"They have everything to do with the conclusion." The only sentence that the "average" American even has a chance of understanding.
Dr. Weiler is usually the smartest guy in the room. Those who have ruined our "environment", be it by injecting heavy metals via IM into infants or poisoning the ground, air and water around us, would never allow any other narrative to emerge, than the one they control.
So, I will dumb it down, perhaps that a 6th grader might understand. It has been the Phrma vaccine playbook for 40 years:
YOU WILL NEVER FIND WHAT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING FOR.
Just keep repeating the lie: "safe and effective."
Thank you. Can anyone please explain why “the children’s study” collapsed? It seemed to me to promise the answer to these difficult questions. I cried when it collapsed. And I was further distressed when I saw that the one environmental exposure they decided not to track was vaccines. I am not a scientist but was trained in the social sciences: I understand basic study design and statistics. Are there any meaningful studies now in the works that will unravel the genetic and environmental causes of autism? There are so many talented scientists in this country. Surely some of them want genuinely to study this problem.
Some do genuinely want to study problems honestly, and they do. It's just often the results are buried if they get that far or the funding collapses if the ongoing study shows an undesireable truth coming out. The other trick, which Fauci used for Remdesivir, was to change the goal and end time of the study to rig the results.
Thanks for this very fine scientific perspective. We've known for decades that autism entails defective detoxification pathways, so yes, the total spectrum of environmental toxicant exposures should be studied. I'd suggest adding a sentence at the end of your article to the effect that susceptible subgroups of children should be identified using a molecular epidemiology approach--e.g., via blood SNP panels, red-cell glutathione (and related GSH enzyme pathways), urinary organic acids, etc. This has been done in smaller studies, and it's of course more labor-intensive and expensive, but we'll obtain more robust outcomes and bring more awareness to the fact that these kids are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine with respect to today's toxic world.
"We've known for decades that autism entails defective detoxification pathways" upgrades a contested, small-study literature into settled background fact. What actually exists is a body of case-control studies, mostly from the James and Deth groups in the 2000s, finding lower plasma glutathione and altered GSH/GSSG ratios in autistic children, typically in samples of dozens, with inconsistent replication, and with an unsolved direction-of-causation problem: autistic children differ systematically in diet, GI function, sleep, stress physiology, and medication, all of which move redox markers, so downstream oxidative-stress signatures cannot establish upstream detoxification failure.
The GST and MTHFR association studies that would anchor the genetic version show the classic pattern of small positive studies followed by null large ones and meta-analyses driven by publication bias. Meanwhile the strongest-established causes of autism - CHD8, SCN2A, SHANK3, fragile X, tuberous sclerosis, maternal rubella - involve synaptic development and chromatin regulation, not xenobiotic metabolism, so a general detox-deficiency model has to explain why the known monogenic cases fit it nowhere.
"Known for decades" also has a clinical body count worth remembering: it was the premise behind chelation as autism therapy, which killed a five-year-old in 2005 and treated thousands on the strength of exactly this level of evidence.
That said, the study design proposed is the correct one and should be endorsed without reservation: pre-specified susceptibility strata defined by measured biology (PON1 and GST genotypes, glutathione pathway markers), exposure measured repeatedly rather than by spot urine, clinical outcomes, and power calculated for the interaction term, not the main effect. That is precisely the fix for the estimand problem in the ECHO study, and versions of it exist - PON1-organophosphate interaction analyses in CHAMACOS and elsewhere - with mixed results that a definitive study could resolve.
Thanks for what is ostensibly an AI response, reflecting a more conservative, pharmaceutical/vaccine industry bias. I'm referring to evidence from actual clinician observations from the various integrative medicine clinics I worked at and those that were reported at many DAN! (Defeat Autism Now) Conferences over the years. This is common knowledge among medical practitioners, documented thousands of times. So your comments are not grounded in clinical reality. Chelation is not germane to this discussion, and thus the "clinical body count" comment is pure BS.
The reply substitutes provenance for content twice - once for my argument, once for your own - and both moves fail the same way. Whether a critique was drafted by an Ai, a pharmacist, or a parrot has no bearing on whether the James studies replicated, whether the GST meta-analyses show publication bias, or whether redox markers can establish causal direction; those claims are checkable, and the reply checks none of them.
Conversely, "common knowledge among practitioners, documented thousands of times" is provenance offered as validation, and it is the weakest evidence class in medicine, not because clinicians are dishonest but because uncontrolled observation cannot separate a real signal from selection and expectation: integrative clinics see the families who already suspect toxicity, order the panels that confirm the suspicion, and attribute improvement on treatment to the treatment in a condition whose baseline course is developmental gain. Clinical observation documented bloodletting for two millennia and it documented facilitated communication in this very field; the entire reason controlled designs exist is that "we see it every day" has been catastrophically wrong before.
On DAN! specifically, invoking those conferences while ruling chelation off-topic is not a position available to you: chelation was a core DAN! protocol intervention for years, promoted at exactly the conferences cited as evidence, and the five-year-old who died in 2005, Abubakar Tariq Nadama, died in a DAN!-affiliated practitioner's office receiving EDTA for autism. The Autism Research Institute itself shut the DAN! practitioner registry down in 2011 amid concerns about the interventions being sold under its banner.
That is why the body count is germane: it is what happens when "clinical reality" is exempted from the burden of controlled evidence, which is precisely the exemption being requested again.
The constructive path has not moved: your proposed molecular-epidemiology design in your first comment was endorsed, and the pre-registered interaction study with named biomarkers would settle whether the clinics have been seeing a real subgroup or a mirror. A quarter century of conferences produced testimony; one properly powered study would produce an answer, and if the observations are as robust as claimed, its sponsors should expect to win.
buddi is a shill for pHARMa. It will argue with you until the cows come home, sleep, and go back out to graze again. And it will not be a true or genuine exchange of informtion.
Thanks, I got that from the last response. The AI response to every comment indicates a reflexive mindless need to perpetuate cognitive dissonance. Asking it to cease and desist is an exercise in futility.
Ah yes, the poster who claims there is nothing new regarding the autism studies already done. Yet mentions the collapse of some scientific notion in a prior post. The collapse of an idea is new information. What a shill for pHARMa. It's why I refused to have further exchange on your other post.
Read back what the argument now consists of: no defense of the glutathione literature, no answer on DAN! and chelation, no engagement with the proposed study design - the entire reply is one claimed contradiction and one epithet.
The contradiction dissolves on contact. The position was never "nothing new can happen in autism research"; it was that reopening a tested hypothesis requires specific new evidence, and the amyloid collapse illustrates the rule rather than breaking it: amyloid was revisited because its drugs failed their endpoints and a foundational paper was exposed as fraudulent - new evidence of exactly the required kind.
The vaccine and detox hypotheses have produced no equivalent: no failed prediction of the mainstream model, no exposed fraud in the null studies, no replicated anomaly. Citing the amyloid episode is citing the standard; the invitation has always been to meet it.
As for "shill": the accusation is unfalsifiable in this direction but testable in the other, since the argument on this side has named its evidence - Berkovic 2006, Jain 2015, the Danish cohorts, the Ozonoff recall study, the 2025 aluminum cohort - and every one can be pulled up and attacked on methods by anyone, funded by anyone.
An argument's paymaster is a question you ask when you cannot fault its premises or its logic; that it is the only question left being asked here is the concession.
The molecular-epidemiology study your own first comment proposed remains endorsed, pre-registration and all. That offer does not expire, and it is noticeable that the thread moved from proposing that study to name-calling the moment the condition attached to it was symmetry.
Our son, now 34 was one of the earliest guinea pigs. He is incompetent requiring 24/7 care and supervision. He is why vaccine makers were granted virtually complete legal liability protection from tort claims.
buddi is a shill for pHARMa. I've run into it before. It will do anything to make an argument and go on and on, but there will never be an exchange that leads to anything other than buddi trying to beat the other.
The charge is now that the arguments are long and that they aim to win, which concedes the only thing that matters: no factual claim in them has been disputed.
So here is the shortest possible version, with nothing to beat and everything to check. Berkovic 2006: the fever-then-regression cases were Dravet syndrome, genetic. Jain 2015: 96,000 children including high-risk siblings, no MMR association. Ozonoff: parents' own onset reports drift toward memorable events within four years. Nadama, 2005: died in chelation for autism at a DAN!-affiliated practice.
Any one of these, shown to be wrong, changes my position; I've said what would.
The exchange that "leads somewhere" has been on the table since the first reply: the pre-registered susceptibility study your colleague proposed, with the failure condition stated in advance.
This exchange points to a profound truth about human psychology: once an emotional response hardens into a deeply held belief structure, facts and logic rarely change it. When a belief becomes tied to someone's identity or emotional security, the brain actually perceives opposing evidence as a personal threat. This triggers defensive cognitive biases - like confirmation bias or backfire effects -making the belief even more rigid.
People who do this, which is pretty much everyone, are suffering from a spiritual misconception. They identify their Self with their body and their thoughts. That's like the blue sky identifying with the clouds. Your body and your thoughts are not the real you, they are temporary.
When a person ties their personal identity to their thoughts or opinions, any opposing view feels like a direct threat to their self-worth. Disagreement feels like a direct threat to personal survival - as can be seen in political discourse; it's not only them against us but them or us.
Well...after six sections demanding that no claim can outrun its evidence, the essay closes by asserting that autism is "an acquired cellular detoxification deficiency syndrome" - your own theory, with no diagnostic criteria, no validated biomarker, no pre-registered prediction, and no cohort test, presented in a sentence.
Every substitution catalogued (a construct becomes an exposure, a trait score becomes autism) is outdone by that one, where a hypothesis becomes a syndrome by naming it. And note what the whole exercise yields even if every critique lands: a weakened null is not a positive finding. Demolishing this study to rubble would leave the pesticide-autism literature exactly where you describe it - mixed, low-signal, dominated by measurement error - and would move the vaccine question, which this study never touched, by nothing.
Pesticides are relatively harmless, btw - when evaluated beside the massive defence chemical exposure accumulated by eating plants. See for yourself; google "Bruce Ames 99.99 %."
"They have everything to do with the conclusion." The only sentence that the "average" American even has a chance of understanding.
Dr. Weiler is usually the smartest guy in the room. Those who have ruined our "environment", be it by injecting heavy metals via IM into infants or poisoning the ground, air and water around us, would never allow any other narrative to emerge, than the one they control.
So, I will dumb it down, perhaps that a 6th grader might understand. It has been the Phrma vaccine playbook for 40 years:
YOU WILL NEVER FIND WHAT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING FOR.
Just keep repeating the lie: "safe and effective."
I remember your fight for your son. I pray for your success in my daily prayers.
Thank you, It will take more than prayers. We are up against a lobby that dictates much of America's political system.
So true, but I will continue in prayer and also my annual contributions to those organizations that demonstrably fight for our freedoms and justice.
Thank you. Can anyone please explain why “the children’s study” collapsed? It seemed to me to promise the answer to these difficult questions. I cried when it collapsed. And I was further distressed when I saw that the one environmental exposure they decided not to track was vaccines. I am not a scientist but was trained in the social sciences: I understand basic study design and statistics. Are there any meaningful studies now in the works that will unravel the genetic and environmental causes of autism? There are so many talented scientists in this country. Surely some of them want genuinely to study this problem.
The way Phrma controls the narrative is your answer. Please read my comment above. It's simpler than we think. Always follow the money.
Some do genuinely want to study problems honestly, and they do. It's just often the results are buried if they get that far or the funding collapses if the ongoing study shows an undesireable truth coming out. The other trick, which Fauci used for Remdesivir, was to change the goal and end time of the study to rig the results.
Thanks for this very fine scientific perspective. We've known for decades that autism entails defective detoxification pathways, so yes, the total spectrum of environmental toxicant exposures should be studied. I'd suggest adding a sentence at the end of your article to the effect that susceptible subgroups of children should be identified using a molecular epidemiology approach--e.g., via blood SNP panels, red-cell glutathione (and related GSH enzyme pathways), urinary organic acids, etc. This has been done in smaller studies, and it's of course more labor-intensive and expensive, but we'll obtain more robust outcomes and bring more awareness to the fact that these kids are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine with respect to today's toxic world.
"We've known for decades that autism entails defective detoxification pathways" upgrades a contested, small-study literature into settled background fact. What actually exists is a body of case-control studies, mostly from the James and Deth groups in the 2000s, finding lower plasma glutathione and altered GSH/GSSG ratios in autistic children, typically in samples of dozens, with inconsistent replication, and with an unsolved direction-of-causation problem: autistic children differ systematically in diet, GI function, sleep, stress physiology, and medication, all of which move redox markers, so downstream oxidative-stress signatures cannot establish upstream detoxification failure.
The GST and MTHFR association studies that would anchor the genetic version show the classic pattern of small positive studies followed by null large ones and meta-analyses driven by publication bias. Meanwhile the strongest-established causes of autism - CHD8, SCN2A, SHANK3, fragile X, tuberous sclerosis, maternal rubella - involve synaptic development and chromatin regulation, not xenobiotic metabolism, so a general detox-deficiency model has to explain why the known monogenic cases fit it nowhere.
"Known for decades" also has a clinical body count worth remembering: it was the premise behind chelation as autism therapy, which killed a five-year-old in 2005 and treated thousands on the strength of exactly this level of evidence.
That said, the study design proposed is the correct one and should be endorsed without reservation: pre-specified susceptibility strata defined by measured biology (PON1 and GST genotypes, glutathione pathway markers), exposure measured repeatedly rather than by spot urine, clinical outcomes, and power calculated for the interaction term, not the main effect. That is precisely the fix for the estimand problem in the ECHO study, and versions of it exist - PON1-organophosphate interaction analyses in CHAMACOS and elsewhere - with mixed results that a definitive study could resolve.
Thanks for what is ostensibly an AI response, reflecting a more conservative, pharmaceutical/vaccine industry bias. I'm referring to evidence from actual clinician observations from the various integrative medicine clinics I worked at and those that were reported at many DAN! (Defeat Autism Now) Conferences over the years. This is common knowledge among medical practitioners, documented thousands of times. So your comments are not grounded in clinical reality. Chelation is not germane to this discussion, and thus the "clinical body count" comment is pure BS.
The reply substitutes provenance for content twice - once for my argument, once for your own - and both moves fail the same way. Whether a critique was drafted by an Ai, a pharmacist, or a parrot has no bearing on whether the James studies replicated, whether the GST meta-analyses show publication bias, or whether redox markers can establish causal direction; those claims are checkable, and the reply checks none of them.
Conversely, "common knowledge among practitioners, documented thousands of times" is provenance offered as validation, and it is the weakest evidence class in medicine, not because clinicians are dishonest but because uncontrolled observation cannot separate a real signal from selection and expectation: integrative clinics see the families who already suspect toxicity, order the panels that confirm the suspicion, and attribute improvement on treatment to the treatment in a condition whose baseline course is developmental gain. Clinical observation documented bloodletting for two millennia and it documented facilitated communication in this very field; the entire reason controlled designs exist is that "we see it every day" has been catastrophically wrong before.
On DAN! specifically, invoking those conferences while ruling chelation off-topic is not a position available to you: chelation was a core DAN! protocol intervention for years, promoted at exactly the conferences cited as evidence, and the five-year-old who died in 2005, Abubakar Tariq Nadama, died in a DAN!-affiliated practitioner's office receiving EDTA for autism. The Autism Research Institute itself shut the DAN! practitioner registry down in 2011 amid concerns about the interventions being sold under its banner.
That is why the body count is germane: it is what happens when "clinical reality" is exempted from the burden of controlled evidence, which is precisely the exemption being requested again.
The constructive path has not moved: your proposed molecular-epidemiology design in your first comment was endorsed, and the pre-registered interaction study with named biomarkers would settle whether the clinics have been seeing a real subgroup or a mirror. A quarter century of conferences produced testimony; one properly powered study would produce an answer, and if the observations are as robust as claimed, its sponsors should expect to win.
buddi is a shill for pHARMa. It will argue with you until the cows come home, sleep, and go back out to graze again. And it will not be a true or genuine exchange of informtion.
Thanks, I got that from the last response. The AI response to every comment indicates a reflexive mindless need to perpetuate cognitive dissonance. Asking it to cease and desist is an exercise in futility.
Ah yes, the poster who claims there is nothing new regarding the autism studies already done. Yet mentions the collapse of some scientific notion in a prior post. The collapse of an idea is new information. What a shill for pHARMa. It's why I refused to have further exchange on your other post.
Read back what the argument now consists of: no defense of the glutathione literature, no answer on DAN! and chelation, no engagement with the proposed study design - the entire reply is one claimed contradiction and one epithet.
The contradiction dissolves on contact. The position was never "nothing new can happen in autism research"; it was that reopening a tested hypothesis requires specific new evidence, and the amyloid collapse illustrates the rule rather than breaking it: amyloid was revisited because its drugs failed their endpoints and a foundational paper was exposed as fraudulent - new evidence of exactly the required kind.
The vaccine and detox hypotheses have produced no equivalent: no failed prediction of the mainstream model, no exposed fraud in the null studies, no replicated anomaly. Citing the amyloid episode is citing the standard; the invitation has always been to meet it.
As for "shill": the accusation is unfalsifiable in this direction but testable in the other, since the argument on this side has named its evidence - Berkovic 2006, Jain 2015, the Danish cohorts, the Ozonoff recall study, the 2025 aluminum cohort - and every one can be pulled up and attacked on methods by anyone, funded by anyone.
An argument's paymaster is a question you ask when you cannot fault its premises or its logic; that it is the only question left being asked here is the concession.
The molecular-epidemiology study your own first comment proposed remains endorsed, pre-registration and all. That offer does not expire, and it is noticeable that the thread moved from proposing that study to name-calling the moment the condition attached to it was symmetry.
Our son, now 34 was one of the earliest guinea pigs. He is incompetent requiring 24/7 care and supervision. He is why vaccine makers were granted virtually complete legal liability protection from tort claims.
buddi is a shill for pHARMa. I've run into it before. It will do anything to make an argument and go on and on, but there will never be an exchange that leads to anything other than buddi trying to beat the other.
The charge is now that the arguments are long and that they aim to win, which concedes the only thing that matters: no factual claim in them has been disputed.
So here is the shortest possible version, with nothing to beat and everything to check. Berkovic 2006: the fever-then-regression cases were Dravet syndrome, genetic. Jain 2015: 96,000 children including high-risk siblings, no MMR association. Ozonoff: parents' own onset reports drift toward memorable events within four years. Nadama, 2005: died in chelation for autism at a DAN!-affiliated practice.
Any one of these, shown to be wrong, changes my position; I've said what would.
The exchange that "leads somewhere" has been on the table since the first reply: the pre-registered susceptibility study your colleague proposed, with the failure condition stated in advance.
This exchange points to a profound truth about human psychology: once an emotional response hardens into a deeply held belief structure, facts and logic rarely change it. When a belief becomes tied to someone's identity or emotional security, the brain actually perceives opposing evidence as a personal threat. This triggers defensive cognitive biases - like confirmation bias or backfire effects -making the belief even more rigid.
People who do this, which is pretty much everyone, are suffering from a spiritual misconception. They identify their Self with their body and their thoughts. That's like the blue sky identifying with the clouds. Your body and your thoughts are not the real you, they are temporary.
When a person ties their personal identity to their thoughts or opinions, any opposing view feels like a direct threat to their self-worth. Disagreement feels like a direct threat to personal survival - as can be seen in political discourse; it's not only them against us but them or us.
Well...after six sections demanding that no claim can outrun its evidence, the essay closes by asserting that autism is "an acquired cellular detoxification deficiency syndrome" - your own theory, with no diagnostic criteria, no validated biomarker, no pre-registered prediction, and no cohort test, presented in a sentence.
Every substitution catalogued (a construct becomes an exposure, a trait score becomes autism) is outdone by that one, where a hypothesis becomes a syndrome by naming it. And note what the whole exercise yields even if every critique lands: a weakened null is not a positive finding. Demolishing this study to rubble would leave the pesticide-autism literature exactly where you describe it - mixed, low-signal, dominated by measurement error - and would move the vaccine question, which this study never touched, by nothing.
Pesticides are relatively harmless, btw - when evaluated beside the massive defence chemical exposure accumulated by eating plants. See for yourself; google "Bruce Ames 99.99 %."