“You Got Nothing”
May 31, 2007 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
Well, our friend Mike Wagnitz (who has commented on a couple of the posts here at Autism Street) is back in the American Chronicle (whatever that is) this week with another installment of fairly irrelevant autism commentary.
www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28463
Who’s Arthur Allen
Michael Wagnitz
May 31, 2007Last week Arthur Allen wrote an article for Slate magazine entitled, “Thimerosal Goes to Trial”. Several bloggers made reference to Arthur’s article and his expertise on this subject. They went on to blast the know-nothing, irrational parents who feel their children were injured via injection with large doses of organic mercury.
Hey, Wagnitz actually has something correct here. There is a group of parents who “feel their children were injured via injection with large doses of organic mercury”.
The problem for those parents, is while they all may share the “feeling”, it looks like pretty close to none of them can tell you just what “large” dose causes autism or how it causes autism. After five years of what looks to amount to floundering in the courts, it would seem that as a group, they can’t prove that their “feelings” have anything to do with reality.
Hit especially hard was Dr. Mark Geier, one of the most intelligent, honest and courageous people I’ve ever met.
Aw, Wagnitz seems to have a personal hero - that is touching. It’s too bad Wagnitz’s apparent feelings for Dr. Mark Geier are irrelevant to the state of the science.
Who exactly is Arthur Allen?
In late 2002 Arthur wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine entitled “The Not-So-Crackpot Autism Theory”. The article centered around an interview with John Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety Director Neal Halsey. In the article Halsey describes how devastated he was when he realized how much mercury was in childhood vaccines. He says if mercury had been listed in micrograms rather than per-cent, this would have been discovered long ago. He goes on to state, “but the fact is, no one did the calculation”. Why all of a sudden are all of us now considered crackpots?
Let’s answer the closing question of that paragraph: why all of a sudden (or not so suddenly) are many believers in the autism-mercury hypothesis now considered crackpots by so many? Because as far as supporting science (evidence) after a full five years have passed, you might as well be called George Costanza - “you got nothing”.
Reasonable scientists recognize failed hypotheses.
Arthur, a free lance writer, knew an opportunity when he saw one. Unfortunately for him, a book came out soon after this entitled, “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic”. This book was written by another New York free lancer by the name of David Kirby. Mr. Kirby’s book quickly ascended up the New York Times best seller list. He was a regular guest on “Imus in the Morning” and was invited on to “Meet the Press”. Quite an accomplishment for an author.
Finally, someone (who knew that it would be Wagnitz?) calls it well, and refers to Kirby as an “author”. There seems to be little doubt for most people with a halfway decent understanding of science that Kirby is an idiot. That he appeared on Imus, Meet the Press, and apparently sat in the audience at “The View”, is about as irrelevant to whether or not mercury causes autism as a statement could be.
In the meantime, Mr. Allen had lost his chance to become the spokesman for this hot issue. One thing he did notice was that the other side needed a spokesman. So Mr. Allen did a one-eighty and started work on his book, “Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver “. This book trumpets the opinion that vaccines have saved more lives than any other modern day invention and no one should question their safety. As of today, Mr. Allen’s 2007 published book was rated number 41,058 on Amazon.com sales list. One has to wonder why none of the vaccine manufacturers stepped up to buy/distribute 10,000 copies of this book like they did for Dr. Paul Offit’s similar vaccine book. In a 2007 debate Mr. Kirby and Mr. Allen squared off on thimerosal. This was the mismatch of the century. At least Mr. Allen could have done a little bit of homework on this subject. He seemed to lack any knowledge of relevant facts.
Allen trumpets opinion that “no one should question their safety”? Mr. Wagnitz, meet Mr. Straw Man. Allen trumpets no such opinion that I’m aware of. In fact, as I understand it, although I have not read Arthur Allen’s book (but do read his blog), Allen is quite open about discussing problems with vaccines. Wagnitz’s comment about a 2007 debate is actually pretty amusing, since the debate was not kept on topic about Thimerosal at all. Kirby is a skilled debater, but what he presented was largely off the topic of Thimerosal. More on this here, here, here, and here from Left Brain/Right Brain.
Mr. Allen wonders why he and employee’s of the CDC are being attacked personally. Well Arthur, my little girl has been seriously harmed. I get very angry when some know-nothing whore is making money off of our nightmare. Yes Arthur, I know the definition of whore, “a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain”.
If Mr. Wagnitz knows anyone whose child was made autistic by MMR and Thimerosal-containing vaccines, he needs to have them step forward urgently.
The Special Master of the Omibus Autism Proceeding needs them right now for a test case.
[...We want to stress that we believe we are at a crisis point in the efforts to move the autism cases towards decision. The Office of Special Masters has adopted the approach toward these cases originally suggested by petitioners’ counsel and we have patiently waited almost five years to give that approach a chance to succeed…..Either something must change or we will be required to go to a new approach. ...]
[...In the event that petitioners do not promptly come forward with additional test cases to allow us to pursue the ‘test case’ approach described above for handling the autism cases, it appears that the ‘omnibus approach’ to the autism cases may have to be declared a failure. ...]
And finally, if Wagnitz is referring to having an autistic daughter as a “nightmare”, I really hope he’ll curtail such language for his daughter’s sake - regardless of the cause of her being autistic.
In closing, let’s answer Wagnitz’s original question: “Who’s Arthur Allen?”. The reality is, it doesn’t matter who Arthur Allen is. What matters is what information Arthur Allen has to bring to the discussion. I thought his article in Slate, “Thimerosal on Trial: The theory that vaccines cause autism goes to court” was pretty informative.
More on Arthur Allen’s article in Slate and potential Omnibus crashes from Autism Diva, Orac, and Kevin Leitch.
78 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed, see "Comments/Contact" under "About".
Comment by Cheesehead — 31 May, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Well said. Mr. Wagnitz is embarrassing himself when he wraps himself in the respectability of science (a technician who works with metals. Ooooh!) then makes a science-free argument about, uh, science.
If you’re not finished shooting fish in a barrel, you can write about Sen. Brownback’s NY Times editorial where he tackles evolution. Faith good. Empiricism bad.
Comment by Tom — 31 May, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Mr. Wagnitz seems gleeful that Mr. Allen’s book, which provides a thorough history of vaccines, is not selling at the same clip as David Kirby’s bestselling book, which exploits emotionally wraught and misinformed parents.
Mr. Wagnitz calls Mr. Allen a whore for informing the public and authorities about Dr. Mark Geier, a doctor who exploits emotionally wraught and misinformed parents to the point that they are willing to spend $10k in blood tests and pin their children down to inject them with a drug that is the equivalent of chemical castration.
Wake up Mr. Wagnitz you’re being played.
Comment by TheProbe — 31 May, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Did Wagnitz get a brain transplant form John Best?
Wagnitz cannot come up with a single fact to refute Mr. Allen. Not one. He has to resort to feeble attempts at character assasination.
Furthermore, it is clear that Wagnitz never read Mr. Allen’s book.
If Mr. Wagnitz reads this blog, his mot intelligent thing he could say is “DUH!”
[Moderated: sp "Wagnitz"]
Comment by isles — 31 May, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Wagnitz’s job description:
“The position has primary responsibilities which include testing and participation in method development in the clinical metals area of the laboratory. Provides support functions in the administration of two nationwide proficiency testing programs for blood lead and erythrocyte protoporphyrin. Additionally, this position is responsible for the analysis of blood/urine for ethanol and appearance in court as an expert witness under Ws Statutes 343.305. Hours for this position are 8:15 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday.”
The proficiency testing section of the above is described in the employer’s website as a program in which the employer sends samples with known quantities of substances to laboratories wishing to test their equipment and procedures. Erythrocyte protoporphyrin is a marker of blood lead. He’s the guy who tests your sample if you get a DUI. It sounds like he’s essentially a clerical worker in a lab coat.
Now, I don’t mean to engage in a Wagnitz-style attempt at character assassination, but just to observe that this doesn’t sound very much like what he says he does in The American Chronicle:
“Michael Wagnitz has over 20 years experience evaluating materials for toxic metals. He currently works as a chemist in the toxicology section of a public health lab evaluating biological samples for lead and mercury.”
Comment by steve d — 31 May, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
“…our nightmare.”
I sincerely hope Mr. Wagnitz will soon wake up and appreciate his daughter for who she is - and stop referring to her existence in his life as a nightmare. He should be ashamed of himself. Unbelievable.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 31 May, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Does Mr. Wagnitz have a book on Amazon that we can the sales numbers on?
I didn’t think so. Who is Michael Wagnitz??? Besides a litigant in a mercury causes autism case with hopes to get a cash pay off, that is?
Comment by Do'C — 31 May, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
I’d like to know how or why he became so convinced in the first place. He describes some of his experience in a Madison ASA newsletter, but a lot of it looks like the the “mercury dunnit” re-gurge du jour. I’d like to know what he considered the most influential - DAN! conferences? Kirby’s creative writing? So-called advocacy organizations? His revelations about Hazardous waste? (see page 4)
Comment by Kev — 31 May, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
“is back in the American Chronicle (whatever that is) “
Its part of what looks like a spam advertising chain of websites. There’s also a California Chronicle, World Sentinel, LA Chronicle and San Jose Chronicle - all operating in this little ad network.
One set of content - numerous ‘web sites’ = more ad revenue for no more work. Alan Moses is a spammer.
Comment by mike stanton — 1 June, 2007 @ 2:37 am
Well said Do’C.
Wagnitz is lucky that he went after a thoroughly nice guy like Arthur Allen. Now if he would just turn his attention to Fleet Street rottweiler, Brian Deer …
[Moderated: sp "Wagnitz"]
Comment by Bartholomew Cubbins — 1 June, 2007 @ 6:09 am
“Hit especially hard was Dr. Mark Geier, one of the most intelligent, honest and courageous people I’ve ever met. [slurp, slurp]”
Oh, man. This guy needs to get out more.
What a hate-filled, poorly written, and pointless rant.
Comment by Joeymom — 1 June, 2007 @ 8:39 am
OK, this is completely off the topic but… anyone who does not know that plurals do not have apotrophes (”Mr. Allen wonders why he and employee’s of the CDC are being attacked personally”) does not need to be writing articles. They need to be taking some basic grammar classes.
And I am not impressed with the editors of the American Chronicle, either.
Comment by Señor Commenter — 1 June, 2007 @ 9:49 am
[Moderated: see below]
And should the people of Wisconsin be worried that an activist, who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand the differences between the varying mercury species, conducts multiple, near-untintelligible diatribes against a man who has extensively documented the history of vaccines and who doesn’t see the connection between thimerosal and autism that has been proposed, in evidence-free fashion, by the rabid anti-vaccination extremists.
It’s strange how some technician with a bachelor’s degree, an inflated sense of scientific understanding and accomplishment, and a penchant for web-based tantrums [moderated: see below].
[Moderated: While it's clear that Wagnitz is a "believer" rather than a "scientist", further discussion of Wagnitz's employment or Wagnitz's employer are off topic, unless he brings it up.]
Comment by Margaret Romao Toigo — 1 June, 2007 @ 10:38 am
“In the meantime, Mr. Allen had lost his chance to become the spokesman for this hot issue. One thing he did notice was that the other side needed a spokesman. So Mr. Allen did a one-eighty…”
Personally, I found that part of Mr. Wagnitz’s article heartening, for it shows that there are people out there who have the prudence to swallow their cumbersome pride and reverse course when the facts warrant it, instead of sticking to their guns for the sake of opportunity and ambition.
I should think that Mr. Allen did that 180 over the course of four years due to careful study of the science, and is likely glad to have “lost” his chance to be held up for ridicule like Mr. Kirby.
Comment by Do'C — 1 June, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Margaret,
I don’t think that could have been said more succinctly, and I agree 100%.
Arthur Allen seems to be someone who actually understands the concept that all science is provisional.
Comment by arthur allen — 1 June, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Thanks, James and Margaret, for the kind words. Although the “Not-so-Crackpot-Autism Theory” piece got me in hot water with Neal Halsey (due to the editing, which gave the impression that Halsey believed thimerosal caused autism, when in fact he was simply concerned about the possibility of less “severe” neurological effects), I intended the piece to leave readers open to the possibility that harm had been done by thimerosal. Within a few years it became clear that there was no link to autism.
I wouldn’t say that I had “backtracked” since then. I simply adjusted my coverage and writing on the issue to incorporate the science as well as my better understanding of it (which, I add a bit ruefully, is an ongoing process).
I would never have written Evidence of Harm for any amount of love or money. Books that point fingers get more attention, to be sure, and all us ink-stained wretches look for cool, even shocking ideas to write up in order to have fun, feel important and pay the bills. But I’d sooner be a wire service editor or a sheetrocker again than to agree to write a book or article that I knew would provide a false or misleading case about an important issue. I’m not saying that David felt or feels that way about his book, but I know how I would have felt about myself if I had written it.
Arthur Allen
Comment by notmercury — 1 June, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Arthur,
1/2″ or 5/8″? Screws or nails? Be honest cuz I can do a little digging and expose the truth faster than you can spread a bucket of lightweight joint compound
Comment by arthur allen — 1 June, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
As I recall the things were 5/8″ thick. They were frigging heavy is all. And we used nails. And it was north Oakland, California, in houses around College Avenue. But to be honest, I don’t remember my boss’ name. We’re talking 25 years ago…
Comment by David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — 1 June, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
The Probe: “Did Wagnitz get a brain transplant from John Best?”
You mean that one has a brain to take anything from for such a transplant?
Comment by Do'C — 2 June, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Orac weighs in
Comment by Yours Truly — 3 June, 2007 @ 7:07 am
First of all, we’re not a litigant in the VICP. We opted out of this faster than you can say “Kangaroo court”. Second, this autism/mercury debate can finally come to an end. If your child has one of the many unexplained childhood neurological disorders, you can now get a Urinary Porphyrin Profile Analysis done by at least four different labs. This test is backed by decades of research and has a distinct pattern for mercury toxicity. Check out the paper done on dentists. So now there is no excuse. This is a very inexpensive, non-invasive test. Does this count as science?
Comment by Do'C — 3 June, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Hi Mike, let’s clear that up for anyone who may be reading. Is it more accurate to say that you are a “petitioner in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding”?
If the Omnibus crashes, where do you go from there?
Re: UPPA, it looks like you have been reading too many press releases from cOmEd and well, we already know how you “feel” about the Geiers.
Comment by Yours Truly — 3 June, 2007 @ 10:19 am
We’ll Doc, I guess you don’t know what “opt-out” means. I’m not referring to comed press releases or the Geier’s. I’m refering to the 255 published, peer-reviewed studies that disccuss the role toxins play on urinary porphyrin patterns. You guy’s always complain that I ignore science but it seems I’m the only one who wants to talk science.
Comment by Do'C — 3 June, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Mike, I don’t claim to have any great knowledge about the process of seeking compensation for claimed ‘vaccine injuries’.
Here’s the information I’m familiar with:
[Moderated 11:19 am: Removed and Source removed at the request of Mike Wagnitz - see below.]
Sounds a little like a simple argumentum ad numerum. What do those have to do with autism?
Without referring to press releases or the Geiers, since that’s not what you’re referring to, go ahead and tell us what those 225 studies have to do with autism then. Talk away Mike. Show us the science.
I search Pubmed for “urinary porphyrin autism” and got only two results: the Geier paper, which you’re not referring to, and Nataf et al. which we’ve already discussed the limitations of with you in a previous post.
Comment by Yours Truly — 3 June, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Doc, If the above, personal information about my family is not removed I will contact the Madison police department and find out who you really are. Think I’m kidding?
Comment by Do'C — 3 June, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Mike I don’t think you’re kidding, although I’m not sure what the Madison police department would have to do with it. I’ll galdly remove that public information,
just for the asking, which was the #1 result from a simple Google search. I respect the fact that you are typically polite here and would prefer that you focus on the science anyway rather than be worried about that.
Comment by Do'C — 3 June, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Without referring to press releases or the Geiers, since that’s not what you’re referring to, go ahead and tell us what those 225 studies have to do with autism then. Talk away Mike. Show us the science.
I search Pubmed for “urinary porphyrin autism” and got only two results: the Geier paper, which you’re not referring to, and Nataf et al. which we’ve already discussed the limitations of with you in a previous post.
Comment by notmercury — 3 June, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Real quick Mike,
Explain how mercury effects urinary porphyrin compound levels and why you think it would be unique to mercury exposure.
Comment by Señor Palo Alto — 3 June, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Bwahahahaha! Burned by google! That’s got to sting, Wagnitz! Maybe you can recoup the cost of paying someone to spell- and grammar-check your “articles”, [moderated].
Comment by Yours Truly — 3 June, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Nomercury, Go to pubmed and type in porphyrins mercury. Read the 177 published papers and get back to me.
Comment by notmercury — 3 June, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Is that your way of telling me you don’t know?
I thought you wanted to talk science?
Comment by Do'C — 3 June, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
So the argumentum ad numerum has changed from 225 to 177. It doesn’t matter if there 3177 published papers on porphyrins if they are not relevant to autism.
What do those 177 papers say about autism?
Comment by mike stanton — 3 June, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
I just posted this edit to my blog here.
where I invite readers to follow a link and scroll down to the bottom of page 3 to read number 92 in list of claimants for vaccine injury compensation.
The truth is out there.
Comment by Have You No Sense of Deceny, sir? — 3 June, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Thanks Mike Stanton for helping to smuggle the truth across international boarders.
Rather than threatening an honorable man like DoC for finding public documents, Mr. Wagnitz should send the Madison WI police dept. to arrest the person named “Federal Register” and then they can book Larry Page and Sergey Brin for developing the software that makes it so easy to see who is lying through their mercury filled teeth.
If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
Comment by isles — 3 June, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
I suppose it is possible that the Wagnitz family withdrew from the Omnibus proceeding after filing; however, the phrase “opt out” in this context implies a choice has been made to pursue litigation privately. Waaaaaaay different. Snerk.
Comment by Yours Truly — 4 June, 2007 @ 6:32 am
Any of you have the guts to identify yourselves and say what you do?
Comment by notmercury — 4 June, 2007 @ 8:08 am
True to form. Can’t discuss the science, focus on identity.
Still waiting for your take on heme synthesis and porphyrin precursors, Mikey. Here’s your chance to demonstrate your depth of knowledge rather than pointing us to Pubmed. Go ahead and explain why we would expect elevated urinary porphyrins in cases of genuine mercury toxicity and how that might apply to children with autism.
Oh, and good luck with Omnibust. Let’s hope your heroes shine brightly.
Comment by Yours Truly — 4 June, 2007 @ 9:20 am
I’d be happy to debate you notmercury. Do you have the guts to state your name and qualifications for this debate? Where are you employed? Come on out!
Comment by notmercury — 4 June, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Either you are able to debate or you aren’t. My guts are irrelevant. Seems to me I am willing to discuss science with an entity known only as ‘Yours Truly’
If you truly understand the subject matter you should be able to explain it to anyone regardless of identity or employment status.
You’ve offered urinary porphyrin testing as proof that autism is mercury poisoning. Can you explain why or should we assume your lab experience has also granted you an honorary degree in biochemistry and toxicology.
Let’s just assume you have no idea what you are talking about until you can demonstrate otherwise.
Comment by Yours Truly — 4 June, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Notmercuy, I’ve tried to discuss chemistry with you several times before but it’s obvious you have no quailifications to understand even simple math. My name along with my position desription is listed above. I’m not going to waste any more time with someone who won’t identify himself or his credentials.
Comment by notmercury — 4 June, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Since when are credentials required? What are yours again?
20 years experience evaluating materials for toxic metals?
Working as a chemist in the toxicology section of a public health lab?
Do they rely on urinary porphyrin testing in your lab? Do they diagnose autism by testing blood or urine levels in your lab?
Comment by Señor Gasket Blower — 4 June, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Mikey’s lost it. He knows he’s a technician and can’t hang with the medium dogs.
What we have here is the fry guy at the BK lounge pontificating about the triple point and “Icing Model” of the phase transition of grease in his vat.
Why “Icing”? Because he heard two undergrads talking about the Ising model one day while strolling through the Cliff’s notes section of Barnes and Noble and he decided right then and there that he knew enough to impress the milk shake girl to the point that he might get a date.
Go back to memorizing your manuals. And by all means, start becoming anonymous, you embarrass technicians all over the world.
Comment by 666sigma — 5 June, 2007 @ 5:03 am
DoC,
I agree that Allen’s article was well written and informative. However, I think he has also exposed himself as another journalistic hack trying to piggyback on the Kirby gravy train. I’m sure he believes strongly that vaccines have not caused autism. I do, however, question his motives for engaging Kirby at this time. It seems like he is a shark to blood.
Regarding, yours truly, he came to hostile territory knowing what he would receive. He did it any way. Your friend, notmercury, has come across as less “manly” for lack of a better word.
Here’s your chance to really step up and have notmercury square off against yours truly in a fair and unfettered debate on vaccines (or mercury) and autism. Mano-a-mano. My guess is that notmercury will back down, again.
Comment by Yours Truly — 5 June, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Are you guys all in the Delta Tau Chi fraternity or just senor dick blower?
Comment by Prometheus — 5 June, 2007 @ 10:20 am
You guys really shouldn’t be so hard on Mr. Wagnitz; this is a complex and incompletely understood area of biology and he seems to be doing his level best to keep up with the topic. That said, he also seems to be oversimplifying the heme synthesis pathway to the point that he makes pronouncements that are not entirely consistent with reality.
To wit: while mercury may increase the urinary levels of certain porphyrins (e.g. precoproporphyrin, see http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/61/2/234 ), Dr. Woods has not yet shown that the same effects cannot be generated by other exposures or even as a normal variation. Regrettably, for us research biologists, humans have much more genetic variation than laboratory rats.
Thus we have a “porphyrin profile” which is consistent with mercury exposure but hasn’t been shown to be exclusively caused by mercury exposure. Jim Woods may disagree, but his lab is the only one that is reporting this association.
In fact, in a recent article (”The association between genetic polymorphisms of coproporphyrinogen oxidase and an atypical porphyrinogenic response to mercury exposure in humans.”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Aug 7;206(2):113-20), Dr. Woods reports the existence of polymorphisms in the human genome that alter the response of uroporhyrinogen decarboxylase (UPOD) to mercury.
This enzyme (UPOD) also happens to be the apparent site of the mutation that causes porphyria cutanea tarda, the most common subtype of porphyria.
As you can see, this isn’t a simple and straightforward system, and so simple and straightforward answers are often the wrong ones. Given the myriad ways that porphyrin metabolism can be altered or affected, I think that it is way to early to say that urine porphyrin “profiles” can “diagnose” mercury exposure. I think that even Dr. Woods would say that they can only be used to monitor the body burden of people with known exposure risks.
Prometheus.
(don’t argue with the pseudonym, argue with the data)
Comment by Yours Truly — 5 June, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Thank you Prometheus;
“To wit: while mercury may increase the urinary levels of certain porphyrins (e.g. precoproporphyrin, Dr. Woods has not yet shown that the same effects cannot be generated by other exposures or even as a normal variation”.
Actually, porphyrin profiles have been establish for lead, arsenic, mercury, PCB’s and hundreds of drugs. The appearance of precoproporphyrin only exists with mercury.
“Thus we have a “porphyrin profile” which is consistent with mercury exposure but hasn’t been shown to be exclusively caused by mercury exposure” (see above statement).
Now, how does this relate to autism? Nataf found this same profile in kids diagnosed with autism. This did not exist in controls. So do these kids have mercury poisoning or a psychiatric condition (autism) caused by genes. Do we have any farmers on board? If so, can you explain how genes work.
Comment by notmercury — 5 June, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
MW: “Nataf found this same profile in kids diagnosed with autism. This did not exist in controls.”
Nataf saw an apparent elevation in certain urinary porphyrin to creatinine ratios as compared to controls. As I recall the paper also suggested a Rett Syndrome patient with a similar profile was metal toxic. Natch.
So what’s the key difference between the dental workers studied by Woods and autistic children? Measurable Hg burden and ongoing exposure.
Somehow we are to believe there is enough circulating Hg to shut down enzymes along the heme synthesis pathway yet undetectable by conventional testing?
Comment by Do'C — 5 June, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Sigma,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about Arthur Allen. The rest of your post is just troll-ish.
You’d think he’d have preferred to prepare a better scientific presentation, wouldn’t you?
Wow, what a brave brave guy. Irrelevant.
Your perception of “masculinity” or lack thereof is irrelevant to the science.
I don’t see where anyone has refused to discuss the actual topic at all.
No more trolling this post Sigma, if you want to comment, make it pertinent to the original post or the scientific discussion (and not about the participants).
Comment by notmercury — 5 June, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
Oh, hey, I guess I missed 666igma’s comments. I stopped reading his or her troll comments some time ago.
I’d be happy to debate the thimerosal issue with Wagnits or Sigma. Do it in real time if they’d like.
Comment by 666sigma — 6 June, 2007 @ 4:33 am
DoC, I think you have something real interesting now that notmercury has accepted the challenge originally laid down by yours truly. I think it would be interesting to watch a real scientific exchange between the two on issue.
I admit that I am not qualified to debate on this topic.
Comment by Señor HomophobePhobe — 6 June, 2007 @ 6:20 am
“dick blower”
I see. I must be gay because I don’t buy into the “autism doesn’t exist, it’s all mercury poisoning” line. Or maybe I’m a woman, so you feel my input doesn’t count? The rich part of the comment becomes obvious when you go back and re-read what you wrote about the Geiers (have you no shame)?
Mikey-the-misinformed-absolutist missed the point of Prometheus’ comment: anyone using Porphyrin tests to screen for autism must like listening to an AM radio frequency in between stations - it’s complicated noise.
If you closely inspect the Nataf carcass you’ll see NotMercury’s incisor marks right where the guts were ripped out. In that light, I’d like to say that relative (let me hold your hand and inform you that’s the point here - relative creatinine) to most technicians with whom I work, your analytical skills are lacking, Mikey.
Relatively yours,
Not-a-technician
Comment by Prometheus — 6 June, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Boy, it’s like he (Wagnitz) just doesn’t get it!
Porphyrin profiles are useful for monitoring exposures to certain metals (”heavy metals”, somewhat of a misnomer), but the “profiles” are not exclusive to metals - genetic aberrations can create the same pattern of porphyrin excretion. However, if you’re monitoring a population for, say, lead or mercury, you can spot the outliers (due to genetic polymorphism) and either eliminate them (from a study) or monitor them in a different way (industrial health).
The fact that certain “porphyrin profiles” are used to monitor metal exposure does not mean that they are diagnostic of metal exposure. Genetic anomalies can cause the same compounds to show up in the urine without metal exposure.
There is a big difference between using a test to study, quantify or follow a known, measureable exposure and using that same test to assert that an exposure has occured when it is otherwise undetectable (or is far below the levels the test is normally used for).
There, I think that I’ve made it clear enough. If Mr. Wagnitz still doesn’t get it, I’m done trying.
Prometheus
Comment by Yours Truly — 6 June, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
NM, Sorry I’ve been away taking care of my technician duties, washing beakers, emptying bio-hazard bags, etc. Doc and NM have both identified the debate issue as thimerosal. Is this correct? If so, here’s my concerns. Thimerosal is/was injected into pregnant women (flu shot 2002-present, Rhogam 20+years), newborns (Hep. B 1991-2001) and infants. Do you agree that this would be the most vulnerable population for organic mercury exposure? My second concern is the concentration. Now you can spin this anyway you want but the concentration of mercury, in the multi-dose vial, is 50,000 parts per billion mercury. Third, thimerosal dissociates rapidly in the body to ethylmercury (EHg). EHg enters the brain and de-alkylates into inorganic mercury (IHg). IHg remains trapped for an indefinite period of time. IHg is linked to microglial activation in the brains of primates. Microglial activation is associated with neuroinflammatory disease. Neuroinflammatory disease was found in 100% of autistic brain tissue examined by John Hopkins neuropathology lab. The reference for this came from you guys. If you need references for anything else I said, let me know. Need to run now.
Comment by Yours Truly — 6 June, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Prometheus says;
“The fact that certain “porphyrin profiles” are used to monitor metal exposure does not mean that they are diagnostic of metal exposure”. What! And he says I don’t get it. Who are you people? Will any of you identify what credentials you bring to this debate? If nobody steps up I will never read anything on Autsim Street again. Tomorrow will be the last day I check.
Comment by notmercury — 6 June, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
“If nobody steps up I will never read anything on Autsim Street again. Tomorrow will be the last day I check.”
Uh oh, a deadline. I think he means it this time.
Mike, nearly everything you say is roughly true. You’ve left out a few key details but all of those factoids strung together do not add up to thimerosal causing autism. No number of references will change that. Sorry.
Starting with your very first point, and there is really no need to move beyond that, very few kids are being injected with thimerosal these days. Unless you can show that the number of flu shots and thimerosal levels is equal to or greater than the levels found in pediatric vaccines and Rhogam before thimerosal was phased out, your argument dies right there.
Your concerns aside, autism rates are not falling. There is no relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism rates, true of false? 50,000 ppb, ppm, ppt, it doesn’t matter.
Once you’ve convinced me that we’ve cleared the first hurdle in your hypothesis we can move on to your next point.
Credentials? Culinary Institute at Disney. 3 day seminar and the framed diploma to prove it.
Comment by Do'C — 6 June, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Actually, that would be you, orginally, Mike.
“While all the government-conducted epidemiological (statistical) studies show no link between thimerosal and autism, the clinical studies examining brain tissue, blood, urine and human cells show a completely different picture.”
But, what the heck, let’s say “yes” for the topic as Thimerosal, and you can pick up with Notmercury’s last post.
As a side note for interested readers:
This was just published online yesterday (apparently) from the USCFC.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/OSM/Autism/Untitled.pdf
So first up at the OAP is the ‘theory’ (hypothesis) that “the combination of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and thimerosal containing vaccines can cause autism, autism spectrum disorder, or similar nuerologic conditions.”
Interesting that
“The PSC has represented that this theory ecompasses 70-80% of the approximately 4800 pending OAP cases.”
Comment by Señor Cinnabar — 6 June, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
I once did a resort-scuba course and paddled around at 15 ft. with a divemaster. Now I sell HBOT balloons. Sure you can smoke next to the compressor.
I also got a BA in History. I really enjoy falsifying my graduate student institutional credentials and plagerizing papers.
I also have a degree in lumping all species of mercury together. In knee-jerk fashion, I recant how someone once claimed that thimerosal dissociates immediately upon entering the bloodstream, how the newly formed ethylmercury enters the brain and then dealkates into inorganic species, and how the inorganic mercury elicits and immune response. For my next trick, I will reincarnate Rube Goldberg, but you cannot see him. Just trust me.
But by far my most impressive credential is inventing a convenient chemical interaction (imaginary mercury-mediated testosterone sheets) in order to prey on a greater number of kids. Hey, my backyard tennis court needs resurfacing.
Comment by 666sigma — 7 June, 2007 @ 5:17 am
I think you should start a new topic and let the two of them go at it a la Kirby and Allen.
LET’S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUUUUUUMBLE.
Comment by Do'C — 7 June, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
That’s an interesting idea Sigma, although I do think that if Wagnitz had much beyond what looks like trying to make a chain with ice cubes and band-aids, that he’d have published it somewhere already.
Comment by 666sigma — 8 June, 2007 @ 6:56 am
Wagnitz made the offer. It looked like Notmercury was doing everything to avoid a real debate. Now, he’s stepped up to the plate and agreed.
I think you should have them square off. Just the two of them with no comments from the peanut gallery. Let them present their evidence including links to studies that back up their opinions with real facts.
Let’s see if either of them can dig up real facts to either prove or disprove thimerosal’s involvement in autism. To be honest, I’m interested in seeing if there is any HARD evidence that shows thimerosal/mercury/heavy metals are not involved in autism.
This might even prove to be more interesting than the upcoming trial.
Comment by Do'C — 8 June, 2007 @ 8:04 am
I’d be happy to provide a forum, under one condition.
They must each e-mail me privately with agreed-upon rules for debate and moderation (so they must have worked out the rules between each other ahead of time).
Would you like hard evidence that shows that bigfoot does not exist too? You really still don’t understand burden of proof do you Sigma.
Comment by notmercury — 8 June, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Unfortunately for Mike, my position in the debate would be a cakewalk. You see I’m not expected to present any evidence to support my claims simply because I haven’t made any.
Mike’s job would be considerably more difficult because he’s expected to present evidence to support his assertions. If he is able to present research and data to support his extraordinary claims, I need only show him why he is mistaken or concede the point.
Broad statements such as “IHg remains trapped for an indefinite period of time. IHg is linked to microglial activation in the brains of primates.” Won’t do because stream of consciousness word association fails to offer a testable hypothesis for how this might cause a person to fit the criteria for autism.
It also fails to explain how Burbacher reported specific morphological changes in primate neuroglia that are inconsistent with those reported by Vargas, et al. which are inconsistent with Rezaie, et al., and why he failed to detect similar (or any) changes in the animals injected with TCVs.
Until mike can recognize the subtleties, patterns, and how they may or may not fit his template for neuroinflammatory processes, ‘microglial activation’ = ‘microglial activation’ is all he needs to know.
Mercury bad. Autism Bad. Mercury causes autism. End of debate.
Comment by passionlessDrone — 8 June, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Hello friends -
For the most part, this is an fascinating discoussion.
“The fact that certain “porphyrin profiles” are used to monitor metal exposure does not mean that they are diagnostic of metal exposure. Genetic anomalies can cause the same compounds to show up in the urine without metal exposure.” (don’t know how to do the fancy quoting, sorry)
If I remember correctly, the Nataf paper showed a significant drop in porphrin excretions post DMSA administration in the autistic population. That being said, I’m curious how a genetic predisposition towards heme synthesis problems or creatinine ratio problems could be responsible for the porphrin levels found in the autistic population of the study?
In other words, if a metal burden was not responsible for abnormal porphrin profiles in the autistics, wouldn’t we expect chelation to have no impact on porphrin excretion?
Take care!
- pD
Comment by notmercury — 8 June, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Actually, we might expect porphyrin levels to increase following DMSA since several of these chelation drugs inhibit heme synthetic enzymes. They also impact renal function and urinary creatinine levels.
Again, atypical porphyrin levels found in archived frozen urine from French patients may only appear atypical when expressed as a ratio to urinary creatinine. I guess we’ll have to wait for the Nataf group to share their creatinine data or do a 24h collection study before we can talk about porphyrins and autism.
Comment by 666sigma — 9 June, 2007 @ 1:06 am
Notmercury claims he hasn’t made any claims. If that is so, please explain the nom de plume!
Comment by passionlessDrone — 9 June, 2007 @ 5:00 am
Hi notmercury -
“Actually, we might expect porphyrin levels to increase following DMSA since several of these chelation drugs inhibit heme synthetic enzymes. They also impact renal function and urinary creatinine levels. ”
This is quite interesting; and I would be interested in learning more. My primitive searching skills have failed me; however, possibly due to inadequate knowledge of the underlying biology. (?) Can you point me in the direction of some studies showing that DMSA has been shown to raise urinary creatinine levels or affect specific heme sythentic enzymes?
Take care!
- pD
Comment by notmercury — 9 June, 2007 @ 7:34 am
I didn’t say DMSA has been shown to raise urinary creatinine levels. I said chelation agents can impact renal function, creatinine clearance is an indicator of renal function.
re inhibition of heme synthetic enzymes, here’s a few to get you started.
[Linked Article]
2,3-Dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid and meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid increase mercury- and cadmium-induced inhibition of δ-aminolevulinate dehydratase
[Linked Article]
2,3-Dimercaptopropanol, 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid and meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid increase lead-induced inhibition of δ-aminolevulinate dehydratase in vitro and ex vivo
And here’s a fun one:
Pharmacol Toxicol. 1996 Sep;79(3):136-43.
Effect of mercuric chloride intoxication and dimercaprol treatment on delta-aminolevulinate dehydratase from brain, liver and kidney of adult mice.Emanuelli T, Rocha JB, Pereira ME, Porciuncula LO, Morsch VM, Martins AF, Souza DO.
[snip] Dimercaprol treatment also increased the levels of mercury in brain of animals exposed to 4.6 mg/kg HgCl2 The enzymes from all sources presented similar sensitivity to the combined effect of HgCl2 and dimercaprol in vitro.
[Moderated: Notmercury's original text for the two links from doi.org modified to fix broken links]
Comment by Do'C — 9 June, 2007 @ 7:54 am
Abbrievated and more likable version than “There isn’t really any good evidence that mercury causes autism, therefore, although it’s certainly possible in some cases, in general it’s probably not mercury” for a pseudonym?
If this is the case, feel free to refute the assertion that there isn’t really any good evidence that mercury causes autism by providing good evidence that it does.
Comment by notmercury — 9 June, 2007 @ 9:43 am
I am not Mercury. Kind of hard to dispute that.
Comment by 666sigma — 9 June, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
There is no equivocation in the nom de plume - Notmercury. Your meaning is clear, but if that is not enough for you how about the following quote:
“At this point, JB, surely you must realize you were wrong about the idea of autism being a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning, or at least you must realize that thimerosal hasn’t precipitated an autism epidemic as evidenced by plummeting autism rates in line with thimerosal reductions. Surely you must realize that the damning evidence you’ve promised will be just around the corner, hasn’t materialized and probably never will. Unless you can produce some sort of evidence, it’s your loss of credibility, and you are behind square one.”
There is no equivocation in that statement. Your statement is as clear as your nom de plume. The question is are you willing to back it up in a debate with Mr. Wagnitz? He seems to be more than willing.
Comment by Do'C — 9 June, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Not Mercury’s statement to JB can be summarized by the title of this very post. He might as well have written, “JB, you got nothing”.
Comment by 666sigma — 9 June, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Do’C,
There is no equivocation in his nom de plume. He could have chosen a name like Noproof. He chose Notmercury. His intended message is very clear. It’s pretty hard to hide from that one.
He did not tell JB that he had no proof. His statement contains no such qualification. He said, ” . . . you were wrong about the idea of autism being a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning, or at least you must realize that thimerosal hasn’t precipitated an autism epidemic as evidenced by plummeting autism rates in line with thimerosal reductions. ”
“You were wrong . . .” are strong words - as strong as you can get. Notmercury has made other similar statements that are easy to find on the Internet.
It appears that Mr. Wagnitz is willing to back up his statements in a debate. It would be interesting if Notmercury were willing to do the same. Let the evidence at hand speak for itself.
Comment by Do'C — 9 June, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
You obviously haven’t read his blog from the beginning (you know back when he actually chose the pseudonym). His intended message is clear, and it’s specific to his own experience. Go back and do some reading. You’re testing my patience with troll-like behavior. Notmercury’s pseudonym is not the subject of the post.
“Surely you must realize that the damning evidence you’ve promised will be just around the corner, hasn’t materialized and probably never will.”
Looks like just such a qualification.
You forgot this part.
“Surely you must realize that the damning evidence you’ve promised will be just around the corner, hasn’t materialized and probably never will.”
Not as strong as “I was wrong” in my opinion.
Other similar, “You got nothing” statements? So what? Don’t post more about Notmercury - he’s not the topic. Get a blog and post it if you want to.
Sigma if you’re honestly suggesting that Notmercury’s choice of pseudonym is a “statement” that requires “backing up”, you’re wasting everyone’s time. Go read the earliest portions of his blog. If you want Wagnitz and Notmercury to debate Wagnitz’s claims, that’s fine, otherwise, no more trolling for you in this post.
Comment by passionlessDrone — 10 June, 2007 @ 5:08 am
Hi notmercury -
“I didn’t say DMSA has been shown to raise urinary creatinine levels. I said chelation agents can impact renal function, creatinine clearance is an indicator of renal function.”
I sort of thought raised creatinine levels were an implied, but necessary part of the argument you were making. (?)
If I understood correctly, a lower than normal creatinine level can provide false ‘high’ readings of substances when analyzed in a spot urine sampling. If renal function was impacted by DMSA such that creatinine was decreased, and not increased, wouldn’t this provide the opposite of the results of Nataf, i.e., increased porphryin ratios as opposed to decreased? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning as to the effect of renal impact and/or creatinine clearance on the results reported in the Nataf paper?
Thanks for the links!
- pD
Comment by notmercury — 10 June, 2007 @ 8:21 am
Hi pD,
Yes, we might expect to see opposite results. My point is that with so many variables and confounds it would be difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from the Nataf study.
Sigmas, it seems like you would really love to see a debate. Sorry but I’m neither motivated by ego or testosterone so bait all you’d like, old chum.
Seems to me you’ve flip flopped a bit regarding a potential role for mercury, vaccines, and paternal age. Perhaps when your personalities are able to agree on one position you’ll pull yourselves together and set up a debate. Until then, might I suggest hanging around a schoolyard to see if you can instigate a playground brawl.
Comment by passionlessDrone — 10 June, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Hi not mercury -
“Yes, we might expect to see opposite results. My point is that with so many variables and confounds it would be difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from the Nataf study. ”
I sort of thought that for something to provide a confounding effect there has to be a biologically plausible mechanism of action that could skew the results such that we could not be sure the results are a consequence of what is being tested. Unless we have some evidence that DMSA can affect kidney function in such a way that creatinine levels are increased, why would we include it as something that could provide inaccurate results when we observe a decreasing porphyrin to creatinine ratio? What is to keep us from assigning anything as a potential confounder if we do not insist that there are identifiable mechanisms by which it could account for the results we see?
- pD
Comment by passionlessDrone — 10 June, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Hi not mercury -
I took a look at the study you provided, “2,3-Dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid and meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid increase mercury- and cadmium-induced inhibition of δ-aminolevulinate dehydratase ”
I have to admit; I’m at a bit of a loss as to why the results of this study could be seen as a confounder for the given results, namely a significant reduction in porphyrin levels.
Here is my logic:
1) If heme synthesis is inhibited, one reliable biomarker is increased porphyrin levels in the urine.
2) Presense of metals, such as mercury, lead, cadmiun or others have been shown to be involved with disruptions in the porphyrin cycle. Thus, porphyrin disruptions can be indicative of presence of heavy metals.
As far as I know, none of the two above statements are in dispute in the literature. I may be incorrect in this assumption. If I am, please let me know.
3) From the link you provided:
“Similarly, the inhibitory effects of Hg2+ and Cd2+ were markedly increased in the presence of DMSA.”
Given that; if the actions described in this paper were a confounding issue in the results we see in Nataf; we would expect to see further increased porphyrin levels, exactly the opposite of what was reported.
If DMSA were acting to further disrupt heme synthesis as described in this article, shouldn’t we see increased porphyrin levels?
There are also, of course, substantial differences between in vitro introduction of DMSA and the in vivo, repeated dosages over a course of six months as described in Nataf.
Take care!
- pD
Comment by Do'C — 10 June, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
Hi pD,
We’re considering a response to your comments with an article. Due to current commitments, it could be upwards of at least a week. Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your comments.
Comment by passionlessDrone — 11 June, 2007 @ 8:35 am
Hi DoC -
Very well. I’ll check back sometime.
Take care!
- pD