On Evidence -- An Email from Clifford Miller, Esq.

(This was posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

I recently wrote a blog post called Autism/Mercury - How Much Evidence is Enough?.  My summary of the article -- On Evidence, Medical and Legal -- co-authored by Dr. Donald Miller and Clifford Miller, Esq. was basically, the anecdotal evidence of one case (like Kevin Champagne's or Scott Shoemaker's) is more reliable as proof when building a "factual matrix" than epidemiological studies and randomized controlled studies because these have been demonstrably corruptible.  (Please note that I am NOT saying all epidemiological studies and RCTs are corrupt!  Only that by their very nature, they can easily fall prey to corruption, bias, etc. and the Millers' article demonstrated that.)

Pat and I received an email from Clifford Miller earlier this week. Mr. Miller is the "Legal" side of the "Miller equation" and he hails from the UK.  The following was posted with his permission.  (My emphasis throughout.)

Just to clarify a few important aspects with you:

Our medical friends have a problem with eye-witness evidence because they have not yet come to terms with the fact that it can be corroborated and tested and is part of the factual matrix which is essential to compile in any investigation, medical, legal or other.  It is not appropriate for them to refer to any eye-witness testimony, parental or otherwise as 'anecdotal'.  Anecdotes are sometimes the sorts of stories heard over dinner and sometimes embellished beyond belief in the interests of humour.

Eye-witness testimony is not anecdote and it is worth noting the distinction and dropping the use of the term.  Each parental story can be documented and tested against medical records, photographs, video, other contemporary records, the evidence of others who also witnessed the same events.   When I used the term 'anecdotal' with respect to the recollection of events over 40 years ago by a well-known US medical professor, others took umbrage that I described it as such - and the reactions indicated they considered the term to be tantamount to abuse.  So if they do not like it when used to describe what they say, then they should not use it to describe what a parent eye-witness says.  This is especially when that is in the form of formally documented testimony, corroborated and substantiated by cross-correlations to other forms of evidence.

Mr. Miller makes an EXCELLENT point here.  Eye-witness testimony, corroborated by medical records, video-tapes, etc. should NOT be given the label "anecdotal" because that label is technically incorrect.  Turns out, the dictionary agrees with him...

anecdotal: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

I stand corrected.  Thank you Mr. Miller. 

He then goes on to say:

Also, well documented positive dechallenges and rechallenges are stand-alone proof. They are not a mechanism to corroborate parental eye-witness testimony, but naturally, they can have that effect.  Further, the parental eye-witness testimony can be one part of the factual matrix documenting whether a positive rechallenge has taken place, so the two are not necessarily unrelated in that sense.

Dechallenge and rechallenge are also part of the furniture of pharmacology.  They are nothing new and are in use daily.  They are written into drug company and governmental regulatory procedures the world over.

The main problem for the public is that the average treating physician and clinician is not aware of this kind of evidence nor of its power.  The other issue for the public is that bodies like the IOM seem to choose to ignore it when it comes to whether MMR or other vaccines are a cause autism.  Now that is a strange state of affairs [which] seriously and adversely affects the IOM's credibility - and I know some would take me to task on that and say 'What credibility?'.  [ed note. <grin>]

For example, the IOM publicly have accepted positive rechallenge as proof of causation:  From a 1991 IOM report (Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines)

Page 48: "In the case of hemolytic anemia, a single striking case was sufficient to suggest biologic relevance "

Also from page 48: "Individual cases of adverse event could be examined to determine whether the event occurred in a clear sequence following each pertussis immunization in the series. An increasing severity of the event with increasing dose number would tend to support a causal interpretation. If the event tended to diminish in severity or was absent for later doses in the series, the evidence would tend to detract from a causal interpretation."

Under summary on page 159: "...the case described by Coulter and Fisher (1985) is suggestive of a causal relation because hemolytic anemia was detected 6 days after DPT immunization on two separate occasions "

Yet the committee concluded: "There is insufficient evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine or the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and hemolytic anemia."

In another IOM special report (1994) titled "Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality" page 24:
6. Dechallenge: Did the adverse event diminish as would be expected if the vaccine caused the event ...
7. Rechallenge: Was the vaccine readministered? If so, did the adverse event recur?

On page 26: "Rechallenge is unusual, because physicians are unlikely to readminister a vaccine previously associated with an adverse event.  When rechallenge does occur, however, the recurrence or nonrecurrence of the adverse event will often have a major impact on the causality assessment"

It is disturbing to note that Dr. Andrew Wakefield presented his dechallenge and rechallenge case series in 2001 to the IOM Immunisation Safety Review Committee.  In an interview with small Canadian autism charity he says: '... they became anxious and agitated. They then asked for the data to be provided to their closed session the following day. ... Yet they didn't mention the relevant parts of any of my testimony or data in the final report.'

Wakefield says what happened next: "I raised this issue at the second congressional hearing on autism and vaccines in front of Marie McCormack, Chair of the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee.  Representative Dan Burton told Dr. McCormack that they needed the transcript from that closed session. She explained that it was not their policy to release transcripts.  He said in his own idiosyncratic style that they would then be subpoenaed, though he put it more forcefully than that. So, they were subpoenaed and the tapes were sent. They just happened to be blank. These were copies of the original tapes, so Representative Burton said, 'Okay, then in that case we will have the original tapes.' So they requested the original tapes—and they were blank as well."

Regards, Clifford Miller

To close, I'll pull out a very relevant comment that John Johnson, PhD statistician who works in the pharmaceutical industry, posted in response to the first On Evidence post:

Once, after my daughter ate a popsicle, she developed a rash around her lips. The only ingredient present that could not be ruled out (because she had all the other ingredients before) was FD&C Yellow #5. A few hours later, the rash went away. The next time she had a food with that ingredient, the rash returned. Symptoms disappeared on de-challenge, re-appeared on re-challenge, which is the accepted criteria for adverse event with definite causality.

Which am I to believe more? The "anecdotal evidence" or studies that suggest FD&C Yellow #5 is a safe ingredient?

Everybody's body is different. Studies did not very well predict 40 deaths attributed to Baycol or 11 cases of suicidal thinking due to Strattera. Maybe most of the others received some benefit (maybe other methods could have had more benefit, with fewer side effects, but that's another discussion), but that's immaterial to those affected families.

Technorati Tags: Autism, Medical Evidence

Comments

[Nina]

Parent testimonies are anecdotal in the sense that they don't make any scientific connections. Did chelation cure autism? Did the placebo effect have a role? Where there other therapies used at the same time that may have been the true cure? Clinical studies are very controlled studies, taking into account external factors, and also comparing them to controls, in order to effectively isolate cause and effect. Parents do all kinds of things with their kids in addition to chelation therapy, so you can't really know that chelation therapy IS the cure, or whether it's actually something else that the parents might be doing. For instance, if the parents utilize ABA therapy coupled with chelation, you can't deduct that chelation works! It could actually be ABA, and have nothing to do with chelation. So I would say parent testimony might support the need for further studies, but parent testimonies don't prove anything.

[Pat Sullivan]

Thanks Nina. That is exactly what I have been saying. Parent experience is strong enough to get the deep pockets to pony up for some real unbiased studies. Unbiased is the key word though. As mentioned above, those kind of studies are rife with bias but they are the best we have I guess. In the meantime, if I were a parent I would go with what seems to be working so often for so many.

[Scott Shoemaker]

Pat and Nina, you both hit the nail on the head with one thing. There needs to be more research! Period! I think that both sides

can agree with that.

One thing that I did not mention in Pat's post about my son

was the fact that at first I was VERY skeptical about chelation. I talked to dozens of parents, basically anyone who would talk

to me to research the best treatment option for my son. I separated the parents that I had talked to into two groups.

Those who were having great successes with their child's treatment

and

Those whose children were only doing ok or not making any progress.

I asked all of these parents everything that they were doing with their children (i.e. What worked? What didn't? What they would do

over? What was a waste of time?). I was very surprised at the answers I got. Just about all of the parents that I talked to that

had children that were doing extremely well were using chelation. There were a few parents that said that behavioral

therapies were helping, but I did not hear any "BIG WOW" stories with those unless chelation was also used. The treatments were all

over the board, but I decided to look more into chelation after talking to these people.

Since there were no reliable "clinical studies" on chelation and autism, I had to rely on the parents testimony and my research.

That is not a heck of a lot to go on, but I was not going to wait around until somebody came up with a cure if parents claimed to be

seeing extremely good results with this process. Then, I compared the symptoms of mercury poisoning with the symptoms of

autism, and a light switch went off in my head. I thought to myself, OMG! This could be what is wrong with my son. This

certainly added strngth to the thimerosal argument. It was almost more of a common sense issue for me that yes, there was a good

possibility that chelation could be the answer. I won't get into my whole theory as to what caused my son's problem, but I now think

that his vaccines did play at least a part in it in his case.

Before we started chelation my son was slipping backwards quickly. I felt like I was losing him daily. We tried a few different

things with him, but for the most part he was constantly drifting off into his own little world.

Then, we started chelation. Since I know other people that were somewhat skeptical and I wanted to monitor progress, I got my video

camera out the night before we started TD DMSA with him, and took some video. I watched it for the first time after 3 months of

chelation (about a week and a half ago), and could not believe it was the same child. It was like night and day. He started

improving IMMEDIATELY after his first 3 day treatment, and the results were drastic. I was shocked as were the others around me

that did not know we were doing this with him.

To make a long comment short, we have not done anything else with my son that could contribute to his successes after we started

chelation. Only one thing had changed; his school was out two weeks after starting the process. One would think that there could

be the possibility of regression because of this. When Pat posted my story, there were a lot of people asking what else we were

doing with him. Well, we had him on several supplements. That is it. These were supplements that he had been on over two months

before starting chelation. I am sure it was not a coincidence that he was all of a sudden taking off in progress after the first 3

day treatment. There is nothing else that had changed.

So, is there proof that chelation works? I think so, but I have seen the effects first hand. Everyone has there own opinion as to

what you exactly need to consider something proof. It is certainly evidence that needs to be looked at. Is that data accumulated

into a study? Well, the closest thing that I could find was the

Autism Research Institute's survey of parents and the effectiveness of treatments. To some, parents' testimony does not warrant

proof, but it certainly warrants research. I do not see anyone out there researching other possible causes. Until someone can

prove to me that chelation is NOT what is making my son better, I am in it for the long haul. You see, proof goes both ways ;~)

I do not think that people bashing each other over this and talking about taking thimerosal baths, drinking it, or rubbing it on

open wounds is productive, and I don't think that it is going to help our kids . Whatever the case may be, all of us should push

for more research, and get this thing resolved.

[Kevin Champagne]

Nina wrote:

"For instance, if the parents utilize ABA therapy coupled with chelation, you can't deduct that chelation works! It could actually be ABA, and have nothing to do with chelation".

Nina, those of us that are treating our children with chelation along with therapy, know its the chelation that's responsible for their sudden progress.

Reason #1 - With my son, we stopped ABA therapy when we started chelation. When we realized how toxic and stressed out he was, we wanted to give him a break for awhile, or until he got cleaned up some through chelation. We just restarted therapy. This time we are trying DIR. In my opinion, the chelation is turning him on and cleaning up his system, and the DIR therapists can teach him and get him caught up.

Reason #2 - I think everyone would agree that neither ABA or DIR can remove heavy metals. A lot of people that say "how do you know it's the chelation and not the therapy", forget or don't realize that we have all of these lab results that show the heavy metals, and as those lab results show the toxins coming out, the children's progress coincides.

Please take a minute and watch this interview of Dr. Anju Usman. Listen to her answer to the last question.

[Kev]

For those that can't be bothered to download the video Usman is asked if she's ever seen a non-toxic autisitic kid. She answers 'they wouldn't be autistic'.

Thats exactly the sort of generalisation and utterly refutable rubbish that gives chelationists such a bad name. A recent study noted that far from being a very popular choice, Chelation actually garnered just over 7% useage. Moreover, its historic use is higher than its current use suggesting that its used then discarded by parents and thus in turn indicating genuine autism is not mercury poisoning.

The study further noted that the average amount of treatments being undertaken at any one time was 7.

Here's a suggestion for both Scott and Kevin - if your kids are both truly only recieving Chelation as a treatment the it seems obvious to me that your kids never were autistic. They were mercury poisoned and misdiagnosed. Thats certainly way more plausible than Usmans 'they wouldn't be autistic' rubbish.

[Pat Sullivan]

Kev,

Good comment. If what you suggest is correct, then what we have are lots of children being misdiagnosed with autism when what they really have is mercury poisoning. This is entirely plausible.

It is almost exactly what Buttar is saying as well. He has said that there is no such thing as autism but rather mercury poisoning. Which would not be accurate if you are correct. There may well be some children who really have autism with cause unknown. And then many more children with symptoms that look like autism but really are mercury poisoning. The latter would respond to mercury chelation. The former would not respond. Very plausible. Buttar could well be treating only the latter. Hence his observation is only partially correct. Great insight if true!

Pat

[Nina]

I just had to wonder about all the kids that do get thimerosal and don't get autism. Certainly the world would be up in arms if every kid got autism from thimerosal. What I'm thinking more and more is that some kids have a "defect" in processing heavy metals. For most of us, we can process heavy metals and excrete them to the extent that they don't harm us. For others, excreting heavy metals is a problem. So for some particular kids, autism might be the effects of a problem in excreting heavy metals, NOT mercury poisioning. Mercury poisioning might be an effect, not the cause. See what I mean?

I also think there are medical problems associated with autism, especially digestive problems. Which might even further my hypothesis, that the body has some dyfunction in the way it processes what is coming into the body. Don't you think?

[Wade Rankin]

Great post. I believe the question of causation is far too complicated to point only at thimerosal or to try and draw a line between ASD and mercury poisoning. The problem is that the scientific inquiry is at far too early a stage to make these distinctions with any degree of certainty. That’s why parental experience (I started to use the word “anecdotes” but I guess I’ll have to excise that one from my vocabulary now) is so important. Our observations form part of the clues that lead to a testable hypothesis. The observations my wife and I have made support the hypothesis that vaccines can help trigger ASD symptoms, and that biomedical treatments, including chelation may help reverse the damage. Do our observations, in and of themselves, prove anything? Of course not. But our observations can help researchers ask the right questions so that someday we may have definitive answers.

[Kevin Champagne]

Kev,

Dr. Usman has over 300 autistic patients and they're "ALL TOXIC"!

Kev says "They were mercury poisoned and misdiagnosed", but if autism and mercury toxicity are two totally different conditions then how do you explain that all 300 of her patients are toxic. All 300! Out of her 300 patients wouldn't she have at least a few of them that are just autistic, and not toxic according to lab results? According to Dr. Usman,and lab results, they are all toxic!

Is Dr. Usman lying?

Kev also said "if your kids are both truly only recieving Chelation as a treatment the it seems obvious to me that your kids never were autistic." Why do you doubt what we're saying? In my son's case, the only things we did different this summer that coincided with his sudden progress, was chelation and stopping therapy.

Many people ask if the parents utilize ABA therapy coupled with chelation, you can't deduct that chelation works! It could actually be ABA, and have nothing to do with chelation. If you are doing ABA all by itself or chelation all by itself then they are obviously the reason for a child's progress, but when you use them together, chelation is the only one that can be scientifically proven to be working by the blood, stool, and urine lab results that we have done every 2 months.

Here's the question I have for you Kev, if you believe autism and mercury toxicity are two completely different conditions, then how do you know whether your daughter has autism or if she is really mercury toxic without doing the lab tests that check for heavy metal/mercury toxicity?

Nina, I think you will see that the questions that you have asked or the points that you have made are very close to what Dr. Buttar explains in this video clip.

[Pat Sullivan]

Nina,

I think you are correct in large part. Some researchers have identified the APOe gene set as perhaps the marker for "good excretors" and "bad excretors". There is some evidence that there is a high preponderance for this gene set in those with autism/mercury poisoning. I have the 2nd worse combination of this gene which I believe is why I have had problems associated with mercury. There are many people who smoke who never get lung cancer but smoking causes lung cancer.

[Nina]

Pat, great point. I think the "good excretors" and "bad excretors" theory is very plausible, and they should do more studies on this. You could deduct that mercury is not the only problem; wouldn't you also have problems with lead, aluminum, and cadmium? And also, wouldn't you have to chelate mercury and other heavy metals routinely, since your body can't do it effectively? In autistic kids, if you stop doing chelation, does autism come back? It reminds me of hemachromatosis, where the the abnormal buildup of iron in the blood requires people to routinely undergo bloodletting, in order to stay healthy.

[Pat Sullivan]

Nina,

Absolutely! Mercury is not the only problem for me. I have high amounts of numerous metals. Mercury just happens to be the most toxic non-radioactive metal known so I tend to focus on it. Worse though is that mercury has been shown to be more toxic in the presence of other metals like aluminum which I (and most everyone) have high amounts of. The good news is that DMPS is pretty good at removing most metals. EDTA and DMSA are better at lead.

[Kev]

KC said:

Kev, Dr. Usman has over 300 autistic patients and they're "ALL TOXIC"!Kev says "They were mercury poisoned and misdiagnosed", but if autism and mercury toxicity are two totally different conditions then how do you explain that all 300 of her patients are toxic. All 300! Out of her 300 patients wouldn't she have at least a few of them that are just autistic, and not toxic according to lab results? According to Dr. Usman,and lab results, they are all toxic!

Lots of points right here. First though, lets set a few ground rules. We don't get on you and I. However, lets try and at least be civil to each other. We're going to keep bumping into each other so lets be polite. OK?

In answer to your points. First, Dr Usman, in her own words has only been in practice a year. She's not the most experienced of Docs. We only have her non-impartial word that these kids are all toxic. Doesn't it strike you as even a little bit odd that all 300 of her caseload are all toxic? Thats really bucking the odds.

I don't know how Usman gets her lab reports so can't comment on their accuracy. We also, again, only have her word on this. And as she's claiming that all autism is mercury poisoning when it quite clearly isn't then I doubt her word rather a lot.

Here's the question I have for you Kev, if you believe autism and mercury toxicity are two completely different conditions, then how do you know whether your daughter has autism or if she is really mercury toxic without doing the lab tests that check for heavy metal/mercury toxicity?

This is difficult for me to answer. I simply don't like discussing my kids medical issues online. I like doing it even less after witnessing what 'Anonymous' did to Camille in a seperate thread on here. So I don't discuss details. Thats been my personal policy for awhile now.

However, I'd ask you in return why you assume I haven't had any testing done? You well know I used to be a believer of the vaccine/autism link and now I'm not. I'm 100% positive that Meggy isn't toxic in any way. Thats all I'm prepared to say on the issue. I know that doesn't offer much clarity but thats the way it is.

[Scott Shoemaker]

Kev, to answer your question, I do not have an answer, that is why there needs to be research. Personally, I think that there are a

lot of things that can trigger autistic traits, and all of the ones that I have dealt with are environmental. But that is only my

opinion. I do not think that the "better diagnosis" thing flies very well. There has to be some type of environmental cause for

the explosion of kids that are having problems these days compared to the 70s and 80s. Although, I am open to the possibility that my opinion could be wrong.

Nina and Pat, I think in many people, the inability to excrete toxic metals is very real and genetics is sometimes to blame for

this, maybe even the majority of the time. But maybe not all of the time. I feel that I know what cased my son's problems. Two

independent testing groups have labeled him "autistic". Recently, this got me thinking....

If this is solely a genetic issue or strictly a thimerosal issue, then why was my first son not affected? He was born in September

1999 and ALL of his shots contained thimerosal. He was one of the healthiest children and had no problems at all. He was speaking

in sentences on his first birthday. Why was he not affected? He got more mercury than my other two children that have toxic

issues?

Here is my hypothesis...

My second son was born with severe diarhea and food allergies. He could not breastfeed. My one year old daughter (3rd child) was

also born with these same problems, but since we had been through it once before, we knew how to attack it. She recently showed

signs of problems. So we are being proactive with her, and treating her gut and immune system.

So what is different between my 6 year old extremely healthy son, and my two younger children who have problems. I think I figured

it out when I had a baby hair analysis done on my daughter. I was floored! In her hair test she was way off the charts in

aluminum, antimony, and bismuth. She is also excreting toxic levels of arsenic, cadmium and tin. I was angry. I thought to

myself, "Where in the hell did my daughter get this stuff?". I was happy to see that it was coming out in her hair unprovoked, but

I was just shocked to see it. SEE FOR YOURSELF! The fact that she is getting rid

of it without a chelator, leads me to believe that she does not have a genetic issue.

I looked up the symptoms of what these things can do if they build up in your

body. For instance, antimony poisoning causes Gastrointestinal disorders (vomiting, diarrhea), respiratory difficulties,

vomiting, watery diarrhea, collapse, irregular respiration, and hypothermia. My son and daughter exhibited several of these

problems when they were born. Holy SH*T! Then it all hit me... Antimony is found in carpeting, paints, furniture, and flame

retardent pajamas among other things.

My wife quit going to the office after my first son was born. Then, we moved to a new house. You guessed it. New stain treated

carpeting, furniture, paint, etc. Then I remember that after we moved, my youngest child was sick off and on several times with

respiratory issues. My house was toxic, and because my wife was home all day, she became toxic! We have not tested her yet, as we

are focusing on the kids, and I am still putting the pieces together.

So my theory is that since my two youngest children were born with gastrointestinal problems, damaged immune systems, diarhea,

respiratory problems, vomiting, etc.(all symptoms of antimony poisoning) and they were toxic to begin with, then when mercury was

introduced in my son's case, it was not excreted and most likely settled in his brain until he reached his tipping point. He was on

several rounds of antibiotics (about 8-10) his first two years of life for ear infections, tonsils, adenoids lymph nodes, etc, and

this essentially shut down or weakened his ability to eliminate toxic metals from his system. His stool tests also showed extremely

high levels of antimony. We could not test his baby hair, we no longer had it.

Sorry for the long story, but does this sound feasible to others here? I believe that many kids are born toxic, and when mercury is

introduced, many kids have problems. In my daughter's case, she is extremely aluminum toxic, which is also a suspected cause of

neurological issues. Her vaccinations had trace amounts of mercury. The mercury was replaced with you guessed it --> aluminum,

which was what she showed most toxic in her hair test. So back to the kids that were born with their problems. I think that their

mothers could have been toxic, but I have not ruled out the fact that there may be some cases that could be solely genetic.

Now, back to semantics. Our kids were diagnosed with autism --> not metal toxicity, none of them were even tested for that when they were evaluated by "behavioral experts". Two of my kids are extremely metal toxic. Is there a difference? If

there is, then it needs to be clarified so that it can be treated more effectively.

[Wade Rankin]

Kev said: "First, Dr Usman, in her own words has only been in practice a year. She's not the most experienced of Docs."

Very misleading, Kev. I'm not sure where you saw that quote, or when it may have been said, but she's been practicing medicine in this area for far longer than a year. Although her private clinic in Naperville may be relatively new (I'm really not sure how long it's been open, but I believe it's been more than a year), she spent a considerable time as a staff physician at the Pfieffer Center, where she engaged in both clinical and research work. I would also add that her background and knowledge in biochemistry makes her a far more credible voice on this issue than most other sources. As for her "claiming that all autism is mercury poisoning," please provide a reference. As far as I know, she sees mercury as a primary triggering factor, but I'm not sure she calls it the only factor.

[Erik Nanstiel]

I will second what Wade Rankin says about Dr. Usman's experience. She was with Pfeiffer Treatment Center for a number of years before branching off into her private practice. My daughter saw her at Pfeiffer...and now she sees her at True Health Medical Center. She is an excellent and caring doctor.

But I can see how Kevin would be confused by only watching a video and not looking deeper into her background.

[Kev]

She states that quite clearly in the video KC links to. Its one of the first things she says.

If I got it wrong then I'll apologise - is it an old video?

[Kev]

Wade: re her claim all autism is mercury poisoning. As I say in my initial post to this thread, the last question she's asked is if she's ever seen a non-toxic autistic. She answers that if they weren't, then they wouldn't be autistic. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Kev]

Kev, to answer your question, I do not have an answer, that is why there needs to be research. Personally, I think that there are a lot of things that can trigger autistic traits, and all of the ones that I have dealt with are environmental. But that is only my opinion. I do not think that the "better diagnosis" thing flies very well. There has to be some type of environmental cause for the explosion of kids that are having problems these days compared to the 70s and 80s. Although, I am open to the possibility that my opinion could be wrong.

I totally agree with you about the need for more research. However, to me, the better diagnosis thing coupled with the more availability for diagnosis thing and the vastly increased public and medical awareness thing flies pretty well. I won't quote the science here but its a fact that the science supports the idea of non-epidemic rather than epidemic. I'll happily provide sources for that belief if you want them.

[Kev]

OK, I just ripped that WMV to MP3 and listened to it on my MP3 player.

The quote 'they wouldn't be autistic' stands.

At one one point she says 'I just started my practice a year ago.' So its either an old video, or I got her wrong. As you lot know her better than me I'm happy to concede the point either way.

[Pat Sullivan]

Scott,

I think it is entirely possible that we are dealing with a genetic difference from one child to the next. Same exposure, different result. There is unreported research that I have seen that suggests a very high preponderance of the bad combination of the APOe gene set. There may be other genes involved as well.

I am also aware of a very strong genetic predisposition to exposure to mold. Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker has learned and reported in his book and in peer reviewed papers that about 26% of the population is susceptible to mold toxins. I am in the category as well. My family can be exposed to mold and so far I am the only one who gets sick. He has identified the specific genotypes effected.

So I have both genetic issues. I have a very bad metals genetic combo. And I have a genotype that is highly sensitive to mold. I have been exposed to high amounts of both. My health issues are caused by which? Both!! Very complex!

I strongly believe that all chronic illnesses are puzzles that rarely have a single cause. Medicine however tends to look for a single cause due to the historical thinking of "one germ, one disease." I think medicine is hampered by this thinking.

[Nina]

I really am being persuaded by the "good excretor" "bad excretor" theory. If your child tests positive for being a "bad excretor", like Shoemaker has told us with his children, then throw away the autism label and let's treat children who are "poor excretors." If your child is diagnosed as autistic and tests as a "good excretor" then you can deduct that metal poisoning is not the problem. I think this issue to going to become larger in the future, because our world is becoming more polluted. Since all heavy metals produce some degree of neurological effects, I think we're going to continue to see an explosion in misdiagnosed autism--until somebody in high power starts acknowledging the worldwide environmental hazards that are harming people. And I would take it even further, that we are probably misdiagnosing many people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS, etc., etc., when in fact they may be suffering from TOXICITY! So I think this discussion can even go beyond autism.

[Scott Shoemaker]

Nina, just to clarify, I have not done the genetic tests done on my children. If you look at my daughter's hair test again, you will see that she has an alarming amount of metals pouring out of her unprevoked, so I DO NOT think her particular situation is related to an inability to excrete it. I do think her problems are more of a chronic exposure issue, and I think that there are cases of children that are genetically good excretors, but their ability to excrete metals has been hindered by other factors, such as antibiotics and chronic exposures. Since we have attacked this early she has made a complete turn around in a very short time. Which is encouraging to future children. She used to spin herself continuously on her butt and have severe tremors, which are both signs of toxicity (and other things), but she stopped immediately when we started treating her with supplements, and has not done it since. She still shows some minor symptoms though. As far as my son, I believe that since he was on so many rounds of antibiotics, for all of the issues that he had, it shut down his ability to detox himself naturally. There are several factors involved in this, and every child has their own story. It took me a long time to hammer out a theory with my kids, and honestly, I would like someone to try to poke holes in it.

Pat, Ritchie Shoemaker is no relation, but I am going to have to look up his work. I am with you on this puzzle theory, everyone is different, and a lot of factors can come into play, including genetics and I totally agree with you on the "Medicine tends to look for a single cause due to the historical thinking of 'one germ, one disease'" statement. It must be difficult for you to determine which problems come from the mold and which ones come form the metals. Good Luck with that! By nature, I am the type of person who wants to not only solve a problem when I come across it, but find out what caused it to prevent it from happening again, so I am open to all possibilies until there is a definitive answer. It took me a long time to hammer out a theory with my kids, and honestly, I would like someone to try to poke holes in it.

Kev, I actually read the resources on both sides of the "better diagnosis and awareness" argument, thanks for the offer in providing them. I just do not believe they are accurate (quite possibly on either side because of the lack of research, but I do think there has been a big jump). I have talked to people that have been school teachers for several years and many of them tell me that they cannot believe the difference in the amount of children with problems in their classes compared to the 70s and 80s. Also, I believe that most parents that have spent ten minutes with a child that was diagnosed with autism can pick them out in a crowd, and it is really hard for me to believe that parents can not tell that there is something wrong with their kids with these symptoms. It may take awhile for some of them to figure it out, but they eventually should get it.

[Nina]

Scott, thanks so much for clarifying.

[John Johnson]

Just finished a very long, somewhat rambly post, partially in response to this column and partially in getting out some thoughts that have been floating around my head for a while. I put them in the Trackback section.

[Erik Nanstiel]

Kevin Leitch,

The Usman interview you refer to was filmed in Los Angeles in September of 2004. Usman started her PRIVATE practice a year earlier. However, as Mr. Rankin so correctly stated, she had been practicing in this area for many more years. And as Kevin Champagne so correctly stated, ALL of her autistic patients are heavy-metal toxic. That's not a GUESS, that's not SPECULATION, but a firm diagnosis derived from hair, fecal and urine metals testing. My daughter is among them.

However, for the first time in five years... her mineral profiles are in the normal range, thanks to all our interventions. She's still toxic, but we're finally closer to depleting her mercury...and she's FINALLY accelerated the dumping of lead...which has been slow going until now. She's making GREAT progress, biomedically. And...we FINALLY got rid of her diarrhea, after FIVE LONG YEARS of leaky gut.

Why you and your ND friends would NOT want to fix these biomedical problems to help the health of your children (or selves) is quite beyond me. Your resistance to lab and clinical SCIENCE...and your adhesion to questionable epidemiology... astounds me. Fortunately, there are a growing number of us in the states leading the way...and funding research.

When we find where all the puzzle pieces belong and recover our kids... no hard feelings... we'll share what we learn. ;-)