Mercury poisoning. For all you extremly mild mild Aspies.

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry I should've explained myself better I was in a rush, the bath uses negatively charged ions, it absorbs and adsorbs. Mercury is a positively charged ion so that's how it draws it out. So yes it can in fact be magnetically drawn out.

I did the research all by myself however there was no information on the clay regarding autism, just metal therapies.

The clay is called calcium bentonite.

And the big bang never happened!

ASU has done some studies on this; while incidental mercury levels were observed (via pica or maternal seafood consumption, for example), there was no direct relationship found. However, mercury poisoning can have ASD-like symptoms which are alleviated when the toxic metal is removed. They are NOT the same condition, and trying to lump the two together doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

To be honest, however, your method/process seems more likely to be bunk than legitimate from what I can infer.


M.

Using real science, with real statistical analysis of real people:

Hertz-Picciotto I, Green PG, Delwiche L, Hansen R, Walker C, Pessah IN. Blood mercury concentrations in CHARGE Study children with and without autism. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Jan;118(1):161-6.
[quote]RESULTS: Fish consumption strongly predicted total Hg concentration. AU/ASD children ate less fish. After adjustment for fish and other Hg sources, blood Hg levels in AU/ASD children were similar to those of TD children (p = 0.75); this was also true among non-fish eaters (p = 0.73). The direct effect of AU/ASD diagnosis on blood Hg not through the indirect pathway of altered fish consumption was a 12% reduction. DD children had lower blood Hg concentrations in all analyses. Dental amalgams in children with gum-chewing or teeth-grinding habits predicted higher levels. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for dietary and other differences in Hg exposures, total Hg in blood was neither elevated nor reduced in CHARGE Study preschoolers with AU/ASD compared with unaffected controls, and resembled those of nationally representative samples./quote]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056569

Or:

Scahill L and Bearss K. The Rise in Autism and the Mercury Myth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, Feb 2009
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3892/is_200902/ai_n31512936/

* Blood and urine are unreliable tests for mercury toxicity, and this is mentioned in several mainstream texts (Harrison's Textbook Of Internal Medicine, Cecil Textbook Of Internal Medicine, Merrit's Textbook Of Neurology) - http://onibasu.com/archives/am/3618.html

Not to mention Mercury has a half life of 44 days in blood.

Blood testing which isn't reliable is only useful to people who get tested soon after getting poisoned and it's barely useful at that.

I'm not entirely sure what this is, but I'm guessing it's a way of drawing metals out of your body using magnetism?

If it is what I'm thinking, then the idea of using it for mercury poisoning makes no sense - mercury has ridiculously low magnetism.

Read up a few posts

That is irrelevant and nonsense, supported by a link to an online chat - the mercury levels in blood are not magically affected by autism, and were no higher than in children with autism than without. Not in just one study, but in many. If this is not good enough for your cherry-picked assembly of facts, then this should be:

Ng DK, Chan CH, Soo MT, Lee RS. Low-level chronic mercury exposure in children and adolescents: meta-analysis. Pediatr Int. 2007 Feb;49(1):80-7.
RESULTS: Based on the meta-analysis of the accuracy of hair mercury, hair mercury levels correlated with mercury level in blood (sample size weighted correlation coefficient, r w = 0.61), with 24 h urine ( r w = 0.46) and with cord blood ( r w = 0.64). However, the correlation for hair mercury level with 24 h urine level and blood level was not high enough to replace them in clinical decision-making of individual patient. Epidemiological evidence has shown that low-level mercury poisoning is not a cause of autism (relative risk = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.36-0.66). The risk of neurodevelopmental disabilities from low-level exposure to methylmercury from the regular consumption of fish is still controversial even after combining results from different epidemiological studies worldwide. There is a lack of data in the literature about the effect of chelation therapy in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities. CONCLUSION: Mercury poisoning should be diagnosed only with validated methods. There is no evidence to support the association between mercury poisoning and autism.

The reason that I can be bothered with arguing about this nonsense is because there is a large trade in completely ineffective and sometimes dangerous treatments, perpetuated by instilling fear in vulnerable people.

Instead of being so arrogant why don't you read what I type.
You have given me the studies that ALL use hair, urine and blood. I made a strong point not to give me links to these bogus tests as they are unreliable, I made this point before you even posted in this thread. And a hair test should be enough for me? Like I explained and you failed to interpret correctly, it can't get excreted into the hair DUE TO A LACK OF GLUTATHIONE so why would a study saying there's no Mercury in the hair make me happy?

If anything it strengthens my theory. If mercury was not found in hair then that means it is not being flushed out by glutathione, meaning glutathione deficiency.
Or it could mean the individual is not Mercury poisoned, which is why this crap proves nothing.

I made a clear point in saying don't bother unless you send me a test with a biopsy (on a large scale as mercury doesn't decide to distribute itself evenly through fat cells) it's a complicated element and doesn't magically have perfect consistency.

What's next? You going to send me a fingerprint analysis that proves there's no link between lung cancer and smoking? Anything else completely unrelated?

You're being so arrogant you're deliberately ignoring the whole concept of the autism mercury poisoning. It's not the same! Yet you choose to ignore this and act as though I'm talking about normal mercury poisoning.

According to recent research by Dr. Jill St. James, most children within the autism spectrum are significantly deficient in glutathione and this deficiency may significantly contribute to the symptoms associated with autism.

That alone should be enough, if it's missing you can't flush out metals simple.

So after 44 days the symptoms should be gone, since it's reversible? Then why spend money on a bath when it will go away by itself?

The issue I have most with the people who subscribe to the mercury myth is that they cannot come up with an experiment that would prove their theory. Every time you show them an experiment that proves them wrong, they say, "But that's not the right experiment!"; and then they claim that you've got to do the testing some other way. When you do it the other way, they claim you're still not doing it right and you've got to do it yet another way... But I have yet to hear them say, "Okay, do this experiment, and if it doesn't show up mercury poisoning, we'll shut up." Everything shows that the theory is bogus and yet there's always something else to try... If a theory doesn't work in experiment after experiment, that doesn't mean you're doing the wrong experiments, it means you need to dump the theory!

it seems to me like the anti mercury league has been born out of a hatred of andrew wakefield and the like. Sure there is not that much evidence either way but think the only way to look at this is to really try to be objective and stop saying things are impossible just because there is no evidence for them yet. This is what science is about!

i just found this study in the journal of toxicology in which it states :

"This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals. "

i have not read the paper yet but i will. i would never assume that mercury is anything more than a small percentage of the reasons for autism. i think it is more reasonable to say at this stage that it may make things worse.



here is the abstract:
(link)

Abstract: This study investigated the relationship of children's autism symptoms with their toxic metal body burden and red blood cell (RBC) glutathione levels. In children ages 3-8 years, the severity of autism was assessed using four tools: ADOS, PDD-BI, ATEC, and SAS. Toxic metal body burden was assessed by measuring urinary excretion of toxic metals, both before and after oral dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA). Multiple positive correlations were found between the severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals. Variations in the severity of autism measurements could be explained, in part, by regression analyses of urinary excretion of toxic metals before and after DMSA and the level of RBC glutathione (adjusted R(2) of 0.22-0.45, P < .005 in all cases). This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals.

no doubt there are many other studies that have been carried out and will be carried out in relation to this. I cannot vouch for the validity of this study as i have not done enough research.

Actually, I didn't think much about Wakefield until I had already decided against the vaccine/autism hypothesis; I only knew about the original thirteen-case-study paper that put forth the theory to begin with, and I didn't like the science. What we hate isn't Wakefield; it's bad science. In general, people are annoyed about vaccine/autism and mercury/autism because they're equally annoyed with other kinds of bad science and pseudoscience, and because we want research to be done on ideas that have much more potential to result in useful treatments, such as research into the cognitive characteristics of autistic people, or the genetics that make up autism, or the testing of different therapy and education methods. That there "isn't enough evidence" to disprove the idea of a mercury/autism link is just not true.

There's plenty of evidence--multiple studies. Take them all, do a meta analysis, and you come up with yet again No Link. Autism is genetic, with a very high heritability. The part that isn't heritable has been linked to prematurity and difficult pregnancies; to other genetic issues like Down syndrome; to brain injury of the sort that causes cerebral palsy and fetal alcohol syndrome; and to injury by congenital rubella syndrome. Autism seems to have a very, very high genetic component even in these cases. If you want to research anything about autism and environment, then it's better to research autism severity and environment, because that's the one thing that seems somewhat responsive to environment. While identical twins of autistic children will have autism almost all of the time, they often have an entirely different sort of autism, and that means that the early environment, including prenatal and early infancy especially, can have an impact on how well an autistic child grows up and how well he can learn. But we're stuck on mercury causation theories, and not too many people are even looking into that angle.

I would agree with you on all points except this. just because there has been no proof it does not mean that the theory is incorrect. of course you have to make a judgement based on your perception of the likelyhood but in reality you can never be sure.

I would agree with you and i do not think that mercury plays a large part in autism. It is largely genetic and i think most people would accept this. I have not done much research on this and it seems you have done a fair amount so i think i will trust your judgement but i am never going to completely discount anything.

Even if you were "poisoned" by mercury or some other heavy metal like "lead" it would make you severely brain damaged, and unable to learn. I should hope that we all know that this is not what Autism is!

This is just silly - whatever test, experiment or study is presented, you modify your argument to say that it is the "wrong" test, but you can not present the results of the "right" test. What magical test does work? A test sold by the same frauds that sell the magical bath clay? (For anyone who is genuinely interested in the science, here is an expose of the tests sold by these charlatans http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... rview.html, as well as various other "detoxification" schemes and scams).

What you need to do is to divide one of your magical bath cleansers in two, run two baths, bathe in one but not the other, and then have the bath scum from both baths analysed. I will be very impressed if the scum from the bath you were in contains any more mercury than the scum from the bath you were not in.

NB: These same scam artists prey on people with multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's, but they adore the parents of children with autism. These scam artists do serious damage with some of their ineffective, but harmful, therapies.