Comments on: A Chelation Roundup

By: Do'C

Do'C — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:51:11 +0000

Hi Vartabedian, thank you for the kind words.

Although I would take some exception to general use of the term “chronically ill” specific to autism, I think I understand your intention as only to specify parents of autistic children (autistic children being a subset with specific differences from neurotypical children within the medical community), and I’m inclined to agree that such exploitation exists.

By: Vartabedian

Vartabedian — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:04:06 +0000

Very nice post. This type of balanced, clear thinking from a parent does the autism community a great service. Pediatricians such as myself are often seen as “part of the establishment” and a post like this might be seen as biased.

Parents of autistic children are among the most exploited of any chronically ill population. Keep up the good work.

By: Do'C

Do'C — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:30:54 +0000

Hi María,

I did get them, but have not looked at them yet. I’m a little behind this week, but I’ll take a look this weekend hopefully.

By: María Luján

María Luján — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:48:49 +0000

Hi DoC
I sent you 2 e-mails 2 days ago about this post. Did you receive them?
Thanks

By: David N. Andrews MEd (Dec2006)

David N. Andrews MEd (Dec2006) — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:03:40 +0000

Mike Stanton: “If I was shot through the brain with a mercury bullet, would removing the bullet repair the damage caused by the bullet?”

I’m assuming rhetoric here, but I’m aware that certain people would actually try to find an affirmative answer to that.

Joseph:
“3. Average age of control group is over 2 years more that of test group (but they claim to match for the analysis).
4. Test group male:female ratio is 4.8. Control group male:female ratio is 3.5. (But they claim to match for the analysis).”

Well, I’d say that the actual ages of the controls, and the standard deviation of the ages in the sample might tell a lot too, regarding the likelihood of any ‘match; as for the m:f ratios… those are small groups, so all bets are off regarding the reliability of any gender-related issues that might be inferred from the data. In fact, all bets are off regarding the reliability of inferences made on the basis of any data from that study.

By: mike stanton

mike stanton — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:33:57 +0000

Do’C, Most Excellent!

If I was shot through the brain with a mercury bullet, would removing the bullet repair the damage caused by the bullet?

By: Not Mercury

Not Mercury — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:03:38 +0000

That’s an interesting observation Joseph, I’m glad you pointed it out.

Yes it is. I guess with a small enough group of kids, a few teens would skew the average considerably but I bet you’re right about the sibs. I’d also bet that the controls were recruited from Bradstreet’s clientele.

By: Do'C

Do'C — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:04:14 +0000

“The children were unvaccinated due to parent fears. But if this is the case, shouldn’t the average age in the control group be lower than that of the test group? It is actually over two years older. Could be a coincidence, but my feeling is that there’s something fishy going on with that control group.”

That’s an interesting observation Joseph, I’m glad you pointed it out.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:02:24 +0000

Something odd about the Bradstreet control group is that they have something like 8 unvaccinated children out of 18. Now, where would you find that many unvaccinated children? It says they were unvaccinated for “religious reasons”. What, they went and got Amish children or Christian Scientists? The paper says the control group was composed in part of siblings of the test group. That makes more sense. The children were unvaccinated due to parent fears. But if this is the case, shouldn’t the average age in the control group be lower than that of the test group? It is actually over two years older. Could be a coincidence, but my feeling is that there’s something fishy going on with that control group.

By: Do'C

Do'C — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:33:35 +0000

“That alone should be enough to invalidate any research. What role did they have in the Bradstreet study? Was there an IRB?”

Interesting you mention this NM. The Bradstreet et al. study was approved by ASU’s IRB. Subsequently, ASU’s IRB rejected the current arizona chelation study underway by Dr. Adams at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine.

I wonder why it was rejected.