Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought?

Disbarred attorney and Barrett/Quackwatch/Ratbagger "Marla Maples"
Probert has gone this far in his Disinformation about mercury ...
illustrating his ignorance has no boundaries.

Probert Lied:

Remember, you cannot have an allergic reaction to Mercury.


TOTAL AND TYPICAL LIES FROM THE BARRETT CAMP.


Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time to the research of
autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_oct05.html


Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought?

By Red Flags Columnist, F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
)

In “Trust me: I have the statistics to prove it,“ (1) I described the
findings published on July 29, 2005 in the Mortality and Morbidity
Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
under the title “National, State, and Urban Area Vaccination Coverage
Among Children Aged 19-35 Months — United States, 2004.” (2)

It was evident that the CDC took great pride in the achievements of
its National Immunization Program (NIP) and particularly in the
results of a 2004 vaccination survey, which showed that the 80.9
percent vaccination coverage for the 4:3:1:3:3 series of children aged
19-35 months had exceeded the Healthy People 2010 goal.

That particular vaccination series consists of 4 doses of DT
(diphtheria-tetanus) or DTaP; 3 doses of poliovirus vaccine; 1 dose
of any measles-containing vaccine, usually MMR (measles, mumps,
rubella); 3 doses of Hib (Haemophilus influenzae B) vaccine; and 3
doses of hepatitis B vaccine.

As I described, the results of the survey were much publicized by the
media — unlike the findings of a study published within a few days,
which no one, including myself, heard about. That second and very
important study by E. T. Luman, L. E. Barker et al, “Timeliness of
childhood immunizations: a state-specific analysis,” was published in
the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health (p. 1367
-74). The lead author and two of her co-authors are employed by the
NIP/CDC and are, therefore, unlikely to report inaccurate shortcomings
of vaccination programs. (3)

The implications of their paper are critical. If injected mercury is
one of the many causes of autism,as I believe, then what the Luman
study suggests is that the neurological damage from ethyl mercury is
even greater than anyone suspected.

Let me explain.

The recommended U.S. 2005 Childhood and Adolescent Immunization
Schedule clearly illustrates the fact that the CDC not only recommends
vaccinations but also specifies when those vaccinations should be
administered.


see full size version here (4)

As its name implies, the mandated “Schedule” is essentially that — a
schedule. The CDC recommends that vaccinations be administered at
specific times as demonstrated by the stripes in color and by its
statement under the chart.

Many older parents and physicians would remember the days when series
of vaccinations were actually repeated because one “shot” was missed
or too much time had elapsed between doses.

It is, therefore, at least surprising — if not outright shocking — to
find out that after careful review and examination of the timeliness
of vaccine administration among children aged 24 to 35 months for each
state of the United States and the District of Columbia, Luman and
associates concluded that:

“Receipt of all vaccinations as recommended ranged from 2 percent
(Mississippi) to 26 percent (Massachusetts), with western states
having less timeliness than eastern states.”

At 25.5 percent, Massachusetts was the only state with a vaccination
rate above 20 percent for the 4:3:1:3:3 series.

Five states had vaccination rates exceeding 15 percent: Connecticut
(19.7),Rhode Island (19.2), Maryland (18.5), Delaware (17.3) and South
Carolina (17.2).

In 22 states, vaccination rates on schedule were under 10 percent.

The findings above are derived from information obtained through the
2000-2002 National Immunization Survey (NIS). It is unlikely that the
rates significantly improved by the 2004 survey. An important point to
be made is that if vaccination timeliness has been improving, then the
thimerosal discussion that follows is even more pertinent.

The CDC publishes state-specific vaccination coverage rates yearly to
assist state health departments in assessing their vaccination
programs and the level of disease susceptibility in their state. The
surveys from which the rates are derived are usually conducted when
the children are 19 to 35 months of age, and simply indicate whether
the child did or did not get all the required vaccinations — not if he
or she received them on the recommended time schedule. Included
children could have received some vaccines before they were due or
others, months after they were supposed to be given. In both
situations, according to the CDC, such vaccination practices were
sub-optimal.

A national study revealed that in 2002, 73 percent of children in the
U.S. received their “4:3:1:3:3 series” by age 19 to 35 months but only
13 percent received all their vaccinations at the recommended ages.

For higher accuracy, Luman and associates analyzed the schedule in
days, rather than in weeks or months. They concede, for example, that
because they interpreted the recommendation concerning the age of two
months as equating to an age range of 59 through 91 days, they may
have actually slightly overestimated the number of children who were
vaccinated at the recommended ages.

The authors also evaluated a more “lenient” timeliness estimate based
on minimum ages at which doses are considered valid and minimum
acceptable intervals between doses of vaccines administered in
multiple doses. That more lenient definition of acceptable timeliness
for the 4:3:1:3:3 series produced higher estimates, ranging from 12
percent in Mississippi to 39 percent in Massachusetts.

Percentage-wise, more children were vaccinated according to the
schedule if fewer doses of the antigen were required. The percentage
of children receiving the one-dose MMR on time varied from 64 percent
in Montana to 84 percent in Hawaii. On the other hand, for DTP
(diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, four doses) the range was 17 percent in
Mississippi to 43 percent in Massachusetts. And for HIB (three doses),
it went from 11 percent in Mississippi to 45 percent in Massachusetts.

The range for all three poliovirus vaccine doses went from 38 percent
in Alaska to 58 percent in Rhode Island. For all three hepatitis B
vaccine doses, it varied from 49 percent in Vermont to 82 percent in
Rhode Island.

Some 24 percent of children in Massachusetts, versus 65 percent of
those in Mississippi, had missed at least one dose in the 4:3:1:3:3
series by the age of 24 months. The range of children under two, who
received at least one vaccine dose late, varied from a low of 50
percent in Massachusetts to 73 percent in New Jersey. When it came to
one invalidly early dose, the range varied from a low of 5 percent in
Alabama to a high of 14 percent in D.C.

This important study by Luman did not receive the attention it
deserved for reasons unknown. Maybe someone thought that its timing —
shortly after the recent victory celebration — was wrong, or decided,
erroneously, that its results were not so relevant after all.

But it certainly seems strange that the CDC, though aware of what this
comprehensive study was likely to reveal, approved and funded it only
to “bury” its results.

For those of us interested in the vaccine-autism and specifically the
thimerosal– autism connection, this “quiet” study is very relevant and
quite alarming.

There has been intense concern regarding the spectacular increase in
autism rates after the introduction of the HIB vaccination mandate in
the late ‘80s and that of the hepatitis B vaccination in the early
‘90s. Parents of affected children were specifically alarmed about the
vaccines administered at the age of two months when the infant was
likely to receive 62.5µg of (ethyl) mercury within a few minutes
(DTP/DTAP: 25µg, HIB 25µg and Hep B 12.5µg) and about the total
mercury loads of 187.5µg over the first six months of life.

As I said above, if injected mercury is one of the many causes of
autism,as I believe, then the Luman study suggests that the
neurological damage from ethyl mercury is even greater than anyone
suspected. That’s because most babies who developed autism had
actually received fewer vaccines and less mercury during the first six
months of life than previously calculated.

Similarly, if the MMR vaccine is responsible for autistic regression
in a certain percentage of affected children, as mounting evidence
seems to indicate, then it would be reasonable to expect that there
would have been more cases of regressive autism if all infants in the
U.S. received their MMR vaccination immediately after their first
birthday. Preliminary results from my study of Australian women, who
received rubella and MMR boosters as adults, suggest that their
children, who did not receive the MMR vaccination or received it at
the age of five, were much less likely to regress than their
counterparts in the U.S., who were vaccinated just after their first
birthday.

In other words, if thousands of infants developed autism, when they
had not received their vaccinations on time, would more have been
affected if they had been obsessively vaccinated on schedule?

Is it possible that parents who carefully had their
genetically-predisposed infants vaccinated on schedule increased their
likelihood to develop autism?

* * *

Prematurely-born infants are smaller and more delicate than full-term
newborns, yet the recommendation has been and still is “that preterm
infants less than 37 weeks gestation and infants of low birth weight
( 2500 g) should, with few exceptions, receive all routinely
recommended childhood vaccines at the same chronologic age as should
full-term infants. Gestational age and birth weight are not limiting
factors when deciding whether a clinically stable premature infant is
to be immunized on schedule.… Vaccine dosages normally given to
full-term infants should not be reduced or divided when given to
preterm and low-birth-weight infants.… Medically stable preterm
infants who remain in the hospital at 2 months of chronologic age
should be given all vaccines recommended at that age.… All
immunizations required at 2 months of age may be administered
simultaneously to preterm and low birth weight infants.” (5)

Obviously, many smaller pre-term infants weigh much less than 2,500 g
(grams) or 5.5 lb. (pounds) at birth. They are classified as being of
very low birth weight (under 1,500 g or 3.3 lb.) and of extremely low
birth weight (under 1,000 g or 2.2 lb.). Even infants born at 25 weeks
gestation and weighing 500 g (1.1 lb.) are now surviving in increasing
numbers. Most of these infants still weigh less than average at six
months of age.

Prior to 1999, many preterm infants, some very small, received their
first battery of thimerosal-containing vaccines at the chronological
age of two months and actual gestational age of a few days, while they
were still in the nursery. Because of their small weight, they
obviously absorbed proportionately more ethyl mercury than a baby who
weighed nine pounds at birth. More importantly, because of their
prematurity and its associated debilitation and complications, these
infants required more doctors’ visits and, in all likelihood, received
their subsequent vaccinations and the complete increment of 178.5 µg
of mercury by the age of six months and exactly on schedule — while
the majority of full-term healthy children did not, as clearly
demonstrated by Luman.


* * *

In the U.K., the vaccination schedule for DTP — the vaccine that
contained mercury — was changed a few years ago from 3, 5 and 10
months to 2, 3 and 4 months in order to assure better compliance.

In the United States, pediatric vaccinations are recommended at 2, 4
and 6 months of age to achieve optimal immunity.

On Feb. 9, 2004, the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety
Review Committee decided that thimerosal did not cause regressive
autism. One of the arguments used to support that decision was that
thimerosal could not possibly be a factor because autism had increased
in both the U.S. and the U.K. in similar fashion, while the amount of
mercury administered to British infants was only 75µg during the first
crucial six months of life, compared to the 187.5µg that babies in the
U.S. routinely received.

The Luman study now invalidates that argument because, in fact, most
babies in the U.K. are likely to have received the 75µg of mercury in
just 60 days (from age 60 to age 120 days) while U.S. children may not
have been given — as we have now learned— all their vaccines and their
total quota of 187.5µg of mercuryin 180 days. Even if all vaccinations
had been administered on time, the average daily mercury burden of
American babies would still be less than the 1.25µg of mercury that an
infant in the U.K. averaged from age two to four months.

Another more global aspect of the situation is slowly becoming
apparent and disturbing.

While the United States, Britain, the rest of the Western World and
the Far East are moving away from mercury in vaccines, the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the vaccine manufacturers are sending
tons of vaccines with thimerosal to Africa, where an accelerated
schedule of pediatric vaccinations is recommended. Infants in those
poor countries will be receiving, for the foreseeable future, vaccines
containing 187.5 µg of mercury by the age of 14 weeks. Since the
1930s, no other infants, anywhere in the world, have ever received
187.5µg of ethyl mercury in 98 days.

Though no one knows how susceptible African babies are to mercury, it
seems illogical — if not immoral — to administer vaccines to them that
we do not dare use anymore and that will expose them to larger amounts
of thimerosal in the first 100 days of their lives than ever permitted
in the rest of the world.

* * *

Conclusions:

Thimerosal in vaccines may have been more toxic than previously
estimated.

The timeliness of pediatric vaccinations in the United States was not
discussed at the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review
Committee meeting of Feb. 9, 2004.

A reliable, recently released CDC study has now exposed this serious
omission and suggested that an important confounder in the
thimerosal-autism controversy was never considered.


* * *

References:

http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_aug17.php
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5429a1.htm
Luman ET, Barker LE, McCauley MM, Drews-Botsch C. Timeliness of
childhood immunizations: a state-specific analysis. Am J Public
Health. 2005 Aug; 95(8): 1367-74.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-schedule.PDF
American Academy of Pediatrics Red Book — 2003 (p. 66)

Ilena Rose wrote:

Probert Lied:

No, I was wrong. There is a difference. You, and your lap-dog, Jan Drew,
do not understand that.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:43:58 -0400, Mark Probert
wrote:

Ilena Rose wrote:

Probert Lied:

No, I was wrong. There is a difference. You, and your lap-dog, Jan Drew,
do not understand that.


No ... you lied and all the other idiots from Ratbags backed your lies
as usual.

You are so used to the other Ratbaggers backed your drooling that when
caught ... you pretend it was an 'honest mistake.'

LOL ... here's what the Supreme Court of NY thinks about Marla he

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm
Owner of "Ilena Rosenthal Fan CLub" and wife of disbarred attorney and
Ratbag Probert.

Similar to "ORACKNOWSNOTHING" ... another Ratbagger.



I can not even believe the Disinformation that the 'modest' Dr. David
Gorski ... who calls himself, ever so humbly, "Orac Knows" is
spouting.

Could it be his affiliation with the "Rag-tag Posse" from the dubious
and discredited 'quackwatch' that would push this level of
professional propaganda?

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#gorski

His "Given that thimerosal hasn't been in vaccines since early 2003"
is pure and utter deception. This same 'ratbags' team has made the
same false claims regarding Canadian vaccines.

Perhaps this explains the disguise ...

Who would trust a 'doctor' too ashamed to put his name to his advice?

Many vaccines still contain thimerosal ...and certainly an 'assistant
professor of surgery' at Robert Wood Johnson Hospital has no
'business' saying otherwise.

Similar to the breast implant propaganda spread by the same 'Rag-tag
Posse' ... the dangers of vaccinations need to stay in the light
....not in the darkness of industry propaganda such as this.

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Ilena Rose wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:43:58 -0400, Mark Probert
wrote:


Ilena Rose wrote:


Probert Lied:

No, I was wrong. There is a difference. You, and your lap-dog, Jan Drew,
do not understand that.



No ... you lied

repeat it a million times, and it is still not true.