 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pepperfire
Velociraptor
Joined: Feb 11, 2008
Age: 42
Posts: 406
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| KimJ wrote: | | No, I'm not saying refer to any "group" of eugenicists. I'm making the suggestion that Nazi references often shut off the conversation because they are seen as the "worst extreme". It's more poignant to discuss American eugenics in terms of "real world" prejudices, policies and laws. The Nazis were in power just over a decade? Eugenics in America started as legitimate policy around 1912 and the last state laws enforcing eugenics were repealed recently. The ideals behind eugenics still greatly influence us as a culture. |
Oh... well, that's sort of my point, Eugenics, whether performed by Nazis or by Americans come up to the same total: death of those not quite up to snuff.
All kidding aside, whereas using Nazi is sensationalist, it's altogether accurate, I think.
_________________
I do believe in spooks! I do, I do believe in spooks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Smelena
Cure Neurotypicals Now!
Joined: Apr 02, 2007
Posts: 2112
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Good news guys. I spent about an hour talking with the reporter from the Chicago Tribune who wrote that blog post. She's going to be doing another blog post from the autistic perspective. And she also wants to do a news article in the Trbune about neurodiversity! |
Congratulations Alex! This is wonderful news!
| Quote: | | The voices of people with autism seem to be drowned out by an overwhelming perspective of parents who refuse to accept their children for who they are. The life of an autistic person is just as valuable as any other life and has just as much a right to be represented by the media. |
I am a NT Mum of 3 sons (2 diagnosed with Asperger's, 3rd I think is Aspie and will seek diagnosis before he starts school) and I accept and cherish my sons.
I don't understand parents who refuse to accept their children. Perhaps they are suffering depression and when they were most vulnerable got brainwashed by Autism Speaks?
When I was depressed and vulnerable I joined WrongPlanet! With support from WrongPlanet and my psychologist, my depression is gone.
If you tell a child from birth that they are diseased, they are not going to reach their full potential.
Helen
_________________
To see my family and my advocacy efforts: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JR03uSFQf6Y and http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZBxFYFvuA |
|
| Back to top |
|
LaRoza
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Godwin's law was invoked early here...
I guess "aspies" are more normal than we are lead to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 681
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smelena wrote: | | I don't understand parents who refuse to accept their children. Perhaps they are suffering depression and when they were most vulnerable got brainwashed by Autism Speaks? |
The closest explanation is the parents were set on all these great plans for their children, and then all of a sudden here's Autism - and everything changes just like that. All the great social plans with schooling, birthdays and so on shot to bits and replaced by something they were completely unprepared for.
This is why I am an avid supporter of support programs - the right sort that paints the whole thing in a positive manner, not like some horror movie with a bad ending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
zendell
Free Thinker
Joined: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 1174
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sophist wrote: |
I have an interest in immunology and oxidation/methylation in the autism spectrum. However, upon reading through that article (which seems like an abbreviated report of the original article), I'd have to say that there is a potential extreme bias of the experimenters in that study.
My Critique, Point by Point:
1) This is supposed to be a double-blind study, implying that there is a control group. Yet in this article, they report no results on the controls. Therefore, the reader is unable to contrast and compare results between the two groups.
2) It gives no indication as per the ages of the participating children nor a listing of other medicinal and nonmedicinal treatments these children may or may not be receiving. Various medications do have effects on the body's oxidation. I would assume the control group was required to be medication-free. Also, if any were receiving behavioral treatments, this went unanswered. Any of these factors could be playing a part: natural development with age, medication, or other treatment plans which are taking place concurrently or prior to the study.
3) It also says this study is supposed to be a double-blind, but they don't mention how this takes place. It's probably not all that hard to tell the autistic kids from the nonautistic; were the experimenters aware of this so that it affected their judgment? Or was it truly a double-blind, where the lab technicians did the analysis separately from the researchers who were collecting and then analyzing the larger data sets? It doesn't say. So this does a poor job of outlining the methodology so that this study could be replicated in future.
No single study does a theory make: sets of studies are needed because, even if a study's design is sound, every once in awhile you're still going to receive a false positive result just by the laws of probability.
4) There is no mention as to how the participants were recruited and how they were chosen to take part. Medical establishments? Autism Speaks? CAN? Local churches? Where they all given the ADOS and any child who tested in the autism range was included? This is important because, without knowing WHERE the participants came from, there's no way to accurately judge that this was an unbiased sample.
5) 80 began the study, only 40 finished. Even though this is enough to resemble some sort of statistical normal distribution, 40 is still a very small number for these researchers to recommend glutathione as a treatment for autism.
6) It treats the fact that glutathione is designed as a heavy metal eliminator as a surprise ("What??? It actually chelates? Well shut my mouth..."). And without reporting the levels seen in the controls as far as elimination levels, it makes it seem as though only autism has such levels and, low and behold, glutathione is a chelator. It's a bit of tricky writing, implying that these levels are seen in autism alone.
7) The results of the study were compared to both parent impressions (general interview as well as ATEC) as well as the ADOS. I have two issues with this: a) yes, parents should be asked of their opinions; however, in such a study, more objective measures should be used and biased opinions avoided. The ADOS, I have personally learned, is an adequate tool for diagnosis of Autistic Disorder and PDD-NOS in young children. However, it is a poor tool for differentiating WITHIN the spectrum. Therefore, it should not have been used to detect a change in severity, especially when the shifts in severity were so subtle.
8) And with the ADOS, I would've liked to know who performed the first and the second ADOS. Were they the same people, potentially introducing bias? Or different people who might score the same child slightly differently?
9) Correlation between excretion levels and ADOS: This to me spoke MOUNTAINS. The most significant correlation between excretion levels and ADOS scores following the first dose was 0.36. For a little background on correlations, here are the ratings of correlations:
0.0-0.2 = no correlation
0.2-0.4 = low correlation (unlikely)
0.5-0.7 = moderate correlation
0.8-1.0 = high correlation
These occur in both positive and negative ranges, with negative numbers indicating a negative (or inverse) correlation. Most researchers ignore any correlations that aren't moderate or higher and view low correlations with suspicion.
Following the 9th dose, the highest correlation is 0.35 (another low correlation). Yet these results are espoused as being significant.
10) I have a big issue that the ADOS was not given BEFORE starting the study, so as to gather a baseline score before applying the treatment. Without a baseline, it is very difficult to compare the other two ADOS scores to each other.
11) I take issue with a study that uses a quote to make its conclusions-- a quote nonetheless originated by the leading researcher in this study: "Finding lead or mercury in an autism victim is like finding a bullet in a homicide victim-- further investigation needed for 100% certainty, but in both cases it is highly likely that one caused the other" (Adams, 2007).
Why is this a problem? Well, first off, it's clear that Adams has already made up his mind before even performing this study, which makes him a prime candidate for accidental or intentional experimenter bias. He also proposes that finding lead or mercury in autism is the guilty bullet having caused the conditions; and if that is his logic, then every child in their study should've been a "homicide victim" since every person, autistic or not, has mercury and lead in his/her body. On the same note of logic, that would also imply every person is autistic. 
12) Before performing further replication studies, the researchers of this study are already recommending longer treatments for those whose lead levels were still "high". I.e., they're recommending a treatment before having tested whether it's sound and relatively risk-free but AT THE SAME TIME they continue to state that more research is needed before the treatment should be recommended. Double-talk.
13) From a single study, they have concluded there are no adverse side effects on general health.
14) Despite the low correlations, they even bolded their conclusions that higher excretion decreased severity as measured by the ADOS, using techniques like bolding or highlighting to make their point stick despite that it's a weak one.
15) Their final conclusions stated, "Glutathione, lead, and mercury are linked to severity in autism, and to improvement due to DMSA." This statement is false. There was no evidence in this study proffered that linked higher mercury and lead levels to their autism participants. And even if there were, the authors have automatically jumped that extra step and assumed correlation is equivalent to causation. (Who knows, if there are higher levels, it could be very well that autism is the CAUSE of higher levels of mercury and lead, rather than the reverse.)
16) The article gives no indication as to having been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I assume this means it hasn't been published except online by websites who support the research.
I don't mean to say that the only place for publication is in respected journals, no. What is important is the peer-reviewed process. So there is no such indication.
In essence, this was a poor study, with researchers who seem to have made up their minds before performing the research and whose bias, either accidentally or intentionally, affected the design of the study. Which is unfortunate. These are important questions that should have more definitive answers. Poor research only holds back the study of the autism spectrum.  |
I think you did a good job evaluating it and you made a bunch of good points. I think the reason some of the stuff isn't mentined is because the study isn't finished. They just posted preliminary results. Your first point about the control group is what I wondered about as I read it but they had to have had one to state that the results were significant. Hopefully, this will be researched more fully because it will at least reduce the number of parents who use chelation to treat their children if studies show it ineffective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 681
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zendell wrote: | | Hopefully, this will be researched more fully because it will at least reduce the number of parents who use chelation to treat their children if studies show it ineffective. |
The key here is to show that chelation doesn't cure Autism. The majority of the mercury militia believe that it does. There have been some positive results - particularly amongst children who have gut issues. But positive results doesn't equal cure. It works the same as - for example - getting the child out of a stressful environment. Makes things easier for the child, but the root issue of Autism remains.
This is why I call treatments placebos, because they don't touch the root condition. The real treatment for Autism is psychological support, understanding and education keyed to this area. No amount of medical procedure will achieve that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeKiwi
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1924
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aaron_Mason wrote: | | Zendell, you've been disregarding what people have been saying... chelation is intended as a treatment for people who have suffered large amounts of heavy metal poisoning. It was never intended for treatment of this kind, and ESPECIALLY not for this long. It will have negative effects on the child if used continually in the long run. |
The same could be said of plenty of other drugs developed for one thing and used for others. The contraceptive pill would be a good example; it's now given to girls as young as 11 or 12 to sort out pimples, mood swings, stop periods (which are now considered a 'disease' by some crazy doctors!!), etc etc.
That chemical sweetener aspartame (yeah, the noxious carcinogen)... that was never developed as a sweetener, it was developed as an animal poison. People eat it.
My point is that it isn't exactly unusual for drugs to be developed to treat one thing and then get used for myriad others.
_________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
New Blog: http://autismtranslator.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 681
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LeKiwi wrote: | | Aaron_Mason wrote: | | Zendell, you've been disregarding what people have been saying... chelation is intended as a treatment for people who have suffered large amounts of heavy metal poisoning. It was never intended for treatment of this kind, and ESPECIALLY not for this long. It will have negative effects on the child if used continually in the long run. |
The same could be said of plenty of other drugs developed for one thing and used for others. The contraceptive pill would be a good example; it's now given to girls as young as 11 or 12 to sort out pimples, mood swings, stop periods (which are now considered a 'disease' by some crazy doctors!!), etc etc. |
WHAT?
Any doctor who is doing that should be struck off! There are other ways to deal with pimples - mood swings are a part of growing up, and stopping periods should ONLY be done for medical reasons seperate to them. (Periods a disease?????) |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeKiwi
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1924
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TLPG wrote: | | LeKiwi wrote: | | Aaron_Mason wrote: | | Zendell, you've been disregarding what people have been saying... chelation is intended as a treatment for people who have suffered large amounts of heavy metal poisoning. It was never intended for treatment of this kind, and ESPECIALLY not for this long. It will have negative effects on the child if used continually in the long run. |
The same could be said of plenty of other drugs developed for one thing and used for others. The contraceptive pill would be a good example; it's now given to girls as young as 11 or 12 to sort out pimples, mood swings, stop periods (which are now considered a 'disease' by some crazy doctors!!), etc etc. |
WHAT?
Any doctor who is doing that should be struck off! There are other ways to deal with pimples - mood swings are a part of growing up, and stopping periods should ONLY be done for medical reasons seperate to them. (Periods a disease?????) |
I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately I hear of it more and more often. It's absolutely disgusting - I don't think it should be used for those reasons in anyone of any age, but when it's so young and the risks of cancer associated with it are so high, especially when started young... ugh. I just wish they'd make an effort to look at diet etc first and realise you can't have your cake and eat it too (literally!).
And yeah, periods are apparently a disease now and aren't necessary for women to function. How scary is that - think of the implications!!
(The pill made me suicidal and I had pretty much every side effect listed on the pamphlet, so perhaps I'm biased as I have first-hand experience of what it can do... but even so...)
_________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
New Blog: http://autismtranslator.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
beau99
B.S. Detector
![]()
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 1252
Location: A cruel H*llhole called Earth.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LeKiwi wrote: | | Aaron_Mason wrote: | | Zendell, you've been disregarding what people have been saying... chelation is intended as a treatment for people who have suffered large amounts of heavy metal poisoning. It was never intended for treatment of this kind, and ESPECIALLY not for this long. It will have negative effects on the child if used continually in the long run. |
The same could be said of plenty of other drugs developed for one thing and used for others. The contraceptive pill would be a good example; it's now given to girls as young as 11 or 12 to sort out pimples, mood swings, stop periods (which are now considered a 'disease' by some crazy doctors!!), etc etc. |
...
WHAT.
| Quote: | | That chemical sweetener aspartame (yeah, the noxious carcinogen)... that was never developed as a sweetener, it was developed as an animal poison. People eat it. |
Uh. Nobody's gotten cancer from it.
_________________
My site: Thoughts of an Autistic (updated May 20, 2008)
Last edited by beau99 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 681
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LeKiwi wrote: | | TLPG wrote: | | LeKiwi wrote: | | The same could be said of plenty of other drugs developed for one thing and used for others. The contraceptive pill would be a good example; it's now given to girls as young as 11 or 12 to sort out pimples, mood swings, stop periods (which are now considered a 'disease' by some crazy doctors!!), etc etc. |
WHAT?
Any doctor who is doing that should be struck off! There are other ways to deal with pimples - mood swings are a part of growing up, and stopping periods should ONLY be done for medical reasons seperate to them. (Periods a disease?????) |
I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately I hear of it more and more often. It's absolutely disgusting - I don't think it should be used for those reasons in anyone of any age, but when it's so young and the risks of cancer associated with it are so high, especially when started young... ugh. I just wish they'd make an effort to look at diet etc first and realise you can't have your cake and eat it too (literally!).
And yeah, periods are apparently a disease now and aren't necessary for women to function. How scary is that - think of the implications!!
(The pill made me suicidal and I had pretty much every side effect listed on the pamphlet, so perhaps I'm biased as I have first-hand experience of what it can do... but even so...) |
In the case of the Pill it's a drug that has an effect on the natural running of the human body - so side effects would in fact be quite logical. The gravity of course would vary from person to person, but I wouldn't call that bias when I doubt the Pill hasn't had that effect in some form on everyone who has used it.
Definitely look at diet in the case of pimples! If I recall, pimples come up because of oil in the skin, and (I am guessing here) diet that includes fried food like fish and chips would be a bad thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeKiwi
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1924
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They are, but the worst are diets high in sugar and synthetic preservatives, additives, and various other chemicals. The skin is the biggest organ and one of the body's key ways of getting rid of gunk and toxins, which is mainly why you get pimples - hormones play a role in them, but for severe breakouts usually the cause is dietary. Milk/dairy is another biggie for causing breakouts. Topical problems, like too much makeup or a polluted environment don't exactly help, but they're not usually the main cause unless they're really really bad.
_________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
New Blog: http://autismtranslator.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
Pepperfire
Velociraptor
Joined: Feb 11, 2008
Age: 42
Posts: 406
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mother of 6 here...
Um... whaaaat???
No.
Acne is caused by the effects of hormones on the pilosebaceous unit, consisting of a hair follicle, sebaceous gland, and a hair. The follicle becomes obstructed and an overgrowth of a normal skin bacteria, Propionibacterium acnes, causes destruction of the lining of the follicle. This process allows follicular material to enter the dermis, causing an inflammatory response.
http://dermatology.about.com/od/beauty/tp/skinmyths.htm
Acne has NOTHING to do with what you eat.
Trust me on this... I've studied it ad nauseum.
_________________
I do believe in spooks! I do, I do believe in spooks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeKiwi
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1924
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hormones play a major part, yes, as I'm sure any female on the face of the Earth will tell you, but diet is often - not always, but often - a major problem as well. Acne is often a symptom of a food intolerence or allergy (as I said, dairy is a major player for many people). Also, one of the skin's major functions (besides holding you together, regulating temperature via sweat, and providing protection from the elements and pollution) is to detox via sweat and pores. You eat crap food or something you shouldn't eat due to an intolerence et al and you'll start finding your skin excreting that 'crap' beyond just the usual err... posterior depository. Another cause is often simply not getting enough fluids, especially water. You can't ignore diet when looking for a cause of chronic skin problems.
_________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
New Blog: http://autismtranslator.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
beau99
B.S. Detector
![]()
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 1252
Location: A cruel H*llhole called Earth.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, no.
Acne is a symptom of puberty. Puberty is caused by hormones.
The end.
_________________
My site: Thoughts of an Autistic (updated May 20, 2008)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
