Thimerosal Doesn't Cause Autism. Period.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

Bobby Kennedy Jr., a lawyer beloved by the environmental movement for defending rivers and attacking coal-burning power plants, recently discovered a new cause. In a June Rolling Stone article, and in subsequent appearances on Imus in the Morning, ABC News, and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, he accuses government vaccine scientists and their academic advisers of covering up what for him is an uncontestable fact: the causal link between a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal in vaccines and a massive increase in childhood autism in America.

As the writer who first told the thimerosal story in depth in the New York Times Magazine two and a half years ago, I have been astonished to see how badly it has been handled since. David Kirby, a Times freelancer, published a supposed exposé in April that tells the story from the perspective of SafeMinds, a group that is to autism what Act Up was to AIDS—sometimes wrong but always loud and overall pretty effective. Then Kennedy entered the fray through his activism against mercury from power plants. In his appearances to champion the thimerosal theory, he trashes establishment science and establishment journalism for having missed the story. But Kennedy's Rolling Stone piece doesn't cover any new ground, and it is full of large and small errors and distortions. Aside from a June 25 New York Times article that discussed the parallel realities of parents and scientists studying thimerosal, there has been little mainstream media response.

<snip>

Probably the most damning epidemiological evidence against the vaccines-cause-autism theory, and another point that Kennedy gets wrong, is contained in the document that got critics started on their claim of a vaccine-provoked epidemic—a 1999 Department of Developmental Services report from California. Like reports from other states in the country, it shows a dramatic increase in autistic children seeking state services, from 2,778 autistics on the rolls in 1987 to 10,360 in 1998. An impressive diagram of this increase was projected on a screen at a Committee for Government Reform hearing chaired by Indiana Republican Dan Burton, who believes that vaccines gave his grandson autism. "Look at that graph," Burton said. "They are having an epidemic out there." But the graph actually vindicated vaccines. MMR vaccination began in children born in 1970, but there was no increase in autism reports in the state until 1980, which also happened to be the first year the psychiatric definition of autism spectrum disorders changed. A 2001 study showed that while MMR vaccination rates increased 14 percent from 1980 to 1994, autism intakes in California's state programs increased 373 percent. The increase also showed no apparent connection to the addition of thimerosal-containing vaccines to state pediatric immunization schedules.

<snip>

Most of the scientists who study autism trends are not ready to rule out entirely some real increase in the disease. But the causes may have nothing to do with industrial toxins like mercury. Interestingly, a 2003 California study found that mothers older than 35 were four times as likely to give birth to autistic children as mothers younger than 20. One of the only known environmental causes of autism is congenital rubella infection (or German measles); during a 1965-66 rubella epidemic in the United States, about 1,500 rubella babies were born with autism in addition to their other handicaps. Other perinatal developments, which increase with maternal age, can't be ruled out.

- - -

Full article may be found here here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Orrex]

1. But! But! But!

But Bobby says it's true, so it must be! I mean, people like him, and he comes from a good pedigree, and people really really really want to believe it, so it must be true! It must be!

on edit: Nominated!

[loveable liberal]

4. disabled your profile eh? Says volumes about your opinions.

[Orrex]

5. I disabled my profile? How did I do that???

I didn't do it on purpose--I don't even know how.

What do you want to know about me? Ask away!

[intheflow]

25. Look at the icons at the top of this page.

Go to "options."
Click on "Edit your preferences."
The 4th option down is "Hide your profile."

Yours is turned off. Just turn it on. Or not. People like to jump on newbies with hidden profiles because they assume it means "freeper." I don't know why. It would certainly be just as easy to make up profile info and still be a freeper. :eyes:


Welcome to DU, Orrex. :hi:

[Orrex]

51. Thanks!

Not much to tell, really. It doesn't look like the profile will reveal much about me other than the fact that I live in Pennsylvania and I'm a guy who likes to read and debate.

Questions are still welcome, of course!

[klyon]

53. and why are profiles important?

Am I required to tell my life story? I like my privacy so you get nothing.

KL

[intheflow]

24. Doesn't mean anything.

I know a long-time DUer who disabled their profile because they were being stalked by another DUer. Sometimes it's really about privacy.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. Good article. Nominated n/t

[loveable liberal]

3. how do you address the increase in Chinese autistics?

Mr. Kennedy also claims that China was virtually free of autistic children until they started buying our vaccines? Why the increase? And what are your opinions on mercury vapor and methyl mercury? Something is causing the increase. His statistics cite a 1 in 10000+ rate of occurance which is now at 1 in 166.

The bottom line is that mercury in any form is a nasty substance and bad for us, regardless of who says it, Kennedy or otherwise.

[skids]

6. Yeah, I don't think that was a particularly thorough rebuttal.

I don't know which side of the argument to believe, or even much about it, but the bits and peices I picked up just from glossing stories would suggest that there is more to this than this article takes on.

Further, while the article makes great hey about media reports not being valid, it itself is a media report, and we've seen both sides of arguments like this distorted by media reports in the past. If I were really concerned about the issue (it doesn't affect me, personally, so as I said I haven't dug into it) then I would go for the scientific literature, not Slate magazine.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Good point

I am a special ed teacher and have read much of the scientific literature. Science has yet to link autism to vaccines or to mercury. But when those articles are cited here, the anti vaccine crowd comes out in droves to claim a sinister connection between scientific and medical organizations to US vaccine manufacturers.

[Orrex]

9. Missing the point, several times over

"The bottom line is that mercury in any form is a nasty substance and bad for us, regardless of who says it, Kennedy or otherwise."

That may be the bottom line, as you see it, but that's an entirely different proposition from the one that Bobby is offering. He is alleging a direct causative link between Thimerosal and autism; the fact that he does so despite an utter lack of verifiable evidence demonstrates his quest to be a matter of blind faith. Lovely if you believe it, but useless from a scientific standpoint.

"Mr. Kennedy also claims that China was virtually free of autistic children until they started buying our vaccines?"

How does Bobby back this up? How were the data compiled in China? Do you believe that China has maintained an exhaustive database of autism incidence dating back far enough for us to draw a control sample? Lacking this information, we can draw no conclusions about the Chinese data, other than those that we accept on blind faith.

[ovidsen]

11. Just a guess

But the rise in autism in China could be due to that country's ruthless industrialization and it's total disregard for environmental standards. Not only is mercury being discharged in immense quantities there, so are lots of other deadly chemicals (arsenic, butane).

I must agree with your bottom line. Mercury is nasty stuff. And it can be in the must "innocent" places:

Fish Line
Mercury and Tuna:

A Schoolboy's Sudden Setback

By PETER WALDMAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 1, 2005; Page A1

SAN FRANCISCO -- One by one, Matthew Davis's fifth-grade teachers went around the table describing the 10-year-old boy. He wasn't focused in class and often missed assignments, they said. He labored at basic addition. He could barely write a simple sentence.

A neurologist ordered tests. They showed Matthew's blood was laced with mercury in amounts nearly double what the Environmental Protection Agency says is the safe level for exposure to the metal. Matthew had mercury poisoning, his doctors said.

The Davises had pinpointed the suspected source: tuna fish. For a year or so, starting in late 2002, Matthew had gobbled three to six ounces a day of white albacore tuna. Based on Food and Drug Administration data for canned albacore, he was consuming a daily dose of mercury at least 12 times what the EPA considered a safe level for a 60-pound child. The Davises' doctors' prescription was simple: Matthew should stop eating canned tuna.

For DUers with access to WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112268169016100484,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one


The article doesn't link tuna fish mercury to autism, but you gotta wonder.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Well, asthma is skytocketing,too, in China and everywhere else

I would like to see thorough epidemiological studies of autism--when the numbers went up, what the children had in common, including genetics, nutrition, environmental pollution, food and water, everything.

Thimoseral has been in vaccines since the 1940s.

I'm not saying that it couldn't possibly be the cause. I'm saying that it may not be a cause.

My own personal theory is that the increase in asthma, for instances, is caused by immature lungs breathing automobile exhaust, because asthma starts to increase dramatically whenever a developing nation first moves to widespread private cars, as Japan did 40 years ago and as China and India are now. Asthma is also prevalent in inner cities along freeways.

That's why country children rarely get it and why it's prevalent in Western Europe (lots of cars) but not in Eastern Europe (plenty of air pollution but few cars).

Hey, makes as much or as little sense as vaccines causing autism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. A doctor at a children's hospital here in KC

did an extensive study a couple years ago where he linked the increase in asthma here in KC to particles from tires.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Makes sense to me--

Rubber particles are nasty. I once had a temp job in a factory that made rubber products for typewriter parts (yes, it was a long time ago), and the air was full of tiny black particles, so much so that they would be embedded in my face at the end of the day. We had no protective gear, and I sometimes wonder if I will develop lung cancer (despite having smoked a total of two cigarettes in my life) or some other lung disease because of it.

Personally, I had no respiratory problems at all until I was six years old and we moved to a house near a busy highway. Within a couple of months, I was allergic to just about everything, and I survived my childhood doped up on old-style allergy meds and poked with weekly shots. My parents blamed the slightly different climate in the new city, but I never found the climates to be that different.

I was lucky enough never to develop asthma, but I did have some episodes where I literally coughed myself into exhaustion till 4AM.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. When I was a kid,

dentists put mercury in our mouths. No alarming amount of autism back then, though.

[booksenkatz]

7. .

:popcorn:

[GR]

8. Do You Have Children? And Would You Give The Thimerosol...

I wouldn't...

[Orrex]

10. Useless Objection

I wouldn't deliberately expose them to radiation, either, but then I'm not an oncologist, either. Unlike Bobby, I recognize that I'm not qualified to judge the data available to us, and so I rely on the scientific method (e.g., peer review, repeated observation, etc.) to aid in my decision-making.

Also unlike Bobby, I don't leap onto the "We Hate Thimerosal" bandwagon in a fight of righteous indignation.

(on edit: fixed my subject line)

[China_cat]

17. I probably did.

In order to make sure my kids would live through their childhood.

I have no autistic children. I also have not had to deal with the diseases that made my generation's childhoods so dangerous. I see whooping cough coming back, can diphtheria be far behind? My kids didn't run the risk of blindness or the deafness that affects both me and my youngest sister from childhood measles.

My kids didn't have to stay at home and avoid crowded places like the pool for fear of polio and they didn't have to wonder which of their classmates wouldn't be coming back when school started again in the fall.

Would I do it again? Damn straight I would. The benefit so far outweighs the risks that I simply cannot understand anyone who would allow their children to run the risks that those diseases pose.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. I agree

This anti vaccine movement is downright scary. My sister is legally blind because of measles. I remember summers we did not go to the pool. I also had tonsilitis one summer and could not have my tonsils removed due to the polio risk.

[GoBlue]

52. And unvaccinated?

Well that's your choice... but not a wise one IMO.

[sui generis]

12. "Reality Based Community"

is a tag line most often used by conservative republicans who think that liberals are whacked out conspiracy theorists.

At any rate, if the FDA removed thimerosal from contact lense solution, you have to wonder why it's still used as a preservative in vaccines.

For more in depth reading the following: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=11801

[Orrex]

15. The most common answer

Is that the FDA was tired of fielding tons of chicken-little questions about the perils of that Dread Substance Thimerosal. Besides which, I believe your information is incomplete.

Here is one of countless discussions on the subject from a reality-based perspective.

Quote: "By 1995, thimerosal in vaccines was beginning to be phased out worldwide. By 1999 it was being phased out in the United States. "Today, with the exception of some flu vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool aged children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative."* Some pediatric vaccines have never had thimerosal in them (e.g., the MMR vaccine)."

This phasing out coincides neatly with the apparently ever-increasing incidence of autism. How do you account for it?

Mock the "reality based community" all you want--I'd rather be grounded in verifiable reality than floating in the "they're all out to get me all the time" fantasy land.

[sui generis]

18. I'll acknowledge my information is incomplete

however I don't start with the offensive premise that I am the only arbiter of reality and everyone else is living in fantasy land.

That's what I'm mocking.

[dweller]

19. but he's relying on scientific method

from i guess his lab work, and peer review, from i guess his ... peers.

and repeated observations! repeatedly. Repetition is good. Repetition is good.

:eyes:

dp

[sui generis]

29. hey dweller

save your eyeballs, please. They're starting to make clicking sounds when they roll. Besides, when they're not rolling, it makes reading much easier. And reading, as you know, is fundamental.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=144611&mesg_id=144798

[dweller]

72. wow. just wow. well, i mean wowser wow.

I come on to DU rarely now. Sometimes early morn, more likely late nite. In between i spend scraping up some blue collar manual labor work trying to keep from getting my old ass thrown into the street. I can't keep up with most of the dialogue, i've even grown disenchanted so to speak from the so called Liberal attitude expressed here.
I'll go first, i must have expressed myself in some fashion unknown to most here nowadays. I thought i was agreeing with you on your point of "only arbiter of reality and everyone else is living in fantasy land" attitude of the OP. That viewpoint is so current these days, why even the pResident operates from that prestigeous center of a universe. As you mocked it, i intentionally mocked it as well. I don't see how my post was anymore or any less correct than yours. You certainly took it as belittling your point of view, and i would at this point in time usually just advise you to follow your own advice, but what's the use? Your argument/disagreement was with the OP, i was just an easier target i guess. Collateral damage or something.
And to top it all off, the OP seems to come to my defense, yet only supports my statement with " it's kind of like arguing with your one hundredth creationist who starts off by saying"... as my pov was simply to point out he has his hundreth (or some like number) peer review of like minded scientist to back him up, and can repeat it, ad infinitum, et al.

"Snippiness, like its justification, is in the eye of the beholder" ... no, my wise friends, Reality, and justifications of it are in the eye of the beholder. For each and everyone one of us a reality exists, for your eye only. Our agreement is what makes social reality so ... agreeable, or bloody as the case may be. But as to the Reality (with the big trademarked R), how i determine mine, and you yours does not advance or reveal itself one iota further depending on the like mindedness of you and your peers. Except for a social consensus, and that falls again into the little 'r'eality.

You might feel justified in calling me out in this or later posts as you have below, but it would also be your privilege to just use the ignore feature as so many others have to eradicate any post i have made or have yet to make. You can rest assured i will not change my posting behavior based on what you have advised since i don't feel i've committed some error in my previous post. You have either read it incorrectly, or were too busy making your point to understand mine. I've done the same thing before here, and owned up to it as well. Rest assured it was not from criticism from a jury of my peers, but only from reflection that i was a better person for doing so. I learned long ago the only person i really had to be better than was the one i was right now. Amazingly, i noticed afterwards how my reality (and the inhabitants thereof) seemed to be supportive of the sea change. :shrug: ...ow, my shoulder just clicked.

have a nice night.
dp

[Orrex]

20. I think that his snippiness is justified, at this point

The "Thimerosal is Evil" mantra has been echoed for years by passionate adherents, and no amount of real data is sufficient to convince those true believers that the mantra is invalid.

It's kind of like arguing with your one hundredth creationist who starts off by saying "evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics." When you've seen the supporting data, and when anyone with an honest desire to understand can likewise view the data, then it becomes tiresome, and one can be forgiven for one's impatience.

The "arbiter of reality" bit is a red herring (and a straw man, incidentally) because that's not what the author is claiming. He's pointing out that Kennedy, like many others, is embracing a doomsayer's fear without engaging in truly empirical examination of the subject. Kennedy relies primarily on what must be termed deliberate or culpably careless readings of a single report about a single meeting. He seeks no contradictory data (as would be required by the scientific method) and he discards or retools inconvenient facts to suit his agenda and his preconceptions.

Kennedy does everyone a great disservice by throwing his considerable weight behind the wrong side of this issue. He has contributed mightily to matters of ecological protection, but now he's backing pseudoscience.

To preserve his integrity, he must recant his position.

[sui generis]

28. okay kids - you too dweller

snippiness always hurts your case. Your justification for it is immature and unbecoming of rationality and science, and I stand behind my comment that it is positively freeperish to lay claim to reality - we hear it all the time from blowhards on the other side who have nothing to say. That's not the best policy here.

Either present the dry facts or be "snippy" but you get a larger audience without all the drama, and whatever you do, DO NOT put words in people's mouths as a pretext for defensive and bad behavior.

I'm not disagreeing with you by the way - you were anticipating that everyone who didn't immediately join the side of snippiness was against taking in new information.

-sui

[Orrex]

30. Snippiness, like its justification, is in the eye of the beholder.

I was anticipating the snippiness that invariably greets the person with the audacity to claim that empirical analysis trumps wishful thinking. That's what I expected to happen here, and at least some responses have shown me to be correct.

Spare me the name-calling and squabbles about laying claim to reality, by the way. I make no assertions regarding the nature of absolute reality; instead I point out (correctly, unless you care to offer a refutation) that the overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates no causal link between Thimerosal and autism. On the contrary, the people who insist upon some evil medical conspiracy are asserting their own proprietary vision of reality while offering no evidence for it.

The dry facts, as you call them, have been presented repeatedly, yet high-profile advocates are still drawn in by conspiracy propaganda. Clearly the dry facts are not sufficient to dispel the frenzy of true believers.

Is that immature? Frankly, I don't care; the evidence backs my argument, after all. Additionally, it's simply not reasonable to require one side to maintain perfect patience and decorum while the other employs whatever kind of hysterical caterwauling it cares to unleash.

[sui generis]

32. but you insist that anyone who doesn't suck up your backside

is "the other side" or is hysterical or caterwauling. It's annoying here where we go to get away from it, and unbecoming of a democrat (or whatever you are) and a progressive.

I come here with an open mind, and I am willing to take in new information. When somebody comes along and throws attitude on my willingness to take in new information, I will say something, and nobody will be spared, especially the guilty.

If you insist on defending your own unwarranted churlishness, expect people to be a bit churly to you. Again, it's not the most effective means of communication.

[Orrex]

35. You're welcome to suck up my backside if you wish, but

don't blame me for the vibe on DU. It was like this before I arrived, and I'm confident that it will persist after I'm gone. Your mind may be open, but only to people who convey information in the manner that you require; all others can check themselves at the door, apparently.

I'm tired of would-be gatekeepers questioning my "liberalism"--as if they're qualified to judge--simply because I don't cleave to their distinctive flavors of politeness and tolerance, especially when "tolerance" in their view means embracing nonsense as well as science. No thanks.

I confess that I don't understand why you feel justified in attacking what you term my churlishness with churlishness of your own while simultaneously requiring me to maintain decorum in the face of others' churlishness. How is that a reasonable demand for you to make, when you yourself can't meet it?

I oppose the willful rejection of empiricism and scientific methodology. I don't care if someone is innocently ignorant of rational analysis, as long as they're willing to engage the subject sincerely. However, in every single thread about Thimerosal that I've read on DU, someone invariably runs around screaming about a coverup and the shocking complicity and questionable liberalism of anyone who can't see the obvious conspiracy.

Sorry, but the protocols of polite discourse are lost on such zealots. If that, to you, means that I'm requiring them to kiss my ass, so be it.

[sui generis]

42. I have actually seen your liberalism questioned

and that's generally not a fair assertion unless someone can state why they would think that. Everyone has their "style" and yours triggers that defensiveness in people. That's not productive, in my very unhumble opinion.

Anyway, if you were going to give a lecture to a room full of students would you do it the same way you speak here? I would get up and walk out before I listened to what experience tells me would be contentious bullshit, even if your name was A. Einstein.

There are always going to be nutjobs and hard-to-convince people. I think you make good points - it's just the delivery that sucks, sometimes. Anyway, this isn't a competition and pointing out churlishness isn't churlish in and of itself. You seem like a smart guy - why add to the "tone", or start off with the "tone".

I'm not interested in being a gatekeeper - I'm just sharing an observation that I suspect you already get. If you don't then ignore it.

Stop speaking to the zealots - there are more people here than just zealots.

[Orrex]

46. Good suggestions--and I mean that sincerely!

If I were speaking to a willing and receptive audience, then I would certainly maintain a polite and (I hope) engaging manner. Heck, I’m confident that, in such an environment, everyone would be dazzled by my charm and wit and would send me lots of money for the pure delight of hearing me speak. Cash is preferable, but checks are okay, too.

But in the wider arena, alas, the audience includes too many vocal and disruptive elements to permit that kind of pleasant exchange, and I fear that this is what I’m reacting to here. Though the zealots may be the minority, I suppose that I’ve been responding to them in kind and at the expense of the underlying debate. It’s the fable of the sun and the wind arguing about who can get the guy to remove his coat; the harder the wind blows, the tighter the man grips his coat about himself, but when the sun comes out…

That’s something for me to work on.

I’m also sending you a PM about something parenthetical to this discussion but which resonated with something you just wrote.

[FlaGranny]

34. I am of the opinion

that NO unnecessary chemical of any kind should be in anything we consume. I prefer my food as nature made it. I don't believe every additive is dangerous, but I do believe that every additive poses a risk of being dangerous. When I was a kid, the food I got did not come with any chemical additives. My mother canned the vegetables in season and we ate them all winter. Our meat was locally produced until the first supermarket came to town, when I was about 8 or 10 years old.

What is reality? Reality is that the labels on our food packages list sometimes dozens of ingredients that we cannot pronounce and that have no use except to make old, stale food appear to be fresh and wholesome - when they are anything but fresh.

As for phasing out thimerosal in 1999 - my grandson was born in 1997. He was not diagnosed with autism until 2004. He is the first child EVER in our family to be diagnosed with autism. He was breastfed. His mother is an organic food junkie and always has been. His food has been as chemical-free as his mother could make it. Yet, he still has the distinction of being the first ever autistic child in our family. I cannot prove that thimerosol caused his autism, but it is the ONLY thing I know for sure he was exposed to. The scientific community absolutely KNOWS beyond any doubt that mercury is bad. Why use it in ANYTHING, let alone something to be used for a baby?

Humans are individuals. Some can be exposed to toxins and throw off the effects. Others may show signs of the exposure. Still others are severely affected - all by the same dosage. Some people react in a reverse fashion to medications. This is all scientifically beyond doubt.

So why, may I ask, are you so certain that repeated dosages of a small amount of a mercury-based compound administered to an infant with a growing, developing brain are totally harmless?

[Orrex]

39. Straw man

"Humans are individuals. Some can be exposed to toxins and throw off the effects. Others may show signs of the exposure. Still others are severely affected - all by the same dosage. Some people react in a reverse fashion to medications. This is all scientifically beyond doubt."

And I'm not questioning that. I'm confident that some people are more sensitive than other people are to chemical and environmental factors, just like some people are allergic to peanut butter.

My argument is against people who insist upon the willing plan of conspiring drug companies to inflict autism on our children. Additionally, I object to people who insist that one flawed and questionable report that does suggest a Thimerosal/autism link must be given priority of the mountains of data showing no reliable link at all.

So why, may I ask, are you so certain that repeated dosages of a small amount of a mercury-based compound administered to an infant with a growing, developing brain are totally harmless?

I'm not "certain" about anything, but I am confident that this information is correct: "Today, with the exception of some flu vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool aged children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative." (That's from Skeptic's Dictionary, by the way--worth reading from start to finish.) I am also aware that the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies show no credible causative link between Thimerosal and autism. Until such a link can be reliably demonstrated, I am not prepared to accept the existence of such a link.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. Can we assume

your grandson also breathes air? IMO, it makes more sense to look for a causative agent in air pollution than in vaccines.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. I would feel much more comfortable with a good link to

a peer reviewed article in the and a good biochem book (I have Watson's classic "Molecular Biology of the Gene") and either Snell's "Developmental Toxicology" or Hood's "Developmental Toxicology."

I just don't have that much confidence in an article in Slate on the fine points of developmental biology and toxicology.

BTW- if the lay opinion makers didn't have an "attitude" problem with using radiation as a preservative - we could eliminate thimerosal.

[China_cat]

16. Why does the MMR vaccine get all the blame?

It does not now nor has it ever had thimerosal as part of its makeup.
Neither has the chickenpox vaccine, inactivated polio (IPV), nor pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.

[bloom]

21. Companion thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4249558

[spuddonna]

22. I'll play devil's advocate here...

Ok, you say there's no link between Thimerosal and autism... You may be right, but then I wonder...

1) Why did the Repugs insert a special rider into the Homeland Security Act in 2001 absolving vaccine makers from the possibility of lawsuits? When the rider was discovered, no Repug wanted to take credit for it. It effectively shut down a dozen or so lawsuits that were pending against huge pharm. company Eli Lilly from families of autistic children.

2) When Thimerosal was banned from contact lens solution, the existing bottles were pulled off the shelves in a massive recall. This did not happen with the vaccines - there was never any recall. That would have been terrible PR for those pharm companies! (And as Kennedy points out, these vials are being sold overseas now.)

3) The American Academy of Pediatrics said in 1999 'The AAP urges government agencies to work rapidly toward reducing children's exposure to mercury from all sources. Because any potential risk is of concern, the AAP and the USPHS agree that the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines should be reduced or eliminated.'

I have a nephew with autism. I have no idea why he is different from my kids, who had their shots chock full of mercury goodness just like he did, but I know one thing: I do not trust this administration or these huge pharm companies. I've heard people say 'There's no Thimerosal in MMR.' Well, any child receiving the normal pediatric schedule of shots would have gotten plenty of Thimerosal from the HIB, DPT, and meningitis shots. (Not to mention the flu shots they recommend for everyone.)

You might be right. It may not be the Thimerosal. Maybe it's something else... But you know what? I don't trust these people, and since most of these studies that 'poo-poo' the link are funded by the same people who so desperately don't want to lose their cushy jobs, and vacations to Aruba on Eli Liily's tab, I am not convinced that it is safe.

[grace0418]

45. A very thoughtful response. One I put a lot more stock in than

"there's no way it causes autism. period."

Like you, I don't trust big pharma or Washington to tell me the truth about these dangers. Not when there is money to be made. It seems to me that we have to read between the lines and think "Hmmmm, they're sneaking riders to protect big pharma onto seemingly unrelated legislation...what could that mean?" If they didn't have anything to hide, would they just be doing it for fun?

I think a healthy mistrust of absolutes coming from the mouths of anyone in the GOP or big pharma (or those benefitting from big pharma's perks) is far more "reality based" than giving them a pass because they said there's no reason to worry.

[Igel]

58. I'll answer (1).

Because of the way liability law seems to have gone, you don't have to prove causality in the same way a peer-reviewed science paper does, or nicely dole out probabilities (10% chance it was caused by X, 50% by Y, 40% by Z).

You go to trial. You go through discovery and request tons of paper, hoping to get as many iffy reports from the company as possible. The company runs up huge legal bills; but your lawyer's probably going to get 40-50% of any settlement, so he's not charging you anything. Meanwhile, the press is having a field day.

Then you get enough experts on your side saying Hg is bad stuff; you get the defense admitting thimerosal contains Hg; you show nasty pictures of what Hg has done to people. Some of your experts say that, for sure, thimerosal is likely, or must have, caused the autism. You show your little bundle of joy, and make the claim. You've probably won, the defense is mostly moot.

Then you get the defense arguing about the difference between ethyl and methyl mercury, statistics, probabilities, how you can't prove thimerosal *doesn't* cause autism--you can only show the evidence for causality is weak or irrelevant--and all the time the pictures from Minimata are there, the autistic tyke's in the courtroom, and every single parent on the jury is convinced that the purveyors of thimerosal should be taken out, slowly skinned alive, tarred (after cleansing with alcohol), and feathered. Then, after being nailed to a cross, the torture can begin.

All it would take is one or two successful suits--and, for all I know, the suits were class action, filed in Mississippi--and you're looking at billions of dollars per year in damages. And some very, very wealthy lawyers. And a lot of unvaccinated little kids.

[spuddonna]

59. My rebuttal...

These vaccine makers decided to add thimerosal as a preservative to their vaccine because it was cheap and effective for their purposes. They did not need to use it. They CHOSE to use it for profit sake. It all came down to profits. They decided to go with the cheapest preservative they could. There are internal memos from these pharm. companies by their own doctors that show they were worried that thimerosal was a dangerous substance. But instead of erring on the side of good medicine, they waited until the AAP and other groups came out saying "Stop putting this crap in the vaccine". And amazingly, when their clients said to stop, they did!

But the pharm.'s didn't pull the thimerosal based vaccines - they just let them run out quietly. They didn't feel the need to say, "Hey, Mr. and Mrs. Consumer, we are as concerned as you are about thimerosal so we're eliminating it from these vaccines AND we'll pull it off the shelves. Now you won't have to worry about Little Johnny and Suzy getting their vaccinations!" They could have done this right, and there would be no public distrust of the doctors and pharm. companies. But they didn't. They worried about the PR, and as Kennedy says, the pharm. companies, FDA, etc worked to 'keep it quiet'.

So with that perspective, I really don't feel badly that they would have been dragged into a class action lawsuit. And yeah, it's not a 'peer review' process. But guess what? It's one of the last arenas the little people have to fight big companies like this. God bless the lawyers like John Edwards who fight for the little people!

Perhaps if more suits like this were won, the corporations would say, "Hey, you know these lawsuits are a threat to our bottom line. Maybe we should make sure our products don't hurt people!" But maybe that's just me... all naive and such...

[Igel]

61. The reason for peer review, ostensibly, is

to keep emotion, bias, and prestige from influencing how results, sometimes complicated, sometimes arcane, are evaluated.

We hire lawyers precisely to make sure that emotion, bias, and prestige influence the outcome, and to make sure that facts that are complicated and arcane and could make us lose our case are obfuscated.

When you have an autistic child on one side, and a multi-billion dollar corporation on the other, it just looks cold for a lawyer to argue science that he poorly understands, esp. when the jury can't tell if the plaintiff's experts are telling the whole truth.

And I've never understood how a jury can look at an assertion like "10% of cases of X are caused by this company's product" and render any kind of judgment. You give them 10% of a reasonable award? You keep score of the lawsuits and make the award to every 10th plaintiff?

[spuddonna]

62. :) Well I can honestly say I know nothing about law...

But one of the things that really disturbs me is that I feel I can no longer trust most of the studies being done on medicines/vaccines being given to Americans today.

It sounds like you are arguing that we need to respect the science behind the studies 'proving thimerosal doesn't cause autism'. I would love to agree, but the big pharm companies have such huge lobbies, and have so many 'bought and paid' for scientists in govt orgs such as FDA, CDC, etc that when these 'studies' come out, I wonder "Who had a hand in this? Did the Bush admin or some Dr's who were promised a lucrative position at Eli Lilly 'influence' the reults?"

We've seen that so many scientific reports put out by this administration have been 'doctored' by management to reflect the policies that the administration wants to push or promote. I'd like to trust the science, but at this point, I have no idea who paid for the science! :)

[izzybeans]

23. Pretty fuzzy stuff here. Misty windmills...and all that.

"All these studies" being picked apart by pharmaceutical industry minions. "How can we muddy the waters here?" "I know let's write a poorly concieved article in slate that mentions all these studies, but fails to site anything specific about them. Just the part that there is some overlap between the beginning of mmp and the onset of the 'epidemic'. It's just as fuzzy as the argument on the otherside, but who cares all we need is to get a counter narrative going. Don't let the public know that epidemiological studies provide very rough estimates, and that inferences about them can not be backed up without more detailed analysis-only touch the surface here, it will give you a bit more legitimacy." over and out.

[whatever4]

26. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeah

And Salon is known for their shady reporting nowadays...

" In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session - only private invitations to 52 attendees"

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/061605HA.shtml

Deadly Immunity
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Salon.com

Thursday 16 June 2005

A Salon/Rolling Stone joint investigation.

When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data - and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic.


I'm thinking you don't have kids, or at the very least, don't have two out of three kids with ADHD...like I do. Or an autistic brother. Like I do.

But it's all a lie, the numbers, the stories, the science of the dangers of exposing kids to multiple doses of mercury ladden vaccines into their bloodstreams while their brains are developing. A toxic heavy metal.

Jesus this country and it's lies hurt us as much as any bad medicine, don't they folks? Isn't this story one of the more toxic you've read recently? Doesn't it warp your brain the way they fairly well write off our CHILDREN as unimportant statistics?

Damn. I CANNOT beleive someone is on here like a shill to tell the rest of us to NOT friggin WORRY about this crap. Jerk.

Sorry, done, OUT.

[whatever4]

27. Medicines don't hurt people...

People hurt people

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. The US is not the only place research into this has been conducted

There have been extensive studies done in the UK, Australia and Japan. Those scientists have no connection to our CDC or to our govt. Yet, they also have been unable to connect autism to vaccines.

[PurgedVoter]

31. The real sorrow here

is the loss of Government protection. The FDA, EPA, etc.. are now total puppets of industry and can not be trusted. The Agriculture Department used to be strong, well staffed and highly respected, even by those that disagreed with some of it's positions.

While in college, during the first Bush's administration, a Friend of mine from Germany said, "One of the joys of America is Steak Tar tare."

I asked him, "Where are you getting your meat from?" implying a distrust in raw meat in general.

He replied, "Doesn't matter, there is a reason the world trusts your drugs and your food. Your inspectors are the best in the world."

Back then if we found out that an agency was controlled by a business we would have considered it a scandal.

Now companies control medical research.

Personally I think the provision slimed into the original Homeland Defense Bill that protects Eli Lilly is reason to suspect that the gun really is smoking.

It is also evidence that the Government no longer works for me.

[whatever4]

33. Agreed

Yes, they are not representing you. Or me.

They are representing the interests of big business. The definition of fascism.

And our nation falls for it. Deserves what it gets? I just don't know anymore. But I know, had I had any idea those vaccines could cause issues, I would have at the VERY least looked for those without mercury, or would have put off those shots. Past their infancy. At the very least.

What would be nice is if...someone would care.

but they'd rather call us stupid. I guess there's more money in it.

I never before looked forward to the afterlife. But now, I can't help but think, I'm ready to return to the source. Because this life-ending, death-dealing society of ours is...sick. So sick...so kill us off already, jesus it could hardly be sadder.

Sorry, getting rant-like

[K8-EEE]

36. So Much Nonsense

that I don't know where to start.

Too much mercury in the environment and BushCo and big biz and the tuna lobby and maybe "conservative democrats" would like more of it.

I saw my daughter have a reaction (fever, fussiness) to her second round of shots that her older sister didn't have. She never regained eye contact after the damn shots and then the autism nightmare began for us. If you want to think I'm delusional I could care less. Her doctor told me I was "imagining things" and she was fine for a full year from her shots to her ultimate diagnosis.

I live in autism reality every day -- and I've seen all the big pharma butt covering bullshit frantically condoned by "conservatives." When they begrudgingly removed the shit from the shots and sent it over to China autism increased there as well.

Common sense tells you, don't shoot up young babies with several times the amount of mercury that is considered safe. I mean, get real. If I had any idea there was that much mercury in those shots there is no way I would have let them near my baby with it. Would you?

[Orrex]

40. When was your younger daughter vaccinated? nt

[K8-EEE]

47. 1995-96 (eom)

[Orrex]

50. I'm sorry about your daughter's condition.

I am fortunate not to be responsible for the care of anyone with autism or neurological defect, but I have deep sympathy for anybody in such a position.

Although the evidence simply doesn't support a causal link between Thimerosal and autism, that's of little comfort to the person actually living with that condition day to day.

I wish you and your daughters well and am sorry about your younger daughter's condition. The upbringing of a "normal" child takes great strength and patience; I can't imagine the difficulties facing a parent of child with autism or similar condition.

[emcguffie]

57. You know, I do not have all the facts.

But it seems you do not either.

I have been pro-vaccine all my life, until recently. I now have a chronic illness that has something, don't know what, to do with my immune system, which is completely messed up. This has caused me to look into things more carefully, and what I have found has been unsettling. Vaccines could have been developed by now to be much more safe than they are. They CAN set off your immune system and cause it to become unbalanced, because of the way the antigens are being introduced to the immune system. That is probably why the package inserts refer to "vaccine-induced illness", because vaccines can indeed induce illness.

There's this great antioxidant that is missing from my immune system cells -- glutathione. Or, it is greatly reduced. Well, glutathione is also deficient in kids with autism. And it is part of the system in your body that clears toxins like mercury out of it.

SO it could be that for some reason, some genetic tendency, kids who have autism, deficient in glutathione, have an impaired ability to clear mercury, and that is why the mercury hurts them, and not everyone.

I spend my life trying to remember to eat glutathione precursors. How did I get this way? I don't know. Nobody else does either.

And those anthrax vaccines that GIs got COULD have had something to do with gulf war illness. Not absolutely, but it's possible.

Why are you so trusting of big pharma? Are you big pharma?

[Orrex]

60. Another way to view these same data

It fascinates me, first of all, that if someone does not immediately embrace an attitude of “corporations are bad/personal observation supersedes evidence,” then that person is immediately accused of pimping for big pharma or not being a real liberal or having some kind of hidden agenda or whatever. One hardly wonders why so many liberal ideas are dismissed as "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theories; if the liberal tent can't accommodate a sincere dissenting opinion, why would anyone identify liberalism as anything other than intolerant fundamentalism?

An objective reading of my view would reveal that I have no agenda other than the wish to draw conclusions only from verifiable source material. Personal anecdotes, however heartfelt, however tragic, and however "certainly" they are believed, are insufficient justification for the abandonment of a medical practice that has saved many millions of lives.

I submit also that, if data were presented that clearly demonstrate a causal link between Thimerosal and autism, then I would amend my argument accordingly. Can those who now believe in a causal link make an equivalent claim? That is, can you identify the evidence (even hypothetically) that would cause you to abandon that view?

To address your specific points: Maybe vaccines could be made much safer than they are now, and maybe not. What is your evidence for drawing your conclusion? At this stage, one must accept that vaccines can't be tailor-made for each individual but must instead be mass-produced to yield maximum benefit. This necessarily entails some risk, but with no other option currently available, I can't think of a superior alternative. Can you recommend one?

The fact that autistic individuals lack an oxidizing agent and have difficulty flushing mercury from their systems is an indication of a correlative link--not a causative link as yet. For example--the glutathione deficiency may be an indicator of autism rather than a cause. Even if the deficiency is a cause, we require further data before we can conclude that mercury, rather than the deficiency itself (or some other environmental factor), is an activator of autism. And even if mercury is a cause, other factors must still be ruled out before Thimerosal can be named as the culprit; additional evidence is required before a causal link can be established conclusively.

I can't comment on any link between Gulf War Syndrome and vaccines because I am not familiar with the data. However, I note that, anecdotally, dust from depleted uranium munitions seem likewise to be significantly correlated with GWS.

None of this is propaganda for big pharma; it's a rigid adherence to the scientific method and empirical analysis. To do anything less, when so many lives are at stake, would be criminally irresponsible.

I am distressed to discover that a nominally liberal forum is so aggressively hostile to thorough and rational inquiry.

[PurgedVoter]

64. I don't see where the statements here are so outrageous

The initial article in this stream is titled "Thimerosal Doesn't Cause Autism. Period." This title is pretty much bait for differing view. So far Quackwatch, Mother Jones all tend to dispute the link. It has been actively argued both ways in the Lancet(No links, sorry.)
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/thimerosal.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2004/03/ttp_biblio.html

Here is a good read before you discount this issue though,
http://www.medscimonit.com/medscimonit/modules.php?name=Current_Issue&d_op=summary&id=3986

When you are faced with a original statement such as "Thimerosal Doesn't Cause Autism. Period." One might expect those with personal experience or an open mind to disagree. Certainly there is reason to suspect thimerosol. Certainly there are reasonable doubts.

In a time when medical authorities, who are also in positions of political authority, make inaccurate inflammatory remote diagnosis of patients in comas, I think it is very appropriate to trust personal observation over authority. Personally if I had an autistic child, I would be extremely interested in this subject. I would not jump to conclusions, but I would remain interested for the rest of my life. I would also pursue every other avenue. And I would keep every article, every parent contact, and every letter. I would look at every vote of legislation involving this subject and keep a record of those votes.

[K8-EEE]

71. Thank You Very Much

It is hard; what can we do but keep on keeping on. I just worry so much about what would happen to Meggie if I wasn't here. We have such a huge autistic population in her generation, who will take care of them? Who will care about them at all? Especially with the way things are going with BushCo and the robber barons.

[FlaGranny]

73. My grandson is high functioning

so I believe he will be okay. He DOES march to his own drummer, though, and is inappropriate at times.

Some in this thread believe that we think that pharmaceutical companies set out to deliberately harm us. I don't think we believe that at all. What I believe, and probably what most of us believe, is that all companies want to make profits. What happens, therefore, is that a company will use the most inexpensive methods and ingredients possible in order to increase their profits. If they use something that causes harm, then they deny and do all they can to avoid responsibility. In fact, there is a long history of this. It would be very naive to believe that large corporations put their customers' interests above all else, as some seem to do.

Take our food supply, for instance. The main reason corporations load foods with unpronounceable chemicals is that it is cheaper than using real food and real seasonings and spices.

[spuddonna]

75. Well put! n/t

[glitch]

49. You are fighting the good fight, but big pharma has a lot of bucks

we will continue to see these pharma swarms on forums until they feel safe again, or finally realize they are convincing no one.
Too many people with direct and immediate personal experience to buy the lines this time, unlike tobacco and nuclear industries which could spend years spinning while the consequences of their actions played out.

I admire your guts and perseverance and patience.

My heart out to you and yours.
:hug:

[bunny planet]

56. Same thing happened to my son. Talking in sentences, bright, engaging,

and perfectly 'normal' right up until the day he had his series of vaccines at 15 months (1993, 3 or 4 vaccines that day, one of which was DPT Pertussis). Ran a high fever, was listless, and a couple of days later woke up unable to speak, make eye contact, changed forever in one day, zero history of autism or even ADD in either my family or my husband's family. My son didn't speak again until he was 4 years old, and thankfuly, through constant early intervention he has improved a lot more than we could've hoped originally.

I am always perplexed by the autism/thimerasol threads that pop up on DU from time to time. There is such hostility or condescension, and/or dismissiveness, from an otherwise open-minded, compassionate, on-line community, ('you are only providing anecdotal evidence', 'parents are delusional, are recommending 'a dangerous trend in advocating no vaccinations for kids') directed towards parents who have experienced this up close and personal.

I KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in my son's case, and I of course can only speak about his case, there definitely IS a connection. I have read everything, I mean EVERYTHING, on the subject, from all points of view and perspectives, you tend to do that when you have a child with autism. I do not recommend that children not get vaccinated, just that they get safe vaccines without thimerasol. My other two children, had their full courses of vaccine, one older than my son, with no reaction to the thimerasol thank G_d, one after my son, without thimerasol, they are both fine. I think there is a pre-disposition in certain children and a susceptibility to thimerasol contained in multiple vaccines given at once that causes some children to react badly and others not. That is as far as I can surmise, and really despite all the articles pro or con, the 'jury' is still out on this one.

It seems to me that having spoken to hundreds of parents with similar stories, about an immediate, terrible reaction to a vaccine in a normally developing child, that those 'anecdotal' stories sort of add up to a kind of study in and of itself. I live across the street from a pediatrician who specializes in developmental delays in children and he also has seen overwhelming evidence 'anecdotally' that there is a connection and he's vocal about it. But, apparently, according to some, we who still believe there is a thimerasol/autism link are all just so overwhelmed with emotion about our individual situations, we couldn't possibly be thinking in the 'reality based' community like the people who are familiar with the scienctific research.:sarcasm:

I always swear I will just read these threads and not respond but I am always touched when yet another DU'er tells a story about what happened to their kid due to a vaccine. This thread is an improvement I might add, at least in this one there isn't a person accusing parents of trying to 'cash-in' on lawsuits against big pharma, so far anyway. I am so sorry you are going through this with your child. I understand first hand what you are going through. Hopefully we will have some definitive answers soon, I don't think, despite all the studies so far, and the articles argueing back and forth, that we have a conclusive one yet.

[Brotherjohn]

63. How high a fever did your son run that day? (nt)

[bunny planet]

65. Why do you want to know?

[Brotherjohn]

66. My son has Asperger's. He went through a period when very young...

... when he was admitted to the hospital for lethargy. "Listless" would be an understatement... he couldn't be roused at all once or twice.

Anyway, he has Asperger's, and that episode brought on a chain of events that ended up with the diagnosis when he was 3. There was no link with any vaccination, however.

Now don't get defensive, but my first thought, when hearing your story, was that a high fever caused a distinct and sudden change (damage) in your son's brain. Vaccines are absolutely known to pose a certain risk for the very reason that children can and do have reactions that can be harmful... from exhibiting virus-like symptoms to high fevers and worse. It's just that this risk is considered to be much, much less than the risk of not vaccinating children.

I know that doesn't help when your child has been affected, though.

To my knowledge (I have a PhD in Physiology), mercury poisoning does not act in the way you described. High fevers, however, can. And high fevers can be brought on by a reaction to vaccines alone, having nothing to do with thimerosal.

As you can probably tell, I don't tend to think thimerosal causes autism (or at least is not responsible for the upsurge in cases). I don't claim to have all the answers, however, and I do agree that there are enough questions to assume it is possible and phase out its use (which is happening). I just think it's important that people on all sides of the issue keep a cool head and try to get at the facts, without letting emotion get in the way (as it seems has happened all over this board).

[bunny planet]

67. He didn't run a high enough fever to cause brain damage by itself.

Older babies often run fevers of up to 104 or 105 degrees without any evidence of brain damage. My son ran a fever of about 103 degrees, it was the first time he had ever had a fever and it was directly after he came home from the pediatrician's office after his 15 month series of vaccinations. They even give you papers with information when your child gets shots telling you what to expect. Sudden listlessness and fever is one of the signs they gave as something to watch out for as a bad reaction to a vaccine. My son was hot to the touch, and laid in his crib and slept or was lethargic for the better part of 48 hours, very atypical for him. It was the prolonged listlessness that was of concern and I was in touch with our doctor throughout, monitoring my son's temperature the whole time. All I know, is that he went in for the vaccines one child, and came out a different baby.

I appreciate your respectful tone in disagreeing with my suspicions about thimerasol maybe having adversely affected my son. I have an open mind, and have also always wondered if it wasn't something else in the vaccine, perhaps the DPt Pertussis vaccine which was very controversial at the time triggering a response, or a bad batch of vaccine among the ones he was given, who knows. The only thing I know, is that my son was changed irrevocably in one hours time a dozen years ago, and that it was directly related to the vaccinations he received that day. This is why I sympathize with other parents who see the connection with their own eyes and still are not satisfied with the answers they have been given. If it wasn't the thimerasol, what was it, I still want to know, whatever it was. Thimerasol still seems a very likely culprit to me. It might just trigger a very harmful response in a subset of children who for whatever reason, cannot rid their bodies of it the same way other children might be able to.

I'm so sorry for what you have had to deal with for your child. My son has had his diagnosis changed so many times at this point, but at one point he was classified as an Aspergers child as well. It also turns out that he had a severe vision problem (which his pediatric opthamologist says also occured at around 15 months of age) that complicated his diagnosis. The latest diagnosis is ADD without the hyperactivity component. We have come along way from the original autism/pervasive developmental delay diagnosis we were first devastated by when he was 3 1/2 years old.

I have kept a cool head, although it's been difficult at times. I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist, in that I see the evil big pharma deliberately trying to hurt our children. I do see something of concern in Frist's addendum to the Homeland Security Bill indemnifying Eli Lilly from lawsuits brought by parents of children who believe their kids were harmed by vaccines. You've got to admit, that does not look good public relations wise and it is understandable that it made lots of parents suspicious. Even if they had specifically had written the addendum to say they were concerned about adverse reactions to the Smallpox vaccine (that were considering reinstituting and requiring at the time), and wanted to protect the company from those lawsuits, that would have been less suspicious and more easily explained. They indemnified Eli Lilly for all childhood vaccines. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm?

I am not a coincidence theorist either however, and what I saw with my own eyes in my son's particular case can't really be disputed as far as I'm concerned. I don't speak for anyone else. I never ever even considered not vaccinating any of my children. After my son's problem though, I just always asked for vaccines without thimerasol and accellular versions of certain vaccines when available.

[K8-EEE]

70. Same Here...

It was 100 or so -- my main concern was her fussiness and discomfort in the days after her second round of vaccinations. They told me "call if there's a fever, if there's this or that" and then whan you call they soa oh don't worry about it.

I called a month later and told them I felt she was different after the shots, not as happy. I did not even think "autism" I though maybe it had given her some kind of infection or something.

Again, I got the "hysterical mom" treatment.

Hey I got the "hysterical liberal" treatment when I argued with people that the Iraq thing would be a total fiasco. I get the "hysterical consipiracy nut" treatment when I suggest that everything points to these elections being manipulated, or that there are unanswered questions about 9/11 & the anthrax scare.

I guess I'm just one hysterical bitch, huh?

[bunny planet]

68. Also, I wonder if there has ever been a study in Britain. Apparently there

were lots of cases of sudden onset Autism in children who received their 13 Year (not month) booster shots for certain vaccines. Not sure which ones they were, perhaps the older version of DPT Pertussis. There were articles about it in the mid nineties in British papers. Kids who were normal for the first 13 years of life, had the last in their series of booster shots at 13 years of age and suddenly had bad reactions and became autistic. It has also been observed in children who had gotten booster shots at 4 years of age and showed autism spectrum disorder signs after that and not at any time previously.

I'll do some more research and try and find the articles.

[preciousdove]

55. Who are you and what is your agenda?

(As if I couldn't guess).

[ConservativeDemocrat]

69. My political agenda is to elect Democrats

I'm also quite a fan of science. I usually see Republicans as the enemy of science - creationism, denying that global warming is happening, and all that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s.: Did you guess right?

[dweller]

74. FDA & CDC smear respected independent scientists and researchers

By Evelyn Pringle

August 3, 2005—In their public statements, officials within the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), are always
claiming that researchers and scientists who conduct studies not funded by
drug companies or the government are making unfounded claims about a link
between thimerosal-laced vaccines and autism, and other neurological
disorders, which they claim could lead to reduced vaccine coverage, resulting
in preventable outbreaks of disease affecting the entire planet.

I say cut the crap.

Think about it. Why would so many highly respected scientists, researchers
and physicians go to such great lengths to concoct bogus studies and issue
false reports, in essence putting their professional reputations on the line, if
their was no connection? I want these officials to do two things. First I want
them to give me one good reason why these professionals would make this
up, and two, I want them to give me one logical alternative theory for the
current epidemic of disorders.

Lets look at a few of these experts.

http://onlinejournal.com/health/080305Pringle/080305pringle.html

dp

[mopinko]

76. question for knowledgeable believers

if you are a non-believer, just don't bother. i am asking a question, and i want data, ok?
my daughter is having her diagnosis of bipolar "upped" to borderline personality disorder. this is a developmental disorder that strikes me as having a lot in common with autism. but i have not seen it linked to vaccines. although she showed a lot of signs throughout her childhood that something was wrong, and has been quite ill the last few years, this diagnosis cannot be made until age 18. so i wonder if it is flying under the radar.
anyone have any info about this? i have not made up my mind, but when your child is destroyed in a manner as heartbreaking as this, you just gotta ask the questions.