Porphyrins, autism and enviromental militia
4 DecYou know those nature programs where they film sharks in a feeding frenzy? That’s what I’m reminded of when a new test or treatment appears on the radar of the mercury militia. First there’s one lone parent taking a chomp but after a few minutes there’s a whole school of them twisting, turning, biting indiscriminatingly.
Porphyrins are the New Big Thing amongst the mercury militia. Never mind that the sole paper that exists on the subject (pertaining to autism) contradicts the Holy Edicts of DAN! and also fails to note that some forms of chelation affect how Porphyrin’s are measured and further, that the lead author of the study acknowledges the substantial grey areas and unaddressed discrepancies in the paper. Full steam ahead Jeeves and don’t spare the horses.
In a nutshell, these people believe that Porphyrins can be used to give a very accurate measure of how much mercury (or other metals) are in someone’s system. They send their kids wee off to a lab in France to be analysed at €80 a pop. The French test is considered the best as they test for Precoproporphyrin which is supposed to be a specific marker of mercury. Never mind the fact that only one scientist has ever found this association.
So how’s it panning out for the mercury boys and girls? Here’s a series of quotes from the Yahoo ChelatingKids2 Email Group:
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.
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.
It concerns me that if someone does one test and goes on those results, do we know that those are accurate. I hate the idea of implementing treatment on a child based on less than accurate info. It is hard to GET good info I realize on the toxicity issue but just wondering if this is reliable enough to trigger chelating a child etc.
The answer is ‘no’. Here’s another one:
I just received the results of the French porphyrin test for myself and my 7 year old NT daughter, and the results also show severe lead and mercury toxicity. My daughters numbers are worse than my ASD son!
Sadly, this parent was considering chelating her NT daughter anyway even though….
My daughter is terrified of oral capsules and blood draws after seeing what her brother goes through
I’ll bet.
What’s the cut off point when an honest desire to help someone based on love for them and sound science to underpin your decision becomes a dangerous chasing after any sort of unproven treatment no matter what the consequences might be?
The scientist and author Michael Crichton once gave a speech about environmental issues that may as well have applied to the autism/vaccine issue:
We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized—red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth.
Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets….are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
That’s sad, worrying, dangerous. And true. When did we start to let PR driven media become more important and carry more weight than scientific fact? When papers scream headlines about the evils of mercury causing autism what is it about the apocalyptic way the story is written that catches attention? We live in a world where we think we see threats at every turn. This is a world where I cannot videotape my kids school plays any more as its considered ‘a security risk’. This is a world that now exists in biblical terms like ‘terror alerts’ and ‘axis of evil’. No one conditioned to this hysteria is going to listen to the scientists simply repeating the fact that no science supports such an assertion. That won’t give us a fix of melodrama – maybe if we portray these scientists as part of a global conspiracy that might quicken our terror-conditioned pulses a bit.
There are people who get their ‘facts’ not from scientists but from people like this man – an American DJ names Don Imus. He is, apparently, an autism advocate. He also seems to be something of a racist bigot.
If I have wishes for Christmas its that we stop listening to hyped-up media merchants like the odious Mr Imus and start listening to actual scientists regarding autism and its causes.
Jock Doubleday’s $75,000 vaccine offer
27 NovJock Doubleday, author of such excellent works as ‘The Burning Time (Stories of the Modern-day Persecution of Midwives)’ and ‘Lolita Shrugged (THE MYTH OF AGE-SPECIFIC MATURITY )’ (Jock is a middle aged man by the way) is most famous in the autism community as the creator of the $75,000 vaccine offer in which he;
…offers $75,000.00 to the first medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO who publicly drinks a mixture of standard vaccine additives ingredients in the same amount as a six-year-old child is recommended to receive under the year-2005 guidelines of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (In the event that thimerosal has recently been removed from a particular vaccine, the thimerosal-containing version of that vaccine will be used.)
The mixture will be body weight calibrated.
Doubleday claims;
14 doctors, or persons claiming to be doctors, have contacted me about publicly drinking the vaccine additives mixture. None have followed through.
Nobody seems sure why participants have to be doctors or big pharma CEO’s and not ordinary folks like you and me. I’m also not sure why Doubleday insists on such a bizarre contract that any participant must adhere to, including psychiatric evaluation, a history of any mental health based counselling (these are probably to add to the air of drama), an email exam of 10 questions regarding vaccine theory and history, the compulsory purchase and reading of at last five altie books on anti-vaccine woo, a 20 question written exam, a certificate of good health…oh, I give up read the rest here.
To be honest, I got bored just reading that contract. And that’s only Part A. If I was a more cynical man I’d say that’s not so much of a contract as an endurance test designed to make everyone with an actual life of their own say ‘Sod this, I could be having a curry or watching Father Ted‘, both of which are activities much more interesting and enjoyable than satisfying the terms of that contract. But then the same could be said of watching paint dry.
Of course, the point of all this is that it shows how few people are willing to ‘take the challenge’. Luckily for Doubleday, someone already ‘took the challenge’ in 1996.
Clinical course of severe poisoning with thiomersal, published by the then Journal of Toxicology – Clinical Toxicology (now just called Clinical Toxicology) was the case study of a German 44 year old man who ingested 5g Thiomersal.
Lets compare that to the maximum load that US kids got before 2001.
The average US child got 187µg of Hg from all thiomersal containing shots. If we bend the rules in favour of the thiomersal (and Doubleday) theory and say that a 1 stone (14 pound) child had had that total of 187µg of Hg we can compare that to our 44 year old man who weighed 60kg (9.4 stone or 132 pounds).
| Child | Adult Male |
|---|---|
| 187µg of Hg | 2,480,000µg of Hg1 |
| 13.36µg per pound2 | 18,787.87µg per pound3 |
15g Thiomersal = 5,000,000µg of Thiomersal. 5,000,000/49.6% (Mercury in Thiomersal) = 2,480,000µg of Hg
21 stone (14 pound) child 187/14pounds = 13.36µg per pound
3 9.4 stone (132 pounds) 2,480,000/132 pounds = 18,787.87µg per pound
I think we can easily state that this man got vastly more thiomersal per pound then any child would. Even if we inflate the weight of our adult subject to 25 stone (350 pounds) he still gets 7,085.71µg per pound – over 530 times the amount. As it is, using the real figures, he’s getting over 1,400 times more thiomersal than the infant.
So what happened to our German friend? Surely he must’ve had one of the most ‘severe’ cases of autism ever seen right?
He developed gastritis, renal tubular failure, dermatitis, gingivitis, delirium, coma, polyneuropathy and respiratory failure.
Hmm. Sure doesn’t look, act, sound or quack like a duck….I’m going to go right ahead and surmise that in this man’s case, after ingesting over 1,400 times more mercury from thiomersal than an infant that he developed no signs of autism whatsoever and in fact somehow managed to avoid becoming autistic.
And the eventual outcome?
The patient recovered completely…..The decline of mercury concentration in blood, urinary mercury excretion, and renal mercury clearance were not substantially influenced by chelation therapy
It also looks like his total course of recovery took about 5 months. All neurological symptoms were resolved in 46 days. Not several (and ever increasing amounts of) years.
Put your money away Mr Doubleday – its not needed.
David Kirby: Whats with the scaremongering?
17 NovPloughing through my email which had accumulated whilst I was ill, I found that David Kirby had published a piece on the upcoming Autism Omnibus hearings in the US. Go have a read.
NB: For the uninitiated, the Autism Omnibus court hearings are going ahead in June next year. They are a joint action brought against the vaccine claims court. These are important because it will be these hearings that determine whether there is any official recognition that thiomersal/MMR causes autism. This is almost certainly not going to happen. Mainly because vaccines don’t cause autism and there is no science to suggest they do, but also because the thiomersal/autism expert witnesses would be better termed expert witlesses. Geier, Haley, Hornig, blah blah blah – the same science and the same people that recently resulted in the thiomersal/RhoGAM/Autism court case being thrown out.
Anyway, back to David Kirby. He was blogging about a recent turn of events wherein the Special Master (the person who will be overseeing the whole trial) had asked for opinions from both claimants and the DOJ on granting public access to the trial. Both duly obliged. Of course, the response the DOJ gave was immediately leapt on by David Kirby. I’ll be doing something Kirby didn’t do in his blog entry and actually looking at the letter. I’ll also be quoting from both that letter and Kirby’s post. If you want the whole letter for yourself, you can download it from the link at the top of this page.
Kirby starts off by setting the mood:
Next year, a “Special Master” in an obscure Federal court known only to a few Americans will preside over a highly sensitive judicial matter of urgent national importance. The Bush Administration wants to hold the hearings in a sealed courtroom, off limits to the press and public, with stiff “sanctions” for any outsider who attempts to gain unauthorized access to the secretive proceedings within.
Terror trials in faraway Gitmo? Good guess. But these are vaccine trials on New York Avenue, in downtown Washington, at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
You may not know it, but there is an official federal “vaccine court,” where some 4,750 autism-related cases have been pending for years. Claimants believe the mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, and/or the MMR vaccine, contributed to their children’s autism, and they are seeking compensation from a special vaccine injury fund administered by the federal government.
So, apparently, the DOJ wants to hold the hearings in a sealed court, off limits to press and public with stiff sanctions for any outsider who attempts to gain unauthorized access to the secretive proceedings. I have to be honest, when I read that I was on Kirby’s side. It sounds terrible. Then I remembered that David Kirby has been known to tell the odd porky on occasion. and decided to reserve judgement until I’d read the letter. Now I have.
Firstly, what is particularly odd about denying public access to these proceedings? The DOJ state quite plainly that:
…public broadcast of federal trial court proceedings appears to be without precedent. Broadcast of criminal proceedings is banned by federal rule.
It would in fact be odd if they did agree to this. If the Omnibus memebrs believe they are special cases then they need to explain why.
And a sealed court Mr Kirby? Hardly. From the letter:
…respondent agrees that some arrangements, unique in Vaccine Act proceedings should be taken to permit Omnibus claimants and their counsel to observe the trial…..[a]udio webcast of the hearing to those claimants who do not attend in person appears to be the best available method to permit them to follow the trial.
I wouldn’t call that a sealed courtroom. All the people who need to hear what’s being said, can hear what’s being said. From a technical standpoint managing audio instead of both audio and video is both easier, cheaper and more reliable.
So what about these ‘stiff sanctions for any outsider who attempts to gain unauthorized access to the secretive proceedings’…? Well, first, I wouldn’t describe a hearing that is being broadcast to every claimant and their legal team to be secretive. That’s just silly hyperbole. Secondly, I’m not sure after reading the letter exactly what stiff sanctions would be directed against people attempting to get unauthorized access. The word ‘sanctions’ is mentioned once when laying out the conditions for being amenable to an audio stream.
The order authorizing access as specified would contain provisions for sanctions, including termination of the webcast, and the closing of the courtroom in the event of disruptive behaviour, witness intimidation, unauthorized access or other inappropriate conduct.
So sanctions would come into play if the rules were being broken. Said rules include unauthorized access to the feed. In other words, anyone trying to hack the media server. An audio feed goes one way only. If David Kirby wants to cosy up in a room with John Best whilst John’s accessing his protected feed then know one is ever going to know. As far as I know PsychicWare v 1.0 never made it out the concept room. Whether or not the parents feel like talking to press during the trial is, I would think, a matter for their ethical beliefs.
Kirby continues:
The plaintiffs and their attorneys have asked for complete transparency in every aspect of the tribunal, including public disclosure of all evidence and unhindered media access to the hearings. The few autism families whose medical records will be scrutinized as legal examples are waiving their right to privacy and confidentiality, so that their stories may finally be told in an open court of law.
Well, of course they have! It’s in their best interests to turn the whole thing into an OJ Simpson style media circus as quickly as possible. I’d ask anyone who witnessed the trials of Simpson or Michael Jackson – do you think justice was served by turning these trials into a media driven frenzy? Sorry America, but from over here they both looked like a pair of debacles.
There will be public disclosure of all accepted evidence. The DOJ letter makes it clear that they also desire that the official record of the hearing exists. What the Omnibus people want is a discussion on the quackery and pseudo-science that was recently thrown out in the RhoGAM case. And they want this discussed by the media. They know that journalists aren’t as exacting as a Daubert hearing and they know that the best way to win a case in US culture these days is trial-by-media. This is exactly why the DOJ wants to place the emphasis back on actual legal and scientific proceedings. As they state in their letter:
The general rationale behind the ban is preventing witness harassment or intimidation, minimizing disruption, preserving the dignity of judicial proceedings and maintaining a trial free of extraneous influence.
Now, if anyone thinks that the wory regarding witness harassment is far fetched they should consider the absolute vilification that Mercury Militia mainstays, the NAA rained down on scientist Paul Shattuck when he stated there was no good evidence for an epidemic one way or the other. They lied about his funding sources, blew up the fact that he knew someone who’d been disciplined once to insinuate he was involved and generally made the poor man’s life hell. Members of the Yahoo group that carries the name of Kirby’s book have posted the addresses and telephone numbers of scientists who publish science that doesn’t validate their beliefs and encouraged members to harass them with email campaigns and phone calls.
I can only imagine might happen to the poor people called to witness for the DOJ if their faces were made known. If the Mercury Militia want to get up in arms about this then they need to grow up and realise that their own childish irresponsibility led them to this exact outcome.
Likewise, I’d again ask readers to think about the influence the media exerted during the Simpson and Jackson cases. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a trial that’s not run by the paparazzi? Or to put it another way – maintain a trial free of extraneous influence.
Kirby continues with the amusing sleight of hand of stating:
The government may call this privacy, but I call it secrecy. In fact, there has been a long and unseemly history of secrecy when it comes to federal data on thimerosal and autism.
This ‘long and unseemly history’ as recounted by David Kirby relates to precisely one incident where the Geier’s tried to get access to VSD data and when they couldn’t, turned to plagiarism.
Kirby again:
But some documents have already been leaked, including one published in the Los Angeles Times showing that Merck officials knew of the cumulative and alarmingly high levels of mercury in vaccines way back in 1991, but said nothing about it to anyone.
Are there other incriminating memos from Merck (or Lilly or Glaxo, etc.)? My sources indicate that there are, but we may never get to see them. And now, by barring public access to the trial, we may never get to hear them, either.
So, the first paragraph as far as I can tell has absolutely no bearing on the science needed to establish thiomersal causes autism. Neither does it have any bearing on the issue of access to a trial. The second paragraph is, I’m sorry, a joke. Your sources Mr Kirby? I’d say anyone unable to remember the difference between 2005 and 2007 is in no position to pretend sources. And your invocation of a conspiracy theory is both specious and tiresome. Is this really a journalist or just someone who enjoys a good anti-science rant?
Sorry, more Kirby:
Whether he (the Special Master) decides for the parents, or for the DOJ, his ruling will forever be considered within a vacuum, subject to intense criticism from either side, unless he agrees that all thimerosal evidence should at long last be made public.
What unmitigated twaddle Mr Kirby. His ruling will be made in full view of all the claimants who wish to be there either in person or via the audio stream. This isn’t a case of evidence being made public or not, its an attempt to legitimise ‘science’ which is poor beyond belief.
If this UK resident can pass on any advice to the US it would be – ditch media trials. Ditch scaremongering. Ditch bad science. Ditch innuendo.
Autism, A Killer App., And A Drug Of Choice
11 NovBelow is the content from the post of a guest blogger Do’C invited onto Autism Street recently. It concerns the death of Tariq from chelation and the spurious claim that his death was simply down to a bad choice of drugs. I have shut comments off on this post. Please go to Autism Street to comment.
Part One: A Drug Of Choice
Reading here and there on web, one may notice people still scratching their heads about why Dr. Kerry used the drug he did to treat Tariq Nadama. Science blogger, Orac (Respectful Insolence), did an excellent job explaining why there is no right or wrong drug in this case, but there is another bit – Dr. Kerry quite likely used the drug he did, because this is the drug specified in the EDTA chelation “protocol” published by the American College for Advancement in Medicine, a chelation proponent organization.
When CDC scientist Mary Jean Brown recently said “No medical professional would ever have intended to give the child Disodium EDTA”, she was likely unaware of what’s often referred to as the ACAM protocol.
Roy Kerry is a member of ACAM.
The American College for Advancement in Medicine (aka ACAM) is the chelation proponent organization related to the protocol described below.
Protocol citation:
Rozema TC.The Protocol for the Safe and Effective Administration of EDTA and Other Chelating Agents for Vascular Disease, Degenerative Disease, and Metal Toxicity.
The Journal of Advancement in Medicine. 1997;10(1):5-100.
Note: ACAM’s journal is apparently no longer known as The Journal of Advancement in Medicine, and is now known as Clinical Practice of Alternative Medicine.
The protocol is republished in: E Cranton Ed. A Textbook of EDTA Chelation Therapy. 2nd Edition Hampton Roads (2001).
The ACAM protocol for so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy specifically prescribes the use of Endrateâ„¢, the disodium salt of EDTA. Endrateâ„¢ lowers blood calcium. More information about Endrateâ„¢ Edetate Disodium Injection USP safety and professional prescribing is available at this link. Examples of specification of the use of Endrateâ„¢ (DISODIUM EDTA) for so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy within the ACAM protocol include:
P. 9 I. OVERVIEW OF EDTA CHELATION THERAPY
[…EDTA is an abbreviation for the compound Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid. The form approved by the FDA for the treatment of lead poisoning is calcium EDTA. (1,2,3,4,5) The form of EDTA used to treat atherosclerotic conditions, on the other hand, is disodium EDTA, for reasons that will become apparent later. (6,7,8,9) EDTA chelation therapy is part of a comprehensive therapeutic program for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Other components include nutritional and dietary recommendations, oral nutritional supplements, an exercise program, a stress management program, if necessary, and medication, if necessary. On rare occasions, surgical intervention may be beneficial, but the vast majority of patients can be effectively managed without surgical intervention.
P. 10 II. PROTOCOL OBJECTIVES
[…The purpose of this treatment protocol is to assure maximum clinical efficacy and patient safety in the use of Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid, (otherwise known as EDTA or disodium Edetate or the disodium salt of Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid), and other chelating agents in a comprehensive therapeutic approach to the treatment of arteriosclerosis, atherosclerosis, and other disorders in which chelating agents have been shown to be beneficial. A knowledge of biochemistry, pharmacology and the basic clinical sciences is assumed. This protocol is also intended to establish international standards for the safest and most effective use of chelation therapy in a comprehensive multi-modality treatment program. In this protocol the use of the term EDTA will refer to the disodium form of the molecule as distinguished from the calcium disodium or magnesium disodium forms. Where appropriate, these other forms of EDTA will be identified as such. Written and oral examinations are offered periodically by the American and International Boards of Chelation Therapy (ABCT-IBCT), to assure that sufficient comprehension of this discipline has been attained.P. 11 III. CHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGICAL ACTIONS OF EDTA
A. Chemical Structure
The EDTA discussed in this protocol is the disodium salt of EDTA. It occurs as a white crystalline powder, soluble in water, slightly soluble in alcohol and mildly acidic. (10)pp. 43-45 3. Supplies and Equipment
e. Disodium EDTA (Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid), NOT the calcium-disodium salt), is readily available in the United States in 20 ml (3 gram) vials, and is best tolerated without a chemical preservative.
Part Two: Confusion
The protocol clearly indicates Endrateâ„¢ is the drug to be used. Elsewhere, and especially in information readily available to the public, this is unclear and often confusing. ACAM, for all its reassurance about the safety of so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy, rarely identifies Endrateâ„¢ by its proprietary or generic name as the drug prescribed by their members according to the protocol – rather ACAM apparently refers to the drug as “EDTA.†For example, a recent ACAM press release announced a new program to credential chelationists:
The next twelve months will be a most important time for the staff and membership of the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM). With the help of Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. of Lenexa, Kansas, ACAM will be undertaking the development, validation, and administration of a national program for use in credentialing individuals as Certified Chelation Therapy Practitioner (CCTP). Chelation therapy is currently used as a treatment for blocked blood flow in arteries (atherosclerosis) by administering ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), a man-made amino acid, into the veins. While EDTA has been used in the past to treat lead toxicity, EDTA also “chelates†calcium, a component of atherosclerotic plaque. This therapy has been employed to improve blood flow through previously narrowed blood vessels, help restore lost bodily function and reduce pain.
This is unusual because there is no drug named “EDTAâ€. In fact, it ‘s not necessarily clear that the compound exists except as a disodium or calcium disodium salt. This brings up an important point: Endrateâ„¢ is trade name for the disodium salt of EDTA, and Versenate is the trade name for the calcium disodium salt of EDTA. Versenate is labeled for treatment of lead poisoning; because it contains calcium (unlike Endrateâ„¢), Versenate binds with lead preferentially, and leaves calcium alone. More information about Calcium Disodium Versenate (Edetate Calcium Disodium Injection USP) safety and professional prescribing is available at this link.
It’s also unusual that physicians would use the generic term “EDTA†when there is a possibility that doing so might increase the likelihood of confusing Endrateâ„¢ with Versenate. Sound-alike drug names are widely known to be a serious threat to patient safety. Several organizations work to prevent situations in which drugs have similar sounding names, as does the Food and Drug Administration. The sentence “While EDTA has been used in the past to treat lead toxicity, EDTA also “chelates†calcium, a component of atherosclerotic plaque” conflates Endrateâ„¢ and Versenate into a single product – “EDTA.”
This is precisely what not to do. In fact the CDC recently reported a two year-old child died after the unintentional administration of Endrateâ„¢ instead of Versenate. Source: Deaths Associated with Hypocalcemia from Chelation Therapy – Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, 2003–2005. MMWR Weekly. March 3, 2006 /
55(08);204-207.
The “Position Paper on EDTA Chelation Therapy” published by the American College for Advancement in Medicine is sort of baffling. “Disodium magnesium EDTA” is used once, while “EDTA” is used 25 times. The following passage exemplifies the confusion because it seems to suggest Endrateâ„¢ and Versenate are one and the same thing, called “EDTA”.
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (“EDTA”) is a synthetic amino acid first used in the 1940’s for treatment of heavy metal poisoning. It is widely recognized as effective for that use as well as certain others, including emergency treatment of hypercalcemia and the control of ventricular arrhythmias associated with digitalis toxicity.
In point of fact, Versenate was “first used in the 1940’s for treatment of heavy metal poisoning” and is currently labeled for use in treatment of lead poisoning. On the other hand, Endrateâ„¢, the drug specified in the protocol, is indicated for use in “emergency treatment of hypercalcemia and the control of ventricular arrhythmias associated with digitalis toxicity.”
The assertion below is misleading because it refers to the use of Versenate to treat lead poisoning in children, yet the ACAM protocol appears to direct physicians to use Endrateâ„¢ while apparently emphatically directing them not to use Versenate.
Whenever chelation is used in its widely-accepted role to combat lead poisoning, the dosages given even to children are administered much more rapidly than those administered to adults under this protocol.
How peculiar is it that that ACAM’s telephone number is 800-532-3688 or 800-LEAD-OUT? What’s the point of this?
Part Three: Safety In Death
Broad claims of safety are made for so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy in the ACAM position paper. For example:
The Food and Drug Administration determined that EDTA chelation therapy was safe prior to approving the Investigational New Drug protocol for the ongoing double-blind placebo-controlled studies.
It may (or may not) be true that FDA determined “EDTA chelation therapy
was safe” preparatory to beginning research subject to an Investigational New Drug application, but it’s undoubtedly true that a “safe” drug doesn’t carry a “black box warning” on its label. Endrateâ„¢, however, does:
WARNING The use of this drug in any particular patient is recommended only when the severity of the clinical condition justifies the aggressive measures associated with this type of therapy.
The position paper emphatically argues that “restriction to FDA package insert guidelines is inappropriate” with the obvious implication that the use of Endrateâ„¢ for so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy is simply an off-label use of the FDA-approved drug Endrateâ„¢, and as such ought not be restricted. While it’s generally true that FDA doesn’t regulate the off-label use of marketed drugs by physicians, it’s not clear that the use of Endrate in so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy is an “off-label” use. The drug label includes a contraindication warning physicians that Endrateâ„¢ “is not indicated for the treatment of generalized arteriosclerosis associated with advancing age.” Under what circumstances is a contraindicated use an off-label use?
The ACAM position paper incorporates a long quote by JAMA editor John Archer supporting the right of physicians to use approved drugs for off-label or unlabeled indications, ostensibly to hammer the argument home. Ironically, FDA assistant commissioner Stuart Nightingale wrote a response to Dr. Archer in a subsequent issue of the journal and used the example of Endrateâ„¢’s contraindication for use in arteriosclerosis to make the point that physician freedom was not absolute. Archer agreed with Dr. Nightingale in his reply. Source: Nightingale SL. The FDA and drug uses: Reprise. JAMA.1985;253:632.
The claim that there have been no fatalities is difficult to accept in the face of evidence to the contrary:
The safety of this therapy, when properly administered, is not an issue. It is estimated that over 500,000 patients nationally have been safely treated with this therapy by physicians utilizing the protocol developed by the American College for Advancement in Medicine. No reported fatalities have occurred in the United States when the ACAM protocol has been followed.
Following the deaths of fourteen people treated with Endrateâ„¢ in so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy the federal government sued to enjoin a notorious chelationist from all use of the drug – Source: United States v. An Article of Drug*** Diso-tate, et al. It might be objected that this physician used a higher dose than that specified by the ACAM protocol, but the report of expert medical reviewer J. David Spence, M.D. identified the dose used as 3 g. (p. 3), the same dose indicated in the protocol, and in the FDA-approved label for Endrateâ„¢ – Source.
There are other deaths associated with the use Endrateâ„¢ in so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy in addition to these fourteen patients. For example, in March of 1995 Jerry Osuch died the day after receiving his tenth session of so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy as the patient of Dr. Neil Ahner, a physician with “board certification” in chelation therapy, and a member of the ACAM board of directors.
On February 25, 1992 Louis Labbe died following so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy administered by Dr. Daniel Roehm. According to the Sun-Sentinel:
Labbe’s case outraged Dr. Stephen Nelson, then a Broward associate medical examiner. Nelson complained to the state’s medical licensing board that, given the gravity of Labbe’s illness, Roehm should have hospitalized him on his first visit. The Florida Board of Medicine agreed. In June 1992, a three-member panel found probable cause to believe Roehm’s care of Labbe fell below accepted standards. Roehm’s medical records “failed to demonstrate that the doctor even understood how serious and how sick this patient was and how important it was to get some intensive care and some aggressive therapy,” argued Larry McPherson, a state health care agency attorney. The state went on to accuse Roehm of gross malpractice in treating Labbe. Roehm relinquished his medical license in July 1993 to avoid further board action against him. He died in 1996.
Source (for both Osuch and Labbe): They wanted to look better, feel better. Fred Schulte and Jenni Bergal. The Sun-Sentinel. 1999-12-11.
The survivors of Susan Alexander, a 56-year-old woman who died in 2002, filed suit against Progressive Medical Group (PMG), several of its staff members, and Metametrix (a laboratory that offers nonstandard tests). The suit accused the defendants of negligence, fraud, racketeering, and wrongful death. According to the complaint, Ms. Alexander’s heart stopped beating during chelation therapy for alleged lead poisoning that had been diagnosed with a fraudulent test – Source.
On October 31, 1993, the man identified as “W.L.H” died during a course of treatment with Endrateâ„¢ for so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy prescribed by Dr. Eleazar Kadile – Source.
Part Four: What About Autism?
How is it possible for former president and long-time ACAM member Ralph Miranda, M.D. to make like a statement like the following after the death of Tariq Nadama?
“If the child’s death is tied to chelation therapy, it would be the first associated with the procedure since the 1950s”, said Dr. Ralph Miranda of Greensburg. Miranda is the former president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, a group that sets clinical practice and education standards for chelation and other, similar therapies.
Source: Boy dies during autism treatment. Karen Kane and Virginia Linn. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 2005-08-25.
Inconsistent statements about the safety of Endrateâ„¢ and confusion over the identity of the drug used in so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy tends to cast doubt on the integrity of ACAM and its members and their commitment to provide accurate, factual information to the public. Patients considering so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy would do well to remember the case brought by the Federal Trade Commission charging ACAM with “false advertising over promotion of chelation therapy.” This brief synopsis is taken from the FTC press release announcing the consent agreement on December 8, 1998:
ACAM, based in Laguna Hills, California, is an association comprised principally of physicians who administer traditional and complementary/alternative medical therapies including chelation therapy. ACAM promotes chelation therapy in brochures and promotional materials and by maintaining a Web page on the Internet. Chelation therapy involves the intravenous injection of a prescription drug, ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA), which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the limited use of ridding the human body of excess heavy metals.
According to the FTC’s complaint detailing the charges, ACAM’s advertisements and promotional materials for chelation therapy contained such statements as:
Chelation therapy is a safe, effective, and relatively inexpensive treatment to restore blood flow in victims of atherosclerosis without surgery;
Every single study of the use of chelation therapy for atherosclerosis which has ever been published, without exception, has described an improvement in blood flow and symptoms; and
Chelation therapy promotes health by correcting the major underlying cause of arterial blockage. Damaging oxygen free radicals are increased by the presence of metallic elements and act as a chronic irritant to blood vessel walls and cell membranes. EDTA removes those metallic irritants, allowing leaky and damaged cell walls to heal. Plaques smooth over and shrink, allowing more blood to pass. Arterial walls become softer and more pliable, allowing easier expansion. Scientific studies have proven that blood flow increases after chelation therapy.
Through the use of such statements, the FTC alleged, ACAM has represented that EDTA chelation therapy is an effective treatment for atherosclerosis, and that ACAM possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis when making the representations.
The FTC charged that the representations are false and misleading because ACAM did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to substantiate the claims – Source.
Six years later in response to the death of Tariq Nadama, ACAM issued a press release in which they invite the public to believe so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy is safe on the basis of the safety and efficacy of “EDTA” for treatment of lead poisoning. ACAM apparently forgot to mention they’re referring to Versenate – the drug their protocol apparently directs physicians NOT to use for so-called “EDTA” chelation therapy. ACAM asserts, “millions of infusions have been administered … without any deaths being noted.” Nevertheless deaths have occurred.
However, it is important to note that IV EDTA is an FDA approved treatment for lead toxicity in children and adults, with an excellent track record for safety. Millions of infusions have been administered over the last 30 + years, without any deaths being noted, when used in accordance with established guidelines. These guidelines were developed by experts in the field and include the intravenous administration of Magnesium Disodium EDTA.
ACAM asserts that, “Chelation Therapy has been clinically helpful for many autistic children who have evidence of heavy metal burdens, and have an impaired ability for detoxification.”
Shouldn’t ACAM explain to the scientific community and to the public why we should believe that lowering blood calcium would lead to clinical improvement in autistic children?
Shouldn’t ACAM explain to the scientific community and to the public why we should believe Endrateâ„¢ would be safe and effective in removing “heavy metals” – like the implied mercury – when the pharmacology of Endrateâ„¢ is sufficiently well known to permit experts to conclude Endrateâ„¢ doesn’t bind effectively bind and remove mercury. In simple terms, if Endrateâ„¢ doesn’t get to the places where mercury accumulates in the body, how would it bind and remove it?
Shouldn’t ACAM provide evidence to the scientific community and to the public proving that “many autistic children … have evidence of heavy metal burdens” (bona fide experts using valid laboratory tests have been unable to do so)?
Shouldn’t ACAM provide evidence to qualified specialists in pediatrics and toxicology that autistic children can be diagnosed with an “impaired ability for detoxification” and explain how correcting this impairment would lead to clinical improvement?
Is it possible that the parents of Tariq Nadama had no idea what they might really be getting into when their son was brought to the U.S. for chelation therapy that turned out to be a fatal attempt to treat him?
TV might cause autism?
24 OctThe blogosphere and certain Yahoo groups are _outraged_ by the idea that a study from Cornell University alleges that TV might have a role to play in autism.
The idea is pretty stupid. Basically, the Cornell guys are saying that because there’s autism in places where there’s lots of rainfall and because when its raining kids watch TV that autism has a link to TV. In fact, that piece of thinking goes beyond ‘pretty stupid’ and inhabits the landscape of ‘hilariously inept’. To give them their due they stop short of claiming a causative connection but they claim its a major piece of the puzzle.
We are not saying we have found the cause of autism, we’re saying we have found a critical piece of evidence
Guys – you _so_ haven’t.
Anyway, the merits of this study aren’t the focus of this post (hilarious as the study is, I couldn’t do better than Joseph’s takedown ). What’s interested me over the last few days are the outraged splutterings coming from a certain section of the autism community.
As they have dumbed down this society over the past generation and people took the history of science courses as opposed to pharmacology/pharmacology, all sorts of insane theories and mischief can emanate from a population of social/mental dingbats whose primary source of production is television shows as opposed to hard goods.
H Coleman, Evidence of Harm Yahoo Group.
First and foremost this is a perfect example of what happens when economists that know nothing of a medical condition try to find some statistical relationship between their beloved data and a condition.
The authors of this study made no effort to explain how TV watching could trigger chronic intestinal inflammation, toxic levels of heavy metals, inability to sleep, hard and bloated abdomens, food allergies or intolerances, and much more.
Kendra Pettengill, EoH Yahoo regular
I could go on but I think you get the idea. In a nutshell, the mercury militia are _not happy_ that TV has been linked to autism. Most of them are not happy because the study is totally ridiculous. On that I agree with them. Some of them are unhappy because they think its a study trying to put the blame back on parents in a bettlehiem-esqe manner. I think thats an overreaction but I can see what they’re saying.
However, a lot are unhappy because it refuses to recognise mercury as being ‘in the mix’. Thats as hilarious, predictable and sad as the study in question.
But I’m _still_ not making my point. My point is this. OK, this TV study is junk but here’s a question for you my mercury obsessed cherubs – what scientific merit does your vaccine/thiomersal/MMR theory have that elevates it above this TV study? I’m going to go right ahead and assert that the vaccine theory has no more causative evidence behind it than this joke of a study.
Both hypothesis have, at their core, an implausible correlation with a couple of self-congratulatory scientists dabbling with numbers that they want to twist to fit their theories. And that’s it. _No_ clinical evidence, no decent epidemiological evidence and a mainstream science community sniggering openly. What this TV theory needs is a bunch of credulous people to form pretentious sounding groups – SAFE TVINDS maybe or Notelly.org, then they can part-fund some crappy science to support the original crappy science, write books, organise marches on Hollywood instead of the CDC, get harvested by a whole new crop of quacks etc etc.
In all seriousness: mercury boys and girls – how you see the TV theory (a mixture of borderline tolerable amusement and offence to science) is exactly how the rest of the world see’s you.
Mark Geier, David Geier and the VSD
10 OctIntroduction
One of the many anecdotal lynch pins of the Mercury Militia is the fabled story of what happened when the Geier’s attempted to study the VSD database.
Please bear in mind that to the Militia this story carries a *lot* of weight. It is one of the few supporting crutches left under the hypothesis that since thiomersal was removed from vaccines autism cases have gone down. Educational data has failed them. CDDS data has failed them. The Geier’s paper using VAERS (a non starter if they’d only thought about it) was so bad it couldn’t be published in a proper science journal and so this VSD story is all that’s left.
This story is enshrined in the hallowed pages of Evidence of Harm although the source of the story is unclear. Here’s the Militia version.
What The Geier’s Said
The VSD is the Vaccine Safety Database. This database carries raw data related to vaccine safety. The Geier’s were allowed access to this data, together with their computer expert Vale Kernik who would run the statistical programming tool in the SAS language that the CDC’s VSD uses. SAS is a widely used solution for statistical analysis.
The VSD’s Wikipedia page says that:
Only two outside researchers, Mark Geier and David Geier, have thus far gained access to the raw data. They faced formidable obstacles before being allowed into the CDC computer center, and then resistance from staff and software malfunctions once inside. Nevertheless, they reportedly found highly elevated risks for autism among children in the highest mercury exposure group. The Geiers study on the VSD, “A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis” was published in the Medical Science Monitor in 2004 volume 11(4):CR160-CR170.
NB: This page has been edited by a member of the Geier household – against Wikipedia recommendations.
Evidence of Harm (the Kirby book) deals with the same event:
In late July the CDC informed the Geiers that the requested data set had been assembled. After paying a processing fee of $3,200, the Geiers were given two dates in August to come and run their studies. But there was another entirely unexpected wrinkle. Just two days before their appointment, a CDC technician called to make sure they were fluent in the programming language SAS, which is used in the VSD database. The Geiers had never heard of it before. “You must not be epidemiologists,” the technician said, “They all speak SAS.” If that were true it was news to the Geiers……Reluctantly they cancelled the appointment. It took two weeks to find someone who could run SAS…..They got new dates in October 2003… the dad, Vale Krenik, flew in from Texas. The were met by a woman who introduced herself and said she would be their “monitor
Evidence of Harm, p280 – 282.
And then things got very surreal. Their ‘expert’ programmer (who apparently taught himself SAS in two weeks) was stymied by the most dreaded sights for programmers – a command line interface.
How on earth can this be happening?” Mark muttered shaking his head, “Once again they got us.” Silence filled the room. There would be no number crunching today. The men stared at the screen.
Sorry. I’m being facetious. Any ‘expert’ who can’t work in a command line at even a very basic level is _not_ an expert.
The weirdness continued when the CDC monitor who was due to accompany the fearless trio for the duration of their stay popped her head out the door, looked both ways, came back into the room and:
She sat down and took a deep breath. “Don’t tell anyone this,” she said in a low voice, “But I can help you.”….I’m telling you, they know,” she said conspiratorially. “There’s a big problem”…..”The autism numbers are going down,” she said, “We are watching them drop.”
This mystery CDC monitor became known as ‘Mrs Toast’. Over on the EoH Yahoo Group, it was discussed why:
There is a woman who I refer to as Mrs. Toast. She is a CDC staffer who was responsible for monitoring the Geiers when they were instructed to visit the Vaccine Safety Datalink by Congress. When she saw the Geiers datasets, she walked out into the hallway, looked both ways, and came back into the room shutting the door behind her.
The Geiers thought they had epi-evidence. Mrs. Toast told them to look at hers. She told them she was responsible for running weekly autism datasets. She was instructed to run datasets on HMO vaccination adverse outcomes to see what effect removing thimerosal from vaccines was having on the epidemic. She had an affected child and made sure that the Geiers understood that the rates were dropping each and every week.
Author David Kirby had an interview set up, flew down to Atlanta, was in a car on the way to CDC to talk to her, but CDC had found out and they were threatening for end her career if she spoke to him.
When Congressman Dave Weldon found out about her not willing to blow the whistle on CDC’s cover-up he said, “THIS WOMAN IS TOAST!” Which is were I gave her the formal name of Mrs. Toast.
Hilarious right? Mrs Toast.
And so, off trudge the Geier’s with their expert (the one unable to operate DOS). _Imagine_ their surprise when they get a letter from the CDC that said:
1) The Geier’s had violated the terms of their IRB
2) They asked how to merge datasets in a contradiction of the agreed terms of use of the data
3) They were told they couldn’t and yet they tried to anyway
4) If they had managed to merge the datasets they would have increased the risk of a breach of confidentiality.
5) The research team had attempted to rename data files to make them look like part of the SAS program (by changing the file extension to ‘.sas’)
As a result of this, the Geier’s IRB (Kasier) suspended them from undertaking any more data collection at the VSD.
The Geier’s responded by hotly denying these allegations. They first state that they didn’t violate the protocol but as Kathleen says in her exhaustive look at their reply:
The Geiers here claim to have followed the design of their research protocol, yet simultaneously acknowledge that they were attempting to conduct analyses of information not encompassed by it.
More amusingly, on page two of their reply the Geier’s state:
It is impossible for the datasets given to us by CDC to be merged
And then on page three of the same letter state:
What we were attempting to accomplish was to merge the datasets given to us by CDC to build a record…
And so the situation is now that the Geier’s pet ‘expert’ couldn’t figure out SAS, they had no meaningful results and what they did have was gained under extreme deception to the point their IRB approval was suspended.
And so, they decided to go ahead and publish anyway (well, you would, wouldn’t you?) and thus A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis was born in 2005 (hereafter referred to as G05).
Geier, Geier, pants on fire?
G05 made reference to the VSD data that the Geier’s couldn’t collect/collected part of/pick your belief. In this respect it was similar to a paper written by ex-CDC staff member Dr. Thomas Verstraeten which _also_ used VSD data to look at thiomersal and autism in 2000. This paper (hereafter referred to as V00) found a statistically significant correlation between thiomersal and developmental disorders.
Oh no!!!! Doesn’t this back up the Geier’s et al?
Well, it _might_ except that as Verstraeten himself states in a letter to Paediatrics:
The CDC screening study of thimerosal-containing vaccines was perceived at first as a positive study that found an association between thimerosal and some neurodevelopmental outcomes. This was the perception both independent scientists and antivaccine lobbyists had at the conclusion of the first phase of the study. It was foreseen from the very start that any positive outcome would lead to a second phase. The validity of the first-phase results needed urgent validation in view of the large potential public health impact. Did the CDC purposefully select a second phase that would contradict the first phase? Certainly not. The push to urgently perform the second phase at health maintenance organization C came entirely from myself, because I felt that *the first-phase results were too prone to potential biases* to be the basis for important public health decisions.
Because *the findings of the first phase were not replicated in the second phase*, the perception of the study changed from a positive to a neutral study. Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative by many, including the antivaccine lobbyists.
So, in short, the first phase of the study using a small sample size indicated there might be an issue. When the second phase was undertaken with a larger sample size, the issue disappeared. Not uncommon in the slightest. Its standard practice to conduct a small, pilot study to see if there’s any issue to study further before committing large amounts of public money to a full scale study.
But I digress – back to the Geier’s.
They knew about the V00 paper – of course they did, it would be hard not to – and as they wrote G05 then they looked at it again. Remember that the Geier’s had struggled at the CDC VSD headquarters.
As Kathleen once again unearthed, the Geier’s – with a lack of VSD data at their disposal wrote their paper. It had some odd elements to it. Here’s a table of stats from the V00 pilot study:
And here’s a table of stats from G05:
Take a look at the numbers. Aside from one category they’re identical. Further the V00 paper states:
The final number of children thus included in our cohort was 109,993.
And G05 states:
The final number of children thus included in the cohort examined was 109,993
Woah! Spooky! By some miraculous, completely bizarre accidental coincidence, the Geier’s – who had little to no data from their visit to the VSD – have the _exact same cohort numbers and divisional figures_ as a paper written 5 years earlier resulting from a pilot study that showed a now debunked association!! What are the odds of _that_ ? I wish I knew a betting man who could tell me!
And maybe my betting amigo could tell me the odds of those same two papers having over ten more virtually identical passages and/or tables of figures? Maybe the Geier’s should drop the litigation gigs and move to Vegas and live on the strip.
A Different Interpretation
So here’s what _I_ think happened. Just conjecture but persuasive I think.
First of all, this odd SAS programming language. The CDC think its common amongst stat-fans. The Geier’s say its really really rare. Google says there are over four and a half million web related resources for SAS programming. That doesn’t sound pretty rare to me.
A leading SAS expert says:
Millions of people around the world in business, science, government, and education use SAS software to work with data. SAS software runs on many operating systems, including Microsoft Windows, UNIX, OS/2, Mac, MVS, and VMS. Most features of SAS software operate the same way in these different operating systems.
Still not sounding rare. In fact its one of the few apps that runs on Win, Mac and Unix. Not a good indicator of rarity.
And as for how quickly their ‘expert’ was defeated by SAS, SAS author Rick Astor states:
Fortunately, SAS programming is not that hard to learn.
Unless of course you’re a computer expert terrified of command lines. Vale Krenik is quoted and described on this page. His job (and former jobs) is described as:
Business Manager, Strategic Supplier Manager, Global Telecom Manager
It’s true that one of these roles has a techy requirement but absolutely _none_ can be swapped with the title ‘programmer’ or ‘expert’.
I think that the Geier’s needed someone who knew computers and settled on Krenik. When it came to it, Krenik didn’t know what the hell to do with SAS. If you’re reading this Mr Krenik, the three lines of code you need to merge datasets in SAS are available. I think they panicked and tried to grab as much data as they could in a brute force attack and then change the data files appearance to try and make them look like SAS files by renaming them with a ‘.sas’ extension.
I further think that the whole Mrs Toast episode is entirely fictitious. It even reads like a bad John Grisham novel. Bloch states that Kirby had an interview set up with the nameless Mrs Toast and that she cancelled at the last minute. Frankly, I don’t believe a word of it. I wonder who set up and then cancelled this meeting? One of the Geier’s by any chance? Does anybody know?
And then there’s the magically duplicated data. The Geier’s realised their VSD data landgrab had failed utterly and so they copied the data (and hence conclusions) from the V00 paper.
I don’t believe the Geier’s have ever seen VSD data. I don’t believe ‘Mrs Toast’ exists.
Our thanks and appreciation should go to Kathleen for the painstaking research she has assembled on the Geier’s. I know mine do.
DAN! – On a mission from God
9 OctThe Exorcist
Back in 2004, a self ordained minister (well, technically he was ordained by his brother but seeing as the ordination happened at a ‘storefront church’ I’m going to go ahead and call it a load of old twaddle anyway) killed an eight year old autistic boy, Terrance Cottrell Jr, and was convicted of:
felony physical abuse of a child causing great bodily harm
The ‘minister’ was attempting an exorcism…:
..to remove “evil spirits” of autism from Cottrell. Hemphill, who weighed 157 pounds, described how he would sit or lay on “Junior’s” chest for up to two hours at a time, whispering into the boy’s ear for the “demons” to leave his body.
This ‘man of god’ decided to appeal (de rigeur these days for those who have no sense of personal responsibility) and in August this year, his appeal was happily quashed.
I’ve written before about this story but I’m bringing it up again as I was notified about something pretty incredible – at least to me.
Jeff Bradstreet – Man of God
Dr Jeff Bradstreet is two thing. The fist thing he is, is a DAN! doctor. The second thing he is, is an expert witness in the Autism Omnibus case to be held next year.
But in fact, Jeff Bradstreet is _three_ things. Just like that compassionate driver of autism demons Ray Anthony Hemphill of the above tragedy, Jeff Bradstreet is a keen advocate of Exorcism as a treatment for autism.
No, I’m not kidding. Here’s an email message from Holly Bortfield of a pro-chelation group ‘Autism Recovery Network’ made to the Yahooo Autism Biomedical Discussion (ABMD) group in Feb 2005, the group is not open to the public so you can’t read the original unless you sign up (if you do its message 49660) but I’ve linked to a screenshot of her message:
You certainly have a right to the opinion that Jeff [Bradstreet] is the diety himself, but as a former patient and friend to a number of former patients, I can assure you not everyone holds him in such high regard. If you’d like to check out list archives from 1998 and 1999 I bet you will find the discussions of his exorcism referrals (I kid you not)…
When someone on the list suggested the word ‘exorcism’ was too strong, Bortfield replied (message: 49764):
Honey, that was his word not mine. I can think of a dozen people he told to have their kid exorcised
And poster Larry Leichtman chimed in with:
Actually, I heard that from him myself. He is a true believer in the devil and exorcism.
And not only does DAN! offer exorcism, it seems the National Autism Association heartily endorse it, as this message (49765) from Jo Pike of the NAA in reply shows:
Well may[be] its working LOL! I’ve talked to so many parents who have told me their children are improving dramatically and they all give credit to their office. Bottom line is the outcome and it seems they’re helping a lot of families.
And Ricci, the owner and list-moderator for the ABMD board also voiced concern in a long list of troubling DAN! traits. Its too long to quote here (screenshot here, but the lsit included DAN! practitioners who:
1) Have had their licenses suspended for overbilling insurance companies
2) Have had their licenses suspended for substance abuse
3) Have pushed MLM (multi level marketing/pyramid schemes – outlawed in the UK I believe) and lied about their involvement.
4) Received their degrees from a diploma mill in a strip mall
5) Have treated children for conditions they didn’t have and ignored conditions they clearly did have
6) Charged outrageous fees (Ricci quotes $300 for a bottle of Japanese secretin one can buy onesself for $5)
*7) Have performed exorcism on their own autistic children and recommended others to do the same*
Frankly, this is a little more than disturbing. Its crazy. Here’s Jeff Bradstreet – who the Autism Omnibus lawyers are putting forward as an _expert witness_ recommending exorcism as a viable treatment for autistic kids.
How is this man still a DAN! Doctor? Are there really people out there who are happy about this person ‘treating’ their kids? Is the American legal system seriously going to make itself into a laughing stock by admitting this man as a viable expert witness?
Left Brain Right Brain 
Recent Comments