« 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 and you're ten times smarter than any of us, you should be able to tell us how your hypothesis is physically possible.

Some kids have been cured completely by removing the mercury via chelation.
How many treatments does it take? How much mercury ends up in their systems?
The CDC paid a private company $21 million to hide the data.
You keep making these allegations. Do you have anything to back up this claim, or is it just another thing you've pulled out of your ass?
Explain what the hell happened to cure those kids via chelation if mercury had not been the problem.
Confirmation. Bias. Until you have some data and some controlled experiments, you can't demonstrate anything more than that.

Of course, all we have to show that anyone was cured of autism by chelation is anecdotal evidence. If we had something--anything!--more substantial than that, then your claims might hold some water. As it is, they hold about as much water as the net from a soccer goal.

Read what I wrote bonehead. I know the proper thing for a mercury denying shithead is to demonize everyone who tells the truth.
Just like the proper thing for a mercury-claiming shithead is to propose baseless conspiracy theories, ignore any study which doesn't agree, and claim absolute certainty based on "memory" and a complete rejection of any factual process.
How did anyone kick my ass while I've helped to cure autism and they have not?
If it were a "claiming to have cured autism" contest, you'd win by a landslide. Now, you'd have a lot of trouble winning the "proving you've cured autism" contest, given that you have nothing but memory and the infallible word of Bestie to back you up. I'd like to say you might get "Miss Congeniality" in that contest, but we both know you wouldn't.

But Joseph was talking about an intellectual ass-kicking, not a "baseless claim ass-kicking." And in your fervor to eschew every trapping of intellectualism, from evidence and critical thinking to science and medicine to basic reason and logic, you've pretty thoroughly eliminated yourself from that game. When you walk onto a football field, toss away your helmets and pads, and say "I don't need to train and I reject your rules, now let's play ball," you ought to expect to get your ass kicked.

Seriously, John, Jimmy's dogs. At least they know to stay away if they're going to get smacked.

Not one offered another method or explanation as to why chelation is curing children.

Because you've provided no evidence that it is curing children. We can't debunk your phantoms, John. Your lack of data or studies is more proof against the efficacy of chelation on autism than anything that anyone here could possibly provide.

There is only one reasonable explanation and you all know the truth.
"There's a global medical conspiracy to cover up the fact that thimerosal breaks down into harmful amounts of a toxic mercury compound by a completely unexplained chemical process in the bodies of a tiny percentage of people who get vaccines, and then produces some effects marginally similar to a few of the effects of mercury poisoning, which we call autism. This condition can be cured by removing the mercury compound by chelation, even though we can't say what the formula for the mercury compound is and therefore have no idea if the chelating agents would bond to it successfully, and we have to do multiple chelating treatments over long periods of time for an unspecified reason. The reason that the rates of autism haven't been going down since the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines is because it's still in flu shots, and the reason the numbers aren't falling due to the fact that fewer people get flu shots than get HepB vaccines, and fewer still get it while or shortly before being pregnant, is because, um, horse racing."

Yes, that's clearly the most reasonable possible explanation.

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?
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Because as Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson demonstrate, "lots of money" equals "genius."

Hey, John, how much more would you have if you didn't subject your son to quack treatments?

Not one offered another method or explanation as to why chelation is curing children.

It isn't. We've been over this countless times, but you just cover your ears from the truth and simple logic. Many autistics improve naturally as they grow up. People are very talented at fooling themselves into seeing what they want to see. The people who don't see improvement move onto other treatments and typically don't speak up because quackery maintains an atmosphere that discourages criticism, thus allowing confirmation bias to dominate anecdotes.

Unless you cloned your kids and put one set through chelation and another through placebo, there's nothing ruling out natural improvement or your wishful thinking, which DOES happen. Your hypothesis, however, doesn't explain chelation failures.

That's why you don't get to decide the world revolves around one anecdote. That's what research is for.

Do NOT take this post as ANY endorsement of chelation therapy for autistics or that mercury has anything to do with autism. however:

"there's nothing ruling out natural improvement or your wishful thinking, which DOES happen"

If john could present a single iota of evidence the is not anecdotal that chelation does anything towards curing autism (we dont even know if you even really have any kids), i.e. mercury was measured before chelation, and measured after, degree of autism was evaluated before and after, and this was done in a double blind fashion)...if there was ANY evidence of this working (of which john has presented exactly zero), there is another possibility...

accidents do happen... the chemicals that are proposed to be used for this, could in fact, have a beneficial effects on autistics totally separate from whether or not any mercury, or flouride, or nutrasweet, or anything else they want to pin autism on, is present.


Just a thought...man, that was a lot of qualifiers...


We now return to the October Bonehead Smackdown

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?

I think homeopathy has "cured" more autistic children than chelation. (Probably demonstrable anecdotally.) BTW, did Amy Holmes, that chelation pioneer, end up curing her son? He's a brilliant kid I hear (IQ of 150) albeit completely non-verbal.

I suspect Dr. Amy has given up the nonsense of chelation and is now focusing on helping her son get accepted into society.

Bronze Dog,
Autistics do not improve with age naturally. The phoney autistics who diagnosed themselves and are associated with Neurodiversity are not representative of actual autistics who never improve and are sent to institutions functioning at a two year old level where they remain for the rest of their lives.
Tom Foss,
Good critical thinking is recognized by results. If my kid improves, as he did, it shows that I studied the evidence and drew the proper conclusion. Today I studied the racetrack and determined that the slowest horse would win due to the track condition. I was right four times in a row. Results, Tom, Results. Studies are a waste of time to me.

Autistics do not improve with age naturally.

Stop spreading lies John. You are doing a disservice to your own son and the entire autistic community.

I wrote a summary of the science sorrounding this matter here.

Best:

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

You say this without a hint of irony as well don't you?

Let's examine how this has gone for you shall we.

You claim that Kanner says autism never existed before 1943.

We showed that he does not say this anywhere in his paper by citing the evidence. - You ignore the facts and keep asserting that he did say this in his paper.

You claim that autism is not and has never been misdiagnosed.

We have shown copious amounts of evidence that it was and is. - facts which you have ignored.

You claimed that no-one older than 77 has ever been diagnosed with autism.

We showed that they have by citing evidence. - facts which you ignored.

You have claimed that mercury poisoning causes autism without providing one shred of evidence that it does.

We provided evidence that mercury has been ingested for various reasons, in large amounts, for at the very least the last two thousand years - something that calls into question 2 of your assertions. - You have ignored these facts.

You claimed that autism is mercury poisoning.

It isn't - a fact which you have ignored.

You claimed you did not insult Lietch's daughter.

We have shown evidence that you did - You have ignored these facts and still assert that you did not.

You claimed you were a scientist.

We have comprehensively proved your understanding of science and the scientific method is completely lacking or woefully inadequate. - a fact you have ignored

That's just a small sample of the facts that you have ignored.

Either demonstrate beyond doubt these facts are wrong or shut up.

Use your head for a change and you can evaluate all the info you dug up to reach the same conclusion I did.

I did evaluate it you mental pygmy, that's why I know you are a dishonest lying asshat who is full of shit on this subject.

If you had bothered to read the many sources that I have posted you would know that nearly every assertion you have made so far on this thread is wrong.

You were wrong on Kanner, wrong on autism not existing before 1943/1932/1929, wrong on autism never being misdiagnosed, wrong on no autistic being older than 77, wrong on mercury posioning causing autism, you were even wrong on the current autism prevalence rates. You used the CDC's figures for prevalence rates whilst claiming you couldn't trust the CDC on anything! You were embarrasingly wrong on white dwarfs. You were even wrong with your own analogy.

You have ignored my questions:

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?

And:

Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?

And they are only the two most important of many.

I evaluated all the information I have dug up, and I reached the exact opposite conclusion you have. I doubt you have even looked at more than one of the sources I have posted. If you have, please detail why they are wrong or shut up spouting the crap that you do.

You have not been able to say even once what is wrong with any of the sources I have cited because you can't. Instead you simply assert they are wrong and you are right, because you have a god complex worse than any surgeon or mental patient I have ever seen.

Give a detailed rebuttal or shut up.

You have claimed that chelation therapy cures autism but have provided no evidence that it does other than anecdotes. You have provided no evidence to even support the claim that mercury causes autism.

Either provide some evidence or shut up.

I've spent an hour a day researching this for the last week, and I have still come up with more sources and citations than you can muster in your years of research. I have found sources that directly dispute all of your assertions, and in your years of research you haven't been able to find any sources to rebut them. I doubt you have even read them. I think that says all we need to know about your years of research.

Either provide your own sources or shut up.

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.

What, we are supposed to be impressed because you are too stupid to realise that gamblers always come off worse than bookies in the long run? That you are so ignorant you watch sport rather than actually read up on subjects you claim to know more about than the doctor who first diagnosed it?

I'm glad I have had this opportunity to thoroughly humiliate you in a public sphere Best, because any sane person who comes across this thread will know what a thoroughly dishonest, ignorant, cowardly, intellectually challenged boil on the arse of humanity you are. Do yourself a favour and quit while you are only light years behind.

On the other hand, all it would take is one detailed rebuttal of the sources cited.

Rebut the sources or shut up.

Seriously, my dogs. And they growl at their own reflection.

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?

All this proves is you can pick a good stockbroker or you will lie about anything in a desparate attempt to try and recover the tiniest amount of inconsequential credibility. Why the desparate need to appear smart about a non-related topic Best? You really are an insecure little man aren't you?

Seriously my dogs. And they are dogs.

Autistics do not improve with age naturally. The phoney autistics who diagnosed themselves and are associated with Neurodiversity are not representative of actual autistics who never improve and are sent to institutions functioning at a two year old level where they remain for the rest of their lives.
And now we break out the No True Scotsman fallacy. Is that Bingo yet? I swear, I must have the whole card filled.
Good critical thinking is recognized by results. If my kid improves, as he did, it shows that I studied the evidence and drew the proper conclusion.
You're bootstrapping. If your kid improves and you set no controls, then you have no grounds to say with any certainty what caused the improvement.

Answer the question, John: what mercury compound does thimerosal break down into in an autistic's body, and how does the reaction occur? It should be a simple question if chelation works (you would have to know what compound you're trying to remove in order to determine which chelating agent to use) and if you have any degree of certainty that thimerosal causes autism. What mercury compound is released, John?

Studies are a waste of time to me.
And you're a waste of time to everyone else. Your kid may or may not be improving; his dad's just as much an idiot as ever.

Tom,
Idiot's may argue against curing autism but idiots can not cure it.
I don't know or care what mercury compound is released. All I know is what doctors who know how to cure autism tell me. If I had to go take a bunch of courses in biochemistry to learn these answers, I'd be neglecting other aspects of my life so I just ask the experts. Then I come here and see you jerks criticizing the experts but you aren't telling me how to cure my autistic kid while they are.

Jimmy,
You really need to get out more. Stockbrokers don't pick horses at Aqueduct. While gamblers do usually lose to bookies, bookies do not usually take bets on horses where the odds favor the gambler. Picking horses is not a non-related topic but you're not smart enough to see that. It involves weighing lots of variables, never having all the information you want, and making an investment based on risk versus reward. It's the same thing with trying to cure autism. Nobody has all the answers so you learn as much as you can and bet accordingly. The risk is nil in autism since the kid has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Not taking the risk means the kid loses.

One more time, go to Generation Rescue and Safe Minds if you feel like doing lots of reading. You can also read my blog where there are some posts that discuss the proof of mercury as the cause of autism. I'm not a link saver Jim so I can't conform to your rules for argument.

The risk is nil in autism since the kid has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

That's another falsehood, considering the plausibility that DMSA is neurotoxic, and considering that many classically autistic kids do have a fair or good outcome without the claptrap of chelation.

You should at least get better informed about autism and chelation if you see it as one more of your gambling passtimes.

Best:

Give us a detailed rebuttal or shut up. Why won't you give us one Best?

That's the only question anyone finding this will have to think about.

Two more that you can't answer though:

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?

and:

Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?

Why can't you answer them Best?

You really need to get out more.

Don't project your own fears on me Best. Since you're interests amount to lying, sport and gambling I think maybe you feel a little insecure, don't you?

Picking horses is not a non-related topic but you're not smart enough to see that. It involves weighing lots of variables, never having all the information you want, and making an investment based on risk versus reward.

So let me get this straight. Now your argument is that you aren't certain about all the things you claimed you were, but that you are gambling with your son's life on what you think is a dead cert?

It's the same thing with trying to cure autism.

Yes, that is what you are saying. Genius. Your new latest pathetic attempt at an argument is:

We aren't completely sure so what do we have to lose by trying?

Well, this.

The risk is nil in autism since the kid has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Oh yes, nothing to lose.

Not taking the risk means the kid loses.

Or some idiot doesn't get the chance to kill them.

One more time, go to Generation Rescue and Safe Minds if you feel like doing lots of reading.

I've done enough reading of your shit, it's your turn.

Give a rebuttal or shut up. Why can't you give us one?

I'm not a link saver Jim so I can't conform to your rules for argument.

How about Google search, can you do Google searches?

But they're not my rules idiot, they are the rules of the entire scientific community. Apparently you can't conform though. Now there's a surprise.

Give us a detailed rebuttal or shut up.

"What's the harm?" is one of the most dangerous phrases in the world.

And, of course, Bestie argues he's not a link saver, so he doesn't have to be open to public scrutiny. He gets free secrecy because he's lazy. He doesn't have to have anyone look him over for mistakes, since that would imply he's not a perfect deity, incapable of misreading, misinterpreting, or a bias that lets him risk harm to a child so that he can feel heroic without any real effort.

Alright I sucked it up and read Generation Rescue, then did some research on it.

You are aware that some of the scientists that GR cite have specifically asked them to stop doing so aren't you?

And you are aware they have been criticised for not doing peer reviewed research, right?

And that they have in the past got facts wrong?

And how do you explain chelation 'curing' autism when it simply removes the heavy metal - it does not repair neurological damage? In other words, it can stop you getting worse but it can not make you better.

Come on Best, years of research and all that, this should be easy for you. Or did you reach the cement horizon?

That's one thing I always wonder about: How does a chelating agent fix neurological damage AND remove the unknown mercury compound? Convenient that it's one chemical.

Then again, he once mentioned something along the lines of this magic mercury compound not causing actual damage, just some kind of inhibiting or something.

In which case, he should probably tell us which chemical receptors are involved.

With Bestie, it's all generalities and no specifics whatsoever.

Jimmy,
Are you simpletons ever going to stop using one case of malpractice to condemn chelation? The fact that you throw that up confirms you are an idiot.
There is no need to check any medical records before 1943 because Kanner would have learned of any cases of autism if they had existed.
Chelation can allow methylation to take place which is part of the solution. It can not repair the dead brain cells that mercury kills. That's why HBOT is being used. As with stroke victims, it is helping autistic people grow new brain cells. That's also why chelation works best on young kids who are still producing brain cells.

BTW, I had 5 out of 9 winners at the Breeder's Cup for another 45% profit. Did any of you dopes make 45% on your investments today?

Idiot's may argue against curing autism but idiots can not cure it.
And yet, you said you've cured it. Something in there is a contradiction.

Incidentally, plurals in English aren't formed with apostrophes.

The fact is that nothing gets cured through pure guesswork. Things get cured through careful studies, experiments, and knowledge of the facts--all those things that you think are a "waste of time."

I don't know or care what mercury compound is released.
Then congratulations, you lose. If you don't know what mercury compound is released, then you also don't know the following things: 1. Whether the mercury compound is toxic 2. If toxic, how much is necessary to provoke a reaction 3. How much of the compound is metabolized from thimerosal 4. What the symptoms of poisoning by this compound are 5. How long the compound stays in the system (for instance, methylmercury builds up, ethylmercury passes out of the body harmlessly) 6. What sort of chemical agent would be necessary to remove the compound from the body

If you don't know the formula of the compound, you don't know what will bond or react with it. If you don't know what will bond or react with it, then choosing a chelating agent is random guesswork.

All I know is what doctors who know how to cure autism tell me.
Because all doctors are completely trustworthy and not looking to swindle gullible people out of money--except, of course, those doctors who disagree with your baseless ideas about autism.

Holy bejeezus, man, P.T. Barnum would have had a field day with you. You are the perfect mark.

If I had to go take a bunch of courses in biochemistry to learn these answers, I'd be neglecting other aspects of my life
Yeah, can't afford to take time away from sports on TV and the OTB booths.
so I just ask the experts.
"...And only the ones who agree with what I already think."

Fine, ask your doctor expert to answer my question: what mercury compound metabolizes from thimerosal, and how? A simple chemical equation will suffice.

Then I come here and see you jerks criticizing the experts but you aren't telling me how to cure my autistic kid while they are.
Funny how the vast majority of "experts" disagree with every one of your claims, from Leo Kanner to the CDC.

What you're looking for is an easy answer, John, a silver bullet. You want to buy the magic cure for your ailing son, and you'll listen to anyone who tells you they have one. It's understandable that you're afraid, it's understandable that you just want to do what's best for your kid and that you're letting your emotions get the better of you, but you have to recognize that there are no magic cures. Just because there are unscrupulous or self-deluded people willing to sell you snake oils and panaceas doesn't mean that these things work, no matter how desperately you want them to. You're right, John, we don't have a cure, and we're willing to admit that because we recognize the facts of the situation. You immediately dismiss with anything that tells you what you don't want to hear, but you seem unwilling to recognize that reality doesn't conform to what we want.

The fact is that there is no cure for autism, largely because the cause is unknown. The fact is that there is no evidence to suggest that mercury causes autism. The fact is that there are people out there who want to exploit you, your son, and every other vulnerable parent struggling with a loved one's autism, and they have used fancy language and conspiratorial ramblings to convince you that they have something to offer. They don't, John. They've given you nothing but baseless promises and shiny lies. And you're so desperate to believe that there's an easy answer that you will swallow anything they tell you, pay any amount, and ignore any reality, so long as you can feel better about yourself and your son's prospects.

I thought you were an asshole, John, and in some ways you are. Now I see what's really behind your anger and vitriol and denial: you're scared. You're terrified of a world where your son can't be assured a cure, you fear that these unethical doctors have duped you, you're scared because somewhere in the deep recesses of your brain, you wonder if maybe these treatments haven't had anything to do with your son's recovery, and maybe all this talk about "facts" and "evidence" has some weight to it. You want desperately to believe in what the mercury hucksters tell you because it's exactly what you want to hear. They say they know what causes autism, they say they know how to cure it, they say that the only reason no one accepts them is because of some grand conspiracy, and it all sounds so good. Too good to be true, in fact.

And you know what they say about when things sound too good to be true, John.

Nobody has all the answers so you learn as much as you can and bet accordingly.
Gosh, you're right. And what would you say to a gambler who completely ignores everyone when they say "no, this horse is the fastest one in the race, and the one you're looking to bet on is ten years older and has a broken leg?"

Nobody has all the answers, John, but you're ignoring the people who look for the real answers in order to believe people who have happy little lies.

The risk is nil in autism since the kid has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Oh man, Pascal's Wager? For autism?

Yeah, no one has anything to lose, except time, money, comfort (due to the side-effects of chelation therapy), and necessary care (due to a delusional father).

You can also read my blog where there are some posts that discuss the proof of mercury as the cause of autism.
How can you point to mercury as the cause when you don't know what mercury compound would be causing the disorder? How can you claim to be a source on the subject when you admittedly have no biochemistry knowledge?

Are you simpletons ever going to stop using one case of malpractice to condemn chelation? The fact that you throw that up confirms you are an idiot.

Why not? Since you don't know what compound to remove, that guy's random guess that EDTA would work is no worse than your random guess that ALA would work. If you could back up your proposed treatment with a simple bit of chemistry, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on with objecting to that "malpractice."

And incidentally, the fact that there are people performing the treatment who do so unsafely is a refutation of your claim that the kid has "nothing to lose." Yes, mistakes like that are rare; it doesn't change the fact that they happen, and they do provide something to lose.

There is no need to check any medical records before 1943 because Kanner would have learned of any cases of autism if they had existed.
Did Kanner have access to thorough medical records for everyone from before 1943? Was he able to read all those records and willing to make unethical psychological conclusions based on reports instead of personal contact? Do we know that he never discussed any earlier cases in later papers?
Chelation can allow methylation to take place which is part of the solution.
What gets methylated? If you're talking about methylating mercury (adding a methyl group to mercury to create methylmercury) then you actually chance making things worse. Methylmercury is far more dangerous to the body than ethylmercury (which is the mostly-harmless usually-metabolized byproduct of thimerosal), and Dimethylmercury is one of the strongest known neurotoxins.

So until you know something about chemistry and medicine, John, there's a good chance your treatment will end up making things worse. "Nothing to lose" indeed.

That's why HBOT is being used. As with stroke victims, it is helping autistic people grow new brain cells.

How?

Did any of you dopes make 45% on your investments today?
No, I spent quality time with my loved ones.

Kanner would have learned of any cases of autism if they had existed.

Right, a Google Scholar search would've been sufficient.

But he in fact must have been unaware of the work by Dr. Landon Down.

Either way, the word 'autism' was not originally by either Leo Kanner or Hans Asperger. That one came from Eugen Beuler (or Bleuler), who coined it in 1908.

Here's an excerpt of Kanner (1965) where he discusses that:

The term autism was introduced by Eugen Bleuler, who wrote: "Naturally some withdrawal from reality is implicit in the wishful thinking of normal people who 'build castles in Spain.' Here, however, it is mainly an act of will by which they surrender themselves to a fantasy. They know that it is just fantasy, and they banish it as soon as reality so demands. I would not call the effects of these mechanisms 'autism' unless they are coupled with a definite withdrawal from the external world."

Joe,
Bleuler was describing schizophrenia and chose a bad term to name it.

Tom,
I spent some quality time with my kids between races.
Your point about charlatans taking my money doesn't apply. I get free advice about chelation and spend $6 for a bottle of ALA that lasts a few months.
Ethyl mercury stays in the brain much longer than methyl mercury. That makes it more dangerous.
Chelation doesn't methylate anything, Tom. Mercury prevents methylation so, when you remove it, it no longer prevents the process from happening. You never bothered to read what Richard Deth taught us, did you?

Choosing a chelator is not guesswork, Tom. Andy Cutler has it all figured out and is kind enough to pass his knowledge in to us for free. That's a good deal since I can bury my head in the Daily Racing Form instead of a chemistry book. You should read what Andy has to say so you can become educated too. Then you won't be touting all these ridiculous ideas about autism still being incurable.
Gotta get back to the Red Sox game Tom.

Best:

Good grief you are dense.

Are you simpletons ever going to stop using one case of malpractice to condemn chelation?

I did not condemn chelation on the evidence of one case of what you call malpractise. I condemn it because there is no scientific evidence that it works in the treatment of autism.

I used this case as a direct counter to your assertion that kids have nothing to lose by undergoing chelation therapy. I'd say your life is a significant loss, wouldn't you? I think it revealing that you consider death 'nothing to lose' when considered next to living with autism.

The fact that you throw that up confirms you are an idiot.

And the fact that you once again missed the point proves what?

There is no need to check any medical records before 1943 because Kanner would have learned of any cases of autism if they had existed.

Oh do please explain how Kanner could have learned of previous cases (or not) of autism if he was not going to look at previous medical records. This I can't wait to hear.

Was he to use psychic powers? Read goat entrails? Hear it from Leprechauns? Speak to the dead? Read tea leaves? Guess? Make it up? Consult an astrologer? Cast the bones?

Or in fact, since Kanner knew he could never say for certain that there had never been a case of autism until he recognised it, did he come to the only sensible conclusion - he was the first to recognise it as a seperate syndrome and the evidence shows it had been diagnosed as other illnesses in the past.

Just a thought.

But let me spell it out for you:

The only way Kanner could state there had never been a case of autism before 1943 would be if he saw medical records for every person who had ever lived since the first Homo Sapiens up until 1943. Since Kanner could not do this, he never said there had never been a case of autism before 1943, and instead recognised that there had indeed been cases diagnosed as other illnesses.

It can not repair the dead brain cells that mercury kills.

So are you saying that autism is caused by mercury killing brain cells? Its just funny because this does not mention anything about autistics having large numbers of dead brain cells. In fact, it only mentions Purkinje Cells and states that autistics appear to have less of them than usual. Gee, I wonder what missing neurons in the brain might have to do with autism?

You do have evidence that mercury affects the Purkinje Cells don't you Bestie? And that HBOT causes them to grow (not regrow, they were never there in the first place)?

That's why HBOT is being used. As with stroke victims, it is helping autistic people grow new brain cells.

So you do have evidence for this right?

BTW, I had 5 out of 9 winners at the Breeder's Cup for another 45% profit. Did any of you dopes make 45% on your investments today?

Oh yes you are so much more manly and clever and smart because you can guess which horse is going to win a race a little over half the time. What a way to spend a day. I on the other hand spent the day having fun with my family. One would have thought any father worth the name would spend time with his sick son. Maybe that's just me though.

You are an insecure little man aren't you?

At the risk of repeating myself, here is the list of things I can think of that Best still hasn't answered or explained:

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?

Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?

How does chelation cure autism?

Why don't autistics exhibit the other symptoms of mercury poisoning if autism is mercury poisoning?

How does HBOT cause brain cells to regrow?

What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?

Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources I have found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?

In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?

How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that it's research is not peer reviewed?

Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?

How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevelance rates provided by CDC research?

Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?

How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

That covers most of it for me at least, feel free to add to the list of 'Things that Best has to ignore.'

I've kept goldfish that could argue more convincingly than you Bestie.

Now go on, try and convince yourself that you are better than us because you can guess horse racing results about 50% of the time. Pathetic.

Either give us some answers us shut up.

The risk is nil in autism since the kid has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

You know what? That may be true for individuals. Its the same justification that gets used for The Secret, astrology, homeopathy and so forth. And if you think running foreign chemical through your childs body is a harmless procedure, whatever, put your own child in danger, do nothing to help with his problem, its not worse than thousand of other parents who exorcize their kids, verbally abuse them, or thell their 8 year olds to get ready for bikini season.

But that isn't what you do is it? you go around to websites that are trying to get focus on the problem, get real help that uses empirical evidence and true understanding of the mechanisms in play, and throw what is essentially graffitti all over them. You ridicule other peoples kids and their honest effort to dela with this issue.

You try to get interviews as if you have any knowledge about any aspect of autism (which you have clearly shown here is not the case). you spread misinformation as much and as fast as you can.

If you want to do nothing for your kid, hell what can I say, I think its abuse, but whatever. The 'harm' comes when you try to affect national policy with your utter nonsense. Instead of getting funding towards solving the problem, you try to instill fear and doubt. you are like the flouride people, and power line people.

"If you want to do nothing for your kid, hell what can I say, I think its abuse, but whatever. The 'harm' comes when you try to affect national policy with your utter nonsense. Instead of getting funding towards solving the problem, you try to instill fear and doubt. you are like the flouride people, and power line people."

Fear is what our government tosses at us to force us to inject mercury into our babies. We wouldn't need any funding to solve this problem if our politicians would stop poisoning our children. The solution is that simple and you bastards know it.

How is using chelation to remove the mercury doing nothing? Those of us who are doing that are our governments worst nightmare. We're fixing the problem that they created and they don't like it. And then we have you jackasses trying to buffalo people with your science speak bullshit.

The problem with throwing your science speak at me is that I'm much more intelligent than all of you put together. I may not have a degree in any scientific discipline but that doesn't matter. I know how to think and problem solve. I also know how to recognize bullshit in all of your arguments. All of your anti chelation garbage is merely propaganda. It doesn't matter what scientific jargon you use or what empirical argument techniques you use. The truth is the element that you can never use fully. My side of this issue is the one with the truth on our side as evidenced by cured children. None of your bullshit can trump that.

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

The truth is that thimerosal caused an autism epidemic, you know it and you are engaged in the coverup. The only evidence I need is the Amish and that practice in Chicago that does not vaccinate babies and has no autism. All of your arguments are simple misdirection and no intelligent person buys them. There is no good reason for me to try to answer your misdirection plays on your terms because you do not set rules on how to establish truth. The truth is established by kids who have been cured of autism. Ergo, nothing any of you have to say is worth a damn.

The problem with throwing your science speak at me is that I'm much more intelligent than all of you put together.

Is there an entry in the Woo Handbook for misguided arrogance? I've noticed this is a pattern.

My side of this issue is the one with the truth on our side as evidenced by cured children.

Name 5 verifyably cured children.

Best:

You really are the stupidest person who has ever posted here, and boy have we seen some morons.

Fear is what our government tosses at us to force us to inject mercury into our babies.

Yes you're so right. There is no real reason why we should take vaccines, it is only fear. It's not like the things we recieve vaccines for are dangerous or anything. Its not like an influenza pandemic ever killed more people than the First World War or anything is it?

We wouldn't need any funding to solve this problem if our politicians would stop poisoning our children.

Politicians? I thought it was the medical community. You seem a bit confused on which conspiracy this is now.

The solution is that simple and you bastards know it.

Yes the solution is so simple that the entire medical and scientific community hasn't been able to solve it, only a few dedicated mavericks like yourself. Only you haven't cured it, because your son still needs treatment.

How is using chelation to remove the mercury doing nothing?

Because it isn't doing anything. If it was, your son would be cured and wouldn't need more treatment. You know it and we know it. The difference is that you are terrified you are wrong and so your fragile grasp of reality needs to convince us, so we can sit around in your mutual support club telling you that you are doing the right thing. Convincing you that your son is getting better, that you are one of the good guys fighting a global conspiracy.

You can't handle the fact that there is no cure, that your sons condition is nobody's fault, and you are scared.

I pity you.

Those of us who are doing that are our governments worst nightmare.

Yes that's right Best. A few kooks with zero understanding of science, and a few quacks willing to do or say anything for fame and fortune are the governments worst nightmare. They have nothing more important to worry about right now.

You are insecure aren't you? That ego of yours is more fragile than an egg.

We're fixing the problem that they created and they don't like it.

No you're not, thats why you are completely unable to provide any proof that you are.

And then we have you jackasses trying to buffalo people with your science speak bullshit.

Idiot. Autism will only be cured through science. You have clearly demonstrated that you are against science. So which side does that really leave you on?

The problem with throwing your science speak at me is that I'm much more intelligent than all of you put together.

No. But you are certainly more arrogant than the rest of us put together. And obviously a lot more scared. If you were more intelligent than us you would understand our science speak (white dwarfs, remember) or you would be able to answer and rebut it (every question in the list I gave above). Instead what we have is crap like this. Desperate assertions supported by no evidence that you continually repeat in an effort to convince yourself and the casual observer that they are true.

Here's the contradiction you fail to see though Best. If you were smarter than all of us put together, answering my questions would be a simple task. And instead you try these long winded avoidance tactics. It is so see through even a simpleton will see why you post crap like this rather than answers Best. You aren't convincing anyone, not even yourself.

I may not have a degree in any scientific discipline but that doesn't matter.

I agree. I don't have one either.

I know how to think and problem solve.

Problem solve, possibly. But think? Not at all.

I also know how to recognize bullshit in all of your arguments.

And yet you consistently fail to rebut them. You are digging your own hole Best. So far you have claimed that you are smarter than us, that you see the problems in our arguments and yet you fail to rebut them. It's no better than saying "I can lift an entire locomotive, I just don't want to show you."

All of your anti chelation garbage is merely propaganda.

Best, we have provided evidence and citations and asked hard scientific questions which you should be able to answer if any of your claims are true. However, all you do is post unsubstantiated claims and nonsense that you want people to accept at face value because you says so. That is the very definition of propaganda.

It doesn't matter what scientific jargon you use or what empirical argument techniques you use.

Why are you so afraid of science and logic Best? They are the only chance we have to cure autism.

The truth is the element that you can never use fully. My side of this issue is the one with the truth on our side as evidenced by cured children.

Where are the cured children Best? Why do you claim your son is cured but admit he still recieves treatment?

None of your bullshit can trump that.

We can all see where the bullshit comes from Best, because it is all you have. If you had anything else, and if you were as passionate about the truth as you claim, then posting it here instead of long winded rants filled with nothing but assertions and cock waving would be a simple matter, and a matter of principle.

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

Wow. I mean. Wow. Now this gives us an interesting insight into the mind of John Best. Horse racing is the highest intellectual pursuit known to man.

The Big Bang, evolutionary theory, mathematics, the meaning of life, engineering, architecture, ethics, morality, space exploration, global warming, alternative fuel sources, global terrorism, feeding the starving, curing AIDS and cancer. None of these compare to the awesome difficulty, the profound importance, of guessing which horse will win a race.

You are an anti-intellectual, ridiculous, cowardly, ignorant, pathetically macho, lying thug.

The problem is, you are scared of anything that you don't understand. And boy you don't understand a lot.

The truth is that thimerosal caused an autism epidemic, you know it and you are engaged in the coverup.

If it did you would be able to provide evidence of this. You can't though, and that is why you spend your time waffling around it. Everyone can see this now Best.

All of your arguments are simple misdirection and no intelligent person buys them.

You got this wrong Best, see if you can figure out how.

There is no good reason for me to try to answer your misdirection plays on your terms because you do not set rules on how to establish truth.

You are quite right, we don't. We do follow and try to enforce the rules though. And we both know that is the real reason that you won't answer our questions. YOU CAN'T.

The truth is established by kids who have been cured of autism.

A truth you cannot even prove.

Ergo, nothing any of you have to say is worth a damn

Oh the irony.

Either answer the following questions Best or shut up. We have all seen you for what you are. A scared father who doesn't have the answers but has convinced himself he does.

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?

Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?

How does chelation cure autism?

Why don't autistics exhibit the other symptoms of mercury poisoning if autism is mercury poisoning?

How does HBOT cause brain cells to regrow?

What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?

Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources I have found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?

In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?

How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that it's research is not peer reviewed?

Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?

How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevelance rates provided by CDC research?

Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?

How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

You're simple failure to answer these questions, which if anything you have said is true would be easy for you, says more than actually answering them ever would Best. You're afraid of what they mean.

Answer them, or shut up.

Did John really claim his son is cured? That would probably be his biggest lie to date. I don't believe his son is conversing yet, for example. Recently he described some of his son's behaviors. Nope. Not cured.

He wrote:

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

You are not suggesting that he is utterly inconsistent in everything he says, surely?

Ah, yeah, he's claimed he cured one of his son's ADHD with chelation. I don't believe the kid got a psychiatric diagnosis and a few months later the psychiatrist said "he's cured!" Is that right, John? I imagine the kid got a school diagnosis. I think most ADHD kids actually need to be evaluated in school to be able to get a diagnosis. It's very subjective. Then, from what I recall, after a couple months John decided the kids' grades had improved, and therefore was cured. Either way, it's not at all uncommon for ADHD kids to lose the label.

He says his ASD kid is improving, but that's the case of 80% of autistic kids at any given time.

Joe,
I can name 5 cured kids in 5 seconds. I'm not about to give you folks those names though since I've watched some of your slimy character assassinations of their parents along with making fun of the children themselves.

Jimmy,
All of the junk you mention in the same vein with handicapping horses is merely plugging in equations. Nobody has figured out an equation for selecting horses. Each race is a different problem to be solved with no rules, no equations, missing data, and requires a thought process that you can't even conceive. Any idiot can be taught with textbooks how to make a rocket go where it's supposed to go or figure out which drug will counteract another drug if they follow the rules of biochemistry. That's not even an intellectual challenge.

You keep asking the same stupid questions. Just because you are too stupid to realize that they are inane questions doesn't mean I should subscribe to your inanities by answering them.

Cured children are all over the place Jimmy. They are enjoying their childhoods, the way they were meant to. They are not showing up here to debate with sophists who are trying to lie to the public about how our government has allowed companies to poison our babies for profit.

Verstraeten, Geier, Deth, Haley, Cutler, Holmes, Bernard, Rimland and many others have discovered the truth and helped us to help our kids. Jerks like you ask stupid questions to try to discredit them. None of your stupid questions prevent us from curing our kids though.

You have a lot of balls trying to tell me autism will only be cured through science, as though it is not science that has told us how to, in fact, cure it. That's just one more of your stupid questions that isn't worth answering but is useful to throw back at you to point out what a simpleton you are by thinking anyone will fall for your bullshit tactics. I've already answered all of your questions. The fact that you don't like my truthful answers doesn't mean that rephrasing the same question is a point for you. It just means that you're too damn stupid to know when to shut up.

Time for Aqueduct, see ya.


Ethyl mercury stays in the brain much longer than methyl mercury. That makes it more dangerous.
Wrong again, John. Ethylmercury doesn't bioaccumulate, which means that it is lost from the body more quickly than it is absorbed. Here's the money quote from an NIAID report:
  • Mercury, in the form of methyl mercury (oral ingestion) and thimerosal (intramuscular injection with vaccines) were both readily absorbed and distributed into blood and brain.
  • Total (organic plus inorganic) mercury was cleared from both blood and brain faster after thimerosal exposure than after methyl mercury exposure.
  • Levels of total mercury measured in blood and in brain were lower after thimerosal exposure than after methyl mercury exposure.
  • The proportion of brain mercury that was inorganic was higher in animals exposed to thimerosal compared with methyl mercury.
  • The absolute amount of inorganic mercury was higher in thimerosal exposed animals compared with methyl mercury.
  • During weekly doses of methyl mercury, total mercury in blood continued to accumulate, while during weekly doses of thimerosal, there was little accumulation of total mercury in blood.
Emphasis added, clearly. You can read similar results at this article from the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Finding that information took me all of five minutes. Five minutes to find the basic chemistry and the biological studies which prove your claim wrong and show that methylation is indeed a very bad thing when it comes to mercury.

Chelation doesn't methylate anything, Tom.
"Chelation can allow methylation to take place which is part of the solution."

Since you never say what methylation is in this context (mainly because I'm sure you have no idea), it's really hard to tell what you're talking about, John.

Mercury prevents methylation so, when you remove it, it no longer prevents the process from happening.
What does mercury prevent from getting methylated? Do you have any idea what methylation is? Methylation is the process of adding a methyl group (CH3) onto some substrate; in biochemistry, it usually replaces a hydrogen atom. Biological systems methylate, among other things, heavy metals (including, you guessed it, mercury).

So, what does mercury prevent the methylation of, and how does the process occur?

You never bothered to read what Richard Deth taught us, did you?
You never bothered to provide a link, nor a reason as to why I should listen to Richard Deth. What are his qualifications? What are the parameters of his study? Has his report been peer-reviewed? Have his results been duplicated?
Choosing a chelator is not guesswork, Tom.
It is if you don't know what compound you're trying to remove and how much of it there is.
You should read what Andy has to say so you can become educated too.
I've read quite a bit by organizations who lay all their facts, figures, and procedures on the table, not to mention that I do have a bit of a science background with which to evaluate these claims. If you can point me to Andy's peer-reviewed journal article or data-rich study, I'd be glad to be "educated" on the subject. But since you can't seem to grasp exactly what methylation is and what's being methylated, and since you have no idea what compound you're trying to remove with chelation, and since you categorically dismiss any information which doesn't agree with the opinion you've arrived at through absolutely no expertise, somehow I doubt that reading one report that is contradicted by thousands of others, will actually add to my education.
Fear is what our government tosses at us to force us to inject mercury into our babies.
Fear of what? Who's fearmongering, the people who say "hey, you can prevent your children from getting terrible diseases like Hepatitis and influenza" or the people saying "No! Don't inject your kids with that, it's poison! Don't trust the government, it's a conspiracy! Don't trust the scientists, they're lying!"
How is using chelation to remove the mercury doing nothing?
Until you can show some evidence that: 1. A harmful mercury compound is metabolized from thimerosal. 2. Said compound remains in the body and is toxic in the amount released. 3. Said compound causes the symptoms of autism. 4. Removing said compound would cause an improvement in these symptoms. 5. Said compound is effectively removed from the body by chelation.

Show some evidence for those things, and then you have grounds to say that chelation is more than "doing nothing." Right now, based on your ignorance of what methylation is (and what's being methylated), your ignorance of what compound you're trying to remove (elemental mercury and each mercury compound will react differently with different chelation chemicals), and your ignorance of any actual connection between mercury and autism, it's safe to say that your proposed treatment is borne out of ignorance and based entirely in unscientific guesses.

You still haven't answered the question, John: if chelation removes the magical mercury compound that "prevents methylation," thus somehow causing autism, then why do you keep having to do chelation treatments? There couldn't have been that much mercury to begin with, and you're buying a new bottle of ALA every few months? What, does the mercury grow back?

And then we have you jackasses trying to buffalo people with your science speak bullshit.
Yes, the government's worse nightmare is a bunch of adults who would rather spend the day at the racetrack than learn how to use an apostrophe. And all us jackasses are just trying to swindle people with facts and data and controlled experiments. How dare we point out reality?
The problem with throwing your science speak at me is that I'm much more intelligent than all of you put together
You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any proof of it.

Oh, right, you don't believe in proving things.

I know how to think and problem solve.
Problem solving requires logic, observation, and evidence. You have displayed none of these things.

Incidentally, you know what that "science bullshit" is? Problem-solving. Dipshit.

All of your anti chelation garbage is merely propaganda.
Propaganda usually isn't backed up by facts, data, and evidence. Propaganda is usually fearmongering and baseless accusations thrown about by people who can't support their positions honestly. Gosh, John, I can't imagine who that sounds like to me.
My side of this issue is the one with the truth on our side as evidenced by cured children. None of your bullshit can trump that.
If your side of the issue is the one with truth on their side, then you should be able to prove it with evidence. Truth, you myopic imbecile, is not some made-up value that goes to whichever side professes certainty the loudest. It's a recognition of reality, best arrived at through processes of observation, experimentation, verification, and bias elimination--in other words, SCIENCE. If you've got "truth," then answer the simple questions that have been posed to you throughout. If you don't know the answers, ask one of your truth-spewing doctors to tell you. What does mercury prevent the methylation of? What mercury compound is released from thimerosal? How much of it is released? How does it react with ALA? Most of these questions could be answered with a simple chemical equation, the kind typical high school sophomores do in Chemistry class. Call up your doctor and ask them to answer those questions. If you want to shut us up, if you want to convince us that chelation works the way you say it does and get us on the side of truth, then that's the first step.
Until one of you morons can decipher a racing form and select 6 out of 9 races while I only pick 5, you will not be able to outdo me at any intellectual pursuit.
Why? Until you can tell me what value is represented by < a | a > in quantum physics, you will not be able to outdo me in any intellectual pursuit. See, I can make arbitrary rules to define intelligence too.

But how about this: until you can tell me the chemical equation for the metabolization of some harmful mercury compound from thimerosal in the body, you have no grounds to claim truth or intellectual superiority on the matter of autism. That seems to be a bit less arbitrary, methinks.

For, handicapping horse races is the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaha...ha...oh, dear. Thanks John, you're the best. Tell me, John, what's in dark matter? What's the formula for quantum gravity? How do particles become entangled? Is there a Higgs boson?

"Most difficult problem-solving exercise," oh, John, you're a hoot.

The truth is that thimerosal caused an autism epidemic, you know it and you are engaged in the coverup.
No, John, it was the reptilians! Area 51! Face on Mars! 9/11!
All of your arguments are simple misdirection and no intelligent person buys them.
Talking to the mirror again, John. Incidentally, it's hard to use facts, evidence, and research in misdirection.
here is no good reason for me to try to answer your misdirection plays on your terms because you do not set rules on how to establish truth.
We don't set rules on how to establish truth? Are you fucking mental? What do you think science is? I establish truth through a process of observation, hypothesis, controlled experimentation, independent verification, conclusion, review, and potential falsification.

Meanwhile, your process of "establishing truth" is apparently "accepting without reason or evidence any claim of any person who agrees with my preconceived conclusions, and dismissing everything else as cover-up and conspiracy." Tell me, John, which is more reliable?

I thought you were pitiful, John. Now I see you're just pathetic.

Jimmy:

You are insecure aren't you? That ego of yours is more fragile than an egg.

Eggs are actually pretty resilient. I'd say more fragile than a soap bubble.

John:

I can name 5 cured kids in 5 seconds. I'm not about to give you folks those names though since I've watched some of your slimy character assassinations of their parents along with making fun of the children themselves.

I've seen movie theaters that didn't project this well.

All of the junk you mention in the same vein with handicapping horses is merely plugging in equations. Nobody has figured out an equation for selecting horses.
Um...no, no it isn't. You further demonstrate your misunderstanding of science, John. Before you can plug in equations, you have to discover what the equations are. Incidentally, of the things Jimmy mentioned, I see maybe three or four that could reasonably be called "plugging in equations" in anything resembling a majority of the time. There are no equations for curing AIDS and cancer, John.
Each race is a different problem to be solved with no rules,
Oh, I guarantee there are rules. They're called "physical laws," chachi. They govern every horse race, even if nothing else does.
Any idiot can be taught with textbooks how to make a rocket go where it's supposed to go or figure out which drug will counteract another drug if they follow the rules of biochemistry. That's not even an intellectual challenge.
Prove it. Pick up a textbook, read it for a little while (the BoSox won't mind), and tell me the chemical equation for the metabolization of thimerosal into some harmful mercury compound. If any idiot can do it, then you're more qualified than most.
You keep asking the same stupid questions. Just because you are too stupid to realize that they are inane questions doesn't mean I should subscribe to your inanities by answering them.
Translation: Nyah nyah na nyah nyah!
None of your stupid questions prevent us from curing our kids though.
No, but that pesky lack of facts, knowledge, and biochemical law on your side does.
You have a lot of balls trying to tell me autism will only be cured through science, as though it is not science that has told us how to, in fact, cure it.
If science has told you how to cure it, then you should be able to answer the simple scientific questions that Jimmy and I have posed--if not yourself, then by citing a scientific source.
I've already answered all of your questions
No, in fact, you've answered vanishingly few of them, and poorly.

Incidentally, if you want to claim that you won't dignify our inane questions with a response, then you really ought to stop responding. You throw around terms like "simpleton" and "any idiot," without seeing that any idiot can see that your refusal to answer simple questions is a dodge. You don't have the answers, you don't have the knowledge, you don't have the scientific evidence, and you certainly don't have the truth.

But, golly, wouldn't it be the best thing ever for you if you could prove us wrong? Using our own "bullshit" scientific standards? It wouldn't take much work, John, just a simple valid chemical equation or two.

I won't hold my breath.

You keep asking the same stupid questions. Just because you are too stupid to realize that they are inane questions doesn't mean I should subscribe to your inanities by answering them.

Translation: "Questions about autism and mercury have nothing to do with autism and mercury! This thread is about horse races!"

And, of course, Bestie commits the absolute projection, again. We're asking how he knows what he knows, and informing him of the necessary information needed for determining causation.

And then he says none of that's important because he's God and just knows.

Tom,
I have 4 minutes to the next race at Aqueduct so here's your proof. Go to the Yahoo group Autism-Mercury and read about cured kids there. You can get bogged down in chemical equations if that's your thing. I only care about helping my kid to function normally. The fact that he keeps getting closer to that means chelation works.

I can name 5 cured kids in 5 seconds. I'm not about to give you folks those names though since I've watched some of your slimy character assassinations of their parents along with making fun of the children themselves.

Where? Let's see it.

From the Autism-Mercury FAQ, last posted Oct. 21, 2007:

Q: Has anyone actually "cured" their autistic child by chelating them?

The book "Turning Lead Into Gold" describes several cases of children with "autistic tendencies" who improved dramatically after chelation for lead.

As of this writing, no one on this list has completely cured their child from mercury poisoning. But its early yet. Dr. Amy is getting some wonderful results with the children in her practice, and numerous parents have reported improvements in their autistic children with each chelation cycle.

I know, I know. Dr. Amy was doing that 6 years ago. People in the list are "too busy recovering kids" to update the FAQ. BTW, if you want to know the end to Dr. Amy's story, see this (original source).

so here's your proof. Go to the Yahoo group Autism-Mercury and read about cured kids there.
Remember those rules that we "do not set to establish truth"? One of those rules that we don't have, which we've told you repeatedly, is that anecdotal evidence is practically worthless. If people were as infallible and all-knowing as you think you are, then it might hold some water. As it is, people are easily fooled both by hucksters and by themselves. If that's the best proof you have, then your "truth" must be a flimsy little thing indeed.
You can get bogged down in chemical equations if that's your thing.
Yes, two equations will bog one down tremendously. Truly, you must be smarter than all of us combined, that your prodigious intellect is humbled by a simple question of fact.
The fact that he keeps getting closer to that means chelation works.
Bootstrapping again. Do you ever get dizzy arguing in circles like that? Yet another post where you refuse to answer questions which should be easy for someone who has so much truth on his side that it's starting to stink.

Best:

Just when I think it would be impossible for you to make yourself appear any more ridiculous, you go ahead and surprise.

All of the junk you mention in the same vein with handicapping horses is merely plugging in equations.

It would be hard for you to show yourself to be any more ignorant of the things I mentioned after saying this.

Ethics and morality is just plugging in equations? The works of Hume, Plato, and Locke are just plugging in equations and are comparable to guessing which horse will win a race about 50% of the time? And you proudly claim this like some poster boy of the dangerously stupid?

The meaning of life has what to do with equations again, I must have missed this? Anyway, picking the winner in the Grand National is just as difficult.

Feeding the starving is just equations and picking the winner at Royal Ascot is a more challenging accomplishment?

You compare your guesswork dressed up as some complicated intellectual masterpiece to the complete works of Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer, Steinbeck, Dickins, Tennyson, Wilde, Keats, Lennon and McCartney, Mozart, Beethoven, Miller, Williams, Wordsworth, Plath, Lee?

Picking 5 of 9 is comparable to Darwin's insight into the evolution of species, or the thought experiments that led Einstein to the theories of General and Special Relativity?

Winning a bet is the same as putting men on the moon and precisely timing the slingshot of a satellite or probe so that it will enter the orbit of some other planetary body, years from now, at a predetermined time and position, hundreds of millions of miles away?

Each race is a different problem to be solved with no rules, no equations, missing data, and requires a thought process that you can't even conceive.

You see Best, the rest of us recognise this as a guess. Apparently to you though it is something more profound and incredible than anything Copernicus or Galileo achieved.

You really do see yourself as an intellectual giant because you can guess which nag will run the fastest. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And they let you vote as well.

Any idiot can be taught with textbooks how to make a rocket go where it's supposed to go or figure out which drug will counteract another drug if they follow the rules of biochemistry. That's not even an intellectual challenge.

Of all the ridiculous things you have written this is by far the most fucking stupid. But fine, here's a deal then. Land a man on the moon to prove me wrong. Anyone reading this now will see you for exactly what you are, there is nothing more I need to say.

You see Best, every word you have written here is proof that just reading something doesn't mean someone understands it. Reading isn't just recognising the order of symbols Best, it is understanding what they mean. Still, one out of two isn't bad for you.

You keep asking the same stupid questions.

If someone can't answer a stupid question, what would that make them?

Just because you are too stupid to realize that they are inane questions doesn't mean I should subscribe to your inanities by answering them.

Just because you want them to be inane, because you have no answers for them, doesn't mean they are inane.

Why have you invested so much time in avoiding these questions if they would be so simple for you to answer? It would have taken less effort to actually answer them, and yet you continue to avoid doing so. Imagine my embarrasment if you could just once and for all answer them and shut me up. Wouldn't that be a triumph for your position and all you have argued?

Instead though all you do is call them stupid, call yourself smarter than us, and avoid them. Why is that Best? I think you and I both know.

Cured children are all over the place Jimmy. They are enjoying their childhoods, the way they were meant to.

And yet you can provide no evidence of this. Interesting don't you think?

They are not showing up here to debate with sophists who are trying to lie to the public about how our government has allowed companies to poison our babies for profit.

Best. I think perhaps if you want to use a term to appear to be smart that you should at least understand what the term means. The term was first used in ancient Greece. The term sophist is derived from sophistes, meaning wisest. The sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy. So thanks.

In modern terms it refers to someone who tries to use a confusing or illogical argument. Someone who tries to persuade whilst paying little attention to either logic or the facts. In the context of this thread Best, who has been the most illogical? Who has paid the least attention to facts? I think I can safely let the viewers at home decide that one.

Jerks like you ask stupid questions to try to discredit them.

You're almost there. Yes I do ask questions to discredit them and you. It is working wonderfully well so far and you haven't even tried to answer them yet.

None of your stupid questions prevent us from curing our kids though.

Quite right. It's biology and chemistry that does that.

You have a lot of balls trying to tell me autism will only be cured through science, as though it is not science that has told us how to, in fact, cure it.

Really? And yet the scientific community disagrees with you. And you can provide no scientific evidence. Indeed, it seems strange that you claim science has allowed the cure. Since you have admitted you do not know the science behind this 'cure' then how exactly are you qualified to say it is indeed scientific? Indeed, you proudly celebrate the fact that you don't have time for the science. So it seems interesting that you now know for certain it is all science, don't you think?

That's just one more of your stupid questions that isn't worth answering but is useful to throw back at you to point out what a simpleton you are by thinking anyone will fall for your bullshit tactics.

How ironic.

I've already answered all of your questions.

You are aware that people can scroll back up this thread and find that this is a bold faced lie aren't you?

You have attempted to answer just one of those questions, and your attempt was so laughable it seemed like it came from the mouth of babes. It amounted to "Kanner didn't need to look, he would just know. Through some mechanism that nobody knows."

The fact that you don't like my truthful answers doesn't mean that rephrasing the same question is a point for you.

You haven't given any answers, let alone truthful ones you idiot. People can read you know, they can see this for themselves. They don't have to take my word for it, they can just use the scroll bar. Or did you think you were the only one to come by that intellectual achievement?

It just means that you're too damn stupid to know when to shut up.

You really do have no sense of what irony is, do you?

Time for Aqueduct, see ya.

Yes Bestie, if it could ever be truly said of any man that they had seen further than others it is you. Who would have thought the race track had replaced the coffee houses of Paris. The new Voltaires are to be found at Newmarket, and Aintree, and Ascot pouring over the form pages.

I can name 5 cured kids in 5 seconds. I'm not about to give you folks those names

"I've got a brand new pair of x-ray glasses, I just don't want to show you mean poopy heads."

Grow up you childish ass. Five year olds at least have an excuse.

Answer the questions or shut up.

All:

Thank you. You certainly gave Best a tremendous ass kicking – so much so that I thought your work deserved a post of its own to reach a wider audience. Consequently I just posted Worst Arguments - a summary of Best’s arguments and your rebuttals. I hope I didn’t leave out anything significant.

It gets confusing if there are two comments threads on the same subject, so I have closed the comments on this thread. Please feel free to continue to comment as you wish on the new post’s comments thread.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site