So, now that the cases of autism are _still_ not falling (see Joseph and Interverbal) and we long passed David Kirby’s self imposed deadline of 2005 for rates to fall and are fast approaching his new goalpost shifted deadline of 2007 what can we expect from the mercury militia?
Well, excuses as to why that might be of course. Re-alignments of data and misleading impressions. For example, Rick ‘Train Wrecks’ Rollens gave the Schafer Mercury Report an exclusive. Well – there was a whole lot of guff before the actual figures. These were quoted as:
Between April 2002 and April 2003 there were 3,595 persons added to the system. Between April 2003 and April 2004 there were 3,088 persons added to the system. Between April 2004 and April 2005 there were 3,015 persons added to the system. Between April 2005 and April 2006 there were 2,869 persons added to the system.
But, as ever, we can disregard Rollens as he hasn’t isolated the 3 – 5 year old cohort. He counted everyone.
In case you couldn’t tell, I rolled my eyes then.
For a slightly more honest approach (key word: slightly) we turn to David Kirby who posted the following on EoH:
2004 545 -4.72%, 2005 524 -3.85%
Which is the percentage change year on year. However, Kirby tucked his bombshell in the previous paragraph:
It is too early to read a whole lot into these numbers, especially quarter to quarter, and obviously, *a drop in the net gain this quarter (instead of an increase of 6) would have been more supportive of the thimerosal theory*.
Which is quite a statement. No wonder Rollens is fighting to distance himself from it. I also notice Lenny Schafer didn’t quote Kirby in the SAR.
However Kirby then goes on to tell everyone:
But yearly trends for 3-5 year olds are down…
Which is not true. Yearly trends are still rising. To put it plainly there is a continuing increase in the amount of autistic 3 – 5 year olds entering the CDDS reporting system. What these figures show (except this new quarter) is a less than 1% decrease in the rate of increase year on year. And David Kirby _knows_ this is misleading. In an email exchange with blogger Citizen Cain, Kirby:
…conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, *not changes in the rate of increase* is the right measure.
More misleading dishonesty Mr Kirby?
So, what can we expect from the mercury militia clinging desperately to the CDDS figures?
So, there’s the misleading conclusions and re-alignments of data. What about the excuses?
Well the biggie will be one that’s touched on by Kirby in his EoH post:
keep in mind that most of these kids are 4 and 5 years old, born between 2000 and the first quarter of 2002 (someone correct me if I got that wrong) and it is impossible to know exactly what thimerosal exposure rates were during that period in California, except to assume that they started to come down, perhaps gradually
Aha – the first emergence of what I shall take honour in calling the Great Backpedal Argument of 2006. In the GBA, mercury militia members will start to claim that rates are not falling because all the thiomersal still sitting on shelves to be used up. Its a _great_ argument as it can’t be proven or disproven – you just have to believe. Sounds familiar eh? Then of course, there’s the compounding factor of the flu vaccine. Except that the flu vaccine is not mandatory, not enforceable and as vaccine uptake is falling generally thanks to the mercury militia I would imagine flu vaccine uptake (and thus thiomersal exposure from this source) is at an all time low.
So back to all the thiomersal containing mainstream vaccines sitting on shelves up and down the country.
According to studies, the shelf life of thiomersal containing vaccines such as DTaP is between 5 – 9 months. Somebody remind me again – how long ago was it that thiomersal containing vaccines were halted for mainstream use? I forget.
And if you do come across some thiomersal containing vaccines, maybe you could send some to Safe Minds Executive Director Sallie Bernard. It seems that they were in very short supply as far back ago as June 2001:
A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately. Thank you. Sallie Bernard, Executive Director, Safe Minds.
Makes you wonder why Ms Bernard didn’t simply wander into any GP’s office and buy some thiomersal containing vaccine off the shelves almost collapsing under the weight of the stuff.
If it was in short enough supply for Ms Bernard to require the help of people finding some back in 2001, how plentiful is the supply going to be either than or now? I’ll wager ‘not very’.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Kirby is moving on. He is touring Canada pushing the mercury connection because “in some parts of Canada, children receieved mercury in their vaccines until at least 2002.” So he has all this year to squeeze some extra book sales out of Canada. For some reason there are no Inuit settlements on his schedule. But he will be in Montreal on May 6. Someone should tell Eric Fombonne.
The Great Backpedal Argument (GBA) seems to be overlooking an argument that the same group of people made about the start of the “autism epidemic”.
The same mercury-causes-autism crowd (John, are you listening?) that says the addition of the Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine (a single vaccine) or, alternatively, the addition of the Hemophilus influenza B (HiB) vaccine followed by the introduction of the HepB vaccine (two vaccines) was a sufficient trigger for the “autism epidemic”.
Now, if the addition of one or two thimerosal-containing vaccines was sufficient to start the “epidemic”, then removing one or two thimerosal-containing vaccines should be sufficient to stop the “epidemic”, right?
Well, the autism numbers aren’t going down as they “should” (if we assume that the mercury-causes-autism hypothesis is correct) given that – even if existing stocks of thimerosal containing vaccines remained in use – there has been a decrease of at least on or two thimerosal-containing vaccines in the average child’s vaccine regimen since 2000 (or 2002, if you like).
Given these two data, there are only two conclusions that can be made:
[1] “They” didn’t actually take the thimerosal out of vaccines (the Great Conspiracy Argument).
[2] Autism isn’t caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines.
Of course, Rollens, Schafer, Kirby, Blaxill and the rest can’t accept [2], so they have to either go with [1] (which is easily disproven) or argue – contrary to their own previous arguments that removing one or two thimerosal-containing vaccines from the pediatric immunization regimen is insufficient to have an effect on autism incidence. Mind you, they still argue — directly or indirectly – that adding one or two thimerosal-containing vaccines triggered the “autism epidemic” in 1985.
So, which one is it? Can one or two thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism or not? If not, then the whole premise for vaccines causing the “autism epidemic” ceases to exist. If so, then why haven’t the autism numbers taken a nosedive?
Fortunately, the simple answer to this apparent dilemma is that thimerosal-containing vaccines don’t cause autism and the mercury mob are desperately trying to salvage their pet hypothesis.
Prometheus
Kev,
If you’re going to use the CDDS to make your argument you should also consider some other information from the CDDS, such as:
Of the total caseload…..”nearly 80% are children under the age of 17, with 2 out of 3 persons are between the ages of 4 and 13 years old.”
“In 1987 there were less then 2,800 cases statewide, today there are 30,181.”
According to Shattuck, diagnostic substition does not explain the increase in California. So that leaves you with “better diagnosis” & “more awareness” to explain the entire increase. I agree that it could explain some of the increase but certainly not all of it.
Kirby: “a drop in the net gain this quarter (instead of an increase of 6) would have been more supportive of the thimerosal theory.”
These guys still don’t understand how the numbers work. Gradual drops in the net gain do not support thimerosal theory in any way, shape or form. Sharp drops in the net gain, where the net gain eventually becomes negative, concurrent with a drop in caseload, would support that theory. Gradual drops in the net gain, where the caseload continues to have growth above or equal to general population growth, supports the ‘broadening criteria’ theory (which incidently has considerably more evidence of various forms behind it).
According to Shattuck, diagnostic substition does not explain the increase in California. So that leaves you with “better diagnosis†& “more awareness†to explain the entire increase. I agree that it could explain some of the increase but certainly not all of it.
I am quite confident diagnostic substitution has occured in California. Demonstrating this conclusively with the numbers available is not that easy, but the state-wide data is quite consistent with this phenomenon. Currently about 7% of the mental retardardation caseload is classified as autistic. In 1992, this is something like 3.5%. I am quite sure this increase is administrative, as the total mental retardation caseload has matched population growth very precisely.
Additionally, the proportion of autistics in the population with mental retardation varies from one regional center to the next. Central Valley is behind where the state was back in 1992. Once you adjust assuming this is due to diagnostic substitution, population characteristics and administrative prevalence in each regional center closely match state averages at various times during the ‘epidemic’, suggesting that both diagnostic substitution and ‘broadening criteria’ have occurred. Regional centers are just at different points in their increasing recognition of autism in the populations with and without mental retardation. (Central Valley is about 15 years behind in recognition of autism in the population with mental retardation and perhaps 8 years behind in its recognition of autism in the population without mental retardation).
So if you look at dropping population characteristics in the state-wide data after you adjust for diagnostic substitution, and match this with regional differences, you will see that, in fact, broadening criteria, more awareness, increasing recognition and diagnostic substitution (the last one being a minor factor) can easily account for the entire ‘autism epidemic’.
“I am quite confident diagnostic substitution has occured in California.”
Then you would appear to be in disagreement with Shattuck.
“Demonstrating this conclusively with the numbers available is not that easy”
Maybe that’s because the numbers don’t support the diagnostic substitution argument.
Dr. Shattuck says that California does not clearly follow this pattern. He doesn’t say that no diagnostic substituion whatsoever has occurred in California. Maybe he’ll clarify this in time.
My take is that in most other states the bulk of the autism caseload growth can be attributed to diagnostic substitution. This must be especially true of states where the autism caseload was close to zero before 1990. In California, diagnostic substitution is a relatively minor factor.
Lisa Croen tried to demonstrate diagnostic substitution in CDDS. I believe her mistake was to consider the entire autism caseload and not just the autism-MR caseload, but I don’t have data going as far back as she had to verify this.
The fact is that the MR caseload has grown at almost exactly the same pace as the population in the state. The ‘MR wihout autism’ caseload has grown at a pace lower than the population in the state. This might be enough to demonstrate diagnostic substitution. The reason I’m doubting this type of analysis is that the epilepsy and cerebral palsy caseloads have grown at an even slower pace, and I’m not sure what the reason for this might be.
“These guys still don’t understand how the numbers work. Gradual drops in the net gain do not support thimerosal theory in any way, shape or form.”
Something else we collectively do not understand is how ethyl mercury impacts babies. We know even less about the synergistic effects of ethyl mercury with other vaccine ingredients. We also don’t know for sure when thimerosal was removed as a preservative. Correspondence between vaccine makers & Dave Weldon illustrate that they were still around at the end of 2002. So we don’t know how much thimerosal these 3-5 year olds had. If they had flu shots that could be an extra exposure that 3-5 year olds in the 90’s didn’t have. And there is still “trace” amounts of thimerosal in some vaccines from the manufacturing process. Everyone assumes that is safe but there are no studies to support that claim.
Geier & Geier (2005) said that there was a correlation between mercury doses from thimerosal and the “prevalence” of autism. If this were true, current administrative prevalence growth in the 3-5 cohort should match an ongoing increase in the dose of thimerosal given 1 to 4 years ago. This makes no sense. The paper is wrong, and the original thimerosal theory is wrong. We don’t even need to wait.
That’s another paper that needs to be retracted, btw.
Shattuck is talking school numbers and Kirby and Rollens are talking DDS numbers. They are collected in entirely different ways. Both sets of data a hideously inadequate for tracking prevalence/incidence. Both agencies have said, “don’t use our numbers for epidemiology.”
But that doesn’t stop the mercury parents.
The MIND institute was founded by flaming mercury/MMR parents at least in part.
But the MIND is planning on studying many autistic toddlers in the next few years. Hundreds of them.
Surely, it will be easy to see if thimerosal played a part in the autism of this bunch. The CHARGE study is already producing data that knocks the legs out from under the mercury idea. They are presenting it at IMFAR this year. Dr. H-P is the lead investigator of the CHARGE study and she’s not impressed with the whole “epidemic” nonsense, though she admitted that it was possible there had been an increase (not a huge increase) of autism in California… possible doesn’t mean “certainly”.
None of the little autistic kids in California got Heb B with thimerosal, none of them got HiB with thimerosal. Some of them might have gotten a flu shot with thimerosal… or maybe all of them did.
So all you have to do is ask, did this kid get the flu shot? Did he move here from Guatamala where he got a TCV at birth? Easy questions.
If the majority of parents answer no. There goes the stinking thimerosal lawsuit and the big incomes of the chelationists. Bummer. DAN! goes down in flames under lawsuits directed at it… (well, one can dream). Forget the number of 5 year olds entering the schools, the “train wreck” autistics are easy to spot at 18 months. EASY. NO confusion. If it’s not hard to find them for the CHARGE/autism phenome project then the vaccine argument is finis.
The Handley boy might not have received any thimerosal containing vaccines at all. Of course, his dad probably checked the lot numbers, but surely by 2003 when he was born (if I have his age right) he might have received no thimerosal containing vaccines. Look how hard it was for Mady Hornig to get some, and she wasn’t in California. She was in New York State, I believe. I don’t think Bernard was mainly living in a state where it was hard to find TCV’s. All the DAN! doctors spread all over the country couldn’t find any TCV’s (WMD’s??) in 2001?
Sallie couldn’t just put the word out to the DAN! network of MD’s? No she puts it out to average parents on the internet to ask around. And Burbacher couldn’t find any for his study?
These DAN! and SAFEMINDS and NAA people are outrageous. How long do they get to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with their stupid press releases? How long do they continue with the shell game?
I guess as long as the trial lawyers tell them to keep it up.
A pro-thimerosal lawysuit lawyer is on the board of ASA, isn’t he?
DH: And there is still “trace†amounts of thimerosal in some vaccines from the manufacturing process.
Dammit! I was going to predict this argument would pop but I thought I’d wait to see how long it took. Longer that I expected quite honestly. As long as there are at least a few atoms of Hg in vaccines autism rates will be stable. Don’t ya see?
Concentration is irrelevant when you are talking about a known neurotoxin. Ask any homeopath.
_”Of the total caseload…..â€nearly 80% are children under the age of 17, with 2 out of 3 persons are between the ages of 4 and 13 years old.â€_
_“In 1987 there were less then 2,800 cases statewide, today there are 30,181.—_
Thanks – I did read Rollens PR. Its utterly without significance. Here’s the bottom line.
Thiomersal has _drastically_ been reduced in intake to US children. Down from 187.5 µg Hg to 25 µg Hg. Thats a nine-fold drop. And that 25 µg Hg in the flu vaccination is entirely voluntary.
The removal process began in the US in 1999 and was thought to be over by 2002 _at the latest_. The only vaccines with thiomersal still in them are the voluntarily administered flu vaccines.
Given that most of the vaccine schedule is complete in the US by 18 months of age, that means that the first lot of children receiving thiomersal free vaccines would have been three years old in 2005. they would four or approaching five now. Three is a typical age for autism diagnosis. Sometimes its earlier. 2005 is, of course, the first date Kirby mentioned before he shifted his hypothesis to fit the evidence (or lack thereof).
So, in this current cohort of 3 – 5 year olds there should not be an increase in the rate of increase as there was this month. There should not be a _decrease_ in the rate of increase as there has been for the last few quarters. What there should’ve been from around 2003 onwards is a sharp, obvious, huge _actual fall_ in numbers. Their should be no increase, no levelling out, no gradual decline. It should be immediate and massive.
_”According to Shattuck, diagnostic substition does not explain the increase in California. So that leaves you with “better diagnosis†& “more awareness†to explain the entire increase. I agree that it could explain some of the increase but certainly not all of it.”_
Well, I’m glad you’re now admitting there’s a continued increase. Good to see you understand the bigger picture. However, as Joseph mentioned, Shattuck does not rule it out.
“DH: And there is still “trace†amounts of thimerosal in some vaccines from the manufacturing process.”
David, “trace amount” by definition in a vaccine dose is 1mcg or less, it’s not a secret undefined unknown. You know how litle this is, right? If you’re worried about the 1 mcg, make sure you don’t eat, drink, or breathe ANYTHING (just to be on the safe side).
The average person ingests ~ 5 micrograms of Hg per day and thats the methyl form which we all know is more of a neurotoxin.
Whether you believe that mercury is the only cause or one of many causes of autism, it is appropriate to assume that if you remove a source of mercury from the environment that it should impact autism rates. If autism rates do not budge after removing a large chunk of the thimerosal-containing vaccines infants and young children were receiving, then one should assume that such vaccines are (at best) a very small causal factor in autism and certainly not worth all of the bluster and attention activist groups are giving them.
That is assuming, of course, that the bluster and attention is simply the desire of activist groups to get their message across and not a coordinated public relations campaign to grease the wheels for civil litigation.
My belief is that there very well may be environmental components to autism. I would suggest, however, that those components would be pre-natal (most likely first or early-second trimester) and occur during critical times of brain development. It seems far less plausible that mercury obtained post natally could selectively alter brain functioning to the point where it causes autism without necessarily causing other profound neurological defects. And it seems even less plausible autism could be “reversed” or “treated” by removing mercury, seeing as that there’s no great precedent for reversing neurological damage perpetrated by heavy metal toxicity.
The heavy metal that is poisoning this generation is the greed for gold by the Hg parents and unethical ‘scientists’.
Hi
About dairy Hg ingestion
“Hg contamination data “:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/pp_mercury5.pdf
Recent work of Dr Woods focused on genetic polymorphisms and Hg effects.For example
1-Toxicol Lett. 2006 Feb 20;161(2):159-66. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
A cascade analysis of the interaction of mercury and coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX) polymorphism on the heme biosynthetic pathway and porphyrin production.
Heyer NJ, Bittner AC Jr, Echeverria D, Woods JS.
Mercury (Hg) exposure in various forms remains a persistent public health concern in many parts of the world. In previous studies, we have described a biomarker of mercury exposure characterized by increased urinary concentrations of specific porphyrins, pentacarboxyporphyrin (5-CP) and coproporphyrin (4-CP), and the atypical keto-isocoproporphyrin (KICP), based on selective interference with the fifth (uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase, UROD) and sixth (coproporphyrinogen oxidase, CPOX) enzymes of the heme biosynthetic pathway. Whereas this response occurs in a predictable manner among approximately 85% of subjects with Hg exposure, an atypical porphyrinogenic response (APR) has been observed in approximately 15% of Hg-exposed persons, in which the three porphyrins that are affected by Hg, i.e., 5-CP, 4-CP and, KICP, are excreted in substantial excess of that predicted on the basis of Hg exposure alone. This APR has been attributed to a specific polymorphism in exon 4 of the CPOX gene (CPOX4). In the present study, we sought to further confirm the hypothesis that the observed changes in porphyrin excretion patterns might serve as a biomarker of Hg exposure and potential toxicity by statistically modeling the cascading effects on porphyrin concentrations within the heme biosynthetic pathway of Hg exposure and CPOX4 polymorphism in a human population with long-term occupational exposure to elemental mercury. Our results are highly consistent with this hypothesis. After controlling for precursor porphyrin concentrations, we demonstrated that 5-CP and 4-CP are independently associated with Hg concentration, while KICP is associated only with the CPOX4. An unpredicted association of Hg with heptacarboxyporphyrin (7-CP) may indicate a previously unidentified point of mercury inhibition of UROD. These findings lend further support to the proposed utility of urinary porphyrin changes as a biomarker of exposure and potential toxicity in subjects with mercury exposure. Additionally, these findings demonstrate the successful application of a computational model for characterizing complex metabolic responses and interactions associated with both toxicant exposure and genetic variation in human subjects.
2-Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Aug 7;206(2):113-20.
The association between genetic polymorphisms of coproporphyrinogen oxidase and an atypical porphyrinogenic response to mercury exposure in humans.
Woods JS, Echeverria D, Heyer NJ, Simmonds PL, Wilkerson J, Farin FM.
Previous studies have demonstrated highly specific urinary porphyrin profile (UPP) changes in response to mercury (Hg) exposure in animals and human subjects and have defined the biochemical etiology of this effect as selective alteration of the heme pathway enzymes, uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase (UROD), and coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX) by Hg in the kidney. Ongoing validation studies in a population of dental practitioners with low-level occupational Hg exposure have demonstrated the predicted UPP change among approximately 85% of subjects. This study focused on the genetic etiology of an atypical porphyrinogenic response (APR) seen among the remaining 15% of Hg-exposed subjects, characterized by excess excretion of 4- and 5-carboxyl porphyrins and also of the atypical ketoisocoproporphyrin (KICP). Automated DNA-sequencing-based assays were developed to examine the 7 exons and flanking intron-exon boundaries of the CPOX gene. Among several polymorphisms identified, an A814C variant in exon 4 encoding a N272H substitution was found to be predominant among subjects with the APR. Studies suggest that this variant CPOX preferentially converts the upstream 5-carboxylporphyrin (5-CP) to KICP. By partially inhibiting the 5- to 4-decarboxylation step of UROD, Hg promotes 5-CP accumulation, accounting for e xcess KICP excretion and the APR in Hg-exposed subjects carrying the variant CPOX gene. This finding represents the first report of a polymorphism in a human gene that modifies the effect of Hg on a biological process. The APR might serve as a biomarker of both Hg exposure and susceptibility to Hg toxicity.
3- Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006 Jan-Feb;28(1):39-48. Epub 2005 Dec 15.
The association between a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase, dental mercury exposure and neurobehavioral response in humans.
Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman D, Farin FM, Li T, Garabedian CE.
Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98109, United States; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
We previously described a polymorphism in exon 4 of the gene encoding the heme biosynthetic pathway enzyme, coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX4), which significantly modifies the effect of mercury exposure on urinary porphyrin excretion in humans. Here, we examined potential consequences of this polymorphism (“CPOX4”) on performance within neurobehavioral domains, symptoms, and mood that are known to be affected by elemental mercury (Hg degrees) exposure in human subjects. A behavioral test battery was administered on the day of urine and buccal cell collections for 194 male dentists (DDs) and 233 female dental assistants (DAs) occupationally exposed to Hg degrees for an average of 19 and 10 years, respectively. Subjects had no history of health disorders and were employed for a minimum of 5 years in the dental profession. Respective mean urinary mercury (HgU) levels in DDs and DAs were 3.32 (4.87) mug/l and 1.98 (2.29) mug/l. Corresponding indices of chronic occupational Hg degrees exposure, weighted for historical exposure, were 27.1 (20.6) and 15.2 (12.3). The frequencies of the homogygous common (A/A), heterozygous (A/C), and homozygous polymorphic (C/C) genotypes were 75%, 23% and 2% for DDs and 73%, 25%, and 2% for DAs, respectively. DDs and DAs were evaluated separately. Regression analyses controlled for age, premorbid intelligence, alcohol consumption, and education. Statistically significant associations with HgU (p
“The heavy metal that is poisoning this generation is the greed for gold by the Hg parents and unethical ‘scientists’.”
Yes. Dr. Hertz-Picciotto asked Dr. Jan Buitelaar, a scientist from The Netherlands if they had had an increase in autism in The Netherlands in the past few years. He looked at her like, “What are you talking about?” And said, ‘No. We haven’t seen an increase, but we have had better diagnosis and a wider definition of autism”
Yeah. And Lenny Schafer said that they had had an epidemic in the Netherlands. uhuh. Lenny? You shoulda been there. You could have called Buitelaar a pharmco shill or something. The “Fombonne is the antichrist” mercury dad was there, he didn’t ask any questions after the first presentation. I couldn’t stay for the second one. It looked like the mercury dad had left, after the first part, but maybe he came back and told Dr. Buitelaar that he was lying about the epidemic in Holland, because Lenny knows.
Buitelaar did a study on what he called dysregulated attachment (where the child has an upredictable reaction to the mother leaving him with a stranger for a few minutes – most kids react more or less the same way each time – defining this behavior as “attachment” is controversial). Buitelaar made a very strong point that he did not think autism was an attachment disorder (good thing) but he wanted to see if the kids within the autism group had different ways of showing “attachment” and if this correlated with how “autistic” they were. It’s kind of weird, the less “joint attention” the child showed, the more likely he was to be “dysregulated” in his “attachment” behavior.
But the really cool thing is that Buitelaar said the difference between the kids might be because of the way the parents interact with the kids, that some parents do a good job of “accomodating” their child’s disability and some don’t. He implied that maybe the autistic parents of autistic children weren’t so good at interacting with their kids. I would say that it’s just as likely that the NT parents aren’t so good at accomodating their children’s style of communication. But that might be easy to find in a study…
Still, it’s great to see the focus on parental behavior because usually parents (I’m one) are given a totally free ride, it’s not possible that they are to blame for any of the child’s problems, not ever, lest the ghost of Bettleheim rise from the dead and strangle you for implying that they are less than perfect all the time.
I used to think my mom was telling tall tales when she described how little I slept as a toddler. When I started complaining how daughter 2 slept only 4 hours a night, she had a good laugh. “I wished you a repeat of yourself and you got it!” She tried sleeping drops on me (1961 or so), but they made me hyper. So she let me sleep in their bed, the only thing that worked, just as I did 40 years later.
Ms. Clark,
“Shattuck is talking school numbers ”
From Shattuck’s study:
Recent reports from California’s statewide program of services (not public schools) for people with developmental disabilities have found no corresponding decline in the prevalence of other disability categories. This finding has been used to dismiss the possibility that a process of diagnostic substitution may be partly responsible for the rapid growth in the administrative prevalence of autism across the country.
California’s special education and state service trends seem to mirror one another
“Both sets of data a hideously inadequate for tracking prevalence/incidence. Both agencies have said, “don’t use our numbers for epidemiology.â€
“But that doesn’t stop the mercury parents.”
Nor does it seem to stop Kev, Joseph and many others who attempt to use it for their own epidemiologic purposes.
“But the MIND is planning on studying many autistic toddlers in the next few years. Hundreds of them.”
“Surely, it will be easy to see if thimerosal played a part in the autism of this bunch.”
Hopefully it will be easy. I’m glad you are in agreement that the data we have today is not sufficient to answer the question.
_”Nor does it seem to stop Kev, Joseph and many others who attempt to use it for their own epidemiologic purposes.”_
Not so David. I don’t claim the CDDS data establishes or disproves anything. We first got involved with this idea as a consequence of Rick Rollens continued misrepresentations. What we said was _using the same data_ as Rollens we could demonstrate that the opposite to his (and Kirby’s) beliefs could be demonstrated.
That said, there should have been a _huge_ actual fall in numbers by now. By last year in fact.
Regarding the “trace” amounts of thimerosal still in vaccines…
I accept the fact that there is less mercury in shots today than there was in the 90’s. But we have no data to tell us how much ethyl mercury is safe. And it is certainly feasible that ethyl mercury in combination with aluminum is more toxic than each administered individually. And we still have other ingredients and live viruses. This is why I want to see more biological research and epidemiological research that would compare a vaccinated population to an unvaccinated one.
And there is no reason to assume that ethyl is somehow safer than methyl. That logic is based on how quickly the mercury is cleared from the blood but Burbacher’s study has told us that we also need to consider the amount of inorganic mercury in the brain.
So no offense Kev & Joseph and anyone else that wants to draw conclusions based on this quarter’s CDDS data…. I think you are wasting your time and are guilty of some of the same mistakes that you commonly accuse others of.
It’s interesting that I don’t see any discussions from your side about the biological studies and potential treatments. I thought there were some interesting abstracts at IMFAR but most of the focus from your side is on those abstracts that argue against mercury as a cause. You may have already seen this since it was posted on EOH but here is a link to a paper published by Martha Herbert where she makes a case for autism being genetically influenced and systemic.
Click to access herbert_autism_brain_or_affecting_brain_final.pdf
DH: It’s interesting that I don’t see any discussions from your side about the biological studies and potential treatments. I thought there were some interesting abstracts at IMFAR but most of the focus from your side is on those abstracts that argue against mercury as a cause.
Why is that interesting? Start a discussion if you’d like and I’ll be happy to jump in. Which abstract(s) did you find interesting?
re: Herbert paper, nice review as usual but I didn’t see anything new there. Did I miss something?
David H. wrote “Nor does it seem to stop Kev, Joseph and many others who attempt to use it for their own epidemiologic purposes.”
Buy always with the actual or implied caveat, that we are showing why these data are inadequate or how they are different from controlled epidemiology.
David H. wrote “It’s interesting that I don’t see any discussions from your side about the biological studies and potential treatments.”
You are new on this board and on some of the others you have participated in. The Geiers and Shattuck and company, have caused quite a kurfufel as of late.
You have not seen some of the earlier discussions. Most of us who frequent here have spent a lot of time on discussing the bio based stuff.
If you have a specific idea/concept/point of contention, bring it up.
But we have no data to tell us how much ethyl mercury is safe.
How do we define safe, David?
Remember, you guys are claiming the “epidemic” was caused by increased thimerosal.
Thus, presumeably the pre-“epidemic” levels are “safe”, at least in the sense of not causing an epidemic.
So why hasn’t it gone away?
“Remember, you guys are claiming the “epidemic†was caused by increased thimerosal.”
That’s the message that gets the most publicity but in addition to more thimerosal there were more shots in general and at younger ages.
That logic is based on how quickly the mercury is cleared from the blood but Burbacher’s study has told us that we also need to consider the amount of inorganic mercury in the brain.
Sort of. There’s no real evidence that illustrates inorganic mercury “trapped” in the brain is harmful, much less causes specific damage that would result in autism and nothing else. (like more pervasive CNS conditions) I’d also like to see that study replicated with more than just a handful of primates.
On the flip side, we DO know that methylmercury that hangs around in the body as long as it does can cause all sorts of systemic damage. That really isn’t in dispute.
Mouse wrote:
“On the flip side, we DO know that methylmercury that hangs around in the body as long as it does can cause all sorts of systemic damage. That really isn’t in dispute”.
– Right. Methlymercury is totally unsafe. Ethylmercury… continue to jab it into children in the name of health. What the hell? Do you realize how foolish you sound?
Insulin….continue to jab it into children in the name of health. What the hell? Do you realize how foolish you sound?
Air, Food, and Water…continue to breathe, eat, and drink in the name of health. What the hell? Do you realize how foolish you sound?
I’l just content myself with: Do you realize how foolish you sound?
From David H:
“But we have no data to tell us how much ethyl mercury is safe.”
Ah, but we do! At least, according to the “autism epidemic” hypothesis, we do. All we have to do – according to the people who blame thimerosal (and aluminum, if you like) for the “epidemic” in autism diagnosis – is look back at what children were getting before the “autism epidemic” started.
So, if we accept that this alleged “epidemic” started at or slightly before 1985 in the US, then the amount of thimerosal and other vaccine adjuvants that is “safe” would be the amount children were receiving back in 1980 (moving back 5 years, just to be safe).
This happens to be far more than children were receiving starting in 2002 – even if you include the totally optional influenza vaccine. And, let’s not forget that environmental exposure was higher – for mercury and lead – 25 years ago.
Continuing from David H:
“And it is certainly feasible that ethyl mercury in combination with aluminum is more toxic than each administered individually.”
While it is feasible, it hasn’t been demonstrated. It is equally likely that aluminum in conjunction with ethyl mercury is less toxic. Until someone does the studies, we won’t know. However, considering that aluminum was used as an adjuvant in vaccines well before the 1980’s, the “autistism epidemic” hypothesis would be inconsistent with the idea that aluminum accentuates the “autismogenic” properties of ethyl mercury.
The problem is that many things that are possible or feasible are also unlikely or improbable. It is feasible that autism is caused by parents who are quick to blame their children’s disorders on malignant external factors, but (fortunately) the numbers don’t support that hypothesis.
Prometheus
Clone wrote:
“Insulin….continue to jab it into children in the name of health. What the hell? Do you realize how foolish you sound”?
– Tell me you are not comparing insulin with ethylmercury?
Kev wrote:
“I’l just content myself with: Do you realize how foolish you sound”?
– No, I don’t. Care to show me a few of my foolish statements?
_”No, I don’t. Care to show me a few of my foolish statements?”_
Sure, just look for comments signed ‘Sue M.’
Kev wrote:
“Sure, just look for comments signed ‘Sue M”.
– I took a look and found no foolish statements. Nice try, though 🙂
Tell me you are not comparing insulin with ethylmercury?
Thimerosal Sue, not ethylmercury, but why not? How are they different?
Clone wrote:
“Thimerosal Sue, not ethylmercury, but why not? How are they different”?
– Ah, Clone, it’s pretty clear to me … not to you? Really? Are you THAT ignorant?
Yes I am THAT ignorant. Please enlighten me. Why shouldn’t we compare thimerosal containing vaccines with insulin?
Clone wrote:
“Yes I am THAT ignorant. Please enlighten me. Why shouldn’t we compare thimerosal containing vaccines with insulin”?
– At least you can admit your ignorance. Without insulin my daughter with type 1 diabetes would die within a few days. She would die, no question about it. Thimerosal containing vaccinations are not a necessity, Clone. Surely you know that. Even if you want to argue that the vaccines themselves are necessary, the thimerosal is not. It’s pretty simple Clone… no comparison.
One could easily argue that thimerosal as a preservative has saved lives Sue. You know insulin includes preservatives too right? Would you mind if it carried the risk of bacterial or fungal contamination?
Anyway, some people consider vaccines a necessity even if you don’t so other than your opinion regarding necessity, how are two life-saving medical products any different?
You know there are some alternative medical practitioners who can probably cure your daughter’s insulin dependence using herbs and vitamins and stuff. Would you be offended if I recommended that you change your pharmacentric treatment plan and bring her to one of these real scientists? Would it bother you if I spread lies about diabetics?
Clone wrote:
“One could easily argue that thimerosal as a preservative has saved lives Sue”.
– Of course, I will argue that it also probably contributed to the greater incidences of autism. So, you go ahead and argue what you want, as will I. The point is Clone… there is no need for thimerosal any longer.
Clone wrote:
“You know insulin includes preservatives too right? Would you mind if it carried the risk of bacterial or fungal contamination”?
– Yes, I do and thank God it isn’t preserved with thimerosal. I’m quite sure my kid would be dead by now. That being said, you’re missing the point… I have no choice, Clone. No options other than insulin or the death of my child. Of course we have other options other than thimerosal. It’s just so simple, I’m not sure how you are missing it.
Clone wrote:
“You know there are some alternative medical practitioners who can probably cure your daughter’s insulin dependence using herbs and vitamins and stuff”.
– Show me some cured kids and I’ll look into it. Otherwise, we are doing perfectly well now.
Clone wrote:
“Would you be offended if I recommended that you change your pharmacentric treatment plan and bring her to one of these real scientists”?
– Offended no. You are ignorant to type 1 diabetes. It happens all the time. I’m used to the ignorance. It doesn’t bother me. For example, I’ve had people who have said “wow, your child is so thin, I can’t believe she has diabetes”. Or, “Did she become diabetic because she ate too much sugar”. It just goes with the territory.
SueM: “Show me some cured kids and I’ll look into it. Otherwise, we are doing perfectly well now.”
Well, we could say exactly the same about autistic kids ourselves, couldn’t we?
David wrote:
“Well, we could say exactly the same about autistic kids ourselves, couldn’t we”?
– Except that there have been children who have improved greatly (if not cured). You won’t acknowledge them or you’ll chalk it up to coincidence but that’s where more research and tracking of these kids could help. Also, as you should know (but it may not be your experience) there are many autistic children who are not doing well physically. Many are sick and aren’t being treated properly… luckily, my daughter is on a proper medical treatment with doctors who understand her medical issues and who care about her well being… the same can’t be said of many autistic children.
SueM: “– Except that there have been children who have improved greatly (if not cured).”
You mean that development has occurred, which can be expected in any child!
“You won’t acknowledge them or you’ll chalk it up to coincidence but that’s where more research and tracking of these kids could help.”
Research has been done on this, due to be published in the very near future. Not revealing details here since this one is Simon Baron-Cohen’s teams work, but I can tell you that I was very closely involved with the project. Even autistic children develop, without any need for things like chelation.
“Also, as you should know (but it may not be your experience) there are many autistic children who are not doing well physically.”
From research and practice and personal experience, I know this. Coeliac issues run (excuse inadvertant pun) in my family. But that is a side issue which may or may not occur in an autistic child. It is not diagnostic of, and should not be confused with, autism… which is where I really have a problem with Krigsman and with Wakefield (the latter especially, since his original study was in fact Heller’s syndrome…).
“Many are sick and aren’t being treated properly… luckily, my daughter is on a proper medical treatment with doctors who understand her medical issues and who care about her well being… the same can’t be said of many autistic children.”
Yes it can. Except in cases where parents are having their children chelated under the completely false belief that autismHg-poisoning. Autism is not actually a medical issue: it is a developmental one, and is best dealt with educationally.
Sue M. Bleever: Show me some cured kids and I’ll look into it. Otherwise, we are doing perfectly well now.
Followed by: Except that there have been children who have improved greatly (if not cured).
Ditto IDDM Sue. Show me the cured auties and I’ll show you some recovered diabetics.
Offended no. You are ignorant to type 1 diabetes.
Am I less ignorant than you? Can you please describe the first step in the autoimmune destruction of beta cells? (You know, before the cells are targeted by neurotoxic mercury.)
It happens all the time. I’m used to the ignorance. It doesn’t bother me…. It just goes with the territory.
No Sue, it doesn’t just come with the territory. Ignorance is perpetuated by ignorant people. People who think they know what they are talking about but have no experience with your children and their condition. If you take the time to educate ignorant people you can help eliminate some of the ignorance, mis-information, and hurtful lies.
Of course there is always the chance you will be met by opposition from stubborn activist trolls who are perfectly willing to throw your kids under the bus as long as it serves their radical agenda, in which case you may find yourself baffled and frustrated by endless circular discussions, bigoted and insensitive comments, and none too subtle innuendo or threats.
So well said, it bears repeating:
“Of course there is always the chance you will be met by opposition from *stubborn activist trolls who are perfectly willing to throw your kids under the bus* as long as it serves their radical agenda, in which case you may find yourself baffled and frustrated by endless circular discussions, bigoted and insensitive comments, and none too subtle innuendo or threats.”
This I know only too, too well….
Just so that SueM gets what I meant clearly:
“Many are sick and aren’t being treated properly… luckily, my daughter is on a proper medical treatment with doctors who understand her medical issues and who care about her well being… the same can’t be said of many autistic children.â€
Yes it can. Except in cases where parents are having their children chelated under the completely false belief that autism (here, I’d inserted a mathematical symbol meaning “is the same as”) Hg poisoning. Autism is not actually a medical issue: it is a developmental one, and is best dealt with educationally.
David N,
“Autism is not actually a medical issue: it is a developmental one, and is best dealt with educationally.”
There are several abstracts from the upcoming IMFAR conference in June that focus on inflammation, immune disorders, oxidative stress and GI disorders in autistics that are not commonly found in neurotypical people. Martha Herbert states “Autism has been modeled as a brain-based, strongly genetic disorder, but emerging findings and hypotheses support a broader model of the condition as genetically influenced and systemic.”
Click to access herbert_autism_brain_or_affecting_brain_final.pdf
My opinion is that autism is best dealt with both medically and educationally.