vaccines

You can tell just by the title how objective they're being.
Following is a list of concerns I had with the recent New York Time
article on autism, Parents versus Research:


"How did my daughter get so much mercury in her?" Ms. Rupp asked Ms.
Ehresmann after her testimony.
"Fish?" Ms. Ehresmann suggested.
"She never eats it," Ms. Rupp answered.
"Do you drink tap water?"
"It's all filtered."
"Well, do you breathe the air?" Ms. Ehresmann asked, with a resigned
smile. Several parents looked angrily at Ms. Ehresmann, who left.


Response:
Why did Ms. Ehresmann leave before anyone had a chance to ask her about
quantities? About levels of exposure? This argument is a red herring
she should not have been allowed to walk away from.

Ms. Rupp remained, shaking with anger. That anyone could defend mercury
in vaccines, she said, "makes my blood boil."

Response:
I have heard this argument repeatedly from the pro-Thimerosal
faction--that the arguments made by parents cannot be valid, because
the parents have an emotional stake in this matter. Does anyone
seriously expect parents to remain unemotional when discussing the
possibility that their child may have been deliberately poisoned?
When I took my sixteen year old daughter to her pediatrician with a
list a whole sheet long of symptoms consistent with mercury poisoning,
symptoms which he could find on any number of sites from any number of
sources, and then asked him to compare them with the symptoms he could
find in her medical record and see that they are virtually identical,
he told me that she had no symptoms of mercury poisoning. As though I
wouldn't mind being blatantly lied to, by a professional physician,
or was too stupid to notice that I was being lied to. He then told me
she does, however, seem depressed. Well doh. She read much of the same
book, Evidence of Harm, that I did. Do you expect her to be dancing
with joy over learning that she, along with hundreds of thousands of
others of her generation, and even before, were quite possibly
knowingly poisoned?
I find quite laughable the notion that those who ridicule the
possibility of a link have no emotional stake in this. Even if they
have no direct interest in the vaccine industry, or in the reputation
of the public health establishment, I haven't met anyone who
wasn't appalled at the notion that something like this might have
happened. Who wanted to do anything but avoid seeing this evil.

Public health officials like Ms. Ehresmann, who herself has a son with
autism, have been trying for years to convince parents like Ms. Rupp
that there is no link between thimerosal - a mercury-containing
preservative once used routinely in vaccines - and autism.
They have failed.

Response:


My child's pediatrician did eventually admit that she showed symptoms
of mercury poisoning, but said he wasn't testing for this because the
symptoms were 'non-specific'. Meaning, he said, that they could be
caused by many different disorders. So I asked him, why, then, were we
testing for these other disorders, but not for mercury poisoning. All
he could do was point to the AAP Statement of May 18, 2004, which
he'd printed out for me (improperly, I might add, so tha. I
couldn't have read it if I'd wanted to) I suggested he look at the
Office of the Special Council Press Release on Thimerosal dated May 20,
2004, which calls for a Congressional hearing on this matter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Institute of Medicine, the World Health
Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all largely
dismissed the notion that thimerosal causes or contributes to autism.
Five major studies have found no link.

Response:


With two clicks of my mouse I can find documents which prove that the
same vaccine manufacturer which sold vaccines to the US was given money
by the CDC to do the safety study which, surprise surprise, found no
link between vaccines and autism. This firm, Serum Statens Institute,
profited from the sale of vaccines, and we are to believe them, without
question, when they tell us the product they sold us is safe? I
wasn't born yesterday. To think it's even conceivable that the CDC
would pay for this, with taxpayer money, makes my blood boil. Why do
the CDC, the AAP and the IOM continue to rely on the same studies, over
and over again, which have been shown to have been done by people with
a conflict of interest, but refuse to look at other peer-reviewed
research which does show a link, or reasons for concern? These studies
were not all done by Mark and David Geier. There are plenty of studies
out there, many done at respected universities. Why are they ignored?
Why do they continue to refuse to speak on the record with those people
who are concerned, who would ask them questions which, if answered to
the satisfaction of those who believe there is a link, could put this
whole issue to rest?

Yet despite all evidence to the contrary, the number of parents who
blame thimerosal for their children's autism has only increased. And in
recent months, these parents have used their numbers, their passion and
their organizing skills to become a potent national force. The issue
has become one of the most fractious and divisive in pediatric
medicine.
"This is like nothing I've ever seen before," Dr. Melinda Wharton,
deputy director of the National Immunization Program, told a gathering
of immunization officials in Washington in March. "It's an era where it
appears that science isn't enough."

Response:


Science done only by people with a conflict of interest is not enough.

Parents have filed more than 4,800 lawsuits - 200 from February to
April alone - pushed for state and federal legislation banning
thimerosal

Response:


Parents have succeeded in some states in having Thimerosal removed
from vaccines. Why do you not mention this? Perhaps you would also like
to mention the list of countries that have banned Thimerosal use.

But scientists and public health officials say they are alarmed by the
surge of attention to an idea without scientific merit. The
anti-thimerosal campaign, they say, is causing some parents to stay
away from vaccines, placing their children at risk for illnesses like
measles and polio.

Response:

Perhaps if public health officials had admitted that there is evidence
that mercury can cause harm, and if they had acknowledged the fact that
these vaccines can be and could have been made safely, without the
mercury, but at a higher cost, they would not be facing these questions
about their credibility now. You show me the parent who, if faced with
the information in Evidence of Harm and given the choice, would give
their child the seventy five cent vaccine rather than the five dollar
vaccine. Who would say "oh that's ok, you just give him the
Thimerosal-laced one, I would prefer to save the money."

"It's really terrifying, the scientific illiteracy that supports these
suspicions," said Dr. Marie McCormick, chairwoman of an Institute of
Medicine panel that examined the controversy in February 2004.

Response:


What is terrifying is the amount of ad hominem, or attacking of the
source, that is used by vaccine proponents. I spoke with someone who
claimed to work with FDA about this issue. He told me that there are no
peer-reviewed studies showing a link. When I proved him wrong on this,
he then told me that there are no credible peer-reviewed studies. So
apparently I am to believe that all of the people who have done
studies, peer-reviewed studies or otherwise, who have found a link or
reason to be concerned, are incompetent pseudo oscientists. But the
studies done by the vaccine industry experts and the public health
agency officials, who quite possibly would have a reason to cover up
this information, I am to believe are flawless and untainted.

Experts say they are also concerned about a raft of unproven, costly
and potentially harmful treatments - including strict diets,
supplements and a detoxifying technique called chelation - that are
being sold for tens of thousands of dollars to desperate parents of
autistic children as a cure for "mercury poisoning."

Response:


These are parents willing to pay for their child's treatment out of
pocket.
If there is medicine being practiced without a license and illegally,
this is a separate issue which has nothing to do with the merits of the
scientific evidence presented by those who feel there is a link between
mercury and developmental disorders.

In one case, a doctor forced children to sit in a 160-degree sauna,
swallow 60 to 70 supplements a day and have so much blood drawn that
one child passed out.

Response:


People have always made stupid medical decisions. How does this
justify withholding valid information from the public?

Hundreds of doctors list their names on a Web site endorsing chelation
to treat autism, even though experts say that no evidence supports its
use with that disorder. The treatment carries risks of liver and kidney
damage, skin rashes and nutritional deficiencies, they say.

Response:


There any experts who claim there is evidence which would support
it's use. Why don't you mention them?
How many medical treatments are risk-free?
And how many doctors are willing to put their names after a statement
that says that Thimerosal is safe, affective, necessary, and does not
cause development problems?
Chelation has been used for quite some time to remove lead from the
bloodstreams of poisoned children. Sometimes, as vaccine proponents are
so found of saying when it comes to vaccinating your children, the
benefits outweigh the risks.




Thimerosal was for decades the favored preservative for use in
vaccines. By weight, it is about 50 percent ethyl mercury, a form of
mercury most scientists consider to be less toxic than methyl mercury,
the type found in fish.

Response:


There are studies which show this is not the case. They are routinely
ignored by the vaccine producers and public health officials whose
reputations would be harmed if a link were shown to exist.

The amount of ethyl mercury included in each childhood vaccine was once
roughly equal to the amount of methyl mercury found in the average tuna
sandwich.

Response:

Why would a scientist want to compare the amount of methyl mercury to
the amount of ethyl mercury, as though they are the same substance?

In 1999, a Food and Drug Administration scientist added up all the
mercury that American infants got with a full immunization schedule and
concluded that the amount exceeded a government guideline. Some health
authorities counseled no action, because there was no evidence that
thimerosal at the doses given was harmful and removing it might cause
alarm. Others were not so certain that thimerosal was harmless.

Response:


So now, according to the pro-Thimerosal vaccine experts, we are to pick
and choose which government guidelines are meaningful. When two health
authorities are giving out conflicting information, the pro-Thimerosal
lobby wants us to believe the ones who back up their claims. Who were
these people who counseled no action? Did they have a stake in the
outcome? Why are we to consider that the source might be motivated by
factors other than mere objectivity only when that source is the
parents of autistic individuals, or the scientists who back them up?

In July 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health
Service released a joint statement urging vaccine makers to remove
thimerosal as quickly as possible. By 2001, no vaccine routinely
administered to children in the United States had more than half of a
microgram of mercury - about what is found in an infant's daily supply
of breast milk.

Response:


There are reports that the vaccines already on the shelves continued to
be sold after the vaccine makers said that the Thimerosal had been
removed. If Thimerosal was considered dangerous enough to remove from
future manufactured batches, why were the existing stockpiles not
considered dangerous enough to remove from the shelves and from use?
Why will no public health agency official meet with parents to answer
these questions?
What about the vaccines produced before this date? What levels of
mercury did they contain, and how did that level compare with what the
FDA said was safe? And what about the evidence that purportedly shows
that the industry knew of the risks long before 2001? Why is none of
this evidence brought up in your article?
What does it matter to say that autism rates have not declined with the
removal of Thimerosal from vaccines, when the removal of Thimerosal
from vaccines has not corresponded with the cessation of the use of
Thimerosal? Thimerosal is still present in adult flu shots. Will the
vaccine manufacturers or the public health officials assure us that it
has been removed as a preservative from pediatric flu shots? I have
read that it hasn't been removed from all of them.



Dr. Tom Insel, director of the National Institute for Mental Health,
said: "Is it cellphones? Ultrasound? Diet sodas? Every parent has a
theory. At this point, we just don't know."

Response:


I have never met anyone with a cellphone/autism, ultrasound/autism, or
a diet soda/autism theory. I am unaware of any advocacy groups making
these claims. This is probably because there is no scientific evidence
to back up these claims. There is a great deal of information which
would cause concern about a mercury/autism link. Why would anyone want
to equate these groups of people?

Dr. Geier has been examining issues of vaccine safety since at least
1971, when he was a lab assistant at the National Institutes of Health,
or N.I.H. His r=E9sum=E9 lists scores of publications, many of which
suggest that vaccines cause injury or disease.
He has also testified in more than 90 vaccine cases, he said, although
a judge in a vaccine case in 2003 ruled that Dr. Geier was "a
professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise
and experience."
In other cases, judges have called Dr. Geier's testimony
"intellectually dishonest," "not reliable" and "wholly unqualified."

Response:


Did they also accuse his mother of wearing combat boots?
I thought that only scientists were qualified to discuss science?
These were the words of Paul Offit, the Director of theVaccine
Education Center, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, when asked about
the vaccine/autism link. Why are judges now qualified, and why can't
they stick to objective facts rather than attacking another man's
character?

Dr. Geier said in an interview that the link between thimerosal and
autism was clear.
Public health officials, he said, are " just trying to cover it up."

Response:


Perhaps your readers would be interesed in the story about how long it
took them to see the CDC data that no one else with an interest in
proving a link has been able to see, and the lengths to which the CDC
has gone to foil their efforts to analyze this data.

"The problem with the Geiers' research is that they start with the
answers and work backwards," said Dr. Steven Black, director of the
Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif. "They are
doing voodoo science."

Response:


More ad hominem attacks. Why don't they, and your authors, try
discrediting their studies directly, rather than merely trashing the
Geiers?
Yes, science should be left to scientists. Only government or vaccine
maker funded scientists. All other scientists are voodoo scientists,
according to the pro-Thimerosal lobby.
They've started with a plausible hypothesis and attempted to prove
it. This is what science is about. It appears to me that those in the
pro-Thimerosal camp have started with the theory that there is no
connection, and have proceeded to ignore any and all evidence that
would dispute their theory.
Will the director at Kaiser Permanente tell me that neither he nor the
Kaiser organization have any stake in the outcome of this controversy?
The pediatrician who saw my child and told me that she had no mercury
poisoning symptoms was a Kaiser Permanente doctor with our HMO.

In 2003, spurred by parents' demands, the C.D.C. asked the Institute of
Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the nation's
most prestigious medical advisory group, to review the evidence on
thimerosal and autism.
In a report last year, a panel convened by the institute dismissed the
Geiers' work as having such serious flaws that their studies were
"uninterpretable." Some of the Geiers' mathematical formulas, the
committee found, "provided no information," and the Geiers used basic
scientific terms like "attributable risk" incorrectly.
In contrast, the committee found five studies that examined hundreds of
thousands of health records of children in the United States, Britain,
Denmark and Sweden to be persuasive.

Response:


It is the vaccine makers, the CDC, and the IOM who the parents, and the
scientists who are concerned about a possible link, are questioning.
It is these people that they suspect of attempting to cover up this
suspected link in order to save their own reputations or because of
financial conflicts of interest. All you are doing is continuing to
say "the people who say there's no problem say there's no
problem", while continuing to ignore those scientists who say there
is a link.

A study by the World Health Organization, for example, examined the
health records of 109,863 children born in Britain from 1988 to 1997
and found that children who had received the most thimerosal in
vaccines had the lowest incidence of developmental problems like
autism.
Another study examined the records of 467,450 Danish children born from
1990 to 1996. It found that after 1992, when the country's only
thimerosal-containing vaccine was replaced by one free of the
preservative, autism rates rose rather than fell.

Response:


Did they, in this Danish study, look at Thimerosal usage overall? Did
they look at the amounts of Thimerosal from other sources such as flu
shots? In the Danish study, did they look at the dosing schedule, or at
the actual amounts of Thimerosal used in each vaccine, and compare
that with the amounts used in the US? There are reports that the
record keeping done in this study was very loose, and the sample chosen
was flawed. Have your reporters looked into these claims at all?
Did your reporters make any attempt whatsoever to look into the studies
and claims made by those who fear a link? It seems as though they've
gone out of their way to ignore all of them.

In one of the most comprehensive studies, a 2003 report by C.D.C.
scientists examined the medical records of more than 125,000 children
born in the United States from 1991 to 1999. It found no difference in
autism rates among children exposed to various amounts of thimerosal.
Parent groups, led by SafeMinds, replied that documents obtained from
the disease control centers showed that early versions of the study had
found a link between thimerosal and autism.
But C.D.C. researchers said that it was not unusual for studies to
evolve as more data and controls were added. The early versions of the
study, they said, failed to control for factors like low birth weight,
which increases the risk of developmental delays.

Response:


Is it unusual for earlier versions of the studies, as well as the data
used, to be withheld from the public?

Since the report's release, scientists and health officials have been
bombarded with hostile e-mail messages and phone calls. Dr. McCormick,
the chairwoman of the institute's panel, said she had received
threatening mail claiming that she was part of a conspiracy. Harvard
University has increased security at her office, she said.
An e-mail message to the C.D.C. on Nov. 28 stated, "Forgiveness is
between them and God. It is my job to arrange a meeting," according to
records obtained by The New York Times after the filing of an open
records request.
Another e-mail message, sent to the C.D.C. on Aug. 20, said, "I'd like
to know how you people sleep straight in bed at night knowing all the
lies you tell & the lives you know full well you destroy with the
poisons you push & protect with your lies." Lynn Redwood of SafeMinds
said that such e-mail messages did not represent her organization or
other advocacy groups.

Response:


Given the seriousness of the charges here, and the evidence available
to people who are making the claim that there is not only a link, but a
coverup, it is surprising to me that there have been so few violent
episodes. The parents involved here have shown restraint for the most
part because they have faith in the ability of our system to see that
the truth is eventually brought out, whatever that truth may be, and to
feel confident that justice will eventually be realized. If the
mainstream media continues to ignore this story, and if the issue is
not looked at by Congress with fair presentations given to them by both
sides, I fear that this restraint may not continue to hold.

But the debate over autism and vaccines is not likely to end soon.
"It doesn't seem to matter what the studies and the data show," said
Ms. Ehresmann, the Minnesota immunization official. "And that's really
scary for us because if science doesn't count, how do we make
decisions? How do we communicate with parents?"

Response:


You communicate with them by agreeing to meet with those scientists who
represent their interests, and agreeing to answer their questions in a
public forum. You communicate with them by not continuing to ignore the
peer-reviewed studies which show a reason for concern. You communicate
with them by allowing an impartial body of indivuals to look at the
evidence presented by both sides. You communicate with them by allowing
an impartial group of scientists access to the original CDC data used
in the original Verstraaten report.