Read the most advanced science of autism causes here. Bypass the commenterati and go direct to the science. Don't waste your time at the sites which pretend "no-one" knows what causes (or what sometimes cures) autism.
This is a website relating to the unchallenged theory of autism, IQ and genius, Personality and Individual Differences 14:459-482 (1993) by Robin P Clarke (the antiinnatia theory). An update review paper is being prepared for publication. Meanwhile you can download the original 1993 publication (author's reprint) here . (the journal site version is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90316-U, but without added charts of social class and you may have to pay Elsevier $31.)
Click here to see the pseudo-expertise being used by NHS "experts" to cover up the dental amalgam catastrophe.

The purpose of this website is to provide material supplementary to the update review (not yet published) of the 1993-published autism theory paper (linked in header above). All the posts here serve that purpose in one way or another, but some are more worthwhile or necessary than others. So here is a brief guide to the contents here.

Click here to read discussion of whether there is a relationship of vaccines to autism.

"Skeptical" people will generate plenty of supposedly clever reasons for rejecting the whole basis of the antiinnatia theory. That's despite the fact that any such "skeptics" must therefore be instead gullibly taking seriously one of a handful of utterly absurd alternative theories as explained in the update paper.

An answer to one of these "skeptical" notions is this one about being supposedly impossible for mercury to get to the DNA. And this one about supposedly the history of Pink Disease (acrodynia) proving that mercury doesn't cause autism. But perhaps you're a sheep?

Autism research is now becoming seriously distorted by official charlatanism similar to that of which the proof is shown here. And that distortion directly affronts the truths to which this theory relates. One of the leading sources of extreme misinformation is the book by Paul Offit, which is being distributed free to parents of victims via the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The myths:
  1. that there has been no autism increase,
  2. that mercury is not associated with autism, and
  3. that removal by chelation cannot help,
are all addressed in the articles linked above and therefrom (and more fully in conjunction with the update review paper).

Turning to less militarised corners of the autism research field, I'll first point out that theories are often not in conflict even when they superficially may appear to be.

And there is only one autistic/ASD/etc syndrome, not several or many "autisms".

You can find the link to the spectacularly-predicted Purgatorius video here, along with some further evidence relating to my explanation of the hand-flapping.

Some other peoples' excellent graphs of the increase in the US can be found here, particularly the ones with multiple differently-coloured curves. They basically confirm my interpretation of the California DDS data as essentially a simple exponential-shaped increase.

Here is a link to my comment on close-spaced pregnancy findings of Keely Cheslack-Postava, Kayuet Liu, and Peter S. Bearman.

I've added yet another amazing new prediction, that the Flynn Effect (rising IQs increase) affects non-human animals as well.

Mitochondrial dysfunctions could be caused by antiinnatia (both within and without the brain), or they could be a non-antiinnatia "side effect" of mercury toxication. They could be part of some processes whereby antiinnatia affects neuronal function. So the reports about mitochondria appear to give neither support nor challenge to antiinatia theory.

Data on a "photoninthedarkness" blog leads me now to thinking that the increase has involved some diagnostic substitution, but not in the way that is assumed by pro-vaxxers. More later, but I reckon when there was a rapid real increase of autism c. 1985-1995, much of it was incorrectly diagnosed as non-autistic retardation. Thereafter the diagnoses substituted to the correct autism diagnoses. This leads me to suspect that the autism increase actually stopped increasing about ten years ago and since then it's just been an artifact of substitution.

“We’re finding that the immune system seems to function at a lower level in autism,” says Hertz-Picciotto. Which could be because the dental mercury that caused the autism increase is well-known to also impair immune functioning.

July 2011: Powerful yet further evidence of mercury involvement in autism - 6-fold increased autism in children whose grandparents survived Pink Disease.

(I'll continue work on this intro menu in due course, so be sure to check back later.)

"Peer reviewers" of PseudoNeurotoxicology


Reviewer reports from Neurotoxicology journal, with author’s replies
Ref.:  Ms. No. NEUTOX-D-13-00253  Robin P Clarke
Autism, adult disability, and 'workshy':  Major epidemics being caused by non-gamma-2 dental amalgams

Reviewer #1:
1. The Abstract is misleading as to what information this manuscript provides, stating that, "This is the first-ever study of health consequences of non-gamma‑2." This is not a "study," as usually defined, as no measurements of non‑gamma-2 were made, nor were any health consequences assessed except population-level statistics about prevalence of disability.

Three baseless pseudo-points in one sentence there – I will chop it up for my replies. 

>no measurements of non-gamma-2 were made,

As my review stated, indeed, no-one has ever bothered to keep records of the usage or prevalence of non-gamma-2.  Even my own dental hospital records never recorded the different amalgam types (and I am aware that I started off with the earlier crumbling “conventional” types and later had the extremely durable non-gamma-2’s).

That lack of data is not a fault of this work but rather a scandalous offence by those authorities who didn’t bother to even keep records.  However, a confident inference can still be made that the overall amount of non-gamma-2 in people’s mouths would have progressively increased as more and more of their teeth were fitted with the new materials.  This review thus provides the absolute best quantitative information currently (and almost certainly ever) available. 

>nor were any health consequences assessed except population-level statistics about prevalence of disability.

Again, that lack of data is not a fault of this work but rather a scandalous offence by those authorities who didn’t bother to even seek reports on possible adverse events from amalgam, but instead implemented the cover-up measures documented in the paper.  Which means those population-level statistics are about as good as it can get.  It does not follow that they are worthless, else quite a number of other “not-really-studies” in very prestigious journals would also have to be dismissed. 


>This is not a "study", as usually defined, as no measurements of non-gamma-2 were made, nor were any health consequences assessed except population-level statistics about prevalence of disability.

Really?  In that case there are numerous other papers which were “not really a study”, despite being published in the most prestigious journals and highly promoted as indeed being important “studies”.  Their authors likewise didn’t do any measurements or diagnoses but instead presented existing data as I have.  These include for instance:
o        JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1763-6. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M.
o        Pediatrics. 2003 Nov;112(5):1039-48. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Lieu TA, Rhodes PH, Black SB, Shinefield H, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
o        N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M.
o        Pediatrics. 2003 Sep;112(3 Pt 1):604-6.Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB.
o        J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
o        Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):584-91. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association. Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B.
o        Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50. Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations. Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D.

No-one has ever proposed that any of those were not really studies.  And that’s just a few I’ve come up with this minute.  A more reasonable consideration of the matter is as follows.  Journals categorise papers as either “reviews”, or “studies”, or something else such as commentaries.  But that categorisation is rather crude, like categorising people as either “black” or “white”.  In reality there is a fudging between two notional ideal types, namely “proper reviews”, of which the input data consists entirely of pre-existing published studies (of for instance whether walking causes autism), and “proper studies”, in which the investigators do some measuring either in a laboratory or out in the wider world.  Those seven famous papers listed above fit into neither of those ideal categories, just like this present one.  But so what.  There has never before been ANY scientific paper about the health consequences of non-gamma-2 amalgams.  And no-one has ever compiled any measurements into a published study.  It follows that it cannot be either of those ideal types, but it does not follow that it cannot be an excellent scientific paper any more than those seven above are not.  In reality it is properly described as both the first ever study of the known data, and as the first ever review of the evidence. 

2. P.4: Evidence needs to be provided for the statement that “...Hal Huggings and other dentists were struck off the register of practitioners.” for issuing warnings about the amount of mercury released from non-gamma-2 amalgams.

Firstly, that point is far from a key foundation for any conclusions of this review.  I doubt whether it warrants taking up additional space on documentation merely on the basis that some people might wish to not believe it.  Secondly here are some evidential details of the matter which I have quickly dragged from the web:
Hal Huggins de-licenced for challenging amalgam:
“Judges Block Dental Board Gagging Dentists Who Discuss Risks of Mercury Fillings” http://www.cdchealth.com/judgeblocks.html
“CALIFORNIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH DENTAL AMALGAM DISCLOSURE POLICIES” “the American Dental Association has a gag rule--yes, a gag rule telling dentists not to give warnings about the toxic effects mercury might have”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg93640/html/CHRG-108hhrg93640.htm 
Details of several more dentists struck off, and it only takes a handful to scare all the rest into never telling their victims that “silver” fillings are actually mainly mercury:

3. P.5: The statement that, "Consequently, declining rates of amalgam installation would conceal an increase of prevalence of the amalgams in patients' mouths" is a non-sequitur.  If fewer amalgams are being placed, how could their prevalence increase? It might mean that this trend would conceal an ongoing release of mercury vapor in the mouths of individuals with such amalgams, but not the number of individuals with them.

Dear Reader, please go to your kitchen sink, put the plug in firmly and water-tight, and then turn on the tap to flow fairly fast, till an inch or two of water accumulates.  Then turn the tap down so there’s only a little more coming out per second.  And now you can see that the water level in the sink stops rising but instead quickly goes down, as it must because the rate of additional input of the water has decreased, so obviously the total amount in the sink must decrease correspondingly.  Or at least that is presumably what happens in the kitchen of someone with enough scientific expertise to judge such things. 

For the educationally-deprived among us I’ll go through that paragraph again, with tutorial hints added:
Dear Reader, please go to your kitchen sink [analogous to patients’ mouths], put the plug in firmly and water-tight [analogous to the fact that non-gamma-2s stay in those mouths for whole lifetimes], and then turn on the tap [analogous to dentists installing non-gamma-2s] to flow fairly fast, till an inch or two of water accumulates.  Then turn the tap down so there’s only a little more coming out per second [analogous to “declining rates of amalgam installation”].  And now you can see that the water level [analogous to the prevalence of the amalgams in the mouths] in the sink stops rising [contrary to silly me’s expectations] but instead quickly goes DOWN [well, highly-qualified expert Reviewer #1 apparently thinks so, so there], as it must because the rate of additional input of the water has decreased, so [“]obviously[”] the total amount in the sink must decrease correspondingly.  Or at least that is presumably what happens in the kitchen of someone with enough scientific expertise to judge such things. 

I did emphasise in my review that the whole point of non-gamma-2 was that they are far more durable (indeed can easily last a whole lifetime).  Just like that water which doesn’t suddenly start to rush out of the sink just because you turned the tap down.

4. P.5: The author states that information is not available on "usage or total prevalence of non-gamma-2 in people's mouths." Given this, any statements made about the health consequences must remain purely conjecture.

Firstly Reviewer #1 here misrepresents what I wrote.  I did not state that “information is not available…”.  My words were: 
“I have been unable to obtain any numerical data on usage or total prevalence of non-gamma-2 in people’s mouths.  The DH have told me they have no such records.  And NHS dental records have not recorded the types of amalgam used.  It is unlikely that any better information is available in other countries.  But we can very reasonably assume that the overall prevalence of non-gamma-2 will have gradually, progressively increased in the decades following its introduction.”
And you can see there that I had already pre-answered this half-baked objection.  It is in the nature of reality that the prevalence of something must inevitably increase for some period after its introduction as the new standard product.  And it is common knowledge that people usually have their further tooth fillings put in in dribs and drabs over the years so their prevalence will correspondingly increase over a period of years rather than of minutes or millenia.  Which is very much in line with those increase curves of autism, adult disability, and later age of onset, which also occur over years following the change to non-gamma-2. 
.
5. P.6: The author states that he or she did not "cherry-pick.. selected data to prove any point," yet that is done in the last paragraph on this page, when reviews supporting the hypothesis that mercury is etiologically involved in autism are cited, but reviews that conclude that it is not are not cited.

But again, Reviewer #1’s assertions are multiply untrue.  Firstly, reviews are not data.  Secondly, in that very section supposedly at fault here, I did indeed explicitly cite the entire (supposed) counter-data, namely the three studies which have been claimed to disprove the mercury-autism link, namely Ip et al, Soden et al, and Hertz-Picciotto et al.  So that instance asserted by Reviewer #1 shows the exact opposite of what Reviewer #1 asserts.  And thirdly, my statement about not cherry-picking was only in my section headed “My epidemiological investigations”, and specifically a comment about my own presentation of data of the time-trends of autism, adult disability, and amalgams.  What great contrary data have I omitted there?  In reality there has been not the slighest cherry-picking and this is merely yet more nonsense from this so-called peer reviewer.

6. P.7: The fact that mercury excretion is increased following administration of DMSA in individuals with autism does not prove much, as the action of DMSA is nonspecific. Excretion of other metals (lead, antimony) is also increased.

Yet more cheap muddle from Reviewer #1.  The finding in Bradstreet et al was not “The fact that mercury excretion is increased following administration of DMSA in individuals with autism”.   Rather it was the finding of a major difference between autistics and non-autistics, with the autistics outputting three times as much mercury as the non-autistics (with fluke probability of 1 in 5000). AS ALREADY CLEARLY STATED RIGHT THERE.   Did this faceless reviewer cheat to get their PhD too?


7. P.7: The conclusions of the Holmes et al. (2003) study are weak, not because of whatever biases the investigators might or might not have but because the findings are not credible. In this study, the mean mercury level in the hair of controls was 3.63 ppm, which is much higher than would be expected in a representative sample of infants.  By comparison, measurements of mercury in children's hair in an NHANES survey conducted about the same time (1999-2000) (McDowell et al., Environ Health Perspect 2004;112(11):1165-1171) reported a mean of 0.12 ppm (and 0.16 among fish-consuming children).  This suggests that the controls included in the Holmes et al. study were biased with regard to their mercury status and that an 8-fold reduction reported in the hair mercury level of "autistic cases" is likely an artifact. 


Here Reviewer #1 shows a bit less incompetence, and stumbles only in terms of a rather more subtle fallacy.  We could call it “the fallacy of the assumed all other things being equal”.  A good other example of it is found in various comments about the Hallmayer et al 2011 twin study finding of autism being mainly environmental.  Commenters on Hallmayer et al have concluded that it shows that the earlier twin studies were “wrong”.  But well, they “must be wrong” mustn’t they?, because Hallmayer et al is a big powerful new study and so it must trump those little old ones into the wastebin of “wrong” results.   

The fallacy here is the unfounded assumption that all other things are equal (constant).  In respect of those twin studies, please have a look at my still-unchallenged paper “A theory of general impairment of gene-expression manifesting as autism”, which appeared in print in 1993 and is still essential reading for anyone who wants to have a clue about the subject.  Therein I specified the conditions under which autism would change from a mainly genetic condition to mainly environmental: If a rare perinatal adversity were to become somewhat more common, then obviously, autism of the environmental category would become more prevalent.”  And now with the huge impact of non-gamma-2 in parents’ and carers’ mouths, exactly such a condition has indeed occurred, and so hardly surprisingly the causation of autism has indeed CHANGED from mainly genetic to mainly environmental.  There is no real conflict between Hallmayer and the earlier twin studies, merely differences of the underlying and unexamined variables.  Likewise, in respect of mercury and autism we know that there is a lot we do not know.  You can see in my own review section there how the various studies of autistic hair give divergent results and that there is nevertheless good reason to find them all valid and true.  Likewise, to dismiss the Holmes et al result as “not credible” just because of those non-standard levels entails an unwarranted gross presumption that there are no important unknowns going on between the different studies.  And so the finding of Holmes et al should not be dismissed unless there is a more substantial basis for doing so.  And on the contrary, later studies have supported their ‘perverse’ data of lower hair mercury levels in autism.  This Reviewer #1 is here categorising the careful work of Holmes et al as {either grossly incompetent or grossly fraudulent}, on a basis of no real evidence but merely because he/she does not find their results in accordance with the required commercially/professionally-convenient dogma.



> I don't think it is appropriate to state that a pattern of findings provides any evidence as to whether an investigator was "acting competently and honestly."

Whereas I do think it appropriate.  And that is because fraudsters or incompetents are extremely unlikely to come out with a whopping strong result that is:
(1) markedly contrary to what they would have expected;
(2) markedly contrary to what they would have found convenient to report; and
(3) only subsequently supported by the collection of results of later other-people’s studies of autistic hair mercury. 
And in the context that many have presumed to shallowly discredit Holmes et al as either incompetent or fraudulent (as Reviewer #1 here does him/herself), that consideration is outstandingly eminently appropriate to be stated.

8. P.7: The author multiplies the P-values from 6 studies to calculate the probability that the findings are due to chance. This is a meaningless calculation. First, the studies included reached different conclusions about the hair mercury levels of children with and without autism (although the author argues that age needs to be taken into account). Second, given that all P-values are less than 1, multiplying them necessarily results in a smaller and smaller number the more studies one includes.  If each of the 6 studies yielded a P-value of 0.5 (indicating no statistically significant relationship), then using the author's method, the combined P-value would be 0.0156, which would suggest that, in aggregate, the studies provide significant evidence of an association. Third, even if the author's method was valid, it would be necessary to include in the calculation all of the studies ever conducted of a particular hypothesis, not just those selected because they purport to show an association (just as it is necessary, in a meta-analysis, to include all available evidence).

Again I shall have to chop the above into shorter bits for reply, as follows.

>The author multiplies the P-values from 6 studies to calculate the probability that the findings are due to chance. This is a meaningless calculation.

(It is absolutely standard probability maths to multiply together probabilities to get the compound probability of them all happening merely by fluke, as any betting shop can confirm, but we must continue here with Reviewer #1’s further exposition on this point…...)

>Firstly, the studies included reached different conclusions about the hair mercury levels of children with and without autism (although the author argues that age needs to be taken into account).

This misrepresents the situation.   I don’t “argue” that age needs to be taken into account, rather I observe that age needs to be taken into account, in that the earlier ages always give lower mercury in autistics, while the later ages always give higher mercury.  Thus none of those studies are in any conflict with the reasonable hypothesis mentioned by Majewska et al that the adrenarche plays a role in the hair mercury levels.  There is therefore not any real conflict between these studies but rather voices declaring in common that mercury is involved in autism in some way.  (And Reviewer #1 is here again employing that fallacy of the presumed all other things being equal – age in this case.)   And so there is no valid ground there for not multiplying together those probabilities.

>Secondly, given that all P-values are less than 1, multiplying them necessarily results in a smaller and smaller number the more studies one includes. 

That is of course true. [Note for non-expert readers: smaller P-values indicate the results are less likely to be mere flukes and so are more “significant”.]

>If each of the 6 studies yielded a P-value of 0.5 (indicating no statistically significant relationship), then using the author's method, the combined P-value would be 0.0156, which would suggest that, in aggregate, the studies provide significant evidence of an association.

And that is also indeed true.  But so what.  It is indeed the reality that several bits of weak evidence can add up to strong evidence.  Indeed that is the whole point of making a (for instance clinical) study large enough to give a significant result.  Any such study can be conceived of as being a combining together of lots of smaller sub-studies, any one of which could give non-significant results, but when all put together would enable a highly significant result.  And that high significance is not some specious false result, rather it is the entirely sound statistical inference.  And that’s what I’ve done there, except that my p values were all highly significant already.  And the fact that the evidence there is of diverse types adds all the more to its methodological robustness, as it is not wholly founded on any one premise.

>Thirdly, even if the author's method were valid, it would be necessary to include in the calculation all of the studies ever conducted of a particular hypothesis, not just those selected because they purport to show an association (just as it is necessary, in a meta-analysis, to include all available evidence).

Again, not so.  Firstly, there IS no contrary evidence on the mercury-autism question such as could make any meaningful reduction of my combined calculation.  I’ve pointed out that even the three supposedly counter results were actually pro in reality.  Secondly, I made the point that that is the probability only from those few studies combined.  It logically follows that if there were more studies, and continuing on the same 100% positive connection trend, then that would simply make my big fluke number even bigger (smaller).  So there is still no sound objection to my probability calculation.

9. P.8: The argument about the evidentiary value of never having seen the Queen is a little ridiculous and, in my view, has things completely backwards. It is by means of the falsification of hypotheses that science advances.  A single negative result is enough to call into question a positive result that has repeatedly been observed and might be the result of bias (all it takes is the observation of one black swan to refute the statement that, "all swans are white"), but no number of positive observations is sufficient to demonstrate the universality of a statement.

Again I will need to chop this up for my replies.



>9. P.8: The argument about the evidentiary value of never having seen the Queen is a little ridiculous and, in my view, has things completely backwards.

As we’ll see in the next few lines…(?)
.

>It is by means of the falsification of hypotheses that science advances. 

Partly so, but also there cannot be any advance at all if hypotheses are prevented from being properly raised in the first place. And Reviewer #1 is doing a great job of preventing some very important hypotheses being raised, via these unflattering would-be-critiques right here.


>A single negative result is enough to call into question a positive result that has repeatedly been observed and might be the result of bias (all it takes is the observation of one black swan to refute the statement that, "all swans are white"), but no number of positive observations is sufficient to demonstrate the universality of a statement.

Reviewer #1 here uses some extremely incompetent language to confuse the matter.  Namely the notion of a “negative result”.  For example an investigation of whether or not the Queen actually exists could come up with two very different types of results, both of which Reviewer #1 would have us class as “negative results”.  On the one hand, there could be a failure to see the Queen on peeping over the palace wall; on the other hand there could be a finding of the absence of the Queen anywhere in the UK following an insanely.detailed mega-search from South to North and back.  The difference between a “negative” failure to find something and a (positive) finding that that something is actually absent, is complete and absolute, and not to be confused by conflating into a false notion of “negative results”. 

>A single negative result is enough to call into question a positive result that has repeatedly been observed and might be the result of bias

I shall here now correct Reviewer #1’s grossly incompetent language. 
“A single FINDING OF POSITIVELY CONTRARY evidence is enough to call into question THE UNIVERSALITY OF [an earlier] result that has repeatedly been observed and might be the result of bias.”
“A billion mere FAILURE-TO-FIND results CAN BE STILL NOT enough to call into question [an earlier] result that has repeatedly been observed and might be the result of bias.”

When I used the words ”negative results” it was self-evident from the context that I could only mean the latter, more common meaning of the term, and not the “positively contrary” meaning.  But Reviewer #1 still managed to muddle it as ever.


>a little ridiculous and, in my view, has things completely backwards.

Indeed.  



10. P.8: The discussion of the validity of the three studies sometimes described as refuting an autism-mercury link requires fleshing out.  It is necessary to tell the reader the arithmetic error Ip et al. made and to demonstrate the extent to which it altered the study conclusions. The reader is told that DeSoto and Hitlan (2010) concluded that Soden's study "actually proved the opposite," but no information is provided that would enable the reader to evaluate this statement. The conclusions of Hertz-Piccioto et al. are misstated.  The second-to-last sentence of this paper actually states, "This report did not address the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the etiology of autism."  The major finding was that total Hg in blood was not elevated or reduced in preschool children with autism/ASD compared with unaffected controls and resembled those of a nationally representative sample.  The reason for the authors' qualification is that only concurrent measures of blood Hg were available, meaning that they could draw no conclusions from their data about the role of prenatal or early-life mercury exposure.  To say that the authors concluded that their data, ".constituted no evidence whatsoever against causation of autism by mercury" is simply wrong. 

Again, I need to chop this up for my replies.

>10. P.8: The discussion of the validity of the three studies sometimes described as refuting an autism-mercury link requires fleshing out. 


….because…..

>It is necessary to tell the reader the arithmetic error Ip et al. made and to demonstrate the extent to which it altered the study conclusions.

Really?  I cited the conclusion of DeSoto and Hitlan (2010) that the study actually proved the opposite.  (Ip et al was retracted due to their major but elementary error.)  On this question this reviewer should either explain why D&H were wrong or else shut up.  Here’s what they said:
“The author of record has publicly acknowledged that these numbers and the statistical calculation were in error in an erratum (Ip et al. 2007) and the journal editor notes the reason given was a series of typographical errors (Brumback 2007). Furthermore, a careful and correct analysis of the full data set results in a statistically significant difference (Brumback 2007, DeSoto and Hitlan 2007, DeSoto 2008) with autistic children having higher mean levels of mercury.  As can be seen by comparing the erratum to the original article, the standard deviations were wrong for both groups, the stated statistical significance in 2004 was not even close: their original stated level of statistical probability was off by almost 10 fold.”


>The reader is told that DeSoto and Hitlan (2010) concluded that Soden's study "actually proved the opposite," but no information is provided that would enable the reader to evaluate this statement.

Not so.  I provided the citation of D&H along with the citation of the original Soden, which is all the information that is needed for that evaluation.  If Reviewer #1 reckons there is something wrong with D&H’s conclusions then he/she should state what it is, or else shut up.  Here’s what D&H said:
“In the end, the statistical test conducted by Soden and coworkers is meaningless and distracting from the essentials of what was done. The authors measured metal levels, then (based on the lab definition of toxicity) all values were defined as zero, then – they tested this actual zero statistically and found that one could not rule out zero. “
“But let readers be clear about this central point: if one is willing to consider the actual numbers reported and test those numbers, the results are clear - a larger proportion of autistics had heavy metals excreted as the result of chelation.”
It is not the business of authors of papers to have to recite the details of all the prior papers they cite in support; if they did there would be even more that everyone had to read.  Any half-proper peer reviewer would check out the background references themselves (where required), and indeed in this case ought to be an expert familiar with these important key papers (on Neurotoxicology of autism) already anyway.  What a timewasting pseudo-expert charlatan.

>The conclusions of Hertz-Piccioto et al. are misstated. 

Not so.  They are not in the slightest mis-stated in my own report.

>The second-to-last sentence of [their] paper actually states, "This report did not address the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the etiology of autism." 

Indeed that is the case. But so what?  That is exactly my point about it. [Note to non-expert readers:  “Hg” means mercury and “etiology” means causation.  You may wish to guess whether they used that unnecessarily abstruse language there for the same reason that they hid that absolutely crucial sentence right at the end, second last, of their paper which supposedly did indeed dis-evidence a mercury-autism connection.]

>The major finding was that total Hg in blood was not elevated or reduced in preschool children with autism/ASD compared with unaffected controls and resembled those of a nationally representative sample. 

Indeed that is the case.  But so what?  I never said otherwise.

>The reason for the authors' qualification is that only concurrent measures of blood Hg were available, meaning that they could draw no conclusions from their data about the role of prenatal or early-life mercury exposure. 

Indeed that is the case. But so what?  That is exactly my point about it.



>To say that the authors concluded that their data, ".constituted no evidence whatsoever against causation of autism by mercury" is simply wrong. 

No it isn’t.  Their words quoted above indicate PRECISELY that.  As Reviewer #1 appears to be having some peculiar difficulty with either language or logic I will try to parse this for them as follows.  ( I apologise that I have to assume the reader is an idiot here.)
We begin with their paper’s second-last sentence that:
"This report did not address the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the etiology of autism."
That means effectively the same as:
"This report was not capable of providing any information about the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the etiology of autism."
Which means that it is also the case that:
"This report did not provide any information about the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the etiology of autism."
And hence:
"This report did not provide any evidence about the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the etiology of autism."
And hence:
"This report did not provide any evidence about the role of prenatal or early-life Hg exposure in the causation of autism."
And hence:
"This report did not provide any evidence about the role of prenatal or early-life mercury exposure in the causation of autism."
And hence:
"This report did not provide any evidence about the causation of autism by prenatal or early-life mercury exposure."
And hence:
"This report did not provide any evidence against the causation of autism by prenatal or early-life mercury exposure."
And hence:
"This report constituted no evidence against the causation of autism by prenatal or early-life mercury exposure."
And hence on merely removing a redundant word:
"This report constituted no evidence against [the] causation of autism by prenatal or early-life mercury."
….which would be identical to my own statement except that there is that extra bit about “prenatal or early-life”.

So I was wrong there.  I overlooked that autism could still be not caused by exposure to mercury later in life, after that person has already become autistic.  So we’d best not publish my non-gamma-2 rubbish after all.

And whatever it takes to become a reviewer for Neurotoxicology, it’s all too clear I don’t have it myself.
 


Reviewer #2:
Dental amalgams are a continual source of controversy. The current review attempts to survey the adverse health consequences of the amalgam formulation known as non-gamma-2. It asserts that these restorations  "are currently by far the main cause of chronic disability in the UK, US, and other such countries, with about 10% of the UK working-age population disabled thereby." It also claims that its introduction led to a 10-fold increase in the incidence of autism.

Indeed.  But no faults are there providing basis for non-publication so far.

As a contribution to this specialized journal, the manuscript lacks any clear connection. It offers no neuro-mechanistic foundation for such a correlation, especially for autism, which is a product of  disordered early development.

Not so.  In respect of autism, my review(/study/rant/) ties in the newer mercury factual data with the prior unchallenged theory and the related fact of how the mercury binds with DNA to reduce gene-expression and hence [as my 1993 had predicted] cause autism.  And meanwhile in respect of adult mercury poisoning there is quite a developed understanding of how the symptoms are caused.  The details of that causality are in the cited literature or secondarily-cited.


It doesn't attempt to demonstrate any kind of dose-response relationship.

No data is available that would enable that.  But it doesn’t follow that there is no other useful evidence presented.


Its definition of autism lacks specificity.

It doesn’t need to.  It just uses the definitions that are used as standard by others.  As  is common practice.


In addition, the claim that this amalgam formulation accounts for 10% of chronic disability requires advanced statistical modeling of exposure-consequence relationships in which other kinds of exposures are concurrently evaluated.

Firstly, I did not claim that it accounts for 10% of chronic disability.  I reckoned from the data that it now actually accounts for MOST chronic disability (something like 70-90%).  That 10% figure was my estimate that wholly 10% of the UK workforce has been disabled by non-gamma-2 (4 million victims out of a 40 million workforce). 

That 10% is not a “claim” but rather was expressly only a rough estimate, from looking at figure 5.  You can see that it shows an increase of about 2 million accepted claimants, easily all attributable to non-gamma-2.  And you can see that it peculiarly levels off about year 2000 as would be expected from the stated political agenda of “claimant count now controlled”.  And you can see that otherwise it would most likely have continued upward to something like 4 million – hence 10% of the working-age population.

And no fancy statistical modelling is required to understand what these graphs are showing us.  Of course they are not absolute proof, but neither are they any lack of evidence, else we’d have to retract an amazing lot of highly-acclaimed “studies” from the most prestigious journals.


In the absence of these kinds of information, it is difficult to see how this manuscript is compatible with the aims and audience of this journal. Perhaps the author should consider another kind of journal and audience.

Or perhaps instead the so-called Neurotoxicology journal should consider changing those aims and audience, or perhaps change its name to reflect its “specialised” nature, for instance to Specialised Neurotoxicology, Pedantic Neurotoxicology, or best of all to Die Zeitschrift der Lysenkoischen MeisterNeuroToxikologisten von Nurnberg (The Journal of the Lysenkoist MasterNeurotoxicologists of Nuremburg).


Reviewer #3: This is an opinion piece on the possible role of mercury exposure in the causation of autism.

Not so.  It is not “an opinion piece”.  Like all scientific papers it does include proposed conclusions which are necessarily of an opinion nature.  But for the most part it consists of presentation of data and reasoning thereon, which is entirely in line with any normal scientific paper and not “an opinion piece”.

The author makes a very impassioned case for non-gamma-2 amalgam fillings being the major cause for the rise in incidence of autism using ecological data from UK, US and few other countries.

Not so.   It is not at all “very impassioned” but rather “very filled with as much useful factual evidence as can be found”. 


No primary research has been undertaken by the author to test this hypothesis.

So what.  Exactly the same could be said about all those seven highly-rated studies listed on the first page here.  Has anyone ever called for their retraction yet?


My main concern with this work is that it is not an objective assessment of the evidence available at present.

….because / for instance…..

Key statements that form the basis for the author's argument are unsupported by high-quality evidence.

…such as….



For example, the exposure of children to mercury from their parents' amalgam restorations needs to be confirmed before the author can make such a far-reaching conclusion.

Indeed, no one has bothered to do any measurement studies of this question to date.  But that is not the fault of this author or this review.  Rather it highlights the urgent need to make a start by publishing this first study of the subject, which can be then followed up by testing studies.  But I did already explain why we can be confident that there is enhanced exposure.  That is because there is very low background atmospheric mercury vapor, and it is known to constantly emit from parents’ and carers’ amalgams, and they commonly spend much time together with babies in enclosed spaces, even talking at them through their amalgam-filled mouths, and so it logically follows that many babies are going to breathe in an increased amount of mercury vapor at least on average.  [Studies have also shown prenatal transmission.]

Randomized clinical trials of dental amalgam (Bellinger et al 2006; DeRouen  et al. 2006) showed no significant neurodevelopmental deficits in the children receiving amalgam restorations compared to non-mercury fillings.

Those two studies have already been solidly debunked as evidence, as I pointed out via my first page citation of Muttter 2010 (and others).  Not least they started too old to relate to causation of autism, and they stopped too young to relate to causation of adult disability.  In fact (as in my earlier journal replies) if I myself had been in those studies I would have been recorded as evidence of harmlessness, because my life only became chronically ruined (by the amalgam scam) AFTER the age at which those propaganda studies stopped.  And an editorial in the very same issue of the journal stated that those two studies did not constitute evidence of amalgam safety. Why didn’t Reviewer #3 mention that counter-point in their “unbiased” commentary here?

In fact, Maserejian et al. 2012 have reported that compared to amalgam restorations, children receiving composite (non-mercury) fillings showed impaired psychosocial function. There are several other such instances in the manuscript where important data have been ignored.

Maserejian et al had not been published when I first sent this review to a journal in July 2012, else I might have mentioned it.  But exactly the same methodological problems arise as with the two others cited above.  I myself was doing fantastically well at school before the effects of the amalgam scam imposed themselves so devastatingly on my life.  And perhaps bisphenol-A might well have injurious effects but that is a separate matter out of the range of my own documents.

In my opinion, this manuscript does not add unbiased scientific knowledge to the topic of mercury and autism, and I cannot support it being published.

But rather it is this Reviewer who is biased, and has raised only bogus reasons for suppressing the publication of this outstandingly important cautionary information.



IN CONCLUSION:

These three reviewers have failed to raise even a single sound reason for preventing the publication of this very important information.  And they have meanwhile deployed a whole load of shallow pseudo-objections, which raises considerable questions about both their supposedly expert competence and their honesty. 

And that comes in the context of ten previous journals likewise raising only specious excuses for refusing publication. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Further reply from PseudoNeurotoxicology (23rd October 2013).  

“…. Thank you for your email.  I forwarded it to the editor of the journal.  After review it was concluded that your manuscript was handled appropriately and the original decision stands…..”

Notably there was an absence of any rebuttal of any of my rejoinders. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some important silly myths about autism

(....besides the tragic delusion that the increase was caused mainly by vaccines in some way or other....)

At many websites, in innumerable leaflets, in the "introduction" paragraphs that adorn almost all journal papers, and even in the book "Autism: The Facts" by Simon Baron-Cohen, the reader is liable to get misled by some of the statements. This is partly because some of these authors think it useful to provide a dumbed-down idiots' guide explanation for people who are supposedly too busy to spend a little more time learning a proper understanding.

Firstly, the myth that the human race can be divided into those who "have" autism and those who do not "have" autism. Or as they alternatively put it, those who are "on the spectrum" and those who are not. Or those who are autistic and those who are neurotypical. In reality there is no such distinction, it is merely the human races' obsession with sorting people into categories operating here. It is no more sensible to say that someone is "on the autistic spectrum" than it is to say that a person who is 6 ft 1 inch tall is therefore "on the biggism spectrum", or "has biggism". Rather we are all on this "spectrum" together to greater or lesser extent.

Secondly the myth that Aspergers is distinct from autism. This distinction arose merely because Kanner and Asperger simultaneously came up with these ideas in separate countries. Sixty years of research has since failed to establish any clear distinction but instead a huge amount of commonality.
(Review of Asperger's/Autism relationship by Tony Attwood.)

Thirdly the myth that autism is properly described in terms of a "triad of impairments". On the contrary a whole collection of characteristics of the autistic syndrome was long ago listed in the table of Wing 1976, which you can also find in my 1993 paper linked at the top here. When researchers can't explain some fact, they tend to prefer to just forget about it, and so this pseudic simplification took on a conveniently flattering life of its own.

Fourthly, if a person prefers to be alone, prefers reading a book to going to a party, and is lost for words on meeting a person they want to speak to, this does not mean they are even slightly autistic or Aspergeric. Rather they may be just be very introverted. And introversion is entirely different from and unrelated to autism etc.

Why you are a brain-dead sheep (or not?)

Some people have expressed a very (and very nastily) contemptuous attitude towards the antiinnatia theory and its author. Their confident contempt is based on the notion that after so many years, the textbooks have never even mentioned this theory, and nor do any of the "leading experts" (in the context that Bernard Rimland can be ignored as a candidate for "leading expert" status not least due to being helpfully dead now). It follows, these people "reason", that therefore the theory has failed, is a proven dud. And they assert that it follows that they do not have to themselves point to any fault of reasoning or evidence damning the theory, because there is "obviously" "no case to answer" anyway.

Those who say this are in effect saying exactly the same as "Hello, I am a mindless herd-following sheep. I've noticed that none of the rest of the herd is heading your way, so I fail to see any reason why I should either. Baahh!"

Indeed, why think for yourself when you can just let others do your thinking for you instead?

"~Independent-minded~"? -- Baahh!

(See also description in Anna Karenina chapter 3.)

The evidence of the corruption of autism research

The evidence has now grown to the point where any reasonable person can conclude that autism research (in the US, UK, and their commercial allies) is being severely distorted by corrupt motives. The corrupt agenda is (1) to hide the fact that the true cause of the increase was dental amalgam mercury, and (2) to hide the fact that removal of the mercury by chelation is the most effective treatment (indeed cure), so that the victims can be forced instead onto patented quack pseudo-treatments that Big Pharma hopes to roll out at immense profit in due course.

There's a popular myth that corruption in science consists mainly of people falsifying their data, like hitting the delete key and substituting some false numbers to fit the required conclusions. But from studying many papers over the years, I have concluded that such outright fabrication is actually rather rare, at least in a field such as autism research.

Instead the corruption works in ways that are more subtle, but also more solidly demonstrable. Instances of these more subtle distortions can individually be pretended to be mere misunderstandings or mistakes. Thus any particular case cannot alone constitute proof of corruption. It is only when a pattern of such "mistakes" begins to show up that the conclusion of a trend of corruption becomes clear. That's what is happening now.

The techniques of this subtle corruption include:
-selecting methods which are well-known to be incorrect;
-making agenda-convenient errors in one's calculations;
-avoiding and even preventing proper studies being carried out which would provide the honest answers;
-misrepresenting the literature by pretending into non-existence the truthful evidence while prominently trumpeting the worthless studies as supposedly sound evidence; and
-deploying false arguments (including attacking of "straw man" positions).

The great thing about these techniques is that only people with sufficient knowledge and understanding can see through what is going on, and they are usually the same people who are career-compromised by being stuck in the corrupted institutional setting. This corruption thereby sucks in and corrupts honest people too.

One way to produce misleading false negative results is to select tests which are well-known not to work. It has long been known that blood and urine levels are useless as tests of chronic mercury poisoning.

In this connection I draw to your attention this quotation from 1964:

“Those investigators who have studied the subject are in almost unanimous agreement that there is a poor correlation between the urinary excretion of mercury and the occurrence of demonstrable evidence of poisoning.”
‑‑Goldwater LJ, Ladd AC, Jacobs MG: Absorption and excretion of mercury in man. Arch Environ Health 9, 735-741 ( 1964)

and also this joint statement of the National Institute of Dental Health and the American Dental Association in 1984:

“The distribution of mercury into the body tissues is highly variable and there appears to be little correlation between levels in urine, blood or hair and toxic effects.”
NIDH/ADA Workshop on Biocompatibility of Metals, Journal of the American Dental Association 109, September 1984.

Even my general practitioner was able to tell me this in 2006. It is the reason why Holmes used hair mercury and Bradstreet used chelation challenge instead of just measuring blood or urine. Hertz-Picciotto et al. (2010) used this well-known-useless blood mercury measure and found no difference between autistics and controls. Meanwhile DeSoto and Hitlan (2010) have shown that the other two studies that supposedly show no mercury-autism connection, Ip et al. (2004) and Soden et al. (2007), were flawed to the extent that they actually show the opposite. Those three very misleading studies have since been cited by certain senior experts as the supposed proof that there is no involvement of mercury in autism.

Rush et al. (2009) purported to show that chelation causes more harm than good, but in reality their procedure was utterly unrelated to any real-world chelation therapy. It purports an ignorance of even the most basic principle of chelation therapy (namely removing the toxin from the body) and substitutes a straw-man fallacious in-situ “detoxification” concept of its own. It is just as impossible to carry out a test of chelation in vitro (or in this case "in tissue") as it is impossible to venture out on a test drive of a car engine which is standing isolated from the car body on a mechanic's bench. When a dentist drills your tooth it instantly creates more pain than was there already. But we don't validly infer from that that dental treatment is counterproductive; because the treatment has to be evaluated as a whole.

The latest of these misleading studies, being widely paraded in triumph, is:

Cao Y, Chen A, Jones RL, Radcliffe J, Dietrich KN, Caldwell KL, et al. 2010. Efficacy of Succimer Chelation of Mercury at Background Exposures in Toddlers: A Randomized Trial. J Pediatr. Epub ahead of print. DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.08.036.

The NIH would have you believe that this shows
"Succimer found ineffective for removing mercury"
(In other words chelation supposedly can't help autistics, in defiance of all the huge "merely anecdotal claims" that it does.)
In reality, these investigators selected a useless procedure that any half-competent person would know would produce the wrong result. I explained in a previous post that there are many ways of using or misusing a chelator, some of which are sure to make matters worse rather than better. Here's a well-founded comment I found about this trash: "This trial had severe flaws in the dosing protocol - very large doses of DMSA (400mg+) were given to children once a day continuously for nearly a month along with some minerals (including iron and copper which Andy does not recommend) but without specific antioxidant support. I really feel sorry for the kids participating in this study. Unfortunately there will be some people who glance at the headline and wrongly conclude that DMSA is not a useful chelator."
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Autism-Mercury/message/288097

Meanwhile, several years on, no official trials have been carried out to test whether chelation does not work. The one trial that started was halted by the US medical authorities.

Oh, but hang on, the website of Pretend-to-Research-Autism mentions that the NIMH is running "three major trials of the chelator N-acetyl-cysteine". But NAC is definitely not a chelator. It certainly doesn't equate to the genuine protocols that huge numbers of parents have been having such success with (thus producing the "spontaneous" recoveries their doctors are now starting to report). Those same "Research Autism" charlatans place a maximum danger warning against chelation despite failing to cite a single shred of evidence of that supposed danger.

You can also see elsewhere here the abundance of consistently false arguments deployed in the supposedly-wonderful books by Paul Offit and Michael Fitzpatrick.

There's also last year's report from the UK NHS, wheeled out to pretend that there's been no increase anyway (the same NHS that resorts to so many untruths to prevent me getting treatment for the disability it caused).

So you can see here what looks to me like all the distortions I listed above being deployed in the service of a crime against the victims of this catastrophe which was caused by experts in the first place.

If the average person or even average graduate applied to become a researcher at any of these institutes they'd be laughed out the door. And likewise if they tried to get a publisher for one of those books. The people who are involved in making these "mistakes" have passed through numerous years of university education, have very advanced qualifications, not infrequently have been awarded superlative honours for their supposedly great contributions to science. And yet is it these supposedly great intellectual superiors who are producing and endorsing this trash-"science" in the service of an ongoing abuse of victims.

But I see no reason to believe that all those involved are consciously engaged in deceit (under duress or not). Many people are compromised by tendencies to suppress from consciousness any disturbing doubts, questions and facts. They eagerly "learn" "authoritative" information unquestioningly. They unconsciously avoid the inconvenient ideas and choose the personally convenient ones instead. They "sincerely" believe their falsehoods. And yet, still, there is no honour in their conduct here. Self-serving false beliefs are no more worthy for being "sincerely" believed, any more than a tiger's conduct can be classed as acceptable on the grounds that it has no sense of anything wrong with killing people.

Profs and PhDs supposedly not making sense

Here is a comment from K. MacDonald to the IACC:

"The IACC seems to have extremely few committee members who understand the biomedical treatments that parents are having so much success with. Why are there no Defeat Autism Now (DAN) doctors on this committee?! This makes no sense not to involve the most successful practitioners," [....]

"As a parent who went the "mainstream route" for seven years before turning to the more alternative approach of the DAN doctors, I can say there is no comparison. I got absolutely NOWHERE with the mainstream approach, yet had almost miraculous results with the DAN approach. As a healthcare professional myself, I have to wonder what has happened to our medical integrity? Why are we not only avoiding researching treatments that seem to be helping many, but actively attacking those brave doctors who are truly trying to help? It makes no sense!"

No, K. Macdonald, it makes perfect sense.

Hypocrisy of the prevention of use of OSR#1

The long-experienced mercury expert Boyd Haley has developed the chelator OSR#1 with the intention of providing a superior treament for autism. Yet the FDA has forced him to stop supplying it and thereby prevented parents from obtaining it.

Some are arguing that it is only right and fair that OSR#1 should have to undergo the same testing process as any drug coming from big pharma corps. Let's for the sake of argument suppose that this supposed scientific equivalence between OSR#1 and pharma drugs is valid.

Here's a rather more fitting comparison. My update review proves that the medical agent which absolutely certainly caused the autism increase was the non-gamma-2 dental amalgams that were introduced mainly from the 1970s onwards. Those non-gamma-2 were not tested for toxicity at the time, and they have still not been subjected to toxicity tests. There have been no studies of whether they cause autism. There have been no randomised controlled trials (other than two very limited and flawed ones confined to mid-childhood ages, equally incapable of detecting autism causation as of detecting chronic adult poisoning).

So if the treatment that is so desperately needed for the medically-caused autism is to be banned from use by the victim parents and children....

....why is not the highly-toxic dental amalgam likewise being immediately withdrawn from use until safety has been proven by proper trials?

~~~~~~
P.S.: The following is a commentary from Prof Haley:
"OSR#1 was removed from the market by the FDA as they claimed it was not a dietary product even though its structure consists of a benzoate (found in apples and cranberries) and cysteamine (a metabolite made from cysteine and in the pathway to make taurine, also found on the terminal end of Coenzyme-A). Our lawyers said we would likely win if we contested the FDA claim, but that it would take a year and cost a huge amount of money. Then the FDA would have another claim against OSR, in that physicians and patients were making claims on blog sites (we never made any medical claim on our website) that OSR caused a rapid and significant improvement in their various medical conditions. The FDA has a mantra that dietary products cannot have a positive medical effect---and if they do they are considered by the FDA as drugs. Our lawyer said we would not win regarding this issue."
(See also misleading scare-publicity issued by the FDA this month.)