1. I don’t know the physiological answer with respect to minerals, but I’m skeptical of hair analyis of trace minerals based on this study (among others). JAMA. 2001 Jan 3;285(1):67-72. Link

(Free full-text available after registration)

2. I don’t disagree that further study in this area might be interesting or add to understanding, however, I remain skeptical of hair analysis as a method for that. I agree with your statement about the necessity for proper accurate tests.

A couple of thoughts come to mind:

1. Is the mineral composition of hair representative of quantities circulating in the blood stream, or do people excrete minerals as part of hair formation at different rates? If the latter is true then how comparable are hair samples?

2. Much more interesting to me (bearing in mind the caveat above) is the reduced essential minerals in the hair of autistics. We have red blood cell trace elements results for the Bear indicating low levels or deficiencies in several essential minerals, despite supplementation and a very healthy diet (she eats much more healthily than anyone else I know). We don’t chelate, so that doesn’t explain the results. And before anyone mentions quack labs, the results were generated by a government funded lab that is part of the Canadian medical establishment.

A potential inability among some autistics to absorb and process essential trace minerals - if confirmed using proper and accurate tests - strikes me as being worthy of further investigation.

It’s not only possible, but that is what’s happening. The mercury message boards and email groups are like a self reinforcing cult. Any research is not actually read, but just interpreted by the leaders as part of the conspiracy, then fed to the members. But of course they will all say that individually they have done extensive research, only this research has been done just on approved sites. Anyone who questions the party line is part of the conspiracy. It’s pretty scary.

Hi Kev. Thank you.

Hi Ms. Clark. I don’t think it’s matter of trying to get away with anything. It looks a firmly-rooted belief to me, but I could be wrong. As far as the Dateline interview, although the underlying story was about chelation and Adams’s pursuit of knowledge about the Thimerosal-autism hypothesis, whether or not anyone or Dateline considers him an authority is, to me, probably irrelevant - the science speaks for itself. Unfortunately, it’s certainly possible that many parents don’t really look at the science. On one hand, I saw a loving, caring, patient father side of Adams that was quite a contrast to the megaphone-toting screaming mercury moms of other venues. And while that’s nice to see, on the other hand, that doesn’t make the apparent “temporary” poor excretor hypothesis based on Holmes et al. any more likely.

Hi NM. It’s hard for me to identify with this too. I think I understand the position of being convinced that vaccines caused a child’s autism (it’s certainly possible, however unlikely), but I just don’t understand hanging on to science (Bernard et al. and Holmes et al.) that just doesn’t hold water.

Hi Joseph. I thought the same things. It was good to see that Adams et al. noted Ip (2004), unfortunately that just makes the Holmes et al. control group look all the more anomalous.

They are, unless you grasp at straws and make up wild hypotheses. Dr. Adams should know better.

It’s hard for me to identify with this level of self deception. I try to see it from the perspective of a parent who is absolutely 100% convinced that vaccines, and specifically the thimerosal in vaccines, caused their child to be autistic.

I can kind of relate to that point of view but I just can’t understand this need to make the data fit no matter what. Is Jim Adams so completely sold on the hypothesis that he will do whatever is necessary to prove it?

The hypothesis is DEAD and no amount of rationalization is likely to revive it. Hair analysis is useful for monitoring industrial or workplace exposure where you are likely to see significant elevations in a given population. These minute differences between ASD and control groups are meaningless without also controlling for other variables.

How did Adams think he’d get away with post post-hoc ad lib truthiness stuff? Well, he’s just a materials scientist it’s not like we should expect him to know anything about kids and their medical status or be able to professionally interpret lab results… not that that stops him from doing it or parents from listening to him. ugh. It’s all so pathetic. Dateline interviewed this person as if he were an authority, didn’t they? (rolls eyes)