After the launch of Put Children First, JB was flushed with pride at the mighty accomplishments of his lovely new website. So much so that he posted the following to the EoH group:
I have been watching the web hits on PutChildrenFirst.org. The most hits are from the CDC’s router. Hey CDC, go fuck yourself!! Lots of love, JB
Woah! Pretty impressive!
Except….lets delve a little into the murky geek-ridden world of web stats for a moment. What is a hit? Why do people think they are a good thing?
There is a common misconception that ‘a hit’ means a person has visited a site. Not so. A ‘hit’ refers to one _object_ on a page being accessed once. For example, if a user visits a page that contains 14 images and nothing else then 14 hits will be registered. If we wanted to get really worked up by ‘hits’ we could all add a million images to a web page and then as soon as one person visited that page – we’d have a million hits! – cool huh?
No, not really. I hope its clear why.
What’s worth getting excited over in terms of web statistics are _unique visitors_ . This refers to the amount of unique visitors that the site has received. Obviously, this is a much better indicator of how many users have actually seen your pages. But even this does not necessarily refer to _people_ as search engines, RSS spiders and a whole host of other automated bots are counted as users too. But still, this is the best way to get a reliable approximation on how many people visited your site.
So, what have we learnt? Hits are nothing to get excited about.
But that wouldn’t make much a blog post now would it?
Two of my favourite visitors to my humble little blog are Sue M and Erik Nanstiel. Together they can be counted on to loudly trumpet anything and everything that comes from the holy apertures of a select group of people, including JB. So when the putchildrenfirst site was launched, along came Erik and Sue to mention it at every available opportunity.
Well, someone must’ve followed a link from here to there because someone from there subsequently followed a link from _there_ back to _here_. And how do I know this?
Let me introduce the concept of _referrers_ – basically, the page you are coming _from_ leaves a footprint in the page you are coming _to_ – its how web statistics packages track who links to the site they sit on.
So, my referral to putchildrenfirst.org shows up in JB’s web stats package – whomever it is monitoring these things (JB, one would assume based on the above post to EoH) – is curious and clicks the link which in turn places the referring page from putchildrenfirst.org into _my_ web stats package.
So, I login to my webstats package this morning and lo and behold – what do I find but a link straight into the heart of putchildrenfirst.org’s web stats package. Cool :o)
Let’s see how well its doing shall we?
I could point you to the relevant page if you like: It’s right here and you can see for yourself. But, I also took the precaution of making a copy and uploading it to this site – just in case ‘someone’ decides to finally get smart and apply some basic security to their web stats.
I also thought it would be polite to offer an explanation of what’s going on for the less techy amongst you.
OK, the first line to note is the average visits per day. PCF got an average of 444 unique visits per day through April. For a site that was advertised all over the press, apparently seen on TV and was heavily promoted at a rally, that’s pretty crap. My own site, by comparison, gets an average of 3140 unique visits per day.
But lets also look at the section entitled _Daily Statistics for April 2006_ as this gives us a very clear picture of the popularity of the site. Remember that ‘visits’ – the yellow column in that table – is the key indicator. Using that we can see that on only 3 occasions did PCF get more than 1000 visitors per day – the 5th, 6th and 7th. After that, the visitor stats take on the appearance of a slowly deflating balloon. By the end of the month, PCF is barely scraping in 100 visitors a day.
Like a lot of single issue group websites, PCF suffers from the fact that it never has anything new to say. To have a successful site the absolute _biggest_ point to address is that of fresh, engaging content. I don’t know who the copywriter was for PCF but the breathless, barely concealed hysterical conspiracy theory-esque edge really does the site no favours. To put it simply – PCF was a novelty site who’s novelty value lasted 3 days and who reached the wrong audience.
What do I mean the wrong audience? Well, as JB says, one of the most popular visitor IP’s referred back to the CDC. Scroll down to the section headed _Top 30 of 10917 Total Sites_ for evidence of that.
One of the largest amount of visitors (please note this table is *not* sorted on amount of visitors) came from WilliamsBailey.com….a firm of lawyers…guess what one of their specialties is….can you guess?
I have to admit I’m very confused by this as JB recently wrote an open letter to Paul Offit on EoH which stated amongst other things:
No one who paid for the Ad is a vaccine litigant. No one who paid for the Ad is involved with trial lawyers.
I guess it must just be one of those strange coincidences that the joint 10th most popular visitors was a firm of thiomersal/autism lawyers.
However, the most popular group of visitors indeed came from the CDC – 38 visits. The second most popular was the MSN Search Engine bot. This is not the MSN search engine referring people to PCF, this is a visit from the automated script that ‘collects’ sites. Another notable visitor seems to be the AAP. The rest I don’t recognise so I would assume are ordinary visitors.
Now, if I was pushing a website in a national newspaper ad, and splashing the URL all over the TV and on placards at a rally, then I’d really want the ordinary folk of the country to be my visitors. That’s who need to hear my message. However, its clear that the main people who heard PCF’s message were the CDC, the AAP and thiomersal/autism lawyers – oh yeah, and an automated script or two.
Isn’t that kind of a waste of time? Don’t they already know how you feel?
So, lets move on to the referrers list – the section entitled _Top 30 of 1121 Total Referrers_ is the one you want. This lists the top 30 sites who have provided links to PCF – sorted by ‘hits’ unfortunately, which as we’ve already discussed is a meaningless statistic.
The most popular links to PCF is…..PCF. Not surprising – Webalizer (the stats package PCF uses) can (I think) be configured to ignore its own domain but nobody did I guess.
However, the next referrer is a _doozy_ – David Icke, shellsuit wearing, self-professed ‘son-of-god’ who believes we are ruled over by a race of lizards.
The rest of the referrers are other anti-vaccine groups. The only two of any note are ‘The Hill’ and a Press Release site. Neither generated a lot of traffic for PCF.
So, in closing, I think its fair to say that PCF was about as successful as a Thames whale rescue. I’d like to thank Erik and Sue M, without whom, whomever clicked through from PCF would never have been able to do so and I would never have been able to access PCF’s web stats.
JB – if you’d like a decent web developer to handle your sites from now on, I’d be happy to provide a quote. I promise not to leave your bare arse hanging out for the world to see either.
UPDATE: Looks like JB’s up to his old tricks again.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Brilliant! There’s not many people who could crow about a mammoth 38 visitors as some kind of victory… 😀
“For example, if a user visits a page that contains 14 images and nothing else then 14 hits will be registered.”
I’m only asking this because I’m currently writing a report on pretty much the same thing (minus the brilliant sarcasm, alas), but wouldn’t it be 15 hits, ’cause you’re accessing the page (1) along with the images (14)?
You know what would be kind of cool to see… If none of “us” posted here at all (I’m sure that you guys would love that) how long would it take for Kev’s posts to tank. I would guess that you would get about 5-10 comments then nothing… silence. Morgue central.
Kate – yes, it would. You’re right.
Sue – you’re very welcome to try that :o) Unfortunately, my ‘biomed’ related visitors account for a very small minority of site visitors. At the moment its you, Erik stops by occassionaly, KC is reasonably regular and of course there are the usual EoH lurkers and the ocassional crazy like Matthew ‘the chemistry cracker’ Pearson.
Comments are all well and good Sue but again, not a true reflection of the popularity of a site – unique visitors Sue – that’s the ticket. How many people _read_ what you’ve written is good – people commenting on it is just the icing on the cake.
“Kate – yes, it would. You’re right.”
Thanks, Kev — If I’m not dead certain on the trivial things in this report, I just know someone is going to read it and ask me questions just like that.
And then I would go insane. Yay!
Kev wrote:
“Kate – yes, it would. You’re right”.
– Yes, Kev, the OTHER interweb genius.
_”Yes, Kev, the OTHER interweb genius.”_
I get by Sue, I get by ;o)
Did you ever find out how to work your browsers ‘find’ feature by the way?
Putchildrenfirst.org starts out by comparing the CDC to tobacco companies. It’s not really surprising that many hits would come from the CDC and from lawers.
The way I understand web traffic, there are various things you can look at:
Unique visitors.- Either via IP or cookie.
Visits.- A visitor session.
Page Views.- All unique page hits by a visitor.
Hits.- Total access log entries.
_”Unique visitors.- Either via IP or cookie.”_
That’s the best but cookies are not always reliable, most browsers have the ability to turn off cookies and lots of people do.
Also Javascript stats packages suffer from the same ability to turn off JS on the part of the vistor. Personally, I’m a big fan of Awstats.
Bottom line is that you will never get a 100% dead on accurate report on how many humans visited a page between two dates, however, unique visitors is the least inaccurate.
“Yes, Kev, the OTHER interweb genius”
My god you really are running out of insults
Wow. This is incredible. I had no clue that I actually average more unique visitors on a regular weekday than putchildrenfirst.org got on its very best day ever. In fact, occasionally, I even get more visitors in an hour than putchildrenfirst.org got in a whole day in the latter part of April.
And I don’t have the advantage of having been written up in so many media outlets or having a massive advertising campaign behind my blog.
No wonder JB used to try to get me to link to Generation Rescue all the time and squatted on a domain name based on my old blog.
HA!
My website is pretty much brand effing new, hasn’t had new content anywhere but the board in AGES, and gets more hits than PCF.
Pretty sure my blog does too.
*giggles* That’s pretty funny…
I’m sure Handley would be interested to know that on our slowest days at neurodiversity.com, we get more than three times the number of unique visitors he got on his best day. And our traffic is steadily rising month after month. (Kev, I’m an AWStats fan as well.)
IANAL and all that, but regarding Handley’s “latest act of piracy”:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=pauloffit.com&&cache=off, Offit probably has grounds to take him to court. I can’t believe that it’s supportable to register an individual’s name if the individual doesn’t consent to it. It’s certainly unethical. (Cue Sue M. with a snarky remark about Offit….)
Kev wrote:
“Did you ever find out how to work your browsers ‘find’ feature by the way”?
– Yes, I did. Thank you for the tip. I was serious when I said that I was pretty computer illiterate 🙂 I actually got it to work the first time. The confusion came when I mistakenly was under the impression that you wouldn’t actually try to link to random people or organizations who misspelled a word. I kept linking to the actual acceptable list for spelling of thimerosal and kept putting in the incorrect spelling that had been used and kept coming up with nothing. So, dumb old me was confused. I’m a dope. On that note, I promise not to bog this thread down with spelling issues…
Maybe Wade could comment on the legality of registering an individual’s name. Is it actionable Wade?
It’s not like his name is John Smith or something and JB has expressed his feelings about Offit on more than one occasion. If it wasn’t malicious, what other reason could there be? A fan site?
Dave wrote:
“It’s certainly unethical. (Cue Sue M. with a snarky remark about Offit….)”.
– In the scope of being ethical where would this rank as opposed to posting personal e-mail correspondence with other people without their knowledge? See, no Offit bashing.
As for the buying of domain names… doesn’t this happen a lot? Someone correct me if I’m wrong BUT I know that celebs have had (or have wanted to) buy back their names from other people who have registed it. No?
Hey, is JB Handley’s address really “1601 Pennsylvania Avenue” in Washington, DC? If it isn’t, then isn’t he breaking somebody’s terms of service when it comes to providing accurate information when registering a domain?
I’m not sure who that would get reported to, though.
LOL, even my Star Trek fanfic site gets more visits than that.
Poor Handley. He’s really losing his touch.
Hey, is JB Handley’s address really “1601 Pennsylvania Avenue†in Washington?
There goes the neighborhood 😦
I can’t speak for US law and domain issues are not something I specialise in but utilising an individuals own name is probably actionable.
See here for details.
_”A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, *including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section*, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person…”_
This establishes that someone’s name constitutes a trademark. the Act then goes on to say under what circumstances the purchaser (JB in this case) would be liable:
It seems clear to me that JB has transgressed several laws here. Certainly in domain disputes I’ve been involved in in the past involving _commercial_ entities _in the UK_, this would be enough to at least assure reversal of the purchase.
If this was a .uk domain, using a false address would be enough for the sale to be cancelled: Here’s the relevant passage from Nominet, the UK registrar.
_”We may cancel or put the domain name into a special status by notifying you if…we receive independent proof that you have provided significantly inaccurate, not correct, unreliable or false contact details…”_
I would be surprised if there wasn’t a similar regulation in the US.
I assume you all figured this out, but 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue†in Washington, DC is the White House. He’s a seriously disturbed person, IMO
Jennifer wrote:
“I assume you all figured this out, but 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue†in Washington, DC is the White House. He’s a seriously disturbed person, IMO”.
– JB would be a HUGE improvement over who’s in there now.
“JB” really is kinda dumb:
http://www.register.com/retail/policy/servicesagreement.rcmx#9
You acknowledge and agree that willfully providing inaccurate or unreliable information or willfully failing to update information promptly will constitute a material breach of this Agreement that will be a sufficient basis for cancellation of your domain name registration or Service(s), in our sole discretion. You further acknowledge and agree that your failure to respond for over fifteen (15) calendar days to an inquiry by Register.com concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with your domain name registration shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and will be a sufficient basis for cancellation of your domain name registration.
My guess is that this is some kind of impostor, because I can’t imagine the real Mr. Handley is dumb enough to think he can get away with putting fake contact information on domain registration.
Wrong zip code for the addy, as well. SB 20500. The given zip code doesn’t even exist, according to USPS.
(My sister lives in DC, and it looked a little out-of-range, from what I know about zip codes she’s lived in and worked in there, and zip code ranges in general. So I figured I’d check up on that. Silly me!)
Also, I don’t know who to report the false addy to, but I’ve made a query on a list where someone likely knows, or knows who to ask. The question is, will the guy in California who’s my best bet check his e-mail anytime soon? 🙂
(I’ll post here as soon as I know, if nobody’s beaten me to it.)
Chief Clone wrote:
“Orac’s critical thinking skills are legendarily fine. Smart people can see that”.
– Interesting that you would decide to hide behind a false name. I imagine that you don’t even believe that Orac is a critical thinker….
JB would be a HUGE improvement over who’s in there now.
That’s a tough call. Though I’d be inclined to 8 more years of Bush.
Quite true. Rather, every so often,though, I’m treated with rather amusing threats to sue from, oddly enough, an altie that I only mentioned once (and even then only in passing well) over a year ago. The dude really needs to get a life. It’s obvious from his communications that he spends considerable time doing Google Blog Searches and Technorati searches for his name and then harassing anyone who points out his quackery.
Here’s Orac’s idea of critical thinking posted from his own blog:
“We’re already at or damned close to the “beating a dead horse” point with thimerosal-autism studies”.
-The last time that I checked Orac hasn’t been able to adequately come up with an explanation of what might trigger autism (or is he in the genetics only camp).
– He also leaves it up to someone else to try to explain how the Danish studies are somehow worth the paper they are written on.
– He has yet to explain (possibly he will) why the Burbacher, Deth, etc. have no merit and how the results of those should not be followed up on…
Are these examples of Orac’s critical thinking skills? As far as I’m concerned, he’s miles behind both JB and Bush in the critical thinking department.
Considering the source, I consider that a compliment. If Sue M. ever started praising me for my critical thinking skills, then I’d start worrying that I’m losing it.
As for my “leaving it up to someone else” to discuss the Danish autism studies, geez, refusing a generous offer by someone who is quite knowledgeable and wanted to take the topic on would have been real evidence of a lack of critical thinking skills. I’d have been a fool to turn Kristjan down when he offered to write those two pieces. It saved me a lot of work, and he did a very nice job indeed, particularly given his local knowledge that I do not share.
At least Sue M. seems to be implicitly conceding by failing to mention them that she has nothing to say regarding my takedown of the quackery of the Geiers in multiple posts. I’m particularly happy to take on their idiotic proposal to use Lupron to treat autism and their even more idiotic “testosterone sheets” blather.
And we are close to the “beating a dead horse” point in the thimerosal-autism studies. Of course, I eagerly await 2007, when, if autism rates continue to fail to fall four years after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in the U.S., David Kirby has said that he’ll be forced to rethink the whole business. Of course, I seem to recall that he said something similar about 2006; so perhaps I shouldn’t anticipate 2007 so much.
Orac’s a feedin’ the troll. Don’t forget to curl your fingers, she’s got teeth. When I say teeth, I mean “movies over research” teeth. Or was it, “I’m so damn important that the conversation on this site wouldn’t exist without me” teeth? Or was it the “I don’t know what I’m talking about but I can’t stop” teeth?
Smoking teeth indeed.
“We’re already at or damned close to the “beating a dead horse†point with thimerosal-autism studiesâ€.
-The last time that I checked Orac hasn’t been able to adequately come up with an explanation of what might trigger autism (or is he in the genetics only camp).
Orac: It probably ain’t Thimerosal
StrawSue: Well you don’t know what it is, thus it could really be Thimerosal
HypotheticalOrac: It probably ain’t a Martian monkey tooth virus either
HypotheticalStrawSue: Well you don’t know what it is, thus it could really be a Martian monkey tooth virus
Do you see the problem with your logic Sue?
Absence of an answer does not remove the burden of proof for your claimed answer.
You bring the claim, you bring the proof.
Straw Camp – (Genetics Only)
Oops, sorry Sue, I probably wasn’t clear on the claim part.
StrawSue: It could be Thimerosal
Orac: It probably ain’t Thimerosal
StrawSue: Well you don’t know what it is, thus it could really be Thimerosal
HypotheticalStrawSue: It could be a Martian monkey tooth virus
HypotheticalOrac: It probably ain’t a Martian monkey tooth virus either
HypotheticalStrawSue: Well you don’t know what it is, thus it could really be a Martian monkey tooth virus
It could be one or both of those things (however unlikely).
Whatever you’re gonna pick, you gotta bring the proof.
That wouldn’t happen to be mercury from amalgams causing the “smoke,” now, would it? 😉
Orac wrote:
“As for my “leaving it up to someone else†to discuss the Danish autism studies, geez, refusing a generous offer by someone who is quite knowledgeable and wanted to take the topic on would have been real evidence of a lack of critical thinking skills”.
– Can you explain that to Kev. He should understand the meaning behind it. I don’t have time today.
You don’t have time today? Thank the Lord for small blessings.
I am deeply grieved regarding your comments. JB, like most all of you, is trying to do the best for his child. No parent, regardless of their viewpoint, deserves the vitriol that has been put forth in this string.
My wish is that we all are able to do the best for our wonderful, precious children, without retribution from the folks that should understand us best. We are each are children’s own “best experts” and should be treated with such respect.
Please refrain from personal attacks. It is one thing to discuss concepts. It is quite another to stoop to the level of name calling and insults. It belies deep hatred – the last thing any parent needs.
God bless us all…
Brian – my first interaction with JB was asking him politely to stop perpetuating misinformation like ‘all autism is mercury poisoning’. He retorted very rudely.
Since that time, JB has called adult autistics ‘mentally ill’. He has called adult autistics and their families ‘trailor dwelling coo-coo’s’, he has called me ‘a wanker’. He has referred to us as stupid, he has inferred we leave our children to rot. I’d respectfully suggest that you read up on the old adage about people in glass houses throwing stones.
JB has every right to do the best for his child. What he does _not_ have the right to do is drag in the rest of us to his blanket idiocy. What autism needs more than anything is _less_ generalisation, _less_ misinformation, _less_ politicisation and _less_ stigma.
I don’t hate JB – I think he’s an idiot. A dangerous idiot. There are people who express admiration for his ‘bull in a china shop’ mentality. There are people who consider the GR site to be a useful source of information. I am not one of those people.
As long as JB continues to stir up bullshit, innuendo and conspiracy theory, as long as he tries to openly and knowingly mislead people I consider him no friend to autistic people and no friend or advocate for my daughter. I stand in direct opposition to him.
Oh and Brian?
You’re quite right – I don’t own stock in pharma. Neither do I chalk up ‘non-verbal, has chronic constipation, diarrhea, crohns, is in constant pain’ as elements of a unique personality.
Is that more ‘Ad Hominem’ from me? My definition of Ad Hominem is an argument that attacks the person rather than the point – a bit like the statement:
_”Kevin Leitch is extremely promercury”_
When I have said so many times on this blog that I think it was right to remove thiomersal from vaccines, that I am glad its not in there to any appreciable degree in the US and not at all over here.
What I _am_ pro is anyone from ‘your’ side of the debate showing me how thiomersal causes autism.
I would contend that for the sake of his child and all of our children, you raise your standard regardless of any retort from him. Other folks do not need to dictate our behavior.
I have personally been attacked frontally by folks on all sides of this debate. The best response is to focus on the issue and not the person…
In the end, hatred hurts most the one who is doing the hating. None of us has the right to do that to their child.
I would refer you back to the more appropriate adage to “turn the other cheek” and raise your conversation above the level of name calling.
All my respect.
Brian
My concern is for my own child. From his genotype and idiotype, it is evident that he cannot excrete metals. I believe that others are in this category.
From your comments previously, it has appeared that you are “pro-mercury.” If you are not, I stand corrected.
I would be happy to assist regarding thimerosal and specific genotypes and idiotypes as well as regarding global epidemiological analyses. Feel free to email me at brian@dream-big.us
Thimerosal is still in influenza vaccines given to pregnant women and children between 6 months and 5 years (in the U.S.). Recent study has shown that children born through 2002 still received up to 125 ug Hg in vaccines by age 2 years. This does not account for in utero exposure. Under the current vaccination schedule, children may receive 75 ug Hg by their second birthday, again without accounting for in utero exposure.
_”I have personally been attacked frontally by folks on all sides of this debate. The best response is to focus on the issue and not the person…”_
I agree. However, the more JB wilfully misrepresents people, the more he wilfully misleads the general public, the less I am minded to let him carry on. JB is attempting to make _himself_ the issue. As he continues to do that (what sort of person bravely tells the CDC to ‘go fuck themselves’ from the safety of a closed access list?) then he can expect an appropriate response.
_”I would refer you back to the more appropriate adage to “turn the other cheekâ€_
Did you ‘turn the other cheek’ to Dr Sarah Parker because you disagreed with her? Or did you phone her at her home and harass her via email to the point she felt she had to get the Police involved?
I believe that hyperbole solves nothing. I called Dr. Parker twice at her office. I emailed Dr. Parker twice. Unfortunately, it appears that you are accepting Dr. Parker’s account of my calls. The facts were quite different than the account purported in her email…
I have been an “angry parent” in the past. If you would like to continue to dig, I’m sure you can find more. But what are you proving? That I’m not perfect?
You’re right – I’m not…
For that fact, I am very glad that God’s mercies are “new every morning.” Lamentations 3
_”it is evident that he cannot excrete metals. I believe that others are in this category.”_
Could you explain exactly how you came to that belief? What science persuaded you?
_”Thimerosal is still in influenza vaccines given to pregnant women and children between 6 months and 5 years (in the U.S.).”_
You mean _may_ be given – it’s not compulsory. A standard flu shot is 25 ug Hg. At the height of thiomersal use, a child was getting over 7 times that – 187 ug Hg.
_”Recent study has shown that children born through 2002 still received up to 125 ug Hg in vaccines by age 2 years.”_
Cite?
_”This does not account for in utero exposure.”_
Cite?
_”Under the current vaccination schedule, children may receive 75 ug Hg by their second birthday, again without accounting for in utero exposure.”_
Cite?
And what I asked was not for a run down of what you _believe_ thiomersal rates to be, I asked you to demonstrate a causative link between thiomersal and autism.
I would contend that for the sake of his child and all of our children, you raise your standard regardless of any retort from him. Other folks do not need to dictate our behavior.
If I understand you right, Brian, are you advising Kev not to lower himself to JB’s level?
I have personally been attacked frontally by folks on all sides of this debate. The best response is to focus on the issue and not the person. In the end, hatred hurts most the one who is doing the hating. None of us has the right to do that to their child.
This is nearly right Brian. Being hated also hurts the person who feels hated. Our children should not feel hated just because they are autistic. We may say “Hate autism. Love the child.” But our children do have difficulty with subtle distinctions like that and probably think, “Daddy hates me,” and are hurt by that.
I would refer you back to the more appropriate adage to “turn the other cheek†and raise your conversation above the level of name calling.
“turn the other cheek” always struck me as vaguely masochistic. I try to stand up for what I feel is right. But if that’s the way you feel why not turn the other ear to all this alleged namecalling?
_”I have been an “angry parent†in the past.”_
Good on you. You’ve made me an angry parent right now. I believe that you are appalled only by harsh words when they are used against people you agree with. You certainly had no qualms about describing me or Dr Parker fairly harshly – and wrongly.
And yes, I’ll continue to dig. I believe that a person should stand by their words and be accountable for them. It’s called personal responsibility. This goes double when someone is attempting to administer martyred rebukes about ‘respect’ when it is quite apparent one doesn’t follow that credo oneself.
SNP analyses showed strongly compromised polymorphisms for key enzymes in methylation and sulfation pathways. Metabolic panels (blood, urine) confirmed undermethylation and compromised sulfation. Various diagnoses have shown neuroinflammation that is consistent with the oxidative stress caused by impaired methylation/sulfation.
A lot of the SNPs that I saw then led to exhaustive searches on Pubmed regarding clinic indications, etc. Then, my search turned towards case studies, clinical studies and case series completed using metabolic precursors, specifically for NDDs such as autism.
And yes, I’ll continue to dig. I believe that a person should stand by their words and be accountable for them. It’s called personal responsibility. This goes double when someone is attempting to administer martyred rebukes about ‘respect’ when it is quite apparent one doesn’t follow that credo oneself.
I wish you all the best…
“You certainly had no qualms about describing me or Dr Parker fairly harshly – and wrongly.”
Kevin,
I ask you to forgive me… My words were said in haste and anger, which was inappropriate.
God Bless!
Brian