Paul Shattock: What The…?

14 Mar

I recently had occasion to quote some of Mr Shattocks work. Namely, the case studies he diagnosed autism from in Victorian Britain. These were the papers that John Best Jr felt were lies. What I didn’t tell John until after he had a good rant and (if I recall) called the author ‘some nut’ was that Mr Shattock is a staunch believer in the MMR/Thiomersal/autism connection.

Some nut indeed.

Paul Shattock has extensive ties to Andrew Wakefield. Both feel that the MMR has some role to play in autism and Mr Shattock is a promoter of what he terms:

…some of the unorthodox forms of biomedical intervention currently being applied to autism.

Sunderland.

Dr Micheal Fitzpatrick comments:

Metabolic theories continued to attract a following in the shadowy area of alternative and fringe therapies, particularly in the USA. The cult of ‘orthomolecular psychiatry’ emerged out of these theories and popularised the treatment of a range of psychiatric problems with a high dose of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and other diets and dietary supplements. It is out of this tradition, which has little concern for the rigours of scientific research, that Mr Shattock’s studies have emerged.

Like the Geier’s, Paul Shattock publishes his research in some strange places (source as above):

It is impossible to evaluate Mr Shattock’s findings because they have not been published in any form. Indeed, virtually all his work has been published in the ‘grey literature’, in journals which have no formal process of evaluation or peer review.

It seems the paper he published and I quoted to John is a rare exception in a sea of vanity publishing. Indeed, Paul Shattocks Sunderland team website carries links to places like nomercury.org – hardly an informed or non-partisan choice.

Paul Shattock himself is an interesting figure. Father of an autistic child himself, he refuses to publish his work until he has studied 1,000 children. However that didn’t stop details of his work and preliminary findings mysteriously appearing (source as above):

Mr Shattock’s research entered the public realm, via journalists sympathetic to the anti-MMR campaign

But perhaps the greatest mystery about Paul Shattock is what the letters after his name mean. Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches journalist Brian Deer asks the same question:

(I)….ran a Google search for DipAgVet, the latest qualification sported by Mr Paul Shattock, who specialises in urine tests.

For details of what came back and how you can help Mr Deer, go visit his site and take a guess.

Advertisements

36 Responses to “Paul Shattock: What The…?”

  1. EriK Nanstiel March 14, 2006 at 13:46 #

    Ah, yes, Brian Deer. Met him. Very short, ugly, Bad teeth, horrible breath…and even worse paparazzi-style manners. I’ve seen him kicked out of a few autism conferences here in the states.

  2. Kev March 14, 2006 at 13:57 #

    Way to address the issues Erik. I’ve seen your photo amigo – you’re no oil painting yourself.

  3. andrea March 14, 2006 at 14:37 #

    Isn’t it nice to not have to worry about being mistaken for a Dumb Blonde?

    Wow, the amount of “pick-and-choose among sources to fit the pet theory” from these people just gets staggering! Thanks for the morning chuckle.

    andrea
    (no offence meant to the Brilliant Blondes out there)

  4. hurricane March 14, 2006 at 15:20 #

    DipAGVet suggests something along the lines of Diploma in Agrigultural Veterinary science/medicine at best. If it was a legitimate qualification from a recognised university I’d expect it to be mentioned elsewhere though: Yahoo search results

  5. Kev March 14, 2006 at 17:01 #

    Yet more proof that Yahoo is better than Google ;o)

    Seems strange that an autism researcher would want to trumpet a Veterinary diploma. Maybe he’s been reading too much Temple Grandin ;o)

  6. clone3g March 14, 2006 at 17:11 #

    There’s also a father named Paul Shattuck who is often confused with Shattock, poor guy.

    http://asa.confex.com/asa/2005/techprogram/S1681.HTM

    Paul Shattuck, M.R., Pharm.S., DipAgVet, O., University of Sunderland , Director of the Autism Research Unit – Dr. Paul Shattock is the Director of the Autism Research Unit of the University of Sunderland, founding Chairman of Communities for Autistic People (CAP) and European Services for People with Autism (ESPA), and maybe most importantly, a father of a 34-year-old man with autism.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/05/18/thsec18.html
    Some children have shown signs of hyperactivity and aggression after the first injections, but this usually wears off. Paul Shattuck, the director of the Autism Research Unit at the University of Sunderland who has an autistic son himself, warns: “All drugs have some long-term effects and with drugs as complex as this we should expect them to occur.”

  7. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 14, 2006 at 18:57 #

    “Paul Shattuck, M.R., Pharm.S., DipAgVet…”

    Actually… M.R.Pharm.S. -> Member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. He has the usual qualification for membership of the society (e.g., BPharm with Honours, or equivalent), and in addition holds a Diploma in Agricultural/Veterinary Pharmacy (DipAgVetPharm).

    Just to clear up the nomenclature….

  8. Ms. Clark March 14, 2006 at 19:28 #

    Hey!

    I think Brian Deer is cute. I must say that Wakefield is cuter, but his behavior stinks on ice. Erik Nanstiel on the other hand… And has manners like he was raised by wolves… probably that big round Charlie brown syle head has something to do with it. (see how helpful it is to comment on someone’s appearance, Erik?)

    Anyone who would promote the quite unattractive Geiers and give them a platform to promote their dangerous Lupron antics, is far below any papparazzi reporter in ethics.

  9. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 14, 2006 at 22:00 #

    Re: DipAgVetPharm…
    http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/members/society/vpg.html#courses From the Royal College of Pharmacists UK.

  10. Ms Clark March 14, 2006 at 22:58 #

    So, Shattock is with big pharma?

  11. Ian March 14, 2006 at 23:31 #

    Kev

    I think Micahel Fitzpatrick is not a particularly reliable source of information, based on his full quote in your pointer. In reviewing pyschiatric drugs he writes:

    ” and neurotransmitter theories fell out of favour (to experience a revival with serotonin theories of depression in the 1980s, a trend strongly promoted by the manufacturers of Prozac and other ‘selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors’).”

    I’m sure Eli Lily don’t believe they’re pursuing junk science, in providing Prozac.

    He’s a GP in Hackney, with an autistic son and is fiercly pro-MMR and has written extensively on this. However, this doesn’t give him carte blanche to suddenly become an expert on metabolic disorders and e.g. the effect of neurotransmitter imbalances in autism.

    Shattock’s basic work is looking at urine analyses and trying to determine differences in excreted metabolotes, with the aim of identifying sub-groups of ASD children, who perhaps have a metabolic disorder which may or may not be causal and./or a comorbidity. That’s what his lab work is about.

    I’ve heard Shattock speak and I’ve never heard him talk of any causal mechansim between MMr and metabolic disorders. His linkage with Wakefiled is appearing at the same “Usual Suspects” conferences in the US and UK.

    Shattocks primary research, although perhaps not all the messages he transmits, stand as credible science . I’m not particularly interested in the rest of the stuff he might talk about, but I’m sure many on this blog are.

    His research is just a small part of the research of the role disordered metaboilics in many disease processes. He hasn’t taken the research very far, and I doubt he will, as he doesn’t have the scietific background or funding to go any further than finding the metabolities using HPLC.

    In fact metabolomics is a big emerging field (perhaps Micahel Fitzpatrick. needs to read before he speaks), e.g. see http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_emerging.asp?p=4

    From email discussions I’ve had with leading researchers I’m convinced that we’ll know a lot more in the next 10 years about how some sub-groups of kids disgnosed as ASD in fact have particular, as yet undiagnosed, metabolic disorders. Whether these are causal of their autism and whether these metabolic disorders are inherent from birth or are triggered by an environmental insult, will be much harder (if ever) to find out. Likewise whether treating these disorders (e.g. as is possible with PKU) leads to a decrease in autistic symptoms is an open question, to which no one currently knows the answer, including Dr. Micahel Fitzpatrick

    Ian

  12. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 15, 2006 at 00:31 #

    MsC: “So, Shattock is with big pharma?”

    Ah, well…. in a sense, he IS big pharma… he’s a trained pharmaceutical chemist and pharmacist.

  13. mike stanton March 15, 2006 at 02:23 #

    As it happens, Paul Shattock is a friend of mine. Hence I can reveal that, yes, he does possess a Diploma in Veterinary and Agricultural Pharmacy. If Brian Deer had emailed Paul he could have solved the AgVet dilemma at a stroke.

    it is right to oppose quack science about autism. But we should be wary of employing cheap journalistic tricks, as Deer did regarding Paul Shattock’s qualifications.

  14. clone3g March 15, 2006 at 04:12 #

    Hi Ian,
    You said: Shattocks primary research, although perhaps not all the messages he transmits, stand as credible science .

    Well, not really credible science. I agree with your assessment of his limitations, money and outdated equipment can be barriers to good science, but he does seem able to hit the lecture circuit on a regular basis.

    Unfortunately, some of the things he’s reported to have found in the urine of autistics weren’t replicated using proper equipment and techniques. His work stands as an example of poor science that causes others to expend valuable time and resources so it can be replicated or discredited.

    Metabolomics is a promising field and may yield important clues on the causes of autism. Does Shattock’s work qualify as metabolomics?

  15. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 04:41 #

    Hi clone 3g
    I would be interested on the citations of the manuscripts that did not replicate the results of Dr Shattock.Please let me know.
    Thank you in advance
    Ma Luján

  16. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 05:26 #

    Hi
    The problems with controversial studies on
    Indolyl-3-acryloylglycine (IAG) is other topic, beyond the detection of peptides in urine. Dr Shattock found it whereas other researchers reported no presence.
    References
    Gillberg, C. (1988) “The role of endogenous opioids in autism and possible relationships to clinical features” in Wing, L. (ed.) Aspects of Autism: Biological Research. Gaskell:London, pp. 31-37.
    Knivsberg A-M et al. (1990) “Dietary intervention in autistic syndromes,” Brain Dysfunction, 3:315- 27.
    , Reichelt, L.L., Lind, G., Nodland, M. (1991) “Probable Etiology and Possible Treatment of Childhood Autism,” Brain Dysfunction, 4 (6) 308-319.
    O’Reilly, B. A. and R.H. Waring (1990) “Enzyme and Sulfur Oxidation Deficiencies in Autistic Children with Known Food/Chemical Intolerances,” Xenobiotica, 20:117-122
    Panksepp, J. (1979) “A neurochemical theory of autism.” Trends in Neuroscience, 2: 174-177.
    Reichelt, K.L., et. al. (1981) “Biologically Active Peptide-Containing Fractions in Schizophrenia and Childhood Autism.” Adv. Biochem. Psychopharmacol., 28:627-643.
    Shattock, P., Kennedy, A., Rowell, F., Berney, T.P. (1990) “Proteins, Peptides and Autism. Part 2: Implications for the Education and Care of People with Autism.” Brain Dysfunction, 3 (5) 323-334,
    http://www.enabling.org/ia/celiac/aut/autictat.html
    Dr Reichelt work discussed by him here
    http://gluten-free.org/reichelt.html

    I wonder if the lack of findings of peptides in urine/ controversial results can be related to the method of detection (chromatographic column and procedure).

    María Luján

  17. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 05:35 #

    Hi clone 3g
    Thank you very much for the links. I was written my post just when you was the yours so I did not acknowledge before.
    The comment I did is pertinent. Both manuscripts ( I will try to get them from the authors the complete manuscripts) deal with IAG. Dr Shattock work also has focused on peptides in urine , besides IAG. I know of reports of contradictory results from certain methods that become confirmatory when the methods are changed. This imply change in the detection protocol ( column used, time of essay). I will try to analyze if perhaps the discrepancy can be related partially to this. Also the point is for me how comparable are the populations of children. Not all children can have problems with gluten and casein. So for example I wonder
    Did these children tested for celiac disease biomarkers and milk allergy or lactic acidosis or lactose intolerance? Not all ASD children have these comorbilities. How comparable are the children tested by Dr Shattock with the children tested in these 2 studies? I will try to contact these authors to ask them and if you are interested, I will let you know their answers.
    María Luján

  18. clone3g March 15, 2006 at 05:53 #

    ‘Opioid peptides and dipeptidyl peptidase in autism’
    SIR–We read with interest the paper by Hunter and
    colleagues1 which proposes that previously published studies
    suggesting a role for opioid peptide in autism are ‘inaccurate’.
    They also suggest that their study ‘questions the validity
    of the opioid excess theory’.
    It is encouraging that such theories are taken seriously
    and it is important that appropriate investigations are performed.
    It was particularly pleasing to see that detailed
    assessments of the study participants had been performed, as
    this is all too frequently ignored. It was also refreshing to see
    such a detailed description of the chemical analyses. Perhaps
    these details provide us with some clues as to why these
    results differ from those obtained by others. We would like to
    draw particular attention to the following points.
    The table of results (Table II) on page 125 appears to be
    unrelated to the mass spectrograms it claims to record. The
    retention data differ markedly from those shown in the profiles
    – even the order of elution is different. It is difficult to see how
    conclusions can be drawn from such contradictory findings.
    Most assays involving complex substrates, such as urine,
    consist of two stages. The preliminary preparation, or cleanup
    stage is designed to remove unwanted elements and to
    concentrate the material being identified or quantified in the
    following estimation stage. If the estimation stage is fairly nonspecific
    (as with ultraviolet [UV] detection) then it is vital that
    the first clean-up stage is efficient. Where the final stage is very
    specific, as with the mass spectrometric (MS) methods, the
    requirements of the initial stage are less stringent. Hunter et al.
    used a clean-up process specific to an MS method2 that falls far
    short of that necessary for UV detection. For example, the
    crude extract is washed in a 0.15% acetonitrile solution, as
    against the standard 10% solution; and furthermore, they prepare
    their final extract in 100% acetonitrile solution, as against
    the standard 40% solution. The MS clean-up process leaves the
    urine largely unchanged and unsuitable for UV analysis. The
    result would be the uninterpretable chromatograms
    described and illustrated in this paper. Even in heavily spiked
    samples it would be impossible, as Hunter et al. admit, to identify
    individual peptides from such a mixture with UV analysis.
    The concentration of bovine casomorphin used to spike
    the urine is not given, and its appearance in the MS spectrograms
    may reflect the technique’s greater sensitivity but
    might also be explained by the use of greater sample quantities:
    560 microlitres for the (very sensitive) MS analysis compared
    to 40 microlitres for the (comparatively non-sensitive)
    UV method. To identify bovine casomorphins under these
    circumstances would be very difficult; to determine the very
    low levels of deltorphins or dermorphin which could be present
    would be very much more difficult still.
    The authors failed to detect bovine casomorphin 1-7 in
    any of the 10 samples from children with autism (or from
    the sibling samples they used as controls). Like Dr Karl
    Reichelt (University of Oslo, personal communication), we
    detect this particular peptide in measurable quantities in
    only some 25–30% of our case series with an almost total
    bias towards those children whose autism has been present
    from a very early age. Of the 10 children, three were on diets
    devoid of casein (as well as gluten) and seven had undergone
    regression in their second year.
    The introduction misattributes the advocacy of caseinfree
    diets to Whiteley3 and in support of its own failure to
    identify peptides quotes two earlier papers: Zhang’s
    paper4 is a brief (200 word) abstract of a non-peer
    reviewed conference poster; the paper by Pavone and
    Fiumara5 (actually published in 1997 and not 1996) discussed
    the relationship of autism with coeliac disease and
    reported on the absence of antibodies to gluten, but made
    no mention of peptides.
    Given these significant methodological shortcomings, we
    question the validity of the findings and, therefore, the basis
    of the comments on the opioid excess theory of autism.
    DOI: 10.1017/S0012162204210581
    Paul Shattock
    Malcolm Hooper
    Rosemary Waring

    ‘O’Hare replies’
    SIR–Table II and Figure 2 on page 125 of our paper1 are
    both correct. However, we should have made it clearer in
    our labelling on page 125 and in the text on page 126 that
    Table II referred to data from a reference standard in water
    of the peptides, and that Figure 2 shows results from the
    spiked control urine sample.
    The extraction method used by my colleagues and I was as
    described in the patent,2 where they state that they are able to
    obtain UV chromatograms which would indicate the presence
    or absence of these opioid peptides. This method is also similar
    to the extraction method (‘preliminary clean-up’) which is
    detailed in Dr Shattock’s own paper.3 However, using this
    method we have demonstrated complete recovery of peptides
    from spiked control urine samples; therefore, as Dr
    Shattock admits, the MS endpoint is considerably more sensitive
    and specific than the UV method. The absence of any
    peaks on the MS chromatogram would suggest the absence of
    these peptides at levels greater than 0.5mg on the column
    (sample volume 20ml, concentration 25ng/ml).
    To answer the third point, the amount of each peptide
    spike in 10ml of control urine was 1.25mg; two-fifths of the
    reconstituted sample were then analyzed. In order to allow
    the profile to stay within the scale of the MS, only 40ml of the
    extract was injected onto the UV system. To provide the best
    chance of observing peptides, the remainder of the extract
    (560μl) was then injected into and analyzed by the MS. In this
    way, it was hoped that both the profile and mass information
    could be obtained for each sample. We disagree with Dr
    Shattock, in that absence of any peaks for these peptides in
    the MS analysis, which is both more sensitive and more selective
    than the UV method, supports our evidence that these
    peptides were not present in the urine of children studied.
    It is difficult to comment on the validity of the observation
    (attributed to personal communication cited in Shattock et
    al.)3 that, the 25–30% of children shown by these research
    groups to have bovine casomorphin 1-7 in their urine, are different
    from our study group.
    Whilst Whiteley4 does not study casein exclusion in his
    study, he comments in the abstract, introduction, and discussion
    on casein and gluten exclusion diets; thereby, suggesting
    that both food products are implicated. Pavone et
    al.5 should have been cited at the end of the sentence,
    rather than midway, as their paper discusses the putative
    links between enteropathy and autism.
    DOI: 10.1017/S0012162204220588
    Dr Anne O’Hare
    Consultant Paediatrician
    Royal Hospital for Sick Children
    Community Child Health Services
    10 Chalmers Crescent
    Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    E-mail: AO’Hare@ed.ac.uk

  19. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 06:01 #

    Thank you clone 3g.
    María Luján

  20. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 06:10 #

    Sorry, clone , was the same column used in Dr Shattock ´s work and Dr O´Hare group?
    María Luján

  21. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 14:39 #

    Hi clone 3g
    Comments about the paper
    1-First of all, only 10 children were tested. No Information of intake of drugs used in autism was reported, no information of diet. Without this information, how the results can be compared?
    2-No information of procedure about sampling of the “samples of pure peptides “ to be detected were tested in the Mass Spectrometer. UV/Visible is not destructive, but MS is a different detector, including breaking of bonds and formation of radical/ ions, with the possibility of degradatiion products to be present more than the compounds to be detected. It is more sensitive, but also the interpretation must be done carefully.If they did not test for the “pure Substance” how they think the complete peptide decays in structures to be detected by MS? What if the method generates the same peaks, by degradation of the real peptide, that the peptides found in non-autistics? This would be evident in the spectra by the comparative increase of certain peaks in autistics,vs non autistics-very difficult to analyze-, but the only way is to do an screening of possible peptides of the same structure and to analyze the road of decayment of them in MS. I do not know if they did because unfortunately the e-mail of Dr O´Hare did not work
    3- I think that better methods must be employed to overcome these problems.
    1-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16464162&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

    2-
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16285689&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

    3-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16030189&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

    4-
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15981297&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

    As always, I am surprised by the analysis of the results and the conclussions of these authors, not the analysis themselves. They did not analyzed the possibilities I pointed above, but I need to get the complete manuscript

    4-Clone, I think that the possibility exists of problems with Dr Shattock ´s group technique, but this manuscript from Dr O´Hare is not enough complete or strict in methodology-a t the best of my knowledge- to say it conclussively.

    María Luján

  22. clone3g March 15, 2006 at 16:09 #

    Maybe Shattock has something to say on the subject:

    J Intellect Disabil Res. 2004 Mar;48(Pt 3):274-8.

    BACKGROUND: Although earlier claims to identify specific compounds in the urine of people with autism had been discredited…..

  23. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 16:12 #

    Thank you clone. I will see if he analyzed the issue I pointed above.
    Ma Luján

  24. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 16:27 #

    Well, clone, the abstract ended this way
    …, it was subsequently suggested that there might be biochemical characteristics that were specific to early childhood, particularly in those who also did not have a severe degree of intellectual disability This study was to establish whether autism might have a distinctive chromatographic profile on urinary analysis. METHOD: Thirty-four prepubertal boys with autism were matched with two groups of boys without autism–one on ability and chronological age and the other on chronological age alone, being within the normal range of ability. Laboratory analysis of their urine samples was carried out blind as to the clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: The analysis correctly identified 53% of the autism group as against misidentifying 33% and 18% of the other two groups. When children with a severe learning disability (both with and without autism) were excluded from the comparisons, the laboratory then identified 77% of the 13 boys left in the autism group and misidentified 8% and 18% of the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results would support the idea of a biological marker in prepubertal children and that it may be absent in, or obscured by the presence of severe LD.
    I will try to read the experimental section to see the criticisms about.
    Ma Luján

  25. Ian March 15, 2006 at 17:05 #

    Clone

    I think Shattock’s work does fall into the field of Metabolomics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolomics for one definition).

    I think the work is credible science, but like all science, there might be flaws in his methodology … in fact it’s almost certain that there are. Likewise for those studies which found no trace of IAG. The main thing I got from his paper and which I hope others get as the take away message is — perhaps we should be doing some good research into whether there are a range of biological markers in urine/blood. I believe MIND are doing work in this funded by CAN.

    I think you have to separate out the lecture circuit part of Shattock’s job from the research. He’s a witty after-dinner speaker, and getting name recognition is all a necessary part of any modern university program director’s brief. to get money into their lab. Simon Baron-Cohen does the same thing. Does this make people who go on the speaking circuit somehow bad or suspect? No. In the good old days scientists just gave talks to fellow scientists and the governemnt gave them money to do their research (by and large). In today’s world there is a need for self-promotion and reaching out to non-scientists – e.g. interested lay persons, such as parents of children with autism – is part and parcel of their job description. I may disagree with Shattock’s findings but I’m not going to crucify him just for speaking at conferences such as DAN.

    Finally, I’d like to commend the quality of the discussion on this topic – it’s refreshing to see it not degnerate into … “Shattock is a total wanker” style discussion. It puts Brian Deer and the rest of the true self-promoters to shame.

    Ian

  26. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 17:46 #

    Hi Ian
    I agree with you in your comment about Dr Shattock´s work and , in this case, also other researchers in the field.
    I think that more research in metabolomics ( and including epigenetics ) using high technology tools and related also to purines/pirimidines synthesis, mitocondrial problems, etc would be important in the autism field.
    I have researched in terms of published science available in high-level medical journals about. Because we were going off topic of Kevin´s proposal for this thread please contact me if you are interested on by e-mail.
    Thank you in advance
    María Luján

  27. clone3g March 15, 2006 at 18:49 #

    Hi Maria,
    Yes, I read the rest of the abstract but in the interest of space and relevance I clipped and highlight the portion where Mr. Shattock recognizes that the opioid peptide theory has been discredited. Since you’ve posted the rest of the abstract, here’s how I read it.

    Shattock is essentially saying “Hmm, yeah well, OK, we were wrong, but maybe it isn’t what we’ve said it is for all these years but there’s something there. Something that we can kind of detect and use to make really good guesses about which urine is autistic urine. So, you can’t blame us for jumping to conclusions and saying we found this even if we never went to the trouble to have it confirmed elsewhere with superior methods, there’s something there….something!”

    I don’t have a problem with Paul traveling from Dubai to Dubuque so he can report his latest findings. Does it strike you as odd that he spends so much time traveling and lecturing about things he admits have been discredited? Wouldn’t you expect him to apply some honoraria toward equipment upgrades or collaboration with other labs, if only to prove the existence of the peptides that built his career?

    Maybe he should contact some of the DAN! doctors and labs and tell them that testing for IAG and exorphins is possibly useless. Tell the parents to save their hard earned money for stuff that may actually help their kids, you know, that sort of thing. At the very least I wouldn’t expect publications supporting a discredited theory from 1995 on a current website.

    http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/aru.htm
    Current Research at the Unit

    The research side of the Unit is still running and falls into 2 main sections:

    1. Analysis of the urine of people with autism in order to seek chemical entities
    which could provide insight into any underlying metabolic abnormality.
    Autism as a Metabolic Disorder | Urinary Profiles from People with Autism
    Urinary Analysis at the Unit

    2. The use of gluten free diets for the alleviation of some of the symptoms of autism.
    Gluten free diets and autism

  28. María Luján March 15, 2006 at 19:08 #

    Hi clone
    When you say
    Shattock is essentially saying “Hmm, yeah well, OK, we were wrong, but maybe it isn’t what we’ve said it is for all these years but there’s something there. Something that we can kind of detect and use to make really good guesses about which urine is autistic urine. So, you can’t blame us for jumping to conclusions and saying we found this even if we never went to the trouble to have it confirmed elsewhere with superior methods, there’s something there….something!”
    Well, I am not so sure. I respect your analysis but mine is different.
    I am not so sure if the particular MS analysis of urine was so good to discard the presence or not of unusual peptides and , as I told you, only were 10 children.

    You say
    Does it strike you as odd that he spends so much time traveling and lecturing about things he admits have been discredited? Wouldn’t you expect him to apply some honoraria toward equipment upgrades or collaboration with other labs, if only to prove the existence of the peptides that built his career?

    I think that he is actually in collaboration with an italian group doing further research about.

    You say
    Maybe he should contact some of the DAN! doctors and labs and tell them that testing for IAG and exorphins is possibly useless. Tell the parents to save their hard earned money for stuff that may actually help their kids, you know, that sort of thing. At the very least I wouldn’t expect publications supporting a discredited theory from 1995 on a current website.

    First, I can not discredit a theory with some preliminar findings by one paper with 10 patients, with problems that could be /could not be addressed, as the ones I pointed above. However I agree with you, as always, that further research is needed to conclude.
    I agree with you in the part of avoiding the use of this kind of preliminar findings. I agree in that the problem is HOW this kind of research, that because of complexity of underlying biochemistry/metabolism is preliminar, is USED to sell tests or treatments by some unescrupulous people. I really dislike this. BUT one thing is the research and the ideas behind- and the researchers involved- and other HOW their results are misused.
    There are other tools to search if a particular child has problem with gluten and casein, besides this particular one, that can be confirmatory. Again, adequate testing is for me the key, in
    trustable labs.

    MAría Luján

  29. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 16, 2006 at 09:20 #

    Mike: “But we should be wary of employing cheap journalistic tricks, as Deer did regarding Paul Shattock’s qualifications.”

    For this reason, I chipped in the info on the qualifications. I also e-mailed Brian Deer. Just to put him in the picture as to what DipAgVetPharm means, and how much of that lot was actually missing from the leaflet he was using.

  30. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 16, 2006 at 09:37 #

    Just did the suggested Yahoo search, and came up with this:

    http://www.pharmj.com/editorial/19990807/Society/diploma.html

    DipAgVetPharm (RPS)

    Foundation Studies plus *three* of:

    Companion Animal Studies
    Animal Health & Husbandry
    Crop Protection

    Private study & Practicum
    Project (8000 – 12000 words)

    If anyone is skeptical about the qualification up to this point, this should clear up the mess for good. This qualification has been replaced by the one I posted info on earlier.

  31. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 16, 2006 at 18:29 #

    Still puzzled as to what relevance there is to autism though :/

  32. María Luján March 16, 2006 at 19:08 #

    Hi David
    Perhaps if we look at the metabolomics and other fields -with enough high tech and high level science-more knowledge will arise about comorbilities in autism that can be treated properly and MAY BE/MAY BE NOT be related to some medical problems that some children diagnosed with ASD have.
    Ever science begins with efforts that are preliminar and must be corrected/completed/improved.Considering all the comments above I think that metabolomics/epigenetics deserves more research in autism.
    What do you think?
    Sincerely
    Ma Luján

  33. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 16, 2006 at 20:41 #

    Hi María…

    My problem is that I’m a psychologist rather than a biologist or chemist… and so I have to look at a few molecular biology texts to get the basics first….

    As to the epigenetics and stuff… would be nice to see what it can throw up for us…

  34. brian deer March 26, 2006 at 11:46 #

    Glad to report that Mr Shattock has checked his qualifications and changed his website.

    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/paul-shattock.htm

    Mystery solved

  35. David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending) March 26, 2006 at 18:00 #

    BD: “The issue may seem trivial, but raises this question: how could someone who travels the world offering advice to parents about autism get his own qualifications wrong?”

    To be fair to the chap, he does get them right. It’s the publicists of the event for which you showed the brochure who got the designations wrong.

    Having said that, I’d expect also the webmaster at a University to also get the designation right.

    I can’t see myself how his being a specialist in agricultural and veterinary pharmacy influences one way or the other his ability to offer advice to parents of autistic kids…

    That persuader is the extent to which he sees things from the biomedical point of view…. and *that* is what would stop me from paying too much notice to the vaccine stuff he says…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: