Wednesday, April 30, 2008
I can’t wait to see if anyone of significance shows up from the CDC or the American Academy of Pediatrics, i.e. Julie Gerberding, Paul Offit, Anne Schuchat, David Tayloe Jr. etc. as they have little to gain given they are standing on a house of cards.
Larry King is asking for questions (see Wednesday on his schedule) http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
Here are the questions that I would love to see answered;
How does the CDC and the AAP expect anyone to trust that vaccines have been proven safe when;
1. no study has been done that evaluates the long term impact of the schedule, from birth to two years, totaling 28 to 32 vaccines? Children have not been tracked long term in any study.
2. there has never been a study comparing the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations?
3. the most referenced study in the media, by those advocating vaccine safety, is the Denmark study. Why do the experts in this country reference a study from Denmark which evaluates safety against a population that does not compare to ours? They have a much less aggressive vaccine schedule in Denmark. Is there no similar study that holds up to scrutiny in the U.S?
"The FDA recommends that premature babies and those with impaired kidney function, receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time," per Dr. Robert Sears in his article Is Aluminum the Next Thimerosal?, Mothering Magazine Jan/Feb 2008. Yet, also according to Dr. Sears, a two month old will receive between 295 mcg to 1225 mcg in their first round of vaccines, with these doses being repeated at 4 and 6 months. Again, that's 25 mcg vs. up to 1225 mcg three times by 6 months. The FDA states that excess levels of aluminum could result in nervous system damage and bone toxicity. Yet no study has been done to determine the maximum tolerable load of aluminum in healthy infants. Therefore how can we possibly trust that a vaccine program with this level of toxin can be safe?
There has been a lot of media coverage regarding vaccine safety since the Hannah Polling case broke last month. To track these developments go to http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com.and view the March posts.
The article is titled Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal? and was published in the Jan/Feb '08 issue of Mothering Magazine. http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/vaccines/aluminum-new-thimerosal.html
He discusses the inconsistency in FDA regulation as it pertains to the amount of aluminum allowed in all injectable drugs with the exception of vaccines, where there are no guidelines in place and the amounts present far exceed the limits set on other drugs.
If you have children please read this. This article exemplifies the many unanswered questions surrounding the safety of ingredients in vaccines and the effect they may have on immaturely developed infants. We all deserve informed consent with regard to the vaccines that are administered to our children and they should at least be held to the same standard as other drugs.
If you find this article the least bit concerning please forward the article to every parent you know.
If you like this suggestion, please email Oprah as well, http://www2.oprah.com/email/email_landing.jhtml
My Email to the Oprah Show:
With autism awareness month approaching in April and in light of the recent court ruling regarding Hannah Polling's vaccine related autism, I thought it might be interesting for Oprah to host a debate on the topic of vaccine safety.
Some suggested guests might include; David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, Dr. Robert Sears, Author of The Vaccine Book , Dr. Boyd Haley, head of the Chemistry Dept at Kentucky State University, Dr. Jerry Kertzinel, the DAN! Dr. treating Jenny McCarthy's son and Barbara Lowe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Ctr. on the Critic side.
Possible panelists who support the current vaccine program might include, Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, a representative of the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics and/or a representative of Every Child By Two.
I bet I can guess which side of that panel would decline the invitation. If they do all agree...it would certainly make for great television.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Dear Mr. President,
I am respectfully writing this morning to call for the resignation of Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC in light of her very defensive and defiant comments resulting from the government ruling that vaccines played a role in the development of Hannah Polling’s Autism.
During Ms. Gerberdings six year tenure very little has been in done in terms of taking seriously the insistence of so many parents that their children regressed into autism immediately after receiving vaccinations. The CDC and others are trying to claim that Hannah’s case is unique. It is not. Up to 30% of autistic children have mitochondrial disorders and the story of how and when she regressed is extremely common among the parents of autistic children. By the way, news is breaking today that the court has actually conceded a number of similar cases prior to the Polling case.
It has always puzzled me why our own pediatrician and the media “experts” always reference the Denmark study as our steadfast evidence that thimerosal (mercury preservative) does not cause autism. Why do we in the U.S. need to refer to a study done in Denmark as our definitive proof. This study is riddled with questions regarding the appropriateness of comparing it to the U.S. population. And the mere fact that we have to look to Denmark for the best study is evidence of Ms. Gerberdings negligence in taking this issue seriously.
Oh yes, I certainly don’t want to forget the CDC’s Verstraten study on the effect of Thimerosal in vaccines. That one is steeped in controversy and ethical charges for manipulation of the data and conflict of interest. Yet it’s just about as good as we’ve got in this country. Pathetic.
One more point on vaccine research. Where’s the study that says 32 cumulative vaccines by the age of two is safe? Oh, that’s right no study exists. How can Ms. Gerberding stand before the American people and tell us to trust them on vaccine safety when there has been no study conducted to determine whether or not this sheer number of vaccines might have a negative immune or neurological effect. This number of vaccines alone might overwhelm the immune system not the mention the negative impact that aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, etc. may have on the brain and body.
While autism diagnosis has jumped to one every 20 minutes, Ms. Gerberding has spent the last six years on the defensive regarding the role vaccines may play while little to nothing has been done to prove or disprove the role of vaccination in this epidemic.
It’s high time that the powers that be start listening to parents who have watched their healthy children slip away. Thousands of parents reporting the same observation of vaccination then decline need to be taken seriously and Ms. Gerberding has simply thumbed her nose at us all and for this she needs to go before she further erodes general confidence in the CDC.
The Poling Case - Federal Gov't finds in favor of the parents that vaccines caused their daughter's autism
RESPONSE TO 2008 R. SCHECHTER AND J. GRETHER PUBLCIATION “CONTINUING INCREASES IN AUTISM REPORTED TO CALIFORNIA 'S DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SYSTEM” WHICH ADDRESSES CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATA ON EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIMEROSAL AND AUTISM
8 January 2008
by Boyd Haley, Professor of Chemistry, University of Kentucky , Lexington , KY
We should all consider that there are two top priorities in the vaccine/autism issue every American should be concerned with. We need to develop a safe vaccination program, and we need to find the cause of autism and eliminate it if possible. I have been a strong proponent of investigating thimerosal as the casual agent for autism spectrum disorders based on the biological science that shows thimerosal to be incredibly toxic, especially to infants. I know of nothing remotely as toxic as thimerosal that numerous infants would be exposed to before 3 to 4 years of age. Below I present several comments regarding this issue and the 2008 Schechter-Grether study that I think are relevant. Mainly, while the Schechter-Grether study appears to be a well done study it suffers from the fatal flaw of assuming that thimerosal was removed to safe levels in vaccines by 2002. They also cut a fine edge as to time when a significant drop in autism rates would be expected. Further, no study exists that proves our vaccine schedule alone is safe, let alone the current one that still exposes infants to thimerosal, a concern they do not address. The alarming concern is that these authors seem more involved at providing material saying thimerosal is safe than they are concerned with the obvious fact, openly presented in their own data on autism rates, which strongly indicated that increased rates of autism started with the CDC mandated vaccine program. References to support the comments are readily available in many recent publications.
1. Autism was not a known, described illness until about 1941-3, 8 to 10 years after the introduction of thimerosal and similar organic thiol-mercury compounds in biological mixtures used in medicine and other areas. This argues against autism being a genetic illness.
2. In 1977, 10 of 13 infants treated in a single hospital by topical application of thimerosal for umbilical cord infections died of mercury toxicity. This same topical was used on adolescents without obvious ill effects which strongly supports the concept that infants are very susceptible to thimerosal toxicity
.3. The recent increase (starting about 1990) of autism spectrum disorders correlated well with the advent of the CDC mandated vaccine program which increased thimerosal exposures with increased vaccinations. Due to its toxicity, thimerosal would have to be suspect for causing autism.
4. As expected by science, extensive searching for a genetic cause of autism has not turned up a significant find that would explain the recent increased rate in autism. The latest genetic find, at best, might explain 0.5% of autism causation. Most agree that a genetic predisposition is likely (like those that lead to low glutathione levels), but that a toxic exposure is absolutely needed. Consider also, that this increased toxic exposure would have had to occur in all 50 states at about the same time as all states have reported similar increases in autism rates. Only something like the government recommended vaccine program fits this need for a time dependent, uniform exposure of a toxin throughout all the states.
5. In the Schechter-Grether study it is implied or assumed that all thimerosal containing vaccines were gone by the end of 2002 due to their expiration dates. I don't think this is a valid assumption. I have talked to mothers who asked to see the vaccine inserts as late as 2004 and found thimerosal present as a preservative in infant vaccines being used in certain clinics. Also, in 2004 the influenza vaccine was recommended by the CDC for infants 6 months of age and older. It would appear as if a thimerosal free vaccine time-frame would be very hard to identify, if one ever existed. I have read that the average age of autism diagnosis is near 44 months of age. Therefore, while it does seem reasonable to expect a decrease in autism after 4 to 5 years of complete thimerosal removal, assuming a consistent diagnostic protocol was used, it appears this has not been accomplished. This means the Schechter-Grether study is likely somewhat premature in reaching the conclusions reported in that enough time has not passed for the expected decrease to occur and that they were quite optimistic in identifying the dates of thimerosal reduction and underestimate exposures occurring between 2002-4.
6. If, indeed, the complete removal of thimerosal from vaccines was not followed in an appropriate time by a decrease in autism then this would be solid proof that thimerosal was not causal for autism. However, thimerosal has not been completely removed from vaccines and thimerosal used at the original levels in the manufacturing of these vaccines with “trace” amounts left in the vaccines when bottled. I don't know what level “trace” is since it is not a term used in science to describe an actual amount. Some called the 12.5 micrograms mercury in the older vaccines a “trace” amount. Bottom line, the infants are still getting some level of thimerosal, a “trace” amount that is free and an amount of ethylmercury that is bound to the proteins that induce the immune response. If vaccines are causing autism and it appears this is a strong possibility based on the California data and, if removing thimerosal added as a preservative really does not reduce the autism rate then the causation is much more complex.Consider the possibilities that:
A. Autism may be caused by a thimerosal modified protein that sets off an immune response or causes some other biological reaction that can cascade with injurious effects. Since the vaccines are manufactured with thimerosal present in abundance it is quite likely that any cysteine containing proteins would be modified with ethylmercury. Removal of most of the free thimerosal (or just not adding it) would not decrease the level of any toxic modified protein produced during the vaccines production that might be causal. Removing the thimerosal added as a preservative would not decrease the amount of this ethylmercury modified protein in those vaccines with “trace” thimerosal levels.
B. That autism could be caused in susceptible individuals by very low thimerosal or ethylmercury modified protein exposures due to their genetic susceptibility or other factors (general health, gender). In this scenario the higher thimerosal exposures are not required and the induction of autism is not thimerosal concentration dependent at the old and new thimerosal vaccine levels, but just requires a significant exposure level that is met by the vaccines containing the lower “trace” amounts of thimerosal and past thimerosal levels in vaccine production processes. Bottom line, if genetic susceptibility is involved then causation of autism may not increase linearly with increased thimerosal exposure. Causation may only require low thimerosal exposure or exposure to modified proteins. It is possible that the reduction of thimerosal as in the “trace” was just not enough to produce a safe vaccine.
Not all toxins work like alcohol and the old “dose makes the toxin” is not always correct. As long as they are used, the mere use of “trace” thimerosal in vaccines along with higher levels in the flu vaccine will always prevent a conclusive answer to thimerosal's involvement in autism causation. What should be studied is the “no exposure” versus the “exposed” populations with regard to autism rates.
7. If indeed autism is rare among the non-vaccinated Amish populations, as reported by Dan Olmstead, I find it an amazingly oversight that the CDC and others responsible for infant health do not fund a study in this area. This study could go both ways, if the Amish have autism rates identical with the rest of the population the argument would be over---neither vaccines nor thimerosal would be causal for autism, and I personally would argue in this direction.
If, however, the autism rates in the Amish are exceptionally low then vaccines would have to be considered as a prime suspect in causation with the presence of the highly toxic thimerosal the main suspect. If the results in the 2008 Schechter-Grether study hold up with time, and complete removal of thimerosal does not cause a drop in autism rates and the autism rates in non-vaccinated populations are low then something else in the vaccines would have to be considered the major causation factor for autism. However, without doing the non-vaccinated population studies there cannot be a conclusive statement either way about either vaccines or thimerosal as being causal for autism. The steadfast refusal of the CDC and others to support such studies being done is part of the reason that many parents, scientists and physicians have severe doubts about the sincerity of their efforts to resolve this issue. This is how I think, when I review a paper submitted for publication I always ask why an obvious experiment wasn't done. The study of non-vaccinated populations is a very obvious experiment that the CDC and its supporters appear to refuse to consider. This makes me suspicious that this knowledge exists and is being suppressed because knowledge of the rate among the non-vaccinated population would answer many questions.
Finally, the Schechter-Grether study may be good news to the vaccine manufacturers and those who recommended and use the mandated vaccine program as it serves as manufactured uncertainty about the thimerosal involvement in autism causation. However, it presents a major concern to the parents and families of infants since it implies that our vaccines, even with most of the free thimerosal removed, may not be safe and that our CDC does not have a clue about what to do make them safe. Common sense would lead most to attack finding the cause of autism instead of trying to prove something besides thimerosal is causal. The major question is “are our vaccines causing autism”---only comparing the non-vaccinated to the vaccinated will answer this question. Common sense would have lead to this comparison being done first and being done 10-15 years ago. In the recent past I have recommended that parents vaccinate their children with thimerosal free vaccines as I considered them safe. If Schechter-Grether are correct, and vaccines, but not thimerosal, correlate with increased autism rates, then I am in error assuming vaccines are now safer with regards to autism risk than they were 2000.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------All information provided or published by Unlocking Autism is for information purposes only. Under Unlocking Autism Option Policy you are responsible for the choice of any treatment or therapy option or service provider. Specific treatment, therapy or services should be provided to an individual only at the direction of the individual's doctor, caregiver, or other qualified professional. References to any treatment or therapy option, program, service or treatment provider are not an endorsement by Unlocking Autism. References of treatments, therapies, programs, services, and/or providers are not intended to be comprehensive statements. You should investigate alternatives that may be more appropriate for a specific individual. Unlocking Autism assumes no responsibility for the use made of any information published or provided by Unlocking Autism. www.unlockingautismstore.org