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 
BH: SNP analyses showed strongly compromised polymorphisms for key enzymes in methylation and sulfation pathways.
Which SNPs? Who ran them? Who says they impair metal excretion?
“‘turn the other cheek’ always struck me as vaguely masochistic”
I think that turn the other cheek is a position of strength, via faith in God.
“Which SNPs? Who ran them? Who says they impair metal excretion?”
Various SNPs, various labs. I don’t trust a single lab to do such analyses. It is good clinical practice, if one can afford it.
The SNPs were in methylation/sulfation pathways, with GSH, metallothionein and other related endpoints.
BH: The SNPs were in methylation/sulfation pathways, with GSH, metallothionein and other related endpoints.
Oh right. Sounds vaguely familiar. Which ones in particular if I may ask? Are these polymorphisms or combinations of SNPs more common to autistics?
Some are more related to oxidative stress in general. Some are related directly to autism. Folks believe that ApoE is a strong candidate allelle but I am not convinced. However, I feel that the following should receive additional attention:
CBS, MTRR, MTR, MTHFR, NOS, COMT, GSTP1, GSTM1, GSTT1
Also, the MHC C4 allelle looks quite interesting.
A lot of these are classic “oxidative stress” markers (save the histocompatibility gene). They have been implicated at some level in autism but there is an increasingly troubling notion to read too much into SNP analysis, especially based on the relative prevalence in the general population. SNP analysis should always be completed in conjunction with appropriate metabolic panels.
If you want more info regarding SNP/metabolite testing, email me at brian@dream-big.us.
I’d love to stay and chat but now I get to go play with my son!!!!!
🙂
I said
“’turn the other cheek’ always struck me as vaguely masochisticâ€
Brian said
I think that turn the other cheek is a position of strength, via faith in God.
OK. So you ignoring our arguments proves the strength of your position becuse you believe in God?
So, if I ignore your arguments I can achieve a position of strength, providing I believe in god?
What happens if I am an atheist?
Thanks Brian,
So you are saying that these alleles should receive additional attention but there is an increasingly troubling notion to read too much into SNP analysis?
Before you said: SNP analyses showed strongly compromised polymorphisms for key enzymes in methylation and sulfation pathways.
I’m confused. If you’ve had them analyzed which SNPs or combinations were found and how do they strongly compromise these key enzymes in your child?
By way of example, does he have the C677T or A1298C MTHFR polymorphism or one of the other less common variations?
You said: They have been implicated at some level in autism but there is an increasingly troubling notion to read too much into SNP analysis, especially based on the relative prevalence in the general population. SNP analysis should always be completed in conjunction with appropriate metabolic panels.
So are there sets of mutations that cause autistics to have trouble with metal excretion or not? What are the appropriate metabolic panels and what do they tell us when completed in conjuction with the SNP analysis if the SNPs are just as common in the general population?
Dear Mr. Stanton; if you are indeed an atheist or other non-Christian, and it comes to pass that there does [or will] exist an otherworldly ‘hell’, I shall be obliged to buy you a drink when we get there. It is certain to be a goblet of boiling Merthiolate, but that should not bar our toast to Mr. Hooker’s “righteous personal conduct interpretation†of a Christian Bible. I ponder whether Mr. Hooker believes historical figures like that of Rosa Parks in the mid-twentieth century U.S. should have “turned the other” cheek and relinquished her seat, or was indeed justified by remaining whilst not engaging in physical violence.
Maybe I shouldn’t have harassed people from my work and then bragged about it on an anti-gov’t, anti-vax site.
Jeebus forgave me, can’t you?
pnnlized
Kev wrote:
“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”?
– This is so typical. Brian comes on to this blog and the silliness begins. Kev LIES about him calling some doctor at her HOME and then of course assumes that he actually harassed her. I’ll bet that this so-called non-existent “harassment” was about as credible as Dr. Deth supposedly acting “threatening” towards Kathleen Seidel. Sure, he was. As I mentioned previously you guys are all talk. You say you want people to come on here to talk “science” with you and then you bash them or dig up “dirt” on them when they do… That’s intelligent.
Orac wrote:
“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 am not failing to mention anything, Orac. To be honest, unless someone specifically points me towards a blog post of yours, I would never see it. I can’t be bothered with blogs about Star Wars, Revenge of the Nerds, Your theme song, Star Trek and Tom Cruise eating placenta. I am trying to salvage what is left of my respect for the medical profession and to read your blog hurts that effort. That being said, someone did point me to your blog post about the Danish studies guest hosted by Kristjan. I was completely unimpressed by your critical thinking skills. When someone (not me) seemed baffled that there seemed to be a real increase in autism in 1990 in Denmark (according to a graph in the study). I brought up the fact that the MMR was introduced into Denmark in 1987… According to what I know, it seemed pretty logical to me that the rates of autism could have gone up by 1990 three years post MMR introduction. Do any of you “critical thinkers” even offer a comment on this. No. You just continue to “examine” the Danish studies and make truth out of trash … it’s fascinating to watch.
Gee, you seem to know a lot about my blog for not reading it. That Tom Cruise post is over two weeks old, and you seemed to skip over the several serious posts that I’ve done in the last couple of weeks alone, such as two posts about involuntary euthanasia in Texas, a couple of posts about the role of evolutionary biology in medicine, discussions about whether a medical wikipedia would be a good idea, a post about how Lysenko distorted science in the Soviet Union, a post about whether viruses can cause tumor shrinkage.
Funny how you somehow managed to miss those and focus on the fluff, which actually makes up a fairly small percentage of the material I post.
That’s OK, though. I’ll point out some of my posts on the Geiers right now for your edification:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/02/why_not_just_castrate_them_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/the_geiers_go_dumpsterdiving_y_1.php
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-vaccine-litigation-distorts.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/the_geiers_try_to_patent_chemi.php
Enjoy.
Sue M is coherent
Sue M is right
Sue M knows her science
Sue M is bright
Sue M is angry
_”This is so typical. Brian comes on to this blog and the silliness begins. Kev LIES about him calling some doctor at her HOME and then of course assumes that he actually harassed her.”_
Sue – where’s the lie? I think receiving phone calls and emails from someone you don’t know because you voiced an opinion up to the point you feel threatened enough to involve the Police is probably going a little too far, don’t you?
_”As I mentioned previously you guys are all talk. You say you want people to come on here to talk “science†with you and then you bash them or dig up “dirt†on them when they do… That’s intelligent.”_
I respond in kind. If someone comes on here and wants to talk science that’s fine. However, that not what Brian did – he came on here to rebuke me for attacking JB. I responded in kind.
As for digging up ‘dirt’ sue, tell me – what’s the PCF site all about other than JB ‘digging up dirt’ and publishing the private conversations of others – something you abhor – on the web?
There’s far too much hypocrisy coming from you and your fellow believers Sue. Sorry you don’t like that being exposed.
i see our Sue still hasn’t lost her STLB (Standard Troll-like Behaviour). She must enjoy it.
Have a look at this graph Sue
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604
and check the slope for the 2-4 year-olds post 1995 – all the way to 2000. Do you really think it matters a hoot that they added in the outpatients at 1995? If your case had any merit, there should be an upsurge followed by a sharp downswing. Funny – not happening. Hmm This btw was what the highly regarded and prestigious IOM also saw. They also saw the uninterpretable Geiers. Oh well.
Orac said: “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.”
Now, SueM…. this is important, so shut up and read it properly first.
Actually, if *more* professionals were to take this same attitude (i.e., “I don’t know enough about this particular issue, but I know someone who does….”), the likes of Buttar and the Geiers and these other imbeciles would most likely have failed at the first hurdle… and how? Because whoever saw the patients seen by those idiots would have checked out appropriate people to refer on to. In my work as a psychologist, I never take on something about which I do not feel I have enough expertise, and I *always* refer on to someone who does. Because that is a part of my duty of care to my clients. The same duty of care exists in the practice of medicine.
Orac was, in accepting an offer from “someone more in the know” about an issue, more sensible than anyone from GR who is currently purporting to have expertise enough to advise parents, when not even having a scrap of basic training relevant to the issue of autism (i.e., specialising in autism). Just thought… this is one of the things that must piss JBJr off *immensely*…. I know and understand more about autism than JBJr will ever know or understand… and he hates that. His problem.
Okay… now Alyric: “I see our Sue still hasn’t lost her STLB (Standard Troll-like Behaviour). She must enjoy it.”
But don’t you know, Alyric… that is *all* she has in her life! 😉
Got to reply to this one-
JAAE said:
“Sue M is coherent”
“Sue M is right”
“Sue M knows her science”
“Sue M is bright”
The answer to all of the above is…. “WTF, NOOOOOOOOOOO!”
Actually, after reading those, I nearly fell of my chair laughing…. I do hope that this was the intended response 😀
“Sue M is angry”
The answer to this one is…. “What’s new?”
Kev: “Sue – where’s the lie? I think receiving phone calls and emails from someone you don’t know because you voiced an opinion up to the point you feel threatened enough to involve the Police is probably going a little too far, don’t you?”
As far as I know, that actually consitutes an offence of harrassment.
Dr. Curtis E. Flushwrote:
Dear Mr. Stanton; if you are indeed an atheist or other non-Christian, and it comes to pass that there does [or will] exist an otherworldly ‘hell’, I shall be obliged to buy you a drink when we get there.
I shall look forward to it.:-)
I wonder how many self professed Xtians we’ll meet down there.
Who better than a hybrid reptilian alien to work on moving genes between species? He’s working for THEM!! don’t you see?? He’s one of THEM!! THEM!! The mega-international reptilian banking big pharma conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy.
“Dr. Hooker is currently the team leader for the High Throughput Biology Team and Operations Manager of the DOE Genomics: Genomes to Life (GTL) Center for Molecular and Cellular Systems. Dr. Hooker also manages applied plant and fungal molecular biology projects including development of plant-based biosensors and transgenic production systems for human pharmaceutical proteins and industrial enzymes. Dr. Hooker’s previous pursuits involve microbial kinetics and transport mathematical modeling, design, development, and support for the demonstration of in situ/ex situ biological destruction of chlorinated organic hydrocarbons. Specific accomplishments include”
Where’s David Ickes and Scudamore when you need them? 8^o
Orac wrote:
“Gee, you seem to know a lot about my blog for not reading it”.
– Trust me, I didn’t READ any of that crap. I merely looked through yesterday to see what I could find about the Geiers… Gave up because of the fluff that I found. Thanks for posting the links so I wouldn’t have to be bothered with the other stuff. I’ll take a look at some point.
Kev wrote:
“Sue – where’s the lie”?
– Start with your reference that Brian called her at home when he called her at her office. Move on from there.
Kev wrote:
“As for digging up ‘dirt’ sue, tell me – what’s the PCF site all about other than JB ‘digging up dirt’ and publishing the private conversations of others – something you abhor – on the web”?
– Right, documents, memos, and e-mails which were released due to the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).
“
God makes a good point you should listen to him brain.
Alyric wrote:
“and check the slope for the 2-4 year-olds post 1995 – all the way to 2000. Do you really think it matters a hoot that they added in the outpatients at 1995? If your case had any merit, there should be an upsurge followed by a sharp downswing. Funny – not happening. Hmm This btw was what the highly regarded and prestigious IOM also saw. They also saw the uninterpretable Geiers. Oh well”.
– Well of course it matters a hoot that they added outpatients in 1995. Forget about what I think for a minute. Let’s take a look at what the author of this fabulous Danish study had to say in a 2001 e-mail exchange to the all-knowing Diane Simpson:
“Dr. Simpson: “Did they [autism rates] increase after 1993??”
Dr. Madsen: “Yes but not very dramatically and there could be more reasons for that. First of all we had a change from ICD8 to ICD10 in 1994 and furthermore our outpatient clinics were registered in our surveillance from 1995.”
– So, Alyric, would you like to give your input as to what the diagnostic code change could have done to the autism numbers in Denmark? I won’t ask about the inpatient/outpatient issue since obviously you don’t give a hoot about that. As for that “highly regarded and prestigious IOM” what is their take on Madsen’s e-mail correspondence. Did they fully investigate this issue? I’ll take a guess…
Y’all are hilarious…
Whee, this is fun!
Clone3g – If you’d like more information, email me. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to go into detail about my son’s medical information on a public blog.
God Bless!
Brian
David wrote:
““Sue M is angryâ€
The answer to this one is…. “What’s new?â€
– I admit to getting angry at times here. As for the majority of you… this is one of the angriest group of people that I have ever come across.
_”Start with your reference that Brian called her at home when he called her at her office. Move on from there.”_
LOL! I’m sorry I typed ‘home’ instead of ‘office’ – how exactly does that equate to this woman not feeling harassed? Way to get the point Sue.
_”Right, documents, memos, and e-mails which were released due to the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).”_
Oh, I _see_ so that makes it OK? Why exactly?
_”As for the majority of you… this is one of the angriest group of people that I have ever come across.”_
You’re right about that Sue. Being misrepresented, or having one’s children’s misrepresented, or being referred to as child abusers, or being referred to as ‘trailor dwelling coo-coo’s’ will tend to make one angry Sue.
Still, we’ve yet to phone anyone at their home or place of work, we’ve yet to make threats of physical violence against people, we’ve yet to send threatening emails to people. We’ve yet to wish you or your children dead. We’ve yet to refer to any of your children as ‘fucking retards who should be put down’, or be told to hang ourselves with the corpses of our dead children.
There are all thoughts and actions of people _you_ hang out with Sue. If you had to listen to that shit would you be angry or would you take Brian’s advice and ‘turn the other cheek’.
You bet I’m angry Sue. When I said I’d had enough, I meant exactly that. You can like that or not.
Kevin
I admire you for putting your child’s best interest at heart. That is the best example of all. I’ll never get in the way of ANYONE who is advocating for their child.
By “turning the other cheek,” I was not implying that you couldn’t oppose those who persecute you. There’s a lot more to the context of that statement (from a Biblical perspective).
All my best!
Brian
Kev,
Your anger is clouding your good judgement. You are so angry (in my opinion) that you are unable to be open minded. “Our side” is angry as well. IF we are correct, shouldn’t we be angry? Remember we are in the huge minority. For every attack you get we get 100x more attacks on our position (in society as a whole, including our so-called medical professionals). Does that mean that I agree with personal attacks from EITHER side (obviously your side has been nasty as well). No, I don’t. Have I participated at times? Yes, I have. Take away the anger for a moment. Comments on my post back to Alyric?
_”Your anger is clouding your good judgement. You are so angry (in my opinion) that you are unable to be open minded.”_
About what? The possibility thiomersal causes autism? Once more, I will state for the record – if it is established that thiomersal causes autism then I’ll have to accept it. What I _cannot_ accept is sloppy thinking masquerading as science. What I also cannot accept is the wilful, purposeful misleading that the likes of JB are actively pursuing.
_”IF we are correct, shouldn’t we be angry?”_
I don’t know. I can’t answer that. To me, cause is a fascinating debate but it touches on a raw nerve for me when the issue of cause starts to become a political or legal football which is exactly the game that GR, SafeMinds, NAA etc are trying to play. This is not a black and white issue – everytime JB attempts to make it one, more ignorance is perpetuated and more stigma results. Being castigated by people for attacking their pals when their own behaviour is infinitely worse does not sit well with me.
_”Remember we are in the huge minority. For every attack you get we get 100x more attacks on our position”_
I think if you were an autistic adult you might see things slightly differently. And remember – attacking someone’s _position_ and attacking _someone_ are not the same. You can go through every single post I’ve made to this blog Sue. If you can find anywhere where I went after someone _prior_ to being personally attacked then good luck to you.
_”(obviously your side has been nasty as well).”_
Really? Tell me how nasty we’ve been when you find your wife sobbing because some savage compares your loved one to a trained monkey. Tell me how nasty we’ve been when someone tells you they’d be glad to see you and your children die. I fully accept that we lay into you all Sue but the two things are not comparable.
_”Take away the anger for a moment.”_
Take away the lies, misrepresentation and attempts to shortcut a scientific debate via the legal profession.
Seriously Sue – you may well _believe_ vaccines injured your child. Fine, whatever. However, I _know_ that the things JB is doing will have serious long term affects on my daughter. I can’t ignore that.
Sue, your judgment is clouding your anger.
Brian Hooker said: If you’d like more information, email me. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to go into detail about my son’s medical information on a public blog.
I agree but you started it. Why is it appropriate to tell us your son has polymorphisms that render him less able to excrete metals but specifics are inappropriate?
OK, leaving your son out of it, you’ve made a claim regarding a genetically determined inability to excrete metals due to impairment of methylation and sulfation pathway enzymes. You also threw in ApoE for good measure. Did you just pull that out of your hat or your other bible, the DAN! big book of genetics?
Let’s hear more if you truly believe.
Ok, Kev. You are perfect and we are pond scum. As for your wife sobbing over a nasty comment from someone. That sucks. I’m not going to lie. It’s terrible that this debate has turned so incredibly nasty. The problem is it goes both ways…. how does it feel for a mother (not necessarily me) but someone with a severely affected child to be told by “medical professionals” that you don’t know science. That you imagined your child’s regression. That you should trust the medical professionals who have lied to you. That you should look to the Danish studies for proof, etc. These “attacks” are less personal but equally as hurtful.
Hey Zeus… wrote:
“Ask him this for us: maybe Julia Roberts could play someone who looks like herself and then she can be a blogger who gets outed online as Julia Roberts and then we can all laugh”.
– Yeah, cuz that would be really funny… NOT!
Clone3g
Looking at MTHFR alone is rather pedestrian. Data compiled by Jill James (can’t remember the reference) show a statistically significant difference between NT and autistic cohort sets but there are still plenty of NT kids that carry the same polymorphisms in MTHFR. That is one of the reasons that Dr. James is using an expanded panel.
There are a lot of other allelles that may come into play. Much of this I’ve gleaned from information on Pubmed as well as from researchers that are looking at “autism” and oxidative stress. The MHC C4 allelle work was done by Ron Torres at Univ. Utah. Some of the other allelles have been inferred from clinical data compiled and presented by Herbert et al., Danfors et al., Deth et al., as well as animal study data from Burbacher et al., Lipkin et al. and Hornig et al., among others. Also, the familial risk paper that was just published by Lord et al. may be helpful.
Rather than going to the DAN! protocol, it is best to find the publications themselves, such that critical determinations may be made, especially when the research has been completed in vitro and in animal models.
Hope this helps!
Brian
Nope. Doesn’t help at all. I used MTHFR but thanks for condescending to my pedestrian level.
Data compiled by Jill James (can’t remember the reference) show a statistically significant difference between NT and autistic cohort sets but there are still plenty of NT kids that carry the same polymorphisms in MTHFR.
How significant was the association? Say out of 1,000 ASD kids and 1,000 NT, how many more of the ASD kids would have these SNPs or combinations that interfere with their ability to excrete metals?
Let me know when you remember the reference.
There are a lot of other allelles that may come into play. Much of this I’ve gleaned from information on Pubmed as well as from researchers that are looking at “autism†and oxidative stress.
Maybe, but we are talking about metal excretion at the moment.
The MHC C4 allelle work was done by Ron Torres at Univ. Utah.
I’m familiar with Ron’s work. What does it have to do with methylation, sulfation, metal excretion, etc.?
Some of the other allelles have been inferred from clinical data compiled and presented by Herbert et al., Danfors et al., Deth et al., as well as animal study data from Burbacher et al., Lipkin et al. and Hornig et al., among others
Inferred? Are you serious? Is this all you can come up with to make a case for impaired metal excretion?
Rather than going to the DAN! protocol, it is best to find the publications themselves, such that critical determinations may be made, especially when the research has been completed in vitro and in animal models.
I couldn’t agree more. Let me know when you’ve read them and can explain what they tell us about autism.
I think you are looking for the magic bullet where I convince you once and for all. Since you appear to be convinced otherwise, this is probably not a fruitful conversation.
Oxidative stress is extremely important regarding metal excretion and metal toxicity as many cationic heavy metals are very strongly oxidative. This leads to the formation of free radicals which cause cellular damage.
Inferred: I.e., do my child’s laboratory results jibe with the conclusions of the study?… Is any “correlation” confirmed via multiple lines of test evidence for my child…
Best!
Brian
1: Antioxid Redox Signal. 2006 Jan-Feb;8(1-2):144-51. Related Articles, Links
The role of oxidative stress in the dysregulation of gene expression and protein metabolism in neurodegenerative disease.
Potashkin JA, Meredith GE.
Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, The Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, USA.
There are few examples for which the genetic basis for neurodegenerative disease has been identified. For the majority of these disorders, the key to their understanding lies in knowledge of the molecular changes that contribute to altered gene expression and the translational modification of the protein products. Environmental factors play a role in the development and chronicity of neurodegenerative disorders. Environmental stimuli such as hypoxia, toxins, or heavy metals, increase production of reactive oxygen species and lower energy reserves. Chronic exposure to oxidative radicals can adversely affect gene expression and proteolysis. This review summarizes what is currently known about some of the changes in gene expression and protein metabolism that occur after oxidative stress which contribute to neurodegeneration, and reveals areas where more research is clearly needed.
Publication Types:
Review
I am most certainly not looking for a magic bullet from you and I am not convinced one way or the other. You said autistics have trouble with metal excretion and I’m asking for your evidence. Put Facts First
Oxidative stress is extremely important regarding metal excretion and metal toxicity as many cationic heavy metals are very strongly oxidative. This leads to the formation of free radicals which cause cellular damage.
So you are saying that the oxidation state or valence of the metal is responsible for oxidative stress? Then once it’s reduced to a zero-valent form there shouldn’t be a problem? What about methylmercury? I think that can trigger oxidative stress.
Oh, is mercury the only source of free radicals?
No – there are other metals that produce free radicals. “Cationic” refers to the general class of metals that donate electrons, and doesn’t refer to their specific valence state.
Other toxic metals that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) are lead, cadmium and arsenic.
There are several hypotheses regarding the relatively high toxicity of Hg to these other metals. One is the rather tight bond that is produced between thiol groups and mecury, relative to other metals.
This is another good reference:
Curr Top Med Chem. 2001 Dec;1(6):529-39. Related Articles, Links
Toxic metals and oxidative stress part I: mechanisms involved in metal-induced oxidative damage.
Ercal N, Gurer-Orhan H, Aykin-Burns N.
University of Missouri-Rolla, Department of Chemistry, 65409-0010, USA. nercal@umr.edu
Toxic metals (lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic) are widely found in our environment. Humans are exposed to these metals from numerous sources, including contaminated air, water, soil and food. Recent studies indicate that transition metals act as catalysts in the oxidative reactions of biological macromolecules therefore the toxicities associated with these metals might be due to oxidative tissue damage. Redox-active metals, such as iron, copper and chromium, undergo redox cycling whereas redox-inactive metals, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and others deplete cells’ major antioxidants, particularly thiol-containing antioxidants and enzymes. Either redox-active or redox-inactive metals may cause an increase in production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as hydroxyl radical (HO.), superoxide radical (O2.-) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Enhanced generation of ROS can overwhelm cells’ intrinsic antioxidant defenses, and result in a condition known as “oxidative stress”. Cells under oxidative stress display various dysfunctions due to lesions caused by ROS to lipids, proteins and DNA. Consequently, it is suggested that metal-induced oxidative stress in cells can be partially responsible for the toxic effects of heavy metals. Several studies are underway to determine the effect of antioxidant supplementation following heavy metal exposure. Data suggest that antioxidants may play an important role in abating some hazards of heavy metals. In order to prove the importance of using antioxidants in heavy metal poisoning, pertinent biochemical mechanisms for metal-induced oxidative stress should be reviewed.
Publication Types:
Review
Thanks, lots of maybes there. Tell me, is oxidative stress or elevated ROS proof of metal toxicity?
There are several hypotheses regarding the relatively high toxicity of Hg to these other metals. One is the rather tight bond that is produced between thiol groups and mecury, relative to other metals
So I’ve heard. Beyond hypotheses, how does this support your statement concerning genetic metal excretion impairment in autistics? Unless that’s just an hypothesis you’ve embraced.
Nope – it isn’t the yin and the yang. Oxidative stress is associated with athlerosclerosis and that has nothing to do with metal toxicity. However, oxidative stress coupled with SNPs in methylation/sulfation genes implicates heavy metal toxicity. This is reinforced by pre and post provocation metal excretion analyses.
I’m careful about the whole work “autistic” or “autism.” There are too many genotypes and idiotypes that are associated with a disorder for which the phrase was “coined” in the 1940’s.
The diagnosis should match the biomedical run-up. Start from lab analyses and then make inferences.
That being said, I do believe proper treatment of Denmark, Sweden, California and VSD data shows a correlation between thimerosal exposure and NDDs. Additionally, a lot of the sleight of hand by some of the investigators is at a minimum suspect.
Best!
Right. Which SNPs? You know, the subsituted nucleotides and their positions, that sort of thing. Unless there has been some sort of sleight of hand to obscure that data.
Best!
This last message/spam of poorly written reviews was brought to you by an extremist DOE employee who’s passed high school chemistry. We gained such tremendous insight from a review in such a prestigious journal, and when I say “we”, I mean… um… someone who doesn’t remember their high school chemistry lessons. So… I guess we means Sue M.
The cool thing is that a child got a big dose of thimerosal and then somewhere between 1-5 years later gets chelated for said metal contamination. Why? Well, umm. well because it’s still there, right? The uncontaminated cells simply say “red rover red rover send mercury right over” when the sender cells start dying. Which means of course that since it never leaves the brain until chelated by Butter or Andy or Gary Gordon (they’re all right there on the same level) or the guy who killed the kid, the one who bought his stuff from hmmm, who was that now? Someone might need to remind me. Gordon maybe?
Ahhh, back to the point. Since the mercury just sits there and systematically and sequentially kills cells then in fact Mr. Rollins or whoever was correct in saying that autistics are empty shells.
And lastly, if you’re nodding your head along with my little ditty here I might suggest you pull your pants down, bend over, and take a shot-o-Lupron from Tweedle Geier or Tweedle Geier’er – they’ll be more than happy to oblige I’m sure. Why are both of your hands on my shoulders, doc?
Additionally, a lot of the sleight of hand by some of the investigators is at a minimum suspect.
WWJSAT?
I know the answer to What Would Hey Zeus Say About That.
Would you really like to know or are you attempting to poke holes in my logic, regardless of the information presented?
C) All of the below
D) None of the between
E) There are multiple hypotheses of interest that we should look into.
F) I don’t know but I want believe.
Please join me and believe with the rest of us.
You can find the gene names above. Run over to your CD player, pop in “Meditations” from Medea by Samuel Barber and look them up…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=DisplayFiltered&DB=snp
Sue M said “Ok, Kev. You are perfect and we are pond scum.”
She’s finally getting it. 🙂
You can find the gene names above. Run over to your CD player, pop in “Meditations†from Medea by Samuel Barber and look them up…
a perfect end to a perfect sham
As demonstrated, ladies and gentlemen, even if one has interesting letters after their name, their grasp of science just might be on the level of grasping for straws.
The mixture of anger and desperation can be as dangerous as that of god and guns.
I for one am so happy to see Brian Hooker trying to talk science here. It’s so refreshing to see something more than, “yeah well, I heard it at a DAN! conference so it must be true.” Dr. Hooker is not holding up his end of the science too well, but at least he’s putting it out there. Maybe he can get Andy Cutler to come back and tell us about that ALA thing.
Everyone who has had amalgam fillings ought to be taking Lupron depot injections. Don’t you know? Then follow that up with some urine injections from Dr. Buttar. Pat pat can come and give us their sales pitch for their christian vitamin pills and Buttar can tell why we shouldn’t eat pork because it’s too much like eating human flesh. Then someone can tell us about homeopathic mercury as a cure for autism. Then Bradstreet can perform some exorcisms and we’ll all be cured. Unless he wants to put us in his new toy HBOT balloon and up our oxidatve stress. Then we’ll have the Neubrander boys teach us about meB12 injections.