Letter to Autoimmunity Reviews · 2006-11-17 08:00


Significant Misrepresentations
Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol
(Part Twelve) • Related articles

On October 27, 2006, the journal Autoimmunity Reviews published online an “in-press uncorrected proof” of a new article by Mark Geier and David Geier, The biochemical basis and treatment of autism: Interactions between mercury, transsulfuration, and androgens — the first peer-reviewed journal article in which they discuss after the fact their experimentation with administration of the drug Lupron to autistic children and adolescents. From the abstract:

Impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive behaviors, abnormal movement patterns, and sensory dysfunction characterizes autism spectrum disorder (ASDs). It has long been recognized that there is a genetic component to some ASDs, but recent studies have also suggested that some ASDs are triggered by environmental factors. Mercury exposure can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs, and recent studies have shown increased body-burdens of mercury in some ASDs. It has also been shown that mercury exposure can trigger a biochemical cyclical pattern of interaction to develop between the transsulfuration and androgen pathways that are directly characteristic with the biochemistry observed in some ASDs, and would be expected to correlate with the behavioral/physical traits associated with or defining ASDs. In light of potential blocks in manipulating the transsulfuration pathway in ASDs, LUPRON® therapy has been utilized for the treatment of androgen abnormalities in ASDs. The use of LUPRON® in a large cohort of ASDs of various ages has been observed to be associated with a significant clinical amelioration in hyperactivity/impulsivity, aggression, self injury, severe sexual behaviors, and irritability behaviors that frequently accompany ASDs.

Some time after the article was made available online, it was removed without explanation from Autoimmunity Reviews’ index of in-press articles.

The following is my November 10, 2006 response to The biochemical basis and treatment of autism: Interactions between mercury, transsulfuration, and androgens, addressed to Autoimmunity Reviews Editor-in-Chief Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld and members of the journal’s Editorial Board. I await the journal’s reply.


Dear Dr. Shoenfeld and Members of the Autoimmunity Reviews Editorial Board,

I am writing to convey several concerns about the probity of disclosure, adequacy of ethical review, and quality of documentation and citations in the paper by Mark and David Geier, entitled, “The biochemical basis and treatment of autism: Interactions between mercury, transsulfuration, and androgens” (Autoimmunity Reviews, uncorrected proof published online October 27, 2006). These issues extend far beyond matters of publication policy, because the premature promotion to parents of autistic children of inadequately tested, experimental pharmaceutical interventions poses a significant risk of harm to a vulnerable population, and because academic journal articles are commonly presented to non-scientists in the course of such promotion.

Although Dr. and Mr. Geier indicate in their conflict of interest statement that they have been involved in past vaccine-injury litigation, they do not disclose that Dr. Geier is currently retained as an expert medical witness for plaintiffs in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, which consolidates over 5,000 cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Dr. M. Eric Gershwin — co-editor-in-chief of Autoimmunity Reviews — is also named in the Petitioners’ Disclosure of Experts filed on February 14, 2006, more than six months prior to submission of this article. (1) Hearings in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding have been postponed until the summer of 2007 to allow completion and publication of studies the plaintiffs anticipate will support their case. (2) Dr. Geier’s and Dr. Gershwin’s role in this litigation creates a compelling reason for rigorous transparency regarding potential sources of editorial and authorial bias.

Dr. and Mr. Geier state that they “have a patent pending for the treatment of autistic disorders.” In fact, there exist two published patent applications, both pertaining to the use of Lupron (leuprolide acetate), one filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the other with the World Intellectual Property Organization. (3,4) Both were submitted in September 2005 by a lawyer representing Lupron’s manufacturer, TAP Pharmaceuticals; TAP is co-applicant on the WIPO application. Failure to disclose the second patent with TAP creates a serious problem, given that Dr. and Mr. Geier identify leuprolide as LUPRON® — all capital letters, registered trademark sign on prominent display — no fewer than fourteen times in their paper, and use the generic name only twice. Review of a half-dozen academic journal articles on leuprolide — including articles by TAP-funded researchers — yields no instances in which a brand name is displayed so frequently and unnecessarily, contrary to conventions for the use of trade vs. generic names. (5-10)

Dr. and Mr. Geier refer to a “large cohort of ASDs of various ages” numbering almost one hundred autistic children and adolescents. However, they fail to include a statement describing independent ethical review of research with this vulnerable population. The omission is troubling not only in and of itself but because in two previous reports of data from this cohort of children Dr. and Mr. Geier state that their research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of “Institute for Chronic Illnesses” — the “Institute” mentioned in the Autoimmunity Reviews article’s byline, of which 24-year old B.A. and sometime graduate student David Geier is Vice-President, and his father President (in addition to being proprietor of the private medical practice, “Genetic Centers of America”). (11-12)

The Office of Human Research Protection registration of the IRB of the “Institute for Chronic Illnesses” was submitted by Mark Geier in February 2006 — fifteen months after the commencement of the research the Geiers describe in this article, which began in November 2004, the same month in which Dr. Geier testified in court that he had no prior experience in the diagnosis or treatment of autistic children. (13,14) The seven-member IRB consists of Mark and David Geier; Dr. Geier’s wife; two of Dr. Geier’s business associates; and two mothers of autistic children, one of whom has publicly acknowledged that her son is a patient/subject of Dr. Geier, and the other of whom is plaintiff in three pending vaccine-injury claims. The membership of the IRB gives rise to misgivings about the independence of ethical review of Dr. and Mr. Geiers’ research. Every member has discernible conflicts of interest, and none has any discernible expertise in endocrinology — expertise crucial to the competent oversight and conduct of research involving pharmaceutical manipulation of children’s hormones. (15)

Dr. and Mr. Geier provide little relevant data from researchers besides themselves to support many highly debatable assertions about autism etiology and prevalence, and about comorbid problems affecting autistic people. For instance, statements that autism “may presently occur in as many as one in about 85 children” (a figure representing almost double the 1:166 rate generally cited by epidemiologists), and that “severe sexual behaviors… frequently accompany ASDs” both go completely unsubstantiated.

Gratuitous self-citation and citation-inflation abounds. Although only six of the forty references provided by Dr. and Mr. Geier are to their own papers, eighteen different citations of those references represent nearly one-third of the total citations in this article. They refer to their own in-press “Case-series of children with apparent mercury toxic encephalopathies manifesting with clinical symptoms of regressive autistic disorder” (Reference 1) at least nine times in support of all manner of assertions, including:

“ASD individuals have an increased prevalence of gastrointestinal disease and dysbiosis, autoimmune disease, and mental retardation.”

“…mercury exposure can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs, and the similarities extend to neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and biochemistry…”

“…individuals with ASDs… have significant reductions in cysteine, sulphate, total glutathione, and reduced glutathione… and significant increases in oxidized glutathione… in comparison to controls.”

“clinically increasingly severe ASDs were correlated with increasing testosterone levels.”

It is highly unlikely that this case series, which is not even available for public scrutiny, would provide enough data to substantiate such a wide variety of claims.

In the same overreaching manner, Joachim Mutter et al’s, “Mercury and autism: accelerating evidence?” (Reference 2) is cited eight times. (16) This article is an opinion piece and literature review containing no original data, and failing to distinguish between peer-reviewed studies, letters to editors, Congressional testimony, and newspaper articles. Although Mutter’s article validates Dr. and Mr. Geier’s opinions, it does not substantiate them. Additionally, co-author Boyd Haley is, like Dr. Geier, an expert witness for plaintiffs in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, and therefore has a compelling yet undeclared conflict of interest with respect to scholarship on the subject. (1)

Reference 6, the Geiers’ own “A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis,” is of questionable legitimacy. (17) Much of the text and data in this article are virtually identical to a draft report prepared in June 2000 by staff of the Centers for Disease Control and subsequently acquired by the vaccine-injury plaintiffs’ organization Safeminds. (18) Although a co-author of the draft alerted the editors of Medical Science Monitor to the apparent plagiarism shortly after its publication, to date the editors have not responded to his concerns. (19) Much of the remainder of the study is extremely similar to the text of another article by the Geiers, which they submitted to the International Journal of Toxicology shortly before submitting the “Two-phased study” to Medical Science Monitor. (20)

Dr. and Mr. Geier justify administering Lupron to autistic children with the claim that it “was previously reported to significantly improve behavioral outcomes in ASDs,” citing George Realmuto and Lisa Ruble’s “Sexual behaviors in autism” (Reference 40). Such a characterization implies improvement in more than one individual, in more than one domain of behavioral functioning, and implies that the treatment described in the article is appropriate for autistic individuals in general. In fact, Realmuto and Ruble discuss a single patient — a 24-year old man to whom Lupron was administered with his express consent, as a last-resort measure to help control severely problematic, public sexual behavior, including sexual advances towards children. The drug was associated with a significant decrease in the targeted problem behavior; its action was attributed solely to its effect on gonadal function. Realmuto and Ruble also state that the man’s “aggressive, destructive and at times psychotic symptoms continued and at times worsened” while on Lupron. (21)

A report by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University falls victim to a particularly egregious instance of citation-abuse. From the Geiers’ article:

“Several studies have examined androgen levels among ASDs. It has been observed that individuals with ASDs had significantly increased pre- and postnatal levels of testosterone and other androgen metabolites, and that clinically increasingly severe ASDs were correlated with increasing testosterone levels [1,18,27,28]. Furthermore, it has been reported that androgen levels are inversely correlated with behaviors that, in the extreme, would count as diagnostic symptoms for ASDs including: eye contact, vocabulary development, social functioning, and narrow interests, and there is preliminary evidence of somatic hypermasculinization in autistic disorders [20,27-29].”

Baron-Cohen et al’s “Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism” (Reference 28) discusses the impact of fetal testosterone on development in utero, and the growing body of evidence associating high fetal testosterone levels with the development of autistic spectrum conditions. (22) At no point do Dr. Baron-Cohen and his colleagues claim that significant numbers of autistic children and adults experience atypically high levels of androgens. At no point do they determine that “clinically increasingly severe ASDs were correlated with increasing testosterone levels” (though they were associated with low 2D:4D digit ratio, a sexually-dimorphic trait). They do not claim that elevated androgen levels in general are associated with autistically-typical behaviors; rather, they state:

“Within normal development, FT [fetal testosterone] is inversely correlated with behaviors that, in the extreme, would count as diagnostic symptoms for autism. These are eye contact, vocabulary development, social functioning, and narrow interests… There is preliminary evidence of somatic hypermasculinization in autistic disorders, although a complete study of this is needed.”

Dr. and Mr. Geier fail to distinguish between the permanent, organizational effects of hormones that influence early development — the primary focus of the research conducted by Dr. Baron-Cohen and his colleagues — and the transient, activational effects of hormones that act upon fully-formed organs. (23) They inappropriately group their references to Baron-Cohen et al’s articles on fetal testosterone with references to three of their own articles on post-natally measured androgens. They copy a passage from “Sex differences in the brain,” replace the specific term “fetal testosterone” with “androgen levels,” delete a crucial caveat, and incorporate the modified passage into their own article. In so doing, they create the inaccurate impression that Baron-Cohen et al’s research supports their own hypothesis that autistic children experience chronically high, deleterious levels of androgens that are appropriate targets for pharmaceutical suppression. However, the work of Dr. Baron-Cohen and his colleagues cannot honestly be cited in support of the proposition that manipulating autistic children’s hormones might result in amelioration of autism. In fact, their work offers significant support for the hypothesis that atypical structures in the brains of autistic people are prenatally determined, rather than a consequence of the sort of environmental and iatrogenic insults claimed by the Geiers, their business associates and clients.

Dr. and Mr. Geier’s statement that Lupron has “minimal systemic adverse effects” is contradicted by the manufacturer’s labeling and by abundant research additional to the single study of female reproductive function they cite in their article. (24-25) Adverse effects of Lupron include decreased bone mineral density, weight gain, pituitary apoplexy, autoimmune thyroiditis, gynecomastia, neutropenia, emotional instability, impaired cognitive function, and menopausal-type symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats. Although Dr. and Mr. Geier refer to Lupron as FDA-approved for the treatment of children experiencing precocious puberty, they fail to acknowledge that their use of the drug as a pediatric psychopharmaceutical is decidedly investigational. They fail to discuss their original claim that mercury binds with testosterone to form chelation-resistant sheets in the brain — a fictitious phenomenon they originally declared to be fact in their patent applications, in an informational video, and in public presentations. (3-4, 26-27) They fail to describe educational, behavioral or other interventions that might have contributed to the gains they attribute to Lupron, and fail to address the effect of maturation on children’s functional ability. They fail to discuss other medications their young patient/subjects are taking — including the chelation drug DMSA and the anti-androgen cyproterone acetate, both described in their patent applications as integral elements of the “Lupron protocol.” (3-4)

Dr. and Mr. Geier make broad claims for the efficacy of Lupron therapy, and state that there have been “few non-responders.” They claim to have evaluated over two hundred children, and to have treated almost one hundred of them with Lupron (and, no doubt, other unnamed drugs). However, in spite of the implication that they possess sufficient data to substantiate their claims, they offer only three brief case reports. These describe three boys, 18, 11 and 9 years of age; two have a diagnosis of autism, and one Pervasive Developmental Disorder (Not Otherwise Specified). Dr. and Mr. Geier provide no endocrinological diagnoses, and no information regarding the manner by which they determined that Lupron was an appropriate medication to prescribe to children beyond the age for a precocious puberty diagnosis, the only pediatric condition for which Lupron is FDA-approved. Each case report focuses primarily on behavioral and cognitive outcomes, and each refers to masturbation as a presumably “severe” and abnormal sexual behavior. Contrary to the implication that masturbation in and of itself is a problem requiring extraordinary pharmaceutical intervention, it is a normal behavior for individuals of all ages, although autistic individuals occasionally need extra help in learning discretion and moderation.

The case reports indicate that each boy was administered daily subcutaneous injections of leuprolide in addition to monthly Lupron Depot shots. However, Dr. and Mr. Geier do not discuss the process by which they justify treating individual children beyond the age at which TAP Pharmaceuticals and the FDA recommend discontinuation of the drug. Neither do they discuss their rationale for administering daily injections to children for a condition that is not life-threatening; this is a process often requiring physical restraint, especially when children are tactile-defensive, or do not understand the reason for the injection. Although Dr. and Mr. Geier state that they associate “minimal adverse clinical effects” with Lupron therapy, the 18-year old boy’s case report refers to “mood swings” and “occasional sleep problems,” both of which could be attributed to Lupron.

At least five clinical trials are currently underway in the United States investigating the effects of reproductive hormones and GnRH agonists on brain function, and the use of leuprolide as a psychopharmaceutical in the treatment of premenstrual and postpartum mood disorders. (28-32) The autistic children and adolescents who are the subjects of Dr. and Mr. Geier’s investigation into the psychoactive effects of Lupron deserve as much protection as the adult volunteers in these trials.

Given the many omissions and irregularities in this article, it would seem appropriate for the Editorial Board of Autoimmunity Reviews to request clarification of these issues from Dr. and Mr. Geier. It would also seem appropriate to disclose whether Dr. Gershwin recused himself from any role in reviewing or preparing this article for publication.

I welcome those who are interested in learning more about this subject to read my recent series of articles, entitled, “Significant Misrepresentations: Mark Geier, David Geier and the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol.”

Sincerely,

Kathleen Seidel
neurodiversity.com | honoring the variety of human wiring
http://www.neurodiversity.com


References:

(1) Petitioners’ Initial Disclosure of Experts. In re: Claims for vaccine injuries resulting in autism spectrum disorder, or a similar neurodevelopmental disorder, v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Office of the Special Master. February 14, 2006.

(2) Autism Update. In re: Claims for vaccine injuries resulting in autism spectrum disorder, or a similar neurodevelopmental disorder, v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Office of the Special Master. September 7, 2006.

(3) Geier MR, Geier DA. Methods of treating disorders having a component of mercury toxicity. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, September 2005. .

(4) Geier MR, Geier DA, TAP Pharmaceuticals. Methods of treating disorders having a component of mercury toxicity. World Intellectual Property Organization, September 2005.

(5) Bhatia S, Neely EK, Wilson DM. Serum luteinizing hormone rises within minutes after depot leuprolide injection: implications for monitoring therapy. Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):E30.

(6) Carel JC, Lahlou N, Jaramillo O, Montauban V, Teinturier C, Colle M, Lucas C, Chaussain JL. Treatment of central precocious puberty by subcutaneous injections of leuprorelin 3-month depot (11.25 mg). J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Sep;87(9):4111-6.

(7) Rosenfield RL, Perovic N, Ehrmann DA, Barnes RB. Acute hormonal responses to the gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist leuprolide: dose-response studies and comparison to nafarelin—a clinical research center study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Sep;81(9):3408-11.

(8) Grigorova M, Sherwin BB, Tulandi T. Effects of treatment with leuprolide acetate depot on working memory and executive functions in young premenopausal women. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2006 Sep;31(8):935-47. Epub 2006 Jul 10.

(9) Antoniazzi F, Zamboni G, Bertoldo F, Lauriola S, Mengarda F, Pietrobelli A, Tato L. Bone mass at final height in precocious puberty after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist with and without calcium supplementation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Mar;88(3):1096-101.

(10) Boot AM, De Muinck Keizer-Schrama S, Pols HA, Krenning EP, Drop SL. Bone mineral density and body composition before and during treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in children with central precocious and early puberty. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998 Feb;83(2):370-3.

(11) Geier DA, Geier MR. A clinical and laboratory evaluation of methionine cycle-transsulfuration and androgen pathway markers in children with autistic disorders. Horm Res. 2006;66(4):182-8. Epub 2006 Jul 5.

(12) Geier DA, Geier MR. A prospective assessment of porphyrins in autistic disorders: a potential marker for heavy metal exposure. Neurotox Res. 2006 Aug;10(1):57-64.

(13) Geier MR. Registration of the IRB of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses. Office of Human Research Protection, United States Department of Health and Human Services, March 9, 2006.

(14) Transcript of videotaped deposition of Dr. Mark R. Geier. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. Civil Action No. 5:03-cv-141. Easter v. American Home Products Corporation. Part Three of transcript, p. 366. November 12, 2004.

(15) Seidel K. An elusive institute. Neurodiversity Weblog, June 2006.

(16) Mutter J, Naumann J, Schneider R, Walach H, Haley B. Mercury and autism: accelerating evidence? Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005 Oct;26(5):439-46. Review.

(17) Geier DA, Geier MR. A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2005 Apr;11(4):CR160-70. Epub 2005 Mar 24.

(18) Verstraeten T, Davis R, DeStefano F. Risk of neurological and renal impairment associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines. Typescript, June 2000.

(19) DeStefano F. Letter to George Stefano, Editor, Medical Science Monitor. Centers for Disease Control, August 5, 2005.

(20) Geier DA, Geier MR. Neurodevelopmental disorders following thimerosal-containing childhood immunizations: a follow-up analysis. Int J Toxicol. 2004 Nov-Dec;23(6):369-76

(21) Realmuto GM, Ruble LA. Sexual behaviors in autism: problems of definition and management. J Autism Dev Disord. 1999 Apr;29(2):121-7.

(22) Baron-Cohen S, Knickmeyer RC, Belmonte MK. Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science. 2005 Nov 4;310(5749):819-23.

(23) Knickmeyer RC, Baron-Cohen S. Fetal testosterone and sex differences in typical social development and in autism. J Child Neurol. 2006 Oct;21(10):825-845.

(24) TAP Pharmaceuticals. Lupron Depot-Ped Package Insert. February 2006.

(25) TAP Pharmaceuticals. Lupron Injection Package Insert. February 2006.

(26) FAIR Autism Media. Dr. Mark Geier and David A. Geier discuss their work with Testosterone and how it affects mercury in the body. November 2005.

(27) Geier MR, and Geier DA. The biochemical basis for the treatment of autistic disorders: the androgen (testosterone) – glutathione connection? Autism One conference presentation, May 2006.

(28) The effects of reproductive hormones on brain function. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Clinical Trial NCT00001322.

(29) Clinical trial of leuprolide acetate for the treatment of PMS. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Clinical Trial NCT00001259.

(30) Hormonal causes of menstrual-related mood disorders. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Clinical Trial NCT00100360.

(31) Combined hormone replacement in menstrually-related mood disorders. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Clinical Trial NCT00005011.

(32) The effects of hormones in postpartum mood disorders. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Clinical Trial NCT00001481.

Comments


  1. It would be nice for the editor-in-chief to respond to your letter and thank you for saving his journal some embarrassment. Though I expect it will resurface in one of the grey journals before long.

    It is so long since I read anything by the Geiers that I had forgotten how badly written their papers are. Thanks for the reminder.

    — mike stanton    2006-11-17 13:21    #

  2. I believe that Dr. Shoen from Bell Labs had his Ph.D. revoked by his university in Germany for his later misconduct.

    Wonder if the same thing could happen for Dr. Geier?

    — Bartholomew Cubbins    2006-11-17 13:23    #

  3. Revocation of a PhD would be extraordinary, wouldn’t it?

    That would be a start but a punishment to fit the crime would be better.

    — Not Mercury    2006-11-17 13:58    #

  4. It would be interesting to know why the paper was pulled, apparently the editors had decided the paper wasn’t so great after all? What did this paper have to do with autoimmunity? Did anyone figure that out? It sure looks like it was Dr. Gershwin doing the Geiers a favor in getting it published in AR, though we don’t know that that is what it was.

    — Ms Clark    2006-11-17 15:44    #

  5. Kathleen, you get a Lasso of Truth for this one!

    — Lisa Randall    2006-11-18 15:44    #

  6. Studying thousands of kids in a clinical trial of a vaccine – not good enough.

    Three case reports of the “Lupron Protocol” – more than good enough.

    — anonimouse    2006-11-20 17:38    #

  7. anonimouse: “Studying thousands of kids in a clinical trial of a vaccine – not good enough.

    Three case reports of the “Lupron Protocol” – more than good enough.”

    Yeh. This is how pseudoscience works.

    — David N. Andrews MEd (12-2006)    2006-11-22 13:29    #

  8. At least Dr. Geier is trying to help the families who are dealing with Autism and PDD. What are you doing about it? Talk is cheap.

    — Feri Naseh    2006-12-02 18:35    #

  9. Feri Naseh said:
    At least Dr. Geier is trying to help the families who are dealing with Autism and PDD. What are you doing about it? Talk is cheap.

    She’s exposing the Geiers’ bullshit.
    Talk may be cheap. The Geiers’ bogus treatments aren’t!

    — T. Bruce McNeely    2006-12-07 11:03    #

  10. Wow – that was one of the most comprehensive debunkings I have ever seen of anything. Great work.

    — Skeptico    2006-12-08 20:15    #

  11. Additionally, if the Geiers’ androgen hypothesis for ASD/PDDs were true, one would expect to see a high expression of autistic spectrum traits in atheletes who take anabolic steroids, as these drugs mimic the action of testosterone and other androgens (and in many cases are almost identical in structure).

    For instance, one would have expected to see many major league baseball players exhibiting autistic traits in the past several years, followed by a sharp dropoff after the introduction of drug testing, since these men were artificially raising their testosterone levels, but as far as I know this does not seem to be the case.

    On the other hand, if one were interested in places to look for clues to the aetiology of ASD/PDD disorders, I’d look at the dopamine system, starting with the basal ganglia and working outward through the major dopaminergic pathways, especially the mesocortical and nigrostriatal pathways. My guess is that they will find something interesting there (dunno what, though), given the role that this neurotransmitter appears to play in Asperger’s, AD/HD, Tourette’s, and OCD, all of which tend to cluster together along with ASDs/PDDs in terms of comorbidities and similar behaviors (ie fidgeting/tics/stimming).

    See, one can try to help individuals and their families who are dealing with ASDs/PDDs without resorting to the kind of crap the Geiers are spewing.

    — Hyperion    2006-12-10 10:08    #

  12. Depends mostly on what is being called ‘help’. I would like to think research on Autistic brains be intended for understand humans in general, not as a means of figuring out ‘prevention’.

    Anyway, glad it’s now pretty much exposed that the Geiers’ science stinks at least as much as their ethics.

    — Lucas McCarty    2006-12-10 20:00    #

  13. I am not a physician or in a medical field. I went to the Geiers to get help for my son. He is part of their Lupron Protocol. I have not seen significant change in my sons behavior, socials skills or communication skills. However, a friend of mine whose daugter is autistic swears by the Geiers. I myself have seen significant change in her daughters behaviors. Also, I personally attest to two other kids that I have seen doing much better after following the Lupron Protocol. My friends daughter gets help only from the geiers, but I can not say for the other two.

    — AAA    2007-01-10 18:15    #

  14. AAA, I’m glad that some of those kids are doing well, but the plural of anecdote is not data. Despite what some mercury believers would tell us, autistics really are all there, just not relating to others in the same way, and can learn. They may not progress at the same rate as the neurotypical, but they do grow up. When some specific course of treatment is followed, it’s not easy to determine whether observed progress is due to this treatment or simply natural. There are simply too many confounding factors in the life of an individual.

    That’s why we need (genuine) scientific research to determine how treated individuals, on average, differ from controls. Without evidence that a particular treatment is helpful, I’m reluctant to try it. That particularly applies when I’m pondering whether to tinker with the endocrine system with no evidence that it’s likely to be worthwhile.

    I know that it’s tempting to try anything in desperate situations. I’ve seen it in families I know. But who’s to say that an unproven treatment won’t do more harm than good?

    — wrg    2007-01-11 13:15    #

  15. Please have a look at Robert F. Kennedy’s excellent article Deadly Immunity on the mecury exposure dot org website – and you learn all about the politics behind the thimerosal issue.

    — Dorothee Krien    2007-03-08 14:34    #