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

My entire thoughts about whether there is a relationship of vaccines to autism can be found by clicking here.

"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 I explain in the update paper. Such is life's irony!

My 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?

And there will be even more myths told about this update review than were told about the 1993 paper, because autism research is now becoming heavily distorted by corruption. And this 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 elevated 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.)

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.

Proof that ethylmercury does not exist

People writing about mercury and autism tend to fall into one or other of two opposing belief groups, trying to convince you either (1) that vaccines are a major cause of autism, or (2) that mercury is entirely uninvolved in autism causation. Meanwhile I'm just trying to progress the frontiers of understanding yet further ahead, regardless of what others think. Any who disagree with the following (and I'm sure there will be many) are invited to explain why the ideas I present here are wrong and why their ideas are better.

The misleading notion of different "forms of mercury" all being merely "forms" of the same thing (i.e. "mercury".)

The following may be considered elementary chemistry but it may not be elementary child psychiatry so it still has a place here.

There is a lot of talk of mercury as though it is one thing, especially those such as the medical establishment propagandist Paul Offit declaring that "mercury poisoning" does not resemble autism. We could make a false comparison with some other toxic substance, for instance methanol. All methanol molecules are the same arrangement of one carbon atom, one oxygen and four hydrogens. The word specifically means that arrangement, that molecule. There are no "forms" of methanol, except in the trivial sense that a collection of such molecules could also be gas or solid.

But mercury is not a chemical arrangement, but rather is an element (that is, consists of atoms each having x protons and y neutrons)*. (*Though due to mercury poisoning I don't remember the values of x and y there.) Mercury atoms can feature as part of numerous different molecules, for instance chlorides or oxides of mercury. But those are not mercury! Not even "forms of mercury".

To clarify this, consider chlorine which is also an element. Chlorine is a deadly poisonous gas. When it is combined with sodium (which is also very injurious) it forms the sodium chloride better known as the salt that goes on your food and without which you would be dead very quickly. And if it is reasonable to talk of "methylmercury" as a "form of mercury" then it could be thought equally reasonable to talk of table salt as "sodylchlorine" and as a "form of chlorine".

However, we must now step back from making an absolute equivalence there in that analogy. That is because mercury atoms are relatively rare and have effects disproportionate to their numbers. And those other "forms of mercury" do have some practical equivalence to elemental mercury for the reason that in everyday life they function as important carriers of those same mercury atoms around to and from your body and brain. Just do not forget that the notion of these other substances being "forms of mercury" is still a significantly misleading concept.

Why there is no such thing as "ethylmercury"

A lot of people, including some I'd rate as pretty hot scientists rather than pseudoscientists, will tell you lots of ?facts? about something they call ethylmercury. They will tell you it is a deadly toxin put in vaccines and thereby causes autism and other problems. It would be nice just to say yes to all these nice people, but that's not what proper science is about.

Wikipedia is hopelessly corrupted in respect of anything remotely commercial or political, but it's quite good at basic science. It confirms that "ethylmercury" is not an element (i.e. type of atom), nor is it a specific substance (chemical compound) such as chalk or water. Rather it is a cation, a positively-charged ion. In practice charged ions don't a substance make, but instead have to be combined with corresponding negative ions. For instance sodium ions combine with chlorine ions to make common salt. Or they can combine with hydroxyl ions to form caustic soda.

It should be rather obvious that table salt is a very different thing from the caustic soda that says on the bottle "danger, do not add water" and "harmful, do not ingest". A notion that the two are one uniform substance called perhaps "sodyl" is absurd. It is obvious that "sodyl" can be extremely harmful or instead vital for life, depending on whether it is salt or caustic soda.

Just as you cannot buy "sodyl", you cannot ever buy "ethylmercury" either (or for that matter "methylmercury" or "diethylmercury" etc.). It's impossible to put "ethylmercury" in vaccines. What IS contained in (thimerosal-containing) vaccines is ethylmercury chloride. It may not have escaped your notice that adding the chloride bit to sodium in salt renders it the lifesaving table salt rather than the very injurious caustic soda. It's also well-known that the inorganic salt mercury chloride is vastly less toxic than the mercury without the chloride.

It follows that assertions about the toxicity of "ethylmercury" are rather unhinged, rather as assertions of the toxicity of "sodyl" would be.

Furthermore, the studies which purport to measure retention levels in the brain, of inorganic mercury and of ethylmercury, are studying phantoms. It is vanishingly improbable that a mercury atom or mercury ion or ethylmercury ion could just hang around for weeks in the brain without compounding with some other atoms in that brain. The question then arises of what compounds there are in that brain, not simply of how much "ethylmercury" or "inorganic mercury" there is in it.

From this perspective, a whole lot of thinking about mercury toxicity is substantially misguided. I would however not go so far as to say that this constitutes any grounds for dismissing the huge evidence that mercury in brain and body does exert majorly pathological effects. In my view it has caused both the autism increase and years of adult disability in myself. Regardless of whether it is "ethyl" or even merely ethereal.

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.)