A few questions for Mr Kirby.
(All originally posted in the comments section of the above blog post)
You state that a study has recently been completed that:
showed that a few minutes of exposure with even miniscule amounts of thimerosal can damage dendritic cells, causing immune dysfunction and cytokine-induced inflammation, both of which are found in autism.
I’m aware of the study you are referring to but I am unsure of which study you draw your conclusion from that cytokine-induced inflammation is found in autism. You also fail to mention if it is a typical or rare phenomenom. Certainly it fails to appear in the diagnostic criteia for autism and a Google Scholar search for “”cytokine-induced inflammation” autism” reveals nothing. The same is also true for your claim that immune dysfunction appears in autism. You fail to state whether this is a common or rare occurance and yet again, it fails to appear in the diagnostic criteia for autism. Based on those facts, I fail to see what worth your interpretaton of this study has.
You are a staunch believer in the mercury/autism connection despite their being no symptomatic connection between merucry poisoning and autism except for that published in the oft-refuted ‘Mercury: a novel form of mercury poisoning’ paper.
Further, In the New York Times in 2005 you stated:
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.
The rates of autism did not fall that year.
A couple of months later you told blogger Citizen Cain:
if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis
I was puzzled enough by the discrepancy of you adding on two years to email you to ask you to clear it up. You replied to me:
Many thanks for your note. The Times misquoted me. I actually asked for a correction, but did not receive one. What I told the reporter is that we should know in the next few years.
In the interests of being thorough, I prevailed upon the two reporters for the NYT for their version of events. Reporter Gardiner Harris replied:
Prior to publication, we read the entire passage relating to this matter to Mr. Kirby. He approved it.
And reporter Anahad O’Connor said:
…we stand by that quote. David Kirby was interviewed at length, and we verified that quote and additional information with him before the article was published. He certainly did not object to that assertion at the time.
It is hard to escape the conclusion Mr Kirby, that you misled me and that you further tacked on a couple of extra years when the autism rates failed to decrease to support your original assertion. Will you now stand by your original statement that the incidence of autism should’ve fallen in 2005?
You attempted to use California DDS data to back up your continued assertion that autism rates had climbed throughout peak thimerosal useage periods and then dropped after thimerosal removal from the majority of vaccines. However, when blogger Citizen Cain pointed out you were using the data incorrectrly you conceeded:
…that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.
Even a cursory glance at current and past CDDS data reveals that according to CDDS data, that cohort is still actively rising. Do you see that as another indicator that thiomersal plays no role in autism as you implied in your NYT interview?
In the course of this blog post you have made repeated mention of thimerosal still being in vaccines in the form of the flu shot. I wondered if you knew of the total mercury burden over time of mercury in vaccines?
US pre-thimerosal removal: 187.5 µg Hg.
US just flu shot: 25 µg Hg.
UK pre-thimerosal removal: 75 µg of Hg.
The US and UK have almost identical prevalence rates for autism. Given that we have very different thimerosal rates, how do you reach the conclusion that thimerosal can cause autism? Given those stats, shouldn’t US children have far more ‘full syndrome’ autism than UK children? How do you also account for the fact that even though US children are now recieving approx 7.5 times less thiomersal than they were at the height of thiomersals use the rate of autism amongst the 3 – 5 cohort is still climbing if we examine CDDS data – data that you refer to as the ‘gold standard’?
You are also a stauch proponent of the idea of there having been an epidemic of autism. You don’t base this on any science but rather what you claim to be an abscence of adults. Indeed on this very blog you asked:
But if autism is purely genetic (without an environmental “trigger”) and has always been prevalent at the same constant rate, then where are the 1-in-166 autistic 25-year-olds (those born in 1980)? Where are the 1-in-166 autistic 55-year-olds? Why can’t we find them?
You may remember that I mailed you a PDF report (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1095/0001881.pdf) from the Scottish government of a 2004 ‘audit’ of autism. One of the questions they asked the Health authorities, Trusts etc under the national banner was:
Research tells us that prevalence rates of autistic spectrum disorder represent an underestimate. To what extent do you consider the numbers above to be an accurate reflection of all those who live in your area?
Approaching 45% of all councils/executive/NHS Trusts questioned responded that the prevalence for adults was grossly underestimated, badly reported and that a lot of these adults exist without diagnosis. A typical response was:
Figures for adults reflect the national findings that the numbers known to services/diagnosed represent a significant underestimate of those individuals likely to be affected. For example day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis. _(Perth & Kinross Council)_
I apologise for mentioning this here but you failed to respond to my email regarding this matter.
Thanks in advance for your comprehensive answers.
UPDATE: Mike Stanton has found yet more evidence of your ‘hidden horde’:
_Liam Byrne, the health minister, said that 6,170 children under 16 had been diagnosed in England last year, compared with 3,100 in 1997-98. The number of cases including adults rose from 4,220 to 9,170 in the same period._
_So autism diagnoses for children have nearly doubled in 8 years from 3100 to 6170. Meanwhile adult diagnoses have nearly tripled in the same period from 1120 to 3000._
UPDATE No. 2: I just remembered an interesting quote from a New Scientist feature on the autism ‘epidemic’:
This view (that there are many children today diagnosed with autism who would not have been labelled as such in the past) is difficult to substantiate, but in 2001 a team led by Helen Heussler of Nottingham University, UK, had a crack. They re-examined the data from a 1970 survey of 13,135 British children. The original survey found just five autistic children, but using modern diagnostic criteria Heussler’s team found a hidden hoard of 56. That’s over a tenfold rise in numbers, which puts the California figures in perspective. Heussler and her colleagues concluded that estimates from the early 1970s may have seriously underestimated the prevalence.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Meanwhile adult diagnoses have nearly tripled in the same period from 1120 to 3000.
But I thought there was supposed to be no such thing as an adult autistic. Or am I thinking of some other quack’s argument?
Kev,
Nice try on the HuffPo comment but one problem… NOT ME!
I will agree with Grabaclue, however, even if you did inform Kirby that you would be blogging his response… he may want nothing to do with you from now on, knowing that. Keep your ego in check, Kev.
What exactly is egotistical about me, as the parent of an autistic child, expecting those who claim to know about autism being held to account for the things _they_ say?
Didn’t Kirby himself say to ‘bring it on’?
You may find it OK to play petty word games but this is my childs future we’re talking about here Sue. I _am_ going to be interested.
Do these thimerosal/mercury conspiracy theorists ever answer an argument? I think it’s pretty pathetic that they can’t come with a single rebuttal.
Joseph: “Do these thimerosal/mercury conspiracy theorists ever answer an argument? I think it’s pretty pathetic that they can’t come with a single rebuttal.”
Same here.
showed that a few minutes of exposure with even miniscule amounts of thimerosal can damage dendritic cells, causing immune dysfunction and cytokine-induced inflammation, both of which are found in autism.
Damaged dendritic cells= inflammation= autism. See! It’s simple when you break it down.
Can’t Kirby find someone to better explain this stuff to him?
Kirby, the guy who told a television audience that the Vargas paper showed that thimerosal could cause inflammation in the brain that that inflammation is the same as the brain overgrowth seen in some kids.
The man is as dumb as a rock when it comes to autism. Maybe he knows AIDS, good for him. He knows how to advocate for gay rights and how to write about travel and vacation homes and about cars with video screens playing porn on them. He doesn’t know autism.
I sent him information showing that there is plenty of reason to believe there are plenty of autistic adults. He said something like, “if that’s true that there are loads of autistic adults then that would damage the thimerosal argument” or something like that. I can dig up the exact quote if Sue M wants it.
I sent him a couple of peer reviewed papers on adult autism epidemiology and he never responded as to whether he read them or not.
Why would he read them if it would mean his little game was over.
How much is he being paid to speak at all these events? His book isn’t making him enough to live off of, he made that clear himself.
There’s some interesting hints about how much he might have been paid if you look at the SAFE MINDS 909 forms.
Wakefield gets paid 77,000 a year just from Thoughtful House, or maybe it was 75,000.
Poor Andy. Pooooor poooor Andy. He’s not allowed to practice medicine, as I understand it, so this is not a doctor’s salary.
Cure Autism Now pays out horrific amounts of money for “stratigic advice.” Which I think means, “how to convince people that there has been an epidemic.”
SAFEMNDS puts out huge (no, HUGE) bucks for their website and press releases.
Liz Birt used to do the books for Bradstreet’s non-profit. I think almost all of the money went to “fundraising” if I remember right. I’ll have to go check again. It’s all available online for free, if you want to look, Sue.
The money these people are spending make my personal budget shrink to the size of a dust speck by comparison. I don’t have a “non-profit” and all my expenses for my websites comes from my pocket. I think I’ve probably spent $50 altogether over a couple of years. My blog doesn’t cost me anything and doesn’t make me any money. And I don’t get paid in any other way, either, before you ask.
Ms. Clark wrote:
“I can dig up the exact quote if Sue M wants it”.
-Don’t bother.
Why are you guys so wrapped up in $$$ ? Oh, the mercury parents are soooooo rich. Oh, my personal budget pales in comparison to them. Big deal?
Sue,
The mercury parents continue to lay claim to the high ground, that they’re the poor and disenfranchised folk at the mercy of evil pharma and inept government.
Yet they can put on fairly large conferences (which I know cost significant $$$), sponsor all sorts of events, hire hot PR firms and take out full-page ads in USA Today which run six figures a pop.
Where is this money coming from? I’m sure some of it’s coming from donations. Some from the pockets of the wealthy folk like Handley, et al. But I can’t imagine it’s all coming from private individuals. It is reasonable to believe that trial lawyers and/or individuals with significant personal financial stakes in treatment are playing a role in this campaign.
So what I’d suggest, Sue, is that if we shouldn’t be “wrapped up in the $$$” that you make no more statements about the largesse of drug companies or alleged conflicts of interest with regards to research. It shouldn’t matter, right?
Mouse wrote:
“So what I’d suggest, Sue, is that if we shouldn’t be “wrapped up in the $$$†that you make no more statements about the largesse of drug companies or alleged conflicts of interest with regards to research. It shouldn’t matter, right”?
-Well, quite a different amounts of money that we are talking about here. Here’s an idea. Start your own grassroots neurodiverse conferences. That should attract some attention. Maybe?
Sue wrote:
“Here’s an idea. Start your own grassroots neurodiverse conferences. That should attract some attention. Maybe?”
Sue, it been done since 1996, its called Autreat
http://ani.autistics.org/
I have never been to one (can’t afford the travel expenses), but the premise isn’t about attention getting, it seems (from what I can tell) to be about informing/educating the people who attend.
Sue, how much money would you guess goes toward autism-mercury research each year or to date?
-Well, quite a different amounts of money that we are talking about here.
That’s an invalid argument.
There are some things you need to ask yourself, Sue.
1. How much money will a litigant in a thimerosal lawsuit receive if successful?
2. How much money does the average autism biomedical practitioner make?
3. How much money do trial lawyers and paid expert witnesses stand to make?
4. How much do those selling “alternative treatments” (supplements, etc.) for autism stand to make?
And then compare the income potential to those folks to your average drug company executive – who is the most likely to personally profit from vaccines. (not that vaccines generate a ton of profit anyway, but you get the idea) Never mind the civil servants or the university researchers who are getting peanuts in comparison to your typical biomed practitioner.
At an individual level, Sue, the disparity is not nearly as great as you’d like to convince yourself it is.
Jonathan wrote:
“Sue, it been done since 1996, its called Autreat”.
-Perfect, so you should be all set.
Sue,
In what regard?
Mouse wrote:
“That’s an invalid argument”.
-It wasn’t an argument, it was a statement.
Mouse wrote:
“How much money will a litigant in a thimerosal lawsuit receive if successful”?
-This is the only question that I care to answer for you right now. I don’t know how much money anyone would see in a lawsuit. It makes no difference to me. All I want is for people to stop being poisoned by thimerosal. Is that so difficult to understand?
Sue,
Your implied argument was that there’s more money in protecting the drug companies than in the autism-mercury movement. I argued that to the individuals involved in said movement, the compensation potential was fairly substantial.
The fact you don’t wish to answer the questions about the $$$ is another clear indicator that you’d rather swim in your sea of cognitive dissonance than ask tough questions of the folks that support your theory. As long as they say that thimerosal causes autism, you could care less who they are or what they do, huh?
” All I want is for people to stop being poisoned by thimerosal. Is that so difficult to understand?”
It’s not difficult to understand at all. It’s alarmist and irrational, it asserts that people ARE being poisoned despite the current evidence, and it’s most likely based on belief, but it’s easy to understand.
Perhaps if you phrased it without alarmism, in a rational way that does not make unsubstantiated assertions or require belief it would work better (combine understandability with a rational, logical discourse).
Dad wrote:
“Perhaps if you phrased it without alarmism, in a rational way that does not make unsubstantiated assertions or require belief it would work better (combine understandability with a rational, logical discourse)”.
-Clearly, you are pretty new here. Rational thinking doesn’t work on Kev’s blog, I tried for a while… just ask Diva or Kev. Kids are going to be dropping dead from chelation… Kids are going to drop dead from not being vaccinated against Hep B… You get the picture, I’m sure.
Sue said: Rational thinking doesn’t work on Kev’s blog, I tried for a while… just ask Diva or Kev. Kids are going to be dropping dead from chelation… Kids are going to drop dead from not being vaccinated against Hep B… You get the picture, I’m sure.
I’m quite sure you are misrepresenting the reality of what happened. In any case, as I’ve noted, you are welcome to drop by my blog and post rebuttals to the arguments I have posted. For example, can you still argue that Dr. Geier’s paper is valid? I’d like to see that.
Sue M. said: Rational thinking doesn’t work on Kev’s blog, I tried for a while
ROFLMAO! You did? Well I must be new around here too. When was that exactly Sue? Is it in the archives section where you can give a link?
_”Rational thinking doesn’t work on Kev’s blog, I tried for a while… just ask Diva or Kev.”_
Fascinating. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen these posts – maybe you could link through to them?
_”Kids are going to be dropping dead from chelation… Kids are going to drop dead from not being vaccinated against Hep B… You get the picture, I’m sure.”_
Two children _have_ died from being chelated. Kids _are_ getting injured and/or dying because they’re not being vaccinated. Wake up.
I’m not sure of this second case inasmuch as the only “information†I’ve seen is from a blogger; I have seen nothing in the press about it. As for the Nadama case, it is not terribly precise to say chelation killed him. Rather, it was the improper use of a chelating agent in contravention of any protocols that have been devised by either mainstream physicians or doctors utilizing chelation on autistic children. The other day I saw a news item about an autistic child who drowned after his caregivers lost track of him. Could I say his death resulted from his parent’s failure to ‘cure†him? I don’t think so, even though it would be almost as valid as saying chelation killed Tariq. Chelation may or may not be eventually shown effective in autism cases, but at this point putting the way you have IS alarmist.
_”I’m not sure of this second case inasmuch as the only “information†I’ve seen is from a blogger; I have seen nothing in the press about it.”_
_”A drug that is sometimes used to treat lead poisoning — and is also believed by some parents to be effective against autism — caused the deaths of two children last year, the government said Thursday.”_
Source.
_”As for the Nadama case, it is not terribly precise to say chelation killed him.”_
_”In layman’s terms, the administration of ethylene diamine tetra-acetate, commonly known as chelation, resulted in a lack of oxygen to the brain as well as irreversible heart damage, said Allegheny County Deputy Coroner Ed Strimlan.”_
Source
Sue wrote “Rational thinking doesn’t work on Kev’s blog, I tried for a while”
You tried to use rationale thinking, but did you succeed in using it?
SueM: “Rational thinking doesn’t work on Kev’s blog, I tried for a while… just ask Diva or Kev”
Um… not really, Sue. I have yet to see you post anything that has its basis in rational thinking. Seriously. All you do is pick fights here.
Wade said: As for the Nadama case, it is not terribly precise to say chelation killed him.
Not terribly precise but completely accurate. A chemical was injected into a child with the sole purpose of removing heavy metals based on an unfounded suspicion the child’s autism was caused by heavy metal toxicity. That’s chelation therapy, true?
The agent was responsible for the boy’s death, therefore chelation killed him. Is that precise enough?
Could I say his death resulted from his parent’s failure to ‘cure†him? I don’t think so, even though it would be almost as valid as saying chelation killed Tariq.
I’m sorry Wade, but it is not almost as valid. Not even close. It’s a ridiculous comparison as a matter of fact.
Tariq’s inability to recognize danger didn’t lead him to seek chelation therapy at the office of an allergist and the parents of the boy who drowned didn’t fly him half way around the world so they could throw him in a lake against his will.
“Tariq’s inability to recognize danger didn’t lead him to seek chelation therapy at the office of an allergist and the parents of the boy who drowned didn’t fly him half way around the world so they could throw him in a lake against his will.”
kind of shocking when it comes down to it. glad clone outed the “comparison” because I was having trouble relating pepperoni and skateboards in trying to continue the logic flow.
Kev wrote:
“Two children have died from being chelated. Kids are getting injured and/or dying because they’re not being vaccinated. Wake up”.
-Well, Kev, certainly I can say the same thing to you. I know how much you guys love to call me anti-vaccine so let me put that hat on for a minute. Children also die or are injured from adverse vaccine reactions. Children die from SIDS which in many cases could have been caused by vaccines. The geniuses who are saying that mercury in vaccines is safe are still the ones making decisions about what vaccines to give and when to give them. This is frightening.
David wrote:
“Um… not really, Sue. I have yet to see you post anything that has its basis in rational thinking. Seriously. All you do is pick fights here”.
-Right. So it’s all me. You guys are always so pleasant here.
_”Children also die or are injured from adverse vaccine reactions.”_
No argument there. Any research that can lower or eradicate that is all good in my book.
However. The idea that a vaccine can prevent a serious case of the target illness is an established fact. This means that damage is the side effect of a correct course of treatment.
Chealtion does not have that luxury. It is not the correct course of treatment for autism. Therefore you cannot deduce that the two things are comparable.
_”Children die from SIDS which in many cases could have been caused by vaccines.”_
Or ice cream. Or Polar bears. Or the light reflecting off my window. I’m not trying to be glib. I’m trying to illustrate to you that saying something _could_ be caused by something else is a totally arbitrary concept. The reprecussions for society should demand we take an evidence based view not an assumptive one.
_”The geniuses who are saying that mercury in vaccines is safe are still the ones making decisions about what vaccines to give and when to give them. This is frightening.”_
Only if you believe mercury _has caused_ significant problems.
Kev wrote:
“Or ice cream. Or Polar bears. Or the light reflecting off my window. I’m not trying to be glib. I’m trying to illustrate to you that saying something could be caused by something else is a totally arbitrary concept”.
Kev,
Out of curiosity have you really researched the issue of SIDS? Have you looked into the VAERS data and what the CDC says about the VAERS data? I assume that with your distaste for the VAERS record base, that possibly you have not. I would encourage you to do that and would point out a few interesting things about it (if you are the least bit interested). I suppose SIDS can be caused by ice cream or polar bears but most likely many cases are caused by vaccines. How does that relate at all to autism? Well, if vaccines can cause such a serious reaction as to cause DEATH to a baby… what else can it cause? Neurological damage… I believe so.
“I suppose SIDS can be caused by ice cream or polar bears but most likely many cases are caused by vaccines.”
Most likely many? Not.
“Recent reports, however, continue to show no association between immunizations and SIDS.”
Source
Alarmists could be likely to focus on one sentence in the Immunizations and SIDS section of the above source:
Reports of a possible association between diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus immunizations and SIDS81,82 brought forth a series of reviews and studies that refuted the association.83,84 Still, of 100 deaths reported to the federally administered Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System from 1997 to 1998, approximately half were attributed to SIDS.85 Recent reports, however, continue to show no association between immunizations and SIDS.86,87 “
So let’s look at the conclusion from the study footnoted as 85.
“None of the additional information obtained from parents, however, provided a signal or confirmation of a causal link between the vaccine and death.”
Source
Kev,
I happened to be reading at the Thoughtful House website and came across a presentation by Paul Ashwood that may have some bearing on the “cytokine induced inflammation” that you state at the top of the blog
I’m not a scientist so I don’t know exactly how relevant this is but perhaps someone else might:
“To summarize this first part of my talk, within the mucosa there is a cytokine milieu that is directed towards a pro-inflammatory response. Overall, there is evidence of a diffuse, subtle panenteric pathology, with increased inflammatory cell infiltrate. There is increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and there is a decreased production of the regulatory cytokine IL10. There is also this possibility that an autoimmune response occurs that affects the epithelial cells and may lead to a disrupted intestinal barrier.”
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/0405-conf-pashwood.htm
I realize I’m joining this thread late but I do not agree with this notion that chelation killed Tariq. Didn’t the CDC state that the death was accidental due to use of the wrong drug? Suppose someone was undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. If the doctor inadvertently used the wrong drug which caused some type of reaction that ended up killing the person what would you say was the cause of death? Was it chemotherapy that killed the patient?
Kev, You state that chelation is the wrong treatment for autism. We started to go down this path on another of your threads when I was accused of “hating my son’s being” presumably because I was chelating him. I hope those of you that actually believe that disgusting statement can find the strength to refrain from personal attacks.
But back to chelation, what data do you refer to when you call chelation the wrong treatment? I know that it is not an FDA approved treatment for autism. It is being studied now as you obviously know and hopefully it will continue to be studied. So I don’t fault anyone for not wanting to try chelation until it has been proven effective for autism. But to flat out call it “wrong” seems to simply be your opinion – which you are of course entitled to.
David H: I realize I’m joining this thread late but I do not agree with this notion that chelation killed Tariq.
it’s not a notion, a chelation drug killed him, whether you agree or not. He would be alive if he didn’t receive the chelation drug, EDTA chelated his calcium, now he’s dead. Chelation killed him.
Suppose someone was undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. If the doctor inadvertently used the wrong drug which caused some type of reaction that ended up killing the person what would you say was the cause of death? Was it chemotherapy that killed the patient?
Yes, in that scenario chemotherapy killed the patient. Your analogy fails on many levels.
Chemotherapy as it’s used to treat cancer is a method of administering a toxic chemical in doses high enough to (hopefully) halt the division of cancer cells but (hopefully) not high enough to kill the patient.
Cancer is very often fatal, autism is not.
Chemotherapy is prescribed by a qualified and experienced oncologist and administered by qualified and experienced medical professionals.
Patient response is carefully monitored by medical professionals and it is discontinued or suspended if the patient’s life is in jeopardy.
Chemotherapy is given only after a patient is diagnosed with cancer and never on a hunch or an unproven hypothesis.
Chemotherapeutic drugs are now rationally designed and put through rigorous clinical trials before use in humans is approved.
Chemo drugs are controlled dangerous substances and not available through mail order websites or your local homeopath. Good thing, wouldn’t you agree?
But back to chelation, what data do you refer to when you call chelation the wrong treatment?
I would call chelation a bad treatment for autism on the same data that allows me to infer that Homeopathy or Exorcism is a bad treatment for autism.
clone3g : “…a chelation drug killed him, whether you agree or not. ”
Yes, a chelation drug killed him. But in this case it was a drug that was designed to chelate calcium, and not metals. In other words, the drug killed Tariq because it did precisely what it was designed to do. Had Dr. Kerry used the correct drug, you and I would not know the name of Abubakar Tariq Nadama.
A few years back, there was an incident in New Orleans in which a young lady undergoing cosmetic surgery died because a resident administered the wrong anesthesia. That does not mean that breast enhancement is an inherently fatal procedure. Rather, it means doctors need to exercise due care in any procedure.
Tariq did not die because his parents sought chelation. he died because a careless idiot did not bother to read the bottle.
David H.,
Perhaps you would learn by reading the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Disease (otherwise know as ICD).
Death causes are also included for purpose of statistical monitoring of mortality.
The ICD clearly states:
“Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (S00-T98) Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances (T36-T50)”
“Includes: overdose of these substances wrong substance given or taken in error”
You’ll find chelation in this same section.
Perhaps you could peruse the entire ICD and find a better or more appropriate cause. Good luck!
Tariq did not die because his parents sought chelation
If the parents had a good reason to pursue chelation, I might agree.
Wade,
If you had to assign blame by percentage, what number do you think would represent Dr. Kerry’s share?
clone3g : “If you had to assign blame by percentage, what number do you think would represent Dr. Kerry’s share?”
That’s an interesting question, Clone. In my business, we often have to assess fault in just those terms. But it’s a very fact-intensive inquiry, and we frankly don’t know enough about the fault of other parties to make that assessment. For example, if Kerry ordered the correct EDTA but was supplied the wrong form, then some percentage might be assessed to the supplier (and yes, I know what’s gone out on the net about that one, but the information is still a little vague). Considering the inquiries still going on, it might be some time before we know all the facts.
Who specifically would you suggest might share culpability?
Dad of Cameron,
It may be classified as death due to chelation. I have no desire to argue over that technicality. But the reason the boy died is because the wrong chelation drug was used. Wade explains this pretty well.
“If the parents had a good reason to pursue chelation, I might agree.”
That is a decision that parents need to make. There is a great deal of information available on the topic of autism & chelation and every parent will process that information somewhat differently. Some people may not be willing to use any medication unless it’s specifically approved for that condition by the FDA. Some people may give more weight to the thousands of anecdotal reports they hear from other parents. Some people may give more weight to what they hear from the DAN doctors who have the most experience treating autistic children via chelation. Some parents will give the most weight to their pediatrician’s opinion. Some parents may be willing to try chelation because it’s safe – assuming the correct drug is used if undergoing IV chelation.
“A few years back, there was an incident in New Orleans in which a young lady undergoing cosmetic surgery died because a resident administered the wrong anesthesia. That does not mean that breast enhancement is an inherently fatal procedure. Rather, it means doctors need to exercise due care in any procedure.”
It means that the anesthesia killed her. Although essential for many optional and required surgeries, it’s still a dangerous enterprise. But she went into surgery for breast enhancement, not simply to be anesthesized.
A child who dies during chelation dies because of the chelation event unless there’s some extenuating circumstance like a blood clot due to a nurse sticking the kid 1000 times to get a vein (I still cringe when thinking about military nurses).
However, I like the boob example since it’s an optional surgery that gets takers because of societal peer pressure. Funny that there’s no BAN! docs screaming to women that they better get supersized before the window of opportunity closes.
/BAN! = Breast Augmentation Now!
Wade wrote “Yes, a chelation drug killed him. But in this case it was a drug that was designed to chelate calcium, and not metals”
Calcium is a metal, although from a subgroup called “Alkaline Earth”.
“It means that the anesthesia killed her.”
Yes, Bart, but that would not have been the case but for the manner in which the anesthesia was administered. I am well aware of the risks of anesthesia (my spouse is a CRNA), but the fact remains that it could have been safely administered in that case. The fact also remains that the patient did not go into the OR for an anesthesia procedure.
In the Nadama case, it was not the chelation procedure itself, it was the chelator (the substance and/or the person administering it). As clone points out, there may be other blame to pass around, but that remains to be seen.
“But the reason the boy died is because the wrong chelation drug was used.”
Oversimplification of cause fallacy, David.
Physician chooses wrong drug, physician administers drug, patient suffers medical complications, patient dies as a result. Cause of patient’s death? The scientific root of the medical complications. Everything else are contributing factors, not cause.
Okay, I may have oversimplified too. From a non-medical perspective, I could see this being determined as this death was caused by both incorrect drug choice and chelation.
Hi
I wonder if some of these questions would be addressed properly in the next years
a-The changes in reported prevalence of ASD and the truth about the real number ( not diagnosed or reported) of autistic children and adults , now and before.
b-the real contribution to autistic symptomatology of the heavy metals poisoning, including all the potential sources of.
c-the real nature of the immune dysfunction in autism.
d-the differences from birth in autistic children versus non-autistics, beyond the purely genetics presentations of ( or metabolic ones)
e-the impact of adequate testing and adequate treatment- with emphasis in both- of detected comorbilities in the evolution of ASD to teenage and adulthood
f-What is genetics and what is adquired in ASD.
i-What are the mechanisms that make a child weak to environmental insult of any source
h-What is really in complexity and diversity what is diagnosed under the DSMIV
Only with more research and scientific information in time we will have the answer for SOME of these questions. Now, we have a lot of clues.But for at least 2 of them-a and d – we only can especulate and have opinions for me.
In the Nadama case, I still think that we do not know enough about all the considerations of the whys, and hows to have definite conclussions. What we know for sure is that the wrong substance was used.
MarÃa Luján