The Legend Of The “Poor Excretors”
January 22, 2007 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
A popular assertion among proponents of a mercury-autism hypothesis is that autistic children are “poor excretors” of heavy metals, particularly mercury. While claims of “poor mercury excretors” are not in short supply, science to support this claim apparently is.
Claims about “poor excretors” seem to have been repeated tirelessly by the mercury-autism crowd for the past couple of years. My current impression is that such claims represent a beloved notion that is often accepted at face value, with very little question of its apparent origin, or understanding of its present lack of factual support. Apparently, not even (supposedly objective) journalists are immune to the lure of the popularity of such claims. You may know that David Kirby and Arthur Allen recently participated in a debate about vaccines and autism in San Diego recently (the entire debate is available for download at ARI’s website). Kirby makes the following statements beginning at about 01:02:13.
And now we are finding that these children with autism, most of them, many of them, don’t have thiols. They don’t have glutathione. They don’t have natural defenses. When we’re exposed to mercury, the glutahione, the thiols, bind with it, it’s a sulphur-based sulphur, it has a natural affinty for heavy metals. We eliminate it through our body through feces, urine, and hair. If you don’t have mercury capturers, you’re not going to capture the mercury. You’re not going to eliminate it, you’re not going to metabolize it, Your going to have what’s called an efflux disorder. The theory is these kids have mercury efflux disorder. They can not metabolize it.
It seemed to me that Kirby spoke these words as if they were gospel truth. I got the impression Kirby must believe them tacitly, enough so, that he was able to communicate them quickly and confidently. But who cares what David Kirby might believe? Is any of what he said in the above quote actually scientific fact? Here are some facts for David Kirby to consider:
Fact: If they didn’t have glutathione, they would most likely be dead.
Fact: It is unknown if mercury is excreted in the hair, and unlikely.
Fact: “Poor mercury excretors” causing autism is unproven hypothesis.
Where could David Kirby get information that doesn’t seem to amount to much more than urban legend, or unproven hypothesis at best?
Here’s one possibility - The following comes from the Generation Rescue website:
Myth #14: There have been many autistic children who showed no sign of mercury after testing. Therefore, the idea that autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning is implausible. It is very true that some autistic children, tested for mercury poisoning via a chelation challenge or provocation test, showed no signs of mercury excretion. However, these results are not because these children are not mercury poisoned, but because they are the most mercury poisoned and are known as “non-excretors.”
If ever there were a straw man argument, this one is it. The idea that autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning lacks plausability, because the science shows that the symptoms are in fact quite different.
“At sufficient dose mercury is indeed a neurotoxin, but the typical clinical signs of mercurism are not similar to the typical clinical signs of autism.”
What the Generation Rescue straw man argument doesn’t tell you is that there isn’t any convincing scientific evidence that there are any autistic children who do show signs of mercury toxicity after testing either - there are no established reference ranges (or supporting normative studies) for determining mercury toxicity following adminstration of a chelator, that I am aware of. Does anyone else find it interesting that this appears to be a test that might not be passable? If the provocation test shows mercury, it’s mercury poisoning? If the provocation test doesn’t show mercury, it’s the most mercury poisoning? Here’s more from the GR website.
A non-excretor of mercury is someone who, even after the administration of a chelating agent (which is how a mercury toxicity test has typically been performed), is unable to excrete any mercury.
Hmm. That sounds important, we’d better repeat that in bold type.
A non-excretor of mercury is someone who, even after the administration of a chelating agent (which is how a mercury toxicity test has typically been performed), is unable to excrete any mercury.
This could potentially be a valid and testable hypothesis in my opinion (even though that’s not how mercury toxicity is currently determined - remember, there aren’t any applicable chelator-provoked reference ranges for mercury). Are there autistic children with documented mercury poisoning, who despite the administration of a chelating agent, are unable to excrete any mercury? My search of PubMed about this hasn’t turned up anything to scientifically support the notion that such children exist within the autistic population. Is there more to this claim?
A majority of autistic children are non-excretors.
Holy cow! A majority? Is there any established scientific evidence that ANY (let alone a majority of) autistic children are “non-excretors”? I haven’t found it. That seems like a pretty outlandish claim for something that appears to have absolutely no scientific evidence behind it. More importantly, this is the claim that should be tested first! (more on this in a minute).
I did find something that might be interesting, though not from a peer-reviewed medical journal indexed by PubMed. ”A Case-Control Study of Mercury Burden in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders” (Bradstreet et al.). Here are a few points from this paper:
Controls and cases were both challenged with a three-day oral treatment of DMSA (10 mg/kg per dose given three times daily).
Our null hypothesis was that the populations under study should have similar distributions of excreted heavy metals, and we accepted a double-sided P-value of <0.05 as statistically significant.
The urinary mercury concentrations were significantly higher in cases than in controls (RI=3.76; P < 0.002; 95%CI: 1.60 to 6.41).
This study shows a strong association between increased urinary mercury concentrations following three days of treatment with DMSA and the presence of an autistic spectrum disorder.
Empahses mine.
Wow! That sounds like superior excretion, doesn’t it? And that was after only three days of treatment for those 221 autistic children. Did these scientists miss an apparently important point from Generation Rescue? Of course, the main claim of that particular paper is one of an increased body burden of mercury among ASD children, but that claim is a subject for another post altogether. Let’s get back to Generation Rescue’s “non-excretors”.
The non-excretor phenomenon has only been recently understood and studied.
The “non-excretor phenomenon”, has not even been established!
It was apparently proposed as part of the conclusion of the Holmes et al. first baby haircuts study (it’s possible that the notion was suggested eleswhere and earlier), and although it is often incorrectly referred to as a theory, it’s not one. It seems to remain a completely unproven hypothesis.
In fact here’s exactly what that Holmes et al. paper proposed:
If reduced overall mercury elimination is related to hair elimination, then autistic infants will retain significantly higher levels of mercury in tissue, including the brain, than normal infants. In light of the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopmental disorders, our study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism.
Empahses mine.
Despite the fact that such a proposition isn’t supported by the data in the study itself, what I see here is one giant “if” at the beginning (for which I have been unable to find any scientific support), followed by a “look” at a “hypothetical” “might” increase the risk. That’s it!
One big “if” and a “look” at a “hypothetical” “might”.
If you have time, watch this short clip of James Randi and Richard Dawkins, where they discuss the investigation of phenomenon and understanding what’s worth investigating.
In case you don’t have time or interest in watching the video here are a couple of very small excerpts that I think are worth noting.
Randi - “That is something that we should all bear in mind that, finding out whether there is a phenomenon to examine, that is the first step. Let’s not start spinning our wheels, looking into the theories behind things that have not yet been established.”
Dawkins - “A really robust phenomenon should show up reliably and repeatably”.
Don’t you think Generation Rescue’s claim, “a majority of autistic children are non-excretors,” would qualify as a claim of “robust phenomenon”? What about Bradstreet et al.’s paper that seems to suggest “excellent excretion”? Does that demonstrate a “robust phenomenon” of “poor excretors”, or quite the opposite?
From a very basic scientific perspective, all the speculation, all of the study of possible mechanisms, and all of the assertions that “poor excretion” of heavy metals could possibly lead to autism, have skipped the single most important step - scientifically establishing the very existence of “poor excretors” in the first place.
82 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed, see "Comments/Contact" under "About".
Comment by notmercury — 22 January, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
“And now we are finding that these children with autism, most of them, many of them, don’t have thiols. They don’t have glutathione.”
omg — Did he really say that? What a complete dope. I haven’t watched the debate yet but, if that’s any indication of the things Kirby says, I’m not sure I can. I don’t have any thiols, you see. Where are my thiols????
Nice work Do’C. It seems Kirby has no trouble excreting the nonsense he’s picked up from his mercury mom and dad friends.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 22 January, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Yes, he says they don’t have glutathione. Later Arthur calls him on it and he makes this dopey face and says something like “I said it MAY be true.”
Comment by isles — 22 January, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
“‘I said it MAY be true.’”
He does this a lot. On the Evidence of Harm Yahoo group he squawked, “I never said that autism was caused by Chinese coal or forest fires … I went out of my way to stress that.” So, he didn’t mean to imply that these loopy things cause autism - was his attention wandering? was he making some kind of tangential point? did he follow up with an aside about his favorite kind of pie?
My four-year-old is a more trustworthy source than David Kirby.
Comment by Ken — 22 January, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Thanks for the excellent post. The next time someone debates Kirby, it would be good to start off the discussion with one simple ground rule: a hypothesis is not the same as a theory. Kirby uses the words interchangeably. He needs to be called on that at every opportunity.
Comment by Front Row, Gallagher-style — 22 January, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
“A non-excretor of mercury is someone who, even after the administration of a chelating agent (which is how a mercury toxicity test has typically been performed), is unable to excrete any mercury.”
Well then Kirby certainly isn’t autistic, because he was excreting all over the stage and the audience during that dog and pony show.
TACA NOW should have told the audience to bring your own raincoats, at least the first couple of rows.
Is there a David Kirby-Lisa Ackerman tape being shopped too?
Comment by Kev — 22 January, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
Bravo Do’C : “They don’t have glutathione.” Truly funny
Comment by andrea — 22 January, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Let me see if I have this straight; they’re saying …
autistic children are mercury-poisoned because they excrete mercury when given chelators
and
autistic children are mercury-poisoned because they don’t excrete mercury when given chelators because they are non-excretors.
That has to be an all-time null-less circular argument. Oy my head hurts; I need to go lie down.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 22 January, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Yes, Andrea,
This, of course, works hand in glove with their belief that high levels of mercury in hair is bad, low levels is bad, no mercury in the hair is really bad, and of course, anything between high and low is bad. No matter, all of them are mercury poisoned and need chelation ASAP.
It would be really funny if there weren’t kids getting dangerous doses of IV chelators and even dying from chelation.
Comment by Judy — 23 January, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Could you please post a link to the following so I may verify it ~
“It would be really funny if there weren’t kids getting dangerous doses of IV chelators and even dying from chelation”.
Comment by Do'C — 23 January, 2007 @ 8:37 am
Judy,
Look to the upper left portion of this page in the green sidebar. Read the first linked article under “Best Of 2006″ titled “Autism, A Killer App., And A Drug Of Choice - Guest Blogger”.
Comment by Do'C — 23 January, 2007 @ 10:07 am
John, I blacklisted your e-mail address (permanently) months ago when I saw how you were treating a friend of mine online. Your comment was not deleted, it was prevented from being sent in the first place. I’ll go ahead and post it for you from the trackback link in my log files.
This in from Jonn Best Junior:
Comment by Do'C — 23 January, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Your e-mail address is banned, and will remain that way indefinitely. Your statement is published.
Typical John Best Jr. straw man.
I’m not sure how to help you understand the difference between “deletion” and “not received”. (Edited to add: Perhaps a picture would help you understand).
—
I followed the link to the website John mentions and located the part about APO’s. It contained this:
Unfortunately, the citation for the study mentioned is not provided.
I’m guessing it wasn’t this one.
No association between the APOE gene and autism
Comments for John Best Jr. should be taken to his blog “Hating Autism”.
Comment by Not Mercury — 23 January, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
It’s bizarre the way John sinks his teeth into something and holds on like pitbull. I mean how many times and different ways do we have to show him that apoE4 is not a risk factor for autism.
Maybe that lack of progress he assigns to his kid is a projected personality trait.
Since I’ve been reading his comments there’s been absolutely no change in John’s arguments.
Comment by Phil — 23 January, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
I wouldn’t bother with Best, DoC. Looks like he’s having enough trouble with a number of people who are making him look like the idiot he truly is. And as mentioned - stubborn as a mule. I wonder what he’ll do when his son gets to puberty, and all his “hard work” quickly shows itself as it deserves to be - for nought. Double the chelation in sheer panic? The man hates Autism so much it’s affecting his decision making. Well said, NM.
Comment by Do'C — 23 January, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
∞+1 will probably not be sufficient.
Comment by Joseph — 23 January, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
But how about that Donald W. Miller, Jr. How many clear factual errors would you say are on that page John linked to? A dozen or so?
Comment by Kev — 23 January, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Factual errors? How can a man who regularly published in JPANDS have factual errors in his work??? It’s ‘peer reviewed’ don’t you know? But then wait…didn’t John say that just because its peer reviewed that doesn’t make it true…? Oooh, its too confusing for me….
- - - [Deleted, off topic. Kev] - - -
Comments for John Best Jr. should be taken to his blog “Hating Autism”.
Comment by MARIA LUJAN — 23 January, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Hi
I am waiting ( and I hope in the near future to take place) for the high technology science, high quality researchers doing high quality research on the topic of the possibility of heavy metal/Al/essential elements problems ( in transport and excretion and management) in autistic people, considering also genetics and biochemistry/metabolism and toxicology in due way.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 23 January, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
“… high levels of mercury in hair is bad, low levels is bad, no mercury in the hair is really bad, and of course, anything between high and low is bad. No matter, all of them are mercury poisoned and need chelation ASAP.”
If I had had a doctor that messed up in the head, I’d have slapped the bugger purple and wazzed in his shoes!
That is not science… it’s not even anything!
What is with these people?!
Comment by Interverbal — 23 January, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
“… high levels of mercury in hair is bad, low levels is bad, no mercury in the hair is really bad, and of course, anything between high and low is bad. No matter, all of them are mercury poisoned and need chelation ASAP.”
Comment by Interverbal — 23 January, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Oh wow….. just… wow.
Comment by Phil — 23 January, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
David, I can only suggest to you my theory re “What is it with these people”. And that is that they can’t handle the symptoms of Autism, and they automatically believe they are hurting (how can they tell when the communication lines are down proverbially speaking) and subsequently panic wanting to stop the perceived pain. Whenever some quack (ie Geier, Cutler, Kirby etc etc) comes out and says “Autism can be cured” they leap higher than any cartoon character you care to name and want to know all about it - and without even thinking about the possible consequences pursue the treatment recommended. They then blow up at people who either try and make them stop and think - as well as those who abuse the crap out of them in a number of different ways. It’s blinkered thinking - a version of lazy thinking in my book. Thinking with your heart 100 percent of the time because they want the pain they think their child is suffering from to stop. I’m not against thinking with your heart, but it has to be balanced with thinking with your head.
It’s all based on emotion - pure and simple. It’s also why the responses to questions and constructive criticism are laden with abuse.
Does that answer your question, David?
Comment by 666sigma — 24 January, 2007 @ 4:57 am
For what it is worth, the APOE gene has been shown in several studies to linked to Alzheimer’s. If you got the APOE4 gene from both parents, you are basically going to get Alzheimer’s. End of story. If you doubt me, just Google APOE4 and Alzheimer’s.
Of course, there has always be conjecture (no solid proof) that Alzheimer’s is the result of heavy metal toxicity. In this case, it is Aluminum.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 24 January, 2007 @ 5:15 am
Well, the question was rhetorical, but it doesn’t surprise me what comes out in your answer.
Naturally, you are quite right. Emotional responses instead of cognitive ones, and that’s it all over.
But I hear that their favourite pair of clowns had their paper retracted from a journal quite recently… let’s see how they deal with that bugger
Comment by isles — 24 January, 2007 @ 6:04 am
They won’t. They ignore everything that threatens their worldview. They have to have some way of coping with their cognitive dissonance.
Comment by Do'C — 24 January, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Interesting. Irrelevant, as autism is not Alzheimer’s, but interesting. This new study looks interesting.
APOE Genotype and Cognitive Functioning in a Large Age-Stratified Population Sample
Doesn’t make impaired excretion look like a culprit, but I could be wrong.
Comment by Ruth — 24 January, 2007 @ 6:58 am
The grain of truth is that hair analysis can give a fairly accurate history of alkyl mercury exposure (other metals less so). Hair reflects the blood levels at the time the hair was in the folicle and alive. Mercury is not excreted through hair as it is in the kidneys. You can’t be a good or bad excreter through the hair. If you are a poor excreter through the kidneys, blood levels will rise and hair levels will be elevated. Basic physiology.
Comment by Not Mercury — 24 January, 2007 @ 8:01 am
Of course, there has always be conjecture (no solid proof) that Alzheimer’s is the result of heavy metal toxicity. In this case, it is Aluminum.
Yep, lots of conjecture, nothing approaching proof. Sounds familiar. btw, Al isn’t a heavy metal.
More on ApoE-4 and Alzheimer’s:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=60097
No mention of mercury transport
Comment by Do'C — 24 January, 2007 @ 8:11 am
Indeed Ruth. It would also seem that forming hair follicles’ relative position in the circulatory system (closest to peripheral capillaries, after circulatory delivery of blood to major organs like the brain, and before venous collection of cellular waste products and toxins) make it a very unlikely candidtate for containing a mechanism for active excretion of any kind.
Comment by Joseph — 24 January, 2007 @ 8:58 am
The APOE link to Alzheimer’s is interesting, but is there an APOE link to heavy metal (or metal) excretion, or is that just conjecture? There was a study on chelation of Aluminum in Alzheimer’s patients, with positive results, but it was a single-blind study. I bet if they do the double-blind, the effects disappear.
Comment by Not Mercury — 24 January, 2007 @ 9:32 am
No, there is no link to APOE and metal excretion. There may be some sort of bystander effect but apolipoproteins are primarily involved with cholesterol and lipid transport. It does interact with reelin, which is implicated in autism and schizophrenia, but neither E2, E3, or E4 is a risk factor.
According to Miller, a person with less apolipoprotein would be a ‘poor excretor’ but one study suggests increased serum levels in some autistic children.
Comment by MARIA LUJAN — 24 January, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Hi
The problem with having high levels in blood of HM/Al depends on the membrane transport system of heavy metals/Al /essential elements that BTW, nobody has studied properly in Autism. Several Transporters Structures (ABC, Pglycoproteins, MTF, etc) have been described only recently.
Comment by MARIA LUJAN — 24 January, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
You can see the complexity of the metal transport
Transport of Toxic Metals by Molecular Mimicry
Comment by Phil — 24 January, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
But I hear that their favourite pair of clowns had their paper retracted from a journal quite recently… let’s see how they deal with that bugger
Which two, David? And which journal? I’m all ears! The more fodder I have for my own blog the better!
I figured your question was probably rhetorical, but I thought why not answer it anyway and put it somewhere else on the public record.
Comment by Do'C — 24 January, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Hi Phil.
Kathleen Seidel blogged it.
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/124/
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 24 January, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Phil: “I figured your question was probably rhetorical, but I thought why not answer it anyway and put it somewhere else on the public record.”
Ah, good.
Comment by Phil — 25 January, 2007 @ 2:01 am
HAHAHAHA! Well done, Kath! Good pick up! Wonder if Best and his gang of bullies will see that. They won’t report on it their own blogs of course - nah. Too much truth for them to handle!
Oh incidentally (apologies to DoC if I’m talking out of turn here) has anyone noticed that Best is no longer allowing “anonymous” posts? After what happened to me in there I’m not surprised they’ve run off. The man is SCARY to say the least!
Comment by Do'C — 25 January, 2007 @ 7:03 am
Yep. That Kathleen is pretty damn sharp. The best her critics have been able to do is call her names, I haven’t seen anyone pick apart ANY of her posts based on the facts.
FYI to All: All further comments for or about John Best Jr. should be taken to his blog. They’ll be moderated from here on out.
Comment by Phil — 26 January, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Just to answer that post, DoC - it seems now that unless you agree with him, or you ID yourself (which is not recommended - I talk through experience) you can’t post on that blog. Just pointing that out.
Getting back to the root post though - I’ve got a general question about excreting mercury. Is it the argument that no amount of chelation can get rid of the mercury that isn’t secreted? I’m doing the usual ASD thing - checking statement! If so maybe I’ll check this out through sheer curiosity. It won’t help me of course when I’m already comfortable within myself as I am.
Comment by Do'C — 26 January, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Hi Phil,
I haven’t heard the argument that no amount of chelation can get rid of mercury.
In fact the GR site claims:
Search PubMed for “Autism” and “Buttar” - Nada.
It’s difficult to think there’s much to this, given that the common tests through DDI report levels of mercury as a ratio to creatinine, often based on a spot collection.
As I understand it, the problem with this is it doesn’t tell you *how much* mercury (as in quantity) is excreted at all.
Additionally, regardless of length of treatment. There isn’t any conclusive evidence that current chelators remove mercury from the brain anyway, or that such removal would result in cognitive difference. Remember the clinical signs of autism and mercury poisoning are indeed quite different.
See my post “Chelation Roundup” for a lot more on this subject.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 26 January, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Sacré bollocks!
[Moderated: Language. Not that I disagree with you David, I don't].
Comment by Phil — 26 January, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I think I get you, David. Are you saying the GR site is rubbish? If so - hear hear!! (I’ll have to remember your substitute swear there - that’s a good one!)
Thanks, DoC - I guess I was misreading the opening post hear, or rather misreading it’s meaning.
Comment by 666sigma — 27 January, 2007 @ 8:49 am
“Interesting. Irrelevant, as autism is not Alzheimer’s, but interesting. This new study looks interesting.”
“Doesn’t make impaired excretion look like a culprit, but I could be wrong.”
I never said anything about excretion. I merely made an observation that the APOE is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s so there is a connection between this gene and cognitive impairment. These studies are not new and they are well known in the Alzheimer’s community. It sounds like you’ve got a little straw man in yourself.
I admit that I’m not an expert that spent the last 6 years researching this topic. I am going to take an educated guess that you really don’t know if it is relevant or not either. There may be more to APOE than poor excretion.
Comment by 666sigma — 27 January, 2007 @ 9:01 am
For, Not Mercury, our resident expert on Heavy Metals, I took this from Wikipedia so you can look it up for yourself . . .
“Living organisms require trace amounts of some heavy metals, including cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, strontium, and zinc, but excessive levels can be detrimental to the organism. Other heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium have no known vital or beneficial effect on organisms, and their accumulation over time in the bodies of mammals can cause serious illness.”
“In medical usage, the definition is considerably looser, and heavy metal poisoning can include excessive amounts of iron, manganese, aluminium, or beryllium (the seventh-lightest metal) as well as the true heavy metals.”
It’s bad enough that there are so many snake oil salesmen in the autism field, but there are even more armchair doctors and scientists. It’s rather unique.
Comment by Do'C — 27 January, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Then you are off topic for this post.
Which is relevant how?
So?
I don’t think so.
I admit, I could be mistaken. Please feel free to present evidence that APOE is relevant to autism.
Did you miss this one upthread?
Comment by notmercury — 27 January, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
“In medical usage, the definition is considerably looser”
Then I stand (from my armchair) corrected.
Not claiming to be a resident expert in aything.
Comment by 666sigma — 28 January, 2007 @ 6:51 am
“Off topic” - not really. APOE was brought up by someone and there is a known connection with another cognitive disorder. No one is sure why it is linked to Alzheimer’s, but the statistical evidence is very strong. That’s all I said.
You can dismiss a potential connection with ASD if you choose. However, it is possible that the mercury crowd could be right (even for the wtong reasons).
Comment by Do'C — 28 January, 2007 @ 8:41 am
APOE was brought up by someone as possibly related to poor excretion. Are autistic savants “cognitively” impaired?
I don’t see the relevance to the “poor excretors” hypothesis.
The mercury crowd could be right about many things. Bring us some evidence that they are. Are you not reading my responses to you? I acknowledged that it’s a possiblity.
“I admit, I could be mistaken. Please feel free to present evidence that APOE is relevant to autism.
Comment by 666sigma — 29 January, 2007 @ 6:03 am
I do not need proof before I believe in something.
Common sense should have told people that smoking was bad for their health. If not your heart, at least your lungs. For 20+ years, people cried for proof. Well, over the past 30+ years I think we’ve accumulated enough proof. But was it smart to wait for the proof?
Common sense should tell everyone that global warming is true. This planet cannot sustain 6 billion people long term and definitely not 6 billion people living like Americans. We can wait for the proof in another 30 years. Of course, by then, we may be on the path to ruin. Hell, we might already be passed the point of no return unless we wipe out 1/2 of the people.
I think the argument that we need proof is nonsensical. At some point, you have to use your head and go with what makes the most sense.
It is my PERSONAL BELIEF that regressive autism (and maybe all autism) will eventually be shown to be the result of inflammation in the brain due to an auto-immune response. This is what has caused the abnormalities found in autistic brains. It is also why autism effects everyone so differently. There is a genetic predisposition towards these auto-immune responses, but this predisposition does not necessarily mean that the person will end up with autism. If it were solely genetic, there would never be one autistic twin. The odds of another sibling with autism would be greater than just 5%.
This is a belief. It is not fact. I have no hard science or any real medical background in studying autism. It is based on my personal knowledge of the medical sciences, as well as what I have read so far. In other words, it makes sense to me. It fits.
I will leave it up to you to figure out what I might possibly think could trigger some of these auto-immune responses.
By the way, since you are very knowledgeable, you may want to read up about inflammation and the growing theory about how this is the major source of most damage to our internal organs. And it is not looking so much like a theory any more.
Comment by Do'C — 29 January, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Your choice, but I would point out that this opens the door wide for false conclusions.
Even though I consider this example equivocation more or less, autism is not lung cancer or heart disease, I think I get your gist that it probably didn’t require the full 20 years to understand the negative health impacts of smoking. The important difference in this example is that science was on the side of non-smokers. In the case of “poor mercury excretor” hypothesis, science does not appear to be on the side of the “autism is mercury poisoning” crowd at all - even after about 9 years.
Then therein lies the difference between you and me. Claims to knowledge without supporting evidence are called “belief”.
I don’t necessariy disagree, I make decisions in a similar manner by evaluating available evidence and making a judgement.
You’re certainly entitled to your PERSONAL BELIEFS. I think a single mechanism/etiology is pretty simplistic. There are already known causes for autism that do not necessarily fit your description (CDFE in the Amish as an example), so your “maybe all autism” seems unlikely at best. If it were solely genetic, which NO ONE is claiming, there would never be one autistic identical twin.
What you might possibly think or believe could trigger an auto-immune response that might lead to autism has zero bearing on reality.
Comment by María Luján — 29 January, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Hi Do´C
I have just found this
A proteomic study of serum from children with autism showing differential expression of apolipoproteins and complement proteins
and this study-although small
Enhanced APOE2 transmission rates in families with autistic probands
From here
Apo-B levels correlate with the risk of coronary disease. Apo-B exists in human plasma in two isoforms, Apo-B48 and Apo-B100. Apo-B100 is the major physiological ligand for the LDL receptor. Apo-B100 is synthesized in the liver and is required for the assembly of VLDL. It does not interchange between lipoprotein particles, as do the other apolipoproteins, and it is found in IDL and LDL after the removal of the Apo-A, E and C.Apo-B48 is essential for the intestinal absorption of dietary lipids.
About the Complement Factor H Related Protein information can be found here
The Complement Cq1is an Immune complex binding to phagocytes (macrophages, neutrophils).
Not easy but explained here
This Complement C1q was reported also in “Small intestinal enteropathy with epithelial IgG and complement deposition in children with regressive autism” de Torrente et al.
“We determined the density of intraepithelial and lamina propria lymphocyte populations, and studied mucosal immunoglobulin and complement C1q localisation in gut”
It seems to me very interesting that in blood the ApoB-100- (somewhat a transporter) is present imbalanced with immune complexes with different functions- C1q and Factor H related protein- and a compound with a role in wound healing and cell migration (fibronectin).
fibronectin is a fibrous linking protein that functions as a reticuloendothelial mediated host defense mechanism and is impaired by surgery, burns, infection, neoplasia, and disorders of the immune system.
Complement proteins C1q and MBL are pattern recognition molecules that signal immediate and long-term protective immune functions.
It seems that APOB100 and Complement Factor H related protein can be related. CFH is being studied as linked to coronary disease.
Sorry if you consider this off-topic. thank you
Comment by 666sigma — 29 January, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
“What you might possibly think or believe could trigger an auto-immune response that might lead to autism has zero bearing on reality.”
True, then again, I just might be correct in which case that would make it reality. Believing that smoking causes lung cancer did not stop it from being reality. You are either right or wrong.
The prevailing science on autism shows that there is a genetic link. The weight of evidence shows that there is most likely an environmental trigger in some cases. That’s about it. The rest is speculation.
Through history, the crackpots have almost always won out over the rational theory of the day. Granted, most crackpots are just as wrong as the prevailing wisdom, but every major scientific advance was heresy at one point.
One day, a crackpot will come along with a belief (based on some evidence and sound mind) and he/she will happen to be right even though they have no proof. Twenty years from now will you remember demanding proof from that crackpot or will you say you believed them all along?
Comment by 666sigma — 29 January, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
BTW, Kirby is not a crackpot. He’s a hack. He’s found a market and he’s selling into it.
Grinker will sell into the other end of the market.
It is amazing how much people will pay to hear someone tell them what they want to hear.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 29 January, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Someone with a silly name: “It is my PERSONAL BELIEF that regressive autism”
There is no such thing as regressive autism.
If it involves regression it’s either Rett’s or Heller’s syndrome. That’s the diagnostic criteria talking, not me. If you don’t like it, take it up with the APA… they compile the DSM.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 29 January, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Same person…. “In other words, it makes sense to me. It fits.”
I’m sure that Aristotle’s theory of motion made sense to him, and fit with what he had considered (not being a physicist but a philosopher)… however, it did’t make sense when phsicists examined the phenomenon as physicsists instead of as armchair theorists.
Difference between armchair theorists and the trained scientists … the scientists have the training to help them investigate issues more thoroughly than armchair theorists.
Comment by Do'C — 29 January, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
It’s possible that beliefs can match reality. Quality, peer-reviewed, replicated science should demonstrate whether or not your beliefs match reality.
Sounds simplistic again. Don’t you think it’s possible that there is a genetic basis (rather than link) that may be quite complex, involving multiple genes and interactions for which innumerable enviornmental factors may influence (or possibly even play the role of a trigger)?
Ref
Ref
Did the scientific thinkers of the early 20th century consider Einstein a “crackpot” or a brilliant scientist?
You’ll have to ask that question of “believers”. As a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, I don’t see any point in stating that any particular belief was held for a certain period of time.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 29 January, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Phil: “Are you saying the GR site is rubbish?”
Do I *need* to?
Comment by 666sigma — 30 January, 2007 @ 4:24 am
- - - [Moderated: Better manners expected here, Sigma] - - -
“There is no such thing as regressive autism.”
Talk about armchair theorists. Where’s your proof? Or proof that it is 100% innate?
Don’t bother. We both know you don’t have it. At least, I try not to pass opinions off as facts.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 30 January, 2007 @ 10:05 am
666sigma: “Talk about armchair theorists. Where’s your proof? Or proof that it is 100% innate?
Don’t bother. We both know you don’t have it. At least, I try not to pass opinions off as facts. ”
Talk about wide of the mark.
The criteria for autism in any form (i.e., Kanner or Asperger types… F84 or F84.5 ICD 10) do not include regression. If a regression is involved, the diagnostic criteria being fulfilled are for either Rett’s or Heller’s syndrome.
- - -[Moderated]- - -
You might avoid making irritatingly silly remarks such as the above and making yourself look incredibly foolish.
Just so that you know, I have training in psycho-educational diagnostics, so I’m well aware of the contents and implications of the diagnostic criteria. This is not mere opinion: it is in the criteria (as I believe I actually pointed out before your peurile tirade hit the blog).
I’m no armchair theoretician; I’m a trained professional.
Something you evidently are not.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 30 January, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Just to back up, so that 666sigma (the armchair theoretician) knows what exactly is said in the criteria, I’m going to place them here - at least the main elements in my case and links to the rest of the criteria.
Autism:
“Autism is a developmental disorder that typically appears during the first three years of life and may be the result of a neurological disorder that affects the brain. Autism is classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a Pervasive Development Disorder (APA, 1994). It is defined by symptoms that appear before the age of three which reflect delayed or abnormal development in Language, Social Skills and Behavioral Repertoire.”
No mention of regression, but rather characteristics that reflect delayed or abnormal development.
“These symptoms are not better explained by Childhood Disintegrative Disorder or Rett’s Disorder.”
This is the clincher. The presentation should not be diagnosed as autism unless Rett’s or Heller’s syndrome is ruled out. This is the process of differential diagnosis, which requires not just the identification of characteristics as fitting one classification but also the confirmation that they do not fit another category that would explain them better.
Childhood Disintegrative Disorder: “A condition occurring in 3 to 4 year olds which is characterized by a deterioration, over several months of intellectual, social, and language functioning. Also known as; disintegrative psychosis or Heller’s syndrome. This rather rare condition was described many years before autism but has only recently been ‘officially’ recognized. With CDD children develop a condition which resembles autism but only after a relatively prolonged period of clearly normal development. This condition apparently differs from autism in the pattern of onset, course, and outcome. Although apparently rare the condition probably has frequently been incorrectly diagnosed.”
This classification specifically mentions a loss of previously acquired skills: this is the definition of a regression. This in itself should demonstrate that there is no such thing as regressive autism: if regression is observed, it is not one of the autisms, it is Heller’s syndrome… or…
Rett’s syndrome: “An inherited disorder that affects only females, the syndrome causes mental retardation and developmental degeneration.”
Neither Rett’s nor Heller’s syndrome should be diagnosed if the observed characteristics fit the criteria for autism - and if the observed characteristics fit better the criteria for either Rett’s or Heller’s syndrome then the appropriate classification out of those two should be recorded.
Only those two classifications mention regressions (losses of previously acquired skills).
666sigma, it’s best not to argue the toss with a person very acquainted with the criteria.
- - -[Moderated]- - -
Comment by Do'C — 30 January, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Sigma and David, please keep your conversation about the subject material - not each other.
Comment by María Luján — 30 January, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Hi Do´C
This manuscript is recent
Metals in motor neuron diseases
Obviously, this is degenerative and autism is not, I am pointing here to the possibility.
Also this
Renal and neurologic effects of cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic in children: evidence of early effects and multiple interactions at environmental exposure levels
The conclusion
Heavy metals polluting the environment can cause subtle effects on children’s renal and dopaminergic systems without clear evidence of a threshold, which reinforces the need to control and regulate potential sources of contamination by heavy metals.
is related to non-autistic children
My question What would be the effect in autistic children, with a different genetics than non-autistic?
Work of Dr Zalups is very interesting
Cystine alters the renal and hepatic disposition of inorganic mercury and plasma thiol status
About the problems with transporters
Endogenous thiols and MRP transporters contribute to Hg2+ efflux in HgCl2-treated tubular MDCK cells
Our results demonstrate that, in MDCK cells, inorganic Hg(2+) promotes the activation of specific detoxifying pathways that may, at least partly, depend on the activity of MRP transporters.
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 30 January, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I was just trying to clarify the issue of the diagnostics and defend against being called an ‘armchair theorist’; being a trained professional, I found that offensive and wished to clarify the matter.
Regarding the issue of mercury excretion and so on, I cannot really see a place where the mercury notion fits in with what is known about autism, and am not entirely sure what the relationship is to regressive phenomena (the ones I have tried to explain above). What I do know, and wished to point out to 666sigma, is that there is no regressive autism (as we see from the criteria) and that regression means that the diagnosis is not autism.
I was also trying to explain the relationship of personal belief to knowledge, and the relevance of ‘makes sense therefore it fits’.
As to 666sigma’s aims, I shall refrain from speculating.
Comment by María Luján — 30 January, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Hi David
You say
“Regarding the issue of mercury excretion and so on, I cannot really see a place where the mercury notion fits in with what is known about autism”
Would you interested about a proposal of discussion in terms of a concomitant problem to a diagnosis - not as cause of- not only of Hg but about management of essential/toxic elements in general?
I ask because you may be not interested- and for sure I accept this.Please consider if you are interested that I am talking in potential and as an alternative, needed of serious confirmation and research. Thank you in advance
Comment by 666sigma — 30 January, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
My comments have been drifting well off topic for awhile. Just because Kirby and others are off base doesn’t mean that the pro-genetics only group is correct.
Regarding “regressive” autism, I have become very familiar with the DSM definitions. The DSM is a laundry list of behaviors. It is not a medical diagnosis. I don’t subscribe to the one sizes fits all theory. PDD-NOS is nothing more than catch all.
My son was given a PDD-NOS diagnosis even though he did not fit the DSM because of obvious sensory integration issues. The only criterion that he clearly fit was delayed language (but he met the Asperger’s definition). It’s almost like they flipped a coin. Heads, you’re on the spectrum. Tails, you’re not.
Sensory integration is NOT in the DSM, even though many believe that it is the underlying cause of the autistic behaviors found in the DSM. The DSM is not the end all in autism. Sorry to burst your academic bubble.
Yes, I believe that some children have developed “normally” for (up to) 2 years and have “regressed” into PDD that does not fall under CDD. One advantage that we have today is everything is on film. Everyone has film of their child’s development so it is much easier to determine how the child has developed. When did they talk? When did they point? When did they stop responding to their names? When did they stop using the acquired language? When did they develop the blank stare and spin in circles?
Comment by Do'C — 30 January, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Straw Group
Comment by Do'C — 30 January, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
María,
My post is essentially asking where’s the forest? You are bringing twigs and branches and things that look like evidence of something the could be some kind of a tree. I’m sure there are trees out there, and lots of different species at that.
Where is the forest, claimed to have been seen by many?
What do you think could be a valid test for screening of “poor excretion” of heavy metals. Forget the possible complex transport mechanisms for a minute, what do you think about testing the claims that:
and
Sounds like a carefully constructed set of simple post-DMSA serum mercury tests could potentially answer this question to me.
Comment by María Luján — 30 January, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Hi Do´C
Thank you for your interest.I have sent to you an e-mail with my answer.
Comment by Do'C — 30 January, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Got it María. Thank you.
Comment by 666sigma — 31 January, 2007 @ 7:45 am
- - -[Moderated: Sigma, you're done trolling this post. If you want to talk about the evidence that is or is not in Grinker's book, find a post about it, and comment there. If you want to argue against the "it's just better diagnosis" strawman, find someone who holds that position, and take it to them.] - - -
Comment by Prometheus — 4 February, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
I couldn’t believe it - even after I watched the video. Kirby actually said:
“…these children with autism, most of them, many of them, don’t have thiols. They don’t have glutathione.”
I simply couldn’t believe that someone - even an journalist - could say anything so stupid with such conviction.
No thiols? That would mean no cystine - an essential amino acid. Not even viruses can exist without cystine.
No glutathione? That is simply incompatible with life. Without glutathione, these children wouldn’t have lived long enough to have been born.
Just when I thought the mercury-causes-autism crowd could sink no lower…
Prometheus
Comment by M.Milutinvoic — 5 February, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Ya, silly of anyone to think that mercury could be bad in any way… I eat drink and breath mercury and find it totally medicinal!
Comment by M.Milutinvoic — 5 February, 2007 @ 11:54 am
I should qualify my last sarcastic post… Just (admittedly) scanning through this site it is obvious that it doesn’t want to investigate the issue as much as attack and debunk what it sees as … well - bunk.
You can preach to the choir as much as you’d like, but your approach appears to be to analyze any evidence with the prior mindset that anything said that doesn’t agree with your paradigm as quackery. While discouraging the scientist from pursuing their attempts to help your kids, and while discouraging parents from seeking possible benificial, albeit new treatments that might help their loved ones might not obviously hurt the child in question - I can be 100% positive it will not help them in any way. Cast doubt upon the labs, the clinicians, the evidence collected… Cast all the arguments in as poor a light as you can - Is your child getting better any faster? Oh yes, if forgot… autism isn’t a defect … its a GIFT! We should all be so blessed! Such and attitude is amazingly STUPID.
I choose that word carefully. You can’t be so supposedly scientific and rational in considering alternative approaches for parents and not take a realistic approach to your own kids. They were not meant to be this way. That doesn’t mean you don’t love them or that they are not due the reverence for their lives due any living person. You appear so PC about your attitude towards your kids that you don’t seem to want them to get better. Yes… put off all treatments for the 60 years that it will take for your form of proof arrives to make you feel validated. Your 70 year old autistic child will have still lost out on the kind of life we should all be hoping they are entitled to.
Comment by Do'C — 5 February, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
No one is saying that it can’t be bad in any way. Let me help you out here. This post concludes that essentially there is no evidence that a majority of autistic children are “poor excretors” of heavy metals. That’s it. Got anything that would prove otherwise, because I could be wrong?
Really? The issue written about in this post was the “poor excretor” hypothesis. Do you have any evidence worth investigating or just more bunk?
I’m open minded to new or better evidence. Do you have any that would support the hypotheis that the majority of autistic children are “poor excretors” of heavy metals and that’s what caused their autism in the first place?
Ah, the good old, “They’re only trying to help” appeal to righteous intentions. Does that mean they are correct? Please feel free to present evidence that they are.
And, the emotional appeal to adverse consequences without any evidence that ‘new treatements’ are safe or effective whatsoever, all the while ignorant of the possible long-term impact on a child of being treated as broken.
I call them as I see them, please feel free to show evidence that the labs, clinicians, or evidence you are referring to deserve some sort of better light, based on their qualities, methods, scientific soundness, etc.
Perhaps you should find someone who holds that attitude and discuss it with them. I’ve often referred to autism as a difference vs. a defect, and even a curveball. The only post I am aware of that even closely referred to autism as a gift in some way on this blog, was the one about the idiot indigo child lady who loosely referred to “indigo children” and autistic children as ’spiritually gifted’ in some way.
Such off-topic ad hominem based on a straw man argument is amazingly obtuse.
Yeah, it’s amazingly clear that you are quite a careful communicator. You stayed right on topic, backed up your assertions with evidence and didn’t jump to angry, emotional, logical fallacy like so many people do.
And your opinion here has what to do with the “poor excretor” hypothesis?
Is this the part where you explain the meaning of life, so I can understand what you are trying to say with “meant”?
Another straw man.
Get a grip. If a medical treatment were to come along that were proven safe and effective for autism itself, it might create a new decision point for us. Until then, use of the word treatment is ambiguous and could be another straw man. If you use treatment to included non-medical intervention, this blog is certainly not saying “put off all treatments for 60 years”.
What, as a “repaired excretor”?
Please don’t bother to reply with another completely off-topic rant - it won’t be published. If you don’t have anything to discuss that is relevant to the “poor excretor” hypothesis, please take it somewhere else.
Comment by Prometheus — 7 February, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
To M. Milutinvoic:
Let’s examine some of the overheated rhetoric, shall we:
“While discouraging the scientist from pursuing their attempts to help your kids, and while discouraging parents from seeking possible benificial, albeit new treatments that might help their loved ones might not obviously hurt the child in question…”
I don’t see anything on this ‘blog about discouraging scientists. What I do see is warning parents about people who want to peddle untested (or worse yet, disproven) “therapies” that are probably a tremendous waste of time and might even hurt the child in question.
“Alternative” autism therapy has come a long way from the days when everything was pretty harmless. Lupron, IVIG, chelation, antifungal drugs, antihyperglycemic drugs and goodness knows what else - there is now a significant chance of harming or even killing an autistic child through these poorly-thought-out attempts to “help”.
I think that the parents deserve to hear both sides of the story, don’t you? Wouldn’t you agree that parents should be given all the information before they choose - in order to make an informed decision ?
Or do you think that parents are too stupid to be trusted with all of the information? Should they only be allowed to hear from those people who think that mercury causes autism and that chelation is the cure?
I find it curious that so many of the responses I hear from the mercury-causes-autism “crowd” boil down to, “Shut up! Stop telling parents that our Emperor has no clothes! Our arguments cannot withstand your scrutiny because we have no data to support them!”
It’s like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, “Nah, nah, nah! I can’t hear you!”
Or were you saying something else? Did you have some data to support your claims?
Or do you just want us to shut up?
Prometheus
Comment by M.Milutinvoic — 8 February, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Prometheus and Do’C,
Let’s examine your less than emotionally stable (Prometheus’) rantings:
“Or do you think that parents are too stupid to be trusted with all of the information? Should they only be allowed to hear from those people who think that mercury causes autism and that chelation is the cure?”
Where did I indicate that I believe any such thing?.. but I can see your need to make up things to support your “feelings” about people who question your conclusions.
“I find it curious that so many of the responses I hear from the mercury-causes-autism “crowd” boil down to, “Shut up! Stop telling parents that our Emperor has no clothes! Our arguments cannot withstand your scrutiny because we have no data to support them!”
That may be… such a sentiment certainly wasn’t evident in my post. Don’t you want to remain on topic or are you generalizing because of the insecurity of your position?
Now you go from an irrelevant sidebar to leap to:
“It’s like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, “Nah, nah, nah! I can’t hear you!”
Or were you saying something else? Did you have some data to support your claims?
Or do you just want us to shut up?”
Again, I did not indicated any such thinking in my post .
How you characterize your own straw men as is well and good for you. I’m amazed Do’C didn’t step in to correct you as zealously as he did me… being only interested in the search for truth, and all…. he must unequivocally agree with not only your arguments, but also your mode of presentation.
It is a truth that you never want to speak ill of your friends or acknowledge good points of your antagonists. Do’C is quite ordinary in this regard.
Indeed, it is important to look at both sides. I think this site does a service in this regard, but is decidedly one sided. I am merely warning that to set the bar of “proof” so high as to make it impossible to make progress is silly. How do you think researchers decide to look in certain areas? By double blind placebo controlled studies??!!! To get to that point the researcher must be persuaded by certain clinical results, personal experience or whatever moves anyone to question anything. Now, this is not to say that we must therefore assume their instincts are right. BUT, if parents are also persuaded enough to take action, AND, in consultation with actual QUALIFIED DOCTORS, determine that such course of action does not pose a risk to their child… well, who are you (admittedly non medical practitioners)
["Welcome to the Autism Street Blog. I’m Do’C your humble host. Do’C is a nickname, short for Dad Of Cameron. If you comment on articles, please feel free to use either one. I am not a doctor or other healthcare professional."]
to look down your nose at them.
You all appear to strain at a gnat… you quibble about an author and his remarks on glutathione… an AUTHOR for Pete’s sake. [taking his remarks literally to make a point smacks of more straw man...
(let me help you here Do'C...hyperbole... they have so little glutathione we exclaim they might as well have none!... look up hyperbole; although asperger people do have trouble with contextual meaning and more subtle statements so maybe it was just a mistake on your part]
Of course, maybe I’m wrong and he just made a mistake… or do you believe he was convinced by scientists who told him the children had no glutathione?? (of course not)… or could you admit (perhaps) that they showed him evidence of substantial glutathione DEFICIENCIES in autistic children… as was clearly his intent to state [to anyone familiar with what he was talking about]. Now I am assuming you all are familiar with this subject and so I must conclude that your going after him instead of the evidence of low glutathione levels in autistic children is an ad Hominem attack that Do’C is so fond of pointing out in others.
You go on to say…”What I do see is warning parents about people who want to peddle untested (or worse yet, disproven) “therapies” that are probably a tremendous waste of time and MIGHT EVEN HURT THE CHILD IN QUESTION.”
The therapies might hurt the child? How many have been hurt in these treatments? Where are your statistics to support the thesis that these treatments are worse than letting a child self mutillate or head bang? You folks are quite good at demanding this kind of substantiation I believe.
All that being said, I have some final business here.
1) I believe I owe Do’C an apology for my post. I was/am a visitor on his site and should have communicated in a more considered manner. He was correct that I reacted more emotionally more than rationally and did not present evidence on the subject of poor excretors. I got caught up in a quagmire I was not prepared for… (my fault) and didn’t anticipate such a partisan spirit in a group that is devoted to helping the autistic. I got caught up as well, and must admit to feeling a little unclean from the whole affair because I don’t want to be on one ’side’ or another. My tone above is not the best either… but I feel the attitude of Prometheus does warrant some rebuke. Judge yourselves by the same standards you judge others by at least!
2) On the matter of poor excretors:
There is a book I’m going thru now “Autism, Brain and Environment by Richard Lathe” which deals with this issue (though not exclusively… still ann excellent read!). If I couldn’t anticipate you would trash then entire book I would be interested in your review.
There is also a well known study :
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2004 80(December):1611-1617.
Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism
S Jill James, Paul Cutler, Stepan Melnyk, Stefanie Jernigan, Laurette Janak, David W Gaylor and James A Neubrander
This study I would also consider good evidence…. again, your definition of proof would exclude almost everything. (The cigarette companies relied on similar methods to sew that kind of doubt to delay progress). I’m assuming everyone here is acquainted with the importance of the methylation pathways for detoxification functions in the body.
There are many others which I’m sure you’d all dismiss summarily,
There is ongoing research into the biochemistry behind the methylation pathways that are yielding more data that supports the thesis of poor excretors.. just do your due dilligence and you shouldn’t have trouble finding some.
3) Finally, I cannot expend the energy for the endless dispute I would otherwise have to engage in here. Obviously you folks must proceed down the path you see as right… as must those in the rest of the autism community. People MUST approach their therapies with the best possible information… but the best information is rarely to be found in an emotionally charged, partisan community - be it the chelation advocates or the quack-sayers.
By the way, my son and the children of many my wife and I associate with are all doing quite well and seeing marked IMPROVEMENTS in our children using the many of the therapies you denounce here as unsupported. Whether they are supported or not, the results of said treatments are persistent, substantial and speak for themselves.
Regards, and all the best to your children.
Comment by Do'C — 8 February, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Hi MM,
I’ll comment on the very small portion of your comment that is relevant to the topic.
Can’t give you a review, I haven’t read it. Mike Stanton apparently did though. Here’s a review of only some the epidemiological aspects.
I’m all ears. Please tell us (in your own words) what this study “proves”. Be specific to autistic children as “poor excretors” of mercury.
Hold on. Back up MM. What “poor excretors”?
Comment by MM — 8 February, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
my last response seems to have been lost in the ether. ahh well… suffice to say i contrasted the credentials of Mike Stanton with Dr. Richard Lathe. I noted that I would have suspected you’d lean towards any contrary opinion in the matter.. which you appear predisposed to do.
Suggested you don’t need my interpretation of the Jill James study to see its implications… nor do you need to rely on Mike Stanton’s expertise for that matter. Hopefully you will look into the issues yourself and make up your own mind. (if you haven’t already) I pointed out that you must have missed my third point… about not wanting to further a polemic which demeans us all… if we can’t be honestly open minded - what’s the point? I also wished you child well, he has a smart, contientious dad. And lastly I complimented the website… it truly is well laid out, attractive… just well done. I wish my actual post had made it but.. what the heck.
Listen, life’s too short to pick sides. We do our best with what we have. Hopefully we all want to push for advances that help the autistic. One last thing… as parents looking to help we don’t always need proof… sometimes evidence is enough to make us act… That was part of my point about how researchers decide what is promising to look into. If it is promising to look into it can’t be (witing the rules of proper caution) wrong for parents to seek remediation in those areas rather than wait for absolute proof. What is absolute proof anyways? ..and to whom? Parents properly advocating for their kids won’t endanger them.
Cheers!
Comment by Do'C — 9 February, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
What do the credentials of Mike Stanton vs. Richard Lathe have to do with epidemiological studies? Similarly, I would consider the apparent reason for what look like Lathe’s reported past legal troubles and sacking from Edinburg University, irrelevant to the science itself. I don’t lean toward any opinion on Lathe’s book, I haven’t read it. I didn’t bring up the review I read as a refutation of any contrary opinion Lathe may hold, I don’t even know what his opinion is. I brought it up as a reason I haven’t spent any scarce disposable income on his book. If he’s onto something with his book (and it’s certainly possible), I’d want to know that he hasn’t based it the assumption of a faux ‘epidemic’.
I don’t see any real implications based on the Jill James study. In fact, I didn’t even see the words “mercury” or “excretion” in the entire study. I see potential issues with the study population (unknown treatments) and size, and I see a conclusion that is really a hypothesis.
“Nineteen of the 20 children participating in the study were diagnosed with “regressive” autism (apparently normal development until regression into autism between ages 1.5 and 3 y). On the basis of their abnormal metabolic profiles, we hypothesize that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress (environmental,intracellular, or both) and impaired methylation capacity may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of regressive autism.”
So that’s really a “we hypothesize a might contribute”. I think they’ve spelled out the implications pretty clearly. This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with any majority of autistic children being “poor excretors”.
I won’t rely on it, but for now, his article has saved me some cash. If I see some evidence that Lathe is really onto something (which you haven’t presented, but might when you finish the book), I reserve the option to read his book without any reliance on Mike Stanton.
Science is provisional, so I don’t intend to necessarily “make up my mind”. Despite today’s lack of any such evidence, if science becomes available that shows that autistic childern are “poor excretors” and that mercury causes autism, I’m willing to examine it.
Thank you for the kind words.
I disagree. Parents ‘properly advocating’ could be misled. Read this guest blogger’s article.
Comment by Clare Webster — 11 February, 2007 @ 8:26 am
I found your website for the first time today.2 of my 3 children have an ASD and I’mdesperate to learn about the latest biomedical breakthroughs. You all have so much knowledge but reading the blog is like wading through a point scoring swamp.I respect the world view of every autistic adult who may see some pronouncements by “Experts” as an insult to their right to be, but the spectrum includes children like my sons struggling with life. And so we all struggle. When are you going to ditch the snide remarks and share your considerable wisdom in an accessible way?
Comment by Do'C — 11 February, 2007 @ 9:25 am
Desperation is like stealing from the Mafia: you stand a good chance of attracting the wrong attention.
- Doug Horton
Those evil in-depth articles that may require additinal reading of linked references for maximum understanding. I know what you mean, it just doesn’t seem fair that simple answers aren’t one or two clicks away, does it?
Is he a “poor excretor”?
Hmmm, did you try the search box? That seems to make relevant articles on this blog a little easier to find for some people, however, I don’t claim any considerable wisdom. I especially don’t claim any considerable wisdom about hypothetical “poor excretors” of mercury. Do you have any to share?
Comment by Prometheus — 12 February, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
MM,
To answer your question:
“Where did I indicate that I believe any such thing?.. ”
I believe that these are your words, are they not?
“While discouraging the scientist from pursuing their attempts to help your kids, and while discouraging parents from seeking possible benificial, albeit new treatments that might help their loved ones might not obviously hurt the child in question - I can be 100% positive it will not help them in any way. Cast doubt upon the labs, the clinicians, the evidence collected… Cast all the arguments in as poor a light as you can - Is your child getting better any faster? Oh yes, if forgot… autism isn’t a defect … its a GIFT! We should all be so blessed! Such and attitude is amazingly STUPID.”
Just how should I interpret someone saying things like that? Maybe I completely misread your comment - which is entirely possible - but I got the impression that you weren’t happy about those of us who:
“Cast doubt upon the labs, the clinicians, the evidence collected…”
You seemed to feel that sort of behavior was equivalent to:
“…discouraging the scientist from pursuing their attempts to help your kids, and while discouraging parents from seeking possible benificial, albeit new treatments that might help their loved ones might not obviously hurt the child in question…”
Perhaps I’m jumping to conclusions, but I got the distinct impression that you would like us to stop doing those things, that you felt such activities were:
“…amazingly STUPID.”
I’m perfectly willing to admit that you did not at any time tell us to “shut up”, but I think that might be how any reasonable person could interpret your words.
So, what did you intend for us to do, were we to take your message to heart and give up our despicable skeptic ways? Perhaps I have overlooked an alternative, but as I see it, our choices are to:
[a] Keep doing what we’re doing, which is, in your eyes (and words):
“…discouraging the scientist from pursuing their attempts to help your kids…”
“discouraging parents from seeking possible benificial, albeit new treatments…”
Or we could:
[b] Stop doing [a].
To my simple mind, [b] seems the equivalent of “shut up”.
Did I miss something?
Just for the record. I have no intention of taking the route you suggest - of being respectfully quiet while “scientists” peddle sham therapies to parents who don’t have the time, energy or money to spare on them.
I am not standing in any parent’s path on their way to get whatever treatment they feel is appropriate for their child.
I am not spamming, hacking or otherwise interfering with the hundreds of websites that promote autism “cures”.
Likewise, I am not picketing, harrassing or firebombing the labs of any of the purveyors of untested “autism therapies”.
If having a few people expressing doubt is bothering you, then perhaps you ought to ask youself a question:
“Why does it bother me so much?”
The answer might just surprise you.
Prometheus