Anti-Vaccination "Supporting Literature" #2
Today we'll talk about the first paper, a freshly accepted paper to the Journal of Toxicology. As you recall, this is a journal with no impact factor, meaning that the work is likely communicated by referees hand picked by the authors. Referees that support their claims and are not necessarily evaluating the science with due rigor.
The paper. The Severity of Autism Is Associated With Toxic Metal Body Burden and Red Blood Cell Glutathione Levels by Adams et al.. Sounds spooky, doesn't it? You can download it here. This paper is so fresh that it is still in the manuscript form- that's why it is not formally typeset.
Before starting, let's consider this piece of work within the framework of the anti-vax standpoint. The title alone says that toxic metals in subjects are associated with autism. Going in, this has got to be mercury. This is THE culprit if you read their websites, coming in via thimerisol that has been removed from all childhood vaccines, but they contend is still there. There is a trace of thimerisol in some flu vaccines only.
So if we believe the anti-vaxers this paper should show a substantially higher amount of mercury in the severely autistic subjects. That would be an interpretation consistent with the proposed anti-vax position of mercury causes autism.
First the methods. The paper uses dimercapotsuccinic acid (DMSA), a compound that binds divalent (+2 charged) ions. The bound compound is excreted in urine and the metallic component can be measured. Of course, if dimercaptosuccinic acid was in a vaccine in exceedingly trace amounts you'd be reading about how dangerous it is and that there is "acid in vaccines". They did a baseline measurement and another measurement after 9 days of DMSA treatment.
Table 2 tells us that DMSA can bring out metals, but mercury is not significantly removed in the treatment. In other words, the test is not a reliable way to measure mercury levels.
Table 4 compares the metal levels with the severity of autism. The table shows that all levels have high antimony as a baseline across all levels of autism severity. Lead levels were high in one. After using DMSA for 9 days the levels of lead, tungsten, antimony, cadmium, and thallium were higher in some cases. Of course, significance was measured at p<0 .5="" 1="" 4="" 80="" a="" about="" alone.="" anticipated="" anything="" are="" be="" being="" br="" chance.="" chance="" due="" high.="" in="" is="" meaning="" of="" pretty="" s="" significant="" so="" table="" that="" there="" this="" to="" variables="" would="" wrong="">
Note- autistic subjects do not show significantly higher amounts of mercury or aluminum, the two metals described as causes of autism by anti-vaxers.
The next tables are regression analyses, in other words comparing the severity of the disorder to the presence of various compounds before and after chelation. In short, these results massage the dataset to generate positive associations and don't do so with astounding statistical rigor (I should say that the tungsten result in Table 6 might be convincing).
It is also important to note that there is not a correlation between the amount of metals and the severity of autism. A dose-response test fails and does not support causality.
I personally like page 9 where their agenda shows. The next to last paragraph says:
This paper has focused on the possible relationship between toxic metals and the severity of autism.
Then the next paragraph says:
(The original study) was not primarily designed for investigating the relationship of the severity of autism to toxic metals.
So this was not a study to test for the metal-autism connection. This was not a hypothesis to test, it was something they massaged from the data after the fact. That is why it is published where it is.
Note the careful language that confuses the average person and delights the anti-vaxer, even though it has little scientific gravity. In Conclusions:
Overall, the correlation analysis found multiple significant correlations of severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals, such that a higher body burden of toxic metals was associated with more severe autistic symptoms. The results of the regression analyses (p < 0.005 in all cases) indicate that variations in the severity of autism may be partially explained in terms of toxic metal body burden.
They then go on to point out that this is a correlation and does not imply causality, but to the three anti-vaxers that sent me the article it was slam dunk proof of the mercury-autism connection. The paper says nothing like that. I don't know where they are getting "p<0 .005="" all="" as="" br="" cases="" cell="" i="" in="" it="" of="" one="" only="" see="" table.="">
They then go on to say that "severity of autism may be partially explained in terms of toxic metal body burden" but the results could be equally interpreted that the accumulation of metals is caused by autism. That's just as valid an interpretation that they forgot to include. It is equally possible that the general dysfunction at the cellular level that leads to austism leads to hyperaccumulation of metals.
Once you read the paper and think about the rigor and the analysis of the data, go back to the abstract and title. It says, "This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals".
Is that accurate? Yes. Do anti-vaxers know what that means? No. The three that sent it to me infer causality, that metals cause the autism. I don't want to pass judgment on the authors, but their agendas show, their organizations (for the most part, read last blog entry) are not scientific. The two real physicians in the study are explained as "consultants" on page 10, so their role in this is not clearly delineated. I'll bet they are not really happy about the way that this is being used.
So there you have it. A scary title without a lot of evidence to back it up, especially in the framework of the anti-vax argument for mercury and aluminum effects.
Typical. Dependence on a low-quality publication in a low-impact journal for stellar conclusions that overstep the data. That's anti-vax for ya.
The paper. The Severity of Autism Is Associated With Toxic Metal Body Burden and Red Blood Cell Glutathione Levels by Adams et al.. Sounds spooky, doesn't it? You can download it here. This paper is so fresh that it is still in the manuscript form- that's why it is not formally typeset.
Before starting, let's consider this piece of work within the framework of the anti-vax standpoint. The title alone says that toxic metals in subjects are associated with autism. Going in, this has got to be mercury. This is THE culprit if you read their websites, coming in via thimerisol that has been removed from all childhood vaccines, but they contend is still there. There is a trace of thimerisol in some flu vaccines only.
So if we believe the anti-vaxers this paper should show a substantially higher amount of mercury in the severely autistic subjects. That would be an interpretation consistent with the proposed anti-vax position of mercury causes autism.
First the methods. The paper uses dimercapotsuccinic acid (DMSA), a compound that binds divalent (+2 charged) ions. The bound compound is excreted in urine and the metallic component can be measured. Of course, if dimercaptosuccinic acid was in a vaccine in exceedingly trace amounts you'd be reading about how dangerous it is and that there is "acid in vaccines". They did a baseline measurement and another measurement after 9 days of DMSA treatment.
Table 2 tells us that DMSA can bring out metals, but mercury is not significantly removed in the treatment. In other words, the test is not a reliable way to measure mercury levels.
Table 4 compares the metal levels with the severity of autism. The table shows that all levels have high antimony as a baseline across all levels of autism severity. Lead levels were high in one. After using DMSA for 9 days the levels of lead, tungsten, antimony, cadmium, and thallium were higher in some cases. Of course, significance was measured at p<0 .5="" 1="" 4="" 80="" a="" about="" alone.="" anticipated="" anything="" are="" be="" being="" br="" chance.="" chance="" due="" high.="" in="" is="" meaning="" of="" pretty="" s="" significant="" so="" table="" that="" there="" this="" to="" variables="" would="" wrong="">
Note- autistic subjects do not show significantly higher amounts of mercury or aluminum, the two metals described as causes of autism by anti-vaxers.
The next tables are regression analyses, in other words comparing the severity of the disorder to the presence of various compounds before and after chelation. In short, these results massage the dataset to generate positive associations and don't do so with astounding statistical rigor (I should say that the tungsten result in Table 6 might be convincing).
It is also important to note that there is not a correlation between the amount of metals and the severity of autism. A dose-response test fails and does not support causality.
I personally like page 9 where their agenda shows. The next to last paragraph says:
This paper has focused on the possible relationship between toxic metals and the severity of autism.
Then the next paragraph says:
(The original study) was not primarily designed for investigating the relationship of the severity of autism to toxic metals.
So this was not a study to test for the metal-autism connection. This was not a hypothesis to test, it was something they massaged from the data after the fact. That is why it is published where it is.
Note the careful language that confuses the average person and delights the anti-vaxer, even though it has little scientific gravity. In Conclusions:
Overall, the correlation analysis found multiple significant correlations of severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals, such that a higher body burden of toxic metals was associated with more severe autistic symptoms. The results of the regression analyses (p < 0.005 in all cases) indicate that variations in the severity of autism may be partially explained in terms of toxic metal body burden.
They then go on to point out that this is a correlation and does not imply causality, but to the three anti-vaxers that sent me the article it was slam dunk proof of the mercury-autism connection. The paper says nothing like that. I don't know where they are getting "p<0 .005="" all="" as="" br="" cases="" cell="" i="" in="" it="" of="" one="" only="" see="" table.="">
They then go on to say that "severity of autism may be partially explained in terms of toxic metal body burden" but the results could be equally interpreted that the accumulation of metals is caused by autism. That's just as valid an interpretation that they forgot to include. It is equally possible that the general dysfunction at the cellular level that leads to austism leads to hyperaccumulation of metals.
Once you read the paper and think about the rigor and the analysis of the data, go back to the abstract and title. It says, "This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals".
Is that accurate? Yes. Do anti-vaxers know what that means? No. The three that sent it to me infer causality, that metals cause the autism. I don't want to pass judgment on the authors, but their agendas show, their organizations (for the most part, read last blog entry) are not scientific. The two real physicians in the study are explained as "consultants" on page 10, so their role in this is not clearly delineated. I'll bet they are not really happy about the way that this is being used.
So there you have it. A scary title without a lot of evidence to back it up, especially in the framework of the anti-vax argument for mercury and aluminum effects.
Typical. Dependence on a low-quality publication in a low-impact journal for stellar conclusions that overstep the data. That's anti-vax for ya.
