scotland. My Grandad said (he’s also dead) many times to us that he always knew ‘something’ was different about my great uncle from birth but even though Kanner proposed autism formally in the ’40’s it took another 20 years or so before he got a formal diagnosis – I believe (but this is a very hazy recollection) that my Dad once told me that my great uncle was one of the first people in Scotland to get a formal diagnosis of ASD as we know it today.
_”I doubt that JB would either, by the way.”_
I really hope you’re right Sue. Any move towards further clarity cannot be wrong IMO.
On the “ND blogger” thing: It looks to me as if the people involved in this discussion are giving two different meanings to “ND.” It could mean either a blogger (of any neurological type) who supports neurodiversity as a political cause or, in the alternative, a blogger who is on the autistic spectrum.
I personally don’t use “ND” or “neurodiverse” to refer to autistic individuals. I see neurodiversity as a characteristic of the human species as a whole, rather than of individuals, in much the same way that racial diversity is a characteristic of humans as a whole (one wouldn’t describe a person who belongs to a minority racial group as an RD).
Sue M. said: —Did you ever think that the parents and the children have the “same kinds of brains†but the parents weren’t slammed with a whole bunch of MERCURY in their early stages of development. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
Well how would you explain maternal antibodies? That is antibodies found in mothers and their ASD children?
The rates of increases of autism, the “coincidental†increase in thimerosal in vaccines given during that time as well as my own personal family story has brought me to this belief.
No surpirse really, same story for many parents. Knowing that this is how you became convinced, what would it take to convince you thimerosal doesn’t cause autism?
Kev wrote:
” They grew up in a small fishing costal town in Fife, Scotland”
– Did they eat a lot of fish? No disrespect intended. I’m kidding (sort of).
Kev wrote:
“I really hope you’re right Sue. Any move towards further clarity cannot be wrong IMO”.
– The genetic component is a big piece of the “mercury parents” theory (as I see it). As an example, the Hornig study (no mice-capade jokes, Clone). Here it is:
Click to access hornig.pdf
It’s been a while since I reviewed the study but I’m sure that someone will correct me if I go wrong. In the study, she showed that it was only the autoimmune disease sensitive mice who had the behavioural problems after thimerosal exposure. The other group of mice were ok. That would tend to show a genetic factor when it comes to thimerosal damage.
-Sue M.
Clone wrote:
“Well how would you explain maternal antibodies? That is antibodies found in mothers and their ASD children”?
– I don’t know anything about that. Can you elaborate?
Clone wrote:
“No surpirse really, same story for many parents. Knowing that this is how you became convinced, what would it take to convince you thimerosal doesn’t cause autism”?
– You mean that thimerosal doesn’t TRIGGER autism in genetically susceptible children? Truthfully, it would take a lot. I won’t lie. I guess a start would be some clinical studies (such as elaborating on the Burbacher study, Hornig,etc) which showed no correlation. Then some true and valid epidemiological studies (conducted outside of Denmark). Let’s start with that.
-Sue M.
Sue M. wrote: In the study, she showed that it was only the autoimmune disease sensitive mice who had the behavioural problems after thimerosal exposure.
Do you think those mice are a fair representation of your children?
Clone wrote:
“Do you think those mice are a fair representation of your children”?
– Animal studies are done day in and day out, Clone. Is it perfect? No way. What do you want to do, start injecting children all over again with the large quantities of thimerosal that we have seen in the past? Oh, wait, we’re actually doing experiments like that overseas. I guess we can just wait and see how those turn out. Not so good, so far as seen by the rates of autism in China.
-Sue M.