Following publication of the Shattuck paper casting doubt on the evidence for an autism epidemic:
The mean administrative prevalence of autism in US special education among children ages 6 to 11 in 1994 was only 0.6 per 1000, less than one-fifth of the lowest CDC estimate from Atlanta (based on surveillance data from 1996). Therefore, special education counts of children with autism in the early 1990s were dramatic underestimates of population prevalence and really had nowhere to go but up. This finding highlights the inappropriateness of using special education trends to make declarations about an epidemic of autism, as has been common in recent media and advocacy reports.
The usual suspects have begun to trot out the usual ploys to try and misrepresent and obscure. The National Autism Association write:
A study published today in Pediatrics, “The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education,†suggests that autism diagnoses haven’t actually risen over the past two decades, despite *growing and credible scientific evidence to the contrary*. In addition to the study’s *weak methods and erroneous conclusions*, questions have now arisen over possible *failure to disclose conflicts of interest* and *recent findings that data from previous autism projects with which current study author Paul Shattuck has been associated were fabricated*.
So first lets tackle the ‘growing and credible scientific evidence to the contrary’. Where is it? Where does it exist? Note that NAA totally fail to name, or even _reference_ this ‘growing evidence’.
They also mention ‘weak methods and erroneous conclusions’ yet again failing to illustrate what these ‘weak methods’ are or why they are weak. As far as erroneous conclusions go, that seems to be NAA double-speak for ‘things we disagree with but can’t back up’.
But what about ‘failure to disclose conflicts of interest’? NAA say:
Although the article states that Dr. Shattuck has indicated he has no financial relationships relevant to the article, NAA has learned that he was a Merck Scholar Pre-doctoral Trainee from 1999-2003, and in 2003-2004 he successfully applied for $530,000 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Somebody remind me again – what year is this? 2003? 1999? Or is it 2006? two years after Dr Shattuck had *an alleged* financial relationship with Merck.
UPDATE: Orac Provides the following: _”Oooh, Shattuck received money from the evil Merck to support his training! Except that the Merck we’re talking about seems to be not the evil drug company but rather a nonprofit organization, the John Merck Fund, which supports research into a variety of areas, particularly developmental disabilities.”_
By comparison, Wendy Fournier, president of the NAA has an ongoing, established financial relationship with David Kirby – author of Evidence of Harm – as does Safe Minds. Claire Bothwell, Chair of the NAA, works(worked?) for Waters and Kraus, lawyers who solicit thimerosal plaintiffs over the internet.
Lastly, what about ‘recent findings that data from previous autism projects with which current study author Paul Shattuck has been associated were fabricated’? Sounds damning, until you read on:
Although he was not personally implicated, Dr. Shattuck’s former research partner, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin’s Waisman Center, was recently disciplined by the Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity for scientific misconduct due to fabrication of data. Dr. Shattuck and others published several articles and delivered scientific presentations using data from the project in question
So someone that Shattuck once quoted got themselves in trouble. Thats hardly what I’d call
…with which current study author Paul Shattuck has been associated…
There’s also no indication that these studies Shattuck referenced, or the presentations he made which referenced them had _anything at all_ to do with autism.
The press release goes on to say:
Given the rocky history of the CDC and the autism community, failing to mention the author’s ties to this agency is a glaring omission that requires an explanation,†commented NAA board chair Claire Bothwell. “Clearly, the CDC has a vested interest in deflecting attention from the possibility that children injured by mercury-containing vaccines ended up with autism diagnoses which fueled autism rates off the charts
First of a message to the NAA, Safe Minds, Generation rescue etc – *you are not the autism community* . You represent a small subset of parents. Thats it. What you have is a good PR campaign and a few pet journalists.
Secondly, its clearly the case that several anti-vaccine groups such as NAA, SafeMinds etc are beginning to get very very jumpy and have a vested interest in deflecting attention away from the increasing evidence that there has been _no epidemic of autism_ and that autism is not caused by thiomersal in vaccines. Autism rates are not ‘off the charts’ – the charts were simply never big enough to start with.
These groups need to stop politicising the issues, need to stop painting themselves as ‘the autism community’ and need to stop this pointless and utterly transparent attack on any credible science that undermines their isolationist position.
Left Brain Right Brain 
For example, what if there were some other relevant category or categories not listed in your study that were increasing? This could be important because if there are other categories that are increasing during the time periods you studied it could, perhaps, explain the decrease in MR & LD that you found in some states. In your research, did you review other categories or did you limit yourself to the categories described in your paper?
If there were no “epidemic” of anything else, it’s safe to assume that declines in diagnoses of MR and LD are going to autism/PDD. But you might have a point when it comes to ADHD. However, it’s unlikely MR would go to ADHD.
For example, I’ve heard other people talk about childhood schizophrenia as something that could be substituted for autism. I don’t know if that is true or not but it might be interesting to include in this discussion.
This would be diagnostic substituion similar to LD & MR, in the same direction. Educational data is probably not helpful in this regard, however. It is well known that schizophrenia overall is in decline, and if you put two and two together, it’s easy to imagine why.
Joseph,
“If there were no “epidemic†of anything else, it’s safe to assume that declines in diagnoses of MR and LD are going to autism/PDD.”
But without first analyzing all of the categories how would we know if there was an “epidemic” in another category?
“But you might have a point when it comes to ADHD. However, it’s unlikely MR would go to ADHD.”
I was a little confused by this when reading the paper. Paul does state that he uses “autism” synonymously with “ASD” but I didn’t see a description of what subcategories were included as part of “autism.” This is why I asked if PDD-NOS was included or not.
Dr. Shattuck,
I know your research is not intended to answer the question of whether vaccines have played a role in autism. Regardless of your intention, I suspect some will refer to it as a piece of evidence to suggest that vaccines have not played a role.
My feeling is that the years studied in your paper are too recent to determine if vaccines have played a role in autism. In the US, the vaccine schedule was modified in the late 80’s & the early 90’s. If vaccines did cause autism in a subset of children, those first (the ones vaccinated in the late 80’s & early 90’s) children would probably have been diagnosed as MR or LD according to your argument. Then in 1994 and in the years following children would have received the correct diagnosis of autism, resulting in the diagnostic substitution that you found. So it would be interesting to see the data in the years preceding your analysis. For example, did MR and/or LD increase in the late 80’s & early 90’s, possibly as a result of the new vaccination schedule?
Dr. Shattuck,
In your paper you state that the California data is unique and should not be used as a gauge for the rest of the country. But some argue that the California data is actually more valid (perhaps “less invalid” is a better way to describe it) than any other state. This is at least partly due to the fact that California has been the most consistent state regarding the autism diagnosis since it has only tracked “full blown autism.” Thoughts?
David,
My feeling is that the years studied in your paper are too recent to determine if vaccines have played a role in autism. In the US, the vaccine schedule was modified in the late 80’s & the early 90’s.
If there was a link between the inclusion of HiB and HepB and such disorders, the appropriate timeframe to look at would be the mid-1990’s after those vaccines had been on the schedule a couple of years (and adopted by a number of states to boot) and children involved were old enough to require educational or special education services.
In case Dr. Shattuck doesn’t keep checking back here you should be able to get his email address from the Waisman center website.
His email address is on the paper, but I don’t want to post it here, I’m sure the mercury mafia are screaming bloody-conspiracy at him about now.
I wonder what the autism rate is in Norway and how it correlates with thimerosal usage. I wonder if there’s some reason for raging chemistry students to be attracted to life in Norway…
Weird business.
DH: ““full blown autism.—
What is that?
Either someone is autistic, as per the criteria, or someone is not.
I am trained to do this dx, so I know.
“What is that?”
“Either someone is autistic, as per the criteria, or someone is not.”
“I am trained to do this dx, so I know.”
I’m attempting to distinguish between autism, PDD-NOS & Asperger’s. So when I say “full blown autism” I’m trying to be clear that I’m not including a diagnosis like PDD-NOS or Asperger’s.
Hi David
I am asking you because my experience was very bad in the sense of diagnosis: atypical autism, PDDNOS , childhood schizophrenia or desintegrative disorder. I imagine that trained and serious people avoid to mention all this together but unfortunately many times happen, like happened to us, whereas my son was… asleep… and remained all the interview .
Is there archetypical and atypical autism as diagnostic definitions in your practice?
Thank you in advance for your advice
MarÃa Luján
In your paper you state that the California data is unique and should not be used as a gauge for the rest of the country. But some argue that the California data is actually more valid (perhaps “less invalid†is a better way to describe it) than any other state. This is at least partly due to the fact that California has been the most consistent state regarding the autism diagnosis since it has only tracked “full blown autism.†Thoughts?
Unique and not a good gauge for the rest of the country doesn’t mean useless. It’s not surprising that it’s unique. California is the largest economy in the US, correct?
I don’t know about the IDEA data, but CDDS is remarkably good and consistent. There’s stability in diagnoses other than autism, which I take as an indication of reliability. Plus it gives a wealth of information on client characteristics and regional differences.
Within California, I’d say each regional center itself is ‘unique’. The ones in the LA area are quite different to those outside the LA area. So we couldn’t use Westide, for example, as a gauge for the rest of the state. Still, looking at the pattern of prevalence growth in Westside can be quite useful.
” … California has been the most consistent state regarding the autism diagnosis since it has only tracked “full blown autism” …”
This is completely and utterly NOT true.
Dr. Shattuck,
Other diagnostic categories that may be relevant to the diagnostic substitution argument are EBD (Educationally Behaviorally Disturbed, SBD (Severe Behavioral Disturbance) & Multiple Handicapped.
I’m interested in learning if these categories were considered during your research.
Ms. Clark wrote:
“I’m sure the mercury mafia are screaming bloody-conspiracy at him about now”.
– Interestingly, you guys are treating him like some sort of saviour for your cause (apparently you are starving for some support). The fact is, he seemed pretty clear that he is open to the possibility of the vaccine-autism link (unlike some of you pro poison pushers) and even brings up the Hornig study as “tantalizing evidence to keep examining the issue”. Don’t you guys typically call those the silly mousey studies (or other such nonsense)? If and When Shattuck rifles through some of the previous blog entries here or elsewhere I believe he will agree that you guys could care less about the “science”. You just don’t care. Notice how he also is smart enough to recognize that “of course the CDC has completely bungled how they’ve handled the situation and I totally understand why people are mistrustful at this point”. You guys don’t seem to think that way, do you? Never heard it from you. So it seems to me that Shattuck has a bit more sense than you all. Which is great. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let me ask him directly (you never know)… Mr. Shattuck, is it responsible to continue to allow thimerosal to be injected into infants via flu shots for the pregnant mom or infants 6+ months? Is it responsible to be shipping thimerosal-containing vaccines overseas considering the ongoing discussions about it? What is your feeling on that?
Hi again Sue,
And off we go:
You write “Interestingly, you guys are treating him like some sort of saviour for your cause (apparently you are starving for some support).â€
Saviour? No, I am genuinely (incredibly so really) delighted that someone noted the same problems that I and others have with the IDEA data.
No Sue, I (and I would assume others) are not “starving for support†I am simply pleased that people will be less likely to use a database for a purpose it was never intended for in the first place. They are now more likely to put effort into well controlled epidemiology.
You write “The fact is, he seemed pretty clear that he is open to the possibility of the vaccine-autism link (unlike some of you pro poison pushers)â€
Very true, he is a good role model in that he allows such possibility (the evidence in the future could prove our assertions right or wrong). In addition, he has conducted himself with dignity in spite of ad hominem attempts by NAA and false oppositions from ASA. In addition he does not employ sophistic name-calling against his intellectual critics/opponents such as referring to them as e.g. (money grubbers or pro-poison pushers). I encourage you to model your behavior based on this individual.
You write “and even brings up the Hornig study as “tantalizing evidence to keep examining the issueâ€. Don’t you guys typically call those the silly mousey studies (or other such nonsense)?â€
Yes, and here Dr. Shattuck and I do not agree. The Horning study is not nonsense, it is fallacious (slight difference) it is definitely based on a false equation. The “autistic-like†symptoms are not convincing and that one rat chewed through his cage-mates skull does not seem like any autistic child I have met. Further Autism Diva points out that the relevant strain of mouse is know for behavior similar to what occurred (to a lesser degree of course).
You wrote “If and When Shattuck rifles through some of the previous blog entries here or elsewhere I believe he will agree that you guys could care less about the “scienceâ€. You just don’t care.â€
No, Sue we do care, we care a whole heck of a lot, about what the science says. You on the other hand….well….you obviously don’t care at all.
No, I don’t really believe that you don’t care. I wish to point out the absurdity of claiming (with not even a half-hearted attempt at validation) that we “just don’t careâ€
You wrote “Notice how he also is smart enough to recognize that “of course the CDC has completely bungled how they’ve handled the situation and I totally understand why people are mistrustful at this pointâ€.
Sue, you will get no argument out of me that the CDC didn’t bungle this affair (ditto the IOM), I also understand that people are distrustful. I could wish that the CDC screw ups never happened and that the Danish and Verstraten studies were well controlled; if that would do any good. Even with these I still suspect autistic kids would be treated by Naturopaths, Chiropractors, Homeopaths, DAN! folks, and other assorted non-science based treatment providers. And dollars to donuts, there would still be some mom of an autistic child whom would attempt to foist her version of “common sense/non-science†on this group.
_”Interestingly, you guys are treating him like some sort of saviour for your cause (apparently you are starving for some support).”_
I _love_ how you see things Sue :o)
Mr Shattuck has shown that its is not possible to use a certain set of data to illustrate the idea of an autism epidemic. As thats what _all_ of us except for yourself and a few other commenter’s discuss every time the word ‘epidemic’ is mentioned, its nice to have _yet more_ verification that our opinions on this matter concur with the mainstream science.
_”The fact is, he seemed pretty clear that he is open to the possibility of the vaccine-autism link (unlike some of you pro poison pushers)_”
Yeas….and….? How does that mean we shouldn’t agree with his thoughts on the ‘epidemic’? I’ve quoted Paul Shatt*ock* to various people – he’s shown the presence of autistic people in Victorian Britain – and he’s also amenable to the idea of vaccines being linked to autism.
Its not necessary to agree with everything a person says to find one thing they say honest and evidential.
_”Don’t you guys typically call those the silly mousey studies (or other such nonsense)?”_
Yup. Thats because they are. I ran through exactly why with you before and you ignored my comment.
_”I believe he will agree that you guys could care less about the “scienceâ€. You just don’t care.”_
As I’ve said to you very recently – we care an awful lot. I’ll quote myself answering you less than 2 days ago: _”I can’t think of one single person on ‘my’ side of the debate who hasn’t stated they are happy to follow where the science leads them. To put it more plainly, if its firmly established mercury causes autism (or whatever illness you want to attribute it to this week) then as long as the science is valid, replicated etc we’ll have to believe it. This is because we are open to that possibility as people who recognise the legitimacy of decent science. Its also the reason I changed my mind before about what I thought ‘caused’ my daughters autism. An open mind. An ability to re-examine the evidence. An ability to listen to all sides.”_
_”Notice how he also is smart enough to recognize that “of course the CDC has completely bungled how they’ve handled the situation and I totally understand why people are mistrustful at this pointâ€. You guys don’t seem to think that way, do you? Never heard it from you.”_
Thats because its irrelevant. Have the CDC bungled their communication efforts? Big time. So have the UK Government over the MMR debacle over here. Unfortunately for you Sue bungling communication is not equatable to mercury causes autism.
And whilst the CDC and the UK Gvmt have certainly bungled their communication/PR drive, conversely, the NAA, SafeMinds and whomever else was involved in this nasty little press release have flat out lied, exaggerated innocuous events and inferred non-events. Not that there’s anything new there.
Hmmm. According to the World Health Organization, a child dies of measles at a rate of one per minute in the world.
Most kids survive measles. Some don’t.
But then, I guess the WHO is in on the Big Conspiracy(tm).
“Hi David”
Hi MarÃa…
“I am asking you because my experience was very bad in the sense of diagnosis: atypical autism, PDDNOS , childhood schizophrenia or desintegrative disorder.”
OKay. Sorry to hear that you had bad experiences there.
“I imagine that trained and serious people avoid to mention all this together but unfortunately many times happen, like happened to us, whereas my son was… asleep… and remained all the interview .”
Well, in all the so-called PPDs, the dx is made on the basis of a thorough developmental history (at least, as thorough as one can get) and the matching of things which crop up regularly to criteria published in either DSM or ICD. Observations of the diagnosee are useful but sometimes do not need to be made (I’d say that many times, they might be used in cases where other evidence has been difficult to find). Why was your son asleep for the length of the interview? That would be a good question… did he find it boring? Or was he tired? Or ill? Or was it other things?
And what did the diagnostician do about that? (very important question).
“Is there archetypical and atypical autism as diagnostic definitions in your practice?”
There are (wrt ICD 10) the following diagnostic options available:
*quote*
F84 Pervasive developmental disorders
F84.0 Childhood autism
F84.1 Atypical autism
F84.2 Rett’s syndrome
F84.3 Other childhood disintegrative disorder
F84.4 Overactive disorder associated with mental retardation and stereotyped movements
F84.5 Asperger’s syndrome
F84.8 Other pervasive developmental disorders
F84.9 Pervasive developmental disorder, unspecified
*endquote*
(source: http://www.psyweb.com/ICD/ICD10/f80f89.jsp)
I’m assuming that, by “archetypal”, you mean F84.0 Childhood Autism. As you can see, there are many options for dx-making, and the rubric in the manual tells what one needs to do to be in a position for making a dx. It is also recommended (as in DSM IV) that a cook-book approach is not used… the criteria are basically ideas about what one would expect to find in someone with a given dx.
“Thank you in advance for your advice
MarÃa Luján”
Not really sure I’ve actually given any as yet, but in any case you’re very welcome 🙂
David
DH: “I’m attempting to distinguish between autism, PDD-NOS & Asperger’s. So when I say *full blown autism* I’m trying to be clear that I’m not including a diagnosis like PDD-NOS or Asperger’s.”
Okay… I can go with that.
My own position, for what it’s worth, is that they would all come under the general dx of autism, and then something would be tagged on to pinpoint that person’s functioning within a conceptual space (if that makes any sense… I try to do things mathematically, since that’s how my mind works on this matter). So, as I have actually done, I might give a dx as:
*Dx: F84 Autism* (F84.5 Asperger syndrome)
… since people develop over time and the diagnosis is actually akin to being a snapshot at a particular time. (Again, hoping that this makes sense).
Cheers.
Looks like Dr. Shattuck is done answering questions on blogs. His response to my email:
Hello,
Thank you for your interest in my Pediatrics article. The response and volume of questions has been gratifying, but also overwhelming. I am no longer responding to individual questions. Later this spring, as time permits, I will be setting up a web page with answers to common questions.
Best regards,
Paul Shattuck
In terms of the phrase “full-blown autism” being used in re: California, it’s my fairly certain recollection this terminology was first used by Rollens … and from where I sit with several years personal experience with CDDS/Regional Ctrs … the term was employed merely as a political tool. I have never personally heard anyone official from the CDDS use the term “full-blown autism”. I have, however, seen Rollens use it in every over-wrought press release he’s written/comissioned to write about the ‘California numbers’ and the ‘epidemic’. Rollens is using this term to his advantage: It’s completely misleading from a diagnostic perspective; further Rollens has now leveraged the term as a prejudcial/political tool in attempts to DENY services to many, many with ASD.
Re: “full-blown”/”full-syndrome” autism…
hwj: “It’s completely misleading from a diagnostic perspective…”
Absolutely.
This was my point to DH, in fact.
hwj: “Rollens has now leveraged the term as a prejudcial/political tool in attempts to DENY services to many, many with ASD.”
Sadly, this is what happens when misleading (and non-justifiable) terms are used… they take on a life of their own and, coming out of some mouths, they an do incredible damage.
Yes, thanks much, David. I have watched this morph from “full-blown” to “full-syndrome” with Rollens, all the while, putting the Regional Centers in a strangle-hold. He controls California tax-payer monies via his ‘positions’ within the UC-system (MIND Inst./UC-Davis–a public univ.) and as a paid lobbyist within the CDDS/Reg Ctrs. He has used both public entities to push his own personal agenda. I stand in disagreement with his political tactics, his mis-use of my tax dollars and his extreme bigotry. Yes, incredible damage has been done.
hwj: “I stand in disagreement with his political tactics, his mis-use of my tax dollars and his extreme bigotry. Yes, incredible damage has been done.”
Personally, I think it’s time he was made to answer in a court of law.
They have 3 codes for autism in the CDDS:
1: Full syndrome
2: Autism, residual state
9: Autism, suspected not diagnosed
It is unclear if all of these appear in the report, but that’s a safe assumption. More info here.
Joseph: “They have 3 codes for autism in the CDDS:”
Aha…. and I wonder how the fuck they got that first one in there….. Hmmm…..
Rollens, ya bastaaaaaard!
😉
Damn, I just had a very long reply typed-out addressing this and I zapped it making a minor edit. I can’t re-create it at this point … but will try again later.
Briefly: When, I wonder, did the phrasing change from “Autism, full syndrome” to just simply “full syndrome”. In the ’86 version (pg. 23) they all read as “Autism, . . .” Not too many years ago, what was required for services (in my personal experience) was a 299 dx. This dx. could (and often was) given by the Reg Ctr itself. With the recent changes in eligibility requirements (cf. ARCA/Rollens), a potential client now needs an outside, third-party diagnosis and they must meet much more and many more stringent requirements (ASD dx. notwithstanding) than in the recent past. Complicating this is not all Reg Ctrs went along with the ARCA rec’s — this was optional as I understand. Further, it’s of some debate who adheres to Lanterman. Essentially, you cannot match Reg Ctr to Reg Ctr. Then, finally, we have the financial audits imposed on one’s family in order to remain a Reg Ctr client and/or continue receiving services. The “California numbers” are simply fraught with too many political issues to truly gauge those Californians with Autism — of any flavor.
The “California numbers†are simply fraught with too many political issues to truly gauge those Californians with Autism—of any flavor.
The 2003 law change is a big blip in the numbers. That said, the data is a very useful research tool. It’s not a good tool to determine prevalence of autism. But it’s good in helping determine what causes administrative prevalence to go up or down. For example, if a law change causes administrative prevalence to go down, you can easily check if this is an actual drop by comparing client characteristics before and after the drop.
Thanks, Joseph, very well said. I addressed more in those five paragraphs that I zapped, but no matter — as you pointed out something I had been going for … but was far, far from succint in getting at … and that’s the matter of “administrative prevalence”! I could speak to this, but must wait. However, I will say that the interests of the clients are so often not being served (more and more of late) and think this has everything to do with internal politics. BTW, I am a big fan of your blog.
Regarding Shattuck, I would think that he’d be hiring legal counsel about now to sue the mercury mafia for defamation of character.
It wouldn’t seem that he’d be feeling too favourable toward the mercury mafia now, though he might have been a little open minded toward them a few months ago. Sue, I think you can remove Shattuck from your list of partial supporters. You can send a thank you note to the NAA for that.
aotHgm: “Regarding Shattuck, I would think that he’d be hiring legal counsel about now to sue the mercury mafia for defamation of character.”
What happened?
Where did they do that? I’d be interested to see this.
I just wanted to say that in order to qualify for special education services in the US, you must have a disability as listed in IDEA. The disabilities listed are: mental retardation (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities. Also, at the discretion of the state a child aged 3-9 experiencing developmental delays. There is no seperation of the various autism spectrum diagnoses in IDEA.
Hi Junior: “There is no seperation of the various autism spectrum diagnoses in IDEA.”
Thanks for that.
The whole separation thing seems to come down to Rollens’ idiotic political buggering about, doesn’t it?
Seen the stuff that was said by the NAA.
Shame on them for being bastards.
Ooops! I just realized I left out hearing impairments before including deafness. So it should read: mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities. Also, at the discretion of the state a child aged 3-9 experiencing developmental delays. There is no seperation of the various autism spectrum diagnoses in IDEA.
Do you think a few polite but firm emails to NAA expressing disappointment in regards to their smearing Mr Shattuck’s character would render an apology?
Could we expect Hell to freeze over first?
Nana – I think someones already done that but a few more can’t hurt :o)
Do you think a few polite but firm emails to NAA expressing disappointment in regards to their smearing Mr Shattuck’s character would render an apology?
An open letter indicating that you’ll blog responses or lack thereof might be more effective.
Nana: “Could we expect Hell to freeze over first?”
Personally, given the entrenched nature of the mercury-parent belief systems, I’d say that Hell will freeze over many times before an apology is delivered by the NAA, etc, to Dr Shattuck since they would have to accept that his work does indeed make their position somewhat less than tenable (thereby invalidating that position, and leading to the conclusion that they have wasted their resources and – in some cases – their children).
Don’t hold your breath. I shaln’t.
afeared wrote:
“It wouldn’t seem that he’d be feeling too favourable toward the mercury mafia now, though he might have been a little open minded toward them a few months ago. Sue, I think you can remove Shattuck from your list of partial supporters”.
– I never counted on him as a partial supporter. I said that I had an open mind to him as long as he hadn’t closed the door on the possible link (like so many of the pro poison pushers have done). Are you suggesting that Shattuck’s backbone could crumble so readily after some negative remarks from a group of people. Hope not, that would be a shame. I’ll still be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
As a Michigan native, I can verify that Hell (MI) did freeze over last night. : )
As a toxicologist, I find the any amount of Hg is toxic argument weak Botulism has the smallest LD50 recorded, but vain people will pay lots of money to have low doses injected into their wrinkles. If Botox dosn’t send lots of people into paralysis, then trace amounts of Hg won’t cause neurotoxicity. The fact that Hg inhibits dendrite growth cnes in cell culture is VERY old news. The question is, does enough Hg make it through the bodies detox system to be present at the site of actual neurons to cause the same effect in an actual animal? I made lots of compounds in my day that worked in culture, but failed in mice. They were broken down in vivo or never made it to the site of action. This is basic toxicology/pharmacodynamics.
Ruth: “As a Michigan native, I can verify that Hell (MI) did freeze over last night. : )”
You mean there’s actually colder places than Finland just now with people living in them? :O
Ruth: “As a toxicologist, I find the any amount of Hg is toxic argument weak Botulism has the smallest LD50 recorded, but vain people will pay lots of money to have low doses injected into their wrinkles. If Botox dosn’t send lots of people into paralysis, then trace amounts of Hg won’t cause neurotoxicity.”
Interesting. Nice one. Thank you 🙂
Hi Ruth,
Cool, another Michigan person.
How you know you are from Michigan, reason #6:
Not only is there really a Kalamazoo, you know that it is not far from Hell.
David,
Northern Michigan has the largest Finnish population outside Finland. They liked in because it was cold and rocky, just like home. My mother-in-law studied music at Suomi College. Yes, I’ve taken a sauna and rolled in the snow. Sisu!
Jonathan-Work has taken us to St. Louis, but Michigan will always be home. Also, everyone knows Hell is in the lower peninsula, but the UP has Paradise.
Regarding Shattuck…. seems the EoH crew, or some of them anyway, don’t understand “Please do not contact me again by e-mail, phone, or other means.” and kept at him anyway.
Then they pointed list members here where he had posted..
I don’t blame him for not wanting to be attacked and defamed here too.
David: “Personally, I think it’s time he was made to answer in a court of law.”
Thank-you, David. I also think it’s time that RR take a, well … let’s say, hiatus from his current positions within the MIND Institute and ARCA. He’s cross with so many all the time, I just think he could use the break … as it were. ; ] I know this California tax-payer would be glad of it!
Ruth: “Northern Michigan has the largest Finnish population outside Finland. They liked in because it was cold and rocky, just like home. My mother-in-law studied music at Suomi College. Yes, I’ve taken a sauna and rolled in the snow. Sisu!”
I knew there was a large ex-pat and immigrant Finnish population in the US, but I was never actually sure where… now I know, and that good 🙂
I didn’t know about that Suomi College… gonna have a look at that 😀 Sounds way cool…
Heh… sauna and snow-rolling… yeh, I done that too 😀 Kyllä sisua paljon tarvitaan siihen 😉
Always nice to learn more about the Finnish diaspora. The Finns at home rarely get to learn about this. I’m a Scot living here, but my daughter is Finnish (she says so herself) and I don’t really know if she’ll ever learn about her fellow Finns around the world at school.
Aha…
“Regarding Shattuck…. seems the EoH crew, or some of them anyway, don’t understand ‘Please do not contact me again by e-mail, phone, or other means,’ and kept at him anyway.”
The ignorant bastards. I can’t find a good word for that crew at all. I really think that they do not care about the damage that they do… and that is just plain antisocial, nothing else. If anyone did that to them, they’d be up in arms, calling the perpetrators all manner of bastards. But it’s alright for them to harrass people into the ground, it seems. The two-faced, ignorant bastards.
“Then they pointed list members here where he had posted..
I don’t blame him for not wanting to be attacked and defamed here too.”
I can understand that. Poor man. He tries to shed light on what he found out – in a spirit of open-ness and honesty – and he gets harrassed by those idiots for it. That’s unjust in the extreme. We should start doing it to them and see how those ignorant bleeders feel.
I wonder if SueM can justify that crew’s actions here… or if she’ll distance herself from that part of the crew which does that sort of thing.
David:
I don’t think they’re idiots (for the most part). When they accuse others of corruption, it’s a moral re-balancing exercise to give themselves peace of mind.
It’s like how the mafia call themselves “the good people”. If they hadn’t worked out an ideology along such lines, they couldn’t look in the mirror.
Here endeth the epistle…
Interesting point, Brian… and I can see where it comes from…. they have to disparage someone, in order to feel good about themselves… which they do by making a downward social comparison.
Sad thing is that they can’t feel good about themselves just by feeling good about themselves. But then, they know that they are wrong… but just can’t admit it to themselves….
Any news on whether Wakefield is going to get a serious bollocking from the GMC for his work?