Mercury in Vaccines Causing Autism

[Kathleen E.]

On Mar 21, 2006, at 12:37 AM, Jonathan wrote:

I have met one GR “rescue angel” who uses chelation, but has not tested his child for mercury poisoning. Certainly, this is that individual’s decision (an incredibly bad one at that), but I do not consider GR blameless for spreading misinformation. I think it does show that this theory (for some folks) is now an article of faith. The head of that organization knows my complaints, he selects to ignore them.

There are some severe difficulties in "proving" that a child, any individual child has been mercury poisoned. Just as the goverment says, methyl mercury has a short half-life in the blood. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't stay in the body. It happens to have a propensity to be stored in lipid areas, including the CNS. That is why the "hair studies" have been ambiguous when wrongly interpreted, the youngest autistic children, usually the ones from autoimmune families, have almost no ability to excrete mercury in their hair, while the children unaffected by the thimerosal vaccines (and amalgams, etc.) have higher hair test mercury, in the baby hair studies. When a child is chelated, they are given a challenge dose and the mercury in the urine is measured. It goes way up from the baseline. There are also very severely poisoned children whose mercury in the hair is high from the start. Hair, stool, urine and RBC tests are not going to be correlated because they measure different storage and or excretion of the substance. RBC mercury, for instance, measured positive in my blood when I was living near a coal-burning power plant in Michigan known to be releasing mercury from a cracked smokestack. That was a recent exposure, not related to whatever was still in my body from childhood or later vaccinations; although it might also have included the ongoing releases from amalgams. There have been numerous children who went through safer detoxification protocols and have improved greatly as a result, and it was possible to document the urinary increases and decreases in their excretion of mercury as their body burdens decreased. You cannot just "do a blood test" and see whether somebody has been mercury poisoned.

The original EPA "safe limits" for mercury were formed by studies on islanders who ate a large quantity of fish in their dietsand they built in an arbitrary "safety factor." However, this source of mercury is different because it is protein-bound and the intake is oral, it is not fed to, let alone injected into suckling infants, and it also contains selenium. Yet these so-called safe limits were way way exceeded by the amounts given to infants in the 1990s and early 2000s. Why should we in any way think that we are immune to being given neurotoxins? Much less than that a developing fetus or infant is immune? Nearly every enzyme in the body requires a mineral co-factor like magnesium or molybdenum, and mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals are POISONS. They stop those normal enzymatic reactions from working, and can leave an individual a "biological train wreck" in the terms of Boyd Haley, PhD.

A new article has just come out which documents the effects of mercury on dendritic cells in mice, causing immune dysfunction, perhaps you would like to look at that one.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8881/abstract.html

The full text is also available.

The title is "Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregulated IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal
Samuel R. Goth, Ruth A. Chu, Jeffrey P. Gregg, Gennady Cherednichenko, and Isaac N. Pessah"

The next e-mail I send will address the question of the manipulation of the Verstraten data to get rid of any positive results...

In the meantime, I would like to say something about the question of "burden of proof." I do not usually engage in debates as an avocation or a vocation. However, if I have an innocent newborn in front of me and a parental or even grandparental responsibiity for that child, and someone wants to inject into him or her a heavy metal into that is known to be neurotoxic, I believe that person (or even government) has the burden of proof to prove that it is not going to hurt this particular child. Not just "most children do fine with it." Most children recovered just fine from measles, mumps, and rubella, too.

And if the govemment says that is impossible, no one can know that a vaccine is safe for any given child, that is why we have vaccine compensation programs, then laws should not be added in the guise of anti-terrorist acts to protect big pharmaceutical companies from responsibility for their own actions.

Peace,
Kathy E.

[Jonathan]

Kathleen,

I look forward to your next message, but in the meantime I will respond to this one.

I am aware of the logic and studies that surround the poor excreters of mercury theory. I am on board with the challenge test logic as well.

However, the challenge test should be compared to standards from other challenge tests, otherwise we are comparing apples and trilobites. Further the gentlemen in question, did not even use challenge test. His logic is the mercury is out when his son is no longer autistic (not kidding).

I have already read the Goth study, but thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I am also familiar with Dr. Haley’s comment about “train wrecks”.

For myself, I do not necessarily love debate, but I do see a responsibility of speaking up when I see a problem (shrugs).

You are also aware (I think) that I am not impressed by senator Frist’s little add on at the end of a certain bill. Further, I agree with you on proving that a vaccine is safe for every child and that the manufacturer should be held accountable, if not.

[Kathleen E.]

I actually have a much higher opinion of the Generation Rescue website than you seem to have, and they have some pretty good scientific studies there. Having studied nutrition, I am very aware of the dangers of IV chelation with EDTA (for instance, removing essential minerals like calcium and magnesium) but most of the detoxification protocols being used today by parents are not anywhere near that dangerous, and in fact in some cases over the counter "food supplements" are being used for this purpose.

Part of the trouble is, that mercury can be just as toxic going out as coming in, so there is the danger of additional poisoning (just as in the case of organic pesticides, etc.) when it comes out of the fatty tissues again. I worked as a Research Associate for a medical doctor (a dermatologist) in the Cornell Nutrition School back in the 70s, she mentioned more than once that women who lost weight would break out in rashes as the result of toxic chemicals being released from their body fat at that time. This is a similar risk in mercury detoxification.

However, I do know of parents who have used a protocol under the supervision of a doctor, for instance with ALA, and their children, although still delayed because of valuable time lost, are no longer autistic. They are, interestingly, also no longer reactive to milk or wheat, and no longer require several-times-daily dosing with digestive enzymes or food supplements.

Another difficulty with chelation is our extremely poor and spotty health insurance situation in this country. Many private insurers will not cover autistic children; they simply exclude them, or if they are in a group, they will not cover anything that they consider "developmental." This leads to one initial problem with the Verstraten data: it consisted of HMO billing data, so uninsured children were omitted. If you have been around the families of autistic children, you are probably aware that it is very difficult for providers to maintain their careers while caring for these children, so often group insurance is not available to them. In Florida, where I am currently residing, the excluded children have a several year wait before they can even get Medicaid, if their families are above the income limit. In 2002 more than 10% of children in the US had no medical insurance, and this was probably higher for the autistic children (this means BTW that testing for mercury challenges is probably financially prohibitive; but the risks of doing nothing if you believe your child is poisoned by mercury are extremely high also).

Then there were specific groups of children who were simply eliminated or omitted from the study: those with congenital or perinatal disorders (which would have included those who reacted immediately to newborn hepatitis shots, those whose mothers had mercury-containing RhoGam during pregnancy,as well as amalgams, and also those who simply were more vulnerable because of their other conditions). If you are biologically naive, you might say--well those children might have autism as a congenital disorder. But in biological systems it is much more common for things to be synergistic or multifactorial. These children would have been more sensitive to another insult, such as thimerosal, but they would not have been excused later from the mandatory vaccination programs.

The transcript states, p. 34, "there was quite a large group, about 25%, that we excluded because of congenital or perinatal disorders..." I would say that was QUITE a large group. To the point where I wonder if we are poisoning ourselves (not just with mercury but with a large number of other chemicals) out of the ability to reproduce as a species!

They also went back and excluded the children born to mothers with gestational diabetes...which would have included my grandson even if he had not had a partial placental abruption as well earlier in the pregnancy. And Rh factor incompatibility requiring RhoGam injections at weeek 28, and right after delivery.

The Simpsonwood transcript also said that the heavier babies were "more likely to have the outcome, and that is statistically significant." If my grandson had gone to term instead of being born at 37 weeks, we probably would have lost him right then because he had a velamentous umbilical cord, undiagnosed before birth, that might well have caused exsanguination in a more difficult vaginal birth (they estimated he would have been 10 or 11 lbs at full term, because of his mother's gestational diabetes).

Yet nobody suggested putting off his hepatitis vaccine past day one. Nobody seemed to have the slightest idea that these babies might just be some of the more vulnerable ones when it came to vaccines....but they were omitted from the data base for the purposes of this study.

That is just some of the manipulation I am referring to. Take out 37%+ of the children, the ones who might be weaker or more vulnerable, then see if the others are OK---but be sure you vaccinate everyone! Makes no sense at all, sorry. Not to me.

I personally do not want to go through a process of chelation. After my high RBC mercury was documented from living near the power plant in MI, one of my doctors tried giving me ALA (without telling me why), and I got too sick from it with chest pain, etc. to want to continue. She told me to stop the ALA, but that it was too bad, as it really would have helped. Another part of this problem is that several of the commonly used methods to remove the mercury burden from children's bodies at present (such as DSMA and DSMP) do not cross the blood-brain barrier.

However, I am not sure if I mentioned before during this debate the fact that after eight years of high ANAs (anti-nuclear antibodies) and a diagnosis of systemic lupus, I did have my mercury amalgams removed and the ANAs went down to normal. However, I am still medically disabled, possibly because the gold in my teeth had an effect on my immunoglobulins, I don't know. You can't make bridges out of resin.

I also don't know if I mentioned that I was mercury poisoned not only because of military dependent vaccinations and amalgams but because I once as a young child found about a gallon of elemental mercury sitting on a beach while my father was fishing for flounder in NJ...besides the usual broken thermometers. It's not a surprise that I'm medically disabled. You may attribute my lack of concentration to mercury poisoning any time you like, personally I do not find it stigmatizing.

Peace,
Kathleen Eickwort, PhD
aka Mad Hatter...

[Jonathan]

Quote by: Kathleen E. I actually have a much higher opinion of the Generation Rescue website than you seem to have, and they have some pretty good scientific studies there.

That is true, however, they also have some complete junk such as Butter’s uncontrolled and unrefereed venture into the science which he presented to Congress.

Well beyond that list there is a lot to dislike about that organization starting with its pillar, Mr. J.B. Handley who has bought out the domain names to certain blogs he disliked to have them redirect to his site. Legal, but not ethical, even if one is really, really angry what someone else says.

Further their statement that all autism and AD/HD is mercury poisoning (yep, they really say that) has more to do with speculation than science. One of those resuce angels mentioned that there are no autistics who are 75 years old or more and so that this is proof that autism was invented by Elli Lilly in 1931, the first year Thimerosal was invented and came on the market. I pointed (using the CDDS data) some autistics who were at least 75 years and quite possibly older. He changed the subject (shrugs).

I agree with your point concerning the Verstrataen study

Quote by: Kathleen E. You may attribute my lack of concentration to mercury poisoning any time you like, personally I do not find it stigmatizing.

I am sure that I do wish to attribute to you a lack of concentration. I also have no desire to call you a “mad hatter” or any other derogatory name.

Be aware that many autistics persons, via attitudes like those expressed by GR, are in fact wrongfully stigmatized, their skills, uniqueness, and abilities underrated or unmentioned by calling them “mercury poisoned” when this is not shown to be the case.

[Kathleen E.]

I am unaware, not having been that involved, and having been busy chasing after my little grandson lately (Spring Break) as well as trying to take care of my own health, of all the details of web links, and autism organizational politics etc. to which you refer in your last post.

But I am really very puzzled, in fact I thought about it for some time today, at why you feel that being poisoned by mercury causes in some way a stigma (which means, to me, and to my dictionary, some kind of public shame or the result of a person's misconduct). The stigma that is associated with mental illness or with a behavioral disorder, unfair as it is, in our society, is much stronger and carries with it a kind of hopelessness of recovery which mercury poisoning certainly does not.

A diagnosis of autism would seem to me to be considerably more stigmatizing in our society (and I am certainly not defending this) than a diagnosis of mercury poisoning. (I did once hear a certain toxicologist refer to a "mercury-poisoned Congress," but I think that was just rhetoric.)

After all, a person who is poisoned by mercury may be able to recover, and may actually be the victim of others' actions....perhaps, in fact, those people might be stigmatized, although I doubt it was their intent to poison anyone. (Conscious intent, at least. You may become angry with me again if I say I do not believe the influenza vaccine should be recommended for children to replace the thimerosal the children might otherwise be missing so I won't follow up on that line of argument.)

I had to laugh as you said you certainly "do want" to attribute any lack of concentration to me; I know it was a typo, but trust me, I have a lack of concentration. I actually pay someone from an assisted living agency to sit with me in my home so I can go through my mail and get my bills paid. And at the moment, taxes are looming. So I guess I am going to have to end this particular discussion.

Last weekend we took my grandson to the zoo (the same grandson who was held in restraint with his head down in time-out a few months ago for refusing to get on a platform swing after his school gave him cheese-crackers as his only food during the school day, and who apparently had gluten ataxia, and antibodies against casein, too)...and he joyfully got on the yellow airplane ride (which goes rapidly in a circle and up and down), couldn't wait to get on it, and really enjoyed it. He is a different child.

I don't want to stigmatize occupational or speech or ABA therapists, either, however mistaken I may think they are in some circumstances. But we all have to do what we think is right for our own children and grandchildren.

I was very tempted to send a certain speech therapist a copy of an abstract I found this week entitled, "Rhythmical stereotypies (leg-swinging) associated with reduction in heart rate in normal school children," which documents that this behavior she was trying to extinguish in a 3 year old child actually has functional value; but I doubt if she would hear me.

After the session when she tried to get my grandson to stop swinging his legs under the table while he worked with her, I only took him to one more session. I brought along a timer and told her I might have to leave early and in that case I would set the timer for five minutes so she would have a chance to finish what she was doing. (As a female in this culture you may have to reach a certain age to be free to do things quite this outrageous.)

I knew the child's grandfather, my late husband, was never able to the end of his life to sit still without leg-jiggling or pacing, and when he died he was the Chair of a department at a major university. Yet this therapist's supervisor had said to me, "He has to be able to sit still for half an hour." He does?? So I do have some faint idea of what you might object to in the way of "curing" autism, even though our ideas might be very different. There is a kind of cookie-cutter conformism involved in the whole idea.

Peace,
Kathy Eickwort

[Jonathan]

Hi Kathleen,

Quote by: Kathleen E. But I am really very puzzled, in fact I thought about it for some time today, at why you feel that being poisoned by mercury causes in some way a stigma (which means, to me, and to my dictionary, some kind of public shame or the result of a person's misconduct). The stigma that is associated with mental illness or with a behavioral disorder, unfair as it is, in our society, is much stronger and carries with it a kind of hopelessness of recovery which mercury poisoning certainly does not.

I should specify that I do not consider being poisoned by mercury stigmatizing (unless I am told differently by a mercury poisoned person). However, when this label is applied to autistics (when such a connection is not proven) then this might be stigmatizing. The stigma is applied by being called “poisoned” which implies “harmed”. This is not the view I consider correct in regard to autism. However, I can be proven wrong.

In my earlier statement I wrote “are in fact wrongfully stigmatized, their skills, uniqueness, and abilities underrated or unmentioned by calling them “mercury poisoned” when this is not shown to be the case.”

The relevant qualifier I offered occurs at the end of that sentence.

As to mercury poisoning itself, I encourage it to be treated under a properly licensed MD who is properly certified in Toxicology. This assumes that proper direct or challenge testing (with appropriate norms) was done to verify this.

I know that you recognized my typo, but I want to apologize for it anyway.

I was horrified to read about the treatment of your grandchild in his school. I happy though that he has people in his life who will look out for him.

Your criticism of speech paths, teachers, and even my own sort (behavior analysts) is welcome and even necessary. You will get no argument from me in terms of me arguing that behavior analysts have never goofed up royally. I have done a post very critical of the decision making of some early behavior analysts http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006...ctions-in.html

I wish you success in your tax filing and happy moments with your grandchild.

[Jonathan]

A very important study has just come out of Canada. It descriptive autism epidemiology of the Inuit population in Northern Quebec.

They don't have any cases of autism. This is strange, because Canada in general seems to have the same autism rate as the US /UK / Japan. The Inuit persons there do get vaccines (although, like the rest of Canada, not thimerosal per se). So, the difference in not vaccines.

The authors offer a genetic theory, but this is a bit ad hoc for me. The important thing is that it shows that the difference between the larger Canadian population and the Northern Quebec population is not attributable to vaccination.





Primary Author's Institution/Affiliation
Montreal Children's Hospital
Abstract Title
No Autism Amongst Inuits From Northern Quebec?
List of Authors
E. Fombonne, J. Morel, J. Macarthur
Enter your abstract here
Background: Autism has been found in most populations where it has
been investigated. We have preliminary evidence that autism does not
exist in the Inuit population of Northern Quebec
Methods: The authors know extensively the Inuit population (N=12,000)
of Northern Quebec. They have been responsible for more than 15 years
for pediatric care and special education in the 14 villages of this
huge territory. There is a universal free health care and educational
system, with repeated periodic medical examinations from birth
onwards, compulsory attendance to school, and excellent
medical/educational tracking record system for each child
Results: No case of autism was ever reported in an Inuit child in this
population in the last 15 years. A computer search of discharge
medical and psychiatric diagnoses failed to identify an ICD-9
diagnosis suggestive of autism or one of its variant. No case was
referred for psychiatric evaluation or special educational assessment
that would be consistent with autistic developmental impairments. In
order to develop a full epidemiological enquiry, we have conducted a
pilot study in 2 villages that demonstrated the feasibility of this
planned investigation.
Conclusion: Autism appears to not exist amongst Inuits from Northern
Quebec. If confirmed, it would have significant implications for the
genetic understanding of autism. In addition, as Inuits are exposed
through their fish-eating practices to high pre- and post-natal levels
of mercury, it would also suggest that high mercury exposure in itself
does not increase the risk of autism

[Kathleen E.]

What this study would suggest to me, is that in populations with very high intakes of essential fatty acids and selenium (a known mercury antagonist), and a low genetic vulnerability to orally consumed mercury (because of a high fish diet), non-thimerosal containing vaccines may actually be safe. That was the problem with the original EPA "safety limit" on mercury, is that it was based on fish consumption. The vitamin A and essential fatty acids consumed by these Inuits are among the best protective substances for oral mercury consumption, and the fish also contain selenium.

Moreover, the genetic component is not exactly ad hoc. We are talking about a relatively small, probably genetically quite homogeneous population here. A presumed crossing from Siberia may include a "founder effect" whereby the number of ancestors is limited, which makes the resulting population more homogeneous. When mercury is injected it by-passes the immune system's usually detoxification routes and therefore may not have the same effect on a group of genetically non-vulnerable hosts.

There is a reason why essential fatty acids from fish oil and cod liver oil both are being used to treat vaccine damaged children and help them recover, also. My grandson is in terrible shape if we forget to give him essential fatty acid supplements every single morning. If his mother had also had them during her pregnancy there might have been a strong protective effect.

Meantime on March 21, 2006 another important study came out on the effect of nanomolecular doses of thimerasol on the dendrites of mice, the San Diego study. These are important antigen-presenting cells which are affected by the poison. I suppose we could go on like this forever. Published by Environmental Health Perspectives, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, US Department of Health and Human Sciences, it is entitled "Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregualted IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal, by Samuel Goth, Ruth A. Chu, Jeffrey P. Gregg, Gennady Cherednichenko, and Isaac N. Pessah. Available at http://dx.doi.org/

I guess I was struck by the fact that it came out on my grandson's fifth birthday, although a little too late for him.

From the introduction of this paper: "Immune dysregulation triggered by organic mercury can include suppression, stimulation, loss of tolerance and generation of autoantibodies. Threfore the pattern of immunotoxicity induced by organic mercury is likely to depend not only on the chemical form, timing and dose to which an individual is exposed but also to susceptibility factors that are poorly understood at present." The thrust of the argument, is that prior vaccination with thimerosal vaccines like DPaT in autoimmune-prone families will affect their ability to cope with other live vaccines not containing mercury, like the MMR. Please remember that we were originally discussing the toxicity of thimerosal, not vaccines.

I think it may have come up before, but I would also like to reference the article, "Autism:A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning" by Sallie Bernard, Albert Enayati, Teresa Binstock, Heidi Roger, Lyn Redwood, Woody McGinnis, MD, revised April 21, 2000, a 74 page paper which compares in great detail the signs and symptoms of autism to that of previously known episodes of mercury poisoning. The mode of administration is not irrelevant to this discussion.

I was able to apply for an income tax extension this morning so the government can keep my money a little while longer while I try to draw together all the documentation...



Peace,
Kathy E.

[Jonathan]

Quote by: Kathleen E. What this study would suggest to me, is that in populations with very high intakes of essential fatty acids and selenium (a known mercury antagonist), and a low genetic vulnerability to orally consumed mercury (because of a high fish diet), non-thimerosal containing vaccines may actually be safe. That was the problem with the original EPA "safety limit" on mercury, is that it was based on fish consumption. The vitamin A and essential fatty acids consumed by these Inuits are among the best protective substances for oral mercury consumption, and the fish also contain selenium.

Could be, but we would need a study that could isolate for the variables, as much as possible.

Quote by: Kathleen E. Moreover, the genetic component is not exactly ad hoc. We are talking about a relatively small, probably genetically quite homogeneous population here. A presumed crossing from Siberia may include a "founder effect" whereby the number of ancestors is limited, which makes the resulting population more homogeneous. When mercury is injected it by-passes the immune system's usually detoxification routes and therefore may not have the same effect on a group of genetically non-vulnerable hosts.

It is an after the fact hypothesis, that lacks specific research for the issue at hand which would be necessary to support this theory. It meets qualifications as “ad hoc” for these reasons.

Quote by: Kathleen E. There is a reason why essential fatty acids from fish oil and cod liver oil both are being used to treat vaccine damaged children and help them recover, also. My grandson is in terrible shape if we forget to give him essential fatty acid supplements every single morning. If his mother had also had them during her pregnancy there might have been a strong protective effect.

I am sorry to hear that. Hopefully, we will see some research (there is absolutely none for autism on this issue) that will support (or not) the efficacy of this treatment.

Quote by: Kathleen E. Meantime on March 21, 2006 another important study came out on the effect of nanomolecular doses of thimerasol on the dendrites of mice, the San Diego study. These are important antigen-presenting cells which are affected by the poison. I suppose we could go on like this forever. Published by Environmental Health Perspectives, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, US Department of Health and Human Sciences, it is entitled "Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregualted IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal, by Samuel Goth, Ruth A. Chu, Jeffrey P. Gregg, Gennady Cherednichenko, and Isaac N. Pessah. Available at http://dx.doi.org/

Yes, I read it a while ago. I find no fault with the study (outside my area anyway), but I hope this will not be used a manner inconsistent with what the authors actually say.

Quote by: Kathleen E. I think it may have come up before, but I would also like to reference the article, "Autism:A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning" by Sallie Bernard, Albert Enayati, Teresa Binstock, Heidi Roger, Lyn Redwood, Woody McGinnis, MD, revised April 21, 2000, a 74 page paper which compares in great detail the signs and symptoms of autism to that of previously known episodes of mercury poisoning. The mode of administration is not irrelevant to this discussion.

I have read it, along with her “Medical Hypotheses” work of a similar title. In both papers, Sallie Bernhard takes some liberty with addressing what matches up. Many of those look like false equations to me.

Quote by: Kathleen E. I was able to apply for an income tax extension this morning so the government can keep my money a little while longer while I try to draw together all the documentation...

Good luck.

[Kathleen E.]

For some reason the people who seem to be trying to uphold the safety of vaccines are choosing, apparently intentionally, data bases that have high fish intake: Boston, Denmark, and now Inuit people in northern Canada. This isn't after the fact, it is the way the studies were set up in the first place...as if not to interpret the results, but to choose data that will be supportive of pre-existing assumptions. You may call this ad hoc if you like, I do not believe it is after the fact. It will change the results in two ways: from the possible protective effects of fish oil and from the higher ingestion of mercury from fish.

One of these assumptions may in fact be that essential fatty acids are indeed essential. There is a distinct difference here between medicine, as in "treatment," and nutrition. EFAs are part of necessary nutrition, however, they are not being consumed in the standard American diet in a sufficient amount or in ideal ratios with Omega-6 "French fry" fatty acids. In science, and often in medicine, one attempts to change or control one variable at a time in order to see the effect of that variable.

However, for an organism to thrive and survive challenges like infections and toxins, requires complete nutrition, so changing one thing at a time rather than supplying all the necessary factors, often doesn't work. Calling provision of essential fatty acids a treatment is like saying children can grow just fine without vitamin C. It may be, of course, that the more toxic and infectious challenges are present, the higher the necessary amounts of a given nutritional substance may be; and it may also be that biochemical diversity and individuality means that some people need more of a given vitamin or other nutrient than others. B6 is a well-documented example of this which was already well-known in the 1970s.

My minor in my Cornell PhD was in Population Genetics. I cannot really swallow your assertion that the idea that a tribal population in Northern Canada has limited genetic variability is just a theory; it is so obvious to me that it is hardly worth further discussion. Moreover this is a population that has survived under very stringent and difficult environmental conditions, besides the "founder effect."

Peace,
Kathy E.

[Jonathan]

Quote by: Kathleen E. For some reason the people who seem to be trying to uphold the safety of vaccines are choosing, apparently intentionally, data bases that have high fish intake: Boston, Denmark, and now Inuit people in northern Canada.

You have no way of knowing if the authors were attempting uphold the safety of vaccines when they began their study. Or rather….I can not potentially prove your assertion to be wrong.

Quote by: Kathleen E. This isn't after the fact, it is the way the studies were set up in the first place...as if not to interpret the results, but to choose data that will be supportive of pre-existing assumptions.

In other words, to Texas Sharpshoot…..Okay, to show this we would need to provide proof of one of two things

(one or both must be true)

1) That the authors knew that this specific Inuit population had a reduced rate of autism.
2) That populations that have a history of high fish consumption are more resistant to the effects of mercury.
a) #2 also assumes that some/all of autism is caused by mercury poisoning

Quote by: Kathleen E. You may call this ad hoc if you like, I do not believe it is after the fact. It will change the results in two ways: from the possible protective effects of fish oil and from the higher ingestion of mercury from fish.

I this case, I do wish to call it that. An ad hoc explanation, is an causal description of a phenomena that occurs after the event. This is not a problem per se, plenty of hypotheses are formed in an ad hoc manner. However, when one fails to identify these as “hypotheses” as opposed to “fact”, then one has stumbled on a logical fallacy.

Quote by: Kathleen E. One of these assumptions may in fact be that essential fatty acids are indeed essential. There is a distinct difference here between medicine, as in "treatment," and nutrition. EFAs are part of necessary nutrition, however, they are not being consumed in the standard American diet in a sufficient amount or in ideal ratios with Omega-6 "French fry" fatty acids. In science, and often in medicine, one attempts to change or control one variable at a time in order to see the effect of that variable.

All true, but one must control to make sure that it is this isolated variable that is causing the change. The study in question doesn’t do that.

In fact re the criticisms you have brought up, it is not even possible to why, this group has a lower rate for autism in that study.

Quote by: Kathleen E. However, for an organism to thrive and survive challenges like infections and toxins, requires complete nutrition, so changing one thing at a time rather than supplying all the necessary factors, often doesn't work. Calling provision of essential fatty acids a treatment is like saying children can grow just fine without vitamin C. It may be, of course, that the more toxic and infectious challenges are present, the higher the necessary amounts of a given nutritional substance may be; and it may also be that biochemical diversity and individuality means that some people need more of a given vitamin or other nutrient than others. B6 is a well-documented example of this which was already well-known in the 1970s.

Certainly, but to tie all this back to autism, this would have to be demonstrated.

Quote by: Kathleen E. My minor in my Cornell PhD was in Population Genetics. I cannot really swallow your assertion that the idea that a tribal population in Northern Canada has limited genetic variability is just a theory; it is so obvious to me that it is hardly worth further discussion. Moreover this is a population that has survived under very stringent and difficult environmental conditions, besides the "founder effect."

When you have a moment take a second look at what I wrote in my previous post.

You wrote in your previous post:

Quote by: Kathleen E. Moreover, the genetic component is not exactly ad hoc. We are talking about a relatively small, probably genetically quite homogeneous population here. A presumed crossing from Siberia may include a "founder effect" whereby the number of ancestors is limited, which makes the resulting population more homogeneous. When mercury is injected it by-passes the immune system's usually detoxification routes and therefore may not have the same effect on a group of genetically non-vulnerable hosts.

To which I responded “It is an after the fact hypothesis, that lacks specific research for the issue at hand which would be necessary to support this theory. It meets qualifications as “ad hoc” for these reasons.”

This was not a challenge of genetic difference in Inuit population in Quebec (compared to other populations), but a challenge as to whether those genetic difference cause these persons’ bodies to deal with a mercury burden differently.