"Age of Autism: A whole-body illness" & Are we really dealing with two separate conditions?
Posted Sep 14 2008 6:10pm
(This was posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)
Dan Olmsted pieces together his latest article in the marathon "Age of Autism" series by essentially copying and pasting from his inbox. He starts the article saying,
One advantage of writing an ongoing column is trends become evident as readers respond over time -- trends that might not emerge in a single installment, no matter how detailed.
Here's one of those trends: Something is medically wrong with many, many autistic children.
To be more precise, many things are wrong with them. Yet autism is defined by the health authorities as a mental disorder, diagnosed solely by observation.
"Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are defined as a constellation of behaviors indicating social, communicative, and behavioral impairment or abnormalities. The essential features of ASD are (a) impaired reciprocal social interactions, (b) delayed or unusual communication styles, and (c) restricted or repetitive behavior patterns."
After hearing from so many parents, however, our sense is medical disorders accompany autism so frequently that not mentioning them as possible symptoms may be an omission.
Dan Olmsted points us to something that has been bugging me for the last couple of weeks. Maybe both "sides" are right. (We sure as hell both THINK we're right!) Autism is NOT caused by mercury. And, autism IS caused by mercury. It's just that the second form of autism is actually mercury-poinsoning, misdiagnosed as autism. Possible?
Consider what the "evil" Dr. Buttar has said (paraphrasing), "There is no such thing as autism; it's mercury poisoning." Maybe, and likely without realizing it, his statement was too general. Maybe the correct way to say it would have been, "I think there's a whole bunch of these kids that have been diagnosed as autistic who are really just mercury-poisoned." Admittedly, this is not as good a sound-byte. ;-)
I first mentioned this idea while thinking out loud in the comments of Injecting Sense. I pretty much got beat up for even mentioning it. But the idea may be gaining more traction.
This idea came up again as I debated with Camille Clark (aka. AutismDiva) and Jypsy in the comments of the Buttar blog entry that started this ball rolling. (Go here, then scroll way down to the bottom. Read my post from Oct 3 at 1:25pm)
And I just read a comment from Kevin Leitch ( here at Oct 6, 4:31am) that ended with this:
Here's a suggestion for both Scott and Kevin - if your kids are both truly only recieving Chelation as a treatment the[n] it seems obvious to me that your kids never were autistic. They were mercury poisoned and misdiagnosed. Thats certainly way more plausible than Usmans 'they wouldn't be autistic' rubbish.
Maybe when "Mercury Moms" say, "My child isn't autistic, he's mercury-poisoned!" as a get-the-point-across kind of slogan, maybe they're ABSOLUTELY right on? The kids are NOT autistic.
And maybe Kevin Leitch, Kevin Greenlee, AutismDiva, et al. have kids who ARE autistic but are NOT mercury poisoned because we're really looking at two separate conditions with similar (identical?) symptoms?
I'll be very interested to read the comments. (I'll be out of pocket somewhat for the next 3 days as I'm going to the ADA rally in Philadelphia.)