You could give 'em to a visiting family of dwellars? Don't let the kid see, though, since she's already asking for her "bear" back.

:lol: I didn't even think about that. She's not regaining her speech, she's just jonesin'.

You can have my whole stash of gummy bears and a lot of other random half-used vitamins when you come to Austin.

You're right, it doesn't. But even the most rigorous of scientific testing can only prove very strong correlation, never causation. I could give her the gummies back in a few weeks and see if she regresses, but I'd only be doing it to prove a point to you and risking my kid's brain isn't worth that.

I know you think I've gone off the deep end, but I'm not demonizing the items themselves--if I believed these things affected all children across the board, I wouldn't be offering them to Flint's kids, now would I? Incidentally, Minifob's allergy blood tests will be back in soon. I'll let you know if they confirm my personal finding that he has a correlated behavioral reaction to coconut, peaches, oranges, cashews, peanuts, egg, and tomatoes. (And just for the record, I'm predicting Minifobette's blood tests, when she gets them in a few months, will show a reaction to pears, peaches, oranges, cherries, mango, kiwi, and pineapple.) We'll verify my observational testing methods together.

You know, I've always had mild ADHD symptoms, and my mom is convinced i've got super-mild aspergers (i've got an uncle who is majorly aspergers among other things), and i've always been a majorly picky eater... i oughtta do some research into all this diet-affecting-brain some myself.

Ibram, you should read Children With Starving Brains.

Forgot one after the edit time window: annatto.

So, do you think she's doing something wrong based on incorrect assumptions? What would you be doing Tony? Based on what information?

In fairness, it's entirely possible it's a different ingredient in the gummy bears that she has a problem with. But I have absolutely no doubt at this point that the gummies were no good for her.

Haven't you heard? The best thing to do is take no actions, at all, ever. Especially when based on careful, rigorous observation.

I bet they'd be great for bath tub art. Dump them in the water, let them warm up and dissolve just a little, then press on the the tub sides and backsplash in interesting patterns.

I'm saying she doesn't know whether the gummi bears had an effect. She may have no other alternative than to discontinue things after which an effect is shown. But she has done what I thought appropriate; she fairly backed off of
"Correlation doesn't prove causation" means you don't know it's real and you mustn't believe it.

I guess sometimes it comes down to whether you've got "something to prove" or you're just trying to live your life and do good things.

I noticed a correlation between the times I ran out of tinned tripe and so fed Pilau just on dry kibble, and the times he did and didn't have the shits.

I generally don't feed him with tinned tripe now. He's much better. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but nor does it necessarily discount the same.

My daughter said two more new words this morning, UT. One of which was to tell me that she had "pooped," which is even more developmentally significant than just naming nouns. Remember that before I took her off the gummies, she had not spoken a single word in three months.

This means that on a standardized developmental speech scale, she has gone from a 9-month-old to a 15-month-old in the last two days. What do you think, can I safely say the gummies were having an effect now?

If you (and others) didn't have such strong evidence, and if you had never told me, I would never in a million years have guessed that food could have such a profound impact on mental health. I really might start listening when people tell me I should eat right (/eat something healtier than grease, starch, and cheese)

No. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a data point, not proof in any sense.

Understanding this principle is one of the historical keys to modern science btw. Understand that I'm not saying the gummis don't have an effect. I'm saying the effect is not proven.

You have correlated a change in behavior with a rather small change you made a few days ago. Less than a quarter teaspoon of artificial sweetener. What of the changes you made two weeks ago? Last month? Not all changes will show immediately; if dietary changes are of fat-soluble substances, they will stick around in the body for quite some time. (Sucralose is considered not fat-soluble, so that is a point in favor of causality.)

Are all behavioral changes necessarily overnight? What to make of the time before the gummis arrived?

The human body is a pretty complex thing. Michael Pollan points out that thyme, if taken in large quantities by itself, promotes cancer; but in small quantities WITH other foods, helps prevent cancer, because it contains large amounts of different anti-oxidants. He points out that our obsession with single points of nutrition is actually unhealthy, and it's the complete diet that must be looked at. The simple "X is good for you/Y is bad for you", which our culture currently promotes, is not enough explanation. Perhaps X and Y combined is a natural and beneficial diet.

BTW, this is a relevant cookie:

If a person (a) is poorly, (b) receives treatment intended to make him better, and (c) gets better, then no power of reasoning known to medical science can convince him that it may not have been the treatment that restored his health.
-- Sir Peter Medawar, The Art of the Soluble

Toad, you're starting to sound like TW here. "If you don't test every widget with a multimeter you are only guessing" or some such.

It is a valid scientific method to change one input variable and see what happens to the output. That's what Clod's doing with her kids diet.

Causality only seems like a minor point dar. It's the whole point. If anyone can find one trained scientist that agrees with Clod that she has demonstrated proof, bring them.

Meanwhile I agree with Clod that she should avoid the gummis, and that she can't reintroduce them in an attempt to prove causality.

After having a mild heart attack, my Dad started drinking his coffee black. He would swear omitting cream & sugar from his coffee caused him to lose weight, completely disregarding other changes to his diet and lifestyle.

But, in Clod's case she has been closely monitoring every god damn molecule that her kids ingest, for a long time. She's also been monitoring output and behavior.

So unlike my Dad, and unlike UT's examples, Clod has valid results of what works for her kids. And that's what this is about, not medical research, just what works for her kids. Go Mom. :thumb2:

Tony is right about correlation != causation, etc. etc. etc.
But Clod knows her baby. And if she has to eliminate 5 things that might be causing a problem to get one real problem -- maybe that's worth it? To get her baby talking again?

See, this is where you're getting TW-like. AFAIK, Clod is not intending to submit any papers to the NEJoM. She doesn't need to be 100% sure that the vitamins are bad for her kids. If she's pretty sure, she's going to yank it.

If you've got a dozen lab rats (workers), you can provide proof. When you're one mom, you're just looking for improvement. Clod's making pretty much everything her kids eat from scratch. Do you really think it would be a good use of her time to do double-blind tests on her kids vitamins?

And now I've just made myself start missing LabRat.

There's just no benefit to suggesting that she should be constantly second guessing herself. It's non-constructive criticism, really. Of course she could be wrong... and it seems like she'd pick up on that not too far down the road, even without a double-blind study and some peer review...

THIS. She spends every waking moment of her day trying to get both of her kids to have ANY semblance of "normalcy" she can even begin to approach. If an expiriment appears to work for her, so be it.

E-mail sent to Pelosi Clod.

You are an amazing woman, and I for one am very proud of the strength you continue to maintain, and the strides you continue to make. Hugs to you.

I'd like to hug her too, but Mr Clod might not understand... worse yet, he might. :blush:

I am saddened by these replies, but I'll take them at face value as my problem, and will no longer post in the thread.

Oh stop pouting. You're talking about the principles and procedures of valid medical research, while Clodfobble, not having the time or resources for that, is trying to do the best she can for her kids, RFN. :p

Just like you, I support what Clodfobble is doing as a mother for her own children and am blown away by her dedication. One of the main purposes of this thread is to show support for her and what she's doing, and I absolutely support her. I have a strong gut feeling that she is right. But I also support your point that scientifically speaking, she hasn't proven anything. I think you are a valuable contributor to this thread because you bring an impartiality to it. It needs that.

I have no idea how she's been taking your posts, but I haven't had the impression that she was hurt by them. She can speak up if she was. You shouldn't bow out.

Please don't go away, Undertoad. I never got a chance to kick you in your stupid balls.

You can kick me in a different thread.

I liked your cookie. mmmmmm

I dunno, Toad. Getting kicked in the thread really hurts.

Clod knows you support her. Don't disconnect on this.

Sorry Toad, didn't mean to make you sad. I totally agree with your point, I just feel like you're trying so hard to prove your point in a thread that I don't think is about proving a point - I think it's more about hearing how Clod's trial and error is going, and what she has learned from her experiences, and how it is making her life a teensy bit easier to cope with each day, not whether it's a valid proven scientific point.

Please don't leave.

It's cool UT, I get what you're saying and I'm not offended. We should bump the Vaccination & Epidemic thread to keep the science debate and personal support separate.

(And then I can tell you in that thread exactly what happened on the day when my daughter was 12 months old and stopped speaking. Hint: I was in the pediatrician's office, and I consider it the biggest fuckup of my life, because while I hadn't had time to do all the research I've done by now, I had done enough that I should have known better.

On second thought, I actually should stay out of that thread, because I'll admit right now that nothing anyone can say from this point on will ever convince me I'm wrong about vaccines, because I watched it fucking happen right in front of me. I am the very definition of a closed mind on the subject.)

I'm sorry too T, I didn't mean to make you sad either. This whole subject tends to make me extra bitchy I guess... pisses me right off actually. Nothing personal.

:hugs Clod:
You're doing the best you can do, and a damn good job of it. Don't carry that guilt around.

Well, too late for that. :) But I figure I can redeem myself by making them better, and spreading the word to help other kids while I'm at it.

Hah, little late on this one. Sorry:

Gummis were just one data point. But wasn't it one data point in a series of others? The other foods/consumables that, when discontinued, marked an improvement, or vice versa. Stopping them wasn't just a dramatic shift; it was a dramatic shift which mimicked the other dramatic, food-related behavior shifts.

I guess the point is that IMO one's children should not be by default a clinical trial; every meal is a trial enough, from the sounds of it. Prior to the full-on hard-proof scientific method is a period of observation and field work, after which a hypothesis can be formed and specific studies can be done.

On the other hand, part of the understanding Clod is working on seems to be that the triggers are very distinct from person to person, even two siblings from the same parents. By nature sample sizes will, at this stage, be small, and the changes overlapping.

How about Kefir?
 

Goat Milk?
Most experts claim that the best kefir is made from raw goat’s milk, but cow’s milk also works, even if it has been pasteurized. If fact, people have made kefir from soy milk, coconut milk, and even fruit juices. But kefir grains differ in the combinations and proportions of bacteria and yeasts they contain, so not every grain is compatible with every food.

It sounds like the starter for kefir is pretty vigorous and should be free of nasty grains etc. I'm going to put Pete on this when we get milking again next summer.

You can get kefir at Whole Foods.

Reminds me, I was just reading about some woman who is working hard to get camel milk introduced to the USA. Apparently there would be decent market for it in the immigrant communities. And it's supposed to be extremely healthy so it might catch on elsewhere. She just has to go through a bunch of government red tape first.

We get it at Wegman's, unless you mean the starter?

I mean, kefir that is packaged and flavored specifically for kids.

from the WSJ
Still warm from the camel? *ack* I think I'd have to warm up to that a bit myself.

Wiki definition of apraxia, a common symptom associated with autism.

A new study against the dietary treatments puts a rather desperate spin on things:

Apparently constipation isn't a GI symptom anymore.


So, wait, they are hardcore self-selecting themselves to specific foods (you know, wheat and dairy--never in the history of autism or childrearing in general has there been a kid who self-selects himself to broccoli) and this is leading to constipation. Thus, getting them to eat different foods would relieve this constipation. That sounds like... getting them to eat different food would be a good thing?

I'm sorry, what? It's dangerous and risky to make my child eat fruits and vegetables instead of bread and cheese? This shows how desperate people are getting--the one thing doctors have always conceded is that there is absolutely no harm in trying the diet. The only meaningful nutrient you might miss is calcium, and the reality is most normal kids don't get enough calcium either, which is why calcium supplements come in fucking gummy bear format. I saw an NBC medical correspondent make a complete fool of herself with her insistence that this "proves it," "case closed," "there is absolutely no link, we've proven it." Real scientists know one study is just one study, and you never ever call something definitively closed. That is the purpose of science, to constantly search for more information and new ways to look at it.

How many old studies exist that prove no link between smoking and cancer, I wonder?

So are they now saying that the case is definitively closed on children in general eating a more healthy diet being a good idea ???

Just to be the devil's advocate, it sounds like they're saying the frequency difference was not statistically significant. The fact that more of those "symptoms" were constipation (rather than diarrhea, etc.) in the autism group was significant.

At issue is what they intended "However," to mean.

It sounds to me like they are saying that a symptom of autism, strong preference for routine, specifically in food choice, is causing the constipation. I doubt they'd caution against enforcing a varied diet, as opposed to a restricted one. "Not just bread and cheese" is different from "no bread or cheese". Though I do know that it can be hard to get a child to eat something else if they know that what they want is available.

Without calling out any particular restricted diet, they can be dangerous and risky (though that's an extreme case), meaning you have to be very careful when using them, not that you should never use them. Without evidence supporting a link between diet and autism, and with the possible danger of a poorly crafted restricted diet, they reccommend against.

Edit: I do wonder whether the 77-72 GI number includes the 34-18 constipation number.

From HM's link:

He was six weeks old, and they were (apparently) giving him soy milk instead of soy formula, which are entirely different substances, yet both are vegan. I know from experience that it says right on the box of soy milk--and every other milk substitute on the market--that it is not intended for use as a baby formula. It was not the vegan diet that killed him, it was his retarded parents.

"Without calling out any particular restricted diet" is disingenuous because there are only three major diets that are recommended for autistic children: gluten-free/casein-free, Specific Carbohydrate (whose chief difference from GFCF is it allows non-cow milks,) and Feingold (which removes nothing but artificial additives, colors, flavors, and preservatives.) Your average experimental parent is not fashioning some diet out of their ass, they are following one of these three.

Routine food choices do not by themselves equal constipation. My son still eats about ten foods or so pretty much every day, but his digestion is no longer a problem. The majority of people on this planet rely on staple foods that they eat at every meal. It is what one routinely eats that causes (or does not cause) constipation.

I also wonder how they classified the strength of the symptoms. My stepson has constipation at least once a month. That is not the same as a child who has chronic, daily constipation with visual bloating and distension of the stomach.

And another one has just come out in the UK. Once again, the authors conclude there is "no link" despite their own data showing that

Oh, but the professor who ran this study? He's a British vaccine official.

This actually gives me great hope. If they are running at such a fever pitch to prove what they already assume to be true, and this is the best they can come up with... it is a tacit acknowledgement that they are losing the battle.


It's by no means certain, but there are two representatives in Congress (Rep. Chris Smith R-NJ, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney D-NY,) who are pushing extremely hard for a special hearing on the autism epidemic in front of the Energy and Commerce committee before the new health care bill can be passed. This could come to a head even sooner than I'd expected.

Oh, and thanks a ton to you guys who helped contact Nancy Pelosi a few days ago:

Beat me to it. :haha:

Me too! Apparently my email went through despite the system issues.

Clod, I've been reading this thread and following the food blog, and I have a question:

Can one be on a GFCF diet AND go low carb?

I'm noticing rice, beans etc in the diet, and I can't eat those, because I'm insulin resistance diabetic. (And if I'm going to go GFCF for the autistic cub, EVERYONE is.) I just don't know how I can go low (under 150g a day) carb with this stuff.

I wouldn't think it would be too hard, most carbs are already eliminated on the diet in the first place. Is corn okay for you? Rice and corn are the main grain substitutes in pre-packaged items, but when you're cooking things yourself there are a ton of flour options--garbanzo/chickpea, amaranth, quinoa, teff, tapioca... I don't know if any of those are low-carb or not. But really, there's nothing that you have to eat on the diet, only things that you have to avoid. Meat, fruits and veggies are really what it's all about. If you're following a super low-carb diet, you're probably already eating most of the right stuff already, you'd just have to eliminate dairy.