Autism - A metabolic condition?

Post Reply New Topic

Yup. I lived in Scandinavia, and got care that was equal to or better than in the US.

Nominalist, I hope you take some time to deconstruct Quackwatch. While they occasionally put out good info, much of what they have is trite or wrong. When it comes to traditional Chinese medicine, they are massively ethnocentric. They reduce TCM to highly simplified metaphors which they knock over like straw men. They obsess on issues related to translation (and mistranslation) and they refuse to accept the fact that the concepts in TCM are often 'hybrid variables' that may not correspond directly to western medicine, but they do embody a system of knowledge that is empirically based on observation/experimentation. Quackwatch also manages to ignore 99% of the research that has been done on TCM.

Similar results for quackwatch and chiropractic, quackwatch and vitamins/minerals/herbs. And surprisingly (or not), quackwatch is rather silent on highly lethal quackery like Vioxx. Recently, quackwatch has devoted much of their time and resources into SLAP/bounty lawsuits against alternative health practitioners, and they have lost all of these. IMHO, the mission of Quackwatch is to discredit anything outside the corporate health care system.



Quackwatch is largely a one man show of a guy named Barrett:



Most importantly, quackwatch has not and will not fairly investigate each possible therapy for Asperger's. They will provide very general information, which may or may not apply. Yes, there are fad diets. And there are controlled studies showing that some people benefit from various diets that most people will describe as fads. Yes, some people take vitamins or minerals and get no benefits. But there is hard science that particular vitamins or minerals or other nutrients can be used to benefit hundreds of conditions.

Monty, thank you for that info on quackwatch.

I suspected another such; Quackometer , in UK, of doing similar dissing of Patrick Holford, one of my heroes in the field of nutrition at one time.The hostility, and desire to harm his reputation, were such that I was afraid to post a link to his site on another forum because i thought the cloud of accusations around his name would put people off. But i don't know how one finds out about them. What trails do you follow ?

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Nov 2007, 2:15 pm, edited 6 times in total.

What trails do I follow? I just read a lot.

Only one word can sum up how I feel about this; LOL

But unlike the theories and medical practices they are criticizing, Quackwatch uses data and research to support their claims, as well as links to other research and citations. It is not a one-man show, there are several contributors to quackwatch. All the subjects in there are very well covered, so I don't know where you got the 99% figure from.

There really is no such thing as "alternative medicine" or "eastern medicine" or "western medicine" or any of that. There is only medicine that works, or medicine that doesn't. The various terms, such as "Western", or "Eastern" or "alternative" or whatever are just used as mostly an appeal to antiquity or a naturalistic fallacies. And, the "alternatives" can be really hazardous to human health. For example, we will take acupunture. While it is proven to have SOME physiological effect on the human body, the stuff they use to explain it (e.g. Qi Meridians) is all gobblygook. Second, it can be quite dangerous if not done properly, as it can do serious damage to the body ranging from damaged nerves, punctured blood vessels, and even Hepatitis-B (if needles aren't sterilized).



And all that is irrelevant. It doesn't really matter if he lost the court cases or if he isn't technically a psychiatrist (not any more anyways), what matters is the data and the research, of which he and other contributors have done. Quackwatch is basically a compilation of all the research that has been done up to date. This is basically all ad hominem.



So in other words, you think this is all one big massive conspiracy to aimed to prevent people from knowing the "truth", to keep the power in the hands in the rich, etc. Well, if that's how you see it, then it's going to be very difficult to get you to consider the many studies out there that pretty much show that the alternatives are complete trash.

To name a few:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/ ... 3577.x/abs

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/1/40

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRel ... rance.html

And that is just the very tip of the iceberg.

Last edited by RadiantAspie on 20 Nov 2007, 2:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I wonder... you seem to be copy quoted a reposting of libellous matter here. I gather the first sentence is merely a lie. Barrett is retired and licensed.

Last edited by lau on 20 Nov 2007, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This site also gives some pretty good info on the so-called alternatives too:

http://dcscience.net/improbable.html

And a quote:

Lau is quite right: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 54,00.html

America is not a totally capitalist society, never has been, always been a mixture of government intervention.

I have looked at some of the court precedings online. It is my understanding that Barrett did at times have a credibility problem regarding how he represented himself. While he is a retired doctor, he was not, as I understand it, a licensed psychiatrist when he claimed to be. The fact that he has lost or had dismissed 40 court cases where he claimed to be slandered or libeled also impacts his credibility.

While Quackwatch does have some good information, I must concede that so does FOX News on occasions. But Quackwatch has an agenda that goes beyond being fair and balanced.

How can you be a psychiatrist and not licensed at the same time? And do you mind showing me these court cases, with details and everything.



You know, science is funny that way, you go where the EVIDENCE and DATA tells you to go. Fairness has nothing to do with proper ways of practicing medicine. In a sense, all theories are treated "fairly", in that they do undergo experimental scrunity. But if its wrong or ineffective, too bad.


And it is not comparable to Fox since they have a habit of putting out loads of unsubstantiated claims and bad reporting in general (I'm not even going to talk about their reports on science, which tends to be scarce in any case).

Rather, Barrett has criticized all sorts of malpractice AND bad media reporting. It is NOT about having an agenda, other then that of ensuring that the general public is well informed.

Last edited by RadiantAspie on 20 Nov 2007, 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thank you for those links.
I must admit i've never taken acupuncture ( the subject of the first article)very seriously; it had not occurred to me that because I find diet a powerful tool for health i would have to believe in all other "alternative" medicines. Similarly the article about massage/stretching therapy; not quite sure what it is but I don't understand why would expect me to believe in it just because I am convinced by many arguments of the importance of diet and environmental factors on health. So not sure why those articles should suggest that Quackwatch is right about everything it covers.

The article on nutrition however seemed quite irresponsible however, in its deliberate choice of measures of malnutrition for example, to prove that people are eating well enough for health today; in focussing on proteins, Vit A, and calories, much like Macdonalds and sugar companies do to laud the value of their products.
It is not lack of proteins or calories , or Vit A , in countries swimming in meat and cheese, sugar, butter, and milk, which is likely to be the problem; and it isn't ; it is deficiencies in the Vitamin B complex, (needed for essential/VITAL energy metabolisation and nerve activity and which is used up by all the refined carbos eaten in western societies), and the trace minerals and vitamins like zinc, magnesium, vitamin E, aswell as essential oils in fatty fish which almost noone eats at Mcdo, aswell as many other factors which the article cynically ignores completely, which are the cause of ill health. But the article, deliberately and callously ignored those serious truths, to sell it McDo style diet as healthy.
That is corrupt behaviour, because I can only assume , if is a qualified writer, that s/he knows what they have left out.
As articles supposedly proving Quackwatches solidity on scientific matters, or reliability in exposing quackery they do not make a good tip of the iceberg, the last one in particular being seriously rotten ice.I find they unfortunately create the opposite impression.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Nov 2007, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you misunderstood the article. What it claimed was that dietry supplements aren't exactly necessary (unless one of the essential nutrients you need are really lacking or if you have a low calorie intake) since you can get everything you need from all the foods you eat daily. However, people who market them make it appear as if you absolutely need them and that they have special magic abilities or something like that, or that somehow we are seriously lacking some essential nutrients (typically in an effort to make money). In fact, dietry and vitamin supplements can actually be poisonous and detrimental to ones health if one relies on them too much!

Last edited by RadiantAspie on 20 Nov 2007, 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I did not misunderstand, i think you have misunderstood me; it is precisely that which i find irresponsible ; the argument by the writer of this article that peoples normal diets are quite sufficient for health, based on completely partial measures of what constitutes important nutritional factors; calories, proteins, and Vit A.
Many people eating apparently "balanced" diets can be suffering from nutritional deficiencies because of the huge quantities of refined carbos eaten, etc etc etc.
I am not a fan of supplements. I just highly dislike the sort of article which suggests that healthy eating consists of getting lots of calories and proteins, the trad american diet in fact,... and this article being used to prove that the site QW is a good source of reliable medical/health info !

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Nov 2007, 3:06 pm, edited 5 times in total.

No, read the article again. It says nothing about an individual eating habits or needs, which may or may not be bad. It says that supplements aren't necessary as long as one has proper eating habits; that from a normal 2000-2500 calorie diet from which you eat everything from all the food groups, you can get everything you need. Also, protiens are one of the most important things you can have in your diet, without them your cells can't function properly.

And in most cases, most normal diets are sufficient for your health anyways, so I don't see a problem here. Obviously, someone who is, say, an athelete or is diabetic, is going to require a different diet.

The page also has a link to a list of recommendations on how to take supplements, and which foods you can get the nutrients from

He says " the main sources of Vitamin A in the diet are carotenoids, the precursor of vit A, from dark leafy veg etc".
Maybe i've been believing something wrong for the last 30 years but I thought the main source was milk and dairy products. Perhaps i had better check, because such an important mistake couldn't be his without suggesting he knows a lot less than he should about nutrition to be writing about it for the public....
...

Yep, full fat or semi-skimmed milk, cheeses, butter, aswell as eggs, and liver, contain high levels of Vit A , in its most immediately absorbable form, Retinol, thus forming the most important source of Vit A in the average diet. Whereas carrots , apricots etc, contain Vit A in its pre-vit form of Beta-carotene, which is less absorbable.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Nov 2007, 3:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.