Canceled chelation study roils the blogosphere

About that clinical trial of chelation for autism -- never mind. The National Institute of Mental Health has canceled its plans to study the procedure, which removes heavy metals from the body, saying its safety couldn't be trusted.

Chelation has been proven in the treatment of lead poisoning, not autism treatment, and scientists are skeptical of its effectiveness. But many parents of autistic kids swear by it and had been pushing for more research on the procedure.

After balking in the wake of a troubling study on the therapy's use in rats, the NIMH finally said: Forget it. As the Associated Press reports: "The agency decided the money would be better used testing other potential therapies for autism and related disorders."

The reaction from the blogosphere was swift and, though predictable, illuminating for the light it casts on the entrenched points of view about the condition -- and about the potential treatments.

From Hating Autism:

"One would think the liars in our government would have gone ahead with this study as it may have done a good job of fooling more people into believing that we could not cure autism."

From Age of Autism:

"So who canned the NIMH chelation study as 'too dangerous'? Children are given huge doses of chemotherapy and radiation in a desperate effort to save them from cancer -- fully knowing the side effects themselves can be deadly. It's a fair risk most parents are willing to take to help a sick child."

Then there's Left Brain / Right Brain:

"No one consideres the most likely reason for this cancellation: a) There is no evidence metals cause autism. b) There is evidence chelation can cause injury. c) There is therefore what any rational person would see as an unacceptable amount of risk to children."

And NeuroLogica Blog:

"The anti-vaccine mercury militia is not a group persuaded by scientific evidence, and so performing a scientifically and ethically dubious study to satisfy them is a fool's errand."

Here's a recent Healthy Skeptic look at chelation therapy: Want to get the lead out? Chelation pills are risky.

-- Tami Dennis

Comments

[Debi]

It is my understanding the chelation study did not use protocols considered safe among the autism community, such as minerals supplementation while chelating. This is an important issue. Why was the study designed using a non-safe approach to begin with then canceled saying it wasn't safe? If the purpose was to study chelation therapy found extremely effective among scores of children with/who had autism, then why was the study not designed using proper methodology? For this reason the study appears to have been fatally flawed from the beginning.

For those who do not believe metals are an issue in autism, try looking at some lab reports. Porphyrins testing, skewed minerals testing, and the normalization/improvement of cognitive function during/after chelation speaks far more than a few anonymous, layperson theories of metals being a non-issue in autism.

Finally, since when does the NIH send out press releases when they choose to halt a study?

[nhokkanen]

But what do chemists say? Or occupational physicians? Any medical professional who's familiar with heavy metals detoxification protocols?

Many people have chelated mercury using the protocol of chemist Andrew Hall Cutler, PhD, PE, a Princeton grad and former NASA employee. Carefully timed doses of DMSA and/or alpha lipoic acid, based on subject weight, with nutritional supplements to replace what's leached from the body. The dose timing factors the chelator's half life, and includes rest periods between rounds.

The politicization of study funding and inconvenient results pretty much precludes the possibility of the CDC setting up a meaningful mercury chelation study -- especially if the results prove incrmiinating against Thimerosal in vaccines.

[GrammaKnows]

Ah, the obscurity of being fools when the public thinks you know what you are doing! The fact is, they had no choice about cancelling the study. Not because it would be dangerous (period, end of story) but because it would have been dangerous as it was designed. The NIH, and the researchers that applied for the grant know so little about toxic metals in the body and so little about autism they designed it using lab tests measuring blood instead of urine (didn't Pichichero's study last year say it leaves the blood in 3 days? but they didn't know for sure if it left the body?) Lead moves into bones, mercury moves into tissues. Specific urine tests are the only way to determine toxicity, and these jokers wanted to use blood levels as the criteria.oh, it gets even better. ..

[GrammaKnows]

Some exclusion criteria for the study were abnormal routine lab results. Abnormal results are normal for kids on the spectrum, especially when you do the right ones.

Toxic levels of metals in blood OR ANY OTHER TEST excluded children, too. This had two ways to fail. Parents who had the proper urine testing done would have their child excluded - the child who needs the study the most. Also, the criteria stated if toxic levels were found it by ANY testing it meant medically necessary chelation. NO KIDDING! That's why parents are chelating their kids!

Also, the criteria to determine if the child improved wasn't even a lab test. The primary criteria was a behavior evaluation. Now, I ask you, if you suspected someone was poisoning you, would you go to a behaviorist or a toxicologist?

They had to cancel the study because their criteria meant they would be studying chelation on a child who did not need it. Lives were saved by cancelling. If the media looked a little deeper, the cancellation would not have saved careers, and they would not be allowed to posture as heros.