Can autism get lesser?

Post Reply New Topic

Well I'm sorry, Zendell, but those doctors are absolutely right. That's exactly how placebos work - they trick the mind and body enough to create a solution of sorts to the prevailing problem. That's the case with all the bio-med treatments. In addition, it may also deal with an external problem that actually has nothing to do with the root condition, but contributes to the sensory overload. Now if you look at it like that rather than thinking you've improved your root condition - you'll get a better idea of what is actually happening.

I don't believe in the placebo effect. If you look at placebo results where they report how many got worse it's usually something like:

Got better - 20%
No effect - 60%
Got worse - 20%

What that tells me is these people would have gotten better or worse even if they were told they were on the placebo or if they weren't given anything but simply asked whether they were better or worse at the end of the study. If there was a psychological placebo effect then more people would feel better than feel worse. With most drug studies, they are looking for such a minor benefit that they easily pick up slight improvements in health that would have occurred anyway. If they looked at major benefits it would be more like:

No effect - 100%

I don't know how anyone could call a 50% increase in muscle strength a placebo effect. I tested my max several times and it was never anywhere close to what I achieved with the gfcf diet and probiotics. I don't see how my 10x higher sensitivity to pain could possibly be the result of a placebo.

There is actually no way of knowing that. Placebo effects are, even in my field of sociology, always an unknown quantity. That is one of the reasons controls are instituted.

You're going to have to, because in this case you were in the 20% that got better. Your problem is you can't accept that your mind was tricked by a placebo effect.

And in medical history (going back decades) there is no such thing as 100 percent.

Will you answer me? Both of you are saying different things. What's what?
Ethyl or Methyl, fish, breast milk, thimerosal. I've been told that Ethyl is used in Thimerosal, and that it's the same kind found in breast milk and fish. Then I was told that it's Methyl Mercury that's found in fish, and that's why Thimerosal is safe. I think it's fairly rude that I'm ignored and dismissed out of hand because no one wants to take responsiblity for being wrong.

Neither of these points about Ethyl/Methyl Mercury are valid until they are poven, since they contradict each other, leading to an erronerous outcome of logic.

And also:




I would now like to point out that neither are you, TLPG. If this is what you think, then you are hardly in a position to accuse medical journals of quackery. You do not have those qualifications.

I'm definitely interested in seeing some sources about the differences between ethyl/methyl mercury.

I was reading just yesterday about an urban legend about Mr. Clean Magic Erasers. The allegation was that they contain formaldehyde and were therefore dangerous. It turns out that they contain an ingredient called formaldehyde-melamine-sodium bisulfite copolymer. While this chemical name contains the word "formaldehyde" it is not the same thing and is not toxic. I would not be surprised to see that something similar has come about regarding mercury in vaccines.

Personally I think the mercury camp is barking up the wrong tree. My own son had a reaction from the MMR and had a pervasive developmental regression shortly thereafter. This was documented with formal evaluations. He then made a "recovery". His dose of the MMR contained no mercury. I think the vaccine probably did have something to do with the mysterious thing that happened to my son, but obviously mercury had nothing to do with it. What I don't understand is why so many people choose one camp or the other instead of just being on the lookout for solid evidence of what could be happening to children with various forms of autism. I don't like that people jump to conclusions and insist they know it all, when really the most brilliant experts in the world have barely a clue. Why not work together to solve a mystery?

That said, let's not discount people's views just because they don't have a doctorate. All that's necessary to be a good researcher is the ability to think critically. We already know that doctors and other professionals are quite fallible. The views of some guy on a message board aren't necessarily less valuable.

So, does anyone have some sources for information on Ethyl and Methyl Mercury, and what each are naturally found in?

http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/mno/ ... ercury.htm

http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/def/ethylmercury.htm

There's also Wikipedia, if you want to look there.