The DAN! Treatment of Tariq Nadama

25 Jul

This post was sent to me, as is by someone who wanted to write about this. I was happy to ‘host’ it.

Does the DAN! ‘Protocol’ have more to do with an autistic child’s death than meets the eye? Why does the newly re-designed Autism Research Institue’s (ARI) website still contain a statement about the death of Tariq Nadama, by Bernard Rimland (1928-2006), that appears to be based on old information and doesn’t amount to much more than logical fallacy? Does it matter that two physicians who treated Tariq Nadama are ARI-listed as DAN! practitioners?

The ARI website appears to have recently undergone some serious change. While such change may certainly have some supporters (after all, even Michael Jackson has die-hard supporters), in my opinion, it seems to call attention to the possibility that there are more flaws visible now (links to Generation Rescue), than there were to begin with. Perhaps some of the “less than pretty” parts stand out just a little bit more than they used to. The apparent involvement of DAN! practitioners in the “treatment” of Tariq Nadama, and a mother convinced that her child was “autistic due to immunization shots” is a good example. I actually find it hard to believe that this statement is still up on the ARI website, given what is now known about the story:

A DAN! practitioner (and endorser of ARI’s “Treatment Options for Mercury/Metal Toxicity in Autism and Related Developmental Disabilities: Consensus Position Paper”) apparently referred the Nadamas to Roy Kerry, it doesn’t appear to be the case that Tariq had “been mistakenly been given a ‘look-alike’ drug” since Roy Kerry’s apparently prescribed the use of IV disodium EDTA, ENDRATEand Roy Kerry apparently became a "DAN! " after the death of Tariq Nadama.

Source

August 29, 2005
(updated March, 2006)
The Safety and Efficacy of Chelation Therapy in Autism
Statement by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., Director, Autism Research Institute regarding death on August 23, 2005 of 5 year-old Tariq Nadama Of Pittsburgh, who was given intravenous EDTA chelation I have received many media calls regarding the above, very unfortunate matter.Although the autopsy conducted immediately after Tariq’s death was inconclusive, the medical community and the press quickly leaped to the (incorrect) conclusion that Tariq’s death was due to chelation therapy. A later formal report by Mary Jean Brown of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that Tariq’s death was not caused by properly administered chelation, but was instead a result of a drug error. He had mistakenly been given a ‘look-alike’ drug, Disodium EDTA, instead of Calcium Disodium EDTA.Here is some additional information about chelation:
1. Chelation is not used to treat autism, but rather to treat heavy metal overload (lead, mercury, cadmium, etc), which is a major cause of autism and retardation.
2. Tens of thousands of children and hundreds of thousands of adults have been treated safely with chelation therapy for many decades.
3. The child’s mother, Marwa Nadama, said that her son showed such remarkable improvement after the first few chelation treatments that if she had a choice, she would choose chelation again.
4. Conventional physicians, who have been critical of chelation, routinely use drugs such as Risperdal and Clonidine in treating autism. Death is a known side-effect of such drugs (read the labels!). Such deaths get no media attention. In 2005 the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the research literature on Risperdal in autistic individuals. They decided not to approve Risperdal because of the number of deaths associated with it. Despite this deadly “side-effect” of Risperdal, it continues to be the most frequently prescribed drug for autistic individuals.
5. Most autistic children who are chelated are chelated orally or transdermally (by gel, through the skin), as suggested in our Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!®) document available at our website http://www.autism.com.
6. Thousands of parents of autistic children, treated safely with chelation, report, like Tariq Nadama’s mother, that their children have shown remarkable improvement after chelation was initiated. Formal data collection is just getting underway, but the initial data, on several hundred children is very encouraging:
7. Since 1967 The Autism Research Institute has collected “Parent Ratings of Behavioral Effects of Biomedical Interventions.” To date, over 24,500 parent responses have been collected. Chelation is a recent addition to our list of interventions. So far, of the first 470 parents who reported on the efficacy of chelation, 75% report “good” results, which is by far the highest “good” percentage reported for any of the 88 biomedical interventions (including 53 drugs) the parents have rated. See: http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/treatment/form34q.htm.

See related article titled “Chelation: The story behind the headlines”

Okay, now that it’s refreshed in your memories, let’s take a much closer look at this statement.

Although the autopsy conducted immediately after Tariq’s death was inconclusive, the medical community and the press quickly leaped to the (incorrect) conclusion that Tariq’s death was due to chelation therapy. A later formal report by Mary Jean Brown of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that Tariq’s death was not caused by properly administered chelation, but was instead a result of a drug error. He had mistakenly been given a ‘look-alike’ drug, Disodium EDTA, instead of Calcium Disodium EDTA.

What the ARI website doesn’t tell you, is that the Order To Show Cause by The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs before the Pennsylvania State Board Of Medicine (the complaint against Dr. Roy Kerry, the Pennsylvania doctor who prescribed the chelation therapy drug that resulted in the death of Tariq Nadama), leaves very little question about what apparently really happened:

“69. Respondent spoke to Professional Conduct Investigator of the Bureau of Enforcement and Investigator concerning his treatment of Tariq.”
“70. Respondent admitted that EDTA is very rare to use on children.”
“71. Respondent admitted to using Disodium EDTA to chelate Tariq.”
“72. Respondent stated to Investigator Reiser that Disodium EDTA is the only formula of EDTA he stocks in his office.”
“73. Respondent admitted that CaNa2EDTA is available but that he has never used this agent.”

Mary Jean Brown’s statement to the press was apparently made in January of 2006. The Order To Show Cause was not made public until September of 2006, so it’s understandable that ARI’s statement from March of 2006 does not reflect this new information. Isn’t it time for ARI to update their statement?

Here is some additional information about chelation:

1. Chelation is not used to treat autism, but rather to treat heavy metal overload (lead, mercury, cadmium, etc), which is a major cause of autism and retardation.

Okay, so this is probably a statement of belief on the part of Bernard Rimland. I am not aware of any science supports the notion that heavy metals are “a major cause of autism” let alone that autistic children in general are “overloaded” with such metals. Why not just leave the explanation at, “Chelation is sometimes used to treat heavy metal toxicity”, or re-phrase it as a clear statement of belief? It also seems clear from the Order To Show Cause that there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that Tariq was “overloaded” with heavy metals.

“44. Respondent obtained a “post provocative” urine sample from Tariq on July 22, 2005.”
“45. A “post provocative” sample is a urine sample taken after the patient has been subject to drug therapy or chelation.”
“46. The laboratory report of this sample was completed on July 29, 2005 and sent to Respondent.”
“47. This laboratory report listed Tariq’s lead level as “elevated” but not in the “very elevated” reference range.”
“48. It should be noted that this laboratory report has a notation in bold print that reads “Reference ranges are representative of a healthy population under non-challenge or non¬provoked conditions.””
“49. Tariq had a minimal elevation of his lead level.”

2. Tens of thousands of children and hundreds of thousands of adults have been treated safely with chelation therapy for many decades.

Apparently, death is not as uncommon as ARI’s website might have readers believe, but aside from that, an appeal to the number of people treated with chelation therapy says absolutely nothing about the appropriateness (or major lack thereof) of chelation therapy for autism. While Rimland’s statement is clear that chelation is used to treat heavy metal toxicity, it seems pretty obvious from the Order To Show Cause that this probably was not the case given the lab results discussed and apparent desire on the part of the mother for the procedure.

16. The current complaint notation reads “wants to have iv … edta injection … an iv push. mother states Tariq is autistic due to immunization shots he was a normal pregnancy .. 1st shots were given the day he was born … no sx noted until age 18 mo … has had 12 other inoculation by time he was 18 mo old/…”

3. The child’s mother, Marwa Nadama, said that her son showed such remarkable improvement after the first few chelation treatments that if she had a choice, she would choose chelation again.

Hmm. Apparently it was the third treatment that killed Tariq, so to say he showed remarkable improvement after the first “few” chelation treatments would seem rather difficult. I suppose it’s possible that she may have been referring to other previous chelation attempts which may fall under the:
“has not been responding 10 other types of therapies and therefore she is recommending EDTA” described in the Order To Show Cause, but that doesn’t make sense that she would view them as having been responsible for “remarkable improvement”. I guess we’ll just have to chalk this one up to “appeal to testimonial”.

4. Conventional physicians, who have been critical of chelation, routinely use drugs such as Risperdal and Clonidine in treating autism. Death is a known side-effect of such drugs (read the labels!). Such deaths get no media attention. In 2005 the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the research literature on Risperdal in autistic individuals. They decided not to approve Risperdal because of the number of deaths associated with it. Despite this deadly “side-effect” of Risperdal, it continues to be the most frequently prescribed drug for autistic individuals.

Tu Quoque! Two “wrongs” do not make a “right”. Risperdal is irrelevant to the safety or efficacy of chelation.

5. Most autistic children who are chelated are chelated orally or transdermally (by gel, through the skin), as suggested in our Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!) document available at our website http://www.autism.com.

Ah the good old appeal to popularity. Are readers to assume that because most autistic children who are chelated are chelated orally or transdermally, that it acutally does anything for autism itself, or that chelation is safe? Are readers to assume that because this is what’s popular, that the (DAN!®) document available at their website http://www.autism.com will appropriately caution about IV EDTA chelation? The (DAN!®) document discusses three common chelators. It does mention IV adminstration of “many different agents”, but it doesn’t appear to mention, exclude, or warn about EDTA by name at all.

_”There are many different agents for detoxification of metals, and some agents can be administered in different ways (IV, oral, rectal suppository, transdermal). The three major ones we will discuss include DMSA, DMPS, and TTFD. “_

It should be tempting to think that a document devoted to chelation, and endorsed by thrity-three professionals, would exclude EDTA. After all, the name “EDTA” is not specific to either of the two types of EDTA (Endrate or Versenate), and it’s use is notably cautioned by its own package insert.

6. Thousands of parents of autistic children, treated safely with chelation, report, like Tariq Nadama’s mother, that their children have shown remarkable improvement after chelation was initiated. Formal data collection is just getting underway, but the initial data, on several hundred children is very encouraging:

I don’t expect that this is any kind of data that would be peer-reviewed and published in mainstream scientific literature, but I suppose I could be wrong.

7. Since 1967 The Autism Research Institute has collected “Parent Ratings of Behavioral Effects of Biomedical Interventions.” To date, over 24,500 parent responses have been collected. Chelation is a recent addition to our list of interventions. So far, of the first 470 parents who reported on the efficacy of chelation, 75% report “good” results, which is by far the highest “good” percentage reported for any of the 88 biomedical interventions (including 53 drugs) the parents have rated. See: http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/treatment/form34q.htm.
See related article titled “Chelation: The story behind the headlines”

Parent Ratings? Please read what Prometheus had to say about this. But what’s one to make of “88 Biomedical interventions (including 53 drugs)!? Fifty-three? Holy experimentation Batman!
Let’s recap.

1) According to documents from Roy Kerry’s office, Tariq’s mother apparently came to believe her autistic child is autistic “due to immunization shots”.
2) Somewhere along the way, the parents seek treatment from DAN! practitioner, and endorser of the DAN!® “Treatment Options for Mercury/Metal Toxicity” document, Anju Usman.
3) While under the care (or prior to being under the care) of DAN! practitioner Anju Usman, some 10 odd therapies apparently fail to produce desired results. (This may or may not have included oral and or transdermal chelation as well).
4) The DAN! document makes no warning about IV EDTA. In fact, DAN! practitioner Anju Usman apparently refers Nadama family to Dr. Roy Kerry for IV EDTA chelation (she may have actually been the physician who recommended CaNa2EDTA – line 43 of the Order To Show Cause).
5) Roy Kerry (not a DAN! practitioner at the time according to Bernard Rimland), is the physician who prescribed Endrate.
6) Tariq Nadama is dead.
7) Roy Kerry is now listed as a DAN! practitioner.

20 Responses to “The DAN! Treatment of Tariq Nadama”

  1. kristina July 25, 2007 at 05:52 #

    Straight from the horse’s mouth: DAN! Dr. Bock defends chelation.

  2. Athena July 25, 2007 at 07:14 #

    Nice one Kev.

    Two points.
    1. Per the Order to Show Cause, “EDTA” was administered by IV push – startlingly it’s recorded that “Mom” wants EDTA IV push.

    “IV push” refers to the method of administration in which the drug (in a syringe with diluent) is injected intravenously over several minutes. Neither Endrate nor Versenate should ever be administered by IV push because it can be (and has been) fatal.

    Endrate’s label directs physicians to administer 40mg/kg diluted in 500ml of 5% dextrose or sodium chloride over a period of no less than three hours.
    http://www.circare.org/foia2/endrate_ppi.pdf

    The label for Versenate directs physicians to administer no more than 1000mg/day diluted in 250-500ml of 5% dextrose or 0.9% sodium chloride over 8 to 12 hours.
    http://www.circare.org/foia2/3M_ca2na_versenate.pdf

    Tariq got Endrate diluted 1:1 with normal saline by IV push over several minutes. There’s no question about a right or wrong drug: either drug could have been lethal when administered by IV push.

    Why promote administration by IV push? Maybe because DAN docs suspect they couldn’t sell chelation with “EDTA” if they followed the directions for safe administration and gave it to kids over 8-12 hours. In the hospital.

    2. Following on Kristina’s comment, Dr. Bock is the outgoing president of the American Academy for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), the “professional” organization dedicated to promoting so-called EDTA chelation therapy. Let me clarify what ACAM doesn’t: so-called EDTA chelation therapy uses Endrate exclusively. In response to Tariq’s death, and under the leadership of president Bock, ACAM issued a press release, which is noteworthy for the fact that it actually says Endrate can benefit autistic children with “heavy metal toxicities.”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060210091523/http://acam.org/Position+Statement+UK+Child+Final2.pdf

  3. MJ July 25, 2007 at 14:13 #

    I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. From what I understand an order to show cause is not a factual finding or ruling of State Board. It seems to be a statement of the commonwealths believes to have happened. I would wait until the board actually rules on the facts of the matter before presenting allegations as facts.

  4. Joseph July 25, 2007 at 14:27 #

    “So far, of the first 470 parents who reported on the efficacy of chelation, 75% report “good” results, which is by far the highest “good” percentage reported for any of the 88 biomedical interventions”

    Did Bernie write that I wonder? Would he have forgotten that was exactly the rate of “cure” he claimed for Secretin some years earlier?

  5. notmercury July 25, 2007 at 15:45 #

    Ah yes. Rimland’s prediction for secretin.

    “My best guess is that when the dust settles, the percentage of patients who improve will be well over 70 percent,” says Rimland.”

  6. Joseph July 25, 2007 at 16:47 #

    And this one:

    The use of secretin appears to be the most promising treatment yet discovered for the treatment of autism… Judging from what we hear from physicians who have infused many cases (not from our SOS data) at least 75% (!) of their patients on the autistic spectrum show benefits from secretin, but we cannot yet identify a subgroup that does notably better or worse than the total group

  7. Anon July 25, 2007 at 21:05 #

    Interesting post, thanks. It might also be helpful if some of the critical information on Rimland and the ARI could be added to their (currently glowing) wikipedia entries?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_Research_Institute
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Rimland

  8. Matt July 25, 2007 at 22:29 #

    A recent article surveyed parents about therapies and other issues.

    “Parental reports on the use of treatments and therapies for children with autism spectrum disorders”

    Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Volume 1, Issue 3, July-September 2007, Pages 195-209
    Robin P. Goin-Kochel, Barbara J. Myers and Virginia H. Mackintosh

    The survey was done over the internet, and they advertised it with groups like ASA. Based on this, I would suspect the audience to be more favorable to biomed and chelation than the average, but I could be wrong.

    They found that about 10% of families with an autistic child had tried Chelation. Of those, about 1/2 had quit.

    My take–it is not “common”.

    Interestingly, only 4% of families that had an AS or PDD child had tried it.

    By comparison, about 50% had tried ABA, 95% had tried speech therapy, and about 1/3 had tried diets.

    Chelation is rare. It should be more rare. When a child (or anyone) has a real need–a demonstrated real test that shows too much heavy metal–it should be used. Challenge tests and other quackery should be left at the door.

    Matt

  9. Regan July 25, 2007 at 22:43 #

    Having been around for the secretin imbroglio and the firm assertions on that one based on “good results” by “parent report”, I take anything since that time on the ARI website with a cup of salt.

    I appreciate Bernard Rimland’s achievement of killing the current-at-the-time-in the 60’s- Bettelheim model of autism, which caused so many families (mothers in particular) so much grief. That said, I have been increasingly appalled with the continuing evolution of ARI into the headquarters of woo, which is now creeping into the ASA via the recent partnership. It might be popular, but that don’t make it scientifically evidenced.

  10. Matt July 26, 2007 at 00:38 #

    Take a look at the link:
    http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/treatment/form34q.htm.

    First off, the spin of calling “Chelation” “Detox” is interesting…

    That said, they had 324 people try “Detox”. This out of 23,700 parent reports.

    Even at ARI, this is not a common treatment (thank god).

    I wonder if Tariq is counted amongst the 2% who got worse? His mother and I have somewhat different criteria, it appears. I put “death” as a sign that things got worse.

    Matt

  11. Prometheus July 26, 2007 at 04:25 #

    It’s interesting that of the three “chelating agents” mentioned by name in the ARI’s chelation “protocol” (DMSA, DMPS, TTFD), only one (DMSA) is approved by the FDA for any use in the US (TTFD is available – so ARI says – as an Investigational New Drug for study only).

    In addition, TTFD has no demonstrated chelating action – in fact, according to ARI, its two sulfide groups are left on the cell membrane, which is not a good way to get “heavy metals” out of the body.

    So, out of the three named chelating agents, one has no known chelating action and two are not approved for general use by the FDA. Moreover, in the same document, ARI claims that:

    “Many DAN! physicians have reported clinically observed improvement in their ASD patients using TTFD…” although “Initial worsening of symptoms sometimes occurs…”

    In other words, the kids get better, and if they don’t, it’s to be expected.

    And am I the only one wondering how the “DAN! physicians” get their TTFD? Again, according to ARI:

    “Physicians may have it compounded for individual patients by a compounding pharmacist.”

    Ah, the mystery is solved! “Compounding pharmacists” – like the ones in Texas that “compounded” a colchicine solution ten times more concentrated than the label stated which killed two people in Oregon.

    It is disingenuous in the extreme for ARI and its new head, Stephen Edelson, to claim that the “DAN! Protocol” does not include EDTA. The “protocol” mentions three drugs – two of which are not approved for use in the US – and states that :

    “There are many different agents for detoxification of metals…” and “The three major ones we will discuss include DMSA, DMPS, and TTFD.”

    If they had used a modicum of prudence when drafting this “protocol”, they would have explicitly ruled out the use of EDTA, since it has been known for decades that EDTA is not effective at chelating mercury (it’s not that great for lead, either). However, the DAN! cult is heavily infiltrated with members of ACAM (American College for Advancement in Medicine), which advocates EDTA chelation. The DAN! protocol couldn’t discourage EDTA chelation without risking the ire of many of its senior members.

    Unfortunately, DAN! and ARI (is there a difference, or are they just two parts of the same beast?) are irretrievably wedded to the type of “physician” and style of practice that killed Tariq Nadama. They can “regret” Tariq’s needless (and negligent) death, but they can’t afford to say a word against the practices that led to it.

    Someday, the rest of the world will realize this.

    Why not today?

    Prometheus

  12. someone who wanted to write about it July 26, 2007 at 04:54 #

    “I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. From what I understand an order to show cause is not a factual finding or ruling of State Board.”

    MJ;

    That’s precisely why I referred to the document as the “Order To Show Cause” and included a link to the document (which clearly explains the nature of an order to show cause).

    Care to refute any of the actual information? Or are you going to simply attempt to beat on the strawman who did not claim to be presenting a factual finding or ruling of the State Board?

  13. MJ July 26, 2007 at 15:16 #

    someone who wanted to write about it Says:

    “Care to refute any of the actual information? Or are you going to simply attempt to beat on the strawman who did not claim to be presenting a factual finding or ruling of the State Board?”

    When you have statements like :

    “Mary Jean Brown’s statement to the press was apparently made in January of 2006. The Order To Show Cause was not made public until September of 2006, so it’s understandable that ARI’s statement from March of 2006 does not reflect this new information”

    This implies that the “new information” is factual. If the information is not factual then why would you be implying that they should be taking it into account?

    There are many other statements like that through out the article that imply that you are presenting facts when in fact you are not. You are presenting the contents of a one legal filing without even addressing any rebuttal of the charges by the respondent (see the clause that “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent file an Answer to this Order to Show Cause in writing within thirty (30) days” ?). Did the respondent dispute the “facts” of the case listed in the order? Did they stipulate to the facts?

    As as for refuting the order to show cause, I don’t have the facts of the case, and I suspect that you don’t either. There is too much uninformed speculation already, I don’t feel the need to add mine to the mix. If you want a rebuttal then go to talk to the people who are actually involved in the case. Go read all of the filing in the case. Go sit in the court room (if allowed) and listen to the testimony.

  14. David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) July 27, 2007 at 00:58 #

    Matt, tried the link… got this: “The page cannot be found
    The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.”

  15. Kate July 27, 2007 at 17:29 #

    I think a lot of people wil try anthing there autisim is concerned. Here is an article about the mothers age making it more likely to have an autistic chid. I cant help but wonder about the conditiosn of that study. http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/536060/Health?c_id=wom-kg-jlt – Kate from the newsroom.com ‘s womens health desk.

  16. Matt July 27, 2007 at 18:02 #

    David,

    sorry, the period at the end got addedto the URL

    http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/treatment/form34q.htm

  17. Regan July 27, 2007 at 21:04 #

    Matt, thanks for citing the research paper.
    I am including the link to the abstract (and if it doesn’t activate, can someone give me a little prompt on how to do that?):

    Goin-Kochel, Robin P., Myers, Barbara J., and Mackintosh, Virginia H. (2007). Parental reports on the use of treatments and therapies for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Volume 1, Issue 3, July-September 2007, Pages 195-209
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2006.08.006

    Prometheus,
    Not using biomed myself, I don’t know where specific practitioners get the TTFD, but I did a little searching for it last night and found that the synonym allithiamine is used and that there are commercial sources for that.

    For example: http://www.naturalhealthconsult.com/Monographs/Allithiamine.html

    On that vein, this might be interesting
    http://68.178.215.106/powerpoint/dan2003/Lonsdale.htm

    Note that the reference is to arsenic, not mercury, which suggests that there already is, or may be a shifting of the goalposts at some point.

    I think that it is disingenuous for ARI to post information on woo, post stats that suggest the “efficacy” of woo, have a list of DAN! practitioners (including Dr. Kerry), various position papers and “protocols” and then disclaim all of it by statements saying that they make no recommendation, endorsement, etc. Is that legally sufficient to protect the organization from liability? Just wondering.

  18. David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) July 28, 2007 at 03:32 #

    Thanks Matt….

    Well.

    I had a look.

    Utter bollocks!

    The ARI is not a research institute… how can it be? They don’t know how to do research!!!!

  19. Athena July 28, 2007 at 12:14 #

    ARI funds “research.” To get an idea of what sort of research they fund, you browse through their IRS returns. Go to the end and scroll backwards; the applicable schedule is usually around p.15 depending.

    2005 – quick glance suggests about half is quack rubbish from like-minded dogmatists; the rest I can’t evaluate: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/952/952548452/952548452_200512_990.pdf

    2004: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/952/952548452/952548452_200412_990.pdf

    2003: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/952/952548452/952548452_200312_990.pdf

    2002: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/952/952548452/952548452_200212_990.pdf

    Sigh.

  20. Matt July 28, 2007 at 13:59 #

    “The ARI is not a research institute… how can it be? They don’t know how to do research”

    Definitely. From the descriptions I have heard, ARI is a storefront office with a few people in it. In Rimland’s day it was a pretty disorganized place with stacks of papers/books everywhere. Supposedly the new head is a more organized person, but this won’t change the fact that it isn’t a “research institute”.

    I do find it interesting that in their survey–which I would expect to be skewed to over-reporting the number of people chelating–shows a very low number of people trying it.

    Matt

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: