Autism Street

To the right is an important new medical diagnostic tool:

The Threat Of Mercury And Toxicity Oracle or T.O.M.A.T.O. for short. This new computer-aided guide will divulge, organize, and simplify information only previously available to specialists in their prospective board-certified specialty fields: fields such as neurophysiology, toxicology, and developmental pediatrics. You’ll no longer need an extensive medical education, specialized training and certification, or have to worry about whether treatment is really warranted or not. Sounds to good to be true? It’s not! Forget the days of toxicology reference volumes and pouring through stacks of research to understand reference norms and validate correlative studies that support those norms (for later citation in your paper, prior to submitting it for peer review and publication). Those days are over. The T.O.M.A.T.O. is here to help. You don’t even need to know that TOMCON1 stands for Threat Of Mercury Condition 1. Simply learn to recognize a simple color-code (it doesn’t matter how each color is really defined), and you’re on your way to fast, unquestioned, treatment for autism - even if your treatment is “off-label” or would be better described as ‘investigational’ (regardless of ethics or scientific merit). The T.O.M.A.T.O. may already be recognized by an IRB in the southwestern United States as representative of a valid assessment tool. That IRB has already approved what looks to be an extremely similar tool for the determination of qualification for the DMSA treatment of heavy metal toxicity in children with autism. I’d better patent this fast!

 

Remember how the non-medical researcher in Arizona took quite a while (and pressing) to reveal that some so-called ‘research’ was using Doctor’s Data, Inc. for the labwork? Remember what was claimed? Oh what the hell, let’s just pop the quote in right here:

“The testing lab is Doctor’s Data, which is a CLIA approved lab and has much more sensitive testing equipment than most local labs”.

Hmmm, could it be that…………….This appears utterly false?

Doctors Data, Inc. uses ICP-MS to determine urine mercury levels expressed as a ratio μg/g creatinine. As it happens to be the case, Labcorp (36 locations here in the Phoenix and Tuscon areas, yes, you read that correctly, 36 locations here in the Phoenix and Tucson areas) also provides urine mercury analysis using ICP-MS, and they also provide the ratio expressed as mercury μg/g creatinine. The equipment at Doctor’s Data, Inc. is not necessarily “much more sensitive” as being used, but more likely “identical”, and I may not be a doctor, but I do know that 1 laboratory in Illinois is not mathematically “more” than several local laboratories here in Arizona. I wonder what would happen to that number of local labs offering ICP-MS urine mercury analysis if I contacted SonoraQuest (another local clinical lab company) or local hospitals too. Incidentally, I saw that Labcorp offers what looks to be a pretty slick clinical research results delivery and integration package as well.

So what’s really going on here? Did that non-medical researcher lie? Is he simply misinformed? Was he misled? Did he make a simple human error in judgment? Was he even the person who chose Doctor’s Data, Inc. for this so-called ‘research’? And why did Doctor’s Data choose “Doctor’s Data” for their business name. Is it possible they want non-medical persons to “feel” like real medical doctors? Is it possible they want quacks to “feel” like real medical doctors? Pretty clever, and likely effective if that’s the case. I guess it could be seen as similar to an example like “Taster’s Choice” instant coffee. Now I have nothing to say negative about Taster’s Choice or Nescafe. That stuff is great if you’re camping, backpacking through Europe, or out of the good stuff you usually drink, and you really want a quick cup of coffee. But you must admit, the name is clever. It definitely conveys the idea of being desired by coffee connoisseurs. Does the name “Doctor’s Data” convey the idea of a lab used by the best real medical doctors? I think it quite possible.

For the sake of scientific significance, do the lab results and the pretty report (complete with T.O.M.A.T.O color-code compliance) from Doctor’s Data even matter? Let’s, for a moment at least, assume that they ARE accurate. What matters legally, ethically, and medically, is how the SCNM’s IRB and associated physicians (the people with the legal and medical liability) see that SCNM so-called ‘research’ protocol’s use of the lab results that will be presented. Labcorp (as well as several other reputable sources) shows a reference interval of less than 5 for mercury μg/g creatinine, this Doctor’s Data, Inc. sample report shows a reference interval of less than 4 for mercury μg/g creatinine. Even though both labs have different reference intervals, they are both (as extremely clearly stated on the Doctor’s Data, Inc. sample report) for non-challenge or non-provoked conditions.

Obviously very careful medical toxicology interpretation is warranted in this situation, given that the patients are pediatric and that a provoked measuring method is being used. I think it likely that the FDA and the appropriate governing medical and specialty boards might require the involvement of a board-certified developmental pediatrician, or a board-certified toxicologist. The importance of the specialized physician’s consideration of the necessity for chelation treatment (investigational or not) that this researched is based on should have been a primary concern of any IRB.

So what about the “lone wolf” medical specialist on this study? From Sanford Newmark, MD’s website: Dr. Newmark is personally experienced in the areas of nutrition, nutritional and botanical supplements, general pediatric medicine and mind-body medicine. I could be wrong, and he certainly might be great pediatrician, but “personally experienced in the areas of nutrition, nutritional and botanical supplements, general pediatric medicine and mind-body medicine” does not sound like a description the FDA and governing medical boards would necessarily deem appropriate to definitively diagnose and treat real pediatric mercury poisoning with chelation therapy. Perhaps the FDA and governing medical boards would not approve of any MD chelating children who may not actually have mercury toxicity - especially on an investigational basis and based solely on the research presented by that non-medical researcher. [At least Dr. Newmark is apparently not practicing homeopathy himself].

The non-medical researcher I’ve been referring to would likely provide this paper as support for pediatric mercury toxicity reference ranges (despite the small number of control subjects), but I think it likely that appropriate oversight agencies would not take this into consideration anyway, as it was never put to the welcome process of scientific peer review and published in a medical journal where it would have been referenced on PubMed.

Remember when I asked that non-medical researcher, “What is the mercury excretion level required (and associated standard) for qualification for phase two?” The non-medical researcher responded simply with:

“100% of the labs reference range.”

Now that’s interesting, because a few pages into the Doctor’s Data sample report, a “Mercury High” result is explained as one in which “This individual’s urine mercury equals or exceeds twice the maximum expected level”. Again, I’m not a doctor, but to me that means 200% of the reference range value. Who’s making these medical “go ahead and chelate them” decisions, an appropriately-trained specialist? Or someone who might be using the T.O.M.A.T.O system? And what’s with the name T.O.M.A.T.O. anyway? Is it symbolic of a farcical threat?

It almost doesn’t even matter, because here’s the bottom line (literally, this is what is printed at the bottom) of the Doctor’s Data, Inc. sample report:

“No safe reference levels for toxic metals have been established”.

Let me translate that for the SCNM IRB: Without careful interpretation by a properly trained medical specialist, these numbers are meaningless.

Dare I suggest that proper training might include a learned skill to look for “good” scientific research when seeking information that will be used to make medical decisions about children, autistic or not.

Incidentally, unsafe reference levels for toxic metals have been established, they also require non-provoked conditions, and they are very different from the numbers being used in this research.

-Prometheus from the critically thinking blog A Photon In The Darkness originally questioned the assertion that the Doctor’s Data ICP-MS urine mercury testing is not sufficiently available in other local labs in the comments section of one of the other posts about this so-called ‘research’.