Mercury in Retrograde
On January 14th, drug company Wyeth said that a court in Maryland has rejected “some expert witnesses from testifying that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines can cause autism and rejected the compound’s link to autism”; the case in question involved an alleged vaccine injury. More than a few mothers I know have had their amalgam fillings replaced because of concerns about the mercury content: On January 15th, an EU scientific committee stated such fillings “pose no health risk to the human nervous system.” This is only one measure that parents have taken out of fears of a mercury-autism link.
“Mercury in Retrograde” was the subtitle of the paper published last week in the Archives of General Psychiatry in which authors Robert Schechter, MD, MSc, and Judith K. Grether, PhD, reported that exposure to thimerosal, a preservative that contains ethylmercury, during childhood is not a primary cause of autism. The authors do not directly explain what they mean by “mercury in retrograde”; as retrograde means to “move backwards” or a “direction contrary to the usual one,” I gather that they mean that mercury, contrary to what some autism activists claim (if one is an autism activist who believes that mercury, in the form of thimerosal, causes autism), is moving “back out of the picture” as a cause of autism.
And it’s about time. There are many other pressing issues that should be at the center of discussions in the autism community—the possibility of a mercury-autism link has taken center stage for too long.
As more scientific studies are published refuting such a link, proponents of the belief that mercury causes autism steadfastly continue to argue that other sources—-”China’s coal-spewing power plants,” smoke from crematories—are sending dangerous levels of mercury into the environment. And some (as in this natural history of autism) will continue to post dire pronouncements to the contrary, and look for sources of mercury and chemical exposure in anyone with an autism diagnosis, and make claims about vaccine injuries, and try to make the case that autism is really mercury poisoning.
Indeed: “’It is not at all easy getting into orbit around Mercury,’” said Marilyn Lindstrom, NASA’s program scientist for a $446 million mission to fly around the planet closest to the sun and take more than a thousand photographs and measurements, as reported in the January 15th New York Times. While Lindstrom refers to the planet Mercury, I think it possible to revise her statement to refer to the curious sway that mercury has held in discussions about autism. When it comes to talking about autism and its causes these days, it has not been at all easy to get around talking about mercury. And it is time to refocus the discussion about autism research and treatment towards thinking about how to best help autistic persons today.
The obsessive talk about a mercury-autism link keeps the focus on autism research on the causes of autism and on one cause in particular. More and more, such a focus seems to be uninterested or at least indifferent to the needs of autistic children who are becoming adolescents and teenagers and to autistic adults who will need lifelong support in employment, housing, and more. The constant attempts to redefine autism as “mercury poisoning” are in serious danger of deflecting attention from the every day concerns of families witah autistic children and of autistic adults, and come close to denying the real and pressing needs of many of us in the autism community. And, too often, proponents of the belief that a vaccine or something in a vaccine causes autism distract themselves by imagining conspiracies and making petty references to individuals whose views are opposite to theirs.
Whatever their views about what causes autism or how best to teach autistic children, families with autistic persons have pressing, and often highly stressful, day to day concerns and are in need of practical solutions and supports, to teach a minimally verbal adolescent to tell you that he feels an anxiety attack arising or that he might need to use the bathroom in a few minutes when you are out in public. Our first priority should be to take care of those who already have autism and to think of how best to help them achieve their full potential and to support their families.
Mercury is in retrograde. If I may invoke the planetary analogy once again: It is time to turn our eyes away from the sky and look back down to earth, to the autistic children and adults who are here with us, right now, right beside us.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Environment, Science, Vaccines
44 opinions for Mercury in Retrograde
Marla
Jan 16, 2008 at 9:03 am
Well said! “Whatever their views about what causes autism or how best to teach autistic children, families with autistic persons have pressing, and often highly stressful, day to day concerns and are in need of practical solutions and supports”
It has always frustrated me when a few friends focus on the “why is she autistic” aspect of autism and giving us ideas for “healing her”. Offers of support and assistance would be much more appreciated. But, that would take actual work, understanding, sacrifice and time so many people rather give advice they see as well meaning.
daedalus2u
Jan 16, 2008 at 9:15 am
Mercury in retrograde is also an astrological term, indicating the apparent motion of Mercury as seen from the Earth. Mercury in retrograde is when it is moving in the apparent opposite direction from what it normally does. When Mercury is retrograde mechanical and logical things are supposed to not work properly. It is a time that many astrologers suggest is inappropriate for doing complicated or intellectually demanding tasks. A time when Murphy’s Law is most active. A time when major screw-ups happen.
http://www.astrologycom.com/mercret.html
I think the use of the term in the title is a play on that astrological term. That we are entering a time when the mercury causes autism idea will finally fall apart. A use of an astrological term (one type of woo), to describe the falling apart of another type of woo (the mercury causes autism idea). A “fight fire with fire” type of analogy. Use the “effects” of the astrological Mercury to counter the pseudoscientific mercury causes autism idea.
Daisy
Jan 16, 2008 at 11:05 am
I wonder why the obsession. I understand that having someone to blame can feel good, in an odd way. I understand that knowing “why” can feel good. But when there is no answer, why keep pounding away? A focus on the present and future, on awareness, education, and training, is a much more effective use of our energy.
lurker
Jan 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Its disturbing that a lot of you who want to suppress the idea of a mercury link, are saying that the efforts should be spent on what do with those affected by the condition instead. Because you are the same ones who want little or nothing to be done to improve the lives of those affected, and only advocate ensuring that they get the basic needs and resources.
Cliff
Jan 16, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I’ll be frank that you’ve begged the question, lurker, in saying that we don’t want to help the lives of those affected. We just take the opinion that it’s best done with different resources. And those basic needs, like an education, are the most important needs. I guess, for me, it’s easy to say that, because I gained a lot of skills not associated with my diagnosis and, really, nothing about the condition itself or the teaching had anything noted regarding mercury.
Cliff
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jan 16, 2008 at 2:10 pm
@lurker, I hope you will keep reading with a bit more attention to the content of the posts here, as I think your understanding of what is advocated for here is inaccurate. Best wishes.
Emily
Jan 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“Its disturbing that a lot of you who want to suppress the idea of a mercury link, are saying that the efforts should be spent on what do with those affected by the condition instead. Because you are the same ones who want little or nothing to be done to improve the lives of those affected, and only advocate ensuring that they get the basic needs and resources.”
It’s disturbing that you would summarily accuse “a lot of” us of something so egregious based on so little supporting evidence and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. But…yea verily, these are indeed the hallmarks of the mercury-and-vaccines-are-the-devil movement.
lurker
Jan 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm
What evidence to the contrary? I guess to you there is no evidence because what you consider evidence of it is much different. I didn’t say everybody nor am I only talking about people on this forum, but I think those who I describe would know who they are, and what I’m talking about.
daedalus2u
Jan 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Lurker, there is no mercury link. There is nothing to “suppress”. It is like “suppressing” the idea that autism is caused by witches or demons and we should burn people at the stake to stop it. There is exactly as much data to support the “witches cause autism” idea as there is for the “mercury causes autism” idea. That would be none.
The marketing plan of the various autism biomedical treatment providers is precisely to bully and frighten parents of autistic children until the parents are in a desperate situation and so are willing to do desperate things, such as pay good money for useless, dangerous, and harmful woo. That is why their rhetoric uses war and violence metaphors. Irrational use of violence metaphors trigger desperation the way that rational discourse does not. That is why politicians do the same thing. That is why fire and brimstone preachers do the same thing. They are trying to induce a state of fear and desperation so the listeners will do desperate things that may feel right but are completely irrational. Whip up fear about the economy to avoid any action on the much larger problem of global warming. Whip up fear about terrorists to avoid talking about universal health care. Whip up fear about going to Hell to get increased donations. Whip up fear of autism to get more donations. Make up a bogey man of vast FDA conspiracies to invoke paranoia. Glorify being in such a desperate state that one talks about killing your child.
If anyone is ever in such a mental state that they thinks killing a child would be a good thing, they should seek emergency medical attention immediately. That is what Autism Speaks should have done when those parents talked of killing their children in their movie Autism Every Day. But no, parents talking about killing their children is great marketing. If parents of an autistic child become afraid they might become so desperate they will want to kill their child, think how much more $$$$$ they will donate, or be willing to pay for biomedical crap. My perspective is that any organization where the senior members are so dysfunctional they glorify killing children is using the wrong approach. An approach that is so wrong as to be worse than useless, it is actually harmful.
If people with autism are not getting their basic needs met, what basis is there to divert resources from meeting those basic needs to things that they don’t need? To things that will actually hurt them? Such as chelation? Who’s side are you on?
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jan 16, 2008 at 2:56 pm
@lurker.
Best wishes.
Bink
Jan 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I can understand why some people have been in this camp, or are clinging to this idea. I think it’s the only way out there, right now, that some people can see a way that their children might be taken care of in the future. What I mean is that, if they win in Vaccine Court then perhaps they will get enough money for them not to have to be worried sick about what will become of their children as an adults. I personally think many, many, loving and otherwise reasonable people are quietly “going along to get along” with the mercury camp, hoping desperately that if they stay strong as a group and keep this theory out there and keep being loud enough as a group, that some money will come their way. Why else was the test case presented to the court last fall so pathetically weak? All of these people who claim on this board and others that they have irrevocable proof — why are they not in court, showing their videos, presenting their evidence? I think in their heart of hearts they know they have none but would never admit it out loud. I have sympathy for them, at least some of them. Not the charlatans and trial lawyers who are stringing them along, but for some of the parents themselves. They’re trying to get their kids taken care of. It’s just so sad that they don’t see that keeping this ludicrous charade up is hurting more than helping.
Regan
Jan 16, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Basic needs and resources sounds pretty good to me. As daedalus2 says, and from many folks I’ve talked to…we’re not there yet.
Chuck
Jan 16, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Everyone has to do research and determine what will do the best for their child. Only a parent can determine if chelation, HBOT, or NO is snakeoil or not.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jan 16, 2008 at 4:25 pm
But what counts as research these days…….. And where does emotion seep in?
lurker
Jan 16, 2008 at 4:42 pm
daedalus2 I am not convinced about a lack of a mercury link. Research costs a lot of money and I bet those who fund it sometimes expect certain results to be found that are in their interests. Besides, such a link seems to be a complicated one and isn’t everything. Comparing the level of evidence of a link to mercury to the evidence for a superstitious idea of witches being a cause is just a lack of respect for anyone who questions the veracity of a conclusion, when they have observations to the contrary. People like you are intransigent and I hope you aren’t looked for as a spreader of truth.
I don’t see the level of coercion or provocation of parents by biomedical treatment providers, that you claim, to get them to buy their things. I think the parents know enough about the turmoil of their experiences to motivate them to make their choices. I doubt biomed is anywhere near as dangerous as you want to convince others it is. You complain about war and violence metaphors and use of fear, but you use the same things to push your agenda, which isn’t very constructive, but seems vague for some reason. So much complaint about biomed being alternative medicine and unfounded is spread, but mainstream medicine, which has done nearly nothing, should be taking the lead with their vast resources to optimize biomed.
Of course Autism Speaks wastes a lot of effort on propaganda, and whoever is implicitly glorifying killing children out of anger should be condemned. Autism Speaks seem to be a shady organization that pretends to be trying to get results, but hasn’t delivered much. All that money on research, while claiming attempts to explore causes and treatment, has turned up very little in the past couple of years, and apparently has left biomedical considerations and similar, in the dark. I wonder in whose interests the senior members of it really work for.
I don’t think much of anyone would say resources should be appropriated away from basic needs. Of course they should be provided for. I just hope someone looks out for considerations of quality of living, improving functioning in life, something that any human being wants. I am on the side of the unfortunate, whose wants likely go unfulfilled, not on the side of those who pretend to be in everyone’s interests.
The Christian Cynic
Jan 16, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Lurker, another thing to consider given the prevalence of the idea that mercury causes autism is that it gives desperate parents something to cling to, something to direct their attention toward. There is plenty of evidence (just browse this site a bit, and you should find it quickly) that genetics is a primary factor, while there is none supporting mercury in any form. By propagating this unfounded myth, parents are desperately trying procedures like chelation that are potentially dangerous based on anecdotal evidence that has no solid science behind it. It is precisely the turmoil of the parental experience that makes these “alternative treatments” so tempting to parents - most parents want to do whatever possible to help their child’s autism. Even if there is no coercion or provocation going on, it’s not true to say that providers of these alternative services do not benefit when they try to rationalize the nonexistent link between autism and mercury.
That said, I’ll repeat what I said over at Orac’s blog: I can fully understand why parents want to cling to the mercury-autism link. Even though I was fully aware even before our son was born that there is no substantial link (and of course the evidence has only gotten stronger in that regard), I had more than a twinge of regret in having him vaccinated. He’s not even very severe on the spectrum, but it’s painful to know that it’s something he’ll deal with (even though he could care less now - he loves life and his speech therapist in particular). Moreover, it carries the perception of explaining the “epidemic”; I had to explain to my mother-in-law why the apparent explosion was explicable for other reasons because she thought it was impossible for genetics to be the cause. The fact that the answer seems so obvious is a big factor, but unfortunately, most of the hard things in life are rarely so evident.
daedalus2u
Jan 16, 2008 at 5:38 pm
No Chuck, what counts is data. Data and the understanding of physical reality that comes from it. There is lots of misinformation out there. Some of it from people who are well meaning but ignorant. Some of it deliberate lies from quacks and frauds such as Andrew Wakefield.
daedalus2u
Jan 16, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Luker, I have looked very carefully at all the mercury data I could get, and there is none that presents even a weak case for mercury being causal in autism. There is a complete lack of any data. There is data showing there is no connection. The Holmes first haircut paper shows a very strong negative correlation between hair mercury and ASD symptoms. To me, that paper absolutely killed the idea and drove a stake through the heart of the dead horse that the idea is. I know the authors made up some crazy idea (and yes, it is a crazy idea) of low mercury excretion, but that is a non-physiologic idea which contradicts much that is very well known about mercury physiology, hair growth, amino acid transport and the like.
The insistence there is a mercury connection in light of the actual data is superstition, delusion or fraud.
lurker
Jan 16, 2008 at 7:04 pm
What causes that strong negative correlation between hair mercury and ASD symptoms? How does mercury enter hair?
The genetic component of autism hasn’t anywhere near been fully explained yet. And many of the genetic variants associated with it are only found in some autistics. It seems as if different circumstances and causes, genetics included, could lead to the same condition and maybe to some of the variation within it. Some of the genetic evidence I heard of claims that there are higher incidences of different polymorphisms of genes coding for enzymes that do detoxification.
Chuck
Jan 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
And when data is wrong, politically created, biased, cherry-picked, or any combination of these, then it is utterly worthless, regardless of the source.
Chuck
Jan 16, 2008 at 7:31 pm
There is nothing that can currently reach the scientific threshold of causation for a double digit percentage of the current ASD population. Genetics (IMO) will not explain a majority or reach the scientific threshold of causation either. Does that eliminate anything from being connected or a factor? No it does not. There is nothing superstitious, delusional or fraudulent in that statement.
Emily
Jan 16, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“What evidence to the contrary? I guess to you there is no evidence because what you consider evidence of it is much different.”
I’m referring to your assertion that “a lot of” us are “the same ones who want little or nothing to be done to improve the lives of those affected, and only advocate ensuring that they get the basic needs and resources.” That’s a nonsensical statement with abundant evidence available to contradict and none that I know of to support it. And what I consider scientific evidence would be data derived from application of the scientific method and considered without the prism of a priori expectations, agenda, or bias.
Synesthesia
Jan 16, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I agree that the focus should be on helping autistic people live in the world to their fullest potention and not on mercury.
Elementary, My Dear Mr. Handley
Jan 17, 2008 at 1:42 am
[…] out how to make Medicaid pay for housing for autistic adults. But maybe when you spend so much time thinking about mercury instead of dealing with actual autistic persons in the here and now, you start to see […]
daedalus2u
Jan 17, 2008 at 9:19 am
Chuck, Your “argument”: There is nothing that can currently reach the scientific threshold of causation for a double digit percentage of the current ASD population. Genetics (IMO) will not explain a majority or reach the scientific threshold of causation either. Does that eliminate anything from being connected or a factor? No it does not. There is nothing superstitious, delusional or fraudulent in that statement. Applies equally to every idea about autism causation that anyone has ever had, including the idea that “witches cause autism”. Is that what you actually mean?
Chuck
Jan 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Until science can prove causation, any theory should be open for investigation. Besides, how can any possible cause reach the level of causation for a pseudo-scientifically defined disorder with subjective diagnosis criteria that is subject to change in 2012?
daedalus2u
Jan 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Are you saying that “until science can prove causation” the idea that “witches cause autism” is as legitimate for investigation as any other?
Chuck
Jan 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I am not investigating the scientific causes of ASD. If you are so inclined to research your “witches cause autism” theory, who am I to stop you.
Emily
Jan 17, 2008 at 4:41 pm
“Until science can prove causation, any theory should be open for investigation.” That would certainly open up an unweildy can of worms; it’s not tenable or practical as a tenet of research. And at any rate, there are not theories at work here. These things have barely made it to the hypothesis level, and once arrived, they didn’t stay long.
And that’s OK, because generally, ideas are usually only open for investigation if there are data suggesting their likely involvement. In this case, there are plenty of data suggesting no involvement. Rational people would begin to look elsewhere, presumably in the direction the data and observations indicate.
Observe
Question
Hypothesize
Experiment/Analyze/Obtain results
Reconsider hypothesis in context
Conclude: reject or accept
If observations lead to a question, then we have some data. If the hypothesis that arises from these observations does not withstand scrutiny, then we return to step 1. Some people seem incapable of attending to this process.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jan 17, 2008 at 5:16 pm
And so it seems we keep ending up back at step 1.
Regan
Jan 17, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Does it always even makes it to step 1? Does a priori belief count as observation?
BTW–thank Emily–I’m really enjoying your comments.
Regan
Jan 17, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Sorry about the typos.
That’s “make” and “thanks”. I think that I need another cup of coffee.
Chuck
Jan 17, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Given the actions of the CDC, FDA, HHS and other governing bodies, I am more incline to say that this is their process:
Observe
Question
Hypothesize
Conclude: reject or accept
Experiment/Analyze/Obtain results
Reconsider hypothesis in context
Emily
Jan 17, 2008 at 7:01 pm
And your evidence for this would be…? Observation? Data collection? Analysis?
I would be more inclined to say that their conclusions are conceivably driven by politics and money, especially in the case of the FDA. Of course, that’s not one of the steps of the scientific method. That’s one good reason to have non-affiliated research scientists also looking into these things. Balance is always important in science. And I think an effort to erase emotion is, too. Ironic, really.
Chuck
Jan 17, 2008 at 8:16 pm
So what good is any government agency assigned to protect the health and well being of the citizens if they do not use a scientific method to do so?
lurker
Jan 17, 2008 at 9:06 pm
It seems if the government or pharmaceutical companies fund research, the ones who believe them all the time will absolve them of any lackluster procedures, but if anyone else proposes research and/or scientific ideas and observations, they are held to a strong double standard and are derided even though their efforts are in actuality reasonable. These types will only accept conclusions from the proper establishment “authorities” no matter what lack of explanations they provide.
daedalus2u
Jan 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Lurker, the problem with the “mercury causes autism” idea is there is a complete lack of any data to support it. That includes all of the studies put out by all the proponents of the idea. None of those papers present any data that supports a conclusion that mercury causes autism.
The most likely explanation of low mercury in the hair of people with ASDs would be low exposure to mercury. Unless and until that explanation is proven untenable, it remains the most likely one. It remains more likely than highly speculative explanations with no data or physiology to support them, such as abduction by aliens and injection of mercury containing probes.
In any case the levels of mercury observed are tiny compared to levels where any symptoms of toxicity appear.
I think we should spend resources on likely causes, not on unlikely highly speculative non-physiological ones.
lurker
Jan 18, 2008 at 1:36 pm
daedalus Why would those with ASD’s have so much less mercury in their hair than those without ASD’s? How is it that all the data suggesting mercury problems is to be considered as nothing? The other explanations for causation are still so incomplete and give very little explanation for how the things observed lead to the condition. There is lots to be explored for any cause. Research should be directed at anything that may reasonably be observed to be involved, especially since different causes could be interconnected. What would be a physiological cause that would be likely?
daedalus2u
Jan 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Lurker, there is no data that supports the “mercury causes autism” idea.
How does the data that in some ASD individuals there is less mercury in their hair isupport the idea that too much mercury caused their ASD?
There isn’t any data that does suggest that mercury is causing problems. You have quacks selling chelation who measure tiny amounts of mercury in chelation challenge tests and then assert it is “significant”. They are lying. A few micrograms of mercury is not physiologically significant. It might be statistically significant, but so what?
I calculated the actual mercury excretion touted as “significant” in the Bradstreet paper where they measured differential excretion of mercury following chelation challenge.
http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2007/03/discussion-of-false-mercury-causes.html
This “significant” difference was 1.1 micrograms. Over 3 days this would be 3.3 micrograms. The amount of mercury in an ounce of tuna.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jan 19, 2008 at 10:17 pm
@daedalus2u,
I’m very glad you mentioned the astrological meaning of “retrograde”; as I wrote this, I was thinking of the notion of “retrograde motion” that Ptolemaic astronomers used to account for the puzzling motion of planets like Mars.
This Week’s Top Posts
Jan 20, 2008 at 5:04 am
[…] Mercury in RetrogradeMercury is moving “back out of the picture” as a cause of autism. And it’s about time. There are many other pressing issues that should be at the center of discussions in the autism community—the possibility of a mercury-autism link has taken center stage for too long. […]
Club 166
Jan 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm
One thing no one’s mentioned thus far is confirmation of findings. Scientists don’t usually change their opinions of things based on one study. It’s the accumulated knowledge based on several studies.
Thus the “low mercury hair” study needs to be replicated, and then if found to be true the underlying basis for a lower level of mercury in hair needs to be investigated, and not just speculated about.
No one’s done either.
Joe
The Wearying of the Green
Feb 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm
[…] the need to make sure that there are jobs and housing for autistic adults. The obsessive focus on mercury and vaccines and on sniffing out alleged (and very much imagined) government conspiracies of groups […]
The Wearying of the Green
Feb 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm
[…] the need to make sure that there are jobs and housing for autistic adults. The obsessive focus on mercury and vaccines and on sniffing out alleged (and very much imagined) government conspiracies of groups […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: