Archive | Thimerosal RSS feed for this section

A Few Questions For David Kirby

28 Mar

A few questions for Mr Kirby.

(All originally posted in the comments section of the above blog post)

You state that a study has recently been completed that:

showed that a few minutes of exposure with even miniscule amounts of thimerosal can damage dendritic cells, causing immune dysfunction and cytokine-induced inflammation, both of which are found in autism.

I’m aware of the study you are referring to but I am unsure of which study you draw your conclusion from that cytokine-induced inflammation is found in autism. You also fail to mention if it is a typical or rare phenomenom. Certainly it fails to appear in the diagnostic criteia for autism and a Google Scholar search for “”cytokine-induced inflammation” autism” reveals nothing. The same is also true for your claim that immune dysfunction appears in autism. You fail to state whether this is a common or rare occurance and yet again, it fails to appear in the diagnostic criteia for autism. Based on those facts, I fail to see what worth your interpretaton of this study has.

You are a staunch believer in the mercury/autism connection despite their being no symptomatic connection between merucry poisoning and autism except for that published in the oft-refuted ‘Mercury: a novel form of mercury poisoning’ paper.

Further, In the New York Times in 2005 you stated:

Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year.

The rates of autism did not fall that year.

A couple of months later you told blogger Citizen Cain:

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis

I was puzzled enough by the discrepancy of you adding on two years to email you to ask you to clear it up. You replied to me:

Many thanks for your note. The Times misquoted me. I actually asked for a correction, but did not receive one. What I told the reporter is that we should know in the next few years.

In the interests of being thorough, I prevailed upon the two reporters for the NYT for their version of events. Reporter Gardiner Harris replied:

Prior to publication, we read the entire passage relating to this matter to Mr. Kirby. He approved it.

And reporter Anahad O’Connor said:

…we stand by that quote. David Kirby was interviewed at length, and we verified that quote and additional information with him before the article was published. He certainly did not object to that assertion at the time.

It is hard to escape the conclusion Mr Kirby, that you misled me and that you further tacked on a couple of extra years when the autism rates failed to decrease to support your original assertion. Will you now stand by your original statement that the incidence of autism should’ve fallen in 2005?

You attempted to use California DDS data to back up your continued assertion that autism rates had climbed throughout peak thimerosal useage periods and then dropped after thimerosal removal from the majority of vaccines. However, when blogger Citizen Cain pointed out you were using the data incorrectrly you conceeded:

…that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

Even a cursory glance at current and past CDDS data reveals that according to CDDS data, that cohort is still actively rising. Do you see that as another indicator that thiomersal plays no role in autism as you implied in your NYT interview?

In the course of this blog post you have made repeated mention of thimerosal still being in vaccines in the form of the flu shot. I wondered if you knew of the total mercury burden over time of mercury in vaccines?

US pre-thimerosal removal: 187.5 µg Hg.
US just flu shot: 25 µg Hg.
UK pre-thimerosal removal: 75 µg of Hg.

The US and UK have almost identical prevalence rates for autism. Given that we have very different thimerosal rates, how do you reach the conclusion that thimerosal can cause autism? Given those stats, shouldn’t US children have far more ‘full syndrome’ autism than UK children? How do you also account for the fact that even though US children are now recieving approx 7.5 times less thiomersal than they were at the height of thiomersals use the rate of autism amongst the 3 – 5 cohort is still climbing if we examine CDDS data – data that you refer to as the ‘gold standard’?

You are also a stauch proponent of the idea of there having been an epidemic of autism. You don’t base this on any science but rather what you claim to be an abscence of adults. Indeed on this very blog you asked:

But if autism is purely genetic (without an environmental “trigger”) and has always been prevalent at the same constant rate, then where are the 1-in-166 autistic 25-year-olds (those born in 1980)? Where are the 1-in-166 autistic 55-year-olds? Why can’t we find them?

You may remember that I mailed you a PDF report (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1095/0001881.pdf) from the Scottish government of a 2004 ‘audit’ of autism. One of the questions they asked the Health authorities, Trusts etc under the national banner was:

Research tells us that prevalence rates of autistic spectrum disorder represent an underestimate. To what extent do you consider the numbers above to be an accurate reflection of all those who live in your area?

Approaching 45% of all councils/executive/NHS Trusts questioned responded that the prevalence for adults was grossly underestimated, badly reported and that a lot of these adults exist without diagnosis. A typical response was:

Figures for adults reflect the national findings that the numbers known to services/diagnosed represent a significant underestimate of those individuals likely to be affected. For example day centre managers locally consider a number of people to be on the spectrum who have had no formal diagnosis. _(Perth & Kinross Council)_

I apologise for mentioning this here but you failed to respond to my email regarding this matter.

Thanks in advance for your comprehensive answers.

UPDATE: Mike Stanton has found yet more evidence of your ‘hidden horde’:

_Liam Byrne, the health minister, said that 6,170 children under 16 had been diagnosed in England last year, compared with 3,100 in 1997-98. The number of cases including adults rose from 4,220 to 9,170 in the same period._

_So autism diagnoses for children have nearly doubled in 8 years from 3100 to 6170. Meanwhile adult diagnoses have nearly tripled in the same period from 1120 to 3000._

UPDATE No. 2: I just remembered an interesting quote from a New Scientist feature on the autism ‘epidemic’:

This view (that there are many children today diagnosed with autism who would not have been labelled as such in the past) is difficult to substantiate, but in 2001 a team led by Helen Heussler of Nottingham University, UK, had a crack. They re-examined the data from a 1970 survey of 13,135 British children. The original survey found just five autistic children, but using modern diagnostic criteria Heussler’s team found a hidden hoard of 56. That’s over a tenfold rise in numbers, which puts the California figures in perspective. Heussler and her colleagues concluded that estimates from the early 1970s may have seriously underestimated the prevalence.

DAN! Protocol For Dummies

20 Mar

Whenever anyone else hears the word ‘DAN!’ with that little exclamation mark do they go ‘DAN! – DAN! – DAN – DAN!’ to the opening four bars of the theme to ‘Dragnet’? No? Ah well, just me then.

Ken Aitken is a psychologist. He’s also a DAN! Doctor. One doesn’t need to be an actual Doctor to be a DAN! Doctor apparently:

As for choosing a DAN!, it just depends on what type of treatment you are looking for. DAN!’s that are MDs or DOs are typically going to be much more into testing and genetics and lots of expensive and invasive stuff. This, of course, is a gross generalization and isn’t necessarily true of all DAN! MDs, but rather something to be cautious of. A DAN! who is a homeopath or naturopath is typically going to do things more naturally and less invasive. Again, it’s a generalization. There are chiropractors, allergists and other types of doctors that are DAN!s as well, so it is really the type of doctor and treatment that best suits your needs. Many people go with a MD or DO because they can get insurance coverage for some of the services.

Homeopaths and Naturopaths doing things ‘naturally’. Heh. Does this lack of training in medical matters prevent them from performing things like chelation (source as above)?

…which is why we went with a homeopath/naturopath…….We decided to get the mercury out because I knew that Seth had had way too much put into him and it wasn’t coming out at all (he’s a non-excretor).

Homeopaths and Naturopaths doing chelation. Cool.

I talked to one yesterday (a DAN doctor mind you) and how he got qualifications to be one is beyond me. He told me has a couple of autistic patients and knows of the chelation process. If this is all that is required to be a DAN doctor then I don’t see a distinct advantage to them either.

Source.

Is your mind boggling yet? Here’s the reply to this commenter (source as above):

I think that being on the DAN list (in the past) meant something like that the person had attended some DAN training– or something rather general like this. Someone (in some post, somewhere) who went to the recent DAN conference wrote about that there is/was some discussion afoot to try to improve on this and make the
info on doctors more useful (or more detailed….or something??)

This doesn’t sound like a recipie for disaster at all. Was Roy Kerry a DAN! Doctor? I don’t know.

I came across some priceless websites pushing the DAN! protocol. They had numerous things in common, chiefly the disclaimer – all variations on the theme of:

this is not medical advice

Which is odd because from that point on, they mostly plough into what can only be thought of as _advice_ about what _medication_ an autistic child should take. There’s a fairly representative sample of what a dutiful DAN! Doc should do on the website of Miriam Jang MD. First, the usual copout from responsibility:

At this point, I would like to point out that this is not medical advice, even though I am a Medical Doctor. Rather, this is a wish for your child or your loved one(s) to have the advantage of what took us eight years to discover. Please take this as a medical disclaimer. All suggestions here should be done at your own risk.

‘Own risk’. Right. Or actually – wrong. She means the risk of the child receiving the treatment. Thats whos health will suffer when if it all goes wrong.

Dr Jang decides to lead off with some impressive science:

In both Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, the sages believed that there were only two ways to health: one was to correct deficiencies; the other was to get rid of toxicities.

Ayurvedic? What the hell?

This ancient art of healing has been practiced continuously for over 5,000 years. The principles of many natural healing systems now familiar in the West, such as Homeopathy and Polarity Therapy, have their roots in Ayurveda. Ayurvedic practices restore the balance and harmony of the individual, resulting in self-healing, good health and longevity.

So, DAN! Doctors are homeopaths and naturopaths who practice er, Polarity Therapy. Polarity Therapy? What the hell?

Polarity Therapy is a comprehensive health system involving energy-based bodywork, diet, exercise and self-awareness. It works with the Human Energy Field, electromagnetic patterns expressed in mental, emotional and physical experience.

Riiiight. OK. Back to er, Doctor (?) Jang. Basically, there’s a load of stuff with no cites – such as:

An important finding is that about 85 percent of Autistic kids are high in Copper and low in Zinc. Furthermore, these kids are very low in an important protein call Metallothionein, or MT Protein.

Hmm. Searching PubMed for ‘Metallothionein autism’ reveals two results. One is an inaccessible review and one is a free PDF published in the confidence inspiringly named ‘Alternative Medecine Review’. A Google search for the same reveals the predicted circus of quackery.

Except….another one of the mercury/autism darlings, Vijendra K. Singh has a paper that states:

serum level of MT did not significantly differ between normal and autistic children. Furthermore, autistic children harboured normal levels of anti-MT, including antibodies to isoform MT-I (anti-MT-I) and MT-II (anti-MT-II), without any significant difference between normal and autistic children.

A dilema, no? (You can read more on this paper here.)

Dr Jang continues with:

I will include a list of supplements that Marky is taking. There are many protocols, with many rationales. When we write down the dosages, please take into consideration that Marky is 11 years old and weighs 75 pounds. Please adjust your dosages according to your child’s weight.

Marky is her son. But isn’t it amazing how a DAN! Doctor is assuming parents know *how* to adjust medications for weight – and is happy to trust them to do so without medical supervision or even consultation!

Towards the end of her piece she says:

Please remember that, if you introduce your child to a new supplement, it is not unusual for the child to experience some adverse effects for a short while…When this happens, it does not necessarily mean that you should discontinue the supplement, unless the adverse effects are dangerous, or persistent….If there are adverse effects, stay at this dose until the adverse effects are gone, then proceed to a slightly higher dose, etc.

So there may be adverse effects but don’t stop unless the adverse effects are dangerous, instead stay on the same dose until the adverse effects are gone. I can’t imagine any Doctor thinking this is good advice. Interestingly, the following appeared from Dr Jang as part of an email newsletter:

I would like to start with some very serious news: we do have to be careful of Vitamin A toxicity with our sweet kids. There is a child with reported Vitamin A toxicity that was so severe that the child had to be hospitalized for 12 days.

Her patient? I wonder. Maybe the practitioner (whomever s/he was) read her advice to ‘stay on the same dose until the adverse effects are gone’.

Dr Jang tells us in relation to supplements that:

We noticed a difference in Marky in less than a week.

And yet later on she says:

In addition, you may not see the beneficial effects of these supplements for a period of time.

Something of a glaring contradiction. Which is true?

Anyway, having expounded all this good advice, Dr Jang closes with:

So, be curious and be persistent. Take good care of yourselves so that you can endure this arduous journey called “Autism”!

Yes, be curious – try everything that takes your fancy. Be persistent – whats a little Vitamin A poisoning between friends? And above all take good care of _yourselves_ so that _you_ can endure this journey…..except, its not _you_ who’s undergoing all these treatments is it? Its your child.

Dr Jang is also a big clay bath fancier (clay baths cure autism? Who knew?)

“…I have put a huge number of patients on these clay baths and the levels of heavy metals – mercury, lead, arsenic, aluminum, and cadmium have come down dramatically…I have been monitoring the levels of metals using all three methods (TD DMPS, oral DMSA and clay baths)and the clay baths are way faster in the removal of metals”.

Hoooo boy! Rashid’s going to be plenty pissed with her. Better than TD DMPS? Surely not! Why not use both? Smother your child with TD DMPS and then wash that stuff off in a nice clay bath? At least your child will have a nice happy splash in a bath.

So, Ken Aitken – welcome to your new role as a Dan! Doctor. I feel sure you can uphold the strong scientific standards your colleagues demonstrate.

On Using VAERS

14 Mar

Recently, KC posted a comment reflecting his strong suspicions that Dr Jim Laidler fabricated his infamous ‘incredible hulk’ report to VAERS:

You can’t backup Dr. Laidler’s…..VAERS bullshit with AutismWatch!

This is a common refrain. It’s been echoed by various people who choose to believe in the thiomersal/MMR/autism connection. Lets look again at what Jim Laidler said:

The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

This is what people routinely claim is ‘bullshit’. So, I thought I’d put it to the test.

VAERS has two ways of submitting a report. Firstly, you could download a PDF, fill it in and post it off. Or, you could do what I elected to do and fill in and submit a report online.

VAERS has a helpful popup which tells you exactly what it needs to know – which are the most important pieces of data it needs. However, the fact that I live in the UK was not deemed of importance. Neither was the fact that I told VAERS that my daughter had been turned into Wonder Woman. The only piece of contact data I submitted was my email address and I wasn’t even asked for that. I submitted it voluntarily.

I’m going to get a bit nerdy now.

VAERS use very, very simple Javascript form validation. It tripped me up a couple of times as I got confused about the fact you crazy Americans use mm/dd/yyyy rather than dd/mm/yyyy and it didn’t like the 24 hour clock either.

The Javascript routine caught the fact that I tried to submit an adverse event *before* the fictional date of my daughters birth but it failed to catch that I stated the vaccine was administered at 18months and that the date for vaccination I provided was only 6 months after the ‘birth’ date.

VAERS uses a ColdFusion backend. This means its easy to build a script that detects an incoming visitors IP address. It would therefore be just as easy to extend the script to use the IP address to determine what country the visitor is from. As it is, a UK resident has managed to successfully enter a record into VAERS.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, I ventured into Bartholomew Cubbins territory and recorded an AVI movie of me performing the whole process.

There’s a highly compressed and slightly lacking in quality version in SWF (Flash) format here (12mb) and a Hi-res version here (150mb). Please note that I use a ridiculously high resolution (1600 x 1200) so the SWF might encroach off the edge of your screens. If you’d rather download that file, right click it instead of left clicking it.

So what have I illustrated?

That Jim Laidler, far from ‘bullshitting’ about the record entry process and subsequent unreliablity of data was telling the truth. Anyone can enter any data into VAERS. Even someone from another country. Good source data? I think not.

Burden Of Proof

8 Mar

As one dives ever deeper into the science (or lack thereof) between the two camps of the autism/thimerosal debate, the questions become more and more interesting.

It occurred to me awhile ago to wonder how, if we agree that thiomersal in vaccines causes autism, the UK and the US have such very similar rates of autism but very dissimilar rates of thiomersal. The main stance I’m challenging (as ever) is that of Generation Rescue who make it clear they believe thiomersal to be the main culprit (60% of the ‘mercury facts’ page is devoted to thiomersal related questions and thiomersal has its own dedicated section on the GR site). Lets have a look at mercury intake at the height of both countries thiiomersal use:

UK
..a substantial proportion of children in the GPRD cohort will have had a cumulative Hg exposure of *75 µg* of Hg.

US
the maximum cumulative exposure in some US children was *187.5 µg* Hg.

Source

Thats quite some disparity. It raises a few questions almost immediately.

Firstly, are US children more ‘severely’ autistic than UK children? If not, why not? Surely if they’ve received more than twice what UK kids have via vaccines we should see vastly more severely (or low functioning, pick your pejorative) affected autistic people. Is there any evidence this is the case? Well, if IQ is anything to go by (which I fully accept is questionable and I’m only using because thats how the diagnostic criteria work) then the latest stats as quoted by Joseph indicate it is not the case:

Why is the prevalence of CDDS clients without mental retardation (presumably based on IQ testing) going up quickly?

Joseph.

Are there any other indicators that ‘full’ or ‘classic’ or ‘kanners’ or ‘full spectrum’ or ‘low functioning’ (again pick your pejorative) autism is increasing in the US compared to the UK at a ratio of 2:1 whilst ‘high functioning’ or ‘Aspergers Syndrome’ cases are not? I can’t think of any.

Secondly, where are all the dead autistic US children compared to still living UK children?

We hear all the time that autistic people are poor excretors of mercury and yet I find it incredible that given this supposed poor excretion, American autistic kids aren’t dying much earlier than their UK counterparts. Isn’t mercury ingestion eventually fatal? At what level is it necessary for someone to excrete mercury in order to maintain life? There seems to be no evidence to suggest more autistic people die from illnesses close in appearance to fatal mercury exposure than non-autistics and yet not only do they have this inability to excrete mercury, they have a huge mercury burden to start life with and exactly the same exposure to other forms of environmental mercury as non-autistics.

And the inverse is also true. If we accept by virtue of the fact that autistic people are not dying of mercury poisoning that they *must* be excreting it then why do their symptoms not improve? According to proponents of chelation, chelation not only removes the mercury it actually recovers/cures the patient. Is there some aspect to chelation that there isn’t to normal excretion paths? How does chelation reverse the alleged neuro damage when ordinary excretion apparently cannot?

No answers here, only questions.

McScience

3 Mar

Yesterday, my fellow countryman Mike Stanton left the following comment in response to a previous commenter about his belief regarding how his child had become autistic:

There may not be a single answer. But that does not mean we can pick any answer we like. There has to be some scientific validity to any hypothesis.

This is such a good comment. It reflects something I’ve felt increasingly over the last year or so – the increase in pseudo-scientific theories posed as a ‘menu’ for parents to choose from. It reminds me of sauntering up to the counter at McDonalds and saying – “I’ll have one of those, one of those and one of those.”

I recently came across a post made on the Onibasu list which illustrates my point. This is the signature of the poster in question. Its a list of treatments she’s trying on her child:

My son is using M-B12 (Hopewell) since Dec 2003, Wellness Essential GSH (had been using TD-Glut but levels were always low), TD-DMSA (3 on and 4 off – 8 hr schedule) (Lee Silsby) since Oct 2005, (Used TD-DMPS Jan 2005 ?Oct 2005) TD-ALA (Lee Silsby) since Oct 2005, TD-LDN (Wellness) Since Oct 2005, (High Tech Health) FIR sauna, Magnetico bed, High Tech Health’s water machine, and a lot of supplements.) GFGFSF diet.

The post in question is also asking about Lupron. Thats a total of 12 separate treatments, ‘a lot of’ supplements and she probably is in the process of adding Lupron to that list as we speak.

And can you Supersize me please?

What worries me is even a bog-standard bottle of Asprin has a warning on it about responsible use. Is it really sensible to risk giving one’s child such a massive cocktail of drugs on the word of someone who quite obviously is more interested in money than science?

Medicine shouldn’t be such a pick and mix affair. Its quite worrying about what this reveals about how the West’s perception of doctors has changed. Doctors who have undergone 7 years plus of training are viewed with suspicion and sued at the drop of an opinion whilst ‘doctors’ who have shops rather than practices are lauded as heroes.

How did it come to this? When did McScience start to replace science? How did it come to pass that the process of peer review (designed to give a good _starting point_ to a paper) meant nothing and the process of buying an entry in a pseudoscience rag or buying a misleading advertmeant everything?

I’m nobodies scientist. It takes me longer to understand the science because I need to go through it time after time so I understand all the words and understand the implications. I ask questions of actual scientists and get them to translate for me so it stands to reason to me that for an article to be peer reviewed in a decent journal assures that the standard of science in that article will be fairly high. It might not make the paper _right_ , but at least we can be sure its been thought through properly.

Surely that needs to be the absolute baseline of quality we should come to expect for papers that discuss such important questions. Otherwise we really do end up at the counter of McScience – like kids in a sweet shop, taking what we think we’ll like rather than what we need.

The Geier’s Go Dumpster Diving Again

28 Feb

In their increasingly forlorn looking attempt to get some kind (any kind!) of connection between thiomersal and autism, the Geiers launched a new paper. Announced in the Schafer Mercury Report as follows:

The study, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a peer reviewed journal, by Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier examined two independent databases maintained by the government – one national and one state.

Oh-ho…..the infamous Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Described as:

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons seems to be little more than a conservative publication gussied up with a medical spin. A look at the references in the illegal-alien report, written by Madeleine Pelner Cosman — a “medical lawyer” whose previous claim to fame appears to be a book on medieval cooking but who has also written an article for a group called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership — is chock full of hardline conservative cites, including books by Michelle Malkin and former WND writer (and Slantie winner) Jon Dougherty and articles by Phyllis Schlafly and Tom DeWeese.

Source.

And the peer review process is commented on thusly (source as above):

The latest book by Ann Coulter is also reviewed, which claims that _”Liberalism (socialism), one of the most disastrous sets of ideas ever conceived, is at war with civilization.”_ Makes one wonder about the peer review the journal claims to have.

Not a very encouraging start.

But what about the meat of the Geiers report? Is it any good? Here’s where the Geiers get their data from:

A two-phase study was undertaken to evaluate trends in diagnosis of new NDs entered into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) databases

Oh dear. Looks like the Geiers Have gone dumpster diving again.

These sources are terrible. The VAERS is not intended for this purpose, a fact spelled out in big bold type on its page:

…..Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Source.

Dr James Laidler has this to say about VAERS:

The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database. Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.

Source

He goes on to say (source as above):

Since at least 1998 (and possibly earlier), a number of autism advocacy groups have, with all the best intentions, encouraged people to report their autistic children—or autistic children of relatives and friends—to VAERS as injuries from thimerosal-containing vaccines. This has irrevocably tainted the VAERS database with duplicate and spurious reports..

As for the California data, the Geiers are simply reproducing the same mistake that Rick Rollens made before them. A simple question to David Kirby would’ve revealed that the California data can only be reflected accurately in cases of 3-5 year olds, whereas the Geiers state they studied:

The *total* new number of autism reports received by the CDDS

Geiers.

This material was covered at the start of this very year.

And these people are apparently scientists. To paraphrase a friend – ‘if they walk like ducks, sound like ducks…’

Quick Quiz

24 Feb

I came across an interesting post on EoH today. Its interesting for lots of reasons, notably its misrepresentation. A few of the responses (from Erik and Wade notably) referred to me so I thought I should at least grace them (and the op) with a reply.

_QUICK QUIZ:_
_Which physical symptoms should be ignored in children with mercury- induced autism, so that their parents can “celebrate their neurodiversity”?_
_1. Chronic burning diarrhea_
_2. Constipation with grapefruit-sized blockage_
_3. Intestinal diverticuli_
_4. Seizures (petit mal, grand mal, tonic, clonic)_
_5. 75% under normal body weight_
_6. Lesions lining intestinal mucosa_
_7. Esophineal esophagitis_
_8. Food texture sensivitiy and swallowing difficulty_
_9. Asthma and reactive airway disorder_
_10. Allergies to foods, fabrics, toys_
_11. Immune dysfunction_
_12. Chronic sinus infections_
_13. Chronic upper respiratory infections_
_14. Cycling viruses_
_15. PANDAS (strep)_
_16. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies_
_17. Yeast overgrowth_
_18. Kryptopyrrole overload_
_19. Phenol sensitivity_
_20. Liver and kidney stress_
_21. Precocious puberty_
_22. Thyroid malfunction_
_23. Brain lesions with demyelination_

_If I missing anything, please find more from the Autism Research Institute, Thoughtful House, Autism Treatment Network, HRI+Pfeiffer Treatment Center, or the hundreds of doctors treating these children’s physical disorders._

_Inevitably some people reading the above list will still deny the existence of our children’s physical pain despite medical tests and observational data from tens of thousands more. As the adage goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see… when their personal filter of communication becomes a cataract._

_Perhaps at no other time in history has it been so common that when truth is not expedient, people create convenient fictions. Rather than actually witness or try to help, it’s quicker to indulge inlurid oppositional imaginings from the comfort of one’s home. This denial perpetuates the suffering of children, and that is morally indefensible._

_Nancy Hokkanen_
_Minneapolis_

OK, so first lets answers Nancy’s question _”Which physical symptoms should be ignored in children with mercury- induced autism, so that their parents can “celebrate their neurodiversity”?”_

The answer to that would of course be ‘none’. Where on Earth did anyone get the idea that ignoring things like chronic diarrhea or Asthma is part of neurodiversity? My own daughter is Asmathic, as is my son, I can assure you I don’t ignore their asthma. Such a belief indicates either a lack of reading or comprehension ability – or more likely, a propensity to not have actually ever read up about the subject one’s discussing. From the Neurodiversity Wikipedia entry:

Most supporters of neurodiversity are anti-cure autistics, who are engaged in advocacy. In addition, some parents of autistic children also support neurodiversity and the view that autism is a unique way of being, rather than a disease to be cured. Such parents say they value their children’s individuality and want to allow their children to develop naturally. According to proponents, autistics may need therapies only to cure comorbid conditions, or to develop useful skills.

And thus we come around once again to the issue of comorbidities. In a response to the above post, Erik said:

As one of our favorite folks in the “ND” crowd likes to say… all those things are just “co-morbidities.”….Please…

And Wade said:

As I have asked our friend about his use of that term, if comorbidities are the cause of the dysfunctions by which our children are being diagnosed, can we really call them comorbidities?

Truncated source.

So yet again – misrepresentation.I have never claimed *all* those things are comorbidities. Its quite clear that some of those listed have no relationship to autism at all and (for example, precocious puberty) are only in there to justify the use of quacky therapies.

However, its easy to tell if a person is autistic because they’ll have met the diagnostic criteria for autism – if they meet the diagnostic criteria for having Asthma then guess what – they’re asthmatic! If they meet the diagnosis for precocious puberty then guess what? Thats what they have!

What about Wade’s point that these comorbidities are causing the problems leading to diagnosis? Well there are several issues with that. If someone is getting a diagnosis of autism if they exhibit some or all of the above list then the diagnosing Doctor is clearly off his or her trolley. If the Doctor is saying – ‘your child is on the spectrum and they also have several comorbidities’ then thats something else entirely. What Wade is essentially postulating is another, seperate form of autism that Nancy calls ‘mercury induced autism’. Of course, this is just circular reasoning – these symptoms are attributable to mercury, my child is on the spectrum therefore mercury caused my child to be on the spectrum.

If we want to ascribe a whole new type of autism to these kids then we have to do the science. The first step is ‘can mercury cause autism’? Without that step, the whole thing comes crashing down. And so far, there is no evidence it does. the symptoms of traditional mercury poisoning and its variants such as Pinks Disease bear no relation to the symptoms of autism – *and neither do they bear much relation to the list Nancy made* that I quoted above.

So on what basis, other than a belief that it did amongst a minority of parents, can we accept the possibility that mercury causes autism? Thats not to say it definitely doesn’t of course but its certainly not looking good at all as a theory.

Then, sadly, Nancy ruins the fun and gets all moralistic:

Perhaps at no other time in history has it been so common that when truth is not expedient, people create convenient fictions. Rather than actually witness or try to help, it’s quicker to indulge in lurid oppositional imaginings from the comfort of one’s home. This denial perpetuates the suffering of children, and that is morally indefensible.

Well, I certainly have no problem with that first sentence – I think the targets Nancy and I have are oppositional however. And where exactly is anyone denying the suffering of children? This accusation gets leveled time and time again and I’ve yet to see anyone who postulates it actually back it up. If your child is Asthmatic, like two of mine, I know exactly how nasty and scary it can be. All I’m saying is that saying asthma _is_ autism – that the former can be used to diagnose the latter is wrong.

So to recap – if your child has a diagnosis for all of the above (and I mean a diagnosis from an actual Doctor, not a quack who’ll wheel out a diagnosis because they’re ‘excited’ about trying their brand new pet theory out) then go right ahead and treat them – to do otherwise would be insane. However, don’t make the mistake of thinking that a diagnosis of these things is equitable to a diagnosis of autism.

Lupron Rears Its Head

22 Feb

The issue of Lupron finally raises its head above the parapet of autism. I’m going to attempt to ‘bring together’ the various discussions that have sprung up and then have my say on the subject. But before I do, lets just clarify what we’re talking about.

There is an unsubstantiated theory put about by Boyd Haley and the Geiers that testosterone levels are raised in autistic people. There is a further unsubstantiated theory that high testosterone counteracts the bodies ability to be chelated of its mercury efficiently. That the excess mercury got there is also due to an unsubstantiated theory that thiomersal in vaccines is responsible.

The use of chelating agents (which alter the body’s chemistry) have never been tested for safety or efficacy for autistic people (who have chemically different brains than non-autistic people).

So, in my opinion, we have a potentially dangerous and thus far non demonstrably necessary treatment being administered to autistic people. It was put about awhile ago that a typical course of chelation should last 18 months to two years. Now we seem to be approaching that time scale for a lot of children and there seems to be little to no response (unless you believe the unverified claims of Generation Rescue), there’s now a casting about for a reason why the chelation isn’t working as was first thought.

Yes, I have my own opinion as to why it isn’t working. I’m sure you can guess what that opinion is.

But whats _their_ opinion? The chelationistas? Why, that all that pesky testosterone is impeding the chelating of all that pesky mercury. And what reasons are given for that idea? Why, that there are four times as many male autistics as female autistics.

Now that the testosterone theory is out in the wild, suddenly the chelationistas are ‘remembering’ that their kids seem to be developing quickly, that they have a lot of body hair, that they become violent during chelation.

Yes, I have my own theory why they become violent during chelation. I’m sure you can guess that opinion is.

And thats it. Thats why there’s a sudden mad dash for Lupron. So lets now look at how its used.

Quite simply, its being used because the Geier’s are ‘excited’ about using it.

Try going to the NAA website and ordering the DVD or CD from the Geier’s lecture this past weekend. You’ll learn about their work with testosterone and Autism. This research is in its’ infancy, but the Geiers are SO excited about this topic.

Onibasu.

Dr. Geier now has a testosterone study going on, I think it’s Lupron injections every 45 days? until age 12, while chelating with DMPS-TD. there’s some other stuff, too, he’s got I think 8 kids in the study, we’re working on getting all the stuff out of the way for allie Kat to participate, last I knew he had no girls.

EoH.

My daughter will be seeing the Geiers this winter/spring and we’re about to have her tested to see if their protocol is appropriate for her. I’ll report the results when we have them…but in the MEANTIME, you can watch the Reverend Lisa Sykes discuss her son Wesley’s progress after receiving Lupron treatments!

EoH.

Kathleen at Neurodiversity has a very thorough round up of this side of things which I strongly suggest you read. But lets not pretend – children are already being treated with Lupron.

So, just to recap – an unsubstantiated treatment is now being used to treat an unsubstantiated condition which allegedly aids an unsubstantiated process.

But what _is_ Lupron? Whats it used for?

Its used to chemically castrate sex offenders in the US and also to treat Prostrate cancer. Basically it inhibits testosterone. In females it can cause a drug induced menopause. Its only legitimate sue for children is to treat precocious puberty.

There’s been at least one lawsuit associated with Lupron.

Many women with endometriosis who have been given Lupron injections have had severe side-effects, including cardiac arrhythmias, dizziness, swelling, chest pain, depression and confusion, bone pain, extreme fatigue, vision loss, high blood pressure, and nausea. Some of the women claim their side- effects last long after treatment is completed. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Tap claim, for example, to have experienced serious injury after Lupron injections, “resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of the capacity for enjoyment of life, expense of medical care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of the ability to earn money.”

This is a serious drug. Nothing to make assumptions about – nothing to treat _children_ with unless they have a diagnosis of Precocioous Puberty which can be tested for without needing to inject Lupron.

The science that underpins the Geiers is practically non-existent and based pretty much on either their assumptions regarding mercury or their assumptions regarding testosterone – neither of which are authenticated. You can view an overview of the bad science behind the Geiers suppositions at Bartholomew Cubbins site and at an ongoing discussion at the Not Mercury site.

What happens when Lupron is deemed ‘inefficient’? What will be the next inhibitor? What will be the next unnecessary chemical pumped into autistic kids to ‘uninhibit’ the chelation process? And lets not even start on the bizarre cognitive dissonance necessary to refuse to trust Big Pharma regarding thiomersal and yet rush to embrace it regarding Lupron.

Into The Unknown With The Unknowing

31 Jan

The unknown is exciting. As a species we seem innately curious about seeing whats over the next hill, beyond the next valley, what happens if we heat this liquid to its boiling point, etc etc. But fairly obviously, we quickly realised that if we didn’t exert some level of control over the things we were curious enough about to examine closely then the results were arbitrary and meaningless.

“Hey, look at that!” we exclaimed to ourselves, “we’ve just invented the scientific method. How cool are we?”.

Unfortunately, as well as being logical, nuanced creatures capable of appreciating such things as the pathos in satire we’re also reactionary and blinkered. As someone recently remarked:

Too many people on all sides of the debate(s) seem to wear blinders that prevent them from acknowledging how little we all know.

Wade Rankin.

A statement I fully support. However, there are certain things that we need to be certain about when we treat autistic children.

Is chelation safe? Here’s Wade again, quoting a commenter called Random John:

At any rate, it’s still pretty unclear why chelation therapy seems to be successful for some children, but not for others. The polarity of the thimerosal and chelation debates does not seem to cover the ground necessary to understand what’s really going on.

Which is very true. Unfortunately, its yet another example of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. To worry about these things after you’re already treating an autistic child with something like chelation is quite simply stupid. If there are people who are concerned about what effects chelation may or may not have on autistic children then basic medical principles need to be applied: first, do no harm.

That means you need to conduct safety trials before using something that has the following warning on it:

The use of this drug [EDTA] in any particular patient is recommended only when the severity of the clinical condition justifies the aggressive measure associated with this type of therapy.

Recently such people as Dr. Mary Jean Brown, Chief of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for Disease Control claimed that if chelators were used properly then they’d be safe. I take extreme issue with this viewpoint.

Chelation is essentially a chemical process – it alters the chemical composition of the body. Bearing that in mind, consider the following:

This review focuses on recent advances in the in vivo study of the whole brain in idiopathic autism…..Diffuse abnormalities of brain chemical concentrations, are…found. Abnormalities of ….brain chemistry…are evident by early childhood….

Source

So, the brains of autistic people are chemically different then the brains of non-autistics. Given that fact, is it a) stupid or b) clever to use a process that alters the chemical composition of the person and which has never undergone any safety trials in regards to autism?

There’s a whole bunch of people here who need to take a drastic step backwards and do some basic safety trials on what is, irrespective of their beliefs, a poorly understood and potentially dangerous/fatal process.

Drug Error, Not Chelation Therapy, Killed Boy, Expert Says

18 Jan

A report in the Post Gazette includes an interview with Dr. Mary Jean Brown, chief of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She says that:

“without a doubt” that it was medical error, and not the therapy itself, that led to the death of a 5-year-old boy who was receiving it as a treatment for autism.

Which is very interesting on numerous levels.

First (for me) is the statement that clarifies exactly why Tariq was receiving chelation: *”who was receiving it as a treatment for autism”*. That nicely clears up any remaining doubts that Tariq was there for lead poisoning removal. He was there for treatment for autism.

Secondly (and unsurprisingly I take issue with a lot of what Dr Brown claims) is this claim that it was not chelation that killed Tariq. That, to me, is frankly bizarre. Its quite obvious that it is _exactly_ what killed him. If he hadn’t been chelated, he would still be alive. Thats just simple logic. Further, the fact that he was being treated with something that has no proven (or even evidenced) positive effect on ‘recovering’ or ‘curing’ kids from their autism speaks quite clearly to me that it was indeed the chelation that killed him: No autism = no belief in thiomersal poisoning = no chelation = no death. Again, this seems entirely logical to me. EDTA, which is a chelating agent, killed Tariq. QED.

Now, where the ambiguity creeps in is the fact that Dr Brown is claiming that chelation, as a course of action, does not intrinsically harm kids. In fact she said:

She said there have been no reputable medical trials demonstrating the effectiveness of chelation as a therapy for anything but lead poisoning. But if it were administered accurately, the procedure would be harmless.

This is quite a statement. The way I look at it is this: nobody knows the cause of autism. It is likely there are numerous potential triggers. Given that we don’t know what even the chemical composition of the average autistic brain is how can _anyone_ possibly claim that a procedure that removes chemicals is harmless?

And again, I make the point that since chelation has no proven or evidenced positive effect on autism in terms of its removal/curing/recovery/whatever that its use in this case is _directly_ responsible for Tariq’s death.

And there’s more:

“It’s a case of look-alike/sound-alike medications,” she said yesterday. “The child was given Disodium EDTA instead of Calcium Disodium EDTA. The generic names are Versinate and Endrate. They sound alike. They’re clear and colorless and odorless. They were mixed up.”

Mixed up? How can a trained Doctor who ostensibly was a chelationist mix up medications? I guess it could happen but it doesn’t seem likely.

At the end of the day, Dr Brown is offering conjecture. She may have read the autopsy report but her opinion on what Roy Kerry did and why he did it is a matter for an inquiry. At the end of the day a little boy is still dead because he was autistic. Chelation is still responsible for that death.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →