Mercury poisoning. For all you extremly mild mild Aspies.

Post Reply New Topic

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

I'm sorry but that is what autism is.

Mercury attaches to the left cerebral cortex and hypothalamus.

MRI has shown the left cerebral cortex is one of the major damaged parts of the brain when it comes to autism.

The hypothalamus creates oxytocin, when mercury contaminates it, it inhibits oxytocin. Autistics are deficient in oxytocin, which is responsible for the lack of empathy and social impairments.

They are currenlty making oxytocin nasal sprays as a treatment for autism.

Examination of fat cells in autistic patients as that's where all the mercury ends up. It is also stressed that mercury is not magically spread consistently through every fat cell so the sample examined may not contain mercury, Therefore a large scale study is required.

I'm sorry but that is what autism is.

Mercury attaches to the left cerebral cortex and hypothalamus.

MRI has shown the left cerebral cortex is one of the major damaged parts of the brain when it comes to autism.

The hypothalamus creates oxytocin, when mercury contaminates it, it inhibits oxytocin. Autistics are deficient in oxytocin, which is responsible for the lack of empathy and social impairments.

They are currenlty making oxytocin nasal sprays as a treatment for autism.

They are currenlty making oxytocin nasal sprays as a treatment for autism.

We know that. But when study after study comes up with statistics that say that it's 99.9% certain there's no link, then it is silly to waste your time going after the .1% probability. (Those numbers aren't exaggerated, either. The p-values really are that low.)

When study after study says "no link", isn't it sensible to go after more probable theories? You can't go chasing after every possible idea; there's just not that much time in the world. If you wanted to go and study mercury after all the work that's been done, you'd also have to give equal time to other equally improbable theories, such as refrigerator mothers, demon-possession, and fairy changelings.

this seems a load of bull

and not backed up by evidence like decent publications

typical:

who are they? Dr Quack and the medicine show?

OK so where are these tests that supposedly show mercury in ANY fat cells at all? If that's where the mercury ends up it is not affecting the brain!

The mercury business is nonsense, but the oxytocin theory seems legitimate.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 221350.htm

We know that. But when study after study comes up with statistics that say that it's 99.9% certain there's no link, then it is silly to waste your time going after the .1% probability. (Those numbers aren't exaggerated, either. The p-values really are that low.)

When study after study says "no link", isn't it sensible to go after more probable theories? You can't go chasing after every possible idea; there's just not that much time in the world. If you wanted to go and study mercury after all the work that's been done, you'd also have to give equal time to other equally improbable theories, such as refrigerator mothers, demon-possession, and fairy changelings.

There is not enough mercury in the body short of actual mercury poisoning to significantly interfere with oxytocin. There are many other ways to be deficient in that hormone that have nothing to do with mercury. Such as a genetic predisposition to low production of oxytocin.