"It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

FDA Issues warning letter on “OSR”

June 24th, 2010

In a letter dated 17 June 2010, the FDA has issued a warning to Boyd Haley of five violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act involving his “supplement” OSR, which is being marketed as a chelating agent for children with autism.

(see here for the breaking story)

In the letter, the FDA describes side effects that were discovered during Boyd Haley’s animal testing of OSR:

“soiling of the anogenital area, alopecia (hair loss) on the lower trunk, back and legs, a dark substance on lower trunk and anogenital area, abnormalities of the pancreas and lymphoid hyperplasia.”

Dr. Haley’s company website (as of 24 June 2010) describes his product as “”a toxicity free, lipid soluble antioxidant dietary supplement” .

Odd that they don’t mention any of the side effects they found in their (very limited) animal studies.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Autism Practitioners, Autism Science, Autism Treatments, Health Alerts | 6 Comments »

Stem Cell Therapy for Autism

January 26th, 2010

Sorry to have been gone for so long, but I wanted to take extra time on this topic because….well, because it needs extra time and attention to detail.

In growing numbers, people are taking their autistic children to “clinics” - in Costa Rica, in Germany, in Russia - to get “stem cell” injections. I put “stem cell” inside inverted commas because it is not entirely clear that what these children are receiving are actual stem cells.

And that might be the “good news” in this post - more about that later.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Autism Science, Autism Treatments | 19 Comments »

Is DMSA safe and effective?

November 26th, 2009


For lead poisoning.

And probably as a treatment for mercury and cadmium poisoning (but not for assessing the body burden of mercury).

And possibly as a treatment for arsenic and antimony poisoning.

But as a treatment for autism, it hasn’t been shown to be either effective or safe, despite the titles of two articles (or one two-part article) in BMC Clinical Pharmacology.

These two articles, published by a diverse group of authors - including Professor of Materials Science and Engineering James B. Adams, PhD (lead author), DAN! practitioner Jeff Bradstreet, MD and Professor of Pediatrics and Section Chief of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Jane El-Dahr, MD - are titled:

Safety and Efficacy of Oral DMSA Therapy for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Part A - Medical Results

Safety and Efficacy of Oral DMSA Therapy for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Part B - Behavioral Results

Strangely enough, given that the lead author is on the faculty of Arizona State University and the “anchor” author is on the faculty of Tulane University, the study was done under the auspices (and approved by the IRB of) Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine - which Dr. Adams lists as his academic affiliation in these articles.


It’s almost as though they couldn’t get a real university IRB to approve their study. After all, Tulane University has an IRB, and so does Arizona State University, but they decided to go with the IRB at a naturopathic college, instead.

Again, that’s curious.

But that’s not the last curious thing about these studies. In fact, the next curiousity about these studies is the very…..eccentric nature of the study design.

Let me start by outlining the odd and circuitous path of their enquiry into the safety and efficacy of DMSA as a treatment for autism.

Perhaps it is the writing style or maybe it is the chaotic nature of their research showing through in the articles, but it is very hard to track exactly how many subjects were in each of the several “phases” and sub-phases of this study. Here is what I could extract from their writing:

The study began with 82 autistic children, ages 3 - 8 years, who underwent a physical examination, blood tests for kidney and liver function, blood counts, and red blood cell (RBC) glutathione. If the examination and blood tests (with the exception of RBC glutathione) were within normal range (the article uses the phrase “not below the normal range” - curious), they were “eleigible to participate in Phase 1″.

Each parent filled out an initial Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC - a test devised by Drs. Rimland and Edelson and never properly validated) and a “Heavy Metal Exposure Questionnaire”. The parents also collected a “baseline first-morning urine sample” - for “heavy metal testing”. (three guesses which lab did the testing)

Here’s where it gets weird: the next step was to randomly divide the subjects into two groups. One group got a glutathione-containing skin lotion (to be applied once a day for a week) and the other group got a placebo lotion. At this point, I found myself asking, “What’s up with the lotion? Who’s selling the glutathione lotion?“, because this meant that - at best - their results would be much harder to interpret.

Further complicating the study, they had every subject receive a single “round” of oral DMSA (10 mg/kg/dose, three doses a day for three days - nine doses in total) to test their “heavy metal excretion” (and here I thought that autistic children were “poor excretors”). Only those subjects who had post-chelation urine “toxic metals” (as defined by “Doctor’s Data Laboratories” - aluminium, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, platinum, thallium, thorium, tin and tungsten) greater than the 95th percentile (for people who had not received a chelating agent) continued on to “Phase 2″. (see: Mercurial Laboratories for a more in-depth discussion)

Amazingly, eight (8) children had all of their “toxic metals” below the 95th percentile even after chelation. This deserves to be a published result on its own! In all, 17 subjects failed to complete “Phase 1″ (testing, glutathione lotion and one “round” of DMSA), leaving only 65 (79%) to move on to “Phase 2″.

In “Phase 2″, the subjects who had recieved the glutathione lotion were scheduled to receive oral DMSA and those who had received the “placebo” lotion received a placebo capsule. This was to go on for an additional 6 “rounds”, each “round” consisting of three days of 30 mg/kg DMSA (divided into three doses) followed by eleven days of no treatment. The article is a bit confusing about this, saying that the subjects took the DMSA or placebo for “…up to 3 rounds” in one place and a few paragraphs later saying that “When the participants finished Phase 2 (after either 3 or 6 rounds)…” The reason for this is that urine testing was done after the second “round” of DMSA in Phase 2 (third “round” total) and those who were not continuing to excrete elevated levels of “toxic metals” after three “rounds” of DMSA were considered to have completed Phase 2. Why some had an additional “round” after this testing is unclear.

Before entering Phase 2, the 65 remaining subjects underwent further blood tests and also had the ADOS administered. The ADOS testing found that 7% of those who completed Phase 2 did not meet the criteria for Autistic Spectrum Disorder - we are not told how many of those entering Phase 2 failed to meet criteria. The authors did not seem particularly bothered by the fact that 7% of their subjects were apparently not autistic or on the “autistic spectrum” - they explained this away by stating that “All children continued on in the study, since they all had a previous clinical diagnosis of ASD.” [emphasis added]

In addition to the ADOS, the parents filled out the  Pervasive Developmental Disorders - Behavior Inventory (PDD-BI - a screening test evaluated only by its originators) and the Severity of Autism Scale (SAS - a test developed by the authors and not validated).

Following completion of Phase 2, the 41 remaining subjects (50% of starting subjects) underwent repeat blood testing and an ADOS evaluation. The parents filled out the ATEC, PDD-BI and SAS questionnaires again, as well as a Parental Global Impression (PGI - a new test not yet validated) questionnaire.


Let’s recap the study so far:

The study consisted of three arms:

[1] Subjects who received placebo lotion and one “round” of DMSA - 15 subjects.

[2] Subjects who received glutathione lotion and three or four “rounds” of DMSA. It appears that five subjects were in this group - it remains unclear why some had three and some had four.

[3] Subjects who recieved glutathione lotion and seven “rounds” of DMSA - 21 subjects.


The testing consisted of RBC glutathione, complete blood counts, liver function tests, renal function tests, and urinary “toxic” and “essential” metal excretion as well as the ATEC (an un-validated test), PDD-BI (a screening test), the SAS (an unvalidated test), the PGI (new and unvalidated) and the ADOS (validated for autism diagnosis, but not severity rating).

The problems with this study are legion, but their results were the most damning part of the whole mess, because the results don’t say what the authors think they do.

Behavioral Testing:

In the behavioral testing, only the ADOS (which - as I mentioned before - is not valid for comparing autism severity) showed any diffrerence between the “got one round of DMSA and placebo lotion” and “got three to seven rounds of DMSA and glutathione lotion” groups. The other tests showed no statistically significant difference. Of course, the authors try to spin that as best they can, but the results speak for themselves.

Safety Testing:

DMSA’s safety was studied long before than this study, and its side effects are well known: reduction of white cell count (generally reversible), reduction in platelet count (generally reversible), liver injury (generally reversible) and some subtle decrease in intellectual function when given to children (and rats) with low (or zero) lead levels (not reversible).

The “safety testing” in these articles, strangely enough, did not include measures of the most significant (and the only irreversible) side effect that has been noted with DMSA, namely cognitive/intellectual functions (see: Dietrich et al and Stangle et al). Thus, in a supreme moment of irony, the authors have done exactly what some of them have long claimed that “the government” has done - failed to research the correct mode of toxicity.

The authors (and many, many other practitioners) are giving DMSA to children with low levels of heavy metals - exactly the group found to be at risk for permanent intellectual impairment. Yet they do no intellectual testing. They could have gone to Dietrich et al and read it right out of their paper, yet they didn’t.


Biochemical Effects:

This area, which the authors call “Medical Effects” has the most bizarre results ever. Rather than spend the next year discussing them all, I’ll give my “highlights”:

[1] “Toxic metal” excretion.

Not surprisingly, lead excretion was up significantly - this is what DMSA does. However, in a major upset for the autism-is-mercury-poisoning hard-core, mercury excretion was fifth, after tin (?), bismuth (??) and uranium (????). Who knew that autistic children were so heavily contaminated with uranium? There was even more thallium excreted than mercury, over the inital “round” of DMSA administration.

While lead is still ubiquitous in urban areas - a legacy of decades of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, where are these children getting their exposure to tin, bismuth and uranium? Or is this yet another problem with the laboratory? The authors make a brave stab at explaining how their results differ from an earlier Bradstreet “study”, but it doesn’t really work too well.

[2] “Essential metal” excretion:

Several studies have looked at “essential mineral” excretion with DMSA administration - most have found that DMSA increases the excretion of zinc and copper to a minor degree. However, Adams et al found that potassium and chromium were the most significant losses during DMSA treatment.

Part of this comes from their…..eccentric way of looking at “essential mineral” losses as a percent of the RDA. This artificially elevates the “significance” of micronutrients like chromium (children in this age range should have about 15 micrograms a day).

The major problem with their analysis of this section is that they appear to have no idea how these elements get into the urine. Potassium, for example, is found in almost all foods and the urinary levels will fluctuate depending on how much there is in the diet and how much the body needs. DMSA has no effect on an alkali metal ion like potassium and the authors’ discussion makes it appear that their knowledge of basic physiology and biochemistry is inadequate.

[3] RBC glutathione:

This is a bit harder to interpret for a number of reasons. First off, the mean RBC glutathione doesn’t change significantly (it goes down in those treated with DMSA, but apparently not significantly). The baseline of all 72 subjects who had RBC glutathione done was a mean of 501 (+/- 246)  - those 38 (this is confusing - which 38 are they referring to? Why not 41?) who went on to receive a second measurement in “Phase 2″ had a baseline mean of 523 (+/- 280). Two months after one “round” of DMSA, the ”38″ remaining had a mean of  478 (+/- 83). Another graph shows that those with higher RBC glutathione ended up with lower RBC glutathione after treatment and vice versa.

Secondly, their laboratory (Immunosciences) uses an odd “reference range for adults” - 427 - 714 micromolar (I assume it is micromolar - the article never gives the units - curious). There are a number of references (e.g. Richie et al 1996) that looked at large numbers of “normal” adults and found the range to be higher (670 - 1600 micromolar in whole blood; 1600 - 2800 micromolar in RBC’s).

There was also the problem of determining how the glutathione was measured. The authors state that Immunosciences Lab used an Oxis Research kit in which “…the absorbance measured at 405nm is directly proportional to the GSH concentration.” It may be nit-picking, but currently available Oxis Research glutathione measurement kits use absorbance at 400 nm, 420 nm and 412 nm - none use absorbance at 405 nm. Maybe it was an old kit.

Still, the change in the standard deviation of the RBC glutathione is curious (there’s that word again), but not terribly significant unless they can explain how reducing half of the subjects’ RBC glutathione is a “good thing”. Their presentation of the data raises more questions than it answers, such as “Why don’t you have RBC gluathione for all 41 subjects who completed Phase 2?” and many, many others.

Another point that the authors didn’t address about the RBC glutathione tests is that they don’t seem to show any positive effect of the glutathione lotion. Of course, they don’t break it out for us to show differences (if any) between the glutathione lotion and placebo lotion, but I suspect they would have if there had been any indication that the glutathione lotion had an effect.

[4] Platelets:

According to my university’s hospital lab, the “normal range” for platelets in children 3 - 6 years old is 204,000 - 402,000 per microliter of blood. This study showed that the baseline platelet count of their subjects who completed the study (n=41; I wish they would explain why the numbers keep bouncing around - I suspect it is because they didn’t get a full set of data on all of their subjects) had a mean (a rather useless value - median would be so much better) of 388,000 per microliter (+/- 274,000). Rather than give us a before and after number, they only give the percent above an below the “reference range” after one “round” of DMSA treatment. It’s almost as though they’re trying to hide something.

Figure 5 gives away part of the secret: like the RBC glutathione levels, the platelet counts show a reduction in standard deviation without a significant change in mean (or median - from my reading of the chart). While this may be an “interesting” (or “curious”) finding, it will take a lot more work to show that it means anything.


Bottom line:

These studies show neither efficacy nor safety of DMSA in the treatment of autism. This is not surprising, given the poor design of the study.

In fact, if I were to try to design a study that couldn’t show any results, I would be hard-pressed to do better than this one. The fact that the authors are so convinced that the DMSA did work is a testament to their pre-conceived notions.

In the end, this study gathered a bunch of data and then threw it against the wall to see what stuck.

And not much - if any - did stick.

Considering how long we’ve been hearing that DMSA treatment is dramatically ”curing” or “recovering” autistic children, the results from this study are distinctly underwhelming. It shows that there is no clinically significant difference between a single “round” of DMSA and multiple “rounds”, which suggests that DMSA doesn’t work at all. The authors’ assessment that a single dose of DMSA “did the trick” is a pathetic post hoc attempt at spinning the results in favor of their preferred outcome. 

About the only thing it shows for certain is that glutatione lotion doesn’t increase RBC glutathione. But they didn’t address the efficacy of the glutathione lotion at all.




Filed under: Autism Practitioners, Autism Science, Autism Treatments | 27 Comments »

Just call me “Captain Buzz-Kill”

July 24th, 2009

Over the years that I’ve been writing this ‘blog, I’ve often been accused of keeping people from “curing” or “helping” their autistic children. I’ve always wondered what they meant by that, since I’m not doing anything I know of to prevent people from seeking whatever treatments they want for themselves or their children.

All I’m trying to do is give people information. If they are already happy with the information they have, if they have already found “The Truth”, all they have to do is ignore me.

It’s really that simple.

During a recent conversation, it finally came to me what all of those parents (and not a few practitioners) have really been telling me.

What actually bothers people is not that I am somehow standing in the way of them getting the treatments they think their children need – which is patently ridiculous - but that I am threatening their false hope. To borrow from the jargon of my youth, I’m killing their buzz. [Note: for people who were not part of the psychedelic '60's, this means that I am interfering with their enjoyment of an unreal state of mind]

Now it all makes sense! You see, while real hope is based in reality, false hope is destroyed  by reality.

At some level, these angry parents know that their hope isn’t real - that’s why they are so angry with me for speaking truth to fantasy. If they were truly convinced that they were right, they wouldn’t get so upset.

If - for example - they were treating their child with antibiotics for pneumonia and somebody on a ‘blog somewhere in cyberspace was writing that antibiotics are worthless for treating infections and are all just a sham to make money for doctors and “Big Pharma” (which, sad to say, has been written on at least one ‘blog), I doubt that they would be upset. Amused, perhaps, but not upset.

One of the problems with false hope is that it is - at its heart - a lie. The people who provide the false hope may not consciously know that it is a lie and the people who believe in the false hope almost certainly aren’t consciously aware that it’s a lie, but it is a lie nonetheless. And, as most of us have discovered, one lie is never enough - to keep the first lie going, you have to tell more lies. This is true even when you are lying to yourself. You can see this in the way that many of the so-called “alternative” autism therapies are rationalized.

Let’s look at thimerosal and chelation, as an example. First, it was claimed that the rise in autism prevalence was due to mercury in the vaccines and that chelation would produce a cure. At first, it was claimed that a “few months” of chelation would “cure” or “recover” most autistic children. When this didn’t happen, the claims slipped from “months” to “years” without explanation.

When thimerosal was taken out of children’s vaccines, it was claimed that the continued rise in autism prevalence was due to “trace” amounts of mercury still in vaccines (disregarding the fact that the amount of mercury was far less than before the “autism epidemic”). When that was challenged, it was claimed that mercury from power plants, crematoria and even drifting across the ocean from China was the source.

When that proved untenable, the claim morphed from mercury to more vague (and harder to refute) “toxins” and then to the lamentable “too many, too soon” argument - the acme of vague and undefined. All this to prevent a group of people from confronting the fact that they are living on (or profiting by) false hope.

This is probably a good time to introduce the concept of “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance – in simple terms – is the sense of unease people feel when they are trying to reconcile two contradictory ideas. In most people, this occurs when what they believe to be true (fantasy) is in conflict with what they know is true (reality). This is an uncomfortable place to be, psychologically, and most people (so my psychologist friends tell me) will avoid it if they can.

The  best way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to resolve it – to consciously decide which of the contradictory ideas to keep and which to discard. Apparently, in conflicts between fantasy and reality, it makes no difference to your sense of well-being whether you discard the fantasy or the reality. Of course, if you discard reality in favor of fantasy, you will sooner or later encounter new opportunities to experience cognitive dissonance, as your false view of reality repeatedly comes in conflict with reality itself. It’s a bit like someone deciding that they would rather be driving through Colorado and so uses a Colorado road map, despite the fact that they are in Kansas – they keep bumping into situations where their false reality is contradicted (often quite forcefully).

However, my psychologist friends tell me that most people faced with cognitive dissonance use “avoidance” rather than facing their conflict and resolving it. They simply avoid, ignore or flee from situations where their fantasy is in conflict with reality. Over time, the “places” (physical and psychological) that they have to avoid grow in number. Interestingly, they also tend to lash out at people who remind them of their unresolved conflict, often accusing them of some sort of personal attack when none exists.

Does this sound like anyone you know?

Strangely enough, this insight provides me with a faint glimmer of hope. Clearly, the people who lash out when they are confronted with information have not yet resolved to abandon reality. They are still bothered – at some level – by the fact that their fantasies about autism are not supported by reality. There is still some hope that they will eventually – when the pain of their cognitive dissonance is severe enough – decide to give reality a chance.

I guess my job is to keep flinging reality at these folks until they are forced to make a choice. And hope they choose reality.

Just call me “Captain Buzz-Kill”.

Before someone accuses me of gloating or schadenfreude, let me say that I was one of those parents who bought the false hope and experienced the cognitive dissonance. I have immense sympathy for parents who find themselves in the same position today (or tomorrow). My purpose is not to ridicule them but to help them to find a way out of their dilemma. I’ve been there and I know a way out.

Of course, there are a few people who will be unable to make a choice – or will feel compelled to choose fantasy over reality. They are people who have stepped so far into the false hope of autism that they feel they cannot turn away. Some of them have “invested” their reputations in a very public way (often publically excoriating – and even slandering – people who disagreed with them) and may feel that the humiliation of admitting that they were wrong would be greater than the humiliation of persisting in error.

Others have profited greatly from the false hope they believed in and feel they cannot choose reality without facing real consequences. For these people, the cognitive dissonance is far less than the fear of the wrath of the parents who bought their false hope. I note that while several ”DAN!” (a group emphasizing the “alternative” and “biomedical” treatment of autism) practitioners have quietly dropped out of the “autism business”, few (or none) have publically admitted they were wrong. Perhaps none of them do think that they were wrong and they really dropped out of “alternative” autism practice to “spend more time with their family” or “to limit their practice”, but I like to think that at least one or two of them “saw the light” and quietly slipped away.

I don’t have any easy solutions for those “alternative” autism practitioners who find themselves facing the conflict between their autism fantasies and cold reality. They should have known better - at least better that the parents who trusted their expertise and followed their suggestions. However, even doctors are human and make mistakes. The best solution is to admit the mistake – at least to themselves – and move on in the proper direction. It would be an even larger mistake to keep on “believing” in order to evade the consequences.



Filed under: Autism Practitioners, Autism Treatments, Critical Thinking, Help for the bewildered | 33 Comments »

The Chicago Tribune turns over some rocks

May 22nd, 2009

Almost everybody knows what happens when you turn over rocks in the garden - you find slugs, beetles and other slimy and creepy-crawly things underneath.

Well, the Chicago Tribune recently (21 and 22 May, 2009) came out with a two-day series of articles on what they found when they turned over some rocks in the “alternative” autism therapy world. What they found was beyond what I would have expected, and I’ve been critically analyzing “alternative” autism therapy for a fairly long time.

Here are the articles - I suggest you go read them yourselves. Be prepared to be disturbed:

“Miracle Drug” called Junk Science

Physician team’s crusade shows cracks

A Flawed Rationale for Treatment

Autism doctor: Troubling record trails doctor treating autism

Dr. Peter Rosi places blame on some parents for their babies’ deaths

I had to take a shower after reading these articles - I felt contaminated just reading the words of these…….people.

A few excerpts:

On the Geiers’ “Lupron Protocol”:

The blood tests the Geiers use as proof of excessive testosterone don’t show that at all, and other data they cite mean nothing, said Paul Kaplowitz, chief of endocrinology at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and an expert on precocious puberty. They also leave out test results that could help show whether the children are in early puberty, he added.

Looking at the tests, Kaplowitz said he asks himself: “Is Dr. Geier just misinformed and he hasn’t studied endocrinology, or is he trying to mislead?”



Mark Geier responded that these are “opinions by people who don’t know what they are talking about,” saying the pediatric endocrinologists interviewed by the Tribune don’t treat autistic children and have not tried the Lupron treatment. David Geier said prominent scientists support their work and gave as an example Baron-Cohen…



Simon Baron-Cohen, a professor of developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge in England and director of the Autism Research Center in Cambridge, said it is irresponsible to treat autistic children with Lupron.”The idea of using it with vulnerable children with autism, who do not have a life-threatening disease and pose no danger to anyone, without a careful trial to determine the unwanted side effects or indeed any benefits, fills me with horror,” he said.


Apparently, the Geiers don’t have the support of prominent scientists that they think they do.

Now, I fully expect people in the “alternative” autism therapy business (and their apologists) to “spin” this as a “kill the messenger” response or as the latest act of the “Big Pharma / AMA / Government Conspiracy to Hide the True Cause of Autism”. But this stuff is pretty hard to just “explain” away.

Let’s continue with the curious past (and dubious present) of one of the prominent “alternative” autism practitioners in the Chicagoland area - Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, head of “Home First Health Services”:

Eisenstein, who calls the American Academy of Pediatrics the “American Academy of Pharmaceuticals,” dismisses the many peer-reviewed studies that failed to find a link between autism and vaccines as “fake studies.”

Vaccine proponents won’t admit this because, he said, “Every doctor now essentially in this country has done something as heinous as the Nazis did, unknowingly.”

Where is the Hitler Zombie? Dr. Eisenstein is not coming across as a voice of reason so far. But let us continue…

Eisenstein’s practice has faced at least 19 malpractice cases in the last three decades, and two Homefirst doctors were involved in 15 of those cases — more than what’s typical. In 80 percent of the cases involving those two doctors, a jury either sided with the plaintiffs or the cases were settled, court records show.

OK, doctors get sued all the time. No big deal, right? Let’s read on…

For example, a case filed in 1986 alleged that a Homefirst doctor and midwife failed to diagnose that a mother and her newborn had incompatible blood types, which can lead to a potentially fatal condition if not caught by a routine blood test. The baby suffered kernicterus syndrome, athetoid cerebral palsy and hearing loss. The case was settled for $985,000 in a structured settlement, court records show.

The failure to diagnose incompatible blood types between a mother and newborn was also at issue in the case that netted the $30 million jury verdict. In that case, however, the baby, Na’eem Shahid, died.

A Homefirst doctor took a sample of blood from Na’eem’s umbilical cord that could have been used to diagnose the problem and could have led to prompt treatment, according to court testimony. But instead of dropping off the sample at the lab, the doctor said under oath, he was tired, went home and put the sample in his refrigerator, where it sat the whole weekend.

In an interview, Eisenstein blamed the parents for not taking the baby to the emergency room for a blood test. Na’eem’s parents testified that no one from Homefirst ever told them to go to the emergency room.

Remember that this is the doctor who claims that unvaccinated children do not get autism. To refresh our memories:

He proclaims that he’s seen “virtually no autism” in his patient pool of thousands of unvaccinated kids.

Well, if you don’t look, you don’t find.

Dr. Eisenstein also has strong views about telling the truth:

In his lectures at conferences, Eisenstein often describes a key lesson he learned in law school: falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Translated “false in one thing, false in everything,” this is a legal principle that if a witness lies about one thing, a jury can disregard anything that person says.

Yet Dr. Eisenstein has fallen tragically short of this standard:

In a different case, Eisenstein said under oath that he was a faculty member at the Hinsdale Hospital Family Practice Residency Program from 1992 to 2003. A hospital administrator testified that Eisenstein “never was” a faculty member. In a recent interview, Eisenstein said that while he wasn’t a faculty member there, he did teach students from that program and kept snapshots of them.

In that same case, Eisenstein also testified he knew little about the College of Health Sciences, where he and some of his doctors received their continuing medical education credits — a requirement for retaining privileges at some hospitals.

“I have no clue,” he said under oath when asked where the school was located.

The attorney questioning Eisenstein reminded the doctor that he could go to prison for lying under oath. He asked if Eisenstein had any connection to the college. “Not that I know of,” Eisenstein answered.

I won’t go into the sad and sordid case of Dr. Peter Rosi, one of Dr. Eisenstein’s associates at Home First - that story is too disturbing. Go read it yourself.

Despite all this, I fully expect to hear a chorus of defense from the “usual suspects”. They will defend the Geiers, Eisenstein and even Rosi because - frankly - they are all the “alternative” autism therapy supporters have. They’re willing to leap to the defense of the indefensible because the only other choice they have is to face the fact that “alternative” autism therapies are largely a bunch of baloney.

I’d love to be proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.



Filed under: Autism Practitioners, Autism Science, Autism Treatments | 14 Comments »