Archive | Mercury RSS feed for this section

Geiers, Jim Adams – oh and some science

22 May

As I alluded to in my last post, there’s been a glut of publications regarding autism and thiomersal/mercury of late.

First (as they reached me) was Jim Adams latest nothing paper. Do’C has the full story but the salient points to take home about this study is that:

There’s plenty of other silliness in this paper, including citations of Geier and Geier, and a tiny sample size that produced data that I think most people would look at and ask, “so what?”. But the bottom line is this – is the authors’ conclusion supported by the data?….Neither mercury body burden nor excretion was demonstrated to be related to mercury levels in teeth, autistic children were not demonstrated to be “poor mercury excretors”, and high usage of oral antibiotics was not demonstrated to impair mercury excretion in humans.

An interesting side note – this paper was published in a journal that recently published the latest Geier twaddle. Seems like the editor likes a bit of woo. As Do’C uncovered from the editor of this journal:

“According to the literature there is a relationship between vaccines and autism.”

Which is weird as numerous literature reviews have shown the exact opposite. Either the editor is a very credulous sort or…well, no, he’s just a bloody idiot.

Now we turn to a study called ‘Lack of association between Rh status, Rh immune globulin in pregnancy and autism‘.

This study looked at:

whether mothers of children with autism are more likely to be Rh negative (Rh-) or to have received RhIg preserved with thimerosal, which is 49.6% ethyl mercury

So – do kids with autism come from a population who’s mothers had received RhIg? Thats what this study asked. The answer was:

Rh- status is no higher in mothers of children with autism than in the general population, exposure to antepartum RhIg, preserved with thimerosal is no higher for children with autism and pregnancies are no more likely to be Rh incompatible. This was also true for autism subgroups defined by behavioral phenotype, gender, IQ, regressive onset, head circumference, dysmorphology, birth status, essential, or complex phenotype

Of course, this answer didn’t suit SafeMinds Mark Blaxill. He released his usual pontificating crapola:

The study was funded by Johnson & Johnson, the largest manufacturer of RhIg products and the defendant in several lawsuits alleging a link between autism and mercury in RhIg. In an earlier 2005 poster presentation, the study authors acknowledged that the research was “supported by Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research,” but the University of Missouri press release omits mention of this conflict of interest.

Last I heard Marky, scientists don’t write press releases. Marketing depts do. As you yourself admit, when the poster version of this paper was presented, the *authors* (as oppose to the marketing dept) *did* acknowledge their funding. So, whats your point? That Missouri University Marketing dept. screwed up? Talk about a strawman.

And lets top beating around the bush here. If defendants in lawsuits can’t fund science, then why is it OK for prosecutors to fund science? If you want to go down the ‘conflict of interest’ route than that means Geier, Adams and a whole host of others who have already profited to the tune of several thousand pounds and who stand to profit even more should be equally discounted.

The press release headline falsely claims that the “Study Finds No Link Between Autism and Thimerosal in Vaccines.” The study is about Rh immune globulin, and immune globulins are not vaccines. “The headline deceives the public,” noted Mark Blaxill, director of SafeMinds. “It says an autism-mercury in vaccines link has been disproved when the research did not do so.”

Once again Marky – try and assimilate the difference between a press release and the actual paper. The paper’s abstract doesn’t mention the word vaccine until the very last sentence – and then only to point out thiomersal is also in vaccines. None of Blaxill’s point address _science_ at all. They try and make a strawman out of a press release. A press release the scientists who wrote this _paper_ no doubt had no control over whatsoever.

Blaxill then goes on to say that SafeMinds found numerous errors with the poster presentation but neglects to state what they were. Guess we should just trust them.

And if we want further verification of the non-link between the Rhogam issue then we should look no further than ‘Rh and ABO Maternal-Fetal Incompatibility and Risk of Autism‘ published in 2006 (Zandi et al) which states:

Moreover, some have speculated that RhD immune globulin injections may itself increase autism risk due to increased prenatal
exposure to thimerosal [Blaxill et al., 2004], an ethyl mercury containing vaccine preservative used in some formulations. The current findings do not support the hypothesis that the risk of autism is increased due to existing potential complications of maternal-fetal incompatibility with or without prophylaxis, nor do they appear to be consistent with the suggestion that the use of prophylaxis itself may increase risk.

Of course, SafeMinds don’t mention this as it clearly demonstrates the quackery that Blaxill wallows in.

And by the by, isn’t it incredible that for a group of people who are now claiming it never was _just_ about the thiomersal (See Brad Handley’s amazing feat of flip-flopping for details) they are certainly clinging on like grim death to that fallacy?

And hey – what about all those ‘other things’ (usually in vaccines) that ’cause autism’? Well, another recent study looked at just how well the practice of provoking reactions using a chelator (DMSA in this case) actually worked. ‘24-hour provoked urine excretion test for heavy metals in children with autism and typically developing controls, a pilot study.‘ looked at:

…Seventeen children with autism and five typically developing children were enrolled in a pilot study to test for chelatable body burden of Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Lead (Pb), and Mercury (Hg)

And the results?

Fifteen autistic children and four typically developing children completed the study. Three autistic subjects excreted one metal in greater quantity during the provoked excretion than baseline. Two of these were very close to the limit of detection. In the third case, the provoked excretion of mercury was between the upper limit of normal and lower limit of the potentially toxic reference range.

In other words – none of the kids, autistic or otherwise had clear progression into the toxic range of body burden of any metal. Three autistic kids had slightly higher results when DMSA was used to provoke than when it wasn’t. However, again, none was high enough to get into the toxic range. And as for the third autistic child, the team did one more thing:

Fish was removed from this child’s diet for greater than one month, and the provoked excretion test repeated. The repeat excretion of mercury was within the normal range.

Hilarious. The conclusion:

In the absence a proven novel mode of heavy metal toxicity, the proportion of autistic participants in this study whose DMSA provoked excretion results demonstrate an excess chelatable body burden of As, Cd, Pb, or Hg is zero.

Zero. None. Nada. Zip. Bugger all.

Lets hope that this pilot study is expanded upon and replicated.

And talking of chelation studies, Diva has some hot gossip regarding the fate of the NIMH chealtion study:

Dr. Swedo was running a chelation study at the NIMH until recently. The word, coming from a reliable source, is that the study has been shut down. This is good news, because it was a horrible study with horrible ethical problems and no legitimate scientific underpinnings. The study still appears on the clinicaltrials.gov page, but the link to the NIMH page is dead. So maybe the study rests in peace, too.

Last, but far from least, a fascinating theoretical study called ‘The Autism Epidemic: Fact or Artifact?’ has looked at the epidemic wankfest:

Using a prediction analysis, we calculate how broadening diagnostic criteria, younger age at diagnosis, and improved efficiency of case ascertainment could produce temporal trends in the incidence and prevalence of AD.

and what did they come up with?

Time trend studies report an increase as large as 11.0-fold over a 13-year period for AD. Conservative changes in the three methodological factors produced increases in the frequency of AD ranging from 2.1- to 28.8-fold

Interesting stuff. Hardly conclusive, but certainly food for thought. I can’t help but note that it comes from researchers at Columbia University. I wonder what that other CU employee Mady ‘they chewed through my skull’ Horning thinks about this study?

DAN! Doctors – The ‘other’ list

12 May

The eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed a new main menu entry at the top of this page between ‘wiki’ and ‘contact’ called DAN! Doctors.

This page contains a (worryingly long) list of some of the people with the loose honorific of ‘DAN! Doctor’ who are on the official ARI list. However, unlike the ARI list, this list will tell you the ‘other’ side of the happy-clappy hero’s of DAN! It contains notes on prosecutions, license suspensions, criminal acts and current investigations.

I can take absolutely no credit for the compilation of this list. It was handed to me by someone who wishes to remain anonymous.

This is a static page at the moment. In the near future, this page will move to its own domain and website and be driven by a database backend as it grows (as I’m sadly sure it will) however I wanted to get this up as quickly as possible.

The bottom line is that over 10% of DAN! docs (that have been looked at so far) have been in trouble. Trouble ranges from killing a patient, to paedophilia, to gross negligence to tax evasion. If you know a parent considering a DAN! doctor then make sure they read this list first. At the very least, even if they do decide to go ahead, they can avoid the bad guys.

Generation Rescue II – This Time It’s Vague

3 May

As already blogged by Steve and Orac, Generation Rescue have undergone a change in both website and message.

Up until this week and for the last two years, Brad Handley – GR Head Honcho has promoted a message quite unequivocal:

“Autism is treatable. It’s reversible. It’s nothing more than mercury poisoning,” said JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue.

In fact, giving a reason for the redesign of the site on Orac’s blog, Brad said:

From my perspective, our website and its message have always been broader than “its ONLY mercury”…

Huh. Weird. Maybe its just me but I detect a teensy-weensy inconsistency between those two statements. Lets switch to the video!!:

And for the non-video-blessed amongst us, what Brad said was:

We immediately realised…and I think this is something that is a big surprise to people….um, that autism is a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning.

Riiight. So let me see if I can summarise the position. When there is no science to have an informed debate about mercury, and when there’s lots of scary sounding stuff like ‘the Amish aren’t vaccinated and have no autism’ or ‘CDDS proves the epidemic’ floating around then the situation is:

“Autism is treatable. It’s reversible. It’s nothing more than mercury poisoning”.

Now that there’s no science to establish a causative link between mercury and autism, plenty of epidemiology to refute it and now that the first piece of science on the Amish has shown that actually they do vaccinate and that the penny has finally dropped, even for David Kirby, regarding CDDS’ inability to support the epidemic, what is the Generation Rescue position now? Lets see shall we?:

Our children are experiencing epidemics of ADD/ADHD, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and Autism. We believe these neurological disorders (“NDs”) are environmental illnesses caused by an overload of heavy metals, live viruses, and bacteria.

Wow. So we’re now no longer talking about just autism. We’re now talking about ‘neurological disorders’, including ADD/ADHD which is not even classed as being on the spectrum. That is quite some turnabout.

And look at this! Now, we’re talking about a _combination_ of causative agents: heavy metals (not just mercury any more), live viruses and bacteria.

Incredible. Makes you feel almost sorry for poor old mercury don’t it? Last week it was the Terror of the High Seas. Now it doesn’t even make it as a distinct causative agent.

The ‘live viruses’ is in there to placate the Wakefield Worshipers who think the MMR also (or in combination with mercury) caused autism. The ‘bacteria’ mention is I’m guessing a nod to the Martha Herbert theory of mold causing autism – a theory that was described thusly last time Martha took it to court:

Dr. Herbert’s publications indicate that she is an outspoken advocate of increased attention to the possibility of environmental influences. Even she, however, despite that acknowledged perspective, speaks in her published work of possibilities and potentialities, rather than of the ‘reasonable degree of medical certainty’ to which she offers to testify under oath in this case. Neither Dr. Herbert’s publications, nor any others cited, identify mold exposure as even a suspected, still less a known or proven, trigger of autism

Going back to MMR and taking a brief side journey for a minute, here’s the latest update from the Autism Omnibus proceedings. When last we left it, Petitioners had put forward one family as a ‘test case’ to see if the whole Omnibus proceeding had enough merit to proceed. There were supposed to be three. Awhile ago, the court told Petitioners to hurry up and identify the other two. They couldn’t. Respondents replied with:

The Court ordered the PSC to find two cases (similar enough to the first) to present the same basic theory of causation…..the essence of its (PSC’s) response is that it does not know of any case presenting the same causation issues as are implicated in Cedillo.

Ouch. How long has this been dragging on? Five years or something? And out of the 4,700 cases in the Omnibus no other case can be found to match the first one put forward. The only people who must be enjoying this are the lawyers.

Anyway, back to Generation Rescue.

Of particular note is the much vaunted, never seen ‘California-Oregon Unvaccinated Children Survey’ of described thusly by GR:

no studies have ever been done to compare neurological disorder (“ND”) rates of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. We commissioned a national market research firm to survey more than 17,000 children in California and Oregon.

National market research firm eh? How very scientific. Researching popular chewing gum, researching autism causation. Yep, they’re the same. Souds very much like a a ‘convenience sample’ where people are called up. Here’s a friend of Brad’s describing what a convenience sample is and is not:

So. Not data according to David Kirby. Bummer.

Generation Rescue have also revamped their ‘Testimonials’ section. This is the section I looked at I August of last year and reached a (very) rough figure of a 5% success rate for the kids talked about on the GR site where ‘success’ is losing the diagnosis:

Out of these 59 success stories, just 3 describe their child as having been reclassified as no longer meeting a diagnosis of ASD. That’s a ‘recovery’ rate of 5%. Interestingly, one of these cases states they did not use chelation at all. That puts the Generation Rescue chelation success rate at a little over 3%.

Now, Generation Rescue have 76 ‘success stories’ (except they’re not called that any more, now they’re ‘testimonials’). Of that number, 6 claim full recovery with total loss of diagnosis. That’s a percentage of 7.8%. A heady leap of over 2%. Woo-hoo.

I was drawn to some of the newer testimonials, particularly the 6 year old ones as Meg only recently turned 7. One of them, about a girl called Liz was fascinating.

Our daughter Liz was diagnosed with low functioning autism at age three. We blamed the DTP vaccine which she had a bad reaction to. She would have very long lasting meltdowns, she would smear faeces, she would exhibit self injurious behaviour, she did not talk at all, she avoided eye contact and her only activity was that involving toys that spun. She walked on her tip toes and the doctor said she had a low IQ (below 70). We were told by mainstream medicine that she was ‘unreachable’.

Today Liz is six and after following biomedical interventions (and some other things) Liz will talk – on Christmas morning this year I went to wake her up and she said ‘good morning’ to me. She no longer smears faeces and is 99% toilet trained, she can write notes to people and knows all the letters of the alphabet and can count up to 40 unprompted. She can use a computer mouse unaided and has numerous favourite websites. The self injurious behaviour is vastly lessened, as are the meltdowns. Her eye contact is now perfect and overall her sensory issues seem 99% under control. She can drink out of a normal cup and use a knife, fork and spoon to eat whilst sitting at the table.

In so many ways, this is a different child.

Why was I drawn to this little girl so much?

Because it’s Megan’s story. I assumed a false name – Mr Clarence House – and emailed it to the Generation Rescue site. ‘Clarence’ received an email saying it was going to be on the new site which I was very happy about.

All of it is true except the name. The biomedical treatments I was talking about were multi vitamins, fish oil and a steroid inhlaer for her asthma. The ‘other things’ were love, acceptance, patience and education.

Why do this? To prove a point. You can make anyone’s story fit your own beliefs if you twist it hard enough.

Don’t worry, if it disappears I took a loving screenshot.

Brad Handley has tried to shift his goalposts as his first guess wasn’t working out. As evidenced above, he has latched on to items that are equally silly. As evidenced above he is incapable of seeing autism. He only sees mercury. As evidenced above, improvement is not limited – or even related to – detoxification of heavy metals.

Autism amongst the Amish

22 Apr

Don’t Stand So Close To Me

I recently had an email conversation with someone who is married to a lapsed Mennonite and who’s secretary is a lapsed Amish. As this was too good an opportunity to miss I asked xyr about autism amongst the Amish and vaccinations.

I was interested in Dan Olmsted’s idea that he and his sources waltz around Amish communities, grabbing people and asking ‘got any autism in the family’? and calling this reporting. When we talked about this xyr answer was fascinating:

As for tracking autistics, forget about it. Families are not likely going to seek diagnosis unless there are seizures or some other acute issue. Imagine driving up to a bunch of Amish farms and asking, “Are any of your kids autistic?” I would guess they probably haven’t ever heard of the word.

As xe explains it, the Amish are deeply religious people. Xe has first hand experience of this and explained to me how it would be virtually impossible given these beliefs and on such a short aquaintance for Olmsted – or his sources -to get ‘close’ to the Amish as a population:

The entire Amish religion is based on shunning the outside, secular world, these are the biblical tenants they live by:

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. (II Corinthians 6:14)

Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. (II Corinthians 6:17)

And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

The Amish only make accommodations when necessary. So, they have a phone in the barn to call the vet and the dairy plant. They accept rides in automobiles and trucks but don’t drive. They may shop for essentials but they aren’t going to chat you up.

And as I said before, I doubt seriously that they would seek a diagnosis for autism unless there was some acute comorbidity like seizures. They would likely know that their child was different but that was god’s will.

and as for vaccination:

The Amish are not anti-vaccine. Some Amish kids go to public school and must be vaccinated. My brother-in-law was raised Amish until about age 10 and he’s got the small pox scar to prove the point.

The basic gist is that the Amish are leery of non-Amish/Mennonite (whom they refer to as ‘the English’ (!!) apparently) but if a matter is medical and may cause threats to health than they are not stupid and seek out Western medicine.

Based on this, I really have doubts that Olmsted ever did more than stablish himself as a ‘nosey English’. I really have trouble believing that such a reserved, separate people would open up to either him or his water cooler salesman source about their personal, private medical matters.

No Autism Amongst The Amish

Its a long standing (and oft repeated) belief amongst the autism/antivaccine believers that there is no autism, or vastly reduced incidence of autism, amongst the Amish. This belief is repeated by all and sundry:

…thousands of Amish, almost all of whom do not vaccinate their children and do not seem to suffer much autism.

Dan Olmsted.

This finding of no significant level of “autism”….has also been observed in the unvaccinated children of the Amish

Dr Paul King, CoMed, closed access Yahoo List.

….the Amish community who do not participate in Western medicine, including the practice of vaccinations, have demonstrated their rates of autism are substantially lower.

Lisa Ackerman, TACA (Talk about Curing Autism) Executive Director, closed access Yahoo List.

Why has there never been autism in the Amish community? They dont vaccinate!

Poster ‘Jan’ to closed access Yahoo List.

I challenge anyone to go into any Amish community in this country and find autistic children. You won’t find them. Yet, our schools are being over run with autistic children. Why? The Amish do not vaccinate.

Poster ‘Paul Troutt’ to closed access Yahoo List

HE [friend of the poster] HAS NEVER SEEN AN AUTISTIC AMISH CHILD OR ADULT…. Why? THE[y] DO NOT IMMUNIZE….EVER.

Poster ‘Amethyst Mueller’ to closed access Yahoo List.

And so it seems clear right? All these people are saying the same thing. We could go into any Amish community and find very, very low or zero autism. And to what do these people attribute the non-existent autism? Vaccines (or the lack thereof) of course!

What would happen if we removed one of these factors from the equation?

The Old-Order Amish have low rates of vaccination and are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. A written survey was mailed to all Amish households in the largest Amish community in Illinois inquiring about their vaccination status and
that of their children.

Source.

Well, well. How very interesting. Finally some _science_ , as oppose to journalism, that examines whether the oft-reported belief that the Amish don’t vaccinate is true. What did these guys find?

Responses were received by 225 (60%) of the 374 Amish households in the community with children aged <15 years. An additional 120 responses were received by households without children. A total of 189 (84%) households with children reported
that all of their children had received vaccinations; 28 (12%) reported that some of their children had received vaccinations; and
8 (4%) reported that none of their children had received vaccinations.

84% of Amish households reported all their kids had received vaccinations. Only 4% reported that none of their kids had received vaccinations.

Among all respondents who knew their own vaccination status, 281/313 (90%) reported that they had received vaccinations
as children

Wow. Amazing how the two to three ‘toxic train wrecks’ from amongst these adults could not only have been missed (vaccine induced autism being unmissable as we all know) but also managed to fill in a survey.

So – we can say that the assumption that the Amish do not vaccinate is in severe doubt. When 90% of Amish adults in a survey state they received vaccinations and when 84% state all their kids have been vaccinated to what do we attribute the fact that according to Dan Olmsted, Dr Paul King, Lisa Ackerman and various posters on Yahoo groups there is little to no autism amongst the Amish?

Lisa Sykes and Paul King: CoMed with a silent ‘y’

17 Apr

One of the more extreme quackery groups formed post-EoH is CoMed (the ‘y’ is silent) which is run by the Rev Lisa Sykes and Dr Paul King recently emailed a large group of people with a PDF Press Release that tried to make the case that autistic children were proven to be clinically mercury poisoned.

How did they reach this earth shattering conclusion? By stating that two papers and one methodology backed them up. Have a read of the document – its a fascinating example of how the militia attempt to ‘spin’ the reality of the situation and try to make things sounds like a given. Note the silent switch about halfway through from talking about ‘mercury’ in general to talking about ‘vaccines’ in particular.

Anyway, Sykes and King were good enough to note only post this press release on EoH but also to tell the group exactly who they had emailed – a motely crew, ranging from fellow whacko’s like David Ayoub to Governer Arnie “I’ll be back” Schwarzenegger, plus a host of journalists, lawyers etc.

So, I thought I’d better put these poor people straight and consequently sent them a letter. This is what I sent them:

Dear Madams and Sirs,

Firstly, please accept my apologies for the unsolicited email. I hope it is not intrusive.

I wanted to write to you as you were the recipients of a recent email/PDF press release from the group ComEd regarding their belief that ‘Autistic Children Clinically Proven Mercury Poisoning’. I wanted to offer an alternative to this erroneous belief. I will cite any references I make and I promise to keep this brief.

The ComEd press release uses two studies[1,2] and a technique as the ‘mainstay’ of its certainty that autistic children are clinically proven to be mercury poisoned.

The Geier paper [1] is an attempted replication of the Nataf paper [2] and suffers from its same substantial drawbacks.

Issue one: The role of precoproporphyrin.

Nataf et al claim that the presence of elevated precoproporphyrin is a specific indicator of mercury toxicity. They do this on the basis of three studies produced by one author[3,4,5]. When these studies are read properly, if we ask the question “Does exposure to heavy metals cause a relative elevation for certain porphyrin compounds in urine?” the answer would appear to be “Yes.” However, If we ask the question “Is the presence of certain urinary porphyrin compounds a specific indicator of heavy metal toxicity?” the answer would have to be “No”[6]

The Woods papers are interesting but far from conclusive enough for the Nataf and consequently Geier papers to reply on.

Issue two: Creatinine and the subsequent UPPA technique

In their press release ComEd claim that the UPPA (urinary porphyrin profile analysis) technique is a ‘highly accurate’ method of determining toxicity. Indeed, it is the method used by the Nataf and Geier papers. In this method, the urine of children is collected and analysed for the presence of porphyrin’s. If they are elevated then QED: the children must be metal poisoned.

Except its not as simple as that. The content, volume and dilution of urine varies considerably from patient to patient. The way around this issue is to measure a secondary constant element from the urine and compare the amount of porphyrins found against the amount of this compound and express the result as a ratio. This is what Nataf, Geier and the UPPA technique does. It utilises creatinine – a constant in urine – to provide a baseline figure and thus get an accurate percentage of porphyrins.

This is a standard way of measuring compounds in urine. The only issue is found when the population in question (autistic children in this case) are known to have significantly low levels of creatinine. Obviously, this would skew the results considerably and present a false reading of elevated porphyrins.

Is there recorded instances of low creatinine in autistic kids? It seems that there might be.

“Spot urinary creatinine excretion in pervasive developmental disorders” published in Pediatrics International[7], reports low creatinine levels in PDD:

a significant decrease in urinary creatinine concentration was found in the PDD group compared to controls using a Mann–Whitney two-tailed ranks test.

Of course, this just one study. Its a good start but thats it. But maybe its interesting that the group of maverick DAN! doctors (of whom one is treating Rev Sykes of ComEd’s autistic son I believe) also find low creatinine in autistic kids[8]:

“”Creatinine is often found to be marginal in the urine of autistics, and low creatinine can skew urine analyte results to high levels. So, also take note of creatinine levels if the laboratory results include ratioing to creatinine.””

I engaged in an email exchange with Professor Richard Lathe, secondary author of the Nataf paper[2] regarding the study his group had published and I questioned him at length regarding this creatinine issue. He said:

1.There was no significant decline in urinary CRT levels in any of the autism groups, though there was a non-significant trend to a reduced level. 2. Reduced CRT, and increased porphyrin, both appear to be markers of environmental toxicity.

However, neither of these observations were reported in the published paper. Lathe described it as ‘pointless’ to publish all data. I disagreed with him citing the uncertainty over creatinine levels and he conceded:

The long and short of it is that the response of CRT to different levels of heavy metal toxicity has not been studied adequately.

Which is a troubling statement considering that his paper required CRT to be well understood and to be functioning as described in order for the science in the paper to be accurate.

Lathe also conceded that other key parts of his paper (and consequently the UPPA method) were in doubt and relied on science that had been refuted and thrown out of court when attempted to be used in private prosecution[9]

The UPPA method has been in use for some time amongst adherents to the theory that mercury poisoning (notably from vaccines) causes autism. I have found numerous emails to a private access Yahoo Group called ‘chelating2kids’ which details peoples experiences with this method. Here are just three.:

1: “A fellow listmate had her son tested twice– once over the summer which showed he had no elevated metals, and one this fall that showed he did indeed have elevated metal levels. She has sent an email to the lab asking about the differing results and has not received a response. I believe she is still trying to contact them”

2: “FWIW, my neighbor’s dad happens to be a porphyrin specialist here in Boston (believe it or not– how many of those are there??). He reviewed lots of info for me– Nataf’s paper, my son’s results that showed very elevated metals across the board– and said he would have rejected the paper for publication had he been asked to review it. He said that fecal, not urine, should be used to measure the porphyrin levels. I sent an email to the lab inquiring about this and also received no response”

3: “I just received the results of the French porphyrin test for myself and my 7 year old NT [NeuroTypical – i.e. non autistic] daughter, and the results also show severe lead and mercury toxicity. My daughters numbers are worse than my ASD son!”

In closing, I would suggest that any assurances that mercury poisoning as a causative agent of autism are even likely, let alone ‘clinically proven’ should be taken with a very large grain of salt. I would also suggest that Rev Sykes role as an anti-vaccine activist and vaccine/autism litigant[10] are taken into account when considering the validity and motives of this press release.

Thanks for listening. My motive for writing this email is that, as parent to a severely autistic seven year old girl, I am sick to death of hearing bad science and media-driven misrepresentations attempt to coerce from autistic people what they truly need – decent, peer reviewed science which lead to good educational interventions for all autistic people. Thanks again.

References

[1]PubMed
[2]PubMed
[3]PubMed
[4]PubMed
[5]PubMed
[6]NotMercury
[7]Ingenta
[8]Google Cache of DAN! site
[9]Me
[10]Neurodiversity.com

I’ve had a number of fascinating responses, but my far and away favourite response was:

thank you for your email it has made it easier to apply you to my junk filter even though the junk file is far to good for the likes of you sir.

Which I received from one David Ayoub MD. The same man I publicly challenged to a web based debate less than two weeks ago on a third party letters page and who backed down.

Update: 18th April 2007

Dr King of CoMed produced a response to my rebuttal. You can read that here. and I couldn’t resist one more frolic through the CoMedy logic,as you can read here.

Autism, Chelation and Quackery

15 Apr

Mercury Mum, Christine Heeren recently posted a video of her son receiving IV chelation on YouTube.

UPDATE: Shortly after this blog post went live, the YouTube video disappeared. Luckily I had already grabbed a copy which you can view here:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5984127405622843714&hl=en-GB

Its a disturbing video on many levels. Heeren’s son has been undergoing chelation for seven months now and is still clearly totally autistic. During this video he is apparently writing ‘bus numbers’ down. The blog that Ms Heeren keeps (link on YouTube page) also makes it clear that her son still stims and he displays many common outward signs of autism (the scrunching up of the eyes at the start of the video reminds me of something my daughter does very much).

Heeren is subjecting her son to the Buttar protocol which should give anyone the stone cold heebie jeebies in and of itself. One patient of Buttar’s said that:

I find that Dr. Buttar talks a lot but produces little evidence.

And another said:

All the information about Dr. Buttar is still on this site but I no longer am one of his patients and I do not recommend him to any one for any reason. If you go to him for treatment BEWARE, BEWARE and read Roger Mason’s books first and go to QuackWatch.org first!

However, maybe we should take some kind of solace from the fact that Heeren’s doctor is not actually Buttar himself, only trained by Buttar. Maybe he’s a good doctor.

Heeren’s doctor is Muneer ImamMuneer Imam a shy, kind looking man wouldn’t you agree?

Well, he may well be.

In Jan 1993, the New York Office of Professional Conduct charged Muneer Imam:

…with gross negligence, gross incompetence, negligence on more than one occasion and failure to maintain adequate records.

The Hearing Committee sustained the charges of negligence on more than one occasion, incompetence on more than one occasion and failure to maintain adequate records. The Hearing Committee found Imam guilty of careless practice, lack of attention to detail and failure to appreciate the severity of patient illness

The incidents have included at least one death of a patient under the care of Imam.

The Hearing Committee (incredibly in my view) said he could probably be rehabilitated and laid out a plan of rehabilitation.

This all took place under Imam’s work at an ER. Imam no longer does ER work. I asked a medical friend about why that might be and xyr response was:

Since he no longer seems to do ER work, I imagine he settled a med mal claim for deceased patient A, and his insurer refused to write coverage for ER work and no hospital would cover him

Is this really someone any parent would want to trust with the kids life? A doctor found to be incompetent, negligent and who doesn’t pay attention to detail?

This inability to pay attention to details certainly seems to be playing out on Heeren’s video. Here is Imam’s nurse (a Vietnam vet called Nick) fitting the IV for a course of chelation.

No sterile

When I showed this to my medical friend xyr response was horrified:

WTF is this alleged nurse doing starting an IV without gloves??? What happened to sterile technique? Have they lost their minds?

and

What is this alleged nurse doing using that frigging tiny gauge needle???

It seems that the chelation protocol Buttar uses specifies a 22 gauge butterfly needle, not the tiny one seen in the video. There are good reasons why:

…..because this is the easiest to use for employees with no medical training who call themselves “chelation technicians.” The tiny needle also serves to prevent patients from killing themselves by increasing the drip rate when they’re sick of sitting around for hours. Increasing the drip through a 22 gauge butterfly needle should (in theory) burst the vein before delivering Endrate at a lethal rate. Clever stuff.

While almost everyone can start an IV with this tiny needle, it’s dangerous to use for chelation because if patients get into trouble you want a large bore needle inserted in case you need to administer drugs and fluids for treatment or god forbid, resuscitation. Starting a second IV with an appropriate size needle in a patient in circulatory collapse from shock is difficult and sometimes impossible. The daunting prospect of starting an IV in the jugular makes sane physicians do everything to avoid being in this position.

Administering a bolus of calcium gluconate to counteract hypocalcemia through this tiny needle can result in a swollen hand (when the IV infiltrates) attached to a dead patient.

So – Nick the Nurse also has incompetence issues.

At one point in this video I thought I had gone mad. Did my ears deceive me or did I really hear Nick the Nurse describe how they also chelated with vinegar and garlic? I rewound the video. Yep, he said it alright. Vinegar and Garlic. I could say ‘wow’ or ‘holy crap’ to express my incredulity after hearing that but really, no words do it justice. They are chelating this poor lad with Garlic and vinegar.

And why? What for? First test

Here is Heeren’s son’s first ever lab report (click the image to get a bigger one).

Let’s remember that these lab reports are all part of the quack culture and I suspect are frequently exaggerated to get the parent to use more of their treatments. If even these results are exaggerated then I’m dumbfounded. Everything except Aluminium and Lead are within normal ranges. And even those two are just barely in the elevated range.

It is on this basis that Heeren decided to start chelating her son using a doctor described as medically negligent and incompetent under the tender care of a ‘nurse’ who doesn’t know the protocol he is supposed to be using and who is actively putting this boy (and presumably others) in potential danger.

Oh and don’t forget the garlic and vinegar. Thanks Rashid, thanks Muneer, thanks Nick.

Katie Wright’s big day

6 Apr

Yesterday three big things happened to Katie Wright. Firstly, she joined the board of Directors of SafeMinds. Secondly she joined the board of directors of the National Autism Association. Thirdly, she appeared on the US Oprah Winfrey show.

The elusive Ginger blogged the NAA and SafeMinds news which was announced just before/during/after (depending on your timezone) the Oprah show.

The Opera show itself was a mixed bag apparently. There was a lot of self pity at the start:

“he’s not there, I don’t know where he is but he’s not there”

Oprah: A mystery affecting millions of families

“A bad day is a bad day and a good day is a bad day waiting to happen”

Please. Spare me. Not there?

However, a lot of people have also said there were some great moments:

I like the way the show ended with every single parent talking about the gifts their autistic children have given them! “He has made me more spiritual,” “He has made me look outside of myself,” “He takes people just as they are.” “He has given me someone to love way beyond what I ever thought possible.” Amen.

Sue also noted that no autistic adults were on the show and none were interviewed. That’s ridiculous.

However, part way through the show was the Katie Wright Experience. Apparently what happened was that Oprah asked a Doc on the show about vaccines and he repeated the scientific consensus – which is that vaccines have been refuted as a cause. Which is true. The show cut to a break. When it came back on, viewers were greeted by a visibly pink and flustered Katie Wright and then the host of the show told the audience that …..in fact I’ll quote from someone (who I won’t name so don’t ask) who was watching the show carefully:

To me it all seemed quite sane, except for Katie’s little blurt. A pediatrician of south Asian descent whose name I didn’t catch was periodically consulted from the dais by la Oprah, and gave what sounded like reasonable advice. At one point Oprah asked about causes–she didn’t use the word epidemic but said ‘what the cdc calls a health threat–and the pede gave a general response, genetics, possibly some environmental thing, and then Oprah said, “what about vaccines?” the pediatrician responded, “that’s controversial.” and oprah said, ‘well yeah, and?” or words to that effect. The pediatrician said the vaccine theory had been pretty well refuted. That was that, but after the next break, Katie Hildebrand, who was sitting next to Oprah, must have been chewing her ear off because la O told her to say her piece which she did in the usual incoherent shrieking way, “vaccines are not cleared of being responsible, children are given 37 different vaccines, my child has all kinds of immune problems, there’s an epidemic that keeps growing” etc. Oprah said, “there i can see you needed to get that off your chest, you don’t want to go home with that all bottled up. After all, you’re a mom.” the studio crowd applauded though they did not hoot or yell anything specific that i could detect on my tv screen.

Following that, Oprah apparently told the audience that this is what _Katie_ personally believed and it wasn’t supported by any CDC evidence.

Here’s _my_ summation of Katie Wright’s life at the moment.

Katie campaigned to get a Generation Rescue member on the board of Autism Speaks. Here’s how Brad Handley reported that event in a rant:

Kevin Barry, our former President, was hired by Autism Speaks. On his first day of employment, Mark Roithmayr informed Kevin that he was only there “as a favor to Katie” [ the mother of Bob and Suzanne Wright’s autistic grandson]

Katie has spoken of Brad and Kevin Barry as her mentors. Here’s Brad’s mention of Katie Wright:

I just want to share how damn proud I am of this family. Remember, there is no Christian Wright, his name is Christian Hildebrand.

Katie’s decision to be more public about her point of view is not some impulsive move. For almost two years now, quietly but firmly, she has lobbied her parents on the growing morass that Autism Speaks was becoming. By choosing to listen more to the “experts” than their own daughter, Katie’s parents selaed their own fate.

Two years. After which the Wright’s continue to listen to science, not Brad’s people.

Katie Wright has come to believe, after a long association with Brad Handley, that vaccines caused her sons autism. Katie had the king Rescue Angel himself hovering over her for the last two years. Has anyone ever told Katie that Brad is often wrong and never admits it even when its clearly demonstrated? I guess not.

Kim Stagliano (autism blogger – big on pooh) said:

This is a very big day when the SS Minnow overtakes the Titanic.

Really? _Really_ ?

From all I’ve read and seen, all that’s apparent is that the newest mercury mum on the block got appointed to two antivaccine groups and that made a bit of a fool of herself on television. The only difference is that this mercury mum happens to have parents who own and run an autism organisation that she’s just cut her ties from.

What I actually feel the Wrights are guilty of is: Listening to dinosaurs with degrees instead of their daughter, Deirdre Imus, and others speaking the truth, myself included.

In Brad’s world there is no greater sin than not listening to him. Maybe they did listen to you Brad and thought you were wrong.

So, after Katie Wright’s big day – the day the SS Minnow overtook the Titanic – what’s changed?

The world saw a visibly unstable mercury mum on TV being thrown a bone to rant about her pet theory for a few minutes and then the show carried on.

…and thats that. No scientific facts changed yesterday. Katie Wright confirmed herself as a woo-meister. All that means is people will be even less likely to listen to her than they were before. Autism Speaks must be breathing a sigh of relief she’s jumped ship.

Katie Wright and Autism Speaks – woo confirmed

29 Mar

For the last few weeks the subject of ire on the EoH maillist has been Autism Speaks, they’ve been the subject of some very nasty descriptions indeed. The reason is that the EoHers knew that Katie Wright, daughter of the owners of Autism Speaks, was taking her son Christian to a DAN! doctor and yet Autism Speaks were keeping this quiet.

Well, as blogged by David Kirby, Katie Wright has now confirmed that Christian is seeing a DAN! doctor (lets hope its not one of the paedophiles or Scientologists) and has gone ‘on the record’ as stating she believes vaccines caused Christians autism.

The mercury militia and David Kirby report this:

Many in the upper echelons of Autism Speaks have rejected any environmental hypothesis and insisted that autism is purely a genetic disorder — though Bob and Suzanne Wright (and the organization itself) remain officially neutral on this crucial question.

But now, Christian is getting better, and that wonderful news could change everything.

Well, firstly, I can’t recall anyone from Autism Speaks insisting that autism is purely a genetic disorder. If they did I think they’d be just about alone. Secondly, ‘Chrisitan is getting better’. Really? How is that described exactly?

“He’s definitely getting better,” Katie told me by phone. “He was a very sick kid, with an extended gut and inflamed intestines. We couldn’t do anything until we got that under control.” But once Christian started to improve physically, she said, he also began to get better emotionally, mentally and cognitively.

When Christian’s gut improved, his parents began trying other, still-unproven treatments like dietary changes (no wheat or dairy) chelation therapy (removal of heavy metals from the body) and methyl B-12, which could help restore a critical process called methylation – a needed tool for detoxification and proper nerve function that is apparently deficient in some autistic children.

“Christian is speaking now, though only when prompted,” Katie told me. “His eye contact is returning, and his crying and tantrums have subsided.” And she said, “His ability to attend has returned. Now he can sit and do his lessons and learn, whereas before he would just lie down and scream in pain, because his abdomen hurt so much. But he still has a long way to go.”

Perhaps most heartening to Katie is that Christian can now tolerate being in close contact with his brother, something that used to send the boy into screaming fits of anxiety.

Well I too am glad that Christian doesn’t have these gut problems anymore. But these aren’t autism and have nothing to do with autism. My daughter, who is also autistic, has never had an ‘extended gut and inflamed inststines’. Thats not to downplay Christian’s problems but its simply not realistic to equate these things with autism.

Christian (who is 5 and yet described by Kirby as a ‘toddler’) displays very similar behaviours to Meg at five (and at three) – she didn’t speak at all, she struggled with eye contact and she had big meltdowns. The thing she has in common with Christian is that their changes have occurred as they have grown older.

Kirby goes on to say:

So how will some Autism Speaks officials react to Katie’s statements? They could fall back on two recent, but highly inconclusive studies that support the autism-is-genetic paradigm, and continue to reject the environmental hypothesis. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

I’m unsure exactly what two recent genetic studies Kirby is talking about as he doesn’t name them but if they are written by decent scientists then I highly doubt they have written an off-the-cuff rejection of an environmental aspect to autism. If anyone does know what studies Kirby is referring to please say so I can check for myself. I find double checking Kirby’s words often reveals interesting things!

But hsi question is a good one. How _will_ Autism Speaks react? They are a ‘house divided’. They have the scientific teams that they inherited from NAAR and they have their ‘in house’ members that are media people. Will they go for the media or for the science? It seems that Kirby and the mercury militia are in no doubt about which way they _should_ go – they want a media driven Autism Speaks. An organisation that abandons science for woo.

It should be noted that the mercury militia are very, very good at media manipulation. From Brad Handley’s full page ads to Katie Wrights levering of Kevin Barry to get onboard Autism Speaks and of course, David Kirby’s fact free and often hilarious debating points. These are not people who let a media chance go unexplored. However, they cannot force science to show something that it does not.

Education data is the new black

26 Mar

Or, more accurately, Education data is the new CDDS.

Up until this year, David Kirby, Lenny Schafer, Rick Rollens et al said that CDDS data was the gold standard of autism data and because rates were rising during the 90’s according to CDDS data this proved that vaccines caused autism. Then they said this would be proved in 2005 – sorry, 2007 – when it was firmly established thiomersal was pretty much out of all vaccines in the US schedule excepting the voluntary flu jab. Kirby went so far as to say that if the CDDS rates didn’t fall by 2007 then this would be a significant blow to the thiomersal theory.

Guess what? No fall. In fact, there was a continued climb.

Next they all said – CDDS? That stuff is rubbish – California is ‘special’. No, no, no, what _really_ counts is educational data. In fact, just this morning, the latest Schafer Autism Report carried new data that showed how autism rates were still climbing.

But hang on….seeing as we _know_ that the amount of thiomersal in vaccines is essentially nil, and tests show that as early as 2002, over 80% of doctors surgeries reported they carried no thiomersal containing vaccines, how can we possibly carry on with the stupendously idiotic hypothesis that thiomersal in vaccines causes autism?

Feh. Never mind. Thiomersal is out of favour these days. These days its all about Aluminium or whatever other vaccine ingredient people want to wring their hands about.

Anyway, here’s a post I came across on EoH today:

I just found this newsletter from last fall- vaccine rates dropping funding short- sounds good to me. Too bad we are not counting AUtism rates like CA.

and it linked to this PDF which says:.

Alarmingly, our childhood vaccine rates have dropped from the highest in the nation to just below the national average. From 90% of two year olds fully immunized to less than 80%.

The inference is clear, right? If only we could count the number of autistic people in Maine up to and including 2006 I bet we’d see them dropping as the vaccine uptake in Maine dwindled. And hey – this should be an easy drop to find in the state that had the highest vaccine uptake in the nation, right? Oh, if _only_ someone had tracked the autism numbers in Maine!!!

Well, worry no more – the great guys at the Vaccine Autoimmune project have. (IE link only, poor web development ahoy!). Lets take a look shall we?

State 2000-2001 2005-2006 Percentage Increase
Maine 150 311 107

Huh??

Wait now…you mean to tell me that vaccine uptake _fell_ over 10% and yet autism _increased_????

Miraculous – whatever can it mean???

Daubert and the Autism Omnibus

17 Mar

I recently wrote about how the petitioners in the Autism Omnibus were trying to remove the need for their evidence to be scientific by fighting against the ‘daubert’ principle. I concluded that piece with a downbeat message that it was all too possible for petitioners to remove the need for their ‘science’ to actually _be_ science.

A regular reader (who happens to be a lawyer – no, not Wade) passed on a fascinating document (its 120 (searchable) pages – be prepared) to me which discussed the role of Daubert. My reader passed the link on to me with the explanation:

You will see a Court of Federal Claims Special Master, a couple of law professors, and some federal appeals court judges discussing causation and Daubert in vaccine cases.

Its a big (120 page) document so I’m going to concentrate on what these esteemed bodies thought of the role of Daubert in terms of applying it to the Vaccine Act. First a quick recap.

Oversimplifying things, cases tried under the Vaccine Act have almost no standard of evidentiary proof. That suits that Autism Omnibus petitioners as they _have_ no evidence or proof.

Daubert is usually applied in a _Federal_ court and demands that scientific evidence presented to that court is of a good standard of science.

That’s the basic position. If you want to read more about why these two positions are adopted for the differing courts then read the document I’ve linked to. Its just too big to go into all these things in a single blog entry.

So, ordinarily, Daubert would not apply to cases tried under the Vaccine Act. However, this omnibus proceeding is far from an ordinary situation.

JUDGE VOWELL: Well, let’s pick up on the issue of Daubert and Kumho Tire. Those decisions are mentioned nowhere in our trilogy of cases. In a program such as the vaccine program where there are no juries to be unfairly influenced, what role does Daubert play, or what role should a Daubert analysis play?

MS. GREY: I think that, like you said, in many ways they wouldn’t be applicable. We don’t have juries. We have a very sophisticated fact finder. Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Procedure don’t apply here.

So that’s the basic positions. However:

MS. GREY: there is a reason why Daubert developed that is still applicable here, and that is to test the basis for an expert’s opinion. Why do we need that? Because when you have an area that is bereft of evidence like this, you don’t have the normal processes of a trial to test the assumption.

So you don’t have cross-examination that’s going to work as well. You don’t have the opposing evidence that will work as well. And that’s why you probably would be well-suited to take Daubert and apply it in this setting, even though you’re not protecting the jury from junk science. There are other reasons that underlie Daubert that would be applicable here.

And what are those other reasons?

MS GREY: You always, I think, want to probe the underlying basis for whatever opinion is being proffered in the Special Master’s Court. We don’t want to just rely on expert credentials alone. You want to see, was there any adherence to professional or technical standards? What is the basis for the opinion?

An excellent point. Only Daubert can give you this. And surely it would be utter madness to make such a judgement without taking a very careful look at _how_ results were obtained when looking at the results themselves. We know that the ‘science’ presented by the mercury militia is on the surface good but when looked at closely starts to unravel like a badly made sweater.

And here’s a paragraph assured to make the Bradstreets and Geiers of this world blood run cold:

Just like any other witness, a scientist, a doctor is going to be subject to biases, to value judgments that are coming from his own setting that could affect his view on the question of causation, which is why you want the Special Master or the trial Court to still probe the basis for the decision rather than just relying solely on the fact that the expert is making that assertion and is well-credentialed in that area.

Yikes. Will Jeff Bradstreet discover a renewed interest in his family again before this all kicks off?

What else?

Mr GREEN: at some point the idea of, okay, put up, expert, what have you got, is something that needs to be done, and Daubert is doing that under the aegis of Rule 702 and the admissibility of an expert testimony. It could be done at the hearing when an expert testifies, but it needs to be done.

It needs to be done. That’s the bottom line. There needs to be a test of expert testimony and Daubert is the way to do it.

But why? I said I didn’t want to go into the nuts and bolts of the legalities but we should maybe talk about why Daubert, which usually only applies in a Federal court setting, should also apply in a Vaccine Act court according to these people.

MS. GREY:…For 100 years, courts would allow treating physicians to testify about causation or about any subject as long as it was an inference that was the type that physicians normally make in the course of their practice. That would be the test; that we wouldn’t look beyond that. But that, as we keep describing, has changed gradually, especially in the last 10, 15 years. Why? What happened, we had an explosion of toxic tort cases, and there were a lot of experts that were willing to testify about causation without real strong scientific studies…… That brought us Daubert [.]

In other words, the sheer amount of new cases revolving around the issue of toxicity and vaccines led to a situation where it was no longer good enough to waive the standard (or lack thereof) of evidence. To prove toxicity, science had to be science. Hence Daubert. Ms Grey goes on to give a good example:

Let me just give you an example that will seem very exaggerated, but it’ll just show my point. If an infant develops a brain tumor after he gets a measles vaccine, this kind of post hoc reasoning would say, the vaccine caused the tumor. This kind of reasoning is going to be rejected by scientists. Why is that? Hundreds of thousands of infants receive a measles vaccine every year. A few of them will develop brain tumors. That’s the coincidence factor.

One of the fascinating aspects of this document is that the Special Master present – Judge Vowell – is also on the Autism Omnibus case as a Special Master (there are three in total). In reference to a non-expert physician opining that a vaccine _caused_ the problem, she asked:

Is it not, though, circumstantial evidence from which other circumstantial evidence I might reasonably infer causation?

The answer given by both Law Professors was essentially ‘no’:

You could take it into account, but it doesn’t qualify it. In other words, Capizzano (another precedent like daubert) probably in my mind went a little bit too far because it’s relying on the treating physician’s testimony to basically make out the whole case, and I think that that’s not strong enough.

There’s no resolution in this document but it seems clear to me – where an increasing amount of cases revolve around a scientific need for scientific evidence – Daubert will increasingly apply.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →