Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Mercury FABNAQ

I've compiled a list of Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions (FABNAQ) about the "autism=mercury poisoning" hypothesis. The following questions don't have a logical, scientifically sound, consistent answer from the mercury camp.

Prevalence data


  • Considering that the prevalence of epilepsy among autistics is known to be an order of magnitude higher that that of the general population, why is the CDDS-based prevalence of autism rising at a rate of 10% annually (and even higher in the past), whereas the prevalence of epilepsy has always remained at population growth levels?


    [John Best Jr. has answered that perhaps epilepsy is not being diagnosed in autistics who have epilepsy. But it's clear in the CDDS data that dual diagnoses are common. He then suggested that mercury does not have a seizure liablity. This, of course, is not consistent with what is known about autism. Plus I've also argued before that an environmental trigger without a seizure liability does not match the numbers. Finally, John asserted that autism and epilepsy are totally unrelated.]


  • Why is the prevalence of CDDS clients without mental retardation (presumably based on IQ testing) going up quickly?

  • Why is the proportion of autistics with epilepsy going down at an annual rate of -5.5%?

  • Why is the proportion of autistics with mental retardation going down at a comparable rate?

  • Why do you continue to claim that the number of "new cases" or "newly diagnosed cases" of autism is dropping in California, considering that the CDDS says that they don't provide data on new cases? Isn't it intellectually dishonest to continue to do so?

    [I'm not aware of any proponent of the mercury hypothesis having addressed this crucial objection. If you know what the rebuttal consists of, please post it in the comments section.]


  • Considering that close to no thimerosal is going into vaccines nowadays, shouldn't the following be true? (1) The number of autistic clients in the CDDS 3-5 age range should be crashing towards zero. (2) All newly diagnosed autistic children would be those vaccinated with thimerosal (via the Flu vaccine, as Sue likes to point out).

  • Use of thimerosal has been eliminated or drastically reduced in several countries, including Canada, Denmark and Sweden. Why has no country reported a decrease in he prevalence of autism following these actions?



Cognitive findings


  • By what mechanism does mercury poisoning result in savant skills?

  • How does mercury poisoning explain the results of Dawson and Mottron? That is, autistics score higher than the norm in the Raven IQ test. But not only this, the gap between the Weschler and Raven tests is totally the inverse (in the other direction) of what it would be in NTs.


    [John Best Jr. proposes that the same gene that results in a mercury excretion liability also produces high IQ. This of course would mean that the mercury spares certain types of cognition. While JB Jr. concedes that genetics could account for cognitive advantages, he does not concede that it's enough to account for socio-linguistic deficits.]


  • How does it explain findings by Happe (2001) that parents of autistics have a "cognitive style" (weak central coherence) that can confer information-processing advantages?



Neurobiological findings

  • How does mercury poisoning produce significant grey and white matter volume differences in infancy?


    [The usual answer to these kinds of questions is that "corrupt scientists" are in on the conspiracy led by the CDC.]


  • How does mercury poisoning produce larger brain mass and size?

  • How does mercury poisoning produce increased neuron density and smaller neurons?


Chelation therapy


  • Why do you start chelation therapy without first testing for heavy metal poisoning?

  • If you have tested your child, did you use a local reputable lab or an internet lab? Did you send a control sample to verify their tests are valid?

  • Is there controlled evidence that chelation therapy is an effective treatment for autism?

  • Is there controlled evidence that chelation therapy is a safe treatment for the duration you're planning to follow it?

  • Are you following medical guidelines as to the proper duration of chelation therapy?



Genetics


  • What is the mercury-based genetic model that explains a 60% concordance for classic autism in identical twins, but a much lower concordance (2%-4%) in siblings and fraternal twins?

  • How does mercury poisoning explain a higher proportion of scientists and engineers as close relatives of autistics?

  • Why do you propose that autism just cannot be simply genetic, while autism-like conditions such as Fragile-X, Rett Syndrome and Tuberous Sclerosis obviously can?

  • How does mercury poisoning explain some of the alleles which have been linked to autism? GABA, SERT, etc.

  • Given that autism is more heritable than personality, intelligence, homosexuality and left-handedness, would you say these other variations in human behavior are, too, caused by pathological environmental triggers such as mercury poisoning?



Flawed logic


  • If you believe that autism did not exist before the 1940s, do you also believe that Down's Syndrome did not exist before 1862, that Fragile-X syndrome did not exist before 1943, and that Rett Syndrome did not exist before 1966?


    [JB Jr. admits that Rett Syndrome was likely misdiagnosed as autism before 1966. He further admits that Rett Syndrome might have been called brain damage or birth defect before the 1940s. But when asked if autism could also have been called brain damage or birth defect before the 1940s, he proclaims this is impossible. Why? Because autism did not exist, as Kanner was the first to see it.]



  • Do you realize that a prevalence of 1 in 166 today (which includes Asperger's syndrome) cannot be compared to a 1970s or 1980s prevalence?

  • Do you understand why anecdotal accounts do not prove an argument?



Characteristics of true heavy metal toxicity


  • (Per Jennifer I believe:) If autistics are unable to excrete mercury, wouldn't regular intake of mercury from the environment be enough to kill autistics over time?

  • Why are the following symptoms of heavy metal poisoning not characteristic of autism? Headaches, cold hands and feet, vertigo, inability to focus vision, joint and muscle pains, weak pulse, hard pulse, bleeding gums, blisters, tooth ache, jaw inflammation, metallic taste in mouth, loosening of teeth, persistent cough, irregular breathing, swollen lymph nodes in the neck, subnormal temperature, excessive perspiration, chest pain, changes in blood pressure, etc.

93 comments:

  1. Great summary Joseph, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where have you been all of these years Joseph? Hidden away somewhere no doubt ;-)

    Another great entry. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice post Joseph - I'll be pointing people your way :o)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks everyone.

    Where have you been all of these years Joseph?

    Yes, hiding with all the other autistic adults who no one seems to be able to find.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe;
    You pose some interesting questions. I might be able to answer some of them but, taken together, they suggest a larger problem. I think you are in denial. I can understand how you were led to believe that the mercury hypotheses is junk science by well-meaning people. It seemed far-fetched to me at first too. You should go to www.oracknows.com for good advice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FABNAQ - I'm telling you publicly that I'm going to use that acronym a good bit from now on. Kudos.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I borrowed FABNAQ myself from a well-known FABNAQ from the newsgroup talk.origins.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I might be able to answer some of them but, taken together, they suggest a larger problem. I think you are in denial.

    Right, that's the larger problem they suggest. That actually gives me an idea for a new post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John says:

    It seemed far-fetched to me at first too. You should go to www.oracknows.com for good advice.

    That's hilarious. So you're asking me to visit a web page whose first sentence is this:

    The incidence of autism has increased from 1 in 10,000 in the 1970s to 1 in 150 today, an increase of over 6,000%.

    Which JB Handley ha repeated verbatim. All you guys repeat verbatim what you hear without even understanding what it means.

    Didn't you read the FABNAQ question that asks the following?

    Do you realize that a prevalence of 1 in 166 today (which includes Asperger's syndrome) cannot be compared to a 1970s or 1980s prevalence?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joe;
    I suppose you'll tell me it can't be compared due to better diagnosis? I'll tell you autism can't be missed and you'll probably bring up all these adults who diagnosed themselves who can talk, read, write and cross the street and are basically just a bunch of wack jobs looking for an excuse for their ineptitude in social situations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. autism can't be missed

    That argument gets old. It can be missed if it's thought to be mental retardation. It can be missed if it's thought to be schizophrenia. It can be missed if people don't know what it is. It can be missed if it's mild enough that it's thought to be shyness, late talking, introversion, or even giftedness with boredom.

    Not only can it be missed, the evidence is quite clear that it has been missed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. adults who diagnosed themselves who can talk, read, write and cross the street and are basically just a bunch of wack jobs looking for an excuse for their ineptitude in social situations.

    First of all, where in the DSM-IV criteria does it say that autistics can't learn to talk, read, write, or cross the street? Or for that matter, drive, get a job, get married, and so on?

    Second, you appear to now be claiming that those who you repeatedly refer to as "mercury poisoned" are really not autistic. What gives?

    Is there a spectrum with a vague boundary between normal and abnormal, or do you deny that a spectrum exists at all?

    And FYI, while I choose to label myself (and that's the only valid way to label someone IMHO) my son's psychiatrist has confirmed that I am an Asperger autistic.

    ReplyDelete

  13. I suppose you'll tell me it can't be compared due to better diagnosis?


    No. This is a no-brainer. 1 in 150 is the prevalence of the entire autism spectrum, including Asperger's syndrome.

    Aspeger's syndrome contains no speech delay. Am I to believe that a child with no speech delay whatsoever would have been diagnosed as autistic in the 1970s?

    What exactly about this argument is it that you don't understand?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok John, please explain to me why it is ok to compare a 1 in 150 prevalence of 2006 with a 1 in 10,000 prevalence in 1970s. I'll add your answer to the FABNAQ.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joe;
    Your stretching. Shyness, late talking, the other thing, and giftedness with boredom are not autism. None of those traits include no speech, zero attention to anything, no awareness of danger, gut problems, feces smearing or any of the other stuff that routinely affect our kids.
    Poor analogy!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joe; re: adults
    I don't know what DSM says and I don't care.
    These adults who seem to function OK are nothing like the kids who can't function. Some of them claim to be able to pass for normal. We all have things about us that need improvement but we don't all go jumping on some diagnosis because it gives us an excuse to act strangely. Try the ALA. If it doesn't help, work on yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Joe; re: diagnosis
    There's nothing about your cinjecture that I don't see. It's just that you're evading the question. The kids with no speech who don't pay attention and smear feces and run into traffic coul;d NEVER have been missed. They did not exist!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joseph; : re: numbers
    That's the facts. Zero autism in my state in 1993 among school age kids. It did not exist. 1,600 autistic kids in 2005. The population here is only about one million.

    ReplyDelete
  19. None of those traits include no speech, zero attention to anything, no awareness of danger, gut problems, feces smearing or any of the other stuff that routinely affect our kids.
    Poor analogy!


    What you describe above does not have a prevalence of 1 in 150. Do you admit that at least?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Zero autism in my state in 1993 among school age kids. It did not exist. 1,600 autistic kids in 2005. The population here is only about one million.

    There were zero cases of Rett Syndrome before 1966. What do you attribute that to?

    Evidently knowledge about autism in your state is considerably behind that of other states. I'd even make a prediction and I wish we could have data on this so you can see what I mean: Epilepsy rates and mental retardation rates in the autistic population in your state are much higher than in California.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Correction. The number you cite would seem to be actually a higher proportion than CDDS cases. We might be comparing apples to oranges, though. But if it is really a higher prevalence, it would mean your state is actually more liberal now in diagnosing autism, and has caught up rather quickly. Well, drawing any such conclusions is not really possible unless we know what 'autism' means in each case. Does it include Asperger's or not?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The kids with no speech who don't pay attention and smear feces and run into traffic coul;d NEVER have been missed. They did not exist!

    Kids with severe behaviors were likely not missed. Example:

    Temple Grandin was born in 1947, about half a decade after autism was first recognized. Yet she was diagnosed with brain damage. Explain.

    ReplyDelete
  23. An entry by Alexander's daddy illustrates how it's possible to "miss" autism, as you say, even in 2006!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Summary of John's FABNAQs in the present discussion:

    - Would a child who fit the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's syndrome in 1975 been diagnosed as autistic then? Could he be diagnosed as an adult in 2006?

    - There were zero cases of Rett Syndrome before 1966. What do you attribute that to?

    - Why was Temple Grandin diagnosed as brain damaged and not autistic?
    Was she "missed" or wasn't she?

    - Explain the scenario described by Alexander's daddy. How was an autistic child "missed" in 2006?

    - Do you admit that autism with late speech (non-Asperger) does not have a prevalence of 1 in 150, but much lower?

    - Do you admit that children who in the past would've been labeled geeks are now being diagnosed as Asperger autistics? See here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. One more:

    - Do you deny that a spectrum exists? Is it possible for someone to be just a little autistic? Is it possible for someone to be almost autistic? How exactly is the boundary established? And why do you suppose that the boundary has remained constant as time goes by?

    ReplyDelete
  26. These adults who seem to function OK are nothing like the kids who can't function.

    This has been addressed so many times, it's not even funny.

    1. Stop comparing children to adults. I could claim you're clearly not NT, because NT children don't post on blogs. Or I could go back even further: NT babies don't talk or walk or anything. You're nothing like an NT baby John, so you're clearly not NT.

    2. You'd be surprised to find that many autistics who seem to function OK over the internet are really a lot more like our children than you think.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Joe;
    I'll guess Rett's was included with autism prior to 1966. That would make the incidence of autism less, maybe 1 in 12,000 which would make the percentage of increase even greater.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll guess Rett's was included with autism prior to 1966.

    Ok, so you're admiting that Rett Syndrome was likely misdiagnosed as autism before 1966, correct?

    What about Rett syndrome before the 1940s? What was Rett syndrome misdiagnosed as then?

    Is it not possible, then, that severe autism was misdianosed as childhood schizophrenia, mental retardation or brain damage before the 1940s?

    Second follow-up: Fragile-X was first seen in 1943 (genetic test 20 years later). That's about the same time as autism. Why was it "missed" before that, especially considering that, unlike autism, there are physical characteristics that accompany Fragile-X?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joe; re: Grandin
    Isn't autism a form of brain damage?
    Does she change the numbers? So, include her and take out a Rett's case and the numbers even out. On the other hand, she can function and is not like the kids who can't function. You claim there is a difference because the kids aren't adults, yet we see kids growing into adults who have not progressed past the two year old stage. There goes your assertion that they WILL progress. Not any more. They got too much mercury and they won't progress until it's removed.
    You claim adult autistics who appear to be functional via typing are more like kids than I think. I can see that with some of the arguments they use, very childlike. However, they CAN type. Your associates continually call me a liar because I tell them my son had not progressed AT ALL for 7 years prior to chelation. I worked with the 15 to 21 year olds who had not progressed AT ALL and there are many more who will be filling up the institutions very soon.
    We're relying on psychologists to draw the distinctions and they're not getting the job done when all the variations are lumped under autism as far as the numbers go. Behavior mod's may be useful for your generation of autistics and some of those kids who are less affected but they aren't doing anything for the severely affected kids. Those interventions are useless until the mercury comes out. How many times do you have to hear that before it sinks in? Your stance against mercury as the cause is absurd in light of this evidence whether the studies are there to prove it to corrupt scientists or not. You don't want to discuss the politics and money involved as evidence of corruption and coverup because you can't defend it. You have no answers for SIDS as I'm sure you read about on the EOHarm list yesterday. You have no answers for Bill Frist or the fact that Bush still won't meet with Dan Burton. You try to wave away Simpsonwood and Verstraeten while knocking Geier for doing the same thing Verstraeten did aside from changing the result 3 times. The drug industry has told us they caused the epidemic by virtue of their bribery and you expect anyone to believe that the "science" you quote is not corrupt?
    You persist in wallowing in minutiae rather than addressing the "big picture" and use yourself as evidence that no cure is needed. Just because you can function doesn't mean the kids who got more mercury than you did will be able to function.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You claim there is a difference because the kids aren't adults, yet we see kids growing into adults who have not progressed past the two year old stage. There goes your assertion that they WILL progress.

    Do you have the outcome numbers on that? What percentage grow to remain at the 2-year old level? (I'm asking for data applicable to 2006 diagnostic standards).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your stance against mercury as the cause is absurd in light of this evidence

    Once again, what evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  32. John, your conspiracy theory does not prove a darn thing. You need to get non-flawed double-blind studies on chelation, and thimerosal as a causal factor.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joe;
    LOL, like I said, you're in denial clutching at every straw and every sophisticated argument to evade the "big picture" argument. Where did all that autism in China come from since 1999? Do we need a DBCS for that? You know the answer but you will find some way to evade it.
    Why are there four times as many boys stricken to wallow in the abyss of autism as girls? You know that answer too but I don't expect you'll give it to me. Why does chelation work? Why aren't the Amish autistic? Why don't those unvaccinated kids from Chicago have any autism? Where are the 75 year old autistics? Should I just put these under FABNAQ? I almost forgot, why does Methyl B-12 help over 90%? Why does that prove Deth is 100% accurate? Yelling for DBCS's doesn't answer those questions.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Where did all that autism in China come from since 1999? Do we need a DBCS for that? You know the answer but you will find some way to evade it.

    Oh, I see, I'm also a part of the big conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why does chelation work?

    Once again, there are no studies that show any benefit from chelation. Many therapies thought to work (e.g. Secretin) have been shown to have zero effectiveness.

    Why aren't the Amish autistic?

    Genetic homogeneity is a straight forward answer to this, assuming it is really the case. The finding is quite preliminary. They need to go there and verify the claim. This is because the Amish are not likely to be much aware of what autism is.

    Why don't those unvaccinated kids from Chicago have any autism?

    Is this the Amish thing again?

    Where are the 75 year old autistics?

    Everywhere. You're expecting an answer based on a flawed assumptions: (1) All autistics are intituionalized. (2) A low-functioning autistic is always a low-functioning autistic. Prove these claims first, then we'll discuss.

    Should I just put these under FABNAQ?

    If you want, but clearly all your questions are answerable. I'm still waiting for answers on a large number of questions I've posed to you, such as: What was Rett syndrome misdiagnosed as before the 1940s?

    I almost forgot, why does Methyl B-12 help over 90%?

    Show me the study.

    You are aware, aren't you, that placebo is 77% effective after about 4 weeks?

    Why does that prove Deth is 100% accurate?

    It doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Joe;
    LOL, more evasion. I'll just put all my questions under FABNAQ.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John, post an anti-mercury or neurodiversity FABNAQ if you want. I offer to post a rebuttal.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hey Joe;
    I have another question that's giving your associates alot of trouble. I thought it was pretty simple so maybe you can help them. Would you administer anti-venom to someone who had been bitten by a rattlesnake? Or would you want them, to accept it as part of them?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Joe;
    No, the kids from Chicago weren't Amish
    Why does it matter what Rett's was called before 1943 since there wasn't any autism before 1943?
    Whether 75 year olds are institutionalized is immaterial. I just want to know where they are. There aren't any aside from , perhaps a fragile X case somewhere.
    Genetic homogeneity, bullshit. You can certainly apply that to the Chinese.
    MB-12- see Neubrander and it does prove Deth accurate.
    Your answer to why does chelation works is mind-boggling. You talk about secretin and say there are no studies so I'll give you the answer that you refuse to admit. Chelation works because it removes mercury so the kids can pay attention. That's why my kid and thousands of others are improving (some completely cured)and it is a fact whether a study says so or not. We're not liars!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joe;
    I'm kicking around some other ideas for posts but FABNAQ's isn't one of them. That's your idea and I wouldn't want to steal it from you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why does it matter what Rett's was called before 1943 since there wasn't any autism before 1943?

    I'll state again: You have admited that Rett Syndrome was likely misdiagnosed as autism before 1966. What, in your opinion, was it misdiagnosed as before the 1940s?

    I'm not asking a hard question here.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I just want to know where they are.

    Right in front of you, refuting your silly arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Genetic homogeneity, bullshit.

    I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you denying that the Amish are genetically homogenous (that they generally mate only within their community) ?

    Please explain:

    - Low prevalence of black people among the Amish.

    - Low prevalence of Chinese people among the Amish.

    - (I could go on ad infinitum).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Chelation works because it removes mercury so the kids can pay attention.

    Are you providing evidence that it works or are you suggesting a mechanism by which it might work?
    The argument should be about 'is it actually effective or not?'. You are not addressing that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's why my kid and thousands of others are improving (some completely cured)and it is a fact whether a study says so or not. We're not liars!

    As I've explained repeatedly, autistics not only can cross the low-functioning to high-functioning boundary, it's reasonable to suppose a portion of them are able to cross the high-functioning to ANT or NT boundary, sometimes abruptly. This is what they call "recovery". With millions of kids diagnosed as autistic these days, it's not surprising to find that thousands "recover". My dad, as I have explained, is one of these so-called "recovered" autistics.

    You have not once offered an explanation as to how to account for the results of studies that show a strong Placebo Effect in autism.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Joe;
    Are you 75 years old?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Joe you're wasting your time.

    I've shown John peer reviewed studies proving the existence of autistic people in the 1880's and he says its a lie.

    I've told him about my great aunt and great uncle, both born between 1910-20, (one diagnosed with classical autism one with AS). If they were alive they'd be well over 75. John says it can't be autism it must be fragile-x.

    And why does he say this?

    Because in his circular logic, the 'fact' Eli Lilly 'invented' autism means that there can't be any autism before 1931. He's simply not capable of accepting the evidence of his own eyes.

    John has also been shot down over his stance regarding China. He said there was no cases of autism in China prior to 1999 and when confronted with the existence of several science papers from the 1980's documenting the ongoing, established presence of autism in China his response was:

    "I just went out for some Chop Suey and chicken fingers and the cook told me that's because they shoot the disabled babies."

    Interestingly, John also denies he is a racist bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Kevin;
    You are a child abuser. Your relatives were diagnosed as adults. Since they were part of your family, they were probably abused as children too and suffered psychological damage because of that. You don't offer any reason why your 1880's autistics became autistic so why should we believe you? Instead of slandering me, you should stop abusing your daughter and give her the help she needs. Your neglect of her is criminal and she should be given to someone who won't abuse her.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Fore Sam: You have no answers for SIDS as I'm sure you read about on the EOHarm list yesterday.

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=39088

    University of Chicago researchers and colleagues have found strong support that a disturbance of a specific neurochemical can lead to sudden infant death syndrome,

    ReplyDelete
  50. "You are a child abuser."

    Yeah, yeah - thats getting old now. Try a different tune.

    "Your relatives were diagnosed as adults."

    Let me clue you in John. They weren't totally NT until Jan 1st 1931 and then suddenly 'regressed' into autism.

    "You don't offer any reason why your 1880's autistics became autistic so why should we believe you?"

    We? You mean you. Nobody else I know denies their existence. And its irrelevent in this context what 'caused' their autism - the fact is they're autistic and they lived in the 19th century. Somehow you're going to have t deal with that fact.

    "Instead of slandering me,"

    Where have I done that?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Kevin;
    If you're getting sick of being called a child abuser, stop the abuse.
    If your relatives didn't regress on 1/1/31, when did they regress?
    I didn't deny the existence of your 1880's autistics. That's your typical response when you don't have an answer, just twist my words. The cause is very relevant, Kev. How do we know they weren't drug addicts who got diagnosed by someone like Freud while he was using coke? You also don't tell us if your relatives had fathers like you who abused them. Maybe the other autistics had fathers like you who abused them and caused brain damage.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If you're getting sick of being called a child abuser, stop the abuse."

    I wish I had your morals John. Maybe then instead of respecting my daughter I'd hit her :o)

    "If your relatives didn't regress on 1/1/31, when did they regress?"

    They didn't - they were born autistic. Like my daughter.

    "I didn't deny the existence of your 1880's autistics. That's your typical response when you don't have an answer, just twist my words."

    On your own blog you said after I pointed you to this paper:

    "I do not accept your opinion 63 years after Kanner told us otherwise. Eli Lilly invented it."

    "The cause is very relevant, Kev."

    Get it through your skull John. You said Eli Lilly invented autism in 1931. I proved you wrong. These are incompatible positions, regardless of cause. Either you're right and for whatever reason Eli Lilly invented autism in 1931 or you're wrong and autism already existed. You are of course entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is. I'll stick to the scientifically verified facts.

    "How do we know they weren't drug addicts who got diagnosed by someone like Freud while he was using coke?"

    lol....because they were diagnosed from patient case files. Read the paper John. Then try and get access to the case files if you need furtehr confirmation.

    "You also don't tell us if your relatives had fathers like you who abused them. Maybe the other autistics had fathers like you who abused them and caused brain damage."

    Where do you hit your son John? Round the head?

    What a big brave man you are :o)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kevin;
    If your kin were born autistic, what were they diagnosed with before they changed it to autism?
    You didn't prove anything Kev just by finding some quack that claims to be able to diagnose autism 120 years after the fact. How do we know those people weren't dropped on their heads as children or didn't get enough oxygen at birth or really had fetal alcohol syndrome or something else? You can't just pluck some strange people out of history and decide they were autistic to fit your deranged theories.
    Again you slander me to avoid answering the question. Just for the record jerkoff, I don't hit my kid, I spanked him once when he stepped on his infant sister's head. He didn't even blink as he could not feel pain at the time.
    And yes, I am a brave man Kevin, brave enough to help my kid while you let your daughter just waste away in preparation for the institution. Will you ever smarten up?

    ReplyDelete
  54. John, did you read Amanda's post?

    ReplyDelete
  55. John has a big problem accepting that it's possible for autistic people to be born and not be diagnosed autistic, especially when the word "autism" wasn't coined yet.

    I'll ask again John: What, in your opinion, was Rett Syndrome misdiagnosed as before the 1940s?

    Please either answer or say 'I decline to answer'.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Would you administer anti-venom to someone who had been bitten by a rattlesnake?

    Absolutely. What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  57. "If your kin were born autistic, what were they diagnosed with before they changed it to autism?"

    I don't know for sure but I think I remember my Grandad saying my Uncle was diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia. My aunt didn't rwecieve any kind of diagnosis and was just considered eccentric.

    "You didn't prove anything Kev just by finding some quack that claims to be able to diagnose autism 120 years after the fact."

    So you have no problem with people diagnosing mice as autistic but you do with case histories being investigated and found to be matching the diagnostic criteria?

    And it may interest you to know John that Paul Shattock who did the study is very receptive to the idea that autism can be caused by mercury. He's just not stupid enough to believe thats all autism can be caused by - unlike your good self :o)

    You can't just pluck some strange people out of history and decide they were autistic to fit your deranged theories.

    I'll say it once more - diagnosis was recieved after investigating case histories. No one was 'plucked' out of anywhere. Read teh paper for yourself. If you need help with the big words I'm sure someone here can help :o)

    Again you slander me to avoid answering the question.

    What slander? What question?

    Just for the record jerkoff, I don't hit my kid, I spanked him once when he stepped on his infant sister's head. He didn't even blink as he could not feel pain at the time.

    Well thats what you say. Personally having had lots of experience with your mindset of racism, homophobia etc I doubt you've just hit your son once. But thats just my opinion - only you know for sure :o)

    And yes, I am a brave man Kevin, brave enough to help my kid while you let your daughter just waste away in preparation for the institution.

    Wow, another psychic just like your sidekick JB. I realize you're incapable of juding any life other than by what happens in your own but this time you've excelled yourself. My daughter hopped on the PC earlier, logged on to her profile, started Firefox, went up to the Bookmarks menu, selected the website she wwanted and browsed to it, downloaded and installed a game she wanted and proceeded to play it. We taught her the basics and the rest she learnt herself.

    She's not wasting away John, she's thriving :o)

    Will you ever smarten up?

    If you're smart then ignorance truly is bliss.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Joe;
    I clicked your link but it told me access was not authorized.
    I'm guessing Rett's would've been called a birth defect or brain damage.
    If you'd take care of the poison from the snake, why won't you remove the poison the doctors injected? What's the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  59. John,
    The primary toxin in rattlesnake venom is an enzyme called Phospholipase A2 (PLA2). Anything that removes PLA2 from humans might be fatal, much like chelation agents that strip essential minerals, but some autistics already have higher levels of this enzyme so maybe you are on to something. Maybe autism is caused by rattlesnake bites. you would be immune of course, professional courtesy and all.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Kevin;
    What did your daughter say while she was playing with the computer?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm guessing Rett's would've been called a birth defect or brain damage.

    Ok. Next question: Why couldn't autism been called a birth defect or brain damage before the 1940s?

    ReplyDelete
  62. If you'd take care of the poison from the snake, why won't you remove the poison the doctors injected? What's the difference?

    Easy. The "poison" the doctors injected is easily expelled by the body and it's not clear that it has even mild adverse effects. There's no reason to think otherwise and risk someone's life by making such a wild supposition based on the speculations of crackpots.

    Snake venom, on the other hand, is quite deadly and this is undisputed. Real poison tends to kill people.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Joe;
    Autism could not have been called anything because, as Kanner told us, it didn't exist. It was something that had never been seen before.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Joe;
    Explain that to the family of the woman scientist who died from a couple of drops of mercury on her gloved hands at Dartmouth.
    Then, why don't you show up at the next DAN conference and explain that to all those parents whose kids were normal before the mercury made them autistic.
    You're ignoring the evidence. The crackpots are the ones who paid off the politicians to give them protection from their crimes of negligence.

    ReplyDelete
  65. So you have no problem with people diagnosing mice as autistic

    That mice study can't be more stupid. All animals are autistic! Of course there are some who say that cats are more autistic than dogs and so on. I wonder. How do you differenciate Asperger's from classic autism in these mice?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Fore Sam: Explain that to the family of the woman scientist who died from a couple of drops of mercury on her gloved hands at Dartmouth.

    Here's a concept you are unable to grasp, John. The drops of mercury, in this case, were a very potent and volatile form known as dimethylmercury, a chemical form made with Methyl-B12 by the way, and it cannot be compared with other forms. Period. I would hold drops of mercury metal, the liquid element, in my hand all day with out worry. I would never want to come in contact with dimethylmercury since it will penetrate gloves like it did with the scientist you mentioned. You may also like to know that it wasn't the mercury that killed her so much as the treatment protocol. Chelation.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Autism could not have been called anything because, as Kanner told us, it didn't exist. It was something that had never been seen before.

    Do you have Kanner's quote on that?
    I doubt he would proclaim to know what others had or had not seen before.

    You do realize that if autistic behavior had never been seen before, that would also include behavior in Fragile-X, Rett Syndrome and Tuberous Sclerosis? Do you still maintain that autistic behavior had never been seen before?

    ReplyDelete
  68. You're ignoring the evidence

    The problem is that you don't understand what evidence consists of.

    ReplyDelete
  69. John, take a look at the history of Down's syndrome. You could claim that Down's syndrome "had not been seen" before 1866. In what way is the discovery of autism any different? (And don't give me your circular logic of 'because there was no mercury').

    ReplyDelete
  70. Joe;
    Mr Ed wasn't autistic. Neither was Flipper. In fact, Flipper may have cured some autistic people. I once had a very affectionate cat so it couldn't have been autistic although it didn't talk much. I don't think Hornig's mice were autistic until after she gave them mercury and they became violent like "Hands" from Boston Legal. So, there goes your "all animals are autistic" theory.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "What did your daughter say while she was playing with the computer?"

    Not a damn thing - she can't speak. She did however laugh quite often in the manner of one having fun.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Joe;
    I don't recall Kanner's quote verbatim but that's close enough. If you want to look back at Fragile X, Rett's, etc they couldn't be confused with autism since we now have better diagnosis.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Kevin;
    Point made; help her!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Autism could not have been called anything because, as Kanner told us, it didn't exist. It was something that had never been seen before.......I don't think Hornig's mice were autistic until after she gave them mercury and they became violent like "Hands" from Boston Legal.

    I don't often go in for out and out insults and I'll understand if Josepah wants to delete this comment but my God John you truly are spectacularly stupid.

    I truly do have nothing but pity for anyone that has to try and interact with you in your day to day life.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Joe;
    Sure I understand evidence. Simpsonwood will be used as evidence for the jury when this all goes to trial. The kids cured will also be evidence. The normal kids who regressed will be more evidence. Bill Frist and the Homeland Security Bill along with last years Defense Appropriations Bill will all be evidence. Should I continue?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Point made; help her!

    Help her what? If you mean talk, she'll do that in her own good time if she wants to or can do. If not, there's plenty of other things to fall back on we're already using - PECS etc.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Kevin;
    Some people say the same thing to my wife. She also asks me the same thing. Then she sees the error in her logic. Maybe you will too someday.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Kev;
    Will PECs help her learn how to yodel?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Joe;
    Downs is a poor analogy. The physical traits and the obvious affliction present at birth is nothing like regressive autism. And, of course, the gene has been identified for years. You'll never find that autism gene since it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I don't often go in for out and out insults and I'll understand if Josepah wants to delete this comment but my God John you truly are spectacularly stupid.

    I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's just trolling or trying to be funny. I'm cracking up here myself though.

    ReplyDelete
  81. You'll never find that autism gene since it doesn't exist.

    Incredibly, you're pretty much right about this one. Except, autism is extremely heritable.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Some people say the same thing to my wife. She also asks me the same thing. Then she sees the error in her logic. Maybe you will too someday.

    I think (yet again) you misunderstand.

    I'm saying I don't particularly care if she talks or not. We've learnt to communicate pretty well with each other but we need to carry on working on a way to help her communicate with the wider world. If that happens to be speech then fine. If not, then thats fine too.

    I have no idea what the 'yodel' thing refers to.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Would you administer anti-venom to someone who had been bitten by a rattlesnake?

    Only if the bite was an actual an envenomation (up to 50% are not) and then yes, antivenin.

    Perhaps Doctors Data will start a new rattlesnake bite test series, so that even non-envenomations can be demonstrated as requiring antivenin. Nah, the ER docs have a pretty good handle on this.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joseph,

    Just caught this post. I want to echo allthe bravos.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Just caught this post. I want to echo allthe bravos.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Joseph
    One of the most interesting questions you included is this

    Use of thimerosal has been eliminated or drastically reduced in several countries, including Canada, Denmark and Sweden. Why has no country reported a decrease in the prevalence of autism following these actions?

    From http://www.sarnet.org/lib/DTbriefing2006.pdf

    Studies on Denmark
    a) You can read in pages 318 to 322 the criticisms to Madsen study from Walter Spitzer and Michael Mullins
    b) In page 329 to 334 you can also find the comments on the Madsen study on the effect of thimerosal removal. Both manuscripts dealt with Thimerosal/MMR link to ASD:
    You can read from the Part K- Page 287 to 355 a comment about the published literature, mainly epidemiological, against the link .


    Studies on Canada

    http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/June2002/ExposureThimVaxCanada.htm

    At the best of my knowledge, there are provinces that have not changed to thimerosal free vaccines and there are no statistics about.

    Studies on Sweden

    From the IOM report of 2004

    on the time period of use and vaccine-specific amounts of thimerosal for all vaccines used in Sweden. Recommended vaccines that contained thimerosal included DTP vaccine, which was replaced by a thimerosal-free vaccine in 1979, and diphtheria-tetanus vaccine, which was used until 1992. Vaccines contained 0.01 percent thimerosal. Other children may have been exposed to thimerosal-containing Hib vaccine or acellular pertussis vaccines, used in clinical trials prior to 1992. Since 1992, however, thimerosal has not been included in recommended childhood immunizations. Still, hepatitis B vaccine containing thimerosal may have been given to a small number of children who were born to high-risk mothers. Overall, most children in Sweden, prior to 1992, received two doses of DTP or DT and were estimated to have a cumulative dose of ethylmercury of 75 μg by 2 years of age. The authors concluded that the study did not demonstrate a correlation between thimerosal in vaccines and autism rates because autism rates in Sweden continued to increase after the elimination of thimerosal from vaccines. The authors noted that the data only reflected cases diagnosed in inpatient settings and that the increase in autism may result from changes in diagnostic criteria and increasing awareness of autism and related disorders. The ecological nature of the study limits the study’s contribution to causality.

    I wonder
    If from region to region in USA we have changes in diagnosis criteria and social effects on diagnosis, as Mrs Clark and you so clearly demonstrated, what is the case of Denmark, Canada and Sweden-whole countries?.
    I have several questions here
    1- How the ASD children were counted to consider the numbers in these countries in these different years? I think that there are differences in the true ASD children (diagnosed under the DSMIV or that could be included in the DSMIV), the diagnosed one- with a doctor involved- and the reported ones for every country.
    In the case of Denmark, the reported ones AFTER thimerosal was phased out increased because the non-hospitalized children were included, and before only the hospitalized ones were counted (20 % of the total numbers), following certain criticisms.
    So, for me and I would be glad to hear comments, an explanation for Denmark could be that BEFORE thimerosal was removed the reported ones were far lower than the diagnosed or true number of ASD children. After thimerosal removal, the diagnosed ones were counted more completely and reported.
    2-It seems to me counterintuitive that the remotion of thimerosal can cause the numbers to increase. Some other confounding factors are arising FOR ME.
    3- This kind of findings, can not be assigned also the the Broader diagnostic criteria and other confounding factors related to higher awareness of the condition and changes year per year of the relation TRUE numbers-DIAGNOSED- REPORTED –COUNTED in statistics studies?
    However, also, thimerosal for me is not a CAUSE but another factor to take into account in a long list (please see my post in another section).
    What do you think?
    Thank you in advance
    María Luján

    ReplyDelete
  87. FABNAQ with the Geiers:
    http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/19/140/Transcript%202-9-04.pdf

    DR. BAYER: Excuse me. Ron Bayer, the committee.
    Given your conclusions about the toxicity of
    thimerosal, how do you account for the data from Denmark
    and from Great Britain?
    DR. M. GEIER: We showed you Denmark. We didn’t
    have much time. They did their study -- and he refused to
    answer the question. But the answer to the question is,
    their level is at the level that we were at when we did not
    have an epidemic. So withdrawing it did not make the
    epidemic go away.

    ReplyDelete
  88. María,

    I know there's some dispute about the Denmark study and so on. The question is: Why has no country ever reported a prevalence decrease? This is something that would not go unreported.

    No one has ever found a way to decrease the prevalence of autism. If the cause were one of those proposed, you'd think they would've by now. (They might be able to lower prevalence with a genetic test - and that's the next fight).

    ReplyDelete

  89. FABNAQ with the Geiers:
    http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/19/140/Transcript%202-9-04.pdf


    That was funny, kind of like an answer JB Jr. would give.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Joseph
    You say
    The question is: Why has no country ever reported a prevalence decrease? This is something that would not go unreported.

    The point is that no prevalence decrease can be detected if no real numbers of prevalence were obtained BEFORE. IF the numbers were higher or not, we will never know with the REPORTED data, whatever the country, if no real numbers of prevalence were obtained before.

    No one has ever found a way to decrease the prevalence of autism. If the cause were one of those proposed, you'd think they would've by now. (They might be able to lower prevalence with a genetic test - and that's the next fight).

    Please clarify the implications of.

    Not mercury
    I agree with you that the answer provided in this ocasion is far from a coherent one. At this point, I disagree with many of the Geiers work-and others, from the link and the non-link . Even when some true condition of environmental insult-EI- is present FORME , I disagree with the way of defense and the methods with many of the proponents of the idea of the impact of EI in autism.


    María Luján

    ReplyDelete
  91. This list of questions were obviously written by the parent of an autistic child because once someone sees their loved ones suffering from metal retardation they always wait until a treatment is proven, and has tons of controlled evidence to prove it, before they attempt to help their child.

    BTW the level of thimerosal is still there, it's just the packaging that's changed. They relabled it. Just like they can say that something has no transfats even though it does by clever packaging. I know because I asked a healthcare provider to find me vaccines without thimerosal and they weren't able to.

    ReplyDelete