Skeptico

How Does He Know?

One more thing occurred to me after reading yesterday’s post from The Quackometer - The Society of Homeopaths: Truth Matters – it was a quote from Dr Peter Fisher (who is apparently Brenda’s Homeopath). Fisher was talking about how some homeopaths recommended sugar pills to protect against malaria:

"I'm very angry about it because people are going to get malaria - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice."

Well, of course, we should be grateful that a senior homeopath feels able to say this. But I wondered, how does he know? Seriously, how does he know that homeopathy is no good for malaria? What method is he applying to determine that homeopathy is no good for malaria?

Now, I know what method I apply to determine that homeopathy is no good for malaria. I consider homeopathy’s total implausibility, plus the knowledge that Hahnemann simply made the whole thing up, and combine that with the fact that homeopathy always fails well run trials such as these 110 trials that homeopathy failed – and I determine homeopathy doesn’t work. But the conclusion I come to from this is that homeopathy is no good for anything.

But Fisher presumably thinks homeopathy works for something. Certainly, The Queen’s homeopath should believe the stuff works for something, wouldn’t you think?  For example, homeopathy is supposed to work for anything from allergies to rheumatoid arthritis. So what consistent method is he applying to evaluate homeopathy, where the conclusion is that homeopathy works for (say) allergies , but that it is no good for malaria? Has he run tests? Tests where homeopathy succeeds with allergies but fails with malaria? And where can we read about these tests? Because they must exist, right? Otherwise, how does he know?

Edited to add: And remember, Hahnemann’s belief that like cures like started after he discovered that taking quinine to treat malaria produced the same symptoms in a healthy person as malaria itself. It’s from this that he drew up the Law of Similars. In other words, homeopathy started with the principle that homeopathic quinine should prevent and/or cure malaria. So if homeopathy works for anything it should work for malaria, wouldn’t you think? So what does Fisher know that Hahnemann didn’t, and how does he know it?

The alternative is that Fisher knows homeopathy is nothing but a placebo, and that a placebo isn’t good enough to prevent malaria.

Can that really be what he means? Inquiring minds want to know.

Homeopathy – Still Doesn’t Work

If you need to point anyone to a good summary of what homeopathy is and why it’s nonsensical quackery, you could probably do no better than Steven Novella’s My Day with the Homeopaths - Part I. He lays out a 12 point “chain of implausibility”, that covers just about everything that’s wrong with homeopathy, including this piece that for some reason had never occurred to me:

The “law of infinitesimals” claims that extreme dilution increases the potency of the diluted substance, but only of the beneficial effects, while decreasing any harmful effects. There is no mechanism for separating out wanted and unwanted effects in this simple fashion.

Of course – how does the magic shaking decrease the harmful effects but increase any (alleged) good effects? Anyway, today Novella posts My Day with the Homeopaths - Part II – on the evidence (ie lack of evidence) that homeopathy works. As I have written before, the implausibility of homeopathy does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but it does mean the evidence it works needs to be stronger than the evidence we demand for other things.  But believers in homeopathy expect us to believe what they say based on weaker evidence, such as the lame anecdotes Dr Novella writes about.

And for more on the dishonesty of The Society of Homeopaths, read The Quackometer’s follow up to their legal threats to his ISP. The Society claim they had asked for details of Society members giving dangerous advice, but that the BBC (whose program was critical of The Society) “were unable to provide a single example”. The Quackometer’s article clearly shows this was not true. His article starts:

I doubt we will ever see an X-Factor moment where a homeopath is forced to brutally confront the totality of their own delusions as they are exposed to a direct and uncompromising truth assault by a quackbusting Simon Cowell. Their emotional commitment to their healing fantasies is far stronger than their intellectual commitment to reason, truth and evidence. But I would have hoped that a homeopath's disregard for truth was limited to the truths of science, however, events in the last week or two have made me wonder.

I recommend reading the entire post – it’s killer. It exposes how homeopaths are recommending magic sugar pills to people visiting Africa to protect them against Malaria, and how The Society of Homeopaths continue to whitewash the complaints.

Worst Arguments

Two weeks ago I posted Left Brain Right Brain closes – how the actions of John Best (who sometimes posts as Fore Sam) had forced Kevin Leitch to close his blog to protect his family. Predictably, John Best appeared in the comments to promote his pseudoscientific view that autism is caused by Thimerosal in vaccines. Several other commenters (details below) took Best to task and essentially ripped his silly arguments apart for all to see. Yes, my regular commenters really are smarter than the average bear.

Not everyone reads long comments threads, but I can honestly recommend reading this one to see how weak Best’s’ arguments are. You can compare Best’s mere assertions with the actual contrary evidence and citations provided by the other commenters. It’s worth a read just to appreciate the intellectual ass kicking the other commenters gave Best. Some of it’s pretty funny too. And remember, this repertoire Best has of fallacious reasoning, assertion and bullying represent the very best (no pun intended) arguments that he has been able to think of in all his years promoting these beliefs. You’ll need to set aside a couple of hours to read all of the 180 comments - more if you’re going to read all the citations (not the ones from Best because he doesn’t provide any), but it will be entertaining.

That said, I know not everyone has that amount of spare time, so I’m going to sum up Best’s arguments and the rebuttals.

Best Arguments for Thimerosal

Pun intended that time. His is an argument in two parts, namely:

1. Autism first appeared in 1943 (or maybe 1931 – a little uncertain over the exact date) – which corresponds to the date Thimerosal was first used in vaccines. The only explanation for this is that thimerosal causes autism.
2. Based on his personal observation only, Best thinks his son’s autism (or is it his ADD – a little unsure here too), and that of several other kids, was cured by chelation.

Take those two points, add insults about your opponents – call them deuschbags (sic), knuckleheads, Bozo’s (sic), idiots, dumb bastards, simpletons, boneheads, wack jobs, bunch of jerks, scum, dopes etc. – and reference your success at gambling on the horses as proof you’re smart (I’m not kidding), and you’ve essentially got Best’s arguments.

I’ll try to summarize the main reasons the other commenters gave for why Best is wrong.

Autism first appeared in 1943

Best actually writes:

How about we use a graph from the last million years? It will show no autism until 1943 with a slow rise for about 40 years and an increasing rise as the number of vaccines with thimerosal increased.

Even if we had data from the last million years (obviously we don’t), it wouldn’t show autism until 1943 because that’s when Leo Kanner determined that autism was a separate syndrome, not reported before. Kanner notes autism had most likely previously been previously reported as schizophrenia. Best provided no data, but Tom Foss found Kanner’s actual paper that states:

These characteristics form a unique “syndrome,” not heretofore reported, which seems to be rare enough, yet is probably more frequent than is indicated by the paucity of observed cases. It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. In fact, several children of our group were introduced to us as idiots or imbeciles, one still resides in a state school for the feebleminded, and two had been previously considered as schizophrenic.

It seems fairly clear that Kanner means autistics were around before but had been misdiagnosed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. That is, autism existed before 1943 (or 1931 – take your pick), but it had been called something else. Kanner is just the first person to recognize that autism is something different. Best insists Kanner is saying autistics didn’t even exist before he (Kanner) diagnosed these initial children. Reading what Kanner wrote, I don’t see how any reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that Best comes to. In any case, the idea is absurd.

Best’s entire case stands or falls on his interpretation of Kanner’s words, the truth of Best’s interpretation, and Best’s assertion that “Autism is never misdiagnosed”. And he means it never was misdiagnosed – even before Kanner. That’s clearly an absurd assertion on its own, but even more so after Joseph provided a link to Dr. J. Landon Down and "Developmental" Disorders – referring to an 1887 paper that reported on patients with a “developmental” disorder that we would now almost certainly refer to as autism. Best just ignores this inconvenient piece of data.

Best then leads with what he considers is a killer argument, the crudely phrased:

Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943? If your ridiculous assertion is true, you should be able to show me 77 year olds at the rate of 1 in 150 with autism. If you can do that, I'll blow you.

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that 77 year old autistics, who value their privacy, would be lining up to present themselves now for classification at the order of John Best. Even so, Interverbal managed to provide:

California Department of Disability Services

Quarterly Report 7/1/1992

Age Cohort: 62-99

4 people meeting DSM-III-R autism criteria (stricter than the current standard).

1992 - 62 = 1930.

If they are alive today, then they are your 77 year old autistics, at the youngest.

Best just hand waved away this inconvenient piece of data.

The most charitable view is that Best hasn’t provided any even remotely extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claim. The less charitable and more realistic view, is that his argument has been totally busted. And without it, what reason does he have to suppose autism is caused by Thimerosal? Oh yes, it’s:

Chelation

Best’s reasoning for this is:

My son's improvement, my son with ADD being 100% cured, friends and acquaintances who have cured their children and reports from DAN and others.

But he provides no double blind studies that show chelation to be better than placebo. There is a reason we use double blind studies – it is because we know that humans are good at fooling themselves. This is especially true with autism which involves delay in many areas of development. But delay doesn’t necessarily mean no progression. Autistic kids often progress without intervention, and certainly without chelation. Without a double blind study, you have no way of knowing if chelation is a factor in the progression or not.

Best also fails to explain why, if his son is “100% cured”, he still needs chelation. This is something you would expect if chelation was not curing the child. It’s a result that is inconsistent with chelation being the cure.

Without a randomized double-blind study we cannot possibly know if chelation is helping Best’s child or any other. And since that was the other leg of Best’s proof that Thimerosal causes autism, his “argument” such as it was, is completely destroyed. Best’s continued aggressive and anti-science responses such as “Studies are a waste of time to me” demonstrate his inability to even think coherently on this subject. It also means he doesn’t even realize how much he’s just been beaten, and how much his foolishness has been laid bare for the world to see.

Questions Best Can’t Answer

When debating someone, questions often arise from the claims the person makes. For example, if someone says “chelation cures autism”, a reasonable question is “where is the study that shows that?” Questions not answered, or answered dishonestly, can be very revealing about the strength of the person’s position and his or her intellectual honesty. Jimmy Blue and Tom Foss came up with several relevant questions that Best ignored. If you want to know how honest Best is, or how strong his case is, consider these questions that Best still can’t or won’t answer:

1. What reason do you have not to believe that all the Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
2. How does Thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
3. If removing Thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines?
4. A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
5. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
6. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
7. How could Kanner (or you) say that autism had NEVER existed before 1943 if he (or you) did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?
8. Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?
9. How does chelation cure autism?
10. What is the chemical equation for the metabolization of some harmful mercury compound from Thimerosal in the body?
11. Why don't autistics exhibit the other symptoms of mercury poisoning (kidney dysfunction, ruddy faces, loss of hair, teeth, and nails, etc.) if autism is mercury poisoning?
12. How does HBOT cause brain cells to re-grow?
13. What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?
14. Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?
15. In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?
16. How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that its research is not peer reviewed?
17. Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?
18. How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevalence rates provided by CDC research?
19. Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?
20. How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

Note in the comments below, whether or not Best attempts to answer any of these questions, and form your own views.

Acknowledgements

This post was written with the arguments developed and put forward by commenters on this blog.

Most of the heavy lifting of the detailed paragraph by paragraph rebuttals to Best’s points, was written by Jimmy_Blue and Tom Foss. From experience I know how much time this takes, and they should be congratulated. They also gave me several good laughs (“My dogs think they are smarter than you”). Tactical support was supplied by Bronze Dog and Techskeptic, pointing out fallacies and other problems with Best’s position. A couple of pieces of really interesting information came from Joseph, who has clearly been writing about autism longer than most of us. And of course, Interverbal found the 77 year old autistics that Best still insists don’t exist. Thanks to you all. It was quite a lesson in taking apart fallacious arguments.

Bestisms

I want to end with a few choice Best quotes. It’s not quite as good as this list of John Best quotes, but they are amusing none the less.

In response to requests for citations to back up his claims:

I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.

On the inventiveness of Eli Lilly:

Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly.

Argument by wild west wanted poster:

…just find me the 77 year olds, dead or alive.

On consistency in evaluating sources:

The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything.

And then goes on to quote the autism prevalence of 1 in 150, which he gets from (guess where? No prizes) , the CDC.

On the true meaning of science

true scientists like myself…

and yet

I think you guys are too involved with science

Where I learned what I know to be true is of no concern to you.

Studies are a waste of time to me.

On humility

Autism is never misdiagnosed

And finally, the proof Best really is smarter than anyone else:

Until one of you morons can decipher a racing form and select 6 out of 9 races while I only pick 5, you will not be able to outdo me at any intellectual pursuit. For, handicapping horse races is the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter.

Note: the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter. There really is no answer to that. Best’s Nobel Prize must surely be a mere formality.

72nd Skeptics’ Circle

The 72nd Skeptics Circle has just been posted at The Quackometer. And I’m on the list of bad boys and girls. Orac made me do it Sir!

The Society of Homeopathic Whiners

From Orac I learned how The Society of Homeopaths responded to recent criticism about their censorship of blogger The Quackometer.

The Society instructed lawyers to write to the Internet Service Provider of Dr. Lewis' website because the content of his site was not merely critical but defamatory of The Society, with the effect that its reputation could have been lowered. Dr Lewis, in his article, stated as fact highly offensive comments about The Society and it is for that reason that The Society decided it had no option but to take action. The very crude abuse posted on various websites and e-mailed to The Society since our action suggests that these bloggers/authors are not people who are interested in a real debate on the basis of either science or the public good but who simply want to attack homeopathy, for the very sake of it.

Due to the unpleasantness and surprisingly vitriolic nature of the postings on the Quackometer website and others, The Society has taken a conscious decision not to respond to these bloggers.

Oh boo hoo. No – don’t respond with any actual arguments to refute what was written; don’t respond with any evidence that homoeopathy works (it doesn’t). Play martyr instead. That’s the ticket. And what about these “crude” and “vitriolic” emails they’ve received that they’re too important to respond to? Emails like the one from, ooh let me think, Andy Lewis, owner of the banned Quackometer. It’s here in full. A sample of the crude vitriol Andy sent them:

I hope you understand that my concerns are genuinely held and my motive is the wider highlighting of a problem that may well end in harm or even death to people unless action is taken. I am sorry you have felt it necessary to ask my web hosting provider to take down the page in question. If you could tell me urgently what the wording is that you feel is incorrect, defamatory or not fair comment I will examine it immediately and will ensure a friendly and swift resolution of this matter. In addition, if you wish to respond to my concerns on the site, I will be more than happy to prominently publish your thoughts in full on my web site.

Read the full thing. It’s all equally vitriolic and crude, and unworthy of a reply (apparently).

They’re right about one thing though – I do want to attack homeopathy. But not “for the very sake of it”. I attack homeopathy because it’s quackery that doesn’t work. And because telling people it will prevent or cure malaria is criminal. Or it should be.

One more thing. As an example of the Society’s tin ear and / or total lack of self-awareness, I wish to highlight their claim that the content of The Quackometer post was “defamatory of The Society, with the effect that its reputation could have been lowered”. Because, of course, their threat of legal action has completely obliterated the post (and thus its lowering of The Society’s reputation) from the Internet. Or not, as it turns out. To show the ludicrous nature of their continued banning, I give you just a few sites that repost the article in full and/or comment on it further. Feel free to replicate them on your blog.

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy

You’ll let me know if I missed any.

Dinesh D'Souza is Not Very Bright

This is funny. Via Pharyngula today I found this piece of very poor reasoning from Dinesh D'Souza. D’Souza is banging on about how the spiritual world is of a completely different order from anything we know, and how we have no way to investigate or comprehend it. PZ has the obvious response: “So how does Dinesh D'Souza know anything about it?” Read D’Souza’s whole piece – it’s all bad.

I just had to laugh at one point he made – and it’s that part I want to comment on. Bereft of any arguments of his own, D’Souza relies on an argument made by the philosopher Kant. Briefly, Kant argued that human knowledge is limited by “the limited sensory apparatus of perception” we possess. That is, we cannot be sure our perception of reality shows us what reality is really like. D’Souza goes on to say this (with my bold):

When I challenged Daniel Dennett to debunk Kant's argument, he posted an angry response on his website in which he said several people had already refuted Kant. But he didn't provide any refutations, and he didn't name any names. Basically Dennett was relying on the argumentum ad ignorantium-the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience.

LOL – argument from ignorance is an argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience? Nooooooo. Can he really believe that’s what argument from ignorance is? No. Argument from ignorance is:

… a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

And here’s the funny bit. You see, super duper ironically, that’s exactly what D’Souza is doing when he says that since no one can refute Kant – Kant must be right. D’Souza’s argument is an argument from ignorance. Add the straw man D’Souza started with, and you have a mish-wash of illogical waffle.

Of course, Kant could be right. There could be another reality we can’t comprehend. But just because there could be a different reality we can’t comprehend, that doesn’t mean there is one. And even if there were, there is no reason to believe that it’s anything like the version D’Souza or any other religious nit wits believe in.

Left Brain Right Brain closes

Kevin Leitch’s Left Brain Right Brain autism blog closed today. Click the link and you will discover why:

The reason LB/RB is shutting is because I cannot continue to allow my beautiful eldest girl to be exposed to the hatred and bullying she is recieving from John Best. John has seen fit to compare my beautiful child to a trained monkey because he didn't like the fact she was progressing. He has made numerous jokes at her expense on that theme. He has assumed her identity online. He has encouraged others to do the same.

Let me be clear. I do not care one iota what this cowardly idiot thinks of me. He can write whatever he wants. But he has involved my daughter. Not to reference her progression. Not to quote me. But to laugh at her and to put words in her seven year old mouth.

I genuinely fear for her safety at the hands of this person (I will refrain from calling someone who picks on children 'a man'). Three days running he has posted blog entries about her, two of which assume her identity and one of which is attempting to gain money in her name. I do not know where he would stop. Therefore the only way to make her safe is to remove us from his presence.

More at the link.

This is sad. Kevin’s blog has been a source of much thoughtful and useful information on autism and autism quackery over the years, and all of this information is now lost (the wayback machine notwithstanding). But Kevin has to put the safety of his family first and I can’t fault him for doing so. I don’t know too much of this John Best, except that he posts numerous comments to blogs under the name “Fore Sam”, and is well known in the autism anti-quackery blogosphere. For example, this appears to be a sample of John Best aka Fore Sam’s thought on a variety of subjects.  This is his blog.

Whatever your views on the causes of autism, it’s a sad day when a blog has to close due to fears for the safety of its author and/or his family.

Homeopaths Censor Blogger

From Orac I learn that The Society of Homeopaths was successful in getting blogger The Quackometer to pull his post entitled The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing – an expose of how homeopaths falsely claim that homeopathy can prevent and cure malaria. As Orac says:

Gee, aren't legal threats the way that the evil big pharma and conventional medicine "suppress" the "truth" of alternative medicine and homeopathy? Why is it that the Society of Homeopaths is behaving like a thug and taking advantage of vagaries of British libel law, which is notoriously weighted towards the plaintiffs […] in order to try to suppress evidence-based articles that are not flattering to homeopathy? Notice that, instead of debating, instead of presenting arguments and evidence for why they thought Le Canard Noir was incorrect, the Society of Homeopaths tried to suppress his right to free speech by making legal threats to his ISP, which caved.

Precisely. So in the interests of free speech, and to demonstrate to the homeopaths that bullying will not work (they can still refute the article with evidence – or they could if they had any), I will join many other bloggers (see the end of Orac’s post for the updated full list) and reproduce in full The Quackometer’s censored article. The following is what the homeopaths were frightened you would read:

The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing

By The Quackometer

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.

The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.

As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:

48: • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority. • No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.

72: To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.

The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.

Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,

Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.

Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,

Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. ... The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs...

Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.

Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,

The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.

This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.

However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that 'she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics'. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.

A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for 'treating' various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.

Let's remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.

Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the 'immediate priority' to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?

I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?

It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?

At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?

71st Skeptics’ Circle

The 71st Skeptics Circle has just been posted at Infophilia.

Get Your Flu Shot

From Carl Zimmer today I found this excellent opinion piece in the NYT by Jessica Snyder Sachs, explaining why you should get your children vaccinated and why the “natural” approach is no such thing. Some extracts:

Some parents have come to embrace colds and flus, and in recent years we’ve seen a resurgence of the chickenpox party, where parents deliberately expose their preschoolers to infected playmates on the theory that it’s better to get the disease than to have the vaccine.

But the idea that illness is good for children — or anyone else — is wrong. In part, the idea of “good sickness” is a throwback to a now disproved version of the “hygiene hypothesis.”

And she goes on to explain why this idea, which originally was thought to be sound, has been proven wrong. I actually met a woman recently who thought it was better for her kids to get a disease than to have the disease prevented by a vaccine. The logic for that escaped me (if your kid gets the disease he’ll then not get the disease again?). I wish I’d had this article handy. Also, I didn’t know this:

Moreover, studies now show that the more infections a person has during childhood, the greater his or her chance of premature death from scourges of old age like heart disease and cancer. The link appears to be chronic inflammation, a kind of lingering collateral damage from the body’s disease-fighting response.

I thought the most interesting part was how Snyder Sachs explained that getting immunity through getting the disease, is not natural:

A second misconception common among vaccine-shunning parents is that there’s something “natural” about the 6 to 10 respiratory infections the typical American child gets every year (or even the two to four we adults experience). Common, yes; natural no, not if “natural” represents the forces that shaped the human immune system during all but the last sliver of our 250,000 years as Homo sapiens. Colds, flus and most other contagious diseases found a central place in our lives only after we and our domestic animals began crowding together in large settlements some 5,000 years ago.

The article goes on to explain why you really should get your flu shot this year.

The Woo Handbook

Prologue

For some time now I’ve noticed woos using the same type of arguments or argumentative technique, over and over again. It’s almost like they’re using some kind of handbook, or something. I already knew about The Woo Woo Credo, but it seemed to me some new arguments had crept in – almost as if the whole thing had been updated. Well, thanks to stellar undercover work on behalf of Skeptico.Net Enterprises, I can reveal the source of these new woo arguments – The Woo Handbook. And it is indeed an updated handbook of the best most irritating arguments the average woo has to offer. Without further ado, I reproduce below the portions of it I have been able to procure to date. Undoubtedly there is more I don’t have (perhaps some of you can add some additional pieces), but I’ll give you what I have managed to obtain so far. So without further ado,  I hereby present extracts from:

The Woo Handbook

My fellow woos – this handbook will enable to you debate effectively with skeptics on the web, or at least irritate them for a bit. Read and absorb its contents and you should be able to debate with skeptics without having to know any actual “science” or anything hard like that. And lets face it, if we wanted to study hard stuff and learn any actual facts or evidence, we’d be real scientists and not woos. And where would be the fun in that?

Before you start though, you should remember that skeptics have many things on their side. Things like evidence, facts, logic. But don’t despair. If you follow the techniques described below it may seem like you have a valid argument more often that you would imagine, given your actual lack of knowledge, evidence or facts. Good luck, and I’m visualizing your success.

Here are the main points to successfully annoying debating with skeptics:

1. Start by telling skeptics you want to “educate them on the facts”. This puts them on the defensive (see next point below) and makes it seem like you’re the knowledgeable one with facts on your side, even though what you’re about to tell them is mostly made up.
2. When the skeptic comes back with demands for “evidence” (they love that word) for your claims, you should say the skeptic is being “defensive”. Alternatively you could try a passive aggressive approach and say the skeptic is “attacking”. Either works as well as the other. With a bit of luck, no one will notice that you didn’t have the “evidence” the skeptic wants and it will now look like the skeptic really is on the defensive.
3. If the skeptic has scientific studies that appear to support his point of view, you should point out that scientific studies have been wrong before. Vioxx is always a good word to bring up here, as is Thalidomide. And if that doesn’t work, you could point out that doctors don’t always agree in their diagnoses, or that Einstein showed Newton was wrong. Really, the possibilities are endless – after all science has been wrong many times before. In fact you should say that science has been wrong many times before.
4. Remember, your personal experience is always more valid than their scientific studies (or your lack of them). Anecdotes will convince more people you’re right than any number of “studies”, so have a couple ready. It doesn’t matter if they’re true – you’re on the internet so no one knows who you are and can check them anyway.
5. Move the goalposts. For example, if you’re claiming that Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism, and the skeptic points to a lack of studies that support this (or the continued increase in autism even though Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines), just start talking about other environmental sources of mercury, or about heavy metals in general. Make it seem the skeptic is a fool for not realizing that (for example) mercury is a “neurotoxin”. No one will notice that the skeptic was arguing something different and you’ll look like the one who really understands the science.
6. Question the skeptic’s experience or qualifications. This usually scores you some points since they’ll normally reply that this is an “appeal to authority” (or some such skeptic-like jargon), and their refusal to state their qualifications will seem like evasion. Remember you’re on the internet, and so no one can possibly know you don’t have the science degree or other experience you claim you have.
7. Skeptics are closed minded, but these days you’ll need to be subtle about saying this or they’ll just say that you’re closed-minded for not agreeing with them. Instead, refer to “closed minded scientists” who are missing the big picture that only you know about. That’ll leave the impression that the skeptics really are too closed minded to see what you see.
8. Question the motives of everyone. A scientist writing a paper must be getting funding from somewhere, after all. If you can’t find actual evidence of nefarious motives or conflicts of interest, no matter – just claim the conflicts exist. That’ll be enough in most cases.
9. Introduce quantum mechanics to the debate. For example, you might say that the observer, in the act of observing, changes the observed, or something similar. If the skeptic asks you any questions on quantum mechanics (for example to see if you really understand it), you can just click here or here and copy and paste some pretty impressive sounding scientific explanations that will silence all but the most knowledgeable. You should then act as though the skeptics are fools for not knowing all this.
10. Say that skeptics are “not skeptical enough”. This Zen-like approach makes you seem like the real skeptic while the skeptics look like rubes. In fact, extra points if you call the skeptics “Rubes” who have been fooled by _____________ (insert whatever they appear to support – big pharma / conventional medicine, you name it). You are then the “real skeptic” and can refer to the skeptics as “pseudo-skeptics”.
11. Alternatively you can say “skepticism is healthy, but…” (and then explain why it isn’t), or you can say the skeptics are  being “too skeptical”, or their skepticism goes “too far”. Avoid all discussion about how far is too far, or exactly when their skepticism has to stop. You might also not want to use this argument too close to the argument in the point above, as some skeptic might point out they contradict each other.
12. If all else fails, use the phrase “The Church of Skepticism”. That always gets them annoyed.
13. Remember that conventional doctors are “allopathic doctors” or “allopaths”. This seemingly scientific term will make it sound like you know technical terms the skeptics don’t. Few people will know they’re meaningless.
14. After the debate has been going for a while you should say you’ve provided studies to support your position, even though you haven’t. You can then periodically refer to these studies as though everyone now agrees you supplied them. Few people will remember you haven’t.
15. Equivocation is your friend. For example, when talking about  how when Columbus first arrived in the West Indies, the natives were literally unable to see his ships (it’s all in “What The Bleep Do We Know!?”), and the skeptic doubts this, just suggest that perhaps the Indians just didn’t realize they were large ships containing people. Or, perhaps they didn’t realize the significance of the ships – that they contained colonizers who would steal their lands and kill most of them off.  The skeptic will seem stupid for not agreeing with this and few people will realize this is not what the film was actually claiming.
16. Drop into the argument the fact that hundreds of years ago we didn’t know radio waves existed, but they obviously did exist, so how does the skeptic know that “qi” (or whatever) does not exist today? If nothing else, that’ll change the subject.
17. Be careful with the “we only use 10% of brain” maneuver – most skeptics will by now have handy a link to sites such as Snopes that debunk that claim. Instead talk about 7% or 3% of the brain, which should confuse them. At least it should muddy the waters. If that doesn’t work, claim you meant 7% of the “mind” and “not the physical brain”. You can then enjoy sneering at them for being stuck in the materialist paradigm, not knowing that the mind and the brain are completely separate things. Now would be a good time to mention “quantum” again. (See above.)
18. In debates that continue over several days, you should repeat arguments you made earlier as though the skeptic is a fool for not having answered these points. In a long debate, few people will realize the skeptic did refute those earlier arguments. At the very least, the skeptic will now have to waste time searching back and quoting what was written before. Few people will bother to follow the argument in this much detail.
19. When talking about whether prayer or The Secret works, say something like God (or The Secret) does answer prayers (wishes to the universe), but that “sometimes the answer is no”. There is really no way they can prove this wrong, and you will appear wise and Zen-like in comparison.
20. Finally, when you’ve used up all the above tactics, say you’re not going to waste any more time with the skeptics you’ve been debating because they’re too sad, stupid, closed-minded, ______ (insert other flaw the skeptic has) to understand your brilliant arguments. Make a big grandiose statement and exit to start anew somewhere else.

Look out for our new section for Intelligent Design Creationism, and how to debate Darwinists.

(Skeptico notes – that section will follow if I can get the full text.)

Ooh – it says Quantum

So it must be true. Today, Bad Science reports how an ex-cop from South Africa (pictured right) has a magic quantum box that can locate anyone in the world. And he’s been “helping” find missing British child Madeleine McCann (although rather strangely, she hasn’t been found yet). Read the Bad Science link for the details.

Anyway, this bit sounded like a testable claim:

Krugel, of the University of Bloemfontein, claims that his technique is able to locate a missing person anywhere in the world using only a single strand of hair.

Sounds like just the thing to win Randi’s Million, wouldn’t you think?  A fairly simple test would work. Give Krugel one strand of hair from each of (say) ten people randomly distributed throughout the world. Krugel is blind to who the hair comes from. He says he is 90% accurate – I say he just has to be right in the location of five of the ten people. Something like that anyway, depending on how accurate (within one mile?) he says he can be.  The guy should ace the test. And that would only be the start. The Nobel Prize would surely follow, after all, according to Krugel:

“…this is science, science, science! That is what is so fantastic about it. It is tied to the science we hear but people didn’t realise it… it’s just science. That’s it.”

So I decided to Email Danie Krugel to see if he was going to apply for the million. I wrote:

Mr. Krugel:

I was fascinated to read today of your quantum device that can locate a missing person anywhere in the world using only a single strand of hair. This ability would easily win the million dollars offered by James Randi (details here), and I wondered if you had applied. While I am sure you are not motivated primarily by money, winning this prize would prove to the world that your device works, and would open the door to further beneficial uses of the product in law enforcement and elsewhere. Could you advise me when and if you plan to apply for this challenge?

I’ll let you know if he replies. Of course, there’s nothing stopping anyone else clicking the link and sending him an email too.

Other reading from Moonflake blog

Midweek Cuckoo: Danie Krugel

Danie Krugel: First Contact – Krugel phones Moonflake and promises “some big event regarding his device”

Danie Krugel: Officially a Liar? – Krugel fails to make good on the promise detailed in the above link

Pseudoscientists, Psychics, and Pop Psychologists: Danie Krugel resurfaces on Carte Blanche – a skeptical review of Krugel’s recent appearance on South African TV.

Edited to add:

Commenters below gave me two additional links. First, it seems that James Randi has already offered Krugel the million if his device works.  Funnily enough, he never replied to Randi. Or to me.

Also, see Danie Krügel Facts (sic).

October 13, 2007 – The Observer apologizes for its credulous article on Krugel. Apparently some bloggers had introduced them to the actual facts about Krugel and his device.

And The Mirror on the parents of a missing man who were considerably less than impressed by Krugel.

Autism – personal experience more credible than scientists?

No of course it’s not. But someone thinks it is. I recently received the following email from Kelly – the email subject line being “Thimerasol Link to Autism”. I thought some of you might be amused by the following exchange:

I will keep this email brief so as to not be misinterpreted.  I ran across your website by accident, but I just had to comment. 

I do not want to be a part of all the political rhetoric and garbage.  All I want to do is site personal experience and educate you on the facts.  I have autism.  The problem with thimerasol is that as an autistic person I lack the gene glutatione s-transferase.  That gene filters out heavy metals from your body.  When you lack the gene you cannot eliminate heavy metals, such as mercury, from your body.  So, over time they build up and damage your organs and tissues.

Let's say someone passed you an old fashioned mercury thermometer and it accidentally fell and broke.  You would jump up and get out of the room faster than one could blink.  Then you would call the Fire Department so the Hazardous Materials team could clean up the mercury.  Why is that?  You have not ingested any of the mercury.  Therefore, it is not dangerous.  So what is the problem?  After all, you have the gene to process the mercury out of your system. 

It ticks me off how so called "scientists" with no personal experience, can debate an issue without ever listening to the other side.  People with personal experience and knowledge have much more credibility than a scientist in a lab.  When you are lactose intolerant, no one debates that you cannot properly digest milk.  No one runs around and claims milk is bad.  Because it is not for the rest of us.  When you are diabetic, no one debates that you cannot properly break down sugar and carbohydrates.  Sugar and carbohydrates are not bad for the rest of us.  Then why is it so hard to believe that someone who is missing a gene to eliminate heavy metals from their bodies would have a devastating reaction to a heavy metal being ingested into their body?  It may not be bad for the rest of you, but it is bad for some of us.  Thimerasol does not cause autism, it simply is something we cannot tolerate.  That to me is pretty simple. 

If vaccines are required, and they should be, then pharmaceutical companies should take out the thimersol as a preservative.  Then everyone could enjoy the benefits of building immunity without having their lives ripped from them with devasting effects of having mercury coarsing through their veins.  Believe me, it is devasting.  I live it every day.

I replied:

You criticize scientists "with no personal experience", and state that "People with personal experience and knowledge have much more credibility than a scientist in a lab" - and then you write in detail about the gene for "glutatione s-transferase".  How, exactly do you even know about the gene for glutathione s-transferase?  From your personal experience?  Of course not.  The only reason you have even heard about the gene for glutathione s-transferase is from scientists working in a lab.  So who really has any credibility here?

I’m afraid you have jumped to a conclusion about this gene, heavy metals, and autism that is not supported by the science. As I understand it, autistics have no deficiency in Glutathione, and even if they did it wouldn’t matter:

If the average human carries around approximately 6 milligrams of mercury how much glutathione should we require to deal with environmental mercury levels ? Even if several molecules of glutathione were required for each mercury molecule, we should have millions of times sufficient glutathione to get the job done. Compare that to the reported upper limit of exposure through vaccines which has been estimated at less than 250 micrograms. A person so severely deficient in glutathione they would be unable to detoxify 250 micrograms of mercury probably wouldn't survive long enough to be vaccinated in the first place. Every breath of air would expose them to lethal levels of ozone, pollutants and other oxidants.

I’m sorry Kelly, but this desperate need to blame Thimerosal despite the evidence is not helping anyone find the real causes of autism.  You have absolutely no personal experience that has a hope in hell of telling you that glutathione s-transferase deficiency has caused your autism.  You have no idea, no clue.  Your only hope is with scientists.

She replied, but (and I know you’ll be really surprised by this), without addressing any of the points I raised. Instead there was a stream of fallacious reasoning. Her response and my replies are below.

Wow.  I just passed on a friendly email about my personal experience to give you more insight into this problem.  I tried to keep it brief so as to not be misinterpreted, but that didn't work.  You read quite a bit into my email that was no where near what I intended.  That is the problem with email, you cannot tell the other person's tone of voice, attitude, or inflection.  So, we end up reading in to what they are saying. 

A disingenuous start. The original email may have had a friendly tone, but she said she wanted to “educate [me] on the facts”. Somewhat arrogant. When her “education” didn’t take she now tries to make out that I’m over reacting or something, as though I am the one with a problem. It’s just an appeal to pity.

Do you have autism?  How are you so passionate about this cause?  I am impressed with the energy level you have concerning mercury and autism.  How long have you been studying this?  What is your background and training?  I like your spunk, too. 

I am passionate about applying critical thinking, and explaining how I apply it to issues such as the autism / mercury controversy.

Actually, I am a scientist by training.  I practiced pharmacy for 7 years.  I also have 25+ years as a pharmaceutical rep as well. 

An attempt to claim authority.

I was in no way criticizing scientists. 

Yes you were . You complained about "so called "scientists" with no personal experience" and you wrote "People with personal experience and knowledge have much more credibility than a scientist in a lab".

It is like anything else in this world, you are the expert if you actually have the condition.  You possess a personal, intimate knowledge that someone who does not have the disease can never possess.  Scientists and physicians get their science and understanding originally from the actual patient. 

Scientists study the patient using the scientific method. The person with the condition knows how it feels, what the disadvantages of it are. She is the expert on that, perhaps. But she doesn’t have any special insight into the causes of the condition.

When they loose sight of that, is when it angers me.  They can debate and believe all they want to, but that does not make it true. 

Something you might like to consider yourself before you write any more on this subject, Kelly.

In my experience, the best physicians out there are the ones who have a personal experience with a disease.  Ask any well known, highly respected physician why they went in to the specialty they did and they will tell you either a family member had the disease or they personally struggle with it.  I have worked with top thought leaders throughout the world in my career and the answer is always the same.  The credibility comes from actually experiencing an illness or disease.  You have an edge when you are that close to the disease.  One of the best Ob-Gyn Oncologists at MD Anderson lost his wife to ovarian cancer.   He has a personal vested interest in finding a cure for that type of cancer, since losing his wife his daughter is now at risk.  He will be more open to new knowledge, theories, and treatments than another expert who is only using straight science, speculation, and theories.

Such a person will be more motivated, may feel more passionate about finding a cure, may work longer hours etc. But he will absolutely not have any better idea of the causes of such illnesses just because a spouse died. And anyone who thought he did would be fooling himself and would be a lousy researcher.

Take for example, my friends with MS or Breast Cancer.  I would never go to them and lecture them about their diseases.  They have the disease and possess an intimate knowledge that neither you nor me will ever know.  Thank goodness.  It is very presumptuous and arrogant to boldly lecture and/or correct someone who is living with a disease every day. 

Wrong. If that person claimed they knew what caused the disease, with no reason, then you would be perfectly correct in telling them they were wrong.

Any reputable scientist will tell you that no matter how much you read and study something, it does not always mean that is what can be replicated in the lab or human experience.  That is why it takes an average of 12 years and $400 million to bring a drug to market.  Yet, every year dozens of drugs are pulled from the market, because you just cannot replicate the entire human experience in a study.  You cannot predict all the possible consequences and all the possible outcomes that could happen when a large number of people consume a medication.  But, the FDA does the best they can.  Like anything else, the system isn't perfect, but it is pretty darn good.

I know all that. Funny. I though you said that people with the condition knew more that the scientist. So why do we need scientists to do these tests that cost so much? Why don’t we just ask the people with the illnesses what caused it and what the cure is? You prove yourself wrong with your own words Kerry. You demonstrate that only science will determine what the cure is (or isn’t), not the person with the disease.

Something concerned me in your email.  You keep referring to "supported by science."  Come on, you know that science is an ever evolving field and we have barely touched the surface on any one disease. 

Yeees, but that still doesn’t mean that you know, just because you happen to have a condition, by some magic, that autism is caused by not having the gene for glutatione s-transferase. As I wrote to you, and as you have ignored, there is no way you could possibly know that other than through science. Tell me – how do you know this is true Kelly? How did you even hear about the gene for glutatione s-transferase? Explain how that works please.

Forming conclusions, based on past events and results is what we do.  Then, we continually try to prove or disprove our theories.   There will always be conflicting data and conflicting opinions.  That is why scientific symposiums are such wonderful places.  The ability to share information that one scientist has done with other scientists is phenomenal for the advancement of science in general.  Everyone has their theories, their studies, and their opinions.  Theories and opinions are based on so many different things and I am always leery of people who are extremely adamant in their opinions.

As you seem to be, you mean? Because you are adamant in your opinion of what causes autism and yet you have not cited a single study that demonstrates that. I cited an examination of a study that the mercury militia thinks shows it, and my cite explains why they are wrong. You ignored that cite. Did you even read it? Because if you didn’t read it, and still think you’re right, I would say you are extremely adamant in your opinions. You should be leery of yourself.

When they are close-minded

It is not closed minded to reject claims that are not true. On the other hand, it is closed minded to insist that autism is caused by a missing gene for glutatione s-transferase although the article I cited for you (that you ignored) shows it is not the case. It is closed minded to insist you are right when you have nothing but your arrogant belief that you know more just because you happen to be autistic. Read The appeal to be open-minded to learn more.

I have to ask where their funding or loyalties lie. 

No you don’t. The conclusions do not depend on the motives of the funding. Read Ad Hominem to learn why.

I always find it humorous to sit with the skeptics.  I like a little controversy, too. 

I don't know how old you are, but were you around for all the AIDS symposiums, discussions, and rhetoric in the early 80's?  Fascinating theories and discussions.  What we thought was absolute has been proven and subsequently disproven over the last 20+ years.  The heated debates were amazing.  Some well-known scientists stuck their necks out, were ridiculed and ostracized at the time, and are now revered.   Love it.

What theories that were disproven? I only remember Peter Duesberg who said that HIV did not cause AIDS. He’s still saying it, as far as I know. He’s still wrong. Anyway, I think you are trying to appeal to “science was wrong before”. Read the link to find out why that is fallacious.

Citing my own personal experience and a plethora of studies,

No – only citing your own experience. Not one study. Nada. Zip. What? Didn’t you think I’d notice?

when a person lacks glutathione s-transferase to properly eliminate heavy metals from their body, the heavy metals will build up and damage organs.

Still no evidence that’s what causes autism.

Surely, you have heard of the dangers of mercury poisoning, arsenic poisoning, lead poisoning,  etc.?  There is an easy test to determine the levels in someone's body.  There are endless studies showing the devastating effects on the body from prolonged exposure and/or toxic levels of any heavy metal be it mercury, lead, arsenic, copper, titanium, aluminum, etc.  Just recently, several children in south Dallas were tested and treated for lead poisoning because their homes are near an old paint factory.  They had the gene, but because there were such high levels around, their bodies could not eliminate it quickly enough and they succumbed to the effects.  To my knowledge, all are doing okay, but suffering some permanent damage to their organs due to prolonged exposure.   No one can dispute that they are ill due to lead exposure. 

Now we’re on to arsenic and lead. Nice misdirect, but still no evidence that Thimerosal causes autism.

Autistic people have toxic levels of all heavy metals, not just mercury. 

Evidence please. (Hint: I don’t think there is any. Oh, and I wouldn’t bother to cite those debunked “baby haircut” studies. Up to you though.)

And I must correct you.  This is not a desperate need on my part to blame thimerosal.  

I’m glad to hear it. Many others do, though.

The facts are the facts. 

Yes they are. Only you don’t have any.

People ingest heavy metals from a variety of sources, not just vaccines. 

Oh, but your email subject was “Thimerasol Link to Autism”. Now it’s heavy metals (not just mercury) from a variety of sources, not just vaccines. Standard woo – shift the goalposts. Still no evidence it causes autism, though.

My health deteriorated after each injection I received as a kid.  Luckily I am old enough that very few vaccines were required.  

That makes no sense. You must have been young once. Unless you were created in a lab. Were you created in a lab?

I did not go completely downhill until I had my mercury fillings removed. If this is not done properly, it can be dangerous for anyone - even you. 

Oh, now we’re in total woo land. Mercury fillings.

That is actually just common sense.  If too much of a toxic substance is released into the blood stream, the person will suffer the problems associated with that substance. 

Except that the typical clinical signs of mercurism are not similar to the typical clinical signs of autism.

I thought I had a quailfied dentist, little did I know the damage that was to come.  Trust me, I have learned more about the devastating effects of mercury and autism first hand.  And, as a scientist, I have done my research and homework.  I do not rely simply on what someone cites in one small study.  Any study can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say.  There are hundreds,  if not thousands, of studies that support the harmful effects of heavy metals on the body that are well controlled and reputable.   

Yes. But not one study that shows thimerosal causes autism. Funny that.

Reason with me for a moment.  Thimerosal is harmful by inhalation and ingestion, and lethal between 50 and 1000 times the usual intake, which for mercury is . 0.1 milligram of mercury per cubic meter of air (0.1 mg/m3).  I wanted to get my hands on the original package insert and studies submitted to the FDA by Eli Lilly in the '20's.  Thimerosal is a substance like several other older drugs, that if submitted today, would not be approved by the FDA.

But none of that matters if your liver is incapable of eliminating the mercury.  No one is debating that mercury, a neurotoxin, is dangerous.  Look at all the warnings on fish consumption, flourescent lighting, etc.  The FDA even admitted that the vaccine schedule in 1999 exceeded the EPA standards for mercury exposure.  No one is debating that mercury is toxic.  No one suggests that the levels in my body are in any way okay.  Autism is on the rise and that should be a cause for concern.  We need to find out why there is such a exponential rise in autism, or any disease for that matter. 

Yes we do. And insisting that thimerosal causes autism, despite the increasing evidence it does not, will make it harder to find the cause. Why don’t you see that?

Aaah, science, we learn we grow.  It is a fascinating journey if you look back at the history of medicine.  So many people unfortunately die as we try desperately to figure out disease processes.  When we barely understand something, we may be actually hurting the people we are supposedly treating.  But, as we study, advance, and grow in our knowledge, things change.   Molecular geneticism has played a huge role in identifying problems and improving treatment outcomes.  Genetics, genomes are something to keep your eye on in the future. 

The debate will continue on any link with mercury and autism.  But, please, don't completely discount someone who has a disease and therefore has a more intimate knowledge of the disease than you.  I ask that you open your mind up to the fact that heavy metals have been undeniably proven to be toxic and that those of us who cannot eliminate those substances from our body will suffer if we ingest even a tiny amount. 

Still waiting for the studies you say you’ve read. And I’m still waiting for you to open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.

My motivation is simple.  I personally do not want anyone else to suffer like I have and so I try to gently inform others of the dangers of mercury, lead, and heavy metal toxicity.  My intention is to educate and hopefully prevent someone else, especially a much more vulnerable child,  from dealing with the horrendous effects of heavy metal toxicity.  I have been there and it sucks. 

You have autism. But you are not educating anyone as to its cause. Sorry, but you are part of the problem.