On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mary wrote:

> On some of the autism lists, they are talking about chelating mercury out of
> the body.
>
> They are finding that "autism" and mercury poisoning are almost synonymous.

Who are "they" who are finding this, and what controls are in
place?  I have read of too many speculative therapies on those
lists to accept anything on face value that I read there.  I
recall, for example, when prism lens glasses were the great
breakthrough, and I ended up spending several thousand dollars in
consultation fees and special glasses.  Their effect was small.

> This is kind of an invasive procedure, you give the child DMSA ,etc to
> chelate him/her.

What is DMSA?  I've heard of the food additive EDTA being used
for chelation therapy.  But chelation is itself risky, since it
tends to drain *all* minerals from the body, and the important
ones must be replenished properly and quickly.

> I'm asking for the list's opinion.

My opinion is that speculative therapies backed mainly by
scattered anecdotes should always be approached with caution, and
risks should be very carefully weighed.  I understand that this
is exactly what you are trying to do.  I would make every attempt
to find out exactly what DMSA is supposed to do in the body, and
what other things it might do instead.

> Apparently when you get the mercury out, the child is normal again.

Based on whose studies, with how many children?  The autism world
recently went gonzo over secretin, on the basis of a single
uncontrolled and poorly designed study with a child who in fact
wasn't actually diagnosed autistic to begin with.  A few years
before that it was prednisone, with another child who wasn't
exactly autistic either (Same principal author in both studies,
interestingly).  More to the point, is there a way to verify that
mercury levels are high to begin with?

> My question is, if we are doing paleo, wouldn't that be a natural way to
> chelate, even though it may take longer?

I don't get it.  What is the chelating agent in the paleo diet?

> I would give anything to have a "normal' child, but don't want to take
> unnecessary risks.

Me too.  When it comes to putting substances into my son's body
that nature did not equip him to handle, I want to have some
fairly solid evidence that these substances are not likely to
harm him, and are likely to benefit him.  I have seen a few kids
who got a lot worse on secretin, for example.  For most of them,
the bad effect was temporary, but for one it was apparently
permanent.  The poor kid was echolalic before secretin; now he is
completely nonverbal and barely responsive at all.  How solid is
the evidence for chelation therapy as a treatment for autism?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]