Autism - A metabolic condition?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I try to remain skeptical about all claims, even those made by purported skeptics (as on Quackwatch).

Last edited by nominalist on 20 Nov 2007, 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not totally, no. Roads, bridges, public schools, and social security are all socialistic. However, the U.S. is still more heavily privatized than most mixed economies.

You mean this one:



Which, when compared with another source: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/focus/nutrit ... itamin.htm

is absolutely accurate:



He seems to know what he is talking about right here. It is a main source, along with dairy products, fish oils, etc.

It seems to me that you are now just trying to make a strawman out of the argument.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now that I've given my fair share of evidence and cited works, would you please do the same? So far, you've (mostly and especially monty) provided no credible sources or evidence for any of your claims.

Your second link refers me to a site called Looking for a Dairy Free Option...... ! Obviously if cut out dairy the next best sources will be colourful plants aswell as liver and eggs.
The writer, for the purposes of this article re food supps, appears to have decided to stress the greater quantity, weight for weight, of beta-carotene in plant foods over the smaller amount of retinol in animal foods, and chosen to ignore the (well established) fact that retinol is absorbed much much more efficiently, the majority being taken up to make Vit A, whereas beta-carotene is absorbed at only around 10%, making dairy and eggs the most important sources of Vit A in the average diet.
There are errors/misleading simplifications all through this article.
For instance saying that most gastro-intestinal disorders only last a few days; he obviously has no experience of Crohns disease and irritable bowel syndrome etc etc .
I wasn't aiming to make a straw man of this , but it was your example of how Quackwatch exposes rubbish, as you put it. This article was your choice of supposedly reliable information.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 21 Nov 2007, 3:49 am, edited 12 times in total.

I'd never know that from reading quackwatch. Barrett is a medical journalist with an agenda. Barrett has waged a war against alternative medicine. Barrett thinks it is a waste of time to even consider experiments that test the claims of the alternative practitioners, which he considers bunk a priori. The fact that the US National Institute of Health Complementary and Alternative Medical Group DID find DATA and EVIDENCE that acupuncture can be effective for certain conditions (but not others) is merely proof that that the NIHCAM group is is wrong and should be disbanded, not that acupuncture may have some merit, according to Barrett.

His sweeping conclusions that chiropractic is ineffective and quite dangerous are quite different from a variety of studies from various sources which found that for back and neck problems, chiropractic is effective, cost effective, and has a relatively low risk (real, but far less than with alternatives like surgery). But the American Medical Association has a long tradition of trying to make chiropractic illegal (the AMA lost an anti-trust case on this and a court injunction was issued in 1987 to prohibit them from 'overtly and covertly' attempting to eliminate the profession of chiropractic). Yet Barrett remains a keeper of the flame in the war against chiropractic.

Another example of his nonsense in the article: " Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine." He discusses Qigong as a mystical practice based on suggestion and mentions the Falun Gong cult, but leaves out any mention of Qigong/Tai Chi as a form of meditative exercise that has been documented to have various benefits on the nervous system, balance, the immune system, muscle strength and aerobic capacity. Barrett feels that if Qigong makes reference to the idea of Chi, and Chi is mystical and unproven, then the practice must be unscientific hokum. Any studies that conflict with this idea are dismissed as poorly designed or conducted by those with bias.

Another gem: A 2007 'study' by Quackwatch/AHRC on meditation: "Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence." Complete nonsense. There are abundant quality studies that show that meditation can reduce stress and cortisol levels, increase other chemicals like endorphins and DHEA, and is a safe practice that is relevant for many medical conditions. Every year, doctors write millions of prescriptions for SSRIs and benzo tranquilizers and sleeping pills (some quite necessary, many driven by pharmaceutical marketing) and Quackwatch is doing the world a service by telling us that meditation is unproven?

You are also wrong when you said he criticizes all types of malpractice. "Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope." (wikipedia). So even though 100,000 heart attacks were caused by the Vioxx conspiracy, Quackwatch is out to warn you that coffee enemas are an unproven therapy (just in case you were thinking of doing that).

Scans of some of the court papers from a number of Barrett's failed lawsuits can be found at: Health Freedom Law There are others out there for the finding.

Crohn's Disease and Irritable Bowel Syndrome are not "most gastrointestinal troubles". Most such troubles tend to have more to do with a specific foodstuff to which an individual is sensitive, or a case of what is broadly called "stomach flu". The argument above is akin to my saying that most headaches can be readily treated with a standard over-the-counter painkiller, only to have someone rebut with, "But aspirin doesn't treat brain cancer!"

And as long as we're using anecdotal evidence, my younger sister was put on megadoses of niacin and B12 in the '70s. It did nothing to help her autism or her schizophrenia, although her anxiety seemed very slightly lessened. This hardly lends credence to the megavitamin argument...

It really depends on what you consider 'most such disorders' - celiac disease is seemingly not as common as the occasional case of food poisoning, but may weigh in between 1-2% of the population. Most of which are not diagnosed, and will not be diagnosed until significant permanent damage is done. Which would mean that there are millions of people out there with chronic celiacs disease, reduced absorption of certain nutrients, hyperactive immune system, increased risk of GI cancer, etc. Given the widespread presence of wheat in the western diet, most celiac patients are unable to correlate symptoms with a specific food, and this really is more serious than the occasional upset stomach from too many green apples.

Then there is GERD, H. pylori infection/ulcers, and colitis, all of which affect millions of people. Sometimes silently, other times something that a person simply lives with without seeking treatment.

There is plenty of evidence for a link between altered permeability of the gut and psoriasis, with undigested proteins being absorbed and setting off an immune storm that is visible in the skin (but which usually affects other organs as well). Most 'modern' medicine focuses on blocking the immune storm and does nothing about the GI issues. There is a fixation on the genetic juggernaut, even when taking bile salts or other demulcents has shown excellent results in bringing about remission of psoriasis.

Only about 1/3 of people who are alcoholics develop liver disease, and research has shown that these people have higher levels of chemicals associated with bacterial endotoxin crossing into the blood. In experiments with alcoholic rats, cirrhosis could be almost entirely prevented when the rats ate a diet rich in oats, which has a demulcent fibre that coats the GI tract and reduces the absorption of bacterial endotoxin into the blood.

Likewise, there is evidence that ~some~ people with autism disorders respond to diets that where gluten or milk are restricted, and that auties tend to have more antibodies to gluten and milk proteins that can cross-react with our own nerve protein. These restriction diets are in no way a cure, but may be an effective therapy for some, and yet won't even be considered by those who are fatalistically convinced that all autism is predetermined and unavoidable. And little work has been done on other protein allergies in autism.

You seem to talk a lot about these studies without actually referencing them or providing any links. Lets see them then.




Again, see the above post. Lets see these loads of mysterious studies that actually prove their effectiveness. The reason that they are trying to make chiropractic illegal is because it is mostly outright quackery; most is either dis-proven, or not proven. It's the same with most other "alternatives". If it actually worked (meaning it can do more than just a placebo, if any affect at all), then it wouldn't be called alternative.



I'll divide this into two parts. First of all, Qigong/Tai is mostly more of a meditation practice and much more related to martial arts. While there may be some health benefit (I have yet to find serious peer-reviewed studies on them), it is not really intended as a serious alternative to medical care. Second, the actual article just gives an overview of the whole thing, and even if they don't mention one little detail, that doesn't make it wrong.



It's worse then that; its not only unproven, but the idea of chi can't be brought down to scientific scrutiny because it mostly falls under the realm of metaphysics at best, and folklore or a form scamming at worst. Regardless, if something cannot be tested, or make testable predictions, or can't be measured or observed in any way, ITS NOT SCIENCE. All studies that have been done to test the effectiveness (and ineffectiveness) of acupuncture make no reference to Chi, and anything that has actually been shown to have some benefit has a mainstream explanation for such. You can read more about Chi here:

http://www.skepdic.com/chikung.html



You seem to have a habit of citing "studies" and other information without providing any credible links or references.

The reason that doctors prescribe tranquilizers and sleeping pills and those other drugs that induce similar effects is because, well, they have been proven to work.

And you seem to be cherry-picking sentences here, because that sentence is referencing meditation's effect on cancer, life extensions, diseases, etc. Otherwise, the psychological effects (such as relieving stress) of meditation are well known and documented. That is not mentioned because, well, it works, but again its not entirely necessary.



First, he doesn't criticize conventional medicine because it is PROVEN to actually work. Granted its not perfect, but at least there is a substantial amount of testing done on it before it is released to the general public. And about Vioxx, this is what wiki has to say on it:


The FDA originally approved the drug because they thought it was ok. It was nothing more than a mistake. But then again, they are responsible enough to actually go out and say so, unlike alternative medicine practitioners.




I skimmed through them, and after I checked them out and the sources, I found that they have absolutely nothing to do with the practice of alternative medicine itself. Rather, they were mostly about the criticism he received from them; he sued them for libel when they went out and criticized his site and his comments on alternative medicine. Of course, he lost because they have the right to criticize his approach. That's ok though, because most of the time they don't really back their case up.



And the only reference you provided a link to is a CONSPIRACY WEBSITE, and they're on the same level as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and all the rest. A quick glance shows that it provides no links to credible resources, instead it provides some to other political boards, lobbies, and affiliate sites.

======================================================

Since you are so intent on believing that he is part of some vast global conspiracy, I will provide a quote from the man himself to ensure that NO ONE ELSE is misled by you.





So far, you still haven't provided any credible sources to back up your claims. Until then, your claims have absolutely no credibility, and I will go as far as saying that it is irresponsible to mislead everyone here, especially on what is a support site.

Last edited by RadiantAspie on 21 Nov 2007, 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

But that doesn't change the fact that carotene is a main source. Granted, animal fats are much more efficient then plants (which is why its more convenient to eat meat). And please show me these gross "errors/misleading simplifications" please. I personally found nothing wrong with the article, and I checked its sources.

You ARE making a strawman out of the argument, because you are cherry-picking sentences and using that as a pretext to disprove the entire article and the site itself.

Hogwash. The fact that Amazonian Indians thought that Cinchona bark drove out evil spirits is not proof that quinine cannot possibly treat malaria or that it can't be tested. The fact that some forms of meditation, acupuncture or herbalism contains ideological baggage that may or may not be true, or cannot be proven/disproven is irrelevant to whether or not those practices may be effective.

You can even design experiments to test the power of prayer. It doesn't necessarily mean that the particular religion is true, merely that the action of a type of prayer has an effect on a person's body. For instance, >> This study in the British Medical Journal << found that both Hindu mantras and Catholic Rosary recitations "caused striking, powerful, and synchronous increases in existing cardiovascular rhythms. Baroreflex sensitivity also increased significantly, from 9.5 (SD 4.6) to 11.5 (4.9) ms/mm Hg, P<0.05." Clearly something that medicine can and should investigate.



Actually, chiropractic is moving from the culturally defined 'alternative' to the mainstream. Medicare and most private health insurance programs provide chiropractic coverage for back/neck/musculoskeletal conditions. Since you want studies, here are a few:

*A study from the Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester School of Medicine, that found there is evidence on the role of physical therapy, chiropractic care, and bracing for treating scoliosis. >> PMID 17728680 <<

* A Canadian Public Health study that found that chiropractic care reduces pain and disability as well as improves general health status in patients with musculo-skeletal conditions. >> PMID 17416269 <<

* Retrospective study from the University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bristol, UK that found that 93% of whiplash patients appeared to benefit from chiropractic care. >> PMID 9039361 <<



I could provide more studies, but would it change your opinion?




Some conventional medicine is tested, to various degrees. But less than most people assume. Consider the entire field of surgery, which is more art than science, and which has scarcely been validated to the double-blind placebo controlled level that critics of acupuncture demand:



So conventional medicine allows surgeons to put people under anaesthesia and cut people open and wash or scrape the joint cavities, in spite of the fact that such practices have rarely been subjected to double-blind, placebo controlled experiments (and have failed when they are subjected to such scrutiny). No better than placebo, yet tens of thousands of these expensive and potentially risky procedures are performed each year, with not a peep from Quackwatch. Back surgery? Same lack of scientific proof. Yet Quackwatch demonizes chiropractors and says nothing about the much riskier back surgery.

And then there is the issue of pharmaceutical safety and efficacy testing, most of which is conducted by the drug manufacturers or their contractors. It has been common practice to commission multiple studies, and simply not publish those that found that a drug was not clearly effective. Safety concerns were also buried if the manufacturer thought they were minor (ie, not so severe that the FDA would eventually pull the drug and penalize the manufacturer).



Although this problem was recognized decades ago, it was only very recently that journals set up study registries to reduce this practice. The existing body of medical literature cannot be considered bias free or accurate when it comes to analyzing the safety and efficacy of conventional medicine, particularly when the research on product has been driven by commercial interests.


...



Anyone with access to the internet can find abstracts of these studies on PubMed and other places. For example, there are 2094 results in Pubmed on the term 'qigong' - some are just brief mentions, others have studies on various applications. There are 1403 citations for 'meditiation', 12394 citations for acupuncture, etc etc.

But given your hostility, it would be a waste of my time to try to convince you that there is any evidence that alternative health practices can be useful, or that Barrett and Quackwatch really have biases that go beyond objective evidence.


Yes, WP is a support site. But where have I attempted to mislead anyone? I have criticized Quackwatch - so what? And I have discussed (in general terms) my favorable opinion of acupuncture, meditation, and some other alternative health practices. I have benefited from yoga/meditation for autonomic issues like anxiety and sleep. But I am not selling yoga videos (or anything else) here - I don't have a personal interest if people try it or not. It has helped me.

When it comes to autism and ASDs in specific, on this board I have posted abstracts of research in almost every thread where I have discussed the possible role of genetics, immune responses, diet, toxins, nutrition, melatonin, antioxidants, or other issues relevant to ASDs. I am not out to take anyones money, not pushing any miracle cure. I am discussing the evidence with an interest in putting together a model of autism with consideration of possible coping, treatment or mitigation strategies.

Your accusations that I am trying to mislead people are ungrounded, and your implications that I am irresponsible are absurd. You're an arrogant wanker.

I agree;..you have posted an impressive number of research paper abstracts and study excerpts, Monty, and I personally appreciate them very much. Gratitude from someone who doesn't do as much reading, but likes serious science.

This seems to sum up your level of argument. Bluster, followed by personal attack, which I choose not to quote.

From your citations...

Your first citation:

That is a solid piece of scientific analysis... to be "surprised" that something lasts 10 seconds?

Your second citation:


Your third citation was "Chiropractic care of musculoskeletal disorders in a unique population within Canadian community health centers.", which is rather clouded by the fact that they seem to have given people off the streets free massages. I'm sure the recipients enjoyed it.

Your fourth citation: "Chiropractic treatment of chronic 'whiplash' injuries." Once again, I see no reason to suppose that reasonable sensitive massage of a neck injury would not be of some benefit.

Remove the mumbo-jumbo and the dangerous practices from chiropractic, and I'll say that what is left is worthy of investigation. However, as with psychic surgery, without the mumbo-jumbo and dangerous practices, it will be far less impressive, plus the psychological con-artistry will suffer.

Many "alternative" medicines do, of course, contain a grain of truth. I'm not at all averse to finding and using that grain. You insist that we should accept the whole package. No thank you.

The issues surrounding chiropractic are complex. Studies have shown that many people, especially those with neck and back pain, have benefited from adjustments. On the other hand, there was a recent study from Johns Hopkins University which found some association between chiropractic neck adjustments and incidence of stroke.

However, the main problem with chiropractic is, um, chiropractic. Once you take away the various confused, and confusing, notions of subluxations from chiropractic, the field really becomes massage therapy or, in some cases, physical therapy. In fact, there is not just one, by many varied, and even contradictory, theories of subluxations. They range from the anatomical to the auric.

There are some anti-subluxation chiropractors, but their numbers are tiny.

i read an article where basicly it has something to do with the small intestine. those with autistic traits have too permiable ones that lets stuff that shouldnt be in our system through. that buggers up the nervous system and therefore "makes us" autistic.

i cant really totally agree with this but i when my mum thought i had behavioural problems rather than autism she decided to cut out excessive dairy and sodium benzoate from my diet. my behaiviour improved and she could emediately tell from my behaviour relapses if i had been eating anything i shouldnt such as chocolate. i was supposed to go to a special needs school but i ended up going mainstream because of my change in diet. im 17 now and i eat everything that i wasn't allowed to when i was younger, and no one can tell im autistic unless i tell them

stef xx

No, that one sentence you selected isn't amazing science. What is rather amazing to people that don't mischaracterize the research in that article is the increase in heart rate variability (HRV) that comes with with rosary or mantras recitations. Spectral anaylsis of both the breathing and heart rate show dramatic synchronization. HRV is considered one marker of autonomic function and heart health, and it declines in a number of heart diseases. That is significant. Are these practices therapeutic? Maybe, although this study didn't investigate that. Are they preventive? I would say probably, but again, that was outside the scope of this study. But the idea that two simple religious practices can have dramatic effects on the heart and nervous system are significant.

And it does prove my original point: that practices that carry religious or metaphysical baggage can and should be investigated by science. Eastern practices that mention Chi are in the same boat.



Your characterization of the study is innacurate and patronizing. Any fair person comparing what you wrote to the abstract will see that you are clearly biased.



While the abstract doesn't say exactly how the patients were recruited, there is no reason to assume it was as haphazard or lacksidasial as you suggest. And using standardized pain and disability questionaires, the study demonstrated improvement. The fact that you misrepresent this study as grabbing people off the street, giving them massages, and asking if they felt better is proof that your primary concern is agenda-driven, not evidence-driven.

Interesting in your comments that you ignored the study from Orthopedic Surgeons in Pennsylvania that admit that surgery is rarely subjected to double-blind placebo controlled studies, and that these have shown that commonly performed surgeries have no more value than placebo. Surely this constitutes quackery? Should such 'medical' practices not be held to the same standards of evidence? Or do you give leeway to such expensive, invasive placebos when they are practiced by MDs??

And no comments on the widely accepted but rarely discussed truth that the 'objective' medical literature has been contaminated by selective publication of positive results for the past 50 years?

Yipe. More fun at http://www.heartmath.org/, where you can buy into HRV stories. Give a person with little understanding a new tool (Fourier analysis) and they can draw amazing "conclusions" from blindingly obvious facts - then sell you their snake oil.

Of course current medical (indeed, all scientific) practices need review from time to time. Some parts are bound to prove erroneous. Good. This is the normal, scientific method of progress - where evidence suggests some problem exists, address that problem. Where some surgical procedures may be less effective, or even detrimental, that is a concern. It does not imply that all surgery should be thrown out or that there is a conspiracy at work.

There is also a degree of inertia built into the process. I regard this as inevitable, to avoid wasting effort on examining every spurious criticism of established practice.

In all good science, eventually there are major paradigm shifts, although these occur on a continuous basis... it's just that some stand out more than others.

Pointing at the fact that chanting has physiological effects, as well as causing a noise, is hardly surprising. Linking some arguably concomitant heath benefits to chanting, and then that to religion, with the implication that "religion is good for you" is just bad logic, particularly as Yoga wasn't a religion, last I looked.

PS. When I made my "patronizing" comment, it was in direct response to the report's wording of "a unique population of urban, low-income, and multiethnic patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints". I think the term most applicable to their wording is "mealy-mouthed" or maybe even "obfuscatory".