« Homeopaths Censor Blogger | Main | Dinesh D'Souza is Not Very Bright »

October 14, 2007

Comments

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

So what happened to that study containing the 77-year old autistics? JB seems to have completely ignored it.

I'm so totally surprised. Is anyone else surprised?

Jimmy,
I used to have a white dwarf who worked for me. He wasn't dense at all. What do you have against white dwarfs?
Boys have more autism than girls because testosterone makes mercury more potent. Estrogen lessens the effect.
The reason most of the medical community doesn't admit to knowing how to cure autism is because they caused the epidemic with their negligence. Curing it would be admitting they screwed up by not knowing how much mercury was in the vaccines.
Your stupid questions about relativity and Pluto show that your dogs are smarter than you. Autism did not exist before 1931 whereas those other things existed but had not been discovered. A better comparison would be comparing autism to Secretariat. He existed before 1973 but nobody recognized that he was the greatest athlete who ever walked the earth until he proved it. Does that help you understand?
When you get your degree in Geographic Information Systems, will you be able to navigate well enough to drive a cab?

Best:

Is that it? That's all you've got? You ignore virtually every major point, because you have no answer, and you have done throughout this thread, and that's it?

I used to have a white dwarf who worked for me. He wasn't dense at all. What do you have against white dwarfs?

Hoh, that's so funny. Maybe you should do that for a living.

Boys have more autism than girls because testosterone makes mercury more potent. Estrogen lessens the effect.

Prove it.

The reason most of the medical community doesn't admit to knowing how to cure autism is because they caused the epidemic with their negligence. Curing it would be admitting they screwed up by not knowing how much mercury was in the vaccines.

What about the National Autism Society, did they put mercury in vaccines? And the World Health Organisation? I guess you didn't check out where those links went, did you?

You'll have proof of this cover up of course? No, let me guess. The proof of the cover up is that no-one knows there is a cure, so there must be a cover up. Except for you of course, because you know.

Your stupid questions about relativity and Pluto show that your dogs are smarter than you. Autism did not exist before 1931 whereas those other things existed but had not been discovered.

My point was that autism existed but hadn't been discovered. The fact that you have once again not understood this really speaks for itself I think. My dogs really do appear smarter than you. And they lick their own asses.

A better comparison would be comparing autism to Secretariat. He existed before 1973 but nobody recognized that he was the greatest athlete who ever walked the earth until he proved it.

Actually you're right, that is a good comparison and it proves my point completely. Autism had always existed before 1943, but no-one recognised it for what it was until Kanner came along and proved it.

Thank you Bestie. My dogs, really.

Does that help you understand?

Absolutely, I couldn't have put it better myself.

When you get your degree in Geographic Information Systems, will you be able to navigate well enough to drive a cab?

More homour? I think maybe you need to work on your act.

At least I know just the title of my masters was beyond your grasp anyway.

Nice to see you've finally come around to recognising that autism existed prior to 1943/1931/1929 anyway.

Any reponse to the 77 year old autistics in the CDDS that I showed up-thread, yet John?

Thanks Bronze Dog, that was exactly the one I had in mind. Duly bookmarked. Too bad Monsieur Best probably won't recognize its relevance. I'll be surprised if he even acknowledges that his "77 year old autistic" challenge has been answered.

Jimmy,
Secretariat only existed for 3 years before 1973 so you missed that point. He hadn't been around for eons although we don't know exactly when God invented Pluto. Maybe he invented it the day before someone first spotted it. Autism only existed for 12 years before Kanner deciphered the differences between it and other things.
The proof of the coverup begins with Simpsonwood. Bill Frist and his pals are further proof. The Cult of Nerurodiversity is more proof...can you imagine anyone really stupid enough though, to fall for that don't cure autism bullshit? Then we have Amanda Baggs trying to convince us that she became autistic after using LSD. That's a little much.

Interverbal, Were your 77 year olds tested for fragile X? How old were they when they were diagnosed? I missed the post, any specific info on them?

Best:

Secretariat only existed for 3 years before 1973 so you missed that point.

Seriously, are you really this ridiculous? Or are we being punk'd?

You claimed that autism did not exist before 1943. Then before 1931. To prove your point, you gave an anaolgy that proves that it is possible that things exist before they are recognised, which you have denied all along in this thread but has been our position all along. And then you say I missed the point.

You used an analogy that disproved your point genius.

He hadn't been around for eons although we don't know exactly when God invented Pluto.

Oh for crying out loud, you're a Jesus freak too.

The length of time that it existed is irrelevant, you claim it did not exist before a certain date, but your analogy goes to show that things can exist before they are recognised for what they are.

I think we may have made a new scientific discovery, the densest matter in the universe. It would appear that Best also has some kind of field around him which thought cannot penetrate.

Let me spell it out for you:

Your Secretariat analogy proves OUR point, not yours.

Autism not known as a seperate syndrome until 1943 = Secretariat not being recognised as a great horse until 1973

Both still existed before those dates.

Good grief. It's like trying to pick up water with a hair.

Autism only existed for 12 years before Kanner deciphered the differences between it and other things.

Is that your final answer or would you like to phone a friend?

Seriously, my dogs.

Didn't you guys know that's the way things work? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound. ;-)

Jimmy,
Wrong as usual. The Secretariat analogy does not prove your point, your point being that autism always existed. Secretariat had not always existed. He had only existed for a short time. He was recognized as a great horse in 1972. It wasn't until 1973 that he was recognized as the greatest horse. You probably can't appreciate that difference.
Kanner never diagnosed anyone with autism who was born before 1931. If these autistics had existed, surely Kanner would have encountered at least one of them since he was considered the leading expert on the subject. The fact is, bonehead, nobody, not even an idiot like you could ever miss an autistic person. If it had existed before 1931, lots of intelligent people, and some not so intelligent ones like yourself, would have spotted it as something different than your basic retardation or schizophrenia or whatever else you wack jobs think it might have been called.

The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything. They are comprised of gevernment employees who will say whatever the politicians tell them to say.
Ah, the old appeal to unproven conspiracy. I suppose the same goes for organizations in other countries too, then? Because it's not as though I've limited my reading to the FDA and CDC.

Incidentally, what you did there is called "poisoning the wells," and it's a basic logical fallacy. You can claim that the FDA and CDC have fabricated their evidence, lied about their citations, and just made up studies off the tops of their heads, but you have to back such a statement up. Otherwise, the only one lying, fabricating evidence, and making shit up is you.

The only reputable study they did on autism was the first one by Verstraeten. Everything they have said since then has been spin control.
And now some special pleading. You must be new to the whole "arguing" thing. So, where's your evidence to back up these claims?
Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly.
So I guess you missed those 77-year-old autistics that were posted above. Dipshit.
Kanner recognized it as something that had never been seen before in 1943.
No, once again, Kanner recognized it as something that had never been separately diagnosed before. Your reading comprehension skills really are in the toilet, aren't they?
Some children have been cured. Those cured kids prove that mercury caused the autism.
No, data would prove that mercury causes autism. So far, you have not shown any data, you have not shown any reliable studies, you have not shown anything to support your ramblings. Hell, the idea to do chelation is based on unsupported assumptions. First, you assume that autism is the same thing as mercury poisoning (where's the kidney failure? Where's the hair and tooth loss?), then you assume that thimerosal degrades into some harmful form of mercury, then you assume that chelation can remove this harmful form of mercury, and then you assume that the mercury has no significant lasting effects and removing it will "cure" the autism.

Let me lay it out nice and simple for you, Johnny: I (and just about everyone here) will believe you if you can provide the following evidence to support your position:

1. A chemical model which explains how thimerosal degrades into either elemental mercury or a harmful mercury compound like methylmercury.

2. A well-controlled study demonstrating a link between autism and mercury poisoning of some sort.

3. An explanation for how and when autistics are exposed to dangerous levels of harmful mercury compounds--if it's prenatal, what mechanisms cause it? If it's postnatal, why don't most vaccinated kids show any signs of autism?

4. A chemical model demonstrating that chelation chemicals (EDTA, for instance) bond to the specific form of elemental mercury or harmful mercury compound that thimerosal supposedly degrades into.

5. An explanation for why the mercury poisoning leaves little to no lasting neurological damage.

In other words, John, put up or shut up. If your side is right, so right that you can speak with such certainty on this subject, then providing data to back up your assertions should be no problem.

Some deuschbag will call that a post hoc... because that is what deuschbags do who want to defend the drug companies.
1. It's "douchebag," douchebag.
2. No, if someone calls that a post hoc fallacy, it's because you're assuming that because one event happened before another, that there is therefore a causal relationship, without showing any evidence to demonstrate that such a relationship exists--in other words, if someone accuses you of a post hoc fallacy, it's because you've committed one. The best way to avoid that accusation? Cite some data to show strong correlation.
3. I don't think anyone here would call that a post hoc fallacy; it never even gets to that level. What it is is anecdotal evidence, forcing us to rely on your say-so, which is not backed up by any empirical data or controlled experiments, or hell, even any case studies. You've already shown that you can't be trusted in general, John; why should we trust you on things that can be tested?

Or, better yet, why should we have different standards of evidence than you do? You demand actual evidence from our side, then dismiss it as lies when we provide it (or ignore it outright), but you expect us to just take you at your word, with no evidence or anything? More special pleading. Sorry John, your side's not exempt from the rules. And if your side had even the barest shred of a fact supporting it, you wouldn't need to play these childish games.

Anyone with common sense will use that information to cure autistic kids.

Cure them like it cured Abubakar Tariq Nadama?

No, anyone with common sense will demand actual evidence and data before putting their kids through potentially dangerous treatments that are based on unsupported assumptions and have not been shown to work in any reliable studies. Anyone with common sense will demand the same rigorous standards be applied to chelation therapies that are applied to every other drug or treatment administered in the civilized world.

The only important thing for you knuckleheads to learn here is that autism can be cured.
And when you provide the evidence to support that claim, we'll be glad to learn it.

Incidentally, you have oodles to learn. I suggest you start at the top of the thread and work your way down until you understand all of it.

I'd have a field day with you Bozo's if I were in a court. Then, it would be worth my while to collect all of the info and stuff it down your throats.
"But since I'm just trying to convince you that I have information which would help you save innocent lives, I guess I'll just talk out of my ass some more."

Hey, instead of a court, why not have a field day in a laboratory? Then, you could actually come up with evidence to support your point.

I've never understood why woos act like it takes so much effort to look for information. Hell, John, you could support a good portion of your claims just looking at sources that others have provided in this thread. Is it so hard to read through Kanner's paper to find the quote which shows how I "perverted" his words? The link's right up there, it's not hard to find.

No, the fact is that you wouldn't have a field day with anyone, in the court or out, because you have no evidence. You have nothing but rantings and ravings and accusations of giant conspiracies and heartless corporations and all these other idiot ideas cribbed from a dozen bad made-for-TV movies. If you had anything else, you'd know that it takes a lot less effort to show your proof than it does to dodge questions and play the martyr.

Incidentally, it also takes less effort to show proof than to harass bloggers and their children, but that's neither here nor there.

You just keep agreeing with idiots like K Leitch who tries to tell us autism is beautiful, should not be cured and can not be cured.
When has anyone in this thread said anything of the sort? I think autism should be cured if it can be; I just think that a cure should be supported by goddamn evidence. Otherwise, it's not a cure.
The fact that he keeps improving due to my research on a subject about which I knew absolutely nothing 10 years ago proves that I'm infinitely more intelligent than the lot of you dumb bastards put together.
Non sequitur, anyone?
Whatever mistaken diagnosis they might have been given doesn't matter since nobody older than them ever had autism.
You're reasoning in a circle, you dumbass. You're using your unsupported assumption that thimerosal causes autism to support your claim that no one had autism before there was thimerosal.

The point is that the fact that these kids were misdiagnosed means that if anyone had autism before, chances are good that they were misdiagnosed as well. If you want to claim that these were the first-ever cases of autism, because they were the first-ever kids to get thimerosal shots, or whatever, then you have to provide some link between thimerosal and autism first.

Also, you have to ignore the information on over-77 autistics that was posted up above. And you've done that quite well.

I am usually an arrogant prick when I'm dealing with stupid bastards who think they know more than I do.
John, you've proven that everyone knows more than you do, on just about every subject. I guess that means that you're always an arrogant prick.

Incidentally, John, if you're so smart, then what harmful form of mercury does thimerosal metabolize into? A simple chemical equation will suffice.

Why don't you tell me how YOU would go about curing autism and why?
I don't know about Jimmy, but first I'd conduct reliable studies with good controls and experimental procedure to collect data on what actually causes autism. I wouldn't, for instance, just assume that it's linked to some unrelated chemical due to some unknown mechanism and treat it with a dangerous procedure of unproven efficacy.

Why? Because we don't cure things by guessing.

I used to have a white dwarf who worked for me. He wasn't dense at all. What do you have against white dwarfs?
Oh man, I just got up off the floor after reading that one. Yes, John, you truly are ten times smarter than all of us, what with your ignorance of things I learned in sixth grade science. White dwarfs are stars, you imbecile.
Boys have more autism than girls because testosterone makes mercury more potent. Estrogen lessens the effect.
And your evidence, biological mechanisms, or chemical models for this claim are...?
The reason most of the medical community doesn't admit to knowing how to cure autism is because they caused the epidemic with their negligence. Curing it would be admitting they screwed up by not knowing how much mercury was in the vaccines.
And what kind of mercury is in those vaccines, John?

Funny how the medical community will own up when it comes to the dangers of X-Rays (and their overuse in the '50s), the dangers of Fen-Phen, the dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the dangers of old silicone implants, and the dangers of dozens of other medical blunders, but not with autism.

Autism did not exist before 1931 whereas those other things existed but had not been discovered.
Oh, you came so close to seeing the point, but you just missed it. It's tragic, really.

although we don't know exactly when God invented Pluto. Maybe he invented it the day before someone first spotted it.

Oh, no wonder. John's a Last Thursdayist.

Oh wait, I get it now! Thimerosal contains the tiny demon spirits which cause autism, and chelation floods the body with God-juice, driving them out! Hallelujah!

The proof of the coverup begins with Simpsonwood. Bill Frist and his pals are further proof. The Cult of Nerurodiversity is more proof
Area 51 is proof, the Yeti is more proof, Alan Alda is the biggest proof of all!

I can name drop and pretend it means something, too. "Proof" consists of more than "vague accusations."

Interverbal, Were your 77 year olds tested for fragile X? How old were they when they were diagnosed? I missed the post, any specific info on them?
God, you're an idiot. Scroll up, dipshit.
Wrong as usual. The Secretariat analogy does not prove your point, your point being that autism always existed
Now, where on Earth would you get that what you're saying represents Jimmy's point in the least? You really need to work on that reading comprehension skill, John, or learn what a straw man fallacy is. Nowhere did Jimmy say that autism always existed; what he said (and what Kanner said) was that it likely existed before Kanner diagnosed it as a separate ailment, but was misdiagnosed as schizophrenia or feeble-mindedness, as it had been in several of his patients.
Kanner never diagnosed anyone with autism who was born before 1931.
And yet, as Interverbal demonstrated, other people have.
If these autistics had existed, surely Kanner would have encountered at least one of them since he was considered the leading expert on the subject.
Oh man, are you serious? Do you know why Kanner was considered the leading expert of the subject? Because of the paper we're citing! He gave the term its modern usage in this paper, where he studied eleven kids for some period of time. He became the leading expert because he was the first to recognize that all these people had common symptoms and thus a common syndrome, distinct from what it had been misdiagnosed as.

And, of course, this is only one paper--the first paper. I somehow doubt that Kanner's career ended there and then.

The fact is, bonehead, nobody, not even an idiot like you could ever miss an autistic person.
The fact is, bonehead, before "autism" was defined, yes they could. And they would put those "missed" autistics into schizophrenia wards and asylums for the feeble-minded, not knowing that their symptoms--similar to schizophrenia and feeble-mindedness--were the sign of some other distinct illness which hadn't yet been defined.
If it had existed before 1931, lots of intelligent people, and some not so intelligent ones like yourself, would have spotted it as something different than your basic retardation or schizophrenia or whatever else you wack jobs think it might have been called.
Why? Psychiatry was a fairly new science, the idea that there were different levels of retardation was fairly new as well, and large-scale studies of the behavioral patterns of the feeble-minded weren't exactly easy to come by. That's like saying "if HIV/AIDS existed before 1981, lots of intelligent doctors would have recognized it as something different, not as 'gay cancer' or whatever." But the fact is that diseases do exist before they're properly recognized, in some cases long before (we have HIV-infected tissue samples going back to the late '50s), and during the interim they're often misdiagnosed until someone notices a distinct pattern.

Jimmy:

Tell us John, when was Pluto invented?

Damn, Jimmy, you've really been on today. In fact, quite a lot of the people here have. For some reason, nothing is quite so funny as a well-written evidence-laden bitch-slap.

It would appear that Best also has some kind of field around him which thought cannot penetrate.
Yes: the cement horizon. It shows up once his uncritical mass reaches the Choprasucker Limit.

Holy crap guys... what a beating. You guys are hilarious. I've been away and sorry I couldn't join in the fun.

JB, you are just pathetic....

There aren't enough words for how dimwitted you are John.

The fact is, bonehead, nobody, not even an idiot like you could ever miss an autistic person

In fact, as late as 2003 they are still misdiagnosing autism

follow the fucking link, you dick.


The proof of the coverup begins with Simpsonwood. Bill Frist and his pals are further proof.

How about linking to a copy of Simpsonwood? If you won't link to it in your next post, I will. It'll be open to public scrutiny, and we already know it'll fall far short of proof. I have no fear of linking to Simpsonwood, unlike you: You'd rather pass on your misrepresentations as proof and hope that no one goes to the source.

I'm calling you out on one more level.

As for Bill Frist: Ever consider that you people are equivalent to the nuts who try to sue power companies for allegedly causing cancer with electrical fields that are weaker than the ones our own bodies produce? It's a proven waste of court resources. I'm against frivolous lawsuits. Even a politician like Bill Frist occasionally does something right, if I understand his action correctly.

Tom Foss,
Simpsonwood is a proven conspiracy or cover up. The IOM statement from 2004 was directed by the CDC and Senator Enzi recently decided to ignore the evidence that the IOM was told to say that no link between thimerosal and autism had been proven. Politicians would not have had to scramble in the middle of the night to sneak wording into the Homeland Security Bill to protect drug companies if they had done nothing wrong.

If you want to make references to white dwarf STARS, you need to state that since white dwarf humans are more common.

I asked for more info on the 77 year olds but none has been forthcoming. I suspect the answers do not exist.

Autism is not similar to retardation or schizophrenia. You can claim it is all day long but you can't change the facts. Pick out one from each category and I'll identify which is which in a matter of seconds. All I'll need to do is look at their eyes. It's like differentiating between a Corvette and a Model T Ford. Nobody could mix them up.

The Medical profession only owns up to blunders after they've been caught, just like common criminals. That's why malpractice lawyers make a fortune, the doctors are always screwing up.

Chelation is not a dangerous procedure of unproven efficacy. It has been used for over 60 years with no ill effects until one dumb doctor used the wrong kind of EDTA and killed a kid. Nobody who knows what they're doing would use EDTA since it does not chelate mercury. In fact, the only essential chelator for autism is Alpha Lipoic Acid.

"...otherwise it's not a cure" So, if I take an aspirin for a headache and it goes away, I'm not cured of my headache unless I have a controlled study to prove it? Sorry, I don't have the time or money for controlled studies. I'll just use the ALA and cure my kid instead. You can learn from me or you can go on with your long-winded and idiotic criticisms.

Politicians would not have had to scramble in the middle of the night to sneak wording into the Homeland Security Bill to protect drug companies if they had done nothing wrong.
And we wouldn't have had to go into Iraq if they didn't have WMD. Oh, wait.

Perhaps you've heard the saying, John: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Covering someone's ass doesn't require that they've already done something wrong. But that's okay, I'll wait 'til Bronze Dog posts the Simpsonwood thing; I have a feeling it'll be as much "proven cover-up" as Kanner's statement was "I've never seen anything like this before."

If you want to make references to white dwarf STARS, you need to state that since white dwarf humans are more common.
Actually, no, they aren't. There are far more stars in the galaxy than humans on the planet, and quite a lot of them are dwarf stars. Funny how everyone but you interpreted the reference correctly. Damn that terrible reading comprehension.
I asked for more info on the 77 year olds but none has been forthcoming. I suspect the answers do not exist.
The information is contained in Interverbal's post above. Scroll up, you fool, scroll up.
Autism is not similar to retardation or schizophrenia.
Really? You probably ought to tell Leo Kanner:
The combination of extreme autism, obsessiveness, stereotypy, and echolalia brings the total picture into relationship with some of the basic schizophrenic phenomena. Some of the children have indeed been diagnosed as of this type at one time or another. But in spite of the remarkable similarities, the condition differs in many respects from all other known instances of childhood schizophrenia. [Emphasis added]
You're right; it's easy to tell autism from schizophrenia and retardation now, when we have a clear set of symptoms which describe autism, and a clearer set of symptoms which describe schizophrenia. But back in the late '30s-early '40s, they didn't have such specific understandings of psychological ailments. So, when your definition of "feeble-minded" is "someone who is significantly below average intelligence," then yes, it would be easy to misdiagnose autism as some sort of retardation.

And again, as Anonymous (Jimmy?) posted, they are still misdiagnosing autism, despite a thorough understanding of the disease's symptoms.

Pick out one from each category and I'll identify which is which in a matter of seconds. All I'll need to do is look at their eyes.
And how can you do that, John? Could it be that it's because you know that there's such a thing as autism? Could it be that you know there's a difference between autism and other mental problems? Could it be that you know what kind of symptoms differentiate autism from other ailments? And if you didn't know any of these things, how would you tell the difference? More importantly, how would you know that there's a difference to tell?
The Medical profession only owns up to blunders after they've been caught, just like common criminals.
According to you and the mercury folks, they have been caught. So why haven't they owned up?
That's why malpractice lawyers make a fortune, the doctors are always screwing up.
Lawyers typically make loads of money when they win cases, not when they lose them. For a malpractice lawyer to make tons of money, he'd have to prove that the doctors don't always screw up. In fact, he'd likely be proving that people often make wild, baseless accusations that they can't back up with any facts.
Chelation is not a dangerous procedure of unproven efficacy.
Really? For Autism? Data?
Nobody who knows what they're doing would use EDTA since it does not chelate mercury. In fact, the only essential chelator for autism is Alpha Lipoic Acid.
So naturally, you have a large-scale study to back up your claim that chelation with Alpha Lipoic Acid cures autism, right? I'm waiting for a link.

Oh, who am I kidding? You haven't even shown that it's chemically possible for Thimerosal to decay into a harmful form of mercury, but you're citing chelation as an effective treatment for autism. You have to make half a dozen unsupported assumptions before you even get to "chelation might be effective at curing autism."

So, if I take an aspirin for a headache and it goes away, I'm not cured of my headache unless I have a controlled study to prove it?
No, if you take aspirin for a headache and it goes away, it doesn't prove that aspirin caused the headache to go away. Headaches often go away on their own. But if you do (or cite) a study demonstrating that people who use aspirin have their headaches go away faster than people who don't, if you demonstrate the physiological effect of aspirin on pain receptors, then you have some good, solid evidence.

In other words, anecdotal evidence cannot show causation. Scientific evidence can.

Sorry, I don't have the time or money for controlled studies.
No, you just have the time for bloviating online and the money for useless chelation treatments. That's fine, John, few of us do have the time to conduct major medical studies. But that's why we don't make stupid claims about untested medical treatments. You can run along with your anecdotal evidence and pretend that it has any meaning to anyone. The rest of us will wait for something substantial.
You can learn from me or you can go on with your long-winded and idiotic criticisms.
We've learned many things from you, John, but none of them have to do with a cure for autism.

You can go on pretending you're absolutely right with no basis, John, or you can learn a little something about how science and medicine work, and understand why we think you're a total dipshit.

Gee, JB, if you're so sure Simpsonwood proves the conspiracy, why didn't you link to it?

I'm not afraid to.

Skeptico wasn't afraid to.

Unlike you, telling us what to believe, we're actually able to link to the source, say stuff about it, and let the people who read our posts decide.

If you want to make references to white dwarf STARS, you need to state that since white dwarf humans are more common.

No, just more visible in our tiny corner. You underestimate the size of the universe. Anyway, who specifies white dwarfs when referring to humans? I've never seen anyone get that specific about dwarfs and midgets.

Besides, the fact that he was commenting on density should have tipped you off. Dwarf and neutron stars are some of the densest objects in the universe. It's well known enough to make it into a Family Guy joke: "My God, it's finally happened! He's grown so massive, he's collapsed in on himself like a neutron star!"

I think we can count astronomy as another thing you know nothing about.

Chelation is not a dangerous procedure of unproven efficacy. It has been used for over 60 years with no ill effects until one dumb doctor used the wrong kind of EDTA and killed a kid. Nobody who knows what they're doing would use EDTA since it does not chelate mercury. In fact, the only essential chelator for autism is Alpha Lipoic Acid.

Then why hasn't anyone of your crowd, in all our time arguing this ever cite a study.

"...otherwise it's not a cure" So, if I take an aspirin for a headache and it goes away, I'm not cured of my headache unless I have a controlled study to prove it? Sorry, I don't have the time or money for controlled studies. I'll just use the ALA and cure my kid instead. You can learn from me or you can go on with your long-winded and idiotic criticisms.

Oh, my dear Ed, you're stupid. Try actually dealing with our actual arguments, rather than throwing up convenient straw men.

We're asking you to prove you're not engaging in a post hoc fallacy. Show us someone who's tested the stuff under rigorous conditions, and then we'll have reason to believe it's a cure. Don't expect us to just take cherry-picked anecdotes.

If you want to know about aspirin, I recommend a PubMed search. Here's one thing I found just quickly.

Doggerel #70, by the way. A drug's effectiveness does not revolve around your results alone, especially if the condition can improve on its own. Just like autistics can. A fact that a lot of quacks have a financial stake in covering up: If the patient's condition can improve on its own, a quack can take credit for the improvement, even if he does nothing.

BD,
If you give an injured thoroughbred cobra venom and he wins a race, would you assume his condition improved on its' own or would you attribute the win to the pain numbing effect of the cobra venom? Your carefully worded arguments always leave out the element of common sense. The same goes for Mr Foss.
As I've said before, keep asking for non-existent studies. It just makes you both look like idiots while true scientists like myself simply go about the business of curing a horrible condition.
Why don't I bother to look up links to pick apart your ridiculous criticisms? That won't help me or anyone else cure autism.
I'm only concerned with curing it, not defending the criminals who caused this horror like you bastards are trying to do.
Tom calls chelation untested even though it has been used for over 60 years and has cured countless thousands of people. All of those cured people make Tom's claim that it is untested absurd. Do you understand that, Tom? Nobody did a double blind study on using cobra venom in thoroughbreds either, Tom. The people who cashed huge winning tickets have their proof in their wallets.
You guys should try using truth once in a while instead of trying to snow people with this skeptical thinking bullshit.

Simpsonwood did not prove anything except that Robert Kennedy is a conspiracy nut and that he or whoever ghost writes his stuff had to quote mine the transcript to support their case. My article explains exactly where Kennedy changed the meaning of the Simpsonwood transcripts by quoting out of context. Why would he have to do that if Simpsonwood “proved” there was a cover up?

If you give an injured thoroughbred cobra venom and he wins a race, would you assume his condition improved on its' own or would you attribute the win to the pain numbing effect of the cobra venom? Your carefully worded arguments always leave out the element of common sense.

What does that have to do with what I said?

The same goes for Mr Foss.
As I've said before, keep asking for non-existent studies. It just makes you both look like idiots while true scientists like myself simply go about the business of curing a horrible condition.

In other words, medieval sloppiness wins over vigor and the scientific method. If leeches get good anecdotes, and if you ignore the bad anecdotes, leeches must be effective.

Why don't I bother to look up links to pick apart your ridiculous criticisms? That won't help me or anyone else cure autism.

Oh, yes, why bother talking about the truth? Why bother spreading the truth? Why bother convincing people to not use thimerosal or whatever causes it this week? Why bother discussing anything? Translation: You aren't interested in the truth. You're just interested in propagandizing.

Tom calls chelation untested even though it has been used for over 60 years and has cured countless thousands of people.

Only if you believe in the cherry-picking procedure that allowed bleeding and mercuric chloride to continue. Of course, that method involves being silent on critical details. But then again, we've just had JB admit to being pro-silence. He wants to be the absolute, infallible arbiter of what is true. He doesn't want to have to work for the truth when he can just declare whatever's convenient for him.

You guys should try using truth once in a while instead of trying to snow people with this skeptical thinking bullshit.

Says the person who hand-waves away all of epistemology. Like it or not, truth is arrived at through a method. You'd rather believe that truth is whatever you say it is. All hail John Best, who'd rather people be blind sheep who don't question his unquestionable authority! Don't ask questions! Don't look for the truth, because he tells you what the truth is because he's John Best.

Reminds me of far too many government administrations.

And notice he's silent about Simpsonwood, since we brought up the actual document. We dared to challenge his interpretation, and his response was essentially, "Don't read it! I don't need to look at evidence!"

For someone who talks so much about truth, he's so anti-information and anti-evidence.

I can imagine him in the courtroom setting now, "The defendants brought up exhibit A. Don't look at exhibit A! Don't look at the evidence, look at the truth that's coming out of my mouth without a shred of verification!"

BD,
If you are interested in curing autistic children, you can accept what I say as true and you may succeed in curing some children.

If you wish to get in the way of curing autism by presenting absurd arguments and bogus studies, it's not worth my time to go searching for links to refute your idiocy.

I tell you what the truth is in the interest of helping children. Where I learned what I know to be true is of no concern to you. The only thing that matters is that some people who have listened to what I have to tell them have cured their children of autism. The fact that children have been cured by removing mercury proves that mercury caused the problem. Arguing against that is not evidence of intelligent thought.

When you can cure a child of autism with some other method, you will have some evidence that you can use to argue against what I say. Until then, you can choose to learn from my wisdom or you can remain ignorant. I once knew a man like you who tried to advise me about how to bet on horses even though he had never been to a racetrack and had never bet on a race. Can you see the folly in that? Now, since I have had a hand in curing autistic children and you have not, please explain why anything you have to say on the matter is worth listening to.

Tom:

Thanks, and the anonymous post wasn't me.

Best:

Wrong as usual. The Secretariat analogy does not prove your point, your point being that autism always existed.

I didn't say that though. Can you even read above a fourth grade level?

My point was that autism existed before 1943/1931/1929 but was not recognised as autism. The Secretariat analogy shows that things can exist before they are recognised for what they are. Therefore your analogy better supports my argument than yours. How are you not getting this?

I just explained it to my dogs and they barked agreement. Then they started sniffing each other.

Secretariat had not always existed.

Holy crap I hadn't realised. Wow, you are smart.

He was recognized as a great horse in 1972. It wasn't until 1973 that he was recognized as the greatest horse.

Well bugger me. You can't even stick to a date in your analogies nevermind your arguments.

"1973, no 1972."
"1943, no 1931."

You are still just proving my point.

You probably can't appreciate that difference.

Well it seems that I, and everyone but you, can in fact appreciate what is going on. And you wrote it.

Kanner never diagnosed anyone with autism who was born before 1931. If these autistics had existed, surely Kanner would have encountered at least one of them since he was considered the leading expert on the subject.

That's right Best. Kanner saw every single patient alive with a mental disorder between 1938 and 1943. All of them, even those from remote parts of the world. Or did he in fact just look at 11 special cases for this one paper?

Again I ask Bestie:

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?

Answer me.

The fact is, bonehead, nobody, not even an idiot like you could ever miss an autistic person.

And yet Kanner points out in his paper that this is exactly what was happening then and we now have evidence that it is happening now. Let me guess though, you are smarter than Kanner and all those other doctors, right?

If it had existed before 1931, lots of intelligent people, and some not so intelligent ones like yourself, would have spotted it as something different than your basic retardation or schizophrenia or whatever else you wack jobs think it might have been called.

And yet Kanner specifically says that autistics had been misdiagnosed as schizophrenic or feeble minded. Try reading his paper you twat.

Kanner, the first person to diagnose autism, states clearly that until then autistics had been misdiagnosed under other syndromes and illnesses.

If you want to make references to white dwarf STARS, you need to state that since white dwarf humans are more common.

You're serious aren't you? My dogs Best, really. Everyone else here got that but you. That's right Best, you are so much smarter than us. Just exactly how many human dwarfs are there Bestie? And how many white dwarfs? I think that right there folks we are given a nice little insight into the prejudices of John Best.

Autism is not similar to retardation or schizophrenia.

And yet Kanner specifically says that it actually appears to be at first glance, before he came up with the diagnostic tools for autism. You smarter than him now Best?

You can claim it is all day long but you can't change the facts.

Hell if it is good enough for the first person to diagnose autism, it's good enough for me.

Your carefully worded arguments always leave out the element of common sense.

Where do I send the bill for a new irony meter?

It just makes you both look like idiots while true scientists like myself simply go about the business of curing a horrible condition.

You think you are a scientist? But you do things from memory, don't require stringent scientific methodology, don't cite evidence, can't read, can't form a logical or consistent argument and are dumber than my dogs?

I'm only concerned with curing it, not defending the criminals who caused this horror like you bastards are trying to do.

Go on Bestie, tell us where we even accept someone caused autism, nevermind defend them for doing so. Should be no problem for you, what with you being a scientist.

I tell you what the truth is...Where I learned what I know to be true ...learn from my wisdom

Arrogance doesn't really cover it anymore. You think you are God don't you?

Seriously, my dogs. And they still run into the patio door.

Bronze Dog:

Besides, the fact that he was commenting on density should have tipped you off.

He's already shown an inability to understand written language, now you're expecting him to use context clues? Baby steps, BD.

John:

If you give an injured thoroughbred cobra venom and he wins a race, would you assume his condition improved on its' own or would you attribute the win to the pain numbing effect of the cobra venom?

I certainly wouldn't assume that one isolated case study was indicative of anything. If I give you a pebble and you're able to walk down the street without getting attacked by a tiger, would you assume that the pebble kept tigers away?

Whether you're injecting cobra venom, taking aspirin, or performing chelation, doing it once and seeing an improvement in one patient doesn't mean there's any connection. That's why you do repeated trials. That's why you do controlled experiments, trying to weed out other potential causes. That's why you do double-blind tests so you don't introduce bias into the results. That's why you create biochemical models to see if there's a scientific basis for believing these treatments to work. If you can show chemically that cobra venom in certain doses deadens pain receptors, and if you can show that every time you give an injured horse cobra venom, it wins, and if you make sure that there's no other differences between your test horses which could skew the results, then you have some baseline evidence to suggest a causal relationship. But one anecdote does not and cannot demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. If I inject one injured horse with cobra venom and it wins the race, I'd be a fool to assume that one thing caused the other without further evidence.

Your carefully worded arguments always leave out the element of common sense.
"Common sense" tells us that when you go out in the rain, you get a cold. "Common sense" tells us that a big heavy bowling ball will fall faster than a light little whiffle ball. "Common sense" tells us that the Earth is flat and stationary. "Common sense" is often wrong. Yes, I leave out the element of common sense when it comes to scientific questions, because evidence is better!
As I've said before, keep asking for non-existent studies.
I will keep asking for non-existent studies until you make them existent by doing them. If your side is so sure that they're right, then they should be able to demonstrate it. Why are you so afraid of facts?
It just makes you both look like idiots while true scientists like myself simply go about the business of curing a horrible condition.
Yes, because "true scientists" just make baseless assumptions, use untested procedures, claim absolute certainty, have no understanding of basic logic and science, and prefer "common sense" to "evidence." Tell me, John, do you take your son to bloodlettings as well? There's a "common-sense" medical procedure if ever there was one.

Why don't I bother to look up links to pick apart your ridiculous criticisms? That won't help me or anyone else cure autism.

Yes, "finding evidence to support my claims" won't help anyone. Making stupid guesses is always more useful.

I'm only concerned with curing it, not defending the criminals who caused this horror like you bastards are trying to do.
More straw men. Who's defending anyone?

Incidentally, last I checked, people weren't considered "criminals" until proven guilty. You know, with evidence. If you're so sure that your side is right, then you should be able to show it. And if you can prove, with evidence, medical malpractice, then I'll be first in line to help you file a class-action suit.

Tom calls chelation untested even though it has been used for over 60 years and has cured countless thousands of people.
Of what? I'm talking about its use as a "cure" for autism; if it has been successfully tested as such, then you should be able to provide the study information. I've looked, and I've seen nothing to suggest that it has been shown to be useful in curing autism. If you've got the data, preferably from a double-blind placebo-controlled study, then I'd love to see it.
Tom's claim that it is untested absurd. Do you understand that, Tom?
I understand that you're trying to claim an exemption from the normal medical, scientific method, the process that all new treatments must undergo before ever making it to the general public. You're claiming that the FDA and CDC and other government organizations, with all their careful testing and regulations, are not to be trusted in spite of their caution, but that I should trust you and your treatment based on absolutely no data.

If your claims are true, then you should have no problem reproducing them in an experiment or providing case study data or other evidence to support them. I would expect no less from any treatment given by my physician, and I would accept no procedure without seeing some evidence of its efficacy first.

Nobody did a double blind study on using cobra venom in thoroughbreds either, Tom.
Then how do you know it works? How do you know that it does what you say it does? If no study has ever been done to show it, and if there's no biological model to suggest that it has such an effect, then how can you rule out other factors?

Of course, studies have been done to enumerate the specific effects of cobra venom; not necessarily on racing horses' ability to win, but on how venom affects tissues and in what doses, and whether or not it can be used beneficially. It's not hard to extrapolate that knowledge beyond "treating snake bites" toward "possible uses of venom."

Incidentally, at least the cobra venom thing makes sense: venom kills tissue and generally causes inflammation, and it's not hard to see how that would help a horse's joints. So even cobra venom has more support than "thimerosal causes autism." At least with cobra venom, there's a plausible hypothesis involved. You have yet to demonstrate how thimerosal could metabolize in the body to produce a harmful mercury compound.

If you are interested in curing autistic children, you can accept what I say as true and you may succeed in curing some children.
Or we could do real science without the bullshit assumptions, and really succeeding in curing most autistic children. If you learn one thing, John, learn this: Nothing gets cured through pure guesswork, which is precisely what you're doing by ignoring evidence and science in preference of some subjective "common sense."
If you wish to get in the way of curing autism by presenting absurd arguments and bogus studies, it's not worth my time to go searching for links to refute your idiocy.
More double-standards, more projection. We've taken the (comparatively small amount of) time to provide evidence to refute your absurd arguments and bogus studies, John, why is it so unreasonable to ask that you do the same?

You want us to stop trying to refute you? Then give us some good reason to believe that you're correct. Explain how thimerosal can break down into a harmful form of mercury in the body; once you do that in a way that doesn't violate the basic laws of chemistry, then you'll have the beginnings of something approaching a valid argument, as opposed to name-calling and guesswork.

Where I learned what I know to be true is of no concern to you.
Actually, it's of every concern to us. If you "learned what you know" on the back of a Trix box, then we ought to be concerned about that. If you can't provide citations or evidence, then why would you expect us to believe you? "'Cause I say so"? Would you believe any of us out of pure faith? Why would you expect us to do what you're not willing to do?

At least we're willing to listen to the other side. If you provide evidence to support your claims, we'll be all ears, ready to explore your justified hypotheses regardless of where they lead. You, on the other hand, are presented with evidence which clearly demonstrates how wrong you are, and instead of considering it, you wave it away as "lies" and conspiracies because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. If someone proved tomorrow that there's a link between mercury and autism, if they did it in a valid study without glaring errors, then I'd be the first to say "okay, let's do something about this." Can you say the same?

No, you can't, or you would have already, after one of the multiple studies that have shown there is no such link.

When you can cure a child of autism with some other method, you will have some evidence that you can use to argue against what I say.
No, John, it's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claims, not up to us to disprove them (though we can, will, and do). Your "treatment" is uncontrolled, unrecorded, and based on unsupported assumptions about the causes of autism and the effects of mercury. Any alleged effects, based solely on anecdotal evidence with no objective assessment, serve as evidence for nothing but your inability to understand the scientific method and your profound ability to fool yourself.
Now, since I have had a hand in curing autistic children and you have not, please explain why anything you have to say on the matter is worth listening to.
Because it doesn't take personal experience to be able to look at the science and evidence and say "your claims make no sense."

Tom,
Unfortunately, we can't do the cobra venom study since using it is illegal. That doesn't stop everyone who trains horses from using it though. You have to learn that taking these matters from the theoretical to the actual is the best proof that something works.
It was theory that convinced Amy Holmes and Andy Cutler to try chelation with autism. They already knew it worked for mercury poisoning in adults. Once it was learned in 1999 that autism was mercury poisoning, it made sense to try it. So, they did. And, it worked. Kids started improving. No DBCS but so what. When you are dealing with a nightmare like autism, you don't have years to wait around for some scientists or govt. agencies to get off their asses and do studies. You have to weigh what's available to help your kid. When the only other option you have is institutionalization, it is an easy decision to try something that might help. I did, and it did help.
One govt. study of chelation was proposed and cancelled. They were not going to use ALA which means the study would have been a failure. Would you have been citing this study if it had been done and failed without the key ingredient that can get the mercury out of the brain? I know some of you like to cite that Danish study that only counted institutionalized autistics before mercury was removed and then counted all of the autistics in the country after it was removed to show that the numbers were going up. Would you call that stupidity or part of a coverup? It doesn't matter to me since it has no effect on how I treat my kid. But, for you guys who only deal in theoretical junk, it seems to have some worth.

Tom, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but my son. You can ignorantly call chelation unscientific all you want but I deal with reality, watch it give my kid improvement in his symptoms, share the good news with people, and have a bunch of jerks tell me I'm doing something wrong. The thing you don't get is that not taking that risk on my kid's behalf would mean that he would spend his adult years locked up where he would never get proper treatment and would never have a chance to enjoy his life as a free man. Life is about risk. Speaking of which, I think I'll go check and see if my risk paid off in the 4th at Aqueduct.

Tom, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but my son.

Really, perhaps you want to fill us in as to why left-brain right-brain is closing down? As I recall you were specifically mentioned as the reason. Are you denying your childish thuggery?

Why didnt you repond to my link about the fact that austism is still misdiagnosed (for some reason it posted it as anonymous, i dont know why). If its misdiagnosed now, even after we know of it, why wouldn't it have been misdiagnosed for the last 500 years when we didn't recognize it as its own affliction?


I used to have a white dwarf who worked for me. He wasn't dense at all. What do you have against white dwarfs?
.
.
If you want to make references to white dwarf STARS, you need to state that since white dwarf humans are more common.

Holy crap! HAHAHAHAHA! I thought you were kidding! Even a fifth grader knows what a white dwarf is and would have gotten that joke. You want people to take you at your word, without any evidence to back it up and you dont know as much as a fifth grader? You gotta be kidding!

As I've said before, keep asking for non-existent studies.

I see, so you are readily admitting that there are no studies that support your bizzarre idea that
a) thimerisol can change into a harmful compound of mercury
b) thimerisol causes autism
c) chelation cures autism

The fact that children have been cured by removing mercury proves that mercury caused the problem. Arguing against that is not evidence of intelligent thought.

Then provide the evidence you dimwit! YOU are making a claim. YOU want people to believe you. YOU must provide evidence, not just your word (which has even less value now than before you start trolling around here).

BTW, is the reason you dont post any links because you don't know how? If so, just say so. If that isnt the reason, then you are truly delusional in your idea that you are proving any point except that you are a dolt.


You know what?.... I'm coming to a conclusion based on all the evidence you have provided here.

When presented evidence, you put your hands up over your eyes and ears and say "nah nah nah". you dont even bother to follow links to get more information for yourself.

You have this delusional belief that people will just trust what you say because you said it, instead of actually providing evidence.

You are an older man, who has not been able to pass fifth grade level of reading comprehension or even basic science.

You are quick to jump to conclusions without any sort of evidence, quick to make assumptions based on anecdotes, and quick to adhere to the nearest conspiracy theory you can find.

The result: You need chelation therapy. You have obviously ingested some heavy metals and need to have them purged, otherwise your reasoning skills will never improve and you will continue to spread stupid rumors and continue put children at risk with your calls for stopping vaccination programs.

You can start by going back to 2001 when Amy Holmes published her results. (I lost all my links when my computer crashed recently)

Whats the matter? your computer still crashed?


Looks like prometheus already gave you a smackdown. You are a glutton for punishment arent you?

I think you guys are too involved with science, as evidenced by your obsession with white dwarf stars. If anyone makes a reference to dwarfs in normal conversation, the assumption is that they are talking about someone like Brian Deer, the white dwarf journalist.
I have not called for stopping any vaccination programs. I only ask that all thimerosal be removed so no more babies are poisoned into autism.
I have no clue why Kevin Leitch decided to stop blogging. Since I pointed out his stupidity, I guess he couldn't resist taking a parting shot at me. Advising that moron how to help his kid is not thuggery.
Autism is never misdiagnosed, unless you're talking about goofballs who grow up and decide they have Asperger's as an excuse for their lack of social skills.

I think you guys are too involved with science, as evidenced by your obsession with white dwarf stars.

It's more like obsessed with your lack of common knowledge. You're too ignorant to understand a Family Guy joke.

Besides, how can someone be too involved in knowledge?!

I only ask that all thimerosal be removed so no more babies are poisoned into autism.

What proof do you have? An unbalanced, uncontrolled, unverifiable, study of a sample of n=1 with incalculably high (especially since variance would be unknown) probabilities of Type I and Type II errors isn't terribly convincing. Because you use such shoddy methodology, you sound like all the psychics, astrologers, homeopaths, global warming denialists who mention only one instance of cold weather as alleged disproof, George W. Bush, and lots of other nasty people. Would you have me accept identical levels of evidence from those people to be convinced of their particular crankery?

What's even funnier is that you STILL haven't provided a possible way thimerosal could break down into a harmful mercury compound. What is it? Alchemy? Do you want us to believe in alchemy just because of your n=1 'study'?

I have no clue why Kevin Leitch decided to stop blogging.

Because you posed as his daughter and ridiculed her mercilessly. You attacked his personal life because you were more concerned with hurting people than about the truth.

Autism is never misdiagnosed, unless you're talking about goofballs who grow up and decide they have Asperger's as an excuse for their lack of social skills.

You're saying doctors are perfect and infallible? That they're unquestionable authorities?

JB, JB, JB. The world is far from absolute. Whether your authority-worshiping blind faith accepts it or not, there are uncertainties and probabilities. Science is about eliminating as much of that as possible under experimental design. You, however, think the world revolves around your sample of 1, and that there can be no uncertainty. Sorry, JB, but you're fallible just like the rest of us. You are no god.

I'd be having far more fun with this if I didn't know that people like you get elected to political office. I'm reminded of the story of that CIA agent trying to blow the whistle on Bush relying on one unreliable source, known for making stuff up without verification, as the premise for going into Iraq. BushCo didn't even try to justify the action. Instead, the started faxing letters to the media telling them not to trust him because he's a traitor.

That's why you go to the sources for an argument. JB would rather attack people's personal lives and never EVER question a source or methodology.

Autism is never misdiagnosed, unless you're talking about goofballs who grow up and decide they have Asperger's as an excuse for their lack of social skills

No. I am talking about this which I linked before and you ignored, again.

You are simply dead wrong that is it not misdiagnosed. Again, its misdiagnosed now, of course it was misdiagnosed before we accepted it as a unique affliction.


You really are as dense as a white dwarf.

Autism is never misdiagnosed, unless you're talking about goofballs who grow up and decide they have Asperger's as an excuse for their lack of social skills

John doesn't know the first thing about autism, as you can see.

Just to give one counter-example, Nylander & Gillberg (2001) found that about 90% of "definite autistics" who were adult outpatients at a psychiatric hospital did not have an autism diagnosis. The most common diagnosis they had was schizophrenia.

Autism is missed often today, and was traditionally missed most of the time, as I argue here.

Techskeptic,
I looked at your study the last time you put it here. It wasn't noteworthy.
White dwarfs are nice people.
Joe,
If your adult autistics were misdiagnosed as schizophrenic,AND were outpatients, that in itself tells us they weren't too bad off. I'd guess they were only as screwed up as David Andrews or any typical nitwit with a few screws loose.

BD,
I never ridiculed Leitch's kid, I only ridiculed him. I don't mind you calling me names for the way I used his kid's name but it was just an attempt to drill some sense into her old man. Beatiful autism, my ass, autism is a nightmare and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
I only watch sports on TV so I'm not familiar with your sitcoms or whatever the show is.

You have to learn that taking these matters from the theoretical to the actual is the best proof that something works.
Yes, you're right, that's why we do experiments--to take the "theoretical" (in the colloquial sense) to the "actual," and to do it under conditions that allow the determination of causation.
It was theory that convinced Amy Holmes and Andy Cutler to try chelation with autism.
No, theory is supported by evidence, valid models, and sensible explanations. None of these exist for the claim that autism is caused by heavy metal poisoning. It was unsupported guesswork which convinced Holmes and Cutler to try chelation, and coincidence or (more likely) self-delusion which led them to proclaim success.
Once it was learned in 1999 that autism was mercury poisoning, it made sense to try it.
And how was it learned? If there's evidence, provide it. Otherwise, it wasn't "learned," it was "assumed without basis."
No DBCS but so what.
What would you say if I could find the exact same quote from Eli Lilly?

"So what" is that without any experimentation with any proper controls, there is no basis to claim any degree of certainty that there is a causal relationship between any two things.

Here's the thing, John: experimentation 101. You put controls on the experiment so that there are no significant differences between the group receiving the experimental treatment and the group receiving the placebo (a fake treatment). This way, they can be reasonably sure that if an effect shows up with the experimental treatment, then that treatment caused it.
You blind the test so that the patients don't know whether they're getting the real treatment or the placebo. This prevents the patients from acting differently or introducing bias and error into the results.
You double-blind the test so that the researchers don't know which group receives the experimental treatment and which group receives the placebo. This way, there is no psychological bias introduced by the researchers when recording the results, and their observations are empirical and objective, untainted by foreknowledge of the treatment.

When you combine all this together, you end up with a test designed to weed out variables and eliminate bias, both conscious and unconscious (things like confirmation bias and selection bias), so that the results are as close to certain that they could possibly be.

When you are dealing with a nightmare like autism, you don't have years to wait around for some scientists or govt. agencies to get off their asses and do studies.
Then do one your goddamn selves. Are you telling me that between Safeminds and Generation Rescue and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., there's not enough money and resources to put together a decent DBCT? Get together a bunch of autistics, get together a team of researchers, take case histories, and perform a DBCT--half get chelated, half get a placebo treatment, the researchers don't know which half is which and study the results accordingly. It's not that hard.
When the only other option you have is institutionalization, it is an easy decision to try something that might help.
Yeah, the choice between "real treatment by professionals" and "unproven treatment based on unsupported assumptions," I always go with the latter. By the same logic, you should get trepanned next time you have a headache.
One govt. study of chelation was proposed and cancelled.
Evidence for this claim?
They were not going to use ALA which means the study would have been a failure. Would you have been citing this study if it had been done and failed without the key ingredient that can get the mercury out of the brain?
If the study was flawed, I would reject its conclusions.

How about you, John? If a study were done with ALA and showed that chelation did no better than placebo, would you accept it? Or would you label it as just another set of lies propagated by the grand medical conspiracy?

Oh, who am I kidding? We all know the answer to that one.

But, for you guys who only deal in theoretical junk, it seems to have some worth.
Someone add "theoretical" to the list of words John doesn't understand.
Tom, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but my son.
You're right, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, unless you're trying to convince them that you're right. If you want to go on believing that mercury causes autism and some unique magical process converts tiny amounts of thimerosal into toxic amounts of dangerous mercury, which can then be removed by chelation and leaves no lasting neurological damage, then that's your right. I can't stop you from believing that mercury causes autism or that unicorns live in your underpants. I might quibble that you're putting your son at risk by exposing him to unproven treatments and avoiding actual medicine, but until there's a clear danger, raising your kids is up to you.

The problem is that you go online proclaiming that you're right, convincing parents that life-saving vaccines are dangerous, that doctors are part of a global conspiracy to cover up their blunders, and that autism can be cured easily with an untested treatment, and you do all this without a shred of evidence to back up your position. Putting yourself and your son at danger because of your stupid beliefs is one thing, putting other people's children at danger is quite another. If you're going to do that, then yes, you do have to prove it to them. Otherwise, we'll follow you around the Internet, exposing you everywhere for the factless fraud and arrogant kook that you are.

You can ignorantly call chelation unscientific all you want but I deal with reality, watch it give my kid improvement in his symptoms, share the good news with people, and have a bunch of jerks tell me I'm doing something wrong.
And we do the same thing for people who experience temporary pain relief with acupuncture, people who get headaches cured by homeopathic remedies, and so on. We're horrible buzzkills who just want to rain on everyone's parade, because we don't like to see people getting conned out of their money and being given false hope by charlatans.

Tell me, John: if chelation "cures" autism, if it removes the mercury from your son's system, then why do you have to keep going in for treatments? It's not like you keep injecting him with thimerosal or feeding him mercury; how could there possibly still be toxic-level amounts in his system if you've had it removed repeatedly?

Speaking of which, I think I'll go check and see if my risk paid off in the 4th at Aqueduct.
If you win, why not put that money toward a DBCT, to shut up all the "jerks who tell you you're doing something wrong"?
If anyone makes a reference to dwarfs in normal conversation, the assumption is that they are talking about someone like Brian Deer, the white dwarf journalist.
Yes, when people refer to "dwarfs" they're usually talking about little people. When people refer to "white dwarfs," however, they're usually talking about stars. Most people don't feel the need to qualify what color little person they're talking about.
Autism is never misdiagnosed
Funny, the studies disagree. But I'm sure you've examined the case histories of every person who ever lived, and you know which ones have autism and which ones don't, and which are naughty and which are nice, and in your omniscient wisdom you have decreed that mistakes never, ever happen (except when doctors make them about vaccinations and when doing tests that disagree with you). FSM damn, you're pathetic.
If your adult autistics were misdiagnosed as schizophrenic,AND were outpatients, that in itself tells us they weren't too bad off.
It also tells us that you were wrong about autism misdiagnosis.

You'll notice something about Tom's lesson in experimental design that deserves reiteration: Just about every step is designed for removing biases.

JB would rather we skip all that methodology and worship his personal biases.

Best:

So, dropping the Secretatiat analogy now hey?

Still haven't answered the question:

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?

Come on, you can do it.

I think you guys are too involved with science, as evidenced by your obsession with white dwarf stars.

Again you miss the point.

At first it was a reference to how dense you are. And you didn't get it, in fact your common prejudices and complete lack of scientific knowledge led you to think it referred to people. At first, we gave you the benfit of the doubt and thought you had just made a rubbish joke.

Then, when it became obvious you weren't even making a bad joke and you really did think I was referring to short white folks, after repeatedly claiming you were smarter than us, it became a symbol of how woefully inadequate your understanding of science is. Even though you have referred to yourself as a scientist!

Repeatedly brining it up is just making yourself look even more idiotic Best.

But this more recent statement makes you look even dumber. If mercury does cause autism, how do you think this knowledge will be demonstrated and found? And how do you think it will be corrected and researched? It sure as hell won't be woodwork classes genius.

It will be science. Would it help if I compared you to a pulsar instead?

If anyone makes a reference to dwarfs in normal conversation, the assumption is that they are talking about someone like Brian Deer, the white dwarf journalist.

I rest my case. My dogs. And they chase balls I haven't even thrown.

Autism is never misdiagnosed

Really? Would you like me to post again what Kanner says about this? Oh what the hell:

It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic.

And:

Even though most of these children were at one time or another looked upon as feebleminded

And:

The combination of extreme autism, obsessiveness, stereotypy, and echolalia brings the total picture into relationship with some of the basic schizophrenic phenomena. Some of the children have indeed been diagnosed as of this type at one time or another.

What's that now, five times?

But just in case that doesn't work try this:

Autism misdiagnosed as ADHD

Childhood with Fragile X

Fetal alcohol syndrome, common yet ignored

Rett Syndrome misdiagnosed as developmental delay

Mental health and Asperger syndrome

Money quote:
It is also important to realise that people have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia when, in fact, they have Asperger syndrome. This is because their odd behaviour or speech pattern, or the persons strange accounts or interpretations of life, are seen as a sign of mental illness, such as schizophrenia.

...

People with Asperger syndrome can experience a variety of mental heath problems, notably anxiety and depression, but also impulsiveness and mood swings. They may be misdiagnosed as having a psychotic disorder and it is therefore important psychiatrists treating them are knowledgeable about autism and Asperger syndrome.

That's from The National Autistic Society in the UK, in case you were wondering.

Or how about:
Protecting vulnerable adults - Securing their safety (2005)

28. In addition to this, it is important to understand that the factors that can lead to mental health problems in people with ASD usually relates to lack of access to appropriate services. For example, the impact of a lack of timely diagnosis for some people with ASD can be mental health problems. The NAS report Ignored and Ineligible? found that 32% of parents said their adult son or daughter had already experienced mental ill health, and where diagnosis was late, this rose to 45% of those diagnosed in their 20s and 50% of those diagnosed after the age of 30.(2)

One parent said 'Misdiagnosis and mistreatment led to a wasted seven years', while another said 'The delays were in the GP taking us seriously, to the extent that our sons health was further impaired to him injuring himself and considering suicide.'

Or try this:
Psychological Misdiagnosis of Gifted and Talented Children

Or this:
Misdiagnosing Asperger

Personality disorders cannot be safely diagnosed prior to early adolescence. Still, though frequently found between the ages of 3 and 6, Asperger's Disorder is often misdiagnosed as a cluster B personality disorder, most often as the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

Or this:
Asperger's syndrome

Unfortunately, some kids with Asperger's syndrome are first misdiagnosed with another problem, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or an emotional-behavior disorder.

Michael Fitzgerald Professor Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin

Clinical experience suggests that there are quite a number of patients in adult psychiatric hospitals who have been misdiagnosed as having anancastic personality disorder rather than Asperger's Syndrome. While the misdiagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome as simple schizophrenia and other conditions is very familiar, anankastic personality has not been given sufficient consideration in the differential diagnosis.

And from the same link:
Lawrence Perlman, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2000, Vol 31, No. 2, 221-225.

...

Practicing psychologists may encounter adult psychiatric patients who have erroneously been diagnosed as having chronic schizophrenia when a careful examination and history would reveal that they have lifelong deficit conditions within the autistic spectrum.

Or try here:
Autism misdiagnosis 'ruined a life'

Sean Honeysett is paying the price for nearly two decades of being wrongly diagnosed as mentally ill.

...

However, doctors have now discovered that Sean is not mentally ill, but instead suffers from a poorly understood form of autism known as Asperger's syndrome.

Never misdiagnosed, right Bestie?

Either you are a dishonest lying asshat, or an idiot. Which is it?

White dwarfs are nice people.

You just can't help embarrassing yourself can you?

I only watch sports on TV

Oh you do surprise me.

I mean really, my dogs. And they chew plastic for fun.

Tom:

Most people don't feel the need to qualify what color little person they're talking about.

Don't you think it is revealing that Bestie does though?

I don't mind you calling me names for the way I used his kid's name but it was just an attempt to drill some sense into her old man.

You really think being a childish asshole is a constructive way to "drill some sense" into someone? Out here in reality we argue using evidence and logic. I've yet to see you employ either, sadly.

Evidence and logic are a bit too "involved with science" for good old Bestie to use.

Memory, lies, make believe, prejudice and ignorance are more his style.

I never ridiculed Leitch's kid, I only ridiculed him.

-----

JB to KL (March 16 2006): Your kid will always be more experienced than me at playing computer games...A monkey can be taught to use a computer.

............

JB to KL (March 20 2006): My wife bought too many bananas so I'll send some for your daughter

.............

JB to KL (March 22 2006): I believe you first insulted your daughter in the post I deleted.....Perhaps you can teach your daughter to swing from tree to tree....You're the one who compared your daughter to a monkey, not me

So Bestie, it appears it is dishonest lying asshat.

As well as pond scum.

Big guy to make fun of children aren't you? Real crusader for truth.

People like you are a waste of air.

But JB never accepts the 'proof' of people like me who have seen their kids progress without biomed treatments. My autistic daughter had many difficult behaviors, as JB has complained about in Sam. She is now getting A's and B's in most subjects, in the regular 5th grade classroom. She still is dyslexic, and receives special ed for reading and writing.

Part of her progress is a home environment full of books, educational software, toys that encourage exploration and loving encouragement. If another child has no books, no TV but sports, and parents who belittle education and are ignorant of science, how can they progress?

If autism is mercury poisoning, why aren't Japan and Iraq the epicenters of an autism exposion? Before Erlich's organo-arsenics came along, mercury was the standard treatment for syphylis. Many adults and some children(congenital cases) were given large doses of various mercury compounds, some by injection, some orally. My materia medica from 1905 recomends dosing until obvious mercurism develops, then cutting back to let the patient recover. Much more exposure than 186 micrograms over 5 years.

John: Don't let facts and science stand in your way. Remain strong in your faith. Don't let what happened to Lenny happen to you :)

Ruth:

Best is not interested in facts, evidence or logic. In fact he is not interested in anything that disagrees with him or what he knows to be true (which is evidently not much).

For instance, what you bring up about mercury use in medicine throughout history is something I've been thinking about too.

Now, Best says that mercury causes autism. So if you are exposed to mercury through vaccines or some other form you will develop autism. He also says that autism NEVER existed before 1943/1931/1929.

So, he's left in a bit of a pickle.

You see Bestie, mercury has been used throughout history in medicine. Which means, by your own arguments and standards, that there MUST have been cases of autism BEFORE 1943/1931/1929.

So you are wrong about at least one of them, aren't you?

Check out the Wikipedia article on Mercury and follow its citations.

For instance in the Far East mercury was used to prolong life (who says Chinese medicine is all quackery) and to heal fractures. The Romans used mercury in make up.

In the 18th and 19th centuries it was used in the process for making felt hats, poisoning many hat makers (and its use wasn't banned in the felt industry until 1941).

Mercury was of course used in dental fillings, up to 200 years ago. As far back as 1845 American dental associations were asking dentists not to use it.

Mercury(I) chloride (or calomel) - used as a diuretic, topical disinfectant, laxative.

Mercury(II) chloride (or mercuric chloride) - used to treat syphilis.

Blue Mass - used in the 1800s to treat, amongst others, constipation, depression, child bearing and toothache.

In the early 20th century mercury was used as a laxative and dewormer for children.

How about mercury in fish Bestie? Does that mean that coastal areas whose diet consists of large amounts of fish have a higher incidence of autism?

Mercury compounds have been used as irrigation solutions in the management of carcinomas. Mercurials have also been used as spermicides. Mercurius solubilis (Merc. Sol.) a nitrated oxide of mercury is used in homoeopathic medicine.

Taken from:
Mercury

I did get a kick from the fact that there must be a higher rate of autism amongst homeopaths and their clients.

Or how about the use of mercury in gold mining in the 19th century?

So, why didn't mercury poisoning and use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929 Best?

Come on, use your memory.

Seriously, my dogs. And one of them used to eat poo.

Jimmy,
I spent years learning the facts that you try to ignore. Use your head for a change and you can evaluate all the info you dug up to reach the same conclusion I did. I have Breeder's Cup races to handicap, a football game and a baseball game to watch and don't have time to give you private instruction.

Jimmy:

So, why didn't mercury poisoning and use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929 Best?

You're forgetting, Jimmy, that's normal mercury. It's not the magical mystery mercury compound produced in a tiny percentage of people when they (or their mothers) metabolize thimerosal, which is toxic even in tiny amounts, and remains in the system for years, requiring repeated chelation treatments, despite the tiny amount (perhaps it grows, like The Blob). It was invented in 1931 when the first person alchemically transformed thimerosal into supermercury, possibly using their hyperpancreas, transforming them into an autist.

John:

I spent years learning the facts that you try to ignore.

You've got that backwards, John. You've spent years ignoring the facts that we've tried to get you to learn. If you had learned any facts, you would have shared them by now.

Use your head for a change and you can evaluate all the info you dug up to reach the same conclusion I did.
"If you disagree with me, you must be an idiot, because I am infallible." Pathetic, John. You're the only one ignoring evidence here, as you've made clear repeatedly. We have examined the evidence, and we've done so without dismissing any dissenting conclusions as the product of a medical conspiracy. We've examined all the evidence, and we've come to the conclusion that you're full of shit and you've been leaking it for years.

Hey John, before you give up here, please explain to us how crusading for "truth" entails ridiculing someone's seven-year-old daughter. I'm really curious to hear how you think that makes you one of the good guys.

I spent years learning the facts that you try to ignore.

You've spent years arguing your 3 talking points, John, but even so a group of skeptics who are probably not involved in arguing autism day to day have given you an intellectual ass kicking.

Tom,
The largest increase in autism coincided with the HepB vaccine on the day of birth. It hardly existed at all before multi-dose vials came into vogue in the 80's. Kids with the APO-E4 protein can not rid themselves of any mercury or aluminum. Testosterone makes mercury kill brain cells much quicker while estrogen lessens the effect. Some kids have been cured completely by removing the mercury via chelation. Laws were changed to protect the drug companies after this became known. Verstrtaeten told us the truth and conveniently found a job overseas. The CDC paid a private company $21 million to hide the data. Explain what the hell happened to cure those kids via chelation if mercury had not been the problem. Did chelation remove evil spirits? You're all scum. The truth is obvious.

Davis,
Read what I wrote bonehead. I know the proper thing for a mercury denying shithead is to demonize everyone who tells the truth. I ridiculed the kids father, not the kid.

Joe,
How did anyone kick my ass while I've helped to cure autism and they have not? All they've done is fling lots of bullshit. Not one offered another method or explanation as to why chelation is curing children. There is only one reasonable explanation and you all know the truth. Why don't you all shut up and stop lying about it?

BTW, I earned better than 30% on my investment fund at Aqueduct today. How many of you geniuses made 30% in half an hour today?

Kids with the APO-E4 protein can not rid themselves of any mercury or aluminum. Testosterone makes mercury kill brain cells much quicker while estrogen lessens the effect.
Ah, argument by prestigious jargon. You have yet to answer the money question, John: What harmful mercury compound is metabolized from thimerosal, and how does the process occur? A simple chemical equation will suffice. Here, I'll even get you started with the formula for thimerosal:

C9H9HgNaO2S + (chemical in the body) ---> (harmful mercury compound) + (byproduct)

I apologize if the Thimerosal formula doesn't have subscripts; blame the coding. Just know that there aren't any coefficients in the equation (unless you insert some!). Go ahead, John, since you've spent years learning the facts