Mercury poisoning/ Autism link study - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 14 Old 10-15-2007, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
LISSA~K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Does anyone have any thoughts or info as to the legitimacy of this study?
http://www.homefirst.com/urine_testi...poisoning.html
LISSA~K is offline  
#2 of 14 Old 10-15-2007, 07:36 PM
 
ripcurlgirl26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Posts: 714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:
ripcurlgirl26 is offline  
#3 of 14 Old 10-15-2007, 09:04 PM
 
angie7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can believe it. But the majority of "mainstream" people will not. They only believe things from the FDA or CDC :

My DH works in a field that tests smoke stacks from power plants, manufactoring plants, etc, pretty much anything that pollutes our air and knows all too well what mercury can do to the human body if exposed. Severe brain damage is one of them.

single mommy to identical twin girls (3/06) Non-traditional mama just : through life.
angie7 is offline  
#4 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 11:24 AM - Thread Starter
 
LISSA~K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bump
LISSA~K is offline  
#5 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 01:26 PM
 
T&D2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:
T&D2005 is offline  
#6 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 02:39 PM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am awaiting my full-text but considering it is written by the Geiers, I wouldn't put much stock into it.

SM
Science Mom is offline  
#7 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 03:18 PM
 
lauradbg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Slowly finding my way...
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What's the problem with the Geiers?

Crunchy check list:  2 homebirths (one accidental UC!), co-slept, no CIO, cloth diapers, home/un school, raw milk drinker (!) I am a walking cliche!! I even blog and knit...
lauradbg is offline  
#8 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 03:34 PM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauradbg View Post
What's the problem with the Geiers?
You know all the criticisms that many of you have of pharma greed and FDA accomplice (some of which I do actually share)? Well that and much much more can be said of the Geiers and they are far more nefarious and dangerous. An acquaintance of mine says of the Geiers, "Geier rhymes with liar and means vulture (in German)".

SM
Science Mom is offline  
#9 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 03:50 PM
 
lauradbg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Slowly finding my way...
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How, where and when are they "far more nefarious and dangerous"? You're not answering my question. You're making allusions that they're not credible. Could you please outline that for me. : I don't know and would like to know.

Crunchy check list:  2 homebirths (one accidental UC!), co-slept, no CIO, cloth diapers, home/un school, raw milk drinker (!) I am a walking cliche!! I even blog and knit...
lauradbg is offline  
#10 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 04:11 PM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Have you read their previous 'publications'? Are you familiar with their most recent venture with Lupron (chemical castration) and chelating autistic children? Are you familiar with their sleazy IRB practises? Are you aware that their 'publications' are written to bolster their professional vaccine court witness cache?

SM
Science Mom is offline  
#11 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 04:28 PM
 
lauradbg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Slowly finding my way...
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No. I'm not aware of any of that. As I clearly said, "I don't know and would like to know." So, could you please explain? Otherwise, could you please not cast aspersions?

And then maybe you could comment on the actual study...

Crunchy check list:  2 homebirths (one accidental UC!), co-slept, no CIO, cloth diapers, home/un school, raw milk drinker (!) I am a walking cliche!! I even blog and knit...
lauradbg is offline  
#12 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 05:03 PM
 
insider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Science Mom View Post
I am awaiting my full-text but considering it is written by the Geiers, I wouldn't put much stock into it.
Hey, that type of ad hominem statement is unnecessary. Unless you're accusing the Geiers of outright fraud, it'd be more productive to criticize the data, not the person. Wouldn't it be more fun to poke at the science? Sounds like you're getting a copy but if not, I can email it to you. I haven't read it yet so I can't really comment. I think the usual arguments will probably apply, though: They're observing something in children who are already autistic so there's no way to know which came first. It may seem quite a coincidence that the marker being associated with autism is mercury-related, but until prospective research is done (paired sampling), it probably can't be ruled out.
insider is offline  
#13 of 14 Old 10-16-2007, 05:24 PM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by insider View Post
Hey, that type of ad hominem statement is unnecessary. Unless you're accusing the Geiers of outright fraud, it'd be more productive to criticize the data, not the person. Wouldn't it be more fun to poke at the science? Sounds like you're getting a copy but if not, I can email it to you. I haven't read it yet so I can't really comment. I think the usual arguments will probably apply, though: They're observing something in children who are already autistic so there's no way to know which came first. It may seem quite a coincidence that the marker being associated with autism is mercury-related, but until prospective research is done (paired sampling), it probably can't be ruled out.
Glad to see your sense of humour has returned. I should get it in a couple of days but hey, if you have a copy available, I'll take you up on it, Thank-you. See how easy it is to cut down on your reading load by author reputation?

SM
Science Mom is offline  
#14 of 14 Old 10-18-2007, 12:17 AM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK, Time to poke fun at the 'science'. This is not a prospective study; the subjects already had the outcome (ASD) with a concurrent exposure (mercury).

Their samples were sent to an outside laboratory; so other investigators cannot verify the methods and there is too much test variability due to instrument calibration and different technicians.

Many of the Geiers' references and therefore hypothesis is based upon chronic, low and high level occupational exposure to Hg (primarily vapour) which is fine as long as they don't overreach the data results.

The heme pathway is sensitive to inhibition by both organic and inorganic agents and thus the atypical porphyrinuria pattern is not exclusive to Hg exposure alone and the testing is not standardised to allow for the distinction and certainly cannot differentiate Hg species.

The controls. They are not matched as is claimed and are not robust enough; not matched for exposure and the controls were claimed to be siblings of ASD patients, not siblings of the study patients.

Table 2: I guess they could have achieved statistical significance somehow, somewhere but the table is sloppy and suspect e.g. they report some means with 1 significant figure but the standard deviations with 2. How can this be? The size of the standard deviations as compared to the means suggests more variation within the groups than between the groups.

I think that selection bias was required to even perform this study rather than control for it. Chelated patients had similar porphyrin levels as controls but they don't know or report what the pre-chelation levels were and even if chelation even had an effect.

The discussion was a predictable association with previous Geier 'studies' and the usual suspects with vanity press articles along with cherry-picking select interpretations from some legitimate studies. There is no association with vaccines so I don't know where that notion came from. All in all, a poorly done and predictable study and is nothing more than an entry on their CVs.

SM
Science Mom is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off