Listen to What the Man Says

William Thompson: "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information [that] suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months were at increased risk for autism. ... protocol was not followed." That's HUGE....

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Conversation with the Authors of Plague

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« Introducing MAPS: The Medical Academy of Pediatric Special Needs | Main | FOX13 News Salt Lake City Reports on the Autism Nightmare To Come »

Scientists with Starving Brains

FALSE-CLAIMSBy J.B. Handley

Like clockwork, a few times a year, a profoundly asinine study will appear in a scientific journal somewhere ostensibly “further refuting” the hypothesis that vaccines are causing all this autism.

Recently, our minds were subjected to ad nauseum reporting on a study out of the UK-- A Comparison of Urinary Mercury between Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Control Children—professing to do just that.

The study, written by a child psychologist, specifically offered up the following:

Background

Urinary mercury concentrations are used in research exploring mercury exposure. Some theorists have proposed that autism is caused by mercury toxicity. We set out to test whether mercury concentrations in the urine of children with autism were significantly increased or decreased compared to controls or siblings.

Methods

Blinded cohort analyses were carried out on the urine of 56 children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) compared to their siblings (n = 42) and a control sample of children without ASD in mainstream (n = 121) and special schools (n = 34).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in creatinine levels, in uncorrected urinary mercury levels or in levels of mercury corrected for creatinine, whether or not the analysis is controlled for age, gender and amalgam fillings.

Conclusions

This study lends no support for the hypothesis of differences in urinary mercury excretion in children with autism compared to other groups. Some of the results, however, do suggest further research in the area may be warranted to replicate this in a larger group and with clear measurement of potential confounding factors. 

For those of you interested in the laypersons version of this, here it is:

A bunch of kids peed in a cup for 24 hours. Some had autism. Some were siblings of kids with autism. Some were neither. And, they all had their mercury and creatinine levels measured in their urine. The levels were compared, they found no difference, so, obviously, VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM SO PLEASE GET VACCINATED.

Ok, Ok, those final ALL CAPS were mine, the authors didn’t really say that, and I’m just getting a little ahead of myself. But only a little.

As usual, these types of studies, the types that serve to exonerate vaccines, get tons of press.

The Atlantic:

“Today in Research: Study Shows Vaccines Still Don't Cause Autism [this is their headline!]

Vaccines still don't cause autism. Crazy, overbearing parents, listen: vaccines do not cause autism. This recent study just confirms what other studies and doctors have found: zero link between the two. Analyzing samples from autistic children and non-autistic kids, researchers determined no difference in the mercury concentration in their respective urine. Doctors are so fed up with this myth that they've started firing families like you for refusing vaccines. Take this study along with the rest and vaccinate.”

Mother Nature Network:

“Mercury does not cause autism, another study now concludes. The levels of mercury in the urine of children with autism were no higher than urine mercury levels of children without the condition, the study from England found. The discredited idea that the form of mercury, called ethylmercury, sometimes used in vaccines may lead to autism has led to reductions in vaccine rates and increases in cases of preventable diseases, such as measles and mumps, according to the study.”

EMaxHealth:

“Autism Spectrum Disorders are complex conditions with many potential causes (none yet conclusively proven), but the one possible threat studied the most heavily – mercury - has yet another study to say that there is no clear link between the two.”

*         *         *

In seven years as an autism advocate, I have learned two very important things:

1.   Members of the scientific/medical community are willing to lie, confuse, obfuscate, and be otherwise shifty and dishonest with both data and information to confuse the debate about whether or not vaccines cause autism, and will happily take advantage of a misinformed press and under-informed parent population.

2.   The devil is always in the details.

What’s perhaps most remarkable about the aforementioned mercury-autism study is how easy it would be to figure out that the basis upon which both the data and conclusions are based is foolish for one simple reason: urine is an extremely poor and unreliable indicator of mercury levels in the body.

As usual, please do not take my word for it. Here’s Thomas Clarkson, Ph.D., University of Rochester (J. Lowell Orbison Distinguished Alumni Professor Emeritus of Environmental Medicine; Professor of Biochemistry & Biophysics, and Pharmacology & Physiology, FYI):

“Urinary excretion is negligible, of the order of 10% or less of total elimination from the body. Methyl mercury undergoes extensive enterohepatic cycling. It is secreted into bile and partly reabsorbed into the portal circulation and thereby returned to the liver. A fraction of the biliary mercury is converted by microflora to inorganic mercury. The latter is reabsorbed only to a small extent. Thus, most of the methyl mercury is eliminated from the body by demethylation and excretion of the inorganic form in the feces… The pattern of urinary excretion also indicates similarities to that with methyl mercury. Matheson et al. do not quote a specific figure for the change in urinary excretion after injection of thimerosal, but the graph published in their article indicates little change. They state that 90% of the total mercury in urine was in the inorganic form. Adult humans exposed to methyl mer- cury excrete little mercury in urine and all in the inorganic form …”
 
Here’s Dr. Dan Rossignol making a similar point:
 
“When we are exposed to mercury or lead, whatever is not immediately excreted will circulate in our blood for about a month or so and eventually will be deposited deep in body tissues. Mercury is mainly deposited in the kidney, liver, and brain. Lead is typically deposited in the brain and bone. So if you are poisoned by mercury or lead during a single acute exposure event, and then measure a blood or urinary level several months later, those levels will be essentially zero.”
 
*         *         *
 
Did he just say, “essentially zero”? Is it actually possible that a well-funded, published study was done based on a premise that is easily proven false? Is it possible that urine levels are not a reliable indicator of mercury exposure and therefore comparing urine levels of kids with and without autism is a useless exercise?
 
Yes, it’s very possible.
 
Well, is anything a reliable indicator of mercury exposure?
 
Dr. Rossignol continues:
 
“The analysis of urinary porphyrins promises to provide substantial insight into treating autism. Previous methods to determine body burden of toxic metals relied on a chelator challenge. However, the urine porphyrins test is more effective than a chelator challenge in determining toxic metal body burden because it measures the effects of those metals on the body. Specifically, certain metals, particularly toxic metals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic, will inhibit different enzymes of the heme porphyrin pathway and will thus cause different and specific porphyrin patterns (or “profiles”) in the urine, the analysis of which can help determine which metal is involved, and to what degree. The higher the toxic metal exposure and body burden, the higher the porphyrins are elevated in the urine. In humans, urinary porphyrin profiles directly reflect mercury body burden and neurobehavioral deficits.”
 
Hmmm…I’m no scientist, but I’m thinking I’d like to know more about these porphyrins, which French scientists looked into in 2006:
 
 
Conclusion:
 
"Coproporphyrin levels were elevated in children with autistic disorder relative to control groups...the elevation was significant. These data implicate environmental toxicity in childhood autistic disorder."
 
I have said all these things so many times, and I will go ahead and say them again:

By 6 months of age most American children receive 19 vaccines through 3 visits to the doctor. It’s worth noting that many kids also receive a birth dose of Hepatitis B, boosting this number to 20 vaccines.

So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? The answer may surprise you: ZERO. That’s right, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is a vaccine first administered to American children at 13-18 months of age.

But what about the 2, 4, and 6 month well-baby visits where children receive so many vaccines? The truth is they have never been studied or considered, so no one has any idea. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability. But, that’s exactly what has happened.

Worse, somehow, scientists and the press have decided that mercury, a single ingredient in some vaccines, should serve as a proxy for ALL vaccines and ALL ingredients and that if they can, in many convoluted ways, demonstrate that mercury is somehow safe than by association vaccines should be safe, too. How else, after the UK study above gets published, does the Atlantic conclude:

Study Shows Vaccines Still Don't Cause Autism

Having personally spent the time to critically read every study produced to "prove" vaccines don’t cause autism, I was dumbfounded by their inadequacy. And, comments public officials make about these studies are even more absurd and unsupportable. Consider, from some of the studies, some of the actual questions that were asked (versus the way the press reported it):

Q: Do children with autism and without have different levels of mercury in their urine? [a wholly unreliable way to assess body burden of mercury]

Q: Do children receiving more thimerosal in their vaccines have different neurological outcomes from children receiving less thimerosal in their vaccines?

Q: Are autism rates different for children who received 62.5 mcg or 137.5 mcg of mercury?

Q: Did children who all received DTP vaccine with thimerosal have higher or lower rates of developmental disorders based on when they got the shots?

Q: Do Thimerosal containing vaccines administered to children raise mercury blood levels above safe standards?

Q: Does the use of RhoGam shots during pregnancy have a correlation with autism?

These 6 examples above come from 6 of the most commonly listed studies cited as "proof" that "vaccines do not cause autism." Yet, not one of them comes close to addressing this issue or answering the question we all really care about that goes something like this:

Our children receive 36 vaccines by the time they are five, including 20 by their first birthday. Is the administration of so many vaccines causing autism in certain children?

That question, so important to the health of our children and our nation, has never been asked, so it cannot yet be answered.
 
And yet, scientists and the press, continue to publish and report on useless studies that insult the intelligence of integrity of both parents and well-meaning professionals alike.
 
J.B. Handley is Co-Founder of Generation Rescue.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

These newborns have developing livers and kidneys which means detoxify-ing and eliminating the toxins will be slower
and more difficult.Some of them will have higher toxic load
if their mother received flue or RhGam vaccine (contains polysorbates) during the pregnancy (also I need to mention amalgam).One solution is to have the partner/husband Rh-typing done.If the partner is Rh-negative (same as the mother)they should have the option to decline Rh-Gam.
(This not an issue with Rh-positive mothers.)

Of course these scientists already know that when a person is mercury poisoned and they aren't excreting it properly, that it stays in the brain and therefore doesn't leave the body in such great quantities. Look at this earlier study here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322

Reduced levels of mercury in the baby haircuts of autistic children, meaning it's staying in the organs rather than leaving the body through the hair and urine. They've known this for years!

it is good to see you on AOA again.
We need to stop playing into these A-holes hands. The studies will continue to come like this one, that is the game being played.
We need to approach this differently. I believe the father who started "Stop Calling It Autism" is going about this in the right way.
First he has created a research site that all families need to sign up on and provide the data to prove that autism is an immune based problem.
Next he has created a parent site to discuss his protocol and he has created a doctor-only site to explain and teach doctors how to implement the protocol.
Everything is documented and the treatment can only be given with the help of a physician. Doctors are signing up from around the world.
He has created an in-depth brochure to explain the protocol to take to your doctor visit.
With the help of an immunologist he started the treatment of his own son who is now recovered.
It is all in the treatment of the microglia cells with heavy dose NSAIDS and protecting the gut with huge amounts of probiotics, Many parents are reporting success and it is documenting the whole treatment for each child. The evidence is going to be hard to refute.

They will control and manipulate the population through
Science Media Central-going global.The public will not get the truth and the information they deserve.

Has anyone read _The Nurses Are Innocent: The Digoxin Poisoning Fallacy_? The title refers to an incident in Canada in the 80s where several dozen infants on a cardiac ward died unexpectedly. The author, Gavin Hamilton, hypothesizes that these deaths were due to contamination of pharmaceutical products by MBT, mercaptobenzothiazole, used in vulcanizing rubber. (MBT is a known allergen.) The book is about more than the Canadian infant deaths, though. Hamilton thinks that many allergic reactions attributed to medication are actually responses to MBT.

According to Hamilton, MBT is a widespread contaminant of pharmaceuticals (including vaccines) and that this fact has been (and is) suppressed.

It could explain a lot. You can safely skip the first chapter which deals exclusively with radiology.

Hello Benedetta:-
I'm afraid we in the UK are 'stuck' with Fiona Fox, but I'm afraid this woman is presently exporting both herself and her 'Science Media Centres' around the world. Already, the Australian centre is creating Meryl hell, and the Canadian one is determined to Shaw those scientists who dare to publish scientific papers, questioning vaccine safety, the 'error of their ways'. At the moment the US is not on 'the list', so I expect you are quite correct in stating the US already has 'enough of her sort'. The following is from Elsevier's Lancet, an SMC financial sponsor:-

"Science Media Centres go global
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60078-0/fulltext
It has now been almost a decade since the UK Science Media Centre (SMC) was created, after a UK House of Lords committee concluded that scientists in the country were not engaging effectively with the media. Its remit: to ensure scientists take part in media stories about science, rather than complaining about inaccurate or sensationalist coverage. Since then, the UK centre, directed by communications expert Fiona Fox, has been deemed a success by scientists and journalists alike, and sister SMCs have been set up in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan, with Denmark expected to launch in 2011."

We need to remember that beside the central nervous system
the newborns developing organs are also injured.The most
vulnerable ones are kidneys.Hypoxia (reduced oxygenation)
also a contributory factor to kidney damage.The THREE best solution that I can think of to stop autism is to
1.Ensure normal hemoglobin status for mother during pregnancy,do delayed clamping to ensure good hemoglobin status and oxygen delivery for newborn to have a great start in life.
2.Do NOT immunize in the first six months-to allow the blood brain barrier and the internal organs to develop and mature.
3.Breastfeed,(say good-bye to the formula-junk food)and
strengthen your baby's immune and gut (gastro-intestinal)system.
If they do not have the answers,we have to find the answers.
As for our kids,we parents have to get together,use our money to start up supported living centres and safe group homes and continue fighting for them until our last breath.

Jenny:
I have heard Fionna's speeches about MMR - right here in the good USA - that is why we need to clamp down really hard on foreign vistor passes. You need to keep her home - we have enough of her own sort already here.

J.B. Handley:

Thank you for an excellent review of this study.

Regarding the last sentence in the discussion in the paper that says a clear mercury “…causal link to autistic spectrum disorders remains unlikely”--any person using a critical thought process should reject this outright. As you correctly point out, urinary mercury levels do not tell what levels are in organ tissues.

Also the time since the mercury exposure is not addressed in this paper. This is as ridiculous as waiting ten years to give breathalyzer tests to drivers after being stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

However it is interesting to note that the group of children, in Table 1, with the highest statistical mean of dental mercury amalgams also has the highest statistical mean for urinary mercury levels.

Hypothesis—ten year old children with mercury dental amalgams have higher levels of mercury poisoning in blood and organs than those with no amalgams!

To Ioneskye, Could you please elaborate there- as to the conditions that you believe are caused by vaccines .I notice that with each passing year I am seeing or hearing of cases of disorders that we never saw earlier,(Earlier, means in maybe 30 years- Thats a pretty good sample I think) Here are three:
Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome- Parents were well educated, polished people who kept inscrutable expressions when I informed them that they were injecting their child with two known nephrotoxins in most vaccines. No doubt those expressions changed when they got home and started googling.
Infantile anorexia - to the extent of the child developing bowed legs.Starting at 6 months of age.
Leukemia- A new milestone for nursery schools- Get the leukemia treatment done be-
fore your child starts nursery school at age 3.
Diabetes type one- I havent seen it yet but one parent told me that her friends child developed this at age one and yesterday a diabetologist visited my school and mentioned that she had seen a case of type one diabetes in a child of 2 months of age. She agreed that even type one diabetes in children is increasing.
I often wonder why there seems to be no kind of reporting system for medicine where extreme or new cases get flagged and doctors could watch for other cases. The lack of such a system has lead to this present situation where every kind of disorder, no matter how disturbing is simply accepted as normal. ..as in .. "Oh you know- just a run a the mill leukemia"

The Science Media Centre UK
The (convoluted) thoughts of Chairman Fiona:-
http://fionafox.blogspot.com/
ON SCIENCE AND THE MEDIA
MONDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2012
Dodgy science headlines: PR can share the blame
Extracted from above:-
"Two weeks ago I was called to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. It was a nerve-wracking ordeal but also an incredible opportunity to say what needs fixing in our newsrooms to improve the quality of science coverage. Despite telling me to slow down no fewer than four times.
Lord Justice Leveson summed up my breathless evidence by suggesting that it appeared to him that there is not too much to fix. Leveson also grasped that my real beef is with the non-specialists in newsrooms who get to make the decisions about what constitutes a good story, where it appears in the paper and under what headline. A lot can go wrong between the accurate copy of a science reporter and these three decisions. Yet it is the overinflated headlines and the front page billing that raise unnecessary fears and hopes, and damage the public interest.

We’ve now got to the stage where not only do the best science journalists have to fight the perverse news values of their news editors but also to try to read between the lines of overhyped press releases to get to the truth of what a scientific study is really claiming…..Plus, I think within science anything that appears to offer patients real hope of cures and treatments for killer diseases should ring massive alarm bells and be handled with special care. If newspapers and press officers could follow the credo ‘Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence’ we would lose much poor science coverage overnight. I’m not sure we need a Leveson for PR."

OUCH!! Fiona's weasel words appear to be attacking Lord Leveson. On the face of it she appears to be talking sense about 'sensationalist' or misleading 'over hyping' of scientific studies by the press. DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!! This woman, with NO scientific credentials at all and only a mediocre degree in journalism, presides over an automamous non elected organisation which according to Martin Walker, in his new Dirty Medicine Handbook, is financially supported by, amongst others, GlaxoSmithKLine, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer (Pharma), and Chemical giants Du Pont and Sygenta. Press and publication interests include Elsevier and Murdoch's News International. Even the licence funded and ‘supposed to be non commercial’ BBC hands over our licence money to this outfit.

Scroll down a bit to Fiona Fox's other blogs and you will see what I mean. This is from her blog entitled "BMJ, UCL & MMR: OTT?"
"Firstly, I love Brian Deer. He is the personification of a kind of investigative reporting that inspired me to study journalism, a kind of journalism that is almost nonexistent in science today as most reporters struggle to file 3 or 4 news stories a day and to escape the dreaded diary. Secondly, no-one, with the exception of maybe Brian Deer and Andrew Wakefield, talks about the MMR scare more than I do. You cannot tell the story of the SMC without talking about MMR. I never do a speech without talking about it, or debate the issue."

I thought the mercury coverup studies were already completed shortly after Simpsonwood. This study is just rock stupid. I wish my son's mercury was only in his urine.
I love your writing style JB.

"... Thus, most of the methyl mercury is eliminated from the body by demethylation and excretion of the inorganic form in the feces… "

********************

Yeah, assuming your system is working well enough to excrete mercury at all. I think most people here know that's a pretty big assumption.

How ridiculously ironic, that "experts" so adept at peddling feces to the public....are still fumbling around in urine looking for answers.

The devil in the details is right. After I posed here regarding the DTI fractional anisotropy study a couple of days ago, I was amazed to see the usual apologists flog it as evidence that autism can be spotted at six months, without apparently having even looked past the abstract. But go and get the study for yourself and look at the individual variation under those mean bars. I showed it around the lab and we all agreed that there was a missed story in the individual variation. The PDF is a bit blurred but you can see a lot of ASD diagnosed kids with increasing connectivity after 6 months, then connectivity tanking between 12 and 18. I guess those details just don't fit the official narrative.

Actually it's even more unthinkably idiotic. They drew their conclusions from a single urine sample, not a 24 hour collection:

'The study was limited in that it included a relatively small number of children, the researchers wrote. It also could have been improved by using urine collected over a 24-hour period, rather than a single sample from each child, but 24-hour collections are difficult to accomplish, according to the study.'

cmo-yes, George Washington was probably killed by the absurd medical practices at the time. Benjamin Rush was a doctor and one of the Founding Fathers. He was educated and intelligent and he BELIEVED in bloodletting. He was a good friend of John Adams. Jefferson, however was skeptical about prevailing medical thought. He said that whenever he saw several doctors congregating, he looked up to see if there were buzzards circling. A thoughtful man!
Also, who can forget Semmelweis....driven mad by his persecutors in the medical societies....all because he believed that handwashing after performing autopsies on cadavers was a necessity before assisting in childbirth? Never mind that he seriously reduced the death rate from childbed fever with his practices. He was a heretic.....and the medical societies went after him. Sound famuliar?

JB writes: "... the basis upon which both the data and conclusions are based is foolish for one simple reason: urine is an extremely poor and unreliable indicator of mercury levels in the body."

Personally, I am not surprised that a "child pyschiatrist" wrote this study .. and .. that the study's researchers chose urine .. already proven to be .. as JB's sources remind us .. an "unreliable indicator of mercury levels in the body".

None-the-less .. I must admit how discouraging it is to read yet another useless "sounds like science" study .. shamefully promoted as "sound science" .. by a lazy, ill-informed, disinterested .. main-stream media.

Honestly .. I don't know which is worse .. the "child pyschiatrist" who wrote the study .. or .. the "editor" who wrote The Atlantic headline: “Today in Research: Study Shows Vaccines Still Don't Cause Autism.

"So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? The answer may surprise you: ZERO. That’s right, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is a vaccine first administered to American children at 13-18 months of age."

Repeat. This Fact. Often.

It's maddening, isn't it, J B?

Big thanks to you and Andrew Hall Cutler. My heros! You both inspired me to recover my child in 2008, and do whatever it took.

And we have! Turns out over 100 rounds of AC chelation have eradicated the 'autism'! Imagine that!

My best to you and your family.

As we pass another February 22, the real Presidents day,

Remember that our first President died of a sore throat... followed by three pints of blood-letting & then severe dehydration... the common medical practice at the time.

I would assume the attending doctors were all very highly educated and all in agreement that they were performing "state of the art" medicine.

Another item to note is that it is entirely left up to the researcher's judgment what level of correlation is required to indicate a link (or a need for further research).

From the paper:

"There were no significant differences between the four groups in uncorrected mercury level regardless of how the values below the LODs were treated [mercury level with blanks given zero (KW(3) = 5.135, p = 0.162), or mercury level with blanks given 0.35 (KW(3) = 5.223, p = 0.156]."

Now, I took stats a long time ago, so someone else can feel free to jump in and correct me, but here's some info from Wikipedia on P-values:

"In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true."

In other words, what are the odds that you got the result that you did, if the idea that you are testing is actually true? What are the odds that you got that result just by chance? Statisticians generally--and this is by fiat--use 0.01 or 0.05 as the significance level below which their p-value must fall in order for them to reject the null hypothesis.

To put it another way: if there's no difference in urinary mercury levels between kids with autism and kids without autism (this is the null hypothesis), the odds that you'd get a difference in test statistic mercury levels as big as the one these researchers got, just by chance, is 0.162 (which is not below the arbitrarily chosen significance level of 0.05), so the researchers decide that there's nothing to see here--their test data was not so "out there" as to indicate a true correlation.

In other words, if kids with autism and kids without autism have equal urinary mercury levels, you could run this test 1000 times, and expect to see test groups with urinary mercury levels as different as these in 162 of those studies just by chance.

However, the significance level is what really matters here. Looking at the p-values for other contaminants...

"Tests of other heavy metals find no differences between groups. This includes lithium (p = 0.344), vanadium (p = 0.951), manganese (p = 0.613),cobalt (p = 0.392, copper (p = 0.391), cadmium (p = 0.586), antinomy (p = 0.216), barium (p = 0.328) and lead (p = 0.203)."

...you can see that some of them (like vanadium) have really high p-values, waaaay above any significance level you would have selected in advance. It's easy to say that you could get differences in vanadium as big as those in the study (in other words, not big at all) just by chance, even if there's no relationship between vanadium urinary levels and autism.

But 0.162 is a heck of a lot lower than 0.951--and given what Dr. Rossignol says...

"“When we are exposed to mercury or lead, whatever is not immediately excreted will circulate in our blood for about a month or so and eventually will be deposited deep in body tissues. Mercury is mainly deposited in the kidney, liver, and brain. Lead is typically deposited in the brain and bone. So if you are poisoned by mercury or lead during a single acute exposure event, and then measure a blood or urinary level several months later, those levels will be essentially zero."

...it seems that setting a higher significance level (which might have led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis) might have been a better idea.

Just the thoughts of someone who took stats a long time ago and knows that the summary line in a media report is often a huge oversimplification of what the researchers actually found. (And I wonder when the Atlantic "reporter" last took a stats class! ;-)

LOVE your questions at the end. Big reality smackdown for the "scientists."

It's always a pleasure to read your posts, JB.

Oh, stop making so much sense, J.B. Urine is urine, whether it is just examined for mercury content, or analyzed for urinary porphyrins (! ?) Yeah, right! Thank goodness we all know better.

What a stupid study. One of my children has urinary porphyrins that are literally off of the chart. --There is no apex to the graph provided in the report from the laboratory. But I'm sure that important "scientific" study of secreted mercury done by a child psychologist (!) mentioned above negates the "science" of the actual urinary porphyrin laboratory findings, and the reality of all the physiological manifestations of disability in my child. This is all so insulting and so incredibly ignorant, too.

From the conclusion in the text (but left out of the abstract):

"... further research is warranted to better understand whether a subgroup with autism or learning disabilities have mercury poisoning or excretion difficulties."

Such is the "proof" of this study that mercury and/or vaccines do not cause autism.

I couldn't believe when I first read this study last week... that it appeared that all the children did was pee in a cup. There was no challenge, no provoker, just pee. I thought to myself... How could a doctor do such a stupid thing? Surely they didn't just pee in a cup. But they did, and the sad thing is that the parents who participated in the study don't know any better than to ask,,, Why aren't any provokers being used?

JB,

Thank you for this great analysis of how experts deal with autism. Pretending to have all the official science on their side, they deny, deny, deny. Counting on the fact that most members of the media are too lazy, unconcerned, cowardly, or conflicted, they usually get nice stories in the news about "another study shows no link."
It only works for a week or so and the issue is right back out there.
It all boils down to covering up the biggest medical scandal in history---something that is getting harder and harder to do.
Anne Dachel, Media

My favorite man has returned! Where have you been? Well I've missed you. AoA is not the same without your editorials. You are one of the few who doesn't waste time with all the B___ S___. Sometimes my letters do not get published here as I suspect I am being too direct. My twenty five year pediatric health experience has taught me that Vaccines cause not only autism but hundreds of other SEVERE medical disorders. Why do people want to be bogged down with trying to prove anything? Stop vaccinating. In many instances, these unconscionable people we call physicians inject not 20 but 25 biological toxoids into a baby by age six months (I can recite them if need be but don't just take my word for it. Visit your friendly CDC schedule). The above jab total does not include the ever popular synagis cocktail which your pediatrician will be glad to inject into your angel (for a small price of course, 2-6 THOUSAND dollars per season!). Of course the pharmaceutical whores will deny this is an actual vaccine. The sheeple need to be educated my dear JB. Babies do not need 25 vaccines at six months especially if they are breastfed and living in a clean environment. Oh but wait, what if there are a bunch of rusty nails laying around the nursery? Better get that tetanus shot QUICK! PS I love you and vote Ron Paul (A doctor with a Brain that's NOT starving).

JB - I absolutely LOVE your writing and analysis. Keep up the good work.

THANK YOU J.B. FOR CRITICISM OF ANOTHER BOGUS PROPAGANDA PIECE, I MEAN "STUDY".
WERE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REVEALED BY THE AUTHORS? I DIDN'T SEE IT. ANY ONE FOLLOWING THIS DEBATE OVER EVEN THE LAST 5 YEARS COULD SPOT THE MISDIRECT RIGHT IN THE HEADLINE. SO WAS THIS AUTHOR OBLIVIOUS TO THE TOXICOKINETICS OF HG OR IS HE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC. LET'S SEE HIS PAYCHECK FOR THE ANSWER.

You are so right,JB. Notice how they are careful with their word, though. They usually state that there is no scientific evidence that vaccines are related to autism, or that none of the many studies that have been done on vaccines show any causal link to autism. So, all of what they say is technically true because no studies have been done that would actually prove or disprove a link.....but the public doesn't know that. So parents are lulled into a sense of security concerning vaccines....which we know is dangerous,
Also, you might add 1 more shot to the list of 20 that infants receive before 6 mo of age. While not a vaccine, the vitamin K shot that all newborns receive is not really innocuous at all. It contains some toxic ingredients as well as a synthetic form of vit K that is not readily absorbed. At the same time the dose is a huge overload for the infant system to metabolize. And guess what? I know you won't be shocked....there have never been any studies to prove that is safe. Our old friends , Big Pharma, are responsible for intervening in this case,too. It sure explains so many cases of newborn jaundice. What's even more mind boggling is that parents were/are not even told that their baby would be receiving this shot...no parental permission required.

Good to see that JB is still active with the "study of studies" also known as "ologyology."

This "child psychologist urine study" looks to be an "eloborate fraud." He should probably lose his license to practice and move to another country.

Should they want to study something...the CDC could briefly explain...

From Evidence of Harm by David Kirby pages 280 - 283

In October of 2003, Dr. Mark and David Geier were given access to the CDC vaccine injury database at the CDC's Center for Health Statistics. With the "inside help of a CDC staffer" with an affected child in her family, they compared Autism rates for children who had received "three DTaP shots with Thimerosal" and those that had received "three Thimerosal free" DTaP shots.

The CDC vaccine injury records of ...thousands of children... showed Autism rates 27 times higher in the Thimerosal / mercury group.

Similar "off the chart mercury/ vaccine issues" were noted by CDC epidemiologist Dr. Verstraeten, which led to the June 2000 vaccine industry meeting in Simpsonwood, Georgia.


We all know of the present, endless "medical witch-hunt" of Dr. Geier.

'...the research behind 30 percent of the pivotal papers from Nobel Laureates in medicine, physics, and chemistry was done without direct funding.'

http://the-scientist.com/2012/02/22/opinion-good-but-not-good-enough/

Yet there is an endless line of funding for feeding the hungry lie.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

@AgeofAutism Tweets

follow me on Twitter

SPONSORS

  • HC Logo 2014
  • Canary final logo
  • active healing
  • VOR logo sidebar
  • Safeminds 2014 Logo
Age of Autism's Facebook Page