Join Date: Jun 2005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
|40 members and 7,989 guests|
|AlexBrown , bluefaery , ChantalM , Danielleyc203 , frugalmama , girlspn , greenemami , happyhats , Holistic Momma , Incubator , IsaFrench , joandsarah77 , katelove , LiLStar , mama24-7 , Mathemom , Milk8shake , mumof3 , NaturallyKait , OliviaA , PeacefulSeams , poppan , prosciencemum , pulcetti , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , SandiMae , sarafl , Springshowers , sunnygogo , TheBugsMomma , Tigerle , Willow78 , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 01:21 PM.|