Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) 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 
Now here's something you don't see every day. Nature Neuroscience has weighed in about the pseudoscience that claims that mercury causes autism. Based on British experience with animal rights activists, it points out a parallel that I hadn't considered before:
The idea that autism is caused by vaccination is influencing public policy, even though rigorous studies do not support this hypothesis. Legislators are right to take into account the concerns of parent groups and others directly affected by autism, but policy decisions should be based on hard evidence rather than anxiety. More worryingly, some proponents have adopted tactics reminiscent of certain animal rights groups, which are aimed at shutting down the views of opponents.The hypothesis is based on the observation that the number of autism cases increased in the 1980s, coinciding with a push for greater childhood vaccinations, which increased above recommended levels children's exposure to mercury in the vaccine preservative thimerosal. However, autism diagnosis continued to rise even after thimerosal was removed from US childhood vaccines in 2001. A review by the Institute of Medicine (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10997.html) of over 200 studies concluded that that there was no causal link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Autism is no more common among vaccinated than unvaccinated children, and its incidence has not covaried with the presence of thimerosal in vaccines across different times and locations.
Indeed. I first discovered the antivaccination lunacy that is fueled by the scientifically untenable hypothesis that the mercury in thimerosal in childhood vaccines is a major cause of autism back in 2005. You may recall that around then the mercury militia (as I and others like to call antimercury warriors like Mark and David Geier who don't let lack of evidence or research ethics stop them from pursuing their bête noire, even if they have to force the evidence to show what they want it to. Sadly, dupes like Robert F. Kennedy (for whom I've totally lost all respect) fall for this, hook, line, and sinker, as do credulous reporters like Dan Olmsted (who's busy parroting canards about how the Amish "don't get autism" and how alternative medical practitioners in Chicago who don't vaccinate claim on the basis of zero objective evidence that unvaccinated children don't get autism), and, of course, David Kirby, the less said about whom, given his guzzling of the Kool Aid in his book Evidence of Harm was a major force for popularizing the "thimerosal causes autism" pseudoscience, the better.
The question of whether pseudoscientific doctors like Dr. Mark Geier feed the belief in parents of autistic children that vaccines caused their children's autism or whether the belief that has spread among these parents, desperate to find a cause for their children's condition, has attracted such pseudoscientists, some of whom see money to be made serving as "expert witnesses" in litigation alleging "vaccine injury" is very much a "chicken-or-the-egg" sort of a question. However, there is no doubt that they feed upon each other. Similarly there's no doubt that a not insignificant number of parents have become so convinced that mercury in vaccines cause their child's autism, despite all the epidemiological and scientific evidence that has failed to find a link between mercury and autism, that it seems that nothing will convince them otherwise. Indeed, the belief that mercury causes autism has led parents to fall for outright quackery like chelation therapy to "remove" the nonexistent mercury, plus a cottage industry of laboratories that exist to provide "evidence" that their autistic children have elevated mercury, even though it is a procedure that can result in death. On the far toxic end of the spectrum is someone like John Best (a.k.a. "Fore Sam"), who has been a frequent commenter on this blog and whose utterly irrational and toxic diatribes represent the looniest of the loons. Best is so far off the deep end that he's beyond reach. The sort of rhetoric that emanates from the mercury militia movement tends to lead to absolutism:
These findings have not dissuaded supporters of the mercury-autism link, whose strategies have become more extreme as the evidence against the hypothesis mounts. People who oppose the idea have been harassed with repeated calls, whether they have written a letter to their local paper (http://tinyurl.com/3dba3c) or an editorial for The Wall Street Journal (http://tinyurl.com/2obgfg). The harassment includes parents of autistic children who do not align themselves with the anti-vaccine movement. Kevin Leitch reports, "I have personally been told that because I am not chelating my daughter, I am a child abuser. That I am a murderer. I have had threats of violence made against me, and a few people have even sent personal hate mail to my seven-year-old autistic daughter."
Yes, it's that Kevin Leitch who was interviewed for the Nature Neuroscience editorial, and he's commented further, stating that it's not just him who has been subjected to harassment for speaking out against the mercury concept:
I know of four scientists whom I have exchanged emails with who have been targeted by this same extreme group and who had:
- Threats of property damage made against their homes and property.
- Threats of physical violence made against them.
- Been the victims of concerted email and telephone harassment campaigns to the point where security services have had to get involved.
- Had their associations with entities that merely sound like Pharma organisations misrepresented.
- Been accused, on no basis at all, of fraud.
These scientists are staggered that merely performing accurate science has led them to having to (in three cases I know of) inform Campus Police of the places they work at of their movements in order to remain safe.
I've also spoken with several paediatricians and doctors in general practice who report belligerence and fury when the doctor tells the parent in question that the 'test' the parent has had performed by Doctors Data or some quack lab - at no small cost - is worthless and means nothing. One GP told me xe felt intimidated to the point of pressing the panic button under the desk.
The Nature Neuroscience editorial likens such behavior to that of animal rights extremists. I'm not sure how apt a comparison that is, although I can see signs of incipient tactics similar to animal rights loons. Indeed, Autism Diva points out similar incidents and rhetoric. It's easy for me to forget that radical animal rights extremists are much more of a problem in the U.K. than they are in the U.S. Thus far, in the U.S., they are an occasional and mostly minor nuisance, although they have recently indulged in intimidation and threatened violence. In contrast, in the U.K., animal rights terrorism is far more prevalent, to the point where scientists are much more afraid than they are in the U.S., as documented by Brian O'Connor in his now-defunct blog Animal Crackers. Fortunately, in both nations, the mercury militia has lived up to its name in rhetoric only.
However, there is one difference, I think, between animal rights activists and the mercury militia. In general, most scientists doing biomedical research now recognize the threat represented by animal rights extremists. Kevin and the editorial rightly point out that, for the most part, scientists studying autism are either unaware of the mercury militia or do not consider them a force to bother with. Several years ago, even though the hypothesis that mercury causes autism seemed unlikely, it was just plausible enough that it caused some concern. Over the last few years, multiple studies have been performed to try to find a link between mercury and autism, and none have succeeded. It is quite clear that mercury in vaccines is not a major cause of autism and that it probably has nothing to do with autism. It's marginally possible that mercury may have an influence in very uncommon susceptible individuals, but even that's unlikely, given that the size of the multiple epidemiological studies would probably have picked up any such association. In the unlikely event that such an association does exist, it is clearly extremely weak indeed.
I've been fortunate in that, although I've been "outed" on the Evidence of Harm e-mail list, I've had little in the way of harassment from mercury militia devotees. I rather suspect that, because I am not autistic myself or a parent of an autistic child, parents who do have autistic children and have bought into the mercury militia line for the most part dismiss me as irrelevant, although why they do not do the same with David Kirby, who is also neither autistic himself nor the parent of an autistic child , I have yet to figure out. They also accuse me of "not understanding," which to some extent is true; I have no personal experience of the day-to-day struggles of raising an autistic child, although contacts like Kev have opened my eyes as much as they can be opened not being in his shoes. However, I do know science and epidemiology. I do know that the science has shown that mercury, whatever else it might do, does not cause autism. I do know that subjecting autistic children to chelation therapy at best will do them no good and at worst might kill them. Such dubious treatments are the outgrowth of the whole "mercury causes autism" concept.
In any case, the first harassment I suffered, before I got into the mercury debate, came from the likes of William O'Neill of the Canadian Cancer Research Group. Indeed, Mr. O'Neill holds the "honor" (such as it is) of being the only person ever to e-mail vacuous legal threats to my Division Chief, Department Chair, and Cancer Center director beginning almost exactly two years ago. Indeed, that is how they all found out about the existence of my blog. Fortunately, none considered my online antics a problem as long as it was done on my own time. I also never write directly about where I work, only about academic medicine and surgery in general, which probably helped. Amusingly, my department chair was particularly contemptuous of Mr. O'Neill and his antics. Since then, any time I've gotten such idiotic threats, I've made it a point to forward them to my Department Chair, who seems bemused by my hobby, and my Division Chief, among others. It's been several months since the last one. I have little doubt that, sooner or later, Mr. O'Neill will find this post and reactivate his campaign. He does seem to obsessively Google himself and links to Peter Bowditch's webpage. At least that's the only way I can imagine that he finds out about mentions of him so rapidly.
Following in Mr. O'Neill's footsteps in the fall of 2005 was a member of the aforementioned Evidence of Harm mailing list, who obviously must have spent a lot of time Googling through Usenet posts from the late 1990's, which at the time was the only place online where it was possible to connect my 'nym with my real name. Equally odd, she made a claim that I was into seriously nasty racism because she found posts by me on alt.revisionism and various white nationalist newsgroups. Apparently this woman was too stupid or too drunk with hate to note that the reason I posted on such newsgroups was because of my interest in combating Holocaust denial, and the content of my posts was entirely critical and devoted to the rebutting of Holocaust denier lies. Following in this woman's footsteps was one of the Big Kahunas or the mercury militia himself, J.B. Handley, who decided to cybersquat on my previous blog's name. More recently, an HIV denialist named Casey Cohen (which, I suspect, is also a pseudonym) did the same thing and challenged me to a "debate" with Christine Maggiore, the HIV-positive mother and HIV denialist who refused to take AZT during pregnancy and the death of whose child from AIDS she and other denialists attribute to bizarre and improbable things like reactions to amoxicillin or to unlikely viral infections. Finally, "intelligent design" creationist crank, global warming denialist, and supporter of self-experimentation with non-FDA-approved cancer treatments DaveScot (also a pseudonym; his real name is David Springer) did the same thing, while our old buddy John Best is over at his own blog trying to out people left and right with whom he doesn't agree.
Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that at least one true mark of a crank, particularly medical cranks but certainly not limited to them, is that they are obsessed with who the opposition is. Pseudonyms drive them crazy. When they find someone posting material refuting their pseudoscience to Usenet, discussion boards, or a blog under a pseudonym something that criticizes their views, their first reaction is to try to unmask that person, not to refute their criticism. Because their position is so tenuous and because there is no legitimate scientific rationale for it, their only fallback it to attack the person, which is why they obsess on who I am and to find any way they think they can embarrass me or even (at least in their minds) threaten my career. On the other hand, I'm fairly fortunate. I'm not worried about my life (at least not from the mercury militia). At the worst, if I happened to work at an institution less tolerant and for a boss who didn't want to be bothered even once every several months (the usual rate of Mr. O'Neill's appearances), I could be in trouble from these people--although my ability to obtain outside funding for my laboratory certainly goes a long way to immunize me from such problems for now. If I were not fortunate (and sufficiently talented enough as a scientist) such things might be more of a concern to me.
Given that background, I tend to agree with Kevin:
For the scientists still trying to do studies that touch on the autism/vaccine hypothesis, the issue hasn't gone away. For the millions of autism parents around the world who find themselves having to compete for funding with a set of threatening bullies the issue hasn't gone away. For GP's and nurses who have to listen to the threats and screaming fits the issue hasn't gone away.The only way to defeat a bully is to stand up to him. I plead with the larger scientific community to come back to the fray where we can be united and face down these enemies of science and autism.
Indeed. I'm only starting to realize this, which is one reason that for a few months now I've been toying with the idea of losing the 'nym. On the other hand, I've become quite attached to it. I don't know what I'll ultimately decide to do. Orac is my alter-ego; getting rid of him would be almost like killing off an old (albeit cantankerous) friend, and it would almost seem like an admission of defeat if I had to do it.
Medicine & Health
Comments
"but policy decisions should be based on hard evidence rather than anxiety."
I don't know what world he's living in, but in this one policy decisions seem to all be made based on anxiety, with almost no concern for evidence. It's a sad state of affairs.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 30, 2007 10:36 AM
The mercury militia and the EoH cult is really damaging the ASD field. Wasting resources on failed ideas simply delays when the real cause(s) can be found. The only reason I have become knowledgable about the failed "mercury caues autism" idea
was to refute it, so there would be the intellectual space for ideas which may lead to the actual cause, ASDs and low NO.
Some have expressed concern that my nitric oxide research is "just another biomedical treatment". My perception is completely different, and I am in the process of discussing the differences on my blog.
Posted by: daedalus2u | April 30, 2007 12:11 PM
I had no idea the depths that the anti-vaxers were going to. I figured there was a lot on on internet back and forth and name calling but had no idea these slimeballs had actually contacted your employer / boss. Very telling. What high standards they hold themselves up to.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 30, 2007 12:21 PM
It's odd - in the UK the supposed autism/vaccination link has nothing to do with mercury but instead is tied to the joint measles/mumps/rubella vaccination that all children are given (or were, until parents started freaking out) in infancy. The only "evidence" for the connection is that autistic children start to be diagnosed at around the same time that children in general are vaccinated. You'd think these people would get their stories straight.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 30, 2007 12:36 PM
I have no personal experience of the day-to-day struggles of raising an autistic child
But I do. My son was tentatively diagnosed as autistic in 2003, and I briefly looked into mercury and gluten/casein sensitivity as reported possible contributors to autism. I went ahead and immunized him as scheduled. You see, I actually read some of the studies, and I was convinced that a link between autism and mercury was tenuous at best. As a parent of two "neurotypical" children and one with many autistic features, but without the benefit of improving as time passes, I can say that the risks of not immunizing your children are far greater to to make sure they are protected against some of the most vicious child-killers out there.
Posted by: makita | April 30, 2007 1:01 PM
...Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that at least one true mark of a crank, particularly medical cranks but certainly not limited to them, is that they are obsessed with who the opposition is. Pseudonyms drive them crazy. ...
Indeed, one of the first things Best did on my blog was to challenge me to reveal my true name. You hit it right on the head.
Posted by: Club 166 | April 30, 2007 1:24 PM
I ran into a couple nasty physics-and-math trolls on Wikipedia. (No subject is sufficiently obscure to be immune to trolling.) As it happens, WP is my only Internet haunt where I don't use my real name — no particular reason, I just started with a real-life nickname which not many people actually used and kept going with it until it became a habit. I wasn't the prime target of the troll aggression, which is fortunate, since I'm not very suave about such things, but what I witnessed matches Orac's description to a jot and tittle.
There was an interesting twist: the trolls were themselves fanatically fetishistic about preserving their own anonymity. I'm sure that this was because they were trolling pages about their real-life selves, and so if their identities became common knowledge, they would have gotten an even harsher treatment than they did. Thanks to IP-address geolocation, their identities became an open secret, but they weren't mentioned in the eventual Arbitration Committee smackdown.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 30, 2007 1:36 PM
I'd like to join Makita in "Parents of AS kids who don't think immunization is the problem" camp. Even if I thought there was a connection, I still would have vaccinated my second child like I did. I take it very personally when I see parents who are in a tough situation be hoodwinked into wasting time and energy instead of directing it where it could actually be helpful.
Posted by: Son of Slam | April 30, 2007 1:47 PM
Thank you Orac. Being called "off the deep end" by you is a nice compliment.
Sometimes I'm absolutely certain that a 90 to 1 horse will win a race. I back up my certainty with cash. I'm not always right but the 90 to 1 odds more than make up for the times I'm wrong.
Jock Doubleday is absolutely certain that mercury causes autism and he has backed up his claim with cash. I think you should challenge that "absolutism" and arrange a public, media covered event to accept his challenge.
If you accept, perhaps some bookie in England will give odds on whether or not the mercury will damage your brain. You don't have to guess where my money's going if that happens since I've already proved beyond any doubt that mercury caused my son's autism by removing some of that mercury from his brain. I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that my son is doing much better. Your misinformation can't hurt my kid because I know the truth.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 2:18 PM
Orac, if you go to any Yahoo Group on Autism, there will be people posting research studies "linking" autism to mercury or vaccines, almost on a daily basis. Of course most of it is pseudoscience, or real studies that do not find a link, but the average parent cannot tell the difference, and most of them will not read past the title, or will be satisfied enough with the interpretation of other mercury parents about the study in question. So, in the mind of those parents, there IS scientific evidence - one example of this was when mercury mom Katie Wright protested during the Oprah show when a doctor said the link between vaccines and autism was unsupported by science. The audience applauded Katie, who went on to say infants are receiving too many vaccines.
But I just think we should be cautious before declaring there is absolutely no link between autism and vaccines, because there are still some serious researchers trying to find out if there is at least a subgroup of autistic children that may have been affected due to an atypical immune response. In my son's case, I think he was born autistic; if there was an environmental insult to us during my pregnancy, I have no idea of what it was, but the thing I'm sure about is that his vaccines were all thimerosal-free, and he was autistic before he got his MMR and his first flu shot. But I still respect the opinion of some mothers I know that actually saw their children have a strong adverse reaction to the MMR and immediately lost language and developed autism symptoms. Autism is primarily genetic but there is an environmental component and we don't know at this point what chemicals are playing a role.
Posted by: Another Autism Mom | April 30, 2007 2:37 PM
I can believe that "animal rights" people are more active in Britain; but they are a major concern here. I once visited a research lab for a major pharm company. After lunch, I noticed that there were a lot of armed guards at the gate, and they didn't just glance at our passes- they studied each one before letting us in.
I asked why they have such security when they were only doing research, and did not have stockpiles of scheduled drugs. Their concern was not theft, it was PETA (and I'm not talking about People Eating Tasty Animals).
Posted by: Joe | April 30, 2007 2:47 PM
John Best backs up his certainty with cash. Shame he can't back it up with actual evidence, which is should be even easier were it so certain.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | April 30, 2007 3:04 PM
Thanks for blogging about this. You're right that in the UK we can see strong comparisons between the mercury lot and the animal rights brigade. Both have a frightening disregard for decency.
I live less than 10 miles from a place where animal rights protesters dug up the interred corpse of the mother of the owners of a place that bred animals for science and told them it wouldn't be returned until the place was closed. Every weekend our town centre has protesters who set up stall in the market square and collect signatures. The police suspect they're the same group. Nothing is done.
The mercury lot aren't there yet but one or two aren't far away. John for example, a man who compared my daughter to a 'trained monkey' and likes to make jokes about giving her bananas and who assumed her identity on an autism forum. Not too far away at all. A man who would be as big a coward as to attack a disabled child wouldn't stop at very much.
There needs to be a concerted action taken across the international science and autism communities to take a stand against these people. If not, they will not stop.
Posted by: Kev | April 30, 2007 3:07 PM
I agree with Kev. The activities of the autism=vaccines and autism=mecury proponents need to be vigorously countered when ever possible. One ideal route would be to convince journal editors to retract some of the more awful examples of bad and unethical science that purport to confirm the link.
So, for those of you scientists reading this. Please, please do your part to stop this madness. Go to pubmed and search for autism AND mercury. You'll find some examples of papers by a father and son team that really deserve retraction. Read them for yourself, and consider contacting the journal editor responsible. Preventing pollution of the scientific literature is our collective responsibility.
Posted by: Broken Link | April 30, 2007 3:27 PM
"One GP told me xe felt intimidated to the point of pressing the panic button under the desk."
I wonder what happens then....
When I was a kid in school we used to have beakers of mercury in the chemistry lab. we used to like making nice little droplets on the bench with it and rolling them around with our fingers. We also used to take low denomination coins, dip them in acid then the mercury to make them look like higher denomination "silver" coins. and of course handle them a lot. Having lived through that (and I presume the rest of the class) I never did understand why a little mercury causes people to evacuate houses.
Posted by: sailor | April 30, 2007 3:28 PM
I couldn't help but notice that Orac okayed my comment but chose not to say anything about Doubleday's challenge. If I was so sure mercury didn't cause autism, I'd take the challenge.
Lucas, The scientists who have been demonized by the quackbusters already gave us plenty of proof. That's why we are curing our kids who are also proof. The scientists who gave us the best proof have endured the most attacks from the proprietor of Neurodiversity.com. Of course, that character assassination has nothing to do with the actual science.
Kevin, The fact that you train your daughter the way one would train a monkey instead of helping her brain to work right so she can think is a poor reflection on you, not your daughter.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 3:32 PM
Another autism mom, the immune system stimulation of a vaccination is small compared to the immune system stimulation that people get by living in the "wild", where every surface they touch, every scrap of food that they eat, every drop of water they drink, every piece of clothing that they wear is infested with bacteria, pathogens and parasites.
Most of the immune system problems of the developed world have to do with there not being enough for the immune system to work on.
Some conditions anecdotally associated with ASDs, such as Crohn's and IBD are improved by producing an infestation of gut parasites. Parasite infestation reduces Crohn's and IBD
How does the chronic immune system stimulation of malaria compare with an acute vaccination? I presume it is a number of orders of magnitude more severe.
Posted by: daedalus2u | April 30, 2007 3:41 PM
I couldn't help but notice that Orac okayed my comment but chose not to say anything about Doubleday's challenge.
Comments post right away, there's no approval process. It's more likely that Orac is working and hasn't checked back in yet. And why should he take part in your rigged "challenge"? Most likely it's a standard quack forum, where sound bites and emotional pleas win the day, rather than evidence.
The scientists who have been demonized by the quackbusters already gave us plenty of proof.
"Proof" that has been consistently discredited by the scientific community. Or that your scientists are ethically marred by being in bed with plaintiff's lawyers.
That's why we are curing our kids who are also proof.
Really? Have any evidence that your children are cured? Or that chelation/magic crystals/the Force had anything to do with it? Have you ever heard of the concept of "regression to the mean"?
Of course, that character assassination has nothing to do with the actual science.
You realize that this whole post is about character assassination from your side, right? Remember, it's your side who's preferred method of attack is the logical fallacy ad hominem.
Posted by: Cain | April 30, 2007 4:27 PM
John, have you even read Jock Doubleday's "challenge"? It is a fool's errand. It is a set-up. It is set-up so that no one can claim the prize. You have to pass a "test" of their woo, and if you don't , you forfit $5,000. They don't even tell you what "agreement B" is, but if you don't sign it you forfit $10,000? Why is there all that extraneous crap in there? It is in there so they can use it to renig on paying the claims.
Why does he require 5 tests of 20 questions each on Jock Doubleday's woo? I just realized, so he can use the bogus answers as "endorsements" of his woo by who ever is participating. Jock Doubleday will likely make a lot more than $75k off these bogus "endorsements" collected fraudulently (but which he has extracted a prior agreement to not sue over).
Posted by: daedalus2u | April 30, 2007 4:48 PM
Cain, My comments do not post right away. A box pops up to tell me they are being moderated.
There is no "rigged" challenge. It's a simple challenge asking doctors who make bogus claims to prove what they say. None have accepted.
Nothing has been discredited by the scientific community. It has only been questioned by those who stand to profit by their denial, drug company shills.
It is chelation that cured the children. The fact that you try to obfuscate this fact by tossing in "magic crystals/the force" to your argument proves that you have to clutch at straws by denigrating chelation. You can read about cured children at www.generationrescue.org
The truth is never character assassination. Ergo, it is impossible for me to assassinate anyone's character who denies that thimerosal caused the epidemic.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 4:53 PM
Oh, that Doubleday Challenge sounds like fun.
Which challenge was it where they always back out whenever anyone enthusiastically steps up to take a vaccine-equivalent injection of thimerosal, and then claim that no one's ever stepped up?
Then what's that hidden agreement B? And why the $5,000 dollar entry fee? Why charge at all? Is Doubleday's profits more important than demonstrating scientific truth that would change an entire industry? Why put in such dishonest stonewalling efforts?
Yes, let's conveniently forget all those studies, and let's accuse, without any evidence whatsoever, EVERYONE who disagrees with you of being a corporate shill, just like this one guy who claimed everyone who doesn't believe 9/11 was caused by an Orbital R9 Spacefighter Wave Cannon is a Bush shill. Or how everyone who believes in the Holocaust is a Zionist. Or how everyone who asks for evidence for Creationism is a baby-eating Communist Nazi eugenicist. Or how everyone who doubts Cubic Time is a brainwashed word violence... person.
Cynicism, thy name is John Best. Drop the persecution complex and try speaking in terms of evidence, and not painting everyone with a broad New World Order brush.
An assertion that you have thus far refused to prove with anything more convincing than "It worked for me!" homeopathic/acupuncture/Q-Ray/Thought-Screen-Helmet anecdotes. Why the double-standards?
Boy, are you unable to grasp simple points. They're exactly the same: No evidence except for sloppily collected anecdotes and attempts to obfuscate the fact that you're applying a double-standard by including inherently biased things like testimonials.
Newspeak word of the day: "Crimestop"
This presumes that you're speaking the truth, a question you never bother to consider. You've repeatedly displayed an utter contempt for answering the most basic questions I've asked. Woos are the most closed-minded things I've ever encountered.
For other readers, it's noteworthy this guy has repeatedly lied about my stances on the issue. Either that, or he's incredibly stupid to the point that he can't parse a sentence any better than the spambots who think my blog is about pets.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 30, 2007 5:43 PM
The ticket window is closed, the horse race is over, John. Your long-shot didn't pay off but, hey, it was worth a try.
John Best said: "Of course, that character assassination has nothing to do with the actual science."
Can you provide an example of this character assassination? (for that matter actual science?)
Posted by: notmercury | April 30, 2007 5:43 PM
Just checking in now, but damn, Bronze Dog responded better than I ever could. Thanks, BD!
However, I need to comment on one thing:
The truth is never character assassination. Ergo, it is impossible for me to assassinate anyone's character who denies that thimerosal caused the epidemic.
Somewhere, for reasons he can't yet explain, a logic professor is weeping. Just because you use the word "ergo" doesn't mean you've made a valid argument.
Posted by: Cain | April 30, 2007 5:57 PM
Oh. That's probably because Orac knows you're "special". Posts come up immediately for me.
Posted by: Cain | April 30, 2007 5:58 PM
I think the first layer of "defense" is the "evaluation" by "therapists" of Joke Doubleday's choosing.
"Evaluations to be made consecutively by three psychiatrists (the "Therapists") to be named by Coordinator and paid for by Participant, within 60 (sixty) days of Participant's signing of the Agreement. If, in any of the Evaluations, Participant is found to be clinically depressed, manic depressive, suicidal, or in any way psychologically unstable and/or of unsound mind, Participant becomes ineligible to participate in the Event and forfeits any claim to the Reward. Evaluations will not be sent to, or seen by, Participant but will be sent directly by Therapists to Coordinator, within 30 (thirty) days of the completion of the Evaluations, by certified mail, to a postal address to be named. Evaluations will be reviewed only by Coordinator and/or his legal representative(s). "
My guess is that they will be in cahoots with Joke Doubleday, and will find that anyone who would enter into such an agreement to be of "unsound mind".
For all we know, there have already been thousands of applications, all of which have been rejected because the applicants were deemed to be of "unsound mind" for even considering the "challenge" in the first place. Of course no one else gets to see or challenge the "evaluations".
Posted by: daedalus2u | April 30, 2007 6:27 PM
Definitely sounds like a big potential catch-22 there, daedalus.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 30, 2007 6:42 PM
I note that John Best censors comments on his blog. He is afraid of the truth.
Posted by: TheProbe | April 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Notmercury, One good example of character assassination is Kathleen Seidel claiming that using Lupron in pre-pubescent children is chemical castration. You can not alter a bodily function that does not yet exist.
Cain, The truth makes the argument valid. The fact that many parents have removed mercury and seen their children cured of autism is all the proof we need. Arguments claiming that autistic children improve with age is what is called medical fraud. Severely autistic children who do not have the mercury removed never improve. The medical profession has been telling parents that for decades. Now, because it serves their interest in denying the truth, some members of the scientific community are trying to use an argument against what they believed to be the truth because the truth will show that they played a role in causing the epidemic. Oh what a tangled web you are weaving for yourselves.
Bronze Dog, Your line of argument may work well in a grammar school.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 9:02 PM
I see. So physical castration, prior to puberty, isn't really castration by your logic.
You can do better than that, can't you? Show me an example of character assassination and remember, according to your own words, "The truth is never character assassination."
Posted by: notmercury | April 30, 2007 9:21 PM
Funny, that statement involves no character to assassinate. Have you been scribbling in the dictionary again?
Also, you actually believe that those hormones are just dead weight? Sorry, human bodies are analog, not all-or-nothing digital machines.
And thus you use your God-like omniscience as evidence that your evidence is free of the methodical flaws we point out that you have in common with all those far-woo crystal healers. Sorry. You can't banish inconvenient problems like that by fiat. Until you stop arguing like every single homeopath/chi balancer/other countless alties, you're just another one of them.
The hypocrisy is so thick I need a serrated knife to cut through it. The magical land of double-standards.
Then why are people like you the only people I hear saying things like that? Someone fetch me a zanbatou. The knife isn't cutting it anymore.
It's exactly like the idea that real medicine can't cure cancer. Only woos propagate that particular idea. Medical science always maintains hope for the horizon, and more often than you think, hope for the immediate future.
Yes, and all it took was conquering the world and installing mind control chips into every honest person. Must be one dark, depressing world you live in if everyone's in on 9/11, the Holocaust hoax, and all that stuff. They require just about the same level of world-ruling administrative work. You know, the world's weight in bribes and hitmen. After all, we have to do something about the doctors who actually joined the profession to help people. Not that there are any.
So, when are you going to bother talking about the evidence, rather than screaming at a bunch of homeopathic-style anecdotes? Until you tell me why you apply special treat to your anecdotes, but not others, I fail to see what makes you even the slightest bit different from all the other zany woos out there. Be an individual, not just another stereotype.
Well, no logical form of argument has ever worked on you, especially since you can't even grasp my position despite occasionally spelling it out in bold in a few threads.
When are you going to get to answering for your double-standards?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 30, 2007 9:44 PM
Notmercury, I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Physical castration is a permanent thing. Chemical castration is temporary but would only apply to one who had reached puberty.
Since you asked, here's one more example of character assassination." On the far toxic end of the spectrum is someone like John Best (a.k.a. "Fore Sam"), who has been a frequent commenter on this blog and whose utterly irrational and toxic diatribes represent the looniest of the loons. Best is so far off the deep end that he's beyond reach." You see NM, I've been demonized here because I never back down from the truth. It's not looney to state facts that might help other parents cure their children but one who can't disprove what I have to say has to resort to this type of attack. And, I realize that this is just business so I don't take it personally.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 10:06 PM
Bronze Dog, Will you change the names here and ask Prometheus to point out all of the errors in logic that you used? I just don't have time.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 10:09 PM
John,
You claim over and over that "That's why we are curing our kids who are also proof." John, the archives of the autism-mercury yahoo group are public. That's the group that follows the protocol that you favor. Please give us some examples from those thousands of parents who are supposed to have cured their kids. Come on, just give us the message number of the hundreds (or is it thousands) of posts where a parent says that their kid's diagnosis has been removed as a result of chelation. Come on, if it was that easy you'd have done it by now.
Oh, you can't? Oh well. No surprise there.
Posted by: Broken Link | April 30, 2007 10:15 PM
Broken Link, Not all cured kids came from that site but one of your trolls has probably already done that. I don't think they would be honest enough to publicize it.
Posted by: John Best | April 30, 2007 10:20 PM
Well John, do you consider a young man of 18 years of age to be pre-pubescent?
Kathleen Seidel didn't coin the term "chemical castration" for Lupron.
Posted by: daedalus2u | April 30, 2007 10:24 PM
Of course, one problem with many uncontrolled anecdotes: Can't always be sure the diagnosis was right in the first place. Rigor isn't exactly something the typical altie-type thinker values. Still need a control group, but we know how he'll react to attempts to perform rigorous studies, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just trust a bunch of superficial impressions!"
Too bad most hucksters aren't as benign as the Wizard of Oz.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 30, 2007 10:38 PM
Orac, here's yet another example of the more militant of the autism mercury proponents "suggesting" that people confront their opponents. The new Generation Rescue website has a "Hall of Shame" section, where they link directly to Julie Gerberding's home page. Fortunately, her e-mail and phone number are not listed directly there. But the implication that people are invited to contact her is clear.
Posted by: Broken Link | April 30, 2007 10:56 PM
Bronze Dog wrote "It is set-up so that no one can claim the prize. You have to pass a "test" of their woo, and if you don't , you forfit $5,000. They don't even tell you what "agreement B" is, but if you don't sign it you forfit $10,000? Why is there all that extraneous crap in there? It is in there so they can use it to renig on paying the claims. "
Whoa!!!
You have more patience than I do to wade through that stuff. You need to contact the webmaster of:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/gentlebirth.htm ...
and give him the details. It would be a service to those looking to debunk the "Doubleday Challenge".
Posted by: HCN | April 30, 2007 11:55 PM
Indeed, but I also took a look at GR's Hall of Fame page. It's a Hall of Fame alright--largely a Hall of Fame for autism quackery, that is.
Posted by: Orac | April 30, 2007 11:59 PM
You've been "demonized" here because you have unleashed toxic diatribes here (for which you were banned for a month a while back) and continue to do so on your own blog. As for the "Doubleday challenge," Bronze Dog was right to point out that it is so utterly ridiculous and filled with conditions obviously designed to make it highly unlikely that any sane person would jump through all of his hoops (or, especially, invest money to take the challenge) that it's obvious to me that the real purpose is to be a show, nothing more. The reason I never bothered to comment on it is because I consider it too ridiculous to devote much, if any, time on.
Posted by: Orac | May 1, 2007 12:04 AM
Not to even indirectly support the mercury-autism people, but the primary hazard of mercury isn't death, but brain damage.
Might explain why you never did understand.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 12:28 AM
Cain, The truth makes the argument valid. The fact that many parents have removed mercury and seen their children cured of autism is all the proof we need.
You don't seem to realize that something is not the truth just because you say it is. We actually have a way of determining truth, namely, we observe and experiment, controlling against biases and error, and we have independent parties repeat and confirm those results. It's called science. You don't seem to be familiar with it.
Posted by: Cain | May 1, 2007 12:55 AM
I was a non-verbal Autistic child that was once described as 'low-functioning', I was then a 'high-functioning' teen and now my level of functioning is variable depending on a dozen social/sensory-enviromental factors. I've never been chelated. So what makes your ancedote more important than mine?
John, Autistics have measurable and demonstrable strengths which show up consistently on different intelligence test scores. Autistics consistently score higher averages in Raven's Progressive Matrices than non-Autistics. So would the children you claim are 'cured' have lower scores post-chelation than they would pre-chelation?
I've never read Kathleen Sidel actually make an ad hominem attack against anyone; comments about a dubious character don't automatically qualify, they need to replace any actual arguement against the character's claims. That is exactly what Kathleen has done. By demonstrating the Geiers' claims as fraudulent, she can rightfully call them frauds and it isn't ad hominem.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | May 1, 2007 4:51 AM
And then I saw this
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=69427&nfid=crss
This new study leaves little doubt there is a direct causal link between mercury exposure from Thimerosal-preserved biological products (vaccines and Rho(D) products) and mercury poisoning diagnosed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Thimerosal (49.55% mercury by weight) is a highly toxic mercury compound used as a preservative in some OTC and prescription drugs, including most flu shots given to pregnant women, infants, children, adults, and the elderly.
On April 19, 2007, Dr. Larry L. Needham, Chief, Organic Analytical Toxicology Branch, CDC, announced to the US National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine that Thimerosal was among the "Chemicals Linked to ASD."
Thus, Geier and Geier (2007) provide the first clinical case-series of ASD patients that confirmed this causal role for Thimerosal-preserved drugs in patients having a regressive ASD diagnosis.
The Geiers describe a case-series of eight patients who had:
-- a regressive ASD diagnosis,
-- elevated levels of androgens,
-- excreted significant amounts of mercury after a chelation challenge,
-- biochemical evidence of decreased function in their glutathione pathways,
-- no known significant mercury exposures except from Thimerosal-preserved vaccines and Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations, and
-- alternative causes for their regressive ASDs ruled out.
This clinical study also found a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the ASD symptoms and the total mercury dose these children received from Thimerosal-preserved drugs.
Based on differential diagnosis, these patients were exposed to significant mercury amounts from Thimerosal-preserved biologic drugs during their fetal and neonatal development as well as between 12 and 24 months of age. Thus, these initially normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with their regressive ASD diagnosis.
Hence, mercury poisoning should be considered as a cause for those children exhibiting the symptoms of an ASD in any differential diagnosis designed to assess underlying causes.
Today, any parent or other healthcare provider can easily confirm whether, or not, a non-chelated autistic child is mercury poisoned by having urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA) testing run at LabCorp (Test#120980) or Laboratoire Philippe Auguste (Urine Porphyrin Profile).
I don't know what any concerned parent would make of this. On the one hadn it claims to present valid evidence, on the other, the absolutism of the language is pretty unscientific and the link at the end to a product to check levels should send any aaram bells ringing
Posted by: G. Shelley | May 1, 2007 5:11 AM
Why reccomend those two specific labs? Stinks to high heaven. Nor is there any such thing as a 'regressive ASD' diagnosis.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | May 1, 2007 5:35 AM
Lucas, The Geiers are helping to cure autistic children. They confirmed Verstraeten's first paper that showed thimerosal had caused the epidemic.
Seidel can only attempt to refute these two things by assassinating their character since she can't show that they are not helping autistic children or that Verstraeten's first paper was invalid.
Posted by: John Best | May 1, 2007 6:26 AM
Yes, Lucas, et al. It stinks to high heaven. Why not write a letter to the Editor of the journal in which this was published to let him know why you think so?
Posted by: Broken Link | May 1, 2007 6:58 AM
1. What part of this isn't true?
2. Why do you worship at the feet of people caught performing the conflicts of interest you accuse us of (without evidence)?
3. Why do you avoid talking about other people's anecdotes, Mr. Double-Standards? Do you think you can just ignore the issue of how you arrive to your current conclusion but not others? How do you determine the validity of your "evidence"? A Magic Man done it?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 1, 2007 7:37 AM
The reason the mothers were given Rho(D)-immune globulin was to reduce fetal hemolytic anemia which destroys red blood cells and releases free hemoglobin into the blood stream where it destroys NO 650 times faster
than hemoglobin confined to red blood cells.
The association of ASD symptomology with Rho(D)-immune globulin exposure better supports a low NO mechanism of ASDs.
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 1, 2007 7:59 AM
John, such a large majority of Autistics develop perfectly fine without chelation. This is so widely documented that the only way you can not know is if you don't read widely on Autism. At no point has Kathleen targeted anyones character in place of critical thinking, the same kind of critical anlysis that got the Geiers dismissed as expert witnesses because they are recognisible frauds to any rational person. It's the fraud that makes them frauds, no one claimed the opposite where their work is fradulent because someone called them frauds.
And where is this epidemic? The one invented from the CDC figures the mercury milita is now back-tracking on? The recorded Autism incidence in the UK is higher than the US, we've always had less Thimerosal and the child:adult ratio supports a consistent number of Autistics across all age ranges. Where's our 'epidemic'?
And that's without going into how chelation repairs a brain: it doesn't even do that in genuine metal poisoning cases.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | May 1, 2007 8:48 AM
"-- excreted significant amounts of mercury after a chelation challenge,"
So much for being "poor excretors".
Posted by: Do'C | May 1, 2007 11:24 AM
Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency on the "epidemic" Lucas. I forgot about that. So, should we expect our troll to spew the same bile at the portions of the mercury militia who've backpedaled, or apologia for them?
Covers one thing Denialism said about cranks: They won't attack each other for making mutually exclusive claims, so long as they're all whining against "the establishment".
Only exception I know to that trend are the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, where the hushaboom proponents went heavy on banninating the Orbital R9 Spacefighter Wave Cannon people and the holographic plane people, claiming that they were government plants to make them look bad.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 1, 2007 11:44 AM
It is interesting to compare the Doubleday "challenge" with the James Randi challenge. Randi only asks that the claimant be able to demonstrate their "paranormal" ability in a situation where "faking" is ruled out. He doesn't ask for money up front (although he bears the cost of setting up the challenge) nor does he ask for secret agreements or onerous (and possibly rigged) testing by his handpicked experts (to be paid for by the claimant).
As far as I know, the only expense a claimant for the Randi Prize need bear is their transportation costs.
John Best (AKA Fore Sam) makes a passionate plea for us to all simply accept what he says because he says it - no data, no questions, just take it for Gospel. He seems to forget that everybody has an anecdote. I've got three about chelation and autism alone.
I know three young boys who all were diagnosed with "regressive autism" at about the same time. Two of them underwent NO chelation, NO "biomedical" intervention and NO "DAN! protocol". One had the full Monty - chelation, DAN! nonsense, you name it.
The two boys with no "alternative" treatments are now in a regular classroom without an aid, making friends, playing and generally behaving like young boys do.
And the one boy who got it all? He's still non-verbal, won't make eye contact and requires a one-on-one aid to be in school.
Now, if I were inclined to trust in anecdotes, that would sound as though chelation, "DAN! protocol" and the rest are sure-fire ways to "doom your child to the hell of autism", to quote a supporter of chelation for autism.
Those who live by the anecdote die by the anecdote.
Prometheus
Posted by: