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.
Posted by: Jay Kominek | October 02, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Yikes. That's not one I've read before. Autism from Mercury from an actual (or claimed) person who has it. And a possible HIV/AIDS denier to boot.
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.
Sure you do, you rely on the ones that are done by questionable sources who have been shown to manipulate data to support your already predisposed idea that Mercury and Heavy Metals cause autism.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 03, 2007 at 05:00 AM
Just proves that autistics can be ditsy, too.
Actual data from actual scientists show our exposure to heavy metals is decreasing. Lead intake in the 1940's was 400-500 micrograms/day and now is about 20 micrograms (Casarett & Doull's Toxicology, p 827). Japan and Iraq have had large-scale mercury poisoning, but no studies I have seen indicate an increase in autism there. People who claim heavy metal poisoning causes autism usually can't show actual blood or tissue levels of metals much out of the normal range.
My personal experience is that my Dad, grandpa and brother show signs of autism, so I think my daughter has autism because she inherited it. Autism isn't so bad if you drop the pity and deal with life.
Posted by: Ruth | October 03, 2007 at 06:21 AM
I would find it interesting that Kelly might be able to learn of gene glutatione s-transferase through very personal experience. I wonder if it knocked on her door?
In any event, I'm an autistic who hasn't has any personal experience that says to be that the gene glutatione s-transferase did anything to me, nor that I am filled with heavy metals.
There is value to personal experience at many levels, talking in terms of psychology, but in terms of physical causes it's odd to assert that experience gives you that kind of access.
At some level, though, I don't even care what the physical causes are (though I tend to side with the studies regarding genetics, but I'm saying that as an aside and not going to substantiate it here). I just wish that people would treat autistics humanely and give them the rights to a personal education.
Cliff
Posted by: Cliff | October 03, 2007 at 06:33 AM
Wow, an autistic person who believes in the thimerosal claptrap. I guess you learn something every day. I'd direct her over to the Autism Hub, autism-hub.co.uk, where she can discuss these matters all she wants with fellow autistics, parents and professionals in the field.
As to "glutathione s-transferase", I highly doubt all autistic persons lack this gene. Is there even conclusive evidence that the gene is less common in autistics than in the general population?
Posted by: Joseph | October 03, 2007 at 10:38 AM
I'm with Ruth on this. I also believe it is more likely a genetic condition. My nephew is autistic. He has a fraternal twin sister. Both received inoculations at the same time, yet my niece had absolutely no signs of autism.
I also have an uncle who coincidentally had a fraternal twin that died shortly after birth, that also has shown signs of autism through out his life. (mild symptoms)
I'm no scientist, but I think the mercury/vaccination scare has been sufficiently discounted.
Posted by: American Scot | October 03, 2007 at 10:50 AM
BTW, I think she has something called "alleged mercury poisoning". I've never heard of autistic adults having this before, but it's common in relation to dental amalgam fillings. Anyway, see Grandjean et al. (1997) and Sandborgh Englund et al. (1994).
Posted by: Joseph | October 03, 2007 at 11:11 AM
This ties is well with the Yasko autism protocol where the entire program is supported by personal experiences and no science. In fact, Yasko openly states that no negative posts are allowed on her site, hence the amazingly consistent positive testimonials from her followers. You just have to trust her on the science thing, she just doesn't have time to waste with the peer review process. Simply amazing.
Posted by: johndoe | October 03, 2007 at 01:14 PM
The problem with thimerasol is that as an autistic person I lack the gene glutatione s-transferase.
I was unaware that GST is a genetic marker for autism. Sounds like a claim that ought to be in a science paper.
Just checked: I found ONE citation in pubmed that pinged GST and Autism together:
"Metabolic endophenotype and related genotypes are associated with oxidative stress in children with autism."
Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2006 Dec 5;141(8):947-56
Somebody handed this person a piece of crap.
Posted by: viggen | October 03, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Thought the rest of you would be amused by this. I received this email from Kelly today. I make no additional comment.
Here it is in full:
What you are speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you are saying. You truly are the clueless one, young man. So much so, you cannot even see it. Anyone can easily tell that by the nasty, defensive, and attacking nature by which you write. Oh, I am all too familiar with your kind.
It is interesting how you accuse me of the very things you do yourself. I answered your questions and subsequently gave you more info. You completely avoided every single one of my questions. That only reinforces your lack of credibility.
As you mature, and I hope you do, you will see that you need to close your mouth and open your mind. Just because you have a computer, an opinion, and can cut and paste does not make you an expert.
I have been privy to the original marketing studies that only the manufacturer has access to as I was on the original marketing team. There is much more information out there that would blow your mind. You will never even scratch the surface.
You definitely have been a source of amuzement to me. Thank you for the laughs! Good luck to you and never loose that spunk.
Take care,
Kelly
Posted by: Skeptico | October 03, 2007 at 05:44 PM
I have been privy to the original marketing studies that only the manufacturer has access to as I was on the original marketing team. There is much more information out there that would blow your mind. You will never even scratch the surface.
Ahh yes, the old "I have the secret info you don't have" ploy and I'll not show you it but you must trust that I do have the information that none of the thousands upon thousands of research scientists were privy to.
Give up the info and source or it means zip.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 03, 2007 at 07:56 PM
I'm questioning whether this Kelly is truly autistic. It doesn't read like anything I've read from autistics about themselves. In my experience, they tend to dislike being treated as though they're diseased and need fixing. However, this person seems to happily express that idea. I find myself reminded of the "I am Autism" essay. It wouldn't surprise me if this was some "well-meaning" non-autistic trying to convince you with by faking authority in the matter.
I can't say it for sure. It's entirely possible this person is autistic, and I'm willing to go with that idea for now, but I can't yet shake my suspicions. Perhaps those that are autistic could provide an opinion on this?
Posted by: uknesvuinng | October 03, 2007 at 09:08 PM
From what I've heard, and from what I can tell from the chemical formula, the mercury in Thiomersal is bonded; claiming that Thiomersal is poisonous due to the mercury in it looks to me about as sensible as claiming that salt is explosive due to the sodium in it. If Wikipedia can be believed, it is toxic in certain doses, but it doesn't look like that toxicity is because it induces mercury poisoning.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 03, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I thought they have already taken the Thiomersal out of the vaccine only to find no effect on the rate of autism. isn't that the end of that discussion? Am I wrong?
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 04, 2007 at 05:41 AM
TechSkeptic,
Yes, thimerosal has been removed from pediatric vaccines. And yes, it should be the end of the discussion.
But it is an issue that some refuse to let die.
Even though the "research" showing that the MMR is the culprit was shown to be fraudulent (Wakefield was paid for those "result" by a personal injury lawyer, and it even came out in a legal court that the data he used was very flawed... and he even refused to take the corrected data when it was shown that there were false postitives from the PCR results)... just the other week some celebrity was blaming the MMR for her son's autism/seizure disorder.
Some others are now blaming alluminum in vaccines.
It is a continuing battle, that has waged for centuries. See Arthur Allen's book _Vaccine_.
By the way, there now looks like there is an outbreak of measles in the Michigan. It may serve as a reminder that the dieseases are still more dangerous than the vaccines.
Posted by: HCN | October 04, 2007 at 08:08 AM
I'm not certain Kelly is autistic. I think she's wilfully stupid. It's an entirely separate etiology.
Posted by: Patience | October 04, 2007 at 09:16 AM
Some others are now blaming alluminum in vaccines
Wow aluminum causes autism and alzheimer's? Soon it will cause SPS [Small Penis Syndrome, you haven't heard about it?]
lol
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 04, 2007 at 09:30 AM
What is this woman's obsession with your spunk Skeptico?
I guess it means something different in America....
And what is it with the 'older woman woo' that makes them so patronising when they post here?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 04, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Kelly is also using the old crank canard: "You're close-minded!"
Of course, she's the one who is unwilling to consider that she could very well be mistaken and refuses to consider any evidence that contradicts her beliefs.
BTW, while her beliefs are surprising, there are some autistics who are pro-cure and pro-disease model. I don't think it's right to doubt her claim to being autistic, any more than it would be right to doubt anyone else's.
Posted by: Joseph | October 04, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I have really come to dislike the word 'educate' in these kinds of discussions. In my case, I am on an email list for prosopagnosia (face blindness) and people often talk about educating others. There are some things that are easier to understand from the inside and some things easier to see from the outside, even setting aside the issue of extensive training. I wish more people would think of it as a discussion in which both sides could learn something rather than planning to 'educate' others. It seems as though people on the inside sometimes get blinded by the notion that they have special knowledge and forget that others can be knowledgable too.
Posted by: Donna Stevenson | October 04, 2007 at 01:54 PM
hmmm. I just reread the first letter and now I see what was bothering me. I know I'm gonna get slammed for this comment
First:
The problem with thimerasol is that as an autistic person I lack the gene glutatione s-transferase. .....Thimerasol does not cause autism, it simply is something we cannot tolerate.
Here she says, because she she has autism and therefore she is missing glutatione s-transferase, mercury is bad for her. Now the mercury poisons here more than other people. But the autism came first.
Then later skeptico:
I’m sorry Kelly, but this desperate need to blame Thimerosal despite the evidence is not helping anyone find the real causes of autism.
which is not what she was saying. She was saying that the mercury is poisoning her not causing the autism, although you were right to point out that the presumption that autistics are missing this enzyme requires evidence. And also right to point out that personal experience is valueless when it comes to finding causes (although many personal experiences may help with the 'effect' part).
Then skeptico:
Because you are adamant in your opinion of what causes autism and yet you have not cited a single study that demonstrates that.
.
it is closed minded to insist that autism is caused by a missing gene for glutatione s-transferase
.
Still no evidence that’s what causes autism.
.
Nice misdirect, but still no evidence that Thimerosal causes autism.
.
But not one study that shows thimerosal causes autism
.
And insisting that thimerosal causes autism, despite the increasing evidence it does not, will make it harder to find the cause
This was a big strawman on your part, she never said that (at least not that I can find). Her contention is that autistic people are missing this enzyme and the mercury hurts them in the same way that large doses of heavy metals hurts you or me.
She made a ton of errors and presumptions that were total nonsense, but other than the title of her email, i dont see where she claimed that thimerosal caused her autism. The thing you should have been bugging her about is the evidence that says that autistic people are all missing that gene/enzyme, not that vaccines cause autism. I know you did, but you really went all out on the mercury causes autism thing.
from where i stand, I think you owe her a little apology for not berating her on the correct item. :)
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 04, 2007 at 04:40 PM
TechSkeptic:
I think you misunderstand what she wrote. She’s not saying autism is this missing gene. She’s saying the missing gene means thimerosal will give her autism. It is a variant of one of the claims of the mercury militia – namely that some people are more susceptible than others to the mercury in vaccines.
Her email had the subject line “Thimerasol Link to Autism”. That’s pretty clear. Why do you think she wrote that? She is suggesting that Thimerosal causes the symptoms of autism in those who lack the gene. Those that don’t lack the gene will not, therefore (according to her), get autism from the thimerosal. She even ends the first email with:
She means the devastating effects of autism. From the Thimerosal in the vaccine.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 04, 2007 at 07:53 PM
Re-reading Kelly's email I think I'd have to go with TechSkeptic on this one.
Posted by: outeast | October 05, 2007 at 03:33 AM
Well, not to belabor the point...well not to belabor it too much more at least..
"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.
.
Thimerasol does not cause autism, it simply is something we cannot tolerate"
I realize what she wrote in her title and what she wrote at the end. But suggesting there is a link, doesnt suggest there is a cause. You know this already about correlation and causation. I dont have to give you the example of the rooster and the sun (i guess I just did, sorry).
But even at the end, if you take off your "autism caused by mercury" glasses" and put on the "mercury causes organ failure" glasses, then I think you will see that she is saying that everyone, including people who are missing the enzyme (who she weakly argues are all autistic poeple), can enjoy the benefits of vaccination without the risk of organ failure, not the risk of autism.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 05, 2007 at 06:14 AM
Is Kelly aware that thimerosal has been taken out of vaccines, except some flu vaccines? There are more kids diagnosed with autism these days than ever before.
Posted by: Joseph | October 05, 2007 at 06:16 AM
Oh come on – she thinks a link is a cause.
This is one of the new ideas the mercury militia are moving towards – namely that some kids are more susceptible to mercury than others. But they still think the mercury causes autism.
From Not Mercury’s Glutathione: What is it and why should we care?
Posted by: Skeptico | October 05, 2007 at 07:20 AM
Well I dont agree that she thinks mercury causes autism, I think she plainly wrote that is doesn't. However, you are right, this is probably more nonsense. Just quoting from your link would have been the right avenue:
"The hypothesis goes something like this: Certain individuals produce less glutathione[1] as a result of various gene mutations/polymorphism,[2] the resulting glutathione deficiency [3]doesn't provide enough glutathione to bind and excrete mercury the way it would in others, exposure to thimerosal in vaccines adds to their toxic burden causing certain brain cells to die[4] from a known neurotoxin.
The parts that are missing from this hypothesis are as follows.
[1] No one has demonstrated that children with autism synthesize less glutathione.
[2] No one has found gene mutations or group of polymorphisms that are strongly associated with autism let alone glutathione activity and autism.
[3] Altered glutathione redox capacity is not the same as a deficiency.
[4] No indication of the type of brains cells and why are they more sensitive to mercury than surrounding cells? "
Wouldn't you agree that if this hypothesis was proven true, that autistic people were in fact more susceptible to heavy metals than normal people due to an enzyme deficiency, that mercury should be removed from vaccines (provided that a viable alternative exists)? For her perspective, this hypothesis is true. You should have focused on debunking this hypothesis, not the one she didnt say.
I am saying all this because I too was at the butt end of someone who wasn't reading and was simply reading past what I wrote. Coincidentally it was about MMR shots. I too made clear in the beginning that I didn't think MMR caused autism. But over and over again HCN started flaming away because (s)he presumed that is what I was saying.
Side note: I was saying that I didnt want to administer multiple shots on the same day so that if there was a reaction I would know which shot did it, I didnt care if there was multiple antigens in one shot, or if the shot had thimerisol. Although I did learn a lot in that exchange about our immunity system that cleared away some other preconceptions that i had.
As critical thinkers is just as important to hear and understand exactly what the 'opponent' is saying as it is to be able to clear away any fallacious arguments that the opponent makes. We should do this for every bit of nonsense or unsupported theory, that goes around and not just lump them together.
If we don't focus on the exact argument, we are doing the same poor reasoning that they are and allowing the nonsense to spread, because it will look like we are avoiding the real argument. We do this to them when they answer the wrong question.
I think that is why she wrote back with that "well, aren't you cute?" letter.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 05, 2007 at 07:48 AM
OOPS.. and BTW, #4 in that quote is also not what she was saying. She was just talking about organ failure (like you and I would get with heavy metal poisoning) and not some problem in the brain that causes autism. In her interpretation of the hypothesis #4 should not have been there and #1 should have read:
Autistic people produce less glutathione [1]...
#1-#3 of the 'parts missing' are still appropriate.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 05, 2007 at 07:57 AM
Re: Wouldn't you agree that if this hypothesis was proven true, that autistic people were in fact more susceptible to heavy metals than normal people due to an enzyme deficiency, that mercury should be removed from vaccines (provided that a viable alternative exists)?
Yes. But so what? That doesn’t mean she isn’t saying the mercury causes autism. You need to get up to date on some of the current mercury militia thinking. For example:
Help For Autism says:
It’s the third one. Note, a CAUSE of autism.
The Autism Report
You’re saying she doesn’t agree with the rest of the mercury militia and instead thinks that autistics would have autism even if they got no mercury, but that the mercury gives them additional bad symptoms? That makes no sense.
If Kelly wants to post here and clarify then I’ll consider what she has to say and apologize if I'm wrong. So far, she hasn’t replied to me to refute my interpretation of what she wrote, although she's had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 05, 2007 at 08:33 AM
That doesn’t mean she isn’t saying the mercury causes autism.
Yes it does, she was pretty clear:
Thimerasol does not cause autism, it simply is something we cannot tolerate
You need to get up to date on some of the current mercury militia thinking
I with you. The new stuff is also nonsense. I just think that it is not fair to ascribe what she is saying to what the militia says.
You’re saying she doesn’t agree with the rest of the mercury militia and instead thinks that autistics would have autism even if they got no mercury, but that the mercury gives them additional bad symptoms? That makes no sense.
Im not sure what doesnt make sense. Yes, I think that is what she is saying. Yes, I think you are correct in saying that there is no evidence for that supposition (of hers). No, I dont see why that makes no sense, IF you are under the impression that all autistics have this enzyme deficiency.
I too wish she would chime in. Perhaps I am wayyy off base, and she is, in fact, just another zombie. Perhaps she isnt reading this thread... you could prod her with an email with a link. :)
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 05, 2007 at 08:50 AM
The idea put forward in numerous places, is that autistics are more susceptible to mercury – usually because they can’t secrete it like normal people can. The argument is that the mercury (expanded recently to include other heavy metals) is an “environmental trigger” for autism, not a “cause” per se. The “cause” is the greater susceptibility to mercury. You’ll see it expressed this way a lot by the mercury crowd, and I think that’s what she means when she says mercury is not a “cause” of autism. But it’s just semantics. They’re still saying that the mercury causes the symptoms of autism. Without mercury as a “trigger”, these kids (or many of them at any rate) wouldn’t have the symptoms of autism. They still blame mercury (in vaccines and elsewhere, and other heavy metals) for autism.
Now, Kelly’s writing was perhaps ambiguous, and so perhaps her theory is completely different from what the mercury militia is saying about this missing gene. I find that a little absurd, but I suppose it’s possible. She’s had plenty of opportunity to correct me if that’s not what she meant and so far she hasn’t. And she knows about this thread and can comment if she wants. Until such time as she does, we’re arguing about what someone else meant, which is pointless.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 05, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Let me posit - Kelly is a red herring. An amalgam of non-existent identity. She is no more likely to exist than any created personality on the internet. Her scientific training (7 years in pharmacy) and 25+ years in the drug business would place her at roughly 54 years of age. With a birth date of 1953.
I think it unlikely that she is autistic or even exists. A little internet sleuthing would reveal the source of her e-mail and likely an IP address.
Someone's having you on, my friend. The giveaway? Her passionate defense of the current mumbo jumbo on autism backed up by an allusion to her access to "secret" marketing information. If true, wouldn't such a passionate person reveal misdeed to the media? Afterall, the FDA has a whistle blower protection act to cover exactly such revelations.
In short - balderdash
Posted by: Citizen Deux | October 05, 2007 at 10:30 AM
This is one of the new ideas the mercury militia are moving towards – namely that some kids are more susceptible to mercury than others. But they still think the mercury causes autism.
I can confirm that. They do not believe someone is autistic and their health simply deteriorates because of thimerosal. They can't get away from the high heritability of autism, but they do not accept that autism exists outside of some environmental insult such as thimerosal. If it weren't for the environmental trigger, they assume their kids would be perfectly normal despite the genetic difference.
Posted by: Joseph | October 05, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Again, it's the difference between inhaling poisonous chlorine gas and ingesting harmless sodium chloride. Some things which are toxic alone are harmless (or even vital) when compounded.
At any rate, I think you may be giving Kelly a bit too much credit. I think part of the confusion here is due to her own confusion about the point she was making. If her argument is:
1. Autistic people have a Glutatione deficiency.
2. People with Glutatione deficiency do not process heavy metals as well as other people.
3. Autistic people are more susceptible to heavy metal poisoning from the Thimerosal in vaccines than other people.
...then what is the connection between Thimerosal and autism? "Autism makes you more susceptible to thimerosal poisoning" is not much of a link.
Furthermore, is there any research to suggest that autistic people have a higher rate of heavy metal poisoning? Does Thimerosal have any risks of causing heavy metal poisoning? Is the mercury in Thimerosal actually dangerous? Even though Kelly didn't claim that Thimerosal caused autism, there's still plenty wrong with her argument.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 05, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Furthermore, is there any research to suggest that autistic people have a higher rate of heavy metal poisoning?
No. Levels in blood, urine and hair are generally found to be normal.
There are some poorly done studies which find otherwise, for example Holmes et al. which found mercury levels in baby hair to be reduced in autistics relative to controls. The authors interpreted this as an inability to excrete mercury. Prometheus has dealt with this on several occasions.
Given the failure to find differences in actual levels of heavy metals, there's now a trend to look for markers of heavy metal poisioning, such as coproporphyrins. Not Mercury has noted the coproporphyrin findings can be explained because of reduced creatinine levels in autistics.
Does Thimerosal have any risks of causing heavy metal poisoning?
Yes, at high doses. See this.
Is the mercury in Thimerosal actually dangerous?
Not in the doses found in vaccines. It is the equivalent of ethylmercury you'd get from a tuna sandwich.
Posted by: Joseph | October 05, 2007 at 04:01 PM
Totally agree Tom! I wasn't saying it wasn't nonsensical, I was just saying that of the many things she was saying, the one thing that Skeptico was mostly hounding her on, was not in fact one of them.
Baseless Claims:
Autistic people have glutathione deficiency
Having a disease makes you more expert than those who study it
The mercury in Thimerosal is as bad as pure mercury
The mercury content in Thimerosal is high enough to cause poisoning without the glutathione enzyme
Skeptico has good spunk (i dunno, maybe he does)
There were probably even more.
And Skeptico did hit on these a little in his responses. I was just more focused on the strawman argument (as I saw it).
The IDiots like to saw that we are asking them to name the designer, when we do no such thing. The God bots like to think that we are adamant that there is no god. I don't like using the perceived notion of a group of people when debating or arguing with an individual. It belittles both parties.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 05, 2007 at 04:40 PM
I apologize for lowering the level of the discourse here, but I simply cannot let the phrase "loose that spunk" go by without a comment.
Posted by: Jeremy Henderson | October 05, 2007 at 07:01 PM
OK TechSkeptic, what exactly do you think she was saying about Thimerosal and autism?
Posted by: Skeptico | October 05, 2007 at 10:29 PM
I think you summed up exactly what she was saying with this:
[she]thinks that autistics would have autism even if they got no mercury, but that the mercury gives them additional bad symptoms
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 06, 2007 at 06:21 AM
I don't think she's autistic, either. She says "I am autistic" but doesn't add anything to qualify it. Autism is a spectrum disorder, with huge variations in its affects. Any individual autist can be anywhere on the spectrum, from having Aspergers' and being able to function more or less normally in society, to being so low-functioning that they have to be institutionalised.
Any autistic person who introduces themselves as having autism will qualify the statement - "I have Aspergers" or "I'm a high-functioning autist, with a few perceptual and sense problems" etc. They might also add an anecdote or two about how being autistic affected their lives.
They just won't make a bald, unsupported statement about their condition. Imagine somebody saying to you "I know about the causes of cancer, I have cancer" and not saying any more about their illness, what type of cancer, what treatment they're getting, and so on.
Posted by: sophia8 | October 06, 2007 at 01:14 PM
In case you hadn't guessed, I have mild autism - Aspergers Syndrome, to be precise. I don't consider myself as "suffering" from autism - it's just a different way of looking at things. My life might have been easier without it, but it would have been a lot less interesting.
Posted by: sophia8 | October 06, 2007 at 01:18 PM
TechSkeptic:
So if instead of writing:
“it is closed minded to insist that autism is caused by a missing gene for glutatione s-transferase”
I had written:
“it is closed minded to insist that mercury gives autistics worse symptoms than non-autistics due to the missing gene for glutatione s-transferase”
Of if instead of writing
“Still no evidence that’s what causes autism”
I had written:
“Still no evidence autistics get worse symptoms from mercury than non-autistics”…
… and similar changes elsewhere – you’d be happy? That wouldn’t be a straw man?
Posted by: Skeptico | October 06, 2007 at 04:36 PM
I guess I read the quote TechSkeptic kept bringing up differently. To me, "Thimerasol does not cause autism, it simply is something we cannot tolerate" parses as Kelly saying that [we/she] cannot tolerate the statement 'thimerasol does not cause autism'. I see the alternate parsing, but that's the one that came to me first.
Posted by: Patience | October 07, 2007 at 01:12 AM
LOL Skeptico,
Well, I don't generally post comments because I am unhappy. I just strongly believe that if we are going to root out medical or scientific nonsense where we can, we should do it in way that is above the level of discourse of those who feel an unending need to betray progress. That is all. So, whether Kelly is real or not, if we are going to call her out on her nonsense, it should be on the nonsense she actually said.
I didn't mean to get anyones panties in a bunch. Its just discussion...right?
So, I think you are almost there with your alternate statements. When you write (and maybe I am being obtuse), "get worse symptoms", it seems to me like you are saying "get worse symptoms [of autism]". This is as opposed to something like "...autistics get additional symptoms usually associated with heavy metal poisoning", or something like that.
Patience,
I would agree with you if the quote went like this:
Thimerasol does not cause autism, is simply something we cannot tolerate
Note the difference.
OK, I think I have reached my nit picking quota for the year. Again, without some sort of response from "Kellie", its really just pontification, isn't it?
Apologies to everyone.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 07, 2007 at 09:02 AM
No, I meant the symptoms of mercury poisoning would be worse than non-autistics would get from the same amount of mercury. I guess this shows how easily it is to be misunderstood if we don’t write really clearly.
It seems to me the difference between what I wrote and the alternate version is hardly that big a deal, especially when
- you don’t really know what she meant,
- what you think she meant is different from what virtually everyone else means when writing about this gene, and
- she could have just corrected me herself if I was wrong and I would have immediately apologized and changed my argument.
It just seems to me this was an accidental misinterpretation of her words by me at worse (although I still don’t think I did), and hardly a straw man. And it was something she would have been able to clear up very quickly if she hadn’t preferred to respond instead with a load of passive-aggressive drivel. As you say, without clarification from her we’re getting nowhere.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 07, 2007 at 11:16 AM
I think her non-response would support the fact that she doesn't exist - certainly not as "she" paints herself to be. Sad, when folks can not stick to enough veracity to engage in reasonable debate. Clouding one's own experience / credentials in deceit is counter to the fundamentals of reasonable discourse.
FULL DISCLOSURE - I have no training in autism or medicien, just an engineering degree, an MBA, an inquisitive mind and a yearning for the truth.
Posted by: Citizen Deux | October 08, 2007 at 07:36 AM
Let me state a couple facts about Mercury and Mercury poisoning.
1. It is highly toxic even in tiny amounts.
2. Mercury poisoning has similar symptoms as autism.
3. Mercury damages the brain and nervous system especially if the body is not able to expel it properly and quickly.
4. Mercury is more damaging to a growing brain than one already full size.
5. Removal of mercury from the body through chelation or other means lessens or removes the symptoms of autism.
Posted by: truth warrior | October 10, 2007 at 06:31 PM
Truth warrior opined without any evidence or documentation:
"1. It is highly toxic even in tiny amounts."
Um, that depends on the form. Actually elemental liquid mercury is not that dangerous, but breathing in the vapor is not good. Also there is a BIG difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury.
Clorine gas is also very dangerous to breathe, and sodium is explosive. Does this mean we need to absolutely avoid table salt?
"2. Mercury poisoning has similar symptoms as autism."
Wrong in so many ways. One name for mercury poisoning is "Pink Disease". Do we identify autistic kids by the magenta hue of their skin? For photos of this check out this case report on real mercury poisoning:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/2/201
"3. Mercury damages the brain and nervous system especially if the body is not able to expel it properly and quickly."
How much and how long is a big factor here. Sure, it damaged the little girls written about in the paper above, but the fellow who tried to commit suicide by ingesting lots of thimerosal did okay:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=8699562
: J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(4):453-60.
Clinical course of severe poisoning with thiomersal.
CASE REPORT: A 44-year-old man ingested 83 mg/kg Thiomersal. He developed gastritis, renal tubular failure, dermatitis, gingivitis, delirium, coma, polyneuropathy and respiratory failure. Treatment was symptomatic plus gastric lavage and the oral chelating agents dimercaptopropane sulfonate and dimercaptosuccinic acid. The patient recovered completely.
"5. Removal of mercury from the body through chelation or other means lessens or removes the symptoms of autism."
Now that is a bold faced lie. There have been no verified cases of that ever happening. Kids with autism do continue to develop without chelation.
There are no case reports or studies on chelation benefits in autism at www.pubmed.gov (the Geiers are not reliable, their testimony has been refused in court and at least one of their papers retracted). There is this paper though:
Pediatr Int. 2007 Feb;49(1):80-7.
Low-level chronic mercury exposure in children and adolescents: meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION: Mercury poisoning should be diagnosed only with validated methods. There is no evidence to support the association between mercury poisoning and autism.
Several kids have been harmed by chelation:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/edelson.html
And one kid killed by chelation:
http://www.circare.org/lex/nadama_complaint.pdf
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=600
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=584
So "truth warrior", did your nose bump into the monitor when you posted your five "facts"?
Posted by: HCN | October 10, 2007 at 07:36 PM
Nice takedown HCN.
I think “truth warrior” (sic) has been reading The Woo Handbook - specifically point (1) but also with some points from (5).
Posted by: Skeptico | October 10, 2007 at 08:28 PM
Thank you, sir.
Always happy to oblige. Especially on days like this when sleep deprivation makes it hard to do actual work. It is much easier to reiterate the points that have not changed in the multiple years I have been dealing with these yahoos.
Posted by: HCN | October 10, 2007 at 09:10 PM
LOL truth warrior!
"facts" are usually backed up with some evidence.
you know..... like HCN provided.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | October 11, 2007 at 07:39 AM
Woo Handbook # 1:
I rest my case.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 11, 2007 at 08:11 AM
Not to say that one should immediately buy into any of this, but there's been way more than a single paper looking for a link between GST (as well as superoxide dismutase and catalase, probably among others) polymorphisms and autism. Many researchers view oxidative stress as a likely cause of autism.
Of course, to go from there to "thimerosal + GST polymorphism = autism" is a wild stretch, especially when you consider that the frequency of autism didn't drop following the removal of thimerosal from vaccines.
Posted by: Doctorb Chocula | October 24, 2007 at 03:07 PM