Amish, autism, Olmsted and Orac

This is a repost of a message I posted earlier.
Unfortunately, the subject line was "test" because of either my mistake
or a software glitch. So, it was ignored by most readers.
If you have read it please click Delete now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)

2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)

3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.

In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.

Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other

2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other

3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other

Thank you for you time and your straight answers.

mike wrote:
This is a repost of a message I posted earlier.
Unfortunately, the subject line was "test" because of either my mistake
or a software glitch. So, it was ignored by most readers.

That was not the reason it was ignored.



If you have read it please click Delete now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

Here is another article by Olmsted:

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/he..._2122873.shtml

He had been promoting the idea that Gold salts should be investigated
for treating Autism. However, he was met with some REAL facts, and seems
to be doing the BackPedal Shuffle.

This is instructive about Olmsted. First, he shoots his mouth off about
Gold salts without doing any additional investigation, and, now back
pedals. However, I note that in this article, he fails to say:

"OOPS! I may have been wrong!"

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:19:43 -0500, Mark Probert wrote:

mike wrote:
This is a repost of a message I posted earlier.
Unfortunately, the subject line was "test" because of either my mistake
or a software glitch. So, it was ignored by most readers.

That was not the reason it was ignored.

Could you educate me? Otherwise I will remain in fallacy
that they could not give straight answers.

snip
Here is another article by Olmsted:

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/he..._2122873.shtml

He had been promoting the idea that Gold salts should be investigated
for treating Autism. However, he was met with some REAL facts, and seems
to be doing the BackPedal Shuffle.

This is instructive about Olmsted. First, he shoots his mouth off about
Gold salts without doing any additional investigation, and, now back
pedals. However, I note that in this article, he fails to say:

"OOPS! I may have been wrong!"

This is instructive about you, Mark P.

The readers are encouraged to see the article and also the original one
where Olmsted "shoots his mouth off about Gold salts without doing any
additional investigation" at
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050...4415-2615r.htm

A quote from Olmsted allegedly "shooting his mouth about Gold salts":
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't jump on this. Be careful. You can hurt kids," [the researcher]
said. That concern was underscored last week when a 5-year-old autistic
child died while undergoing chelation in Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------

But what else could be expected from MarkP?

mike wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:19:43 -0500, Mark Probert wrote:


mike wrote:

This is a repost of a message I posted earlier.
Unfortunately, the subject line was "test" because of either my mistake
or a software glitch. So, it was ignored by most readers.

That was not the reason it was ignored.


Could you educate me? Otherwise I will remain in fallacy
that they could not give straight answers.

your post was stupid. It is demonstrative of a game player. All the
issues had been previously discussed.

snip


Here is another article by Olmsted:

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/he..._2122873.shtml

He had been promoting the idea that Gold salts should be investigated
for treating Autism. However, he was met with some REAL facts, and seems
to be doing the BackPedal Shuffle.

This is instructive about Olmsted. First, he shoots his mouth off about
Gold salts without doing any additional investigation, and, now back
pedals. However, I note that in this article, he fails to say:

"OOPS! I may have been wrong!"


This is instructive about you, Mark P.

The readers are encouraged to see the article and also the original one
where Olmsted "shoots his mouth off about Gold salts without doing any
additional investigation" at
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050...4415-2615r.htm

A quote from Olmsted allegedly "shooting his mouth about Gold salts":
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't jump on this. Be careful. You can hurt kids," [the researcher]
said. That concern was underscored last week when a 5-year-old autistic
child died while undergoing chelation in Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------

But what else could be expected from MarkP?

What does the death-from-chelation have to do with it? Oh, that's
right...he is a fan of Haley, who is a salesman and paid shill/witness.

As for the article, read the whole thing. Clearly promoting gold salts.