For some time now, John (aka ForeSam to the uninitiated) has been crying that he’s been banned from this blog and been using that ban as an excuse. I’ve decided to call his bluff.
For this thread, and this thread only, John will be free to argue, debate, insult, rage, pontificate and generally be the John Best we know and love.
In this thread will be discussing the following:
1) John’s belief that Eli Lilly invented autism in 1931. John says autism did not exist before Jan 1st 1931.
2) John’s belief that all autism is mercury poisoning from thiomersal in vaccines.
3) John’s belief that there was no autism in China prior to 1999. John says autism did not exist in China until Jan 1st 1999.
4) John’s role as speaker at mercury militia marches and his position with Generation Rescue
5) John’s opinion on homosexuality, which he believes is ‘a perversion’, and his subsequent opinion of David Kirby.
6) John’s belief that as an adult male, fist fighting with his eight year old autistic son is a sign of good parenting.
7) John’s belief that there has been an epidemic of autism.
8) John’s belief that because Dan Olmsted didn’t find any autistic Amish, this proves thiomersal causes autism.
9) John’s belief that it is acceptable to state that women he disagree’s with should be ‘horsewhipped’
10) John’s belief that phoning people he disagree’s with at their homes to abuse with them is acceptable.
11) John’s belief that the word ‘muslim’ is interchangable with the word ‘terrorist’.
Go for it. Either now, or wait for the man himself to defend himself. Just remember that John is typical member of the thiomersal/autim connection. I of course am open to correction on that from other believers of the thiomersal/autism connection along with an explanation of why.
Also remember John is a fully ‘paid up’ Generation Rescue Rescue Angel and his views on _all_ the above should be taken as representative of that organisation, unless of course, anyone from that org would like to deny John’s involvement with them on record.
Left Brain Right Brain 
What I learned from JBjr:
Rescue Angels are very unhappy abusive people. Most aren’t too intelligent either. Calling people braindamaged just because they disagree with one’s view is hardly a mark of being the brightest crayon in the box.
What a sad life. Maybe we should cure him.
Kreml:
You can read about Tim Ziegewied’s EoH based call to abuse of Lisa randall here and you can read John’s threat to Lisa over on Dr Flea’s blog here in which he states:
_”Should I have Tim call you again to teach you some basics about autism that you’re incapable of understanding?”_
The fist fighting thing: John thinks that teaching his autistic son to fight will make him not a ‘pussy’.
You can read a lot of John’s thoughts on Josephs blog here including the line:
_”Any decent father teaches his sons how to fight. Otherwise, they might grow up to be pussies”_
That link references _many_ of John’s quotes. But I’m sure he’ll come on here and verify them for himself.
OK, in John’s absence I’m going to start by tackling point number one in my list:
*John says that autism did not exist before Jan 1st 1931 and that it (autism) was invented by Eli Lilly*
(No sniggering at the back now)
John is a big fan of anecdotal evidence. He regularly claims that he ‘knows’ cured children and that he ‘knows’ chelation is curing his son. In a similar vein then I offer my own anecdotal evidence.
My great Uncle and great Aunt were both born before 1920. Both were on the spectrum. My great uncle was diagnosed with ‘classic’ (Kanners) autism and my great aunt was AS.
Thus using John’s own method of establishing facts, I have ‘proven’ the existence of autism before 1931.
What’s that? You want peer reviewed evidence John? Oh well – if you insist:
_”The article……provid[es] information about children with autism before the condition was formally named in 1943.”_
In fact the paper identifies autism as far back as the 1880’s, over 50 years before thiomersal was put into vaccines.
Well, the author must be one of those whackjob Neuro(sic)diverse right?
In fact, the author is Paul Shattock, friend and confidant of Andrew Wakefield.
I’d like to ask that commenters ‘hang fire’ until John responds to these points.
Over to you John.
There were defensemen who scored goals, skated well and killed power plays before Bobby Orr. That doesn’t make them Bobby Orr. Kanner told us this autism had never been seen before. That excludes all of these people who may have had some autistic symptoms.
You have not given any guess as to why your 19th century “autistics” had the condition. Even a guess on your part would be helpful. I’ll have to assume it was due to English inbreeding and probably the start of the fragile X condition. Of course, I don’t know if these people were hatmakers or worked in some other industry that may have given them mercury poisoning. I don’t know if their parents were drunks and the kids really had fetal alcohol syndrome which could be misdiagnosed as autism especially if someone did not have this information when diagnosing posthumously.
You didn’t tell us a lot about your relatives. Could they talk? Did they smear feces? Could they cross the street without help? Were they just anti-social? Were they drug addicts who weren’t comfortable in the company of sober people? Did they have “gut” problems? Were they vaccinated after 1931?
Have to go deal with kids. I’ll be back later.
_”There were defensemen who scored goals, skated well and killed power plays before Bobby Orr. That doesn’t make them Bobby Orr.”_
And your point is….? We’re not talking about someone being good at sport, we’re talking about whether or not someone fulfills the criteria for a medical diagnosis. These children did. In 1880. For autism.
_”Kanner told us this autism had never been seen before. That excludes all of these people who may have had some autistic symptoms.”_
Why? Kanner also said that people who were parents of autistic kids were cold, emotionally distant parents. Do you subscribe to all his opinions or just the ones that support your beliefs?
Here’s an interesting story John:
_”Scientists who went shopping recently at an Asian food market got more than they bargained for—a rodent unknown to science….”_
Now, in your opinion, was that rodent there _before_ the scientists turned up….or did it spring fully formed into existence at the very second those scientists entered that market?
_”You have not given any guess as to why your 19th century “autistics†had the condition.”_
Thats irrelevent John. You say that there was no autism prior to 1931. Thats it. I just showed you you were wrong. if you want to talk about how those autistic people got that condition we can do that later. For now, we’re talking about when autism started. Full stop.
_”I’ll have to assume it was due to English inbreeding and probably the start of the fragile X condition. Of course, I don’t know if these people were hatmakers or worked in some other industry that may have given them mercury poisoning. I don’t know if their parents were drunks and the kids really had fetal alcohol syndrome which could be misdiagnosed as autism especially if someone did not have this information when diagnosing posthumously.”_
Again, thats all irrelevant John. We’re talking about at what point autism can be established to have existed. Children meeting the DSM(IV) criteria existed in 1880. It really is that simple. If you want to talk about why they might’ve been autistic we can do that later. Right now we’re talking about when autism existed.
_”You didn’t tell us a lot about your relatives.”_
What does that matter? Using your fact establishing methods of simple assertion, I have proved the existence of autistic people before 1931. How they got that way is irrelevant right now.
What about the Scientologists? They don’t vaccinate so they shouldn’t have any autistic children right? There’s a population for Olmsted to ‘study’
“They were certainly geniuses, but did Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton also have autism? According to autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen, they might both have shown many signs of Asperger syndrome, a form of the condition that does not cause learning difficulties.
Although he admits that it **is impossible to make a definite diagnosis for someone who is no longer living**, Baron-Cohen says he hopes this kind of analysis can shed light on why some people with autism excel in life, while others struggle.”
And
“Glen Elliott, a psychiatrist from the University of California at San Francisco, is not convinced. He says **attempting to diagnose on the basis of biographical information is extremely unreliable, and points out that any behaviour can have various causes**. He thinks being highly intelligent would itself have shaped Newton and Einstein’s personalities.”
see http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=3079018dn3676
One cannot diagnose retrospectivey. It is purely speculation.
_”One cannot diagnose retrospectivey. It is purely speculation.”_
Not so. These kids were studied via case notes from a reputable London Hospital still in existence today. This wasn’t speculation about famous people or based on biographical information. The Shattock team took the case studies of these kids and compared their described symptoms to the DSM criteria – bingo!
Or, how about this from Dr Darold Treffert of the Wisconsin Medical Society. He came across the notes of Dr Landon Down (who gave Down’s Syndrome its name). Dr Landon Down described some of the kids in his care in the following ways:
_”world of their own,” talking in the “third person,” being in a “dreamland,””echolalia,””self-contained and self-absorbed,” “automatic and rhythmical movements,” a countenance and “repose of brightness and intelligence,” lack of “physical features” of retardation, “no response in words,””_
Sound familiar?
Too bad I need to go out of town for the rest of the week. This will be a quote fest. About autism in China before 1999, I recommend searching Pubmed for ‘autism china’ and ‘autism chinese’ – go to the last page. There’s one study titled ‘Infantile Autism in China’, but I haven’t found the abstract or the article. There are a number of other articles that clearly indicate that a diagnosis of autism did exist in China before 1999.
“One cannot diagnose retrospectivey. It is purely speculation.â€
Diagnoses of autism (except for Fragile-X, Rett syndrome, etc.) are inherently subjective. Diagnosing from biographies, employment evaluations and such is really not that different to a regular diagnosis.
Clone 3g – I think it’s the Christian Scientists who don’t vaccinate (or do any other kind of medical care, if they can avoid it). I believe the thought is that illness is a sign of spiritual weakness, so what we would think of as symptoms of illness are actually symptoms of needing more prayer.
Which illustrates, from my lay perspective at least, one of the many flaws in a simplistic up-or-down approach: Christian Scientists would be disinclined to entertain the possibility that their children were autistic, because that would be an admission that they’d been insufficiently trained in the faith, so those children are vastly less likely to be taken to developmental pediatricians or early intervention specialists or special ed programs, particularly in cases that could be equivocal. I think this is what is known as differential health care seeking behavior, and it would be a serious confounder in the type of study suggested by the likes of Carolyn Maloney. Of course, if one tried to control for it statistically, one would be accused of cooking the data by those whose interests (financial and otherwise) are served by the autism-mercury hypothesis.
Kev said
“The Shattock team took the case studies of these kids and compared their described symptoms to the DSM criteria – bingo”
Have you a link for this?
Also,
“Dr Landon Down described **some of the kids** in his care in the following ways:
“world of their own,†talking in the “third person,†being in a “dreamland,â€â€œecholalia,â€â€œself-contained and self-absorbed,†“automatic and rhythmical movements,†a countenance and “repose of brightness and intelligence,†lack of “physical features†of retardation, “no response in words,—
How many children is he talking about? – out of a case load of how many? I’m just curious – no view either way yet.
_”Have you a link for this?”_
As above – link goes through to aut.sagepub
_”How many children is he talking about? – out of a case load of how many? I’m just curious – no view either way yet.”_
I don’t think Treffert reported on case load at all – just gave more of an overview of LD’s reports. The link is upthread, but if you missed it click here.
Lisa – both you and Clone are right :o) John Travolta is refusing to admit his child is autistic:
_”The couple cannot even publicly admit that their son is afflicted with a neurological disorder, lest – according to the incontrovertible doctrine of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard – he be labeled a “degraded being†that brought his affliction onto himself…. Scientology will not even recognize the disability, let alone the myriad therapies for treating it,”_
link
Awful.
Kev;
I apologize for using an analogy that was over your head. I could have used Secretariat but you probably wouldn’t have understood that either.
Something never seen before means exactly that. Kanner’s assertion was not just a different term for an existing condition. He was not including previously diagnosed people with mental retardation in with the autistics he discovered. He didn’t figure out that the condition was really mercury poisoning but that is what he discovered.
Your claim that the cause of the autism is irrelevant is ludicrous. Fragile X and Rhett’s may be lumped in with autism but we know them as distinguishable from mercury poisoning. It would be important to learn if these 19th century people were so afflicted or not.
We know Asperger’s as a lesser form of autism, probably just less susceptibility to mercury poisoning. It could also be simply weirdness in the case of those adults who diagnose themselves as adults. They are able to talk and learn which makes that condition different from the kids who can’t do those things. You’re associated with a bunch of people with Asperger’s and have accepted their views on autism when their condition is much different than your kid’s who can not speak. How do you know they aren’t simply intelligent people who are socially inept and jumped on the Asperger’s diagnosis as an excuse for this fault? Some of them claim to be able to pass themselves off as normal. This proves they have the ability to correct that fault to some extent. My kid can’t correct that fault along with millions of others who are just like him.
Maybe if we used the acronym MP for mercury poisoning which is what Kanner found it would be easier to discuss the other variations of autism. Your 19th century stuff could’ve been MP or it could’ve been one of the genetic forms or something else with similar symptoms. Maybe it was a genetic condition that is now non-existent. The cause may not be important to you but it is to those of us who want to help our kids.
_”Something never seen before means exactly that. Kanner’s assertion was not just a different term for an existing condition.”_
Except that the _anecdotal_ evidence of my own family and the _scientific_ evidence of Shattock et al demonstrates that you are incorrect. People matching the DSM criteria were in existence in the 1880’s. And what do we call people matching the DSM criteria….thats _right_ John…autistic. Good boy!
_”Your claim that the cause of *the autism* is irrelevant is ludicrous.”_
So it _is_ autism? Thank you for that admittance :o)
_”Fragile X and Rhett’s may be lumped in with autism but we know them as distinguishable from mercury poisoning. It would be important to learn if these 19th century people were so afflicted or not.”_
Rhett’s is a form of autism John.
Oh and hey – about all those people who might have been hat makers etc….who said this John:
_”I view any talk of mercury in the air as a problem as utter nonsense. It’s just propaganda to deflect blame from pharma and I don’t buy one word of it.”_
So you believe talk of mercury that doesn’t originate from ‘pharma’ as utter nonsense. Well, OK, we’ll play by your rules then….
Just to reiterate. These kids from the 1880’s, diagnosed by autism specialists, from case studies from a renowned London Hospital have symptoms that meet the DSM diagnostic criteria. You can call it mercury if you like (except that you view that as ‘utter nonsense’ as they _can’t_ have been vaccinated with thiomersal) or you can call it genetic, or Ronald McDonald. I don’t care. They existed. In 1880. They were autistic.
_” The cause may not be important to you but it is to those of us who want to help our kids.”_
Forget the appeals to emotion Johnny. We can do that later as I said. Now, stop twisting and wriggling.
1) You view talk of autism from any other source of mercury than vaccines as ‘utter nonsense’.
2) Kids from 1880, before thiomersal was added to vaccines meet the DSM diagnostic criteria.
Reconcile those two positions John.
I’ve been interested in Kanner re the Nazi extermination programme. Is it possible that he claimed that there had been nothing like these kids before to save them from the T4 programme? I’ve no idea where he sits politically, but in terms of time and place it’s certainly something he’d have to deal with.
If some autism is ‘English inbreeding’ why doesn’t it happen to the inbred Amish?
Kevin;
How convenient of you to cut out part of my exchange with Tim. Of course, the point was that there was no autism epidemic when the country was largely heated by coal and a lot more mercury was floating around. That just makes the point that the mercury injected via vaccines is much more dangerous that the miniscule ammount that could find its’ way into a body through the air.
If kids from 1880 meet the criteria, it’s important to find out why. You don’t claim Mad Hatter’s Disease did not exist. Did Kanner know about these kids? If they were exposed to mercury and Kanner knew it, he might have made the connection. We might have had thimerosal out of vaccines back in the 40’s and avoided this whole epidemic.
It looks like you’re the one wos wriggling when you won’t address the cause of the autism. Any scientist would want to know that. What if the 1880 kids got kicked in the head by horses causing brain damage. Wouldn’t that be an important differentiation?
Kev wrote,
“Except that the anecdotal evidence of my own family and the scientific evidence of Shattock et al demonstrates that you are incorrect. People matching the DSM criteria were in existence in the 1880’s”
Paul Shattock is not the author – he is the author’s thesis advisor.
Here is an except from the article:
**”It is always difficult to pass judgement on medical conditions affecting individuals one has not examined in person, no matter how detailed the records about the patient may be, and regardless of one’s own scope of knowledge. Just as other researchers have attributed autistic traits to historical figures ranging from Victor of Aveyron (Wing, 1976) to Albert Einstein (Katz, 2000), there is a strong case for correlation between the symptoms exhibited by Ralph, George, and Ida and modern diagnostic criteria for autism. In the absence of further information, however, alternative explanations are always possible.”**
Another part states:
**”He had also caught measles recently, recovering just 4 weeks before admission. Although it is not explicitly stated, it is possible that his symptoms worsened following this bout with measles, causing his parents to make the costly journey to London for medical treatment. As George’s symptoms had been evident for a long time, it is reasonable to expect that something triggered his admission at this time.”**
(www.richardgwhite.com)
One needs to exercise care when trying to use old documents/cases to prove or disprove a point.
_”How convenient of you to cut out part of my exchange with Tim. Of course, the point was that there was no autism epidemic when the country was largely heated by coal and a lot more mercury was floating around. That just makes the point that the mercury injected via vaccines is much more dangerous that the miniscule ammount that could find its’ way into a body through the air.”_
It may or may not well do John. However, you copntinue to evade the point. The point I’m repeatedly making is that you claim autism did not exist before 1931. I’m saying to you that, whatever the cause, it did. We can talk about cause another time. All we’re talking about now is…when was autism first established? So far we’re back to 1880.
_”It looks like you’re the one wos wriggling when you won’t address the cause of the autism.”_
As I’ve said to you at least four times….we can discuss causation another time. What we’re addressing now is your statement that autism did not exist before 1931.
_”What if the 1880 kids got kicked in the head by horses causing brain damage. Wouldn’t that be an important differentiation?”_
Er, no. It would be brain damage.
_”Paul Shattock is not the author – he is the author’s thesis advisor.”_
The report is titled:
_”Autistic Disorder in Nineteenth-century London: Three Case Reports. Waltz and Shattock Autism.2004″_
Thats good enough for me.
_”One needs to exercise care when trying to use old documents/cases to prove or disprove a point.”_
Your quotes demonstrate…what?
_”there is a strong case for correlation between the symptoms exhibited by Ralph, George, and Ida and modern diagnostic criteria for autism. In the absence of further information, however, alternative explanations are always possible”_
Couple that with their abstract that:
_”The article……provid[es] information about children with autism before the condition was formally named in 1943.”_
and they seem pretty convinced and pretty convincing to me.
If one assumes that autism had been described by physicians since Victorian times, or earlier, (although the term autism not used), why then, when Kanner and Asperger delivered their first papers documenting autism as a new phenomenom did other physicians not say, “Steady on chaps, this is not new – go and look at the work of X,Y and Z written in 1900, 1920 and 1930”?
Maybe there is work from earlier in the 20th century and I’ve missed it. I don’t know – but it’s possible.
Kev;
I’ll borrow from Lenny and use the autism apples and autism oranges. Autism MP did not exist before 1931. I’ll grant that symptoms similar to autism MP may have existed but this was not Kanner’s autism. For all you know, all of those people MAY have been kicked in the head by horses. You didn’t deny that your relatives were feces smearing drug adicts with gut problems so I’ll assume that was the case. We need to know more Kevin, than just your say so that they were autistic. Describe the alleged autism and give us some background on them.
_”If one assumes that autism had been described by physicians since Victorian times, or earlier, (although the term autism not used), why then, when Kanner and Asperger delivered their first papers documenting autism as a new phenomenom did other physicians not say, “Steady on chaps, this is not new – go and look at the work of X,Y and Z written in 1900, 1920 and 1930â€?”_
Well, in those days there was no email, pubmed etc. Asperger started diagnosing in a country the US/UK were at war with. Communication was not good. Kanner lived in a different country – in a different _continent_ to both Landon Down and Traffert’s Doc. Indeed, Treffert says that savant ability was also recognised in 1914 (Tredgold, AF: Mental Deficiency. New York, William Wood,1914)
Take the example of the rodent species I pointed out to John upthread. Just because something doesn’t _appear_ to be documented, or because the records weren’t available to study that doesn’t mean the condition/rodent doesn’t exist. It simply means no ones talking about it. Medscape make the same link.
Kev;
If the autism is the same now as it was in 1880, how come we don’t have posthumous descriptions for 1 in 166 people from 1880?
_”… but this was not Kanner’s autism.”_
_”We need to know more Kevin, than just your say so that they were autistic. Describe the alleged autism and give us some background on them.”_
John, I’m going to spell it out nice and slow……this is not my ‘say so’. This is peer reviewed science. Two autism specialists examined case histories and concluded that they discussed people who met the criteria for DSM diagnosis, thus establishing them as autistic.
Seriously – what don’t you get about that?
_”If the autism is the same now as it was in 1880, how come we don’t have posthumous descriptions for 1 in 166 people from 1880?”_
I’ll be happy to discuss this with you later also. Right now we’re talking about when autism started – or at least, was first documented.
M said: “If some autism is ‘English inbreeding’ why doesn’t it happen to the inbred Amish?”
It does. Source
Although in the full text you’ll learn that these Amish kids have autism that is secondary to a seizure disorder, they are most defnitely autistic by DSM-IV criteria.
At least we all agree that there is such a thing as autism. From clone3g’s comment, I checked up on what the Scientologists think about autism (remmber Tom Cruise’s rant against psychiatry?). Found this interesting story at Hollywood, Interrupted.
Any descriptions of mercury poisoning and related neurological damage before 1940?
I’m aware of a few case reports of psychosis brought on by neurosyphilis which was treated with arsenic and mercury before the advent of antibiotics, but no one described mercury poisoning as being similar to autism, as near as I can tell.
In the UK we don’t have anything for 1 in 166 people in 1880, beyond census data. You’re pre-NHS, pre-Llloyd George, and in an era where certain autistic traits (such as being withdrawn and non-communicative) would be accepted, and others hidden as being part of madness. We can look at well recorded indivuduals and make an intelligent guess at a diagnosis, but beyond that we’re in the dark. To take a non-autism example; we know enough about Alfred the Great to suggest that he suffered from Crohn’s Disease, but we don’t even know the names of some of his family. To say that simply because we know one individual we should be able to draw a prevalence shows a lack of knowledge of historical data.
Kev: “John, I’m going to spell it out nice and slow……this is not my ‘say so’. This is peer reviewed science.”
Waste of time, John. Total waste of time… we all know that JBJr doesn’t like peer-reviewed science, because it demonstrates that he is an imbecile. He likes anecdotal evidence because it cannot be challenged in the same way that peer-reviewed science can (a ploy which leaves him able to convince himself that he is right, despite the facts of the matter). He despises peer-reviewed science because it is able to demonstrate ways of working which are quack-ish as being quack-ish (such as chelation for autism, and so on) and can demonstrate that much of his belief system is inaccurate (because, eg, physical punishment and teaching his child to fight are two of a not-very-long list of factors with can contribute to delinquency in children rather than teaching the child to “not be a pussy”).
JBJr despises peer-reviewed science also because it shows the lie of the alarmist “Act Now!” exhortations of the quacks in whom his belief is more powerful and fierce than his belief in his god.
He truly is a man out of touch with the real world and, one day, that lack of reality testing ability will come looking for him and bite his arse big time.
I’m looking forward to reading the forensic reports on that one.
The scorecard so far:
Kevin’s basically cornered John on #1, and by proxy forced to John to admit that #2 isn’t really true. (once John went to L. Schafer’s apples-to-oranges card)
#3 is pretty laughable and easily refuted by a simple PubMed search. Studies that refute #8 are also available as well and have been posted in this thread.
#5 and #11 don’t concern me – if Best wants to be a bigot in other facets of life, that’s his prerogative. Doesn’t make his position on autism and mercury any more or less correct.
#6, #9 and #10 are personally troubling, but again, they don’t make Best’s position any more or less correct.
As to #4…John Best is a representative of Generation Rescue as long as he associates themselves with that organization. While it would behoove them to have far slicker spokespeople than Best and the “bull in a china shop” J.B. Handley, I am not at all surprised that Handley would take a liking to Mr. Fore Sam. Best is Handley’s heavy – the guy who makes the visceral threats while Handley goes to the lawyers and economic might card.
To conclude – the only thing that is legitimately debatable in all of the top-level comments is #7. Reasonable people disagree on the existence of an autism epidemic. However, few people believe that thimerosal in vaccines is its one and only cause.
Kevin;
Autism started in 1931. That’s what Kanner named in 1943. The other stuff is not autism. It’s fragile X, Rhett’s and Asperger’s but not autism or MP. That’s why you need to find the cause. The symptoms are similar but autism is that which was named by Kanner in 1943 as never having been seen and we now know that that autism is MP. That’s what makes those terms synonymous. Do you understand that or not? Ergo, if you can find me a case of autism from 206 AD and find that it was caused by mercury, then you can state that there was autism before 1931. If you can’t determine the cause, you can’t give it the correct name.
_”Autism started in 1931. That’s what Kanner named in 1943. The other stuff is not autism. “_
So you’re saying that the DSM criteria is useless for diagnosing autism? How was your child diagnosed John?
_”The symptoms are similar but autism is that which was named by Kanner in 1943 as never having been seen”_
No John, Kanner said never been _recorded_ – new to science, not new to human experience. Just like our rodent friend upthread.
_”and we now know that that autism is MP”_
We can come on to that later. We’re still talking about when autism existed for now – irrespective of cause.
Andrews;
Are we talking about science by the Geiers that was peer reviewed and helps children or are we talking about science paid for by drug companies that harms children? Was the safety study on thimerosal from 1929 peer reviewed? Do parents who have cured their kids need some drug company employee to come to their house and announce to the world that their kid is cured after his colleagues mull it over? Here’s where you need something you lack. It’s called common sense.
John, can you prove autism didn’t exist before Kanner named it? The word autistic was used before Kanner but not in the way we use it today. Kanner coined the term to describe something that fell into other categories prior to his work. So what? Language evolves even if you haven’t.
You tried to make the same argument for the absence of autism in China before 1999 and you were proven wrong.
I’ll say it again; The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Are we talking about science by the Geiers that was peer reviewed and helps children or are we talking about science paid for by drug companies that harms children?
Are we talking about the Geiers and their non-scientific patent applied for use of a dangerous pharmaceutical product that will surely harm children?
Kev;
I know it’s difficult for you to fight this losing battle. It’s obvious you don’t understand the difference between MP, Rhett’s, fragile X and kicks to the head from horses. That’s why you would not make a good diagnostician. Without making the differentiation, you would never be able to tell anyone how to cure the condition. MP is curable while fragile X, Rhett’s and horse kicks to the head are not. Am I getting any closer to making you understand? MP is autism. The other stuff is other stuff. Asperger’s is other stuff. Weirdness is other stuff. MP was invented by Lilly in 1931. Rare instances of mercury poisoning did exist, as in Mad Hatter’s but as rare as other instances of MP were, we can safely say that for all intents and purposes, MP or autism began when doctors started shooting mercury into people. So, to say that MP existed before 1931, you need to show that the person so afflicted was exposed to mercury. You have not done that which voids your position.
“Autism started in 1931.” blah blah blah
And the wheel turns round and round. Learning will not happen here because learning is not desired. You’re all talking to someone who doesn’t understand that which he espouses – APO(insert favorite even number) is a good example (johnny there’s a difference between a typo and just not knowing what the hell you’re talking about).
Blathering off talking points from GR’s website is what you’re gonna get. There will be no “oh, I suppose you could be right about that one, but what about this one” kind of give-and-take. In order for that to happen there would have to be some sort of cognitive processing taking place.
Brett– besides the hottie banner ad, what was I supposed to see? I’ll be experimenting with the Opera zoom feature, be back in a while.
MP or autism began when doctors started shooting mercury into people
Sorry John, doctors were prescribing mercury long before Lily formulated thimerosal. It was given in much higher doses and the neurological effects were well known and monitored. Do you understand? It wasn’t used to preserve medicine, IT WAS MEDICINE!
So you can argue that there is something unique about the structure of thimerosal or route of exposure but mercury poisoning always looked pretty much like mercury poisoning, not autism.
Dude, Hottie?
Kev wrote,
“Well, in those days there was no email, pubmed etc. Asperger started diagnosing in a country the US/UK were at war with. Communication was not good. Kanner lived in a different country – in a different continent to both Landon Down and Traffert’s Doc”
Are you really saying that an American physician publishing in the USA in 1943 would not be read by other American physicians?
Also, bear in mind that European scientists from approx 1500 AD (and before) kept in close contact with each other to share theories, views and ideas – notwithstanding the fact that they did not have Pubmed, email etc.
“APO” should read “APO (insert favorite even number)”
textile is not my friend – baffles me to be honest
Clone;
The doctors were not prescribing mercury at the age of three hours in doses considered safe for 400 pound adults. I’m not sure of the date but is 1906 accurate for the first Alzheimer’s diagnosis? Would that be in line with doctor induced mercury poisoning?
While I have the opportunity, I might as well clarify Kev’s point # 11. I have made comments about Muslim terrorists. I have never said all Muslims are terrorists or all terrorists are Muslims. I believe I did liken Neurodiversity to Muslim terrorists by way of harming children by taking sides with the drug companies. I hope I did not offend decent Muslims who are not terrorists. I also hope I did not offend any terrorists who are not Muslims.
Point #9. I disagree with my wife more often than I disagree with Kathleen Seidel. I do not horsewhip my wife because my wife does not write venomous attacks on decent scientists who are trying to help children. If my wife was writing such harmful junk, I woul;d contact DSS and have her declared an unfit parent, divorce her and take sole custody of my kids. Since I’m not married to Seidel, I can only suggest a good horsewhipping to bring her to her senses. I do not advocate horsewhipping other women who do not write junk that effectively harms poisoned children.
Best: The doctors were not prescribing mercury at the age of three hours in doses considered safe for 400 pound adults.
Right, this is a reference to HepB. So there shouldn’t be any autism before HepB was introduced?
I’m not sure of the date but is 1906 accurate for the first Alzheimer’s diagnosis? Would that be in line with doctor induced mercury poisoning?
Dr. Alois Alzheimer first decribed brain pathology and disease now known as Alzheimer’s in a patient that developed symptoms at least five years earlier. So Alzheimer’s Disease existed before it was called Alzheimer’s.
Mercury was used in medicine long before 1906. Abraham Lincoln took mercury based medicine but it made him cranky.
Point #10. After writing an article that was published in a newspaper, I received a bunch of phone calls at home. Some were negative and I think I only had to tell one idiot to go to hell. Loopy Lisa should not put her name in public if she can’t stand the criticism. I never called her. Others did and I agree with them. She deserved whatever calls she got.