Autism, Mercury and the California Numbers

07.13.2005 David Kirby

Autism, Mercury and the California Numbers

For months now, a mantra of the thimerosal defenders has been as
follows: "Mercury was removed from vaccines years ago, and we have
not seen a drop in autism rates."

It looks like they might have to find a new slogan.

Freshly reported numbers out of California show that new cases entering
that state's disability system (children who are three-to-four years
old and newly diagnosed with autism) have indeed dropped since 2002,
marking the first decline in new autism cases since California began
tracking the mysterious disorder.

We now know that 2002 was the peak year for new autism diagnoses in the
state, with 3,259 cases. That number fell to 3,125 in 2003, and dropped
to 3,074 in 2004. For the first half of 2005, there were 1,470 new
cases, compared to 1,518 in the same period in 2004. A similar downward
tick has been reported in Indiana, and other states should begin
weighing in soon.

The Golden State, however, is said to operate the gold standard of
autism epidemiology, having always tracked "full-blown" autism
only, as defined by the DSM-IV manual. In other words, children with
milder forms of the disorder, such as PDD and Apserger Syndrome, need
not apply for services. This means that nearly two decades of rising
cases in California cannot be attributed to wider diagnostic criteria.
The autism epidemic is real.

So why is the drop in numbers such a potential bombshell? Because
children entering the system today were born in 2001 and 2002, soon
after the mercury-based preservative thimerosal began to be phased out
of pediatric vaccines in the United States.

In California, fewer children with full-blown autism entered the system
in 2003 than in 2002. Most of these kids would have been born in 1999
or 2000, when more mercury-free vaccines began their gradual
penetration of the market. In 2004, there was another decline, this
time among kids born largely in 2000 or 2001, when total average
mercury burden from vaccines presumably would have been reduced
further. This year, we are seeing kids born mostly in 2001 and 2002,
when mercury levels declined further still.

Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course. Could there be other explanations for the drop, such as a
budget-crunching reduction in services? Perhaps. But this very decline,
at this very moment, has long been predicted by supporters of the
thimerosal-autism theory. At the very least, the quivers of their
detractors have now been emptied of one arrow, for the time being
anyway.

Stay tuned. If the numbers in California and elsewhere continue to drop
- and that still is a big if -- the implication of thimerosal in the
autism epidemic will be practically undeniable.

David Kirby is author of "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and
the Autism Epidemic" (St. Martin's Press 2005)
www.evidenceofharm.com


~~~~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
ups.com...
(...)

Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course.

Another question: Is there a drop in diagnoses for a the younger age groups?
One would expect a drop only in kids less than 4 or 5 years of age. If there
is a drop in kids who are say 5-10, that would have nothing to do with the
change in the vaccine.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
ups.com...
(...)

Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course.

Another question: Is there a drop in diagnoses for a the younger age
groups? One would expect a drop only in kids less than 4 or 5 years of
age. If there is a drop in kids who are say 5-10, that would have nothing
to do with the change in the vaccine.

Jeff

07.13.2005 David Kirby

Autism, Mercury and the California Numbers

For months now, a mantra of the thimerosal defenders has been as
follows: "Mercury was removed from vaccines years ago, and we have
not seen a drop in autism rates."

It looks like they might have to find a new slogan.

Freshly reported numbers out of California show that new cases entering
that state's disability system (children who are three-to-four years
old and newly diagnosed with autism) have indeed dropped since 2002,
marking the first decline in new autism cases since California began
tracking the mysterious disorder.

We now know that 2002 was the peak year for new autism diagnoses in the
state, with 3,259 cases. That number fell to 3,125 in 2003, and dropped
to 3,074 in 2004. For the first half of 2005, there were 1,470 new
cases, compared to 1,518 in the same period in 2004. A similar downward
tick has been reported in Indiana, and other states should begin
weighing in soon.

The Golden State, however, is said to operate the gold standard of
autism epidemiology, having always tracked "full-blown" autism
only, as defined by the DSM-IV manual. In other words, children with
milder forms of the disorder, such as PDD and Apserger Syndrome, need
not apply for services. This means that nearly two decades of rising
cases in California cannot be attributed to wider diagnostic criteria.
The autism epidemic is real.

So why is the drop in numbers such a potential bombshell? Because
children entering the system today were born in 2001 and 2002, soon
after the mercury-based preservative thimerosal began to be phased out
of pediatric vaccines in the United States.

In California, fewer children with full-blown autism entered the system
in 2003 than in 2002. Most of these kids would have been born in 1999
or 2000, when more mercury-free vaccines began their gradual
penetration of the market. In 2004, there was another decline, this
time among kids born largely in 2000 or 2001, when total average
mercury burden from vaccines presumably would have been reduced
further. This year, we are seeing kids born mostly in 2001 and 2002,
when mercury levels declined further still.

Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course. Could there be other explanations for the drop, such as a
budget-crunching reduction in services? Perhaps. But this very decline,
at this very moment, has long been predicted by supporters of the
thimerosal-autism theory. At the very least, the quivers of their
detractors have now been emptied of one arrow, for the time being
anyway.

Stay tuned. If the numbers in California and elsewhere continue to drop
- and that still is a big if -- the implication of thimerosal in the
autism epidemic will be practically undeniable.

David Kirby is author of "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and
the Autism Epidemic" (St. Martin's Press 2005)
www.evidenceofharm.com


~~~~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:40:56 +0000, Jeff wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
ups.com...
(...)

Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course.

Another question: Is there a drop in diagnoses for a the younger age groups?
One would expect a drop only in kids less than 4 or 5 years of age. If there
is a drop in kids who are say 5-10, that would have nothing to do with the
change in the vaccine.

Jeff

The answer is "yes, the numbers dropped for the younger group".
It is in the paragraph you cut off. Repeating:

"Freshly reported numbers out of California show that new cases entering
that state's disability system (children who are THREE-TO-FOUR years
old and newly diagnosed with autism) have indeed dropped since 2002 ..."

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
roups.com...
(...)


Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course.

Another question: Is there a drop in diagnoses for a the younger age
groups? One would expect a drop only in kids less than 4 or 5 years of
age. If there is a drop in kids who are say 5-10, that would have nothing
to do with the change in the vaccine.

Jeff


07.13.2005 David Kirby

David Kirby...the Peter Breggin of autism...

http://www.neurodiversity.com/evidence_of_venom.html

Mark S Probert ... she shame of the NY Bar Assocation ...

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.htm#DISBARRED!

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
LadyLollipop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
groups.com...
(...)


Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course.

Another question: Is there a drop in diagnoses for a the younger age
groups? One would expect a drop only in kids less than 4 or 5 years of
age. If there is a drop in kids who are say 5-10, that would have
nothing to do with the change in the vaccine.

Jeff


07.13.2005 David Kirby

David Kirby...the Peter Breggin of autism...

You have an insane need to trash Dr Breggin, get over it and stop replacing
what I posted.

Autism, Mercury and the California Numbers
For months now, a mantra of the thimerosal defenders has been as
follows: "Mercury was removed from vaccines years ago, and we have
not seen a drop in autism rates."
It looks like they might have to find a new slogan.
Freshly reported numbers out of California show that new cases entering
that state's disability system (children who are three-to-four years
old and newly diagnosed with autism) have indeed dropped since 2002,
marking the first decline in new autism cases since California began
tracking the mysterious disorder.
We now know that 2002 was the peak year for new autism diagnoses in the
state, with 3,259 cases. That number fell to 3,125 in 2003, and dropped
to 3,074 in 2004. For the first half of 2005, there were 1,470 new
cases, compared to 1,518 in the same period in 2004. A similar downward
tick has been reported in Indiana, and other states should begin
weighing in soon.
The Golden State, however, is said to operate the gold standard of
autism epidemiology, having always tracked "full-blown" autism
only, as defined by the DSM-IV manual. In other words, children with
milder forms of the disorder, such as PDD and Apserger Syndrome, need
not apply for services. This means that nearly two decades of rising
cases in California cannot be attributed to wider diagnostic criteria.
The autism epidemic is real.
So why is the drop in numbers such a potential bombshell? Because
children entering the system today were born in 2001 and 2002, soon
after the mercury-based preservative thimerosal began to be phased out
of pediatric vaccines in the United States.
In California, fewer children with full-blown autism entered the system
in 2003 than in 2002. Most of these kids would have been born in 1999
or 2000, when more mercury-free vaccines began their gradual
penetration of the market. In 2004, there was another decline, this
time among kids born largely in 2000 or 2001, when total average
mercury burden from vaccines presumably would have been reduced
further. This year, we are seeing kids born mostly in 2001 and 2002,
when mercury levels declined further still.
Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course. Could there be other explanations for the drop, such as a
budget-crunching reduction in services? Perhaps. But this very decline,
at this very moment, has long been predicted by supporters of the
thimerosal-autism theory. At the very least, the quivers of their
detractors have now been emptied of one arrow, for the time being
anyway.
Stay tuned. If the numbers in California and elsewhere continue to drop
- and that still is a big if -- the implication of thimerosal in the
autism epidemic will be practically undeniable.
David Kirby is author of "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and
the Autism Epidemic" (St. Martin's Press 2005)
www.evidenceofharm.com
~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:3WEBe.176124$xm3.97702@attbi_s21...

(...)

Thanks for repeating the same garbage. Repeating it over and over still
doesn't make it true.

David Kirby is author of "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and
the Autism Epidemic" (St. Martin's Press 2005)

The author is trying to sell a book to make money. Do the words "conflict of
interest" come to mind?

Jeff

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark S Probert ... she shame of the NY Bar Assocation ...

You have the wrong Mark Probert. I have yet to see you present any credable
evidence that the Mark Probert who is in this news group is the same one
who was once a member of the NYS bar.

Nor any reason why we should care.

Jeff

"mike" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:40:56 +0000, Jeff wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
ups.com...
(...)

Is it too early to tell if this is a permanent and meaningful trend? Of
course.

Another question: Is there a drop in diagnoses for a the younger age
groups?
One would expect a drop only in kids less than 4 or 5 years of age. If
there
is a drop in kids who are say 5-10, that would have nothing to do with
the
change in the vaccine.

Jeff

The answer is "yes, the numbers dropped for the younger group".
It is in the paragraph you cut off. Repeating:

"Freshly reported numbers out of California show that new cases entering
that state's disability system (children who are THREE-TO-FOUR years
old and newly diagnosed with autism) have indeed dropped since 2002 ..."

Read the article carefully. It does not say that there was a drop-off in the
3-4 year old age group. Only a drop-off in a group of kids that has a lot of
kids in that age group. It is possible that there is a drop-off in older
kids, but not in that age group. We have to see the data or at least a good
summary.

Jeff