I’ve said a few times on here and a few times on other blogs that it is dangerous and irresponsible to maintain an absolutist position on just about anything to do with autism. I can’t remember who said it but whenever I see someone claiming to know for sure what causes autism or what the best course of treatment for autism is I recall a quote that goes something like this:
Follow the man seeking answers, flee from the man who says he knows them all.
However, on occasions I have been known to break this self-imposed belief. This is such an occasion.
Skeptico is a blogger that has commented a few times on various aspects of the thiomersal/mmr/autism ‘connection – notably a thorough debunking of the RFK Salon.com piece earlier this year.
Skeptico mailed me today to draw my attention to a comment made on his site to the effect that the wearing of a tinfoil hat designed to prevent alien abduction can successfully treat autism.
As of Dec. 2005 a hat with velostat worn by autistic children has improved their performance markedly. Michael Menkin is seeking more autistic children in the Seattle, Washington area to try the hat. Some of the autistic children who improved after wearing the hat with velostat for over three months are not related to UFOs or any alien phenomenon.
The researhc of Michael Menkin into alien abductions, with interview of several people with encounter experiences, was featured on KINGTV Evening News Program on November 16, 2005.
This is the sort of shit that one has to wade through to find decent research about autism. Is it on a par with the whole thiomersal/mercury thing? Well yes and no.
No because I can at least see a theoretical connection even if I don’t believe that theory and yes because its another example of a theory driven by anecdotal, unverified, untested belief.
Up until Skeptico mailed me this story, my favourite other crackpot theory was the idea that plastic cups cause autism. Again, this is the sort of mindless crap that detracts from valid science, strips autistic people of the dignity they deserve and only extends ignorance.
Notable in the plastic cup story is the role of one Dr. Stephanie Cave, one of the darlings of the thiomersal/autism connection and listed on page one of the Generation Rescue Hall of Fame. She lent support to a theory that claimed:
…that a toddler became seriously ill and, eventually, “began to exhibit autistic behavior,†after drinking from a plastic spill-proof cup made by Playtex. [Dallas-lawyer Brian R. Arnold ] claims the spill-proof cup was designed in a defective manner that allowed bacteria and mold to build in the cup. Alleging the bacteria caused the child’s condition, Arnold accused Playtex of negligence in distributing a defective cup and demanded $11 million in damages.
Cave claimed that the bacteria and mold caused Dysbiosis, a medical term used pretty much exclusively by the alternative health movement.
She was abetted by William Shaw who owns a laboratory famed amongst thiomersal = autism believers as providing accurate tests for elevated mercury. Shaw said that:
…the child had elevated levels of yeast by-products, indicating a “yeast/fungal overgrowth of the gastrointestinal tract.†Dr. Shaw says such yeast infections cause autism.
Unfortunately for Shaw, it seems that the bacteria found on the plastic cup was not the same sort found on the child in question. Good to know that these labs that so many people claim are accurate obviously double check their work.
Autism is a fertile breeding ground for such hocus-pocus and rubbish because it defies current understanding. That we let this sort of thing grow unchecked is dangerous for the health of children (one wonders if this child went on to be chelated based on such a pack of ineptitude and assumption), dangerous for those of us who wish to find a bit of respect for the state of being autistic and ultimately dangerous to us as a society that we are so willing to let such people treat our children.
This is why we need proper, peer reviewed science performed by those who are proponents of theories and treatments that currently have no efficacy or safety studies. If we continue down this road then treatments like the wearing of a tin foil hat used to prevent autism and alien abduction and causes like a plastic cup will become the norm and our children will truly become lost – not in autism but in the real hell of a frenzied knee-jerk search to treat the increasingly bizarre and to forget about what our _children_ who happen to be autistic need more than anything else. I hope you already know the answer to that. If you don’t then I suggest you step away from the quasi-science.
Left Brain Right Brain 
HN wrote:
“Since there is no real science connecting autism to vaccines (and lots of studies showing no relation) it was just not part of their equation”.
-It should have been….
-Sue M.
Ms. Clarke wrote:
“Do you think any person should allow any child to be vaccinated ever? (that goes to the airplanes and to Sue M)”.
-RED HERRING, STRAW MAN (this HAS to be one of those). Doesn’t it?
As far as Ms. Seidel’s letter is concerned, basically it is laughable. A waste of trees. Who would go into a yahoo group and pick out posts from people, twist the meaning and use the e-mails to prove a point about what all those meanies are saying. It is hilarious and sad on her part.
-Sue M.
Jill… what about it?
It is an almost ten year old (published in 1998 on 1994-1997 data) observation in Finland showing that the vaccine used then had short comings. Now how does that compare to DTaP?
It is also fairly commonly known that both the DTP and DTaP both do not give permanent immunity to pertussis. This is why the newer Tdap vaccine is being recommended for older children and adults:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/tdap/tdap_acip_recs.pdf … Which is addressed here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/2/405
Here is a more recent study that shows the same thing as yours:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16126567&query_hl=3 … note that they specify the DTwP (not the DTaP). It does show that there was a combinition of vaccine ineffectives and low vaccination coverage that played a role in the outbreak.
This is a more useful study, since it covers more children, had more data… and it concludes that there should be both DTP and DTaP given with the 4th dose given later:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16061582&query_hl=3
If you read the updated version of this (updated BEFORE the Tdap vaccine was approved, which was just recently):
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf … you will see one page 81 that information from the above two papers (plus some others) have been included. The particular information is that the pertussis vaccine is only 80% to 85% effective, and that the fourth dose needs to be given after age 12 months and 6 months after the previous dose.
Sue: A straw man is an attempt to attack a false version of your opponent’s argument.
This can’t possibly be a straw man, because they’re asking what you believe – they’re not even trying to make an argument yet.
It could be a red herring, except that it’s highly relevant.
Perhaps you ought to look up the common logical fallacies? They’re quite useful to know so that you can avoid them when you really want to convince someone… or avoid being convinced by falsehoods, lies, or chicanery.
Let’s see, Sue M. I think that’s called dodging a fair question.
Sad.
There’s nothing in Kathleen’s letter that was twisted, moreover, David Kirby said to her, politely, on a radio program, that he would answer her letter and has not.
Just the same that he has not answered the tough questions put to him on the BMJ RR board. Why? Cuz he’s a goober (that’s name calling, maybe ad hominem, I don’t care, the man is a goober, and that’s saying it nicely) and he can’t answer questions about science.
Now I won’t call him a goober on Kevin’s science board since that’s against the rules… you gonna go fetch him or someone else so that person can answer questions there?
_”…Who would go into a yahoo group and pick out posts from people, twist the meaning and use the e-mails to prove a point about what all those meanies are saying….”_
_”From my first post, NOTHING but crap from the regulars on this blog. Did I contribute to it? Yes, of course. That’s what happens when you are in the minority and you feel attacked at every turn.”_
Phrase of the day for Sue: personal responsibility. Learn it then practice it.
I’ve tried numerous times to conduct a polite debate with you Sue. You seem unable to do that and then have a good old sulk when people respond in kind.
Ms. Clark wrote:
“Let’s see, Sue M. I think that’s called dodging a fair question”.
-Good. I’m glad that we finally squared that away. I hope that you all picked up on my sarcasm. Many of you are so quick to throw out Straw Man, Red Herring, etc. as a means to push aside valid points that it gets annoying. Doesn’t it?
-Sue M.
Sue M & 777-300 (various spellings),
I’ve seen both of you swear that you were leaving this blog – never to darken its doorstep (gateway?) again. Yet you are still here. And you are still not “getting it”.
If you have a point – say it! Say it calmly and without trying to muddy the waters with invective, accusations and innuendo. Claiming that “your side” is the victim of a massive conspiracy is not going to work. Conspiracy theories make for good novels, but poor science.
If people don’t see the Geiers’ mining of a flawed and tainted database (VAERS) as valid, either find a way to allay their concerns or find someone else to quote. If you could show – in some way I cannot as yet imagine – that a study done on a database that has been artificially “stuffed” with autism-thimerosal claims since 1997 can somehow reach a valid conclusion, I’m all ears. That doesn’t mean that I will necessarily buy what you’re selling, but I will listen to a calm rational argument.
Finally, rejection of your argument should not be seen as an implicit rejection of you. You both seem to take this much to personally. And please don’t come back with the “It’s my child, damn it!” response – your child is not involved in this argument. You are still free to believe anything you want and to give your child whatever “therapy” you desire – our consent or agreement is not required, and you know that.
So, how about taking a deep breath and telling us what your argument is and what data you have to support it? Or, you can leave – there are no locked doors here.
Prometheus
Jonathan wrote:
“I would be interested in seeing how being taken out of context can somehow justify the use of profanity towards a young teenager by a grownup and a mother”.
-Please enlighten me, Jonathan. Where have I used profanity towards a young teenager?
-Sue M.
Prometheus,
777-300 is very calmly asking if someone wanted to do a study on this and get it published, how hard would it be? Where can someone get the funding? I know that Dan Olmsted is a just a journalist but I think he is on to something.
From Dan Olmsted’s story,
“Hi. My name is Sandy Mintz. I am from Anchorage, Alaska. I am lucky enough not to have a child who has been injured by a vaccine. My question is, is NIH (National Institutes of Health) ever planning on doing a study using the only proper control group, that is, never vaccinated children?”
Dr. Steve Foote of NIH responded: “I am not aware of — but note carefully what I said, that I am not aware of — a proposed study to use a suitably constructed group of never vaccinated children. Now CDC would be more likely perhaps to be aware of such an opportunity.”
Responded Dr. Melinda Wharton of the CDC: “The difficulty with doing such a study in the United States, of course, is that a very small portion of children have never received any vaccines, and these children probably differ in other ways from vaccinated children. So performing such a study would, in fact, be quite difficult.”
Dan wrote,
We found tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
Our search started among the mostly unvaccinated Amish in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana; moved on to homeschooling families who choose not to vaccinate for religious religions, and wound up in Chicago, where we reported on a medical practice with thousands of unvaccinated children.
We didn’t find much autism.
We need to further look into this.
Olmsted states: “We didn’t find much autism.” How did they do these assessments? Was each child seen by a professional or were they going by … what? Many, many children are not dx’d until they attend school — and by this I don’t mean merely elementary school, but pre-school, pre-K and K. Again, how did they assess for ASD in that particular population?
Ms. Clark wrote:
“There’s nothing in Kathleen’s letter that was twisted, moreover, David Kirby said to her, politely, on a radio program, that he would answer her letter and has not”.
-Could it be possible that upon further reflection he decided that it was not worth his time? I mean what is he supposed to say…
Dear Ms. Seidel,
I am sorry that you are offended. I apologize that people on a yahoo group website have their own opinions. I am sorry that they have expressed their opinions. I am sorry that you disagree with them and that you consider them meanies.
Love,
David
Here’s my Kathleen Seidel impression of this blog entry.
Dear Kev,
Please help me here. I have some problems with your blog. First of all, Jonathan called me a troll. Then, HN said that I don’t have any evidence. Then, even you, said something mean about Hornig, you said, “and a woman who thought that mice behaviour was a good basis for diagnosing them as being autistic”. That was mean, Kev. Then M told me that I was labeling everyone. That made me sad. Then Jonathan told me that I used profanity towards a young teenager. Then you told me that I sulked. I was hurt by that.
-Sue M.
TripleSev300,
There are 7 threats to internal validity in group design research.
H.E.R.M.I.T.S.
History
Experimental Mortality
Regression towards mean
Maturation
Instrumentation
Testing
Selection bias
When we do not have random assignment then we have an unaccounted for threat to the validity of any finding. This would be the problem in the research that has been proposed.
Also, in this case, certain populations may be different from the the general population. So, maybe the Amish wouldn’t be a good population to use for this study. Maybe, not due to genetics, but the Amish have certain other differences as well. So, there is a problem of non random selection.
I don’t see a good way to corect for this in this case. there might be one, I just don’t it. I would love to here some suggestions though…..
Jonathan wrote:
“Also, in this case, certain populations may be different from the the general population. So, maybe the Amish wouldn’t be a good population to use for this study. Maybe, not due to genetics, but the Amish have certain other differences as well. So, there is a problem of non random selection”.
-So, do the Amish, the group of homeschooled (non Amish) children and the thousands of unvaccinated children from a medical practice in Chicago ALL have something else in common (besides the obvious… the fact that they weren’t vaccinated)? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not saying that the Olmsted articles PROVE anything, but I agree… where are studies on these children?
Also, Jonathan, have you found where I used profanity towards a young teenager yet?
-Sue M.
There seems to be this persistent belief that the NIH does studies. They fund studies – they don’t do them. The NIH may, on occasion, put out a Request for Proposals (RFP’s) on a specific topic, but they don’t design and carry out studies. This may seem like a quibble, but it’s not.
If someone wants to do a study on something and have the NIH fund it, all they have to do is submit a proposal. It’s not guaranteed to be funded (NIH is currently funding about 10% of the proposals it receives), but a well -designed, thoughtful study is likely to get funded.
So why haven’t any of the scientists who support the vaccine-autism connection submitted proposals? If they have, why haven’t we heard about their rejection?
Secondly, usiing the Amish as a control group for a vaccination study is not good science for the following reasons:
[1] The Amish have a much higher incidence of several inheritable disorders as a result of their genetic isolation and small numbers. In short, they are sufficiently different, on a genetic basis, from the rest of the population to not be a valid control group.
[2] There are many differences between the lifeways of the Amish and the rest of the population. All of these differences are potential confounding variables in any study. The Amish do not use motor vehicles (or use them sparingly), perform more physical labor, don’t watch television, don’t use cell phones, etc… If a difference is found (on any variable) between the Amish and the general population, it could potentially be due to any of these other variables.
[3] It has not yet been established that the Amish don’t have autism. Mr. Olmsted may be a fine journalist, but he is not trained to diagnose autism and he has not performed a thorough survey of the Amish.
A better way to do that sort of study would be to take a group of children who have received vaccines and match them with children in their community of the same age, sex and ethnicity who have not been vaccinated. By comparing the number of autistic children in each group, the impact of vaccines on autism could be assessed.
There, I’ve given you the outline of the proposal – now fill out the forms and submit it. I’d suggest applying to the NIMH – the National Institute of Mental Health (part of the NIH), since autism is in their area of interest.
Prometheus
Even the homeschooled kids might have had some vaccinations. I think it’s not that easy to find totally unvaxed kids whose parents aren’t totally freaked out by the possiblity that the government wants to implant tracking devices or whatever into their kids… seriously.
Though, it’s a great idea if anyone can find a large group of unvaxed kids with parents who will cooperate with a study… go for it… but the evidence is that epidemiologicallly speaking vaxing more, vaxing less vaxing the same…. none of them impact the rate of autism.
Can we not look at pesticides or other medications that moms might be taking to maintain a pregrnancy at an older age?
(NO!!!! we have lawsuits on tap, we can’t switch horses midstream!!!)
Sorry, that was one of those nasty voices in my head…. better put that tin-foil helmet back on… oh look… it’s a black helicopter.
😀
Prometheus,
I understand your reasons for why the Amish would not make a good control group, but what about the large group from Chicago?
Prometheus said,
There, I’ve given you the outline of the proposal – now fill out the forms and submit it. I’d suggest applying to the NIMH – the National Institute of Mental Health (part of the NIH), since autism is in their area of interest.
I’m afraid that this would be a little out of my league.
Where’s Orac when we need him?
Isn’t he in Chicago?
Olmsted states: “We didn’t find much autism.†How did they do these assessments?
In his December 7 article, “A Pretty Big Secret,” Olmsted interviews Dr. Mayer Eisenstein of Homefirst Health Services in Chicago. He quotes Eisenstein as saying that they have had 30,000 – 35,000 children over the years, and Olmsted reminds us that the autism rate is 1 in 166, so there should be scads of autistics there. But no. Hardly any. Eisenstein says:
“The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We’re all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication. It’s frightening. You can’t touch them. It’s not something that anyone would miss.”
Okay, so how many of the 1 in 166 look like what Dr. Eisenstein has described? From Eisenstein’s description of what he thinks autism is, it seems quite possible that he could be treating kids who are on the autism spectrum and not know it.
As I told Olmsted when I wrote to him about this, my kid didn’t act anything like that at his pediatric visits. He questioned his doctor relentlessly about everything. My kid thought it was all very interesting. Eisenstein would never have pegged my kid as one of the 1 in 166.
Anyway, how do they do these assessments? They don’t.
Anne said,
As I told Olmsted when I wrote to him about this, my kid didn’t act anything like that at his pediatric visits. He questioned his doctor relentlessly about everything. My kid thought it was all very interesting. Eisenstein would never have pegged my kid as one of the 1 in 166.
Anne, I think that autistic children like yours could definitely be missed by a family doctor but I think many other kids fit Dr. Eisenstien’s description of:
If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication. It’s frightening. You can’t touch them. It’s not something that anyone would miss.â€
There should be roughly 200 autistic children out of that 35,000. If they miss a few or a few move away ok, but to miss all 200?
We need to study this more. I would like to see 60 Minutes or Nightline follow up on this story to give it more national spotlight. Then maybe there would be more interest for a thorough scientific study.
Prometheus, The NIH does do research, but it’s really a small fraction of the money spent by the NIH on research. The majority goes to independent investigators at US research institutions. The NIH focuses its in-house research at its Maryland campus. But the essense of your post is spot on – the power of NIH is distributed throughout the nation by means of the grant awarding program.
Further, you highlighted an extremely important point that I feel needs to be embellished upon – the NIH has funded the likes of Deth and Burbacher, either directly (through investigator awards) or indirectly (through grants to the institution or department to fund graduate students or core-level equipment), to pursue thimerosal-related research. The conspiracy theory is crap. Handley from GR famously stated that his CIA grandfather taught him just how few people it takes in order to enact a conspiracy. What a load. The people at the NIH have vastly different views of what is worthwhile in life I’m betting, but they do have one thing in common: dedication to supporting good science. Any major conspiracy would have crossed hundreds and perhaps thousands of people. Many of these people are likely earning much less than $100kUS so the idea of massive financial gain as a motive to keep the secret is also ludicrous.
7’s – The idea of studying a group with a low concentration of autistics is a good one, but the Chicago cohort does not exist in the way needed for a reliable study. 35k kids over 30+ years. Where are they now? How long was each in their system? Some parent has their preschool teacher tell them to get to a ped neurologist asap to get an evaluation – you think they’re going to stick with Dr./MBA/lawyer religious guy or do you think they’re going to go elsewhere? Do they have a good track of the less-than-200 autisitic kids in their system? I think not. further, given standard autism stats, they ought to have had 140-190 autistic kids over that 30+ years. Does anyone really think that they’re going to keep that good of track of the kids to make the statistics meaningful within that small of a population? 350,000 kids – my ears will perk up.
Hi Sue,
Sorry for the slowness of this reply, it has taken me some time to get back to you. You will be pleased to know that I spent a long day doing research with autistic children.
You asked where you used profanity towards a teenager. I did some double checking.
You did not use profanity towards a teenager. Sue, I am truly sorry to have said that. I hope that you accept my apology.
The people I was thinking of were Rescue Angels.
Now, you said I called you a troll. I did not call you a troll, I said I was sure that you were too good a person to behave like a troll (someone who shows up just to lob insults at others on the internet then disapears again). You can go back and check that.
On to the non vaccinated children.
I think any study that uses natural groups to study the relationship between autism and vaccines, should truly not use naturally occuring groups e.g. (Familyfirst kids and Amish). The reason is that other variables unique to those popluation smay become an issue. The issue is so fierce, that any uncontroleld study may do more harm than good. It will get picked apart no matter what, and I can hear the cries of “shill” even now.
I do have some thoughts. We could partly control for some of the population concerns by using mutliple sites (different cities) with families who usually do vaccinate. If upon hearing the risks about vaccines the family decides not to vaccinate we could ask them if they want to be in a control group. If they do vaccinate we could ask if they would like to be in the experimental group. We could do a follow up in 2-3 years and see which children are autistic.
This has some level (still not very good) of random assignment, but it would be the best thing so far. It is unpractical in a lot of ways, due to the logistics. If you see a way to improve this, let me know (same goes for anyone).
Mr. Cubbins said,
The idea of studying a group with a low concentration of autistics is a good one, but the Chicago cohort does not exist in the way needed for a reliable study. 35k kids over 30+ years. Where are they now? How long was each in their system?
We don’t know the answers to “Where are they now? How long was each in their system?” from this story but in my opinion this needs to be look into further.
How about “Brent Spiner”:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000653/? He’s got the hair, he’s at good accents, and as Data he is beloved to autie/aspie fans worldwide. Although he might not be dreamy enough for Ms. Clark.
Jonathan wrote:
“You did not use profanity towards a teenager. Sue, I am truly sorry to have said that. I hope that you accept my apology”.
-Apology accepted, Jonathan.
As for the troll comment, I get it. I misquoted you. Kathleen Seidel took comments out of context and used them in a letter to David Kirby. To me, it is the same thing and that’s the point that I was getting at in the first place.
-Sue M.
Well, I bet Data could produce Fombonne’s dreamy numbers, but Fombonne is much prettier than Brent Spiner…
Let’s see Tom Cruise is on the short side, like Dr. F…. but no… that wouldn’t work, not even with the right wig…
Pierce Brosnan has that kind of presence… hmmm…. way too tall, though. 🙂
Tom Hanks might be able to do Mottron, he’s too talll, too, though.
I don’t know movie stars well enough to say.
Bartholomew Cubbins and Prometheus,
What do you think of this video clip about high testosterone in autistics by the Geiers. You can view all 4 video clips here.
Thanks Erik for another great interview.
Well, thanks, 777-300. I’d prefer to address you by name rather than some covert moniker…
Interestingly, we’ve gotten a few dozen emails about that interview… I referred them to the Geiers’ office for more info.
I’d love to see the ND’s here try to pick apart their testimony.
I just watched all four clips of the Griers’ presentation. The real issue with media bits like this is that it’s fluffy. It’s an ad. It’s vague and peer-reviewed data papers were casually mentioned rather than used to frame their current data (which was lightly discussed in a qualitative manner only with no figures).
But getting into their arguments – much of their thesis depends on these putative “sheets” of testosterone that are either mediated or precipitated by mercury ions. The older one goes on to say that x-ray crystallography was used to determine the structure of testosterone and mercury was found to mediate oligomerization. There is a real problem with this statement. Heavy metals like Hg are used in xtallography to provide a solution to the phasing problem – they’re electron rich so they are strong x-ray diffracters. Mercury can either be soaked into a preexisting xtal or it can be added to the solution during the xtal growth process.
Until the xtal forms and is assessed, it’s a guessing game as to the number of molecules of interest within a unit cell. In other words, the organic solvents and high concentration of the molecule can force a nonbiological self-interaction and give the appearance that a particular molecule dimerizes when in fact, it is an artifact of the xtallization process. A crystal with Hg or Mn or a Tris instead of K-phosphate in the mixture might have drastically different xtal forms. So to make a statement that because it’s seen in the Hg-containing crystal only means it’s a biological interaction is a leap. A big one. If there’s work done to prove the interaction, I can’t find it using pubmed.
Their claims of testosterone going way up with the addition of the testosterone knock-down drug are quite interesting but I’d like to see the data. Again, this is the convenience of a forum like this video – they can be vague in an effort to appeal to a wider audience. I would have done the same thing, but I mention this only because there was a challenge “to pick apart their testimony”.
I don’t know what to say regarding the excessive mastubation that they’re observing in these youngsters other than to threaten the ol’ standby. Maybe anonymous-henley might sing us a song about that? But a youngster with a moustache? Any mainstream doc is going to pick that up and investigate a hormonal problem.
I’d also like to compliment Erik on his video – you have an amazingly steady hand. So Cool Hand, does this make me an ND?
/btw the older one had a sweet tie. The DNA was bending around his belly like a histone. Note to self: do more situps.
_”I’d love to see the ND’s here try to pick apart their testimony.”_
I’d love to see you answer the many questions I’ve posed you in different threads here but you never do. I’m happy to ask them again here:
1) Given that we don’t know the exact role that IV EDTA played in young Tariq’s death, on what level is it a good idea for Rashid Buttar to start using it in a new protocol?
2) Do you agree with David Kirby that the number of autistics must drop considerably by the end of this year (2005) for the thiomersal hypothesis to have any validity?
You answer those two and I’d be happy to comment on the Geiers videos.
Hi Erik,
Oh my……
That was quiet the interview.
The Geiers seem to make no bones about the fact that there is an epidemic and that it was for sure caused by thimerosal.
Those to points deserve to be picked apart just by themselves. I guess this is where I get to clear my throat and say “Gentlemen, you have departed from the science”.
Then there is the high testosterone thing. Okay, there is some science in that direction. SBC noticed this a while ago, and it sounds like the Geiers are also doing some work on this.
I think it does hit absurdity at some point however. I have worked with, oh, maybe 50-60 autistic pre-schoolers. I can’t remember a single one with a hairy upper lip. I don’t seem to remember troubles with masturbation either. So, my point is, what is the prevalence of these issues in for all autistic kids? It would be good to have a fixed number especially if we are going to start touting testosterone = risk factor for autism because of a hypothetical connection to a mercury etiology theory.
Okay just as a side note, I also have to express my….interest…in Dr. Geier’s (Sr.) statement about having to live with mercury. He notes that we have to put up/deal with some level of mercury because we are not all just about to commit suicide.
Did Dr. Geier (Sr.) ever figure out if SBC was a psychiatrist or a psychologist? I just want to know for clarity.
Also, it may have been a good thing to note that SBC doesn’t quite as negative a view of autism as the Geiers (They made it sound as if he was gunning for a cure).
Alright, that is what I noticed.
Bart said: “I’d also like to compliment Erik on his video – you have an amazingly steady hand.”
No, I can’t take credit for that, Mr. Cubbins. I was using one of those high-tech devices that city folk call a “tripod.”
Since I can’t comment on your critique of the x-ray crystallography, out of curiosity I’ll forward your comments to the Geiers to see what they say about it. They’ll probably have an answer…because they’re smart people.
And Kevin, nice cop-out.
Kevin said: 1) Given that we don’t know the exact role that IV EDTA played in young Tariq’s death, on what level is it a good idea for Rashid Buttar to start using it in a new protocol?
2) Do you agree with David Kirby that the number of autistics must drop considerably by the end of this year (2005) for the thiomersal hypothesis to have any validity?
Buttar’s comments on this were made publicly. Have you read them?
As for David Kirby, I don’t recall him saying that. How about a proper, credited quote? I won’t subscribe to any absolutes with statements like that, considering how many factors are involved. But as I’ve been hearing, the number of new cases are going DOWN. So now it becomes a debate of whether you can disprove that.
Oh at tripod! I didn’t realize you were so high tech. Ok, I retract my compliment.
Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself not smart or do you simply enjoy worshiping people? If you can read, then there’s nothing I wrote that you cannot figure out. You have the world’s most powerful research tools sitting on your shoulders and connected to your keyboard and you choose not to even take a stab at it? Then how the hell were you able to digest even the smallest fraction of what the Griers stated in their infomercial? Do you accept it as gospel truth simply because they’re saying what you want them to say?
I was so close to suggesting that this analysis be moved to the scientific forum, but no – that would be elevating this advertising piece above its station in life. No, keep it right here in a blog with the “Brent breaks” and Spiner-fem-esque comments (which I love btw). The comments, not Spiner, although Data’s silver sheen does harken one back to a Bradstreet therapy.
Erik: I do not understand your reference to NDs. I embrace the civil rights issues of the NeuroDiverse Community, whereas I also have followed scientifically-based neuro-endocrine-immunological “biomedical” protocols for some time now. I remain mystified by your narrow thinking on the subject and by association FAIR’s position as well.
Pro-sci, stick around here for awhile and you’ll get a load of “narrow” mindedness from those that desperately want autism to be this mysterious, genetic thing with no discernable cause. Rubbish.
And Bart, what’s the matter? If I can get Dr. Mark Geier to answer your objections himself, wouldn’t that be preferable to anything I would have to say on the subject? Or does that intimidate you…hence your attempt to cut me down? It could take some time to get an answer, but I’ll post it when I get it.
As for me, I’m qualified to give the experts a forum for the masses. For those intrigued by the interviews, they can read more deeply, or contact the researchers themselves. I’ve been referring parents to the Geiers all this last week. It’s great. We’re really beginning to make a difference for parents who are trying to fix their children’s health and reverse the damage that made them autistic.
Hi, Eric: I am under the impression that genetics has to do with an actual, precise cause. Most especially, since genetics has moved into researching epigenetic factors/influences. Initially, I was not so intrigued by ASD genetics because in my understanding it always involved a myriad of genes. However, since major advances have been made in the field of epigenetics I have been intrigued. Many illnesses/diseases/dysfunctions/dysregulations that are genetic in nature can and do respond to medical treatment.
I was wondering how video worked as a substitute for a scientific paper. I’ve seen video tape being used in autism research, since my middle son was three years he was part of a group of kids used as a “normal” for various evaluation techniques for autism (one was where he sat at the table and the evaluator pretended to cut her finger, apparently his reaction of alarm and concern eliciated lots of “awww” from the group behind the two-way mirror who were operating the camera). But it was used to gather data, and my son was one of several being done that DAY!
I see they published in the “we will print your paper for the right fee” journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15780490&query_hl=2
Where they say “We put forward the medical hypothesis that autistic disorders, in fact, represents a form of testosterone mercury toxicity, and based upon this observation, one can design novel treatments for autistics directed towards higher testosterone levels in autistic children. ”
Now, all they need is to get folks to do the actual science and replicate it over a large group. They have to pull the HYPOTHESIS up to a full theory, and get some actual data.
By the way, my 17 year old son has a full beard. Puberty happens.
HN Said: “By the way, my 17 year old son has a full beard. Puberty happens.”
Sure, in a 17 year old. But a 7 year old? That’s too early…which is why they refer to it as “precocious.”
_”Buttar’s comments on this were made publicly. Have you read them?”_
As ever Erik, I’m asking *your* opinion.
_”As for David Kirby, I don’t recall him saying that. How about a proper, credited quote?”_
_”Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year.”_
David Kirby.
_”But as I’ve been hearing, the number of new cases are going DOWN. So now it becomes a debate of whether you can disprove that.”_
You have that backwards Erik. You’re relying on Rick Rollens flawed interpretation of the California numbers. California themselves have said until they’re blue in the face that their numbers cannot be used either way. Even Kirby himself has come to realise that.
_”Pro-sci, stick around here for awhile and you’ll get a load of “narrow†mindedness from those that desperately want autism to be this mysterious, genetic thing with no discernable cause. Rubbish.”_
Its worrying that you claim to offer a forum ‘for the masses’ when you cannot even listen to those you disagree with. Just about everyone, including me, is open to the plausability of an evironmental trigger. Unlike yourself, I just don’t think that trigger is exclusively thiomersal. Why do you have this continual need to desperately misrepresent my position? If your argument is so strong you should have no need to make up such bullshit.
Erik said: “Pro-sci, stick around here for awhile and you’ll get a load of “narrow†mindedness from those that desperately want autism to be this mysterious, genetic thing with no discernable cause. Rubbish.”
I think pro-sci can make up his/her own mind, and certainly won’t be helped by Erik’s typically dismissive and inaccurate characterizations. Those of us with autistic children are doing quite well, thank you, using whatever approaches we find appropriate. As for “wanting” a particular explanation of autism, most of us here are open to hypothesizing, as long as it is followed up by reputable research and hard data. And then there are those like Erik and Sue M., who are apparently starting from a conclusion held as a tenet of faith, are desperately tring to justify that conclusion, and who find it incredible that anyone would dare to question the basis of their faith.
Eric said: “Sure, in a 17 year old. But a 7 year old? That’s too early…which is why they refer to it as “precocious.†“…
So what is the percentage of kids with that kind of precociousness? In the several kids I know with autism, I’ve never seen that.
So where is the data? I just tried Pubmed, and the most recent hit doe “autism puberty onset” was the incredibly unreliable “Medical Hypotheses”:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15504560&query_hl=5 … Changing the search terms to just “autism puberty” brought up a total of 46 papers. Many dealing with the changes of autistic kids in puberty, but not with the problem of early puberty. I would think that if “precocious puberty” were much of a problem, there would have been more written about it.
I also tried “autism precocious”, but that mostly brought up papers of intellectual precouciousness. Things like hyperlexia, a type of autism where kids learn to read very early but not necesarily know WHAT they are reading. there were two hyperlexic boys in my son’s special ed. preschool. The last time I saw them at the end of 5th grade when they were eleven years old, neither had any facial hair.
My opinion is there’s probably an environmental trigger …
… but that thimerosal can’t possibly be it, because whatever it is has to be prenatal to explain other factors – and there’s almost certainly also a genetic component as well.
Intimidated? Man, that’s great. Did you see the same infomercial I did? My point is that it appears you take what someone says hook, line and sinker without attempting to analyze what it is that was said. Nodding along like some bobblehead doll is fine and well, but it really speaks volumes. Their pitch was laden with terminology that requires a bit of thinking, unless it’s taken on blind faith. If you don’t understand what it is that they said, why do you extol it?
Jimmy said, “Sally, Julie says that you were wrong when you said that blue is better than green. Were you?” Maybe Jimmy should have gone to Davie or Peggy for a fresh take on the claim. Or maybe we just know Julie was wrong because we like Sally.
Intimidated? Man, that’s great. Did you see the same infomercial I did? My point is that it appears you take what someone says hook, line and sinker without attempting to analyze what it is that was said. Nodding along like some bobblehead doll is fine and well, but it really speaks volumes. Their pitch was laden with terminology that requires a bit of thinking, unless it’s taken on blind faith. If you don’t understand what it is that they said, why do you extol it?
Jimmy said, “Sally, Julie says that you were wrong when you said that blue is better than green. Were you?” Maybe Jimmy should have gone to Davie or Peggy for a fresh take on the claim. Or maybe we just know Julie was wrong because we like Sally.
Erik Nastiel : “I’m qualified to give the experts a forum for the masses.”
That’s sort of an odd thing to state. First, in what way are you qualified? Who/What determines such a qualification anyway? Second, your use of the term “masses” seems in dubious taste.
Masses: “the great body of the people, as contrasted with the higher classes.”
Baron-Cohen measured fetal testosterone levels. Doesn’t that imply, um, I don’t know, Prenatal?
Dave wrote:
“And then there are those like Erik and Sue M., who are apparently starting from a conclusion held as a tenet of faith, are desperately tring to justify that conclusion, and who find it incredible that anyone would dare to question the basis of their faith”.
-The only thing that I am desperate about, Dave, is that we stop injecting people (here and in other countries) with thimerosal. That’s pretty simple and seems so obvious. I would also say that I feel very strongly (step down from desperate) that people need to be informed about biomedical treatments for their children. As it stands now, a parent must have to have the desire or ability to go searching for themselves for answers. That’s unfair. Doctors should be trained in the basics of the biomedical treatments. Diet intervention, probiotics, Omega 3’s, etc. Now, this may not help every child but if it helps a percentage, shouldn’t it be offered?
You can question anything that you want to, Dave. I’m not pushing anything down your throat. I’m not forcing you to do anything. Do what you want. We all come from different places here. I do find it quite comical, that you seem to focus on me and my views on this. You must realize that there are many people on here who are equally as solid in their beliefs that thimerosal has nothing to do with autism, that autism is only genetic, that there has been no increase in the cases of autism, etc. Where is your criticism of them?
-Sue M.
Ms. Clark wrote:
“Last night, Fombonne said that his group found what it was in Wakefield’s analysis that gave false positives of measles in the gut … his paper is in press, I think he said”.
-Did he give any clues? That just seems odd to me. He is saying that “his group” found that something was causing Wakefield to get false positives for measles in the gut…. what could that “something” be? I hope that “his group” consists of some pediatric GI docs specializing in children with autism. Fombonne’s specialty is epidemiology, right?
-Sue M.
SueM: I hope that “his group†consists of some pediatric GI docs specializing in children with autism. Fombonne’s specialty is epidemiology, right?
Yes. We wouldn’t want people practicing outside of their chosen professions now, would we? Next thing you know we’ll have sex therapists treating children in hotel rooms. Pathologists injecting vitamin cocktails. Allergists performing euthanasia…
Sue M. said: “I do find it quite comical, that you seem to focus on me and my views on this.”
I mentioned you along with Erik because you both seem to have so much difficulty having a discussion without resorting to ridicule, and to me that is indicative of a mindset that sees any dissenting view as a threat.
Sue M. also said: “You must realize that there are many people on here who are equally as solid in their beliefs that thimerosal has nothing to do with autism, that autism is only genetic, that there has been no increase in the cases of autism, etc. Where is your criticism of them?”
There’s a lot of nuance expressed amongst the participants here that you either don’t notice or choose to ignore. For example, Kev has stated time and again that he doesn’t think that thimerosal should be used in vaccines, and that more study is needed to determine whether or not it is a triggering factor for autism. (Kev, if I am misrepresenting you, please correct me.) Likewise, there are many people (including myself) who are willing to consider the possibility that autism (or at least its expression) is not entirely genetic. But we are unwilling to accept conclusions based on questionable or insufficient science.