Myths and Legends of Autism: Part 1
August 24th, 2007
The Myth of the Poor Excretor:
Myths have traditionally been invented to provide explanations for phenomena that were beyond the understanding of the people who made them. Thus you have fiery chariots carrying the sun across the sky, serpents swallowing the sun during an eclipse, the world being created between fire and ice or the many myths of the Cargo Cult in New Guinea and Melanesia.
Another reason for people to invent myths is to deal with unpleasant truths that they wish to ignore. This impulse has given rise, in more modern times, to “irreducible complexity” and the Myth of the Poor Excretor.
The original impetus for the Myth of the Poor Excretor was the finding, by a number of practitioners involved in “alternative” autism therapies, that autistic children often had low hair mercury levels, which conflicted with their firmly held belief that autism was due – at least in part – to mercury poisoning.
When Holmes et al completed a study of 94 autistic children and 45 age- and sex-matched controls and found that autistic children had significantly lower hair mercury levels, there were only three conclusions they could reach:
[1] Mercury protected children from autism.
[2] The hair mercury tests were screwed up.
[3] Autistic children don’t excrete mercury into their hair.
Choice [1] is strongly counterintuitive, but should not be discounted out of hand solely for that reason, since much that is true in science goes against our best intuition. Choice [3] is contrary to decades of research data on mercury metabolism in mammals and so is clearly wrong. Choice [2] appears to be the most likely explanation.
Unfortunately for the authors, the only choice that doesn’t either nullify their hard effort (as [2] would) or contradict their immutable belief that mercury causes autism (as [1] would), is the only choice that is clearly wrong. Instead of abandoning their immutable belief that mercury causes autism - as their data would suggest - they invented the Myth of the Poor Excretor.
According to this myth, autistic children are unable to excrete the mercury they receive from the environment and – more importantly – their childhood vaccines. As a result – so goes the myth – they accumulate the toxic metal and become autistic. It’s a compelling tale, except that it’s complete rubbish.
If you read the study, you will find that this “hypothesis” of “poor excretion” arrives on the scene like a deus ex machina, without any data supporting “poor excretion” in autistic children – except for their low hair mercury levels, which can be better explained in other ways - and no data supporting the implied idea that mercury accumulation in hair can be impaired by any means - apart from cutting off the blood flow to the scalp.
There are also no citations of the scientific literature to show that this “hypothesis” is supported by the researches of other scientists. There is not even any mention of how this “hypothesis” flies squarely in the face of decades of research into mercury metabolism and how that might be reconciled.
In other words, it appears to have been made up out of thin air to keep the authors from having to abandon their cherished belief that mercury causes autism.
Now, it may be true that mercury causes autism in a small number of children – the currently available data is not able to eliminate that possibility. But that is a long way from saying that mercury does cause autism. And the Holmes et al study does nothing to support either the claim that mercury causes autism or that autistic children are “poor excretors” of mercury.
As it turns out, there has been a fair bit of research into the distribution of mercury – both organic and inorganic – into hair. Stuides by Yasutake and Hachiya (2006) and Wilhelm, Muller and Idel (1996) have clearly shown that hair mercury levels are proportional to blood mercury levels at the time the hair is growing. Shi, Lane and Clarkson (1990) showed that the uptake of mercury by hair was dependent on hair growth.
And ‘way back in 1986, Mottet, Body, Wilkens and Burbacher showed that the amount of mercury in the hair depended primarily on the amount of mercury in the blood. They also found that the ratio between blood and hair mercury was constant over a wide range of doses and between animals.
But, even with all of this evidence available to them, the Holmes et al authors chose instead to create the Myth of the Poor Excretor. Like most denialist myths (myths invented to ignore unpleasant truths), the survival of the myth depends largely on the existence of a large number of people who also don’t want to face reality. For whatever reason, that pool of people exists and the Myth of the Poor Excretor has persisted to the present day, some four years after its invention.
Next: The Legend of the Maverick Doctor(s)
Prometheus
Filed under: Autism Science, Critical Thinking
August 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Whilst wandering around Pubmed after following one of the mythical links, I just happened to run across one of the more modern study abstracts that somebody else had mentioned. Sounds like people are at least trying to validate or invalidate some of the bunk thats out there. First link coded in a long while, I hope it works:
<a>
August 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Now I understand why I couldn’t make heads nor tails of those reports — they didn’t make any sense!
August 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Nicely done.
I do remember hearing of something like the poor excretor idea well before the Holmes hair study. As I recall, Megson reported low sulfates and hypothesized a problem with sulfur transport which might impair detoxification capacity.
The Holmes hair study may have grown from, or at least have it’s roots in, Megson’s anaphase.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
In the best fabulist tradition, the mercury moms and dads never let facts stand in the way of a good story.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Excellent post! I am also happy that you support Darwinism.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
If autistics had a higher level of mercury in their hair, this would prove autistics have been exposed to more mercury and therefore mercury causes autism.
Autistics actually have a lower level of mercury in their hair. This proves autistics can’t excrete mercury and therefore mercury causes autism.
So they are right whatever the results of the tests happen to be. Convenient.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
What medical test would find toxins that are not in the hair or the blood?
August 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Holmes did tell her patients that chelation did not correct neurological damage that may have already been done by mercury. Myth or legend?
August 25th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Fombonne presented hair, blood and toenail mercury comparisons at IMFAR. The abstract says that there was no difference.
Another paper in RASD is online
<em>”A controlled study of mercury levels in hair samples of children with autism as compared to their typically developing siblings”</em>
I like the statement in the abstract:
“The hair samples were obtained according to lab. specifications and submitted in a blind fashion to Doctor’s Data Lab.”
So, DDI was used, and DDI didn’t know.
Matt
August 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Patrick,
The link worked great! Thanks!
Maya M,
I don’t support “Darwinism” - that would imply that I am an unthinking believer of a dogma that I do not understand.
Instead, I acknowledge that the current theory of evolution is the best extant model of how life developed on this planet. It fits all of the available data and makes useful (and testable) predictions.
“Intelligent design”, on the other hand, cannot explain the available data except by the rather disingenuous answer of “The Designer (i.e. God) made it so”. As such, it makes no useful (or testable) predictions and cannot, therefore, be considered as even an hypothesis.
Anonymous,
Your question is a bit too broad to answer. It would depend on the “toxin” and where it was sequestered in the body.
In animal studies, the researchers have removed the organs and measured the mercury retained in them. This is not generally feasible in human studies for obvious ethical reasons.
Chuck,
I do not recall if Dr. Holmes so informed the parents of her test subjects. At any rate, chelation was not part of the published study. Your point?
Matt,
Do you have a link for that paper? I would love to see it.
Prometheus
August 27th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Yes, Dr. Holmes did inform the parents of her patients that neurological damage already done could not be corrected using chelating agents. I have not heard of any treatment that can correct neurological damage yet.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Chuck,
Thanks for the answer to your rhetorical question.
I wonder why anybody would submit their child for chelation if, as you report, they were told by Dr. Holmes that there is no hope of reversing any pre-existing neurological damage.
Perhaps the parents were told - by Dr. Holmes or others - that chelation would “stop the damage”. Or, perhaps, the parents were already convinced that chelation would “cure” their children and weren’t listening to Dr. Holmes’ caveat.
Prometheus
August 27th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Maybe to prevent further neurological damage or to minimize or eliminate non-neurological problems.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Another possible explanation of the differences between autistic and non-autistic hair mercury levels could be that autistic people don’t absorb mercury very well.
That would explain the lower hair mercury found in the Holmes et al and Kern et al studies and wouldn’t require that we ignore dozens (if not hundreds) of studies showing that the mercury content of the hair directly reflects the mercury content of the blood.
How about it, the “poor absorber” hypothesis? It doesn’t blame mercury for autism, but it does make more sense.
Prometheus
August 28th, 2007 at 7:58 am
“Poor absorber”
I like it. Since a fair amount of mercury found in hair is deposited on the hair, it would also be nice to know if autistic kids/babies are bathing and shampooing as often as their non-autistic counterparts.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the alkaline ingredients in shampoos brought along several ppm of Hg from the chlor-alkali process. At least enough to skew a ’study’ like the Holmes study.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
The Holme’s study required the use of Johnsons Baby Shampoo for at least two weeks prior to the hair collection.
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 am
Hello, Prometheus! Checking out the new blog - somehow I’d have expected something flashier from a photon!
As my thyroid autoimmunity began to increase, I developed an allergic reaction to most metals. I had to change out a necklace I wear all the time for a white gold version - my neck actually developed welts with the old one - my dh thinks I did it on purpose somehow, LOL!
So, this leads to my question (still) which is does anything rule out the possibility that our kids are having an inflammatory/ autoimmune-related reaction to the mercury (and/ or lead, pcb’s, etc) that is parked in their bodies and esp. brains?
All of my kids have immune dysfunction (did I ever mention that? lol), but the one with the worst problem is also the one with the PDD-NOS features. This immune dysfunction seems to be a primary hallmark of autistic kids and their family line - surely someone has looked at or is looking at this question? Anyone?
September 4th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Grace,
I decided to go with substance over “flash”. I realise that this goes against the current trend in media, but it suits me.
I would turn your question around - does anything suggest or indicate that “our [sic] kids are having an inflammatory/autoimmune-related reaction to the mercury…that is parked in their bodies…”?
Although a number of people have asserted that their autistic children have “autoimmune” problems, I have rarely seen this documented. “Immune dysfunction” is also frequently asserted but rarely demonstrated.
Mouridsen et al (Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, June 2007) found that there was no increased prevalence of autoimmune disorders in the mothers of autistic children, but that the fathers of autistic children had almost twice the prevalence of autoimmune disorders (8.6% vs 4.6%). Ulcerative colitis (in mothers) and type 1 diabetes (in fathers) showed a positive association with autism. Even the authors weren’t sure if this was a real finding.
A much larger study by Croen et al (Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Feb 2005) showed only an association with maternal psoriasis. It looks as though these are all chance associations that are not causative or even related to autism.
One thought - you mentioned that your child with the worst “immune dysfunction” was also the one with PDD-NOS features. Is it possible that his/her “immune dysfunction” seems worse because of the PDD-NOS features?
Prometheus
September 6th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Substance over flash? Counter-cultural indeed!
I forgot to mention that Patrick’s link didn’t transfer from your old blog. I will see if I can make it happen (would be nice to be able to preview if this link is going to work if you happen to be working on a Christmas list
): 24-hour provoked urine excretion test for heavy metals in children with autism and typically developing controls, a pilot study.
My son has a hyper-reactive immune system. He was the one who when everyone else was having cold symptoms would be spiking a temperature. He had a temperature every time he cut a tooth. He frequently got sick (almost always with fever) when no one else did. It was not until we started nutritional supplementation that he actually did not get sick when one of his siblings did for the very first time. Interestingly he did develop psoriasis during this past year.
While I acknowledge that the jury is still out, I find it surprising that you see it as unsupported. Here are a ready handful of examples:
Increased prevalence of familial autoimmunity in probands with pervasive developmental disorders.
The immune response in autism: a new frontier for autism research.
Serum autoantibodies to brain in Landau-Kleffner variant, autism, and other neurologic disorders.
Hyperserotoninemia and altered immunity in autism.
Antibrain antibodies in children with autism and their unaffected siblings.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Grace,
I thought that I was clear that autoimmunity had been seen in association with autism, but that different studies had found different associations. If that wasn’t clear, I hope that this might help:
[1] A number of studies have found evidence of an association between autism and autoimmune disorders - some studies found autosimmune disorders in the parents, some in the autistic children.
[2] No association - except indirect or by analogy - has been shown between mercury and the autoimmune disorders the studies have found in association with autism.
[3] Various studies linking autoimmune disorders with autism have found different autoimmune disorders.
[4] There is no data suggesting that “autoimmune disorders” all have a common cause. This makes it problematic to say that, since one study found an association with atopy, another with ulcerative colitis and yet another with thyroiditis, that autism and “autoimmunity” are linked.
[BTW, the Sweeten et al paper (Pediatrics, Nov 2003) found a linkage between PDD (a notoriously vague diagnosis) and rheumatic fever. While rheumatic fever is an autoimmune disease, the antibodies are actually directed at the streptococcus infection, which puts it in a very different class from thyroiditis and ulcerative colitis, so far as we now know]
This is not to say that autism and autoimmunity are not associated, just that the association remains tenuous and of questionable significance. Also, remember that association is not causation. Whatever causes autism may cause autoimmunity, or the two could be unrelated.
Prometheus
September 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I came to your site via Autism Diva, whose blog I read almost every day. I get what you are saying in your myths of autism, but my question to you is, why are you so convinced that mercury is NOT a factoral cause of autism? I mean, I feel as though you are going out of your way to prove the “mercury parents” wrong. Why is it such a hotpoint for you? Just curious.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Priya,
I am convinced by the available data that mercury cannot be a significant cause of autism. It may eventually be shown to be a cause of a small percentage of autism cases, but maybe not.
Maybe you hadn’t noticed, but the mercury-causes-autism hypothesis is still very “hot” these days. For that reason, I tend to direct more of my attention in that direction.
I want to emphasize that I am not trying to prove the “mercury parents” wrong. The data shows that they are wrong. If new (reliable) data emerges that shows that they are right, I’ll ‘blog that, too.
Part of the problem is that it’s not the “mercury parents” who are promoting the idea that mercury causes autism - they are just repeating what they have been told. I am trying to show the people who are doing the telling are playing fast and loose with the facts.
That’s my hot point.
Prometheus
September 8th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Prometheus,
I appreciate the clarification as I definitely misunderstood you the first time. Mercury has been linked to autoimmunity fairly strongly:
The immunosuppressive effect of methylmercury does not preclude development of autoimmunity in genetically susceptible mice.
Immunosuppressive and autoimmune effects of thimerosal in mice.
Mercury and autoimmunity: implications for occupational and environmental health.
Low-dose exposure to inorganic mercury accelerates disease and mortality in acquired murine lupus.
Low level methylmercury exposure affects neuropsychological function in adults.
While there is much that we do not yet know about autoimmune disease, the current theory regarding circulating immune complexes that can get deposited in the body and then trigger the immune system to attack the tissue to which those complexes have attached is not only reasonable, but supported by the research to date.
And while it does appear that the location of the autoimmune response involves some genetic vulnerability, the fact that those complexes are traveling the circulatory system leads to a wide range of possible places to lodge. Which would be a good explanation of why the odds of developing any autoimmune disease when a family member develops one is almost as significant as the odds of another family member developing that particular autoimmune disease.
Long story short: it appears that any substance in the body capable of generating chronic inflammation is potentially capable of generating an autoimmune reaction. There is also research indicating that certain microbes, like candida, are capable of “disguising” themselves somewhat to appear like the tissue of their environment so that they confuse the immune system into attacking self. (Most of that research has been done with RA, MS, and thyroid diseases, but obviously has the potential for broader ramifications)
So while clearly not yet concrete, it does not seem that the idea that mercury causes autoimmunity and that autoimmunity is a potential cause of autism (A->B->C) is particularly tenuous either. It seems more a question of what part of the CNS is being affected at this point as I believe the few studies looking for brain myelin antibodies did not turn up anything of significance to date.
P.S. As far as your response to Priya goes, I am reminded of a question that I wanted to ask you before in our discussion about the EPA report on mercury: If a person gets sick from a toxin or a disease, do you believe that a positive diagnosis is contingent on that person exhibiting every symptom or even every classic symptom?
[Priya, if you are interested, here are the pertinent links EPA Report on Mercury volume 5 & EPA Report on Mercury volume 7 ]
September 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Okay…thanks! I have a child with the PDD-NOS diagnosis. It is very hard not to get caught up with trying to find a way to “cure” him. When he was first diagnosed, I spent hours on the internet trying to first understand what he “had”, and then to find ways to fix it. Now, instead of a medical cure, I am learning to just deal with his quirks and help him learn coping strategies. It is a hard road, and I totally get why parents want so desparately to believe that there is a quick fix out there, if they could just find it.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Grace,
I think you ought to look again at the “circulating immune complex” hypothesis of autoimmune disorders. I don’t believe that it supports your assertion that a single genetic mutation can cause any autoimmune disorder.
I believe, if you look closer, you will see that it explains how one antibody (and not neccessarily autoantibodies) can cause problems in multiple organ systems. This can explain variable presentation, but not different autoantibodies.
There are clear family clusters of several of the autoimmune disorders, with little cross-over. Granted, there are immune system multi-disorder clusters - such as the well-known atopic disorder - which have several presentations (possibly partly due to the “circulating immune complex” hypothesis) , but these are not due to autoantibodies.
Still, it remains a big leap to go from autoimmune disorders to autism. Not that they can’t cause autism, but they haven’t been shown to cause autism.
This is the same problem that crops up over and over again in “autism causation”: a “correlation” is found - maybe in a couple of studies, but often in just one or two. Then, somebody comes up with a plausible (or even just possible) mechanism for how that correlated event, condition or exposure could have, might have caused autism. And then the speculation begins.
The problem remains that correlation does not equal causation. It is, to be sure, a good place to start looking, but too often there is no further examination. Once the correlation is found, it somehow becomes assumed that causation is likely.
Unfortunately, it is equally likely - even if the correlation is valid - that whatever actually caused the autism also caused the correlated condition. And that’s if the correlation is valid.
I’m not fundamentally opposed to autism being an autoimmune disorder, but I haven’t been convinced by the data yet.
Prometheus
September 11th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Prometheus, please clarifiy:
“I don’t believe that it supports your assertion that a single genetic mutation can cause any autoimmune disorder.”
Where did I make this assertion? The only thing I intentionally said regarding genes was, “it does appear that the location of the autoimmune response involves some genetic vulnerability”
As far as the distinctions between immune dysfunction, immune disorder, autoantibodies, etc, the more I read, the more obvious it becomes that we do not understand enough about these things to be able to clearly distinguish what the heck is going on there! The current terminology apparently has a lot of overlap and interchangeability. They may actually signal steps along a road toward autoimmunity or in some other way all be interrelated.
I believe immunologists are going to have to redefine all these terms in the very near future. I prefer to stick with the term immune dysfunction at this point because it pretty much covers the whole subject - something gone awry within the immune system.
At any rate, I do assert & believe that I have shown that the hypothesis that mercury causes autoimmunity which can then lead to autism, while not proven definitively, is reasonable & plausible rather than tenuous (look at the known causes of autism; those are clearly the result of CNS damage rather than the other way around - we’re not working from ground zero here) so what sense does it make to argue against it until it is proven or disproven? Not saying that you are actively against it, but that you are effectively against it.
If only a small percentage of kids develop autism due to meningitis, do we dismiss exploring treatment possibilities for them or means of prevention to protect others because they are not a significant enough percent to apply to the general autistic population?
We can sit back with our arms folded and say, “Prove it.” while time passes our children by or we can make reasonable efforts to help them. No that does not lump us all in the lupron guinea pig category - rather it’s working with the same risk-benefit ratio that allopathic MD’s use all the time.
Can I cure my son of the damage that’s been done to him most likely by the mercury exposure he received prenatally? Not with our current knowledge & technology. But there are things that can be done to help these kids function & feel better. What percentage of autistic kids have to have been damaged by mercury to avoid being dismissed?
Does it ever bother you that you & your hub members are probably discouraging parents from looking into those possibilities since you lump all these DAN people into the same extremist category and outsiders don’t generally hang around long enough to pick up on the occasional disclaimers or clarifications that pop up from time to time?
September 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Grace,
You make a lot of assertions that you never support, the most obvious of which is that mercury causes autism. Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it so. As I’ve said, I have no problem with believing that mercury can cause autism, it’s just that there isn’t enough data to support that hypothesis.
You ask, “Does it ever bother you that you & your hub members are probably discouraging parents from looking into those possibilities…”. Again, you are making an unsupported assertion. It is not my intent to “discourage” people, simply to provide them with an opposing viewpoint. If that discourages them, then the folks promoting these therapies haven’t done a very good job, have they?
It seems incredible that a lone, anonymous blogger could turn people away from therapies that are actually helping autistic children. Isn’t it more likely that these therapies aren’t supported by data and that the people promoting them aren’t being very convincing.
Maybe my role is to force the promoters of these treatments to be more coherent in their presentations and to prod them into doing some research to support their assertions. That would be a good thing, right?
If my writing is so bothersome to you, why do you keep coming back? Is it so disturbing to you that somebody doesn’t agree with you? I think you should ask yourself, “Why does it bother me so much?” The answer to that question might be very illuminating.
Good luck!
Prometheus
September 12th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Prometheus,
I confess - I am a Platonist at heart. Consider me your thorn.
Leave psychiatry to the professionals.
I have previously shown that the symptoms of my son who fits the PDD-NOS diagnosis are also consistent with most of the symptoms of low level mercury exposure as outlined in the EPA’s Report on Mercury.
Your response to date has been to show that my son probably has not been mercury poisoned:
-because there are so many quacks out there and I shouldn’t believe their studies (which you, not I, brought up while I kept trying to talk about the EPA report)
-because my son does not have the symptoms of high level mercury exposure
-then because he does not have all the possible symptoms of low level exposure
-because studies that you trust have not shown any correlation between thimerosal and autism even though I was not discussing thimerosal (at least not directly) but amalgam replacement during peak brain development of the fetus at 5mos (though the same ones you cited do show a possible correlation between thimerosal and ADD as well as tics which, as I mentioned, some of my children also have - as do many families with autistic kids - but that was apparently disregarded as well?)
Additionally, you provided an acknowledgment that mercury might be a factor for a small percentage of cases but too small to be significant - my son’s case dismissed?
I have also shown here that mercury can cause autoimmunity and autism may be a form of autoimmunity and that there is sufficient evidence to give this hypothesis reasonable credibility. Your response is “not enough data to support that” - motion for reconsideration of the verdict also dismissed?
So I can’t help but wonder things like how many mercury exposed prenates does it take to register on the worthy of significance scale? Or is it simply that you acknowledge a few autistic kids might actually be mercury damaged but that there is nothing to be done for them?
And if mercury causes or contributes to even just a fraction of autism diagnoses, then shouldn’t we be putting our energy into keeping that vile stuff out of our kids?
What is your goal here? Light in the darkness is a phrase that refers to bringing truth, enlightenment & even hope where there was none. How do you perceive yourself to be doing that in your anti-DAN, anti-chelation campaign? Sure people need to be warned of true quackery, but have you substantiated your assertion that all people who promote or support chelation are quacks?
September 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Grace,
Let me make myself painfully clear.
[1] Mercury has not been shown to cause autism.
[2] The symptoms of mercury poisoning - “high” or “low” level - do not replicate the symptoms of autism. There is some overlap in the words used and even in some of the symptoms, but the totality of the two look completely different. Influenza and heat stroke both cause a rise in body temperature, but the two conditions do not resemble each other.
[3] The epidemiological tools used to evaluate potential causes of autism are not capable of eliminating causes that account for a small percentage of a condition. This is what I meant when I said that mercury could not cause a “significant” number of the cases of autism.
The significance is in the size of the number, not in the impact on the family - which I think you know.
In fact, it is most likely that mercury causes zero cases of autism. However, in order to be rigorously honest, I have to concede that a small number of cases could be caused by mercury and remain undetected by the current techniques employed to study autism.
I don’t believe that I have ever said that “…all people who promote or support chelation are quacks…” For that matter, many of the people who promote and support chelation are not practitioners of any kind; they are simply people who are repeating what they have been told.
I don’t like the term “quack”, because it has become an emotionally loaded term. I have said on numerous occasion that I believe that the grand majority of practitioners who employ “alternative” therapies - even chelation for autism - are doing so in the sincere belief that they are helping their patients. This does not prevent them from being wrong, however.
I think that we will just have to remain in disagreement over this (and many other) issue.
Prometheus
September 30th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
[...] disorder (i.e., children who are allegedly “poor excretors” of mercury). Fortunately, Prometheus has provided a good explanation of what a crock that whole myth is, so that I don’t have [...]
July 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
[...] shows that it absolutely, positively has to be mercury from vaccines that cause autism is the Myth of the Poor Excretor. In other words, the claim is that autistic children are somehow “poor excretors” of [...]