Autism is a DSM-IV condition, is it an ad hominem attack?

Now that’s the part that’s annoying. If they have to be “quick to caution”, and note “that more evidence is needed”, would there be something remiss in hanging on to the issuance of the press release until the needed additional evidence is available? The restrained verbiage of science which deals with probabilities and ranges of uncertainties sometimes doesn’t translate well into popular accounts, and sometimes when the additional evidence comes in the effect was not as large as originally stated or turns out to be due to some other factor, or may not even have been designed well in the first place. But by then the original report has entered the common argot.

Do you plan on selling and making money off of your OCD induced NO theory you keep pushing around the blogosphere?

The Faroe Islands mercury study was done in 1986 and 1987. A decade before it was suggested that autism might be caused by exposure to mercury. There have been follow-up studies looking at the same children over time.

They actually did follow up those children. You can go to the literature and read the results they reported on them. They did intelligence testing on those children too, in addition to testing mercury levels.

The authors declare who funded the research, that those funding the research didn’t influence the outcome, and that they have no financial interest in the results.

Do you have the same evidentiary standards for the “parasite zapper” that you are selling and making money off of? Who funded the research showing the “parasite zappers” actually work? There was research showing that there are actually parasites present, that they actually are “zapped”, and that the “zapping” actually cures people of an actual parasite infestation? That is “research” other than just testimonials of non-experts in parasitology relating their “feelings” of being “cured”?

The only people still beating the dead horse of the “mercury causes autism” idea are those who are still profiting from it. People such as yourself who are selling “liquid zeolite”, people such as the Geiers who are “expert witnesses”, and people like Shoemaker who are getting legal fees.

There is still not a bit of data to support the “mercury causes autism” idea.

My basic stance is that I don’t trust any research conducted by anyone with any connections to pharma (ie, AMA, other world organizations, etc) I can’t accept due to the obvious conflict of interest any study that is conducted under pressure from that conflict of interest. Remember, the tobacco company doctors and scientists said that smoking wasn’t harmful or addicting? Do you trust those studies or do you dismiss them for their obvious conflict of interest? If you’re smart, you’ll dismiss them.

Until the drug companies stop funding the AMA, studies, etc, I will see this obvious conflict of interest as a reason not to trust the findings.

However, back to that study. What can we deduce, if it were true, that mercury in the womb does not cause autism. Without knowing the the mothers diet (do they eat a healthier diet than us westerners?) do they have good digestion and elimination organs? Once outside the womb, how quickly is said mercury eliminated? Did the autistic children show poor digestion and elimination vs the non autistic-high mercury infants? How high was the mercury level for those children at 1 yr, 1 yrs, 3 yrs, etc? What was their mercury level at that time?

You see, we see information differently. I always over-analyze everything to come to a conclusion whereas these studies seem to take one piece of the puzzle and form an opinion from partial evidence or sound bites vs the big picture.

I would like the doctors to answer this question about the AMA. Do you not feel that the conflict of interest between the medical establishment and doctors creates a environment where doctors have to do and say whatever the big drug companies mandate or else risk repercussions? I’ve read whee doctors who speak up against vaccinations for instance or suggest they may be harmful to their clients risk all kinds of problems. Is this true?

One thing I didn’t mention back then is that I contacted Dr. Windham. I argued that ascertainment of autism is inequivalent across different parts of the Bay Area. This can easily be demonstrated by looking at client characteristics in 3 regional centers. It’s not surprising that children who come from areas with higher urbanicity would be more likely to be diagnosed with autism. I did not get a satisfactory response from Dr. Windham.

FWIW, since then, Palmer et al. have done a follow-up of their Texas study where they claim to have controlled for urbanicity, and still find an effect, albeit small. I haven’t had a chance to analyze their results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17029020

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7842/7842.html

In the infamous DeSoto et al reanalysis of the Ip et al paper, there were 2 children with blood mercury levels above 60 nM/L (one control, one with autism). They were rejected as “outliers”.

So if 65 nM/L mercury in cord blood doesn’t cause autism, what basis is there for thinking that much smaller amounts will cause it?

None at all.