The Symptoms of Pseudoscience
Theories of what causes autism (a milk molecule?) and of how to treat autism (horseback riding and shamans) often seem to mushroom overnight and bloggers like those at Left Brain/Right Brain, at Mike Stanton’s Action for Autism and Kathleen Seidel’s Neurodiversity, at Autism Diva and Respectful Insolence tirelessly analyze and question the claims of junk/pseudo/crank science. A September 11th article on Nobel Intent on Ars Technica casts a critical eye on pseudoscience by carefully reviewing the articles in a special edition of the journal Homeopathy on the “memory of water.” Noting their consistent “concern regarding science education and the public understanding of science,” authors John Timmer, Chris Lee, Jonathan M. Gitlin, and Matt Ford write:
……. science can be a tricky thing to define, and it’s sometimes easier to contrast it with some of the arguments that pose as science. Unfortunately, most of those issues are entangled with implications that keep the basic question—is this science?—obscured by emotional responses. Thus, the science of climatology has become entwined with political, economic, and policy issues. The science of evolution conflicts with the political and religious goals of some individuals. Even basic scientific questions about the nervous system get embroiled in family and personal health issues when topics like autism and radio frequency radiation are broached.
That’s why a special edition of the journal Homeopathy appears to be a gift, allowing us to look at science and psuedoscience without getting entangled with politics and religion. Homeopathy claims to be a form of medical practice that’s based on the principle that “like cures like.” Given a set of symptoms, a homeopath will identify an herb or chemical that causes similar symptoms. Following a predefined ritual, the homeopath performs a series of dilutions of that chemical that continue well beyond the point where there should be no molecules of it left—the final solution is essentially well-shaken water.
Americans spend about a half a billion dollars per year on that “well-shaken water”; Timmer et al. also point out that homeopaths “have demanded that their field be treated as a science, performing clinical studies, proposing mechanisms, and even convinc[ed] Elsevier to publish Homeopathy, a peer-reviewed journal.” The Nobel Intent writers come to the following conclusions about the “symptoms of pseudoscience”—–the list strikes me as required reading for parents considering alternative and biomedical treatments for autistic children, such as the DAN! protocol.
- Ignore settled issues in science
- Misapplication of real science
- Rejection of scientific standards
- Claims of suppression
- A conclusion/evidence gap
- Focusing on the fringes
Those who believe that a vaccine, or something in a vaccine such as the mercury-based preservative thimerasol, has caused a child to become autistic and indeed set off an “autism epidemic,” routinely wave away scientific evidence and studies (such as the Danish study on the MMR and autism); they also routinely claim that “the government” is withholding evidence about vaccines while continuing to promote a routine schedule of vaccines for young children. Parents who believe that a vaccine or mercury is the cause of their child being autistic often cite the day that the child received the vaccinations as a specific turning point, before which a child was normal, and after which the same child was autistic (as in a September 15th Rescue Post story in which Cathy Jameson connects two of her sons’ regressions directly to vaccines).
Timmer et al. conclude that
Perhaps the clearest theme running through many areas of pseudoscience, however, is the attempt to make a whole that is far, far greater than the sum of its parts. Enlarging a collection of terminally-flawed trivia does not somehow strengthen its scientific significance. This is especially true when many of the components of the argument don’t form a coherent whole.
The organization called Generation Rescue simply states that autism is “mercury poisoning” and alleges that the public has been subject to “misinformation” from the “popular press.” By claiming that there is single cause (mercury) for autism, Generation Rescue indeed attempts “to make a whole that is far, far greater than the sum of its parts.” If mercury is the cause of autism, extricating the mercury out of a child’s system should make that child no longer autistic, and so Generation Rescue advocates the use of experimental treatments such as chelation.
It was long ago that Jim, reflecting on Charlie swimming so in tune with each wave and learning to surf and singing back the jingles on the commercials on the radio soon as he hears them, said that “he’s a lot more than something that happened with a vaccine.” I think I understand why Generation Rescue proclaims that there is one thing, some environmental agent, that causes autism: If you can identify “the what” the causes autism, the thought is that you can treat it; that you can cure/defeat/get rid of autism.
And that very notion of completely “getting the autism” out of a person is perhaps the most pseudoscientific notion of all.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Environment, Epidemic, Health, Junk Science, Science, Treatment, Vaccines, Water
37 opinions for The Symptoms of Pseudoscience
María Luján
Sep 16, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi Kristina
I have found several resources about the topic
Science and Pseudoscience in Comm. Disorders
and
Attitudes of Medical Students on Science and Pseudoscience
I think that as parents of autistic children our responsability is very high to know who is who and what is science, what is excellent to very good medicine,what is bad medicine and what is pseudoscience- and to evaluate properly.
Harold L Doherty
Sep 16, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Taking apart weak causal claims and bogus treatment claims doesn’t really require the tireless efforts by the Neurodiversity Club that you describe. But still a service is done each time such claims are refuted .. usually by other researchers not by bloggers.
Where your ND ideology gets the better of you is where you jump from the refutation of weak pseudoscience .. as you describe it yourself .. to pushing the standard ND anti-cure line:
“If you can identify “the what” the causes autism, the thought is that you can treat it; that you can cure/defeat/get rid of autism.
And that very notion of completely “getting the autism” out of a person is perhaps the most pseudoscientific notion of all.”
When you jump from those circumstances to suggesting that the very notion of seeking a cure is “perhaps the most pseudoscientific of all” your argument falls apart - completely. And is really just an expression of your own resignation. Sweet surrender.
Wade Rankin
Sep 16, 2007 at 8:00 pm
The “Danish study” was the epitome of pseudoscience. The rules were changed halfway through the study leading to a predetermined conclusion. There frankly hasn’t been anything definitive on either side of the debate, and treating the issue as scientifically closed does not enhance one’s credibility.
Chuck
Sep 16, 2007 at 8:33 pm
The defining criteria of ASD are designed by a pseudoscience.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 16, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Guess you could say, I am a student of the sweet science itself.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 16, 2007 at 9:09 pm
María, Thanks for the links and hope things are very well.
original cali biomed xprt
Sep 16, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I’ve a difficult time seeing how the “Danish Study” is the _epitome_ of pseudoscience. I mean really, the epitome? Isn’t that being a bit hyperbolic? I am not so sure “the rules” themselves were actually changed half-way through. IIRC, and I could be incorrect, what changed was something within the Danish health-care system itself which was beyond the researcher’s control, which then _perhaps_ had an affect on the study … but nothing remotely approaching pseudoscience.
Chuck
Sep 16, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Changing the population criteria of a study mid -way through the study and then not controlling for the change and publishing the study stating that it proves anything, isn’t science. So what is it?
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 17, 2007 at 12:34 am
Interesting, maybe it’s the culture that keeps changing……. The question of “what is science” is as old as Hippocrates, whose writings addresses similar issues of truth and evidence.
Cliff
Sep 17, 2007 at 1:11 am
I don’t think we really have a grasp on what autism is in a real sense, much in the same sense we don’t really have a grasp on what life is. If you have a list of things (be it diagnostic criteria or otherwise) that “define” something, you’re really playing a game of hot and cold rather than getting at what the subject is. That kind of subjectivity creates an environment where people can use the ambiguity to create various claims that border on ridiculous and market them legitimately. Sadly, much of this becomes “mainstream”, which is unfortunate (although this isn’t exclusive to autism-related issues; I even look at mainstream physics with a cautious eye).
It’s unfortunate, because we’re supposed to make decisions based on all of the information in the media (mainstream science or otherwise), and it’s with the future of a person in the balance. It’s even starting to influence government forces, as various groups will claim the validity of the statements until they are blue in the face. These claims are influencing the lives many hundreds of people in negative ways.
But I should address some things said in the comments. First, researchers don’t have a time to do a study on every different autism program. They are so numerous that even addressing them all would be a significant project in itself, less than doing a scientific study on them all. Indeed, addressing them has to be the work of bloggers more than scientists (or perhaps scientifically-trained bloggers versus scientific researchers), simply for time-constraint issues.
And, yes, “eliminating” autism is pseudoscience, or just very flawed thinking. First, ask yourself what autism is. It’s, as it exists, a list of behaviors that, if added up, forms a archetype of person. To “cure” autism, you’d have to get rid of behaviors that consist of the autism diagnosis, no matter how minor, because you’d have to create a circumstance in which autism no longer existed in any form. This includes people who prefer any amount of time on their own. Or who aren’t as socially adept as their peers. Or who are particularly sensitive to stimuli (that includes people of sharper eyesight or heightened hearing). Or who work better in system. The list goes on (quite a ways). Because it involves a whole bunch of subjectivities, you’d have to have to make every human identical except where autism wasn’t concerned. I don’t think anyone really could know how to go about it.
Kev
Sep 17, 2007 at 1:52 am
Wade, as stated above, the Danish rules weren’t changed to meet a predetermined outcome (when did you drink the conspiracy kool-aid?). The whole system was changed. Maybe you and Chuck could explain how the study could’ve adjusted itself to account for this?
And, yes, the thiomersal issue is pretty much closed. Its as simple as: remove suggested cause. Use epidemiology utilised by proponents of hypothesis. Note continued rise. Duh.
How about those thousands of cured kids? When will they be along?
Cliff
Sep 17, 2007 at 2:49 am
Could you clarify that last statement, regarding the thousands of cured kids?
Cliff
Harold L Doherty
Sep 17, 2007 at 3:16 am
Cliff said “And, yes, “eliminating” autism is pseudoscience, or just very flawed thinking.”
Cliff you have made a very big statement without providing a credible supporting explanation. Autism is a disorder by definition. It is also acknowledged to be a neurological disorder. It is today diagnosed by behavior but there is much research going on into the biological characteristics of autism. Even neurodiversity advocates acknowledge that autism reflects a different “wiring” in the brain.
Autism is not just a personality trait whereby persons prefer solitude. Classic Autism Disorder is much more serious than that. I speak as the father of a severely autistic 11 year old boy who requires adult supervision 24/7. And I HAVE advocated for and visited adult autistics in institutional care. It is not a reality that I look forward to for my son when I am deceased but it is one that I can not ignore.
IF a cure for my son’s autism existed, which today it does NOT, then I would most certainly want to cure him, to be able to remove the very clear impediments to his being able to live an independent life.
Many parents in my situation can grasp these realities, we know there is presently no cure. But there is much research going on and no blogger or internet commentator can plausibly argue that no cure will be developed. It simply is not possible to know that.
It is not pseudoscience for researchers to pursue any hypothesis of either cure or treatment. That is part of the scientific process. The scientific process, not blogging commentary, ends up discarding any flawed hypothesis of causality or treatment, whether it be “cold mothers”, “MMR” “casein, gluten” on the causality side or NAET and swimming with dolphins on the treatment side to name but a few discarded ideas of autism cause and treatment.
Cliff
Sep 17, 2007 at 8:44 am
There is research into the the biological aspects of autism, I won’t disagree, just like there is research that looks into the biological basis for sexual deviancy. But that doesn’t change the basic fact that when you’re dealing with “lacks social ability” on a list as a definition and where you have a spectrum where everyone (yes, everyone) is on it at an incredibly unimportant or more extreme level. It’s a title for a set of behaviors and, in degree, a mindset.
Let’s be honest, though. I don’t think any one of us could define autism acceptably (I’m open to suggestion), and I’m not going to say I can. And, until you do, there’s no way you can “cure” or “eliminate” it. In fact, as it stands, it’s a category mistake to assume so. You’ve got an ephemeral category of vauge human emotion being cured by a physical intervention. You’d be just as suited to try and eliminate “the quality of being prone to anger” or “the human mindset of compassion”. It can’t be done, otherwise through the extreme and radical.
Let’s leave the polarizing word “autism” alone for a bit. I could make a list say of “people who show “x” traits related to compassion are deficient, and thus we must adjust the physical brain, altering aspects of their bodies that make them such”. I could then see these qualities in everyone, in limited degree, as they were subjective qualities of mental quality, and take on a life-long crusade on making sure nobody showed this trait. In order to satisfy this, because where there are differences related to compassion, one person is more “compassionate” than the other, I’d have to make sure everyone was equally such, until no one could be called “compassionate”. Needless to say, virtually everyone would be replaced, not quite the same person they were in favor of a socially acceptable version of them. I’m sure this is what you were intending with cure? Probably not, but it’s the implications in the statement. You don’t need to go to science to do this, just to garden-variety philosophy.
Having “classic” autism (had, actually; I was able to drop the diagnosis later because I was taught to exhibit more socially normal behaviors and was taught various means of human communication), I don’t disagree that there’s a lot to be done. I would advocate for various alternative methods of teacher that work well for the different mindset, rather than eliminate aspects of humanity that happen to be related to autism. I have, in fact, at the state level somewhat extensively, taking significant portions of my school time to do so, and given much of my time and soul to helping those with autism. I spent the night before finals lobbying at the last night at the legislature. I wouldn’t have assumed you hadn’t done anything differently. And it’s been tough, because it’s not a position understood by society, and I know that I’ve been misunderstood, though I care less so long as the job gets done.
But two people can go into the same room, acting similar, but having different biological reasons, and get the same diagnosis. If you can come back, with a single, physical, defining statement that captures all aspects that doesn’t include a vague mental picture which could be extended in places to people who might not otherwise be called autistic, please to. But I can’t even get a straight answer on some things that should be far more concrete.
I would suggest that if you were to “cure” your son, you’d be eliminating aspects of who he was, effectively creating a whole new person on top of the kid you once knew. This is really no different than hitting someone with a car or replacing parts of the brain. It’s altering someone at a fundamental level to meet a social norm. It’s also playing God and setting precedent for rather bad precedent in the age of genetics, but that gets morally nasty, so I’ll leave that alone.
To finish up, I have no issue with “any”. It’s “all” that I disagree with. There are too many for scientists to all grant an in-depth research, and the whole scientific community has better things to do than look at every person who has created a new theory overnight about autism and marketed it. A screening system, a basic filter, has to come long before the kind of research, unless you want to pay billions unnecessarily rather than getting help for the actual people who need it.
Cliff
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 17, 2007 at 9:26 am
What intrigues me about the use of “cure” in regard to autism is that the use of the term seems to be based on how we talk about other conditions, such as cancer and muscular dystrophy. The rhetorical strategies used by advocates for a “cure for autism” can be traced to those used in previous generations for other conditions—–we talk about autism as if it is a similar, clearly medical condition, perhaps as a reaction against a previous generation’s understanding of autism as a purely psychiatric condition.
Thanks to all who participate in these sorts of discussions; more people than one might think are paying attention.
christine
Sep 17, 2007 at 10:35 am
Thanks for this post, Kristina. I’m not a scientist or even a grand thinker. It is hard for me to navigate all of the rhetoric. My views on the subject have changed over the past two years and I am grateful to those of you who ask the critical questions without all of the emotional white noise. My son’s regression DID correspond with his vaccinations and that seeming connection is so hard to shake. I haven’t vaccinated my second son but sometimes I feel that my lack of action in that realm is more out of “superstition.” But I’m changing gears on that one. Slowly but surely.
Thanks
María Luján
Sep 17, 2007 at 11:11 am
Hi Kristina
I think that you pointed one of the issues in discussion. However, to jump to the “cure” vs the “not to cure” controversy as being the only options simply is not a sample of a true and fruitful debate or simply does not reflect what many parents like me think or what multidisciplinary science can tell or is telling more and more. Things are very much complex that this, very much unknown than this- and the role of science to increase our knowledge is paramount- and however once and again around the same false dicotomy is presented as the issue. For those of us that do not share neither of them- because our own complex and enough personal reasons- simply we are out of a discussion that is becoming more and more of completely different positions-the word in spanish is “ajena”, not of our own, not reflecting our lives or problems or challenges even when our children are also autistic, than simply such as is being done are not helping us or our children.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 17, 2007 at 12:08 pm
It’s very good to color in the complexities here; it is the case that various autism advocates etc. (some mentioned in my post) try to keep the debate at the level of “cure or not to cure,” a kind of black and white standpoint. My point is that I’m not sure that “cure” and a disease model is the right framework with which to speak of autism and of disability more generally (this would be a disabilities studies perspective).
Schwartz
Sep 18, 2007 at 1:06 am
Kev,
You’re obviously not a statistician. They can most certainly make adjustments in the analysis for changes in diagnostic criteria.
I have read several versions of analysis on the same dataset, all claiming to conclude something different.
Wade’s point is quite relevent. The danish study quoted did not make the appropriate accomodations for the change in diagnostic criteria, yet still tried to draw conclusions from the flawed data. This is a fundamental study flaw and thus the conclusions are rendered invalid.
As for removing the source of Mercury, when was that accomplished? What data are you using to determine the continued increase? The California data is clearly not useable as evidence — it never was — as it suffers from a similar problem of changing diagnostic criteria among other flaws.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 18, 2007 at 1:22 am
Seems to me that “science” and what it is, is under question here……..
RAJ
Sep 18, 2007 at 8:26 am
“autism” has always come under the domain of child psychiatry and reflects whatever the current thinking of psychiatric theories happens to be. If it is pseudoscience to believe thirty years ago that the ’cause’ of autism was ‘refrigerators mothers’ inflicting psychological damage on their children, why is it not pseudoscience to now believe the ’cause’ of autism is ‘refrigerator’ parents inflicting genetic damage on their offspring?
Both beliefs are based on the ’soft’ science of psychiatric theory, research into causes and treatments of autism might be better served by placing the problem into the hands of scientists who practice the hard science of the physical sciences
Maya M
Sep 18, 2007 at 9:29 am
Yes, Kristina, you are right. Science is under question and people cannot and don’t want to separate it from pseudoscience. A scary situation, IMHO.
passionlessDrone
Sep 18, 2007 at 9:30 am
Hello friends -
“The danish study quoted did not make the appropriate accomodations for the change in diagnostic criteria, yet still tried to draw conclusions from the flawed data. This is a fundamental study flaw and thus the conclusions are rendered invalid.”
The absurd thing is that inevitably, this study is held up as sound research; not only by bloggers, but indeed, by people put in front of Congress to testify on vaccination safety.
Oh well.
-pD
athina
Sep 18, 2007 at 9:57 am
How about schizophrenia? Would you talk about curing it? It is also a mental condition.
Maya M
Sep 19, 2007 at 12:34 am
“If it is pseudoscience to believe thirty years ago that the ’cause’ of autism was ‘refrigerators mothers’ inflicting psychological damage on their children, why is it not pseudoscience to now believe the ’cause’ of autism is ‘refrigerator’ parents inflicting genetic damage on their offspring?”
Because there was no evidence to believe that autism is caused by bad parenting, while there is strong evidence to believe that autism is based on heredity. Such as, if one identical twin is autistic, the other has a bare 25% chance not to be.
“The danish study quoted did not make the appropriate accomodations for the change in diagnostic criteria, yet still tried to draw conclusions from the flawed data. This is a fundamental study flaw and thus the conclusions are rendered invalid.”
Did any of the so-called studies suggesting vaccines-autism link make the appropriate accomodations for the change in diagnostic criteria?
“As for removing the source of Mercury, when was that accomplished?”
Mercury was removed from vaccines. This was the mercury claimed to cause autism. Now, after it has been eliminated and autism is still here, mercury people want their opponents to eliminate mercury from Earth. Eh well, it’s not gonna happen. Better say why you continue to blame mercury.
Schwartz
Sep 19, 2007 at 1:51 am
“The absurd thing is that inevitably, this study is held up as sound research; not only by bloggers, but indeed, by people put in front of Congress to testify on vaccination safety.”
This is very true. I constantly see flawed studies repeatedly referenced by newer studies or presentations. Even better, I’ve seen studies referenced even after their own authors had admitted that the study was flawed. People see references and peer-review, and automatically assume the science is good.
Too bad they don’t realize that many if not the majority of the peer review studies turn out to be inaccurate. Peer-review does not equal good science. It just means they followed a set of rules to pass the review. Perhaps if reviewers were forced to acknowledge who they are, they will be forced to be more diligent to protect their reputations.
Maya M
Sep 19, 2007 at 1:58 am
Peer review, indeed, does not equal good science. But consistent failure to pass peer review, or reluctance to submit your findings for peer review, equals bad science.
MJ
Sep 19, 2007 at 9:41 am
“Because there was no evidence to believe that autism is caused by bad parenting, while there is strong evidence to believe that autism is based on heredity. Such as, if one identical twin is autistic, the other has a bare 25% chance not to be.”
As the parent of identical twins with autism, I find the twins argument to be misleading at best.
The identical twin argument actually proves the opposite of what you are trying to say. If it were based on heredity alone, then each twin would almost always (99.9%) have autism. The fact that this isn’t the case proves that something other than genetics is in play.
The other flaw in that statement is that in identical twins the autism can take a different form and severity in each child. This again is something that would not be expected if it were entirely genetic. If it is genetic the twins will be very, very close to each other, especially at a young age (as an aside, did you know that the order in which teeth come in in babies has a strong genetic component?)
Furthermore, if you look at fraternal twins, if one twin is autistic, the other has a greater chance of being autistic than they would be if they were just another sibling of an autistic child. Since fraternal twins don’t (normally) have any more in common on a genetic level that any other sibling, the greater chance kinda points that to the fact that something other than genetics.
Dan Aykroyd, Autism, Acting, UFOs……
Sep 19, 2007 at 4:04 pm
[…] what isn’t” and what needs further examination: Words to consider when thinking about autism and science….. ASD, Aspergers, autism, blues, blues brothers, children, comedy, dan aykroyd, family, […]
Schwartz
Sep 19, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“But consistent failure to pass peer review,… equals bad science.”
I agree 100%
“… reluctance to submit your findings for peer review, equals bad science.”
That can be true, but is not necessarily so. The science itself is either good or bad. Submission for peer review is a review process and does not reflect on the science itself, it only reflects on certain people’s impression of the science. In particular, people who are unable or unwilling to evaluate the science themselves, rely on passing peer review as a judgement of good science. Too bad it isn’t true.
A reluctance to submit findings for peer review MAY indicate a fear of bad science being exposed, but that is not always the case.
long day's journey into acceptance
Sep 19, 2007 at 10:10 pm
“… kinda points that to the fact that something other than genetics.”
Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however.
* and, ‘no’, this does not implicate immunizations.
long day's journey into acceptance
Sep 19, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Failure to submit to peer-review may also have to do with a researcher being too enamored with his or her own hypothesis. What’s that saying: Never marry your hypothesis; only date it. Or something like that.
Schwartz
Sep 20, 2007 at 10:18 am
“Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however”
That’s a pretty strong statement. It “could” point to epigenetics or a number of other hypothesis (vaccines or other).
Even more revolutionary, it may be a confluence of factors from a number of different fields, something our medical and science organizations are poorly equiped to deal with.
MJ
Sep 20, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however.”
While there can be epigenetic differences in identical twins, my understanding is that these develop (for the most part) over the course of their lifetime due to environmental influences, lifestyle, etc. But at the age when autism appears there will be few epigenetic changes that could account for it.
As to heritable epigenetic traits, I have not seen any research that says that one identical twin could inherit the trait without the other having it as well. This would go counter to the notion of what these modifications are (from what I understand).
Regardless, if there is a change large enough to produce autism I would think trigger for the change would have to be something in the child’s environment.
John Fryer
Sep 23, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The science of autism is not known. Therefore you cannot discount any plausible hypothesis. The fact that something does not decrease when you remove it does not mean that the item removed is good and for mercury if it doesn’t cause autism we need to ask what it does cause. Perhaps things worse than autism?
The science of mercury and its effects have been known for thousands of years.
Anyone who still puts this in vaccines and all those that use it are possibly aiding or committing murder.
The science of the vaccine industry on mercury is not just flawed it is perversely wrong.
And chemicals interact with other chemicals so we need to look at other bad chemicals in vaccines and elsewhere in contact with pregnant mothers and their babies.
Ten years ago autism was a psychiatric illness. It is clear today that something chemical must cause it and those that deny mercury are in fact saying that another substance must be to blame for their is no other way this illness can mount at this steady rate. So those that deny mercury - what are your thoughts?
John Fryer Chemist
Cliff
Sep 23, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I’m wouldn’t advocate for mercury put casually into vaccines, certainly. But that doesn’t mean I think that it happens to be the cause.
Mercury has been in the diet of the Japanese forever, in the form of eating more fish than most other cultures; would it be much to suggest that the Japanese, if mercury was the case, would have incredibly high levels of autism? I don’t remember any such statistic.
There still is the assumption that it can’t be genetic and that if it is there must be an external factor. I’ve never seen anything convincing in this regard, even given the delay, given how a person’s genetic code doesn’t all come into play at birth.
Cliff
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I don’t think it is so much an issue of “denying mercury” as valid scientific evidence not pointing to a mercury-autism link.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: