Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
Well, it's finally been posted, video of the debate between Arthur Allen, author of Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver (a book that I am about 2/3 of the way through and plan on reviewing before the end of the month if possible) and mercury militia vaccine fearmonger David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm and arguably one of the two people who have done more than anyone else to bring the bogus claim that mercury in vaccines is the cause of the increase in the number of diagnoses of autism over the last 15 years or so to a wider audience. (The other is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) Direct links to the video can be found here (low bandwith video; high bandwith video). Those who have an interest in this debate may want to watch the video, or at least as much of it as you can tolerate.
I haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing, mainly because it's two hours long, but I can tell you that the beginning irritated the hell out of me right from the opening montage, where they clearly cherry-picked quotes from interviews with both David Kirby and Arthur Allen, a couple of which made it sound as though Arthur Allen was sympathetic to their views. This was accompanied by irritating graphics and ominous music, with text stating "The Medical Controversy of the 21st Century Is Debated." To call this a bit hyperbolic is an understatement. For one thing, it's not really a controversy anymore. It never really was that much of a controversy, scientifically speaking, more like a concern that scientists had several years ago that has since been assuaged by multiple epidemiological studies that show no link between mercury in thimerosal in vaccines and the rise in autism, most recently in Canada. Indeed, the evidence has been falling hard and fast against the the claim that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism, so much so that there has been some backpedaling and David Kirby has been reduced to shifting goalposts for what would convince him that mercury does not cause autism and hand-waving about "environmental mercury" and pregnant mothers getting flu shots as potential "causes" of the "autism epidemic" (which doesn't really exist, of course).
From what I've seen thus far of the video, it looks as though he indulged in more of the same sort of pathetic arguments and obfuscation that he did in his brief segment on the local Fox News affiliate the morning of the debate. Right from the beginning, he made a big point out of the government recommendation that thimerosal be removed from vaccines, ignoring the fact that this recommendation was made more in response to the fearmongering of the mercury militia as a way of reassuring the public about vaccine safety. (Not surprisingly, it backfired, enabling David Kirby and his ilk to say, "See, the stuff must be dangerous; the government recommended that it be removed from vaccines!") Arthur Allen described the debate thusly:
The day before our debate David and I appeared on a morning TV news show in San Diego. I mentioned the new California data, along with a survey of several hundred medical offices conducted by the CDC in February 2002 that showed that of the three pediatric vaccines that contained thimerosal in the 1990s, only 2 percent continued to contain the preservative by then. In other words, the data present a pretty clear schematic: thimerosal goes from 100 percent to 2 percent in two cohorts of children. Autism cases, meanwhile, increase by 60 percent in the two cohorts. For me, this is killer evidence, open and shut--the thimerosal thesis doesn't fly.David is a clever guy. The next morning, in our debate, he'd already come up with a series of explanations for the California data. First, he tried to ridicule the CDC numbers by describing them as a "convenience sample"--meaning, I presume, that no scientific methodology had gone into the data collection. The audience was 95 percent sympathetic to the mercury hypothesis and many of them chuckled at his dismissal of the CDC figures. David had no data of his own that would contradict the CDC numbers, but he had something else--a handful of fabulous new explanations for why California's figures were so hard to conform to his hypothesis.
The explanations went like this:
1) California has lots of HMOs. Because HMOs buy large lots of vaccine, they probably keep around some of the old stuff.
1) A gigantic plume of coal smoke from Chinese power plants has settled on California, depositing lots of mercury and therefore causing the autism numbers in the state to continue to grow.
2) Bad forest fires have put tons of mercury into the air, depositing lots of mercury etc...
3) Cremations (!). The burning of dead bodies with mercury amalgam in their mouths has added even more mercury to the air.
(Read the rest, which is well worth your time, and, besides, the antivaxers have predictably shown up.)
And indeed you can see that this is exactly what David Kirby argued. For example, #1 is just handwaving. Allen had the evidence and a description of the methodology of the study that showed that by February 2002 only 2% of childhood vaccines continued to contain thimerosal. Kirby couldn't refute that; so he came up with obvious handwaving like excuse #1 above and then, despite the fact that the debate was billed as being about whether it was mercury in vaccines that cause autism. He was just trying to muddy the water, knowing that the evidence was against him. Although I haven't gotten to that part of the video yet, particularly bizarre is a series of slides in Kirby's talk showing that the number of cremations in California is on the rise (really, I'm not kidding; see slides 99-101) and clearly tried to link this to environmental mercury causing autism. He was fairly smooth, very glib, and the audience, most of whom were sympathetic to the thimerosal blaming hypothesis ate it up.
From what I've seen thus far, Arthur Allen did as well as anyone could be expected under the avalanche of cherry-picking and deceptive representation of data and pseudoscience, but this sort of thing is exactly why it is usually not a good idea to agree to such debates. Moreover, the moderation was so piss-poor that David Kirby got away with wandering entirely off topic to mention things like cremations and forest fires as sources of "environmental mercury" that, by the way, conveniently started "rising" just as thimerosal was being taken out of vaccines, just in time to keep the number of cases of autism/ASDs in the 3-5 year old cohort in the California Department of Developmental Services from falling as would be expected if thimerosal did cause autism. Never mind that there's no evidence of increased rates of autism near, say, crematoria or after forest fires. The debate was supposed to be whether mercury in vaccines causes autism, the whole point of Kirby's book. Yet Kirby spent a rather large amount of time dwelling on other sources of environmental mercury, some of them quite ludicrous and unlikely. As Kevin Leitch puts it:
So David Kirby, all by himself, has abandoned the agenda and decided to stop talking about vaccines in particular and start talking about mercury in general. Did anyone stop him? Didn't this debate have moderators?[...]
This is getting ridiculous. Why are 'we' talking about four different types of mercury. This debate is about vaccines (or that's what I once thought - that's what the PDF advertising said - it did, didn't it? I didn't hallucinate it did I?) and that means just one type of mercury. Thiomersal . Thimerosal. Ethyl. That's it. One. Not four. Hello?
(Kevin also included bite-sized excerpts of critical parts of the debate, for your edification and shows Kirby doing the backpedal over his previous statement that if cases of autism in the CDDS didn't start falling by 2007 it would deal a "severe blow" to the mercury-autism hypothesis. While you're at it, Mike tore apart the epidemiological fallacies that Kirby spewed, and Joseph has piled on David Kirby's multiple dubious claims.)
I may blog some of the points that the debate covered later this week, but for the moment I'm more interested in a point that Arthur Allen made about the the whole mercury-autism claim in his blog:
In most forums, I like to think that listeners would have brushed aside these points as creative, but completely unfounded twaddle. But the audience for the mercury message is different. These parents are convinced that mercury is behind a substantial part of their children's problems. Some of them feel that chelation, which removes mercury and other heavy metals, has helped their children, ergo that their problems have to do with mercury and heavy metals.Many of the scientists who have glommed onto the thimerosal thesis are people whose hypotheses about the neurological damage caused by mercury amalgams in teeth have long since been rejected by their colleagues. But just as the drug companies now sell their drugs directly to the public, skirting the skeptical discretion of doctors, people peddling untested theories and therapies can go round their colleagues and straight to the public, using Internet marketing.
This story has legs because tens of thousands of parents of autistic children continue to believe that vaccines gave their children autism. In June, the federal vaccine court is going to review the evidence in a trial of several weeks. If the court finds in favor of the 5,000 petitioners whose cases are pending there, it will bankrupt the vaccine compensation program and could severely undermine the vaccine program. If the petitioners lose, some of them will take their cases to civil courts. Their chances there will be damaged by the vaccine court loss, but the whole mess will probably drag on for years.
And no matter how much evidence piles up against the thimerosal theory, it will die hard. It's a story with legs.
Indeed it does, and, sadly, Allen is probably correct. But what he has said, unfortunately, doesn't just apply to the mercury-thimerosal scare. It applies to so many other forms of pseudoscience and woo. For example, why, after all the evidence that it's almost certainly worthless against cancer, are there people still claiming that high dose vitamin C is a miracle cure? Why does vitamin C have "legs"? Why are there so many people who believe that the planes didn't cause the World Trade Towers to fall, that there were explosives there, and that the government (or the Mossad, or whatever) was the real cause of 9/11? Why does this conspiracy theory have "legs"?
My guess is that the reasons that people persist in believing in such pseudoscience are threefold:
1. The human mind is exquisitely set up to seek patterns and correlations. Even if none exists, it will still manage to latch on to even highly improbable ones. Parents see the number of autism diagnoses increasing in the 1990's at the same time that the number of thimerosal-containing vaccines increase the number of diagnoses of autism and ASDs also increase. Never mind that it's because of a broadening of diagnostic criteria in 1992 and increased awareness; it seems as though the two are correlated. Couple that with the fact that diagnoses of autism often fall around the age children receive vaccines and thus appear to correlate with when a child is vaccinated, and it's not hard to see why this particular story persists. One reason science and controlled clinical trials exist is because correlations are so often confused with correlation, making it easy to make incorrect conclusions about causation. Many have done (and continue to do) this with vaccines and autism, not to mention with chelation therapy as well, where they interpret natural improvement in verbal skills, for instance, as being due to the chelation therapy, when in fact many autistic children develop these skills later without pharmacologic interventions, making it impossible to tell if such improvement is actually due to chelation therapy or would have happened anyway. Given the emotional investment these parents have, when their "experience" conflicts with the science, they tend to discount the science. After all, they can see the cause and effect for themselves! They don't need no stinkin' science to tell them that mercury in vaccines causes autism or that chelation therapy improved their child's symptoms! Besides, it's all just a conspiracy between the CDC and big pharma anyway, which brings us to...
2. When something happens that is beyond a person's control, when people feel helpless, the tendency is to look for someone or something to blame. The mercury-thimerosal fear-mongering is perfect for this. Parents think: Something must have caused my child's autism. It couldn't have "just happened". Then they look at correlations and erroneously fall for the fallacy of believing that correlation must equal causation. It must have been the vaccines! In this light, the reassurances by the CDC are seen as sinister, as just another example of the government "covering up" the "real" cause of autism, "protecting" big pharma , and "hiding the truth" from the parents. It's not dissimilar to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and is also reminiscent of people who think that the government or big pharma is somehow "keeping a cure for cancer from them."
3. Another cause is money. As Arthur pointed out, there's a lot of money at stake. Mark and David Geier, for example, make their livings as "expert witnesses" for parents of autistic children suing the Vaccine Injury Compensation Board; that is, when they're not chelating autistic children or injecting them with Lupron to "treat" their autism. There's a whole cottage industry that's sprung up to support the mercury myth and sell "cures for autism" to desperate parents willing to try almost anything, not to mention to encourage them to file lawsuits in which--surprise!--they serve as "expert witnesses" for the plaintiffs. Money's involved with Kirby as well, as he has sold the rights to Evidence of Harm to Participant Productions. If the idea (I will no longer dignify it by calling it a "hypothesis") that mercury in vaccines causes or contributes to the development of autism is utterly refuted and discredited, the entire premise behind the movie would be nullified, and the movie would likely never be made. No movie royalties for Davey! Consequently, Kirby has a strong financial incentive to keep the mercury-autism myth alive, not to mention that he seems to have gotten his self-image as a guy who bucks the system all mixed up in this and seems to lap up the adoration of the mercury militia. Similarly, there's lots of money in woo like vitamin C for cancer and in 9/11 conspiracy-mongering.
Basically, Allen's right: Unfortunately, the thimerosal story, like so many dubious health scares and other conspiracy theories, has "legs." even if those legs are becoming increasingly wobbly even for the true believers. As he points out, the scientific community has moved on because the mercury-thimerosal hypothesis is just not panning out; as more and more studies fail to suggest any link between mercury in vaccines and autism, on a scientific basis the claim that there is a link is harder and harder to take seriously. However, long after the science has rendered the idea that the mercury in thimerosal in vaccines was the cause of the "autism epidemic" so implausible that scientists have moved on to other more fruitful avenues of research, a small hardcore cadre of believers will not let the story die. They see themselves as heroic underdogs fighting against big pharma, the CDC, and the media (as represented by reporters like Arthur Allen). Unfortunately, in reality they are wasting time and money that might be better sought in helping their children develop to the highest potential of which they are capable.
Comments
Well done. I've always contended that the mercury parents are folks that - if you dig deeply enough - have other ingrained anti-government and anti-medical views. Most of those views stem from a desire to blame "something" for their child's lot in file. It can't be anything that just happened, and god forbid it's anything they did. It has to be something thrust upon them by an evil conglomerate.
Again, how many high-profile mercury parents are really closet anti-vaxers who soften their message for public consumption? I'd say that number is pretty darn high.
As to money...here's the fascinating thing. Folks like Paul Offit would probably still make a more than comfortable living if they never saw a penny from the drug companies ever again. I imagine the amount of money they typical ACIP committee memmber gets from "Big Pharma" is trivial compared to the amount of money the Geiers or Andy Wakefield get for "researching" and "defending" this ludicrous theory.
Anti-vaxers always whine about following the money - maybe they should.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 23, 2007 10:04 AM
And if it is environmental mercury, why doesn't the area around Minimata have a higher rate of autism than anywhere else? I have never had a mercury mom on any of these threads answer a straight question about documented cases of mercury poisoning. And if you counter their stories of chelation cures with how your child made progress without chelation, well yours couldn't have really been autistic.
The environmental angle appeals to many. You can't convince them that pollution has actually decreased in our lifetime. Lead is out of newer paints, gasoline and pipes. Yet more people are concerned about lead than when running hot water from the tap could give you an unhealthy dose of lead. Any rivers burning these days? There is lots of work left to cleaning up the planet, but only science can do that, not fearmongering.
Posted by: Ruth | January 23, 2007 10:33 AM
I love the comments from people who don't deal with autism every day diagnosing the mind set and beliefs of those that do. I am the parent of an autistic child and I do believe mercury is a part of the issue. I watched my son's communication and social skills diminish rapidly within a week of receiving a flu shot containing thimerasol. I have used chealtion therapy and seen it work, I have used special diets (GFCF) and biomed supplements and seen immediate results.
I was not anti-vaccine, I am now though having directly seen its impact. I am not anti Big Pharma, my father worked for Big Pharma for 36 years retiring as an executive with one of the largest pharma firms in the world. I am not looking to sue Big Pharma or the Government, I just want truthful answers from them. Remember when smoking was not bad for you, the same will eventually come out about thimerasol and the over vaccination of our kids.
Follow the money... You think us parents are in this for the money? I have spent over $70,000 on my sons care the past two years in therapy, supplements and medical care. All out of my own pocket, so to say we are in this for the money is idiotic. I would do it all over again as well because I have seen dramatic improvements in him.
If any of you critics ever walked a day in the shoes of the parent of an autistic child your mindset would change rapidly.
Posted by: Steve | January 23, 2007 10:48 AM
Steve -
One question. When you say that your son regress after a vaccination - did you make the link before or after you heard about thimersol?
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | January 23, 2007 11:09 AM
Being exposed to California brush fires for years now, I have been told that I am now autistic. David Kirby got me my label and David Geier got me a treatment over the phone. Thank goodness such scientists are looking out for us.
Steve - IMO the real place to look for the money is your DAN!ish "health" provider. These criminals are the ones who are creating this demand. Congrats - amazing that your child made gains over the course of 2 years. At least you ruled out natural development. Right, where's my shovel?
Posted by: Smokey the Autistic Bear | January 23, 2007 11:15 AM
Steve, which ones on http://www.autism-hub.co.uk/ are not directly dealing with autism?
That is where you can find the blogs referenced above (Kevin Leitch, Mike Stanton, AutismNaturalVariation, etc).
The "follow the money" is for those who think they will get big bucks from a lawsuit... PLUS those who sell you the supplements and dubious treatments like transdermal chelators, pills, RNA drops, Lupron shots, and other things.
Posted by: HCN | January 23, 2007 11:40 AM
Steve-
I live with autism every day. My child makes progress (she is slowly being integrated in the general ed classroom) without spending our life savings on quack medicine. If your child has genuine allergies, good for you for giving them a special diet. Most of the supplements are bogus. Check out Terra sigillata on the side panel-many of those supplements contain more heavy metals than the vaccine you blame for autism. Show me a dose-response curve and I will listen to you. Otherwise, it is like blaming demons (Bradstreet will take care of those, too).
Posted by: Ruth | January 23, 2007 11:55 AM
There was a similar lack of moderation plus the presence of a hostile audience when Ben Goldacre of Bad Science debated Peter Fisher (a rheumatologist who is the leading spokesperson for homeopathy in the UK). Goldacre was physically very close to people who had sent him menacing emails that crossed the border into the territory of deranged.
The moderator allowed Fisher to dodge some significant questions and to come out with an incomprehensible response to the question of whether or not homeopaths are anti-vaccination. In so far as I can tell, according to Dr. Fisher, the answer is that homeopaths who follow Hahnemann are not opposed to vaccination.
Just so that I know when I next come across this argument, is it just chinese coal that contains mercury in its smoke when it burns? Is the mercury released in the forest fires from the trees or is it from the destruction of property that is destroyed by the fire?
Posted by: gadgeezer | January 23, 2007 12:38 PM
Orac - On the money, baby.
I would add to your list the attraction of feeling superior to all those sheep who believe in conventional medicine.
Posted by: isles | January 23, 2007 3:12 PM
Steve - I also live with autism every day, my son's and my own. Developmental progress in autistic people is not out of the ordinary. I don't know why people think that's the case. Because they were told once that autism isn't curable, they somehow translate that into 'autistic people are developmentally frozen in time'.
Posted by: Joseph | January 23, 2007 4:46 PM
I was not anti-vaccine, I am now though having directly seen its impact. I am not anti Big Pharma, my father worked for Big Pharma for 36 years retiring as an executive with one of the largest pharma firms in the world. I am not looking to sue Big Pharma or the Government, I just want truthful answers from them. Remember when smoking was not bad for you, the same will eventually come out about thimerasol and the over vaccination of our kids.
Wow, it's the ol' "I don't hate vaccines my (insert name of relative) worked for Big Pharma" but I think they're lying to us about thimerosal story. Man, if I had a dollar for every person who says they were once associated with Big Pharma but left because of the evil empire...
Oh, and smoking and thimerosal are not the same thing. The tobacco companies' science was bogus, and was pretty much accepted as such by the mainstream scientific community for decades. It was only when lawyers decided the best way to attack Big Tobacco was to force them to reveal what they knew did we realize that the tobacco industry knew smoking was harmful, and knew so for many years.
The difference is that the science continues to be squarely on the side of the drug companies in this case. In fact, it's the mercury parents and their bogus organizations that fund studies the stretch the bounds of credibility.
Follow the money... You think us parents are in this for the money? I have spent over $70,000 on my sons care the past two years in therapy, supplements and medical care. All out of my own pocket, so to say we are in this for the money is idiotic. I would do it all over again as well because I have seen dramatic improvements in him.
But I can see folks (not necessarily you) wanting to recoup some of that money spent on treatments and other services. Too bad that last I checked, autistic kids develop with or without supplements.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 23, 2007 6:07 PM
isles, when you mention a feeling of superiority I'm reminded of the term "crunchy", as used by a commenter called "crunchy mom" in a comment at Flea's of which a small part reads: "Angela is a caricature-- she has a reputation for being over-the-top and crunchier-than-thou even among crunchy moms like me who read MDC (but take it with a grain of salt)."
For a bit of context, "MDC" here is mothering.com, a home to quite a bit of anti-vaccination sentiment. However, I had to ask myself what in the world "crunchy" could possibly mean and what it had to do with the pick-and-choose vaccination protocol "crunchy mom" follows. Finally, it occured to me that it must be related to "number crunching" and that she and her ilk had taken to use the term so that their fear of vaccination could take on the semblance of nobility, a badge of honour among those who'd done their homework.
Her use of the term "crunchier-than-thou" betrays how their use has gone beyond all reason. If "crunchy" really did mean rational and analytic about matters of vaccination, how could somewhat be both especially "crunchy" and "over-the-top"? This leads me to suspect that it's no more than a handy euphemism that these folks use so they can feel they're smarter than the uninformed masses who listen to scientists.
Posted by: wrg | January 23, 2007 6:41 PM
Crunchy = granola cruncher = hippie.
It's a shorthand for being into natural living. A crunchy mom would probably breastfeed, co-sleep, have a natural childbirth with midwives at home, use cloth diapers, homeopathy, not vaccinate, eat organic, and so forth.
Posted by: Anna | January 23, 2007 6:58 PM
Oh. Sorry, never mind then. That makes a lot of sense and invalidates everything I just said.
Posted by: wrg | January 23, 2007 8:32 PM
Crunchy = granola cruncher = hippie
Learn something new every day on Orac's blog.
Posted by: notmercury | January 23, 2007 10:07 PM
Anonimouse,
I never said Big Pharma was an evil empire so don't put words in my mouth. I feel just the opposite. My father beat cancer when the odds where overwhelming he wouldn't. The Big Pharma firm kept him on full salary for 4 years while he recoveredand was not working. I do not believe one bit in pharma firms being an evil empire and I still am not ant Big Pharma. Anti-vaccine, you bet. I will never get my son vaccinated again. Kids today are overloaded with vaccines, neither you or I (assuming you are over 35 like me) got the number of vaccines that kids do today and we are fine (I am, I'll assume you are as well).
In regards to the science, I believe that one day it will come out that some children are genetically susceptible to the effects of thimerasol and other toxins much like some people are genetically susceptible to getting cancer. In my son's case all of the potential markers are there. I just think this theory should be looked into and parents alerted to potential genetic impacts before their children are vaccinated. The science that you choose to follow is done by groups with a conflict of interest; I'll admit as well that the groups finding evidence of a link are looking for one and also have a conflict of interest. Data can be twisted easily to show whatever someone wants it to show, it is working on both sides here in this case.
This is a litigious society and yes people will sue and only the lawyers will benefit. My son has made jumps when new supplements were started and I believe that they have been a part of it. Whether you believe it or not does not mean a thing to me and like I said I would do it all over again. I'd give up the vacations, take out a home equity loan and do it all over.
It is funny to me to read the hatred you guys have for people who have differing opinions. Open your mind, listen to other opinions and if you disagree at least do it respectfully.
Posted by: Steve | January 23, 2007 10:30 PM
Andrew Dodds,
You asked: One question. When you say that your son regress after a vaccination - did you make the link before or after you heard about thimersol?
I made the link before. He received the flu shot in October and we immediately began receiving reports from preschool of him no longer following directions, puling away from other kids and frequent hitting which had never been the case. I had never heard of thimerasol until April of the following year after he received his official ASD label. It was then that I began looking into this.
I care about my kid, I am not on a crusade against anyone. I just want my kid to keep improving and go on to lead a happy life with many friends and good health. You should all wish the same for every kid with or without autism.
Posted by: Steve | January 23, 2007 10:37 PM
Steve, This isn't hatred. It's frustration. The epidemiology is against linking autism to vaccines or thiomersal. Now that thiomersal has been out of childhood vaccines in California for several years, if you were right, autism rates would be dropping. They aren't. It's most likely genetic, with the events leading to a different brain structure occuring during early pregnancy. The correlation with the flu shot is coincidence.
If you want to help your son, don't chelate him anymore. Chelation can be very dangerous, especially to small children.
Posted by: Robster | January 23, 2007 11:50 PM
"The science that you choose to follow is done by groups with a conflict of interest; I'll admit as well that the groups finding evidence of a link are looking for one and also have a conflict of interest."
I went to anonimouse's post and cannot find the references that you deem suspect. This conflict of interest point is largely convenient nonsense: who should be advising pharma if not the best minds in science? Who cares if some scientist leaves a government post and takes up a position in industry? Should s/he be selling shoes instead so that people will feel better about vaccines? Come on, when does this paranoia stop?
"Data can be twisted easily to show whatever someone wants it to show, it is working on both sides here in this case."
It's not a problem if one understands the data to begin with. Tragically, the average citizen is chronically ignorant about statistics and basic science (pun unintended but enjoyed).
"I said I would do it all over again. I'd give up the vacations, take out a home equity loan and do it all over."
Good god, man. Hyperbole or what kind of stuff costs that kind of money? Sounds like they cleaned you out.
Posted by: Bartholomew Cubbins | January 24, 2007 12:12 AM
Steve: Forgive the commenters here who sound angry - its mostly a result of "whack-a-mole" fatigue, arguing the same points over and over, it can make one snarky after a while, especially when dealing with the anti-vaxxer trolls we get here. It can make the climate a little intimidating to those who come in good faith.
I'd advise you look back at some of the many posts Orac has made on this topic. The evidence is now clear that thimerosal does not affect ASDs. Any apparent effect is coincidence due to symtoms normally first appearing when MMR is first given. Its an easy mistake to make when you don't have the data.
And I stongly urge you to stop chelating your child - it can be deadly, and has been in the past.
Posted by: James | January 24, 2007 12:14 AM
Steve Said: "In regards to the science, I believe that one day it will come out that some children are genetically susceptible to the effects of thimerasol and other toxins much like some people are genetically susceptible to getting cancer. In my son's case all of the potential markers are there."
Steve, we've been hearing this "one day soon the truth will be known" thing for many, many years. When do you think this genetic susceptibility will be exposed?
The whole idea that some kids are poor excretors, accumulate more mercury, which in turn causes them to be autistic, is complete nonsense. If you've bought into this idea you've been listening to the wrong people. People who are tied to the chelation and alternative medicine industry.*
Do'C wrote an excellent review of this hypothesis if you are interested. http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=103
So what are all of these 'potential markers' you speak of?
** I am not anti-chelation, my brother in-law's aunt worked for an herb shop for 52 years retiring as assistant manager with one of the largest vitamin firms in the world.
Posted by: notmercury | January 24, 2007 8:11 AM
Obviously the data is not as one sided as you believe, if it was there would not be a debate it would be fact. Such as the sun is out in the day or the earth is round. And these posts just serves as a reminder of how it is a contentious debate. Notice the mocking of me in the last post because I disagree with you. That is a typical response of a very closed minded person.
I don't chelate. I do electro shock and it is working for me and my son. I bought a unit on ebay and have been using it for the past few weeks with much success. Come on over, I'll hook you up you mocking little person.
I tried to be respectful but it just can't happen here, you schmucks had to take your shots not knowing me but just because you don't agree with me. I tried to read the other side to educate myself on it and discuss the issue but certain little people could not be civil so I go better things to do than this, like shock my kid to better health...
Posted by: Steve | January 24, 2007 12:54 PM
Oh, one last thing. Instead of spending all your time mocking and shouting down those who disagree with you in your little holier than thou attitude why don't you go do something to help fight autism on behalf of your beliefs. Volunteer in an autism classroom, raise money towards research, go do something.
I do my part, I have raised over $18,000 running marathons for an autism research organization. I raise money for a cancer research center that saved my father's life 25 years ago.
So just go do something useful...
PS: I had fun poking a stick into the a-holes, sorry I mean bees nest
Posted by: Steve | January 24, 2007 1:44 PM
OK Steve,
I apologize for mocking, it's uncalled for and unproductive.
I don't blame you for feeling the way you do or for saying some of the things you've said but you've made a lot of assumptions about people you don't know in your very first comment.
For the record, I haven't walked a day in your shoes but I've walked many years in the shoes of a parent of an autistic child (or two) and I live with autism every day. That doesn't make me an expert on the subject, nor does it make me any more or less qualified to evaluate the science, or lack of.
I don't mind that you call me 'closed minded' but I hope you will try to always keep an open mind as you read what other parents and professionals have to say on the subject. The majority of parents don't believe thimerosal has anything to do with autism but don't let that sway your opinion. Just try to find sources of information beyond the autism = mercury parents and doctors and learn all you can.
Good luck
Posted by: notmercury | January 24, 2007 1:46 PM
In regards to the science, I believe that one day it will come out that some children are genetically susceptible to the effects of thimerasol and other toxins much like some people are genetically susceptible to getting cancer. In my son's case all of the potential markers are there. I just think this theory should be looked into and parents alerted to potential genetic impacts before their children are vaccinated. The science that you choose to follow is done by groups with a conflict of interest; I'll admit as well that the groups finding evidence of a link are looking for one and also have a conflict of interest. Data can be twisted easily to show whatever someone wants it to show, it is working on both sides here in this case.
Your belief that children are genetically suspectible to thimerosal is not the same as it being proven - or even suggested - by science. That is my great objection.
I'm sorry if I come off abrupt, but I've seen too much of this before and my tolerance level for it is limited. When people insist that vaccines caused "x" without a shred of credible evidence, all it does is undermine confidence in public health and reduce immunization uptake. That puts a LOT of people at risk, and it's really irresponsible to make these kinds of statements without some kind of solid, tangible proof. Sorry, but a story about your kid's progress with biomedical interventions doesn't cut it.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 24, 2007 2:31 PM
Steve,
Good job. Don't allow the insanity here to bring you down :)
Posted by: Common Sense | January 24, 2007 3:05 PM
"Steve,
Good job. Don't allow the facts here to bring you down :)"
Fixed.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | January 24, 2007 3:57 PM
Good job. Don't allow the insanity here to bring you down :)
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 24, 2007 6:07 PM
Back for a minute.
Anonimouse wrote:
"Sorry, but a story about your kid's progress with biomedical interventions doesn't cut it."
See, this is ALL I care about- my son's progress. For me that story cuts it and matters. I don't judge any of you as parents for whatever you do for your kids, you shouldn't judge me either. My concern is my kid and my kid only and I do what I think is best, same as you. I treat my kid as I see fit and then raise money for research that will one day help other kids and parents not deal with this.
I urge you all, put your money where your mouth is. Donate money to an organization that will help fight autism. Not one to prove your side but one that is looking for answers. Whether it is vaccines or not is irrelevant now, do something to find answers not fight useless battles that can not produce a positive effect. I believe I do my part for the greater good, I urge you to do the same.
BTW way I apologize if I offended anyone with my opening walk in my shoes comments. Closed minded on my part, because I believe one thing I assumed all parents felt that way. My bad, sorry. Best of luck to all of you. Now I am finally out.
Posted by: Steve | January 25, 2007 9:54 AM
"Pot, meet kettle".
Kettle meet squeaky annoying mouse.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 25, 2007 11:22 AM
"Donate money to an organization that will help fight autism".
Steve, you must understand. Here, autism is to be celebrated and not fought.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 25, 2007 11:24 AM
Yes because all the evidence points to those attempting to 'cure' Autism have very fuzzy ideas about what Autism actually is.
Just about any answer to the question "What is Autism?" that begins with "Autism is a condition where the person..." is almost always likely to be inaccurate and without heed to actual Autism research.
Autism research is especially ignored among those who say the symptoms of Autism and Mercury poisoning are similiar. Mercury poisoning does not cause average test scores for progressive matrices tests to go *up* for one and simply never can do.
Now as an Autistic person, why should I support a cause that prefers I never existed?
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | January 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Now as an Autistic person, why should I support a cause that prefers I never existed?
I think that this is a gross misinterpretation of what is being said and investigated. For me it comes down to the question of whether or not "autism" is a misdiagnosis for the unexplained behaviors/illnesses of
SOME children who may have been adversely affected by vaccinations (or perhaps some other 'environmental trigger'). It is sad that the debate does tend to polarize people and causes undue sadness for many but it is an important question. After all, if in fact "we" are right and "you" are wrong, don't people have a right to be angry, sad, pissed off, etc?
Posted by: Common Sense | January 25, 2007 12:08 PM
Steve,
If you are going to continue to make assumptions about people you know nothing about, you may want to join the Evidence of Harm or Mercury-Autism groups where you'll be in better company. "Common Sense" Sue here can send you an invite.
Posted by: notmercury | January 25, 2007 12:11 PM
Steve, If you are going to continue to make assumptions about people you know nothing about...
The irony in this statement from you is priceless!
Posted by: Common Sense | January 25, 2007 12:41 PM
Commutator Sense,
Irony isn't priceless, in fact it's quite cheap. Ask any Steel Magnate to take you for a spin on the ferrous wheel. You'll find the trip easy to navigate and the destination attractive to your circular reasoning.
Posted by: Lode Stone | January 25, 2007 2:05 PM
Common Sense,
You have the right to go away and come back when you contribute something useful to the discourse. Please exercise said right.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 25, 2007 2:35 PM
You have the right to go away and come back when you contribute something useful to the discourse. Please exercise said right.
Mousey pants you have that same right. The only things that I hear from you are "you're stupid", "you're dumb" ... to ANYONE who disagrees with you. Where does that get you?
Posted by: Common Sense | January 25, 2007 4:24 PM
Now as an Autistic person, why should I support a cause that prefers I never existed?
Wow, I agree with Common Sense on this one too. I never said YOU should not exist nor did I say fight autistic people or people with autism. I am sure you are a wonderful person (gee another assumption on my part) but I believe my son is limited by autism and his full potential is not going to be able to be reached until I can get his social and comunication skills to a point where he is better able to function in the world and is no longer considered autistic.
If you want to celebrate it good for you. Yippeeee. Me, I want it the hell out of my and my son's life.
I could go away too, but what fun would that be. You started the mocking when I tried to have a discussion so now I am just poking the stick....
Posted by: Steve | January 25, 2007 4:26 PM
Common Sense/Sue, you've said something that has taken me by suprise. I have spoken to people who are of the position that only *some* cases of Autism are misdiagnoses for Mercury poisoning, but most I encounter publicly state *all* Autism is Mercury poisoning.
I find it hard to seperate these two similiar yet distinct groups because each refuses to mutually distance themselves from each other.
Are you saying that you do not share the view of those like John Best, JB Handley and David Kirby: that *all* Autism is misdiagnosed Mercury poisoning and not merely *some*?
For John Best and a handful of others like JB Handley of Generation Rescue this is obvious: they openly criticise other parents for 'neglecting' their children by not chelating them. They openly claim that all cases of Autism are misdiagnosed Mercury poisoning. They do not use vague terms when making those specific claims.
David Kirby makes the claim that all Autistics are Mercury poisoned because to my knowledge he has never even vaguely argued that his version of the theory applies to some cases only and does not apparently consider that if only some cases are misdiagnoses, then all epidemiological data means nothing because it's a small and select population affected only. That is the arguement made by Wakefield for his MMR theory: epidemiology can't detect vaccine-caused-Autism because it's only a subset of children vulnerable to it.
If this is the case and you really are of the belief that it's only *some* cases of Autism that are really Mercury poisoning, then would you not agree that many of the public statements made by those individuals and organisations claiming there is an 'epidemic' and using disparaging, insensitive and downright perjorative langauge about *all* Autistic people is morally wrong? Do you distance yourself from those expressed views and the people and organisations that promote them?
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | January 25, 2007 4:59 PM
Steve, please pay more careful attention to my posts. I don't mock anyone on a whim and usually not without a standing point soon following. My one personal and superficial post here was my first and it was directed at Common Sense/Sue.
My later comment regarding generally those who are of the 'cure Autism' mindset not understand exactly what Autism is, is a position which has solid foundation. People are only qualified to speak about what they know about, they don't have to be experts: most speak about things that are not experts in but they still ensure their grasp of the matter is reasonable. Most parents I disagree with over Autism accuse me of talking about something I know nothing about whilst they themselves never stop making assumptions about me, both deliberately and unwittingly. They typically are not able to explain non-emotively why I am disqualified and unable to answer my very careful arguements for why they have crossed the same line they've drawn, intended to restrict me.
You know more about your son than I do, it can't possibly be any other way as I've never met him and you're his parent. Being a parent qualifies you to talk about your son as you've experienced him. You are *not* qualified to talk about Autism, as cold as that may sound, unless you keep a reasonable amount of knowledge about Autism research and what is learned in such research. You say to the effect that you know you have no qualification to talk about a first-person experience of being Autistic, a qualification you can only have if you are Autistic, but this was then contradicted by the statement:
"I believe my son is limited by autism and his full potential is not going to be able to be reached until I can get his social and comunication skills to a point where he is better able to function in the world and is no longer considered autistic."
This does not sound like a view expressed by your son, but by you. It is a statement which requires you to be Autistic and/or to be reasonably informed on Autism research; you are not qualified to give a first-person view of Autism nor make a claim about Autism itself. When you make any kind of claim about Autism, even when you try to contain it with a 'special pleading' arguement like you are only speaking about your son, you are still making a claim about Autism and if you were in a position of influence that would have an effect on all Autistic people. And even though you are proberly not in a position of influence, emotive statements like these made by parents are continously used by people of influence to justify their official public postions about Autism and affect some policy or another.
I've always felt nautious by the name of Cure Autism Now! For the most part, they have no idea what their own name even means because they wholly ignore vast and accessible research about what the difference is between a non-Autistic and an Autistic. To this very date, there has never been a successful study that has correctly identified an intrinsic 'Autistic deficit' even while so many claim Autism is nothing but many deficits.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | January 25, 2007 5:24 PM
Oh please, Sue. Do not provide lectures on good manners when it comes to blog commenting.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 25, 2007 5:27 PM
Lucas,
You were never mocking, it was others on the list.
My son is 5 and can not express himself so I am his voice. Those are my beliefs, mine only and the path that I have chosen to take with him- supplements, diet, limited chelation(No DMSA, DMPS or EDTA) is working. He has made huge strides that are not typical in development. That is the only science I need.
Posted by: Steve | January 25, 2007 8:23 PM
Are you saying that you do not share the view of those like John Best, JB Handley and David Kirby: that *all* Autism is misdiagnosed Mercury poisoning and not merely *some*?
First of all, I have NEVER stated that ALL cases of autism are mercury poisoning. If you think that I have then find me the quote (you won't find one). I can't speak for anyone else. If that takes me by surprise then you have not been reading what I write ...
Any takers to this question:
"After all, if in fact "we" are right and "you" are wrong, don't people have a right to be angry, sad, pissed off, etc"?
Posted by: Common Sense | January 25, 2007 8:32 PM
I was sent this link from a listserv and WOW. Someone wrote about this debate causing a drop in the confidence of public health. The public health system is the one forcing a known neurotoxin into the bodies of young children. My dear son included. This belief in the government is absurd. Have you ever seen a government program that has been run really well top to bottom with no corruption or politics in play? There isn't one.
So the government running a program to vaccinate, poison, young kids scares the hell out of me. I just wish I knew this before it was too late for my child. Then after it turns out to cause significant health problems you believe the studies these people put out. Of course these studies refute a link, why would the CDC admit their own gross negligence and the poisoning of millions of children.
And the docs with their overuse of antibiotics, don't get me started. It took me over a year just to simply get my child's GI system back in working order. Or is that just a conspiracy theory as well?
Posted by: John David | January 25, 2007 10:39 PM
John David, you're paranoid.
1. The government isn't some monolith. There are actual human beings involved with conflicting motives.
2. You've already rendered yourself immune to falsification. It's the same thing as one nut who said, "Show me a man who's says he's not interested in Madonna, and I'll show you a liar!" Also, you do realize that there are *gasp* other countries out there *not* controlled by the US, right?
3. I'm not aware of the CDC ever saying any such thing. If you're referring to the removal of thimerosal, they did it to try to relieve your irrational paranoia. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
4. What's the point behind this absurd poisoning conspiracy? There's far safer and reliable ways to make money than through something as low-profit as vaccines. Like quackery that's never required to prove anything.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 25, 2007 11:55 PM
My distrust of the Gov is not paranoia or that they are an evil conspiracy, it is in their incompetence. The only reason they removed it is because of the pressure people who feel it is dangerous put on them. Then they got into a game of Cover Your Ass. Not evil conspiracies, just covering their asses for their own stupidity.
And anyone who thinks that politics is not driven by money and lobbying is an idiot. I work in DC with the Gov and have lobbyist friends. People don't pay $20,000 to a campaign without getting something back, does the name Jack Abramoff ring a bell. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt as hell and are bought out. Not a conspiracy theory a fact. Politicians, in most cases, do what gets them elected not what is the best.
I don't believe in the X Files, just the government's incompetence and the ability of a major money flow being able to gain influence in the political process. If we want to compare lobbying efforts I would say Pharma has a little, just a touch, more money than the Alternative Health/Medicine lobby.
Anectdotal evidence or not, if mercury is not an issue than why do children make improvements when treated with biomed and chelation?
Posted by: John David | January 26, 2007 4:26 PM
Sue, I never even implied that you actually did say all cases were Mercury poisoning. If I believed that then I would not have bothered seeking clarification on the matter which was the point of that post.
But whilst you have correctly stated that you have never said this, you did not reject it outright at all or distance yourself from those who do believe it's the case. Saying that you never said it is not the same as saying you don't believe it.
I don't believe in werewolves, but I can't recall a time where I have ever told anyone. Contrast this with my positive belief in the existence of life in some form of extra-terrestrial, which I have also never previously said either. Both of these are examples of views that I have never openly expressed, one with the quality of affirmative disbelief and another with the quality of affirmative belief, so non-expression of the affirmative disbelief is no more confirmation of that as my position as non-expression of the affirmative belief.
I don't know what your position is and saying that you never said all Autism is Mercury poisoning doesn't inform me any better. I can only make an assumption based on what you said but it has a wide berth in which it could possibly be wrong.
Steve, there has so far never been any study showing that Autistics can not express themselves. The science that you say is adequate for you is not science: science is not a personal medium.
If you think your son can't express himself, why can't he express himself? If those methods you are using are 'working', then why are they 'working'? What exactly was wrong in the first place that these methods 'work' on?
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | January 26, 2007 7:07 PM
John David said "Anectdotal evidence or not, if mercury is not an issue than why do children make improvements when treated with biomed and chelation?"
Can you please point out the documentation to the studies showing that this actually happens? Because if all we have are random anecdotes, then we don't know that ANY child has improved with biomed or chelation.
Though we do have definite proof that Roy Kerry, MD (and presently a DAN! doctor, http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari-lists/us/Roy_Kerry,_M.D..html ) has effectively killed a child with chelation.
Posted by: HCN | January 26, 2007 7:56 PM
Lucas,
He can't properly express himself because he is 5 years old... When we started at 3 he was barely verbal and just screeched. Now he is able to express himself in wants and needs. I want some water, I am hungry etc. That is what we worked on. To go from signs and screeched to talking.
Sorry but a 5 year old is not able to express his feelings about being autistic.
Posted by: Steve | January 26, 2007 8:26 PM
HCN,
Yes and other dotors have left surgical instruments inside a patient that later died. Should no one ever receive surgery again. This doctor went beyond the bounds of the typical DAN! program. There are good docs and bad docs in all medicine DAN! or not.
My answer is if you don't like it don't do it. But shut the hell up and let other parents take care of their children as they see fit. I have chelated and my son is fine. I would never do IV chelation as Kerry did.
If I see, as I have seen with DAN! vast improvements with my child then I don't need science or a study to back me up. That is all I need. You wait on science, I'll "cure" my son.
Posted by: john David | January 26, 2007 8:33 PM
John David said "This doctor went beyond the bounds of the typical DAN! program."
Ummmm... he was not a DAN! doctor when he murdered young Tariq. He qualified AFTER he killed the kid, when he took a class (perhaps sharing the stuff he learned after having to call 911).
Your point, again?
Posted by: HCN | January 27, 2007 1:07 AM
I forgot to add: During the 8 hour intensive training to become a DAN! after he killed a kid, Roy Kerry may have shared how to deal with lawyers.
Posted by: HCN | January 27, 2007 1:35 AM
As I said in every field of medicine there are good and bad doctors and it is the patients, or parents in the case of children, to choose a doctor that is appropriate and qualified to treat them.
Personal responsibility on the parents part can not be taken away in this or any medical case. Ultimately the parents need to be responsible to approve any care and they are responsible to make sure it is safe.
This is ONE case, yes it is sad and unfortunate, in thousands and thousands of children in the DAN! protocol.
Most parents I know that see DAN! docs are some of the most researched and smartest parents out there. They don't agree with you and in my world that is a good thing. They choose to do something to help their children and in a great deal of cases it is working.